Proceedings: National Workshop on

Recreation Research and Management 

Pacific Northwest

Research Station DEPA RTMENT

O

FAGRICULT URE

Forest 

Service

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-698

June 2007

RECREATION & TOURISM INITIATIVE
Editors

Linda E. Kruger is a research social scientist, USDA Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 

Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A, Juneau, AK 99801. Rhonda Mazza was a science writer, USDA Forest Service,

Forestry Science Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97206. She is now a freelance 

science writer in Portland, Oregon. Kelly Lawrence is a social science analyst, USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th Street, Seattle, WA 98103.

Cover credits

Top left, Mary Noel USDA Forest Service; middle, top right, and lower right Gary Paull, USDA Forest Service;

lower left Jerry Ingersoll, USDA Forest Service. Cover design by Pilar Reichlein. 

Graphic designer: Jenny Beranek, Beaverton, OR.

Papers were provided by the authors in camera-ready form for printing. Authors are responsible for the content

and accuracy. Opinions expressed may not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Proceedings: 

National Workshop 

on Recreation Research

and Management

February 8-10, 2005

Portland, Oregon

Linda E. Kruger

Rhonda Mazza

Kelly Lawrence

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-698

June 2007
This page is intentionally left blank..
Abstract

Kruger, Linda E.; Mazza, Rhonda; Lawrence, Kelly, eds. 2007. Proceedings: national workshop on recreation 

research and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-698. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 230 p.

Given increasing need and decreasing capacity, the Forest Service outdoor recreation research program 

must strategize how best to address current and future priorities. The papers compiled here were presented at

the National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management held in Portland, Oregon, February 8-10,

2005. Papers are organized around four themes: Understanding Forest Recreation Visitors, Recreation Planning

& Monitoring, Recreation Management, and Special Issues in Recreation. 

Keywords: Recreation, visitors, planning, monitoring, forest management.
Acknowledgments

The Pacific Northwest Research Station, Focused Science Delivery and Human and Natural Resources 

Interactions Programs and the Washington Office Resource Valuation and Use Research Staff would like to

thank everyone who participated in this event. The authors and presenters are acknowledged for their time and

effort in expanding our thinking and dialogue on the topics presented here. Scientists and managers who participated in the day-long meetings are also acknowledged for their on-going contribution in moving this discussion

forward. 

Sponsors

Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service

Focused Science Delivery Program

Human and Natural Resources Interactions Program

Washington Office Resource Valuation and Use Research Staff, USDA Forest Service

Planning Committee Members

Tom O. Christensen

Linda Kruger

Greg Super

Linda Langner

Anne Hoover

Floyd Thompson

Cassandra Johnson

Noelle Meier

David Cole

Deborah Chavez

Bea VanHorne

Special thanks to the following: Richard Zabel and his staff at Western Forestry and Conservation 

Association for their workshop coordination and on-site support; Christine Arrendondo, Penny Falknor, Kelly

Lawrence, Rhonda Mazza, and Judy Mikowski for recording the discussions at each session; Judy Mikowski for

help with on-site registration, Jenny Beranek for graphic design and layout of the proceeding, and to numerous

reviewers who commented on the papers presented here. We apologize to anyone who should have been

acknowledged but was not mentioned here.
Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Forword

Letter of Support From the USDA Forest Service Washington Office

Recreation and the Chief’s “National Debate” 1

Dale J. Blahna and Linda E. Kruger

THEME 1: UNDERSTANDING RECREATION VISITORS 9

Introduction 11

Jennifer Farnum and Linda E. Kruger

Human Benefits of Outdoor Recreation 15

Susan M. Kocis 

How Setting and Scenery Affect Visitor Experience: A Manager’s Perspective 17

Rachel Kennon Franchina and Noelle Meier

Recreation Settings, Scenery, and Visitor Experiences: A Research Assessment 29

Daniel R. Williams 

Ethnic Diversity and Recreation Preferences 43

Deborah J. Chavez

Visitor Diversity on National Forests – How Should Managers Respond? 47

Cassandra Johnson and D.B.K. English 

Understanding Forest Recreation Visitors: Special Places 51

Herbert Schroeder

Opportunities for Researchers to Assist with Issues Facing Forest Service 

Recreation Managers in the Southern United States 55

Mary A. Noel

Theme 1: Discussion Synthessis 59

THEME 2: RECREATION PLANNING AND MONITORING 61

Introduction 63

Greg Super

Public Communication and Participation Strategies Relevant to Wildland Recreation 

Management and Research 67

Peter Williams and Dale J. Blahna 

Recreation Site—Facility Master Planning Process Overview and Summary 81

Kathy Ludlow

Place and Place-based Planning 83

Linda E. Kruger and Daniel R. Williams

Recreation Monitoring 89

Susan M. Kocis
Relationship Monitoring: Benefits of Developing a Relationship Between the 

U.S. Forest Service and a Consortium of Universities 93

Robert Burns, Alan Graefe, and Charles Frayer 

Theme 2: Discussion Synthesis 97

THEME 3: RECREATION MANAGEMENT 99

Introduction 101

Dale J. Blahna 

Managing Recreation in Wilderness: Special Areas and Specialized Research 115

David N. Cole

Managing Special Areas: Urban Forest Recreation 123

Herbert Schroeder

Tourism, Rural Economic Transition, and Resource Management 127

Kreg Lindberg and Linda E. Kruger 

A Framework for Sustainable Recreation Funding 141

Jerrell Ross Richer

Communicating with Recreation Visitors: A Brief Synthesis of Findings 149

Patricia L. Winter

Theme 3: Discussion Synthesis 157

THEME 4: SPECIAL ISSUES IN RECREATION 159

Introduction 161

Deborah J. Chavez

Equity in Access to Recreation Opportunities: A Synthesis of Research 

and Management Implications 167

Patricia L. Winter

Crime on National Forests and Grasslands: Research Perspective 181

Deborah J. Chavez

Demographic Trends in National Forest, Recreational, Retirement, and Amenity Areas 187

Kenneth M. Johnson and Susan I. Stewart 

Theme 4: Discussion Synthesis 201

Theme 5: Discussion Synthesis 203

USDA Forest Service Recreation Research and Management Workshop Program 205

National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management Summary Paper, 

NFS Managers’ Session Building a Community of Practice 212

Noelle L. Meier

Creating a Community of Practice for Outdoor Recreation 221

Workshop Participant List 224

English Equivalents 230
Foreword

Today forests are more accessible than ever due to increasing populations, changing economies and technologies, and a growing trend in urbanization of rural places. One consequence is that demand for outdoor recreation

opportunities on public and private forest and grasslands in the United States is skyrocketing. This demand is 

not only for more opportunities, but also for a more diverse array of recreational activities and facilities. As land

managers struggle to meet visitor expectations, they also face the additional challenge of protecting ecological

systems impacted by ever increasing numbers of recreation users.

Since the 1960s, recreation research has held an important place in the Forest Service Research &

Development (R&D) portfolio. Over the last two decades, recreation research capacity has slowly diminished,

due in part to increased agency attention to other critical natural resource issues such as timber harvest, endangered species, fire, and invasive species. However, as more and more people visit forests, and live adjacent to

them, the agency is again turning its attention to recreation management and research.

The Forest Service Strategic Plan for 2004-2008 identifies provision of high-quality outdoor recreation 

opportunities as an agency goal. Research is identified as one means to achieve this goal. In addition, Chief

Dale Bosworth has centered agency policy around four primary threats to forests: fire & fuels, invasive species,

loss of open space, and unmanaged recreation. In 2005 Forest Service R&D identified recreation research 

as one of several strategically important emphasis areas.

Given increasing need and decreasing capacity, the Forest Service outdoor recreation research program

must strategize how best to address current and future priorities. Towards that end, Forest Service R&D1 sponsored a National Workshop on Recreation Research & Management. The Workshop was organized by a crossdeputy team of agency recreation managers and researchers, and took place in Portland, Oregon at the Hilton

Hotel, on February 8-10, 2005. On the first two days, Forest Service researchers, managers, and university 

partners discussed issues that confront recreation managers, the current Forest Service R&D portfolio, knowledge gaps, and future needs. Discussions were organized around four themes: Understanding Forest Recreation

Visitors, Recreation Planning & Monitoring, Recreation Management, and Special Issues in Recreation. On the

third day, researchers and managers met separately to review what they learned on the previous days, and

strategize how to address priority needs. These proceedings comprise the papers submitted to document the

presentations and work sessions at the workshop.

1 Funding provided by Resource Valuation and Use Research Staff, and the Pacific Northwest Research Station Recreation 

& Tourism Initiative.
Letter of Support From the, USDA Forest Service Washington Office

Forests are more accessible than ever due to increasing populations, changing economies and technologies, 

and a growing trend in urbanization of rural places. As our urbanized society continues to expand across rural

landscapes, outdoor recreation is quickly becoming the primary means for connecting people to the land.

Demand for outdoor recreation opportunities on public and private forests and grasslands in the U.S. is rapidly

increasing. This demand is not only for more opportunities, but also for a more diverse array of recreational 

activities, facilities, and services. Today’s land managers are struggling to meet visitor expectations, and face 

the added challenge of protecting ecological systems impacted by large numbers of recreation users. 

Recreation managers need the best science-based information available to help them appropriately design

and administer outdoor recreation opportunities, and address recreation use impacts in an increasingly complex

management environment.

Between 2003 and 2005 discussions were held in the U.S. Forest Service national offices between recreation leaders in the agency’s management and research staffs concerning the desire of recreation managers to

have a better understanding of, and access to research information. To begin to address these needs, the Forest

Service sponsored a Recreation Research & Management Workshop February 8-10, 2005 in Portland, OR. The

workshop brought together agency managers, researchers, and university scientists to discuss issues confronting recreation managers, the current research available to address those issues, knowledge gaps and future

needs.

As a result of the Portland workshop, several research products are currently under development. The first 

is this Collection of Papers, which documents key research findings about several topics of concern to recreation

managers. We hope that you find these papers provocative, and more importantly, that they help answer questions you have about the exciting and dynamic world of outdoor recreation.

G. Sam Foster Gail Van der Bie

Director Acting Director

Resource Use Research Recreation & Heritage Resources

Research & Development National Forest Systems

USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service
Introduction

The title of the Chief’s now famous speech where he 

outlined the “the four great threats” to national forest

health was “We Need a New National Debate.” His

point was that times have changed and the agency

needs to change focus to reflect the newest threats: (1)

fire and fuels, (2) unwanted invasive species, (3) loss

of open space, and (4) unmanaged recreation. Two of

these are directly related to outdoor recreation; all four

have social science dimensions and implications for

recreation on public lands. So if the Chief wants the

agency to address these threats, the national debate

needs to include the role of recreation and social 

science.

Although workshop sessions were designed

around more traditional topics—understanding recreation visitors, recreation planning and monitoring,

recreation management, and special issues—we will

take this opportunity to relate what we heard at the

workshop that relates to the Chief’s call for a national

debate. We provide an overview of some of the broad

themes from the presentations and discussions that

cut across all the workshop topics, and then relate the

themes to the Chief’s challenge. The broad themes we

identified were (1) the use of partnerships, (2) the need

for better information management and improved communications and research capacity, and (3) broader

administrative changes in agency culture and recreation budgets and staffing. 

Partnerships

The use of partnerships was discussed in many sessions. Not only are partnerships important for public

involvement, they are important for implementing and

funding tourism and recreation plans, communicating

agency messages, reducing access barriers for underrepresented populations, identifying and gathering critical information, and managing recreation conflicts. For

example, partnerships played a critical role in planning

to link forest recreation and community development

needs for tourism and recreation plans on the

Humboldt-Toiyabe and the Green Mountain National

Forests. Forest staff worked with local officials, community groups, and other stakeholders to identify

opportunities for recreation, economic development,

resource protection, and funding. Discussing a general

model for linking tourism and community development,

Linda Kruger and Kreg Lindberg said, “Tourism partners are the key,” and the agency role is to provide

leadership and be the “provider and catalyst.” The role

of research is to investigate the feasibility and desirability of such efforts and the link between tourism 

and agency goals.

The types of partners mentioned were diverse and

included local and state officials and agencies, special

1

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Recreation and the Chief’s “National Debate”

Dale J. Blahna1, and Linda E. Kruger2

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildlife Fire Sciences Lab, 400 N 34th St., 

Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103. Email: dblahna@fs.fed.us

2 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Lab, 2770 Sherwood Lane,

Suite 2A, Juneau, AK 99801. Email: lkruger@fs.fed.us 
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

2

interest groups, informal groups of residents, and representatives of private sector companies and nonprofit

organizations. The forms of partnerships were also

diverse; some were informal and others operated

under formal agreements, some focused on management activities, others on decisionmaking, and others

on generating joint funding. But what was clear, is that

many go beyond traditional conceptions of collaborative planning or the use of volunteers. Several cases

illustrated the potential for ongoing, seamless relationships between the agency and the public—an implicit

ongoing collaboration in the business of managing the

national forests. 

Partnerships are not without problems, however,

and an equal emphasis needs to be placed on studying the forms, purposes, and limitations of partnerships. So while managers need to be open and flexible

to the many forms of partnerships that may help them

address recreation issues, researchers need to evaluate the different uses, methods, and outcomes of partnerships.

Information Management and Technology 

Transfer

Information use and management was a common 

theme in both plenary and concurrent sessions. Some

speakers addressed it directly, and others indirectly 

as they talked about problems that have been around

for decades, such as managing visitor conflicts and

inequitable access, and for which progress has been

uneven at best. There are several dimensions to this

theme, however. Like partnerships, information management has both research and management dimensions, but the link between research and management

is especially critical. 

In the opening plenary session, Roger Clark and

Dave Cleaves argued that the lack of use of existing

research is caused by differences in research and

management cultures. Managers and researchers

have different timeframes and analysis scales.

Managers often have preconceived solutions, and 

scientists often do not investigate what managers 

perceive to be the “real” problems. Other hindrances 

in the use of research are lack of time and training of

managers, public perceptions of science, and information overload. Peter Williams said “analysis paralysis”

and other information management problems are cultural remnants of the agency’s obsession with traditional rational planning. Steve McCool summarized by

saying simply, “we need a better framework for accessing and using information.”

We also heard many suggestions for improving

information management. Successful examples of the

use of research during forest planning included better

use of websites, issue specific research, and the visible documentation of public input and agency responses. Improvements were offered for existing frameworks

like LAC and ROS that tend to be too rarely or narrowly applied. And instructive examples of the use of

specific data sources were presented, like the National

Visitor Use and Monitoring Survey and the National

Survey on Recreation and Environment. Better use of

communication, management, and decision sciences

were also discussed in various sessions.

Most speakers, however, addressed the need for

improving the relations between research and management. Greg Super said research needs to address

management concerns like decisionmaking in situations of uncertainty, issue identification, and generation

of “case-based” knowledge. Although many presentations were based on management and planning successes, the synthesis, evaluation, and generalization

of such knowledge is necessarily a research activity. 

Rachel Kennon Franchina and Noelle Meier

addressed the link more directly. They presented

results of a manager survey indicating the need for

better information flow both “upward” from the field to

researchers and “downward” from researchers to managers. They recommended expanding the Recreation,
3

Heritage, and Wilderness Research Technical Guide,

and developing an information clearinghouse to evaluate and communicate “recreation, scenery, and social

science research.” 

And finally, Peter Williams argued for better information flow among scientists, managers, and the 

public. This effort needs to become part of a broader

collaborative planning framework that blends communication, science, and public involvement in a manner

resembling an accordion: working internally and then

opening up to the public, and then repeating as often

as needed to get an “appropriate mixture of expertise

and participation.” 

These perspectives suggest a four-fold typology of

learning and information—there is a need for improving

the upward and downward flow of information between

research and management, and the internal and external flow of information between the Forest Service and

those outside the agency (fig. 1). This requires changing traditional roles of researchers, managers and

organizational structures. To this end, Dan Williams

made two specific recommendations. First, increase

institutional capacity by developing a recreation “community of practice.” This requires an active effort by

agency scientists, managers, and administrators, as

well as external partners such as universities and other

agencies. He also recommended developing an

“extension” function in the agency to improve information flow between researchers and managers. Based

on the university extension model, staff in this role

would need multidisciplinary training, academic qualifications, excellent communication skills, a passion for

applied knowledge management, and the ability to

work within and between all four of the learning-information sectors in figure 1.

The Administrative Picture: Budgets, 

Professionalism and Agency Culture

The themes discussed above, and many others discussed throughout the workshop, will require larger

recreation budgets; better trained staff; increased

capacity for conducting, communicating, and applying

recreation and social science research; and a basic

change in agency culture. These larger administrative

themes were also addressed by workshop speakers. 

Recreation Budgets

Over the years, recreation R&D budgets have remained

flat or declined. If these trends continue as predicted

Organizational focus

Internal External

Upward

Downward

Field experiences, Research synthesizes

cases, and monitoring and evaluates research

results from forests and monitoring results

and districts to of other agencies and

research private lands

From research to Nonagency research, 

forests and districts social assessments, 

and public participation 

to forests and districts

Figure 1—Four dimensions of Forest Service information management, learning, and

technology transfer. 

Inform

atio

n

dire

ctio

n

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698

4

by several of our plenary speakers, the Chief’s concerns for unmanaged recreation and open space 

cannot be adequately addressed. 

It is not just the Chief’s threats that highlight 

recreation concerns, however. The national forests

have more than 200 million visitors annually, and in

2004, 56% of the Forest Service’s contribution to 

gross domestic product was produced by recreation.

Visitation has been increasing steadily, and forest

plans increasingly focus on recreation issues. For

example, four of the six planning issues on the

Wasatch-Cache National Forest were directly related 

to recreation use or impacts. A fifth issue was wildlife

protection, but in most cases, this issue reflects concerns that particular species may be threatened by

recreation use.3 Yet recreation budgets still lag far

behind other program areas.

Figures presented by Dave Cleaves indicate that,

of the total research budget, only 3% goes to economics, wilderness, heritage resources, and recreation

research combined. That does not seem reasonable.

In the National Forest System, Kimberly Bown said

that recreation is expecting 30 to 50% budget cuts,

continuing an inexplicable trend of reducing budgets

for the agency program area seeing dramatically

increasing use pressures and conflicts. For an agency

whose motto is “Caring for the Land and Serving

People,” shouldn’t there be a bit more balance in

money allocated for recreation and social science

research? In reality, recreation research and management actually address both halves of the motto; we are

not just focused on providing access, but also protecting resources and generating revenue, all three parts

of the three-legged stool of ecosystem management. 

Recreation Job Series

The budget is not the only way that recreation is 

undervalued in the agency. Liz Close told us that there

is still no professional job series for recreation professionals in the Forest Service. The Chief’s office along

with other federal agencies, have been working on a

professional recreation job series for about 20 years.

How is it possible this hasn’t been accomplished? We

can not help but think the effort is not a high administrative priority, and perhaps hampered by the biocentric

cultural bias in the agency. We have no evidence for

this claim; all we can offer is the following “thought

experiment.”

Consider that a district ranger would never allow 

a nonforester to administer a timber sale. To work in

timber, one needs a four-year forestry degree, a sixweek certification short course, and periodic certification updates. But for decades rangers have hired

recreation staff without recreation degrees or related

training. Are trees really that much more difficult to

manage than humans? The authors of this paper have

20 years of college coursework and four graduate

degrees between us, and each of us has worked on

land management problems most of our careers. But

neither of us would be allowed to lay out a timber sale.

But foresters with no recreation education or training

can do recreation management. 

Humans are far more complex and difficult to 

predict and manage than trees, cattle, water, and

wildlife—and in many ways the implications of poor

people management are more extreme. But there is

still no professional job series for recreation managers.

Liz Close made perhaps the most important statement of the workshop when she said there is a “lack of

recognition of recreation as a professional discipline.”

Perhaps this is one reason why “people problems” are

so prevalent, and why recreation objectives rarely have

real decisionmaking impact, as Dale Blahna pointed

out in his opening address. We agree with the Chief

that a national debate about the primary threats to our

3 Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah) spawning may be impacted by fishing, camping, and trail erosion; Canada lynx

(Lynx canadensis) hunting may be impaired by snowmobiling; Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii) hibernation

may be disturbed by caving; and Maguire’s primrose (Primula maguirei) may impacted by rock climbing.
5

national forests is needed, but that debate needs to

look deeper than the current symptoms of those

threats to the ultimate causes of the threats. 

Research Capacity: Recreation or Human 

Dimensions?

Here is an important question for linking research and 

management: How do we build research capacity to

better reflect management needs? A conceptual issue

researchers have been struggling with is whether to

focus primarily on recreation, or shift more resources

to study broader human dimension (HD) questions. 

We believe this is a false debate. 

It is clear that all forest management problems

have biophysical and social components, and recognition of social science is increasing in the agency.

Because most agency recreation researchers are

social scientists, the primary HD research effort has

come from recreation scientists and programs. Many

within the agency and in academia are asking if this

shift from recreation to HD should continue—or should

we return the social science emphasis to recreation

research? In our opinion, the answer is neither—if

research is to meet the needs of recreation and social

science, there must be increased capacity in both

areas. 

As noted above, recreation is a major use of

Forest Service lands. Recreation visitors use more

acres than any other resource or use type, including

timber and grazing. All one has to do is look at the uses

of the land to see a dedicated recreation program is

needed. It makes no more sense to ask if we should

abandon a recreation program and replace it with HD

research, than it does to ask if we should shift from

separate fire, timber, grazing, water, and wildlife programs to a single “ecological dimensions” program. 

Here is the real question: Since recreation problems have both ecological and social dimensions, why

are there not more ecologists working on recreation

issues? And since all management oriented research

by its very nature has a human dimension, why are 

not half of the scientists in all research programs social

scientists? What more could the social scientists do to

engage with the biologists? These are critical research

questions for the Chief’s debate. Two of the four threats

are specifically related to recreation and aesthetics,

and all four have human dimensions components.

Research does not seem to be structured in a way to

respond effectively to the Chief’s threats, because there

are not enough recreation and social scientists for an

integrative, interdisciplinary response to all four threats.

Communication and Agency Culture

Many of the broader themes, as well as many specific 

issues, are related to agency communication and culture. Many workshop topics addressed this indirectly:

women and minority visitors are still underrepresented

in many areas; information barriers exist between scientists, managers, and the public, and between social

and physical scientists; new and as yet untested collaboration and partnership needs abound; recreation

staffs and budgets are relatively low; and many others.

We believe these challenges spring from the tradition

of the agency to focus on physical resources and land

management rather than the people who use, visit, or

value the land and its resources. 

An indication of the continuation of this traditional

culture is that recreation visitors are considered a 

“disturbance factor” not unlike the Chief’s other three

threats: fire, invasive species, and encroachment. In

fact, it is ironic that one of the philosophies that dominates even the outdoor recreation field—that recreation use and resource protection are incompatible—is

also based on the assumption that visitors are disturbance factors. But there is a large difference between

recreation and “unmanaged recreation.” Properly 

managed recreation can lead to increased use and

resource protection as several workshop presentations

indicated. The source of the problem is not “too many

people,” but ineffective management resulting from

Proceedings from the National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

6

small budgets, staffing, and research relative to the

size and complexity of the job. 

Because the cause of the problem has been the

tendency to undervalue and underfund recreation, only

a change in agency culture and administrative priorities

can address this basic causal factor. We must also

address internal and external communication needs

between research and management and among managers, scientists, and external publics. 

Conclusion: Recreation, Social Science, 

and the Need for a National Debate

We agree wholeheartedly with the Chief’s call for a 

new national debate, but we suspect that the form of

that debate, based on this workshop, would be a bit

different from his original conception. We believe the

debate should address the organizational structure,

capacity, and administrative changes needed to

address the underlying causes of the threats to forest

health, and recreation and social science need to play

a more prominent role in the debate and in future

restructuring. It is not enough to simply react to the

proximate causes of the threats (such as miles of

roads and number and behavior of visitors) without

addressing the underlying ultimate causes (such as

insufficient recreation budgets, staffing, planning, and

research). Given the current focus and culture of the

agency, the changes are likely to be difficult and 

contentious. 

The workshop themes also suggest broad issues

that recreation programs in both Research and

National Forest Systems (NFS) need to address. These

include the use of partnerships, information management, internal and external communication, building

capacity and better links between Research, NFS, and

the public. Also important is the need to improve the

recognition and respect for recreation as a professional

field, which will require collaborating with universities

and other land management agencies. The first step is

to focus on the developing a community of practice

that will address some of the needs identified in this

workshop, work with administrators and external professional groups and societies to meet those needs,

and lay the foundation for future program development

efforts. A culture of professionalism and respect needs

to be earned as well as facilitated.

This is a difficult time to call for change. Funding 

in recreation, economics, heritage resources, and

social science lag other agency program areas, and

staffing and budgets agency-wide are in retrenchment.

Expanding social science and recreation research

capacity, information and technology transfer, the use

of collaboration and partnerships, and other needs will

not occur without shifting resources. Organizational

change is always difficult, especially when it requires

shifting resources from declining to growing program

areas. But short of an infusion of new money, that is

what is needed for the agency to better reflect the

recreation management and research needs of the

future—and to truly address the Chief’s four threats. 

In the coming years we need to respond to Liz

Close’s statement on the first day of the workshop that,

“there is a lack of recognition of recreation as a professional discipline.” Her observation implies an important

goal: to make recreation a full partner in national forest

management and research. How do we gauge progress

against this goal? What do we do? How do we start?

Perhaps these are the first issues that should be

addressed by a community of practice and by future

workshops. 

Update 2006

Since the workshop was held in February, 2005, 

several agency changes have occurred related to

recreation: some positive and some not so positive. 

On the up side, the decrease in recreation budgets

was less than the anticipated 30 to 50% decrease.

Also, after a 20-year effort, OMB finally approved the

professional job series for recreation professionals.

And retired recreation social scientist, Bev Driver,
Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

7

published a new textbook on recreation management.

Perhaps most importantly, in November 2005, a new

travel management rule was approved, which is essentially a mandate for better recreation management

through the designation “roads, trails, and areas” for

improved access, off-highway vehicle use, and

resource protection. All of these are certainly positive

changes that seem to indicate the agency is more

accepting of recreation as a full partner among agency

programs. 

On the downside, however, recreation budgets 

are still declining, and recreation and social science

does not yet command an equitable share of research

budgets. The travel management rule, which will be a

huge effort, comes with no targeted funding. Implementing a new program without new funding was not

expected of the fire initiative of the last several years,

so why is it acceptable to underfund travel management activities? And finally, while the recreation job

series was approved, positions in the professional

Landscape Architecture job series have been significantly pared back. This reduction suggests an agency

culture still unaware of the growing need for expertise

in the recreation and social sciences. Landscape architects are especially important because many receive

interdisciplinary training in biophysical and social sciences for the purposes of land planning and design.

These employees possess critical skills for addressing

the Chief’s four threats and their underlying causes.

Ironically, one of the leaders of the successful travel

management project on the Cedar City Ranger District

that Dale Blahna discussed in his opening address

was Noelle Meier, the landscape architect for the Dixie

National Forest. Noelle is also leading the current effort

for forest-wide travel management planning on the

Dixie. 

So while 2005 was an important year for Forest

Service recreation programs, the agency’s commitment

to organizational changes that reflect and ultimately

address the root causes of forest threats remains

unclear. Also unclear is where the vision and leadership to move the recreation program forward will come

from. What is clear is the need for future recreation

workshops like this one and the development of a

community of practice to help guide the Forest Service

and other land management agencies in the 21st

century.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Theme 1: 

UNDERSTANDING 

RECREATION 

VISITORS

Gary

Paull, US

Forest Service
This page is intentionally left blank.
To achieve a better understanding of recreation visitors

to public lands, the following papers address a host of

different questions: What are the most pressing challenges that forests face in terms of providing recreation

services and producing positive visitor benefits? Given

changing national and forest demographics, what

types of information are needed to determine visitor

needs, preferences, and behaviors with such change?

What are the real and perceived challenges of using

scientific research to inform on-the-ground decisions?

In Theme 1, “Understanding recreation visitors,” these

questions provided a foundation for presentations and

discussion among workshop participants. These

papers present timely insights into how managers can

best provide a variety of visitor types with the recreation benefits they seek.

Managers and researchers alike are well aware

that changing trends in the types of forest visitors

necessitate provision of more varied and nontraditional

services. In particular, forest use by Asian Americans

and Latino groups is increasing and demonstrating 

different land-use preferences and recreational activities. This requires that managers find ways to accurately assess visitor needs, provide orientation to

public lands, and determine satisfaction with services.

Deborah Chavez, for example, describes ways

Southern Californian forests have provided desired

conditions for the Latino population, implementing 

outreach-type activities to orient visitors to the forest.

Similarly, Cassandra Johnson and Don English, while

advocating for better service provision to such user

groups, also assert that unless recreation “push” and

“pull” factors are identified for different user types and

ethnicities, it is difficult to understand what users may

be gaining (or still needing) from public lands. Understanding lack of use may be just as important as

understanding current use. 

Although integrating ethnic considerations into

recreation planning is a pressing need, other authors

are quick to highlight the dangers of applying ethnicitybased assumptions at the person-specific level. That

is, realizing the uniqueness of the individual and her

relationship to the land may be just as important as

acknowledging macro-level influences such as ethnicity. Mary Noel, for example, notes that a benefitsbased approach to recreation management needs to

acknowledge that benefits sought (and achieved) vary

from person-to-person and setting-to setting; ethnicity

and other such umbrella variables may be only one

factor in identifying recreation needs. Herb Schroeder

discusses how in his research on special places, it is

the phenomenological experience of place that drives

the development of place attachment, a concept that,

particularly in light of shifting demographics, is of

11

Proceedings from the National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Introduction: Understanding 

Recreation Visitors

Jennifer Farnum1, and Linda E. Kruger2

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 N. 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103.

Email: jfarnum@fs.fed.us

2 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A, Juneau, 

AK 99801. Email: lkruger@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

utmost concern in the management community. Dan

Williams, in his analysis of human-environment interactions, champions the notion of the “individual/

expressive,” mode or the person-specific internalization

of place meanings. All of these authors, then, address

the interplay (and potential contradiction) between recognizing and accommodating for different user types

while not allowing those generalities to supercede

acknowledgement of individual considerations such 

as place attachment.

While authors agree that there are pressing reasons for gaining a more comprehensive picture of visitor types and needs, there is less decisiveness about

how to successfully use research to do so. Authors

acknowledge that sound management decisions

require understanding visitor preferences, and benefits

and that understanding this eclecticism can be challenging within the broad spectrum of activities and user

types that exists. How to best produce these management decisions is less clear, although authors’ do not

subscribe to the belief that simply generating additional

research is adequate. Indeed, Rachel Franchina and

Noelle Meier’s study of recreation managers revealed

that managers’ most salient concern was how to utilize

existing research—not how to generate masses of new

research. Better dissemination techniques, guidance

for applying generalized findings to targeted locations

and for utilizing existing research sources may be necessary components in balancing traditional recreation

needs, ecological well-being and diversifying recreation

interests.

Echoing the sentiment of Franchina and Meier,

Williams also suggests that it may not be availability 

of research that prevents researcher-manager communication but rather the nature of research itself. Like

other authors (e.g., Schroeder, Franchina and Meier),

Williams hones in on the issue of site-specificity, and

the inevitable barriers that arise from using grand scale

research to make judgments about specific locations.

Moreover, he suggests that, even given the availability

of specific information, there are many occasions when

available data sources do not reflect the true root of

the problem; for instance, ecological data, while tangible and direct, will not solve value-based conflicts. 

Another commonality in Theme 1 papers relates 

to expectations of the type of information that research

will provide. Research is not a panacea that can provide unidirectional guidance. Management decisions

and planning documents are facing increasing demands

to be “science-based.” Managers are being called on

to understand and apply research findings under the

assumption that recreation research, properly accessed

and applied, can provide a single “answer.” As Kennon

and Franchina imply, expecting definitive standards to

follow directly from social science-based recreation

research is an inappropriate goal. Nonetheless, it is

incumbent upon managers to do more than make

“common sense” decisions; relevant lessons can be

gleaned from existing research to aid in making educated decisions about how these lessons may (or may

not) apply at the forest, district, or site-specific level.

Providing managers with better training for locating

research, quicker methods of using such research to

conduct local assessments, and a more systematic

way of continually infusing research into practice may

be the most advantageous method of bridging

research and managerial domains.

Several authors offer specific suggestions for

bridging these domains. Kocis, for instance, calls for a

better system of cataloging and assessing the variety

of information types available. Franchina, Meier, and

Williams all stress the importance of developing

research-based protocols for adapting research for

local, site-specific contexts. Williams also notes the

importance of developing better techniques to understand the formation and implications of place attachment, and Schroeder speaks of the value of producing

visitor narratives of place meanings. 

12
Considered together, all authors point out that 

visitors to public lands are increasing in numbers and

diversity, a reality that presents both opportunities and

challenges for managers and researchers. As these

papers illustrate, these opportunities and challenges

may be met by recognizing several key points, namely

that (1) diversity in user groups necessitates changes

in recreation planning, (2) within-user group variability

may be equally important as recognizing betweengroup variability, (3) better systems (e.g., training,

databases, assessment tools) need to be in place to

transfer research-based information to recreation managers, and (4) while better transfer systems will facilitate more science-based decisions, local, site specific

knowledge held by managers is indispensable in

reaching optimal solutions.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

13
This page is intentionally left blank.
15

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Human Benefits of Outdoor Recreation

Susan M. Kocis1

Outdoor recreation opportunities on national forest

lands provide both tangible and intangible human 

benefits. Tangible benefits include physical fitness and

tourism dollars spent in local communities. Intangible

benefits include psychological, spiritual, and other 

off-site benefits such as stress reduction. Public land

recreation managers must be able to measure and

understand these benefits to make sound management decisions, such as what types of recreation

opportunities to expand or which facilities to close.

Within the federal government, researchers have

developed many tools for measuring intangible and

tangible outdoor recreation benefits. Benefits Based

Management (BBM) focuses on effects of activities

rather than on the activity itself. The six key measurement areas are physical, mental, emotional, social,

economic, and environmental. However, it is difficult to

apply these concepts to specific on-the-ground management actions. 

USDA Forest Service recreation managers are

skilled in applying more concrete measurement tools

that focus on outputs, resource condition, and other

tangible recreation opportunities. These include the

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), the Limits 

of Acceptable Change (LAC), INFRA, NSRE and the

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program. ROS

is used to map and quantify the amount and type of

recreation settings, facilities and services currently provided. ROS is also used to track changes over time.

ROS identifies settings ranging from primitive (typically

wilderness) to urban. Within each type of setting, facilities and services are offered that match the setting. By

managing a diversity of outdoor recreation settings,

managers hope to meet the broad spectrum of recreation demand, ranging from solitude and physical challenge to more urban picnic areas and motorized trails. 

The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) is used

primarily to manage and monitor changes in wilderness

settings and character over time. It is a more focused

tool, created to monitor specific resource conditions

needed in wilderness settings. INFRA is another recreation management tool which lists the amount, type

and condition of all recreation facilities, including buildings and trails. It also can assist in tracking how much

money is needed to meet specific recreation conditions

such as managing all facilities in excellent condition. 

Another concept gaining momentum is the sense

of place (SOP) philosophy. Using SOP, managers

identify the forest recreation “niche,” identifying how

the national forest landscapes contribute to the sense

of place and culture of the local community. 

Most of the tools mentioned above use a core 

set of data that describes their existing customer base.

There are two main sources for these data. One is the

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

(NSRE), which is an on-going nationwide telephone

survey of households. Information from NSRE helps

paint the big picture of recreation use on all public

lands (national, state, local). The other data source is

the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program. 

1 Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, 1407 South Harrison Road, Suite 220, East Lansing, MI 48823. Email: skocis@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

NVUM on-site surveys provide managers with a

baseline profile of existing visitors. The data are quantitative and reliable. Visitors are surveyed on-site at the

end of their recreation visit, providing an accurate picture of what they did while on the national forest. The

data describe existing customer satisfaction, the

amount and type of recreation and nonrecreation use,

length of stay, visitor origin, visitor spending in local

communities, and other trip related information. The

information is provided to forests and regions with 

statistical parameters. For example, at the 80% confidence level with a 2% error rate, there are 204 million

national forest visitors nationally. 

NVUM helps managers understand existing customer characteristics and resource needs. For example, nationally the most common recreation activities

are viewing wildlife, hiking, driving for pleasure on forest roads, and relaxing. In all recreation sites combined (developed, dispersed, and wilderness), 77% or

more of existing visitors are satisfied with the facilities

and services offered. This varies by specific forest and

helps managers identify where to focus on their forest

to improve visitor satisfaction. 

Once the available NVUM and NSRE data for a

forest have been accessed, and the current ROS and

INFRA inventory have been studied, the role of the

national forest within the local, state, and regional

tourism market is more apparent. With this understanding, managers can make more informed decisions

about resource allocation and use. 

Without sufficient time to digest it, the amount of

information available can be overwhelming. Additional

research is needed that connects management’s decision needs with research inquiries. There is a need to

synthesize the use of the many data sources and tools

available. For example, do people with different demographic profiles seek different recreation opportunities

and benefits? Is visitor satisfaction with facilities and

services related to visitors’ achievement of benefits? A

process for ascertaining the intangible benefits of outdoor recreation is needed. Would managers make different decisions if the intangible benefits were better

understood? For example, suppose visitors desire to

seek “peak experiences” in nature. Peak experiences

stretch a person’s comfort zone by having them do

things they thought were beyond their reach. Activities

such as rock climbing, ropes courses, geo-caching,

hang-gliding, paint-ball games, Rainbow Family and

other large group events, and off-highway vehicle contests may help visitors reach a peak experience that

may became a highlight in their life. If forest managers

want to manage by creating experiences, this may

best be done through partnerships with the private

sector.

Finally, connecting the above research with applications to other resource area data should be integrated. Wildlife, soils, fisheries, and invasive species

management all have data bases and management

concerns to address. How does managing for outdoor

recreation experiences integrate with management

decisions in these other resource areas? 

16
Abstract

Visitor experience and satisfaction are complex constructs that interest recreation researchers and many outdoor 

recreation managers. The recreation setting contributes to visitor experiences and satisfaction. The managers

that we surveyed want applicable, accessible research to help them manage these setting in a way that enhances

the visitor’s experience and satisfaction. We synthesize the ways managers approach their practice and how

they apply tools and research. Our findings are based on informal interviews and a questionnaire answered by

recreation managers, landscape architects, and others in related fields. We first presented this work at the 2005

National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management; this paper summarizes that presentation and 

discussion that followed. Respondents offered a variety of ideas for providing more agency and academic

research to the field and for establishing better relationships between research and recreation management. 

Introduction

Outdoor recreation participation is increasing on all 

national forests across the United States. Influenced

by population growth, increasing urbanization, and the

desire to “get away from it all,” many visitors flock to

national forests to have a more primitive, less developed recreation experience. Others, however, seek

developed facilities such as electrical and sewage

hook-up for recreational vehicles, showers, and flush

toilets in a natural setting. Forest recreation settings

are showing the effects, both positive and negative, of

this demand. Conflicts are on the rise as more people

want to use the same area for different reasons; communities and individual residences are built to the 

forest boundary, diminishing the buffer between urban

and wild; and places that were once thought to be

17

Proceedings: fNational Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

How Setting and Scenery Affect Visitor 

Experience: A Manager’s Perspective

Rachel Kennon Franchina1 and Noelle Meier2

1 Recreation Program Manager, Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, 925 Weiss Drive, 

Steamboat Springs, CO 80487. Email: rfranchina@fs.fed.us

2 Landscape Architect, Recreation and Travel Planner, Dixie National Forest, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, UT 84720. 

Email: nmeier@fs.fed.us

remote or difficult to reach are now easily accessible.

Salient to increasing use and urbanization is how

visitor experience and satisfaction are affected by

changes occurring within recreation settings. As forest

visitors plan their trip, they often have expectations

about the setting for their planned activity. If satisfaction is influenced by meeting those expectations, the

setting is clearly an important factor. 

Historically, the Forest Service has recognized the

importance of setting in visitor experience, and thus,

the idea of satisfaction. As such, the agency considers

architectural and landscape design, integrated with

natural scenery, to be essential in creating a memorable experience, consistently, for a multitude of visitors. Therefore, human intrusions into the natural

environment require careful planning and application.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

gleaning the relevant findings, and finding time to keep

up with research issues. This paper also discusses the

lack of local data as a limitation to managers’ use of

research.

Background and Methods

These perspectives were presented at the 2005 

National Workshop on Recreation Research and

Management under the theme: Understanding

Recreation Visitors. The presentation focused on the

importance of recreation settings and scenery to visitor

experiences. Consistent with the overall purpose of 

the workshop, the topic was presented in the context

of the relation between recreation management and

recreation research. To better understand and describe

management issues, and how recreation managers

use scientific research to inform their management

decisions, we gathered information from our colleagues. To do this, we developed a questionnaire to

help prompt opinions and anecdotes about our colleagues’ experiences as recreation managers. We

asked 18 recreation managers the following questions: 

• Please describe a few of your local concerns 

affecting visitor satisfaction related to recreation

settings and/or scenery.

• Do you use academic or agency research to 

help understand and describe the effect that 

settings and scenery characteristics have on 

visitor satisfaction? Please explain how you 

have used such research.

• Have studies on preferences for different types 

of settings and scenery played a part in your 

recreation management, analysis or decisions?

• Are there gaps in these areas of research that 

have limited your ability to complete your work? 

• How do you define the experiences your visitors 

want or prefer? What tools do you use (e.g., ROS,

LAC, SRM)? What tools do you wish you had?

Our method for collecting managers’ feedback 

was informal. It was developed to provide us with an

18

In response, managers frequently contemplate the following questions: What do visitors expect to see when

they go to a national forest to recreate? Do they only

notice dramatic changes to the recreation setting (e.g.,

wildfire), or are subtle changes also recognized? If the

setting no longer provides the experience recreationists are looking for, do they go somewhere else or

accept the new setting and adapt their expectations?

How do degraded settings affect the Forest Service’s

public image? 

But there are often more pressing issues that

recreation managers deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Recreation specialists speak of figuratively “putting

fires out” when managing diverse recreation programs.

They often do not have the time to read and disseminate current social science research related to recreation management and visitor satisfaction. Instead,

they are consumed with budgets, work plans, National

Enviromental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses, and getting

projects done during the short summer season. “Big

picture” questions related to how visitors experience

recreation settings may surface during project planning, but they are rarely discussed or resolved in an

indepth and proactive manner. 

Social science research has provided managers

with some of the information necessary to manage and

improve recreation settings. This research includes 

visitor-use data, outdoor recreation participation trends,

visitor preferences for different settings, and research

on issues such as conflict, crowding, and visitor satisfaction. Additionally, agency tools such as the

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), the Visual

Management System (VMS), the updated Scenery

Management System (SMS), and Limits of Acceptable

Change (LAC) were developed through extensive

research to provide guidance to field managers.

In this paper we synthesize the ways managers

approach their practice and how they apply tools and

research. We also describe the difficulties managers

have in accessing academic and agency research,
orderly format for interviewing our peers. Several questionnaires were filled out and returned via email and

some were completed as interviews over the phone.

Respondents included employees in the Forest

Service, as well as several recreation managers in the

Bureau of Land Management and the National Park

Service. They included practitioners at the district or

field office and program managers up to the regional

office level who also spent a considerable part of their

career in the field. The 18 respondents had a range 

of backgrounds and experience managing recreation

settings. Most respondents had an educational background in forestry, recreation, or other natural resources

management, or had been trained as landscape architects. We found their opinions to be reflective of discussions that have been ongoing for many years. 

Defining Visitor Experiences

We found that managers use a variety of resources 

to understand and define visitor experiences. These

include agency-guided and local processes as well as

agency and academic research. Respondents said

they use the following agency tools when managing

visitor experiences:

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

• Scenery Management System (SMS)

• Visual Resource Management (VRM)

• Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG)

• Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)

• Benefits-Based Management (BBM)

• Technical guides from Missoula and San 

Dimas Technology and Development Centers

• Specialist reports for NEPA analyses

• Forest Plan revisions

• Various historical documents

• Public involvement (meetings, focus groups, etc.)

Some agency and academic research is more 

commonly used than others. Managers extensively 

use trend and statistical data from surveys such as

National Visitor Use and Monitoring (NVUM) and the

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

(NSRE), as well as local social assessments where

available. They also use technology and development

reports published by the Forest Service’s Technology

and Development Centers in San Dimas and Missoula.

Some agency and academic research is also used by

recreation managers, including research on the following topics:

• Visitor preferences, motivations, and behavior

• Sense of place

• Visual effects of vegetation treatments and 

natural events

• Effects of recreation activities on natural 

resources

• Recreation crowding and conflict

• Collaborative planning 

Much of the peer-reviewed research on settings 

and visitor experiences is not commonly used by

recreation managers; however, our respondents indicated they most often used research that elaborates

directly on tools they use, such as ROS. Research on

social-psychology concepts, although a foundation in

the development of such tools, is not commonly used

by managers. Respondents cited several reasons for

this: managers do not have time to read or keep up

with current research, managers do not know where to

find the most applicable research, and managers only

use research when there is a problem to address (i.e.,

NEPA). As one respondent stated, “...much of what I

do is common-sense based at this point, and attention

to great detail in technical journals is a bit of a luxury I

cannot afford, regretfully.” This statement illustrates the

difficulty in resolving recreation administrative challenges and workload capacity issues. It has been

noted that other functions such as vegetation, wildlife,

or fisheries management are not granted an allowance

to operate on “common sense,” and some recreation

professionals expressed a need to increase rigor in

their profession. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

19
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Management Issues, Concerns and 

Use of Research

Respondents articulated a range of problems and 

concerns related to settings and visitor experiences.

Although many of these issues were specific to local

situations, they fell into four general themes: 

• Effects of natural processes and agency 

management actions 

• Project effectiveness and public image 

• Increasing and diversifying demand for 

recreation

• Increasing presence of humans reduces 

naturalness of settings

Each theme includes areas of cross-over, further 

exhibiting the complexity of these concerns. The four

themes are discussed below, along with summarizing

questions that were provoked by respondents’

answers. 

Effects of Natural Processes and Agency 

Management Actions

Natural processes such as wildfires and beetle epidemics, and agency management actions such as timber sales and facilities development are understood to

affect scenery and recreation settings. Visitors do not

always understand positive effects of natural processes; they may only see the dead trees or burnt forest.

Similarly, visitors may be unaware that vegetation

management activities are often deemed necessary to

restore or maintain forest health. Therefore, managers

ask, “What degree of change will people accept, and

how much does the public understand about those

changes?”

Ongoing public objection to vegetation treatment

projects and greater attention to recreation and

scenery in agency leadership have motivated managers to seek ways to meet ecological needs, while

enhancing or protecting scenic resources. Many managers believe this is best accomplished by mimicking

natural regimes, a concept also emphasized in other

areas of forest management such as wildfire fuel

reduction. 

Many managers are hopeful that sustainable

scenery management can come about by improving

public understanding of what healthy, evolving ecosystems truly look like, versus the over simplified goal of

maintaining some ideal of “natural-appearing” scenery.

Instead of simply providing an assessment that reacts

to a proposed project’s visual effects, followed by a

mitigation measure that attempts to mask those

effects, design professionals are tasked as core team

members to draw clearer connections between

scenery and ecological objectives, helping to steer the

early design of many projects. It is no longer acceptable for foresters to design harvest units with “buffer

strips” to hide visual effects from roadsides and popular viewpoints. Many managers now find it preferable

and effective to design projects to meet ecological

objectives and subsequently provide a realistic, upfront disclosure of both short-term and long-term visual

effects.

Paul Gobster (2001), in his foreword to Forests

and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and

Aesthetics, describes the history of vegetation treatment and landscape aesthetics. He refers to a first and

second revolution in the way society thinks about the

aesthetic dimensions of forest landscape management.

The first revolution was driven by controversies related

to clearcutting during the mid to late part of the 20th

century. Interpreted through a romantic view of nature,

the most scenic areas were usually protected from timber harvests. Where harvesting was allowed, the visual

effects were mitigated by leaving vegetation screens

along roadsides and by undulating the edges of

clearcuts. 

As public understanding of biodiversity issues

increased during the 1980s and 1990s, a second 

revolution began to emerge that focused more on ecosystem health and sustainability values. It became

conceivable that aesthetics could be compatible with

biodiversity and sustainability goals and on-the-ground

20
activities. In the small space offered here, we run the

risk of over-simplifying Gobster’s explanation of societal perceptions and expectations, as well as the evolution of the Forest Service’s policy on scenery under

ecosystem management. Suffice it to say that several

of the managers we contacted would concur with

Gobster’s point that a “greater emphasis put on understanding, measuring, and providing opportunities 

for people to learn about and appreciate sustainable

ecosystems could lead to expanded ideas of landscape beauty” (Gobster 2001: xxv). 

Many respondents spoke of a difficulty in assessing public preferences for scenery. Although several

managers were aware of research that found preferences for highly managed landscapes that are naturalappearing, such landscapes generally take time to

occur post-management. Managers most often struggle with public objection to visual effects that are in

reality short term, even when proposed in the interest

of greater ecological health. Managers want to know

what types of settings visitors prefer, as well as the

attraction and attachment to specific sites so they can

better design projects and more effectively reach the

public involved.

Some managers use studies conducted on people’s perception and acceptance of various landscapes, vegetation treatments, or other human-made

alterations. Although these managers have found such

studies to be useful when analyzing the effects of management and in making recommendations for activities

on the ground, perception studies typically focus on

people’s spontaneous assessment and reaction to

landscapes presented in the form of photographs

taken at one point in time. Gobster suggests “by eliminating the extra-visual and temporal dimensions of

landscapes and by focusing on only the immediate

perceptual component of people’s aesthetic responses,

researchers [have] helped to confirm scenic ideals of

landscapes as showy and undisturbed by natural

processes or human interventions” (Gobster 2001: xxii).

Unsettling to many managers is that these “undisturbed” landscapes, if judged as ideal and most

acceptable by the public, almost never match the 

reality of actual vegetation treatments, wildfires, prescribed fires, or beetle kills. These studies do not

reveal what is acceptable to the public, particularly

when ecosystems, public perceptions, expectations,

and relations with the Forest Service vary so much

across the country. What is visually acceptable to the

public in Minnesota may not be so acceptable to 

the public in Georgia, Idaho, California, or New

Hampshire. 

Individual beliefs and attitudes among the public

also vary when it comes to ecosystem health and management. Some people question the mere presence of

human activities, or if insect and disease epidemics

and wildfire are truly natural events. Any management

activity or development for visitor convenience is considered “unnatural” and therefore unacceptable. Other

visitors are desensitized by their urban environments

and think that any setting outside the city is wilderness.

The site-specificity of research findings is of great

interest to managers and is often deemed necessary

to improve confidence in research applicability to real

projects. Although many managers agree that perception studies provide thought-provoking findings, some

have a legitimate concern that there is no proven,

effective approach to managing for ecologic needs in 

a way that leads to greater public acceptability of their

projects.

Project Effectiveness and Public Image 

There are many examples of Forest Service facilities 

or other structures that were not designed with the 

natural setting in mind. Many administrative buildings,

campgrounds, and visitor centers have been built without adequately considering the natural surroundings or

local architectural vernacular. Moreover, little effort has

been made to appropriately upgrade or replace aging

facilities and infrastructure. The agency’s image can be

diminished when facilities appear neglected. Again, an

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

21
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

issue for managers is that social or cultural assessments are often too general, developed at the forestlevel, to be directly associated with the design of

site-specific projects. Thus, as managers address ecological and public needs, they ask, “How might we

enhance visitor experiences, as well as our agency

image?”

The Forest Service’s Built Environment Image

Guide (USDA 2001: 4) states, 

...we must make a visit to a national forest a 

legible experience—one that helps people understand the forces of ecology, the nature of the 

landscape, and the goals of the Forest Service.

We can only achieve this by creating a legible 

built environment where buildings and structures

complement the landscape, signs are clear and

instructive, and minimal impact on the land is

strongly evident. Even for a short stay, visitors 

will easily grasp the essence of the landscape 

and the Forest Service’s role as stewards. The

proper fit of Forest Service facilities into their 

natural, cultural, and economic contexts requires

careful consideration of many aspects of design,

including scale, proportion, and selection of 

materials.

Careful site design is essential for creating positive, meaningful space as a single component or as

part of a larger picture that the visitor absorbs and

interacts with in the forest setting. One respondent

helped us clarify this point by verbalizing a common

manager’s belief that “when it comes to recreation 

settings, creating experiences is what we do. While 

we plan whole landscapes with ecological integrity in

mind, it is important to consider the visitor experience

we might create as well. Concepts from scenery management, local and regional niche, and ROS settings

should be transferred to the public’s understanding

through high-quality interpretation, structures and 

facilities.” He went on to lament a declining customer

service approach to site design in the Forest Service.

“We’re losing our ‘good host’ principles. Attractive displays, proper maintenance, appropriate construction

and friendly, helpful service speak volumes about who

we are and our commitment to our mission of caring

for the land and serving people; whether or not we

care about the public’s experience.” 

Managers want to know if the Forest Service is

meeting visitor needs. Many we contacted voiced their

desire for more research on the effect of the built environment on visitor experiences. There appeared to be

two distinct reasons behind this desire: (1) to provide

compelling justification for designs that best meet with

public satisfaction, and (2) to develop better guidance

and standards based on those designs for constructing

a more appropriate built environment. Unfortunately,

much of this need for justification comes from an ongoing struggle to convince some engineers, program

managers, and line officers of the legitimate role that

high-quality design plays in expressing social and 

cultural values, enhancing visitor experiences, and

improving agency image. 

Many managers falsely perceive that quality

design, comprehensive master planning, and the use

of better materials and fixtures will result in greater

expense to an already thin agency budget. As a result,

the necessary time often is not allotted to conduct

good product research and to apply agency tools

toward the better design of projects. Design professionals do the best they can, as efficiently as they can

with what time they are given. Those we interviewed,

however, hoped that future generations of the Built

Environment Image Guide (BEIG) or other guidance

might incorporate a recommended palette or catalog of

furnishings (fire rings, tables, etc.) that are appropriate

for the niche or architectural province while also meeting accessibility standards. 

Like the National Park Service, the Forest Service

has helped create a niche in historic architecture and

outdoor design that many idealize as part of the

American experience. Campgrounds, historic administrative sites, and other rustic structures help create

22
nostalgia and a sense of place for visitors and locals

alike. In national forests, visitors can find a retreat from

their busy work schedule, learn more about the cultural

history and ecology of an area, and renew and

strengthen their roots to the land. Such experiences

are not only important for individual health, but they

also help our society understand its reliance on and

use of natural resources while promoting a greater

concern for the natural world. Stephen Sheppard

describes an ecological aesthetic of modified landscapes in terms of visible stewardship where “we find

aesthetic those things that clearly show people’s care

for and attachment to a particular landscape; in other

words, that we like man-modified landscapes that

clearly demonstrate respect for nature in a certain place

and context” (Sheppard and Harshaw 2001: 159).

This view of a working landscape, very much a

part of the Forest Service icon, should “look as though

real individuals care for the land or place: people who

are actually linked to it, rooted in it, invested in it, working in it in a respectful, symbiotic, and continuously 

vigilant manner, perhaps even from generation to 

generation” (Sheppard and Harshaw 2001: 159). This

philosophy connects ecological stewardship with sociocultural values and needs, all critical factors in improving the sustainability of agency management of the

landscape. Many of the managers we contacted were

concerned that little by little, degraded architectural

quality, improper maintenance, and inappropriate

design and development in national forests are casting

a long-term negative shadow on a positive American

image. If it does not appear that we care, how can we

expect the public to care? 

Increasing and Diversifying Demand 

for Recreation 

Everyone wants to be in the same place, or so it seems.

More and more people are participating in outdoor

recreation activities, and different groups often want to

use the same setting for different purposes. This leads

to congestion, competition, and conflict over who has

the “right” to be there. Managers are uncertain about

how to manage “special places” that have unique

social, cultural, or ecological values, as well as “undiscovered” places that are quickly becoming hot

spots. Damage caused by recreation activities is a real

concern, as areas that were previously undisturbed

become playgrounds, particularly by motorized use.

Managers ask, “How do we enhance experiences in 

a manner that reduces damage to natural resources

and social settings?”

These problems are not imaginary. The National

Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000

(NSRE) showed that 97% of Americans participated 

in at least one outdoor recreation activity in the 12

months prior to the survey (Cordell et al. 2002 as cited

in Thompson et al. 2004). That percentage translates

into approximately 206 million people participating in

one or more of the 77 outdoor activities listed in the

NSRE survey (Thompson et al. 2004). 

The Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey (NVUM) provides estimates of recreation

and visitor use for the National Forest System, as well

as a component on visitor satisfaction (USDA 2002).

The report for forests surveyed during fiscal year 2002

shows approximately 214 million visits to national

forests across the United States. Although not all

forests are surveyed every year, NVUM was designed

to provide a statistically valid way to monitor and track

visitor use across the National Forest System. 

Although NVUM, NSRE, and other types of visitor

surveys provide valuable information on visitor use and

satisfaction with facilities and services, alone they are

not adequate tools for understanding the implications

of specific management actions on visitor satisfaction.

A body of literature exists on the expectations of forest

visitors, effects on satisfaction, and the causes of conflict and perceptions of crowding, but many managers

do not understand these findings nor can they readily

apply those findings to their site-specific projects. They

are concerned about relating research to local situations and are uncertain as to which research is the

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

23
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

right research to use. As research builds upon research,

differences in findings, opinions, methodology, and 

purpose can make applicability more problematic for

managers. Locating the most applicable research is a

labor-intensive process for time-limited field managers.

This uncertainty, recognized to be an intrinsic part of

research, is often the reason many managers do not

consistently dedicate precious time toward reading

research. 

Many of our colleagues wish there were some way

to direct them to the best, most applicable research 

on a variety of topics. As one respondent stated, “The

agency doesn’t have a protocol for research use, nor

does it provide good enough access to research.”

Managers feel intimidated by their lack of knowledge 

of the research system and are reluctant to spend time

looking for research that may not be relevant or applicable. Better training in using research and combining

it with their practical experiences might help managers

interpret and address their place-specific situations. 

Research can move management toward better

understanding and more efficient project planning and

implementation, but it rarely gives managers “the

answer.” But, neither do the agency-developed tools

such as ROS or LAC. For example, many managers

have tried to use ROS to assess and manage landscapes for occurring or potential conflicts, a much

more difficult use of ROS than drawing a polygon

derived from distance from roads or development. One

respondent mentioned the idea of having an ROS setting for dogs. He said, “I realize we don’t have an ROS

category that addresses dog settings, but we probably

should in light of the headaches I have here concerning this. Regardless, visitor satisfaction is greatly influenced in certain (cross-country) skiing areas by the

presence or lack thereof of pooches.” Dogs seem to 

be a manifestation of larger setting-experience issues.

To many, bringing their dogs is what makes their recreation experience complete. To others, however, the

mere evidence of dogs ruins their experience. How

should managers provide for these differences in

expectation, especially in high use areas? Is ROS

being used effectively to outline desired conditions,

leaving site-specific or problem-specific management

actions to be dealt with through monitoring and 

adaptive management? 

Research that deals with ROS and increasing and

diversifying use are applicable to the management of

special places. “A knowledge of places having high

values to humans as well as an understanding of the

significant meanings and images that places have to

individuals within a community should allow planners,

managers, and decisionmakers to better articulate

standards and guidelines that will maintain the salient

characteristics of those places” (Galliano and Loeffler

1995: 12). However, if significant meanings are not

known or understood by managers, proper actions

cannot be taken in special place management. 

Population growth in the 1990s was also an illustration of the shift of population centers to previously

rural areas. Growth in areas high in natural resourcebased amenities, such as forests, mountains, rivers,

lakes, and access to recreation sites and facilities

demonstrated dramatic increases, primarily due to

immigration (McCool and Kruger 2003: 2). Place

attachment may be different for oldtimers than it is for

newcomers. 

For the oldtimer, place attachment may be 

defined in terms of the network of friendship 

and family links for which small communities 

are known. Oldtimers may also be more 

attached to specific locations, places with fond

memories of life events and meaningful experiences. Newcomers may be more attached to

amenities in general and not so deeply embedded in the local social and political system or 

tied to specific places on the landscape 

(McCool and Kruger 2003: 9).

In some landscapes such as wilderness, expectations of appropriate behavior are well defined and 

generally well accepted by those who are familiar with

24
them. But in multiple-use landscapes or in urban-interface areas, conflicts emerge not only over competing

uses, such as between nonmotorized and motorized

recreation users, but also over place meanings and

expectations of appropriate behavior assigned to 

the special place (Cheng et al. 2003: 91). “Although

national forests have a federal land management 

mission, they are impacted by shifts in local population

and in addition, must be responsive to community

needs and desires” (McCool and Kruger 2003: 16).

Associated with changing visitor demographics, many

managers were frustrated by the lack of localized

research or documentation. Without this information, 

it is difficult to determine the best management actions

for protecting, interpreting, or even advertising various

landscapes, including special places. 

Increasing Presence of Humans Reduces 

Naturalness of Settings

More people want to live near national forests for the 

benefits they provide. But urban sprawl and vacation

homes, as well as the infrastructure such as roads and

utilities that are associated with these developments,

are turning natural areas into urban playgrounds. Along

with urban constituents come urban problems such as

crime, vandalism, and a lack of respect for, or understanding of natural resources, and lack of knowledge

or concern for expected recreation etiquette. When

does an area go from being “unspoiled” to “unsaveable”? Does the public know what terms such as “natural,” “untrammeled,” and “wild” mean? Do we know?

How much are we willing to sacrifice in the name of

growth and providing opportunities to everyone? How

much influence does the Forest Service have over this

issue? Ultimately, managers ask, “Are visitor expectations changing due to the commonness of impacts and

developments? As urbanization increases, do people

expect less of natural settings, or do they seek a

greater diversion to achieve higher satisfaction with

their experience? How does this affect visitor use and

behavior?”

A common lament among respondents was the

increasing impacts associated with recreation, and the

need to maintain primitive and undeveloped settings.

