USDA Forest Seruice General Technical Report S E- 9

.

June 1976

ADMINISTRATORS

MANAGERS

of the

SOUTHERN STATES RECREATION RESEARCH

Applications Workshop

Asheville, North Carolina

September 1518,1975
Proceedings

of the

Southern States Recreation Research

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station

Forest Service, U.S. Department of AgricultUre

Asheville, N.C. 28802

North Carolina State University

Department of Recreation

Resources.Administration

School of Forest Resources :

Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FOREWORD

North Carolina State University; the Forest Environment Research Division,

USDA Forest Service; and the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA

Forest Service sponsored this regional Workshop for recreation managers and

planners in the Southern States. The objectives of the Workshop were to ,provide for interaction among recreation scientists, extension specialists, and

.managers and planners and to exchange ideas and attitudes concerning the usefulness and applicability of the knowledge which has been generated through

recreation research. A special emphasis was placed on the effectiveness with

which researchers coxmnunicate their results to managersand planners and with

which research needs are communicated to researchers.

Attendance at the Workshop was limited to 80 specifically invited recreation resource managers, planners, researchers and extension specialists.

Invitations were extended to those who had demonstrated interest and accomplishment in the field. Active participation by these invitees in discussions was

strongly urged and the Workshop format was designed to encourage maximum

participation.

Attendees at the Workshop included personnel from:

.

.

.

State recreation and/or planning agencies

State game and fish agencies

Private forest industries and private recreation enterprises

Federal agencies including USFS, BOR, SCS, TVA, and the Corps

of Engineers

Recreation extension units

Local (county and urban) recreation agencies

Universities.

In general, the sessions on the program followed the format outlined below: /

1 . A general topic for discussion was listed

2 . A panel of speakers presented papers on the topic

3 . A brief question and answer period followed each

speaker

4 . Assigned critiquers reviewed papers prior to the

presentations, developed key questions about the

papers, participated in the question and answer

phase of the program, and comprised part of the

panel during formal discussions

5 . After papers were presented in a given topic area,

all attendees participated in one of four smallgroup workshop discussion sessions. Each discussion group had a previously assigned discussion

leader and a recorder, The objective of each

group was to further discuss the papers presented

and to develop recommendations and questions on

the topic.
6. Workshop groups returned to the main auditorium

and discussed the topic with a panel composed of

the session speakers and the critiquers of the

speakers' papers.

Based on reactions after the Workshop, the program and format for the

proceedings were judged to have been highly successful. Practically everyone

in attendance had an assigned role as a speaker, critiquer, topic session

chairman, discussion leader or discussion recorder. This resulted in a very

open and involved level of communication and prevailed upon the attendees to

devote close attention to the presentations.

HAROLD K. CORDELL ELLWOOD L. SHAFER, JR.

Coordinator of Recreation Research. Principal Recreation Research Scientist

North Carolina State University USDA Forest Service

Raleigh, N. C. Washington, D, C.

THE SOUTHERN STATES RECREATION RESEARCH

APPLICATIONS WORKSHOP

General Chairmen: E. L. Shafer and H. K. Cordell

Local Arrangements: D. L. Erickson, L. H. Harkins, F. L. Ragan,

C. P. Kramer

Publicity: R. C. Biesterfeldt

Session Chairmen: E. L. Shafer, D. W. Scott, K. F. Munson,

H. D. Brantley, A. Worms

Compilers: H. K. Cordell, J. W. Rawls, G. M. Broili
CONTENTS

TOPIC I: INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RECREATION MANAGERS,

EXTENSION SPECIALISTS AND RESEARCHERS . . . . . . . . . . .

The Managers' Viewpoint: Research and Applicability

of Results

RICHARDL. COTTRELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Critique

KERRYSCHELL........................

Interrelationships of Recreation Managers, Extension

Specialists and Researchers

DENNIS R. CROWB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Critique

L. A. LINDQUIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c .

Relating Recreation Research to Management Decisions

KBNNETHD.WARR......................

Critique

ALLAN J. WORMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . .

TOPIC II: NEEDF;D RESEARCH . . . . . . . s . . . . . . . . . -. . . R

Priority Needs in Outdoor Recreation Research.

STUART P. DAVEY and NEIL J. STOUT . . . . . N c . . . c .

Priorities for Recreation Research in th.e Southakn States

MOLDK. CORDELL . . . . . . . . . . . . s . . ; . . . .

Wilderness in the East:' Problems for Research

ROBERT W. CEFU4A.K. . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . w

Critique

R. DUANELLOYD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . : .

Urb& Forest Recreation: A Strategy for Research

mO&is A. MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .

Critique

PHILIP L. ARCHIBALD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s s . . .

Page

1

2

9

1 2

2 4

2 6

3 7

4 0

4 1

4 7

5 2

5 8

61

6 9
Page

IC III: RESEARCH APPLIED TO MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2

The Role of Landscape Analytics in Landscape Planning

GARY H. ELSNER and MICHAEL R. TRAVIS . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4

Critique

ROBERT H. STIGNANI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 8 8

Achieving Effectiveness in Environmental Interpretation

J.ALANWAGAR....................... 90

Critique

RONALD D. JOHNSON

Economics Applied to Outdoor Recreation: An Evaluation

FRANKJ.CONVERY..................... 106

Critique

G. ROBERT OLSON . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Principles of Recreational Carrying Capacity

DAVIDW.LIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . . . . '122

Critique

LEOF.MARNELL...................... 135

Hunters and Hunting: Management Implications of Research

JOHN C. HENDEE and DALE R. POTTER . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

?IC IV: SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 162

Toward a Better Understanding of the Social Benefits of

Outdoor Recreation Participation

B.L.DRIVER..................... , . 163

Critique

GLORIAB. ANGEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Public Involvement in Recreation Resources Decision Making

DAVID L. ERICKSON and ADAM CLARKE DAVIS . . . . . . . . . 191

Critique

OWEN T. JAMISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

New Roles for Government and Industry in Outdoor Recreation

W.F.LAPAGE....................... 218

Critique

JAMESD.HAYNES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Page

COMMENT...............................:. 231

Comments on the Workshop

J.A.SHERIDAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

SELECTED PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE NATIONAL RECREATION RESEARCH

APPLICATIONS WORKSHOP, ESTES PARK, COLORADO, 1974 . . . . . . .s . . . . . 234

Research on Off-Road Recreation Vehicles: A Summary

of Selected' Reports and a Comprehensive Bibliography

RICHARD L. BURY, STEPHEN F. McCOOL, and ROBERT C. WENDLING. 234

The Literature of Planning and Managing Irtensively.

Developed Natural Resource Recreation Sites

HAROLDK.CORDELL..................... 273
TOPIC I

INTERRELATIONSHIP OF RECREATION MANAGERS,

EXTFINSION SPECIALISTS AND RESEARCHERS

ABSTRACTS

COTTRRLL

The Managers' Viewpoint: Research and Applicability of Results.--The

host of recreation research oriented meetings around the Nation reflects

serious problems in communication and dissemination between researchers

and managers. Dialogue between these professionals is missing, misunderstood, or minimal.

This paper exposes and explores a few of the "why's" of our dilemma and

recommends some possible cures.

CROWF,

Interrelationshins of Recreation Managers, Extension Specialists and

Researchers .--Southern Extension educators conclude that recreation

research will be more fully used by resource managers when each of the

management-research-Extension components function as a team. Teamwork

demands mutual respect, agreement on goals and methods, cooperation,

and communication. Often Extension recreation education must be basic,

causing a significant lag in current research communication and application. However, greater Extension efficiency would result with a) expansion of responsive and relevant research, b) formal mechanisms for Exten

sion-research collaboration, c) larger numbers of Extension specialists

and researchers, d) expanded technical support of the county delivery

system, and e) development of non-traditional, education-maximizing modes

of devivery.

WARE

Relating Recreation Research to Management Decisions.--There are wellknown difficulties in doing directly applicable research, connnunicating

research results, and in applying research results in practice. SOlW

of these difficulties stem from unclear specifications of the roles of

managers, extension specialists and researchers. Additional difficulties

stem from lack of a common framework for discussing management decisions,

how information is ideally used in management, and hence, the role of

research in providing information useful in management. Management science

provides an appropriate framework. this framework provides a basis for

assessing the current state of the difficulties in recreation resources

management and research and for exploring some general possibilities for

improving the relationship.
TEE MANAGERS' VIEWPOINT: RESEARCH AND APPLICABILITl

OF RESULTS

Richard L. Cottrel&

Abstract .--The host of recreation research oriented meetings

around the Nation reflects serious problems in communication and

dissemination between researchers and managers. Dialogue between

these professionals is missing, misunderstood, or minimal.

This paper exposes and explores a few of the "why'sl( of our

dilemma and recommends some possible cures.

Additional keywords: Recreation research, research application,

research communication, extension programs, research dissemination, forest recreation, research evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

If Your fantastic research findings were in great demand in the market

Place, we wouldn't be attending this workshop!! Nor would we have met last

fall in Estes Park, Colorado; or at Brandon Springs, Tennessee; Athens,

Georgia; Washington, D.C. or other places. Research findings aren't known

to a majority of recreation managers; aren't available in a usable form;

can't be understood when they are available; and, most of you know it!

Thus, we are joined together as friends and countrymen for candid exchanges

and to seek ways to improve.

As a prelude to my taking UP the big stick allow me to provide a miniself profile. With it I hope to soften a bit the upcoming blows.

I'm a Patron of your science and your art --a depender upon your Sage

findings-- an ardent seller (disseminator) of your goodies and your recommendations (that is, if I can find any recommendations) to a broad spectrum

of the great unlearned --a member of a less than dynamic NRPA Task Force on

Outdoor Recreation Research --coorigtnator of a similar research workshop last

Spring at Land Between The Lakes-- a frustrated suggestor and designer of

research studies --and a fellow who has 5 APPLIED research studies (with 4

universities) going on in his area as he prepares this paper.

MY ever expanding sharing of $deas and mistakes with-the academic

community, the private sector, 15 or SO agencies in the Federal Park realm,

countless state recreation folks, involvement in 6 or 7 professional societies, 15 years in the USDA-Forest Service fighting with timber beasts and

other assorted recreation antagonists , q association with the new breed of

11 Supervisor of Recreation Services at TVA's Outdoor Recreation Demonstram

tion Area--Land Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, Kentucky.

2
cat you'call the disseminator, and my work with researchers from the Western

Hendees to the Southern Swinfords, James, and Cordells, to the Wagars,

Chilman, and Burys provide the basis for my questions, criticisms, and

conxnents.

Ken Cordell asked me to explore with you some of the all too common

dialogue between researchers and managers:

-- "Researchers are arrogant." "PhD's look down on ground grubbers

who have less educations."

-- "Managers don't read what we write."

-- "Managers don't take time to study research results."

-- "Researchers keep talking about their poor reward system."

-- "Managers aren't interested in doing things better."

-- "If the scientific method doesn't fit the problem, research shouldn't

be conducted."

-- "Managers are dumb."

-- "Researchers don't have common sense."

These excellent quotations could be followed with a host of equally

worthless sayings. Since, as a manager-administrator, I've worked with

research friends in resource agencies and in the academic realm, I can say

folks involved in recreation research are generally top drawer. However,

you've asked for candid criticisms so, let's explore a few.

HOW MANAGERS PERCEIVE THE EXISTING RESEARCH SYSTEM

Why is it managers and other field people aren't clammering for your

fantastic findings? Perhaps we can find part of the answers in this series

of introspective questions. Is your research geared to the urgent-immediate

needs of managers? Have you presented (packaged) your results SO they will

sell? Can managers understand what you've written? Have you geared your

writeup to management people or is it geared to fellow researchers? Do you

aim at publications of interest to managers or publications of interest to

no one? DO you describe the problem then prescribe the cure with step l10 recommendations? Did you work with management personnel in describing

the problem or did you do a fine job without their help? Do you measure

success with the number of articles printed and/or the number of pamphlets

available for distribution? If your answers to these questions (or at

least most of them) are yesses you pass--read no more!

Let's get back to your understanding of managers. They come in all

sizes, shapes, colors; are one of 2 sexes; are generally overworked and--

sad to relate--aren't waiting on you to save them. The writer has 20 years

in 2 Federal Agencies, (16 in recreation), is colorblind, bald, 40ish, is

3
a graduate forester with "0" hours in outdoor recreation, works 6 -I- daYsi

week, uses research data frequently and enjoys his job. If you're interested in "ringing my bell" with your research--get to know me, my interests, my possible research needs, and the constraints of my job.

You somehow must make a genuine, concerted effort to understand the

job challenges of at least the spectrum of managers in your research

realm. What are you doing or what is your agency doing to see to it you

have the opportunity to gain some experience in the exciting field o.f

recreation management? Some of the most successful research I know of

is being carried on by former managers or researchers who have taken time

out to work in management.

A few weeks ago a research scientist located at a prominent northeastern university called and asked for my help. I was asked to be the

state coordinator for his research needs questionnaire. This was to go

to educators, private resort owners, other Federal and state administrators, key folks in user groups, recreation equipment suppliers, etc.

"Why me??" "You were recommended for your extensive knowledge of recreation professionals in the state." Ho? I was busy, busy; but I would,

when the questionnaires arrived do my best to help.

The questionnaires arrived on June 16. They were to be returned

FROM the respondents by June ZO! My first opportunity to review mail

of less than Congressional urgency was July 71: About this time, I

received a less than friendly reminder from the researcher telling me

the 15 respondents were tardy indeed!

My interest in working with you kept me from throwing this correspondence including the coded questionnaires into the nearest round

file. We selected a broad cross section of respondents across the Commonwealth asking them (with a personal letter) to do me a favor by

filling out the forms as soon as their busy schedule Permitted.

Bid the researcher understand the manager at his busiest time of

the year--pre-July 4th!? Remember, I'm your friend; how would others

less friendly have responded? Researcher arrogance--no; researcher

insensitivity spiced generously with the flavor of ignorance--yes.

"The interpreter or disseminator--he will save us!" Extension

Service personnel, recreation specialists in the Soil Conservation

Service, BOR professionals, and even folks like me spend considerable

time telling others about research findings. It seems now, though,

these Professionals are to be the prime linkage between the researcher
and the manager. This is a dandy scheme, one I'm sure which will be

covered well, indeed, by the following speaker. If it works, the researcher can take even less responsibility for providing relevant answers

in understandable language.

The extension specialist is part of the answer, but asking him to

do a job you've failed to do won't help our common dilemma.

Of all the recreation research knowledge gathered here in the Eastern

U.S. I find SEFES Research NoteNumber 171 the most needed and useful. It

is Dr. Ripley's February, 1962 study entitled TREE AND SHRUB RESPONSE TO

RECREATION USE. If deep-rooted young hickories are well suited to high

impact use and shallow rooted species like scarlet oak, hemlock and white

pine are poor risks, a knowledge of these findings is important across

the eastern United States as a guide to saving tremendous amounts of

maintenance dollars.

Yet, in my field trips with professors and students from countless

universities and my lectures at maintenance conferences this 1962 information comes as a complete surprise. It's obvious the system isn't properly

geared nor is it properly aimed.

DO you know there are over 90 agencies; commissions, connnittees,

etc. in the Federal Government alone dealing with outdoor recreation?

Do you know there are now over 300 college curriculums dealing with outdoor recreation in the United States, the majority of which have little

or no resource orientation? The professors and students in these schools,

the managers they've already produced, as well as recreation personnel in

the previously mentioned Federal recreation sector, and countless other

professionals and technicians are your market. Are you aimed at these

folks or are you aimed at all?

Are you making an effort to find out the actual needs of managers?

Research Needs Surveys are beginning to pop up from several sources.

They key in on physical and social carrying capacities, economic benefits

and other broad items, but I doubt if they will really help much in your

quest to sell "products" to managers.

A few months ago I was asked (or better yet told) to sit down and

make a laundry list of research needs for Land Between The Lakes. To my

surprise, my hurried list included over 109 separate items. Some required

basic research on the specific, but most of the items I listed could have

been applied studies at the master's level, Once you learn all about that

manager, force him to discuss his needs, then follow through and help him.

5
Are your research efforts directed at something useful? I know of

graduate students at 2 universities who are still studying "overuse"

and the 26 variables to good campsite design. "Overuse" is more likely

Poor Planning - Poor Design and/or Poor Administration; and, the 26

variable scheme will have "0" utility to designers arrl managers alike.

A few years ago the Forest Service, with yours truly as an accomplice -

made extensive studies concerning grasses best suited to plant in areas

of high impact (around picnic tables and camping pads where grass doesn't

belong). This study, like the overuse studies, rest studies, and the 26

variables of site design are a waste of time and effort. They do not enhance your credibility or your appeal in the market place.

Considerable time was spent (to the amazement of management personnel)

at the Estes Park Conference with researchers talking about their poor

reward system. Management folks were turned off by the researcher pleas

for better rewards. This was unfortunate, as the researchers were asking

us to encourage their administrators to rate them on the amount of extension

and dissemination they do as well as their output of scientific data.

A past history of available research grants together with an interest

by several Federal and state agencies in recreation research have combined

to give some research folks bad habits.

sulting x-budgets for research.

The economy has plunged with reResearch organizations have been drastically reduced or eliminated entirely yet, the 48-50% academic community

rip offs for overhead are still much in evidence. Had your attitudes and

your products have been top drawer over the years managers might have given

you a better position away from the sharp cutting edge.

Don't be too sure "all" managers don't read your dandy findings. I was

chided a bit about one year ago by a research friend when I mentioned the

need to find out just what kind-type-size-shape of campsite or campsites

users preferred. "If you had really read my findings in a 6 year basic research study of 100 campsites in a N.F. campground in the Appalachians, you'd

have the answers to your questions" sez the researcher.

After a bit of thought I said the study wasn't applicable to my original

question. Seems I had designed the 100 unit N.F. campground; laid out all

of the campunits (with little or no variety in size, shape, or type); laid

them all out poorly by today's standards; and helped design his research study

many years ago before he moved into the przam. For some reason the subject

wasn't raised again.

Professional societies at one time may have held the key to a part of

research dissemination. NRPA planned to move into the field with considerable

force. This didn't happen nor does it appear NRPA can take a strong recreation research leadership role. Certainly, it would be diffitult to say

SCSA and the SAJ? have been excellent environments for recreation and recreation research. Seems to me and many others BOR should accept research

promotion and dissemination as one of their most important jobs.

6
As you know, BOR is beginning to move in this direction. It should

and it must; but BOR needs our strong backing to meet their responsibilities.

During our Brandon Springs Outdoor Recreation Research Workshop, a BOR representative said the research environment was better, some funding for basic

and applied studies was available, and more personnel had been given assignments in this important job.

Let us resolve here to help our BOR friends build on this mini beginning

and to help them become the outdoor recreation research influence they should

be.

Finally, lets take a look at the “Publish or perish” syndrome. More

often than not research language and the paper, magazine or other medium

selected isn’t geared to the potential ground - grubbing user --; but it

does give the researcher a continued lease on life.

Perhaps we need to shake the foundations of the “reward system” by

rewarding researchers based on the amount and kind of substantive hele

they provide the practitioners. This would provide the environment for

a real love-affair.

As you’d expect after all this friendly harassment, I have a few

recommendations :

1.

.2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Make specific recommendations concerning use of your research.

Recreation Research policy (when I was in the Forest Service)

said the researcher would make his findings known. He would

not make recommendations! Your products will never sell without your willingness to climb out on the limb with us.

With considerable sincerity learn as much as possible about

your potential clientele. Court the managers and administrators

and know if there’s a difference.

Help us in all possible ways to move the BOR into a strong -

highly respected role as National coordinator of Outdoor Recreation Research. Encourage them to move high caliber personnel

into their research coordinating positions.

Move with vigor into the APPLIED research realm.

Help provide graduate students with useful - saleable study

opportunities.

Don’t use extension folks as your crutch in selling your findings.

Broaden your professional horizons by joining and helping promote

viable recreation organizations. NRPA or one of its branches

needs your help. You’ll find a whole new real world of recreation

managers there. My advice is tojoinaloca=ate recreation and

park society. The members will readily buy the useful “products”

of fellow members.

Educators should consider forming a special research flavored

organization under the umbrella of SPREE.

Court the leisure products community and user organizations.

Researchers and managers have long been reluctant to move in this

direction.

Don’t talk about your “reward system” in mixed company. It’s a

red flag word series to most managers.

7
11. Additional emphasis must be denoted toward human development,

well-being, and creating a positive self-irmnage. Time spent

on trying to find the best grass to grow under picnic tables

should be directed toward betterment of man’s well being.

12. Next time you ask a manager to “tell it like it is” pick

someone who doesn’t know you so well!
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED

"THE MANAGER'S VIEWPOINT: RESEARCH

AND APPLICABILITY OF RESULTS"

K F . . Schelll'

The one obvious, predominant conclusion, with which I agree, is that the

relationships between researchers and managers must change to generate more

mutual understanding. There are, however, some implied reasons for the existent relationships which I may not be able to support, e.g., researchers

might be arrogant and look down on managers, and they complain about a poor

reward system.

Another point of agreement, and one which merits considerable, serious

discussion is the absence of recommendations in research reports. As indicated by Mr. Cottrell, U. S. Forest Service policy in the past has ruled

against the inclusion of specific recommendations in a research report. Other

research organizations have this same policy. Recommendations are assigned to

the extension arm. Should this policy or procedure be changed?

Mr. Cottrell has presented us with a list of "introspective questions"

which I think are excellent guidelines to our investigations of researchermanager relationships. There perhaps could be some additions, but this list

along with his 12 recommendations should suffice for the time available to

discuss them at this workshop.

One additional point of agreement before posing some questions: the

role suggested for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation should be assigned high

priority. This role is included in the original mandate for BOR by Congress

and is necessary to an efficient and effective regional and national outdoor

recreation research program. I suspect Mr. Cottrell will be challenged, I

think he should be, on his implicit questioning of BOR's competence in evaluating research proposals. A worthwhile exercise might be to examine the

proposal and the projects he refers to and have a determination by "some of

this group" as to their similarity and the merit of the proposal. Such an

approach gets very close to personalities, but this cost could be exceeded

by the benefits of such a case study.

Returning to the subject of manager attitudes and reluctance to consider,

accept, and implement research findings: I think we must recognize the fact

that some managers and administrators do not welcome change regardless of the

justification for change. Various reasons have been offered to explain this

resistance to change including threats to security; increased work loads; and

increased costs, both quantifiable and non-quantifiable, of trqsition.

Ll Associate Professor of Forestry, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

9
7n&i, lgrrdn 08 to the question of who will motivate managers to imple-

~(1t changes suggested by research. The researchers? It is unlikely that

an a group they would accept this responsibility. They would, I think, support a planned effort involving other groups. For example, there is need for

research to identify barriers to the implementation of policy changes suggested by research results./

I would propose that administrators and managers who have formal education in recreation are more likely than others to accept results of recreation research, Consider the analogy of a District Ranger of the USFS who has

completed a forestry curriculum and accepts most research findings associated

with silviculture. (I am not so naive as to think this is universally so.)

I have observed that such persons are less receptive to the findings of social

scientists involved in recreation research. The author of our subject paper

claims zero (0) credits in recreation. However, he has had the equivalent of

many such credits in other training programs, professional associations, etc.,

and can be considered a manager with outdoor recreation training. I suggest

that we might find strong correlations between manager receptivity and the age

or type of training of managers. I have heard other researchers imply that

managers who do not seek out and analyze research results might not be qualified managers. I cannot argue strongly against this position.

Although it may not be appropriate to include the following in this critique, I offer it to insure that it might be given some consideration: during

the last five years, public agencies and other organizations which have offered

limited and no employment opportunities for young, natural resource managers

who have recently completed their training, have created within their organization a serious education, age, and philosophy gap. They are forfeiting the

benefit of improved education and training which has been developed by our institutions of learning.

Surely, I appreciate Mr. Cottrell's concern for the "actual needs" of

managers. However, we cannot sacrifice our quest for more answers to the

questions about carrying capacities and social benefits. Basic decisions

about our resources, both land and people, and the resultant planning have a

continuing need for such answers--and, for the present at least, a priority.

Very briefly, a point of correction and clarification: the term "ripoffs" used by Mr. Cottrell in his reference to overhead costs at academic institutions is not justified. I must remind him that the guideline for the

level of overhead costs is determined by the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare. For the past few years the percentage has exceeded 70.' This,

however, applies only to those salary costs incurred at the institution, in

&.' Recent inquiries , associated with the preparation of this critique, with

researchers in the disciplines of industrial management &d sociology reveal

that there is some published information about the acceptance and implementation of research findings. Hopefully the Extension Specialist's Viewpoint

at this workshop will include some information on this point.

10
its offices or laboratories. At other locations the percentage is reduced to

about 30. No overhead is charged against costs for travel, equipment, and

supplies. Also, in some cases, at least at the University of Tennessee, no

overhead or a reduced overhead charge is made. The elimination or reduction

may be considered the institution's contribution to the research project.

In closing, I would add to Mr. Cottrell's list of recommendations.. Perhaps just as important, or more so, for the researcher as getting to know the

manager clientele is to know the recreation user clientele. Any researcher

in a given recreation activity area should participate in or observe the activity. He should camp, hike, hunt, fish, ski, etc. There are multiple benefits to this procedure.

11
INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF RECREATION MANAGERS,

EXTENSION SPECIALISTS AND RESEARCHERS

Dennis R . Crow&'

Abstract.-- Southern Extension educators conclude that recreation

research will be more fully used by resource managers when each of the

management-research-Extension components function as a team. Teamwork

demands mutual respect, agreement on goals and methods, cooperation,

and communication. Often Extension recreation education must be basic,

causing a significant lag in current research communication and application. However, greater Extension efficiency would result with a) expansion of responsive and relevant research, b) formal mechanisms for

Extension-research collaboration, c),larger numbers of Extension specialists and researchers, d) expanded technical support of the county

delivery system, and e) development of non-traditional, educationmaximizing modes of delivery.

Effective management of natural resources for outdoor recreation must rely

on cooperation between managers, researchers, and Extension recreation specialists. Southern Land Grant university recreation education specialists contend

that several impeding obstacles must be removed to assure effective communication

between managers and researchers and to obtain maximum benefit from research

efforts. Needs focus on more relevant southern research; more conscious teamwork

between researchers, managers, and Extension specialists; and changes in Land

Grant university methods of rewarding faculty, funding short term research, and

overcoming hindering agricultural Extension traditions. The situation is further

compounded by the youthfulness of Extension recreation programs and the lingering

imperative to communicate recreation educational basics to audiences caught in a

major information time lag.

Before expanding on obstacles to communication, it is appropriate to examine

a simple model of an idealized management system in which research application

is maximized. The model focuses on roles played by individuals or groups who

form a team concerned with sound recreation resource management. The role model

(our goal) may then be compared with real situations to identify existing weaknesses, system disfunctions, and special problems needing attention in the South.

From this discussion some means will be identified to strengthen the ComuniCation process and improve recreation resource management.

"Assistant Professor, school of Forest Resources and Conservation, and State

Outdoor Recreation Specialist, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of

Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

The author acknowledges support of this paper by the southern Extension recreation specialists, all of whom were solicited for opinions or draft reviews.

12
IDEAL ROLES BETWEEN MANAGERS,

RESEARCHERS, AND EXTENSION SPECIALISTS

The simplest resource management system is a manager or team of managers

who are familiar with local problems and make decisions in the field. Their

decisions may be enhanced by problem and solution comparisons with other managers. When complex situations prevail, a team member may be assigned exclusively to information gathering and maintaining contact with work done by other

managers. Otherwise a consultant may be hired to gather and analyze existing

information needed for making decisions.

Situations arise in which the collective experience of resource managers

and their consultants cannot provide satisfactory information essential to

problem solution. A third party, a researcher, may be asked to examine the

problem and uncover relevant new knowledge. If the management team represents

a large agency or firm, the researcher may be hired to develop a long term

program of uncovering new information in support of management. Otherwise

the researcher will be housed with a private research firm, a university, or

a public research agency and temporarily contracted to perform needed applied

research. In either situation the process of application is direct and is

contingent only on quality and relevance of research results.

Often management situations are complicated by the necessity to take quick

action. There is insufficient time to contract for research, wait for execution, wait even longer for results, and still have to evaluate the results for

significance to solving the problems at issue. Hence, the manager relies on

his ability to keep informed of current management practices and research that

might be applicable to anticipated problems.

At this point, every manager is aware of the knowledge explosion that has

transformed today's world. Having limited time to sift research results for

relevant information (even if he knows where to look), he may give it up as a

futile effort and rely on intuition or wait for relevant information to somehow

filter to him.

Land Grant Extension and similar education programs are indispensible in

speeding up the process of filtering new knowledge through the management system. Instead of waiting for new ideas to pass in devious ways to the eventual

user, the Extension job is to keep informed of new knowledge in order to channel

relevant information directly to the manager, to help him understand it, and to

motivate him to action.

Thus one role of the Extension educator is to function as a direct conduit

of new knowledge from the researcher to the manager. Since few managers have

the time and some lack familiarity to digest technical reports, the Extension

conduit role is compounded by an obligation to translate, abbreviate, and'disseminate the knowledge to the appropriate manager and in an applicable form.

The Extension educator plays other roles also. On request, he may function

as a consultant, to gather and help analyze facts needed by managers or planners.

His primary objective is to increase effective use of known and new information.

He also plays a critical role with the researcher by informing him of management13
relevant priority research needs, and collaborating on research formulation and

design. All this requires continual communication between managers and Extension

specialists, and between Extension specialists and researchers. A similar direct

communications link is appropriate between managers and researchers.

It must be stressed that the Extension specialist is more than a two-way

research translator and transmitter. He is an evaluator, organizer of fragmented

results, and a synthesizor of research as he molds it into guidelines or other

adaptable form. The Extension research communicator is more a research organizer,

for his job often calls for reviewing conflicting, duplicative, and at times insignificant research in order to separate out a state or local problem-related

package of research results and other knowledge. All this is in addition to a

co-dominant role of innovator and motivator.

CURRENT RECREATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

RESEARCH DISSEMINATION BY EXTENSION

Ideal roles of Extension with research and management can now be compared

with the present southern situation in order to identify faulty roles. Because

real situations are seldom ideal, there should be no indulging in self-flagellation for‘what may be perceived as failings by comparison to ideals of efficiency. Nevertheless, as a low scoring archer who simply aims at the target

instead of the bull's eye, our scores may be higher if we critically evaluate

our stance, the way we choose our target goals, and the time and method of our

release. Furthermore, for score improvement beyond gains from self evaluation,

there is no substitute for open and honest acceptance of critical suggestions

by others who know how to play the same game.

Diversity is the rule for Extension outdoor recreation efforts in the South.

Few situations are common to all states, resulting in variation in program content, educational subjects, and user audiences. However, it is probably true

that throughout the South there is scarce application of current recreation resource management research through Extension efforts.

Most southern Land Grant universities have a state recreation specialist

who provides leadership for statewide Extension educational programs in outdoor

recreation. Seven of these fourteen university educators are located in community development or similar departments. The others are with school or departments of forestry, wildlife, or recreation. Many are housed in Extension

departments separate from their resident instruction-research counterparts and

may have less than desireable frequency of contact. Little programming time

is available for many resource management topics because nearly all have heavy

demands placed on them to provide consumer recreation educational programs

and technical assistance related to development of local community recreation

services. Community resource development and rural development committees are

properly supported in most states. Often there is involvement with park and

recreation board or tourist association formation and support, park acquisition

and development, general recreation planning, and tourism development.

There typically is little involvement in recreation resource management

beyond elementary land and water conservation considerations inherent in

14
establishing community parks and in advisory involvement in some county land

use planning. Knowledge of some current recreation resource management research

is vital for maintaining professional competency, but demands are quite low for

application of this type of research in most community development work. Except

on intensive demonstration projects, recreation resource research is seldom used.

In addition to the state recreation specialists there are about fifteen,

southern Extension forest resource specialists, most of whom are foresters, who

have some involvement in recreation resources management research dissemination.

Most of these are generalists who list recreation in combination with up to

fifteen other forestry and conservation problem areas. Some help with nature

trail design and similar forest recreation concerns, but current research dissemination usually involves forest management for other than recreational values.

Of course, program emphasis varies from state to state.

In general, recreation research that has been applied through southern

Extension efforts has tended to emphasize surveys of characteristics of successful enterprises, economic studies of various segments of the commercial

recreation industry, and consumer surveys. In many instances Extension audience

levels of recreation knowledge are so modest that educational efforts must be

spent in increasing the effective use of common information.

Under these circumstances, basics tend to supersede more sophisticated

current research results. Extension deals every day with an information time

lag of major proportions. Youthfulness of Extension recreation programs and

the necessity to serve all types of recreation information needs further limits

the opportunity for the specialist to get below the surface of basic education.

In such a climate state specialists can become generalists who have difficulty

keeping up with research reading, much less digesting, reorganizing, and rewriting research in a form useful to managers and planners.

BARRIERS TO RESEARCH APPLICATION

Three complex, interrelated problems combine to hinder recreation research

application in the South: 1) There is a paucity of relevant southern research;

2) Research, management, and Extension have failed to unite as a team; 3) The

traditional Land Grant agricultural research and information system is poorly

equipped to handle recreation resource topics. Responsibility for existence

of these problems must be shouldered by all groups involved. Neither research,

management, nor extension functions can be singly blamed for these barriers,

and for some only time and failure to adjust is responsible.

Paucity of relevant research

Southern recreation Extension programs might have more reiponsive managerial audiences if their educational value were more easily comprehended. Extension has no real uniqueness when the information exchange is common or old

knowledge. If undeniably relevant new research results were available through

Extension, credibility and acceptance would be greatly enhanced. But, despite

the huge volume of recreation writing and research results produced nationally

during the last fifteen years, large unmet research needs continue in the South.

15
I'hc*re it; 1-1 @tiring lack of research which is relevant to the South, to individlirrl states, their localities, and especially their urban and exurban recreation

resources:

Currently there is no ongoing U. S. Forest Service recreation research in

the South. Other federal agencies with r&search capabilities also may have left

the southern recreation scene, and very little was done in the past. It is very

questionable that Pacific Northwest or northeastern research can be directly

applied in the South and especially to Florida's urbanized, peninsular, neartropical exception to many rules. As recent social concerns shifted to other

matters of environmental quality, it would appear that Land Grant universities

continued to place low priorities on funding recreation research. Consequently,

southern universities lack the manpower and budget to pursue critical state and

local research needed for planning and managing aesthetic and recreational resources in a rapidly urbanizing, land use conflict generating South.

With state and local planning, development, and management activities

rapidly increasing and recreation research apparently decreasing, there arises

an obvious dilemma. Need for the Extension recreation program has never been

greater and is growing, yet overall program efficiency and production potential

must drop. Research efforts must be expanded and more effective use must be

made of existing knowledge. There simply are too few researchers, too little

southern research, and too few Extension recreation specialists.

It may be proper to contrast management of local recreation and open space

lands with large extensively managed recreation resources such as those managed

by federal agencies. Seemingly little research is being provided the planners

and managers of these local resources. Their problems differ by scale and use

intensity. Management is largely reduced to site maintenance. There are lawns

to mow, ditches to clear, roads to maintain, traffic accidents and emergencies

to investigate and report, rowdy visitors to control, etc. The resource base

beyond what is mowed is often left alone. The forest manages itself. Trails

are maintained but high user impact trail-side forests are neglected.

Authority and, by default, concern for decisions in local park management

encompass principally operations maintenance. Functionally these are park

operations managers, not resource managers. The attention given the site is

primarily that required to handle people and counter obvious major people impacts. The more subtle implications of resource management are lost in attention to the crush of visitors, personnel problems, and seeing that equipment

is operable. Simultaneously planners continue to devise park allocation schemes

based on recycled rules of thumb.

It seems that few local managers and planners are requesting research and

even less research is performed. They say their problems are practical, not

academic, and they don't seek help from the university. We ddn't even know

which urban resource management needs are most critical because so

little attention has been given these,resources. Public relations ultimately

may be more worrisome to state and local park managers than site resource management. A distinction must be made, however, between the problems faced by

park superintendents and the policy makers and managers in main offices. For

either group, genuine research is rare.

16
Failure of the team concept

Two basic failings emerge from an examination of the manager-Extension

specialist-researcher team: 1) research-Extension relations function too independently and 2) research is too isolated from management problems.

Research-Extension relations.-- Basic to the Land Grant university system

is a team approach between research and Extension, and this team must function

if the job is to be done. Research and Extension are not independent functions

of the university, despite implications of separate academic and Extension departments for a single discipline.

Resident instruction and research departments have long practiced a subtle

snobbery and self-elevated separation from Extension. During the last century,

the world at large has given greater status to the inventor or creator of knowledge than to the practitioner. .It is a pity that'persons who pride themselves

in their grasp of the scientific method of logical reasoning have been so gullible as to associate this status with functional quality, causing some to withdraw

into self-congratulating, behavior and attitude reinforcing circles. (In fairness, such group criticism must be taken only by the individual, as it applies.)

Partly resulting from this attitude is an assumption of one-way flow, and

active-passive roles. Except for a modest amount of passive reverse flow whereby

managers and Extension specialists communicate on problems and research needs,

the researcher view is primarily of one-way flow: researcher to manager, perhaps

through Extension, if application and dissemination is seriously considered. It

is true that some more zealous applied researchers are honestly concerned with

improving the effectiveness of transmitting current research findings to users,

but again this is basically a one-way flow concept.

Formal researcher-Extension specialist communication over research is

minimal. There may be an annual or less frequent opportunity for the Extension

specialist to discuss priorities during review of research planning. Depending

on physical proximity of working areas, there may be opportunity for informal

discussion of researkh needs and applications. Failure or success in communicating and response depends most on the individual personalities involved and

on the responsiveness of the system. Little formal structure or incentive encourages the researcher to transmit research to the Extension specialist. Some

researchers may even avoid communication for fear of having their results described through Extension education efforts before a journal has accepted their

work. The Extension specialist must look to many researchers for information

to integrate and route to managers, yet it would appear that few researchers

consider their team role seriously enough to send Extension specialists copies

of reports or abstracts. Only fifty copies in direct mail would inform each

state recreation program leader of major results. It is assumed that Extension

has research results at disposal, but probably the specialist do,esn't have all

he should have.

Research process isolation.-- Managers and Extension specialists claim it

is difficult to get many researchers into the field to see problems at first

hand; hence some research tends to.suffer from the isolated state in which it

is conceived. The problem is dual: 1) research is not always on priority

problems and 2) there is too little researcher anticipation of the most useful

form of results.

17
The objectives of too few research studies are offered for review by

representative users to ascertain their relevance. The researcher or the

contracting agency assumes the form of anticipated results is proper, but the

ultimate user may require a different form.

Agency designated and contracted research usually includes review of

research design and form of anticipated results. However, some applied

research formulation avoids a critical review of potential applicability,

relying instead solely on researcher opinion. The argument is not for

specific application as contrasted with general application, but for greater

attention to appropriateness of research and form of results in order to

maximize application potentials. This need exists since almost all research

must be translated and specially adapted before application.

For example, assume research produced significant results useful to

managing lands for differenthser group preferences, but in order to apply

this knowledge, the manager must interview all visitors to find their position

on a sophisticated psychological index curve. Had the researcher anticipated

application, perhaps an index correlate could have been tested that would allow

use of a simplified observation to class visitors in order to manage for group

preferences.

Some of the responsibility for poorly applicable results rests with

management, for there may be an unwarranted defensive posture or even a reverse

snobbery in some instances that prevents manager-researcher communication.

This may be demonstrated by managers whose attitudes are characterized by

conrments such as "Who needs research? It is too theoretical and unrelated to

be of any value."

Responsibility may partly rest with the Extension specialist who fails to

indirectly educate the researcher about team roles. A young teaching-research

person once remarked to an Extension specialist on the same faculty: 'What

good are you to us? You don't teach classes. You don't do research. I really

don't know what you do!" This candid and honest statement demonstrated ignorante of team roles and results of poor communication. The Extension specialist

undertook a year-long job of educating the researcher through casual conversation, committee work, badgering him for research information, and demonstration

of willingness to help him by reviewing his field interview schedules and research designs in the specialist's area of greatest research capability. One

day the researcher conceded: "You know, all this time I thought you were just

a guy who told people where to go fishing, but you really have knowledge of

recreation resources and their users that is a credit to our School effort.

Let's get together and write a joint research project statement."

The point of this illustration is that communication is a two-way Street

and sometimes the street signs should be re-read. TO obtain better, more relevant research, and to have it applied, all parties must be a little more tolerant, more mutually respectful, and teamwork improvement must be actively sought.

solid

In fairness to researchers, it must be pointed out that establishing a

research base for applied efforts has been a difficult task. Recreation

research is centered on a social problem area, and is not the domain of a:

18
single discipline. Each discipline has struggled to evolve its own theory.

Hence much work has been exploratory and basic with very fragmented applied

research gains. It probably is accurate to say that some recreation research

is properly too theoretical for managers to use. But managers must appreciate

the reason for this and support both pure and applied research.

System inadequacies

Three Land Grant university system inadequacies deter application of

research results: 1) The reward system is not designed for researcher-Extension

specialist cooperation, 2) Experiment stations have difficulty performing needed

recreation research, and 3) The traditional agricultural Extension system is not

designed to aid recreation resources management.

Rewards for cooperation.-- Most research agencies make little pretense of

response to research needs identified by Extension specialists. The Land Grant

researcher must at least pay lip service to Extension suggestions but there is

no mandate for cooperation as a team. Performance evaluation is based on

teaching and published research. Time spent in the field is time taken from

classes or research. Furthermore, budgets usually are not adequate for exploratory field work.

Research relevance is ultimately of little concern when promotion is considered. Importance is placed on acceptance of published research in peer

journals. Slight incentive is offered to publish for management; instead, this

takes time away from "serious" writing. This usually places the whole burden

of cooperation on the Extension specialist.

Experiment station problems.-- Many Extension generated research needs are

for short term studies. It is difficult to get research information in time to

meet needs. Research planning usually is too involved and for too long a term

to allow placing a researcher on the job when needed. Often studies of less

than one year's duration are needed and for such periods most budgets won't

allow researcher involvement except at some loss to ongoing efforts.

It appears that recreation research has been given low funding priority.

Food and fiber concerns are still the primary concerns for agricultural experiment station research. Researchers may see needs for research, but there is

seldom "loose" money for projects. Studies must be dove-tailed into appropriate

ongoing long-term projects, if they can be found.

Agricultural Extension traditions.-- The reason for being of the Cooperative

Extension Service is infusion of current university knowledge into the arteries

of each state's working information system. The strength of Extension is the

system of county offices throughout each state. The local information user has

a campus of his Land Grant university in his county with university faculty to

assist him.

However, few land use decision makers, planners, and renewable natural

resource managers seek research or other information on other than agricultural

matters from the local Extension office. The information and continuing education potential of the county office is publicly stereotyped with largely an ;

agricultural subject identity and is internally limited by agricultural expertise and habit.

19
77~ problem is that natural resource management concerns other than agrirrrf1turn.l are foreign to the training and philosophy of agricultural Extension

llrculty who staff the local offices. There simply are few at the local level

of Extension who are effective in communicating natural resource management

information (recreation, forestry, or wildlife).

Therefore, there is little reason to expect anything but a very weak delivery link between the university or state recreation specialist and the local

resource manager. Though unfeasible to some, a major task of each state recreation specialist is to maximize the delivery system by encouraging and training the county staff. Most county staff usually respond to recreation information requests with a letter or call to the state specialist who handles the

problem. For example, most vegetable crops Ph.D. or Masters degree holders

Prefer to deal with vegetable crops; thus, they often force the state and area

specialists to function as "county recreation agents at large," not as true

specialists serving a network of educators. The result is that state recreation

specialists and area community development specialists may have little more than

superficial ties with the county system. Also, little current research finds

its way to managers directly through the county system.

The Land Grant system provides research for agriculture and an Extension

delivery system for agricultural resource managers. Little formal support is

provided for natural resource concerns which are peripheral to production

agriculture. On the other hand, much research in wildlife, sport fisheries,

and recreation is performed outside the traditional Land Grant agricultural

research channels. U. S. Forest Service recreation research is funded externally to agricultural research, as is that of the Tennessee Valley Authority,

Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Service,

etc. Other state and local agencies are sought by resource managers for their

wildlife, forest and allied recreation resource research information needs.

In Florida, private consultants, the district conservationists of the

Soil Conservation Service, the county and urban foresters of the Florida

Division of Forestry, and the local management specialists of the Florida Game

and Fresh Water Fish Commission are primary local dources of recreation resource

management information. Each of these agencies is both a management and information delivery system, with its own internal channels of updating and continuing education of field personnel. Furthermore, typically when Land Grant

University research and information is used by these agencies, it iS without

benefit of formal linkage through Extension.

With a few exceptions, most southern states have similar parallel agency

systems of recreation resource information dissemination. The Extension dilemma

lies in the reward system. For the state and area specialist to serve the

Parallel agency system is to by-pass the local Extension office and admit system

failure. Since the specialist receives his reward from sehing his system there

is little personal incentive to divert his time and effort into the higher

efficiency recreation delivery system.

20
FWOWNDATIONS

In conclusion, a number of positive steps need to be taken in order to

overcome the obstacles discussed. The following outline lists several possible

partial solutions to the problems at hand. Not all of these fit each southern

state, but it is intended that these recommendations serve as a catalyst for

finding ways to improve recreation research application in the South.

Research improvement

Expansion.

Support renewal of southern recreation research by the U. S. Forest

Service and other federal agencies.

Support development of recreation research staff in southern Land

Grant institutions.

Increase regional, state and local research, especially that with

urban orientation and regional planning application.

Responsiveness - flexibility.

Explore ways to fund short-term recreation research, perhaps by inventing a new support project category to include an array of

studies.

Seek efficient ways to allow short-term transfer of Extension or

research assignments and budgets.

Relevance.

Increase research and operating expense budgets and time flexibility

to allow more exploratory work and field study of manager problems.

Establish formal requirements that all applied research plans be

subject to manager-user review.

Encourage researchers to anticipate andaccommodateoperational use

of applied results, with particular attention to organization of

research design for ease of result application.

Researchers should be encouraged and rewarded for efforts to publish

and otherwise communicate results to users.

Joint research-Extension appointments are needed.

Research-Extension team improvement

Manditory measures must assure formal and functional cooperation

between members of the research-Extension team.

2 1
All channels must be opened to increase two-way communication between

research and Extension.

Joint Extension-research appointments should be increased to dissolve

certain superficial distinctions between functional roles.

Extension and research groups should be co-located with budgetary and

program functions under common administrative control.

Extension specialists must continue to improve informal educational

programs for researchers to impart better understanding of joint

roles.

Based on user requirements of the management-Extension-research team,

a centralized national and regional recreation research monitoring

and coordinating agency is needed. An outgrowth would be a readily

available management information retrieval system.

Extension improvement

Manpower.

Each southern Land Grant university should have at least two state

recreation specialists: a resource specialist and a community

development specialist.

Area recreation specialists are needed to work with managers, developers, and communities.

Expansion of student assistant and technician support budgets should

be considered to help stretch extension specialists' capabilities.

Administrators should continue to upgrade research communication by

continuing to hire specialists having research capabilities as well

as educator qualifications.

County support.

State specialists must place increased emphasis on in-service training

to improve county capabilities and maximize efficiency of the statewide information delivery and educational system.

A better job must be done of supporting local offices with current

usable research information and publicizing the information and its

local availability.

and image of the syst:?)

is should increase visibility, credibility,

.

Conscientious adherence to a planned program of work will allow less

county fire-fighting and more profitable attention to research

application efforts and building county capabilities.

22
Research communication

Extension must undertake research on its.effectiveness in recreation

research communication and aiding application.

An Extension administered program is needed to build manager understanding of values of and enlist support for long-range, largescale, basic recreation research.

Regional recreation Extension communications are needed. Focus should

be on cooperative program development, evaluation, publication, and

data sharing. An automatic report-activity-abstract sharing system

is needed.

Extension must formally address the need for audience expansion within

non-traditional channels; Support communications links should be

established with agencies having local delivery systems now used by

recreation resource management professionals.

Extension recreation efforts might benefit from a de-emphasis on information delivery services in order to capitalize on the educational

role of the university. Especially needed are intensive courses and

other means of aiding in vital continuing education of competent

resource professionals.

23
A Cltl'l'lqUb OF THE PAPER ENTITLED "INTERRELATIONSHIPS

OF KI:,CRl:hT1ON MANAGERS, EXTENSION SPECIALISTS, AND RESEARCHERS"

L. A. Lindquist-l-/

Dennis Crowe's discussion of interrelationships between the three roles

proceeds in a logical manner and presents a very clear analysis of the stateof-the-art. The paper does not disclose any new research, but describes the

situation with emphasis on the author's personal experience as an Extension

Specialist with a Land Grant university. From this somewhat limited standpoint, the paper is thorough and comprehensive.

An idealized management system in which research application would be

maximized is described. In this system the Extension educator is seen not

only as the conduit for new knowledge, but as having the obligation to translate, abbreviate, and disseminate knowledge; to gather and help analyze facts

needed by managers; to collaborate in research formulation and design; to

identify relevant research needs; to synthesize research by organizing fragmented results; and to serve in the role of innovator and motivator. This

looks like a very heavy responsibility. We can see many of these functions

in our conception of extension, but believe that most of them are shared by

both the researcher and the manager as well. Research cannot be relevant

and useful if the Extension specialist is the only one who can tie it to the

real world.

Crowe seems to feel that the southern situation is unique with regard to

diversity of programs and situations, and that the traditional extension system designed for disseminating agricultural information can't cope with recreation resource topics. In our experience these comments could apply equally

in other sections of the country and do not need to be qualified as being

uniquely southern.

We agree that County Extension Agents are seldom oriented to disseminate

recreation research but feel that his weakness is no less applicable to other

areas of knowledge which Land Grant universities might be able to disseminate.

How do miners, social workers, and bankers keep up-to-date? Surely not

through the County Agent. We like to view extension (small "e") as a process,

rather than as a role, which fits into every discipline where new knowledge is

being defined. In some areas this process can be internal, such as within a

State or Federal agency, where a new system may be developed, adopted and

then disseminated to managers and field workers. In most such cases there is

an educational process involving all of the characteristics of extension work.

The author does not mention the many external extension-type programs

involving recreation resource topics other than those conducted by Land Grant

universities. Comprehensive lists of these have been published21 by the

&/Forest Supervisor, Caribbean National Forest and State and Private Forestry

Program, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.

YU.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1970.

Federal assistance in outdoor recreation. Publication No. 1, Revised 1970,

and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1970.

Private assistance in outdoor recreation, Washington, D.C.

24
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. One example of extension-type assistance in

the recreation field is the Park Practice Program, which is a joint program

by the National Park Service, the National Conference on State Parks, and

the National Recreation and Parks Association. This program consists primarily of publications dealing with a range of planning and policy concepts

and field maintenance methods. This kind of "extension" vehicle can serve

to transmit all kinds of ideas, including interpretation of research results.

We particularly liked Crowe's analysis of the barriers to research

application, and the listing of recommendations intended to overcome the

obstacles discussed. He has successfully identified the significant broad

areas where successful changes might be made to improve the dissemination

of recreation knowledge. This discussion tends to have the same limitations

mentioned above, however, because of the author's constraint of the extension role to the Land Grant University. Of the problems listed, we only

question the first in his list, which discusses the paucity of relevant

research. It is true that there is not a great deal of research presently

going on in the South, but most of the research we have seen which involves

new methods is applicable very broadly. Where empirical data are the sole

research result, the conclusions, naturally, are confined to the area where

the data originated. We don't think this is the case, or at least are not

convinced, when the author does not cite any specific examples.

We're not sure that not having hot new items to pass out is a true

limitation either. Recreation is a field of considerable growth, and there

are new areas and new managers needing some exposure to older ideas. At

many levels, these people have been assigned to the recreation resource

field from other disciplines and are in need of basic training using material

from existing research literature. Most studies in recreation problems are

not yet a full generation old, and there is plenty of disseminating to be

done among those of us who have not yet gotten the word on basics.

We'd like to see more examples to support some of the generalizations

by the author, such as:

"Diversity is the rule for Extension outdoor recreation efforts in the

South."

11

. . . recreation resource research is seldom used."

II . ..large unmet research needs continue in the South."

,I . ..few researchers consider their team role seriously enough to send

Extension specialists copies of reports."

II . ..some applied research formulation avoids a critical review of

potential applicability."

It's possible that examples could have helped the author to.remove many

of the qualifiers in his statements, thereby giving them more 'strength.

25
RELATING RECREATION RESEARCH TO MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Kenneth D . Wsr&'

Abstract .--There are well-known difficulties in doing directly

applicable research, communicating research results, and in applying research results in practice. Some of these difficulties stem

from unclear specifications of the roles of managers, extension

specialists and researchers. Additional difficulties stem from lack

of a common framework for discussing management decision, how information is ideally used in management, and, hence, the role of research in providing information useful in management. Management

science provides an appropriate framework. This framework provides

a basis for assessing the current state of the difficulties in recreation resources management and research and for exploring some

general possibilities for improving the relationship.

Additional keywords: Researcher's role, decision framework, information needs, research and development, management by objectives.

INTRODUCTION

"It is worth remembering that the only real source of power in the

world is the gap between what is and what might be. Why else do

men work and save and plan?"

John Rader Platt

In this paper the emphasis is on management of the natural resources and'

the related "delivery systems" that are the focus, environment, and means for

providing outdoor recreation opportunities end hence human benefits. Hopefully it will be possible, by emphasizing the human benefits to be produced,

to avoid potential criticism of either narrowness or bio-centricity, and by

emphasizing the management of the resources as contrasted with the delivery

system I=., "managing" the people who come to reap the benefits) perhaps the

author can stay closer to his area of expertise. (This is not to de-emphasize

the problems or opportunities in these other aspects, some of which are to be

addressed in other papers here.) An example of a question that relates not

only to the resource system but to the whole delivery system is: What is the

output that we should manage for and measure when we manage wildlife habitats?

Until we have specified our objective in providing satisfying outdoor recreation experiences for hunters and outdoor recreationists whose use of wildlife

is non-consumptive, we cannot even decide how to measure our output from the

resource system, or specify ways to evaluate our performance in cost-effectively satisfying the objectives. Here, let us for the moment, however, rest

these weighty questions while we concentrate on a framework within which we

may do more relevant research to provide useful answers.

Although roles of managers, extension specialists and researchers have

been discussed in earlier papers by Cottrell and Crowe in these Proceedings,

there seems still the likelihood that we do not all have similar ideas about

either what is, or what should be the roles. If we haa a clearer definition

r/ Research Leader, Institute of Forest Ecosystem Decisions, U. S. Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station in cooperation with School of

Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

2 6
of what the whole job of resources management is, it might help us to deritffx

which parts of the job are best left to managers, to extension specialist:; and

to researchers. We do all agree that there is need to share the burden and

avoid the 'we-they' syndrome.

Whatever the decision problem is, it is usually relatively undefined and

poorly understood by those concerned. What information is needed to solve the

problem is far from clear and certainly there is little basis for setting priorities on the gathering of information whether the manager, extension educator, or researcher is to gather it. In fact, many management decision processes seem to be developed to be information independent, and the decision

would not be influenced one way or the other even if much more information

were available. (This may be appropriate, but it does not fit the value set

of most researchers.) Suppose we all agree to work in absolute sincerity to

try to define the research most relevant to application. What would we do?

Do we agree? How would we cope with the variation among managers? Among uses

of the same information? Among expertise areas of researchers? Row would we

arrange to satisfy need for fundamental and futuristic research?

Clearer communication and operationally useful definitions of roles and

responsibilities should be possible if we accept a systems-analytic or management science framework for resources management. This is not a new idea and

is.a modest proposal. However, it might be useful to sketch it in this context.

We want to consider how to use or manage lands so as to achieve some objectives, e.g. , producing services, environmental amenities, outdoor-recreation

opportunities, raw materials, etc. Management of land for any of the products

or services that people desire from it involves a complex biological, physical,

and social system. As we all know, various uses of the land and resources are

usually not entirely complementary or compatible; they are often conflicting.

This drastically complicates land-use planning and land and resources management because, at the very least, the manager must predict the effects of

alternative mixes of natural and managerial inputs on the production of each

resource, or on provision of amenities or other values. Then, based on these

predictions, and an appropriate decision or optimality criterion, he must decide on a "best" input mix. To do this scientifically he must have an adequate

quantitative model of the forest system: that is, he must have a set of relationships permitting:

(1) prediction,

(2) determination of optimum input mix, and

(3) control of output through manipulation of managerial inputs.

This is, of course, true of any system providing outdoor recreation services,

regardless whether the context is a multiple-use forest, one with emphasis on

natural resources or a quite different one such as a park playground.

A FRAMEWORK FOR INFORMATION GATHERING AND USE

The Management Decision Problem

One relatively complete framework for viewing forest-resources management

as a set of decision problems is described in the book "Planning Research for

27
Resource Decisions" .-2/ (This paper borrows heavily from that book.) The frsmework is essentially that of management science, or operations research, and is

closely relded to classical scientific method.

This framework built around the idea of a "management decision problem",

provides one construct for considering how research activities ought to relate

to planning and management activities. People have resources planning or

management decision problems when they are considering using resources to

achieve their objectives, and when they seek to choose from a set of alternatives the most appropriate action to achieve that objective.

Specifying the problem .--A management decision problem exists and is fully

specified when the following are identified and/or defined:

1 . The decision-maker -- the person or group who has the problem.

2 . The decision-maker's objective -- the desired outcome or output. The

objective may be dollar income, or recreational satisfactions from a

specific cash outlay, specified physical outputs from the resource

system, etc.

3. Managerial alternatives -- at least two unequally efficient courses of

action (specific sets of managerial inputs) which have some chance of

yielding the desired objective, and doubt as to which choice is best.

4. The decision environment -- the context of the problem, e+ernal or

uncontrolled factors that affect the solution. (These contextual

factors may constrain the alternatives, influence the output, or influence the choice of optimality criterion.)

Information in problem solvine.--The genertll objective of a land, natural

resource, or recreation services manager is usually to supply that information

which will contribute most toward helping landowners, or d cision-makers

37

representing them, to achieve their objectives efficiently.- When the decision

problem has been carefully analyzed, it becomes clear what information is

necessary to solve the problem. To "solve the decision problem" is to choose

the alternative that will most efficiently satisfy the objective. This is also

the 'optimization problem". It involves applying an 'optimality criterion"

(sometimes inherent in the statement of objective, e.g., obtain maximum) via

an "optimization technique" to determine the "most efficient".

If we are to apply scientific methods to solve such decision problems

directly, then we require a decision model. (Commonly the model will not permit complete direct solution but will incorporate only some of the most important aspects of the decision problem.) A decision model, in standard format,

contains an "objective function" that relates levels of outcome (the objective)

to the alternative levels of inputs --both those inputs under managerial control and those uncontrollable but part of the "environment". Functions that

2/ Stoltenberg, C. H., K. D. Ware, R. J. Marty, Robert D. Wray and J. D.

Wellons. Planning Research for Resource Decisions. Iowa State University

Press, Ames, Iowa. 1970.

2/ The resources manager will sometimes be the decision-maker by proxy for the

owners of the resources. There will always be some decisions delegated in the

hierarchy. However, we find it useful, for purposes that will be explained

later, to speak of decisions at a single level and with a single final decision-maker who is the owner of the resources.

2 8
specify any constraints or boundary conditions on the outcomes, inputs, or

relationships between them are also required. Constraints determine the boundary between the set of alternatives specified as available to the decisionmaker and related aspects of the context that are not to be considered as

alternatives in the particulsr decision problem. (Such boundaries may be between decision levels in the organizational hierarchy.)

Then a "measure of performance" or "optimality criterion" is required by

which the value of a decision, i.e., outcome associated with a particular

alternative, is judged. This specifies what is considered optimum, llbesttl or

'most efficient". Finally, one needs an "optimization technique' by which to

determine what alternative is "best", i.e., what produces the "highest value"

outcome. It is understood, of course, that the decision-maker will apply his

judgment in taking the decision based on the always imperfect model and analysis. That is to ssy that the model and analysis aid decisions rather than

make decisions.

Information flow .--We all recognize that there are many difficult-to-fulfill information needs in planning and management of lands for provision of

recreation opportunities. For example, one may ask, "How can we possibly

achieve satisfactory forest land management if we do not know how alternative

land treatments regimes will affect levels of forest-user recreation, general

environmental quality, quality of recreation-visitor satisfaction, timber growing-stock levels, soil and water quality, and wildlife habitat and populations".

These kinds of information need come under what we refer to as response models

or relationships, estimators for prediction of output, or production functions.

These are the functions that relate output to input, and ideally, optimization

techniques are applied to these functions to determine the "best" schedule of

inputs. A common objective of research studies is to derive these relationships.

Role of Managers

In discussing research and management of wildland resources it is necessary to remind ourselves that we are speaking ultimately about the wants and

needs of people. It is perhaps not necessary to remind outdoor recreation

managers and researchers of that--your focus has been more on peoples' wants.

Nevertheless, there may be danger of focusing on short-run wants. So let us

be reminded that when many human wants can be satsified more effectively by

using recreation resources than by using other means, then recreation resources assume greater value. But when there are other ways to satisfy peoples'

needs more efficiently, the importance of recreation diminishes. This relationship is important because it clearly shows recreation resource management to be

a means to various ends rather than an end in itself. The relationship appropriately places the focus on the persons to be served and on the wants to be

satisfied by recreation resources management.

The critical importance of efficient management also becomes obvious. And

it is indeed because efficiency is so important that we have resource managers.

The ability of outdoor recreation managers to help satisfy human desires efficiently determines the proportion of capital and human resources that will be

spent on outdoor recreation rather than on other activities which could also

satisfy some of the same human desires.

Thus, as the manager learns new uses for his resource, he will be making

29
a greater contribution to society. Simultaneously he will be making that resource more valuable and as he makes management operations more efficient, he

will again be increasing his contribution to society.

In performing his professional activities, the recreation manager assists

his clients in four major ways:

1) First, he will help them:identify and clarify their objectives.

For example, the manager may help identify the various personal

satisfactions that the owner is seeking in managing his land.

2) Second, the manager identifies for the client the various

alternative ways of achieving the client's objectives.

3) Third, he helps his client evaluate or compare these alternatives,

.

z, he helps him select the most promising or most efficient

opportunities for achieving his objectives.

4) And, fourth, the msziager usually supervises the subsequent activities to implement these decisions.

In other words, the recreation resources manager is a professional consultant

who helps his client identify and solve recreation resource problems,

himself acts in proxy to take the decision for his client.&/

or who

Recreation managers frequently spend so much time implementing decisions

that insufficient emphasis is given to problem solving, that is, to the critically important phases leading to the decision to undertake particular

activities. This is unfortunate because it is when he is helping his client

to make decisions that the recreation resource manager is often making his

most valuable and typically professional' contribution. Similarly, his greatest

contributions in supervising management practices are made in the problemsolving or decision-making role.

Role of Extension Specialists

In the classical model, information needs aa requests flow from managers

outside of research; through education and extension specialists or applied

researchers to the more applied studies ; and finally to the more basic studies.

Continuous communication between client and manager, practitioner and researcher,

and among various kinds of researchers is necessary if both management and

41 There is some risk of communication difficulties from our particular uses

of the terms client, manager and consultant. However, it has been found desirable to' describe the professional role this way as a reminder to ourselves

as professional resources managers , extension specialists and research

scientists, not to substitute our personal or professional objectives for

those of the owners of the resources, whether public or private. This seems

to happen frequently and it is important to minimize the risks. Usage here is

in accord with the role of the professions--law and medicine. There the professional is clearly a consultant, even though after diagnosis he may exercise

nearly complete freedom as a proxy decision-maker in administering legal defense or medical treatment.

Furthermore we have found it useful to consider a hierarchy of decisionlevels, decision-problems and decision-makers and, a similsr related hierarchy

of researchers. In this framework then a manager or research worker can identify clients at higher levels in the structure, even if he does not relate

illrectly to the final manager's client, the owners of the resources.

30
research efforts are to be most effective.

Communication and understanding is usually lacking between researchers and

mansgers. The manager often fails to communicate his information needs to

researchers because he doesn't understand what types of information that research can provide; and researchers frequently don't seem to provide the information that is most urgently needed to help managers gain greater benefits from

the resources for their clients --perhaps because researchers don't understand

the client's objectives or management alternatives. Unfortunately, increased

specialization among researchers has aggravated this difficulty. For this

reason, interest in strengthening the educational function that could bridge

this gap is increasing, regardless of whether this function is to be performed

by professors, extension foresters, applied researchers, articulate managers,

or whomever.

This is the most important'traditional function of the extension specialist. He serves as the necessary educator, innovator, information integrator,

and communication channel. Informed about current difficulties in both management and research, he is an information broker who contributes to both management and research when he emphasizes the most important aspects of his role.

His role in bringing technical innovations into practical application through

community dynamics has been carefully studied by sociologists. Hence a great

deal is known about how to work with innovators and community leaders to introduce the results of research.

Role of Recreation Research Scientists

Recreation resource science and scientists are valuable to society for

the same reasons that the resources and their managers are valuable--they can

help satisfy peoples' wants. Just as the resource manager's contribution is

measured by how effectively he helps others to satisfy their wants efficiently,

the productive value of recreation resource scientists must ultimately be determined by how much their efforts increase the efficiency of the manager.

This, then, indicates the purpose of research. One major purpose is to

develop new alternatives for the resource manager. These may be new practices,

tools, and concepts, or new products and services. A second common purpose of

resource research is to answer questions of fact that arise during management.

And inasmuch as resource management is viewed as the process of solving client's

resource problems, these answers would be the information needed to solve these

problems. That is, research provides the information needed to define or compare alternative means for achieving a resource user's or owner's objectives.

A third purpose is to answer questions of fact that arise during research

since it is only after some of these basic questions have been satisfactorily

answered that the first two objectives can be achieved most efficiently.

Most resource researchers do not directly provide information for the resource manager. And though some researchers may be helpful in specifying the

decision-problem and the information needs, managerial problem-solving is not

their expertise or responsibility. Many researchers provide information to

solve other researchers' problems. Resource research may be viewed as a continuous spectrum of scientists with the resource manager at one end of the

continuum. The manager is principally concerned with his client's problem,

that of the resource owner or user. But when he lacks the information needed

to help evaluate the client's alternative resource practices, he may experiment

with several of those practices. Next on the spectrum are the extension

31
specialists and scientists who are attempting to answer the managers' immediate

questionsof fact, such as resource-use trends, prices, and technologies.

(Note that it is common for the extension specialist to deal directly with

the landowner client, rather than with a resources manager who serves the

client. This tends to cast the extension specialist more in the role of

manager--with attendant risks.

defining roles in this area.)

Some improvement might be made by more clearly

Following the extension specialists and applied scientists are the developmental researchers who create new alternatives for the manager, particularly

alternatives that will help solve problems not only of tomorrow but of years

to come. Further along this research spectrum are scientists who serve a

clientele of other researchers. These scientists, usually from the basic disciplines, provide the facts and relationships needed by other scientists who

conduct the more "applied" developmental research. The relationship between

applied and basic research.is central to the history and philosophy of science'

and technology but we shall not explore'it further here.

Although the ultimate client for all resource activities is the resourcemanager's client, the public or private owner of the resources, the immediate

clientele of a researcher may be managers or other researchers. But every

productive resesrcher has a clientele to whom he provides research results.

This clientele uses his results to solve their resource-management, or research,

problems. When the client is another researcher, he in turn is able to conduct

his research more efficiently and thetiprovide his clientele with improved

answers to help solve their resource-management research or practice problems.

As the distance on the spectrum increases between the manager and any researcher, successful problem anticipation, and hence planning, become more difficult. Although a scientist focuses primarily on his immediate client, his

most basic resemch is really ultimately intended to help solve a resourcemanagement problem. The research planner needs to anticipate that problem

accurately. Thus researchers in the basic resource sciences are helping to

solve important problems and grasp important opportunities not expected to be

critical for 5, 10, or even 20 years. This scientist may have great difficulty

in anticipating the correct problem, and on these questions it is not possible

to get much assistance from managers who must, quite correctly, concentrate

on local and current difficulties and technologies. This is one of the main

reasons our society has encouraged extreme specialization, basic research and

independent sheltered research environments. This, of course, has obvious and

much discussed risks, not the least of which is that even though the problem

may be anticipated, attempts to communicate about and possibly alleviate it

may not be effective. The llenergy crisis" is a large-scale current case in point.

Researchers in the energy related sciences were saying 20 years ago that the

problem would become a crisis, but the communications were ineffective, partly

because the information was not at that time useful in solving anyone's immediate problem.

COMMUNICATION AND APPLICATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS

Let us "rap" about our common dilemma--the difficulties researchers have

communicating research results, and the difficulties that managers have of

applying the results.

32
As Things Now Are (Or Why We All Behave So Rationally)

Sincere interest in each others's difficulties, expertise, and values,

and regular communication about the difficulties of each of us is a necessary

first step as earlier speakers have said. However, just being communicative

and sympathetic buddies will not, I believe, be nearly enough. And neither

wil1.a one-on-one friendly manager with friendly researcher arrangement. There

are too many problems, too few researchers, too little money, too frail humans,

etc. We are going to have to work together in some common framework and

arrangements different than we now have to make much headway. Both managers

and researchers have important jobs that take all of their time and energy,

and just working harder at it won't suffice.

Permit me to use a personal reference to illustrate. I have a regular

and candid communication with a number of resources managers who are personal

friends--one is even w brother, These acquaintances do not find my research,

or any research, very directly useful, I'm afraid. This is probably neither

because the research is necessarily very bad or generally irrelevant, nor because these are poor or atypical managers. On even the most rudimentary

analysis, most of their activities and the decision problems they have to

solve do not require information of the kind that research can provide. The

objectives, policy, and budget constraints of their employers and the nature

of both their supervisors and subordinates cause their decision problems to

be relatively restricted in alternatives and most decisions not to involve

resources information.

If we reflect on our own decision problems we will find that we are not

so different. Our problems contain relatively little common information need.

This means, however, that it is especially important for us as managers and

researchers to find what is common and what has high priority. The professional orientation and decision framework has helped me a great deal in discussing these difficulties both with researchers and managers. It enables a

somewhat more realistic and objective understanding of the difficulties of

knowledge acquisition and utilization. Otherwise researchers and managers

enter the conversation assuming irrational behavior of each other. It is not

difficult to describe a construct by which the behavior of both is seen as

internally rational-- whether or not there is any rationale for relating research to management. Although the supposed irrationalities have been much

discussed, not much useful behavior modification has followed--often entrenc'hment at the poles has resulted.

The reasons for poor communication between researchers and resource managers are not obscure. Most resource scientists are specialists, often working

in the basic sciences rather than in applied research. Most of these scientists

orient primarily toward their scientific specialty and a clientele of other

basic researchers rather than toward practical problems. Unfortunately, this

clientele of other researchers is also serving a clientele of basic scientists,

thus forming a closed circle of communication, a circle that includes neither

the applied scientist nor the recreation resource manager.

Then, too, the work of the basic scientist, because it isspecialized,

appears narrow to the manager. In fact, it has often, quite properly, no

direct utility to managers. In the 1960’~ more and more researchers oriented

toward science rather than practice, and, therefore, their contributions to

knowledge may not have direct application to practice. The communications

3 3
difficulty is an inevitable result of specialization both in science and

practice. Both scientist and managers must be aware of the difficulty and

take pains to ameliorate it.

To make sure that his research activities will be likely to form a logical

pattern and, taken together with those of other researchers, will constitute

an effective attack on management problems, the conscientious researcher will

seek, first, to be continuously aware of the ultimate objectives of management (and thus of research); second, to visualize the logical flow of information from researcher, to researcher, to educator, extension specialist, to

manager; and, third, to be receptive to a return flow of questions from manager,

to extension specialist, to researcher.

Similarly to assure that his decision problems are understood and appreciated by researchers, the manager will seek to be continuously aware of the

processes, status, and progress of relevant research, of the specializations

of the researchers most likely to be able to address his management problems,

of those information needs he has which are common with a significant number

of other managers, and of the continuumof research activity stretching from

the most basic to the directly applicable. It is important and difficult to

keep in mind that today's applicable research may rest on a wide base of more

fundamental research done in the past in attempts to anticipate management

problems. It is equally important and difficult to adequately define decision

problems so that the common informaticn needs clearly emerge and so that it is

possible to identify which kinds of information can and should be supplied by

research.

Barriers to Application

There are numerous barriers to the application of research results, and

put conversely, barriers to doing directly applicable research.

Some barriers have already been discussed here and in the earlier papers

by Cottrell and Crowe. Let us now consider, within our managerial-decision

framework, some additional difficulties.

Level of application.-- There is substantial difficulty in providing

information that will be useful at more than one level of application or

management decision-- or even in recognizing the different kinds of information

(and hence research) needed. No one who has thought about it would believe

that the same information is required for decision at the national, regional,

state or agency policy level as is reqnired for general land-use and resource

management allocations or as is required for specific site design. Yet we

all tend to forget about levels other than ours (whether we be managers or

researchers) and especially to forget that, even if different information is

required, it must be possible to integrate, aggregate and disaggregate it

rationally through the various levels. Because the framework proposed here

fits the hierarchical nature of most organizations and decisions, it should,

where decision problems can be adequately specified, assist in overcoming some

of this difficulty.

Differences of value sets between researchers & managers.--There are, we

all know, researchers who have little or no interest in management applications

of research (some of the best are theory builders, and some of the worst are

simply pursuing their own interest at gathering assorted facts or creating

34
"chaos in the brickyard' by making bricks that cannot be built into any rdjrl(*t.).

Similarly there are managers who "fly-entirely-by-the-seat-of-the-pants",

seldom use or require information, and do not want to be 'confused by the

facts", to say nothing of considering conceptual foundations.

If a scientist answers such a manager's question for which the manager

expects some simple factual or yes or no answer with a logical explanation of

why the answer must be thus and so, the manager is turned-off. He is likely

to think, "I didn't want a lecture, I just want to know the answer". The

research scientist places high& value on the general approach to deriving

and understanding answers. He assumes that with this knowledge, the manager

might next time perhaps recall or even think through the answer. The

scientist's reaction is almost to say "Well, if that fact is all you want to

know, here's the textbook, dictionary or encyclopedid'. Scientists and.

managers value different approaches to solving problems. Scientists would

perhaps be poor managers unless they changed their values and vice versa for

managers who would think "getting the answer" a more practical approach to

resesxch. We all need to recognize tkiese differences in values.and style.

They may be important to nurture rather than to erase--though we tend to talk

as if not just the differences due to specializations, but also the value

differences should be erased so as to solve our communication difficulty and

be more effective in bringing research to bear in practice. I do not believe

it is possible, even if it were desirable, to erase these differences in subcultures. There are good reasons fo r the University and research organizations

being somewhat independent of day-to-day brush fires. This, of course, should.

not be taken as license to be irrelevant--but it is often difficult to see

what is truly most relevant.

Perhaps the management decision problem framework should help us to defuse the personal-value confrontations and to work together in logical problem-solving mode to attempt to specify just what the problem is and to decide just how we, each with our various responsibilities values and expertise,

can best work together toward solving it. (This would not supplant, but would

augment, the kind of personal sharing and communication discussed by the

previous speakers.) Hopefully, by putting the problem "up on the wall" and

setting our mutual objective to specify and solve it, we could at least avoid

the wasted energy and negative reenforcement of calling each other unprintable

names.

