United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988:

Proceedings of the National Outdoor

Recreation Forum Tampa, Florida

January 13-14, 1988

Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station

General Technical

Report SE-52
Whenever possible, authors supplied their papers as electronic recordings;

they therefore are responsible for content and accuracy. Opinions expressed

are the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture.

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the

information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an

official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any

product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

j&m-y 1988

December 1989

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802
Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988:

proceedings of the

NATIONAL OUTDOOR RECREATION FORUM

Tampa, Florida, January 13-14, 1988

Compiler:

ALAN H. WATSON

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Asheville, NC; now

at the Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Missoula, MT.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

BENCHMARK 1988: A National Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Forum was the first national

recreation assessment meeting. The need for this

meeting grew out of the desire to incorporate scientific,

planning, and administrative peer review into the

1989 RPA Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and

Wilderness. This meeting brought together many

university and government scientists, State and

Federal planners, and Federal agency administrative

policy decision makers to review and discuss the

status of outdoor recreation and wilderness in the

United States. The opportunities for interaction among

these participants was expected to help make the

RPA Assessment, and subsequent Program recommendations, more relevant to those who are affected

and better grounded to a baseline of fact and

prevailing opinion.

The BENCHMARK Symposium and these subsequent Proceedings are unique. The papers presented

are intended to assess the current state of outdoor

recreation and wilderness demand and supply and

to project future changes. They contribute substantially to our understanding of expected impacts on

social, economic, and environmental dimensions of

our country that might result from projected changes

in outdoor recreation and wilderness demand and

supply. Opportunities and barriers to improved

resource management, policy, education, research,

and legislation are also a major part of these

assessment papers. This effort to apply research

knowledge into an assessment of outdoor recreation

LEAD SCIENTISTS

and wilderness and to consciously project future

impacts and actions should contribute substantially

to meeting the recreation needs of the American

people in the future.

Primary sources of support for this meeting and

subsequent Proceedings were few but strong. We

wish to acknowledge first the Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Outdoor

Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Unit for the

original idea, motivation, funding, and cooperation.

The Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest

Service; the Department of Recreation and Leisure

Services, Georgia Southern College; and the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management,

Clemson University, also contributed support to the

planning and conduct of the meeting and the

publication of these Proceedings.

The contributing authors are congratulated on

their presentation of information, exchange of constructive comments, and development of a timely

manuscript according to the deadlines and guidelines

that we imposed. Finally, and most of all, we wish to

acknowledge the efforts of those who were the quality

control officers in this activity to assure credibility in

the conclusions that were drawn. On the following

pages we have listed the Lead Scientists who

coordinated paper development and the distinguished

speakers and individuals who sacrificed their time to

review and comment upon the papers submitted for

publication.

Alan E. Watson

Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station

Missoula, MT

Cary McDonald

Parks, Recreation

and Tourism Management

Clemson University

Clemson, SC

Dr. Gina McLellan, Clemson University Dr. Joseph T. O’Leary, Purdue University

Dr. Herbert Echelberger, Northeast Forest Experiment Dr. Robert C. Lucas, Intermountain Research Station

Station Dr. Richard Schreyer, Utah State University

Dr. Elwood Shafer, Pennsylvania State University Dr. Gene Bammel, West Virginia University

Dr. Daniel Stynes, Michigan State University Dr. Lei Lane Bammel, West Virginia University

I I I
DISTINGUISHED SPEAKERS

Dr. H. Ken Cordell, USDA Forest Service

Mr. Adrian Haught, USDA Forest Service

Mr. Zane G. Smith, USDA Forest Service

Mr. John Fedkiw, USDA Office of the Secretary

Mr. Carter Betz, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station

Dr. Merle VanHorne, National Park Service

Dr. Dick Paterson, Tennessee Valley Authority

Dr. Steve McCool, University of Montana

Dr. Robert Lucas, Intermountain Research Station

Dr. David Cole, Intermountain Research Station

Mr. John Daigle, Intermountain Research Station

Dr. Joseph Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic and

State University

Dr. Rick Perdue, North Carolina State University

Dr. Paul Miko, Georgia Southern College

Dr. William Becker, Georgia Southern College

Mr. Donald English, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station

Dr. H. Ken Cordell, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station

Dr. Herbert Echelberger, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station

Dr. Herbert Schroeder, North Central Forest

Experiment Station

Dr. Richard Guldin, USDA Forest Service

Dr. Anne Fege, USDA Forest Service

Dr. Michael Huffman, Memphis State University

Mr. Ken Wall, Wilderness Institute, University

of Montana

Dr. Greg Jones, Intermountain Research Station

Dr. William Hammitt, University of Tennessee

Dr. Douglas McEwen, Southern Illinois University

Dr. Fran McGuire, Clemson University

Dr. Richard Schreyer, Utah State University

Dr. Gina McLellan, Clemson University

Dr. Joseph T. O’Leary, Purdue University

Dr. Daniel Williams, Virginia Polytechnic and

State University

Dr. Richard Knopf, Arizona State University

Dr. Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota

Dr. Alan Graefe, Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Cary McDonald, Clemson University

Dr. Alan E. Watson, Intermountain Research Station

CONFERENCE ASSISTANTS

Mr. Charles Brammer, Georgia Southern College

Mr. John Daigle, Intermountain Research Station

Ms. Kathleen Goggin, Intermountain Research Station

IV
DEDICATED TO

DR. MARION CLAWSON

Rarely does a person possess such intellect and drive that they

soon become the thought leaders of their chosen field. In the field of

natural resources economics Dr. Clawson is one of those very special

people. Every student of outdoor recreation or of environmental

economics has read or been influenced by Dr. Clawson’s works. His

efforts to help establish and support the Outdoor Recreation Resource

Review Commission, to develop the travel cost method, to conceptualize a measure of the effectiveness of supply, to understand the social

relevance of National Forests, and the list goes on, are hallmarks of

our profession. None of the papers published in these proceedings

is without Dr. Clawson’s influence. Most reflect extensions, applications, and refinements of concepts and theories that, because of his

efforts, are now commonly used in outdoor recreation economics,

research, and management. It is with great pride and humility that

we, the editors and contributors to the Benchmark Forum, dedicate

these proceedings to Dr. Marion Clawson, Senior Fellow Resources

for the Future.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Section 1. General Trends and Issues

Two generations of history of outdoor recreation

Marion Clawson

Developments in outdoor recreation policy since 1970

George H. Siehl

Social and demographic trends affecting outdoor recreation

Laura Szwak

The supply effect of recreational lands and landowner liability:

Recreational use statutes revisited

James C. Kozlowski and Brett A. Wright

Section 2. The Outdoor Recreation Resource:

Trends and Current Status

The national private land ownership study:

Establishing the benchmark

Brett A. Wright and H. Ken Cordell, Tommy L. Brown,

and Allen L. Rowell

The supply of private and public campgrounds 1978-87

Douglas McEwen and Linda Profaizer

Federal and State backcountry resources

Donald B.K. English

Trends in State park operations in the United States

W. Donald Martin

Interpretation: Benchmarking current status

and trends, identifying issues and future needs

Gail A. Vander Stoep

Section 3. Trends in Recreation Participation on

Public and Private Lands

Outdoor recreation participation by disabled people

Lawrence A. Hartmann and Pamela J. Walker

Trends in recreation participation on public lands

Carter J. Betz and H. Ken Cordell

3

10

22

27

33

51

58

67

79

105

128

VII
Trends and current status of participation in outdoor recreation

Lawrence A. Hartmann, Helen Roland Freilich, and H. Ken Cordell

Science and technology--the wild cards in tourism strategic planning

Elwood L. Shafer and George Moeller

Section 4. Outdoor Recreation Demand Forecasting

Methodological issues in RPA forecasting

Daniel J. Stynes

Long-run forecasts of participation in fishing, hunting,

and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation

Richard G. Walsh, David A. Harpman, John G. Hof,

Kun H. John, and John R. McKean

Projections of future growth of outdoor recreation in the United States

H. Ken Cordell, John C. Bergstrom, Donald B.K. English, and

J. Carter Betz

Estimating recreation values over time

George L. Peterson

Local government outdoor recreation supply

Barbara L. McDonald, H. Ken Cordell, and Allen L. Rowell

Estimating outdoor recreation supply functions:

Theory, methods and results

Steven E. Daniels and H. Kenneth Cordell

Measuring and projecting the effectiveness of recreational

opportunities in the United States

H. Ken Cordell, Donald B.K. English, and John C. Bergstrom

Section 5. Outdoor and International Recreation Demand

An overview of the relationship between social and demographic

factors and outdoor recreation participation

Lawrence A. Hartmann and H. Ken Cordell

Social factors in recreation participation and demand:

Implications from national surveys

Joseph T. O’Leary, F. Dominic Dottavio, and Francis McGuire

International tourism on public lands in the United States

Kathleen L. Andereck, Muzaffer Uysal, Lawrence A. Hartmann, and

Marsha A. Lyomasa

Section 6. Wilderness Resources and their Recreational Uses

Page

147

166

177

187

203

209

222

227

238

255

275

290

Defining wilderness as a resource: A foundation in the

Wilderness Acts and other legislation

Paul D. Weingart

301

VIII
103 wilderness laws: Milestones and management direction in

wilderness legislation 1964-87

James A. Browning, John C. Hendee, and Joe Roggenbuck

Nonfederal wilderness, wild, and natural areas in the

United States--a survey

Walter L. Cook, Jr. and Donald B.K. English

Wilderness recreation substitutes: The potential of lands outside

the National Wilderness Preservation System

James D. Absher, Ellen M. Absher, and Lawrence A. Hartmann

Wilderness recreation use: The current situation

Joseph W. Roggenbuck and Alan E. Watson

Shifting trends in wilderness recreational use

Robert C. Lucas and George H. Stankey

Wilderness recreation demand and value: An assessment of

existing knowledge and research needs

Cindy Sorg Swanson and George L. Peterson

The challenge of managing wilderness in an era of change

Stephen F. McCool

Wilderness visitor management practices: A benchmark and an

assessment of progress

Alan E. Watson

Section 7. Social Psychological Dimensions of Recreation

Participation

Attitudes of visitors toward outdoor recreation management policy

Stephen F. McCool and David W. Lime

Quality in recreation experience

Perry J. Brown

Great expectations and the limits to satisfaction: A review

of recreation and consumer satisfaction research

Daniel R. Williams

The spectrum of conflict in outdoor recreation

William E. Hammitt

Social psychological carrying capacity

Alan R. Graefe

Making barriers manageable: A call for the use of paradigms

in barriers research

Gary D. Ellis and Craig Rademacher

Page

304

319

336

346

357

368

385

394

401

412

422

439

451

455

IX
Equity issues in outdoor recreation

Daniel L. Dustin and Richard C. Knopf

The benefiis of outdoor recreation participation

Richard Schreyer and B.L. Driver

Section 8. Social, Economic, and Environmental Implications

of Outdoor Recreation Demand and Supply Interactions

Forest visual quality management and research

R. Bruce Hull IV

Page

467

472

485
Section 1.

General Trends and Issues

TWO GENERATIONS OF HISTORY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION

Marion Clawson’

Abstract -The 70 years from 7900 to 1970 Constitute

two human generations. These years were critical for

the development of outdoor recreation as we know it

today. An understanding of these two generations is

basic to a consideration of the present and future

problems involving outdoor recreation. This paper

stops at 7970, leaving the consideration of recent

trends and the present situation to George Siehl. In a

single relatively brief paper, one obviously cannot

consider all aspects of two generation’s history. What

follows is an overall survey of rhose aspects of this

period which were most important to outdoor recreation.

AMERICANS LOVE THE OUTDOORS AND

REVEL IN OUTDOOR RECREATION

The one constant factor in these two generations

has been the love of the outdoors and the delight in

outdoor recreation by nearly all Americans. This

attitude has been expressed in many ways over the

years, and by different persons. Some have engaged

in specific actions in the outdoors, in many different

forms and ways. Some have spent considerable

sums of money, that they might engage in outdoor

recreation of one kind or another, or that they might

have the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors. There

has been extensive literature, describing and glorifying

the outdoors and the wilderness, and painters and

photographers have found inspiration in natural

scenes. Many governmental actions, including

legislation and appropriations, have been concerned

with the outdoors and with outdoor recreation. It

would perhaps be too much to assert that Americans

have been unique, among people of the world, in

their love of the outdoors. But surely there are many

other countries and many other peoples whose

enjoyment of outdoor recreation, especially by the

average citizen, is less than is ours. I do not assert

that every American is a lover of the outdoors and of

outdoor recreation. We all know that some people

are repelled by natural conditions, afraid of any area

not paved over, or uninterested in the natural scene.

But these less appreciative persons do not dominate

the national scene; instead, ours is a country of

Nature lovers and outdoor recreationists - always

has been, and probably always will be.

%bnior Fellow Emeritus, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND TECHNOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK HAS CHANGED

If love of the outdoors and desire for outdoor

recreation have been constant in the two generations

from 1900 to 1970, they have been almost the only

constants. Nearly every other aspect of our social,

economic, and technological society and culture has

undergone major changes over these 70 yearschanges which have directly affected present day

outdoor recreation to a major degree.

While one might list and describe a great many

changes of these two generations, I shall focus on

five:

1. Population factors.

2. Per capita income.

3. Transportation.

4. Time off the job.

5. Recreation technology.

Each of these requires a brief exploration, even in

a relatively short paper, and such exploration follows.

POPULATION CHANGES

In 1900 the total population of the United States

was 76 million; in 1970 it was 205 million, or nearly

three times as large. An increase of this magnitude

in this period of time, as measured by generations,

is impressive for any species. Such rapid and

sustained growth always brings serious problems as

well as great opportunities, and this has been true

for the increase in human population in these decades

of the 20th century. But there have been other aspects

of population change in these decades that were as

impressive, and as important for outdoor recreation,

as was the great increase in total numbers.

In 1900 the United States was a rural society, with

well over half of the total population living on farms

and in small towns of less than 2,500 population. By

the time of World War I, we had become half rural

and half urban-the latter meaning living in towns

and cities of 2,500 or more people. After 1920, and

more particularly after 1950, there were two population

relocations of great importance for modern outdoor

recreation: 1) on a national scale, we were concentrating our people into urban groupings (cities), and 2)

3
within those urban groupings we were dispersing

them to suburbs and to exurbia. These shiftings in

population were accompanied by major changes in

lifestyle, one aspect of which was a great emphasis

upon the outdoors and upon outdoor recreation.

The increase in total population over these two

generations was not at a steady rate. Birth rates

slowly fell until about 1930, when they plunged

downward during the Great Depression. More

impressive and of larger scale has been the Baby

Boom from about 1946 to about 1968, when I calculate

there were 20 million extra births. This flood of babies

created a wave of increased population, first in the

schools, elementary, high school, and college - and

then into jobs and housing. Today, the Baby Boom

children are 20 to 40 years old, at young, biologically

reproductive and economically productive ages. This

is all very well today, and underlies much of our

demand for housing, furnishings, consumption items

of many kinds-and outdoor recreation. But, beginning in about 2020 and extending to 2050 before the

last of these Baby Boomers has died off, there will

be an abnormally large proportion of the total

population in the aged classes. This will create special

problems of health services, income transfers from

productive ages to older persons-and, again, for

outdoor recreation.

Even if there had been no Baby Boom, the

population of this country would have aged in the

future, compared with the past. Health conditions

have improved to the point where more people live

to older ages. The life expectancy at birth has gone

from about 50 years for whites in 1900 to over 70

years today, and may well increase further. Today,

80-year-old persons are as common as were

70-year-old persons when I was young. The Baby

Boom accentuated and exacerbated the aging

problem, but it would have arisen anyway.

During these two generations, the population has

redistributed itself regionally, with the greatest growth

rates in the sunbelt and with slower growth or actual

declines in many other parts of the country.

During the first two decades of the 20th century,

this country took in a lot of immigrants, more from

southern Europe and fewer from northern Europe

than during the 19th century. Immigration declined

sharply after 1920 until 1950, but has increased

greatly since then. The source of the immigrants has

also changed, with more Hispanics and Asiatics than

previously. The greatest impact of this new tide of

immigration has been since 1970, and I leave to

George Siehl the task of discussing it. But we can

safely say that users or potential users of outdoor

recreation opportunity are today, and will be even

more in the future, of different national origins and

with different lifestyles and cultures than was the

case a few decades ago.

PERSONAL INCOMES

Enjoyment of most forms of outdoor recreation

requires the expenditure of money, either directly in

the recreation activity by the recreationist, or indirectly

in terms of clothing, food, and artifacts necessary for

the recreation, or indirectly by the public agency or

private group which provides the recreation opportunity. The ability and the willingness to spend money

in any of these ways depends very much upon the

level of average per capita income.

Comparisons of income changes over long periods

of time are made difficult or confused by the great

changes in price over the same periods, as well as

by the fact that the availability and characteristics of

many consumption items have also changed greatly.

Our concern should be with real incomes-what

people can buy and enjoy with their money. In real

income terms, average per capita incomes increased

by three or four times from 1900 to 1970.

The growth in real income per capita was not at a

constant rate over these seven decades. There was

good prosperity, for the times, in the 1920s; this was

followed by the Great Depression of the 193Os, when

incomes fell, on the average, and when millions of

workers were unemployed-and this at a time when

there were no Federal and only a few local programs

of unemployment compensation, welfare, or aid to

the needy. The 1950s and 1960s in turn were periods

of prosperity, with nearly steadily rising real per capita

income.

In real terms, Americans as a whole today are

rich-rich by their own historical standards, rich by

world standards today. We have long since passed

our housing standard of one room per person, though

this standard is a hopeless dream for most of the

world’s population. There are only a few houses in

the United States today with outdoor toilets: they

were nearly universal in 1900, in cities as well as in

the open country. We heat and cool our houses to

our comfort standards. Our national food supply is

ample, varied, and cheap in relation to our incomes.

There are more persons in the United States today

who eat too much - more than is good for them-than

there are persons who do not have enough to eat.
As a society, we have an enormous range of comforts,

conveniences, and pleasures.

We also have a high degree of security for old

age, in the form of Social Security, private pensions,

and public welfare.

I hasten to add, before someone cries out in

outrage, that not everyone in the United States today

is equally fortunate - not only are there people whose

standard of living is below average, which of course

statistically there inevitably must be, but there are

millions of people in real poverty. Poverty has been

persistent and grave in our society from the beginning

and continues today. Poverty is absolute, as when a

person is hungry or iii-fed or when illness is not cared

for by medical personnel; poverty is also relative, as

when a person or family has absolute basics but

lacks the amenities which peers or contemporaries

enjoy. We have both in the United States today, but

at levels of well-being even for the poor which would

be considered near-luxury in the really low-income

countries of the world. Poverty, both absolute and

relative, extends to outdoor recreation as it does to

every other aspect of life.

I speak with some feeling on this matter of richness

and poverty. I have just published a book relating

my professional life (‘From Sagebrush to Sage: The

Making of a Natural Resource Economist,” Ana

Publications, 4343 Garfield Street N.W., Washington,

DC. 496 pages, paper, $20 postpaid.) As I wrote this

book and recalled my early life and the way we and

everyone else lived, I realized, on a human as well

as professional level, just how far Americans as a

society have advanced during these past two

generations. Believe me, the wisecrack that “rich is

better than poor’ is true.

Nearly three times as many people, each, on the

average, with three or four times as much real income,

has obviously meant that a great deal of money was

available, and was spent, on outdoor recreation.

Recreation as a whole, and outdoor recreation as

one part of the larger range of activities, is big business

in the United States today. Exactly how much money

is involved depends on definitions, and I do not

propose to explore this topic in detail. Some money

is spent directly on outdoor recreation activitiesentrance fees or boat-launching fees, for instance.

Far more is spent for food and lodging as part of the

recreation experience, and large sums are spent for

equipment, including such general purpose equipment as the auto. Anyone familiar with outdoor

recreation can supply, from personal experience,

evidence of these expenditures.

TRANSPORTATION

One of the greatest changes in American life in

the two generations from 1900 to 1970, and one with

profound effects on outdoor recreation, was the

development of new, faster, and more comfortable

means of personal transportation.

In 1900, travel between cities was by rail, and

travel within cities and rural areas, and from farm to

town, was by horse-drawn vehicles. A buggy team

walked about 4 miles per hour and trotted about 6

miles per hour. Fifty miles was possible but difficult

in 1 long day; all horse-drawn travel was slow. Those

were the days when horsepower literally meant horse

power. Roads were typically tracks across the land,

rarely graded to remove excess water, almost never

graveled, and never paved. Muddy in wet weather

and dusty in dry weather, they could be used by the

primitive means of transportation then available. All

travel was slow, uncomfortable, and costly in real

terms, especially when the time of the travelers was

counted among the costs. In 1900 there were only a

few autos, confined to cities, and they were more

toys than effective transport. Air travel was only a

dream.

The period from 1920 to 1940 was when the

automobile really came of age in the United States.

Paralleling the improvement in autos and the production of what then seemed like large numbers of them

was an improvement in roads - now more often

graded, or graveled, and sometimes paved as well,

though all slow by modern standards. Personal travel

increased enormously. I have estimated that per

capita travel averaged about 500 miles annually in

1900 compared with about 6,000 miles per capita

annually in 1970. This is total travel, for all purposes.

In the earlier day, very little of it was for recreation;

at the later date, a large, though statistically unknown,

proportion was for outdoor recreation.

During World War II all travel was restricted,

automobile travel especially so. New cars, tires, and

gasoline all were rationed. Total visitation to national

parks, National Forests, and State parks fell by about

two-thirds as a result of these restrictions on travel - a

dramatic evidence of the role of transportation in

outdoor recreation.

Since 1950, there have been further improvements

in personal transportation. Cars are better, faster,

and more comfortable, and roads are better. The

new interstate highway system opened up longdistance travel by autos. Air travel has developed

5
enormously during these years. The combination of

air and auto, by flying and renting a car, has given

travelers the advantages of both kinds of personal

transportation. International travel has also increased

greatly.

These improvements in personal travel have directly

affected outdoor recreation, including the planning

for it. Faster, cheaper, and more comfortable transportation has greatly increased the supply of outdoor

recreation available to the individual. Today one can

drive 50 miles for a day of fishing when once it would

have required a week’s vacation. But improved

transportation has also increased the demand for

outdoor recreation at every site. The number of

potential users has increased as travel has become

faster, increasing the range of territory within effective

travel distance. The greatest impact of improved

personal transportation may have been on the

recreation planner. No longer could he or she limit

consideration to local or even State demands; instead,

demands upon many areas have become national or

international.

TIME OFF THE JOB

The word ‘leisure’ has such different meanings to

different people that I am reluctant to use it. To some,

it means idleness- a contemplation of nature, relaxed

readings, perhaps a little gardening, and the like. To

others, it simply means time not working or not

engaged in necessary personal chores or not in

sleep. Instead of talking about “leisure,’ I shall talk

about time off the job. This time may be as active as

any work and the available time may be as overcommitted as is the available income. But outdoor

recreation takes time- indeed, we normally measure

it in terms of time, such as visitor-day, and outdoor

recreation occurs during time off the job.

During the two generations from 1900 to 1970,

there have been several kinds of relatively large

changes in the amounts and timing of time off the

job. The typical workday has shortened, from 10 or

12 hours to 8 or less, leaving time for recreation

after work. The typical workweek has also shortened,

from 6 or 7 days to 5 or fewer. Combined with the

improvements in transportation, this means that

today a person or a family may enjoy a weekend of

outdoor recreation which once would have been

impossible except in a longer vacation. There has

also been a great rise in the paid vacation. Once

nearly unknown (except for teachers, who often had

to work at other jobs during school vacation in order

to eat), the paid vacation today is nearly universal in

all but day-employment jobs. Moreover, once most

paid vacations were for a week; today, we regard

two weeks’ vacation as miserly.

These changes in time off the job for employed

persons are only part of the story of time available

for outdoor recreation. There has been an enormous

increase in the number of persons retired. The

lengthened age span and the increased average

incomes, described above, have combined to produce

millions of retired persons with time available for

outdoor recreation. Some may have health limitations,

but many do not. Their interests in outdoor recreation

may be different from those of the young adults, but

the old people are an actual and a potential market

for outdoor recreation, whether publicly or privately

supplied.

Equally great in its social consequences has been

the later entrance of young people into the labor

force. I had my first full-time summer job when I was

13 years old, and from then on I was a member of

the labor force seasonally. My experience was not

unique for its day. Today, it is difficult to get a labor

permit or a job for anyone under 16, or even under

18, and many young people do not work steadily,

even in school vacations, until they are past 20 years

old. And this is a most-active group for outdoor

recreation-a group which often presents real

problems to park managers. Many of these young

people have money to spend for outdoor recreation.

Those who have neither money nor jobs often present

especially difficult problems of leisure time pursuits.

In spite of the great increases in time off the job,

for almost all classes of the population, the possible

range of activities is so great that the competition for

time is often more severe than is the competition for

money. The TV advertiser is willing to bring its program

to the viewer without cash cost, if it can only get a

few moments of attention to its advertising message.

The businessman may be able to afford the money

costs of a short vacation, if he can only get away

from the office for a few days. The weekend camper

who can easily afford the campground fee may be

unwilling to wait in line to get in. And so on, for many

other examples of time-money competition.

Clearly, all of these developments, and any others

that might be cited concerning time off the job, have

very great implications for the planner and manager

of outdoor recreation. One must direct and operate

his or her program to the time the client group has

available.

6
RECREATION TECHNOLOGY

Lastly, let me briefly mention a subject about which

every recreation specialist must surely be fully aware:

the technologies available to outdoor recreationists

have changed greatly over the two generations from

1900 to 1970. Indeed, the changes here have perhaps

been as great, and as significant for the outdoor

recreation professions, as any of the other changes I

have briefly described.

By 1970, many forms of outdoor recreation

completely unknown in 1900 were available to those

who could afford them. Included here would be such

means of outdoor recreation as snowmobiles, water

skiing, scuba diving, hang gliding, and off-road

vehicles. But the improvements in some of the old

artifacts and appliances were perhaps even more

important. Equipment for fishing, hunting, camping,

picnicking, and every other recreation activity known

in 1900 has improved greatly. When I was a boy and

a youth, a bed roll was so heavy and bulky that it

was about all one person could carry, and tents

were even worse. Backpacking such equipment was

more than anyone could do comfortably. If you went

camping, you took either a team of horses and a

wagon, or a string of pack animals. Although snow

skiing was known in 1900, it was not really a sport

then, but a means of personal transportation; no

small part of its popularity today is due to the greatly

improved equipment.

This matter of improved technology for outdoor

recreation is so complex and so full of instances that

a whole book could easily be written about it by

persons sufficiently knowledgeable. I do not need to

pursue this subject further for an audience of persons

familiar with outdoor recreation, but only remind

everyone to think over the changes that have occurred

in his or her professional lifetime, and to consider

the possibilities that may arise in the future.

PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

During the two generations from 1900 to 1970,

there was a great development of private organizations

and public agencies to provide outdoor recreation

opportunity and generally to help people desiring

outdoor recreation.

In 1900 none of the Federal agencies we now

associate with outdoor recreation existed. The U.S.

Forest Service was not created until 1905, the National

Park Service until 1916, the Fish and Wildlife Service

not until later, and the Bureau of Land Management’s

predecessor, the General Land Office, had no interest

whatsoever in outdoor recreation. There were scarcely

any State park organizations, and only relatively few

city park agencies or departments. But the situation

for private organizations was hardly different; there

were only a few, rather weak and poorly financed,

private organizations concerned directly with outdoor

recreation.

All of this changed over the years, as new agencies

were created and new organizations formed, and as

older ones acquired more clout, including more funds.

I shall not try to trace these developments in detail,

for that would be a long story. But I urge younger

workers in outdoor recreation to ask the oldtimers

what it was like in the old days.

The greatest single event in public agency development in outdoor recreation during these two generations was the creation of the Outdoor Recreation

Resources Review Commission and the publication

of its report in 1962. This was the first official Federal

acknowledgment of outdoor recreation as a proper

governmental concern. The legislation creating the

Commission had been carefully crafted by its sponsors

to avoid or meet the criticism that outdoor recreation

was a purely local matter, not the concern of the

Federal Government. The ORRRC study and report

had three major consequences for outdoor recreation

in the United States:

1. It enormously heightened public awareness of

and concern about outdoor recreation. While ORRRC

did not hold public hearings and arouse popular

involvement in the way that the President’s Commission on the Outdoors did in the 1980s it nevertheless

did focus attention on outdoor recreation in a way

that previously had been lacking.
2. It led to the creation of the Bureau of Outdoor

Recreation, a Federal agency not managing land but

directly involved in outdoor recreation. That agency

has not survived as an independent organization.

Many of us were always disappointed with its

performance, but, nevertheless, it was important

while it continued.

3. It led to the creation of the Land and Water

Conservation fund, under which many billions of

dollars were provided to Federal, State, and local

agencies to acquire land and develop facilities for

outdoor recreation. The possibility of getting Federal

matching funds led many States, counties, and cities

to float bond issues or otherwise provide funds for

outdoor recreation, thus adding to the Federal effect.

The rise in number, size, and effectiveness of

profit and nonprofit private organizations directly

concerned with outdoor recreation has been most

notable since 1970 but was still highly important

before that date. We, as a nation, are gradually

learning that outdoor recreation is not solely a matter

of governmental action.

CITIZEN RESPONSE

The people of the United States responded

vigorously to the economic, social, political, and

technological changes of the two generations from

1900 to 1970. Indeed, it has been the actions of

millions of ordinary people which have dominated

the outdoor recreation picture over these years.

Imagine, if you can, a world in which no one, or

almost no one, cared even to hunt, fish, camp, picnic,

hike, backpack, water ski, or do any other outdoor

recreation activity. Recreation workers would be

without jobs! Little public funds would be spent! An

impossible world, we will all agree, but merely to

imagine it brings home how much individual decisions

and actions have dominated the national scene, as

far as outdoor recreation is concerned.

Citizen reaction has taken several forms:

1. A larger percentage of the total population has

engaged in outdoor recreation of some kind. We

lack quantitative data on how many persons partook

of outdoor recreation at any date. The available data

on Federal, State, and local parks and other areas

are for visits (or visitor-days); some people go not at

all, others go often. Visit data do not give us an

accurate measure of person involvement, but it is

impossible for me to believe that the proportion of

the total population engaged in some kind of outdoor

recreation did not increase greatly over these two

generations.

2. Those persons engaging in outdoor recreation

went more frequently to some area or another, as

the years of these two generations passed. Again,

and for the same reasons outlined above, we do not

know exactly how many times per year the average

person engaged in outdoor recreation at a public or

private area such as a park or lake. My best guess

is that the mythical average person had less than 1

day of outdoor recreation in 1900 and more than 6

days in 1970. These numbers are not precise, but I

think they are of the right magnitude.

We do know that attendance at national parks,

National Forests, and State parks rose, from the

earliest year data were available, at annual rates

close to 8 or 10 percent. The rate of increase flattened

out in the early 193Os, due to the severe depression,

but attendance did not actually decline in those

years. There was a major decrease in attendance

during World War II, due to the rationing of travel

facilities, as noted earlier. There is good reason to

believe that outdoor recreation activity increased

similarly in other areas for which no data are available.

Percentage increases of any magnitude, but especially

of the magnitudes of these, cannot continue indefinitely because in time they lead to impossibly large

numbers. There was some flattening out of the rate

of increase by 1970 but much more has occurred

since then, and still more flattening in rate of growth

is likely in the future.

3. Nearly three times as many people since 1900,

each with three to four times as much real income,

obviously means lots more consumer buying power.

The average person or family spent more dollars

from their increased income on outdoor recreationincluding autos, clothing, food, and other common

items used for recreation.

4. People as a whole are more demanding in their

jobs, in their vocations, and in their lifestyles, about

outdoor recreation. They want to live and work where

they can also play and enjoy what they regard as

desirable living conditions. The strength of this public

attitude is so great as to have profound repercussions

on business and political life.

I do not wish to leave the impression that every

individual in the population holds these views, for

many do not. But the attitudes I have described are
the dominant ones in our country today. Nor do I

wish to leave the impression that change in these

attitudes was at a uniform pace throughout the two

generations from 1900 to 1970, because it was not.

For the period as a whole, however, the changes I

have described were very great and dominant in our

society.

CONCLUSIONS

This brief and very general review of the history of

outdoor recreation over the two generations from

1900 to 1970 leads me to three conclusions:

1. Outdoor recreation has been, and will continue

to be, of great importance in our national life and in

the American society.

2. Provision of outdoor recreation opportunity

requires the use of many kinds and large amounts

of natural resources.

3. Change has dominated the history of outdoor

recreation in these two generations and surely will

continue. The world has changed and will change; if

you are to be a vital part of it, you must change

also.
DEVELOPMENTS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION POLICY SINCE 1970

George H. Siehll

Abstract. -Outdoor recreation policy and environmental policy have changed significantly since 1970; an

important component of these changes has been the

increased emphasis placed on environmental issues

by old-line conservation groups, which have concentrated their public /and interests upon designation of

wilderness areas or other preservation classifications.

Broader recreation concerns were addressed during

1985-86 by The President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors (PCAO). This paper traces the 5-year effort

to establish an Outdoor Recreation Commission, and

reviews the work and early results of PCAO. Provision

of recreation opportunities “close to home” is deemed

essential because of social and economic changes,

especially the reduction of leisure time.

INTRODUCTION

Since 1970, important demographic, social,

economic and political changes have taken place in

America, causing, in turn, a number of substantial

changes in the policies for outdoor recreation at

each level of government. While some of the influencing events have been visible and obvious, such as

the recent President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors (PCAO), other developments have been

equally important in outdoor recreation policy matters,

but far less obvious, as in the case of the environmental

movement. Marion Clawson has capsulized two

generations during which much of the groundwork

for recreation policy was set, and Laura Szwak will

follow this paper with a review of the particular social

and demographic trends bearing upon the changes

taking place today. This paper will review some political

and outdoor recreation policy changes of the past

two decades, with emphasis upon the establishment

of the PCA0.2

*Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Congressional Research

Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

ZThe views expressed in this paper are those of the author, and

are not necessarily those of the Congressional Research Service

or the Library of Congress.

10

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT

Marion Clawson conveniently allowed me pick

up the narrative thread of recreation history beginning

in 1970. As I have also been asked to touch upon

environmental trends, and as the National Environmental Policy Act was signed into law on January 1,

1970, the reason for referring to this as a convenient

starting point becomes obvious. The signing of NEPA

into P.L. 91-199 marks a watershed of sorts with

regard to the organizations which had been the

backbone of the recreation movement, supporting

the establishment of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and the many individual

laws implementing the recommendations of the

ORRRC. These conservation organizations supported

a wide range of outdoor recreation pursuits including

hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, motorboating,

sailing and canoeing. This broad coalition of outdoor

groups supported bills to create the national systems

for rivers, trails, and wilderness, measures which

were approved by the Congress during the 1960’s

following the ORRRC recommendations. Many of

these organizations also supported bills to clean up

our air and water, concerns which became the heart

of the environmental movement within the early years

of the 1970’s. As public concerns over environmental

quality grew, the action agendas of a number of the

old conservation groups came to reflect more

environmental issues and fewer broad recreation

items, Designation of lands as wilderness, and setting

aside areas in specified protective units such as

national parks, wild and scenic rivers, or trails,

remained as items the Washington groups supported,

but few, for instance, paid continuing attention to the

level of funding for States under the Land and Water

Conservation Fund. Further, as technology made

new forms of outdoor recreation possible and popular,

as in the case of motorized recreation vehicles, hang

gliders, and camping trailers, some of the groups

opposed these kinds of recreation use of public

lands. Some of the groups also fought the use of

national forest lands for development of downhill

skiing facilities, as in the famous Mineral King conflict

of the 1970’s. The November 1987 Audubon magazine
has identified another recreation target, golfing, in an

article characterizing golf courses as environmental

hazards.

Thus, among the overall impacts of the environmental movement maturing in the 1970’s has been

first the diversion and eventually the divorcement of

many former conservation organizations from an

outdoor recreation agenda affecting the broad range

of outdoor people. Clearly, the need for a clean,

healthful environment is fundamental to quality

outdoor recreation opportunities and experiences,

However, as the nature of environmental concerns

has evolved, becoming more technical and/or more

related to individual health -encompassing issues

such as nuclear power, the ozone hole, toxic waste

disposal, or carcinogens- the organizational resources have diminished for dealing with broadening

the opportunities for more of the public to use the

public land base in a variety of ways.

Some waning of expressed concern for recreation issues in the Congress may be because such

environmental issues have been drawing the attention

of many public policy activists away from recreation

and natural resource concerns. Earon Davis (1984)

wrote of this shift, noting three changes in the public

perception of ‘environment’ since the late 1960’s:

First, the environment is moving from the

national parks and scenic areas to the

neighborhoods. Second, the environment is

moving from the great outdoors and into our

homes and work places. Third, the environment is moving from an engineering and

legal focus to that of public health professionals and “victims’ organizations.

Public interest in environmental threats has

increased in those matters which pose risks to

individual health and safety, a development paralleling

the general trend in concern over personal health

and fitness. In dealing with such risks, there is a

paradox in that while greater control has been

exercised over the quantities of the pollutants released

into the environment, technology has increased our

ability to detect ever smaller amounts of the substances and to detect pollutants that were undetectable previously. Our progress in controlling trace

chemical pollutants is thus being measured on a

sliding scale.

Notwithstanding the ever increasing complexities

of our interactions with the natural environment, very

real progress has been made in reducing the levels

of many contaminants. The most recent (1985) report

of the Council on Environmental Quality reports that

today’s cars emit 95 percent less hydrocarbons and

carbon monoxide than did the models of 1970, and

that urban average maximum concentrations of lead

dropped 65 percent between 1975 and 1982.

Not all of the remaining problems with environmental quality fall into the exotic category. A fundamental problem facing most large or growing communities in America is how to safely dispose of waste

materials. Water- based recreation, one of the most

popular forms of outdoor activity, was seriously

curtailed along the New York and New Jersey coasts

during the summer of 1986 because of fouling of

beaches with garbage, hospital debris, discarded

plastics, and fish and wildlife killed by sewage sludge

and other waste disposal. As a safety measure, many

of these coastal beaches were closed during the

height of the summer. One result of the incidents

has been increased restrictions being placed on

ocean dumping and disposal of plastics at sea. The

long term solution to waste disposal in an affluent,

consumptive society is difficult to foresee, however,

as landfill sites become scarce and vigorously

opposed by nearby residents, as incineration produces potential air pollution and toxic ash, which

must also be disposed of, and as recycling faces

economic uncertainties as demand for materials

fluctuates.

Other observations relevant to environmental trends

include:

l New technology is producing new pollutants in the

outdoor environment and in our increasingly sealed

homes;

l Public support for pollution control laws remains

high even when weighed against job losses or higher

tax levels;

l More of the environmental issues are seen to be

international or even global, such as acid precipitation

and ozone depletion.

ORIGINS OF PCAO

To return to the recreation mainstream, perhaps

the most visible and exciting development of recent

years was the 1985 establishment and operation

through 1986 of PCAO, the President’s Commission

on Americans Outdoors. The excitement, it should

be noted, is not confined to the 16 months of the

Commission’s existence, but spreads to the ongoing

change that PCAO helped to catalyze.

The origins of this counterpart to the earlier

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission

date to May 1980 at an informal meeting of principal

11
staff members of the subcommittees of the House

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Cleve Pinnix

and Clay Peters) and Senate Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources (Tom Williams and Tony

Bevinetto) having oversight responsibilities for park

and recreation matters, and the author at the

Congressional Research Service (CRS). Points of

discussion included the declining level of funding of

the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the impacts

of the then-recent energy crisis on recreation travel,

and the shift of interest in many of the conservation

organizations to environmental issues rather than

outdoor recreation concerns. Following the meeting,

the author sent to each of the participants a memo

noting that the 20th anniversary of ORRRC was then

two years in the future, and suggested that the

Committees and CRS might organize a commemorative symposium as a “birthday party for ORRRC.’ It

was also suggested that a recommendation coming

from that symposium could be for the establishment

of an ORRRC II to review outdoor recreation policies

and programs and help to revitalize interest in them

across the nation.

In the summer of 1980 the National Recreation

and Park Association (NRPA) was independently

exploring the idea of a White House conference on

recreation. Discussion was held with NRPA staffer

Barry Tindall on a possible combination of an ORRRC

II process culminating in a White House conference

on recreation, and this idea remained active for a

period of time.

Renewable Natural Resources Conference

The election of 1980 brought not only a change

in party control of the White House with the election

of President Reagan but a change in control of the

Senate to the Republicans, as well. Scheduled prior

to the election but held on November 30 - December

3, 1980, a National Conference on Renewable Natural

Resources provided the first public presentation of

the proposal for a new ORRRC. Sponsored by the

American Forestry Association and nearly two dozen

environmental and natural resource user and conservation groups in Washington, the conference was

intended to develop a proposed resource action

agenda for the presidential term beginning in 1981.

Starting point for the conference’s recreation

working group was a report prepared by Cordell and

Hendee (1980), who reviewed the supply and demand

of renewable recreation resources. In the discussion

which followed, the idea of a new national recreation

assessment as proposed in the CRS memo was

presented to the group. It was accepted as a principal

recommendation of the working group and subsequently endorsed by the entire conference. The

conference stated:

The Administration and Congress should

mandate and participate in a national assessment of outdoor recreation supply and

demand to evaluate recreation trends and

set priorities for the future. The structure of

the body and the mission might be patterned

after the Outdoor Recreation Resource Review

Commission of the 1960’s.

Wallop Workshops (1981-I 982)

One initiative undertaken by the new Reagan

administration was to propose less land acquisition

for recreation purposes. This was accompanied by

budget recommendations eliminating funding for the

State allocations of the Land and Water Conservation

Fund, and by requesting only enough new money

for the Federal share of the LWCF to cover the cost

of court ordered settlements on lands to be added

to the Federal recreation estate. Congress eventually

agreed to the halt in State grants under LWCF for

Fiscal Year 1982, but continued to fund the Federal

acquisition program at a higher level than requested

by the administration. This ‘cold turkey’ approach to

land acquisition caused great concern to those in

the conservation community and even to many of

those who supported a less extensive land acquisition

program.

Seeking less draconian ways to balance budgetary concerns with the desire for more outdoor

recreation opportunities, Senator Malcolm Wallop,

chair of the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction

over park and recreation matters asked the Congressional Research Service to assist in gathering expert

advice on how to resolve the problem. The result

was the development of a workshop in July 1981 on

the topic of “Public Land Acquisition and Alternatives”

to which cabinet officers and other invited participants

brought relevant information and suggestions. Care

was taken to represent the widest range of views

possible in structuring the panels. The approach

proved so successful that a second, similar workshop

on “Land Protection and Management’ was held in

1982 by Senator Wallop’s subcommittee. These

sessions have come to be known as the “Wallop

Workshops”. Some in the environmental community

dismissed the workshops, holding that any congressional activity that does not result in a public law is a

waste of effort. Nonetheless, apart from providing a

meeting place for diverse opinions, identifying

12
successful land protection alternatives around the

country, and leading the National Park Service to

develop a series of alternative land protection

scenarios for various park units, the workshops

developed an important connection in advancing the

outdoor recreation reassessment.

As part of the workshop structure, three moderators were named to participate in the entire workshop

and to chair panels during the two day event. Those

who served as moderators were Dr. Emery N. Castle,

President of Resources for the Future, Mr. William K.

Reilly, President of the Conservation Foundation,

and Mr. Patrick F. Noonan, Chairman of the

Conservation Resources Group and former head of

the Nature Conservancy. All three had in-depth

knowledge of resource and conservation issues, but

were not associated with partisan or strident positions

on these issues.

In the autumn of 1981, the three workshop

moderators and I were invited to lunch with Interior

Secretary Watt to review the sessions. During the

lunch, we raised with the Secretary the idea of a

new outdoor recreation commission, but his initial

reaction was unfavorable, indicating that the administration position was to reduce reliance on the Federal

government. A new commission he said, would simply

lead to demands to revert to the policies the administration felt were no longer appropriate. During an

extended discussion, his guests demurred, citing the

evidence of the non-federal government and private

initiatives brought out in the workshop. To this, they

added the support their organizations could give to

such a reassessment.

At the end of the lunch Secretary Watt said,

‘OK, you’ve convinced me. You have turned me

around. I will support the effort for a new outdoor

recreation commission, but it will have to be done by

the private sector, not by the Federal government.”

He pledged the cooperation of the Department of

the Interior if such an effort was undertaken, and the

moderators were left with the task of seeking private

support for a new outdoor recreation commission.

Rockefeller Outdoor Recreation Policy

Review Group (1982-I 983)

Given this expression of support from Secretary

Watt, the moderators drew in additional private sector

supporters of a new commission. Among those groups

to take prominent roles were the National Recreation

and Park Association represented by Barry Tindall

and the American Recreation Coalition represented

by Derrick Crandall. Dr. Castle of Resources for the

Future made the considerable talents of Dr. Marion

Clawson available to the effort. This working nucleus,

and others, continued efforts to refine a proposal to

establish a private sector review and to bring additional

interests and organizations into the process. To the

latter end, the National Recreation and Park Association sponsored a meeting at the Wye Institute on

Maryland’s Eastern Shore early in 1982, inviting a

number of urban, youth, ethnic and social groups to

participate.

The core group also began to search for funding

to support the review, and in this regard contacted

Mr. Laurance S. Rockefeller, the chair of the earlier

ORRRC. Although a number of observers had

expressed the opinion that Mr. Rockefeller no longer

held an active interest in recreation policy, they were

proved wrong when he not only was interested, but

willing to underwrite a reconnaissance of the situation.

To carry out the assessment, Mr. Rockefeller

named as chair of the group a longtime associate,

Mr. Henry L. Diamond, a Washington, DC attorney

and former New York State Commissioner of the

Environment-and editor of the original ORRRC

report. The others who were invited to serve on the

Outdoor Recreation Policy Review Group, as it was

called, were the three Wallop Workshop moderdors,

Castle, Noonan and Reilly, along with Mr. Sheldon

Coleman, chairman of the Coleman Corporation, and

Mr. William Penn Mott, former California State Park

Director under Governor Ronald Reagan. Mr. Rockefeller served on the group in an ex officio role. Some

have erroneously identified the Policy Review Group

as the originator of the ideafor a new ORRRC, although

the group’s advocacy was crucial in advancing the

effort.

Beginning in August 1982, the group met

primarily in Washington, D.C., receiving briefings and

prepared papers from a number of recreation and

related professionals in and out of government. Within

six months the group completed its review, formulated

its findings and recommendations, and issued its

report, “Outdoor Recreation for America- 1988.’ The

main recommendation was “that a new Outdoor

Recreation Resources Review Commission be created

by act of Congress as was the original ORRRC,’

adding that *an alternative could be a commission

established by executive order so long as it had the

characteristics of ORRRC: bipartisan membership,

congressional participation, a full range of outdoor

recreation interests represented, and provision for a

staff independent of the Federal agencies.* Events

were to prove the wisdom of this bit of foresight.

13
While the Policy Review Group report was

broadly relevant to this Benchmark ‘88 Forum, the

discussion of data collection and research is particularly germane. The report noted that:

In the process of compiling information for

the Policy Review Group’s consideration,

data on supply and demand for outdoor

recreation were found to be poor. While

there has been an increase in recreation

research over the past 20 years, there is a

pressing need for better coordination of

research efforts.

The report noted that ORRRC had called for a

comprehensive program of research and data

collection, but that it had not been implemented. The

President’s Commission in its later work was to

experience considerable frustration at the lack of

coherent, compatible data on a national basis. Both

the Policy Review Group and PCAO used the data

gathered by the RPA process as the most reliable

and comprehensive available nationwide.

Legislative Effort (1983-l 984)

The Rockefeller group did not draft specific bill

language to implement its primary recommendation

for a new ORRRC, but a number of interested

organizations cooperated to prepare a draft bill which

was provided to interested legislators. Senator Wallop,

after reviewing and modifying the draft language,

introduced the first bill, S.1090 on April 19, 1983.

Representative Udall introduced an identical bill in

the House as H.R. 2837 on April 28, 1983.

Senator Wallop was prepared to schedule

hearings on the bill quickly after introduction but,

unexpectedly, the measure was assigned to the

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs because

the Parliamentarian determined that the measure

dealt principally with relations with the States, the

jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

The 1958 legislation authorizing ORRRC had been

handled by the House and Senate Interior Committees,

the latter since having been renamed as the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Although

there was some informal discussion on having the

bill re-referred to the Energy and Natural Resources

Committee, it was eventually decided to allow both

Committees to process the measure. While this slowed

the process, it allowed for a number of substantive

changes, creating a bill which passed the Senate

unanimously in November 1983.

During 1984 the House Interior Subcommittee

to which the bill was referred held three days of

hearings on the bill, but failed to bring the measure

up for consideration by the subcommittee members

so that it could be reported. As a result, the measure

died in the subcommittee. Subcommittee chairman

John Seiberling told a Conservation Roundtable

gathering in Washington early in 1985 that he had

killed the measure for two reasons: first, to prevent

President Reagan from having an opportunity before

the November 1984 election to sign a conservation

bill in the Rose Garden after the record he had built

on the environment, and second, because he feared

the kinds of people the President might appoint to

the Commission.

Executive Order (1985)

President Reagan, having seen the fate of the

new ORRRC bill in the House of Representatives,

chose not to wait further for Congressional action.

On January 28, 1985, he signed Executive Order

12503 to establish the Presidential Commission on

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review. As formulated

in the E.O., the Commission was to consist of not

more than 15 members, was to carry out functions

quite similar to those specified in the Senate passed

legislation, and was to complete its work within 12

months, The Secretary of the Interior was charged

with providing administrative support to the Commission.

The Secretary of the Interior, William Clark,

assembled a list of names of possible nominees for

the President’s consideration, but before the selections could be made and announced, Secretary

Clark had announced his resignation. His successor,

Donald Hodel, wished to have input to the list of

potential nominees, so there was a delay in creating

the final list for the President. Further discussions

with the President’s choice to chair the group,

Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, took place

during the summer.

Selection of commissioners was not completed

until August 1985, when a second Executive Order,

12529, changed the name to the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors and extended the

termination date to December 31, 1986, giving the

organization an effective life of 16 months. The

organization meeting took place at the National

Geographic Society in September 1985, with Governor

Alexander as chair and National Geographic Society

President Gilbert Grosvenor named as vice-chairman.

As a presidential commission, all of the members

were appointed by the President. Only four congressional appointments were made, compared with the

14
eight serving on ORRRC, but the strict balance

between parties and chambers was maintained. The

remaining 11 members were drawn from public and

private sectors, a number of them having expertise

in one or more areas of conservation or outdoor

recreation concern. No changes took place in the

membership during the life of the PCAO.

The Executive Order did not provide for a formal

advisory group to assist the commission, but a panel

of 20 ‘senior advisors’ was established by the

commissioners after several months. The advisors

were sought to provide expert counsel on topics the

commissioners felt were important to their work, but

in which they were not expert; the handicapped,

other special populations, wildlife, and tourism were

among these topics.

REASONS FOR CREATION OF THE

PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION

Why create a second national commission on

recreation if the first had been so successful? The

short answer is that changing circumstances and

waning enthusiasms brought into question the

continuing effectiveness of the ORRRC-generated

recreation policies.

A part of the longer answer was mentioned

earlier in discussing environmental trends, and more

will be provided in Laura Szwak’s following discussion

of demographic and societal trends as they affect

recreation. But there are larger structural shifts in

American society at work, as well, that made the

creation of PCAO appropriate.

In 1985, when the American people were asked

by the Gallup poll to choose between big government,

big business, or big labor, as to which posed the

greatest threat to the future of the country, 50 percent

of those polled chose ‘big government.” In 1959, the

first year the question was asked, government was

viewed much more positively, with only 14 percent of

the people viewing big government as the biggest

threat. Gallup characterized this as “a dramatic

reversal* in public opinion. Perception of big business

as the greatest threat grew from 15 percent in 1959

to 22 percent in 1985.

Broad societal changes such as this have altered

the perceptions and expectations people hold

regarding the Federal government. Thus, unlike

ORRRC, the new commission began in a time when

social, economic, and political trends were working

to reduce the role and size of the national government,

and when sizeable budget deficits appeared to limit

new initiatives for Federal action.

Public opinion polls show that, compared with

a generation ago, there is less confidence placed in

the ability of large institutions, public or private, to

solve problems. The Harris survey, for instance,

notes that in 1966 (when recommendations of ORRRC

were being acted upon by the Congress), 42 percent

of the public had *a great deal of confidence” in the

Congress. In 1986 this level of confidence had been

halved, to 21 percent of those surveyed. Those having

a great deal of confidence in the Executive branch

dropped from 41 percent to 18 percent between

1966 and late 1986.

About as many people have a high regard for

governance closer to home. Local and State governments were given the highest level of confidence by

21 percent and 19 percent of the people, respectively,

in 1986. Both of these show an increase of about 3

percent from 1985. There was no comparable question

about State or local governments in the 1966 Harris

survey.

Increasingly, people demand information about,

and a voice in, the planning and decisionmaking

processes of governments. Daniel Bell has written,

‘Inherently, there is a tension between bureaucracy

and participation, and this tension has framed Western

society for the past seventy years.”

Public participation is now a standard component

of Federal management of natural resources, as in

other programs. For instance, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91-190, requires that

information about environmental impact statements

be available to all parties, and that the Council on

Environmental Quality ‘utilize, to the fullest extent

possible’ services and information from public and

private organizations and individuals.

Public hearings were mandated as part of the

Executive branch process for making recommendations under the Wilderness Act of 1964, P.L. 88-577.

Also, the principal planning statutes for the U.S.

Forest Service (The Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974, P.L. 93-378) and

the Bureau of Land Management (The Federal Land

Policy and Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-579)

require the opportunity for public participation.

Congress has not been immune to these social

forces. As a result of reforms adopted under the

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, P.L. 91-510,

and changes in the House and Senate rules made

in March 1973, committee hearings and business

sessions were opened to the public except when

national security or the reputation of witnesses were

at issue. Similar ‘sunshine” legislation prevails in

many State and local governments today, as well.

15
State and local governments also are hearing

from a vocal public when decisions are to be made.

These governments are facing decisions more

frequently than in the past because devolution is

placing more responsibility for a greater range of

issues at the State and local levels of government.

Federal funding for recreation has reflected the

reduction in advocacy caused by diversion of former

sources of support to other issues. Dollars appropriated for the Land and Water Conservation Fund reached

their peak in 1978, at $805 million, declining during

the remaining years of the Carter administration and

in the Reagan administration. The latter proposed

that no funds be provided for the portion of the LWCF

going to the States, and for one year (FY82) Congress

agreed with this recommendation. In subsequent

years Congress appropriated more than the administration requested, but far less than the $900 million

authorized for appropriation from the LWCF. In FY82,

appropriations dropped to just under $180 million,

then increased in the next several years. FY87 funding

was $188 million.

Similarly, authorization of new Federal park and

recreation areas peaked with passage of P.L. 95-675,

the famous “park barrel bill”, in 1978 and the Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)

P.L. 96-487, in 1980. The former added scores of

new park, recreation, and historic units to the National

Park System and designated several dozen new

national trails and wild and scenic rivers to be

administered or studied by various Federal agencies.

The ANILCA created new parks, preserves, and wild

rivers in Alaska which doubled the size of the National

Park System. These two measures alone went far

toward providing additional recreation places and

protecting outstanding natural resources, one possible reason (along with Administration opposition) for

fewer new authorizations by the Congress in the

early 1980’s.

Use statistics for various categories of Federal

lands supporting recreation show a leveling of visits

in recent years, a decline in the length of time spent

on site, and a drop in visitors per acre. This last

trend is the result of increasing acreage during a

time of stable use. But, as noted above, most of the

increase in National Park acreage is in newly designated units in Alaska, protecting spectacular scenic and

wildlife resources, but providing minimal accessible

land resources for most Americans at this time. The

U.S. Forest Service Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment group at the Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station in Athens, Georgia, has documented these trends.

Another significant change emerges in the

greatly expanded provision of recreation opportunities

by the private sector. In the years following ORRRC,

many companies provided new recreation and sports

equipment based on the latest technology. Some of

this equipment, such as lightweight camping gear,

shorter and easier-to-handle skis, and synthetic fiber

garments, made outdoor recreation more accessible

and comfortable, leading to increased participation.

Other equipment innovations created new outdoor

activities entirely, such as whitewater-rafting and

hang-gliding.

More recently, both entrepreneurs and non-profit

organizations have been offering services and facilities

to stimulate and meet the demand for recreation.

The provision of indoor recreation and fitness centers

supplements outdoor opportunities for swimming,

tennis, running, and other activities with the added

benefit that these facilities are available year-around

and, in some cases, around the clock, accommodating

lifestyles that are more active and individualistic than

in the past.

Some of these trends are those which led to

the call for a review of outdoor recreation policy, and

others are changes which the Commission discovered

during its investigations. The items cited above are

only a sample of the trends in both of these categories,

but it is hoped that they will show the need for, and

importance of, the President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors-and of the need to carefully

monitor and interpret American social, political and

economic trends in the future. Trend awareness is

likely to be very important in efficiently assuring a full

range of recreation opportunities from all providers.

PCAO WORK

There is probably little need to recount the

detailed process followed by the Commission in

carrying out its mandate. Initially commissioners

organized into three working groups, supply, demand,

and new ideas, then combined to work as a committee

of the whole for the remainder of the time available.

The process for developing the common

information base of PCAO did not rely upon contract

research, as ORRRC had done. Rather, extensive

use was made of 20 public hearings around the

country, along with a series of 11 strategic planning

sessions, a public opinion poll commissioned by the

National Geographic Society, and the public solicitation of concept papers and new ideas from the

16
recreation business and professional community and

the public at large. In addition, under the management

of Laura Szwak, a major, cooperative survey of

recreation literature was completed with the assistance

of academic and agency research specialists from

across the country.

Early in the process the States were challenged

to conduct their own individual efforts to reassess

the needs and opportunities for outdoor recreation.

Some 37 States responded to this challenge with

methods ranging from the establishment of counterpart State Recreation Commissions to intensive review

of existing statewide recreation plans.

Associated activities included a national conference on urban recreation in Baltimore, Maryland, a

conference on the role of private lands for recreation,

held in a Senate hearing room, and a hearing session

on-special populations, also in a Senate hearing

room. Commissioners and staff members participated

in many meetings of interested organizations throughout the year in 1986.

The public hearings and listening sessions

served a very important role in bringing the Commissioners to their final recommendations. While they

heard many messages during their term, there were

some messages that were offered more frequently or

convincingly than others. However, a number of the

most frequent messages did not comport well with

the presidential caveats on the need to look for new

economies in providing recreation opportunities. The

“telling” messages included:

l There is a need for continuing Federal financial

assistance in some amount and on an assured basis;

l Primary needs for funds at the State and local level

are for the care and restoration of existing resources,

especially built facilities, and for new protection and

acquisition of open space;

*There is a need for clear identification of roles among

public and private sectors to determine who is

responsible for doing what in providing recreation

opportunities;

l A need was expressed for leadership and a common

voice on recreation issues;

l There is a need to provide recognition of the benefits

of recreation so that it receives fair funding and

programmatic consideration by elected officials and

agency managers;

l Data on recreation resources, participation, spending

and trends are incomplete, inconsistent, and often

incompatible from agency to agency.

These needs were presented not in an aura of

a crisis in recreation, but out of dual concerns. First,

that the recreation estate is fraying$through lack of

stewardship. Second, that the pace of land development in rapid growth areas is claiming sites with

recreation potential while creating new, unmet

recreation demands. A lack of funding contributes to

these concerns, although this is not the only cause

of the problems,

The Commissioners heard not only of needs,

but of opportunities and successes, as well. In this

context, the messages included:

@There has been a tremendous growth in the ranks

of volunteers who are providing skills as well as

muscle to hard pressed recreation managers, with

the potential to do even more;

l partnerships among governments and with the

private sector have evolved to the benefit of all parties,

including the public, and here, also, the potential for

further cooperation is great;

*New, innovative sources of funding for recreation

agencies, sites and programs are being developed

and implemented, including property transfer taxes

dedicated to recreation, a tobacco products tax, and

payments by users of public recreation sites and

services.

In assessing the future of recreation, this series

of needs and opportunities may prove informative to

all the institutions concerned with the quality and

quantity of recreation opportunities available to the

public.

PCAO THEMES

What was the result of the work of the President’s

Commission on Americans Outdoors? The first

measure of results lies in the recommendations the

Commission made. As the final report of the Commission has been officially available to the public since

1987, and the list of recommendations is known, for

this record I will only characterize what I see as the

themes of the recommendations. They are as follows:

l ASENSEOFURGENCY

ODECENTRALIZATION

@CONTINUED FEDERAL FUNDING

.INSTITUTION

.PARTNERSHIPS

17
PCAO FOLLOW-UP Executive Branch Now Studying Report in

Domestic Policy Council

A second measure of the Commission’s impact

may be sought in reviewing what has been done

with its work and recommendations. This is a subject

that shows some complexity, is made up of delay,

uncertainty, and individual and organizational initiatives.

Law Suit Delay

The initial delay following the end of the PCAO

came because of critics. Chief among these were

organizations representing commodity interests which

use the public lands, inholders on Federal lands,

some administration officials, and organizations and

individuals opposed to an increased Federal role in

recreation or other programs.

Some of the criticisms were apparently based

on interpretations of the recommendations which

seem to exceed the intent of the Commission, a flaw

which could be remedied with the publication of the

full report. Some critics, for instance, perceived the

proposed system of greenways as being federally

managed, but the Commission viewed greenways as

an idea which local or State governments might

choose to adopt, varying the characteristics of the

idea to suit local situations.

Other problems were seen in the proposal to

spend one billion dollars a year on recreation

programs, and in the apparent lack of reliance upon

the private sector to meet more of the demand for

recreation in the future.

One group, the Center for the Defense of Free

Enterprise, filed suit, charging among other things,

that the Commission failed to follow the Freedom of

Information Act, the Executive Order which created

the Commission, and the Federal Advisory Committee

Act. After a delay of several months, the case was

dismissed by the judge, who found in favor of the

Commission and the Interior Department on all points.

Interestingly, the early opponents of the Commission, the environmental groups, found themselves

pleasantly surprised by the work of the President’s

group and by its recommendations, and a number

are now working toward implementation of those

recommendations. Nonetheless, as a vice-president

of one of the groups confided, the environmentalists

“wound up with egg on their faces.’

Additional delay has been caused by uncertainty

on the part of the Administration on how to treat the

report and recommendations of the President’s

commission. The arguments raised by critics about

increased government control and regulation, and

the suggestion of a billion dollar trust fund stopped

any immediate embracing of the Commission’s work

by the Administration. Some cabinet and sub-cabinet

level individuals voiced criticism of a number of the

recommendations. What eventually evolved was a

decision to have the Domestic Policy Council review

the report and recommendations, a process now

nearing completion in a group chaired by Council on

Environmental Quality member Jacqueline Schafer.

There has been very little information on the review

made public.

Congress Legislating User Fees, LWCF

Extension, Possible Trust Fund

Notwithstanding the lack of a position on the

PCAO recommendations from the Administration, the

Congress is proceeding independently on several of

the items requiring Federal action. Specifically,

Congress has enacted a permanent increase in

National Park Entrance fees, and a 25 year extension

of the LWCF. Also, bills have been introduced by

Senator Chafee (S.1338) and Representative Atkins

(HR. 3736) to convert the LWCF to a true trust fund

as recommended by PCAO. Additional legislation on

the latter proposal is anticipated in the 100th Congress

from Representative Morris Udall, one of the members

of Congress who served on the PCAO. Mr. Udall

added Clay Peters to the House Interior Committee

staff for a period in 1987 to complete the research

work and prepare draft legislation to implement the

PCAO recommendations on a LWCF trust fund. Peters

served as Associate Director for Federal Lands on

the Commission.

States, Localities, Non-Profits Very Active

State and local governments have moved

aggressively since PCAO completed its work, particularly in the matter of securing increased funding for

land acquisition and facility development. The most

noticeable of these efforts have been those associated

with bond referenda in 1986 and 1987, and also in

funding initiatives by State legislatures such as in

Maryland.

18
In some cases these bond questions and

legislative initiatives can be clearly traced to the

work of PCAO, particularly Chairman Alexander’s

challenge to his fellow Governors to establish

counterpart State level commissions. In Maine, for

instance, such a commission was established,

eventually recommending a $50 million bond issue

for land acquisition and open space preservation.

The Maine legislature reviewed this proposal and

agreed to placing a $35 million bond question on

the ballot last November. The measure passed with

65 percent of the vote, approving a land-protection

bond issue approximately 10 times the size of any

single similar bond issue in the past.

The trail community was one of the most active

and consistent participating interest groups in the

work of the Commission, finding a particular friend in

Commissioner Frank Bogert, Mayor of Palm Springs,

California, and an avid horseman. A rails-to-trails

coalition has been organized to support implementation of the trail expansion recommendations of the

PCAO and to assist in getting local governments to

act on the proposals for creation of greenways. State

and local governments are already moving to establish

greenways.

BUT WHAT LIES AHEAD?

To borrow from William Shakespeare-and the

inscription on the National Archives-it is true that

‘What’s past is prologue,” and this review of recent

history does not mean that our work is finished. The

title of this meeting is recognition of this fact, for we

are here to set benchmarks.

If anything should be obvious from the PCAO

exercise it is that change is vitally important. In

establishing the benchmarks we seek here, we must

constantly be aware of the pace, magnitude and

direction of change. These are dynamic variables,

but to ignore them and seek to impose rigidity on

the future would be intellectually derelict and administratively inefficient.

Marion Clawson’s third conclusion captured the

essence of this challenge for each of us when he

said:

Change has dominated the history of outdoor

recreation in these two generations and

surely will continue. The world has changed

and will change; if you are to be a vital part

of it, you must change also.

In speaking to groups around the country since

PCAO concluded, I have been sharing with audiences

two sets of three words that seem to capture much

of the experience we gained in our efforts. They may

be helpful here in setting benchmarks and looking to

the future.

The first set of words is “change, time, distance,”

all of which will be far clearer after Laura Szwak’s

paper. Change we have just noted, and it seems to

be the dominant factor in our personal and professional lives. Time, especially leisure time is arguably

becoming a scarcer commodity, and whatever the

actual measures may be, the public perception

frequently is that we have less leisure. Distance, that

is the distance traveled for recreation, is a function

of the perceived lessening of time.

The interrelationship of these three elements

leads to the second set of three words, “close to

home.” Close to home represents the results of these

three elements as it applies to recreation (and probably

much else in our lives, also). Data are already showing

the impact of this trend. Even more may lie ahead

with this trend; note the recent celebrity status given

to the “couch potato,” publicity that will have the

likely effect of generating an increase of in-home

recreation. The “close to home” phenomenon may

pose one of our greatest challenges in providing

and managing recreation opportunities, public and

private, in the years ahead.

A second, closely related challenge is related

to where that home is located. Here the demography

of place becomes important, for we find that during

the 1970’s the non-metro counties were growing

faster than the metro areas. Although the metro

areas have moved ahead somewhat in growth in the

last few years, there is still significant growth in

outer-ring counties surrounding metropolitan centers,

but also in more remote areas high in scenic amenities.

From a strictly recreation perspective, this presents

two problems: first, lands suitable for providing

outdoor recreation are disappearing, and second,

population centers are springing up and will need

new recreation opportunities themselves.

There are, of course, other important issues

involved in the patterns of land use that are emerging,

but I will not attempt to address them. There are

several good writers who address these issues with

great success, I believe, offering a holistic view that

19
can be helpful to others with a more specialized

perspective. Richard Louv, a writer and editor for the

San Diego Union in his book ‘America II,’ touches

upon many current sociological trends, including the

strong national nostalgia for small towns. Of these

“New Edens” he writes:

The rural rush . , . is creating a condoized,

computerized culture not really rural and not

quite urban. This New Eden offers enormous

possibility for a better life, but it also offers

what could potentially be the final destruction

of nature and the small-town culture for which

so many people yearn.

Based on his observations from around the

nation in preparation of his book, he also fears the

development of community isolation and group

polarization and conflict stemming from current trends.

“The New Heartland,” by John Herbers, a New

York Times writer, examines the same trends and

issues as did Louv, but comes away with a somewhat

more optimistic view of non-metro growth in which

growth and natural values can coexist. In part, he

places this assessment on the belief that “the

environment is the one issue on which the Federal

government can be expected to step in and impose

controls or insist that the State and local governments

do so.”

Jack Lessinger, a real estate professor who

has written “Regions of Opportunity,” comes out

close to Herbers in his work, which is not quite so

broadly gauged as the other two books. His reason

for optimism as non-metro growth takes place, in

what he calls “penturbia,’ is the emergence of the

“caring conserve? as the type of person who is

attracted to these outlying areas. He describes the

philosophy of the caring conserver by stating:

[I]t is the life-style of ‘self-fulfillment’ in

penturbia. The way pollster and social analyst

Daniel Yankelovich explains it, self-fulfillment

is a movement sweeping toward an inspirational array of intangibles. Emphasis is on

sharing, participation, adventure, and joy of

living.

CONCLUSION

The two challenges to recreation professionals,

where people recreate and where they live, should

be seen as people issues rather than resource issues

if we hope to meet them.

Indeed, when change is as important as Marion

Clawson indicates, it is through the closer scrutiny of

people-their hopes, activities, politics, and

demographics-that we can best analyze change.

For society changes faster, and more erratically,

than the natural resources with which we are professionally concerned. To bring about a rewarding,

stable relationship between people and resources

we cannot ignore the more volatile component.

REFERENCES

American Forestry Association. 1980. Renewable

natural resources: key to the future. Washington,

DC. 56 pp.

Bell, Daniel. 1982. The social sciences since the

Second World War. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. 102 pp.

Cordell, H. Ken; Hendee, John C. 1980. Renewable

resources recreation in the United States: supply,

demand, and critical policy issues. Washington,

DC: American Forestry Association. 88 pp.

Davis, Earon S. 1984. The environment is ‘moving.’

Environmental Forum. 3(8):29-33.

Edmondson, Jolee. 1987. Hazards of the game.

Audubon, 89(6):25-37.

Herbers, John, 1986. The new heartland: America’s

flight beyond the suburbs and how it is changing

our future. New York: Times Books. 228 pp.

Lessinger, Jack. 1986. Regions of opportunity: a

bold new strategy for real estate investment with

forecasts to the year 2010. New York: Times Books.

308 pp.

Louv, Richard. 1985. America II. New York: Penguin

Books. 328 pp.

Clearly, these views of our mobile population

invite much consideration.

20
President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

1986. A literature review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Various pagings.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

1986. Report and recommendations to the President of the United States. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. 210 pp.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

1986. Working papers. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Various pagings.

U.S. Congress. 1981. Senate Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources. Workshop on public land

acquisition and alternatives. Washington, DC.

1029 pp.

U.S. Congress. 1982. Senate Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources. Workshop on land protection and management. Washington, DC. 757 pp.

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1987. Environmental quality: the 16th annual report of the Council

on Environmental Quality together with the President’s message to Congress. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office 446 pp.

APPENDIX: ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS OF THE TWO COMMISSIONS

Element

Authorit y

ORRRC

P.L. 85-470

June 28, 1958

Duration

Membership

Appointment

June 1958 - Jan. 1962

15 15

8 Congressional 4 Congressional

7 Private 11 Private

President

7 Private

President

All

Congressional Leaders

8 Congressional

Information Source Contract research Public hearings and

input, staff &

contributed reseach

Principal Task Recommend Federal policy

to deal with growth in

in outdoor recreation

demand

Report Title Outdoor Recreation

for America

PCAO

Exec. Order No. 12503

January 29, 1985

Aug. 1985 - Dec. 1986

Reassess effectiveness of existing

policies for outdoor recreation

Report and

Recommendations

21
SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

AFFECTING OUTDOOR RECREATION

Laura B. Szwakl

Abstract - Various social and demographic characteristics influencing participation and interest in outdoor

recreation are discussed, The factors include time,

work, income, fami/y, health, and urbanization. Lack

of time (either real or perceived), increasing job

competition, family demands, and other factors may

reduce outdoor recreation participation.

INTRODUCTION

In this analysis, I will focus on those social and

demographic characteristics that influence people’s

participation and interest in outdoor recreation. I will

not describe trends in outdoor recreation participation

because you will hear a lot about these trends,

according to the BENCHMARK 1988 program.

In the 1982-83 Nationwide Recreation Survey,

the American public was asked what determined the

amount of time they spent on outdoor recreation

(U.S. Department of the Interior 1986). The public’s

response to this question guided the characteristics

I chose to describe in this analysis of trends. These

factors included time, work, family, health, income,

and urbanization.

Time

Consistently, the most important variable influencing people’s participation and interest in outdoor

recreation is time. Time has increasingly sped up for

people. The relentless rhythm of the computer has

replaced the natural way time has always been

measured. Computers operate in nanoseconds, one

billionth of a second. According to Jeremy Rifkin

(1987) time has never before been organized at a

speed beyond the realm of human consciousness,

beyond human perception. Efficiency and productivity

‘Outdoor Recreation Planner, U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Washington, DC.

22

are measured in speed. A product’s value is dependent on how fast it is available, not necessarily on

how long it may last.

Time is becoming our scarcest resource. A Louis

Harris (Louis Harris & Associates, Inc. 1984) poll

claims that leisure time for American adults has

dropped 31 percent (about 8 hours a week) since

1973. As a result, we are growing into a ‘convenience

culture.’ This culture consists of goods and services

that allow people to stretch their time. These growing

services include takeout food, home deliveries

(groceries, pharmaceuticals, liquor, etc.), weekend

and evening deliveries, mail order, home shopping,

home day care, housecleaning, laundry, and yard

work. More than half of American households own a

microwave oven. Another example is the one-call

travel agent-someone who can put together an

entire travel package, including transportation,

accommodations, and entertainment with one telephone call. Advertisers use the convenience culture

to market their products. Racquetball equipment, for

example, is advertised as a quick sport to learn and

quick to play for a fast workout.

Other services help people manage their time.

Automatic teller machines and VCRs are examples.

VCRs help people segment their leisure. There is a

high correlation between VCR active users and people

who read regularly. These services allow people to

tailor their daily schedules to meet their needs and

not have schedules imposed on them. Time control

is not just convenient; it is becoming necessary.

And, consumers are willing to pay to save their

precious time.

Why are we experiencing such time famine?

According to Judy Langer, a market researcher in

New York, ‘Everybody just seems to feel worn out”

by the growing demands of work, family, and personal

achievement (Hall 1988). The time crunch results

from a whole host of reasons, including an increasing

range of options on how to spend time. As you will

see, time or perceived lack of time is only getting

worse.
Work Income

One of the major determinants of leisure time is

time spent at work. The 40-hour workweek remains

strong. Most workers say they are satisfied with the

amount of time they work. Those who are not satisfied

prefer working more hours to receive more income.

This opinion is also held by working mothers. A flexible

work schedule, thought to be a growing trend in the

sixties, is still available to only 12 percent of the work

force. Since 1980, moonlighting, or holding more

than one job, has increased half a percent. Few

workers say they would trade less income for more

leisure or family time. Job security accounted for this

response (Trost 1986).

What is deceiving about the 40-hour workweek

is the amount of work people do at home. Eight

million people work at least 8 hours a week at home

in addition to their full-time work schedule. One out

of four workers works on Saturday; one out of eight

on Sunday. (These statistics include workers that

have to work weekends as a regular part of their

40-hour schedule.) The personal home computer will

increasingly allow people to segment their work and

leisure even further and exercise more time control.

The transition of the American economy to one

of services further enhances the blurring of leisure

and work time. Ninety percent of the 16 million new

jobs expected by 1995 will be in the service industry.

In manufacturing jobs, workers punch a clock. All

the work is performed on the company’s site. In a

service economy, successful services need to be

convenient and available to people where they live.

Job competition is increasing, and this phenomenon is occurring because of demographic

changes. The number of people who are 35 to 44

years old -the prime age for middle managers- has

increased by 42 percent. However, middle management jobs have grown by only 19 percent. Some of

the ‘overflow’ will become entrepreneurs. In a survey

comparing entrepreneurs with other workers, over

half of the people who ran their own business said

they spent less time with their family, and two-thirds

said they cut out recreation and other activities they

enjoyed. The others who choose not to become

self-employed may go back to school or engage in

some other retraining (Trost 1986). Therefore, job

security and a reliable source of income will impact

use of time for the next 20 years.

The amount of money people said they had

determined how much time they spent on outdoor

recreation. Money was generally related to equipment

purchases. Since each purchase also has a time

cost associated with it, those products that are quick

for the consumer to learn and, again, are convenient

will enjoy the most success.

In 1985, the share of disposable personal income

devoted to recreation was 6.4 percent. Two consumer

groups - older people and teenagers - influence

much of this spending these days.

Adults over 50 years old account for half of all

discretionary spending in the United States. This

age group spends a greater proportion of their annual

income on vacation trips than the general public.

They also take 72 percent of all recreational vehicle

trips. The income picture for the elderly, at least for

the next 10 years, will continue to be positive. Since

1982, people 65 and over have reported a lower

poverty rate than the population as a whole. This is

a historic reversal of a trend. In the 1950’s, 35 percent

of older Americans lived in poverty. This reversal

resulted from massive Federal assistance. The

percentage of Federal dollars devoted to the elderly

has risen from 6 percent in the 1960’s to a current

30 percent. A total of 350 billion Federal dollars,

more than the entire defense budget, is spent on the

elderly. This is the fastest growing age group now,

and the growth will continue as the Baby Boomers

age. It is unknown how government support will

continue or change in the next 20 years as the better

educated, more healthy, and more affluent Baby

Boomers reach their ‘golden’ years. Since participation in outdoor recreation declines sharply after age

45, interest in outdoor recreation may also wane.

The elderly are important targets for aggressive

promotions of outdoor recreation.

The second most important consumers are the

teenagers, known as the Baby Bust and aged 12 to

21. Despite their smaller size (38 million compared

with the Baby Boom of 76 million), the Baby Bust

has businesses trying to attract their attention. For

example, Campbell Soup advertises on MTV. Many

of these teenagers decide how a portion of the family’s

income will be spent. In their parents’ quest for more

time, teens are asked to grocery shop on their way

home from school. Also, nearly half (45 percent) of

the teenagers have part-time jobs and have their

own money to spend. Traditionally, teenagers are

the most avid outdoor recreation participants - in

number of activities and in frequency.

23
Family

Family composition influences the demand for

outdoor recreation. Other than time and money,

respondents to the 198283 Nationwide Outdoor

Recreation Survey said that children determined how

much time they spent on outdoor recreation. People

with younger children tended to spend less time. As

the children grew, the amount of time spent in outdoor

recreation grew.

The number of children is declining rapidly. Baby

Boomers are delaying marriages and childbearing.

More people are not having children at all, estimated

at 30 percent of all married couples compared with

10 percent in 1936. The percentage of women who

never marry has doubled since 1970. Of those couples

having children, they are having fewer, if not only

one. Half of all children born today are first born.

Parents tend to spend more money on their first-born

child. Some researchers call these children of the

Baby Boom ‘gourmet babies’ because they have the

best of what money can buy (Clurman and others

1986).

Changes in household composition also influence

interest and participation in outdoor recreation.

Families are primary users of public parks. In the

1982-83 recreation survey, availability of companions

for outdoor recreation was an important element in

participation. Household members are ready companions for outdoor recreation. Since the 1960’s, the

number of people who live alone has tripled to 21.2

million, or one-quarter of all households. By the year

2000, over 7 million more people are expected to

live alone. Many of these households consist of elderly

women, who traditionally are the least active group

of outdoor recreation participants.

To find companions for recreation, people are

joining more specialized clubs and associations,

some of which include health and hobby interests.

The number of specialty magazines increased over

1,000 from 1982 to 1983. Different combinations of

groups are forming; i.e., walking clubs and silent

sports (bicyclists, canoeists, cross-country skiers)

groups. The number of athletic and hobby nonprofit

clubs and organizations rose faster than almost any

other type of nonprofit organization. These diverse

interest groups make management of outdoor

recreation resources more challenging. Since 80 to

90 percent of all leisure activities are done with other

people, these clubs provide a social atmosphere for

recreation.

Learning outdoor recreation skills has been a

family activity and depends on family composition.

People tend to learn their outdoor recreation skills

when they are young, Some activities, such as hunting

and trapping, are traditionally passed down from

father to son. In 1986, a quarter of American families

with children were headed by a single parent. Nineteen

percent of households with minor children are headed

by a woman with no husband.

Few new activities are taken up by people past

their 30th birthday. However, the decline in physical

recreation with age accelerates faster than actual

physiological ability. Other factors- attitudes, supply

of services and/or facilities, and knowledge-suppress

older people’s interest in outdoor recreation. Careful

marketing and servicing of the more affluent, more

healthy, and educated elderly may reverse that trend.

Health

Another reason people said they spent more

time in outdoor recreation was improving their health.

We hear that more people are exercising than ever

before, yet we also hear they are not doing enough

to improve their physical fitness. Nevertheless, the

sales of barbells and weights have doubled since

1977. Over 600,000 stationary bikes were sold in

1977; and in 1984 sales were up to 2.9 million.

Teenagers are smoking and drinking less than any

previous age cohort. However, hunting, fishing, and

camping equipment sales have been declining for

the past 10 years (Doyle 1985).

A serious health indicator is the percentage of

fat children. Since 1965, obesity increased 64 percent

for school-aged children (6 to 11 years old) and 39

percent for teenagers (Price 1987). Outdoor recreation

is important to the health of our children.

Fitness is also subject to the convenience culture.

People will select products and services that are

convenient, yet allow them some individual expression.

Aerobics is an example of how the fitness market is

segmenting to meet people’s various needs. There

are low-impact aerobics, nonimpact aerobics, aquatic

aerobics, etc.

Urbanization

One of the chief motivating forces behind the

creation of the past two presidential assessments of

outdoor recreation is the American’s perceived loss

of wide open spaces. In 1960, 70 percent of the U.S.

population lived in metropolitan areas. Twenty years

later the percentage rose to 75. By 2000, another

24
5-percent increase is expected-up to 80 percent of

the population. In 1950, there were about 13 acres

of land available per U.S. inhabitant. By 2000, that

acreage is expected to drop to 5 acres. There is

even some research that claims as life becomes

more urbanized, the demand for outdoor recreation

decreases (Hauser 1962).

The fifties represented a turning point in urban

settlement. For the first time, central cities (at least a

quarter of them) experienced a population loss. That

population decline is continuing. The suburbs of the

eighties, the new metropolitan areas, are quite different

than those of the fifties. Suburbs of the fifties were

bedroom communities for the central city. People

worked, shopped and enjoyed recreation downtown.

In the eighties, the suburbs are expanding beyond

commuting distances of the central cities. These

new suburbs are separate, dispersed communities

and quite metropolitan. One author calls this new

mix of urban, rural, and suburban living outside the

boundaries of metropolitan areas the “new heartland.’

This ‘new heartland’ is not economically tied to central

cities (Herbers 1987). With the rise in the service

economy, new industry is no longer dependent on

the central city infrastructure, such as railroad tracks

to haul in raw material for manufacturing. Telecommunications allow ready access to information regardless

of an office location. The service industry moves to

where the people are. And the people are searching

for some open space.

Seventeen percent of Americans move to a

different home every year. Two-thirds of those people

move within their own county. Those who move long

distance are moving south. When asked why they

are moving, people said they were following their

jobs, or they were looking for better places to raise

their children.

This spreading development takes a lot of land.

The reasons people leave the inner cities-crowded

streets, crime, lack of open space-are following

them to the suburbs. Yet, in some areas the people

are consciously and rigorously controlling growth.

Parks, lakes and wooded areas are an integral part

of many of these subdivisions, community districts,

and smaller cities and towns.

Conclusion

The future looks grim for continued interest in

outdoor recreation. This prediction is based on a

continued perception of a lack of time, rise in

single-person households, more elderly, fewer young

people, etc. We can speculate about the future by

age cohort, starting with the largest.

The Baby Boomers, pressed for time, may in

their later years make up for this lost time and be

avid outdoor recreation consumers. Since both

husbands and wives are living longer, there will be

an increase in the number of years they will spend

together free from child-raising responsibilities. Even

though people are retiring at an earlier age now, it is

uncertain whether the Boomers will be able to enjoy

early retirement and still maintain an adequate income.

The elderly of today are adding years to their life

and life to their years. The Boomers will enjoy a longer

life, but their life may be more work than leisure.

The Baby Busters are more realistic about the

future than the Boomers. Where the Boomers grew

up and expected economic security, the Busters

lived through a more insecure economic and social

environment - oil crisis, Vietnam War, recession,

fewer brothers and sisters, less parental supervision,

greater dislocation, and more divorce. However, the

Busters actually face a more positive employment

outlook than the Boomers. They can expect increased

wages, less inflation, decreased unemployment and

job shortages-all factors favoring the worker. Even

though work is important to this group, it will be

interesting to see if the group rebels against the time

famine and demands more leisure.

However, a clean, healthy outdoor environment

remains very important to people at every age level.

The concern for personal health, fitness, and wellbeing is a value also shared by all age groups as

well. People recognize that a dirty outdoor environment

threatens their health. We need to continue to link

outdoor recreation, in all its active and passive forms,

with better personal health and a clean environment.

25
REFERENCES

Clurman, Ann; Yankelovich, Skelley & White. 1986.

In: a presentation before the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors, Oct. 1986.

Doyle, Tom. 1985. National sporting goods association

in testimony before the President’s Commission

on Americans Outdoors. Dec. 1985.

Hall, Trish. 1988. Why all those people feel they

never have any time. The New York Times.

Jan 2.

Hauser, Phillip. 1962. Demographic and ecological

changes as factors in outdoor recreation. ORRRC

Study Report 22.

Herbers, John. 1987. The New Heartland. New

York: Times Books. 1987.

Louis Harris & Associates, Inc. Americans and the

Arts. Oct. 1984.

Price, Joyce. 1987. Researchers find more kids fat,

and super-fat, in America today. The Washington

Times. Apr. 30.

The Public Pulse. 1986. 31 major trends shaping

the future of American business. Vo1.2, no.1.

Rifkin, Jeremy. 1987. Time wars, Henry Holt & Co.

Trost, Cathy. 1986. All Work and no play? The Wall

Street Journal. Dec. 30.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

1986. 1982-83 nationwide recreation survey, April.

26
THE SUPPLY EFFECT OF RECREATIONAL LANDS AND

LANDOWNER LIABILITY: RECREATIONAL USE STATUTES REVISITED

James C. Kozlowski and Brett A. Wright’

Abstract-Population increase creates more demand

for recreational opportunities and recreational open

space. Public lands do not currently satisfy these

demands. An alternative is the opening of private

lands for public recreation. However, in spite of

legislation to limit their liability, landowners are still

reluctant to allow access. New efforts are necessary

to protect landowners and encourage the opening of

private lands.

INTRODUCTION

As the nation’s population increases and the

demand for recreational opportunities continues its

upward spiral, the supply of recreational open space

becomes an increasingly critical issue. Recognizing

the inability of public lands to satisfy current demand

for outdoor recreation, not to mention future needs,

the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors

suggested the need to seek alternative ways of

increasing the supply of outdoor recreational opportunities.

One such recommendation was to seek the

assistance of the private sector in opening more

lands for public recreation since fully two-thirds of

the nation’s land base is in private ownership.

However, downward trends in the availability of private

lands for recreation suggest that efforts to encourage

private landowners to open their land to the public

will be difficult, at best. Not only is the nation losing

valuable land to development, and that is within

easy access of major population centers, we are

also experiencing trends of increasing land closures

by private landowners. These trends have been

monitored by a number of social researchers (e.g.,

Brown 1974; Guynn and Schmidt 1984; Holecek and

‘Attorney and Adjunct Associate Professor; Assistant Professor and

Co-director, Center for Recreation Resources Policy, George Mason

University, Fairfax, VA.

Westfall 1977; Wright and others 1988) and estimates

of up to 50 percent of the private lands in some

States have been reported as being closed to public

recreation.

Private landowners have been inundated with a

variety of problems that often dissuade them from

allowing public recreational access to their properties.

These problems vary by locale, but generally include

property damages, trespassing, minimal economic

incentive to keep lands open and perceived landowner

liability when recreation&s are injured on the premises. The impact of liability is particularly perplexing

given the fact that a concerted effort was made to

alleviate this barrier to recreational access over 20

years ago.

STATE RECREATIONAL USE STATUTES

In 1965, “Suggested State Legislation,’ by the

Council of State Governments advocated a model

recreational use statute. This statute was designed

to encourage private individuals to open their lands

for public recreational use by limiting landowner

liability for recreational injuries when access is

provided without charge. Research regarding private

landowners and their willingness to provide recreation

indicates liability is still a major barrier to increasing

recreational opportunities. Now, some 23 years later,

the purpose of this paper is to again examine the

legal aspects of public recreation on private lands in

hopes of facilitating ways of increasing recreational

access to private open space.

Under the recreational use statutes, there is no

landowner liability for recreational injuries attributable

to ordinary negligence (i.e., mere carelessness). To

recover damages, the injured recreational user, who

entered the premises free of charge, must prove

willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the

landowner. Unlike ordinary negligence, such misconduct is much more outrageous behavior demonstrating an utter disregard for the physical well-being of

others.

27
At present, 49 states have enacted recreational

use statutes (with the exception of Alaska and the

District of Columbia), based in whole or in part, upon

the 1965 model act. The original intent of this model

legislation was to provide limited immunity to private

landowners. However, the statutes have also been

held applicable to public entities, including the Federal

government. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the

Federal government is liable for negligence ‘like a

private individual’ under the laws of the state where

the injury occurred. As a result, these recreational

use statutes (RUSS), intended for private individuals

have uniformly been held applicable to the Federal

government.

In addition, the RUS is applicable to State and

local entities in approximately 17 jurisdictions. In

some instances, the statutes are limited to recreational

activities conducted on rural lands. However, some

State courts have found the RUS applicable to urban

lands as well. For example, the city of Omaha has

successfully raised the State recreational use statute

as a defense to alleged ordinary negligence liability

for injuries sustained in a public park. Given the

applicability of the RUS to public entities (at least in

some jurisdictions), public park and recreation

systems can, once again, offer programs that they

were forced to eliminate because of the perceived

liabikky crises.

LEGISLATION IS NOT ENOUGH

If the framework for providing private landowners

with recreational immunity was developed more than

20 years ago, why is public access still an issue

today? Landowner research has shown that most

landowners, as well as agency land managers, do

not know that recreational use statutes exists. As a

result, the statutes do not necessarily encourage

private landowners to allow public access by limiting

liability. On the contrary, if landowners become aware

of the insulation provided by the statute, it is usually

after an injury occurs and counsel raises the statute

as a defense to negligence liability.

In those few instances where landowners are

aware of the statute, there is a perception that the

RUS does not provide sufficient immunity to act as

an incentive for public access. Private landowners

do not want to know if they will have a successful

defense to a recreational injury lawsuit. Their concern

is much more basic; they want to know: “Can I be

sued?” Unfortunately, the answer invariably is ‘Yes;

with or without the limited immunity provided by the

RUS. As a result, the lower landowner standard of

care (from ordinary negligence to willful and wanton

misconduct) imposed by the RUS will not encourage

most private individuals to open their lands to public

recreational use.

It could be suggested, therefore, that any solution

to the private recreational lands issue must address

the private landowners very real concerns about

being sued. Whether you win or lose, it has been

said that a lawsuit is the worst thing that can happen

to an individual with the exception of death or serious

illness. Therefore, one of the challenges to increasing

the amount of recreational acreage is to somehow

insulate the private landowner from the costs attendant

to a lawsuit.

Since the management of public lands does not

happen in a vacuum and insufficient private opportunities have negative impacts on public land management, the burden of finding ways to encourage more

private land access must fall to governmental land

managing agencies. These agencies must exhibit

the same degree of commitment and fervor usually

associated with land acquisition programs. As an

alternative to fee simple acquisition, lease arrangements with private landowners can provide public

recreational land whereby the agency agrees to

defend and indemnify the priiate landowner. Therefore, the private landowner may still be sued, but the

public agency will hold the landowner harmless,

absorbing the cost of defending the lawsuit. In this

way, private landowners will feel less threatened by

potential liability when they open their lands to public

use. Further, agency information and education

divisions need to conduct public awareness campaigns to educate private landowners to the immunity

available to them under existing recreational use

statutes.

A specific provision of the model legislation that

has been adopted by most states preserves limited

immunity for lands leased to the State or local

government for recreational purposes. Any payment

received by the landowner from a governmental

agency for leasing the land is not considered a charge

or fee within the meaning of the RUS. Thus, lease

payments from public entities, unlike entry fees paid

to the private landowner, would not deprive the

landowner of limited immunity under the recreational

use statute.

Where necessary, the recreational use statutes

should be amended to make it clear that such immunity

applies to public entities, as well as private individuals.

In a recreational injury lawsuit involving private land

leased to a public agency, the private landowner as

well as the agency may be sued. In that case, it

28
would be preferable that the lower standard of care

associated with the RUS be applicable to all potential

defendants, public as well as private.

A uniform standard is desirable because the

State or local agency will be more willing to enter

into a lease agreement whereby the public entity

agrees to defend and hold the private landowner

harmless when liability must be based upon proof of

willful or wanton misconduct. A lower standard of

care requiring proof of willful/wanton misconduct for

both the public and private parties in a lease of

recreational land increases the likelihood of a summary

judgment. A summary judgment dismisses or resolves

a case prior to a full trial. This significantly lowers the

costs attendant to litigation.

COORDINATED SUPPORT EFFORT

NEEDED

Attorneys defending recreational injury lawsuits

tend to be jurisdiction specific. They are, therefore,

not necessarily aware of the status of recreational

immunity in other jurisdictions, As a result, recreational

use statutes are being interpreted by State courts in

various ways. Many of these judicial interpretations

do nothing to encourage private landowners to open

their lands to public recreational use.

History has shown that it is not enough to get

the statutes on the books. There are presently 49

recreational use statutes, but potential landowner

liability for allowing public recreational access is still

an issue. No doubt, the problem has improved since

1965. However, much needs to be done to ensure

that these statutes are favorably interpreted by the

courts.

It would be advantageous to the park and

recreation profession to coordinate its efforts in the

area of recreational injury liability. Specifically, some

sort of institutional base needs to be developed to

share information and resources on the overall issue

of recreational injury liability as has been suggested

by the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. For want of a better term, this proposed think

tank has been referred to as the ‘Recreation Law

Institute.’

An institute of this type is well suited for the

university environment, working closely with agencies

of all jurisdictions utilizing its services. One would

expect the insurance industry to be interested in

supporting a coordinated effort by the park and

recreation field to address the problem of recreational

liability. Absent this coordinated and institutionalized

approach, we may be back once again 20 years

from now to explore the liability question and how it

is affecting the supply of recreational opportunities.

REFERENCES

Brown, T.L. 1974. New York landowners’ attitudes

toward recreation activities. Transactions North

American Wildlife Natural Resource Conference.

39: 173-l 79.

Guynn, D.E.; Schmidt, J.L. 1984. Managing deer

hunters on private lands in Colorado. Wildlife

Society Bulletin. 12:12-l 9.

Holecek, D.F.; Westfall, R.D. 1977. Public recreation

on private land-the land owners’ perspective.

Res. Rep. 335. East Lansing, Ml: Michigan State

University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 12 pp.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

1987. Americans outdoors: the legacy, the challenge. Washington, DC: Island Press. 426 pp.

Wright, B.A.; Kaiser, R.A.; Fletcher, J.E. 1988. Hunter

access decisions by rural landowners: an east

Texas example. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

16(2):152-l 58.

29

Section 2.

The Outdoor Recreation Resource:

Trends and Current Status

THE NATIONAL PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP STUDY:

ESTABLISHING THE BENCHMARK

Brett A. Wright, H. Ken Cordell,

Tommy L. Brown, and Allen L. RoweIll

Abstract - This paper presents the findings of the

1986 National Private Land Ownership Study. The

study develops a better understanding of the individuals who own rural lands and the reasons for that

ownership. Estimates of tract sizes, amount of land

.dedicated to specific land uses, and leasing and

posting practices currently employed by landowners

were established as a framework for examining

recreational access dimensions and policies.

Availability of private lands is crucial if America is

to meet increasing demands for a number of types

of outdoor recreation. Private land and water resources

provide businesses for such activities as camping,

skiing, boating, horseback riding, fee fishing, and

hunting. Noncommercial private lands are also critical

to meeting national demands for hunting and fishing.

Such private lands also have important regional

implications for meeting demands for other wildlifeassociated recreation activities, hiking, camping, and

snowmobiling.

Unlike public lands, which are managed for public

purposes including recreation, private, nonindustrial

lands are managed by thousands of individual

landowners, primarily for their own private objectives.

Many of these private acres provide excellent recreation opportunities, but often they are closed to the

public unless permission is obtained. Programs to

obtain public access to private lands have most

frequently been implemented at State and substate

levels. H.owever, it is important that the Federal

government periodically monitor recreational access

‘Assistant Professor and Director, Center for Recreation Resources

Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Project Leader,

Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Athens, GA; Senior Research Associate,

Department of Nature1 Resources, Cornell University, lthaca, NY;

Outdoor Recreation Planner, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness

Assessment Group, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Athens, GA.

to private lands on national and regional bases to

ascertain whether sufficient public and private acres

in combination are available to meet demands for a

host of outdoor activities. The 1986 National Private

Landownership Study was implemented for this

purpose.

This paper summarizes the importance of the

private recreation estate to Americans in the latter

half of the 1980’s. It examines the literature for factors

associated with decisions of private landowners to

grant or restrict recreation access. It then presents

results of the 1986 national study, and examines

trends from the previous study conducted in 1976.

ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF PRIVATE

LANDS

The total private, nonindustrial land base in the

United States amounts to about 1.3 billion acres

(Resources for the Future 1988). About 90 percent

of these lands are in the Eastern states. Because

Eastern states have greater population densities and

fewer public lands than the West, availability of private

lands for recreation in the East is critical to meet

growing demands for resources for a number of

outdoor activities.

The private sector contributes to the recreation

resource base in two ways, Thousands of businesses

now provide camping, skiing, boating, horseback

riding, hunting, and fishing opportunities. These

businesses provide important sources of additional

income. They often provide complementary recreational experiences to those provided by the public sector,

and they substantially reduce pressures associated

with even greater numbers of recreationists on public

lands. In addition to private businesses, thousands

of rural landowners across America willingly open

their lands to hunters, anglers, hikers, and others

free of charge. Particularly in the east, where much

of choice habitat for wildlife species is found on

33
private lands, continued availability of private lands Table 1. --Percentage of U.S. land area

is crucial to meeting demands for hunting and other in private ownership and percentage of

wildlife-related recreational activities. private acreage farmed

THE PRIVATE LAND BASE AND ITS

OWNERS

Of 1.3 billion acres of private lands in America,

the largest single category, cropland, occupies 464

million acres, 35 percent of the total (Frey and Hexem

1985). About 30 percent, 393 million acres, is forested,

while 28 percent, 373 million acres, is in grassland,

pasture, and range. The remaining 99 million acres,

about seven percent of the total, is in miscellaneous uses. Private land comprises 99 percent

of the nation’s cropland, 62 percent of grassland

pasture and range, and 55 percent of forest lands.

Using the most recent comprehensive landowner

study in the U.S. (Lewis 1978), information on amount

of land farmed (U. S. Department of Commerce 1978)

and estimates of land area of States (U. S. Department

of Commerce 1984) a regional view of the preponderance of land in private ownership and proportion of

private acreage in farms can be assembled. Although

about one-third of the continental U. S. is publicly

owned, most of the Eastern and Central regions

have less than ten percent of acreage in public

ownership (table 1). Thus, the importance of private

lands in supplementing the public recreation base

becomes apparent.

In the Northeast, Appalachia, and the South,

less than half of private acreage is in farms. In Central

and Western regions, most private acreage is owned

by farmers or ranchers. In the three Corn Belt and

Plains Regions, ranging from Ohio west to Kansas,

table 1 shows a combination of very little public

acreage and high proportions of private acreage in

farms. In these States, land owned by farmers is a

critically important wildlife recreation resource.

Considerable concern has been expressed in

recent years that the supply of land on which to

pursue outdoor recreation activities is decreasing at

alarming rates (Brown and others 1984; Guynn and

Schmidt 1984; Wright and Kaiser 1986). Land is

being permanently removed from the open space

land base for population expansion and urban

development. For example, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture est_imates 1.5 million acres of agricultural

land are being converted to nonagricultural uses

annually (Resources for the Future 1983). Moreover,

additional amounts of remaining open space are

being closed and/or posted by private landowners,

thus denying access to the public (Brown 1974; Brown

Private

Region'

Privatsly acreage

owned in farms

United States3

Northeast

Lake States

Appalachian

Southeast

Delta States

Corn Belt

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Mountain

Pacific

Percent

55

28

t;

iii

81

102

87

107

68

'Regions defined in Lewis (1980).

2

Includes public lands leased for

farming and some Indian reservation

lands still considered to be public

domain.

Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii.

and others 1984; Guynn and Schmidt 1984; Resources

for the Future 1983; Wright and Kaiser 1986). The

problem of providing sufficient access to the public

for recreation is exacerbated because these decreases in land resources have come during a period of

increasing public demands for outdoor activities

(President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors

1987).

RURAL LANDOWNERS’ ACCESS

DECISIONS

At least two conceptual models of landowner

decisions regarding hunting access have been

developed. Wright and others (1988) depicted a

landowner hunting access model in which information

from three domains went into landowners’ decisions:

landowner attributes, user behavior, and resource

attributes. Landowner attributes included demographic characteristics, ownership objectives, attitudes,

34
and posting policies. User behavior included various

types of property damages and nuisances that are

so often associated with irresponsible recreationists.

Resource attributes included existing land uses,

wildlife availability and habitat quality, and acreage.

Based on information from these three domains,

each landowner decided whether to allow open

access, restrictive access, exclusive access, or no

access (implied is that no fee is charged). The other

option is to allow access on a fee basis (Wright and

others 1988).

Decker and others (1987) developed a slightly

different model of hunting access dynamics of private

landowners and hunters. In its most general form,

landowners’ values, beliefs, and attitudes provided

bases for this model of landowner access policies.

Through imperfect communications, hunters interpreted these policies and/or developed perceptions of

them, from which hunters reacted and displayed

certain behaviors toward hunting on private lands.

These hunter reactions and behaviors in turn were

seen and interpreted by landowners, and fed back

into landowner attitudes, beliefs, and values. Each of

these models was developed further as background

and literature review regarding landowner decisions

about public access.

Five primary domains influenced landowners’

values, beliefs, and attitudes, and thus formed the

bases for their access policies. Although not included

among these domains, it was recognized that

socioeconomic and demographic characteristics

were correlated to some degree with access behavior.

Such characteristics as age, sex, education, and

whether the landowner resides on the property have

been shown to be correlated with posting or hunting

access behaviors of landowners, but these factors

had low predictive power (Brown and others 1984;

Wright and Fesenmaier 1988).

The first domain found to be a basis for landowner

access policies is landowner beliefs about hunters

and other recreationists, both as individuals that

landowners know and as a group that landowners

perceive collectively. Brown and Thompson (1976)

found that landowner inputs to access decisions

came not only from their own personal experiences,

but also from those of friends and neighboring

landowners. Landowners’ perceptions of inappropriate user behaviors have been shown to be a major

disincentive for allowing access (Brown 1974; Holecek

and Westfall 1977; Rounds 1973). Ninety-seven

percent of New York landowners who restricted access

in 1972 reported a behavior-related reason on the

part of recreationists contributed to their restrictive

decisions (Brown 1974).

A second domain that influences landowner

access policies is land use interests of the landowner.

In the mind of the owner, land use has two components, recreational and nonrecreational. Brown and

others (1983) found that the more active the landowner

in wildlife-associated recreation on the property, the

greater the likelihood he/she limited access. This

has been termed an attitude of ‘exclusivity’ (Gramann

and others 1985) and it has been suggested that

this attitude poses “. . . the toughest access problem

of all to resolve” (Wildlife Management Institute 1983).

Previous national recreation studies have not dealt

with the importance of exclusive owner and family

recreational use of property as a barrier to public

access. The recreational component has several

important subcomponents. Frequency of use, proportion of total activity days for which property is the

primary resource, time and monetary investment in

enhancing property for wildlife or other activities and

the perception of crowding are important aspects of

exclusivity.

A third domain that influences landowner access

policies is liability. This domain includes more than

actual legal liability a landowner would have for an

injured recreationist or injury one recreationist might

inflict upon another. It also includes threat of being

sued (Kaiser and Wright 1985, Kozlowski 1986).

Psychological stress, lost time and money in preparing

a legal defense, and adverse publicity often accompanying involvement in an incident of this type are also

major disincentives. Nearly all (49) States have

enacted legislation that limits landowner liability in

situations where the landowner receives no fee from

recreationists. Although states have varied considerably in their efforts and abilities to convey this

information to the landowning public, some experts

close to this topic believe that legal actions must

either limit the degree to which landowners can be

sued, or transfer responsibility of defending sued

landowners to the State or another public entity

before substantial progress can be made in increasing

public access to private lands.

A fourth factor believed to influence public access

is opportunity for landowners to derive income or

other benefits from hunting or fishing, in particular.

Increasingly, landowners are leasing lands to individuals or clubs for hunting. While this benefits some

individuals, it prohibits access for all others. Leasing

of lands for hunting has a prominent history in Texas

(Pope and others 1984) and throughout the South,

35
and for waterfowl in Maryland (Brunori 1987) and

other parts of the Northeast. It ‘is evident that as

demands for hunting increase relative to diminishing

supply of lands available to the public, increasing

numbers of recreationists turn to the option of leases.

The fifth factor that likely influences landowner

access behavior specifically for hunting is owners’

attitudes about appropriateness of hunting. As

recently as 15 years ago this was not an important

factor (Brown and Thompson 1976). However, as

larger proportions of rural landowners have urban

backgrounds, and as animal rights movements gain

momentum, attitudes about hunting become increasingly important considerations for landowners.

Access policies that landowners adopt as a result

of the five domains of influence include both posting

and various levels of access. Brown and others (1984)

stressed the importance of not viewing posting and

access prohibition synonymously. The majority of

landowners who post lands in New York do so at

least partly to control and regulate access, while

allowing some hunting by others on their properties.

On the other hand, some owners who do not post

will not allow hunting or other recreation activities.

Posting behavior is important both in terms of intent

of landowners and how it is perceived by recreationists.

Wright and others (1988) noted that landowners’

decisions regarding access were not purely dichotomous choices, but choices of degree to allow or

restrict access. Their rural landowner-hunter access

model categorized access into one of five distinct

policies: prohibitive, exclusive, restrictive, open, or

fee (leasing). Prohibitive, open, and fee choices are

self-explanatory. Those who adopted an exclusive

policy used the resource themselves, and allowed

no other uses. Restrictive policies varied by degree,

but generally were grounded in an acquaintanceship

between landowner and recreationist. Although

restrictive, available evidence suggested that such

policies allow many an opportunity to find recreation

resources. Thomas and Adams (1982) found that 60

percent of Texas hunters found access through

friendship or kinship networks.

LANDOWNER ACCESS AND ACTIVITY

PARTICIPATION

The last National Private Land Ownership Study

(NPLOS), conducted in 1976, identified six principal

recreation activities often permitted by private

landowners: hunting, hiking, fishing, picnicking,

camping, and horseback riding (Cordell and others

1985). Participation in all of these activities had grown

since 1960. However, days of participation in the two

most frequently permitted activities, fishing and

hunting, declined from 1975 to 1980. Preliminary

data from the 1985 Hunting, Fishing and WildlifeAssociated Recreation Survey suggested that fishing

participation may have increased from 1980 to 1985,

but hunting participation remained constant or

declined slightly. Almost certainly, increasing urban

population and other demographic factors exacerbated access problems to the extent that participation

is being greatly inhibited. Since a previous study

projected continued increases in participation in all

outdoor activities through the year 2000 (Outdoor

Recreation Resources Review Commission 1962)

declines since 1975 suggested that these factors

may be in part to blame.

Generally, little quantitative data exist on availability of private industrial lands for recreation, A study

reported by Resources for the Future (1983) indicated

that forest industries held title or managerial control

to 68 million acres nationally. In 1960, 97 percent of

this land was open to the public for recreation.