As discussed above, the demand for recreation opportunities among various user groups is on the rise, and

as more people vie for a limited resource base, problems are bound to arise. Even in areas that are not

considered urban, wildland-urban interface issues are

prevalent. According to Dwyer and McCaffrey, “The

arrangement of natural resources, residences, and

infrastructure has become increasingly important to

critical management and policy issues (2004: 330)”.

People are attracted to wildland-urban interface settings because they offer respite from urban development. But these same people may not be aware of the

unique interaction between natural resources and their

residences. They may consider the national forest to

be their private playground with little regard to what

their actions mean to other users or the resource. 

One of the most common concerns is if recreation

management, or lack thereof, is creating a visitor base

that expects to see impacts and increased development. Because the National Forest System was

designed to accommodate multiple uses, visitors

should expect to see some amount of impact in certain

areas. However, wilderness and other areas are managed for primitive recreation experiences where evidence of human presence is not to be noticeable, a

difficult objective to manage as popularity of these

places increases. Many wilderness users do not necessarily require wilderness to achieve their recreation

goals and are affecting the experience of those who

do. Diminished etiquette and resulting impacts may

permanently affect the wilderness visitor’s expectation,

displacing users and leaving successive generations to

never know the experience once obtainable in the past.

Many recreation managers are dealing with

increased off-road use and its impacts to the environment and to the experience of other recreationists. As

one respondent explained, 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

25
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

ATV use is an issue, as it relates to damage 

cause by off-road travel. [There is a] high 

concern that this increasing damage indicates 

a lack of understanding by the public of shortand long-term effects, not only to ecosystem

health, but scenery and recreation settings. We

need to better understand this behavior and 

motivations. How do we outreach to the public 

to help us with this and other similar issues? 

We can’t keep up if the public continues to find

new and better ways to create damage. The 

public needs to be involved in the responsibility 

of correcting this problem. 

Impacts are not always immediate; they often 

develop slowly over time and when managers recognize there is a problem, it may be difficult to change

the users’ behavior. Many managers are quick to

blame recreationists for being careless or spiteful, and

they feel overwhelmed by the complexity or intensity of

the impacts. However, as Knopf and Andereck (2004)

point out, most impact problems and depreciative

behaviors are our own fault. Some recreation settings

are managed with negative environmental cues 

that actually promote depreciative behavior. As

Christiansen and Clark (1979 in Knopf and Andereck

2004: 309) found, “The presence of litter triggers

increased littering behavior, vandalism triggers

increased vandalism, and off-trail impact triggers

increased off-trail impact.” It is the responsibility of

recreation managers to understand the techniques 

for managing impacts as well as where to place the

blame. Knopf and Andereck (2004: 311) assert, “As

resource managers, we have a tremendous capacity to

create change without operating under the assumption

that individuals are inherently a problem and can only

be shaped by confinement and direct coercion.” 

Benefits and Limitations of Research 

to Managers

Although managers stated that they did not often use

research on settings and visitor experiences, they are

likely benefiting from research used to develop the

tools they do use, such as ROS and LAC. A few

respondents said that research is a valuable tool for

their daily recreation management. Those managers

mentioned they use research to support NEPA analyses, to understand visitor’s motivations and value of

public land, and to aid on-the-ground recreation management such as wilderness management, trail design,

facilities design, interpretive services, and dispersed

use. Respondents believed that the direct use of

research among recreation managers and design professionals is becoming more commonplace and

expected in order to increase professional rigor.

Respondents listed several limitations to using

agency and academic research related to settings and

visitor experiences. First, most research is not specific

enough for local issues. Managers also do not feel that

research done in other areas will be accepted by local

users because of the nuances of each management

situation. Second, managers said that it is difficult for

the lay person, referring to the nonacademic public

and Forest Service managers, to understand peerreviewed research. The results and implications of

research projects tend to get lost in technical jargon

and scientific explanations. Managers need clear and

concise explanations of the issue, the action taken to

resolve it, and the implications for future management.

Finally, managers said that research is not clear about

what management actions are acceptable to the public

and why. For example, what degree of modification to

a setting will visitors accept? What type of management actions will visitors consent to? What level of

management will not negatively affect visitor experience? These are some of the issues that agency and

academic researchers can work on with managers so

research can be better incorporated with day-to-day

Forest Service recreation management.

26
Conclusions

Respondents offered various solutions for getting more

agency and academic research to the field. From conducting more site-specific research to establishing a

network for sharing ideas, many managers had suggestions for establishing a better relationship between

research and recreation management. Here is a summary of those suggestions:

• Provide tested methods for conducting local 

social assessments, coupled with academic 

research (i.e., rapid assessments).

• Promote the Draft Recreation, Heritage and

Wilderness Resources (RHWR) Technical 

Guide for use in professional practice, along 

with forest plans, directives, and policy. The 

Guide provides a single source for describing 

planning concepts and information for RHWR 

programs and is intended to increase quality 

and consistency in those programs. Expand 

the guide to include a section on using research

and bridging existing tools. (http:// fsweb.wo.fs.

fed.us/rhwr/planning/index.shtml). 

• Develop a centralized review and clearinghouse

for recreation, scenery, and social research 

(and highlight implications for management).

• Formalize a pipeline for downward directives,

national protocols for using tools, and research,

and recommend research.

• Formalize a pipeline for upward reporting of 

field innovations, applications of tools and 

research.

• Utilize a national cadre of researchers and 

managers to review current research and the 

communication pipelines.

• Strengthen commitment by line officers to 

address social issues.

Many of these suggestions by recreation managers are not the responsibility of researchers; instead,

their implementation depends on the commitment of

Forest Service leadership in recreation at the national

and regional levels, as well as the commitment of line

officers, to provide the training and resources necessary to inform field recreation managers. Managers

also have a responsibility to understand where their

knowledge is lacking and pursue opportunities to

increase that knowledge. In times of shrinking

resources and budgets, this is increasingly more difficult. One respondent summed it up well when she

said, “Managers need to be willing to manage visitors

as needed to meet the goals we set for recreation settings, and we need to keep track of our success at

meeting those goals. Through informed action, we can

improve visitor experiences and resource conditions,

but we have to be willing to manage.” 

References

Cheng, A.S.; Kruger, L.E.; Daniels, S.E. 2003.

“Place” as an integrating concept in natural

resource politics: propositions for a social science

research agenda. Society and Natural Resources.

16: 87-104.

Dwyer, J.F.; McCaffrey, S.M. 2004. The wildlandurban interface: increasing significance, complexity

and contribution. In: Manfredo, M.J.; Vaske, J.J.;

Bruyere, B.L.; Field, D.R.; and Brown P.J., eds.

Society and natural resources: a summary of

knowledge. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho: 329-336.

Chapter 29.

Galliano, S.J.; Loeffler, G.M. 1995. Place assessment: how people define ecosystems. A background report of the scientific assessment for the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project. Walla Walla, WA: USDA Forest Service.

41 p.

Gobster, P.H. 2001. Foreword. In: Sheppard, S.R.J.; 

Harshaw, H.W., eds. Forests and landscapes: 

linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. 

New York: CAB International: xxi-xxviii.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

27
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Knopf, R.C.; Andereck, K.L. 2004. Managing depreciative behavior in natural settings: a review of

research and implications for management. In:

Manfredo, M.J.; Vaske, J.J.; Bruyere, B.L.; Field,

D.R.; Brown P.J., eds. Society and natural

resources: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson,

MO: Modern Litho: 305-314. Chapter 27.

McCool, S.F.; Kruger, L.E. 2003. Human migration 

and natural resources: implications for land 

managers and challenges for researchers. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-580. Portland, OR; U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 19 p. 

Sheppard, S.R.J.; Harshaw, H.W. 2001. Beyond 

visual resource management: emerging theories 

of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship.

In: Sheppard, S.R.J.; Harshaw, H.W., eds. Forests

and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and

aesthetics. New York: CAB International: 149-172.

Chapter 11.

Thompson, F.A., III; Cordell, H.K.; Green, G.; Betz, 

C.; Fly, M.; Stephens, B.; and English, D. 2004.

2003/2004 Forest-Based Recreation and Tourism

Trends in the United States and Actual National

Forest System Visitation. In: 2004 Domestic

Outlook for Travel and Tourism. Washington, DC:

Travel Industry Association of America.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. The built environment 

image guide for the National forests and

Grasslands. FS-710. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 275 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. National Forest Visitor 

Use Monitoring National and Regional Project

Results 2002. http://www.fs.fed.us/ recreation/ 

programs/nvum/reports/year2/2002_national_

report_final.htm (May 27, 2005).

28
Introduction

Understanding the relation between the recreation 

setting and recreation experience, I would argue, has

been the core theme in forest-based outdoor recreation research for over 35 years. This topic is at the

heart of understanding recreation visitors. It has 

dominated the Forest Service’s recreation research

program from its founding in the late 1960s and is

ensconced in the practice of recreation resource 

management by way of the Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS) concept. Recreation resource managers administer recreation resources such as campgrounds, wilderness areas, rivers, and trails, and

require specific information on how the resource functions to provide satisfying recreation experiences. In

other words, managers require information on the relation between recreation settings (resources and their

characteristics) and the psychological outcomes motivating recreation participation in that setting. Managers

also need information on how management practices

such as facility improvement, fees, use regulations,

and interpretive services (all managerial features of the

setting) promote or inhibit visitors’ desired experiences.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the state-of-knowledge on settings, scenery,

and visitor experiences, and to identify continuing and

emerging research issues related to this topic. Although

this topic overlaps somewhat with others at this workshop (e.g., benefits, environmental attitudes, cultural

diversity), this overview is organized from the perspective of environmental psychology. In my view, environmental psychology is principally about understanding

the relation between environments (settings) and user

experiences (for the sake of simplicity, throughout this

discussion I will generally use terms such as setting

and environment to include scenery). As a field of

research, environmental psychology looks at a range

of environments (urban, indoor, institutional settings),

but the core research agenda is very consistent with

the theme of outdoor settings and recreation experiences. Environmental psychology takes an equally

broad interpretation of experience. 

Environmental experience as a psychological 

phenomenon is concerned with what happens to an

individual cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally,

and how such behaviors and mental states are 

29

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Recreation Settings, Scenery, and Visitor

Experiences: A Research Assessment

Daniel R. Williams1

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2150A Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526. 

Email: drwilliams@fs.fed.us

Abstract

A core task of recreation research is to understand the relation between settings, scenery, and visitor experiences. This paper uses environmental psychology to describe four conceptual models underlying these relations:

inherent/aesthetic, opportunity/goal-directed, symbolic, and expressive. The paper then describes some challenges to applying results to recreation resource management.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

influenced by environmental conditions and events.

These experiences range from the immediate emotional reactions of joy and satisfaction in a setting to the

enduring changes in an individual’s well-being (what

recreation researchers often refer to as benefits). Note

these experiences are not always positive and may

include such experiences as conflict, crowding, dissatisfaction, and even physical and psychological harm.

A key aspect of understanding the relation

between settings and experience is recognizing that

experience is not merely a psychological reaction to

the setting (i.e., in a stimulus-response sense), but

something created by the individual or group through

active engagement with the setting. Figure 1 suggests

that the quality of an experience is the result of three

categories of immediate cause: situational influences

such as weather and the actions of other people in the

setting; individual and group characteristics (e.g., interests, skills and attitudes of the individual and significant companions) as well as the dynamics among

group members; and landscape or setting influences

that concern resource managers. In addition, how the

participant reacts to these various conditions is influenced by deeper antecedent causes associated with

culture, biology, learning, and personality. Among

skilled participants, experience quality is not singularly

dependent on environmental (setting) conditions.

Rather, participants can use their acquired knowledge

and skills to adapt their behavior to the circumstances

they find in a way that enhances their experience (and

successful adaptation may itself be part of the satisfaction that participants receive). As Ittelson (1976: 187)

wrote, environmental experience is “that product of an

active endeavor by an individual to create for himself 

a situation within which he can optimally function and

30

Figure 1—Determinants of Experience Quality.

Biology

Culture

Learned and

Innate

Preferences

Determinants of Experience Quality

Antecedent Causes Immediate Causes Ultimate Aims

Experience Quality

Satisfaction, benefits

place relationships

Landscape Influences

Inherent, goal-oriented

symbolic, & expressive

meanings

Situational Influences

Weather, management

actions, other users

Individual & Group

Dynamics

Interests, experience, 

skills, attitude
achieve his own pattern of satisfaction.” This contrasts

with much of the recreation and consumer behavior 

literature which has often conceived of satisfaction as

mostly a one-time evaluation of the degree to which

one received what one expected (Williams 1989). But

research suggests that satisfaction is more a dynamic

and fluid process (Patterson et al. 1998, Stewart 1998)

and derived as much from the mere pursuit of goals as

their attainment (Omodei and Wearing 1990).

The central task in setting-experience research is

establishing the nature of the relation or link between

the settings (objects, stimuli) and the psychological

response of the subjects (i.e., visitors and their experience). Researchers employ a number of metaphors to

describe relations between the environment and the

subjects using them. For example, we might think of

subjects as visitors, customers, stakeholders, community residents, or citizens. Each implies something different about the relation to managers and the setting.

Visitors are only temporary guests. Customers pay and

expect service, but incur no obligations to the provider.

Stakeholders have interests that compete with other

stakeholders. Community residents have intimacy,

knowledge, and a sense of possession. Citizens may

have competing interests like stakeholders but also

duties to the greater good of society. Likewise we can

employ various metaphors to describe the settings.

Resources are tradable and fungible. Watersheds suggest spatially bounded natural units. Ecosystems are

systemic, if not spatially bounded. Landscapes connote larger scale areas that are shaped by natural and

social forces. Similarly, places imply areas with histories and meanings that are socially and culturally 

produced. 

Although these metaphors are an aid to thinking,

when using these or other various metaphors to

establish setting-experience links, we risk missing

important details. For example, when we work from

the metaphors of resource and visitor/customer we get

corresponding social and biophysical assessment that

connect the two in terms of attribute and experience

preferences that one could find in a variety of specific

settings. They do not tell us what is endemic to a particular setting. For example, many areas could be said

to possess naturalness, remoteness, solitude, and

challenge. Using a place or community metaphor,

recreationists experience and come to know and value

actual places. Such places are experienced at a variety of scales from a site level (e.g., Brainerd Lake or

the Black River) to a regional or landscape level (e.g.,

Boundary Waters, Bob Marshall Wilderness, or Black

Hills National Forest). The significance of specific

places, which people come to know through experience, is not easily captured in resource and social

assessments such as ROS and Scenery Management

System (SMS) that focus on their general attributes

(e.g., remoteness, scenic beauty). Rather for people

who know and use an area, its significance is more

likely captured in narrative form (histories) as meanings, practices, and rituals. The challenge for recreation managers is to develop a more comprehensive

understanding of the link between setting and 

experience.

Models of Environment-Experience 

Relationships

Environmental psychology as a discipline offers a 

range of approaches to help capture the different

metaphors or modes of human-environment relationships. Each mode represents or captures some kinds

of meanings and experiences better than others. I

have described four such modes in detail elsewhere

(see Williams 2004, Williams and Patterson 1999).

Below I give a brief summary of each.

Inherent/Aesthetic Mode

Landscape aesthetics and scenic quality have been 

vigorous and important research topics within environmental psychology. Much of this research has followed

an adaptive paradigm in environmental psychology

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

31
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

(Saegert and Winkel 1990). Human perceptions and

preferences are seen as having adapted to facilitate

functioning and survival in an uncertain information

environment and to account for what were biologically

inherent approaches and avoidance tendencies in

reaction to environmental stimuli. One implication of

this is that human responses to viewing natural landscapes are theorized to be more preferred, pleasant,

and beneficial than responses to viewing highly modified or developed landscapes. As adaptive responses,

aesthetic experiences are seen as determined by 

multiple stimulus properties (e.g., intensity, pattern or

complexity, color, etc.). Knowledge about the underlying environmental determinants of aesthetic responses

to the landscape is considered objective and highly

generalizable across time and place (Daniel and Vining

1983).

From these assumptions, aesthetic meanings can

be characterized as relatively tangible, commonly held,

and emotionally evocative. First, aesthetic meanings

are readily tied to on-the-ground (tangible) features of

the setting that allow researchers to make generalizable predictions about the environmental factors that

influence scenic quality (Daniel 2004, Hull 1989).

Second, despite the common dictum that “beauty is in

the eyes of the beholder,” empirically-based scenic

beauty research indicates that different observers generally make similar aesthetic judgments (Daniel and

Vining 1983, Ulrich 1993). Third, scenic or aesthetic

responses are associated with immediate feelings of

pleasantness and interest that appear to be innate

psychological reactions (i.e., involving minimal cognitive processing) to landscape properties (Ulrich et al.

1991).

Aesthetic models appear to describe important

meanings of the setting with considerable reliability,

sensitivity, and commonality (Daniel and Vining 1983).

Aesthetics research at this point supports the notion

that aesthetic meanings can be sufficiently isolated

from other meanings of the landscape to warrant some

attempt to inventory them. Further, aesthetic types of

meanings are tangible (in that they can be mapped

onto the landscape using formal, psychophysical, and

psychological theories of beauty), emotionally potent,

and provide a widely shared and valued basis for natural resource decisionmaking. Thus, a fully integrated

assessment of a recreation resource should include

some effort to map the aesthetic meanings or scenic

values of the landscape under consideration. Still,

recreation experience is about much more than

scenery, which leads us to investigate additional

modes of environment-experience relationships. 

Instrumental/Goal-Directed Mode

The approach to instrumental/goal-direct mode closely 

follows what Saegert and Winkel (1990) identified as

the opportunity structure/goal-directed paradigm within

environmental psychology. Humans are viewed as

rational planners who select the best options within 

a system of resource opportunities and constraints.

Environmental appraisals are made based on the goalfulfilling potential of the environment. This approach 

is conceptually similar to the utilitarian tradition that

has historically guided resource management. Consequently, the social science of evaluating instrumental

goals is quite well-developed, drawing from social psychology and microeconomics (see Williams and

Patterson 1996).

Within the instrumental mode (and much like the

aesthetic approach), setting experiences reflect tangible, goal-related properties of the environment. For 

the instrumental goal of producing timber, resource

managers collect a wealth of data on the biophysical

properties of the land to project or forecast yields of

timber. Likewise recreation and amenity assessments

such as ROS often assume an instrumental or goaldirected relation to the environment—a lake or stream

affords fishing; remoteness affords solitude (Driver et

al.1987). Although social and cultural groups often hold

shared “theories” of meaning (e.g., that nature affords

solitude), these are not universal across groups or 

constant over time. For example, in some cultures,

32
nature might be seen as facilitating social interactions.

Regardless of social or cultural backgrounds, individuals often differ in the extent to which they value a particular culturally defined meaning (goal). Similarly, any

given setting can potentially fulfill a wide range of competing goals. Consequently, conflict sometimes ensues

over how to prioritize management goals.

Recreation management has greatly benefited

from assessments based on goal-directed relations

such as the ROS system. As noted in the introduction,

however, this view builds on a consumer metaphor that

assumes settings are theoretically interchangeable

(fungible) when the replacement provides a similar

combination of goal-fulfilling attributes. But resources

are also places and ecosystems to which people

assign unique (non-fungible) meanings. There is only

one Yellowstone National Park. Some meanings associated with an environment do not derive so much from

how it can be used but simply what it represents symbolically to an individual, family, or cultural group.

Meaning reduced to utility to meet goals fails to adequately address the emotional, symbolic, and spiritual

values of wildlands that people associate with specific

places. Unfortunately these are much harder to identify, but often represent important sources of conflict

among users.

Cultural/Symbolic Mode

Inherent/aesthetic and instrumental/goal-directed 

resource inventories represent important and widely

used procedures for characterizing the meaning and

value of natural resources for recreation. But to tap the

more intangible meanings a third way of characterizing

human-environment relations within environmental

psychology involves identifying social, cultural or symbolic meanings (Saegert and Winkel 1990, Stokols

1990). From this sociocultural perspective, for example, the same forest stand can symbolize ancestral

ways of life, valued commodities, recreational opportunity, or essential livelihood to different groups of people. Thus, an environment can acquire varied and

competing social and political meaning through its

association over time with particular activities or

groups. The question is not merely what the setting

can be used for now, but how has it been used and

valued in the past (McAvoy 2002)?

Within the field of environmental design and 

management, Stokols describes the symbolic

approach as one that views the environment as an end

in itself rather than as a tool – “as a context in which

fundamental human values can be cultivated and the

human spirit can be enriched” (Stokols 1990: 642).

From the sociocultural view, natural resources are valued not only for instrumental purposes, but also exist

as places that people become attracted to and even

attached to because such places possess emotional,

symbolic, and spiritual meaning. Despite increasing

recognition that symbolic meanings of the environment

are important, managers lack available tools to represent them in resource assessments and decisionmaking. However, researchers and managers have

been exploring new ways to map sociocultural meanings and special places (Eisenhaur et al. 2000, Hall

et al. n.d., Kent and Preister 1999).

Individual/Expressive Mode

Like the sociocultural approach, interest in individual 

expressive meanings poses a large challenge for

resource assessment as recreationists develop and

assign intangible and relatively unique meaning to

places (Eisenhaur et al. 2000). Unlike aesthetic and

instrumental meanings, expressive meanings do not

apply so much to abstract classes of environments or

their separable features as they do to specific places,

often as a result of personal history and familiarity

accumulated over time. Interest in individually held

meanings has often focused on concepts of place

attachment. Place attachment can be thought of as an

emotional dimension of meaning—as an indication of

the intensity, depth, or extent of meaning—with symbolic and spiritual meanings associated with high levels of attachment (Williams and Vaske 2003). These

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

33
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

attachments can be distinguished from other emotional

reactions (i.e., scenic beauty, subjective utility) by the

emphasis of the former on enduring bonds, ties, and

links. In contrast, scenic beauty research reflects the

perspective of a temporary visitor reacting primarily on

the basis of appearance and immediate, short-lived

emotional responses. On the other hand, attachment

refers to enduring feelings associated with a place

which develop through interaction with the setting 

over time.

It is sometimes noted that individual meanings 

are difficult to consider in environmental planning and

management because they are potentially unique to

individuals. What is a manager to do if each person

has his or her own meaning for a setting? Because

past experience in a given setting is fairly unique to

each individual, people may assign individualized

meanings to environments and respond to resource

management issues on the basis of these meanings.

Still, just because meanings can, in theory, be different

for each person, it does not indicate that meaning are

different in all or even most cases. And even if the

place means something different to different people,

they often share a sense that the place is special. In

any case, it may be important at times to recognize

individual variations in meanings when making landuse decisions. People resist management actions that

threaten their sense of self (Appleyard 1979).

Implications for Recreation Management 

and Planning

With this broad overview of research approaches for 

studying the environment-experience relationship, I

now turn to the managerial issues that Rachel Kennon

Franchina and Noelle Meier presented in this workshop session. Based on an informal survey of colleagues, they identified four basic management

concerns pertaining to settings, scenery, and visitor

experiences:

1. What degree of landscape change will people 

accept, and how much does the public understand about those changes?

2. How might we enhance visitor experience as 

well as our agency image?

3. How do we enhance experiences in a manner 

that reduces damage to natural resources and

social settings?

4. Are visitor expectations lowering due to the 

commonness of impacts and developments? 

Does that affect use and behavior?

These appear to be issues managers have long 

struggled with; however, managers may sense new

urgency to address them because of both increasing

ecological disturbance and accelerating social change.

In fact, these issues have been the subject of considerable social science research for over 30 years. That

body of research has been reviewed and synthesized

in numeous books and proceedings (see Glaspell and

Puttkammer 2001, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Hendee

and Dawson 2002, Manfredo et al. 2004, Manning

1999, Shelby and Heberlein 1986, Watson 1989).

Thus, the interesting question may be why managers

feel they still lack solutions to these problems? Has

research produced answers to these questions? And if

so, are managers unaware of potential solutions that

research has to offer?

Research has indeed produced some answers to

these issues, but not necessarily the answers managers were hoping for. Managers confront intractable

problems that defy technical resolution, which is probably why the same problems keep showing up on lists

of issues. Even though research rarely provides tidy

solutions to such problems, that does not mean

research cannot offer insights and strategies to deal

with them. However, the way researchers and managers sometimes frame the research issues can be

problematic. For example, by employing a consumer

metaphor in an arena of public goods, we assume

more responsibility for the quality of experience than 

34
is reasonable. Or, by trying to find technical solutions

to basically political problems, we give too little attention to how to bring citizens together and work out their

differences. Below I offer a few comments about each

of the four management questions in an effort to illustrate what I mean.

Regarding the first question, research shows that

different people will accept different degrees of change.

In fact, landscape changes are happening all the time,

so at some level people must come to accept change.

Further, the problem is one in which what people will

accept varies by the kind of change (e.g., natural

change, visitor impacts, or other nonrecreational uses)

and what people will accept also varies from place to

place. As Kennon Franchina and Meier note, it is this

latter feature that really causes problems for managers

because it is very difficult to generalize research findings from one situation to another. Perhaps the underlying question is how are various changes linked to the

meanings people ascribe to the landscape? To illustrate the difficulty, some preliminary findings on a study

of fire and recreationists’ sense of place show that

some anticipate that a wildfire would be devastating to

their sense of place, but others see wildfire as inherent

feature of that place and therefore something they

accept as a possibility. Thus, the problem is that in

each situation managers have to figure out what kinds

of change will be resisted and what kinds of change, if

any, are more acceptable and by whom. Broad guidelines can be found with respect to both visual quality

research (see Hull 1989) and much of the wilderness

management research (Hammitt and Cole 1998). But

short of doing site-specific research on the specific

populations involved, very general insights are the

most we can offer. Over time, research may be able to

refine these guidelines, but they will never replace site

or population specific information.

The second question implies that managers take

considerable responsibility for experience quality.

Figure 1 suggests that the quality of an experience is

influenced by many causes not directly controlled by

management. Our tendency to think in terms of delivering visitor experiences, in part, reflects a prevailing

consumer metaphor for recreation resource management—managers presumably provide the opportunities

for visitors (consumers) to obtain certain experiences

and are then judged by those consumers on the performance of the resource and management efforts in

meeting consumer expectations. But unlike a consumer-oriented business, which gets to choose which

customers it is most able to serve (and make a profit),

government agencies by their nature must try to serve

all the people, and not just by providing recreation but

a wide range of “ecosystem” services that come from

the area. Likewise, as citizens we have responsibilities

to our government and fellow citizens that, in this case,

might include a duty to protect and perpetuate the 

public values—as consumers we do not have responsibility to help a business succeed. Managers could

employ other metaphors, such as performance, that

would recognize the role of the visitors in creating their

own experience (we call it re-creation for a reason). 

Recreationists bring a variety of skills to the situation and have knowledge of the place and setting that

may allow them to maximize the quality of their experience despite unexpected conditions. In fact, a quality

experience may include a sense of overcoming conditions they did not anticipate (Patterson et al. 1998).

Clearly the quality of experience is significantly influenced by the setting, but the problem is that the nature

of this relationship varies from person to person and

situation to situation. Thus, “within the boundaries set

by the environment, recreationists are free to experience the world in highly individual, unique, and variable ways [which suggests a need] for a research

approach capable of capturing unexpected variations”

(Patterson et al. 1998: 445). As with the acceptability

of landscape change noted above, research has produced some general guidelines and principles to follow, including the idea that recreation is a multiphase

experience. Building on the general theme of the

paper, the key to addressing this problem is to strive 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

35
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

to recognize the wide variety of relationships visitors

have with settings in our resource assessments and to

create more opportunity for people to participate in the

decision process.

My assessment of the third question is closely

related to the second. Some of the influences on visitor

experience come not so directly from what mangers 

do with the resource but from growing competition and

conflict among users. Competition for access and conflicts over uses need to be addressed through good

public participation. People need information and skills

that allow them to adapt to the social conditions they

find. But with growing demand, there will always be

crowding and conflict. This is another reminder that

public recreation management is not like the commercial world where who gets to use the facilities can be

controlled. Instead recreation management decisions

are ultimately political. Who gets access and who does

not is, in the end, a policy decision without a right or

wrong answer that can be rendered by science.

Finally, the problem of lost naturalness is the same

as the first question in many ways: it involves the

acceptance of change. Some change is inevitable, and

there is little that managers can do. Some changes

harm some users more than others, and we are back

to who gets to decide which changes we are going 

to try to limit. Here again we are talking about an

intractable situation in which growing demands on a

resource cannot be accommodated without change in

that resource or severe restrictions on access and use.

Again, the problem boils down to political conflicts

between who gets to use what and how they use it.

Given these dilemmas, there are two persistent

questions being asked at this workshop: (1) what is 

the role of research in management, and (2) how can

managers make better use of what has already been

studied? As I see it, there is something of a disconnect

between what social science can do for management

and what managers hope to get from research. So far 

I have emphasized that the problems managers face

are often intractable policy dilemmas which research

has limited potential to remedy. No doubt, research

does help clarify the nature of these problems, and 

35 years of research has produced important insights

used by managers every day—managers may not

even realize where those insights came from. Much 

of what constitutes the practice of recreation management has been built up through decades of management experience as well as interactions between

researchers and managers. These insights reflect less

formal practical experience as well as research and

experience documented in various books (see

Manning 1999) and technical guides (see RWHR, n.d.).

The problem of gaining access to research results

was an important theme identified in the survey conducted by Rachel Kennon Franchina and Noelle Meier.

In their presentation, they identified three perceptions

managers have about utilization of research:

1. Research does not seem to support resolution 

of managerial problems.

2. Managers need improved access to what is

already known.

3. Managers need greater access to decisionrelevant and geographically specific information and insights.

I have already alluded to the first issue in stressing

the politically intractable nature of recreation resource

management problems. No amount of research can

extricate managers from what are essentially social

and political conflicts over meanings, values, and uses.

But I think we can ease this problem by improving our

assessment tools and decision approaches to make

them more participatory, dialogic, and collaborative. In

other words, the task here is to apply research not to

finding technical solutions to what amount to “wicked”

management problems, but to improving our decision

and planning processes to make them more transparent, inclusive, and democratic.

Published research is often unhelpful because the

task of management is fundamentally one of prescribing a course of action to fit inevitably unique situations.

36
To a certain extent, each place is different, yet what

gets published tends to be those findings that have

some relevance to a broader community of research.

What managers often need is a set of practices that

empower them to systematically explore the specific

situation at hand and develop management prescriptions tailored to local conditions. What research can

contribute is the development and evaluation of potential tools for case-specific analyses.

In the conclusions to their workshop presentation,

Kennon-Franchina and Meier made similar recommendations for improving the interactions between

research and management. The most crucial among

the recommendations, in my view, is the idea of developing methods for conducting local social assessments. Specifically they identified the concept of rapid

assessment as a tool with some potential. In fact such

tools already exist and have even been applied to

recreation management (Taplin et al. 2002). As a community of practice, however, we lack experience and

training in their use. Until recently, the field has tended

to avoid case-based, contextually tailored qualitative

methods in a misguided belief that they did not reflect

“sound science” and therefore were invalid and would

not hold up under public scrutiny. But such attitudes

are a lingering remnant of the discredited ideology of

scientific management that still infuses the practice of

natural resource management. As Hummel (1991)

points out, this represents a failure to adequately distinguish between the conduct of science and the practice of management. In the realm of application and

decisionmaking, the experience of managers is not

only as valid as science, it is often more relevant

because it focuses on the specific situation.

Second, access to existing knowledge is part of a

broader knowledge management issue in any community of practice. The problem is more a matter of training than retrieval. The fact is researchers do not have

ready access to existing knowledge. And, existing

knowledge almost always requires synthesis and

refinement to be applied to a given situation. Interpretation, synthesis, and application of the existing body of

research, even for the scientist, requires three things:

broad familiarity with the research domain, knowledge

of basic theory and research methods, and time to

identify the specific situation and synthesize the relevant knowledge. Moreover, scientists cannot generate

an interpretation of research suitable to each situation

in which managers might find themselves. Drawing

again on Hummel (1991), the task of the scientist is

one of taking reality apart to extract general insights. In

contrast, the manager’s world involves putting reality

together and producing a synthesis of knowledge relevant to the situation at hand. Much of that knowledge

is local and therefore outside of the systematized body

of science. Managers need training in gathering and

synthesizing both the relevant science and the relevant

local knowledge. This requires an investment in

research and management capacity.

Take one recent example: unmanaged recreation.

There is no existing synthesis of research with that

label, but given my experience and familiarity with

recreation research, I know a few basic areas where

we should probably look to begin to assess what we

know and do not know about this problem. Two wellestablished research topics come to mind: (1) the

research on interactivity conflict, and (2) research on

recreation impacts on biophysical systems. Research

on these two topics has been ongoing for decades, but

it is only when managers begin to frame their problem

as “unmanaged recreation” that a specific need arises

to sort through the existing literature and figure out

what lessons might be gleaned from it. Still, given

basic theory and a very general knowledge of the

research in this field, a researcher might suspect two

basic principles that might be relevant to the problem.

One very general principle is that most of the impacts

to biophysical systems are generated at relatively light

levels of use and then level off at higher levels of use.

A second very general principle is that no amount of

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

37
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

education, persuasion, or other light-handed intervention will generate more than about 95% compliance (a

statistic I made up on the spot!). What this suggests

about unmanaged recreation is that, short of near total

surveillance or closing an area, there is little one can

do to reduce most of the damage because most of the

damage will be caused by the 5% who are immune to

almost all forms of persuasion. Anything more insightful regarding this general problem would require the

time and effort to sift through and synthesize the

research. And to develop anything approaching a sitespecific set of recommendations (i.e., to test whether

these basic principles hold in a given situation) would

require a site-specific study in itself.

Managers are often looking for decision-specific

and geographically-relevant information. As noted

above, some of this is local knowledge that only managers would be able to generate using their own powers of investigation. But some information relevant to

the situation on the ground can be anticipated in

advance. Managers often are looking for already existing information relevant to the problem at hand, not

research to solve some puzzle. Research is a relatively slow process that has difficulty responding to these

immediate needs. Organizations need to invest in ongoing information systems that can collect, analyze,

and produce timely and reasonably specific reports 

for managers. The National Visitor Use Monitoring

(NVUM) effort is a beginning, but it may not cover

some issues with enough depth and geographic specificity to meet local managers’ needs. Because the

usefulness of this type of information increases when

comparisons can be made across time and space,

these systems need to be ongoing and provide a 

reasonably high degree of geographic resolution.

Conclusions

In my review and synthesis of the research on the 

setting-experience relationship, I focused on environmental psychology as a way to frame and organize the

body of work. In so doing, I highlighted four themes

and challenged some conventional assumptions in

recreation resource management. One challenge was

to think beyond the consumption of landscape attributes typically inventoried in recreation assessments

and view recreation experience as an active, creative

process. On the surface, this may not seem to fly in

the face of convention. But as a community of practice,

we fall prey to the consumer metaphor, which suggests

that the quality of experience is almost entirely a function of the extent to which the performance of the

resource exceeds visitor expectations. Instead it is

important to remind ourselves that people make their

own experiences, they shape and adapt the situation,

and they employ skills and knowledge to create their

own satisfaction.

A second and related theme is that recreationists

form meaningful relationships with specific settings

(places), and these relationships often become ways 

to express a sense of identity. People form bonds with

specific places and sites. Recreationists also develop

intimate knowledge of those places and deploying that

knowledge during their visit represents an important

feature of their experience. As a consequence, recreationists may feel a sense of ownership for favorite

places and will want a say in how they are managed.

Our recreation resource inventories and assessment

tools do a poor job of capturing the enduring relations

visitors have with special places.

That leads to a third theme. Research on visitor

experience is necessary but not sufficient to solve

management problems. In fact no amount of research

is sufficient to solve the kinds of political (wicked) problems managers often face. Thus, a greater appreciation is needed of the limits of a research approach to

solving specific management problems in specific situations. In addition, most of our assessment and decision tools for management were developed in an era

when expert knowledge dominated the process. In

today’s managerial environment, we need to rework

38
these tools to make them more amenable to multistakeholder collaboration, and there is a role for

research to play in developing and evaluating these

more participatory approaches to management.

Finally, we can do little to address the problems

faced in recreation management if we fail to address

the overwhelming need to strengthen institutional

capacity for knowledge utilization and collaboration.

One aspect of this is the development of an information system that serves the need of managers. Much of

what managers look for from the research community

is often not research per se, but information specific 

to a situation that can inform management decisions.

Given limited human resources, there is no practical

way researchers can provide situation specific answers

in anything approaching a timely manner. But fundamental to all these problems is the need to build a

vibrant community of practice in which managers

receive education, training, and the benefit of organizational learning through the shared practical experiences of their fellow managers. Research plays a

critical role in this by developing a professional literature and a wealth of expertise that practitioners can

turn to for education, training, and advice.

References

Appleyard, D. 1979. The environment as a social 

symbol: within a theory of environmental action

and perception. American Planning Association

Journal. 53: 143-153.

Daniel, T.C. 2004. Scenic beauty research in society 

and natural resources. In: Manfredo, M.J.; Vaske,

J.J.; Field, D.R. [et al.], eds. Society and natural

resource management: a summary of knowledge.

Jefferson City, MO: Modern Litho: 315-327.

Daniel, T.C.; Vining, J. 1983. Methodological issues 

in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman,

I.; Wohlwill, J.F., eds. Behavior and the natural

environment. New York: Plenum Press: 39-84.

Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J.; Stankey, G.; Gregoire, T. 

1987. The ROS planning system: evolution, basic

concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences.

9: 201-212.

Eisenhaur, B.W.; Krannich, R.S.; Blahna, D.J. 2000. 

Attachment to special places on public lands: an

analysis of activities, reasons, for attachments, and

community connections. Society and Natural

Resources. 13(5): 421-443.

Glaspell, B.; Puttkammer, A. 2001. Linking wilderness research and management. Vol. 2. Defining,

managing and monitoring wilderness visitor experiences: an annotated reading list. (Wright, V., series

ed.). Gen Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-79-VOL-2. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 29 p.

Hall, T.E.; Slider, T.; Ludlow, K. n.d. Inventorying 

and mapping place meanings in the Pacific

Northwest Region. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest

Service, Region 6. 22 p. On file with: T.Hall,

Department of Conservation Social Science,

University of Idaho, P.O. Box 441139, Moscow, ID

83844-1139.

Hammitt, W.E.; Cole, D.N. 1998. Wildland recreation: 

Ecology and management. 2nd ed. New York: John

Wiley. 376 p.

Hendee, J.C.; Dawson, C.P. 2002. Wilderness management: stewardship and protection of resource

values. 3rd ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press. 656 p.

Hull, B.R. 1989. Forest visual quality management 

and research. In: Watson, A.E., ed. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: proceedings of the National

Outdoor Recreation Forum. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE52. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station: 485-498.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

39
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Hummel, R.P. 1991. Stories managers tell: why they 

are as valid as science. Public Administrative

Review. 51(1): 31-41.

Ittelson, W.H.; Franck, K.A.; O’Hanlon, T.J. 1976. 

The nature of environmental experience. In:

Wapner, S.; Cohen, S.; Kaplan, B., eds.

Experiencing the environment. New York: 

Plenum Press: 187-206.

Kent, J.A.; Preister, K. 1999. Methods for the development of human geographic boundaries and their

uses. Report prepared for the USDI, Bureau of

Land Management. On file with: D. Williams,

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, 2150A Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, CO

80526.

Manfredo, M.J.; Vaske, J.J.; Field, D.R. [et al.], eds. 

2004. Society and natural resource management:

a summary of knowledge. Jefferson City, MO:

Modern Litho. 361 p.

Manning, R. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: 

search and research for satisfaction. 2nd ed.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

374 p.

McAvoy, L. 2002. American Indians, place meanings 

and the old/new West. Journal of Leisure

Research. 34(4): 383-396.

Omodei, M.M.; Wearing, A.J. 1990. Need satisfaction 

and involvement in personal projects: toward an

integrative model of subjective well-being. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(4): 

762-769.

Patterson, M.E.; Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R.; 

Roggenbuck, J.W. 1998. An hermeneutic

approach to studying the nature of wilderness

experience. Journal of Leisure Research. 

30(4): 423-452.

RWHR. 2003. Recreation, heritage and wilderness 

resources lands and resource management plan

revision technical guide. Draft Feb. 7, 2003.

Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 77 p. 

Saegert, S.; Winkel, G.H. 1990. Environmental 

psychology. Annual Review of Psychology. 

41: 441-477.

Shelby, B.; Heberlein, T.A. 1986. Carrying capacity 

in recreational settings. Corvallis, OR: University of

Oregon Press. 164 p.

Stewart, W.P. 1998. Leisure as a multi-phase experience: challenging traditions. Journal of Leisure

Research. 30: 391-400.

Stokols, D. 1990. Instrumental and spiritual views 

of people-environment relations. American

Psychologist. 45(5): 641-646.

Taplin, D.H.; Scheld, S.; Low, S.M. 2002. Rapid 

ethnographic assessment in urban parks: a case

study of Independence National Historical Park.

Human Organization. 61(1): 80-93.

Ulrich, R.S. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia and natural 

landscapes. In: Kellert, S.; Wilson, E.O., eds. The

biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island

Press: 73-137.

Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D. [et al.]. 1991.

Stress recovery during exposure to natural and

urban environments. Journal of Environmental

Psychology. 11: 201-230.

Watson, A.E., ed. 1989. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: proceedings of the National Outdoor

Recreation Forum. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 498 p.

40
Williams, D.R. 1989. Great expectations and the limits

to satisfaction: a review of recreation and consumer satisfaction research. In: Watson, A. ed.

Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: proceedings

of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SE-52. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station: 422-438.

Williams, D.R. 2004. Environmental psychology: 

human responses and relations to natural landscapes. In: Manfredo, M.J.; Vaske, J.J.; Field, D.R.

[et al.], eds. Society and natural resource management: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson City,

MO: Modern Litho: 337-348.

Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E. 1996. Environmental 

meaning and ecosystem management: Perspectives from environmental psychology and human

geography. Society and Natural Resources. 

9(5): 507-521.

Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E. 1999. Environmental 

psychology: mapping landscape meanings for

ecosystem management. In: Cordell, H.K.;

Bergstrom, J.C., eds. Integrating social sciences

and ecosystem management: human dimensions

in assessment, policy and management.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Press: 141-160.

Williams, D.R.; Vaske, J.J. 2003. The measurement 

of place attachment: Validity and generalizablity of

a psychometric approach. Forest Science. 

49(60): 830-840.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

41
This page is intentionally left blank.
Recreation research scientists provide information to

public land managers about recreation visitors as well

as recommendations for actions managers can take.

This paper briefly describes some specific research

findings and describes how the results and recommendations were implemented by recreation managers.

These are examples of serving Latino visitors in southern California. 

Relevance of Demographic Change to 

Recreation Management and Research

Demographic shifts in the United States indicate a 

rapidly growing Latino population. In 1900 there were

approximately 500,000 Latinos in the United States.

Today there are more than 35 million (Saenz 2004). 

In 2000 about 13% of the U.S. population was Latino.

In 2100 they are projected to comprise 33% (Saenz

2004). This is a very large shift, making it important to

know more about this population group.

Why are these demographics important to recreation management and research? The importance lies

in what it means for recreation on public lands.

Research indicates Latino groups may have different

preferences, different expectations about public lands,

different barriers to participation, and different site

development preferences than other groups (Chavez

2001, Chavez 2002, Tierney et al. 1998). Also, differences may exist within activities. For example, picnicking for Latinos tends to be an all-day activity which

includes the on-site preparation of several meals and

includes nuclear and extended family members (Carr

and Chavez 1993). 

There are differences within Latino groups 

depending on state of residence, and differences 

within states of residence. In California, for example,

Central Americans are different from Mexican Americans.

Research conducted at national forests in southern

California found differences between these groups on

motivations to recreate and perceptions about recreation sites (Ewert and Pfister 1991, Simcox and Pfister

1990). These findings suggest using caution when

referring to “Latinos,” as there are in-group differences

to consider. This paper addresses Latinos from southern California who recreate on national forests. These

Latinos tend to be first generation, from Mexico, or

recent immigrants. The results apply to only these

Latinos. 

The following are examples of how research findings on these Latino groups were used by recreation

managers.

Communication Examples

One of the earliest studies of Latino visitors occurred 

on the Angeles National Forest in southern California

by researchers from California State University, Chico

(Ronald Hodgon and David Simcox) and California

State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Robert Pfister).

The study focus was communication (Hodgson et al.

43

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Ethnic Diversity and Recreation Preferences

Deborah J. Chavez1

1 Research Social Scientist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 82507. 

Email: dchavez@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

1990). Based on study results, these researchers 

suggested communications between the agency and

Latinos should be treated as intercultural communication because visitors have different values, experiences, and world views than managers. They found

that mass media sources for communication to be ineffective and they suggested two-way exchange of

information is better. They found a large percentage of

Latino visitors on forests spoke only Spanish (45%).

Several programs were implemented by resource

managers based on these suggestions. This paper

highlights two of those programs.

Forest Information Van

The Forest Information Van (FIV) ran from 1994 

through 2001 on the Angeles National Forest in southern California. The FIV was a small, movable visitor

center that took messages to where Latino recreation

visitors were (Absher et al. 1997). For example, if 

the visitors were in the East Fork of the San Gabriel

Canyon, that is where the FIV went. The van itself had

a pull-out canopy with panels decorated with brightly

colored pictures of animals. These photos were used

to attract the attention of Latino visitors. Visitors could

acquire information about forest rules and regulations,

and what to see and do in the area. Information at the

FIV was available in English and Spanish, and the FIV

staff was bilingual. The program ended due to

decreasing budgets.

Eco-Teams 

Eco-Teams were active from 1991 through 2001 on 

both the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests

in southern California. The forests worked with the

California Environmental Project (a nonprofit organization) to hire youth from Los Angeles and train them

to make public contacts in the forest. The Eco-Team

members approached Latino recreation visitors to relay

important messages (Absher et al. 1997). Often these

messages related to litter, water safety, and fire. Team

members also modeled behavior, such as picking up

litter from the site. This program also ended due to

decreasing budgets.

Both of these examples demonstrate two-way

communication (interpersonal), the use of Spanish,

and ways to reach out to recreation visitors fitting their

communication styles and preferences as identified in

the research studies. Other studies have also found

that taking information to people and focusing on oneon-one communication was important for members of

racial and ethnic groups (Crompton and Witt 1997). 

Hawkins Natural Park

Results from the communications studies as well as 

others in southern California (Chavez 2001, Tierney 

et al. 1998) were instrumental management decisions

for Augustus F. Hawkins Natural Park in South Central

Los Angeles. It is an 8.5 acre park that was previously

owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and

Power. It was best described as a pipe graveyard

(Sorvig 2002) until it was purchased by the Santa

Monica Mountains Conservancy. 

The park that now exists is a result of a community

endeavor where the local community (mostly Latino

and African American) decided to turn the area into a

natural park. Many members of the local community

were hired to help clear the area and rebuild it. Some

were retained to work in the visitor center or on the

grounds after the park opened. The top floor of the 

visitor center is home to the park ranger, who also

grew up in the local community. 

Although the focus of the park has been on conservation education for local youth, entire families take

advantage of the many opportunities offered at the

park. These include walking, biking, picnicking, conservation education classes, and family nights (when

movies are shown). On Saturdays the park offers transportation to nearby natural areas including beaches,

deserts, and mountains. When the bus trips first

began, a conservation educator went with the groups,

44
but with repeated trips there was less need for a

“guide.”

This is another example of how to fit the needs 

of southern California Latinos (and also African

Americans) by addressing communication, education,

and personal preferences, and concurrently addressing

known barriers to outdoor recreation participation.

Development Research and Action

The second area of applied research relates to development preferences of Latino groups. A few studies

reported this preference by Latino respondents (Chavez

1992, Chavez et al. 1993) at both forest recreation

sites and desert recreation sites. What this means and

how it is implemented is the subject of this section.

Specifically, an example from the San Bernardino

National Forest in southern California is described. 

The site is the Applewhite Picnic Area (AWPA) on

the Frontcountry Ranger District. The AWPA was first

built in the late 1920s and was designed to serve 250

people (Chavez 2002). By the 1980s, most site visitors

were Latino (80%) and use levels often exceeded

1,700 people. Managers of the site approached

researchers to gather information about the visitors

and their preferences for site renovation (Chavez et al.

1995). The biggest attraction at the site is Lytle Creek

which runs the length of the picnic area. 

Results indicated a clear preference by Latinos 

for development of the site (Chavez et al. 1995). Most

Latinos wanted the site facilities and amenities to

increase four-fold. Respondents expressed interest 

in additional picnic tables, larger-sized picnic tables,

and grouping of tables (so that larger groups could sit

together). Respondents also preferred trash cans near

their picnic sites, barbecues nearby, increased parking,

and flush toilets in the restrooms. 

The managers took the results and developed 

the site based in part on those results. Also using the

study results, site managers acquired funding for the

renovation. Most of the preferences expressed by the

Latino respondents were offered by the renovation

including grouped picnic tables, larger tables, as well

as trash cans and barbecues at each picnic site. Site

managers did not provide flush toilets but installed

“sweet smelling toilets” (citing cost and flooding 

potential as reasons). 

AWPA is a demonstration of adaptive management

(Chavez 2002), a process for continually improving

management practices by learning from the outcomes

of operational programs (Halbert 1993, Lee 1999).

Follow-up studies at the site indicate that Latino visitors are satisfied with the development of the site. 

Adaptive management at the site has resulted in 

a vastly changed site, partnership between Research

and Development and management, a satisfied local

community, and well-served visitors.

Conclusions

These examples illustrate how research findings 

were taken and implemented on two national forests 

in southern California. Some of the results (such as 

the development work) were a clear progression from

research results to management actions and some

(communications) represented innovative choices

made by resource managers. Each resulted in better

served recreating publics. 

References

Absher, J.D.; Winter, P.L.; James, K. 1997.

Delivering environmental education and interpretive messages in urban proximate field settings:

“lessons” from southern California. Trends. 34(4):

30-37.

Carr, D.S.; Chavez, D.J. 1993. A qualitative approach

to understanding recreation experiences: Central

American recreation on the national forests of

southern California. In: Ewert, A.W.; Chavez, D.J.;

Magill, A.W., eds. Culture, conflict, and communication in the wildland-urban interface. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press; 181-194. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

45
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Chavez, D.J. 1992. Hispanic recreationists in the 

wildland-urban interface. Trends. 29(4): 23-25.

Chavez, D.J. 2001. Managing outdoor recreation 

in California: visitor contact studies 1989-1998. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-180. Albany, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Research Station. 100 p.

Chavez, D.J. 2002. Adaptive management in 

outdoor recreation: serving Hispanics in southern

California. Western Journal of Applied Forestry.

17(3): 129-133.

Chavez, D.J.; Baas, J.M.; Winter, P.L. 1993. Mecca 

Hills: visitor research case study. BLM/CA/ST93-014-9560. Sacramento, CA: Bureau of Land

Management, California State Office. 47 p.

Chavez, D.J.; Larson, J.; Winter, P.L. 1995. To

be or not to be a park: that is the question. In:

Chavez, D.J. (compiler). Proceedings of the second symposium on social aspects and recreation

research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-156. Albany,

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

29-33.

Crompton, J.L.; Witt, P.A. 1997. Programs that 

work—the roving leader program in San Antonio.

Leisure Sciences. 24(2): 84-92.

Ewert, A.W.; Pfister, R.L. 1991. Cross-cultural land 

ethics: motivations, appealing attributes and 

problems. In: Proceedings, 56th North American

wilderness and natural resources conference.

Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute:

146-151.

Halbert, C.L. 1993. How adaptive is adaptive 

management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia.

Reviews in Fisheries Science. 1: 261-283.

Hodgson, R.W.; Pfister, R.E.; Simcox, D.E. 1990. 

Communicating with users of the Angeles National

Forest: executive summary. Unpublished draft. On

file with: D. Chavez, Pacific Southwest Research

Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA

82507. 13 p.

Lee, K.N. 1999. Compass and gyroscope: integrating 

science and the politics of the environment.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 243 p.

Saenz, R. 2004. Latinos and the changing face of 

America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

28 p.

Simcox, D.E.; Pfister, R.E. 1990. Hispanic values 

and behaviors related to outdoor recreation and

the forest environment. Unpublished draft. On file

with: D. Chavez, Pacific Southwest Research

Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA

82507.

Sorvig, K. 2002. The wilds of south central. 

Landscape Architecture. 92(4): 66-75.

Tierney, P.T.; Dahl, R.F.; Chavez, D.J. 1998. Cultural 

diversity of Los Angeles County residents using

undeveloped natural areas. Res. Pap. PSW-RP236. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. 76 p.

46
Historically, Anglo Americans have been the primary

clientele at nature-based outdoor recreation areas in

the United States (Chavez 2001, Dunn et al. 2002).

Goldsmith (1994) highlighted the lack of racial and 

ethnic diversity among National Park visitors. Citing a

Texas A&M study, Goldsmith (1994) reported that less

than 1% of car visitors to Yosemite National Park were

African American and less than 4% of bus riders to the

park were African American. Visitation by Hispanics at

Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona was similar to

that for Blacks. Natural resource managers and policy

makers also have been mostly Anglo. Not surprisingly,

the resulting management “culture” has privileged traditional natural resource values and beliefs rooted in

White, middle American culture (Deluca 1999, Chavez

2001).

The relative lack of natural resource use among

minorities is not unique to the National Park System.

Similar results have been found for recreation 

visitors to national forests. The U.S. Forest Service’s 

inventory of national forest visitors (National Visitor

Use Monitoring Survey [NVUM]) shows that the majority of visits (92.7%) to most national forests were

made by Whites in 20043 (English et al. 2002, National

Visitor Use Report 2004). However, these figures vary

somewhat for forests located in the Pacific Southwest

and Southwest regions of the country (California,

Arizona, New Mexico), especially for urban forests

adjacent to Los Angeles, California. In 2004, roughly

one-quarter of all visits to the Los Padres National

Forest were made by Hispanics, and close to one-fifth

of visits to the San Bernardino National Forest were

accounted for by Hispanics (NVUM 2004).

The relatively high percentage of visits made 

by Hispanics appears to reflect the large numbers of

Hispanics in southern California. Hispanics make up

about one-third of California’s population and close to

one-half (47%) of the Los Angeles County population.

These numbers are consistent with the opportunity and

demographic explanations of racial and ethnic differences in outdoor recreation participation (Huchison

1987, Lindsey and Ogle 1972). According to these theories, minorities are expected to visit outdoor areas or

participate in activities in proportion to their presence

in a given population near natural resources.

Hispanics are also showing up in greater numbers

on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest in

Georgia. Again, these increases appear to be linked 

to demographic changes. The Hispanic population 

in Georgia increased from 1.6% in 1990 to 5.3% in

2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990, 2004a). The

increase was especially noticeable in several north

Georgia counties adjacent to the forest. Although visits

made by Hispanics are still relatively low (3%), forest

47

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Visitor Diversity on National Forests—

How Should Managers Respond?

Cassandra Johnson1 and D.B.K. English2

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602. Email: cjohnson09@fs.fed.us

2 Program Manager, Visitor Use Monitoring, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1125. 

Email: denglish@fs.fed.us

3 The exception is visits to the Caribbean National Forest in Puerto Rico where 58.8% of visits were made by Hispanics in 2004.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

managers note the growing number of Hispanics, and

that their recreation style differs from that of traditional

Anglo visitors.

With respect to Asian American visitation, the 

NVUM also found that the proportion of visits accounted for by Asians on forests in the Southwest and

Northwest appears to reflect the Asian presence in the

Pacific population (California and Washington). Nine

percent of visits to the Cleveland National Forest in

southern California were made by individuals of Asianorigin in 2004. Close to 6% of visits to the Wenatchee

National Forest (Washington) were made by Asians

(NVUM 2004). Asians have higher than national average percentages in both California (10.9%) and

Washington state (5.5%).

Demographic changes along culture and ethnic

lines are causing managers to reconsider the way they

manage natural resources and the types of amenities

they offer recreation visitors (Chavez 2002). Past

research shows both Hispanic and Asian outdoor

recreation differs from Anglo behavior; Hispanics and

Asians tend to emphasize collective, family-oriented

activities. This contrasts with traditional Anglo recreation involving more individualistic, dispersed activities

(Dwyer 1994, Irwin et al. 990). Also, Hispanics typically

recreate in larger groups than Whites. Some national

forest managers in southern California have responded

to the Hispanic presence by adopting a grassroots

“adaptive management” style that incorporates the

opinions and preferences of nontraditional cultural

groups (Chavez 2002). 

To respond to nontraditional visitors, managers

need the same kinds of information they would obtain

from traditional user groups—for instance, who the visitors are—age, gender, group size, and place of origin.

In addition, managers need to know what these visitors

do when they visit—what kinds of activities and site

amenities are preferred. Another important piece of

information is knowing how to effectively communicate

with groups whose first language is not English—for

instance, what bilingual publications or signage is

needed or when should bilingual staff be hired? These

are very straightforward prescriptions that have been 

in place for a number of years in the Southwest, as

indicated by Chavez’s (2001, 2002) research on

Hispanic recreationists.

Minorities Who Do Not Visit

Less information exists on racial and ethnic groups 

that make relatively little use of the national forests, for

instance African Americans. Much has been written

about the relative lack of African American participation

in forest-based outdoor recreation activities (other than

fishing) (Floyd 1998, Floyd 1999, Washburne 1978).

NVUM results concerning Black visits to national

forests are consistent with prior findings. According 

to the data, Blacks account for only 0.7% of visits 

to national forests across the country, yet African

Americans represent more than 12% of the U.S. population. Particularly striking are the low visitation percentages for Blacks in the South, a region where Blacks

are more highly concentrated. Roughly 30% of the

population in six southern states—Alabama, Georgia,

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South

Carolina—are African American (U.S. Bureau of the

Census 2004b). These numbers are even higher in

specific sub-regions such as the Atlanta metropolitan

area and the rural “Black Belt” which stretches from

Virginia to East Texas.

The African American population in the South is

similar to the Hispanic population in the Southwest in

that both groups have comparatively high populations

in their respective regions, and these populations are

close to national forests. Still, African Americans contribute no more than 5% of the visits to any national

forest across the South (NVUM 2004). 

An obvious consideration for forest managers in

the South is how to more effectively engage African

48
Americans in forest-based outdoor recreation. This

could involve a regional assessment of African American

outdoor recreation interests and constraints and comparing those with recreation offerings on the national

forests. This could also involve determining the amount

of forested land owned by African Americans, as 

private land ownership may contribute to differences

between Hispanic visits in the Southwest and Black

visits in the South. If a higher proportion of Black

southerners own forested land, compared to Hispanics

in the West, it may be that Blacks are recreating on

privately held land rather than on public lands. Also,

understanding the meaning that Blacks attribute to

wildlands may be instrumental in deciphering differences between Black and Hispanic use of national

forests. For instance, Johnson and Bowker (2004)

maintain that Blacks may have developed an aversion

to wildlands because of past associations with slavery,

plantation agriculture, lynching, and harsh working

conditions in the southern forest industry. Along similar

lines, Martin (2004) maintains that many contemporary

Blacks engage less with “the Great Outdoors” because

they identify more with a sophisticated urban, cosmopolitanism than with rural nature because the former represents for Blacks achievement and success 

in American life.

Irrespective of past or present constraints, the

Forest Service is directed by Executive Order 12898 to

identify differential consumption of natural resources by

minorities and low income populations. This includes

addressing the issue of low Black representation on

national forests. But most importantly, this task

involves differentiating between those conditions or

constraints internal to Black culture which may inhibit

outdoor recreation, such as lack of interest, and those

external to culture, such as lack of transportation or

information about available resources.

References

Chavez, D.J. 2001. Managing outdoor recreation in 

California: visitor contact studies 1989-1998. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-180. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 100 p.

Chavez, D.J. 2002. Adaptive management in outdoor 

recreation: serving Hispanics in southern

California. Western Journal of Applied Forestry.

17(3): 129-133.

DeLuca, K. 1999. In the shadow of whiteness. In: 

Nakayama, T.K.; Martin, J.N., eds. Whiteness: the

construction of social identity. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications: 217-246.

Dunn, R.A.; Kasul, R.L.; Brown, D. 2002. Hispanic 

recreation at Corps of Engineers lakes in the

greater Tulsa area: results of two Hispanic focus

groups. Natural Resources Technical Note REC13. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/ 

nrrec-13.pdf (April 20, 2006).

Dwyer, J.F. 1994. Customer diversity and the future 

demand for outdoor recreation. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-252. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

English, D.B.K.; Kocis, S.M.; Zarnoch, S.J.; Arnold, 

J.R. 2002. Forest Service national visitor use monitoring process: research method documentation.

Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-SRS-57. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Research Station: 1-14.

Floyd, M.F. 1998. Getting beyond marginality and 

ethnicity: the challenge for race and ethnic studies

in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research.

30(1): 3-22.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

49
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Floyd, M.F. 1999. Race, ethnicity and use of the 

National Park System. Social Science Research

Review. 1(2): Spring/Summer: 24.

Goldsmith, J. 1994. Designing for diversity. National 

Parks. 68(5-6): 20-21.

Hutchison, R. 1987. Ethnicity and urban recreation: 

whites, blacks, and Hispanics in Chicago’s public

parks. Journal of Leisure Research. 19(3): 

205-222.

Irwin, P.N.; Gartner, W.C.; Phelps, C.C. 1990.

Mexican-American/Anglo cultural differences as

recreation style determinants. Leisure Sciences.

12: 335-348.

Johnson, C.Y.; Bowker, J.M. 2004. African American 

wildland memories. Environmental Ethics. 

26: 57-75.

Lindsey, J.J., Ogle, R.A. 1972. Socioeconomic 

patterns of outdoor recreation use near urban

areas. Journal of Leisure Research. 4(l): 19-24.

Martin, D.C. 2004. Apartheid in the Great Outdoors: 

American advertising and the reproduction of a

racialized outdoor leisure identity. Journal of

Leisure Research, 4(36): 513-535.

National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results 

(NVUM) 2004. Unpublished demographic results

for 2002-2003. Data on file with: Donald English,

Program Manager, Visitor Use Monitoring Project,

1400 Independence Avenue., SW, Washington, DC

20250-1125. 

National Visitor Use Report. 2004. Available online 

at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

(April 17, 2006).

Schelhas, J. 2002. Race, ethnicity, and natural 

resources in the United States: a review. Natural

Resources Journal. 42(4): 723-763.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. Census of population and housing. http://factfinder.census.gov

(August 26, 2004).