As We Would Like Things To Be

The necessity (and difficulty) of coordinating the efforts of researchers

is obvious if an efficient and successful attack on the most important management problems is to be made. When several types of information are needed to

solve a problem, failure to obtain just one bit of information may prevent

solving the problem, and thus waste the research efforts invested in obtaining

the other information. If communication and coordination are effective,

managers will be continuously provided with better information to help their

clients gain greater benefits from natural resources. With various degrees

of success, the needed coordination is achieved in several ways, a few of

which will be mentioned to show the diversity of patterns.

When a large amount of research effort can be concentrated on the solution

of a particular problem, the problem itself may form the framework for a large

research project. The project in turn would be composed of closely coor35
dinated individual studies designed to Provide most of the facts or information

required to solve the problem. These efforts might be coordinated by a

specific project plan that is designed, studied, and agreed,upon by all of the

research&s involved. Or coordination might be sought simply by developing

exceptionally effective comnn.dcation ad close cooperation among the various

researchers.

Close cooperation among researchers within the same discipline is also

frequently required. For example, several recreation researchers might be

working on different facets of the same problem. Each scientist will contribute an important link of information that will be needed to solve the

particular problem with which they all are concerned.

Thus, although the diversity in the techniques and forms of natural

resources research is great, important relationships among researchers can

be derived from the problem they are seeking to help solve. And because of

these relationships there is a Unifying pattern to the research activities

as a whole.

With the complexity of resources management problems, shortages of

research funds, and other difficulties we have already discussed, it becomes

increasingly necessary to consider new arrangements for shared responsibility

among managers, extension specialists, and research. One current approach to

the solution of major 'decision problems that require the skill and judgment

of the manager to be augmented by the expertise and outlook of the research

scientist is to form specific ad hoc prdblem-solving teams. Then, following

a 'management by objectives" format such as described here, the problem is

defined, the team's role in solving it is specified so that team members share

responsibility for solving it and all have a stake in the outcome, and work

proceeds. In this approach it may not be possible to initiate new research,

but it is likely that previously developed results can be brought to bear. It

is also likely that there will be indications of what kin&s of research should

be started to help solve similar future problems. An important benefit of

such an approach is that not only are the value differences between manager and

researcher brought t0 bear on a task with common purpose but true communication

is necessary and natural to the functioning of the team in satisfying its goals.

The Forest Service, and no doubt other organizations represented here, are

using such approaches with some success.

There are other approaches to sharing the problem solving responsibility

and to closing the gap between research and. Practice. These are being more

often Use& in large industrial and governmental Organizations and have become

a part of the current literature on management. Suffice it to say here that

we need to be more innovative in testing these WrangementS for sharing

responsibility in recreation resouTCes management and research.

36
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED

"RELATING RECREATION RESEARCH TO MANAGEMENT DECISIONS"

Allan J. Worms L'

"Blame where you must, be candid where you can,

and be each critic the good-natured man."

Robert Burns

Critique of a worthy effort becomes an especially demanding task when the

critiquer seeks to enhance the meaningfulness and utility of that effort

rather than to merely illuminate its faults. Mr. Ware's presentation is a

diligent effort by a researcher to shed light on the conceptual and functional

framework in which research may be related to management. Consequently,

through analysis of a researcher's presentation, this critique will seek to

contribute to solution of the fundamental problem, namely that of improving

the application of recreation research for management decision making.

The title of "relating recreation research to management decisions" suggests a content which deals simply with applying research efforts to the

character of recreation management problems. However the task before Mr. Ware

was in fact much more complex than merely describing the techniques for research-based problem solving. Rather, it deals with the whole system of

human, political, and disciplinary infra-structure giving rise to the dual

processes of research and management. His assignment involved recognizing

that research and researchers function differently and often quite separately

from management and managers, even though both groups and both processes

ultimately share the same objective. That objective, declared at the outset

of Mr. Ware's paper, is "management of the natural resources and the related

'delivery systems' that are the focus, environment, and means for providing

outdoor recreation opportunities and human benefits.

With this perspective, I fully agree for we are dealing very much in the

sense of research for the purpose of its' optimum application by management

and managers. Moreover, the end point, measureable or not, must be an objective of human benefit.

Early in his presentation Mr. Ware points out the need for.definition of

the "whole job of resources management" and that such an explanation might

help us decide who should do what, on "which parts of the job are best left

to managers, to extension specialists and to researchers." Within the next

several paragraphs he very adequately sets the stage for a framework of information gathering and use. He describes the need for management problem

definition, evaluation of management program input (1, prediction; 2, determination of optimum input mix; 3, control of output through manipulation of

L/ Outdoor Recreation Specialist, Department of Forestry, for the

Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

37
managerial inputs), and finally specification of the problem. All of this

framework, however seems couched in terms of management problem definition by

and for managers. At no point is there a definition or framework allowing

researchers to come to grips with the management problem, and readily understand it as a researchable problem.

I suspect that just as managers and researchers exist in very different

worlds of day to day operation, there also exists two very different lines

of communication pertinent to their respective fields of operation. In short,

I feel this paper has ably identified the perspective of research application

and has established a conceptual framework for problem specification for the

manager, but has not provided for derivation of the research problem in researcher terms which would enhance the potential for accurate research and

its' ensuing application. In an earlier presentation by Crowe, it was noted

a basic failing of the manager-extension specialist-researcher team is that

research is isolated from management problems and that the "researcher view

is primarily of one-way flow; research to manager, perhaps through extension."

The building blocks upon which the reverse flow may be achieved are still

lacking.

Ware's discussion of the role of managers raises several issues which may

be disturbing to managers and which may mislead our appraisal of the importance of the management task. To paraphrase, he sets the priority of management in a perspective of "efficiently" meeting peoples' needs in the absence

of "other" satisfactions.

A concern with this hypothesis is that other satisfactions may be directly exchangeable for recreation needs or opportunities. Unfortunately Ware

does not define or describe these "other ways to satisfy peoples' needs."

From the viewpoint of the manager of natural resources, resource facilities,

or recreation enterprises, demand may indeed diminish during short or long

term periods and for diverse reasons. However, this concept relates to resources, resource places or resource conditions, but not in a direct sense

to recreation need or opportunity. The professional recreation manager will

be quick to point out that need (or expressed demand) for recreation is one

matter and user demand for recreation opportunity in a resource setting is

quite a different matter. Thus, while management of resources may be a "means

to various ends," management (and provision) of recreation opportunity and

satisfaction of needs as an end does not necessarily subside coincidentally

with peoples' choice of other satisfactions. The importance of recreation

has not diminished.

Ware characterizes the role of the recreation resource manager as a clientserving consultant "who helps his client identify and solve recreation resource

problems, or who himself acts in proxy to take the decision for his client."

This is useful reminder of the manager's client oriented responsibility and the

need to adopt an objective , professional service oriented responsibility. At

least two omissions seem evident in this characterization, however.

First, as a professional consultant, the recreation manager serves a client

"system" which must consider the return or reward objectives of the resource

owner or agency, the user community (e.g. the public or a private group), and

finally the user himself.

38
Second, the recreation manager may indeed be much closer to the actJon

and infact an owner or owner-operator having much more personally internalized objectives relating to management of the resource or a resource-based

business. The problem with characterizing the resource manager broadly as a

client-serving consultant sidesteps dealing with a host of major problems

presently confronting research application. It conveniently excuses the

writer from dealing with the large number of managers who do not, in fact,

avail themselves of recreation research information. This is an issue confronting researchers, extension specialists and managers, namely, how do we

get applicable research information in a useable form to an in-use status by

managers. This issue is described finally (and perhaps tardily) in the context of the "Role of Extension Specialists."

The Discussion of the recreation or researcher's role probably provides

the reader with the most accurate, comprehensive and useful insight to the

researcher member of the researcher-extension specialist-manager "team."

Ware clearly challenges researchers to measure their productive worth by

how much their efforts increase the efficiency of the manager. He further

describes the purposes of research, the ultimate clientele goal of researchers

(the resource manager's client), and the difficulty of appropriately functional researcher-manager problem solving. This discourse handily sets the

stage for the most important contribution of the paper, an analysis of communication conditions and "barriers" to research application.

From the viewpoint of an extension specialist critiquer I found Ware's

approach a candid and lucid depiction of "as things now are" and how some of

us at least might "like things to be." I commend this portion of his paper to

all members of the recreation prof.essionals team and especially to administrators for a careful and studied reading. Each of us should measure our

respective individual and organizational contributions to the closure of the

communication gaps as well as to the barriers we help create or augment.

This final section is a sound depiction of many of our fundamental problems. It is a stronger expression of those problems from the research

scientists viewpoint than from the viewpoints of the manager or extension

specialist, however. For example, little cognizance is offered of the

diverse political, economic and social problems which confront the manager

and extension specialist on almost a daily basis. It is probably a legitimate

supposition that few researchers are aware of these manager and extension education arenas of effort on even a general basis.

Ware's final recommendation, that we search for and test new arrangements

different than we now have for sharing responsibility in recreation resources

management and research, offers little in the way of concrete step 'by step

procedures. To be sure, he has briefly illustrated the idea of "management

by objective" ad hoc problem-solving teams. This may indeed be possible between individuals in many situations and even between individuals of differing agencies, but it seems to require much further consideration to alleviate

the barriers throughout the research application organizational system. In

any case -- %ew arrangements," perhaps as suggested by Crowe, as well as

Ware may be the most worthwhile challenge before us.

39
TOPIC II

NEEDED RESEARCH

ABSTRACTS

DAVEY AND STOUT

Priority Needs in Outdoor Recreation Research.--High priority outdoor

recreation tasks are recommended to researchers and research sponsors.

These tasks, selected from sixty-five identified by participants at a

BOR-sponsored symposium at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia in September

1974, include concern for substitutability among recreation activities,

variables affecting participation, land use controls, key elements of

recreation attractants, broad behavioral aspects, public reactions to

fees and charges, and national energy policies. Several previous efforts are reviewed.

CORDELL

Priorities for Recreation Research in the Southern States.--Deviant

behavior. off-road recreation vehicle use and use impacts on developed

recreation sites are rated by southern states recreation managers as

high priority problem topics for research. Also rated high are coordination and direction of recreation research and effective communication of research results. Although they generally agree with these as

research priorities, there are some major differences between researchers' and managers' priorities which point to a communication problem

and which need to be resolved.

CERMAK

Wilderness in the East: Problems for Research.--Contrasts between

East and West in climate, topography, vegetation and density of settlement give some clues to research needs in wilderness on eastern National

Forests. Smaller size of eastern wildernesses and their proximity to

settlement may have important effects on volume of use and user satisfaction. The forest may be the most important factor in managing eastern

wildernesses. Managers need to be involved in research and researchers

should have a role in research applications.

MORE

Urban Forest Recreation: A Strategy for Research .--Recreation pressure

on the urban forest is high and is expected to increase. Unfortunately,

we know little about this forest or the people who use it. A research

program to remedy this will be undertaken in the megalopolitan Northeast. Its goal is to develop a basis of scientific knowledge about

recreation in the urban forest.

40
PRIORITY NEEDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION RESEARCH

Stuart P. Davey and Neil J. Stout?-'

Abstract. --High priority outdoor recreation research tasks

are recommended to researchers and research sponsors. These

tasks, selected from sixty-five identified by participants at a

BOR-sponsored symposium at Harpers Ferry,.West Virginia in

September 1974, include concern for substitutability among recreation activities, variables affecting participation, land use

controls, key elements of recreation attractants, broad behavioral aspects, public reactions to fees and charges, and national

energy policies. Several previous efforts are reviewed.

INTRODUCTION

The continued growth of public recreation programs and activities places

stress not only on the basic natural and attracting resources, but also on

the land managers and public participants as well. Insufficient knowledge

regarding the total interface of these actions and reactions can negate land

investments, facility development, and public satisfaction. Facts are needed

through research, and the challenge is to identify priority research needs.

Several previous efforts have summarized outdoor recreation research

needu

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation - University of Michigan effort in

1963- is recognized as the initial national meeting of multi-disciplinary

interests. Here, the groundwork was laid for future efforts along with the

full recognition of the tremendous need to understand better the demand,

supply, and social factors of the equation.

Regardless of this latter recognition of social import, early work by

BOR on the first nationwide outdoor recreation plan found research endeavors

had been concerned primarily with resources and slight attention given to

the social and psychological aspects. As a result, the Secretary of the

Interior asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and conference to develop a program of recreation research based on evaluation of

needs. The conference was held in 1968 and the proceedings/ delineate the

broad discussion and presentations of the resource, social, and economic

considerations. This effort was especially valuable in its definitive analysis

of recreation service systems. It is obvious, upon review, that the results

of this study have never been fully utilized.

L/ Chief and Assistant Chief, Division of Federal Programs, Bureau of Outdoor

Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

21 Proceedings of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation Research, Cosponsored by the School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, and the

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Ann Arbor,

Michigan, May, 1963.

2/ A Program for Outdoor Recreation Research, a report on a study conference

conducted June 2-8, 1968, by the NAS for U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1969.

41
The trend at the moment is for regional discussion of research needs.

We view this as a healthy situation, and the current efforts by the Forest

Service and North Carolina State University are to be commended.

Our effort here is to recognize those priority tasks, as viewed in 1974.

by a select group, and then to identify those underlying management problems

we view as solvable through the suggested research.

METHODS

On September 4-6, 1974, forty-three scientists, administrators, and

practitioners involved with the problems and issues of outdoor recreation net

at the National Park Service's Mather Training Center in Harpers Ferry, West

Virginia. The Interior Department's Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service, called

this meeting to assess the state of the art in outdoor recreation and to

establish an agenda of current research needs. Based on this assigned mission,

the participants identified four specific purposes for the Workshop:

1. To identify knowledge-gaps which hinder--or are likely to hinder in

the future-- the provision of adequated opportunities for the enjoyment of outdoor recreation by the American people;

To explore research opportunities--and suggest priorities--for

addressing these knowledge-gaps;

3. To identify constraints upon recreation research and opportunities

for increasing the effectiveness of recreation research efforts; and,

4. To foster adequate commitments of resources, talents, and energies

to research applicable to outdoor recreation.

The first session of this three-day workshop heard representatives of

agencies and institutions set forth their professional and organizational

perspectives on recreation research. Their remarks are recorded in Chapter III

of the Proceedings.-?/

The core session of the workshop occupied the entire second day. Small

workgroups undertook to examine knowledge-gaps and research problems in five

broad areas of subject interest:

Social and Behavioral Studies

Resource Studies

Administrative and Political Studies

Activities/Facilities Studies

Economic Studies

A/ Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Proceedings of the Outdoor Recreation Research

Needs Workshop, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Sept. 4-6, 1974.

42
These Workgroup recommendations are presented in Chapter IV of the

Proceedings,

The final day's session was occupied with the presentation of the workgroup reports and a general discussion of research strategies. The strategy

recommendations are summarized in Chapter V of the Proceedings.

Sixty-five research tasks were derived from the reports of the five

workgroups. Time did not permit the assignment of priorities during the

Workshop. Therefore, a priority ballot was devised later and distributed to

all Workshop participants and certain other recreation professionals, including

employees from all relevant organizational units of the Bureau of Outdoor

Recreation,

Based on the survey response, 23 research tasks are recommended to

researchers and research sponsors as meriting a top priority. They are listed

in order of decreasing priority in Table 1. For each task, the table shows the

relative priority levels assigned by Workshop participants, BOR respondents,

and all respondents taken together. The five right hand columns indicate the

areas of research interest (as represented by the five workgroups) which are

of primary relevance to each task.

Complete details of the Symposium are available in the Proceedings cited

above.

RESULTS

It is the purpose of this paper to present the ten research tasks highly

ranked by the symposium participants and the functional, topical headings

suggested therein. .

Table 1 is self explanatory. Participants ranked number one the need to

determine the degrees of substitutability among recreation activities in terms

of "psychologically equivalent" experience. Equal ranking was given to the

next four tasks to determine as follows:

1 . Variables for predicting recreation participation;

2 . Key elements of recreation activities which attract participants;

3 . Substitutablity among recreation and locales, resources and

facilities; and,

4 . 'Effects of design on carrying capacity of certain resources.

Next ranked tasks included the following:

1. Determine standardized approaches to carrying capacity from the

biological, physical and sociological aspects;

2 . Evaluate.various approaches to improving behavior of recreation area

visitors;

4 3
Idmrify existing and potent,*1me*“*--lncl”ding pending State and Feder*l land use ~antrolIc$irl*tion--of

(32)
3. Evaluate relationships of leisure pursuits to other life domains;

4. Find techniques to predict changes in recreation patterns associated

with major shifts in variables affecting life style; and,

5 . Ascertain components of recreation activities valuable to participant

self development.

The rest of the 23 relate to lower ranked tasks, but still are of importance in the areas of non-participation/anti-recreation behavioral aspects of

recreation and all of its implications for management maintained a high profile,

and need for research. Governmental agencies, as you probably are aware, are wary

of behavioral research, especially when applied to the users of their facilities.

We view the results of the symposium and the analysis of the priority

tasks identified by participants and subsequent reviewers in the following

terms and needs for research, in behalf of managers of public, and probably

private, recreation enterprise:

First, the "why" and the "substitutability" of participant action, resource

attraction and general behavioral aspects are of great importance to understand

better the recreation phenomenon. Much remains to be accomplished here.

Second, while the "resource' capacities" are increasingly clear, the

sociological/psychological capacities are not. Here again, much remains to be

accomplished. We are pleased to report that BOR is funding during this fiscal

year some research on carrying capacities, including the human aspects thereof.

Third, our ability to predict demand within an understanding of the

rapidly changing lifestyles around us are sorely lacking. Of great importance

is the rapidly changing energy scene. The "who" is going to do "what" question

remains a challenge. In FY 1975, BOR funded a National Academy of Sciences

study of the whole demand question. That report is expected soon.

Fourth, the whole thrust of recreation development needs early analysis,

if for no other reason than to answer the increasingly common complaint that

"operation and maintenance funds are unavailable," therefore, no area, no

facilities. The thrust of Federal properties and programs upon lower levels

of government might or might not accelerate such reactions-or a surplus of

facilities may, in fact, exist in many areas. On the other hand, the American

expectation of "free" public recreation could dictate the financial inabilities

of agencies to provide opportunities beyond a given level. Facts here are

needed'as soon as possible. Again, we are pleased to report that the BOR is

funding this fiscal year an analysis of public reaction to public agency

recovery of operation and maintenance costs for recreation facilities.

DISCUSSION

The sponsors recognize that the Harpers Ferry Workshop was held under

certain significant limitations. Essentially one working day was available

45
to the conferees. The participants’ backgrounds did not cover the full spectrum

of recreation practitioners and scholars. .4 good start was made on identifying

research needs, but it will be essential to establish linkages to other

professional interests in the future.

The Harpers Ferry Workshop stressed the “people” aspects of outdoor

recreation. Behavioral science approaches to recreation problems received

more emphasis than the traditional economic approaches. Special emphasis was

given to the meaning of recreation experiences to the participant--the benefits

he seeks and the results he actually achieves. Those present felt that the

complex of man-environment interactions called outdoor recreation must be

understood much more deeply and comprehensively if Americans are to have a full

range of opportunities to enjoy the outdoors.

The Workshop participants and the survey respondents were not representative of all areas of interest in outdoor recreation. Urban and commercial

recreation interests-- as well as the health and design professions--were

underrepresented. It should be noted, however, that the proposed research tasks

focus on underlying principles and relationships. Results of this research

would apply to a broad spectrum of outdoor recreation situations, locations,

and activities. The participants deliberately avoided dealing with specific

recreation activities such as swimming, bicycling, or off-road vehicle use.

CONCLUSION

Our conclusion is that the Harpers Ferry Workshop was a useful method

to update outdoor recreation research needs. Further, the proceedings of the

meeting can serve as the vehicle to a greatly expanded audience whose concern

and interest can assure needed solution to many problems. The priority items

listed in Table 1 can be used or amended for numerous specific research tasks.

The several research projects contracted recently by our own organization

stand as examples.

More important, we believe, are the functional areas identified for

research to assist both the research and recreation manager both to understand

and manage better the recreationist and the opportunities he seeks.

4 6
PRIORITIES FOR RECREATION RESEARCH IN

THE SOUTHERN STATES

Harold K. CordellL'

Abstract. --Deviant behavior, off-road recreation vehicle use

and use impacts on developed recreation sites are rated by southern

states recreation managers as high priority problem topics for research; Also rated high are coordination and direction of recreation research and effective communication of research results.

Although they generally agree with these as research priorities,

there are some major differences between researchers' and managers'

priorities which point to a communication problem and which need

to be resolved.

Additional keywords: Research priority, recreation research, recreation problem identification, research communications.

One of the most frequently voiced complaints about research is that it is

not addressing the problems of highest priority. Managers and planners often

feel that their informational needs are being'ignored. The 1974 National Outdoor Recreation Research Needs Workshop was one effort to overcome this shortcoming of research. Another effort which addressed the Southern States specifically was conducted by the Southern Regional Task Force on Research Needs

in Recreation, Aesthetics and Other Landscape Values.

The basic philosophy under which the Task Force operated was one of

making sure that the most important issues or problem areas had first been

identified and rated before any attempt was made to list studies needed to

address these problems. Focusing first on "needed" studies instead of identifying

high priority problems seems to be a common error of many previous efforts to

identify research needs. The basic pitfall of this approach is that the problem, the underlying reason, for doing research in the first place very often

never becomes evident. As a result we are never sure that the highest priority

problems are being addressed and the complaint that research needs to-be more

relevant is reinforced.

The Task Force was composed of a multidisciplinary team including an

economist, a sociologist, an extension and planning specialist, a forester, an

ecologist , and a psychologist. The procedure was to identify the more important problem areas in recreation management and planning and to obtain a priority ranking of these problems by asking researchers and practitioners in the

13 Southern States to vote on the importance of each.

'Twenty-one different problem areas were identified by the Task Force after

considerable input from a selected panel of managers and planners. The final

list of problems along with a written description of each problem situation

Lf Coordinator of Recreation Research and Assistant Professor of Recreation

Economics, School of Forest Resources, North Carolina State University.

47
was sent to recreation practitioners and researchers throughout the Southern

States. Persons'receiving this material were asked to rate each problem independently by assigning a scale value from 1 (most important) to 5 (least

important). A total of 186 practitioners and 40 scientists responded representing a wide range of private, federal, state and local concerns. A similar assessment of these 21 problem areas was obtained from participants in

this Workshop.

PRIORITY PROBLEMS FOR RESEARCH

In table 1 titles of the 10 highest priority problems are listed. These

are ordered according to the 1974 voting by practitioners only. The criterion

for ordering was the percentage of respondents which ranked a problem as number

1 or number 2 in importance on a scale ranging from 1 to 5. Also shown is the

voting on these same problems by the practitioners attending this 1975 Workshop.

All who indicated they would be attending were sent a ballot and problem descriptions identical to those mailed to Southern States practitioners in 1974.

There were some substantial differences in the ranking of the 21 problems

between this Workshop group and the respondents to the 1974 survey. Some of

this is the result of the Workshop group's being less representative of 'the

total range of southern recreation management interests. Some of this difference may also be due to increased awareness of problem situations.

The top 3 problems identified by Workshop attendees were:

1 . Physical and biological impacts of recreation use on developed sites

(74 percent voted 1 or 2)

2 . Littering, theft, vandalism and other deviant behavior in recreation

areas (73 percent)

3 . Coordination and direction of southern recreation research (65 percent).

These 3 problems were among the top 5 as ranked by the 1974 survey respondents and indicates's degree of general agreement between the two groups. This

also reinforces the 1974 finding that research dealing with developed recreation

sites and management problems associated with the recreational use of these sites

is still very much in demand. Researchers and funding sources have been strongly,

deemphasizing this direction for research in recent years.

Use of wild lands or other areas by off-road recreation vehicles was also

rated relatively high by the Workshop attendees (no. 6 overall, 56 percent

ranked it 1 or 2) and it was rated especially high by the 1974 group (no. 2,

a2 .percent). The obvious resource impacts, conflicts with other recreationists,

and large numbers of participants are likely reasons for this outcome.

A major difference between the Workshop group and the 1974 survey respondents was the ranking of two problem areas as highly important for research

attention:

1. Communication of recreation research results (65 percent of Workshop

group, ranked no. 4)

48
Table 1. --Ten highest-priority problems ranked by southern states practitioners

and percentages rating each problem 1 or 2

Problem Title

Percentage of

practitioners who

rated problem 1 or 2

1974 1975

Rank order

by 1975 a/

respondentsLittering, theft, vandalism

and other deviant behavior 85 73 2

in recreation areas

Use of wild lands or other

areas by off-road recreation 82 56 6

vehicles

Physical and biological

impacts of recreation use on

developed sites

82 74 1

Evaluation of recreational

benefits from urban forest

and open space resources

64 39 15

Coordination and direction

of southern recreation 63 65 3

research

Interpretation and understanding of forest and

natural environments

62 47 10

Methodology of recreation

research 59 48 9

Benefit/cost analysis of

recreation alternatives 56 43 14

Providing recreation opportunities for the aged and

handicapped

54 2i 21

Inadequate data bases and

methods for comprehensive 50 47 .12

recreation planning

a/Indicates relative ranking from the original list of 21 problems.

49
2. Evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from recreation use

and development (61 percent, ranked no.5).

These two problem areas received, much lower ranking in 1974 (ranked no.

10 and no. 13 by the 1974 group).

Particularly notable in the voting of the Workshop group is the ranked

importance of having well coordinated research directed toward the most relevant problems (ranked no. 3) and, as indicated above, of adequately and clearly

communicating the results of research so that it can be understood (ranked no.

4). These problem areas, of course, are primarily the reason for attending

this Workshop.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MANAGERS AND RESEARCHERS

It is evident from the 1974 survey and from the survey of Workshop attendees that coordination and communication between researchers and practitioners

strongly need to be improved. Dick Cottrell, Dennis Crowe, and Ken Ware addressed some of the problems associated with getting a more smoothly operating

working relationship and better communication between researchers, extension

specialists and practitioners. They also discussed some of the possible actions

that could be taken to achieve improvements.

The need for better communication was vividly pointed up by‘ comparing the

ranking of problems by practitioners and scientists attending this workshop.

While practitioners are more concerned with the impact of the recreationist

on the site and with other day-to-day management problems, we scientists appear

more concerned with broader social issues and with theoretically related questions. The six top ranked problems by scientists included:

1 . Use of recreation and aesthetic preferences in the development of

resource management and utilization policies (77 percent)

2. Use of phychological needs data for recreation resource decisions

(77 percent)

3. Evaluation of recreational benefits from urban forest and open space

resources (77 percent)

4. Effects of public and private recreational developments on social

change and life-styles of local communities (66 percent)

5. Control of littering, theft, vandalism and other deviant behavior

(66 percent)

6. Coordination and direction of recreation research (55 percent).

The voting by both practitioners and scientists indicates the importance

of deviant behavior and research coordination problems. But disagreement

concerning other top priority problems indicates a real need for more communication between those of us attending this Workshop. The 4 problems ranked

highest by managers and planners were ranked 9, 5, 6, and 11 by the researchers

who are here.

50
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

It appears that we are able to identify important problems to which research should be applied. But there is some disagreement concerning which

problems are most important. Managers, planners and administrators are more

concerned with problems with which they must deal every day. Researchers

appear to be concerned with more basic questions and with theory building.

Yet the clientele of the researcher is the manager. Does this indicate that

the direction which research takes should be dictated by the manager? But

if this happens, what will become of basic research which has its value in

addressing questions that have more general or,long-range consequences?

5 1
WILDERNESS IN THE EAST: PROBLEMS FOR RESEARCH

Robert W. CermakA'

Abstract .--Contrasts between East and West in climate, topography, vegetation and density of settlement give some clues to

research needs in wilderness on eastern National Forests. Smaller

size of eastern wildernesses and their proximity to settlement

may have important effects on volume of use and user satisfaction.

The forest may be the most important factor in managing eastern

wildernesses. Managers need to be involved in research and researchers

should have a role in research applications.

Additional keywords: Contrast in size and scale, alternatives,

carrying capacity, vegetative influences on resiliency, individualized definition of wilderness.

For a resource manager born in the West and raised on western resource

problems, the East is a startling contrast. The most striking aspects of eastern North America, as we drove from Pueblo, Colorado to the Shenandoah Valley of

Virginia in August 1972, were the abundance of green vegetation and the presence

of homes, communities and small towns throughout the land.

The land was softer, more receptive than the sagebrush flats of Wyoming

and South Dakota; the barren peaks of the Rockies; the alkali plains of the

Great Basin; or the sunbaked foothills of the Sierra Nevada.

We saw mountains; they were sometimes imposing, but they had rounded summit

and were entirely covered with trees. In fact, trees were everywhere - between

houses and towns, in plantations, alongside cornfields and far off into the

distance. For someone who had traveled many miles in the West and seen only

scraggly windbreaks or a few cottonwoods, it was refreshing.

There were houses, farms and small communities within sight almost constantly. We couldn't help but contrast the scene with the long, lonely trip

through Wyoming's Thunder Basin; our drives across Nevada, nearly empty of people

and places; or the sparsely settled high deserts and mountains of eastern Oregon.

If you are worried that this is a travelogue and not a paper on eastern

wilderness problems, let me reassure you at this point. I began this way because

there are great contrasts in East and West and these few paragraphs have illustrated some of them. These are some of the contrasts we need to consider when

discussing research needs in wilderness on eastern National Forests,.

These contrasts are important because designated wilderness is new to east.

ern National Forests. If we exclude the Boundary Waters Canoe Area as a special

and unique situation, there were only three small designated National Forest

Wildernesses in the East before the Eastern Wilderness Act was signed on January

1975. This new management situation appears to call for new research. Application of knowledge learned in western wilderness without modification to the East

could lead to more problems than it solves.

11 Supervisor, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, North Carolina.

52
The West is an expansive, wide open country, full of long vistas. :;I.;1 I I'

is magnified and scenery can be almost overpowering. On the other hantl, c11t.

East has lower relief, is dominated and softened by forest and other growlil.

Climatic conditions and the dense forest often restrict views to the close-in.

the smaller scale of trees, streams, wildlife and flowers.

The contrast in scale is matched by a contrast in size between eastern

and western wilderness. Averages can be deceiving but they illustrate this

point well enough. As of December 31, 1974, the average size of 66 western

National Forest wildernesses was 160,943 acres while the average of 18 eastern National Forest wildernesses is 12,602 acres (excluding Boundary Waters

Canoe Area). Only four eastern wildernesses are over 20,000 acres in size.

What effectydoes size'have on use and management of eastern wilderness?

Will carrying capacity be subject to the same limitations as in western wilderness? In.view of the small size, how should surrounding lands be managed?

The answers to these questions may depend upon the reasons why people

visit eastern wilderness.

Typically, western wilderness supports most of its use in narrow bands

along lakes and streams with trail access. However, even this use is not

equally distributed. Stankey (1973) reported on three western wildernesses

where use was concentrated at a few of the most attractive fishing areas,

lakes and streams and near access points.

Eastern wilderness often lacks outstanding fishing, lakes and large

streams; cross-country travel is limited by the heavy forest growth. What will

bring visitors other than a desire for solitude? It might be the desire to

hike the wilderness trails. Hiking has a long tradition in the East and backpacking is growing rapidly in popularity.

If hiking and backpacking in a forested atmosphere are major reasons

for using eastern wilderness, then a new look at trail routes and the density

of trails would be needed. The thick forest in most eastern wildernesses

would permit more trails per acre and more use, provided overnight camping

space were available.

Under these circumstances, size may be less important as a factor in

meeting eastern wilderness needs. Perhaps state and local government could

also play a larger role in supplying designated wildernesses. Industry's

"pocket" wilderness could become another alternative. How small can a designated

wilderness be in the East and still provide a wilderness experience?

One of the contrasts I mentioned earlier had to do with the density of

settlement in the East versus the West. It is not uncommon to find houses,

farms, towns and highways adjacent to eastern wildernesses or to have cities

within a few miles. It is difficult to say what effect the proximity of settlement will have on user satisfaction. It may not be as important as it first

appears because thick cover masks sight and sound, even when it is only a mile

distant or less.

53
The forest seems to me to be the key element in eastern wilderness.

Perhaps this is appropriate for the term "wilderness" originally referred

to the forest and its wildlife (Nash 1967). The eastern forest is not

tame as anyone can attest who has struggled through a laurel thicket on

a cloudy day. In fact, parts of some designated eastern wildernesses and

some study areas are downright dangerous to be in because of wildlife or terrain

features. Eastern forests aggressively take over old fields or openings with

a growth so thick that it can become oppressive. The demand for eastern wilderness arose partly because of the eastern forests' ability to heal its wounds

quickly; what onee had been cutover woods became wilderness forty years later.

Forests are so wide spread over the East that they may affect the attitude of people in the East toward wilderness. Many easterners think the wilderness is at their back door. They can visit the woodlot or go over the fence

to the paper company or lumber company's land. Or the National, State or township forest is near at hand. In a few steps they are swallowed up by the forest.

"When we walk, we naturally go to the fields and woods.....," Henry Thoreau

said in his famous essay, Walking, "My vicinity affords many good walks; and

although for so many years I have walked almost everyday, and sometimes for several

days together, I have not yet exhausted them." (Duncan 1972) To be sure, he

also complains about the building of houses and cutting down of the forest but

when visiting Concord, Massachusetts two years ago, I was interested to find

most of the country nearby is still wooded.

Several writers have said that wilderness is found along a spectrum from

the most civilized place to the least. Carhart (1961), Spurr (1966), and Nash

(1967), for example have all suggested that the definition of wilderness is so

highly personal that it means something different to each of us. A logical

expression of this idea is, as they propose, a scale or spectrum of situations

varying from the least wild to the most wild.

If the forest is a major element in what most of us think of as wilderness, then the easterner has a distinct advantage over his western counterpart. In the East, the forest is almost everywhere except in the urban areas

and the cultivated farmlands. It offers easy escape from the sights and sounds

of civilization. But the East also has many more people than the West.

Managers of eastern wilderness need to know how to keep these small areas

from being overrun by visitors from the massive population centers of the East.

Are there different attitudes toward wilderness in the East? What are the

alternatives to legislated wilderness in the East?

Lloyd and Fischer (1972) describe a continuum of recreational opportunities and point out the need for "more, and a wider variety of, dispersed

recreation opportunities outside designated wilderness." I agree, but

believe this approach is only half of the solution. We need to actually deemphasize visitation to designated wilderness while we emphasize the opportunities

elsewhere. Many wilderness visitors seem to think they will have a blinding

flash of "wilderness experience" when in the confines of a designated wilderness. I think the wilderness spectrum of Nash, Spurr and others largely coincides

54
with the recreation opportunity continuum described by Lloyd and Fischer.

Most people can find their personal wilderness experience outside designated

wilderness and often it can be a higher quality experience. Certainly we

need to encourage them to do so if we are to avoid overuse of eastern wilderness within a few years after their designation.

Protection of wilderness from human overuse is the greatest concern

in many western wilderness. Insect and disease attacks usually are allowed

to run their course; and in predetermined portions of some wilderness, wildfires are allowed to "burn themselves out."

We need research to determine the potential effects of insect, disease

and fire on the small wilderness of the East. Can we afford to allow wildfire, oak wilt, southern pine beetle, gypsy moth and similar threats to

the forest to "burn themselves out?" With large areas of forest gone from

the eastern wilderness, would the wilderness experience remain?

A brief review of the contrasts between East and West has brought

out some problems for research to consider. Summarized they are as follows:

1.

2.

3.

4 .

5.

6.

7.

a.

What effects will small size have on use and management of

eastern wilderness? Can size be even smaller? If so, do

state and local government and industry have a role in

supplying wilderness?

What should be the carrying capacity of eastern wilderness?

What effects do the small size of eastern wilderness have

on the management of surrounding lands?

What is the public concept of eastern wilderness?

What are the reasons besides a search for solitude that

people visit eastern wilderness?

How does dense forest growth help or hinder management of

eastern wilderness?

How can we emphasize the use of non-wilderness and deemphasize

the use of designated wilderness?

What are the potential effects of serious outbreaks of fire,

insects or disease on the wilderness experience in eastern

wilderness?

I am sure there must be many more problems associated with management

of eastern wilderness but it is appropriate at this point to say a few words

about solving problems.

In a new venture such as managing eastern wilderness, we need the benefit

of all that has been learned elsewhere about wilderness management. We need

new knowledge because, as outlined above, the eastern situation is different.

55
fllaklug the most of research capabilities requires cooperation between manager

tend researcher.

I would not be the first to say that cooperation between researchers

and managers has not been effective. It is too often true. This is sad

because both are losers. New knowledge could save the manager time and money

and produce a better service or product. And for the researcher, the real

payoff is not the paper he produces but the effect of that paper on management methods and attitudes.

It is pretty well agreed in management theory that the involved worker

will be more interested in the quality and quantity of the product. The

manager should have a stake in the research if he is to be committed to it

and the researcher should be involved in the application of research results if

progress is to be made.

Douglas MacGregor (1967) says, "Identification and commitment rest on

linking the individual's own goals with those of the organization." If the

manager and researcher can agree on the goals they seek and keep in contact

during the management and research process, then they are both more likely

to be successful. In my opinion, the manager must assume the larger burden

and go more than halfway in providing the climate that makes for effective

research, and also effective application of research results and the feedback the researcher needs.

In closing, I would like to say a few words about the realities of wilderness management on National Forests of the East. Wilderness management does

not exist in a vacuum. It must be accomplished by men who have many other

demands on their time and who face an increasing workload with a stable or

declining budget. Typically they will react to the heaviest pressures first

and wilderness use usually generates comparatively light pressure.

Managers must have priorities and wilderness management must fit into

that priority system. What really counts are the results on-the-ground.

Too often research and even policy have been frustrated by the use of ineffective methods for transforming them into action. It behooves, us all to look

at what is really happening on-the-ground if we are to be successful in improving management and research.

LITERATURE CITED

Carhart, A. H. 1961. Planning for America's Wildlands. Nat. Audubon Sot.,

Nat. Parks Assn., Wilderness Sot., Wildlife Mgt. Inst. 97 p. Harrisburg, Pa.,

The Telegraph Press.

Duncan, J. L. ed. 1972.' Thoreau: The major essays. 303 p. N. Y. : E. P. Dutton

Co., Inc.

Lloyd, R. D., and Fischer, V. L. 1972. Dispersed versus concentrated recreation _

as forest policy. 16 p. 7th World Forestry Congress, Buenos Aires, Argentina

56
MacGregor, D. 1967. The professional manager. 202 p. N. Y.: McGrov Hill, III<:,

Nash, R. 1967. Wilderness and the American mind. 256 p. New Haven: Yale Univ.

Press.

Spurr, S. J. 1966. Wilderness management. VI. H. M. Albright Conservation

Lectureship, Univ. of Calif., School of Forestry, Berkeley.

Stankey, G. H. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying

capacity USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-142, 61 p., illus. Intermt. Forest

and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah.

5 7
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED

"WILDERNESS IN THE EAST: PROBLEMS FOR RESEARCH"

R. Duane Lloyd'

Robert W. Cermak has posed eight questions about eastern wilderness

management that he recommends for research. In general I agree, but I want

to build on his case further and offer some additional perspectives.

The eight questions have been developed from a background of contrasts

between western and eastern wilderness resource conditions such as forest

types, density of vegetation, typical scale scenery, screening of sights and

sounds by vegetation, proximity to population centers, and typical size of

wilderness areas. Recognizing differences between the East and West is

important, but there also are. some similarities that need to be recognized, too.

Much of our best wilderness research has been quite fundamental. For

example, the basic patterns of interactions by visitors with the wilderness

environment and with one another (Frissell and Stankey 1973) are the same in

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) and in the West. Also, independent

research in the two ends of the country indicates that hikers, their preferences, and their behaviors are essentially the same in both West and East

(Hendee et al. 1968, Murray 1974). - -

Where research has developed basic principles, they should be applicable in both the East and the West. It should not be necessary to do eastern

wilderness research that will "reinvent" things already learned in the BWCA

and the West. This is particularly true for research on people who visit

wilderness and seek dispersed types of recreational opportunities.

At the same time, Cermak is correct in telling us that the resource

differences are important and that we will need to modify western management

practices for use in the East. Pilot testing, further development, and

modification will be needed. This can come best through teamwork by research

scientists and resource managers.

In the West, Forest Service research has given more attention to wilderness visitors than to the resources. I see a need, in the East, to give

considerable priority to studies of the resources and visitors' impacts on

them.

It may be that the denser vegetation in eastern wildernesses will permit

higher visitor-carrying capacities than in the West. At any rate we expect

heavier rates of visitation because of the proximity of large numbers of people.

Impacts of visitors on the land, water, and vegetation are a high-priority

wilderness and backcountry management problem. The North Central Forest

Experiment Station, in cooperation with the Superior National Forest and the

University of Mirinesota, has done some research of this kind in the BWCA.

The Northeastern Forest Experiment Station has started work of this kind in

New England, in cooperation with the National Forests, the Appalachian Mountain

club, and several universities.

ljDeputy Station Director , USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experimen; Siation, 6816 Market Street, Upper Darby, Pa. 19082.

5 8
Ecological succession proceeds more rapidly in the East than in most

of the West. Thus it is important that we face the problems of biological

management of wilderness. To many people the phrase "management of wilderness" is unacceptable; they seem to assume that man can pickle and preserve

dynamic ecological systems. Research has shown that total protection can

cause unnatural biological results (Heinselman 1973). The potentially

undesirable results of management for protection only will become evident

much sooner in the East than in the West.

I join Cermak in a plea that wilderness research be conducted with a

broad perspective that will require examination of wilderness-management

problems within a larger context. The key to wilderness management may lie

in nearby non-wilderness. We also need to remember, and help the public

understand, that wilderness has not been established for recreational purposes alone. The Wilderness Act has dual objectives, which I paraphrase as

(1) nature preservation and (2) primitive recreation. We need to do the

research and ,development that will help bring to pass a balanced spectrum

(or continuum) of forest-based recreational opportunities so that we can,

as Cermak urges, 'I... deemphasize visitation to designated wilderness while we

emphasize the opportunities elsewhere."

Wilderness research began in the BWCA and has made substantial progress

in the Northern Rocky Mountains, the Pacific Northwest, and most recently in

California. Significant research contributions have been made in less than

10 years, with a modest budget and a small team of scientists. A number of

research findings have been integrated into wilderness-management policy and

plans. Examples include the uniform wilderness permit, segregating or

zoning uses--based on different preferences and styles of travel, size-ofparty limitations in the BWCA and some other places--and the coming use of

the new wilderness travel simulator. The simulator is a good example of

Research-National Forest System (NFS) teamwork. The idea began with research

scientists; the final product (now being handed over to NFS wilderness

managers) was polished through a joint NFS-Research pilot-test and development effort.

We have able and aggressive resource managers who are dedicated to the

wilderness concept. We have a national team of capable and creative research

scientists. Experience over the past 10 years shows that we can do outstanding research and work as a team to apply it. I am confident that we can and

will (1) adapt basic principles to eastern conditions, (2) solve wilderness

problems unique to the East, and (3) apply the results.

Literature Cited

Frissell, Sidney S., Jr., and George H. Stankey. 1973. Wilderness environmental quality: search for social and ecological harmony. Sot. Am. For.

Annu. Meet. Proc. 1972: 170-183, illus.

Heinselman, Miron L. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area, Minnesota. Quat. Res. 3(3): 329-382, illus.

59
Hendee, John C., William R. Catton, Larry D. Marlow, and Frank C. Brockman.

1968. Wilderness users in the Pacific Northwest: their characteristics,

values, and management preferences. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-61.

92 p., illus. Pacific Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Murray, Judith Buckley. 1974. Appalachian Trail users in the southern

National Forests: Their characteristics, attitudes, and management preferences. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-116. 19 p., illus. Southeast. For.

Exp. Stn., Asheville, N. C.

Stankey, George H. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness recreation

carrying capacity. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-142. 61 p., illus.

Intermountain For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

60
URBAN FOREST RECREATION: A STRATEGY FOR RESEARCH

Thomas A, MO&

Abstract. --Recreation pressure on the urban forest is high

and is expected to increase. Unfortunately, we know little about

this forest or the people who use it. A:research program to

remedy this will be undertaken in the megalopolitan Northeast.

Its goal is to develop a basis of scientific knowledge about

recreation in the urban forest.

Additional keywords: Urban parks, recreation behavior.

Every day, millions of*Americans use city parks and forests for recreation. Despite the obvious importance of these areas, most of our

recreation research has been focused on wilderness and other remote areas.

Few studies have dealt directly with recreation in the urban forest. In this

paper, my purpose is to describe and explain a program of research on urban

forest recreation that I am developing with other scientists in the USDA

Forest Service's Pinchot Institute for Environmental Forestry Research.

THE PROBLEM

By the year 2000, if current trends continue, the vast majority of our

population will be concentrated in large metropolitan areas. Access to the

forest for recreation will be limited. Some people will, of course, have the

money to visit any forest anywhere, but for most people the neighborhood will

continue to be the dominant living space. Their principal contact with forests

will probably be in public parks and on occasional trips to the fringes of the

metropolitan areas. This forest, with buildings, fields, houses, roads,

fences, and private holdings interspersed, is the urban forest.

The pressure on the urban forest for recreation is high, and a number

of trends indicate that it will continue to increase. First, most Americans

have more leisure than ever before, because of decreases in the workweek

(Zeisel 1958) and in the length of,working life (Wolfbein 1954). In addition,

experts have predicted that a 4-day, 34-hour workweek will be the average by

1985 (Shafer, Moeller, and Getty 1974).

Yet, it is not the total quantity of leisure that is important to recreation, but rather its distribution. Much of the total amount of leisure is

found in time off after work or school, or on weekends--times when there is

little chance to make major trips into our more remote forests. The result is

that people who want to visit the forest during these times visit the urban

forest-- the one close to home.

Other factors augment the importance of the urban forest in satisfying

the recreational needs of Americans. First, the country is currently

&/Research Forester, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest

Service, Amherst, Mass.

61
experiencing a severe recession. Many people are unemployed and many others

are concerned about keeping their jobs. People today are worried about money,

As a result, major trips and vacations are being put off in favor of shorter

trips closer to home. This implies a greater demand for recreation in the

urban forest.

Second, the current shortage of energy supplies, with rapidly rising

gasoline prices , gasless Sundays; and especially the uncertainty about adequate

gasoline supplies, has probably caused many people to stay closer to home,

visiting the urban forest rather than its more remote counterpart.

Despite the fact that so much recreation occurs in the urban forest,

this is precisely the forest that we know the least about. Much of our research has been aimed at understanding the wilderness user or the visitor to

developed campgrounds in remote forests, It should come as no surprise that

almost all our studies find us dealing with highly educated, white, upper

middle class people. By focusing so much of our attention on these people and

these areas we are overlooking millions of other people who use the forest--the

urban forest. We are also neglecting millions of potential consumers of our

services who might visit the forest if they had the opportunity to do so.

Here, then is the crux of the problem: there are millions of consumers

and potential consumers of urban forest recreation in our nation's cities

about whom we know little or nothing. We need a research program to develop

a base of scientific information both about these people and about the

recreation resources of the urban forest so that we can facilitate the delivery

of forest recreation services to the largest segment of our population--the

people of our nation's cities.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF CONCERN

What is meant by the urban forest? A USDI (1974) definition of an

urban recreation complex may help. They began by including counties that were

within 120 miles of a central city with 500,000 or more population. This area

is then divided into two zones--a day-use zone from 0 to 40 miles, and an

overnight-use zone from 41 to 120 miles, The inner zone is assumed to be

within 1 hour's travel of the city, while the outer zone requires more extended

trips of 2 to 3 hours.

There are 58 of these urbanrecreation complexes throughout the United

States. While I hope that our research findings will be applicable to recreation management around all the nation's cities, the primary focus of our

research will be in the megalopolitan areas of the Northeast.

Megalopolis consists of a series of metropolitan centers from Boston,

Massachusetts, to Washington, D.C., surrounded by rural areas that supply

resource services such as water, food, and recreation. This service area

(5 percent of the nation's land) extends from Canada to North Carolina, between

the Appalachians and the Atlantic, and contains 26 percent of the nation's

population (Gottman 1961).

Pronounced changes from rural to urban land uses are occurring within

this area, and a shift of 8,755,OOO acres to urban use is expected between 1960

and 2020. The area's population has increased from 34.4 million in 1940 to 50

million in 1970. It is expected to reach 55.6 million by 1980, 69.5 million

62
by 2000, and 86.2 million by 2020 (USDA 1970).

Marked changes in the distribution of land uses are expected in the

North Atlantic Region between 1963 and 2020: decreases in cropland (from 15.2

to 6.0 percent) and pasture (6.3 to 2.6 percent), and increases in forest land

(57.4 to 64.4 percent) and urbanized areas (6.0 to 14.3 percent) (USDA 1970).

TOPICS FOR RESEARCH

Considering the nature of the problem, we felt that a logical approach

was to ask these questions: What areas and activities are available to

urban people for recreation? What do people actually do in these areas?

What do urban forest recreation areas mean to their users? What benefits are

provided by urban forest recreation areas? And how do people choose one

area or activity from an array of alternatives? Each of these questions

translates loosely into a general topic for research, and each is discussed

more fully below.

I. Supply characteristics of recreation in the urban forest (i.e., what

areas and activities are available)

This research topic has received fairly extensive treatment in the

literature. For example, the USDI (1974) found that the Northeast (including

New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) is over 90 percent rural

(non-city) and contains 100 million acres of open fields, marshlands, and

woodlots. Yet the Northeast ranks last in recreation acreage per capita,

with 0.2 acre. State-owned areas make up most of this acreage (table 1).

Table 1. --Recreation areas in the Northeast in public ownership

Type of government Area

(millions of acres)

Federal

State

County

Municipal

Total

1.9

7.9

0.1

0.2

10.1

Recreation land is even more scarce for residents of metropolitan areas:

only 0.04 acres per capfta in the Northeast (USDI 1974). The supply of

specific types of facilities is shown in table 2.

This and similar surveys of metropolitan areas (e.g. National Recreation

and Park Association 1974) have given us adequate'knowledge of the recreational opportunities in and around our nation's major cities, both in the Northeast and in other regions of the country. But there is a related topic which

has not received much research attention and upon which we will focus our

research effort: the public's perception of the facilities available to it.

63
Facility

Table 2 .--Recreation facilities in the Northeast (from LJSDI 1974: 109)

Within 40 miles of central city Within 41-120 miles of central city

Public Private Public Private

,

Swimming facilities

Pools

Beaches

Unit& Acres - Units -

364 239

4,565 768

Acres Units Acres Units

19 70 532 262

1,002 546 4,205 1,554

Acres

15 73

5,110 832

Trails

Foot

Bicycle

Horseback riding

971 1,275 3,562 4,675

275 336 152 200

288 298 1,879 1,942

2,949 3,927. 6,075 7,973

-- -- 504 661

304 314 2,494 2,577

Campgrounds

Tent camp

Trailer camp

Group camps (capacity)

2,094 12,478 12,087 42,504 6,004 24,577 12,122

200 723 3,593 32,916 215 2,549 5,726

1,122 74,138 12,227 31,066 1,076 112,973 13,838

Picnic sites 15,627 89,393 30,858 78,427 6,928 106,806 31,585

Playfields 41,270 511 14,636 3,571 2,867 605 12,008

43,696

49,102

38,165

78,950

2,578

Winter sport sites

Ski sites

Ice skating sites

965 80 8,206 320 2,756 174 2,092 126

3,220 585 4,768 715 4,304 396 12,391 704

Golf courses 12,002 25 90,083 1,112 2,065 23 72,721 1,065

"/In numbers of units, except that trails are measured in miles, campgrounds are measured in spaces for

tents and trailers, group camp capacity is measured in number of persons accommodated, and picnic sites are

measured in number of tables.
It is axiomatic that people cannot use an area unless it appears within their

life space. In other words, people must be aware that an area exists before

it will affect their behavior. Moreover, even if people are aware that an

area exists they may not use it for a variety of reasons, such as sociocultural barriers to participation; concern about safety; lack of time,

money or skill; or belief in any of a variety of misconceptions about the

area or the services provided there.

Thus, the research we will undertake deals not with the total supply of

recreational opportunities, but rather with the effective supply. Projects

like this seem especially desirable because they permit us to educate the

public about nearby recreation opportunities while we are gathering

information.

II. Use of urban forest recreation areas

The tremendous growth in demand since World War II has shown beyond all

doubt that forested recreation areas are highly attractive to the general

public. We know, too, that separate demands exist for a wide range of activities like camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, etc.; and that each of these

activities appeals to a different type of people, What we do not know is how

people actually use an area, What do they do when they arrive at the site?

Where do they go and why? What kinds of activities and behaviors do they

engage in on the site? How long do they stay? When do they leave? If an

area offers several activities, which one do most people select, and why?

When an area offers several sites for the same activity, which sites do most

people prefer, and why?

Knowledge of this type may prove valuable to managers. If we know more

about how and why people actually use an area, it may be possible to adjust or

modify its use to meet management objectives, by controlling the physical

attributes of the landscape.

There is also, unfortunately, another category of use of urban recreation facilities that needs investigation: their illicit use. This is a

large and growing problem in the parks of many major cities, By examining

this problem in detail, we hope to provide some assistance to law enforcement

officials. In addition, information on relationships between various kinds

of crimes and physical attributes of parks may prove important to park

planners and designers.

III. Meanings of urban forest recreation areas

The term meaning has a variety of uses, and often means different things

to different people. Generally speaking, the meaning of an area or an activity

to a particular user will depend on that person's structure of attitudes,

values, beliefs, motives, and personality. For example, studies have shown

personality differences between participants in different recreational activities (Moss, Shackelford, and Stokes 1969).

Particularly crucial to this concept is what the user expects to find at

an area. Expectations, sometimes called aspirations in the recreational

literature (e.g. Bultena and Klessig 19691, are beliefs about what will be

65
present at an area. Understanding these expectations is a first step toward

discovering what an area or activity means to people.

Research on the meanings of forest recreation activities and areas will

be essentially basic research until more about the functions of such meanings

can be discovered. A logical approach is to begin with informal, but indepth, interviews with participants at recreation sites. From these interviews, more formal instruments may be developed. We expect that they will

yield usable management information along the way, especially by finding out

more about how users conceptualize forest recreation areas and activities,

IV. Benefits of urban forest recreation areas

The concept of benefits stemming from a particular area or experience i

a complex one. To begin with, there are several different types of benefits.

Some of the,benefits of forested areas are physical: trees and forests in

urban areas can modify microclimates (Federer 1971), reduce air pollution

(Rich 1971), help in noise abatement (Leonard 1971), and play a role in

neutralizing wastes (Sopper 1971).

A second class of benefits is primarily economic. A recreation area ma:

benefit the local community by stimulating a demand for secondary goods and

services, such as motels, gasoline stations, restaurants, etc. In some cases

these benefits may be substantial, as they are in many of the communities

around the national parks. In most instances, however, such benefits are

small (Beardsley 1971).

Tombaugh (1971) has discussed two types of external economic benefits

produced by natural environments: existence value and option value. Existent

value is the pleasure people derive from knowing that an area exists, even if

they don't plan to use it, Option value is people's willingness to preserve

an area because they want to maintain their option to visit it. It may be

that option values are especially important in the urban forest,

Another external effect, which may be unique to forests and parks in

urban areas, is their influence on property values (Hammer, Coughlin, and Horn

1971; Kitchen and Hendon 1967). In general, these studies have found that

parks increase property values, although results differ for properties

bordering directly on the parks.

A third type of benefit produced by natural areas in and around cities

is the effects they have on their visitors. Some of these effects are

physical, such as improved muscle tone from vigorous exercise. Others might

be social, such as increased family solidarity, decreased aggressiveness, or

increased tolerance of different social groups. Other benefits are psychological, such as learning about the natural environment, the "re-creation"

that restores one for work, need fulfillment, or wish gratification,

Research on all aspects of these recreational benefits is extremely

important, especially for the urban forest, where suitable lands are rapidly

being eroded by.subdivisions and other land uses. Fortunately, a number of

USDA Forest Service research units throughout the country are studying

recreational benefits. We will attempt to coordinate work on the various

66
types of benefits, and find ways to quantify them in standard units to make

them comparable both with each other and with benefits of alternative land

uses.

V. Choice of recreational activities in urban forest settings

This topic is basic to the other research topics discussed above. For

example, it would be logical to assume that people choose the activity that

promises the most benefits to them. These benefits depend on what they expect

to find at an area, and upon what these expectations mean to them. However,

the choice of activities or areas also depends upon their accessibility.

This, in turn, depends on such variables as cost, distance, etc. As a topic

for research, therefore, the problem of choice can serve an integrative

function by indicating the nature of the relationships between some of these

variables. In other words, work on this problem will help us evaluate the

relative importance of such factors as accessibility, benefits, meanings,

and so forth, in determining how people reach decisions about areas and

activities.

Moreover, by understanding the bases of an individual's choice, we

should also gain further understanding of the very foundations of recreational

demand. This, in turn, could greatly augment our knowledge of the substitutability of different forms of recreation. Unfortunately, because of the

integrative nature of this topic, work on it must be delayed until we have

obtained positive results from research in the other areas.

CONCLUSIONS

I consider this analysis a starting point for our research efforts; it

should not be considered the ultimate word on such ventures. In time as we

amass more research results, some of these lines of investigation may prove

unfruitful, while added experience will undoubtedly suggest new directions for

research. Furthermore, these efforts in recreation research are only a part

of the total thrust in the new areas of environmental and urban forestry.

Constant coordination with work in other areas will be necessary if we are to

attain our goal--building a substantial foundation of knowledge about people

and forests that will facilitate the delivery of recreation to residents of

the nation's large cities.

LITERATURE CITED

Beardsley, W. G. 1971. The economic impact of recreation developments: a

synopsis. In Recreation symposium proceedings. p. 28-32. USDA For. Serv.

Northeast. For'. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

Bultena, G. L., and Klessig, L. L. 1969. Satisfaction in Camping: A

conceptualization and guide to research. J. Leisure Res. 1(4):348-354.

Federer, C. A. 1971. Effects of trees in modifying urban microclimate, In

Trees and forests in an urbanizing environment. Holdsworth Nat. Resour:

Cent., Plann. Resour. Dev. Ser. 17:23-28. Univ. Mass,, Amherst.

Gottman, J. 1961. Megalopolis. 810 p. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.

67
Hammer, T. R., Coughlin, R. E., and Horn, E, T. 1974. The effect of a large

urban park on real estate value. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 4U(July):274-277.

Kitchen, J., and Hendon, W. 1967. Land values adjacent to an urban neighborhood park. Land Econ. 43(3):357-360.

Leonard, R. E. 1971. Effects of trees and forests in noise abatement. In

Trees and forests in an urbanizing environment. Holdsworth Mat. Resouy

Cent., Plann. Resour. Dev. Ser. 17:35-38. Univ. Mass., Amherst.

Moss, W. T., Shackelford, L., and Stokes, G. L. 1969. Recreation and

personality. J. For. 67(3):182-184.

National Recreation and Park Association. 1974. Open-space and recreation

opportunity in America's cities. 155 p0 U.S, Dep. Housing Urban Dev.,

Off. Community Plann. Dev., Eval. Div.

Rich, S. A. 1971. Effects of trees and forests in reducing air pollution.

In Trees and forests in an urbanizing environment. Holdsworth Nat. Resour.

Cent., Plann. Resour. Dev. Ser. 17:29-35. Univ. Mass,, Amherst,

Shafer, E. L., Moeller, G. H., and Getty, R. E. 1974. Future leisure environments. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-301,16 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Upper Darby, Pa.

Sopper, W. E. 1971. Effects of trees and forests in neutralizing waste. In

Trees and forests in an urbanizing environment. Holdsworth Nat. Resour.-

Cent., Plann. Resour. Dev. Ser. 17:43-58. Univ. Mass., Amherst.

Tombaugh, L. 1971. External benefits of natural environments. In Recreation

symposium proceedings, p. 73-77. USDA For. Serv., Northeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. Land use and management. 264 p.

N. Atl. Water Resour. Study.

U. S. Department of the Interior. 1974. The recreation imperative. 389 p.

Washington, D.C.: Gov. Print. Off,

Wolfbein, S. L. 1954. The changing length of working life. In E. Larabee

and R. Meyersohn (eds.) Mass leisure. p. 154-161. GlencoeTIll.: The

Free Press.

Zeisel, J. S. 1958. The workweek in American industry. 1850-1956. Mon.

Labor Rev. 81(1):23-29.

68
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED “URBAN FOREST RECREATION:

A STRATEGY FOR RESEARCH”

11

Philip L. Archibald

Author Tom More’s paper is well written and flows in a logical manner

through the Abstract, Problem, Topics for Research (giving the proposed research project by the Northeastern Station) and terminating in the Conclusion.

The paper discusses the problems associated with providing increased

amounts of recreation for urban dwellers--whose population is rapidly increasing . More pressures are being placed on providing recreation within the urban

complexes. He points out that much of the past research and studies on recreation use and problems was focused on the rural areas.

His paper describes the research that will be conducted by the Forest

Service’s Northeastern Station within the Pinchot Institute for Environmental

Forestry. This research work will study the problems and opportunities associated with outdoor recreation only in the Northeast, but assumes that the

findings will ‘be applicable to other areas of the country.

The immediate problem that the reader may encounter with More’s paper is

one of definitions, beginning with his definition of an urban forest. He

writes that “This forest, interspersed with buildings, fields, houses, roads,

fences, and private holdings, is the urban forest.” - - He later hints that the

urban forest is similar to the Interior Department’s definition of an urban

recreation complex which are areas within 120 miles of a city of 500,000 or

more population.

The author defines the urban forest in his paper more in terms of geographic distances from the inner city and by population than in terms of plant

cover or uses of the forested areas within urban complexes.

He states that “Access to the forest for recreational purposes will be

limited.” Yet, if we take his definition of the urban forest literally then

those people living in the metropolitan areas are already in the urban forest.

Traditionally, we have thought of an urban forest as an entity within

some geographic urban zone in the same category as an urban park, green strip,

or developed recreation area--not in all encompassing nature, including homes,

shopping centers, and industrialized areas. Perhaps the title of his paper

should be “Urban Recreation Complex: A Strategy for Research,” since forests

are only a piece of the landscape that goes to make up the urban complex mix.

A clearer distinction is needed between parks (which may have trees) and

urban or semi-urban forests. The two are mutually exclusive with different

clientele, different ecosystems, different uses,,and different problems.

11 Deputy Director, Cooperative Forestry, USFS, Washington, D.C.

69
The reader may encounter more definition problems in the discussions of

tables 1 and 2 dealing with recreation acreage, recreation land, and urban

recreation. The author says that the Northeast contains 100 million acres of

fields, marshlands, and woodlots, yet the recreation acreage per capita is

only 0.2 acres. Then, “recreation land is even more scarce for residents of

metropolitan areas: only 0.04 acres per capita.” Evidently USDI, who gave

these figures in “The Recreation Imperative,” meant the acreage in developed

sites within their “urban recreation complexes .‘I Millions of acres of forested lands lie within the “complexes.” These acres are available to the

urban dweller for both developed and dispersed types of recreation. The

reader may also have problems with the title of table 1 in “Public Ownership

of Recreation. ”

On the first page in the Abstract and under The Problem it would be well

for the author to state that the proposed research is to learn more about

people and how they perceive and use urban forested recreation areas--and not

so much about the forest itself.

While there will be more demand for recreation in the urban recreation

complexes, his contention that recreation visits to the rural areas are presently declining is false. Recreation use to the National Parks and Forests is

at an alltime high and increasing even in this period of rapid inflation and

rising prices for gasoline. Perhaps people are taking that “last” major trip

or vacation before the energy crunch descends upon them.

Society has certainly overlooked the need to research recreation use,

problems, and opportunities in the urban areas.especially as it relates to

trees and forests. The Pinchot Institute is attempting to correct a small

portion of this need. The author has listed many important key questions to

which answers are lacking. Research into which recreational activities "buys"

the most toward providing the effective supply of needs is important when we

consider the billions of dollars worth of urban recreation needs which must be

met in the future. The value of the forest, or tree associated, outdoor type

recreation will compete for the more costly types of recreational activities--

many of which often have high capital investments.

Research has been done on the use that is made of rural recreation areas.

Studies at National Forest campgrounds have determined where people go, what

they do, what activities they like best, how long they stay, and so on. The

same information is urgently needed in the urban recreational complexes.

Researchers should be reminded that attitude interviews are for that particular

point in time and that these attitudes may change with economic conditions,

health, age, and other factors.

While, as the author states, the proposed research project is not all

encompassing, research needs which would be crucial to the urban recreation

manager are: 9low do we keep these urban forests healthy, vigorous, free from

deleterious effects and then regenerate them whenever necessary--all in the

urban setting?” Studies are needed to determine how much area is needed in

urban forests, parks, and greenbelts per 100,000 population--classified by

types such as high forest, urban park, mini park, or strips: How much is

needed for recreation, amelioration of climate, noise reduction, and esthetics;

do we design such areas, either starting from scratch or by redesign? These

70
are among the questions which the hundreds of State and city urban and comnunity foresters are attempting to answer as they work with urban planning and

development associations and commissions in today’s world.

7 1
TOPIC III

RESEARCH APPLIED TO MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS

ABSTRACTS

ELSNER AND TRAVIS

The Role of Landscape Analytics in Landscape Planning.--This paper

defines the emerging field of landscape analytics and discusses some

of the more practical aspects of computerized landscape analytics, and

relates it to the larger fields of landscape planning and land-use planning. The paper also summarizes some of the more important theoretical

systems for dealing with landscape dimensions and measurements, outlines

our own work with the VIEWIT system, and makes suggestions for future

work in this field.

WAGAR

Achieving Effectiveness in Environmental Interpretation.--To contribute

fully to sustained resource benefits, interpretation needs support for

recruiting and retaining top-flight interpreters and for research in

interpretation. Summaries of existing knowledge and new studies show

that interpreters' effectiveness can be improved by (1) defining clear

objectives, (2) using attention-holding techniques, and (3) evaluating

the extent to which objectives are achieved.

CONVERY

Economics Applied to Outdoor Recreation: An Evaluation.--The uses and

limitations of economics for outdoor recreation planners and managers

are discussed. Special attention is devoted to the estimation of costs

and benefits of providing outdoor recreation, and the extent to which

such estimating procedures can be used by field personnel.

LIME

Principles of Recreational Carrying Capacity.--Recreational carrying

capacity is a complex and troublesome concept that incorporates principles of the social as well as the physical and biological sciences.

There is no magic number that is the capacity for a given recreation

site. Deciding how much and what-&d of use is acceptable for an area

must be based on managercal judgment and experience. The uncertainty of

such decisions can be substantially reduced by a consideration of the

interrelationships of (1) management objectives, (2) recreation user

attitudes, and (3) impacts of recreation use on natural resources. Some

basic principles, based on a review of the current state-of-the-knowledge,

that relate to carrying capacity and that seem relevant to outdoor recreation management are discussed.

72
ABSTRACTS (continued)

HENDEE AND POTTER

Hunters and Hunting: Management Implications of Research.--Data are

summarized from 33 studies pertaining to hunting participation--hunter - .

characteristics including age, education, occupation, income, residence;

hunter motives; membership in sportsmen organizations and reading of

sporting magazines; antihunting sentiment; and nonconsumptive wildlife

use. These data are interpreted for implication about the future importance and nature of hunting and wildlife management. The authors see

the continued importance of hunting but perhaps at reduced levels. The

provision for the integration of opportunities for both hunting and wildlife appreciation are an important resource management challenge.

73
THE ROLE OF LANDSCAPE ANALYTICS I N LANDSCAPE PLANNI NG

Gary H. Elsner and Michael R. Travis’

Abstract .--This paper defines the emerging field of landscape

analytics and discusses some of the more practical aspects of computerized landscape analytics, and relates it to the la,rger fields

of landscape planning and land-use planning. The paper also summarizes some of the more important theoretical systems for dealing

with landscape dimensions and measurements, outlines our own work

with the VIEWIT system, and makes suggestions for future work in

this field.

Additional keywords: Landscape analytics, landscape planning,

land-use planning, computer models, analysis methods, landscape

research.

I NTRODUCTI ON

This paper introduces and discusses several of the components of the

emerging field of landscape analytics. Landscape analytics is concerned with

the development of quantitative information about the landscape as contrasted

with quantitative information about people’s perception or satisfaction relative to the landscape. But before discussing how landscape analytics are

related to landscape and land-use planning, we need to touch on the role of

landscape analytics in landscape research; the distinction between landscape

analysis that is done with respect to an observer and analysis that is done

without respect to an observer; and the differences between computerized and

manual analysis.

LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

Framework

To’facilitate more precise communication concerning Forest Service landscape research programming, a tea; of Forest Service researchers met in San

Antonio, July 7-11, 1975, to develop a conceptual framework for Landscape

Management Research (fig. 1). This framework delineates distinct landscape

research areas, and clarifies their relationships to land-use planning.

‘Gary H. Elsner is the Project Leader, Management Guides Under I ntens i ve Use,

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service,

Berkeley, California. Michael R. Travis is a senior programmer in the School

of Forestry and Conservation, University of California, Berkeley, California,

on assignment to the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

2Team members were: R. 0. Brush, B. L. Driver, H. E. Echelberger, G. H. Elsner,

R, G. Lee, R. B. Litton, A. W. Magi 11, and E. L. Shafer.

7 4

The broad areas for landscape research are described by these titles:

Public perception

Pub1 ic satisfaction

Landscape architect’s perception

Seen ic assessment

Visual vulnerability classification, which is sometimes termed

visual absorption capability (Litton 1974)

Land-use objectives

Design a

Plan imp

lternatives

lementation

Monitoring activities (Litton 1973)

The land-use planning activity shown in the framework provides both an

emphasis to the importance of landscape analysis and a means of attaining and

monitoring esthetic values. This 1 andscape research framework was designed to

conform to generalized land-use planning procedures, which include all those

elements from the statement of land-use objectives and goals, through definition of alternatives, to impact assessment, plan implementation, and monitoring. Therefore, the correspondence between elements in the landscape research

framework and similar elements in the planning process can be used to judge

the effectiveness of new information or new technology developed by landscape

researchers. By helping to define and quantify the basic dimensions of the

landscape, the field of landscape analytics contributes to improved communication and understanding in each of these areas.

Alternative Cateqorizations

This framework is not intended to be the final answer to categorizing

landscape research. In fact, several alternative categorizations have already

been proposed. For example, Wagar (1974) has defined three categories for

studies of landscape quality: (1) physical descriptions, (2) judgments of

qua1 ity, and (3) analyses of psychological dimensions involved in landscape

preferences. And the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned an

important review of esthetics in environmental planning (Washington Environmental Research Center 1973) .3 This review defined and utilized the following

categories for visual and user analysis methods:

3The report for the EPA reviews a number of selected methods and includes a

fairly comprehensive reading list.

7 6
2. Numerical systems for visual analys is--independent esthetic assessment methods

Visual Analysis Methods

1 . Numerical systems for visual analysis-- comprehensive environmental

analysis

3. Non-numerical visual analysis methods

User Analysis Methods

Methods of visual analysis are those tools used to identify esthetic

attributes, to forecast changes in the attributes, and to describe the implications of changes for the environment. Methods of user analysis are used to

evaluate individual preferences-for esthetic stimuli. The three methods of

visual analysis defined for the EPA depend upon whether esthetic characteristics are assigned numerical values or are only ranked. If a method attempts

to relate esthetic considerations to other environmental considerations, it is

termed a “comprehensive environmental analysis method.” If the method is

designed to assess esthetic impact as an independent environmental consideration, it is termed an “independent esthetic assessment method” (Washington

Environmental Research Center 1973, p. 41).

While these categorizations are helpful in understanding landscape research,

they do not clarify its relationship to land-use planning nor depict the difference between those methods which may be designed and used by the planner or

landscape architect and those which may be used by the general public.

The rest of this paper is concerned chiefly with computerized landscape

analytics or those methods and measures which would be termed “Visual Analysis

Methods : numerical systems for. Visual Analysis-- independent esthetic assessment methods .‘I

Analyses of Visual Qua1 ity Characteristics

Most applied approaches to landscape analysis seem to place some importance upon first determining which areas of the landscape comprise specific

landscape scenes or visible areas (Lovejoy 1973). And the scene delineation is

often treated in a multiple form; that is, not from a single observer point,

but from many points defining a highway route or from many frequently visited

points in the landscape.

An elaboration of this concept is employed in the Forest Service’s Visual

Management System (VMS) for setting visual quality objectives (USDA Forest

Service 1974). This approach of first determining seen areas or. landscape

scenes and then determining and mapping characteristics of those seen areas is

clearly depicted by Zube and others in their Connecticut River Valley Study

(Zube and others 1974), This approach is particularly appropriate for analyzing visual impact from specific land-use proposals as they occur; that is, for

dealing with unpredictable demands upon the landscape. Gut in many long-range

7 7
planning processes, such as VMS, it is also necessary to identify and map

visual qua1 ity characteristics independent of whether the area comprises a

specific landscape scene or not. It is reasonable to expect therefore, that

those computerized landscape analysis systems that provide both kinds of capabilities would receive the widest usage.

MANUAL LANDSCAPE ANALYTICS

Manual approaches to landscape analysis are well established and have

been in practice for many years (Litton 1968). Additionally, some of the same

techniques of manual view delineation have an even longer history in the planning of forest fire lookout systems. Procedures for producing visibility maps

by field sketching have been well documented since at least 1931 (Shank 1931).

Manual profile, photographic and relief-model methods for producing visibi 1 ity

maps for planning forest fire lookout systems were pub1 ished in 1937 (Show,

Kotok, and others 1937).

Although computerized methods for view delineation have been available for

some time (Amidon and Elsner 1968), more advanced computerized approaches to

these and other problems have only recently received widespread usage. The

CIA system developed by the Forest Service is the VIEWIT system (Amidon and

Elsner 1968), (Elsner 1975), (Travis, Elsner, Iverson, and Johnson 1975).

This large-capacity, visual-analysis system was designed to complement several

other Forest Service systems, including TOPAS (Topographic Analysis System).

The VIEWIT system was reviewed in the EPA report (Washington Environmental

Research Center 1973) and compared with the manual methods developed by

Leopold (1969)4 and by Burke and others (1968) using five different criteria

The summary table (fig. 2) from the EPA report is informative and use.ful but

somewhat a rb i t rary-- it could be expanded both in its list of relevant triter

and in the systems to be compared. Moreover, the VIEWIT system can now hand

larger planning areas and has many more options than in 1973.

ia

le

COMPUTER1 ZED LANDSCAPE ANALYTICS

The previous discussion has given an idea of what computerized landscape

analytics is and how it differs from other parts of the landscape planning and

management job and in general how it relates to the job of land-use planning.

This section will discuss in some detail the situations in which CLA is appropriate, CLA audiences or user populations, the types of landscape dimensions

which can be incorporated into CLA, and a sample of the specific computational

capabilities of the VIEWIT CIA system.