However, ‘. . . by 1977, that figure had fallen to 58

percent, representing a loss of 23 million acres of

land available for public recreation use* (Resources

for the Future 1983). Cordell and others (1985) noted

that at some point in the mid-1960s industrial forest

lands began to shift from being open to charging an

entry fee to help cover rising costs associated with

providing recreation to the public, A majority of

corporate landowners in Virginia (94 percent) followed

this strategy (Wright 1986). These landowners made

available over a million acres of land to recreationists

who were required to purchase use permits prior to

entering corporate properties. Thirty percent of these

properties were exclusively leased to hunting clubs.

As income generation becomes a more important

objective, the preponderance of corporations leasing

their lands to individuals and clubs will undoubtedly

increase. Overall, leasing ($0.99 per acre) provided

significantly more income to Virginia corporations

than did sale of permits ($0.34 per acre) (Wright

1986).

These factors, all of which lessen likelihood for

increased public access to private lands, set the

stage for the 1986 National Private Land Ownership

Study. Many variables that State-level studies have

shown to affect access, and which were not adequately investigated in previous national surveys,

were covered in the 1986 study. This inevitably should

36
provide improved insight into deficiencies of recreational access to private lands, and measures which

might alleviate those deficiencies.

METHODS

The Sample

NPLOS was designed to survey nonindustrial,

private rural landowners, Counties with high population densities of 200 or more people per square mile

or a high concentration of government-owned land

(50 percent or more) were eliminated from consideration using the National Outdoor Recreation Supply

Inventory System (U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service 1987) county-level data files on

population and land area. Of 3,107 counties in the

contiguous United States, 338 were too urban and

162 had too much government-owned land to be

included in the potential sample. Fifty-one counties

had insufficient data available on the amount of

government-owned land to make a determination

whether or not the county was eligible. These counties

were left in the pool of potentials because there was

too little information to eliminate them. After eliminating

ineligible counties, there was a total of 2,556 counties

from which to draw the national sample.

A SAS Graph (SAS Institute 1983) was used to

draw six regional maps of the United States. Each

map included county boundaries and FIPS codes

identifying the counties; ineligible counties were

eliminated from consideration. A 36 x 36 cell grid

was drawn on a piece of clear acetate and either

enlarged or reduced as necessary to cover an entire

state. The grid was placed on the state with it aligned

with the longest boundary of the state. Three dice

were rolled to determine a row, column, and cell

block. The county appearing under the chosen block,

if it was an eligible county, was selected for the national

sample. The grid was used to ensure even geographic

distribution of counties chosen from each state.

Alphabetized master tax rolls, available in county

tax appraisal offices, were used as sampling frames

from which to obtain names and addresses of tract

owners in sample counties. Each county was given

a randomly selected “starting letter’ at which point

the search was initiated. Each county provided 25

names randomly drawn from the following size strata

to ensure that the total county sample would be

representative of tracts: 20-99 acres, loo-499 acres,

and 500+ acres.

Data Collection

Procedures similar to those outlined by Dillman

(1978) were used to collect needed data. For each

landowner, a mailing packet contained a cover letter

explaining the survey, tract description, general

instructions for completing the questionnaire, number

2 lead pencil, questionnaire, and a return envelope.

Individuals who failed to respond to initial requests

were sent postcard reminders to complete questionnaires and return them as soon as possible. Nonrespondents to the first two mailings were sent third

requests that included a followup letter, questionnaire,

and return envelope. By the end of the data collection

period, 4,236 of the 11,687 questionnaires had been

returned. As a result, a response rate of 36.25 percent

and a sampling error of less than 4 percent was

obtained. A 5 percent sample of nonrespondents

was contacted by telephone to determine if any

nonresponse bias was present. Analyses of frequency

of responses between the two samples did not reveal

any significant differences between the two groups.

Sample Weighting

Because a random sample was used that was

known to be disproportionate to the population,

post-sample weighting was required. This weighting

procedure involved use of baseline information from

the National Resource Inventory (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1982). These baseline numbers provided

information regarding number of owners, acreages

by region and tract sizes owned. Individual case

data within the NPLOS data base were weighted to

reflect the population-to-sample ratio of strata proportions (table 2). The end result was a data base that

enabled researchers to compute means, conduct

multivariate analyses and extrapolate findings to

regional and national estimates.

Data Analyses

Analyses of data collected in the survey were

conducted in two phases. First, a general description

of rural landowners and their properties was provided

using simple descriptive statistics. Comparisons of

frequency of responses given by respondents

nationally and regionally were made.

Second, to understand the factors associated

with policy adoption more fully, an effort was made

to evaluate each landowner in terms of all access

policies implemented. Since landowners may not

operate under a single access policy, this required

37
Table 2. --Sample sizes and population-to-sample weighting ratios

for National Private Land Ownership Study, 1986-87

Region Tract size Frequency Percentage Weight

(n)

North 20 - 99 749.00 49.77 1.19

100 - 4% 651.00 43.26 0.91

500 or more 105.00 6.98 0.23

South 20 - 99 530.00 47.83 1.17

100 - 4% 458.00 41.34 0.92

500 or more 120.00 10.83 0.57

Rocky Mtn./ 20 - 99 170.00 36.56 1.46

Great Plains 100 - 499 192.00 41.29 0.69

500 or more 103.00 22.15 0.82

Pacific 20 - 99 174.00 0.94

Coast 100 - 4% 122.00 0.78

500 or more 34.00 2.12

calculation of an ‘Access Coefficient” (AC) for each

respondent This represented the amount of recreational acreage available under each of their respective policies. To compute this statistic, the percentage

of total land reported by respondents being controlled

under each of the five access policies (prohibitive =

1; exclusive = 2; restrictive = 3; leasing = 4; and

open = 5) was multiplied by the factor corresponding

to that policy’s position on the access continuum

and summed. Landowners were then ranked according to their Access Coefficients and categorized into

one of five levels of access.

Private land ownership in the U.S. appeared to

be family-oriented. Eighty-six percent of landowners

reported owning their lands either solely (38.4 percent)

or as part of family ownership (47.7 percent) (table

3). They had owned that property for an average of

23.3 years. Further, 38 percent of respondents were

resident owners, indicating they lived on their property.

Moreover, 90 percent of all landowners lived within a

20 mile radius of their properties.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Owners

The sample of landowners responding to the

National Private Landowner Survey was predominately

male (79.6 percent) and slightly less than 58 years

of age. The overwhelming majority of respondents

was white (96.1 percent) and married (32.1 percent);

family size averaged 2.6 people. These landowners

claimed a variety of occupations; however, 45 percent

were retired. Landowners reported earning an average

of $35,303 in total family income for 1985.

Regional differences regarding characteristics of

rural landowners were found with several variables.

Respondents in the Southern region were significantly

older (59.5 years) than landowners in all other regions

(p < 0.017). Family incomes in 1985 were highest

among persons from Pacific Coast ($42,872) and

Southern ($39,321) regions. Incomes of these owners

were significantly higher than those earned by owners

in Rocky Mountain and Northern regions (p < 0.001).

Accordingly, landowners in the Pacific Coast Region

made more money from their lands in 1985 ($12,399)

than landowners in other regions (p < 0.001).

Ironically, Southern owners were least dependent on

their lands as sources of income ($5,058). No

significant differences were found among landowners

in different regions regarding amount of property

taxes paid in 1985.

Levels of educational attainment represented in As might have been expected, motives for owning

the sample were relatively high-58 percent of rural lands appear to be changing. Traditional

property owners indicated they had graduated from agriculture-related reasons such as growing crops

high school and gone on to complete some college for sale were found not to be as important today as

work. Further, 15.6 percent had obtained a college they were in the past. Four out of ten respondents

degree and another 14.9 percent had completed rejected crops/agriculture as an important reason for

some graduate work. owning rural land. As shown in table 4, crops/

38
Table 3. --Percentage distribution of respondents (above) and acreage in

selected ownership categories (below)

Owners North

Rocky Mtn./ Pacific

South Great Plains Coast U.S.

46.00

82.266

32.04

1.61

1,220

2.62

5,762

0.0

0.0

1.44

558

38.44

227,380

47.73

233,580

9.11

95,256

1.72

9;6~~

18,389

0.24

2,280

1.34

8.707

Sole owner 36.09

77,889

52.33

82,556

8.13

23.586

1.48

2,371

0.80

2.792

0.13

449

1.05

2,121

33.00

21,531

47.00

32,037

11.92

31,589

3.02

3.031

2.65

4,523

0.25

342

2.15

2,995

40.31

57i6;;

.

Family owner

Family

partnership

Other

partnership

Family

corporation

Other

corporation

Other

20,849

1.71

3,028

1.40

5,312

0.50

1,489

1.46

31034

Table 4 .--Importance of selected motivations for owning rural land

(percentage of respondents ranking as important/very important)

Motive North

Rocky Mtn./ Pacific

South Great Plains Coast U.S.

Fee

recreation

Timber

Investment

Making

estate

Livestock

Personal

recreation

Living/rural

environment

Crops/

agriculture

99.32 9 8.08 100.00

90.75 80.93 97.00

86.52 85.23 85.86

72.82

72.71 76:. ‘:;

60.17 68.19 82.62 65.77 65.95

56.60 64.46 71.45 65.53 61.78

54.90 68.71 54.51 66.69 60.19

39
agriculture were reported as the least important

ownership objective of those investigated. Landowners did report that making money from fee recreation

(99 percent), timber (88 percent), and investment

(86 percent) were very important reasons why they

owned their properties.

The Land

Respondents owned an average of 183 acres.

Those from Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain Regions

reported owning largest tracts of land (X = 310.1

acres and 304.2 acres, respectively). These tracts

were significantly larger (p < 0.001) than tracts owned

by Eastern landowners. Southern and Northern

landowners owned tracts of 163 acres and 132 acres,

respectively (table 5).

Ironically, cropland was reported as the largest

single land use across the nation (X = 63.4 acres),

even though many owners rejected crops/agriculture

as an important ownership objective. This was followed

closely by land in forests (X = 53.3 acres), even

though less than one percent of landowners leased

timberland on their properties.

Further, only 39 percent of forest owners had

ever sold timber from their forests. Pasture (X = 31.5

acres) and range (X = 25.2 acres) accounted for the

remaining major uses of rural lands. Forty-two percent

of respondents used these lands for grazing livestock,

primarily beef cattle (83 percent). Barren lands, water

and other land in farms accounted for less than five

acres of the respondents’ total acreage.

Regionally, Pacific Coast landowners reported

the largest mean number of acres in forest lands (X

= 75.7 acres) as compared to Rocky Mountain owners

who possessed only an average of 9.1 acres of timber.

Tracts in the Rocky Mountain Region were found to

be significantly smaller (p < 0.036) than tracts in

other regions in the amount of land in forests.

Landowners in the Rocky Mountain Region joined

those from the Pacific Coast in having significantly

more land employed as range (X = 71 acres and5?

= 91.3 acres, p < 0.001) and row crops (X = 96.1

acres and X = 102.2 acres, p c 0.001) than owners

from Eastern regions. Rocky Mountain owners also

possessed significantly more acreage as pasture (X

= 112.4 acres, p < 0.001). No other regional disparities

were found among land uses employed by respondents.

Recreation is another common use of land even

though it appeared that few landowners were

physically altering the landscape to enhance recreational opportunities. Landowners were asked to

indicate whether each of 15 different recreational

activities was inappropriate, given resources available

on their tracts of land. Table 6 reports suitability of

private land resources owned by respondents to

these activities.

Overall, hunting was reported as the activity

most conducive to private lands. Driving off-road

vehicles, shooting, photography, nature study, hiking,

birdwatching, picnicking, riding horses, and camping

also were reported as being compatible activities by

a majority of property owners. Water-related activities

such as fishing, swimming, canoeing, and boating

were much less compatible. This undoubtedly could

be attributed to paucity of water resources owned by

respondents (30 percent reported owning surface

water). Ninety-three percent of respondents’ properties accommodated recreation in some manner.

Recreational Access Policies

The degree to which private landowners allow

recreation is a question of high priority to recreation

planners. As described previously, recreational access

policies adopted by private landowners in this study

took many forms, Some properties were closed to

recreation. Others were maintained for exclusive

recreation of owners or restricted to invited guests.

Still others were open to the general public, whether

it was for a fee or free of charge. Furthermore,

landowners often controlled implementation of these

policies by posting their properties. Even though

posting is not a policy, in and of itself, it does have a

significant impact on perceptions of land availability.

Posting Practices

Thirty-three percent of respondents (n = 1,431)

indicated they posted at least a portion of their lands

against trespass. Of these, 85 percent posted all of

their properties. In general, it appeared that landowners did not bother with selective posting; that is,

posting only a particular section of their lands. On

average, owners posted 232 acres of land.

Pacific Coast owners reported the highest

percentage of their land posted (40 percent). Southern

owners were second (34 percent), followed by

landowners from the Northern region (33 percent).

Respondents from the Rocky Mountain Region posted

the smallest percentage of their lands (24 percent).

40
Table 5. --Major land uses employed by private, nonindustrial landowners

(mean acres)

Land use North South

Rocky Mtn./ Pacific

Great Plains Coast U.S.

Forests

Crops

Pasture

Range

Barren

Water

Other farm

Total acres

(mean)

55.97 61.42

55.19 49.27

xi

28.37

0:74

15.05

1.75

1.25 2.48

5.80 4.43

132.35 162.77 304.15 310.11 182.61

9.13 75.67 53.26

96.12 102.17

112.37 29.11 ;:*z;

71.03 91.28 25119

0.65 1.88 1.16

1.15 1.94 1.70

13.70 8.06 6.42

.

Table 6. --Suitability of private land resources to selected recreational

activities (percentage of respondents indicating property suitable for

activity)

Activity North

Rocky Mtn./ Pacific

South Great Plains Coast U.S.

Hunting

ORV Driving

Shooting

Photography

Nature study

Hiking

Bird

watching

Picnicking

Horseback

riding

Camping

Fishing

Swimming

Canoeing

Boating

89.6

83.6

79.2

79.7

;E.

75.5 72.9

72.7 75.2

37.3

31.6

29.8

87.6

;i*;

76:7

73.6

72.0

71.9

70.0

56.5

47.2

g.

z2.::

6615

68.2

68.5

60.3

65.7

51.2

32.0

28.7

22.1

19.8

86.8 87.5

75.9 79.0

76.0 77.1

76.0 77.0

74.1 75.0

71.3 72.7

73.1 72.4

69.9 72.3

76x

42:l

34.7

29.0

25.2

71.4

64.5

46.9

39.1

32.1

30.0

41
When this practice is viewed in relation to total acreage

owned, respondents from the Rocky Mountain Region

posted significantly more land (Z = 648.66 acres)

than did other landowners (p < 0.001). Conversely,

Northern owners reported posting the smallest number

of acres (x’ = 125.58 acres), which was significantly

smaller than the amount of land posted in all other

regions (p < 0.001).

The relationship between posting and recreational

access is not clearly understood. Brown and others

(1984) theorized that posting is not necessarily

indicative of land closures. Rather, it is more an

indication of a landowners’ tolerance and a method

of controlling varying degrees of access to their

properties. This point is aptly demonstrated in findings

from the NPLOS study.

Given the total of 1,431 owners who posted their

lands, only 14 percent of landowners prohibited all

recreational access. Eighty percent of posting

landowners provided recreational access for members

of their families regardless of whether they lived with

them. Sixty-five percent of these owners allowed

friends and neighbors to use their lands for recreational purposes. Additionally, 19.2 percent posted their

properties to protect rights of persons leasing their

lands for recreation, and another 8.1 percent of owners

allowed the general public to use their lands as long

as they asked permission. Therefore, it would be

erroneous to view posting as a single policy of

recreational access.

Table 7. --Distribution of land in acres controlled under specific

recreational access policies adopted by private, nonindustrial landowners

(above) and percentage of total acreage in region (below)

Prohibitive Policies

Policy North South

Rocky Mtn./ Pacific

Great Plains Coast U.S.

Prohibitive 7,479 17,216 7,445 5,703

(3.46) (6.22) (3.32) (4.88) :z$:

Exclusive 53,289 77,847 30.196 45 t 578 206: glo

(24.64) (28.14) (13.47) (38.99) (24.81)

Restrictive 99.183 119,911 115,892 34,827

(45.86) (43.34) (51.70) (29.79) :z*;$

Leased 4,543 23,062 1,562 14,280 43: 447

(2.10) (8.34) (0.70) (12.22) (5.21)

Open 50,927 ;; * ;99 64,805 16,380 167,610

(23.55) . (28.91) (14.01) (20.10)

Total 215,421 273.535 219,900 116,768 825,624

42

Very few landowners proscribed all recreation (<

5 percent). Landowners from the Southern Region

showed the highest propensity for closing their lands

to recreation (6 percent), even though differences

found among owners closing their properties from

each region were marginal. Numbers of persons

closing their lands varied from 3.5 percent of respondents in the North to 6 percent in the South. This, in

effect, closed only 5 percent of total land owned by

respondents. Table 7 shows effects of respondents’

policies on distribution of total acreage.

Exclusive Policies

Thirty-eight percent of respondents reported

closing a total of 206,910 acres of land to all but

personal recreation. This figure represented 26

percent of respondents’ total land base.

Approximately 40 percent of owners in the North,

South, and Pacific Coast Regions repotted excluding

access to all but family members on some portion of

their land. Only 22 percent of Rocky Mountain owners

indicated they reserved land for private recreation.

Acreage affected by these policies was most severe

in the Pacific Coast Region. Thirty-nine percent of

the respondents acreage in that region was operated

under a policy of exclusion.
Leasing and Fee Recreation

Although research literature has implied that the

incidence of landowners adopting fee recreation

policies has increased in recent years, relatively few

respondents to this study corroborated this, Only 5

percent of all landowners in the sample indicated

they leased any portion of their properties for

recreation (< 6% of total acreage). This seemed to

contradict the importance respondents placed on

fee recreation as a reason for owning rural land.

Those found to be operating land under this policy

reported leasing an average of 253 acres. Approximately 60 percent of these owners leased to clubs

or groups of individuals. Slightly less than 40 percent

leased to individuals and very few (n = 5) leased

lands to government agencies.

The largest number of landowners undertaking a

‘fee recreation’ policy was found in the Southern

region (n = 74, 7 percent). Between 2 and 3 percent

of owners in remaining regions charged for recreational access to their properties. Southern owners also

dedicated the largest amount of land to fee recreation

(23,062 acres).

Motivations behind leasing were fairly consistent

among all landowners. Respondents reported monetary reasons for adopting a leasing policy, such as

‘helping to pay taxes” and ‘gaining additional income.’

Other perceived advantages were lessees’ enhanced

‘stewardship of the land’ (32 percent) and their ability

to aid in ‘controlling trespass’ (32 percent).

Overwhelmingly, hunting was the most common

type of lease. Forty-seven percent of these owners

leased their lands for hunting, a majority (60 percent)

indicating that big game was the primary type of

hunting, even though other types of hunting were

allowed under conditions of most leases. These

activities generated an average of $531 per landowner.

Fees charged for hunting leases ranged from less

than $10 to a high of $8,000. Twelve percent of these

persons indicated they would lease an average of

an additional 116 acres if the right incentives were

provided. Other recreational activities appeared to

be insignificant in terms of revenue generation,

Open Policies

Respondents (25 percent) allowed the general

public to use 167,610 acres of their lands for

recreation. This equated to 20 percent of total acreage

owned by all persons in the sample.

Greatest regional disparities regarding amount of

private recreational land made available to the general

public was found in the East. Thirty-one percent of

Northern owners allowed a portion of their lands to

be used by people other than personal acquaintances

for recreation. In contrast, less than 13 percent of

Southern landowners allowed open access.

Rocky Mountain landowners reported the largest

percentage of lands open to the public. Slightly less

than 29 percent of private lands in this region were

open to public recreation (64,805 acres). Twenty-four

percent of Northern lands were open as well. Southern

and Pacific Coast landowners reported the smallest

percentages of total land available to the public

under this policy (13 percent and 14 percent,

respectively).

National Estimates

By applying the percentage of total acreage

under each of the five access policies identified in

the study to the total amount of private farm and

ranch land in each region, statistical inferences can

be drawn. Estimates of the amount of land available

for recreation can be seen in table 8.

Of the estimated 1.21 billion acres of land in

private ownership in the United States, approximately

63.1 million acres are closed to recreation. Furthermore, over 295 million acres are closed to all but

exclusive use of owners. This, in effect, decreases

the supply of private land available for recreation of

most Americans by almost one-third (30 percent).

The largest blocks of recreational lands are

operated under policies based on familiarii. Access

to 47 percent of the private land base was estimated

to be restricted to persons who were personally

acquainted with the owner. Over 568 million acres of

land fall under this policy.

Land available to persons without friendship

and/or kinship networks to draw upon for recreation

amounts to approximately 23 percent of the land in

private ownership. Slightly more than 53 million acres

were estimated to be operated under some form of

leasing arrangement and 230 million acres are open

to the public. Persons gaining access to this open

acreage may be required to obtain prior permission

of the owner (either written or verbal) in order to use

these lands, but generally, these lands are open to

the general public.

43
Table 8. --Estimated total acres of private, nonindustrial land available for

recreation by access policy (acres x 1,000's)

Policy North South

Rocky Mtn./ Pacific

Great Plains Coast U.S.

Prohibitive 11,857 27 9 377 13.361 10.557 63 t 152

Exclusive 84,614 123,iW 54,241 295, oo9

Restrictive 156 t 310 188,041 206,731 ::*i;: 568,9 73

Fee 5.923 34,719 3,194 9:500 53,336

Open 66,663 53 9 658 9 11,544 229 ,664

Total' 325.367 427,584 375.326 81,857 1.210.134

1

Numbers may not sum due to rounding errors.

Table 9. --Landowners receptivity to selected recreational activities

(percentage allowing accessjl

Activity North

Rocky Mtn./ Pacific

South Great Plains Coast U.S.

Hunting

Photography

Bird watching

Nature study

Hiking

Picnicking

Fishing

Horseback

riding

Shooting

Camping

Swimming

ORV driving

Canoeing

Boating

66.0

64.7

64.0

53.6

50.3

31.4

24.0

15.7

64.0

56.6

52.7

51.9

50.7

47.6

53.4

43.0

30.7

29 .7

25.8

14.9

19 .1

12.3

64.2

62.7

63.1

z!

5118

42.5

62.8

36.2

59.9

65.8

60.4

62.4

55.4

52.9

46.8

51.6 49 .8

34.3 34.3

29 .4 33.1

29 .8 23.9

14.3 23.4

16.8 21.2

15.1 13.6

67.2

63.9

60.9

;c::

51:4

50.6

1

Based only on landowners who indicated owning resources compatible with

respective activities.

44
Receptivity to Specific Recreational

Activities

Failure of past research to capture activity-specific

access policies of landowners was a weakness in

attempts to better understand landowner policy

behaviors. Researchers’ abilities to document these

types of access policies have been limited. Highly

detailed inquiries required to overcome this weakness

quickly become burdensome to respondents and

are not congruent with many research designs,

especially mail surveys. The NPLOS questionnaire

solicited activity-specific data from landowners, and

although these data did not allow owners to be

categorized into specific policies along the access

continuum, increased insights were gained into

receptivity of landowners regarding specific activities.

By eliminating landowners who indicated their

lands were not appropriate for each activity and

calculating the allow/disallow ratio for all persons

having resources compatible with each activity, a

better idea of landowners’ tolerance for different

activities was gained. Inasmuch as hunting was

perceived to be the activity most suitable to private

resources, it was the activity most often allowed.

Sixty-seven percent of landowners allowed hunting

on their lands (table 9). Non-consumptive activities

such as photography, birdwatching, nature study,

hiking, and picnicking also were allowed by a majority

of respondents.

However, even though the majority of owners felt

their lands were highly conducive to shooting,

camping, and off-road vehicle use, these activities

were prohibited by over 65 percent of landowners.

Perceptions of dangers and/or resource damages

associated with these activities may provide some

explanation for landowners’ intolerance of these

pastimes.

Total Access: The Effect of Multiple Policies

The importance of understanding the amount of

land available for recreation and landowners’ receptivity to specific recreation activities is second only to

understanding the landowners who implement these

policies, since landowners are the key to future access.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that rarely

do landowners operate these lands under a single

policy. Rather, respondents reported managing their

properties under multiple policies. Therefore, it is

beneficial to view landowners in relation to the total

amount of access allowed.

To accomplish this, landowners were categorized

according to the total effect of all policies implemented.

Segmentation of respondents into one of five access

policy levels was accomplished based on their’Access

Coefficient” (AC). As described in the methodology,

this statistic reflects the acreage controlled under

each of the five access policies, multiplied by a factor

corresponding to that policy’s position on the access

continuum (prohibition to open). For example, a

landowner who owned a 100 acre farm which was

used exclusively for his family’s personal recreation

would produce an access coefficient of 2.0 (100

acres/l00 acres x 2 = 2.0). Should that landowner

decide to open 50 acres of that tract to friends and

other personal acquaintances, then their coefficient

would be increased to 2.5 (50 acres/l00 acres x 2 +

50 acres/l00 acres x 3 = 2.5).

It is important to note that these policy levels are

not identical to the policies of prohibition, exclusion,

restriction, fee, and open. However, the scaling of

landowners within policy levels was designed to

have the levels correlate as closely as possible with

the corresponding policies.

To test the accuracy of this scaling, landowners

of all levels were compared by means of a one-way

ANOVA and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test, regarding

variables pertaining to the amount of land operated

under individual access policies, Owners in the first

level were the most likely to prohibit all recreational

access to their land (p < 0.004). Those landowners

segmented into Access Level II restricted significantly

more land to the exclusive recreational use of their

families (Z = 176.3 acres, p < 0.001) than owners at

other levels. Furthermore, respondents in Level IV

leased the most land (2 = 67.7 acres, p c 0.002)

and respondents in Level V had the most open

acreage (Z = 203.2 acres, p < 0.001). Therefore, it

appears that the Access Levels used in these analyses

closely approximate the corresponding policies.

Distribution of respondents within these access

levels can be seen in table 10. As with total acreage

operated under each of the respective policies,

landowners segmented into the most restrictive level

numbered less than four percent. Slightly more than

18 percent were categorized into AC Level II and the

largest segment by far, again was Level Ill. Fifty-six

percent of all owners fell into this level. The remaining

owners were almost equally distributed between

Levels IV and V (11.62 percent and 10.2 percent,

respectively).

45
Table lO.-- Distribution of respondents within five access policy levels

based on access coefficients (percentage of total respondents, n = 3,382)

Access

level North South

Rocky Mtn./ Pacific

Great Plains Coast U.S.

I 1.30 1.57 0.47 0.56 3.90

II 7.04 7.78 1.45 2.04 18.30

III 24.69 17.33 9.08 4.88 55.97

IV 5.50 3.67 1.09 1.36 11.62

V . 2.22 1.57 0.83 10.20

Total 44.12 32.55 13.66 9.67 100.00

CONCLUSIONS Implications

Respondents to the National Private Land Ownership Study were typically in their mid-to-late fifties,

married, white, and predominately male. These

landowners owned an average of 183 acres of rural,

nonindustrial land and had owned that land for

approximately 23 years. Ownership of this property

was usually family oriented; that is, land was either

owned solely by respondents or by the respondent’s

family. Owners lived in close proximity to their

properties. Ninety percent lived within a 20 mile radius

of their lands and 38 percent actually resided on the

properties.

Based on results of this study and related research

to date, several points become readily evident. First,

the nation’s undeveloped land base will continue to

erode. Population increases and resultant urban

expansion will require an increasing amount of rural

land be converted to urban uses. Estimates of between

one and two million acres of rural land being taken

physically out of the inventory on an annual basis

are not uncommon (Resources for the Future 1983;

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors

1987).

Reasons reported by respondents for owning

rural lands were much different from traditional

agricultural-related ownership objectives of the past.

Making money through ‘Fee Recreation,’ “Growing

Timber for Sale,’ and “Investment Potential of Rural

Land” were reported to be most important reasons

for owning rural land. ‘Raising Livestock,’ “Living in a

Rural Environment,’ and ‘Crop Agriculture” were

much less important to today’s landowners. Moreover,

respondents were less dependent on land as a source

of income. Less than 20 percent of respondents’

total family incomes for 1985 were generated from

the lands (i? = $6,778).

While it appeared that landowners possessed

latent desires to generate income through the outdoor

recreation potential of their properties, this desire

has not come to fruition to date. Less than 4 percent

of owners were actively leasing or charging fees for

outdoor recreation. Although leasing practices usually

required larger blocks of land than other access

policies, the number of acres operated under a fee

policy totaled less than 6 percent of total land owned

by the sample of respondents.

Physical losses of these lands notwithstanding,

perhaps an even more severe effect of urbanization

occurs in the American mind. Urban Americans are

quickly losing touch with the land. They have limited,

if any, relationship with the land and its communities.

Socio-psychological effects of urbanization may be

felt in loss of political support for resource protection

and other issues important to perpetuating outdoor

recreation opportunities. Moreover, public ignorance

resulting from disassociation with the land will continue

to affect recreationist behavior, which in turn, will

have negative impacts on land access. As property ’

damage, liability, litter, trespass, and other problems

which dissuade landowners from allowing recreational

access to their lands continue, land closures and

restrictions of access to private lands will undoubtedly

become more severe.

Also, it is highly likely that there will be major

turnovers in land ownership over the next 10 to 15

years. With 45 percent of owners reporting being

retired, there is a distinct possibility of major changes

in ownership. New owners may bring on even more

strict access policies. As this progresses, ownership

46
for reasons of exclusive resource use, will probably

increase. This will, in effect, lock up many recreation

resources and further polarize those persons who

can afford to purchase land for recreation and those

who cannot.

To ensure adequate recreation opportunities on

private lands in the future, one of two things must

happen-problems with recreationists and other

disincentives to landowners must be lessened or

eliminated, and/or incentives to provide recreational

opportunities that are sufficient to overcome problems

being experienced, must be provided to landowners.

Educational and legislative implications of this must

be addressed by resource management agencies

and private organizations dedicated to recreation

and resource management purposes.

It has been stated often that behavioral problems

associated with recreationists are results of actions

of an unconcerned minority that cause the majority

of recreationists to suffer. Even if this is true, no

longer can Americans find solace in this fact.

Landowners’ perceptions regarding the severity of

these problems are reflected in their increasingly

restrictive access policies.

Therefore, innovative approaches must be found

to reduce or eliminate these problems. As a first

step, more information must be obtained regarding

significance of, and causal factors associated with

depreciative behavior. Presently, pathetically little

research has been conducted in this area.

The alternative to eradicating disincentives is

providing incentives to landowners in exchange for

allowing access to their properties. Incentives to

landowners could be economic (i.e., cash payments

or tax relief), legislative (i.e., improved liability protection), technical (i.e., assistance in forest, wildlife and/or

recreation management), and/or legal (i.e., increased

law enforcement for controlling trespass, stiffer

penalties).

One approach to encouraging landowners to

allow more access has been through private leasing

of recreational access. But as reported, only a small

percentage of rural landowners have undertaken

leasing as an access alternative. It appears that

processes of the free market system have not worked

well for all forms of outdoor recreation. Of the few

landowners who reported assessing a fee for access,

the majority of these transactions were for hunting.

Hunters are accustomed to paying for their recreation;

they have traditionally paid for licenses, permits,

stamps, and other fees associated with the sport.

Moreover, it could be argued that hunting has more

tangible benefits associated with it (i.e., trophies,

meat, and animal by-products) than other recreational

activities: therefore, it is more conducive to commercialization. Without the ability to receive economic

incentives, most landowners will be reluctant to open

their lands for recreation unless other types of

incentives are provided or measures to eradicate

disincentives are undertaken by resource management agencies.

To ensure a sufficient supply of private lands for

recreation in the future, Federal and State land

management agencies should seek to form closer

ties to landowners in the private sector, especially

those whose lands are in close proximity to public

lands. These agencies should emphasize the benefits

of conservation assistance programs and encourage

the concept of multiple use management. Moreover,

inconsistencies in governmental policies send mixed

signals to landowners regarding leasing. First, few

States have offered tax breaks for property owners

who allow public recreation on their lands, whether it

be free or for a fee. The State of Texas has been the

leader in commercialization of wildlife resources for

many years, yet many landowners are reportedly

hesitant to participate in State leasing programs or

report revenues as income.

Second, State legislation designed to encourage

access by eliminating fear of legal liability for recreational injury has been largely ineffective. Protection

afforded under recreational-use statutes, now enacted

in 49 States, is unknown to a majority of rural

landowners. Even though little research has been

conducted at the State level to document this fact,

Wright and Kaiser (1986) reported that 44 percent of

State wildlife administrators surveyed had no knowledge of liability protection provided by these laws. If

State officials are not cognizant of these statutes,

how can landowners be expected to be aware of

them? This has tremendous implications for State

information and education divisions. Also, protection

afforded by these laws may be inconsequential

compared to fear and burdens of being taken to

court, on which these statutes have no effect. Having

to pay lawyer fees, time away from work, and anxieties

associated with litigating court cases are major

disincentives in and of themselves.

47
Further, the vast majority of these statutes

predicate insulation from liability on access being

made available to recreationists free of charge.

Landowners who choose to assess a fee for access

lose their protection in most states. This poses a

rhetorical question: Is assessing a fee for access,

which may only partially cover expenses incurred by

landowners for allowing recreational use, inconsistent

with purposes of recreational-use statutes? It is the

opinion of the authors that it is not! Can a constitutionally valid way be found whereby landowners can

charge an access or admission fee to their properties

on an *as is’ basis, in which they would be subject

to lawsuits only in cases involving gross negligence?

Much needs to be done to eliminate these inconsistencies in the legal language of liability legislation if the

intended purpose of the legislation is to be accomplished.

SUMMARY

The National Private Land Ownership Study is

the most comprehensive research effort to date,

directed at documenting the supply of private,

nonindustrial lands available for outdoor recreation.

Through this study, a better understanding of

individuals who own rural lands and reasons for that

ownership has been gained. Furthermore, estimates

of the amount of land in various land uses, leasing

practices currently undertaken by landowners, and

amount of land controlled under specific recreational

access policies were established.

However, now that the NPLOS has established

the benchmark from which researchers can monitor

changes in the private recreation estate, more in-depth

studies of factors associated with landowner behavior,

particularly access policy behavior, need to be

conducted. This research must go beyond merely

understanding the “what” and ‘how much” of recreational access to private lands, to a greater understanding of “why” landowners adopt specific access

policies. A deeper understanding of recreation-related

problems experienced by landowners, their attitudes

toward providing recreational access, and preferences

for incentives is prerequisite to undertaking programs

that will encourage additional access in the future.

To date, no research at the national level has

attempted to model landowner access decisions.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, J.H.; Nelson, F.D. 1984. Linear probability,

logit, and probit models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications. 95 pp.

Birch, Thomas W.; Dennis, Donald P. 1980. The

forest-land owners of Pennsylvania. Resour. Bull.

NE-66. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Brown, T.L. 1974. New York landowners’ attitudes

toward recreation activities. pp. 173-I 79. Proceedings, North American wildlife and natural resources

conference.

Brown, T.L. 1986. A reexamination of the public-private

interface in outdoor recreation. pp. 69-76. In: A

literature review. The President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors.

Brown, T.L., Decker, D.J.; Kelley, J.W. 1984. Access

to private lands in New York: 1963-I 980. Wildlife

Society Bulletin. 12(4):344-349.

Brown, T.L., Decker, D.J.; Tuttle, S.J.; Kelley, J.W.

1983. Posting in New York: 1980 update. New

York Fish and Game Journal. 30(2):121-139.

Brown, T.L.; Thompson, D.Q. 1976. Changes in

posting and landowner attitudes in New York

State 1963-I 973. New York Fish and Game Journal.

23(2):101-137.

Brunori, CR. 1987. Maryland’s waterfowl resource: a

best case example of noncommodity values. pp.

143153. In: Valuing wildlife: economic and social

perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cordell, H.K.; English, D. 1987. Private land and water

open for recreation. U.S. Forest Service Tech.

Publ. SE-4901. 11 pp.

Cordell, H. Ken; Gramann, J.H.; Albrecht, D.E. [and

others]. 1985. Trends in recreational access to

private rural lands. In: National outdoor recreation

trends symposium (1985: Myrtle Beach, S.C.)

Proceedings. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service. Vol. I. pp. 164-I 84.

Decker, D.J.; Brown, T.L.; Purdy, K.G. [and others].

1987. Hunting access. pp. 46-71. In: A comprehensive review and synthesis of human dimensions

research in New York. Human Dimensions Research

Unit. Series 87-3. Ithaca, NY: Department of Natural

Resources, Cornell University.

48
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the

total design method. New York: John Wiley and

Sons, Inc. 325 pp.

Frey, H. Thomas; Hexem, Roger W. 1985. Major

uses of land in the United States, 1982. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service. 29 pp.

Gramman, J.H., Bonnicksen, T.M.; Stackhouse, M.C.;

Kurtz, W.B. 1983. Recreation on private forests: the

theoretical basis of landowners’ public access

decision. In: Proceedings, national recreation and

parks association research symposium; Kansas

City, MO.

Gramann, James H.; Bonnicksen, T.M.; Albrecht,

D.F.; Kurtz, W.B. 1985. Recreational access to

private forests: the impact of hobby farming and

exclusivity. Journal of Leisure Research.

17(3):234-240.

Guynn, D.E.; Schmidt, J.L. 1984. Managing

deer hunters on private lands in Colorado. Wildlife

Society Bulletin. 12(l): 12-l 9.

Holecek, D.F.; Westfall, R.D. 1977. Public recreation

on private lands-the land owner’s perspective.

Res. Rep. 335. Michigan Agricultural Experiment

Station. 12 pp.

Kaiser, R.A.; Wright, B.A. 1985. Recreational use of

private lands: beyond the liability hurdle. Journal

of Soil and Water Conservation. 40(6):478-481.

Kozlowski, J.C. 1986. The challenges: legal views on

liability. pp. 27-30. In: Proceedings, recreation on

private lands: issues and opportunities. A Workshop

convened by the Task Force on Recreation on

Private Lands.

Kurtz, W.B.; Lewis, B.J. 1981, Decision-making framework for nonindustrial private forest owners: an

application in the Missouri Ozarks. Journal of

Forestry. 79(5):285-288.

Lewis, James A. 1980. Landownership in the United

States-l 978. Agriculture Information Bulletin 435.

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

Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service.

98 PP.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

1962. Prospective demand for outdoor recreation.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Vol.

26.

Pope, C.A. Ill; Adams, C.E.; Thomas, J.K. 1984. The

recreational and aesthetic value of wildlife in Texas.

Journal of Leisure Research 16(1):51-60.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

1987. President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors: the legacy, the challenge. Washington,

DC: Island Press, Inc. 426 pp.

Resources for the Future. 1983. Outdoor recreation

for America - 1983: An assessment twenty years

after the report of the Outdoor Recreation Review

Commission. Washington DC: Resources for the

Future, Inc. 42 pp.

Rounds, R.C. 1973. Public access to private land for

hunting in Colorado. Boulder, CO: University of

Colorado. 258 pp. Ph.D. dissertation.

Statistical Analysis System. 1983. SAS User’s Guide.

Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. 1291 pp.

Stynes, D.J.; Peterson, G.L. 1984. A Review of logit

models with implications for modeling recreation

choices. Journal of Leisure Research.

16(4):295-310.

Thomas, J.K.; Adams, C.E. 1982. An assessment of

hunters’ attitudes and preferences concerning

Texas wildlife and wildlife regulatory policies. Texas

A & M University, Agricultural Experiment Station.

419 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service. 1982. Basic statistics: 1977. National

resources inventory. Washington, DC. 267 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1987.

National outdoor recreation supply information

system. Athens, GA: USDA, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census.

1978. Census of agriculture. Summary and state

data; pan 51. United States. Washington, DC. 566

pp. Vol. 1.

49
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census.

1984. Statistical abstracts of the United States.

Washington, DC.

Wildlife Management Institute. 1983. Improving access

to private land: a path to wildlife. Washington, DC:

Wildlife Management Institute. 13 pp.

Wright, B.A. 1986. Virginia corporate landowner hunter

access study. Virginia Department of Game and

Inland Fisheries Technology Publication. 46 pp.

Wright, B.A.; Fesenmaier, D.R. 1988. Modeling rural

landowners’ hunter access policies in east Texas.

Environmental Management. 12(2):229-236.

Wright, B.A.; Kaiser, R.A. 1986. Wildlife

administrator’s perceptions of hunter access

problems: a national overview. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 14(1):30-35.

Wright, B.A.; Kaiser, R.A.; Fletcher, J.E. 1988. Hunter

access decisions by rural landowners: an east

Texas example. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

16(2): 152-l 58.

50
THE SUPPLY OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CAMPGROUNDS 1978-87

Douglas McEwen and Linda Profaizerl

Abstract-A brief history of private and public campgrounds is presented. Changes in the supply of

campgrounds and campsites from 1978 to 1987 are

discussed, as well as trends in the campground

industry.

BRIEF HISTORY OF CAMPGROUNDS

Privately owned campgrounds have been in

existence since the 1930’s, and were first chronicled

for the traveling camper in Woodall’s 1937 edition of

“Trailering Parks & Campgrounds.’ However, during

World War II many of these campgrounds were

converted into emergency housing which subsequently became mobile home parks. Private campgrounds emerged again as an important sector of

the outdoor recreation supply system in the

mid-i 950’s. With the expansion of outdoor recreation

during the 1950’s and 1960’s many private land

owners started operating small campgrounds. During

the same period of time early franchises developed

along the interstate highways to serve the traveling

camper.

Since its early growth period, the private campground industry has experienced some changes

typical of many young industries. A number of small,

rustic campgrounds closed due to unprofitability. A

number of marginal quality campgrounds such as

gravel lots in mobile home parks closed. Many of the

campground owners were not business people which

resulted in an 8 percent to 12 percent turnover rate

in ownership each year. The remaining campgrounds

have upgraded their facilities and services. Water,

electric, and sewer hookups at each campsite are

the norm throughout the industry. Private campgrounds usually contain a swimming pool or lake, a

store, and recreation facilities.

‘Professor, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL; jVoodall

Publishing Company, Bannockburn, IL.

Competition within the campground industry

remains harsh. Low fees, the average site fee is

$13.50 per night, have hampered the smaller campground owners’ ability to make a reasonable return

on investment (McEwen 1986). On the average,

campgrounds earn a 3.8 percent profit on investment.

Parks with 100 and fewer sites, showed a loss of 5.3

percent or $4,200 per year on their investment. Based

on this information, it’s not surprising that 32 percent

of the campground owners indicated their parks are

for sale. Low return is also the reason private

campgrounds are often operated as a second

business. They have survived by catering to the

luxury oriented camper who requires more extensive

facilities and services than those offered in the public

campgrounds.

Public campgrounds have probably been in

existence since the late 1800’s. The National Park

Service made provisions for the ‘Tin Can’ car campers,

which began visiting the parks in the late 1920’s.

The US. Forest Service, also feeling pressure for

public campgrounds, began to allocate funds for

campground development around the same time. A

major surge in public campground development

came during the Great Depression when thousands

of Civilian Conservation Corps workers built hundreds

of campgrounds and trails. Camping became a

popular tradition during the depression partly because

of the improved facilities and partly because of the

inexpensive costs. The tradition of a cheap family

camping trip was firmly established during that period

of American history, and is still strong today. The

general public is resistant to increased fees at public

campgrounds.

The second major surge in development of the

public campground system came during the 1950’s

and 1960’s when the post World War II baby-boom

families turned to camping. There was a tremendous

increase in participation in not only camping but all

outdoor recreation pursuits requiring Federal and

State agencies to build a number of campgrounds.

Some of these campgrounds were quite large having

400 or more sites. All were of the rustic design featuring

51
Table l.-- Number and percentage of campgrounds in United States by region and ownecshfp, 1978-87

Region

Total Private Public

1978 1987 1978-87 1978 1987 1978-87 1978 1987 1978-87

Northeast

Southeast

Pacific Coast

Rocky Mountain

Total U.S.A.

Percent Percent Percent

Number change Number change Number change

5,076 4.913 -3 3;::: ';$$ -13 1,561 1,868 +20

(39) (37) (33) (38)

';:?: 3,323 +6 2,058 2,136 +4 1,075 1,187 +lO

(25) (25) (26) (23) (22)

1,986 2,402 +21 1.198 1,393 +16 788 1,009 +28

(15) (18) (15) (17) (17) (19)

2,657 2,803 +5 1,393 1,488 +6 1,264 1,315 +4

(21) (20) (17) (18) (27) (21)

12,852 13.441 +5 8,164 8,062 -1 4,688 5,379 +I5

(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

Source: Woodall Publishing Company, Bannockburn, IL.

Note: Number in parentheses represents percentage of column totals.

no hookups at the individual campsites, but with

either pumps or running water at the bathroom

facilities. Since the 1960’s the growth of public

campgrounds has slowed considerably.

CURRENT SUPPLY

Currently, there are 13,441 campgrounds in the

United States, a 5 percent increase over the total

number 10 years ago. Much of this increase comes

from the public sector which grew 15 percent to

5,379 campgrounds. On the other hand, the private

sector was rather stable experiencing only a 1 percent

decrease to 8,062 campgrounds. Overall the private

sector accounts for approximately 60 percent of all

campgrounds.

Examination of regional patterns shows the

Northeast and Southeast regions contain the largest

percentage of public and private campgrounds, 63

percent of the total. This figure remained unchanged

from 1978 to 1987. In terms of growth, 1978 to 1987,

some regional differences exist between the public

and private sectors. In the private sector, the Northeast

has experienced a 13 percent decrease in campgrounds while the Pacific Coast experienced a 16

percent increase. The Rocky Mountain and Southeast

regions experienced slight increases of 6 percent

and 4 percent, respectively. In the public sector, the

Pacific Coast region experienced a 28 percent

increase, while the Northeast region experienced a

20 percent increase. The Southeast and Rocky

Mountain regions increased 10 percent and 4 percent,

respectively.

Currently, there are 1334,048 campsites available

in the private and public sectors. This is an increase

of 28 percent over the past 10 years. The largest

part of this increase came from the private sector,

up 32 percent to 947,710 as compared to the public

sector which was up 23 percent to 386,338. Overall,

the private sector accounts for approximately 71

percent of all campsites.

The Northeast region, which comprises 42 percent

of the total available campsites, experienced the

smallest increase, 13 percent. The greatest increases

were in the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain regions,

especially in the private sector, which saw a 66 and

70 percent increase in these two regions. This

tremendous increase in the number of campsites

indicates a large expansion of the available private

camping opportunities across the United States. In

the public sector, campsite increases were evenly

spread over all the regions.

52
Campsites can be classified into four types. Full

hookup sites with water, electricity, and sewer

comprise 38 percent of the total. Water and electric

sites comprise 27 percent, electric-only sites comprise

8 percent, and no hookup sites comprise 28 percent.

Full hookup sites showed the greatest overall increase,

68 percent, while no hookup sites showed the smallest

overall increase of 4 percent.

Patterns of increase differed between the private

and public sectors. In the private sector there was a

69 percent increase in full hookup sites, but a 35

percent decrease in electric only sites. In the public

sector, there was a 131 percent increase in water

and electric sites, a 79 percent increase in electric-only

sites, and a 57 percent increase in full hookup sites,

The increase of full hookup, and water and electric

sites in the public sector appears to reflect a change

in mission from providing more rustic type campground opportunities to more luxury oriented facilities.

However the private sector still dominates in these

types of sites, 97 percent of full hookup and 86 percent

of water and electric. On the other hand the public

sector contains 67 percent of the no hookup sites.

Some data are available on facilities and services

in private campgrounds. Approximately 90 percent

of private campgrounds have flush toilets, 69 percent

have dump stations, 66 percent have a lake or

swimming pool, and 68 percent have laundry rooms.

Only 20 percent have nature trails. In terms of services,

22 percent of the private campgrounds offer recreation

programs, 22 percent have boat rental, and 49 percent

have firewood for sale.

UTILIZATION OF PRIVATE

CAMPGROUNDS

There is little current research on national

occupancy rates in private and public campgrounds.

However, several State campground owners’ associations provide very good information on this topic;

Florida, California, and Pennsylvania. Based on their

data, a national average occupancy is estimated to

be about 45 percent, but this figure needs to be

viewed with caution.

Even less data have been published on occupancy rates in public campgrounds. Several studies

in Maine State parks indicate occupancy below the

50 percent mark except for national holidays, At

many small rustic public campgrounds the occupancy

rate could be in the 10 to 20 percent range.

Table 2. --Number and percentage of campsites in United States by region and ownership, 1978-87

Total Private Public

Region

1978 1987 1978-87 1978 1987 1978-87 1978 1987 1978-87

Percent Percent Percent

Number change Number change Number change

Northeast 488,901 554 t 680 +13 3:29~33 3~~i~77 +10 135.968 167,203 +23

(48) (42) (44) (43)

Southeast 268,022 3%;77 +38 202,496 288,103 +42 65,526 81,074 +24

(26) (28) (30) (21) (21)

Pacific Coast 128,625 191,224 +31 72,553 120,800 +66 56,072 70,424 +26

(12) (14) (10) (13) (18) (18)

Rocky Mountain 142,387 218.967 +54 88,740 151,330 +70 53.647 67,637 +26

(14) (16) (12) (16) (17) (17)

Total U.S.A. 1.0271935 1,334,040 +28 716,722 947,710 +32 311,213 386,338 +23

Source: Woodall Publishing Company, Bannockburn, IL.

Note: Number in parentheses represents percentage of column totals.

53
Table 3. --Number and percentage of campsite types in United States for private and public

sectors, 1978-87

Campsites

Total Private Public

1978 1987 1978-87 1978 1987 1978-87 1978 1987 1978-87

Number

Percent

change Number

Percent

change Number

Full hookups 296,183 500.393

(29) (38)

Water and elec. 292,306 362,552

(28) (27)

Elec. only 88,280 103,486

(8) (8)

No hookups 351,167 367 130 1

+68 2851532 4~:;~2

(40)

+24 269,551 3;;;:""

(38)

+17 47.752 30,900

(7) (3)

+4 113,887 122,585

+69 10,651 16,721

(3) (4)

+15 22,755 52,486

(7) (14)

-35 40,528 72,583

(13) (19)

+8 237,280 244,545

Percent

change

+57

+131

+79

+3

(34) (28) (16) (13) (76) (63)

Total U.S.A. 1.027.936 1q333.561 +29 716,722 947.223 *32 311,214 386,338 +24

Source: Woodall Publishing Company, Bannockburn, IL.

Note: Number in parentheses represents percentage of column totals.

TRENDS

Data presented here indicate there is some

increase in the number of public campgrounds, but

a slight reduction in the private campgrounds. In

terms of campsites, there seems to be a continual

increase in both the public and private sectors. Private

campgrounds have been increasing in size, growing

from an average of 39.2 sites in 1968 to an average

of 117.6 sites in 1987, a rise of 200 percent. While

private campgrounds have grown in size, they have

not grown in numbers. The growth era in numbers

of private campgrounds was in the late 1960’s to

about 1974. The downturn in 1974, and thereafter,

reflects closing of the marginal operations.

There has also been a noticeable trend of private

campgrounds providing a greater number of full

hookup sites to meet the demands of campers for

full amenities and greater amperage service. Historically, most campgrounds provided 15 amp electrical

service, but today with microwave ovens and air

conditioning units in Rv’s, 30 amp is the norm. The

growth in full hookup sites can also be attributed to

the trend of campers leasing sites for an entire season.

It is interesting to note that the number of no hookup

sites has been increasing since 1984. Two possible

reasons for this are the resurgence of the private

campground tenting market and the stockpiling by

campground owners of sites for possible upgrading

to hookup sites as needed.

Along with growth in full hookup sites, there has

been a corresponding growth in physical and

recreation facilities at private campgrounds. The

growth in facilities has been prompted by camper

demand and also by the need of campground owners

to establish additional income centers. Parks offering

swimming pools have grown 289 percent since 1979.

Those selling RV supplies grew by 150 percent and

those providing tennis courts by 137 percent.

One of the problems campgrounds face is how

to maximize their profits in what usually amounts to

a 120 to 150 day season. One strategy is seasonal

site rental to individuals who leave their campers at

the campgrounds all year long. Many smaller campgrounds are adopting this strategy as a means of

guaranteeing income. Campgrounds with a high

percentage of permanent rented sites take on a

resort community aspect with highly landscaped

sites that contain a number of semi-permanent

developments such as patios, outside refrigerators,

and grills. A further indication of this growth in seasonal

lease camping is the increase of cable TV and phone

hookups at the campsite.

54
Another emerging trend is the growth in on-site

rentals of both tents and RVs. Started as another

income source, equipment rental may be a growth

area to watch in private campgrounds. As the cost

of owning an RV escalates, it becomes increasingly

difficult for some people to afford an RV of their own,

yet they want the RV experience. Moreover, there is

concern within the industry that the number of active

campers is declining. Campground owners and the

RV industry could turn to rentals as one way to expose

non-RVers to the camping experience.

In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, there was a trend

toward campgrounds becoming involved in membership or condominium sales. Interest was spurred by

fears about gasoline availability and low profitability.

The own-your-own-campsite concept appealed to

campers because they were uncertain about future

gasoline availability and feared that if shortages

occurred, parks within a 50-mile radius of their homes

might be over-crowded. The sell-your-park-by-the-site

concept appealed to campground owners because

they still could manage the park while extracting

substantial profits through slte sales. However,

membership operations were fraught with problems

including unethical sales practices in some cases

and marketing costs that ran as high as 70 cents for

every dollar in sales. Few of the membership campgrounds have been successful.

The private campground industry will continue to

lose campgrounds, and while new ones will be built,

they will not be built in numbers to replace the old.

The first generation of private campground owners is

reaching the age where they wish to retire and their

children are not interested in running the business.

These campgrounds are either sold or just closed.

The value of the land itself affects private campgrounds

in two ways. First, the land values of existing private

campgrounds are becoming more attractive for

shopping centers, resort condominiums or some

alternate land use instead of camping. Locations in

major metro areas and near oceans or other water

resources will be affected first. The industry is already

experiencing a loss of campgrounds due to resort

construction in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and

Table 4 .--Number of private campground ownership types, facilities, and services by U.S.

regions, 1987

Ownership types,

facilities, and

services

Regions

U.S. totall Northeast Southeast Pacific Coast Rocky Mountain

Ownership types:

Private person

Franchised

Member shareholder

Facilities:

Flush toilets/showers

Camp store

Laundry room

Dump station

Recreation room

Lake/swimming pool

Playground

Nature trails

Services:

Recreation programs

Boat rental

Firewood

7,034 2,807 1,911 1,246 1,070

634 188 220 68 158

44 7 20 2 15

6,931

3,818

4,850

5,325

4,388

5,106

3,719

1,570

1,680 846 550

1,690 1,124 322

3,754 2.527 517

2,721

1,888

1,489

2,634

2,034

2,253

2,181

862

1,880

933

1.466

11385

1,205

1,472

I:;

1,203

474

974

638

505

813

303

146

1;;

377

1,127

523

921

667

644

2:;

234

207

3%

1

Due to the mode of data access in the computer files, 350 campgrounds were not included in

this table.

Source: Woodall Publishing Company, Bannockburn, IL.

55
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It is possible that in

the near future few private campgrounds will be

availaMe on the ocean. Secondly, the high value of

undeveloped land, particularly land desirable for

recreation, could mean fewer private campgrounds

being developed because of prohibitive costs. The

development costs for luxury campgrounds can be

$23,000 per site.

Trends in the public campgrounds are less

apparent. As these .data have shown, there are some

increases in the number of campgrounds and the

number of campsites over the last decade. There

appears to be a stronger trend of improving existing

campsites by providing electricity, up 79 percent, or

electricity and water, up 131 percent. This trend

could be in response to the aging population of

campers who now prefer RV’s instead of the tents

used during their early days of camping. It could

also be a response by public agencies to capture

more of the camping clientele who use private

campgrounds because they require hookups. However, there is little evidence that public agencies are

installing sewer hookups. There is also little evidence

that these agencies are installing extensive recreation

facilities beyond rustic amphitheaters, trails, and

basic playground equipment. It must be noted,

however, that many public agencies are reconsidering

their role in providing outdoor recreation services.

Some of these agencies now rely on concessionaires

to manage their campgrounds, and in the next decade

many public campgrounds will take on a commercial

atmosphere with the installation of various recreation

amenities.

SIGNIFICANCE OF COMMERCIAL

CAMPGROUNDS

As a sector of the travel and tourism economy,

private campgrounds are rather small. Even as a

part of the lodging industry, private campgrounds

account for a very small part of the total revenue

generated. In terms of the outdoor land resource,

private campgrounds occupy a very small percentage.

Campgrounds average 29 acres in size. However, in

terms of outdoor recreation experiences, private

campgrounds are very important. They occupy a

unique position of the outdoor recreation opportunity

spectrum by providing luxury-type amenities at

relatively low rates. The alternative for people desiring

these amenities in an outdoor setting is to patronize

resorts. Private campgrounds with their lower fees

make these luxury-type amenities more accessible to

a wider range of people, many of whom enjoy being

in the out-of-doors, but desire some comfort.

The private campground industry, like all industries, constantly strives to make improvements.

However, the future of this industry depends not

only on its own efforts to improve, but also those of

the public agencies which manage large numbers of

public campgrounds. The question to be asked is

the relationship between private and public campgrounds; competition or cooperation. In the past,

public agencies have operated under a philosophy

independent of and unconcerned with the welfare of

the private campground industry. Today, however,

with increasing pressures on public agencies to

manage resources more efficiently and with the

emphasis on upgrading facilities, the need for more

cooperation between the public and private campground industry is apparent. An important issue for

debate is the fees charged in public campgrounds.

Higher fees in public campgrounds would encourage

similar rate increases in private campgrounds with

the likelihood of an expansion in services and facilities

in the private sector. Such fee increases might be

desirable particularly if there is a policy to encourage

more recreation on private lands. However, the

question of equitableness of access to outdoor

recreation resources is an important concern that

must be addressed in any increase of fees at public

campgrounds. A strong tradition of inexpensive

access to outdoor resources for all regardless of

economic status is something that will continue to

be politically sensitive in the coming decades.

REFERENCES

McEwen, Douglas N. 1986. Economic survey of private

campgrounds, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois

University.

Woodall Publishing Company. 1937. Trailering parks

and campgrounds. Bannockburn, IL.

56
6000 T f

5000

400 0

No. Cam pgrounds 3 0 0 0

200 0

100 0

0 b

North e as t South e as t Pacific Coas t Rock y Mt.

Re gions

Figure 1. -Total number of campgrounds by region in United States 1978-87.

60000 0

50000 0

40000 0

No. Cam ps ites 300000

20000 0

10000 0

0

North e as t South e as t Pacific Coas t Rock y Mt.

Re gions

Figure 2.-Total number of campsites by region in United States 1978-87.

60000 0

50000 0

40000 0

No. Cam ps ites 300000

20000 0

10000 0

0

Full H ook ups W ate r & Ele c. Ele c. Only

Cam ps ite Type s

No H ook ups

Figure 3. -Total number of campsites by type in United States 1978-87.

57
FEDERAL AND STATE BACKCOUNTRY RESOURCES

Donald B.K. English’

Abstract- Federal and State agencies manage a

good deal of remote and undeveloped lands and

waters available for recreation beyond designated

wilderness resources. The remoteness of these

resources may best be characterized by their distance

from roaded access. Distance criteria are applied to

agency lands and waters to derive estimates of several

categories of resources, including: remote and

extensive unroaded areas, extensive undeveloped

areas near roads, and roaded and partially developed

areas for land, water, and snow and ice resource

bases. Results provide estimates of amounts of

resources in each categoty.

INTRODUCTION

Federal and State recreation resources that are

outside of intensively developed areas, such as

campgrounds, swimming areas, and picnic grounds,

have a wide variety of accessibility. Some areas can

be accessed by the average passenger car. Other

areas are more remote and getting there requires

either physical effort, such as hiking, or specialized

equipment, including 4-wheel drive (4WD) or highclearance vehicles, snowmobiles, or trail bikes. Still

others can be accessed only by air or sea. These

accessibility differences are one of the primary

components in determining the types of recreation

opportunities provided by the area (Brown and Driver

1979; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

1981).

The areas that are sufficiently remote to require

either physical effort or specialized equipment to

access them provide opportunities for most dispersed

recreation activities. In addition, these areas frequently

offer opportunities for solitary recreation, generally

having little facility development beyond primitive

roads, foot trails, and occasional shelters. Several

‘Outdoor Recreation Planner, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, GA

5 8

nearly synonymous labels have been attached to

these areas, including “primitive,” “undeveloped,”

“natural,” and the one used here, ‘backcountry.’

The major difficulties with these terms have been

the often imprecise nature of the concept, the lack of

reasonably concrete definitions for them, and accounting differences across agencies. One response to

these needs has been the development of the

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), used by

the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

(Driver and others 1985). The ROS categorizes

recreation environments along physical, social, and

managerial settings (U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service 1981). The first step in ROS categorization is creating distinction by distance from roads or

motorized trails. The two most remote categories of

resources in ROS are defined by areas more than 3

miles from roads (primitive) and l/2 to 3 miles from

roads (semi-primitive non-motorized). These two

distance criteria are used here as well, and the acres

in each category separated.

The purpose of this paper is to develop and

report regional estimates of the amounts of Federal

and State recreation land, water and snow and ice

resources in the two backcountry settings. It was

assumed that the term ‘backcountry’ could apply to

those Federal and State lands greater than l/2 mile

from a road that is passable by a standard automobile.

The most remote category of backcountry was

assumed to include wilderness and other lands more

than 3 miles from roads, since these other lands

would be likely to provide close substitutes to

wildernesses. The label used here for these resources

was ‘Wilderness and other extensive roadless areas.’

The remaining category of backcountry would include

lands l/2 to 3 miles from roads, and was labeled

‘extensive undeveloped areas.’

Distance criteria are difficult to apply to water

opportunities because of the present state of data.

For the purposes of this paper, backcountry water

opportunities would include designated components

of the Wild and Scenic River System and those river
segments under study for such designation. Some

states also have Wild and Scenic River systems.

Backcountry opportunities for snow and ice-based

activities would be found on backcountry lands that

have some minimal amount of annual snow cover to

allow winter recreation activities.

METHODS

In describing the opportunities for recreation on

backcountry lands owned by Federal agencies, it

was apparent that these data were largely unavailable.

Estimates had to be constructed from available data.

The data elements desired for each Federal and

State area were total acres, wilderness acres, and

road miles. From these, backcountry acres were

estimated. Wilderness areas by definition are unroaded. Nonwilderness backcountry acres were calculated

from the remaining acres and road miles. One mile

of road with a l/2 mile wide corridor on either side

equalled 1 square mile (640 acres) of land. Therefore,

backcountry acres were roughly equal to the wilderness acres plus nonwilderness area acres minus

road miles*640. A similar method yielded nonwilderness backcountry acres that were greater than 3

miles from a road.’

Only lands managed by the agency itself were

included in these calculations. Inholdings and lands

managed by other agencies were not included, since

the intent was to describe the opportunities provided

by the agencies themselves. Water acres, in the

form of impoundments, would also not be included.

The remote character of water, either flat or running,

seems fairly heavily determined by the character of

the surrounding land, and thereby the accessibility.

Lands adjacent to the parcels of Federal lands

were assumed to be natural in character. Further, it

was assumed that beyond the borders of the federal

lands, no roads existed within l/2 mile. Therefore, no

buffer zone at the exterior borders of the federally

owned parcels was considered necessary to insure

a backcountry character to lands near those exterior

borders.

It was not possible to get road miles and total

acres for all agencies. The exact method used to

estimate backcountry acres was determined by the

information the agency had available. The methods

used for calculating backcountry acres for each

agency are presented below.

Corps of Engineers

Recreation areas managed by the Corps are

generally small, heavily developed tracts, providing

camping, picnicking, water access, and swimming. It

was assumed that none of the lands managed by

the Corps provided backcountry opportunities.

Bureau of Reclamation

The Bureau of Reclamation classifies the lands

in its recreation areas as either ‘developed for public

recreation,’ ‘developed for long-term exclusive recreation use,’ or ‘undeveloped.’ It was assumed that all

acres classified in the undeveloped category were

within l/2 mile of a road, and therefore insufficiently

remote to provide backcountry opportunities.

Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) did not

have detailed data on its lands below the state level,

and did not have data on the miles of roads on BLM

lands. At the suggestion of BLM staff, nonwilderness

backcountry acres greater than 3 miles from a road

were equated with acres in wilderness study areas

(WSA’s). Nonwilderness backcountry acres l/2 to 3

miles from a road were assumed to be equal to

acres in natural areas. Natural area acres were

available at the state level.

Fish and Wildlife Service

Backcountry acres for FWS lands were limited to

those lands on National Wildlife Refuges that also

had some degree of visitor facilities, It was assumed

that those refuges not included in the ‘Visitors Guide

to National Wildlife Refuges’ brochure published by

FWS did not provide recreation opportunities. Data

from the FWS included the total acres for each refuge,

as well as the acres on each refuge in ‘administrative

use’-that is, in roads, parking lots and buildings. It

was assumed that roughly 90 percent of the acres in

this category would be in road acres, and that roads

were 30 feet wide. Therefore, one acre of administrative

use lands equalled 0.25 linear miles of road.

Tennessee Valley Authority

Much of the recreation land administered by TVA

is in developed recreation areas. However, some

lands are classified as ‘natural areas.’ The size and

the miles of roads for each area were available. It

was assumed all natural areas could provide backcountry opportunities, subject to road mile calculations.

59
National Park Service Backcountry Snow and Ice Opportunities

Available data included the total acres, wilderness

acres, and road miles. It was assumed that all road

miles in an area, paved and unpaved, were both

open to the public and passable by car. Areas whose

total size, including inholdings, was less than 320

acres (l/2 square mile) were not included. It was

assumed that these smaller areas were primarily

monuments, historic and military areas, and that the

lands were too developed to provide backcountry

opportunities.

Forest Service

Road miles open to the public, and total acres

and wilderness acres were obtained for most National

Forests. For those Forests for which road miles were

not obtained, the regional ratio of road miles/l000

acres was applied to estimate the number of road

miles. Nonwilderness backcountry acres were estimated according to the method described above.

State Parks

Available data for state parks were largely limited

to the total size of the park and wilderness acres, if

any. It was assumed that these parks were roughly

square in shape, and that no roads existed in the

interior of the parks. Backcountry lands were assumed

to be those lands greater than l/2 mile from the

exterior of the park.

State Forests

Available data included total State forest acres

by county, and designated wilderness acres on State

Forests by county. It was assumed that all nonwilderness acres on State forest lands were within

l/2 mile of some road that would be passable by

car, and so were not included in backcountry.

Wild and Scenic River Opportunities

Data in “The Nationwide Rivers Inventory’ (U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service

1982) provided miles of designated and study rivers.

Data from that source was updated to 12/31/86 by

examining legislation adding designated components

and study rivers.

Land resources were determined as above.

Annual snowfall was determined by data presented

in average annual snowfall isolines as depicted in

“The National Atlas of the U.S.” It was assumed that

areas with less than an annual average of 16 inches

of snowfall would not provide any snow or ice based

backcountry opportunities. The method was to begin

with the backcountry lands identified above, and

delete the acres in counties that received less than

16 inches of snowfall in an average year.

RESULTS

Backcountry Lands

Wilderness and other extensive roadless areas

represent the most rugged and remote tracts in the

U.S. Extensive undeveloped areas buffer wilderness

areas, and can be used for dispersed, motorized

and nonmotorized activities including off-road driving,

backpacking, and primitive camping.

Wilderness and Other Extensive Roadless

Areas

Currently, about 88 million acres of Federal land,

have been included in the NWPS. About 56 million

of those acres, or about 64 percent, are in Alaska

(Table 1). Of the 32 million acres in the lower 48

states, roughly 25 million are in the West. The Eastern

half of the U.S. contains only about 3.9 million acres

of lands of this type. The Park Service manages

almost 37 million acres of wilderness, about 90 percent

of which is in Alaska. The FWS manages 19.3 million

acres, only 600,000 of which are in the lower 48

states. Wilderness areas managed by the USFS are

fairly evenly distributed. BLM manages about 369,000

acres of wilderness land.

Table 2 shows the distribution of extensive

roadless areas exclusive of wilderness areas by

Federal agency and region. Almost half of the 100

million acres in this category are on National Wildlife

Refuges in Alaska. Outside of Alaska, neither the

Forest Service nor the Fish and Wildlife Service have

many nonwilderness lands that are this remote.

Table 3 shows the distribution of wilderness and

other extensive roadless areas by level of government

and region. About 65 percent of these acres are in

Alaska. Another 15 percent are in the Rocky Mountain

Region. Most surprising, perhaps, are the large

60
Table l.--National Wilderness Preservation System BCPBS, by agency

and region. BS of 12/31/86

Agency

Region

National Fish and Bureau

Forest Park Wildlife of Land

Service Service Service Management Total

________ - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - -

North 1.163 133 0 1.360

South 619 1.444

4;:

0 2.533

Rocky

Mountains 16.576 690 120 330 17.716

Pacjfic

co.wt:

Alaska 5.453 32.356 18,678 3; 56.486

Other 8.541 2.137 1 10.718

Total 32.352 36.760 19.332 369 08,813

Table 2.--Extensive roadless ereas exclusive of wilderness weas

by Federal agency and region

Agency

Region

National Fish and Bureau

Forest Park Wildlife of Land

Service Service SelVifX Management Total

__-___-- - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - -

North 0 605 18 0 623

South 0 596 217 0 813

Rocky

Mountains 1.539 1.863 117 14,725 18,244

Pacific

coast:

Alaska 11.910 11.996 46.826 70.732

Other 0 1.596 0

9.92:

11.518

Total 11.910 13.592 46.826 9.922 82.250

Total 13.449 16.656 47.178 24,647 101.930

Source: National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System

(U.S. Forest Service 1987).

State-owned backcountry acres in the South and

Northeast. In both of these regions, State-owned

remote backcountry accounts for over 60 percent of

the total.

It is interesting to note that designated wilderness

makes up not quite half of the total supply of this

resource. Certainly some, and perhaps the majority

of the non-wilderness remote backcountry lands are

under study for inclusion in the National Wilderness

Preservation System (NWPS). As additions to NWPS

are made, the ratio of wilderness to nonwilderness

acres in the Federal agency portion of Table 3 will

change. More importantly, perhaps, is to recognize

that at least in the short run, the acreage figures

presented here represent the maximum amount of

remote backcountry opportunities available in this

country. Additions to the 200 million acres total will

likely only be made as areas that contain roads are

allowed to revert to a more primitive state, which

may take 50 to 100 years.

Extensive Undeveloped Areas

These backcountry acres are less remote than

the categories listed above, and because of that

greater accessibility absorb more recreation use

than the more remote backcountry areas. The Forest

Service, in its Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, has

also recognized the more accessible character of

these lands, terming them ‘semi-primitive.’

Table 3.--Wilderness and extensive roadless areas. by region and level

of government

Federal state

Region

State perk

Extensive state wilderness

roadless forest and extensive

Wilderness areas wilderness roadless areas Total

__________ - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - -

North

South

Rocky

Mountain

Pacific

coast:

Alaska

Other

Total

Total

1.360 623 2.292 5.12: 4.305

2.533 813 0 8,494

17.716 18.224 0 40 35.980

56,486 70.732 0 2.213 129,431

10.718 11,518 10 430 22,676

67.204 82.250 10 2.643 152.107

88.813 101.930 2.302 7.861 200.886

source: National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System (U.S. Forest

Service 1987).

61
Table 4.--Distribution of extensive undeveloped eref18. by region and agency

Agency

Region

National Fish end Bureau Tennessee

Forest Park Wildlife of Lend Valley

Service Service Service Management Authority State Total

___________ _ _ Thousand acres _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

North 2,011 139 38 0 0 969 3.161

South 1,602 1.512 145 0 6 3.366 6.631

Rocky

Mountain 53.227 5.907 243 736 0 601 60.714

Pacific

coast:

Alaska 4,142 401 280 0 815 5.698

Other 14.561 2.330 3

31:

0 681 17.893

Total 18.703 2.731 283 318 0 1.556 23.591

Total 75.543 10.289 709 1.054 6 6.496 94.097

Source: National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System (U.S. Forest

Service 1987).

Table 5.--Total Federal and state backcountry ecpes. by type

and Forest Service region

Table 4 shows the distribution of these backcountry acres by agency and region, In all regions except

the South, the majority of these lands are under the

jurisdiction of the Forest Service. In the South, State

parklands provide over 3 million acres of undeveloped

backcountry, more than all of the Federal agencies

in the region combined. Relatively few acres of this

type are found in Alaska, largely because so few

roads exist that most of the publicly owned acres

there are more than 3 miles from a road.

Total Backcountry Lands Total ZOO.906 94.097

Table 5 shows the regional distribution of both

types of backcountry acres. In the Rocky Mountains

the majority of backcountry acres are in the less

remote category. In the South and Pacific Coast, the

reverse is true. Overall, almost 300 million acres of

Federal and State lands provide backcountry opportunities. About 45 percent of these acres are in Alaska.

The percentage of agency lands that are in

backcountry varies both by region and governmental

level (Table 6). In most of the regions, about one-third

of Federal lands managed by agencies that have

any backcountry at all qualify as backcountry. What

seem to be low percentages in Alaska and the Rocky

Mountains are probably due to the large BLM land

holdings outside of any wilderness, wilderness study

area or natural area. The percentage of State park

and forest lands that qualify as backcountry varies

even more widely. Almost 80 percent of these lands

in the South are backcountry. Several large state

reserves exist in this region, including one of 2.8

million acres in Texas, over 90 percent of which

qualify as backcountry according to these estimates.

Region

Wilderness end Extensive

extensive roedless undeveloped Tote1

BP.338 area s backcountry

North

South

Rocky

Mountain

Pacific

coast:

Alaska

Other

4.305

8.494

35.980

129.431 5.698

22.676 17.893

Total 152.107

Thousand acres

3.161 7.466

6.631 15,125

60,714 96.694

23.591

135.129

40.569

175.698

294.983

Source: National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System

(U.S. Forest Service 1987).

Table 6.--Beckcountry acres. total agency acres, and backcountry

ewes ee a percentage of total ecres. by region

Federal state

Beck- Total Percent Back- Tots1 Percent

Region country acres of total country Acres of total

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Thousand Acres - - - - - - - - -

North 4.171 13.450 31.0 3,291 17.494 18.8

South 6,611 20.288 32.6 8,514 10.613 80.2

Rocky

Mountain 96.063 257,860 37.3 641 4.978 12.9

Pacific

coast:

Alaska 132.041 380.672 34.7 58.8

Other 39.448 82.675 47.7 19.1

Total 171.489 463.347 37.0 4.209 11.115 37.9

Total 278,344 754.945 36.9 16.655 44.300 37.6

Source: National Outdoor Recreetioo Supply Information System

(U.S. Forest Service 1987).

Note: State total acres equals SUIO of State park eves and State

forest acres open to recreation.

62
Backcountry Waters

Included in this category would be those opportunities for remote water-based recreation. Opportunities

on Federally managed areas specifically related to

water recreation would include the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area, National Wild and Scenic river system

components, and study rivers. The components of

the wild and scenic river system would represent

flowing water opportunities. The Boundary Waters

Canoe Area, covering almost 800,000 Forest Service

acres and 289,000 acres of other public land and

water, is predominantly flat water.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

These river segments have been given legislative

protection from development and intrusion that might

compromise their recreational, scenic or free-flowing

qualities. The qualifications for inclusion in the system

were provided by the National Park Service in The

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service 1982). At the end of

1986, 7,178 miles had been included as components

in the National Wild and Scenic River System

(NWSRS). Of that total, almost half of the river miles

are in Alaska. About 900 miles, or 13 percent of

these total river miles, are in the Eastern half of the

US (Table 7). Only 1,134 miles of Wild and Scenic

rivers are in the Rocky Mountains.

Five Federal agencies have management responsibilities for these resources. The National Park Service

manages 2,100 miles of rivers, the Bureau of Land

Management about 2,000, and the Forest Service

about 1,960. All of the 1,000 miles managed by the

Fish and Wildlife Service are in Alaska.

Wild and Scenic Study Rivers

These rivers also represent opportunities for

remote dispersed forms of water-based recreation.

At the end of 1986, there were a total of 7,597 miles

of river segments that are or have been under study

for inclusion in the NWSRS (Table 7). About threequarters of these were under the jurisdiction of the

National Park Service. The remainder are on or near

National Forest land. Fully one third of these study

river miles, or almost 2,500, are in the Northeast,

and another 1,550 miles are in the South.

Combining these two resources yields almost

15,000 miles of remote river opportunities on Federal

lands, About 35 percent of this total is in Alaska, 21

percent in the Northeast, and about 13 percent in

Table 7. --Miles of Components of the

Wild and Scenic River System, by region

and type, as of 12/31/86

Region

Designated Study

components segments Total

North

South

Rocky

Mountain

Pacific

Coast:

Alaska

Other

Total

Total 7,178 7,597 14 9 775

-

_ _ _ _ - Miles - - - _ _

2,563 3,109

1,528 1,892

1,134 1,220 2.354

2*;:4” 1,925 5,155

9 361 2,265

5,134 2,286 7,420

Source: National Outdoor Recreation

Supply Information System (U.S. Forest

Service 1987).

the South. Relative to other regions, the river miles

in the east represent a particularly valuable resource,

due to their proximity to major population concentrations.

Backcountry Snow and Ice Opportunities

This section examines the backcountry lands

that receive enough snowfall to provide opportunities

for winter activities. The portions of the country that

receive at least 16 inches of annual snowfall have

been termed ‘snow country’, and it is these resources

that are considered here. Backcountry resources

that were in counties that receive less than 16 inches

of annual snowfall were assumed not to provide

winter backcountry recreation opportunities.

There are over 176 million acres of wilderness

and extensive roadless areas in snow country (Table

8). Almost 171.5 million of these are on Federal lands,

and over 127 million of the total are on Federal lands

in Alaska. The lands in Alaska do little to provide

opportunities for most of the country. More accessible

snow backcountry resources are located on Forest

Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in

the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast Regions, and

on State and Forest Service lands in the Northeast.

63
About 77 million acres of snow backcountry

between l/2 and 3 miles from a road exist across

the United States (Table 9). Only about 7 percent of

the total are located in Alaska. Over 70 percent of

these acres are located in the Rocky Mountain Region,

and 64 percent of the total are on Forest Service

lands in that region. The majority of these lands in

every region are owned by the Forest Service.

Table 10 presents the total snow backcountry

acres by region and agency. All told, there are over

263 million acres of snow backcountry, compared

with a total of about 295 million backcountry acres.

Of those, over 135 million acres are located in Alaska.

Not surprisingly, in the South there are fewer than 1

million acres of snow backcountry. Over 65 million

acres of snow backcountry on Forest Service lands

can be found in the Rocky Mountain region, but only

about l/2 million State-owned backcountry acres.

The 7 million acres of snow backcountry on state

lands are split almost evenly between Alaska and

the Northeast region.

DISCUSSION

Designated wilderness acres, both Federal and

State, represent a special type of backcountry

resource. However, wilderness acres represent fewer

than one-third of all backcountry resources. Indeed,

in some regions, Federal nonwilderness lands that

lie more than 3 miles from a road are a larger resource

than designated wilderness lands. Perhaps the most

used backcountry areas, and therefore the most

heavily impacted and managerially important, are

those that lie between l/2 and 3 miles from a road.

These areas are located primarily in the Rocky

Mountain portion of the United States, and are largely

owned and managed by the Forest Service. In the

eastern portion of the United States, State park and

State forest remote backcountry acres outnumber

those acres owned by Federal agencies

It should be reemphasized that the acreage

estimates presented here include as backcountry

lands that are more than l/2 mile from roads passable

by standard automobile. Backcountry cannot be

equated with wilderness, either in definition or

management. Much of the backcountry lands are

accessible by motorized vehicles, including 4-wheel

drive and off-road vehicles, and in winter, snowmobiles.

The methods used here present estimates only.

Data of sufficient detail to allow estimates for State

fish and game lands were unavailable. Similarly,

estimates for nonwilderness backcountry on State

forest lands were not possible due to insufficient

Table a.-- Backcountry lands mire than 3 miles From a road providing snw

opportunities, by region and agency

Age ncy

National Fish and Bureau Total

Forest Park Wildlife of Land Federal

Region Service Service SelVice Management State and State

___________ Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - -

North 1.087 736 51 0 2.288 4,162

South 65, 5 0 0 2 72

Rocky

Mountain 16.638 1.091 227 12.005 36 30,007

Pacific

Coast:

Alaska 17.363 44.352 65.504

Other 6.9 31 1.79 4

65.50:

3.52; 2.213 129,432

31 12,384

Total 24.294 46.146 3.527 2,244 141.816

Total 42.084 47.978 65.783 15.632 4.570 176.047

Source: National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System (U.S.

Forest Service 1987).

Table v.--Backcountry lands lying less than 3 miles from e road providing

sncw opporlunities, by region and agency

Agency

Hegion

National Fish and B”EXEl” Total

Forest Park Wildlife of Land Federal

Service Service Service Management State end State

_________ _ - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - -

North 2.011 125

South 419 32

Rocky

Mountain 48.971 5.508

Pacific

coast:

Alaska 4.142 401

Other 11.827 1.034

Total 15.9 69 1.535

Total 67.370 6.100

38

0

243

280

4

284

565

0

0

607

25;

257

864

a15 2.989

16 467

505 54.834

a75 5,698

205 13.327

1.080 19 o 9 25

2.416 77.315

Source: National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System (U.S.

Forest Service 1987 ) .

Table lo.--Total backcountry wxes in snow s~eas. by region and agency

Agency

Region

National Fish and B”R?a” Total

Forest Park Wildlife of Land Federal

Service Service Service Management State and State

North

South

Rocky

Mountain

Pacific

Coast :

Alaska

Other

Total

Total

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Thousand *,.=,x6__________

3.098 861 a9 0 3.103 7.151

425 37 0 0 18 539

65.609 , 5.59 9 470 11.612 541 a4, a32

65.784

5 3.88:

40.263 47,581 65.789 3,884 3,324 160.841

109.454 54.078 66,348 16.49 6 6.9 86 253.362

Source: National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System (U.S.

Forest Service 19 87).

64
data. In the next few years refined estimates may be

possible. Rapid developments in geographic information systems and associated databases will greatly

assist this type of natural resource accounting.

Backcountry is a volatile resource. Management

activities, most notably road building, can rapidly

compromise the remoteness criterion necessary for

backcountry. Development of privately owned land,

either adjacent to or within public holdings can further

reduce the amount of backcountry resources. Additions to backcountry resources can be achieved

primarily through closing roads. It would seem that

any closure should be permanent in nature, rather

than seasonal. However, permanent closures may

be opposed by certain user groups and may be

politically impractical.

Past trends in backcountry acreage are difficult

to‘assess. No earlier national data exist that are

comparable to what is presented here. The RARE II

process in the late 1970’s identified about 62 million

acres of roadless lands in the National Forest system,

in addition to the 15 million acres of wilderness it

then managed (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 1979). These methods have estimated that

the Forest Service manages over 120 million acres

of backcountty. The difference is probably due, at

least in part, to the difference between the estimation

process used here and definition of what was included

in the RARE II inventory, rather than to an increase

in the resource. However, the actual acreage is

unknown.

It seems unlikely that much, if any, backcountry

has been created in the last 10 to 15 years through

road closures. Road construction for fire control,

timber harvest, or other reasons has been a fairly

constant activity for public agencies, most notably

the Forest Service. Since nearly half of all backcountry,

and almost two-thirds of snow backcountry acres lie

on Forest Service lands, that agency’s activity is of

prime importance in determining the future of backcountry resources. It seems likely that there is less

backcountry now than in the past, although how

much less is impossible to estimate. Similarly, the

future status of backcountry resources is unknown,

but a reduction in the total amounts seems most

probable.

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

One of the obstacles to preparation of this paper

was the lack of a clear and widely accepted set of

criteria for defining backcountry resources. The

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum developed by the

Forest Service provided the guidelines used here

and is one such set of criteria. Managers, planners,

and policy makers from a number of agencies need

to agree on both physical and perceptual definitions

of backcountry resources, both from the perspective

of users and managers. Then, all agencies need to

agree to collect compatible data necessary to

determine the amount of backcountry both regionally

and nationally.

Since backcountry is in part defined by remoteness, the most obvious method to reduce the amount

of the resource is to build roads. Whether the opposite

action of closing roads is sufficient to create more

backcountry is not certain. A set of management

actions needs to be defined that can create more

backcountry over a given period of time. Forest

managers know what course of action to pursue to

have a stand of commercial timber in 30 to 50 years.

Whether a similar action plan can be developed that

will in essence create backcountry, or even wilderness,

may merit consideration by agency managers.

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

Several research implications can be developed

from the above discussion. One of the most important

would be to develop a sample of public land holdings

by each agency and test the validity of some of the

assumptions used in this paper. For example, detailed

maps of National or State parks could be examined

for interior roads and development near borders.

Once a definition of backcountry is widely

accepted, then a research program should be

developed to ascertain what physical elements could

be easily measured that would accurately predict the

amount of backcountry on public lands. If, for example,

distance from roads is the primary criterion, then a

detailed geographic database that includes public

land boundaries and road corridors could be queried

to estimate backcountry acres.

Backcountry areas would seem to contain a

great deal of the resources used for many types of

dispersed recreation, including trail resources. It

seems that a research agenda should be developed

to examine both recreational and nonrecreational

use and users of backcountry resources, and to

monitor use trends in the future. In addition, researchers may find it useful to track trends in the

amount of the resource-to identify areas of the

country that may be losing the resource, and at

what rate the losses are occurring.

65
REFERENCES

Brown, P.J.; Driver, B.L. 1979. The outdoor recreation

opportunity spectrum in wildland recreation planning: development and application. In: Recreation

planning and development. UT: American Society

of Civil Engineers.

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

T.G. 1984. The ROS planning system: evolution,

basic concepts and research needed. Ft. Collins,

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

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 33 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1979.

RARE II: summary-final environmental statement:

roadless area review and evaluation. Washington,

DC. 55 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1981.

ROS User’s Guide. 38 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

1982. The nationwide rivers inventory. Washington,

DC. (Various pagings).

66
TRENDS IN STATE PARK OPERATIONS

W. Donald Martin’

IN THE UNITED STATES

Abstract- Data for this report were taken from surveys

conducted by the National Association of State Park

Directors from 1975 to 1985. The following trends

were analyzed: Acreage administered by State park

agencies, selected facilities in State park systems,

visitations to State park areas and financial operations.

State park directors were also surveyed to ascertain

factors which influenced those trends.

INTRODUCTION

This report presents trends in State park operations in the United States from 1975 to 1985. In

addition, complementary data from a survey of State

park directors are discussed in an effort to determine

what factors influenced past trends as well as the

factors likely to have the greatest impact on future

State park operations and services. Aspects of State

park operations studied included State park acreage

and facilities, visitation levels, and financial and

personnel operations.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to collect data

and analyze trends on selected aspects of State

park operations in the United States from 1975 to

1985 and to determine factors that influenced the

changes. Study objectives were as follows:

1. To determine changes in the inventory of land

resources devoted to State parks and recreation

services.

2. To determine changes in State park attendance

and selected facilities.

3. To analyze the sources and amounts of funds

used for financing operations and capital outlays.

‘Associate Professor of Recreation and Park Administration, Indiana

University, Bloomington, IN.

4. To analyze trends in State park employment

and salaries.

5. To determine factors that may have influenced

the trends in State park operations.

6. To determine future trends in State park

operations as perceived by State park administrators,

PROCEDURES

Data on selected aspects of State park operations

were taken from surveys conducted by the National

Association of State Park Directors during the past

10 years. Results from the 1975 survey administered

by the Missouri Division of Parks and Recreation

were published in ‘State Park Statistics 1975” by the

National Recreation and Park Association. Other

data were taken from surveys administered by the

Indiana Division of State Parks from 1979 to 1985

and published in the “Annual Information Exchange’

by the National Association of State Park Directors.

Since a different questionnaire was used in the 1975

survey than was used in later surveys, only a few

items can be compared over the lo-year period. A

more detailed analysis was made for all factors under

study from June 30, 1979, to June 30, 1985.

The questionnaires were distributed to the 50

State park agencies that administer parks, recreation

areas, historic sites, and related facilities. With few

exceptions, the annual reporting period was from

July 1 through June 30. It is important to note that

State park agencies administer a wide variety of

lands. In some States the park agency has under its

control forests, fish and wildlife areas, natural areas,

and historic sites as well as related facilities. In other

States only the State parks are under the State park

system (National Association of State Park Directors

1986).

One must be cautious in making comparisons

among the States due to the diversity of administrative

patterns and budgeting practices. In the majority of

States, parks are administered through a division or

67
bureau in a department of natural resources or

conservation, or in a department combining natural

resources, conservation and environmental management. Thirteen States have either departments of

parks, departments of parks and recreation, or a

combination of parks and/or recreation with tourism.

In other States the parks function is included within

a department of fish and wildlife, game or transportation. Ten of the State park agencies included in the

surveys also have responsibility for administering

State forest lands.

Data for selected aspects of State park operations

were compiled from the “Annual Information Exchange”

for 1979, 1981, 1982 and 1985 and sent to the 50

State park directors for review, verification, and

corrections. Data reflected operations for the fiscal

year of July 1 to June 30. Responses were received

from 45 of the agencies and telephone follow-ups

were conducted with the other five agencies to verify

the data. Also, the directors were requested to return

a rating form on the reliability of the data reported in

the “Annual Information Exchange.” There was a 90

percent return on these forms.

Based on the above data, a trends report was

developed and sent to the 50 State park directors

along with a questionnaire to determine factors that

influenced changes in their State park operations

during the past 6 years, as well as their perceptions

of the issues and trends for the next 5 years. Forty-two

of the agencies returned that questionnaire for a

response rate of 84 percent.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the reliability rating of selected

data from the ‘Annual Information Exchange.’ Over

one-half (52 percent) of the items received a very

Table l.--Reliability of data from the annual information exchange as rated

by State park directors

Selected data Rating1 Selected data Rating

Acreage in State parks

and recreation areas

Number of facilities:

Modern campsites

Primitive campsites

Cabins/cottages

Lodge rooms

Attendance:

Day visitors

Overnight visitors

No. of campsites rented

No. of acres purchased

Cost of land purchased

Cost of new construction

Personnel (full-time,

year round):

Public contact employees

Field supervisors

Central office staff

Salary ranges for fulltime employees

5.66

5.56

4.32

5.09

5.17

5.25

5.59

5.52

5.64

Financial Operations:

Total operating budget

Total capital outlay

budget

Federal funds

Bonds

Vehicle entrance fees

(daily)

Vehicle annual pass

Modern campsite fees

Cabin/cottage fees

Revenue generated:

Entrance fees

Campsite rentals

Concession operations

Cabins/cottages/lodges

Other operations

Total revenue generated

5.43

5.44

;-zz.

;*E:

5:63

5.50

5.29

5.31

5.57

1

Very unreliable 1.00-1.50 Somewhat reliable 3.51-4.50

Mostly unreliable 1.51-1.50 Mostly reliable 4.51-5.50

Somewhat unreliable 2.51-3.50 Very reliable 5.51-6.00

68
reliable rating with mean scores between 5.51 and In 1979, 28 States reported a total of 3,595

6.00 on a scale of 1.00 to 6.00. Thirteen of the 29 cabins/cottages (table 2). This increased to 34 States

items (45 percent) were rated as mostly reliable and with 5,158 cabins/cottages in 1985 for an average

only one item, attendance data for day visitors, was annual increase of 7.4 percent in total cabins/cottages.

rated as somewhat reliable. None of the selected The number of campsites and lodge rooms increased

types of data received an unreliable rating. It should at a much lesser rate. The State park agencies

be noted that although the State park directors feel reported having a total of 181.8 thousand campsites

that the data reported for their respective States are in 1985 compared to 167.2 thousand in 1979, for an

reliable, there may be inconsistencies among States average annual increase of 1.5 percent. The same

in the reporting of data due to interpretations of 23 States reported having lodges in both the 1979

certain items on the questionnaires used in collecting and 1985 surveys. The number of rooms increased

the data. For example, definitions for primitive from 3,977 to 4,282 for an average annual increase

campgrounds may vary from State to State. of 1.3 percent.

Park Acreage and Facilities Visitations

Total acreage administered by State park agencies increased from 9.5 million to 10.2 million acres

from June 30, 1979, to June 30, 1985 for an average

annual increase of 1.2 percent (table 2). The 1975

survey results showed that total land area was 7.0

million acres giving an average annual increase of

8.9 percent from 1975 to 1979. The acreage shown

in table 2 includes only those lands administered by

the 50 State agencies included in the surveys. It

does not include other State agencies that administer

forests, fish and wildlife areas or historical sites

separate from State parks and recreation areas.

Since lands designated as State parks and recreation

areas comprise 81 percent of the total lands reported

by the 50 State agencies, those classifications were

treated separately for trend analysis. The acreage in

State parks and recreation areas increased at an

average annual rate of 2.3 percent from 1979 to

The rate of increase in State park visitations was

not as great in the first half of the 1980’s as it was

during earlier periods. From 1979 to 1985, the total

number of visitors to areas operated by State park

agencies increased from 623.3 million to 664.1 million

for an average annual increase of 1.1 percent (table

3). This was approximately the same annual rate of

increase for the general population in the United

States (1.0 percent). Based on data from the 1975

survey, State park attendance increased at an average

annual rate of 3.0 percent from 1975 to 1979.

On an average, from 1979 to 1985, the rate of

increase for overnight visitors was twice that of day

visitors. As indicated previously, the data for State

park visitation are considered to be less reliable by

the State park directors than the other types of data.

1985. The 1975 survey did not

the different types of areas.

report acreage for

Table 2.--Areas and facilities administered by State park agencies

Areas and facilities

June

1979

June Average annual

1985 percent of change

Total acreage (millions) 9.5 10.2 1.2

Acreage in State parks and

recreation areas (millions) 7.3 8.3 2.3

Number of modern campsites

(thousands) 124.5 136.3 1.6

No. of primitive campsites

(thousands) 42.7 45.5 1.1

No. of cabins/cottages

(thousands) 3.6 7.4

No. of lodge rooms (thousands) 4.0 1.3

69
Table 3. --Visitations at areas operated by State park agencies

Type of visitors

June July Average annual

1979 1985 percent of change

Number of day visitors 566. 2 600. 1 1 . 0

Number of overnight

visitors 57. 1 64. 0 2.0

Total number of visitors 644. 1 1.1

Number of campers 57.9 1.1

Financial Operations

Over the g-year period (1979 to 1985) operating

budgets for State park agencies increased at an

annual rate of 8.0 percent (table 4) compared to an

annual inflation rate of 7.9 percent. However, during

that time capital outlay budgets decreased from

$515.5 million to $273.7 million for an average annual

rate of -7.8 percent.

Based on 1975 survey data, the operating budgets

and capital outlay budgets increased at average

annual rates of 19.6 percent and 16.5 percent,

respectively, from 1975 to 1979.

Federal funds allocated to State park agencies

for both capital and operating budgets decreased

from $48.2 million to $34.0 million from 1979 to 1985

for an average annual decrease of 4.9 percent. To

Table 4. --Financial aspects of State park operations

Financial aspects

June

19 79

June Average annual

19 85 percent of change

Selected financial aspects:

Operating budgets (millions) $4 9 1.9 $728. 0 8 . 0

Capital outlay budgets (millions) 515. 5 273. 7 -7. 8

Federal funds (operating and

capital; millions) 48. 2 34. 0 -4.9

Funds from bond issues (millions) 50. 8 88. 3 12. 3

Daily entrance fees (vehicle) 1.4 8 2.09 6.9

Vehicle annual pass fee 9 . 7 1 20.0 3 17. 7

Modern campsite fees (average) 4.5 0 7.19 10.0

Cabin/cottage fees 22.0 3 41.21 14.5

Revenue generated from

operations (millions):

Entrance fees

Campsite rentals

Concession operations

Cabins/cottages/lodges

Other operations

S z:*:: 57.8 12. 5

2510

70.7 11.1

23. 3 9 . 2

20. 8 43.9 18. 5

44.4 72.9 10.7

Total revenue generated 155.6 268.6 12.1

Percent of operating budget

that is revenue generated 31.6 36.9 2.8

70
Table 5. --Comparison of operating expenditures and generated revenues

Average Revenue Net

Operating annual generated operating

expenditure percentage per cost per

per visitor change visitor visitor

State 1979 1985 1979-85 1985 1985

United States

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

-Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

. $1.10 6.5 8 .40 $ .70

1.17

:76:

1.65

1.20

.91

1.15

.81

1.03

.74

.12

1.12

:;;

.22

.46

1.19

.89

.88

1.12

1.10

.61

.9 2

3:;:

2.53

.62

.78

.79

1.70

.76

1.10

1.13

:E

.58

.25

.68

.56

.47

.49

1.21

.84

1.22

1.99

.83

.38

1.26

:;;

1.94

1.01

2.02

2.39

1.61

1.02

.94

1.02

1.34

1.86

.19

1.53

.69

.82

.37

.93

2.08

1.78

1.20

1.60

1.44

.73

1.83

2.52

1.00

.58

1.20

.97

1.24

1.67

.96

2.06

.84

1.32

.51

1.08

.45

.83

.66

1.14

.67

1.21

1.58

2.06

3.47

1.55

.42

1.79

.62

1.49

11.0

3;::

7.5

5.7

- c::

4.3

2;::

z*:

5:9

1.8

11.4

6.5

12.5

16.7

6.1

7.1

;::

16.5

- 3.5

5.9

-12.8

15.6

4.1

- z:;

4.4

14.5

- 4.3

6.3

1.0

14.4

13.3

;::

23.8

6.1

1::;

11.5

12.4

14.5

1.8

7.0

12.0

11.2

1.53

.oo

.46

1.11

.47

.64

.35

.73

.57

.67

.04

.44

.05

.67

-07

.43

1.27

.33

::;

.47

.53

.55

.91

.21

.07

-45

.22

1.21

.59

::2

.17

:::

.27

.15

.12

.20

.84

.28

.67

.48

.37

2.98

.43

.09

1.06

.41

.04

.41

1.01

1.56

1.28

1.14

.38

.59

.29

.77

1.19

.15

1.09

.64

.15

.30

.50

.81

1.45

.84

.75

.97

.20

1.28

1.61

.79

.51

.75

.75

.03

1.08

.63

1.42

.67

.82

:::

.30

.71

.46

.30

:$

1.10

1.69

.49

1.12

.33

.73

.21

1.45

71
help offset the loss of revenues from tax appropriations

State park agencies increased revenues generated

from operations by an annual rate of 12.1 percent.

Funds from bond issues decreased from $525.9

million in 1975 to a low of $50.8 million in 1979. Since

that time bond monies as a source of capital budget

revenue have increased at an average annual rate of

12.3 percent. Fifteen State park agencies reported

receiving a combined total of over $88 million in

bond funds during 1985.

Revenue generated from park operations. In

order to generate more revenues, State park organizations increased fees and charges considerably during

the 6-year period (1979-l 985). In 1979, 27 states

charged an average of $1.48 for vehicle entry. Several

other states charged parking fees or individual

entrance fees. In 1985, 32 states charged an average

of $2109 for vehicle entry, an average annual increase

of 6.9 percent. Fees for vehicle annual passes

increased at an annual rate of almost 18 percent,

with 29 states charging an average of $20.03 in

1985. Fees for campsite and cottage rentals increased

faster than the rate of inflation from 1979 to 1985.

Entrance fees and campsite rentals accounted

for 48 percent of the revenue generated in 1985.

The rental of cabins, cottages, and lodges generated

16 percent and concession operations brought in 9

percent of the generated revenue. Other operations,

which included beaches, pools, golf courses, ski

areas, and similar facilities, generated 27 percent of

the revenue in 1985. Even though the amount of

revenue generated from park operations increased

by 73 percent from 1979 to 1985, the portion of the

operating budget that is revenue generated increased

only 17 percent during the 6-year period. The data

indicate that New Hampshire had the highest percentage (97.6 percent) of its operating budget offset by

generated revenues. The national average for 1985

was 36.9 percent.

Per visitor expenditures and revenues. Table 5

shows the 6-year trend in operating expenditure per

visitor for each State as well as the revenue generated

and net operating cost (expenditure) per visitor of

1985. The first two columns give the total operating

expenditure per visitor for the years 1979 and 1985.

These figures were determined by dividing the

operating budget by the total number of visitors

reported by the respective State park agencies. In

order to determine the net operating cost per visitor

for each State during 1985, the revenue generated

per visitor was subtracted from the operating expenditure per visitor.

72

The national average annual percentage increase

in per visitor expenditure (6.5 percent) from 1979 to

1985 was less than the rate of inflation during that

same period (7.9 percent). Out of the 26 States that

ranked highest in expenditures in 1985, 21 of them

also ranked in the top half of the States that collect

the most revenue per visitor. The net operating cost

per visitor on a national average during 1985 was

$0.70. The State with the lowest net operating cost

per visitor was New Hampshire ($0.03) and the State

with the highest net operating cost was Utah ($1.69).

Personnel and Salaries

The number of full-time, year-round, public contact

employees at the field unit level increased from 9,414

in 1979 to 11,940 in 1985, an average annual increase

of 4.5 percent (table 6). These are entry level park

employees with broad contact, interpretive and facility

maintenance duties.

The salaries of park personnel increased at

approximately the same rate as inflation during the

6-year period with the average salary of a field unit

manager being $22,943 in 1985. This is the senior,

on-site employee who manages the park and supervises subordinate park rangers and other classes of

personnel.

Factors Influencing State Park Operations

Tables 7 through 10 contain data related to the

responses of State park directors concerning factors

that have influenced or will influence State park

operations. The responses to each statement were

recorded on a Likert scale from strongly agree to

strongly disagree. Over 80 percent of the directors

indicated agreement with the following statements

(table 7):

State park agencies will make greater use of

volunteers during the next 5 years.

A much greater effort is currently being placed

on the marketing of State park services,

Citizens are willing to accept increased fees

and charges for State park services.
Table 6. --Personnel and salaries in State park agencies

Personnel and

salaries 19 79 19 85

Average annual

percent of change

Personnel: Full-time,

year-round:

Public contact employees

(field unit) 9 ,414 11,9 40 4.5

Field supervisors 49 4

ii;

9 .1

Central office staff 456 1.0

Average annual salaries:

Field unit employee $11,040 $16,505 8.3

Field unit manager 15,761 22,9 43

Field supervisor 20,307 29 ,845 ;-ii.

Over two-thirds of the directors responded on the

Likert scale with agreement or strong agreement to

the following statements:

Other interpretations based on the data in table 7

are:

_ A greater number of women entering the work

force and the increase in single parent families

are not perceived as influencing factors on

State park attendance by the State park

directors.

- A reduction in Federal funds has greatly

decreased land acquisition and capital improvement programs.

- State park agencies have adequate support

from the governors.

- The rate of acquisition of State park lands will

continue to decrease during the next 5 years.

- The rate of growth in State park attendance

increases as the price of gasoline decreases.

Over two-thirds of the directors disagreed with the

following statements (table 7):

- Revenue generated from State park operations

will continue to increase to the point of covering

all operating costs.

- Political support for providing State park and

recreation services is eroding.

- Parks and recreation services have a relatively

high priority among other State functions.

- Full-time, public contact (field unit) employees

will increase at a greater rate than during the

past 5 years.

Forty-eight percent of the directors disagreed

with the statement that an increase in fees

greater than the rate of inflation tends to

decrease State park attendance.

The directors were about evenly divided on the

factor concerning the expansion of State park

services and the continuing influence of taxpayers’ revolts of the late 1970’s.

More of the directors (43 percent compared to

36 percent) felt that citizens in their States would

vote in favor of a bond issue for parks and

recreation.

Fifty-five percent of the directors agreed that

greater emphasis will be placed on developing

revenue-producing facilities during the next 5

years and 52 percent agreed that more State

park operations and maintenance functions will

be contracted out to private enterprise.

73
Table 7. --Opinions of State park directors concerning factors influencing State

park operations

Percent of responses1

Statement SA A NO D SD

A reduction in Federal funds has

greatly decreased land acquisition for

State parks and recreation areas

A reduction in Federal funds has greatly

decreased the capital improvement/

development programs

Taxpayers' revolts of the late 1970's

are still having a negative impact on

tax appropriations and/or bond issues

for State park agencies

Our agency has adequate support from

the governor

Our agency has adequate support from

the State legislature

Legislative appropriations from the

general tax fund for State parks will

increase at a rate equal to or higher

than the rate of inflation as the

country's economic conditions

improve

The rate of acquisition of State park

lands will continue to decrease during

the next 5 years

Revenue generated from State park

operations will continue to increase

to the point of covering all operating

costs

Political support for providing State

park and recreation services is

eroding

Parks and recreation services have a

relatively high priority among other

State functions

The era of growth or expanding of

State park services is continuing

Citizens are willing to accept

increased fees and charges for State

park services

Citizens in your State would vote in

favor of a bond issue for parks and

recreation services if proposed today

26.2 45.2 2.4 21.4 4.8

33.3 33.3 7.1 21.3 4.8

4.8 38.1 19 .0 35.7 2.4

19 .4 51.2 12.2 12.2 4.9

9 .5 38.1 16.7 33.3 2.4

2.4 38.1 9 .5 38.1

9 .8 58.5 4.8 22.0

2.4 4.8 9 .5 33.3

0.0 23.8 9 .5 57.2

0.0 26.8 4.9 46.3

0.0 47.6 7.2

4 ..8 83.3 2.4

35.7

9 .5

11.9

4.9

50.0

9 .5

22.0

9 .5

0.0

7.2 35.7 21.4 35.7 0.0

74
Table 7. --Opinions of State park directors concerning factors influencing State

park operations--Continued

Percent of responses1

Statement SA A NO D SD

A greater number of women entering the

work force has caused a decrease in

the rate of growth in State park

attendance

The rate of growth in State park

attendance will increase as the price

of gasoline decreases

An increase in fees greater than the

rate of inflation tends to decrease

State park attendance

A greater number of single parent

families has caused a decrease in the

rate of growth in State park

attendance

Currently, a much greater effort is

being placed on the marketing of

State park services

Our agency is making a concentrated

effort to attract out-of-State

tourists

0.0

2.4

0.0

0.0

31.0

2.4 33.3 45.2 19.1

66.7

40.5

19.0

57.1

16.6 14.3 0.0

11.9 47.6 0.0

50.0 26.2 4.8

2.4 7.1 2.4

9.5 52.4 4.8 28.5 4.8

During the next 5 years:

Increases in State park attendance

will be no greater than the rate of

increase in the State's population

State park agencies will make greater

use of volunteers

Pull-time, public contact (field unit)

employees will increase at a greater

rate than during the past 5 years

More'State park operations and

maintenance functions will be

contracted out to private

individuals/firms

Greater emphasis will be placed on

developing revenue producing facilities

in State parks

2.4

14.3

0.0

2.4

14.3

33.3

78.6

9.5 50.0 4.8

4.8 2.4 0.0

14.3 7.1 71.4 7.1

50.0

40.5

7.2 33.3 7.1

14.3 26.2 4.8

1

Strongly agree (SA). agree (A), no opinion (NO), disagree (D), strongly

disagree (SD)

75
Table 8. --Factors having the most positive impact on State park

operations/services during the past 6 years

Factor

Response

frequency

Professionalism of staff/higher education/training 10

Better public awareness/support/image

Improved facilities/better programs/maintenance ;

Better marketing/promotion techniques 6

Increased promotion of tourism

Improved economy/better or more sources of funding :

Use of volunteers

Legislature and/or governor's support Z

Reduction in tax support resulting in more creativity

in managing public facilities

Economic value of State parks was recognized Z

Park ranger program/control of vandalism/law enforcement 2

Increased environmental interest 2

Scarcity/price of gas (earlier years) 2

The State park directors were asked to list factors

having the most positive and negative impacts on

State park operations/services during the past 6

years. Their responses are shown in tables 8 and 9.

The factors having the greatest negative impact

were related to inadequate budgets, State of the

economy and a reduction in federal funds.