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2004a. American community survey. 2003 data profile. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2003/

ACS/GA.htm (August 26, 2004).

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2004b. State and county 

quick facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/

(May 3, 2005).

Washburne, R.F. 1978. African American underpartcipation in wildland recreation: alternative explanations. Leisure Sciences. 1(2): 175-189.

50
Over the last 20 years or so, the word “place” has

become increasingly popular among researchers

studying social aspects of natural resource management. A set of interrelated place-related ideas and concepts has emerged in the literature, including “sense of

place” (Williams and Stewart 1998), “place attachment”

(Low and Altman 1992), “place meaning” (Williams

1995), “place identity” (Hull et al. 1994), and “special

places” (Eisenhauer et al. 2000, Schroeder 2002). In

this paper I will not try to precisely define these terms.

In fact, there is still not complete consensus on what

some of them mean, or the distinctions between them.

Instead, I will mention a few basic ideas that underlie

and motivate the discussion of place-based recreation

management, and then present some ideas about how

research on special places can contribute to recreation

management. 

Basic Ideas About Place

Interest in the idea of place attachment with respect to 

recreation management arises from the basic observation that people sometimes develop strong personal

attachments to places they use for recreation, and that

these attachments involve more than simply the ability

of the place to support their desired recreation activities. This has implications for the willingness of recreationists to substitute one recreation place for another

(Williams et al. 1992). If a person values a place primarily because it provides opportunities to engage in

their favorite recreation activities, then they should be

equally happy to go to any other place that provides

comparable opportunities. In the past, recreation

research and management sometimes took this kind 

of substitutability based on activity opportunities for

granted. But there are many instances in which a place

takes on a significance that cannot be accounted for

solely in terms of opportunities for recreation activities.

For some people, a particular place may have a special meaning and a unique identity, and no other place

could serve as a substitute. 

Sometimes a place becomes special to people

because it has obviously exceptional features, such 

as spectacular scenery or significant historical sites.

These kinds of places are relatively easy to identify

and can become focal points for travel and tourism.

But places that do not have any obvious outstanding

features may also become special to an individual or a

group because of the particular experiences that they

have there. In other words, places don’t have to be

spectacular to be special. Ordinary, everyday places

can be special, and effective management is sensitive

to that fact.

People’s attachments to such places can be 

profound, and may be as important to them as their

relationships with close family members. People are

understandably very sensitive to any changes that may

occur in these special places, whether due to natural

51

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Understanding Forest Recreation 

Visitors: Special Places

Herbert Schroeder1

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108. 

Email: hschroeder@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

causes or human activity. In particular, management

actions that adversely affect features and qualities of

special places may trigger a strong emotional reaction

among members of the public. At the same time, management actions that create, protect, or enhance the

characteristics that people value in a place may be an

important part of what makes the place special.

The experiences and attachments associated with

special places can be difficult for people to put into

words. This may be especially true in a planning and

public involvement context that emphasizes science

and rationality. People may be reluctant to express the

deeply felt and intuitive meanings that places have for

them in a public setting where emotion seems out of

place. Sometimes people may not even be fully aware

of how important a place is to them until something

happens to alter the place’s character or to make it

unavailable to them (Hester 1985). 

The Contribution of Research

To manage outdoor recreation areas and other environments effectively, managers need to know what

places and kinds of places are special to different

groups of people and why. Research about special

places (including surveys, focus groups, content analysis of publications, and other approaches) can provide

several kinds of information that could be useful to

managers. For example, research can lead to further

understanding about the following:

• Specific locations of places that are special 

to particular people and groups.

• Environmental features, qualities, and characteristics that contribute to a place being 

special.

• The kinds of experiences, meanings, and 

values that people associate with special 

places.

Surveys on Special Places 

Over 15 years, I have done a series of open-ended, 

qualitative surveys asking people to think of outdoor

places that are special, memorable, or important to

them personally; to describe what those places are

like; and to write about the thoughts, feelings, and

memories associated with them. Some of these surveys were done in the Chicago metropolitan area, and

some in the Northwoods of Wisconsin and Michigan.

From the responses to these surveys, I have identified

some of the important kinds of experiences, feelings,

meanings, and values associated with these places

(Schroeder 2002). 

The purpose of the special-places surveys was 

to help managers in particular locations understand

why certain places in their areas are special to people.

It quickly became clear, however, that some of the

themes people were writing about were not unique 

to a specific location. A number of common themes

recurred across diverse locations and respondents.

Some of these themes had to do with people’s experiences of the biophysical setting—experiences such as

serenity, aesthetic enjoyment, feeling close to nature,

awe, refuge, and escape from crowding and development. 

Social connections and interactions also played an

important role in many people’s special places. Family

members, friends, and historical figures were often

included in descriptions of special places. Some people enjoyed meeting and getting to know the other

people who came to their special place. The history

and heritage of the area, both natural and cultural,

were also important. Some special places acted like

bridges in time, allowing people to imagine themselves

in other historical periods. Special places often evoked

personal memories of places, people, and events that

were important to a person.

52
One interesting thing that came out of the comparison between Northwoods and Chicago was that

many of the same kinds of experiences occur in both

regions. Significant experiences of beauty, contact with

nature, escape, refuge, and solitude do not only occur

in the Northwoods. Many people seek and find such

nature-based experiences in parks and forest preserves closer to home, sometimes in relatively small

pockets of nature surrounded by major urban development. 

Another interesting and unexpected outcome of

these special-places surveys was that some of the

people who responded to the surveys experienced 

a direct personal benefit from their participation in 

the research. Several survey respondents said they

enjoyed writing about their special places, and

expressed appreciation for the opportunity to tell 

someone about their experiences. A few people 

reported that while writing their responses, they had

new insights into what their special places meant to

them. 

The survey method of open-ended, individually

written, mail-in surveys seemed to work well for the

people who participated in this research. In contrast 

to a public forum, the survey procedure allowed them

ample time to reflect on their experiences and compose their response, and provided more privacy and

anonymity than would be possible in a group discussion or even in an individual, face-to-face interview. 

It gave them a “safe” means to express feelings and

meanings about places that they might have been

reluctant to reveal in a more public setting. 

At the same time, there may have been people

who did not respond to the survey because they were

not comfortable expressing themselves in writing. For

this reason, when seeking public input on special

places, it is a good idea to provide several different

modes or channels through which people can respond.

In analyzing the responses to the special-places

surveys, I tried to capture the recurring themes that

people expressed and to summarize them in a way

that stayed as close as possible to the original words

of the respondents. I used many direct quotations from

the survey responses in my reports and summaries to

help give managers a vivid and accurate sense of what

special places mean to people.

When recruiting survey participants I tried to

include both residents and visitors, and when interpreting their responses, I tried to treat their experiences as

equally valid. Some authors who have written about

sense of place have tended to assume that “genuine”

sense of place or place attachments can only develop

through intimate experience and knowledge of a place

over a long period of time. For that reason, they give

the experience of long-term residents priority over that

of visitors or newcomers to a place. But in the special

places surveys that I did, there are cases in which

people describe how a place became important and

special to them on their very first visit. I also observed

that long-term residents and visitors sometimes

expressed similar reasons for why a place was special

to them, so I do not believe that residents and visitors

necessarily always have different or conflicting senses

of place.

Besides residents and recreational visitors, another

group that is important to consider in special places

research is the people who manage such places.

Natural resource managers have places that are special to them, too. One of the special-place surveys I did

was with a group of professional woodland managers

from a large paper company. Their special place

descriptions included some of the forest areas that

they had been responsible for managing. Not too long

after I did my first special places survey on a national

forest, the Forest Service Region 9 employee newsletter ran a series of theme issues on special places.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

53
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Employees were invited to send in descriptions of

places on national forests in the Eastern Region that

were special to them. Many employees responded,

and their special-place descriptions were in many

respects similar to the responses of members of the

public on my surveys. These national forest employees, including managers and scientists as well as 

support staff, seemed to enjoy and benefit from 

identifying and sharing their own special places. 

Conclusions

Research on special places and other aspects of 

place attachment and sense of place can increase

recreation managers’ understanding and appreciation

of the importance of special places (including their

own), but it does not provide easy answers to the difficult issues that must be resolved in deciding how to

manage such places. Place meanings and attachments are often very personal and individual, and may

be tied to very specific, small-scale settings. One of

the biggest challenges confronting advocates of placebased management and research is to develop ways

of incorporating information and understanding of

place meanings and attachments into the broader

scale, geographically-based planning and information

systems now being developed and used for natural

resource management.

References

Eisenhauer, B.W.; Krannich, R.S.; Blahna; D.J. 

2000. Attachments to special places on public

lands: an analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society and

Natural Resources. 13: 421-441.

Hester, R. 1985. Subconscious landscapes of the 

heart. Places. 2(3): 10-22.

Hull, R.B.; Lam, M.; Vigo, G. 1994. Place identity: 

symbols of self in the urban fabric. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 28: 109-120.

Low, S.M.; Altman, I. 1992. Place attachment: a 

conceptual inquiry. In: Altman, I.; Low, S.M., eds.

Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press: 1-12.

Schroeder, H.W. 2002. Experiencing nature in special 

places. Journal of Forestry. 100(5): 8-14.

Williams, D.R. 1995. Mapping place meanings 

for ecosystem management [technical report].

Walla Walla, Washington: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Interior Columbia 

River Basin Ecosystem Management Project,

Social Science Assessment Team.

Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; 

Watson, A.E. 1992. Beyond the commodity

metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic

attachment to place. Leisure Sciences. 14: 29-46.

Williams, D.R.; Stewart, S.I. 1998. Sense of place: 

an elusive concept that is finding a home in

ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry.

96(5): 18-23.

54
Identifying the Problems

The Southern Region encompasses 15 national forest 

units spread over 13 states and Puerto Rico. We manage more than 13 million acres. These forests range

from rural with low to moderate levels of recreation use

to highly urban forests facing intense recreation pressures. The topography of the region also varies, including coastal plain forests, rolling piedmont hill country,

and rugged terrain in the Appalachian and Ozark

Mountain Ranges.

In June 2003, forest recreation managers on

national forests in the Southern Region held their

annual regional recreation meeting. One of the most

interesting topics at this meeting was a discussion

identifying the significant recreation issues facing

national forests. The Forest Service Chief had recently

identified unmanaged off-highway vehicle (OHV) use

as one of the “four threats” to overall Forest Service

management, and each forest representative was

given an opportunity expand on this by identifying the

top three or four challenges faced in managing recreation on their units. Despite the diverse clientele and

recreation settings across the region, there are many

common challenges. Here, I summarize the significant

recreation issues identified by these managers and

opportunities for recreation researchers to assist in

providing meaningful solutions.

Common Issues and Challenges

Recreation impacts to riparian resources— 

Ten national forests identified the cumulative impacts

of different recreation activities in dispersed areas,

making this the most significant resource concern

among forest managers. Fishing, water play, picnicking, dispersed camping, and other activities combine to

cause negative impacts to these areas on virtually all

southern forests. 

The next three issues were identified by six or

more forests and accounted for 64% of all issues identified:

Equestrian impacts—

Equestrian use has been increasing on national

forests. Trails in many areas were never designed to

accommodate these users, and resource damage is

occurring. 

OHV impacts—

In line with the Chief’s concern, OHV use is viewed as

a significant “threat” to most southern forests – particularly the illegal use of OHVs and the creation of

unauthorized trails connecting national forests to private land. All southern forests currently limit OHVs to

designed trails or are implementing a designated 

system.

Trash dumping—

From recreational littering to the large-scale dumping

of commercial debris, trash removal consumes a 

55

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Opportunities for Researchers to Assist 

with Issues Facing Forest Service Recreation

Managers in the Southern United States

Mary A. Noel1

1 Recreation Staff Officer, National Forests in North Carolina, Box 2750, Asheville, NC 28704. Email: mnoel@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

significant amount of agency resources. This problem

increases significantly after major storm events like

hurricanes, when tons of storm-damaged debris 

somehow accumulate along forest roadsides.

These next seven issues were identified by two or

more forests.

Cultural differences in outdoor use—

The numbers of Hispanic residents and forest users

have increased. These users tend to prefer day-use

activities and often gather in groups larger than many

forest recreation areas were designed to accommodate, or in dispersed areas not improved to handle

high use. 

Illegal drug use and manufacture—

The Southern Mountain national forests have long

been host to illegal marijuana cultivation, but a new

problem—methamphetamine labs (and associated

dumps)—is increasing on forest lands. Photo 1 shows

“multiple use” in action—a combination of dispersed

camping area and a portable meth lab. 

Mountain biking impacts—

This sport’s rapid rise in popularity over the past

decade has caused conflicts with other users on 

some forests.

Overuse in wilderness—

Many eastern wildernesses are small compared to

western areas, and they are located within a few hours

of major population centers. Year-round use patterns,

multiple access points, and private inholdings make

restricting access difficult. 

Recreation impacts to archaeological sites—

Significant archaeological and historical sites exist at

many recreation areas. Recreation users today tend to

favor the same sites used by early historic and prehistoric populations. High recreation use, illicit pot hunting, and vandals are damaging heritage resources at

many significant sites.

Accommodating hunters and hunter impacts—

The intensive use of forest areas by dispersed hunting

camps during some seasons of the year has led to

resource damage and conflicts with other forest users. 

Uncontrolled group use and partying—

From Rainbow gatherings to high school partying,

many forests have to divert resources to repair vandalized facilities and pick up trash resulting from these

activities.

Root Causes 

There are several dimensions to these issues. In some

cases, it is because the Forest Service has too few

management resources. Actual use levels are not

extreme, but there are not enough funds or people to

maintain forest areas (repair infrastructure, pick up

trash) and prevent degradation. 

Another is too many users. Use levels exceed 

current site design or tolerances. To keep areas from

degrading, managers must decide to limit use or make

improvements that will allow for a greater number of

users. 

The area where research may be the most effective in assisting managers is modifying user behavior

to cause fewer user conflicts and less resource damage. This is the area most pertinent to the issues

56

Photo 1—Illegal manufacturing of methamphetamines on

national forests is a new challenge for forest managers, 

posing both health and environmental risks.
explored in this session and the problems associated

with it. Options for research support will be examined

in more detail.

For the sake of review, I’ve divided the origin of

these “behavioral” user impacts into 3 broad categories:

• Lack of user knowledge regarding what 

causes environmental degradation (they don’t

know they’re causing conflicts or damage).

• Lack of user interest or concern regarding 

environmental ethics (they don’t care if they’re

causing problems—they’re having fun).

• They have differing expectations regarding the 

management of public lands (they don’t understand or they just disagree with the Forest 

Service management for an area).

Managing the Behavioral Dimension of 

Recreation Issues

Where the problem is users’ lack of knowledge:

• Educate them in ways to limit damage to 

riparian and trail resources.

• Educate them regarding trail ethics and 

etiquette.

• Help users understand the purpose and 

uniqueness of federal wilderness. 

• Educate users regarding overall environmental goals.

Users with lack of interest:

• Increase law enforcement presence at sites 

of concern—publicize consequences.

• Reach younger users who have not formed 

“life” opinions about environmental ethics with 

positive messages.

Disagreement with Forest Service policy:

• Increase public involvement in setting forest 

direction and policy—give them ownership in 

our decisions.

• Review Forest Service policies to make sure 

they reflect changing uses and conditions. 

What we as managers have planned for an 

area may not be the best way or the only way 

to successfully manage it—we need to listen 

to users.

How Can Researchers Assist? 

• Help identify key user groups to contact with 

resource messages. (Who are they? Where 

do they live? What is the best way to make 

contact?)

• Identify successful methods and key 

messages to convey to change undesirable 

behaviors. (Are current tools such as Project 

Wild and Project Learning Tree effective? 

What else should we try?) 

• Identify public involvement models that will 

garner meaningful feedback. 

• Help forest managers determine the social 

carrying capacity for an area.

• Establish monitoring protocols to evaluate 

changes in user behaviors over time so we 

can gauge if our efforts have been successful.

How Do We Best Work on These 

Challenges Together?

To start, or expand on, this process, researchers can: 

• Get to know their local and regional forest 

managers and their key resource issues and

needs.

• Work with managers to identify the financial 

or labor resources they have available to 

support research projects on their units.

For recreation managers to more effectively use 

research: 

• Get to know your local and regional 

researchers—become familiar with their areas 

of expertise and research interests.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

57
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

• Identify opportunities for student projects on 

your unit.

Managing national forests (and national forest 

users) will continue to be a challenge. Researchers

and managers working together to seek practical 

solutions can do much to address these needs.

58
59

Demographic Changes

To maintain relevance, public land management agencies must understand their constituencies. Therefore,

researchers and managers are interested in knowing

who is visiting public lands, why they come, and why

they don’t come. 

Use and nonuse by minorities

• Whites are still the dominate users of public 

land but Hispanic use is increasing.

• Minorities living in dense urban areas are least

likely to visit.

Aging visitors

• As baby boomers

retire, “Passport in

time” opportunities

may become more

popular.

Attracting youth

• Camps and other 

environmental education activities shape 

children’s views of 

the natural world.

• Jobs and volunteer 

opportunities help 

youth connect to the 

land.

• Research projects for 

college students cultivate the future workforce.

Maximizing Existing Research

Managers and researchers agree that the existing 

recreation-related research is not fully utilized. 

Managers want information relevant to a specific site

and situation whereas researchers work at extracting

generalities. Ways to better work together were suggested:

• Inform each other about existing online libraries 

and relevant discussion forums.

• Work together to synthesize existing research 

and case-based knowledge.

• Create an extension service for recreation 

issues similar to forestry and agricultural 

extension services.

New Tools and 

Frameworks

Bridging the gap 

between research and 

application requires 

tools and frameworks 

jointly developed by 

researchers and managers. Several different 

products were suggested during the workshop.

• Create decision 

frameworks for 

recreation managers.

• Develop mapping tools for place based planning

using both social and ecological information.

• Develop an online forum to foster communication

between managers and scientists.

Theme 1: Understanding Recreation Visitors 

Synthesis of Workshop Discussions

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Theme 1: Understanding Recreation Visitors

Synthesis of Workshop Discussions

Gary

Paull, US

Forest Service

Organizatioed enviromental education programs engage youth

in stewardship activities and shape their views of the natural

world.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Theme 2:

Recreation Planning

and Monitoring

Gary

Paull, US

Forest Service
This page is intentionally left blank.
How do we effectively incorporate recreation values

and demands in forest planning and monitoring?

Recreation use continues to increase in many areas

and is a dominant use on many national forests. Many

national forests are currently revising their forest plans.

This theme is intended to show how existing planning

efforts are using research results and to discuss the

need for additional research to assist managers in

making recreation an effective player in agency planning efforts. 

The first concurrent session focuses on forest 

plan revisions and the need to account for the increasing role of recreation. Managers are challenged to 

balancing increasing, and often conflicting, recreation

demands with resource protection. Concurrent session

2 addresses effective public communication and participation strategies that can help the agency address

diverse recreation demands. Frameworks to help decisionmakers are the subject of concurrent sessions 3,

4, and 5. 

Session 3 focuses on recreation planning systems

such as Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) and how they can

be used in planning and monitoring. Session 4 examines place-based applications for planning, while session 5 looks at social and economic frameworks. All of

these tools and application can help inform decisionmakers. Recreation managers increasingly appreciate

the importance of place in shaping individual values

and perceptions and are asking: What place-based

applications are available? 

The sixth concurrent session addresses monitoring. Monitoring recreation use and visitor satisfaction is

critical in determining if recreation management strategies are having the desired results. Adaptive management concepts in the programmatic forest planning

process require effective monitoring of all resources

including recreation. Information from the National

Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) system can be used to

answer numerous management questions. 

The Recreation Planning and Monitoring theme

covers the recreation role in forest plan revisions; public communication and participation strategies useful in

a planning context; various social, economic, and decision frameworks for successful recreation planning;

and place-based planning. 

Recreation research is important in forest and

recreation planning and monitoring. Funding such work

can come from many sources: Forest Service, other

agencies, universities, international, etc. Managers

often look to Forest Service researchers to guide them

to the best information on any given topic. The agency

needs to facilitate the dissemination of research

resources to National Forest System (NFS) managers.

It would be tragic to have great information available

that no one knows about.

63

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Introduction: Recreation Planning 

and Monitoring 

Greg Super1

1 Economist (Retired), USDA Forest Service, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, MS 1125, 

Washington, DC 20250.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

We need to maintain the “bridges” built between

Forest Service researchers and NFS managers. The

NFS needs to continue the long-term relationships 

with Forest Service research that have successfully

resulted in the National Survey of Recreation and the

Environment (NSRE–Southern Station), the National

Visitor Use Monitoring System (NVUM–Southern

Station), Benefits Based Management (BBM–Rocky

Mountain Station), Economic Impact Analysis (IMPLAN),

Recreation Expenditures (NVUM and Dan Stynes from

Michigan State University), among others. 

Below are some web links to many of the tools and

regulations that the agency is currently using in recreation and forest planning and monitoring. 

Recreation Heritage and Wilderness Resources

(RHWR) Planning Technical Guide: http://fsweb.wo.

fs.fed.us/rhwr/planning/index.shtml

Forest Service access is required: email

gsuper@fs.fed.us if you are not with the Forest Service.

To be effective players at all levels of planning,

recreation planners and managers need pre-planning

to fully understand the resources they manage (supply), and we need to understand who uses or might

use those resources (demand). Planners and managers need to apply these concepts when revising 

land management plans (LMP) under the new 2004

Planning Rule: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/

index2.htm

Recreation is not always a key issue being 

addressed in LMP but other resource issues always

impact recreation: fire, timber, wildlife, grazing, mining,

clean air, water quality, off-highway vehicles, wilderness designation, etc. Understanding the complementary and tradeoff relationships can make a plan

successful or an “objected to” nightmare. 

64

Figure 1—Shows the planning model suggested in the RHWR Planning Technical Guide for successfully including recreation

in the forest planning effort.
Check out the Recreation Site Facility Master

Planning web site for niche application examples:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/measures/Prioritize/RS-FMP.htm

The RHWR Planning Technical Guide is intended

to be a dynamic document that grows and evolves as

new insights and methods are developed to improve

pre-planning and planning interactions: Much of the

material in the guide was developed in conjunction

with Forest Service research, e.g., ROS, NVUM,

Scenery Management System (SMS), and NSRE.

Wilderness, heritage, and special designations (wild

and scenic rivers, national recreation areas, etc.) are

also covered. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

65
This page is intentionally left blank.
Introduction

Wildland recreation challenges evolve constantly.

That has never been truer than today as expectations

continue to grow regarding collaborative approaches 

to public land management. Wildland recreation challenges—nostalgically only about what visitors do on

public lands—are now widely recognized as also being

about how decisions are made to manage recreation

and about how agency employees work with folks who

care about recreation or the effects of recreation. 

For these reasons, as wildland recreation challenges

evolve, our public communication and participation

strategies must evolve too. 

Yet, strategies that change for the sake of change

are as problematic as those that remain stable for the

sake of stability: neither change strategy is more than

superficial at best. Why change a strategy? Why keep

one stable? Does the whole strategy need changing?

Answering these questions requires deliberate thought

and careful deliberation. Good answers require attention to lessons learned from managers and practitioners as well as from researchers and theoreticians. 

Perhaps, then, what we need is a coherent effort

to bridge management and research so that good

answers continue to emerge as challenges evolve.

Such an effort might help lead to strategies anchored

as much by insights from managers as by insights

from researchers, strategies that change when appropriate because they contain embedded learning strategies that aim at recognizing “appropriateness” from the

perspectives of managers as well as researchers. 

In other words, perhaps we do not need merely to

capture lessons available today. Perhaps we need a

strategy for continuous learning, a strategy that allows

67

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Public Communication and Participation 

Strategies Relevant to Wildland Recreation 

Management and Research

Peter Williams1 and Dale J. Blahna2

1 Collaborative Planning and Multiparty Monitoring Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, Inventory 

and Monitoring Institute, 2150A Centre Avenue, Ste. 300, Fort Collins, CO 80526. Email: peterwilliams@fs.fed.us 

2 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildlife Fire Sciences Lab, 400 N 34th St., 

Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103. Email: dblahna@fs.fed.us

Abstract

Public land management agencies often base public communication and participation strategies on one of two 

communication frameworks combined with one of two decision models. This paper describes the two frameworks

and the two models together with apparent strategic implications of each for wildland recreation managers and

researchers. It also presents four strategic tools associated with collaborative public land management and eight

potential traps, which practitioners might think of as “watch-outs.” Managers may find the conceptual tools and

the set of potential traps useful in practice, just as researchers may find them useful topics for inquiry. The paper

concludes by proposing a set of plausible research opportunities that might serve as the basis for a research

agenda that bridges theory and practice.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

researchers to tap the intuitive, experience-based

insights of managers better at the same time that it

allows managers to better tap the empirical insights

and methodological skills of researchers.

This brings us to an overarching strategic question: Is there a need to change either our management

or research efforts related to public communication

strategies? Addressing that question thoughtfully would

seem to require exploring communication models that

have informed managers and researchers and of the

bases of public participation strategies. It also would

seem to require discussing strategic conceptual tools

applicable to collaborative public land management. 

Most of all, however, addressing that question

would seem to require searching for indicators of

appropriateness, for ways to tell when a strategy suits

a situation and when a change appears appropriate.

One way to do this is by looking for signs of “fit”

between competing strategies and the challenges we

face. Indicators of fit might serve as the basis for a

research agenda that builds theory while responding 

to manager needs, a research agenda that leads to

broad insights while retaining contextual sensitivity.

This paper explores that possibility. It provides conceptual models of interest to practitioners as well as

researchers, potential traps related to collaborative

public land management, and suggested elements of 

a plausible research strategy.

Simple Frameworks and Conceptual 

Models: Ladders and Influence 

Generically, a communication and participation strategy

is a plan for communicating and working with participants during a planning or management effort. Either

of two simple frameworks or conceptual models of

communication tend to provide the basis for Forest

Service communication strategies (see figs. 1 and 2).

The first is the Ladder model, where communication

strategies aim for a particular rung, and higher rungs

have more citizen participation (Healey 2003). The

second is the Degrees of Influence model, where 

communication strategies fit with different expectations

regarding internal and external influence (Decker et al.

1996). 

The two models are similar, but they have very 

different strategic implications. Ladders imply an ethical or normative interpretation: higher rungs are better

than lower rungs. In that sense, the ladder model is

quite prescriptive because the higher up the ladder, the

more citizen participation and citizen power. The model

encourages a management prescription regardless of

specific local circumstances. It has an implicit “should”

associated with it that encourages selection of communication strategies that are more participatory simply

because they are so. 

68

Figure 1—Ladder communication model.
The Degrees of Influence model, however, is 

more descriptive in that there is no implicit rightness 

or wrongness associated with any particular position

along the continuum. The strategic implication is that

the position of a communication strategy along the

continuum must suit the situation, the context, the

facts, and the needs of the participants. There is no

implicit or prescriptive “should” associated with a specific strategy choice, only with how the strategy choice

occurs and if the chosen strategy suits the situation.

Greater degree of citizen influence is appropriate for

certain situations, but not necessarily all. 

The lack of an implicit “should” suggests that the

Degrees of Influence model is more useful than the

Ladder model for both research and management 

purposes. As a descriptive tool, it is well suited for

comparing traditional approaches and collaborative

approaches to public land management. It is also well

suited to serve as the basis for assessing appropriate

fit between a communication strategy and the challenges of public land management. 

Most importantly, the Degrees of Influence model

is well suited because an implicitly normative and 

prescriptive model, such as the ladder model, encourages belief that more participation will help address

any challenge. Yet, that belief, unless tested, is at 

odds with an open-minded approach to the question

about appropriate fit. As an untested belief, it leads

researchers, managers, and other participants toward

the biased conclusion that more participation is always

more appropriate than less. Regardless of whether

more participation is preferable, a scientifically valid

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

69

Figure 2—Degrees of Influence communication model.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

exploration of appropriateness must avoid beginning

with an implicitly biased conceptual model. Questions

of appropriateness are difficult enough as part of a

research agenda without beginning with a biased

research frame. 

Process Models: Two Bases for a Public 

Participation Strategy 

A conceptual model typically provides a way to organize understanding of a challenge, like a communication

challenge, whereas a process model typically structures an approach to a challenge. Conceptual models

describe immediate challenges; process models

describe ways to address those immediate challenges.

A good, deliberate strategy often explicitly describes

conceptual models and process models because communication is easier, measures of appropriateness or

progress are more possible, and learning is more likely.

Communication and participation strategies seen

in the Forest Service usually have one of two process

models as part of their theoretic foundations: traditional

rational planning (fig. 3) or collaborative public land

management (fig. 4). The former has been the longstanding preference of managers and researchers,

generally because it presumably avoids the perceived

problem of endless debate and, thus, no decision. The

latter, however, is emerging as an increasingly common and popular alternative, in part because it avoids

the perceived problem of reaching a decision prematurely based on inadequate deliberation. Understanding

these foundations can help when selecting a strategy

appropriate for local circumstances.

Traditional rational planning emphasizes a rapid

systematic progression through problem diagnosis

(steps 1 through 3 in fig. 3) to consequence analysis

(step 4) and preference-based choice (step 5).

Decisions are supposed to occur more efficiently

because of the rapid movement through these steps

with little time or effort spent on reflection. The theoretic basis for traditional rational planning is empirical

science, especially hypothetico-deductive methods,

and instrumental rationality, which is associated with

scientific engineering more than scientific inquiry

(Lawrence 2000, Sager 1999). Hypothetico-deductive

methods are scientific methods that search for universal truths and general laws, instead of searching for

answers appropriate for specific circumstances (Faludi

1998). Instrumental rationality refers to reasoning

focused on finding the single best way or instrument 

to accomplish a goal, not if accomplishing the goal is

appropriate (Tribe 1973). 

The theoretic basis of traditional rational planning

encourages a search for universal truths and single

best answers. That search is as problematic as it is

familiar. It encourages moving quickly to the step of

consequence analysis (step 4) because, in conjunction

with instrumental rationality, that is when determination

of the single best way of accomplishing the goal can

occur. That is also when the tools of empirical science

are most obviously applicable. For many, that step

70

Figure 3—Traditional rational planning process.
appears as friendly and familiar territory during any

effort to make a challenging decision. Under this

model, decisions occur efficiently because of a rapid

series of process steps that search for the single best

option for meeting goals based on known preferences.

The model assumes that a single best answer exists

and the traditional rational planning process can find it. 

Unfortunately, rapidly diagnosing a problem means that

only a limited understanding of preferences is possible.

Often, only the preferences of deciding officials mattered, but as expectations of more participation have

grown, more preferences have entered the discussion.

Even so, the preferences are usually pre-existing ones

that serve as positions from which participants negotiate, not preferences that might evolve as participants

learn more from each other about the situation or as

understandings of the situation change. In such circumstances, assessments of the “best” way of accomplishing the goal reflect a limited or a stale

understanding of preferences. 

The hope of finding a single best solution based

upon an inadequate understanding of preferences

seems unreasonable; yet, that is exactly what the

Traditional Rational Planning model assumes. It also

has such a strong focus on analysis of consequences

that it may contribute to process predicament and

analysis paralysis, problems the USDA Forest Service

has made an agency priority to address in recent

years. The model, for reasons described here and for

many others, seems less appropriate for meeting current challenges than many managers and researchers

still assume. Testing those assumptions, at a minimum,

would seem an appropriate start. 

Collaborative public land management is emerging

as an alternative to traditional rational planning, in part

because expectations are changing. Models of this

emergent process are rare and, therefore, largely unfamiliar to public land managers and wildland recreation

researchers. This paper draws from naturalistic decisionmaking research to introduce the recognition

primed decision process as a model of collaborative

public land management (Beach et al. 1997, Klein

1999, Lipshitz 1997). That literature suggests three

decision models are common: simple match, unclear

situation, and unclear course of action. For the purposes of collaborative public land management and planning, however, an integrated version of model appears

more promising because it can address descriptive,

prescriptive, and diagnostic needs and allow for iterative processes (fig. 4).

Like the Traditional Rational Planning Process

model, empirical science is the basis for the Collaborative Public Land Management Process model, but

instead of the hypothetico-deductive methods that look

for universal truths, it applies abductive methods that

look for plausible ways to address specific circumstances unique to any planning challenge (Faludi 1998;

Khisty 2000; Willson 2001). In addition, instead of

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

71

Figure 4—Collaborative public land management process.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

instrumental rationality that looks for the one best way

to accomplish a goal, the Collaborative Public Land

Management model applies social and political rationality that combines the objectivity of scientific methods

with the subjectivity that is inherent to any decision. 

A hallmark of instrumental rationality is an effort to

reduce subjectivity in favor of the objectivity prized by

scientific methods, an exercise often seen as a naïve

application of methodological convenience (Bartlett

and Baber 1999, Cortner 2000, Perrow 1999).

The collaborative public land management 

process emphasizes continuous framing of the challenge by understanding it from various perspectives

(loops 1 and 4) and crafting of a strategy (loops 2 and

3). Instead of steps, the process emphasizes iterative

loops that produce timely and deliberate decisions

based upon the right science and the right people

(Stern and Fineberg 2003). 

Under this model, situation-awareness and sensemaking (loops 1 and 4) are at least as important as

analyzing consequences and probabilities (loops 2 and

3) (Endsley 1997, Weick 1995). Decisions occur based

upon plausibility that selected actions will lead to

desired outcomes while retaining system resiliency just

in case. Instead of a supposed universal truth and a

single best answer, the model seeks to produce continuous learning so that timely adjustments can occur

as challenges evolve.

Careful review of public communication and participation strategies associated with wildland recreation

and other challenges of public land management suggests that insufficient appreciation of the differences

between traditional and emergent strategies is common. Managers are perhaps too quick to assume that

traditional strategies are appropriate for new or evolving challenges; researchers are perhaps too quick to

assume that decision process models are not ripe for

research. Material reviewed in this section suggests

neither set of assumptions should go untested. 

Contrasting Traditional and Emergent 

Strategies: Case Study

Traditional and emergent strategies have different 

implications for strategic communications. One way 

of exploring those implications is to compare each

strategy beginning with its organizing question. An

organizing question is the implicit, generic question

that underlies a strategy. The following case study

describes key differences between traditional and

emergent strategies seen in a situation that occurred 

in Logan Canyon, northern Utah, when land managers

discovered an endangered plant in a popular rock

climbing area (table 1).

For a traditional planning strategy, the organizing

question is some version of the following: What is the

most effective instrument to achieve desired ends efficiently given available means and known preferences?

In the example from Logan Canyon, those who preferred a traditional strategy believed that regulation

would be the most efficient instrument to protect a rare

plant called Maguire’s primrose (Primula maguirei).

They believed that closing the popular climbing area

would meet the known preference of protecting the

plant. 

The traditional strategy led to a strategic communication strategy that emphasized one-way or unidirectional communication, with some negotiation through

bi-directional communication, which just means taking

turns with one-way communication. The resulting 

strategy led to positional bargaining and monotonic

reasoning, meaning that participants were encouraged

to learn about the positions of others but never questioned whether there was more to learn about the

assumed facts about the plant or the single known preference of protecting it. Monotonic reasoning assumes

that a fact, once determined, remains fixed or constant

for the duration of a decision process, a common and

problematic assumption of traditional rational planning

(Lundberg 2000). 

72
The traditional strategy applied first did not go 

well because the climbing community rejected the

premise that they and their activity were solely to

blame. Instead, they pushed for a different decision

model that was more similar to the Collaborative Public

Land Management model and the Forest Service

responded. For the emergent collaborative strategy,

the organizing question is something like this: What is

the most appropriate way of working together to plan,

decide, and act toward desired outcomes given plausible resources, power, responsibilities, and accountability? 

The most appropriate way of working together is

not a predetermined state; it emerges from the process.

Instead of rapidly closing in on available means to 

protect the plant, the process sought to identify plausible resources, including the climbing community itself.

Instead of a single preference, the emergent strategy

sought a more robust desired outcome that protected

the plant through active engagement of the climbing

community. The emergent strategy led to a strategic

communication strategy that emphasized dialog to

share understanding and create new ideas. It was

explicitly non-monotonic because the strategy assumed

that interpretations of facts were as important as the

facts, that no single interpretation was the “truth.” 

As a result, compared with the earlier traditional

effort, the emergent strategy led to a more workable

decision that allowed the climbing community to share

responsibilities with the land management agencies 

for protecting the plant. No compromise of decision

authority occurred; yet, the tasks of land management

that were appropriate to share were shared in a way

that all the participants could agree was fair and equitable. Instead of focusing on regulation, the focus was

on protecting the plant and the climbing opportunities

of Logan Canyon. Regulation remained a tool to consider, but only one of many instead of the preferred 

or best option. The situation continues to change

because, as with all wildland recreation challenges, 

it is never solved, only managed. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

73

Table 1—Case study comparison of traditional and emergent communication strategies

Organizing Traditional strategy Emergent strategy

question What is the most effective What is the most appropriate way of

instrument to achieve desired working together to plan, decide,

ends efficiently, given available and act toward desired outcomes,

means and known preferences? given plausible resources, power,

responsibilities, and accountability?

Example: • Most efficient instrument: • Most appropriate ways of working

Maguire’s regulation together: emerged from process

primrose, Logan • Available means: close • Plausible resources: FS, climbers,

Canyon, Utah climbing area US Fish and Wildlife Service (a.k.a.

• Known preferences: protect available means)

endangered species • Desired outcome: project primrose

• Strategic communications through active engagement of

implication: emphasis on climbing community (a.k.a.

unidirectional or bi-directional emergent preferences)

to communicate existing • Strategic communications implication:

ideas (positional, monotonic) emphasis on dialog to share

and create ideas (non-monotonic)
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Strategic Tools Useful for Collaborative 

Public Land Management

Is there sufficient evidence to suggest a need to 

change our management and research efforts related

to strategic communication? It appears so. The emergent strategy of collaborative public land management

requires different tools than the strategy of traditional

rational planning. Four specific ones appear useful to

managers as part of a public communication and participation strategy and useful to researchers as possible conceptual frameworks worth study.

The first tool is a conceptual framework anchored

in the decision process (fig. 5). As depicted, there are

three decision elements common to any decision, and

every decision aims at a decision challenge that has

some context (March 1994). The focus of this tool is on

the immediate planning challenge, which leads to communication strategies also focused on the challenge. 

The key point about this tool is that the structure of

the decision process contrasts with the “wickedness” of

the planning challenge and its context. Wildland recreation managers and researchers do not work on simple problems and nice, neat challenges. We work on

wicked problems that have multiple interpretations and

no simple answers. Yet, those who have written about

wicked problems reassure us that we can still apply 

a structured decision process as long as we never

assume that the problem is neatly structured

(Checkland 1994). 

A second tool is a diagnostic framework for understanding the planning challenge and opportunities (fig.

74

Figure 5—Decision Process conceptual framework.
6). The particular framework shown here is a variation

of the Open-Narrow-Close framework described by

Russo and Schoemaker (2002). 

During the open part of the diagnostic framework,

participants seek to understand the situation from various perspectives, including science and management,

to establish a robust understanding of the planning

problem and the need for change, if any. In addition to

understanding the problem, they can grow a greater

understanding of shared stewardship responsibilities, 

an understanding critical for successful implementation

of the eventual decision. During the narrow part, they 

try to surface options for meeting those needs for

change while focusing on what is most important.

During the close part, they move to decision based on

managerially relevant criteria established collaboratively

and on shared responsibilities for getting the job done. 

A communication and participation strategy

anchored with this framework is less likely to result

either in a premature decision because of inadequate

deliberation or in no decision because of never-ending

debate. It is also less likely to produce a limited or stale

understanding of preferences. Moreover, the diagnostic

framework is consistent with the collaborative public

land management process introduced earlier because

it focuses on understanding the situation and crafting a

strategy iteratively, not through a wishful step model. 

A third tool is a way of communicating or designing

a communication strategy based upon key strategic

questions. Key questions, perhaps embedded in the

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

75

Figure 6—Open-Narrow-Close diagnostic framework.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Open-Narrow-Close framework, can guide inquiry,

focus meetings, and move to an appropriate management decision. The following four questions have

proven useful during numerous applications over the

past decade: 

• Where are we now?

• Where do we want to go?

• How might we go where we want?

• What gets in our way?

A fourth tool is the Accordion Planning model (fig. 

7) through which a planning process cycles back and

forth from break-out meetings to coming together for

integration and discussion, each cycle leading to the

next (Straus 2002). These iterations are about getting

the science right and the right sciences, while simultaneously getting the participation right and the right 

participants (Stern and Fineberg 2003). The process

seeks appropriate mixtures of individual expertise and

group interactions, recognizing the need for constant

adjustments. This model reflects dynamic complexity of

time (x), internal and external orientation (y), expertise

(circles), and interactions (arrows).

Potential Traps

Many lessons have been learned about collaborative 

public land management. Some are common decision

traps learned the hard way, but in sharing these experiences, others may be able to avoid those (Russo and

Shoemaker 1990). Based upon available literature and

76

Figure 7—Accordion planning model.
personal experience, eight seem to stand out as traps

to watch out for, much like the list of “watch-outs” that

wildland firefighters often cite. The following list

describes the traps and some possible treatments to

consider:

• External Bias: Internal collaboration is often 

missing, which can send conflicting message 

to internal and external participants.

o Treatment: Look for ways to tap internal 

knowledge and experience without overburdening folks.

• Power Sharing vs. Power Leveraging: Participants bring different power bases; how you

address power is important. 

o Treatment: Allow power sharing to emerge 

by focusing on power leveraging first; do 

not start a process by aiming to share 

power because that readily encourages 

positional bargaining.

• Agency Capture: Land management agency 

may cross from responsiveness to patronage

toward some participants, leading other participants to lose trust. 

o Treatment: Establish clear principles and 

priorities to check on as process unfolds. 

Make these part of explicit situation awareness criteria that you look for during process to ensure everyone understands the 

principles you are applying.

• Lack of Substance: Forgetting that good 

science is as important as good participation;

implementation is as important as planning 

(i.e., confusing collaboration with “abracadabra 

collaboration”). 

o Treatment: Collect quality data regarding 

managerially and decision relevant 

questions; meaningful products and events

throughout. 

• Infeasibility: Resources to move toward desired

outcomes may not be feasible (i.e., over-promising).

o Treatment: Make feasibility and part of 

dialog.

• Ballistic Behavior: Assuming actions will 

produce desired outcomes without unintended 

or unanticipated consequences (i.e., creeping

determinism).

o Treatment: Practice continuous learning,

sensemaking, and situation awareness.

• Political “Cow-Pies”: Interference with traditional

budgetary and political processes can lead to

backlash (e.g., “stepping in it”).

o Treatment: Develop conceptual frameworks that integrate social, political, and ecological aspects and focus on big picture.

• Technical Blinders: Too much structure early in a

process can produce blind spots with substantive

consequences (i.e., methodism).

o Treatment: Use adaptive design, perhaps

applying the Open-Narrow-Close or 

Accordion models, anchored with 

principles and priorities jointly developed 

with participants.

Plausible Research Opportunities

The material reviewed here suggests numerous 

research opportunities. Seven stand out as especially

promising. A unifying theme is the need for a coherent

bridge between management and research, a bridge

that would seem likely to benefit from greater attention

to decision process and strategic tools.

The first opportunity is to pursue the topic of collaborative learning. The Collaborative Public Land

Management model rises from several premises that

researchers might empirically test either locally or more

broadly, if appropriate designs are developed. For

example, diagnosing a local situation collaboratively

likely means different things in different situations, yet

some degree of commonality may also be present. 

The need for research appears clear, perhaps oriented

toward the process, content, and outcome elements of

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

77
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

a decision process and perhaps applying an abductive

research model that goes beyond the more common

hypothetico-deductive models. 

Another research opportunity is to pursue the two

promising topics of sensemaking and situation awareness (Endsley 1997, Perrow 1999, Weick 1995). Both

topics are important to the Recognition Primed

Decision model, but they are also important for managers because the topics get at indicators or appropriateness, a need identified early in this paper. A key

research question is this: Can we develop methods for

establishing locally meaningful indicators that allow

timely recognition of need for change or of a normal

accident before it reaches crisis-level?

A third research opportunity addresses the apparent need for action research, an approach to empirical

science that seeks to break out of the descriptive rut

and produce more prescriptive work without compromising needs of researchers and Forest Service

Research Stations. Description of planning efforts, for

example, tells little about the viability of more creative

or inventive ideas, instead only reinforcing previous

efforts and leading to conservative research and occasional moments of incremental progress.

Similar to action research is the opportunity to pursue actionable knowledge, perhaps by investigating

whether we can adapt tools from organizational learning and other promising areas to produce actionable

knowledge as opposed to descriptive rote knowledge.

Rote knowledge, like descriptive knowledge, is fundamentally uncreative and conservative because it is 

oriented toward repeating what others have done

regardless of whether the situations are comparable.

Good examples of actionable knowledge are the

potential traps listed in this paper—they seek to transform lessons available from a wide range of disciplines

into ones applicable to wildland recreation and public

land management. 

Because emergent strategies, as described in 

this paper, seek to respond to evolving circumstances,

such strategies are fundamentally about producing

new knowledge and sharing that knowledge with others.

Accordingly, another research opportunity is to pursue

questions related to knowledge management such as

how managers, responsible officials, planners, and

technical experts might better collaborate with

researchers, academics, consultants, and scientists to

respond to changing expectations more rapidly and

more innovatively. Pursuit of this opportunity requires a

willingness to confront organizational challenges in an

empirically valid manner.

Similarly, there are research opportunities related

to bridging theory and practice. Perhaps one of the

more important questions is whether researchers and

managers can focus on managerially relevant aspects

of the challenge as the basis for bridging theory and

practice for collaborative public land management.

Addressing this question would seem to require deliberate effort to identify managerially relevant aspects,

perhaps as the basis for assessing “success.”

Lastly, researchers and managers would benefit

equally to greater research attention to measuring success from multiple perspectives, including those of

managers and researchers. A specific research question of interest might be along the lines of the following: Can we develop methods for producing

contextually specific meaningful measures relevant to

local, regional, and national needs?

The seven research opportunities described

appear likely to serve as a solid basis for a research

strategy that would bridge theory and practice for the

purposes of improving communication strategies associated with wildland recreation management. In addition to improving communication strategies, pursuing

these opportunities is likely to improve planning strategies by providing empirically defensible resources to

managers and leading to better public land management efforts as measured by a broader set of perspectives than relied on traditionally.

78
References

Bartlett, R.V.; Baber, W.F. 1999. Moving beyond 

proverbs: from rationality to reasonableness in

environmental administration. Journal of

Management History. 5(2): 55.

Beach, L.R.; Chi, M.; Klein, G.; Smith, P.; Vincente, 

K. 1997. Naturalistic decision making and related

research lines. In: Zsambok, C.E.; Klein, G., eds.

Naturalistic decision making. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Checkland, P. 1994. Systems theory and management

thinking. American Behavioral Scientist. 38 (1): 

75-91.

Cortner, H.J. 2000. Making science relevant to environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy.

3(1): 21.

Decker, D.J.; Krueger, C.C.; Baer, R.A., Jr.; Knuth, 

B.A.; Richmond, M.E. 1996. From clients to

stakeholders: a philosophical shift for fish and

wildlife management. Human Dimensions of

Wildlife. 1: 70.

Endsley, M.R. 1997. The role of situation awareness 

in naturalistic decision making In: Zsambok, C.E.;

Klein, G., eds. Naturalistic decision making.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

Faludi, A. 1998. Why in planning the myth of the 

framework is anything but that. Philosophy of

Social Sciences. 28(3): 381.

Healey, P. 2003. Collaborative planning in perspective. 

Planning Theory. 2(2): 101.

Khisty, C.J. 2000. Can wicked problems be tackled 

through abductive inferencing? Journal of Urban

Planning and Development. 126(3): 104.

Klein, G. 1999. Sources of power: how people make 

decisions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 

Lawrence, D.P. 2000. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review. 20: 607.

Lipshitz, R. 1997. Schemata and mental models in 

recognition-primed decision making. In: Zsambok,

C.E.; Klein, G., eds. Naturalistic decision making.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lundberg, C.G. 2000. Made sense and remembered sense: sensemaking through abduction.

Journal of Economic Psychology. 21(6): 691.

March, J.G. 1994. A primer on decision making: how 

decisions happen. New York: Free Press.

Perrow, C. 1999. Normal accidents: living with highrisk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press. 

Russo, J.E.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. 1990. Decision 

traps: the ten barriers to brilliant decision-making

and how to overcome them. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Russo, J.E.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. 2002. Winning 

decisions: getting it right the first time. New York:

Currency Doubleday.

Sager, T. 1999. The rationality issue in land-use planning. Journal of Management History. 5(2): 87.

Stern, P.C.; Fineberg, H.V., eds. 2003. Understanding 

risk: informing decisions in a democratic society.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Straus, D. 2002. How to make collaboration work: 

powerful ways to build consensus, solve problems,

and make decisions. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc.

Tribe, L.H. 1973. Technology assessment and the 

fourth discontinuity: the limits of instrumental

rationality. Southern California Law Review. 

46: 617.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

79
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. 

In: Whetten, D., ed. Foundations for organizational

science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Willson, R. 2001. Assessing communicative rationality 

as a transportation planning paradigm.

Transportation. 28(1): 1.

80
Introduction

The Chief of the Forest Service is requiring forests 

to examine their entire facility infrastructure and determine how to operate those facilities more effectively

and in a financially efficient way. Recreation Site—

Facility Master Planning (RS-FMP) is the process

being used nationally to help recreation programs meet

the Chief’s requirement. It helps forests align their

developed recreation site program with the recreation

niche for the forest and the anticipated budget. It looks

to the future and is expressed through Action Items for

the next 5 years that will help the forest meet the RSFMP goals (listed below). 

Why

Many factors contribute to the urgency to review and 

align our developed recreation site program:

• The current recreation capacity owned by the 

Forest Service on the national forests is 342 

million People at One Time (PAOT) days. In 

fiscal year 2004, fewer than 84 million PAOT

days (25%) were funded to be managed to 

national quality standards. 

• Deferred maintenance costs for recreation 

sites have reached $346 million. 

• Recreation fee authority has created higher 

visitor expectations.

• The new fee authority is more restrictive than 

fee demo was and will result in fewer dollars 

available for recreation sites. 

• New operating standards from the 

Environmental Protection Agency will 

increase the number of recreation site water 

systems failing to meet standards without 

additional expenditures. 

• Fire, Administration and Other (FA&O) facility 

master planning resulted in the recreation 

program having a large number of “left-over” 

facilities to consider managing, primarily as 

primitive rental cabins.

• FSM ID 2310-2003-1 requires facility master 

plans be developed for all facilities. The Deputy

Chief’s 7310/2300 letter, of March 4, 2005, (Due

Date July 1, 2005) requests each Regional

Forester to provide the Director of RHR RS-FMP

completion dates for FY06 and FY07.

Goals

Goal 1: Provide recreation opportunities consistent 

with the forest recreation “niche.”

Goal 2: Operate and maintain a financially sustainable recreation sites program to national 

quality standards.

Goal 3: Eliminate deferred maintenance at recreation sites. 

Goal 4: Improve customer satisfaction.

Objectives

Objective 1: Focus resources on sites that best fit 

the forest recreation niche.

81

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Recreation Site—Facility Master Planning

Process Overview and Summary

Kathy Ludlow1

1 Forest Service Landscape Architect, Retired. Email: kludlow@fs.fed.us 
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Objective 2: Operate and maintain sites to regional

required quality standards with 

available revenue stream.

Objective 3: Reduce deferred maintenance backlog 

by 90% by 2020.

Objective 4: All customer satisfaction factors will be

equal to or greater than the customer

importance rating for that factor (as 

reported through National Visitor Use

Monitoring customer satisfaction 

surveys).

The Recreation Site Facility Master Planning product is a 5-year action plan outlining proposed steps to

move from the current situation to the desired future

condition. The 5-year action plan describes the forest’s

desired recreation site inventory, function, and operational strategy and satisfies the requirement for recreation site facility master planning.

Before initiating the Recreation Site Facility Master

Planning analysis, each region identifies regionally

required Operation and Maintenance quality standards.

82

Process Summary

Step 1: Prepare Inventory and Financial Data (Forest/RO)

Step 2: Develop Unit Recreation Program Niche (Forest)

Step 3: Identify Operational Efficiencies (Forest)

a. Verify inventory and financial information

b. Develop management options

c. Establish expenditure commitments

Step 4: Rank Recreation Sites (Forest/RO) 

a. Rank sites to unit criteria 

Prioritization criteria

Facility conformance with the forest niche (35%)

Facility cost and operational efficiency (35%)

Facility effects on environmental sustainability (20%)

Facility effects on community stability (10%)

b. Recommend site management priority 

Step 5: Develop Proposed Forest Actions (Forest)

a. Determine operations and maintenance actions

b. Determine sustainable inventory level

c. Determine programmatic actions

Step 6: Produce Final Products (Forest)

a. Develop 5-year RS-FMP proposed action plan

1) Completed rank tool

2) Table of actions

i. Site-specific

ii. Programmatic (includes scheduling communication plan and monitoring 

plan development)

3) Recreation site priority report

4) Final niche documents

5) Niche map

6) Programmatic results

7) Forest Supervisor signature

Step 7: Conduct Regional Forester and Stakeholder Review (Forest/RO)

a. Obtain Regional Forester concurrence on draft proposed action plan

b. Review draft proposed action plan with Marke Zone stakeholders

c. Incorporate stakeholder improvements and finalize proposed action plan
Interest in Place

Place-related concepts are factors in public involvement, conflict, recreation management, recreation displacement, landscape planning, and design. This has

captured the attention of researchers and managers.

The concepts of sense of place, attachment to place,

place meanings, place dependence, place identity,

and place-based planning are appearing more frequently in academic literature, agency publications,

and the popular press. Place-oriented approaches to

natural resource and community issues are receiving

more attention from academics, policymakers, citizens,

and resource managers. In academia, place is a topic

in landscape architecture, environmental ethics,

environmental psychology, rural sociology, anthropology, human geography, and the humanities. 

Academic and agency researchers and resource

managers are using various methods to explore the

meanings, experiences, and actions that enable us to

understand place and the relations between people

and their environments. There is a sizable literature on

place and related concepts so we will not spend much

time defining them in this paper. Farnum et al. (2005)

review the literature on sense of place in recreation

and tourism, and an edited collection of papers on

place-related concepts applied in recreation and

tourism studies (Kruger et al. (in press)) is in process.

At a basic level, place concepts generally recognize that understanding emotional ties and symbolic

meanings of environments is critical to understanding

the implications of environmental change and why 

conflicts over resource management become so contentious (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995, Greider and

Garkovich 1994, Kemmis 1990, Krannich et al. 1994).

Also embedded in these ideas is the recognition that

traditional market-based decision frameworks (Galliano

and Loeffler 1999) and western approaches to science

(Entrikin 1991; Orr 1992; Sagoff 1992a,b) have led to

an under-representation of certain meanings and values that people often associate with nature, place, or

83

Proceedings from the National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Place and Place-based Planning

Linda E. Kruger1 and Daniel R. Williams2

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A, Juneau, AK 99801. 

Email: lkruger@fs.fed.us

2 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2150A Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526-1891. 

Email: drwilliams@fs.fed.us

Abstract

Place-related concepts are factors in public involvement, conflict, recreation management, recreation displacement, landscape planning and design. This has captured the attention of researchers and managers. We posit

that planning and management of public lands requires an understanding of what it is about the lands that people value and care about. In this paper we discuss multiple uses of the term “place” and the various place-related

concepts that have emerged, and how these concepts are used to inform public land planning and management. 
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

landscape (Bengston 1994, Wilkinson 1992, Williams

and Patterson, 1996). Economic values and narrowly

defined empirical variables have been counted and

measured while other, less tangible values and meanings have been discounted or disregarded as nonempirical. 

Slowly planning processes are recognizing the

importance of meanings and values people ascribe to

places and the emotions, experiences, benefits, and

satisfaction people experience in places (Galliano and

Loeffler 1999). Place-based planning processes provide a venue for managers to interact with people who

live, work, and play in a place and care about it. This is

important because planning in itself is a place-making

or meaning-creating process (Galliano and Loeffler

1999, Williams and Patterson 1999, 1996). Placebased planning that engages the public enables an

understanding of what Clarke (1971, quoted in Galiano

and Loeffler 1999) calls “the interactive unity of people 

and place.”

Multiple Uses of the Term “Place”

Place is used three ways in social science (Agnew 

and Duncan 1989). As location, place can mean “the

spatial distribution of social and economic activities”

that results from different costs of doing business in

different places (Agnew and Duncan 1989: 2). Place

as locale, on the other hand, provides the setting or

backdrop for everyday activity. Sense of place, the

third definition, involves individual or group identification with a place that comes from interacting with it.

These conceptions demonstrate the multidimensionality of place but have also led to confusion. Place,

according to Agnew and Duncan (1989) simultaneously encompasses all three aspects; however, the

emergence of place as a social science topic reflects

increasing recognition of the importance of this sense

of place dimension.

The multiple uses of the word have led to two 

distinct orientations to sense of place. Landscape

architects often view sense of place as inherent in a

place—a quality of the landscape that can be physically identified and mapped by a trained observer,

what the Forest Service Scenery Management System

refers to as landscape character. In contrast, a socialexperiential orientation emphasizes meanings that are

created as people interact with a place and with each

other in a place, developing connections to the place.

These meanings are not inherent in the landscape but

are emergent. They are said to be socially constructed

through experience. Some researchers suggest that

this experience need not be direct, but can be developed vicariously, asserting that a sense of place can

exist for places a person has never visited but cares

about.

In line with Agnew and Duncan’s definition for

sense of place, Pred (1984) views place as a social

process of transforming and appropriating nature and

space, simultaneous with and inseparable from the

transformation and reproduction of society. Thus place

is not something “out there” separate from, or that can

be separated from, the people who create and define it

through their day-to-day experiences. Despite common

conceptions to the contrary, places are always changing and evolving and have multiple and often conflicting meanings. 

In addition to sense of place, people sometimes

talk about “special places.” The most important aspect

of the “specialness” of places is a holistic character

that involves past experience and social and cultural

meanings identified with the place such that the place

“elicits an appreciation and attachment beyond the

observable features of the landscape” Petrich (1984:

67). Thus, to know or understand place requires us to

look at place from a perspective that can illuminate

meaning and action. Meanings can be difficult to detect

(they cannot be identified and counted like trees or

fish); however, meanings expressed through enactment and engagement are observable and can be

accounted for using “interpretive” methodologies,

84
which elicit and analyze narratives (stories and histories) about a place. 

Place Meanings

In natural resource management, the place concept 

is often used to bring greater recognition to certain

(usually intangible) kinds of place meanings variously

described as social, cultural, symbolic, historical, emotional, and even spiritual. But it is important to note

that traditional resource assessments have always

attempted to identify and map potential uses and

meanings of a landscape. The emergence of the place

concept is mainly about expanding what counts as

legitimate meanings of a place or resource beyond its

tangible uses. The difference in a place approach is

that meanings are not limited to widely recognized

potential uses of a resource. They also characterize

something of the relationship between the place and

the people who use, occupy, or otherwise care about

it. In contrast to the resource-utility approach, the

notion of relationship implies past experience or history

with the site as well as personal or group connectivity

or identification with the place.

As managers, if we think of our traditional tasks of

inventorying as efforts to identify and map landscape

meanings, the place perspective argues for a wider

conception of meaning. Resource maps, in effect,

describe how certain kinds of meaning are spatially distributed. Natural resource management has successfully mapped certain tangible forms of meaning (e.g.,

commodity and amenity uses). We have inventory

tools such as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

and the Scenery Management System to capture

some of these meanings. But as intangible (e.g., cultural, symbolic, and spiritual) meanings are recognized

within ecological/systems approaches to resource

management, the scope of resource mapping needs 

to be similarly expanded.

Although in theory, meaning can be mapped like

other spatial properties, there are at least two problems identifying and mapping intangible meanings.

First, by definition, intangible meanings leave few if

any, physical indicators, behavioral evidence, or cultural markers in the landscape to tell us they exist.

Second, places typically do not have a single set of

meanings held by everyone. Thus, for managers to

identify the full range of meanings requires not only an

expanded set of inventory techniques capable of identifying intangible meanings, but these techniques must

also be sensitive to the social or group differences in

identification with these meanings.

As a relational concept, meaning can be likened 

to stories about places rather than physical properties

of places. The job of the resource manager is to learn

these stories and to recognize when different groups 

of people have different and sometimes conflicting 

stories. Relatively passive approaches to gathering

these stories includes identifying narratives, documents, and histories about a place or consulting key

informants including long-time managers. More active

approaches include engaging the public in identifying,

constructing, and negotiating their various stories

though various forms of collaborative planning

(Farnum and Kruger, n.d.) or civic science (Kruger 

and Shannon 2000). 

Place-based Planning

“Knowledge of places having high value to humans as 

well as an understanding of the significant meanings

and images that places have to individuals within a

community should allow planners, managers, and decisionmakers to [develop management guidelines] that

will maintain the salient characteristics of those places”

(Galiano and Loeffler 1999: 9). This is the goal of

place-based planning. Place-based planning is a grassroots movement founded on the belief that understanding the identity, meanings, and images of places will

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

85
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

help design management actions and predict the

effects of management alternatives on the people who

use and care about a place. There are many methods,

orientations, experiences, and levels of complexity of

processes. Most place-based planning activities are

participatory and collaborative, although not always.

Managers and scientists are recognizing the

importance of understanding the attachments people

have to places that are special to them and are

designing ways to incorporate this knowledge into

resource planning and management. This is important

because people create “bonds with a locale based on

a sense of place that involves sentiments extending

beyond the use value of the land” (Eisenhauer et al.

2000: 438). More attention is being focused on the role

of place and how it influences people’s recreation and

tourism choices and the acceptability of resource management decisions, for example. Researchers and

managers are designing ways to map local knowledge

and meanings of places and other social and cultural

information. Place-based planning recognizes planning

as a social process with cultural, social, economic, and

political components.