Application Criteria

Any manual landscape analysis involves considerable time, often solely by

landscape architects. And any C!A application involves a commitment of experts

in data hand1 ing and landscape architecture, as we1 1 as computer processing

4A more detailed discussion of Leopold’s method has been published recently in

the Journal of Leisure Research (tlami 11 1975).

78
costs. It seems relevant, therefore, to consider carefully some of the .I(I~J*III

tages and disadvantages of the proposed computer application. These e i qh I

broad considerations supplement the five criteria illustrated in figure 7:

1 . Are visual resources of great importance in the proposed project 01

land-use planning activity? Will they have major or significant

effects on decisions?

2. Can the visual analysis be handled through other means with less

i nves tment?

3. Does the user have access to a high-speed printer terminal or small

demand terminal? If not, can the user work with the turn-around

time involved in mailing input and output data from other offices?

Or can work be handled by short details of individuals to such offices?

4. Do several alternative land-use plans need to be evaluated?

5. Is there high potential for future use of the input data after its

initial usage? For instance, would there be possibilities of power

transmission, road, timber sale, electronic relay site, etc., proposals within this land unit?

6. Wi 11 computer-generated output be accepted or required by management

and the public as valued information for decisionmaking. Will quantitative estimates of visual impacts of alternative land uses be useful

in developing land use or project plans?

7. Is there a need for consistent and repeatable analyses? I s the required level of detail or the land area so extensive or the number of

observer points so large that manual analyses wbuld consume an inordinate amount of time?

8. Is the topography of the area complex, i.e., does it contain hilly or

mountainous zones which would make manual landscape analysis very time

consuming?

User Groups

Essentially any organization that is responsible for managing large areas

of land with significant visual resource values may want to consider using CLA.

If the land is also subject to frequent development pressures or use demands

or both, then a computerized analysis system may help save time and money. The

groups which we have worked with on the VIEWIT system include associations of

metropolitan governments, universities, and Federa 1 land management agencies

such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management,

and the Army Corps of Engineers (Travis and others 1975).
Criteria

(1) Generated fran public

experience not

developers biases

(2) Full range of aesthetic attributes

(3) ‘Variables appropriate

to scale and purpose

of system

(4) primary aesthetic and

secondary aesthetic

i-acts considered

(5) Measured against

established reference

point

(6) Straightfomard and

easily reproduced

i7) Output easily

carmnicatad

Leopold’s uniqueness study

(numerical scale)

(-)

Subjective sefection of

preferred characteristics

(+)

Aesthetic factors considered in detai I, good

range

(+)

Site related

I-)

Primary only

(-)

Ranked independently

(+I

Oata appropriate and

adequately described

(-!

Ranking criteria not

explained wall

Burke VIEWIT

(photographs) (computerized)

f-1 (+)

Developers biases define Tota I ly object Ive,

beauty and interest only areas physically visible are

computed

(+I

Full range indicated

n.a.

Objects not

described

(+I (+)

Views by zone--corridor Site related

related

(-) I

Sensitive areas not

I

n.a.

adequately described

t-1 i+)

Characteristic landscape Is it visible or

“ot described ml1 not

(+)

Photos primarily

(-)

Subjective values

predani na te

(+I

Topo map read i ng

and computer data

-!

(+I I

Informative but ;

limited i” usefzl- ;

ness

Swrce: Washiegton Environmental Researc-Center (1973)

Fi+re 2.--A numerical system for visJa1 aralysis (indepe”dent esthetic assessmwt) corpares’a” earlr

l ersio” of the VIEWIT computeri& technique wit\ panual nethods developed hy Leopold :1969) and 3:r<e

(196?). (-) indicates that the system does rot satisfy corresponding criteria. (+) indicates tLa:

the syste- satisfies criteria edequatelv.
Quantitative Landscape Dimensions

The basic and most useful reference in identifying landscape dimensions

is Litton’s (1968) report, even though it is not oriented towards computer itation. In a more quantitative approach to the problem, Zube and others (1974,

p. 37-45) have reviewed the literature and identified six major categories of

landscape dimensions: landform, land-use area, land-use edge, land-use contrast,

water, and views. And for each category, they have suggested alternative measurements, which are calculated manually (p. 163-180). The landscape dimensions

and alternative measures are:

1 . Land form

Relative Relief Ratio

Absolute Relief Ratio

Mean Slope Distribution

Topographic Texture

Ruggedness Number

Spatial Definition index

Mean Elevation

2. Land-Use Area

Land-Use D ivers i ty

Naturalism Index

Percentage Tree Cover

3. Land-Use Edge

Land-Use Edge Density

Land-Use Edge Variety

Land-Use Compatabi 1 i ty

4. Land-Use Contrast

Height Contrast

Grain Contrast

Spacing Contrast

Evenness Contrast

Naturalism Contrast

5. Water

Water Edge Density

Percentage Water Area

6. View

Area of View

Length of View

Viewer Position

81
VIEWIT Calculation of Landscape Dimensions

This section sumnarizes the VIEWIT system’s capability of computerizing

several measurements of land form and view as well as combine the analyses

with independent calculations of the remaining landscape dimensions or with

other resource characteristics. The relationship of some of these basic calculations to the job of assessing landscape resources has been detailed by

I verson ( 1974).

Two types of landscape dimension calculations are currently used: in one,

a single number is calculated for a viewed area; in the other, a number is calculated for each cell of the landscape to produce a map of results. Generally,

Zube’s method follows the first approach, while VIEWIT provides both capabilities. VIEWIT provides a map overlay, sunmary tables, and statistics for each

measurement, and has an option for outputting these results for combining with

other data.

View Calculations

Area of View

The VIEWIT system calculates the area of view from one or more points.

The results may be displayed on tables in terrain cells, square miles, acres,

or hectares or on overlay maps in numeric or gray shade form.

Aerial View Analysis

The seen-area analysis can be computed from a point either above or below

the actual land surface. Thus, it can simulate the view from or of a proposed

elevated structure, or a proposed surface mining area or, with a number of

observation points, the view from a helicopter or airplane in flight.

Times Seen Analysis

The area of view may be determined from a single observation point or from

several observation points. In this latter case, the number of times cells can

be seen is recorded. These results can be displayed as a number or as a percentage of the total number of observation points.

Length of View

The maximum length of view can be determined quickly by examining the

overlay map of the view area.

Viewer Position

Observer or viewer position is a term defined by Litton (1968, p. S-10) to

describe the location of the observer as to the viewed landscape. If the

observer is below the surrounding landscape, the position is “inferior”; if the

observer’s level line of sight generally coincides with the dominating elements

of the landscape, then the position is “normal”; and if the observer is located

82
above the bulk of the viewed landscape, the position is “superior.”

With the VIEWIT program the user may specify that seen-area analysis be

performed with respect to any one of these three observer positions.

That proportion of the visible landscape which is situated above the

observer’s level 1 ine of sight (i.e., observer inferior position) can be calculated by setting two vertical angle controls. For example, when the level

line of sight is treated as O”, these controls would be placed at 90” and 0”

for the observer’s inferior position. Similarly, the visible landscape below

the level line of sight (i.e., observer superior position) can be calculated

by setting these control angles at 0” and -90”. And a range around the level

line of sight (for the observer normal position) can be calculated by setting

the angles at 15” and -15”.

View Area--Weighted by Distance

Another option allows the visibility of a cell to be weighted by its distance from the observer. To do this the user specifies the distance weighting

function most appropriate for the current analysis. Rather than have a limited

set of d!stance functions available to the user, the system allows the user to

define any function. This combination of seen area weighted by distance

(Yajima 1968) may, of course, be determined from many observation points with

the same distance weighting function. Or the weighting function may be changed

for different viewing points.

Relative Aspect Analysis

Relative aspect is a measure of the orientation of a visible cell with

respect to the observer. Each cell is assigned a makimum of 10 points, and is

scaled according to the magnitude of the relative aspect. For example, a cell

seen head-on will receive a weight of 10. But if a cell is turned partially

away from the observer so that its apparent area is only one-half of its actual

area, it will receive a weight of five points. This analysis can be carried

out for multiple observer points. Either the average or the maximum of the

relative aspect weights combined with the times seen calculations can be compu ted.

View Area--Weighted by Relative Aspect and Distance

Either relative aspect or distance weighting or both can be used for any

observer point or points in a series of visibility analyses.

Land Form Calculations

Absolute and relative relief measurements are computed directly from the

elevation data. The elevation data can be portrayed by the VIEWIT system

either as a coded overlay map that shows the elevation for every cell or as a

gray-shaded map with higher elevation shaded in darkest tones.

83
Absolute Relative Relief

The absolute relative relief measurement is the standard deviation of the

visible elevation data.

Relative Relief Ratio

The relative relief ratio is calculated by dividing the absolute relative

relief by the area of view.

,Mean Slope Distribution

Slope information can be calculated and produced either as overlay maps

or as table information. The slope classes may be defined either by standard

IO percent classes or by any set of classes the user specifies. The mean slop1

distribution is then simply the average of the number of acres or hectares of

land in each slope class.

Absolute Average Elevation Change

With this measurement the average elevation of the eight cells around eacl

cell is computed. And the ratio by which the elevation of the cell differs

from this average is recorded.

Aspect

Aspect is the primary direction in which the land form slopes. Aspect is

calculated by the computer by first finding the best fit plane to approximate

the slope of the terrain and then determining its principal compass direction.

Aspect may be calculated wd displayed in a variety of ways including 10” or

45” segments ordered clockwise or both clockwise and counter-clockwise from a

specified direction. Since the user may specify any aspect, the option may be

used to produce gray-shade maps, with darkest shades showing those areas which

have an aspect nearest to the specification. For example, northeast maps may

be produced to identify snow retention for ski runs or water retention for

revegetation, or southeast aspect maps for the morning sun preferred for campgrounds. Several aspect maps from different directions give additional insight

into the shape and orientation of the land form.

Sumnary Statistical Measurements

Several standard statistical measurements can be computed from either the

basic elevation data or the results of slope, aspect, and other options. These

measurements include the mean, minimum, maximum, variance, standard deviation,

skewness, and kurtosis. Standard deviation is a measure of absolute dispersion

or spread of the data. Skewness and kurtosis are measures of relative dispersion. Specifically, skewness is a measure of the degree of asymmetry. And

kurtosis is a measure of the degree to which the distribution of the data is

peaked ,

84
The Future for Landscape Analytics

Clearly, current research and development emphasis in landscape analytics

is largely on identifying and defining landscape dimensions which can be calculated either manually or by computer and in evaluating and comparing alternative measurements for each dimension. We expect that this type of exploratory and evaluation work will need to continue for Some time.

Research and development efforts beyond this will probably focus upon

evaluating the practicality of estimating and utilizing indexes of landscape

quality and user preference and preference functions for landscape esthetics.

These efforts would be similar but more detailed than those described in a

recent paper on illustrative,preference functions for water esthetics (Gum and

others 1974, p. 42-50). The next steps wi 11 probably be related to developing

and evaluating the usefulness of production functions for landscape esthetics,

which may or may not be stated as joint production functions with other forest

outputs.

As worthwhile landscape analytic techniques are developed, researchers

and managers will continue to work together to incorporate these ideas into

planning processes.

SUMMARY

Because of the many talented and original minds now at work on landscape

analytics, significant developments continue to be published at a steady rate--

both in the United States and throughout the world. It is likely to be some

time, therefore, before anything like a comprehensive treatment of this dynamic

and important field becomes possible. This discussion of some of the more

Practical aspects of computerized landscape analytics has defined the subject,

related it to the larger fields of landscape planning and land-use planning,

summarized some of the more important theoretical systems for dealing with

landscape dimensions and measurements, outlined our own work with the VIEWIT

system, and made some suggestions for future work in this field.

LITERATURE CITED

Amidon, Elliot L., and Gary H. Elsner. 1968. Delineating landscape view

areas. . .a computer approach. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Note PSW-180, 5 p.

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

Burke, Herbert D. et al. 1968.

roadway.

A method for classifying scenery from a

Park Practice Guideline, Development Section, Item No. 22, p. l-17.

Published by Nat]. Conf. on State Parks, Am. Inst. of Park Ex., and Natl.

Park Serv., U. S. Dep. of Inter., Washington, D. C.

Elsner, Gary H. 1975. Computer management of recreation data:

usage studies for land-use planning.

terra in and

Proc. SOC. Am. For. Systems Analysis

Workshop, Athens, Ga., Aug. 11-13, 1975. (In press)

85
Gum, Russell, Robert Judge, Dan Kimball, and Weston Wilson. 1974. Quantifying aesthetic opportunity. A report submitted to U. S. Army Eng. Inst. for

‘Water Resourc., Fort Belvoir, Va., by Utah State Univ., Logan, Utah.

Hamnill, Louis. 1975. Analysis of Leopold’s quantitative comparisons of

landscape esthetics. J. Leisure Res. 7(1):16-28.

Iverson, Wayne D, 1974. Assessing landscape resources--a proposed model. In

Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. E. Zube, J. FabE,

R. Brush, ed. Dowden, Hutchinson and ROSS, Inc. Proc. Conf, on Landscape

Assessment, Univ. Mass., NOV. 15-16, 1973.

Leopold, Luna B. 1969. Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic factors

among r i ve rs . U. S, Geol. Survey, Cir. Bu. 620, 16 p. Washington, D. C.

Litton, Jr., R. Burton. 1968. Forest landscape description and inventories--

a basis for land planning and design. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-49,

64 p. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

1973. Landscape control points : a procedure for predicting

and monitoring visual impacts. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-91, 22 p.

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Cal if.

1974. Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. J. For.

72(7) :392-397.

Lovejoy, Derek, ed. 1973. Land use and landscape planning. 308 p. Leonard

Hill Books, Aylssbury, Bucks HP20 ITL, Great Britain.

Shank, H. M. 1931. Visibility maps by field sketching. J. For. 29(4):526-

532.

Show, S. B., E. I . K&ok, George M. Gowen, J. R. Currey, and A. A. Brown. 1937. I

Planning, constructing and operating forest-fire lookout systems in California.

USDA Cir. 449, 56 p.

Travis, Michael R., Gary H. Elsner, Wayne D. Iverson, and Christine G. Johnson.

1975. VIEWIT: computation of seen areas, slope and aspect for land-use

planning. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-11, 70 p. Pacific Southwest

Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

USDA Forest Service. 1974. National forest landscape management, volume 2.

Chapter 1, the visual management system. USDA Agric. Handbk. 462, 47 p.

U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C.

Wagar, J. Alan. 1974. Recreational and esthetic considerations. In Environmental effects of forest residues management in the Pacific Northwest: a

state-of-knowledge compendium, Owen P. Cramer, ed. USDA Forest Serv. Gen.

Tech, Rep. PNW-24, 15 p, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn.,

Portland, Oreg.

86
Washington Environmental Research Center. 1973. Aesthetics in environmental

planning. Socioecon, Environ. Stud. Series, I88 p. Off. Res. Dev., U. S.

Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, D. C.

Yaj ima, Ginosuke. 1968. Examination of sightseeing development planning of

the Hakone, Yugawara area. 143 p., illus. Transport. Plann. Div., Tokyo

Univ. (In Japanese.)

Zube, Ervin H., David G. Pitt, and Thomas W. Anderson. 1974. Percept ion and

measurement of scenic resources in the southern Connecticut River Valley.

Inst. for Man and His Environ. Pub, R-74-1, 191 p. Univ. Mass., Amherst,

Mass.

87
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED

"THE ROLE OF LANDSCAPE ANALYTICS IN LANDSCAPE PLANNING"

Robert H. StignaniL'

This paper essentially presents an up-date or state-of-the-art discussion

which is most informative to those having a continuing interest or familiarity

with the subject. Several aspects of this paper surface as outstanding strengths

in an area long in need of clarification. The presentation of this subject in

a manner that is readily understood by non-research oriented managers is in itself a strong point.

A basic problem related to research has been that of tracking the thread

of continuity through to management application. The graphic portrayal of a

conceptual framework for identifying landscape research areas is a significant

effort to clarify this frequently obscure connection. Perhaps it might have

been of value to expand upon this aspect of the paper, identifying specific examples of the research area correlation. "Visual vulnerability" might have

been broken down further, for purposes of illustration, to measurements of

slope, site regeneration capability, vegetative screening, etc. This point is,

however, secondary to the primary topic.

Although the authors indicate that a totally comprehensive treatment of

the subject is not possible due to the rapid advances being made by many researchers, the discussion under "Alternative Categorizations" was of help in

comparing various research approaches.

A main thrust of the paper deals with computerized landscape analysis and

builds a fairly strong case for use of the VIEWIT method. The concise and

straightforward manner of presentation should cause the land manager little

difficulty in determining whether or not to utilize a computerized analysis

approach, and what quantitative landscape dimensions can be treated or interrelated.

This critique was based primarily on an earlier draft of the paper. It

included references to program "user commands," undefined statistical terminology (e.g., standard deviation), and failed to cite examples of practical

application for calculated landscape dimensions. The earlier draft also did

not adequately define the term "landscape analytics" and establish the need

for its use in lieu of the more familiar "landscape analysis." The subsequent revision recognized these shortcomings, and the several changes contribute to the improved communication which characterizes this paper.

There were a few areas that might have been expanded. Little if any

reference is made to data input needs or alternative methods to secure input

for the VIEWIT system. In a discussion of this nature, it might have been of

11 Regional Landscape Architect, LJ. S. Forest Service, Region 8, Atlanta,

Georgia.

88
value to include a flow diagram or sequence of steps leading to a management

decision-related output as a summary or overview of the VIEWIT method.

Most managers with varying backgrounds and knowledge of VIENIT or similar topographically based computerized analysis programs might benefit from

further mention of the constraints which either are inherent or have yet to

be resolved. Such factors as vegetative cover, particularly where heights of

timber vary considerably, minimum application considerations, both in terms of

elevation differences and project scope, and accuracy constraints established

by input data should be important in this type of discussion.

Although the authors make no claim in this regard, it perhaps should be

pointed out that computer systems provide no decisions or subjective judgments. The process or "tool" is only an aid in decision-making, by providing

the manager a more factual basis for which to make his subjective value judgment.

In their look ahead, Elsner and Travis conclude that it will be necessary

to continue, for some time, to identify or define new calculable landscape dimensions and explore and evaluate their alternative measurements. This reviewer

is,optimistic that researchers will not become overly engrossed with this phase

of this rapidly emerging field before charging ahead with other investigations

along a broader front. The mere reference to "indexes of landscape quality and

user preference" and "joint production functions (for landscape aesthetics) with

other forest outputs" whets the appetite of land planners and managers.

89
ACHIEVING EFFECTIVENESS IN ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATION

J. Alan Waga&'

Abstract .--To contribute fully to sustained resource benefits,

interpretation needs support for recruiting and retaining topflight interpreters and for research in interpretation. Summaries

of existing knowledge and new studies show that interpreters'

effectiveness can be improved by (1) defining clear objectives,

(2) using attention-holding techniques, and (3) evaluating the

extent to which objectives are achieved.

Additional keywords: Resource management, recreation, environmental

education, conservation, evaluation.

THE SITUATION

Environmental interpretation--such as that found in visitor centers,

interpretive trails, and talks by naturalists--has grown increasingly important in recent years. One reason is the great opportunity interpretation

offers for increasing human enjoyment without increasing human impacts on resources. Many recreationists are delighted by interpretation that helps them

understand the places they visit--for example, how people really lived in some

other era (as at Colonial Williamsburg), how cave salamanders harness solar

energy (as at Blanchard Springs Caverns), or how a geyser works (as at

Yellowstone).

Growing public concern with environmental problems has also contributed

enormously to the importance of interpretation. Not only do people recognize increasingly that sound resource management is essential for their

future well-being, they also insist increasingly on participating in decisions about environment. Environmental interpretation can improve the

quality of these decisions by helping people understand the dynamics of the

ecosystem on which we all depend. As the complexity of environmental

management increases, such understanding is increasingly essential for

responsible citizenship.

The fundamental challenge to environmental interpretation, like the

fundamental challenge to all other resource management, is to increase the

sustained flow of benefits our resources provide for people. The problems

that need to be addressed by research in interpretation are those things that

prevent interpretation from contributing fully to this sustained flow of

benefits.

Two kinds of problems limit the effectiveness of interpretation:

policy problems and technical problems, Although researchers do not set

policy, they can often help identify policy bottlenecks and make the policymaker's task easier. Technical problems avoid most of the value judgments

inherent in policy matters and are therefore much tidier and more "scientific",

&/Leader of Recreation Research Project maintained by Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, in cooperation with State University

of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse.

90
However, we can't expect technical solutions to problems that are rooted in

policy.

The major problem facing interpretation is the lack of support it receives within the agencies that administer a lot of the resources that lend

themselves to exciting interpretation (Oltremari 1974). Several factors contribute to this. Perhaps the most important is that the training, job

assignments, and incentives of most resource managers make them perceive

themselves as specialists dealing primarily with physical resources rather

than with human well-being. Public contact and the direct production of

public enjoyment therefore tend to be considered incidental or as by-products

permissible only to the extent that they don't interfere with "normal"

resource management.

These attitudes are inestricably tangled with other factors. From our

Puritan heritage there lurks a lingering distrust of anything so frivolous as

the direct pursuit of pleasure. As a result, the enjoyment provided by interpretation usually goes under such serious sounding labels as "enrichment" or

"enhancement" of visitor experiences. Often enjoyment is overlooked altogether, and interpretation is portrayed instead as a means to some other

end, such as convincing people to use resources more wisely or convincing

them that controversial management procedures arencorrect".

Limited appropriations are often cited as the reason some things don't

happen. These are a factor, especially lately. But, because of long standing

value orientations, agencies that give high priority to their traditional

work tend to give rather low priority to interpretation.

Perhaps another factor is simply that our philosophy of land use is still

highly fragmented. Specialists ,often see their objectives as producing

specific classes of products. If we ever get our land use philosophy all

together, we'll discover that these products are means to sustained human

benefits, not ends in themselves. On that glorious day, managers of public

resources may be found derelict in their duty if they default in making

resources yield the full measure of benefits for which they are suited, including benefits available through interpretation.

WHATWERAVELEARNED

Research in interpretation has concentrated on four matters: recruitment

and career ladders for interpreters, the role of objectives, gaining and

holding attention, and evaluation of effectiveness.

Recruitment and Career Ladders

As one step in addressing the policy problems faced by interpretation, a

study was launched to examine the ways interpreters are recruited, trained,

and utilized in the Forest Service and National Park Service (Oltremari 1974).

This was prompted, in part, by a suspicion that, during a buyer's market for

91
tn1rnt) &agencies were not recruiting and utilizing thd best available people

lor jnterpretation.2l

Some important patterns emerged. The interpreters sampled had most of

their training in what to interpret and practically none of it in how to

interpret.. The preponderance of respondents in both agencies had concentrated

their college coursework in such life and earth sciences as biology, botany,

zoology, and geology. The next most common area was social science, followed

by resource or land management. Although most respondents had taken at least

one course in speech, few had taken such communications courses as journalism,

radio and television, or dramatics. Yet they rated such courses as highly

desirable preparation for their work.

Recruitment patterns suggested a rather casual approach to selecting

public-contact personnel. More than half of the interpreters had been hired

by noninterpreters, often with no interview.

Perhaps the most discouraging finding of the study was the lack of suitable career ladders for interpreters in either agency. Less than a quarter of

the respondents were sure they would remain in interpretation, citing as

reasons both limited agency support for interpretation and better opportunities

in other fields. Over half of the respondents said they would have to leave

interpretation to get promoted.

As mentioned, research can help identify such bottlenecks to performance

as hit-or-miss recruitment and limited career ladders. However, solutions to

these problems require policy changes rather than more study. In contrast

with these policy problems, which involve what we choose to do and some of the

constraints on our choices, technical problems concern how effectively we are

accomplishing what we have chosen to do.

In the few studies addressed specifically to interpretation--and in the

great amount of related research in education, communications, and psychology--

three major points stand out:

we are trying to accomplish.

of the audience for whom they

how well objectives are being

1. We need clear objectives that define what

2. Messages must attract and hold the attention

are intended. 3. Evaluation is needed to show

achieved.

To be effective means to achieve your objectives, But many interpreters

do not state clear objectives that specify exactly what they are trying to

OBJECTIVES

accomplish. Or, they often state objectives in such general terms as "interpret the natural and scenic attractions of Horsethief Valley". Although this

is a fine statement of intentions, it provides no basis for knowing when the

attractions of Horsethief Valley are being effectively interpreted,

2/Q uestionnaires were mailed to the 383 Forest Service people (nationwide)

identified as being permanent or seasonal interpretive personnel and the 178

National Park Service people (Pacific Northwest Region only) identified in

similar positions. Response rates were 85.6 percent for the Forest Service

and 73.7 percent for the National Park Service.

92
To facilitate evaluation, we can borrow the idea of behavioral objectivcu

from the educators (Mager 1962). Behavioral objectives specify what a

student-- or visitor-- should be able to do as a result of a presentation. An

example would be: "After hearing the naturalist talk at Horsethief Valley,

the visitor should be able to name and describe the three major forces that

shaped the valley". Accomplishment of this objective can be tested by conversation with the visitors or by occasional questioning.

Because behavioral objectives tend to focus on such fine points that

broader goals could be overlooked, we can develop a pyramid or hierarchy of

objectives (Putney and Wagar 1973). In this, each broad goal is supported by

several specific objectives which, if achieved, contribute toward accomplishment of that broad goal. Each of these specific objectives may in turn be

supported by several even more specific objectives to provide a pyramid with

three or possibly even more layers. When objectives are stacked in such a

hierarchy, demonstrated achievement at the most specific level permits us to

infer similar achievement of broader goals, even if such goals are not suited

to direct evaluation.

In developing objectives, we must not overlook what motivates our

audiences. Instead of seeking information, many visitors to interpretive

programs are simply engaged in an open-minded search for new and enjoyable

experiences. In our closeness to the objectives of the organizations we serve,

we must not concentrate on what we want people to know without considering why

in the world they would enjoy knowing it.

AUDIENCE ATTENTION

Once we know in some detail what we are trying to accomplish, we need to

get the attention of the audience. Depending on objectives, this may be any

audience that comes along-- or a very specific audience, such as Mrs. Connolly's

seventh graders or perhaps opinion leaders and policy makers.

An obvious first step in gaining attention is to present our story where

the people are. Yet this is not always done. For example, visitor centers

are sometimes built out of sight of or even miles from heavily traveled roads.

Sometimes presentations are given where visitors will not stop or notice

them. For example, at the Marine Science Center in Oregon, excellent exhibits

are often ignored because they are on walls behind visitors who are watching '

the live fish. To reach people, information must be offered at the right

times and places to be easily noticed.

Introductory Techniques

A number of introductory techniques are useful for gaining attention

(Boulanger and Smith 1973). One is to offer valuable knowledge or skills.

For example, a presentation might begin with: "What would you do if, while

hiking, you found the trail blocked by a bear with two cubs?" Or it might begin with a discrepant or seemingly self-contradictory statement that arouses

curiosity and requires explanation. For example: "This forest was created

by a forest fire", or "The nearest formation of rock like this boulder is

over 50 miles away". TV ads are full of discrepant events used for attacting

attention.

93
Making Material Interesting

To hold attention, a presentation must be interesting. Interest depends

on both the subject matter and the way it is presented. One study of exhibits

showed higher visitor interest in violence and violent events than any other

subject category (Washburne and Wagar 1972). This is nothing new. Plays and

myths dating back thousands of years show that storytellers and entertainers

have probably always known that violence is interesting. Fortunately, natural

environments abound in violent stories that can be told in a tasteful way.

Although such subject categories as violence, animals, and ecological

relationships are predictably interesting, the pattern of presentation is

often more important than the specific subject matter.

Audience Benefit/Cost Ratios

For greatest effectiveness, communication and interpretation must have a

good payoff and minimum hardship for the intended audience. In other words,

to pay attention, the audience needs a good benefit/cost ratio. We must think

about payoffs in the audience's terms. Sometimes we become so obsessed with

the payoff to the organization we serve that we overlook the payoff to the

people we are trying to reach.

Rewards or payoffs can take many forms. For the visitor who is already

motivated to want information, such information is rewarding all by itself.

Other visitors need a much larger vehicle of entertainment with a much smaller

load of information. For example, Disneyland's Journey Through Inner Space

was developed on behalf of a corporation at enormous cost. Yet the visitor's

experience of penetrating first a snowflake, then a molecular lattice, and

even an atom within an ice crystal, is almost pure entertainment. Toward the

end of the experience he is told only the name of the corporation, the fact

that it is in the business of rearranging molecules, and that he may see a

few of the company's products on the way out if he chooses.

In a study of four visitor centers, average visitor interest was highest

for dynamic presentations that included such things as motion, recorded sound,

and shifting lighting. In contrast, interest was lowest for inert presentations of mounted photos and written labels. Yet such flatwork exhibits are

probably the commonest of all. The contrast between dynamic and inert is

also very close to the contrast between the media used for entertainment

(usually rewarding) and those used for education (often uncomfortable)

(Travers 1967, Washburne and Wagar 1972).

Psychologists have found that getting the right answer to a question is

rewarding (Deterline 1962). This is the basis for teaching machines and

programmed instruction. As one application of this, we developed a programmed

nature trail in which visitors were asked a question at the bottom of each

sign and then were given the right answer on the next sign. Children remembered more from these question-and-answer signs than from the usual signs.

One of the most rewarding things is simply having an effect when you do

something. One study used a recording quizboard on which visitors answered

four questions by pushing buttons (Wagar 1972). Each time a correct button

94
was pushed, a "correct answer" panel lighted up and the visitor was presented

with the next question. The quizboard-- the only exhibit in the building that

could be manipulated--became a favorite exhibit for ch.ildren the moment we

installed it.

The rewards of interpretation may be appropriate ends in themselves.

But if rewards are intended as means of increasing understanding, they must be

used carefully so that they help rather than hinder. For example, at the

Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, most of the exhibits provide for

visitor participation. But the day I visited, school groups were running about

almost randomly twisting knobs, pushing buttons, and yanking handles but paying little attention to content. For the best learning we must make rewards

contingent on such learning.

Persuading the Audience

When communication is designed to persuade, several principles are important (Dick et al. 1974). First, people are the most receptive to messages

from sources or speakers they consider credible (i.e., trustworthy, intelligent, well-informed). Persuasion increases if the speaker first says something people in the audience agree with on some matter of importance to them.

Greatest persuasion results when the audience is led to a new opinion in a

series of small steps rather than a few big ones. For greatest persuasion, a

message must not only arouse needs in the audience but also must provide a

means for meeting such needs. When the audience will be exposed to contrary

arguments, presentations that give both sides are the most persuasive.

Finally, after people have been persuaded, discussion with others who have

also been persuaded tends to prevent backsliding to the original opinion.

Making It Easy

As mentioned, the effectiveness of communication depends on costs to the

intended audience as well as rewards. We can make our communication procedures easy on people by using familiar words and examples, avoiding difficult

reading materials, tailoring presentations to the audience, and providing

messages with a meaningful structure.

Word usage is important. Language is simply a signal system using symbols that have agreed-upon meanings among a specific group of people. Words

are symbols, and full meanings really grow out of people's experiences. For

example, do you recall specific places and events when reading the words

"the sudden tug of a fish taking the bait", or "skipping rocks across the

smooth water", or "the trusting grip of a child's hand"? The memories

triggered by words can provide thousands of times as much information as the

words themselves. The most powerful words are those that tap the most widespread sets of similar memories and associations among your audience.

But interpreters must often communicate with people whose memories,

thought processes, and word associations are quite different from theirs. The

most effective interpreters are those with a knack for translating meanings

from one system of symbols (often the scientist's) into another (the visitor's).

For example, at the Forestry Commission's Mays Wood Forestry Centre in

England, the wood properties of different,tree species are interpreted with

wooden buckets, spoons, hockey sticks, etc. that visitors either have used or

95
could readily visualize themselves using.

Most visitors find listening easier than reading, and recorded sound has

been associated with high visitor interest in several studies (Mahaffey 1969,

Washburne and Wagar 1972). With recorded sound, as with a real live interpreter, visitors can listen to information without looking away from main

attractions (Erskine 1964). Rather detailed information can often be presented

without visitor fatigue. If desirable, sound effects and dialog can be used

to provide realism or drama.

In a study on a nature trail, cassette tapes were extremely well received,

especially when total length for the 12 stations was limited to 16 minutes.

For a 22-minute tape, a few visitors said the pace was too slow and that they

would prefer a booklet permitting them to scan quickly to the information they

wanted without waiting to hear it on tape.

For people on vacation, reading may not seem worth the effort. At

Yellowstone, for example, McDonald (1969) found that only about 10 percent of

the visitors stopped at wayside exhibits, and less than half of them read the

signs. In a museum setting, Shiner and Shafer (1975) found the average time

visitors looked at or listened to various exhibits to be from 15 to 64 percent

of the time required to read or listen to the complete message.

When reading materials are used, they should be readable. In general,

short sentences with little words are easier to understand than long sentences

with big words. Formulas for determining levels of readability have been

available for many years (Flesch 1949). However, many interpretive materials

are still very difficult reading (Hunt and Brown 1971).

Fitting Presentations to Audiences

Because different people have different interests and backgrounds, interpretation needs to be tailored to the audience at hand. For example, children

of different ages have quite different patterns of behavior and learning

(Machlis and Field 1974). Yet how many interpretive presentations even

recognize that children are different from adults? A preschooler (2 to 5 years

old) tends to have a short attention span, to be dependent primarily on the

person caring for him, and to be interested in such basic concepts as "big"

and "small." At early school age (5 to 9 years old) children become increasIngly interested in comparisons (20 of these to equal 1 of those), become

more group oriented, and have incredible amounts of energy. In the preadolescent years (9-12) children tend to be more concerned with skills and

things than with ideas. Active participation in such "living history" as

grinding corn or making pots can be exciting and meaningful to them. At

adolescence (approximately 12 to 17 years old) young people usually become increasingly concerned with ideas and with independence from adult supervision.

Among adolescents, teen-aged interpreters might often be more effective than

adult interpreters (Machlis and Field 1974).

A study at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle provided a striking example of how interests differ with age. When preferences among themes proposed

for future exhibitions were separated by visitor age, a mirror-image contrast

emerged (fig. 1) between "computers" (interest decreased with age) and "man's

96
80

r

AGE

Figure 1. --Effect of age on preferred themes for future "summer specials"

at Pacific Science Center.

effect on the environmentll (interest increased with age). This parallels

other findings that between childhood and maturity, people's interests tend

to shift from the concrete and discrete toward the abstract and integrated and

from concern with individual things toward relationships and social concerns.

Computers are rather awesome machines, associated in many peoplets minds

with highly physical images of spinning tape reels and flashing lights, Also,

computers are means rather than ends. By contrast, '(man?s effect on the

environment" is much more abstract, involving social concerns and goals and

the integration of diverse processes and factors.

Too often, interpretation is aimed at the nonexistent “average" visitor.

Yet information that is too advanced for some people may be overly simple or

repetitive for others. In matching information to different groups, an

interpreter must consider what knowledge is needed before additional information is understandable (Boulanger and Smith 1973). For example, people

97
cannot understand how a geyser works unless they already know that the boilin

point of water increases with pressure.

Structuring the Presentation

A final factor to consider in holding visitor attention is structure.

Visitors need some sort of framework to make information fit together mean-

. ingfully. In a study of four visitor centers, visitors were more interested

in holistic than fragmented presentations (Washburne and Wagar 1972). Thus

exhibits that had parts making a whole story and that gave cause-and-effect

relationships received greater visitor interest than exhibits that provided

only isolated facts, such as the identification of species.

As another example of structure, Screven (1969, also personal communication 1970) found, in his studies at the Milwaukee Public Museum, that visitor:

who were given a pretest to find out what they knew before seeing an ,exhibit

remembered more from the exhibit than visitors who received no pretest. Part

of this increased recall may have occurred because the pretest warned visitor:

that they were part of a study. But the pretest also gave them an outline of

things to look for. This suggests giving visitors an overview to orient them

at the beginning of an interpretive presentation,

Orientation and focusing can also be provided within a presentation.

One of the cassette tapes tested on a nature trail asked periodic questions of

the visitor. This focused the visitor's attention and increased his retentior

of the information asked about. However, it decreased retention of information given just before and after a question,

At the Pacific Science Center, cartoon story lines are used to tie

science stories together until youngsters learn enough concepts to handle a

more scientific structure (Jerry Dotson, personal communication, 1970). The

cartoon stories serve another useful purpose: The person giving a demonstration often asks youngsters what would happen if the cartoon character took a

given action. If a youngster gives a wrong answer, it's the cartoon character's problem, not his own. This "projective" technique saves the child's

ego enough that he'll go right on volunteering answers, right or wrong,

without embarrassment.

Other methods of giving structure to a presentation include proceeding

from the simple to the complex, proceeding from the whole.to the parts,

presenting a chronological development, progressing from the familiar to the

unfamiliar, moving from the seen to the unseen, and showing increasingly

broad application of a principle (Boulanger and Smith 1973).

EVALUATION

Having considered objectives and some ways of accomplishing them, we face

the matter of evaluation or feedback to determine how well we are doing. I n

general'terms, feedback is simply a set of signals indicating the extent to

which an operation is going as planned and showing what corrective action

would be useful. With good feedback, we can emphasize the things that work

and improve our presentation, even when we are unsure of the exact reasons

for improvements.

98
Much feedback is available informally, as interpreters watch their NIKIIences, listen to questions asked, and look for other evidence of interest,

enjoyment, puzzlement, etc. Such,feedback is a major advantage of person-toperson presentations. However, enough visitors will compliment a bad

presentation that informal feedback can be misleading as well as helpful.

Strangely, when interpreters substitute formal for informal person-toperson feedback, they usually focus on the speaker or the presentation.

However, the effects we strive to achieve can only be observed in the audience.

To avoid questionnaires or interviews that tend to make every evaluation

a research undertaking rather than a simple management effort, observational

techniques can be used. One technique is simply to observe an audience at

l- or P-minute intervals to see what percentage of people are watching the

speaker or the presentation (Dick et al. 1975). In tests of the procedure,

agreement between two observers was excellent (fig. 2). But differences both

I

4 8 12 1 6 20 24

TIME IN MINUTES

Figure 2. --A "candy-ecology" laboratory presentation. Energy flows among

plants, grazers, and carnivores were simulated by the exchange of candy among

people participating in the presentation. + = Observer 1. o = Observer 2.

between and within presentations were striking, When the setting permitted,

observers watched the eyes of members of the audience. With poor lighting or

other conditions that made people's eyes difficult to see well, observers

watched the directions people's heads were turned and found no appreciable

loss in their ability to discriminate between high and low attention.

99
Another feedback technique uses self-testing devices that record numbers

of right and wrong answers. If we change a presentation and the percentage

of correct responses goes up, the change was probably an improvement (Wagar

1972).

Ideally, a presentation should be improved before it is put in final form.

Work at the Pacific Science Center to evaluate an energy exhibition while it

was evolving showed that "quick and dirty" techniques are needed so that

creative people get feedback immediately. Otherwise their great investment of

energy and ego can make change quite painful. This decline inflexibility can

occur in the few days it takes to summarize data from a more refined evaluation technique.

Six evaluation techniques were tested at the Pacific Science Center.

Ranked on the basis of quick results and ease of application (table 1) they

were : evaluation by a panel of judges, collecting comments in a suggestion

box, observing what percentage of visitors paid close attention to a presentation, time-lapse photography, balloting by visitors, and having an observer

unobtrusively follow sample visitors to determine how they were reacting.

Only evaluation by a panel of judges provided authoritative guidance

during the early stages of a presentation's development'. A checklist that

focuses attention on objectives, the audience, and possibilities for improvement can help avoid inexpertness and preconceptions among available judges

(fig. 3).

One additional phase of evaluation is to determine cost per visitor contact or perhaps some other unit of visitor participation. This requires

records of both costs and attendance. A study of visitor contact facilities

in the Black Hills National Forest showed a wide range of costs per contact.

It also showed that nobody knew the cost per contact for various alternatives.

Yet without this kind of information, cost effectiveness cannot be defined.

Evaluation of interpretive presentations probably will continue to be

more art than science. A great amount of imprecise information can.be obtained at little cost in time and money and with little burden on visitors.

Given some understanding of the bias caused by visitors' desires to be congenial, the fact that people who visit interpretive programs and offer

comments are self-selected, etc., managers of interpretive programs should be

able to avoid the major pitfalls of using imprecise data. Many problems can

be readily diagnosed from quite limited information. Nevertheless, managers

must weigh the risks of using imprecise information against both the risks of

nonevaluation and the costs of better data.

ACCEPTANCE AND APPLICATION

Acceptance and application of results from research on interpretation

have been excellent. In fact, requests for publications, presentations,

and consultation on interpretive matters have far outstripped the requests I

have had for similar help based on research into recreational carrying

capacity, recreation site management , estimation of visitor numbers, and

visual management of forested landscapes. Our work to pull together interpretive principles and evaluation techniques has helped fill a void long

recognized by interpreters, For several years research in interpretation was

100
Speed of Burden on Cost for Guarantee

feedback personnel equipment and against Usefulness and limitations

materials bias

~~ir.ian from selected Excellent Small Low Low Identifies major problems

o%Lcsiders (panel of before public presentation

judges)

Volcnteered comments Good Small Low

(via suggestion box)

Observed audience

attention

Time-lapse

photography

Good Moderate Low

Good Small Moderate

to high

Voting at individual Fair Moderate Moderate

presentations to great

Low Can identify range of

reactions; respondents

self-selected.

Good Requires training. Assumes

that "attention" indicates

effectiveness. Respondent

characteristics may differ

at different presentations,

making comparisons risky.

Good Records continually,

identifies use patterns, and

captures infrequent

occurrences with little

burden on personnel. Area

covered from one camera

position usually quite

limited.

Moderate Respondent characteristics may

differ at different

presentations, making

comparisons risky.

Following selected

visitors

Good to Great Low Good Best for studying visitor

fair orientation and movements.

Inefficient for rating

visitor interest in specific

presentations.
CHECKLIST

1 . OBJECTIVES:

a . From your observation of the interpretation, what do its objectives seem to be?

b . Are they reasonable?

C . (LATER) Are these the objectives outlined by the creators of the interpretation?

d . If not, why the discrepancy?

2. AUDIENCE:

a . In this setting, what are the likely objectives of the audience, and are the

objectives of the interpretation compatible with the objectives of the audience

or potential audience?

b . What proportion of the potential audience is stopping?

C . How long would it take the average visitor to fully experience this interpretation?

d . How long are visitors actually spending with this interpretation?

e . Do visitors seem interested or disinterested? Why?

f. Which age groups seem interested and which disinterested?

3. SETTING AND DESIGN:

a . Is it easy for visitors to reach or find this interpretation?

b . Is the visitor given sufficient clues to experience different elements or units of the

interpretation in a meaningful sequence?

C . Is it easy and comfortable for the visitor to experience this interpretation?

(Seating, if appropriate; suitable viewing available to children; etc.)

4 . CONTENT AND DESIGN:

a . Is any of the information incorrect? Unclear? Inappropriate?

b . Do any conflicts occur within this interpretation or with nearby interpretation?

(Consider competition for attention as well as conflicts in subject matter.)

;.

What opportunities for improvement are available?

Why or how would these work better?

Ygure 3.-- Checklist for judging interpretation during its development;

carried out in close cooperation with personnel of the National Forest System

and had their enthusiastic support. Also, in a survey of recreation managers

and administrators in the South, 62 percent of the respondents rated "interpretation and understanding of forest and natural resource environments" as

a top priority need (Task Force, 1974).

Many of our results from interpretive research have been used in training, not only by such agencies as the Forest Service and National Park

Service but also in Africa and Latin America.

Like most other research, interpretive research is most likely to be

applied if it is taken beyond mere proof that interesting relationships are

probably significant (typically at .95 or higher probability). Although researchers still get most of their rewards for publishing such proofs, practitioners often need proven methodologies that have been worked out in some

detail. Interpreters, however, have been unusually receptive to summaries of

useful principles.

102
The primary barriers to conducting and applying research In interprc?tntJnn

are rooted in policies that reflect commodity-oriented land-use philosophlcti.

(These policies are probably the major barrier for most forest recreation

research.) Interpretation needs to be viewed as a vital part of resource management and, in the total mix of land use benefits, the enhanced experiences

provided by interpretation need to be viewed as just as legitimate as

traditional material products. This shift In philosophy and policy seems to

be taking place, but agencies, like cultures, develop norms that remain stable

for long periods and that can be changed only by overcoming great inertia.

The current bottleneck is in generating research results about interpretation, not in applying them. The Forest Service has been unable to continue its Environmental Interpretation Research Project. So far, although

university researchers have contributed important studies, they have not

mounted a sustained attack on interpretive problems. Such an effort might be

stimulated by circulating the.list of needed studies from a program analysis

of Forest Service interpretation that is now in rough draft form in the

Visitor Information Service (VIS) section of the Washington Office.

In conjunction with enlightened philosophies to guide land use policies,

research in environmental interpretation can contribute greatly to the sustained flow of human benefits from our land resources.

KEY READINGS

Tilden, Freeman. 1967. Interpreting our heritage. 120 p. Chapel Hill:

Univ. N. C. Press.

This sets forth an excellent philosophical framework for interpretation.

Sharpe, Grant W. (ed.) Interpreting the environment. N. Y.: John Wiley b Sons.

This is scheduled for publication early in 1976. With its emphasis on

application it nicely complements Tilden.

Guideline. (A series of looseleaf sheets, part of "Park Practice Serfesu)

See section entitled "Interpretation."

Trends. April/May/June 1974. Entire issue devoted to interpretation.

Both of these periodicals are published by the Park Practice Program,

Washington, D.C.

Journal of Environmental Education. Contains many articles applicable to

interpretation.

See also the following items under Literature Cited: Boulanger and Smith;

Dick, McKee, and Wagar; Dick, Myklestad, and Wagar; Machlis and Field;

Mager; Putney and Wagar; and Washburne and Wagar.

103
LITERATURE CITED

Boulanger, F. D., and Smith, J. P. 1973. Educational principles and techniques for interpreters. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-9, 24 p.

Pac. Northwest For. Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Ore.

Deterline, W. A. 1962. An introduction to programmed instruction. 131 p.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Dick, R. E., McKee, D. T., and Wagar, J. A. 1974. A summary and annotated

bibliography of communications principles. J. Environ. Educ. 5(4): g-13.

Dick, R. E., Myklestad, E., and Wagar, J. A. 1975. Audience attention as a

basis for evaluating interpretive presentations. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

PNW-198, 7 p. Pac. Northwest For. Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Ore.

Erskine, D. J. 1964. A-V materials in interpretive programs. Trends l(1):

11-12.

Flesch, R. E. 1949. The art of readable writing. 237 p. N. Y.: Harper and

Row.

Hunt, J. D., and Brown, P. J. 1971. Who can read our writing? J. Environ.

Educ. 2(4): 27-29.

Machlis, G., and Field, D. R. 1974. Interpreting parks for kids: making it

real. Trends. April/May/June: 19-25.

Mager, R. F. 1962. Preparing instructional objectives. 60 p. Belmont,

Calif.: Fearon Publ.

Mahaffey, B. D. 1969. Relative effectiveness of visitor preference of three

audio-visual media for interpretation of an historic area. 63 p. Dep.

Inf. Rep. 1, Dep. Recreation & Parks, Texas A & M Univ., College Station.

McDonald, A. L. 1969. Final report to the National Park Service, Yellowstone

Park. 35 p. Mimeo.

Oltremari, J. V. 1974. .A survey on desirable preparation and career development of interpretive personnel. 158 p. Unpublished Master's thesis,

Univ. Wash., Seattle.

Putney, A. D., and Wagar, J. A. 1973. Objectives and evaluation in interpretive planning. J. Environ. Educ. 5(l): 43-44.

Screven, C. G. 1969. The museum as a responsive learning environment. Mus.

News 47(10): 7-10.

Shiner, J. W., and Shafer, E. L., Jr. 1975. How long do people look at and

listen to forest-oriented exhibits? USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-325, 16 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn. Upper Darby, Pa.

Travers, R. M. W. 1967. Research and theory related to audio-visual information transmission. 287 p. U. S. Dep. Health, Educ. and Welfare.

Washington, D.C.

104
Task Force on Forest Resources Research Needs for the Southern Region. 1974.

Research needs in forest recreation, aesthetics, and other landscape values:

RP 2.07. -In Task force report, p. 61-105. USDA For, Serv., South. Reg.

Wagar, J. A. 1972. The recording quizboard: a device for evaluating interpretive services. 12 p. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-139. Pac. Northwest For, Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Ore,

Washburne, R. F., and Wagar, J. A. 1972. Evaluating visitor response to

exhibit content. Curator 15(3): 248-254.

105
A CRITIQDE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED "ACHIEVING EFFECTIVENESS

IN ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATION" BY J. ALAN WAGAR

Ronald D. Johnsor&'

Wagar's paper is an excellent one for land managers and interpreters. It

presents very succinctly a rather typical overview of the scope of the interpretive function. Research reviewed provides .managers and interpreters with

guidelines and ideas to improve upon or to provide initial interpretive services.

One of the significant findings reported by Wagar related to the practice

of selecting interpreters. Perhaps too often emphasis is on technical knowledge or training, experience and ability of the interpreter to communicate.

This selection practice, the relative absence of career ladders reported, and

findings which point out other discrepancies and deficiencies should not be

viewed as generators of adverse reactions to the state-of-the-art of interpretation, nor cause criticism of personnel or services evaluated. Instead, it

is proposed that research results, informal evaluations, and judgments disclosing weaknesses of this yet developing element of resource management -

interpretation and interpretive recreation - be viewed in a manner which will

allow an expanded perception of the state-of-the-art and provide a key to

further developments.

In spite of the availability of several significant works, the body of

knowledge related to interpretation appears to be relatively scanty. It is

desirable that research results be published or broadly disseminated to

practitioners in a manner which will popularize this important work.

The research itself must be broadened. In addition to identification of

constraints, it is desirable that interpretive elements be discovered which

will contribute significantly to the sustained flow of resource benefits.

We must tag on to developments in other disciplines as well, looking for

the generic core which can be applied. Policy analysis can be "scientific."

Admittedly, it is difficult for a control group and politicians to accept

placebos if t'.ey have knowledge of expanded services to other constituents.

Evaluative research can be employed; like other research, it can also be

expensive.

On the other hand, we must shortly begin to identify and accept principles

of environmental interpretation and resist funding replications of earlier

"research" , particularly in "environmental education". There is too much that

is new,to discover.

L' Director of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Natural and

Economic Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

106
Eventually, the electorate will make land use decisions, and already are,

to an extent, through elected representatives and referenda. Our perspectives

of scope of responsibility must be broadened. We have been dealing too much

in ego-serving activities, "doing our own thing" in the out-of-doors, too

often entertaining without much carry-over resulting, directing our energies

to the one percent or three percent who "enjoy nature." Justification is

needed to attract the attention of the masses ; growing problems of land use

may provide the vehicle.

One of Wagar's points is particularly significant. People want to have

fun. Interpretive recreation, the appeal of the well-publicized special event,

and other attention getters provide opportunities for the interpreter to "take"

broader numbers, perhaps without their knowledge. Subliminal advertising,

popularized by Huxley, needs to be modified by resource managers to give back

to people a llsense of place" - "this land is my land." We are in the business

of developing values, inculcating values, influencing value judgments, and

interpreters like to discuss their role in this.

We are also in the recreation business, and this is where we have opportunities for "subliminal advertising." The ride in the U-man war canoe is

fun. Rafting over the rapids is fun. Can the leader convert the previously

unconcerned, and send them home with a communication they can diffuse relating

to the use and abuse of our waterways? The reward or payoff is there, as

Wagar suggests. Hopefully, continued concern for the waterway will become the

riverman's collateral.

In general, Wagar's paper treated research results related to the more

formally-structured interpretive services. It would seem that the state-ofthe-art includes the developing broader base of environmental interpretation.

Research is needed to evaluate the value of the experience to the

participant.

What is the satisfying recreational experience? To whom?

What results are desired?

Will interpretation of the natural history yield more positive results

when tied to the cultural heritage and practices?

Can we compare in long-term results the high-cost rafting trip with-the

nature hike led by the classical naturalist? To what extent do we need both?

Who defines the values?

Will the feeling of a "sense of place" from the personalized experience

yield more than the ability to answer questions?

Can we as resource managers, find the time to search for the important

questions before it is too late? Can we gather the information and develop

the capacity to justify a higher priority on pay day; and what will be lost

between now and then'! \

107
ECONOMICS APPLIED TO OUTDOOR RECREATION: AN EVALUATION

Frank J. Conver+'

Abstract.-- The uses and limitations of economics for outdoor

recreation planners and managers are discussed. Special attention

is devoted to the estimation of costs and benefits of providing

outdoor recreation, and the extent to which such estimating procedures can be used by field personnel.

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of outdoor recreation benefits is a much discussed, if stil

poorly understood topic. I propose to examine this issue in the larger context

of the present and potential role of economics in outdoor recreation management

and planning. The central concept of economics-choice-and what its acceptance

implies, is first introduced. Then the derivation and use of cost and benefit

estimates are successively discussed. Representative examples of pertinent research are cited, while the relevance and accessibility of such work to recreation planners and managers are concerns which pervade throughout.

ECONOMICS AS THE STUDY OF CHOICE

Economics is concerned with the study of choice. This implies that for

economics to be useful as a management-planning tool, choice must indeed exist,

both in fiscal-institutional-political terms , and in the mind of the manager.

There seems to be a human propensity to unduly narrow the range of choices. As

Henry Kissinger has observed:2/

"I have seen it happen more often than not that when one

asks for choices one is always given three: two absurd ones

and the preferred one. And the experienced bureaucrat,

which I am slowly becoming, can usually tell the preferred

one because it is almost always the one that is typed in

the middle."

If the manager is irreversibly convinced that present procedure is the

best that can possibly be done, economic analysis in any meaningful sense becomes redundant. If applied in such circumstances the results if appropriate,

will likely be used to support present or already planned activity; if the results do not support the proposed action, they will be ignored. The potential

for change, then, must exist, for economics to be useful. The economist asks

questions such as these: What are the alternatives? Is there a less expensive

means of accomplishing this objective? Can we generate more benefits out of

this level of expenditure? and so on. Although most of us would no doubt claim

to welcome and encourage the analyses that the asking of such questions imply,

in fact we obserVe that these issues are not routinely raised in recreation

planning. A number of reasons may be posited in explanation:

A1 Assistant Professor of Forest Resource Economics, School of Forestry and

Environmental Studies, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

2f Quoted in the New York Times Magazine, October 28, 1973.

108
1. Managers are so preoccupied with operational considerations that tinrc.

is not available to critically examine what is being done, and to consider

what might be done. Opportunity and capacity. for reflection on alternative

modes of operation are clearly prerequisites for the application of economic

analysis.

2. Identification and analysis of alternatives can threaten vested interests. Since, by the very nature of their discipline, economists are trained to

ask, is there a better way?, they implicitly threaten those whose interests are

served by present procedures. If for example, it is concluded on the basis of a

rigorous analysis that a campground should be closed down, or that an activity

could be more efficiently carried out by another department or agency, it seems

likely that those individuals who would be adversely affected by this conclusion

will be displeased with the analysis. In order to avoid situations of this sort,

and the uncivilized necessity of beheading the bringer of bad tidings, there is

a tendency to try to prevent the issuance of the message in the first place.

Economics can, in short be a very subversive science , posing some risk to those

affected by its results.

3. Some skill is required to identify pertinent alternatives and to undertake the analysis; skill is also required to interpret its results. Managers

who lack the requisite capabilities may prefer to forego analysis entirely, so

as to avoid the potential embarrassment of having decision-making prerogatives

somewhat pre-empted by a set of procedures which they do not understand.

To summarize this section, it is concluded that a major--perhaps the major--

precondition for the fruitful use of economic analysis in outdoor recreation

management and planning is an appropriate mental attitude by the potential user--

an enthusiasm for exploring alternatives matched by a willingness to take risks,

expressed in such terms as loss of position or authority if the results of the

analysis call for same. The appropriate attitude and the undertaking of economic

analysis are mutually reinforcing. By this I mean that the proper application

of economics will encourage further probing of alternatives, until eventually

such a mind-set becomes second nature to the planner. This reinforcement of the

questioning instinct is an important benefit of using economics. While alternatives assayed will usually fall within the realm of what is presently feasible,

options which involve contravening current legislative, budget, institutional

or other constraints should be considered. If such is not done, the dasirability or otherwise of modifying these constraints cannot be evaluated. Thus, at

the extreme, a recreation planner might explore the implications of modifying the

homocide laws so that miscreants caught vandalizing recreation facilities could

be put up against a wall and shot right away (an option which has some appeal

for the author). More realistically, a mix of strategies involving restoration

of some police powers to the rangers, higher fines, public education, large

rewards for information leading to convictions, etc. could be examined.

Given an appropriate perspective by the potential user, to what extent can

the technical intricacies of economics be readily applied in outdoor recreation

planning? The art of the economist can be used to delineate the costs and

benefits associated with various alternatives. A special sub-classification

would include local and regional income and employment impacts and distribution

effects. Each of the two elements--costs and benefits --will be discussed with

a view to elucidating the state of the art regarding their estimation vis-a-vis

109
outdoor recreation; the extent to which such information can be derived and

appropriately interpreted by the recreation manager will be explored.

COSTS

Costs can be defined as the value of the good or service which is being

given up (foregone) in order to undertake an action. The costs (and benefits)

which are taken into consideration will depend on the perspective of the

decision-maker involved. The private campground owner will count his cash

outlays, together with an allowance for his own time and for depreciation of

the facilities. State and local government campground administrators will include outlays from the government treasury in question; outlays which are

financed by another level of government e.g. federal, state (in case of local

govt.) will not be included as costs. Governments at this level will also be

concerned with other costs; the disruptive effects of a recreation area on a

local community, the damage to a fragile ecosystem, reduction of habitat for

rare and endangered species comprise examples of this type of cost. The federal

government is concerned with the welfare of the whole society, so that costs

from this perspective will include all of what is being foregone by the various members of society in order to provide the recreation in question. Identification and measurement of costs at the Federal level represent the acme of

complexity. Such costs can be placed in three categories:

(1) Direct input costs: Included here are costs of land, physical

facilities, labor, etc. These should be valued at the welfare foregone by

society in order to use the inputs for producing recreation opportunities.

Since societal welfare cannot be measured, we substitute "value of output"

foregone for welfare foregone; the cost of producing recreation is the value

of the output foregone elsewhere in order to do so. In a full employment

competitive economy, the price of the inputs at the margin represents their

full social cost; if persons are hired at $lOO/week to supervise a campground,

these individuals must be attracted away from other activities where their

marginal products (contribution to output) are approximately equal to their

respective wages. Likewise, under these conditions the price of other inputs

will represent their full social cost. However, during periods of persistent

unemployment some factors can be used in outdoor recreation activities without reducing output elsewhere in the economy; the price paid for such inputs

will likely overstate the social cost of their use. Economists have developed

algorithms for deriving the appropriate social costs--called shadow prices--

of inputs (Haveman and Krutilla, 1968).

Even in a competitive, full employment economy, there may be conditions

where price of all of the inputs does not identify all of the cost categories

involved in producing outdoor recreation opportunities. Such conditions arise

where external costs (externalities) exist. External costs are defined as

costs which are external to, that is to say, not incurred exclusively by, the

producer. They can be divided into two groups--environmental and social--

and these comprise the remaining cost categories discussed in this paper.

(2) Environmental Costs: Environment is here used in the sense of the

bio-physical environment. Costs of this nature include the elimination of

species (Krutilla, 1967), the pollution of air and water, the despoilation of

landscape, the termination in perpetuity of opportunities to enjoy an irreplacable and unique environment, and so on. These costs represent several

110
facets of foregone benefits --the downstream water user is deprived of clean

water, future generations are deprived of the medicinal properties of the extinct plant, etc.

(3) Social Costs: These include adverse affects impinging on individuals

and groups which are not included in (1) and (2) above. Such costs would include the damaging or destruction of a culture, such as the debilitation of the

Indian cultures resultant from the Caucasian settlement of North America. Likewise damage or elimination of archaeological remains would be included in this

group. Congestion costs--the costs recreation users impose on each other by

their mutual presence in an area or facility are also costs of this type.

It has proved much easier to derive direct input costs in a common unit

of value--dollars--than it has to quantify the environmental and social costs.

These latter cost categories are commonly introduced as constraints--leave a

buffer strip x feet wide to prevent stream sedimentation, preserve all archaeological mounds, and so on. The analyst can, however, assay the cost at which

these constraints are maintained by successively relaxing them and observing

the resulting change in net benefit.

The literature relating to the estimation of costs involved in the provision of outdoor recreation is surprisingly sparse. Beardsley, Schweitzer

and Ljungre (1974) provide an interesting taxonomy of cost categories relating

to the provision of wilderness recreation. Tyre (1975) presents average cost

estimates for the provision of various outdoor recreation experiences on National

Forests in the South. He uses the following formulation:

AC = [OM + C + Ol + O2 + OH]/RVD

Where:

AC = Average Cost

OM = Annual Operation and Maintenance

c = Construction (annualized)

Ol =

Foregone opportunity to harvest present timber stocking

(annualized)

O2 =

Foregone opportunity to accumulate annual timber growth

for harvest (annualized)

OH = Annual Overhead

RVB = Annual recreation visitor day (12 hours) use.

Lundgren (1974) provides a similar (hypothetical) example of the derivation of

average cost of providing camping on a national forest in the Lake States. The

Tyre-Lundgren estimates embrace only direct input costs. In addition to estimating average cost (Total Cost/Total Use), it is also helpful to derive marginal

cost (incremental cost/incremental use). This tells the planner what the additional cost per unit of added use will be as a result of extending capacity,

e.g. enlarging a campground, extending a trail, etc.

MC (Marginal Cost) - A Total Cost/ A Anticipated Use

As we have seen, average and marginal cost information is fairly straightforward to derive for direct inputs. Every recreation planner should know how

111
much various types of recreation use are presently costing per unit (average

cost) within his or her jurisdiction and how much it would cost per unit to

increase use (marginal cost) in these terms. Identifying environmental and

social costs is much more complex. However, there will be instances where the

choices are essentially invariant as to these types of cost, in which case

direct input costs information assumes special significance. This will often

be the case when environmental costs are represented in the form of constraints

emanating from a higher administrative level.

BENEFITS

Just as a reduction in welfare (cost) cannot be adequately calibrated,

likewise a welfare increase cannot be so measured. Once more, an increase in

welfare is approximated by an increase in output of goods or services; such increases are valued by what individuals are willing to pay for them, which may

or may not correspond to what is actually being paid. The symmetry between

cost and benefit measurement should be noted: costs are measured by what we are

willing to forego in order to appropriate the input(s) to the use(s) in question;

benefits are measured by what we are willing to forego in order to appropriate

the output(s) to the use(s) in question. Thus when two mutually exclusive

uses are being compared for an area of land, the cost of using it in one use

is the net benefit foregone by not using it in the other.

Most of the outdoor recreation economics literature is concerned with

methods for valuing benefits. Knetsch and Davis (1966) identify the following

recreation valuation methods:

(1) Gross Expenditures Method: Measures value to the user by the total

amount spent on recreation. The concern in this paper is to help the recreation resource manager make better decisions. The entity of interest therefore

is what individuals of the facility are willing to pay for admittance above

and beyond what they incur for related items such as food, lodging, transportation and equipment, i.e. the value accruing to the resource is a residual

value, just as a cinema owner is primarily concerned with what individuals are

willing to pay for admittance, not what they spend on travel, food, etc. en route.

Thus, while it is recognized that gross expenditures estimates will be of considerable interest and use to various segments of the recreation industry, they

are not directly pertinent to the issue of managing an outdoor recreation resource.

(2) Market Value of Fish or Game: Imputes to hunting and fishing recreation the value of the game and fish caught. The hunter or fisherman should be

willing to pay at least up to the expected value of the fish or game caught.

For many sportsmen the expected value of the catch is but a minor portion of

the utility deriving from this day's sport. Also, for many fish and game related recreation activities, such as nature photography and hiking, there is no

fish or game harvest. Still, for certain types of hunting and fishing activity,

this method does provide minimum value estimates.

(3) Market Value: Recreation benefits are valued by what people actually

pay at the resource level for the experience. This of course is the primary

measure of benefit used by private sector purveyors of outdoor recreation. The

same tendency towards increase in complexity of the valuation process which

112
was observed in the discussion on cost estimation as one goes from the

private sector through successively higher levels of government, also pertains to benefits. This results because of the existence of external

benefits.which presumably are a more prominent feature of recreation outputs on public lands. External benefits can be defined as benefits resulting from the provision of outdoor recreation which cannot be "captured" by

the provider. Thus, if, as is sometimes claimed, camping makes individuals

more contented, congenial and well adjusted and less apt tc commit crime,

the three dollar nightly camping fee charged will understate the social

benefit of the experience. A limiting case of an external benefit is a

public good, defined as a good, such as national defense or clean air,

which, if made available to one person is automatically available to all.

Following the convention adopted in the case of costs, external benefits

can be classified as environmental or social. Environmental benefits are

the mirror image of the environmental costs discussed earlier: examples include the benefits of retaining habitat for plants and animals; the value to

passersby of an aesthetically pleasing landscape ; non-user benefits such as

those accruing to individuals who derive satisfaction from simply knowing

rare or remarkable areas or species exist, or to individuals who value the

option of experiencing the environment in the future--option demanders.

The retention of genetic information consequent on the preservation of

species is another non-user public goods type of external benefit. Social

benefits include reduction in crime and medical expenses, increased job

productivity etc. resulting from the recreation experience(s). Favorable

cultural, archaeological and other impacts would likewise be included in

this category. Recreation benefits then can be classified as direct--those

accruing entirely to the user, or external, sub-classified for expository

purposes in this paper as environmental and social. In the instances where

external benefits exist, the aggregate willingness to pay of users will understate total benefits generated. For a variety of political, institutional and cultural reasons, governments have generally not imposed a charge

for outdoor recreation sufficient to cover costs of its provision. When

there are no external benefits involved, this connotes a transfer payment

from non users to users. If one particular group, e.g. the middle class are

the principal users of a state's outdoor recreation facilities, the state

government may feel that this group does not get its "fair share" of other

state provided services, and this recreation subsidy is a means of compensation. At the Federal level, if congressional appropriations are related somehow to number of visitors, the U. S. Forest Service, U. S. Park Service, and

Army Corps of Engineers may not wish to unilaterally raise fees, thereby reducing the number of visitors and their share of the Federal "pie." It may

simply be prohibitively expensive to collect fees, or, if the additional cost

associated with an additional visitor is very low, a decision could rationally be made to maximize social welfare by setting price equal to the (very low)

marginal cost, even though this resulted in total revenues less than total

costs. For these and other reasons too numerous to detail here, price of

government provided outdoor recreation rarely renders an acceptable estimate of

its direct user benefits, ignoring for the moment the external benefits which

may also be generated. Economists have had some success in developing user

willingness to pay estimates, the next category of benefit estimating procedures

to be examined.

113
(4) Willingness to Pay Methods.&' These methods purport to estimate the

willingness to pay by consumers for outdoor recreation at the resource level,

i.e. willingness to pay in excess of outlays for travel, lodging, etc. As such,

if the estimates yielded were re,asonably accurate, very worthwhile information

would be provided to the recreation resource planner. Two valuation approaches

have been developed:

(a) Interview Approach: In this method, each consumer is involved

in a bidding game. Bids are systematically raised until the user declares himself excluded. This amount represents this individual's maximum "willingness to pay" for the experience. Summing these values for

all consumers yields an aggregate maximum willingness to pay. The

principal problem with this approach is the degree of reliability which

can be attached to the information which the respondents provide. They

may not be able to relate to the question(s) at all. Even if they can,

if they think that the information will be used as the basis for charging

for the recreation experience, there will be an incentive to understate;

if on the other hand they feel that the information will help keep the

area in its present use, the incentive will be in the opposite direction.

A careful study by Robert K. Davis, valuing recreation use in the Maine

woods, reported in Knetsch and Davis (1966) provides a good example of

this approach. More recently the Environmental Research Group (1973) at

Georgia State University undertook a very extensive household survey

throughout the Southeast to elicit willingness to pay estimates for wildlife related recreation. However, difficulties of interpretation arose

concerning these data as originally published; clarifications regarding

what precisely was being measured, together with bridging material relating the method and results to the appropri

27

t e theoretical constructs

in welfare economics are now in preparation.-

(b)3,Travel Cost Method: The basic idea underlying this H-C-K

approach is that increased access costs will tend to affect visitation

in the same way as increased user charges. By observing the response

to changes in the cost of access, we can impute the response to changes

in the admission fee, and thereby derive the demand curve for the area

in question. The area under the demand curve up to the quantity actually

consumed yields the aggregate willingness to pay per unit time for the

site(s). In addition to access costs, most applications of this algorithm

include demand shifters such as income and influence of competing sites.

It is implicit in this approach that the trip taken is a single purpose

trip, and that travel time has neither positive nor negative value. These

and other limitations, together with methods for overcoming them or

mitigating their effects are discussed by Beardsley (1971). This author

L/ These methods, and several other aspects of recreation economics are discussed very thoroughly by Kalter (1971), and Knetsch (1974).

2' Personal verbal communication. Joseph C. Horvath, School of Forestry, U.

of Montana.

?' So called because the idea was first introduced by Hotelling (1949) and

then developed by Clawson and Knetsch (1966).

114
feels that the travel cost approach should yield more reliable estimates than the interview method, because the former is based on actual

rather than hypothetical behavior. Economists generally seem to feel

that, if undertaken with skill and care and with assumptions clearly

spelled out, the travel cost approach yields results which are

imperfect but which are defensible as measures of user benefits from

outdoor recreation. To what extent has this work been applied in the

field?

A survey by the author of state recreation departments in the Southeast

indicated that none of them attempt to place a value on the recreation experiences they provide. At the federal level some desultory use

nf

the

range of values recommended by the Water Resources Council (1973)- is in

evidence, but no sustained coordinated effort to derive "willingness to pay"

values has been undertaken, to the author's knowledge. However, an excellent evaluation of reservoir recreation in Texas has been completed by Grubb

and Goodwin (1971) for use in the Texas Water Plan, using an elaboration of

the H-C-K method, and many other worthwhile ad hoc studies have been completed.

Another recent survey undertaken by the author indicates that the cost

of implementing the willingness to pay valuation approaches ranges from

$5,000 to $300,000 depending on the scope and complexity of the analysis.

These are not large outlays when compared to the potential investment and

quantity of output at issue. However, in addition to financial resources, a

fairly high degree of technical skill is required to undertake such work and

to interpret the results. Work of this nature is best undertaken at a regional

level: data can be gathered most efficiently, avoiding costly duplication, a

likely comcomitant of a project by project approach. Between-site interactions

can be captured, and the requisite skills can be applied most efficiently.

The field planner or manager will likely have difficulty deriving and using

willingness to pay values if, in this respect, he is operating in an institutional vacuum. Instead of attempting to predict recreation use at a range of

prices for a proposed plan or site--i.e. to derive the site demand curve--

the planner can assume the present price range wiil obtain throughout the

planning horizon. By getting a sense of the distance people are prepared to

travel for recreation of the type in question, together with population and

income projections for the localities defined b y this travelling distance,-2/

and present rates of participation, some sense of potentiai consumption can

be derived. This can be matched against present and potential capacity. If

consumption will exceed capacity under these conditions, various rationing

LfA value range of $0.75 - 2.25 per recreation day is recommended for general,

ubiquitous recreation such as camping, warm water fishing and small game hunting. A range of $3.00 - 9.00 is recommended for specialized recreation, including wilderness camping and big game hunting.

z/Such small area projections are avaiiable from the Water Resources Council.

115
schemes such as raising price, instituting a first-come first-served permit

system etc. can be examined; the possibility of expanding capacity can be explored, this being viewed in the context of what must be compromised elsewhere to achieve such expansion, and so on.

If the valuation of direct (user) recreation benefits is deficient in

theory and practice, the equivalent process for external benefits has barely

even begun. However, Krutilla and Fisher (1975) in their excellent book The

Economics of Natural Environments point out that often it is not necessary to

arrive even at direct benefit values for non-development use of natural areas.

They identify, using time series data, an asymmetry in the valuation of the

benefit stream resulting from development of natural resources as compared to

the benefit stream resulting from leaving them in their natural state. They

argue that the real price of the development alternative tends to fall over

time as a result of technological development, while conversely the price of

outputs from the non-development option is likely to rise since there are no

close substitutes, supply is essentially fixed or declining, and such outputs

appear to be quite income elastic. They demonstrate in a number of case studies

that if the appropriate decay function is introduced in the development alternative, it has negative net benefits; the preservation alternative emerges by

default as it were, as the best choice --the need for valuation of preservation

benefits does not arise.

With some trepidation the following steps are recommended for the recreation manager regarding benefit estimation:

(a) Find out what is actually being paid presently in your

locality for various recreation experiences comparable to those to be offered at the facility or area for which you are planning.

(b) Estimate the expected value of fish or game caught per visitor

day.

(a) and (b) should give you a feeling for what the minimum values might

be that you could apply to the proposed outputs. This last expression--

proposed outputs--is a rather slippery concept, since the recreation

actually consumed will depend in part on what is charged for it.

(c) Estimate future consumption along the lines discussed earlier

in the text.

(d) If the choices are very contentious, as when an area suitable

for wilderness designation also has'valuable commodity resources, try to

hire a competent applied welfare economist to help derive willingness to

pay estimates.

(e) Encourage higher echelon personnel to devote resources to the

development of willingness to pay estimates for recreation.

(f) Try to pinpoint and discuss external benefits emanating from

the proposed recreation plan(s).

116
CONCLUDING REMARKS

It was suggested that a major advantage of using economic analysis in

recreation planning is that it institutionalizes the consideration of alternatives. Prerequisites for fruitful use of economics include a positive attitude toward potential charge, sufficient time for and a capacity for reflection, and a capability to use and understand the analytic techniques.

The manner in which economists set about identifying the costs and benefits associated with particular recreation plans was discussed. Two broad categories

of cost and benefit--direct and external--were identified. It was concluded

that in most instances direct costs (avera

$

!?7

and marginal) could be fairly

readily derived by the retreat on manager.- Such information could be used

to help guide pricing policy.2 Knowing the direct cost at which recreation of

various types is being and can be generated can be very helpful to a decisionmaker, even when the value of benefits generated in each instance has not been

determined. Being able to examine the cost implications of implementing alternative means of reaching a predetermined objective can also be helpful. Among

other things it may result in a re-appraisal as to whether that particular goal

should indeed be "pre-determined." Except in the case of recreation provided

by .the private sector, and here by no means always, price paid does not usually

yield a good measure of the direct (user) benefit of a recreation experience.

A substantial research effort has been undertaken over the years to develop and

refine methods for deriving such benefit values. The "willingness to pay"

valuation approaches appear most appropriate, but their adoption by the major

outdoor recreation providing agencies has been only sporadic. Until a more

positive attitude on this matter is taken by the agencies, there is little the

individual site planner can do in this regard, unless he or she happens to have

skills in recreation economics and have the time to indulge them. Failing

this, undertaking careful use projections under various scenarios, and displaying how much it will cost (direct) to accommodate various posited levels of consumption is a useful way to link use and resource requirements.