Table 9. --Factors having the most

negative impact on State park operations/

services during the past 6 years

Factor

Response

frequency

Budget reductions/

inadequate funding

Declining (poor) economy--

recession

Reduction in Federal funds

Reduction or freeze in number of

employees

Lack of citizen and/or political

support

Increased dependence on user fees

Tort liability

Increase in law enforcement

problems

17

13

11

11

4”

2

2

When asked what factors will have the greatest

impact on State park operations during the next 5

years the most frequent response was the promotion

of tourism and/or better marketing program (table

10). Ranking second was the perception of continued

reduction in Federal funds.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Some of the major trends indicated by the data

are: Total acreage administered by State park

agencies increased on an average of 1.2 percent

per year during a g-year period from June 1979 to

June 1985. In State park systems, the number of

cottages and cabins increased at a much greater

rate than did the number of campsites (7.3 percent

annual increase, compared to 1.5 percent). Total

visitations to State park areas increased at approximately the same rate as the general population in

the United States from 1979 to 1985 (1 .I percent

and 1.0 percent respectively). The rate of increase in

attendance has been much less in recent years,

compared to the late 1970’s, when the average annual

increase was 3.0 percent. On an average, over the

6-year period (1979-1985) the rate of increase for

overnight visitors has been twice that of day visitors

(2.0 percent and 1 .I percent).

From 1979 to 1985, there was a decline in tax

support for State park operations and development.

To offset the loss of budget revenues from tax

76
Table 10. --Factors that will have the greatest impact on State

park operations/services during the next 5 years

Factor

Response

frequency

Promotion of tourism/better marketing program 10

Continued reduction in Federal funds

More citizen involvement/use of volunteers 76

Continued poor economy (States) 6

Improved U.S. economy 5

Factors influencing travel (terrorism, gas prices,

currency exchange rates)

Lack of financial support/continued budget reductions Z

Findings of the President's Commission on Americans

Outdoors 4

Better qualified work force

Federal government's role in State recreation ;

Increased visitation 3

Recognition of the value of recreation (improved image) 2

Utilization of foundations for funding 2

External threats to park resources 2

Public participation in planning/operations 2

Increased automation technologies 2

Increased budgets and staff 2

appropriations, State park agencies have increased

revenues from operations at an average annual rate

of 12.1 percent since 1979. The greatest decline has

been in capital outlay budgets, which dropped from

$515.5 million in 1979 to $273.7 million in 1985, an

average annual decrease of 7.8 percent. This decrease

was caused in large measure by the drop in Federal

fund allocations. According to historical data by the

National Park Service, since 1981 State grants under

the Land and Water Conservation Fund have dropped

to one-third of the total appropriated in the previous

5-year period. The deteriorating financial condition in

State park operations was corroborated in a study

published by The Conservation Foundation (Myers

and Reid 1986). The authors stated, ‘Funding is by

far the most important issue facing State park

directors. The three issues they rate highest all have

to do with some aspect of funding. Moreover, many

of their highest ranking issues are created or exacerbated by tight budgets.”

The salaries of full time, year-round State park

personnel increased at approximately the same rate

as inflation from 1979 to 1985. Per-visitor expenditure

increased at an annual rate of 6.5 percent from 1979

to 1985, which was less than the rate of inflation (7.9

percent) during that same period.

As stated previously, the factors having the

greatest negative impact on State park operations

during the past 6 years have been inadequate

budgets, the state of the economy, and a reduction

in Federal funds. One-half of the State park directors

feel that legislative appropriations from the general

tax fund will not keep pace with inflation in the future

and over two-thirds of them feel that the rate of

acquisition of State park lands will continue to

decrease during the next 5 years. They also feel that

a decrease in the price of gasoline will increase the

rate of growth in State park attendance. Sociodemographic factors such as the number of women

entering the work force and the increase in single

parent families are not expected to have much

influence on State park attendance.

With a cut-back in Federal funds and State tax

appropriations, State park administrators have

resorted to a greater reliance on fees and charges

to supplement budget funds. In competition with

other leisure service agencies for the tourist dollar, a

number of State park agencies are now incorporating

marketing strategies into their administrative functions.

Other innovations reported by Myers and Reid in

their State park study included incentives for private

sector involvement, earmarked accounts tapping

77
new revenue sources (cigarette and soft drink taxes,

mineral severance fees, lotteries, etc.), and experimenting with diverse partnerships with individuals,

nonprofit groups, and for-profit companies.

Further study is needed to determine if the

increase in fees is adversely affecting the types of

participation in State park areas, Also, with the rate

of land acquisition beginning to decrease, further

exploration should be conducted to determine if

unique natural and historic areas are continuing to

be preserved.

Of course, State parks provide only one aspect

of the overall spectrum of outdoor recreation. With

the number of park and recreation agencies at the

local, State, and Federal levels of government as

well as in the private sector providing services, it

appears that one of the greatest needs is that of

coordination. A coordinating agency at the national

level should be considered to provide a national

focal point for recreation policy, planning, financial,

and technical assistance.

REFERENCES

Myers, Phyllis; Reid, Ann Christine. 1986. State parks

in a new era: a survey of issues and innovations.

Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.

77 PP.

National Association of State Park Directors. 1986.

Annual Information Exchange. Indianapolis,lN:

Indiana Division of State Parks.

National Association of State Park Directors. 1977.

State Park Statistics-l 975. Alexandria, VA: National

Recreation and Park Association.

78
INTERPRETATION: BENCHMARKING CURRENT

STATUS AND TRENDS

IDENTIFYING ISSUES AND FUTURE NEEDS

Gail A. Vander Steep’

Abstract-Renewed interest in interpretive services in

the mid- 1980’s has paralleled an expansion of

interpretation’s roles and the nature of its provision.

Changes include more fee programs and cooperative

ventures, privatization of services, alternative funding

sources, increased use of volunteers, more participatory and special event programming, stronger links

with the tourism industry, and inclusion of ‘high tech”

strategies for presenting information. More emphasis

is being placed on discussion of contemporary issues.

Barriers, such as legislative restrictions, low pay,

inadequate training, traditional ideas, and lack of

managerial support, hamper programming. Such

issues must be addressed to integrate interpretation

with other recreation and managerial concerns.

INTRODUCTION

Educate, inspire, teach, reveal, provoke, create,

art, skill, communication, management tool. . . . These

words represent just a sampling of the concepts that

have been associated with interpretation since the

idea of ‘nature guides” was brought to the United

States from western Europe shortly after World War I

(Russell 1960). Since that time, the definitions of

interpretation and the roles of interpreters have been

many and varied. Nevertheless, all revolved around

a central concept of communicating with the public

about the cultural, natural and historical resources of

the world.

A recent definition, as presented by the newly

chartered National Association of Interpreters (NAI),

describes interpretation as a process, ‘the an of

‘Assistant Professor of Leisure Studies and Resources, Department

of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

revealing meanings and relationships in natural,

cultural and recreational resources” (AIN/WIA Consolidation Committee 1987). Generally, some modification

of this definition is adopted by Federal, State, and

local agencies to guide the activities of personnel

involved with communications and visitor services.

Public agencies, however, are not the only organizations involved with interpretive services. Included are

a myriad of private, private nonprofit, and commercial

organizations such as museums, zoos, nature centers,

historical landmarks and monuments, schools,

industries, tour companies, and cruise ships. Some

call their communications programming interpretation;

many do not. For some, only a portion of the operations

is, in fact, interpretation. For these and related reasons,

it is difficult to assess adequately the variety, quantity,

quality of and trends in interpretive services. Consequently, this paper will focus on major trends and

issues as experienced by several Federal agencies

involved with interpretive services, and those identified

by current national leaders in the field of interpretation.

Earth Day, celebrated on April 22, 1970, marked

the beginning of the environmental decade. It was

an era of citizen protests to demand a healthy

environment and of legislative activism to protect the

natural resources of the United States (Rose 1988).

As the environmental movement swept the country

during the 1970’s, much attention and many resources

were directed to the development of environmental

education and interpretive programs, primarily in the

natural history area. Funds for new nature centers

and for increased programming at established sites

became available. School systems initiated environmental education programs, often incorporating field

trips to nature centers, parks, and other natural areas.

University curricula in environmental studies and

interpretation expanded. Many Federal and State

agencies initiated or expanded their interpretive

79
programs, often developing theme-specific educational packets and programs (such as the USDA Forest

Service’s ‘Investigating Your Earth” series) for school

and other youth groups. A ‘Volunteers in Forests”

(VIF) program was initiated in 1972 to experientially

involve the public with the National Forests and their

management strategies. In 1966 the USDI Fish and

Wildlife Service developed guidelines for visitor

information and education programs.

By the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the environmental fervor had begun to wane. Changing social

values, strained government budgets, and the shift

of public attention to other concerns all contributed

to reductions in support for interpretive programming.

Caught in the backwash of the earlier natural

environment emphasis, historians and cultural site

interpreters felt ignored. Following a historical trend

of wavering support for interpretation, Federal

agencies focused their attention and resources on

other issues and projects (McKendry 1987). The

national organizations for interpreters continued their

struggle with identity, focus, and direction. University

interpretive training curricula declined in number, as

did many of the recreation and natural resource

programs in which they were housed.

However, in the last few years there appears to

have been a resurgence, both in interest and attention

to interpretation and its roles. Federal land management agencies are serving as strong indicators of

this revival. In the last 5 years, the USDA Forest

Service has made efforts to revitalize its environmental

education program, allowing each forest to select

relevant issues and subsequently develop its own

instructional or interpretive packets. In 1983 the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers formalized for the first time

its interpretive/educational mission statement, developing a formal philosophy and general guidelines as

well as an interpretive training course.

The National Park Service has refocused attention

on interpretive programming, broadening its roles

and incorporating its functions in many of the action

plans listed in Director William Penn Mott, Jr.‘s

“12-Point Plan’ (1985). Mott (Russell 1987b) has

stated that “Rapidly changing socio-demographics

continue to strain traditional park services. Environmental education and environmental interpretation

[are] efficient and cost effective tool[s] that can

alleviate that strain. . . . jThey are] the link between

the American public and this heritage. . . . Through

creative environmental education and environmental

interpretation programming, State park systems can

continue to maintain a leadership role in balancing

the human and resource needs of a future society.’

To further highlight the need and support for interpretation, Mott has created a new, Federal level National

Park Service position, that of Associate Director of

Interpretation. A goal statement for interpretation,

‘The Interpretive Challenge,’ was published by the

National Park Service in May 1988. The document

identifies, then presents strategies to address, five

major issues in an effort to improve interpretation

within the parks and for its constituents elsewhere

(U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

1988)

The National Parks and Conservation Association

(NPCA), a national nonprofit, membership organization

that defends and promotes the National Park System

and educates the public about the parks, recently

has completed a 3-year study of the park system. In

its lo-volume report, ‘Investing in Park Futures. The

National Park System Plan: A Blueprint for Tomorrow,”

NPCA identifies interpretation as one of nine major

issues facing the park system. Presented are the

need for and suggestions for enhancing the role of

interpretation and environmental education in the

parks because of their key role in the park experience

(National Parks and Conservation Association 1988).

Though interpretation’s mission and core definition have remained stable, its face and character

have changed drastically. The shift has not been

one of major, rapid change but rather a slow, steady

process of evolution, characterized by self-assessment

and redirected focus. Many traditional interpeters are

recognizing changes occurring in the world around

them and are beginning to acknowledge that interpretive services must change accordingly to remain

effective.

Evolution in any organization is an ongoing

process, but currently there appear to be major shifts

in the field of interpretation, making this a particularly

timely and important opportunity to benchmark the

current status and trends.

CURRENT SITUATION

Because evolution is a process of gradual change,

it is impossible to separate completely the current

status of interpretive services from trends, both recent

and future. Efforts will be made to highlight the most

significant current conditions and changes, with

implications for the future addressed.

Methods

Information for this paper has been synthesized

from several sources, including the following:

8 0
1) Nominal Group Process: Two groups of seven

national leaders in interpretation (including practitioners, academicians, association officers, and Federal

agency representatives) worked through a modified

nominal group process, identifying and prioritizing

current trends in interpretation. (See Appendix A for

summary of process.)

2) Survey: An open-ended questionnaire, asking

for identification of major trends and issues in

interpretation, was mailed to all 80 academicians

listed in the 1983 ‘Directory of Interpretation Curricula

in the United States and Canada’ (Hartmann 1983).

Thirty-nine questionnaires were returned (response

rate of 48.75 percent). Followup phone calls revealed

that 10 of the nonresponding programs no longer

exist. Representatives from seven additional schools

could not be contacted (possibly because these

programs have been dissolved also.) The additional

24respondents returned information only on changes

in their programs and did not respond to the survey

questions. Due to the amount of thought and effort

required to respond to open-ended questions, the

author believes that the responses received represent

primarily universities and faculty most closely and

currently involved with interpretation and the training

of interpreters.

3) Personal Interviews: Personal interviews

regarding the current status and trends in interpretive

services were conducted with the appropriate directors or branch chiefs of major Federal agencies

involved with interpretative services, including the

National Park Service (William Penn Mott, Jr.; Ken

Raithel; Michael Watson; Roy Graybill), U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (George Tabb), USDA Forest

Service (Gerald Coutant; Richard Tobin), and the

Bureau of Land Management (William T. Civish; Carl

Barna).

Restrictions in time and resources prevented use

of surveys or interviews with interpreters in State and

local agencies. Traditionally, the Federal agencies,

particularly the National Park Service, have taken a

leadership role in interpretive training, and in the

planning and roles of interpretation, Often this has

initiated a trickle-down effect in interpretive trends.

On the other hand, many grassroots programs and

innovations have occurred at local levels. Numerous

locally spawned ideas and nontraditional roles for

interpretation currently are being explored and

assimilated by Federal agencies. For these reasons,

it is believed that trends in Federal agencies will

provide strong insight into general trends in interpretation.

4) Additional Sources: Additional information

has been extracted from recent, topically relevant

articles, national workshop presentations, and the

proceedings from the 1987 National Interpreters

Workshop, held in St. Louis, MO, in November 1987.

(See “References” for list of selected papers.)

Results -Trends

Interpretation does not and should not survive in

a world unto itself. It is affected by much broader

social changes and concerns. Changes in demographics, lifestyle, cultural values, technology and

information systems, and governmental structures

have been discussed at length elsewhere (Russell

1987a, 1987b); Mitchell 1983; Naisbitt 1982). Current

trends and issues in interpretation, as identified by

results of the survey and nominal group process,

reflect many of those broad social changes.

From both the survey and group work emerged

identification of similar trends, though each process

resulted in different rankings (based on frequency of

responses) of the identified trends. Trends could be

classified into similar categories: changes in funding,

shifts in providers of interpretation, changes in

techniques, expansion of interpretation’s roles, and

shifts in the clientele and locations where interpretation

is conducted.

Realizing there are interrelationships among

categories, for ease of discussion each category will

be presented individually. Specific examples will be

drawn from national workshop presentations and

interviews with Federal agency representatives.

Detailed results of the survey and nominal group

process, including relative response frequencies,

can be found in Appendices B - D.

Changes in Funding

Many respondents indicated that changes in

funding underlie other trends. Reduction at all levels

in government funds available for interpretation seems

to be the most commonly expressed trigger for the

decline in numbers of public agency-sponsored

interpreters and interpretive programs. Consequential

trends cited are:

1) Increases in environmental damage and in

environmentally nonsensitive behavior such as littering

and wastefulness;

2) Failure of this country to foster a critical mass

sufficient to change lifestyles in such a way as to

ensure healthy living conditions; and

3) A reduction in related research efforts.

81
In many cases, reductions in funding have

occurred because interpreters have failed to justify

adequately their roles and effectiveness. Lack of

concrete evaluation strategies and records that could

support their effectiveness often are not implemented.

When budgets shrink, programs perceived as ‘fluff

or “icing on the cake” are the first to be cut. Therefore,

more attention currently is being given to the need

for formal justification of the importance and impacts

of interpretive services. More careful monitoring and

formal evaluation are required. Though still inadequate, efforts are being expanded. Another area

needing increased attention is assessment of economic impacts of interpretive program implementation.

Additionally, there is a strong need for organizations

to secure alternative or supplemental funding sources.

Although alternative funding sources occasionally

are found, more often innovative strategies to provide

interpretive services without using traditionally allocated funds have been implemented. Specific examples

of both are presented below:

l The Army Corps of Engineers is an unusual Federal

case in that it currently has sufficient money for a

variety of programs, Because the Corps’ operations

fall under the funding umbrella of the Defense

Department, monies are more readily available to

this agency than to many other Federal agencies.

Additional monies are earmarked by the National

Water Resources Act of 1986. Nevertheless, the

Corps contracts with the private sector for much of

its interpretive training, exhibit development, and

visitor-center operations. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) often contracts out the design and

production of wayside exhibits, signing, and visitorinformation pieces.

l The United States Forest Service (USFS), still unable

to get a line item in the budget for interpretation,

works cooperatively with other divisions (such as

Wilderness, Cultural Resources, and Recreation) to

benefit from joint projects that might include interpretive components.

l Cooperating associations, used by the National

Park Service (NPS) for many years, are being

established and operated in conjunction with the

USFS and the BLM. The first USFS-related cooperating

association was established in 1972. A recent upsurge

has increased their numbers to 40. Often the major

goals of cooperating associations are to provide

support for education and interpretation, and to

otherwise further the specific agency’s goals.

l ‘Friends” organizations are being used in conjunction with many federally managed sites to raise funds

and otherwise accept donations for use in support

of site protection and interpretation. Corporate

donations often can be accepted through such

organizations to fund special projects.

l A number of Institutes, such as those at Yellowstone,

Yosemite, and Great Smoky Mountains National

Parks, are cooperative organizations, often associated

with universities and occasionally with private,

nonprofit organizations. These institutes often include

interpretive services as part of their missions.

l Gift catalogs are being published by several

agencies (usually site or region-specific) to acquire

items that cannot be funded by the annual budget.

l The BLM requires in many of its land use lease

agreements the inclusion of some form of mandatory

dedication. An example is that hotel/motel/restaurant

builders often are required to build an interpretive

center in return for approval of a lease to build and

operate on BLM land.

l More numerous and wider varieties of services

(including interpretive programs, recreation services

such as float trips incorporating interpretive information, food services, rentals, lodging, ORV repairs) are

being concessioned to the private sector on public

lands. Often a fee (and/or portion of the profits) is

assessed by the managing agency.

l Seed money from the $34 million recreation initiative

(resulting from the President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors) is being used by the USFS to

provide challenge grant money to individual forests

to develop programming. Monies will be distributed

and used in a process similar to that of the Land

and Water Conservation Fund.

Because many interpretive programs have been

constrained by financial restrictions, the demand for

such services is becoming more obvious. An indicator

of this is visitors’ willingness to pay for interpretive

services, Increasingly, user fees are being assessed

for many types of interpretive programs. Users who

pay for programs expect quality in exchange. This

increases the external demand for accountability and

program quality.

l The general budget for the NPS has remained

relatively stable, though interpretive programming

often has been cut at the park level. Recent Federal

fee legislation has permitted the NPS to assess

entrance or user fees at many of its sites. The money

may be used for interpretation, research and resource

82
management. Much of the money has enabled the

hiring of additional staff, many of whom have been

used to increase interpretive program offerings at

the park level.

Use of user fees places interpretive services in

the marketplace, subject to critique as expressed by

users’ willingness to pay. With interpretation being

placed in the marketplace, there is increased need

for and a growing emphasis on the marketing of

interpretive services. Planners and managers must

carefully assess the characteristics, needs, and

demands of consumers and subsequently plan their

programming and publicity to match specific market

segments. Finding themselves in this position, more

interpreters are realizing the need for, and developing,

skills in business and management.

Shifts in Staffing, Training, Providers;

Loss of Professionalism

Reductions in government funding and subsequent interpretive staff reductions have increased

the need, not only for alternative funding sources,

but for changes in who provides interpretive services.

One major change, consistent with a broader social

shift toward privatization, is the increasing role of the

private sector in providing such services. Increasingly,

outfitters, guides, resort owners and other recreation

entrepeneurs are incorporating interpretive programming in their offerings. Information increases their

recreation programs’ attractiveness, giving them a

competitive edge and enhancing the experiences of

clients.

l In Minnesota, USFS volunteers work with Minnesota

Audubon to train people as interpreters to work directly

with resorts. The USFS also trains river-runners and

other wilderness-trip outfitters in interpretive information and skills.

Interpretation is becoming a basic component of

the hospitality industry. Due to increasing public

demand, tour companies and others involved in the

tourism industry are integrating interpretation into

many of their tour packages.

l The USFS is working with cruise ships and ferry

operators along the marine highway in Alaska to

build and operate visitor-information centers.

l The NPS has placed interpreters on numerous

tourism transportation systems, including trains

through Glacier National Park; on cruise ships in

Glacier Bay, Alaska; on boats at Crater Lake; along

the voyageurs trade route. Additionally, it has imposed

a requirement for inclusion of interpretive programming when issuing permits to concessionaires who

utilize park lands and waters in their businesses

(such as on float trips on the Snake River, in

concessioned lodges, and on mule rides into the

Grand Canyon).

Many private industries and organizations are

beginning to view their communications and public

relations efforts as interpretation; others are recognizing the value of informing the public about their

operations. Visitor information and interpretive services are being integrated more frequently into regional

economic development plans, particularly for urban

cultural park development.

Cooperative ventures, often between the public

and private sectors, and sometimes between several

government agencies, are being used to provide

interpretive services. This allows pooling and sharing

of resources, and in many cases reduces duplication

of efforts. Cooperating associations and “friends’

organizations are being used more often in a variety

of ways, many of which are supportive of interpretation.

Interpretive publications and souvenirs are sold, with

profits supporting additional interpretive programming.

Publication of special interpretive pieces is funded,

as is the purchase of special equipment or the

production of a special event. Association members

often give of their time, special skills, and in-kind

gifts to support interpretive programs.

l The BLM established its first cooperating association

(at Red Rock in Las Vegas) approximately 5 years

ago. Cooperating associations are nonprofit organizations formed to promote the historical, scientific, and

educational activities of a site managed by a public

agency. Currently, the BLM is working to expand this

program as well as its site-specific “friends’ organizations. In some areas, cooperative ventures include

operation of interpretive sites (such as the Anasazi

Heritage Center) by a local chamber of commerce.

l The USFS cooperating association program,

mentioned earlier as one of the strategies to provide

services not funded by Federal monies, has only

recently expanded. Today, 40 associations operate

cooperatively within USFS areas, some of them

operated entirely by volunteers.

l Increasingly, multiple agencies are sharing construction costs and operations of visitor centers. Agencies

also are cooperating more often in the design and

printing of publications such as a recent photo

brochure on wilderness.

l Occasionally the Corps of Engineers will cooperate

with a power company at one of its reservoir sites

83
for the operation of visitor centers and construction

of exhibits. Wiihin the agency itself, there is more

cooperation between divisions responsible for interpretive services and those responsible for visitor

centers.

l The BLM has worked with Future Farmers of

America, a high school organization, to build information kiosks and interpretive/hiking trail systems.

l The USFS is incorporating established outdoor/

environmental education programs (such as Project

Wild and Project Learning Tree) into its own program

planning and implementation.

Use of volunteers, interns, and seasonal staff is

increasing in many sectors to replace or supplement

full-time, paid interpretive staff. Though use of these

people enables additional interpretive programming,

there have been concerns expressed about a

subsequent reduction in professionalism of interpreters and lack of program quality control.

l The Corps of Engineers received authority for its

volunteer program in 1984. Volunteers are involved

in a variety of positive, meaningful work experiences,

including producing videotapes, presenting interpretive talks, working visitor-information desks.

l The BLM’s volunteer program is expanding rapidly,

with hopes of developing public awareness and a

supportive constituency. (In 1986 the BLM recreation

program alone received over 187,000 hours of

volunteer time worth approximately $1.2 million.)

Hoping to instill a resource ethic in the public, the

BLM encourages volunteers to participate in its

archaeology digs. As do other agencies, it uses

work crews from the Student Conservation Association

to perform a variety of tasks. The BLM also conducts

a Volunteer Coordinator Workshop to train volunteer

program supervisors.

l The USFS established its Volunteers In Forests

(I/IF) program in 1972. Currently in the Boundary

Waters Canoe Area, approximately 60 percent of the

recreation staff, which includes interpreters, is

volunteers.

l The NPS uses a number of volunteer programs

(Volunteers in Parks [VIP], Student Conservation

Association [SCA], and cooperating association

volunteers) to staff many of its programs, This includes

approximately 39,000 volunteers used in a single

year to conduct approximately 45 percent of interpretive programs.

A decreasing number of students are interested

in professional interpretation careers for a number of

reasons. The availability of positions in traditional

agencies has decreased. Many full-time professional

positions are being replaced by volunteer and student

intern positions. Opportunities for professional advancement for persons currently working in entry-level

positions are minimal. Individuals who do advance

tend to move into managerial or other positions and

out of interpretive jobs. Salaries for interpreters

traditionally are low. General shifts in attitudes of

today’s youth are away from altruism, away from

human services and low pay professions.

Changes in providers of interpretation and the

threat of loss of professionalism demand changes in

interpretive training programs. There is concern that

entry level people do not have an adequate balance

of technical knowledge, communications skills, and

management/planning skills. Many agencies are

moving toward holistic, interdisciplinary training in

contrast with traditional job-specific training.

l Deciding to develop in managers, from the bottom

up, a sensitivity to the role of interpretation in site

management, the Corps of Engineers recently has

developed a training course for lower grade managers

who eventually will move up in the system. Though

not expanding the number of staff, current Corps

personnel, including managers and law enforcement

officers, are encouraged to do some interpretation.

Following formal publication of general interpretation

guidelines, an interpretive training course has been

developed.

l Interpretation components (as much as a full week)

have been incorporated into other training courses

such as the cultural resources course (Corps of

Engineers) and the Federal Law Enforcement Training

Center (FLETC) law enforcement course (BLM and

NPS).

l The NPS conducts a 5- to 6-week Ranger Skills

Course at its Albright Training Center, much of which

involves interpretive training. Maintenance people

often receive interpretive training onsite at their

respective parks.

l The NPS recently has initiated 10 regional training

teams, composed of top field-level rangers, that

conduct special-topic training courses (often at retreat

sites) to teach resource management to other rangers.

Interpretive courses cover topics such as personal

and nonpersonal interpretation, historical interpretation, and programming for special populations.

84
l Due to extensive use of volunteers, agencies are

identifying a need of paid staff to receive training in

interpretive operations and volunteer supervision.

Also there is a need, though frequently unaddressed

and unfunded, to better train the volunteers,

0 In efforts to more effectively control program quality,

content and accuracy, especially for those programs

conducted by non-Park Service personnel, the NPS

audits NPS-sanctioned information programs.

l To instill a sense of pride and professionalism in

staff, the NPS occasionally selects outstanding

personnel to participate in a 1 - to 2-week international

study program. Additionally, the Horace Albright

Development Fund is used to award grants for

outstanding personnel to participate in special

activities.

‘A final trend in provision of interpretive services

is due to increasing global recognition of the importance of public education in natural resource management. More nonwestern and Third World countries

are beginning to implement interpretive and educational programming. Consistent with globalization in

other facets of world operations, skills and knowledge

about interpretation are being shared with other

countries.

Changes in Techniques

In efforts to meet the demand and expectations

of a population trained in and accustomed to the

use of computers and sophisticated ‘high tech

(Naisbitt 1982) equipment and productions, interpreters increasingly are incorporating technological

advances and gimmicks into their programs. Computer systems are used to catalog data and artifact

collections, to animate models, and to present

interactive teaching programs to users. Games,

theatrics, interactive videos, puppets, and other

gimmicks are used more frequently in efforts to attract

and maintain attention of audiences accustomed to

a barrage of sensory stimuli through television, music,

videos and computers.

Though a strong emphasis on the importance of

personal interpretation still exists, nonpersonal

interpretation is being used more frequently to meet

the needs of many nontraditional users and to offset

reductions in interpretive staff.

Seemingly contradictory to survey responses

indicating client preferences for nonpersonal, computerized and audio-visual media over personal interpretation, other responses indicate an increase in the

use of living history, folk skill and craft demonstrations,

drama, storytelling, and other first-person and

participatory interpretation. However, this is consistent

with the dichotomous ‘high-tech/high-touch” trend

(Naisbitt 1982) in western society.

Because many sites are being visited by larger

numbers of non-English speaking guests, and

because foreign immigration to the United States

continues to grow, more multilingual interpretation is

being offered in some parts of the country.

Changes in technique and roles of interpretation

demand corresponding changes in interpretive

training. It is unclear how much change actually is

occurring.

Changes in the Uses and Roles

of Interpretation

A major change, perhaps partially in response to

the need to justify the expenditure of resources for

interpretation, is the increased use of interpretation

as a management tool. Interpretive messages are

being used more frequently to modify visitor behavior

in support of management objectives. Interpretation

also serves as a public relations tool to improve

agency image and to improve communications with

local constituencies.

The scope of interpretation’s responsibility has

expanded in many areas to deal with policy issues,

to present current environmental issues, to aid in

issue management and conflict resolution. The scope

of interpretation has been stated clearly to include

historical and cultural sites and issues.

l The Corps of Engineers (as do the NPS and USFS)

includes interpreters as active members of its

management team and uses them for most kinds of

public contact, including news media interviews and

public meetings, and to help address management

problems.

l The NPS uses interpreters for all communications

processes, covering all interfacing between the park,

the people, and the resources. It will use interpreters

to effect positive action in line with all future servicewide initiatives,

l The Corps and NPS are dealing more directly with

management issues in their interpretive programs.

The Corps uses models and demonstrations to

address water safety issues. It works with the Coast

Guard to conduct courtesy boat inspections and to

talk with user groups about boating safety. The NPS

now is encouraging discussion of issues such as

acid rain and biodiversity.

85
l The BLM is working with individual States to develop

comprehensive cultural resource protection programs

that combine communications and enforcement

programs. Its Pacific Northwest region is combining

efforts of the cultural resources, public affairs, and

law enforcement divisions to serve as a model for

creating public awareness on a variety of relevant

issues.

Interpretive messages, particularly those conducted in the out-of-doors and addressing issues about

the natural world, are being integrated into therapeutic

programs, especially for the mentally and emotionally

disabled.

Changes: In Audiences and Where

Interpretation is Presented

Closely associated with the expansion of interpretation’s roles are changes in audiences and where

programming is presented. Because there are major

shifts in the demographic makeup of the population,

there are associated changes in potential interpretive

audiences. Perhaps the most noticeable change is

in the aging of the population. Interpreters are

beginning to realize that more older, retired adults

who are healthy, mentally alert, and who have

substantial amounts of discretionary time and money,

are eager to learn (often in more depth than many

traditional programs addressed issues) and participate. This group would be particularly receptive to

interpretive programs offered in conjunction with

group travel tours.

In some parts of the country, environmental

education2 often is integrated with outdoor education

and outdoor skills programs. Field courses such as

Project Learning Tree and Project Wild are two

examples. Agencies are becoming more involved

with traditional school systems as many of them

continue to integrate environmental education into

their required curricula. Various forms of cooperative

ventures are used. Some school districts contract

with nature centers to teach the science/ environmental education components of the curricula. In some

cities, agency and nature center interpretative

programs are developed specifically to meet the

school district’s curriculum guidelines.

There appears to be a rekindling of interest in

the outdoors and in traditional ‘park ranger” roles.

One indication of this is the new Philadelphia Ranger

Corps program, a cooperative venture to train recent

*Although the distinction between interpretation and environmental

education is shrouded in controversy, for purposes of this paper

environmental education can be considered as environmental

interpretation taken into the classroom.

high school graduates as interpretive park rangers.

In this case, a private foundation, city leaders, and a

university joined hands to support the formation of a

private, nonprofit organization to train rangers to

work in the city’s urban park system.

Additionally, many traditional interpretive organizations are expanding their offsite interpretation. Often

these programs are conducted during offpeak season

and in urban areas where many residents find it

difficult to travel to the actual sites.

l All agencies are involved in more outreach programs, taking their programs to schools, civic groups,

youth groups, ‘Good Samaritans,’ campers and

hikers associations, State fairs, and boat shows.

l Posters, publications, and radio public service

announcements are being used more frequently to

address public safety issues. The Corps distributes

T-shirts, beach towels, police whistles, and floating

key holders with imprinted safety messages to help

disseminate its messages.

l The NPS is using more teaching packets and

videotapes in its outreach programs, particularly with

urban clientele. More programming in urban parks is

being devoted to outdoor skills how-to programs.

Results - Issues

Many of the issues identified in the survey and

during personal interviews reflect many of the same

topics discussed as current trends. It is encouraging

that trends do seem to address some of the major

issues. However, the classification of issues is

somewhat different than of the trends. Therefore, this

section will simply present the issues as identified.

Training

The most frequently mentioned issue involved

the need for a general reevaluation of the training

needed by interpreters, particularly in light of the

many changes and trends in interpretation today.

Most respondents identified needs for expanded

training in traditional areas as well as training in new

skills such as public relations and volunteer supervision. Though not new, the controversial issue

regarding the need for certification of interpreters, or

accreditation of training programs, to improve image,

skills, and professionalism was raised once again.

Should we be educating or simply training interpreters? Also listed as an issue for consideration

was the need for better training of volunteers because

of their expanding role in interpretive programming.

86
Skills and knowledge suggested for inclusion in

training programs (no particular order) include:

l increased coursework in basic information in natural

and cultural history, focusing on field-based education;

l solid internship programs involving role-playing

and hands-on experiences;

l improved teaching, retention, learning effectiveness

(including open peer critiquing);

l clarity in identification of interpretive and leadership

skills;

l environmental psychology;

l problem-solving, critical thinking and coping;

0 economics;

l identification of and methods for working with

special needs of disabled populations:

l public speaking.

Of the updated interpretive curricula received,

some of these needs have been addressed by some

programs; many have not. Issues of what ultimately

should be incorporated into a training program are

still controversial. Also, inclusion of all the above

skills would require a degree program extending well

beyond the traditional 4-year bachelor program.

Of the 80 curricula listed in the 1983 directory>

15 programs were exactly the same as published

previously; 32 were slightly different (often varying

only in instructor’s name, department where housed,

texts used, or some small components of course

content or requirements). Fifteen programs were

described as very different from the former programs,

while 10 programs no longer exist. As of this writing,

eight curricula not included in the 1983 directory

have been identified. In some cases, the programs

are new; in others, they simply were not listed

previously.

Of the curricula listed as very different, most

have added one or several new courses. Content of

new courses reflects various skill needs addressed

above (including the addition of computer skills

development) as determined most appropriate by

instructors at the individual universities. Lack of any

clear pattern reemphasizes the controversy existing

about what are the most important skills new interpretive professionals should possess.

Cooperative Ventures

The second most frequently identified issue was

the need for a variety of cooperative ventures, linking

interpreters with many constituencies in efforts to

share resources and develop an understanding of

and support for interpretive services. Expanded and

improved linkages with a variety of sectors are

suggested, including:

l tourism and hospitality industries, many of which

already incorporate information and interpretive

services, though they may label it something else;

l other components of the private/commercial sector;

l schools, environmental education programs,

science programs;

l other public agencies (similar and different government levels);

l media;

l recreation programs, both public and private;

l professional organizations with similar missions

and functions.

Accountability

The third most frequently mentioned issue was

the need for increased accountability. This should

involve frequent and adequate evaluation and

documentation of programming effectiveness. With

increased implementation of user fees and emphasis

on marketing techniques, it will be increasingly

important to identify user needs and demands, to

develop specific program objectives (using Management By Objectives approaches), and to develop

programs to address those needs and objectives.

Evaluation will help assess success of programs. All

efforts to improve accountability should lend support

for justifying interpretive programs to managers and

in developing broader support for such programming.

Issue Orientation

The need to develop more timely and issueoriented programs was mentioned by almost one-third

of the respondents. Issues included contemporary

environmental (e.g., acid rain, biodiversity, forest fire

management, buffer zones, geothermal energy) and

cultural problems (e.g., display of Indian burial ground

contents, traditional resource uses by native Americans, pot hunting, presentation of war). Respondents

stressed that conservation efforts should be encouraged as should political involvement in relevant issues.

Also stated was that interpreters should develop,

teach, and set examples for an outdoor and

environmental ethic.

Professionalism

One-quarter of the respondents commented on

issues regarding professionalism. A concern over

weakening of professionalism was expressed, as

were several contributory conditions and issues that

must be addressed if any sense of professionalism

is to be developed. Included are:

87
l the low priority often given interpretation by

managers;

l lack of a well-defined career path;

l burnout of interpreters at the field level;

l decreasing numbers of people entering the field

as professionals;

l general need for professionalism, ethics, values,

and feelings of self-worth by interpreters;

l unequal, inequitable pay for interpreters;

l lack of certification or accreditation;

l a need to build academic respectability, especially

at the major research institutions in the United States;

l conflicts of interest and certain unethical activities

by some interpreters [such as personal buying and

selling of artifacts, and violations of deaccessioning

guidelines (guidelines for storing, returning, or

distributing artifacts after they are no longer needed

for display purposes)].

Management Concerns

Identified earlier as a major trend, the need for

interpretation to be used more frequently and

effectively as a management tool (both to modify

visitor behavior in appropriate directions and to guide

visitors away from sensitive areas) was raised as an

issue. This includes convincing managers of interpretation’s effectiveness as well as its limitations in

addressing specific managerial concerns. Additionally,

interpretation should be used more frequently to

communicate management objectives to the general

public. A corresponding concern was expressed

that, with the expanded roles of interpretation and

interpreters, it is important to preserve their integrity.

Support Needs

Related to the issues of accountability and

professionalism is the need to develop political and

financial support. It is now necessary to identify new

and innovative alternative funding sources and/or

other strategies to accomplish the goals of interpretation.

Programming

Programming issues were the least often mentioned. However, concerns were expressed that

more bilingual and multilingual interpretation is needed

as foreign visitation and immigration continue to

expand. There is a need also to better meet the

special needs of the aging and various disabled

population segments. Interpreters should continue to

integrate nonpersonal and current technical media in

their programming in order to keep pace with changes

in the media.

PROJECTED CHANGES

No formal forecasting methods were used in this

analysis. Therefore, limitations inherent in survey,

interview, and nominal group process techniques, all

of which are based on individual perception and

experience, will impinge on the following statements.

Because so many current shifts in the direction

of trends in interpretation are relatively recent, it is

probable that most of them will continue well into the

future. Lack of Federal and other government funding,

at the root of many of the other changes, probably

will not reverse. It is possible that major changes in

the national political structure, and subsequent

changes in Federal administrative personnel, could

have major impacts on future directions of interpretation. The nature of such impacts is unpredictable.

Due to the history of wavering Federal support for

interpretation, and because of the nature of our

political system and terms of office, support probably

will continue to fluctuate over the long term. However,

barring personnel changes, such impacts in the near

future will be modified by actions and innovative

programs of those now operating in influential

positions. Unless new legislation is passed, many of

the barriers to expanded and improved interpretive

programming will remain. Though some enabling

legislation is possible, rapid changes are not probable.

The most important likely trends for the future

include:

l increased demand for nature study and interpretive

programs as more people engage in wildlife-related

recreation other than the traditional ‘consumptive”

activities such as fishing and hunting;

l continued limits to availability of government funds;

l continued privatization and commercial provision

of interpretive services, including an expanded role

for interpretation in the tourism and hospitality

industries;

0 more frequent contracting out or concessioning of

interpretive services;

l increased use of cooperative ventures, programming and funding, which will link various public and

private groups in the provision of interpretive programs;

l expanded marketing of interpretive services,

including more frequent and careful monitoring and

evaluation of programs;

88
l increased assessment of user fees for nonbasic

information services and programming;

l increased use of volunteers and docents, combined

with implementation and improvement of training

programs;

l increased use of nonstatic techniques, including

incorporation of computers, video, and other high

tech equipment as well as more participatory, personal

interpretation such as living history, special events,

and demonstrations;

l increased use of interpretation to address management issues; an associated increase in the inclusion

of interpretive specialists and planners as part of

more comprehensive land management teams:

l continued efforts to improve professionalism and

the image of interpreters by addressing issues of

training, salary, burnout, respect, and accountability:

related attempts to define and facilitate career paths

for interpreters;

l continued expansion of the roles of interpreters in

efforts to justify their work and to achieve a variety of

management goals (to include education, direction

and guidance, safety, enhancement of visitor experiences, image promotion, conduct of public meetings,

entertainment, use as a management tool, modification

of user behavior);

l increase in addressing current issues, often in

more detailed and sophisticated programs, as

environmental hazards and their effects become

more obvious to the general public and more

frequently covered by the media;

l expansion of outreach programs to meet the needs

of urban, aging, disabled, minority, and international

visitor populations;

l expansion of urban interpretation programs, often

associated with the creation of urban recreation,

natural and cultural sites;

l decrease in the number of university programs in

interpretation, but a strengthening and expansion of

stronger programs to incorporate changes in the

scope of interpretive services and to include more

training in marketing and management skills; expansion of graduate curricula in interpretation and

development of new training organizations (private,

private-nonprofit, and agency-related) outside of the

university environment;

l increased efforts by public agencies to recruit

minority candidates for training and cooperative

education/employment programs as field and managerial level interpreters.

Even if no current barriers at the Federal level

are removed, or if new barriers are erected, similar

patterns probably will continue at non-Federal levels

and with private and private/nonprofit interpretive

operations. The recent merger of two national

professional interpreters organizations caps a relatively rapid self-assessment of functions, goals, and

future directions of interpretation and has dealt

smoothly with a variety of controversial internal issues

that have been the source of major debate for at

least a decade. New leadership in the organization,

combined with more openness by interpreters as a

whole to accept and work with change rather than to

fight it, is providing the impetus for effective growth

of the organization as well as successful implementation of new interpretive operations strategies.

There are numerous indications that interpretation

and related visitor services will play an increasingly

significant role, not only for land management

agencies, but also for tourism, resort, and other

recreation businesses. Some agencies, such as the

California Department of Fish and Game, are creating

new positions for interpreters as they realize more

visitors are becoming interested in nonconsumptive

uses of wildlife. Growing percentages of the United

States population are moving into their retirement

years. Many of them are healthy and eager to

participate in interpretive programming as part of

their recreation travel activities. Such trends indicate

the potential for growing demand for interpretive

services.

The relationship of current trends in interpretation

to broader social trends has been addressed earlier.

Many of the trends and future directions in interpretation are in response to those changes. An important

issue for interpreters is to define ways in which

interpretation may be used to initiate or guide some

future directions. This could include developing in

citizens a land and conservation ethic, providing

leadership in relevant political issues, effecting

changes in lifestyles, promoting preservation of

historical and cultural sites and values, taking a

leadership role in modifying cultural and environmental

impacts of tourism, etc. These ideas define a much

more proactive role for interpreters than has been

expressed traditionally.

Although the stage has been set for expanding

and more significant functions for interpretive services,

recognition and support will not evolve on its own.

89
Interpreters must take a more global view of themselves and their roles in society, then use this

broadened perspective to become strong, vocal

advocates for interpretation. They must move out of

their traditional, comfortable worlds of working

primarily with people of similar ideals and viewpoints.

They must interact more frequently and fervently in

the political realm to promote supportive legislation,

to upgrade and professionalize interpretive positions,

to raise salaries and create opportunities for upward

mobility.

The interpreters’ role as advocate must reach

beyond the political arena. It should extend to upper

level managers and administrators within agencies.

Within the university setting, it should extend to

colleagues in other fields as well as be discussed

with students. It should involve lifestyles consistent

with professed ideals so interpreters can serve as

examples to family and community members. It should

continue to spread to the business world as a viable

and contributing component of community life and

some businesses. Interpreters should be more willing

to work cooperatively with professionals in other

fields, such as recreation, tourism, and education.

They must expand their outreach programs to places

where people congregate rather than expecting

visitors to always ‘go to their sites.’

Moving into another nontraditional, and potentially

uncomfortable arena, interpreters must deal more

directly with controversial issues regarding historic

preservation, promotion of cultural diversity, and

protection and wise use of natural resources. However,

such issues must be addressed in a manner that is

nonthreatening to audiences, and without placing

themselves on a soapbox.

Interpreters in the future should make concerted

efforts to attract more minorities into the field,

especially in urban areas. Not only can this provide

professional opportunities to minorities, but it can

improve acceptance into neighborhoods with residents typically outside interpretive program clientele.

Interpretive rangers placed in urban parks and forests

can be effective in reaching populations not easily

reached in other ways. Interpretive ranger programs

need not always be funded by public funds. Perhaps

the private sector and foundations can play stronger

roles in training and employing interpreters to work

in urban resource areas where their services could

significantly increase residents’ quality of life.

Increased efforts should be made to encourage

international exchange of ideas relevant to interpretation. In the past 4 years, two international symposia

on heriiage presentation and interpretation have

opened the doors to such international exchange.

However, more frequent exchanges should occur to

improve the quality of programming and to broaden

perspectives about roles and approaches to interpretation. International publications, student/field worker

exhange programs, joint research projects, and

personal correspondence can all improve this

exchange.

Use of volunteers in all aspects of interpretive

program design and implementation will continue to

increase in the future. However, as more and more

agencies and organizations turn to volunteers to

help facilitate their programs, competition for people’s

volunteer efforts will increase. This places a challenge

on managers to provide strong leadership, training,

incentives, and opportunities for volunteers. Likewise,

more effort must be placed on training volunteer

supervisors. Volunteers also must be given opportunities to create and contribute in significant ways to

organizations’ programs; they cannot be used only

for the clerical and other ‘drudge’ work.

Currently many interpreters are focusing efforts

and money on developing highly sophisticated, flashy

interpretive productions. ‘High-tech’ media play an

important role, particularly in attracting the attention

of a media-bombarded society. But precautions

must be taken to assure relevance and appropriateness of its use. Many interpretive messages can be

transmitted in a much simpler, less expensive, and

more relevant manner.

If interpretation is to clearly establish itself as a

viable and contributing element of land management

agencies, businesses, and tourism operations, and if

its effectiveness in achieving specific goals is to be

evaluated, a thorough set of baseline data must be

gathered and continually updated. Such efforts should

be incorporated into interpretive planning and

programming. Records of baseline data can be

improved, though not necessarily perfected, by the

following:

1) Identification of all State, county, and local

agencies involved with interpretive services, particularly on or concerning outdoor or wilderness sites:

2) Assessment of personnel’s perceptions about

relevant trends in interpretive service delivery;

3) Development and implementation of an

objective questionnaire that would tap descriptive,

numerical data relative to interpretive programming,

to include things such as program types, hours of

90
offerings, demographic descriptors of participants,

fees collected (if any), participant evaluation of

programs, repeat vs. first-time participants, program

benefits, etc.;

4) Development and implementation of a monitoring system (or instrument) that would facilitate record

keeping of major trend indicators at interpretive sites;

5) Record keeping of all concessioned and

contracted services requiring special use permits by

land management agencies that would document

the types of interpretive services required and offered

by such businesses.

BARRIERS TO AND SUGGESTIONS FOR

FACILITATING EFFECTIVE INTERPRETIVE

SERVICES DELIVERY

Because current barriers often dictate changes

needed to facilitate some function or operation, these

two sections will be discussed in tandem.

Public funding levels probably never will reach

levels capable of supporting unlimited, high-quality

interpretive programming to achieve all of the potential

goals that have been identified. This requires that

alternative funding sources and innovative strategies

for programming be found or developed. However,

several legislatively imposed barriers exist that

effectively block the use of some of these strategies

and funding sources. Federal regulations often block

an agency’s ability to accept certain types of funds

or gifts. Often donations and other externally obtained

funds must be returned in whole or in part to the

United States general treasury. This effectively

removes any incentive for sites or agencies to expend

time and energies on fundraising. It can, in fact,

have negative psychological effects on already

overworked and underpaid employees.

Under the new ‘Reaganomics’ tax structure,

many of the former financial incentives for individuals

or corporations to donate land, money, buildings,

in-kind gifts, or bequests have been removed. Thus

a major source of external support has been extinguished. Other disincentives for external funding

sources are restrictions imposed by Internal Revenue

Service policies. Many tax deductions are either

restricted or no longer allowable, thereby discouraging

individuals and corporations from making charitable

contributions.

In such cases, friendly tax laws and enabling

legislation could encourage future donations. Sorely

needed are legislative changes that would allow

management agencies to retain a large portion of

their external earnings at the site where it was

generated, or at least within the respective agency.

Also needed is legislation that would mandate a set

minimum in the budget to allocate to specific land

management agencies, either for development of

interpretive operations or to be dispersed as deemed

appropriate by the agency administration. Such

legislation would permit smoother planning and use

of funds over the long term to achieve clearly defined

goals. Haphazard and frequent changes in allocations,

particularly when there also exists a 2- to 3-year lag

time between allocation and receipt of funds, can

play havoc with planning and operations.

Additionally, legislation is needed either to ensure

allocation of some government funds, or to facilitate

the raising and use of external funds, for more

evaluation and research. Over the years there has

been a decrease for many agencies in funds available

for research. Lack of evaluation monies often leaves

managers in a position to make managerial decisions

based on hunches rather than documented evidence.

This is just as true for evaluating the effectiveness of

interpretive programs and their ability to achieve a

variety of management goals as it is in other management practices. Funds also are needed to properly

preserve and catalog existing collections and artifacts,

many of which will not survive unless precautionary

protective measures are taken. Such collections form

the basis for our understanding of the world, which

is then shared with the public through interpretive

programs.

Another recommendation is to pass legislation

that would reinstate, or create a funding source similar

to, the Land and Water Conservation Fund that could

be used as seed or challenge grant money for agency

projects.

Enabling legislation for some agencies, such as

the National Park Service, merely imply the provision

of educational or interpretive programs. Some believe

that in order to stabilize support for and upgrade the

image of interpretation’s role, such legislation should

be amended to clearly provide for interpretive and

educational services.

Another barrier to interpretive programming is

the lack of a well-defined career path (including

opportunities for advancement) for interpreters. An

additional hampering is the bottleneck for advancement in the current structure of some agencies.

Field-level interpreters can feel trapped in a position,

91
which contributes to job burnout. Much of the

bottleneck is due to broader demographic patterns.

Some of the associated problems will resolve themselves in the next few years through attrition and

retirement. However, creation of a structured career

path is needed. In isolated cases, such as the

California’s Department of Fish and Game proposal

to create new interpretive positions, efforts have

been made to incorporate opportunities for upward

mobility (Chessher 1988). More efforts to provide

advancement opportunities are needed. Additionally,

more incentive and award programs encouraging

growth and outstanding performance, such as those

described in the results section, should be implemented.

With so many major changes in interpretive

program implementation and in the skills needed by

interpreters, lack of these skills can impede implementation ‘of new strategies and can frustrate current

staff. Opportunities for refresher courses and new

skills training must be expanded. On a broader scale,

preprofessional training programs and educational

curricula must begin to incorporate these new skills.

With increased imposition of fee structures for

many agency-operated sites and interpretive programs, some segments of the population invariably

will be prevented from participation. In order to address

equity issues and to provide opportunities for

participation by these people, creative strategies for

funding or otherwise facilitating their participation,

while simultaneously preserving their self-respect,

must be developed. Perhaps potential strategies

could be developed at the national or regional levels,

then provided to individual sites as suggested

procedures.

Finally, traditional attitudes and perceptions of

interpretation and interpreters, both by managers

and by interpreters themselves, can be a major barrier

to implementation of new programs. Interpreters

must be convinced of the need to expand interpretation’s roles and to break away from traditional

programs and techniques. Concurrently, managers

must be educated about the expanding roles and

contributions of interpretation. In many instances this

will require carefully planned, slow education of

managers by demonstration of direct and indirect

results of effective interpretive programs. This includes

monitoring and evaluation of economic impacts,

demand by users (indicated in many instances by

willingness to pay, and by assessment of participants’

personal evaluations), and effectiveness in achieving

clearly defined management objectives.

REFERENCES

AIN/WIA Consolidation Committee. 1987. Proposed

bylaws. Submitted to membership for a vote.

Chessher, Betsy. 1988. Personal correspondence

regarding creation of new interpretive positions

within the California Department of Fish and Game.

Hartmann, Lawrence A. 1983. Directory of interpretive

curricula in the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Recreation Management Staff. 148 pp.

Machlis, Gary; Ham, Sam; Baldwin, Sarah. 1985.

Evaluating National Park Service interpretive

programs: views from the 1985 AIN national

workshop. Moscow, ID: Cooperative Park Studies

Unit, University of Idaho.

McKendry, Jean. 1987. National Park Service interpretation: the future is now. Personal notes. Presented

at the national interpreters workshop, St. Louis,

MO. November 1987.

McKendry, Jean; Jarvis, Destry. 1987. National Park

Service interpretation: the future is now. pp.

100-l 02. In: National interpreters workshop proceedings. AIN/WIA.

Mitchell, Arnold. 1983. The nine American lifestyles:

who we are and where we’re going. New York:

Macmillan. 302 pp.

Mott, William Penn, Jr. 1985. 12-point plan: the

challenge. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

the Interior, National Park Service. 19 pp.

Naisbitt, John, 1982. Megatrends: ten new directions

transforming our lives. New York: Warner Books.

290 pp.

National Parks and Conservation Association. 1988.

Interpretation: key to the park experience. Investing

in park futures, a blueprint for tomorrow. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. Vol. 4

Rose, Robert L. 1988. The urban conscience turns

to the environment. American Forests 94(7, 8):

17-20.

Russell, Carl. 1960. A 40th anniversary. Yosemite

Nature Notes 39(7). Yosemite, CA: U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite

National Park.

92
Russell, Carl. 1987a. Future trends: what lies ahead

for environmental education and environmental

interpretation-part 1. Mason-Dixon By-Lines, X(3)

[as exerpted from ‘The Environmental Interpreter,”

published by the PA State Parks, January 19871.

Russell, Carl. 1987b. Future trends: what lies ahead

for environmental education and environmental

interpretation-part 2. Mason-Dixon By-Lines, X(3)

[as exerpted from “The Environmental Interpreter,”

published by the PA State Parks, January 19871.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

1988. The interpretive challenge: National Park

Service. Washington, DC: US. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, Office of Interpretation. 20 pp.

. APPENDIX A

Nominal Group Technique

The Nominal Group Technique is a structured 2. Group recording of ideas: Moving around

process used to conduct group meetings. The the circle in each group, ideas were solicited

purpose is to gather input from all group members from group members one at a time, then

in a way that facilitates rather than hinders participa- recorded on wall charts. This gave each

tion. It is used widely by business, government, and participant equal opportunity to share each of

industry to solve problems, to evaluate, to obtain his listed ideas. All ideas then were visible to

feedback, and to generate ideas. the group.

In this study, the technique was used to identify

current trends in interpretation and to determine

which trends are most significant in terms of the

impact they will have on future planning and implementation of interpretive services.

Fourteen leaders in the field of interpretation

(including practitioners, academicians, consultants,

and Federal agency representatives) participated in

the Nominal Group process. Participants were divided

into two working groups of seven people. Each group’s

work was guided by a facilitator. The basic steps

followed in the process were:

1. Silent written generation of ideas: After a

brief introduction about the purpose of the

Interpretation Status and Trends Study, the

Nominal Group process was reviewed. Each

participant was asked to individually identify

and write down five current trends believed to

be occurring in the field of interpretation.

3. Clarification of trend items: Each group was

able to discuss the listed trends, to elaborate

and clarify each trend for common understanding among group members.

4. Selection of most influential trends: Each

group member was asked to individually select

and list the five trends from the group list

believed to be the most important in terms of

impact on the future of interpretation. Entries

on these lists were solicited one at a time,

then recorded in tally format, on the wall charts.

Results from each group were shared with the

other group.

5. Compilation of results: The tally scores from

each group were combined, then ranked in

importance of influence based on the frequency

of identification by individuals as a critical

trend.

93
APPENDIX B

The Most Important Trends in

Interpretation: Results of

Nominal Group Technique

TRENDS FREQUENCY % OF PEOPLE % OF TOTAL (58)

OF LISTING LISTED BY RESPONSES

(n = 14) (n = 58)

Increased marketing orientation

in offering of interpretive

services:

- more user/target market

assessment

- systematic planning

Decrease in government funding

(Federal, State, local), with

subsequent increase in user

fees

Use of interpretation as management tool/ inclusion of interpreters as part of management

team

Increased privatization of interpretive services, including more

contracting out by government

agencies and stronger links with/

provision by tourism industry

Increased use of computerization

and other high-tech techniques

Increased level of professionalism

in interpretive design, planning;

in presentation of personal

interpretation

Changes in audiences (including

increased needs of and use by

disabled, minorities, foreign

born, aging; increased sophistication of audiences)

Increased controversy over types

of training needed by professional

interpreters (general vs. technical)

10 71.0 17.0

6 42.9

5

4

Reawakening of role of interpre- 3

tation; expansion of roles

beyond traditional uses

57.0 13.8

35.7

35.7

35.7

28.6 6.9

28.6

21.4

10.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

6.9

5.2

94
RESULTS OF NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE (cont.)

TRENDS FREQUENCY % OF PEOPLE % OF TOTAL (58)

OF LISTING LISTED BY RESPONSES

(n = 14) (n = 58)

Increased use of volunteers/ 3 21.4 5.2

docents (with corresponding

need for more administrative

and supervisory skills of

professional interpreters)

Increased networking, inter- 3 21.4 5.2

disciplinary work, and more

cooperative ventures

Program content addressing 1 7.0 1.7

current environmental and other

issues more often than in past

More programming in museums, zoos, 1 7.0 1.7

other nontraditional sites

Other Trends Identified by Nominal Group

Participants, But not Ranked Among Top

Five Most Important or Influential

Managerial Trends

- Barriers between interpretation and recreation

are dissolving

- More use of interpretation to improve agency

image; agency propaganda

- Interpretive programs still undervalued and

undermonitored in many areas

- Interpretive managers beginning to assess the

economic impact of interpretive program implementation (often to justify such programming)

- Land management agencies as a whole are

recognizing the importance of bioregionalism;

this is being reflected in interpretive programs

External Trends Affecting Interpretation

- Increased international environmental awareness

- National associations more interagency oriented

than previously

Trends Regarding Youth

- Mandatory environmental education/

interpretation programs in schools

- Increased interpretive programming for very

young children (pre-schoolers)

- Young people (in some population segments)

are increasingly exposed to natural and cultural

resources

Trends in Interpretive Providers

- Increased growth in interpretive programming

at county and city levels

Trends in Potential Audiences/Participants and

their Program Preferences

- Increased discretionary time and money in

many segments of the U.S. population, though

both are decreasing for some professional

segments; correspondingly, patterns of available

discretionary time are changing

- Broader segments of society are seeking natural

and cultural interpretation

- Increased sophistication of users makes interpretive planning increasingly more challenging

95
increased experiential, hands-on, participatory Trends in Who Interprets and in Training of

programming interpreters

Increased demand for nonpersonal interpretation

Increased sensitivity to minorities

- Increased percentage of females are applying

for entry-level interpretive jobs

Entry-level interpreters do not have an adequate

balance between technical knowledge and

communications skills

APPENDIX C

Trends in Interpretation:

Results of Survey

TRENDS FREQUENCY $ RESPONSES % OF TOTAL (88)

OF LISTING IN CATEGORY RESPONSES

TRENDS IN PROVIDERS

Privatization, entrepeneurship, commercializaion;

outfitters, guides, etc.;

industrial interpretation

Integration of interpretive

services with tourism and

hospitality industries; tour

companies; increased willingnessto-pay

More cooperative ventures: interagency; public/private; with

regional economic development

agencies; cooperating associations

Increased use of volunteers &

interns; concern about loss of

professionalism when replaced by

volunteers/interns

Reductions in public sector funds

for interpretation; fewer interpretive services than 10 or 20

years ago

Fewer students interested in professional interpretation careers

(decrease in traditional positions

available)

Global recognition of importance of

public education about natural

resource management

(n - 38) (n = 88)

11 28.9 122.5

7 18.4 8.0

4 10.5

7 18.4 8.0

6 15.8 6.8

1 2.6

4.5

1.1

1 2.6 1.1

96
TRENDS FREQUENCY % RESPONSES % OF TOTAL (88)

OF LISTING IN CATEGORY RESPONSES

TRENDS IN INTERPRETATION TECHNIQUES (n - 16) (n = 88)

Incorporation of high tech strategies 8

(computers, interactive videos,

gimmicks, theatrics, games, furry

folks; computerization of collection data; mechanized exhibits)

50.0 9.1

Less personal interpretation; more 3

non-personal interpretation (to

help meet needs of non-traditional

visitors)

More living history, folk skill

demonstrations, storytelling,

first-person and participatory

activities, special events

3

18.8

18.8

3.4

3.4

More bi-/multi-lingual offerings 1 6.3 1.1

in some parts of country

New techniques in training 1 6.3 1.1

TRENDS IN USES AND ROLES OF INTERPRETATION (n - 13) (n - 88)

Use as a management tool 5 38.5 5.7

Increased scope of interpretation's 5 38.5 5.7

responsibility (to include discussion of policy, environmental,

management issues; conflict resolution; topics beyond natural

history)

Use as public relations tool 2 15.4 2.3

Use for therapy (incorporated into 1 7.7 1.1

therapeutic recreation programs)

97
TRENDS FREQUENCY % RESPONSES 8 OF TOTAL (88)

OF LISTING IN CATEGORY RESPONSES

TRENDS IN DEMAND & NEED FOR JUSTIFICATION, (n = 12) (n = 88)

FEES & MARKETING

Increased need to justify existence,

therefore more evaluation &

monitoring needed

3 25.0 3.4

Increased demand (indicated often by

willingness to pay); increased use

of user fees (therefore become

accountable for quality)

3 25.0 3.4

Increased emphasis on marketing of

interpretive services

2 16.6 2.3

Need for and use of alternate

funding sources

1 8.3 1.1

Reductions in public funds and staff

lead to:

- increased environmental damage

and problems such as littering

- previous inability to foster

critical mass to change lifestyles to ensure healthy living

conditions

1 8.3 1.1

1 8.3 1.1

- decrease in research efforts 1 8.3 1.1

TRENDS IN WHERE AND FOR WHOM INTERPRETIVE (n = 10) (n = 88)

PROGRAMMING IS GIVEN

Increased integration of environmental

education with outdoor education &

skills programs (e.g., Project Wild,

Project Learning Tree)

More deliberate integration of interpretive programming with schools

Renewal of interest in outdoors and

traditional "ranger" programs

More offsite, outreach interpretive

programs (try to meet needs of

urban population)

More programs for older/aging

audiences

4 40.0 4.5

1

30.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

3.4

1.1

1.1

1.1

98
APPENDIX D

Issues in Interpretation:

Results of Survey

ISSUES FREQUENCY % RESPONSES % OF TOTAL (82)

OF LISTING IN CATEGORY RESPONSES

ISSUES REGARDING TRAINING (n = 21) (n = 82)

Need better training of

volunteers

1 4.8 1.2

General training/education

issues:

- increase coursework in basic

information (natural and

cultural history)

5 23.8 6.1

- need solid intern programs; 2

more hands-on & participatory

training

- need better teaching, open 2

class critique

- general re-evaluation of 1

interpretive training

- clarity in identification of 1

interpretive & leadership skills

- opportunities for ALL students 1

to have more science, history

education

- need for environmental psychology 1

education

- need training in problem-solving, 1

thinking, coping

- economics training 1

- training in needs of special 1

populations

- accreditation 1

- should training be technical 1

training or broad education?

- need public speaking classes 1 4.8

9.5 2.4

9.5 2.4

4.8

4.8

4.8

1.2

1.2

1.2 *

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

99
ISSUES FREQUENCY % RESPONSES % OF TOTAL (82)

OF LISTING IN CATEGORY RESPONSES

ISSUES REGARDING LINKAGES, COOPERATIVE VENTURES (n - 14) (n - 82)

Integration with private/commercial 6 42.9 7.3

sector, including travel & tourism

Integration with school curricula 4 28.6 4.9

Other cooperative efforts (public- 3 21.4 3.7

private, multi-agency, media,

recreation programs, etc.)

Professional links, especially with 1 7.1 1.2

national organizations (e.g., NAEE,

NAI)

ISSUES REGARDING ACCOUNTABILITY (n - 11) (n = 82)

Evaluation of program effectiveness 8 72.7 9.8

as strategy for accountability;

use of management by objectives

approaches and marketing techniques

General need for accountability to 3

justify value of interpretation

to managers

27.3 3.7

ISSUES REGARDING ISSUE-ORIENTATION OF PROGRAMS (n = 10) (n - 82)

Should programs deal with contem- 4 40.0 4.9

porary environmental & cultural

issues?

How to teach and develop environ- 3 30.0 3.7

mental ethics and lifestyles?

Linkages with conservation efforts 2 20.0 2.4

and political involvement?

Increased need to promote public 1 10.0 1.2

understanding of natural world

100 ’
ISSUES FREQUENCY % RESPONSES % OF TOTAL (82)

OF LISTING IN CATEGORY RESPONSES

ISSUES REGARDING PROFESSIONALISM (n = 9)

Low priority of interpretation by

managers

11.1

Need to build academic respectability

Lack of well-defined career path

Burn-out at field level

Fewer people (especially those wellqualified) entering profession at

the field level

11.1

11.1

11.1

11.1

Need for professionalism, ehtics,

sense of value and self-worth

1 11.1

Certification

Equal/equitable pay scales

Conflicts of interest, unethical

activities, violations of

deaccessioning guidelines

11.1

11.1

11.1

MANAGEMENT ISSUES (n = 8) (n = 82)

Use of interpretation as management 7 87.5 8.5

tool; integration of interpreters

on management teams; internal

justification of interpretation's

value and uses as management tool;

communicating management objectives

and strategies to public

Concern about maintaining integrity 1 12.5 1.2

of "interpretation" as its roles

expand

(n = 82)

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

SUPPORT ISSUES (n = 5) (n = 82)

Need for increased funding; alter- 4 80.0 4.9

native funding strategies

Need for political support 1 20.0 1.2

101
ISSUES FREQUENCY % RESPONSES % OF TOTAL (82)

OF LISTING IN CATEGORY RESPONSES

PROGRAMMING ISSUES (n = 4) (n = 82)

Increased integration of hightech and nonpersonal techniques

More bilingual and multilingual

offerings

2 50.0 2.4

25.5

Meet needs of increasing,aging

population

25.5

1.2

1.2

102
Section 3.

Trends in Recreation Participation

on Public and Private Lands

103

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION BY DISABLED PEOPLE

Lawrence A. Hartmann and Pamela J. Walker1

Abstract-A synopsis of outdoor recreation participation patterns of disabled individuals is provided through

a literature review and data from the PANS. The

disabled population appears to be strongly underrepresented as users of Federal and State outdoor

recreation areas. The demographics, annual participation, and travel patterns of disabled recreationists are

provided. The annual outdoor recreation participation

patterns of the disabled are similar to the able, but a

smaller percentage of the disabled population participate, especially in the more physical activities. Issues,

recommendations, guidelines for improving the

baseline of information, and a forecast of the future

are provided.

INTRODUCTION

Outdoor recreation is an integral part of most

American’s lives, offering a broad spectrum of

opportunities and experiences which enhance life in

many ways. Opportunities to enjoy outdoor recreation

should be available to anyone who wishes to

participate. However, the planning, design, and

implementation of outdoor recreation facilities and

programs often overlook a segment of the

population-those individuals who have a physical,

emotional, or cognitive disability.

Who qualifies as a disabled individual? ‘Disability

is “the limitation of a person’s ability to perform a

major life activity, as the direct result of an impairment,

particularly of the senses or musculoskeletal system”

(Czajka 1984). However, as this source states, the

number of disabled people ‘may be expanded or

contracted depending on how broadly or narrowly

one describes the three terms ‘limitation of ability’,

‘major life activity’, and ‘impairment’.’ Temporary

‘Outdoor Recreation Planner, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens,

GA; Recreation Specialist, U.S. Department of Agricutture, Forest

Setvice, Washington, DC.

impairments such as a sprained ankle or advanced

pregnancy may qualify individuals as disabled under

an open definition of the term, while a restrictive

definition might consider a person disabled only if

they are permanently unable to maintain gainful

employment. “However we define disability, it should

be clear that the population does not divide itself

neatly into disabled and able persons, although the

ambiguity is greater the broader the definition’ (Czajka

1984). Recently, in advocation of an attitude that

focuses on the opportunities rather than the restrictions of disability, disabled people have been described as physically, mentally, or emotionally challenged. The terms ‘disabled’ and “challenged’ will be

used interchangeably in the following text.

This report focuses on the use patterns of people

who are more permanently impaired by their physical,

emotional, or cognitive disabilities. These disabilities

include activity impairments (caused by diseases of

the heart, lungs, or forms of arthritis or rheumatism),

mobility impairments, manual, visual or hearing

impairments, emotional disturbance, mental illness,

and mental retardation. Each disability creates a

distinct set of challenges for both the providers and

participants of outdoor recreation activities.

Recreation managers and facility designers often

do not consider the diverse needs of each disabled

group. A barrier-free pathway designed to be accessible by wheelchair is not always free of hazards to

the visually impaired hiker. A complex sign informing

visitors of available activities may be unintelligible to

a person with a cognitive disability. Providing uniform

accessibility is a difficult challenge, but it is one that

public recreation managers must be willing to face.

Disabled people have an equally difficult

challenge-educating and informing the public

recreation manager about their needs and desires.

Communication channels have been opened as

acceptance of the need for barrier-free site design

becomes more widespread, however, much can be

gained by active participation by disabled people in

all phases of facility and program planning, design,

and implementation.

105
There is little qualitative or quantitative research

on outdoor recreation participation by challenged

people available to assist recreation providers. Most

scientific studies are site-specific rather than of

national scope. A literature review prepared by

Farbman and Ellis (1986) found that available literature

focuses on issues of access- architectural, program,

and transportation access-as well as on involvement

of disabled customers. The review provides detailed

research recommendations and concludes that more

qualitative studies should be conducted using case

studies and interviews with disabled people to

determine the policies and programs that should be

developed across the Nation.

However, one such qualitative study was accomplished in 1985. A nationwide survey was conducted

by Louis Harris and Associates for the International

Center for the Disabled (ICD), in cooperation with

the National Council on the Handicapped (Louis

Harris and Associates, Inc. 1986). This was the first

major national survey that studied disabled people’s

attitudes and experiences.

The 198587 Public Area Recreation Visitors

Survey (PARVS) substantially added to the quantitative

research on this subject. PAWS was an interagency

study including 5 Federal agencies and 11 State

recreation agencies, Visitors to over 280 recreation

areas nationwide were interviewed, resulting in almost

32,000 usable responses. This survey provides the

first nationwide collection of information on challenged

people’s use of public recreation areas (Cordell and

others 1987). This study inventoried onsite and annual

recreation patterns of a representative sample of

Federal and State recreation area visitors, as well as

their travel patterns, recreation-related expenditures,

and demographics. In addition, respondents identified

themselves and their group members as ‘hearing

impaired,” ‘visually impaired,” ‘mobility impaired,”

‘mentally or learning impaired,’ or “not disabled.’ The

PAWS data have been compiled and are presented

for initial review in this document.

Many other resources have been employed to

prepare this report, including several informative

reviews prepared for the President’s Commission on

the Americans Outdoors (PCAO), and other research

efforts. The aspects presented include:

l Background information on the numbers and

characteristics of the disabled population in the United

States.

l Leisure patterns of the challenged population.

l Current participation characteristics.

l Barriers to outdoor recreation participation.

l issues and recommendations.

l Guidelines for improving the baselines.

l Forecast of the future.

l Questions for discussion.

THE DISABLED POPULATION IN THE

UNITED STATES

Americans With Physical Challenges

In an appendix to The Report of the President’s

Commission on the Americans Outdoors, Austin

(1986) provided the following estimation: ‘Figures

published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1984)

place 32.3 million Americans (14.4 percent of the

population) in the category of noninstitutional civilians

who have physical limitations. These limitations include

heart conditions, arthritis and rheumatism, hypertension, impairment of the back/spine, and impairment

of the lower extremities and hips. Other Americans

who could be classified as physically challenged are

those with visual impairments (4.0 percent) and

hearing impairments (8.3 percent). Thus, according

to the Bureau of the Census, as many of one-quarter

of our population may be categorized as having

physical disabilities.’ This totals to about 60 million

Americans who face physical challenges in performing

the normal functions of everyday life.

The Bureau of Census data clearly indicate that

the elderly population (65 or older) accounts for the

largest category of people with disabilities (Austin

1986). This statistic is especially significant when

considering population trends. Our country is undergoing unprecedented growth in the number of people

over age 65. By the year 2000, it is projected that

nearly one in five Americans will be 65 or older (Ringle

1977).

Americans With Cognitive Disabilities

Estimates of the percentage of American people

with mental retardation vary according to the criteria

of qualification. The American Association on Mental

Deficiency defines mental retardation as follows:

“Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage

general intellectual functioning resulting in or associated with concurrent impairments in adaptive behavior,

and manifested during developmental periods’

(President’s Committee on Mental Retardation, n.d.).

106
A person must manifest impairment in both intellectual

functioning and adaptive behavior to be classified as

a person with mental retardation (Grossman 1983).

Some estimators discount all persons who are

no longer receiving assistance for their adaptive

behavior, although they were once identified as

persons with mental retardation by their intelligence

quotient (IQ). On the other hand, there are some

who add the borderline mental retardation population

to the total estimate, usually because of limitations in

intellectual functioning at school. This would greatly

increase the population size (Grossman 1983; Mercer

1973; Ramey and Bryant 1987). However, a commonly

accepted estimate is that 2.5 to 3 percent of the

general population has mental retardation, which is

about 7 million people. Over half of them are under

age 21 (Association for Retarded Citizens National

Research and Demonstration Institute 1987).

Americans With Emotional Disabilities

Again, the definition of disability provides variability

in the estimates. Many Americans seek the services

of psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists to

assist their adjustment to life stress. Most mentally ill

individuals are living in the community as ‘chronically

mentally ill’ residents. A smaller number of people

challenged by their emotional condition are those

receiving in-patient services for their illness or

disturbance. The National Institute of Mental Health

reports that the average daily number of residents in

mental health facilities during 1979 was 0.2 million -

well below 1 percent of the American population

(President’s Commission on Mental Retardation,

n.d.).

Unemployment and Work Disabilities

Unemployment is often one of the most unfortunate delineations of what it means to be challenged.

The ability to work is related to the ability to enjoy

outdoor recreation activities, as equipment and

transportation costs make recreation opportunities

less available to economically disadvantaged people.

The ability to recreate may also relate to the ability

to hold a job, as successful recreational experiences

can help some disabled people gain the confidence

they need to join the productive work force.

One source of information on the relationship

between disabilities and employment is a supplementary report to the 1980 Census (U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1980). That report

compares persons with a work disability with the

general population. Some definitional problems are

encountered with these data, however, as individuals

who have a “work disability’ are not necessarily

permanently disabled. In this report, a “work disability”

is defined as a health condition which lasts 6 or

more months and limits the kind or amount of work

that a person could do at a job. A ‘health condition’

refers to both physical and mental conditions, but

does not include temporary health problems. People

with a work disability may be working a part-time

job. Although these definitions do not necessarily

describe the population of permanently disabled

people, the information provided by that Census

report does provide some insight into the problems

and restrictions of this group of challenged individuals.

By presenting this information and making some

comparisons between this group and the nondisabled

population, the authors hope to provide a better

understanding of the challenges faced by people

with work disabilities. In light of these definitions and

limitations, the following characteristics of the 1980

population are presented:

In the United States, 9 percent (12 million) of the

civilian noninstitutional men and women 18 to 64

years old have a work disability. Of these people,

over half (6.2 million) are prevented from working by

their disability.

Three-quarters of the total population lives inside

metropolitan areas. There is a slightly greater ratio of

disabled to able people living outside metropolitan

areas. Eleven percent of the rural population is

challenged as compared to 8 percent of the urban

population.

Six percent of the civilian noninstitutional Americans

did not finish 8th grade, 26 percent (2 million) of

these people presently have a work disability. Of the

16 percent of the civilian noninstitutional Americans

who finished 4 or more years of college, only 4 percent

(more than 1 million) presently have a work disability.

Of the 13 million people living on income below the

poverty level, 2.5 million have a work disability (US.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

1980).

Another statistical source reported that in 1985

two-thirds of all disabled Americans between the age

of 16 and 64 were not working. Only one in four

works full-time, and another 10 percent works

part-time. No other demographic group under age

65 has such a small proportion working, including

young blacks (Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. 1986).

An important statistic for public recreation

providers who have a volunteer work-force program

is that a large majority (66 percent) of the unemployed

107
working-aged challenged population say that they

want to work. Key comparisons between working

and nonworking disabled persons, aged 16 to 64,

show that work makes a vast qualitative difference in

the lives of disabled persons. Those who work are

better educated and have much more money. They

are also more satisfied with life, much less likely to

consider themselves disabled, and much less likely

to say that their disability has prevented them from

reaching their full abilities as a person (Louis Harris

and Associates 1986).

Positive leisure experiences can also be correlated

with employability, job success, physical health, and

personal well-being. In 1985, an international forum

on Leisure, Sports, Cultural Arts, and Employment

for Persons With Disability convened to assess the

status of services for persons with disabilities and to

chart strategies for improving those services. In the

introduction to the documentation of the forum

proceedings, the executive director of the conference

stated that ‘various studies indicate that persons

with disabilities who do not have avocational interests

and involvement (e.g., hobbies, sports, sociorecreational outlets) are more likely to become isolated

from community life, have reduced physical health

and functioning, and frequently become financial

burdens on their families and society. On the other

hand, many persons with disabilities have found

participation in sports, music, art, drama, and other

leisure activities to be a primary link to the world

around them. Persons disabled by illness or injury

frequently cite their involvement in sports and

recreation as the critical factor in their rehabilitation,

the avenue for establishing a sense of wholeness

and self-esteem. Perhaps most important, these

activities provide the skills and motivation to become

active and independent participants in the life of

their communities’ (Kelley 1985).

Disabled people’s lives are also enriched by

participation in cultural arts. Sikorski (1985) reports

that the arts can integrate disabled people into society.

She states that “through art we are able to communicate, share ideas, and cross barriers of age, class,

culture, and ability. The arts allow a person . . . in a

body that can’t function to have a means of selfexpression and a way to gain self-confidence and

self-respect.” A program called Very Special Arts,

formerly the National Committee, Arts with the

Handicapped, supports the development and expansion of arts programs that enhance learning skills

and enrich the lives of physically and developmentally

disabled persons.

LEISURE PATTERNS OF THE

CHALLENGED POPULATION

The survey by Louis Harris and Associates, Inc.

(1986) provided the following statistical information

on the effects of disability on people’s social life and

activities, basic activities, and involvement in community life.

A majorii of disabled Americans say that their

disability prevents them from getting around, attending

cultural or sports events, or socializing with friends

outside their home as much as they would like (table

1). Low income, which is highly correlated with more

severe disability, also appears to affect social life

and mobility adversely. Disabled people who have

household incomes of $15,000 or less are more

likely to say that their disability constrains their social

life than are those with higher incomes.

The result of such limitations is that disabled

people - especially severely disabled peoplesocialize less with friends and family than do able

persons. Three-fourths of disabled people say that

they socialize at least once a week with family and

friends, but this group falls to 67 percent among

very severely disabled persons. In contrast, 83 percent

of able adults report once-a-week socialization.

Disabled people go to the movies and to cultural

events far less often than does the adult population

as a whole. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of all

disabled persons said that they never went to a

movie in the past year, as compared with 22 percent

of the general population. The differences are equally

large when comparing how often disabled and able

persons go to the theatre or to live performances.

Three-fourths (77 percent) of all disabled persons

compared with 40 percent of the general population

said that they had not done so. A somewhat smaller

gap separates the participation levels at live sports

events. Two-thirds (66 percent) of disabled persons

never went to such an event in the past year, as

compared with 50 percent of all adults.

Disabled participation levels in the leisure activities

of shopping, eating in restaurants, attending religious

services, and community groups are also less than

participation levels of able people (figure 1). The ICD

report concludes that “since the proportion of disabled

and able persons living in or around metropolitan

areas is about the same, it appears that these

differences are caused by a lack of money, mobility,

transportation problems, difficulties in entering public

buildings, and perhaps under-education among

disabled people” (Louis Harris and Associates 1986).

108
Table 1. --Percentage who say disability limits their mobility or social

activities

Q: Does your disability prevent you in any way from getting around,

attending cultural or sports events, or socializing with friends

outside your home as you would like to, or not?

Respondents

Ye s, Does not Not sure/

prevents prevent refused

Total 56 43 1

Age (years):

16-34

35-44

",::2

65 and over

Severity of disability:

Slight

Moderate

Somewhat severe

Very Severe

Income:

!fi 7,500 or less

$ 7,501 to $15.000

$15,001 to $25,000

$25,001 to $35,000

$35.001 to $50,000

$50,001 or more

68 1

:; z: 1

45: E 58 1

21 79

aLess than 0.5 percent. Source: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. (1986).

Supermarket Visits ’

Restaurants Visits *

Church or Synagogue’

Active in Community

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

% of Population

m Non-Disabled m Disabled

*at least once a week

SOURCE: ICD Survey of

Disabled Americans

Louis Harris and Associates, 1996

Figure 1. -Social activity participation of disabled and non-disabled people.

109
Aside from this ICD Survey and the PAWS data

presented later in this paper, statistical information

on leisure patterns of disabled people is sparse.

Prior to these two reports, Compton (1985) stated

that ‘the current status of recreation participation by

American disabled people is not empirically definable.’

He cited a national pilot study of recreation and

parks participation by disabled people performed by

Compton, Thorsen, Robb, and Hitzhusen in 1985.

This study reported that, according to the 100

agencies and organizations that were contacted, lt

appeared as though there were no standard participation records in either public, private, or commercial

facilities. Although respondents were unable to assign

numbers in each activity category (such as dramatic

activities, team sports activities, outdoor recreation,

and education), they felt that it was evident from the

data that participation had increased. Compton (1985)

concluded that it would be increasingly difficult to

determine total annual participation and frequency of

that participation in a variety of activity areas due to

this lack of empirical data.

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION

BY THE DISABLED

The Public Area Recreation Visitor Study

(PARVS)

As previously mentioned, most studies of the

outdoor recreation use patterns of physically challenged people are conducted as case studies rather

than nationwide surveys. However, the 1985-87 Public

Area Recreation Visitor Survey (PAWS) provides the

first national report on visitors to Federal and State

recreation areas which contains empirical data on

disability status and type. PARVS is an interagency

onsite survey of visitors to Federal and State recreation

areas nationwide. Five Federal agencies and 11

State agencies have participated in this survey

between 1985 and 1987. More than 36,000 visitors

were contacted resulting in almost 32,000 usable

interviews using a complex survey instrument with

over 1,100 variables. Sites were selected by each

agency according to their own needs, but generally

represented their recreation area system. Groups

were usually selected on a random basis (although

in some cases logistical restrictions necessitated a

relaxing of this requirement), and individual respondents over age 11 within the groups were selected

randomly as well.

Questions included in the PARVS questionnaire

included recreation activities done at the recreation

area where the respondents were interviewed,

recreation activities done during the last 12 months,

characteristics of the trip on which the respondent

was interviewed, trip and annual expenditures on

recreation, and standard demographic characteristics

about the respondent and all group members. In

addition, information was collected on the disability

status of each group member from among the choices

of ‘hearing impaired,’ ‘visually impaired,’ ‘mobility

impaired,’ ‘mentally or learning impaired,’ and/or

‘not disabled.’ Additional information describing the

methods and purposes of PARVS has been documented by Cordell and others (1987).

Limitations of PARVS

The reader should be advised of the limitations

of this dataset before drawing conclusions which

may extend beyond the limits of the data. First, the

PARVS was conducted at the recreation sites sampled

rather than being a sample of the entire US.

population. Therefore, unweighted PARVS data

represent people who use the sampled sites, rather

than the general public. Second, the sample from

which the data were drawn includes visitors to

recreation sites from only five Federal agencies (Forest

Service, National Park Service, Corps of Engineers,

Tennessee Valley Authority, and National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration) and State park

agencies in 11 states (Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,

Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia).

Data are not available for other Federal or State

land-management agencies, regional, county, or

municipal recreation areas, or private recreation area

users. Although these data may represent users to

Federal and State recreation areas in general, without

including representative recreation areas from all

land-managing federal and state agencies, it is

inaccurate to say definitely that PARVS represents

all people who use public recreation areas.

Some limitations are also specific to the topic of

this paper: recreation areas specifically designed to

meet the needs of the disabled, such as Clark’s Hill

Reservoir in Georgia, were not necessarily selected

to be included in the sample of recreation areas.

Also, all data represent voluntary responses by the

individuals selected. Therefore, if an individual did

not wish to reveal the presence of a disability to the

interviewer, it was not recorded. In spite of these

limitations, the PARVS provides the best currently

available data covering the recreation patterns and

demographic characteristics of disabled individuals

who use Federal and State public recreation areas.

110
PANS Weighting

Many sociological studies weight their data to

place additional emphasis on certain portions of the

data. In the PARVS study, it was found that some

sociodemographic groups were underrepresented

when compared with other national studies of

recreationists. Since the PARVS was conducted at

the recreation site to represent the users of the

recreation areas, and many of the other recreation

studies were conducted by telephone to represent

the general population, it was possible to weight the

PARVS data to better represent the entire recreating

public by using comparisons with other studies.

Sufficient information is available in the PARVS

survey instrument and other sources (such as the

1982-88 National Recreation Survey and the National

Park Service’s Fee Reports) to allow weighting to

provide an approximation of the annual recreation

participation patterns of the recreating U.S. population.

The origins of the respondents (using unweighted

data) roughly approximate the geographic distribution

of the population of the United States, indicating that

a good geographic representation of the U.S.

population was achieved, so no geographic weighting

was performed. PARVS data are weighted to correct

for an overrepresentation of overnight users, and

weighted to represent the demographic characteristics

of the U.S. population using information from the

U.S. Bureau of the Census.

The weighting procedure involved adjustment of

the distribution of sampled PARVS respondents so

that they proportionately represented the distribution

of people over 11 years old within defined population

strata. Weighting these PARVS data in this manner

was necessary to enable pooling across strata. Four

types of population strata were recognized for each

identified community: gender, age, urban or rural

residence, and race. These characteristics were

common to both the Census of Population and the

PARVS sample.

Underrepresentation or overrepresentation among

the gender-age-residence-race-defined strata was

identified by comparing the percentage distribution

of respondents of the PARVS sample with the

Percentage distribution of the total population. Further

adjustment was made to account for differences in

probabilities of being included in the PARVS sample.

The basic determinant of this probability differential

was between day and overnight users and whether

the interview site was Federally or State administered.

Sampling rates and schedules differed among these

sampling strata.

Each PARVS respondent was subsequently

assigned a population-to-sample distributional ratio

that weighted all data provided by each respondent.

This made their responses proportionate to the

national proportion of the population in the State

matching the respondent’s profile. These weighted

responses then represented the equivalent for an

origin-based survey for obtaining estimates of yearround participation, socioeconomic characteristics,

residence situation, population, and other attributes

of subregional communities from which recreation

trips were generated.

The following information concerns the disabled

recreation users’ profile, annual activities, and trip

characteristics. So few of the randomly selected

respondents were mentally or learning impaired (0.2

percent of the PARVS sample), that insufficient

information is available to draw conclusions about

the recreation profile of those individuals.

Profile of the Disabled Recreationist

Disability Status

Approximately 4.6 percent of the visitors interviewed in the PARVS project reported having one or

more disabilities, which is far less than in the total

U.S. population (table 2). Although some definitional

and methodological differences exist in the sources

quoted, it is clear that disabled individuals are

underrepresented as users of resource-based recreation areas.

Table 2 .--Disabilities of the total U.S.

population and users of Federal- and Statebased recreation areas

_---__

PuLiic

Type of U.S. recreation

impairment population users

Percent

Mobility impairment 14.4 2.3

Visual impairment 4.1 1.3

Hearing impairment 8.3 1.2

Mental impairment 2.5-3.0 0.2

Source: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey, n = 31,995; U.S. Bureau of

the Census (1984); Association for Retarded

Citizens National Research and Demonstration

Institute (1987).

Note: Some definitional differences may exist

between the sources cited. The information

above is an approximation of the differences

in the total U.S. population and the population

of public recreation facilities. Data from

PARVS represents the individual who was interviewed, rather than all group members, and may

thus underrepresent the number of disabled

individuals using public recreation areas.

111
Gender

Fewer disabled females visit public resourcebased recreation areas than disabled males. The

PARVS data indicated that the disabled recreationists

were 45.3 percent female, and 54.7 percent male,

whereas able recreationists were 53.8 percent female

and 46.2 percent male.

Age

Generally, outdoor recreation participants challenged by disability are older than able recreationists.

Figure 2 presents data from the PARVS project on

the average age of recreationists by disability

category. This figure shows that while average age

of the visually and mentally impaired is approximately

the same as the average age of able participants

sampled, hearing and mobility impaired individuals

are approximately 20 years older than the average

user of Federal and State outdoor recreation areas

and facilities.

Race

Survey results show a lower percentage of

disabled nonwhites than able nonwhites in the

recreating public. While 11.7 percent of the able

visitors of resource-based public recreation areas

are nonwhite, only 7.6 percent of the disabled visitors

are nonwhite. PARVS found that overall, the percentage of nonwhite participation is less than equal to

the percentage of nonwhites in the American population.

Income

Figure 3 provides a comparison of the income

levels of disabled and all recreationists to the income

levels of the entire U.S. population. This figure shows

that people visiting public recreation areas are in the

middle-income classifications-$20,000 to $50,000

annual family income. Both higher and lower income

individuals are less well represented in the population

of participants. However, figure 3 also shows that

challenged individuals using public recreation areas

are clearly of lower income status than either the

U.S. population as a whole or the other visitors to

these areas.

Figure 4 provides the average family income of

recreation participant by type of disability. Although

visually impaired recreationists have approximately

the same family income as able recreationists, other

disability classifications earn less.

Education

Educational differences were also evident between

the disabled and all visitors. Figure 5 shows that

disabled visitors are generally less educated than

Not Disabled

Hearing Impaired

Visually Impaired

Mobility Impaired

Mental!y lmpaira d

0 5 70 I 5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

SOIJRCE~ Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey; n-31,995

Figure 2. -Average age of public area recreationists by disability.

Average Age

112
Family Income

< $5,000

$5000~$9,999

$10,000-$14,999

$15,000-$19,999

$20,000-$24,999

$25,000~$34,999

$35,000-$49,999

$50,000 or more

: - Disabled

j ezd AbIb

; &a U.S.! Pop.

i0

SOURCE: 1985-87 Public Area

Vlsltor Survey; n=31,995

5 10 15 20 25 30

Percent of Population

Recreation

Figure 3. -Income of disabled and non-disabled public area recreationists, and U.S. population.

Not Disabled

Hearing Impaired

Visually Impaired

Mobility Impaired

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Average Family Income (x $1,000)

SOURCE: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey; n=31,995.

Figure 4. -Average family income of public area recreationists by disability.

113
(= 8th Grade

Sth-11th

12th Grade

13-15 Years

16 Years

17+ Years

m Non-Disabled

m Disabled

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percent of Population

SOURCE: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey; n-31,995.

Figure 5. - Educational differences in disabled/non-disabled public area recreationists.

< 8th Grade

8th Grade

9th - 11th Grade

12th Grade

13-15 Years

I& years

: m ~NO Disability:

i m :Wlth disabliliy

I I I I I I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Percent of Population

SOURCE: 1980 Census,

Work Dlsablllty by State

Figure 6. -Educational differences in civilians 18-64 years old with and without a work disability.

114
the general visitor to the sites sampled. Figure 6

shows the educational differences between American

civilians, 18 to 64 years old, with and without a work

disability. Although figures 5 and 6 are not directly

comparable due to data-base inconsistencies, it

appears that the average disabled outdoor recreation

participant has a higher education than the average

civilian with a work disability. Analysis of data designed

specifically to address this issue will be needed,

however, before that statement can be made with

certainty.

Rural/Urban Origins

By matching ZIP codes or counties of origin of

the PAWS respondents with Census data, the

respondents were categorized as rural or urban

county residents. Here, a ‘rural county’ is defined as

a county with a population of less than 200 persons

per square mile. An ‘urban county’ is a county with

a population of 200 or more persons per square

mile. This analysis revealed virtually no difference in

rural/urban origin between disabled and able recreation participants. Disabled individuals were 36.2

percent rural and 63.8 percent urban. Able individuals

were 37.7 percent rural and 62.4 percent urban.

Group Types

Figure 7 presents the composition of recreating

groups by disability status. Slight differences are

noted between disabled and able groups. Challenged

people participate slightly more frequently in family

groups, alone, and in clubs. They participate somewhat less in groups of family and friends and friendship

groups.

Annual Recreation Activities of Disabled

Persons

One portion of the PARVS survey instrument

asks the respondent to indicate which of 63 activities

the respondent participated in during the preceding

12 months, and how often. By comparing the

responses of disabled and able individuals, some

variation in the annual recreation patterns of challenged individuals can be ascertained. Although the

data have been weighted to represent the entire

U.S. population, the weighting process did not include

accounting for disabled vs. able persons. Therefore,

it should be noted that these data represent those

disabled individuals who visited a resource-based

public recreation area. The annual outdoor recreation

patterns of other challenged individuals may vary

from the information presented below.

Land Activities

Figure 8 presents information on the percentage

of disabled and able visitors participating one or

more times per year in 13 common land-based

recreation activities. Patterns of annual recreation

participation by disabled individuals are strikingly

similar to that of the able recreating public, but with

significantly less participation in every activity considered. The most popular annual land-based recreation

activities by disabled persons are sightseeing,

picnicking, driving for pleasure, walking for pleasure,

and nature study/photography.

Water Activities

Figure 9 presents information on the water-based

annual recreation patterns of disabled and able

participants. The most striking difference is in

swimming outdoors - disabled individuals participate

in that activity about half as often as able individuals.

Canoeing/kayaking, motorboating, water-skiing, and

sailing also receive less participation by the challenged

population than the able population. However, it is

important to note that a higher percentage of disabled

recreationists participate in all types of fishing than

do able recreationists.

Snow and Ice Activities

Figure 10 presents data from the PAWS project

on the differences in participation in winter recreation

activities between the disabled and able recreating

public. This figure shows considerable differences

between the two groups, with disabled people

participating in those activities about half as much

as the able survey respondents.

Trip Characteristics of Disabled and Able

Recreationists

The PAWS also examined the trip behavior of

individuals visiting public recreation areas, including

distance traveled, travel time, and time spent at the

site. The following information provides a direct

comparison between disabled and able recreation

participants.

115
Family Group

Friends

Family & Friends

Group or Club

Solo Individual

Other

I I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 ;5

Percent of Total

SOURCE: 1985~87 Public Area Recreation

Vlsi tor Survey; n-31,995.

Figure 7. -Group type of public area recreationists by disability.

Sightseeing

Picnicking

Walking

Nature/Photo

Driving

Developed Camping

Day Hiking

Primitive Camping

Other Hunting

Backpacking

Horseback Riding

Driving ORVs

Big Game Hunting I I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

% Participating Once or More Annually

SOURCE: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation

Vlsi tor Survey; n=31,QQ5

Figure 8. -Annual land-based recreation activities of public recreationists,

by disability.

116
Swimming Outdoors

Other Fishing

Motorboating

Canoeing/Kayaking

Goldwater Fishing

Waterskiing

Sailing

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

% Participating Once or More Annually

SOURCE: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation

Survey; n=31,995.

Figure 9. -Annual water-based recreation activities of disabled public area recreationists.

Sledding

Downhill Skiing

Ice Skating

Cross-Country Skiing

Snowmobiling

0 5 10 15

% Participating Once or More Annually

SOURCE: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation

Vlsi tor Survey; n=31,QQ5.

Figure 10. -Annual winter recreation activities of public area recreationists by disability.

117
Table 3. --Five primary activities most commonly reported by disability

type

No Hearing Visual Mobility Mental

impairment impairment impairment impairment impairment

Sightseeing General Outdoor Sightseeing Outdoor

recreation swimming swimming

Outdoor

swimming

Sightseeing Sightseeing General General

recreation recreation

General

recreation

Developed

camping

General Developed Developed

recreation camping camping

Developed

camping

Outdoor

swimming

Developed Outdoor Sightseeing

camping swimming

Picnicking Driving for Canoeing/ Family Backpacking

pleasure kayaking gathering

Source: 19 85-87 Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey, n = 31,9 9 5.

Primary Activities on Site

Table 3 presents the most frequently repotted

‘main recreation activity’ by disability group. Although

the rank order of the activities varies by disability

type, it is important to note the consistency in the

four most-often-reported activities: sightseeing,

outdoor swimming, general recreation, and developed

camping.

Reasons for Visiting

Table 4 presents a comparison of the reasons

for visiting the recreation sites by disability status.

Chi-square analysis showed no significant differences

(X2=36.001, df=36, p=O.469) between disability

types.

Length of Stay on Site

Minor differences are evident in the length of

stay between disabled and able individuals in the

PARVS study. The average stay is 22.6 hours for

able visitors, 23.3 hours for hearing impaired visitors,

17.2 for the vision impaired, 22.9 hours for mobility

impaired, and 34.2 hours for mentally impaired.

Hours of Travel Time

Analysis of one-way travel time to the recreation

area also shows minor differences between the

disability categories. The mean number of hours for

the able is 4.8 hours, 4.4 hours for hearing impaired

visitors, 4.9 hours for vision impaired individuals, 5.2

hours for mobility impaired, and 3.1 for mentally

impaired. These differences are not meaningful,

indicating that travel time to recreation areas is

approximately the same regardless of disability type,

except for mentally or learning impaired individuals.

Miles Traveled

Some differences exist in the average miles

traveled to get to the recreation sites. For the able,

the average miles traveled is 193 miles, 259 miles for

hearing impaired, 186 miles for mobility impaired,

and 148 miles for mentally or learning impaired visitors.

From the data in the PARE, it appears that individuals

with mental or learning impairments visit recreation

areas closer to home than do individuals with other

disabilities or nondisabled people.

118
BARRIERS TO RECREATION

PARTICIPATION

In addition to limitations created by their disability,

challenged recreationists encounter barriers stemming from society that inhibit their enjoyment of

outdoor recreation. These barriers may be structural,

programmatic, or attitudinal. Afthough advocacy

groups can do much to ensure that disabled concerns

are heard, society in general must provide the initiative

to reduce and remove these participation barriers,

Some progress has been made. Since the

enactment of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968

(P.L. 90-480) many efforts to physically accommodate

challenged recreation users at public facilities have

been initiated. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L.

93-l 12) created the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board which, among its

other duties, was responsible for ‘investigating and

examining alternative approaches to the architectural,

transportation, communication, and attitudinal barriers

confronting handicapped individuals, particularly with

respect to . . . parks and parklands’ (Section 502,

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-112). To fulfill its

legal obligation in the area of ‘parks and parklands,’

the Board has, over the past several years, sponsored

research projects, conducted public hearings, provided technical assistance, and responded to numerous

complaints.

The Board recognized that inconsistent and

sometimes inappropriate facilities continued to be

designed and constructed, due to the lack of specific

guidelines for accessible sites. In 1985, the Board

created a Federal Working Group on Access to

Recreation Facilities to focus on this problem. To

date, the Working Group has developed specific

standards for campgrounds, picnic areas, and nature

trails.

It appears that these and other Federal efforts

have had some positive effects. In late 1985, the

nationwide ICD survey that studied disabled people’s

attitudes and experiences revealed a powerful

endorsement of the Federal Government’s role in

giving better opportunities to disabled persons.

According to this study, a two-thirds majority (67

percent) of challenged Americans think that Federal

laws that were passed since the late 1960’s that

concerned opportunities for disabled people have

helped them (Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. 1986).

The survey reported that ‘the strength of this

endorsement for a Federal program is unsurpassed

since the Harris firm began measuring public support

for Federal programs and laws. It is an encouraging

and important confirmation that the Federal Government has helped, and could continue to help, disabled

Americans. And it comes at a time when many people

are attacking the Federal Government and its

Table 4. --Reasons for visiting the survey area compared with disability type

Reason for No Mobility Visual Hearing Mental

visiting site impairment impairment impairment impairment impairment

--_________ _ Percent _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Convenient location 21.0 21.5 21.5 18.6 30.6

Good facilities 13.3 13.4 15.9 12.0 21.0

Group trip 4.8 5.4 6.7 4.8 5.3

Repeat visit 19.7 22.2 19.4 19.7 18.0

To see attraction Scenic beauty 96.1: . 5.5 6.2 ;:‘: 11.1 6.4 92.:.

Wanted to try

new area 4.2 3.7 3.3 3.8 3.6

Other areas too

crowded 17.7 19.4 14.4 18.2 9.0

Personal reasons 3.4 2.8 2.1 4.8

Other 0.2 0.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey, n = 31,995.

119
programs as wasteful, unresponsive, and ineffective.

The Federal Government has made a real difference

for disabled Americans’ (Louis Harris and Associates,

Inc. 1986).

However, some people feel that too little has

been accomplished in the two decades since the

passage of the Architectural Barriers Act. In a review

of research efforts on the perceptions of disabled

people who visit recreation sites, West (1985) found

that nonambulatory respondents often have difficulty

negotiating park trails due to sand or gravel surfacing,

steps, curbs, and steep gradients. Restrooms were

often inaccessible due to poor location or design.

Designated handicapped parking spaces were often

distant from high-use areas. In addition, some survey

respondents felt that overly specialized facilities like

“wheelchair picnic tables’ are unnecessary. These

reports indicate that systematic implementation of

barrier-free design rarely occurs. The active involvement of disabled consumers in the design and

evaluation of park and recreation facilities is needed

(Austin 1986).

In addition, the results of the ICD Survey indicate

that the removal of physical barriers does not ensure

that participation by disabled people will increase.

This survey interviewed the general disabled population rather than those who currently visit recreation

sites, Surprisingly, only 1 percent of the disabled

Americans surveyed who say that they face barriers

in connection with their disability feel that making the

built environment accessible is an ‘important thing’

that can be done to help them. In contrast, approximately one-fifth of the respondents felt that improving

their own and other people’s attitudes (including

additional counseling and personal support) would

be helpful (Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. 1986).

The survey asked disabled Americans to identify

the physical, structural, and attitudinal barriers which

they perceive as keeping them from participating in

social activities. The most frequently mentioned barrier

was not the lack of site accessibility, it was fear.” In

descending order of mutual importance, the respondents felt that reasons why they do not ‘get around,

socialize, or attend cultural events” are: fear, dependence on other people for help, lack of convenient

and accessible transportation, self-consciousness,

lack of access to public buildings and bathrooms,

and difficulty in seeing, talking, or hearing. Table 5

details their responses (Louis Harris and Associates,

Inc. 1986).

None of these barriers are insurmountable for

the public recreation area manager. Fear can be

dispelled by outreach to the challenged community.

User education and resource interpretation would

provide a sense of familiarity with the outdoor

environment and a particular recreation site. Dependence on other people and need for transportation

could be resolved through scheduling or encouragement of group outings, and through cooperation

with concessionaires and local groups. Continued

efforts to provide barrier-free facilities and to inform

the public about their location would ease the concern

about accessible facilities and difficulty in seeing,

talking, or hearing. However, the disabled user’s

self-consciousness and the attitudes held by recreation managers may be the most difficult barriers to

surmount.

Wilkerson (1984) found that instilling a positive

attitude toward the integration of disabled and able

children on a playground was a more difficult barrier

to overcome than the mechanics of providing

accessible play facilities. Studies by West (1982,

1984) showed that recreation organizations often

have an organizational stigma against challenged

individuals, resulting in the exclusion of individuals

with disabilities from the mainstream of recreation. It

is important to note that West (1982) and Austin and

Austin (1988), among others, have indicated that

rather than being based on negative feelings, stigmas

about disabled people tend to stem from feelings of

uneasiness and uncertainty about interaction. Thus,

these attitudes may be more aptly characterized as

resting on uncertainty rather than on hostility (Austin

1986) which improves the potential for change.

Dattilo (1987) affirms this concept by stating that

the reason that many people with mental retardation

are not accessing outdoor recreation facilities seems

to stem from the constraints placed on them by the

public’s attitude. Other reasons for the lack of leisure

participation for individuals with mental retardation

are that they lack local friendships outside the school

environment, they are unaware of the available

recreation resources, there is an absence of practical

guidelines for program planning and implementation

of leisure programs, and there are few qualified

personnel providing leisure instruction (Dattilo 1987).

Overall, lack of appropriate recreational opportunities

for the mentally retarded seems to result in unmet

recreational needs for this segment of the population.

Austin (1986) recommends that future researchers

focus on ways to change the specific attitudes held

by park and recreation personnel regarding serving

people with disabilities, rather than trying to change

their global attitudes. He believes that this will provide

a more direct correspondence between the attitude

and desired behavior. Several research studies (Austin

and Lewko 1979; Hamilton and Anderson 1988;

120
Table 5.-- Reasons why disabled people's mobility or social activities are

limited

Q: Here are some reasons why people don't get around, attend events, or

socialize with friends outside their homes as much as they want to.

Please say if each is an important reason or is not an important

reason why you don't get around, socialize, or attend events as much

as you would like to.

Reasons

Total

disabled

persons

Slightly

or

moderately

disabled

Somewhat

or very

severely

disabled

Total respondents 559 165 378

Because you fear that your

disability or health problem

might cause you to get hurt,

sick, or victimized by crime.

- - _ _ - - _ - Percent - - - - - - -

59 58

Because you need someone to go

with you or help you but you

don't always have someone. 56 48

59

59

Because you are not able to use

public transportation or because

you can't get special transportation or someone to give you a

ride when you need one.

Because you are self-conscious

about your disability.

49

40

44

40

51

40

Because you come across many

public buildings and places that

you can't get into or that have

bathrooms which you can't use. 40 38 40

Because you have difficulty in

seeing, talking, or hearing. 37 32 39

Source: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. (1986).

121
Kisabeth and Richardson 1985) have demonstrated

promising results in the ability to positively influence

attitudes toward disabled persons within recreational

environments (Austin 1986).

On the national level, advocacy organizations,

programs, and committees are making strides in

furthering disabled participation in leisure, sports,

and cultural arts. Events such as the International

Games for the Disabled, World Games for the Deaf,

and recent participation in exhibition games at the

Olympics have increased national awareness of

competitive sports for disabled people. Organizations

such as the American Athletic Association for the

Deaf, National Association of Sports for Cerebral

Palsy, National Wheelchair Athletic Association, and

the United States Association for Blind Athletes work

to further these opportunities.

However, historical studies of local level park

and recreation departments show varying concern

for this need (Compton 1985). Compton reported

that a 1964 survey of community recreation departments found that 21 percent provided programs or

facilities for disabled people. He also quoted a 1971

study of recreation programs in large metropolitan

areas that showed a large percentage offered services

to handicapped persons. A study conducted by the

University of Oregon (1984) found that the percentage

of departments reporting programs for disabled

people has decreased in recent years. Of the 2,000

U.S. municipalities studied, only 38.4 percent indicated

that they have such programs. Of those reporting no

programs, 57.4 percent felt that they should not

have such programs. In addition, only 15.6 percent

of the respondents had two or more full-time staff

members who were professionally trained in disabled

recreation provision.

ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions from Previous Studies

In 1985, the International Forum on Leisure,

Sports, Cultural Arts, and Employment For Persons

Wiih Disabilities resulted in the creation of a set of

recommendations for improvement of programs and

services that intended to significantly affect the quality

of life for persons with disabilities. According to Hillman

(1985) the editor of the proceedings documentation,

the recommendations made to the National Council

on the Handicapped represented not only the views

of the 350 national and international delegates at the

1985 Forum but also reflected statements made by

consumers over the past three decades. These

historical statements were reiterated because, according to Hillman, ‘there has been only sporadic response

in the past to the recommendations found in the

proceedings of such distinguished meetings as the

1974 National Forum on Recreation and Handicapped

People . . . the 1977 White House Conference on

Handicapped Individuals, and the 1978 Humanism

and the Arts in Special Education meeting.’ However,

both Hillman and Kelley (the executive director of

that Forum) agree that this trend of limited response

is changing. Kelley cites the development of the

disability rights movement, the active leadership

positions held by persons with disabilities, and the

work of the National Council on the Handicapped to

affect changes in legislation and public policy as

signs of progress (Kelley 1985).