An essential idea behind place-based planning is

that caring about places is important and different from

caring about resources. There is a difference between

valuing a resource (or even what some might call a

type of place such as wilderness) and valuing a place

that might contain that resource or has a certain classification (e.g., wilderness). To value the wilderness

resource or the collection of national parks is to value

an ideal. To value the class of places that possess

wilderness qualities is similarly to value certain fungible

qualities – qualities that can be found in multiple locations with one substituting for another. But to value

Yellowstone National Park or the Bob Marshall

Wilderness is to value the one and only instance.

Place-based planning brings to bear the meanings,

values, and attachments associated with that specific

piece of ground, in addition to any meaning it might

have as a kind of place or container of a resource.

Traditional forest planning was relatively disinterested

in the forest as a place; it was mostly structured to 

recognize and assign meaning and value to its fungible

resource properties.

Place-based planning is an opportunity to do the

following:

• Empower community members and build 

community.

• Engage the community in inventory activities.

• Build relationships and trust; regain credibility.

• Engage in mutual learning.

• Explain policies and rationale.

• Raise awareness of and mitigate conflict.

• Plan holistically.

• Incorporate a broader range of meanings into 

planning.

Although there are multiple approaches, placebased planning includes mapping, sometimes by staff

and sometimes collectively with the community. It also

often involves a visioning process. Place-based planning is “an effort to create a more equitable, democratic way of defining, expressing, and valuing places”

(Cheng et al. 2003: 101). It is seen as a way to build

relationships and share power. A “one-size-fits-all” template does not work because the process recognizes

the uniqueness of each landscape and situation.

Research has focused on shared meanings and

using place-based approaches to achieve common

ground, but there can be multiple and conflicting

meanings and many senses of place for the same

place. Knowledge of the politics of place can help

managers understand natural resource conflict and

better evaluate potential effectiveness of decisionmaking processes (Cheng et al. 2003). Understanding

contested meanings of place is important for managers

because sense of place and place meanings are often

connected to attitudes and expectations about appropriate and inappropriate management or use. Paying

86
attention to both shared and contested meanings may

lead to more productive dialog.

Research Needs

Tools, processes, and conceptual frameworks are 

needed that allow managers to access, assess, inventory, and monitor sociocultural meanings of places 

and incorporate socially relevant meanings into social

inquiry and planning processes. These new tools

would supplement current approaches, accommodating participation by diverse interests and inclusion and

integration of a variety of types of knowledge. They

would provide a venue for expressing and negotiating

meanings. Managers are leading the way in exploring

a variety of processes, activities, and forums to access

meanings people hold for places. We lack an understanding of place-based processes. What processes

work in what situations and why?

Planning and managing public lands requires

understanding what it is about the lands that people

value and care about. The following are two of the

questions that have not received adequate attention:

How can managers consider place attachment and

place meanings when making management decisions

and when conducting large scale planning efforts for

an entire system of places such as a national forest,

national or metropolitan park? What processes work 

at different geographic scales?

Additional research is also needed to further

understanding of place attachment, factors that influence attachments, and how attachments influence 

attitudes toward land management and participation in

planning processes. Understanding the connections

between quality of life, sense of place, place attachment, and satisfaction would also help managers cope

with the high levels of human migration to high amenity

areas near public lands including forests, parks, and

other protected areas.

References

Agnew, J.A.; Duncan, J.S. 1989. Introduction. In: 

Agnew, J.A.; Duncan, J.S., eds. The power of

place. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Bengston, D.N. 1994. Changing forest values and 

ecosystem management. Society and Natural

Resources. 7: 515-533.

Brandenburg, A.M.; Carroll, M.S. 1995. Your place 

or mine? The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society

and Natural Resources. 8: 381-398.

Brunson, M.W.; Kruger, L.E.; Tyler, C.B.; Schroeder,

S., tech. eds. 1996. Defining social acceptability in

ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 142 p.

Cheng, A.S.; Kruger, L.E.; Daniels, S.E. 2003.

“Place” as an integrating concept in natural

resource politics: propositions for a social science

research agenda. Society and Natural Resources.

16: 87-104. 

Eisenhauer, B.W.; Krannich, R.S.; Blahna, D.J. 

2000. Attachments to special places on public

lands: an analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society and

Natural Resources. 13: 421-441.

Entrikin, J.N. 1991. The betweenness of place: 

towards a geography of modernity. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Farnum, J.; Hall, T.; Kruger, L.E. 2005. Sense of 

place in natural resource recreation and tourism:

an evaluation and assessment of research findings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-660. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 59 p.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

87
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Farnum, J., Kruger, L.E., eds [In press]. Place-based 

planning: innovations and applications from five

western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Galliano, S.J.; Loeffler, G.M. 1999. Place attachments: how people define ecosystems. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-462. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 31 p.

Greider, T.; Garkovich, L. 1994. Landscapes: the 

social construction of nature and the environment.

Rural Sociology. 59(1): 1-24.

Kemmis, D. 1990. Community and the politics of 

place. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Krannich, R.S.; Carroll, M.S.; Daniels, S.E. Walker,

G.B. 1994. Incorporating social assessment and

public involvement processes into ecosystembased resource management: Applications to the

East Side Ecosystem Management Project. Walla

Walla, WA: Eastside Ecosystem Management

Project. 88 p.

Kruger, L.E.; Hall, T.; Stiefel, M.C., eds. [In press]. 

Understanding concepts of place as applied in

recreation research and management. Manuscript

on file with L. E. Kruger. 

Kruger, L.E.; Shannon, M.A. 2000. Getting to know 

ourselves and our places through participatory

civic social assessment. Society and Natural

Resources. 13: 461-478.

Orr, D.W. 1992. Ecological literacy. Albany, NY: 

University of New York Press.

Petrich, C.H. 1984. EIA scoping for aesthetics: hindsight from the Green County nuclear power plant

EIS. In: Hart, S.L.; Enk, G.A.; Horrick, W.F., eds.

Improving impact assessment: increasing the relevance and utilization of scientific and technical

information. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Pred, A. 1984. Place as historically contingent 

process: structuration and the time-geography of

becoming places. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers. 74(2): 279-297.

Sagoff, M. 1992a. Has nature a good of its own? In: 

Costanza, R.; Norton, B.; Haskell, B.D. Ecosystem

health: new goals for environmental management.

Washington DC: Island Press.

Sagoff, M. 1992b. Settling of America or the concept 

of place in environmental ethics. Journal of Energy,

Natural Resources & Environmental Law.

12(2): 349-418.

Wilkinson, C.F. 1992. The eagle bird: mapping a new 

west. New York: Vintage Books.

Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E. 1996. Environmental 

meaning and ecosystem management: perspectives from environmental psychology and human

geography. Society and Natural Resources. 

9(5): 507-521.

Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E. 1999. Environmental 

psychology: mapping landscape meanings for

ecosystem management. In: Cordell, H.K.;

Bergstrom, J.C., eds. Integrating social sciences

and ecosystem management: Human dimensions

in assessment, policy and management.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Press.

88
Monitoring recreation use helps forest managers check

assumptions, measures progress toward management

goals, and can assist in management decisions. The

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides baseline visitor information including visitor

demographics, satisfaction, origin, activity participation,

spending, visit duration, and other trip characteristics.

NVUM data are gathered by trained interviewers

directly from the visitors exiting the national forest.

Data collected are valid at the forest, regional, and

national level. Visitors are interviewed throughout the

year; therefore data include activities during all seasons. Forests conduct NVUM monitoring every 4 to 5

years. The scale of NVUM is forest level, aggregating

data to the regional and national level. Following are

some highlights from the first round of data collection.

Detailed reports for each national forest and grassland

in the country can be found at www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum. Economic analysis reports are

also available at www.prr.msu.edu/mgm2/econ. 

During the first round of NVUM recreation monitoring from January 2000 through September 2003, many

long-held management assumptions were confirmed

and some were corrected. Visitor use is at least half of

what managers had been reporting. Traditionally the

Pacific Northwest (PNW) and Pacific Southwest (PSW)

regions reported the highest use. NVUM results show

that the Rocky Mountain Region and Southern Region

have the highest use, with the PSW and PNW regions

are a bit less (fig. 1). Downhill skiing greatly influenced

the number of national forest visits, accounting for over

half of all national forest use in the Rocky Mountain

Region. There is little racial diversity among visitors to

national forests, even when measured on forests near

larger, more diverse urban populations. Developed overnight use in national forest campgrounds accounted for

only about 12% of national forest visits; dispersed

recreation use accounted for almost half of all national

forest visits.

Seven market segment shares for each national

forest were developed by using visitor origin information (Stynes and White 2005). The main market segments were local, nonlocals, and those whose primary

reason for their trip was not recreation. The local and

nonlocals categories were then further divided into day

use, overnight use on the national forest, and overnight use off of the national forest. Details for each

national forest and summary information can be found

at the web sites mentioned earlier. Table 1 shows how

different the market share can be between forests.

This information is extremely useful to local tourism

providers and the forest recreation planners as they

estimate the value of national forest recreation visits.

Nonlocal visitors spending the night in private lodging

off the national forest spend more money in the local

community than local day visitors. 

National forest visitors were asked to rate their 

satisfaction with a variety of facilities and services in

89

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Recreation Monitoring

Susan M. Kocis 1

1 Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, 1407 South Harrison Road, Suite 220, East Lansing, MI 48823. Email: skocis@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

developed sites, dispersed forest and grassland areas,

and in congressionally designated wilderness. These

ratings are available for individual national forests as

well as aggregate ratings by region and nationally.

About 78% of visitors rated their satisfaction with all

recreation sites and areas as good or very good (fig.

2). Ratings varied somewhat by forest, thus helping

managers identify areas for improvement. 

NVUM data can also be used in conjunction with

other recreation information such as the National

Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) 

to identify the activity market area. The NSRE showed

that in the Colorado outdoor recreation market there

were 5.3 million annual days of downhill skiing, 2.5 million of hunting, and 59.2 million nature center visits

(table 2). NVUM data show that on the White River

National Forest in Colorado there were about 3.9 million annual days of downhill skiing and about 200,000

days each of hunting and visiting nature centers. It can

be deducted (somewhat roughly) that the White River

90

Table 1—National forest visitor market shares

Chippewa NF Huron-Manistee NF

Percentage of market

Nonlocal day 5 19

Nonlocal overnight on forest 17 5

Nonlocal overnight off forest 2 46

Local day 50 22

Local overnight on forest 3 2

Local overnight off forest 4 5

Not primary recreation visit 1 1

Figure 1—Number of visits to national forests per Forest Service Region.
National Forest provides about 73% of the market

share for downhill skiing in Colorado but plays an

insignificant role in providing hunting and nature center

visits.

Quality Control and Assurance

NVUM continually works on improving the methodology, survey instruments, training, and analysis used

in the program. The extensive interviewer training program includes videos, handbooks, and workbooks. 

An interviewer certification process is currently under

consideration. A “secret shopper” program and field

inspections are used to monitor the quality of the data

and adherence of interviewers to sampling protocols.

Secret shoppers are volunteers who are trained in the

basic field procedures, then sent to various interview

locations to pose as the general public and be interviewed. The shoppers then report back to the NVUM

field manager about their experience. This program

alone has led to many changes in both the training and

the survey instruments. 

Once interview forms are received at the data processing center, additional quality control checks are

used to ensure all information scanned is as complete

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

91

Table 2—Market share of selected activities on the White River National Forest

NSRE annual days NVUM annual days

Activity participation participation Market share 

Million Million Percent

Downhill skiing 5.3 3.9 73.0 

Hunting 2.5 .2 7.0 

Visiting nature centers 59.2 .2 0.3

Figure 2—Visitor satisfaction ratings of good or very good by type of site or area on the

national forests.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

and accurate as possible. Additional statistical tests

are performed to identify any “unreasonable” data.

Once the data are cleaned, additional statistical tests

are performed. The final set of data is then analyzed

using the SAS® 2 analysis system to provide forests,

regions, and the national office with detailed visitor 

use information.

Future Research Needs 

Many aspects of the NVUM process need additional 

research. These include the following major sampling

issues.

Urban Interface Issues

Many homes are now located adjacent to national 

forest lands. Homeowners and guests access the forest and grassland through nontraditional access

points, making their use very difficult to capture. In

some areas such as Missoula, Montana, areas of

Colorado, Tuscan and Phoenix, Arizona, many areas 

in southern California, and other urban areas this use

may be significant and may not currently be included 

in NVUM estimates. 

Nonresponse Bias

Many visitors reported visiting their local national 

forests 20 or more times per year. This may lead to

“trap shy” behavior. Visitors may stop for an NVUM

interview once, maybe even twice, but are unlikely to

stop on their 20th visit. This may lead to some bias in

the data reported.

Sampling Along High Speed Roads 

A variation on the nonresponse bias, sampling along 

high speed roads tends to have a low interview

response rate. Sometimes these roads are the only

major access points to the national forest, yet provide

unsafe and unproductive survey locations. 

Traffic Counter Reliability 

Two types of traffic counters are used in the NVUM 

sample protocols. The reliability of these counters

varies by temperature, road surface, interviewer ability,

vehicle speed, and other factors. These factors need

further study, and correction factors may need to be

developed for specific conditions.

Winter Sampling

Interviews occur whenever recreation use on the 

forest occurs, including very cold, snowy winter days.

Both the interviewer and the visitor may find it difficult

to participate in a 15 minute interview under adverse

conditions. Yet, obtaining winter visitor use information

is critical to many forests. How can the NVUM sampling methodology be improved to yield higher interviewer rates in winter?

Nonsample Year Visitor Use Estimates

National forests participate in the NVUM process only 

once every 5 years. Forests may desire more current

visitor use information. Some types of double sampling

techniques need to be developed that could predict

non NVUM sample year use. 

References

Styne, D.J.; White, E.M. 2005. Spending profiles of 

national forest visitors, NVUM four year report.

East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

92

2 The use of trade or firm name in this publication are for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture of any product or service.
Resource managers in Region 6 of the U.S. Forest

Service have identified a need to better understand the

customers who currently visit or may potentially visit

the recreation areas within the Region’s national forests.

Over the past 6 years, the primary sources of data for

this monitoring effort have been the National Visitor

Use Monitoring (NVUM) study and the Region 6 Fee

Demonstration and Northwest Forest Pass monitoring

programs. 

By using experts in natural resource management,

Region 6 resource managers have gained substantial

knowledge and a consistent product over an extended

period of time. The region has been able to use NVUM

and Fee Demo program dollars as a platform to leverage many smaller studies over the past 4 years—with

little or no additional cost for the original project

incurred by the government. These spin-off studies

have provided forest and district resource managers

with an extremely cost-effective method of using the

best science available in making resource decisions. 

Data collected for both the NVUM and Recreation

Fee studies were linked from the outset of this monitoring effort by cooperating universities around the

country. The cooperating universities (West Virginia

University, Penn State, Oregon State, and the University

of Florida) have been involved in the NVUM process in

Region 6 since the outset of this nationally mandated

monitoring project in 1999. In addition, research monitoring assistance has been rendered from the U.S.

Forest Service Southern Research Station, co-located

with the University of Georgia, in Athens, Gerogia, and

the Southwest Research Station, located in Riverside,

California. This partnership has enabled investigators

from the universities and the federal government to

merge the data and further examine trends and issues

that would not be readily identifiable to the region. 

The relationship that has grown between the 

various federal and university cooperators and the

resource managers of Region 6 epitomizes a model

land-grant university/agency relationship. A land-grant

college or university is an institution that has been designated by its state legislature or Congress to receive

the benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The

original mission of these institutions, as set forth in the

first Morrill Act, was to teach agriculture, military tactics, and the mechanic arts as well as classical studies

so that members of the working classes could obtain a

liberal, practical education. There is now at least one

land-grant institution in every state and territory of the

United States, as well as the District of Columbia.

Working closely with key Forest Service resource

managers, the primary investigators have been able to

93

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Relationship Monitoring: Benefits of Developing 

a Relationship Between the U.S. Forest Service

and a Consortium of Universities

Robert Burns1, Alan Graefe2, and Charles Frayer3

1 Assistant Professor, Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Resources Program, Division of Forestry, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 

26505. Email: Robert.Burns@mail.wvu.edu

2 Associate Professor, Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management, Penn State University, 201 Mateer Building, University Park, PA 16802. 

Email: gyu@psu.edu

3 Data Coordinator, Region 6, USDA Forest Service, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-3440. Email: cfrayer@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

provide invaluable information to Region 6 and forestlevel resource managers. This information has been

used in management plans and as supporting information in environmental impact statements in locations

such as Waldo Lake and Diamond Lake, Oregon. 

Simultaneously, over 30 students have had the

opportunity to work on a Region 6 forest at the district

level in support of the NVUM and Fee Demo monitoring programs. As a result, students have obtained

valuable field experience while providing quality work

for the NVUM and Fee Demo monitoring programs.

Over the past 4 years, several students have used the

region’s data collection efforts to write their doctoral

dissertations or master’s theses. Many of the undergraduate students have used the NVUM monitoring

process to complete required internships. In addition,

Forest Service researchers, combined with the primary

investigators and their students, have presented the

findings of Region 6 studies at conferences across the

United States and abroad. As a result, the region’s

94

Table 1—Value-added studies in Region 6 stemming from the National Visitor Use and Monitoring 

study and fee-related programs

NVUM-related monitoring studies

• Examination of Urban-Forest Interface Issues: Seattle WA (2005)

• Winter Use at Diamond Lake Recreation Area (2004)

• Recreation at Diamond Lake: An examination of user characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes between 

2001—2003 (2004)

• Recreation at Waldo Lake: An examination of user characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes (2004)

• The role national forests in central Oregon: Results of four focus group interviews (2004)

• Recreationists on the Deschutes National Forest: user characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes of 

Lavalands National Volcanic Monument (2003) 

• Ochoco National Forest recreation survey results (2003) 

• Recreationists on the Willamette National Forest: user characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes of the 

Santiam Pass recreation areas (2002) 

• Recreationists on the Umpqua National Forest: a survey of user characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes 

(2002) 

• User characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes of Diamond Lake and South Umpqua River corridor users, 

Umpqua National Forest (2002) 

• Recreationists on the Siuslaw National Forest: crowding and conflict at the Oregon Dunes National 

Recreation Area (2002) 

• Recreationists on the Umpqua National Forest: National Visitor Use Monitoring results (2002) 

• Recreationists on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest: a survey of user characteristics, behaviors, and 

attitudes (2002) 

• Recreationists in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area: National Visitor Use Monitoring results 

(2001)

Fee-related monitoring studies

• Evaluation of Pacific Northwest Recreation Fee Program Sites (2004)

• Region 6 Golden Passport benefits focus group analysis: Spring 2003 (2003)

• Evaluation of the Pacific Northwest recreation fee program: Portland metropolitan area survey (2003)

• Region 6 recreation comment card analysis: February 2003 (2003) 

• An examination of the Pacific Northwest Region recreation fee program (2002) 

• Region 6 employee survey on the Pacific Northwest Region recreation fee program (2002) 

• Evaluation of the Pacific Northwest Region recreation fee exchange program (2002) 
name is known at the forefront of outdoor recreation

monitoring in the nation, which in turn demonstrates

the commitment of Region 6 managers to use the best

science available to make resource decisions. 

Region 6 resource managers have made use of

the cooperators’ expertise to conduct “value-added”

studies at several Region 6 national forests over the

past 6 years (see table 1). Value-added studies are

investigations that are incorporated with or enhance

the basic NVUM or fee-related projects. They address

topics of concern to local managers by using additional

questions or sampling at designated locations. These

studies provide quick feedback to managers and can

be conducted very cost effectively when added to the

basic infrastructure and funding provided by the NVUM

initiative. The value-added studies have been mutually

beneficial to both the university cooperators and

Region 6 resource managers: students have had opportunities to learn in a field environment and resource

managers have received unbiased field reports that

use the best science available. The data collected in

these monitoring efforts have been invaluable to

resource managers at the region, forest, and district

levels.

An example of a recent value-added study was a

detailed examination of the forest-urban interface in

Region 6. This study examined the critical link between

residents of the Seattle metropolitan areas and the

“urban forest” that is within an easy driving distance.

The primary investigators examined the role of race/

ethnicity, income, and disability on use preferences

and patterns. Another recent effort examined the use

patterns of winter visitors near Diamond Lake, Oregon.

This study built on a series of monitoring efforts at

Diamond Lake and focused on understanding the use

patterns and potential conflicts between motorized and

nonmotorized recreationists in both developed and 

dispersed recreation areas during the 2004-2005 

winter recreation season. 

The recreation fee program also has allowed the

cooperators to collect data that are more relevant at

the regional level. The data have focused on constraints to visiting national forests, opinions about the

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

95

Figure 1—Triangulation approach to recreation monitoring.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

management of the Forest Service fee program, opinions about the best methods of communicating the

successes of the fee program, and the impacts of fees

on nontraditional users, such as racial and ethnic

minorities and people in low-income categories.

Methods

This monitoring effort has included on-site surveys, 

focus group interviews, and telephone surveys. One of

the frequent criticisms about recreation research is that

often only existing recreationists are queried about

their perceptions of the management of a recreation

area. Through the use of a triangulation method (fig.

1), we have been able to understand the perceptions

of not only existing users, but also potential users and

even those who may have stopped recreating on

Region 6 national forests for some reason.

Conclusion

The partnership between the universities and the 

Forest Service in this monitoring effort has provided a

significant benefit to all parties involved in the process.

Region 6 resource managers have gained a substantial amount of information from valid and reliable data

collection methods and use it on a regular basis in

decisionmaking. Concurrently, many students have

been able to collect and analyze data, and then use it

in partial fulfillment of their academic requirements. 

Working closely with key resource managers, the

primary investigators have been able to provide information to regional and forest-level resource managers.

This information has been used in management plans,

as supporting information in environmental impact

statements, and is being modeled for future decisionmaking processes. 

96
97

Theme 2: Recreation Planning and Monitoring

Synthesis of Workshop Discussions

Serving diverse and growing numbers of visitors,

while being aware that future needs and demands

may not be the same as current ones, makes effective

planning a necessity for agency success and relevance. Some challenges identified during this session

included:

• Getting recreation acknowledged as a key issue

in forest planning.

• Reconciling recreation demands with the needs of

endangered species, communities, and conflicting

uses.

• Balancing local politics with national politics.

Place-based planning is one way to capture 

what is important to people. Several challenges associated with it were discussed:

• Managing for multiple senses of places. 

• Evolving values. For

example, newcomers 

may form different place

attachments than those

held by long-time residents. 

• Determining who is

“local”.

Legislation has created 

a role for the public in 

resource planning, but 

this brings its own set of obstacles. One of which is

turnover among working group participants. Some

pointers were given to enhance public input and make

working groups an effective part of the planning

process:

• Set a time line.

• Have a neutral facilitator select the group.

• Identify overlapping interests.

• Leave a paper trail.

• Create an observer role for the public with time 

for comments.

• Have maps available (printed copies and on the

Web) of the area under consideration.

Decision frame works and other planning 

tools were also discussed. A valuable tool was 

described as one that it is easily taught, applied, 

portable, and can 

document decisions. 

A common refrain 

was the need to 

make existing 

knowledge more 

available and to 

translate specific 

findings into broad 

applications. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Theme 2: Recreation Planning and Monitoring

Synthesis of Workshop Discussions

USDA

Natural Resoures

Conservation

Service

Printed maps are useful aids to involve public working groups

in resource planning.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Theme 3: 

Recreation 

Management

Gary Paull, USDAForest Service
This page is intentionally left blank.
Thank you for inviting me to speak today. Bringing

recreation managers and social scientists together to

address mutual needs and chart a future course is a

great idea and long overdue. 

As a scientist at a land grant university, my primary

research goal has been making social science relevant

for land management and policy. Most of my research

has been with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), but I have also worked with the

Park Service and several state agencies. In research

discussions with recreation managers, I often hear

them say, “We don’t get the research we need!” And a

common lament I hear from agency scientists is, “Why

don’t they use our research?” Now that I have you all

in one room, I can give you my take on the issue: I

think you are both right, and hopefully this workshop

will be a step toward bridging the gap.

Managers and Research

First, I will address the managers’ perspective. Chief 

Bosworth recently called “unmanaged recreation” one

of the four great threats to forest health (Bosworth

2003). He was referring primarily to motorized uses 

but also dispersed uses in general. No offense to the

Chief, but this is not exactly news. When I first moved

to Utah in 1990, Dave Baumgartner, our local District

Ranger, told me that roads, OHV use, and dispersed

camping were the main problems facing the Logan

Ranger District and most national forests in the West.

So it has been an issue for many years, and although

there is a huge literature and excellent textbooks on

wilderness and scenery management, there are many

fewer publications related to the management of dispersed recreation. Dispersed activities affect more

acres, have more social and ecological effects, and are

more complex to understand and manage than wilderness use, yet there is less research—a lot less

research. The managers have an excellent point. 

From the scientists’ perspective, I also agree that

existing research is underutilized. Studies have identified some reasons for this: managers’ lack of social

science training, less emphasis on the social aspects

of management compared to physical resources, and

social science data may not be as directly relevant 

for management as biophysical data. It takes time to

review and synthesize research results, and some

managers feel this takes away from the job of managing resources. I also believe that managers want a

level of specificity or direct application of research findings that is not possible with general social science

research. As a result, recreation research may be

viewed as complicating what appear to be straight forward land management issues. This attitude is paradoxical, however, because managers often complain

that “people problems” are their primary barriers. And 

it seems Chief Bosworth agrees.

101

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Introduction: Recreation Management

Dale J. Blahna1

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildlife Fire Sciences Lab, 

400 N 34th St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103. Email: dblahna@fs.fed.us. A the time of this workshop Blahna was an associate 

professor at Utah State University.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

So barriers exist between recreation research 

and management. Research programs do not always

address critical management problems, and existing

data are not always used by managers. To address

this gap, the recreation management theme for this

workshop poses four important questions: (1) What are

the barriers to achieving management objectives? (2)

Which management strategies are the most effective?

(3) How can those strategies be implemented? (4)

What is the role of research? First, I will give my perspective on the first three questions. The needs I discuss may seem self-evident to some, but to many

managers they may appear impractical, impossible, 

or simply idealistic. Thus, I will also present two case

studies that illustrate how the needs were met in

applied situations. Finally, I briefly will discuss the specific workshop topics that address the recreation management theme, and I will close with future research

needs. 

Barriers to Achieving Management 

Objectives

The main barrier to achieving recreation management objectives is often the lack of objectives, or

objectives that are so “broad or vague,” they are useless for guiding management decisions (Borrie et al.

1998, McCool and Lime 2001: 377, Haas 2003). I’m

sorry if this sounds flippant, but when managers ask 

us to do visitor-use or attitude surveys, there are usually no objectives to help design the study or recommendations, and in most forest plans I have reviewed

through the years, recreation objectives are missing 

or vague and not very useful for decisionmaking.

This does not have to be the case. The Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), for example, can be used

as a basis for developing objectives, but it is rarely

used that way (Manning 1999, Stankey 1999). ROS

has been used to identify objectives for California’s

water-based state parks (Aukerman et al. 2004) and

wildlife viewing opportunities for Alaska’s Kodiak Island

National Wildlife Refuge (Allen and Collins 2002). But

in most Forest Service and BLM applications, ROS

was simply used to inventory areas, and the ROS

inventories rarely influenced management decisions

(Stankey 1999). 

For example, the landscape architect for the Dixie

National Forest recently completed the ROS mapping

for the second round of forest planning. He also did

the ROS for the first round of planning, and although

there had been a variety of ROS classifications in the

1980s, this year he found that roads now crisscross

the entire forest and that “all ROS distinctions have

been lost” (Mollineaux 2004). Which begs the question:

Was that the recreation management objective? What

was the reason for mapping recreation opportunities in

1986? Was it to encourage management activities to

reduce the “spectrum” of opportunities? 

Other managers tell me the Dixie is not alone, 

and in fact, it may be typical. I believe there has been

a widespread “loss” of primitive and semi-primitive

opportunities and unroaded acres on national forests

since the mid 1980s. If so, that would be strong evidence that ROS inventory maps and recreation objectives had little or no influence on forest management

decisions.

I realize that most of this is based on anecdotal

evidence, which begs another question: Where is the

research? We have forest type and range condition

inventories for every forest and region in the United

States—why not recreation? Why do we not know

what change in recreation opportunities has occurred

in the last 30 years? How about studies of the way

ROS and other recreation management tools have

been used in forest decisionmaking? In workshops and

seminars, recreation managers often complain about

the lack of consideration for recreation values in management team meetings, especially when recreation

appears to conflict with wildlife or traditional extractive

activities. Agency manager surveys could easily tap

102
questions related to the existence and role of recreation management objectives. 

The lack of objectives, or the disconnect between

objectives and forest decisionmaking, may explain 

why “unmanaged recreation” is now one of the four

major threats to forest health. Although roads were

built for resource extraction or range development,

they became key aspects of the recreation infrastructure, yet funding and administrative authority for roads

stayed in Engineering. Roads were built without welldesigned objectives to guide future uses, impacts, and

management. Then people used the roads. Now use 

of the roads is a problem, and the Forest Service and

BLM are implementing difficult processes for designating road systems. Given the loss of semi-primitive

recreation settings, this can also be viewed as trying to

reinstate some of the recreation opportunity diversity

that was lost because either recreation objectives did

not exist or were ignored by line officers. And ironically,

recreation access was used to justify building many of

the roads. 

The problem of road proliferation and need for

recreation objectives are inextricably linked—you

should not designate a road system without explicit

recreation objectives in place first, otherwise decisions

are arbitrary. Why did it happen in the first place?

Again, I’ve not seen research on the topic, but managers tell us that recreation programs have less funding, staff, and political clout than timber, grazing,

wildlife, and fire. These are basic structural problems

that I fear administrators will not address; it is likely

they will focus on proximate issues (existing roads

and OHV drivers) and ignore the ultimate causes of

the problem: a lack of recreation objectives and necessary staff, funding, and decision impact to meet the

objectives. 

The conceptual basis for ROS meets the criteria

for setting management objectives: it is science-based,

interdisciplinary, mapable, and provides variables for

indicators and standards, but more guidance and

research are needed to use ROS for developing objectives. In particular, recreation management objectives

should (1) integrate resource use and protection goals;

(2) incorporate ecosystem management decisionmaking criteria (i.e., decisions should be ecologically

sustainable, socially acceptable, and economically 

feasible); (3) take a regional perspective of existing and

potential recreation opportunities; (4) identify indicators

and standards of experience and resource quality; and

(5) provide indicators for monitoring and adaptive management. 

Which Management Strategies Are Most 

Effective?

There are many different management tools: use zoning, information and education, site and facility design

and hardening, site closure or use limits, partnerships,

informal social control, and law enforcement, to name

a few. What worked in one area may not work in

another, and it may even exacerbate the problem in

yet another. The effectiveness of specific strategies

depends totally on the issue, situation, and management objectives. Visitor education, for example, may

reduce use levels in rattlesnake or grizzly bear habitat,

but similar information may increase impacts in endangered plant or small mammal habitat, as curious visitors look for rare species. 

So to answer the question above, no specific

recreation management strategy is the most effective;

or conversely, any of them could be most effective,

depending on the situation. I am concerned that

attempts to prioritize management tools in the abstract

can lead to overuse and misuse of certain strategies. 

A thorough problem analysis and pilot testing is needed

to evaluate effectiveness of different strategies, and

even doing a thorough analysis is meaningless if management objectives are unclear or nonexistent. 

My favorite example of an overused, and often

misused, tool is recreation carrying capacity (RCC).

Over the years, analysts have identified problems with

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

103
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

both the underlying conceptual

assumptions and the scientific

basis for RCC (Borrie et al. 1998,

McCool 2001, McCool and Lime

2001). Despite these cautions,

interest in setting visitor capacities seems to be increasing. I 

get about a call a month from a 

manager who wants help identifying visitor capacities. I believe

this is fueled by some research

analysts who still describe RCC

as a planning “framework”

(Manning 1999, Manning and

Lime 2000) rather than a 

specific management tool that 

should emerge at the end of a 

planning process. To address 

the criticisms in the literature, 

some of the same analysts argue that broader planning frame-works, like Limits of Acceptable Change

(LAC) and Visitor Experience and Resource Protection

(VERP), should be used to set RCC, not realizing this

is committing the same error: putting the management

tool cart before the planning horse. Other analysts

point to the RCC criticisms and argue that using empirically driven planning frameworks is impossible, so

management judgments be used to set visitor capacities (Haas 2003). This approach, taken by the Federal

Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public

Lands (2003), commits exactly the same error; intended or not, these treatments reify one visitor management tool over all others. 

So what’s the problem? Besides being just one of

many management tools, and dependent on just one

of many potential indicators of quality (number of visitors), capacities are applied most often in high-use settings. This may actually increase both the ecological

and social impacts of recreation when capacities are

reached and use limits kick in, especially if visitors are

displaced from high- to low-use areas (Blahna and

Reiter 2001, McCool and Cole 2001). The relation

between use levels and impacts is curvilinear (fig. 1);

most impacts in high-use areas have already occurred,

and the incremental impact of additional visitors is very

low, whereas low-use areas are more sensitive to

impacts (Hammit and Cole 1999, McCool and Lime

2001). Studies Doug Reiter and I conducted in Utah

suggest a similar relationship exists for crowding

(Blahna and Reiter 2001, Reiter and Blahna 2001).

Visitors in low-use areas are more interested in experiencing solitude and sensitive to crowding at relatively

low-use levels, compared to visitors in high-use areas. 

This suggests several RCC paradoxes: when

viewed in a regional context, use limits may exacerbate impacts, homogenize available experiences, and

often make more sense in low-use, relatively pristine

areas (Blahna and Reiter 2001, Borrie et al. 1998,

McCool and Cole 2001). Additionally, spending time

and political capital trying to set visitor capacities may

distract managers from applying more effective management tools like site design and hardening, visitor

education, and others.

104

Figure 1—The general relationship between amount of use and loss of vegetation 

cover for (a) a fragile vegetation type and (b) a more resistant type. (Source: D.N. Cole)
Although misuse of RCC and use limitation is

rarely documented, the BLM’s South Fork of the Snake

River in Idaho is an example. The South Fork is a blue

ribbon trout fishing stream that is also popular for boating and camping. In response to increasing use levels

and “crowding” complaints, the river manager funded

an RCC study for a 30-mile segment of river in 1991.

By 2000, impacts at several campsites indicated capacity had been reached, and the plan required several

areas to be closed for rehabilitation. This concerned

Monica Zimmerman, the new river manager, because

she suspected campers would simply move to other

sites, including areas that are more sensitive to use.

And if BLM closed all sites on the segment, boaters

would probably shift to less heavily used stretches

lower on the South Fork or on the Henry’s Fork, the

next closest river segment with similar opportunities.

As fate would have it, Monica also managed the

Henry’s Fork. 

Monica was also concerned about crowding, so

she asked us to conduct a survey to investigate crowding and displacement. We found camper perceptions

of crowding to be low, and what was interpreted as

crowding on the river was not due to use numbers, but

conflicts over prime fishing spots (Reiter et al. 2002).

As Monica predicted, over 90% of the campers said

they would camp even if their sites were closed, and

most said they would simply shift to other sites on the

segment or go to the Henry’s Fork. This demonstrates

the RCC paradox: use limitations and ecological

restoration policies would probably displace use and

increase impacts regionally and have little effect on

crowding.2 Instead of closing sites, we recommended

limiting the expansion of existing campsites by improving site design and signage. 

So why are managers and analysts calling for visitor capacities? Steve McCool calls RCC a “seductive

tool”; it seems so obvious that it becomes the default,

and without regional analyses and explicit objectives,

potential counterintuitive effects are not obvious. I also

believe the emphasis on visitor numbers reflects a biocentric bias; high-use areas are defined as “problems”

rather than “opportunities” to provide preferred experiences, constrain impacts, and protect surrounding

landscapes from shifting use. These all strike me as

symptoms of a discipline that is still in its infancy; one

that has not had the research or administrative attention needed to evaluate management effectiveness

that is on a par with the level of both benefits and

impacts resulting from recreation use. 

So if we cannot rank management tool effectiveness in the abstract, how should we go about selecting

strategies? After clear objectives are in place, my

advice is (1) identify key management issues or problems, (2) evaluate all possible strategies systematically

for the extent that each tool helps address specific

problems and meet management objectives, (3) evaluate the regional implications of each strategy, (4) select

a few indicators for evaluating effectiveness, ( 5) monitor outcomes. I know this sounds like a standard planning model and to a certain extent it is, but the

selection of management tools is driven strategically

by objectives and issues rather than a predetermined

focus on tools or outcomes. The framing of such questions and processes is an important area for future

research. 

How Can We Implement and Fund 

Recreation Management?

Implementation and funding are linked; you can be 

aware of the most effective management strategies

and it will not matter a whit if there is no funding. So

the simplest answer to this question is that the agency

must fund recreation programs at levels commensurate with the Chief’s other three challenges. Perhaps

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

105

2 Ironically, there is also a threatened plant, the Ute lady’s tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), along the river that prefers disturbed sites

and is growing on the edged of campsites that were slated for closure. The restoration strategy might have negativly impacted the plant.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

some day, but the immediate need is more complicated. 

One way of funding and implementing recreation

management is through the integrated use of science

and collaboration. I know these sound unrelated, but I

believe linking them is the wave of the future. The key

dilemma is matching appropriate data to the management problem or issue. The data should be interdisciplinary, but not highly detailed, fine-filter data that are

difficult and costly to collect. This is true of all management areas, however, not just recreation. 

A key difficulty in ecosystem management is matching the data and analysis scales to the management

needs or problems (Driver et al. 1996, Kaufmann et al.

1994). Agency planning, environmental documents,

and ecoregional assessments often contain detailed

data that have little impact on decisions or adaptive

management (Lee 1993, Stankey et al. 2003). Data

should be issue specific, coarse-filter data, and

detailed data should address specific management

issues and objectives (Driver et al. 1996, Kaufmann et

al. 1994). This approach not only allows for more efficient use of time and data, it also makes monitoring

and adaptive management manageable. 

A similar perspective is provided by ecologist

Michael Rosenzweig. In his book Win-Win Ecology:

How the Earth’s Species Can Survive in the Midst of

Human Enterprise, Rosenzweig (2003: 1) argues that

rather than concentrating on “restoration ecology” or

“reservation ecology,” which are very data driven and

politically difficult perspectives, we should take a more

problem-oriented approach. He advocates for greater

emphasis on “reconciliation ecology,” which “seeks

environmentally sound ways for us to continue to use

the land for our own benefit.” This approach also

reflects Aldo Leopold’s “human-harmony-with-nature”

philosophy where management focuses on human use

and “ecosystem health” rather than on restoring native

ecological conditions (Callicott 2000: 11-12). 

In this view, adaptive management is not evaluated against an ideal and often arbitrary set of conditions

(e.g., pre-Columbian vegetation), but rather the extent

to which a specific situation or problem is improved

based on an ecological health goal, which may be

more attainable, measurable, and politically palatable.

While all three approaches have a role in different situations (e.g., reservation ecology in wilderness areas),

a problem-oriented, reconciliation ecology model

seems more defensible, monitorable, and scientifically

practical in most management situations. 

So what does this have to do with collaboration?

Working collaboratively with key stakeholders can have

benefits for science, implementation, adaptive management, and funding. Stakeholders can help provide

and collect data, raise funds, and even help implement

management actions. But this requires a different conception of collaboration. We often think of collaboration

as being a time-bound activity done to support a specific plan or decision. However, collaborative stewardship suggests the need for ongoing partnerships to

help implement, enforce, and even fund management

strategies that have been jointly identified as important.

This is a collaborative management leadership style

rather than a public involvement activity.

Steps Forward

So my pre-workshop analysis indicates managers and 

scientists need to address the following:

1. Develop recreation management objectives

that seek to integrate resource protection, uses,

and opportunities, and that have a real impact 

on forest decisions.

2. Conduct systematic analyses of management 

tools for the extent to which they address 

problems and management objectives in a 

regional context, rather than focusing on a 

particular management approach, and monitor 

the tools for effectiveness and changes 

needed for adaptive management purposes.

106
3. Use science, stakeholder collaboration, and 

adaptive management to implement and fund

recreation management decisions that address

specific problems or issues. 

In the abstract, there are probably two responses 

to these suggestions. The first, probably held most

strongly by researchers in the audience, is that the list is

old news. The other response, probably more common

among managers, is sure they sound good, but they

are too broad, idealistic, and impractical. Some of you

may hold both opinions. 

I agree the suggestions are old news, but do not

agree they are idealistic or impractical. The primary

barrier is a lack of administrative support for recreation

programs. Not only is it possible to meet all of the recommendations, I believe it is the essence of ecosystem management (see, Clark et al. 1999, Cortner and

Moote 1999; Gilmore 1997). To illustrate, I will present

two examples of Forest Service reconciliation-based

recreation management: a landscape-level, threatened

plant protection program on the Wasatch Cache

National Forest and a watershed-level motorized travel

plan on the Dixie National Forest.

Case 1: Maguire’s Primrose Protection 

in Logan Canyon

Maguire’s primrose (Primula maguirei) is a threatened 

plant found only in northern Utah’s Logan Canyon. The

primrose grows primarily on rock faces and ledges, so

wildlife officials and environmentalists asked the Forest

Service to close Logan Canyon to rock climbing in the

early 1990s. Predictably, local climbers opposed the

action. Rather than forcing a trade-off between ecological protection and human use, Mead Hargis, a staff

member on the Logan Ranger District, invited rock

climbing groups to participate in a collaborative effort

to create a plan they could support. The objective of

the plan was to protect the primrose and to allow rock

climbing to continue. 

Forest staff agreed to close only the climbing

routes where the primrose was found, but because

there had never been a complete survey of the primrose, rock climbers agreed to map the plant’s locations

on all routes. In the years following the plan, the climbers designed and printed an informational brochure

that identified closed routes, explained the climbing

policy, and discussed low impact climbing techniques.

Climbers also helped enforce the policy by talking to

violators themselves and reporting violations to district

staff. The climbers also agreed to help remap primrose

locations after 5 years to monitor the policy. If monitoring found the primrose on other routes, those routes

would be closed.

This case shows it is possible meet social and

ecological protection goals if they are included in management objectives. Several management strategies

were combined to meet the goals, and the strategies

were based on empirical data and collaborative stewardship. Simply closing the canyon to climbing would

meet only the plant protection goal. Likewise, setting 

a visitor capacity would make no sense. Although use

limitations were used, they were minor and had nothing to do with the number of climbers. Through zoning,

education, and enforcement, the primrose would be

protected even if many more climbers used the

canyon. 

This project also met the ideal ecosystem management decision criteria: it was ecologically sustainable,

socially acceptable, and, with rock climbers helping

collect data and enforce the closures, it was economically feasible. Monitoring and adaptive management

were also part of the initial decision, but unfortunately,

they were never implemented. Several years after the

plan was developed, Mead Hargis3 left the ranger district, and current staff members say they do not have

the budget or staff to continue the collaborative effort.

Later, differences of opinion arose and new climbers

moved to the area, and there has been a breakdown 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

107

3 Mead Hargis is currently the wilderness manager on the Kamas Ranger District.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

in both the implementation of the agreement and level

of trust between the agency and the climbers.

Case 2: A Tale of Two Road Plans

Two different road designation plans in the same 

region of southern Utah illustrate differing orientations

toward recreation objectives, management strategies,

and implementation and funding. In 2002, the Grand

Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GS) approved

a road plan that was very contentious and has never

been implemented. The plan called for closing 1,200

miles of roads, and it has fueled angry meetings and

confrontations, editorial wars, and lawsuits. Local officials have torn out BLM road closure signs, and posted

their own road signs, essentially trying to “designate”

their own road system. The “resolution” of this conflict

appears to be years away. While this may sound like

the inevitable result of an inherently contentious, county rights/road ownership issue, it was not inevitable; it

was the product of a top-down process driven by traditional conceptions of public involvement rather than

collaboration. 

In contrast, the Dixie National Forest, just to the

north of the Grand Staircase, developed a motorized

travel plan for the two most heavily used watersheds

on the Cedar City Ranger District: the Duck Creek and

Swains Creek watersheds (Carter and Meier 2005).

While the plan required closing 60% of the road miles,

it was approved in fall 2003 with no appeals or lawsuits, and the first phase was implemented in summer

2004. The planning region included many of the same

officials and stakeholders as the GS, but the Dixie plan

followed a more scientific and collaborative process,

and some of the staunchest opponents of the GS plan

became active proponents of the Dixie plan. One

Garfield County Commissioner who was ripping up

signs on the GS, even helped implement the Dixie plan

by writing letters and contacting OHV leaders and asking for their support. 

So what was different? For one, the scale of the

Dixie’s plan was smaller and more manageable, and

some of the final decisions were made by officials in

Washington DC (Thomas 2006). But the public involvement processes and the implicit objective of the travel

plans also differed dramatically. Based on very broad

public input obtained during the GS management planning process and a very spotty road analysis, the GS

staff identified the road system internally and then tried

to implement it by closing routes. This was perceived

as a top-down road closure plan, and intended or not,

a closure plan implies ecological protection is the sole

objective. The objective of the Dixie plan was to designate a system that “addressed concerns for access,

recreation experiences, wildlife, and resource protection” (Carter and Meier 2005). Both recreational and

ecological protection objectives explicitly drove the

plan and its implementation.

Dixie staff also made better use of data. They

mapped all road segments, collected recreation use

and impact data for each segment, and used a special

places data set as a starting point for understanding

important visitor destinations. District staff developed 

a detailed but user-friendly map of existing routes,

including social and spur trails, which they used as

both a public involvement and educational tool. The

map was used in public meetings to identify key destinations, route preferences, and confusing and redundant routes. Forest staff also analyzed wildlife and trail

and stream erosion issues and collected targeted data

to help prioritize the environmental problems.

Collaboration also played a key role as stakeholders

reviewed the science results, and on-the-ground field

trips allowed stakeholders to understand current conditions and make useful recommendations for closures,

rerouting, and rehabilitation alternatives (Carter and

Meier 2005, Thomas 2006). 

Rather than simply closing roads, the Dixie project used a variety of implementation strategies. New

maps, route identification and mileage signs, new road

segments, and road rehabilitation work were implemented first, so people could see the tangible benefits

of the road system. Barriers and closure signs went in

108
last, after visitors were used to the idea of a designated system and saw that the maps and signs made

access and ATV use easier and more enjoyable. By

January 2005, over 500 signs had been installed, and

none had been removed or defaced (Carter and Meier

2005). 

Collaboration also played a role in implementation. District staff worked with county officials and ATV

groups to generate over $100,000 in grants to implement the project (Carter and Meier 2005). So while

the BLM has lost years fighting against county commissioners and local and state officials, Dixie staff

worked with some of the same people to design, fund,

and implement a motorized travel plan that is already

protecting resources and providing improved recreational opportunities. The Dixie project was expanded

to link to the broader state ATV system for the entire

Markagaunt Plateau, and now Dixie staff are attempting to build on the existing collaboration to expand the

motorized plan to the entire forest.

The Dixie project was a truly collaborative effort.

Collaboration requires “joint decisionmaking” (Gray

1989), and although the Forest Service had decision

authority, they also provided several iterations of public

participation, map revisions, and strategy meetings

that showed how stakeholder input was used. These

steps provided evidence of informal power sharing—

showing people their input had real impact on decisions—without turning over formal decision authority.

This requires trust, and trust requires tangible evidence

that it is deserved. Designating a road system that protects resources and enhances recreation can provide

that evidence—designing a road system that just closes roads may not, no matter how well it is designed or

defended. 

Application to Ecosystem Management 

and Recreation Research

Both cases meet the seemingly elusive ecosystem 

management criteria that decisions should be ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable, and economically feasible (c.f., Gilmore 1997). It is not necessary to

focus management primarily on ecological protection

to enhance ecological sustainability. And because

recreation management can meet social and environmental objectives simultaneously, the cases provide

evidence that the “dual mandate” of use and protection

is not as contradictory as we have been taught; in fact,

it is possible to meet both goals. 

The cases also meet new forest planning regulations that call for increased emphasis on science, collaboration, and adaptive management (Clark et al.

1999, Stankey et al. 2003). In short, it is possible to

meet seemingly idealistic planning and management

goals. But to do so requires explicit recreation objectives, addressing specific management problems, and

using multiple management tools and ongoing collaboration. 

Science is both part of the answer and part of the

problem of ecosystem management. Ecological and

social science often focus too narrowly (e.g., a species

is impacted, so we must limit use) or too broadly (e.g.,

generate all data and information about a landscape)

in an attempt to meet ecological restoration objectives.

The cases I describe did not attempt to collect all relevant social and biophysical data and then focus on biological diversity or restoration of ecological conditions.

Yet both cases improved environmental conditions and

met social goals by using relatively simple data and

decision processes that were appropriate for the problem, and they demonstrate Rosenzweig’s (2003) problem-oriented, reconciliation ecology approach. 

Workshop Theme Topics

So how does this relate to the rest of the workshop? 

Workshop topics cover a variety of traditionally important management concerns such as use conflicts, 

special areas management, tourism and community

development, financing, and communication. Given the

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

109
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Chief’s emphasis on recreation threats and new

national road policies, there are a couple of missing

topics that need to be added to our arsenal of management and research issues, such as road designation and implementation strategies and dispersed and

other “unmanaged” uses. 

Other workshop themes also include topics 

important for recreation management, such as special

places, recreation preferences and preference diversity, public involvement, decisionmaking frameworks,

experiences and benefits, to name a few. Some of

these topics are in the “planning and monitoring”

theme area and some are in “understanding forest 

visitors.” But the cases I presented indicate all of these

topics apply to management to some extent. In fact, it

is hard for me to identify “management” specific topics.

Instead, it is important to look at the relation of all

these topics to specific issues; that is, how to apply

principles from all these topics to management problems with different environmental and administrative

situations, stakeholders, and regional settings. The

case studies show that planning principles, such as

public involvement, morph into management through

collaborative stewardship, which morph into joint funding, monitoring, and adaptive management. That is

why, besides the standard site specific visitor behavior

and preference research, we also need research on

topics that are not considered traditional recreation

topics, like decision processes, appropriate science,

and approaches for integrating these topics in management situations.

Which brings us back to the questions for this 

session: (1) What are the barriers to achieving management objectives? (2) Which management strategies

are the most effective? (3) And how can these strategies be implemented? (4) What is the role of research?

These are all critical questions, but perhaps most critical is to study how to combine principles from all four

in applied management decisions. 

Future Research Needs

I have already touched on a number of important 

research topics, such as motorized travel management, “unmanaged” activities, and changes in recreation opportunity classifications. A broader topic for

research is identifying methods to help managers and

analysts frame visitor management issues. Currently,

we tend to focus on simplistic questions such as, “How

many is too many?” We need methods to help identify

objectives and appropriate conditions and evaluate

and select management and implementation tools in

general. We also need tools for identifying the most

relevant empirical information to aid recreation decisionmaking and monitor management effects. In short,

we need research on framing issues and management

approaches to provide long-term sustainability and

diversity of opportunities in a regional context. 

The analysis also indicates that research needs to

address questions of integration, like blending use and

protection objectives, integrating social and biophysical

science, and collaborating at all stages of planning,

management, and monitoring. In short, we need more

research on what Stankey and McCool (2004) call

“integrative decisionmaking processes.” Some specific

questions include the following: How and at what level

do recreation decisions get made? What constitutes

collaboration or “joint decisionmaking”? How do we

merge collaboration and science in practice? And, how

do we link objectives, strategies, monitoring, and adaptive management? An important goal is to extract general guidelines from positive field cases. 

Finally, recreation research and management are

both primarily focused on site-specific applications.

Ecosystem management, recreation diversity, and the

evaluation of management effectiveness all require

larger scale analyses (Grumbine 1994, McCool and

Cole 2001, Stankey 1999). Looking at recreation in a

regional context presents a different perspective than

site-level analysis, but there are few guidelines for

110
doing regional analysis or the interagency collaboration

necessary for doing regional management. 

I recognize this is a strange list of future research

topics, and certainly different from traditional research

focusing on topics like visitor experiences and preferences, special places, or crowding. This research still

needs to be done, but the list reflects the broader need

for interdisciplinary research that has direct management and policy implications. And finally, most of the

questions identified above have been with us for

decades, so perhaps the real question for future

research is why are we not providing better answers 

to important, longstanding questions? But that is a

topic for another paper. 

References

Allen, S.; Collins, A. 2002. An assessment of bear 

viewing opportunities relevant to management of

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Anchorage, AK:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Division of Refuges. 

Aukerman, R.; Haas, G.; Lovejoy, V.; Welch, D. 

2004. Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

(WROS) Users’ Guidebook. Lakewood, CO: U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,

Office of Program and Policy Services, Denver

Federal Center.

Blahna, D.J.; Reiter, D.R. 2001. Whitewater boaters 

in Utah: Implications for wild river planning.

International Journal of Wilderness. 7(1): 39-43.

Borrie, W.T.; McCool, S.F.; Stankey, G.H. 1998. 

Protected area planning principles and strategies.

In: Lindberg, K.; Wood, M.E.; Engeldrum, D., eds.

Ecotourism: a guide for planners and managers.

Vol. 2. North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism

Society. Chapter 6.

Bosworth, D. 2003. We need a new national debate. 

Speech to the Izaak Walton League, 81st Annual

Convention, Pierre, SD, July 17.

Callicott, J. B. 2000. Aldo Leopold and the foundations of ecosystem management. Journal of

Forestry. 98(5): 5-13.

Carter B.; Meier, N. 2005. Dixie National Forest 

collaboration in motorized travel planning and

management. Presentation at the Environment

and Society Department Seminar, Utah State

University, Logan, UT, February 5. 

Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H.; Kruger, L.E. 1999. From 

new perspectives to ecosystem management: a

social science perspective on forest management.

In: Aley, J.; Burch, W.R.; Conover, B.; Field. D.,

eds. ecosystem management: adaptive strategies

for natural resources organizations in the 21st

century. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Frances.

Chapter 5.

Cortner, H.J.; Moote, M.A. 1999. The politics of 

ecosystem management. Washington, DC: Island

Press. 

Driver, B.L.; Manning, C.J.; Peterson, G.L. 1996. 

Toward better integration of the social and biophysical components of ecosystems management.

In: Ewert, A., ed. Natural resource management:

the human dimension. Boulder, CO: Westveiw

Press. Chapter 7.

Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity 

on Public Lands. 2003. Visitor capacity on public

lands and waters: Making better decisions.

National Parks and Recreation Association.

www.nrpa.org. (May 22, 2006).

Gilmore, D.W. 1997. Ecosystem management—a 

needs driven, resource-use philosophy. The

Forestry Chronicle. 73(5): 560-564.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: finding common ground 

for multi-party problems. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey Bass. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

111
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology. 8(1): 27-38.

Haas, G. 2003. Visitor capacity: A dilemma of perspective. Parks and Recreation. March: 66-74.

Hammit, W.E.; Cole, D.N. 1998. Wilderness management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kaufmann, M.R.;Graham, R.T.; Boyce, D.A., Jr., 

Moir, W.H.; Perry, L.; Reynolds, R.T.; Bassett,

R.L.; Mehlhop, P.; Edminster, C.B.; Block, W.M.;

Corn, P.S. 1994. An ecological basis for ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-246. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station.

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating 

science and politics for the environment.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Manning, R.E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: 

search and research for satisfaction. 2nd ed.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Manning, R.E.; Lime D.W. 2000. Defining and managing the quality of wilderness recreation experiences. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F.; Borrie, W.T.;

O’Laughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a

time of change conference. Proceedings. RMRSP-15-Vol-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station: 13-52.

McCool, S.F. 2001. Limiting recreational use in wilderness: research issues and management challenges in appraising their effectiveness. In:

Freimund, W.A.; Cole, D.N., comps. Visitor use

density and wilderness experience. Proceedings.

RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station: 49-55.

McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N. 2001. Thinking and acting 

regionally: toward better decisions about appropriate conditions, standards, and restrictions on

recreation use. The George Wright Forum. 

18(3): 85-98.

McCool, S.F.; Lime, D.W. 2001. Tourism carrying 

capacity: tempting fantasy or useful reality?

Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 9(5): 372-387.

Mollineaux, M. 2004. Personal communication. Forest

Landscape Architect. Dixie National Forest, P.O.

Box 580, Cedar City, UT 84721-0580.

Reiter, D.K.; Blahna, D.J. 2001. Utah River study 

results report: recreation use, value, and experience of boaters on rivers managed by the BLM in

Utah. Vol. 1. Executive Summary. Res. Rep. IORTPR2001-7. Logan, UT: Utah State University,

Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism.

Reiter D.R.; Blahna, D.J.; Zimmerman, M. 2002. A

summary report: 2001 South Fork of the Snake

River boaters and campers visitor survey. Res.

Rep. IORT-PR2002-3. Logan, UT: Utah State

University, Institute for Outdoor Recreation and

Tourism.

Rosenzweig, M.L. 2003. Win-win ecology: how the 

Earth’s species can survive in the midst of human

enterprise. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stankey, G.H. 1999. The Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum and the Limits of Acceptable Change

planning systems: a review of experiences and

lessons. In: Aley, J.; Burch, W.R.; Conover, B.,

Field. D., eds. Ecosystem management: adaptive

strategies for natural resources organizations in

the 21st century. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and

Frances. Chapter 12.

112
Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C.; Shindler, 

B.; Sturtevant, V.; Clark, R.N.; Philpot, C. 2003.

Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest

Plan: rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry.

101(1): 40-46. 

Stankey, G.H.; McCool, S.F. 2004. Social science 

and natural resources management: an assessment of advances. In: Manfredo, M.; Vaske, J.J.;

Bruyere, B.L.; Field, D.R.; Brown, P.J., eds.

Society and natural resources: a summary of

knowledge prepared for the 10th international 

symposium on society and resource management.

Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho. Chapter 3.

Thomas, M. 2006. Building sustainable recreation 

planning decisions on federal lands: the role of

authentic public participation in southern Utah.

Unpublished M.S. thesis, Utah State University,

Department of Enviroment and Society.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

113
This page is intentionally left blank.
Introduction

The Forest Service is responsible for managing recreation in different types of special areas and situations.

Some of these special areas are congressionally designated, for example, as national monuments or wild

and scenic rivers. Other areas are administratively

designated as geological areas, botanical areas, and

so on. The Forest Service also is responsible for managing heritage resources and for contributing to better

care of forests in urban areas. 

Wilderness areas are the most abundant of these

special areas. More than 400 congressionally-designated wilderness areas are located on the national

forests. Wilderness areas are located in every region

and on virtually every national forest. They cover about

35 million acres, which constitutes about 18% of all

Forest Service lands. Wilderness management, consequently, is a significant responsibility for many Forest

Service managers, and recreation management is a

substantial portion of the wilderness management job.

Wilderness Recreation Management 

Is Unique

Wilderness anchors one end of the recreational opportunity spectrum (Driver et al. 1987). That end is characterized by natural, primitive, largely undisturbed conditions, as opposed to urban, developed, highly altered

conditions. Access is generally difficult and there are

few comforts and conveniences. There are outstanding

opportunities for solitude. As with most Forest Service

recreation management, objectives stress protection of

the natural environment. Recreation use is managed

such that it does not excessively disturb plants, animals, soil, or water. Objectives also stress the protection of opportunities for visitor experiences. What is

unique in wilderness is the extreme degree of protection that is desired. Impacts on both biophysical

115

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Managing Recreation in Wilderness: Special 

Areas and Specialized Research

David N. Cole1

1 Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. Email: dcole@fs.fed.us

Abstract

About one-fifth of Forest Service administered lands consist of congressionally-designated wilderness. 

Recreation management on these lands is unique, stressing high levels of protection for both the land and visitor

experiences, as well as minimal development and regimentation. Management is challenged by both the difficulty of this task and minimal investment of resources. Research has made significant contributions to wilderness

recreation management. It has developed frameworks for planning and working through management issues.

It has informed the development of management objectives, provided protocols for monitoring, and identified

cost-effective management techniques. Progress would most likely have been much slower if the Forest Service

had not devoted a small portion of its research program exclusively to wilderness management.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

resources and the visitor experience are to be minimal.

Moreover, wilderness management objectives also

stress lack of development and regimentation. 

Managing recreation is unusually difficult in wilderness. By definition, wilderness areas are remote and

access is difficult. Travel is by foot or on horseback,

and many wildernesses are large, requiring days or

even weeks to traverse. Standards for protection are

stringent and many potentially effective management

strategies, such as facility development and regimentation, are considered to be inappropriate or a last resort.

Finally, financial and personnel resources allocated 

to wilderness are minimal. Although 18% of Forest

Service lands are designated as wilderness, only about

1% of the Forest Service budget is allocated to wilderness management. Only about 0.5% of the Forest

Service research budget goes to wilderness research. 

Progress in Wilderness Recreation 

Research

Substantial progress has been made in developing 

scientific knowledge that can contribute to improved

recreation management in wilderness. A major contribution of research has been development of frameworks for wilderness planning and management. The

Limits of Acceptable Change process, developed by

Forest Service research in the early 1980s (McCool

and Cole 1997, Stankey et al. 1985) has been highly

influential. It clarifies the three primary tasks of management: (1) establishing management objectives, (2)

monitoring conditions in relation to objectives, and (3)

identifying effective strategies for maintaining or restoring conditions (where conditions are out of compliance

with objectives). In this paper, I will use these three

tasks to organize a highly selective overview of what

we have learned and prominent additional information

needs. I will also divide the material among the two 

primary protective goals of management: minimizing

biophysical impacts and providing quality visitor experiences.

Developing Good Management Objectives

Recreation researchers have conducted numerous 

studies of both wilderness visitors and the impacts

those visitors cause. This work provides a strong foundation for developing management objectives. It provides the basic descriptive information needed to

inform the decisions that managers must make. We

know a lot about wilderness visitors—who they are and

where they come from. We know much about why they

come, what they do, their evaluations of their experience, and their opinions about management options—

both those currently in place and alternatives that

might be implemented. Much of this research is nicely

summarized in several sources (Hendee and Dawson

2002, Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987, Manning 1999). 

A recent compilation of baseline recreation studies

contains a wilderness-by-wilderness list of all the individual studies of wilderness visitors that have been

conducted (Cole and Wright 2003). 