Efforts should be made to identify and discuss external costs and benefits,

The implications of taking a significant irreversible decision (all decisions

being irreversible in a trivial sense) should be spelled out with particular

care. In some instances it will not be possible to classify an externality as

either a cost or benefit, since its "value" will depend both on the perception

of the individual and on the context in which it would occur. Thus the development of tourism in the Appalachians will be viewed by one person as a means of

providing employment, thus retaining economic and thereby cultural viability

in the mountains, while another will view the same proposal as emasculating

and debilitating, likely to remove the last vestiges of individuality and dignity

from the group in question. Economists have had some success at tracing the

local income, employment and tax yield impacts of alternative levels of outdoor

I/However, there may be difficulty in allocating some costs in the case of

multi-output projects. However, reasonably satisfactory procedures have been

developed for handling such situations. See Eckstein (1965) for a discussion

Of these.

/Several articles in the Journal of Leisure Research 7(Z), 1975 discuss

recreation pricing policy.

117
recreation use. To a somewhat lesser degree, the distribution of benefits a d

costs--who gains and who loses, and to what extent--has also been examined.-9

Such impacts can only be displayed, since their positive or negative significance

will depend on perspective and context.

Thomas Carlyle admonished economists in 1850:

"Professors of the Dismal Science, I perceive that the length of your

tether is now pretty well run; and that I must request you to talk a

little lower in the future."

This refrain is frequently echoed today. I hope

some small flavor of the more positive aspects of the

lates to outdoor recreation.

LITERATURE CITED

that this paper gives

Dismal Science as it reBeardsley, Wendell, Dennis Schweitzer and Douglas Ljungre. 1974. Measuring

Economic Costs of Wilderness,Land Allocation. Paper presented at A National

Symposium on the Economics of Outdoor Recreation, New Orleans, La. November

11-13, 1974 (Proceedings forthcoming from USDA Forest Service).

Beardsley, Wendell. 1971. Bias and Noncomparability in Recreation Evaluation

Models. Land Economics 47:175-180.

Clawson, Marion and Jack L. Knetsch. 1966. The Economics of Outdoor Recreation,

Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.

Eckstein, Otto. 1965. Water Resources Development; the Economics of Project

Evaluation. 300 p. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Environmental Research Group. 1973. Southeastern Economic Survey of Wildlife

Recreation. Atlanta, Georgia State University.

Grubb, Herbert W. and James T. Goodwin. 1971. Economic Evaluation of WaterOriented Recreation in the Preliminary Texas Water Plan. Report No. 84.

Austin, Texas Water Development Board.

Haveman, Robert H. and John V. Krutilla. 1968. Unemployment, Idle Capacity, and

the Evaluation of Public Expenditures: National and Regional Analyses.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Hotelling, Harold. 1949. Letter in The Economics of Public Recreation,

Washington, D. C. Land and Recreation Planning Division, National Park

Service.

I/Some literature relating to regional impacts and distributional effects visa-vis outdoor recreation is reviewed by Kalter, x.cit. p. 127-172.

118
Kalter, Robert J. 1971. The Economics of Water-Based Outdoor Recreation: A

Survey and Critique of Recent Developments. 192 p. Springfield, Va.

National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce.

Knetsch, Jack L. 1974. Outdoor Recreation and Water Resources Planning.

Water Resources Monograph 3. 121 p. Washington, D. C., American Geophysical

Union.

Knetsch, Jack L. and Robert K. Davis. 1966. Comparison of Methods for Recreation Evaluation in A. V. Kneese and S. C. Smith (eds.) Water Research

p.' 125-142. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Krutilla, John V. and Anthony C. Fisher. 1975. The Economics of Natural

Environments. 292 p. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.

Krutilla, John V. 1967. Conservation Reconsidered, American Economic Review

57:777-786.

Lundgren, Allen L.. 1974. Economic Bases for Allocating Resources in Outdoor

Recreation. Outdoor Recreation Research: Applying the Results. USDA Forest

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-g, 113 p. North Cent. For. Exp. Sta., St. Paul,.

Minn.

'lyre, Gary L. 1975. Average Costs of Recreation on National Forests in the

South. Journal of Leisure Research 7:114-120.

Water Resources Council. 1973. Water and Related Land Resources: Establishment of Principles and Standards for Planning. Federal Register 38:

Part III September 10.

119
A CRITIQUE OF TBE PAPER ENTITLED

"ECONOMICS APPLIED TO OUTDOOR RECREATION: AN EVALUATION"

G. Robert OlsonY

There are two major questions posed in the "Introduction" to this

paper, i.e., (1) what are the present and potential roles of economics

in outdoor recreation management and planning, and (2) what economic

research is relevant and/or accessible to recreation managers and

planners?

The major portion of the paper is a response to the first question

consisting of a discussion of the concepts and methodologies of recreation

benefits and costs, and the arguments on their strengths, weaknesses, and

applicability are well presented. The second question, however, begs to

be answered.

After bemoaning the fact that unless the manager maintains an open

mind concerning alternatives, economic analysis becomes redundant; Convery

reveals the root of the problem in listing questions "The economist asks. . .

What are the alternatives? Is there a less expensive means of accomplishing

this objective? Can we generate more benefits out of this level of expenditure? and so on." In terms of generating economic analysis which is both

useful to and usable by managers, the questions which are perceived as

relevant to mansgers are not those the economist asks, rather those the

manager asks. RecreationTanners and managers are typm concerned

with such questions as "How many picnic tables should be built?", "What

mix of facilities should be constructed on a given site?", and "What will

be the effect of the fuel crisis on recreation visitation?" Granted the

possibility that some of the questions asked by both could and/or should

be the same, I would agree that often this is not the case for some of the

same reasons listed by Convery. In addition, I would argue that many recreation managers' experiences with economists and economic analysis have been

limited to presentations by economists on a theoretical/conceptual level

rather than an immediate problem solving level and that when the concepts

have in fact been applied to on the ground problems, the results and implications of the work have not been effectively communicated to the manager,

ergo the Dismal Science.

This is not to suggest that the lack of communication is a one-way

affair. LaPage (1974) has suggested that the word "demand' sums up a

world of misunderstanding" between economists and recreation administrators.

He explains thus:

For the economist, "demand" is a concept

of simple elegance and almost unlimited

utility. For the recreation manager,

"demand" is that less than elegant, but

equally unlimited, horde knocking down

the gate.

A/Economist, Recreation Resources Branch, Division of Reservoir

Properties, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.

120
It is further suggested that "market analysis" provides a middle ground

"where economic theory and the realities of administration can meet and

where both economists and managers can find useful answers to their

questions.' LaPage goes on to say the questions usually heard f'rcxu

park managers "are not questions of 'how much recreation at what price?,'

they are questions of 'what kinds of recreation and for how long?"'

Recreation researchers in general and ecornxnists in particular

must take the initiative in establishing effective communications with

recreation managers and planners to determine what problems are perceived

as relevant so that research and analysis can be oriented to those areas.

Only through such efforts will managers and planners gain an appreciation

for the potential power and relevance of the discipline as it relates to

outdoor recreation.

LITERATURRCITED

LaPage, W. F. 1974. Market Analysis for Recreation Managers (and

Down to Earth Economists). Paper presented at Economics of

Outdoor Recreation, A National Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana.

November 11-13, 1974 (Draft, Proceedings forthccpning from USDA,

Forest Service).

121
PRINCIPLES OF RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY

David W . rim&' *

Abstract .--Recseational carrying capacity is a complex and

troublesome concept that incorporates principles of the social as

well as the physical and biological sciences. There is no magic

number that is the capacity for a given recreation site. Deciding

how much and whzkind of use is acceptable for an area must be

based on managerial judgement and experience. The uncertainty of

such decisions can be substantially reduced by a consideration of

the interrelationships of (1) management objectives, (2) recreation

user attitudes, and (3) impacts of recreation use on natural resources. Some basic principles, based on a review of the current

state-of-the-knowledge, that relate to carrying capacity and that

seem relevant to outdoor recreation management are discussed.

Additional keywords: Management objectives, user attitudes, resource impacts, managerial judgement, regional planning, and use

control techniques.

Recreation planners and administrators are increasingly being challenged to

manage the growing numbers of outdoor recreationists. Many areas, both public

and private, are being threatened by overuse. For some managers the situation

is reaching crisis proportions--the physical environment is being damaged beyond

acceptable limits and the people visiting these areas are no longer receiving

a quality or enjoyable outdoor experience.

Determining Recreational Carrying Capacity is frequently voiced as a

manager's answer for solving the problem of seemingly overused recreation areas.

In defining carrying capacity, I assume that the primary goal of recreation management is to provide enjoyment and benefits for people. There'are certain constraints in doing this, of course--budgetary, administrative, legal, and the

capabilities of the physical environment. Thus, managers must determine the

amount and character of use an area can sustain over a specified time period

without causing unacceptable change to the physical environment or to the experience of the user.

Deciding what Constitutes unacceptable change is fundamental to the capacity

concept. Numerous students of the capacity issue have identified the interrelationships of (1) management objectives, (2) visitor attitudes and perceptions,

and (3) impacts of recreation use on the resource (e.g., Wagar 1964, Lime and

Stankey 1971). All three are important in determining capacity, but one component may be more significant than another depending on the type of recreational

activity and area being considered.

1/ Principal Geographer, North Central Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest

Service, St. Paul, Minn.

122
Carrying capacity then, is a management concept, a framework or way of

thinking about how to plan and manage a particular recreation resource. It Is

not the basis for some magic formula that gives the manager the answer to the

continuing question, "How much use is too much?"

Carrying capacity is a complex and troublesome concept that incorporates

principles of the social as well as of the physical and biological sciences.

It frustrates those attempting to conceptualize and apply it. There are numerous

calls for more capacity research (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 1975, Idaho Water

Resources Research Institute et al. 1975). - - Moreover, public land managing agencies

have received a mandate, through the Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan (Bureau

of Outdoor Recreation 1973), to determine specific carrying capacities for their

areas and to manage them accordingly. This commitment requires that:

"Each Federal recreation land managing agency will determine the

carrying capacity of its.recreation lands, considering management

objectives, ecological concerns, and user characteristics."

"AS a second step, each Federal recreation land managing agency will

institute necessary controls and develop new ways of managing the

movement of people to ensure that use does not exceed capacity."

Carrying capacity of recreation lands has been discussed in the literature

since the 1930's, but attention intensified markedly in the 1960's and has continued into the 70's. Several recent attempts have been made to bring together

and review literature relevant to the carrying capacity issue (Chubb and Ashton

1969, Ditton 1969). In 1971, Lime and Stankey published a state-of-the-knowledge

paper. In 1973, we published an annotated bibliography with over 200 citations

(Stankey and Lime 1973). Since that time, several other important papers have

appeared that add depth to the carrying capacity concept and synthesize the

growing body of literature on this subject (Conservation Foundation 1972a and

1972b, Lloyd and Fischer 1972, Fisher and Krutilla 1972, Frissell and Stankey 1972,

Burden and Randerson 1972, Tivy 1972, Ashton and Chubb 1972, Hopkins et al. - - 1973,

Alldredge 1973, Sudia and Simpson 1973, Lucas and Stankey 1974, Lime 1974, Ohmann

1974, Stankey 1974, Hammon et al.

servation Foundation 1974, %&burg

1974a and 1974b, Wagar 1974, Ditton 1974, Con1975, Pfister and Frenkel 1975).

In spite of the growing body of capacity literature, I contend that the

basic conceptual framework for carrying capacity has changed little since the

first definitive writing on the subject in the late 1950's and early 60's

(Anderson 1959, LaPage 1963, Wagar 1964, Lucas 1964a). These and most of the

others noted stress that carrying capacity considerations must recognize both

the durability of the environment to sustain use and the ability of the site to

produce a continuing flow of satisfactions and beaits to users.

Those interested in the philosophical and conceptual aspects of capacity,

on biological and social research, and on techniques for managing for carrying

capacity are urged to read these references. Verburg's paper(1975), especially,

is the most recent review and an excellent synthesis of the previous work.

123
I will not review or summarize these previous papers. I will attempt,

however, to briefly identify six basic principles that relate to carrying

capacity and that seem relevant to outdoor recreation management in the South

and elswhere.

Carrying capacity can be defined only in light of management objectives for

the area in question.

Although the character of the resource can indicate the durability of a

site under sustained use, almost any site could be "hardened" to accommodate the

type of recreational opportunity called for by management. Management objectives

should define, as specifically as possible, the kind of recreational opportunity

or opportunities that the area is to provide.

Perhaps two types of management objectives can be differentiated: (1) broad

objectives influenced or controlled by enabling legislation and general administrative policy; and (2) move explicit objectives that delineate the desired environmental setting to be sustained and user experience(s) the area is to produce.

Broad, general objectives typically: (1) could identify the kind(s) of

activities that might be provided (e.g., camping, picnicking, fishing, sightseeing, and hunting); (2) whether consideration would be given to the protection

of natural features; and (3) whether the area should be developed to serve as

many people as possible or should be limited to one or more specific kinds of

users, such as campers or hikers.

Explicit objectives typically are more difficult to define because they

must identify what kind of experiences are to be provided, and how and where

these experiences will be managed and sustained. The manager rnz be concerned

with such issues as the following:

1 . General use intensity or level of solitude desired,

2. Type(s) of use desired--automobiles, off-road recreation

vehicles (OBIW's), horses, overnight and/or day-use, large groups,

3. Level of development and accessibility of recreation facilities

desired--from simple to elaborate and remote to easily accessible

that denote a range in the character, number, and location of

facilities, and,

4 . General degree of naturalness desired (on a continuum in which

wear and tear to the resource is limited so it will recover

naturally over time to an opposite situation in which the site .

is intensively managed and "hardened" in order to accommodate

intensive use).

These more explicit objectives may also be influenced by administrative

and policy constraints. Furthermore, limited funds, personnel availability,

and technical limitations can inhibit certain objectives. Studies of user attitudes and preferences and research to determine environmental impacts of use also

can help establish objectives.

124
Obtaining attitudes and preferences of recreation users and non-users

can help administrators set objectives and may suggest needed changes in

current policy.

Management cannot rely solely on public opinion as a basis for policy.

Yet, there usually is more than one alternative for a given management problem.

Scientifically collected information provides a more accurate cross section of

views than do public meetings or occasional letters and personal visits from

highly motivated citizens. Such information provides inputs from publics not

otherwise available.

Soliciting public opinion, however, does allow the manager to review the

mix of attitudes that exists regarding a specific issue. Frequently, users and

potential users disagree as to what they want--a quality experience to one person

may be altogether unacceptable to someone else. Furthermore, and perhaps more

importantly, user preferences may be quite different from manager preferences

and from what managers believe the public wants (Stone and Taves 1958, Lucas

1964b, and 1970, Hendee and Harris 1970, Clark et al. 1971, Peterson 1974). - -

Gathering data on public attitudes can be especially useful in identifying

the range and mix of public desires for a given recreation site or geographic

region. Such information can help managers define specific conditions or actions

necessary to achieve management objectives. For example, an agency might decide

to provide basic camping facilities (accessible by automobile) in relatively

remote locations. Studies of attitudes could provide indices of how visitors

might respond to different-size campgrounds; the type of setting individual

camp units are located in; spacing between units; the kind and spacing of toilets,

water facilities, and other facilities (trails, playground equipment, etc.);

the design of access roads; and, various information and interpretation materials.

Public attitudes can be categorized in an infinite number of ways. Groups

might be differentiated by their: (1) perception of a site as a local, State,

regional, or national resource; (2) motives for visiting the area; (3) previous

outdoor recreation experiences; and (4) knowledge of alternative activities and

areas. Wilderness users, for.instance, have been categorized on the basis of

how "wilderness oriented" their attitudes were (Hendee and Stankey 1973). Other

research has identified differing attitudes for distinct use-seasons (Shafer 1969)

and for different locations within a given recreation area (Beardsley 1967, Lucas

1964a, Lime 1971).

The results of such attitude surveys are not a substitute for management

experience and good judgement. Nor do such studies make decisions easier for

managers. On the contrary, results may increase the number of alternatives that

must be considered. It also is important to know who may oppose various management actions. Once management decisions are made, especially on controversial

issues, it may be as important to take appropriate steps to explain to these

users why their preferences cannot be met as it was to learn about the mix of

opinions in the first place (Lime 1972).

A full range of recreation opportunities within a region to satisfy the

diversity of recreation tastes is desirable.

125
In setting management objectives and standards for an area such as Southern

Appalachia, it seems imperative that managers think of developing a balanced

system or spectrum of recreation opportunities. These should include not only

2 variety of regional recreation activities (hiking, swtmmfng, hunt%ng, boating,

etc.) but also 2 range of different kinds of opportun ities for 2 given activity

such as auto-access camping (Lime 1974). No one manager or agency need feel

obligated to meet the demands of all recreation users, Each public agency, for

example, could aim at providing oror more specific types of recreation opportunities and refer those wanting something different to a more appropriate area.

Obviously, regionwide collaboration among private and public managers is

mandatory if 2 full 2nd appropriate mix of opportunities is to be provided.

There does seem to be some dialogue among those managing developed campgrounds

(Angus et al. 1971, Lime 1974). I have reviewed some long- and short-term - -

management plans, which indicates that between them it is possible to provide

the public with a full range of csmpgrounds from the most sfmple to the most

elaborate. Some federal and State agencies now indiczte they plan to take a

major role in providing low-density, simple campground development and are encouraging the private sector to tske the lead in. providing i,ntensivelj; developed

facilities. Although my review indicates that regionwide planning is possible,

more coordination seems both desirable and necessary--for all types of outdoor

recreation.

The character and amount of change permitted to occur to the resource resulting from recreation use must relate directly0- management objectives.

The durability of an are2's resources to withstand use is an important constraint on carrying capacity. But, knowing what chznges occur under specific

leveis and kinds of use does not by itself tell the manager what is 2n acceptable

amount of change, To define what change shall be permitted., the manager should

relate resource change to specified management objectives.

There are many possible "standards of acceptabie chznge" the manager could

use. For example, in anelaborate, high-density-use c2mping area, the management

objectives would allow the m2nager to employ 2 variety of techniques to offset

resource impacts--such 2spaving, barriers, and planting hardy species. On the

other'hand, in a campground with a similar resource base but where the cbjective

is to provide camping in 2 fairly natural setting, the amount of resource change

permitted would be comparativeiy small, In this case the manager would probably

rely on use restrictions ratiher than on- techniques that wouid "harden" the site.

There are many techniques to manage an area for its carrying czpacity; the

techniques selected, however.- - should depend on the management objectives for the - -

area.

A decade ago Alan Wagar 0964) developed 2 useful framework for discussing

various ways to manage both natura 1 resources and visitors for carrying capacity.

He emphasized that the selection of 2 technique or combination of techniques to

control the character and amount of use largely depends on th2 specific mancgement objectives for the 2x2. In doing this, managers should seek to: (1) reduce conflicts among competitive uses, (2) reduce the destructiveness of some

users, (3) increase the durability of the physical resource, 2nd (4) provide

increased opportunities for visitor enjoyment. These goais can be achieved by

the three overlapping types of control measures suzmrarized in table 1 (Modified

from Lime and Stankey 1971, Gilbert et al.. 1932). -- -

126
Table l.-- Some measures to control the character and intensity of recreational use to meet

desired management objectives

Type of control Method Specific control techniques

Site Management

(Emphasis on site

design, landscaping,

and engineering)

Harden site Install durable surfaces (native,

nonnative, synthetic)

Irrigate

Fertilize

Revegetate

Convert to more hardy species

Thin ground cover and overstory

Direct Regulation of

Use

(Emphasis on

regulation of

behavior; individual

choice restricted;

high degree of control)

Channel use

Develop

facilities

Increase policy

enforcement

Zone use

Erect barriers (rocks, logs, posts,

fences, guardrails)

Construct paths, roads, trails, walkways, bridges, etc.

Landscape (vegetation patterns)

Provide access to underused and/or

unused areas

Provide sanitation facilities

Provide overnight accommodations

Provide concessionaire facilities

Provide activity-oriented facilities

(camping, picnicking, boating,

docks, and other platforms, playground equipment, etc.)

Provide interpretive facilities

Impose fines

Increase surveillance of area

Zone incompatible uses spatially

(Hiker only zones, prohibit motor

use, etc.)

Limit camping in some campsites to

one night, or some other limit
Table 1. (continued)

Restrict use

intensity

Rotate use (open or close roads,

access points, trails, campsites,

etc.)

Require reservations

Assign campsites and/or travel routes

to each camper group in backcountry

Limit usage via access point

Limit size of groups, number of horses,

vehicles, etc.

Limit camping to designated campsites

only

Limit length of stay in area (max./ min.)

Restrict Restrict building campfires

activities Restrict fishing or hunting

Indirect Regulation

of Use

(Emphasis on

influencing or

modifying

behavior; individual

retains freedom to

choose; control less

complete, more

variation in use

possible)

Alter physical

facilities

Inform users

Set eligibility

requirements

Improve (or not) access roads, trails

Improve (or not) campsites and other

concentrated use areas

Improve (or not) fish or wildlife

populations (stock, allow to die out,

etc.)

Advertise specific attributes of

the area

Identify the range of recreation

opportunities in surrounding area

Educate users to basic concepts of

ecology

Advertise underused areas and

general patterns of use

Charge constant entrance fee

Charge differential fees by trail,

zone, season, etc.

Require proof of ecological

knowledge and recreational

activity skills
Managers can employ many techniques in and around a recreation site to

protect soil, vegetation, wildlife, and water. Such measures channel or restrict the movements of people thereby limiting the area they damage, provide

surfaces that can withstand intensive use, and provide access and facilities

to areas that are otherwise unused or very lightly used.

It is important to recognize that site management techniques have an immediate and significant affect on the character, of the area and the kind of

recreational opportunity offered. Hence, drastic or even seemingly subtle

changes in the design and types of facilities used can alter the character of

the site to the point that it may no longer be satisfactory to the current

users. This transition has often been observed in small, informal campgrounds

that have been closed or have evolved into large, modern, intensively-developed

camping areas. The resulting process of "creeping campground development"

forces out a sizable segment of those campers seeking solitude and contact with

nature (Hendee and Campbell 1969b Clark et al. 1971, Lime 1974). In many areas - -

these "displaced campers" can no longer find the type of camping areas they

enjoy.

There also are many direct and indirect ways to control recreational use.

By direct, I mean controls that directly regulate where and when visitors can

use the area, how long they can stay, and what sorts of activities they can

engage in. Some of these measures are very authoritarian and'greatly restrict

the user's,freedom of choice.

Indirect controls, on the other hand, are more subtle and less obtrusive.

They do not interfere directly with an individual's freedom of choice. The

emphasis is on influencing the user to make choices that produce changes desired by the manager. In essence, the manager seeks to modify user behavior

without the user being aware of this influence. For instance, reducing trail

maintenance in certain areas might convince some hikers not to use those trails

in favor of others that are better maintained. As another example, hikers

seeking solitude could be informed specifically where use is lightest. In

both examples, such actions could help redistribute use and might also help

more people increase their enjoyment.

As a general strategy, I would urge that the indirect, more subtle types

of controls be tried and evaluated first before the more authoritarian, heavyhanded kinds of actions are pressed into service. In particular, do not apply

heavy-handed use restrictions because they appear cheapest or administratively

convenient, When more regulatory types of measures are necessary, they should

be applied as far in advance of the visitor's arrival at the site as possible

(Lucas 1973, Magi11 1974, Stankey et al. 1974). - - In established wilderness areas

and in unroaded backcountry settings, controls should be applied before the

visitor enters an area; and, the visitor should be free to roam within the area.

Ultimately, the recreation manager is still left with the difficult

decision of deciding how much and what kinds of use are accentable for a

given area, and how and where such uses are to be managed and sustained.

129
For some decisions, the appropriate course of action is rather clear

because there are few alternatives. In others,information necessary to make

the decision may be meager or conflicting. Further, decisions may be influenced by administrative, legal, budgetary, and resource constraints.

Research can help a manager by finding out what people want from a

recreation experience and what they think about alternative actions. I t

can also help by determining how the resource will be affected by various

kinds and levels of use. In effect, however, such information only reduces

the range of uncertainty associated with a given decision; it does not eliminate the uncertainty.

The point is that research, both social and biological, cannot be viewed

as a panacea for management that will tell the recreation manager what to do. ---

As I stressed earlier, there is no magic formula for capacity and there is no

magic number that is the capacitFfor an area.

Without a marriage of managerial judgment and facts, the quest for quality

recreation management appears destined for "rougher days ahead". Some warn

that without adequate public participation in resource decision making "...resource managers will find themselves in the backwash of the environmental movement, serving as mere resource custodians with most decision making in other

hands" (Hansen 1970).

LITERATURE CITED

Alldredge, Rendel B. 1973. Some capacity theory for parks and recreation

areas. Trends, Oct., Nov., Dec.: 20-30.

Anderson, K. R. 1959. A user-resource recreation planning method. Natl.

Adds. Count. on Regional Recreation Planning, Hidden Valley, Loomis, Calif.

80 p.

Angus, J., C. Corssmit, and J. Ii. Foster. 1971. Criteria for public supply

of outdoor recreation facilities. 37 p. Amherst Agric. Rxp. Stn. Res.

Bull. 592. Univ. Mass., Amherst.

Ashton, Peter G.,and Michael Chubb. 1972. A preliminary study for evaluating

the capacity of waters for recreational boating. Water Resour. Bull. 8(3):

571-577.

Beardsley, W. 1967. Cost implications of camper and campground characteristics

in central Colorado. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-86, 7 p. Rocky Mt. For.

and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Coilins, Colo.

Burden, R. F.,and P. P. Randerson. 1972. Quantitative studies of the effects

of human trampling on vegetation as an aid to the management of semi-natural

areas. J. Applied Ecol. g(2): 439-457.

Chubb, M.., and P. Ashton. 1969. Park and recreation standards research: the

creation of environmental quality controls for recreation. Rep. to the Natl.

Recreation and Park Assoc. Tech. Rep. 5. Recreation Resource and Planning

Unit, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing. 76 p.

130
Clark, R. N., J. C. Hendee, and F. L. Campbell. 1971. Values, behavior, and

conflict in modern camping culture. J. Leisure Res. 3(3): 143-159.

Conservation Foundation. 1972a. National parks for the future. Washington,

D.C.: Conserv. Found. 254 p.

Conservation Foundation. 1972b. National parks at the crossroads: drawing

the line where protection ends and overuse begins. Conserv. Found. Letter,

Sept. Washington, D. C. 12 p.

Conservation Foundation. 1974. Carrying capacity analysis is useful but limited.

Conserv.Found. Letter, June. Washington, D.C. 8 p.

Ditton, R. B. 1969. The identification and critical analysis of selected literature dealing with the recreational aspects of water resources use, planning,

and development. Res. Rep:23. Water Resour. Center, Univ. Ill., Urbana.

293 p.

Ditton, R. B. 1974. Water resources management and carrying capacity applications.

Proceedings of the Sixth Recreation Management Institute. Texas A&M Univ.,

Texas. p. 15.1-15.7.

Fisher, A. C., and J. V. Krutilla. 1972. Determination of optimal capacity of

resource-based recreation facilities. p. 115-141. In Natural Environments.

J. F. Krutilla, ed. Resour. for the Future, Inc., Wzhington, D.C. 352 p.

Frissell, Sidney S., Jr., and George H. Stankey. 1972. Wilderness environmental quality: search for social and ecological harmony. Sot. Am. For.

Annu. Meet. Proc., Hot Springs, Ark. p. 170-183.

Gilbert, C. Gorman, George L. Peterson, and David W. Lime. 1972. Toward a

model of travel behavior in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Environ. and

Behavior 4(2): 131-157.

Hammon, Gordon, H. K. Cordell, L. W. Moncrief, M. R. Warren, R. A. Crysdale,

and J. Graham. 1374a. Capacity of water-based recreation systems part

I : the state of the art-literature review. Water Resour. Res. Inst.

North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina. 49 p.

Harmnon, Gordon, H. K. Cordell, L. W. Moncrief, M. R. Warren, R. A. Crysdale,

and J. Graham. 1974b. Capacity of water-based recreation systems part

II: a systems approach to capacity analysis. Water Resour. Res. Inst.

North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina. 46 p.

Hansen, R. P. 1970. The resource manager and environmental quality: problems

and opportunities. (Abstract)iSoc. Am. For. Ann. Meet. Proc., Las Vegas,

Nevada. p. 13-15.

Hendee, John C., and Frederick L. Campbell. 1969. Social aspects of outdoor

recreation--the developed campground. Trends in Parks and Recreation 10:

13-16.

131
Hendee, John C., and Robert W. Harris. 1970. Foresters' perception of wilderness-user attitudes and preferences. J. For. 68:. 759-762.

Hendee, John C., and George H. Stankey. 1973. Biocentricity in wilderness

management. Bioscience 23(9): 535-538.

Hopkins, F. S., Jr., G. H. Manning, and H. H. Webster. 1973. Planning for

the future in outdoor recreation: an economic viewpoint. For. Chron. 49(2):

71-75.

Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon Water Resources Research Institute, and State of Washington Water Research Center. 1975. Regional

problem analysis in the Pacific Northwest. Washington State Univ., Pullman,

Wash. 122 p.

La Page, Wilbur. 1963. Some sociological aspects of forest recreation. J.

For. 61: 32-36.

Lime, David W. 1971. Factors influencing campground use in the Superior

National Forest of Minnesota. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-60, 18 p., illus.

North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Lime, David W. 1972. Behavioral research in outdoor recreation management: an

example of how visitors select campgrouuds. p. 198-206. In Environment and

,the social sciences: perspectives and applications, ed. bFJ. F. Wohiwill and

D. H. Carson. 300 p., illus. Wash., D. C.: Am. Psychol. Assoc.

Lime, David W. 1974. Locating and designing campgrounds to provide a full

range of camping opportunities. In Outdoor recreation research: applying

the results. Papers from a work&p held by the USDA Forest Service at

Marquette, Michigan, June 19-21, 1973. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-g. p. 56-66.

North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Lime, David W., and George H. Stankey. 1971. Carrying capacity: maintaining

outdoor recreation quality. p. 174-184. In For. recreation symp. proc.,

N.Y. Coil. For., Syracuse, Oct. 12-14, 197c 211 p. Northeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

Lloyd, R. D.,,and V. L. Fischer. 1972. Dispersed versus concentrated recreation

as forest policy. Seventh World For. Congr. Proc., Buenos Aires, Argentina.

196(E): 18 p.

Lucas, Robert C. 1964a. The recreational capacity of the Quetico-Superior

Area. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. LS-15, 34 p., illus. Lake States For. Exp.

Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Lucas, Robert C. 19641,. Wilderness perception and use: the example of the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Nat. Resour. J. 3(l): 394-411, illus.

Lucas, Robert C. 1970. User evaluation of campgrounds on two Michigan national

forests. USDA For. Se1-v. Res. Pap. NC-44, 15 p.; illus. North Cent. For.

Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

132
Lucas, Robert C. 1973. Wilderness: a management framework. J. Soil Water

Conserv. 28(4); 150-154.

Lucas, Robert C., and George H. Stankey. 1974. Social carrying capacity for

backcountry recreation. & Outdoor recreation research: applying the resultfi.

Papers from a workshop held by the USDA Forest Service at Marquette, Michigan,

June 19-21, 1973. Gen. Tech. Rep, NC-9. p. 14-23. North Cent, For. Exp.

Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Magill, Arthur W. 1974. Dispersal of recreationists on wild.lands. In Outdoor

.recreation research: applying the results, Papers from a workshop held by

the USDA Forest Service at Marquette, Michigan, June 19-21, 1973. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NC-9. p, 101-106. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St, Paul, Minn.

Ohmann, Lewis F. 1974. Ecological carrying capacity. In Outdoor recreation

research: applying the results. Papers from a workshop held by the USDA

Forest Service at Marquette, Michigan, June 19-21, 1973. Gen. Tech. Rep.

NC-9. p. 24-28. North Cent, For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Peterson, George L. 1974. A comparison of the sentiments and perceptions of

wilderness managers and canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. J.

Leisure Res. 6(summer): 194-206.

Pfister, Robert E., and Robert E. Frenkel. 1975. The concept of carrying

capacity: its application for management of Oregon's Scenic Waterway

Dept. of Geography, Oregon State 'Univ., Conrallis. 50 p.

Shafer, Elwood L., Jr. 1969. The average camper who doesn't exist. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-142, 27 p., illus. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Upper Darby, Pa.

Stankey, George H. 1974. Criteria for the determination of recreational carrying capacity in the Colorado River basin. p. 83-101. In Environ. Manage.

in the Colorado River Basin. Utah State Univ. Press, Logan, Utah.

Stankey, George H., and David W. Lime. 1973. Recreational carrying capacity:

an annotated bibliography, USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep, INT-3, 45 p.

Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

Stankey, George H., Robert C. Lucas, and David W, Lime. 1974. Patterns of

wilderness use as related to congestion and solitude. Assoc. Am. Geographers

Annu. Meet. Proc., Seattle, Wash. 18 p. (mimeo)

Stone, Gregory P., and Marvin J. Taves. 1958. Camping in the wilderness.

p. 290-305. InMass leisure, ed. by Eric Larrabee and Rolf Meyersohn.

429 p. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.

Sudia, T. W., and J. M. Simpson. 1973. Recreation carrying capacity of the

National Parks. Guideline 3(3): 25-40.

Tivy, Joy, 1972. The concept and determination of carrying capacity of recreational land in the U.S.A. CCS Occas. Pap. 3, Countryside Commission for

Scotland, Butteby, Redgorton, Perth. 58 p.

133
USDI, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1973. Outdoor recreation--a legacy for

America. USDI. 89 p.

USDI', Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1975. In Outdoor recreation research needs

workshop Proc. Harper's Ferry, West Virgiza. 110 p.

Verburg, K. 1975. The carrying capacity of recreational lands: a review.

Occas. Pap. 1, Planning Div., Prairie Region Parks, Winnipeg, Manitoba,

Canada. 70 p.

Wagar, J. Alan. 1964. The carrying capacity of wildlands for recreation. For.

Sci. Monogr. 7, 23 p.

Wagar, J. Alan. 1974. Recreational carrying capacity reconsidered. J. For.

72(5): 274-278.

134
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED

"SOME PRINCIPLES OF RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY"

Leo F . Marnel&

The concept of recreational carrying capacity has gained wide acceptance

during the past decade among practitioners of outdoor recreation management.

But the transformation of theory into on-site planning .and management is an

awesome task, one that appears to be progressing with some difficulty. Perhaps recreation management as a profession is on the threshold of an era where

necessity will dictate the required solutions.

The author is cautious in his treatment of the subject. This, however,

is understandable in view of the turmoil which accompanied the early evolution of the concept. Acceptance of recreational carrying capacity as a workable approach was initially set back by misguided enthusiam. Many proponents

failed to comprehend the difficulty of interfacing a conceptual model with

the realities of applied management. The procedure advocated by Dr. Lime

provides planners with a notion of the appropriate end product, but it remains

ultimately the manager's task to find the most acceptable way to accomplish

this. The author's approach to carrying capacity determination does not promise a clear path to easy solutions. As noted in the paper, decisions should

be made better, but they will not necessarily be made easier. Perhaps, the

greatest value of the concept is that it provides a framework for identifying

the most important considerations in management decision-making.

Recreational carrying capacity is a multi-dimensional concept. The goal

of management is to maintain the quality of the resource and sustain user enjoyment at some predetermined level. The word "predetermined" is significant

and forms the basis for a lengthy discussion of management objectives. A

"hierarchy of objectives" is examined by the author with consideration directed

first to the role of enabling legislation, broad general policies, etc. Although these mandates identify some of the basic constraints, the manager

eventually arrives at that level of decision-making which requires a choice

between alternatives, and often there are many. Several approaches are suggested as aids (i.e., research, public opinion surveys, etc.), but it is also

recognized that a manager will often be required to make judgments not totally

acceptable to his clientele. One caveat not mentioned, though it is implied

under the term "administrative constraints", is the matter of political influences on management decision-making. This is not a point worth belaboring,

but the record shows that it is a factor which public land managers must

reckon with. Not even the most scientifically based approach to carrying

capacity determination will survive intact if circumstances bring adverse

political pressures to bear.

1! Research Biologist, National Park Service, Ozark National Scenic Riverways,

Van Buren, MO 63965.

135
Some penetrating questions are posed by the author's suggestion that recreation planners (federal, state, private, etc.) in a given geographic region

collaborate to provide a "balance system or spectrum of recreational opportunities." Few would challenge the desirability of such an effort, but the

prospects for success are questionable. Of paramount importance, at least in

the case of public recreation resources, is the necessity of instilling this

kind of thinking in our legislators. A balanced complement of recreation

resources within a region will require vision and careful planning at this

level. Interagency cooperation in such a venture is not an insurmountable

barrier as long as goals and objectives remain within the scope of the various

agencies' governing policies. Perhaps to stimulate the invalvemnnt of state

agencies and private enterprise in such a venture, the federal government

should consider grants or other subsidies contigent upon cooperating parties

filling certain voids in the "spectrum'. The benefits of what could be gained

through this approach might make the effort worth pursuing.

Included in the paper is a table describing strategies for regulating

use within established limits. Although not detailed, the list outlines

adequately the basic alternatives for manipulating both people and resources

to achieve prescribed objectives.

Not a great deal has been done in the way of on-site implementation of

current theories in recreational carrying capacity, but several efforts have

gone forth with modest success. With the current interest in recreation research, positive results may soon be realized on a broader scale. The central

theme of the paper might have been strengthened by the inclusion of a few "case

histories" describing the results of pioneer efforts in establishing carrying

capacity. Overall, the author has done an admirable job of probing the complexities of a provocative and widely talked about subject.

136
HUNTERS AND HUNTING: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH

John C. Hendee and Dale R. Potted'

Abstract .--Data are summarized from 33 studies pertaining to

hunting participation--hunter characteristics including age, education, occupation, income, residence; hunter motives; membership in

sportsmen organizations and reading of sporting magazines; antihunting sentiment; and nonconsumptive wildlife use. These data are

interpreted for implication about the future importance and nature

of hunting and wildlife management. The authors see the continued

importance of hunting but perhaps at reduced levels. The provision

for and integration of opportunities for both hunting and wildlife

appreciation are an important resource management challenge.

Keywords: Hunting, hunter. characteristics, hunter motives, antihunting, nonconsumptive wildlife use, wildlife management.

INTRODUCTION

Hunting has been a popular American activity ever since nomadic groups

crossed the Bering Straits in pursuit of game. These first native Americans

depended on their hunting success for survival. But even then, hunting was

more than a source of food. The legends and folklore of early American cultures abound with references to the festivity, glory, and satisfactions of

the hunt. Even then hunting was pleasurable as well as necessary.

Likewise, the folklore describing white colonization of the American

frontier is replete with reference to hunting as a recreational activity,

a source of food for the spirit as well as the body.

Today, the pleasures associated with hunting still have an important

place among our cultural traditions, although 20th century development has

severely reduced game habitat and free opportunities to hunt. As industrialized society grew in the United States, millions of acres of game habitat

were wiped out by urban sprawl, population growth, commercial development,

the advent of agri-business, reclamation of marshland and desert, and clean

cropping of arable land. The loss of rural American lifestyle has also been

important in its impact on the prevalence of hunting. Today, most Americana

1' The authors are, respectively, Recreation Research Project Leader

and Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station, 4507 University Way N.E., Seattle, Washington 98105.

We wish to thank our colleagues Keith Stamm, Jack Thomas, James Applegate,

William Shaw, and Thomas More for their technical review and comments on an

earlier draft of this paper.

137
are second or third generation urbanites who have not spent their youth close

to the "split rail" values described by Leopold (1949). They are removed

from the influence of rural traditions and values which foster hunting as a

recreational outlet and a supplemental source of food.

Fortunately for hunters and game alike, the urbanization and industrialization of America were accompanied by the development of several natural

resource management professions --forestry, wildlife and range management--

and by many State, federal, and private wildlife organizations. These professions and organizations are devoted to applying modern concepts and management techniques to make our scarce natural resources go farther in meeting

increasing and competing demands. Some game species such as deer, elk, and

turkey have increased in response to management.

Within the modern resource management context, hunting is incorporated

in a larger ua use planning equation. In this planning process, the many

demands for use of natural resources are evaluated by managers with the help

of the public. Many managers and hunters are concerned about the weight

given to hunting in the overall planning process. Some think that interest

and participation in hunting is decreasing in the United States in favor of

nonconsumptive uses of wildlife. Conflict is already evident between hunters

and segments of the public opposed to hunting on grounds that it is a barbaric

and intolerable activity in modern society. For their part, hunters quote

managers' claims that some game can be harvested each year to maintain healthy

populations. They also point to the crowded ranks of nimrods as evidence of

the popularity of their sport.

Guiding the future development of hunting and game management will not

be easy. This planning must take advantage of the latest research-based

information. In this paper, we summarize data from more than 33 studies of

hunters and discuss their implications for important game management issues

and concerns.-2/ In particular, we will'try to use these data to forecast

future participation in hunting as a consideration in resource management

and to lay a groundwork for the management challenges to come.

HOW POPULAR IS HUNTING?

The many competing demands for land use challenge managers to evaluate

the impacts of all potential uses. One measure of a recreation activity's

impact and popularity is the number of persons that participate.

Nationally, hunting is a popular sport. About 16.4 million persons

hunted in 1974 or nearly 8 percent of the U.S. population over 12 years old.

Since 95 percent of hunters are males, this means that almost 15 percent of

U.S. men are hunters. For comparative purposes, consider that only 4 percent

of the U.S. population snow ski, 9 percent hike, and 14 percent camp (U.S.

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 1971).

2/ See appendix 1 for a list of studies summarized in this paper and

background information on them.

(1969) and Schole (1973).

Other reviews'of studies appear in Peterson

Additional literature on related human behavior

aspects of wildlife are annotated in Potter et al. (1973a) and the state of

knowledge and need for specific research assessed in Hendee and Potter (1971).

138
Trends in hunting participation are complex. The 16.4 million licensed

hunters in 1974 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1975) reflect a 16-percent

increase in number since 1961 (fig. 1A).

15,

"1 _/".

1 3

I

0' , I I I

'60 '65 IO '75

YEAR YEAR

Figure 1. --Trends in the number of licensed hunters in the United States and

percent of licensed hunters in the population. (Only licensed hunters are

shown; a 1960 national survey showed that one hunter in five is unlicensed

(U.S. Department of the Interior 1961).) Source: Compiled from U.S. Llepartment of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service records.

This trend suggests continued growth in the absolute numbers of hunters,

but it does not show whether hunting is holding its own in relation to general

population growth. Figure 1B shows licensed hunters as a percentage of U.S.

population and indicates that the proportion of hunters in the population

fluctuates from year to year. But the overall trend is neither up nor down

and has remained between 7 and 8 percent for the last 15 years. In other

words, these two graphs show that, nationally, the absolute number of hunters

continues to increase, but hunting participation has held its own d ring

37

the

last 15 years in the proportion of the American public that hunts.-

Figure 2 shows that there is considerable regional variation in hunting

participation among the nine U.S. census regions as reflected by number of

licensed hunters and percent of the population that hunted in 1970 in each

region. Participation ranged from a high of almost 17 percent in the Mountain

States, to a low of 5 percent in New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific

regions. This regional variation appears to be related to a number of factors

such as population density, urbanization, land ownership, hunting opportunity,

game populations, and regional subcultures.

Clearly, hunters are a minority group but so are other prominent outdoor

recreation groups--such as skiers, hikers, and campers. Urban sprawl and

21 For an excellent discussion of trends in hunting license totals dating

back to 1937, see Poole (1964).

139
-.E. NORTH CENTRAL

3.095 hunters. /

e

Figure 2. --Number of hunters (millions) and percent of population that hunted

during 1970 by regions. Source: U.S. Llepartment of the Interior 1972.

development continue to reduce game habitat and hunting opportunities. But

the demand for hunting seems likely to continue.

What do these trends mean to wildlife managers? First, the increasing

numbers of hunters will cause additional hunter crowding and make it more

difficult for managers to provide quality experiences. This is particularly

true considering that the amount of land available to support game and hunting

is declining, with few exceptions. Second, the relatively constant proportion

of the population that hunts shows no signs of predicted downturn in hunting

participation. The Southeast River Basins Commission presents figures showing

that the per capita.demand for hunting was not expected to be sustained beyond

1975; and by the year 2000, the percent of user days of hunting will decline

(U.S. Study Commission, Southeast River Basins 1963). Another assessment

indicates that by 1985 the proportion of the population that hunts will not

only decline but the absolute numbers likewise will be reduced (Cicchetti 1969).

Such predictions are viewed with much alarm in some quarters, even though

not yet substantiated. Paradoxically, some persons fear the demise of hunting

if the historical yearly increase in hunters is not sustained. But it is

incongruous to believe that wildlife management can increase or even maintain

the supply of game and its supporting habitat in the face of ever increasing

demand. These are limits to growth! Another view 5s that a leveling off--

perhaps even a little decline-- in hunting participation will be a biessing

in disguise to bring demand in balance with a constant or slowly decreasing

140
supply. The provision of quality hunting and maintenance of the sport as a

rewarding and popular American activity depend on such a balance.

WHO ARE THE HUNTERS?

Surveys of the demographic characteristics of hunters--age, education,

occupation, income, and residence--provide information important to resource

managers. Like market surveys, these studies of game management clientele

have direct implications for communicating, anticipating preferences and

desires, and identifying the beneficiaries of a sport that draws on public

resources.

The following demographic data are synthesized from nmerous studies.

In a strict sense, these studies cannot be added together or averaged because

of differences in sample populations, research methods used, type of data

collected, and categories used -in reporting. However, we are attempting to

present a "state of knowledge" composite based on existing information. The

following figures were constructed and estimated around data described in

detail in appendices 2 through 6.

To give perspective, we often compare hunter characteristics with those

of the general population and wilderness recreationists. Wilderness use

was selected for comparison because this activity, like hunting, is a strenuous

outdoor activity. The characteristics of wilderness users have been well

established by research. Following the presentation of data about the demography of hunters, the implications of this composite are considered.

The age distribution for hunters is somewhat skewed toward older age

classes compared with the general population (fig. 3 and appendix 2). Unlike

the general population, which includes more older and younger persons, hunters

are predominantly middle-aged adults. More than 40 percent are between 26

and 45 years old, although hunters are found in all age categories except

the very young.

It is important to note that only 14 percent of all hunters are under 20

years old because studies indicate that most hunters--some 90 percent in one

study (Klessig and Hale 1972)--are initiated into hunting before they reach

20 years of age. Population trends may indicate a decreased number of young

people initiated into hunting in the future, because census data reveal a

downward trend in the numbers in younger age groups in the U.S. population.

The age group from 12 to 17 years dropped nearly 7 percent over a recent S-year

period and nearly 15 percent for the lg- to 24-age group (Slater 1972).

Education

Eighteen'studies from nearly as many States show that hunters are fairly

*typical, averaging only slightly more education than the general population.

A slightly greater proportion of hunters has gone beyond a high school education

than the general public (fig. 4 and appendix 3). In this respect, hunters are

more "average" than wilderness users, who tend to have much more education

than the general population.

141
AGE (years)

piire 3. --Age distribution of U.S. hunters compared with U.S. population (see appendix 2 for

specific hunter data from 20 studies).

50,

40,

30,

5

%

B

0 20,

10,

LESShAN HIGH &HOOL MOR;THAN COltEGE

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE

EDUCATION

Figure 4. --Educational attainment of U.S. hunters, compiled from 18 studies, compared with the U.S. population

and wilderness users (see appendix 3 for specific hunter

data). wiiderness data source: Hendee (1967).

142
Occupation

The occupational distribution of hunters varies according to the region

and type of hunting studied but closely resembles the general population

(appendix 4)'. A synthesis of numerous studies shows hunters to be about 2Opercent white collar and 40-percent blue collar with the rest distributed

among sales, service, agriculture, and other categories.

Hunters are sometimes characterized as a blue collar group; but even

though there may be more in this occupational category than in others, the

distribution approximates the general population. Wilderness users, on the

other hand, are drawn heavily from the ranks of professional and managerial

occupations (Hendee et al. 1968, Vaux 1975).

Income

The income distribution of hunters approximates ,that of the general

population, and hunters appear in all income brackets (fig. 5 and appendix 5).

U.S. population

INCOME

Figure 5. --Income of hunters compared with U.S. population and wilderness users (see appendix 5 for specific

hunter data from 18 studies). Wilderness data source:

Hendee (1967).

About 25 percent earn less than $5,000 annually, and 15 percent earn more than

$15,000. Thus, hunting does not over-represent either the rich or the poor,

although collectively these two groups account for nearly 40 percent of all

hunters. Wilderness users, on the other hand, include a greater proportion

(40 percent) from higher income groups. This is undoubtedly related to their

higher educational and occupational classifications. Again, the main point is

that hunters closely approximate the general population.

143
Residence

Whereas hunting is often described as an activity of rural residents

(Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 1960), data from 16 studies

indicate the contrary (appendix 6). Only one study in the Southeast found

more than half of the hunters had rural residences. On the other hand, six

out of seven studies indicate that a majority of hunters spent part of their

childhoods in rural areas.

IMPLICATIONS OF HUNTER CHARACTERISTICS

A composite view of the demographic characteristics of hunters indicates

that hunters are primarily young to middle-aged adults, just slightly better

educated than the general population, of average occupational classification

and income, and primarily urban residents with rural backgrounds. Compared

with both hunters and the. general population, wilderness users have higher

education, occupational classification, and income.

Some of the implications of these demographic data are as follows. The

benefits of hunting, whatever they may be, are being distributed to a rather

typical group of Americans. The fact that they hunt and are more likely to

have a rural upbringing are about the only characteristics found to distinguish hunters from the rest of the U.S. population.

Most Americans reside in urban areas and so do hunters. But hunters

tend to have been raised in rural areas. The decline in rural influences

in America may signal a decline in activities associated with rural lifestyles

and memories such as hunting.

A potential decline in hunting participation may also be implicit in the

demographic breakdowns. Most hunters are introduced to the sport before they

are 20 years old, but recent trends show recruitment into hunting is declining

in the young age classes.

HOW ORGANIZED ARE HUNTERS?

The organization of hunters, including the proportion of hunters belonging

to sportsmen's organizations and those who subscribe to sportsmen's magazines,

reflects potential political strength and indicates the development of communication channels among hunters.

Ten studies (table 1) indicate that from 18 to 47 percent of hunters

belong to sportsmen's organizations, but the average is about 25 percent. This

makes hunters one of the most highly organized outdoor recreation groups, comparable to wilderness users, about 20 percent of whom belong to conservation

groups or outdoor clubs (Hendee et al. 1969). Although many of the hunting and

sportsmen's organizations are local, the powerful National Rifle Association,

organized in 1871, claims over a million members. Additionally, one staunch

antihunting personality points out that the following organizations are

prohunting or at least do not oppose it: American Humane Society, Sierra

Club, National Audubon Society, National Geographic Society, American Forestry

Association, Wildlife Society, Izaak Walton League of Americans, National

Wildlife Federation, and Boone and Crocket Club (Amory 1974). The point is

that hunting has considerable backing.

144
Table 1 .--Hunter membership in sportsmen's organizations

Location of Year studied Population

study studied Citation Members

Kansas 1967

Maine 1965

Northeast

Ohio

Pennsylvania

1965

1959

1965

Southeast

Texas

Washington s

Wisconsin

Wisconsin

1971

1973

1971

1970

1968

Fish and Game

Magazine

readers

Hunters and

fishermen

Hunters

Hunters

Hunters

Hunters

Waterfowl

hunters

Hunters

Zimmerman

(1968)

Lobdell

(1967)

Bevins et al.

('1968)

Peterle

(1961)

Sofranko

and Nolan

(1970)

Horvath

(1974)

Berger

(1974)

Potter et al.

(1973b)

Eisele

(1970)

Klessig and

Hale (1972)

Percent

46 . 9%'

18.5

25.0

24.0

27.3

17.7

18.8

18.0

36.0

22.0

g This figure is probably atypical because sportsmen's magazine readers

are more likely to belong to sportsmen's organizations.

k' Other hunter types include big-game hunters, 20.9 percent; waterfowl

hunters, 28.5 percent.

A few studies have looked at the proportion of hunters who read sportsmen’s magazines. Surprisingly, about 60-80 percent regularly read one or more

sportsmen’s magazines (Zimmerman 1968, Potter et al. 1973b). Outdoor Life,

Field and Stream, and Sports Afield were by far the most widely read sportsmenlS magazines, followed by.local and regional sportsmen’s newspapers and

magazines.

Thus, hunters are relatively well organized and have a well-developed

communication network, both prerequisites to political strength. Hunting

values and information about issues of concern are continually disseminated to

hunters. This organization and communication network will help foster the

continuation of hunting and will protect it from adversaries.

145
WHY DO PEOPLE HUNT?

Philosophizing about why people hunt has been popular for a century or

more, but only recently have motives for hunting been a topic for research.

it is worthy of rigorous research because it can tell managers what kind of

experiences hunters are seeking. From one perspective, the real products

of game management are hunting experiences and the satisfactions and benefits

to which they lead (Hendee 1974). Managers need to know what kinds of experiences are desired so they can manage game, land, and hunting conditions to

produce an optimum mix of favored experiences.

At least 16 studies report why people hu

43

ted oryield other information

related to hunters' motives and preferences.- These studies, using different

methods and conducted under varying conditions, have yielded consistent findings. Two important concepts emerge. First, there are several general pleasures

or satisfactions that people get from hunting. Second, although harvesting

game is an obvious goal of hunters, it is not reported as the only or primary

satisfaction in hunting.

If we translate the many reasons (one study listed over 70) given for

hunting in these studies into the conceptually similar pleasures or satisfactions they suggest, the following emerge: nature appreciation; companionship;

shooting; using skills; vicarious enjoyment from anticipation, recall, hearing,

and reading about hunts; harvesting game (success); displaying one's ability

and success; using special equipment; physical exercise; recreational diversion;

relaxation; escape from civilization; and esthetic enjoyment. Although the

studies of hunters' motives and preferences use a variety of terminology, the

satisfactions described above account for the most commonly reported attractions of hunting.

Harvesting game, or success, is an important satisfaction; but it is only

one of many. A statewide study in Washington (Potter et al. 1973c) showed

success ranked eighth--behind nature appreciation, escapism, companionship,

and four other hunting satisfactions. Some minimum probability or level of

success is important to hunters and is no doubt necessary to activate or

enhance other hunting satisfactions, but most studies of motives for hunting

indicate that other satisfactions are more important.

What these data indicate is that hunting is similar to other kinds of

outdoor recreation in that it is a way of getting a variety of diverse satisfactions. With the amount of available game dwindling and success per hunter

declining, hunting satisfactions other than success are likely to be even

more important, Game and land managers must coordinate their efforts to provide hunters with quality experiences in a broad sense. The kinds of experiences available to hunters are strongly affected by management practices

unrelated to game production--e.g., road access, camping opportunities, controls

on congestion and crowding, communication efforts, and law enforcement.

k' Davis 1962, Kirkpatrick 1965, Davis 1967, Ashcroft 1967, Bevins et al.

1968, Garrett 1970, Klessig and Hale 1972, Doll and Phillips 1972, Haulsee

et al. 1973, More 1973, Potter et al. 1973b, Potter et al. 1973c, Schole et al.

1973, Stankey et al. 1973, Kennedy 1974, Horvath 1974.

146
Since hunters seek a variety of experiences, managers can satisfy mor(a

hunters by providing a full spectrum of hunting opportunities. Then hunters

can pick and choose the kinds of experiences they want rather than being

forced into a homogeneous mold. Unfortunately, some activities in resource

management operate against diversity. For example, increasing the number of

roads in managed forests eliminates opportunity to stalk game away from

civilized improvements and encourages only "road hunting". Likewise, the

need to sell more and more hunting licenses to generate needed revenue tends

to produce quantity rather than quality hunting.

SOME CURRENT ISSUES

Antihunting Sentiment

Hunters and game managers are concerned about the potential influence of

antihunting sentiment on the acceptability of the sport. Part of the anxiety

arises from not knowing the effect that antihunting commentary may have on

broader public opinion and its subsequent impact on hunting as an activity

managed primarily by public agencies.

How many people oppose hunting, and what are their reasons? The findings

of five studies are illuminating. Two studies in New Jersey revealed that a

large proportion (38 percent in 1972 and 43 percent in 1974) of the general

population disapproved of deer hunting. Although those that approve still

outnumber those that disapprove, the margin has declined from 16 to 6 percent

in 2 years (Applegate 1973, Applegate 1975). Opposition to-hunting in New

Jersey was associated with urban residence and appears to be stronger than in

some other regions. A study in 11 Southeastern States found only 5.5 percent

of the population opposed to hunting (Horvath 1974).

Dale Shaw (1973) studied antihunting attitudes among students in five

universities across the country on the premise that these young adults will

occupy future positions of influence. He found that 75 percent of the students

expressed some antihunting or antihunter sentiment, and 19 percent were totally

against sport hunting. In another study, William Shaw (1974) found antihunting

opposition grounded in negative attitudes about the behavior of hunters, sympathy

for individual animals as victims, and concern about the disruption of nature's

balance.

At least 25 organizations, all but 4 being national or international in

scope, have been identified with an antihunting objective (Frodelius 1973).

In 1973 these groups claimed a total membership of 314,000 persons. Frodelius

determined that the antihunting opinions of these organizations rested on

negative reactions toward killing of wildlife, methods of hunting, management

methods, fear of wildlife extinction, and to hunters as a class of people.

The issue of antihunting sentiment provokes "heat" whenever it comes up

among game managers or hunters, both of whom understandably feel their interests

are threatened. Resource managers must recognize that the issue involves a

conflict of values--a situation that may be better understood, but not resolved,

by any objective assessment of the logic underlying divergent views. Antihunting groups reflect one value system resting on a variety of supporting reasons.

Likewise, prohunting advocates hold just as strongly to their view based on many

other reasons. Attacks on the reasons underlying these divergent perspectives

147
will not necessarily change either the orientations or the values of those who

hold them. But by knowing more about the basis for antihunting sentiment,

managers and hunters can minimize their vulnerability to criticism.

What can game managers and hunters do to disarm the criticism of antihunters?

Several things seem important. First, hunter information, training, and safety

programs need renewed emphasis to reduce hunting accidents, promote sportsmanship,

instill a conservation ethic, build respect for property owners, and bring the

realization among all hunters that their behavior contributes to an image of

hunting that may affect its acceptability to the public at large.

Second, more effective programs are needed to promote and extend wildlife

related law enforcement including trespass and property protection regulations.

Soliciting hunter cooperation in reporting game violations may be helpful in

pursuing this goal under current shortages of agency money and,manpower. Several

States have initiated such programs.

Third, hunting literature, advertising, and movies should be encouraged to

feature positive recreational and esthetic aspects of hunting. The killing of

game animals and trophy hunting should not be emphasized since they are only

two of the many aspects of the sport that attract hunters. Hunting should be

featured as a source of varied, recreational satisfactions and healthy outdoor

activity. That's what it really is.

Fourth, better definitions are needed of what is or is not acceptable sport

hunting, and the responsibilities of sportsmen, game managers, and landowners

in enforcing such a code.

Who should take the leadership role in promoting and implementing the above

recommendations? The authors feel this is the proper role for State game agencies

because they are at the fulcrum, balancing the concerns of sportsmen and landowners

while being legally responsible for game populations. The president of the

Wildlife Management Institute (Poole 1971) makes this same point very emphatically; "we cannot wait much longer in some areas. State agencies have got

to face up to their responsibilities, even to the point of ramming it down

the throats of sportsmen where the alternatives are clear." And we might add

that the State agencies' very survival may depend on such forceful action-if

current critics of hunting are to be denied real world examples of situations

and incidents that fuel antihunting sentiments.

The impact of antihunting sentiment on resource management will be negotiated, in large part, through political processes. There is some concern

that endorsement of hunting is decreasing, especially among college students

and urban residents. This may combine with other factors such as diminished

hunting opportunity, rural lifestyles and values, and population trends to

reduce future numbers of hunters. On the other hand, the political base of

hunters in sportsmen's organizations and their network of communication

through sportsmen's magazines still seem a powerful force for protecting the

future of hunting.

148
Nonconsumptive Wildlife Use

Nonconsumptive or appreciative use of wildlife is becoming more prevalent

according to a 1970 survey indicating the presence of 6.3 million birdwatchers

and 4.5 million bird and wildlife photographers (U.S. Department of the Interior

1972). A study in 11 Southeastern States found that over half the households

surveyed each averaged 146 days of birdwatching (Horvath 1974).

This use produces economic expenditures amounting to millions. The total

direct expenditures for the enjoyment of nongame birds, for example, were

estimated at $500 million in 1974. Expenditures for birdseed, binoculars, and

camera equipment constituted 95 percent of this total (Payne and DeGraaf 1975).

Most wildlife managers enthusiastically applaud this widening horizon

of their professional responsibility. But they are dismayed that so little is

known about the kind and extent of appreciative use of wildlife species by a

growing segment of the public. Some managers are apprehensive about growing

demands to manage for wildlife appreciation while there is scarcely enough

time and money for game management which pays the bills. This anxiety is well

founded since 62 percent of all wildlife management money comes from hunting

and fishing license sales, another 20 percent from tax on guns and ammunition

and only 5 percent from general State tax revenues (Wildlife Management Institute 1973). Innovative approaches to finance nonconsumptive wildlife such as

sale of wildlife stamps and personalized license plates either have failed or

have fallen well short of management needs and expectations. Some equitable

and long-term financing of nonconsumptive wildiife management is desperately

needed. Nonhunting programs should not be carried out at the expense of hunting interests but in addition to them with separate and adequate funding.

General tax revenues are one logical source, but these will require good supporting information about the extent of wildlife appreciation among t

the benefits derived, 5tf

e public,

and how management programs can optimize them.- In the

meantime, minimizing conflicts between the two uses is an obvious challenge

to resource management. Skillful management can minimize conflicts between

consumptive and nonconsumptive uses by separating them over time, space, and

use of wildlife habitat and populations. The impact of growing nonconsumptive

uses of wildlife on hunting will depend, in large part, on how well managers

meet this challenge.

CONCLUSION

Future increase in sales of hunting licenses is indicated by the data.

However, this may change as evidenced by a stabilized proportion of the

population that hunts and in response to increasing antihunting sentiment,

urbanization of American society, population changes, competition for wildlife,

habitat and game populations, and conflicts in wildlife values. This is not

to suggest that hunting will die out altogether. About 20 percent of all

hunters belong to sportsmen's organizations, a political advantage; in even

the heavily urbanized and populated regions of the country such as the Northeast,

L/Recent research on nonconsumptive wildlife include: Gray 1975,

U.S. Department of Agriculture 1975, Noges and Progulske 1974, Kellert 1974,

Hansen and Simmons 1974, Schweitzer et al. 1973.

149
where hunting participation is lowest, stable trends in hunting participation

have prevailed for years (U.S. Department of the Interior 1956, 1961, 1967,

1972)., Stabilized or even slight decline in participation may help balance

supply of hunting opportunities and demands leading to better quality hunting.

The strong emergence of nonconsumptive uses suggests that total wildlife

management--for hunting and nonconsumptive appreciation--will be an increasingly important consideration for resource management.

LITERATURE CITED

Amory, Cleveland.

1974. Man kind? Our incredible war on wildlife. 372 p. New York: Harper

and Row.

Applegate, James E.

1973. Some factors associated with attitudes toward deer hunting in New

Jersey residents. Proc. 38th North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf.

Reprinted in Human dimensions in wildlife programs, ed. by John C. Hendee

and Clay Schoenfeld, p. 111-117. Wildl. Manage. Inst.

Applegate, James E.

1975. Attitudes towards deer hunting in New Jersey: a second look. Wildl.

Sot. Bull. 3(1):3-6.

Ashcroft, William H.

1967. The socio-economics of recreational use of the Cache elk herd. M.S.

thesis, 77 p. Utah State Univ.

Berger, Michael E.

1974. Texas hunters: characteristics, opinions and facility preferences.

Ph. D. diss., 131 p. Texas A and M.

Bevins, Malcolm I., Robert S. Bond, Thomas J. Corcoran, Kenneth D. McIntosh,

and Richard J. McNeil

1968. Characteristics of hunters and fishermen in six Northeastern States.

Northeast Reg. Res. Publ., Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. Vt., Burlington, Vt.

Bull. 656.

Cicchetti, C. J., J. J. Seneca, and P. Davidson

1969. The demand and supply of outdoor recreation, an economic analysis.

Rutgers Univ. Bur. Res., New Brunswick. 301 p.

David, William C.

1962. Values of hunting and fishing in Arizona, 1960. Bur. Bus. and Publ.

Res., Univ. Ariz. Spec. Stud. No. 21. 61 p.

Davis, William C.

1967. Values of hunting and fishing in Arizona in 1965. Coll. Bus. and

Publ. Adm., Univ. Ariz. 91 p.

Doll, G. Fred, and Clynn Phillips

1972. Wyoming's hunting and fishing resources, 1970. Div. Bus. Econ. Res.,

Univ. Wyo. 116 p.

150
Eisele, Timothy T.

1970. Wisconsin waterfowl hunter attitud.es on regulations and management

policies. M.S. thesis, 123 p. Univ. Wis.

Folkman, William S.

1963. Levels and sources of forest fire prevention knowledge of California

hunters. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-11. 22 p.

Frodelius, Ronald B.

1973. Determination of anti-hunt organizations by content analysis of their

literature. M.S. thesis, SUNY, Syracuse.

Garrett, James R.

1970. Characteristics of Nevada hunters. Univ. Nev., Agric. Exp. Stn.,

Bull. B-22, 66 p.

Gray, G. G.

1975. Non-consumptive demand for wildlife by municipal conservation commissions in Massachusetts. M.S. thesis, 94 p. Univ. Mass., Amherst.

Greene, Jeffrey C.

1970. Characteristics of some Michigan shooting preserve users. J. Wildl.

Manage. 34(4):813-817.

Gum, R. L., W. E. Martin, A. H. Smith, and C. D. Depping

1973. Participation and expenditures for hunting, fishing and general

rural outdoor recreation in Arizona. Res. Rep. 270, 22 p. Ariz. Agric.

Exp. Stn.

Hansen, Lars, and Randy T. Simmons

1974. Public opinion survey of fishing and hunting activities in Utah.

Bur. Gov. and Opin. Res. Utah State Univ. Publ. No. 74-14, 93 p.

Haulsee, Hada V., Enoch Bell, Emmett F. Thompson, and Alfred D. Sullivan

1973. Management implications of deer hunter attitudes. Proc. Northeast

Sec. Wildl. Sot. 12 p.

Hendee, John C.

1967. Recreation clientele--the attributes of recreationists preferring

different management agencies, car campgrounds or wilderness in the

Pacific Northwest. Ph. D. diss., Univ. Wash., Seattle.

Hendee, John C.

1974. A multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. Wildl. Sot.

Bull. 2(3):104-113.

Hendee, John C., William R. Gatton, Jr., Larry D. Marlow, and C. Frank Broclanan

1968. Wilderness users in the Pacific Northwest--their characteristics,

values, and management preferences. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-61,

92 p.

Hendee, John C., Richard P. Gale, and Joseph rry

1969. Conservation, politics, and democrat P. J. Soil and Water Conserv.

24(6):212-215.

151
Hendee, John C., and Dale R. Potter

1971. Human behavior and wildlife management: needed research. Trans.

30th North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 36:383-396.

Horvath, Joseph

1974. Southeastern detailed analysis economic survey of wildlife retreat:

Environ. Res. Group, Ga. State Univ.

James, George A.,

1969.

Harold K. Cordell, Frank B. Barick, and Robert L. Downing

Small game hunting on western North Carolina wildlife management

areas. Part I - Characteristics of hunters. Wildl. N.C. 33(10):8-10.

Jamsen, G. C.

1967. Sex and age structure of licensed hunters, trappers and fishermen

in Michigan. Mich. Dep. Conserv. Res. Dev. Rep. No. 125, 14 p.

Kellert, Stephen R.

1974. From kinship to mastery: A study of American attitudes toward

animals. Report to Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Dep. Inter., 216 p.

Kennedy, James J.

1974. Attitudes and behavior of deer hunters in a Maryland forest. J.

Wildl. Manage. 38(.1):1-8.

Kirkpatrick, Thomas 0.

1965. The economic and social values of hunting and fishing in New Mexico

Univ. N.M. Bur. Bus. Res. 94 p., illus.

Klessig, Lowell I,.

1970. Hunting in Wisconsin: initiation, desertion, activity patterns, ant

attitudes as influenced by social class and residence. M.S. thesis,

152 p. Univ. Wis.

Klessig, Lowell L., and James B. Hale

1972. A profile of Wisconsin hunters. Tech. Bull. No. 60, 24 p. Wis.

Dep. Nat. Resour., Madison.

Leopold, Aldo

1949. A sand county almanac. 295 p. Oxford Univ. Press.

Lobdell, Charles H.

1967.

95 p.

Socio-economic characteristics of Maine sportsmen. M.S. thesis,

Univ. Maine.

Moncrief, Lewis Whitfield

1970. An analysis of hunter attitudes toward the State of Michigan's

antlerless deer hunting policy. Ph. D. diss., 258 p. Mich. State Univ.

More, Thomas A.

1973. Attitudes of Massachusetts hunters. Proc. 38th North Am. Wildl.

Nat. Resour. Conf. Reprinted in Human dimensions in wildlife programs,

ed. by John C. Hendee and Clay Schoenfeld, p. 72-126. Wildl. Manage.

Inst.

152

-2. .:.“, ,.*;,._ , . . . . 4 “-. -,” ....-I .-, -
Nobe, Kenneth C., and Alphonse H. Gilbert

1970. A survey of sportsmen expenditures for hunting and fishing in Colorr~tlo,

1968. Colo. Div. Game, Fish and Parks GFP-R-T-24, 83 p.

Noges, John H., and Donald R. Progulske (ed.)

1974. Wildlife in an urbanizing environment. Plann. and Resour. Dev. Ser.

28, 182 p. Holdsworth Nat. Resour. Cent. Univ. Mass., Amherst.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission

1960. National recreation survey. Outdoor Recreation Resour. Rev. Comm.

Study Rep. 19, p. 8-54.

Palmer, Walter L.

1966. An analysis of the public use of southern Michigan game and recreation

areas. Ph. D. diss., 131 p. Mich. State Univ.

Payne, Brian R., and Richard M. DeGraaf

1975. Economic values and recreational trends associated with human enjoyment of non-game birds. In Proceedings of the Symposium on management

of forest and range habitats for non-game birds. USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. WO-1, p. 6-10.

Peterle, Tony J.

1961. The hunter--who is he? 26th Conf. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour.

Trans. 26:254-266, illus.

Peterle, Tony J.

1967. Characteristics of some Ohio hunters. J. Wildl. Manage. 31(2):375-

389.

Peterson, William J.

1969. A literature review of deer harvest. Colo. Div. Game, Fish and

Parks and Coop. Wildl. Unit, Spec. Rep. No. 22, 15 p.

Poole, Daniel A.

1964. How many hunters? Am. Rifleman 112(1):15-18.

Poole, Daniel A.

1971. Insuring the future of hunting and fishing. Wildl. Sot. News

(136):1, 46.

Potter, Dale, R. Kathryn M. Sharpe, and John C. Hendee

1973a. Human behavior aspects of fish and wildlife ConserVatiOn: An

annotated bibliography.' USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-4, 288 p.

Potter, Dale, John C. Hendee, and Lee E. Evison

1973b. Hunters at regulated plant-and-shoot pheasant areas in western

Washington. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-160, 30 p.

Potter, Dale, John C. Hendee, and Roger N. Clark

1973c. Hunting satisfaction: game, guns, or nature. Proc. 38th North

Am. Wildl. Natur. Resour. Conf.

programs,

Reprinted in Human dimensions in wildlife

ed. by John C. Hendee and Clay Schoenfeld, p. 62-76.

Manage. Inst. Wildl.

153
Ryel, L. A.

1971. Deer hunters participation survey, 1970. Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour.

Res. and Dev. Rep. No. 254, 11 p.

Ryel, L. A., G, C. Jamsen, and L. J. Hawn

1970. Some facts about Michigans hunters. Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour. Res.

Dev. Rep. No. 197, 25 p.

Schole, Bernard J.

1973. A literature review on characteristics of hunters. Spec. Rep.

No. 33. Colo. Div. Wildlife. 15 p. State Publ. Code GFP-R-S-33.

Schole, Bernard J., Fred Glover, Douglas Sjogren, and Eugene Decker

1973. Colorado hunter behavior attitudes and philosophies. Proc. 38th

North Am. Wildl. Resour, Conf. Reprinted in Human dimensions in

wildlife programs, ed. by John C. Hendee and Clay Schoenfeld, p. 84-90.

Wildl. Manage. Inst.

Schweitzer, Douglas H., David A. Scott, Arthur W. Blue, and Jonathan Setter

1973. Recreational preferences for birds in Saskatchewan. Proc. 38th

North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. Reprinted in Human dimensions in

wildlife programs, ed. by John C. Hendee and Clay Schoenfeld, p. 42-50.

Wildl. Manage. Inst.

Sendak, Paul E., and Robert S. Bond

1970. A consumer analysis of licensed hunters and fishermen in Massachusetts.

Holdsworth Nat. Resour. Cent., Univ. Mass. 43 p. Planning Resour. Dev. Ser.

No. 14. Bull. No. 583.

Shaw, Dale L.

1973. The hunting controversy: attitudes and arguments. Ph. D. diss.,

174 p. Cola; State Univ.

Shaw, William W.

1974. Sociological and psychological determinants of attitude toward

hunting. Ph. D. diss., 84 p. Univ. Mich.

Slater, Daniel W.

1972. Review of the 1970 national survey. Trans. Am. Fish. Sot. 101(l):

163-167.

Sofranko, Andrew J., and Michael F. Nolan

1970. Selected characteristics,, participation patterns, and attitudes of

hunters and fishermen in Pennsylvania. Agric. Exp. Stn. Pa. State Univ.

Bull. 770, 39 p.

Stankey, George H., Robert C. Lucas, and Robert R. Ream

1973. Relationships between hunting success and satisfaction. Proc. 38th

North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. Reprinted in human dimensions in wildlife

programs, ed. by John C. Hendee and Clay Schoenfeld, p. 77-84. Wildl. Manage.

Inst.

Thomas, Jack Ward, and James C. Pack

1968. Joe typical-profile of a hunter. Outdoor W. Va. 32:19-20.

154
U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

1971. Selected outdoor recreation statistics. U.S. Dep. Inter. 145 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1975. Proceedings of the symposium on management of forest and range habitats

for non-game birds. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1, 343 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior

1956. National survey of fishing and hunting 1955. Fish and Wildl. Serv.

Circ. 44, 50 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior

1961. 1960 national survey of fishing and hunting. Fish and Wildl. Serv.

Circ. 120, 73 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior.

1967. 1965 national survey of fishing and hunting. Fish and Wildl. Serv.

Res. Publ. 27, 76 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior

1972. National survey of fishing and hunting 1970. Fish and Wildl. Serv.

Res. Publ. 95, 108 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior

1975. Record numbers of Americans hunt and fish. News release, May 25.

Fish and Wildl. Serv.