The recommendations from the Forum proceedings have been merged with several key issues

identified by Farbman and Ellis (1986) and Austin

(1986) and are combined below:

Architectural Accessibility

Recreation facilities should be totally available to

persons with disabilities on equal terms with able

participants. Federally funded recreation facilities

should be systematically monitored to ensure they

are accessible and comply with Section 564 of the

1973 Rehabilitation Act and P.L. 94-l 42.

Specific criteria and universal design guidelines

should continue to be developed and should be

adopted as a part of the official Uniform Federal

Accessibility Standards to define architectural accessibility in outdoor recreation facilities and spaces.

Controversy regarding access of disabled persons

to areas where protection and preservation are

essential, such as wilderness areas and historic

sites, should be resolved on a case-by-case method.

It may be necessary to compromise, within the limits

of the applicable legislation.

Providing accessible transportation to and from

recreation sites and within the site itself can provide

unique challenges when the transportation is part of

the recreational experience. Boats, rafts, trams, ski

lifts, mule trains, and over-snow buses are typical

forms of transportation that are often inaccessible.

Efforts must continue to ensure that discrimination

against people with disabilities is minimized in all

modes of transportation.

122
Program Accessibility

Program accessibility is poorly defined, and

therefore is more subject to individual interpretation

than architectural accessibility. Separate programs

for disabled recreationists are not adequate in

themselves. Programs must be integrated so that

disabled participants are mainstreamed. This will

begin to ease the social stigmas created by unfamiliarity.

Information concerning accessible programs

should be widely distributed to both existing and

potential user groups and to the general population,

Interorganizational linkages between park and recreation agencies and social services agencies must be

developed.

Recreation providers are often untrained in the

ne‘eds of disabled participants and therefore are

uncomfortable with their responsibilities. Resource

materials, guidelines, and training support related to

the needs of participants with disabilities should be

provided to all public and private agencies conducting

recreation programs. Efforts to hire professionally

trained personnel should be reemphasized and both

in-service and out-service training increased.

Individuals with disabilities should be involved at

all levels of programming and leadership in the

provision of recreation and leisure services, either as

professionals or advisors. Adults with disabilities

should be encouraged to enter professional leadership

training programs in recreation and leisure services.

Affirmative action programs should be used to

advance employment opportunities for challenged

people.

Existing Federal programs for recreation for

persons with disabilities in Section 316, Rehabilitation

Act, Personnel Preparation and Research and P.L.

94-142, should receive stronger administrative and

congressional support.

A research priority on recreation and leisure for

individuals with disabilities needs to be established

in all appropriate Federal agencies. Studies and

program support services for fully integrated activities

should be substantially increased.

Conclusions from the PARVS

Although the information concerning disabled

individuals included in the PARVS project was

incidental to the primary purposes of that study, the

analysis conducted for this paper provides some

insights to the recreation patterns of disabled people

and how they differ from able individuals.

Disabled individuals appear to be underrepresented as users of the recreation areas included in the

PARVS. Comparing disabled recreationists with the

able in the PARVS dataset shows that the disabled

are more likely to be male, older, white, lower income,

and less well-educated. Differences were not meaningful between the disabled and the able in rural/urban

origins and type of groups.

Examination of the annual recreation patterns of

those disabled individuals in the PARVS dataset

provides additional descriptive information. Those

disabled individuals follow approximately the same

pattern for activity preferences as able individuals,

but a smaller proportion of the disabled participate

in those activities. Trip characteristics were similar

between the two groups.

The obvious implication from these results is that

in addition to their disabilities, the population of

disabled users who visit Federal and State recreation

areas has other demographic differences from other

visitors. In planning to meet the needs of disabled

recreationists, managers and planners should take

these other characteristics into account as well.

Additionally, comparisons between the PARVS

dataset and other available sources indicate that

while the disabled individuals who visit Federal and

State recreation areas tend to be of lower socioeconomic status than other visitors, they are of higher

socioeconomic status than the general population of

disabled individuals. This may indicate that many

disabled individuals are, for reasons not determined

by this study, unable or unwilling to visit many State

and Federal recreation areas.

It is difficult to make sure conclusions from the

PARVS data concerning reasons for the differences

between recreation patterns of disabled and able

individuals. However, patterns in the data are sufficient

to indicate that additional study is needed to investigate this area. A major limitation of this study was

the lack of inclusion of local recreation areas in the

areas sampled. Perhaps disabled individuals participate in recreation at those areas, which would be

less costly to reach. On the other hand, perhaps the

outdoor recreation needs of the disabled are not

being met sufficiently by public recreation services.

Additional studies will be needed before this question

can be answered.

123
GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVING THE

BASELINES

Inventory and Document Disabled

Recreation Use Levels and Trends

There is inadequate documentation of recreation

participation levels of disabled persons. A national

study of the leisure patterns of the disabled should

be developed using population-based methods rather

than site-specific methods. This study should be

compared with the results of the PARVS project to

identify which segments of the disabled population

are not being served.

Continuation and expansion of both the PARVS

project and the ICD Survey project will provide

baselines for future trends. The PARVS data should

be analyzed to investigate the influence of specific

disabilities on participation in specific activities and

the influence of disabled group members on group

participation patterns, Additional exploratory analysis

and hypothesis testing of this topic using the PARVS

data set is needed.

Define “Disabled”

A consistent definition of ‘disabled” should be

developed for recreation research. As was mentioned,

terms are unclear, and may be interpreted either

broadly or narrowly by the respondent and the reader.

This creates confusion in data comparison and results

in imprecision.

Assess Current Condition

An assessment of the extent of services for

Americans with physical disabilities throughout

recreation systems at the local, State, and national

levels would provide a better understanding of

available opportunities (Austin 1986). Austin also

recommends establishment of a research program

that will ultimately answer the overriding applied

question of how barriers to recreation can be removed,

and to analyze the benefits of recreation participation

for persons with physical disabilities.

Implement Accessibility Standards

architects, engineers, recreation planners, and site

administrators. New research on accessibility standards is not needed. Existing literature contains

adequate information that is practical and has been

proven to work. This information simply needs to be

studied, modified, and packaged for universal

application.

FORECAST OF THE FUTURE

Wiih an aging population and increased attention

to the needs of the disabled, the issue of provision

for the resource-based recreation needs of the

disabled is likely to gradually increase for the

foreseeable future. The need for provision of recreation

opportunities for the disabled is going to increase.

While this is a fairly untouched area in outdoor

recreation research, several studies have provided

insights to the participation patterns and needs of

disabled populations. The disabled do participate in

outdoor recreation activities in similar patterns to the

able, but to a lesser extent. The goal of recreation

opportunity providers should not be to increase the

level of participation by the disabled to equal that of

the able population, but rather to provide opportunities

free from attitudinal, informational, and physical

barriers to participation for those disabled individuals

that are able to participate and who wish to do so.

Although the social significance of provision of

resource-based recreation for the disabled is quite

important, the economic and environmental impacts

are less dramatic.

Recent legislation mandating that all children

receive equal educational opportunities regardless of

their disability promises to increase the educational

level of the disabled population over time. This, in

combination with the increase in “Handicapped

Employment Programs’ promises to increase the

income level of the disabled population. As more

disabled people occupy influential jobs in communities, pressure on the public recreation manager to

provide accessible facilities will increase. With more

disposable income and less physical limitation, the

demand for and use of barrier-free public recreation

programs will increase.

The Federal Working Group on Access to

Recreation should continue their work in recommending accessibility standards and levels for outdoor

recreation facilities. Appropriate training materials

should be developed for architects, landscape

124
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. What role should public recreation area managers

play in encouraging versus accommodating disabled

recreation use? How should this role vary at the

Federal, State, and local level?

2. Who has the responsibility to see that all individuals

have access to all public resource-based recreation

facilities? Should enforcement be increased, or is

compliance adequate?

3. How should the participation differences between

the disabled and able recreation participants affect

site and program management?

4. Do the challenged participants in PARVS represent

a cross section of the disabled in the population, or

is only some segment of the disabled population

participating in outdoor recreation? Are there any

surprising findings from the responses of the disabled

to that survey?

5. What are the nonrecreating, unemployed disabled

people doing? How can they be reached? Would the

benefits of volunteer work programs using challenged

people outweigh the administrative costs?

6. Given limited budgets, should recreation managers

concentrate upon creating several “showplace’

barrier-free sites or programs, or should the funding

be equally distributed to provide a little improvement

at all places?

7. Should managers focus on providing facilities or

programs for the activities in which disabled people

presently participate (fishing, camping, swimming

and sightseeing) or is the lack of participation in

other activities an indication that other barrier-free

facilities are needed to encourage use?

8. How can the discomfort that some able recreation

managers and recreation participants feel be reduced?

9. Are recreation use fees a substantial barrier to

disabled use? Would fee discount or elimination

encourage use or discourage disabled participants

from demanding a quality experience (as in ‘What

do you want for free?“) ?

10. What other incentives are available to encourage

disabled recreation use? Should preference be given

to permittees or outfitter/guides that employ or provide

programs for disabled participants?

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors gratefully acknowledge the PARVS

Working Group (Forest Service, National Park Service,

Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authorii,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

and State park agencies in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,

Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia)

for permission to use the full PARVS data set in this

study, prepared for the RPA Assessment.

125
REFERENCES

Association for Retarded Citizens National Research

and Demonstration Institute. 1987. Arc facts:

Introduction to mental retardation. Arlington, TX:

Association for Retarded Citizens.

Austin, David R. 1986. Recreation and persons with

physical disabilities. Literature synthesis prepared

for the President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors.

Austin, J.K.; Austin, D.R. 1983. An attitude theory to

enhance understandings of behavior related to

mainstreaming blind and visually impaired persons

in recreation activities. In: Kelly, J.D., ed. A

monograph in recreation programming for visually

impaired children and youth. New York: American

Foundation for the Blind.

Austin, D.R.; Lewko, J. 1979. Modifying attitudes

toward handicapped persons in a camping

environment. Therapeutic Recreation Journal

13(3):3-6.

Clark, Kenneth. S. 1985. The status of sports participation of disabled people in America: a perspective.

In: Kelley, J.D., ed. International forum: leisure,

sports, cultural arts, and employment for persons

with disability.

Compton, David. M. 1985. The status of recreation

participation by disabled persons in America. In:

Kelley, J.D., ed. International forum: leisure, sports,

cultural arts, and employment for persons with

disability.

Compton; Thorsen; Robb; and Hitzhusen. 1985. In:

Kelley, J.D., ed. International forum: leisure, sports,

cultural arts, and employment for persons with

disability.

Cordell, K.; Hartmann, L.; Watson, A. [and others]

1987. The background and status of an interagency

research effort: the public area recreation visitors

survey. (PARVS). In: Cordell, B., ed. Proceedings:

Southeastern Recreation Research Conference.

Dattilo, John. 1987. Recreation and leisure literature

for individuals with mental retardation: Implications

for outdoor recreation. Therapeutic Recreation

Journal. 21(1):9-l 7.

Farbman, Andrea; Ellis, Kay. 1986. Outdoor recreation

accessibility for persons with disabilities. Literature

synthesis prepared for the President’s Commission

on Americans Outdoors.

Grossman, H.J., ed. 1983. Classification in mental

retardation. Washington, DC: American Association

on Mental Deficiency.

Hamilton, E.J.; Anderson, S.C. 1983. Effects of leisure

activities on attitudes toward people with disabilities.

Therapeutic Recreation Journal. 17(3):50-57.

Hillman, William. A. 1985. Forum recommendations.

In: Kelley, J.D., ed. International forum: leisure,

sports, cultural arts, and employment for persons

with disability.

Kelley, Jerry D. 1985. Introduction. In: Kelley, J.D.,

ed. International forum: leisure, sports, cultural

arts, and employment for persons with disability.

Kisabeth, K.L.; Richardson, D.B. 1985. Changing

attitudes toward disabled individuals: the effect of

one disabled person. Therapeutic Recreation

Journal 19(2):24-33.

Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. 1986. The ICD

survey of disabled Americans: bringing disabled

Americans into the mainstream. Conducted for

International Center for the Disabled in cooperation

with the National Council on the Handicapped.

New York.

Mercer, T. 1973. The myth of 3 percent prevalence.

In: Eyman, R.K. [and others], eds. Sociobehaviorial

studies in mental retardation. Papers in honor of

Harvey F. Dingman. Los Angeles, CA: American

Association on Mental Deficiency.

National Institute of Mental Health, Division of Biometry

and Epidemiology. 1984. Mental health. In: Czajka,

John L. Digest of data on persons with disabilities.

President’s Committee on Mental Retardation. n.d.

Mental retardation population and residential data.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

Ramey, CT.; Bryant, D.M. 1987. The prevention of

retarded development by systematic preschool

education. Paper presented at the National Conference on State and Territorial Planning for the

Prevention of Mental Retardation and Related

Developmental Disabilities. Washington, DC.

126
Ringle, K 1977. America comes of age. The Indianapolis Star Magazine. November 1333-39.

Sikorski, Susan. E. 1985. Art is the answer. In’: Kelley,

J.D., ed. International forum: leisure, sports, cultural

arts, and employment for persons with disability.

University of Oregon. 1984. 1984 survey of services

to special population by municipal park and

recreation departments in the United States.

(Personal correspondence from Dr. Kathy Halberg.)

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

1984. Statistical abstract of the United States:

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

1980 census of population. Supplementary report.

Selected characteristics of persons with a work

disability by State. Washington, DC. 137 pp.

West, P. 1985. Barriers to participation in park and

recreation areas by the physically and mentally

impaired. In: Kunstler, R., ed. Research update,

Parks and Recreation. 16(4):35-41.

West, P.C. 1982. Organizational stigma in metropolitan

park and recreation agencies. Therapeutic Recreation Journal. 16(4):35-41.

West, P.C. 1984. Social stigma and community

recreation participation by the mentally and

physically handicapped. Therapeutic Recreation

Journal. 18(1):40-49.

Wilkerson, P.F. 1984. Providing integrated play

environments for disabled children: a design or

attitude problem? Journal of Leisurability.

11(3):9-16.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

American Amputee Foundation. 1988. National

Resource Directory. Little Rock, AK: American

Amputee Foundation. 112 pp.

Czajka, John. L. 1984. Digest of data on persons

with disabilities. Mathematics Policy Research,

Inc. For: Congressional Research Service, Library

of Congress. 177 pp.

Human Services Research Institute. 1986. Compilation

of statistical sources on adult disability. Cambridge,

MA: National Institute on U.S. Department of

Education, National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research. 138 pp.

Nesbii, John. A., ed. 1986. The international directory

of recreation oriented assistive device sources.

Marina del Rey, CA: Lifeboat Press. 259 pp.

Nordhaus, R.S.; Kantrowitz, M.; Siembieda, W.J.

1984. Accessible fishing: a planning handbook.

Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Natural Resources

Department, Resource Management and Development Division. 53 pp.

Pachner, Judy.L., n.d. Products to assist the disabled

sportsman, Trabuco Cyn, CA.

U.S. Department of Education. 1986. Directory of

national information sources on handicapping

conditions and related services. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. 366 pp.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

1987. Catalog of publications of the National Center

for Health Statistics 1980-86. Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics. 21 pp.

US. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Office of Policy Development and Research. 1976.

Barrier free site design. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 82 pp.

127
TRENDS IN RECREATION PARTICIPATION ON PUBLIC LANDS

Carter J. Betz and H. Ken Cordelll

Abstract- Trends in visitation to Federal and State

lands are examined and compared to 1977 visitation

data. Although total visitor hours have /eve/led off or

declined on some Federal lands, the number of visits

has increased. This appears to be attributable to

more close-to-home trips of shorter duration. Visitation

to State lands has remained fair/y consistent, with

about 9 of every 70 visitors taking day trips. Characteristics of visitors to Federal and State lands are also

examined using data from the 1985-87 Public Area

Recreation Visitor Survey. Additionally, subsets of

elderly respondents and those who indicated a

willingness to pay user fees were examined. Analyses

included travel distance and time, length of stay, and

activities engaged in. Disaggregate analyses were

performed by agency, length of visit, and region visited.

The typical day trip, regardless of agency or region,

was a 1 to 2 hour drive, less than 100 miles from

home, with a length of stay of 3 to 4 hours. Much

more variation existed in overnight visits. Overall, the

most popular activities were sightseeing, walking and

driving for pleasure, and picnicking. The data support

the findings of the President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors that demand for recreation is

greatest near concentrations of population, especially

central cities.

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps the most enduring conclusion that has

come out of every assessment of outdoor recreation

since the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review

Commission (ORRRC) was formed in 1958 is that

recreation is important to American life. As Clawson

(1986) said, ‘, . . the outdoors is a basic part of

American life today.’ Every indication is that outdoor

recreation will continue to increase in importance as

our society continues to grow and change (Outdoor

Recreation Policy Review Group 1983).

‘Outdoor Recreation Planner, Project Leader, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Athens, GA.

128

The President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors (PCAO), created by executive order in

1985 with a final report published in late 1986, is the

latest attempt to assess and summarize the overall

role of outdoor recreation in the United States. It was

arguably the most comprehensive effort undertaken

since ORRRC, one of its directives being to examine

I

. 9 . the relationship of outdoor recreation to the

broader range of recreation pursuits and its implications for the supply of and demand for outdoor

recreation resources and opportunities’ (President’s

Commission on American Outdoors 1986).

Another nationwide assessment is the outdoor

recreation and wilderness section of the Renewable

Resources Planning Act (RPA), conducted at lo-year

intervals by the USDA-Forest Service. The RPA

Assessment examines current and projected future

demand and supply for outdoor recreation. The

purpose of this paper is to analyze one aspect of

recreation demand, namely, current trends in recreation participation on public lands.

The PCAO (1986) report provides a good definition

of outdoor recreation as an ‘experience, in some

way, of the natural environment: land, water, air,

trees, plants, wildlife and combinations of resources

and landscapes.” The terms “participation,” “use;

and “visitation’ are used interchangeably and refer to

the phenomenon of leisure behavior which occurs in

the out-of-doors. These are not to be confused with

the economic concept of demand, which describes

quantities of recreation consumed at given price

levels.

Public lands are defined as those resources

(both land and water) under the jurisdiction of Federal,

State, county, municipal or special district government

agencies. Adequate data to describe the local

government level-counties, municipalities, and

special districts-are very difficult to come by,

therefore, a description of the local situation is not

attempted in this paper. This is unfortunate because

although Federal lands constitute more than five

times the acreage of State and locally managed

resources (Cordell and Hendee 1982) most experts
agree that the large majority of outdoor recreation

participation occurs at the local level in parks and

recreation areas close to home. Indeed, the PCAO

recommends that the greatest needs for outdoor

recreation are in urban areas (just as ORRRC did in

1962) close to where the majority of Americans live.

This is particularly true for minority social groups:

the elderly, disabled, ethnic minorities, and immigrants, who are most often clustered in central cities

(President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors

1986).

The focus of this paper is to describe and examine

current trends in recreation participation on State

and federally managed lands. Where possible,

comparisons are made to 1977 data, the date of the

previous RPA Assessment. Specific tracking of trends

is not attempted. The diversity of methods and lack

of standardization of nationwide surveys make this a

difficult task at best. Statewide trend analysis may

be possible using individual State Comprehensive

Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORP), however, that is

beyond the scope of this paper. A thorough, up-to-date

examination of the characteristics of recreation users

is useful information for both Federal and State outdoor

recreation planning, policy, and management.

THE PUBLIC AREA RECREATION VISITOR

SURVEY

The Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey (PARVS)

is the largest and most comprehensive nationwide

on-site survey to date, as well as the most current.

Interviewing commenced in the summer of 1985 and

has continued into 1987. Nearly 32,000 interviews

have been completed. The primary objectives of

PARVS are threefold:

1) To provide visitor expenditure data that would

result in estimates of the income, employment, and

industry growth in a region or State resulting from

publicly provided recreation opportunities.

2) To provide willingness-to-pay estimates for

access to public recreation areas by recreational

visitors.

3) To describe the visitors, their activities, yearlong participation patterns, and market areas for

public recreation areas.

This paper focuses primarily on objective number

three, and presents a few analyses related to the

second objective. PARVS was conducted at over

280 sites nationwide, and involved five Federal and

11 State agencies (fig. 1). Two of the Federal agencies

attempted to survey a national cross-section of sites,

while the others were located primarily in the southeast. The State agencies were voluntary participants

in the project, and therefore do not represent a

geographic cross-section of the United States. Figure

1 demonstrates, however, a very even distribution of

interview sites in the conterminous states. A few

sites were selected in Alaska, but none in Hawaii.

Moreover, the distribution of respondents’ origins

provides an even better graphic representation of

the breadth and scope of the survey (fig. 2).

Every attempt was made in training interviewers

to obtain as random a sample as possible. A random

interval was selected for the recreational party as

well as the individual respondent within the party.

This was not always possible due to site logistics

and constraints, availability of respondents, etc.

Consequently, a disproportionate number of overnight

visitors, specifically campers, were interviewed. The

overall sample was weighted to adjust to a more

realistic proportion of day users to overnight users

(for details see U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 1987).

VISITATION TO FEDERAL LANDS

The United States Department of the Interior,

through the annual ‘Federal Recreation Fee Report,”

makes a yearly report to Congress in accordance

with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of

1965. The report contains information on resources,

facilities, fee receipts, visitation, and so forth for both

the seven Federal land-managing agencies and for

the fifty States. Visitation figures are reported in visitor

hours, which is the presence of one person engaging

in a recreational activity for an aggregate of 60 minutes.

In this paper, the data are presented as 12-hour

‘recreation visitor days,” i.e., visitor hours divided by

12 (tables 1 and 2).

The total number of visitor days increased slightly

from 1977 to 1986. The 1977 Bureau of Land

Management data had to be estimated due to an

unrealistic figure for fee use (Cordell and Hendee

1982) therefore the validity of the data is in question.

The increase in total visitor days from 1977 to 1986

was not substantial (2.4 percent), suggesting a leveling

off in hours of visits to Federal recreation sites. The

proportion of fee management units to non-fee

management units stayed about the same, 24 percent

and 76 percent respectively. The fee management

units are an indicator of overnight visits, as a majority

of these are user fees for camping. Many of the

National Park Service fees, however, are entrance

129

Table 1 .--Recreation visitor days at Federal recreation areas in the United

States, by managing agency and fee status, 1977

Agency

Total

Fee

management units

Non-fee

management units

Days Days Days

(1000s) Percent (1000s) Percent (1000s) Percent

Bureau of 27,349 5.1 7,039 1.3 20,310 3.8

Land Mgmt.

Bureau of 33.607 6.3 146 0.0 33.461 6.3

Reclamation

corps of 162,751 30.5 11,238 2.1 151.513 28.4

Engineers

Fish and Wild- 6,010 1.1 1,123 .2 4,887 .9

life Service

USDA Forest 204,797 38.4 25,646 4.8 179.151 33.6

Service

National Park 92,029 7.2 79.596 14.9 12,433 2.3

Service

Tennessee 6,980 1.3 542 .l 6,438 1.2

Valley Auth.

Total 533.523 100.0 125.330 23.5 408,193 76.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Recreation Fee Report, 1977.

Table 2 .--Recreation visitor days at Federal recreation areas in the United

States, by managing agency and fee status, 1986

Agency

Total

Fee

management units

Non-fee

management units

Days Days Days

(1000s) Percent (1000s) Percent (1000s) Percent

Bureau of

Land Mgmt.

Bureau of

Reclamation

Corps of

Engineers

Fish and Wildlife Service

USDA Forest

Service

National Park

Service

Tennessee

Valley Auth.

23.679 4.3 672 .l 23,007 4.2

24,706 4.5 715 .l 23.991 4.4

144,170 26.4 11,760 2.2 132,410 24.2

5,590 1.0 837 .2 4,722 .8

226,533 41.5 23,923 4.4 202,610 37.1

115,335 21.1 91,918 16.8 23,417 4.3

6,458 1.2 599 .l 5,859 1.1

Total 546,440 100.0 130,424 23.9 416,016 76.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Recreation Fee Report, 1986.

131
fees only and may not indicate overnight stays.

Removing the National Park Service fee units, the

remaining agency fee usage dropped 17.4 percent.

Visitor hours, however, do not provide a complete

picture. While hours of use have remained stable or

declined slightly, the number of visits to these same

Federal sites appear to have been on the increase.

An examination of visitation records of the Forest

Service (FS), National Park Service (NPS), US. Army

Corps of Engineers (COE), and Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) have, in fact, indicated an increase

in numbers of annual visits to sites of three of the

four agencies (fig. 3). The Forest Service does not

keep records on visits, so these were estimated by

dividing visitor hours by mean length of stay (derived

from 1977 Federal Estate Visitor Survey and 198587

PARVS and interpolated for 1980 and 1983).

The visitation growth indices depicted in figure 3

demonstrate that the flattening and down turn of

amounts of FS and COE visitor hours between

1977 and 1986 (shown in fig. 4) does not hold true

for visits. Average growth of visits to FS sites between

1977 and 1986 was about 4 percent per year; to

COE projects it was about two percent per year.

Visits to and visitor hours at NPS sites increased

between 1977 and 1986, mostly it would appear,

because of rapid increases of visitation to NPS sites

in or near urban areas. Visits to BLM sites were down

in 1986 from 1983, but the decline was slight, only 4

percent over 3 years.

The probable causes of increased visits, relative

to visitor hours, is the decreased length of visit at

the sites. An examination of FS and NPS recreation

sites from the 1977 Federal Estate Visitor Survey

(U.S. Department of the Interior 1979) and the 1985-87

PARVS was conducted. Table 3 reports that frequency

of visits of less than 4 hours duration increased

dramatically for the FS - 14 percent in 1977 to 48

percent in 1986-and increased from 41 percent to

59 percent for the NPS. Even more dramatic, however,

was the reduction in percentage of visits of more

than one day’s duration between 1977 and 1986;

from 70 percent to 21 percent for the FS and from

40 to 14 percent for the NPS. Also associated with

increased annual number of visits is a substantial

increase in number of repeat visits to both National

Forests and National Parks (table 3).

Further, the distribution of one-way travel times

changed considerably (table 3). Trips of less than 2

hours increased 67 percent for the Forest Service

and 77 percent for the National Park Service. Lengthy

Grow th Index (base year - 100)

140

1977 1980 1983 1986

- FS + NPS - COE - BLM

Source: Communication with resource

speclallsts at each agency--l 987.

Figure 3. -Index of relative growth in number of visits

to Federal recreation areas.

Mllotm of vlsltor day8

2501- 7

4

3(

150 -

loo -

-___+/---/

/+------

1977 1980 1983 1986

- FS - NPS + COE -BLM

Source: Federal Recreation Fee Reports,

(USDI, 1977-l 986). Statistics on Outdoor

Recreation (RFF, 1984).

Figure 4. -Visitation to Federal lands

by agency, 1977-86.

132
Table 3. --Comparison of reported length of stay, repeat visits, and

one-way travel time for two Federal agencies, 19 77-86

USDA-FS NPS

Item

Length of Stay:

O-2 hours

2-4 hours

4 hours to 1 day

more than 1 day

Repeat Visits:

0

;I;

more than 5

Travel Time (hours):

3-f

> 8

ii 26 22 28 13 29 30

16 31 26

70 21 ;z 14

40 23 63 34

24 28 16 29

14 8 12

22 13 25

43 x 31 55

19 13 21

16 8 15

23 6 i: 9

SOURCE: 19 77 Federal Estate Visitor Survey; 19 85-87 Public Area

Recreation Visitor Survey.

trips of greater than 8 hours dropped very sharply:

288 percent for the FS (from 23 percent of all trips to

6 percent) and 455 percent for NPS (from 41 percent

of all trips to 9 percent).

Because of different survey methods, these

comparisons between the 1977 Federal Estate Visitor

Survey and the 1985-87 PAWS may not be totally

accurate. Nonetheless, the impact of close-to-home,

shorter recreation trips is evident. The Forest Service

and National Park Service cases presented cannot

be generalized to the American public at large;

however, they do support the PCAO’s significant

finding that more recreation is occurring closer to

people’s homes and for shorter periods of time.

133
CHARACTERISTICS

FEDERAL LANDS

Figure 5. - RPA assessment regions.

OF VISITORS TO

The next two sections describe the people who

use public lands for their outdoor recreation. The

purpose of this section is to describe the characteristics of visitors to Federal recreation areas. The source

for this information is the 1985-87 PARVS data base.

A grand total of 31,995 interviews have been completed through the summer of 1987. The data set was

disaggregated in the following manner:

1) By agency, defined as either Federal or State.

2) By type of visit, defined as either a day visit

or an overnight visit. Day visits are those where the

visitor(s) arrived and departed on the same calender

day. Overnight visitors were those who arrived and

departed on two different calendar days.

3) By region of the country where the visit

occurred, Four regions were identified for the RPA

Assessment: North, South, Rocky Mountains/Great

Plains (RM/GP), and Pacific Coast (PC) (fig. 5).

The intent of the descriptive characteristics was

to examine four of the most basic components of

recreation trips:

1) How far (miles) did people travel to the

recreation site?

134

2) How many hours of travel time were involved?

3) How long did the typical party stay at the

site?

4) In which activities did they most often engage?

To obtain more accurate and realistic descriptive

statistics, it was necessary to separate day visits

from overnight visits. A 2-week camping trip, for

example, would badly skew the responses of the

more typical 1 to 2-hour day visitor. The day and

overnight responses still tended toward the higher

values, therefore medians may be a better indicator

of the true situation than means (though both are

reported).

Table 4 reports the mean and median one-way

travel distances to Federal recreation sites. Here the

median distances reflect the fact that the average

day and overnight recreation trips were probably

much closer to have than the mean distances indicate.

The regional differences in medians for day visits are

not nearly as pronounced as the means. The North

and South regions have the same median distance,

while the Pacific Coast and RM/GP regions are only

five miles apart. Although the median distance in the

two western regions is twice that of the two eastern

regions, regardless of the region the typical recreation

day trip appears to be within an hour’s drive. The

regional means for day visits show more variation as

expected, especially in the western regions.
Table 4. --One-way travel miles to Federal recreation areas'

Day visitors Overnight visitors

Region Mean Median Mean Median

North 65 20 238 180

South 54 234 110

RM/GP 114 :; 373 150

PC 153 40 228 87

Total 74 25 255 130

SOURCE: 1985-87 PARVS.

'ANOVA. p < .OOl.

The mean distance for overnight visits to the

Pacific Coast, North, and South regions was nearly

the same, while the RM/GP region was more than 50

percent higher. Interestingly, though, the median

overnight distance was shortest in the Pacific Coast,

followed by the South, RM/GP and North. This

indicates that more visitors travel consistently longer

distances in the North to stay overnight, perhaps

due to the heavy urbanization and the fact that most

urban Federal sites in the North region do not

accommodate overnight visitors.

The same pattern seems to hold for one-way

travel time (table 5). The mean for overnight trips is

greatest in the RM/GP, but the longest median trip

time is shared by RM/GP and the North. The Pacific

Coast region again appears to have attracted the

closest overnight visitors.

The median travel time for day visits was 1 hour

across all regions, just as the mileage data suggested.

It appears, then, that the typical day trip to a Federal

recreation area was about an hour’s drive and less

1

Table 5. --One-way travel time to Federal recreation areas'

Day visitors Overnight visitors

Region Mean Median Mean Median

______-____ _ Hours - - - - _ - - - - - - - -

North 2.0 1.0 4.0

South 1.8 1.0

RM/GP 2.4 1.0 2::

PC 2.5 1.0 2.0

Total

SOURCE: 1985-87 PARVS.

'ANOVA, p < .OOl.

135
than 50 miles from home. The mean day visit travel

time is higher for the western regions just as travel

miles were. This indicates that more people traveled

longer amounts of time to visit western areas, perhaps

due to the relative distance and attractiveness of

mountain sites.

Length of stay at the recreation site is the third

descriptive characteristic (table 6). Here, regional

differences appeared to be very slight. Median day

visits were about 3 hours for each region, with mean

stay times ranging from 3.4 to 4.1 hours. Overnight

lengths of stay were about 12 hours longer in the

eastern regions than in the west (both mean and

median). One explanation may be that there is a

much wider array of Federal sites to choose from in

the west, so people are more inclined to leave an

area and move on to another one.

Finally, the most popular activities, based on

participation at the site, provide an indication of the

types of outdoor recreation occurring at Federal

recreation areas, by both day and overnight users.

Tables 7 and 8 list the 10 most popular activities for

day and overnight visitors, respectively, to the four

regions. As a point of comparison, the 10 most popular

activities (and percent of the sample activities

participating on-site) for the entire sample were:

1) Sightseeing 45.1

2) Walking for pleasure 33.7

3) Picnicking 30.1

4) Driving for pleasure 26.0

Table 6. --Length of stay at Federal

5) Non-pool outdoor swimming

6) Wildlife observation and

photography

7) Visiting a museum or

information center

8) Photography

9) Day hiking

10) Developed camping

24.1

17.8

17.7

17.1

16.1

15.7

The data from all four regions shows conclusively

that sightseeing is the most popular activity of day

visitors, and in three of the four regions for overnight

visitors. The only exception is the South, where

developed camping edged out sightseeing by one

percent. For day visitors, the passive activities of

walking and driving for pleasure, photography, wildlife

observation and photography, visiting a museum,

and picnicking made the top ten in every region.

Visitors across the country seem to be attracted by

the scenic beauty of Federal recreation areas, and

then mainly for short, spontaneous visits that do not

require much advance planning (save perhaps

picnicking).

For overnight visitors, developed camping made

the top three of every region but the North, where

this activity is not nearly as readily available as in the

other three regions. Surprisingly, however, primitive

camping finished sixth in the North region and failed

to place elsewhere. Apparently, this is a very popular

activity at the non-urban Federal areas in the North

region. Otherwise, the same types of activities

dominated the lists. The two western regions did

recreation areas 1

Day visitors Overnight visitors

Region Mean Median Mean Median

North

South

RM/GP

PC

______-_-- _ Hours _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

;::

9 6 . 6

91.1 Fx

82. 6 50:o

77. 0 50. 0

Total 3 . 6 3 . 0 87. 7 58. 0

SOURCE: 19 85-87 PARVS.

'ANOVA, p < .OOl.

136
Table 7.--Percentage participation of on site activities for the ten most

popular activities at Federal recreation areas for day visitors, by region

Activity Percent Activity Percent

North:

Sightseeing

Walking for pleasure

Visiting a museum

Visiting historic sites

Picnicking

Outdoor swimming

Driving for pleasure

Wildlife observation

Photography

Reading roadside markers

RM/GP:

Sightseeing

Driving for pleasure

Photography

Walking for pleasure

Day hiking

Visiting a museum

Wildlife observation

Picnicking

Visiting historic sites

Self-guided trails

28

27

26

25

25

20

20

16

30

28

26

22

21

21

17

16

South:

Sightseeing

Driving for pleasure

Picnicking

Walking for pleasure

Outdoor swimming

Warmwater fishing

Visiting a museum

Visit historic sites

Wildlife observation

Photography

Pacific Coast:

Sightseeing

Walking for pleasure

Driving for pleasure

Photography

Day hiking

Visiting a museum

Wildlife observation

Picnicking

Self-guided trails

Reading roadside markers

46

32

26

24

22

17

16

14

13

12

;z25

24

21

21

15

13

Source: 1985-87 PARVS.

Table 8.--Percentage participation of on site activities for the ten most

popular activities at Federal recreation areas for overnight visitors, by

region

Activity Percent Activity Percent

North:

Sightseeing

Walking for pleasure

Wildlife observation

Visiting a museum

Outdoor swimming

Primitive camping

Driving for pleasure

Photography

Day hiking

Picnicking

RM/GP:

Sightseeing

Developed camping

Walking for pleasure

Day hiking

Wildlife observation

Photography

Driving for pleasure

Picnicking

Cold freshwater fishing

Visiting a museum

South:

Developed camping

Sightseeing

Walking for pleasure

Outdoor swimming

Wildlife observation

Driving for pleasure

Picnicking

Visiting a museum

Dining for pleasure

Photography

54

::

$

32

29

27

26

Pacific Coast:

Sightseeing

Walking for pleasure

Developed camping

Day hiking

Wildlife observation

Photography

Driving for pleasure

Picnicking

Collecting firewood

Coldwater fishing

;;

31

29

24

22

21

21

SOURCE : 1985-87 PARVS.

137
Table 9. --One-way travel miles to State recreation areas1

Day visitors Overnight visitors

Region Mean Median Mean Median

North 49 30 108 70

South z: 25 240 120

RM/GP 35 130 75

Total 51 30 164 85

SOURCE: 1985-87 PARVS.

'ANOVA, p < .OOl.

add cold freshwater fishing, and day hiking turned

up in all but the South region. The most substantive

finding of both day and overnight visits is the sweeping

popularity of sightseeing. It is highly probable that

this is because it is a family-centered activity, requires

little advance preparation, and is an activity that

lasts relatively short periods of time. This is consistent

with the finding of increased numbers of shorter,

more frequent trips.

CHARACTERISTICS OF VISITORS TO

STATE LANDS

Information about visitation to State parks and

recreation agencies is collected annually by the

National Association of State Park Directors’ ‘Annual

Information Exchange.’ These data make up the

other major portion of the ‘Federal Recreation Fee

Report.” The State information exchange commenced

in 1979, but only 39 States reported visitation. For

1979, 91.7 percent of State park users were day

visitors, compared to 8.3 percent overnight visitors.

In 1980, with 44 States reporting, day visitation

constituted 87.3 percent of State park recreation

participation. With 50 States reporting in 1986, the

proportions were 90.3 percent day use and 9.7 percent

overnight use. It appears that State park and recreation

participation has held relatively constant, with about

9 of every 10 visitors making a day visit.

Visitor characteristics for State park users were

also disaggregated by length of visit and region of

the country visited. There were no State agency

PARVS interviews conducted in the Pacific Coast

region, The median one-way travel distance for day

138

visitors was very close for the three regions, ranging

from 25 to 35 miles (table 9). Mean distance for the

two eastern regions was nearly identical, while in the

RM/GP region the mean distance was considerably

longer. Again, lengthy trips produced a much higher

mean distance.

Interestingly, overnight trips in the RM/GP and

North regions were very similar. The South region,

however, showed trips to be almost twice the distance

of the other regions. The best explanation may be

that inland residents were attracted to the coastal

sites in the South. The North region interviewing

areas included very few beach environments,

Reported one-way travel time supports the

mileage data. Similar to Federal areas, the median

day visit was a 1 -hour trip (table 10). Mean travel

times were very similar in the RM/GP and South, and

slightly lower in the North. Overnight visit travel times

also closely reflected miles traveled. Medians were 2

hours in the RM/GP and North and 3 hours in the

South. Mean travel time was considerably longer in

the South region, more than twice that of the North

and 50 percent greater than RM/GP.

Length of stay at the recreational site for the

three regions did not demonstrate as many differences

as distance and travel time (table 11). The median

overnight length of stay was longest in the South, as

would be expected for longer trips. The mean

overnight stay time, however, showed the RM/GP to

be longer than the two eastern regions. A higher

percentage of visits lasting one week or more appears

to have pulled the RM/GP mean up, while the South

had more trips in the two day to one week range of
Table 10. --One-way travel time to State recreation areas1

Day visitors Overnight visitors

Region Mean Median Mean Median

_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ Hours _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

North 1.8 1.0

2.4

2.9 2.0

South 1.0

RM/GP

3.0

2.2 1.0 2.0

Total 2.0 1.0 4.2 2.0

SOURCE: 1985-87 PARVS.

'ANOVA, p < .OOl.

Table ll.-- Length of stay at State recreation areas'

Day visitors Overnight visitors

Region Mean Median Mean Median

- _ - - - - - - - _ _ Hours _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

North 4.3

South

RM/GP 43:;

Total 4.1

SOURCE: 1985-87 PARVS.

'ANOVA, p < .OOl.

4.0 73.5 48.8

;::

89.6 61.8

102.0 55.0

3.5 82.3 51.0

139
duration. Day trips seem to be almost normally

distributed around the three to 4-hour range, with

visits in the North region being slightly longer. Almost

identical to Federal area visits, the typical State park

day visit appeared to be a drive of an hour or two of

less than 100 miles, with the party staying 3 or 4

hours at the site.

The most popular activities engaged in at State

recreation areas also looks similar to Federal areas.

Active sports such as swimming and fishing, however,

appeared to be more popular at State areas (table

12). Sightseeing was popular for day visits, but not

to the degree it was at Federal areas. It trailed

picnicking and walking for pleasure in the RM/GP

region, and outdoor swimming and picnicking in the

North, but was the most popular day activity in the

South. Interpretive activities such as visiting museums

and historic areas also proved to be popular. A few

popufar State activities that did not appear on the

Federal lists were motorboating, canoeing, pool

swimming, and family gatherings. Picnicking, and

walking and driving for pleasure maintained their

popularity.

Developed camping was the most popular activity

of overnight visitors to all three regions. This suggests

that more campers choose State areas as an overnight

destination than Federal areas. This is likely due to

the greater availability of State areas, however, it is

possible that PARVS interviewed a disproportionate

number of campers versus visitors who used other

accommodations, e.g., cabins, lodges. Again, for

State park overnight visitors the activities of sightseeing, picnicking, walking and driving for pleasure,

and swimming proved to be very popular. Across all

regions, agencies and lengths of visits, these activities

were consistently among the most popular. This

would seem to indicate that very many recreation

trips are basically spontaneous in nature, do not

require much advance planning, and generally fit

into a generic category that might be called ‘enjoying

nature or the outdoors.’

In summary, the simple enjoyment of the outdoor

environment seems to be the pervasive motivation

for visits to both Federal and State recreation areas.

For day visits, the reported travel time was very nearly

the same to both Federal and State areas. The median

distance traveled was slightly higher to State areas,

but mean travel distance was longer to Federal areas.

The higher mean indicates that the majorii of Federal

sites are not as accessible as State sites. It also

indicates that visitors to Federal areas are willing to

travel greater distances. The lower median is probably

due to the urban Federal areas located primarily in

the North region. As mentioned, the most likely length

of stay for a day visit to a recreation area was about

3 or 4 hours, regardless of agency.

Overnight visits to Federal and State areas showed

more differences than day visits. Reported travel

time was about 50 percent longer to Federal areas

(medians: 3 hours Federal, 2 hours State). Miles

traveled was also considerably longer for Federal

areas (medians: 130 miles Federal, 85 miles State).

Length of stay for overnight visits, however, was not

appreciably different between Federal and State

areas. Median stay time was a little over 2 days for

both Federal and State areas, while the means were

both about 3% days. It is very likely that vacationers

and retirees skewed this distribution. The typical

length of stay for overnight visits to both Federal and

State recreation sites is probably not as long as the

PAWS data indicate.

USERFEESANDTHEELDERLY

The final section of this paper examines two of

the most prominent issues facing recreation resource

management today: user fees and the increasing

elderly population. Subsets of the PARVS data set

provide an examination of visitor characteristics related

to these two important topics. The PARVS data set

was weighted to represent the U.S. population over

12 years of age who indicated they were participants

in any form of outdoor recreation. The subset of

elderly respondents should therefore, be a fairly

accurate profile of the typical elderly outdoor recreationist.

The subset of respondents who reported they

would be willing to pay a user fee, however, may be

biased by non-response. The portion of the PARVS

instrument containing that information was a questionnaire that was returned via mail. Just a little over 20

percent of the total PARVS sample returned the

mail-back questionnaire. Nevertheless, the comparison of persons willing to pay a user fee versus the

entire sample is of considerable interest.

User Fees-The issue of user fees for publicly

provided recreation areas, particularly at the Federal

level, has received considerable attention recently

(Binkley and Mendelsohn 1987; Driver and others

1985; Harris and Driver 1987; Siehl 1985). The PCAO

(1986) Report suggests that “, . . local, State, and

Federal recreation and resources management

agencies charge visitors fees to supplement regular

appropriations.”

140
Table 12. --Ten most popular activities at1State recreation areas

for day and overnight visitors, by region

Activity Percent Activity Percent

Day Visitors:

North:

Outdoor swimming

Picnicking

Sightseeing

Walking

Canoeing

Driving

Warmwater fishing

Wildlife observation

Day hiking

Historic sites

South:

Sightseeing

Picnicking

Walking

Swimming

Driving

Museum

Family

Historic sites

Swimming

Day hiking

RM/GP:

Picnicking

Walking

Sightseeing

Wildlife

Museum

Trail use

Swimming

Driving

Warm fish

Motorboat

24

16

14

12

10

9

21

7

43

42

37

24

22

16

14

13

12

11

36

$

30

24

23

19

19

18

16

Overnight Visitors

North:

Developed camping

Walking

Outdoor swimmming

Sightseeing

Picnicking

Day hiking

Warmwater fishing

Wildlife observation

Driving

Canoeing

South:

Camping

Walking

Sightseeing

Picnicking

Swimming

Dining

Driving

Pool swimming

Day hiking

Wildlife

RM/GP:

Camping

Walking

Picnicking

Warm fishing

Sightseeing

Swimming

Motorboating

Driving

Family

Wildlife

63

40

;i

33

23

22

22

20

19

60

z:

;i

27

27

23

21

20

69

45:

44

39

;3’

32

22

22

1

No data available for Pacific Coast.

141
A wide variety of support exists both for and

against the recreation user fees. It is beyond the

scope of this paper to enumerate these. Our purpose

is to compare the characteristics of PARVS intervie- .

wees who indicated support for user fees with the

overall sample. The analyses are presented by agency

and length of visit, but not by region of the country

visited.

PARVS interviewees were asked to respond to

the previously mentioned questionnaire which dealt

primarily with trip expenditures. Included were two

questions which asked, a) What is the maximum

amount you would have been willing to pay for this

year’s vehicle pass to (the particular location they

visited), and b) the same question, but for access to

any of the agency’s recreation sites. A response of

greater than zero dollars to either question indicated

at least implied support for recreation user fees. It

was this group on which the descriptive analyses

were performed.

Table 13 shows responses to the question ‘If

this year’s price of an annual pass to (the location

visited) had been $_, would you have bought one?”

Respondents were not given a choice of price; every

seventh form had one of the prices listed in table 13.

Overall, more than half of the sample would have

been willing to pay $5, but not $10. A majorii of

both day and overnight visitors to both Federal and

State areas would have been willing to pay $5. Only

Federal overnight visitors were willing to pay $10,

but this group balked at $15.

Table 14 reports the mean and median maximum

amount that people would pay for an annual pass to

1) an individual site, and 2) all agency sites. For an

individual site pass, both Federal and State day and

overnight visitors were nearly the same-all had

medians of $5. For all site passes, the median went

up to $10 for both day and overnight Federal visitors

and for overnight State visitors. Day use State visitors

were willing to pay a median maximum of $15. The

fact that this group most likely comprises the highest

number of repeat visitors attributes to the higher

maximum value. It makes good economic sense that

the resources that are used most often would demand

the highest annual fees. However, this group (State

day users) is also the one for which user fees would

be most discriminatory because these sites are more

accessible to indigent participants.

Reported annual income of those persons in

support of user fees gives an indication of the

socio-economic groups that may be adversely affected

by the imposition of user fees. Those people who

said they would be willing to pay a fee were considerably wealthier than the sample as a whole (fig. 6). The

distribution of fee supporters was smaller than the

total sample in the two poorest income categories

Table 13. --Percentage of PARVS respondents willing to purchase an annual

pass to recreation sites where interview occurred, by agency and length

of visit

Day visits Overnight visits

Federal State Federal State Total

Fee Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

$ 15 83 t: 86 tz 81 1g 80 20 83

?z ti

72

2;

66 34 62 ;i

10 58 2; z; 46 54 47

15 35 65 35 55 41 5g

:z

2;

2550 1613 874 2611 7489 2715 E 3o11 7o8g 12 zig

100 5 9 5 4 9 6 7 9 3 3 9 7 4 9 6

SOURCE: 19 85-87 PARVS.

142
Table 14. --Maximum annual fee respondents would be willing to pay for

access to recreation areas

Day visitors Overnight visitors

Acce ss Federal State Federal State Total

One Site

Mean

(Median)

$13.81 $11.17 $13.54 $10.43 $11 .g6

(rs 5.00) ($ 5.00) (rs 5.00) ($ 5.00) ($ 5.00)

All Sites $19 .83

($10.00)

SOURCE: 19 85-87 PAR%.

$14.37 $21.17 $17.73 $19 .69

($15.00) ($10.00) ($10.00) ($10.00)

<$ 10,000

$1 o,ooo-19,999

$20,000-29,999

$30,000-39,999

$40,000-49,999

$50,000 +

1

0 5 10 15

Percent

20 25 30

Total Sample m Willing to pay fee

Source: 198587 Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey; n = 31,995.

Figure 6. -Percent of recreationists willing to pay an annual access fee, by annual family income.

143
Table 15. --Characteristics of PARVS respondents who indicated

willingness to pay an annual user's fee

Day Visitors Overnight visitors

Characteristic Federal State Federal State

Mean

(Median)

Travel

Distance

(miles)

153 87 279 204

(30) (35) (170) (100)

Travel

Time

(hours)

(Z) (Z)

6.7

(4.0) (Z)

Length

of Stay

(hours)

3.8 79.0 77.7

(3.6) (43::) (80.0) (70.0)

SOURCE: 1985-87 PARVS.

and larger in the four income categories over $20,000.

This does not necessarily infer that opposition to

user fees is inversely related to wealth, however, it

does demonstrate that individuals who say they

would support user fees are wealthier than the average

user.

The three characteristics reported earlier - miles

and hours traveled, and duration of visit-are reported

for fee supporters in table 15. Federal day visitors

traveled slightly more median miles, but more than

twice as many mean miles as the total sample. Their

median travel time was 1 hour, as was the total

sample’s, but the mean hours traveled were more

than double (4.4 to 2.0). Length of stay was not

substantially different. All means and medians were

between 3 and 4 hours.

Federal overnight visitors who supported fees

traveled farther than the overall sample, spent more

time traveling, and stayed longer at the site. State

day visitors who supported fees also drove farther

and slightly longer periods of time, but stayed the

same amount of time as the total sample. State

overnight visitors who supported fees drove farther

and slightly longer, and also stayed longer at the

site.

The point of these analyses is that persons who

indicated they were in favor of user fees generally

traveled longer and farther, and stayed longer than

the sample as a whole. Whether this is because

these individuals had more leisure time, more

discretionary income, different preferences, or whatever, the reason is unknown. The data support the

argument against user fees at those recreation areas

most accessible to low income groups, the impaired

or disabled, and other social groups who do not

have the means for longer, more expensive trips.

Such groups frequently live in the central cities of

urban areas.

It is perfectly reasonable that the length of a

recreation trip is a major determinant of willingness

to pay a fee since as the trip length increases, the

proportion of total costs a fee represents decreases.

Thus, the characteristics of recreation trips are

important information to the ongoing user fee debate.

Our Aging Population-The aging of the U.S.

population is another important issue facing recreation

resource planning and management. In 1982, the

elderly (age 65 and over) made up 11.6 percent of

the population. Middle-level projections call for this

figure to increase 12 percent to 13.1 of the population

144
in the year 2000 (U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census 1988). Middle-level projections

for the year 2050 show an astounding 88 percent

increase to 21.8 percent of the U.S. population.

Wattenberg (1987) suggests that a “birth dearth’ will

continue indefinitely in the United States, gradually

aging the population and bringing with it profound

changes in our economic and social structure.

The aging issue is easily an issue in itself, and is

covered only briefly in this paper. Some questions of

interest to recreation policy-makers concern the

future trends and characteristics of older persons’

leisure behavior. What activities will future generations

of the elderly participate in and how will the characteristics of their recreation trips change? An examination

of the three major trip characteristics-miles and

hours traveled, duration of visit, and most popular

activities was performed on a subset of PARVS

respondents aged 65 years and over.

Agency and visit breakdowns for elderly respondents are reported in table 16. The characteristics of

older respondents on day trips to both Federal and

State areas did not differ significantly from the total

PARVS sample. On overnight trips, however, there

were substantive differences. Miles traveled were

greater, travel time was about 25 percent greater,

and length of stay at the site showed the biggest

difference-about a full day longer (median). State

overnight visits were only slightly farther and longer,

but median length of stay was also about a day

longer than the total PARVS sample. The most popular

activities of the elderly did not differ much, but showed

an even greater tendency towards passive enjoyment

of the outdoors. The increased leisure time of older

persons, as evidenced by the longer lengths of stay,

is probably the most important implication facing

resource planners and managers.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this paper was to examine trends

and changes in recreational visitation to public lands.

Public lands were defined as those resources under

Table 16. --Characteristics of recreation trips by PARVS

respondents age 65 and older

Day visitors Overnight visitors

Characteristic Federal State Federal State

Travel

Distance

(miles)

Mean

(Median)

110 320 201

(25) (150) (90)

Travel

Time

(hours)

(2, (Z,

7.8

(4.0) (2:)

Length

of Stay

(hours)

(;:56,

3.4 95.9 91.3

(3.4) (87.7) (82.3)

Activity

Ranking:

1.

2.

3.

sightseeing sightseeing sightseeing camping

driving walking camping walking

walking picnicking walking sightseeing

Source: 1985-87 PARVS.

145
the jurisdiction of Federal, State, or local governments.

Visitation data did not exist to analyze the local

situation. Visitation data and user characteristics

were examined for Federal and State recreation

areas. A distinction was made between “visitor

hours/days* to Federal areas, and ‘visits.’ Where

visitor hours showed a flattening or leveling-off since

1977, visits (the entry of an individual onto a public

land for purposes of recreation) were on a steady

increase.

Visitor characteristics showed that day trips to

recreation areas were generally short in duration and

located close to home, regardless of the governing

agency or region of the country visited. This supports

the PCAO’s major finding that demand for recreation

is greatest close to population centers and will

probably continue to increase. Overnight visits showed

considerably more variation than day visits, both by

agency and region of the country visited. The duration

of visits at Federal and State sites did not differ nearly

as much as the time and distance people traveled.

Sightseeing, walking and driving for pleasure,

and picnicking dominated the lists of most popular

activities by agency, length of visit and region visited.

Developed camping, however, was the most participated in activity for State area overnight visitors. The

popularity of these activities and others attests to the

fact that a majority of recreation trips seem to be

spontaneous in nature and do not require much

advance planning. The popularity of sightseeing and

driving for pleasure points out the importance of the

automobile to outdoor recreation.

Finally, two important current topics to outdoor

recreation management were addressed: user fees

and the increasing elderly population. Analyses of

PARVS subsets indicated some substantive differences between the characteristics of the total PARVS

sample and 1) elderly recreationists and 2) those

who would support an annual user fee. A thorough

examination of visitation trends and the characteristics

of visitors to recreation areas on public lands is

essential information for effective outdoor recreation

planning and management.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance

of Dean Klein and Helen R. Freilich.

REFERENCES

Binkley, C.S.; Mendelsohn, R.O. 1987. Recreation

user fees: an economic analysis. Journal of

Forestry. 85(5):31-35.

Clawson, M. 1986. The future of American outdoors:

values, resources, people. In: Working papers, the

president’s commission on American outdoors.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Cordell, H.K.; Hendee, J.C. 1982. Renewable resources recreation in the United States: supply,

demand, and critical policy issues. Washington,

DC: American Forestry Association.

Driver, B.L.; Bossi, J.E.; Cordell, H.K. 1985. Trends in

user fees at federal outdoor recreation areas. pp.

222-242. In: Proceedings, 1985 national outdoor

recreation trends symposium. Clemson, SC:

Clemson University.

Harris, C.C.; Driver, B.L. 1987. Recreation user fees:

pros and cons. Journal of Forestry. 85(5):25-29.

Outdoor Recreation Policy Review Group (H.L.

Diamond, Chair). 1983. Outdoor recreation for

America. Washington, DC: Resources for the

Future.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

1986. Report and recommendations to the President of the United States. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office.

Siehl, G.H. 1985. Trends in federal outdoor recreation

policy. pp. 280-287. In: Proceedings, 1985 national

outdoor recreation trends symposium. Clemson,

SC: Clemson University.

US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1987.

RPA assessment of outdoor recreation and

wilderness, (forthcoming).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

1983. Current population estimates and projections.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1977 and 1986. Federal

recreation fee report. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979. The 3d

Nationwide outdoor recreation plan, appendix 2.

Survey Tech. Rep. 5. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

Wattenberg, B.J. 1987. The birth dearth: dangers

ahead? U.S. News and World Report. June 22.

146
TRENDS AND CURRENT STATUS OF

PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION

Lawrence A. Hartmann, Helen Roland Freilich, and H. Ken CordelI

Abstract- This paper takes a global approach to

participation in outdoor recreation in the United States.

First, a review and comparison of several past major

national surveys provides some information on overall

long-term trends in outdoor recreation participation,

despite comparability problems. Second, a previously

unpublished analysis of the multiagency 1985-87

Public Area Recreation Visitor Study provides current

information on the recreation participation patterns of

current users of Federal and State resource-based

recreation areas. Finally, implications are provided

based on the material presented.

INTRODUCTION

Since the Outdoor Recreation‘Resources Review

Commission (ORRRC) in the early 1960’s, Federal

agencies and other organizations have examined

national-level participation in outdoor recreation

activities. The Resources Planning Act (RPA) Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness requires

such an examination. The material presented in this

article was initially prepared for the RPA Assessment,

and is provided here to permit wider distribution of

the results as well as allow peer review and comment

as to the conclusions reached.

Most users of public recreation areas could be

said to hold a generic image of parks. They are not

aware of, nor are they particularly interested in the

variety of legal mandates, or the resulting complexity

of administrative and organizational arrangements

for providing recreation opportunities in public parks.

Thus, the political and bureaucratic aspects of

management are not likely to make a strong or lasting

‘Outdoor Recreation Planner, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens,

GA; Data Collection Supervisor, Institute for Behavioral Research,

University of Georgia, Athens, GA; Project Leader, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Athens, GA.

impression on the leisure, social world of most park

visitors (Haywood 1986). This paper, therefore,

examines resource-based outdoor recreation without

regard to the administrative area on which that

recreation occurs, although recreation participation

on Federal and State lands is the primary focus of

this paper.

In this paper, we will briefly examine the trends

in outdoor recreation participation in the past 25

years, focusing on an activity-by-activity comparison

for the most popular resource-based outdoor recreation activities in the United States. Following that

review, a more detailed examination of the current

status of annual participation in outdoor recreation is

offered, using the Public Area Recreation Visitor

Study (PARVS) as our source of data. (This data set

covers only Federal and State recreation areas, and

it should be remembered that local and private lands

support a very large amount of recreation participation,

which is not discussed in this paper.) Finally, some

interpretation of these results will be presented

including opportunities for public recreation providers,

barriers and constraints to implementing these

opportunities, some suggestions for improving the

information base, and some questions for discussion.

LONG-TERM TRENDS IN LEISURE

Leisure, or free time, is a basic resource for

participation in outdoor recreation. It is commonly

assumed that American’s participation in recreation

has increased because of increased free time that

people now have available. However, there are few

definitive long-term statistics on how much free time

the public actually does have available, and there

are indications that there has been a recent decline

in leisure.

Robinson (1986) presented a review of several

time-diary studies for the President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors. He found that total free time

has increased between 1965 and 1981, after a drop

in free time between the 1954 and 1965 time-diary

147
studies. The main gap in free time occurred between

1965 and 1974. Robinson’s (1986) data are for

‘regular’ workweeks and he suggests that there are

indications that these proportions may not hold during

some periods of the year, such as vacations. It appears

that to the extent that there has been a “recreation

boom,’ it has occurred during such concentrated

“blocks” of free time and much less so during regular

workweeks during the year.

Some recent studies present a contrary picture

in which leisure time is decreasing, and time spent

working, commuting, and studying is increasing. The

1984 Louis Harris report on “Americans and the Arts”

reports that *over the past decade, for the average

American, the amount of leisure time has shrunk 31

percent, a loss of 8 hours per week.” Harris defined

work for survey participants as hours spent ‘at work,

housekeeping, or studies, including travel time to

and from the job or school.’ Leisure was defined as

the amount of time respondents had available ‘to

relax, watch TV, take part in sports or hobbies, go

swimming or skiing’ as well as attending entertainment

events or visiting with friends.

In their final report on a 1986 telephone survey

of Americans for the President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors, Market Opinion Research stated:

“The current pattern for three-fourths of American

adults includes l-2 vacations of a week or more and

multiple numbers of mini-vacations.” This survey also

found that ‘3 out of 10 adults took six or more long

weekend or mini-vacations during 1985 and another

one-fifth took 4 or 5: It appears that the extended

vacation of 2 or more weeks is becoming less common,

losing out to long weekends or other short blocks of

time on several occasions throughout the year.

Although there is a recent trend toward declining

leisure for the average American, the Harris Poll

found considerable leisure differences depending on

sex, age, ethnic group, and family status. The Harris

report stated that Americans over age 65 report an

average of 25.4 hours of leisure per week compared

with a Baby Boom generation average of 16 hours

per week. Further, in the latter group, women are

reported to have 23 percent less leisure time than

men. Among ethnic groups, while both whites and

nonwhites report working slightly more than 43 hours

per week, Blacks have 12.2 hours of leisure and

Hispanics have 18 hours of leisure per week according

to the Harris survey. There are several contributing

social and economic causes for leisure time decline,

including: 1) more women in the work force, 2) more

two income families, 3) more single parent families,

4) pressures of work, job security issues, and 5)

continuing/re-education.

LONG-TERM TRENDS IN OUTDOOR

RECREATION PARTICIPATION

Since 1959, more than 30 nationwide recreation

surveys have been conducted by public agencies

and private companies. All of these surveys attempted

to measure outdoor recreation participation rates

and other variables affecting participation patterns.

Any discussion of trends in participation uses some

combination of data from these previous surveys.

Comparability Issues

Over the years, variations in methods of data

collection and analysis of recreation participation

have made it difficult to compare the information

provided by different national-level surveys. Commonly, when individual land- management agencies have

specific needs for recreation participation data, they

have developed their own survey instrument and

methods to best meet their needs. Generally, attempts

have been made to provide comparability with past

surveys; also, changes are made from previous

instruments to clarify questions, add new categories,

or otherwise improve the survey. As a result, there is

a loss of consistency, and comparisons between

surveys become more difficuk.

It is difficult to draw comparisons among the

large national surveys of Americans’ recreation habits

because of sometimes subtle differences in methods

(Bevins and Wilcox 1980). The variations in research

methodology include: the method of contact with

persons being studied (personal interview, telephorE,

or mail), the time period during which the respondent

is asked to recall activity participation (summer, winter,

all year), the minimum age of respondent, and the

position of the respondent in the household (individual

or head) and recreating group (group leader or

member).

Differences in the definitions of activities, question

phraseology and ordering, and the number of activities

suggested to the respondent also create problems

of comparability. Many of the earlier surveys do not

distinguish between developed camping, primitive

camping, or backpacking. Boating is subdivided to

canoeing, sailing, rowing, and powerboats in some

surveys but not all. Swimming can also be confusing

with subsets of pool-swimming indoors or outdoors,

or swimming in other outdoor environments. The

1960 ORRRC study presented the respondent with a

choice of 20 activities, while the 198283 NRS Survey

presented 34 activities. The 1985-87 Public Area

Recreation Visitor Study had a list of 53 activities,

148
with the option to include others not on that list. A

comparison of popularity rankings between surveys

is affected by the variation in the number of activities

presented to the respondent.

Long-Term Comparisons of Participation

Rates

Despite the above-mentioned comparability

issues, trends are seen in certain carefully selected

surveys. Participation data from the 1960, 1965, and

1982 National Recreation Surveys (NRS) are similar

enough to be compared in many respects, In all

three surveys the respondents were 12 years and

older and the interviews were conducted in-home by

the same agency, the Bureau of the Census.

Because of subtle differences in questionnaire

wording and activity definitions, the participation

rates of only nine activities can be accurately

compared across those three surveys. The respondents were asked if they had participated in any

outdoor recreation activities during the previous 3

months. Snow-skiing and canoeing/kayaking made

the most dramatic gains in participation rates in the

22 years (fig. 1). Only 2 percent participated in 1960,

but the participation rate for these activities quadrupled by 1982. Bicycling was not far behind with a

tripling of its participation rate from 9 percent to 28

percent with an increase in adult participation in

recent years.

Swimming was one of the most popular activities

in 1960 and continued to be popular in 1982 with

only a small increase, from 45 to 51 percent. In the

1982 NRS Survey, more people said they swam in

outdoor pools rather than in other environments.

Fishing and hunting have both remained popular

and their participation rates have remained stable

since 1960, with hunting declining only slightly.

By comparing activities between the 1960 and

198283 NRS surveys, it is possible to include

additional activities, and other trends become visible.

The mix of popular outdoor recreation activities has

also changed (fig. 2). In 1960, more than half of the

U.S. population over age 11 participated in picnicking

and driving for pleasure. In 1982, two other activities,

outdoor swimming and walking for pleasure, were

done by a majority of the population.

In evaluating these participation percentages, it

is important to realize the population has grown

almost 30 percent since 1960. The increased population means more potential participants. When looking

at the percentage change in number of participants,

the growth of some activities appears more dramatic

Bicycling

Horseback Riding

Fishing

Canoeing/Kayaking

Sailing

Swimming

Camping

Hunting

Skiing

0 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5

% Respondents Participating

- 1960 m 1965 m 198 2

SOURCE: 1982-83 National Recreation

Survey Final Report.

Figure 1, -Activity participation trends 1960-82 (summer seasons).

149
Picnicking

Driving for Pleasure

Swimming

Sightseeing

Walking for Pleasure

Fishing

Attending Sports

Motorboating

Bicycling

SOURCE: 1960, 1982 Nstlonal Recreation

Surveye

0 5, 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

% of population participating

- 1960 m 1982

Figure 2. -National population trends in participation in selected activities (12 years old and older), 1960-82.

Canoeing

Bicycling

Cultural Events

All Camping

Sailing

Hiking/Backpacking

Attending Sports

Walking for Pleasure

Water Skiing

SOURCE: 1960. 82-93 National Ret

0

Survey

100 200 300 400 500

Percent Growth in Participants

Figure 3. -Percentage change in number of summer participants in nine rapidly growing activities, 1960-82.

150
(fig. 3). Of the nine activities with the highest growth

rates, more than half are physically demanding:

canoeing, bicycling, water-skiing, walking, and

hiking/backpacking. While some of the high-growth

activities are more passive; e.g., attending outdoor

cultural activities and sporting events, few are motor

or energy dependent (fig. 3).

The Gallup Poll conducts annual surveys of adult

participation in over 50 sports. The poll has been

conducted continuously since 1959 and is one of

the few sources of consistent long-term trend

information. Respondents (over the age of 18) are

asked to indicate which sport they have participated

in within the last 12 months (Gallup 1986). Some of

the observed trends are similar to the NRS findings.

The results show a substantial growth of sports

participation in the 27 years covered by the survey

(fig. 4). Of the 12 activities considered here, all have

greater participation rates now than when data were

first collected in 1959, except for hunting and

ice-skating which have declined only slightly. Swimming and fishing have held their positions as the

most popular sports since the surveys began. In

1986, 43 percent of the respondents indicated

participation in swimming and 33 percent were

participating in fishing. Bicycling has gained in

popularity over the years, from a 20-percent participation rate in 1964 to 35 percent in 1986 - higher than

fishing.

The Gallup Poll reports a high growth rate in

general sport participation in the 1960’s and the

1970’s, and then a leveling off in the 1980’s. Swimming,

fishing, motorboating, horseback riding, water-skiing,

sailing, and camping are maintaining their participation

rates from the seventies. Hunting has shown a steady

decline since 1959, and ice-skating has declined

since the mid-1970’s. Canoeing, bicycling, and skiing

are continuing to grow into the eighties, though not

as rapidly as in the earlier decades,

The A.C. Nielsen Company (reported in Clawson

and Van Doren 1984) also monitored sport and

outdoor recreation participation between 1973 and

1982. The highest growth reported occurred in

snow-skiing (increased 27 percent), sailing (increased

23 percent), and soccer (increased 23 percent),

which started with relatively low participation rates.

The 10 most popular activities in 1982 were swimming,

bicycling, fishing, camping, boating, bowling, physical

conditioning, jogging and running, roller-skating, and

pool and billiards. Nielsen reported participation

rates for specific activities increasing and decreasing

in a cyclic fashion. One would expect this as recreation

behavior affected by fads.

Land Activities

% PIlrilclpatlng 50 _~_______________

0 /_&I_+l+~___f-_- I-+__L _,_ _‘-+J-_-,- i_+_L / ..i_,._I + IL.+’_+_

59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 61 63 65

Year

-* Camping +-- Hunting + Horseback --tf Bicycling

Water Activities

59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 61 63 66

Year

*- Waterski -+-- Motorboat

+ Sal1 *- Swimming

~‘x- Canoe

4 Fishing

Snow Activities

2oj~_, . . . .._...._..____...._._.__..... _ . . . -_. . . .

o/ -1 , i / ! ( I _i I.+-l ( I. I I ! / ,

59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 ?9 61 63 65

Year

--m Snow Skiing --C Ice Skating

SOURCE: Gallup Poll

Figure 4. -Long-term trends in outdoor recreation.

151
120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Thousands

1973 1976 1979 1982

m Swimming KZI Bicycling m Fishing

EZZQ Camping m Boating j Snow Skiing

SOURCE: A.C. Nielsen. 1982. Ranking of

popularlry of partlolpatlon In sport6

KteaEured. 1973-1982. New6 releare.

Figure 5. -Estimated number of participants in selected outdoor recreation activities, 1973-82.

The Nielsen results differ from the Gallup Poll in surveys except for the most recent. The most dramatic

a few areas. Nielsen reports an increase in boating change is seen in bicycling, which gained in popularity

participation between 1973 and 1982, whereas Gallup over boating between 1960 and 1982. Swimming

reports a slight decrease. Bicycling has become and walking for pleasure became more popular than

much more popular according to Gallup, but Nielsen picnicking and driving for pleasure. This corresponds

shows a stable number of participants over the same to the observed trend toward a more active lifestyle

time period (fig. 5). for many Americans.

Relative Popularity of Activities Table l.--Relative popularity rankings of selected activities,

lg60-82

The relative popularity of activities can be

compared across surveys. This is a useful method

for obtaining trend data from unlike surveys. Popularity

is based on a rank order of percentage of population

participating in specific activities. Some caution should

be used in comparing rankings because activity lists

and activity descriptions vary between surveys. For

example, in the 1960 NRS, the respondents were

asked to indicate participation in 20’activities. In the

1982 NRS, there was a list of 36 activities from which

to choose. Therefore any analysis should emphasize

the relative popularity of activities, rather than

comparing the actual number of participants determined by the various studies.

Popularity rank by year end study

1960 1965

Activity oRI&

NRs2 1;;w& 197; 198;

Picnicking 1 1 1 1

Driving for pleasure 2

swimming t 2

2

3 1

Walking :

Fishing

2

: : II :

Boating 6 7 6

Bicycling 9 I z

Camping 10 10 zz 2 8

1

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

2

National Recreation Surveys.

3Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

Five surveys conducted between 1960 and 1982

were chosen to compare popularity rankings (table

1). Picnicking was the most popular activity in all the

Note: This table uses data provided by Bevins and Wilcox (19 80).

to create relative popularity ranks for activities (1 = most popular)

for the activities shown. This method essumes that each survey

provides valid popularity ranks while allowing methodology

differences among the cited surveys.

152
a

7

6

lj--y / , (

196000RRRC 1965 NRS i972 BOR 1977 BOR 1962 N

-+- Picnicking-i- Driving -Y%-- Swimming* Walking

--?J& Fishing + Boating *~ Bicycling ---x-m Camping

Figure 6. -Relative popularity rankings of selected activities, 1960-l 982.

RECENT TRENDS AND CURRENT

PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR

RECREATION

The data source being used most heavily in the

RPA Assessment for a description of current participation is the Public Area Recreation Visitor Study

(PARVS). PARVS is an interagency onsite survey of

visitors to Federal and State recreation areas nationwide. Five Federal agencies and 12 State agencies

participated in this survey between 1985 and 1987,

contacting over 36,000 visitors and resulting in almost

32,000 usable interviews using a complex survey

instrument with over 1,100 variables. The origins of

the respondents (using unweighted data) roughly

approximate the geographic distribution of the

population of the United States (fig. 6). Additional

information describing the methods and purposes of

PARVS has been documented by Cordell and others

(1987). One of the many purposes of PARVS is to

provide an examination of the annual outdoor

recreation activities of the visitors to public recreation

areas represented by the sample.

Sufficient information is available in the survey

instrument and other sources (such as the 1982433

National Recreation Survey and the National Park

Service’s Fee Reports) to allow weighting to provide

an approximation of the annual recreation participation

patterns of the recreating U.S. population. PARVS

data are weighted to correct for an over-representation

of overnight users, and weighted to represent the

demographic characteristics of the U.S. population

using information from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

PARVS respondents reported individual annual

participation in outdoor recreation activities. This

participation was the basis for nationwide estimates

of annual participation by residents over 11 years

old. These data were developed through personal

interviews with visitors to recreation sites, as opposed

153
to an origin-based sample of the population. As a

result, annual profiles of the population had to be

derived to adjust for population changes.

The procedure involved adjustment of the distribution of sampled PARVS respondents so that they

proportionately represented the distribution of people

over age 11 within defined population strata. Weighting

these PARVS data in this manner was necessary to

enable pooling across strata. Four types of population

strata were recognized for each identified community:

gender, age, urban or rural residence, and race.

These characteristics were common to both the

Census of Population and the PARVS sample.

Underrepresentation or overrepresentation among

the gender-age-residence-race- defined strata was

identified by comparing the percentage distribution

of respondents of the PANS sample to the percentage distribution of the total population. Further

adjustment was made to account for differences in

probabilities of being included in the PARVS sample.

The basic determinant of this probability differential

was between day and overnight users and whether

the interview site was Federal or State administered.

Sampling rates and schedules differed among these

sampling strata.

Each PARVS respondent was subsequently

assigned a population-to-sample distributional ratio

that weighted all data provided by each respondent.

This made their responses proportionate to the

national proportion of the population in the State

matching the respondent’s profile. These weighted

responses then represented the equivalent of an

origin-based survey for obtaining estimates of yearTable 2. --Comparison of participation in outdoor recreation activities,

1977-87

Percentage of participants

participating at least once annually

Activity group and 19 77

type of activity (households)

19 87

(individuals)

Land:

Camping (developed)

Camping (dispersed 1977)

(primitive 19 87)

Driving off-road vehicles

Hiking

Horseback riding

Nature study/photography

Picnicking

Pleasure driving

Sightseeing

Water:

Canoeing

Sailing

Other boating

Swimming outdoors

Outdoor pool swimming

Nonpool swimming

Water skiing

Snow and Ice:

Cross-country skiing

Downhill skiing

Ice-skating

Sledding

Snowmobiling

30 35

21 -_

_ _ 14

26 9

28 24

9

:z

z;

;:

62 :a

16 14

8

14 9

__

-- 50

-- 32

16 13

7

: 10

16

21 :

8 3

Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Heritage, Conservation, and

Recreation Services. 1977 National Outdoor Recreation Plan, from the

Forest Service's 1979 Resources Planning Act Assessment; 1985-87 Public

Area Recreation Visitor Survey.

Note: Sampling and methods were somewhat different between the two cited

studies. The 1977 study reported percentage of households participating

in outdoor recreation in the United States by type of activity. The

1985-87 study reports percentage participation of individuals who use

resource-based public recreation areas.

154
round participation, socioeconomic characteristics,

residence situation, population, and other attributes

of subregional communities from which recreation

trips were generated.

Trends Since the 1979 Assessment

Table 2 presents a basic comparison between

outdoor recreation participation at the time of the

last RPA Assessment and current participation. Some

cautions are in order when making direct comparisons

between the Federal Estate Visitor Survey (FEVS)

used in the 1979 RPA Assessment of Outdoor

Recreation and Wilderness and the 1985-87 Public

Area Recreation Visitor Study (PARVS) used in the

current RPA Assessment. Although care was taken

to ensure comparability between the surveys, differences in the survey instrument and other survey

methods may indicate some caution in interpretation

of comparisons between the two studies. The FEVS

reported percentage of households participating,

whereas the PARVS reported percentage of individuals

participating. As shown in table 1, the primary viable

comparisons that can be made are also in popularity

rank. Table 3 provides such a rank comparison and

indicates relative increases in popularity in downhill

skiing, swimming outdoors, canoeing/kayaking,

water-skiing, and cross-country skiing, and relative

declines in ‘other boating’ (includes all boating other

than canoeing or sailing), driving vehicles off road,

sledding, ice-skating, picnicking, and pleasure driiing.

It appears that some of the more active recreational

pursuits have become more popular, and some of

the more passive activities have declined in relative

popularity.

Current Participation in Outdoor

Recreation

PARVS is the primary data set used in the RPA

Assessment to describe current participation in

outdoor recreation. PARVS is a rich data source,

providing many analysis possibilities for annual

participation in recreation activities. Space limitations

prevent an exhaustive presentation of the findings of

that study, but a synopsis of findings plus a sample

of the detailed results for some representative activities

will be presented here.

Table 4 provides an overview of two important

aspects of recreation participation for 25 popular

activities-the percentage of the population participating one or more times annually, and the median

number days of annual participation by those

individuals who participate. Table 5 provides median

length of stay and one-way travel miles by the

respondents’ indicated “main’ activity on site, for

primary or single destination trips. Figure 7 presents

a list of those activities most commonly participated

Table 3. --Rank order popularity of outdoor recreation activities,

by percentage of population participating one or more times annually

1977 FEvs 1985-87 PARVS

1

2

2

2

:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Picnicking

Pleasure driving

Sightseeing

Swimming outdoors

Nature study/photography

Other boating

Camping (developed)

Hiking

Driving off-road vehicles

Camping (dispersed 1977)

Sledding

Canoeing

Water-skiing

Ice-skating

Horseback riding

Sailing

Snowmobiling

Downhill skiing

Cross-country skiing

10

11

12

13

14

15

Outdoor pool swimming

Sightseeing

Picnicking

Pleasure driving

Nature study/photography

Camping (developed)

Nonpool swimming

Hiking

Camping (primitive 19 87)

Canoeing

Water-skiing

Downhill skiing

Driving off-road vehicles

Horseback riding

Other boating

Sledding

Sailing

Cross-country skiing

Ice-skating

Source: 1977 Federal Estate Visitor Survey; 19 85-87 Public Area

Recreation Visitor Survey.

155
Table 4 .--Annual participation characteristics of selected outdoor

recreation activities

Activity group and

type of activity

Percentage of Median number of

population days of participation

participating annually by those

one or more people who

times annually participate

Land-based activities:

Sightseeing

Picnicking

Walking for pleasure

Driving for pleasure

Nature study/photography

Developed camping

Day hiking

Primitive camping

Other hunting

Backpacking

Big;game hunting

Driving ORVs

Horseback riding

Water-based activities:

Swimming outdoors

Warmwater & saltwater fishing

Motorboating

Coldwater fishing

Water-skiing

Canoeing/Kayaking

Sailing

Snow and ice-based activities:

Downhill skiing

Sledding

Cross-country skiing

Ice-skating

Snowmobiling

23.8

14.2

11.8

10.4

50.3

30.9

22.2

16.7

12.9

13.9

7.5

I:!

6:0

2.7

12

6

29

19

13

7

:

:

7

10

2

17

10

z

2

2

4

z

2

3

Source: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey, compiled by the

Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group, Athens, GA.

Percentage participation figures represent percentage of the American

public who use Federal and State recreation areas and participate in the

activities listed. Days of participation figures are the median number

of days of participation by those individuals in the sample who

participate in the selected activity.

in by recreationists during their stays at the resourcebased Federal and State recreation areas included

in the PAWS sample.

As can be seen by these data, the various

measures of participation do not necessarily result in

similar rankings of activities. Swimming outdoors,

sightseeing, picnicking, and walking for pleasure are

the most “popular’ activities in terms of the percentage

of the population participating at least once annually

(table 4). However, if one considers the number of

times participants engage in the activities, the ranking

of “popularity’ changes dramatically. By this second

measure, the most ‘popular activities are running/

jogging, walking for pleasure, driving for pleasure,

bicycling, and swimming outdoors. A third measure

of popularity is the length of stay on site for the

designated ‘main’ activity. By this measure, the most

‘popular’ activities are developed camping, big-game

hunting, primitive camping, backpacking, and ‘no

main activity.’

156
Table 5. --Median length of stay and one-way travel miles of selected

"main" outdoor recreation activities

Type of activity

Median length Median one-way

of stay travel miles

(hours) (days)

Developed camping

Big-game hunting

Primitive camping

Backpacking

No main activity

Saltwater fishing

Cold freshwater fishing

Motorboating

Canoeing or kayaking

Wildlife observation & photography

Anadromous fishing

Warmwater fishing

Driving ORVs

Day hiking

Outdoor pool swimming

Other outdoor swimming

Sightseeing

Small-game hunting

Picnicking

Walking for pleasure

Driving for pleasure

81

70

100

160

98

145

79

2:

171

2;

69

56

23

;;

::

25

20

Source: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey, compiled by the

Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group, Athens, GA. All

figures represent responses related to the activity selected as the

"main' reason for coming to the site. Length of stay was calculated by

subtracting the arrival time from the departure time (or anticipated

departure time), and converting to hours. Both sets of figures are for single

destination or primary destination trips only.

.*; .

Figure 7. -Origins of all U.S. respondents interviewed in the 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey (PARVS).
Clearly, no single measure of recreation participation adequately measures popularity of the activity.

Demographic characteristics such as age, gender,

income, and region of the country in which one resides

also are related to participation in outdoor recreation.

As popularity of various activities may change

according to these demographic or regional breakdowns, a clear picture of differences in participation

is difficult to obtain. To provide a clear snapshot of

the overall amount of participation and the characteristics of the participants, a figure containing six graphics

was prepared as background material for each of

the activities examined. These graphics were: percentage of the population participating, frequency of

participation by participants, gender ratio of patticipants, age of participants (compared with the U.S.

population), income levels of participants (compared

with the U.S. population), and region of participation.

A sample of these graphics representing sightseeing,

walking for pleasure, water-skiing, and big-game

hunting are presented in figures 8 to 11.

These figures provide some of the more important

characteristics of participation in outdoor recreation.

Clockwise from the top-left graphic of each figure,

the first graphic represents the percentage of the

U.S. population who participated at least one time in

the previous 12 months in the activity. The next figure

shows how many days per year those participants

engage in the activity. Below that figure, a comparison

of the age distribution of people who participate at

least one time each year is made with the age

distribution of the U.S. population, The bottom-right

figure indicates the percentage of the PARVS respondents who participated in the activity according to

the RPA region in which they were recreating. The

bottom-left figure presents a comparison of the

distribution of the annual family income (before taxes)

of participants with the income distribution of the

U.S. population. The final graphic presents a gender

ratio of participants.

These graphic sets show that each of the example

activities has a somewhat different clientele and

pattern of participation. Figure 8 shows sightseeing

to be a common activity across the U.S. population,

with half of the participants participating at least 10

or more days each year. Sightseeing is a life-long

activity, with a slight over-representation of individuals

aged 25 to 35. People recreating in the Pacific Coast

sightsee more commonly than in other regions, and

individuals with midrange family incomes of $20,000

to $50,000 are common participants in this activity.

Most participants in sightseeing are women, by a

slight margin,

Figure 9 presents a similar capsule of participants

in walking for pleasure. This is also a popular activity;

individuals who participate tend to engage in this

activity quite frequently-with 20 percent participating

120 days or more annually. This activity is also lifelong,

more evenly distributed among the RPA regions,

favored by mid-income individuals, and also favored

by women.

Figure 10 provides statistics on an activity with a

smaller clientele-water-skiing. Only about 13 percent

of the U.S. population participates in water-skiing,

and half of those individuals participate only about 4

days annually. A review of these graphics reveals

that participants are largely young, more likely to be

upper-income males, with somewhat higher percentages of participation in the Rocky Mountains/Great

Plains region.

Big-game hunters are represented in figure 11.

This activity also has a specific group of participants.

About 10 percent of the U.S. population who use

resource-based Federal and State recreation areas

participate in big-game hunting. For this activity, the

number of days of participation is limited by hunting

seasons-only about half the big-game hunters

participate over 7 days annually. The most dominant

characteristic of these recreationists is the gender

ratio, with less than 20 percent females. Those

individuals under age 45 are overrepresented as

participants, although many older individuals continue

to hunt big game.

Space limitations prohibit additional examination

of specific activities, but many more activities will be

examined in the RPA Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness and in a planned final descriptive

report of the Public Area Recreation Visitor Study.

158
Percent of U.S. Population Frequency of Participation in

Participating in Sightseeing Sightseeing

Non-Parriclpants

participants

4 7 %

Gender Differences in Participation in Age Differences in Participation

Sightseeing in Sightseeing

Income Differences in Participation

in Sightseeing

income

ISSS lhan $5.000

$20.000-524.999 ;/ , , , ,, , , , , ,

t25.000-t34.999 $ , , , , , , , , , , ,, ,, ,,A

535.000-549.999 , , , , , ,, ,fl,, ,, ,, /I

s50.000 or more ,/, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,q-j

0 6 1 0 16 20 2 6 30

Pwcmt of PopuWon

m % P~rtlclpltlng El % U.S. Popul8llon

6 0

6 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

10

0

1 2 5 l0 20 30 60 SO 120 150 180 210 240 270 300330365

Number of days of participation

l&Q 20-24 25-2030-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5060-6465-74 75’

Age Groups

-pwtlcipmtr + U.S. population

Percent of Recreationists Participating

in Sightseeing During their Visit, by

Destination Region

PaclflC cos s t

Rky. Mb./Ot. Plrlns

South

Norrh

0 5 10 16 2 0 25 30 3 6 4 0 45 SO 65 00 6 6

p.ro.nt

Figure 8. -Characteristics of participants in sightseeing.

159
Percent of U.S. Population

Participating in Walking for Pleasure

Frequency of Participation in

Walking for Pleasure

Non-Participants

Pamcipants

4 1%

Gender Differences in Participation in

Walking For Pleasure

Income Differences in Participation

in Walking for Pleasure

Income

I686 lh6n S6.000

s5000-to.999

$10.000-514.999

$15.000-S19.SQS

SZO.OOO-$24.999

t25.000-534.999

s35.000-s49.999

t50,000 M more

0 6 10 16 2 0 25 3 0

Pwcmt of Popul6tion

i l bwtklp6tln9 iza % U.S. Population

P6rcml of Rrtklpmtr

loo&

SO

60

7 0

60

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

10

n

- 1 2 5 x) 20 3 0 60 90 120 150 180 2lO 240 270 300330 36&

Number of days of participation

Age Differences in Participation

in Walking For Pleasure

P6rcmt of Tot61

15-19 20-24 25-2930-34 35-3940-44 45-4950-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75 l

Age Groups

-p6rtlclpmlr + U.S. popul6tbn

Percent of Recreationlsts Participating

in Walking for Pleasure During Their

Visit, by Destination Region

P6Clfk coast

Rky. Mt6JOl. Plain6

Swth

North

0 6 10 16 2 0 2 6 3 0 36 40 46 60 55 00 66

*.rC.nt

Figure 9. -Characteristics of participants in walking for pleasure.

160
Percent of U.S. Population

Participating in Water Skiing

Frequency of Participation in

Waterskiing

Pwcent of P4rticipanta

1 2 5 10 20 30 80 90 120 150 l80 2x) 240 270 300330365

Number of days of participation

Non-Participants

87%

Paniclpants

13%

Gender Differences in Participation in

Water Skiing

Income Differences in Participation

in Waterskiing

Income

IOU Ihan 55.000

s500O-Ss,ee9

$10.000-s14.999

sei.ooo-sia.ss9

s20.000-$24.999

s25.000-634.999

s35.000-549.999

$60.000 or mom

0 5 10 16 2 0 25 30

Percent of Population

W % Partlcip8tln9 rZa x U.S. Populallon

Age Differences in Participation

in Water Skiing

Percent of Total

l:~y--&+_~+_-j

l:-19 20-24 25-2030-3435-3D40-4445-4950-54 55-5960-64 65-74 75 l

Age Groups

-p~rtlclpwlts + U.S. populotlon

Percent of Recreationists Participating

in Water Skiing During Their Visit, by

Destination Region

Rky. Mtr./Ql. Plalnr

South

North

_

_ _ _

0 5 10162026303640466055606 5

p.rc.nt

Figure 10. -Characteristics of participants in water skiing.

161
Percent of U.S. Population

Participating in Big Game Hunting

Frequency of Participation in

Big Game Hunting

Psrcsnt of ParticiDants

Non-PaKlCipantS

9 0%

Participants

10%

Gender Differences in Participation in

Big Game Hunting

Income Differences in Participation

in Big Game Hunting

Income

IWE than 85.000

55000-50.099

510.000-$14,990

515.000-519.099

$20.000-$24.999

525.000-534.000 L,, , ,, , , , , , ,,,, ,,d

s35.000-$49.900 , , , , ,, , , , , , , , ,, , , L3

550.000 or more ‘, ,, , , , , ,, /‘, , , , ,/,

J

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Percent 01 Population

H+ Participating Eil x U.S. Population

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

10

0

1 2 5 10 20 30 60 00 120 150 160 210 240 27030033036 5

Number of days of participation

Age Differences in Participation

in Big Game Hunting

Percent of TOM

30

25 -

20 -

15-19 20-24 25-20 30-34 35-30 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75 l

Age Groups

- participants + U.S. population

Percent of Recreationists Participating

in Big Game Hunting During Their Visit,

by Destination Region

Paclflc Coast

Rky. Mta.lGt. Plains

South

North

0 5 10 15 20 25 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 55 6 0 65

rJ.rc.nt

Figure 11. -Characteristics of participants in big-game hunting.

162
CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATION

OF RESULTS

Conclusions

Overall descriptions of participation in outdoor

recreation such as presented in this paper are

essential for identifying trends in participation and

obtaining a better understanding of which segments

of the U.S. population are being served by resourcebased outdoor recreation opportunities. Some of the

primary findings from this latest examination of

recreation participation are:

1) Although the amount of leisure available for

the average American has been increasing for many

years, it appears that this trend has reversed recently,

with declining amounts of leisure due to changes in

societal structure.

2) Differences in methods used in different national

surveys make trend identification very difficult, with

only the most general conclusions possible.

3) There has been a gradual change in the

popularity of outdoor recreation activities over the

past 20 years, with the more active pursuits becoming

more popular.

4) Swimming and walking for pleasure are now

done by a majority of recreationists on State and

Federal lands.

5) It appears that the extended vacation of 2 or

more weeks is being replaced by more frequent but

shorter trips.

6) Several measures of participation are necessary

to give an accurate representation of the participants

in any single activity.

Opportunity or Need for Improved

Resource Management

Although this paper did not specifically address

resource management issues, some observations

are applicable to managers. There appears to be a

continuing trend of increased participation in more

active forms of outdoor recreation. Managers should

be aware of this trend, and perhaps place additional

emphasis on provision of these sons of activities on

their areas. Also specific activities may have very

different clientele, with different needs. For example,

while walking for pleasure is common across many

strata of the population, big-game hunters are a

much more narrow group (considering demographic

characteristics), and would require different management techniques.

Future Significance of the Topic

Identifying current outdoor recreation participation

levels and patterns will continue to be an important

area of investigation, especially for long-range

planning. Data presented in this paper and in the

RPA Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness highlight differences in activity participation,

depending on social characteristics. For example,

some activities have specific clientele groups, such

as big-game hunting (male dominated), and waterskiing (youth-oriented). Other activities are much

more common throughout the general population,

such as walking for pleasure and sightseeing.

With predicted changes in demographics of the

U.S. population, some activities will likely be affected

more than others, based on the above findings. For

example, with an aging population, it is possible to

draw the conclusion that youth-dominated activities

such as water-skiing will decline in relative popularity,

while other lifelong activities such as walking for

pleasure will maintain or perhaps increase their current

level of participation,

Barriers and Constraints

The issue of barriers and constraints can be

addressed from several perspectives. First, collection

of population-level data of this sort is very expensive,

and may be prohibitive for any single agency or

organization. However, the need for these sort of

data will remain for all resource management agencies. In an era of reduced government budgets, the

most cost-effective manner of data collection is

through multiple-agency cooperative working arrangements, such as evidenced by the PARVS project.

Second, the data presented in this paper and

the RPA Assessment illustrate the importance of

sociodemographic constraints on participation. Age

is the most obvious related factor -recreation&s

under about age 45 (depending on activity) are

overrepresented in comparison with the U.S. population. For most activities, older individuals are strongly

underrepresented as recreationists. For some activities, income seems to be an important restriction to

participation, as does gender. There is little that

recreation providers can do to alleviate these constraints, however.

163
Third, the regional differences in the resource

itself either permit or prohibit participation in certain

activities. In this paper, sightseeing was shown to be

more popular in the Pacific Coast region than other

regions. The RPA Assessment shows that other

activities also have regional participation biases,

probably indicating differences in supply and demand.

Guidelines for Improving Baseline

There is a clear need for long-term coordination

of national data on outdoor recreation participation.

With major and minor differences in survey instruments

and methods, it is often very difficult to make

comparisons between national surveys to develop

long-term trends in outdoor recreation participation.

Often, only the most general trend identification is

possible. It is strongly recommended that future

national studies pay careful attention to the work

that has gone before, to make trend identification

more precise in future studies. It is recommended

that the Public Area Recreation Visitor Study be

used as a benchmark for future national studies,

which would use comparable methods and survey

instruments, to allow identification of long-term trends.

There are many measures of recreation panicipation, each with its own advantages. Participation

should not be measured only by the percentage of

the general population who participates one or more

times annually. By itself this measure represents only

a part of the story. Frequency of participation by

those who participate is also an important indicator

of popularity of an activity. Other measures may also

provide clues of future participation. For example,

the data presented here indicate that older individuals

continue to participate in sightseeing more than

many other activities. Wiih an aging population, it is

logical to assume that participation in sightseeing

will increase relative to some of the other activities

whose major participation group is younger people.

The authors have concluded that the most useful

form of presentation of participation data is to present

several measures of participation for each activity

considered, as has been demonstrated in this

publication.

QUESTIONS FOR THOUGHT AND

DISCUSSION

It seems that most research raises more questions

that it answers, as was the case with this investigation.

The following questions are provided to provoke the

reader to think beyond the observations and conclusions provided above.

1) Data from this study show that fewer individuals

participate in outdoor recreation as they age, but

also that the population as a whole is more active

than in previous years. As this age cohort grows

older, will their more active lifestyle act to compensate

for the general decline in participation as people

age? In other words, will the future elderly be more

active than the current population of elderly?

2) What innovative methods are available to

compare marginally comparable data sets?

3) It is clear that to identify long-term trends in

outdoor recreation, someone must have the responsibility for collecting data and maintaining comparability.

Who should have that responsibility, and what sorts

of data should be collected? Should the emphasis

be on maintaining continuity of data collection, or

improvements in methods?

4) Societal changes influence recreational use of

public lands. When the children of today grow into

adults, how will the changes in family structure,

economics, and land ethic values influence their

use of natural resources for recreation and other

purposes?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the PARVS

Working Group (Forest Service, National Park Service,

Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

and State park agencies in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,

Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia)

for permission to use the full PARVS data set in this

study, prepared for the RPA Assessment.

164
REFERENCES

Bevins, M.I.; Wilcox, D.P. 1980. Outdoor recreation

participation-analysis of national surveys,

1959-l 978. Bull. 686. Burlington, VT: Agricultural

Experiment Station, University of Vermont. 112 pp.

Clawson, Marion; Van Doren, Carlton S. 1984.

Statistics on outdoor recreation, Part 2-the record

since 1956. Washington, DC: Resources for the

Future. 368 pp.

Cordell, H.K.; Hartmann, L.A. 1983. Trends in outdoor

recreation in the two decades since ORRRC. pp.

142. In: Fedler, A.J.; Burrus-Bammel, L.L., eds.

Conference proceedings, Southeastern recreation

research; Asheville, NC.

Cordell, H.K.; Hartmann, L.A.; Watson, A.E. [and

’ others]. 1987. The public area recreation visitor

survey: a progress report. In: Cordell, B. McDonald,

ed. Proceedings, Southeastern recreation research

conference; February 1986; Asheville, NC.

Gallup, A.M. 1986. Gallup leisure activities index.

Haywood, J. 1986. Human use of parks. In: A literature

review. President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Off ice.

Louis Harris Associates, Inc. 1984. Americans and

the arts. The 1984 survey of public opinion

conducted for Philip Morris, Inc. Study 831011.

Nielsen, A.C. 1982. Ranking of popularity of patticipation in sports measured, 1973-82. News Release.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

1962. National recreation survey. ORRRC Study

Rep. 19. Washington, DC. 394 pp.

Robinson, J.P. 1986. Time use and outdoor recreation.

In: A literature review. President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

1986. 1982-l 983 nationwide recreation survey.

Washington, DC. 95 pp.

165
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-THE WILD CARDS

IN TOURISM STRATEGIC PLANNING

Elwood L. Shafer and George Moellerl

Abstract,Science and technology (S&T) outside the

normal sphere of tourism research can dramatically

affect demand and supply patterns within the tourism

phenomena. S&T are often the wild cards in the tourism

strategic planning game -appearing unexpectedly,

creating entirely new markets, or causing further

segmentation of current ones. Coping with the

uncertainty of S&T is an essential aspect of forest

tourism planning. This paper describes some of those

S&T wild cards that were gleaned from over 100

popular and scientific articles involving: video,

transportation, medicine, recreation equipment, the

natural sciences, the built environment, and computers/

robotics/space.

INTRODUCTION

There’s one thing public and private forest tourism

managers have to prepare for in the future-the

future. No matter what the future may bring, examining

current and potential breakthroughs in science and

technology (S&T) can help these managers get ready

for the future. By exploring S&T- especially outside

the normal sphere of recreation research - managers

can anticipate the future needs and use patterns of

forest tourists. Consequently, the tourism management solutions provided today may work tomorrow.

Solutions that last will help sustain a positive customer

perception of public and private forest tourism plans

and programs and embody professional commitment

to connect science and technology developed in the

past with that which will exist years from now.

Modern managers and strategic planners have

emphasized that every public or private organization

that wants to prosper needs to invoke the “Law of

‘Professor, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA;

Staff Assistant to the Deputy Chief for Research, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

166

the Situation’; that is, to ask itself the question: What

business are we really in (lacocca 1984; Naisbitt

1982; Naisbitt and Aburdene 1985)? One of the

businesses natural resource managers are in may

not be what the profession has traditionally called

the recreation business or even the leisure business,

but rather; the tourism business. The classic definition

of tourism is: Attracting visitors and catering to thelr

needs and expectations (McIntosh and Goeldner

1984). From a historical perspective, therefore, tourism

has been an important, integral part of natural resource

management for more than half a century. As the

demand for forest tourism has increased, consumer

behavior has not necessarily conformed to classic

economic and marketing theory-because of rapid

and sometimes unexpected advances in S&T (Massey

1979; Naisbitt 1987).

The conventional ways of looking at consumer

behavior-especially in tourism - are becoming

outdated very quickly. For example, it is no longer

possible to predict the purchasing habits of consumers

of almost any product or service simply by labeling a

group as a new segment of the market. A world of

paradoxes in tourism and leisure behavior is emerging

where existing opposites operate simultaneously

(Naisbitt and Aburdene 1985). Greater sameness

and greater diversity, plus greater security seeking

and greater risk taking occur side by side. For

example, there are sky-diving accountants all over

the place, campers who drive air-conditioned vans to

‘rough it’ in the woods, and recreationists who drive

air-conditioned cars to air-conditioned gyms where

they sweat as much as they can. The same individuals

may shop at both K-mart and Neiman-Marcus, own

a sizable investment portfolio and trade it with a

discount broker, fill a BMW with inexpensive self-serve

gas, and go to McDonalds at lunch and a four-star

restaurant for dinner. Leisure lifestyle mosaics are

often elusive, inconsistent, and contradictory (Fensom

1984; Massey 1979; Perry 1987; Plawin and Blum

1987; Smith 1985).
Because of the tremendous amount of market

segmentation that is occurring throughout the leisure

and tourism industry, leading forecasters emphasize

that the multiple-profile consumer is here to stay

(McIntosh and Goeldner 1984; Naisbitt 1982). If any

service industry provides anything without knowing

how consumer tastes, preferences, and perceptions

are rapidly changing because of new S&T, that

industry is in for an expensive shock (lacocca 1984).

As a result: (1) the conventional way of looking at

tourism behavior is not only outdated but dangerous

and (2) new approaches for analyzing the market

need to consider the effects of oncoming S&T on

future demand and supply (Kaufman 1983; Miller

1986; Naisbii 1987; Sivy 1985). Futhermore, in the

tourism strategic planning game, many times it is the

S&T outside the normal sphere of tourism research

that can affect most dramatically tourism demand

and supply patterns. Breakthroughs in these areas

of S&T are the wild cards in the planning process.

They often seem to appear on the scene unexpectedly

and create entirely new markets or significantly

segment current ones.

This paper describes some of the oncoming

S&T that may have profound influences on tourism

planning and development in the coming decades.

Over 100 popular and scientific articles were explored

in order to provide visions of how S&T will create

new challenges and solutions in future tourism

programming and planning. Areas of S&T examined

include: video, transportation, medicine, recreation

equipment, the natural sciences, the built environment,

and computers/robotics/space.

VIDEO

Just as the invention of movable type in the

1400’s made mass literacy possible and changed

Western society from an oral to a written culture, so

the video S&T of the 20th and 21st centuries will

revolutionize traditional patterns of supply and

demand for tourism.

Breakthroughs in video S&T over the next 10 to

20 years will have countervailing effects on tourism

demand and the need to supply natural environments

for tourism activities. The following expected scientific

advances will allow individuals to enjoy various

attributes of natural environments in their own homes

and, consequently, may generate a stronger desire

to visit the actual environments.

l Videocycles -a combination of a stationary exercise

bike and a TV/VCR- will be used extensively by

bikers at home to tour scenic routes in forested and

urban environments, complete with exciting background music (Country Technology 1987-88).

@Image libraries will be available for home viewing

that will contain all the world’s best art. Inexpensive

flat panel-display devices will be available, throughout

the house, with a resolution so good that viewing a

projection will be like looking at the original oil painting

(Booth 1986; Long 1987).

@People will be able to create their own images and

scenes on their TV screens; the viewer will be able

to simulate just about anything. For example, if a

person wanted to enjoy a raft trip down the Grand

Canyon of the Colorado River, it will be possible to

call up the image on a wall-size TV and with a raft at

home the viewer will experience the sensation of the

trip (Hartley 1987; Rochester 1986).

l TV images will rival 35mm film quality and be

wall-projection units. Digital TV will allow the viewer

to become a participant in the actual production. For

example, if a person put a wager on the wrong football

team, he can take a picture of the quarterback,

superimpose him scoring the winning play, and at

least get the thrill of having the play turn out the way

he wanted it to (Long 1987’).

l sensavision TV will allow the viewer to feel temperature, humidity, smell, and to walk around in the scene

because the whole room will be part of the TV set.

With sensavision, viewers will be able to feel the thrill

of victory or the agony of defeat in whatever activity

they care choose (Long 1987).

l As simulators become more realistic, people will be

able to enjoy the breath-taking thrills of high-risk

tourism experiences such as sky diving, mountain

climbing, or underwater explorations with scuba gear

without leaving home (Anon. 1987).

Meanwhile, a few examples of video S&T at tourism

locations that will help to increase demand and create

a greater need to supply onsite facilities include the

following.

l Video tapes will be used on location in specific

recreational environments to train tourists to become

more skilled at whatever they are doing-skiing,

scuba diving, or sailing, for example-so participants

can almost instantly apply what they have seen on

videotape to their activity (Sybervision 1987).

167
l in-room checkout to menu-driven displays on guest

room televisions will be commonplace in resorts and

hotels (Cetron and Rocha 1987; McCoy 1987).

l Rather than read about a tourist destination in a

travel guide, the average consumer will view travel

video tapes of several potential destinations prior to

making a decision about which trip to take (International Video Network, n.d.; Kennedy 1987).

l Existing flight simulators generally place a person

behind the controls of comparatively tame private

planes. In the future, computer programs will not

only teach basic flying skills, but also provide

instructions on advanced maneuvers and stunts.

The characteristics of many different kinds of planes

will be simulated-from World War I classics to rocket

planes and experimental aircraft. Viewers will be able

to put them all through their paces in the privacy of

their own home (Electronic Arts 1987).

TRANSPORTATION

The overall effects of advances in S&T in transportation will be a greater increase in demand and

supply for forest tourism activities. Future transportation will be faster, easier, and more comfortable.

l Cars will contain many of the sights, sounds, and

comforts of home: Video map displays of the car’s

position, car phones, facsimile machines, lap-top

computers that can send and receive data, answering

machines, and sound systems for high-tech compact

disc players (Cook 1987; Wiener 1987).

l Magnetic trains- trains that literally fly between

cities on cushions of electromagnetism-will be

making short trips (for example, Los Angeles to Las

Vegas) faster and more comfortably than airlines can

manage today (Black 1984; Lemonick 1987).

l A new x ray scanner will be used in airports to

detect plastic weapons used by terrorists (Tracy

1986).

l The average price of a new car in the year 2020

will be $70,000, with a gas mileage of 100 miles per

gallon (Naisbitt 1986).

l An aerospace plane, about the size of a Boeing

727 and able to take off and land at regular airports,

will fly coast to coast in about 12 minutes (Kristof

1987; Siwolop 1985).

l scheduled commercial flights from New York to

Tokyo will take about 2 hours (Yeager 1986).

l A 25-passenger tilt-rotor aircraft will be used to

provide short trips between major cities in Europe

that are 600 miles or less apart. It will take off from

downtown heliports and when aloft change to a

conventional cruise flight; plus, it will cost half as

much to operate but fly twice as fast as most

helicopters (Siwolop 1987).

l Future commercial airplanes will be safer, cheaper

to operate, more flexible in seating, and more

comfortable (Schefter 1987).

l Multiple transportation cars that convert to an

airplane will be fuel efficient and economically

accessible to the tourist (Hoyt 1986; Kocivar 1987).

l vertical takeoff and landing vehicles-that cruise

225 mph above daily traffic-will be used for everyday

personal and commercial use (Moshier Technologies

1987).

MEDICINE

Major medical advances will enable people to

live longer, healthier lives as science discovers new

treatments for major disorders and even push back

the frontiers of aging itself. Consequently, the

forest-tourist population probably will be comprised

of a greater proportion of more mature, physically

active, healthier individuals who will seek a greater

level of adventure and physical challenge than ever

before. Some of those medical advances will include

the following:

l Many of the diseases that plague humans todaycancer, arteriosclerosis, arthritis, diabetes, and many

infectious diseases-will fade from the scene in the

next 20 years because effective ways to prevent or

treat them will be found (Bezold 1985; Carey 1985;

Garr 1987; Kluger 1987).

l Genetic manipulation will help dispose of congenital

defects that have plagued society for so long (Cetron

and O’Toole 1982).

oResearch in combating AIDS will allow science to

deal more effectively with problems of the immune

system, and out of this will come, among other things,

a dramatic increase in the success and number of

transplant operations (Carey 1986; Kluger 1987).

l ln the next 20 years, there will be all kinds of

transplants: heart, lung and brain-cell transplants

(Long 1987).

168
@There will be an artificial liver, an artificial spleen,

and an artificial pancreas (Cetron and O’Toole 1982).

l One great advance will be the discovery of some

mechanism by which nerve tissue can be regenerated

so that legions of paraplegics and quadriplegics can

be rehabilitated (Long 1987).

@A portable, all-purpose weapon against bites from

snakes, scorpions, fire ants, bees, and wasps will be

in the form of a stun gun that short circuits the

consequences of the bite (Franklin and Davis 1987).

l Nonaddictive pain killers- more powerful than

morphine-will be commonplace (Pelt 1982).

l There will be medicines that improve and restore

memory, stave off senility, cure Parkinson’s and

Alzheimer’s disease, and heal spinal cords (Bezold

1985; Cusumano 1985; Kluger 1987).

l Medicines will be available that cure addictions to

drugs and alcohol (Bloom 1985).

@There will be hormones for controlling weight,

memory, and growth (Cetron and O’Toole 1982).

l Artificial hands, arms, and limbs will be available

(Kashi 1987).

@There will be artificial blood that can be given to a

person with any blood type and that carries none of

the risks that human blood can (Pelt 1982).