One consistent finding of these studies is that 

most visitors are highly satisfied with their experience,

regardless of the character of that experience. Trip

quality ratings are typically just as high for trips where

many other people are encountered as they are for

trips where few other people are encountered (Hendee

and Dawson 2002, Manning 1999). Moreover, little

research has been conducted that is capable of

describing in much detail what people actually experience and the dimensionality of their experiences during a wilderness visit. Consequently, managers can

feel good about the fact that their visitors positively

evaluate management, but they cannot be certain that

visitors are obtaining the kinds of experiences that are

most appropriate in wilderness. Recent research is

attempting to address this knowledge gap, often using

qualitative techniques and a focus on individual visitors. This approach differs from (and complements) the

quantitative, survey-based approach that characterized

earlier research (Borrie and Birzell 2001) and that is

still productively going on.

116
The impacts of recreation use in wilderness also

have been widely studied. Most of the focus has been

on trails and campsites where we have learned much

about the extreme degree of alteration to vegetation

and soil that occurs on highly-used sites. Ecosystems

that are repetitively used for recreation experience

intense alteration compositionally, structurally, and

functionally. We have learned that small quantities of

use can cause substantial impacts in short periods of

time. This knowledge is critically important to developing management objectives that are attainable rather

than unreasonably idealistic. Much of this work is nicely synthesized in several sources (Buckley 2004,

Hammitt and Cole 1998, Hendee and Dawson 2002).

As with basic visitor research, there are some substantial knowledge gaps regarding recreation impacts.

Basic descriptive knowledge about biophysical impacts

is particularly inadequate regarding (1) impacts to soil

biological attributes and (2) impacts on animal populations. Although we know that soils are often compacted

and deprived of organic inputs when subjected to

recreation use, we know too little about how such

changes affect soil biology and disrupt the functioning

of soil processes (Zabinski et al. 2002). Most notably,

we do not understand how those disrupted processes

can be reestablished if recreation use is removed.

Consequently, attempts to restore disturbed sites are

often unsuccessful. Hundreds of studies of recreation

impacts on animals have been conducted. But most

studies document short-term changes to individuals.

Little is known about longer term effects and effects on

populations of animals (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995).

This makes it difficult to determine the seriousness of

these impacts.

While descriptive knowledge informs the development of objectives, setting objectives is fundamentally

a prescriptive process. It requires decisions about the

way things ought to be—about how much impact is

acceptable and about the types of experiences that

ought to be available. These decisions are based more

on values than on facts, an arena where science is not

at its most powerful. However, wilderness recreation

managers, uncomfortable with making subjective decisions about objectives, increasingly seek a scientific

basis for such decisions. Some scientists argue that

their research (for example, the normative research of

Shelby et al. 1996) can provide an empirical foundation for prescriptive decisions. Others disagree

(Stewart and Cole 2003), arguing that progress in setting good management objectives is limited more by

the willingness to make hard decisions than by lack 

of information.

Monitoring

Once objectives are established, it is important to 

monitor conditions to assess trends and determine if

objectives have been met. The fundamental descriptive

studies mentioned above provide the basis for many

useful monitoring protocols. Varied techniques are

available for collecting different types of information 

on visitors and their recreational visits (Watson et al.

2000) and new innovations are constantly being developed (Cessford and Muhar 2004). Similarly, efficient

and effective protocols have been developed for monitoring the conditions of trails and campsites (Cole

1989, Marion and Leung 2001). Not surprisingly, effective protocols are less developed for those phenomena

still not very well described. Where objectives have

been established for impacts on animal populations or

for visitor experiences, effective protocols are still

needed.

Computer simulation models of recreation use

have substantial potential as monitoring tools. In

wilderness, managers are often concerned with levels

of interaction between visitors in the interior of large

wilderness areas. Attempting to assess levels of interaction across a large wilderness at various times is

prohibitively expensive. However, building on wilderness simulation work begun in the 1970s (Schechter

and Lucas 1978, van Wagtendonk 2003), new computer software is being applied to this task. This

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

117
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

approach may make it possible to monitor hard-tomeasure parameters (such as encounters between

groups in the interior of a wilderness) based on easyto-collect data such as number of people entering at

trailheads (Cole and Daniels 2004). These models also

have potential for other purposes. For example, the

spatially and temporally explicit nature of the data

could be very helpful for assessing human-wildlife

interactions, which are most problematic at specific

times and places. They also can be used predictively

to identify management actions that are likely to be

effective.

Identifying Effective Management 

Strategies

Progress in identifying effective management strategies has advanced in at least two ways. First, research

has identified and described the functional relationships between various characteristics of use, environment, and management that largely determine the

resulting impact. For example, substantial work has

identified a curvilinear relationship between amount of

use and most biophysical impact (Hammitt and Cole

1998). At low levels of use, even small differences in

amount of use can result in substantial differences in

amount of impact. Conversely, at high levels of use,

even large differences in amount of use typically result

in minor differences in impact. This finding has profound implications for management, especially regarding the effectiveness of dispersing or concentrating use

at varied spatial scales. Other research shows that two

different vegetation types growing next to each other

can vary in durability by more than an order of magnitude (Cole and Monz 2002). If visitors could be taught

the difference between durable and fragile vegetation—and if they were able to find durable routes—use

levels could be increased many times without any

increase in impact.

Many of the same factors—use, location, management—influence the nature and magnitude of

impact on visitor experiences. Substantial research

suggests that, in wilderness, evaluations of experience

quality declines as the number of other visitors

encountered increases. The magnitude of decline in

quality is not that great, however; seeing lots of other

people is seldom enough to make a good trip a bad

one (Stewart and Cole 2001). Many studies suggest

that who is encountered and where can have more of

an effect on experience than number of encounters

(Manning 1999). Observing visitors behaving in ways

that are considered inappropriate can be particularly

troublesome. In contrast, encountering visitors perceived to be just like oneself may be enjoyable.

A second way in which research has contributed to

the development of effective management strategies is

by experimenting with management techniques or

evaluating the success of management programs.

Many examples of this type of research exist. For

example, Roggenbuck and Berrier (1981) showed that

information and education could reduce congestion at

a popular camping destination. Marion and Farrell

(2002) documented the success of a confinement

strategy in minimizing campsite impacts in the Isle

Royale Wilderness. Spildie et al. (2000) showed how

packstock damage in a high elevation lake basin could

be reduced through a program of education, behavioral

restriction, designated sites, and restoration.

Although much has been learned about the strategic options for managing wilderness recreation, there

is much more to learn about the details. For example,

we know that education is a critical management tool,

but how can visitors be persuaded to adopt recommended practices? When using bulletin boards as the

primary communication medium, Cole (1998) showed

that visitor attention to messages could be doubled

simply by asking visitors to read the messages.

Harding et al. (2000) provide a good overview of many

factors that management might manipulate in an

attempt to influence human behavior. Use limits are

often implemented with little knowledge about their

118
effectiveness, efficiency, or equity consequences

(McCool 2001).

Conclusion

In conclusion, despite a rather meager investment, 

research has contributed substantially to improved

management of wilderness recreation. Much of the

progress that has been made is because much of this

research has been conducted by scientists who specialize in wilderness research. Wilderness specialists

have unique knowledge of wilderness issues and the

implications of their research. They know better how 

to frame problems and interpret results. Research is

more efficiently focused and can be more cumulative.

This suggests that there is value in continuing to structure at least a small portion of Forest Service research

around special areas and situations for which the

Forest Service is responsible. This is particularly true

for wilderness management which constitutes such a

large portion of Forest Service responsibility.

References

Borrie, W.T.; Birzell, R.M. 2001. Approaches to 

measuring quality of the wilderness experience. 

In: Freimund, W.A.; Cole, D.N., comps. Visitor use

density and wilderness experience: proceedings.

Proc. RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station: 29-38.

Buckley, R., ed. 2004. Environmental impacts of ecotourism. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. 389 p.

Cessford, G.; Muhar, A. 2004. Monitoring options 

for visitor numbers in national parks and natural

areas. Journal for Nature Conservation. 

11: 240-250.

Cole, D.N. 1989. Wilderness campsite monitoring 

methods: a sourcebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-259.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 57 p.

Cole, D.N. 1998. Written appeals for attention to lowimpact messages on wilderness trailside bulletin

boards: experimental evaluations of effectiveness.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 

16: 65-79.

Cole, D.N.; Daniel, T.C. 2004. The science of visitor 

management in parks and protected areas: from

verbal reports to simulation models. Journal for

Nature Conservation. 11: 269-277. 

Cole, D.N.; Monz, C.A. 2002. Trampling disturbance 

of high-elevation vegetation, Wind River

Mountains, Wyoming, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, 

and Alpine Research. 34: 365-376. 

Cole, D.N.; Wright, V. 2003. Wilderness visitors and 

recreation impacts: baseline data available for

twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 52 p. 

Driver, B.; Brown, P.; Stankey, G.; Gregiore, T. 1987.

The ROS planning system: evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences. 

9: 201-212.

Hammitt, W.E.; Cole, D.N. 1998. Wildland recreation: 

ecology and management, 2nd ed. New York: John

Wiley. 361 p.

Harding, J.A.; Borrie, W.T.; Cole, D.N. 2000. Factors 

that limit compliance with low-impact recommendations. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F.; Borrie, W.T.;

O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a

time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness

visitors, experiences, and visitor management.

Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station: 198-202. 

Hendee, J.C.; Dawson, C.P. 2002. Wilderness management: stewardship and protection of resources

and values. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. 640 p. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

119
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K., eds. 1995. Wildlife and 

recreationists: coexistence through management

and research. Washington, DC: Island Press. 372 p.

Manning, R.E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: 

search and research for satisfaction, 2nd ed.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

374 p.

Marion, J.L.; Farrell, T.A. 2002. Management practices that concentrate visitor activities: camping

impact management at Isle Royale National Park,

USA. Journal of Environmental Management. 

66: 201-212.

Marion, J.L.; Leung, Y. 2001. Trail resource impacts 

and an examination of alternative assessment

techniques. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration. 19: 17-37.

McCool, S.F. 2001. Limiting recreational use in 

wilderness: research issues and management

challenges in appraising effectiveness. In:

Freimund, W.A.; Cole, D.N., comps. Visitor use

density and wilderness experience: proceedings.

Proc. RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station: 49-55.

McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N., comp. 1997. Proceedings—

limits of acceptable change and related planning

processes: progress and future directions. Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 84 p.

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Berrier, D.L. 1981. 

Communications to disperse wilderness campers.

Journal of Forestry. 79: 295-297.

Roggenbuck, J.L.; Lucas, R.C. 1987. Wilderness use 

and user characteristics: a state-of-knowledge

review. In: Lucas, R.C., comp. Proceedings—

national wilderness research conference: issues,

state-of-knowledge, future directions. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station: 204-245.

Schechter, M; Lucas, R.C. 1978. Simulation of recreational use for park and wilderness management.

Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University

Press. 220 p.

Shelby, B.; Vaske, J.; Donnelly, M. 1996. Norms, 

standards and natural resources. Leisure

Sciences. 18: 103-123.

Spildie, D.R.; Cole, D.N.; Walker, S.C. 2000. 

Effectiveness of a confinement strategy in reducing

pack stock impacts at campsites in the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. In: Cole, D.N.,

McCool, S.F.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps.

Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats,

and management. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-5.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 

199-208. 

Stankey, G.H.; Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C.; Petersen, 

M.E.; Frissell, S.S. 1985. The limits of acceptable

change (LAC) system for wilderness planning.

Res. Pap. INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station. 37 p.

Stewart, W.P.; Cole, D.N. 2001. Number of encounters and experience quality in Grand Canyon backcountry: negative and weak relationships. Journal

of Leisure Research. 33: 106-120. 

120
Stewart, W.P.; Cole, D.N. 2003. On the prescriptive 

utility of visitor survey results: a rejoinder to

Manning. Journal of Leisure Research. 

35: 119-127. 

Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 2003. The wilderness use 

simulation model—an historical perspective.

International Journal of Wilderness. 9(2): 9-13.

Watson, A.E.; Cole, D.N.; Turner, D.L.; Reynolds, 

P.S. 2000. Wilderness recreation use estimation: 

a handbook of methods and systems. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RMRS-GTR-56. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 198 p.

Zabinski, C.A.; Deluca, T.H.; Cole, D.N.; Moynahan, 

O. 2002. Restoration of highly impacted subalpine

campsites in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon.

Restoration Ecology. 10: 275-281. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

121
This page is intentionally left blank.
The term “urban forest” covers a broad range of

resources and settings located in and around cities,

suburbs, and towns. It includes urban and suburban

parks and preserves, street trees, utility and transportation corridors, backyards, cemeteries, and so on.

Since about 80%of the population of the United States

lives in urban or metropolitan areas, urban forests are

the type of forest resource with which most Americans

have the most frequent contact in their daily lives. 

The Forest Service does not directly manage these

resources in most cases, but has provided significant

support for urban forestry in the form of funding, technical assistance, and scientific research. In particular,

since the 1970s, the Forest Service has established

several research work units in different parts of the

country to study various aspects of urban forestry.

There are many reasons why urban forests 

are important, and some of these reasons involve uses

and experiences that fall within the domain of recreation. In 1978, the North Central Forest Experiment

Station began a research work unit in Chicago under

the leadership of John Dwyer, with the mission

researching how urban forests could help meet the

recreation needs of urbanites. A research unit focusing

specifically on management of urban forests for recreation was seen as necessary because existing

research on wildland recreation could not always be

directly applied in an urban context. 

There are several reasons why managing urban

forests for recreation merits special attention in the

Forest Service’s recreation research program. Many 

of these reasons were laid out in publications by John

Dwyer and others that accompanied the initiation of

Forest Service urban forestry programs in the 1970s

and 1980s (e.g., Dwyer 1982, Dwyer et al. 1983), and

have been further developed in more recent publications (e.g., Dwyer 1995, Dwyer and Stewart 1995). The

discussion below draws on many of the ideas in these

publications, as well as on the many scientific studies

carried out by urban forestry researchers since the

1970s.

Differences Between Urban and 

Non-Urban Forests and Recreation

The urban forest environment is different in important 

ways from the environments where most other Forest

Service recreation research has been done. In general,

urban forest environments are more heavily influenced

by humans than is the typical rural or backcountry

recreation setting. Human-made structures and artifacts are more prevalent, management is more intensive, and the configuration of vegetation is more likely

to be the result of human design. Urban forest environments also are generally more heavily impacted by

pollution, heavy use, and anti-social behavior. At the

landscape scale, urban forests are often highly fragmented, consisting of small patches and corridors of

123

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Managing Special Areas: 

Urban Forest Recreation

Herbert Schroeder1

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108. 

Email: hschroeder@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

vegetation or even isolated trees embedded in a matrix

of urban development. 

The ways in which urban forests are used for

recreation also differs significantly from the traditional

image of a forest recreation site. In urban forests,

there is a greater intermingling of people and forest

resources. People do not just visit the urban forest;

they live in it. Tree-lined residential streets and yards

immediately outside people’s homes, businesses, and

workplaces are important sites for many urban recreation activities. 

The publics who use urban forests for recreation

are typically more diverse than those encountered in

more rural areas, and include some groups of people,

such as racial/ethnic minorities and new immigrants,

who rarely, if ever, visit remote wildland recreation

areas. The ways in which diverse publics use urban

forests for recreation are also distinctive. In urban

parks, short, frequent visits are the norm (Dwyer et al.

1985) rather than the extended vacation trips that are

more common in remote parks and forests. Urban 

forest recreation is also more likely to involve large

groups of people, for example picnics organized by

companies, churches, or extended families.

In urban forests, the line between “recreation” and

everyday activities and environments is less distinct

than in more remote recreation areas. The commute 

to work may double as a recreational interlude for

walking or biking along a forested route, or for scenic

enjoyment when the road or commuter rail line borders

a natural area. The workday may include brief breaks

to walk under the trees or observe birds through office

windows. This kind of ongoing, daily contact with urban

forests has multiple impacts on quality of life that go

beyond simple recreational enjoyment. For example, 

in a well-known study Roger Ulrich (1984) found that

having a window view of trees from a hospital room

helped patients recovery more quickly from surgery;

and Frances Kuo and Bill Sullivan (Kuo and Sullivan

2001a, 2001b) have found that having trees around

inner city housing projects may help reduce crime and

domestic violence. 

The management context of urban and non-urban

forest differs in important ways. Urban forest resources

are often distributed over multiple public and private

ownerships and jurisdictions, including properties

owned and managed by all levels of government, private citizens, businesses, and utility and transportation

firms. Urban land is often of high value for other uses

and is highly priced, making it challenging to acquire

new land for recreation and to protect land used for

recreation from development for other uses. Urban forest management is highly visible to a lot of people and

arouses a lot of public interest and scrutiny. The term

NIMBY (“not in my back yard”) takes on special relevance when managing trees in cities. Urban forest

management literally takes place in many people’s

backyards, as well as their front yards, neighborhood

parks and schoolyards, and so on. 

Compared to the rest of forestry, urban forestry

has often involved a greater emphasis on managing

individual trees including planting, trimming, and

removal. Recently, however, there has been increasing

recognition that urban forests also need to be viewed

and managed in their totality as ecosystems and at a

landscape scale. 

Urban forests are not just found in big cities. Small

cities, towns, and villages also have urban trees that

are important to their residents for many reasons,

including their role in settings for recreation. In many

smaller communities, the people making decisions

about managing public trees have very limited experience, knowledge, and skills relevant to caring for trees.

This is a major obstacle to sustaining the urban forest

and the benefits it provides to residents of these communities (Schroeder et al. 2003).

124
Similarities and Linkages

Despite the differences I have been pointing out, urban

forests and urban recreation are not completely different or separate from the types of settings and recreation that are found in more rural areas. There are also

many similarities and linkages between urban and nonurban forests and recreation, so it would be a mistake

to compartmentalize urban forest recreation as if it had

no relation to non-urban forests and recreation.

A wide range of settings and recreation experiences can be found in and near cities; many may

resemble more remote areas, even wilderness. Within

a short drive from home, some urbanites find pockets

of nature where they can escape from urban development and crowding and experience at least some

measure of solitude within a largely natural setting.

Urban people do not always stay within the city.

Many of them travel to and use recreation sites in

rural, primitive, and wilderness areas. Even managers

of very remote and undeveloped recreation areas are

likely to have urbanites among the visitors to their

sites.

With use levels and the diversity of users in many

non-urban recreation sites increasing, insights gained

from managing urban forest recreation areas are

becoming more and more applicable to a range of

other Forest Service recreation settings. As urban

areas expand across the landscape, they have a significant influence on many national forests and other

areas used for recreation. A growing number of 

national forests are designated as “urban national

forests.” Lessons learned by urban forest recreation

managers are helping managers of these national

forests and other exurban sites devise strategies to

deal with issues such as traffic control, regulation of

large groups and potentially disruptive activities, protection of resources from vandalism and heavy use,

maintaining safety, and serving visitors from diverse

cultures and ethnic groups (Dwyer 1989, Wendling 

et al. 1981).

Urban forest recreation sites may also provide

opportunities for natural resource agencies such as the

Forest Service to reach out to and communicate with

urban people about recreation opportunities, resource

management, and conservation on non-urban public

lands. Management of urban trees and forests is the

most direct contact that most urbanites have with

forestry and natural resource management, and it

could be used as a starting point for information and

discussion about managing resources and environments in exurban areas (Dwyer and Schroeder 1994). 

Conclusions

Urban forests are one part of the entire spectrum of 

forest environments that ranges from inner city streets

to backcountry wilderness areas. The relations among

the resources, residents, and users found in various

segments of this spectrum are complex and have farreaching implications for the provision of recreation

opportunities and other natural resource management

goals. The unique nature of urban needs, resources,

and people makes a research program directed specifically at urban forests as important and relevant today

as it was in the 1970s. At the same time, we need to

look at the broader picture to understand the links and

synergy between urban and non-urban forest management.

Over the 27 years since its inception, the mission

of the North Central Research Station work unit in

Chicago/Evanston has broadened from urban forest

recreation to include social science research on a

wider range of environments and a wider range of

resource management issues. We have maintained 

an emphasis on urban populations, however, and have

continued to do some research specifically focused 

on the management of urban forests. Embedding a

research program on urban forests within a broader

program of social science research on natural resource

management has been an effective strategy for

addressing both the differences that set urban forests

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

125
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

apart from other forest resources and the links and

similarities that connect them.

References

Dwyer, J.F. 1982. Challenges in managing urban 

forest recreation resources. In: Proceedings, 

second national urban forestry conference.

Washington, DC: American Forestry Association:

152-156.

Dwyer, J.F. 1989. Wildland management near large 

urban centers: the need for diversity. In: Lime,

D.W., ed. Proceedings, managing America’s 

enduring wilderness resource. St. Paul, MN:

Minnesota Extension Service and Minnesota

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of

Minnesota: 318-324.

Dwyer, J.F. 1995. Challenges in meeting urban 

and near-urban recreation needs with limited

resources: An overview. In: Proceedings, fourth

international outdoor recreation and tourism trends

symposium and the 1995 national recreation

resource planning conference. St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota, College of Natural

Resources and Minnesota Extension Service: 

599-602.

Dwyer, J.F.; Deneke, F.J.; Grey, G.W.; Moeller, G.H. 

1983. Urban forests: where trees and people go

together. In: The 1983 yearbook of agriculture.

Washington, DC: United States Department of

Agriculture: 498-507.

Dwyer, J.F.; Schroeder, H.W. 1994. The human 

dimensions of urban forestry. Journal of Forestry.

92(10): 12-15.

Dwyer, J.F.; Schroeder, H.W.; Buck, R.L. 1985. 

Patterns of use in an urban forest recreation area.

In: Proceedings: 1985 national outdoor recreation

trends symposium. Clemson, SC: Department of

Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management,

Clemson University: 81-89.

Dwyer, J.F.; Stewart, S.I. 1995. Restoring urban 

recreation opportunities: an overview with illustrations. In: Proceedings, fourth international outdoor

recreation and tourism trends symposium and the

1995 national recreation resource planning conference. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota,

College of Natural Resources and Minnesota

Extension Service: 606-609.

Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. 2001a. Aggression and 

violence in the inner city: impacts of environment

via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior.

33(4): 543-571.

Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. 2001b. Environment and 

crime in the inner city: does vegetation reduce

crime? Environment and Behavior. 33(3): 343-367.

Schroeder, H.W.; Green, T.L.; Howe, T.J. 2003.

Community tree programs in Illinois, U.S.: a

statewide survey and assessment. Journal of

Arboriculture. 29(4): 218-225.

Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science. 224: 

420-421.

Wendling, R.C.; Gabriel, S.J.; Dwyer, J.F.; Buck, 

R.L. 1981. Forest Preserve District of Cook

County, Illinois. Journal of Forestry. 79(9): 602-605. 

126
Introduction

In recent years, many rural communities in the 

western United States and elsewhere have experienced declines in natural resource-based sectors such

as forestry, mining, and fishing (Helvoigt et al. 2003,

Power and Barrett 2001). In search of alternative economic opportunities, many individuals, communities,

and agencies have embraced tourism and amenity 

in-migration (Kline 2001, Ritchie and Crouch 2003: 3).

Such a focus is logical because tourism, construction,

and related sectors may be relatively well suited to the

location, rural character, and labor pool characteristics

of many resource communities. For example, these

communities may be near high-quality recreation and

visual amenities but far from urban centers and primary transportation networks. Thus, communities and

their residents may have a much stronger comparative

advantage in tourism than in other sectors.

Nonetheless, there has been little systematic

analysis of tourism’s contribution to employment in

resource-dependent communities, and even less

analysis of the extent to which tourism employment

opportunities have benefited displaced resource workers. Tourism development can be constrained both by

exogenous factors, such as lack of access or attractions, and by endogenous factors, such as lack of

entrepreneurial and market skills. In addition, tourism

jobs may not be attractive to those coming from highly

paid resource jobs, even when resource jobs are no

longer available. Because of these and other factors,

displaced workers may lack the interest or ability to

enter the tourism sector.

This paper reviews tourism’s contribution to rural

economies in general, and its contribution to employment transition for displaced workers in particular.

These contributions may be complex because tourism

may provide not only direct opportunities for displaced

workers, but also direct opportunities for others in the

household, indirect and induced opportunities in other

sectors, and opportunities via tourism-induced inmigration. This assessment of tourism’s role in economic transition facilitates informed decisionmaking by

land management agencies and others involved in

tourism development. For example, if agencies support

tourism development on public lands for the benefit of

displaced workers, it is important to assess whether

such development will achieve that objective, and, if

so, in what ways (e.g., will benefits be direct or indirect?).

A secondary focus of the paper is on the interplay

between public land management and tourism development. Assuming that tourism does generate economic opportunities, what is the role of natural

resources in attracting tourists and what role can land

127

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Tourism, Rural Economic Transition, 

and Resource Management

Kreg Lindberg1 and Linda E. Kruger2

1 Associate Professor, Oregon State University – Cascades Campus, 2600 NW College Way, Bend, OR 97701. 

Email: Kreg.Lindberg@osucascades.edu

2 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A, Juneau, 

AK 99801. Email: lkruger@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

management agencies play in tourism development?

What are the positive and negative effects of such

development? A full discussion of such effects is

beyond the scope of this paper, but the issue of 

recreation competition is addressed (see Wall and

Mathieson 2005 for a review of effects generally and

Hammitt and Cole 1998 and Knight and Gutzwiller

1995 for ecological effects).

The geographic focus of this paper is the western

United States As used here, resource workers, communities, or industries refers to those historically

dependent on wood products, fishing, mining, and

other extractive uses of natural resources. Recreation

refers to outdoor recreation. Tourism refers to nonlocal

visitation, with nonlocal typically reflecting either a minimum distance traveled (e.g., 50 miles, one way) or 

an overnight stay. Many of the following employment

statistics are based on standardized industry sectors,

notably the lodging sector and the restaurant sector.

The names and numbering schemes for these sectors

changed in the transition from the Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) system to the North American

Industry Classifiation System (NAICS) system in 2001.

More importantly, (1) not all tourism employment falls

within these sectors and (2) not all employment in

these sectors reflects tourism. For example, figures for

the commonly used SIC 58 and 70 sectors do not

reflect outfitter guide employment and not all restaurant spending, and thus restaurant employment, is due

to tourism. For these and other reasons, the data

reported here should be viewed as indicative rather

than definitive.

Rural Economic Transition

Although the specific figures vary across and within 

states, there has been a general decline in the wood

products and other resource sectors in the western

United States, particularly relative to total employment.

Power and Barrett (2001) report that the wood products sector in the Mountain West lost 13,500 jobs, or

26% of the sector total, between 1978 and 1991. In

Oregon, employment in lumber and wood products

(SIC 24) declined from a high of 81,376 in 1978 to

49,046 in 2000. Conversely, the lodging and restaurant

sectors combined (SIC 58 and 70) increased from

62,328 to 129,864 in the same period, while construction (SIC 15 to 17) increased from 36,647 to 84,247.

These trends are shown in figure 1. Figure 2 shows

employment trends across illustrative western states

using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the

Current Employment Statistics survey. Although there

have been plateaus, including in 2001, in general

tourism employment has grown.

Tourism Transitions for Displaced 

Workers?

The employment data above reflect employment 

in tourism-related sectors at the state level. Like all

industries, tourism also generates economic opportunities in other sectors. As in a “timber town” where a

job at the clothing store likely is dependent on clothes

purchases by timber industry employees and their 

families, in a “tourism town” that same job might

depend on expenditures by tourism industry employees. Employment and other economic benefits can

arise not only from the direct impact of tourist spending

(e.g., jobs in a restaurant), but also from the indirect

impact of tourism sector purchases from other local

businesses (e.g., a restaurant purchasing food produced locally), and the induced impact of employee

purchases from other businesses (e.g., a restaurant

employee shopping in the local supermarket). As discussed below, tourism may also stimulate in-migration,

leading to additional purchases (e.g., from the retail

and construction sectors). Such migration may be

thought of as an induced impact of the tourism experience rather than of the tourism expenditure.

This categorization can facilitate assessment of the

extent to which displaced workers, or others in their

household, have benefited from tourism. Table 1 illustrates benefit mechanisms for workers displaced from

the wood products sector.

128
Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

129

Figure 1—Employment trends in Oregon (1976 to 2000). Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 2—Tourism employment trends in selected states (1990 to 2005). Source: U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

The extent to which displaced workers and their

households have benefited from tourism is rarely and

only partly quantified. Table 2 indicates the extent to

which there are sufficient tourism jobs in resource

dependent regions to absorb displaced workers

through direct employment. For each state listed, the

10 counties with the highest percent of wood products

(SIC 24) employees in 1980 are listed (except in

Oregon, with only 9 counties listed). This is followed 

by the percent of employment in that sector in 2000

and availability of tourism employment (NAICS 71 +

72) in 2002.

The 2002 tourism percentage is approximately

equal to the loss in wood products percentage in

Washington (15% versus 34 minus 18 equals 16%),

Oregon, and Idaho. It is noticeably higher than the loss

in Montana. This macro analysis is limited to the set of

ten counties for each state, is dependent on the sectors included in the percentages (they do not include

all sectors affected by wood products or tourism,

respectively), and does not account for nondisplaced

workers in tourism employment. It does suggest that

tourism has at least the potential to absorb some of

those displaced from the wood products sector.

County-level employment trends over time provide

a more detailed picture and highlight the inevitable

variability that exists across counties. In Deschutes

County, Oregon, the lumber and wood products sector

(SIC 24) has fluctuated but not declined dramatically in

absolute terms. Conversely, both the eating and drinking (SIC 58) and the lodging (SIC 70) sectors have

increased, with the potential to absorb displaced wood

products workers (fig. 3).

In Linn County, just west of the Cascades Range,

the wood products sector has experienced a more dramatic decline, and the tourism sectors a less dramatic

increase (fig. 4). Keeping in mind the macros level of

this analysis, tourism is therefore less able to provide

employment opportunities in Linn County than in

Deschutes County.

Turning to assessments at the individual level,

Barrett (1998) and Barrett and Power (1997, 2001)

report on their analysis of 200,000 Montana workers

during the period 1988 to 1996.3 Workers were defined

as “attached” to an industry if they completed eight

quarters (2 years) of continuous employment in that

industry alone. Three years after being attached to an

industry, only 17% had shifted to a different industry. 

130

Table 1—Pathways and illustrative jobs for displaced wood products workers and their 

households shifting to tourism-related employment

Employment due to 

Employment due to tourism expenditure tourism experience

Direct Indirect Induced Migration-induced

Displaced Sawyer turned Mill mechanic Most other jobs Logging truck driver

worker outfitter guide turned vehicle in a “tourism turned asphalt truck 

mechanic community” driver

Household Spouse working Spouse Most other jobs Spouse works in the

member in a restaurant employed by in a “tourism office of an 

farm that sells community” entrepreneurial 

to local in-migrant

restaurants

3 In their analysis, the wood (forest) products industry included SIC 811-851, 2411-2499, and 2611-2631. The tourism (travel) industry 

included SIC 4512-4581, 5541, 5812-5813, 7001-7041, and 7514-7549.
In other words, there was considerable stability for

individuals despite substantial change in the structure

of the Montana economy during this period.

Interestingly, the 17% of workers who changed

industries often changed from growing industries like

tourism: 26% of workers originally attached to the

tourism industry changed to a different industry.

Workers in industries like wood products and mining

changed less frequently than the 17% average.

Of those leaving relatively highly paid jobs in wood

products, only about a fifth moved into lower wage

industries like tourism and retail, and many of those

later moved on to higher paying jobs in other sectors.

In other words, tourism jobs served as stepping-stone

or filled a gap between jobs for many. Wood products

workers were more likely to move into construction,

with jobs in other manufacturing, transportation, government, and businesses services as the next most

likely.

Using a similar methodology, but with a less

restrictive concept of “attachment,” Helvoigt et al.

(2003) tracked 60,000 workers employed in SIC 24

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

131

Table 2—Wood products and tourism employment in timber-dependent counties

1980 2000 2002 1980 2000 2002

SIC SIC NAICS SIC SIC NAICS 

24a 24 71 + 72b 24 24 71 + 72

Percentage of county employmentc

Washington Idaho

Skamania 58 13 44 Clearwater 57 33 10

Wahkiakum 57 40 12 Benewah 56 44 4

Ferry 33 33 17 Boise 50 12 15

PendOreille 35 15 13 Boundary 42 24 12

Mason 31 14 9 Lewis 39 36 12

Klickitat 29 14 8 Gem 36 20 10

Gray’s Harbor 27 16 12 Idaho 34 17 11

Lewis 26 14 10 Adams 30 11 35

Asotin 22 9 14 Bonner 22 12 12

Okanogan 21 9 8 Lemhi 17 3 16

Average 34 18 15 Average 38 21 14

Oregon Montana

Crook 33 24 8 Mineral 25 10 16

Douglas 25 17 9 Lincoln 25 16 11

Klamath 23 11 12 Meagher 24 2 21

Grant 21 12 6 Sanders 18 8 10

Curry 21 10 19 Broadwater 16 19 10

Tillamook 19 7 15 Flathead 12 5 15

Linn 18 8 7 Lake 11 3 10

Lake 17 13 10 Ravalli 10 7 11

Wallowa 17 7 15 Missoula 10 2 13

Average 22 12 11 Powell 8 14 10

Average 16 9 13

a SIC 24 measures employment in lumber and wood products jobs.

b NAICS 71 + 72 measures employment in tourism.

c From the Covered Employment & Wage (ES-202) program and County Business Patterns. 
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

132

Figure 3—Industry change in Deschutes County, Oregon. Source: OR Employment Dept.

http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/CEP

Figure 4—Industry change in Linn County, Oregon. Source: OR Employment Dept.

http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/CEP
(lumber and wood products) in Oregon during the base

period from the fourth quarter of 1989 to the third quarter of 1991. Of these, only 25,000 (42%) were still

employed in SIC 24 as of the fourth quarter of 1998;

18,000 (30%) were employed in a different sector, and

17,000 (28%) were no longer in covered employment.

The 18,000 in new sectors worked in a range of different sectors, with services being the most common.

Preliminary analysis of similar data from Oregon

provides greater detail on the role of tourism in particular.4 Approximately 53,905 Oregon workers in covered

employment received the majority of their summer

(third quarter) 1990 income from the forestry sector. 

Of these, 14,895 (28%) still had the majority of their

income from that sector in the summer of 2000. Most

(22,345, or 42%) were no longer in Oregon covered

employment by summer 2000, while 15,446 (29%) 

had moved to sectors other than tourism or natural

resources. Only 415 (0.8%) had moved into nonforestry natural resource sectors. Several had moved

into tourism, but this transition was modest in percentage terms: 290 (0.5%) were working in the restaurant

sector and 514 (1%) working in other tourism sectors.5

These statewide longitudinal analyses of workers

are complemented by quantitative and qualitative

analyses of case study communities or regions. In their

survey of residents in eight coastal Oregon communities, Lindberg et al. (1994) found that 18% of employed

respondents had their primary job in the tourism industry. Of these, only 2% worked in the wood products

industry immediately prior to moving to the tourism

industry (an additional 2% worked in agriculture and

7% in commercial fishing). The plurality (33%) had

always worked in tourism, with others coming to

tourism from retail (14%), professional and business

services (13%), and other sectors.

In their case studies of employment transition of

wood products workers, Carroll et al. (2000) and Kusel

et al. (2000) found that most workers did not transition

to tourism—although results from such site-specific

studies are dependent on the nature of the study

regions, their level of tourism development, and the

availability of employment in nontourism sectors. Conversely, in her analysis of southeast Alaska, Cerveny

(2004) found that many workers who lost their timber

industry jobs turned to tourism for economic survival.

In former mill towns like Sitka and Ketchikan, tourism

was a key ingredient to economic survival after the

mills shut down. Commercial fishermen also turned 

to charter fishing to supplement their income amid

declines in fish prices.

These studies indicate that tourism can be an

important source of direct employment for displaced

resource workers in some locations, but in general,

few displaced workers enter the tourism industry.

Tourism may play a more important role in providing

indirect and induced employment opportunities, as well

as employment for other household members. For

example, displaced workers may work in nontourism

sectors that benefit from tourism in the region or family

members may work in tourism or nontourism sectors.

Though not focused on tourism per se, Carroll et al.

(2000:108) found that loss of displaced worker income

often was compensated, at least in part, by an

increase in the spouse’s income. It is difficult to track

the prevalence or importance of indirect and induced

benefits; regional economic impact analysis can track

inter-industry linkages, but not the extent to which indirect and induced employment is specifically filled by

displaced workers.

The likelihood of displaced workers entering

tourism employment may be influenced by several

exogenous factors, including the availability of jobs 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

133

4 This unpublished analysis is available from the first author.

5 The forestry sector is defined here as SIC 08, 24, and 2611-2631. Non-forestry natural resource sectors are SIC 01, 02, 07, 09. 

The restaurant sector is SIC 58, while other tourism is SIC 45, 5541, 70, 7514, 7922-7929, 7948, 7992-7996, 7999.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

in their original sector and in tourism, which in turn

depends on the level of tourism development in the

region.6 However, it may also be affected by endogenous factors, including occupational, place, or community attachment.

Occupational attachment, as used here, refers to

the psychological, cultural, financial, and other reasons

for resisting transition to employment in other sectors.

Place attachment entails the effective or emotional

connection a person has with a particular location that

may include a component of social bonds but emphasizes connection to the natural environment. Community attachment refers to the psychological, cultural,

and familial bonds that lead workers to resist leaving

their community to seek employment opportunities

elsewhere; this overlaps with the concept of place

attachment, but the “community” wording is used to

stress the importance of bonds to people in addition to

place. Community attachment is used here to refer to

affiliation with a specific community or region, but there

may be broader affiliation to a rural lifestyle that hinders

movement to urban areas in search of employment.

Individuals may exhibit all three types of attachment,

which, when combined with other factors (including the

type and location of available employment), would

determine employment strategies.

The role of occupational identity and corresponding occupational attachment in the wood products

sector is discussed in Lee et al. (1991), Carroll (1995),

and Carroll et al. (2000: 98). There appears to be a

distinction between loggers and sawmill workers, with

the former having strong occupational attachment and

the latter strong community attachment. Indeed, independent (gyppo) loggers often are very mobile as they

search for contract employment opportunities.

For stability and transferability of skills, one would

expect workers generally to seek re-employment in the

same industry. Moreover, loggers in particular appear

to have a strong occupational identity, one often reinforced through generations of family members working

in logging. This identity may cause resistance to

switching from the independent, outdoors, manual

labor of a sawyer to service-oriented employment in

tourism. However, loggers also may resist even apparently related work, such as employment in a sawmill

(Kusel et al. 2000: 121).

Not surprisingly, financial considerations reinforce

occupational attachment in wood products. Interviewees in the Carroll et al. (2000: 108) study asked, “What

else can I do and make as much money?” Nonetheless, research indicates that those who stayed in the

wood products industry suffered wage declines, at

least in real (inflation-adjusted) or relative (to other

workers) terms (Helvoigt et al. 2003: 44, Kusel et al.

2000).

Despite the financial and other motivations for displaced workers to seek similar employment elsewhere,

many resist doing so. In their analysis of Idaho wood

products workers, Carroll et al. (2000) found that only

2 of the 84 workers in their panel had left their home

area in search of employment within a year of being

laid off. As the authors note (2000: 103), the “attachment to place, family, and friends was so strong that

many of those interviewed would be willing to take a

lower paying job or even to change occupations in

order to remain in northern Idaho [the study region].”

Kusel et al. (2000: 129) found a similar result.

This place and community attachment often is

strong enough to overcome economic disparity and

sometimes hardship associated with staying in one’s

home community. One measure of this disparity comes

from Helvoigt et al. (2003) who found that more than

60% of those in rural southwestern and eastern regions

134

6 There may not be a clear distinction between exogenous and endogenous factors (with endogeneity referring to a factor being 

inherent in, or able to be influenced by, a community and its residents). For example, a region may have limited access or visitor 

attractions, but these hurdles may be overcome with transportation improvements and the creation of new attractions.
of Oregon who remained in covered employment7

stayed in their home region. Most of the others moved

to the urban northwest region. Those who stayed had

a 1998 median wages of $18,967, noticeably lower

than the $24,413 median wage of those who moved. It

is not known why some individuals moved and other

stayed, nor whether underlying factors might account

for both wage rates and willingness to move. However,

results are consistent with the idea that residents are

willing to forego a significant salary premium to remain

in their home communities.

These results indicate a “stickiness” in labor mobility, due to community attachment, that may hinder geographic transitions and lead to localized areas of high

un- or underemployment and resulting poverty. This

stickiness undercuts traditional theories of migration 

in response to economic decline (see Berck et al.

2003: 765 for a brief review). For example, neoclassical theory hypothesizes migration as an equilibrating

mechanism, with displaced workers seeking jobs elsewhere in response to local economic declines. The

data confirm that some workers do move, but also that

many stay, so neoclassical and other theories only partially explain worker behavior and economic change in

these contexts.

Tourism and In-migration

The previous sections focused on how tourist expenditure creates job opportunities in the tourism sector

and, indirectly, in other sectors via the spending of

tourism businesses and employees. Tourism can also

generate economic opportunities by being a catalyst

for in-migration, particularly of entrepreneurs. In-migration in general can increase activity in construction,

retail, and other sectors. In-migration of entrepreneurs

creates additional opportunities as the entrepreneurs

hire employees for their businesses.

It is difficult to distinguish the role of tourism as a

catalyst for in-migration from the role of natural amenities and other factors (including access and humanmade amenities) as a catalyst for both tourism and

in-migration. Research reinforces the intuition that

amenities do affect migration patterns (Duncombe et

al. 2003), and that tourism can expose potential

migrants to these amenities. In their survey of 420 businesses in the Greater Yellowstone region of Montana,

Snepenger et al. (1995) found that 105 (25%) were

owned by migrants who first experienced Montana 

on vacation; an additional 60 (14%) first traveled to

Montana on business. In their survey of residents on

the Oregon Coast, Lindberg et al. (1994) found that

78% of respondents agreed that “newcomers bring

skills and business opportunities that contribute to the

local economy.” In the sample of residents, 28% had

moved to their coastal community within past 5 years,

and 68% of these had visited the coast before moving

there. As illustrated in figure 5, the majority of these

respondents indicated that their tourist visit was at

least part of the reason for their decision to move to

the coast.

The above studies used individual-level reported

behavior to link tourism and in-migration. Reeder and

Brown (2005) illustrate a broader approach. They

found that nonmetropolitan “recreation” counties in the

United States experienced a 20.2% population growth

rate between 1990 and 2000, whereas other nonmetropolitan counties experienced a 6.9% rate. The

relationship between tourism and in-migration is complex, with underlying factors such as high quality

amenities and adequate transportation links potentially

explaining both phenomena. However, combined with

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

135

7 Covered employment and wages data, also referred to as ES-202 data, are based on quarterly reports from businesses to state 

employment departments. The data include nonfarm civilian wage and salary employment but do not include self-employment. The 

data reflect the number of jobs, not the number of workers. The number of jobs and workers is not equal since workers may be 

employed in multiple jobs either simultaneously or over the course of a year.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

the individual-level results from Oregon and Montana,

Reeder and Brown (2005) suggest that tourism does

contribute to in-migration and population growth in

rural areas.

Moreover, “permanent migration” is complemented

by “seasonal migration” associated with second homes.

Tourism and migration, whether permanent or seasonal, is often due at least partially to environmental

quality and recreation opportunity, thus illustrating the

importance of public lands to local amenity economies.

Indeed, respondents in the Montana business survey

noted above cited “proximity to public lands” as a more

important location value than business climate variables.

Tourism, Natural Resources, and 

Agencies

The analyses noted above indicate that tourism and 

associated in-migration does provide employment

opportunities in the western United States. Tourism

does not appear to provide substantial direct employment benefits to displaced workers, but it may provide

more significant indirect and induced benefits and

benefits at the household level. A different perspective

on tourism and natural resources focuses on the role

of natural resources in attracting tourists, the role land

management agencies can play in tourism development, and the effect of tourism development on competition for natural resource recreation opportunities.

There have been several assessments of visitor

expenditures in individual natural areas and the resulting economic contribution in adjacent communities.

Stynes and Sun (2003) provide impact estimates for

several national parks, while Hovee and Company

(2005) estimate that forest-related tourism in Oregon

contributes $800 million annually to the state’s economy. This represents 12% of the statewide estimate of

$6,903 million annually in direct tourism spending

(Dean Runyan Associates 2006).

However, a methodological challenge is measuring

the role of natural areas as catalysts for expenditure.

For example, a national park may have a gateway

community with several golf courses. If a tourist plays

golf and visits the park, should her expenditure be

treated as attributable to the park? Some analysts use

motivation or related items to allocate visitors and their

136

Figure 5—Importance of tourist visit as reason to move to the Oregon coast. Source:

Lindberg et al. (1994).
expenditure to a destination’s specific natural areas or

general natural qualities. In Missoula, Montana, Yuan

and Christensen (1994) found that 60% of sampled

visitors reported fishing, hunting, camping, or viewing

scenery or wildlife as the attraction that brought them

to the state; using this attraction-based criteria, they

found that “wildlands tourists” spent more than “nonwildlands tourists.” An alternate approach is to ask 

visitors to report how the absence of a natural area

would affect their trip, in a with-and-without framework.

For example, Lindberg and Denstadli (2004) asked

Australian national park visitors to report their expenditure and itinerary, with the latter broken down into

region and state. They were then asked to report

whether their itinerary would change if the park did 

not exist and, if so, how. Based on itinerary changes,

Lindberg and Denstadli (2004) found that the proportion of park visitor expenditure that was dependent on

the park’s existence varied from 35% to 77% across

the four parks studied. This variation reflects differences in the availability of alternative attractions near

each park (see also Johnson and Moore (1993) for 

a similar approach).

Roles for Public Land Management 

Agencies

Although the role of natural areas as tourism attractions will vary across destination regions, they often

are important, so one obvious tourism role for public

land management agencies is as provider of aesthetic

and activity settings for tourists. Given the importance

of this role, agency decisions regarding recreation and

tourism management, including trail development,

access, permitting, and pricing (e.g., user fees) can

have significant positive and negative effects on the

local tourism industry. The National Park Service policy

for snowmobiles in Yellowstone is an example of this

effect, with concomitant pressures on the agency.

Although less apparent, management decisions in

other areas, such as timber harvest and fire and game

management, can also significantly affect tourism.

Beyond managing tourism resources, agencies

also play complementary roles. In some rural areas,

agencies provide the leadership that catalyzes tourism

development and provide connections within and

between the public and private sectors. Agencies may

also directly fund some tourism-related projects and

are involved in various committees that affect local

planning and project funding. For example, the U.S.

Forest Service participates in the Montana Tourism

and Recreation Initiative (MTRI), a multi-agency committee that plans and funds tourism and recreation

projects that “serve the needs of residents and visitors,

both national and international.” The Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) was a co-sponsor of the 2005

Oregon Governor’s Conference on Tourism, and both

the Forest Service and BLM are members of the

Oregon Scenic Byways program.

Likewise, agencies often engage in collaborative

websites to market recreation and tourism opportunities to visitors.8 Agencies often provide interpretive 

and educational opportunities, thereby potentially

enhancing the visitor experience and instilling land

stewardship ethics. Lastly, agencies often monitor

tourism-relevant parameters such as visitor satisfaction, economic impacts, and ecological impacts.

By serving in these roles, agencies help visitors

access and enjoy public lands, as well as contribute to

rural development. Moreover, tourism can help agencies achieve goals relating to revenue generation and

public education. However, the positive and negative

effects, and thus managerial decisionmaking, in this

area are complex. For example, recreation user fees

may generate revenue, but resulting funding may 

simply cover the cost of providing the visitor experience, and thus not generate a net benefit to agencies.

To achieve goals relating to resource management and

provision of diverse visitor opportunities, agencies may

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

137

8 www.naturenw.org/ is an example of such a site.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

need to make unpopular decisions that limit visitor

access in general or for certain user groups.

Tourism and Competition for Outdoor 

Recreation Resources

Rural areas containing public lands generally are rich 

in outdoor recreation opportunities, and local residents

may feel a sense of ownership toward recreation sites,

especially of special places to which they feel strong

attachment. Given this attachment, and, for some,

motivations of solitude and escape, it is natural for

some residents to dislike the increased nonlocal use 

of these sites that can stem from tourism. In other

words, there may be competition for outdoor recreation

resources, and longtime users may resent newcomers

associated with tourism or amenity in-migration.

For example, Cerveny (2004) found that residents

of southeast Alaska curbed their use of some highvolume areas and shifted to less desirable sites to

escape tourists. Those who continued to use high volume areas reported a diminished experience. Manning

and Valliere (2001) found that nearly all (94%) residents surveyed near Acadia National Park in Maine

adopted one or more behavioral or cognitive coping

mechanisms in association with increased use of carriage roads in the park. Behavioral mechanisms include

temporal and spatial displacement, with 65% of resident using the roads in the off-season and 46% using

different sections of the roads. Cognitive mechanisms

include product shift, with 50% saying that the nature

of the recreation experience had changed.

The above findings primarily focus on increased

demand for an activity common to both local residents

and visitors. Tourism also may lead to increased participation in different activities in the same resource

setting; kayaking and motor boating or snowmobiling

and cross-country skiing are examples. Visitors may

prefer one activity while residents prefer another; this

can cause conflict and lead to calls to restrict resident

activities. Lastly, residents may be concerned about

visitor behavior on aesthetic or environmental grounds.

For example, Johnston and Payne (2005) report 

that residents of the north shore of Lake Superior in

Canada felt that litter and human waste at campsites

was caused by visitors. Likewise, residents in the

Manning and Valliere (2001) Acadia National Park

study reported an increase in problem behaviors along

carriage roads, though these were not directly tied to

nonlocal visitors.

The tourism literature stresses that tourism 

development may increase competition for recreation

resources and lead to new urbanized development

(restaurants, theme parks, etc.), but tourism may also

help catalyze and potentially fund new outdoor recreation opportunities as well. The net effect of competition for existing recreation opportunities and stimulation of new ones can be an important predictor of

resident attitudes toward tourism development (Gursoy

and Rutherford 2004, Lankford and Howard 1994).

Conclusion

To varying degrees, individuals, communities, and 

land management agencies in the western United

States have embraced tourism as a means to generate

employment, partly in response to declining resource

sectors. Statewide data show that tourism has grown,

but county-level data provide a more variable picture.

More importantly, individual-level data from Montana

and Oregon suggest that, in general, tourism has not

directly generated employment for displaced workers.

Tourism may have provided indirect or induced employment for these workers or employment for household

members; unfortunately, systematic data on the extent

of this occurrence are lacking in the literature. If

employment generation for displaced workers or their

households continues to be a motivation and rationale

for investing in tourism development, additional analysis of these linkages is warranted. There is also empirical support for tourism facilitating in-migration, but the

employment benefit of such migration, and particularly

the extent to which it benefits displaced workers, is not

well documented.

138
Tourists often have multiple motivations and visit

multiple attractions in a destination region, and it is 

difficult to identify the proportion of all expenditure, and

thus employment, that is due to natural areas in particular. Nonetheless, existing analyses document the

substantial role that natural areas can play as tourism

attractions, particularly for gateway communities near

“iconic” national parks and forests. As stewards of

these areas, land management agencies can significantly affect the local tourism industry through their

policies and actions. These effects may be more complex than they seem. For example, some might argue

that user fees reduce natural area visitation and thus

local tourism business opportunities. However, the

price increase may have little negative effect on quantity demanded, and it may enhance demand insofar as

revenues are used to improve the visitor experience

(e.g., expanded interpretation or improved maintenance). Land management policies affecting tourism

will be driven by many factors, including management

goals for the area in question, as well as broader legislative, policy, and budgetary considerations. Indeed,

budgetary constraints may increasingly limit agency

roles in the tourism context. For example, recreation

facilities on public lands may increasingly require

external funding if they are to be developed and maintained. Nonetheless, agency decisions do have significant implications for the economic, ecological, and

sociocultural health of rural regions, and opportunities

exist for agencies to become more actively and explicitly involved in tourism to the extent that policy and

funding allow.

References

Barrett, R. 1998. Industry attachment and change 

among Montana workers, 1988-1996. Unpublished

manuscript. On file with: Department of

Economics, University of Montana, 32 Campus 

Dr. # 5472, Missoula, MT 59812.

Barrett, R., Power, T.M. 1997 (1998 revision). 

Montana workers’ labor market experiences during

industrial transition: 1988-1996. Unpublished manuscript. On file with: Department of Economics,

University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr. # 5472,

Missoula, MT 59812.

Berck, P.; Costello, C.; Fortmann, L.; Hoffman, S. 

2003. Poverty and employment in forest-dependent counties. Forest Science. 49(5): 763-777.

Carroll, M.S. 1995. Community and the northwestern 

logger: continuities and changes in the era of the

spotted owl. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; Alt, F.J.; Schuster, E.G.;

Findley, A.J. 2000. Adaptation strategies of 

displaced Idaho woods workers: results of a longitudinal panel study. Society & Natural Resources.

13: 95-113.

Cerveny, L. 2004. Preliminary research findings from 

a study of the sociocultural effects of Tourism in

Haines, Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-612.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 

Dean Runyan Associates. 2006. Oregon travel 

impacts, 1991-2005p. Report to the Oregon

Tourism Commission. http://www.deanrunyan.

com/impactsORstate.html (January 16).

Duncombe, W.; Robbins, M.; Wolf, D.A. 2003. Place 

characteristics and residential location choice

among the retirement-age population. Journal 

of Gerontology. 58B(4) S244–S252.

Gursoy, D.; Rutherford, D.G. 2004. Host attitudes 

toward tourism: an improved structural model.

Annals of Tourism Research. 31(3): 495–516.

Hammitt, W.E.; Cole, D.N. 1998. Wildland Recreation:

Ecology and management. 2nd ed. New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

139
Helvoigt, T.L.; Adams, D.M.; Ayre, A.L. 2003. 

Employment transitions in Oregon’s wood products

sector during the 1990s. Journal of Forestry.

101(4): 42-46.

Hovee and Company. 2005. Forest Tourism Baseline 

Economic Assessment. Report for the Oregon

Forest Resources Institute. http://www.ofri.org/

assets/pdfs/ForestTourism_FINAL.pdf (January 16,

2006).

Johnson, R.L.; Moore, E. 1993. Tourism impact 

estimation. Annals of Tourism Research. 20: 

279-288.

Johnston, M.; Payne, R. 2005. Ecotourism and 

regional transformation in northwestern Ontario. 

In: Hall, C.M.; Boyd, S., eds. Nature-based tourism

in peripheral areas: Development or disaster?

Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.

Kline, J.D. 2001. Tourism and natural resource management: a general overview of research and

issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-506. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J., eds. 1995. Wildlife and 

recreationists: coexistence through management

and research. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kusel, J.; Kocher, S.; London, J.; Buttolph, L.; 

Schuster, E. 2000. Effects of displacement and

outsourcing on woods workers and their families.

Society & Natural Resources. 13: 115-134.

Lankford, S.; Howard, D. 1994. Developing a tourism 

attitude impact scale. Annals of Tourism Research.

21: 121–139.

Lee, R.G.; Carroll, M.S.; Warren, K.K. 1991. The 

social impact of timber harvest reductions in

Washington State. In: Sommers, P.; Birss, H., eds.

Revitalizing the timber dependent regions of

Washington. Seattle: Northwest Policy Center,

University of Washington: 3-19.

Lindberg, K.; Denstadli, J.M. 2004. The impact of 

national park visitation on rural economies and

government revenue in Queensland: the examples

of Girraween, Eungella, Daintree, and Carnarvon.

Sustainable Tourism Report. Gold Coast, Australia:

Cooperative Research Centre. 

Lindberg, K.; Johnson, R.L.; Rettig, B. 1994.

Attitudes, concerns and priorities of Oregon Coast

residents regarding tourism and economic development. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Sea Grant.

Manning, R.E.; Valliere, W.A. 2001. Coping in outdoor

recreation: causes and consequences of crowding

and conflict among community residents. Journal

of Leisure Research. 33(4): 410-426.

Power, T.M.; Barrett, R.N. 2001. Post-cowboy economics: pay and prosperity in the new American

West. Island Press: Washington, DC.

Reeder, R.J.; Brown, D.M. 2005. Recreation, tourism, 

and rural well-being. Economic Research Report

No. 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Ritchie, J.R.B.; Crouch, G.I. 2003. The competitive 

destination: a sustainable tourism perspective.

CABI: Cambridge, MA.

Snepenger, D.J.; Johnson, D.; Rasker, R. 1995.

Travel-stimulated entrepreneurial migration.

Journal of Travel Research. 34(1): 40-44.

Stynes, D.J.; Y-Y Sun. 2003. Economic impacts of 

national park visitor spending on gateway communities, systemwide estimates for 2001. http:// web4.

canr.msu/mgm2/default.htm (January 16, 2006).

Wall, G.; Mathieson, A. 2005. Tourism: change, 

impacts and opportunities. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Yuan, M.S.; Christensen, N.A. 1994. Wildland-influenced economic impacts of nonresident travel 

on portal communities: the case of Missoula,

Montana. Journal of Travel Research. 

32(4): 26-31.

140
Introduction

Finding appropriate and adequate sources to fund 

recreation management on national forests is a challenge. Taxpayers have traditionally funded recreation

programs through congressional appropriations, supplemented in some cases by user fees. In the last

decade, federal land management agencies have

extended the use of recreation fees to new places 

and new activities, developing fee demonstration programs to test their viability as authorized by the U.S.

Congress in 1996 (Rescissions and Appropriations Act

of 1996). This authority was recently amended by

Congress (Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement

Act of 2004).

This essay offers a sketch of the conceptual framework I presented at the National Workshop Recreation

Research and Management in February 2005. The

purpose of the framework is to identify where user fees

may or may not be appropriate to fund recreation programs on national forests and other public lands. I

begin by describing the concept of “total economic

value” as applied in a national forest setting. I use this

along with other ideas from the fields of environmental,

resource, and public economics to identify ten criteria

useful in deciding where to implement user fees. I conclude by describing a simple model that could be used

to integrate all ten criteria into a rudimentary scoring

system to gauge the viability and appropriateness of

user fees in a particular area. This basic model is

intended to inspire further thought and refinement

among researchers and managers who are challenged

with the task of developing sustainable funding mechanisms to support recreation activities on public lands. I

invite comments, criticism and suggestions for improving the framework sketched below.

Types of Economic Value

National forests generate numerous benefits to recreational visitors and the general public. These benefits

are of considerable value, both economic and otherwise. Environmental and resource economists have

developed a range of categories to identify and

describe the different types of value people might

place on a natural area. Proper management of a natural area can enhance these values. Poor management diminishes them. 

Table 1 shows the different types of value that

might be placed on a natural area. Anderson (2004),

Field and Field (2006), Harris (2006), Kahn (2005),

Tietenberg (2006), Turner et al. (1993), and others provide basic, nontechnical descriptions of these types of

value for readers without a background in economics.

My intention here is to offer a concise description of

each type in the context of national forest recreation.

141

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

A Framework for Sustainable 

Recreation Funding

Jerrell Ross Richer1

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Sonoma State University,1801 East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928. 

Email: richer@sonoma.edu
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

1. Current use values 

Millions of people benefit from visiting the national 

forests each year. Their uses of the forest can be 

divided into three types: 

A. Consumptive use value

This is the value today of managing a forest for 

current, known, consumptive uses. These include

fishing, hunting, panning for gold, and gathering

forests products such as mushrooms, firewood,

rocks, and plants. The recreational activity consumes, or uses up, natural resources found in 

the forest.

B. Non-consumptive use value

This is the value today of managing a forest for 

current, known, non-consumptive uses. Examples

include hiking, photography, camping, mountain

biking, backpacking, catch-and-release fishing, 

target shooting, and off-highway vehicle use. The

recreational activity does not use up the resource.

C. Indirect use value

This is the value today of managing a forest for 

current, known, indirect uses. These include flood

prevention for downstream residents and water

supply for nearby municipalities. These items are

of indirect value to the many who benefit from

them, but people do not actually visit the forest 

to enjoy these benefits. 

2. Future use values 

Many other people will benefit from national forests in 

the future. The value today of preserving opportunities

for future use can be divided into three types:

A. Option value

This is the value today of managing a forest for 

future, known uses, such as fishing, hiking, or

flood prevention at a later date. The idea here is

that people may place a value on maintaining a

forest now so that they will have the option to use

it at a later date. Option value represents a potential visitor’s willingness to pay at this moment to

preserve the possibility of using a forest sometime

in the future. 

B. Quasi-option value

This is the value today of managing a forest for 

future, unknown uses. Examples of uses that are

unknown today but may be valuable in the future

are, by definition, impossible to describe. The 

concept can be illustrated, however, in hindsight.

Consider the recently-discovered medicinal value

of Pacific yew trees (Taxus brevifolia) previously

considered to be of little economic value or the

newly-emergent recreation values caused by

142

Table 1—Types of economic value

Category Type of value Recipient Period Nature of use

Current use Consumptive use Self Current Known, consumptive

Non-consumptive use Self Current Known, non-consumptive

Indirect use Self Current Known, indirect

Future use Option Self Future Known

Quasi-option Self Future Unknown

Bequest Descendents Future Known and unknown

Non-use Existence Self Current & Unrelated to use

future

Others’ use and Altruistic Other people Current & Known, unknown, & 

non-use future unrelated to use 
changes in preferences and development of new

technologies (e.g., mountain biking). Quasi-option

value represents a person’s willingness to pay at

this moment to preserve the possibility of using a

forest in the future for a purpose that is not yet

determined.

C. Bequest value

This is the value today of managing a forest so 

that one’s descendents may use it for both known

and unknown uses. In this case, someone alive

today values the idea of maintaining the option for

use by future generations. Bequest value represents a person’s willingness to pay at this moment

to preserve the possibility of future use by one’s

descendents. 

3. Non-use value (existence value)

Many people value forests for reasons other than the 

uses it may provide. “Existence value” is the value

today of managing a forest simply to know that it will

continue to exist, unrelated to any pos-sible uses 

people may have for it. For example, people may value

the protection of viable habitat for grizzly bears and

gray wolves even if they never expect to observe these

species in the wild. They simply benefit from the

knowledge that the species and its habitat continue to

thrive in a natural state.