U.S. Study Commission, Southeast River Basins

1963. Plan for development of the land and water resources of the southeast

river basins. Appendix 12--planning. p. 2-101. Southeast River Basins

comm.

Vaux, H. J., Jr.

1975. The distribution of income among wilderness users. J. Leisure Res.

7(l) :29-37.

Watson, Marvan H., Gale C. Jamsen, and Lewis W. Moncrief

1972. The Michigan deer hunter. Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour. Res. Dev. Rep.

No. 259, 33 p.

Wildlife Management Institute

1973. National survey of State fish and wildlife, funding. 40 p. Wildl.

Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C.

Zimmerman, Donald E.

1968. Determination of the sources of conservation information and characteristics of selected Kansas sportsmen. M.S. thesis, 102 p., illus.

Kans. State Univ.

155
Appendix I.--Hunter study descrfptlon

Location Population Year Publication Usable Percent Study

of study studied studied citation response

response r*+* method

Arizona

Arizona

Arizona

California

Colorado

Kansas

Maryland

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

Nevada

New Mexico

North Carolina

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Texas

Utah

Washington

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Northeast*'

(6 States)

Southeas&

(11 States)

National All hunters

National All hunters

National All hunters

National All hunters

Hunters and

fishermen

Hunters and

fishermen

Hunting and

fishina households -

Hunters

Hunters and

fishermen

Fish/game

magazine readers

and Wildlife Federation members

Deer hunters

Hunters

Hunters and

fishermen

Hunters

Preserve hunters

Deer hunters

Deer hunters

Deer hunters

Deer hunters

Hunters

Hunters and

fishermen

Small game hunters

Hunters

Hunters

Hunters

EIk hunters

Pheasant hunters

All Washington

hunters

Hunters

Resident big

game hunters

Hunters

Hunters

1960 Davis (1962)

1965 David (1967)

1970

1959-60

1966-67

Gun et al. (1973)

Folkman (1963)

Nobe and Gilbert

(1970)

1967

1969

1970

1965

1966

1969

1968

1968

1966 and

1968

1971

1967-68

Zimnerman (1968)

Kennedy (1974)

More (1973)

Sendak and Bond

(1970)

Jamsen (1967)

Greene (1970)

Rye1 et al. (1970)

Moncrief (1970)

Rye1 (1971)

Haulsee et al. (1973)

Garrett (1970)

1963

1964-65

1959

1965

1972-73

1966

1971

Kirkpatrick (1965)

James et al. (1969)

Peterle (1961)

Sofranko and

Nolan (1970)

Berger (1974)

Ashcroft (1967)

Potter et al. (1973b)

1971

1967

1968

1970

1965

Potter et al. (1973c)

Thomas and Pack

(1968)

K;;;;;? and Hale

Doll and Phillips

(1972)

Bevins et a!.

(1968)

1971

1955

1961

1965

1972

Horvath (1974)

U.S. Department of

the Interior (1956)

U.S. Department of

the Interior (1961)

U.S. Department of

the Interior (1967)

U.S. Department of

the Interior (1972)

1,029

1,000

__ Intervfew

- - Interview

2,905

3.260

1,865

19.9 Mail questionnaire

31 Mall questionnaire

_- Interview

363 68.5 Mail questionnaire

373 02 Hail questionnaire

325 69.6 Mail questionnaire

1,070 64.3

12,425 - -

241 7 1

_ _ _ _

336 85

Majl questionnaire

Agency records

Questionnaire

Miscellaneous

Interview

336 93.9

3.513 67

- - _ _

3,648

445

1.100

318

1.581

517

1,062

5.540

I.353

1,035

53

-_

59.2

77.2

46.4

4 1

87.3

85

- -

Questionnaire

Mail questionnaire

Hail questionnaire

Hail questionnaire

Interview

Mail questionnaire

Mail questionnaire

Mail questionnaire

Questionnaire

Mail questionnaire

Mail questionnaire

Interview

6 9

__

6,589

9,332

6 9

77.25

Mail questionnaire

Mail questionnaire

Mail questionnaire

Intervfaw

InterviRI

Interview

Interview

Interview

2' Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania. Vermont, and West Virginia.

it' Arkansas , east Texas. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, naryland, flississippi, South Carolina. Tennessee,

Virginia, and Vest <Virginia.

156
Appendix 2.--Age dlstributlon from 20 studies in 14 States and 1 regional study

rot*1

Location

Year

Hunter age in yea13

studied

PpPulatipn Cftatfon

studled 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 and older pcrccnt

At-iZOn* 1960

Arimna 1965

California 1959-60

Colorado 1966

Maine 1965

t4*ss*-

chusetts 1965

Michigan 1966

"$chigan 1968

Michigan 1968

Michigan 1967

NW Mexico 1963

North

Carolina 1964-65

Northeagj (6

States)- 1965

Ohio 1959

Tsf.S 1973

Nalhlngto” 1971

Nashington 1971 Hunters

blat

Virginia 196i

Uirconsin 1968

wymling 1970

Hunters and Davis

fishermen ( 1962 )

N;;$W;:d Davis

(1967)

nunterr Folkman

( 1963)

Hunters and Nobe and

fishermen Gilbert

(1970)

"unterr and t&de11

flrhermen (1967)

Hunters

OC?r

hunters

c.?er

hunters

Deer

hunters

Deer

hunters

Hunters

Sendak

and Bond

(1970)

Jamsen

(1967)

Rye1 et

al. (197C

Rye1 (1971

Yatron et

al (19721

Kirkpatric

(1965)

Hunters

Hunters

Hunters

Pheasant

hunt&

James et

al. (1965

Bevinr et

al. (1961

*eter,e

(1961)

wrger

(1974)

Potter

et al.

(1973b)

potter

et al.

(1973b)

Hunters

Hunters

Big game

hunters

Thomas SW

P4c.k

(1968)

Klessig

and Hale

(1972)

0011 and

Phillips

(1972)

‘)

I

:k,

--------.----.----------p~~~~"t-------------------

, 12.6 , 6.5 , 22.0 , I 26.6 , I 17.9 I 6.6 I 3.5 100

, 12.0 16.6 I , 16.7 5 , 25.6 I I 20.5 I 12.4 , 4 3.6 100

2.2 , 8.81 6.4 , 8.3, 13.5 , 14.9 I 13.4 I 10.6 16.4 I 6.3 I 3.0 I 3.5 _

! I I 1 I gfil

15.8 , 27.9 , 28.2 , 17.1 , 11.0

I I I I

. 1w

I lo.* t lg.1 , 0 21.2 , I 19.5 , 1 16.1 i I 13.3 . 100

23.0 22.0 , 20.0 , 16.0 , 10.0 , I 5.0 I 4.0

I I I I 100

7.0 (6.21 11.5, 12.0[ 11.1 , 10.5 , 9.9 , 8.9 I 7.3 , 5.3 I 4.0 I 4.3

I I I I 100

0

1 1 I t I 2 14 [ 12 13 11 I 10 10 / 8 i 7 I 6 ! 4 I 4 1 I I I , I ,

lOl/

, 3 I9 I 11 , 1 13 , I 11 I t 10 , 6 / 10 I 6 , 5 , I 5 , 3 9d

t- 23 I 24 , 22 , 15 I 12 , 4 100

1

, , ,

5 12 11 I 27 , 26 I 17 1 1

, , 1 I 4 I 100

I 21 I , 25 , , 27 , I 16 I , 9 . 100

13 , 24 I 21 I 19 I 13 I 10 I I I I I 100

1 10 , 17 , 20 , 22 , 31 - 100

3 , 24 , 25 23 , 16 , , 7 I I 1 I , 100

+----P-t- 28 I 21 I 21 , I 4 100

17--P+- 24 I l9 1 25 , I 4 100

12 04 I 4 --_ 100

20 28 , 16 , 1 15 I 11 I 8

I I I I 100

, 15 , 8 , 10 , 21 , I I@ I 21 1 , 7 100

d Data reported in study d$d no: total 100 percent.

y Nalne, Nassachusetts. NW York, Pennsylvania. Vermont. and West Virginia.

157
Appendix 3.--Levels of hunter education from 18 studies fn 12 states. 2 re~ionrl.

Circled percentases indicate the exact proportion under that category

and 2 national Surv&

Year Population

Studied studled citation

Less than

high school graduate

High school sne

graduate

college Port

college graduate araduate TOtA,

Colorado 1966-67 Hunters and

fishermen

1965

1965

1969

1967

Hunters and

fishenen

Hunters

QWSW%

hunters

oeer

hunters

1965

Nobe and

Gilbert

(1970)

Lobdell

(1967)

Sendak and

Bond (1970)

Greene

(19701

Watson et al.

(1972)

U.S. oepartmerit of the

Interior

( 1967 )

U.S. oepartmmt of the

Interior

(1972)

Kirkpatrick

(1965)

James et al.

(1969)

-

I I

1 100

3 6 @ l7 @ 5 100

4 3 @ lo I 9

- 100

Location

Hsine

NaSs~chusetts

HichigSn

Michigan

liStiOnS

National Hunters

New Mexico

North

Camlina

Northeast

(6 States):’

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Southeast

Ill stamp

Teras 1973 Hunters clcrger (1974)

.Washington 1971

Washhgton 1971

Wisconsin 1960

wyoning 1970

1964-65

1965

1959

1965

1971 Hunters Horvath (1974)

Big game

hunters

Small game

hunters

HvnterS

Hunters

HWRWS

Pheasant

hunters

Hunters

Hunters

Big game

h""terS

4 0 @ 11 (g s loo

4 4 @ l5 @ 7 100

3 2 I 18 I 3 6 , 6 , 2

I

I 6

I 0 100

Ewins et a,.

(1968)

Peterle (1961)

Sofranko and

Nolan (1970)

4 1 @ 13 1 9

3 - loo

1 7 , 4 1 bl @

I

1

6

, 100

7

I 9@’

1 3 , 2 4 I 4 2 I 1.5

1

, 3

I I 100

1 5 @ 35 @ lo 9&

Patter et a,.

(1973b)

Potter et a,.

(1973b)

Klessi and

Hale 9 1972)

0011 and

Phillips

(1972)

2 3 0

2 2 1OlY

3 3 @ 18 s&’

2 5 @ l3 100

2 6

loo

r--Hsine, MasSachusetts, Nw York, Pennsylvania. Yemont. and West "irglnia.

I

Y Data reported in study did not total 100 percent

" Arkansas. east TSXSS, Georgia. Kentucky. Louisiana. Maryland. Mississippi. South Carolina. Tennessee. Virginia, and west Yirg(njS.

158
Appendix 4.--Hunter Occup~tims fm 22 studfes In 13 States and 2 regions1 studies

Location Year

studied

m;~;llion Blue

citation Yhite Sales,

collar kindred collar Servfce Agricultural Netfred Student ""m~loycd Other Total

laborers percwlt

Arizona 1960

AdlOIN

Calffomia

Colorado

1965

1959~60

196647

naine 1965

Massachusetts 1965

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

New NeX~CO

y:::;::)Y

Ohio

Pennsylvania

1969

196246

1968

1963

1965

1959

1965

Southeast

(11 statesp

Texas

Washington

1971

1973

1971

WashIngton 1971

Yfsconsin 1968

Wyoming 1970

Hunters and Davis 28 5 4 9 5 5 9

fishcmn (1962)

Hunters and Oavis 25 7 45 9 4 10

ffshermen (1967)

Hvnters Folkman 18 10 38 5 6 3 IO 1 9

(1963)

Hunters and Nobe and 3 7 6 43 4 7 1 2

fishermen Gilbert

(1970)

Hunters and Lobdell 1 2 2 9 44 (SW 1 5

ffshcmn ( 1967) Sales)

Hunters and Sendak and 24 14 40 1 3 2 7

fishermen Bond (1970)

Preserve

hunters

GWWW 53 1 4 1 9 6 0 1 -7-

( 1970)

Lker 1 4 4 s o 6 4 6 11 1 3

hunters Rye1 (1971)

Deer f'mcrie: 32 52 3 - 13 .

hunters (1970)

Hunters 

fishermen

and Kirkpatrick

(1965)

. 87 1 13p

aevins et 15 1 2 42 12 7 12

Hunters al. (1968)

Hunters Peterle 1 3 4 56 9 6 12

(19611

Hunters Sofranko 1 3 ‘13 42 9 6 17

and Nolan

(1970)

Horvath 30 5 38 5 a 9 1 2 3

Hunters ( 1974)

Hunters aerger

(1974)

54 16 6 -12 -

Pheasant Potter 31 1 0 30 2 6 14 7

hunters et al.

(1973b)

Hunters 'ET 20 a 39 3

(1973t;)

Hunters Klessi 4 and 1 9 4 41 3 a

Hale 1972)

Klessig

(1970)

6 I7 6

2 5

Big gane Doll and 40 3 31 5 14 3 2 2

hunters Phillips

(1972)

IOIl’

100

100

100

100

100

100

9@’

100

100

100

100

100

101g

a$

1w

100

1M)

100

g Data reported In study did not total 100 percent.

? Maine, Massachusetts. New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Yest Virginia.

LJ Arkansas. east Texas, Georgia: Kentucky. Louisiana, Maryland. Mississippi. South Camlfna. Tennessee. Vfrgfnfa, and Nest Vfrgfnfa.

159
Appendix S.--percent lnwm Distribution fm 18 studies in 13 States and 2 re9lonal studies

Yew Population 1ncar.e in thousmnda Of dollars

Location studied studied citation Tot*1

5 10 15 2 0 25 30 35 md above percmt

Arizona

Artzana

Colorado

1960

1965

1964

Hunters and

fishcmn

H"f::s'~;d

Hunters and

fishermen

Maine 1965

msa- ChUlttts

Michigan

Michigan

1965

1969

1968

new Neexico 1963

North

Carolina 1964

Hunten and

fishermen

Hunters and

fishermen

PWSeWe

hunters

oecr

hunters

Big game

hunters

Srdll game

-65 hunters

Oh10 1959 Hunters

Pen”-

Sylvania 1965 HUIXWS

southeas (11

%ates)E z 1971 Hunters

,.?x*s 1972 Hunters

Yathington 1971 Pheasant

hunters

Uashington 1971 “““tit3

Yisconsin 1968 ““nters

uyaning 1970 Big game

hunters

Davis

(1962)

Davis

(1967)

N%b:::

(1968)

‘g:;

Send& and

Bond (1970)

Greene

(1970)

Honcrief

(1970)

Kirkpatrick

(1965)

James et

al. (1969)

E I17 I 34 24 , ,10 , 5

, , I I

6 t 9, 28, 31, 18 , a

I 1 0

6 151 26181 25 , 14

,I I, I 16

1

13 (17+2611611116, 31 a

9 ,13~29124tlOl6 31 I 6

1 0 I 0

2 , 15 23 , , 28 J 32 .

# I I

4 1 4)19,27, 28 , a

I ,,I I

a I 181 28 / 29( 13 , 3

I I I I I

I 1

zr, 3l,M, I 9 , 3

, )

aevins et 11 17, 28 , ,20, 11, 612, 5

al. (1968) I, II,II

Peterlc (1961, 22 124,35111, a

1967) I 0 1 I

Sofranko and

Nolan (1970)

Horvath

(1974)

Berger

(1974)

potter et

al. (1973b)

Potter et

*I. (1973b)

Klesri and

Hale 91972).

Klersig I1970

Doll and

Phillips

(1972)

11 15, 28 i , ,211 13 4 , a

IIS II

11 I 13, 16 , 21 , 20

I

, 8 , 3 , 4

I I I

6 21 33 I i I 18 I lo I4 i 2

1 I 1 6 I I i 1 1

7 , 15 , 31 21 ( , 11 , 15 I I I I

13 , 21 23 , I 18 , a , 10

, , I 1

12 I 10 , 21, lair9l 12 , 9

I III, 1

) 6 11 25 31 , , , , 18

I I I I

5' Data reported in study did‘not total 100 percl w

9&

100

100

1W

lM1

loo

9or’

100

100

loo

100

loo

9&J

100

100

9Y

100

9&

w Maine, IWsachusctts, New York, Pennrylvanir. "emont. and Uest Virginia.

9 Arkansas. east Texas, Georgia. Kentucky, Louisiana. Haryland. Hisri~sippi, South Carolina, Tcnnersee, Virginia, and Nest Virginia.

160
Appendix 6.--Hunter and hunter childhood resfdence from 16 studies in 13 States and 1 regronal study

Location Year Population

studled studied Citation

Hunter residence Childhood residence

Rural Urban Rural Urban

Calffornia 195940 Hunters

Maine 1965 Hunters

Maryland 1969 Deer hunters

hssachusetts 1965 Hunters

Michigan 1961-62

Michigan 1969

New Mexico

North Carolina

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Southeast

(11 States@

Texas

Washlngton

69.4 30.6

1971

1973

1971

Washington 1971

Hunters

Hunters

Pheasant

hunters

Hunters

61.2 38.8

33.7 66.3 62.4 37.5

Horvsth (1974)

Berger (1974)

Potter et al.

(1973b) 49.0 51.0

Potter et al.

(1973b)

Klessig (1970)

Doll and Phillips

(1972) 32.0 68.0

a/ Arkansas, east Texas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana. Maryland, Mississippj, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vlrginla, and

West Virginia.

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1968

1970

Hunters

Big gm

hunters

70.0 30.0

62.0 38.0

1963

1964-65

1959

1965

Hunters

Preserve

hunters

Hunters and

fisherman

Small gama

hunters

Hunters

Hunters

Folkman (1963)

Lobdell (1967)

Kennedy (1974)

Sendak and Bond

(1970)

Palaw (1966)

Greene (1970)

Kirkpatrick

(1965)

Jams et al.

(1969)

Peterle (1961)

Sofranko and

Nolan (1970)

----------~-----------

33.3 67.4

78.1 21.9

33.0 67.0 44.0 E~.D

58.0 42.0

60.0 40.0

37.8 62.2

64.0 36.0

58.0 42.0

161
TOPIC IV

SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL

ABSTRACTS

CONSIDERATIONS

DRIVER

.Toward a Better Understanding of the Social Benefits of Outdoor Recreation Participation .--This paper proposes that recreation resource mana-,

gers need to give more attention to the benefits that a person derives

from participation in recreation activities. Behavioral information is

described as one of several types of knowledge needed in recreation planning and management decisions. A model outlining the dynamics of a recreationist's behavior is presented, Within that model sequences of specific types of recreation behavior are traced from: deciding on's

Particular recreation activity, planning and preparation, on-site engagement, recall, realizing satisfying experiences, to gaining the ultimate

benefits these experiences can produce. Personal and social benefits of

recreation participation are defined as the ways in whfch an individual

functions or performs more effectively because of his having partisipated

in a recreation activity. The importance to recreation resource management of information on these benefits is described as is the stage of'

knowledge for identifying and measuring them. Throughout, the need for

additional research is emphasized.

ERICKSON AND DAVIS

Public Involvement in Recreation Resources Decision Making.--In response

to legal and administrative requirements, federal natural resource agencies

are involving citizens in the decision making process. However, given the

arguments stated both for and against public involvement, one might raise

a question about the proper role of involvement in agency decision making.

While twelve general principles of public involvement and a number of relatively new public involvement techniques , e.g*, public information brochure,

nominal group and Delphi, are discussed, research has not progressed to the

point where "formulas" for involvement can be given. Agency cooperation is

vitally needed to permit a comparative evaluation of alternative techniques.

LAPAGE

New Roles for Government and Industry in Outdoor Recreation.--The examination of some possible future options for public parks and recreation

agencies is necessitated by 3 hard facts: 1. the rising dominance of the

private sector, 2. the emerging public revolt against increased tax supported programs, and 3. the trend toward greater public involvement in

agency decision-making. A central role 'for public parks'and recreation

agencies is seen to be that of a cooperator with the private sector, taking such forms as joint development planning, increased use of conceasionoperated public facilities , and new directions for public parks and recreation programs.

162
TOWARD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE

SOCIAL BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION

B. L. DriverL'

Abstract .--This paper proposes that recreation resource managers need to give more attention to the benefits that a person

derives from participation in recreation activities. Behavioral

information is described as one of several types of knowledge

needed in recreation planning and management decisions. A model

outlining the dynamics of a recreationist's behavior is presented.

Within that model sequences of specific types of recreation behavior are traced from: deciding on a particular recreation activity, planning and preparation, on-site engagement, recall,

realizing satisfying experiences, to gaining the ultimate benefits

these experiences can produce. Personal and social benefits of

recreation participation are defined as the ways in which an individual functions or performs more effectively because of his having

participated in a recreation activity. The importance to recreation resource management of information on these benefits is described as is the state of knowledge for identifying and measuring

them. Throughout, the need for additional research is emphasized.

Keywords: recreation benefits, recreation aspirations, recreation

experiences.

This paper is addressed to three questions: (1) Why should recreation

resource planners and managers give more attention to the human benefits "produced" from recreation opportunities? (2) How can information on these

benefits be obtained? and (3) How does this behavioral information fit with

the other types needed in planning and management?

The word "benefit" is used in reference to how participation in recreation

activities enhances or imporves the user's ability to function more effectively

after having participated. Such improved functioning could be physiological

(better physical health), psychological (improved mental health) or sociological

(increased commitments of recreationists to wise resource management because

of knowledge gained from participation). Also, the improvements in effective

functioning could be realized on the job (greater volume or increased quality

of work accomplished), at home (increased family solidarity), or in any environment.

The words "recreation experiences" are used in a context that should be

explained. At a broad level, a recreation experience is the sum of a participant's mental, spiritual, physiological or other .responses to a recreational

engagement. Such an overall experience might be satisfying or pleasurable,

11 Recreation research project leader, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range' Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Perry Brown

is thanked for his especially constructive comments on an earlier draft of

this paper.

163
or it might not be satisfying; there are "bad" as well as"good" experiences.

At this broad level there are general activity-dependent experiences, such as

a white-water canoeing experience for example. This general experience

would include all responses from anticipation to recall (Clawson and Knetsch

1966). At a narrower level there are several specific experiences associated

with participation in a particular activity. These specific experiences help

define the attractiveness of an activity or environment to a particular user

group and the type of satisfaction realized from that activity. In white-water

canoeing, specific experiences could include: taking risks, testing skills,

being with like-minded associates, exercising, enjoying nature, displaying

equipment, introspecting-seeking privacy, or avoiding temporarily a problem

experienced back home or on the job. These might be called the specific attributes that define a general. wfiite-water canoeing experience. Each will be giving

;;;;s;;;$y

'or dissatisfaction) simultaneously, but some will be more satisfying

For that reason potential -white-water canoers will value some

of these specific experiences higher than others when deciding whether or not

to make a white-water canoeing trip.

Some specific experiences are highly dependent on the characteristic

of the physical resources (fast water). Others are more dependent on the facilities or equipment (sturdy canoes) and still others on the characteristic of

the users (personality trait, age, sex, etc...& or interpersonal things such

as a desire to win the approval of others). The degree of '?resource-dependency"

varies between activities. For example, some experiences (matching wits with

a trophy deer, skillfully negotiating the rapids, learning about prehistoric

man, enjoying a spectacular view) are more dependent on the physical resources

than are others (being with friends, exercising, general nature learning, etc.).

The trick ifi management is to allocate the resources to their highest potential

for providing opportunities for specific desired experiences and their consequent _

human benefits. - -

PURPOSES

Tine tasks assigned for this paper were:

1. To describe the state of knowledge for ident'fying and measuring

37 the personal-social benefits of recreation,-

2 . To interpret the relevancy of that body of knowledge for recreation

resource planning and management, expecially those operating in

the public sector, and

3. To outline important research needs on that subject.

2/ Elsewhere? these simultar;eously occurring experiences have been identified

as a "package of experiences" (Driver and Tocher, 1954) and as "multiple

satisfactions" (Hendee 1974).

31 The words "personal" and "social" benefits are used interchangeably in the

paper. Alternative words could be "private" benefits (to the user) and

"collective" benefits (to. others because of an individual's participation) so

long as enhanced -I-...--..-.-... effectiveger?orDac.ce .__^ 1_-. _.I, . . . . ......,.-.I of the participant (or of others) is

the criterion.

164
The first task is both easy and impossible. It is easy to say that the

state of the art is in its embryonic stage because relatively little research

has been directed at quantification of recreation benefits. This "easy out"

begs the question, though. Many theories and methods in the behavioral

sciences are applicable to the subject of this paper even though few of these

applications have been made. It is an impossible task, however, to consider

the many diverse theories of human behavior which can be interpreted with

respect to what they might say about man's beneficial psychological, physiological or sociological responses to recreational engagement. These theories

range from Freud's (1955) and Piaget's (1962) thoughts on the value of play

in social and cognitive development through Berlyne's (1960, 1969) concepts

regarding arousal seeking and exploratory preferences to the work of physia

ologists and parapsychologists on relationships between mind control techniques and physical-mental relaxation.

Because of the complexity of the subject, this paper will describe only

one approach to identifying and measuring the personal-social benefits of

recreation and discuss briefly the state of knowledge about that approach.

That approach has been followed in recent years by a growing number of researchers who feel it is theoretically realistic, managerially relevant and

relatively easily understood by managers who do not have intensive training

in the social or human behavioral sciences. Briefly, the approach adopts the

view that most human behavior is purposeful, in that recreationists select

particular activities because of the satisfying experiences they expect and

desire from that activity.

Future research needs are a part of the discussion because of the limited

number of studies conducted so far on recreation benefits. Throughout, the

importance to managers of information on recreation benefits is emphasized.

Also, footnotes are used frequently to qualify concepts that might be novel

and to help avoid possible misinterpretation.

WHY CONSIDER PERSONAL BENEFITS?

Numbers of visitors to outdoor recreation areas have increased by greater

than a 5 percent compound annual rate for the past several decades. In the

most recent years, the rate has been even higher, up to 15 to 20 percent, for

specific areas and activities such as back-country and lift skiing. These

are interesting statistics when compared with selected baseline social indicators. Increases in population and personal disposable income have both

increased at less than 3 percent per year, and per capita consumption of

energy (in BTU's) has increased at less than 5 percent during the past decade.

Despite these trends in use and the fact that each year more resources

are allocated to supply additional recreation opportunities, we do not have

adequate measures of the social costs and benefits of these allocations.

This paper does not consider the costs or all of the different types of

benefits. Instead, it focuses on a particular type of benefit which is

defined behaviorally in terms of user response.k/ The major thesis is that,

kl In addition to the increased effective functioning of the recreationists,

other benefits of recreation allocations could include: local income benefits;

benefits to animal species from hunting-generated revenues; and preservation

of options for future generations to benefit.

165
within this behavioral perspective, several limitations in knowledge are

especially constraining. In particular, more objective measures are needed

of the following four related sets of variables:

1 .

2.

3 .

4.

The attributes (or characteristics) of the physical (and social)

setting that are perceived by potential users to be necessary for

a quality recreation experience.

The type and number of recreation experiences sought from specific

recreation environments both on-site and by "appreciative" offsite users, who enjoy the existence of these opportunities and

desire to preserve the options for possible on-site engagement

by themselves or others.

The characteristics of potential and actual recreationists having

demands for different types of recreation experiences and the

cause-effect relationships between these characteristics and

recreation demand.

The personal experiences and benefits realized from specific

recreation opportunities.

Such measures would not be needed in recreation planning and management

if our intuitions and judgments about recreation aspirations, experiences and

benefits are realistic. Past studies have ind,icated, however, that the

managers' intuitions and the users' opinions about the recreational values of ,

the facilities frequently differ (Lucas 1964, Hendee and Harris 1970, Clark

et al. 1971, and Peterson 1971 and 1974b).

In the past, policy makers and planners have had to define these values

intuitively because there was little else to go on. And they have done a good

job, given the budgets and the complexity and uncertainty within which they

were working. However, as the demands grow for all of the goods and services

produced by our nation's natural resources, more objective measures are needed;

in the face of this increased relative scarcity managers no longer have the

room for error they once did in their decision processes.

Objective measures of recreation values are especially needed in allocation decisions to compare the social benefits and costs of different types of

recreation opportunities and the values receivable from alternative uses.

For example, past measures of the outputs of recreation areas have used

variables such as numbers of visitors and visitor days. Although necessary

in planning and management decisions, these variables are little more than

counts of people using the system and do not tell us much about the number,

type and magnitude of benefits produced. The major problem is that counts of

users are of too little value in defining managerial objectives (or even

policy guidelines) about what specifically is to be produced or in evaluating

the degree to which these objectives are realized. It is hard to "manage by

objectives" when realistic, relevant and quantifiable targets cannot be set

to measure accomplishments. And numbers of users are not completely adequate

targets.

166
By analogy, we have a better understanding of what other social service

"systems" (education,sanitation, communication, housing, transportation and

medicine) are “doing for" the users of those services. For example, if counts

of users were the primary guide for the administration of colleges, common

management operations would become less relevant. These would include establishing entrance requirements, screening faculty, designing curricula, administering qualifying exams and maintaining standards for certification. Each

of these operations exists'tohelp assure a quality product rather than to

accommodate as many students as possible.

What is being suggested is that the management of recreation resources

is a production process, as is timber management, wildlife management and

watershed management. The problem is that the "products" of recreation

management are harder to define.21 Nevertheless, we need to go beyond the

conventional wisdom that the product of recreation management is recreation

opportunities and identify more clearly what it is that these opportunities

do for the user. This 'dea has been elaborated elsewhere (Hendee 1974,

Driver and Brown 1975)-67 .

5J This inadequate definition of the social values of recreation has probably

contributed to the view that recreation goods and services are of less relative

importance to society than are other goods and services that compete locally

and nationally for scarce budgets and other resources. For example, established recreation areas are frequently converted to housing, sewer, and highway

developments.

a/ It is beyond the scope of this paper to elaborate on the additional relevance

to management of better information on user expectations, experiences and benefits. It might be useful to footnote, however, that this information is fundamental to the resolution of several problems within the field of outdoor recreation resource management. These include: (1) identifying more clearly what

recreational benefits can (and should) be produced most appropriately by different public and private agencies; (2) defining better the "merit good" aspects

of recreation behavior (i.e., to what degree does one person's recreation participation benefit other people who do not participate) in an attempt to help

identify the degree to which specific opportunities should be financed through

taxation by all users who benefit either directly or indirectly or alternatively

through user prices, when benefits are limited primarily to the participants;

(3) determining relationships between recreation behavior and "off-system"

variables such as those defining the users' home and work environments; (4)

defining latent demands of those potential users not included in statistics on

past use rates; (5) identifying and appraising trade-offs and substitutibilities between different recreation activities and between recreation and other

uses of the same resources; (6) determining the probable "performance" of

physical-resource settings in meeting user expectations and classifying the

resources for their highest use in terms of experience potential and the resource dependency of these experiences; (7) determining means of reducing conflicts between users with opposing recreation-related demands and appraising

the interpersonal-congestion dimensions of area carrying capacity; and (8)

,evaluating the effectiveness of different visitor management methods such as

incentive systems and education.

167
BUT BEHAVIORAL INFORMATION IS NOT ENOUGH

Despite the importance of behavioral data, it should be emphasized that

behavioral information is only one of at least five types of knowledge bases

that must be considered by outdoor recreation resource planners and managers

(Knopf et al. 1973, Driver 1972). To help iterate this point, it might be

useful to group the different types of knowledge bases into five topical sets

identified as: Resource-Location, Historical Use, Economic, AdministrativePolitical, and Behavioral.

Although the five types of knowledge bases are not mutually exclusive,

each one does define a rather specific type of information. Also, each group

reflects a rather distinct approach to recreation planning and management

because each type of information also defines the types of problems for which

that information is most relevant. Each will be described briefly:

Resource Location:

Information on the setting and suitability of the physical resources has

strongly influenced the kinds and levels of recreation opportunities developed.

That information has been obtained from: inventorying, classifying and zoning;

appraising the resources within the context of their larger settings; identifying locational relationships, especially distances to centers of population;

specifying hazards; and otherwise appraising the recreation resources in terms

of their relative scarcity, uniqueness, ecological carrying capacity, and other

measures of appropriateness for providing specific recreation opportunities.

This type of information defines a supply oriented approach that has been

criticized as over-emphasizing supply considerations and slighting demand

factors. This might result in creating many similar recreation opportunities

on a given resource base within a single region (Twiss 1974). Despite that

possible deficiency, this type of information is necessary. However, it can be

integrated better with the other four types in recreation planning and management. For example, we might be able to inventory the resources a little better

in terms of their potential for providing opportunities for specific recreat'ion

experiences or in terms of the resource dependency of specific experiences.

Historical Use:

Descriptive statistical information on past use is relied upon heavily in

what could be called the past and current participation approach. Here statistics on past trends of participation "tell" the planner and manager what to do.

The information obtained from this approach has been quite useful in recreation planning. Its five major deficiencies are: (1) it assumes that high

levels of participation indicate "successful" planning; (2) it equates past

participation with demand and assumes that future demand will follow some

historical trend, and thereby, it tends to be self-reinforcing by perpetuating

into the future those opportunities which have been supplied in the past, and

does not consider latent demand or demand not revealed in past participation

(Knetsch 1974); (3) it provides little to no information on substitutibility

between activities; (4) it defines recreation as an activity, not as an experience, and therefore offers little insight into the social utility of the

opportunities provided; and (5) it nurtures a rather static concept of recre168
ation demand within which explicit questions are not raised about relationships between&that demand and changing social conditions, such as energy

"crises."

Economic:

In economic terms, recreation resources are viewed as (scarce) economic

goods for which there are individual and collective willingnesses to pay.

This approach urges particularly for the use of more market-like signals, especially prices, in the allocation of recreation resources. To the extent

that the market is unable to do this, the approach calls for the systematic u

application of principles of public finance in the allocation process. It is

concerned with problems relating to the appropriate role of government in

bearing the costs of providing recreation opportunities, the efficient level

of investment in recreation rqsource development, and the need for better

methods of determining the trade-offs between alternative uses. The data

required focus particularly on questions concerning: the benefits and costs

of providing different facilities in different locations; the scale of development; the social time preferences for different types of recreation opportunities, and how the opportunities should be financed. The growing relative

scarcity of our recreation resources has caused this approach to receive the

increased attention it should (Clawson and Knetsch 1966). Some economists,

however, fail to recognize sufficiently; (1) several of the deficiencies in

their assumptions, such as those regarding existing distributions of income

or wealth; (2) the need to sample sub-populations and not rely too strongly

on aggregative data; (3) the insuff iciencies of the market mechanism; and

(4) that other than economic variables must also enter the recreation allocation calculus.

Administrative-Political:

A prudent recreation resource manager certainly must have a reasonable

understanding of the administrative-political processes of a democracy. As

a general statement, it can be said that the administrative-political approach

is one in which primary reliance is placed on the democratic-political process

to allocate recreation resources. Under this approach special interests, such

as wilderness groups, vie in the political arena for the use of scarce resources

according to their preferences. In that arena decisions are made about the

rights of future generations of users, the equity of the distribution of opportunities and of tax burdens. Also, the "appropriate" roles of the private

and the public sectors are at least discussed if not determined.

Information on recreation resource management is obtained in a variety of

ways within this approach. These activities include observing voter behaviors,

obtaining information through.public involvement and hearings, and analyzing

the consequences of interest groups' reliance on the judicial processes. Given

the social context within which recreation allocation decisions are made, the

practice of pluralism is vital even though it is always accompanied by the potential for the abuse of power, or an inappropriate distribution of such. The

information obtained in the other four approaches generally must be processed

within the guidelines set by the administrative-political approach.

169
I$rll~vioral :

. “- ,--.-.

Within a behavioral perspective, recreation allocation decisions are not

influenced primarily by the inherent capability of physical settings'for

specific activities, by past trends in use, by the economic characteristics

o'f the resources and its users, or by the administrative-political process.

In addition, recreation is viewed as an experience (Driver and Brown 1975).1'

This approach addresses: the reasons why a person participates; what is done

while participating; what is derived personally from participation; and the

positive and negative influence of environmental factors (including management decisions) on the recreationist's experiences and behavior. Under this

approach, recreation demand is for the opportunity to engage in activities

from which desired consequences (i.e., satisfying experiences) are expected.

Therefore, the demand is for experiences as well as for opportunities. In

addition to experiences, the ultimate social services provided by the opportunities are human benefits. The remainder of this paper describes this

approach in considerable detail, and it should become apparent that much

additional information on recreation behavior is needed. Despite these gaps

in knowledge, behavioral information can be integrated better than it has been

with the other four knowledge components of management just outlined (Wagar

1964, Burch 1965, Hendee 1971, Brown et al. 1973, Driver and Tocher 1974).

Integration:

The lnajor point of.the foregoing discussion is that different problems

facing recreation managers require different amounts of each of the five types

of knowledge. Another important point is that information from all five

knowledge bases needs to be integrated to the extent it is relevant. Thereby,

we will help avoid a disciplinary approach to recreation problem solving,

which has occurred too frequently, and put more emphasis on an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approach.

Certainly, it is no easy task to integrate the relevant knowledge from

all five information bases. To do so, recreation planners and managers must

have a high degree of technical expertise and work with an interdisciplinary

team of technically proficient experts each of whom must have the ability to

communicate to other members of the team and to compromise. Also, the task of

integration is always formidable because each relevant knowledge base defines

sub-problems of the larger whole, and a holistic approach is difficult to

achieve and maintain because the recreation system being evaluated is always

a part of a larger system. Data are never equally or sufficiently available

11 Some confusion has existed in the past by use of the words "Behavioral

Approach." A disclaimer might help. A strict "behavioristic," or stimulusresponse, approach is not being advocated or taken. Instead, the intent is

to focus more attention on the social-behavioral aspects of user demand, onsite engagement, satisfaction and benefit. Explicitly, recreation is defined

as a particular type of human experience that finds its source in intrinsically

(or self) rewarding voluntary engagements (mental or physical) during nonobligated time. These experiences result from participating in an activity,

SO that participation (or observable behavior) is instrumental (or is a "tool")

for realizing the experiences-- the desires for which prompted the behavior in

the first place: For an elaboration see Driver and Tocher, 1974.

170
on any of the parts. These problems of achieving integrated planning .tJtld

management are not: unique to recreation, and exist in every field of environmental planning.

In sum, behavioral information is only one type that needs to be consider&

by planners and managers. The following section explains some of the characteristics of that type of information, especially that dealing with recreation

experiences and benefits.

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF RECREATION EXPERIENCES AND BENEFITS'

In this section a simple and integrated model of recreation behavior is

described to help structure thinking about the relation between recreationists,

their aspirations, the opportunities provided and the social-benefits of these

recreation services. The model described is a general one of human behavior

in which many different perspectives within the social-behavioral sciences can

fit. Heavy reliance is placed on the idea that man is a complex information

processing and problem solving organism because that orientation makes explicit

(1) the goal-directed nature, or purposefulness, of recreation behavior and

(2) the need to look beyond on-site activity in evaluations of recreation

demand and behavior.

Many authors have proposed directly or indirectly that most human behavior

is problem solving behavior (Marshall 1890, Lute and Raiffa 1957, Festinger

1958, White 1959, Miller, Galanter and Pribram 1960, Howand and Scott 1965).

In this approach a problem is not defined as a negative-adversive state but - -

simply as a gap between an existing (or perceived probable) state and one

that is more preferred. Therefore, any life situation may be defined as a

problem posed to an individual according to this "relative preference" criterion.

A person would have a "problem" if he were in a state of bliss and preferred

; he is experiencing a gap. The problem is solved as the gap is

By definition then, recreation behavior is engaged in to help people solve

problems (or reach preferred states) which they find better solved in recreational pursuits or they cannot solve in their non-recreational times or envii

ronments.N/ IzIentifying.those particular preferred states which people desire

81 This section draws heavily on a recent paper that was written on the socialpsychological determinants of recreation demand (Driver and Brown 1975). The

conceptual model presented is described in considerably more detail in that

paper.

21 Some problem states do not "mobilize" problem solving behavior becaube they

are relatively-unimportant and are maintained rather than solved. Others cannot

be solved because of constraints, including the constraint imposed by not

knowing clearly what the problem is.

lo' An earlier paper (Knopf et al. 1973) defined recreation behavior as a means

of helping the users realize their "unmet needs" that could not, or for some

reason, were not met in non-recreational times or spaces. The view offered

here is the same if one accepts the idea that needs are defined as preferences

under the philosophical suggestion that humans have no needs, only strong preferences, such as to stay alive.

171
to realize while recreating is one way of defining the types and relative

importance of the experiences desired (or demanded) from recreation opportunities and at least inferentially of identifying the social-individual

benefits gained. To illustrate, assume that a potential recreationist is

experiencing a problem which causes him to desire a specific type of gratification during leisure time. The recreationist's problem, within the constraints that govern his behavior, is one of finding a recreational opportunity which will provide that gratifying experience.

Using this "conceptual framework," certain questions about recreationrelated desires, experiences, and benefits become more explicit.. Do the

problem states that prompt a choice of wilderness camping differ from those

that prompt using state parks? If so, how and why? Or, how do the recreation-related problem states of iow-income residents of inner cities differ

from those of affluent suburbanites, and are these problems really being

solved through present recreational engagements or should they be? Specifically, are the available recreation opportunities being used primarily as a

means of temporarily escaping problems that reappear when the recreationist

goes back home? If so, are we dealing more with symptoms than causes? Also,

how can managers as problem solvers better help the recreationist solve his

recreation-related "problems?" The model illustrated in Figure 1 can help

guide investigations directed toward questions such as these.

Basically, Figure 1 attempts to illustrate simply how the factors influencing or defining recreation behavior can be grouped into quantifiable sets.

The nature of the model should become clearer as a hypothetical recreationist

is walked through it rather quickly. The many feedback loops and the dynamic,

ongoing effect of current environmental influences are omitted for purposes

of simplicity.

The model proposes that a potential recreationist (B-l) has several

quantifiable characteristics (such as B-1A to B-1C) each of which can help

cause a particular problem state and its associated preferences to become

dominant (B-2} at a particular time. To satisfy these preferences (i.e.,

resolve the problem), the individual considers his options (constraints and

possibilities) and their expected-probable consequences (B-3). Through this

decision process, he decides at some level (psychological or physiological) to

(1) commit his subsequent behavior to recreational activity, or (2) engage in

some other type of behavior (i.e., 111 exit the recreation behavioral sequence)- .

If subsequent behavior is committed to recreational activity, the individual

G' Alternately, it can be explained that the recreationist is appraising the

expected ut:ility to him of various available options in an attempt to realize

a satisfactory (and not necessarily optimal) solution to his problem to the

extent he is aware of the problem. That "awareness" might not be very conscious

and could even be physiological and still prompt the behavior indicated. Space

does not permit an elaboration of this decision-making process. It should be

pointed out though that no claim is being made for a perfectly rational "economic man" who always acts in his best interest. All that is being suggested

is that the decision is a purposeful one, whether or not the desired consequences are really in the best interest of the recreationist.

172
Figure 1: Quantifiable sets of variables within a sequential model of recreation behavior

B-l

\ Potential Recreationist

Characteristics

Psychological and I

Physiological traits

or Characteristics I

B-1B

v

B-1C

,

1

B-1Cl I

Perceived Attributes

of Recreation Resources

and Past Recreation

Satisfaction I

B-lC2

B-2

Perceived Problem

i State (or gap

between an exis-

: ting and a prei ferred state)

I

Home and Work Environmental Conditions -I

j--rB-3

B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8

B-4

I

Choice of Recreation Activity and Expectations of Realizing Desired Ex- ;

I

periences I

s

-_I

*NR-R and RR respectively

designate nonrecreationrelated and recreation-related

choices of behavior. If 'X-R

is chosen, the individual is IIlonger engaging in recrfzt<rT:

behavior.
has purposefully chosen a specific recreation activity or environmen@',

and this choice is accompanied by expectations of realizing desired consequences (or satisfying experiences) which are viewed as attainable (B-4).

Further commitments of behavior are made to planning (B-5), traveling to

the site or facility, on-site engagement (B-6, which could be a mental

"site" and engagement only, say in fantasy), traveling home, and recall

(B-7). From each of these behaviors (B-5 to B-7), the recreationist can

realize satis=g experiences (B-8) and personal benefits (B-9)13/. The

benefits can be gained without conscious awareness, such as better muscle

tone from walking an interpreted nature trail to learn.

To summarize, Figure 1 simplifies recreation behavior in an attempt to

chart sequences of behavior so we can identify specific sets of variables and

decision points. The model is founded in the assumption that recreation behavior is not random but instead has causes and direction even though: (1)

the recreationist need not be consciously aware of these causes and preferences; (2) the behavior can be exploratory or trial and error (heuristic) as

well as habitual or engrained in learning from similar past recreation experiences, and (3) the recreationist need not attempt to maximize his expected

returns as would the classical economic man. Within the model, recreation

satisfaction or pleasure is a feeling that finds its source in a variety of

specific recreation experiences, some of which will be more satisfying than

others. Furthermore, the model incorporates the idea that recreation activities are selected to realize a variety of experiences simultaneously, but that

specific activities are selected by particular recreationists, within the

bounds of their constraints, to realize those experiences that are of highest

relative importance at any particular time. Therefore, explicit to the model

is the idea that an activity will attract users who

147

xpect satisfying experiences that are relatively unique to that activity.- For example, the more

satisfying aspects (experiences) of hunting differ from those associated with

visiting an historic ruin . The challenge is to define which .types of experiences are expected by which types of users, which activities best provide

opportunities for specific types of experiences and which benefits are realized

12' Although purposeful, the decision might be an exploratory one involving

heuristic (trial and error or searching behavior) rather than more habitualpredictable behavior. Also, the decision might be quite spontaneous, or spur

of the moment, although most outdoor recreation decisions would appear to

involve more planning.

13' A recent publication by the US Office of Management and Budget (Executive

Office of the President, 1973) suggests that social planning should be evaluated by criteria (or social indicators) that "measure end products of, rather

than inputs into, social systems." Boxes 8 and 9 of Figure 1 specify the end

products of recreation "systems."

14' Opportunities to realize these specific satisfying experiences are dependent

on specific attributes of the resources, the facilities, the equipment, the

users' peers and other users engaging in a particular activity. These attributes serve to facilitate (scenic mountains, big fish, few people) or to constrain (polluted streams, little fish, crowds of people) the realization of

those expected and desired consequences 6r pleasurable experiences) that give

satisfaction. Since various recreationists perceive and value these attributes

differently, they will engage in different activities.

174
from these experiences.151

The model suggests a three-step procedure for identifying and quantifying

the personal-social benefits of recreational engagements as follows:

1 . First, identify and measure the relative importance of the desired

and expected consequences (i.e., expected satisfying experiences)

of different types of recreationists (characterized by the various

descriptors inherent in B-1A to B-1C of Figure 1) who are engaging

in specific recreation activities.

2. Second, assume that the desired and expected consequences of large

groups of recreationists (most of whom have participated in similar

activities in the past) are reasonably well related to the personal

and social benefits "sought." Then form hypotheses about the

personal-social benefits derived by clearly defined types of users

who rate particular activities high in importance for providing

certain types of experiences. For example, it could be hypothesized

that a specifically defined user group who places high importance

on a certain type of fishing for purposes of "skill development"

(an expected desired consequence or desired experience) realize

greater self-confidence (a possible mental health benefit).

3 . Test the hypotheses under experimental-controlled conditions, including the evaluation of benefits over time.

The question then arises: Can this procedure be followed and give reliable and accurate results? My answer is yes, it can to a very useful degree.

IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED APPROACH AND

SOME METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

For the purposes of this paper, it seems inappropriate to go into a

detailed dissertation on the research procedures for, and methodological

problems of, measuring social benefits. Instead a more general overview will

consider these four issues: (1) how well can the expected and desired experiences and benefits be identified and measured; (2) which experiences and

benefits are worth measuring; (3) what are the possible effects of researcher

biases; and (4) which alternative methodologies are most suitable or appropriate?

How Well Can the Expected Experiences and Benefits Be Measured?:

Early work by Lewin (1951) and recent work in motivation psychology

(McClelland et al. 1953, Birch and Veroff 1966, Atkinson and Birch 1972), and

works of other social psychologists (Jones et al. 1972) indicate that we do

most things for a reason and these reasons are influenced by our personalities, our values (and those of our associates), and the resources (or

options) available to us, including information and our perceptions of our

15' Activities providing similar "packages" of experiences and which are equivalent in costs (dollar, time, etc.) are probably substitutes for each other.

175
skills and abilities. In the language of a motivation psychologist, the

rolntive strength of a particular "behavioral tendency" and the "motivatlonal determinants" of that tendency can be identified and measured. The

current work of Fishbein and Ajzen (1974 and 1975) suggests that specific

intended or ened behaviors are closely related to subsequent actual

behaviors to the extent that specific consequences of the intended behaviors

are known, expected, and vaiued. Put more simply, subjective appraisals

(attitudes, opinions, expectations, etc.) and actual behaviors are in relatively close agreement when these subjective appraisals are realistic with

respect to the specific consequences that are most likely to result from

specific behaviors. Much poorer relationships exist when there is little

knowledge on probable consequences and when the possible consequences are

of little importance. This theory is relevant to recreation then if the

probable consequences of a specific recreation activity are known, expected,

and valued by recreationists who intend to engage in that activity.

Most recreation opportunities are not used by recreationists who are participating for the first time, so these users have knowledge of the consequences from past participation. And many first-time participants have heard of

the likely consequences from friends. Therefore, most of the people for whom

public and private sector recreation demand and benefit analyses are most

relevant probably have reasoy@ ly accurate ideas about the likely consequences

of their recreation choices.- These expected consequences are obviously

valued as desirable, else the activity would not have been chosen. And if

interviewing is done on-site, intended behaviors are manifested by the actual

participation. The problem then becomes one of measuring the expected and

desired consequences.

I believe the most pervasive and managerially relevant expectations can

be measured reasonably accurately for any large group of users with similar

characteristics (such as day users picnicking at a particular site during a

particular time who are similar in age, income, size of home city, past picnicking experience, etc.) The desired and expected consequences of recreationists not having the benefit of past experience (i.e., not having the same

predictabmty of probable consequences) can be measured less well. Also, the

postulated close relationship between expected and actual experiences cannot

be assumed as readily for this group even though information on likely consequences is frequently passed from a past to a potential participant. It is

more difficult, therefore, to measure the latent or unrevealed demands of nonusers. Figure 1 &JS, however, help define more clearly what the concept of

latent demand is.-

16' This is not to say that all expectations are met. It would seem, however,

that most expectations of users that stay in the "market" are met.

17' The reader should be leary of results that question non-users of their expectations. It might be instructive though to infer what the demands of clearly

defined types of non-users are by comparing them with users having characteristics similar to the non-users. Or useful baseline data might be obtained from

research designs which appraise the degree of match between "latent" expectations and actual experiences of control groups of non-users who are provided a

"real" opportunity as part of the research design.

176
In sum, I believe the pervasive expected and desired consequences of clearly

defined types of user groups can be quantified to a useful degree given the statr,

of the art of applying behavioral science to recreation management. The following section gives an overview of the different approaches for making these

measurements.

Which Research Approach Should Be Used?:

It was stated above that the demand for most types of recreation opportunities is by people who have relatively good knowledge (much of it is experiential)

about the types of satisfying experiences realized from engaging in specific

activities. Methodologically, the major problem is one of bringing this information to a level of consciousness or awareness at which it can be evaluated

systematically so that reasonable inferences and hypotheses can be made about

,the personal-social benefits associated with these experiences.

At this point, many social-behavioral scientists "part company," and

others look on with skepticism, because of different philosophies about the

degree to which the expected and desired experiences and benefits can be identified and measured reliably and validly. It is my contention that through the

application of different techniques as checks one on the other, user expectations, experienc:es and benefits can be identified and measured reasonably well

(Kerlinger 1964, and Nunnally 1967).18/

To elaborate, the techniques of measuring human behavior can be grouped

into three categories which also define three types of behavior. These are

expressed in Venn diagrams in Figure 2. The crosshatched areas represent those

behavioral responses that are common across two or all three of the alternative

types of measurement. These overlapping responses are probably more reliable

and accurate indicators of "real" behavior than are responses that do not crosscheck. For example, verbal responses might be distorted because a person being

researched might be afraid to give a truthful answer, might say something that

he thinks the researcher wants to hear, or might wish to bias the research results

in a way favorable to his interests.

Legend

VB = Verbal Behavior

ONVB = Overt Nonverbal Behavior

P = Physiological Response

Figure 2: Three types of Human Behavior-Responses.

177
Questionnaires can be used to measure verbal responses (such as pencil

and paper psychological tests of whether a person is an introvert or an extrovert). Unobtrusive methods can be used to examine overt nonverbal behavior

(such as observing whether or not the person actually behaves as if he is an

extrovert or an introvert). And mechanical-electrical instruments can be used

to measure physiological response (such as determining arousal levels and

causes, which seem to predict tendencies toward introversion or extroversion

under specifi.c conditions).

It is hazardous to rely on only one approach. The trick is to get crosschecking methodologies to converge (or overlap in Figure 2) in support of a

particular hypothesis about a specific expected consequence, actual experience

orbenefit (Campbell and Fiske 1970). For example, it seems possible to measure benefits of a tranquil natural environment (feelings of reduced tension,

lower observed levels of interpersonal aggressiveness; and lower blood pressure,.pulse rate, etc.) using all three approaches as cross checks. Also,

different, procedures (such as those using physiological measures) should be

used within any one approach (or circle in Figure 2) as cross checks.

In sum, human behavior is complex, but techniques do ex'st for measuring

recreation-related expectations, experiences and benefits.-197

Deciding Which Expectations Are Worth Measuring:

It is known that humans have a wide variety of motivations and experiences

(Murray 1938, Laing 1967). There is also a wide variety of recreation-related

experiences. The problem is one of deciding which expected and desired experiences should be "pursued" in research concerned with identifying and measuring

the social benefits associated with these experiences.

Researchers and managers must work together to resolve this problem.

Also, further identification and classification of user expectations must be

accomplished before decisions can be made regarding which consequences are

most managerially relevant. Criteria will need to be established to guide

this decision. Some possible guidelines are offered to illustrate the type

of thinking required:

1. The expected and desired consequences or experiences should be

managerially relevant or something that managers can influence

either directly or indirectly. Alternatively, this criterion

can be stated in terms of which types of experiences different

types of managers can influence the most.

2. The expected consequences should be desired by a significant number

of users (both actual and potential) and.not be common to only a

18' If nothing else, and I believe there will. be considerably more, we will have

enhanced our judgments in the process. Sometimes, asking the right question puts

us considerably over halfway toward finding a satisfactory or better answer even

with knowledge constraints. Also, it seems apparent that there are never ultimate and final truths (only partial and temporary answers that change as the

social and other contexts change) in any field of inquiry.

19' For purposes of simplicity, the words expectations and desires are being

'used synonymously in this paper although technical arguments (which get complex)

can be made that the two differ.

178
small percentage of the (on-site or off-site appreciative) users of

a particular opportunity.

3 . The expectations should relate to the administrative jurisdiction

or statutory responsibilities of the public agency providing the

opportunities if publicly provided.

4. Related to No. 3 above, the expectations should to some reasonable

degree be related to or dependent on the resources under the jurisdiction of the supplying agency.

5. The desired experiences should be socially acceptable to a reasonable degree if the opportunities are being provided primarily by

public funds.

In sum, the process of deciding what expected consequences or desired

experiences and benefits should be researched is one that requires judgment.

But as cited below, past outdoor recreation research indicates that certain

types of desired experiences are pervasive in importance and are managerially

relevant. These include: developing skills; competing or achieving; learning;

being creative; exploring; being with friends, the family or like-minded associates; experiencing nature; exercising; taking risks; seeking thrills or stimulation of various types; manipulating machines; seeking privacy-solitude; reflecting-introspecting; and coping with a wide variety of adversive stimuli experienced in home, neighborhood, and work environments.

Problems of Research Bias:

In deciding which desired experiences to research, an ever present methodological question is: How is it known with assurance that the experiences

and benefits identified and measured are those most important to the recreationists and not those of importance to the researcher?

Most existing research on recreation behavior reflects strongly the

personalities and other personal inclinations of the researchers. This is not

necessarily bad, so long as these influences do not also guide the data beyond

the limits of the research designs in which they were collected. The likely

deficiency is that not enough personal inclinations of recreation researchers

are available to represent those of the public! In any event the researcher

must be aware of the possibility of mapping his or her values onto those of

the people studied. He also should be aware of the different procedures that

can be used to cross-check the results of one approach with those from another,

and he must work closely with managers.

STATE OF THE ART OF THE DESCRIBED APPROACH

Considerable descriptive research has been directed at determining relationships between recreation participation and socio-economic variables (B-lB,

in Figure l), such as income and occupation. However, most of the behaviorally

oriented outdoor recreation research has been attitudinal in nature and has

relied on questionnaires designed to solicit subjective responses to conditions

specified by the researcher. A few studies have been reported using direct observation techniques to measure overt non-verbal behavior.

179
Fl4lt4l (11 the behavioral research has also been applied or strongly manaREV 1~1)~ trrlcntrd rather than basic or developmental. As such, it has not

C.OI~~ t Lbutc:d greatly toward the development of a body of knowledge (Driver and

Knol~l 1975a). Despite these problems, results from past recreation research

kuppor t the approach proposed in this paper for identifying and measuring

hencfits. A few representatives of these empirical studies, which are directly

relevant to the behavioral scheme offered in Figure 1, will be mentioned.

Empirical research directed specifically at the antecedents of recreation

choice and activity support the idea of problem solving during recreation behavior as proposed in this paper. Examples include reports by Catton (1969),

Burch (1969), Ferris (1970), Meyersohn (1970), Witt and Bishop (1970), Knopp

(1972), Mandell and Marans (1972), Morris et al. (1972), Sofranko and Nolan

(1972), Davis (1973), Grubb (1975), Kelly (1974), LaPage and Ragain (1974),

Driver and Knopf (1975b), and Foss (1975).

Other studies focusing on specific types of problems indicate a strong

influence of home, neighborhood, and work environments on choice of recreation activity, reasons for that choice and amount of participation. For example,

Grubb (1975) found relationships between auto workers' perceptions of job

boredom, choice of activity, types of experiences sought, and days of participation in those activities which were viewed as more stimulating that the

workers' jobs. Several studies (Mandell and Marans 1972, LaPage and Ragain

1974, Driver and Knopf 1975b) found that the relative importance of various types

of desired and expected experiences differ for users characterized by different

socio-economic variables such as age, sex, income, city size, stage in familylife cycle, perceived quality of home and work environments and other variables.

Bassett et al. (1972) found that users of Michigan's AuSable River who differed

in their expected consequences also differed in their perceptions of the severity of the conflicts between canoeists and trout fishermen. These differences

were especially pronounced between the users who did, and those who did not,

desire to see and be with other people on the river.

Knopf (1972) did a rather comprehensive review of the research, through

1971, addressed to relationships between recreation activity and changes in

personal-individual traits such as self-esteem, dominance, etc. He also reviewed thoroughly the research literature dealing with the motivational bases

of outdoor recreation choice and with the users' perceptions of satisfaction

received. The research reviewed and reported since 1971 (e.g., Knopf et al.

1973, More 1973, Potter et al. 1973, Hendee 1974, Peterson 1974a, 1974b, Brown

and Hautaluoma 1975, and Orthner 1975) indicate pervasive themes about expected

consequences or experiences sought. Some example results from research with

which I have been associated will be presented for illustrative purposes.

Tables 1 and 2 show some of the expected consequences sought by the different test groups of recreationists indicated. Sample sizes are small because

the purpose of the research was to develop instruments to measure the consequences by using test groups of users rather than to apply the instruments to

representative samples of users. The methodology is explained in detail elsewhere (Knopf 1972). Briefly, the procedure consists of asking recreationists

to check in a questionnaire how important each of a long list of reasons (i.e.,

expected consequences) were to them when they decided to engage in the activity

180
:A~LE l.--Hean scores of 10 dif erent

consequences scales.2j

test groups of Michigan recreationists to selected expected

Pic- Social Back Back Trout Warm Sail

Expected Trail nick- camp- country country fish- water boat- Tennis Golf

consequences biking ing ing camping hiking ing fish. ing

Achievement

Avoid others'

expectations

Being with

others

Dominancecontrol

Exercisephys. fitness

Experience

nature

Exploration

Family

togetherness

General

escape

Mental

change

Social

recognition

Tension

release

Risktaking

Sample size

5.7 3.0 4.4 3.9

5.4 5.5 6.0 5.6

4.9

5.0

4.7 4.6 5.7 6.7 5.5

4.9

4.0

5.7 4.4 4.3 4.3

6.2 5.9 7.0 4.6 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.7 5.5

4.1 2.2 3.0 2.7 3.5 2.5 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.4

4.1 4.1 4.5 3.8 5.6 3.6 3.5 4.2 7.3 4.9

5.8 7.0 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.3 6.8 6.2 .2.7 5.0

6.1 5.2 6.2 5.7 6.7 5.0 5.8 5.7 3.5 3.7

4.4

5.9

5.4

3.5

5.0

4.3

51

5.9 7.4 5.7 4.6 4.0 5.3 4.4 3.5 4.1

6.5 6.6 6.4 5.6 6.2 6.0 5.6 4.3 4.7

6.3 6.4 5.4 5.4 5.7 6.0 5.2 5.1 5.2

2.2 3.2 2.5 3.4 3.3 2.3 3.2 3.6 3.3

5.4 5.4 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.8 4.6 5.8 4.9

2.3 2.9 2.4 3.4 2.6 2.9 3.5 2.3 2.9

56 52 49 47 25 30 49 51 46

a/ Responses were to a g-point scale format on which Extremely Important was coded 9 and Not At All

Important was coded 1.

SOURCE: Knopf 1972, pp 111-113.
Table 2 .--Ranking of test groups of Colorado snowmobilers' and cross country

skiers'expected consequences.

X-C Skiers' Snowmobilers'

expected consequences expected consequences

ranked by importance Mean

(N=71) al

ranked by importance Mean

score- (N=22) scars'

1. Experience nature 4.9 1. Experience nature 4.3

2. Exercise 4.9 2. Family togetherness 4.0

3. Exploration 3.8 3. Being with friends 3.7

4 . Being with friends 3.8 4 . Exercise 3.5

5. Change-variety 3.6 5. Change-variety 3.5

6. Achievement 3.3 6. Exploration 3.2

7. Mental disengagement 3.2 7 . Being with other people 2.9

8. Tension release 3.0 8 . Mental disengagement 2.5

9. Independence-autonomy 2.9 9. Tension release 2.3

10. Being with other people 2.4 10. Achievement 2.2

11. Arousal seeking

12. Family togetherness

13. Dominance-control

al

2.4 11. Arousal seeking 2.2

2.4 12. Independence-autonomy 2.1

2.3 13. Dominance-control 1.3

- Responses were to a 6-point scale format on which Extremely Important was

coded 6 and Not At All Important was coded 1.

20 / in which they were participating when interviewed.- These reasons were grouped

into "Expected Consequences Scales", (shown in the tables) by statistically combining similar reasons. For example, "to exercise," "to keep physically fit,"

"to improve my physical health" and other similar expected consequences were

combined into an Exercise-Physical Fitness Scale. By computing mean responses

for each scale, the average importance given to the expected and desired consequences making up that scale could be determined for each -recreationist, and

thereby an overall mean response could be computed for each type of activity.

Table 1 shows how 10 different test groups of Michigan recreationists

varied in the importance they assigned each of 13 different types of expected

consequences when they were deciding to engage in the activities shown. It

can be noticed that exercising and achievement (skill development) were of the

most importance to the 51 tennis players interviewed. Experiencing nature was

least important to that group of users but was quite important to the test

groups of back country campers and hikers. Other comparisons, such as the

20' Responses could range from Extremely Important to Not At All Important.

182
trail bikers' desire to take risks, will be left to the reader. The table

does indicate that any one activity provides a variety of (and not just one

type.of) satisfying experiences and also that some of these experiences are

more important or satisfying than others for a particular activity.

Table 2 shows similar results for test groups of Colorado snowmobilers

and cross-country skiers. That table ranks the relative importance of the

expected consequences for both types of user. It is interesting to notice the

similarities and differences in their preferences or expectations.

Tables 1 and 2 are examples of the types of results obtainable from the

proposed approach. Some of the other studies showing similar findings were

referenced above. All of these results help confirm the propositions (1) that

specific types of activities are engaged in to realize the satisfying experiences that are relatively unique to that activity, and (2) that many of the

experiences are highly dependent.on the values inherent in specific resources

required for a particular activity. These resources include game animals,

tranquil settings, group accommodations, and cultural-historic restorations.

Admittedly, human behavior is complex and the problems of uncontrolled

or intervening variables pose difficult problems for research. Nevertheless,

progress is being made in structuring behavioral problems in managerial terms

and in getting managerially useful results. Much more certainly needs to be

done so that the actual and potential users' preferences, actual experiences

and benefits can be identified to help assure that recreation resources are

allocated to their highest purposes.

NEEDS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND SOME PROBLEMS

OF IMPLEMENTING THE RESULTS

Since this paper has been a call for more research on the social benefits

of outdoor recreation, few additional comments will be made on research needs.

To iterate, however: research is needed to define and quantify the expected

and desired consequences or experiences sought and the short-term and long-term

benefits gained by different types of users who participate in specific tvpes

of outdoor recreation activities; the relationships between these benefits

and conditions experienced back home need to be investigated more thoroughly;

and research designs should employ techniques using subjective-verbal, unobtrusive-observational, and physiological measures.

The need for this type of behavioral research have been recognized in

several national evaluations. One of the four chapters in the 1969 National

Academy of Sciences' evaluation of outdoor recreation research was addressed

to these needs and was entitled "The Social and Behavioral Dimensions of Outdoor Recreation" (NAS, 1969). The 43 managers and researchers at the September

1974 National Outdoor Recreation Research Needs Workshop ranked "Social and

Behavioral" studies as an area of high research priority (BOR, 1975). Similarly, the recent publication by the National Academy of Sciences entitled

"Assessing the Demand for Outdoor Recreation" called for more behavioral information in recreation demand analyses (NAS, 1975). The point is that the need

for this type of information is recognized nationally. However, resources

necessary to conduct adequately this type of research need yet to be mobilized.

These resources include not only monetary support but also the support and

183
endorsement of recreation agency administrators. Even if these resources were

mobilized, however, the results would not be easy to implement or apply for

several reasons.

Although a growing number of managers realize the need for a better understanding of recreation behavior, some of them experience understandable difficulty in relating to that body of knowledge and its applications to management

for several reasons. First, many recreation resource planners and managers

are not familiar or comfortable with the social-behavioral sciences because

most of their training has been in the natural-physical sciences. In fact,

many professionals trained in the natural-physical sciences view the social

sciences with a certain degree of suspect, part of which is justified. Second,

a behavioral interpretation of recreation broadens considerably the scope .of

many managerial problems, makes explicit certain questions that do not have

clearcut answers, and/or the answers are frustrating because they suggest

solutions that are not under the discretion-jurisdiction of the manager. Third,

human behavior is complex, and behavioral information requires acquiring a

new vocabulary or at least gaining an understanding of new concepts and

research approaches. Fourth, many of the manageriai applications indicated by

the research (such as off-site education of users and concern about latent

demands) require unusual time and other resources of managers who are operating under everyday constraints and pressures of an immediate nature.

Although there are difficulties, I am optimistic that recreation managers

and researchers will be working more closely together in the future to accomplish our mutual objectives. All indications point in that direction.

SUMMARY

This paper has proposed that much additional research on the personalsocial benefits of participation in outdoor recreation is needed to take US

beyond our current intuitive understandings of these benefits. A model was

presented to help show the linkages between user expectations, experiences

and benefits. Within that model, the outputs or products of recreation manr;gement systems were defined not only as opportunities but also as human experiences and benefits the latter two are the real goods and services produced.

The basic premise on which the conceptual framework of the paper rested

was that the most pervasive and managerially relevant satisfying experiences

and personal benefits realized from recreation behavior can be identified

and measured to a managerially useful degree.

One must acknowledge seriously that there are risks involved of over-rarionalizing the field of recreation behavior in attempts to identify users'

expectations, experiences and benefits. The subject might be so complex that

these variables are, in fact, not measurable, and that we are deluding ourselves to propose otherwise.

misrepresent them,

We must be careful not to "use the users,"

or adopt research and management strategies that do not

account for all relevant preferences, Real options for choice must be preserved or created to the extent feasible,and the user's self-respect must be

protected. To do that, the user must be kept aware that his preferences are

being evaluated, and the purposes for doing so must be explained.

a " cross-check" on the researchers and managers,

Also, as

the allocation decision process.

users should be involved in

Thereby, the use of behavioral information

184
in planning and management decisions can be reviewed by the publics for

whom these decisions are made.

Despite these risks of implementing the proposed approach, the risks of

not doing so are equally great and might be quite costly socially. The field

is too important socially to continue to rely primarily on intuition to guide

most of our recreation management and policy decisions. In the face of increased relative scarcity of our natural resources and with the growing problems associated with urbanization, better measures are needed of what should

be produced, for whom, by whom, where, when and at what price. But it will

take time and the strong support of managers and administrators.

LITERATURE CITED

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1975. Attitudinal and normative variables as

predictions of spe'cific behavior. J. of Personality and Sot. Psych 27(l):

41-57.

Atkinson, J. W., and Birch. D. 1972. Motivation: The dynamics of action.

New York: Wiley.

Bassett, J. R., Driver, B. L., and Schreyer, R. M. 1972. User study:

Characteristics and attitudes, Michigan's Au Sable River. Rogers City,

Mich.: Northeast Mich. Reg. Plann. and Dev. Comm.

Berlyne, D. E. 1960. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. N.Y.: McGraw Hill.

Berlyne, D. E. 1969. Laughter, humor and play. In G. Lindsey and E.

Atonsan (eds.) The handbook of social psychology, 2d ed. 3:795-852.

Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.

Birch, D. and Veroff, J. 1966. Motivation: A study of action. BrooksCole, Belmont, Calif.

Brown, P. J., Dyer, A., and Whaley, R. S. 1973. Recreation research--so what?

J. of Leisure Res. 5(1):16-24.

Brown, P. J., and Hautaluoma, J. 1975. Social inputs to setting deer hunting

management objectives. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Meeting of

Environmental Design Research Assoc., Lawrence, Kansas.

Burch, Jr., W. R. 1965. The play world of camping: Research into the

social meaning of outdoor recreation. Am. J. of Social. LXX(5):7604-12.

Burch, Jr., W. R. 1969, The social circles of leisure: Competing explanations.

J. of Leisure Res. 1(2):125-48.

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1974. Proc. of the Outdoor Recreation Research

Needs Workshop. Harper Ferry, W. Va.: US Dep. of Interior.

Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. 1970. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. In G. F. Summers (ea.)

Attitude measurement, p. 100-122. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.

185
Catton, Jr., W. R. 1969. Motivations of wilderness users. Pulp and Paper

Magazine of Canada (Woodlands Section), Dec. 19, p. 121-26.

Clark, R. N., Hendee, J. C., and Campbell, Frederick L. 1971. Values,

behavior, and conflict in modern camping culture. J. of Leisure Res. 3(3):

143-59.

Clawson, M., and Knetsch, S. 1966. Economics of outdoor recreation.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Davis, R. L. 1973. Selected motivational determinants of recreational use

of Belle Isle Park in Detroit. Unpub. master's thesis, School of Nat.

Resour., The Univ. of Michigan.

Driver, B. L. 1972. Potential contributions of psychology to recreation

resource management. -In J. Wohlwill and D. H. Carson (eds.) Environment

and the social sciences: Perspectives and applications, pp. 233-244.

Wash., D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Driver, B. L., and Brown, P. J. 1975. A social-psychological definition

of recreation demand, with implications for recreation resource planning.

Commissioned paper as Appendix A in Assessing demand for outdoor recreation. Wash., D.C.: National Aczemy of Science.

Driver, B. L., and R. C. Knopf. 1975a. Some thoughts on the quality of outdoor recreation and other constraints on its application. Paper presented

at Workshop for outdoor recreation researchers and cooperators, Brandon

Springs, Tennessee (March 10, 1975). Proceedings available from K. Chilman,

For. Dept., Southern Illinois University.

Driver, B. L., and R. C. Knopf. 1975b. Relationships between recreation behavior and environmental stress. Forthcoming in Environment and Behavior. -

Driver, B. L., and Tocher, S. R. 1974. Toward a behavioral interpretation

of recreation, with implications for planning. pp. 9-31. In B. L. Driver

(ed.) Elements of outdoor recreation planning. Ann Arbor:The Univ. of

Michigan Press.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. 1973.

Social indicators, 1973. Wash., D.C.: Gov. Printing Office.

Ferris, A. L. 1970. The social and personality correlates of outdoor recreation. -

In S. Z. Klausner (ed.) Society and its physical environment. Annals

of American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 389:46-55.

Festinger, L. 1958. The motivating effects of cognitive dissonance. In

G. Lindsley (ed.), Assessment of human motives. N.Y.: Grove Press. -

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1974. Attitudes towards objects as predictors

of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81(l):

59-74.

Foss, M. 1975. Physiological benefits of chronic exercise. Paper presented

at the Sixth Annual Meeting of Enviornmental Design Research Assoc.,

Lawrence, Kansas.

186
Freud, S. 1955. Beyond the pleasure principle. In J. Strachey (ed. and

trans.) The standard edition of the complete psFhologica1 works of S.

Freud, 1920-22. Vol. 18. London: Hogarth and the Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Grubb, E. A. 1975. Assembly line bordom and individual differences in

recreation participation. J. of Leisure Res. 7(4):256-269.

Hendee, J. C. 1971. Sociology and applied leisure research. Pacific Sociological Review, 14(3):360-68.

Hendee, J. C. 1974. A multiple-satisfaction approach to game management.

Wildlife Sot. Bull. 2(3):104-13.

Hendee, J. C., and Harris, R. W. 1970. Foresters' perceptions of wildernessuser attitudes and preferences. J. of For. 759-762.

Howard, A., and Scott, R. B. 1965. A proposed framework for the analysis

of stress in the human organism. Behavior. Sci. 10(2):141-60.

Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S.% and

Weiner, B. 1972. Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior.

Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.

Kelly, J. R. 1974. Socialization toward leisure. J. of Leisure Res.

5(3):181-93.

Kerlinger, F. N. 1964. Foundations of behavioral research. N.Y.: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Chap. 26-29.

Knetsch, J. L. 1974. Assessing the demand for outdoor recreation planning.

In B. L. Driver (ea.) Elements of outdoor recreation planning. pp. 131-136.

Ann Arbor: The Univ. of Mich. Press.

Knopf, R. C. 1972. Motivational determinants of recreation behavior. Unpub.

master's thesis, School of Nat. Resour., The Univ. of Mich., Univ. Microfilms,

No. M-4244, 268.

Knopf, R. C., Driver, B. L., and Bassett, J. R. 1973. Motivations for fishing.

PP. 191-204. In Transactions of the 38th North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference. Wash., D.C.,: Wildlife Management Inst.

Knopp, T. B. 1972. Environmental determinants of recreation behavior. J. of

Leisure Res. 4(2):129-38.

Laing, R. D. 1967. Politics of experience. N.Y.: Random House.

LaPage, W. F., and Ragain, D. P. 1974. Family camping trends--an eightyear panel study. J. of Leisure Res. 6(2):101-12.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical

papers. N.Y.: Harper and Row.

187
Lucns, R. C. 1964. Wilderness perception and use: The example of the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Nat. Res. J. 3(1):394-411.