RECREATION EQUIPMENT

Here, as in the case with video, S&T advances

in recreation equipment will cause both increases

and decreases in forest tourism demand and supply,

but the overall effect will probably be more people

spending more time, day and night, in forest environments at all times of the year.

l Outdoor recreation clothing, although extremely

lightweight and breathable, will be resistant to cold,

rain, heat, and tearing-allowing the user to wear

just one outfit for all climates and conditions

(Beercheck 1986; Doran 1986; Scherer 1987).

l Night-vision glasses will allow individuals to participate in outdoor recreation activities in the dark;

off-road vehicles will be driven at night without

headlights (Shaker and Finkelstein 1987).

l Electronic and other devices will be worn by outdoor

enthusiasts to improve hearing, touch, sense of smell,

strength, and coordination (Shaker and Finkelstein

1987).

l skycycles-one-person light aircraft with wingspans

of a DC-9 jet-will be used to fly 25 miles or more at

15 miles per hour via pedal power (Ashley 1987).

l ultralight two-person aircraft will be popular for

touring and soaring in the 1990’s (Campbell 1986).

*Inflatable boats that can be stored in a closet, carried

to the water in the smallest car, and used in places

that are not accessible by conventional boat will be

used extensively in the future (Bignami 1987).

l Laser tag, complete with space-suit uniforms and

starelyte guns that fire harmless beams of invisible

infrared light at opponents day or night, will increase

in home and forest recreation environments (The

Sharper Image 1986).

l Because more people can be expected to participate

in tourism and outdoor recreation activities if they

can quickly learn and enjoy the skills required, sports

equipment manufacturers will invent new equipment

that enhances participant success (Wendland 1986).

l Audio communication transceivers, that will fit in a

shirt pocket, will be used by vacationers to report

emergencies, communicate with their workplace or

home, remotely turn on and off appliances at home,

and participate in certain types of work (Lundberg

1985).

l Technology for extracting oxygen from seawater

will be used to fuel underwater recreational vehicles

for exploring shipwrecks and underwater environments (Ditlea 1987).

l Solar-powered bubbles (sunpods) will permit bathers

to relax outdoors at home for an all-over tan even in

below-freezing temperatures (Brody 1984).

l innovations in equipment will allow off-road vehicles

to be converted for wheelchair riders (Nachtivey

1986).

l supersubs will be developed as a kind of undersea

tour bus with oversized windows and an interior like

a passenger plane (Sitwell and Sedgwick 1984).

169
THE NATURAL SCIENCES

The overall impact of new S&T in the natural

sciences will be to increase both demand and supply

for forest tourism. Emerging technology will immensely

improve the quality of natural environments, probably

more so in the next several decades than in previous

centuries. The resultant increase in environmental

quality will stimulate demand and supply for leisure

activities in natural environments.

l A chemical process will exist to embalm plants and

young trees so they permanently can retain their

lifelike appearance in home environments (Bronson

1987).

l Rainbow trout weighing as much as 100 pounds

and maturing five times faster than normal will be

developed through genetics research. Similar achievements will be realized for salmon, tuna, and other

commercial fish (Anon. 1985).

@Techniques will be devised to communicate with

one or more animal species that could eventually

lead to the development of a universal translator

device (Nobbe 1987b).

@Science will develop a grass that is self-weeding,

can be grown in almost any climate or soil, needs

no watering or fertilizer, and only needs to be mowed

two or three times a year (Anon. 1987; Lawren 1987).

@Biotechnology will develop waste-eating bacteria to

reduce or eliminate water pollution and toxic waste

(Wallace 1987).

@Hunters in the United States will be able to hunt

exotic wildlife from other parts of the world within a

few hours’ drive of their residence (Hass 1988).

l Marine biology research will provide a means to

understand, predict, and perhaps even control the

behavior of more useful or commercially valuable

species, not just for human use but also for the

species’ own good (Nobbe 1987a).

@Extended weather forecasts of 2 or more weeks will

be possible (Heckman 1987; Kiester 1986).

@Science will develop a practical way to make drinking

water from the ocean (Bowker 1987; Glenn and

O’Leary 1985).

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

S&T in the built environment will cause both

increases and decreases in the tourism demandsupply phenomena. Some of the items that will create

increases include the following:

l underwater hotels will attract the more adventurous

leisure travelers who can peer at the undersea life

through their bedroom windows (Barol and Belleville

1987).

l One-molecule thick glass that bends like Saran

Wrap and molds into many shapes will be used to

create tourism structures that blend esthetically in

forest environments and have interiors with summer

temperatures throughout the year (Huntington 1986).

l Geotextiles, a filament produced from a variety of

sources to form a nonbiodegradable fabric, will be

used to stabilize erosion of scenic forest roads and

trails (Schmidt 1985).

*Energy-efficient earth shelters-those that use soil

and sod for insulation-will be used in outdoor

recreation facilities in hostile climates (Maranto 1987).

l Electrolytic accretion-a process that uses dissolved

matter in seawater-will be used to build artificial

reefs and grow startling, reeflike submarine cities

(Lawren 1985; Hoban 1984).

On the other hand, certain other kinds of S&T

related to the built environment will cause forest

tourism demand to decrease.

l Many homes of the future will become self-contained

islands in terms of leisure lifestyle and entertainment

potential. Developers will build homes that cater to

the individual recreational appetites of the buyer

(Lutz 1985; Smay 1985; Sternlieb and Hughes 1985).

l The theme parks of the future will be individualexperience centers where technology will let people

role play...almost anything. For example, a Victorianstyle high-tech house is presently being constructed

that transports visitors back into a romantic version

of the previous century. The house includes a

three-dimensional film theatre that employs vibrating

chairs to simulate motion and a scent-projection

state-of-the-art sound system (Simmons 1987).

l Restaurants will use spatial image projections in

which holograms in the shapes of mystical figures

will magically appear beside customers’ tables to

take their orders (Simmons 1987).

170
COMPUTERS, ROBOTICS, SPACE

The coming revolution in computers, robotics,

and space will cause major changes in demand-supply

conditions that stretch imagination to the limit.

l Fifty years from now, more of the world’s surface

may be used for farms, parkland, and wilderness

because considerable quantities of industry will be

moved into space (Asimov 1988).

@Robots will be built in the form of buildings that

provide most of the services of modern hotels and

that are run by an administrative computer (Barrett

1985).

l Robots will eventually occupy a large part in planning

many tourism-related facilities and services-such as

restaurants, landscaping, park design, and entertainment (Barrett 1985; Reeve 1987).

l Robots will be used to perform hazardous tasks

such as rescue operations in remote environments

(Anon. 1987; Kashi 1987).

l Artificial intelligence in human form will be used in

educational courses designed to enhance human

negotiation, management, and leadership skillsthese machines will instruct, counsel, and evaluate

the student’s participation (Frand 1987; Knasel 1986;

Rogers 1987).

l Natural language software will be popular on

mainframe and personal computers due to the higher

fraction of novice users (Knasel 1986).

l computer programs that can draw conclusions will

be used by tourism managers to help formulate the

best program mix for clientele and to manage vast

natural resources for a multiplicity of uses (Chait

1985; Kelly 1985).

l computers will make it possible to display and

read almost any journal or magazine of particular

interest to an individual-a mass medium tailored to

the individual (Dolnick 1987).

l A pocket-size, voice-activated computer will be

available that translates English into two or three

languages (Stone 1986).

l conflict-negotiation computer games will be used

by resource managers to define and choose alternative courses of action regarding tourism development

versus nondevelopment in wild-land areas (Zweig

1986).

l Vandal-proofed computers will be installed at

trailheads and along the trail to better explain the

value of the environment and interpret what is being

observed (McCann 1984).

l Computers eventually will possess artificial intelligence and mimic human senses and attitudes (Ditlea

1987; Rogers 1987, Waterbury 1987).

l A passenger module will be developed for the

space shuttle that will carry passengers to an orbiting

space hotel or act as a hotel module itself (Alcestis

1988; Davies 1985; Eskow 1986).

l Today’s commercial airliner will be modified to

become a space transport to deliver payloads to a

low orbit for 90 percent less than the cost of a NASA

shuttle flight (Lauren 1986).

l Eventually, it will be possible to create robotic

immortality-a deathless universe in which life would

go on forever by creating computer copies of our

minds and transferring, or downloading, this program

into robotic bodies. Once one copy of the brain’s

contents had been made, it would be possible to

make multiple backup copies. This would allow anyone

to embark on any sort of adventure without having

to worry about aging or death. As decades passed

into centuries, one could travel the globe and then

the solar system and beyond (Dewitt 1987; Fjermedal

1986; Maranto 1987).

SUMMARY

To adapt to tomorrow’s fast-unfolding world of

forest tourism management, leaders at all levels

must come to grips with a series of paradoxes, created

by S&T, that may set some conventional management

wisdom on its ear. The management principles

managers have held dear in the past are undergoing

relentless attack-and succumbing because of events

in S&T that were unimagined even a decade ago.

Today’s successful forest tourism management

leaders will be those who are most flexible of mind

in adapting to new S&T. An ability to embrace new

planning and management ideas, routinely challenge

old ones, and live with paradox will be the effective

leader’s premier trait. Furthermore, the challenge is

for a lifetime as new S&T will continue to emerge.

Essentially, the whole process of forest tourism

management boils down to planning on uncertainty.

Uncertainty is the complement of knowledge-the

gap between what is known and what needs to be

known to make correct decision. Dealing sensibly

with uncertainty is not a byway on the road to

responsible forest tourism management decisions - it

171
is central to it. To cope with future forest tourism

planning, management, and research, naturalresource professionals need to be renaissancethinking women and men. The need to imagine,

perceive, and gauge the future are paramount

professional attributes of the tourism professionals of

tomorrow. The future forest tourism phenomena will

be managed by today’s professionals who look to

the future and shape it into a strategic vision. The

information presented in this paper has been aimed

at helping create a genesis of that vision.

REFERENCES

Alcestis, 0. 1983. NASA’s space hotel. Science Digest.

91(4):58.

Anon. 1985. Superfish: genetics seeks 1 00-pound

trout. The Futurist. February:3.

Anon. 1987. Now, artificial reality. Newsweek.

February 9:56.

Ashley, S. 1987. 88-pound pedal plane. Popular

Science: 230(2):70-73, 118-I 20.

Asimov, I. 1983. The 21st century: squinting into the

crystal ball. U.S. News and World Report. May

9:A41.

Barol, B; Belleville, B. 1987. Sleep tight, underwater.

Newsweek. April:56.

Barrett, F. 1985. The robot revolution. The Futurist.

October:37-40.

Beercheck, R. 1986. Engineering: The winning edge.

Machine Design. June:26-32.

Bezold, C. 1985. Drugs and health in the year 2000.

The Futurist. June:3640.

Bignami, L. 1987. Blow-up boating. Boat Pennsylvania.

Summer:C7.

Black, R. 1984. Magnetic trains take off. Science

Digest. August:26.

Bloom, F. 1985. Brain drugs. Science. November:58.

Booth, S. 1986. Future vision. Popular Mechanics.

163(7):67-69.

Bowker, M. 1987. Fresh water from the ocean. Popular

Science. 230(4):57-58.

Brody, R. 1984. Sun bubble. Omni. 6(9):52.

Bronson, G. 1987. Vegetable taxidermy. Forbes.

May: 145.

Campbell, J. 1986. Flying wing built for two. Popular

Mechanics. 163(10):60.

Carey, J. 1985. The brain yields its secrets to research.

US. News and World Report. June 364-65.

Carey, J. 1986. Genetics and heart disease. U.S.

News and World Report. July 28.

Cetron, M.; O’Toole, T. 1982. Encounters with the

future: a forecast of life into the 21st century. New

York: McGraw-Hill. 308 pp.

Cetron, M.J.; Rocha, W. 1987. Travel tomorrow. The

Futurist. July-August:29-34.

Chait, L. 1985. Direct marketing. New York: Hoke

Communication, Inc. 12 pp.

Cook, W. 1987. Cars of the 90’s. U.S. News and

World Report. August:38-44.

Country Technology. 1987-88. Vital signs. Gay Mills,

WI: Country Technology, Inc. 37 pp.

Cusumano, J. 1985. Designer catalysts. Science.

November:1 2.

Davies, 0. 1985. Space tourists. Omni. 8(2):30, 120.

Dewitt, P. 1987. Dreaming the impossible at MIT.

Time. August 31:52-53.

Ditlea, S. 1987. Artificial intelligence. Omni. 9(5):26.

Dolnick, E. 1987. Inventing the future. The New York

Times Magazine. August 23:30-33, 41, 59.

Doran, P. 1986. Winter world-getting technical.

Runner’s World. 21(11):43-48.

Electronic Arts. 1987. Chuck Yeager’s advanced

flight simulator. San Mateo, CA: (Video).

Eskow, D. 1986. Space city. Popular Mechanics.

163(6)&I-86.

Fensom, R. 1984. Self enrichment travel. USA Today.

September:40-42.

Fjermedal, G. 1986. Surrogate brains. Omni.

9(1):38, 160.

172
Frand, E. 1987. Some terrific new product ideas.

Research and Development. 29(7) : 19.

Franklin, D.; Davis, L. 1987. Shocking snakebiies.

Hippocrates. May/June:S9.

Garr, D. 1987. Sonic painkiller. Omni. 9(8):128.

Glenn, E.; O’Leary, J. 1985. Productivity and irrigation

requirements of halophytes grown with seawater

in the Sonoran Desert. Journal of Arid Environments. g(l):81 -91.

Hass, R. 1983. Global reforestation, Washington, DC:

Resources for the Future. 21 pp.

Hartley, C. 1987. Video dreamland. Audio-Visual

Communications, June:41.

Heckman, J. 1987. Tomorrow’s weather. The Futurist.

March/April:27-29.

Hoban, P. 1984. Sponge power. Omni.

6(12):26, 141.

Hoyt, W. 1986. Driving the future. Popular Mechanics.

169(10):76-79, 115.

Huntington, C. 1986. The shape of tents to comecomputers and space-age fabrics transform an

ancient structural form. Science Digest. 94(3):40-45.

lacocca, L. 1984. lacocca, an autobiography. New

York: Bantam Books. 352 pp.

International Video Network, n.d. Video travel library.

San Ranmon, CA. 7 pp.

Kashi, E. 1987. Part of life. Hippocrates.

May/June:46-53.

Kaufmann, W. 1983. Tourism in the twenty-first century.

Science Digest. 91(4):53-60.

Kelly, K. 1985. Computer in landscape architecture.

Landscape Architecture Technical Information

Series 8, Washington, DC: American Society of

Landscape Architects. 30 pp.

Kennedy, H. 1987. Travel videos. U.S. News and

World Report. August 3:65.

Kiester, E. 1986. Rain or shine. Science Digest.

94(9):48-53, 83.

Kluger, J. 1987. Body doubles, Omni. August: 48-50,

106-l 09.

Knasel, T. 1986. Artificial intelligence in manufacturing:

forecasts for the use of artificial intelligence in the

USA. Robotics, Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V.

pp. 357-362.

Kocivar, B. 1987. Flying Porsche. Popular Science.

230(5):39.

Kristof, N. 1987. 12-minute trip to coast is plane’s

goal. The New York Times, December 2, Business

Day:D-1.

Lauren, B. 1986. Star Tech: Private affordable space

planes. Omni. December:1 57.

Lawren, B. 1987. Dreamgrass. Omni. 9(8):36-37.

Lemonick, M. 1987. Superconductors! Time.

May:62-72.

Long, M. 1987. The seer’s catalog. Omni. 9(4):36-40,

94-l 00.

Lundberg, 0. 1985. Proposed mobile-satellite systems

will offer users a wide range of services. Communications News. June:51.

Lutz, W. 1985. Introducing N.E.S.T. ‘85-an exciting

housing concept. Professional Builder.

February: 1-l 0.

Maranto, G. 1987. Earth’s first visitors to Mars.

Discover. May:28-43.

Massey, M. 1979. The people puzzle: understanding

yourself and others. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing

Co. 298 pp.

McCann, R. 1984. Communications is the goal in the

computer world. Parks and Recreation.

November:33-35.

McCoy, M. 1987. Technology update. Lodging

Hospitality. 43(5):72-73.

McIntosh, R.W.; Goeldner, C.R. 1986. Tourismprinciples, practices, philosophies. 5th ed. New

York: Wiley. 564 pp.

Miller, W.F. 1986. Emerging technologies and their

implications for America. USA Today.

November:60-64.

173
Moshier Technologies. 1987. The dawn of a new era

in transportation may be closer than you think.

Discover. May:1 5.

Nachtivey, R. 1986. In high gear. Sports and Spokes.

January/February:1 7.

Naisbitt, J. 1982. Megatrends: ten new directions

transforming our lives. New York: Warner Books,

Inc. 290 pp.

Naisbitt, J. 1985. Re-inventing the corporation:

transforming your job and your company for the

new information society. New York: Warner Books.

308 pp.

Naisbitt, J. 1986. A nation on wheels. Popular

Mechanics. 163(7):173-l 90.

Naisbitt, J. 1987. John Naisbitt’s trend letter. Washington, DC. 12 pp.

Nobbe, G. 1987. Fish talk. Omni. 9(6):28.

Pelt, D. 1982. Next best thing to whole blood? Insight.

October 1251.

Perry, N. 1987. The economy of the 199O’s- what

the sober spenders will buy. Fortune. February

2:35-38.

Pine, D. 1987. Flippernauts. Omni. 9(8):37.

Plawin, P.; Blum, A. 1987. Great family vacations.

Changing Times. July:35-39.

Reeve, R. 1987. Where are the robots? Chemtech.

17(2):72-75.

Rochester, J.B. 1986. The unreal thing. Omni. 9(3):30.

Rogers, M. 1987. The next computers. Newsweek.

April:60-62.

Schefter, J. 1987. Engineering tomorrow’s airlines.

Popular Science. 230(4):49-52, 98.

Scherer, M. 1987. New wrinkles in old clothing. Sierra.

January/February:1 21-l 24.

Schmidt, D. 1985. Building better blacktops. American

City and County Administration, Engineering and

Operations. Published by Communication Channels, Inc. June:1 -3.

Shaker, S.; Finkelstein, R. 1987. The bionic soldier.

National Defense, April:3-7.

Simmons, J.C. 1987. Christopher and Goddard:

variation on a theme. American Way. July 15:21-25.

Sitwell, N.; Sedgwick, J. 1984. Super sub of the future.

The Futurist, June:60-65.

Sivy, M. 1985. What we don’t know. Money.

November:209-212.

Siwolop, S. 1985. Unsteady as she flows. Discover.

6(4):67-69.

Siwolop, S. 1987. It’s a chopper- it’s a plane-it’s

Europe’s new air shuttle. Business Week. January

19:75.

Smay, V. 1985. Earth-sheltered houses-boltand glue-arched panels cut costs. Popular Science.

227(2):63-65, 108-l 09.

Smith, J.O. 1985. Mysterious weekends. County.

January:28-29.

Sternlieb, G.; Hughes, J. 1985. The good news about

housing. Dow Jones and Co. August:l-5.

Stone, C. 1986. Computer translator. Omni. 9(3):157.

Sybervision. 1987. Sybervision. (Video). Newark, CA:

6066 Civic Terrace Ave. 5 pp.

The Sharper Image. 1986. October:1 -2.

Tracy, E. 1986. A new X-ray scanner to hinder

hijackers. Fortune. April 28:12.

Wallace, J. 1987. Pollution solutions. USAIR.

January:58-62.

Waterbury, R. 1987. Computer/human interface 2000.

Assembly Engineering. June:70-73.

Wendland, M. 1986. New wave gear. American Health.

July/August:50-53.

Wiener, L. 1987. All the sights, sounds and comforts

of home. U.S. News and World Report, August:45.

Yeager, C. 1986. America’s orient express. Popular

Mechanics. 163(8):73-75.

Zweig, C. 1986. Mayan vacation. Omni. December:1 57.

174
Section 4.

Outdoor Recreation Demand Forecasting

175

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN RPA FORECASTING

Daniel J. Stynesl

Abstract - The present state of outdoor recreation

forecasting is reviewed, current issues and problems

are identified, and recommendations for improving

recreation forecasting methods and their application

are made.

INTRODUCTION

The primary job of this conference is to assess

the state of forest and range outdoor recreation and

wilderness resources relative to present and future

demands, In this session we will focus on some of

the analytical methods for going about this task.

Methods are of more than academic interest, as

alternative methods often yield substantially different

results. Methods, theories, and models provide the

basic frameworks for organizing a massive array of

facts and converting these facts into useful information. If our theories, methods, and models are good

ones, they provide guidance on questions to ask,

where to look for answers, and sometimes the answers

themselves. If they are bad ones, they pose the

wrong questions, misdirect our attention and provide

incorrect answers.

Given the inherent future orientation of planning

and the need to anticipate future problems, opportunities, and decisions, our attention is drawn to the

problem of forecasting recreation futures. For RPA

we have the particularly difficult task of looking 50

years ahead, significantly further into the future than

our past historical record. Although we will start with

the very difficult problem of forecasting, we are hopeful

we will be able to work our way back to some easier

questions, the answers to which may provide some

“benchmarks” to build upon.

‘Professor of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State

University, East Lansing, Ml.

THE PHENOMENON

Most projections of outdoor recreation supply

and demand in the United States have their seeds in

the ORRRC reports (1962). So do many of the

methods. Major recreation forecasts in the United

States tend to be associated with national recreation

surveys, which provide a cross-sectional data base

for estimating structural models; e.g., ORRRC (1962),

Cicchetti and others (1969) Cicchetti (1973), Adams

and others (1974) U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service (1980b), Hof and Kaiser (1983) and

Walsh and others (in press). Cordell and others

(1985) review those studies published before 1985.

Recreation forecasting studies at regional (Abt

Associates Inc. 1979; Scardino and others 1980)

and State levels (Bevins and others 1981; Kalter and

Gosse 1969; Schreuder 1977) have followed this

same general approach, usually relying on structural

models to forecast recreation participation. These

structural models are based in econometric techniques, estimated from cross-sectional data and are

generally best suited for short (less than 5 years) to

medium range (5 to 10 years) forecasting. The models

have been used in many instances to make quite

long-range predictions.

Although econometric approaches have dominated recreation forecasting, the field has also borrowed

to a lesser extent from technological and social

forecasting (Martin0 1972) and business and sales

forecasting (Wheelwright and Makridakis 1985).

Technological and social forecasting tends to be

long range (more than 10 years) and to use more

qualitative approaches such as the Delphi method

(Moeller and Shafer 1983) and nominal group

techniques (Delbecq and others 1975). Business

forecasting tends to be short range and to rely more

heavily on time series methods, including simple

trend extension, moving averages, exponential

smoothing, Box-Jenkins approaches, transfer functions, harmonic and Fourier analysis, and other related

techniques.

177
Reviews of recreation forecasting methods include

Moeller and Echelberger (1974) Lieber and Fasenmaier (1983 Section two), Cordelf and others (1985),

and Stynes (1986). Similar methods and problems

are addressed in the tourism forecasting literature,

which is reviewed by Uysal and Crompton (1985)

Sheldon and Var (1985) and Calantone and others

(1987).

THE CURRENT SITUATION

A quick summary of the present state of recreation

forecasting is assembled by looking at six basic

questions:

1. What to forecast? Recreation forecasters

have devoted most of their attention to forecasting

recreation activity participation or site use. There

have been a few formal attempts to forecast supply,

policy, and management variables, generally via

qualitative methods (e.g., Domoy 1981; Moeller and

others 1977) but these are fairly rare. National and

regional plans, like RPA, generally do not forecast

site specific demand as there are too many sites

involved. More commonly they forecast activity

participation. Prices, if included, are captured via

regional indices of available opportunities, distances,

or prices.

The supply side of the picture is significantly

less well-developed. Historically, recreation planners

have projected recreation use into the future, compared projected use with the current supply of

opportunities, and estimated deficits or surpluses.

Supply inventories often focus on those facilities and

areas under the jurisdiction of the organization

conducting the planning study and seldom go beyond

a physical inventory. Inventories of recreation opponunities provided by other organizations are often

omitted or too incomplete to provide a comprehensive

and accurate picture of supply. This is particularly

the case with the private and nonprofit sectors. Supply

is often better treated as a controllable or partially

controllable policy variable rather than one which

can be projected independent of policy decisions.

Handling of supply in an exogenous manner makes

it difficult to incorporate the effects of changing supply

on recreation participation, making use projections

unrealistic during periods of changing supply conditions.

The supply side is further complicated by different

perspectives on how to measure recreation supply

and the theoretical framework for incorporating supply

into forecasts and valuation procedures. Some view

supply in terms of physical inventories, others in

terms of marginal cost functions, and others in terms

of the opportunities available to a consumer at different

prices (Harrington 1987). The difference between

existing recreation market structures and the competitive model on which equilibrium between supply and

demand is based is large enough to raise questions

about the use of such models to arrive at “market

clearing prices” (Fedkiw 1987; Kaiser and others

1987) or to allocate resources.

There have been few attempts to forecast

recreation values either directly or via forecasts of

demand and/or supply curves. More often, values

are simply moved to present or future time periods

via discounting formulas (Peterson, in press). Recreation researchers occasionally take time out to

summarize broader changes in society, the economy,

technology, etc., and to assess in a qualitative fashion

the likely impacts of these changes on recreation,

travel, and leisure. These futures assessments often

identify quite different factors than those that we

have been able to capture in quantitative forecasting

models; e.g., changes in leisure time, family structure,

work, technology, lifestyles, and societal values.

2. Who does recreation forecasting? Most

recreation forecasting is carried out in conjunction

with Federal, State, or agency planning, often because

it is mandated by legislation or recommended in

planning directives or administrative guidelines. RPA

is one example of this as are the Nationwide Plans,

and State SCORPs. Most quantitative recreation

forecasts have been developed by econometricians

with contributions also from geographers, transportation planners, and recreation survey researchers.

There are very few people doing recreation forecasting

on a regular basis. The tendency is to have technicians

or consultants come in at 5 or lo-year intervals to

estimate a model and develop a long-range forecast.

All too often this means that those developing

the forecasts have at best a general picture of the

decisions to which the forecasts are to contribute.

Also, management is generally not directly involved

in the forecasting process, and therefore does not

fully appreciate the assumptions on which the

forecasts are based or their limitations. It is often

hard to trace decisions to the forecasts, and the

forecasts often sit on the shelf until the next round of

forecasting. Managers and policymakers are commonly included in qualitative futures assessments such

as some of the strategic planning done at regional

and local levels (Becker and others 1985; Dottavio

and others 1985).

178
3. How to forecast? Economic or quasi-economic

approaches have predominated. The most common

approach is to estimate structural linear, gravity, or

logit models of recreation activity participation from

cross-sectional survey data. This is often done using

a two-step approach which separates the incidence

of participation from the frequency of participation

(Cicchetti 1973). The paper by Walsh and others (In

press) in these proceedings is an excellent example

of the structural approach.

The alternatives to the structural modeling

approach are qualitative methods and time series

techniques. The Delphi method and nominal group

technique are the best known of the qualitative

methods within recreation, not counting more widely

used ‘seat-of-the-pants” and other ad hoc approaches.

Qualitative methods tend to be used when appropriate

data or theory to construct formal quantitative models

are lacking, as is often the case in long-range

forecasting. They are better suited than quantitative

methods for involving managers/policymakers/ decisionmakers in the forecasting process. Examples of

the application of qualitative methods to recreation

forecasting include Moeller and others (1977)

Hawkins and others (1979) and Domoy (1981).

Time series methods forecast by extending a

historical pattern of observations. This requires a

consistent set of observations suited to the problem

at hand and assumptions that historical patterns will

remain relatively stable over the forecast period.

Time series methods are best suited to short-term

forecasting and to monitoring and tracking. Within

recreation, time series methods other than simple

trend extension have not been widely used due to

the lack of good time series data and limited training

of recreation researchers in time series techniques

(Stynes and Chen 1985). Studies applying structural

models to time series data include Brown and Wilkens

(1975), Allen and Dwyer (1988). With the exception

of Oliveira and others (1983), who use distributed

lag models to convert arrivals at wilderness areas

into estimates of daily use and departures, time

series applications in recreation have been largely

limited to simple trend extension or linear regression

models estimated from time series data.

Time series methods are more prevalent in the

tourism literature (e.g., Chen 1988; Fritz and others

1984; Guerts and lbrahim 1975; Stynes and Chen

1985) presumably due to a closer connection with

business forecasting techniques and better time

series data.

4. How accurate are our forecasts? Although

accuracy is not the most important criterion for

evaluating forecasts (usefulness in decisionmaking is

the most important criterion), it is the question most

often asked. Accuracy depends a great deal on

what is forecasted, at what level of aggregation, and

how far into the future. The predominance of quite

long-range forecasts in recreation makes evaluation

difficult. Few forecasts have been evaluated after the

fact. Measures of goodness-of-fit for the data used

to estimate a model are often poor indicators of

forecast performance. This is particularly the case

with models estimated from cross-sectional data.

A major forecasting study that has been evaluated

is the ORRRC projections of recreation activity

participation to 1976. Brown and Hustin (1980) found

these forecasts consistently below estimates from

the 1976 national recreation survey. The measured

rates in 1976 were from 20 to 400 percent above the

ORRRC forecasts. ORRRC used a structural model

with socioeconomic variables as demand shifters.

Model specification (variables included and functional

form) proved to be the primary sources of error, as

independent variables were forecasted quite accurately. Like most recreation forecasting models, many

of the key determinants of change are missing from

the model or not properly specified. ORRRC, like

many other recreation forecasts, assumes constant

rates of participation by socioeconomic subgroups,

an assumption that simply has not proven valid over

long time horizons.

The ORRRC forecasts, while quite inaccurate (at

least based on the 1976 national survey estimates,

which many believe to be somewhat inflated), were

very useful as they correctly identified the direction

of change and some of the key determinants of

change. A considerable portion of the error in these

forecasts can be attributed to the response of

governmental authorities to the ORRRC reports,

most notably major increases in the supply of

opportunities for outdoor recreation, lowering the

costs to consumers, and increasing the quality.

ORRRC also forecasted per capita visits to the

National Park System (NPS) using a structural model.

Stynes (1983b) notes that the forecast of 0.21 NPS

visits per capita for 1976 is well below the observed

rate of about one visit per capita in 1976, again due

to a linear specification and the omission of key

variables like changing supply of national parks.

179
Shorter range forecasts can be more accurate,

because the assumption that variables omitted from

the model remain constant is more likely to be valid.

Also, there is usually less variation to explain over

shorter time horizons. For short-term forecasting,

simple time series methods can be quite accurate.

For example, weekly and seasonal patterns of

recreation use have proven reasonably stable over

time and can be predicted quite well by regression

models with dummy variables (Dwyer 1988) or

harmonic models (Stynes and Chen 1985). Transfer

function models developed by Chen (1988) to forecast

monthly tourism-related employment in Michigan

forecast up to a year ahead with errors of from 1 to

10 percent accuracy for different subregions of the

State.

Taking a slightly different approach to forecast

evaluation, Peterson and others (1985) reestimated a

trip d\istribution model for the Boundary Waters Canoe

Wilderness (BWCAW) area to examine the stability of

the model over time. They found little change in

gravity model parameters over a 7-year period. While

the model explaining the distribution of trip origins

across a 12-State region was stable, the model could

not explain changes in the total number of trips,

which seems to depend on more elusive factors

such as consumer tastes and preferences, information

about and images of canoeing and BWCAW, and an

array of variables that might explain substitution of

activities and sites. All of these are hard to capture

in quantitative models.

5. When to forecast? The RPA process is typical

of Federal and State planning related to recreation,

with forecasts developed at 5 or lo-year intervals.

The forecast horizon for RPA is 50 years with forecasts

generated to the year 2040 in the 1990 RPA report.

Forecasting should be more of an on-going activity

of recreation organizations with greater attention to

short- and medium-range forecasting.

6. Why forecast? The cynical answer to this

question is because it is required. While mandated

planning and forecasting often provide the stimulus

to take time from more pressing problems, this is not

the primary reason for forecasting. The purpose of

forecasting is to improve decisions. For this reason,

forecasts should be evaluated based upon their

usefulness in decisionmaking, not their accuracy

(Martin0 1972).

The place to begin a forecasting study is therefore

a clear understanding of the decisions now under

consideration and those anticipated in the near and

distant future. These should guide what is forecasted,

when, how far into the future, using which methods,

with what accuracy and precision, etc. Much recreation

forecasting has spent too little time understanding

the policy and decisionmaking environment relative

to the time spent on technical matters. The questions

that drive forecasting studies are often too general

to provide clear directions to technicians who generally

develop quantitative forecasts.

For example, the RPA forecasts are guided by

general questions about the current quantity of

recreation and wilderness resources, long-run trends

in demand, and the social, economic, environmental,

management, and policy implications of these trends.

These are helpful to orient a forecasting study, but

do not provide sufficiently specific background to

guarantee the forecasts will be useful for many of

the more specific decisions to be made. It is especially

important that the crucial management and policy

variables be identified. If these variables are properly

specified in forecasting models, the models can be

very useful for evaluating alternative management

and policy actions. When these variables are not

identified, forecasting models only explain likely

responses of recreation to general social and

economic conditions, over which recreation organizations have very little control.

Greater specificity is often difficult due to limited

information or lack of agreement on goals, policies,

and methods. Also, for many questions we lack the

data, theory, or methods to generate adequate

answers analytically. Questions about both policy

and methods usually become clearer as a forecasting

study proceeds. To the extent that decisionmakers

are not more intimately involved in forecasting studies,

technicians may make incorrect assumptions about

how results will be used and may be guided more

by technical matters or convenience than the needs

of decisionmakers. Too little of what is learned in

forecasting studies is communicated by the final

forecast or model. Most of the value of a forecasting

study accrues to those directly involved in the study

itself. To the extent that managers and decisionmakers

are not more heavily involved in the forecasting

process, many of the potential benefits of forecasting

studies are often lost.

LIKELY FUTURES

How is recreation forecasting likely to change in

the future? How should it change? We should not

expect radical change over short time periods in

methods as there are significant lags involved in

changing procedures and methods. The reluctance

to drop assumptions on which forecasts are based,

even long after they have been shown to be false,

180
also slows the rate of change. Ascher (1979) finds

this “assumption drag” to be prevalent in all areas of

forecasting. Also, since methods for forecasting

recreation are largely refinements or adaptations of

methods handed down from fields with a longer

history of forecasting, surprises are unlikely if we

simply look around us.

Having argued this side of the case, let me also

point out that fairly significant changes in methods

for handling supply, demand, and value have taken

place within recreation over the past 30 years. These

changes have been driven in part by the need for

improvements in methods and in part by changes in

policy,stances and decision agendas. The introduction, development, and refinement of the travel cost

method is a good example, as is the shift toward

contingent valuation methods in response to the

need to value changes in quality. The recent interest

in costs, market prices, supply, and the role of the

private sector has also shifted the attention being

given to different methods and caused us to rethink

how we measure and forecast recreation demand

and value. It is bringing needed attention to the

supply side and structure of recreation markets

(Clawson 1984; Daniels and Cordell, in press;

Harrington 1987). Recreation forecasting in general

has begun to make greater use of qualitative methods

and to forecast a wider range of management,

environmental, economic, and social conditions

related to recreation. There has been a retreat from

quantitative models.

Foreseeable future trends in recreation forecasting

methods are basically extensions of these recent

trends, The one overriding trend I foresee is a

movement toward more comprehensive information

systems, Multipurpose cooperative data-collection

efforts (Cordell and others 1987) and greater sharing

of data (O’Leary 1987) already are moving us in this

direction.

Monitoring of trends and forecasting should be

important parts of such information systems, and in

many cases possibly the driving force behind them.

Development of comprehensive monitoring and

forecasting systems requires that we better integrate

activities and methods that are presently carried out

too independently. We also need to make some

reallocations of effort toward clarifying information

needs and evaluating what we have done in the

past. I see five essential components of a comprehensive recreation forecasting system.

(1) The first step is to identify the key variables

to measure and forecast, and to carefully trace how

information about these variables and their interrelationships contributes to management and policy

decisions. This is both the most difficult and most

important step. Any forecasting effort must begin

with a clear sense of purpose and at least some

clearly defined management, policy, and planning

questions. We cannot measure everything, and there

is a clear tradeoff between measuring a lot of variables

poorly and inconsistently versus measuring a few

regularly and well. The latter seems to be the place

to start. Getting agreement on a smaller set of variables

to measure regularly in a cost-effective manner will

not be easy.

(2) Once we have identified the key variables,

they must be measured on a regular basis over time

and space and assembled into an information system.

A system of accurate, consistent, and readily accessible historical observations will provide a firmer basis

for short-term forecasts and will encourage greater

use of time series methods. During the 1980’s,

sufficient attention has been directed to trend issues

to result in some significant improvements in our

knowledge. The 1980 and 1985 National Outdoor

Recreation Trend Symposia, the 1985 National

Wilderness Research Conference, the PCAO Literature

Reviews, and now this Benchmark Conference and

the 1990 RPA effort have significantly advanced both

what we know about recreation trends and maybe,

more importantly, the organization and accessibility

of this information. Obtaining a more accurate measure

of where we are and where we have been is absolutely

essential to improving our ability to forecast the future.

(3) Time series and structural models should be

estimated from this data base and the resulting models

should become an integral part of the information

system (Jarvis and others 1987). The information

system should include modules for forecasting that

are readily accessed by decisionmakers. The forecasting models should provide information relevant to

management and policy decisions, and the data

base should be organized to satisfy the modeling

needs. Time series models estimated from the trend

data would provide short-range forecasts and means

of tracking key variables. Structural models estimated

from periodic surveys and time series data would

provide medium-range forecasts and test relationships

among variables. Such models help evaluate whether

we are tracking the right independent variables and

provide a theoretical framework for an overall forecasting system.

(4) Regular qualitative forecasting procedures

are needed to assess long-range futures, to capture

variables that cannot yet be incorporated quantitatively, to provide a vehicle for broader involvement of

181
decisionmakers and various publics, and to give

feedback to modelers. Qualitative forecasts should

be supported by the quantitative trend data and

models, while also being aware of their assumptions

and limitations.

(5) There should be an on-going program to

evaluate all forecasts and forecasting models in

terms of their accuracy, assumptions, and usefulness

for decisionmaking. Such evaluations should guide a

continuing program to refine and develop forecasting

systems over time. Very few recreation forecasts or

forecasting models have been carefully evaluated

after the fact. Brown and Hustin’s (1980) evaluation

of the ORRRC projections is one exception. Recreation

forecasting models are evaluated more often based

upon fits to the data used in estimating them than

their success in forecasting. Critical evaluations of

past forecasting efforts should provide guidance for

future efforts.

While some kind of comprehensive national

recreation information system is certainly desirable,

this may not be the place to start, as it cuts across

too many organizations with different needs, resources, and institutional structures. Such a comprehensive system is more likely to be built up from

smaller scale systems. Many Federal and State

agencies as well as local and regional recreation

authorities already have pieces of the system I

describe in place or under development. The systems

being developed by the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station to assist with the RPA effort include

many of the components described above and

illustrate the potential of a cumulative and integrated

approach. We should continue to develop and refine

these kinds of systems and hopefully devote more

time and resources to these efforts. The key in most

cases is assuring that the systems provide useful

information back to those who feed data into the

system and also to administrators and policy-makers

who allocate the resources to develop and maintain

information systems.

NEEDS

Needs may be divided into three areas: (1) human

capital, (2) research and theory development, and

(3) data and systems development. Improvements in

recreation forecasting requires progress on all three

fronts.

Training in forecasting methods and futures is

needed for both researchers and decisionmakers.

We have too few researchers working in the recreation

area with special training in forecasting. Decisionmakers, too, must have a greater understanding of futures

and forecasting methods in order to properly interpret,

evaluate, and apply the results of forecasting studies.

Greater awareness of forecasting and forecasting

methods will help decisionmakers become more

directly involved in forecasting. Benefits from forecasting often stem as much from involvement in the

forecasting process as from any particular forecasts

that are made. The more decisionmakers can be

involved in forecasting, the more relevant forecasts

will be to decisions, and the more support there will

be for forecasting activities. Insights gained during

the process of forecasting will be applied in decisionmaking more often than forecasts themselves.

Improvements in forecasting will also require

improvements in the two key inputs to forecasts,

theory, and data. The need for more reliable data

that are more consistent over time is a recurring

theme within recreation and elsewhere. Perhaps of

even greater importance is the need for improvements

in theory to better focus and direct our attention to

the most appropriate data. Recreation forecasting is

constrained by a lack of solid theories of change

over time. Research on diffusion, adoption, substitution, adaptation, and other change processes is

sorely lacking within recreation. An overreliance on

cross-sectional methods constrains our ability to

understand change. Models which more fully consider

changing time budgets, changing values, and

changing opportunities are needed (Stynes 1981).

The technology for addressing most of our outdoor

recreation planning and forecasting problems exists.

It will, however, take many years for organizations to

understand and apply these technologies within

recreation. There will be significant conversion and

retraining costs. More resources must be set aside

for systems development over a fairly long period of

time. While a great deal can be accomplished by

more focused and coordinated efforts, some new

resources will be needed, as recreation organizations

cannot maintain existing operations while at the

same time developing new systems to replace them.

The greatest impediments are institutional. With

recreation cutting across agency, geographic, and

public-private boundaries, cooperation, coordination,

and standardization are difficult. Forecasting adds

an additional need for consistency of activity and

effort over time. Changing institutional structures,

responsibilities, and personnel make it difficult to

establish systems like those I’ve described above.

Recreation information and forecasting systems must

be institutionalized themselves to survive long enough

to demonstrate their value.

182
A FEW PARTING QUESTIONS AND

OBSERVATIONS

1. How much forecasting is useful? I think we

could use more recreation forecasting on a more

consistent basis. We should also adopt more of the

“La Prospective” philosophy of forecasting (Godet

1982). This French school of forecasting looks at the

future in more controllable terms. The future is not

something we project independent of our own actions.

Our forecasting methods tend to ignore the important

role we play in shaping our future. More of our strategic

planning should address what we want the future to

be and assess what actions we should take to get

there:

2. What is the proper balance between short-,

medium-, and long-range forecasting? I think we

should do more short- and medium-range forecasting.

Long-range forecasts should devote less attention to

forecasting recreation use and more to forecasting

broader social, technological, economic, political,

and environmental conditions that will influence

recreation supply and demand.

3. What should we be forecasting? The answers

to this must come from an understanding of the

decisions we will be confronting in the future. The

most important variables I foresee impacting outdoor

recreation over the next 50 years are population size

and geographic distribution, age and family structures,

transportation modes and prices, distribution and

amount of leisure time, roles of public and private

sectors, fees for recreation, state of the economy,

quality of the outdoor recreation environment, and

the amount, quality, and price of substitutes for

outdoor recreation.

4. At what level of detail/aggregation should

forecasts be developed? I think we will increasingly

need to further disaggregate our forecasts and

analyses to be relevant to decisions. Recreation

information must be disaggregated along at least

three dimensions: spatial, temporal, and activity.

a. Spatial. Decisionmaking at the local level

requires more disaggregated information. National,

regional, and State averages often do not apply.

b. Temporal. The temporal distribution of

use is increasingly important in management decisions. Annual use estimates are inadequate for many

decisions. Increasingly, we will need estimates broken

down by month, weekend vs. weekday, and even

time of day in some cases.

c. Activity and market segments. The

increasing specialization in recreation activities will

require more narrowly defined categories of activities

and market segments, as well as greater attention to

quality variations in products and services.

5. Should our approach be top down or bottom

up? Should forecasts be developed from national

surveys and then disaggregated to regional and

local levels or can recreation activity and trends be

measured consistently on a regular basis at the local

level and then aggregated up to regional and national

levels? Should we rely on household surveys or

onsite studies? I would answer “yes” to all of these

questions. Multiple methods are required, although

some sorting out of the proper role of these different

approaches is surely needed.

6. Should we use quantitative or qualitative

forecasting methods? Should quantitative methods

use time series or structural models? Again, I argue

for multiple methods with each serving the role for

which it is best suited. I think more attention should

be devoted to monitoring, short-term forecasting and

time series methods. I would also encourage much

wider use of qualitative forecasting methods, with

decisionmakers more directly involved.

REFERENCES

Abt Associates Inc. 1979. New York-New England

recreation demand study. Cambridge, MA. 5 vols.

Adams, R.L.; Lewis, R.C.; Drake, B.H. 1974. Outdoor

recreation: a legacy for America. Appendix A, an

economic analysis. Washington, DC: USDI, Bureau

of Outdoor Recreation. 239 pp.

Ascher, W. 1979. Forecasting, an appraisal for

policy-makers and planners. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press. 239 pp.

Allen, A.T.; Dwyer, J.F. 1978. A cross-sectional analysis

of hunting, fishing, and boating in Illinois. Forestry

Research Report 78-8. Urbana, IL: University of

Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station.

Becker, R.H.; Dottavio, F.D; Bonnicksen, T.M. 1985.

Conventional wisdom and qualitative assessment.

In: Wood, James D., Jr. ed., Proceedings, 1985

national outdoor recreation trends symposium II.

Vol. 1. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office.

183
Bevins, M.I.; Haugh, J.A.; Stynes, D.J. 1981. Analysis

of recreation participation and demand studies

Vermont, 1977. Burlington, VT: University of

Vermont Extension Service. 215 pp.

Brown, T.L.; Hustin, D.L. 1980. Evaluation of the

1976 ORRRC projections. In: 1980 national outdoor

recreation trends symposium. Appendix. Extension/

Research Paper RPA 1980-5. Clemson, SC:

Clemson University.

Brown T.L.; Wilkens, B.T. 1975. Methods of improving

recreation projections. Journal of Leisure Research.

7:225-234.

Calantone, R.J.; Di Benedetto, C.A.; Bojanic, D. 1987.

A comprehensive review of tourism forecasting

literature. Journal of Travel Research26(3):28-39.

Chen, S. 1988. Modeling spatial and temporal

variations in tourism-related employment in Michigan. East Lansing, Ml: Michigan State University.

183 pp. Ph.D. dissertation.

Cicchetti, C.J. 1973. Forecasting recreation in the

United States. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,

D.C. Heath & Co.

Cicchetti, C.J.; Seneca, J.J.; Davidson, P. 1969. The

demand and supply of outdoor recreation: an

econometric analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

State University, Bureau of Economic Research.

390 pp.

Clawson, Marion L. 1984. Effective acreage for outdoor

recreation. Resources 78 (Fall).

Cordell, H. Ken [and others]. 1985. Advancements in

methodology for projecting future recreation

participation. pp. 89-109. In: Wood, James D., Jr.,

ed. National outdoor recreation trends symposium

II. Vol. 1, (1985: Myrtle Beach, SC). Atlanta, GA:

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, Science Publications Office.

Cordell, H.K.; Hartmann, L.A. [and others]. 1987.

Public area recreation visitors survey: a progress

report. pp. 19-36. Proceedings southeastern

recreation research conference. Athens, GA:

University of Georgia, Recreation Technical Assistance Off ice.

Daniels, S.E.; Cordell, H.K. [in press]. Estimating

outdoor recreation supply functions: theory,

methods and results, Benchmark 1988 Symposium.

Delbecq, A.L.; Van de Ven, A.H.; Gustafson, D.H.

1975. Group techniques for program planning.

Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Co.

Domoy, F.M. 1981. Great Lakes recreation/tourism

futurescapes. Report to New York Sea Grant

Program. Center for Management Study, College

of Business. Rochester Institute of Technology.

Dottavio, F.D.; Becker, R.H.; MacKintosh, B. 1985. A

strategic approach to resource management and

planning in the National Park Service. pp. 271-279.

In: Wood, James D., Jr., ed. Proceedings 1985

national outdoor recreation trends symposium II.

Vol. 1. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Park Service, Southeast Regional Off ice.

Dwyer, John F. 1988. A site-specific model for

predicting daily use of urban forest recreation

sites. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration

6(1):38-53.

Ewing, G. 1983. Forecasting recreation trip distribution

behavior. In: Lieber, S.R.; Fasenmaier, D.R., eds.

Recreation planning and management. State

College, PA: Venture Publ.

Fedkiw, J. 1987. Coming back to market value and

valuation of the Great Lakes fisheries. Transactions

of the American Fisheries Society. 116(3):346-351.

Fritz, R.G.; Brandon, C.; Xander, J. 1984. Combining

time series and econometric forecast of tourism

activity. Annals of Tourism Research 11(2):219-229.

Godet, M. 1982. From forecasting to ‘La Prospective’:

A new way of looking at futures. Journal of

Forecasting. 1(3):293-301.

Guetts, D.M.; Ibrahim, B.I. 1975. Comparing the

BoxJenkins approach with exponentially smoothed

forecasting model; application to Hawaii tourists.

Journal of Marketing Research. 12:182-l 88.

Harrington, W. 1987. Measuring recreation supply.

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Hawkins, D.E.; Shafer, E.L.; Rovelstad, M. (editors

not verified). 1979. Tourism and the next decade:

international symposium March 1 l-1 5, 1979.

George Washington University, Marvin Center. 3

vol.

Hof, J.G. 1980. Problems in projecting recreation

resource use through supply and demand analysis.

pp. 443-461. In: Hawkins; Shafer; Rovelstad, eds.

Tourism Planning and Development Issues. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

184
Hof, John G.; Kaiser, H. Fred. 1983. Long-term outdoor

recreation participation projections for public land

management agencies. Journal of Leisure Research

15(1):1-14.

Jarvis, J.P.; Senter, H.F; Year-wood, T. 1987. Applications of an interactive demand-supply model. pp.

7-l 8. Proceedings southeastern recreation research conference. Athens, GA: University of

Georgia, Recreation Technical Assistance Office.

Kaiser, H.F.; Guldin, R. [and others]. 1987. Estimating

prices for access to opportunities for hunting,

fishing, and viewing wildlife on public and private

lands. final report. US. Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources and Environmental Steering

Committee on Wildlife and Fish Access Prices.

Washington, DC. 26 pp.

Kalter, R.J.; Gosse, L.E. 1969. Outdoor recreation in

New York State: projections of demand, economic

value, and pricing effects for the period 1970-l 985.

Special Cornell Series, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 57 pp.

Lieber, SR ; Fasenmaier, D.R. 1983. Recreation

planning and management. State College, PA:

Venture Publ.

Martino, J.P. 1972. Technological forecasting for

decision-making. New York: American Elsevier.

Moeller, G.H.; Echelberger, H.E. 1974. Approaches

to forecasting recreation consumption. pp. 43-55.

In: Outdoor recreation research: applying the

results. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-g.

Moeller, G.H.; Shafer, E.L. 1983. The use and misuse

of Delphi forecasting. pp. 96-104. In: Lieber, S.R.;

Fasenmaier, D.R., eds. Recreation planning and

management. State College, PA: Venture Publ.

Moeller, G.H.; Shafer, E.L.; Getty, R.L. 1977. Leisure

environments of tommorrow. pp. 22-34. In: Outdoor

recreation advances in applications of economics.

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

Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-2.

Mueller, E.; Gurin, G.; Wood, M. 1962. Participation

in outdoor recreation: factors affecting demand

among American adults. ORRRC Study Report

No. 20. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office. 100 pp.

National Academy of Sciences. 1975. Assessing

demand for outdoor recreation. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Outdoor

Recreation.

O’Leary, J.T. 1987. Planning and the nationwide

survey: trying to enhance the application. pp.

49-64. Proceedings southeastern recreation research conference. Athens, GA: University of

Georgia, Recreation Technical Assistance Off ice.

Oliveira, R.A.; Arthur, L.M.; Papastavrou, A.C. 1983.

A distributed lag approach to forecasting wilderness

use. Journal of Leisure Research 15:52-64.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

1962. Prospective demand for outdoor recreation.

Study Report 26. Washington, DC.

Peterson, G.L. [In press]. Estimating recreation values

over time and the art of catching fish. Benchmark

1988 Symposium.

Peterson, G.L.; Stynes, D.J.; Arnold, J.R. 1985. The

stability of a recreation demand model over time.

Journal of Leisure Research. 17(2):121-132.

Scardino, V.; Schwalbe, J.; Beauregard, M. 1980.

Forecasting trends in outdoor recreation on a

multi-state basis. pp. 35-54. In: Proceedings 1980

national outdoor recreation trends symposium;

Vol. 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-57. 1977. Broomall,

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Schreuder, G.F. 1977. Forecasting recreation participation: a theoretical model. Prepared for Washington State-wide comprehensive outdoor recreation

and open space plan, Olympia, WA: Interagency

Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 26 pp.

Sheldon, P.J.; Var, T. 1985. Tourism forecasting: a

review of empirical research. Journal of Forecasting.

4: 183-l 95.

Stynes, D.J. 1981. Mathematics, modeling and

recreation research. pp. 197-225. In: Ng, D.; Smith,

S., eds. Perspectives on the nature of leisure

research. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo

Press.

Stynes, D.J. 1983a. An introduction to recreation

forecasting. pp. 87-95. In: Lieber, S.; Fasenmaier,

D., eds. Recreation planning and management.

State College, PA: Venture Publ.

185
Stynes, D.J. 1983b. Time series and structural

recreation forecasting models. pp. 87-95. In: Lieber,

S.; Fasenmaier, D., eds. Recreation planning and

management. State College, PA: Venture Publ.

Stynes, D.J. 1986. Recreation forecasting methods.

In: A literature review, appendix to the President’s

Commission on American outdoors final report.

Washington, DC.

Stynes, D.J.; Chen, S. 1985. A comparison of time

series and structural models for monitoring and

forecasting tourism activity. pp. 127-138. In: Wood,

James D., Jr., ed. Proceedings, 1985 national

outdoor recreation trends symposium II. Vol. 1.

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior. National

Park Service, Southeast Regional Office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980a.

An assessment of the forest and range land

situation in the United States. pp. 91-162. In: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Technical

Report FS-345. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980b.

Proceedings, 1980 national outdoor recreation

trends symposium; Vols. 1 and 2. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NE-57. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

1979-86. National park statistical abstract. Denver,

CO: National Park Service, Statistical Office.

Uysal, M.; Crompton, J.L. 1985. An overview of

approaches used to forecast tourism demand.

Journal of Travel Research. 23(4):7-l 5.

Van Horne, M.J.; Szwak, L.B.; Randall, S.A. 1985.

Outdoor recreation activity trends--insights from

the 198283 nationwide recreation survey. pp.

109-l 30. In: Wood, James D., Jr., ed. Proceedings,

1985 national outdoor recreation trends symposium

II. Vol. 2. Atlanta, GA: US. Department of the Interior.

National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office.

Walsh, R.G.; Harpman, D.A. [and others]. [In press].

Long-run forecasts of participation in fishing,

hunting, and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation.

Benchmark 1988 Symposium.

Watson, A.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Odum, G. 1987.

Wilderness use estimates: opportunities for technology transfer. pp. 127-133. In: Proceedings southeastern recreation research conference. Athens,

GA: University of Georgia, Recreation Technical

Assistance Office.

Wheelwright, S.C.; Makridakis, S. 1985. Forecasting

methods for management 4th ed. New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor

Recreation. 1973. Outdoor recreation: a legacy for

America (Appendix A: an economic analysis).

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

186
LONG-RUN FORECASTS OF PARTICIPATION

AND NONCONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE

IN FISHING, HUNTING,

RECREATION

Richard G. Walsh, David A. Harpman, John G. Hof,

Kun H. John, and John R. McKean

Abqfract-A logir model is used to estimate the

proportion of the population of the United Stares who

participate in (1) nonconsumprive wildlife recreation;

(2) fishing for cold-water and warm-water species;

and (3) hunting big game, small game, and migratory

birds in 1980. The logir equations are then used to

forecast the number of persons who are likely to

participate in these activities from 7990 to the year

2040. lndicarions are that nonconsumprive wildlife

recreation will be the fastest growing acriviry. The

historic growth in fishing is expected to continue,

although at somewhat lower levels owing to slower

increases in population. Hunting is forecast to

decrease in the long run, consistent with the preliminary findings of the 1985 National Survey.

INTRODUCTION

Forest management provides the opportunity for

recreational use of fish and wildlife resources as one

of several important outputs of USDA Forest Service

programs. Since passage of the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) in 1974,

Congress has required that assessments of alternative

50-year management plans be prepared for each

Forest Region every 5 years. In the past, RPA forecasts

of participation in fishing, hunting and other wildliferelated recreation were based on projection of historic

trends into the future (Wegert 1978). More recently,

observers have begun to question whether the method

should be relied upon for long-run forecasts since it

assumes that whatever caused recreation use in the

past will continue in the future. Estimates based on

historic growth rates tend to become unrealistic in

‘Walsh and McKean are professors, Harpman and John are graduate

research assistants, in the Department of Agricultural and Resource

Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Hof is a

Principal Economist with the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Fort Collins, CO.

the long run, due to changes in the determinants of

demand. Advances in applied statistical estimation

procedures and computers during the past decade

make it possible to use more sophisticated forecasting

techniques.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a recent

statistical forecast of the recreation use of fish and

wildlife resources through the year 2040 for the 1990

RPA assessment of the renewable resource situation.

A logit model is used to forecast the proportion of

the population of the continental United States who

will participate in (1) nonconsumptive wildlife recreation; (2) fishing for cold-water and warm-water

species; and (3) hunting big game, small game, and

migratory birds. Participation will be shown to be a

function of changes in population, a travel cost proxy

for price and the price of substitutes, income, age,

urbanization, and other socioeconomic characteristics

of individuals, quality of the experience, and availability

of resources.

The method is based on Federal guidelines (U.S.

Water Resources Council 1983) which recommend

that forecasts of recreation consumption be based

on multiple regressions, providing coefficients to

estimate how much each of the explanatory variables

causes participation to vary. When one or more of

the determinants is expected to change in future

years, its effect on consumption can be estimated.

This approach provides decision makers with the

best available predictions of the amount and type of

recreation use of fish and wildlife. National participation

surveys are undertaken by the Census every 5 years,

providing the data base necessary to update multiple

regression forecasts of demand for fish and wildlife

recreation.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

While this is the first attempt to apply the logit

regression model to estimation of the long-run

participation in wildlife recreation, the approach has

187
proven effective in the wildlife economic literature.

Several studies have used data from earlier national

surveys to estimate the proportion of the population

that participates in wildlife-based recreation. In an

exploratory study, Hay and McConnell (1979, 1981)

used data from the 1975 National Survey to estimate

a national equation for the probability of participation

in the nonconsumptive recreation activities of observing, photographing, and feeding wildlife. Subsequently, Miller and Hay (1981) used the same data

set to estimate a national equation for the probability

of hunting, and a regional equation for the probability

of hunting migratory waterfowl in the Central Flyway.

These authors chose the logit model as theoretically

and statistically superior to alternative techniques

such as ordinary least squares (OLS). Vaughan and

Russell (1981, 1982) used the 1975 survey to estimate

a national logit equation for the probability of fishing,

and a conditional equation for the probability of

cold-water and warm-water fishing.

In draft reports to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

McConnell (1984, 1985) explored the suitability of

using the 1980 National Survey to estimate logit

equations for the probability of hunting and fishing in

the United States, and conditional equations to

estimate the probability of deer hunting, duck hunting,

etc. A logit equation for the probability of participation

in wildlife recreation was applied to the choice between

consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife activities

(Hay and McConnell 1984). Based on the 1975 survey,

the authors observed that individuals who hunt often

participate in nonconsumptive activities, i.e., a

complementary relationship, Most recently, the 1980

survey was used to estimate a conditional probability

model of participation in fee hunting on private land

by 8 percent of the hunters (Langner 1987). These

studies constitute a benchmark from which to compare

the reasonableness of the procedures adopted in

this paper.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS:

CURRENT SITUATION

Wildlife-related activities currently represent one

of the most important forms of outdoor recreation in

the United States. Table 1 shows that the most popular

activity is warm water fishing, with nearly 17.4 percent

of the population of 169.9 million persons 16 years

of age and older participating in 1980. Approximately

4.1 percent participate in cold water fishing for species

such as trout and salmon. By comparison, roughly

7.0 percent participate in some kind of hunting for

big game (deer, elk, etc.), 7.3 percent for small game

(rabbits, squirrels, etc.), and 3.1 percent for migratory

birds (geese, ducks, etc.). Less than 1.5 percent of

the population hunt for other types of animals such

as fox and raccoon which are omitted from this study.

A reported 17 percent of the population take

nonconsumptive trips for the primary purpose of

observing, photographing, or feeding wildlife. Apparently, fish and wildlife have a special importance to

people, not only because of the fishing and hunting

they provide, but also because of their important

ecological role in the environment (Shaw and Mangun

1984).

Table 1 illustrates several important economic

aspects of wildlife recreation. Expenditures for the

types of fishing, hunting, and nonconsumption

wildlife-related trips studied amount to about $16.9

billion per year. Participants report spending an

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Participation in Wildlife Recreation, United States, 1980

Participants

Nonconsumptive Fishine Huntiw

Unit of Wildlife-Related Cold WarIll Big Small Migratory

Variable Measure Trips Water Water Came Game Birds

Number of Persons Millions 28.8 6.9 29.5 ii.8 12.4 5.3

Proportion of Percent 17.0 4.1 17.4 7.0 7.3 3.1

Population

Total Billion $4.0 $1.5 $6.3 $2.8 $1.7 $0.6

Expenditures Dollars

Per Participant

Trips Trips/year 11 10 ia a 12 a

Days Days/year 13 12 20 10 12 a

Expenditures Dollars/year $139 $314 $275 $236 $135 $120

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1982) and subsam ple estim ates to separate fresh w ate r fish ing into cold w ate r

and w arm w ate r fish ing.

188
average of $120 to $236 per year for hunting, $275

to $314 for fishing, and $139 for primarily nonconsumptive wildlife-related trips. Expenditures represent

primarily the variable or direct costs of transportation,

lodging, added food, licenses, fees, and miscellaneous expenses. To a considerable extent, fishermen

and hunters pay for public management programs

through license fees and through excise taxes on

equipment purchased while nonconsumptive users,

for the most part, do not.

The level of participation is limited, of course, by

legal and institutional restrictions, seasonal access,

and availability of fish and wildlife. However, warmwater angler participation averages 20 days per

year, primarily on single-day trips. By comparison,

small game hunting averages 12 days per year.

Participation in nonconsumptive wildlife-related trips

is equal to 13 days per year. These wildlife-related

recreation activities account for a substantial amount

of the estimated 100 days per year the average

participant engages in outdoor recreation in the

United States (Walsh 1986).

Table 2 compares the socioeconomic characteristics of participants and nonparticipants in wildlife

recreation. Hunters tend to be younger white men

with larger families living in nonurban regions with

somewhat lower education and income. Anglers are

somewhat older, more likely to be married, and to

live in urban areas. More women participate in fishing

than in hunting. More women than men participate

in nonconsumptive wildlife recreation. Also, more

nonconsumptive users live in urban areas with

somewhat higher education and income than consumptive users. By comparison, nonparticipants in

wildlife recreation are older, fewer are employed,

with somewhat lower education and income. Fewer

are married and household size is smaller. More are

nonwhite women living in urban areas.

Table 2. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Participants and Nonparticipants in Wildlife Recreation, United States, 1980

Participants

Mean Nonconsumptive Fishinp. Huntine

Value of Unit of Non- Wildlife-Related Cold Warm Big Small Migratory

Variable Measure oarticioants TriDs Water Water Game Game Birds

Income Thousand Dollars 18.0 23.6 25.0 21.1 22.3 22.1 26.1

Employment Percent Employed 0.48 0.65 0.70 0.67 0.74 0.73 0.72

Age Years 45.6 36.4 36.4 36.6 35.8 34.0 32.4

Education Years 11.7 13.3 13.1 12.3 12.0 12.0 13.0

Marital Percent Married 0.54 0.64 0.67 0.71 0.70 0.66 0.61

Status

Family Size Persons 2.8 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.5

Race Percent White 0.81 0.91 0.95 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.98

Sex Percent Male 0.44 0.48 0.70 0.69 0.89 0.92 0.95

Residence Percent Urban 0.79 0.66 0.60 0.55 0.43 0.47 0.56

Sample Size 2,021 608 616 1,757 1,041 986 452

Source: Subsample estimates from the Census Survey reported in U.S. Fish and Wildlife (1982).

189
Table 3. Compound Annual Growth of Participation in Fishing and Hunting,

United States, 1955-1980

HuntinP

Compound Annual Freshwater Big Small Migratory

Growth in . . . Fishing Game Game Birds

Participation

Proportion of Population 1.0 2.5 -0.2 0

Number of Persons 2.8 4.3 1.6 1.8

Days per Participant 1.0 1.3 2.0 -0.6

Total Days 3.8 5.6 3.6 1.2

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1982; p. 134)

using compound growth tables.

The demand for wildlife-based recreation activities

is related to how many people choose to participate

and how often. Table 3 illustrates the historic trend

in consumption of fishing and hunting by persons 12

years of age and older for 25 years from 1955 to

1980. The data show that the compound annual

growth in total days of freshwater fishing, for example,

was approximately 3.8 percent. Population growth of

1.8 percent accounted for nearly half of this. The

proportion of the population participating grew at a

compound annual rate of only 1.0 percent, as did

the average number of days per participant. By

comparison, the compound annual growth in total

days of small game hunting was 3.6 percent with an

increase in the number of days per participant

accounting for 2.0 percent or more than half. The

proportion of the population participating actually

declined at a rate of -0.2 percent per year. However,

population growth more than offset the decline, so

that the total number of persons participating increased by 1.6 percent per year. Table 3 also shows

the variation in growth of big game and migratory

bird hunting.

LOGIT REGRESSION MODEL

Decisions to participate in wildlife-related recreation activities represent a series of discrete choices.

Individuals select from a finite set of alternatives to

reach a decision about which activity they will

participate in at a particular time and place. Binominal

choice models with a O-l dependent variable are a

particular type of discrete choice models which are

frequently used in recreation research (Miller and

190

Hay 1981; Hay and McConnell 1984). The SPSS-X

program uses the maximum likelihood technique to

estimate a logistic regression of the form log [P/(1-P)]

= BX, where P = probability of participation; B =

the vector of coefficients; and X = a vector of

explanatory variables.

The pioneering studies of participation in outdoor

recreation by Davidson and others (1966) Cicchetti

(1972, 1973) and Cicchetti and others (1969) used

ordinary least squares (OLS) procedures since

algorithms for logit estimates were not widely available

at the time. However, there are a number of problems

in using the OLS approach. First, if the error terms

are not normally distributed, heteroskedasticity results

in inefficient estimators. Second, if the error terms

are not normally distributed, t-tests of significance

are meaningless. Third, predicted probabilities from

the estimated equation are likely to range outside

the O-l probability interval. Fourth, there are difficulties

in interpreting the R* measure of goodness-of-fii.

Finally, there are questions about the appropriateness

of the essentially linear functional form.

The linear OLS model assumes that a unit change

in a causal variable (X) always creates a constant

rate of change in predicted probability (Y). It is usually

more realistic to assume that change in an exogenous

variable has less and less effect on probability as it

approaches either zero or unity, resulting in an

S-shaped logistic or “logit’ curve. In some cases the

OLS line and the logit curve are nearly coincident

within the middle range of probabilities. In this event,

both models would yield nearly identical probability
estimates. This is supported empirically by Smith

and Munley (1978) who, in comparing the results of

OLS and logit analysis, report little difference in their

relative predictive performance or ability to identify

key variables.

In other cases, the estimated probabilities

obtained using a logit model and those obtained

using OLS diverge substantially in the middle range

of probability. In one such case, Bell and Leeworthy

(1987) conclude that in terms of intra-sample predictive

ability, OLS is superior to logit for the data set which

they use. Thus, while there are theoretical reasons

for using logit analysis, the choice of methodology

remains unclear in applied research. In a practical

sense, logit is somewhat less tractable than is the

OLS regression technique. It is computationally more

time consuming and expensive. Since the logit

regressions error term is not based on the normal

distribution, many of the familiar tests of significance

do not apply. For this reason, it is difficult to judge

the reliability associated with the forecasts of probability in the majority of cases.

SOURCES OF DATA AND RESEARCH

PROCEDURE

The basic data for this study are from the 1980

National Survey (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service 1982). This is the sixth in a series

of surveys at 5year intervals since 1955. It was

conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in two

phases. First, a sample of more than 116,000

households nationwide were interviewed to determine

who in the household had hunted, fished, or engaged

in some nonconsumptive wildlife recreation in 1980.

Information was obtained on the usual socioeconomic

variables and days of participation in hunting and

fishing. Also recorded were the annual days on trips

primarily for the purpose of nonconsumptive wildlife

recreation, i.e., observing, photographing, or feeding

wildlife. Information on 340,000 household members

6 years of age and older was obtained from an adult

member of each household. A 95 percent response

rate was achieved. For purposes of this study, a

subsample of 4,000 individuals 16 years of age and

older was randomly drawn from the Census sample

of users and nonusers.

In the second phase of the survey, detailed

personal interviews were conducted with samples of

35,615 fishermen and hunters, and 6,949 nonconsumptive users identified in the first phase interviews.

Detailed information was obtained on types of hunting,

fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation,

destination, duration, and variable costs. The sample

was limited to persons 16 years of age and older

because of the length and complexity of the questionnaires. For purposes of this study, subsamples of

individuals who participated in fishing, hunting, and

nonconsumptive use were randomly drawn from the

Census samples, Our study is limited to fish and

wildlife related activities reported by individuals who

live in the continental United States. Excluded are

residents of the states of Alaska and Hawaii, and

foreign travelers to the United States for the purpose

of fish and wildlife related activities. Also excluded

from the study are U.S. citizens who made trips abroad

to hunt or fish during 1980. Participants are identified

by their State of residence where most participation

occurs, however, some participation may occur in

other States as well as in the State where they live.

The Survey for 1980 did not directly differentiate

between cold-water and warm-water fishing. We

separated these two activities according to the catch

of fresh-water fish species classified as either coldwater or warm-water species (Walsh and others

1987). Cold and warm-water fishing is limited to

inland waters such as rivers, lakes, streams, and

ponds. Excluded are the Great Lakes-Superior,

Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario, tributaries and

connecting waters, such as Lake St. Clair, and the

St. Lawrence River south of the bridge at Cornwall,

New York, and rivers that run into the Great Lakes

(U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service 1982). Also excluded is all saltwater fishing

in oceans, bays, sounds and tidal waters of rivers

and streams.

The Census samples are designed to provide

statistically reliable results at the State level for fishing

and hunting and at the regional level for nonconsumptive activities, This results in disproportionate sampling

of individuals from small States, urban areas, and by

level of activity. Thus, the logit equations are estimated

with a weighted log likelihood function, as suggested

by Manski and Lerman (1977). The normalized weights

used are derived from the sample expansion factors

provided by the Census.

Estimating the probability of participation in an

activity requires that the general population be

sampled to include some who participate and some

who do not. In this case, the telephone survey includes

those who hunt, for example, and those who do not,

but does not indicate what kind of hunting is engaged

in. More detailed information is available from the

follow-up survey by personal interview, i.e., whether

they hunt for big game, small game, or migratory

19 1
Table 4. Definition of Independent Variables in the Logit Regressions

Variable Name Definition Unit of Measurement

Price Average variable cost or miles per participant in respondent’s

region of residence

Cross-Price Average variable cost or miles per participant in other ffih and

wildlife activities in respondent’s region of residence

Income

Employment

Respondent’s gross household income

Respondent worked for wages last week

Age Age of respondent

Education Years of education completed by respondent

Marital Status Respondent’s marital status

Household Size Number of persons living in respondent’s household

Race Respondent’s household race

Sex Sex of respondent

Residence Respondent’s place of residence

Success Rate

Foresta

Average number of fish caught or wildlife bagged per day or

season in respondent’s region of residence

Forest land, public and private in respondent’s state of

residence

Rangea

Waterb

Cold Water’

Warm Waterc

Habitatd

Song Birdse

Pasture and range land in respondent’s state of residence

Total fishable water in respondent’s state of residence

Fishable cold water in respondent’s state of residence

Fishable warm water in respondent’s state of residence

Migratory waterfowl habitat in respondent’s state of residence

Maximum value of number of song bird species per ecological

stratum in state of residence

Big Gamef Population of big game in respondent’s state of residence

Dollars or miles

Dollars or miles

Thousand dollars

1 = employed

0 = unemployed

Years

Years

1 = married

0 = unmarried

Persons/household

1 = white

0 = other

1 = male

0 = female

1 = urban

0 = rural

Number

Million acres

Million acres

Million acres

Percent

Percent

100,ooO acres

Species

Thousand Animals

=U_S. Forest S&ice (1981).

b

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

'Vaughan and Russell (1982)

d

U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries

bobbins and others (1986)

f

.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serrrice

(1968).

and Wildlife (1970).

(1983).

19 2
birds. Hence, the probability estimation is divided

into two steps: (1) the probability that an individual

engages in hunting of any kind, and (2) given that

he/she hunts, the probability of hunting a particular

type of wildlife. A similar procedure is followed for

each type of hunting and fishing. For example, the

probability of participating in cold-water fishing is

estimated, conditional on participation in fishing.

This assumes that the decision process is, first,

whether or not to fish, and then what kind of fish to

seek, as suggested by McConnell (1985). The

proportion of the population who participate is

modeled as follows:

I. Fishing (First stage)

A. Cold water fishing (Second stage)

B. Warm water fishing (Second stage)

II. Hunting (First stage)

A. Big game hunting (Second stage)

B. Small game hunting (Second stage)

C. Migratory waterfowl hunting (Second

stage)

Ill. Nonconsumptive use

These are not exclusive categories, since many

individuals report that they engage in more than one

type of fishing and hunting, and, in addition, take

nonconsumptive wildlife recreation trips.

Table 4 defines the explanatory variables included

in the equations. Most are standard socioeconomic

measures and require no further explanation. Perhaps

a brief comment on the proxy for price and quality of

the resource would be useful. Economic theory

suggests that more individuals will choose to participate in States or regions where average variable

costs are lower. The specification of price adopted in

this study is limited to interstate or regional variation.

Omitted is the possible effect of instate variation

across individuals, which may also affect decisions

to participate. Moreover, nonparticipants are likely to

face a somewhat higher entry price than participants

owing to fixed start-up costs. Another problem is

that the variable costs reported by participants may

not equal the total cost of ,participation. However, it

is not likely that the amount that costs are understated

would vary systematically across regions. For purposes of forecasting the behavior of individuals, their

perceived travel cost or miles traveled is expected to

explain actual behavior better than alternative measures that might be used.

The resource-related variables used in this study

are based on State and regional level data from

sources other than the 1980 survey. They are assigned

to each individual in the sample based on State of

residence. Aggregation of the resource variables to

the State or regional level is necessary because the

available information on wildlife and fish resources

does not permit the identification of the quantity of

resources at any finer level (county, for example).

Thus, the resource variables involve the implicit

assumption that suitable resources are distributed

so that typical residents in a State or region, both

participants and nonparticipants, face a similar

resource situation.

The second phase of the Census survey provides

detailed information on the success rate in fishing

and hunting. Within the institutional constraints on

daily or seasonal catch or bag, success rate depends

on the skill of individual participants and the availability

of fish and wildlife. To isolate the effect of management

programs on availability of fish and wildlife, it is

necessary to hold the effects of individual skill

constant. It seems reasonable to assume that

individual skill would not vary systematically across

States and regions of the United States. Thus, the

average catch per site, State, or region can be used

as an effective indicator of the quality of resource

(Charbonneau and Hay 1978; Hay and McConnell

1984; Vaughan and Russell 1982; ). Accordingly, the

participation equations for types of hunting and fishing

contain a variable, success rate, defined as the

average number of fish caught or wildlife bagged

per participant in the respondent’s region of residence.

PROBABILITY OF PARTICIPATION

EQUATIONS

Tables 5 and 6 present the estimated logit

equations for participation in wildlife recreation. Table

5 estimates the probability that an individual will

engage in any type of fishing, hunting, and nonconsumptive wildlife related trips. Table 6 contains

estimates of the probability that individuals will engage

in each type of hunting given that they hunt, or in

each type of fishing given that they fish. The maximum

likelihood coefficients are asymptotically consistent,

normally distributed, and the t-test is a valid test of

significance.

The equations show the estimated relationship

between participation and 14 hypothesized determinants of demand. The coefficients for each of the

independent variables represent the derivatives of

the log of the odds (logit) of participation. The

relationship of the explanatory variables to the

193
Tabk 5. Iogil Equation for Utc Probability of Participation in Piig, iIunting, and Noocoosu mptivc Wildlife Raxcation Trips, Uuitcd

statc$1980

Nonconsumptive

Description of Wildlife-Related Total Total

Variables Variables Tripsb Fuhingc Huntingd

Constant 2.99045’ 3.65911’ 3.99810’

(10.13)s (22.40) (23.08)

Price Dollars or miles -0.04895* -O.OOOS6* -0.00069*

(-2.02) (-2.08) (-2.31)

Cross-Price (1) Dollars or miles 0.01230 0.00100’ 0.00124’

(1.2s) (3.19) (2.15)

Cross-Price (2) Dollars or miles 0.00209 0.04346*

(1.18) (236)

Income Dollarslycar 0.00942” 0.01060* 0.0059 1

(SI@O) (225) (3.09) (136)

Age YtXfs 0.02854+ 0.00190 -0.01269*

(3.81) (0.27) (-8.58)

Age Squared Years2 -0.00044* -0.00015*

(-5.04) (-2.00)

Marital Status 1 = married __ 0x033* 0.17085’

0 = unmarried (7.01) (3.55)

Household Size Persons 0.02875 l 0.09288’

-. (l-f% (6.35)

Race 1 = white 0.36260. 0.25801* 0.46608+

0 = olher (4.27) (3.7 1) (5.95)

SCX 1 = male _- 0.56336. 0.13683.

0 = female (14.00) (3.2S)

Residence 1 = urban -0.19950+ -0.46669*

0 = rural (-4.96) (-10.71)

Resource Acres/Capita 0.00211* 0.14687’ 0.00827’

Availability (1.78) (4.49) (4.60)

Probability Percent of Population 0.135 0.212 0.167

Sample Size Individuals 4,000 4,000 4,000

aT-statistics are shown in parenthcscs below the coefficients. An l indicates that a variable is signilicant at the .lO level or above.

bFor nonconsumptive wildlife-related trips: own price is specilied as total annual miles per participant in the region of residence; cross-price

(1) for hunting is total annual variable costs per participant in the region of residence; cross-price (2) for fiihing is total annual variable

costs per particpant in the region of residence; income is per capita; and resource availability is total forest, pasture, and range land per

capita in the state of residence.

‘For fihing: own price for participants is their reported total annual variable costs, and for nonparticipants it is the regional total annual

variable costs; cross-price (1) for hunting is total annual variable costs of participants and regional total variable costs for nonparticipants;

cross-price (2) for nonconsumptivc use is total annual miles in the region of residence; income is gross household income; and resource availability is total ftshablc water per capita in the state of residence.

dFor hunting: own price is specilicd as total annual variable costs per participant in the state of residence; cross-price (1) for nonconsumptive

use is total miles per trip by participants in the state of residence; income is gross household income; and resource availability is total forest,

pasture, and range land per capita in the state of rcsidcnce.

194
Tabk 6. Iagil LQdons for lbc I’nhabilily of Participation in Cold and Warm Water Fiing Conditional on Par(icipation in Fikhittg, and

llunting for Iliz: Game, Small Chmc, aud Migralory IhIs Chnditional on Ptipalion in Ilunlinp,_ U&cd Stalcq Bt!4l

Variables

Fishing

Cold

WaIerb

Warm Big

WaIerc Gamed

Hunting

Small

Gamee

Migratory

Birds‘

Constant

Price Dollars or milts

Cross-Price (1) Dollars or miles 0.00296*

(3.47)

0.00248’

(13.38)

4.93.36s l

(19.03)

-0.00313*

(-2.53)

-0.0018s*

(-221)

Cross-Price (2) Dollars or miles __

Income

Employment

Age

Age Squared

Education

Marital Status

Household Size

Race

sex

Residence

Success Rate

Resource

Availability

Probability

Sample Size

Dollarslyear

(Sl,~)

1 = employed

0 = unemployed

YCatX

YCirS2

YCTS

1 = married

0 = unmarried

PCrKXU

1 = white

0 = other

1 = male

0 = female

1 = urban

0 = rural

Number of Fish

or wildlife

Acres or Pcrccnl

Pcrccnt of

Population

Individuals

3.75319’ 4.46183.

(9.70)a (10.29)

-0.00163* -0.00413’

(-S.29) (-7.05)

0.0082S

(3.30)

0.02146

(028)

0.00241

(0.97)

__

0.02220’

(2.11)

-0.08492

(-1.05)

-0.04956’

(-2.09)

0.05630

(0.39)

0.11703

(1.61)

0.14198’

(2.11)

0.03088

(0.34)

0.01233*

(7.11)

0.132

2,212

0.08589

(1.01)

0.01892

(1.49)

-0LKlO22

(-159)

-0.01774

(-1.54)

-0.04702

(-0.52)

0.033 16

(1.33)

0.07386

(0.5 1)

0.07297

(0.95)

-0.osa25

(-0.80)

0.12151’

(2.22)

__

0.929

2,212

-0.0102!?

(-1.97)

0.03442,

(344)

-0.00037+

(-3.09)

__

0.38322,

(2.84)

-0.24539’

(-4.11)

0.02488’

(6.54)

0.690

1,445

5.74007’ 3.24927.

(25.96) (7.11)

-0.00272’ -0.01561*

(-3.43) (-2.10)

-0.00112

(-0.47)

0.01894

(0.26)

-0.01087*

(-4.71)

0.00623*

(2.85)

-0.00083

(4.48)

0.01406*

(557)

-0.24949*

(-3.20)

-0.01023*

(-3.76)

-0.01651+

(-1.74)

0.0 1932

(0-Z)

0.065 16

(0.45)

0.41890’

(4.54)

0.06588

(1.07)

0.03963

(1.09)

0.06028.

(5.61)

-0.09641

(-1.20)

-0.02420

(-1.17)

0.64380’

(3.18)

0.66523*

(5.36)

0.16260,

(2.56)

0.10919’

(3.78)

0.718

1,445

0.281

1,444

aT-statistics arc shown in parentheses below the coeflicients. An l indicates that a variable is signilicant at the .lO level or above.

l’For cold water lishing, own price for participants ls their reported total annual miles, and for nonparticipants it is regional total annual

miles; cross-price for warm water lishing is the same as above; income is household income in thousands; success rate is regional average

catch per day; resource availability is the proportion of cold water to total lishablc waler in stale of residcncc.

CFor warm water fishing, variables are defined the same as for cold water lishing; the cross-price variable is for cold waler fiihing.

dFor big game hunting, own price is total annual variable cosl per particpant in the region of residence; cross-price for small game hunting

is total annual variable cost per participant in the region of residence; income is per capita; success rate is regional average total bag

per hunter; and resource availability is thousands of big game animals in the state of residence.

eFor small game, own price is lhe total annual variable cost per participant in the region of residence; income is household income in

thousands; success rate is regional average bag per day.

‘For migratory bird hunting, own price is total annual variable cost per participant in Ihc region of residence; cross-price (1) for small

game hunting is defined the same; cross-price (2) for big game hunting is the same; income is household income in thousands; success rate

is regional average bag per day.

195
probability of participation is nonlinear. The t-statistics,

shown in parentheses beneath the coefficients

indicate that several of the variables in each of the

equations are significant at the 0.10 level or above.

Since the logit model is estimated by the maximum

likelihood method, a coefficient of multiple correlation

is not generated. However, an W-like measure can

be calculated which gives an indication of the amount

of the variation in the dependent variable which is

explained by variation in the independent variables.

The logit model correctly predicted whether an

individual was or was not a cold-water fisherman in

64.5 percent of the cases, which is relatively accurate.

The price proxy has the correct sign and is

significant in all of the eight regressions. The negative

coefficients indicate that with future increases in

travel costs, license fees, access fees, and other

expenses associated with wildlife recreation, the

proportion of the population participating would

decrease, other variables constant. Although the

proxy for price necessarily lacks precision, the

coefficients suggest that participation in wildlife

recreation may be price inelastic. Price elasticity

indicates how much effect future expansion of public

and private management programs, through increases

in licenses, excise taxes, and access fees, would

have on the proportion of the population that

participates.

At least one cross-price variable for alternative

wildlife recreation activities in the State or region of

residence is significant in seven of the eight regressions. A positive coefficient indicates that an alternative

recreation activity is a substitute and a negative

coefficient indicates that it is a complement. The

most important tentative finding with respect to

cross-prices is that the general population seems to

consider nonconsumptive wildlife recreation a substitute for hunting. This is indicated by (1) the positive

coefficient for the cross-price of hunting in the

nonconsumptive equation and (2) the positive

coefficient for the cross-price of nonconsumptive

trips in the hunting equation.

If hunting and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation

are substitutes, it would have important implications

for public policy. Increases in the price of hunting

not only decrease participation in that activity but

increase demand for nonconsumptive trips. Programs

that improve access to (and reduce the price 09

nonconsumptive wildlife resources will tend to increase

participation in the activities of observing, photographing, and feeding wildlife, and reduce hunting pressures

on wildlife populations. In the fishing equation, the

positive cross-price coefficient for hunting indicates

that it substitutes for fishing. This suggests that recent

increases in the price of hunting may have contributed

to decreased participation in that activity and the

increased demand for fishing.

Income is significant in five of the eight regressions. The positive coefficients for income shown in

table 5 indicate that wildlife recreation is a normal

good. This means that as future incomes rise, the

proportion of the population participating in fishing,

hunting, and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation also

will increase, all else constant. The negative coefficient

for income in the big game hunting equation shown

in table 6 indicates that, given one is a hunter, the

probability of big game hunting will fall as incomes

rise. This reflects the changing relative preference of

hunters for migratory bird hunting, which has a positive

income coefficient.

Age, a measure of the physical ability and

inclination to engage in wildlife recreation, is a

significant explanatory variable in six of the eight

regressions. The quadratic relationship between age

and participation in fishing, big game hunting, and

nonconsumptive wildlife recreation indicates that

increasing age affects participation positively up to a

point and then has an overall negative effect, other

things being equal.

The residence variable is significant in five of the

eight regressions. The negative coefficients for total

fishing, total hunting, and big game hunting indicate

that persons living in urban areas are less likely to

participate in these activities than individuals in rural

areas, other things being equal. This is due, in part,

to limited access to opportunities in urban areas

(Miller and Hay 1981). The positive coefficients for

cold-water fishing and migratory bird hunting indicate

that as urbanization increases, participants are likely

to increasingly choose these activities,

Other demographic variables also are important.

Race is positive and significant in five of the eight

regressions. This means that whites are more likely

to participate in wildlife recreation than nonwhites.

The race variable is significant for consumptive wildlife

recreation activities-total fishing, total hunting, big

game hunting, and migratory bird hunting-as well

as nonconsumptive wildlife recreation. Trends in

racial mix indicate future increases in nonwhites who

are less likely to participate in wildlife recreation. Not

surprisingly, the coefficient for the sex variable is

positive and significant in five of the eight regressions.

This is consistent with the observation that more

men participate in wildlife recreation than women.

196
Household size is significant in three of the eight

regressions. The variable is positively related to

participation in hunting and nonconsumptive wildlife

recreation. Parents may introduce their children to

these wildlife recreation activities. This would be

consistent with family participation in most types of

outdoor recreation (Walsh 1986). Education is

significant in three of the eight regressions. It is

positively related to participation in cold-water fishing

and migratory bird hunting. It is negatively related to

small game hunting.

Resource availability is significant with the

expected positive sign in five of the eight regressions.

The positive coefficient for available resources shows

that participation in total hunting and fishing, big

game hunting, cold-water fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation is expected to increase with

improved resource management programs. Success

rate is significant with the expected positive sign in

three of the five regressions for types of fishing and

hunting where data on success rate are available.

The positive coefficient for success rate indicates

that participation in cold and warm-water fishing and

migratory bird hunting is expected to increase with

improved resource management programs that

enhance the quality of the fishing or hunting experience by increasing catch or bag rate.

PROJECTIONS OF THE EXPLANATORY

VARIABLES

Table 7 shows the projections of the indicators

for the explanatory variables for each decade from

the base year of 1980 to 2040. The multiple regression

method of forecasting relies upon projections of the

determinants of demand, such as population, income,

price, age, substitutes, and other demand shifters.

The U.S. Bureau of the Census routinely prepares

long-run forecasts for many of these determinants.

An advantage of the uniform application of recognized

and acceptable sources is that any two studies can

be compared. However, other values are less readily

available and must be projected using historic data

from the Census and other agencies, as in Hof and

Kaiser (1988). The population projections are from

Spencer (1984). They represent the high, low, and

medium assumptions of the 1990 RPA Assessment

(US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1986).

Average household income before taxes is based on

forecasts of per capita disposable personal income

by Wharton Associates for the 1990 RPA Assessment.

The range from low to high is proportional to the

range in the previous RPA Assessment (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1981). Median

age, percent of the population that is white, and

percent that is male are derived from the same source

as the population projections (Spencer 1984). The

projections of employment are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

(1985). The range from low to high is assumed to be

proportional to the range in income contained in the

previous RPA Assessment (U.S. Department of

Initial

Condnion

H igh

Disposable

Pe W Xlal

Incom e Marital Ave rage

National Median Race Sex Pe r Capita Em ploymen t Residence Status Fam ily Variable

Population Age

(Pe rcent) (Pe rcent) (SlOOlk (Pe rcent Education (Pe rcent (Pe rcent size Cost/Day

Year (Millions) (Years) W h ile ) Male ) 19 82) Em ployed ) (Years) Urban) Married) (Nu m ber ) (Dollars )

19 80 227.8 30.0 85.9 48.7 9 .7 63.6 12.7 73.7 61.1 3.29 22.87

19 9 0 254.1 32.7 84.1 48.7 11.5 68.0 13.3 71.8 61.0 3.28 25.03

2000 281.5 35.6 82.4 48.7 14.5 70.4 13.9 69 .9 59 .9 3.27 27.25

2010 310.0 36.8 80.7 48.7 173 67.9 145 68.0 59 .8 3.26 28.9 6

2020 340.8 36.7 79 .2 48.7 20.4 64.1 15.1 66.1 59 .7 3.25 30.32

2030 369 .8 37.3 77.7 48.7 23.7 61.8 15.7 64.2 59 .6 3.24 32.07

2040 39 8.5 37.1 76.4 48.7 21.8 59 .3 16.3 62.3 59 .5 3.23 33.83

Medium

19 9 0 249.1 33.0 84.4 48.7 11.3 66.9 13.0 73.8 60.1 3.17 24.62

2cKJo 267.9 36.3 83.1 48.7 14.0 68.1 13.4 73.9 59 .2 3.06 26.37

2010 283.2 .38.5 81.7 48.7 16.8 65.9 13.8 74.0 58.2 2.9 4 28.12

2020 236.6 39 .3 80.5 48.7 20.1 63.2 14.2 74.1 57.2 2.82 29 .87

2030 304.8 40.8 79 .3 48.5 233 60.9 14.6 74.2 56.3 2.70 31.62

2040 308.6 41.6 78.1 48.5 27.3 58.5 15.0 74.3 55.3 2.58 33.37

19 9 0 345.8 33.2 81.6 48.7 11.0 64.8 12.8 75.6 59.2 3.06 23.83

2000 256.1 37.0 83.4 48.7 13.3 64.8 13.0 77.5 57.2 2.82 25.09

Low 2010 261.5 40.0 82.2 48.7 15.8 61.8 13.2 79 .4 55.3 2.59 26.38

2020 262.7 41.7 81.0 48.5 18.8 59 .3 13.4 813 53.3 2.35 27.9 6

2030 257.4 43.9 79 .8 48.2 21.8- 56.9 13.6 83.2 51.4 2.12 29 .53

2040 246.5 45.2 78.6 47.9 25.5 54.6 13.8 85.1 49 .4 1.88 31.13

197
Agriculture, Forest Service 1981). The education

projections are based on Census data reported in

Hof and Kaiser (1983).

Projections of the proportion of urban residence

are based on Census data. The low scenario assumes

that the trend will continue upward at the 1960-80

average rate. The medium scenario assumes that

the nominal rate of change from 1970 to 1980 will

continue in future years. The high projection represents a reversing of the 1960-80 trend, based on the

expectation that in the future, more people will want

to live in rural areas rather than urban.

The projections for marital status also represent

three assumed growth paths. The medium projection

is a linear extension of the midpoint of the 1950-70

average rate of change. The low scenario represents

a continuation of the trend at the full rate of decline.

The high scenario assumes virtually no change in

the married proportion of the population in future

years.

The medium projection of household size is

based on U.S. Census estimates of the 1940-80

trend. The low scenario assumes that family size will

decline at twice that rate. The high scenario assumes

that with population growth, family size will stabilize

in future years with virtually no decline.

Price and cross-price estimates are based on

projections of the historic trend in the average variable

costs per day (in constant dollars) of fishing and

hunting from 1955 to 1980, as repotted by the U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

(1982). The range from low to high is proportional to

the projected range in per capita disposable income

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

1981).

The indicator for resource availability is set equal

to 1.0 in the medium, low, and high scenarios. This

assumes that resource availability will not change

between 1980 and the year 2040. Sensitivity to

alternative resource management programs is tested

by assuming a 20 percent decrease and a 20 percent

increase, consistent with projections of the availability

of fish and wildlife resources (U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1968).

LONG-RUN FORECASTS OF

PARTICIPATION

Figure 1 and table 8 show the forecasts of the

number of persons expected to participate in fishing,

hunting, and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation trips

in the United States from the base year, 1980, to the

year 2040. The forecasts are based on the logit

regressions and the projections of the independent

variables. The sample means of the explanatory

variables are multiplied by their regression coefficients,

summed and added to the constant term. The resulting

value is then substituted into the logit formula. This

yields the probability of participation or the proportion

of the population participating in the base year, 1980.

Then, the process is repeated with the mean value

of each variable multiplied by the expected value of

the variable in the future year. In the two-stage

procedure, the forecast probabilities for total hunting

and fishing, respectively, are multiplied by the second

stage forecast for each activity. The resulting forecast

of the proportion of the population participating is

multiplied by an index of projected population in the

future year compared to the base year. Then this is

divided by the estimated proportion of the population

participating in the base year. The result is a forecast

of the index for the number of persons expected to

participate in the future year compared with the base

year.

:: 200

169

130

I36

76

Fishin g

warm water

Fishin y

01 I I I , 1 I

1980 1990 2000 2010 202fl 2030 2040

Years

Figure 1. -Forecasts of the number of persons participating

in major wildlife recreation activities under medium level

population assumptions, United States, 1980 to 2040.

The results indicate that nonconsumptive wildlife

recreation will be the fastest growing activity. The

historic growth in fishing is expected to continue

although at somewhat lower levels owing primarily to

slower increases in population. Hunting is forecast to

decrease in the long-run, consistent with the preliminary findings of the 1985 national survey. With 1980

indexed at 100, the number of persons participating

in big-game hunting under medium level population

198
Table 8 Farecash OF the Number of Persons Parikipating in Fig, Hunting, and h-mprive Wiwife Recreation

Tr&UnitedStates,1980to2040

Year

Nonconsumptive Fishing

Wildlife-Related Cold Warm

Trips Water Water

Big

Game

Hunting

Small

Game

Migratory

Birds

Initial

Condition 1980 100 100 100 loo 100 100

1990 124 114 115 10s 101 101

2000 156 136 133 109 101 107

2010 186 164 154 117 107 126

2020 216 204 181 127 120 164

2030 254 248 209 135 128 200

2040 295 311 244 142 140 259

1.819 1.909 1.498 0.586 0.562 1.599

1990 121 112 111 100 % 94

2000 145 129 121 97 89 93

2010 168 147 133 95 84 97

2020 191 173 147 94 84 109

2030 214 196 157 90 79 116

2040 235 228 169 86 76 130

1.434 1.383 0.878 -0.251 -0.456 0.438

1990 116 110 106 95

2000 133 121 109 86

2010 149 133 112 78

2020 162 146 114 70

2030 173 156 11s 61

2040 180 169 114 53

90

81

75

74

69

68

0.984 0.878 0.219 -1.053

91

77

66

59

50

43

-1.397 -0.641

High

Annual Growth

Rate

Medium

Annual Growth

Rate

Low

Annual Growth

Rate

variables into the equations. Wiih 1980 set at 100,

the number of persons participating in big-game

hunting in the year 2040 ranges from a low of 53 to

a high of 142, while small game hunting ranges from

43 to 140, and migratory bird hunting from 68 to

259. Thus, with the high population growth scenario,

the number of persons participating in hunting would

increase in future years.

assumptions for the year 2040, is forecast to decrease

to an index of 86 and small game hunting to 76,

while migratory bird hunting would increase to 130.

This compares to a medium population forecast

equal to an index of 135.5 for the same time period.

Apparently, the number of persons participating in

hunting will decrease despite the increase in population. By comparison, warm-water fishing is forecast

to increase to 169, cold-water fishing to 228, and

nonconsumptive wildlife recreation to 235. Also shown

are the compound annual growth rates to facilitate

comparison of these results with other research.

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The forecasts are sensitive to the availability of

suitable resources; thus, they could be used to

simulate the effect of management decisions. For

example, setting the resource variable at 1.2 and 0.8

of the base case provides an estimate of the effect

of changes in fish and wildlife management programs

on participation.

Statistical procedures are not currently available

to estimate a 95 percent confidence interval around

these point estimates. However, table 8 does show a

range of forecasts in participation based on the low

and high projections of population and other determinants of demand. The low and high forecasts result

from inserting the low and high projections of the

199
Parricipation Index

Nonconsumptive Cold Water Big Game

ReSOUrCeS Wildlife Fishing Hunting

Base Case, 1.0 235 228 86

Increase, to 1.2 236 246 90

Decrease, to 0.8 234 211 82

This suggests that a 20 percent increase in suitable

resources would increase participation in cold water

fishing by 7.9 percent, compared to big game hunting

which increases 4.6 percent, and to nonconsumptive

wildlife recreation which exhibits almost no change.

Hay and McConnell (1984) reported that resource

availability was not a determinant of participation in

nonconsumptive wildlife recreation. Their findings

and those reported here may be the result of the

inability to correctly measure resource availability

rather than an insignificant or small effect on nonconsumptive participation.

Another indicator of the effectiveness of fish and

wildlife management is success rate, i.e., the number

of fish caught or wildlife bagged. For example, setting

the success rate variable at 1.2 and 0.8 of the base

case provides an estimate of the effect of management

programs designed to achieve these levels of resource

availability. The forecast of the index of the number

of persons participating in the year 2040 changes as

follows:

Participation Index

R.ZSOUrCe Cold-Vater Warm-Water Small Game Migratory Bird

Success Rate Fishing Fishing Hunting Hunting

Base Case, 1.0 228 169 76 130

Increase, to 1.2 236 170 77 142

Decrease, to 0.8 221 167 64 118

This suggests that a 20 percent increase in success

rate would increase participation in migratory bird

hunting by 9.2 percent compared to 3.5 percent for

cold-water fishing, and virtually no change in small

game hunting. Neither the cold-water nor the small

game coefficients for success rate are significant at

the 0.10 level.

CONCLUSIONS

This study addressed the problem of forecasting

participation in fishing, hunting, and nonconsumptive

wildlife recreation in the long-run. Indications are that

nonconsumptive wildlife recreation will be the fastest

growing activity. The historic growth in fishing is

expected to continue, although at somewhat lower

levels. Hunting is forecast to decrease in the long-run,

consistent with the preliminary findings of the 1985

national survey. With the expected slow-down in the

historic increase in number of persons participating,

fish and wildlife managers have an opportunity to

emphasize programs designed to increase quality of

the experience.

This study should be useful to natural resource

managers and planners since some of the variables

which affect participation can be influenced by public

agencies, in particular the range in prices and supply

of resources provided. Such information is essential

in planning a suitable range of fishing, hunting, and

nonconsumptive wildlife recreation opportunities.

The empirical estimates presented in this study

should be viewed as tentative, first approximations

to be verified or rejected by further study. Much

more analysis is needed before we will understand

all of the important determinants of participation in

fishing, hunting, and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation. Further research is recommended using the

1985 national survey to test the reliability of the results

reported here.

The study was funded, in part, by the Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Contract No.

28-K6-377, and by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station, Western Regional Project W-133,

Benefiis and Costs in Resource Planning. We are

grateful for the helpful comments of Michael J. Hay

and Aaron Douglas, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service; Kenneth E. McConnell,

University of Maryland, and Linda L. Langner, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

200
REFERENCES

Bell, Frederick W.; Leeworthy, Vernon Ft. 1987.

Economic demand for marinas and projected

impact on wetlands. Land Economics 63(2):79-91.

Charbonneau, J.J.; Hay, Michael J. 1978. Determinants and economic values of hunting and fishing.

pp. 391-403. In: Transactions 43d North American

wildlife and natural resources conference. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute.

Cicchetti, Charles J. 1972. A review of the empirical

analyses that have been based upon the national

recreation surveys. Journal of Leisure Research

4(1):90-107.

Cicchetti, Charles J. 1973. Forecasting recreation in

the United States: an economic review of methods

and applications to plan for the required environmental resources. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Cicchetti, Charles J.; Seneca, Joseph J.; Davidson,

Paul. 1969. The demand and supply of outdoor

recreation: an econometric analysis. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Bureau of

Economic Research.

Davidson, Paul; Adams, F.G.; Seneca, Joseph J.

1966. The social value of water recreational facilities

resulting from an improvement in water quality:

the Delaware estuary. pp. 175211, In: Kneese,

A.V.; Smith, S.C., eds. Water research; economic

analysis, water management, evaluation problems,

water reallocation, political and administrative

problems, hydrology and engineering, research

programs and needs. Baltimore, MD: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Hay, Michael J.; McConnell, Kenneth E. 1979. An

analysis of participation in nonconsumptive wildlife

recreation. Land Economics. 55(11):460-71.

Hay, Michael J.; McConnell, Kenneth E. 1981. An

analysis of participation in nonconsumptive wildlife

recreation: reply. Land Economics. 57(5):288-292.

Hay, Michael J.; McConnell, Kenneth E. 1984.

Harvesting and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation

decisions. Land Economics. 60(4):388-396.

Hof, John G.; Kaiser, H. Fred. 1983. Long-term outdoor

recreation participation projections for public land

management agencies. Journal of Leisure Research. 15(1):1-l 4.

Langner, Linda L. 1987. Hunter participation in fee

access hunting. pp. 475-482. In: Transactions 52d

North American wildlife and natural resources

conference. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management

Institute.

Manski, Charles F.; Lerman, Steven R. 1977. The

estimation of choice probabilities from choicebased samples. Econometrica 45(1):77-88.

McConnell, Kenneth E. 1984. Developing a forecasting

model for fishing and hunting activities. Washington,

DC: US. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service.

McConnell, Kenneth E. 1985. A model for projecting

fishing and hunting activities. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service.

Miller, Jon R.; Hay, Michael J. 1981. Determinants of

hunter participation: duck hunting in the Mississippi

flyway. American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

11:677-684. Vol. 63.

Robbins, Chandler S.; Bystrak, Danny; Geissler, Paul

H. 1986. The breeding bird survey: its first fifteen

years, 1965-1979. Res. Publ. 157. Washington,

D.C.: US Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service. 196 pp.

Shaw, William W.; Mangun, William R. 1984. Nonconsumptive use of wildlife in the United States. Res.

Publ. 154. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 pp.

Smith, V. Kerry; Munley, Vincent G. 1978. The relative

performance of various estimators of recreation

and participation equations. Journal of Leisure

Research. 1 O(3d qtr.):1 65-l 76.

Spencer, Gregory. 1984. Projections of the population

of the United States, by age, sex and race: 1983

to 2080. Current population reports population

estimates and projections. Series P-25, No. 952.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.

1981. An assessment of the forest and range land

situation in the United States. Forest Resource

Report No. 22. Washington, DC. 352 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.

1986. Working paper on basic assumptions for

the 1989 forest service RPA assessment. Washington, DC. [Draft].

201
US. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic

Analysis. 1985. 1985 OBERS BAE regional projections. Washington, DC: Government Printing Cffice.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport

Fisheries and Wildlife. 1970. Important migration

and wintering waterfowl habitat in the United States:

1965, 2000, and trends. Flyway Manage. Unit Proj.

Rpt. 2. Washington, DC.

US. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. 1968. National survey of needs for hatchery

fish. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Publ.

63. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. 1982. 1980 national survey of fishing,

hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC. 156 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. 1983. Summary of selected fish and wildlife

characteristics of the 50 states. Publ. PB83-205872.

Washington, DC. 91 pp.

Vaughan, William J.; Russell, Clifford S. 1981. An

analysis of participation in nonconsumptive wildlife

recreation: comment. Land Economics.

57(2):279-287.

Vaughan, William J.; Russell, Clifford S. 1982.

Freshwater recreational fishing: the national

benefiis of water pollution control. Washington,

DC: Resources for the Future. 205 pp.

Walsh, Richard G. 1986. Recreation economic

decisions: comparing benefits and costs. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.

Walsh, Richard G.; Harpman, David A.; John, Kun H.

[and others]. 1987. Wildlife and fish use assessment: long-run forecasts of participation in fishing,

hunting, and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation.

Tech. Rpt. 50. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Water

Resources Research Institute. 81 pp.

Wegert, William E. 1978. Demand analysis and

projections of use for hunting and fishing opportunities. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.

70 pp. MS. thesis.

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and

environmental principles and guidelines for water

and related land resources implementation studies.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 137

PP.

202
PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE GROWTH OF

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE UNITED STATES

H. Ken Cordell, John C. Bergstrom,

Donald B.K. English, and J. Carter Betzl

Abstract- The Renewable Resources Planning Act of

1974 (RPA) requires assessments of current and

future forest and range demand and supply conditions.

This paper reports the results of research which led

to forecasting future recreation demand in order to

meet the RPA mandate. The basic model was grounded

in household production theory and the data were

primarily from the Public Area Recreation Visitors

Study (PARVS). Models for 31 land, water and

snow-based activities were estimated and future

growth of trip consumption by the American public to

the year 2040 was developed. Results were estimates

of expected consumption of outdoor recreation if

recent past trends of the availability of recreational

opportunities were to be continued into the future. By

the year 2000, land-based recreation is predicted to

increase 15 percent over the 1987 level. Water and

snow-based activities will grow between 7 and 59

percent among the nine activities mode/led.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most intriguing challenges to researchers and planners is to reliably forecast future

demand for outdoor recreation. This challenge is

particularly acute when the target is to understand

likely futures at the national level. The Renewable

Resources Planning Act @PA) of 1974 requires such

forecasting every 10 years in order to better plan

programs for the Forest Service and other agencies

concerned with forest and range management. The

work reported in this paper was developed for the

‘Project Leader, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment

Group, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, GA; Assistant Professor,

Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA; and

current and former (respectively), Outdoor Recreation Planner,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, GA.

1989 RPA Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and

Wilderness (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 1988).

METHODS AND DATA

Conceptualization of the forecasting approach

and data collection for the 1989 RPA Assessment

were begun in 1982. The anticipated approach was

to develop econometric models which would enable

estimation and projection of market equilibrium levels

of consumption of outdoor recreation. Adoption of

this general approach led to initiation of both

demand-side and supply-side data collection to

support modelling which ultimately would lead to

projections of future consumption of outdoor recreation by the American public.

The Model

The basic model structure was based on the

aggregate household production model as described

by Bockstael and McConnell (1981). In household

production theory outdoor recreational trips (the

basic consumption unit) are produced in a two-stage

process. In the first stage of this production process,

resource managers combine land, labor, capital, and

technology to provide recreational opportunities, In

the second stage, households combine these

opportunities with personal equipment, information,

skills, travel and other household inputs to produce

recreational trips to the sites where the opportunities

have been provided. At the point where household

costs of producing recreational trips (supply curve)

exactly equals (intersects) households’ willingness to

pay the costs of taking recreational trips (demand

curve), an equilibrium is achieved. At this point of

equilibrium, the marginal benefits of taking a trip are

equal to the marginal costs to households of producing a trip. When resource managers, as providers of

opportunity, and households, as both the consumers

and producers of recreational trips, are considered

203
as actors within the same, larger market, estimates

of general equilibrium consumption of outdoor

recreational trips can be generated econometrically

(Bergstrom and Cordell, in press). The advantage of

this general equilibrium approach is that assumptions

about both demand and supply determinants can be

used to forecast the future. Past forecasting efforts

have depended almost solely on demand-side

determinants. Such resulting forecasts may not,

then, reflect feasible or desired resource management

options,

The Data

Supply data were developed from both original

and secondary sources. Original supply data sources

included the National Private Land Ownership Study

and the Municipal and County Parks and Recreation

Study (McDonald and Cordell 1988). Secondary

sources included agency inventories, census files,

directories of opportunities, and other existing hard

copy or computer readable files. The result was the

National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information

System, a county-level file containing over 400 data

elements describing recreational sites, facilities, and

services in the United States. Many of these data

elements were used in our modelling.