4. Others’ use and non-use value 

(altruistic value)

People may also value the benefits that other people

receive from forests. “Altruistic value” is the value

today of managing a forest for the benefit of others,

including both use and non-use values. Altruism

extends to those outside of one’s self or one’s descendents. The idea is that people may personally benefit

from simply knowing that others benefit from their use

of a forest or knowledge of its existence. That is, my

neighbors’ enjoyment of the forest, whatever form it

may take, makes me better off.

Total Economic Value 

Total economic value (TEV) is simply the sum of all the 

values described above, or 

TEV = Current use value + Future use value + 

Existence value + Altruistic value

Note that some authors (e.g., Tietenberg 2006) refer 

to this concept as “total willingness to pay.”

Maintaining or increasing the TEV of a forest 

requires careful management. Before I consider the

implications of this concept on the question of how

best to fund forest management, it is useful to identify

the values that are not taken into account by the 

concept of TEV.

First, TEV does not include the “primary value” 

of the forest as part of the life-support system for the

planet. For example, the value of the oxygen produced

by living plants or the nutrient cycling provided by a

healthy ecosystem are typically not included as components of TEV because of the difficulties in accounting for and estimating the monetary value of these

benefits.

Second, TEV does not include the benefits of a

forest to members of future generations. To be sure,

the interests of future generations are partially

accounted for in the calculation of bequest value and

altruistic value. However, these two types of value are

based on the preferences of today’s generation, as

seen through our eyes and our wallets. Bequest and

altruistic value represent the willingness to pay of people alive today for the preservation of a forest for the

benefit of those in the future. The value that members

of future generations themselves might place on the

forest, however, cannot be measured today and therefore are not included in the TEV calculation. 

Third, TEV does not include the “intrinsic value” 

of a forest. Rather, it represents an anthropocentric

understanding of value. A non-human species or habitat or ecosystem is only assigned value when humans

perceive it to be valuable. Like members of a future

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

143
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

generation, non-human species have no economic

standing in this type of analysis. 

For these reasons, forest managers must recognize that TEV is not a complete measure of the true

“total value” of a forest. It merely represents the sum of

all the economic values placed on the forest by those

who are alive today.

Funding Forest Management

Now that the groundwork has been laid, the following 

question can be posed: “Which of these values can be

supported by on-site recreation fees?” Recreation fees

may be well-suited for funding two types of values,

consumptive use and non-consumptive use, depending

on a range of other factors as discussed below. However, recreation fees would not be well-suited for the

purpose of supporting the other types of values identified in the previous section.

With consumptive and non-consumptive uses, the

value is derived from visiting the forest, so it is conceivable to require visitors to pay money in exchange

for their recreation experiences. Those who benefit

from visiting the forest could fund the recreation management programs that make their visit possible, thus

reducing or eliminating the need for taxpayers to provide the necessary funding. The appropriateness of

these fees depends on other criteria, as shown below.

With future, or non-use values, however, the values are not derived from current visits to the forest.

For example, those with indirect-use values do not

actually visit the forest to enjoy the indirect benefits

(e.g., flood protection, water supply). It is necessary,

therefore, to find sources of funding other than recreation fees to finance forest management that supports

indirect, future, and non-use values. Simply stated, 

collecting fees from current visitors cannot provide an

adequate basis of funding to support the other values

provided by a forest. Instead, funding can be generated

from other sources, including appropriations, partnerships, donations, voluntarism, or fees assessed on

other activities.

Criteria for Evaluating if Recreation Fees 

Are Appropriate

The notion of assessing user fees to help finance 

public land recreation has spawned a small but growing literature among researchers engaged in the study

of outdoor recreation, economics, and related fields.

Interested readers are encouraged to consult the

annotated bibliography compiled by Puttkammer (2001)

and to examine the special issues of the Journal of

Leisure Research (1999) and the Journal of Park and

Recreation Administration (1999) guest edited by Alan

Watson.

Establishing recreation fee programs to support

consumptive and non-consumptive uses of a forest

may seem appropriate in some applications and inappropriate in others. The challenge is in making the

determination. The Federal Lands Recreation

Enhancement Act of 2004 restricts where fees can be

assessed; it limits fee collection to developed sites and

high-impact areas. Other criteria, however, deserve

consideration when evaluating the appropriateness of

collecting recreation fees in a particular context. Ten

possible criteria are listed in table 2. 

A brief description and rationale for each criterion

follows: 

1. Consumptive use 

Concept: If use is consumptive, then fees are more

appropriate.

Rationale: Users consume part of the resource, 

which must be replaced (e.g. fish restocking) or regenerated (forest products). Fees require users to pay

compensation for their withdrawals of the resource and

provide funds for its replenishment. Fees also provide

an economic incentive to not overuse the resource.

144
2. Rival use

Concept: If use is rival (it excludes others), then 

fees are more appropriate.

Rationale: Users occupy a space which prohibits 

others from using that same space. The use of campsites, picnic tables, and other developed facilities is

rival, for example. Only one party can use the site at a

time. In a sense, the occupying party has exclusive

use of the site. Fees require users to pay compensation for this exclusive use and provide funds for production and maintenance of these facilities. Fees can

also provide an economic incentive to not overuse the

facility.

3. Cost recovery

Concept: If the cost of servicing the use is high, then 

fees are more appropriate.

Rationale: Equity demands that visitors who engage in 

activities requiring greater expenditures on the part of

the agency should contribute more to the agency’s

budget. Examples include risky activities that result in

high-cost rescues or uses that require considerable

capital and maintenance expenditures.

4. Revenue generation

Concept: If the revenue potential is high, then fees are

more appropriate.

Rationale: Fees are assessed in order to generate 

revenue, so the higher the revenue the better. In simple terms, the revenue generated by a recreation fee

equals the dollar amount of the fee assessed per visit

multiplied by the number of visits, or

Revenue = (Fee per visit) (Number of visits)

There are four items to consider when estimating 

fee revenues:

A. Willingness to pay

Concept: If users have a high willingness to 

pay, then fees are more appropriate.

Rationale: A high willingness to pay implies that 

fees can be set relatively high, which increases fee

revenue directly. This could be the case for users

with strong preferences or high incomes, or for

uses without many available substitutes. 

B. Number of visits

Concept: If there are many visits, then fees are 

more appropriate.

Rationale: High usage implies high revenue 

since it increases the fee base. The number of 

visits is high if there are many visitors in a given

year or the average number of visits per visitor 

is high.

C. Growth of visits

Concept: If users are growing in number, then 

fees are more appropriate.

Rationale: An increase in the number of 

visitors (or their average number of visits per year)

implies that the fee base will grow, which increases

revenue over time.

D. Price elasticity

Concept: If users are price sensitive, then fees 

are less appropriate.

Rationale: Fees can discourage use and 

reduce the fee base (number of visitors) if use is

price sensitive. A decrease in the base implies

lower revenue.

5. Collection costs

Concept: If fees can be collected at low cost, then 

fees are more appropriate.

Rationale: Collection costs are subtracted from fee 

revenue to calculate net revenue. Net revenue equals

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

145

Table 2—Ten possible criteria for assessing 

the appropriateness of recreation fees

Consumptive use Rival use

Cost recovery Revenue generation

Collection costs Ability to pay 

Visitor diversity External costs

External benefits Niche markets
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

the new funding available to support recreation programs. If collection costs are low then a greater proportion of fee revenues can be allocated to programs,

making the fees more worthwhile. 

6. Ability to pay

Concept: If users have low incomes, then fees are 

less appropriate.

Rationale: Fees may create an economic barrier 

to forest recreation. Willingness to pay a recreation fee

depends on a person’s income or “ability to pay.” For

low-income visitors or those without much discretionary income, a recreation fee may be unaffordable.

Visitors for whom fees are a financial hardship may

visit less often, eliminate short visits, or stop visiting

entirely.

7. Visitor diversity

Concept: If users represent underserved populations, 

then fees are less appropriate.

Rationale: Underserved populations include racial 

or ethnic minorities and other groups. Assessing fees

in areas with high concentrations of these populations

might be perceived as discriminatory if similar fees are

not assessed in areas with low concentrations. 

8. External costs

Concept: If use generates external costs, then fees 

are more appropriate.

Rationale: Some uses cause harm to others (e.g., 

noise, pollution, erosion). Fees generate revenue to

repair or mitigate damages. They can also provide an

economic incentive to not engage in the damaging

activity. 

9. External benefits

Concept: If use generates external benefits, then fees 

are less appropriate.

Rationale: Some uses and activities provide significant 

benefits to the rest of society. Assessing fees for these

uses could discourage them and cause unintended

harm to others. Examples of external benefits include

contributions to local economies, the promotion of

physical and mental health among the population,

environmental awareness, and constituency building.

10. Niche market

Concept: If a particular use is at the core of a forest’s 

mission, then fees are less appropriate. 

Rationale: Some managers believe that uses that 

represent a forest’s primary purpose should be provided at no cost to users. According to this view, if a forest is known for a particular type of recreation activity,

it should promote the activity and make it available to

all at no cost. In this case, fees might be collected

elsewhere to support periphery, or secondary, uses of

the forest.

Choosing the Best Criteria

The ten criteria described in the previous section cover 

a range of issues but certainly do not exhaust the possibilities. Readers are encouraged to develop additional or alternative criteria that are equally compelling in

their own contexts. Once a suitable list has been

developed, the relevant question becomes, “Which criterion should be chosen?” Which criterion is the most

informative, the most enlightening, the most important?

Unable to provide a definitive, universally-applicable answer, I propose that managers use several relevant criteria in a systematic fashion when choosing

where and when to implement recreation fees. There

are many ways to do this. As an example, I will outline

a model that employs all ten criteria, weighting each

one as deemed appropriate and yielding a single overall score that can be used to compare one proposed

fee project against another.

Step 1: Identify the criteria. 

Add and subtract from the list above as appropriate. For the sake of illustration, consider the 

ten I have proposed. 

146
Step 2: Establish weights for each criterion.

There are many ways to do this. I suggest the 

following as a plausible and intuitive approach.

Beginning with 100%, assign a weight ranging

from 0% to 100% to each of the criteria, making

sure that the weights sum to 100%. For example,

the weights could be equal (10% for each of the

ten criteria). Or, all the weight could be placed 

on one criterion (100%), with none for the rest 

(0% for the other nine). Or, one criterion could

receive half the weight (50%), a second criterion

10%, and the rest (eight others) 5% each. The

idea is simply to place a greater weight on criteria that seem more important and a lower weight

on those that seem less important. This requires

good judgment and careful thought. Note that all

the weights must sum to 100% and that different

weightings will generate different overall scores

below. 

Step 3: Apply the criteria. 

Identify the particular location where a fee is 

being considered. For each of the criteria, 

assign a number from 0 to 10 that reflects the

appropriateness of a fee based on that criterion.

The highest rating (10) represents “extremely

appropriate,” whereas the lowest rating (0) represents “not appropriate.” For example, consider 

a day-use developed site (e.g., picnic area) in a

typical forest. For the “rival” criterion, the area

might receive a 10 because visitors have exclusive use of their picnic sites. For the “cost-recovery” criterion, the area might receive a 7 because

servicing the site is fairly time-consuming and

expensive. For the “ability to pay” criterion, the

area might receive a 2 because many users 

have low incomes. 

Step 4: Calculate the overall score.

Multiply each rating by its respective weight and 

sum the products. To do this, convert the weighting percentages into proportions (10% = 0.10) 

and multiply each by its respective rating. Then

sum these products to generate the overall 

score. The maximum possible overall score 

is 10, while the lowest is 0. The projects that 

receive the highest overall scores are those 

where recreation fees may be most appropriate.

Step 5: Reassess and Evaluate.

The process outlined in steps 1 through 4 

represents one plausible and systematic way to

begin evaluating where recreation fees may be

most appropriate. But this process is only a first

step. After the overall score is calculated, it is 

useful to go back and consider what would have

happened had the weights been assigned differently. Changing the weighting will change the 

overall score. It is also crucial to evaluate if all 

the relevant factors were considered before 

making a determination. The scoring process

developed here is no substitute for good judgment. Rather, it provides a tool that can be 

useful when making difficult decisions. Like any

tool, it should be part of a toolkit, used alongside others to help guide a clear, transparent, 

and mindful decisionmaking process.

Conclusion

I conclude by summarizing the main points of this 

essay:

1. Concepts from environmental, resource, and 

public economics can be useful in assessing 

if fees are appropriate for a particular 

recreation area or activity.

2. These concepts should be considered 

alongside other normative criteria.

3. Assessment frameworks that incorporate 

multiple criteria in a systematic manner can 

be developed in principle.

4. By their nature, on-site recreation fees do 

not generate revenue from those who value 

forests for purposes other than consumptive 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

147
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

or non-consumptive uses (e.g., option, quasioption, bequest, existence, and altruistic values). 

5. Fees can provide a useful source of revenue 

to support recreation programs when they are

deemed appropriate and are part of a sustainable funding mix that includes appropriations, 

partnerships, volunteer time, donations, and 

other sources.

User fees can provide an important source of revenue for recreation budgets, but by themselves they

cannot provide an adequate and sustainable source of

funding. While fees can finance programs that support

current direct uses of a forest, tax dollars and other

sources of funding are necessary to provide the broad

base of support required to manage forests in a way

that promotes “total economic value,” not to mention

non-economic values. 

A single-minded application of user fees to generate revenue runs the risk of focusing too much attention on maximizing the value of current direct uses –

those uses that generate fee revenue – while losing

sight of the range of other values provided by wellmanaged public lands. A mindful application of user

fees as a supplement to a robust mix of funding that

includes appropriations, partnerships, volunteerism,

donations and other sources of support is the key 

to securing funding that is both appropriate and 

sustainable.

Acknowledgments

The ideas presented in this essay benefit from discussions with USDA Forest Service personnel, including

Anne Christensen, Jennifer Eberlein, Don English,

Frances Enkoji, Marlene Finley, Raina Fulton, Donna

Hepp, Dave Holland, Rick Lowe, Tom Spencer, Susan

Swinson, Jonathan Stephens, Gail Vanderbie, Ann

Wright and Gene Zimmerman, consultants from Booz

Allen Hamilton, including Destry Jarvis, Robert Lane

and Hayley Mortimer, and others, including Robert

Brown, Neal Christensen and Alan Watson. The views

expressed in this paper are, of course, those of the

author, who is entirely responsible for its content.

References

Anderson, D.A. 2004. Environmental economics and 

natural resource management. Mason, OH:

Thomson South-Western. 400 p.

Field, B.C.; Field, M.K. 2006. Environmental economics: an introduction. 4th ed. Boston, MA:

McGraw-Hill Irwin. 503 p.

Harris, J.M. 2006. Environmental and natural resource 

economics: a contemporary approach. 2nd ed.

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 503 p.

Kahn, J.R. 2005. The economic approach to environmental and natural resources. 3rd ed. Mason, OH:

Thomson South-Western.

Puttkammer, A. 2001. Linking wilderness research 

and management: recreation fees in wilderness

and other public lands: an annotated reading list.

Vol. 3. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-79. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 29 p.

Tietenberg, T. 2006. Environmental and natural 

resource economics. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson

Education. 655 p.

Turner, R.; Kerry, D.P.; Bateman, I. 1993. 

Environmental economics: an elementary introduction. Baltimore, MD: University Press. 328 p.

Watson, A., ed. 1999. Recreation fees and pricing 

issues in the public sector. Special issue. Journal

of Park and Recreation Administration. 17(3).

Watson, A., ed. 1999. Societal response to recreation 

fees on public lands. Special issue. Journal of

Leisure Research. 31(3).

148
Persuasive Communication Research

Persuasion research has focused on several aspects 

of communication that influence effectiveness, including the source of a message, medium of the message,

aspects of the audience, aspects of the message, and

the target behavior or attitude. The source of a message, including expertness, trustworthiness, and 

attractiveness can all influence effective delivery of 

a persuasive communication (Ajzen 1992, Oskamp

1991, Winter and Koger 2004). For example, communicators who are known experts, or introduced as

experts on the topic of the message, are more influential than nonexperts (Cialdini 2001, Oskamp 1991).

Perceived similarity between the communicator and

the receiver of the message also influences persuasion

(Cialdini 2001, Zimbardo and Lieppe 1991). Trust of the

managing agency as a message source appears to be

essential in how information is perceived (Cvetkovich

and Winter 2002, Cvetkovich and Winter 2004, Winter

et al. 1999).

The medium of the message (for example, comparing the effectiveness of spoken versus written messages) also influences its effectiveness. For example,

when comparing mass communication versus personal

communication, researchers have found that face-toface, or personal communication, is superior to other

methods of information dissemination (Oskamp 1991).

Aspects of the audience (including their attention

to the message, for example see McCool and Cole

(2000)) also affect the effectiveness of a message.

149

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Communicating with Recreation Visitors:

A Brief Synthesis of Findings

Patricia L. Winter1

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, 

CA 92507-6099. Email: pwinter@fs.fed.us.

Abstract

This paper reviews some key research findings on communication that are applicable to recreation management.

Research on persuasive communication provides a valuable background for understanding the best approaches

to communicating with recreation visitors. The source of a message, medium of a message, aspects of the audience, and aspects of the message have all been examined in persuasion research and are briefly summarized.

Research regarding sources of information accessed by recreation visitors and general publics, and their trust 

in these sources, is discussed. Once visitors arrive onsite, signs are an important means of communication in

recreation management. Research that examined the wording of messages in signs is reviewed. When addressing a diverse public, international signage is sometimes recommended. But studies show comprehension of international symbols varies among visitors. Innovations that met the communication needs of ethnically and racially

diverse publics are briefly discussed to present alternative means of communicating with recreationists. Finally,

key lessons from these reviewed areas are presented for management application. As the nation’s population

becomes more diverse, successful communication strategies are essential to public land management. 
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Some personality characteristics, such as self-esteem

and intelligence, seem to have a curvilinear relationship with persuasibility. Those with self-esteem that

falls to the lower or higher ends of the population distribution for this characteristic tend to be less easily

influenced by persuasive messages than those in the

mid-range of the normal curve. Personality characteristics may also influence recall of a message and the

likelihood of yielding to the message (Oskamp 1991).

For example, having high intelligence may greatly

improve the retention and understanding of a message, and at the same time, make one less likely to

change one’s behavior (Oskamp 1991). 

Aspects of the message itself (for example, the 

relative effectiveness of fear appeals versus other

types of messages) have been examined. Fear appeals

seem most effective when paired with a specific

behavioral instruction on how to avoid a negative 

consequence (Oskamp 1991). 

The target behavior has also been examined in

persuasion research, with a focus on the persistence

of attitude change and how that influences action

(Oskamp 1991). Finally, messages are most effective

when attitudes are weak or nonexistent about a particular topic (Oskamp 1991). (For a summary of research

on the use of persuasion in recreational settings to

effect behavior changes see Roggenbuck (1992).)

Communication and Diversity

Communication techniques are linked to issues of 

equity in recreation access for potential and actual

recreation visitors. People of color have reported a

lack of information about recreation opportunities as a

constraint to recreation participation (Crano et al. 2005,

Scott et al. 2004, Tierney et al. 1998). A lack of information onsite has also been reported as a constraint in

outdoor recreation participation among ethnic minorities (Winter et al. 2004, Winter and McCollum 2002).

Information Sources Used and Trusted

Information sources that recreationists and potential 

recreationists rely on and trust often differ among 

ethnic and racial groups. In several studies, onsite

recreationists reported family and friends as their 

primary source of information about recreation opportunities and the recreation setting where they were

contacted (Chavez et al. 1993, Chavez et al. 1994,

Parker and Winter 1998, Simcox and Hodgson 1993).

Hispanics/ Latinos typically rely more on their family

and friends for information than do Whites and other

ethnic/racial groups. A similar reliance on family and

friends as the primary source of information about

recreation opportunities was found in a telephone survey of residents in the Los Angeles basin (Crano et al.

2005). Again, the proportion of Latinos relying on family and friends was higher than for other ethnic/racial

groups. Reliance on other sources showed greater

variation by ethnic/racial group. For example, Blacks

were more likely than other groups to rely on church

as a source of infor-mation. In that same study,

respondents were asked which source of information

they trusted the most. The greatest proportion of

respondents chose the Internet and computers as 

their most trusted source. However, in the Crano et al.

(2005) study, as with primary sources used, some variations in trusted source by ethnic/racial group were

found. The second most-trusted source among all

groups except Whites was family and friends.

Trust in the Internet, found by Crano et al. (2005),

corresponds with a national survey on Internet users

and nonusers that suggests that importance of the

Internet is higher than other forms of media as an

information source (Lebo 2004). Results of that same

survey found that much of the information on government web sites was thought to be reliable and accurate (Lebo 2004). A cautionary note should be added

here about the Internet as a primary and trusted

150
source of information. Research on access to the

Internet across the United States and within certain

ethnic/racial groups suggests that people of color are

less likely to use the Internet (particularly Hispanics

and Blacks) than Whites (Spooner 2003). Education

and income are also linked to Internet use; those with

less education and lower household incomes are less

likely to use the Internet (Spooner 2003). The bulk of

non-Internet users report that they do not use the

Internet because of a lack of a computer, or lack of a

computer good enough to access the Internet (Lebo

2004). Findings are inconsistent regarding actual levels of use of the Internet and access to the Internet.

Lebo (2004) reported that over three-fourths of

Americans use the Internet, whereas Spooner (2003)

suggested that number is just over half of American

adults (59% males and 54% females used the Internet

in 2001). Only a portion of Internet use is for travel

information purposes; the primary use is related to

email.

Other work has demonstrated the reliance on ethnic media within some communities of color (Winter et

al. 2004). When a type of media source is reported as

common among groups, such as newspapers, one

cannot assume that the primary newspaper in an area

is the one most likely to be used by all groups. In other

words, tailoring the outlet to meet the needs of a

diverse audience is advisable.

Signs in Recreation Settings

Even though visitors and potential visitors rely on 

family and friends for information about recreation

opportunities and about specific sites, natural resource

managers rely heavily on signs for onsite communication. Signs are not necessarily the most preferred

mode of information dissemination among managers,

nor are they always assumed to be the most effective

(Johnson et al. 1994, Roggenbuck et al. 1997, Winter

et al. 1998, Wirsching et al. 2003). However, signs

serve an important function in resource management.

Signs have the potential to make acceptable behaviors

more salient in a setting, which is particularly important

to new site visitors unfamiliar with an area. From a law

enforcement standpoint, signs help assure that visitors

are informed of rules, regulations, safety concerns, and

other matters of import related to management and

visitor safety. 

Research has been conducted on the effectiveness of signs, including aspects related to visitor

awareness of signs, comprehension of signs, and the

impact of messages in signs on visitor behavior, attitudes, and opinions. Signs that are constructed in

keeping with the findings from research for effective

messaging are more valuable than those that are not.

For example, research suggests that placing too many

messages on trailside bulletin boards may lead visitors

to spend more time at the location, but visitor retention

of those messages is lessened (Cole et al. 1997).

A series of studies was conducted to explore what

might make a sign’s message more likely to have the

desired influence on visitor behavior. Part of the interest was in ascertaining if messages had to be negative

to be effective. After all, is it not far more welcoming 

to post when a site is open for picnicking than when it

is closed? In the first study in this series, messages 

in signs in two states, covering an array of site types,

were classified (Winter et al. 1998). Number of signs,

likelihood of being viewed by visitors and comprehended, and type of message were coded. Coding of

messages focused primarily on message framing, from

a normative perspective. Norms (the implicit or explicit

expectations for behavior) can be powerful activators

of behavior because of their potential sanctions such

as through fines or threats of social disapproval. They

can be presented as either rules and regulations

(injunctive) or statements about the actions of others

(descriptive). Descriptive norms, or information about

the actions of other people, help define what is appropriate in a setting (Cialdini 2001).

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

151
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Both rules/regulations and statements about

actions of others can be presented either positively

(prescriptive) or negatively (proscriptive). A preponderance of negatively worded rules and regulations was

found, particularly in urbanized locations. The second

step in the series was to explore what interpreters

(people who are experts in a specialized form of communication and messaging that can be applied to signage) would consider as the most effective message

types (Winter et al. 2000). The results of that nationwide survey showed that respondents felt positively

worded messages (prescriptive) would be most effective. Because statements about the actions of others

were not found in very many signs in the first study in

the series, interpreters were only asked to rate statements about rules and regulations. In the final study of

the series, an onsite experiment was conducted at the

Petrified Forest National Park (Cialdini et al., n.d.). The

targeted behavior was theft of petrified wood, which

although infrequent has been sufficient over the life of

the park to have a dramatic impact on the number,

variety, and quality of the Petrified Forest collection. In

this study, it was clear that the most effective message

in reducing theft of petrified wood was the negatively

worded sign (proscriptive-injunctive). It should be

noted that the sign was not rudely stated, as it included “please” as well as a short justification for the rule

(“Please don’t go off the established paths and trails, in

order to protect the Sequoias and natural vegetation in

this park”). The most ineffective sign, that is the one

where the incidence of theft was the highest, contained

the proscriptive-descriptive message (“Many past visitors have gone off the established paths and trails,

changing the natural state of the Sequoias and vegetation in this park”). Researchers suggest this difference

was a reflection of the power of the norm of theft being

so clearly stated.

The series of studies discussed above and many

others reflect the complexity of selecting sign wording

and messages. Part of this complexity rests in trying to

present information to a diverse recreating public that

speaks and reads different languages. The challenge

to resource management has been to gauge which

segments of the population are, or could be coming to

recreation settings, and devise strategies to best communicate with them. In areas where visitation is

diverse, the use of international symbols has been

adopted. Ideally, signs containing international symbols

can surpass language barriers and offer a simple representation that eases comprehension. However,

research on comprehension of international symbols

suggests that not all symbols are equally effective. A

series of studies found that while most international

symbols presented to recreationists were correctly

understood, others were either only partially, or poorly

understood (Chavez et al. 2004; Chavez et al.

2003a,b). Most troublesome is the finding that the visitors who had the least difficulty comprehending the

symbols tended to be college-educated, White, and

repeat visitors. This finding suggests caution in adopting international symbols as a means to address a

diverse audience, particularly those new to an area.

Researchers suggest that textual messages may need

to be combined with the symbols to clarify the intended

message. However, if textual messages are presented,

they need to be in languages appropriate to the user

groups most in need of the information. Drawing from

research by Marin (1994), populations that speak a primary language other than English may be unaware of

the existence of signs and messages in a setting

unless they contain messages in their primary language. New symbols developed for an area or unique

purpose may need to be developed in adherence to

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

methods for standardization. It may also be necessary

to use other methods to communicate essential messages, such as face-to-face communication, and educational programs on- and offsite. (Chavez et al. 2004). 

152
Innovations that Served a Diverse 

Audience

Although this paper has focused on sources of infor

mation, and particularly on signs and aspects of effectiveness, innovations in communication approaches

that were designed to meet the needs of diverse 

recreationists are also of interest. The innovations

included the Forest Information Van and the EcoTeams (Absher and Winter 1997, Absher et al. 1997).

Both programs were developed in response to a documented gap between Forest Service communication

strategies and the needs and interests of diverse 

visitors, particularly Hispanics and Asians. Areas of 

the forests in southern California were seeing a dramatic increase in visitation by Hispanics and Asians.

Resource managers recognized a need to provide

information and education that would address their

unique needs. The Forest Information Van was a traveling display that was moved throughout the Angeles

National Forest to locations that had a high minority

visitation (Absher et al. 1997). Personnel who staffed

the van were Spanish-English bilingual, as were the

colorful displays attached to the van. The van involved

taking the information directly to the sites and presenting it in a format that was personable and respectful of

culture. As such, it was an innovative way to improve

communication between the managing agency and 

the recreating public. 

The Eco-Teams was another innovation in communication (Absher and Winter 1997, Absher et al. 1997).

Eco-Team members were urban youth, hired to come

out to forest settings that tended to see a high level 

of minority visitation. The youth were people of color,

many who were Spanish-English bilingual. Eco-Team

members walked through sites, including along riparian

corridors, and would visit face-to-face with recreationists. Conversations were brief and friendly, and EcoTeam members would relay bits of information provided

to them at the start of the workday in a daily briefing.

Information was focused on safety, fire regulations,

and other important matters for the site. Team members also handed out trash bags to assist with proper

disposal of garbage. Both innovations have disappeared from the forest landscape for a variety of reasons, primarily a lack of adequate resources to

continue them.

Conclusions

This paper started out with the idea that communication about outdoor recreation opportunities on and offsite is needed to fill the interests and desires of visitors

and potential visitors. Various modes of communication were discussed. The use of ethnic media by some

groups of color was also noted. Signage onsite that

relays rules and regulations, or seeks behavioral

change, was examined. One series of studies suggests

that signs are most effective when messages state the

prohibited act negatively (but politely). Another set of

studies suggests that international symbols may need

to be constructed through ISO development procedures, paired with textual messages, and possibly

other means of communication. A brief description of

two innovations in communication shows the range 

of possibilities in addressing the need for effective

communication with a racially and ethnically diverse

recreating public.

References

Absher, J.; Winter, P. 1997. Evaluation of the 1995 

Eco-Team Program. Unpublished report. On file

with: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Research Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban

Cultures Research Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest

Drive, Riverside, CA 92507.

Absher, J.; Winter, P.; James, K. 1997. Delivering 

environmental education and interpretive messages in urban proximate field settings: “lessons”

from Southern California. Trends 34(4): 30-27.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

153
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Ajzen, I. 1992. Persuasive communication theory in 

social psychology: a historical perspective. In:

Manfredo, M.J. Influencing human behavior.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing Inc.: 1-28.

Chavez, D.J.; Knap, N.E.; McCollum, D.G. 2004. 

Assessing national forest visitors’ comprehension

of international symbols for communicating outdoor

recreation messages. Journal of Park and

Recreation Administration. 22(3): 1-21.

Chavez, D.J.; McCollum, D.G.; Knap, N.E. 2003a. 

International symbols report 2002: the Willamette

National Forest. Unpublished report. On file with:

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures

Research Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive,

Riverside, CA 92507.

Chavez, D.J.; McCollum, D.G.; Knap, N.E. 2003b. 

International symbols report 2002: the Gifford

Pinchot National Forest. Unpublished report. On

file with: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Research Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban

Cultures Research Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest

Drive, Riverside, CA 92507.

Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Mainieri, T. 1993. 

Recreation day use series – Report 2. Angeles

National Forest. Unpublished report. On file with:

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures

Research Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive,

Riverside, CA 92507.

Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Mainieri, T. 1994. 

Recreation day use series—Report 3. Los Padres

National Forest. Unpublished report. On file with:

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures

Research Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive,

Riverside, CA 92507.

Cialdini, R.B. 2001. Influence: science and practice. 

4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cialidini, R.B.; Barrett, D.W.; Bator, R.; Demaine, L.;

Sagarin, B.J.; Rhoads, K.L.; Winter, P.L. [N.d.]

Activating and aligning two types of social norms

for persuasive impact. On file with: P. Winters,

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures

Research Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive,

Riverside, CA 92507.

Cole, D.N.; Hammond, T.P.; McCool, S.F. 1997. 

Information quantity and communication effectiveness: low-impact messages on wilderness trailside

bulletin boards. Leisure Sciences. 19: 59-72.

Crano, W.; Quist, R.; Winter, P.L. 2005. Getting the 

Forest Service’s message out to the people: a

study of information channels among diverse

publics in the Los Angeles basin. Unpublished

report. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Research Station, Wildland Recreation

and Urban Cultures Research Work Unit, 4955

Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507.

Cvetkovich, G.T.; Winter, P.L. 2002. Social trust and 

the management of threatened and endangered

species: a study of communities of interest and

communities of place. Res. Paper PSW-RP-247.

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Cvetkovich, G.T.; Winter, P.L. 2004. Seeing eye-toeye on natural resource management: trust, value

similarity, and action consistency/justification. 

In: Tierney, P.T., Chavez, D.J., Tech. cords.

Proceedings of the 4th Social Aspects and

Recreation Research Symposium. San Francisco,

CA. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State

University: 46-50.

154
Johnson, D.R.; Vandekamp, M.E.; Swearingen, T.C. 

1994. A survey of park managers/ perceptions of

noncompliant visitor behavior causing resource

damage in the national park system. Tech. Rep.

NPS/PNRUW/NRTR-92-07. Seattle, WA: College

of Forestry, University of Washington.

Lebo, H. 2004. The digital future report. Surveying the 

digital future, year four. USC Annenberg School

Center for the Digital Future. www.digitalcenter.org.

Marin, G. 1994. Self-reported awareness of the presence of product warning messages and signs by

Hispanics in San Francisco. Public Health Reports.

109(2): 275-283.

McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N. 2000. Communicating minimum impact behavior with trailside bulletin boards:

visitor characteristics associated with effectiveness. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F.; Borrie, W.T.;

O:Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a

time of change conference-volume 4: wilderness

visitors, experiences and visitor management.

Proceedings. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station: 208-216.

Oskamp, S. 1991. Attitudes and opinions. 2nd ed. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Parker, J.D.; Winter, P.L. 1998. A case study of communication with Anglo and Hispanic Wilderness

visitors. Journal of Interpretation Research. 3(1):

55-59.

Roggenbuck, J.W. 1992. Use of persuasion to 

reduce resource impacts and visitor conflicts. 

In: Manfredo, M.J. Influencing human behavior.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing Inc.: 

149-208.

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Widner, C.J.; Stratton, D.W. 

1997. Reducing theft of petrified wood at Petrified

Forest National Park. Unpublished report. On file

with: Department of Forestry, Virginia Tech,

Blacksburg, VA 24061. 

Scott, D.; Herrera, S.L.; Hunt, K.S. 2004. Constraints 

to outdoor recreation among ethnic and racial

groups. In Tierney, P.T.; Chavez, D.J.; tech. cords.

Proceedings of the Fourth Social Aspects and

Recreation Research Symposium. San Francisco,

CA. San Francisco, CA: 17-20.

Simcox, D.E.; Hodgson, R. W. 1993. Strategies in 

intercultural communication for natural resource

agencies. In: Ewert, A.W.; Chavez, D.J.; Magill,

A.W., eds. Culture, conflict, and communication in

the wildland urban interface. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press: 123-134.

Spooner, T. 2003. Internet use by region in the United 

States. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

www.pewInternet.org.

Tierney, P.T.; Dahl, R.F.; Chavez, D.J. 1998. Cultural 

diversity of Los Angeles County residents using

undeveloped natural areas. Res. Paper PSW-RP236. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. 76 p.

Winter, D.D.; Koger, S.M. 2004. The psychology of 

environmental problems. 2nd ed. Malwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Winter, P.L.; Cialdini, R.B., Bator, R.J., Rhoads, K., 

Sagarin, B.J. 1998. An analysis of normative messages in signs at recreation settings. Journal of

Interpretation Research. 3(1): 39-47.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

155
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Winter, P.L.; Jeong, W.C.; Godbey, G.C. 2004.

Outdoor recreation among Asian Americans: a

case study of San Francisco Bay Area residents.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.

22(3): 114-136.

Winter, P.L.; McCollum, D. 2002. Recreational participation and environmental activities at Frank Bonelli

Regional Park. Unpublished report. On file with:

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures

Research Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive,

Riverside, CA 92507.

Winter, P.L.; Palucki, L.J.; Burkhardt, R.L. 1999. 

Anticipated response to a fee program: the key is

trust. Journal of Leisure Research. 31(3): 207-226.

Winter, P.L.; Sagarin, B.J.; Rhoads, K.; Barrett, 

D.W.; Cialdini, R.B. 2000. Choosing to encourage

or discourage: Perceived effectiveness of prescriptive and proscriptive messages. Environmental

Management. 2(6): 588-594.

Wirsching, A.; Leung, Y.F.; Attarian, A. 2003.

Swatting litter bugs. Parks & Recreation. 38(11):

16, 18-22.

Zimbardo, P.G.; Leippe, M.R. 1991. The psychology 

of attitude change and social influence. New York:

McGraw Hill.

156
In the current era of shrinking budgets and workforce,

volunteers can accomplish task that other wise go

undone. And, volunteers often become advocates of

the Forest Service. However, some issues to consider

were mentioned: 

• Volunteers are not free—there is still a cost 

in supervision and liability.

• A staff position dedicated to managing 

volunteers is needed.

• A good work plan is essential for using 

volunteers effectively.

Managing wilderness 

areas comes with its own 

challenges, especially

when the wilderness is

near an urban area and

many potential visitors.

Discussion about management brought up the

following questions:

• How do we define 

the Forest Service’s

niche and move 

forward in a responsible way?

• Do people prefer 

highly regulated experience or less regulated but

a limited number of people?

When does tourism take over a community? 

Discussion addressed how the Forest Service could

better work with the host communities. Points included

the following:

• Tourism is not static.

• Planning with the stakeholders needs to be 

a continuous process. 

• Engage in discussion at all levels, from the 

community, to the state, to the nation.

Management need: Synthesize existing research 

on tourism and its affects on communities. Make it 

accessible to managers and communities so they 

can make reasonable 

leaps about out comes 

based on the existing 

research.

Visitors are a more 

varied group today than 

50 years ago, and more 

varied forms of communication are needed to

reach them effectively.

• Know the market 

to determine what

approach works

best to support

overall purpose.

Management need: Translate the research for 

best practices to support decisions. Show how recreation research is used to help funding. 

157

Theme 3: Recreation Management

Synthesis of Workshop Discussions

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Theme 3: Recreation Management

Synthesis of Workshop Discussions

Tourism research helps communities and managers understand and plan for potential outcomes of large and small scale

tourism.

Tom Iraci, USDA

Forest Service
This page is intentionally left blank.
Theme 4:

Special Issues 

in Recreation

Tom Iraci
This page is intentionally left blank.
In the first three themes, the roles of research and

management and bridging that gap, understanding 

forest and recreation visitors, recreation planning and

monitoring, and thoughts about recreation management were discussed. What remains are special issues

in outdoor recreation. I was given the task of taking

what amounts to “other” topics and somehow bringing

it altogether for you. One of the topics to be discussed

is fire. I’ll also touch on equity in access to recreation

opportunities, crime on national forests and grasslands, the commercialization of public lands, and the

effects of urban sprawl on recreation management.

National forests belong to the American public;

forests are places to be active, places to learn, places

to discover, places to connect to the land and to other

people. This introduction addresses serving Americans

by way of these special issues in outdoor recreation.

I was honored to attend the Centennial in January

(2005) in Washington, DC. As many have heard, it was

a chance to reflect back on the last century and look

ahead to the next. Recreation was mentioned often

and seen as important to forest management; research

was also important and was highlighted at the meeting.

This meeting is a bit like that meeting – we’re looking

at what has been done, and where we need to head. 

One hundred years ago the average life expectancy was 47 years; only 14% of homes had a bathtub;

there were only 8,000 cars and only 144 miles of

paved roads; the average worker made between $200

and $400 per year; Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and

Tennessee were each more heavily populated than

California; only 8% of homes had a telephone; and

only 6% of all Americans had graduated high school.

In 1905 there were 76 million people in the U.S.

and 760 million acres of forests. In 2005 there are

more than 270 million people and 750 million acres of

forests. As Secretary Veneman said at the Centennial

Congress, there is a 100-year history of conservation

success in holding onto forest land but significantly

more pressures on forests due to population growth.

What a difference a century makes! It makes a 

difference too for recreation. We can use the Internet

(for example, to acquire information on what to do and

where to go); we can use global positioning system

units (used to geocache, fish, hunt, etc.); we have

access to high-tech ready to wear clothing (so visitors

can stay out longer and in more comfort), and now

instead of relying on spotty cell-phone reception we

have personal identification devices (upgrades the use

of cell phones to satellites). We’re also seeing some

new activities in this century. Examples include rocket

luge (www.fastlanerocketluge.com), rough terrain vehicles (new generation of extreme motorized sports;

www.off-road.com), snowmobiling steep climbing

(www.idahoparks.org), power paragliding (www.jojowing.com), and zorbing (also called gerbaling because

you move over the landscape inside a big ball; www.

zorbsouth.co.uk). Some of these changes are fads,

161

Proceedings from the National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Introduction: Special Issues in Recreation

Deborah J. Chavez1

1 Research Social Scientist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507. 

Email: dchavez@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

some will last longer. We are living life in the fast lane,

and there are important implications for research to

assess impacts of changes and for management when

we may not have the tools necessary to manage for

these changing recreation activities. 

Chief Bosworth, at the Centennial, said that the

projections are for 571 million Americans by the turn of

the next century. Changes are everywhere. Change is

constant. Let’s consider one example, changing demographics in the U.S., specifically the increase of racial

and ethnic minority populations—it impacts each of 

the special issues in recreation including equity issues,

urban sprawl, the way people perceive fire and fire

management, how we serve constituents, and perceptions about law enforcement and feelings about safety

on our forests. Of course, that is only one change; the

reality is that there are myriad changes happening

simultaneously. It is complex. It’s a lot to manage and

there are no silver bullets, no easy answers. Forest

lands provide a place for people to recreate and an

opportunity for management and research to work

together on these special issues.

As I thought about these special issues, I realized 

I had more questions than answers, so much of the

introduction to the topics will be in the form of questions. The first of these issues is equity in access to

recreation opportunities.

Equity in Access to Recreation 

Opportunities

Ed Brannon, recently retired from Grey Towers, 

reminded people at the Centennial Congress that

forests are for use, and use bonds people to the lands.

He also highlighted the importance of social equity

issues. We have an obligation to the Americans who

own the land, including access to outdoor recreation

opportunities. 

How do we serve and engage increasingly diverse

publics? This is very complex because diversity can be

realized in gender, race and ethnicity, age, abilities,

and other variables.

Part of the answer is to better understand diverse

groups and recognize that the changing demographic

profiles probably mean changing perceptions and preferences. This may result in different recreation patterns, perhaps an emphasis on day use like we find 

for Latinos in southern California (Chavez 2002).

What are the perceptions and use of forest environments by these various groups? How do they learn

about outdoor recreation opportunities? What barriers

exist to outdoor recreation opportunities and how do

we overcome them? Most people mention time and

money, others also mention few workers who look like

them, few visitors who look like them, they feel unwelcome, they lack information about what to see and do,

or they can’t find information in their language (Tierney

et al. 1998). Who is responsible for addressing these

things? Some of these may be easier to manage for

than are others (i.e., there is not much we can do

about time and money, but we can make the forests

more welcoming to diverse groups). 

In some ways, access relates to the ability to get

information. Do we need to broaden information and

education to make it more relevant to diverse populations? It may mean we need to embrace some new

technologies and how people use them.

Should we foster involvement of diverse groups?

How do we facilitate more outdoor recreation participation by people of color? Should we mentor recreation

managers and volunteers to better serve people of

color?

People have different abilities and we need to

address those – perhaps requiring development and

rethinking some of our built environments. We have 

to ask whether we are really ready for shared governance. Can we be inclusive of all? How do we do that?

Remember, we provide places for people to connect

with the land—all people.

162
Wildland Fire and Recreation Management

and the Effects of the Healthy Forests

Restoration Act on Recreation

Management

Another special issue relates recreation to another 

functional area in the Forest Service – fire management. Chief Bosworth, at the Centennial Congress,

said that many of our most pressing problems are

related to fire and fuel in forested landscapes, and

reminded us that the Forest Service is responsible for

stewardship. A key issue, especially in the West, is fire.

Is there an acceptable amount of fire? How do

recreation visitors feel about burned landscapes? How

long after a fire does it take before recreation visitation

and tourism resume?

Will the recreating public accept smoke? Should

we develop visibility standards? How do recreation 

visitors react to area closures? What are the effects of

seasonal closures or restrictions on recreation activities? Are there social barriers to fire management? 

We know that people come to public lands for the

landscapes, for renewal, escape from the city, etc. How

does fire relate? Fire and recreation is a new area of

research. One of the first questions we were asked

was, “How many recreation visitors are impacted by

fire and fire management activities?” The quick answer

is that we don’t know, nor are the data out there that

we can gather to provide an answer. Perhaps we

should develop an instrument to measure number of

recreation visitors impacted. We should also examine

recreation visitor perceptions about fire and fire management as we have limited information on this

(Hendricks et al. 2003). 

We should examine fire manager perceptions about

recreation visitor impacts. In comparing two studies we

found some key differences between visitor and manager perceptions (Bricker et al. 2005). Managers

thought recreation visitors would be most constrained

by recreation activity restrictions, while visitors were

more constrained by any fire deemed to be “out of

control.” Additional work needs to be done on this.

How do we get important fire related information 

to non-English speakers and readers? Who should be

the messengers? Would this provide possible common

ground with publics? What about our volunteers?

How do we provide visitors the high-quality recreation experiences they want without compromising the

health of the land or future use?

Crime on National Forests and Grasslands

High-quality recreation experiences are also a concern 

in the next special issue—crime on national forests

and grasslands. This is another relatively new area of

research with a lot of interesting questions to address.

One of the first questions I was asked on this topic

was, “How much crime is there?” Law Enforcement

and Investigations (LE&I) have a system for getting

counts, but even this system does not track all kinds 

of crime and violence—some of these are captured in

local and county law enforcement counts. Consequently,

it is not easy or even possible to get good data to

respond to this question. Again, an interesting question, but other questions may also be valuable.

Another question asked about this topic is, “Am I

safer on national forests than I am in the city?” We

have to ask, what is “safe”? Do they mean personal

safety, physical safety, or what? We need to define it.

Once we define safety, what are adequate or acceptable levels of safety? How much public safety should

we provide? What are our liabilities?

How does crime and violence on national forests

impact recreation visitation and management? We

don’t have good measures yet on visitor perceptions,

and we have limited information based on manager

perceptions.

What do we know about law enforcement and

management of crime and violence on national forests

and grasslands? Again we have limited information.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

163
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

We know that some managers perceive crime and 

violence as increasing on public lands, and having a

mixed impact on recreation visitation (Tynon et al.

2001). We also have some preliminary information on

how to mitigate crime and violence on national forests

(Chavez et al. 2004) that suggest personalities,

resources, persistence, communications, and collaboration may be key characteristics of success. Should

forest service law enforcement deal mainly with

resource crime or people crime?

Many current law enforcement officers (LEO) come

from other functional areas of the Forest Service, but

newer LEOs don’t necessarily have natural resources

backgrounds. What impact might that have?

What are effective approaches to changing

destructive behaviors? Can we learn about successes

in management that can inform other managers? How

do we measure success? There is a lot of work to be

done here in partnership with LE&I.

Commercialization of Public Lands

The next topic also addresses working with others – 

the commercialization of public lands. In this session

we’ll address partnerships, privatization, user fees,

business orientation, and commercialization of public

lands.

Does privatization or commercialization promote

customer service or does it lead to social inequality?

Do private needs match public needs? Does privatization meet the public need? What is the public interest?

The public sector is thought to be necessary to

accomplish tasks that the private sector cannot or will

not do. Or at least ideally the public sector does those

tasks. Perhaps some outdoor recreation tasks can be

realized through contracting out for services, such as

maintenance of recreation facilities. Contracting services may encourage competition and innovation.

What is right for our national forests and customer

service? Perhaps it is a continuum of privatization/

commercialization and public services.

Effects of Urban Sprawl on Recreation 

Management

The next topic also touches on customer service and 

how we go about it. It addresses the effects of urban

sprawl on recreation management. At the Centennial

Congress, Chief Bosworth told us that we lose 4,000

acres of open space per day as sprawl continues.

Sprawl appears to be a broad scale trend with implications for recreation management.

Also mentioned numerous times at the Centennial

Congress were the large numbers of urbanites. More

and more of the U.S. population live in urban, not rural,

settings. What are the impacts of migration, urbanization, and sprawl on recreation management? Do recreation resources drive migration? Which natural

amenities drive migration?

What are the implications for the increased distribution of people over the landscape for future demand

on outdoor recreation? Being close to forests may

mean quick access time. Will it result in less planning

for outings? Will it result in short trips, of fewer days

duration or increased day use? Will it result in more

trips because people are closer to the forests?

What pressures are added? Will more people use

the land and forests as a backyard? Will more people

use the land and forests as regional parks?

The need to connect with urban populations was

another Centennial Congress topic. Will it be easier to

show the relevance of the agency with so many people

living nearby national forests? Is conservation and

environmental education important here?

As with all the special issues, there are upsides,

downsides, complications and complexity.

Concluding Remarks

The task of introducing this theme area on special 

issues in recreation was to provide thoughts about

ideas that might be discussed within the associated

talks. The five topic areas were (1) Equity in access 

164
to recreation opportunities, (2) Wildland fire and recreation management and the effects of the Healthy

Forests Restoration Act on recreation management, 

(3) Crime on national forests and grasslands, (4)

Commercialization of public lands, and (5) Effects of

urban sprawl on recreation management. Each presentation was a collaboration of management and 

scientists.

Steven Wright, the oft quoted scientist, said things

like, “42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot”,

and “A conclusion is the place where you got tired of

thinking” (http://www.weather.net/zarg/ZarPages/steven

Wright.html). To address the special issues in recreation, we need to strive for credible science and sound

implementation of that science. Research and management collaborating together can achieve this.

References

Bricker, K.S.; Chavez, D.J.; Hendricks, W.W. 2005.

Recreation and fire management in urban national

forests: a study of manager perspectives.

Unpublished report on file with: D. Chavez, Pacific

Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest

Drive, Riverside, CA 92507. 68 p.

Chavez, D.J. 2002. Adaptive management in outdoor 

recreation: serving Hispanics in southern

California. Western Journal of Applied Forestry.

17(3): 129-133.

Chavez, D.J.; Tynon, J.F.; Knap, N.E. 2004.

Reducing crime and violence on public lands: case

studies in the USDA Forest Service. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration. 22(3): 22-38.

Hendricks, W.W.; Chavez, D.J.; Phippen, K.D. 2003. 

Observance-influence of fire management and

place attachment at Big Sur. In: Jakes, P.J., comp.

Proceedings, ninth international symposium on

society and resource management. Gen. Tech

Rep. NC-231. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Research Station: 45-54.

Tierney, P.T.; Dahl, R.F.; Chavez, D.J. 1998. Cultural 

diversity of Los Angeles County residents using

undeveloped natural areas. Res. Pap. PSW-RP236. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. 76 p.

Tynon, J.F.; Chavez, D.J.; Kakoyannis, C. 2001. If 

you go down to the woods today, you’re sure of a

big surprise: it’s no teddy bear’s picnic. Women in

Natural Resources. 22(1): 6-17.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

165
This page is intentionally left blank.
Introduction

This paper briefly examines selected issues surrounding equity in access to recreation opportunities. General

considerations addressed include a conceptual framework for considerations of equity, cognitive biases that

make equity issues complex to address, compelling

reasons to address inequity, and the reality of inequity.

Next follows a discussion of Forest Service business

and equity issues of informing and engaging publics.

Recreational service delivery is a major focus of the

paper, and constraints specific to persons with disabilities, women, and people of color also are presented. 

A series of solutions designed to address inequity are

offered, including changes in policy, recruitment and

training, methods of involvement and engagement, and

site design and service delivery. Considerations of

equity continue to be of utmost importance in public

land management, given the Environmental Justice

mandate.

A Conceptual Framework for 

Considerations of Equity

Equity can be considered what is “fair” and “just.” 

Justice is generally broken down into two types: procedural and distributive. Procedural justice addresses the

fairness of decision processes, whereas distributive

justice surrounds fairness in the distribution of rights

and resources (Floyd and Johnson 2002, Maiese

2003, Winter and Koger 2004). Both are essential to 

a discussion of equity in access to recreation opportunities. The elements of procedural justice have been

further explained as involving consistency, neutrality,

representation, and transparency (Maiese 2003). Consistency as a part of procedural justice would be present when decisionmaking processes demonstrate that

cases or circumstances that are similar are treated as

such (Maiese 2003). Procedural justice also requires

that decisionmakers are unbiased and neutral in their

decisionmaking roles (Maiese 2003). Representation 

of affected parties, particularly those who have been

traditionally marginalized, is an essential characteristic

of procedures that are just (Floyd and Johnson 2002,

Maguire and Lind 2003, Maiese 2003). Finally, decisionmaking procedures that are transparent, lacking

secrecy and deception, are more likely to be procedurally just (Maiese 2003, Winter and Koger 2004).

Cultural variations in the perception of justice are only

beginning to be explored (for example, see Jasso

2005). Examining equity and justice are key toward

actually arriving at equity in access.

Biases in Thought Processes

Although considerations of equity may be potentially 

contentious to address, there are some biases in

thought processes (Oskamp 1991) that make issues 

of equity even more complex to address. Each of

167

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Equity in Access to Recreation 

Opportunities: A Synthesis of Research 

and Management Implications

Patricia L. Winter1

1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, 

CA 92507-6099. Email: pwinter@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

these may impede the ability to make accurate assessments of agency efforts to address equity, as well as

impeding the efforts themselves. The first of these is

the “fundamental attribution error,” or the tendency to

overestimate the importance of personal characteristics as the cause of other people’s behaviors, and to

underestimate situational influences (Oskamp 1991). 

If questions of equity are relegated to preferences of

individuals who are members of underrepresented

groups for example, then managing agencies are

absolved from further concern. Another bias, “overlooking nonoccurrences” involves the tendency to overlook

things that do not occur because they are less salient

and less easily remembered (Oskamp 1991). People

who are absent from the members of the recreating

public, for example, may be less of concern just

because they are not present in the day-to-day issues

management needs to address. However, what is not

happening may be just as important as what is happening in our recreation settings. Finally, humans tend

to ignore base-rate information or to overlook relevant

data on large groups of cases (Oskamp 1991). Instead,

there is a strong preference for vivid information such

as anecdotes or case studies. The risk here is in the

increased probability that very prominent issues or

trends get overlooked or ignored. Each of these factors

may play a part in the perceived lack of relevancy of

environmental justice issues expressed by some managers (Padgett and Imani 1999). These complexities

can present barriers themselves, but equity remains 

an important issue.

Why Address Inequities in Recreational 

Opportunities and Participation?

There are several reasons for natural resource managers to concern themselves with potential inequities

in recreational opportunities and participation. One reason is a legislative concern, involving the Environmental

Justice mandate (Executive Order 12898, Floyd and

Johnson 2002, McAvoy 2000, Padgett and Imani

1999). Another reason is centered in issues of health

and well-being. The recreating public gains psychological and physical health benefits that should be available at a broad scale (Aitchison 2003, Audley 2002,

Fine 1996, Howard and Peniston 2002, McAvoy 2001,

Transportation Research Board 2005). Publics who are

disadvantaged might be viewed as especially in need

of natural resource-based recreational benefits. There

is also a political benefit to be gained because committed outdoor recreationists represent a supportive constituency for maintaining and acquiring recreational

resources (Kyle and Mowen 2004, McAvoy 2000,

Sasidharan 2002). Finally, the overall moral and ethical

responsibility of agencies comes into consideration. It

has been suggested that “...inaccessible contexts are

evidence of how society has accepted an institutionalization of exclusion” (Devine and Wilhite 2000: 49).

Public land management agencies need to make consistent efforts to included rather than excluded, and to

reflect the public service mission (Zuefle 2004).

The Centralization of Constraints – 

The Reality of Inequity

There is solid evidence that some publics are excluded

from natural resource-based recreation. Americans

who do not participate in outdoor recreation are more

likely to be female, older, more ethnically diverse, and

less affluent (Floyd 1999, Lee et al. 2001, Outdoor

Industry Association 2004).

Constraints to outdoor recreation among underrepresented publics has been centered around gender,

income (including poverty in inner city), literacy, disabilities, rural residence, race, ethnicity, culture, and age.

Although each of these factors has an individual influence on recreation participation and constraints that

individuals face, combinations of them have compounding effects (Henderson et al. 1998). 

168
These constraints are important to understand and

address where possible. Societal trends suggest that

each of these factors has the potential to become more

important to recreation management. The centralization of the poor in urban centers, the increased gap

between the affluent and the poor, the increasing median age of the overall population, and the increased

ethnic/racial and cultural diversity in the United States

are all projected to continue (Dwyer and Chavez 2005,

Struglia et al. 2003). The ever-present gaps in access

to forms and quality of technology add an additional

concern regarding the multilayered digital divide in an

era of e-government (Carvin et al. 2004, Stripling

2004).

The Business of the Forest Service

The Forest Service has many roles, but those related 

to issues of equity are centered on keeping visitors

and potential visitors informed about recreational

opportunities. The process of informing comes through

a number of routes including the Web, media outlets,

and other routes. The agency also has the role of

engaging interested and affected parties when decisions about natural resource-based recreation are

being made. The actual delivery of recreational opportunities and services is also of concern. Each of these

aspects of agency business will be addressed.

Informing Visitors and Potential 

Visitors Through the Web

Numerous concerns related to equity have been raised

in discussions regarding the Web and reliance on the

Internet to inform publics. People of color (particularly

Blacks and Hispanics) and those from lower income

and educational groups are less likely to use the

Internet than the public at large (Spooner 2003). Access

to the Web may be limited or nonexistent, particularly

among lower income groups who may not have the

discretionary income to invest in a computer and

Internet service. Although more than half of the U.S.

adult population is reported to have Web access

(between 59 and 76%, depending on source of the

data, Lebo 2004, Spooner 2003), those who do not

use the Internet frequently cite lack of a computer or

lack of a computer sophisticated enough to access 

the Web (Lebo 2004, U.S. Department of Commerce

2004). Capability to access the Internet also hinges on

available Internet service. In some areas Internet service is nonexistent or too slow to function reasonably.

Lower speed service and nonexistent service are

issues that are particularly pressing in rural areas and

among those who cannot afford the monthly service

charges for high speed service, such as DSL and

broadband (U.S. Department of Commerce 2004). 

Computer literacy and familiarity are other issues

that arise as a concern regarding Web communications and accessibility. The elderly may have had less

opportunity to become familiar and comfortable with

computers and the Internet. People of color, more 

likely to be from lower income groups and schooled in

systems with less access to high-quality technology,

may have had less of a chance to learn how to confidently use the Internet. 

Language on websites can present an additional

barrier among those who have limited English skills, 

or who have lower levels of literacy even in their own

language (Carvin et al. 2004). Sites that do invest in

translations may miss some of the cultural texture and

richness needed for full appreciation of the information

presented. One route to increase the quality of translations is to use back-translation methods, where the

English text is first translated into the alternate language, and then a second translator takes the alternate language version and translates it into English

(Marin and Marin 1991).

Finally, website design can be a concern when

accessibility for the disabled has not been imbedded

into the layout and information presentation (Carvin 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

169
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

et al. 2004). Fortunately, the advent of sites that provide tips to improved design, and some that even

screen website design to point out barriers, promise

tools for improved Web access (for example

booboo.webct.com).

As with any communication tool, other routes to

gain the information also should be offered as insurance against exclusion (Carvin et al. 2004). This principle has been demonstrated in the recent recreation

reservation program used by the Forest Service and

other agencies. Potential recreationists can make

reservations online, or call an 800 number to do so.

Additionally, although websites tend to rely on credit

card purchases as a main basis for financial transactions, this same system offers alternate means of 

payment. 

Informing Visitors and Potential Visitors 

Through the Media and Other Routes

Popular mass media is one route open to informing 

visitors and potential visitors; for example, notices in

newspapers regarding public input sessions regarding

a recreation site are possible. Radio spots and public

service announcements are another method of informing recreation visitors and other forest users about 

forest closures or other matters of interest. Recent

research suggests that among ethnic and racial minorities; however, ethnic media may be more used and

trusted than mainstream sources (Anderson et al.

2000, Crano et al. 2005, Winter et al. 2004). Therefore,

to effectively inform a diverse public, ethnic media has

to be included in communications. 

Media outlets used and trusted by diverse ethnic/

racial groups were recently examined in the Los

Angeles basin in California (Crano et al. 2005). Findings revealed that across all respondent groups, friends

and family served as the primary source of information

about outdoor recreational opportunities. However,

sources beyond that included types of media that 

varied significantly by ethnic/racial group. Furthermore,

among respondents that reported reliance on forms 

of popular media, ethnic venues were frequently

reported. 

The sources most relied on were different from 

the sources that respondents reported trusting most for

information about outdoor recreation opportunities. The

Internet was the most trusted source for information,

while family and friends were reported as the secondmost trusted source among all groups except Whites,

who trusted the Internet first and then newspapers.

However, the concerns mentioned earlier in this paper

about the Internet should be kept in mind when designing communication plans incorporating media outlets.

Given the heavy reliance on, and trust in, family

and friends as an information source, use of community networks for “getting the word out” has been recommended (Crano et al. 2005). However, links to

those networks would vary by ethnic/racial group. For

example, use of churches for information flow within

the Black community could be one recommendation

based on findings from the study by Crano et al

(2005).

Engaging Interested and Affected Parties

Public interest and the expectation of involvement 

and being informed of land management decisions

have continued to increase (Dwyer and Chavez 2005).

Given the consideration of ensuring representation and

a voice in decisionmaking, particularly among marginalized groups, it is important to discuss who participates in an agency’s primary modes of gathering public

comment, input, and collaboration. Public meetings

and workshops are routes frequently used, although

individuals with disabilities may not have adequate

transportation to get to a location for a meeting, the

site may not be accessible, or the meeting itself may

be conducted without translators for the deaf (CocoRipp 2005, French and Hainsworth 2001). Residents 

in rural locations may have more difficulty getting to 

a site, so unless meetings and workshops are held in

170
close proximity, they may be excluded (Rast 2004).

People of color may not be comfortable participating 

in meetings and workshops held and participated in 

by a White majority, and may fear the risk of being an

assumed representative of their ethnic or racial group

rather than bringing their own opinions to the discussion. Differences in language are also a concern, in

that if meetings and workshops are held only in English,

publics whose primary language is other than English

may not attend or may remain silent because of discomfort in effectively voicing their opinion. Language 

is a particularly complex issue in some regions of the

United States, such as Sacramento County, California,

where more than 5% of the population in public school

districts speaks Spanish, Hmong, Vietnamese,

Cantonese, and Mien (Struglia et al. 2003). 

Gathering public comments online is another

avenue of collecting input and concerns from a diverse

and geographically dispersed public; however, constraints to Internet access suggest other avenues

should also be used (Carvin et al. 2004).

Finally, cultural variations in social exchanges,

relationships, and public dialog mandate that, as much

as possible, styles of working with diverse publics shift

according to these differences to ensure that our business practices respect diversity (Anderson et al. 2000,

Raish et al. 1999). For example, face-to-face communication, an established rapport, and taking the message to the “home territory of the affected group”

increase in importance within communities of color.