Lute, R. D., and Raiffa, H. 1957. Games and decisions. N.Y.: Wiley.

Mandell, L., and Marans, R. 1972. Participation in outdoor recreation: A

national perspective. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor: The Univ.

of Mich.

Marshall, A. 1890. Principles of economics. London: MacMillan.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., and Lowell, E. L. 1953.

The achievement motive. N.Y.: Appleton-Crofts.

Meyersohn, R. 1970. The Charismatic and the playful in outdoor recreation.

In S. Z. Klausner (ed.) Society and its physical environment, Annals of

Amer. Academy of Political and Social Sci. 389:35-45.

Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. H. 1960. Plans and the structure of behavior. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.

More, T. A. 1973. Attitudes of Massachusetts Hunters. pp. 72-76. In

J. C. Hendee and C. Schoenfeld (eds.) Human dimensions in wildlife programs.

Seattle: People-Natural Resour. Res. Council.

Morris, G., Pasewark, R., and Schultz, J. 1972. Occupational level and

participation in public recreation in a rural community. J. of Leisure Res..

4(1):25-32.

Murray, H. A. 1938. Explorations in personality. N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press.

National Academy of Sciences. 1969. A program for outdoor recreation research.

Wash., D.C.

Nunnally, J. C. 1967. Psychometric theory. Chap. 13-14. N.Y.: McGraw Hill.

Orthner, D. K. 1975. Leisure activity patterns and marital satisfaction over

the marital career. pp. 91-102, J. of Marriage and The Family.

Peterson, G. L. 1971. Motivations, perceptions, satisfactions and environmental dispositions of B0undar.y Waters Canoe Area users and managers. Final

report, cooperative research project No. 13-253 between Northwestern Univ.

and the North Central Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service: Dept.

of Civil Engineering, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, Illinois.

Peterson, G. L. 1974a. Evaluating the quality of the wilderness environment:

Congruence between perception and aspiration. Environment and Behavior

6(2):169-93.

Peterson, G. L. 1974b. Managers and canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe

Area. J. of Leisure Res. 6(3):194-204.

188
Piaget, J. 1962. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood (C..Cattegno and

F. M. Hodgson, trans.). N.Y.: Norton.

Potter, D. R., Hendee, J. C., and Clark, N. N. 1973. Hunting satisfaction:

Game, guns, or nature. pp. 62-71. In J. C. Hendee and C. Schoenfeld (eds.)

Human dimensions in wildlife programz Seattle: People-Natural Resour.

Res. Council.

Sofranko, A. J., and Nolan, M. F. 1972. Early life experiences and adult

sports participation. J. of Leisure Res. 4(1):6-18.

Twiss, R. N. 1974. Supply of outdoor recreation. pp. 137-143. In B. L.

Driver (ea.) Elements of outdoor recreation. Ann Arbor: The Uzv. of

Mich. Press.

Wagar, J. A. 1964. The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation.

Wash., D.C.: Society of Am. For. (Monograph 7).

White, R. W. 1959. Motivation reconsidered the concept of competence.

Psychology Review 66(5):297-333.

Witt, P. A., and Bishop, D. W. 1970. Situational antecedents to leisure

behavior. J. of Leisure Res. 2(1):64-77.

189
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED

"IDENTIFYING SOCIAL BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR RECRFATION"

Gloria B. Angel/

The paper addresses a complex area-- identification of personal-social

benefits of outdoor recreation participation-- to help understand recreation

behavior. The relevance of this topic and its interweaving with a whole gamut

of other recreation concerns, such as substitutability, is increasingly being

recognized by recreation planners and managers.

The need to measure the attractants of various recreation opportunities is

further emphasized by the recent upsurge in interest in new types of recreation

and activities involving more of a challenge or degree of danger.

This paper points up the‘need for additional work, and certainly has merit

as a beginning towards more applicable research. However, this critique is

supposed to address usability from a manager's perspective. The following

questions and comments are offered as those that might be raised by a manager.

Application would be greatly influenced by the constraints already imposed

on managers --such as budget, existing policy, physical design of a facility,

environmental restrictions, and operation and maintenance obligations. Thus,

early consultation with managers should be sought in determining what recreation

experiences are relevant for their use.

Use of this research in allocating recreation resources would probably be

more applicable at the planning level. Usability by "managers" in this respect

would be contingent upon the extent of the "manager's" authority relevant to

resource allocation. However, use by managers with programmatic responsibilities would be more applicable.

Variables, or "environmental influences" as the author refers to, are

many and apt to change, thereby influencing the recreationist's interest and/or

gratification. Perceived benefits in the recreationist's mind may change due

to the "environmental influences" and thus vary at time of interview, time of

activity and when he anticipates or repeats that same activity. The author

refers to this as "extinction of benefits."

Can motivation and benefits perceived by individuals at one point in time be

collectively compiled and analyzed to produce findings and recommendations

applicable to masses of recreationists for a projected length of time?

Driver has considered this and stated that managers and researchers must not

think "truth" has been reached--the answers are only temporary and partial. If

so, it is questionable that long-range planning and management decisions can be

influenced by the research reviewed in this'paper.

I/Outdoor Recreation Planner , Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Southeast Regional

Office, Atlanta, Georgia 30303

190
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN RECREATION RESOURCES DECISION MAKING

David L. Erickson and Adam Clarke David'

Abstract .--In response to legal aa administrative requirements, federal natural resource agencies are involving citizens

in the decision making process. However, given the arguments

stated both for and against public involvement, one might raise

a question about the proper role of involvement in agency decision making. While twelve general principles of public involvement and a number of relatively new public involvement techniques,

e.g., public information brochure, nominal group and Delphi, are

discussed, research has not progressed to the point where "formulas" for involvement can be given. Agency cooperation is vitally

needed to permit a comparative evaluation of alternative techniques.

Additidnal keywords: Citizen participation, public relations,

public preferences, public administration, recreation planning,

water resources planning, forest ima planning.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years , public participation (citizen involvement) has become

institutionalized in much of natural resource agency decision making. While

one might question the validity of ,agency involvement in what is often considered the "political arena,' it is in effect required. For example, the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Executive Order 11514

mandates public involvement with respect to major actions. In addition to

these requirements, agencies have also been subjected to court challenges,

protests, and other activities by organized groups demanding either different decisions or inclusion in the decision making process.

To avoid conflict, to implement legislative and executive directives,

and to act on recommendations of the Public Land Law Review Commission (1970)

and the Conservation Foundation (19'j'2), federal agencies such as the Forest

Service, Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, ma Corps of Engineers are

seeking to develop improved procedures for involving citizens in the agency

decision making process. Efforts to develop public involvement procedures

are also occurring in various state, county, ma multicounty plannipg jurisdictions in relation to land use planning; however, whether these procedures

are being developed as a consequence of legal requirements or administrative

1;/ Respectively, Assistant Professor, Department of Recreation Resources

Administration, School of Forest Resources; and Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, School of Agriculture and. Life Sciences,

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. C. 27607

191
initiative is not clear. Passage of a national land use policy act will ultimately require the development of public involvement procedures to establish

land uses within and between all governmental jurisdictions.

There are differences of opinion about the meaning of the term, "public

involvement." For this paper, public involvement will be defined as any activity which brings the viewpoints of organized citizen groups or individual expressions into an agency for consideration.

There are basically two sets of activities which may generate public involvement: (1) concerted action by citizens which results in developing communications with an agency, e.g., citizen opposition to a proposed highway

through a park; and (2) agency-initiated public involvement as a result of

legislative mandates, agency sensitivity to the importance of an issue, or

agency commitments to programs. In this paper we will discuss the latter

form, that is, agency-generated public involvement programs.

There is a wide range of potential forms of public involvement in planning and decision making. At one end of the continuum is an organizationalexpert system where plans and policies are formulated by using a rational

decision making process (Bultena and Rogers 1973). Non-agency persons are

minimally involved in this case.

At the other end is a democratic-participatory system in which the public

is involved directly and continuously throughout the entire planning process

rather thsn at the end after all plans and policies have been determined. Between "the expert" and "the participatory" system are various systems where

public views are sought at various stages, and where the degree of public involvement ranges from occasional consultation to no consultation at all. For

a description of various systems see Davis et al. (1975) and Bishop (1970).

For those agencies that use "the expert" system, the presumed advantage

is employment of professional ethics and standards which are "value freell with

respect to programs and a rational decision making process in which goals are

clearly defined, pertinent data collected, the range of alternatives and their

consequences specified, and the most efficient alternatives selected. However,

it is recognized that, in fact: (1) these goals are often unclear, (2) the

data collected is never the sole criterion used to make decisions, and (3)

choices' are restricted to alternatives that are known, available, and consistent

with the agency's mission.

Use of "the participatory" system by agencies, on the other hand, is based

on the recognition that agency decisions are considerably influenced by social

and political forces from within and outside the agency. Policy is influenced

by the exercise of pressure by interest groups upon agency officials and elected

representatives. Decision making is seen as a very complex process which is

sporadic and involves bargaining between agency officials and the public (Wengert

1955, Holden 1966, Hagevik 1970).

192
While NEPA requires public involvement on all major federal actions and

Executive Order 11514 requires ag&cies to develop procedures to assure understanding of proposed actions and to solicit public views, these mandates lack

sufficient specificity. For agencies with these mandates and any other agency

attempting to develop public involvement procedures, there are a number of

very difficult questions which must be answered. Who is "the public"? How

should they be involved? On what issues should they be involved? At what

point in the decision msking process? For what length of time during agency

decision making? One could go on and on raising questions but the most troublesome would still be how can it be done ,effectively, since no criterion of effectiveness exists with regard to public involvement.

PROS AND CONS

Arguments For Public Involvement

As we see it, there are four major arguments for public involvement in

decision making.

1 . Public involvement has recently been promoted for ethical reasons.

The argument is that citizens have an inalienable right to be involved in the

formulation and implementation of agency programs. These ethical considerations relate to the fact that those who are to be affected by a policy, or

who are to pay for it have a right to be consulted (Sewell 1974, Morley 1974,

Folkman 1973).

2. Public involvement is needed to make msnaaement decisions which

reflect the wishes and needs of the citizenry. Management decisions involve

both policy and technical aspects. The policy aspect concerns what ought to

be, and therefore, involves a consideration of social values--which benefits

are most important and what level of costs are acceptable to the public. The

technical aspect concerns the possibilities for and the consequences of following dternative courses of action in achieving objectives.

Ultimately citizens must guide or at least consent to management decisions.

Managers and planners should, therefore, attempt to use information on public

preferences as well as technical expertise in making decisions (Wagar ana

Folkman 1974, Davis and Bentley 1967, Bultena et al. 1973, O'Riordan lgi'la).

Since many studies have demonstrated managers or planners do not know the

preferences of citizens, it is particularly important that managers seek this

information (e,.g., Hendee and Harris 1970, Bultena and Hendee 1972).

In many cases planners and managers erroneously assume that they are

aware of the social costs and benefits of a decision. Input from people to

be affected by the decision would enable better estimates of social costs

and benefits.

193
3. Public involvement would provide information on aesthetic and other

environmental values that have not generally been included in benefit-cost

F==

At best, such analyses only provide an estimate of the least

rather than the most) which people would be willing to pay to maintain

environmental quality (O'Riordan 1971a). For example, using public opinion

polling, as a public involvement technique, researchers reached different

conclusions about the benefits and costs of proposed reservoir development

projects than were reached by benefit-cost analysis (Bultena and Rogers 1974).

4. Public involvement will often identify a greater range of management

alternatives and obtain a wider basis of support for the implementation of

management decisions. With this expanded range of alternatives, completely

unacceptable choices will likely be omitted before they are implemented. I n

addition, by involving those persons likely to be affected with those that

affect plans, it may be possible to anticipate unforeseen consequences.

If people are involved in the decision making process, they will have a

better understanding of the meaning of a decision for them and thus are more

likely to support the implementation of the decision. To be successfti, a

decision must not only be beneficial and feasible, but also acceptable to a

majority of the population that is affected (Wilkinson 1974). For individuals

who provide input into the decision making process, personal satisfaction and

morale is increased as a result of being included in the process. It also

contributes to responsible behavior (Smith 1973).

Arguments Against Public Involvement

There have been a number of major arguments raised against public involvement (Wilkinson 1974 and Bultena and Rogers 1973).

1. It encourages mobilization of antagonistic interests. It has been

the experience of agencies, in some cases, that proposed programs were aefeated after the agency aroused the public about an issue. Furthermore,

public involvement has the potential for opening a political Pandora's Box

(Wengert 1974).

2 . It is costly in terms of time aa money aa mav serve to slow a0m

efficient decision makinq. Agency administrators cannot afford the time and

costs of obtaining public involvement on many official actions.

3. Citizens lobby for local interests or special privileges. Lobbying

can prevent the initiation of projects that have more widespread benefits.'

Wengert (1974:llg) notes that: "Participation becomes a mockery when local

objectors are permitted to frustrate decisions that affect a regional or

national interest. This is not to say that local objectors should not be

heard, but the sad fact is that the procedures do not prevail for recording

the interest of any others."

194
4. In general. citizens are not involved in the decision making process.

Those who are active may not be representative of the public as a whole.

Many citizens remain silent because of their lack of concern, interest, knowledge, motivation or time. Any program of citizen involvement should include

this "silent majority" (Wengert 1974). Though the majority may be silent,

this may not mean indifference. Silence may be as much a function of political alienation and limited information as it may be to the holding of mild

preferences (O'Riordan 1971b).

5. Many resource problems involve complex technical issues which may

be beyond the competence of the citizen to understand.

6. Various forms of public input are difficult to weigh in making a

decision. Because of the lack of clear direction from the legislative branch

of government, many agencies have difficulty weighing the various forms of

public input. Any scheme of public involvement, according to Wengert (1974:

1241, "must face the issue of weighing the views and opinions, distinguishing

between preferences and public interest."

7. Public involvement in an aaencv cannot avoid the dilemma of cooperation and manipulation of public support by disseminating selective or tainted

information, winning support by favors. and otherwise influencina outcomes

(Wengert 1974:125). Previous studies have found that agencies will, initially,

only disseminate information that will show the benefits of the project with

little or no information on the costs (e.g., Stsmm and Bowes 1972).

8. The results of some forms of public involvement are unpredictable.

The point has not been reached where one can choose a technique and be certain

that 'it will work in all situations (Davis et al. 1975).

SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLES

There are a number of general principles that should be kept in mind

when an agency is contemplating public involvement.

1 . Involve the public on those issues that appear to have important

consequences for society. The decision making costs of information dissemination and collection are too high to have public involvement on a large

number of issues. Some decisions must be based on the manager's experience

or "hunches." While there are costs for the agency, there are also costs to

the citizen. It is generally known that only a limited number of persons can

or will take an active part in matters that affect them. The costs of acquiring the information necessary for active involvement and the costs of

negotiation are too high (Buchanan and Tullock 1962, Downs 1957). Individuals often lack sufficient interest in many of the problems to organize and

select representatives to aid in decision making (Olson 1965).

195
I)ecjs:lons to seek public involvement should be based on a sensitivity

(d) yubli c interests. There are a number of criteria that can be considered

it1 mu)cjng a decision about whether to seek public involvement. Among these

WY: (1) number of persons likely to be affected by the decision, (2) geographic size of the area to be affected, (3) value of the resource (economic,

aesthetic), (4) expenditures required to implement the decision, (5) anticipated public interest in the decision, and (6) legislative mandates.

2 . Decide the referent of the term "public." It is critical that the

agency decide whether the program is to be aimed at the general citizenry,

a segment or segments thereof, or some combination of these. This, in effect,

determines the nature of the involvement effort.

3. Define the objectives of public involvement and develop performance

criteria. A number of studies have indicated the importance of specifying

objectives and developing performance measures (Copp 1973, Hendee et al.

1973, Middaugh 1973). More progress is apparent in the former than the

latter. An outstanding example which one might cite in performance measurement is that of the Ontario Provincial Government (1974), which has developed

a set of criteria for measuring program performance.

4. The objectives and procedures of involvement should be communicated

to the public'. It is important that the agency clearly spell out how the

public involvement 'tgame" will be played. For example, an agency should

indicate who has the responsibility for the final decision and the various

factors that will be taken into account in making the final decision. It

should also indicate that the objective is to reach agreement on the decisions

and that reaching agreement will require some bargaining by both sides. I t

is important to build a sense of trust and confidence so that participants

will want to tlplay" again. Specification of the rules of the Itgame" shotid

effectively minimize polarization of values ma preferences.

5. Public involvement must be sought before a decision has been reached.

mere is general agreement in the literature that people have been involved

too late in the decision making process (e.g., Hendee et al. 1973, Wilkinson

1974, COPP 1973). It has typically been the case that people have been asked

to react to decisions that have already been made by an agency. There is no

sense in going through the motions of asking for a response when the agency

has "made up its mind"; moreover, there is no quicker way to alienate the

public than to ask for comments after a decision has been made (U. S. Forest

Service 1974). Earlier involvement will be more likely to establish trust

and confidence in the agency.

Idedly an agency would involve the people in assessing the problem,

suggesting alternative actions, assisting in describing impacts, and finally,

expressing preferences on alternative actions (Ortolano 1974). While the

ided calls for involving people at all stages in the decision making process,

the decision about the stages of involvement would have to be evaluated in

terms of the benefits and costs to the agency and to the participants.

196
The "fishbowl" planning process developed by the U. S. Corps of F&gineers

to incorporate public involvement avoids the problem definition stage, and

gives early emphasis on identifying alternatives and evaluating the consequences of these alternatives in terms of achieving desired objectives (Sargent

1972). For small group interactions, the problem formulation and plan evaluation stages are believed to be the most critical points for public involvement

(Delbecq and Van de Ven 1971).

6. Seek to involve the full range of publics affected by the issue.

Both proponents and opponents of agency policies should be invited to express

their views. To accomplish such a goal is difficult because some groups are

not willing and capable of organizing and expressing their views.

The question of interest representation is a vitally important consideration in any public involvement undertaking. Recent research indicates that

participation by interest groups, while not representative in terms of socioeconomic characteristics, have the same opinions on environmental issues as

the gene,ral public. However, the major difference is that interest group

participants are more willing to take action (Wilkinson 1974). Certainly,

further research is needed to substantiate these results in a variety of

situations.

With respect to interest representation on a geographic basis, local

interests often dominate public input (Stankey et al. 1975). Thus, special

efforts may be necessary to secure input from regional and national interests,

when the issue is judged to have impact at those levels.

7. Select the appropriate approaches to obtaining public involvement

at various stages in the decision making; process. For example, opinion polling appears useful at an early stage to learn public awareness of the problem

while workshops and conferences would be valuable after tentatiSe consideration has been given to issues and alternatives.

8. Seek to sustain a high level of involvement but not necessarily

continuous involvement of the same individuals. It is difficult to maintain

the interest and commitment of everyone throughout the decision making

process. People generally have many competing claims on their time (Sewell

1974 1 l

9. Communicate information to affected publics with fidelity so that

citizens msy become cognizant of the consequences of various solutions.

Public involvement must be preceded by_ a great - effort to inform and educate

the citizenry. In t$is regard, a person must: (1) receive accurate ma

unbiased information from the agency regarding the problems and issues,

(2) know the consequences of the titernative solutions, and (3) be able to

accurately express his pre'ferences for the alternatives and the values he

associates with them.

197
It is particularly important that an agency clearly define the issues

to avoid being accused of misrepresentation of intent by those outside the

agency. Also, as Haefele (1973:180) has stated, 'how an issue is framed

determines not only which people are for it and which against. . .but also

the intensities of feeling pro or con." In addition, an agency should seek

a clarification of public preferences through education rather than "selling"

a single viewpoint (Swan 1974). This need to clearly define issues and to

clarify public preferences in public involvement suggests a new and important

role for information and education personnel in relation to agency decision

making (Cutler 1974).

10. Allow adequate time for the public to respond to the issue as a means

to assuring accurate and complete input. It has been observed that it takes

time before the full implications of a decision become apparent. In many

cases, unfortunately, it is only after implementation of the decision that

people realize the consequences of it.

11. Request the assistance of social scientists in the collection and

analysis of public preferences. Assessment of public preferences is a complex

task and requires the skili of persons familiar with social science methods

and concepts. See Hendee et al. (1974) for an excellent framework for incorporating public involvement into agency decision making.

12. While public preferences are a vital consideration in agency decision

making, constraints such as legal mandates, ecological issues, resource capability, economic problems, etc. must also be considered in the decision. Public involvement requires the weighing of public preferences, among other factors, to arrive at a management decision. Some writers say that it also requires the granting of actual influence over the content of decisions to

groups affected by those decisions, which implies that being co@izant of

the preferences is insufficient. It must include the preferences 'in the

decision itself" (Irland and Vincent 1974). Considering the variety of preferences expressed by various individuals and interest groups, it may be impossible to accommodate all these views in the decision. This is particularly

the case, for example, for the management policies dealing with the administration of the Wilderness Act of 1964 where both preservation and limited

human use are explicit objectives of the Act. Although preferences may be

expressed for providing for more intensive recreational uses, these preferences cannot be accommodated because of legal mandates (Stankey 1972a).

These preferences may, however, indicate that there is an unfulfilled societal need and efforts should be made to accommodate this need either by

amending the Act or by other actions.

In summary, effective public involvement requires that the manager:

(1) know the preferences of individuals and groups affected by a decision,

(2) consider these preferences and other factors in making a decision,

(3) know who gains and who loses by particular decisions, and (4) communicate

the rationale for a decision to affected publics.

198
APPROACHES

There are a variety of techniques that have traditionally been used for

obtaining public involvement. They range from those receiving input on a

massive scale (e.g., public meetings, hearings, soliciting written input) to

small groups (e.g., workshops, ad hoc committees, advisory groups) to individuals (e.g., key contacts).

There is general agreement in the literature that there is not a single

best technique for obtaining public input. Each technique has its advantages

and disadvantages, which have been described by Hendee et al. (1973), Bultena

and Rogers (1973) and U. S. Forest Service (1974). Collection techniques can

be evaluated in terms of a number of criteria, for example: (1) how well are

the interests represented; (2) how useful are the techniques in terms of the

goals sought; (3) what range, specification, tina intensity of preferences ma

values are communicated; (4) are personal preferences =a values clarified;

(5) how effective is the technique in reducing group conflict and achieving

a satisfactory solution; ma (6) does it produce results commensurate with

the effort.

Different techniques for obtaining public input are more effective at

some stages than at others. For example, interviewing "key" persons early

in the planning process seems to be effective in identifying goals and

objectives. Public he&rings, on the other hand, are useful for obtaining

reaction to alternatives, but tend toward an adversary process and generally

a0 not lead to mutual understanding or consensus.

Evidence seems to indicate that some techniques are more frequently

used than others. A recent study by Hendee et al.(1973) showed that public

meetings, key contacts; agency reports, and mass media were the most frequently used approaches to public involvement. Similar results were obtained

by Davis et al. (1975) who found that public hearings, advisory boards, and

mass media were the most frequently used techniques.

Opinion polling is only infrequently used by natural resource agencies

as a public involvement technique (Bultena and Rogers 1973, 1974). This

limited use occurs despite the fact that opinion polls, when conducted by

in-depth interviews, have a number of advantages over commonly used techniques.

For example, they : (1) place the problem in context and permit the individual to reveal preferences not only among those items mentioned by the

interviewer but for others as well; (2) remove certain biases inherent in '

some techniques, e.g., public hearings usually express the views of only a

few individuals and reveal primarily what people do not want rather than

what they would prefer; (3) reveal the preferences of the "silent majority,"

which might not be recorded; and (4) indicate the extent to which the

nature of a problem is incorrectly perceived (Sewell 1971).

Considering the limited number of techniques now believed to be used.

by agencies, there seems to be a need to develop and use a variety of new

techniques for obtaining public input (Wagner and. Ortolano 1975).

199
i~:~t;~.Lj vcly new mass-oriented technique developed by the Seattle

ilt,:I ~'i(,l. oi' the U. S. Corps of Engineers is a public information brochure

~',II. ~.~,rilr!riu-Iicating information to the public and receiving a response. The

~'~':;~r~)tlses protide a basis for a revised brochlure, Ithich is distributed and

.:l~bsequent iterations occur. A brochure typically contains: (1) backgromd

tif past studies, (2) a summary of the titernatives with the pros and cons of

each alternative, (3) a matrix displaying Yne consequences of each alternative for each public objective, (4) a listing cf contributors, and (5) a

glossary of technical concepts. Individuals can respond to the brochure by

adding a pro cr con to the list, and rebuttal space is provided across from

each pro or con. Tiiis brochure is utilized as a latter part Of the "fishbowl" planning process (Sargenic. 1972).

In addition to the Seattle District brochure, the Inland Lakes Project

research group used a brochure with !'maii response formsi' t.0 c-IA sin such

cltisen input as ser~~o3sness of probie~, individual actions $3 alLet-iafc

problems, and wiliingness to take acticn. As a response to the "mail response

forms , " two brochures were prepared and disseminated to the community. One

of these brochures discussed ecological concepts and the other discussed

problems and guidelines fcr community action (Fulton i971).

Brochures appear useful at all stages of the planning process. They

are useful for disseminating information, educating piibiics, and obtaining

reactions to information presented.

Additional new techniques reflect input from small group research.

The Delphi technique, for example, involves the use of questionnaires, which

are developed by staff and completed individually by a panel. Participants

in the Delphi technique are pbflsically dispersed and dc not meet face-toface for group problem-solving activities. The purpose of the technique

is to elicit the values of the participants and discover the basis of cE.fferences in values. It &so is useful in ranking alternative actions.

The nominal group technique, like the Delphi technique, is particularly

useful for cbtaining the views from people of diverse backgrounds and perspectives. The procedure for the nominal group technique is as follows:

(1) individual members first silently and independently generate their ideas

on a problem in writing, (2) each individual presents one of his ideas to

the group without discussion, (3) t hese ideas are summarized in a terse phrase

and written on the blackboard or sheet of paper on the wall: (4) ideas are

discussed for purposes of clarification and evaluation, and (5) ideas are

silently voted upon by individuals using a ranking or 'rating procedure. Tne

"group decision" is the pooied outcome of the individual votes,

!The nominal groucp technique appears to be equally effective as the Delphi

method in terms of the quantity cf ideas generated end tne perceived satlsfacticn 0.f participants. The conventional interacting or discussion group appears

iess effective thal either the aotinal group or Deeiphl. techniques (Van de ?en

anil Del.becq 1374).
The nominal group technique was used by the National Park Service to

obtain regional goals and priorities for a thirteen county area in North

Carolina and Tennessee surrounding the Great Smoky Mountains National Park

(Brodie and Falk 1973). The Bureau of Land Management is using it as a

training device for field personnel. It has also been tested elsewhere as

a citizen involvement technique (Dane County Regional Planning Commission

1971, Institute for Environmental Studies 1975).

Once public input has been obtained, techniques to code, analyze,

store and retrieve input are used. The U. S. Forest Service has developed

a system called CODINVOLVE for this purpose and the system has been used in

relation to many roadless area reviews and environmental statements (Clark

et al. 1974, Clark and Stankey, in press). Content analysis is a technique

which might be recommended for analyzing content of letters and other printed

material. It has been used, for example, by Starkey (1972b), Middawh h973),

and Erickson (1973).

RESEARCH NEEDS AND APPLICATION

Research Needs

Much of the public involvement research to date has not been a comparative

evaluation of alternative approaches, but rather a description of case studies

such as the Susquehanna Communication-Participation study (Barton and Warner

1974). Lacking comparative evaluations, it is difficult to prescribe any

'formulas" for public involvement. Cooperation of agency administrators is

vitally needed to permit experimentation with various approaches. The research

on the nominal group and Delphi approaches being conducted by Van de Ven and

Delbecq (1974) is an excellent example of the kind of experimental research

desired.

Needed research to guide the development of public involvement activities

has been described in detail by Statikey et al. (1975). Some of the more

important research needs are outlined below:

1 . Amount of Public Involvement. Empirically founded criteria need to

be developed to guide decisions on "when" and "how much" input is needed.

2 . Techniques of Collecting and Analyzing Public Input. What alternative collection techniques are possible and what are the benefits and costs

of these techniques? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these

techniques at each stage in the decision making process? HOW does the

quality of opinion vary with collection technique? What techniques can be

used to analyze information?

201
3 . Participant Characteristics and Motivation. What kinds of people

are participating in resource decisions? Does involvement reduce tiomie and

powerlessness? Why and how do people get involved? What techniques are

effective at obtaining representation of all interests affected by a decision?

4. Group Interactive Mechanisms. What are the costs and benefits of

various interactive mechanisms between managers and the public? what.mechanisms

are most effective for exchanging information between managers and the'public?

What mechanisms tend to red&e conflict?

5. Information Dissemination Techniques. What techniques can be used

to communicate issues to the public? How does the definition of the issue

affect the kinds of participants that become interested in the issue? What

techniques are effective at displaying the consequences of alternative courses

of action?

6. Decision Making Procedures of Resource Agencies. To what extent

are state and local agencies utilizing public involvement procedures in

decision making? What techniques a& being utilized?

Barriers to Application of Research Results

There are a number of barriers that are likely to affect the future

implementation of research.

1 . The attitudes of professionals toward the value of public input in

decision making;. Professionals often believe they know what is best for the

public--and in some cases they are probably right. But to, go blindly along

without full knowledge of the various interests and the benefits and losses

generated by decisions seems insufficient for acceptable public administration.

2 . The costs in terms of money aa time. For example, preparation of

information ma education materials ma programs is expensive. To permit

sufficient time for effective involvement may be too time consuming for an

agency. In many instances, the pressures to tie a quick decision do not

permit use of effective public involvement techniques and the public has to

be involved too late in the process. Direct involvement techniques such as

workshops are costly for the partidipant as well, and the agency will have

to expend considerable efforts to assure sufficient involvement.

3. Many managers lack the interest and the skills required f6r ptiblic

involvement (Stankey et al. 1975). Many managers have chosen the resource

management profession because they like to be away from citizens, not interact with them. Thus agencies should consider training sessions for defining

various roles in the decision making process and training for effectiveness

of public involvement (Folkmsn 197'3). Experience with the actual process

itself is beneficial too. As Hendee et al. (1973) have indicated, "experience

with public involvement tends to reinforce a commitment to it."

202
4. The uncertainty of the results of public involvement. Some interest.

groups are likely takipg advant,age of involvement and are utilizing it to

gain power and influence. Also, public involvement gives no assurances that

an interest group will still not subsequently challenge decisions in court.

LIST OF REFEmNCE&

Aleshire, Robert A. 1970. Planning and citizen participation: costs,

benefits and approaches. Urban Aff. Quart. 5(4):369-393.

* Allee, David J. 1974 - The role of public involvement in water resources.

planning and development. Tech. Completion Rep. No. 79, 160 p. Cornell

Univ. Water Resources and Marine Science Center, Ithaca, N. Y.

Alston, Richard M. 1972. Forest goals and decision making in the Forest

Service. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. IN T-128, 84 p. Intend. For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Amer. Inst.

of Planners 35( 4):216-224.

Ashton, Peter M. 1974. Accountability of public water agencies: Legal

institutions for public interaction, p. 51-75. In Proceedings: Conference

on public participation in water resources plannzg and management, ea. by

James M. Stewart, 194 p. N. C. Water Resources Res. Inst., N. C. State

Univ., Raleigh.

* Behan, R. W. 1966. The r@h of the omnipotent forester. J. For. 64(6):

398-400, 407.

. 1971. Wilderness decisions in Region I., U. S. Forest

Service: A case study of professional bureau policy making. Unpubl.

PhD. Thesis, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley.

* Bishop, A. B. 1970. Public participation in water resources planning.

U. S. Army Inst. for Water Resources Rep. 76-7, 109 p. Alexandria, Va.

Biswas, Asit K. 1974. Socioeconomic considerations in water resources

planning. Water Resources Bull. 9(4):746-754.

Bolle, A. W. 1971. Public participation and environmental quality. Natur.

Resources J. 11:497-506.

* Booher, David E. 1975 * Citizen participation in planning: Selected interdisciplinary bibliography. Count. of Plann. Librarians Exch. Bibliogr.

No. 718, 20 p. Monticello, Ill.

/The most important references are indicated bJ' sn asterisk.

203
* Borton, Thomas E., and Katherine P. Warner. 1974. Involving citizens

in water resources planning: the communication-participation experiment

in the Susquehsnna River basin, p. 248-270. & Environmental education:

Strategies toward a more livable future, ed. by James A. Swan snd William

B. Stapp, 249 p. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

* Bregha, Francis J. Public participation in planning policy and programme,

40 p. Community Develop. Br., Community Serv. Div., Min. of Community

- and Sot. Serv., 400 Univ. Ave., Toronto, Ont.

Brodie, D. Q., and R. Frank Falk. 1974. Great Smoky Mountains National

Park: Regional planning effort, 35 p. Dep. of Social., Univ. of Denver,

Denver, Colo.

* Buchsnsn, J. M., and G. Tullock. 1962. The calculus of consent: Logical

foundations of constitutional democracy, 361 p. Ann Arbor: The Univ.

of Mich. Press.

Bultena, Gordon L.,and John C. Hendee. 1972. Forester's views of interest

group positions on forest policy. J. For. 70(6):337-342.

* and David L. Rogers. 1973. Studies of public preferences

and group inter&tions to guide land use planning and control, p. 351-375.

In Papers of the land use planning seminar: Focus on Iowa. Iowa State

univ. Center for Agr. and Rural Develop., Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa.

to planned envi~onmentsl change:

., and Vince Webb. 1973. Public response

A study of citizens' views and actions on

the proposed Ames Reservoir, 108 p. Dep. of Social. and Anthropol., Iowa

State Univ., Ames, Iowa.

* 1974. Dynamics of agency-public relations in water

resource plsnniig, p. 125-149. In Water and community development:

Social and economic perspectivesS-ed. by Donald R. Field, James C. Barron

and Burl F. Long, 302 p. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers,

Inc.

and

mining the public'interest.

1974. Considerations in deterJ. Soil and Water Conserv. 29(4):168-173.

* Burke, Roy III., Jsmes P. Heaney, and Edwin E. Pyatt. 1973. Water resources

and social choices. Water Resources Bull. 9(3):433-447.

Chevalier, Michel,snd T. J. Cartwright. 1971. Public involvement in plsnning: The Delaware River case. &Perceptions and attitudes in resources

management, ed. by W. R. Derrick Sewell and Isn Burton, 147 p. Information

Canada: Ottawa, Ont.

,204
* Clark, Roger N., George H. Stankey, and John C. Hendee. 1974. An introduction

to Codinvolve: A system for analyzing, storing, and retrieving public input

to resource decisions. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-223, 16 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Ore.

,

. Analyzing public input to resource decisions:

Criteria, principles, and case examples of the Codinvolve system. Natur.

Resour. J. (1976, in press).

Cole, Richards L. 1974. Citizen participation and the urban policy process.

Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

* Connor, Desmond M. 1974. Citizens participate: An action guide for public

issues, 64 p. Oskville, Ont.: Develop. Press.

Conservation Foundation. 1972. National parks for the future: An appraisd

of the national parks as they begin their second century in a changing

America, 254 p. Washington, D.C.

* Copp, Howard D. 1973. More responsive water planning is possible. Eng.

Ext. Serv., Bull. No. 330, 61 p. Wash. State Univ., Pullman.

Cutler, M. Rupert. 1974. New role for government information and education

personnel. Trans. of the 39th N. Amer. Wildlife sn&Natur. Resour. Conf.,

397-405 -

Dane County Regional Planning Commission. 1971. Citizen participation

project: Sunrmary and analysis, 122 p. Madison, Wis.

* David, E. L. 1972. Public participation in decision making. Sea Grant

Tech. Rep. No. 26, 13 p. Sch. of Natur. Resour., The Univ. of Mich.,

Ann Arbor.

* Davis, Adam Clarke, Jill Anderson, and Richard I. Gough. 1975. Alternative

information and interaction approaches to public participation in water

resources decision making: A state-of-the-arts report. N. C. Water Resources

Res. Inst. Rep. No. 106, 40 p. N. C. State Univ., Raleigh.

Davis, L. S. and W. R. Bentley. 1967. The separation of facts and values

in resource policy analysis. J. For. 65(9):6=-620.

Delbecq, Andre* L. and Andrew H. Van de Ven. 1971. A group process model

for problem identification and progr:ram planning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci.

7(4):466-492.

* Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. 310 p. N. Y.:

Harper and Brothers.

205
* ijr:ipe.r, Dianne. 1973. Public participation in enviornmentel decision making.

COU~C. of Plsnn. Librarians Exch. Bibliogr. No. 396, 27 p. Monticello, Ill.

* Dysart, Benjamin C., III. 1974. Education of planners and managers for

effective public participation, p. 77-127. In Proceedings: Conference

on public participation in water resources p=ing and management, ed. by

James M. Stewart, 194 p. N. C. Water Resources,Res. Inst., N. C. State

Univ., Raleigh.

Erickson, David L. 1973. "The wolf men," p. 283-287. In Interpreting

environmental issues, ed. by Clay Schoenfeld, 290 p. Edison, Wis.:

Dembar Educ. Res. Serv., Inc.

Etzioni, A. 1967. Toward a theory of societal guidance. Amer. J. Social.

72(2):173-187.

Flack, J. Ernest and David A. Summers. 1971. Computer-aided conflict

resolution in water resource planning: An illustration. Water Resources

Res. 7(6):1410-1414.

* Folkman, William S. 1973. Public involvement in the decision-making process

of natural resource management agencies: With special reference to the

Pacific Northwest. Public Affairs Pap. No. 3, 29 p. Inst. of Gov. Res.,

Univ. of Wash., Seattle.

Forest, Laverne B. 1974. Attitudes toward scenic corridor development -

Shawnee National Forest: A study of involvement input using content

analysis procedures, 65 p. Dep. of Agr. and Ext. Educ., Univ. of Wis.,

Madison.

Fox, Irving K. 1973. Some political aspects of the relationship between

large-scale interbasin water transfers and environmental quality, p. 413-

424. In Environmental quality and water development, ed. by Charles R.

Goldmret al., 510 p. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

*

, and Lyman F. Wible. 1973. Information generation and

communication to establish env-rionmental quality objectives. Natur. Resources

J. 13(1):134-l&.

* Frauenglass, Harvey. 1971. Environmental policy: Public participation and

the open information system. Natur. Resources J. 11(3):489-496.

Frear, S. T. 1973. Confrontation vs. communication: Confessions of a

government PR man. J. For. 71:650-652.

Freeman, David M. 1972. Politics of planning and the problem of public

confidence: A sociology of conflict approach. Proc. Sot. Amer. For.,

184-199.

206
* Fulton, Jerome K. 1971. Development and evaluation of citizen participation

techniques for inland lake and shoreland management. Huron River Watershed

count . , 415 West Wash. St., Ann Arbor, Mich. 48103

Gale, R. P. 1973. Communicating with environmentalists: A look at life on

the receiving end. J. For. 71:653-655.

Godbey, Geoffrey and Richard Kraus. 1973. Citizen participation in urban

recreation decision making. Comm. Develop. J. 8:155-160.

* Haefele, Edwin T. 1973. Representative government and environmental management, 188 p. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

Hagevik, George H. 1970. Decision making in air pollution control, 217 p.

NT Y.: Praeger Publishers.

* Hart, David K. 1972. Theories of government related to decentralization

and citizen participation. Public Admin. Rev. 32:603-621.

* Havlick, Spenser W. 1970 * The construction of trust: An experiment in

expanding democratic processes in water resource planning. Water Spect.

1(2):13-19.

Hendee, John C., and Robert Harris. 1970.. Foresters' perception of wilderness -

user attitudes and preferences. J. For. 68:759-762.

* Robert C. Lucas, Robert H. Tracy, Jr., Tony Staed, Roger N.

Clark, Georgl H. Stankey, and Ronald A. Yarnell. 1973. Public involvement

and the Forest Service: Experience, effectiveness and suggested direction,

163 p. For. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Washington, D. C.

* , R. N. Clark, and G. H. Stsnkey. 1974. A framework for

agency use of public input in resource decision making. J. of Soil and

Water Conserv. 29(2):60-66.

* Henning, Daniel H. 1974. . Environmntal policy and administration, 205 p.

N. Y.: Amer. Elsevier Publ. Co., Inc.

Holden, M. 1966. Pollution control as a bargaining process: An essay on

regulatory decision making. Cornell Univ. Water Resources Center Publ.

No. 9, Ithaca, N. Y.

Ingram, Helen. 19'i'l. Patterns of politics in water resources development.

Natur. Resources J. 11(l) :102-118.

1973. Information channels and environmental decision making,

Natur. Reso&es 3. 13(1):150-169.

207
lnstitute for Environmental Studies. 1975 - A case study of citizen

participation in resource planning: The Crawford County critical resource

information workshop. IES Rep. 44, 61 p. Univ. of Wis., Madison

* Irland, Lloyd C., and J. Ross Vincent. 1974 * Citizen participation in

decision making - a challenge for public land managers. J. Range Manage.

27(3) ~182-185.

Jackson, John S., III., and William L. Shade. 1973. Citizen participation,

democratic representation and survey research. Urban Aff. Quart. 9(1):57-89.

Johnson, William K. 1974. Approaches for developing alternatives in

planning. Water Resources Bull. 10(5):1017-1022.

* Kasperson, R. E. 1969. Politicsl behavior and the decision-making process

in the allocation of wate-r resources between recreation and municipal use.

Natur. Resources J. 9(2):176-211.

Klomsn, Erasmus H. 1975. A minisymposium: Public participation in

technology assessment. Public Admin. Rev. 35(1):67-81.

* Lee, Jack M., Jr. 1972. Citizen participation in wildlife management decision

making: The squirrel hunting season as an example, 163 p. Unpubl. Master

Thesis, Va. Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, Va.

Lord, William B., and Maurice L. Warner. 1973. Aggregates and externalities:

Information needs for public natural resources decision making. Natur.

Resources J. 13(1):106-117.

Lucas, Alastair R., and Patrick A. Moore. 1973. The Utah controversey:

A case study of public participation in pollution control. Natur. Resources

J. 13:36-75.

McKenzie, Linda (ea.) 1972. The grass roots and water resources management.

State of Wash. Water Res. Center. Wash. State Univ., Pullman.

* Middaugh, Geoffrey B. 1973. Effectiveness of selected Forest Service

public meetings and implications for decision making. Unpubl. Masters

Thesis. Dep. of For. Sci., Utah State Univ., Logan.

Morley, C. G. 1974. Public participation: A right to decide, p. 509-524.

In The allocative conflicts in water resources management. Aggasiz

Center for Water Stud., The Univ. of Man., Winnipeg, Can.

Ogden, D. M. 1970.

204,

Wildland policy decisions - by whom? J. For. 68(4):2oo208
* Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action: Public goods and

the theory of groups. 176 p. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press

* Ontario Provincial Government. 1974. Analysis and design of public

participation programme evaluation in Ontario, 25 p. Office on Community Consult., Min. of Comm. and Sot. Serv., Toronto, Ont., Can.

* O'Riordan, T. 1971a. Perspectives on resource management. 183 p. London:

Pion Limited.

3t 1971b. Public opinion and environmental quality:' A reappraisal.

Environ. id Behav. 3(2):191-214.

Jt

. 197lc. Towards a strategy of public involvement, p. 99-ll.0.

In Perceptions and attitudes in resources management, ed. by W. R. Derrick

swell and Ian Burton, 147 p'. Inform. Can., Ottawa, Ont.

* Ortolano, Leonard. 1974. A process for federal water planning at the field

level. Water Resour. Bull. lO(4):766-778.

5% . 1975. Water resources decision making on the basis of

the public interest. Dep. of Civil Eng., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Cslif.

Ostrom, Vincent and Elinor Ostrom. 1971. Public choice: A different

approach to the study of public administration. Publ. Admin. Rev. 31(2):

203-215.

* Polchow, Alfred, Sue Sampson, and Lawrence S. Davis. Methodology and

effectiveness of administrative public involvement: Abstracts and

bibliography, 149 p. Dep. of For. and Outdoor Rec., Utah State.Univ.,

Logan.

Powell, Norman John. 1967. Responsible public bureaucracy in the United

States. 191 p. Boston: Ally-n and Bacon, Inc.

* Public Land Law Review Commission. 1970. One third of the nation's land,

342 p. U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Rahm, Neal M. 1970. Public participation in national forest management

decisions. J. For. 68(4):205-207.

* Reich, Charles A. 1966. The law of the planned society. The Yale Law

J. 75(8):1227-1270.

Reimers, Mark Alan. 1973. Involving the public in the land planning of

the Rock Creek drainage. Unpubl. Masters Thesis, Dep. Natur. Res.,

Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N. Y.

209
* Reinke, K. B., and B. Reinke. 1973. Public involvement in resource decisions:

A national forest seeks public input for recreation development. J. For.

71:656-658.

Reynolds, J. P. 1969. Public participation in planning. Town Plann. Rev.

40(2):131-148.

* Rich, Stuart U. (ea.) 1973. P ubl ic relations in sn era of public involvement: Challenge for the timber industry. 104 p. Proc. of a Curr. Issues

Conf., March ,20, 1973. Eugene, Ore: The Univ. of Ore. Press.

Rickson, R. E., P. J. Tichenor, G. A. Donohue, and C. E. Olien. 1975.

Role of the scientist technician in water policy decisions at the community

level: A study in purposive communication. Water Resour. Res. Cent. Bull.

79, 51 P. Univ. of Minn., Minneapolis.

Ross, Charles R. 1973. Decision making at local, state, federal, and

international levels, p. 398-412. In Environmental quality and water

development, ed. by Charles R. Goldman, James McEvoy III, and Peter J.

Richerson, 510 p. San Francisco, Calif.: W. H. Freeman and Co.

* Ross, Peggy J. 1974. Education of publics for participation in water resource

policy and decision making. In Proceedings: Conference on public participation in water resources plannzg and management, ed. by James M. Stewart,

194 p. N. C. Water Resour. Res. Inst., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh.

* Sargent, Howard L., Jr. 1972. Fishbowl planning immerses Pacific Northwest

citizens in Corps projects. Civil Eng. - ASCE: Sept.:54-57.

Schafer, Arthur. 1974. Citizen participation, p. 487-508.. & The'allocative

conflicts in water resources management, Aggasiz Center for Water Stud.

The Univ. of Man., Winnipeg, Can.

Scoville, Anthony. 1973. Citizen participation in state government: A

summary report, 26 p. Environ. Plann. Infor. Center, 26 State Street,

Montpelier, Vt.

* Sewell, W. R. Derrick. 1971. Integrating public views in planning and policy

making. &Perceptions and attitudes in resources management, ed. by W. R.

Derrick Sewell and Ian Burton, 147 p. Infor. Can., Ottawa, Ont.

* . 1974 * Perceptions, attitudes and public participation in countryside management in Scotland. J. Environ. Manage. 2(3):235-257.

* Smith, Richard W. 1973. A theoretical basis for participatory planning.

Policy Sci. 4:275-296.

Stamm, Keith R., and John E. Bowes. 1972 - Communication during an environmental decision. J. Environ. Educ. 3(3):49-55.

210
Stankey, George H. 1972a. A strategy for the definition and management of

wilderness qudity, p. 88-114. In-Natural environments: Studies

theoretical and applied analysis:ed. by John V. Krutilla, 352 p.

Md.: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

The use of content analysis in resource

making. J. For: 7$$h48-151.

in

Baltimore,

decision

* , John C. Hendee, and Roger N. Clark. 1975 * Applied

social research can improve participation in resource decision making.

Rural Social. 40(1):67-74.

Swan, James A. 1974.

p. 25-41.

Some human objectives for environmental education,

In Environmental education: Strategies toward a more livable

future, ed.by James A. Swan and William B. Stapp, 349 p. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.

Twight, Ben W., and William R. Catton, Jr. 1975 * The politics of images:

Forest managers vs. recreation publics. Natur. Resour. J. 15(2):297-306,

* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Public brochure: Alternatives and their

pros and cons, small boat harbors Elliot Bay, Seattle Harbor, Seattle,

Washington, 57 p.

98134.

Seattle Dist. 1519 Alashan Wsy South, Seattle, Wash.

* U. S. Forest Service. 1974. Guide to public involvement in decision making,

22 p. U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

* Van de Ven, Andrew H., and And& L. Delbecq. 1972 - The nominal group as

a research instrument for exploratory health studies. Amer. J. of Public

Health, 337-342.

* , and . 1974 - The effectiveness of

nominal, delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Acad.

of Manage. J. 17(4):605-621.

* Verba, Sidney. 1967. Democratic participation. Ann. of the Amer. Acadelqy

of Polit. and Sot. Sci. 373:53-78.

* , snd Norman H. Nie. 1972 - Participation in America: Political

democracy and social equality. N. Y.: Harper and Row.

* Wagar, J. Alan,and William S. Folkman. 1974. Public participation in forest

management decisions. J. For. 72(7):405-407.

* Wagner, Thomas P., and. Leonard Ortolano. 1975. Analysis of new techniques

for public involvement in water planning. Water Resour. Bull. 11(2):329-343.

211
* Warner, Katherine P. 1971. A state-of-the-arts study of public participation in the water resources planning process, 235 p. Nat. Tech. Inform.

Serv. Rep. PB 204, 245. Springfield, Va.

Warner, Keith W. 1973. Voluntary associations and individual involvement

in public policy making and administration, p. 239-257. In Voluntary Action

Research: 1973, ea. by David H. Smith. Letington, Mass.? D. C. Heath and

co.

* Wengert, Norman. 1955. Natural resources and the political struggle. 71 p.

N. Y.: Doubleday.

* . 1971. Public participation in water planning: A critique

of theory, doctrine, and practice. Water Resour. Bull. 7(l) :26-32.

B . 1974. Where can we go with public participation in the

planning process? p. 109-126. In The role of public involvement in water

resources planning and development, ea. by David J. Allee, 160 p. Cornell

Univ. Water Resour. and Marine Sci. Center, Ithaca, N. Y.

White, Gilbert F. 1973. Public opinion in planning water development, p. 157-

169. In Environmental quality and water development, ea. by Charles R.

Goldman‘-; James McEvoy III, and Peter J. Richerson, 510 p. San Francisco:

W. H. Free- and Company.

* Wilkinson, Paul. 1974. The role of the public in environment& decision

making, p. 232-250. In Protecting the environment: Issues and choices -

Canadian perspectives,ed. by 0. P. Dwivedi. Toronto, Ont.: Copp Clark

Publishing.

LEADING SCIENTISTS

David J. Allee

Dept. of Agricultural Economics

Cornell University '

Ithaca, NY 14850

Peter M. Ashton

Water Resources Research Center

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University

Blacksburg, VA 24060

Richard W. Behan

School of Forestry

University of Montana

tissod.a, MT 59801

Bruce A. Bishop

U. S. Corps of Engineers

U. S. Army Institute for Water Resources

Alexandria, VA

Thomas E. Barton

Dept. of Urban Planning

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Francis J. Bregha

Faculty of Social Work

University of Toronto

Toronto, Ontario

Canada

212
Gordon L. Bultena

Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50010

Roy Burke III

Dept. of Environmental Engineering

Sciences

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32601

Roger N. Clark

Pacific Northwest Forest ,and Range

Experiment Station

4507 University Way N.E.

Seattle, WA 98105

Desmond M. Connor

275 King Street

Oakville, Ontario L6J lB8

Canada

Howard D. Copp

Washington State University

Pullman, WA 99163

Lawrence S. Davis

Dept. of Forestry and Outdoor

Recreation

Utah State University

Logan, UT 84321

Andre' L. Delbecq

Graduate School of Business

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI 53706

Harvey Doerksen

Water Resources Research Center

Washington State University

hrluan, WA 99163

Benjamin C. Dysart III

Environmental Systems Engineering

Clemson tiniversity

Clemson, SC 29631

R. Frank Falk

Department of Sociology

University of Denver

Denver, CO 80210

J. Ernest Flack

Dept. of Civil and Environmental

Engineering

University of Colorado

Boulder, CO 80302

William S. Folkman

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station

U. S. Forest Service

Berkeley, CA

Laverne B. Forest

Dept. of Agricultural and Extension

Education

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI ,53706

Irving K. Fox

Westwater Research Center

University of British Columbia

Vancouver, British Columbia

Canada

David M. Freeman

Department of Sociology

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, CO 80521

Richard P. Gale

Department of Sociology

University of Oregon

Eugene, OR 97403.

Geoffrey Godbey

College of Health, Physical Education

and Recreation

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802

213
Edwin T. Haefele

Director of Regional and Urban

Studies Program

Resources for the Future

1753 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

DavidK. Hart

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98105

John C. Hendee

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station

4507 University Way, N.E.

Seattle, WA 98105

Daniel H. Henning

Dept. of Political Science

Eastern Montar,a College

Billings, MT 59101

Helen Ingram

Department of Government

University of Arizona

Tempe, AZ 85281

Lloyd c. Irland

Yale School of Forestry and

Environmental Studies

New Haven, CT 06520

Timothy O'Riordsn

School of Environmental Sciences

University of East Anglia

University Plain, Norwich NOR 88C

England

Leonard OrtoLano

Dept. of Civil Engineering

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305

Alfred Polchow

Dept. of Forestry and Outdoor

Recreation

Utah State University

Logan, UT 84321

R. E. Rickson

Department of Sociology

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN 55455

David Rogers

Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50010

John Ross

Institute for Environmental Studies

University of Wisconsin

Madisan, WI 53706

Peggy J. Ross

Department of Sociology

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, MS

Lawrence Royer

Dept. of Forestry and Outdoor

Recreation

Utah State University

Logan, UT 84321

Arthur Schafer

Department of Philosophy

University of Manitoba

Winnipeg, Manitoba

Canada

Anthony Scoville

&vironmental Planning Information

Center

State of Vermont

Montpelier, VT 05602

W. R. Derrick Sewell

Department of Geography

University of Victoria

Victoria, British Columbia

Canada

Richard W. Smith

2200 Roosevelt Street

Berkeley, CA 94703

214
George H. Stankey

Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station

U. S. Forest Service

Forestry Sciences Laboratory

Missoula, MT 59801

Ben W. Twight

Division of Forestry

West Virginia University

Morgantown, WV 26505

Arkhew H. Van de Ven

Dept. of Administrative Sciences

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44240

Sidney Verba

Dept. of Political Science

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305

J. Ross Vincent

Southern Forest Experiment Station

U. S. Dept. of Agriculture

Forest Service

New Orlesns, LA

J. Alan Wagar

College of Environmental Sciences

and Forestry

State University of New York

Syracuse, NY 13210

Thomas P. Wagner

Dept. of Civil Engineering

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305

Katherine P. Warner

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Norman Wengert

Dept. of Political Science

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, CO 80521

Gilbert White

Institute for Behavioral Sciences

University of Colorado

Boulder, CO 80302

Paul Wilkinson

Faculty of Environmental Studies

York University

4700 Keele Street

Downsview, Ontario

Canada

Gene E. Willeke

Environmental Resources Center

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332

Keith W. Warner

Department of Sociology

Brighsm Young University

Provo, UT 84601

215
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED

"PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN RECREATION RESOURCES DECISION MAKING"

Owen T. Jamison 11

The authors have done a creditable job in describing the state

of the art in public involvement. They have asked the right questions and brought out the shortcomings, problems, and research needs.

My principal regret 'about this paper, and hence the state of the art,

is that there is not more new research and techniques to report.

Most of the "relatively new" public involvement techniques have been

in use by the agencies for some time. This strongly points up the

need for much more effort in this vital arena.

With an awakened (or aroused) and interested public we all know

that public involvement must be much more than running a project or

program by selected keymen. It is, however, relatively new to most

natural resource agencies. There is much to be learned and we well

know that the process will be hard.

The Forest Service has had considerable experience in public

involvement. Major recent efforts in national programs such as Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE), Environmental Program for the

Future (EPFF), and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning

Act (RPA), plus inumerable regional and local programs, have shown us

that the authors' cited problems are very real and not overstated.

Time and money are critical problems. I disagree with the authors

that agency administrators cannot afford the time and cost of public

involvement on many official actions. This assumes significant actions,

of course. We cannot afford not to afford the time and cost. Generally,

court tests are more time and money consuming than public involvement.

I do not, however, downplay the time and cost factor. Our evolving

experience in RPA bears this out. It takes much time and money to prepare and disseminate 150 tons of public information in 2&-inch sets.

Of course this just starts the process. Public meetings, analysis of

public input, revisions, final documents, etc., add to the load.

While not disagreeing with the authors on research needs, here are

my ideas on priorities:

1 . What should be presented to the public and how? Most environmental statements are too lengthy and technical for even other

technical people to assimilate.

L/ Assistant Director of Recreation Management, Forest Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

216
2. How can we gather input from the vast public who are

involved in the decision but usually not represented?

How can we be sure everyone is being heard?

3. How can we better interpret what we receive? This question does not belittle the work that has been done in

this area. It just shows my perception of its importance.

4. How can we better cross-pollinate between agencies for a

more effective, understandable and uniform approach to

the public?

5. How do we keep research focused on the problems as

perceived by managers?

6. How do we establish clearer communications with secondary

fields?

7. Can we (and how) keep public involvement on a costeffective basis?

217
NEW ROLES FOR GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY

IN OUTDOOR RECREATION

W. F. LaPage"

Abstract .--The examination of some possible future

options for public parks and recreation agencies is necessitated

by 3 hard facts: 1. the rising dominance of the private sector,

2. the emerging public revolt against increased tax supported

programs, and 3. the trend toward greater public involvement

in agency decision-making. A central role for public parks

and recreation agencies is seen to be that of a cooperator

with the private sector, taking such forms as joint development

planning, increased use of concession-operated public facilities,

and new directions for public parks and recreation programs.

"Everyone wants the government to be bold

and imaginative and infallible -- all at

the same time. It will never happen"

John W. Gardner, in "NO Easy Victories"

The recent evolution of outdoor recreation in America could be

described from several different vantage points: greater public demands

for more and more recreational services, the increasing dependence upon

expensive equipment and highly developed facilities, the expanding role

of parks and recreation professionals, and the proliferation of public

agency plans, programs, and purchases of land. But perhaps the most

dramatic adjustment has been the shift in the relative "market shares"

served by public recreation agencies and private enterprise. From a

position of near obscurity little more than a generation ago, private

enterprise today outnumbers and outperforms the public sector in the

provision of several kinds of outdoor recreation services.

This changing cultural view of outdoor recreation, from that of a

purely social good to the image of profit making "commodity", carries with

it a number of potential identity crises for public outdoor recreation

agencies. Now, as this private enterprise trend converges with other

social trends of wide-spread public resistance to further expansion of taxsupported programs, and increased public involvement in agency decisionmaking, an examination of new roles for public recreation agencies is

timely if not imperative.

L' Research Project Leader , Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA

Forest Service, Durham, New Hampshire.

218
Coordinator - Cooperator

Dominant among these "new" agency roles is that of a coordinator

and cooperator with the private sector. This is a role which is widely

recognized as a legitimate one among recreation and parks professionals.

But it is also a role which is seldom funded or explicitly described

in the agency's legislative mandate. Consequently it is a role which

receives a lot of attention as "policy" but has few operational guidelines in practice.

Effective coordination and cooperation requires rapid and reliable

systems for (1) determining what is going on outside of the agency and

(2) arriving at a consensus among agency clientele on appropriate

responses. Such systems do not exist and I know of no serious efforts

to develop them. For example, the majority of State Park agencies

determine the need for new campsites by the presence of overcrowding

at their own campgrounds. With very few exceptions, States do not

survey the private sector prior to expanding their own capacities

(Fuller, 1969).

Surveys of the private sector should not, however, be restricted

to determinations of capacity and attendance. Types of facilities

offered, fees charged, development plans, and public assistance needs,

are items of information for any public agency which is serious about

its coordinating and cooperating role. The possible elimination of

public agency programs is as valid a goal as expansion, for the public

administrator who is concerned about moving some of his budget and

manpower away from duplicative activities and into new and innovative

programs.

The development of information systems which will provide a basis for

changing organizational direction should include the criterion of a

minimal reporting burden on private enterprise. On-the-ground agency

personnel frequently have a good idea of what nearby commercial developments are charging and what kinds of facilities they offer. Standardized

observation techniques can increase the utility of such data. Observational data on nearby situations can be supplemented through a variety

of sources such as State-wide comprehensive outdoor recreation plans,

trade association brochures and bulletins, Chambers of Commerce, and

an open-door agency policy. As local businessmen discover that their

views are welcomed, and are in fact a source of public policy influence,

a more desirable public-private recreation complex is certain to emerge.

The agency's responsibility to the public is not served by ignoring or

competing with one segment of that public.

219
Effective cooperation with the private sector will require expanded

agency capabilities for promoting, conducting, purchasing, and interpreting

recreation market research. Whether a public agency wishes to cooperate

with the private sector or not, its need to improve its understanding of

research will increasingly be felt as the numbers of recreation researchers

and their printed output expands its influence in the profession. A

further motivation for an improved research capability is the growing

social insistence upon research-based impact assessments of all contemplated

actions, including economic impacts. And, finally, as park agencies expand

into presently under-developed areas, such as cultural programs and events,

they will need some advance assessment of the market and subsequent analysis

of program success (Ritchie and LaBreque, 1975).

The combination of agency willingness to change its policies, its

practices, and its programs,plus the solid backing of the private sector

will seldom be sufficient to produce organizational change. The approval

of existing clientele groups, legislators, and budget directors is no

less essential. Involving these publics and seeking a concensus from them

will increasingly become a major agency effort rather than an occasional

top-level activity.

Innovator - Experimentor

As private enterprise increases its capability to provide outdoor

recreation services, both on its own land and through public land concessions,

public agencies can begin to fill some of the immense gaps in the existing

spectrum of recreation opportunities. Lloyd and Fischer (1972) have

prescribed a program of providing better balance in the total array of

outdoor recreation opportunities as the best way to alleviate current

overcrowding at both ends of the concentrated-dispersed continuum. The

middle ground between outdoor resorts and wilderness areas is a gold mine

of opportunities for public recreation administrators to experiment with.

It also represents the vast majority of public lands available for recreation

to the person of average means.

Improved opportunities for cross-country skiing, bike trails, vehicle

trails, and a wide variety of interpretive trails are some of the more

common examples of needed recreation opportunities which can be legitimately

supplied by public agencies. Such opportunities are seldom financially

attractive to the private developer, but their public provision will tend

to enhance the attraction and viability of near-by complimentary private

exterprise. Dispersed picnicking sites, back-country tenting, "microwilderness" experiences, and aerial tramways to remote scenic spots (Julber,

1972), are further examples of mid-range developments. The Ozark Folk Center,

developed by the Arkansas Department of Parks, is an outstanding experiment

in preserving and encouraging the musical and crafts heritage of a region.

220
In addition to experimenting with new recreation services, public

agencies need to experiment with new clientele groups. Most State Park

agencies, for example, are well staffed with specialists in design,

planning, construction, management, and promotion of outdoor recreation

areas. These people could provide badly needed extension-type services

to private recreation developers and to communities. The possibilities

of direct competition with private consultants can be minimized by the

types and intensities of services provided.

The past successes of public agencies in developing new recreation

markets, and expanding them to the stage where they have commercial

investment potential, provide models which should be easy to replicate.

Today's immense downhill skiing market, and the now highly diversified

camping market are results of early and successful public park innovations.

Many other recreation markets can trace their evolution to similar

beginnings. The problem is, as Peter Drucker (1973) describes it, that

no success lasts forever. "A success which has outlived its usefulness

may, in the end be more damaging than failure." It's time for many public

park agencies to ask themselves if their tax-supported ski areas and

campgrounds may have outlived their usefulness; and whether their manpower

and resources might be better used to create new successes and stimulate

whole new cycles of private investment.

Innovations in services must be matched with innovations in management.

With a few exceptions, our public parks and recreation agencies have not

developed reputations as management innovators. I almost hesitate to raise

the subject of concession operations before a group of public park

administrators. Their predictable negative reaction is usually based on

heresay rather than personal experience; and badly out of date heresay

at that! The subject of concessions on federally owned areas has been

studied and restudied numerous times by Congress and the agencies. Past

failures were due as much to a lack of agency support as to concessionaire

incompetence. The private sector today has the expertise to manage public

outdoor recreation services. And, I hope that public parks administrators

have grown commensurate in their abilities to supervise performance contracts,

and experiment with the concession concept.

The number and types of concessions on national and state recreation

lands appears to have remained fairly constant in recent years (U.S.

House of Rep., 1974). And, while several recent reports such as the

Conservation Foundation's "National Parks for the Future" (1972) have

recommended that concessions be phased out, the report of the Public

Land Law Review Commission (1970) makes several recommendations to

strengthen and expand concession operations on state and federal lands,

including agency capital development, reduced fees and longer terms.

221
Of the nearly 1,800 concessions on Forest Service lands, 80 percent

are either low investment low return type operations (back country packers)

or high investment high risk types such as resorts and winter sports areas.

Operations such as stores, swimming facilities, picnic sites, and camping

areas account for less than 10 percent of all concession operations and

far less than 10 percent of the available opportunities. Conversely,

concessions on state recreation lands are almost exclusively the high

volume type of activities such as eating places, stores, water activities,

and overnight accommodations (U.S. House of Rep., 1974). The recurring

observation that concession operations on federal lands are marginal

investments at best may be totally a function of needlessly restrictive

public policy.

As recently as 1968, in a National symposium on outdoor recreation

planning, the view was expressed that: "The country has made the

determination that it is in the public interest to provide outdoor

recreation opportunities with public money. The task is to provide a

basic outdoor recreation system within the reach of every citizen. There

is an important role for private initiative but it is not a dominant

role." The role of the private sector in recreation must be similar

to its role in other areas where government provides the basics, like

education for example" (Diamond, 1970). Any assessment of today's

private enterprise role which arrived at a similar conclusion would have

to be made in complete ignorance of such operations as the campground

franchiser who provides more campsites than the entire National Park

system. And, this is just one of 4 dozen franchise organizations in

the camping field. Furthermore, if it is, in fact, our national goal

to provide a basic outdoor recreation system which is within the reach of

every citizen, it would be naive to assume that this could be accomplished

without the private sector playing a major role.

Innovations in management need not be spectacular. Better systems

of cost-accounting are needed so that more informed public decisions can

be made. In a great many park systems today, it is virtually impossible

to obtain any estimate (reliable or not) on the cost of providing such

services as an overnight camping experience. Without this kind of factual

information it is almost absurd to consider a change to concession operation,

or to solicit public involvement on decisions of whether to expand or even

continue agency campground operations. Accountability may prove to be one

of the major public policy issues for our parks and recreation agencies in

the years ahead through pressures from the private sector and citizen

interest groups.

222
Advocate - Promoter

None of the roles that I have described - innovator, experimentor,

stimulator, coordinator, cooperator - are really new for public.recreation

agencies; although they may need a little dusting off from time to time.

However, none of these roles, or their potential accomplishments, can

become a reality unless parks and recreation professionals are willing

to revitalize their basic role and become activists for their cause. In

recent years, the activist role in environmental-conservation concerns

has slipped away from the professionals and now resides in citizen groups

and in the courts.

The growth of public participation is vividly described as a paradox

for the public administrator by Harlan Cleveland.'s succinct statement

"How do you get everybody in on. the act and still get some action?"

(Cleveland, 1974). The era of participation is clearly an improvement

over the days when nobody seemed to care what was done with public lands.

But, just as clearly, if some of our past leaders had discussed their

great ideas widely before launching them, most would probably have

collapsed with dry rot awaiting a consensus that they would float.

Public participation can be viewed as a new leadership opportunity -

developing real participatory roles and new styles of involvement. Or,

it can degenerate into an endless series of plebescites in which "procedure

becomes the surrogate for substance" in what Victor Thompson (Thompson, 1965)

would call a "bureautic" or "bureaupathiclt response. There is some evidence

that citizen involvement is already being viewed as a convenient shield

for avoiding the responsibility of making hard decisions by some of our

private sector cooperators (LaPage, 1975).

The idea of being branded a "zealot" today is unattractive for most

professionals. "Advocate" is the more acceptable term. If you look

at the early leaders of most of our conservation and parks agencies, they

were more than advocates! In fact, Anthony Downs (1967) hypothesizes that

all bureaus are initially dominated by advocates or zealots. But, he

also suggests a "Law of increasing conservatism" that all organizations

become more conservative and more resistant to change as they grow older.

Since most of our parks and recreation agencies are old organizations with

long established routines it would be easy to be pessimistic about the

possibilities for major innovations.

Breaking the Law of Increasing Conservatism requires both a conscious

effort and a clearly established goal. It requires not just being an

advocate for change, but being a promoter for some very specific changes.

It requires not trying to satisfy everybody (which usually means satisfying

nobody) but setting your sights on a specific share of the recreation

market which you can most appropriately serve. Parks and recreation agencies

more than most service institutions, find it very difficult to set priorities. And, when they do, the priorities may be the reverse of what would

normally be good business practice. Programs which fail to produce get

increased budgets precisely because of their failure, while the performers

are assumed not to need any special attention (Drucker, 1973).

223
The budget is clearly a primary focus for organizational change.

Obviously, nothing is accomplished unless scarce finances and manpower

are concentrated where they are needed most. Citizen involvement,

performance budgeting, and even suggestions for recreation voucher

systems (Sears, 1975), are recognitions of this fact. But, they each

run the risk of becoming procedure-bound.

It seems increasingly clear that the future administration of our

public parks and recreation areas will take the form of a shared leadership. The professionally trained parks administrator can become the

spark plug of a team including professional and citizen advocates,

or he can become a technician carrying out the wishes of others and

contributing toward a state of "participatory mediocrity". The dynamic

leader is not the antithesis of participatory administration; in fact,

he may be in demand more than ever.

Public participation is not an administrative tool. It is a style

of administration. But, more than that, it is a "natural" for parks

and recreation. Volunteer "advocate bureaucrats" could be enlisted

to work within agencies in staff positions to help citizens gain access

and present their views on critical decisions. Volunteer field workers

have a long history of helping to develop trails and public recreation

sites. Volunteer office staff would be a logical extension of this

valued heritage. There are numerous kinds of advisory committees that

park administrators could use to increase participation. But, basically,

performance and openness will probably neutralize much of the pressure

for "participation".

A Look Ahead

In a recent address before the National Forest Recreation Association,

the Chief of the Forest Service said: "The commercial campground franchise

is now a recognized and viable part .of camping but so far it has been

developed on private land rather than public. Has the time come that

development of such commercial campgrounds should be invited on the

National Forests?" (McGuire, 1973). Certainly the time has come for a

thorough experiment with the concept involving a variety of camping

market areas, government built campgrounds, and concessionaire built campgrounds. This is exactly the type of experimentation and innovation which

is necessary to reduce the burden on the agency of managing thousands of

campgrounds with increasing use levels and a decreasing number of real

dollars to do the job.

224
If, in the mid-1970's, we are asking ourselves whether franchise

campgrounds may have a place on public lands, perhaps by the end of this

decade we will be truly managing outdoor recreation on a sustained yield

basis, charging realistic fees, and returning a percentage of the revenue

to maintain the resource. And, perhaps by the mid-1980's we will be

asking ourselves whether tax dollars are still needed to subsidize an

industry that is self-sustaining and an activity that long ago ceased to

be dependent upon a natural environment.

The question of the appropriateness of modern "camping"to our public

lands is clearly stated in Curt Fuller's analysis of government-private

relations in the camping industry:

"There is the myth of God's Country. There is

the myth of therapy for our souls by communing

with Nature. And there is the principle that

everyone should have free access . . . But when

we examine the myth as far as recreational

vehiCle camping is concerned, it is quite

clear that we are dealing with another situation

altogether. We are really not talking about

raw nature, primitive living, and God's Country.

We are talking about sophisticated self-contained

camping vehicles, which are increasing at the

rate of 350,000 units annually. We are not

talking about a tent beside a mountain stream

but about a trailer with a gas furnace controlled

by a thermostat,, hot and cold running water,

a gas refrigerator, a gas stove with oven, and

three-way lighting. We are talking about a

campground with water and electrical hookups and,

if not sewers, a powered honeywagon. We are

talking about recreational buildings, swimming

pools, organized activities, and luxury facilities

generally . . . I question whether it is the

government's responsibility,to provide such luxury

facilities at all, and particularly on a subsidized

basis" (Fuller, 1969).

In many instances, there is no question that our public recreation

lands can be put to a higher use than parking lots for self-contained

vehicles and all of the roads and services that they entail. Just

as realistically, the attraction of those public lands demands that

some accommodations be provided nearby. Again, Fuller suggests that

perhaps the government could acquire a buffer zone outside of the park

and, through controlled lease arrangements, allow private enterprise

to provide the service facilities.

225
Commercial outdoor recreation was described in the late 1960's

as a "potential giant who is just about to enter the first grade"

(Horvath, 1970). If that assessment was correct, the "giant" is

now about to enter high school and, in four more years will be

demanding his rights. The analogy may be a little imprecise, but we

are certainly in for some challenging years in the last half of the

1970's trying to harness the public and private teams to at least pull

in the same direction.

226
LITERATURE CITED

Cleveland, H. 1974. How do you get everybody in on the act and still get

some action? Address given at the Annual Meeting of the American

Society for Public Administration, mimeo, 7 pages. Syracuse, Univ.,

Syracuse, NY.

Diamond, H. L. 1970. The private role in the provision of large-scale

outdoor recreation, in Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning.

B. Driver (Ed.), pages 171-176. U. Mich.

Downs, A. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. 292 pages. Little, Brown and

Company, Boston.

Drucker, P. F. 1973. Managing the Public Service Institution. The

Public Interest, Issue No. 33, Fall, 1973, pages 43-60.

Fuller, C. G. 1969. Private recreation in flux - Needs and Aims.

American Forests, August, 1969.

Horvath, J. C. 1970. The role of the private sector in providing

recreational opportunities. in Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning.

B. Driver (Ed.), pages 145-16x U. Mich.

Julber, E. 1972. Let's open up our wilderness areas. Readers Digest,

May, 1972, pages 125-128.

LaPage, W. F. 1975. Citizen participation in National Forest recreation

policy development. Unpub. PhD. Dissertation, 197 pages, State Univ.

of NY, Syracuse.

Lloyd, R. D. and Fischer, V. L. 1972. Dispersed versus concentrated

recreation as forest policy, in Proc. Seventh World Forestry Congress,

Buenos Aires, Argentina. -

McGuire, J. R. 1973. Rising recreation needs must be met by both public

and private resources. Address given at the National Forest Recreation

Association meeting, San Diego, CA., Nov. 14, 1973. 5 pages (mimeo).

Public Land Law Review Commission 1970. One Third of the Nation's Land.

A report to the President and Congress by the Public Land Law Review

Commission, 343 pages. USGPO.

Ritchie, J. R. and LaBreque, B. and R. J. 1975. Marketing research and

public policy: A functional perspective. Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 39 (July, 1975), page 12-19.

Sears, D. W. 1975. The recreation voucher system: A proposal. Journal

of Leisure Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, pages141-145.

227
The Conservation Foundation. 1972. National Parks for the future.

An appraisal of the National Parks as they begin their second century

in a changing America. 254 pages. The Cons. Found. Wash., DC.