Demand data were from the Public Area Recreation Visitor Study (PARVS). PARVS was a cooperative

venture (Cordell and others 1987) which generated

origin-destination data describing number of trips,

average trip costs and purpose of trips across a

national sample of over 40,000 recreation site visitors.

The dependent variable derived from PARVS was

number of trips taken away from home by people in

representative communities in the United States, to

visit a recreation site for the purpose of participating

in a chosen activity. A trip away from home is one of

more than 15minutes driving.

Empirical Estimation Procedure

Future community-level consumption of outdoor

recreational trips was estimated using a reduced-form,

general equilibrium national model of the demand

and supply of trips away from home. The model was

specified to show the number of trips taken by

community residents as a function of community and

opportunity attributes. These attributes included:

LTRIPS = Natural log of the total number

of trips to consume a recreational activity by people who live in

the representative communities.

INCOME =

18TOMED =

PCTFARM =

POPULN =

SUBS =

OPPS =

Percentage of people in a

representative community who

had incomes greater than

$30,000 in 1987.

Percentage of people in a

community who were between

the ages of 18 and the median

U.S. population age in 1987

(32).

Percentage of people in a

community who lived on a farm

in 1987.

Number of persons 12 years

and older living in a community

in 1987.

An index of the spectrum of

substitute recreational opportunities within an acceptable

driving distance of a community

which compete with (substitute

for) particular opportunities for

an activity as potential uses of

people’s non-work time and

money.

Amount of opportunities available for taking recreational trips

away from home for a particular

activity within the driving range

of a community.

The above reduced-form household production

model was estimated by regression analysis across

a nationwide selection of 243 representative communities (counties). Models were developed for the 31

activities shown in table 1. The functional form selected

was a semi-log, dependent variable model, selected

because this form provided the most theoretically

and statistically consistent fit of the data.

The estimated 31 regression equations had

adjusted R*s ranging between 0.13 and 0.69. Checks

for collinearity and consistency of signs on the

estimated coefficients were instituted. In all models,

theoretically correct signs resulted and in almost all

instances the coefficients were highly significant.

The resulting cross-sectional models described

equilibrium consumption of recreational trips in the

United States for 1987. To obtain projections of future

equilibrium levels of trip consumption, assumed

future changes of the values of the independent

variables for the years 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 and

204
Table l.-- Nationwide numbers of recreational trips away from home and indices

of future growth to 2040 if recent past trends of recreational opportunities

are continued

Opportunity

category and

activity

Percentage of 1987 trips

Nationwide in future years

trips away

from home

(millions) 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

74 115 129 144 161 175

Land:

Wildlife observation 70

Primitive camping 38

Backpacking 26

Nature study 71

Horseback riding 63

Day hiking

Photography ::

Visit prehistoric sites 17

Collecting berries,

mushrooms etc.

Cutting firewood ;z Walking for pleasure 267

Running or jogging 84

Bicycle riding 115

Off-road driving 80

Visiting museums 10

Attending special

events

Visit hist. sites/

memorials

Pleasure driving 4::

Family gatherings 74

Sightseeing 293

Picnicking 262

Developed camping 61

Water:

Canoeing/kayaking

Stream/lake/ocean

swimming 239

Rafting/tubing

Rowing/other boating ;;

Motor boating 220

Water skiing 108

Pool swimming 221

Snow and ice:

Cross country skiing

Downhill skiing 6::;

40 113 126 138 153 163

107 113 120 126 130

108 115 122 130 134

124 144 165 185 198

99 101 103 107 108

114 125 135 144 149

123 144 168 198 229

115 128 141 154 163

127 148 173 203 236

110 120 132 149 169

109 118 130 144 161

116 132 148 168 183

131 160 192 229 260

124 146 170 197 218

104 108 112 118 121

118 134 152 172 187

117 133 152 178 204

110 120 129 139 145

121 139 160 182 202

114 128 144 164 185

110 120 131 145 156

120 138 158 178 195

108 118 128 140 152

123 151 182 229 267

110 120 130 142 150

107 114 122 131 138

112 122 132 144 152

135 166 200 237 267

125 136 142 141 126

159 208 261 317 359

205
2040 were multiplied by their respective regression

coefficients, and the products were summed. These

sums represent estimates of future levels of recreational trip consumption. Future values of the demand-side

factors were obtained from Wharton Econometrics

(population and income) and from other credible

sources tied to Census of Population data (U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

1986).

The predicted future values of the substitute

index (SUBS) and recreation supply or opportunity

variable (OPPS) represent special cases. Future

values of SUBS were held constant to represent a

non-changing situation with respect to per capita

availabilities of recreational opportunities which

substitute for activity i. OPPS was changed into the

future at rates equal to recent past trends-since

1970. Some of these opportunities are increasing,

others decreasing (table 2).

RESULTS

The forecasts of future consumption of outdoor

recreational trips is shown in table 1. The forecast of

number of future trips was converted to an index to

represent percentage of 1987 trips. This simplifies

comparison of projected growth rates among the 31

activities. The 1987 base number of trips for the US.

population (in millions) is also shown in table 1. Our

assumption is that the projections shown are the

most likely future for outdoor recreation in the United

States - called “expected consumption.” This assumption rests on (1) the credibility of sources for the

anticipated future changes in the demographic

variables in the models and on (2) the strong likelihood

that unless planned public sector or market-driven

private sector changes in recreational opportunities

occur, recreation consumption will continue to follow

the course of recent past trends. This assumption

has many policy implications and raises questions

which must be considered as we move into the 21st

century.

Table 2. --Percentage change of land, water and snow recreational

opportunities if recent trends (1970-87) are continued into the

future

Percentage change since 1987

Opportunities

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Land:

Wilderness and -9

other extensive

roadless areas

Undeveloped areas -12

near roads

Partially developed, - 9

roaded areas

Intensively 8

developed sites

Water:

Wild and remote 3

lakes and streams

Lakes and streams - 3

near roads

Lake/stream sites 8

adjoined by roads

Intensively devel- 12

oped water sites

Snow and ice:

Wilderness and -9

other roadless

areas

Undeveloped areas -12

near roads

Partially developed - 9

roaded areas

Intensively 17

developed winter

sports sites

-15 -21 -26 -31

-20 -28 -35 -41

-15 -21 -26 -31

15 22 29 37

6 8 9 10

-4 -6 -8 -10

15 22 29 37

23 34 47 61

-15 -21 -26 -31

-20 -28 -35 -41

-15 -21 -26 -31

28 36 43 49

206
Expected Consumption of Land-Based

Trips

In general, across the land activities listed in

table 1, continuation of the rates at which opportunities

were made more or less available for public recreation

over the past years since 1970 will lead to growth of

expected recreational consumption. This growth is

projected to accumulate across activities to about 15

percent by the year 2000. The expected consumption

of land activities which are projected to grow most

rapidly includes running/jogging (+31 percent),

visiting prehistoric sites (+27 percent), bicycle riding

and backpacking (+24 percent each), day hiking

(+23 percent), and family gatherings and developed

camping (+21 percent and +20 percent, respectively).

In total, projected growth among these seven activities

is just over 113 million trips per year by the year

2000.

The slowest growing of the land activities are

nature study (-1 percent), off-road driving (+4

percent), wildlife observation (+7 percent), primitive

camping (+8 percent), cutting firewood (+9 percent),

and collecting berries, driving for pleasure, and

picnicking (+ 10 percent each).

For the most part, the relative rankings by

projected growth rate among land activities should

remain as they currently are to the year 2040. The

one dominant theme among the fastest growing

activities is their dependence upon trail and developed

site resources. Substantial growth of op’pottunities

for these activities should lead to substantial increases

in recreational trip consumption in future years.

The slowest growing activities mostly depend

upon roaded and partially developed rural lands.

Continuation of the recent downward trends of these

resources will result in very slow rises in expected

trip consumption as households must overcome

shrinking space and access using different means

and technology to produce their recreational trips

and experiences.

Expected Consumption of Water and

Snow-Based Trips

For the most pan, expected consumption of

water recreation trips should grow moderately with

continuation of recent past opportunity trends. The

exceptions are rafting/tubing (+23 percent by 2000)

and pool swimming (+35 percent). Access, technology, and services associated with rafting and tubing

types of activities (especially outfitters) have risen

rapidly in recent years. So, too, have the number of

.

swimming pools. Continuation of these trends is

projected to result in rapid growth of trips to utilize

these opportunities. In fact, pool swimming is projected

to increase to levels beyond that of stream, lake and

ocean swimming by 2020. Motorized water recreation

trips should grow slowly if recent trends are continued.

Continuation of the moderate expansion of resources

suitable for motorized water recreation (at a rate

somewhat below population growth) is projected to

generate approximately proportionate percentage

rises in expected consumption of motorized water

trips as reservoirs and lakes continue to be crowded

at peak times.

The decrease of undeveloped and roaded rural

lands in areas with good winter snowfall is projected

to result in slower growth of consumption of crosscountry skiing and similar dispersed activities. Actually,

the consumption of dispersed winter recreation trips

should rise moderately through 2010, and then if the

loss of access to private and public lands continues,

consumption would level and eventually decrease

through 2040. If recent trends are continued, downhill

skiing should continue to rise and do so rapidly if

both new sites and new capacity are added. Development pressures from downhill skiing may actually

contribute to some loss of cross-country opportunity.

OBSERVATIONS

Expected consumption growth of the activities

shown in table 1 demonstrates the highly variable

rates at which different forms of recreation may grow

in the future if recent resource availability trends are

continued. Following these trends into the future

may, in many cases, match well what the public will

likely prefer. But for some activities, recent trends of

opportunities may not match public demand for

recreation opportunities. Where they do not match, a

course into the future that is different than continuation

of what has been done in the past may need to be

considered.

For wilderness and other extensive roadless

areas, recent past trends have resulted in decreases

of access and availability (table 2). Although wilderness designations are up, road development has

reduced the amount of roadless area which is greater

than 3 miles from access and which thus can substitute

for protected wilderness opportunity. This same

trend has been occurring with lands nearer roads,

but which are still unroaded and undeveloped. Recent

road and other development has removed area from

roadless status, and this has had and will continue

to have effect on availability of recreation opportunities,

Even more dramatic has been the closure and posting

207
of private land. Closure of private land has had an

especially noticeable effect on recreational opportunity

availability of roaded and partially developed lands.

This is true even though the amount of Federal,

State, and local lands of this type has been increasing

due to road construction and other development.

Developed land resources, picnic areas, campgrounds, resorts, nature centers, and golf courses,

have been growing in both numbers and capacity.

While some Federal sites have been closed or have

faced reduced maintenance, local government and

private sector resource investment and management

has risen more than enough to offset Federal

decreases.

Availabilities of remote and wild water resource

opportunities have been increasing slightly in recent

years (table 2). Designations of Wild and Scenic

Rivers and increases in water quality and guide

services have all contributed to offset road and other

development. The net result has been a small increase

of remote water resource availabilities. Some closure

of private properties and development of public water

areas has resulted in small decreases of availabilities

of segments of lakes near to, but not immediately

adjacent to roads. This same development, with

added boat ramps, reservoirs, road crossings and

boat rentals, has increased lake and stream resources

adjoining roads. This increase has been at rates

closely approximating population growth rates.

Intensively developed water sites have grown

rapidly in recent years. Pools, marinas, piers, water

amusement parks, and other developments have

added to water recreation opportunities. As this

development has occurred, resources available for

remote or white water activities have decreased.

Most of this development for water recreation opponunities has occurred within the private sector.

The implications of continuing recent past trends

in the supply of recreational opportunities should be

examined further. Among some opportunities the

trend is up. Among others, the trend is down. These

patterns affect how the American public can participate in recreation in the future. There is a need to

compare likely future availabilities of recreational

opportunities with the quantity of outdoor recreation

the American public might prefer. Such a comparison

would facilitate more efficient allocation of resources

to alternative recreation management programs and

strategies. In a forthcoming publication, a methodology for estimating “gaps’ between preferred demand

and expected supply of recreational trips at the

community level is proposed. The methodology for

this comparison is described in Bergstrom and Cordell

(In press).

REFERENCES

Bergstrom, John C.; Cordell, H. Ken [in press].

Household market demand and supply comparisons for outdoor recreation. Res. Pap. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Bockstael, N.E.; McConnell, K.E. 1981. Theory and

estimation of the household production function

for wildlife. Journal of Environmental Economics

and Management. 8:199-214.

Cordell, H. K.; Hartmann, L.A.; Watson, A.E. [and

others]. 1987. The background and status of an

interagency research effort: the public area

recreation visitor study (PARVS). pp. 19-36. In:

Cordell, B.M., ed. 1986 Southeastern recreation

research conference, Asheville, NC.

McDonald, B.L.; Cordell, H.K. 1988. Local opportunities

for Americans: final report of the municipal and

county park and recreation study. Alexandria, VA:

National Park and Recreation Association. 108 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.1 988.

An analysis of the outdoor recreation and wilderness situation in the United States: 1989-2040.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 277

pp. Draft.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

1986. Local population estimates. Series P-26. No.

84-EVC-SC.

208
ESTIMATING RECREATION VALUES OVER TIME

George L. Peterson’

Abstract- Knowledge of how recreation supply and

demand curves change over time allows prediction

of future recreation values, even where recreation

markets are imperfect. However, technical and

institutional obstacles impede progress. Recreation

products need more disciplined definition. Recreation

supply side theory needs further development.

Research is needed to describe the processes by

which supply and demand change over time. Management andpolicy institutions need to decide, notpredict,

many key variables. Some important determinants of

change are not predictable. Planning based on

prediction of future consequences of present choices

is popular but not necessarily the best planning

strategy. Other strategies should be explored.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of planning is to figure out how to

reduce future entropy from the human point of view,

to use reason and foresight to bring the future into

better agreement with human objectives than if

spontaneous processes were allowed to run their

course. To this end, economic efficiency is a useful

criterion for evaluating allocation of scarce resources.

To measure economic efficiency, we need to know

the streams of costs and benefits that flow through

time from the alternative policy courses among which

we must choose. The objective of this paper is to

explore how and whether we can predict the monetary

value of such future costs and benefits,

This paper focuses on the state of the art of cost

and benefit valuation of nonpriced and extra market

recreation at the national level. The problem is much

broader, however, and much of the discussion is

applicable to a broad range of imperfect market

‘Project Leader, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station, US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ft. Collins,

c o

goods and services of which recreation is simply an

example. The main conclusions are:

1. It is possible to measure current demand side

monetary benefits for things like recreation, even in

the most difficult cases, given a good operational

definition of the recreation product.

2. Not everyone believes #l.

3. The supply side of recreation economics is

not well developed.

4. Several different definitions of recreation identify

different products and respond to different policy

questions. These products and definitions often are

not clearly specified and separated, thereby making

valuation difficult and misleading.

5. Explaining how to predict values over time is

easy (in theory), but doing it is not easy. Time series

data and explanations of temporal change are scarce.

Some critical change agents behave in In ways that

are obscure.

6. We need to separate things we should predict

from things we should decide and control.

7. Planning based on prediction of future values

is only one way to prepare to meet and control the

future. Another is to identify alternative future scenarios, prepare contingent plans, and update the

scenarios and plans as the future unfolds. Still another

is to preserve flexibility by avoiding irreversible

commitments of rare and unique resources where

future values are uncertain.

8. We need more research, but not until some

answers get questioned.

9. It is hard to catch fish with your hands.

Following this introduction, the paper consists of

five main sections. The first provides an overview of

the current situation for economic valuation, The

209
second identifies barriers to static valuation. The

third reviews the current situation for prediction of

values over time, and the fourth identifies barriers to

value forecasting. The paper concludes with a

discussion of research and policy opportunities.

This paper does not attempt to present an

historical review of recreation valuation or to summarize recent or historical value estimates. Such information is already available in published or soon to be

published works. For example, for an historical review

of recreation valuation, see Peterson and others

(1985a). Sorg and Loomis (1984) review and summarize value estimates dating from 1965 through 1982.

Walsh and others (1988) and Walsh and others (in

press) present a review of recreation value estimates

from 1968 through 1988. Details of specific value

estimates and valuation methods are available in

publications cited by these documents. Work in

progress at the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station utilizes data from the Public Area

Recreation Visitor’s Survey (PARVS) to estimate

demand models and marginal and nonmarginal

values by several activii categories for Forest Service

Districts and Regions nationwide, including Alaska.

Publications reporting the results of this study are in

preparation.

There is no attempt, either, in this paper to predict

present trends and future values. Such a task is

beyond the author’s ability for reasons described

below.

CURRENT SITUATION: VALUATION OF

RECREATION PRODUCTS

What is the Recreation Product?

product. Measurement of magnitude or value for

unobservable things is a very difficult technical task

(Stevens 1959).

Magnitude measurement does not, however,

solve the problem. Valuation requires definition of

‘value” and observation of behavior that reveals how

people trade value for magnitude. If the valuation

criterion is money, valuation requires observation of

exchanges between money and recreation.

So, what is recreation? Is it off-site and so-called

‘nonuser’ experiences and feelings? Is the recreation

product an activity, an opportunity, a facility, a site,

or an experience? Is its unit of magnitude an

activity-day, a visitor-hour, a person-trip, a visitor at a

site, or one ‘util’ of warm, fuzzy feelings? Is demand

for recreation direct final demand for sites and facilities,

or is it demand for recreation experience obtained

through household production (Becker 1965)? Is it

derived from desirable overt, hidden, or societal

products that require recreation as an input factor?

The word ‘Recreation’ is obviously a catchall term

that stands loosely for many different products. Before

attempting to measure the magnitude and value of

recreation, we must decide which product is the

value object, and that depends on the policy application of the value information.

Many recreation products are extreme cases of

heterogeneous and composite commodities. No two

experiences, trips, or sites are exactly alike. For

example, recreation sites vary in quality, which is a

function of site characteristics, including congestion

(Harrington 1987). Even the product of an easily

observed recreation trip or visit is often a jointly

produced composite. People often visit several sites.

While at a site, most people engage in unique

combinations of several activities, and they produce

unique composite experiences. People also desire

novelty or variety of experience as a good in its own

right. In short, trying to measure the value of ‘recreation” without precise definition of the product is like

trying to catch fish with your hands.

Definition must precede measurement (Caws

1959). Without precise definition, measurement has

no meaning. For valuation, definition has two components: 1) definition of the good that is the value object,

and 2) definition of value. The definition of the good

must allow measurement of how much we have (i.e.,

it’s magnitude). Magnitude measurement requires an

operational definition that allows identification, observation, and comparison of different magnitude states.

It also requires standard units of magnitude and

standard methods for counting the units.

What Do You Mean by “Value”?

Monetary Valuation and Economic Efficiency

Just as “recreation’ means different things to

different people, so too does ‘value’ (Peterson and

others, in press). Here it is used in the context of

economic efficiency and monetary value, the amount

of money a person is willing to exchange for the

thing in question. Thus, a dollar’s worth of candy

has the same ‘value’ as a dollar’s worth of education,

How we define recreation determines how easily

we can measure magnitude and value. Valuation of

recreation behavior or recreation facilities, for example,

is easier than valuation of recreation experience,

because recreation experience is not an observable

210
no matter how you may feel about equating the two.

If you want to argue, you are playing on a different

game board.

Even where there is agreement on the use of the

monetary metric, there is sometimes disagreement

on what constitutes an economic ‘benefit.’ Is it a

tourist expenditure in a local market, a positive balance

of payments in the local economy, an economic

“multiplier derived from input-output analysis, a better

job for uncle Joe, a redistribution of income to the

poor through free public parks, or a “potential Pareto

improvement’ at the national level?

Welfare economics includes two basic concerns:

1) economic efficiency, and 2) income distribution.

The first asks whether a proposed action produces

more aggregate wealth than it consumes, without

regard for who gains and who loses. The second

asks to see the distribution of gains and losses among

the people, and the answer allows judgment by

political means of the fairness of that distribution.

The focus of this paper is economic efficiency at

the national level, although the ideas and methods

are applicable at any level of aggregation. We need

to measure the kinds of recreation value that will

allow evaluation of the relative economic efficiency of

alternative allocations of resources. We need to know

such values both for the present and for the future.

For a more complete discussion of the topic of

valuation for economic efficiency analysis see Peterson and Randall (1984) and Peterson and others

(1987).

The Supply and Demand Model

Measurement and prediction of value are best

understood in terms of the supply and demand curves

of elementary economics as illustrated in figure 1.

The demand curve describes the relationship between

price and quantity consumed. On the demand curve,

price is the consumers’ marginal willingness to pay

(MWTP), i.e., the amount of money bid for the last

unit consumed, given quantity. In mathematical terms,

the demand curve is the first derivative of total

willingness to pay.

The supply curve describes the relationship

between price and the quantity suppliers are willing

to produce. On the supply curve, price is the suppliers’

marginal willingness to accept compensation (MWTA),

and quantity is the number of units offered for sale

at that price. In a competitive market with many

suppliers of a private good, the supply curve is the

marginal cost curve, the relationship between quantity

and marginal cost of production. Again, in mathematical terms, it is the first derivative of total cost. In an

imperfect market, say one where a supplier has

monopolistic power or where a government agency

produces and subsidizes the good, the supply curve

may not be the marginal cost curve.

Pure competition in private goods seeks equilibrium between supply and demand. That equilibrium

occurs at the intersection of the demand and supply

curves. At the quantity thus defined, the consumers’

MWTP on the demand curve equals the producers’

MWTA on the supply curve.

Under pure competition, individual producers

and consumers are unable to cause price to change,

and therefore all transactions take place at the point

of equilibrium. In effect, consumers face a horizontal

supply curve and producers face a horizontal demand

curve. All units of the good are thus exchanged at

the marginal cost price, and the value of a given

transaction is simply price times quantity. Producers

capture this total economic value through transfer

payments from consumers, and the consumers retain

no surplus.

I_;--- ----

11 -

10 -

9 --

e---

l6.

5-

4-

3-I

2-

l0. -1

,

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 il.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Q Visits/1000

Figure 1. -Supply and demand equilibrium.

The simple and convenient scenario of figure 1

becomes more complicated when the market is

imperfect. For example, a free market cannot allocate

resources efficiently where some of the goods are

nonrival or nonexcludable in consumption, Production

of such goods is not attractive to private enterprise,

although the goods may appear as externalities in

private transactions. Natural or regulation induced

monopoly also tends to corrupt the free market, as

do inefficient government interventions. Many aspects

of outdoor recreation on public land have such

characteristics, so the free market is not very effective

in setting and revealing efficient marginal prices

(Randall 1983).

211
not

Another problem arises when a transaction is

marginal, for example, when it involves a change

of price. Adding another tent site to a large camp

ground probably is marginal, but adding or deleting

a whole camp ground probably is not. Where

nonmarginal change occurs, we need to know the

demand and supply price of the whole change, and

that involves movement on the demand or supply

curve. The transaction no longer takes place at a

single point of equilibrium. The price of such a change

includes economic surplus for consumers or suppliers.

Many of the recreation supply changes involved in

government land management and allocation plans

are not marginal, although there continues to be

some effort to force fit marginal thinking to nonmarginal

circumstances.

The locational lumpiness of some kinds of

recreation opportunity violates the competitive market

model in other ways, also. The textbook competitive

market of microeconomics consists of a large number

of ubiquitously distributed suppliers and consumers.

The market is on a featureless flat plane where

transportation cost is zero. Location is therefore not

important. However, locational lumpiness of recreation

sites makes travel cost a major component of total

price. A significant change in the location of recreation

opportunity or users causes a major change in price.

In a location and space economy (e.g., Alonso

1964, Losch 1964, Mills 1980, von Thunen 1926),

spatial transaction cost intervenes strongly in the

structure of the market. In effect, each recreation site

becomes a unique good with its own market. Land

rent varies by location as a function of intrinsic

productivity, travel cost, and location of the consumer

population. Because of different residential locations,

different consumers face different supply curves for

the same site. Recreation sites face downward sloping

demand functions, and different sites face different

demand functions.

The unique and publicly controlled nature of

many recreation sites, such as wilderness areas and

national parks, compounds these problems. Besides

being in spatially lumpy markets where transportation

cost is a significant part of price, such sites also

have unique features that differentiate them strongly

from other recreation opportunities. Thus, many

recreation transactions take place under monopolistic

conditions in an imperfect spatial market, rather than

under the commonly misapplied pure competition

model.

Hypothetical Equilibrium

In recognition of these problems, one purpose of

government institutions such as the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA)

of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, is to identify imperfections

in forest product markets and recommend strategies

for improving the efficiency of public resource

allocation. Achievement of this mission requires,

among other things, demand and supply prices for

marginal and nonmarginal changes in the supply of

recreation.

When applied correctly, the competitive market

model is a useful paradigm for thinking about such

prices. If we knew the demand (MWTP) function and

the supply (marginal cost) function, we could simulate

efficient equilibrium. The hypothetical equilibrium

identifies the efficient marginal cost price and the

efficient quantity that would prevail if the market

were able to function perfectly. Furthermore, hypothetical re-equilibration in the face of a nonmarginal supply

or demand change reveals the new efficient quantity,

the new marginal cost price, and the nonmarginal

price of the entire change.

Assume that figure 1 illustrates a known demand

curve and a short run supply curve for a given day

at a specific day-use recreation site in an imperfect

recreation market. Although actual quantity and price

may be inefficient because of administrative control

or other imperfect market conditions, the point of

hypothetical efficient equilibrium reveals the social

value of a recreation visit at the margin. Of course,

to be correct, the supply and demand curves must

include external costs and benefits, and both curves

must describe the same product and market conditions.

The demand curve describes marginal willingness

to pay for a visit to the site as a function of total

visits. The supply curve describes the marginal cost

of one more visit as a function of total visits. Note

that the demand curve thus defined is not a trip

demand curve. Rather, it is a visit or entry demand

curve defined at the gate through which the visitor

enters the site. Marginal WTP on this demand curve

is the residual marginal bid after payment of all trip

costs except the fee for entry to the site. Under the

assumption that a visitor’s response to a change in

entry fee is exactly the same as her response to a

change in travel cost, the demand curve in figure 1

is the “second stage’ demand curve. Note also that

the supply curve is not a market supply curve. It is

strictly a short run site supply curve for the site in

question, given fixed site capacity, and holding the

212
price, quality, and capacity of all other sites fixed.

The ‘equilibrium’ thus defined is a short run partial

equilibrium that is simply the site operator’s supply

response to his cost structure and a fixed exogenous

demand environment.

219-I\ I

lLl I,l(j,,(,,((l((,,,l

0 8.2 8.4 0.6 8.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

92 Ql Visits/1000

Figure 2. - Nonmarginal supply change.

Figure 2 illustrates a nonmarginal analysis.

Assume the site described by the demand curve

receives 1,200 (Cl,) visits per day at a price of $8

(P,) per visit. The fees for these visits total $9,600. A

proposed site plan calls for a fee increase of $2 per

visit. At the new price of $10 (PJ, the number of

visits declines to 1,000 (QJ, and the fees total $10,000.

On the supply side, this price change means an

increase of $400 in total revenue. On the demand

side, visits decline by 200. The amount of money the

demand side is willing to pay to avoid the price

increase is approximately the area ‘abed.’ This area

constitutes a loss of $2,200 and is the net demand

side price of the nonmarginal change from P, to Pp

Given a supply curve, similar analysis reveals the

supply side price of a nonmarginal change. The

definition of a recreation supply curve is not simple,

but for illustrative purposes, assume the supply curves

for this example are S, and S, in figure 2. The total

cost of receiving Q, visits is the area under S, between

zero and Q,, or $6,720. Total revenue at Q, is P,

times Q,, or $9,600. Profit is revenue minus cost or

the area ‘eda’ and comes to $2,880. Similarly, the

total cost of producing Q2 units with supply curve S,

is $8,000, total revenue is $10,000, and the profii

(area ‘cfb’), is $2,000. Net change in profit to the

producer(s) of the recreation is $2,000~$2,880, a

reduction in profit of $880. Thus, the demand side is

willing to bid $2,200 to avoid the change, and the

supply side is willing to bid $880 for a total of $3,080.

This amount is the nonmarginal price of the change.

Thus, in order to measure marginal or nonmarginal

prices for recreation in a short run partial equilibrium

sense given a management action or a social change

that affects supply or demand, we only need to know

the before and after supply and demand curves at

the site in question. In order to predict future prices

for recreation, we only need to predict how these

two curves change over time. Having such curves

for a future point in time allows estimation of two

kinds of prices: 1) the future price of a future marginal

or nonmarginal supply change, and 2) the price of

the nonmarginal change (if any) from present to

future. Of course, it is necessary to specify the supply

and demand curves in terms of inflation adjusted

real dollars.

The above example applies both to simulated

perfect ‘equilibrium’ in an imperfect market and to

efficient ‘equilibrium’ under perfect competition. The

nonmarginal problem is not unique to public goods

or to imperfect markets. Nonmarginal supply changes

also occur for private goods and competitive markets,

and when-they do, marginal prices are not adequate.

The hypothetical short run partial equilibrium

question is: What would price and quantity be at the

site if the supplier were able to operate efficiently?

The actual recreation site market may be quite

imperfect, for example, because of a government

decision to charge no fee for recreation on a national

forest where the marginal cost of that recreation is

not zero or to offer transportation service at below

marginal cost. Supply and demand curves allow

estimation of supply and demand prices following

the logic described above. Space limitation prevents

inclusion of an imperfect market example.

The above illustrative analysis is deceptively

simple, however. Short run site specific supply curves

require knowledge of the production and cost

functions, including external and congestion costs.

Site specific residual demand curves are likely to be

ad hoc and irregular because of idiosyncratic

distribution of the market population. They must be

derived by the second stage process from empirical

travel cost models or observed directly through fee

variation.

Defining the product as the trip and the market

point as the place of the visitor’s residence simplifies

the demand side somewhat. The demand curve

becomes the ‘first stage’ demand function. Such a

demand curve may or may not be unique to each

individual or origin, but is usually viewed as a

generalized model of behavior, perhaps modified by

personal or demographic variables or partitioned by

market segment.

213
Viewing the problem from the trip origin, however,

complicates the supply side, because of idiosyncratic

distribution and heterogeneity of recreation sites and

involvement of transportation services and other

input factors. Because of the locational unevenness

of recreation supply, different geographic locations

face different supply curves, which generally will be

upward sloping step functions. Given such supply

and demand curves, hypothetical ‘equilibrium’

analysis of the type described above could yield

marginal and nonmarginal information about the

value of recreation trips, including an ‘effective price’

for recreation of the type proposed by Harrington

(1987).

Methods for Demand Side Valuation

The theory and method of demand side valuation

of nonpriced goods are well developed (e.g., see

Freeman 1979; Hoehn and Krieger 1986; Peterson

and others 1987; Randall 1984b, 1984c) and have

had extensive, though unsystematic, application.

Current RPA policy for measuring recreation demand

prices is an adaptation of the market equilibrium

model (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

1987).

There are three basic ways to estimate prices for

imperfect market goods. The first approach proposes

that prices observed in private recreation markets

are transferable to the public sector (Fedkiw 1984).

The second approach, sometimes called ‘revealed

preference; derives recreation demand prices and

demand functions from observations of real market

transactions for substitute or complementary private

goods. Examples are the “travel cost method” (TCM)

and “hedonic pricing’ (e.g., Mendelsohn and MarkStrom, in press; Rosenthal and others 1984). Contingent valuation is an example of the third approach,

which obtains estimates of prices and demand curves

from observations of transactions in hypothetical

markets (Cummings and others 1986; Randall 1984c).

Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses.

BARRIERS TO VALUATION

Technical Barriers

Several technical obstacles impede practical

application of the hypothetical equilibrium model. As

discussed above, the recreation product sometimes

lacks adequate identification and definition. Without

clear and precise definition of the recreation product,

and without standard units and methods for measuring

its magnitude, trying to estimate supply and demand

curves is a futile and misleading exercise.

Estimating the marginal cost of adding the

capacity to accommodate an additional person at

one time at a recreation site is not difficult. Measuring

the marginal cost of an additional recreation visit at

a given site in the short run (fixed capacity) is possible

but not simple because of problems in measuring

congestion cost. Describing the consumer’s marginal

cost curve for recreation trips from the point of origin

with site location and capacity fixed is still more

difficult because of the need to measure the cost of

travel time, the cost of congestion, the cost of other

consumer inputs to trip production, and because of

the spatial discontinuity of recreation sites. Composite

recreation experiences also present difficult marginal

cost problems. The most difficult case, however, is

the long run marginal cost curve for an entire region,

as seen from the consumer’s point of residence.

General equilibrium analysis in the long run for a

regional market is a challenging task (Anas 1988,

Hof and Loomis 1988).

Heterogeneity and jointness in the recreation

product compounds the valuation problem. Managers

generally frame their questions in terms of the price

of an activity-visitor-day such as of camping or fishing.

There is, however, no such thing as pure camping

or pure fishing. There may be a primary trip purpose

in the mind of the consumer, but almost all outdoor

recreation events are jointly produced composite

experiences. Assignment of costs and values to the

separate components of a jointly produced composite

good requires allocation of joint costs. The contingent

valuation or hedonic pricing methods offer promising

approaches to such problems.

An alternative to estimating prices for separate

components of recreation experience is to define the

recreation good as the entire composite, that is, as a

visit to a recreation site. Valuation of a whole visit is

simpler than valuation of elements of a composite

experience. Likewise, defining the good as a recreation

trip, rather than as a destination, solves the multiple

214
destination problem. Such definitions solve the joint

production problem, but they substitute for that

problem a proliferation of unique goods.

Current practice in travel cost analysis throws

away multiple destination data and uses only single

purpose trips. Multiple purpose trips may substitute

for single purpose trips, however. Failure to include

them in the analysis may bias the result. Fortunately,

some kinds of recreation trips tend to be predominantly single destination, thus allowing use of the

travel cost method.

Some technical issues in valuation remain

controversial. Economists argue among themselves

about esoteric technical issues such as the validity

of aggregate travel cost models. Economists and

other behavioral scientists disagree about whether

the valuation basis of normative microeconomic

theory is consistent with human behavior (Hogarth

and Reder 1987; Peterson and others 1988; Simon

1985). Such technical disagreements need resolution

through research.

Institutional Barriers

On the institutional side, economists struggle

with a credibility problem and, perhaps, an identity

crisis. Apparently it is difficult to separate political

objectives from technical facts, Policy makers tend to

ask economic questions in terms that require joint

technical and political judgments (Frey and others

1984). For example, ‘Shall we use import tariffs to

improve the balance of payments?’ Such a question

has two components: 1) Can import tariffs improve

balance of payments? (a technical judgment) and 2)

Is a tariff barrier a politically acceptable government

intervention? (a political judgment). Likewise with

recreation, two questions intertwine: 1) Is this number

a valid measurement of the net contribution of

recreation to national economic development? and

2) Do we want to invest more money into recreation

that does not return revenue to the treasury?

The identity crisis is most likely to strike economists

who believe benefii cost analysis should drive political

judgments. A democratic society simply does not

decide policy that way (Bolan 1967, Loomis 1987).

Benefit cost analysis is one of many information

systems feeding data into a pluralistic political decision

process (Randall 1984b). On the other hand, it may

also be a political tool used to filter and inhibit certain

kinds of social programs that are difficult to justify in

hard economic terms.

As if these problems are not sufficient, some of

us stumble simply because we don’t understand the

very complex technical arguments. Understanding

the recreation value problem requires well developed

logical skills and sophisticated training in economics,

recreation, and political science.

CURRENT SITUATION: FORECASTING

RECREATION VALUE OVER TIME

One method alleged to ‘predict’ future value is

to measure value now and apply compound interest

formulas to calculate what the value will be at some

future time if allowed to grow at the assumed interest

rate. This is not the approach being considered in

this paper. The problem faced here is to measure

the values (WTP or WTA) people will assign to marginal

and nonmarginal changes at a specified future point

in time. If discounting formulas are applicable to

such a problem, it is only to ‘move’ values from one

point in time to another, as when calculating present

net value.

As explained above, estimation of recreation

values at whatever point in time occurs either directly

by contingent valuation or indirectly by revealed

preference. CVM is just as applicable to a hypothetical

future market as it is to a present one. However, one

still must specify the correct future market conditions

in the hypothetical question, Thus, the prediction

problem remains.

The revealed preference approach requires

prediction of future demand and supply functions

from which to derive values. Virtually all estimates of

such functions come from cross-sectional data,

because most available data are cross-sectional.

Time series data are expensive to acquire, and

disciplined repetition of experiments over time is

unpopular, although there are a few notable exceptions (Brown and Hustin 1980; Loomis and Cooper

1987; Peterson and others 1985b).

Use of cross-sectional models to predict future

conditions faces two major obstacles. 1) Crosssectional analysis is a snapshot of a process at one

point in time and says nothing about how that process

may be changing. 2) Use of a cross-sectional model

to estimate future values requires prediction of the

future state of the exogenous variables in the model

even if the demand process is stationary.

For a more detailed review of these and other

aspects of forecasting recreation values see Peterson

215
and others (1985a, 1985b). As an example, consider

the following hypothetical aggregate recreation trip

demand function:

Qj = E[bo + blAj + b2li + bsSi + b4Cijl

i = l

where

Qj is the number of visits to site j,

Aj measures the quality or attractiveness of site j,

Ii is the income of persons at location i,

Si is the substitute price faced by persons at i,

(1)

cij is the price faced by persons at i for a visit to site j,

P is the number of people at location i, and

bo, bl, bp, bs and b4 are estimated behavioral

parameters.

The purpose of this purely hypothetical model is to

illustrate and summarize the value forecasting

problem. It does not represent any real recreation

market.

Assume we estimate equation (1) from crosssectional data for a set of recreation sites in a given

market region and that we desire to use this demand

function to predict future value. Now dissect the

question into three parts:

1. The magnitudes of the exogenous variables P,

I, S, and C,

2. The magnitudes of the estimated behavioral

parameters, and

3. The functional form of the behavioral process.

Any of these variables might change with time.

The usual cross-sectional approach estimates the

equation from cross-sectional observation of the

dependent and exogenous variables. One then

projects the exogenous variables to some future

date and substitutes their future values in the model.

The resulting equation allegedly describes the

demand process at that future time.

stable and predictable long term trends may drive

changes in variables like population and income,

substitute prices and travel costs depend on market

forces and technological changes that may not be

easy to predict. Complex, volatile, and poorly understood processes drive changes in behavioral parameters that depend on tastes and preferences. We

must raise similar questions about the supply function,

which is very sensitive not only to market forces, but

also to unpredictable technological innovation.

Thus, the cross-sectional approach requires

demanding assumptions, often based on conjecture.

We need extensive research into the processes that

cause the determinants of supply and demand to

change over time. Given models that predict temporal

change in these variables, value forecasting becomes

easier. Simply substitute the appropriate changes

into the supply and demand functions. These functions

will shift to new positions, thus defining new values

at the new future state and values of change from

the old state. Then, these shifted functions can be

used in hypothetical equilibrium analysis to predict

future prices.

In theory it is simple. At the Rocky Mountain

Station, we have a software package called RMM/

RMTCM that can do the needed calculations (Watkins

and others, in preparation). This program is a

recreation market simulation that uses the previously

published software of the Rocky Mountain Travel

Cost Model (RMTCM) (Rosenthal and others 1986).

The integrated package allows estimation of demand

and supply models from exogenous data. It also

allows calculation of marginal and nonmarginal values

from these models (or from models obtained externally

to the program) and values resulting from shifts in

the demand or supply curves. Similar software is

under development at the Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station to analyze partial equilibrium

from the point of view of trip origins.

The purpose of the RMM/RMTCM system is to

allow value analysis of changes in recreation sites,

such as changes in quality, fee, or capacity; demographic changes affecting the market population: or

production changes affecting the marginal costs. It

could also describe value changes over time, if we

knew how to make temporal shifts in the supply and

demand models. Making such an approach practical,

however, requires more research.

Validity of the resulting values depends on the

answers to several questions. 1) Are projections of

the exogenous variables valid? 2) Have behavioral

parameters changed? 3) Is the functional form

constant? Although robust processes that exhibit

216
BARRIERS TO FORECASTING VALUES

OVER TIME

Some determinants of change are decision

variables. Legislatures decide management budgets.

Management institutions decide things like site quality,

capacity, and location and how much effort to put

into advertising and public education. They decide

what price to charge and what regulatory or licensing

policies to impose. All these things help to determine

future value, and they are difficult to predict. Should

we be trying to ‘predict” or decide such things?

Technological change also plays an important

role.‘The only thing constant about technology these

days is change. For example, consider transportation

technology. Over a 5year planning horizon transportation may be roughly constant, but a 50-year horizon

will bring major surprises. In the 1920’s when Lindberg

flew across the Atlantic, who could have visualized

intercontinental supersonic travel, instantaneous

worldwide satellite communication, or men on the

moon within 50 years? Who could have predicted

transistors, micro chips, superconductors, and

personal computers?

What about the Great Depression, the Second

World War, Korea, Vietnam, the Arabian oil cartel,

double-digit inflation, Central America, the Persian

Gulf, and AIDS? The only certain thing about history,

it seems, is that it is a sequence of unexpected events

that intervene radically in human affairs. All such

things are major factors in the demand and supply

of recreation, which is, after all, a luxury good.

Regarding such historical discontinuities, the challenge is a non sequitur: to predict the unpredictable.

At a more practical and immediate level, one of

the most significant barriers to forecasting recreation

values over time is an absence of good time series

data and an apparent lack of interest in the problem

among researchers (Peterson and others 1985b).

RESEARCH AND POLICY

OPPORTUNITIES

Are We Trying to Answer the Wrong

Questions?

The discussion thus far presumes that forecasting

recreation values in the future is a legitimate goal,

and that the best way to accomplish that end is

through some empirically derived model. It may be a

misguided fantasy. Phillip Boffey’s (1967) “Systems

Analysis: No Panacea for Nation’s Domestic Problems; Richard Bolan’s (1967) ‘Emerging Views of

Planning,” and Doug Lee’s (1973) ‘Requiem for Large

Scale Models’ mark interesting turning points in the

evolution of planning theory. At each of these points,

there was an identity crisis when planners saw a

carefully constructed Crystal Palace of idealistic

fantasy begin to crumble. Is the ideal of predicting

future values also a crumbling fantasy? The traditional

planning model that derives optimal present choices

from predicted future conditions is not the only way

to think about the future, and it may not be the best

way.

In his essay on ‘A Silver Jubilee for Urban

Transportation Planning’ David Boyce (1980) states

that transportation planners have been ‘rather

unsuccessful in anticipating the major problems and

issues of our day.’ In evaluating the Chicago Area

Transportation Study that produced a plan for the

1980’s from the perspective of the mid-1950’s, he

states:

The planning process which we have built is one

which primarily reacts to problems rather than

identifies and anticipates problems. . . . The

notion that travel or mobility might need to be

constrained to conserve energy or reduce vehicle

emissions had not been defined. Clearly, the

1980 plan for Chicago was defined to meet the

objectives of the late 1950’s, not the anticipated

objectives of 1980. In this sense, urban transponation planning is not future-oriented, but rather

uses the future as a construct to magnify and

explore current problems,

In our efforts to plan and manage the national

forest resources, are we retracing some of these

steps abandoned by others? Are we simply preparing

to meet an imaginary future that is a projected

reflection of past patterns?

We need to decide now, and along the way,

many things that affect the future value of recreation.

Key questions need identification. We need to modify

some institutions and create some new ones. We

need to spend less time trying to predict things that

we have the power and responsibility to decide. We

also need to recognize that people, institutions, and

nature are going to make surprising decisions along

the way.

Planning based on prediction of the future is not

flexible. Instead of trying to predict future values,

should we be identifying alternative plausible scenarios and developing contingency plans? What if, like

217
the stock market crash of 1929, the crash of 1987

leads to a major economic depression, and recreation

becomes an unaffordable luxury for a major segment

of the population? What then will be its value, and

what will be the public trust responsibility?

What if the tension in the Persian Gulf leads to a

protracted third world war? During that war, recreation

may not only be of little economic value, it may be

illegal or impossible. What if business continues as

usual into the future and recreation retains the same

real value, compared with other things, that it has

now, perhaps with a slight drift toward an aging

population, an increasing percentage of leisure time,

increasing rents for undeveloped land, and a decreasing supply of land available for recreation? What if

arms control agreements between the United States

and the Soviet Union lead to major reductions in the

percentage of GNP allocated to defense? What should

we be doing now to prepare to meet these possibilities? How likely are the different scenarios to occur,

and is it possible to predict that likelihood?

Contingency Planning

Should we be playing football instead? Football

is a game of contingency plans. There is a repertoire

of strategic plays and tactical maneuvers drawn

upon selectively as the game unfolds. The biggest

plays are often opportunistic rushes by the quarterback through an unexpected hole in the defensive

line. Should we spend more time developing a

repertoire of strategic and tactical plays, and less

time worrying about predicting at the start of the

game what play the opposing team will use on the

third down of the second drive of the fourth quarter?

Is planning really an art of ad hoc opportunism and

a science of ‘muddling through’ (Bolan 1967, Braybrook and Lindblom 1963, Lindbloom 1959) rather

than a process of rational decision making based on

sure information about the future (Friedman and

Hudson 1974)?

The contingency planning model asks for specification of alternative future scenarios, with predictions

of their likelihood, if possible. We then estimate values

conditional on these various scenarios. For example,

if we assume that a protracted depression will follow

the stock market crash of 1987, we can predict that

recreation prices will decline over time compared

with the prices of other goods and services. On the

other hand, an assumption of continued prosperity

with increasing real income and leisure time leads to

the prediction that real recreation prices will increase.

Identification of such conditional trends over time

allows development of contingent strategies and

tactics.

Expert Systems Planning

How the alternative scenarios will unfold is a

judgment call that requires continual revision and

adaptive response. The conditional value projections

may also require judgmental development by expert

systems. One of the few permanent findings of

planning theory is that ‘planning is a continuing

process.” As events unfold, judgments about the

likelihood and consequences of future scenarios can

change, leading to revisions in value estimates and

future plans.

For example, consider an unpublished corporate

planning study that was done for a major manufacturer

of railroad freight cars in the early 1970’s. One of the

most important elements of the planning effort was

to predict the 5year future of freight car demand for

each product line. Researchers were unable to find

any published studies giving reliable estimates of

future markets. No credible models were available

for making such predictions.

Careful thought led researchers to conclude that

the future market depended on how efficiently railroads

used existing equipment. That efficiency depended

on a half dozen key variables, including some

decisions the railroad companies would have to

make. Utilization efficiency was a mathematical

function of these variables, but the behavior of the

variables themselves was so complex and arbitrary

that prediction from empirical data or mathematical

models was not possible.

Past trends for the key variables were shown to

executives in the freight car manufacturing industry.

In a structured questionnaire, these executives then

made optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic judgments

about conditions in 5 years. A mathematical simulation

of the freight car market used the pooled judgments

to obtain high, medium, and low estimates of the

5year freight car demand. These estimates thus

were informed judgments conditioned on anticipated

but implicit future scenarios.

The procedure was first applied in 1973 to a

5-year planning horizon and then repeated each

year thereafter. Annual repetition sensitized the pooled

judgments and anticipated future scenarios to

changing times. This continuing readjustment proved

to be critically important as the consequences of the

soon to occur oil embargo began to unfold.

218
While the freight car market analysis was under

development in the summer of 1973, the researchers

were also working on urban transportation planning

research. A major cause of the critical urban transportation problems, it seemed, was too many big

and fuel inefficient automobiles. One of the alternative

future scenarios considered and rejected as infeasible

was a national transition over the next 10 years to

small fuel efficient automobiles. Ironically, due in part

to the impending but unforeseen gasoline shortage

of 1974, escalating gasoline prices over the next 10

years, and double digit inflation, the ‘infeasible’

transition occurred.

Keeping Options Open

Another approach worth considering is adaptive

planning that preserves flexibility by keeping options

open. One way to keep options open is to avoid

irreversible commitments of scarce resources whose

future values are unknown. For example, this approach

seems to be the motivating philosophy behind efforts

to preserve threatened and endangered species. A

decision to use resources in ways that terminate the

existence of a species is not reversible under

foreseeable technology. Redwoods and sequoias,

Hell’s Canyon, archaeological sites, Yellowstone

Park, and Glen Canyon offer (or offered) similar

challenges. Perhaps such resources should be

protected to keep options open in the future.

There are no simple answers. Trying to predict

the future is a lot like trying to catch fish with your

hands. They are never quite where they appear to

be, they move very quickly, and even when you get

your hands on one, it is so slippery you can’t hang

on. Researchers and practitioners need to get some

better ways to fish for future values, or do something

else instead.

REFERENCES

Alonso, W. 1964. Location and land use; toward a

general theory of land rent. Cambridge, CT: Harvard

University Press.

Anas, Alex. 1988. Optimal preservation and pricing

of natural public lands in general equilibrium.

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 15: 158-l 72.

Becker, Gary S. 1965. A theory of the allocation of

time. The Economic Journal. 75(299):493-517.

Boffey, Phillip M. 1967. Systems analysis: no panacea

for Nation’s domestic problems. Science.

158(3804): 1028-l 030.

Bolan, Richard S. 1967. Emerging views of planning.

AIP Journal. July:233-244.

Boyce, David E. 1980. Editorial: a silver jubilee for

urban transportation planning. Environment and

Planning. A 12367-368.

Braybrooke, David; Lindblom, Charles E. 1963. A

strategy of decision; policy evaluation as a social

process. Glencoe, NY: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Brown, T. L.; Hustin, D. L. 1980. Evaluations of the

1976 ORRRC projections. pp. 68-80. In: Proceedings, 1980 national outdoor recreation trends

symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-57. Broomall,

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 2 vol.

Caws, Peter. 1959. Definition and measurement in

physics. pp. 3-l 7. In: Churchman, C. West; Ratoosh,

Philburn, eds. Measurement: definitions and

theories. New York: Wiley.

Cummings, Ronald G.; Brookshire, David S.; Schulze,

William D. 1986. Valuing environmental goods: an

assessment of the contingent valuation method.

New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld.

Fedkiw, John. 1984. A case for commensurate pricing

for all resource outputs of National Forest lands

and other forest lands. pp. 84-95. In: Kaiser, Fred;

Schweitzer, Dennis; Brown, Perry, eds. Proceedings

for economic value analysis of multiple-use forestry,

International Union of Forestry Research Organizations. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act. Act of 1974. 88 Stat. 476.

Freeman, A. Myrick. 1979. The benefits of environmental improvement. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the

Future. 272 pp.

Frey, Bruno S.; Pommerehne, Werner W.; Schneider,

Friedrich; Gilbert, Guy. 1984. Consensus and

dissension among economists: an empirical inquiry.

The American Economic Review. 74(5):986-994.

Friedman, John; Hudson; Barclay. 1974. Knowledge

and action: a guide to planning theory. AIP Journal.

40(1):2-l 6.

Harrington, Winston. 1987. Measuring recreation

supply. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.

77 PP.

219
Hoehn, John P.; Krieger, Douglas. 1986. Review of

techniques for weighing or valuing the benefits

associated with environmental quality improvements. Report submitted to the scientific authority

of the international joint commission. Contract

#OSE84-00321. 163 pp.

Hof, John G.; Loomis, John B. 1983. A recreation

optimization model based on the travel cost method.

Western Journal of Agricultural Economics.

8(1):76-85.

Hogarth, Robin M.; Reder, Melvin W. eds. 1987.

Rational choice: the contrast between economics

and psychology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press. (See also Journal of Business 59(4), Part 2,

October, 1986.)

Lee, Douglass B. 1973. Requiem for large-scale

models. JAIP 39(3):163-178. See also supporting

discussion in JAIP (39)6X35-436, and dissenting

discussion in JAIP 40(1):52-57.

Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. The science of muddling

through. Public Administration Review. 19(1):79-88.

Loomis, John B. 1987. Economic efficiency analysis,

bureaucrats, and budgets: a test of hypotheses.

Western Journal of Agricultural Economics.

12(1):27-34.

Loomis, John B.; Cooper, Joseph. 1987. Generalized

least squares estimation of a pooled time-series

cross-section travel cost model (Mimeo). Davis,

CA: University of California at Davis, Department

of Agricultural Economics.

Losch, August. 1954. The economics of location.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Mendelsohn, Robert; Markstrom, Donald H. 1988.

The use of travel cost and hedonic methods in

assessing environmental benefits. pp. 159-l 66. In:

Peterson, George L.; Driver, B. L.; Gregory, Robin,

eds. Amenity resource values: integration of

economics with other disciplines. State Park, PA:

Venture Press.

Mills, Edwin S. 1980. Urban Economics. Glenview, IL:

Scott, Foresman. 241 pp.

National Forest Management Act. Act of 1976. 90

Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 581 h, 1601-l 614.

Peterson, George L.; Brown, Thomas C.; Rosenthal,

Donald H. 1987. An improved framework for

estimating RPA values. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-138.

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

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 13 pp.

Peterson, George L.; Driver, B. L.; Brown, Perry J. [In

press]. The benefits of recreation: dollars and

sense. In: Johnson, Rebecca L.; Johnson, Gary

V., eds. Economic valuation of natural resources:

issues, theory and applications, Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Peterson, George L.; Driver, B. L.; Gregory, Robin.

1988. Amenity resource values: integrating economics with other disciplines. State Park, PA:

Venture Publishing, Inc.

Peterson, George L.; Loomis, John B.; Sorg, Cindy.

1985. Trends in the value of outdoor recreation.

pp. 243-256. Proceedings: 1985 national outdoor

recreation trends symposium; 1985 February 24-27;

Myrtle Beach, SC. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of

the Interior, National Park Service.

Peterson, George L.; Randall, Alan. 1984. Valuation

of wildland resource benefits. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 258 pp.

Peterson, George L.; Stynes, Daniel J.; Arnold, J.

Ross. 1985. The stability of a recreation demand

model over time. Journal of Leisure Research.

17(2):121-132.

Randall, Alan. 1983. The problem of market failure.

Natural Resources Journal. 23:131-l 48.

Randall, Alan, 1984a. Benefit cost analysis as an

information system. pp. 65-76. In: Peterson, George

L.; Randall, Alan, eds. Valuation of wildland resource

benefits. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Randall, Alan. 1984b. The conceptual basis of benefit

analysis, pp. 53-64. In: Peterson, George L.;

Randall, Alan, eds. Valuation of wildland resource

benefits. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Randall, Alan. 1984c. Theoretical bases for non-market

benefit estimation. pp. 77-88. In: Peterson, George

L.; Randall, Alan, eds. Valuation of wildland resource

benefits. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

220
Rosenthal, Donald H.; Donnelly, Dennis M.;

Schiffhauer, Marie B.; Brink, Glen E. 1986. User’s

guide to RMTCM: software for travel cost analysis.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-132. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

32 PP.

Rosenthal, Donald H.; Loomis, John B.; Peterson,

George L. 1984. The travel cost model: concepts

and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-109. Fort

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

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 10 pp.

Simon, Herbert A. 1985. Human nature in politics:

The dialogue of psychology with political science.

The American Political Science Review. 79:293-304.

Sorg, Cindy F.; Loomis, John B. 1984. Empirical

estimates of amenity forest values: a comparative

review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-107. Fort Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 23 pp.

Stevens, S.S. 1959. Measurement, psychophysics,

and utility. pp. 18-63. In: Churchman, C. West;

Ratoosh, Philburn, eds. Measurement: definitions

and theories. New York, NY: Wiley.

von Thunen, J.H. 1826. Der isolierte staat in beziehung

auf landwirtschaft und national-okonomie. Hamburg, West Germany.

Walsh, Richard G.; Johnson, Donn M.; McKean,

John R. 1988. Review of outdoor recreation

economic demand studies with nonmarket benefit

estimates, 1968-l 988. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado

State University, Department of Agricultural and

Resource Economics. 115 pp.

Walsh, Richard G.; Johnson, Donn M.; McKean,

John R. [In Press]. Nonmarket values from two

decades of research. In Smith, V.K., ed. Advances

in applied microeconomics Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Watkins, Karen E.; Merritt, Norman E.; Peterson,

George L.; Donnelly, Dennis M. [In preparation].

User’s guide to RMM/RMTCM software: an equilibrium model for assessing market values of recreation,

wilderness, and wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM- .

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

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1987.

Resource pricing and valuation guidelines for the

1990 RPA program. Report of the Chiefs Technical

Coordinating Committee on resource values for

the 1990 RPA. Washington, DC. 23 pp.

221
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY

Barbara L. McDonald, H. Ken Cordell, and Allen L. RowelI’

Abstract-Although a number of focused studies of

local park and recreation departments have been

conductbd, it has been difficult to assess the national

status of local supply. The Municipal and County

Park and Recreation Study, conducted in 1986, offered

the first dataset upon which to base a national

assessment. Local supply of outdoor recreation,

while impressive, represents only a small proportion

of its potential. For example, on/y about ha/f of the

total number of departments manage natural, undeveloped acreage, but that acreage current/y totals over

450,000 acres nationwide. Additional local outdoor

recreation land is likely to be needed in the future,

particularly near rapidly growing urban areas. Federal,

State, and private support will be needed at the local

level if this rising demand is to be satisfied.

INTRODUCTION

Local outdoor recreation resources and experiences encompass virtually the full range of outdoor

recreation, with the possible exception of wilderness

recreation, A recent estimate of local recreation use

reported that three-fourths of American adults visited

a local outdoor recreation area at least once in 1986,

up from two-thirds in 1982-83 (Market Opinion

Research 1986). From outdoor festivals and sporting

events to nature preserves and overnight camping,

local outdoor recreation provides a surprising variety

of outdoor recreation experiences for a majority of

Americans. According to the 1987 Managed Recreation Research Report, the average local recreation

facility served 119,000 users in 1987.

‘Outdoor Recreation Planner, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Athens, GA; Project Leader, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment

Group, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, GA;

Outdoor Recreation Planner, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station, Outdoor Recreation Wilderness Assessment Group, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, GA.

222

Local park and recreation departments are

generally operated independent of other park and

recreation departments, and may therefore deviate

from a typical model. In comparison to Federal and

State agencies that operate under standard administrative and management goals, policies, and procedures, local departments are legally and politically

independent. Any study of local park and recreation

departments is necessarily a study of thousands of

service delivery systems, each with potentially different

philosophies, resources, political and administrative

structures, standards, and goals.

Until recently, the national configuration of local

park and recreation departments was relatively

unknown, Understanding the similarities and differences between departments could help the recreation

profession in many ways, including more effective

sharing of problems and solutions, improved technical

assistance strategies, more effective national representation of interests, and improved ability to project

a professional image.

Past efforts at studying local park and recreation

departments were limited by resources, participation,

methodology, coverage, and support. In 1983, the

National Recreation and Park Association surveyed

selected communities in an attempt to establish

baseline standards for park and recreation facilities

and sites (Lancaster 1983). This effort, along with

individual State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation

Planning (SCORP) efforts, has provided valuable

baseline information. From these early and ongoing

efforts, increased attention to and understanding of

local outdoor recreation supply has resulted.

In 1982 and 1984, the National Recreation and

Park Association conducted separate studies of local

recreation financing and budgets. In 1985, the Leisure

Research Institute at Indiana University conducted a

nationwide study of agencies serving a population of

over 50,000, examining personnel and budgets.
In 1986, Market Opinion Research (MOR) reported

the outdoor recreation behavior of American adults,

resulting in new information about the use of local

outdoor recreation supply. This report represents the

first available information about local recreation use

nationally.

In its fourth year, the 1987 Managed Recreation

Research Report (MRRR) provided information about

local recreation in comparison with other recreation

providers, such as universities, health clubs, and

others.

The Public Area Recreation Visitors Study

(PARVS), a nationwide study of American recreation

use and demand, was conducted by a coalition of

Federal and State agencies in 1986. PARVS provided

estimates of demand for some kinds of activities

provided primarily at the local level, such as organized

sports.

While these reports have given insight into the

nature and characteristics of local outdoor recreation,

methodological and financial barriers continued to

block a more focused and comprehensive effort at

understanding local recreation supply.

The USDA Forest Service, as part of its national

recreation assessment effort, became interested in

local outdoor recreation supply to improve its assessment capabilities. The appointment of the President’s

Commission on Americans Outdoors provided

additional enthusiasm and commitment to the study

of local park and recreation departments. The MOR

report is one product of this commitment. The relatively

limited amount of nationwide information about this

significant provider of recreation opportunity spurred

the formation of the Municipal and County Park and

Recreation Study (MACPARS) working group. The

MACPARS working group developed a cooperative

study process to assess the nationwide status and

trends in local recreation supply.

Method

The National Recreation and Park Association’s

mailing list was used as a primary source of potential

respondents. In addition, a State-level recreation

professional worked cooperatively with MACPARS

working group as a representative from his State.

More complete mailing lists, where available, were

used. A final list of 8000 names constituted the

population to which questionnaires were mailed.

The response rate for the one-time mailing of the

questionnaires was 18 percent. The data were

weighted by population size and recreation budget

size to Census of Government data for communities

over 25,000 population. For communities less than

25,000, the tabulated unweighted data were used.

CURRENT SITUATION

Local park and recreation departments number

about 7000 across the United States. The majority of

these departments, about 77 percent, are operated

by a municipal government. Another 15 percent are

county operated park and recreation departments.

Opportunities provided by local park and recreation departments are typically a dichotomy, reflected

in the name, parks and recreation. In this paper the

emphasis will be on parks, but some attention will

be placed on developed sites and facilities, such as

sports fields, golf, and outdoor swimming facilities.

Medians are used as the measure of central tendency,

to reduce the skewing effect of the relatively few very

large metropolitan departments, and to more equitably

represent the more numerous smaller departments.

Revenue Sources

Local property taxes fund the majority of local

park and recreation operations, comprising a median

of 65 percent of the total budget expenditures, as

reported by 77 percent of the respondents. Other

local taxes comprise a median of 25 percent (28

percent responding) and user fees comprise 19

percent (73 percent responding) of budget expenditures. Only 17 percent of local agencies reported

Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) in 1985,

representing a median of 7 percent of their budget.

In spite of this small percentage receiving these

funds, 91 percent of MACPARS respondents favored

the continuation of LWCF.

Despite the apparent emphasis on user fees as

a supplement to tax-based budgets, the overall

distribution of sources of revenue for local park and

recreation departments had changed little up to

1985.

Budgets

The operating budget of a typical local park and

recreation department in 1985 was $335,000. For

communities of less than 25,000 population, the

typical operating budget was $180,000. For larger

communities, the operating budgets were $650,000

(25,000-l 00,000 population) and $X$500,000 (over

100,000 population). These expenditures represent a

223
national per capita expenditure of $17.00, ranging

from $19.00 in small communities to $12.00 in the

largest communities.

Capital budgets also varied dramatically by the

size of the department’s community. The smallest

communities in 1985 reported a median of $40,000

in capital expenditures. Medium and large communities reported capital budgets of $134,000 and

$590,000, respectively. The typical department,

including all community sizes, reported a median

capital budget of $75,000.

From 1982 to 1985, operating budgets and capital

budgets rose by a median of 25 percent and 44

percent, respectively. This finding is somewhat

surprising, considering the widespread belief that

local departments were experiencing a fiscal crisis in

the early and mid 1980’s.

Personnel

Even though budgets rose between 1982 and

1985, the numbers of full-time, professional staff

were constant with a median of seven per department.

Seasonal staff numbers rose about 11 percent,

however, from 36 to 40 staff per department. Small

community-based departments reported a ratio of

one permanent to six seasonal staff, medium sized

communities reported a one to five ratio, and large

communities reported a one to two ratio of permanent

to seasonal staff.

The numbers of citizen volunteers rose between

1982 and 1985 about 13 percent, from a median of

40 per department to 45.

Facilities and Sites

The building blocks of a park and recreation

department include budget, personnel, and capital

development and maintenance. Without these resources, a local department’s mission is formidable.

Without land, facilities and sites, providing adequate

outdoor recreation opportunities is almost impossible.

The physical resources of a department define in

large measure the opportunities and limitations of

that department and community for outdoor recreation

opportunity close to home.

Almost all departments manage some kind of

sports field and playground area (91 percent). These

types of facilities are often the first sites a young

department manages, and may even pre-date the

official creation of the park and recreation department.

Sports fields remain one of the most important

resources of a park and recreation department,

regardless of size. Nationally, the typical department

manages 8 sports fields, but this reflects a range of

a median of 5 to 40 fields.

Pools and golf courses represent large capital

investments for local park and recreation departments.

About half of departments nationwide operate

swimming pools, and about 20 percent manage golf

courses. As departments service larger communities,

they are more likely to manage more than one of

these big-investment facilities.

Outdoor basketball and tennis courts provide

popular outdoor opportunities. Over 80 percent of all

departments nationwide manage each type of facility.

The median number of outdoor basketball courts

and tennis courts are four and eight, respectively.

Nationally, the total land area managed by local

park and recreation departments is estimated to be

about 2.2 million acres. Including all types of park

and recreation land, the typical department manages

160 acres. The smallest departments manage about

72 acres, and the largest manage a median of over

1,700 acres. These large differences in acreage may

be misleading. On a per capita basis, the smallest

departments serve about 132 citizens per acre, and

the largest departments serve about 130 citizens per

acre. These figures indicate a surprising consistency

in service as represented by available acreage for

park and recreation, regardless of community size.

Passive outdoor recreation sites represent a very

different form of outdoor recreation opportunity. These

sites are primarily natural, and are called passive

sites because only occasionally are activities directed

by anyone other than the participants. Examples

include parks, trails, lakes, and campsites.

Due to historic emphasis on developed and

directed activities, park and recreation departments

are typically not noted as natural resource agencies.

However, these departments have managed urban

parks for decades. A growing urban society has

promoted the need for more open spaces and natural

areas near population centers. Therefore, as communities urbanize and grow, park and recreation departments seek to acquire and manage more undeveloped, open, and park land for local community use.

Nationwide, these natural, undeveloped recreation

areas currently total over 450,000 acres of land, and

about 60,000 acres of lakes. The typical department

manages about 80 natural acres of land and 18

acres of lakes, representing a median range in natural

areas of 35 acres for small communities to 550 acres

224
for large communities. The median range in size of

lakes is between 11 acres for small communities and

70 acres for large communities. However, only about

3,600 departments manage natural areas and about

2,800 manage lakes. This represents less than half

the total number of departments. Obviously, only a

portion of the total supply opportunity is represented

by these figures. The magnitude of the supply potential

is not known, but it seems reasonable to assume

that more than half of departments could manage

natural areas for recreation.

Approximately 10,000 campsites (both RV and

tent) are managed nationwide by local park and

recreation departments. These campsites are operated by less than one in five departments (18 percent).

About 15 percent of departments manage areas

used for resident or day camps. These types of camps

number about 1,500 nationwide.

Trails have received much attention lately as

special opportunities for outdoor recreation, particularly near urban areas. Locally managed trails total

about 30,000 miles nationwide. These trails are

primarily for hiking (9,000 miles), bicycling (7,000

miles), and fitness (5,000 miles). The typical department manages about 5 miles each of hiking and

bicycling trails, and about 2 miles of fitness trails.

Fitness trails are much more widespread, however,

with about half of the departments managing trails

for fitness. About 2,400 departments manage hiking

trails, and 1,400 departments manage bicycling trails.

Open-ended comments received as part of the

MACPARS questionnaire indicated a universal concern for future outdoor resources, The maintenance

of and acquisition of additional outdoor resources

emerged as the top two issues of concern out of a

given list of 17, regardless of community size. A

major theme of the open-ended responses was that

expanding development and its corresponding

demand for land resources would create a crisis in

parks and recreation in the future. In spite of other

differences and viewpoints, on this issue MACPARS

respondents emphatically agreed.

PROJECTED CHANGES

Regardless of community size served, local

government park and recreation departments appear

to possess a similar structure and emphasis. The

smallest communities place a greater emphasis on

team and youth sports, but as a community grows,

recreation opportunities expand and diversify. Despite

the hailed fiscal crisis in local government parks and

recreation, operating and capital budgets rose

between 1982 and 1985.

As urban population continues to grow, the

acquisition and development of outdoor recreation

land close to urban areas will become more critical.

If the current ratio of 130 citizens per acre is to remain

intact, the need for more land and facilities will certainly

escalate in urban areas. This ratio will be harder to

achieve, however, as this same urban population

requires more land for other services, such as homes,

schools, roads, and shopping areas. Local governments will find it more difficult to acquire, develop,

and maintain expensive outdoor recreation sites and

facilities, in spite of their growing budgets. While the

current supply of passive outdoor recreation opportunities is impressive, it may represent less than half

the potential for passive outdoor recreation opportunities at the local level. If natural resources are to be

conserved for local outdoor recreation, park and

recreation departments will need to move quickly to

identify potential resources.

The stability in numbers of full-time professional

personnel, if continued, may create a professional

management crisis within these departments. The

fields of natural resource management and outdoor

recreation management require special professional

training and experience. It appears that local government park and recreation departments are relying

more and more on seasonal, part-time staff and

volunteers to manage operations and provide recreation leadership. If professional staff numbers do not

deep pace with the overall growth in departmental

operations and resources, the quality of the programs,

operations and management is likely to suffer.

Outdoor recreation facilities and sites are likely

to remain important mainstays of park and recreation

departments. Developed outdoor facilities, such as

sports fields, courts, jogging tracks, and trails are

likely to remain priorities for local park and recreation

departments. While the private sector will provide

some types of outdoor recreation for a certain market

share, access to public outdoor facilities and sites

will remain an expected right of local citizens.

SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECTED

CHANGES

Quality of life has become an important concept

in the assessment of a local area’s desirability for

community hiring potential. Quality of life encompasses a range of variables, including economic, social,

and environmental health. outdoor recreation opportunity has played and important role in the quality of

life index of communities, particularly in the social

and environmental indices. It has recently become

clear that outdoor recreation contributes significantly

to the economic health of a community as well. Any

225
reduction in access to, availability, or quality of local

outdoor recreation opportunity is likely to have a

negative impact on community quality of life. Environmentally, outdoor recreation sites contribute to air

and water quality, reduce soil erosion, provide wildlife

habitat, and provide aesthetic relief in a human-built

environment. Without a corresponding growth of

natural areas held in conservation, developed lands

may severely impact the environmental quality of

communities,

OPPORTUNITIES

Local park and recreation department directors

emphasiied the importance of seed grants such as

LWCF to their department’s outdoor recreation

programs. These grants provide the incentive to

localities to allocate funds for outdoor site acquisition

and development. It appears that increased budgets

are being used more for maintenance and refurbishing

old facilities, rather than for personnel or programming.

Acquisition of land using these funds alone is typically

not possible. These trends in budget allocation,

along with the indications of growing demand for

and shrinking supply of local outdoor recreation

resources such as open space, underscore the

importance of Federal and State incentive funds and

technical assistance to local governments to assist

with efficient allocation of scarce operational and

capital dollars.

Partnerships may provide another part of the

solution to the possible future supply crisis in local

outdoor recreation. Private non-profit groups, such

as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, have already

begun to work cooperatively with local governments

to acquire and protect resources. Private utilities

may also set aside conservation easements and

rights-of-way to be managed by local departments

for public recreational use.

Even though recent studies, including the MACPARS effort, have provided valuable information

about local outdoor recreation supply and demand,

continued research is needed. In particular, a

nationwide, comprehensive study of local outdoor

recreation use and opportunity would provide needed

trend data. This type of study would require a

cooperative effort similar to the nationwide Federal,

State, and local support that was necessary to

complete MACPARS.

The importance of local outdoor recreation supply

to American communities is evident. Local governments, financially struggling to provide a range of

governmental services, have supported the maintenance of recreation opportunities, and have even

provided funds for expansion. With Federal and

State assistance and private cooperation, local

governments, along with direct citizen support, can

significantly improve and expand local outdoor

recreation opportunities, Without such assistance,

they may only hope to maintain existing opportunities

at the current level.

REFERENCES

Cordell, H. Ken [and others]. 1987. The background

and status of an interagency research effort: the

public area recreation visitors survey (PARVS). In:

proceedings: Southeastern recreation research

symposium. January 1987.

Jones-Tugman, Sarah. 1984. National survey results

on park and recreation finance conducted by the

National Recreation and Park Association and

interpreted for the Revenue Sources Management

School by North Carolina State University. Unpublished report. 38 pp.

Lancaster, Roger. 1983. Recreation, park and open

space standards and guidelines. Alexandria, VA:

National Recreation and Park Association.

Managed Recreation Research Report. 1987. Recreation, sports & leisure. Minneapolis, MN: Lakewood

Publications, Inc.

Market Opinion Research. 1986. Final report of a

nationwide survey of outdoor recreation participation. Unpublished report prepared for the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

Martin, W. Donald. 1986. Changes in municipal park

and recreation agency operations during the

Reagan administration. p. 19. Profiles. Indiana

Park and Recreation Association.

McDonald, Barbara L.; Cordell, H. Ken. 1988. Local

opportunities for Americans: the final report of the

municipal and county park and recreation study.

National Recreation and Park Association, 100 pp.

National Recreation and Park Association. 1981,

Current operating budgets and estimated capital

investments. Alexandria, VA. 21 pp.

National Recreation and Park Association. 1982.

1982 public park and recreation services and

programs survey. Alexandria, VA.

226
ESTIMATING OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY FUNCTIONS:

THEORY, METHODS AND RESULTS

Steven E. Daniels and H. Kenneth CordelF

Abstract-A cross-sectional analysis of 47 Forest

Service ranger districts provided estimates of marginal

cost functions for 19 different recreation activities.

The marginal cost functions are directly based on a

hypothesized set of production functions for recreation

provision. The results are seven supply functions that

are linear and constant, four that are log-linear, and

eight that show no relationship between use and

cost. The latter eight are for activities such as hunting

and fishing that depend more upon natural endowments than upon managerial inputs.

INTRODUCTION

The economic concepts of the supply of recreation

have received scant attention from either economists

or recreation professionals. The work on recreation

supply to date can be roughly divided into three

categories: inventory information, conceptual discussions of supply, and empirical studies of developed

camping. None of these types of studies adequately

addresses the fundamental economic forces that

determine recreation supply.

The lack of economic research into recreation

supply reduces the usefulness of existing recreation

demand functions, which are strongly based in

economic theory. It also means that recreation

managers have little relevant economic information

upon which to base decisions. The factors that

managers control-capacity, maintenance, staffing

levels- are all supply-side variables. Information

about them would help managers operate their

programs to minimize cost for a given level of service.

The important demand issues-income, tastes and

‘Assistant Professor of Forest Economics, Utah State University,

Logan, UT; Project Leader, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, GA.

prices of substitutes - are fundamentally exogenous

to the manager and information about these variables

is of limited value, Unfortunately, most economics

research in recreation has focused on demand and

has essentially ignored these crucial managerial

needs.

This paper extends the research in recreation

supply by estimating supply functions for 19 activities

provided by the USDA Forest Service. To the extent

that other agencies operate similarly to the Forest

Service, these supply functions can be applied

elsewhere. These functions offer valuable information

about the market clearing prices for recreation, as

well as the potential revenue generated by an agency’s

recreation program.

The remainder of this paper is composed of

background, methods, results, and implications/

conclusions sections. The background section

presents our definition of supply functions, describes

the previous research on recreation supply, and

discusses the value and limitations of our approach.

The methods section presents our data and estimation

procedure. The results section presents our findings,

and discusses both their strengths and weaknesses.

The implications/conclusions section explores some

of the policy implications of the results, and raises

interesting unanswered questions.

BACKGROUND

This research is a marked departure from previous

studies of recreation supply. The concept of recreation

supply has typically been interpreted to mean the

stock, or inventory, of recreation facilities. Perhaps

the best example of this view is Cordell and Hendee

(1982), which reported the physical availability of

several types of recreational resources- wilderness,

trails, campgrounds, etc. -and projected trends into

the next century. An inventory approach ignores the

economic forces affecting availability, forces that are

clearly presented via the supply function.

227
Supply functions are based directly on the physical

aspects of operation, which are mathematically

embodied in the production function. Duality, the

relationship between production and cost functions,

is a simple concept to visualize. Production functions

describe how inputs such as land, labor, and capital

can be combined to produce different levels of output,

and also reveal the minimum input level associated

with any output. The minimum cost of producing a

specified output is obtained by multiplying the input

quantities by their prices, and results in the cost

function.

The important point of duality theory as it relates

to recreation is that estimated or hypothesized cost

functions should be based on basic production

relationships, Doing otherwise ignores the economic

fundamentals of inputs being combined into output,

and the resulting cost functions are based on data

correlations rather than on an a priori understanding

of recreation provision.

A review of the previous recreation supply

functions revealed that the production function/cost

function duality was seldom considered. Most of the

cost functions that have been estimated are for the

production of campground recreation. The studies

done by Reiling, Gibbs, Anderson, Schuster, and

Tyre estimated cost functions, usually total cost

functions, without explicitly considering the underlying

production processes (See Gibbs and van Hees

(1981); Reiling (1976); Reiling and Anderson (1983);

Reiling and others (1983); Schuster and Gibbs (1983);

Tyre (1975). These studies have been thoughtful

and complete, but they would have benefited from

the inclusion of duality theory.

Another important aspect of supply functions is

that they are marginal cost functions, in which marginal

is equivalent to incremental. The supply function

therefore maps out the relationship between the

changes in suppliers’ costs of operation and the

quantity produced. Equilibrating supply functions

based on marginal cost with demand functions,

which are marginal benefit functions, results in a

production level that maximizes net social benefit.

This maximization of net benefit is the basis of

economists’ preoccupation with supply and demand.

Several conceptual analyses of the marginal

costs of recreation provision are available. Among

the most thorough are Rosenthal and others (1984);

Jubenville and others (1986); and Harrington (1987).

The latter identified operating, congestion, and

ecological costs as the major sources of marginal

costs and presumed that all of these costs increase

as use increases, both in the short and long runs,

This yields the eventually upward-sloping marginal

cost curve that is the usual expectation.

Despite the conventional assumption that marginal

costs have positive slopes, Daniels (1987) showed

that marginal costs either decreased or were flat, at

least for a set of developed campgrounds in Montana.

This study did not include congestion or ecological

costs because the facilities being examined were

neither at capacity nor were they ecologically fragile.

These issues might be unimportant in some cases,

but the slope of the marginal cost functions should

be estimated across a wider range of recreation

sites and activities before general conclusions about

the slope are possible.

Our research extends Daniels (1987) in two

important directions. First, the number of activities is

increased from 1 to 19. Second, the definition of

costs includes congestion and ecological costs to

the extent possible. Both of these extensions will

increase the knowledge of recreation supply functions

and also explore the issue of the slope of those

functions.

These supply functions also offer some important

insights into the relative scarcity of recreational

opportunities and their cost. Natural resource

economists have long hypothesized that as resources

become increasingly scarce, the relative cost of the

resources increases. We can thus measure scarcity

by looking at relative prices, and can also look at

intertemporal changes in scarcity by developing time

series cost data. A number of long-term cost studies

have empirically measured the latter relationship

across broad groups of natural resources (Barnett

and Morse 1963; Smith, 1979) and showed that

various natural resources are becoming more abundant (most minerals), while others are becoming

more scarce (notably wood products).

There are no adequate time series cost data for

the provision of recreation, but a similar test of relative

scarcity can be done using cross sectional cost data

from different areas of the country where presumably

different levels of recreation opportunity are available.

A secondary goal of this study is to explore the

interregional scarcity of recreational opportunities by

estimating interregional cost variations.

Thus, this research is designed to improve upon

previous research in four areas. First, it is based on

a hypothesized set of production functions for the

provision of recreational opportunities. Second, the

resulting cost functions are marginal cost (supply)

functions, which can be equilibrated with demand

228
functions to estimate market clearing prices and net

social benefits provided by recreation. Third, it

estimates cost functions for a wider variety of

recreation activities than has been previously undertaken. Finally, it tests the relationship between the

slope of the marginal cost functions and ecological

and congestion costs.

This approach allows recreators to optimize the

conversion of recreation opportunity (which arguably

is all that the Forest Service supplies) into recreation

activity. It is based on the economic precept of

consumer sovereignty and the belief that the recreators’ household production functions is the appropriate place for recreation production decisions to be

made.

METHOD

Theoretical Specification

Supply functions were estimated for 19 different

recreational activities supplied by the Forest Service,

based on cross-sectional data from the ranger district

level (listing 1). The study can be characterized as a

representative plant model, where cost functions are

developed for the representative plant. The districts

were assumed to be operating efficiently; that is,

they combine inputs to minimize the cost for their

levels of recreation provision. They therefore face the

following constrained optimization problem of maximizing output, given their budgets:

This approach is also consistent with Jubenville and

others (1986) which established four classes of

recreation-producing inputs: social inputs (affected

by user choices) biophysical and managerial inputs

(collectively termed the recreational opportunity),

and exogenous inputs (uncontrolled variables such

as weather). Our paper concerns problems of

combining managerial and biophysical inputs to

create opportunity. Unfortunately, opportunity alone

does not create value to society; value occurs when

the recreators utilize the capacityi Our method is,

therefore, to measure the inputs that create opportunity, and measure that opportunity as it is captured

in RVDs.

max A =A@) (1)

s.t. CR -I B

where

4 = a vector of recreation activities

_R = a vector of recreation resources

C = a vector of per unit resource costs

B = budget constraint

This function has a dual cost function that is

min C = C(C,m (2)

s.t. A = A(%

where C is total cost.

The total cost function is therefore composed of

output level, A, the inputs required for that output

level, Ft, and the per unit costs of those inputs, C.

Before the supply function can be estimated, recreation provision must be defined. What does the Forest

Service actually provide: is it recreational opportunity,

recreation use, or recreation capacity? Implicit in this

problem is the decision of what units recreation supply

is measured in.

Data

Surveys regarding the cost of recreation provision

and the stocks of recreation inputs were sent to the

62 USDA-Forest Service districts that participated in

the Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey (PARVS),

as well as to the administrative levels above those

districts (appropriate Supervisor’s, Regional and

Washington off ices). We received 47 useful responses.

The activity data came from the RIM (Recreation

Information Management) system.

The cost data for the Ci terms (ith term in Q

were derived by dividing the total district expenditure

for resource i by the amount of resource i in the

district. Values for both quantities were obtained

from the surveys. Total district level costs associated

with these resources were augmented by the amount

of money the Supervisor’s Office retained to manage

these resources. This Supervisor’s Office overhead

was proportioned across districts and resources by

using linear regressions through the origin, with

stock of resources and use levels as possible

regressors.

Our model relates recreation supply to use. The

relevant measure of output is therefore the recreationvisitor-day (RVD, 12 user hours). This approach makes

it possible to equilibrate the resulting marginal cost

functions with use-denominated demand functions.

This ignores the secondary questions of opinion and existence

value, which we assume to be much smaller than direct benefits

for most recreational opportunities.

229
Regression Procedure

The regressions fit the following general functional

form:

where:

Ci = Ci(Cji, Ai) (3)

Ci = total cost of providing activity i

cji = per unit cost of resource j used to produce

activity i

Ai = RVDs of activity i produced.

This function implies that for every recreational activity

the Forest Service supplies, there is a unique

relationship between the total expenditures on that

activity, the level of provision, and the cost of inputs

used in providing the activity.

Two specific functional forms were tested using

our data, the linear function and the log-linear, or

Cobb-Douglas. Neither are as flexible as more recent

specifications such as the trans-log, but they are as

powerful as our data would support. The functional

forms selected for the total cost equations affect the

possible shapes of the resulting marginal cost

equations. The marginal cost equation is merely the

first derivative of the total cost equation with respect

to quantity. The marginal cost for a linear total cost

function is therefore a constant and the marginal

cost function for a log-linear function is non-linear; it

monotonically increases (decreases) if the exponent

on quantity is greater (less) than one. The functional

forms we selected made it impossible to achieve the

conventional u-shaped supply function.

Three other classes of regressors were tested in

addition to those described above. These are:

1) the level of other recreational activities provided

on the district,

2) dummy variables that divided the country into

three “super regions”:

East (USFS Regions 8 and 9) Pacific

(Regions 5, 6, and lo), and Other (Regions

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), and

3) biophysical characteristics of the districts.

for each cost equation (listing 2). Since there are

only 47 districts in our data set, it was impossible to

run all of the regressors in one equation. More

importantly, using only a fraction of the possible

regressors could have produced over-specified

models, since there are too few degrees of freedom

in the error relative to the number of regressors.

The risk of over-specified regressions was

overcome by minimizing the number of regressors in

any equation. Regressors were included only if

warranted by our knowledge of Forest Service

recreation production. This method might have meant

the omission of some significant regressors, and that

the covariance structure of the regressors could be

such that the omission produced bias in other

parameter estimates. Both of these risks were viewed

as less important than the risk of over-specification,

which would have produced parameter estimates

both sensitive to sample changes and unrepresentative of Forest Service districts in general.

Regional marginal cost functions were derived

for the activities with successful regressions. This

was accomplished by aggregating the marginal cost

functions across all of the districts in the region, and

increasing the fixed costs by the Regional and

prorated Washington Office overhead expenditures.

The regional marginal cost functions for the linear

total cost functions are therefore graphed as horizontal

lines, with a height equal to the district marginal

cost, and a discrete point on the y-axis equal to the

total regional fixed cost.

Aggregating the log-linear functions is similar to

aggregating the linear functions, but the mathematics

differ slightly. A single regional marginal cost function

is derived by modifying the district marginal cost

function to include both the larger level of production

and the number of districts in the region, If the district

marginal cost function is the following:

MC = Ab(RVD)b-’ (4)

where:

MC = district marginal cost

A = estimated intercept

RVD = district RVD production

b = parameter estimate for total cost equation,

The regressions had two objectives: to estimate

parameters for the level of recreation provision that

were significant and positive, and to maximize the

adjusted R* value without over-specifying the equations. There were a total of 62 possible regressors

530
the resulting regional marginal cost function is

where:

RMC = RFC/n(RRVD/n)b-’ (5)

RMC = regional marginal cost

RFC = regional fixed cost, aggregate of all administrative level; a function of A and Regional Office overhead

RRVD = regional RVD production

n = number of districts in the region.

This approach implies that any change in the amount

of recreation supplied in any region is spread

proportionally across all of that region’s districts. The

conventional economic approach would assume that

production increases in Districts with the lowest

costs and decreases in those with the highest costs.

Our approach was used because it most closely

approximates the actual behavior of the Forest Service.

RESULTS

The regression results are shown in listing 3. Of

the 19 activities analyzed, there were 11 usable

regressions (7 linear and 4 log-linear). Usable

regressions were defined as having positive and

significant parameter estimates for the activities’ own

RVD production. Adjusted R2 values for the usable

regressions ranged from 0.24 to 0.80, with an average

of 0.45.

The regional dummy variables showed little

difference in district costs between regions. Only in

the regression for skiing and other developed

recreation were there dummy variables significant at

the 0.1 level or above. This supports the assumption

that the costs of recreation provision are geographically homogeneous, which is consistent with our

assumption that recreation management techniques

were applied uniformally across districts. This result

does not support the hypothesis of differential scarcity

between regions.

Regional cost functions were derived for all of

the successful regressions. Only a few of the 99

regional functions are presented here; figures l-4

show camping and picnicking for Regions 1 and 5.

These activities and regions were representative of

both regional differences and functional forms.

The eight activities with unsuccessful regressions

still provided valuable information. Our definition of

successful is somewhat narrow, since it is based

only on estimating a significant positive parameter

estimate for quantity. This criterion was necessary if

0 !

0 500 1000 ,500 2000 2500 3000

RECREAT ION VIS ITOR DAYS (T H OXANDS )

Figure 1, -Region 1 marginal cost curve.

9

II1

O!

0 ,000 10000 13000 20000

RECREATION VIS ITOR DAYS (TH OtJSANDS)

Figure 2.-Region 5 marginal cost curve.

231
/

5,

PICNICING

oh0 Id0 zdo do 400 s&l

RECREATION VISITOR DAYS (THOUSANDS)

C-d vvlvll RVD pmdustim: 335.m

Current urgiml SOstl r1.1wwJ

Currcat Fired fOaf: 112.770

Figure 3. -Region 1 marginal cost curve.

PICNICING

‘1

0 560 tobo &Jo 2000 2430

RECREATION VISITOR DAYS (THOUSANDS)

Current, anDud RM pmducrion: 1.472.700

current urgLu* cost: Sl.WRYD

Currmlh riud coal s27.733

Figure 4. -Region 5 marginal cost curve.

we were to estimate meaningful marginal cost

functions. However, the regressions without positive

significant coefficients may indicate that the marginal

cost of provision is zero rather than inestimable.

Listing 1 shows that the unsuccessful regressions

were for activities such as hunting, fishing, gathering

forest products, etc. The costs to the Forest Service

of providing these activities may be unrelated to

levels of use. Hunting expenditures, for example, are

primarily habitat related, and would not fluctuate with

RVDs consumed, but presumably they increase the

number or value of RVDs available (Randall 1987).

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

There were several noteworthy aspects to these

results. First, the 11 successful district-level cost

regressions explained a reasonable portion of the

total variation in the expenditure differences across

districts, These regressions support our basic

hypothesis: that recreation provision by the Forest

Service can be modeled using the conventional

economic theories of supply. Second, the marginal

cost functions showed that marginal costs did not

increase as a function of use. To explore this result

more fully, each activity was regressed against its

RVD production in a log-linear model. If marginal

cost was increasing, parameter estimates greater

than 1.0 would have resulted. No parameters were

estimated to be in this range; they were either equal

to 1.0 (linear model), less than 1.0 (log-linear) or

insignificant. This leads to the conclusion that, based

on our data, the marginal agency costs of recreation

provision do not increase as use increases.

If marginal costs do not increase, user fees based

on marginal cost will not cover all of the costs of

recreation provision. This means that the Forest

Service must either charge an inefficient price or

endure an operating deficit in its recreation program.

Third, our data failed to adequately address the

questions of ecological and congestion costs raised

by Rosenthal and others (1984). Including these

costs more explicitly might have altered the slope of

our marginal cost curves. This omission, combined

with our restrictive functional forms, means that there

is still considerable opportunity to improve upon our

empirical knowledge of recreation supply.

Fourth, the unsuccessful regressions tend to

involve undeveloped activities such as hunting, fishing,

and canoeing. It is not surprising that economic

factors have less influence on providing these activities

than the provision of facility-intensive activities such

as camping and picnicking. The ability to provide

232
undeveloped activities may be a function of a district’s

physical characteristics rather than its recreation

budget. Nevertheless, it is still necessary to develop

satisfactory supply functions for these undeveloped

activities. There is a sufficiently important portion of

the recreation produced on Forest Service land that

the ability to adequately model the activities should

be an important objective.

Finally, the data used also restricted our results.

Additional data might have reduced the number of

activities for which equations were not estimated.

Also, functional forms that less restricted the slopes

of the marginal cost functions could have been used,

if enough data had been available. Our feeling is

that more data would allow more confidence in the

parameter estimates; the data set is the most

ambitious developed to date. It has provided some

new information into the costs of Forest Service

recreation provision, but likely still contains some

important insights that have not been recognized.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Major funding for this research was from the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. It was supported in

pan by Duke University School of Forestry and

Environmental Studies and by the Utah Agricuftural

Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan, UT

84322, and is presented as journal paper no. 3539.

REFERENCES

Bruner, W. E.; Hagenstein, Perry R. 1981. Alternative

forest policies for the Pacific Northwest: final report,

forest policy project, June 1981. [Pullman, WA]:

Washington State University, Springfield, VA; NTIS.

392 pp.

Cordell, H. Ken; Hendee, John C. 1982. Renewable

resources recreation in the United States: supply,

demand, and critical policy issues. National

conference on renewable natural resources,

American Forestry Association and other organizations. Nov. 30-Dec. 4, 1980. Revised, American

Forestry Association. August 1982. 88 pp.

Hof, John G.; Loomis, John B. 1983. A recreation

optimization model based on the travel cost method.

Western Journal Agricultural Economics.

8(1):76-85.

Jubenville, Alan; Matulich, Scott C.; Workman, William

G. 1986. Toward the integration of economics and

outdoor recreation management. Bulletin 68.

Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska-Fairbanks,

School of Agriculture and Land Resources, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station.

Randall, Robert. 1987. Personal communication.

Nov. 12, 1987.

Reiling, Stephen D. 1976. An economic analysis of

policies, costs and returns for public and commercial campgrounds on the Oregon coast. Cotvallis,

OR: Oregon State University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Reiling, Stephen D.; Anderson, Mark W. 1983.

Estimation of the cost of providing publiclysupported outdoor recreational facilities in Maine.

Bulletin 793. Orono, ME: University of Maine, Maine

Agricultural Experiment Station. 92 pp.

Reiling, Stephen D.; Anderson, Mark W.; Gibbs,

Kenneth C. 1983. Measuring the costs of publicly

supplied outdoor recreation facilities: a methodological note. Journal of Leisure Research.

15(3):203-218.

Rosenthal, Donald H.; Loomis, John B.; Peterson,

George L. 1984. Pricing for efficiency and revenue

in public recreation areas. Journal of Leisure

Research. 16(3):195-208.

Schuster, Ervin G; Gibbs, Kenneth C. 1983. Costs

for developed recreation sites in the Northern

Region, USDA Forest Service. INT-317. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 6 pp.

Tyre, Gary L. 1975. Average costs of recreation on

national forests in the South. Journal of Leisure

Research. 7(2):114-20.

Daniels, Steven E. Marginal cost pricing and the

efficient provision of public recreation. Journal of

Leisure Research. 19(1):22&k

233
LISTING 1

Dependent Variables

AUTO*

CAMP*

WILD*

OTHDEV*

RES*

PCAMP’

NAT*

PIc*

SKI*

CWFISH*

HIKE*

CANOE

GATH

ORV

OTHUN

SWIM

VIS

WWFISH

SGHUNT

BGHUNT

Total district expenditure on

auto touring/sightseeing

Total district expenditure on

developed camping

Total district expenditure on

wilderness use/hiking

Total district expenditure on

other developed activities

Total district expenditure on

resort use

Total district expenditure on

primitive camping

Total district expenditure on

nature study/photography

Total district expenditure on

picnicking

Total district expenditure on

snow skiing

Total district expenditure on

cold-water fishing

Total district expenditure on

hiking

Total district expenditure on

canoeing

Total district expenditure on

gathering forest products

Total district expenditure on

off road vehicle use

Total district expenditure on

other undeveloped

activities

Total district expenditure on

swimming at designated

areas

Total district expenditure on

using visitor information

facilities

Total district expenditure on

warm-water fishing

Total district expenditure on

small game hunting

Total district expenditure on

big game hunting

*These dependent variables produced significant

positive own-quality parameter estimates.

LISTING 2

Independent Variables

RESRVD

VISRVD

PICRVD

SWIMRVD

CAMPRVD

AUTORVD

HIKRVD

OTHDRVD

WWFIRVD

CWFIRVD

CANORVD

PCAMPRVD

BGHRVD

SGHRVD

GATHRVD

ORVRVD

SKIRVD

NATRVD

RESCOST

VISCOST

PICOST

CAMPCOST

BCHCOST

OTHDCOST

WWLKCOST

WWSTCOST

CWLKCOST

CWSTCOST

RVD production of resort and

cabin use

RVD production of visitor

information facility use

RVD production of picnicking

RVD production of swimming

RVD production of developed

camping

RVD production of auto

touring/driving for

pleasure

RVD production of hiking

RVD production of other

developed recreation

RVD production of warmwater fishing

RVD production of cold-water

fishing

RVD production of canoeing

RVD production of primitive

camping

RVD production of big game

hunting

RVD production of small

game hunting

RVD production of gathering

forest products

RVD production of off-road

vehicle use

RVD production of skiing

RVD production of nature

study

per unit cost of resorts and

cabins

per unit cost of visitor information facilities

per unit cost of picnic areas

per unit cost of developed

campgrounds

per unit cost of developed

beaches and swimming

areas

per unit cost of other developed recreation sites

per unit cost of warm water

lakes

per unit cost of warm water

streams

per unit cost of cold water

lakes

per unit cost of cold water

streams

234
FORCOST

RANCOST

WILDCOST

ROADCOST

TRLCOST

RESPB

VISPB

PICPB

CAMPPB

per unit cost of undeveloped

forest area

per unit cost of undeveloped

range area

per unit cost of wilderness

area

per unit cost of forest roads

per unit cost of trails

Percent of resorts and cabins

maintained below standard

Percent of visitor information

facilities below standard

Percent of picnic areas maintained below standard

Percent of developed campgrounds maintained below

standard

Percent of forest roads maintained below standard

Percent of trails maintained

below standard

Percent of beaches maintained below standard

Percent of other developed

recreation sites below

standard

stock of resorts and cabins

Percent of resorts and cabins

operated by concessionaires

stock of visitor information

facilities

Percent of visitor infomation

facilities operated by concessionaires

stock of picnic areas

Percent of picnic areas

operated by concessionaires

stock of developed campgrounds

Percent of campgrounds

operated by concessionaires

stock of roads

Percent of roads operated by

concessionaires

stock of trails

Percent of trails operated by

concessionaires

stock of beaches

Percent of beaches operated

by concessionaires

OTHDSTK stock of other developed

facilities

Percent of other developed

facilities operated by concessionaires

stock of non-wilderness warm

water lakes

stock of non-wilderness warm

water streams

stock of non-wilderness cold

water lakes

stock of non-wilderness cold

water streams

stock of wilderness warm

water lakes

stock of wilderness warm

water streams

stock of wilderness cold

water lakes

stock of wilderness cold

water streams

stock of wilderness trails

highest elevation in wilderness on district

lowest elevation in wilderness

on district

stock of ocean in wilderness

timber management budget

range management budget

forest road construction and

maintenance budget

forest trail construction and

maintenance budget

average distance from district

headquarters to lands

volunteer maintenance, service, and construction

highest elevation on district

lowest elevation on district

stock of noncommercial

forestland

stock of noncommercial

rangeland

stock of commercial forestland

acres of commercial forestland harvested

commercial rangeland

=

OTHDPER =

NWLKSTK =

NWSTRSTK =

NCLKSTK =

NOCSTK =

WWLKSTK =

WWSTRSTK =

ROADPB

TRLPB

BEACHPB

OTHDPB

WCLKSTK =

WCSTRSTK =

WTRLSTK

HIELEV

=

=

LOELEV =

RESSTK

RESPERC

WOCSTK

TMDOL

RMDOL

ROAD

=

=

VISSTK

VISPERC

=

TRAIL =

=

DISTANCE =

PICSTK

PICPERC

= VOLUN

=

=

HIDIST

LODIST

CAMPSTK NCFORSTK

CAMPPERC NCRANSTK =

CFORSTK =

ROADSTK

ROADPER

TRLSTK

TRLPERC

BEACHSTK

BEACHPER

FORHARV =

CRANSTK =

=

=

235
LISTING 3

District Level Activity Regressions

LAUT03 .20LVISCOST + .27LPICOST + .42LAUTORVD

(1.87)

( .0715

(2.56) (2.48)

( .02) t.02)

R2 = .37 F = 6.48

(.00j6

dfe = 25

LCAMP = 4.50 = .OlLPICRVD + .57LCAMPRVD

(2.70)

(Zl

(3.60)

. (.OO)

R2 = .24 F = 7.79 dfe = 41

(.OO)

LWILD = .78 + .21LBGHRVD + .62LHIKRVD + .04LNATRVD

(.25) C-91) (2.50)

(.37) (.Ol)

R2 = .25 F = 4.36 dfe = 28

(.Ol)

LOTHDEV = 3.79 + .94PACIFIC + .llLVISCOST + .30LCMPLOST + .05LPICOST + .22LOTHDRVD

(2.63)

(z;

(1.47) (2.07) t.68) (1.91)

. (-15) (.05) (-50) (-07)

R2 = .32 F = 4.21 dfe = 29

t.011

RES = 2180.68 + .36RESRVD + 1.33PICOST

(-48) (4.56) (5.85)

( -00) C-00)

~~ = .52 F = 25.79 dfe = 44

l.00)

PCAMP = 1120.13 - .12TRLCOST + .24PCAMPRVD + .49WILDCOST + .47ROADCOST

(-37) (-,ll) (4.10) (1.19) (1.26)

(.92) (.OO) (.24) t.22)

R2 = .30 F = 4.47 dfe = 29

(.Ol)

236
NAT = 1163.09 + .O5PICOST + .04RANCOST + .64FORCOST + .17WILDCOST + .mJATRVD

(1.11) (1.76) (.76) (5.05) (1.86)

(*lO) (.46) (.OO) C.08)

R2 = .62 F = 7.64 dfe = 15

t.001

PIG = -2180.65 + 10633.55PACIFIC + .17PICOST + .~~VISCOST + 1.14PICRVD

(-.37) (1.15)

I *z:;

(1.19) (4.43)

t.26) . (.24) l-00)

R2 = .36 F = 7.01 dfe = 39

(.OO)

SKI = 2910.64 - 10059.15PACIFIC - 14.39TRLCOST + 1.65RANCOST + 1.34SKIRVD

(.Vl)

(-f%. (-ZZ

(6.21)

. 1.00)

R2 = .70 F = 7.27 dfe = 10

l.00)

CWFISH = 5700.32 + 83WILDCOST + 30.89CWSTCOST - .32CWLKCOST + .03CWFIRVD

(1.66)

(X. ('ZZ.

R2 = .80 F = 33.59 dfe = 29

(.OO)

HIKE = -8591.10 + .47PICOST + .16HIKRVD + 1.66WWLKCOST + .58SGHRVD

(-3.21) (8.22) (4.82) (4.21) (6.44)

(000) (.OO) (-00) (-00)

R2 = .71 F =22.06 DFE = 44

(.OO)

3 L denotes natural logarithm

4

Numbers in parentheses in the first line below the regressions are the the

t-statistics for the parameter estimates.

5Numbers in parentheses in the second line

probabilities that the parameter estimates

zero.

6

Probability values for the F-statistics.

below regressions are the

are not significantly different from

237
OF

MEASURING AND PROJECTING THE EFFECTIVENESS

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

H. Ken Cordell, Donald B.K. English, and John C. Bergstrom’

Abstract- This paper develops an improved geographic measure of the availability of recreational

opportunities -Effective Recreational Opportunities

(EROS). EROS is an index of the amount and location

of recreational/y available resources, facilities, and

services measured relative to the number and location

of population. In addition to indexing the current

distributional situation, models were estimated to

enable prediction of change in effectiveness of

recreation opportunities that likely would result from

future resource, population, public policy, and land-use

changes. Descriptions of the current situation and

likely future trends were developed for each of 72

categories of recreational opportunities, including

those that are remote as well as those that are easily

accessible and developed. The greatest future

declines of opportunities are predicted for partially

developed areas within l/2 mile of roads.

INTRODUCTION

Since the early days of settlement of the United

States, this country’s pattern of existence has come

full circle. Instead of scattered islands of civilization,

we now have scattered islands of natural areas. As

these remaining natural areas become more scarce,

they require more careful protection and management.

To do so we need a better understanding of the

recreational and other values of natural areas and of

their adequacy in meeting the recreational demands

of the American public. Particularly needed is a better

understanding of the effectiveness of the quantity

and location of the recreational opportunities that

natural lands and their developments represent,

relative to the number and location of our national

and regional populations.

‘Project Leader and Outdoor Recreation Planner, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group,

Athens, GA; Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

238

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, demand for outdoor

recreation opportunities increased and shifted dramatically. Governments at all levels responded to these

demands by increasing the dollars, lands, and

development available for outdoor recreation. Several

systems were created for preserving irreplaceable

natural resources under Federal jurisdiction, including

the National Wilderness Preservation System, the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the National

Trails System, and National Recreation Areas.

Legislation was enacted to reduce air and water

pollution and to protect cultural resources. Federal

expenditures for recreation increased from $75 million

in 1960 to a high of $1.4 billion in 1980.

Other major responses to demand growth since

1960 were seen among State and local governments,

and in the private sector. State park systems expanded

from 6.6 million to almost 10 million acres. Local

government acres and areas available for outdoor

recreation doubled. While these public land trends

were occurring, private land and water areas were

being developed, subdivided, closed, or otherwise

changed. Some of this change had the effect of

restricting public access. On the positive side, private

recreation enterprises and facilities, including resorts,

second homes, ski facilities, and theme parks grew

tremendously. But over 55 million acres of private

farm, forest, and range were convened to uses that

precluded recreation.

Whatever the end result of all this change, it is

our history. This history has left us a legacy that will

have a great bearing upon our future. A tremendously

important question about this future is whether the

legacy of resources, facilities, and services we now

have in place are adequate in quantity and are

distributed appropriately to meet public demands for

outdoor recreation. Another question that is perhaps

more specifically relevant is whether future demands

will be adequately met if we do nothing to alter the

rates of change, either increases or decreases, at

which resources are being made available for outdoor

recreation.
The most current forecast of the growth of

recreational demand shows a wide range of projected

growth rates between such activities as off-road

vehicle driving and day hiking (Cordell and others

1989). Among all activities, growth projections imply

a wide array of possible pressures for outdoor

recreational resources, facilities, and services. Those

activities projected to grow rapidly include downhill

skiing, cross-country skiing, swimming, backpacking,

visiting prehistoric sites, running and jogging, and

day hiking. Each of these activities is expected to

rise 30 percent or more by 2000, and they involved

demands for added space and some facilities.

Because these activities mostly require additional

space, runs, trails and access, for the most part,

large capital investments and development will not

be the answer to meeting demand growth. It is the

provision of space and access, as implied by

projections, that will likely provide the greatest

challenges for the future provision of recreational

opportunities. Particularly acute will be the challenge

of providing opportunities that effectively meet

demand increases relative to the number and location

of the populations generating those demands.

DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS OF

RECREATION SUPPLY AND THE

PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER

Twenty-six years ago, the Outdoor Recreation

Resources Review Commission (1962) described the

paradox of outdoor recreation resources. They noted

that effectiveness, not inventories of acres or amounts

of resources, is the more important concern in

recreation supply analysis. Kind and location of

resources, they maintained, is as much a part of the

issue as is amount. Not much happened to address

this issue until the early 1980’s when Marion Clawson

reported on his concept of Effective Acreage Equivalents, a concept he had much earlier advanced

(Clawson 1984). Harrington (1987) refined the

effectiveness measure of resource scarcity to account

for costs incurred by both recreation consumers and

the operators of recreation areas. He termed this

improved conceptualization ‘effective price.’ In 1988,

Daniels and Cordell explored the more traditional

conceptualization of supply, that is, from the site

management perspective. This traditional conceptualization recognizes that land, labor, capital, management, and technology are combined to produce

various quantities of recreational opportunities at

various costs.

In this paper we briefly describe conceptual and

methodological advances made through work underway since 1982 for the Renewable Resources Planning

Act (RPA) Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and

Wilderness. This work builds upon the advances and

implements the contributions of ORRRC, Clawson,

Harrington, Daniels and Cordell, and others. We

define a measure called Effective Recreational

Opportunities (EROS) as a theoretically consistent

and planning-relevant supply measure. This measure

is also consistent with preceding viewpoints, including

inventory and effective price. In this paper we also

present results of a national application of the data

and methodological advances as a part of the 1989

RPA Assessment of outdoor recreation and wilderness

suPPlYAs with any measurement problem, the kind and

precision of a measure to be selected depends upon

the question(s) being asked. Regarding recreation

supply, the questions typically are among the following

three: (1) ‘Are we gaining or losing recreational

opportunities per capita?” (2) “What are the relative

availabilities of recreational opportunities among

locations or groups?” and (3) ‘What kind and how

much recreational opportunity should public agencies

provide?” Effective Recreational Opportunities (EROS)

can directly address the first two of these questions

and greatly facilitates answering the third.

EROS starts with an inventory of the type and

quantity of land, water, facilities or services aggregated

to the county level. Such an inventory was developed

for the United States for the 1989 RPA Assessment

and is referred to as NORSIS, National Outdoor

Recreation Supply Information System. NORSIS is

composed of over 400 different resource inventory

elements, covering both public and private sectors,

and describing acres, miles, capacity, services, and

related supply elements. Included are measures of

total forest, farm, range, urban, and other areas.