Some General Observations about 

Recreational Opportunities and Services

A few informal observations are offered regarding 

recreational opportunities and services.

The first of these is that “If you build it, it does not

mean that they will come.” Offering recreational opportunities and services that fit a conceived business

niche, without considerating the already served and

potential markets, can present implicit barriers to participation and feelings of being unwelcome. For example, some locations may have large concentrations of

Latino visitors, who tend to recreate in larger family

and extended family groups. Yet the built amenities,

such as tables, may be designed for seating six to

eight individuals and situated in a solitary configuration. There are occasions when one has to sit back,

observe what is going on, and ask why. 

The second of these informal observations is that

“actions speak louder than words.” Approaches to

communication, developed site and program offerings,

and characteristics of management staff are routes to

impart a message of being welcome, and just as likely,

of being unwelcome (Allison and Hibbler 2004, Devine

and Broach 1998, Roberts 2003, Tierney et al. 1998).

How an agency does business provides information

about who is viewed as important and unimportant.

And lastly, “If they don’t come, it does not mean

that they do not care or are not interested.” Broader

values based in the importance of protecting natural

places may be present among a wider public than

those drawn to recreation settings on forest lands

(Roberts 2003). Furthermore, individuals may have an

interest in recreation opportunities, but may not be

aware of the range of opportunities available to them.

Increasing awareness through communication

approaches that suit a diverse public may result in

increased diversity among recreationists.

General Constraint Concerns

Several general concerns have arisen specific to 

constraints in recreational opportunities, which will be

briefly reviewed. An indepth discussion of constraints

specific to persons with disabilities, women, and people of color follows.

Concerns about safety have been reported among

groups of color, particularly in settings that are perceived as being frequented primarily by Whites (Floyd

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

171
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

1999, Johnson et al. 2001). Since leisure is a discretionary activity, this discomfort is likely sufficient to

drive individuals to select other recreational pursuits.

The built environment can speak volumes about who is

welcome and the activities that they may engage in

safely. 

Communication and information dissemination is

an important part of recreation service delivery. But 

literacy levels vary in the United States, and this can

be a constraint when attempting to communicate with

those who have limited English proficiency and those

who are not literate, or are marginally literate, in their

own language. 

Charging fees is a relatively new role for the

Forest Service as an agency and concerns linked to

administration of fee programs and equity has been

discussed in the literature (Baker et al. 2000, Martin

1999, Winter et al. 1999). Although individuals with low

income may not seem adversely impacted by fees

based on on-site recreationist surveys (Bowker et al.

1999), other studies suggest that in the lives of those

with severely limited income, any fee would present an

additional constraint to recreational opportunities (Scott

et al. 2004). In one study of public concerns about the

Forest Service’s proposed fee program, the individuals

raising concerns about individuals with low income did

not tend to come from low-income households themselves (Winter et al. 1999). A similar finding was

reported by Bowker and colleagues (1999).

Constraints Experienced by People 

with Disabilities

Disability research has been marginal to what is otherwise a well established discourse addressing issues 

of social exclusion (Aitchison 2003). In spite of the

paucity of information on constraints to recreation

among people with disabilities (Aitchison 2003), the

research that has been done points to some distinct

constraints specific to this population. Constraints are

of three main types: (1) administrative (for example a

lack of qualified staff to administer programs for people

with disabilities), (2) physical (such as environmental

and architectural barriers), and (3) attitudinal (including

stereotypes that recreation personnel have of people

with disabilities, such as lowered expectations for

physical performance, Devine and Broach 1998). In

spite of these constraints, it is important for recreation

managers to recognize that people with disabilities are

just as interested in recreation as populations without

disabilities (McAvoy 2001). Furthermore, the interest in

the range of recreational opportunities and preferences

for outdoor environments, are also similar (McAvoy

2001). 

Time constraints are common to the majority of

publics, including persons with disabilities, but other

constraints are more likely to be reported by people

with disabilities than by those without. These constraints include lack of transportation, health-related

concerns, someone to recreate with, and a lack of

awareness of opportunities (Audley 2002; Beart et al.

2001; Burns and Graefe, n.d.; French and Hainsworth

2001; Rimmer et al. 2004). These constraints move

beyond concerns related to accessibility in built and

natural environments, another issue of concern to 

people with disabilities (Audley 2002). Recreationists

with disabilities may not view sites as accessible, even

though managers perceive them to be. A mismatch

between agency perception of accessibility and the

experience of people with disabilities was reported in

Bedini and Henderson (1994). As sites are modified,

the perception of recreationists on-site would be important to assess and monitor. Attention to communication

delivery is also essential to addressing the needs of

persons with disabilities (for example those who are

deaf or hard of hearing), as identified by Coco-Ripp

(2005).

Constraints Experienced by Women

Constraints experienced by women include a lack of 

time, common to survey and interview respondents 

172
in general. However, the lack of time seems to be of

special concern to women given their social roles and

the ethic of care assigned to their gender-roles

(Henderson et al. 1989, Lee et al. 2001). In addition,

similar to people with disabilities, women report that

the lack of someone to recreate with is a constraint to

their participation in recreation. Women mention a lack

of discretionary funds more often than men (Johnson

et al. 2001). Part of this has been explained in terms of

a lower median income among women than men, and

the ethic of care that suggests family needs and other

priorities should be covered before leisure pursuits

(Henderson et al. 1989). As mentioned before, women

are also more likely to express concerns about safety

as a constraint to recreation than are men (Henderson

et al. 1989, Johnson et al. 2001, Lee et al. 2001). Concerns about safety appear to be well-founded, based

on research regarding crime and violence on forestlands (Chavez et al. 2004; Tynon et al. 2001). Each 

of these constraints is further increased in its impact

when combined with other sociodemographic characteristics also frequently associated with the experience

of constraints such as women with disabilities, women

of color, and women in older age groups. 

Constraints Experienced by People of Color

People of color experience a number of constraints 

to recreation participation. This knowledge leads to an

improved understanding of the documented underparticipation of groups of color in outdoor recreation.

These constraints have been reported as agency culture (Roberts 2003, Tierney et al. 1998), historical 

context (Roberts 2003), perceived and actual discrimination (McDonald and McAvoy 1997, Tierney et al.

1998), language barriers (Allison and Hibbler 2004,

Winter et al. 2004), concerns about safety (Johnson et

al. 2001, Scott et al. 2004), awareness of opportunities

(Roberts 2003, Scott et al. 2004), lack of discretionary

funds (Scott et al. 2004; Tierney et al. 1998, Winter et

al. 2004), lack of transportation (Scott et al. 2004,

Tierney et al. 1998), lack of someone to recreate with

(Johnson et al. 1998, Scott et al. 2004, Tierney et al.

1998), cultural variations in preferences for activities

and what is available at recreation sites, difference in

outdoor recreation opportunities (Johnson et al. 1998),

and cultural preferences for the built environment and

what is found in natural resource recreation settings

(McDonald and McAvoy 1997, Floyd 1999). Groups of

color do not need to experience discrimination themselves to have concerns about and be impacted by

racism. Vicarious racism has been found to impact

stressors related to race (Alvarez et al. 2004), and can

influence recreation choices. Although some cultural

variations may in fact dissipate through the acculturation process, it is important to understand that other

aspects of culture are maintained. Acculturation is the

process of adapting to a new host society in terms of

its language, customs, laws and regulations, and

lifestyles (Organista et al. 2003). That is, acculturation

is multidimensional rather than one-dimensional

(Huynh et al. 2004).

Agency culture is seen as a barrier for multiple

reasons including the underrepresentation of people of

color as employees delivering and managing recreational opportunities, an unwillingness to work with

people of color, communication and education methods that are a poor fit with the needs and preferences

of communities of color, planning for a “traditional

white” visitor experience, and a general lack of feeling

welcomed (Allison and Hibbler 2004, Roberts 2003,

Tierney et al. 1998). 

A complex history of relationships, with many negative undertones, has been reported. The history of

slavery among Blacks in the United States influenced

a negative relationship with the natural resource base

(Johnson et al. 1998). Among Native Americans, the

loss of land and limitations on traditional uses on lands

has fostered a troubled and sometimes negative view

of natural resource recreation (McAvoy 2002, McAvoy

et al. 2003, Roberts 2003). Furthermore, the view of

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

173
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

the land shared by Native Americans suggests a different relationship with the land than experienced within

the traditional recreation context, often resulting in conflict regarding recreation management (McAvoy 2002).

Very little has been done on Asians’ recreational experiences and motivations (Anderson et al. 2000). The

limited research that has been done indicates that

views of the land, as well as recreational uses and

interests, are distinct from the White, Euro-American

cultural tradition (Glover 2005, Winter et al. 2004). In

addition, there is great variability among subcultures

sharing the same racial background (Glover 2005,

Winter et al. 2004). 

Given that leisure is a discretionary activity, it

makes sense that individuals choose to recreate in

places where they feel most comfortable or welcome.

Research evidence suggests that groups select areas

that reflect enclaves, or areas where ethnic and racial

groups are homogeneous (Chavez 2000). Recreating

with similar others may help assuage some of the 

concern over possible experiences of discrimination

(McDonald and McAvoy 1997). 

Tierney et al. (1998) found that Blacks, Latinos,

and Asians were more likely than Whites to agree that

they would travel to and recreate in natural areas if

more workers of their own ethnicity were employed

there. 

It is important to note that members of the same

racial group should not be viewed as homogenous,

given the relative diversity within each ethnic and 

cultural subgroup (Alvarez et al. 2004, Glover 2005,

Sasidharan 2002, Winter et al. 2004). The variations

within ethnic/racial groups require greater understanding. 

Strategies to Address Inequity

A number of solutions have been presented in various 

literatures aimed at addressing inequity in recreational

opportunities and services. These solutions include

ones related to agency policy; strategies related to

recruitment, hiring and training; public engagement

and involvement; recreational site design, design of

communications, and recreation service delivery.

Solutions at the Policy Level

To arrive at equity, agency policy must be specifically 

aimed toward eliminating existing barriers, such as

those outlined above (French and Hainsworth 2001,

Westland 1985). A firm commitment to equity and

removal of the constraints identified above requires a

specific agency intent, as well as action identification

including who will carry out each action, partnered with

accountability, commitment of resources, and follow-up

(Rimmer et al. 2004, Westland 1985, Wilderness

Inquiry 2000). An active commitment to equity paired

with a specific action plan may help address some of

the unintentional exclusions (McAvoy 2000) that occur.

Solutions in Recruitment, Hiring and Training

The active recruitment and hiring of people of color,

women, and individuals with disabilities is frequently

recommended as one approach to addressing equity in

access to recreation opportunities (Wilderness Inquiry

2000). Benefits can include a diverse perspective on

recreation planning and service delivery, communication and engagement approaches, and an implicit 

message of welcome to other members of these

groups. In addition, active training programs that focus

on diversity have value in improving awareness of subtle and overt discrimination, modes of rectifying those,

and paths to improving services and approaches that

serve a diverse populace. The end result is expansion

of an organization’s social capital in ways that help

build rather than stagnate future development (Leana

and Van Buren 1999). Organizational social capital is 

a resource reflective of the setting that is based on a

collective goal orientation and shared trust, leading up

to effective action (Leana and Van Buren 1999).

Recruitment and placement of an ethnically

diverse staff comes with the responsibility to avoid

placing staff in the position of spokesperson for a group

174
(Allison and Hibbler 2004). Training is essential to continued success, and should focus on equipping all staff

with cultural competence that cuts across the groups

of concern discussed above (Allison and Hibbler 2004,

Chavez 2000, Devine et al. 1998, McGovern and

Hermann 1998, Rimmer et al. 2004, Wilderness Inquiry

2000).

Solutions Through Engagement and 

Involvement

Engagement and involvement of those affected by 

recreation decisions is essential to developing and

maintaining recreation opportunities that fit a diverse

public (French and Hainsworth 2001, Westland 1985).

Involvement may take the form of surveys, interviews,

or focus groups, assuming that agencies act on the

information gathered to help plan and deliver recreational services as appropriate (Bedini and Henderson

1994, Chavez 2000). Ideally this research would

involve the affected communities in its design, implementation, and interpretation (McAvoy et al. 2000).

Simple messages of engagement are sent through

adopting communication techniques that fit the recreating public, such as providing information in languages

other than English (assuming a high quality translation

has been ensured, Chavez 2000), including images

that reflect diverse cultures (Chavez 2000), using communication approaches that increase awareness of

opportunities (Bedini and Henderson 1994), and using

formats accessible to all people (Wilderness Inquiry

2000). 

Establishing and maintaining partnerships with

groups and other organizations that have an interest in

affected communities, or in outdoor recreation in general, is another form of involvement. It may be a key

route to the provision and support of services that otherwise would be lost due to a lack of resources. Such

partnerships are also important vehicles for “inviting” in

the groups of concern discussed above (Wilderness

Inquiry 2000).

Engaging the affected publics during planning of

recreation services and modes of delivery is important

to reducing constraints that limit recreation participation (Chavez 2000, Sasidharan 2002). As Bedini and

Henderson’s interviewee (1994: 29) advised, “Make

sure they (people with disabilities) are participating in

the planning process, because lots of times people

(parks and recreation planners) make plans for you

that you can’t use. So they give you ideas that they

think are feasible and...when people with disabilities

get there, they can’t use it.” 

Solutions in Design and Service Delivery

Given the power of implicit messages in site design 

and broader service delivery, it is important to address

recreation site design and approaches to service and

communications that demonstrate cultural competence

and an awareness of universal design (Devine and

Broach 1998, Rimmer et al. 2004). 

One example of design modification that met 

the needs of a diverse recreating public involved the

renovation of the Applewhite picnic area on the San

Bernardino National Forest (Chavez et al. 1995).

Scientists and managers collaborated on an inquiry 

of recreationist needs and interests, and these were

reflected in the site renovation, paired with resource

and ecosystem limits. The recreating public was surveyed on site in a way that gained a high level of 

participation, thus giving the public a voice in the renovation. Community members surrounding the recreation site were involved through face-to-face dialog

with the managers. Follow-up inquiries have served as

a crosscheck to explore impacts of the renovation and

approaches to further improve fit with the needs of

recreationists paired with improved protection of the

built and natural environment (Chavez 2002). While

specific in its application, the techniques surrounding

this renovation provide a desirable model for other

efforts. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

175
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Conclusions

Equity in recreation opportunities and services will 

only come about through a force of will, adoption of

policies that encourage and mandate equity, and personal commitment among agency personnel to actively

seek and support actions that make up the building

blocks of equitable service delivery (Westland 1985).

Application of environmental justice principles to management of outdoor recreation opportunities may be

the best measure against which to evaluate equity.

According to Floyd and Johnson (2002), this would

involve ensuring that resources are allocated through

fair procedures, benefits and costs of resource management are distributed fairly, and equal access to

public resources is granted for all citizens. Given the

transformation needed and the various steps agencies,

including the Forest Service, have taken, it is helpful 

to be reminded that “inclusion is an ongoing process

requiring constant evaluation and modification” (Devine

et al. 1998: 76). Therefore, follow-up and monitoring

need to be imbedded in programs focused on inclusion

(Devine and Broach 1998).

References

Aitchison, C. 2003. From leisure and disability to 

disability leisure: developing data, definitions and

discourses. Disability & Society. 18(7): 955-969.

Allison, M.T.; Hibbler, D.K. 2004. Organizational 

barriers to inclusion: perspectives from the recreation professional. Leisure Sciences. 26: 261-280.

Alvarez, A.N.; Juang, L.; Liang, C.T.H. 2004. Asian 

Americans and racism: the role of racial identity

and racial socialization. Paper presented at the

112th Annual Convention of the American

Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI, 

July 28 – August 1.

Anderson, J.A.; Blahna, D.J.; Chavez, D.J. 2000.

Fern gathering on the San Bernardino National

Forest: cultural versus commercial values among

Korean and Japanese participants. Society and

Natural Resources. 13: 747-762.

Audley, P. 2002. People with physical and sensory 

disabilities, participation levels and barriers to

physical activity. The Department of Public Health,

Western Health Board.

Baker, D.; Absher, J.; Knopf, R.; Virden, R. 2000. 

Sedona/Red Rock area market analysis.

Unpublished report. On file with the USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station,

Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures Research

Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside,

CA 92507.

Beart, S.; Hawkins, D.; Kroese, B.S.; Smithson, P.; 

Tolosa, I. 2001. Barriers to accessing leisure

opportunities for people with learning disabilities.

British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 29(4): 133. 

Bedini, L.A.; Henderson, K.A. 1994. Women with 

disabilities and the challenges to leisure service

providers. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration. 12(1): 17-34.

Bowker, J.M.; Cordell, H.K.; Johnson, C.Y. 1999.

User fees for recreation services on public lands: 

a national assessment. Journal of Park and

Recreation Administration. 17(3): 1-14.

Burns, R.C.; Graefe, A.R. [N.d.]. Constraints to 

outdoor recreation in Pacific Northwest National

Forests: exploring perceptions of respondents

whose households include persons with disabilities. Manuscript in preparation. On file with: P.

Winters, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Research Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban

Cultures Research Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest

Drive, Riverside, CA 92507-6099.

176
Carvin, A.; Hill, J.; Smothers, S. 2004.

E-Government for all: ensuring equitable access 

to online government services. Newton, MA: The

EDS Center for Media & Community and the NYS

Forum.

Chavez, D.J. 2000. Invite, include, and involve! Racial 

groups, ethnic groups, and leisure. In: Allison,

M.T.; Schneider, I.E., eds. Diversity and the recreation profession: organizational perspectives. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing: 179-191.

Chavez, D.J. 2002. Adaptive management in outdoor 

recreation: serving Hispanics in southern

California. Western Journal of Applied Forestry.

17(3): 129-133.

Chavez, D.J.; Larson, J.; Winter, P.L. 1995. To be or 

not to be a park: that is the question. In Chavez,

D.J., tech. coord. Proceedings of the second symposium on social aspects and recreation research.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-156. Albany, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Research Station: 29-34.

Chavez, D.J.; Tynon, J.F.; Knap, N.E. 2004.

Reducing crime and violence on public lands: case

studies in the USDA Forest Service. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration. 22(3): 22-38.

Coco-Ripp, J.A. 2005. Including people who are deaf 

in recreation. Parks and Recreation. 40(3): 26, 

28-33.

Crano, W.; Quist, R.; Winter, P.L. 2005. Getting the 

Forest Service’s message out to the people: a

study of information channels among diverse

publics in the Los Angeles basin. Unpublished

report. On file with: P. Winters, USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station,

Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures Research

Work Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside,

CA 92507.

Devine, M.A.; Broach, E. 1998. Inclusion in the 

aquatic environment. Parks and Recreation. 33(2):

60-67.

Devine, M.A.; McGovern, J.N.; Hermann, P. 1998. 

Inclusion in youth sports. Parks and Recreation.

33(7): 68-76.

Devine, M.A.; Wilhite, B. 2000. The meaning of 

disability: implications for inclusive leisure services

for youth with and without disabilities. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration. 18(3): 35-52.

Dwyer, J.F.; Chavez, D.J. 2005. The challenges of 

managing public lands in the wildland-urban interface. In: Vince, S.; Dureya, M., eds. Forest management and urbanization: the wildland-urban

interface. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 269-283.

Fine, A.H. 1996. Leisure, living, and quality of life.

In: Rewick, R.; Brown, I.; Nagler, M., eds. Quality

of life in health promotion and rehabilitation.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 342-354.

Floyd, M. 1999. Race, ethnicity, and use of the 

National Park System. Social Science Research

Review. 1(2): Spring/Summer.

Floyd, M.F.; Johnson, C.Y. 2002. Coming to terms 

with environmental justice in outdoor recreation: a

conceptual discussion with research implications.

Leisure Sciences. 24: 59-77.

French, D.; Hainsworth, J. 2001. ‘There aren’t any 

buses and the swimming pool is always cold!’:

obstacles and opportunities in the provision of

sport for disabled people. Managing Leisure. 

6: 35-49.

Glover, A.B. 2005. Yank, gringo, anglo, haole: data 

and diaries of an ethnic identity researcher. Paper

presented at the 85th annual convention of the

Western Psychological Association, Portland,

Oregon, April 14-17.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

177
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Henderson, K.A.; Bialeschki, M.D.; Shaw, S.M., 

Freysinger, V.J. 1989. A leisure of one’s own: a

feminist perspective on women’s leisure. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. 186 p.

Howard, D.K.; Peniston, L.C. 2002. The role of 

recreation in preventing youth with disabilities from

coming into contact with the juvenile justice system

and preventing recidivism. American Institutes for

Research, Pelavin Research Center, Center for

Effective Collaboration and Practice, Washington,

DC.

Huynh, Q.L.; Watanabe, K.; Chun, C.A.; Abe-Kim, J.

2004. Unidimensional versus multidimensional

acculturation for Asian Americans and Latino

Americans. Paper presented at the 112th annual

convention of the American Psychological

Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 28-August 1.

Jasso, G. 2005. Culture and the sense of justice: a 

comprehensive framework for analysis. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology. 36(1): 14-47.

Johnson, C.Y.; Bowker, J.M.; Cordell, H.K. 2001. 

Outdoor recreation constraints: an examination of

race, gender, and rural dwelling. Southern Rural

Sociology. 17: 111-133.

Johnson, C.Y.; Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; 

Worthen, D. 1998. Wildland recreation in the rural

south: an examination of marginality and ethnicity

theory. Journal of Leisure Research. 30(1): 

101-120.

Kyle, G.T.; Mowen, A.J. 2004. An examination of the 

relationship between leisure constraints, involvement, and commitment. In: Murdy, J., comp.

Proceedings of the 2003 northeastern recreation

research symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-317.

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research

Station: 328-337.

Leana, C.R.; Van Buren, H.J. 1999. Organizational 

social capital and employment practices. Academy

of Management Review. 24(3): 538-555.

Lebo, H. 2004. The digital future report. Surveying the 

digital future, year four. USC Annenberg School

Center for the Digital Future. www.digitalcenter.org.

Lee, J.; Scott, D.; Floyd, M.F. 2001. Structural 

inequalities in outdoor recreation participation: a

multiple hierarchy stratification process. Journal of

Leisure Research. 33(4): 427-449.

Maguire, L.A.; Lind, A.E. 2003. Public participation in 

environmental decisions: stakeholders, authorities

and procedural justice. International Journal of

Global Environmental Issues. 3(2): 133-148.

Maiese, M. 2003. Procedural justice. Intractable 

conflict knowledge base project, conflict research

consortium, University of Colorado. www.beyondintractability.org/m/procedural_justice.jsp.

Marin, G.; Marin, B.V. 1991. Research with Hispanic 

populations. Applied social research methods

series. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Martin, S. 1999. A policy implementation analysis 

of the recreation fee demonstration program:

Convergence of public sentiment, agency programs, and policy principles? Journal of Park and

Recreation Administration. 17(3): 15-34.

McAvoy, L.H. 2000. Disability as diversity: the role of 

recreation in quality of life. In. Allison, M.T.,

Schneider, I.E., eds. Diversity and the recreation

profession: organizational perspectives. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.: 47-72.

McAvoy, L. 2001. Outdoors for everyone: opportunities that include people with disabilities. Parks 

and Recreation: 24-36.

178
McAvoy, L. 2002. American Indians, place meanings 

and the old/new West. Journal of Leisure

Research. 34(4): 383-396.

McAvoy, L.; McDonald, D.; Carlson, M. 2003.

American Indian/First Nation place attachment to

park lands: the case of the Nuu-chach-nulth of

British Columbia. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration. 21(2): 84-104.

McAvoy, L.; Winter, P.L.; Outley, C.W.; McDonald, 

D.; Chavez, D.J. 2000. Conducting research 

with communities of color. Society and Natural

Resources. 13: 479-488.

McDonald, D.; McAvoy, L. 1997. Outdoor recreation, 

racism and Native Americans. Unpublished 

technical report. Cooperative agreement PSW95-0038CA. On file with: USDA Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon

Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507.

Organista, P.B.; Organista, K.C.; Kurasaki, K. 2003. 

The relationship between acculturation and ethnic

minority mental health. In: Chun, K.C.; Organista,

P.B.; Marin, G., eds. Acculturation: advances in

theory, measurement, and applied research.

Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association: 139-161.

Oskamp, S. 1991. Attitudes and opinions. 2nd ed. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 499 p.

Outdoor Industry Association 2004. Outdoor recreation participation study for the United States.

Executive summary, 6th ed. Available at www.

outdoorindustry.org.

Padgett, D.A.; Imani, N.O. 1999. Qualitative and 

quantitative assessment of land-use managers’

attitudes toward environmental justice.

Environmental Management. 24(4): 509-515.

Raish, C.; Engdahl, L.; Anderson, W.; Carpenter, D.;

Crespi, M.; Johnson, P; McConnell, L.; Neller,

E. 1999. Resource management strategies for

working with cultural and social diversity. In:

Sexton, W.T.; Malk, A.J.; Szaro, R.C.; Johnson,

N.C., eds. Ecological stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem management, Vol. 3. Oxford,

England: Elsevier Science: 209-225.

Rast, J. 2004. Transportation equity and access to 

jobs in metropolitan Milwaukee. Report prepared

by The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center

for Economic Development. www.uwm.edu.

Rimmer, J.H.; Riley, B.; Wang, E.; Rauworth, A.; 

Jurkowski, J. 2004. Physical activity participation

among persons with disabilities: barriers and facilitators. American Journal of Preventative Medicine.

26(5): 419-425.

Roberts, N.S. 2003. Ethnic minority visitors and 

non-visitors: an examination of constraints regarding outdoor recreation participation in Rocky

Mountain National Park. Fort Collins, CO:

Colorado State University. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Sasidharan, V. 2002. Special issue introduction: 

understanding recreation and the environment

within the context of culture. Leisure Sciences. 

24: 1-11.

Scott, D.; Herrera, S.L.; Hunt, K.S. 2004. Constraints 

to outdoor recreation among ethnic and racial

groups. In: Tierney, P.T., Chavez, D.J. (technical

coordinators). Proceedings of the Fourth Social

Aspects and Recreation Research Symposium;

2004 February 4-6; San Francisco, CA. San

Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University: 

17-20.

Spooner, T. 2003. Internet use by region in the United 

States. Pew Internet & American Life Project,

available at www.pewInternet.org.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

179
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Stripling, B. 2004. Building empowered communities. 

Keynote speech for Florida Library Association.

Available at: www.flalib.org/conf/2004.

Struglia, R.; Winter, P.L.; Meyer, A. 2003. Southern 

California socioeconomic assessment: sociodemographic conditions, projections, and quality of life

indices. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-187. Albany,

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 418 p.

Tierney, P.T.; Dahl, R.F.; Chavez, D.J. 1998. Cultural 

diversity of Los Angeles County residents using

undeveloped natural areas. Res. Paper PSW-RP236. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. 76 p.

Transportation Research Board. 2005. Does the 

built environment influence physical activity?

Examining the evidence. TRB Special Report 282,

Report Summary number 24, Washington, DC.

Tynon, J.F.; Chavez, D.J.; Kakoyannis, C. 2001. If

you go down to the woods today, you’re sure of a

big surprise: it’s no teddy bear’s picnic. Women in

Natural Resources. 22(1): 6-17.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2004. A nation 

online: entering the broadband age. Available at

www.ntia.doc.gov.

Westland, C. 1985. The development of national 

recreation policies. In: Goodale, T.L.; Witt, P.A.

eds. Recreation and leisure: issues in an era of

change. State College, PA: Venture Publishing:

391-406.

Wilderness Inquiry 2000. Improving access to outdoor recreational activities on Federal lands.

wi.wildernessinquiry.org.

Winter, D.D.; Koger, S.M. 2004. The psychology of 

environmental problems. 2nd ed. Malwah, New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,

Publishers. 287 p.

Winter, P.L.; Jeong, W.C.; Godbey, G.C. 2004.

Outdoor recreation among Asian Americans: a

case study of San Francisco Bay Area residents.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.

22(3): 114-136.

Winter P.L.; Palucki L.; Burkhardt R. 1999.

Anticipated responses to a fee program: the key is

trust. Journal of Leisure Research. 31(3): 207-226.

Zuefle, M. 2004. Rethinking our “customer relationship” with the public. Parks and Recreation.

39(12): 8 and 10.

180
This paper describes results from two completed studies as well as ongoing work on crime and violence and

its management on national forests. Work on this topic

area began collaboratively in 1997 between the Pacific

Southwest Research Station (PSW) and Dr. Joanne

Tynon at Oregon State University. All the study results

and ongoing research are a result of these joint efforts.

This relatively new line of research can only be accomplished by working closely with Law Enforcement and

Investigations (LE&I) in the Washington Office of the

Forest Service and with law enforcement officers

(LEO) and their supervisors across the United States.

When we began the studies, we found scant scientific literature related to outdoor recreation and law

enforcement. There was some work that suggested

public lands were increasingly experiencing problems

more typically associated with urban settings (such 

as robbery) (Pendleton 1996, Shore 1994). Research

by Westover and others (Chubb and Westover 1981,

Westover et al. 1980) suggested that visitor use levels

off if there is crime. They also found that crime can

reduce visitor enjoyment of the recreation experience,

although research by Fletcher (1983) suggested only 

a small proportion of visitors perceived crime to be a

problem. There was also some work related to tourism.

Pizam (1999) created a tourism crime typology to classify the attributes of acts of crime and violence at

tourism destinations around the world.

Our work started by investigating the kinds of 

problems found on national forests and the impacts of

those crime and violent events and activities. Additional

studies evaluated successful management of crime

and violence. A third study (actually a series of studies), currently in process, examines management as

perceived by current LEOs and expands on the second study of successful management tools. The goal

here is not to describe these studies in great detail as

that level of detail is presented elsewhere (Chavez and

Tynon 2000, Chavez et al. 2004, Tynon et al. 2001),

but to introduce the type of working being conducted

by PSW and Oregon State University with LE&I.

Case Study on Types of Crime 

and Violence

The first study, completed in 1999, was developed 

to learn more about crime and violence on national

forests, as well as the impacts of crime and violence

on recreation visitation and management of those

national forests. The work was qualitative in nature 

and thus cannot be overly generalized. 

We specifically looked at the types of crime and

violent events, perceptions about trends in these activities, the impacts to management (time, personnel,

budget), and perceptions about impacts to recreation

participation (Chavez and Tynon 2000, Tynon et al.

2001).

181

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Crime on National Forests and Grasslands: 

Research Perspective

Deborah J. Chavez1

1 Research Social Scientist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507. 

Email: dchavez@fs.fed.us
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

In all, there were eight research sites; half were

forest-level and half were district sites. We selected

two sites (one urban, one rural) in each of four regions

in the western United States. The regions were Intermountain, Pacific Southwest, Pacific Northwest, and

Southwestern. We used a case study format that

included interviews of law enforcement personnel, public affairs officers, and recreation personnel (interviews

averaged 3 hours), and these were followed by a site

visit or a site tour (led by a law enforcement officer).

Six of the sites were selected because we heard about

a particular issue at the site (such as a threat against a

Forest Service employee), and two were control sites

(we had no information about crime or violent events at

those sites).

In the study findings below, I have included some

direct quotes from those interviewed (sources of

quotes are not identified). 

Types of Crime and Violent Events 

and Activities

Crime and violent events and activities were found in 

both urban-proximate sites and urban-distant (rural)

sites. Our findings suggest that most problems were

more prevalent in urban areas. In an urban site we

heard, “Murder is fairly frequent,” whereas in a rural

area we heard, “Murders happen maybe a couple of

times a year.” 

These crime and violent events and activities were

categorized by using the words of those interviewed 

as follows:

• Urban-associated crime. These included arson 

(which consisted of the typical “fire bug” but 

also stealing cars in the city and “torching” them

on the forest), domestic violence, thefts, gang

activity, body dumping, shooting, suicides, 

murder, rape/sexual assault, and drive-by 

shooting. In one case interviewees said it was 

not the wildland-urban interface but “urban-inyour-face,” and several called their work “city 

law enforcement.”

• Assaults. These included criminal damage, 

threats against personnel, and threats against

property. We were told, “You see more road 

rage and intolerance,” resulting in more 

assaults.

• Drug activity. This category included marijuana 

cultivation, methamphetamine labs and chemical

dumping, as well as armed defense of crops.

• Extremist and nontraditional groups. This 

included satanic cults, white power groups, and

survivalists. 

• Other. This category included dumping of 

household waste or chemicals and trespassing 

by undocumented workers. 

Impacts to Recreation Visitors

Respondent perceptions were that there was little 

impact to recreation visitors. We were told, “Urban

crime activities don’t seem to bother recreationists,”

and, “We had a gang stabbing in a parking lot and the

next day we had the same amount of people come

out,” and, “People are usually unaware of drug activities, it does not even get into the media here.” Also,

respondent perceptions were that recreation visitors

are not as alarmed as they ought to be. One respondent said that smuggling “is an extreme threat to recreationists.”

Impacts to Management

In the interviews, before asking any other questions, 

we asked about the top five management issues on

the forest or district. Criminal activities were one of the

top five management issues at all eight sites. Respondents described increased costs in time, personnel,

and other ways (such as personal stress). They also

described funding issues. One said, “There are phenomenal costs to replace equipment and facilities, and

this has a negative impact on having money available

for services.”

182
They also told us that there are often so many

things going on at one time that they have to conduct

“triage law enforcement,” that is, figure out which is the

biggest threat and work on that first before going on to

the other issues. Another management problem concerned communication. At some of the study sites we

found that nonlaw enforcement employees did not

know the extent of the problems and were concerned

about that lack of knowledge. 

Overall, the perception was that crime and violence was on the increase.

Issues for Data Collection 

One item that comes up in conversations and in 

publication efforts is the “how much” issue (How much

crime is there?). At each study site we had requested

hard data from the Law Enforcement Management

Attainment Reporting System (LEMARS). It was rare to

have the data available, and mostly the problems were

with lost data or the inability to correctly run the program. More recently, we have relied on the new database called Law Enforcement and Investigations

Attainment Reporting System (LEIMARS). Unlike

LEMARS, LEIMARS includes geographic information

System (GIS) data as well as investigative information.

Information at some later study sites was permanently

lost during the transfer process. The problems with the

new system (i.e., some data were either not recorded

or disappeared after being entered into the program)

are being corrected.

Crime data gets collected in several ways. The

Forest Service collects data and so do the local and

county law enforcement agencies. The problem is that

in most cases, these other entities do not differentiate

Forest Service lands from county lands so there is no

way to separate what occurs on Forest Service lands.

Taken together, this makes accurate counts difficult.

The cumulative effect of all these forces is that a firm

assessment of level of crime is not available. 

Implications from the Study 

Results are limited to the sites studied. Management 

of these forests and districts is impacted by crime and

violent events and activities, and the types of activities

may represent a law enforcement change from natural

resources law enforcement to “city law enforcement.”

The data collection issues need to be addressed; particularly refinement of processing LEIMARS data is

needed. Also, there are some communication gaps

that need to be addressed at some of these sites. 

Case Study on Successful Management 

of Crime and Violence

For this second study we examined successful cases 

of managing crime and violence. The purpose was to

develop a toolbox of key characteristics of success.

This study would not have been possible without the

support of LE&I in the Washington Office. 

This was another qualitative project in which two

case studies were selected (Chavez et al. 2004). The

criteria for selection were sent to law enforcement officers and supervisors nationwide. Each potential site

could self-nominate, and case selections were based

on fit with the selection criteria. One site was successful in taking the area back from criminal elements

(Rocky Mountain Region), and the other was a success in crime prevention (Pacific Northwest Region). 

Site and Problem Descriptions

The first site was a 15-mile river corridor where each 

side of the river was in a different county. There was a

dam proposed along this river; because of the potential

for flooding the site managers were not interested in

site development. Law enforcement officers at this site

reported rapes, assaults, and a race riot that resulted

in the murder of one person. Turning this around

required partnerships within the Forest Service and

outside the Forest Service with other law enforcement

agencies, local communities, and a water department. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

183
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

The second site consists of a resort area with a

lake that turned into an out-of-control “party” atmosphere with an estimated 15,000 people. There were

fights, public drunkenness, and an Earth First! march.

Circumstances were made more difficult by the underrepresentation of law enforcement (there were only a

handful of LEOs and sheriff deputies). It turned a traditional “family” Fourth of July outing into a very unpleasant experience resulting in many complaints to the

resort and to the Forest Service. To turn this around, 

a “no alcohol policy” and “saturation” law enforcement

was implemented (45 officers). A decision was made

soon afterward to make changes and also to communicate those plans. There were several communication

efforts including public service announcements, public

meetings, internal newsletters, and meetings among

law enforcement agencies.

Key Characteristics of Success

We found some key characteristics for success:

• Force of personalities (who and how they are 

involved). It really was a case of individuals not

policies. For example at one site the LEO took 

personal responsibility to put up overly large 

script signs. This individual also moved rocks 

and placed fencing during nonwork hours. 

• Resources (time, money, people). There were 

also comments related to resource hardening 

(to protect the natural resources) and the need 

for site development (campgrounds, picnic 

areas, etc.).

• Persistence (planning, consistent in actions). It 

was described as a slow process.

• Collaboration (internally and externally). These 

included the community, volunteer groups, 

recreation groups, and law enforcement 

(internally and externally). 

• Communication. This included the development of a communication plan, getting the 

word out to the public, being reliable and being

consistent. One law enforcement officer said, 

“I communicated very clearly and very often to 

the point where people got tired of hearing it.”

Implications from the Study 

Even though this involved two case studies some of 

these tools can be used elsewhere—both the actual

management techniques (such as checkpoints and

development) and the key characteristics. There is

enough information in the report for managers to

locate places that have similar problems where they

can use the same actions. We recognize the need to

further study these key characteristics of success. 

Credibility Through Accountability and 

Successful Management

In 2005, we are contacting more than 400 LEOs on 

national forests across the United States to further

examine successful management of crime and violence on public lands. We are testing the key characteristics of success, measuring opinions about

recreation visitor and public safety, and evaluating

impacts to natural resources. This study would not be

possible without the support of LE&I in the Washington

Office, and officers and supervisors nationwide. 

We are asking about recreation visitor safety, 

looking at both personal safety from other visitors and

physical safety from site features. And we are asking

LEOs to share any law enforcement success story

they would like. 

The survey also includes questions that will help

drive the measures established in the Credibility

Through Accountability/Performance Accountability

System (CTA/PAS) process for law enforcement. We

are asking questions about the most common activity

during public contacts (i.e, violation notices, public

184
relations, public assistance) and if there are enough

Forest Service or other law enforcement officers available at their site. We are also asking LEOs to rank

their highest priority (protecting forest users, protecting

resources, protecting national forest employees, or

protecting public property), and we are asking their

opinions about support from line officers, and others.

Following the LEO study, we will continue the CTA

process by surveying law enforcement supervisors 

and National Forest System line officers. 

Conclusions

The two completed studies as well as the proposed 

one are efforts to provide more in-depth knowledge

about crime and violence on national forests in the

Unites States. In one study we found that law enforcement officers are increasingly involved in crimes

against people versus crimes against the resource.

This is being tested in ongoing research efforts.

Another study resulted in a toolbox for managers to

use for successful management of crime and violence

on outdoor recreation lands, which is also being tested

in ongoing efforts. We are also measuring successful

performance of the Forest Service public safety law

enforcement mission. Future research efforts will focus

on visitor perceptions of crime and violence. 

References

Chavez, D.J.; Tynon, J.F. 2000. Triage law enforce

ment: societal impacts on national forests in the

west. Environmental Management. 26(4): 403-407.

Chavez, D.J.; Tynon, J.F.; Knap, N.E. 2004.

Reducing crime and violence on public lands: case

studies in the USDA Forest Service. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration. 22(3): 22-38.

Chubb, M.; Westover, T. 1981. Antisocial behavior: 

typology, messages and implications for recreation

resource managers. Land Use Allocation. St. Paul,

MN: North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Fletcher, J.E. 1983. Assessing the impact of actual 

and perceived safety and security problems on

park use and enjoyment. Journal of Park and

Recreation Administration. 1(2): 21-36.

Pendleton, M.R. 1996. Crime, criminals and guns in 

natural settings: exploring the basis for disarming

federal rangers. American Journal of Police. 

15: 3-25.

Pizam, A. 1999. A comprehensive approach to 

classifying acts of crime and violence at tourism

destinations. Journal of Travel Research. 38: 5-12.

Shore, D. 1994. Badlands. Outside. 19(7): 56-71.

Tynon, J.F.; Chavez, D.J.; Kakoyannis, C. 2001. If 

you go down to the woods today, you’re sure of a

big surprise: it’s no teddy bear’s picnic. Women in

Natural Resources. 22(1): 6-17.

Westover, T.N.; Flickinger, T.B.; Chubb, M. 1980.

Crime and law enforcement. Parks and

Recreation. 15(8): 29-33.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

185
This page is intentionally left blank.
Introduction

The Forest Service and other land management agencies serve the needs of both users and nonusers of

the resources they manage. Some of those they serve

reside near the resources while others live at some

distance from them. Whether they use the forests or

not, those who live near the forests are often affected

by their day-to-day management. Current and complete information about the population residing near

the national forests enhances resource planning and

management by clarifying who will be impacted by 

forest management. It also provides a profile of some

of the forest’s potential visitors.

Knowledge of the changing size and demographic

structure of the population has particular utility to forest

managers and policymakers, in part because population growth in the vicinity of national forests over the

past decade has significant implications. Population

187

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Demographic Trends in National Forest, 

Recreational, Retirement, and Amenity Areas

Kenneth M. Johnson1 and Susan I. Stewart2

1 Professor of Sociology, Loyola University-Chicago, Lake Shore Campus, Damen Hall-933, 6525 N. Sheridan Chicago, Il 60626. 

Email: kjohnso@luc.edu

2 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1033 University Place, Suite 360, Evanston, IL 60201. 

Email: sistewart@fs.fed.us

Abstract

Those who live near national forests are both potential forest visitors and neighbors who feel the impact of many 

forest management decisions. This paper provides some insights about those proximate populations. It does so

by measuring the proportion of national forest land within each county and then combining that with an analysis 

of the patterns of demographic change over the past several decades. Because there is considerable overlap

between counties that contain national forests and those designated as recreational, high amenity, and retirement

destination counties, demographic trends in such counties are compared. A total of 757 of the 3,141 U.S. counties

contain national forest land. More than 66.1 million people resided in these counties in 2000, some 24% of the

U.S. total. The population in national forest counties grew by 19% between 1990 and 2000 compared to 13% 

for the nation as a whole. Most of the population gain in national forest areas resulted from net in-migration.

Population gains in national forest counties were slightly smaller than those in recreational and natural amenity

counties and significantly less than those in retirement destination counties; however, the gains were considerably larger than those in other counties. National forest counties that are metropolitan have significantly more

Hispanics than other metropolitan counties but fewer Blacks and Whites. Nonmetropolitan national forest counties

contain a much larger proportion of non-Hispanic Whites than their metropolitan counterparts, a finding consistent with that for nonmetropolitan counties in general. Knowledge about the changing size and demographic

structure of the population in national forest counties has particular relevance to Forest Service planners and 

policymakers.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

growth is known to increase population density along

the forest edge. This puts additional pressure on riparian and environmentally sensitive areas, increases the

use of recreational facilities, and complicates forest

management and fire suppression (Gobster et al.

2000, Radeloff et al. 2001, Wear and Bolstad 1998,

Wear et al. 1998). Changes in the structure of the population within and immediately surrounding the national

forests is also significant for forest management and

planning. For example, recent research suggests that

recreational areas are receiving a net influx of people

30 years old and over (Johnson and Fuguitt 2000).

Increased retention of young adults or an influx of this

age group is likely to impact the natural environment

and local infrastructure differently than would an exodus of this age group, or an influx of retirement age

migrants. Young adults are in a phase of the lifecycle

that emphasizes family formation and labor force participation, and as a result are likely to consume more

land, generate more highway trips, and use recreational and natural areas differently than senior citizens. 

The relation between demographic change and

natural resources has been explored in some detail

since the rural turnaround of the 1970s focused attention on migration patterns in the United States (Fuguitt

1995, Johnson 1998). This rural turnaround marked a

shift in net migration patterns, from a predominantly

rural-to-urban flow of people to a net urban-to-rural

flow (Johnson and Beale 1998). Beginning with the

turnaround of the 1970s and continuing after a brief lull

in the 1980s with the rural rebound of the 1990s, rural

areas attracted and retained more migrants than they

lost. This pattern was especially strong in areas with

attractive scenery and abundant recreational opportunities. Retirement trends also played a role in the

rural rebound because retirees made up a significant

number of those leaving urban areas to settle in rural

places. Because the presence of national forests,

amenity resources, and recreational opportunities 

188

influence migration (the most important component of

demographic change), our analysis classifies counties

using these characteristics and describes the changes

occurring in each type of county. 

This paper highlights changes over time in the

population size and composition (i.e., the relative size

of age groups and racial/ethnic groups) in areas of 

particular relevance to the Forest Service. Areas to 

be examined include those containing national forests,

those where recreational activity is high, those that

serve as destinations for retirement migrants and those

with significant natural amenities. Although there is

considerable overlap among these county types, previous research suggests there are distinct differences

among them as well. Population gains have been substantial in recreational, retirement, and natural amenity

areas in recent years (Johnson 1999, McGranahan

1999). Less is known about population change in

areas containing national forests, but our analysis

shows that they are also experiencing both population

growth and changing demographic structure.

The U.S. Census Bureau provides a wealth of

detailed data about the population. However, additional

analysis of census data is always necessary when it 

is used to address resource management questions

because the boundaries of public resources rarely

coincide with the standard geographic units used for

demographic reporting. For example, national forests

do not correspond directly to states, counties, or any

other geographic unit used by the Census Bureau to

report data. Furthermore, many population characteristics useful in recreation management, such as racial

and ethnic group membership, are available only in the

decennial censuses (i.e., 1990, 2000). Thus the

release of data from the 2000 decennial census offers

a unique opportunity to examine demographic characteristics that are particularly relevant to resource managers, and to determine how these characteristics

have changed between 1990 and 2000. 
Objectives

Our goal is to give resource managers an updated portrait of the population living near the national forest. To

accomplish this we focus on four objectives: 

• Identify counties with national forest land and 

measure the proportion of national forest land 

within each of these counties. 

• Summarize the patterns of demographic 

change between 1990 and 2000 in counties 

containing national forest land. 

• Compare the distribution of national forest 

counties to that of counties designated as 

recreational, high amenity, and retirement. 

• Compare the patterns of demographic change 

between 1990 and 2000 in national forest 

counties to those in counties designated as 

recreational, high amenity, and retirement. 

Methods

This project makes extensive use of data from the 

2000 census to produce an overview of the demographic structure in the relevant county groups. The

2000 data are combined with 1990 census data to document demographic change between 1990 and 2000. 

Counties are the unit of analysis and are appropriate for this purpose because they have historically 

stable boundaries and are a basic unit for reporting 

fertility, mortality, and census data. Counties are delineated as metropolitan or nonmetropolitan by using 

criteria developed by the Office of Management and

Budget. Generally, a county is classified as metropolitan if it contains a city of at least 50,000 or if it is contiguous to a county containing a city of at least 50,000

and is socially and economically integrated with it. For

example, a county made up of bedroom communities

surrounding an urban center is considered integrated

with that urban area and is classified as a metropolitan

area. Because metropolitan reclassification complicates efforts to compare nonmetropolitan areas across

time, a consistent 1993 metropolitan definition is used

for the analysis. The United States contains 3,141

counties or county equivalents. As of 1993, 837 counties were defined as metropolitan with the remainder

defined as nonmetropolitan. The terms rural and nonmetropolitan are used interchangeably here, as are the

terms metropolitan and urban. 

Recreational, natural amenity, and retirement destination counties are delineated by using existing classification systems (see below). These classification

systems are applied just to nonmetropolitan areas.

This allows trends in metropolitan counties (as a separate category) to be compared to trends in recreational, natural amenity, and retirement destination

counties, and to those in all other nonmetropolitan

counties. 

Identification of Recreational, Amenity,

Retirement, and Forest Counties

Johnson and Beale (2002) identified 329 recreational 

counties using a classification procedure combining

quantitative analysis of indicators of recreational 

activity (high earnings and employment from recreational businesses, high spending on hotels and motels,

high proportion of seasonal housing) with a contextual

analysis of travel literature. This recreational county

classification updates their earlier effort to identify

recreational counties (Beale and Johnson 1998).

Research using their earlier index documented substantially higher population gains in counties designated as recreational (Johnson and Fuguitt 2000). 

McGranahan (1999) created a natural amenity

index using data on natural and scenic amenities

(lakes and water, elevation, temperature and climate

variation, etc.). The amenity index focuses on the

physical attributes of a county. As such, it does an

excellent job of identifying counties with attractive

viewscapes, riparian areas, and scenic and natural

amenities. The amenity index assigns a score to each

county based on its relative position on the various

natural amenities. McGranahan documented a substantial positive relationship between population growth

and high scores on his amenity index. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

189
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Retirement counties are defined as those in which

the population 60 and over in 1990 increased by 15%

or more between 1980 and 1990 through the net inmovement of older people (Cook and Mizer 1994).

There are 190 retirement destination counties in nonmetropolitan America. There is considerable overlap

between the recreational and amenity counties discussed above and the retirement destination counties.

In part, this is because those moving at retirement age

are attracted to the same natural amenities and recreational opportunities that appeal to the rest of the population. Prior research suggests that counties that were

both recreational and retirement destinations gained

more population between 1990 and 1999 than any

other group of counties (Johnson 1999). Most of the

population gain in such counties came from migration.

Such migration often represents the culmination of a

chain of events commencing with vacationing in the

area and progressing to second home ownership and

migration (Stewart and Stynes 1994). 

There is considerable overlap between the recreation and amenity classification systems, but there are

also important differences. The amenity index was

designed to identify amenity-rich areas nationwide and

is, therefore, relatively insensitive to modest local variation in physical surroundings. Thus, a county which

has several lakes, in a region where lakes are uncommon, or attractive viewscapes, in a relatively flat area

of the country, would likely receive only a moderately

high score. This is despite the fact that the county may

be the most attractive site within a considerable distance. The amenity index is also insensitive to the

proximity of population centers to amenity areas. This

is a particular concern for researchers examining how

urban populations use recreational and scenic areas.

These weaknesses in the amenity index are most 

evident in the Midwest. In this region, minimal elevation changes and substantial climate variation limits the

index scores for many recreational areas. In contrast,

the recreational typology developed by Johnson and

Beale identifies counties with high recreational activity

levels, but does not directly measure the physical

attributes of the area. The recreational typology is 

certainly sensitive to natural amenities because lakes,

forest, and topography all generate considerable recreational activity. It is also acutely sensitive to local

recreational activity levels because it measures usage

rather than physical amenities. Because the proximity

of large population concentrations increases the

amount of recreational use in areas with significant

natural amenities, the recreational typology is more

likely to capture the recreational activity sphere of

large urban areas. In addition, because the recreational typology is more sensitive to recreation and tourism

activity levels than to the physical attributes of an area,

it is more likely to identify recreational areas in the

Midwest. Using both typologies maximizes the probability that areas where the natural environment produces significant recreational activity will be identified. 

An important objective of this study is to delineate

counties in which national forests represent a significant local feature. The starting point for identifying

national forest counties is the inventory of counties

containing national forest land included in the Forest

Service land area reports (www.fs.fed.us\land\

staff\lar\nfsmap.htm). From this report and census data

on the total land area of each county, the percentage

of a county’s land area that is in a national forest is

determined. We calculate the percentage of national

forest land as of 2001. If the national forest county

designation is to have analytical utility and be consistent with the recreation, amenity, and retirement designations used here, a county must contain a significant

amount of national forest land. For purposes of this

analysis, counties with at least 10% of their land area

in national forests are considered separately from

those with less of their land area in national forests.

The utility of this distinction and the relation between

the proportion of land in national forests and demographic change are examined in more detail below.

190
Results

National forests are widely dispersed across the nation.

Forty-four of the fifty states contain national forests.

Although national forests are widespread, the distribution of these lands is uneven. The largest concentrations of national forest lands are in the West, the

Upper Great Lakes and in the Southeast and South

Central regions of the country (fig.1). 

In all, 757 of the 3,141 U.S. counties (24%) contain national forest land. The proportion of its land area

that any county has in national forests varies greatly.

Some 192 (25%) of the 757 counties with national

forests have 5% or less of their land in national forests.

Another 111 (15%) have between 5 and 10% of the

county in national forests. National forests make up

between 10 and 20% of the land area in 157 (21%) of

the counties with national forests. Another 110 counties

(15%) with national forest lands have between 20 and

30% of their land area in national forests. In some 69

counties (9%) national forests make up between 30

and 40% of the land area. Finally, 116 counties (16%)

have more than 40% of their land area in national

forests. The 757 national forest counties contained

66.1 million Americans, or 24% of the U.S. population

in 2000. 

Population Growth

There appears to be a fairly strong link between 

demographic change and the presence of national

forests. Most counties with national forests (84%) are

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

191

Figure 1—National forest counties, 2001. Source: Forest Service land area reports, 2000 Census.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

192

Figure 3—Demographic change, 1990-2000, in metropolitan areas, by national forest status. Source: 1990 and 2000 

U.S. Census.

Figure 2—Demographic change, 1990-2000, in nonmetropolitan areas, by national forest status. 

Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.
nonmetropolitan. In all, 27% of all nonmetropolitan

counties have at least some national forest land within

them. In nonmetropolitan areas, the populations in

counties with more than 10% of their land in national

forests grew by 18% between 1990 and 2000 (fig. 2).

Most of this growth was fueled by net migration gains.

Counties with less than 10% of their land in national

forests grew by 10.8%, with both natural increase and

net migration making significant contributions to the

population gain. Population gains were considerably

smaller in nonmetropolitan counties that did not contain any national forests. 

National forests are also present in 118 (14%) metropolitan counties. Such national forests are associated with population gains in metropolitan counties,

although the association here is more complex.

Metropolitan counties with national forests within them

did grow more rapidly than metropolitan counties without a national forest. However, the growth rate was

greatest (26%) in counties with less than 10% of their

land in national forests (fig. 3). Migration fueled most of

this rapid population increase. Among metropolitan

counties with more than 10% of their land in national

forests, the population grew by 17%, whereas those

with no national forests grew by 12%. Natural increase

accounted for most of the growth in two of these metropolitan groups. 

Rapid population gains in counties containing

national forests are not a recent phenomenon. In nonmetropolitan areas, counties with more than 10% of

their land in national forests grew by significantly larger

margins than other counties in each of the last three

decades (fig. 4). Even during the 1980s, when most

nonmetropolitan counties experienced minimal population gains and migration losses, counties with significant amounts of national forest land continued to grow.

Counties with substantial national forest holdings grew

primarily through net inmigration. Net inmigration is a

function of the ability of an area to attract new residents and the ability of the area to retain existing residents. Clearly national forest counties have achieved

this during each of the last three decades. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

193

Figure 4—Demographic change by national forest status, 1970-2000, for nonmetropolitan counties. Source: 1970 to 2000

U.S. Census.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

National forests represent one of several factors

that make an area attractive to current residents and

appealing to migrants. Other factors include the natural

amenities of an area, the recreational opportunities it

provides, and the appeal of the county as a retirement

destination. There is considerable overlap between

these factors because areas with many natural amenities are likely to have numerous opportunities for recreational activities, such as hiking, swimming, boating,

and fishing, that might also attract retirement migrants.

Counties with national forests also tend to have other

favorable characteristics. For example, there are 386

counties that are nonmetropolitan and have at least

10% of their land area in national forests. We will refer

to these as national forest counties. In all, 205 counties

classified as national forest counties also rank very

high on the natural amenity index (McGranahan 1999).

There is also considerable overlap between the national forest and recreational county groups. Some 150

national forest counties are also among the recreation

counties delineated by Johnson and Beale (2002).

And, 77 of the national forest counties are also classified as retirement destination counties by the Economic

Research Service (Cook and Mizer 1994). In many

cases, a national forest county may fall into more than

one of the other three groupings. The overlaps are 

evident in the accompanying map (fig. 5), which clearly

shows concentrations of multifactor counties in the

West, the Upper Great Lakes and in portions of the

Southeast. 

194

Figure 5—National forest, recreation, amenity, and retirement counties. Data: USDA Forest Service; USDA Economic

Research Service; Johnson and Beale (2002)
The population gain of 18% in nonmetropolitan

national forest counties during the 1990s was considerably higher than the overall nonmetropolitan gain of

10% (fig. 6). It was slightly lower than the gain in recreational (20%) and amenity counties (23%), and considerably less than that in retirement destination counties

(28%). Though smaller in magnitude, the population

gain in national forest counties was fueled primarily by

net migration just as it was in recreational, retirement,

and amenity counties. Some 86% of all national forest

counties grew by net inmigration, and the overall gain

from net inmigration was 14%. Thus, national forests

appear to be attractive destinations for migrants just 

as recreational, retirement, and amenity counties are.

Because migration can stimulate rapid population gain

and alter the landscape of an area, the rapid population and migration gains in national forest areas have

significant implications for the future development of

the area. 

Racial and Ethnic Composition 

and Change

The racial and ethnic structure of counties containing 

national forest land differs to some degree from that of

other counties. Non-Hispanic Whites account for 66%

of the population in the 757 counties containing national forests compared to 70% of the population in the

other 2,384 counties (fig. 7). Counties with national forest land contain fewer Blacks (6%) than do other counties (14%). In contrast, counties containing national

forests have considerably more Hispanics (19%) than

do other counties (10%). Counties with national forest

land also contain a larger proportion of individuals in

the “other minorities” category (Asians, Native Americas,

etc., subsequently termed “other minorities”) than do

other counties (9% compared to 6%). Overall, the population of counties with national forests is slightly more

diverse than the population elsewhere in the Untied

States. A comparison of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas provides additional insights into the racial

and ethnic structure of the population. Metropolitan

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

195

Figure 6—Demographic change, 1990–2000, by county type. Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census; USDA Forest

Service; USDA Economic Research Service; Johnson and Beale (2002). 
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

counties that include national forests are more diverse

than other metropolitan counties (fig. 8). The proportion

of Hispanics in metropolitan counties with national

forests (24%) is more than twice that in metropolitan

counties that do not contain national forests (12%).

Metropolitan counties containing national forests also

contain a larger proportion of other minorities (10%)

than do their non-national forest counterparts (6%). In

196

Figure 8—Race and ethnic structure in metropolitan counties, by national forest status, 2000.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census. Note: Hispanics of any race are included in the Hispanic category.

All other categories are non-Hispanic.

Figure 7—Race and ethnic structure, by national forest status, 2000. Source: 2000 U.S. Census.

Note: Hispanics of any race are included in the Hispanic category. All other categories are nonHispanic.
contrast, the proportion of Whites (60%) and Blacks

(6%) in metropolitan counties with national forest is

less than in other metropolitan counties (68% and

15%, respectively). 

In nonmetropolitan counties, the racial and ethnic

differences between counties containing national forests and those that do not are much less pronounced.

In fact, nonmetropolitan counties with national forests

are slightly less diverse than those without national

forests (fig. 9). Non-Hispanic Whites make up 83% of

the population of nonmetropolitan counties containing

national forests compared to 81% in counties without

national forests. Counties with national forest in nonmetropolitan areas do contain a larger proportion of

Hispanics and other minorities than their nonforest

counterparts, but the differences are more modest than

in metropolitan areas. The proportion of Blacks in nonmetropolitan counties containing national forests is

also lower than for those nonmetropolitan counties

without national forests. 

The racial and ethnic differences between counties

with national forests and other counties stem, in part,

from the geographic distribution of the two types of

counties. Most metropolitan areas that contain national

forests are in the West, where the Hispanic population

represents a larger proportion of the overall population.

(Los Angeles County alone contains 4.2 million

Hispanics, nearly 12% of the U.S. total). To a lesser

extent, this also accounts for the larger proportion of

other minorities in metropolitan counties with national

forest land because most of the other minority population is Asian. Asians are also more concentrated in

western metropolitan areas than elsewhere in the

country. Blacks represent a smaller proportion of the

population in the metropolitan West than they do elsewhere. The overall effect is that metropolitan counties

with national forests have more Hispanics and other

minorities and a smaller proportion of Whites and

Blacks than elsewhere. Counties containing national

forests are spread more widely through nonmetropolitan areas. As a result, the differences between national

forest and non-national forest counties in nonmetropolitan areas are smaller. In addition, a greater proportion

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

197

Figure 9—Race and ethnic structure in nonmetropolitan counties, by national forest status, 2000.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census. Note: Hispanics of any race are included in the Hispanic category. All

other categories are non-Hispanic.
of the population in nonmetropolitan areas is nonHispanic White (82%) than in metropolitan counties

(66%). So, it is not surprising that counties containing

national forests in nonmetropolitan areas have a much

higher proportion of Whites residing in them than do

their metropolitan counterparts. Fewer Blacks are also

evident in nonmetropolitan counties containing national

forests because such counties are clustered in areas

where Blacks did not originally settle and to which they

have not migrated. The slightly higher proportion of

Hispanics in nonmetropolitan counties containing

national forests reflects the influence of the West. The

higher proportion of other minorities in nonmetropolitan

counties containing national forests is, at least in part,

due to the presence of Native Americans in many

national forest areas in rural America. Thus, counties

containing national forests reflect patterns of race and

ethnic diversity at least as complex as those in the

nation as a whole. 

Conclusions and Implications

Changes in the size, structure, and distribution of the 

population are among the most powerful forces impacting the natural environment. Thus, resource managers

need a clear understanding of the links between the

population and the natural environment based on a

detailed analysis of population growth and change.

Recreational and natural amenity areas are experiencing dramatic demographic changes (Frey and Johnson

1998, Johnson and Beale 2002). The rate of population increase in such areas is among the highest of

any identifiable group of counties. Recreational areas

in close proximity to large urban concentrations appear

to be particularly prone to rapid population growth, so

those landscapes are potentially most prone to impacts

related to that growth. Recent research suggests that

nearly 100 million urban Americans reside in metropolitan areas adjacent to such recreational counties

(Johnson 2001). Some of these amenity counties contain national forests; others have significant concentrations of lakes and coastal areas, and almost all have

environmentally sensitive areas. To protect the forests,

riparian areas and natural amenities in such areas,

while providing public access for recreation and commerce, requires a current, detailed knowledge of the

changing demographic structure of these areas. 