Thompson, V. A. 1965. Modern Organization. 197 pages. Alfred A. Knopf,

NT

U. S. House of Representatives. 1974. Small Business Enterprises in

outdoor recreation and Tourism. 233 pages. Subcommittee on environmental

problems affecting small business of the permanent select committee

on small business. 93 Congress. Dec., 1974.

228
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER ENTITLED - "NEW ROLES FOR

GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRIES IN OUTDOOR RECREATION"

James D. Hayne.&'

I received LaPage's paper as promised and made one quick read through.

My first thoughts were: "Is the author advocating a policy change for the

public parks and recreation agencies or is he only giving food for thought."

Without rereading his paper I made three copies and mailed one to three different executive-type guys and requested a brief critique. One went to a

Vice President with 30 years experience via Forest Service, lumber companies

and paper companies. One went to a forest research analyst with 25 years

experience and the other a recreation professional (MA in Recreation) with

15 years experience via state government, real estate, franchise camping,

recreation consultant and large corporation. It appears a good many of us

get our working life's start with the government. Even I co-oped with TVA

during my school years. Without identifying who said what, these are their

replies;

1. "The idea that the private sector should provide fee based

services is great. Tell him (LaPage) to hang in there.

The government can't even run the government."

2. "Sounds like the making of another star-studded B--- S---

seminar on how government can help manage private enterprise.

3. "My reaction is one word - Amen! Such, in my view, provides

a proposal for getting the taxpayer out of fundinglsubsidizing the recreationist. It suggests let the private sector do

it and make money out of it if opportunity can be developed

and apparently they can, if the author's thesis is valid."

It was obvious the above responses were hurriedly made because the

copy was returned to me with those handwritten notes on its face. My

thoughts are that these are honest biases, and I concur completely with

them. I do believe these type get-togethers have values to both government and the other world.

Further, LaPage's paper was easily read and has good flow. I strongly

agree with him, suggesting the public parks and recreation agencies (all)

seek new directions toward cooperativeness with the private sectors to free

the government from this recreation business. I do see the agencies as

innovator - experimenter in the middle ground between resorts and wilderness;

mostly, however, as market research in the need/demand area with some prototyping. I also see the middle ground between outdoor resorts and wilderness

area as a gold mine of opportunities for private recreation managers to fill

those needs and demands.

11 James D. Haynes, Forest Recreation Manager, Gulf States Paper Corporation,

Tuscaloosa, Alabama. (The Forest Recreation Department is operated as a

Business within the Forestry Division. It's assignment is to function separately and maximize the profits for it's parent company using those resources

it deems profitable.)

229
In looking ahead; I believe it is time "Mom and Pop" type concessions

as well as the commercial franchiser be encouraged on present public lands

(not a purchased buffer zone as suggested by Fuller) provided they return

an income to the controlling agency for value received from the resources

used. This encouragement should perhaps even include some risk capital.

In conclusion, we strongly believe that the USER and not the TAXPAYER

should pay for outdoor recreation. We feel realistic values should be

established for recreation products and services no less than the lumberman

pays the Forest Service for their timber or the oilman pays the Park Service

the royalties due. I personally see no fault with public recreation users

returning to the nonusers as well as the user himself a profit in form of

lower taxes to fund those public agencies.

I believe LaPage's paper was needed, is timely and hopefully will be

heeded. I wish to thank.you and Mr. Cordell for inviting me to participate.

230
COMMENTS

ABSTRACT

SHERIDAN

Comments on the Workshop.--There is NO reason why research and management

cannot work together. It can be done officially or unofficially, all that

really is required is the desire to.

SELECTED PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE NATIONAL RECREATION

RESEARCH APPLICATIONS WORKSHOP, ESTBS PARR, COLORADO, 1974

ABSTRACTS

BURY, MCCOOL, AND WENDLING

Research on Off-Road Recreation Vehicles: A Summary of Selected Reports

and a Comprehensive Bibliography.--This report summarizes major published

research findings concerning recreational use of ORVs. Coverage is restricted primarily to the United States, although literature relating to

snowmobiles includes Canadian references. Most included materials have

been prepared and released since 1970. But because the rapid growth of

ORV usage is so recent, research has progressed minimally beyond identification and description of problems.

CORDELL

The Literature of Planning and Managing Intensively Developed Natural

Resource Recreation Sites .--Literature applying to planning and managing

developed recreation sites has been classified by type of decision to

which it applies, by whether or not it is the result of'research, and

by degree of applicability. This classification system is intended to

assist managers and planners in assessing and applying knowledge contained

in the literature. When applied to 130 publications, the classification

system revealed that almost 50 percent of the literature deals with

maintenance problems and related information. Other areas apparently

require additional research attention.

231
COMMENTS ON THE WORKSHOP

J. A. Sheridar&'

Someone thought that it might help the group if a different perspective

were presented regarding the issues that have been raised. Consequently, I'm

the interloper tagged to reflect back to you what I heard here in this meeting.

Because my background is a large public utility, a bureaucracy in itself, we've

had many of the problems of cooperative effort that you've expressed in your

discussions. Having spent 5 years in management at corporate headquarters, I

know a little about where of I speak.

In a nutshell, as agent 88 would say, we have here the old researchmanagement-extension service trick. The trick is how do you make it work.

Let me see if I can address that from a variety of directions. I'll do this

by translating the issues into questions that should be asked and answered if

you're to overcome the communications problems that exist.

. Mr. Manager, do you do planning?

. Do you have a long term and short term plan articulated in such a way

that others can read and understand it?

. Mr. Manager, why is it that you have urgent needs for short term

research?

. What is it about the field manager's job that causes the need for short

term research?

. Mr. Manager, are you managing or are you doing other things - such as

administration and politicing?

I place no qualitative value judgment on the aspects of management that

are related to but not really management. Such things as giving talks at

chambers of commerce or Lions, etc. are necessary but not the management of

the resource entrusted to you. And finally, Mr. Manager, are you using Research as a PYA, that's a "Protect Your A short three-letter word ending in S"

position to cover for high risk decisions that are not research at all, but

management perogatives to begin with?

I have a few questions for the scientists also. I don't want anyone to

feel left out.

. Mr. Scientist, would you please describe to me that last new theory that

you developed?

If not the last new theory that you developed, how about the last new

one that was in your area of speciality?

. Mr. Scientist, what have you personally added to the scientific body of

knowledge that has advanced that body of knowledge?

. Mr. Scientist, why can't research be couched in "real time"problems

that also add to the development of theory and the advancement of scientific knowledge?

11 American Telephone and Telegraph Company, New York, New York.

232
. Mr. Scientist, how much of your work that you labored over to contribute

to mankind has been implemented and is contributing to mankind?

. Mr. Scientist, have you considered taking some coursesin public relations?

I could go on to include others such as administrators, extension services and

policymakers, but time does not allow. Instead, let me say that the questions

I've asked were meant for you to take personally as you see fit. Those same

questions I asked in my own company. This recreation group does not have a

corner on the market when it comes to problems of cooperative effort.

Let me say that there is NO reason why research and management cannot work

together. It can be done offixally or unofficially, all that really is required

is the desire to.

The Bell System solved some of these problems by making some researchers

into managers who could now translate research into action that could be copied

by other managers. Other problems are solved by problem solving teams. Teams

that can draw on a variety of expertise from anywhere in the company. The concept is called a Matrix Organization and I suggest that this concept could, in

a modified form, be of use to the furthering of the quality of outdoor recreation. The Bell System recognizes that scientists and managers are different.

They also have to be appraised differently. I personally believe that most

scientists would like to see their work employed and that is indeed part of

their reward system; they also like to eat. We pay ours well, but most are

expected to work on the company's problems, not esoterics. To that end, there

are research review teams that have field managers as part of the team. There

is generally some time allowed for personal interest research, in your language

that would be basic or pure research. There are many existing mechanisms in

industry that would lessen your communications problem. I suggest you appoint

a working group to investigate those techniques actually used in industry to

overcome similar problems.

As someone said earlier in the meeting, "You would be had for lunch,"

if you were in a competitive situation.

It has been a real pieasure for me to attend your meeting and I want to

thank Stu Davey and Neil Stout fcr suggesting that I attend. And Ken Cordell

who graciously extended the invitation. I know it is difficult to invite an

outsider into your midst to hear some of your most private concerns. I thank

you for that opportunity.

233
USEARCH ON OFF-ROAD RECREATION VEHICLES:

A SUMMARY OF SELECTED REPORTS AND A COMPREHENSIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Richard L. Bury, Stephen F. McCool, and Robert C. Wendling'

Abstract .--This report summarizes major published research

findings concerning recreational use of ORVs. Coverage is restricted primarily to the United States, although literature

relating to snowmobiles includes Canadian references. Most included materials have been prepared and released since 1970.

But because the rapid growth of ORV usage is so recent,. research

has progressed minimally beyond identification and description

of problems.

INTRODUCTION

Off-road vehicles (ORVs) have become a pervasive factor in the use and

management of rural lands since the late 1960's. Conflicts between ORV users

and non-users have occurred both on private lands, and on public lands where

both groups are equally entitled to enjoy benefits of the resources.

The ORV phenomenon, as seen throughout this report, is an extremely diverse

one. It consists of a complex interaction among (1) people's attitudes, preferences, and behavior; (2) environmental factors such as land use, and effects

of ORV traffic on soils, vegetation, and animals ; and (3) machine-related aspects such as vehicle type, engine size, and type of tires. Within the framework of this reocgnized complexity, the manager must seek optimal solutions

through maximizing advantages and minimizing disadvantages associated with

providing and maintaining ORV recreation opportunities.

Research can provide basic support information required for such optimization of ORV management.

This report therefore seeks to summarize major published research findings

concerning recreational use of ORVs. Readers interested in current, unreported

research are advised to search through computerized systems such as the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange and the Current Research Information Service

(U. S. Department of Agriculture).

Coverage is restricted primarily.to the United States, although literature

relating to snowmobiles includes Canadian references. In addition, coverage

has been expanded beyond formal research efforts to include selected basic information and concepts from administrative reports and technical articles.

Most included materials have been prepared and released since 1970. Because all materials are so recent, in-text citations do not indicate year of

publication except as necessary to distinguish between items attributed to the

same author.

&/Richard L. Bury, Ph.D., Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor,

Department of Recreation and Parks, Texas A & M University; Stephen F. McCool,

Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Institute for the Study of Outdoor Recreation and

Tourism, Utah State University; Robert C. Wendling, M.S., Research Assistant,

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Recreation and Parks, Texas

A & M University.

234
Because the rapid growth of ORV usage is so recent, research has progressed

minimally beyond identification and description of problems. Further, most ORV

research relates to snowmobiles, and is a direct response to the exceedingly

rapid growth in usage,of that machine.

Several individuals have led in identifying and defining management issues

and in providing research information currently available on ORVs; among these

have been Baldwin and Stoddard, Lodico, the U. S. Department of the Interior's

Task Force on Off-Road Vehicles, McCool and Roggenbuck, and speakers at the

1971 and 1973 Symposia on Snowmobiles and Off The Road Vehicles held at Michigan

State University and edited respectively by Chubb and Holecek.

An in-depth bibliography is provided; in it are cited many documents not

discussed in the text. A table helps the reader find all items in the bibliography that are relevant for each of the twenty-eight subject areas presented

in the text. The bibliography itself represents a detailed search of (1) relevant printed indexes; .(2) the excellent bibliography on ORVs available from

Lime and Leatherberry; and (3) computer searches within the data bases of the

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Psychological Abstracts, Social

Sciences Citation Index, and the Cataloging and Information system (CAIN) of

the U. S. Agricultural Library.

235
ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Numbers of ORVs: Production, Sales, Vehicles in Use, and Projections

The below excellent summary and prediction for numbers and sales was prepared

by Stupay in 1971 (p. 15-17):

With rising income, favorable age mix changes, and growing suburbanization and leisure, recreational vehicle usage will continue to rise.

Total recreational vehicle sales are expected to rise by over 3.5 percent annually from 1.8 million units to 2.5 million units annually by

1980. The various vehicle markets are reaching a high level of penetration and there does not appear to be a new major vehicle such as the

motorcycle or snowmobile to continue the 1960's explosive growth . . .

Motorcycles and mini-bikes and cycles are expected to lead in growth

and in usage. In 1970, some 730,000 motorcycles and nearly as many minicycles were sold. Sales are expected to lift to 850,000 units by 1980,

with registration rising from 2.7 million in 1970 to some 5 million in

1980 . . .

The snowmobile achieved phenomenal growth in the 1960's . . . shipments

rose rapidly to 190,000 units in average 1966168 and to more than 500,000

units in 1969 and in 1970. United States sales peaked at 317,000 in

1969.

Snowmobile sales will continue to grow but at a sharply reduced rate

. . .

Although Stupay's predictions seem carefully made, three major occurrences

since 1971 may produce experience considerably at variance from his predictions.

First, the predictions rest on assumptions of participation rates which may change

in ways different than predicted. Secondly, the petroleum supply and cost situation may depress purchases and use; and lastly, America's economic condition of

simultaneous economic stagnation and inflation ("stagflation") may well induce

consumers to purchase fewer ORVs and to use their current ORVs less than predicted.

As of 1973, American and Canadian snowmobile owners possessed an average of

1.8 snowmobiles, and had owned in total an average of 2.9 snowmobiles since the

machines became available. Also, 63 percent of the total respondents in the Winona

survey of 1973 indicated that they planned to buy a snowmobile within the next two

years (p. 1,lS).

Writing in early 1975, Doyle indicated that the snowmobile market was stabilizing to an expected sales level of 250,000 units per year; producers had shrunk

from more than 100 firms to as few as ten firms producing more than 500 units (p.

12). The industry hoped to expand sales through the next few years by developing

safer and quieter machines, and by encouraging development of more snowmobile trails

and riding areas (p. 13).

Motorcycle numbers and sales are more difficult to obtain; the below figures

are worldwide:

Sales of motorcycles increased from approximately 60,000 in 1960 to

236
1,4'30,000 in 1970. The industry expects to reach annual sales of 1,700,OOO

units by 1980. The motorcycle figures above do not include minibikes,

of which nearly 700,000 were sold in 1970. Estimates of total off-road

use are further complicated because nearly half of the vehicles registered for road use possess some off-road capability. An estimated 30

percent of these are occasionally used off the road [in the.United States].

(Baldwin and Stoddard, p. 5,6)

Much less information is available for dune buggies and all-terrain vehicles

(ATVs). As of 1973, the Department of the Interior estimated that 200,000 dune

buggies were in use in the U.S.; manufacture and sale of these ORVs was growing

rapidly at that time (Baldwin and Stoddard, p. 6).

Economic Impacts and Trade-Offs

The economic impacts of ORVs during any given year will depend on factors such as weather, seasonality, general level of regional and national

economy, price of machines, numbers sold, fees which may be paid, and

servicing costs . . . (Michalson)

To the economist, economic impact studies require a rigorous methodology

such as that presented in Michalson's paper, "A Methodology for Determining the

Economic Implications of Off-Road Vehicles." Most of the studies reported were

considerably less rigorous than Michalson, and thus should be regarded as first

approximations only.

Total expenditures related to snowmobiling during the 1973/1974 season in

Michigan/Wisconsin/ Minnesota were estimated to be $506 million. This included

$396 million capital expenditures, $37 million repairs, $7 million registration

fees, and $7 million collected in gasoline taxes (Gogebic c. 1974).

During the 197411975 season in New York, snowmobilers spent $84 million on

snowmobile-related purchases and activities; in addition, the State treasury received $4-314 million from registration fees, gas taxes, and sales taxes (ISIA

1975, p. 1).

The size of the snowmobile-related industry in 1972 is illustrated by the

following:

Counting allied equipment fields and service functions, the annual sales

of the industry surpass $1 billion. Almost 100,000 people in the U.S.

and Canada are directly employed by the industry, utilizing over $1 billion in capital investments . . . Case studies of the impact of the snowmobile industry have been prepared for several states. Minnesota represents a special case--over thirty percent (30%) of all snowmobiles produced

in North America are made in this state. Direct industry employment in

the state exceeds 19,500 people, with a combined personal income in excess of $126.6 million (Doyle 1974,c., p. 9).

Effects on Resource Owners and Managers

Profitability of areas for ORV use has received little attention by researchers. However, a study of eight snowmobile areas in central New York (Moeller)

revealed that successful operations should usually contain 300 acres or more, half

of which should be wooded, be located "within a l-hour driving radius of at least

237
100,000 people," and "be situated in a region of heavy snowfall . . . Several

operators felt that a 10 week season, with a minimum continuous snow cover of

4 inches, would be required to break even on their investments." (p. 7,9)

Rental fees for snowmobiles, under the competitive conditions of 1970-1971, were

insufficient to produce profitable enterprises; operators felt that profitability

could not be assured without supplemental enterprises such as fuel, repair parts,

accessories, and maintenance (p. 11).

Average development cost for snowmobile trails has been reported to range

from zero to $300 per mile. The Hoosier National Forest in southern Indiana expects to spend $1,000 per mile for double-track ORV trails and $500 per mile for

single-track trail (IJ. S. Forest Service, Hoosier National Forest, p. 34).

Operation costs for snowmobile trails also showed considerable variation,

ranging from $50 to $210 per mile per season (Keenan, p. 216; Hetherington 1971b,

p. 148; Armstrong, p. 171-172). Yellowstone National Park expended $45,000 groom?

ing 208 miles of snowmobile trail in 1972; this calculated to an average cost of

$210 per mile for the season (Armstrong, p. 171-172).

Comparable studies for other types of ORVs were not discovered.

Effects on ORV Operators and Owners

During the 1973-1974 season in Minnesota/Michigan/Wisconsin, the average snowmobiler spent $367 on equipment (Gogebic 1974, p. 62).

The average cost of a snowmobile in this three-state area circa 1970 was

$903 (Potter, p. 65). Ontario snowmobilers invested an average of $1,200 per owner

during the 1965-1970 period in snowmobiles and related equipment; these expenditures were about 84% for the basic machine, and 10% for special clothing. The

estimated expenditure on snowmobiles and related items during this 5-year period

was $120 million (Ontario, p. 34-36).

The owners' average expenditure per day of machine operation was $18.20'in

the above three-state area during 1973/1974 season (Gogebic c. 1974). Details

from this same study reported the following averages of 12-month seasonal expenditures: $45 repairs, $52 snowmobile gas and oil; $25 insurance; $56 general trip

expenses when snowmobile was trailered, and $69 general trip expenses when snowmobile was not trailered (Gogebic 1974, p. 63-65).

In combining both investment and usage costs, the average yearly expenditures

related to snowmobiles during the 197311974 season in the above three-state area

was $543 per machine (Gogebic c. 1974).

Again, comparable information for other ORVs was not found.

Effects of Petroleum Shortages and Stagnation/Inflation

Within the combined states of Minnesota/Michigan/Wisconsin during the winter

of 197311974, the petroleum shortage apparently induced a reduction of 5,689,OOO

user days of snowmobiling (Gogebic 1974, p. 3,53); this was a 28 percent reduction

as compared with the previous season.

Snowmobile sales were depr.essed during the period of November/December 1973

238
when the petroleum shortage first became severe. The industry estimates that

30,000 units were not sold as'a direct fear of energy shortage (Doyle 1974a, p.

11).

BEHAVIORAL ASPECTS

It appears that many or most managerial techniques need to deal with people

and their actions, rather than with the impact of ORVs on the environment. For

example:

I, . . . some of man's basic rights are involved in the off-road vehicle issue--conflicts such as the rights of the individual versus the

state, individual property rights versus common public rights, and economic growth versus the quality of life." (Dunn 1971, p. 165)

"Public concern as discussed here reflects conflicts of interest, an

invasion of privacy, and direct interference by snowmobiles with other

winter sports activities in the same geographic area . . .I' (Griffith,

P* 5)

Social Demographics

Many research reports have described the social demographic characteristics

of ORV users. Individual ORV users were found to be at least as varied as the

machines. In spite of this, drivers of all ORV types showed a great tendency to

form clubs.

A comprehensive survey of snowmobile owners in North America yielded these

findings: 66 percent of the households s,urveyed owned two or more snowmobiles;

average age of the owner was 38 years; 86 percent were married; households averaged 4.2 persons; 70 percent had an annual income greater than $10,000 dollars;

65 percent were non-urban (i.e., from a town of less than 25,000 population or

residing not within 20 miles of a city of 100,000 population). Occupation ranged

as follows: 21 percent were craftsmen/foremen, 15 percent were managersfproprietors, 15 percent were operators, 11 percent were farmers/farm managers, 11 percent

iere professional/technical, and 25 percent were classified as other (Holecek, p.

55).

Plumb (p. 132) characterized the dune buggy and 4-wheel drive owner who utilized Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge as 28 years of age, male, married with two

children, two years of college, and a manager or administrator with an annual income of $10,000 to $20,000.

Peine (p. 32-34) found conflicting results in his study of the Tucson Jeep

Club and Tucson Sandbuggy Associat,ion. In comparing the two clubs, results indicated that members of the jeep club had higher average incomes, educational levels,

and more were white collar workers. However, average age (34 years) and average

family size (four) were very similar for both clubs.

Values and Attitudes

Several recent studies have begun to reveal the values held by ORV enthusi239
asts, and the motivations underlying their behavior. Peine (1972) found that ORV

users have orientations toward the land, the machine, and the activity. McCool

(197'4) hypothesized orientations toward the land, the machine, and the activity.

McCool (1974) hypothesized orientations toward the machine, the environment, and

other people.

Bury and Fillmore (p. 34-36) found that most campers regarded cyclists as

self-centered, anti-social, inconsiderate of the rights and feelings of others,

highly motivated, and unintellectual. In comparison, riders saw themselves as

socially accepted, highly motivated, and considerate of the feelings of others;

they rated themselves lowest in the intellectual dimension.

Roggenbuck and McCool (p. 12,13) best summarized land useconflicts in comparing land managers with ORV users. The former have traditionally been trained

in the natural sciences--with concepts of sustained yield, multiple use, and preservation. ORV use is not compatible with their naturalistic value system. The

ORV user, on the other hand, does not have a naturalistic value system and views

the ORV as an appropriate means of enjoying the recreational opportunities of public lands.

Knopp and Tyger (p. 14,15) reported that snowmobilers and ski-tourers possessed

statistically significant conflicting attitudes on various recreation land management issues. Basically, snowmobilers felt managers should place fewer restrictions

on recreational uses of land, while the ski-tourers recognized a need for occasional

restrictions.

Expectations and Preferences

While few attempts have been made to assess ORV users' expectations, several

early snowmobile surveys revealed interesting patterns of activity preferences.

For example, Gogebic Community College (1974, p. 73-90) conducted an extensive

survey of snowmobiler preferences and opinions in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin;

see also Ontario Department of Tourism, Lindsay, Kuehn, Kopischke, Bury and Fill;

more, and Johnson et al --• Details of findings are too voluminous for description

here. However, we may draw upon these studies for general guidelines if we are

willing to assume that preferences are idealized expectations.

The Forest Service's Environmental Impact Statement on ORVs (USDA Forest

Service, p. 10-13) also deals with user expectations and preferences, A review

of public responses identified four main issues of specific interest to the public.

They were (1) alternatives for implementation of ORV regulations, (2) designation

of areas, (3) the time frame to complete the designation, and (4) the exemption

of ORVs used in mining pursuits from regulations governing all other ORV use.

Characteristics of Use

Several studies provide detailed information on characteristics of ORV usage.

For example, the Ontario Department of Tourism study of snowmobilers revealed that

the most common frequency of use (median) was between 21 and 40 days per season;

the overall average (arithmetic mean) was 41.9 days. This usage was distributed

almost equally between'weekend days and weekdays; the average duration was 3.7

hours per day. Over half of the respondents stated that more than one-fourth of

their snowmobiling occurred at night.

In contrast, a survey of Michigan snowmobilers (Michigan Department of Natural

240
Resources et al., p. 30-40,46j revealed an average of 24.6 days of snowmobiling

per season; the average after-dark snowmobiling was 13.0 days. Respondents spent

an average of 14.7 days on their own property or that belonging to relatives or

friends, 7.8 days on state or national Forest lands, 1.5 days on corporate land,

1.2 days on metro and city parks, golf courses, school property, etc., 0.4 day

on state park and recreation areas, and 0.4 day outside of Michigan. This distribution was, of course, affected by the location and relative abundance of lands,

and managerial actions relative to snowmobiling on the various land ownership

classes.

A survey of operators of dune buggies, trail-bikes, and minibikes found that

the four most popular activities were informal competition, hill climbing, camping, and sightseeing (Johnson et al., p. 4,5). The average operating time was

five hours per day, with minibikes averaging 3.2 hours and dune buggies averaging

6.6 hours. Members of the average respondents' household spent two weekends per

month at a use area, with an average of 1.9 Saturdays and 2.1 Sundays. Most of

these ORV users operated their machine with family and friends, while considerably

fewer operated alone or with organized clubs.

Peine's comparison of the Tucson Jeep Club and Tucson Sandbuggy Association

indicated that sightseeing and exploring were the most popular activities of all

ORV owners interviewed (p. 32,33). Most travel was to, and within, established

recreation areas; very little was cross-country. The typical trip of both clubs

consisted of one-day sightseeing, a picnic lunch, and a travel distance of less

than 100 miles.

Activity Aggregation

Use of ORV's is generally associated with other identifiable recreational activities. In many instances, a specific set of activities (activity aggregation). ..

is associated with a given ORV activity. For example, Dahms (p. 15) found in a

nation-wide survey of trail-bike and motorcycle users that the most popular single

hobby (after motorcycling) was hunting and fishing, followed by camping. Though

figures on participation in hunting and fishing were not provided, 79 percent of

the respondents camped when they rode.

At Land Between the Lakes in western Kentucky, Chilman and Kupcikevicius (p.

7) found swimming to be the most popular accessory activity of trail-bike riders,

with 48 percent of the riders participating; camping followed with 44 percent, and

picnicking with 38 percent.

In a study by Holecek (p. 56), 72 percent of the snowmobile riders had fishing

licenses, 77 percent had hunting licenses, 18 percent had 4-wheel drive vehicles,

and 50 percent had boats.

Conflicts Among Users

Conflicts among recreational users and non-users of ORVs have been identified as one of the ten most important questions related to ORVs in the West (MC

Cool and Roggenbuck; v. 1, p. 22,23).

Conflicts between ORV users and non-users may be grounded in noise, knowledge of the machine's presence (or having been present), fear of personal harm,

and physical firacts on the environment (Butler, p. 9).

241
Lindsay (p. 7-25) surveyed the extent and cause of outdoor recreation conflicts in Vermont. Results of particular interest were that: (1) snowmobilers

and homeowners were the two groups most often in conflict; (2) conflicts most

commonly occurred at night in urban and suburban residential communities; (3)

groups creating the greatest amount of conflict were those requiring fairly large

land or water areas for their activity, those using private land, and those without designated areas for their sport; and (4) the causes of conflict included

discourtesy, litter, noise, safety, trespass, vandalism, and competition for

space.

In a study by Bury and Fillmore (p. 32,33), campers were asked to name

and rank the three maindisadvantages of having a motorcycle area near a campground. Noise led all the rest by a wide margin. Iiowever, their answers may

well have represented biases rather than experience.

Many ORV operators use their machines on hunting, fishing, and camping

trips (Pluharty; p. 17; Chilman and Kupcikevicius, p. 7); this clearly points

to possible conflict situations. For instance, Malaher (p. 431) suggests that

conflicts could arise from snowmobilers disturbing wildlife being hunted by

others on foot.

A major problem in the east has been the operation of ORVs on private lands

without prior consent of the landowner. In the west, conflicts with the traditional consumptive uses of land-based resources have occurred. For example,

Fluharty (p. 13,14) cited a Bureau of Land Management report which described

soil compaction and destruction of range vegetation. These impacts lead to a

reduction in productivity of the range for beef. Additionally, range fires

have been started by motorcyclists, and some ranchers even describe their cattle

being chased by motorcycles.

Depreciative Behavior

These human acts reduce or destroy the resource and facilities, or interfere with the experience of other recreational participants. Although depreciative behavior among ORV participants was frequently the subject of resource

manager reports and informal discussions, scientists have not yet specifically

focused on the depreciative behavior of ORV participants.

The array of potential depreciative behavior forms is broad: vandalism,

theft, trespass, rule violations, and destruction of archaeological sites. For

example, Baldwin and Stoddard discuss the increasing frequency of thefts and

vandalism during the winter at properties largely inaccessible before the snowmobile.

Motivations for depreciative acts in other recreational environments have

been typologized as entertainment, convenience, disregard, ignorance, and interference with personal goals (Clark, Hendee, and Campbell, 1971). Whether this

typology will apply also to ORV operators is a ,$estion needing considerable

research.

Perception of Images

Snowmobilers in a two-county area of New York were questioned about their

awareness of snowmobile effects on wildlife and damage to vegetation (Hill 1971,

242
p. 6,7,15). Only 7 percent of the respondents reported observing damage to

wildlife; the foremost incident was intentional harassment of animals. Thirtyseven percent of the respondents reported benefits such as use of snowmobile

tracks by deer, snowmobilers carrying food to wildlife, and rescue of deer

chased by dogs. Hill also noted that 28 percent of the respondents reported

substantial vegetative damage by snowmobiles; seedling and shrub damage was

most frequent.

Peine's (1969, p. 33) investigation of Tucson Jeep Club and Tucson Sand

Buggy Association members indicated that the clubs were aware of rising public

concern for deterioration of the countryside caused by ORVs. In fact, they

were so concerned that they carried out conscientious programs to minimize

damage to areas they visited.

SAFETY ASPECTS

Noise

The level, duration and physical frequency (wave-length) of noise may

have extensive impacts on the health and safety of ORV operators and spectators.

Most studies related to health and safety aspects of ORV noise have investigated temporary shifts of hearing thresholds and ringing ears (tinnitus).

Bess (1971, p. 154~1553 reported a high probability of hearing damage following

exposure to only 30 minutes of full throttle snowmobile operations.

Following exposure to snowmobile operation, one-third of the males and

one-fourth of the females in a study reported ringing in the ears, and about

18 percent experienced temporary changes in hearing (Stahl and Bess, p. 9).

The results of another study (Bess and Poynor, p. 166) strongly suggested that

continued operation of snowmobiles will result in significant hearing damage.

While the authors have found only limited experimentation concerning motorcycle noise and hearing damage, several investigators (Bess 1973, p. 7; Harrison

1973, p. 27) have reported that helmets do not provide adequate hearing protection, especially at speeds below 45, m.p.h.

Deaths and Injuries

Several authors (Fleming 1969; Fleming, 1974, Vila and Klopchic, and MC

Lay) have reported on accidents associated with snowmobile use. One study of

snowmobile accidents found the collision rate five times that of other motor

vehicles and the death rate six times as great (Vila and Klopchic, p. 37).

Factors which appear to contribute most to snowmobile-associated injuries are

jumping the vehicle, lack of experience, poor visibility, speed, alcohol, barbed

wire, climbing over banks, equipment not in repair, and thin ice (McLay).

Exposure and hypothermia are also contributing factors (Rand, 1969).

The safety and health hazards associated with other types of ORVs have

been extensively discussed before (Bureau of Transportation Safety; National

Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council). Both reviews suggest a strong need

for systematic data collection to determine causes of accidents, and detailed

243
study of collisions, in order to devise and implement safer equipment, facilities, and operational regulations.

Safety Equipment

Daytime use of motorcycle headlights significantly reduced the accident

rate of motorcyclists in states requiring such operation (Janoff et al.), - -

Further, use of a helmet significantly reduced casualties occurring in motorcycle accidents (Allsop 1967; Lunenfeld and Varady 1970, and Richardson 1974).

The following items appear necessary for safe operation of snowmobiles:

dead man's throttle, roll-bar, crash helmets, goggles, and protective clothing (Percy).

TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Noise

Many conflicts with other recreational activities originate with noise.

In the last few years, technological advances by manufacturers have reduced

noise production, and most states now have standards establishing the maximum

permissible noise generated from ORVs (International Snowmobile Industry Association, 1974b). Noise will probably continue as a difficult managerial problem--and especially so as more persons visit recreation areas, and ORV noise

therefore affects more non-ORV users (Lindsay).

Noise generation from snowmobiles and motorcycles has received considerable attention in the literature. Central to an understanding of the noise

issue is the concept of "vanishing distance" --the distance under which .ORV-generated noise becomes inaudible above the always-present "background noise."

Vanishing distance depends on the amount and physical frequency (wave-length)

of noise generated at the source, and intervening vegetational/topographic/

atmospheric conditions.

Researchers report somewhat contradictory results of vanishing distance

across similar vegetational types (Harrison, 1974d). The Motorcycle Industry

Council (1973) indicated that the vanishing distance within a wooded area varied

from 1600 feet for a 76 dB source to 12,800 feet for a 90 dB source. Operation of two or more ORVs will apparently increase the total noise generated

only slightly (Harrison 1974d, p. 7).

The variation in noise generation by ORVs is great. Harrison (1974b)

tested 10 different motorcycle models in a drive-by procedure and found a range

of 74 dB-93 dB, measured at 50 feet on the A scale; vanishing distances varied

from 1400-3900 feet. Noise tests of 15 different models of 1969-1972 snowmobiles

ranged from 77 dB-99dB (Harrison 1973c). In general, he found that the older

the model, the greater the noise generation.

Both the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) and the International Snowmobile Industry Association (ISIA) have responded to the noise issue by developing programs and vehicle changes to reduce noise generations (AMA n.d.;

Doylq1974a; Doyle 1974b). Additionally, the Noise Control Act of 1972 (U. S.

244
Congress 1972a) gives the Environmental Protection Agency authority to develop

and implement standards for maximum noise levels produced by recreational vehicles.

Exhaust FMssions

Extensive programs of exhaust testing and monitoring are continually conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency and various manufacturers.

The total impact of lead contamination on a community water supply is probably variable depending on the intensity of the snowmobile use. Heaviest concentrations of lead were found at l-112 feet from the midpoint of the snowmobile track (Ferrin and Coltharp, 1974).

Because many types of ORVs could cause wildfire, requirements and standards

have been established on both state and federal levels for the use of spark

arrestors (U. S. Department of Agriculture).

Resource and Facility Needs

In a Cal,ifornia study of owners of mini-bikes, dune buggies, cycles, fourwheel drive;all-terrain vehicles, and other ORVs, 68 percent of the 1,210 respondents strvngly agreed that most public lands should be available for some

form of ORV use (Johnson et al., p. 5). The most common demand expressed in

comments found on 688 of the returned questionnaires was "Give us more land."

Other comments frequently expressed dealt with expressions of preference for

large and relatively unregulated areas, recommendations for one-way riding

trails, separation of two-wheeled vehicle use areas from four-wheeled vehicle

use areas, special juvenile operating areas convenient to cities, and requests

for information on legal riding areas throughout the state.

Hetherington (p. 76) stated that snowmobile resources and facilities should

include a minimum snow depth of three inches; var$ed topography; adequate parking; snack bars and restaurants; and trails with points of scenic or historical

interest, scenic outlooks, trails connecting towns, and/or designed for multiple

use (e.g., snowmobiling, trail-bike riding, horseback riding, skiing, and snowshoeing), systems with spider-web design including loops at 1, 5, 10, 25, and

50 miles, and a sign system and posted maps along the trail. In contrast, Vila

and Rlopchic (p. 34) found that Ontario snowmobilers preferred "unorganized,

open lands, bush and wooded areas in a hilly landscape with no special facilities except snowmobiling trails." Respondents further indicated little interest in organized areas with facilities.

Design Standards for Trails

Existing standards appear to consider management objectives with respect

to type of ORV and type of experience desired, reduction of conflicts with

other wildland uses, safety, minimization of environmental impacts, and amount

of expected use.

The U. S. Forest Service (1974) has developed recommended trail design

standards for both one-and two-track ORV trails. Bury and 'Fillmore,(1974),

from their field study of trail-bike riders, suggested one-way trails, maximum trail width of sixfeet, maximizing the number of jumps, and varying the

245
radii on turns (p. 41-44).

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

Research indicated some distinctly different environmental impacts from

snowmobiles than from other ORVs. For example, soils are affected little by

snowmobiles (Pendleton et al., p. 2,5; Walejko - - etal. 1972 and 1973), but are

substantially affected by other ORVs (Davidson and Fox, p. 388-389).

The best bibliographic study of environmental impacts to date is the literature review by Lodico in 1973 for the U. S. Department of the Interior. In

the interest of avoiding duplication, most of her extensive text findings will

not be referenced herein. Other major compilations are in Baldwin and Stoddard

(especially pages 8-33) and in Proceedings of the 1971 and 1973 Symposia on Snowmobile and Off-Road Vehicle Research edited respectively by Chubb and Holecek.

Systematic investigation and experimentation concerning impacts must acknowledge the influence of various types of ORVs, operating conditions, soils and

plant and animal communities. The combinations (and therefore, complexity)

of environmental and technological variables are vast; therefore, virtually

any study conducted on this topic will lack generalizability. For example, a

25Occ motorcycle driven over a sandy soil 25 times in one week in a semi-arid

climate will have quantifiable impacts. But, impacts may be markedly different if the soil is finer texture.

Effects.on Vegetation

Snowmobiles were shown to produce considerable vegetative damage above the

snow (Wanek 1974, p. 150; Wanek 1971a, p. 127; Wanek 1971 b; Wanek 1973a, p.

38; Meitz, p. 80). In contrast, damage below the snow depended on depth of snow

and intensity of snowmobile use. Compaction by snowmobiles produced lower ground

temperatures and retarded the growth and reproductive success of early spring

flowers (Wanek, all references).

Woody plants were found more vulnerable to mechanical damage than herbaceous ones (Wanek 1974, p. 21); this could be advantageous in powerline rightsof-way and other locations where managers wish to discourage woody vegetation,

and argues foruse of such rights-of-way as snowmobile trails (Wanek 1973, p.

38).

Response of alfalfa to snowmobile traffic was also tested at four locations

within Wisconsin by Walejko et al. - - Damage appeared related to snow depth and

type, and was directly attributable to the temperature and/or smothering effects

from "compacted snow or ice sheets which occur on trails in certain types of

snow." (Pendleton 1972, p. 6) These results were obtained on 3-year-old, wellestablished stands. Alfalfa under fairly deep snow showed no reduction in yield

during the following year; under thin snow, yields were reduced as much as 30

percent (Walejko et al. 1973, p. 273). - -

Bluegrass, brome grass and other such forage grasses appear very resistant to damage by snowmobiles (Walejko et al., 1972, p. 166). In the Wisconsin

study cited above, "Heavy snowmobile traffic imposed on established bluegrass

areas resulted in no reduction in yield but stands did recover at a slower rate

246
in early growth and vigor. Late bluegrass harvests during the summer were similar in response to early harvests." (Walejko et al. 1973, p. 166) - -

The impact of snowmobiles on young hardwoods and conifers in New York was

greater on slopes than on the level, due to the churning action of the snowmobile belt (Meitz). The study indicates considerable variance in results,

details of which will not be reported here.

Off-road motorcycling in the Mojave desert appeared to increase the representation of some vegetative species; of course, the representation of most

species decreased (Davidson and Fox, p. 389). In a carefully-documented article on ORV effects upon the California desert, Stebbins found that:

The overall effect of ORVson desert vegetation is to reduce the

variety of native species and the size of their populations. In

areas of heavy use they completely denude the landscape, and recovery is expected to require many decades, if it occurs at all. (Stebbins 1973b, p. 296).

Unfortunately, ORVs are often attracted to those very parts of the

desert where the flora (and associated fauna) is likely to be most

varied and where novelties are most likely to occur--near water;

in regions of topographically varied terrain; and in the vicinity

of dunes. (Stebbins 1973b, p. 295)

Effects on Animals

Snowmobiles created little effect on larger animals and mixed, moderate

effects on medium-sized animals; small animals overwintering in subsnow environments were drastically affected.

Large animals. Most research concerning large animals has been tied to

the effects of noise and movement of snowmobiles in creating disturbances of the

animals. Deer did not significantly increase or decrease their home ranges

during three weekends of snowmobiling, nor did their rate of travel increase

under conditions of snowmobiling (Bollinger et al., p. 4, 25-30). The results

indicated that . . . "under the conditions of this study, snowmobiles have to

be within sight of the deer before the animal will react by moving away." (p.

6)

Therefore, this study failed to support the allegation that deer increase

their movement and thus become physically stressed in response to snowmobile

traffic generating 45 to 65 dBA at the point of deer reception. This conclusion was reached with as many as 31 snowmobiles in operation on the test area

during a 4-l/2 hour period. The research also revealed that deer will change

home ranges markedly even if snowmobiles are not present.

A somewhat parallel study on white-tailed deer was conducted by Dorrance

et al. in northern and central Minnesota during the 1973-1974 winter. Results - -

were not in all cases supportive of the Bollinger et al. study. - - As in the

Bollinger findings, Dorrance discovered that light snowmobile traffic displaced

deer from areas immediately adjacent to the snowmobile trails, but that further

snowmobile traffic had little effect on deer movement (p. 1,2).

247
Elk appear more sensitive than deer to the sight and sound of snowmobiles

(U. S. D. I. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, p.. 1,2). The Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) study indicated that only a few snowmobiles would cause

an entire elk herd to move away from the machines; this finding is parallel

to that of the Bollinger, Huff, and Dorrance studies related to deer.

Medium sized animals. Animals of intermediate size exhibited no general

responses to snowmobiles. Snowshoe hares avoided snowmobile trails, for example, but red foxes were more active near and in such trails (Neumann and Merriam,

p. 211).

Another study discovered that red, grey and fox squirrel activity was apparently no different in the area of snowshoe trails than snowmobile trails (Huff

et al., p. 28). This same Minnesota study indicated that red fox used snowmobile trails less than snowshoe trails (p. 28). It was also discovered that:

The number of mammal tracks crossing the snowshoe transects was significantly greater than the number crossing snowmobile trails for six

of the nine weeks . . . mammals used snowmobile trails more during

times of deep snow or drifting, and when traffic on the snowmobile

trail was lowest. (P. 27,28)

The effects on animal populations of humans equipped with ORVs appears

to be mixed geographically and with relation to particular species. (Doherty,

p. 63; Usher, p. 178-179).

Small animals. Snowmobiles may cause the ill health and death of small

animals using the air space (subnivean layer) between snow and the ground surface; this effect occurs through snow compaction by snowmobiles, and its resultant mechanical barrier to the movement of small animals and reduction of

the temperature-insulating qualities of snow (S&mid 1971b, p. 107).

The reduction in population of these small mammals could well reduce the

population of species preying upon them--hawks, owls, foxes, etc. (Brand.er).

p. 33).

Effects on fish. Accelerated harvesting appears to be the main concern

related to impacts of ORVs. The most striking documentation concerned easier

access to remote lakes provided via snowmobiles in the wintertime. One report

indicated that 556 pounds of fish were harvested from a remote lake on a single

day ; this would have been an entire season's catch if snowmobile access had

not been possible (Cooney and Preston, p. 19). However, the snowmobile has

proven advantageous in dispersing fishing pressures on the larger lakes, rather

than concentrating fishing near road access points (Doherty, p. 63).

Effects on desert animals. Only a few studies, preliminary at best, were

found relating ORV operations to desert animals. The ecology of Dove Springs

within the California Desert was studied during a ten year'period and changes

noted in response to increasingly high use by ORVs (Berry). The tortoise

apparently disappeared; the density and diversity of populations of small mammals

and lizards was reduced.

Effects on Soil

Snowmobiles produced little mechanical effect on soils (Pendleton et al.,

248
p. 2,5; Walejko et al. 1972 and 1973). - -

Soil temperatures during the winter were significantly reduced in the

soils immediately underlying snowmobile trails. The temperature differential

between soils under undisturbed snow and those under the snowmobile track were

in the order of 5" to 9°C (Wanek 1972,,p. 3,7). These effects are different

within different soil types. At six inches below the surface of fields with

three-year old alfalfa stands, the temperature within sandy soils was found

to be 2-5'C colder than within clay loam soils on the same days (Wanek 1974,

p. 12). In contrast, the temperature responses of bog soils to various degrees

of snowmobiling was quite small, being on the order of less than 3°C (Wanek

1974, p. 12).

Soil disturbance by wheeled vehicles is abundantly evident in desert situations (U. S. D. I. Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 1970b).

One such exploratory study was conducted by Davidson and Fox on relatively

coarse soils in the Mojave Desert. Although the amount of motorcycle use intensity was not recorded, such use produced some compaction at the surface.

Solid bulk density had increased very little, but seemed critical in that infiltration capacity was greatly reduced (Davidson and Fox, p. 388-389). In

contrast, Berry found that heavy pounding by ORVs could increase the density

of desert soils markedly to a depth of at least three feet; this different

finding could be due to differences in soils, use intensities, soil moisture

conditions, types of ORV use, and/or methods of soil density measurement.

Within Arctic environments, off-road vehicular traffic is very common.

Investigators believe that impacts on soils may be potentially very serious,

especially on permafrost terrain (Rickard and Brown, p. 61). Because of fragile soils and short growing seasons, the recovery of ORV tracks has been very

slow. Wet and marshy terrain showed more effects than well-drained sites (Rickard

and Brown, p. 55).

Effects on Water Quality and Quantity

Snowmobiles appeared to increase the water content of snow in compacted

areas, especially in locations where evaporation from snow normally exceeds

infiltration (Hogan). Tests also showed that compaction increased snow cover

retention. It was alleged that steep and unvegetated roads would thus be protected until after the period of maximum snow runoff had passed. This conclusion was supported by research of Soil Conservation Service snow surveyors,

who also suggested that "a systematic contouring of a critical watershed with

snow machines offers the potential of actually 'farming' the snowpack for valuable water supplies." (Work and Pearson, p. 35). Thus it'appears that snowmobile action within watersheds may benefit water quality through decreased

water turbidity, and improve water quantity through lessening losses due to

evaporation.

The situation appears to be reversed with regard to wheeled ORVs. Although

no rigorous research reports were found in this review, the Bureau of Land

Management report on the California Desert contains persuasive observations.

The acceleration of both wind and water erosion which undeniably occurs must

surely increase Water turbidity. In addition, the reduction of vegetation on

slopes must also lead to increased runoff at the expense of infiltration and

thus increase erosion and hence turbidity. Effects in other portions of the

nation were not found, but must certainly be reflected in erosional response

249
to particular conditions of soil type, intensity of vehicle use and rainfall,

type and coverage of vegetation, etc.

ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS

In a study of ORV problems (McCool and Roggenbuck), administrative problems were identified as the second most frequently mentioned set of issues

dealing with ORVs on public lands in the west; respondents were deliberately

diverse--land managers, academicians, conservation groups, and ORV user groups.

Regulations and legislation, enforcement, methods of providing ORV opportunities, liability and legal problems, fees and permits, and management techniques seem to be the principal administrative questions.

Regulations and Legislation

The controversial nature of off-road vehicles is evidenced by increases

in public hearings, state and national legislation, and local regulations.

Most of these regulatory statutes are aimed at control over the ORV operator, reduction of environmental damage, protecting the health and safety

of the citizens, and establishing organizations for licensing, administration,

and on-the-ground management.

A model state ORV law has been developed by the Upper Great Lakes Regional

Commission. While it is not the only attempt at comprehensive uniform legislation (see U. S. Congress, 92nd, H. R. 17158, Snowmobile Recreation and Safety

Act; National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances and Council of

State Governments) it is readily available for examination and appears to launch

a good attack 'on many administrative, legal, and financial problems.

Enforcement

Few ORV studies have specifically addressed the enforcement of ORV regulations, other than to identify enforcement as a problem. Perhaps managers

need to look toward existing enforcement agencies for general assistance and

toward criminological theory and practice for specific techniques.

The reaction of individual users to regulation probably influences ,the

depth of an enforcement program. For example, Kopischke found that about 74%

of the snowmobilers in Minnesota found the existing regulations just right,

11% felt there were too many, and 15% thought there were too few.

In summary, a variety of factors-- including the manager's authority, his

ability to enforce, his perceptions of enforcement and regulations, and the

users' general outlook in life--will assist the manager in specifying the extent

of the enforcement "problem".

Management Techniques

.Managerial implications of the above research would seem both numerous

and diverse. In spite of this, few investigations relating to direct manage250
ment of ORVs were found. A notable exception was an evaluation of snowmobile

controls tested in various parts of the snowbelt; this was presented in the

Proceedings of the 1970 International Snowmobile Conference held in Duluth

(Minnesota Department of Economic Development, p. 113-150). Unfortunately

that document was unavailable at the time of this report's preparation.

Conceptually, five major types of management techniques or controls may

be visualized: judicial decisions, legislative directives, executive directives,

agency regulations, and specific management techniques.

The courts have recently entered the picture through suits such as the

challenge of ORV regulations promulgated by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management. As a result of that suit, the regulations were rescinded by the court,

and the Bureau must propose new regulations.

Congress has passed few laws dealing directly with the ORV situation,

other than isolated instances such as the Wilderness Act (U. S. Congress, 1964a)

which forbade motorized travel within the National Wilderness Preservation

system, and the so-called Anti-Tote-Gote Act (U. S. Congress, 1964b) which

provided for immediate U.S. Commissioner Court trials of ORV drivers invading

wilderness.

Executive directives appeared with President Nixon's Executive Order 11644

(U. S. President), which recognized the need to regulate off-road vehicles and

required that federal land-managing agencies promulgate appropriate regulations

within a few months of passage of the Order.

Direction by agency administrators followed with separate off-road vehicle

regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Defense.

Many state legislatures have passed regulatory legislation covering ORVs;

details were discussed earlier in the section on Legislation.

Most of the specific suggestions for management techniques have come directly

from managers rather than through research aimed directly at optimizing'management. Favored measures have included more education of ORV operators, special

zones for ORV use, more ORV areas and trails, improved design of areas and

trails, and self-regulation by ORV operator groups.

Generalized research on management techniques will often be difficult

to design. This is because many problems facing ORV managers today and in the

forseeable future are unique to a particular decision-making locality; they

are situation-specific. In many instances, optimal solutions will depend primarily upon the manager's creativity and innovative abilities in searching for

answers, as well as his aptitude at defining problems rather than treating

symptoms.

The major importance of management objectives in constraining or suggesting alternatives for problem resolution has been well identified in wildland

recreation literature. For example, an explicit statement of management objectives can permit specification of the amount of ecological change permitted

within an ORV use context.

The manager must also consider the ability of the resource to withstand

251
impacts initiated by the presence and use patterns of ORVs. Some areas may

require "site hardening" techniques similar to those used in many campgrounds

and picnic sites. Managers will need to predict the nature of impacts expected

at a given use level and intensity, and determine what techniques, if any,

are required for mitigation.

In addition, managers will need to assess the behavior of the ORV operator

himself. What are the expectations, preferences, and use patterns of the visitor?

What type of vehicle is being used? Where is the site in respect to the user's

residence? What expectations do users hold in terms of freedom in use of their

machines?

Traditionally, wildland managers have responded to recreation problems

through the construction of facilities--campgrounds, restrooms, boat ramps,

trails, etc. The focus will probably continue in that direction. Thus, the

ORV manager may find himself- continually involved in planning, developing,

and maintaining facilities to manipulate ORV opportunities. Trails, roads,

campgrounds, sewage systems, signs and more are all facilities the manager

may use as techniques to solve ORV-related problems.

Of increasing significance in the repertoire of techniques available are

programs directed at securing greater levels of visitor satisfaction, and changes

in user activities so as to reduce resource degradation and depreciative behavior.

In conclusion, given a certain situation and identified constraints (e.g.

management objectives, ecological capacities, and ORV user behavior), the manager has available a kit of tools (facilities, visitor management, and landscape modification) which he may apply to solve those problems facing him.

Rarely will one technique be completely effective in resolving the difference

between the existing and the desired situation. The mix of tools selected by

the manager will be a function of situational constraints, the manager's creative abilities, and his estimation of the effectiveness of each technique to '

achieve accepted management goals.

SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCH

In reviewing the relevant literature on off-road vehicles, the authors

identified many researchable questions. It was beyond the scope of this paper

to list these questions in any manner of priority; readers interested in such

a prioritized array are referred to McCool and Roggenbuck. The several questions below are selected as representative of current researchable ORV-related

problems.

1 . What planning and management techniques would reduce or avoid conflicts

(a) among ORV users, (b) between ORV users and other land users and, (c)

between ORV users and land managers?

2. What are the differential effects of specified types and weights of ORVs

on erosion and water quality under different specified conditions of soil

type, soil moisture, soil density, surface slope, and vegetative cover?

3 . What is the effect of ORVs on animals during periods of breeding and early

growth?

252
4 .

5.

6.

7.

a.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

What design standards for both trails and ORVs could be adopted to reduce

ORV impact?

What are the similarities and differences in terms of resource and facility

needs among the various types of ORVs?

Of what relative importance and/or value to the "ORV experience" are (a)

natural resources and (b) facilities?

To what extent will a substantial reduction in vehicular noise levels be

effective in reducing animosity toward ORV use?

What are the similarities and differences in characteristics of use among

families, organized groups, and individuals?

How does age, experience,. and type of ORV influence rider expectations?

Does ORV operation substitute for other activities, and vice versa? If

so, what are those activities? Can they be used to supplement ORV areas

or serve as alternative uses?

What techniques can be used to more effectively communicate among ORV users,

non-users, and managers?

What non-ORV recreation activities can safely occur on trails and areas

which are simultaneously being used by ORVs?

What are the circumstances under which accidents involving ORVs are most

likely to occur?

How can land managers most effectively enforce ORV regulations regarding

land closures and restrictions?

What criteria should be used to determine which areas receive priority for

development of ORV areas?

What are the professional and personal characteristics of those managers

who are most effective in dealing with ORV problems?

What causes some ORV users to heavily damage the land, to create social

conflicts and to violate regulations?

Because most ORV research has concerned snowmobiles, it is important that

future research emphasize other ORVs so that managers can deal more effectively

with problems induced by this challenging recreational activity.

253
Index to Off-Road Vehicle Bibliography

Numerals indicate the reference number of documents listed in the bibliography.

Economic Aspects

Numbers of ORVs: Production, Sales, Vehicles in Use, and Projections

10, 39, 40, 42, 111, 144, 166, 187

Economic Impacts and Trade Offs 40, 43, 55, 56, 75, 99, 111, 112,

122, 134, 135, 154, 166, 175

Effects on Resource Owners and Managers 8, 56, 64, 80, 104, 136,

12,

Effects on ORV Operators and Owners 54, 55, 56, 111, 122, 175

Effects of Petroleum Shortages and Stagnation/Inflation 1, 39, 42,

55, 73

Behavioral Aspects'

Social Demographics 5, 22, 27, 33, 43, 51, 56, 66, 69, 82, 84, 87,

101, 111, 113, 121, 166

Values and Attitudes 21, 22, 81, 94, 98, 114, 129

Expectations and Preferences 22, 55, 79, 82, 87, 111, 152

Characteristics of Use 54, 79, 82, 111, 113, 149

Activity Aggregations

Conflicts Among Users

95, 105, 119, 149,

Depreciative Behavior

Perception of Impacts

Safety Aspects

27, 33, 69

2, 10, 22, 23, 27, 44, 51, 81, 87, 92, 93,

157, 160

10, 29, 96, 162

66, 72, 95, 113

Noise 14, 15, 16, 59, 60, 62, 124, 141 . >

Deaths and Injuries 25, 49, 50, 58, 97, 110, 126, 137, 169, 170,

175

Safety Equipment 3, 77, 89, 118, 127, 138, 139

254
Technological Aspects

Noise 6, 39, 40, 61, 62, 63, 74, 75, 76, 87, 101, 105, 107, 138,

147, 167, 168

Exhaust Emissions 48, 151

Resource and Facility Needs 22, 27, 52, 64, 79, 83, 101, 113, 175,

186

Desi'gn Standards for Trails 8, 20, 22, 65, 71, 87, 154

Environmental Aspects

Vegetation 23, 34, 100, 115, 143, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182,

183, 184, 185

Animals 10, 13, 17, 18, 22, 32, 36, 37, 38, 72, 78, 82, 90, 109,

131, 132, 133, 140, 143, 163, 174, 181

Soi'l 13, 30, 34, 45, 57, 68, 102, 116, 128, 143, 160, 177, 178,

184

Water Quality and Quantity 68, 156, 188

Administrative Aspects

'Regulatfons and Legislation 7, 10, 12, 31, 26, 47, 74, 106, 123,

147, 148, 149, 150, 153, 155, 157, 158, 164, 167, 171, 172, 176

Enforcement 11, 20, 82

Management Techniques 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 22, 24, 28, 35, 64, 65,

70, 86, 91, 103, 108, 145, 146, 165, 166, 171

255
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ahern, Catherine A. 1975. Letter to Richard L. Bury dated June 11,

1975, from Catherine A. Ahern, Manager of Information Services,

International Snowmobile Industry Association, Arlington, Virginia.

2. Allan, Nigel J. R. 1975. Man, Machine, and Snow: A Study of

Recreationists' Landscape Perceptions. Discussion Paper Series

i/2, Department of Geography, Syracuse University. The Department, Syracuse, New York, 20 p.

3 . Allsop, R. E. 1967: Costs and Benefits If All Motorcyclists Wore

Safety Helmets. Road Resea‘rch Laboratory, Crowthorne, England,

23 p.

4 . American Association for the Advancement of Science, Committee on

Arid Lands. 1974. "Off-Road Vehicle Use." Science 184(4135):

500-501.

5. American Honda Motor Company. n.d. "A Study of the Purchase Decision Process." Excerpts from an incomplete report. The Company, Gardena, California. Cited at page 9 in J. E. Fluharty.

1971. Motorized Recreation Vehicles: Roles of Recreation and

Parks. Recreation and Youth Service Planning Council, Los Angeles, California, 93 p.

6. American Motorcycle Association. Motorcycle Noise Control. The

Association, Westerville, Ohio, 7 p.

7. Anonymous. 1973. "Snowmobiles and Environment." Yale Law Journal

82(4):772-786.

8. Armstrong, Jack. 1973. "Snoplan--A Trail Development and Maintenance Program," in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . ., op. cit.,

p. 168-175.

9. Bhldwin, Malcolm F. 1970. The Off-Road Vehicle and Environmental

Quality. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D. C., 52 p.

10. Baldwin, Malcolm F. and Dan H. Stoddard, Jr. 1973. The Off-Road

Vehicle and Environmental Quality, 2nd Ed. Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., 61 p.

256
11. Banzhaf, George & Co. 1974. United States Forest Service Survey

for Use of Off-Road Vehicles. Prepared for Nicolet, Chequamegon,

Ottawa, and Hiawatha National Forests. George Banzhaf and Co.,

Milwaukee, 53 p. + unpaginated Appendix.

12. Berglund, Bob. 1972. "National Policy for Snowmobiles." Congressional Record, October 14, 1972, E-8626.

13. Berry, K. (Ed.) 1973. Preliminary Studies on the Effects of OffRoad Vehicles on the Northwestern Moiave Desert: A Collection

of Papers. Privately printed, Ridgecrest, California, 100 p.

14. Bess, F. H. 1971. "The Effect of Snowmobile Engine Noise on the

Hearing Mechanism," in Chubb, Michael (Editor), Proceedings

of the 1971 Snowmobile and Off-The-Road Vehicle Research Sympow, Michigan State University. East Lansing, p. 147-158.

15. Bess, F. H. 1973. "The Effectiveness of Helmets for Far Protection," in Holecek, Donald F. (Editor). Proceedings of the 1973

Snowmobile and Off The Uoad Vehicle Research Symposium sponsored

by the Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan

State University. Technical Report #9. Recreation Research

and Planning Unit of the Department, East Lansing, Michigan,

p. 147-156.-

16. Bess, F. H. and R. E. Poynor. 1972. "Snowmobile Engine Noise

and Hearing." Archives of Otolaryngology 95:16&168.

17. Bollinger, John

G. Eckstein.

1973 Report.

G Orrin J. Rongstad, Andres Soom, and Ronald

19;s. Snowmobile Noise Effects on Wildlife, 1972-

Engineering Experiment Station, University of ^_ Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 85 p.

18. Brander, Robert B. 1974. "Ecological Impacts of Off-Road Recreational Vehicles," in U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Experiment Station. 1974. Outdoor Recreation Research: Applying the Results, papers from a workshop

held by the USDA Forest Service at Marquette, Michigan, June

19-21, 1973. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D. C., p. 29-35.

19. Brown, Tommy L. 1973. Posting of Private Lands in New York:

Incidence and Causes. Conservation Circular, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Vol. 11, No. 4. The Department, Ithaca, New York, 8 p.

20. Brown, T. 1974. Guidelines for Snowmobile Trail Planning. Conservation Circular, 12(4). Department of Natural Resources, Cornell

University, Ithaca, New York, 4 p.

257
21. Brown, T. L. and G. H. Hill. 1973. "The New York Snowmobiler and

the Private Landowner," -in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . ., *

&, p. 33-39.

22. Bury, R. L. and E. Fillmore. 1974. Design of Motorcycle Areas

Near Campgrounds: Effects on Riders and Nonriders, Technical

Report No. 6, Department of Recreation and Parks, Texas A&M University and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. The Department, College Station, Texas, 61 p.

23. Butler, Richard W. 1974. "How to Control l,OOO,OOO Snowmobiles."

Canadian Geographical Journal 88(3):4-13.

24. California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation.

1974. "Off-Highway Vehicle Activities Status Report: July 1972

through July 1974." The Agency, Sacramento, 3 p.

25. Carter, Luther J. 1974. "Off-Road Vehicles: A Compromise Plan

for the California Desert." Science 183(4123):396-399.

26. Cherniak, Earl. 1971. Untitled presentation within Product Safety

Panel, in University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Law, Proceedings . . ., op. cit.,: .v- p. 73-79, 89-90, 97, 100.

27. Chilman, K. C. and K. Kupcikevicius. 1973. "Profile: The TrailBiker." Unpublished paper presented at Trail Bike and Land Use

Planning Institute, Lake Barkley State Park, Cadiz, Kentucky.

Report available from authors, Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale, Illinois, 11 p.

28. Chubb, Michael (Editor), 1971.. Proceedings of the 1971 Snowmobile and Off The Road Vehicle Research Symposium sponsored

by the Department of Park and Recreation Resources and the Agricultural Experiment Station, both of Michigan State University,

and the U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Technical Report

#8. Recreation Research and Planning Unit of the Department,

East Lansing, Michigan, 196 p.

29. Clark, R. N., J. C. Hendee, and F. L. Campbell. 1971. Depreciative Behavior in Forest Campgrounds: An Exploratory Study.

USDA Forest Service Research Note PNW-161. Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Seattle, Washington, 12 p.

30. Collins and Aley. 1968. "Investigation of Motorcycle Damage on

Ava Ranger District." Unpublished report on file at office of

Mark Twain National Forest, Springfield, Missouri.

31. Conservation Foundation. 1972. "A Statutory Guide: Snowmobiles

and Other Off-Road Vehicles." Trends in Parks and Recreation

9(3) :23-27.

258
.

32.

33.

,34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

Cooney and Preston. 1971. "Snowmobiles: A Legislative Program."

University of Wisconsin.

Dahms, B. A. 1970. "Legislative Notebook: Off-Road Survey Surprises." Cycle News 6(50):15.

Davidson, Eric and Martha Fox. 1974. "Effects of Off-Road Motorcycle Activity on Mojave Desert Vegetation and Soil." Madrono

22(8) :381-390.

Doan, R. K. 1970. "Effect of Snowmobiles on Fish and Wildlife

Resources," in Proceedings, 60th Convention of the International

Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners, September 16-18. Litho Productions for the Association, Madison, Wisconsin, p. 97-103.

Doherty, Paul. Undated. "Effects on Fish and Game Management,"

in U. S. Senate, 1971, Hearing on Snowmobiles . . ., * cit.,

p. 62-63.

Dorrance, Michael J., Patrick J. Savage, and Dan E. Huff. 1973.

"Effects of Snowmobiles on White-Tailed Deer -- Progress Report,

1973;"' Unpublished report on file at office of authors, Department of Entomology, Fisheries, and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 30 p.

Dorrance, Michael J., Patrick J. Savage, and Dan E. Huff. 1975.

"Effects of Snowmobiles on White-Tailed Deer." Journal of Wildlife Management 39(3): In press.

Doyle, M. B. 1974a. An Assessment of the Snowmobile Manufacturing

Industry, 1975-1979. International Snowmobile Industry Association, Falls Church, Virginia, 16 p.

Doyle, M. B. 1974b. Position of the International Snowmobile

Industry Association on Snowmobile Sound Level Requirements.

International Snowmobile Industry Association, Falls Church,

Virginia, 15 p.

Doyle, M. B. 1974c. Recreation and Man.

International Snowmobile Industry Association, Arlington, Virginia,

15 P*

Doyle, Mortimer B. 1975. An Assessment of the Snowmobile Manufacturing Industry and Sport. International Snowmobile Industry

Association, Arlington, Virginia, 15 p.

Doyle, Patrick. 1973. "Advancements by the Industry in the Environmental Area since 1971," in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . .,

% cit., p. 77-85.

259
44. Dunn, Diana R. 1970. "Motorized Recreation Vehicles--On Borrowed

Time." Parks and Recreation 5(7):10-14, 46-52.

45. Dunn, Diana R. 1971. "Trends in Snowmobile and Off-The-Road Vehicle

Legislation: Effects on Use and Environmental Impact," in Chubb,

1971 Proceedings . . ., 9. cit., p. 163-169.

46. Dunn, Diana R. 1973. "Off-the-Road Vehicles: The View From Now,"

in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . ., op. cit., p. 200-202.

47. English, John W. 1972. Laws Regulating Off-Highway Vehicles.

Entire issue, Traffic Laws Commentary 1(8):1-109 (Published

by U. S. Department of.Transportation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration; printed by U. S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D. C.)

48. Ferrin, R. S. and G. B. Coltharp. 1974. "Lead Emissions from

Snowmobiles as a Factor in Lead Contamination of Snow," Pn Proceedings Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. Brig=

Young University, Provo, Utah, p. 116-118.

49. Fleming, J. P. 1969. "Safety Committee Report," in USDI Bureau

of Outdoor Recreation, Proceedings, 1969 International Snowmobile Conference, op. cit., p. 23-27.

50. Fleming, John P. 1973. "ORV Safety--How Can the Record be Improved?"-in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . .,, op. cit., p. 130-

134.

51. Fluharty, J. E. 1971. Motorized Recreation Vehicles: Roles

of Recreation and Parks. Recreation and Youth Service Planning

Council, Los Angeles, California, 93 p.

52. Fogg, G. E. 1971. "Trails for Motorized Vehicles," in Proceedings, National Symposium on Trails sponsored by USDI Bureau of

Outdoor Recreation. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., p. 46-48.

53. Giacomini, Larry. 1974. "Running It Into the Ground: A Special

ORV Report Guide to ORV's," Western Outdoor Annual, Spring 1974:

4-27.

54. Gogebic Community College, in cooperation with Upper Great Lakes

Regional Commission and Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

1974a. Michigan Snowmobiler Economic and Preference Survey.

The Commission (?), Duluth, Minnesota, 83 p. + appendix.

55. Gogebic Community College, in cooperation with Upper Great Lakes

Regional Commission, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1974b. Three-State Snowmobiler EconThe Commission, Duluth, Minnesota, omic and Preference Survey.

92 p. + appendix.

260
56. Gogebic Community College and Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission.

Undated (c. 1974). Snowmobiles--A Challenging-Opportunity. The

Commission, Duluth, Minnesota, 12 p.

57. Griffith, Richard E. 1969. "Environmental Quality Impact," in

IJSDI, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and New York State Conservation Commission, Proceedings, International Snowmobile Conference, May 20-21. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.. , p. 5-8.

58. Harano, R. M. and R. C. Peck. 1968. The California Motorcycle

Study,<Driver and Accident Characteristics. California Department of Motor Vehicles, Sacramento, California, 39 p.

59. Harrison, R. 1973. The Effectiveness of Motorcycle Helmets as

Hearing Protectors. Equipment Development and Testing Project

Record 2210. San Dimas Equipment Development Center. U. S.

Forest Service, San Dtias, California, 28 p.

60. Harrison, R. 1974a. All-Terrain Vehicle Noise. Equipment Development and Testing Project Record 2524. San Dimas Equipment

Development Center, U. S. Forest Service. San Dimas, California,

8 P*

61. Harrison, R. 1974b. Motorcycle Noise. Equipment Development and

Testing Project Record 2428. San Dimas Equipment Development

Center, U. S. Forest Service. San Dimas, California, 30 p.

62. Harrison,: R. 1974c. Snowmobile Noise. Equipment Development

and Testing Project Report 7120-S. San Dimas Equipment Development Center, U. S. Forest Service. San Dimas, California,

48 p.

63. Harrison, R. 1974d. Sound Propagation and Annoyance Under Forest

Conditions. Equipment Development and Test Report 7120-6.

San Dimas Equipment Development Center, U. S. Forest Service,

San Dimas, California, 35 p.

64. Hetherington, J. W. 1971a. "A Survey of Snowmobile Trail Facilities," in Chubb, 1971 Proceedings . . ., op. cit., p. 72-80. - -

65. Hetherington, John W. 1971b. "The Snowmobile," in Recreation

Symposium Proceedings, published transactions from the Forest

Recreation Symposium held at Syracuse, New York by State University of New York College of Forestry, U.S.D.A. Forest Service,

and others. U. S. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, p. 143-148.

66. Hill, Gregory A. 1971. "Towards Enhancing and Controlling Recreational Snowmobiling: A Study of Central New York Participants

and Vehicle Use." Unpublished master's thesis on file at Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,

59 p.

261
67. Hill, Gregory A. 1974. "Central New York Snowmobiles and Patterns

of Vehicle Use." Journal of Leisure Research 6(Fa11):280-292.

68. Hogan, A. W. 1972. "Snowmelt Delay by Oversnow Travel!" Water

Resources Research 8~174-175.

69. Holecek, D. F. 1973a. "ORV User Characteristics and Behavior

Workshop Report," in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . ., op. cit.,

p. 53-55.

70. Holecek, Donald F. (Editor) 1973b. Proceedings of the 1973 Snowmobile and Off The Road Vehicle Research Symposium sponsored by

the Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State

University. Technical Report 19. Recreation Research and Planning Unit of the Department, East Lansing, Michigan, 202 p.

71. Hollenbaugh, WilliamC. 1969. "Trails and Signs Design," in USDI

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Proceedings, 1969 International

Snowmobile Conference, op. cit., p. 9-21.

72. Huff, Dan E., Patrick J. Savage, David L. Urich, and Robert L.

Watlov. 1972. Wildlife-Snowmobile Interaction Project, Preliminary Report covering November 1971-April 1972. University

of Minnesota and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Place

of publication and publisher not stated, 34 p.

73. International Snowmobile Industry Association. 1974a. Position

of the International Snowmobile Industry Association on the Energy

Emergency. The Association, Washington, D. C., 16 p.

74. International Snowmobile Industry Association. 1974b. "Summary

of Snowmobile Laws and Regulations," Large, double-sided chart.

The Association, Arlington, Virginia.

75. International Snowmobile Industry Association. 1975. Untitled

news release dated May 23, 1975. The Association, Arlington,

Virginia, 1 p.

76. International Snowmobile Industry Association. c. 1975. Position

of the International Snowmobile Industry Association on Snowmobile Sound Level Reauirements. The Association. Falls Church.

Virginia, 15 p.

77. Janoff, M. S., A. Cassel, K. S. Fertner, and E. S. Smierciak. 1970.

Daytime Motorcycle and Taillight Operation. Franklin Institute

Research Laboratories, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 185 p.

78. Jarvinen, Julie A., and William D. S&mid. 1971. "Snowmobile

Use and Winter Mortality of Small Mammals," in Chubb, 1971 Proceedings . . ., 2 cit., p. 130-140.

262
79. Johnson, P., B. Kennedy, 3. Meisenback, and R. Rawlings. 1974.

Off-Highway Vehicle Registrants--A Survey of Their Interests

and Activities." in Ret Tip, No. 7. California Resources Agency,

Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California, 71 p.

80. Keenan, W. J. 1971. Untitled commentary in University of Western

Ontario, Faculty of Law, Proceedings . . ., op. cit., p. 216.

81. Knopp, T. B. and J. D. Tyger. 1973. "A Study of Conflict in Recreational Land Use: Snowmobiling vs. Ski-Touring," Journal of

Leisure Research 5(3):6-17.

82. Kopischke, Earl D. 1973. "Characteristics of the Snowmobiler and

His Activity in South-Central Minnesota," Minnesota Game Research, Special Report. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

St. Paul, p. 65-70,

83. Kuehn, J. H. 1971. "Minnesota's 1970 Snowmobile Use Study," in

Chubb, 1971 Proceedings . . ., 9. cit., p. 19-28.

84. Lanier, L. L. and M. Chubb. 1971. "Michigan's 1970 Snowmobile

Study," in Chubb, 1971 Proceedings . . ., * cit., p. 55-71.

85. Lime, David W. and Earl C. Leatherberry. 1974. "Off-Road Recreation Vehicle (ORRV) Bibliography." Unpublished report on

file at office of Dr. David Lime, USDA Forest Service, North

Central Forest Experimental Station, Folwell Avenue, St. Paul,

Minnesota, 16 p.

86. Lime, David W. and G. H. Stankey. 1971. "Carrying Capacity:

Maintaining Outdoor Recreation Quality," in Recreation Symposium

Proceedings, published transactions from the Forest Recreation

Symposium held at Syracuse, New York by State University of New

York College of Forestry, USDA Forest Service, and others.

U. S. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,

Upper Darby; Pennsylvania, p. 174-184.

87. Lindsay, John J. 1974. Outdoor Recreation Conflict in Vermont,

1973. Research Report SNR-RM2. School of Natural Resources,

University of Vermont, Burlington, 46 p.

88. Lodico, Norma Jean. 1973. Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles: A Review of the Literature. Bibliography Series No. 29,

Research Services Branch, Office of Library Services, U. S.

Department of the Interior. The Department, Washington, D. C.,

112 p.

89. Lunenfeld, H. and R. G. Varady. 1970. Performance Requirements

for Motorcycle Helmets. AIL, Deer Park, New York, 251 p.

263
90. Malaher, G. W. 1967. "Improper Use of Snow Vehicles for Hunting,"

Transactions, 32nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources

Conference,'Wildlife Management Institute, San Francisco, March

13-15. The Institute, Washington, D. C., p. 429-433.

91. Malo, John W. 1971. Snowmobiling: The Guide. Macmillan, New

York, 185 p.

92. Manning, R. 1973. "A Study of the Michigan Program of Private

Land Leasing for Snowmobile Use," in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings

'9. . cit., op. p. 176-182.

93. McCay, Roger and George Moeller. 1975. "Trail Talk." Report

on file at office of USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, 9 p.

94. McCool, S. F. 1974. "Off-Road Vehicles: Problems and Priorities." Utah Recreation and Tourism Review 3(3):1-3.

95. McCool, S. F. and J. W+ Roggenbuck. 1974. Off-Road Vehicles and

Public Lands: A Problem Analysis, Volumes 1 and 2. Department

of Forestry and Outdoor Recreation and Institute for the Study of

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, College of Natural Resources,

Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 63 p:and 109 p., respectively.

96. McCool, S. F., W. H. Becker, J. D. Hunt, R. M. Schreyer, and P. J.

Urness. 1975. "Little Sahara Recreation Area and Off-Road Vehicles : Problems, Priorities, and Promising Solutions." Unpublished contract research report funded through Utah State University Foundation, North Logan, Utah. Copies available from S. F.