Especially delineated are portions of areas that are

available for public recreation. Only the quantities of

resources, facilities, and services available for public

recreation are included in computing EROS. These

quantities are weighted according to degree of

relevance to each of 12 general types of recreational

opportunities, from remote to developed, as described

later.

To account for per capita amounts and spatial

distribution, these county-level, relevance-weighted

inventory data are next convened to per capita

amounts and distance-decay weighted to reflect

their locational advantage relative to the location of

resident populations. The end result (explained in

more detail in a following section) measures the

relative amounts of recreational opportunities that

are within a normal market radius and are specific to

239
different types of recreational environments available

to people in any given location. An EROS index thus

permits direct comparison of the relative abundance,

or scarcity, or recreational opportunities among people

living in different counties across the country. We

computed EROS indices for each of the 12 classes

of recreational environments for a representative set

of 239 counties across the United States.

A Recreational Environment Classification

System

Recreational resources are of three general types.

Land Resources range from desert and prairie to

forests and mountains. Water Resources include

rivers, streams, lakes, pools, and ocean shorelines.

Snow and Ice Resources are, in the majority of

cases, a subset of land and water resources identified

by degree of snowfall and subfreezing temperatures.

I General

Iteporv

Land

V Snow

Recreational

Environments

l Wilderness and

Remote Backcountry,

3 miles from Roads

l Extensive Undeveloped

Areas Near Roads

l Roaded and Partially

Developed Areas

l Developed Sites

l Wild and Scenic or

Other Remote

Lakes and Streams

l Lakes or Streams

Near Roads

l Partially Developed

Lakes or Streams with

Roads or Crossings

l Developed Water Sites

l Wilderness and Other

Remote Backcountry,

3 miles from roads

l Extensive Undeveloped

Areas Near Roads

l Roaded and Partially

Developed Areas

l Developed Winter

Sports Sites

It is useful to discuss snow and ice separately because

of their different resource management needs and

temporal distribution of use.

Our classification system further arrays recreational resources by their distance from the nearest road

passable to a two-wheel-drive passenger vehicle.

Distance from this nearest road also characterizes

resources according to their level of development,

since wild lands are generally remote, and developed

facilities are adjacent to or traversed by roads. Each

class of resource-land, water, snow and ice- is

subdivided into four categories identifying their level

of remoteness or development. Type of resource

and level of remoteness or development are combined

to describe 12 recreational environments (figure 1).

The classes of recreational environments are

described below by basic type of resource.

R ecre ational Uses

Recreational

Uses

l Wilderness and Other

Non Motor Use > 3

Miles from Roads

l Non Motor Backcountry

< 3 Miles from Roads

l Motorized Road and

Off-Road Use

l Developed Site Use

l Wild and Scenic River

and other Non Motor

Motor Use > l/2 Mile

from Roads

l Non MotorUse

within l/2 mile

of roads

l Motorized Use of Lakes

and Streams

l Developed Site Use

l Wilderness and Other

Non Motor Snow Use

> l/2 Mile from Roads

l Non Motorized Use

< l/2 Mile from Roads

l Motorized Road

and Off-Road Use

l Developed Site Use

General

Category I

Land

Figure 1. -Categories of recreational and wilderness resources and uses.

240
Land Resources-Wilderness and Remote

Backcountry Areas are the most primitive and least

disturbed class of land resources. These lands are

either legislatively designated as wilderness or lie

more than three miles from a road, Opportunities for

solitude and nature-oriented recreation, such as

backpacking, are available on these remote wild

lands. Extensive Undeveloped Areas Near Roads

border wilderness and remote backcountry and lie

l/2 to 3 miles from a road. Recreational opportunities

in these areas are typically non-motorized and include

such activities as backpacking, wildlife observation,

and primitive camping. Roaded and Partially Developed Areas lie within l/2 mile of a road, but are

outside of heavily developed areas. This recreational

environment is composed primarily of Federal, State,

and private lands within l/2 mile of roaded access.

Most State forest land is in this category, as are

nearly all forest industry lands and most non-industrial

private lands. Forest roads and most trails are also

on lands in this category, where both motorized and

non-motorized recreational activities occur. Developed Sltes principally encompass sites such as

campgrounds and picnic areas. Other important

developments include golf courses, resorts, and

many local government sites such as playgrounds

and athletic fields.

Water Resources- Wild and Remote Waters

are primitive, free-flowing streams and bodies of

water located more than l/2 mile from a road. Most

of the river segments which have been designated

or are under study for inclusion in the National Wild

and Scenic River System (NWSRS) are in this

category. River trips, trout fishing, and canoe outings

occur on this type of water. Lakes and Streams

Near Roads include non-wilderness water bodies

without direct road access, but which are located

within l/2 mile of a road. Lakes and streams near

roads include ponds, beaches, and major portions

of Federal and other reservoirs. Motorized boating

and fee-fishing are among the principal uses of water

resources near roads and with numerous roaded

access points. This category of water bodies and

their associated light development are termed Partially

Developed Water Resources. Developed Sites

include swimming pools, water parks, and marinas.

Commercial, water-based recreational opportunities

are included under this category of recreational

resource.

Snow and Ice Resources-These winter-season

resources are classified similarly to land environments.

The distinguishing feature is sufficient snowfall to

support a winter recreational season, generally 16 or

more inches of snow annually, and temperatures low

enough and for a long enough period to freeze the

surface of streams and lakes. Wilderness and Remote

Backcountry winter areas with 16-or-more inches of

annual snowfall provide opportunities for snowshoeing

and other solitude-oriented winter activities at distances greater than 3 miles from roads. Extensive

Areas Near Roads, l/2 to 3 miles, and Roaded,

Partially Developed Areas, less than l/2 mile from

roads, provide opportunities, among others, for

cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, ice fishing, and

sledding. The two types of development most

significant, in addition to the overall area receiving

sufficient snowfall, are the trails and roads which

facilitate winter recreation activities requiring open

spaces, such as snowmobiling and cross-country

skiing. Ski and other winter sport resorts characterize

intensively Developed Winter Sports Sites where

winter sports facilities and transport technologies are

the emphasis.

Following this structure of recreational resources,

the following section describes the process and data

used to compute EROS (effectiveness) indices. In

subsequent sections, regional comparisons and

future projections of EROS are presented.

Procedures and Data

Development of a measure of Effective Recreational Opportunities involved the identification of relevant

resources, land, water, facilities and services, for

each of the 12 recreational environments shown in

Figure 1. Next, data sources were located and needed

data obtained, both primary and secondary. This

process occurred over a 5-year period, and much

original data had to be developed where adequate

secondary sources did not exist. Finally, computation

of EROS indices involved a series of steps to

standardize and weight the data, followed, finally, by

deriving cross-sectional statistical models for use in

developing projections.

Identification of Relevant Resources- Each of

the 12 recreational environments describes a specific

type of recreational opportunity. Data elements from

the National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information

System (NORSIS) were examined and classified to

reflect their relevance to each recreational environment. Resources that were alike, except for different

ownerships or management, e.g., Forest Service

wilderness and Park Service wilderness, were combined, as were many other very similar and related

resources, such as dude and guest ranches.

These lists of resources were then reduced to

those that were either: (a) an integral and essential

component of the resource base described by the

241
TRRAP category, such as the relevance of campgrounds as a developed land resource; or (b) relevant,

but not critical, to an element of a recreational

environment, such as the access services provided

by guides and outfitters for excursions into wilderness

areas.

Data Sources- County-by-county, the NORSIS

data base was developed from numerous sources.

Each major source and examples of specific sources

used are presented below. Space guidelines for this

paper do not permit greater detail.

Published Public Domain Data Sets-The Federal

government collects and publishes a large amount

of resource information on a county-by-county basis.

Much of this data is developed through the efforts of

the Bureau of the Census. Quinquennial data collected

by the Federal Government includes the Censuses

of Agriculture, Governments, Population, and County

Business Patterns; the National Resources Inventory

(USDA Soil Conservation Service); and Forest

Inventories (USDA Forest Service).

Privately Collected Data-Several companies

collect and market data dealing with a specific

resource or type of recreational opportunity. For

example, the Rand McNally Company and Woodalls

each publish annually a campground guide from

computerized data files that they each have developed. Another primary source included a national

business listing of enterprises and organizations that

advertise in yellow page telephone directories. Another

example source included Ski magazine’s list of

downhill and Nordic ski areas.

Association Directories - Members of professional

and trade associations are frequently listed and

sometimes described in annual directories. Some of

the associations that provided data to NORSIS

included: National Association of Canoe Liveries and

Outfitters, North American Gamebird Association,

International Association of Amusement Parks and

Attractions, and the American Camping Association.

Public Agency Data- Most primary data sources

were developed for NORSIS because suitable

secondary data were not available. These data were

developed from samples and extrapolated to describe

population-level amounts of resources for all counties

in the United States. The two prominent studies

included here were the Municipal and County Parks

and Recreation Study (McDonald and Cordell 1988)

and the 1986-87 National Private Land Ownership

Study. Each of these nationwide studies required

substantial investments, but provided much needed

data describing access, facilities, and other dimensions of the recreational opportunities they represent.

Computation of EROS-The first computational

step was to assign a weight of either 3, 1, or zero to

each resource variable to reflect degree of relevance

of each such variable to each of the recreational

environments of Figure 1. These weights reflect the

refative degree of importance of recreationally

available resource as each contributes to the make-up

of opportunities provided by each of the 12 recreational environments. These weights were subjectively

assigned. Those resource variables (NORSIS data

elements), which were integral and most directly

relevant components of a particular recreational

environment, received a weight of 3. Those that

otherwise contributed, but were less directly relevant,

received a weight of 1. Most data elements in NORSIS

received a weight of zero for any particular recreational

environment, indicating negligible direct relevance or

redundancy with already included elements.

Second, for each county in the United States, an

index of the relative abundance of each relevanceweighted resource that contributed to the recreational

character of each environment was computed. To

compute these intermediate indices of relative

abundance, the amount of resource per capita was

calculated using the most recent estimates of each

county’s current population. These per capita ratios,

at the individual variable or resource level, were then

rank ordered and the value at the 95th percentile for

each variable was identified. A resource-per-capita

index for each relevant resource was then computed

across all U.S. counties by dividing each county’s

respective per capita amount by the national per

capita value amount at the 95th percentile. This

result was then multiplied by 100 across all counties

and any values greater than 100 (i.e., those having

amounts greater than the 95th percentile amount)

were truncated to equal 100. This last step and the

use of the 95th percentile were included to avoid the

biasing influence that those few very high values

would have on means and estimated parameters in

subsequent cross-sectional regressions and other

analysis steps. In addition, use of those few very

high values, usually representing places like Alaska,

to standardize the national set of indices would

obscure important differences in the desired effectiveness measures for most of the rest of the country.

The resulting abundance indices for each individual resource variable were then multiplied by relevance

weights (3 or 1). The resulting weighted resource

variables for each recreational environment were

then summed to produce a composite measure of

the abundance of recreational resources for each

county of the United States. As county-level sums,

they were again standardized to a scale of 0 to 100

by dividing through all composite county values by

242
the one nationwide county value that was highest for

each environment. For any one county, then, an

index resulted to reflect the per capita abundance of

recreational resources of a particular type, relative to

the abundance in all other counties in the United

States.

The third and final computational step was to

convert these composite measures of resource

abundance into EROS indices for all counties in the

United States. This final step further transformed the

data to reflect location of recreation resources relative

to location of population. For each of the 12 categories

of recreational environments, a recreation travel

distance specific to that category was computed

using travel data from a nationwide survey of public

site users, the Public Area Recreation Visitors Study

(PARVS). The travel distance or radius for each

Table 1 .--Relevant travel distances that

county populations in the United States

are willing to travel for each of 12

categories of recreation environments

Recreational

environment

Relevant

travel

distance

Land:

Wilderness and remote backcountry, 3 miles from roads

Extensive undeveloped areas

near roads

Roaded and partially

developed areas

Developed sites

Water:

Wild and scenic or other

remote lakes and streams

Lakes or streams near roads

Partially developed lakes or

streams with roads or

crossings

Developed water sites

Snow and Ice:

Wilderness and other remote

backcountry, 3 miles from

roads

Extensive undeveloped areas

near roads

Roaded and partially

developed areas

Developed winter sports sites

80

75

80

95

To compute the EROS indices, the relevant travel

radius or distance for each of the 12 recreational

environments were employed to identify which

counties in the vicinity of each individual county in

the national sample of 239 lay mostly within each

travel radius. The identification criterion was whether

or not the geographic center (centroid) of any nearby

county was within this travel radius. Since travel radii

were different among the 12 recreational environments

(Table l), the number of counties included for

computation of each EROS index was also different.

After identification of counties within the relevant

travel radii of “central” or sampled counties was

completed, a distance decay weight was applied to

the composite abundance indices from Step 2. This

decay weight reflects the lower accessibility and

thus greater cost of trips to recreational sites lying

farther away from the people living in each central

county in the sample of 239. The weighting computation is represented by equation (1) below. For each

of the central counties, the distance to all other

counties, within the relevant radii of central counties,

was measured using computer software entitled,

Comprehensive Analysis of Recreational Environments (CAREN) (Berryman and others 1986). The

resulting EROS values for each central county (i)

and recreational environment (j) were computed as

follows:

80

60

50

k

EROSij = 1

wjk * (1 - Dik/RTDj)

1 Dik/RTDj

40 where:

100

100

200

250

EROSij = Effective recreational opportunities index

for central county i and recreational environment j,

Dik = Distance between centroids of central county i

and nearby county k within RTDj,

RTDj = Relevant Travel Distance for recreational environment j,

Wjk = Weighted Composite value representing relative amount of recreational resources relevant to.environment j in county k,

Source: Public Area Recreation Visitors

Study, 1986-87

category of environment was equal to the weighted

average travel distance among activities occurring in

each environment, as reported by those persons

living within the distance that included the closest 75

percent of PARVS respondents. The PARVS data

lacked sufficient sample size only for activities

occurring in the developed snow/ice environment.

As a result, this average travel radius had to be derived

from travel distance data supplied by the National

Ski Areas Association.

(1)

k = Counties whose centroids are within RTDj.

243
The result of the above computation is a summation of the supply of relevance-weighted resources (3

or 1) for each recreational environment, standardized

on the bases of per capita amount relative to abundance in the rest of the United States. This summation aggregates the above county-level, weighted

measures of amounts of resources after weighting

them downward as they are farther from the recreation seeking populations living within each of the

central counties. RTDj, the travel radius, represents

the greatest distance that a “satellite” county can be

from the “central county.” As Dik becomes larger, the

ratio Dik/RTDj approaches 1. AS Dik/RTDj approaches 1, the weighting term, 1 - (Dik/RTDj)/

(Dk/RTDj), approaches zero. This weighting term will

always have a value less than 1 but greater than zero.

As a measure of recreational opportunity, EROS

indicates .availability, not only within the county of

residence, but also from other counties within

distances that people are willing to travel. As computed, ease of access (proximity) and competition from

other communities for these sites are taken into

account. An EROS index is, in a spatial context, a

price-constant opportunity measure where the implicit

access price includes both travel and congestion

costs. Compared across the country, EROS indicates

the current relative effectiveness of different types of

recreational opportunities, Across time, EROS indicates relative gains or losses in effectiveness, which

is a measure of relative abundance, and leaves the

judgment of correctness or sufficiency to be determined by other criteria.

Regional Comparisons of Current

Opportunity Effectiveness

Below is presented a description of the effectiveness indices for each of the 12 types of environments,

remote to developed, within the land, water, and

snow-and-ice resource categories of Figure 1. For

the sake of brevity, only a brief description is

presented. In general, these results reflect the fact

that recreational opportunities are widely available to

Americans, but that their type and quantity are

unevenly dispersed across the country. Remote

backcountry areas are heavily concentrated in the

West; developed sites are greater in the East. Yet

more people live in the East, and within any given

region, some areas have more resources than others

and resources in some areas are more conveniently

located near populated places than others. These

two factors, amount of resources available relative to

numbers of people and location of resources available

relative to location of people, define the effectiveness

of opportunities.

The effective amount and location of available

recreational resources, from remote wildlands to

developed environments, is highly variable nationwide.

In considering the supply of outdoor recreation, this

variability is very important. Improvements in effective

supply may as much be affected by changes in the

sheer quantity of regional land and water available

for recreation as by overall shifts in the location of

opportunities relative to numbers of people and their

location within a region. The more trips regional

residents can take without having to expend more

time and money for the average recreational trip, the

more effective is the supply of recreation opportunities.

Land-Based Opportunities- Eighty-one percent

of the population lives in the East where less than 5

percent of Federal recreation lands are located (except

Alaska). State and local lands help make up for lack

of Federal properties in the East even though they

typically offer a different kind of recreational opportunity. Two-thirds of non-Federal public lands and

private lands are east of the Rockies. Also, State

and local lands generally are located closer to cities.

Even with the more prevalent State, local, and

private lands in the East, the disparity in effective

availability of recreational opportunities between East

and West is extreme, although it varies by type of

opportunity. Measured as an effectiveness index,

which takes account of amount of resource, number

of people, and location of resource relative to people,

opportunities linked to land resources are 5 to 15

times greater in the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain

Regions of the West than they are in the North and

South. Wilderness and other remote land areas are

about 15 times more abundant in the West than in

the East. Roaded and partially developed opportunities in the West are nearly six times that of the East,

as are developed land recreational opportunities. In

addition, opportunities in all land recreational

environments-from the most remote and wild to the

most developed-are more abundant in the North

than in the South, and in the Pacific Coast Region

than in the Rocky Mountains (figure 2).

Water-Based Opportunities -The availability of

fishable and swimmable surface waters in the United

States correlates fairly closely with areas of population

density. In 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency

estimated that about three quarters of the nation’s

surface waters were clean enough for fishing and

swimming. Further clean-up efforts provide the

potential for expansion of water-based recreational

opportunities. These efforts will have the greatest

impact in high-density population areas, where waters

tend to be privately or municipally owned, and

historically, more heavily polluted.

244
Figure 2. -Effective opportunities for roaded, partially-developed, land-based recreation in U.S. counties,

base year 1987. Darker shades indicate greater opportunity.

Though our country’s water resources are located

closer to where people live than is the case for

recreationally available land, there still are large

differences in effectiveness between regions. Less

extreme than for land recreational opportunities, the

most remote of water recreation opportunities, such

as wild and scenic rivers, is five to eight times more

abundant in the West than in the East. Highly

accessible, developed water recreational opportunities

are two to six times more effectively abundant in the

West than in the East. As with land opportunities,

the more accessible and developed water opportunities are more prevalent in the Pacific Coast than in

the Rocky Mountain Region. But there the likeness

ends. The South overall has more effective water

recreational opportunities than the North, and the

Rocky Mountain Region has more wild and remote

water opportunity than the Pacific Coast (figure 3).

Snow and Ice-based Opportunities -The distribution of winter recreational opportunities across the

United States follows temperature gradients. Snowfall

in the northern states and at higher elevations convert

recreationally available land areas into winter snow

opportunities for skiing, snowmobiling, snowshoeing,

and other activities. Effectively, there is about 12

times more backcountry snow opportunity in the

West than in the North. The South, of course, has

virtually none. Road accessible snow opportunities

and developed winter sports sites differ less between

West and North, although it is still at a ratio of about

seven to one. The Rocky Mountain portion of the

West has slightly more of all types of opportunities

per capita than the Pacific Coast (figure 4).

Trends and Futures

In addition to comparisons between regions, this

research has emphasized development of capability

to speculate about future trends. As described below,

the general approach to developing futures projections was to describe recent past resource trends

(1970 to 1987 for this study), develop models that

would enable forecasting the future effectiveness of

the amount and location of recreational resources if

these recent trends continue, and to then, estimate

future change of effectiveness, The procedures and

results are described below.

245
Figure 3. -Effective opportunities for roaded, partially-developed, water-based recreation in U.S. counties,

base year 1987. Darker shades indicate greater opportunity.

Figure 4. -Effective opportunities for roaded, partially-developed, snow and ice-based recreation in U.S.

counties, base year 1987. Darker shades indicate greater opportunity.

246
Recent Past Trends of Resource

Availability

The single most critical factor determining the

degree to which recreational opportunities are

effectively offered to the public is the availability of

access to land and water resources. Next is the

availability of facilities and development specific to

certain types of outdoor recreation. As stated earlier,

this research focuses, for the most part, on those

resources and developments that are recreationally

available. Since 1970, the amounts of available

resources have changed, some dramatically so.

Following is a brief overview of recent past trends of

resource availability from 1970 to 1987. These trends

are subsequently used as the basis for effectiveness

projections.

Land Resources-Though land designated as

wilderness has increased, road building and other

land conversions have meant overall decreases in

recreational opportunities in remote backcountry

environments. Similarly, in 1987 there were 326 million

acres of land farther than l/2 mile from a road. In

the years from 1970 to 1987, the amount of this less

remote land resource decreased at an annual rate of

about 2.9 million acres, -0.9 percent/year. Roaded,

partially developed forest and range land recreational

opportunities also have been decreasing. In 1987,

there were 720 million acres in this land category

within l/2 mile of roads. Since 1970, the average

annual decline in this category of land has been

about 5 million acres, -0.7 percent per year. The

reverse is true of developed recreational opportunities,

such as picnic areas, campgrounds, nature centers,

golf courses, and other recreational sites. Across all

levels of government and in the private sector,

developed, land-based recreational opportunities

have been increasing at about +0.6 percent per

year.

Water Resources-Since 1970, remote wild

water available for recreation has increased slightly,

at about 0.3 percent per year. This is in contrast with

water areas adjacent to road access, which have

decreased at about the same rate over the last few

years. Declining access has been responsible. Highly

accessible water recreational opportunities and

developed water sites have grown in number since

1970, at between one-half to one percent per year.

The growth of these opportunities reflects construction

of launch ramps, bridges, equipment development,

piers, and other developments and access improvements. This growth, however, has been slower than

population growth.

The general specification of the forecasting

models was as follows:

Effective Recreational Opportunities (EROS) = f

(a+ . . .

bl

b2

b3

b4

b5

Population density +

Exogenous nonrecreational land uses

+

Exogenous economic influences +

Public financial assistance for recreation +

Recreation resource availabilities.

Snow and Ice Resources- Recent past trends

indicate gradual reductions in the per capita amounts

of unroaded, remote land in areas where snowfall is

sufficient for winter sports. Additionally, availability of

roaded and partially developed areas where sufficient

snowfall for recreation occurs has also been decreasing due primarily to private land closures. Developed

winter sports sites, however, have been increasing

fairly rapidly since 1970, but at a decreasing rate of

growth. In the 1970’s, growth occurred through new

site development. Since the late 1970’s, growth has

largely occurred through better management and

technology to increase capacity. For example, since

the early 1980’s, growth in ski lift capacity has been

about 1.5 percent per year.

The above trends in availability of land, water,

and snow and ice resources for outdoor recreation

represent the most likely future trends for the United

States unless a conscious public policy or private

market change occurs that would alter these trends.

The question then becomes, ‘What will future effectiveness trends likely be if recent past resource availability

trends continue and if population, economic, and

other exogenous trends unfold in the future as they

are currently projected?’ The following sections

address future trends. Table 2 presents assumed

resource availability trends to 2020, assuming that

annual rates of change from 1970 to 1987 were to

continue.

Estimating Cross-Sectional Forecasting

Models

Liile precedent exists to guide the development

of models that would enable forecasting effectiveness

indices for future years. Thus, in specifying models it

was assumed that future EROS values would be

shaped by the same forces which currently determine

the effectiveness of the amount and location of

recreational opportunities. These forces include

population, competing land uses, public financing

available for recreational development and management, specific resources available and economic

influences.

247
Table 2. --Estimated future trends in availability of land, water, and

snow and ice resources and environments if recent trends (1970-87)

were to continue into the future.

Resources and

environments

Projected percentage change from 1987

2000 2010 2020

Land:

Wilderness and other

extensive roadless areas

Undeveloped areas

near roads

Partially developed,

roaded areas

Intensively developed

sites

91 85 79

88 80 72

91 85 79

108 115 122

Water:

Wild and remote

lakes and streams

Lakes and streams

near roads

Lake and stream sites

adjoined by roads

Intensively developed

water sites

103 106 108

97 96 94

108 115 122

112 123 134

Snow and Ice:

Wilderness and

other roadless areas

Undeveloped areas

near roads

Partially developed,

roaded areas

Intensively developed

winter sports sites

91 85 79

88 80 72

91 85 79

117 128 136

Each of the. 12 EROS cross-sectional models

started with the same specification of independent

variables, except for variables measuring recreational

resource availabilities. Estimates of model parameters

were derived using stepwise multiple regression.

Multiple coefficients of determination ranged from

0.10 to 0.79 and models typically included from 5 to

18 variables. For each model there were 239 records

representing the sampled counties. Details about the

estimated models and model parameters are available

upon request to the authors.

Available information to predict possible future Exogenous Land Uses- Future land use changes

changes of the significant variables composing each exogenous to the authority of public recreation

estimated models was synthesized to produce the suppliers were projected at rates appropriate to

assumed futures referenced in the following section. each variable, mostly following recent past trends.

Following conventional procedures, assumed future Some land uses, such as industrial ownerships, will

average levels for the decades 2000 through 2040 not likely change significantly in future years. Road,

across the 239 representative counties were used highway, and transportation development will likely

multiplicatively with the estimated model parameters change at one-half the rate that the U.S. population

to compute future values of EROSi. is projected to change.

Assumed Futures-Assumed futures were as

follows:

Population-population growth was derived from

Wharton Econometrics projections (. . . 1988) provided

to the U.S. Forest Service to the year 2040. The

projected population levels show an average annual

increase of 0.98 percent per year from 1986 to 2000,

0.71 percent from 2000 to 2010, 0.61 percent from

12010 to 2020, 0.43 percent from 2020 to 2030, and

0.24 percent from 2030 to 2040.

248
Exogenous Economic Influences-Costs of

construction, land, materials, capital, and labor were

assumed to maintain a constant relative production

relationship over time and to remain constant in real

dollars over time. These variables were used in the

models mainly to account for their effects on current

geographic variation in amounts of recreation opportunities, and not for use as projection bases.

Public Finance-The amount of Federal and

State transfers to local areas for parks and recreation,

and the amount of local tax revenue, were assumed

to remain constant over time when measured in

inflation-adjusted dollars. The future values of these

variables could be manipulated to simulate the effects

of alternative future tax and transfer funding policies.

Recreation Resource Availabilities-The principal

focus of the forecasting models was to enable

examination of the effects of possible, policydetermined future changes in the amount of public

and private recreational resources. For example, as

the amount of Federal developed sites, local trails,

resorts near public land, and other resources and

facilities change, the effectiveness of opportunities

also change. Continuation of recent past resource

trends, presented in a previous section and in Table

2, is the assumed most likely future trend and is

used to estimate likely future effectiveness indices

for recreational resources.

Projections of Future Effective Recreational

Opportunities

Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c illustrate the projections

using the above-described forecasting models. These

projections show one possible future scenario of

trends in recreational opportunities-continuation of

recent past trends in availabilities of resources,

facilities, and services. These projections may imply

continued growth, sometimes rapid, in order to stay

on trend lines established over the past 18 years.

Figure 5b indicates that continuing recent past

trends in the provision of access, facilities, and

services would result in future gains in effective

opportunities for both roaded, partially developed,

and highly developed water opportunities. Continuing

past trends in the face of population growth would

only slightly diminish remote and wild water opportunities, as well as all types of snow- and ice-based

opportunities. Effectiveness of land-based effective

change from 1987

120

60 -

40 -

20 -

0

1987

I I

2000 2010 2020

Year

- Remote L Near Roads

+ Roaded * Developed

Figure 5a. -Projected trends in the effectiveness of

amount and location of recreational opportunitiesfour land resource categories in the United States

from 1987 to 2020.

change from 1987

120

100s

80 -

60

I

40

20 I

YgY2000 2010 20:

Year

- Remote - Near Roads

+ Roade d * Devebped

20

Figure 5b. -Projected trends in the effectiveness of

amount and location of recreational opportunitiesfour water resource categories in the United States

from 1987 to 2020.

249
recreational opportunities would be a different matter

(Figure 5~). Continued closure of private land,

population growth, land conversions, and rural land

subdivision and occupancy for residential purposes

could diminish roaded, partially developed land

opportunities to as little as 60 percent of current

levels in a little over 20 years. Wild, remote opportunities may diminish nearly 10 percent in this time.

Developed opportunities would stay nearly constant,

but this means that such opportunities would have

to be increased by about the rate of population growth,

the prevalent trend over the last several years.

DISCU$SION

Rising demand for outdoor recreational opportunities and increasingly diminished space for recreational

pursuits make doubly important the need to develop

tools for monitoring and comparing how effectively

our scare opportunities are made available. In this

paper, Clawson’s conceptualization of ‘effectiveness’

is adopted and refined to produce a methodology

for examining the status of recreational opportunities.

In addition, a procedure and models have been

developed for forecasting future effectiveness. Applications of these methodological advances are

provided for examining disparities in amounts of

recreational opportunities among different communities or regions. Our estimates of the EROS indices

also provide a benchmark for examining likely future

availabilities of opportunities in a manner that avoids

comparing ‘apples and oranges.’ Previous attempts

at comparing across communities or across time

usually have compared apples to oranges because

they did not account for differences in populations

competing for opportunities, differences in willingness

to travel to use opportunities, and differences in

mixes of available resources, sites, and development.

The EROS indices presented in this paper provide

a very useful and practical tool for monitoring the

recreational opportunity delivery system in the United

States. Using EROS indices one can identify which

populated areas are particularly low in recreational

opportunities relative to the rest of the United States.

The EROS effectiveness measures take account of

the fact that recreational opportunities are comprised

of a mixture of resources, sites, facilities, and services.

Comparing one particular resource, such as miles of

streams, cannot fully describe the set of recreational

opportunities available for, say fishing, when lakes,

ponds, and guide services also contribute to opportunity availability.

The methods and procedures developed here

are in need of some improvements, Attention should

be given to betterment of the data base and assurance

change from 1987

1201

80'

60 I

i

40 t

20

I

0' I I

1987 2000 2010 2020

Year

- Remote + Near Roads

++ Roaded + Developed

Figure 5c. -Projected trends in the effectiveness of

amount and location of recreational opportunities -

four snow and ice resource categories in the United

States from 1987 to 2020.

of it being frequently updated. Attention needs to be

given to the appropriateness of the weights applied

to reflect relevance and distance from populated

places. Also, further research is needed to improve

the model specifications and, perhaps, to provide an

alternative way of looking into the future. Overall,

however, this first effort to develop and apply,

nationwide, an effectiveness measure has shown

great promise and has produced a very useful set of

indices indicating the status of outdoor recreation

supply.

As measured by EROS indices, some new insights

have been gleaned through regional comparisons. In

particular, it is usually surmised from simple comparisons of numbers of acres and sites that eastern

regions have more developed-site opportunities. Yet,

when differences in amounts of developed resources

of all kinds, population numbers, willingness to travel,

and proximity are considered simultaneously, Western

regions are found to have over five times as much

opportunity as do Eastern regions. This disparity is

important and brings emphasis to the need for

improved opportunity measures.

250
As measured by EROS indices, we also have

been able to show the effects of permitting resource

availability trends to continue into the future. The

most critical projected decreases are shown to be in

the roaded, partially developed land opportunities,

where a large percentage of dispersed recreation

activity occurs. The “raw” amount of roaded, partially

developed recreational area is likely to decrease by

about 15 percent in the next 20 years. Yet, when

population growth, land-use changes, and other

factors influencing EROS index values are considered,

the effectiveness of the amount and location of roaded,

partially developed opportunity is projected to

decrease to about 60 percent of current levels, a

much more severe opportunity loss,

In summary, it appears that Effective Recreational

Opportunity indices provide a superior measure of

the actual availability of recreation supply. EROS is

more meaningful than raw totals of miles, acreages,

or other counts of resources or sites. EROS is also a

much better measure than that of units per capita.

By incorporating a distance decay weight, as well as

per capita quantity, a comparable measure results

by having removed both population and resource

distributional affects.

In application, EROS indexing may prove more

practical, although not necessarily better, than

effective prices as proposed by Harrington (1987).

Effective price basically measures the relative value

of recreational opportunities: values which are

reflective of appropriateness relative to demand and

of suitableness of location. But computation of effective

price requires much more data and essentially requires

estimation of a set of demand models that reflect the

distributional attributes of available recreational

resources. Effectiveness indices, on the other hand,

require only measures of resource quantities and

location, population, and a national average willingness to travel. As such, computation for the purpose

of benchmarking the status of recreation supply is

relatively simple.

REFERENCES

Berryman, K.W.; Cordell, H.K.; English, D.B.K. 1985.

Conceptualization of a geobased recreation

resources supply assessment system. In: Watson,

Alan E., ed., Proceedings of the Southeastern

Recreation Research Conference; February 1985,

Myrtle Beach, SC. Statesboro, GA: Department of

Recreation and Leisure Services, Georgia Southern

College. 144 pp.

Clawson, M. 1984. Effective acreage for outdoor

recreation. Resources:78.

Cordell, H.K.; Bergstom, J.C.; English, D.B.K.; Betz,

C. 1989. Projections of future growth of outdoor

recreation in the United States (this volume).

Harrington, W. 1987. Measuring recreation supply.

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

McDonald, B.L.; Cordell, H.K. 1988. Local opportunities

for Americans: Final report of the municipal and

county park and recreation study (MACPARS).

Local opportunities for Americans: Final report of

the MACPARS; Alexandria, VA: National Recreation

and Park Association. 108 pp.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

1962. Reports of the Outdoor Recreation Resources

Review Commission. Washington, D.C. (A total of

24 reports on various aspects of outdoor recreation.)

USDA, Forest Service. 1989. Basic Assumptions.

General Technical Paper RM-174. Fort Collins,

CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 11 pp.

251

Section 5.

Outdoor and International Recreation Demand

253

AN OVERVIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION

Lawrence A. Hartmann and H. Ken CordelI’

Abstract- The relationships between a variety of social

and demographic characteristics and participation in

outdoor recreation activities have been studied for

many years. This paper presents an overview of the

more commonly studied relationships, including age,

gender, income, education, and occupation. Also

discussed are the less commonly examined influences

of disability, ethnic minority, and coparticipant group.

In addition to a review of the available literature,

previous/y unpublished descriptive data from the

198587 Public Area Recreation Visitor Study are

presented. Social, environmental, and economic

implications are also given.

INTRODUCTION

The social and demographic influences on

recreation behavior are many, and include both

characteristics of the individual and his or her

surroundings. Although distance to the resource,

resource quality, and price of participation are

commonly considered as important influences on

outdoor recreation participation, social and demographic factors are also generally included in mathematical models of recreation participation behavior

(Hartmann 1988a). This paper presents a literature

review of the more commonly studied social and

demographic influences on recreation behavior.

Additionally, descriptive statistics from the multiagency 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Visitor Study

(PAWS) are presented for each examined factor.

The influences of age, gender, income, education,

occupation, race, disability, and coparticipant group

on outdoor recreation participation are discussed in

‘Outdoor Recreation Planner, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Athens, GA; Project

Leader, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Athens, GA.

turn. Social, environmental, and economic implications

are given, with additional suggestions for future

researchers.

USE OF SOCIAL FACTORS TO PREDICT

RECREATION BEHAVIOR

Most modeling efforts designed to understand or

predict recreation participation behavior have included

basic social characteristics as elements of those

models. Characteristics of the jndividual, characteristics of the resource, and willingness to pay for the

experience are the three major dimensions of most

national models of recreation participation (Hof and

Kaiser 1983). There has been continued research

into understanding recreation participation behavior

and modeling participation since the last major

investigation was conducted for the 1979 Resources

Planning Act (RPA) Assessment. This research

included investigations in motivations, nonparticipation, and improved statistical and methodological

procedures. Crandall (1980) presents a list of 17

motivational categories for leisure participation. Romsa

and Hoffman (1980) investigated reasons for nonparticipation, and found that among the most active

social groups, inadequate recreation supply factors

were the most important determinants of nonparticipation, then lack of time, and finally costs of participation.

Boothby and others (1981) also investigated nonparticipation, and found that the most frequently cited

reasons were loss of interest, lack of facilities, low

physical fitness and physical disabilities, leaving a

youth organization, moving away from the area, and

lack of time. Jackson’s (1983) study on nonparticipation determined 15 barriers to participation, including

time, money, opportunity, knowledge, ability, overcrowding, lack of partners, shyness, and lack of

transportation. Napier and Mauer (1981) considered

local community factors, spillover-compensatory

factors, and opportunity factors.

255
As social and demographic factors are important

components of most models of outdoor recreation

participation, the remainder of this publication will

focus on the characteristics of individuals or their

social surroundings, and their relationship to recreation participation. In addition to a review of the

available literature, new data are provided from the

1985-87 multi-agency Public Area Recreation Visitor

Study (Cordell and others 1987). Data were aggregated across all involved agencies (4 Federal agencies

and 11 State agencies involved in provision of

recreation opportunities, totaling 31,995 usable

cases), and then social variables were examined.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

INDIVIDUAL RELATED TO RECREATION

PARTICIPATION

Individual socio-demographic characteristics

have been used in all major choice behavior models.

O’Leary and others (1982) conducted a review of

over 100 recreation participation studies which used

socio-demographic variables as predictors of participation, and the relative value of those variables as

predictors (Mueller and others 1962; Burch 1969;

Field & O’Leary 1973; Kelly 1974; and many others).

Age, income, education, sex, place of residence,

race, occupation, number of children, and marital

status were examined. The two variables with the

highest and most consistent relationship to participation were age (Mueller and others 1962; Hendee and

others 1971) and gender (Mueller and others 1962;

Ditton and others 1975) although these associations

were fairly low. O’Leary and others (1982) reported

that although these statistically aggregated independent variables provided correlations between an

individual’s lifestyle characteristics and participation

in specific activities, these correlations provide little

explanation because no theoretical conceptualization

of the leisure phenomenon has been established.

The 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Visitor

Study

PAWS Background

The 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Visitor Study

(PARVS) substantially added to the quantitative

research on demographics and activity patterns of

users of Federal and State recreation lands. PARVS

was an interagency study including (at the time of

this writing) 4 Federal agencies and 11 State recreation

agencies. Visitors to over 280 recreation areas

nationwide were interviewed, resulting in almost

32,000 usable responses using a complex survey

instrument with over 1100 variables (Cordell and

others 1987). Sites were selected by each agency

according to their own needs, but generally

represented their recreation area system. Groups

were usually selected on a random basis (although

in some cases, logistical restrictions necessitated a

relaxing of this requirement), and individual respondents over age 11 within the groups were selected

randomly as well.

This multi-agency study inventoried both on-site

and annual recreation patterns of a representative

sample of Federal and State recreation area visitors,

as well as their travel patterns, annual recreation

expenditures and current trip expenditures, and

standard demographic characteristics of the

randomly-selected respondent and each group

member. Additional information describing the

methods and purposes of PARVS has been documented by Cordell and others (1987). An overview of the

demographics of the PARVS respondents in comparison with their recreation participation patterns is

presented for initial review in this paper.

Limitations of PARVS

The reader should be advised of the limitations

of this dataset before drawing conclusions which

may extend beyond the limits of the data. First, the

PARVS was conducted at the recreation sites sampled

rather than being a sample of the entire U.S.

population. Therefore, unweighted PARVS data

represent people who use the sampled sites, rather

than the general public. Second, the sample from

which the data were drawn includes visitors to

recreation sites from only four Federal agencies

(Forest Service, National Park Service, Corps of

Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority) and State

park agencies in 11 states (Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,

Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia).

Data are not available for other Federal or State land

management agencies, regional, county or municipal

recreation areas, or private recreation area users.

Although these data may represent users of Federal

and State recreation areas in general, without

including representative recreation areas from all

land managing Federal and State agencies, it is

inaccurate to say definitely that PARVS represents

all people who use public recreation areas.

Some limitations are also specific to the topic of

this paper: some possibly important demographic

data, such as marital status, household characteristics

and available leisure were not included in the PARVS

instrument. Also, all data represent voluntary responses by the individuals selected. Therefore, if an

256
individual did not wish to reveal certain demographic

characteristics, for example, family income or the

presence of a disability, it was not recorded. In spite

of these limitations, the PARVS provides the best

currently available data covering the recreation

patterns and demographic characteristics of users of

Federal and State public recreation areas.

PARVS Weighting

Many sociological studies weight their data to

place additional emphasis on certain portions of the

data. In the PARVS project, it was found that some

socio-demographic groups were underrepresented

when compared to other national studies of recreationists. As the PARVS was conducted at the recreation

site to represent the users of the recreation areas,

and many of the other recreation studies were

conducted by telephone to represent the general

population, it was possible to weight the PARVS

data to better represent the entire recreating public

by using comparisons with other studies.

Sufficient information is available in the PARVS

survey instrument and other sources (such as the

198283 National Recreation Survey and the National

Park Service’s Fee Reports) to allow weighting to

provide an approximation of the annual recreation

participation patterns of the recreating U.S. population.

The origins of the respondents (using unweighted

data) roughly approximates the geographic distribution of the population of the United States, indicating

that a good geographic representation of the U.S.

population was achieved, so no geographic weighting

was performed. PARVS data are weighted to correct

for an overrepresentation of overnight users, and

weighted to represent the demographic characteristics

of the U.S. population using information from the

U.S. Bureau of the Census.

The weighting procedure involved adjustment of

the distribution of sampled PARVS respondents so

that they proportionately represented the distribution

of people over 11 years old within defined population

strata. Weighting these PARVS data in this manner

was necessary to enable pooling across strata. Four

types of population strata were recognized for each

identified community: gender, age, urban or rural

residence, and race. These characteristics were

common to both the Census of Population and the

PARVS sample.

Underrepresentation or overrepresentation among

the gender-age-residence-race-defined strata was

identified by comparing the percentage distribution

of respondents of the PARVS sample to the percentage distribution of the total population. Further

adjustment was made to account for differences in

probabilities of being included in the PARVS sample.

The basic determinant of this probability differential

was between day and overnight users, and whether

the interview site was administered by a Federal or

State agency. Sampling rates and schedules differed

among these sampling strata.

Each PARVS respondent was subsequently

assigned a population-to-sample distributional ratio

which weighted all data provided by each respondent.

This made their responses proportionate to the

national proportion of the population in the State

matching the respondent’s profile. These weighted

responses then represented the equivalent of an

origin-based survey for obtaining estimates of yearround participation, socioeconomic characteristics,

residence situation, population, and other attributes

of subregional communities from which recreation

trips were generated.

The PARVS includes most of the commonly used

sociodemographic variables used in conjunction with

outdoor recreation participation models. Below is a

review of the variables of age, gender, income,

education, occupation, race, and disability as they

are related to recreation participation. Following a

review of the available literature for each of these

variables, current information obtained from the

198587 PARVS is provided. Note that the PARVS

data presented in this paper are just a sample of the

information available in the PARVS, due to space

restrictions. Additional information will be provided in

the forthcoming Forest Service’s Renewable Resources Planning Act Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness and subsequent technical

supporting documents.

The Influence of Age on Outdoor

Recreation Participation

Age has been shown to be perhaps the single

demographic variable with the most conclusive

relationship with recreation participation. Largely, as

one gets older, one’s physical abilities decline and

participation in recreation changes from more physical

to less physical pursuits, and eventually all outdoor

recreation participation declines with advanced age.

That older persons participate significantly less in

physical recreation than younger persons has been

well documented (Kenyon 1966; Snyder and Spreitzer

1973; President’s Council on Physical Fitness and

Sports 1973; Unkle and Eskridge 1977). O’Leary and

others (1982) reported several studies which noted

either a decrease in participation with age or a shift

toward participation in more sedentary types of

257
activities with increasing age, with the strength of the

relationship varying with different studies. Zuzanek

(1978) reviewed the literature on recreation participation and aging and noted a decrease in both number

of activities and rates of participation with age.

Babchuck and Gordon (1962) indicate that as age

increases, affiliation and participation change from

one type of social association to another. Their work

indicates that there is a cycle of different associations

related to recreation participation that parallels the

life cycle.

There may be masking effects of age in relation

to other variables, Unkle (1981) found a decline in

participation with increasing age, but the effect of

age on participation differs for females and males

(discussed further in a later section). Also, participation

was found to decrease faster with age for single

persons than for married persons or those with

children. Some barriers to participation increase with

stage in the family life cycle, rather than simple

biological age. For example, couples with young

children had less free time than during some other

life cycle stages (Wii and Goodale 1981).

Information from the PARVS tends to confirm

much of the information above. Figure 1 shows that

Percent of Total

individuals under age 45 are overrepresented as

visitors to resource-based Federal and State recreation areas in the United States compared to the

U.S. population. Table 1 provides a detailed accounting of the percent of individuals within 12 age groups

who participate in each of 25 activities. This table

shows that for some activities, such as water skiing,

pool swimming, and backpacking, percent of the

age group who participates at least one time annually

declines with age. Other activities, such as developed

camping, are relatively age-independent. Some

activities, such as walking for pleasure, actually

increase in percentage of the age group who

participate as age increases.

Figure 2 shows the patterns of length of stay on

site by age group of the respondent. Both means

and median length of stay increased for older

individuals, indicating that older individuals stay

longer on site than do younger individuals, up to

about age 75. Other data from PARVS (which are

presented in the RPA Assessment of Outdoor

Recreation and Wilderness) indicate that some older

individuals tend to take long single-destination trips,

which increases the mean travel distance. A similar

pattern is shown for travel time.

, 6 _ .._......_. ._._.....; .__.

+

8 -

6 -

4 -

2 - I

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75+

Age Group

- Recreationists + U.S. Population

SOURCE: 1985-87 PARVS, n-31,995; Census,

1986.

Figure l.-Age of visitors to Federal and State recreation areas.

258
Table 1. --Annual participation in outdoor recreation activities, by percentage of individuals within each age group

participating one or more times annually

Age group

Activity 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75+

Land activities:

Backpacking

Camping in developed campgrounds

Camping in primitive campgrounds

Driving vehicles or

motorcycles off-road

Day hiking

Horseback riding

Wildlife observation

& photography

Picnicking

Driving for pleasure

Sightseeing

Big game hunting

Waterfowl hunting

Walking for pleasure

Water activities:

Canoeing or kayaking

Sailing

Outdoor pool

swimming

Water skiing

Motorboating

Cold Freshwater

fishing

Warm freshwater

fishing

Snow activities:

Cross-country skiing

or ski touring

Downhill skiing

Ice skating

Sledding

Snowmobiling

15.4 14.2 16.0 12.5 10.4 8.4

32.4 32.6 37.6 38.6 38.1 36.1

3.8

32.1

2.8 3.8

31.4 17.4

14.6 17.1 la.3 17.3 15.7 14.7 11.3 10.9 8.4 8.0 7 . 0 7.1

16.7 13.5 11.2 7.2 8.6 7.3 6.4 4.8 4.7 2.3 3.6 1.5

18.3 25.3

15.5 11.1

26.3 32.2

29 .8 29 .1

3::: 4::;

27.9

8.4

41.2

26.7

4;:;

23.1

6.9

40.3

18.7

3::;

20.8

2.8

39 .5

14.9

3;:;

1%

35:6

12.2

1.6

30.1

38.2 45.0 50.5

33.1 38.9 39 .9

35.7 41.2 45.0

11.5 10.6 10.8

15.0 12.6 13.5

30.1 34.3 40.6

55.2

42.7

‘Z

11:4

43.8

52.6 48.2 45.6

36.4 39 .8 39 .5

50.5 48.9 53.6

11.7 10.7 11.1

12.7 10.6 10.3

44.4 45.8 47.5

44.3

44.2

5:::

4;::

43.5

::*. ;

i:t

50.3

38.2

38.6

5i.z

4x:5

36.4

40.4

‘S

4;:;

19 .1

11.7

68.8

16.8 18.5

6%: 5::;

16.2

5:::

12.6

22.4

16.8

14.5 13.6 11.2

52:: 4;:s 4:::

Z :i

32.5

5:: 2.:

29 .9 2118

4.8

1;::

25.0

26.5

15.8

21.8

24.5

15.3

26.9

16.4

23.3

18.6

10.8 9 .1 8.4 6.5

22.7 22.4 22.2 22.1

17.8 16.7 16.2 15.2

Z :;

34.0

4.4

19 .9

13.9

2.6 2.2

17.9 13.3

12.4 15.8

29 .8 31.4 31.2 33.2 30.9 31.9 33.0 32.1 30.5

2.9

2.1

0.9

1.7

1.5

27.9

0.4

16.0

14.5

30.8

6.1 7.2 9 .6 8.2 6.88 6.6 6.0 5.6 5.7 3.6

16.3

11.1

20.4

6.1

15.8

Z

3.9

15.2

6.4

10.3

2.9

S:Z

11.2

1.8

9 .7

6.5

10.8

1.9

z *,”

615

2.0

8.1

;:z

1.9

4.2 4.4

1.5 2.0

2.8 2.2

1.7 1.8

1.8

0 . 6

;::

4.3

1.4

1.0

1.7

1.9

Source: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey, n = 31,995.

Note: An example of how to interpret this table is as follows: 15.4 percent of all 15-19 year old respondents in the PARVS

project reported that they participated in back pack ing at le ast one tim e during th e 12 m onth s prior to th e date th ey w e re

inte rviewed .

Several conclusions can be made from the data

presented here. First, resource-based Federal and

State recreation areas serve a larger share of the

individuals under age 40 than those over that age.

This underrepresentation of older individuals is slightly

reduced during early retirement years. Second, activity

preferences differ between young and old individuals,

following a fairly gradual pattern. While participation

in most outdoor recreation activities is less among

older individuals, participation in some activities

increases. Third, travel patterns among older individuals differ from younger individuals. Older individuals

tend to travel further and stay longer at the recreation

area than do younger individuals.

The Influence of Gender on Outdoor

Recreation Participation

In most human societies, biological and cultural

sexual identities are covariant elemental properties.

The difference is that biological capacities are

insufficient among many primates for complete social

recognition of a particular gender. In other words,

while sexual identity, like age, has a biological

component, its reality in human societies emerges

only through its social component. Like age, every

individual member of a social group is also the

possessor of a sexual identity (Cheek and Burch

1976). This sexual identity appears to be related to

recreation behavior for many activities.

259
75+

65 - 74

60 - 64

55 - 59

50 - 54

45 - 49

40 - 44

35 - 39

30 - 34

25 - 29

20 - 24

15 - 19

//‘////,./J//J// / ./ /// //

,,,,,, ,///////////////////A

.’ ,/,/.///////J.,/‘//l’/,‘//;: I I I I

0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40

Length of Stay in Hours

m Median m Mean

Source: 1985-1987 Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey, n=31,995.

Figure 2. -Median and mean length of stay on site by respondent age group.

Gender has been shown to be a significant

differentiating variable in several participation studies.

Males apparently participate more frequently in

strenuous activities than females, but a more equal

balance between males and females exists in other

outdoor recreation activities (O’Leary and others

1982). Hendee (1969) demonstrating the activity

specific influence of gender by showing that males

dominated hunting and fishing activities, but a more

equal participation balance between males and

females existed in other outdoor recreation activities.

Although the amount of variance explained was

relatively low, Kelly (1980) found that gender and

family life cycle accounted for most of the variance

in forest-based and water-based recreation. Young

(1983) in analyzing wilderness participation, also

found gender to be an important variable in explaining

who would use the wilderness. In these studies, as

in most studies of differences between females and

males in recreation participation (e.g., Unkle 1981)

females were found to participate less frequently

than males in outdoor recreation. Not only did Gentry

and Doering (1979) find differences in participation

rates between males and females, but they found

differences in their attitudes toward leisure activities.

Zuzanek (1978) summarizes several recreation

surveys and concludes that: 1) the overall participation

rates in leisure activities do not differ much between

260

men and women; 2) women take a somewhat greater

part in cultural activities while lagging behind men in

outdoor recreation, active sport, sport spectatorship,

and home-gardening; 3) nonworking women show

slightly higher participation rates than employed

women in most leisure activities except going out to

dinner, active sport, and sport spectatorship; 4) the

total number of leisure activities in which women

engage may be slightly smaller than that of men;

and 5) the similarities in leisure participation rates

between the sexes are more striking than the

differences.

Like age, there may also be some interactive

masking effects between gender and other sociodemographic variables. Presently, relatively little

consistent information is available about physical

recreation participation of females in different stages

of the life cycle and with different role functions (Unkle

1981). Whatever the differences or similarities between

female and male involvement in physical recreation,

they are not static throughout adulthood (Unkle,

1981). Kenyon (1966) and Robinson (1967) reported

that the decline in participation occurs earlier in life

for women than for men. Results with reference to

the influence of marital status and presence of children

are not consistent. For example, Robinson (1967)

reported that no significant relationship exists between

either marital status or number of children, when age
and level of education are controlled. Hobart (1975),

however, found that young, single persons have

higher participation rates than their married counterparts. He also reported that marital status is a more

powerful predictor of participation for young women

than for young men. Hall’s (1973) data indicated that

for women, participation declines significantly with

marriage. She further concluded that the presence

of young children especially reduces participation of

women. In a study of camping participation by Young

and Kent (1985), females were more influenced by

“important others’ than were males. Males, on the

other hand, were more influenced by their own

attitudes about going camping which were mostly

positive, although not as positive as the females. Of

the referents in that study, the beliefs of one’s family

were the most important in making decisions to camp.

Information from the PARVS provides current

information on the recreation patterns of males and

females who visit Federal and State recreation areas.

Table 2 shows that some activities, such as big game

hunting, are largely dominated by men, where others,

such as camping in developed campgrounds, are

nearly equal in gender ratio. Some activities, such as

walking for pleasure, show that a higher percentage

Table 2.--Percentage of recreationist participating in outdoor recreation activities at resourcebased recreation areas by respondent gender

Activity

Men Women

Men All Women All

participating participants participating participants

Land activities:

Backpacking

Camping in developed in campgrounds

Camping in primitive campgrounds

Driving vehicles or

motorcycles off-road

Day hiking

Horseback riding

Wildlife observation

& photography

Picnicking

Driving for pleasure

Sightseeing

Big game hunting

Waterfowl hunting

Walking for pleasure

Water activities:

Canoeing or kayaking

Sailing

Outdoor pool

swimming

Water skiing

Motorboating

Cold Freshwater

fishing

Warm freshwater

fishing

Snow activities:

Cross-country skiing

or ski touring

Downhill skiing

Ice skating

Sledding

Snowmobiling

2.6 59.6

15.9 50.1

4.9 55.5

2.5 66.8

15.9 48.4

1.0 45.5

17.4 44.3

1.7 40.4

15.1 49 .9

3.7 44.5

1.2 33.2

16.2 51.6

1.2 54.5

21.4 55.7

24.9 40.2

25.1 47.3

43.6 47.1

4.1 go.8

2.5 9 3.0

28.4 41.0

35.3 59.8

26.7 52.7

46.6 52.9

0.4 9 .2

3::; 5;::

6.2

2;:;

54.6

57.5

42.6

2.4

ii:;

55.2

60.7

61.9

45.4

42.5

57.4

44.8

;:::

16.4 65.9 8.1 34.2

0.4 60.4

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

59 .3

85.6

69 .2

67.6

0.2 39 .6

0.2 40.7

0.0 14.5

0.0 $:f

Source: 19 85-87 Public Area Recreation Visitors Survey, n = 31.995.

Note: An example of how to interpret this table is as follows: 2.6 percent of all males contacted

in the PARVS project participated in backpacking during their recreation visit at the site where

they were interviewed. Males comprised 60 percent of all recreation visitors contacted in the

PARVS who participated in backpacking

interviewed.

during their recreation visit to the area where they were

261
of females than males participate. Differences in

travel time and distance were minor.

The Influence of Income on Outdoor

Recreation Participation

In a re vie w of studie s using income as a pre dictor

for re cre ation participation, O’Leary and oth e rs (19 82)

found m ixe d re sults . Th e y conclude d: income doe s

not condition re cre ation be h avior-an individual

m ust acce pt the patte rns of a social class for it to

re fle ct participation patte rns in leisure activities. In

other words, income does not form tastes, but rather

limits their expression.

The following information from the PAWS

describes recreation participation in comparison with

the respondent’s family income before taxes. Table 3

provides detailed information on the percentage of

recreationists participating one or more times annually,

by their family income. Th e se data indicate th at annual

participation in some activities is relatively independent

of income, such as walking for pleasure. Other

capital-intensive recreation activities, such as sailing,

are highly income-dependent. Curiously, backpacking

has a higher percentage of participation in both low

and high income groups, but less participation by

middle-income groups.

Table 3. --Percentage of recreationists participating once or more annually in outdoor recreation activities by family

income

Family income (thousands)

Activity

Less than t5.000- 810,000- $15,000- $20.000- 825.000 $30.000- s35 ,oooS 5.000 9 ,999 14.999 19 ,999 24,999 29 ,999 34,999 49 ,999 $50,ooo+

Land activities:

Backpacking

Camping in developed campgrounds

Camping in primitive campgrounds

Driving vehicles or

motorcycles offroad

Day hiking

Horseback riding

Wildlife observation

& photography

Picnicking

Driving for pleasure

Sightseeing

Big game hunting

Waterfowl hunting

Walking for pleasure

Water activities:

Canoeing or kayaking

Sailing

Outdoor pool

swimming

Water skiing

Motorboating

Cold freshwater

fishing

Warm freshwater

fishing

Snow activities:

Cross-country skiing

or ski touring

Downhill skiing

Ice skating

Sledding

Snowmobiling

____________________Pe rce nt---____----__---------

16.6 10.9 10.3

29 .6 29.9 34.6

10.5 9.8 11.0 14.6

36.6 38.3 37.4 33.7

15.8 16.0 15.1 14.5 16.0 14.8 14.8 14.5 14.0

12.7 9.8 9.1 10.3 9.2 8.6 8.4 9 .8 8.7

23.0 22.3

11.6 9 .1

30.8 28.6

22.2 22.3 23.7 23.3 24.8

3;:: 3::; 3::: 3;:; 3:::

27.23 28.51

8.62 10.01

42.36 45.11

47.6 47.9 0 47.4 49 .0 48.4 48.6 47.0 48.2

35.1 40.73 41.0 41.1 39 .4 41.4 37.6 39 .9

42.5 43.52 42.6 45.8 47.7 48.1 46.4 52.8

9 .4 8.24 12.3 11.0 11.5 11.8 11.1 10.3

10.9 11.30 12.7 14.7 13.0 12.6 13.0 12.4

38.3 37.44 40.9 41.1 43.2 42.4 41.9 45.2

43.1

37.9

51.7

;::

43.7

13.6

8.0

51.7

10.7 10.8 14.1 13.3

4::: 4::; 4::; 4;:;

11.9 15.2 15.24 18.10

6.0 7.8 8.10 14.80

50.8 51.9 52.9 7 55.34

12.7

lg.6

17.0

24.2

7.8 8.5 11.4 10.5 13.8 14.2 14.5 17.9

15.1 18.3 21.3 18.4 22.2 22.6 25.8 29.2

16.9 16.7 16.9 17.4 18.4 18.0 18.6 16.1

32.7 31.9 34.7 32.3 31.43 27.72

6.22 7.9 5 4.57 5.45

33.9

5.59

z?:

9 :25

2.29

7.30 8.02 10.25

11.17

8.48

::::

8.03 6.9 7 7.88

4.15 4.51 5.89

7.69 7.70 7.21

3.46 1.86 2.58

9 .52

6.33

Z :Z

10.21 18.74

7.80 8.39

lo.9 8 10.78

3.17 3.44

Source: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Study, n = 31,995.

Note: An example of how to interpret this table is as follows: 16.6 percent of all individuals interviewed in the PARVS

who have annual incomes of less S5,OOO participated in backpacking at least once during the 12 months prior to th e ir

interview.

262
Income (x 1000)

$50+

$35450

$30-<35

$25-~ 30

$20~ ~ 25

$15~ <20

$1041 5

$541 0

($5

-

0 5 1 0 1 5

Hours on Site

2 0 2 5

m M e dian m M e an

Source: 1985-1987 Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey, n=31,995

Figure 3. -Median and mean length of stay on site by respondent family income.

Figure 3 shows that individuals with higher family

incomes tend to stay longer on site than others.

Other PARVS data, not presented here, show that

median one-way travel distance increases in the

higher income groups. There may be intervening

variables (such as age) other than income alone that

account for these findings.

The Influence of Education on Outdoor

Recreation Participation

In a review of the literature related to education

and participation, Zuzanek (1978) concludes: 1) the

rates of participation for most leisure and recreational

activities and their spectrum increase almost linearly

with growing level of education: 2) there may be a

saturation point within this relationship at the very

highest levels of college education: and 3) the few

leisure activities which do not correlate positively

with education include TV watching, radio listening,

playing cards, special hobbies such as woodworking

and knitting, attending sports events, and fishing

and hunting. White (1975) found education, when

used in combination with age and income, were the

best predictors of recreation participation.

The PARVS also provides information on the

recreation patterns of individuals who use Federal

and State public recreation areas, by education

group. Figure 4 shows that college-educated individuals are the largest group of users of Federal and

College

12th Grade

31%

Graduate

12%

-z 12th Grade

17%

Source: 198.51987 Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey, n=31,995

Figure 4. - Education levels of participants in

resource-based public recreation.

263
Table 4 .--Percentage of recreationists participating in outdoor recreation activities one or more times snnually,

by education level, and total participation by education level

Less than

High School High School College

Graduate

School

Activity

Total Total Total

Within particiTotal

Within partici- Within partici- Within particigrade pants grade pants grade pants grade pants

Land activities:

Backpacking 9.6

Camping in develop- 33.5

ed campgrounds

Camping in primi- 11.6

tive campgrounds

Driving vehicles or 12.0

motorcycles off-road

Day hiking 16.6

Horseback riding 12.3

Wildlife observation 25.2

& photography

Picnicking 42.2

Driving for pleasure 33.1

Sightseeing 39.8

Big game hunting 12.7

Waterfowl hunting 14.2

Walking for pleasure 32.6

Water activities:

Canoeing or kayaking 13.5

Sailing 6.5

Outdoor pool 55.5

swimming

Water skiing 14.8

Motor-boating 21.8

Cold freshwater 16.3

fishing

Warm freshwater 35.2

fishing

Snow activities:

Cross-country skiing 4.75

or ski touring

Downhill skiing 9.91

Ice skating 7.74

Sledding 14.85

Snowmobiling 3.56

15.8

16.6

18.6 12.8

31.5 36.1

16.0 17.8

34.6 11.5

14.1 12.9 28.0 16.1 44.4 16.4 13.4

23.0 9.4 32.1 8.6 37.1 6.0 7.73

12.0 17.5 22.8

24.1 6.8 24.0

11.9 29.6 25.1

28.8

4;::

47.2 36.9 17.99

40.3 8.8 11.62

46.8 50.0 16.23

15.8 44.2 29.5

14.8 39.2 31.3

14.5 45.6 29.8

22.4 12.3 38.9

21.3 14.0 37.7

13.5 40.1 29.8

49.2

41.7

'Z

1o:o

45.7

41.6

42.1

41.8

33.0

34.0

42.9

52.1

39.2

56.3

4.8

496:;

13.1

11.8

13.8

7::

13.8

16.8

14.7

18.9

%*Y

45:6

21.9

16.7

27.8

16.3

5::;

15.40

19.43

12.54

19.7

17.0

17.3

19.8

11.9

23.3

17.1

13.9 42.0

22.6 39.9

16.7 40.1

9.9

10.5

10.3

36.2

28.4

;:::

36.5 28.0 35.7

18.41

12.82

54.74

11.0

20.0

14.5

21.2 8.0

12.41 3.36 15.73 8.05 47.58 13.82 24.28

16.99 5.70 17.51 12.22

22.00 3.75 19.07 6.85

27.18 8.55 28.07 8.40

22.12 3.00 33.45 2.58

E;

34:82

36.27

15.63 18.04

14.85

9.92

8.16

Source: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Survey, n = 31,995.

Note: An example of how to interpret this table is as follows: of all respondents within the PARVS who had less than

a high school education, 9.6 percent participated in backpacking at least once in the 12 months before they were

interviewed. Those with less than a high school education comprised 15.8 percent of all recreationists in the PARVS

who participated in backpacking at least once in the previous 12 months.

State recreation areas. Table 4 gives the annual

recreation participation patterns of recreationists by

education category. Figure 5 shows that high-school

educated respondents stay the longest at the

recreation areas where they were interviewed. Other

data from the PAWS shows that highly educated

visitors tend to travel farther to their recreation areas.

The Influence of Occupation on Outdoor

Recreation Participation

Occupation has been used as a partial determinant of recreation participation in many studies,

however, with mixed results, O’Leary and others

(1982) reported that several authors recognize a

general, positive relationship between the amount

and type of recreation and participation, and white

collar occupations. Cheek and Burch (1976), however,

place relatively little importance on occupation as a

264
determinant of recreation patterns, other than as a

means to provide income sufficient for participation

in certain activities. Zuzanek (1978) however, provides

an alternate series of conclusions from a review of

the literature on occupation/recreation associations:

1) Participation in leisure activities is closely

and positively associated with the social status

and prestige of one’s occupation. Professionals

seem to be participating in a wider spectrum

of leisure activities and at a higher rate than

other occupational groups, while laborers and

resource workers report the lowest rates of

participation.

2) Although attempts to ‘tie’ leisure and

recreational activities with particular occupations are subject to considerable disagreement

between researchers, it appears that at least

some activities acquire ‘status’ through association. Sailing, golf, bridge, participation in

high arts, to name a few, usualfy carry a higher

occupational and class status, while bingo,

softball, attending drive-in theaters, wrestling,

etc., are associated with the lower or lower

middle class status. A large and probably

increasing group of recreational activiiies

such as swimming, camping, recreational

driving, etc., seem to lack clear status characteristics.

<H

H

gh School

gh School

College

Graduate School

3) Some authors argue that intrastrata differences in rates of leisure participation caused

by the type of work, age composition of

particular strata, etc., may be, on occasion,

more pronounced than interstrata differences

(Gerstl 1961; Wilensky 1963).

Overall, it seems that there is no consensus

among recreation researchers as to the appropriateness of using occupation as a predictor of recreation

participation, regardless of any apparent correlations.

It is possible that other factors such as income and

social status may be better measures, while occupation is only related secondarily, through these other

factors.

Again, the Public Area Recreation Visitor Study

(PANS) provides current data on the relationship

between occupation and recreation participation,

PARVS asked the respondent to choose from among

a list of general Census occupation categories for

their type of occupation. A comparison of this

information with the recreation participation patterns,

specifically participation in the activity one or more

times in the past 12 months, yielded the information

presented in table 5 (in two parts). Although occupation was compared with mean and median length of

stay on site and travel distance, these comparisons

were inconclusive at this preliminary level of data

investigation.

1

t

0

/ I I 4

5‘ 1 0 15 20 25

Hours

m Median m Mean

Source: 19851987 Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey, n=31,995

Figure 5. -Median and mean length of stay on site by respondent education, for primary or single-destination trips.

265
Table 5.-- Percentage of recreationist participating once or more annually in outdoor recreation activities, by

occupation

Occupation

Main activity

Administers Kindred or Sales Craft Operatives Service

Professional Farmers &managers clerical workers workers workers workers

__-~~________________pe~ent__-~_-~~~__~~~_________

Land activities:

Backpacking

Camping in developed campgrounds

Camping in primitive, campgrounds

Driving vehicles or

motorcycles off-road

Day hiking

Horseback riding

Wildlife observation

& photography

Picnicking

Driving for pleasure

Sightseeing

Big game hunting

Waterfowl hunting

Walking for pleasure

Water activities:

Canoeingorkayaking

Sailing

Outdoor pool

swimming

Water skiing

Motorboating

Cold freshwater

fishing

Warm freshwater

fishing

Snow activities:

Cross-country skiing

or ski touring

Downhill skiing

Ice skating

Sledding

Snowmobiling

14.1

37.0 3;::

17.33 11.4

7.6 13.2

3z

16.2

46:3

11.3

31.1

49 .8 34.7

40.7 36.9

52.6 48.7

46.7

17.2

28.3

30.2

17.4

10.1

50.8

12.3

22.4

16.5

27.9

10.2

12.9

11.5

4:::

10.9

23.1

la.3

41.7

6.0

4.3

10.0

36.3

13.8

a.1

23.7 22.9 17.2

4::z 3;:: 3:::

18.7

6.5

32.1

15.1

2;::

21.1

3;::

46.2

40.5

5;*f

1112

42.5

:s*:

49 :3

55::

50.3

x

46:o

9 .0

11.6

40.1

42.5 41.4

36.7 38.9

43.2 44.5

20.6 21.7

19 .9 22.8

32.7 34.4

z;

4;:;

12:7

41.5

14.2 a.7 10.7 12.1 10.5

5% 5::: 5;:: 4::: 4%

14.0

5.6

53.3

13.4 9 .6 14.2 11.0 10.9 12.7

24.1 19 .7 23.4 23.8 23.4 22.9

la.3 10.7 15.8 21.6 la.4 15.3

30.87 26.2 32.3 43.3 43.50 35.5

a.0 4.4 4.2 5.3 2.5 7.0

10.3 6.3

2:; Z :i

2.3 1.7

10.8

3%

12.2 16.7 14.0 13.7

6.1 9.3 10.6 10.7 9 .4

10.7

4.6

6.9

2.3

7.8 7.25 9.29

37.1 35.88 35.08

6.2 4.3

;:; :::

2.5 2.6

11.0

a.3

11.4

3.6

266
Table 5, part 2.-- Percentage of recreationist participating once or more annually in outdoor recreation

activities, by occupation

Activity

Transport

equipment Armed

Laborer operatives Forces Homemaker Student Unemployed Other

Land activities:

Backpacking

Camping in developed campgrounds

Camping in primitive campgrounds

Driving vehicles or

motorcycles off-road

Day hiking

Horseback riding

Wildlife observation

& photography

Picnicking

Driving for pleasure

Sightseeing

Big game hunting

Waterfowl hunting

Walking for pleasure

Water activities:

Canoeing or k ayak ing

Sailing

Outdoor pool

swimming

Water skiing

Motorboating

Cold Freshwater

fishing

Warm freshwater

fishing

Snow activities:

Cross-country skiing

or ski touring

Downhill skiing

Ice skating

Sledding

Snowmobiling

-_-________-__--_-_percent----_-------------------

$2 13.0

38.9 3::;

5.7

29 .2

14.4 15.9 13.6 10.4

16.9

31.9

14.4 13.4 8.0

13.3 9 .7 10.5 4.5 14.6 9 .9 8.0

18.7 16.4

22:; 3::;

17.6

7.4

30.0

21.8

3::;

23.5 18.1

16.2 5.4

30.9 27.0

23.1

3:::

40.6 36.0 36.0

41.0 33.4 35.0

38.6 41.3 45.5

20.0 19 .3 13.0

21.5 18.2 16.0

34.1 29 .8 31.7

54.5

45.0

53.0

,‘::

52.3

42.8

:;*:

10:4

13.4

32.3

38.9

;c:

8:7

3;:56

39 .7

40.6

47.3

12.0

11.7

44.3

12.6 7.6 9 .4 8.8

42:; 4::: 4::: 5:::

19 .7

10.6

66.8

12.7

4::;

14.8 13.0 11.5 6.6 22.7

23.3 25.2 16.5 19 .4 24.1

22.6 22.3 14.5 13.3 15.9

7.2

18.7

18.2

37.7 41.6 33.6 27.6 28.5

Z :1:

39 .2

10.1

17.9

17.1

31.0 31.9

4.0

6.7

2.6

8.5

2.2

4.2

7.1

2.3

::4’

3.8 3.7

10.8

::;

0.7

2::

?:f

7.1 2.6 6.0

16.9

10.9

18.6

5.5

4.6

2.7

FL;

:::

8.4

3.4

Source : 1885-1987 Public Area Recreation Visitors Survey, n=31,995.

Note: An example of how to interpret this table is as follows: Part 1 of the table shows that 14.1 percent of

those respondents in the PARVS who identified themselves as professionals participated in backpacking at least

once in the 12 months prior to the date they were interviewed. Part 2 of the table provides similar information

for an additional set of occupations.

267
The Influence of Race on

Recreation Participation

Outdoor outdoor recreation activities- insufficient information

was available in the literature to reach conclusions

concerning other racial or ethnic groups.

O’Leary and others (1982) cite several studies

which report marked differences in rate of participation

between blacks and whites. Most of the studies

reported that leisure patterns were likely to be different

among blacks and whites. Social class and opportunity

were suggested as intervening variables in some

studies. Hartmann (1988b) presents a review of the

available literature on the effects of race/ethnicity on

recreation participation, and concludes that blacks

are underrepresented in resource-based, nonurban

The PAWS provides information on the diierences in recreation participation by race/ethnicity,

using standard Census classifications of race.

Percentages of the several categories of nonwhite

users of Federal and State recreation areas are quite

small, therefore the information presented below is

categorized only by white/nonwhite. Table 6 displays

this information. Figure 6 shows that there is a

substantial difference between whites and nonwhites

Table 6.--Percentage of recreationist participating once

by respondent race

or more annually in outdoor recreation activities,

Activity

White Non-white

Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of

whites total non-whites total

participating participants participating participants

Land activities:

Backpacking

Camping in.developed

campgrounds

Camping in primitive

campgrounds

Driving vehicles or

motorcycles off-road

Day hiking

Horseback riding

Wildlife observation

and photography

Picnicking

Driving for pleasure

Sightseeing

Big game hunting

Waterfowl hunting

Walking for pleasure

Water activities:

Canoeing or kayaking

Sailing

Outdoor pool swimming

Water skiing

Motorboating

Cold freshwater

fishing

Warm freshwater

fishing

Snow activities:

Cross-country skiing

or ski touring

Downhill skiing

Ice skating

Sledding

Snowmobiling

11. 0

36.9

15.0

9.4

25.2

379:;

46.3

39.3

48.7

10.4

12.1

42.7

14.7

a.3

51.9

13.9

23.5

17.0

31.7

7.1

10.6

6.5

10.2

2.9 9

92.5

92.3

92.7

6.5 7.5

22.4 7.7

a.7 7.4

90.9 6.9 9.1

92.1 15.8

92.3 5.6

go.6 28.7

77.96

q:4

87.0

88.7

89 .7

9 2.6

:;:z

50.6

36.9

40.8

:::

37.0

13.0

11.4

10.3

7.4

a.5

10.6

$*f

8912

;s91:2

go.1

94.7

92.1

9 3.1

9 3.8

9 3.13

9 .2

3.6

45.9

6.8

13.6

12.0

7.9

5.6

10.8

;:Z

a.8

25.5 10.0

2.9

6.6

43:;

1.61

5.3

t;

6:2

6.87

Source: 1985-87 Public Area Recreation Visitors Survey, n=jl,qq5.

Note: An example of how to interpret this table is as follows: Of all whites contacted in the PARVS, 11 percent

participated in backpacking at least once in the previous 12 months--whites comprised 92.5 percent of all PARVS

recreationists participating in backpacking one or more times annually in the preceding 12 months.

268
White

Non-W hite

_

0 5 10 15

Hours

20

m Median m Mean

Source: 1985-1987 Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey, n=31,995

Figure 6. -Mean and median length of stay on site by respondent race.

in terms of their length of stay on site. Nonwhites

had a median visitation time of only 5 hours, while

whites had a median figure over three times that.

Other PARVS data not presented here show that

mean travel time and distance was less for non-whites,

as well.

The Influence of Disability on Outdoor

Recreation Participation

Hartmann and Walker (In press) provide a review

of the information available on disability and outdoor

recreation participation. They conclude from both a

literature review and additional data from the PARVS,

that a far smaller percentage of disabled individuals

participate in outdoor recreation activities than

nondisabled individuals. (Please see that publication

elsewhere in these proceedings for additional information.)

Group Differences in Recreation

Participation

An individual’s behavior may be quite different if

he or she is recreating with family, a group of same-age

friends, or alone. Most recreation behavior in wildland

25

settings occurs in group situations. The dynamics of

group interaction, the effects of differing leadership

styles, the balancing of conflicting interests among

others, must all play a significant, if not dominant,

role in choice behavior. Clark and Downing (1985)

also refer to the importance of “group needs,’ resolving

intragroup conflict about alternatives, and the desires

of the group in recreation participation decisionmaking situations. Hartmann (1988a) provides a

review of the available literature on the relationship

of group influences and recreation participation.

Field and O’Leary (1973) found that including

the social group in which one participates helps

explain differential frequency of participation. They

also discussed the concept of ‘interchangeable

activities,” that is, groups of activities which provide

equal opportunity to achieve the participation desired

for a given social group. Zuzanek (1978) investigated

leisure behavior based on occupation and socioeconomic status. He found that money expenditures

follow class lines, participation rates are more

egalitarian across class lines, but amount of leisure

time available is inversely related to social centrality

and social status.

269
The Public Area Recreation Visitor Study also each group type, more meaningful comparisons can

provides information on recreation patterns by be made. For example, backpacking is more common

coparticipant group types, for activities done on the among organized groups or solo recreationists than

recreation sites where they were interviewed. Table 7 family groups, while the reverse is true for developed

provides a detailed accounting of the percentage of camping. Additional activities most commonly particieach group type that participates in various recreation pated in by family groups (more so than other group

activities. Most participants visited the PARVS sites types) include sightseeing, walking for pleasure,

in family or family/friendship groups, therefore for wildlife observation and photography, driving for

most recreation activities the most common group pleasure, fishing, and motorboating. Activities most

type was the family or family/friendship group. commonly participated in by friendship groups (more

However, when comparing participation rates within so than other group types) include sailing, downhill

Table 7.--Participation in outdoor recreation activities at Federal and State outdoor recreation areas by type of

group

Activity

Family Friends

Group Total Group Total

Family & Group or

friends club

Group Total Group Total

Solo

Group Total

Land activities:

Backpacking

Camping in developed campgrounds

Camping in primitive campgrounds

Driving vehicles or

motorcycles off-road

Day hiking

Horseback riding

Wildlife observation

& photography

Picnicking

Driving for pleasure

Sightseeing

Big game hunting

Waterfowl hunting

Walking for pleasure

Water activities:

Canoeing or kayaking

Sailing

Outdoor pool

swimming

Water skiing

Motorboating

Cold Freshwater

fishing

Warm freshwater

fishing

Snow activities:

Cross-country skiing

or ski touring

Downhill skiing

Ice skating

Sledding

Snowmobiling

-------__---___--____Percent----________~~-------------

1.5 42.0 3.3 29 .0 2.1 8.2 4.9 5.0

19 .0 74.6 10.1 12.0 13.8 7.2 10.5 1.4 2:li 15.8

4.7

4.9 58.8 4.9 21.0 4.3 8.1 5.7 2.8 3.7 9 .3

1.7 55.0 2.2 21.6 2.2 9 .6 0.5 0.5 2.3 13.2

16.7

3::;

62.7 16.0 18.2 13.7 6.9 19 .4 2.6 14.7 9 .7

58.3 0.9 14.9 1.8 12.7 0.9 1.7 1.3 12.4

67.9 27.0 15.3 26.0 7.1 25.0 1.7 22.3 7.9

32.4

28.1

49.2

1.3

3;:;

65.2 25.0

66.2 24.5

66.6 39 .2

35.9 3.8

38.0 2.8

68.3 27.1

15.0

17.5

16.1

E

14:9

39 .3

21.5

38.7

1.7

3:: ;

10.6

6.8

76:;

;:i

46.9

3%

::;

29 .7

3.3 16.0

0.8 21.4

1.7 36.4

0.0 5.3

1.1 3.2

1.9 22.5

2.86

8:6

25.8

35.7

7.1

3.7

0.6

28.3

41.8

Z::

9 .9 33.7

0.7 21.3

27.5 13.5

z .2

38:8

14.2

5.8

14.7

6.8 1.8 3.6

0.8 0.9 14.9

2.1 18.9 7.7

::;

6.0

65.4

65.5

65.8

;:;

11.1

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.1

0.1

14.3

16.2

15.5

0.7

0.4

1.1

13.0

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

73.3 13.2

::;

5.7

8.8

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

11.1

i:;

4.1 0.3 15.9

8.5

10.2

9 .2

8.8

_.

36.3 29 .9 3.2

17.3

3:::

0.7

5:;

4.7

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3 0.8

28.1

Z E

28:6

56.1

2;:;

27.2

0.0

::9

20.9

0.8 0.3

0.0 0.1

0.0 0.2

0.0 0.1

30.3

19 .1

27.1

34.7

23.2

Source : 19 85-19 87 Public Area Recreation Survey, n=31,995.

Rote: An example of how to interpret this table is as follows: 1.5 percent of family groups interviewed in the PANS

participated in backpacking during their visit to the recreation area where they were interviewed. Forty-two percent of

all PARVS respondents indicating they participated in backpacking during the recreation trip where they were interviewed

belonged to family groups. It was inappropriate to make a comparison between group type and annual recreation participation as group type may change during other recreation experiences. Therefore, direct comparisons with the other tables

presented in this paper must be made with caution.

270
skiing, and sledding. Common family/friendship

activities are outdoor pool swimming, driving off-road

vehicles, horseback riding, waterskiing, and snowmobiling. Common group or club activities are picnicking,

day hiking, canoeing/kayaking, camping in primitive

campgrounds, and backpacking. Common solo

recreationist activities are warmwater fishing, big

game hunting, waterfowl hunting, driving off-road

vehicles, and cross-country skiing.

OTHER SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

RELATED TO RECREATION

PARTICIPATION

‘Others have made suggestions for improving

recreation participation projection models. Field and

O’Leary (1973) discuss the importance of social

group in determination of recreation participation,

and propose an analytic strategy in which social

group variables (such as family groups, groups

engaged in common leisure activities, or groups

belonging to the same voluntary association) might

be employed in conjunction with social aggregate

variables (like occupation, income, education, age,

and marital status) to enhance measurement of

participation in leisure activities. Moeller and Echelberger (1974) and Young and Smith (1979) stress

the need to understand human motivational factors

that underlie recreation behavior.

Additional factors were considered to help explain

outdoor recreation participation. Schreyer and others

(1984) found that extent of previous participation can

help explain diversity among users of the same

environment. Napier and Maurer (1981) consider

personal community factors, spillover-compensatory

factors, opportunity factors, socio-economic factors,

and personal characteristics in their investigation of

participation. They were able to explain very little

variance in their models, and suggest participation

requires much more complex predictive models than

the sociodemographic variables used by leisure

researchers to date.

In the early 1980’s there were several studies

suggesting sophisticated procedures to model

recreation participation. Witt and Goodale (1981)

suggest nonlinear models for regression modeling,

particularly relating to the family life-cycle variable.

Yu (1981) offers a leisure demand projection model

which combines several socioeconomic variables

into a single score, and also advances the idea of a

leisure typology, or prediction of demand by activity

package rather than by individual activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Likely Futures

This paper makes no attempt to track trends,

model current outdoor recreation participation or

predict future participation. However, with the knowledge that the population is aging, and the information

supplied in this paper about the recreational activities

of older persons, one likely conclusion is that the

activities favored by older persons, such as walking

for pleasure and developed camping will continue or

increase in popularity in the future. Conversely, those

activities favored by younger individuals, such as

waterskiing and backpacking, will decline in popularity.

Social, Environmental, and Economic Structures

The data presented above provide a current and

clear picture of Federal and State recreation area

users. Although no statistical tests were performed

in this paper, the patterns found in the data indicate

that Federal and State public recreation areas are

serving a certain portion of the United States population: largely the young, white, well-educated, and

able-bodied middle class. Older, nonwhite, lower

income, the disabled, and the wealthy are found

recreating on these lands in smaller proportions

relative to their numbers in the U.S. population.

These findings raise some interesting questions.

Why are some groups not using these areas as

much as others? Some possible answers include

personal preference, lack of opportunity, lack of

transportation, lack of information about the resource,

social and physical barriers, fear, insufficient disposable income, insufficient leisure, and many others.

As the demographics of the U.S. population continue

to change, some of the patterns found in the data

may increase in prominence and emerge as social

issues.

Because of time and space constraints, this

paper did not address environmental or economic

issues, although the data are available in the PARVS

project to examine this area.

Opportunity or Need for Improvements

From the above discussion, it follows that the

primary need identified in this paper is in identifying

the reasons for the lack of population-wide use of

these recreation lands. It may be found that the

barriers to participation are beyond the control of the

agencies managing these recreation areas. However,

it may also be found that some actions could be

taken to remove obstacles to participation.

271
Barriers or Constraints

The barriers to participation in outdoor recreation

identified in this paper are dependent on the activity

in question. Some activities, such as walking for

pleasure, seem to have very few barriers. Other

activities may have a variety of barriers, ranging from

age, income, gender, and, probably, supply of the

resource. It is likely that these barriers will continue

in the foreseeable future, regardless of the actions

taken by managing agencies.

Improving the Baseline Knowledge

The PARVS has provided a rich data sourceperhaps the most information on the recreation

patterns of visitors to Federal and State lands that

has ever been available from a single source. This

paper presents some of the first data from that survey,

but the authors recommend that researchers continue

to examine this fertile data base for more detailed

descriptive explorations, hypothesis testing, and

theory development. PARVS and other similar surveys

are very expensive, and we as a profession should

make the greatest possible use of this data source.

The information that is currently being extracted

from PARVS will be very useful to recreation managers

and policy makers. Analyses will provide detailed

information on persons who engage in specific

activities, regional differences in participation, the

contribution of recreation resources to local and

regional economies, participation patterns by specific

user groups, and much more. Also, by using PARVS

in conjunction with other data sources such as Census

information, it will be possible to make comparisons

of recreation users with regional or national populations.

Additionally, it is strongly recommended that the

PARVS system be continued, to allow additional

comparisons among regions, agencies, and various

social strata. Currently, 3 years of data are available

in the PARVS full data set. Wiih continuation of this

system, over time, longitudinal analysis will be

possible.

The 1979 Renewable Resources Planning Act

Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness

was largely limited by lack of extensive and reliable

data. For this 1989 Assessment, much more comprehensive data are available, but advancements can

still be made in this area by implementing standard

measures of recreation participation (or accurate

conversion factors) for all such data collection efforts.

Although considerable advancements have been

made in projections of future demand, supply, and

the resulting “gap”, the underlying theories used in

understanding current recreation participation data

(as discussed in this paper) are largely the same.

The next step in the progression of understanding

recreation behavior is further advancements in theory,

using the data developed for this assessment.

Questions For Discussion

The data provided in this paper indicate that

some segments of the population are participating in

resource-based recreation much less than other

segments. Some questions emerge:

1) Is it worthwhile for recreation researchers to

seek to determine the reasons for these differences in participation?

2) What can and/or should resource managers

do to help increase recreation opportunities for

all segments of the population, if anything?

3) With an aging population, is it desirable to

place more emphasis on those activities currently

favored by older recreationists?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the PARVS

Working Group (Forest Service, National Park Service,

Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

and state park agencies in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,

Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia)

for permission to use the full PARVS data set in this

study, prepared for the RPA Assessment.

272
REFERENCES Gerstl, J.E. 1961. Leisure, taste and occupational

milieu. Social Problems. 9(1):56-68.

Babchuck, N.; Gordon, C.W. 1962. The voluntary

association in the slum. Lincoln, NE: The University

of Nebraska Press. 144 pp.

Boothby, J.; Tungatt, M.F.; Townsend, AR. 1981.

Ceasing participation in sports activities: reported

reasons and their implications. Journal of Leisure

Research. 13(1):1-14.

Burch, W.R., Jr. 1969. The social circles of leisure:

competing explanations. Journal of Leisure Research. l(2): 125-l 47.

Cheek N.H.; Burch W.R. 1976. The social organization

of leisure in human society. New York: Harper and

Row Publishing, Inc.

Clark, Roger N.; Downing, Kent B. 1985. Why

here and not there: the conditional nature of

recreation choice. In: Stankey, George H.; McCool,

Steven F., camps. Proceedings, symposium on

recreation choice behavior; 1984 March 22-23;

Missoula, MT; Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-181. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 108 pp.

Cordell, H.K.; Hartmann, L.A.; Watson, A.E. [and

others]. 1987. The public area recreation visitor

survey: a progress report. pp. 1936. In: McDonaldCordell, B., ed. Proceedings, southeastern recreation research symposium, 1986 February 17-19;

Asheville, NC.

Crandall, R. 1980. Motivations for leisure. Journal of

Leisure Research. 12(1):45-54.

Ditton, R.B.; Goodale, T.L.; Johnson, P.K. 1975. A

cluster analysis of activity, frequency, and environmental variables to identify water-based recreation

types. Journal of Leisure Research. 7(4):282-295.

Field, D.R.; O’Leary, J.T. 1973. Social groups as a

basis for assessing participation in selected water

activities. Journal of Leisure Research. 5(2): 16-25.

Gentry, J.W.; Doering, M. 1979. Sex role orientation

and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research.

11(2):102-111.

Hall, M.A. 1973. Women and physical recreation: a

causal analysis. Presented at the Women and

Sport Symposium, University of Birmingham. Cited

in Hobart, C.W., 1975. Active sports participation

among the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly.

International Review of Sport Sociology.

10(3-4):27-44.

Hartmann, L.A. 1988a. An exploratory analysis of the

personal community hypothesis as a determinant

of recreation participation. College Station, TX:

Texas A&M University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Hartmann, L.A. 1988b. Outdoor recreation participation by ethnic minorities. Background paper

prepared for the USDA Forest Service’s 1989

renewable resources planning act assessment of

outdoor recreation and wilderness. On file with

the Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group, Athens, Georgia.

Hartmann, L.A.; Walker, P.J. [in press]. Outdoor

recreation participation by disabled people. In:

1988 benchmark forum for outdoor recreation and

wilderness.

Hendee, J.C. 1969. Rural-urban differences reflected

in outdoor recreation participation. Journal of

Leisure Research. 1(4):333-341.

Hendee, J.C.; Gale, R.P.; Catton, W.R. 1971. A

typology of outdoor recreation activity preferences.

Journal of Environmental Education. 3(1):28-34.

Hobart, C.W. 1975. Active sports participation among

the young, the middle-aged and the elderly.

International Review of Sport Psychology. 10:27-40.

Hof, J.G.; Kaiser, H.F. 1983. Long-term outdoor

recreation participation projections for public land

management agencies. Journal of Leisure Research. 15:1-l 4.

Jackson, E.L. 1983. Activity specific barriers to

recreation participation. Leisure Sciences.

6(1):47-60.

Kelly, J.R. 1974. Socialization toward leisure: a

developmental approach. Journal of Leisure

Research. 6(3):181-l 93.

273
Kelly, JR. 1980. Outdoor recreation participation: a

comparative analysis. Leisure Sciences,

3(2):129-154.

Kenyon, G.S. 1966. The significance of physical

activity as a function of age, sex, education and

socio-economic status of northern United States

adults. international Review of Sport Sociology.

I:41 -51.

Moeller, G.H.; Echelberger, H.E. 1974. Approaches

to forecasting recreation consumption. pp. 43-55.

In: Outdoor recreation research: applying the

results. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-g. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North

Central Forest Experiment Station.

Mueller, E.; Gurin, G.; Wood, M. 1962. Participation

in outdoor recreation: factors affecting demand

among American adults. ORRRC Study Report

No. 20, Washington, DC: Government Printing

Off ice.

Napier, T.L.; Mauer, R.C. 1981. Factors associated

with blockages to outdoor recreation participation:

a state survey. In: Napier, T.L., ed. Outdoor

recreation planning, perspectives, and research.

Debuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

O’Leary, J.T.; Napier, T.L.; Dottavio, F.D. [and others].

1982. Examining predictor variables used in outdoor

recreation planning. In Countryman; Chappelle;

Webster, eds. Guiding land use management.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkin’s University Press.

President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports.

1973. National adult physical fitness survey

newsletter. Special edition. Washington, DC.

Robinson, J.P. 1967. Time expenditure on sports

across ten countries, International Review of Sport

Sociology. 2:67-87.

Romsa, G.; Hoffman, W. 1980. An application of

non-participation data in recreation research:

testing the opportunity theory. Journal of Leisure

Research. 12(4):321-328.

Schreyer, Richard; Lime, David W.; Williams, Daniel

R. 1984. Characterizing the influence of past

experience on recreation behavior. Journal of

Leisure Research. 16(l)%-50.

Unkle, M.B. 1981. Physical recreation participation of

females and males during the adult life cycle.

Leisure Sciences. 4(l): l-27.

Unkle, M.B.; Eskridge, V.L. 1977. Descending the

leisure activii ladder. Paper presented at the

national recreation and park association congress,

Las Vegas, NV. October.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

1986. Statistical abstract of the United States:

1987 National data book and guide to sources.

(107th edition), Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office. 960 pp.

White, T.H. 1975. The relative importance of education

and income as predictors in outdoor recreation

participation. Journal of Leisure Research.

7(3):191-199.

Wilensky, H. 1963. The uneven distribution of leisure:

the impact of economic growth on free time. pp.

107-145. In: Smigel, E.O., ed. Work and Leisure.

New Haven, CT: College and University Press.

Witt, P.A.; Goodale, T.L. 1981. The relationship

between barriers to leisure enjoyment and family

states. Leisure Sciences. 4(1):2949.

Young, C.W.; Smith, E.V. 1979. Aggregated and

disaggregated outdoor recreation participation

models. Leisure Sciences. 2(7):143-l 54.

Young, R.A. 1983. Toward an understanding of

wilderness participation. Leisure Sciences.

5(4):339-357.

Young, R.A; Kent, A.T. 1985. Using the theory of

reasoned action to improve the understanding of

recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research.

17(2):90-l 06.

Yu, J. 1981. A leisure demand projection model.

Leisure Sciences. 4(2):127-l 42.

Zuzanek, J. 1978. Social differences in leisure

behavior: measurement and interpretation. Leisure

Sciences. 1(3):271-293.

Snyder, E.E.; Spreitzer, E.A. 1973. Family influence

and involvement in sports, Research Quarterly.

44:249-255.

274
SOCIAL FACTORS IN RECREATION PARTICIPATION AND DEMAND:

IMPLICATIONS FROM NATIONAL SURVEYS

Joseph T. O’Leary, F. Dominic Dottavio, and Francis McGuire’

Abstract-Among surveys conducted in the last 25

years to gauge the yearly outdoor recreation participation of Americans, most recent was the 7982-83

Nationwide Recreation Survey (NRS). It was designed

to be as comparable as possible to the 1960 Outdoor

Recreation Resources Review Commission participation surveys in order to ascertain change since 1960,

This presentation focuses on 1982-83 NRS estimates

of participation in activities included in the RPA

analysis. Other surveys are discussed to point out

how the information they contain allows for a better

interpretation of the NRS survey. Trends, implications,

and issues that relate to the surveys also are discussed,

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION

During the past 25 years, there have been several

surveys to gauge the yearly outdoor recreation

participation of Americans. Most recently, the 1982-83

Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Survey (NRS) was

completed underthe guidance of the National Park

Service in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service,

Bureau of Land Management, and the Administration

on Aging. Questions dealing with activity participation

were designed to be as comparable as possible to

the 1960 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review

Commission participation surveys to ascertain change

over the approximately 25 years between surveys. In

1986, another survey dealing with recreation participation was conducted by Market Opinion Research for

the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

Extensive surveys have also been conducted by the

US. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1980 and 1985

describing in great detail the hunting, fishing, and

‘Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University,

West LaFayette, IN; Regional Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of

the interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, GA; Department of

Leisure Studies, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.

nonconsumptive recreation participation of Americans.

Finally, the Gallup Survey has been asking basic

questions about outdoor recreation activity participation since 1959 providing some basis for examining

change through the 1980’s.

Each of these surveys provides an important

piece of information to guide us toward understanding

the dimensions of participation and demand in this

nation. For purposes of this presentation, activii

participation from the 1982-83 Nationwide Recreation

Survey will be presented, selecting the activities that

are being used in the RPA analysis as the focus.

Then, the other surveys will be discussed to point

out how the information they contain allows for a

better interpretation of the NRS survey. Finally, trends,

implications, and issues that relate to the surveys

will be discussed.

ACTIVITY ANALYSIS

Land-Based Activities

Backpacking

The 1982-83 Nationwide Recreation Survey (NRS)

was the first nationwide survey to include backpacking.

Although backpacking attracted only 5 percent of

the total respondents as participants, the activity has

become a major concern of land managing agencies

since it often occurs in remote wilderness areas that

agencies are just now learning how to manage.

Backpacking attracts twice as many males as females

and participation declines as age increases. Almost

two-thirds of those involved in the activity have 4 or

more years of college education. Otherwise, this

pursuit is less sensitive to income probably because

of the many young people who participate. Although

there are some data suggesting that there has been

a decline in backcountry use (U.S. Department of

275
the Interior, National Park Service 1987), involvement

in the activity will probably continue to be stable or

increase slightly as more use is made of frontcountry.

Camping

Respondents who said they went backpacking,

camping in developed or primitive campgrounds, or

engaged in any other camping activity during the

prior 12 months were counted as camping participants. It appears that camping as a whole has about

doubled its population participation rate in the past

22 years although the way in which the activity is

defined relative to the 1960 survey is slightly different.

Self-identified campers-24 percent of the survey’s

respondents-are broadly distributed across the

various demographic segments of the sample,

including gender, education, income, and age.

Camping is one of the most popular outdoor activities

and enjoys a dedicated following, as evidenced by

the 51 percent of participants who cited it as

particularly enjoyed and the 18 percent who chose it

as the one activity they most enjoyed. The reasons

given for enjoying camping were predominantly

appreciative (enjoyed nature and the outdoors: peace

and quiet); change of pace (getting away from

day-to-day living; doing something new or different);

and social (being with family and friends; liking people

who camp).

The same widespread participation pattern was

characteristic of the component activities ‘camping

in a developed campground,’ ‘camping in a primitive

campground,’ and ‘other camping.’ The broad base

of involvement in camping would suggest that it will

continue to be an important outdoor activity in the

future. The issue to be considered in the future is

how various sociodemographic groups adapt their

camping styles and what form the use of resources

will take (more/less interest in developed or primitive

use; what form of development will be sought; etc.).

Off-Road Vehicle Driving*

In addition to motorcycling, this aggregate of

off-road motorized travel includes four-wheel drives,

all-terrain vehicles, and beach buggies. It was not

much of a factor in the 1960’s and was not included

in the earlier surveys. Almost the entire 11 percent

participation rate can be considered to represent

growth since that time. Driving off-road is broadly

distributed across the various categories of education

and income. However, approximately twice as many

males as females are involved, and there is a decline

+vAudes motorcycles, but not snowmobiles.

in participation with advancing age. There are four

times as many whites as blacks participating. The

tendency of mostly young people to do this activity

would suggest that while there will be participation in

the future, the tendency should be for some decline

as the population is shifted toward an older distribution.

Day Hiking

Hiking is a resource-oriented pursuit which shows

substantial change since 1960 to a current participation rate of 14 percent. Participation is very widely

distributed across the population. The activity is

pursued by a similar percentage of males and females.

Participation also remains high through age groups

up to 60 and then it appears to drop off sharply.

Similarly, the percent of those with 4 years of education

or more participating is twice as high as those with

less than four years of college (25 percent vs. 13

percent). Interest in hiking also appears to increase

with rising income. Thirty-seven percent of the

participants cited hiking as something they particularly

enjoyed. The reasons given were predominantly in

the appreciative and escape categories-enjoyment of

nature and the outdoors (84 percent), solitude, peace

and quiet, and getting away from day-to-day living or

problems. Fitness (to get exercise or keep in shape)

was cited as a motive by 42 percent of the selfidentified hiking enthusiasts.

Since hiking is so broad based in terms of the

demographics of those doing the activii and particularly in terms of age, the prospects for an upward

trend in participation for the future seems likely. The

question for the future will probably be where hikers

will choose to seek opportunities and how that might

influence agency resource allocations and rehabilitation programs.

Horseback Riding

More stable in its participation rate since the

1960’s, horseback riding is typical of those activities

that require substantial investments of time and/or

money. Nine percent of the NRS respondents are

participants. However, of those who went horseback

riding once or more in the prior 12 months, 40 percent

cited the activity as particularly enjoyed. The demographic distribution of horseback riders is rather

typical of outdoor activities-younger people with

higher participation; more involvement by those with

higher education and income- but there are enough

people involved from different backgrounds to suggest

that any interpretation does not support an elite

stereotype often associated with the sport. Also, by

contrast to most forms of outdoor recreation, more

women than men reported riding horseback.

276
Blrdwatchlng or Other Nature Study Activities

Birdwatching, judged by rather even distribution

across the demographic categories of respondents

and the seasons of the year, is one of the most

available of outdoor activities. The number of days

per year in that participants engaged in this pursuit

is substantial. Nature study is the only activity on the

NRS list where participation actually increases across

the entire age spectrum. Given this apparent availability, the reported population participation rate of 12

percent is surprising, as is the 7 percent of participants

who cited this activity as particularly enjoyed. Comparison with other surveys indicates, however, that this

is too conservative a picture. ‘Birdwatching or other

nature study activities’ was included in the NRS to

capture, as far as possible with a single label, the

wide spectrum of pursuits involving the ‘appreciative’

or ‘nonconsumptive’ enjoyment of nature. A comparison with the 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,

and Wildlife Associated Recreation suggests that our

label captured only a fraction of this type of behavior.

The 1980 survey obtained population participation

rates of 49 percent for primary nonconsumptive

wildlife-related activities as a whole-whether, residential or nonresidential. The rate for the residential

segment was 47 percent, and that for the nonresidential was 17 percent. Even the low participation of

youth in the NRS may be less of a cause for concern.

This more detailed survey indicates that the proportion

of the sample that participates in the nonconsumptive

enjoyment of wildlife peaks in young adulthood (ages

25 to 34) with a slow decline thereafter. The newest

information being reported for the 1985 national

survey suggests that nonconsumptive interest has

continued to grow when compared to the 1980 data

and that interest in nonconsumptive activities has

shifted out to be most popular in the 35 to 45 year

age range (Mangun 1987).

Picnics

Forty-eight percent of the NRS respondents

distributed across all ages and conditions go on

picnics, but few cite picnicking as a favorite activity.

With a 51 percent participation rate, slightly more

women said they picnicked than men (45 percent).

Driving for Pleasure

With summer participation rates of 53 and 52

percent, respectively, picnicking and driving for

pleasure topped the list of activities in the 1960

National Recreation Survey. The 1982-83 1 e-month

rate for both activities was 48 percent. The participation

in pleasure driving across all population segments

continues to be impressive. Wiih 35 percent participating, pleasure driving was the second most widespread

activity among the age 60 and older group in the

survey. Only walking for pleasure, with 42 percent,

was cited by a larger number of senior citizens.

Sightseeing

Sightseeing has declined a bit since the 1960’s

judged by the 198283 12-month participation rate.

Nevertheless, with 46 percent of the sample saying

they went sightseeing in the prior 12 months, it is

clear that this activity is still a very important part of

the nation’s leisure patterns. There is a slight tendency

for participation to increase with more years of

education and income. In addition, interest is maintained as the population ages. Otherwise, the activity

is done widely by all population groups represented

in the NRS sample.

Hunting

In 1980, 17.4 million Americans 16 years of age

and older spent $8.5 billion for 330.2 million days of

hunting (US. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

the Census 1982; U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). In 1980, there were

about 18.8 million hunters that were 12 years of age

or older, representing 10.2 percent of the people of

that age in the population. In 1955, there were about

11.8 million hunters in that age group, representing

10.0 percent of the population of people 12 years of

age and older (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau

of the Census 1982; US. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service 1956). This 10 percent

compares favorably with the 12 percent participation

rate identified in the NRS survey. The demographic

pattern of hunters among NRS survey respondents

shows about an equal number of people participating

in age groups up through age 59, more hunters

coming from middle income groups, and a slightly

higher percent also coming from those with less

than four years of college. Of the participants, 88

percent were male. It is also the most predominantly

rural pursuit listed in the survey, with nonresidents of

a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) four

times more likely to be hunters than central city people,

and twice as likely as suburbanites.

The proportion of Americans who hunt, as well

as those who fish, appears to have been stable

since 1960. Apart from the predominance of rural

males, hunters are very well distributed across the

demographic spectrum. Though only 12 percent of

respondents hunted, the activity tops the list for

enthusiasm on the part of those who did. Seventy-five

277
percent of the self-identified hunters said they

particularly enjoyed the sport, and 28 percent cited it

as their absolute favorite outdoor pursuit, Cf the

hunting enthusiasts, 71 percent cited enjoyment of

nature and the outdoors as a motive. The social

aspects were not frequently chosen by comparison

with other outdoor activities. On the contrary, 30

percent cited solitude, rather than companionship,

as a reason why they liked to hunt, while 46 percent

said they hunted to get away from day-to-day living

or problems.

Walking for Pleasure

Pleasure walking, with 53 percent of the sample

participating, was tied with swimming as the most

widespread activ’ky in the 1982-83 NRS. The popularity

of walking extends across all categories of the

respondent sample, with 35 percent participating

even in the lowest educational category. Participation

in pleasure walking (42 percent) by the older respondents (aged 60 or more) greatly exceeded their

involvement with any other activity in the survey.

Seventeen percent of the walkers said they particularly

enjoyed the activity, mostly citing fitness and enjoyment of the outdoors as reasons.

Water-Based Activities

Boating

The general population participation rate of 28

percent for boating is impressive, given the investments of time and money involved. The demographic

patterns of boaters are somewhat upscale with a

higher propensity to participate tied to higher income

and education levels. Gender differences are moderate, and boating participation holds up well through

middle age. These same relationships are characteristic of the four component activities, canoeing or

kayaking, sailing, motorboating, and ‘other boating

or watercraft sport’, from which the ‘boating” data

were synthesized. Canoeing or kayaking, however,

had the largest growth with a quadrupling of the

summer participation rate since 1960 (from 2 to 8

percent).

Swimming Outdoors

Outdoor swimming was already extremely popular

in the 1960 survey with relatively little room for growth.

There was a rise in the participation rate from 45 to

51 percent over the 22-year period. In this survey, a

somewhat larger proportion of the respondents said

they swam in outdoor pools rather than in other

environments (lakes, rivers, ocean beaches, etc.).

Both forms of the sport have a widespread following

among all demographic segments and even hold up

fairly well with advancing age. Self-identified swimming

enthusiasts (18 percent of participants) tended to

cite fitness (exercise, keeping in shape) and social

reasons (being with family and friends; liking people

who swim) as reasons for their preference.

Waterskiing

Self-identified waterskiers were counted in both

the ‘boating’ and the “swimming’ figures. This had

little effect on those larger aggregates, since most

waterskiers identified themselves as both boaters

and swimmers in any case. The demographic pattern

of waterskiers shows that waterskiing is overwhelmingly a pursuit of youth and young adults and appears

positively related to higher income.

Fishing

Even more than swimming, fishing has been

stable since 1960, as inferred from the summer

participation rates (29 percent in 1960 compared

with 30 percent in 1982). More than twice as many

men as women fish, but otherwise the sport is well

distributed across the various demographic categories. Participation is not related to income or

education and persists as people grow older. Fishing

enthusiasts (58 percent of participants) most frequently cite peace and quiet, getting away from

day-to-day living, and enjoying nature and the

outdoors as reasons. A much smaller number cited

the prospect of catching fish as a motive, but this

was not offered on the list of reasons and is, therefore,

not directly comparable with the others.

Snow and Ice-Based Activities

Cross-Country Skiing or Ski Touring

Though cross-country was the form of skiing

originally brought to North America by immigrants

from northern Europe, it had declined to insignificance

by the 1960’s and was omitted, as a separate category,

from the 1960 and 1965 surveys. Its resurgence to a

population participation rate of 3 percent in 198283

(4 to 5 percent outside the South) has occurred

from virtually a zero base. The demographic pattern

of participation is similar to that for downhill skiing,

except that it is markedly less popular with urban

people and carries on into middle age.

Snow Skiing

Snow skiing, by contrast, has experienced growth

in the interval between 1960 and 198283 with a

quadrupling of the participation rate over a 22-year

278
interval. Skiing must be regarded as an upscale

sport by any available yardstick, and it declines sharply

with age. These conclusions can be drawn for snow

skiing in general as well as for downhill skiing, which

continues to attract the majority of snow skiing

participants. Almost half (49 percent) of the selfidentified skiers in our sample said they particularly

enjoyed the sport.