References

Beale, C.L.; Johnson, K.M. 1998. The identification 

of recreational counties in nonmetropolitan areas

of the USA. Population Research and Policy

Review. 17: 37-53. 

Cook, P.J.; Mizer, K.L. 1994. The revised ERS county 

typology: an overview (RDRR-89). Washington,

DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture. 

Frey, W.H.; Johnson, K.M. 1998. Concentrated 

immigration, restructuring, and the selective

deconcentration of the U.S. Population. In: Boyle,

P.J.; Halfacree, K.H., eds. Migration into rural

areas: theories and issues. London: Wiley. 

Gobster, P.H.; Haigh, R.G.; Shriner, D. 2000. 

Landscape change in the Midwest: an integrated

research and development program. Journal of

Forestry. 98(3): 9-14. 

Johnson, K.M. 1999. The rural rebound. PRB reports 

on America. No. 3. Washington, DC: Population

Reference Bureau.

Johnson, K.M. 2002. The rural rebound in the 1990s 

and beyond. In: Levitt, J.N., ed. Conservation in

the Internet age: strategic threats and opportunities. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

Johnson, K.M.; Beale, C.L. 2002. Nonmetro recreational counties: identification and implications.

Rural America. 17(4): 12-19. 

Johnson, K.M.; Fuguitt, G.V. 2000. Continuity and 

change in rural migration patterns, 1950-1995.

Rural Sociology. 65(1): 27-49. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

198
McGranahan, D.A. 1999. Natural amenities drive 

population change. Agricultural Economics Report

718. Washington, DC: Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.G.; Voss, P.R.; Hagen, 

A.E.; Field, D.R.; Mladenoff, D.J. 2001. Human

demographic trends and landscape level forest

management in the Northwest Wisconsin Pine

Barrens. Forest Science. 47(2): 229-241. 

Stewart, S.I.; Stynes. D.J. 1994. Toward a dynamic 

model of complex tourism choices: the seasonal

home location decision. Journal of Travel and

Tourism Marketing. 3(3): 69-88. 

Wear, D.N.; Bolstad. P. 1998. Land-use and change 

in southern Appalachian landscapes: spatial 

analysis and forecast evaluation. Ecosystems. 

1: 575-594. 

Wear, D.N.; Turner. M.G.; Naiman, R.J. 1998. Land 

cover along an urban-rural gradient: implications

for water quality. Ecological Applications. 8(3): 

619-630. 

199
This page is intentionally left blank.
Equity in Access to Recreational

Opportunities

Finding effective communication styles to involve a 

variety of people in decision processes is challenging.

Developing relationships is an ongoing process,

requiring more than a one-time invitation to participate

in a meeting. Other discussion points included: 

• Engaging the silent majority and minorities. If 

the minority will be the majority in 20 years, 

the Forest Service has to continue engaging 

the changing public to remain relevant.

• Acknowledging the cultural 

bias in the Forest Service 

about “correct” forms of 

recreation.

• The dual challenge of protecting the resource and providing

recreation opportunities.

Crime on the National 

Forests 

Forest Service managers perceive

that crime is increasing, although

reliable data is scarce. It is not 

clear if crimes are on the rise

because of increased population 

or fewer officers due to downsizing and flattening of the budget 

since 1994. Multiple needs were identified:

• Incorporating public safety into management 

standards.

• Developing meaningful ways to measure law

enforcement.

• Changing public’s mindset about what constitutes

acceptable behavior on forests.

• Improving communication between law 

enforcement and forest managers.

General questions raised were: 

• What is an acceptable level of crime on the

national forest?

• Should Forest Service law enforcement focus 

on resource crime or people crime?

Effects of Fire and 

HFRA on Recreation 

Management

Though the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act does not reference recreation wildfire has 

numerous impacts on recreation: areas are closed, facilities 

can be destroyed, air quality 

is impeded, use levels on 

unburned areas may increase, 

and others. Additional points 

were also made:

• Include recreation needs

and concerns in fuel treatment plans.

• Fires and fire treatments are “teachable moments”

and can be used to inform the public and media. 

201

Theme 4: Special Issues in Recreation

Synthesis of Workshop Discussion

Proceedings from the National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Theme 4: Special Issues in Recreation

Synthesis of Workshop Discussion

A fire treatment on a national forest can be

used to inform the public and media about

the effect of fire on recreation.

Roger Ottmar, PNW

Research

Station
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

202

Questions about acceptable vegetation management

have been addressed with timber management. Apply

the approach to fire research, and avoid unnecessary

repetition.

Commercialization of Public Land

Discussion about the general role of the Forest Service

in providing recreational experiences, its niche, and its

relationship with concessionaires identified multiple

research needs: 

• How does the public feel about for-profit concessionaires vs. government run facilities?

• Does commercialization lead to privatization? 

• Does commercialization out price low-income 

families? Does it promote customer service or

does it lead to social inequality?

• Does commercialization have an effect on eco--

logical systems or the agency’s land management role?

Effects of Urban Sprawl on Recreation 

Management 

As housing developments push the urban-wildland 

interface further into the wildland, the management of

public land is affected, as are recreational opportunities. Human safety and fire management is arguably

the most pressing issue, but there is also the permanent loss of habitat, lost access, and increasing pressure on public land to compensate for these losses.

How should national policy address urban encroachment on national forests? Other discussion points

included:

• Global climate change and the links to land use

change.

• Communicating with new neighbors, engaging the

mainstream who may not be used to being

engaged in land management. 

• Wilderness and the growing rarity of solitude. 

Forest Service scientists and managers discuss past recreation use and the future of resource protection.

Are concessionaires able to manage public lands for all

recreationists?

Gary

Paull, USDA

Forest Service

Kelly

Lawrence, PNW

Research

Station
Recreation Monitoring Tools

Managers and scientists both identified a need for 

better recreation monitoring and monitoring tools. 

One manager described the ideal monitoring tool as

national in scope yet adaptable to specific needs of a

particular forest, and with adequate technological 

support to facilitate its use.

Challenges with current tools included:

• Difficulty in getting data from agency databases.

• Difficulty in converting data systems and 

updating them.

• Not meeting managers’ needs. 

Management and 

Research

Collaboration

Management and 

research were seen as

needing to work together

to address the following

issues:

• Defining questions.

What needs to be

monitored over time?

This question is not

limited to recreation. 

• Integrating people 

who use the tools 

into the tool development process.

• Developing a forum for sharing problems and

solutions.

History Informs

History provides context for today’s decisions. Human 

stories and ideological history can explain the physical

characteristics of the current landscape. Preserving

historical places, structures, and data has multiple

challenges and requires a dedicated effort.

Specifically: 

• Heritage sites are increasingly popular with 

older visitors. 

• Historical data are lost through poor record 

management and changing storage systems.

Market Research 

and the Forest

Service

Should the Forest 

Service do marketing

research? This question

was discussed in the

context of relationships

and public trust. Benefits

mentioned included:

• Greater legitimacy 

for the agency. 

• A better understanding of visitor behavior 

and commitment to

place. 

203

Theme 5: Extra Attendee 

Requested Discussion 

Discussion Synthesis

Proceedings from the National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

Theme 5: Extra Attendee 

Requested Discussion 

Discussion Synthesis

Tom Iraci, USDA

Forest Service

Collecting accurate visitor data is only one monitoring 

challenge Forest Service managers face. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
205

USDA FOREST SERVICE

RECREATION RESEARCH AND 

MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP PROGRAM

February 8-9, 2005

Portland, Oregon

February 8, 2005

7:00-8:00 Registration

8:00-8:15 Welcome

Kimberly Bown, Pacific Northwest Region

Jamie Barbour, Pacific Northwest Research Station USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR

Meeting Logistics

Richard Zabel, Western Forestry and Conservation Association Portland, OR

8:15-8:30 Opening Address: Dave Cleaves, Resource Valuation and Use Research

Washington, DC

8:30-9:15 Panel: Building bridges between recreation research and management 

Moderator: Marcia Patton Mallory, Rocky Mountain Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO

Panelists: Dave Holland, Recreation and Heritage Resources

Dave Cleaves, Resource Valuation and Use Research USDA Forest Service, 

Washington, DC

Liz Close, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT

Roger Clark, Pacific Northwest Research Station USDA Forest Service, 

Seattle, WA

9:15-9:45 Break

9:45-11:30 Intro to Workshop Themes (overview 9:45-10:00) 

Denny Bschor, Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service, Juneau, AK

Theme 1: Understanding forest/recreation visitors (10:00-10:20)

Don English

Theme 2: Recreation planning and monitoring (10:20-10:40) 

Greg Super, Recreation and Heritage Staff USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC 

Theme 3: Recreation management (10:40-11:00) 

Dale Blahna, Utah State University Logan, UT

Theme 4: Special issues in recreation (11:00-11:20)

Deborah Chavez, Pacific Southwest Research Station USDA Forest Service, 

Riverside, CA

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

11:30-1:00 LUNCH

1:00-2:30 Theme 1: Understanding forest/recreation visitors 

Concurrent Sessions 

Session 1 Human benefits related to recreation

Moderator: Neil Hagadorn, Alaska Region 

USDA Forest Service, Juneau, AK

Research: Mike Bowker, Southern Research Station 

USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA

Management: Sue Kocis, Recreation and Heritage Staff 

USDA Forest Service, East Lansing, MI

Session 2 Recreation settings, scenery, and visitor experiences

Moderator: Greg Super, Recreation and Heritage Staff 

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Management: Noelle Meier, Dixie National Forest, 

USDA Forest Service, Cedar City, UT

Rachel Kennon, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest 

USDA Forest Service, Steamboat Springs, CO

Research: Daniel Williams, Rocky Mountain Research Station 

USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO

Session 3 Cultural/ethnic/racial diversity and recreation preferences

Moderator: Jeff Bailey, Inyo National Forest 

USDA Forest Service, Bishop, CA

Research: Deborah Chavez, Pacific Southwest Research Station 

USDA Forest Service, Riverside, CA

Cassandra Johnson, Southern Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA

Management: Joe Meade, Chugach National Forest 

USDA Forest Service, Anchorage, AK

Session 4 Special places

Moderator: Linda Kruger, Pacific Northwest Research Station 

USDA Forest Service, Juneau, AK

Research: Herb Schroeder, North Central Research Station 

USDA Forest Service, Evanston, IL

Management: Terry Slider, Pacific Northwest Region 

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR

206
Session 5 Understanding environmental attitudes and behaviors

Moderator: Don English, Recreation and Heritage Staff 

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Research: Gary Green, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Management: Mary Noel, National Forests in North Carolina 

USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC

2:30-3:00 Break

3:00-4:30 Theme 2: Recreation Planning and Monitoring

Concurrent Sessions

Session 6 Recreation role in the forest plan revision process

Moderator: Greg Super, Recreation and Heritage Staff

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Management: Don Palmer, Monogahela National Forest 

USDA Forest Service, Elkins, WV

Lisa Freedman, Pacific Northwest Region

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR

Vivan Kee, Tahoe National Forest

USDA Forest Service, Nevada City, CA

Research: Troy Hall, University of Idaho. Moscow, ID

Session 7 Public communication and participation strategies

Moderator: Susan Charnley, Pacific Northwest Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR

Management: Tony Erba, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Pete Karp, Uinta National Forest

USDA Forest Service, Provo, UT

Research: Dale Blahna, Utah State University, Logan, UT

Peter Williams, Inventory and Monitoring Institute

USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO

Session 8 Decision frameworks for recreation planning

Moderator: Tom Christensen, Land Between the Lakes 

USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA

Research: Steve McCool, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

Management: Kathy Ludlow, Pacific Northwest Region

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

207
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Session 9 Place-based applications for planning

Moderator: Terry Slider, Pacific Northwest Region

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR

Management: Trini Juarez, Pacific Southwest Region

USDA Forest Service, Vallejo, CA

Tom Quinn, Stanislaus National Forest 

USDA Forest Service, Sonora, CA

Research: Linda Kruger, Pacific Northwest Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR

Daniel Williams, Rocky Mountain Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO

Session 10 Social and economic frameworks for planning

Moderator: Gary Green, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA

Management: Mike Retzlaff, Rocky Mountain Region

USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, CO

Cynthia Manning, Northern Region

USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT

4:30 Adjourn 

February 9, 2005

8:00-9:30 Theme 3: Recreation Management

Concurrent Sessions

Session 11 Recreation use conflicts

Moderator: Liz Close, Intermountain Region

USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT

Research: Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT

Management: Jerry Ingersoll, Recreation and Heritage Staff

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Session 12 Managing special areas

Moderator: David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT

Research: Herb Schroeder, North Central Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Evanston, IL

David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT

208
Management: Jill Osborn, Recreation and Heritage Staff

USDA Forest Service, Boise, ID

Jonathan Stephens, Recreation and Heritage Staff

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Session 13 Recreation tourism and community development

Moderator: Floyd Thompson, Recreation and Heritage Staff

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Research: Linda Kruger, Pacific Northwest Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Juneau, AK

Kreg Lindberg, Oregon State University, Bend, OR

Management: Christie Kalkowski, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

USDA Forest Service, Reno, NV

Steve Kimball, Salmon-Challis National Forest

USDA Forest Service, North Fork, ID

Session 14 Financing options for recreation management

Moderator: Gail van der Bie, Recreation and Heritage Staff

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Management: Gail van der Bie 

Research: Patricia Champ, Rocky Mountain Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO

Jerrell Richer, Sonoma State University

Rohnert Park, CA

Session 15 Communication with forest visitors

Moderator: Elizabeth Grinspoon, Pacific Northwest Region

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR

Management: Kristen Nelson, Recreation and Heritage Staff

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Research: Patricia Winter, Pacific Southwest Research Station

James Absher, Pacific Southwest Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Riverside, CA

9:30-10:00 Break

10:00-11:30 Theme 4: Special Issues in Recreation Management 

Concurrent Sessions

Session 16 Equity in access to recreation opportunities

Moderator: Cassandra Johnson, Southern Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA

Management: Francisco Valenzuela, Rocky Mountain Region

USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, CO

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

209
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Research: Patricia Winter, Pacific Southwest Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Riverside, CA

Session 17 Wildland fire and recreation management and effects of HFRA on recreation management

Moderator: Leslie Weldon, Deschutes National Forest

USDA Forest Service, Bend OR

Management: Jeff Bailey, Inyo National Forest

USDA Forest Service, Bishop, CA

Research: Jim Absher, Pacific Southwest Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Riverside, CA

Session 18 Crime on the National Forests and Grasslands

Moderator: Jeff Waalkes, Law Enforcement and Investigations

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Management: Jonathan Herrick, Alaska Region

USDA Forest Service, Juneau, AK

Research: Deborah Chavez, Pacific Southwest Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Riverside, CA

Session 19 “Commercialization” of public lands

Moderator: Tom Quinn, Stanislaus National Forest 

USDA Forest Service, Sonora, CA

Management: Mark Christiansen, Deschutes & Ochoco National Forest 

USDA Forest Service, Bend, OR

Research: Tom More, Northeastern Research Station 

USDA Forest Service, Burlington, VT

Session 20 Effects of “urban sprawl” on recreation management

Moderator: Anne Hoover, Resource Valuation and Use Research

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Management: Tom Klabunde, Tonto National Forest

USDA Forest Service, Phoenix, AZ

Research: Susan Stewart, North Central Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Evanston, IL

11:30-1:00 LUNCH

1:00-2:30 Concurrent Sessions

Session 21 Recreation Monitoring 

Moderator: Don English, Recreation and Heritage Staff

Management: Sue Kocis, Recreation and Heritage Staff

USDA Forest Service, East Lansing, MI

210
Kristi Cottini, Shasta-Trinity National Forest

USDA Forest Service, Redding, CA

Research: Susan Charnley, Pacific Northwest Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR

Robert Burns, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

Concurrent Sessions 22 through 25 were left open so that workshop participants had the opportunity to 

organize sessions to either follow up on earlier sessions or address topics that were not covered previously. 

Session 22 Open

Session 23 Open

Session 24 Open

Session 25 Open

2:30-3:00 Break

3:00-4:00 Conference Panel: Lessons Learned from the Workshop 

Dave Cleaves, Dale Blahna

4:00-4:30 Closing Remarks – Denny Bschor

February 10, 2005: Post-workshop sessions

8:00-12:00 NFS Session

8:00-5:00 R&D Session: Building a recreation research agenda

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

211
Introduction

The National Workshop on Recreation Research and 

Management was held to explore the integration of

research as a tool in effective outdoor recreation management. This workshop brought together dozens of

professionals and researchers from across the country,

with the third day set aside for managers and

researchers to hold separate meetings. At the National

Forest System (NFS) managers’ session, a freeflowing discussion atmosphere allowed participants 

to discuss problems and suggest remedies, which is

summarized here. 

A variety of topics were covered over the course of

the three-day workshop and the need to simplify recreation management surfaced repeatedly as participants

framed their discussion with words such as “streamline, organize, and clarify”. Managers defined themselves as dedicated, hard-working professionals, but

many feel increasingly less effective as practitioners

due to increasing demands that fragment their time.

Dealing with administrative tasks, managing increasing

visitor numbers and diverse expectations, conserving

natural resources, and complying with statutory and

policy requirements has become complex and overwhelming. The constant struggle to accomplish these

responsibilities has resulted in much less time available to “sharpen the axe”. 

Access to collective knowledge, innovations, and

experience is inefficient. Keeping current is difficult.

Management complexities have overrun the capacity

of the traditional structure of the Forest Service.

Managers have become extremely isolated in their

practice. This situation must be reversed through a

professional community motivated to improve communications, and provide ongoing education and mentorship. Perhaps the most important purpose of the

community is to inspire and support its members. 

Problems Experienced by Recreation 

Managers 

Participants at this session identified and discussed a 

variety of problems within the agency, many of which

are not unique to recreation managers:

• The flow of information is not strategic and seems

unfocused. Related programs are fragmented,

efforts overlap, and redundancy is common. 

• E-mail inboxes are too full. Employees cannot

keep up with housekeeping and filing of useful

information. However, few are asking to be

removed from mailing lists and even more are joining. People have a need for information, but they

need help managing it. 

• Discussions on new programs/rules/regulations

begin before development is complete. These provide opportunities for early dialog and exchange of

ideas, but can lead to confusing interpretations

and improper application.

• Agency work involves too many systems, with

accompanying passwords, making access to useful information difficult. 

• Information exchange between agency employees

and outside parties is difficult. Certain intranet content should be accessible by outside parties.

212

National Workshop on Recreation Research 

and Management Summary Paper, NFS 

Managers’ Session

Held February 10, 2005

Building a Community of Practice By: Noelle L. Meier
• Many program websites are not kept up-to-date.

• Poor ability to move directives and goals from

upper levels of the agency to the field.

• Poor ability to advance goals, needs, applications,

and innovations from the field to upper levels of

agency.

• No comprehensive links or libraries exist to easily

locate useful tools for recreation management.

• Most practitioners are operating individually, using

their formal education and experience to guide

them. 

Many mangers believe that a “disconnect” lies 

between agency programs and the systems required

for implementing them. Linkages across disciplines,

organizations and agency levels are either nonexistent or ineffective. However, if systems were made

more accessible and applicable in the field, they would

be better utilized by community members. Greater use

would mean greater exposure. One manager highlighted the problem by asking “If we don’t use and promote

our available tools, might we give the impression that

they are not a good investment of the agency’s time

and money?” Improved awareness of recreation issues

and professional activities could result in greater attention by agency leadership, when it comes to setting 

priorities. 

Defining a Community of Practice

Early on in the workshop, a concept emerged that may

offer a solution to problems described by recreation

managers. Professionals and technicians in related

disciplines can work together to better inform and create efficiencies by forming a dynamic society called a

community of practice. Etienne Wenger, renowned

expert, author and consultant on knowledge management and communities of practice, defines these societies as “groups of people who share a concern or a

passion for something they do and learn how to do it

better as they interact regularly” (2005). The term community of practice is relatively new, but people have

been working this way for some time. Organizations,

governments, and private industry are using this idea

to systematically improve professional performance. 

Very few presenters and only a handful of people

in the audience knew of the community of practice

concept. Many managers talked in the hallways

between sessions and during after-hours gatherings

about the community of practice idea. Peter Williams,

of the Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute

(IMI) in Fort Collins, Colorado, helped to shed light on

how the concept might improve Forest Service work.

To paraphrase Williams, a community of practice is

comprised of several stovepipes representing individual but related organizations, but a conduit cuts across

those stovepipes which represents a common interest.

Three components essential to the community include: 

1. People who are members of the community.

2. Technology that serves the members.

3. Interaction that occurs among community members (phone and electronic communications are

part of this, but face-to-face meetings are probably

the most important).

Wenger (2005) further identifies three principles 

that are crucial for a community of practice to be effective: 

1. The community must have a shared domain or

focus of the community. Membership implies a

commitment to that domain, where members 

value their collective competence and learn from

each other, even though few people outside the

community may value or even recognize their

competence.

2. Members must engage in joint activities and

discussions, assist each other and share information. Learning occurs through these outgoing

relationships. Members must interact and seek 

to learn from each other.

3. Members are practitioners, sharing their

resources with the community. These resources

include experiences, stories, case studies, tools

and methods for addressing recurring problems. A

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

213
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

concerted effort to collect and document people’s

lessons is ongoing. Reciprocity of practitioners is

an essential understanding among community

members and amounts to a code of conduct.

Williams expanded upon this statement by emphasizing that the community is a “dynamic society”,

where the members determine what is needed to best

support their practice. Therefore, the support systems

continually evolve according to community needs and

as innovations continue to shape the community. 

This concept and subsequent discussions helped

the group define and illuminate the gaps between

managers’ desires and how things might improve. The

group was encouraged to envision and describe a

community of Forest Service recreation managers that

could improve on the job efficiency and quality and

increase professional rigor and skills. Community of

practice became the focus of the NFS session.

Because the discussion was free-flowing and circular

in nature, this summary has been organized within the

context of building a community of practice. A few references are provided for further consideration and flip

chart notes of the NFS managers’ session are also

available. 

What Should a Recreation Management 

Community Look Like?

Several disciplines are directly or indirectly involved 

in outdoor recreation management, therefore the NFS

managers group spoke of the need to be broadly inclusive for the community’s membership. Integral to the

goal of self-improvement (the foundation of any community of practice), recreation managers must connect

with a variety of professionals such as NFS social 

scientists, cultural heritage specialists, landscape

architects, engineers, agency researchers, and law

enforcement. Partnering with private industry and academic research would also strengthen the community’s

knowledge base. 

Constituency building and networking was also

identified as critical to meeting community needs.

Therefore, the community’s conduit would be most

effective as an internet-based system; a convenient

portal through which members can connect. Multiple

parties would be necessary to maintain the community

of practice system although exactly who was not determined.

Five Potential Objectives of a Recreation 

Management Community

1. Improve Knowledge Management

It doesn’t matter where practical information originates;

good information, should be maximized for available

use. Community members, at any location and at various levels of experience should be able to access the

portal for the exchange of knowledge. Managers at

this session expressed that an internet-based portal

that includes a searchable electronic system would 

be an asset in helping to mentor new employees and

improve the knowledge base for existing professionals.

This interface capability currently exists at the

Inventory and Monitoring Institute (IMI). The IMI provides technical consultation to the Forest Service and

facilitates interaction and information sharing associated with inventory, monitoring, and planning problems.

As part of this responsibility, the IMI offers a discussion

forum where practitioners can log in and participate 

in ongoing dialogue on relevant issues located at

http://www.fs.fed.us/institute/PAG/Communities_of_

Practice.shtml (USDA, Forest Service 2005).

A knowledge management system useful to the

recreation professionals’ community would need to be

efficient and could borrow features from existing systems. One example would be an internet search

engine. A search engine provides a service similar to 

a library or an archive, acting as a repository for information and each search becomes increasingly more

comprehensive and efficient when queries are layered.

214
A community of practice can act as a multi-dimensional clearinghouse for channeling information, applications, and innovations rapidly to-and-from the field

levels, the Washington Office, research stations, technology/ development centers, and entities of other

related disciplines. Knowledge management is driven

by the need for rapid technology transfer across two or

more pipelines. It essentially becomes a researchable

question regarding “actionable knowledge” with a goal

of creating a new model for communicating knowledge.

This is a philosophy of science, a distinct area of

research, subject to peer review. As part of this

research, the community can provide case studies of

work that bridges theory and knowledge. 

Most managers have access to resources such 

as Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), the

Scenery Management System (SMS), and the Built

Environment Image Guide (BEIG). Research, agency

directives, and program websites are also currently

linked to the USDA Forest Service Recreation,

Heritage and Wilderness Resources (RHWR) Intranet

website (USDA, Forest Service 2005). The difficulty

lies in pulling these tools together for practical application. Many managers expressed that these various

tools, guidelines, and directives are valuable, but disjointed in terms of comprehensive application. This

problem was blamed on ineffective communication. 

The draft document A Technical Guide for

Integrating Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness into

Land and Resource Management Planning currently

provides the best means to instruct managers in practical applications of these and other tools and is available at the website noted above. However, a

community of practice is needed as an information hub

for assembling all crucial elements including informal

discussion of context and methods of practice. The

community can provide new employees, line officers,

and seasoned practitioners a means to develop a

more replete concept of how multiple aspects of a

practice are tied together. 

2. Streamline Communications/ Technology 

Transfer

Managers expressed a need for one-stop shopping, a 

centralized, searchable library for accessing current

and historic research. Attendees concluded that

employees in the field would utilize this library if it were

organized to include plain language abstracts of

research involving practical applications for management. This would allow interested managers to focus

attention on the most applicable research. 

One manager pointed out that the Forest Service

is already paying to support several research organizations and programs at the regional or national level.

However, it is not believed that these resources are 

utilized widely by the workforce. The RHWR Intranet

website currently links to several internal and external

research websites, including: 

• Aldo Leopold Wilderness Institute 

• Wilderness.net

• Technology Development centers: San Dimas

TDC, Missoula TDC

• USFS Research Stations

The managers suggested that a recreation community of practice website could also include links to

Digitop (the National Digital Library for the Department

of Agriculture), and Agricola (USDA’s Agricultural

Online Access). Additional suggestions included networking capability such as discussion forums to

enhance or replace extensive recreation mailing lists

and the useful Rec Talk list serve email forum. 

Other suggestions for possible incorporation to the

community website included:

• Academic journal links and annotated bibliographies with keyword search capability (subscription

required).

• Professional white papers, case studies, student

papers and theses.

• Ability to rate the usefulness or applicability of 

articles, papers and other resources. This may be

something similar to the customer book review

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

215
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

capability offered by online bookstores (five-star

rating with commentary for opinions). 

• Links to human dimensions/communities of 

practice pilot projects.

• News announcements and status of initiatives and

budget, with links to related web sites. (Examples

might be Fee Demo, partnerships, the OHV rule,

budget reports).

• Charters of organizations like San Dimas and

Missoula Technical Development Centers, and 

the Inventory and Monitoring Institute (IMI).

• Annual calls for projects, with instructions for 

submittals in order to fit the respective charters.

• Advertisements of grants and other funding 

opportunities, scholarships, training.

• A directory of “Master Performers” of field practitioners, researchers, and academics available for

consultation.

• Distribute a periodic e-mail newsletter as a

reminder of the community of practice, website

and current topics.

• A suggestion box for continued improvement.

3. Develop Professional Skills/ Provide for 

Ongoing Education

Evolution of the Discipline- Outdoor recreation 

work involves the cooperation of many disciplines, and

the community of practice must be inclusive to maximize the knowledge base. Traditionally, other professionals such as landscape architects have filled the

role of managing recreation programs, a point of concern for some recreation professionals. It was

explained that historically, landscape architects were

one of the few disciplines trained to consider the

human environment while managing for natural

resources. 

Over time, academic programs have been developed to provide specific training in outdoor recreation

and social psychology. The Forest Service has not yet

developed a suitable professional recreation series.

Agency downsizing and shifting of positions continues

to result in the placement of some recreation managers who lack proper training and sometimes the 

aptitude for dealing with difficult “people problems”.

Oftentimes, they are required to obtain additional credits in disciplines such as forestry in order to qualify for

agency recreation jobs especially when they are advertised under the forester position series. The Forest

Service is looking into several academic curricula to

better understand whether or not agency series

requirements align with graduation requirements.

Attendees voiced a concern that variable training,

experience, and education may be related to problems

with inconsistent writing and analysis quality in environmental documents. This was thought to be the root

of inappropriate managerial attitudes, as well. It was

noted that some recreation managers unfortunately

exhibit a shut-down and shut-out approach to controlling visitors, while others use knowledge of design and

social psychology to manage for diverse visitor expectations and recreation use. 

The 401 series has been adopted as a flexible way

to place employees in outdoor recreation positions.

Although it requires positive education credits, it tends

to be too generic to provide the rigor expected of other

professions such as forestry, hydrology, and wildlife

biology. Managers stated that high levels of rigor exist

in ecologic and social academic science and agency

positions in those sciences should reflect that rigor. 

Professional Society Membership- Enhanced 

credibility and professionalism through professional

society membership were also discussed in this session. There was a concern that there is little encouragement for recreation professionals to maintain

professional memberships. Certifications and registrations through organizations such as the Society 

of American Foresters and the American Society of

Landscape Architects lend greater professional credibility and again, rigor, to individuals who complete the

examinations and take the oaths that make them worthy of membership. The following list of professional

216
societies open to recreation professionals is not comprehensive:

• National Association of Recreation Planners

(NARP) 

• International Symposium on Society and Resource

Management (ISSRM) 

• Environmental Design Research Association

(EDRA)

• American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)

• Society of American Foresters (SAF)

• World Wilderness Congress (WWC)

Live Gatherings- Conferences or workshops can 

breathe inspiration and motivation into an individual’s

work, build professional skills, and develop a better

sense of quality. Managers thought that live meetings

have been instrumental in strengthening the network 

of professionals and exposing good role models. Yet,

recreation gatherings in the agency are currently too

infrequent to accomplish these goals. Many conferences and consortiums are no longer held due to

demands on time and budget, common constraints to

bringing professionals together.

Professional gatherings can greatly improve managers’ awareness and use of research, but advertisement of gatherings must improve. For example, since

1986 there has been a meeting of social scientists and

resource managers that has evolved to become the

annual International Symposium on Society and

Resource Management (ISSRM). This is a gathering

that practitioners should consider attending periodically

throughout their careers, but very few seem aware of

it. Conversely, the Clemson and Utah State

Universities-Forest Service Recreation Shortcourses

are fairly well-known among recreation managers.

These courses are continually evolving and could be

advertised through the community of practice website.

Every-other-year could be reserved for a one-week

refresher for these shortcourses, so that they are not

just once-in-a-career events. 

Live gatherings are perhaps the most powerful

form of knowledge transfer in a community of practice.

The community can promote events and help make

attendance a regular part of the professional practice.

The value of live gatherings could be better understood by practitioners and their supervisors if community members were talking about the meetings,

presentations, and following up in the community

forums. 

Mentorship- The Student Career Experience 

Program (SCEP) and other education/apprentice programs offer tremendous benefits through on-the-job

training during an employee’s college years. Many 

students have grown into skilled employees with a well

developed understanding of the agency’s recreation

programs, issues, and mission. As a result of this formative exposure to real-life work experiences, many

summer employees have modified their academic 

curriculum to better prepare for a career with the

Forest Service.

The development of human capital is weak in the

recreation management structure. There are no formal

channels to facilitate live or virtual cross-training as

part of ongoing employee training. Furthermore, opportunities to shadow a professional are unknown even

though they would be beneficial to new employees,

especially as the agency’s master performers retire. 

4. Assist with Hiring/Outsourcing/Contracting

Managers discussed the issue of the Forest Service’s

aging workforce, hiring freezes and near-freezes,

decreasing budgets, and increasing responsibilities.

Given these circumstances, individual units find it difficult to place new positions on their organizational

chart, especially considering the fixed-costs that

accompany the decision. If a decision is made to postpone hiring a qualified recreation professional, the unit

struggles in the meantime. This situation is hard on

existing employees who must fill in the gaps while

positions sit vacant. Consequently, less time is available for mentoring new or training existing employees.

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

217
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

A community of practice can help provide the knowledge and resources to illustrate the expectations of the

profession and support new and fill-in employees. 

Contracting for professional recreation, design,

and research services is becoming more common, but

there are problems with this approach. If agency

employees are closely involved, the quality and applicability of contracted research can be very good.

Asking the right research questions ensures relevance

and quality. Forest Service managers and researchers

must be involved to avoid unmet expectations and

avoid costly and wasteful contract research. 

Agency and academic researchers can help to

supervise and review contracted research. This oversight maintains research standards and ensures that

requested products are delivered. Managers must

request such assistance well in advance but many are

unaware of this valuable service. The community of

practice could serve to advertise available contractors

or reviewers and to improve contracting skills.

Contracting too many services may lead to a

decline in the agency’s image, especially services that

interface with the recreating public. It is difficult to promote a particular image without being present. Several

managers agreed that it is nearly impossible for most

contractors to grasp the sense of tradition and dedication that Forest Service employees typically embrace.

Many Forest Service employees chose a lifestyle that

includes volunteering in the community. Characteristics

not commonly found among contractors. Such characteristics are part of an ethic, handed down from mentors and are critical to “growing” good agency

employees. A community of practice could be very

effective in passing along this land and work ethic to

agency employees and perhaps even to contractors, if

aspects of the community were accessible to people

outside the agency.

5. Bridge Recreation Research, Development 

and Management

Managers identified several areas of needed research

and development (R&D), hoping to bridge management and research:

• Assess tools such as the Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS), the Scenery Management

System (SMS), and the Built Environment Image

Guide (BEIG). Improve applicability and operationalize them for use in the field. Include considerations for lands outside forest boundaries.

• National Fitness, link the Forest Service and outdoor recreation to the national health agenda.

• Describe cumulative effects of recreation projects,

within and beyond forest boundaries. 

• Link site-specific projects to national and forestlevel plans; effects of the new planning rule.

• Effectiveness of recreation management in 

meeting the needs of forest visitors.

• Identify the diverse expectations of forest visitors.

• Effects of commercialization in the forest setting

and on recreation satisfaction. 

• Address the high-consumptive visitor (i.e. extreme

sports, need for increased amenities). 

• GIS applications as a modeling tool for social 

science.

• Using NFS lands as memorials to loved ones, 

as places to scatter ashes. (How much of this is

occurring? What are the implications? How to 

deal with it?)

• The Healthy Forests Restoration Act: how new

actions affect recreation activities? (i.e. is 

opening the understory resulting in increased 

cross country motorized travel?)

• Links between recreation and law enforcement.

• Public acceptance of newer uses of forest lands

and the effect of technological changes in traditional sports (i.e. mountain biking).

• Equity in forest access.

• Capacity for forest uses.

• Who is the Forest Service? What is acceptable

use of NFS land and what should be transferred to

private lands?

218
• Historical perspectives on recreation resources

(i.e. skiing, off highway vehicle use, hunting).

Provide baseline understanding to better 

measure and understand changes.

• Methods of inventorying and monitoring dispersed

camping and other dispersed recreation. Use

Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to inventory 

and monitor special places and incorporate Limits

of Acceptable Change (LAC).

• The evolution of recreation impacts on cultural 

and natural resources. 

• Use of partnerships. Stewardship of rivers, trails,

and facilities. Develop multi-affiliate teams, using 

“meet and greet” programs and other communication to better inform and educate visitors.

• Tools for managing dispersed camping, avoiding

“reactive development” and “development creep”.

Implement gradual degrees of development such

as site hardening, vehicle control, and garbage

pick-up. When are these appropriate actions to

take?

Technology transfer must move ideas and needs 

from the field, to R&D. Management and R&D could

work together within a community of practice to strategize and construct an evolving set of research

emphases. These could help inform decisions to conclude less relevant areas of research and development

and to develop new tools and applications.

During the National Workshop on Recreation

Research and Management, managers learned that

Forest Service research is an organization with multiple functions and clients. The NFS represents only one

of R&D’s clients. Requesting work of R&D can be competitive and project needs can be better met if the field

units are prepared well in advance. Research requests

take time and must be placed on a schedule 6 to 12

months in advance. A directory of agency researchers

and a list of their past and current work could be linked

to the community of practice enabling managers to

quickly find the most appropriate research assistance.

Budget allocation for recreation research is very

low, but field units can apply for grants and improve a

potential project’s readiness. Short term program items

(site specific projects or social assessments) are not

as desirable as long-term research and often are not

highly prioritized by R&D. Well-funded programs such

as wildfire and fuels reduction, often dictate the issues

that come down the research pipeline, but spin-off

opportunities for other needed research may become

available. The community of practice could be used as

a venue for ongoing communication between managers and researchers to increase awareness of current problems that should be reflected in research

charters. 

There are incentives for researchers to publish in

academic journals. If researchers focus on extension

services or technical transfer activities, it’s possible

they won’t advance well in their careers. Serving the

needs of the NFS is unfortunately much less of an

incentive for researchers. To alleviate this problem, a

research enterprise team could be created to deal with

short-term research needs and assist with technology

transfer to the community. Also, R&D is connected to a

network of cooperators who are able to help accomplish what the agency cannot. Connecting managers

with cooperators could be an appropriate application of

the community of practice. 

Conclusion

Recreation managers and social scientists struggle to

defend their work and receive a reasonable portion of

the budget, despite the fact that many environmental

issues are ultimately people issues. It is often difficult

to explain to line officers the best approaches to manage visitors. Social science results are often much

harder to clearly explain, then in many other scientific

disciplines such as fhe biophysical sciences. Managers

and researchers can strengthen their partnership

through a community of practice. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

219
Knowledge and communication do indeed “sharpen our tools” and recreation managers know that some

of our tools desperately need sharpening. Constrained

budgets and too many demands on our time have

diminished the effectiveness of the recreation practice.

Employees feel worn down and have deflated enthusiasm for their work because of these demands. New life

and inspiration are needed in the profession. The

development of a community of practice would foster a

collective effort of ingenuity and pooled skills to solve

common problems. This community of practice would

be based on the reciprocity of mutual benefits and an

obligation of service to fellow professionals, the

agency, and the public. 

References

Wenger, Etienne. 2005. Communities of practice: a 

brief introduction. http://www.ewenger.com/ 

theory/communities_of_practice_intro.htm. 

(December 20).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

2005. Planning Analysis Group (PAG) and

Inventory and Monitoring Institute (IMI) Discussion

Forums. http://www.fs.fed.us/institute/PAG/

Communities_of_Practice.shtml. (December 20). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

2005. Recreation, heritage and wilderness

resources. http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/rhwr/

index.shtml. (December 20).

For Further Reading

Snyder, W.M.; Briggs, X.S. 2003. Communities of 

practice: a new tool for government managers.

http://www.businessofgovernment.com/pdfs/Snyder

_report.pdf. (December 20, 2005).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

2005. Knowledge management in the Forest

Service. http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/rpa/km/. 

(December 20).

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

220
Introduction

At the conclusion of the Workshop, Forest Service

researchers met as a group to review and discuss

recreation research needs. We focused our attention

on two broad questions:

• What outdoor recreation R&D priorities emerged 

in the workshop sessions and informal discussions

over the last two days?

• What actions can we take to address those 

priorities?

Discussions were wide-ranging and fruitful. By the 

end of the day a number of ideas surfaced that will be

used in the future to build strategic direction for the

Forest Service Recreation R&D Program. Researchers

spoke repeatedly of the need to build a “community of

practice” among researchers and users, where scientists, managers, other stakeholders and ordinary citizens work together to gather, apply, benefit and learn

from, and revise knowledge needed to address current

and future recreation-related issues. Participants recognized that building a Community of Practice for

Outdoor Recreation (CPOR) requires changes in

behavior, at both the individual and institutional levels.

Most of the day’s discussions focused on how to

achieve these changes, and identification of the foundational building blocks for a CPOR. At the conclusion

of the day, several scientists volunteered to form a

team to follow-up on the ideas generated at the 

meeting.

Defining Outdoor Recreation

What is meant by the term “Outdoor Recreation”?

Many scientists asked this question during our discussions. Discussants felt that the answer is quite different

today than it might have been 10 or 20 years ago.

Understanding what outdoor recreation is today and

what form it might take in the future is critical to building a successful CPOR. Many scientists expressed a

concern that the agency is not in sync with what is

happening on the ground. Participants felt that our

management and research practices are not keeping

up with the rapid changes in recreational behavior and

preferences of our visitors. In addition, the context in

which recreation is taking place is more complex. Such

complexities include the U.S. population becoming

more diverse and technology-oriented, and housing

developments competing for space adjacent to recreation lands. Discussants felt we must re-adjust our

notion of outdoor recreation research to one that is

more integrative and holistic, one that can accommodate these emerging complexities. A more integrative

outdoor recreation research program would address a

broader array of topics, in addition to the traditional

information we are currently providing. A more holistic

approach to our work will require the use of new and

under-utilized tools and methods, ones that cross disciplines, theoretical approaches, and comfort zones. The

new recreation sciences may not be called recreation

at all, and might place greater emphasis on areas of

research such as: outdoor experience, knowledge

221

Creating a Community of Practice 

for Outdoor Recreation

Summary of the USDA Forest Service 

Recreation R&D Meeting February 10, 2005
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

building and learning, human uses of nature, community development, economic, social, and ecological

impacts of outdoor activity, and human conflict behavior. Some of the research topics participants suggested

as foundational to the new recreation sciences and key

to development of a CPOR are:

• Describing and communicating values, tradeoffs,

and benefits

• Describing and understanding our users

• Movement of people and tourism implications

• How to collaborate and communicate with communities, visitors, and other stakeholders

• How to manage where conflicting uses exist

• Effects on outdoor recreation from housing and

physical infrastructure growth on adjacent lands

• Environmental justice/effects of outdoor recrea-tion

activity and development on different socio-economic groups

Institutional Change

A second area of discussion focused on the institutional or structural changes needed within Forest Service

R&D and National Forest Systems to facilitate the creation of a CPOR. Although these discussions touched

on a number of subjects, they can generally be narrowed to five topics:

• Understanding the work environment of the “other”

• Research and management capacity

• Improving information access

• Integration through reorganization

• Strategic planning

Participants expressed a concern that they did not 

have a clear understanding of managers’ daily work

environment. Researchers can develop useful tools,

models, and other applications of research findings

only when they understand the managers “milieu”. This

means not only the circumstances in which a particular

research product will be used, i.e. for forest planning or

recreation monitoring, but also generally how decisions

are made, the nature of external pressures managers

face, and the kinds of communication and networking

strategies managers rely on. This kind of information

will allow researchers to better tailor a product to the

managers’ needs, and also help the researcher determine what other research may be needed in the future.

Likewise, it was observed that managers could benefit

from understanding the research process, especially

the timelines, reward system, and sources of research

findings. Based on earlier discussions during the workshop, participants agreed that there was a need for

recreation management positions to be “professionalized” so that employees in those positions might better

capitalize on and use research findings.

A number of comments were made about the

declining capacity of Forest Service R&D, and recreation research in particular. Although recreation participation has increased dramatically over the last decade,

recreation research capacity has remained flat or

declined. Some participants remarked that there

seems to be a lack of interest in recreation research at

the agency leadership level, despite growth in recreation participation and impacts. It was suggested that

an assessment be conducted to evaluate the factors

contributing to capacity declines, the current and future

recreation research needs, and what organizational

changes may improve capacity. It was agreed that

building a CPOR could help expand the constituency

for recreation research, and result in further support

and growth in capacity over the long-term.

A successful Community of Practice requires easy

access to information so that community participants

can routinely exchange ideas and knowledge, and put

into practice what they have learned. Discussants proposed that the CPOR sponsor the development of an

information delivery system about outdoor recreation.

This information system would be web-based, and may

include for example, a synthesis of current recreation

research available by topic, sources of information and

expertise, and tools to analyze data. Development of

the information delivery system would be preceded by

an assessment of customers and their needs. During

222
and after development, a marketing effort would

ensure that users know how to use and access the

information system. A periodic evaluation of customers

will be conducted to determine relevancy and userfriendliness of the system. Discussants felt there was a

need to ensure that the knowledge transmitted to managers by the new information delivery system, or by

other means, becomes “actionable knowledge” used

on the ground, in real management scenarios. Some

type of application monitoring may be necessary to

determine if our science has been transformed into

actionable knowledge. Other ways to make our science more accessible to users were proposed, such

as bringing knowledge to our customers where they

live and work by centralizing our recreation research

expertise in service centers across the U.S. Other suggestions included incorporating more research into

recreation management training modules, and improving managers’ direct access to scientists by omitting

requirements to contact Stations first.

Participants agreed that taking an integrated

approach to recreation research was fundamental to

the successful development of a CPOR. Although new

formal mechanisms for working across Stations would

be helpful, discussants observed that opportunities

exist to self-organize and that scientists should take

advantage of these opportunities more often and use

informal teams where appropriate. In addition, there

was strong recognition that expanding the customer

base beyond NFS recreation managers was essential

for success. Reorganizing in ways that enable relationship building with new and different customers such as

state Fish & Game departments, other federal agencies, recreation and tourism industries, volunteer

organizations, and NGOs may further strengthen a

CPOR. Some steps have already been taken towards

reorganization to accomplish integration. For example,

the North Central Station reorganized recently to

accommodate the increasingly complex, integrated

research questions facing them. Currently, the R&D

Washington Office (WO) is reorganizing into teams to

enhance integration across disciplines, help align and

consolidate administrative functions, and expand relationships with customers. Although there are many 

barriers to institutional change, discussants agreed

that some changes will be essential as we develop a

CPOR.

Participants suggested that given the number of

actions needed to develop a CPOR, the Recreation

R&D Program should develop a strategic plan to guide

future efforts. The plan should assume an integrative

approach and R&D reorganization, include priority

cross-cutting research questions, and involve partners

and other customers in the development process. In

other words, the goal of the strategic plan should be 

to create a Community of Practice for Outdoor

Recreation. 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

223
Nancy Brunswick

USDA Forest Service

2113 Osuna Rd. NE

Albuquerque, NM 87113

505-346-3851

nbrunswick@fs.fed.us 

Denny Bschor

USDA Forest Service

709 W 9th Street

Juneau, AK 99801

907-586-8863

dbschor@fs.fed.us 

Robert Burns

West Virginia University

PO Box 6125

Morgantown, WV 26505

304-293-2941

robert.burns@mail.wvu.edu 

Trisha Callaghan

USDA Forest Service

Willowa-Whitman National 

Forest

PO Box 907

Baker City, OR 97814

541-523-1333

Lee Cerveny

Research Social Scientist

PNW Research Station

400 N. 34th St., Suite 201

Seattle, WA 98133

206-732-7832

lcerveny@fs.fed.us 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

Jim Absher

Research Social Scientist

PSW Research Station

4955 Canyon Crest Drive

Riverside, CA 92507

951-680-1559

jabsher@fs.fed.us 

Susan Alexander

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 21628

Juneau, AK 99802

907-586-8809

salexander@fs.fed.us 

Berneice Anderson

USDA Forest Service

626 E. Wisconsin Ave., 

Suite 101

Milwaukee, MI 53202

414-297-3841

banderson06@fs.fed.us 

Christine Arrendondo

Rec, Lands and Planning Staff 

Officer

USDA Forest Service

16400 Champion Way

Sandy, OR 97080

503-668-1795

carrendondo@fs.fed.us 

Jeff Bailey

USDA Forest Service

351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200

Bishop, CA 93514

760-873-2550

jbailey@fs.fed.us 

Jamie Barbour

USDA Forest Service

Forestry Sciences Lab

620 SW Main Street, Suite 400

Portland, OR 97205

503-808-2542

jbarbour01@fs.fed.us 

Dale Blahna

Research Social Scientist

PNW Research Station

400 N. 34th St. Suite 201

Seattle, WA 98103

206-732-7833

blahna@fs.fed.us

Kimberly Bown

PNW Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

kbown@fs.fed.us 

224

WORKSHOP Participant List

February 8-10, 2005

Portland, Oregon
Patty Champ

Economist

Rocky Mountain Research 

Station

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg A, 

Suite 350

Fort Collins, CO 80526

970-295-5967

pchamp@fs.fed.us 

Susan Charnley

PNW Research Station

620 SW Main #400

Portland, OR 97205

503-808-2011

Deborah Chavez

PNW Research Station

4955 Canyon Crest Dr

Riverside, CA 92507

951-680-1558

dchavez@fs.fed.us 

Tom Christensen

USDA Forest Service

100 Van Morgan Dr.

Golden Pond, KY 42211

270-924-2010

Mark Christiansen

Recreation Program Manager

1645 Highway 20 East

Bend, OR 97701

541-383-5571

mchristiansen@fs.fed.us 

Roger Clark

PNW Research Station

400 N. 34th St. Suite 201

Seattle, WA 98103

206-732-7833

rnclark@fs.fed.us 

Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

225

Dave Cleaves

USDA Forest Service

1601 North Kent St., RPC-4

Arlington, VA 22209

703-605-4880

dcleaves@fs.fed.us 

Elizabeth Close

USDA Forest Service

324 25th St.

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5164

lclose@fs.fed.us 

David Cole

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

406-542-4199

dcole@fs.fed.us 

Kristi Cottini

USDA Forest Service

14225 Holiday Rd

Redding, CA 96003

530-275-1587

Adam Daigneault

USDA Forest Service

620 SW Main St, STE 400

Portland, OR 97205

503 808-2005

Jorgina Daly

USDA Forest Service

HC 01 Box 70

White Bird, ID 83354

208-839-2211

Terry DeGrow

USDA Forest Service

21905 64th Ave. West

Mount Lake Terrace, WA 98043

425-744-3400

tdegrow@fs.fed.us 

Annice Ellis

USDA Forest Service

4701 N. torrie Pines Dr.

Las vegas, NV 89130

702-515-5407

Don English

USDA Forest Service

201 14th St. SW

Washington, D.C. 20250

202-205-9595

denglish@fs.fed.us 

Tony Erba

USDA Forest Service

MS 1104, 3 Central, EMC

1400 Independence Ave. SW

Washington, D.C. 20250

202-205-1547

aerba@fs.fed.us 

Ellen Eubanks

USDA Forest Service

444 E Bonita Ave.

San Dimas, CA 91773

909-599-1267 ext 225

eeubanks@fs.fed.us 

Lisa Freedman

Director, Resource Planning 

& Monitoring

USDA Forest Service PNW

PO Box 3623

Portland, OR 97208

503-808-2271

lfreedman@fs.fed.us 

Brian Garber-Yonts

USDA Forest Service

3200 SW Jefferson Way

Corvallis, OR 97331

541-758-7756

yonts@cof.orst.edu 
Evan Glenn

USDA Forest Service

906 SE 71st Ave.

Portland, OR 97215

503-808-2698

evergreenevan@fastmail.fm 

Nicholas Glidden

Recreation Forester

USDA Forest Service

1789 North Wedgewood Ln

Cedar City, UT 84720

435-865-3747

hglidden@fs.fed.us 

Alan Graefe

Associate Professor

Penn State University

201 Mateer Building

University Park, PA 16802

814-863-8986

gyu@psu.edu 

Gary Green

University of Georgia

Warnell School of Forest 

Resources

Athens, GA 30602

706-559-4269

ggreen@forestry.uga.edu 

Elisabeth Grinspoon

USDA Forest Service

333 SW First Ave.

Portland, OR 97204

503-808-2207

egrinspoon@fs.fed.us 

Neil Hagadorn

USDA PNW Forestry 

Sciences Lab

PO Box 23096

Juneau, AK 99802

907-586-9336

nhagadorn@fs.fed.us 

Troy Hall

Associate Professor

University of Idaho

Conservation Social Sciences

Moscow, ID 83844

208-885-9455

troyh@uidaho.edu 

Todd Harbin

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 10607

Eugene, OR 97440

541-225-6304

tharbin@fs.fed.us 

Michael Harvey

Siuslaw National Forest

4077 SW Research Way

Corvallis, OR 97333

541-750-7046

mharvey@fs.fed.us 

Jonathan Herrick

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 22189

Juneau, AK 99802

907-586-8820

jherrick01@fs.fed.us 

Stanley Hinatsu

USDA Forest Service

902 Wasco Ave., Suite 200

Hood River, OR 97031

541-308-1708

shinatsu@fs.fed.us 

Dave Holland

Director, Recreation, Heritage 

and Wilderness Resources

USDA Forest Service

201 14th St. SW

Washington, D.C. 20250

202-205-1706

dgholland@fs.fed.us 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

226

Anne Hoover

USDA Forest Service

1601 N. Kent St. RPC-4

Arlington, VA 22209

703-605-5119

ahoover@fs.fed.us 

Jerry Ingersoll

USDA Forest Service

1400 Independence Ave. SW, 

MS 1125

Washington, D.C. 20250

202-205-0931

jingersoll@fs.fed.us 

Cassandra Johnson

Research Social Scientist

USDA Forest Service

320 Green Street

Athens, GA 30602-2044

706-559-4270

cjohnson09@fs.fed.us 

Cathy Kahlow

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 948

Glenwood Springs, CO 81602

970-945-3242

ckahlow@fs.fed.us 

Christie Kalkowski

Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest

1200 Franklin Way

Sparks, NV 89431

775-355-5311

ckalkowski@fs.fed.us 

Peter Karp

USDA Forest Service

88 West 100 North

Provo, UT 84601

801-342-5101

pkarp@fs.fed.us 
Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

227

Vivian Kee

Natural Resources Staff Officer

USDA Forest Service

631 Coyeote St

Nevada City, CA 95959

530-478-6245

vkee@fs.fed.us 

John Kelly

Assistant Director-Research

USDA Forest Service

200 Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

828-257-4306

jkelly@fs.fed.us 

Rachel Kennon

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest

925 Weiss Dr.

Steamboat Springs, CO 80487

970-870-2144

rkennon@fs.fed.us 

Steve Kimball

District Ranger

USDA Forest Service

North Fork Ranger District

North Fork, ID 83466

208-865-2731

skimball@fs.fed.us 

Tom Klabunde

USDA Forest Service

2324 E. McDowell Rd.

Phoenix, AZ 85006

602-225-5203

Susan Kocis

USDA Forest Service

1407 S. Harrison Rd., Suite 220

East Lansing, MI 48823

517-355-7740 ext 119

skocis@fs.fed.us 

Elaine Kohrman

USDA Forest Service

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

PO Box 907

Baker City, OR 97814

541-523-1331

Linda Kruger

PNW Research Station

2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A

Juneau, AK 99801

907-586-8811 X240

lkruger@fs.fed.us 

Henry Lachowski

USDA Forest Service

2222 West 2300 South

Salt Lake City, UT 84119

801-975-3750

hlachowski@fs.fed.us 

Linda Langner

USDA Forest Service

1601 N. Kent St.-4RPC

Arlington, VA 22209

703-605-4886

llangner@fs.fed.us 

Kreg Lindberg

Oregon State University

2600 NW College Way

Bend, OR 97701

541-322-3126

kreg.lindberg@osucascades.edu 

Kathy Ludlow

Recreation Analyst

USDA Forest Service

333 SW first Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

503-808-2128

kludlow@fs.fed.us 

Cynthia Manning

Human Dimensions Staff Leader

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 7669

Missoula, MT 59807

406-329-3240

cmanning@fs.fed.us 

Steve McCool

University of Montana

School of Forestry

Missoula, MT 59812

406-243-5406

smccool@forestry.umt.edu 

Joe Meade

Forest Supervisor

USDA Forest Service

3301 C Street Suite 300

Anchorage, AK 99503

907-743-9500

jmeade@fs.fed.us 

Dexter Meadows

USDA Forest Service

444 E Bomita Ave.

San Dimas, CA 91773

909-599-1267 x 276

dmeadows@fs.fed.us 

Noelle Meier

USDA Forest Service

1789 N. Wedgewood Lane

Cedar City, UT 84720

435-865-3225

nmeier@fs.fed.us 

Marsha Moore

Travel Planner

USDA Forest Service

1935 3rd Ave. E.

Kalispell, MT 59901

406-758-5325

memoore@fs.fed.us 
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

228

Tom More

Social Scientist

Northeastern Research Station

PO Box 968

Burlington, VT 5402

802-951-6771

tmore@fs.fed.us 

Kristen Nelson

USDA Forest Service

1400 Independence Ave. SW

Washington, D.C. 20250

202-205-1406

christennelson@fs.fed.us 

Mary Noel

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 2750

Ashville, NC 28802

828-257-4259

mnoel@fs.fed.us 

Jill Osborn

USDA Forest Service

1249 S. Vinnell Way

Boise, ID 83709

208-373-4162

josborn@fs.fed.us 

Don Palmer

USDA Forest Service

200 Sycamore St.

Elkins, WV 26241

304-636-1800 ext 280

djpalmer@fs.fed.us 

David Parsons

USDA Forest Service

790 E. Beckwith

Missoula, MT 59801

406-542-4193

djparsons@fs.fed.us 

Marcia Patton-Mallory

Rocky Mountain Research Station

2150 Centre Ave., Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526

970-295-5926

mpattonmallory@fs.fed.us 

Daniela Pavoni

USDA Forest Service

HC 73 Box 320

Mill City, OR 97360

503-854-4208

dpavoni@fs.fed.us 

John Pierce

USDA Forest Service

118 S. 4th Ave. E

Ely, MN 55731

218-365-7606

jpierce@fs.fed.us 

Tom Quinn

Forest Supervisor

USDA Forest Service

19777 Greenley Rd.

Sonora, CA 95370

209-532-3671

tquinn01@fs.fed.us 

Mike Retzlaff

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 25127

Lakewood, CO 80225

303-275-5157

mretzlaff@fs.fed.us 

Jerrell Richer

Sonoma State University

685 Bloomfield Road

Sebastopol, CA 95472

707-236-0688

jerrell@greenmba.com 

Clare Ryan

University of Washington

College of Forest Resources

Box 352100

Seattle, WA 98195

206-616-3987

cmryan@u.washington.edu 

James Saveland

USDA Forest Service

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. A

Fort Collins, CO 80526

970-295-5944

jsaveland@fs.fed.us 

Herb Schroeder

USDA Forest Service

1033 University Place, #360

Evanston, FL 60201

847-866-9311

Barb Severson

USDA Forest Service

10600 NE 51st Circle

Vancouver, WA 98682

360-891-5278

bseverson@fs.fed.us 

Laurel Skelton

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 490

Prineville, OR 97754

541-416-6530

lskelton@fs.fed.us 

Terry Slider

Regional Landscape Architect 

USDA Forest Service

333 SW First Aveneu

Portland, OR 97204

503-808-2128

tslider@fs.fed.us 
Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management

229

Vladimir Steblina

USDA Forest Service

215 Melody Lane

Wenatchee, WA 98801

509-664-9319

vsteblina@fs.fed.us 

Jonathan Stephens

USDA Forest Service

1400 Independence Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20250

202-205-1701

jstephens02@fs.fed.us 

Susan Stewart

USDA Forest Service

1033 University Place, #360

Evanston, FL 60201

847-866-9311

Greg Super

USDA Forest Service

1400 Independence Ave. SW, 

MS 1125

Washington, D.C. 20250

202-205-1398

gsuper@fs.fed.us 

Floyd Thompson

USDA Forest Service

11 Grinnel Ct.

Rockville, MD 20855

202-205-1423

fthompson02@fs.fed.us 

Amy Tinderholt

USDA Forest Service

215 Melody Lane

Wenatchee, WA 98801

509-664-9367

atinderholt@fs.fed.us 

William Tremblay

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 309

Petersburg, AK 99833

907-772-5877

Francisco Valenzuela

Rocky Mountain Region, 

Recreation Planner

USDA Forest Service

7040 Simms Street

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-5045

fvalenzuela@fs.fed.us 

Chad VanOrmer

USDA Forest Service

231 N. Main Street

Rutland, VT 5701

802-747-6722

cvanormer@fs.fed.us 

Jon Vanderheyden

USDA Forest Service

801 State Route 20

Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284

360-856-5700 ext 201

jvanderheyden@fs.fed.us 

Jeff Waalkes

Senior Special Agent

USDA Forest Service

1621 N. Kent St. Room 1015

Arlington, VA 22209

703-605-4730

jwaalkes@fs.fed.us 

Jennifer Wade

USDA Forest Service

4480 Hwy. 101

Florence, OR 97439

541-902-6968

jenniferwade@fs.fed.us 

Kathleen Walker

USDA Forest Service

70220 E. Hwy 26

Zigzag, OR 97049

503-622-3191x 641

kwalker@fs.fed.us 

Alan Watson

Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute

Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

406-542-4197

awatson@fs.fed.us 

Leslie Weldon

Forest Supervisor

USDA Forest Service

1645 Highway 20 E

Bend, OR 97701

541-383-5562

lweldon@fs.fed.us 

Cynthia West

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208

503-808-2123

cdwest@fs.fed.us 

Debbie Wilkins

USDA Forest Service

315 North Warren

Newport, WA 99156

509-447-7322

dwilkins@fs.fed.us 

Martha Willbee

Outdoor Recreation Planner

USDA Forest Service

444 East Bonita Avenue

San Dimas, CA 91773

909-599-1267 ext231

mwillbee@fs.fed.us 
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698 

230

Peter Williams

USDA Forest Service

2150A Centre Ave. #300

Fort Collins, CO 80526

970-295-5740

Gerald Williams

USDA Forest Service

1400 Independence Ave. SW

Washington, D.C. 20250

202-205-0958

gwilliams02@fs.fed.us 

Daniel Williams

Social Scientist

Rocky Mountain Research 

Station

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg A, 

Suite 350

Ft. Collins, CO 83843

970-295-5970

drwilliams@fs.fed.us 

Patricia Winter

Pacific Southwest Research 

Station

4955 Canyon Crest Drive

Riverside, CA 92507

951-680-1557

pwinter@fs.fed.us 

Gail van der Bie

USDA Forest Service

1400 Independence Ave. SW, 

MS 4CEN

Washington, D.C. 20250

202-205-1756

gvanderbie@fs.fed.us 

English Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Centimeters (cm) 0.394 Inches

Meters (m) 3.28 Feet

Square meters (m2) 1.20 Square yards

Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres

Kilograms per hectare 

(kg/ha) 0.893 Pounds per acre

Liters (L) 1.057 Quarts

Celsius (°C) 1.8 and add 32 Fahrenheit
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle 

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of 

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation 

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests 

and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation,

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.