McCool, College of Forestry, Utah State University, Logan, 63 p.

97. McLay, R. W. 1969. "Snowmobile Safety Committee Report," in USDI

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Proceedings, 1969 International

Snowmobile Conference, op. cit., p. 27-31.

98. Michael, M. J. 1973. "Research briefs: summary of a survey on

off road vehicles." Parks and Recreation 8(2):39-41.

99. Michalson, Edgar L. 1973. "Methodology for Determining the Economic Impact of ORV's," in Holecek, 1973 Proceedinns . . ., op.

cit., p. 120-129.

100. Mietz, James D. 1974; "Snowmobile Impact on Forest Vegetation

at Heiberg Forest, New York." Unpublished Master's thesis on

file at State University of New York, College of Environmental

Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York, 119 p.

101. Miller, Mead P. 1973. Motorcycle Park Planning and Management.

Motorcycle Industry Council, Washington, D.C., 24 p. -

264
102. Miller, Philip. 1970. "Case Study No. XVI; Off-Road Recreational

Vehicle Composite," ii Public Land Policy and the Environment,

Part II. Environmental Problems on the Public Lands. PB 196 170.

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,

103. Minnesota Department of Economic Developent. 1970. Proceedings,

1970 International Snowmobile Congress, Duluth, Minnesota. The

Department, St. Paul, Minnesota, 222 p.

104. Moeller, George H. 1971. The Landowner and the Snowmobiler--Problem

or Profit? U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper NE 206.

U, S. Department of Agriculture, Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, 15 p.

105. Muntz, E. P., T. L. Deglow; and D. H. Campbell. 1972. Public Lands

and Off-Road Motorized Recreation. Environmental Engineering

Programs Bulletin 100. School of Engineering, University of

SouThem California, Los Angeles, California; 18 p.

106. National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, and

Council of State Governments. 1973. "Proposed Law to Regulate

Off-Highway Traffic." The Committee(?) or Council(?), Washington,

D. C., 24 p.

107. Natfonal Research Council of Canada, Division of Physics. 1970.

Snowmobile Noise: Its Sources, Hazards and Control, APS-477,

Acoustics Section, Division. of Physics, National Research Council

of Canada, Ottawa, 36 p.

108. Newby, F. 1971. "Why Trails for Motorized Vehicles," in Proceedings,

National Symposium on Trails. U. S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Washington, D. C., p. 51-53.

109. Newmann, P. W., and H. Gray Merriam. 1972. "Ecological Effects

of Snowmobiles." Canadian Field - Naturalist 86:207-212.

110. Nicholi, A. M. 1970. "The Motorcycle Syndrome." American Journal

of Psychiatry 12601]:1588-1595.

111. Ontario Department of Tourism and Information. 1971. An Analysis

of Snowmobiling in Ontario, Winter 1969-1970. The Department,

Toronto, Canada, 111 p.

112. Opolka, Frank, et al. 1973. "Panel Discussion on ORV Policy and

Regulation on Public Lands," in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . .,

OF. Cit., F. 183-197.

113. Peine, J. 1969. "A Comparison of the Recreation Use Patterns of

the Tucson Jeep Club and Tucson Sandbuggy Association." Unpublished M.S. thesis on file at Department of Watershed Management,

University of Arizona, Tucson, 85 p.

265
114. Peine, John Douglas. 1972. "Land Management for Recreational Use

of Off-Road Vehicles." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation on file

at Department of Watershed Management, University of Arizona,

Tucson. 196 p.

115. Pendleton, John W. 1972. "Effects of Snowmobile Traffic on NonForest Vegetation." Progress Report, Cooperative Research,

Agronomy and Experimental Farms, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 25 p.

116. Pendleton, J. W., R. N. Walejko, W. H. Paulson, R. E. Rand, G. H.

Tenpas, and D. A. Schlough. 1972. Effects of Snowmobile Traffic

on Non-Forest Vegetation. Progress Report, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Cooperative Research, Agronomy and Experimental

Farms. The University, Madison, Wisconsin, 25 p.

117. Penny, J. R. 1971. "Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands in

California," in Chubb, 1971 Proceedings . . ., op. cit., p. 95-

110.

118. Percy, E. C. 1972. "The Snowmobile--Friend or Foe." Journal of

Trauma 12(5):444-446.

119. Petrie, B. M. "The Snowmobile and All-Terain Vehicle as a Generator

of Social Conflict in Canada: A Speculative Approach," in Proceedings of Conference on Snowmobiles and All Terrain Vehizs,

sponsored by Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario. The

Faculty, London,Ontario, Canada, p. 5-10.

120. Pleuther, R. L. 1969. A Critique on the Performance of Off-Road

Vehicles: Full Scale Test Results and Prediction Method Evaluation. Connell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc., Buffalo, New

York, 79 p.

121. Plumb, S. S. 1972. "An Analysis of Perceived Attitudes Toward

Environmental and Sociological Effects of the Recreational Use

of Off-Road Vehicles at the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge."

Unpublished M.S. thesis on file at The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 145 p.

122. Potter, Howard L. c. 1970. "Social and Political Impact," quoted

in U. S. Senate, 1971, Hearing . . ., op. cit., p. 64-65;

123. Power, J. A. and E. G. Schuster. 1975. Off-Road Vehicle Law in

Idaho: An ORV Planning Aid. Information Series #ll, College

of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences, University of Idaho.

The College, Moscow, Idaho, 65 p.

124. Poynor, R. E. and F. H. Bess. 1972. "Hearing Loss of Apparent

Sudden Onset Associated with Snowmobile Noise." MSHA (Michigan

Speech and Hearing Association?) Journal 8(.2):85-91.

266
125. Pnlitt, William 0. 1971. "Some Ecological Effects of Snowmobiles."

Brief presented to Winnipeg Council, January. Unpublished manuscript available from the author, Winnipeg, Canada, 4 p.

126. Rand, J. A. 1969. "Environmental Factors in Snowmobile Safety,

Committee Report," ,in U.S.D.I. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,

Proceedings, 1969 International Snowmobile Conference, op. cit.,

p. 36.

127. Richardson, H. A. 1974. A Motorcycle Safety Helmet Study. U. S.

Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Washington, D.C. 44 p.

128. Rickard, Warren E. Jr. and Jerry Brown. 1974. "Effects of Vehicles

on Arctic Tundra," Environmental Conservation 1(1):55-62.

129. Roggenbuck, J. W. and S. F.'McCool. 1974. "Some Behavioral Issues

in Providing Off-Road Recreation Vehicle Opportunities on Public

Lands," paper presented to the Natural Resources Section, Utah

Academy of Sciences, Brigham Young University. Available from

the authors, Institute for the Study of Outdoor Recreation and

Tourism, Utah State University, Logan, 15 p.

130. Schemnitz, Sanford D. and James L. Schortemeyer. 1973. "The

Impact of Halftracks and Airboats on the Florida Everglades

Environment,fl in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . ., op. cit.,

p. 86-117.

131. S&mid, W. D. 1971a. 'Modification of the Subnivean Microclimate

by Snowmobiles," in Proceedings of Snow and Ice Symposium. Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University, Ames,

Iowa, p. 251-257.

132. S&mid, William D. 1971b. 'Modification of the Subnivean Microclimate by Snowmobiles,M in U. S. Congress, Senate, 1971, Hearings

. . ., op. cit., p. 105-1x.

133. Schmid, William D. 1972. "Snowmobile Activity, Subnivean Microclimate and Winter Mortality of Small Mammals." Abstract of

paper presented at 1972 Meeting, American Institute of Biological

Scientists, University of Minnesota. Bulletin of the Ecological

Society of America 53(2):37.

134. Scholwin, Susie. 1971. Untitled testimony in U..S. Congress,Senate,

1971, Hearing . . ., op. cit., p. 49-68. -

135. Shute, Eldin. 1970. Welcoming Address to Third Annual International

Snowmobile Congress, Portland, Maine; quoted in U. S. Congress',

-Senat,e, 1971, Hearing . . ., op. cit., p. 59.-

136. Simard, Jacques. 1971. Untitled commentary in University of Western

Ontario, Faculty of Law, Proceedings . . .,op. cit., p. 216.

267
137. Smith, B. H. and L. P. Delner. 1969. "Fatal Motorcycle Accidents

of Military Personnel: A Study of 233 Cases." Military Medicine

134(13):1477-1487.

138. Snowmobile Safety and Certification Committee, Inc. 1974. Minimum Safety Standards for Snowmobile Product Manufacture. The

Committee, Arlington, Yirginia, 35 p.

139. Snowmobile Saftey and Certification Committee, Inc. 1975. Snowmobiler's Safety Handbook. The Committee, Arlington, Virginia, 38 p.

140. Soom, Andres, John G. Bollinger, and Orrin J. Rongstad. 1972.

"Studying the Effects of Snowmobile Noise on Wildlife," Internoise 72 Proceedings:236-241.

141. Stahl, M. and F. H. Bess. 1973. "The Snowmobiler and Noise,"

in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . ., op. cit., p. 157-167.

142. Stebbins, Robert C. 1974a. "Off-Road Vehicles and the Fragile

Desert." American Biology Teacher 36(,4):203-208, 220.

143. Stebbins, Robert C. 1974b. "Off-Road Vehicles and the Fragile

Desert." American Biology Teacher 36(5):294-304.

144. Stupay, Arthur M. 1971. "Growth of Powered Recreation Vehicles

in the 1970's," in Chubb, 1971 Proceedings . . ., op. cit.,

p. 14-18.

145. U. S. Congress. 1964a. An Act to Establish a National Wilderness

Preservation System . . ., Public Law 88-577. The Congress,

Washington, D. C., 7 p.

146. U. S. Congress. 1964b. An Act to Provide for Enforcement of Rules

and Regulations . . . of the'Nationa1 Forests . . ., Public Law

88-537. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.*C., 1 p.

147. U. S. Congress. 1972a. An Act to Control the Emission of Noise

Detrimental to the Human Environment, and for Other Purposes,

Public Law 92-574. The Congress, Washington, D. C., 16 p.

148; U. S. Congress, House of Representatives. 1972b. "8. R. 17158,

To Establish a National Policy Regarding Recreational Use of

Snowmobiles on Public Lands, to Provide for a Coordinated National

Snowmobile Safety Program, and for Other Related Purposes." The

Congress, Washington, D. C.

149. U. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation. 1971. Hearing on Snowmobiles and Other Off-Road Vehicles, May 21. U. S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 109 p.

268
150.

151.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

IJ. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

Subcommittee on Public Lands. 1974. Hearing on S. 63, a Bill

to Establish the Califronia Desert National Conservation Area.

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 532 p.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. Standard for Spark Arrestors

for Internal Combustion Engines. ER 1130-2-405. The Department,

Washington, D. C., 11 p.

U. S, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1973a. Final

Environmental Statement, Proposed Off-Road Vehicle Regulations

and Administrative Instructions. Issued March 14, 1973. The

Service (?), Washington, D. C., 13 p. + appendix.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1973b. 'TJse of

Off-Road Vehicles," Part 295 of Chapter II, Title 36. Federal

Register 185:26723-26724.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Regional

Office. 1974. Off-Road Vehicle Policy, Hoosier National Forest:

Final Environmental Statement. Eastern Regional Office of the

Service, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 181 p.

U. S. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers. 1974. "Summary

of Guidelines, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands."

Federal Register 39(21):383913840.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

1968. The California Desert: A Recreation Study of the Desert

Public Domain Lands of California under the Jurisdiction of the

Bureau of Land Management. Prepared by the California State

Office of the Bureau of Land Management and the Western Regional

Office of the National Park Service. The State Office, Sacramento, California, 377 p.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

1974a. "Off-Road Vehicles," Part 6250 and Part 6290 of Title

43. Federal Register 39(73):13613-13615.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

1974b. "Use of Off-Road Vehicles," Chapter II, Title 43. Federal

Register 39(73):13612-13613.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office. 1970a. Operation ORVAC: Recommendations

and Guidelines for the Management of Off-Road Vehicles on Public

Domain Lands in California. The Bureau, California State Office,

Sacramento, 40 p.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office. 1970b. The California Desert: A Critical

Environmental Challenge. California State Office, the Bureau,

Sacramento, California, 70 p.

269
161. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

California State Office. 1974. Final Environmental Impact

Statement: Proposed Barstow - Las Vegas Motorcycle Race. California State Office, The Bureau, Sacramento, unnumbered pages.

162. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office. 1975. "Major Rare Intaglio Destroyed on

Purpose," BLM Newsbeat August 1975, p. 7.

163. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Utah

State Office. Undated (1971). Unpublished memorandum, "Land

Report and Environmental Impact Statement (Stump Creek Wildlife

Habitat Area, Idaho]." Utah State Office of the Bureau, Salt

Lake City, 5 p.

164.. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

1972. "ORRV Facilitres and Legislation at the State Level."

Trends in Parks and Recreation 9(?):28-31.

165. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

and New York State Conservation Commission. 1969. Proceedings.

1969 International Snowmobile Conference sponsored by the Lake

Central and Northeast Regions of the Bureau, and the Commission.

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 77 p.

166. U. S. Department of the Interior, Task Force on Off-Road Vehicles.

1971. ORRY: Off Road Recreation Yehicles. U. S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 123 p.

167. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Public Hearings on

Noise Abatement and Control, Yol. 5: Agricultural and Recreational Use Noise, September 30--October 1. U. S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 234,)~.

168. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Summary of Noise

Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574). The Agency, Washington, D. C.,

9 P*

169. U. S. National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council. 1973.

Proceedings of the International Congress on Automotive Safety.

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 3 volumes.

170. U. S. National Transportation Safety Board, Bureau of Surface

Transportation Safety. 1972. Safety Aspects of Recreational

Vehicles. The Board, Washington, D. C., 38 p.

171. U. S. President (Richard Nixon). 1972. "Use of Off-Road Vehicles

on the Public Lands, Executive Order 11644."Federal Register

7(27):2877-2878.

172. U. S. Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission. 1972. Model Legislation: Off-Road Recreation Vehicles. The Commission, Duluth,

Minnesota (?), 71 p.

270
173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

180.

181.

182.

183.

184.

185.

University of..Westem..Ontario, Faculty of Law. 1971. Proceedings,

Conference on Snowmobiles and All-Terrain Vehicles sponsored by

the Faculty. The Faculty, London,'Ontario, 237 p.

Usher, Peter J. '1972. "Use of Snowmobiles for Trapping on Banks

Island." Arctic 25:170-181.

Vila, J. J. and P. Klopchic. 1971. "Ontario's 1970 Snowmobile

Study,!' in Chubb, 1971 Proceedings . . -., op. cit., p. 30-42.

Waddams, Stephen. 1971. Untitled presentation within Product Safety

Panel, in University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Law, Proceed- -

ings . . ., op. cit., p. 79-88, 96-98.

Walejko, R. N., J. W. Pendleton, G. Tenpas, R. Rand, and W. Paulson.

1972. "Effect of Snowmobile Traffic on Established Stands of

Nonforest Vegetation." Agronomy Abstracts 64:166.

Walejko, R. N., J. W. Pendleton, W. H. Paulson, R. E. Rand, G. H.

Tenpas, and D..A. Schlough. 1973. "Effect of Snowmobile Traffic

on Alfalfa;'" .Joumal of Sorl and Water Conservation 28(6):272-

273.

Wanek, Wallace J. 1971a. "Snowmobiling Impacts on Vegetation,

Temperatures, and Soil Microbes," in Chubb, 1971 Proceedings.. . .,

op. cit., p. 116-129.

Wanek, Wallace 3. 1971b. Untitled presentation within Environmental

Panel, in -Universfty of Western Ontario, op. cit., p. 111-117.

Wanek, Wallace J. 1972. A Continuing Study of the Ecological

Impact of Snowmobiling in Northern Minnesota. Final Research

Report for 1971-1972. Center for Environmental Studies, Banidji

State College, Banidji, Minnesota, 22 p.

Wanek, Wallace J. 1973a. A Continuing Study of the Ecological

Impact of Snowmobiling in Northern Minnesota: Final Research

Report for 1972-1973. Center for Environmental Studies, Bemidji

State College, Banidji, Minnesota, 41 p.

Wanek, Wallace J. 1973b. 'The Ecological Impact of Snowmobiling

in Northern Minnesota," in Holecek, 1973 Proceedings . . ., c

cit., p. 57-76.

Wanek, Wallace J. 1974. A Continuing Study of the Ecological

Impact of Snowmobiling in Northern Minnesota. Final Research

Report for 1973-1974. Center for Environmental Studies, Bemidji

State College, Bemidji, Minnesota, 54 p.

Whittaker, James C. and Dennis S. Wentworth. 1972. Snowmobile

Compaction and Forage Grass Yields in Maine. Miscellaneous

Report 143, Life Sciences and Agricultural Experiment Station,

University of Maine at Orono. The Station, Orono, 3 p.

271
186. Wilkins, Bruce T. and G. A. Hill. 1971. "A Study of Snowmobilers

in Central New York," in Chubb, Proceedings, 1971 Symposium . . .,

op. cit., p. 46-54. -

187. Winona, Inc. 1973. Motorized Recreation Buying Patterns: A

Profile of Recreational Vehicle Ownership and Buying Intentions.

Report prepared for Snowsports Publications, Inc. Winona, Inc.,

Minneapolis, Minnesota, 49 p.

188. Work, Arch and Gregory Pearson. Undocumented reference in Nelson,

Morlan. 1971. "Guflty Untrl Proven Innocent," articlFfrom

Snowmobiling, January 1971. Article inserted by Senator Bible

into U. S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular

Affairs, Subcommittee on Parks and 'Recreation. 1971. Hearing

on Snowmobrles . . ., op. cit., p. 33-36.

272
THE LITERATURE OF PLANNING AND MANAGING INTENSIVELY DEVELOPED

NATURALRESOURCE RECREATION SITES

Harold K. Cordel$

Abstract .--Literature applying to planning and managing

developed recreation sites has been classified by type of

decision to which it applies, by whether or not it is the result

of research, and by degree of applicability. This classification system is intended to assist managers and planners in assessing and applying knowledge contained in the literature. When

applied to 130 publications, the classification system revealed

that almost 50 percent of the literature deals with maintenance

problems and related information. Other areas apparently require

additional research attention.

Additional keywords: Forest recreation sites, site design, campgrounds, ,research utilization, research priorities, management

objectives.

Recent work by a task force which was asked to examine the problems and

priorities for research on problems related to recreational use of forest resources in the southern states, indicates that the physical and biological

impacts of use on developed sites is still a major concern of forest managers

and scientists.g A sample of 186 forest recreation managers and administrators and 40 forest recreation scientists in the southern states rated physical and biological impacts fourth among 22 problems identified as important.

This finding has particular significance when viewed in the light of recent

discouragement of research on this subject area by research administrators,

funding agencies, and some scientists. Perhaps a reevaluation of this apparent redirection of recreation research is needed.

It is highly likely that the above rating would be substantiated'in other

regions of the United States. Continued and often heavy use of the limited

number of developed forest recreation sites (primarily campgrounds) continues

to pose management problems which res.ult in high costs of maintenance and operation. Sure means for reducing these costs are yet to be found even though

a fairly large body of literature is available which deals with establishment

and maintenance of developed sites. One of the reasons for the persistence

of recreation use impacts as a major problem with developed site recreation

is the apparent absence of use of the available literature to any appreciable

extent.

L/ Assistant Professor of Recreation Economics and Coordinator of Recreation

Research, School of Forest Resources, North Carolina State Univeristy, Raleigh,

NC.

1/ Task Force Report: Forest Resources Research Needs for the Southern Region,

June, 1974.

273 I
The purposes of this paper are to provide sn overdew of the state of

the art and to develop a decision-making framework which should prove useful

in applying the published literature to developed-site establishment end

maintenance decisions. A beginning effort is presented at classieing the

literature, assembled through a rather comprehensive search, accordipg to

applicability to the various categories of decisions which planners and managers must make. There is the likelihood that some published reports have

been overlooked in the search process. However, over 200 publications have

been assembled and reviewed, and close to 130 of these were applicable to the

developed-site management problem.

VIEPUBLISHED STATE OFTHE AR&

Literature published on the subject of recreation site development and

management is quite extensive and in many cases relatively easy to obtain.

Yet there is little evidence to suggest that it is being used to any significant extent. Many reasons are likely for this, but the most obvious are

the lack of generality of the findings, lack of knowledge that the literature

exists, and absence of time or interest by planners snd managers for obtaining

and reading the published materisl.

James noted that many of the problems and decisions which managers face

are specific to a place masituation. At the same time, the research available through the literature is very specific. Much of it boils down to casehistory status. Lack of generality of published research findings means that

information is available on many fewer of the factors relevant to specific

decisions which managers must make. Therefore, while a particular study may

produce results very useful to management of a specific site, it can be of

limited or seemingly no use in other management situations.

But when viewed in its entirety, a wealth of information. is available

in the existing literature. It is unfortunate that it has never been synthesized with emphasis placed on the generality of the information contained.

James indicated that four basic subject areas have been reasonably well discussed. These include (1) soils and soils relationships; (2) site planning

e vegetation management; aa (4) policy, regulatory, aa

.

The state of knowledge with respect to soils and soils relationships is

at the highest level among the above four subject areas. Soils can now be

identified aa classified quite accurately. Relatively complete knowledge

exists concerning the suitableness of different soils for various forms and

intensities of recreational uses. A dominant reason for the problem of

21 This assessment of the state of the art is based in part on the paper entitled "Physical Site Management" prepared by George A. James for the Outdoor

Recreation Research Applications Workshop held by the USDA Forest Service at

Marquette, Michigan, June 19-21, 1973. Due to the recentness of this paper,

a repeat of evaluation of the published literature was unnecessary.

274
excessive recreation site wear end resultant costs has been the absence of

attention to soils. Soils surveys are far enough advanced that very direct

information is obtained from them to aid in site-selection, design, and

maintenance decisions.

A relatively large amount of literature also has been written which deals

with site planning and design. Much of this literature, however, represents

the sharing of specific individuals' experiences and/or philosophies and the

smaller proportion is based on specific research findings. The research which

has been done, however, whether descriptive or experimental, does rovide some

very good and often generalizable information. For example, Lime44 pointed

out that research has provided the following information:

a. placement of tables, fireplaces, wells, water hookups, etc., significantly affect site deterioration

b . the hardened surface of the residence space in a site must be large

enough to accommodate large tents, multiple tents or trailers, ma

the multitude of equipment which campers often bring

C. channeling pedestrian or vehicular traffic can substantially reduce

site deterioration.

Management of developed site vegetation also has received substantial

attention by recreation scientists and other writers. In addition to this,

considerable information is available from horticulturists and others. Studies

have focused on identification of "durable" vegetation; effects of uncontrolled

recreation use; fertilization, watering or other cultural treatments; reasons

for abuse of vegetation by recreationists; ma on replanting to replace dying

or dead vegetation. Proper selection and maintenance of vegetation in the

planning phase of recreation site development will eliminate or substantially

reduce some of the costly corrective maintenance that will likely be necessary

in the long run.

The evaluation of literature dealing with policy, regulatory and educational matters is somewhat less promising than literature applying to the other

subject areas. Some scattered research exists pertaining to the effects of

signing or other communication devises on behavior and site impact, but the

information generated is relatively scattered and lacks unity of purpose. But

the increasing emphasis,on behavioral research assures us that more is to come

and that the information to be provided will likely be more general than much

of the previous recreation research has been.

41 David L. Lime, "Locating and Designing Campgrounds to Provide a FuJl Range

of Camping Opportunities," in Outdoor Recreation Research: Applying the Results,

North Central Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report

NC-9, 1973.

275
The remainder of this paper is devoted primarily to development of a

means for reducing the cost of information retrieval from the literature alrea&y available. Realizing that perhaps the most valuable (and thus limiting)

resource that a planning or management decision-maker has is his time, it

becomes obvious that an easier way is needed for identifying the most relevant

literature for a particular problem. In the following pages, planning and

managing developed recreation sites is viewed in light of the decisions which

must be made. Furthermore, these decisions are viewed as criticalto the

process of establishing and operating developed sites to the extent that they

affect the total costs (current and future, direct ma indirect) of supplying

this type of recreation service. Minimizing the total costs encountered pursuant to accomplishing predetermined public-use objectives for developed recreation sites is identified as one of the dominant management goals.

A MANAGEMENT GOAL IS COST MINIMIZATION

Most of the emphasis in this paper is on the steps and decisions concerned

with recreation site development and maintenance after the public-use objective

has been defined. This does not, however, preclude consideration of alternative public use objectives as determinants of total development and operation

costs. It is evident that decisions which concern such things as amount, type,

and seasonality of public recreation use set the stage for all subsequent

decisions and options which the site planner and'manager msy consider.

Ultimately, the objective for which a site is developed and managed is

maximization of the total recreational benefit derivable from the opportunities being provided. This, of course, assumes that the total cost to society

of providing these opportunities will not exceed the value of the benefits.

In many cases, site planners and designers and management personnel become

involved with supply of developed-site recreation after the objective has

been defined. At this point, the objective is predetermined, and their focus

narrows to accomplishment of two basic, related goals:

(1) sustain the predetermined quality level of experience defined by

the objective

(2) minimize the cost of development, operation, and maintenance of

the recreation site.

It is the latter of these two goals to which managers usually give the

most recognizable attention and with which most of the literature on recreation site design, management, and maintenance has implicitly dealt.

Consideration in this paper of the step of setting or defining public

use objectives for developed recreation sites is not in the context of cost

minimization. Rather, definition of objectives is considered as it affects

the general level of costs to be involved and as it limites or restricts the

range of options which may be considered in decision-making relevant to

276
implementing objectives. All subsequent steps involved in the provision of

developed-site recreation services, however, are considered from the costminimization standpoint.

Development, operation and maintenance costs should be expressed on a

per-unit-of-use basis and as present value of all costs discounted over the

expected life of site use. Expression of cost in this manner, rather thsn

as a lump sum without regard to units of use, is necessary so that development and operation alternatives can be compared without confounding cost

values with the differential effect which these alternatives may have on

amount of participation.

Research and other, more general literature has rarely addressed cost

minimization as a developed-site management goal. This fact points drsmatically to the direction which future research in this problem area should

take. Costs must be explicitly recognized and measured, and the factors

which affect costs and the manner by which costs are affected must be identified. Existing literature has taken a much more indirect approach.

In developing the decision-making framework for developed-site management and in examining applicable literature, an effort is made to recognize

the important decisions necessary at each step of the site establishment/

development process and to recognize factors relevant to these decisions.

By so doing, it is possible to structure the literature according to applicability to decision-making aimed at minimizing the cost of achieving management objectives for developed site recreation.

THE PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING AND OPERATING DEVELOPED SITES

Including definition of the public use objective(s), there are four

basic steps involved in establishing and operating a developed site:

1 . Definition of public-use objective(s)

2 . Site development planning

3 . Site construction

4. Site operation and maintenance.

At each of these steps, a distinct set of decisions is necessary, each

requiring costly information describing a critical set of factors which affect

the outcome of a decision at its implementation. More specifically, the

factors at each decision "level" and the manner by which they are taken into

account determine the direct costs of implementing a decision concerning

either site development or operation. In addition, the accuracy, completeness,

and degree of utilization of available information affect the level of

secondary or indirect costs which can be of a long-term nature and which can

impact sreas or environments other than the developed site itself.

277
For example, a decision to locate a developed water site on moderately

steep slopes so that users can be near the shoreline will have a direct impact

on cost of coristruction (greater terrain modification necessary) and maintenance (increased foot wear on side slopes , greater use overall because of

nearness to water, snd more soil movement). This set of conditions also is

likely to result in secondary costs such as sedimentation in the lake and

muddying of the swimming beach. Furthermore, the condition of the site may

well deteriorate to a state that maintenance expenditures are no longer reasonable and abandonment of the site and development of a new one become necessary.

In the remainder of this section of the paper, steps in the process of

establishing and operating a developed recreation site in a natural setting

are considered from the standpoint of the decisions which must be made at

each step. The step of defining the public-use management objectives is

examined for its effects on the general level of costs and as it affects

subsequent decision-making. The remaining steps are discussed from the standpoint of current and future costs of site development and operation which result from choices among alternative courses of action directed toward implementation of defined objectives.

1Step

Involved with defining public use objectives are four cost-affecting

decisions:

a. Amount and type of use

b. Clientele to be served

c. Scale of development

a. "Naturalness" desired.

The first two decisions are closely related, yet they are distinct

enough to be given separate consideration. In the assessment of demand

for developed.-site recreation, information will have been generated indicating the amount of use and type of activities which the public is currently demanding. If reliable information is available,the decisions concerning which activities to provide, the relative emphasis on each, and the

WOunt of use to anticipate are evident. Under realistic conditioris, however, specific demand information is not available, and decisions must be

made with limited information on current demand and on expected future

changes in de-a.

Alternative decisions concerning either the activities for which the

site will be established or the relative amounts of use by each activity can

lead to widely different development aa maintenance costs. Misjudgments at

this step can lead to extreme under- or over-utilization of the site, or they

can lead to uses for which the site is not intended or designed. The cost

implications of such misjudgments can be quite serious, and definition of the

public recreation use objective of a site development project is a crucial

decision affecting all subsequent steps.

278
Clear recognition of the clientele to be served is equally important to

identifying the objective. Whether or not the primary clientele are transient,

extended-stay, or day users has an overriding influence on site location, scale

and intensiveness of development, maintenance schedules, and use seasons. Also )

whether the clientele is principally local or non-local has influence on usecontrol policies, fee structure, and site location.

Scale of development should also be a major consideration in defining the

objective and will affect the per-unit cost of development and operation/maintenance. One large site or several smaller ones are alternatives to be compared. Sites can purposely be made larger than currently needed so that expected future increases in utilization can be accommodated, or so that use

pressures can be distributed among different parts of the site at different

times.

Along with the above decisions, a clear statement in the objective of

degree of 'naturalness' in the environment to be created should be made.

Costs are directly related to this decision but generally in opposite directions depending on whether establishment or operation/maintenance costs are

the focus of attention. Establishment costs are, for the most part, inversely

related to naturalness in that much less site modification and facility emplacement are needed. Maintenance costs, however, are likely to be greater

if more natural appearance is desired. Heavy use of most sites takes a heavy

toll on their "naturalness," and many times frequent and very costly preventive as well as corrective maintenance measures are necessary.

In summary, the public-use objective of a developed site essentially

sets the stage for subsequent decisions, costs, and problems. Correct decisions at this step may make the greatest contribution toward cost minimization.

2Step

Decisions involved with planning site development are guided by the

public-use objectives, yet there are many options available at this step.

The specification of a plan has a very direct bearing on the costs of establishing the site and on all subsequent costs of operation and maintenance.

The general decisions which must be made include:

a. General site location

b . Specific location of site boundaries, units, and service

facilities .

c. Placement of facilities on individual units

d. Facilities design and materials selection

e. Species, size, and location of vegetative cover.

279
Decision-making at this step is complex and must be based on accurate

information concerning relevant factors and factor interactions.

Selection of general location affects costs because of its relationship

to expected levels and kinds of use, to competition with other lsnd uses,

and to other recreation opportunities or attractions in the geographic area.

Specific factors to consider include location of population centers and major

access routes, kind and intensity of surrounding land uses, climate and season lengths, location of unique attractions (scenic or historic), availability

of consumable water and space, and availability of resources to support offsite activities complementary to the on-site activities. Also to be considered

is availability of support services such as stores, sewage treatment, service

stations, and management personnel. All of these factors affect travel patterns of users; type and number of service facilities which must be provided;

and as stated previously, the level, type, and periodicity of use.

Upon selection of the general site location, the next decision involves

exact definition of the site boundaries and the arrangement and spacing of

the units and service facilities. Boundaries must be established consistent

with the public-use objective and with explicit consideration to internal

site characteristics are in turn a function of boundary placement. Soils,

slope, overstory and understory vegetation (age, composition, vigor, size),

leaf litter depth, elevations of various locations, and existence of unique

features all should be considered in boundary placement because of their

relevance to unit and facility arrangement and spacing. After boundary

establishment, or simultaneously with it, unit and facility placement must be

decided, and this will involve additional factors. Included should be local

drainage patterns, desired relationships among different anticipated recreational activities, availability of scenic view, desired llcommonW space,

ground water flows, and local wildlife populations. Each of these factors

will assume different importance depending on the objective(s). If it specifies a relatively natural environment, then considerable care must be exercised to preserve much of the ecological balance and biotic forms. If less

"naturalness" is desired, much less emphasis need be placed on location of

units and facilities to make them unobtrusive to the natural system functions.

More site modification and planned density will be acceptable in these cases.

Placement of individual unit facilities poses a different set of.questions and draws focus on the micro-site factors. The most recognized individual unit is the family camping unit. Facilities ususXLy involve a table,

parking space, hookups, and residence and utility space. Micro-site factors

affecting placement of these facilities include individual tree locations,

slope placement of surrounding units, rock outcroppings, location of internal

roads, sun/shade conditions, and drainage patterns. Other factors include

intended activity(ies) and clientele and proximity of the unit to support

facilities.

280
The fourth set of decisions concerns the design of the overall service

and individual unit facilities including specific attention to construction

materials. Design of these facilities gives them specific appearances, directs the wsy they are used, and determines how much wear or abuse will be

encountered. Selection of materials for construction has the same general

affect and determines the kind, frequency, and intensity of maintenance and/

or replacement that will be required. One of the basic trade-offs to be encountered in making these decisions involves the original cost of materials

and assembly and the cost of maintaining (cleaning and repairing) facilities

once they are in use.

Factors influencing desi@;n decisions should include the type, seasonality, and amount of use anticipated; the desired appearance of the site;

kind and level of "conveniences" to be provided; and the availability and

prices of materials. As is the case with all of the preceding,decisions,

factors indicated to be important cannot be considered independently but

must be considered simultaneously or in sets because of their inherent

interactions.

The final set of decisions relevant to planning site development covers

the species, age and size, aa location selections for vegetative cover on

and surrounding the site. Overstory cover (existing or introduced) for shade,

for production of soil organic matter, for aesthetic appearance, and for

screening of view where necessary is a very important component of the totd

site plan. Different species of different sizes present different appearances

and have different tolerances to recreation use and the consequences of that

use. Age is a determinant of expected longevity of the overstory and the

flowering- and fruit-bearing potential which is important to local wildlife

populations. The density of overstory cover aa its location not only affect

apperance and function of the site, but it also determines use patterns and

circulation.

Costs associated with understory vegetation (including ground-level

vegetation) depend on overstory conditions, species selection aa soil

conditions. Maintenance of ground cover vegetation can be eliminated by

introducing gravel or pavement coverings. But on some sites this would be

inconsistent with objectives. In these cases, selection of species, arrangement of facilities, and ,competition with other'understory and overstory

vegetation must be evaluated. Understory cover between 3 sxd lo-feet above

ground level provides screening between units and facilities. Where this is

desired, multifunctional species acting as wildlife food, flowering shrubs,

traffic barriers, and screens can be selected.

Decisions, as discussed above concerning the planning of intensiveuse recreation site development, involve a very large number of factors

related to geographic location, on-site characteristics, and intended function or use. Many planners and managers have developed skills through

practice which enable them to implicitly or explicitly evaluate these factors

281
and their interactions in the planning and design of the site to meet predetermined objectives. Others have either limited or no experience base upon

which to base their decisions, and these people will learn how to take proper

account of the important factors only by making very costly mistakes. But,

even though this group will learn by its mistakes, there will always be a new

group entering the professional ranks which must repeat the learning-by-doing

process.

Application of the site establishment and maintenance literature can

especially be of benefit to this latter group. But continued research emphasizing the full cost implications of site planning decisions will benefit both - -

groups. It is unlikely that even the most experienced professional can be aware

of the total cost consequences of the alternative courses of action he has

available to him. In this light, research directed toward developing establishment and operation cost functions for sites with various objectives and involving different conditions can be among the more practical and efficient research

which recreation scientists may accomplish.

3Step

At completion of the site development plan the planner/designer, with

inputs from management personnel, must supervise implementation of the plan

during the construction phase. Decision-making at this step basically involves

a. Sequencing of construction process

b . Technology, labor, and equipment selection and management.

Of all the steps in the site establishment and operation process, site

construction and associated costs seem to least fit the conception of a researchable problem. The principal reason for this is that msny of the factors which affect construction costs are exogenous to the decision-maker.

Available technology, prices, and supplies of materials; availability of

skilled and professional personnel; and many other factors are not directly

controllable by the planner/construction supervisor. This is especially true

if construction is accomplished through contract with an independent construction firm. In this case, even the sequencing of construction steps or phases

is partially exogenous.

Because of the general "non-researchableness" of the construction step

and the resultant costs and cost determining factors, little attention is or

even perhaps should be devoted to them in this paper. It is importsnt, however, to recognize that construction costs can be controlled and that decisions

at this step are very important. Most of the information to be used in making

construction-specific decisions of necessity will be of local relevance and

will consist mostly of the planner's knowledge of local market conditions and

materials' availability. More general information should relate to construction technology including data on new machinery and equipment. Although the

supply of this information is not a likely role for researchers, it should be

made widely available in the form of published documents or other means.

282
Step 4

Operation and maintenance is the final step in the overall process of

providing developed-site recreation opportunities. Like Step 2, which involved planning the site development, there are crucial decisions at this

step which have both short-run and long-run cost consequences. The basic

decisions include:

1 . Policies and control techniques affecting use

2 . Maintenance practices

3. Public relations activities

4. Selection and supervision of management personnel.

Policies defined and techniques used to control the way developed sites

are used must be synchronized with the decisions made concerning site development. Even the best site plans can be practically nullified if they are not

followed with use control techniques administered according to use management

policies consistent with the site objectives. Site selection and design will

act to direct patterns, types, and intensities of use, but "planned" recreationists' behavior can be substantially modified by use control or management

policies and techniques which are inconsistent with the objectives.

For example, many campgrounds are designed for family camping use and

are located so as to be accessible to family campers. But these sites may

be attractive also to E-family groups whose actions and behavior may greatly

conflict with family campers. Such groups can create noise and other undesirable situations which eventually may result in little use of the site by families and in use patterns which seriously impact the site and alter its appearance. Site design and location must be complemented in these situations

with adequate policies and techniques which assure achievement of the publicuse objectives.

Some of the considerations important in implementing use control include

length and timing of season, permitted off-season use, and allowed length of

stay by individual parties. Decisions involving these factors may substantially

alter the maintenance and operation costs. Other important factors are the

fee level, visibility of official personnel, strictness of rules enforcement,

and registration procedure or requirement. These affect amount, timing, and

types of use and behavior. Because the bodily presence of the recreationists

themselves is only a portion of the cause of site impact and resultant costs,

the way vehicles and equipment are used must also be considered. Parking of

vehicles, use of secondary vehicles such as minibikes, and use of camping

equipment (lanterns, tent floors, axes) can especially impact the health and

appearance of overstory and understory vegetation and can dramatically alter

soil structure and composition.

283
The second set of decisions in the operation phase of developed-site

recreation involves maintenance practices. The manner and intensity by which

maintenance is carried out represent costs in themselves. It could be argued

that the most effective way to minimize site operation costs is to minimize

maintenance expenditures. In fact, this approach seems to be a reality among

some management interests. But lack of adequate and timely maintenance may

create many more problems and costs than it saves. Site managers have found

in most cases that maintenance, .following the,philosophy that 'a stitch in

time saves nine," is the most effective approach. Maintenance activities

including watering and fertilization of vegetation, Soil cultivation,' overstory density control, mulching, facilities servicing and repair, and others

have a direct impact on a developed site's "health." Maintenance can include

vegetation replacement or relocation of facilities to reduce accumulated site

wear, Maintenance activity, of course, depends on budget, equipment and

personnel availability, but it also depends on the expertise of the site

manager(s).

Activities aimed at projecting a particular image of the agency or site

or at creating good rapport with clientele and others also may affect operating

costs to a very large degree. Signing, advertising (promoting), interpretation programs, and general visitor information services represent means for

communicating with users and the local population. What is or is not communicated sets the stage for the kind of use and users and the attitude or knowledgeability persons have of the effects humans can have on a natural environment. This seems particularly true where vandalism is a problem, and in many

cases good rapport with local residents seems directly related to absence of

a vandalism problem. The personal appearance and attitude of agency representatives who work on the site may be one of the more important factors deciding agency image and rapport.

In this and other respects, selection and supervision of management personnel is extremely important. An effective site operation/management job

must depend on the education, in-service training, experience, and other qualities of personnel. Research has done relatively little in this area or in

evaluating the effectiveness of supervision. Certainly the amount and kind

of supervision given to management personnel is going to affect the level and

quality of operation activities and is thus an important determinant of the

cost of supplying developed-site recreation opportunity.

APPLICATION OF LITERATURE TO DECISION-MAKING

As a stimulus for its application in arriving at planning and management

decisions as discussed in the preceding section, published reports reviewed

for this paper have been classified by the step and decision set in site

establishment and management to which each applies. These steps and decisions

are reviewed below in model form (fig. 1). In some cases, information contained in an article applies to more than one of the steps or decisions. These

are listed in more than one place. Literature entries have also been classified on the basis of directness of application, of being a report of research

results, snd of being an application of general knowledge or philosophy.

284
STEPS IN ESTABLISHING

AND OPERATING SITES

1. DEFINE PUBLICUSE OEJJEC,,,iS)~;~

2 .

J/ /r:

PLAN SITE DEVELOPMENT C .

a.

e .

&

3. SITE CONSTRUCTION

E

a .

4. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Figure 1. --Model of decision-making for

recreation sites.

MAJOR COST-AFFECTING

DECISIONS AT EACH STEP

Amount ma type of use

Clientele to be served

Scale of development

Naturalness desired

Gdneral site location

Specific location of site boundaries,

units, aa service facilities

Placement of facilities on individual

units

Facilities design and materials

selection

Species, size, malocation of vegetative cover

Sequencing of construction process

Technology, labor, and equipment

selection aa management

Policies and control techniques

affecting use

Maintenance practices

Public relations activities

Selection ma supervision of

management personnel

establishing and operating developed

285
In the model in fig. 1, steps in establishing and operating sites developed for recreation are numbered as are the cost-affecting decisions (sets)

within each step, which are given letter codes. These codes are repeated in

succeeding table 1.

In table 1, the right-most column'shows the code and description of each

decision set except for the decisions involving the construction step of the

site development process. This step is not considered for literature classification because of its general non-applicability as a research problem and

because of the almost total lack of relevant literature.

Numbers within columns 2, 3, and 4 indicate the numbered order of individual literature entries in the "Listing of Reviewed Literature." Articles

are arranged alphabetically, and the last line of each entry in the "Listing"

provides information on general source of the information contained as well

as the step/decision codes shown in the "Model of Decision-Msking." The

information source is shown by the first two or four letters in the last line

of the entry and refer to the fbllowing codes:

RD = Descriptive Research, a report dealing with data collected to

describe a problem or situation

RS = Solution-Oriented Research, a report describing a study of means to

solve a site development or operation problem

AG = &plication of General technical or experience-based knowledge to

developed recreation site management Qr planning

PD = Problem Definition, a discussion or exposition of a development or

operation-related problem

UP = user Preferences, an examination of the preferences of users of

developed recreation sites

FU4 = Research Methods, a description or evaluation of a technique or

tool for collecting data relevant to developed site establishment

or operation

0 = Other literature.

The table of literature classification is intended for use by instructors

and extension personnel and. by planners and managers who are seeking answers

or ideas concerning a particular decision within the site development and

operation process. It must be emphasized that this is not a complete listing

of literature but is a listing of the most available literature. State aocuments, unpublished reports, theses and dissertations, and some other sources

of literature will be examined for inclusion as this work advances. No attempt

is made either to provide a comprehensive inventory of literature relevant to

defining public-use objectives. As stated at the beginning, this particular

step is considered to be beyond the scope of this paper. It is included in the

classification table, however, because some of the literature applicable to

site planning and operation also applies to definition of objectives.

286
Table 1 .--Classification 0

applicability t

literature bv degree of

Steps and Directly applicable Secondarily applicable

decision sets literature literature

1. Define Public-Use

Objectives

a. Amountandtype

of use

(1.a)

b. Clientele to be

served

(1-b)

c. Scale of development

(1.c)

d. Naturalness desired

La)

2. Plan Site Development

a. General site

location

(2.a)

b. Specific location of

site boundaries,

units, aa service

facilities

(2.b)

c. Placement of facilities on individual

units

(2,c)

(Research) (Nonresearch)

,5 121

122

5

66

130

5

2 7

6"

70

9 1

42

I21

21

2 5

85

98

114

15 I24 10 128

18 130 2 2

206 3 ;z

69 110

8 2 5

1 8 65

/ 20 63 94

I2 292 125

30

38 6 4

42 9 2

4 7 113

h0

36

4 7

n7

14

4 1

9 49 108 122

1 2 6 4 I.U 125

43: 93 66 113 116 129

1 8 49 96 130

2 8 60 111

44 65 u-5

8 91 66 128 124

7 38 54 6 8 84 loo

1 3 4 1 55 75 9 3 104

2 3 46 60 7 8 95 107

2 8 52 6 2 81 g-f 108

36 5 3 65 82 g8

5 2 2 82 110

7 52 83 126

10 53 100

1 3 78 107

287
Table l.--(continued)

‘“.I

(2.d)

1 (Research) (Nonresearch)

1 4 4

2 5

127

e. Species, size, and

location of vegetative cover

(2.e)

3 24 104

18 50 63 73 126

19 51 75 95

20 52 79 99

100

105

120

3. Site Construction

4. Operation and

Maintenance

a. Policies and

control techniques

affecting use

(4.4

b. Maintenance

practices

(4.b)

c. Public relations

activities

(4.c)

a. Selection aa

supervision of

management

personnel

(4.d

Not Not

Applicable Applicable

-~

1 4

16 697

37 102

5 8 115

780'

125

122

6 18 46

719 61

8 32 79

17 37 105

4 35 73 99

22 40 78 102

25 53 87 104

31 72 88 126

127

71 89

123

2 6

2

1 8

9 3

116

9 56 102

ll 61 107

E iii 118 ll"

5 3 88 123

55 96

Not

Applicable

4 62

13 64

29 84

38 96

42 107

48 113

53 117

2 23 52 6g 81 103 ~8

3 29 54 74 82 106 120

10 33 56 75 90 110 128

13 34 57 76 95 112

15 39 68 77101115

4 4g 66 107 125

6 58 67 113

16 62 82 u5

47 64 83 122

YNumbers within this table refer to the numbered articles in the References

section.

288
In reviewing literature related to a psrticular decision problem, it is

suggested that articles classified as "directly applicable" be sought first.

In addition, the directly applicable literature is subdivided into "research"

and "non-research" categories. It is suggested that the research literature

be given higher priority than the non-research literature. Useful information and ideas are contained in all the listed articles, however, and secondarily-applicable literature should be given attention also.

FURTHER F@ZXARCH AND LITEUTURE APPLICATION WORK NEEDED

A very large amount of information is contained in the many published

works which deal with recreation site development and OperatiOII. Classifying

existing literature according to specific decision sets should promote more

use of the information within. But at the same time it points out gaps or

voids where little has been written and especially where researchers have not

ventured. The table of classification shown on preceding pages indicates that

most of the attention has been given to maintenance practices or methods.

Almost 50 percent of all the published articles reviewed for this paper, and

more specifically 20 percent of the research articles, deal with maintenancerelated problems and related information. Next greatest attention (about 30

percent of the articles) is on the location of site boundaries, units, and

service facilities. The third-ranking decision set concerns species, size

and location of on-site vegetative cover.

Measured in terms of percentage of research articles, however, a different

picture is presented in that almost one-fourth of the published research results deals with on-site vegetation. The biological-educational background of

many of the recreation scientists (especially during the 1960's) explains much

of this emphasis. Notably lacking in the literature is research emphasis on

decisions involving (1) genera site location, (2) placement or arrangement

of facilities on individual user units within the site, (3) design and materials

selection for site facilities, (4) policies and control techniques affecting

amount, type, and periodicity of recreation use, (5) the effectiveness and

impact of public relations activities, and (6) selection and supervision of

management personnel.

Future research dealing with developed sites should give explicit recognition to the cost implications of alternative courses of action in the establishment and operation process and particularly to the six areas listed above.

Given a predetermined budget and objective, planners and managers need information directly relevant to minimizing the cost of providing developed site opportunity so that maximum output can be realized for each dollar of expenditure.

Development of explicit cost functions are thus called for. A serious limitation on this research has been the availability of cost data. But the impact

of this limitation can be reduced by greater efforts and willingness on the

part of planners and managers to keep detailed cost data through improved cost

accounting procedures. Therefore, the research needed concerns development

of comprehensive cost functions which will enable better prediction of the

consequences of alternative courses of action and better evaluation of their

289
effectiveness. Research administrators and funding agencies should discourage

further attempts to describe the problem. Descriptive studies have already

adequately exposed its seriousness. Our emphasis needs to be on solutionoriented research and particularly on studies which examine the costs of

alternative solutions.

Further encouragement of application of existing literature is also

needed. A great deal of knowledge implicitly addressing the' costs and benefits of alternative courses of developmental and operational actions is already

available. But a more effective system for disseminating this information is

required if it is to be utilized. The next step of the classification process

started here should be to examine what the literature has to offer concerning

specific information needed for making "goodn judgments concerning each of the

decisions earlier identified. Planned work in this area will involve classification with respect to decision application of each finding, conclusion, or

implication in available reports (published and unpublished) as they relate

specifically to a needed bit of information. Automatic data processing will

be required for such a system, and this will enable rapid retrieval of information in response to a quite specific request.

Such a system may have its greatest impact on future research because it

will focus attention on what we do not know as well as on what we do know. I t

will also encourage much more specific research rather than general research

which addresses no specific problem. Many of the papers reviewed had application to three or four different categories of decisions, and as a result the

information was usually incomplete for any one category. More specifically

focused research and research reports should greatly enhance their use and

applicability.

LISTING OF REVIEWED LITERAI'U R?i?

1 . .Badaracco, Robert J. 1974. A guide to literature retrieval in outdoor

recreation. Coil. of Forest, Wildlife and Range Sci., Univ. of Idaho,

Moscow, Id.

(0)

2 . Barton, Michael A. 1969. Water pollution in remote recreational areas. J.

of Soil and Water Conserv. 24(4):132-134.

(PD--2.d.2/4.b.2)

2/The'letter and number coding below each cited publication refers to the

literature categories and level of decision within the '%lodel of DecisionMaking". For example, the coding below article number 2 by Barton is (PD--

2.d.2/4.b.2). PD refers to the "Problem Definition" category and 2.d.2 and

4.b.2 refer to decisions 2.d and 4.b in the Model. The 2 at the end of each

of these codes refers to the level of applicability of the literature. A 1

indicates direct applicability and a 2 indicates indirect or secondary

applicability.

290
3.

4.

5 .

6.

7.

8.

9 .

10.

11.

12.

13.

Bates, G. H. 1935. The vegetation of footpaths, sidewalks, cart-tracks and

gateways. J. of Ecol. 23: 470-487.

(RD--2.e.l/h.b.2)

Beard, Daniel B. 1965. Meeting park maintenance problems. Park Practice

Guideline, May:55-59.

(AG-2.d.l/i!.a.2/4.b.1/4.c.2)

Beardsley, Wendell. 1967. Cost implications of camper and campground

characteristics in central Colorado. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Note RM-86.

Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Cola.

(RS--l.a.l/l.b.l/2.a.1/2.c.2)

9 and Herrington, Roscoe B. 1971. Economics and management

implications of campground irrigation--a case study. USDA Forest Serv.

Res. Note INT-129.Intermountain For. and Range Eq. Stn., Ogden, Ut.

(RS--4.b.l/b.c.2)

and Wagar, J. Alan. 1974. How to rehabilitate a

heavily Led campgro&d without stopping visitor use. J. of For. 72:

27g-281.

(RS--2.b.2/2.c.2/4.b.l)

, and Wagar, J. Alan. 1971. Vegetation management on a forested

recreation site. J. of For. 69(10):728-731.

(RS--2.c.l/2.e.2/4.b.l)

Bevins, Malcolm I., 1971. Campground planning for the 1970's. Park Practice

Trends 8:21-24.

(AG--l.d.2/4.a.l)

Bohart, Charles V. 1968. Good recreation area design helps prevent site

deterioration. J. of Soil and Water Cons. 23(1):21-22.

(AC--2.b.l/2.c.2/4.b.2)

Bonnor, G. M. 1967. Estimation of ground canopy density from ground

measurements. J. of For. 65:544-547.

(RM--2.e.2)

Brewer, Durward,and Gillespie, Glenn A. 1967. Estimating satisfaction

levels of outdoor recreationists. J. of Soil and Water Cons. 22:248-249.

(AG-l.a.2/1.d.2)

Burden, R. F., and Rsnderson, P. F. 1972. Quantitative studies of the

effects of human trampling on vegetation as an aid to the management of

Semi-natural areas. J. of Appl. Ecol. 9(2):439-457.

(RD--2.b.2/2.c.2/2.e.2/4.a.2/4.b.2)
14. Campground and RV Park Management. 1972 * Campers polled on parks. July

issue.

(RD, UP--1.c.2/2.&1/4.a.l)

15. Cieslinski, Thomas J., and Wagar, J. Alan. 1970. Predicting the durability

of forest recreation sites in northern Utah--preliminary results. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Note INT-ll7. Intermountain For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden,

ut.

(RS--2.b.l/b.b.2)

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Clark, Roger N., Hendee, John C., and Campbell, Frederick L. 1971. Depreciative behavior .in forest campgrounds: an exploratory study. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Note ~~~-161. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Seattle, Wash.

(RD--4.a.l/b.c.2)

Cordell, Harold K., and Talhelm, Daniel R. 1969 l Planting grass appears

impractical for improving deteriorated recreation sites. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Note SE-105. Southeastern For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N. C.

(RS--4.b.l)

, and Sykes, Clinton K. 1969. User preferences for developed-site

camping. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-122. Southeastern For. Exp. Stn.,

Asheville, N. C.

(RD, UP--2.a.2/2.b.l/2.c.l/2.d.2/2.e.l)

, and James, George A. 1971. Supplementing vegetation on southern

Appalachian recreation sites with small trees and shrubs. J. of Soil and

Water Cons. 26: 235-238.

(RS--2.e.l/b.b.l)

, SJ-ld . 1972 * Visitors' preferences for certain physical

characteristics of developed campsites. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-100.

Southeastern For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N. C.

(UP, RS--2.b.1/2.c.1/2.e.l)

Cressman, D. R., and Hoffman, D. W. 1967. Classifying land for recreation.

Soil Cons. Sot. of Amer. Proc. Guelph, Ontario: Dept. of Soil Sci., Univ.

of Guelph, p. 197-200.

(AG--2.a.l)

Densmore, Jack, and Dshlstrand, Nils P. 1965. Erosion control on recreation '

land. J. of Soil and tiater Cons. 20: 261-262.

(AG-2.b.l/2.c.2/4.b.l)

Dotzenko, A. D., Papdchos, N. T., and Romine, D. S. 1967. Effect of recreational use on soil and moisture conditions in Rocky Mountain National Park.

J. of Soil and Water Cons. 22:196-197.

(RD--2.b.2/4.b.2)

292
24. Douglas, Donald S. 1965. Conservation plants for new land uses. Soil Cons.

August: 3-5.

(AG-2.e.l)

25. Duncan, D. P. 1963. How to avoid picnic area deterioration. Park Practice

Guideline, Nov.:67-71.

(AG-2.a.l/2.b.l/2.c.1/2.d.1/4.b.l)

26. 1971. Managing the forest environment: role of the professional.

J. of For. 69(1):8-u.

(AG-4.d.l)

27. Dyer, A. Allen, and Whaley, R. S. xX3. Predicting use of recreation sites.

Utah Ag. Exp. Stn. Bull. 477. Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.

(RS--2.a.l)

28. . 1969. Recreation site selection: a conceptual approach. Inst.

for the Study of Outdoor Rec. and Tour., Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.

(AG-2.a.2/2.b.2)

29. Echelberger, Herbert E. 1971. Vegetativeihauges at Adirondack Campgrounds

1964 to 1969. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note NE-142. Northeastern For. Exp.

Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

(RD--2.e.l/4.a.2/4.b.2)

30. Fisher, Anthony C.,and Krutilla, John V. 1972. Determination of optimal

capacity of resource-based recreation facilities. Nat. Res. J. July:

417-444.

(AG--1ia.2)

31. Forest Farmers Association. 1968. Insects attacking forest trees in the

South. For. Farm. 27:36-51.

(AG--4.b.l)

32. Frissell, Sidney S., Jr., and Duncan, Donald P. 1965. Campsite preference

and deterioration in the Quetico-Superior canoe country. J. of For. 63:

256-260.

(RD--2.a.1/4.b.l)

33. Garrison, George A. 1949. Uses and modifications for the "moosehorn" crown

closure estimator. J. of For. 47:733-735.

(RM--4.b.2)

34. Getz, Lowell L. 1968. A method for measuring light intensity under dense

vegetation. Ecology 49(6):1168-fi69.

(RM--4.b.2)

293
35. Gibbs, L. C. 1962. Fertilizing ornamental shrubs and small trees. Park

Practice Guideline 12-1:49-50.

(AG-4.b.l)

36. Gift, Robert F., and Muench, John. 1965 q Factors which might affect the

establishment of standardized campgrounds. (Unpublished report from Univ.

of Penn.)

(UP--l.b.2/1.&2/2.b.P)

37. Gilbert, C. Gorman, Peterson, G. L., and Lime, D. W. 1972. Toward a model

of travel behavior in the boundary waters canoe area. Env. and Behav. 4(2):

131-157.

(RS--2.a.l/2.b.2/4.a.1/4.b.l)

38. Hammon, Gordon A., Cordell, Harold K. et al. 1974. Capacity of water-based

recreation systems--Part II: a systems approach to capacity analysis.

Water Resources Res. Inst. of the Univ. of N. C., Raleigh, N. C.

(AG-l.a.2/2.b.2/4.a.2)

39. Hansen, Henry L. 1967. Ecological and silvicultural research on forest

recreational areas. Minnesota Sci. 23(3):42-43.

(AG--4.b.2)

40. Harper, John C., II. 1964. Turfgrass fertilization of park areas. Park

Practice Guideline, June:41-44.

(AG--4.b.l)

41. Held, R. Burnell. 1969. A study to develop practical techniques for determining the carrying capacity of natural areas in the national park system.

Colo. State Univ., Center for Res. and Educ., Fort Collins, Cola.

(RS--l.c.2/2.b.2/2.e.2)

42. Hendee, John C., and Campbell, Frederick L. 1969. Social aspects of outdoor

recreation--the developed campground. Trends, October:l3-16.

(PD--l.a.2/l.a.l/k.a.2)

43. . 1970. Recreational values, use ma management of natural areas.

1970 Symp. Proc. of the Northwest Sci. Assoc.

(o--1.a.2)

44. and Stankey, George H. 1973. Biocentricity in wilderness management. Bioscience 23:535-538.

(O--2.a.2)

45. Herrington, Roscoe B., and Tocher, S. Ross. 1967. Aerial photo techniques

for a recreation inventory of mountain lakes and streams. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. INT-37. Intermountain For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Ut.

(AG-2.a.2)

294
46. , and Beardsley, Wendell G. 1970. Improvement andmaintenance of

campground vegetation in central Idaho. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-87.

Intermountain For. and Range Eq. Stn., Ogden, Ut.

(RS--2.b.2/4.b.l)

47. Hopkins, Walter S. 1965. Outdoor recreation on small woodlands. USDA For.

Serv., Wash., D. C.

(AG--l.a.2/l.b.2/4.c.2)

48. Houston, Douglas B. 1971. Ecosystems of national parks. Science 172:648-651.

(PD--2.a.2/4.a.2)

49. Hutchinson, S. Blair. 1962. Recreation opportunities and problems in the

national forests of the northern snd intermountain regions. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. 66. Inter-mountain For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Ut.

(PD--l.a.2/l.d.2/2.a.2/4.c.2)

50. James, George A., and Cordell, Harold K. 1970. Importance of shading to

visitors selecting a campsite at Indian Boundary Campground in Tennessee.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-130. Southeastern For. Exp. Stn., Asheville,

N. C.

(RD--l.d.l/2.e.l)

51. , and Cottrell, Richard L. 1968. To cut or not to cut.. J. of

For. 66:57-59.

(RM--2.e.l)

52. , and Ripley, Thomas H. 1963. Overuse: a threat to our developed

recreation areas. Amer. Rec. J. 4:5-6.

(RD--2.b.2/2.c.2/2.e.1/4.b.2)

53. . 1973. Physical site management. 2 Outdoor Recreation Research:

applying the results. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-g. North Central

For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

(AG-2.b.2/2.c.2/2.e.2/4.a.2/4.b.l)

54. Jemison, George M. 1966. Impacts of recreation on the ecology of temperate

North American forests. Paper presented at the IUCN 10th Technical Meeting,

Lucerne.

(PD--2.b.2/4.b.2)

55. LaPage, Wilbur F. 1962. Recreation and the forest site. J. of For. 60:

319-321.

(RD--2.b.2/2.e.2)

56. . 1964. Under the camper's feet. Amer. Rec. J., p. 103-104.

'(RD--2.e.2/4.b.2)

295
57. . 1967. Some observations on campground trampling and ground

cover response. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-68. Northeastern For. Exp.

Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

(RD--2.e.1/4.b.2)

I

58. . 1968. The role of fees in campers' decisions. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. NE-118. Northeastern For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

(RD--4.a.1/4.c.2)

59. . 1970. The mythology of outdoor

man 221:118-121.

(O--1.a.2)

60. Leopold, Luna B., Clarke, Frank E., Hanshaw, Bruce B., and Balsley, James R.

recreation planning. So. Lumber1971. Procedure for evaluating environmental impact. US Geologicsl Survey

Circular 645, Wash., D. C.

(AG--2.a.2/2.b.2)

61. Lightle, Paul C., and Hawksworth, Frank G. 1973. Control of dwarf mistletoe

in a heavily used ponderosa pine recreation forest: Grand Canyon, Arizona.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. ~~-106. Rocky Mountain For. and Range Exp. Stn.,

Fort Collins, Colo.

(PS--2.e.2/4.b.l)

62. Lime, David W., and Stankey, George H. 1971. Carrying capacity: maintaining

outdoor recreation.quality. In Recreation Symposium Proc., p. 174-184.

Northeastern For. Exp. Stn., USDA For. Serv.

(AG-l.a.2/2.b.2/4.a.2/4.c.2)

63. . 1971. Factors influencing campground use in the Superior National

Forest of Minnesota. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-60. North Central For.

Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

(RS--2.a.l/2.b.l/2.c.1/2.d.1/2.e.l)

64. . 1972. Large groups in the boundary waters canoe area--their

numbers, characteristics, and impact. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note NC-142.

North Central For. Exp. Stn. St. Paul, Minn.

(RD--l.a.2/l.d.2/4.a.2/4.c.2)

65. . 1973. Locating and designing campgrounds to provide a full

range of camping opportunities. In Outdoor Recreation Research: Applying

the Results. USDA For. Serv. GenTTech. Rep. NC-g. North Central For. Exp.

Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

(AG--2.a.2/2.b.2/2.c.l)

66. Lucas, Robert C. 1970. User evaluation of campgrounds on two Michigan

national forests. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-44. North Central For. Exp.

stn., St. Paul, Minn.

(RD, UP--1.c.l/l..d.2/2.a.2/4.c.2)

296
67. , end Hendee, John C. 1973. Mandatory wilderness permits: a

necessary management tool. J. of For. 71.

(O--4.a.1/4.c.2)

68. Lull, Howard w. 1959. Soil compaction on forest and range lands. UqA

For. Serv. Misc. Pub. No. 768. Wash., D. C.

(AG-2.,b.2/4.b.2)

69. Lutz, H. J. 1945. Soil conditions of picnic grounds in public forest parks.

J. of For. 43:121-Z/.

(RD--2.b.1/4.b.2)

70. McCool, Stephen F., Merriam, Lawrence C., Jr., Cushwa, Charles T. 1969.

The condition of wilderness campsites in the boundary waters canoe area.

School of For., Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn.

(RD, PD-2.a.l)

71. McCUrQ, Dwight R. 1970. Recreationists' attitudes toward user fees:

management implications. J. of For. 68:645-646.

(UP, RD-4.a.1/4.c.l)

72. McIntyre, Arthur C. 1950. Woodchips for "overgrazed" recreational areas.

J. of For. 48(10).

(AG-4.b.l)

73. Medison, John. 1971. Turf management interactions. Parks and Rec. 6:32-35.

(AG-2.e.1/4.b.l)

74. Megiu., Arthur W. 1963. Evaluating ecological trends on campgrounds. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Note PSW-N16. Pac. Southwest For. end Range Exp. Stn.,

Berkeley, Calif.

(RD-4.b.2)

75. , end Nod, Eamor C. 1963. An evaluation of campground conditions

snd needs for research. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PSW-4. Pac. Southwest

For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

(RD--2.b.2/2.e.1/4.b.2)

76. , end Twiss, R. II. 1965. A guide for recording esthetic and

biologic changes with photographs. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PSW-77.

Pac. Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

(RM--4.b.2)

77. , and Leiser, Andrew T. 1967. New help for worn out campgrounds.

USDA For. Serv. Pac. Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

(RS--2.e.2/4.b.2)

297
78. . 1970. Five California campgroundsconditions improve after 5

years ’ recreationsl use. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-62. Pac. Southwest

For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

(RD--2.b.2/2.c.2/4.b.l)

79. , and Leiser, Andrew T. 1972. Growing plants on view landscapes

and recreation areas. Guideline 2:57-61.

(RS--2.e.1/4.b.l)

80. Manthy, Robert S., and Tucker, Thomas L. 1972. Supply costs for public

forest land recreation. Ag. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 158. Michigan State

Univ., East Lansing, Mich.

(RD--4.a.l)

81. Merriam, L. C, Jr., Goeckerman, Kent, Bloemendal, J. A., and Costello, T. M.

1971. A progress report on the condition of newly established campsites in

the boundary waters canoe area. Univ. of Minnesota For. Res. Note No. 232.

College of Forestry, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn.

(RD--2.b.2/4.b.2)

82. , Smith, C. K., et al. 1973. Newly developed campsites in the

boundary waters canoe area. Ag. Exp. Stn., Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul,

Minn.

83. , Mills, A. S., Ramsey, C. E., West, P. C., Brown, T. L., and Wald,

K. D. 1973. The camper in Minnesota state parks and forests--some insights

on use and management from a five-year study. Ag. Exp. Stn. Bull. 510 -

For. Ser. 12. Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn.

(RD, UP--l.c.2/l.d.l/4.c.2)

84. Michaud, Howard H. 1966. Ecological impact and patterns of use of American

forest recreation areas. Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Ind.

(AG-2.b.2/4.a.2)

85. Montville, F. E. 1964. Campground development. Maine Univ. Ag. Ext. Cir.

385.

(AG-2.a.l)

86. Moore, William F., and Page, Rufus H. 1964. Study of the comparative

durability and user preference of concrete and wooden picnic tables.

Southeastern For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N. C.

'(RD, UP--2.d.l)

87. Musser, H. B. 1961. Topdressing mixtures for turfgrass areas. Park

Practice Guidelines 3-1:17-19.

(AG-4.b.l)

298
88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

Neff, Paul E. 1965. Applied silviculture in managing outdoor recreation

sites. Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, p. 34-35. Detroit,

Michigan.

(AG-2.e.2/4.b.l)

Noble, N. W. 1968. Mess at Miracle Rock. Our Public Lands 18:4-5.

(PD--4.c.l)

Nod, Esmor C. Vegetational changes on recreation sites in national forest

campgrounds. 14th Annual Univ. of California Ext. For. Field School

(RD-4.b.2)

O'Brien, Robert R. 1969. Concentration--the key to quality in outdoor

recreation. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Association of

Pacific Coast Geographers, San Fernando, California.

(AG, PD--l.b.l/2.a.2/2.b.2)

O'Connell, Paul F., and Boster, Ron S. 1974. Demands on national forests

require coordinated planning. Arizona Rev. 23(2):1-T.

(AG-l.a.2)

Ohmann, Lewis F. 197'3. Ecological carrying capacity. In Outdoor Recreation

Research: Applying the Results. USDA For. Serv. Gen.Tech. Rep. NC-g,

p. 24-28. North Central For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

(AG-l.d.2/2.b.2/2.d.2)

Orr, Howard R. 1971. Design and layout of recreation facilities. In

Recreation Symposium Proceedings. USDA For. Serv. Pub., p. 23-27. Northeastern For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

(AG--2.b.1/2.c.l)

Paine, Lee A. 1966. Accidents caused by hazardous trees on California

forest recreation sites. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PSW-133. Pac. Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

(PD--2.b.2/2.e.1/4.b;2)

. 1966. Butt rot defect and potential hazard in lodgepole pine on

selected California recreational areas. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note ~~~-106.

Pac. Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

(RD--2.a.2/2.e.1/4.a.2)

Parke, W. N. 1952. Proper planning of campgrounds and picnic areas. J. of

For. 5Q:595-600.

(AG--2.b.2)

Partain, L. E. 1966. Use of soils knowledge in recreation area planning.

Virginia Polytechnical Inst. Ext. Bull. 301, p. 180-184. Blacksburg, Va.

(AG-2.a.1/2.b.2)

299
99. Ripley, Thomas I-I. 1962. Tree and shrub response to recreation use. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Note 171. Southeastern For. Exp, Stn., Asheville, N. C.

(RS--2.e.l/b.b.2)

loo. . 1962. Recreation impact on southern Appalachian campgrounds and

picnic sites. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. No. 153. Southeastern For. Exp.

Stn., Asheville, N. C.

(RS--2.b.2/2.c.2/2.e.l)

101. , Johnson, Frank M., and Moore, William H. 1963. A modification of

the line intercept method for sampling understory vegetation. J. of Range

Manage. 16(l):!+11.

(RM--4.b.2)

102. . 1965. Rehabilitation of forest recreation sites. Proceedings,

Society of American Foresters, Detroit, Mich.

(AG--2.e.2/4.a.l/b.b.l)

103. Robinson, Mark W. 1947. An instrument to measure forest crown cover. The

For. Chron. 23(3):222-225.

(RM--4.b.2)

104. Rudolf, Paul 0. 1967. Silviculture for recreation area management. J. of

For. 65:385-390.

(AG--2.b.2/2.e.l/h.b.l)

105. Settergren, C. D., and Cole, D. M. 1970. Recreation effects on soil and

vegetation in the Missouri Ozarks. J. of For. 68(4):231-233.

(RD--2.e.l/b.b.l)

106. Severson, K. E., and Gartner, F. R. 1968. A permanent plot for measurement

of vegetation change. J. of Range Manage. 2:1ll-112.

(RM--4.b.2)

107. Shafer, Elwood L. 1964. The photo-choice method for recreation research.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-29. Northeastern For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby,

Pa.

108. Smith, Robert Leo. 1967. Impact of recreation on natural areas. Sci.,

p. 10-12, 16.

(AG-l.d.2/2.b.2/4.a.Z)

109. Stsnkey, George H., and Lime, David W. 1973. Recreational carrying capacity:

an annotated bibliography. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-3. Intermountain For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Ut.

(0)

300
110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

Stevens, Mervin E. 1966. Soil surveys as applied to recreation site planning.

J. of For. 64:314-316.

(AG--2.b.l/2.c.2/2.e.2/4.b.2)

Stone, Edward H. 1967. Forestry and natural beauty. Soil Conservation

Society of American Proceedings, p. 174-177.

Strickler, Gerald S. 1959. Use of the densiometer to estimate density of

forest canopy on permanent sample plots. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note 180.

Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Ore.

(RM--4.b.2)

Scldia, Theodore W., and Simpson, James M. 1973. Recreational carrying

capacity of the national parks. Parks Practice Guideline 3(3):25-34.

(AG-l.a.2/l.d.2/4.a.2/.4.c.2)

Taylor, Gordon D., and Thomson, Clark W. 1966. Proposed methodology for

an inventory and classification of land for recreational use. For. Chron.

42:153-159.

(AG-2.a.l)

Tocher, S. Ross, Wagar, J. Alan, and Hunt, John D. 1965. Sound management

prevents worn out recreation sites. Parks and Rec. 48( 3):151-153.

(AG-2.a.2/4.a.1/4.b.2/4.c.2)

Twiss, Robert H., and Litton, R. Burton. 1966. Research on forest environmental design. -In Proceedings, Sot. of Amer. For., p. 209-210. Seattle,

Wash.

(O--l.d.2/2.d.2)

'lyre, Gary L., and James, George A. 1971. Length and rate of individual

participation in various activities on recreation sites and areas. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Note SE-161. Southeastern For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N. C.

(RD--l.b.2/4.a.2)

Tyul'panov, N. M. 1968. Management of forest parks (translated by N.

Steigman). Ismel Program for Scientific Translations. Jerusalem, Israel.

(AG-2.e.2)

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1962. Understanding soil compaction. Ag.

Res. 11:7.

(RD--4.b.2)

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1963. Turf--the rug for recreation. Ag.

Res. 12:13.

(RS--2.e.1/4.b.2)

301
121. Wagar, J. Alan. 1959. How to predict which vegetated areas will stand up

best under active recreation. Amer. Rec. J. 1(7):20-21.

(RS--2.a.2/2.b.l)

122.

1R~-6. '

1963. Campgrounds for many tastes. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

Intermountain For. and' Range Exp. Stn.

(AG-l.a.l/l.d.l)

123. . 1964. ’ The carrying

Sci. Mon. 7. Society of Amer.

(RS--l.a.l/l.d.2/4.a.1/4.c.2)

capacity of wild lands

For., Wash., D. C.

for recreation. For.

124. . 1965. Cultural treatment of vegetation on recreation sites.

1965 Proceedings of the Society for Amer. For., p. 37-39. Detroit, Mich.

(RS--2.e.2/4.c.l) ,

125.

72:274-278.

1974. Recreational carrying capacity reconsidered. J. of For.

126. Wagener, Willis W. 1963. Judging hazard from native trees in California

recreational areas. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-Pl. Pac. Southwest

For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

(AG-2.c.2/2.e.1/4.b.l)

127.. Walker, Lawrence C. 1964. Fertilizing shade and forest trees in parks.

Park Practice Guideline ll-1:45-47.

(AG-2.d.1/4.b.l)

128. White, WilXsm C. 1964. Soil tests for better park grounds. Park Practice

Guideline g-1:39-44.

(AG--2.a.2/2.b.l/4.b.2)

129. Why-tehead, R. M. 1960. Development of land for recreational purposes.

Chartered Land Agent's Sot. J. 59:428-432.

(AG--1.d.2)

130. Young, R. A. 1972. Camper preferences in two southern Illinois campgrounds.

For. Resources Rep. No. 72-3, Ag. Exp. Stn., Univ. of Ill., Urbana-Champaign,

Ill.

(RD, UP--l.c.1/2.a.2/2.b.l)
The Forest Service, 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 Congressto provide increasingly greater service

to a growing Nation.

USDA policy does not permit discrimination

because of race, color, national origin, sex

or religion. Any person who believes he or

she has been discriminated against in any

USDA-related activity should write immediately to the Secretary of A g r i c ul t u r e,

Washington, D. C. 20250.