Ice Skating

By comparison with the 1960’s, ice skating has

declined slightly in the percentage of survey respondents participating. Even the 6 percent who did go

ice skating tended not to cite the activity as especially

enjoyed. This sport is overwhelmingly a pursuit of

well-educated, Northern, white, young people.

Sledding

Judged by the winter participation rates of 9

percent, sledding (which includes tobogganing,

tubing-on-snow, etc.) has not changed over the past

22 years with respect to the proportion of Americans

who engage in it. The participation rate declines

sharply with age, and the predominance of young

people among sledders would doubtless be even

greater if we had data for the under-12 population.

Most of the other apparent demographic relationships

of sledding participation (predominance of single

persons in large households, etc.) are probably

age-related.

Snowmoblllng

Motorized over-snow vehicles have been used

for several decades for transportation in regions with

long periods of heavy snow cover. The recreational

use cf these machines was just getting started in the

United States in the 1960’s. The 3 percent of our

respondents who said they went snowmobiling can

be regarded as representing growth since 1960. The

demographic pattern of snowmobilers is similar to

that of the cross-country skiers, except that snowmobiling is only moderately upscale on the income, but

not the education, yardstick.

OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE NRS

SURVEY

There are several observations we can make

from this review of the NRS survey. First, for those

activities that are comparable with the 1960 ORRRC

survey, almost all indicate that the rate of participation

has increased. However, there are a few activities in

which a small decline (2 to 4 percent) or no change

in the rate has occurred. Care must be taken in

thinking about this decline in the period since 1960,

since there has been a substantial increase in the

population in the interim. A 10 percent participation

rate in 1960 and then again in 198283 translates to

a change of five to six million in the number of

participants involved in that pursuit. This same

interpretation underlines the impact on resources

when both a rate increase and population change

are considered.

A second issue, the emergence of new activities,

must also be studied. If we look at the activities in

the 198283 survey that were not considered in 1960,

we are generally talking about opportunities that are

‘new’ or which were so limited in 1960 they were

unimportant. The observation we must make interpreting the results from the NRS is that there are many

more activities that people identify, and our deliberations of the future should recognize that these will

continue to emerge.

The results from the Market Opinion Survey done

for the President’s Commission appear to show higher

participation rates for many of the activities that were

outlined above. In the reports that were prepared by

the firm for presentation (Market Opinion Research

1986) much of the focus for displaying participation

was on those participants who reported participation

“often’ or ‘very often’. In those cases where a direct

comparison could be made between activities the

MOR data were high (table 1). If the analysis had

also included those who reported participating

‘somewhat’ the values would have been even higher.

Perhaps the most important information to be garnered

from these participation values is that the relative

rank of the activities are the same as that seen in

the NRS information.

Another important finding from the MOR survey

is that activities cluster together and can be interpreted

as a ‘bundle’ rather than looking only at the individual

activity. Five of the six activity groups identified in

the data analysis are of interest-Spectator Outings

(76 percent participate often); Fishing, Hunting, and

Horsepower (37 percent participate often); Observing

Nature (31 percent participate often); Water and Golf

(48 percent participate often): and Winter Sports (11

percent participate often). In addition, the survey

used motivational factors to identify five types of

people participating in outdoor recreation. They

279
Table 1. --Participation rates reported

from three national surveys

Activity ORRRC NRS MOR

- - - Percent -

Land-based:

Backpacking

Camping

ORV

Day hiking

Horseback riding

Nature study

Picnicking

Driving for pleasure

Sightseeing

Hunting

Walking for pleasure

Water based:

Canoeing/kayaking

Sailing

Swimming-outdoors

Waterskiing

Motorbpating

Pishing

Snow/ice based:

Cross-country skiing

Downhill skiing

Ice skating

Sledding

Snowmobiling

5

8 24

6

11

14

6 9

14

;;

iii

z :

12

33 53

2 8

4:

6

53

6 9

29

:I

2

6

10

3

22

:z

27

51

8

14

12

17

24

included Excitement-Seeking Competitives (16 percent); Get Away Actives (33 percent); Fitness Driven

(10 percent); Health Conscious Sociables (33 percent); Unstressed and Unmotivated (8 percent).

Although market research firms commonly use

these kinds of grouping strategies, it is unusual to

see them in studies describing the public sector

recreation environment, particularly in surveys at the

national level. Although somewhat of an oversimplification, the “Excitement Seeking Competitives’ and the

‘Get Away Actives’ (49 percent) are probably most

susceptible to those kinds of recreation found on

lands managed by the land managing Federal

agencies like the Forest Service, BLM, and some

components of the National Park System.

The firm concluded that the data pointed out

some important findings that had implications for the

future. First, Americans consider themselves to be

outdoor people. They report using parks a great

deal. The ‘baby boom’ generation appears to have

active outdoor lives, can be found overrepresented

in the ‘Get Away Active’ motivational group, and

report great interest in 2- to 3-day and long-weekend

vacations. These persons are not the same as those

who have gone ahead of them, but they are particularly

interested in park usage and participation in the

parent life cycle stages. While their activities may

change with age, there is every indication that what

they do will occur at higher levels than in previous

generations. If adult participation affects the things

their children do, then the children of these groups

should also be expected to participate at high levels.

However, what the baby boomers choose to do may

not necessarily include all the same activities their

parents did; and if the activity is the same, the way it

is done may not be. This issue will become extremely

important in the years to come.

GALLUP LEISURE ACTIVITIES INDEX

Since 1959, the Gallup Poll has been involved in

asking Americans what ‘sports’ they have been

involved with during the past year. For at least some

of the activities that were described in the NRS survey

and discussed above, Gallup describes trends in

participation. In general, the rate of participation is

very similar to the rates from the NRS survey

(comparing 1982-83 data in the NRS with 1983 in

Gallup) and the 1960 ORRRC survey (comparing

ORRRC with the 1959 Gallup). When the 1986 Gallup

is compared with the MOR survey, the Gallup data

tend to be much lower, and the participation rates

are very similar to those identified in the NRS.

The findings underline what was observed with

the other surveys-there has been substantial growth

in outdoor recreation in the past 25 years, but the

sharpest changes occurred in the 1960’s and the

1970’s, with some levelling off since then. The most

important factors affecting participation include age,

income, college education, and business or professional employment. The data reported reinforce the

MOR results suggesting that the ‘baby boomer’

group is extremely active and will continue to be a

major force in the future of outdoor recreation. Perhaps

the more important observations to be made from

the contemporary Gallup results are that while there

are some gender differences, the eight favorite

activities identified separately by males and females

tend to differ in rank rather than in what activities are

done.

280
1980 AND 1985 FISH AND WILDLIFE

SURVEYS

The 1980 and 1985 Fish and Wildlife surveys of

Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Associated Recreation

provide some additional information on the magnitude

of the wildlife-related opportunities. Since the 1985

data have only recently been released, it is diiicult

to do more than report a few general changes. In

general, comparison of the two surveys indicates

that there has been a significant increase in the

number of people fishing, and the rate of participation;

a continuation in decrease of hunters; and growth

(+19 percent) in the number of nonconsumptive

wildlife users (74 percent of the adult population,

indicating some degree of interest, and 61 percent

with a primary interest) (Mangun 1987). Although

nonconsumptive use could almost be characterized

as being pervasive because of the large number of

Americans reporting interest, the group most highly

represented are those in the 35 to 45 year age group.

This is of particular interest since this was the same

age group as the top end of the ‘baby boomers’

that were identified as being so involved in outdoor

recreation in the earlier discussions of participation.

The highest participation rates for hunting were in

the 16 to 24 year age group, and for fishing it was

25 to 34 years of age.

OUTDOOR RECREATION TRENDS

The President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors identified major trends which will affect the

provision of outdoor recreation over the next 20

years. It also developed a list of present and future

issues of significance to recreation providers and

users. The diversity and scope of the issues testify

to the need for a continuous monitoring of social

and economic issues and their relationship to

recreation. Each of these yet unresolved issues is

accompanied by potential options. If left unresolved,

some of these issues would seriously threaten the

integrity of the outdoor recreation resources of this

country. Perhaps more importantly, they may threaten

the quality of life and economic well-being of the

citizens of the United States.

From a historical perspective, people have always

tried to guess or predict a favorite future. However,

according to institutions that are quite involved with

strategic planning, the real problem is not in selecting

a favorite future, but in identifying the trends, events,

factors, forces, and other elements which will define

alternative futures.

DESCRIPTION OF TRENDS

Trend 1. Changing Social and

Demographic Composition

Trend: Major changes in lifestyles and basic

demographics will substantially alter the demand for

and effective supply of recreation opportunities.

Background: One of the most important trends

that will affect recreation, in terms of both users and

suppliers, is the rapidly changing nature of American

society. A great wealth of demographic data are

available that identify these social changes; however,

possible implications of these data to recreation

have received little attention. The following represent

some of the more significant changes that will occur.

1. America is aging. In 1910, the number of

people in America over 65 years of age was less

than 4 percent; in 1980 this proportion had risen to

11.2 percent. According to the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, by the year 2030,20 percent of the population

will be 65 or older. Those 85 and older are the fastest

growing part of the older generation-growing by

141 percent since 1960. Collesano (1984) suggests

that by 1990 the life expectancy for women could go

from 84 to 92.

2. Population growth is occurring most rapidly

in the South and West and in rural communities.

For the first time in 160 years, the growth rate of

rural areas is higher than for metropolitan areas,

More specifically, the center of population in the

United States has now crossed the Mississippi River

and is expected to continue shifting south and west.

In the last 10 years, the South and West accounted

for 90 percent of all population growth in the United

States.

3. immigration into the United States will

continue, Through both legal and illegal routes,

between 25 and 40 percent of the net population

growth is currently from immigration. The new

immigrants are not from Europe but are from Latin

America, Africa, and South Asia. The trend setting

States of California and Texas are one-fifth Hispanic.

This population is growing faster and is younger

than the general population. It has been suggested

that these new immigrants will not go the ‘melting

pot’ route. Rather, cultural diversity may be the new

‘Americanization.’

281
4. We are in the throes of a demographic

revolution of working women. According to John

Naisbii, in his discussion of global trends, we are

moving to a day when virtually all women will work

except for a few months or years when they are

raising children full time. Today’s women workers

are reinventing both career patterns and

motherhood-and etching their new lifestyles on all

aspects of society. Some of the more revealing figures

associated with this shift are:

a. In 1980, 45 percent of both spouses worked

full time. By 2000 it will be 85 percent.

b. The number of married women who are

working with children under age 6 is increasing

at an increasing rate. This constitutes an

enormous experiment on the impact of reduced

parental supervision on children.

c. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics,

for the first time professional women outnumber

professional men, even though women account

for only 44 percent of the work force (U.S.

News & World Report 1986).

5. The basic family unit is in evolution. According

to the American Council of Life Insurance, over half

of the young children alive today will spend some

time in single parent families before age 18, and one

in two will marry and divorce.

Another important change in the family unit is

household size. The average household size is

decreasing (3.11 people in 1970 to 2.75 people in

1980). In the last decade, there was a 93 percent

increase in singles living alone and a 50 percent

increase in divorced persons living alone.

6. A major change is underway in the educational

level of Americans. The average employee retiring

from private enterprise today has a ninth grade

education, while 70 percent of those entering the job

market have college backgrounds.

7. Many Americans are more health conscious

and may be able to participate in active recreational

pursuits much later in life. We should not assume

that the elderly of the 21st Century will have the

same activity levels of today’s elderly. In addition,

the population about to retire are the first of a

generation of Americans who have been thoroughly

indoctrinated with the value of high nutritional and

physical standards of health.

8. The ‘baby boomers’ (children born from 1946

to 1960) are entering middle age and becoming

important consumers of recreation. Between now

and 1995 people in the 35 to 44 year old age bracket

will increase 38 percent from 14.5 to 21.6 million

people. By 1995 people aged 45-54 are projected to

increase 47 percent from 12.7 to 18.6 million people

(Flanagan 1983).

9. ‘Baby boomers’ have been delaying marriage

and children. The marriage rate is rising and the

number of couples becoming first-time parents is

increasing quickly, more quickly than normal because

parents are older and thus will have less time in

which to have children.

At the other end of the age spectrum are those

people whose children have left or will soon leave

home. There will be 10 million new “empty nesters’

this decade as the population ages. However, when

compared with the 16 million couples who will have

new firstborns, which tie them to home and hearth,

there will be a net deficit in the travel market of about

6 million travelers by 1990.

Implications: Some of the implications of these

major social and demographic changes are:

I, Two-income and dual-career families, while

having perhaps more discretionary income, often

have less free time. Such households must plan and

structure vacation time.

2. As both parents have entered the job market,

the issues of child care and location of residence

have become major concerns to the employees of

recreational suppliers.

3. While there is more and more emphasis on

dual income households, the home will take on

increased importance in the future. Cetron (1985)

suggests it will become the workplace for 25 percent

of the labor force by the year 2000 and it will see

more duty as a school, entertainment area, and

hospital as technology advances.

Trend 2: A Healthy Economy

Trend: Barring any major global crises, the

economy of the United States is expected to prosper

the next 20 years.

Background: During the next 20 years, it is

anticipated that this country will move into a more

prosperous period. There will be reduced unemployment, lower inflation, and a rising standard of living;

282
but the economic base for these changes will be

greatly altered. Cetron (1985) suggests that if we

can solve the Federal deficit problem, the future

looks bright-more goods, more leisure, longer lives.

He does not see justification in talk about the great

middle class having to adjust to a lower standard of

living. Naisbii believes the ‘baby boom’ is being

replaced by a ‘baby bust’, the consequence of which

will be intense competition for a short labor supply.

Collesano (1984) suggests that financially, ‘baby

boomers’ are very optimistic, although they are not a

particularly affluent lot -at least not yet.

Sivy (1985) believes that with wages increasing

at a moderate 3 percent a year and oil costs declining,

inflation will probably remain under control during

the next 2 or 3 years. Beyond 1990, though, some

investment strategists worry that inflation will revive,

in large part because of the huge United States

budget deficit.

Some specific economic changes that are

occurring include:

1. The income distribution and occupational

profile in the United States is changing. From World

War II through the early seventies, the distribution of

household income has looked like a pyramid, broad

at the bottom and tapering off toward the top. Now,

however, service sector jobs are broadening the

lower half, the new employment in a few growth

industries is expanding the upper half.

This is creating a dent in the middle of the pyramid

because of a corresponding shift away from the

middle class jobs in heavy industries; notably

agriculture, manufacturing, and mining.

2. Important trends are also developing in major

areas of consumer spending, like housing and

personal transportation. Changes here are important

because increases or decreases in their relative

share of the household budget have massive impacts

elsewhere. Hornback (1985) believes that if present

indicators are what they seem, then home buyers

have already turned toward Villas,’ ‘duets,’ ‘patio

homes,’ ‘townhomes,’ and other euphemisms for a

bungalow in order to cut housing costs. Square

footage of new homes has dropped from the 1,700

square foot average of the 1970’s to less than 1,000

square feet.

3. The personal wealth of Americans will increase

in the next 20 years when compared with today. A

person’s real purchasing power, i.e., the amount of

goods and services that their income will buy after

taxes are paid, will go up by 33 percent in the decade

ahead.

Implications: If the economic picture described

above holds true, events that might occur are:

1. There will be increased private sector involvement in traditional public recreational activities and

services.

2. The ‘pay-as-you-go’ concept, or user fees,

may be more utilized by public suppliers of recreation.

3. Smaller family size will result in more discretionary income.

4. Jobs available in recreation will increase as

demand for recreation increases.

5. Dual family incomes will result in more discretionary income.

6. There will be growth in the private sector to fill

recreational voids.

7. The budget deficits will mean that less Federal

support will be available for public supplied recreation.

8. There will be increased numbers of people

living below the poverty line, and the poor will comprise

a greater proportion of the total population. However,

the poverty population will remain diverse, with some

families moving in and out of poverty, and others

locked into it.

Trend 3: Increased Technological

Innovation

Trend: During the next 20 years, technological

advances will change at an increasing rate and will

change many aspects of the provision and use of

outdoor recreation.

Background: During the next 20 years, technological advances will change virtually all aspects of

American life as we know it today. Many of these

changes will greatly affect the providers and users of

recreational services.

At one time, technological change was measured

in terms of centuries. More recent advances such as

hybrid corn, which doubled and tripled the yield per

acre, took over 40 years to gain 90 percent acceptance

by the farmer. This new corn was initially given away

free to those willing to try it. Currently, it is said to

283
take about 7 years for a new innovation to become

widespread in use. This means it will be virtually

impossible for us to predict the types of innovation

that society will face in the next 20 years. Nonetheless,

some likely changes are:

1. Technological changes will cause disruption

to most all organizations. The typical response of

employees to a technological change is somewhere

between ‘sullen indifference’ and ‘explicit hostility.’

2. The number one export of the United States,

in terms of dollars, is our knowledge and information,

which will continue to grow. For comparison purposes,

it exceeds agriculture, which is this country’s number

two export, by a two to one margin. America has a

phenomenal dominance in this area, and it is predicted

to maintain this lead.

3. There will be a proliferation of new equipment

that will collect, store, process, analyze, and interpret

information. The costs of these new types of equipment will drop such that users will expand to the

millions. Computer literacy will increase among most

Americans.

Implications: This improved technology could

have the following implications for the recreation

industry:

1, Improved technologies should increase the

efficiency and productivity of recreational suppliers.

The systems will allow the recreational suppliers to

better serve the public, i.e., campground reservation

systems, interpretation information, safety tips, etc.

2. Naisbii sees the possible beginnings of a

significant growth industry for indoor parks such as

those found in Houston and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

3. Hypersonic aircraft (scramjets) giving 1 hour

access around the world are under development

and expected to be experimentally operational by

the mid-1990’s (New Scientist, 12/5/85, p. 21). (Also

called Trans Atmospheric Vehicles, TAV.) This could

significantly alter travel and tourism patterns and

bring us closer to a global economy.

4. Telecommunications will permit more and

more people to work and play at home.

5. Advances in medicine and biotechnology will

affect how we take care of ourselves and will prolong

active lifestyles. New drugs will be more effective in

treating mental illness, One can envision a new

balance between recreational activity to maintain

physical strength and agility and reduce mental

stress, and new kinds of medical approaches to

prevent or treat physical and mental illness.

6. Other new technologies that might impact

recreation include stronger, lightweight metals, fabrics,

weather modification, and other technologies that

could alter land and water environments.

7. The preferences of park users may shift from

traditional recreational activities, such as hiking,

camping, and sightseeing, to more interest in high

technology activities. For example, rather than have

a visitor actually climb a mountain, perhaps the “new

high-tech’ visitor would prefer a ‘simulated climb” in

a visitor center.

8. New recreational equipment is being developed

and older equipment is being modified such that its

use will become more important. Some of the newer

off-road vehicles (ORVs) are much less damaging to

resources than the initial ones, but other newer types

are now having impacts in areas previously unaffected.

9. Some of the new technologies in the construction area may greatly affect the type of facilities built

in recreation areas. The Linn Cove Viaduct on the

Blue Ridge Parkway, which relied on new spanning

techniques to minimize the impact on the environment,

is an example.

10. Some of the new technologies will have

adverse environmental impacts. For example, a new

technology associated with mineral extraction, i.e.,

coal liquefaction, can have impacts far removed from

the extraction site.

Trend 4: Continued Concern for the

Environment

Trend: Environmental degradation will continue

to be a concern in the United States and will result

in increased pressure to set aside public reserves

for recreation and preservation.

Background: Never again will there be a time

when this country will not have to worry and work

hard to protect and improve its environment. Although

progress has been made, environmental degradation

due to habitat destruction, loss of biological diversity,

soil erosion, toxic wastes, and air and water pollution

will continue to be of major concern. Some of the

major concerns are:

284
1. The future availability of recreation lands will

be affected by changing patterns of land use. A

factor funneling visitation into rural parks is the

‘privatization’ of forest and water areas that were

formerly open to the public. Hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, hiking, picnicking and camping have

been restrained and prohibited to some degree on

private land, with closures up (from 26 percent in

1963 in New York, to 48 percent in 1980).

There is a sizable amount of land being held idle

(not for agricultural, forest, mining, or other production). Much of this land is ‘informally’ being subdivided,

i.e., broken up by owners rather than developers.

This trend may amount to more land unavailable for

outdoor recreation than creeping residential plots on

the outskirts of metropolitan areas would account

for.

2. Wetlands, native grasslands, estuaries, and

other distinctive habitats have been and continue to

be lost at an alarming rate due mainly to an expanding

and suburbanizing population, expanded transportation systems, new settlements, dispersed industry,

and an increased demand for recreation sites. For

example, wetlands have decreased by an average of

600,000 acres per year. Barely half of this country’s

original wetland acreage remains today.

3. Cf the 3 to 10 million species now living on

earth, as many as 20 percent may become extinct

by the year 2000, a figure comparable to losing one

species per day. The impact of this loss of genetic

potential will have far reaching effects on the future

well-being of mankind.

4. Soil erosion, once thought to be under control,

has again become a serious problem. In 1977, it

was estimated that the continental United States lost

about 3 billion tons of soil from fields under plow.

This erosion may be costing our country nearly a

billion dollars each year in terms of lost fertility and

polluted and sedimented rivers and lakes. As a hungry

world expands and farmland decreases, (an estimated

million acres a year), the pressures on the land to

produce will continue to rise.

5. Since 1950, our country has disposed of an

estimated 6 billion tons of toxic wastes in or on our

land, steadily increasing our potential exposure to

substances that can cause cancer, birth defects,

miscarriages, nervous disorders, and damage to the

liver, kidney, or genes. The impact on natural

ecosystems is still poorly understood. Although some

progress has been made, a monumental cleanup

task is warranted, in addition to future protective

measures.

Due to legislation such as the Clean Air Act and

Federal legislation governing water resources, the

quality of air and water in some areas is improving.

Much still needs to be done, however. There is growing

evidence that wilderness, parks, and other pristine

areas may be threatened by air and water pollution.

Implications: The implications of this environmental degradation to recreation include:

1. Increased demand for water will escalate

conflicts between uses for energy production, domestic purposes, irrigation, industrial uses, fish and wildlife

habitat, and recreation.

2. A lowering of environmental quality may result

in decreasing use of affected areas for recreational

activities.

3. There will be an increased need to set aside

land in developed or developing areas specifically

for recreation use.

Trend 5: Availability and Price of Energy

Will Remain Speculative

Trend: The United States will be able to produce

and purchase enough energy to meet the needs of

the country during the next 20 years, but price changes

are expected, both in terms of real dollars and as a

percentage of disposable income.

Background: Our oil picture is chaotic. Between

the shortages there are gluts. Some expectations

are:

1. The United States will be able to produce and

purchase enough ‘energy’ to meet the needs of our

country during the next 20 years. There will, however,

be price increases both in terms of real dollars and

in percentage of disposable income. For oil specifically, its price will not skyrocket during the next 15

years. If anything, it will come down (Cetron 1985).

2. Maximum petroleum capacity is expected to

be reached about the year 2000; however, for those

dependent on wood for fuel, the needs will exceed

the supply before the year 2000. The world’s finite

fuel resources-coal, oil, gas, oil shale, tar sands,

and uranium - are theoretically sufficient for centuries,

but they are not evenly distributed and the cost of

extraction is extremely high.

285
3. The search for alternative energy sources will

continue. The pledges of a number of countries to

reduce sulfur pollution will continue to fuel the search

for alternatives. Fluidcarbons, solar, and atomic

sources will become more important.

Implications: The changing energy situation in

the last 10 years has had many effects on the suppliers

of recreation and on the users of recreational services.

These may include:

1. Many existing recreational facilities have been

modified and new facilities have been designed to

be more energy efficient.

2. Providers of recreation have altered their

operational patterns such as time of opening and

seasonal use.

3.‘ The consciousness of energy conservation

among the providers of recreation has been greatly

increased. Recreational use levels were not greatly

affected by the energy situation in the 1970’s, but

there were changes in use patterns. For example,

sites near urban areas received higher visitation

levels than did remote sites. Also, users tend to stay

at one site longer than in the past. It is expected

that in the future the energy situation will affect

recreation in many of the same ways as it has in the

past 10 years.

Trend 6: Political Change and

Accountability

Trend: There will be increased emphasis on

referendum and grassroots politics, accountability of

institutions, and partnership formation among public

and private organizations,

Background: The political scene in the United

States will change greatly during the next 20 years.

Many of these changes will impact recreational efforts.

There are a number of significant issues related

to this trend. Among the more significant are:

1. Confidence in political leaders is decreasing,

and the complexity of the issues they are facing is

increasing. Collesano (1984) has suggested that

there is fairly widespread concern thatthe Federal

government does not pay attention to what people

want, and that leaders in Washington often cannot

be trusted. We have a generation (the baby

boomers) -representing almost half of the potential

electorate- that is fairly dubious about its government

and not fully committed to the major political parties.

2. The American public’s expectations of government have shifted, and shifted dramatically. Again,

Collesano believes the very generous psychology of

entitlement has been replaced by a new psychology

of protectionism - a lowered concern by individuals

about government help to others, and increased

concern that government protect and preserve the

individual. For example, in 1968, 47 percent felt

government should do more for racial minorities. It

fell to 28 percent by 1982. The attitude that government

should do more for people on welfare dropped from

32 percent to 28 percent. Even support for helping

the poor declined.

3. The American public is submitting questions

to the political process that have never been asked

before. For example, Proposition 15 in California a

few years ago asked the voter whether or not a nuclear

plant should be built. We are voting not just for

representation, but we are voting on smoking,

abortion, prayer in schools, terminals for oil tankers,

the color of street lights, and even on international

issues relating to the Middle East. It is expected that

we will vote on more and more of these issues rather

than allow our elected representatives to exercise

their judgment.

4. Several regions of the United States are

experiencing population growth which will, in time,

shift the political power structure of the country.

Other regions are finding or losing wealth. For

example, in a trend reversal, Naisbitt sees 1986 as

the beginning of the rise of the waterbelt States, He

sees the beginning of a dramatic economic and

political renaissance in the Great Lakes, supported

by an abundant supply of an invaluable resource:

water. Between now and 2000, high growth is likely

in pockets that have special resources-such as a

critical mass of high-technology workers or skilled

professionals. Forecasters often disagree as to which

areas have the winning characteristics.

5. Minorities are developing into a formidable

political force. For example, Hispanics are the fastest

growing minority group in the country. What demands

will this group make on future candidates who want

their votes? In the next decade, women’s groups will

improve their record of the last 5 years in which their

numbers in public office doubled. Overall, a political

trend toward the center is emerging around the

world.

Candidates will get their strength from special

interest groups. Single issue politics will be the rule,

rather than the exception, in the future. Special interest

groups will pressure candidates to stand with them

as never before.

286
6. There is more and more emphasis on cooperative ventures among public and private sectors, As

prices rise, individuals and organizations search out

new ways to beat the high cost of buying and owning.

People are realizing that sole ownership of everything

just isn’t possible and necessary. Co-ownership or

partnering could become an integral part of our lives

with the sharing of everything from vacation homes,

to jobs, to recreational equipment, or even clothing.

This trend should grow as people understand they

can pool their resources and gain strength from

each other. This partnering could result in more

effective and efficient use of private resources, and

ultimately, the need for less public expenditures and

lowering tax needs in certain areas.

7. The public is demanding more accountability,

management efficiency, and cost effectiveness from

the public reserves for recreation and preservation.

Creative management principles will become more

commonplace as information becomes available and

therefore justification for change can be better

developed. There will be demands for a different

type of employee. Skills in statistical analysis, data

sampling, information modeling, storage and retrieval

methods will be the new ‘tools of the trade.’

Implications: Implications to the recreation field

include:

1. Suppliers of recreation may find that children

right out of school may have more value to the

organization than the employee with 20 years’

experience.

2. Recreation agencies will have to become more

attuned to the needs and desires of recreationists

who provide vital funding.

3. The one common area where the political left

and right, special interest groups, and minorities all

reach some agreement is on the issue of being against

big government and opposed to government regulations. New initiatives, totally different budget packages,

and creative financing may be necessary for the

acquisition, operation, and management of public

recreational opportunities.

Trend 7: Changes in Transportation

Systems

Trend: During the next 20 years, the transportation

systems in this country will be heavily impacted by

the recreational user and will become increasingly

crowded. As a result, the quality of the systems will

decrease while emphasis on group transportation

and public/private partnerships will increase.

Background: According to the U.S. Travel Data

Center, 81 percent of vacation travel in the United

States is by car, truck, or recreational vehicle. However,

over the years, there have been significant changes

in how cars are used and operated. For example,

the size of the average vehicle has decreased (from

an intermediate in 1972 to mid-size in 1976, to a

compact in 1983). Also, people are driving less (down

1,500 miles/year from 1972 to 1984) and keeping

their cars longer (5.1 year average in 1984 and 3.6

years in 1972). Future trends in transportation include:

1. Radical change over the next 20 years will be

unlikely in everyday transportation due to heavy

investments required to build new systems. Not until

early in the 21st century will major innovations in

transportation appear. These may include such things

as vehicles that drive themselves and electronic

highways that enable high speed travel safely.

2. The private automobile will reign unchallenged

as most people’s preferred means of getting around.

The car population is expected to jump by 25 percent

by the year 2000. Cars will acquire more electronic

gadgetry making them safer, easier to drive, and

more comfortable. Engines will become more economical and less subject to breakdown.

3. Buses will continue to dominate public transportation (except in cities with subways) due to their

lower cost and flexibility. Some cities will experiment

with light rail transport, a successor to the old-time

streetcars.

4. Airplane travel will tend to dominate long

distance passenger travel and become relatively

cheaper due to larger size of aircraft and other

efficiencies.

Implications: The implications of these trends on

recreation areas include:

1. More close-to-home recreation use will occur.

2. There will be shifts to alternative modes of

transportation because of the difficulty of long-distance

travel in small cars.

3. While the fate of the car is important to public

use of recreation areas, cars are not the only means

of transport to these areas. Passenger trains, ships,

luxury buses will fill certain recreation niches. Bus

tours to parks are expected to grow as long as the

private car is reserved for other uses, e.g., going to

work. Other modes of travel are also expected to

287
gain increased public favor, such as rental cars,

trains, and numerous combination arrangements,

e.g., train-bus-canoe trips to the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area in Minnesota.

4. The substitution of other forms of transportation

for the private car could become one of the most

significant socioeconomic translations in the recent

history of State and Federal recreation areas.

KEY RECREATION ISSUES

In considering these trends and the data that

emerge from the surveys, one important factor could

be how these might relate to short-run recreation

issues. Staff representing the President’s Commission

on Americans Outdoors travelled to several locations

throughout the nation to ascertain important issues

that should be considered. At the end of the process,

the information was presented to a ‘capstone’ group

for review and discussion. The results of the field

planning sessions and the votes assigned from all of

the sessions follow.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

ISSUE

Protection of resources and open

space.

Conflicting uses of recreation lands

and waters.

Roles of providers.

Liability.

Physical access to open space.

Funding operations, maintenance,

capital improvements,

Alternative funding sources.

Benefiis of recreation.

Acquisition of open space.

Land use planning.

Social access to open space.

Partnerships.

Data base needs.

TOTAL

VOTES

131

130

110

88

83

84

69

67

67

54

52

50

48

The rank order of issues varied widely among

the eight sessions, reflecting, among other things,

the differences between large urban areas and smaller

cities, and the lack or presence of extensive Federally

managed lands.

A somewhat different set of rankings came from

the Capstone session. The field sessions drew upon

individuals within a given State or region, but the

Capstone group was drawn from a national base,

thus providing a different perspective.

The Capstone group was asked to 1) review the

top ranked issues from the field sessions, 2) add

any elements they thought were lacking, and 3) rank

the new list in order of importance. The rankings,

comparative rankings from the field sessions (in

parentheses), and number of votes for each issue

from the Capstone panel follow.

1.

2.

3.

4.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

ISSUE

Protection of resources and open

space. (1)

Conflicting uses of recreation lands,

waters. (2)

Funding operations, maintenance,

capital improvements. (6)

Access (physical and social). (new)

Benefits of recreation. (8)

Acquisition of open space. (9)

Liability. (4)

Alternative funding sources. (7)

Public education. (new)

Partnerships. (12)

Physical access to open space. 5)

Land use planning. (10)

Social access to open space. (11)

Urban-rural imbalance. (new)

Understanding user needs. (new)

Data base needs. (13)

Unstructured recreation. (new)

VOTES

19

16

15

14

13

13

12

12

12

10

7

7

6

6

6

5

3

288
Some principal differences in the rankings of the

Capstone panel in comparison with the aggregate

rankings from the field panels were an increased

importance placed upon the need for funding and a

lessened sense of concern with liability problems.

The discussion and analysis of access as a single

issue also differed considerably from the way in

which earlier panels had clearly separated physical

barriers to access from sociological and economic

constraints.

If votes for all three of the versions of access

listed in the Capstone session (physical, social, and

combined) were added, access would have ranked

as’the top issue. Moreover, if this combined approach

were taken with all of the votes cast throughout the

process, access would be the top ranking issue

nationwide with 164 votes, edging out protection of

resources and open space with 150 votes.

There is no explicit statement about technological

change and the effects this might have on demands

for recreation. This might be subsumed under the

heading of conflicts or possibly under the heading of

understanding user needs. Similarly, the demographic

changes identified must also be broadly assumed to

fit under the user needs or rural-urban imbalance

category. A detailed examination of these relationships

for the future might include the study of a matrix of

issues and trends and an in-depth discussion of

each cell.

REFERENCES

Blackburn, McKinley L.; Bloom, David E. 1985. What

is happening to the middle class? American

Demographics, January:1 9.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1982. 1980-81 consumer

expenditure survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Cetron, Marvin. 1985. When will America excel in the

year 2000? Interview for U.S. News & World Report.

September 23, 1985.

Cetron, Marvin; O’Toole, Thomas. 1982. Encounters

with the future: forecast of life into the 21 st century.

New York: McGraw Hill.

Collesano, Stephen. 1984. Forces for change to the

social environment. Comments from 1984 symposium. The Soap and Detergent Association.

Flanagan, J. Michael. 1983. Demographic forecasts.

American Demographics. August:EiO;

September:50.

Hornback, Kenneth H. 1985. Social trends and leisure

behavior. Paper presented at the 1985 national

outdoor recreation trends symposium: February

24-27, 1985; Myrtle Beach, SC.

John Naisbitt’s Trend Letter. The Naisbitt Group,

1101 30th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20007.

Mangun, William. 1987. Trends in wildlife-associated

recreation 1980-1985. 49th midwest fish & wildlife

meetings; December. Madison, WI.

Market Opinion Research. 1986. Participation in

outdoor recreation among American adults and

the motivations which drive participation. Report

for the President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors. May.

Shaber, Sandra. 1984. Is the middle class shrinking?

Consumer markets long term outlook. Bala Cynwyd,

PA: Chase Econometrics.

Sivy, Michael. 1985. What we don’t know. Presented

at approaching tomorrow today: a home care

symposium sponsored by Johnson Wax; October

23, 1985; Chicago, IL.

Sternleib, George; Hughes, James W. 1984. The

housing locomotive and the demographics, March.

pp. 22-27.

United Way of America. 1985. What lies ahead-a

mid-decade view. An environmental scan report.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

1982. Survey of fishing, hunting and wildlifeassociated recreation, 1980. Tape technical

documentation. Prepared by the Data User Services

Division, Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC.

506 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. 1956. 1955 national survey of fishing,

hunting and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. 1982. 1980 national survey of fishing,

hunting and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 156 pp.

U.S. News and World Report, 1986. March 3.

U.S. Travel Data Center. 1899

Washington, D.C. 20036.

L. Street N.W.,

289
INTERNATIONAL TOURISM ON PUBLIC

LANDS IN THE UNITED STATES

Kathleen L. Andereck, Muzaffer Uysal, Lawrence A. Hartmann,

and Marsha A. Lyomasal

Abstract-Public lands in the United States are major

tourist attractions. Wilderness areas and natural beauty

constitute an important part of the tourist industry.

However, when considering recreation on public

lands, the importance of international visitors has

genera//y been overlooked. It must be recognized

that public lands in the United States are a significant

generator of international tourism. This paper is

intended to present a profile of foreign visitors to

public lands in the United States using the Public

Area Recreation Visitor Survey (PANS). The paper

then discusses some critical issues determining

visitation level to public lands and offers broadly

defined long-term goals for increasing and encouraging international tourism on public lands in the United

States.

INTRODUCTION

The United States was not considered a tourist

destination until the early 1960’s, but rather a source

of tourists to other countries. From 1965 to 1975,

tourist flow into the United States increased rapidly

from 7.8 million visits to 15.7 million, a 7.2 percent

annual growth rate. It then increased to 19.8 million

visits in 1978, an 8.0 percent annual growth rate

(International Tourism Quarterly 1980). The growth in

international tourism from overseas visitors is even

more dramatic. Between 1960 and 1981, overseas

visitors to the United States increased 1,200 percent,

from 0.602 million to 8.069 million (Stronge 1983).

‘PH.D. Candidate, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism

Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC; Associate Professor, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management,

Clemson University, Clemson, SC; Outdoor Recreation Planner,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, GA; Formerly of International

Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

290

Although the amount of Americans’ foreign travel still

outnumbers international visitors to the United States,

in the past few years the gap has narrowed significantly.

The United States is able to accommodate many

more tourists than it currently attracts owing to the

vast size of the country. The balance of in-tourist

flow and out-tourist flow has economic implications,

The United States ranks first among all other countries

in international travel receipts and second in international travel expenditures (World Tourism Overview

1984). However, the United States still runs a deficit

on international tourism services, although the deficit

has been decreasing since 1972.

Travel exports are thought to account for approximately 5 percent of total U.S. tourism industry earnings

(Liile 1980). Travel exports are also responsible for

creating jobs. It is not possible to separate the jobs

generated by foreign visits from those generated by

domestic tourism, but ft is estimated that over 5

percent of direct tourism jobs are solely attributed to

international visitors, and tourism ranks among the

top 3 employers in 40 States.

The expected decline of the U.S. dollar is likely

to encourage more visitors to the United States. It

has been found that exchange rates may have a

significant effect on the extent of international travel

(Gray 1966). The price of foreign currency is likely to

influence visitors. Thus, if the price of foreign currency

declines, visitors are likely to demand more services,

other things being equal. For example, if the price of

a vacation in the United States remained constant in

the past two years in terms of US. dollars, but the

price of the U.S. dollar declines significantly relative

to the German mark in the second year, it would be

expected that Germans would purchase more

tourism/travel services from the United States in the

second year.
International travel has become a major export

industry in the U.S. balance of payments. International

tourism services are the third largest export industry

in the United States (Liile 1980). In 1986, Americans

and international visitors spent more than $270 billion

on trips, of 100 miles or more from home, in the

United States. Total international visitors to the United

States were estimated to reach the 23.1 million mark,

with total earnings of $16.9 billion in 1987 (Wynegar

1986). Tourism is bound to grow as an industry not

only in the United States but throughout the world.

INTERNATIONAL TOURISM AND PUBLIC

LANDS

Public lands in the United States are major tourist

attractions. Watterson (1963) points out that wilderness areas and natural beauty constitute an important

part of the tourist industry. A fundamental characteristic of tourism is that it involves people seeking a new

experience to get away from the daily routine. This

implies a ‘unique’ environment, often a natural area

under government protection and management

(Knopp 1980).

When considering recreation on public lands,

the importance of international visitors has generally

been overlooked. It must be recognized that public

lands in the United States are a significant generator

of international tourism. Although it is difficult to

quantify the amount of tourism volume accounted for

by visits to public lands, it is known to be substantial

(Manning 1980). For example, in 1978 it was estimated

that nearly 10 percent of the visitors to Yellowstone

National Park were foreign travelers (Little 1980). The

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission

(1963) indicated that one of the most important

reasons for international travel to the United States

is national park visitation. Many of our national parks

are primary destinations for international visitors

(Manning 1980).

Tourism on public lands has economic implications. International tourism on public lands results in

a transfer of wealth when money earned in one country

is spent in another. This also affects international

trade and the balance of payments in individual

countries (Manning 1980).

Few studies have focused on international visitors

to public lands. For example, in June 1986, a 5year

agreement was signed between Canada and the

United States that allowed Tourism Canada and the

U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration to undertake

jointly funded travel market research in overseas

countries. The survey instrument included questions

regarding national parks and wilderness areas in

North America. [For a preliminary analysis of the

study, please see Smith 1988; O’Leary and Uysal

1988.1

This paper is intended to present a profile of

foreign visitors to public lands in the United States

using the Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey

(PARVS). The paper then discusses some critical

issues determining visitation level to public lands

and offers broadly defined long-term goals for

increasing and encouraging international tourism on

public lands in the United States.

METHODS

Data were collected via the Public Area Recreation

Visitor Survey (PARVS) conducted in 198586. The

survey involved on-site interviews with visitors completing visits to Federal and State areas. The analysis

presented below considers foreign visitors as those

indicating that they were not from the United States.

Some cautions are needed in interpretation of

these data, as PARVS was not designed specifically

for this purpose. First, PARVS was conducted only

on a representative national sample of lands administered by 4 Federal agencies and a representative

sample of State recreation areas in 11 States. No

local or regional public recreation areas were included

in the sample. Other than New Mexico, no western

State park lands were included in the survey. Second,

for logistic reasons, no attempt was made to interview

visitors on bus tours. These tours could have been

an important component of foreign visitation to these

areas. Third, if the PARVS interviewer could not speak

the language of a nonEnglish speaking foreign visitor,

no interview was conducted. Except for a few cases,

respondents could speak English. Finally, although

the PARVS data set is quite large with over 36,000

visitor contacts, only 352 foreign visitors were

interviewed.

Due to the relatively small sample size and the

aggregate representation of international visitor data

generated from PARVS, no attempt was made to

use statistical tests. These existing limitations necessitated the use of descriptive analysis, and only the

most broad generalizations were made from the

findings.

293
RESULTS

Origin of foreign visitors

Table 1 describes the distribution of international

visitors to U.S. public recreation areas. Not surprisingly, the largest population originates in Canada

(43.8 percent). This is a reflection of the fact that

Canada is adjacent to the United States. Also, it is

likely that many Canadians drive their own cars rather

than take a tour bus. The small percentage of visitors

from Japan is surprising. Many Japanese visitors

may have been omitted from the sample because of

their tendency to take bus tours in the United States.

A comparison of the PAWS data with data from

the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration’s ‘In-flight

Survey’ (IFS) provides insights into the representativeness of the sample (table 1). The IFS looked at visitors

to National Parks only, while PAWS included many

other agencies, but the IFS still may provide insights.

The IFS did not include visitors from Canada and

Mexico, so the percentage of foreign visitors from

PAWS is also presented excluding Canadian and

Mexican visitors. Table I presents a comparison of

the two data sources, which differ considerably. This

may indicate that PAWS overrepresents visitors

from western Europe and underrepresents most

other countries, particularly Japan. Alternatively, it

may indicate that western European visitors are

more likely to visit public recreation areas other than

National Parks than are other foreign visitors.

Figures 1 and 2 indicate the regions of the U.S.

foreign visitors from various countries visited. In

general, a higher percentage of international tourists

from most countries visited the Rocky Mountain/Great

Plains region than any other region of the United

States. There are two exceptions to this trend. Visitors

from the U.K. are relatively evenly distributed throughout the United States. Also, a higher percentage of

visitors from Australia visited the Southeastern United

States than any other region.

Visitor Profile

Table 2 provides information regarding the

sociodemographic characteristics of international

visitors to public lands in the United States.

Group types-Foreign visitor social group type

patterns are similar to those of US. visitors. The

most common type of group was families (70.9

percent). This was followed by friends traveling

together (18.1 percent), solo recreationists (8.0

percent), and organized groups (2.2 percent). Group

types of international visitors do not differ considerably

from group types of U.S. visitors. Some differences

are found in the percent of visitors traveling with

family (61.3 percent for U.S.) and solo recreationists

(10.7 percent for U.S.). Also, no foreign visitors

reported a group type of family and friends.

Income.--Over 70 percent of the international

visitors had incomes of over $20,000. This is similar

to income patterns among U.S. visitors, It has been

Table l.--Distribution of origins of foreign visitors

Country of origin

PARVS

(Sample size) PARVS IFS PARVS'

Canada

United Kingdom

Other Europe

Australia and Oceania

Mexico

Japan

Other Far East

Central and South America

Middle East

Africa

Other

154

57

103

13

7

2

6

5

1

4

_ _ - - Percent - - - -

43.8 -- --

16.2 14.6 29.8

29.3 3;.“6 53.9

3.7 1.8 2.0 _I __

0.6 1.7 14.1 9 .7 ::‘:

1.4 2.5 2.6

0.3 2.5 0.5

0.3 2.6 0.5

0.9 3.4 1.6

1

PARVS data without Canada and Mexico.

Note: IFS refers to In-flight Survey conducted by CIC Research. Inc. for

USTTA. U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey Report. October-December 19 85.

292
65

6 0

45

40

36

30

26

20

15

10

6

n

% Vlsltlng Region

Canada Other Europe Unl ted Klngdom Other

m Mtn./Plains m Southeast m Northeas t Pacific Coast

SOURCE: Full PAWS data set, 1985-1986

Figure 1. -Origin of foreign visitors by RPA region visited.

% Vlsltlng Region

55 1

Mtn./Plains Southeast Northeast Paclflc Coast

m Canada m Other Europe m U.K. Other

SOURCE: Full PAWS data set, 19821986

Figure 2. -Region visited by foreign visitors by visitor origin.

293
Table 2.--Visitor profile on international tourism on public lands in the U.S. PARVS

Visitor profile

Foreign I Fore i gn

sample

I'

sample

SiZt? Foreign U.S. 1 Visitor profile size Foreign U.S.

Social group types:

Family

Group of friends

Single individual

Family, and friends

Organized group

Gender:

Male

Female

Education:

17 years or more

16 years ( colle ge )

13 to 15 years

12th grad e

9 th to 11th grad e

8th grade or le s s

Age:

Less than 25 yrs old

25 to 39 years old

40 to 59 years old

60 + years

Race:

White

Hispaqic origin

Other

220 70.9

5a la . 1

25 a . 0

_ _ _ _

7 2.2

61.3

la . 0

10.7

a . 0

1.9

19 1 64.1 48.8

107 35.9 51.2

9 2 31.3 11.5

a9 30.2 17.4

48 16.3 23.2

42 14.2 29 .7

14 4 . 7 13.9

10 3,4 4 . 4

60 20.3 28.1

110 37.3 44.2

9 2 31.2 19 .3

27 9 . 2 a . 5

274 9 0.4 87.9

10 3 . 3 3.9

25 6 . 3 a . 2

Percent

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Employment status:

Employed full time

Student

Self-employed

Retired

Homemaker

Other3

158 52.3 43.4

36 11.9 13.8

29 9 . 6 6 . 7

28 9 . 3 10.6

23 7 . 6 9 . 0

28 9 . 3 1.0

Income

Less th an $5,000

$5.000

$10,000 - $15,000

$15,000 - $20,000

$20,000 - $25.000

$25,000 - $30.000

$30.000 - $35,000

$35,000 - $50,000

$50,000 or more

14 5.1 4 . 4

14 5.1 5.4

la 6 . 5 9 . 2

32 11.6 10.1

28 10.1 12.4

28 10.1 11.5

27 9 .8 11.5

67 24.2 21.1

48 17.4 14.4

Usual occupation:

Professional, technical

or kindred workers 132

Student 31

Manager or

administrator 25

Craft and kindred 21

Homemaker 21

Armed forces 10

Servi

c

e workers 4

Other 37

Percent

46.2 30.3

10.8 13.5

a . 7 9 . 4

7 . 3 5.8

7 . 3 9 .8

3 . 5 1.4

3.1 4 . 0

12.6 21.4

1

Percentage of U.S. respondents to PARVS.

2

Other includes Asian or Pacific Islanders, American Indian or Alaskan Native

and Black, not Hispanic origin categories.

3

Other includes "not employed" and "employed part-time" categories.

4

Other includes clerical, sales, unemployed, laborer, except farm, operative and kindred workers, and

transport workers.

294
demonstrated in previous studies that visitors to

public lands tend to be in higher socioeconomic

status categories, and this is the case for both

international and U.S. visitors in the PAWS study.

Occupation and employment status-The

majority of international visitors to the U.S. public

lands are professional, technical, or kindred workers

(46.2 percent). Many are also students (10.8 percent).

Very few of the visitors are farmers (1 .O percent),

operatives (1 .O percent), or transport equipment

operatives (0.7 percent). A smaller percentage of

U.S. visitors are professional, technical, or kindred

workers (30.3 percent) or military personnel (1.4

percent). More U.S. visitors fall into the other category

(21.4 percent). Differences among other categories

are relatively small.

More than half of the foreign respondents (52.3

percent) to the questionnaire were employed full

time, although very few were part-time employees. A

fairly large number again reported being students

(11.9 percent). The only major difference between

U.S. visitors and international visitors is the percent

employed full-time with fewer U.S. visitors falling into

this category (43.3 percent). More U.S. visitors fall

into the other category (12.6 percent).

Education-In general, as educational level of

foreign visitors to the United States decreased, the

frequency of visits decreased. Over 60 percent of

the visitors were college graduates or above. Very

few people without a high school diploma or their

country’s equivalent visited U.S. public lands. There

are substantial differences in education levels between

foreign and U.S. visitors. High school graduates

constitute the highest percentage of US. visitors to

public lands (29.7 percent).

Race - By far the majority of international visitors

to U.S. public lands were white. Other races are very

much underrepresented, particularly blacks who

were not represented in the sample of foreign visitors.

The race distribution of U.S. workers was very similar

to international visitors.

Gender and age- Over 60 percent of the

international visitors were male. Interviewed visitors’

ages ranged from 12 to 81 years old. The age group

of 25 to 39 had the highest frequency of visitors

(37.3 percent), and nearly three quarters of all

international visitors to U.S. public lands were between

25 and 59 years old. U.S. visitors were fairly evenly

distributed between male and female with 48.8 percent

and 51.2 percent, respectively. They also tended to

be younger with a higher percentage less than 40

years old (72.3 percent).

Trip Profile of international Visitors

Recreational activities of international visltorsRespondents to the PARVS questionnaire were asked

to choose their reasons for visiting the site where

they were interviewed from a list provided. Foreign

respondents top five reported reasons for visiting

public recreation areas were: repeat visit (34.4

percent), scenic beauty (25.3 percent), to see an

object or attraction (19.9 percent), other areas too

crowded (19.3 percent), and convenient location

(16.2 percent). Very few visitors were at a site to try

a new area (3.7 percent) (Table 3). US. visitors’

main reasons for visiting a recreation area differed

considerably from foreign visitors reasons. The highest

were: repeat visit (65.5 percent), convenient location

(65.8 percent), other areas crowded (57.9 percent),

and good facilities (49.2 percent). (Table 3)

Numerous activities were reported as being the

main recreational activity influencing the visit to a

site. The most common main activity reported by

international visitors was sightseeing (35.1 percent).

Many, however, reported that they had no main

activity (29.5 percent). Visitors were also asked

which activities they participated in. Over 70 percent

of the respondents indicated that they participated in

sightseeing, the most popular activity of foreign

visitors. U.S. visitors differed from foreign visitors on

both of these variables. (Table 3)

STUDY CONCLUSIONS

Although the data presented in this paper are

limited in scope, and conclusions that can be made

at this time are only of the most general nature,

some potentially valuable interpretations of the results

are still possible. Because of the nature of the study,

visitors from western Europe may be overrepresented

and visitors from other countries underrepresented.

It appears that most visitors are from Canada and

western Europe. Many Japanese visitors likely visit

public lands as well, although they appear to be

underrepresented in the PAWS data. The findings

on international visitation to U.S. public lands may

be helpful to park managers attempting to determine

the backgrounds of visitors seeking recreation

experiences on public lands.

The socioeconomic characteristics of international

visitors tend to resemble characteristics of U.S. visitors.

They tend to be white, well educated and of high

socioeconomic status. Most visitors are traveling with

family and visiting US. public lands for sightseeing.

295
Table 3. --Trip profile of international tourism on public lands in the U.S.

PARVS

Trip profile

Foreign

sample size Foreign u.s.l

Reasons for visiting an area:

Repeat visit

Scenic beauty

To see object or attraction

Other areas too crowded

s Convenient location

Good facilities

Group2trip

Other

Main activities of visitors:

Sightseeing

No main activity

Developed camping

Walking

Canoeing

Outdoor swimming

Primitive camping

Pleasure driving

Natur study/photography

Other7

Level of sight participation:4

Sightseeing

Walking for pleasure

Pleasure driving

Picnicking

Developed camping

Day hiking

Nature study/photography

Primitive camping

Backpacking

Canoeing

Outdosr swimming

Other

lo3

75

59

58

48

27

18

26

100

84

27

14

10

10

6

z

19

247

171

139

102

101

65

62

34

18

14

::

- - - Percent - - -

34.4

25.3

19 .9

19 .3

16.2

9 .1

E

35.1

29 .5

z:;

;:;

2.1

1.8

1.8

10.4

70.2

48.6

39 .5

29 .0

28.7

18.5

17.6

9 .7

5.1

3.9

2.8

12.9

65.6

24.4

lg.8

z;*:

49 :i

18.1

27.7

17.6

16.9

11.8

2.3

2.0

6.3

2.2

;:;

3.5

43.5

30.8

26.7

28.0

14.2

17.6

20.1

__

23.7

_ _

1

Represents percentage of U.S. respondents to PARVS.

2

Other includes "personal reasons" and "to try new area" categories.

'Other includes hunting, day hiking, picnicking, backpacking, sailing,

motorboating, fishing, and horseback riding.

4Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

5 Other includes sailing, motorboating, water skiing, horseback

off-road driving, and cold water fishing.

riding,

296
Although insufficient sample size prohibited analysis

of the economic information available in PARVS, it is

logical to assume that these visitors could provide a

positive influence to local economies and have little

detrimental environmental effect.

From a marketing point of view, an effective

response would require better knowledge of the

visitor and his/her travel behavior and characteristics.

Knowing the characteristics of the existing international tourism market for public lands is important.

Emphasis can focus on identifiable specific target

markets. For recreational activities of international

visitors, the general findings of PARVS suggest that

the most popular activities are sightseeing, scenic

beauty, and attractions. Such findings may be useful

in developing specific vacation packages, advertisements, and travel brochures that emphasize scenic

beauty and sightseeing on public lands in the United

States.

DISCUSSION

In the broadest terms, tourism may include day

visitors as well as visitors staying at destinations. It

may include leisure and recreation travel, business

travel, and holiday travel. Working with this broad

definition of tourism, it is important to realize that

tourism, focusing on activities at destinations, whether

it be on public or private lands, is a very complex

phenomenon. Existing and established policies for

influencing visitors and their use patterns affect the

activities that take place on public lands. On the

market side, producers of transport, accommodation,

catering and entertainment services are involved

with travel marketing intermediaries such as tour

operators and travel agents. On the supply side,

activities at destinations are the concern of local and

State authorities, the providers of infrastructure, and

of supporting services such as water, electricity,

campgrounds, etc. The quality and availability of

resources are a critical element in the activities which

take place. The actual tourism-related activities which

take place on public lands seem to be the resolution

of a network of forces, each one of which exerts

some influence over supply and demand. The range

of such forces is very wide indeed.

Although there has been substantial effort and

cooperation between the National Park Service and

the tourism industry at the national and local level

(see for example: June 1987, issue of ‘Courier’ by

NPS) as a part of public lands in the United States,

little has been done to carefully assess the extent

and nature of international tourism on public lands in

general. Due to the lack of documented international

tourism data on public lands, the necessary measures

to understand and influence use patterns of international tourism has not been well established in the

United States.

Baker (1987) points out that as tourist interest

and demand in publicly managed lands increase,

the need of land-managing agencies to understand

the extent and nature of use patterns becomes more

acute. There is enough evidence to suggest that

demand for outdoor recreation, as pan of the inbound

tourism/travel industry on publicly owned areas, is

likely to increase in the coming years. The U.S. Travel

and Tourism Administration projected a 12 percent

growth of inbound travel in 1987 and a 2 percent

rise in 1988. Tourism is bound to grow as an industry

not only in the United States but throughout the

world.

There appear to be at least three important

interpretations stemming from the expected expansion

of international tourism. First, in the next decade or

so, real income per person throughout the world is

likely to be much higher than it is today (Edgel 1985).

As a result, a large amount of discretionary income

will be available for activities such as pleasure travel.

Second, as it grows in size, tourism is likely to become

more sensitive to the policies of governments.

Ingredients such as control of visas, passports, and

foreign exchange have the ability to inhibit tourism.

Alternatively, elimination of these ingredients will

facilitate the flow of international tourism. Third, the

economic impact of tourism is likely to be greater

than it is today. International tourism is likely to become

a more important part of the world economy resulting

in: (1) a larger proportion of jobs, and (2) a greater

impact on balance of payments.

The ability to capture a substantial proportion of

the expected expansion in tourism and increase the

level of international visitors to public lands will depend

upon the recognition and establishment of several

long-term goals.

1. Benefits sought by international visitors should

be identified and evaluated in a systematic way. The

key to retaining and increasing visitation is to ensure

that the last visit has been satisfactory. Thus,

international tourism development on public lands

must strive to provide the highest level of visitor

experience and satisfaction on the demand side.

2. International tourism on public lands must be

based on the protection and wise use of an area’s

basic natural and cultural resources, Tourism should

encourage the preservation of unique natural and

historical environments; over-use and abuse of these

resources can destroy the very foundation of tourism.

297
3. There is clear evidence that tourists can be

influenced by information, The availability of recreation

facilities and activities on public lands must be

promoted through special events, interpretive programs, maps and special clubs in order to increase

and influence the level of international visitation, By

the same token, international tour operators should

be provided with interpretive information and

brochures about public recreation areas in the United

States.

4. Cooperation between publicly-managed lands

and the tourism industry at all levels should be

expanded and encouraged.

At this time, insufficient information is available to

make specific recommendations concerning improved

management, legislation or policy, other than to

recommend, encourage, and facilitate use of public

recreation areas by foreign visitors. However, this is

an area ripe with research opportunities (and obstacles). Even with over 36,000 contacts with visitors

nationwide in the Public Area Recreation Visitor

Survey, approximately 1 percent of the completed

interviews were with foreign visitors. Clearly, this

indicates that a different method of contacting foreign

visitors is needed if further conclusions are to be

made. If additional investigations in this area are to

be made, the authors recommend development of

methods which would contact bus or other tours,

and that steps be taken to overcome any language

difficulties. The portion of the PARVS instrument

which is conducted as a mailed questionnaire proved

unworkable for foreign visitors, although considerable

effort was made to solicit responses from these

individuals.

REFERENCES

Baker, P. 1967. Tourism and the National parks: an

overview. Courier. June:45

Courier. 1987. U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service. Washington, D.C. June, 1987.

Edgel, D. 1985. International Trade in Tourism. U.S.

Department of Commerce, USlTA, Washington,

DC.

Gray, H.P. 1966. The demand for international travel

by the United States and Canada. International

Economic Review. 7(1):83-92.

Knopp, Timothy B. 1980. Tourism, the local interests

and the function of public lands. pp. 225-237. In:

Hawkins, Donald E.; Shafer, Elwood L.; Rovelstad,

James M., eds. Tourism planning and development

issues. Washington, DC: George Washington

University. 476 pp.

Liile, Jane Sneddon. 1980. International travel in the

U.S. balance of payments. New England Economic

Review. May/June: 42-54.

Manning, Robert E. 1980. International aspects of

national park systems: focus on tourism. pp.

179-l 92. In: Hawkins, Donald E.; Shafer, Elwood

L.; Rove&ad, James M., eds. Tourism planning

and development issues. Washington, DC: George

Washington University. 476 pp.

O’Leary, J.; Uysal, M. 1988. Beyond tradition: examining potential international visitors to Canadian and

U.S. National Parks. Paper presented at the 19th

TTRA conference, Montreal, Quebec. June 1988.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

1963. A look abroad: the effect of foreign travel on

domestic outdoor recreation and a brief survey of

outdoor recreation in six countries. ORRRC study

report 18. Washington DC: Outdoor Recreation

Resources Review Commission.

Smith, L.J. Stephen. 1988. A special analysis of the

French and Japanese long haul pleasure travel

market date sets. Paper presented at the 19th

TTRA conference, Montreal, Quebec. June 1988.

Stronge, William. 1983. The overseas demand for

tourism in the U.S. The Review of Regional Studies.

21(3):40-53.

Watterson, Gerald G., camp. 1963. Conservation of

nature and natural resources in modern African

states. Morges, Switzerland: International Union

for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 367 pp.

World Tourism Overview: the annual review of the

travel industry worldwide. 1984. American Express,

New York, NY.

Wynegar, D. 1986. Forecasts for inbound travel to

the USA in 1986 and 1987. pp. 5-l 8. Travel and

Tourism Analyst.

International Tourism Quarterly. 1980. International

tourism in the United States.

298
Section 6.

Wilderness Resources and Their Recreational Uses

299

DEFINING WILDERNESS AS A RESOURCE:

A FOUNDATION IN THE WILDERNESS ACTS AND OTHER

LEGISLATION

Paul D. Weingartl

Abstract - Through examination of wilderness legislation over the last 27 years, it is apparent that wilderness

should be considered a resource and should be

treated as such in management of the National Forests.

There have been differences of opinion on the

wilderness resource issue by agency managers,

members of interest groups, and members of the

general public. Recommended approaches for

resolving this issue include education and training

for both managers and the public.

INTRODUCTION

Since passage of the Wilderness Act on September 3, 1964, there have been various interpretations

of wilderness by managers, members of interest

groups, and members of the general public. These

interpretations have ranged from wilderness as an

activity, a place, and an experience, to wilderness as

a resource.

Some felt that since wilderness was not included

on the Forest Service multiple use shield along with

the resources of Timber, Range, Wildlife, Water, and

Recreation it was not part of multiple use and was

not a resource. Some also felt that wilderness had

no economic value and therefore could not be

considered along with the other resources that were

considered of economic value.

It is important to proper allocation and management of wilderness and other resources that wilderness be recognized as having equal value with the

other resources, so in future allocations and management decisions wilderness can be viewed with equal

stature and objectivity. Otherwise, wilderness will be

‘Director of Recreation, Southwestern Region, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM.

treated as a stepchild and not be given its rightful

place as an equal in the spectrum of resources that

make up our public lands.

This paper reviews and analyzes laws, definitions

and interpretations to make the case that wilderness

is indeed a resource and should be recognized as

such.

DEFINING WILDERNESS AS A RESOURCE

A starting point for defining the wilderness

resource is arriving at an acceptable definition of the

term resource. In Websters’ dictionary, several

definitions are listed.

1. Something, that can be turned to for support

or help.

2. An available supply that can be drawn upon

when needed.

3. Available capital, assets.

4. The collective wealth of a country, or its means

of producing wealth.

5. Money, or any property which can be converted

into money: assets. (emphasis added)

In the past I feel we have interpreted ‘resource”

from its monetary orientation and quite often we still

do. I think it is more important to think in terms of

economic value rather than monetary or financial

value. As some researchers have pointed out, all

scarce resources that provide benefits to mankind

have an economic value to society, while those

economic resources that happen to be traded in the

workplace also have a financial value to their owners.

I would propose that wilderness has economic value

and definitely is an asset as ‘resource’ is defined in

the dictionary.

301
Congress has given us firm direction and that

direction tells us wilderness is a Resource! Following

is a look at some of the legislation and the connection

that can be made between ‘Wilderness’ and ‘Resource:

In Agriculture Handbook #453, The Principal

Laws Relating to Forest Service Activities, under

the major heading of ‘Occupancy and Use’, there

are subheadings of General, Timber, Grazing, Water

Resources, Wildlife, and Occupancy Permits. Under

the major heading of ‘Renewable Resources” are

subheadings of Water, Fish I Wildlife Conservation,

and Wilderness and Recreation. The editors apparently thought of Wilderness as a resource.

In the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of June

12,1960, it states ‘In the administration of the National

Forests due consideration shall be given to the relative

values of the various resources in particular areas.

The establishment and maintenance of areas of

wilderness are consistent with the purposes and

provisions of this Act (16 USC. 529): This, of course,

was prior to the Wilderness Act of 1984.

One of the issues that has cast aspersions on

the credibility of wilderness as a resource is ‘it is not

multiple use’. But, the next paragraph in the Multiple

Use Sustained Yield Act says (a.) Multiple Use means

the management of all the various renewable surface

resources of the national forests so that they are

utilized in the combination that will best meet the

needs of the American people: making the most

judicious use of the land for some or all of these

resources or related services over areas large enough

to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments

in use to conform to changing needs and conditions:

that some land will be used for less than all of the

resources and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other,

without impairment of the productivity of the land,

with consideration being given to the relative values

of the various resources, and not necessarily the

combination of uses that will give the greatest

dollar return or the greatest unit output.’ Wilderness

fits well into that definition. Wiihin the Wilderness

Resource itself, quality water is provided as well as

wildlife.

In the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, it

states in Section 2 under ‘Purpose’, ‘it is hereby

declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure

for the American people of present and future

generations the benefiis of an enduring resource of

wilderness.’

In the Code of Federal Regulations pertaining

to the wilderness Act, 36 CFR Ch. 11 under 293.2

“Objectives’, it states “National Forest Wilderness

resources shall be managed to promote, perpetuate,

and, where necessary, restore the wilderness character of the land and its specific values of solitude,

physical and mental challenge, scientific study,

inspiration, and primitive recreation.’ In 293.15 of the

CFR *Gathering Other Than Minerals’, it states ‘such

permits may provide for the protection of National

Forest resources, including wilderness values.’

Within the Act of January 3, 1975, which added

considerable wilderness acreage in the East, there is

another reference to Wilderness as a resource. In

Section 2 (b), it states “, . . in order to preserve such

areas as an enduring resource of wilderness which

shall be managed to promote and perpetuate the

wilderness character of the land and its specific

values of solitude, physical and mental challenge,

scientific study, inspiration, and primitive recreation .

. . * etc.

In the National Forest Management Act of 1976,

there is reference to wilderness as a resource. In

Section 6 (e) (1) under “National Forest System

Resource Planning”, it states ‘, . . provide for multiple

use and sustained yield of the products and services

obtained therefrom in accordance with the Multiple

Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and in particular,

include coordination of outdoor recreation, range,

timber, watershed, wildlife and fish and wilderness.’

Under (A) in the same act it says ‘insure consideration

of the economic and environmental aspects of various

systems of renewable resource management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection

of forest resources, to provide for outdoor recreation

(including wilderness), range, timber, watershed,

wildlife & fish.” In the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act December 2, 1980, all references

were back to the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 892).

In October 1983, the First National Wilderness

Management Workshop was conducted at the

University of Idaho. There were almost 400 participants

representing managers, educators, organizational

leaders, legislators and many others who had a

strong interest or stake in Wilderness. The focus was

on Wilderness Management or “taking care of what

we have.” The workshops relevance to the issue of

Wilderness as a resource is great. Craig Rupp, at

the time Regional Forester of the Rocky Mountain

Region, presented a paper on Wilderness As a

Special Resource. Someone asked if the Forest

Service had enough individuals who have been

properly trained to manage wilderness as a national

302
resource. Chief Max Peterson replied in part by saying

the agency will continue to strive to upgrade the

wilderness resource in balance with all our resource

management tasks.

The major product of the workshop was the

development of a 5year action program put together

by a steering committee of 11 people representing

agency managers, academia, and wilderness advocate and conservation organizations. Out of 23

recommended actions, the steering committee chose

5 as the most important. Of these five, four specifically

spoke of the wilderness resource in such statements

as: ‘respect for the resource’, “be sure wilderness

education material defines the wilderness resource

and its values’, ‘focusing on the value of the wilderness

resource’, ‘establish a basic course on wilderness

as a resource’, ‘approaches to resource rehabilitation’

and the ‘perpetuation of the wilderness resource.’

Obviously, the concept of wilderness as a resource

has a good track record if past direction is evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Dick Costley was Director of Recreation for the

Forest Service when the Wilderness Act was passed,

and he had the responsibility for seeing that the

legislation was converted to Forest Service direction.

He put together a task force of detailers who worked

hard at that job. Bill Worf, one of those detailers,

pointed out to Dick, that in part of the Act that spoke

to an enduring resource of wilderness, it was clear

that Congress had identified Wilderness as a distinct

and unique resource of land. Dick agreed. Those

students of the Act understood what congress was

saying.

Why is it then that we still have some resistance

in acceptance of Wilderness as a resource, both

within managing agencies and with some of the

special interest groups? I think that part of it is

professional pride being tweaked at having Congress

tell us how to manage our land. I know that is the

case with some National Park personnel as well as

Forest Service and other agency managers. Many

managers feel manipulation for the best good, be it

trees, grass, minerals, recreationists, etc., is our

responsibility as professional managers. Many of us

are uncomfortable with the sociopolitical aspects of

our management job. Amenity resources are harder

to deal with! One of our past Chiefs of the Forest

Service said, in reflecting on the Wilderness Act,

“somewhere along the line the Wilderness folks began

pushing to have it recognized that Wilderness is not

a use but a resource.’ He felt it was inconsistent to

advocate this.

Many of the interest groups want maximum access

and flexibility in their use of public lands. They feel

that wilderness constrains some of those uses.

Resisting the recognition of Wilderness as a

resource and a valuable multiple use stands in the

way of effective communication and getting on with

business. An objective determination of what resources are going to be managed and recognition

of the tradeoffs must be made. Meaningful public

involvement must be an automatic and instinctive

way of doing business. Concentration on a positive

program to provide opportunities and outputs people

want and need must be pursued. Of course, these

need to be within the capability of the land.

Managers and leaders in wilderness management

need to take a proactive approach in the recognition

of wilderness as a resource. It needs to receive strong

direction from Agency top line managers and strong

on-the-ground commitment. There will be more

credibility with people outside the agencies when

management are encouraged to accept wilderness

as a resource, along with the other resources agencies

responsible for managing.

One of the best tools for focusing on this job is

the publication Wilderness Management -A FiveYear Action Program, referred to earlier. It focuses

on the recommendations previously made and states

the support of the four agencies having wilderness

management responsibilities, as well as the support

of organizations dedicated to wilderness management.

It is time to put in the past terminology and

opinions that tend to divide and cause dissension. It

is time to get on with the job ahead. That job is to

positively and professionally manage the resources

entrusted to management agencies by the people of

the United States. One of those resources is Wilderness!

303
103 WILDERNESS LAWS:

MILESTONES AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION

1964-87

James A. Browning, John C. Hendee, and Joe Roggenbuckl

Abstract-from 7964 through 1987, 103 wilderness

laws were passed, and the National Wilderness

Preservation System grew from 54 wildernesses and

9.7 million acres to about 89 million acres in 44 stares.

Congress has been conservative in altering the

management direction set forth in the Wilderness Act

of 1964. With some exceptions (and special management guidelines in certain wilderness laws), Congress

has usual/y affirmed the management direction of the

Wilderness Act of 1964, but has added some inrerprerarion, clarification, and additional direction. More

wilderness legislation is anticipated to establish new

wilderness: 1) in Alaska -in national parks, national

wildlife refuges, and in national forests; 2) in the 48

contiguous Stares -in national parks, on remaining

national forest roadless areas, and on wilderness

study areas on public lands managed by the Bureau

of Land Management. Up to 30 million acres of

additions to the wilderness system are anticipated,

with possibilities existing for classification of up to

twice that acreage. Wilderness allocations will continue

to be a major influence on /and use for many years.

INTRODUCTION

The first wilderness bill was introduced in

Congress by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey in 1956.

Sixty-four additional wilderness bills were subsequently introduced and considered by Congress

prior to the passage of the Wilderness Act, which

was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson

in 1964. The Wilderness Act established the National

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), defined

wilderness and its basic management direction, and

‘Graduate student, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID; Professor and

Dean, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University

of Idaho, Moscow, ID; Associate Professor, Forestry, Virginia

Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

304

outlined procedures for adding areas to the wilderness

system. During the 24 years from 1964 through 1987,

102 additional wilderness laws were passed by

Congress and approved by the President. Through

this legislation, Congress has classified nearly 89

million acres of wilderness. The wilderness classification legislation has generally reaffirmed the management guidelines in the Wilderness Act of 1964, but

has included some interpretation, clarification, and

additional direction.

WILDERNESS LEGISLATION TODAY:

TRENDS AND TOTALS

Wilderness legislation includes 103 laws from

1964 through 1987. Some laws serve multiple

purposes by classifying new wildernesses, adding to

and/or deleting from lands in existing wildernesses,

providing for wilderness study, or adjusting wilderness

boundaries within the same law. Seventy-one laws

classify new wildernesses and 29 laws add lands to

existing wildernesses, with 22 classification laws also

providing for wilderness study. Nineteen laws provide

only for wilderness study, five make minor deletions

in existing wildernesses, and two laws only change

the names of wildernesses. Through this legislation,

the National Wilderness Preservation System has

grown from the 54 areas and 9.1 million acres

established by the Wilderness Act, to 467 wildernesses

totaling approximately 89 million acres in 44 states

(fig. 1).

Among the 103 wilderness laws, 36 designate a

single new wilderness, while 35 are omnibus lawslegislation that establishes more than one new

wilderness. Fifty-seven laws supplement wilderness

management direction beyond the guidelines and

provisions in the Wilderness Act. Twenty-eight laws

are State Acts, so-called because they focus primarily

on one State and contain RARE II sufficiency/release

language for the national forest lands within that

State.
Growth of National Wilderness Preservation System 1964-1987

z go-

; 80-

$ 70-

Z

; 60-

u

5 50 -

$ 40-

$j 30-

W

g 20 -

:

-i’Or- -

z 01’I ’ I ’ I ’ 1 ’ I ’ I ’ I ’ I ’ f ’ f ’ 1 ’

6 4 6 6 6 8 7 0 7 2 7 4 7 6 7 8 8 0 8 2 8 4 8 6

YEAR

Figure 1. -Wilderness acreage per year.

Forty-two laws designate wilderness in the West

(west of the 100th meridian), while 35 laws designate

wilderness in the East. Only four laws designate

wilderness in Alaska, but they classify more wilderness

acreage than exists in the remaining 49 states

combined.

The 88th Congress (1963-l 964) passed only one

wilderness law, the Wilderness Act. The 89th Congress

(1965-l 966) passed no wilderness legislation, but all

subsequent Congresses passed at least five laws to

establish wildernesses or to provide for wilderness

study (fig. 2). The 92nd Congress (1971-l 972) passed

17 wilderness laws, with several of these laws

providing only for wilderness study in new additions

to the national park system. The 98th Congress

(1983-1984) was the most active, passing 23 laws

and establishing 179 wildernesses (fig. 3) with 18 of

the laws being State Acts containing new RARE II

sufficiency/release language on which Congress had

reached agreement (Gorte 1987). The First Session

of the 100th Congress passed two wilderness

classification laws in 1987 and, at the time of this

publication, the Second Session is considering several

25 Total 103 Laws 1964-1987

t

W

I 20

b

: 15

N

! 1 0

k

w 5

s

17

9

7 7

5

6

1

C-I- 0

additional bills for 1988.

23

7

-IA

2

.

88th 89th 90th 91st 92nd 93rd 94th 95th 96th 97th 98th 99th 100th

CONGRESS *First session only (1987)

Figure 2. -Number of wilderness laws passed per Congress.

305
Total 467 Wilderness Areas

179

1

W

80 -

60 -

4 0 -

20 -

00 -

w

60

4 0

20

L54

0 5

0

8 8 th 8 9 th 9 0 th

35

1

Qls t 92nd 93rd 94th 9 5 th 9 6 th 9 7 th 9 8 th 9 9 th

CONGRESS *Fi rs t sess ion only (1 9 87 )

Figure 3. -Number of wilderness areas classified per Congress.

(I) ‘0

69

3

f

8

z 7

;6

W

a: 5

2

2

4

Y3

g 2

-I

r ’

Million Acres

60. 7

4

0

68th 89th 90th 91st 92nd 93rd 94th 95th 96th 97th 98th 99thlOOth‘

CONGRESS l Firs t sess ion only (19 87)

ii_

100th l

Twelve of the 13 Congresses from 1964 through

1987 have added land to the original 9.1 million

acres classified in the Wilderness Act, but only one

added more acreage than the 88th Congress (fig. 4).

The 96th Congress (1979-l 980) classified approximately 60.7 million acres as wilderness, of which the

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

Total 89

(ANILCA) made up almost 56.3 million acres. The

98th Congress also classified about 8.6 million acres

as wilderness.

Thus, wilderness has been a topic consistently

dealt with by Congress for more than 30 years, since

the first wilderness legislation was introduced in

1956.

Figure 4. -Wilderness acreage classified per Congress.

306
MILESTONES IN WILDERNESS

LEGISLATION

Six wilderness laws have set standards for

wilderness classification and management and have

interpreted the wilderness concept. These laws are

milestones in wilderness legislation.

The Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577) of 1964 defined

wilderness for the purposes of establishing and

managing the National Wilderness Preservation

System, classified 9.1 million acres of national forest

lands as wilderness, and directed wilderness study

of national forest primitive areas and roadless areas

within the national park and national wildlife refuge

systems. A key element of the Act was that the

agencies’ future wilderness study and review include

public involvement in the form of public notices and

hearings. This was a relatively new requirement at

the time and began the process of widespread public

involvement in wilderness allocation decisions that

intensified during the Forest Service’s roadless area

reviews and continues today in the forest planning

process (Hendee 1976; Hendee and others 1980).

Additionally, the law specified that only Congress

had the authority to classify future wildernesses in

the NWPS.

The Wilderness Act provided management

direction by prohibiting certain uses and allowing

others, Prohibited were permanent and temporary

roads, most commercial enterprises, motorized

equipment and mechanical transport, landing of

aircraft (where no established use existed prior to

designation), and structures and installations-with

exceptions for necessary administrative purposes

and to protect pre-existing private rights.

Special provisions allowed for mining on valid

claims and mineral development on leases established

before December 31, 1983, with mineral prospecting

and surveys permitted to provide information on

mineral resources; water development projects with

Presidential approval; livestock grazing; fire, disease,

and insect control; and aircraft landings and motorboat

use where established. Also allowed were certain

commercial uses deemed compatible with the

wilderness concept, such as outfitting and guiding.

So-called “Eastern Wilderness Act”

The so-called ‘Eastern Wilderness Act” (P.L.

93-622) in 1975 added 16 wildernesses in the East,

where only four national forest wildernesses previously

existed. The Act also designated 17 wilderness study

areas to be managed to preserve their wilderness

qualities until Congress had sufficient time and

opportunity to classify the areas as wilderness. While

debating proposed wilderness bills, Congress addressed the issue of whether lands in the East should

be managed in a ‘wild areas system” under different

standards from the National Wilderness Preservation

System (Hendee and others 1978). The argument for

a separate system was based mostly on the premise

that roadless areas in the East had been severely

modified by previous human use and consequently

did not qualify for wilderness designation under the

criteria of the Wilderness Act. This argument failed,

and Congress eventually determined that designated

roadless areas in the East should be included and

managed as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (S.Rep. 93-803). Thus, it is correct to

refer to such designated areas as “wilderness in the

East,” and not as “Eastern wilderness.’ The legislation

is referred to as the so-called “Eastern Wilderness

Act” because it does not have a formal title and does

not establish a separate Eastern system.

This Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture

to use condemnation to acquire private lands in the

17 wildernesses designated by the ‘Eastern Wilderness Act.’ Condemnation authority had not been

provided in the Wilderness Act, but wilderness

designated in the so-called ‘Eastern Wilderness Act”

contained many private inholdings. Congress believed

that condemnation authority would help ensure that

private owners used these lands in a manner

compatible with the wilderness concept and would

provide a means of acquisition if they did not.

The Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

1976, or FLPMA (P.L. 94-579), provided for wilderness

study and classification of lands managed by the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a provision not

included in the Wilderness Act. This law addressed

many aspects of the management of these public

lands and directed that roadless areas with wilderness

characteristics be inventoried within 15 years to

determine their suitability for wilderness classification.

Suitable areas could be recommended to Congress

for wilderness designation under the provisions of

the Wilderness Act of 1964. The BLM thus joined the

307
Forest Service, National Park Service, and Fish and

Wildlife Service as a partner in wilderness management.

The BLM’s wilderness study areas were to be

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics,

but existing uses such as mining, mineral leasing,

and grazing were permitted to continue subject to

regulations set by the Secretary of the Interior. Once

classified as wilderness, the management provisions

of the Wilderness Act pertaining to national forest

wildernesses would generally apply.

The Endangered American Wilderness

A c t

The Endangered American Wilderness Act (P.L.

95-237) was passed in 1978, partly in response to

perceived shortcomings of RARE (‘roadless area

review and evaluation’) I. This was the Forest Service’s

first comprehensive ‘post-Wilderness Act’ review and

evaluation of remaining national forest roadless areas

to identify those areas suitable for possible wilderness

study or classification. The Endangered Wilderness

Act added 16 areas to the NWPS, primarily including

areas either excluded from the RARE I inventory of

roadless lands or not recommended for wilderness

study or classification after their review-thus the

name “endangered wilderness.’ The Forest Service’s

“purity” requirement for wilderness classification,

including its ‘sights and sounds doctrine’ that

wilderness should be out of sight and sound of

civilization, came under intense Congressional

scrutiny during committee hearings. The ‘sights and

sounds doctrine’ was deemed contrary to Congress’s

desire to establish wildernesses near large cities

(HRep. 95540). Much of the Congressional debate

focused on RARE I’s criteria for recommending only

274 wilderness study areas totaling about 12 million

acres from the 56 million acres inventoried in 1449

roadless areas.

By passing the Endangered Wilderness Act,

Congress further established that areas previously

influenced by man should not be precluded from

consideration for wilderness classification, nor should

roadless areas near major cities, as they could provide

much-needed primitive recreation for the nearby

population, In such areas, boundaries were even

drawn to provide adequate trailheads and facilities

for the large number of wilderness visitors that were

anticipated (H.Rep. 95540). Congressional committees addressed the interpretation of the Wilderness

Act concerning certain uses, activities and management, and endorsed the Forest Service’s plan to

conduct RARE II, a second comprehensive roadless

area review and evaluation (Weaver and Cutler 1977).

Generally, these Congressional committees supported

a less stringent view of classification and management

criteria than were being applied by the Forest Service

at the time.

The Alaska National Interest. Lands

Conservation Act

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation

Act, or ANILCA (P.L. 96-487) was passed in 1980

after many years of debate, and provided management

direction for the large tracts of Federal land in Alaska.

ANILCA was the first Act to pass both houses of

Congress that contained RARE II sufficiency/release

language (Gone 1987). The law declared that

Congress had performed its own evaluation of RARE

II roadless areas in Alaska and had decided to

designate some lands as wilderness, to release some

lands to nonwilderness multiple uses, and to hold

other areas for wilderness study or further planning.

The law added over 56 million acres to the NWPS,

most of it in units of the national park system and

national wildlife refuge system. Millions of additional

acres were authorized for further wilderness study

within the national parks and wildlife refuges and the

Chugach National Forest, while special guidelines

were included for wilderness recommendations about

public lands in Alaska managed by the BLM.

Congressional committee hearings closely examined the unique natural environments in Alaska,

exemplified by the State’s vast size and predominately

undeveloped condition (H.Rep. 96-97, Part 1).

Subsequently, Congress provided in ANILCA special

provisions for wildernesses in Alaska to allow certain

motorized use and access, along with maintaining

existing wilderness cabins and establishing new

cabins where administratively authorized. Provisions

for subsistence uses of natural resources applicable

to other wildlands in Alaska were also included for

wilderness, and the Act provided for establishment

and maintenance of structures for aquaculture

purposes and temporary construction and use of

facilities for hunting and fishing, and modification of

existing timber sales contracts that applied to certain

newly designated national forest wildernesses.

The “Colorado Wilderness Act”

The ‘Colorado Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 96-560),

passed in 1980, was important because Congress

referred to House Committee Report 96-617 for explicit

management direction for livestock grazing. This

management direction had far-reaching effects, since

the committee report required that livestock grazing

308
in all national forest wildernesses should be managed

according to the report’s management provisions

that were offered as interpretation of the Wilderness

Act grazing provisions (Wilkinson and Anderson

1987). The law also prohibited the establishment of

buffer zones around wildernesses; directed a review

of fire, disease, and insect control measures and

policies in Colorado’s wildernesses; and included

RARE II sufficiency/release language for roadless

areas in Colorado. The “Colorado Wilderness Act,”

by including reference to the accompanying committee report on management direction, thus brought a

degree of closure to Congressional debate over

wilderness management policy and its application

that had begun with consideration of the Endangered

Wilderness Act several years earlier.

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION AND SPECIAL

PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS

LEGISLATION

In the Wilderness Act, Congress provided a

foundation from which management direction could

be shaped, recognizing that wilderness requires

management to protect its wilderness characteristics

and values. As the National Wilderness Preservation

System evolved, Congress generally has refused to

amend management provisions in the Wilderness

Act of 1964, except for a minor amendment made in

the “Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) Wilderness

Act” (P.L. 95-495) of 1978 to provide for new management direction in the area (Bloedel 1987). Mostly,

Congress has clarified management direction or

made special provisions for particular areas through

legislation and committee reports. For example, the

‘Colorado Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 96-560) further defined

grazing management through a House committee

report, but the Act and accompanying committee

report expressly stated that the provisions did not

amend the Wilderness Act.

During the past 23 years, a large body of

wilderness management information has been

developed. Agencies have developed regulations,

management policies and plans, and numerous

agency training workshops and conferences have

been held. There have been many research studies

of resource conditions, wilderness use, and effects

of management. A textbook has been written on

wilderness management; national conferences on

wilderness research and management have been

held, and a national wilderness management plan

has been developed. One challenge of wilderness

management has been to understand and interpret

Congressional direction in the Wilderness Act and

subsequent wilderness classification laws, and to

devise and implement principles and policies that

adhere to perceived legislative direction. This has

often been difficult and ineffective.

While Congress has been very conservative in

changing the management direction of the Wilderness

Act, Congressional leaders and Congressional reports

have more frequently addressed management

concerns. In 1977, Senator Frank Church of Idaho

stressed that managing agencies use a ‘rule of reason’

to interpret Congress’s intent in the Wilderness Act

and “do only what is necessary’ to manage wildernesses to protect wilderness characteristics and still

provide for ‘human use and enjoyment’ (Church

1977). One House of Representatives report further

suggests that a strict or “pure” interpretation of the

Wilderness Act of 1964 is inappropriate for allocating

or managing wildernesses, due to individual differences among wildernesses (HR. 96-97, Part 1).

Moreover, one Congressional leader expressed the

view that if management conflicts between Congress

and the managing agencies become too great in the

future, Congress may provide more explicit management guidelines and directives in wilderness legislation

(McClure 1985). These pronouncements of Congressional leaders and Congressional committee reports,

although lacking the force of law, may influence

agency policy.

Management Direction

Management direction as defined in this monograph includes those provisions in wilderness laws

that affirm or modify the management direction of

the Wilderness Act for application to a specific

wilderness or group of wildernesses in the case of

omnibus laws. Following is a review of wilderness

management direction included in legislation subsequent to the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Mining

Mining in wilderness is an extremely complex

legal issue and a topic in numerous legal books and

articles (Coggins and Wilkinson 1987; Loop 1986;

Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). Following is a general

overview of mining provisions in wilderness classification laws, but readers must beware that other laws

and agency authority and regulations complicate the

issue.

Issues of mining and mineral leasing are most

often addressed in national forest and BLM wildernesses since national parks and wildlife refuges were

normally withdrawn from such activities when estab309
lished. Mineral exploration on national forest lands is

even more complex in the East, where subsurface

rights are mostly privately owned and the Forest

Service must estimate the impacts of exploration and

potential mining in classified wildernesses as individual

cases arise (SRep. 98-614). The U.S. Government

Accounting Office reports that in future wilderness

legislation, Congress may need to consider the

acquisition of private mineral rights in existing

wildernesses in the East or permit mining in these

areas (U.S. Government Accounting Office 1984).

Also, the Forest Service may need to evaluate and

inform Congress of the extent and acquisition costs

of private mineral rights of potential wildernesses in

the East..

The Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577) permitted mineral

prospecting and surveys to occur in national forest

wildernesses, ‘compatible” and ‘consistent’ with

protection of the wilderness resource, to provide

information on the mineral resources in such areas.

Mining and mineral leasing on national forest wildernesses could occur until December 31, 1983, but

mining on valid claims and mineral development on

leases established before that date could also

continue or begin at a future date (Gorte 1988b;

Hendee and others 1978). Mining on valid claims

and mineral development on leases existing at the

time of wilderness designation may also occur on

those wildernesses established after the 1983 deadline

(Gorte 1988a).

Any mining activities in national forest wildernesses today are subject to certain requirements and

regulations set by the Secretary of Agriculture to

define a valid claim and to protect wilderness

characteristics (Loop 1986; Matthews and others

1985; The Wilderness Society 1984; Wilkinson and

Anderson 1987). FLPMA (P.L. 94-579) directed that

mining be administered in BLM wildernesses in

generally the same manner as in national forest

wildernesses. Congress typically excludes from

wilderness classification those national forest and

BLM areas with high mineral potential, but exceptions

have been made in some wilderness laws, as the

following examples indicate. These exceptions and

special provisions allowed wilderness designation of

the area to proceed despite mineral potential or

activity.

The ‘Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA)

Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 95-495) established the BWCA

Mining Protection Area that prohibited mining of

federally owned minerals in the wilderness and on

adjacent nonwilderness lands. This Act also set certain

restrictions on mining of nonfederally owned minerals

within the Mining Protection Area. The Central Idaho

Wilderness Act of 1980 (P.L. 96312) established a

“special mining management zone” in the Frank

Church-River of No Return Wilderness to allow for

cobalt exploration and mining. In establishing that

wilderness, Congress elected to try to minimize the

adverse environmental effects of mining while also

protecting criiical bighorn sheep habitat, rather than

excluding the land in question from the wilderness.

Coal deposits were a major concern in the

Cranberry Wilderness of West Virginia, and provisions

were made to acquire all nonfederally owned mineral

interests and to permit exploration activities and

drilling in the wilderness to determine the value of

nonfederally owned minerals, subject to guidelines

set by the Secretary of Agriculture (P.L. 97-466).

Congress also provided special provisions for phosphate leasing and mining in the Florida Wilderness

Act of 1984 (P.L. 98430) with procedural steps for

Presidential and Congressional approval of the need

to mine phosphate. A Senate committee report for

the Florida Wilderness Act expressed hope that future

restoration technology would be better able to reduce

environmental deterioration caused by phosphate

mining (SRep. 98-580). In the Texas Wilderness Act

of 1984 (P.L. 98-574) Congress classified the Indian

Mounds Wilderness, despite active oil and gas drilling,

thus leaving the Forest Service to mitigate the damage

to wilderness characteristics caused by such activities

(Evans 1986).

Motorized Use

Congress has not tampered with the Wilderness

Act provisions allowing private and State government

inholders to maintain their existing access rights and

permitting minimal motorized use for necessary

administrative purposes. But wilderness allocation

laws and accompanying committee reports have

provided specific qualifications and instances where

the use of aircraft (planes and helicopters), motorboats, snowmobiles, and other types of motor vehicles

will be allowed. For example, motorboat use is

specifically allowed for recreational purposes by the

“Okefenokee Swamp Act’ (P.L. 93-429; H.Rep. 93-872),

for private access in one wilderness by the Florida

Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-430) and for both purposes

by the “BWCA Wilderness Act” (P.L. 95-495); the

“BWCA Wilderness Act’ also permits snowmobile use

for grooming ski trails near resorts and for access to

two remote locations in Canada; and landing of

aircraft where previously established is affirmed by

specific wording in the Central Idaho Wilderness Act

(P.L. 96-312). Helicopter use is permitted to service

vault toilets in certain wildernesses by the Endangered

Wilderness Act (P.L. 95-237) and the Utah Wilderness

Act (P.L. 98-428), and other forms of motorized use

310
are mentioned in the Arizona Wilderness Act (P.L.

98-406) California Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-425) Utah

Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-428), and the Wyoming

Wilderness Act (P.L. 98550). ANILCA (P.L. 96487)

provided for a wide array of motorized use, including

snowmobiles, motorboats, and aircraft.

Committee reports have also addressed Congressional intent and interpretation of motorized use

associated with recreational access (HRep. 93-872)

fish and wildlife management (HRep. 96-97, Part 1;

H.Rep. 94-1562), watershed protection and flood

control projects (HRep. 98-1019, Part 1; S.Rep.

98-581) and grazing activities (H.Rep. 96-617).

Grazing

Livestock grazing and other wilderness management policies in national forest wildernesses were

reviewed by Congressional committees in the 95th

(1978-79) and 96th (1980-81) Congresses. The result

was House Committee Report 96-617, which accompanied the ‘Colorado Wilderness Act” (P.L. 96-560)

and provided interpretation and clarification of grazing

provisions in the Wilderness Act. The ‘Colorado

Wilderness Act’ directed that grazing management

in Colorado wildernesses be guided by this report,

which stressed its interpretation that the Wilderness

Act provided for continuation of existing grazing use,

the maintenance and construction of supporting

facilities, including ‘fences, line cabins, water wells

and lines, and stock tanks,’ and temporary use of

motorized equipment to repair facilities and for

emergency purposes. As mentioned earlier, these

provisions were mandated by the committee report

to apply to grazing activities in all national forest

wildernesses.

Several subsequent laws, including the Arizona

Wilderness Act (P.L. 98406) Utah Wilderness Act

(P.L. 98428) Wyoming Wilderness Act (P.L 98-550)

Nebraska Wilderness Act (P.L. 99-504) and ‘El Malpais

Wilderness Act” (P.L. 100-225) in New Mexico, also

indirectly refer to the guidelines in House Report

96-617. The ‘El Malpais Wilderness Act’ grazing

provisions are somewhat significant because they

apply to a BLM wilderness, and not a national forest

wilderness. Additionally, several of these laws provide

for administrative review of existing grazing policies

to ensure that they are consistent with that report.

The ‘New Mexico Wilderness Act” (P.L. 96-550)

addressed grazing directly in authorizing additional

fencing as provided in the grazing allotment management plan for livestock in the Cruces Basin Wilderness.

Buffer Zones

In 1980, a Congressional committee examined

the issue of buffer zones around national forest

wildernesses (H.Rep. 96-l 126) and pointed out that

Congress takes great care in determining and

establishing wilderness boundaries with the intent

that only lands within the boundaries be managed

as wilderness, Similarly, a Senate committee report

(S.Rep. 98-465) stressed that nonwilderness activities

should not be restricted or prevented in areas adjacent

to wildernesses simply because such activities can

be seen or heard from within the wildernesses. Such

restrictions applied by the Forest Service were formerly

referred to unofficially as the ‘sights and sounds

doctrine,’ part of the agency’s ‘pure criieria’ for

wilderness to ensure high standards for designation

and management. The “New Mexico Wilderness Act’

(P.L. 96-550) in 1980 was the first law to prohibit

buffer zones, and subsequent laws contain similar

provisions, including the ‘Colorado Wilderness Act’

(P.L. 96-560) Oregon Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-328)

Washington Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-339) Arizona

Wilderness Act (P.L. 98406) Utah Wilderness Act

(P.L. 98-428) Arkansas Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-508),

Wyoming Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-550) Pennsylvania

Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-585) Virginia Wilderness Act

(P.L. 98-586) and Michigan Wilderness Act (P.L.

100-184).

Fish and Wildlife

Fish and wildlife protection has long been

associated with wilderness classification, and the

presence of fish and wildlife is considered an integral

part of wilderness for hunting, fishing and other

recreational purposes. Fish and wildlife professionals

often argue against wilderness designation, as it is

perceived to preclude the use of many modern wildlife

management techniques. Many committee reports

stress the importance of preserving fish and wildlife

in individual wildernesses.

One House of Representatives committee report

(H.Rep. 98-40) addressed the need to balance

management activities with the protection of wilderness characteristics. This report stresses that management agencies have authority to maintain water supply

facilities, restore natural vegetation, utilize prescribed

burning, enhance and restore fish populations, and

use motorized equipment to fulfill fish and wildlife

management objectives. Congress reaffirmed such

intent in ANILCA (P.L. 96-487) and provided for

fisheries research and enhancement, and motorized

use and access for subsistence hunting and fishing

purposes. The Central Idaho Wilderness Act permitted

311
access to manage bighorn sheep along mining roads

authorized in the ‘special mining management zone”

in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness.

The Wyoming Wilderness Act (P.L. 98550) permitted

occasional motorized use to manage bighorn sheep

in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness, and the Endangered

Wilderness Act (P.L. 95-237) authorized a fish and

game research program to help protect these

resources in the Gospel-Hump Wilderness and

surrounding nonwilderness lands.

Fire, Insect, and Disease Control

Fire, insect, and disease control measures are

specifically permitted by the Wilderness Act, but

concern has been expressed about limitations that

might be placed on control measures in wilderness.

One House committee report (HRep. 95540) stressed

that control measures include “the use of mechanized

equipment, the building of fire roads, fire towers, fire

breaks or other pre-suppression techniques where

necessary, and other techniques for fire control.’

Wilderness legislation also affirms that such protective

measures can be applied in wilderness. The Endangered Wilderness Act (P.L. 95-237) stipulated that

fire control measures should be properly utilized to

protect watersheds in two California wildernesses.

The “Colorado Wilderness Act” (P.L. 96-560) directed

administrative review of current policies for fire,

disease, and insect control in Colorado wildernesses

to ensure that these policies were consistent with

Congressional intent and were adequate for protection

of adjacent nonwilderness lands.

Facilities and Structures

In several wilderness allocation laws, Congress

permitted facilities and structures for different purposes, In 1969, two existing dams were included in the

Desolation Wilderness established in California (P.L.

91-82). A Congressional committee previously debated whether the use and management of these dams

would severely degrade the wilderness or detract

from its surroundings (SRep. 91-97). Two reservoirs

were also included in the Indian Peaks Wilderness in

Colorado in 1978 (H.Rep. 95-l 460). The use of sanitary

facilities, such as vault toilets, was specifically provided

for in the Endangered Wilderness Act (P.L. 95-237)

and the Utah Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-428) to protect

watersheds in several wildernesses, The Central

Idaho Wilderness Act (P.L. 96-312) permitted construction of water supply facilities in certain areas. The

installation and use of ‘weather modification special

equipment,’ such as snow gauges, and water quality

and quantity measuring instruments was endorsed

in a House committee report as beneficial to furthering

the ‘scientific, educational, and conservation purposes* of wilderness, and to protecting watersheds and

“preserving the wilderness character’ in some cases

(H.Rep. 95540). The Vermont Wilderness Act (P.L.

98-322) permitted the maintenance of trails and

shelters along the Appalachian Trail and associated

trails. “Hydrologic, meteorological, and telecommunications facilities’ needed for flood warning and control

purposes were permitted in specified wildernesses in

the Arizona Wilderness Act (P.L. 98406) and Utah

Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-428).

ANILCA (P.L. 96487) permitted the construction

and maintenance of new and existing cabins in Alaska

wildernesses, temporary construction and use of

facilities for hunting and fishing, and also provided

for fish hatcheries and weirs to improve fisheries. As

mentioned earlier, the ‘New Mexico Wilderness Act”

(P.L. 96-550) permitted construction of additional

fencing for grazing purposes in the Cruces Basin

Wilderness.

Special Provisions

Special provisions have been included in wilderness laws to provide specific guidelines for allocation

and management based upon unique circumstances

of local or regional concern. Following is a discussion

of some of these special provisions.

Sufficiency/Release Language

Through sufficiency/release language in wilderness classification laws, Congress has assumed a

partial role in resolving the question of which remaining

national forest roadless areas are eligible for further

wilderness review and which lands are released for

other uses. Since its inception in 1980, Congress

has consistently applied sufficiency/release language

on a State-by-State basis. ANILCA (P.L. 96-487) was

the first law to contain sufficiency/release language,

but such language has since evolved and has been

applied in 27 subsequent laws.

Sufficiency language was constructed by

Congress in response to the California v. Block lawsuit

that invalidated the RARE II Final Environmental

Impact Statement information for California and

prevented development on those roadless lands

recommended for nonwilderness uses (Baldwin and

Gorte 1984; Gorte 1987). Sufficiency language states

Congress’s conclusion that the information in the

RARE II Environmental Impact Statement for a

particular State or section of a State is adequate for

Congress’s review, and that no further Statewide

roadless area reviews will be conducted by the Forest

312
Service in that State, nor will there be judicial review

of the decision releasing the national forest lands for

nonwilderness uses. In other words, roadless area

reviews have been ‘legally and factually sufficient,’

and lands not designated for wilderness, wilderness

study, or further planning are ‘released” for possible

nonwilderness use.

Release language has generally been debated

in two forms: “hard” and “soft: In its strictest form,

hard release language would permanently release

roadless lands not designated as wilderness, or for

wilderness study, from further wilderness consideration unless authorized by Congress (Baldwin and

Gorte 1,984). Hard release language might also require

nonwilderness multiple use of released lands, although such interpretation might be argued (Baldwin

and Gone 1984; Gorte 1987). Although “hard’ release

language has not yet been included in wilderness

legislation, various industry groups have advanced

permanent or ‘hard’ release in testimony on wilderness

bills.

Soft release language provides that the wilderness

option for RARE II nonwilderness roadless areas will

not be considered again by the Forest Service during

the development of the initial forest plans in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (P.L.

94-588) but may be considered during the revision

of these plans (Baldwin and Gorte 1984; S.Rep.

96-914). Before the initial plans are revised, the Forest

Service is permitted to manage lands not designated

as wilderness, wilderness study, or for further planning

for nonwilderness multiple use (Gorte 1987; S.Rep.

96-914). Also, released lands do not necessarily

have to be managed to protect their wilderness

characteristics. Under provisions in the National

Forest Management Act (P.L. 94-588) and Forest

Service regulations, roadless areas that remain when

the forest plans are revised at the end of each

subsequent lo-year planning period must then be

reconsidered for wilderness classification in the

planning process for the next forest plan (The

Wilderness Society 1984; S.Rep. 96-914).

From 1980 through 1983, soft release language

of this type has appeared in six wilderness laws,

including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487) “New Mexico Wilderness Act ”

(P.L. 96-550) ‘Colorado Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 96-560),

“Charles C. Deam Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 97-384) in

Indiana, “Paddy Creek Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 97-407)

in Missouri, and ‘West Virginia Wilderness Act” (P.L.

97-466).

In 1984, continued pressure from development

interests led to some alteration and clarification of

soft release language (Gorte 1987). The result was

*compromise’ release language stating that released

lands not designated as wilderness would be managed for nonwilderness multiple use in accordance

with the National Forest Management Act (P.L. 94-588)

but protection of a roadless area’s wilderness

characteristics would be allowed if this decision was

made in the planning process (Gorte 1987; S.Rep.

98-416). Thus, protection of these lands for potential

wilderness consideration was placed on the planning

process. Congressional committees also clarified the

circumstances under which forest plans could be

revised, which further clarified the timing of wilderness

reviews (Gorte 1987; SRep. 98-416; S.Rep. 98-463).

Since 1984, 22 wilderness laws have contained this

“compromise” version of soft release language.

Miscellaneous Special Provisions

These include a variety of provisions not falling

under other categories. For example, the ‘Sawtooth

Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 92-400) and the ‘Hells Canyon

Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 94-199) both established

wilderness within national recreation areas and

provided condemnation authority to acquire nonfederal lands, while also withdrawing the areas from further

mining, subject to valid existing claims. The Alpine

Lakes Area Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-357)

authorized a special study of the Enchantment Area

within the wilderness to determine the area’s best

management. A special study to consider including

Indian Peaks Wilderness into Rocky Mountain National

Park was authorized by the Indian Peaks Act (P.L.

95-450), and the ‘BWCA Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 95-495)

directed that airplane flyovers be controlled according

to the guidelines of an earlier Presidential directive.

The Virginia Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-586) called for a

combined State and Federal air quality study of

designated wilderness study areas. The ‘El Malpais

Wilderness Act’ (P.L. 100-225) reserved water rights

for the wildernesses designated by the Act with certain

special provisions.

WILDERNESS LEGISLATION: A VIEW OF

THE FUTURE

The frequency of wilderness classification legislation has declined since 1984, with only nine laws

being passed, but during this time wilderness

classification has been a highly visible issue in several

parts of the country. Despite the establishment of a

nearly 89-million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System, wilderness allocation legislation will

remain a land-use issue for many years, and several

major wilderness classification efforts are anticipated.

313
Alaska National Forest Roadless Areas and

Released Lands

The National Park Service is currently completing

wilderness review of 18 million acres in 13 national

parks in Alaska that were designated for wilderness

study by ANILCA (Beal and Rabinowitch 1987). In

these reviews, public comment about wilderness

designation has been solicited and meetings have

been held in more than 40 Alaskan communities.

Draft wilderness proposals are expected in 1988 and

will receive further public review before final wilderness

recommendations are made.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is also currently

reviewing ‘potential wilderness additions for national

wildlife refuges in Alaska in compliance with directives

provided in ANILCA. At least 55 million acres have

been reviewed in 16 refuges, and approximately 3

million acres in seven refuges are expected to be

recommended for wilderness classification.

Under ANILCA, a wilderness study area was

specifically designated in the Chugach National

Forest of south-central Alaska to be reviewed for

possible wilderness classification. This review has

been completed and led to a 1.7 million-acre wilderness recommendation (Wilhelm 1988).

National Park System Units in the 48

Contiguous States

Numerous national parks, including Yellowstone,

Olympic, North Cascades, Canyonlands, Big Bend,

Glacier, Great Smoky Mountains, and Rocky Mountain,

contain large roadless areas that have yet to be

classified by Congress as wilderness. Almost 8.8

million acres have been recommended to Congress

for wilderness classification from these national parks

and 13 other national park units in the 48 contiguous

states (Chidlaw 1988). About 6 million acres in 17

other national park units are also being studied for

their wilderness potential.

By tradition and law, these national park areas

are protected from allocation to alternative uses and

development activities such as timber harvesting,

mining, and livestock grazing. Thus, environmental

interests promoting wilderness classification have

focused on national forest and BLM areas. As

remaining national forest roadless areas are either

designated as wilderness or released from further

wilderness consideration and as the BLM wilderness

review is completed, a renewed effort to complete

wilderness designation in these national parks is

anticipated.

Conflict over wilderness proposals is intense in

Idaho and Montana. Wilderness debate over roadless

areas has the potential to continue for decades in

Idaho where national forest plans, as proposed,

would leave 85 percent of the State’s current 9.4

million acres of roadless lands intact at the end of

the current lo-year planning period, at which time

they may again be considered for wilderness (University of Idaho 1987). In Montana, where 3.4 million

acres, or 20 percent of the State’s national forest

land, have already been classified as wilderness,

current legislative proposals call for additions of 1.3

million acres (Gorte 1988c). While Idaho and Montana

are a current focus of wilderness legislation, other

western states also have areas where the wilderness

question remains.

Furthermore, Congress has passed 28 wilderness

classification laws that have included soft release

language, and about 21 million acres of national

forest roadless areas remain in 23 states (excluding

Alaska, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Michigan) (Gone

and Baldwin 1987). The reconsideration for wilderness

designation of at least some of these lands is certain

to be an issue in the future when release provisions

under current national forest plans expire.

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness

Study Areas

The Bureau of Land Management is completing

its wilderness review called for by the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94579)

and scheduled for completion in 1991. During their

inventory and review, the BLM identified 795 wilderness study areas totaling nearly 25 million acres

from the BLM roadless area inventory as containing

wilderness characteristics. Tentatively, the BLM is

considering recommending 10 million acres for

wilderness classification by Congress (Porter 1988).

After the BLM’s final recommendations are made,

Congress must still consider and classify selected

areas as wilderness.

CONCLUSION/PREDICTIONS

Wilderness legislation has been a major influence

on land-use planning for 23 years, during which time

six pieces of milestone legislation defining wilderness

and 97 other wilderness laws have been passed.

The result of all this legislation has been the establishment of 467 wildernesses in 44 states, creating a

314
vast 89-million-acre system. Congress has rarely

provided special management direction, and when

addressing management issues has generally affirmed

the direction in the Wilderness Act as providing for

resolution of most issues. An exception is the

‘Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) Wilderness

Act,” which contained a variety of explicit provisions

for coordinating management of the BWCA’s unique

wilderness features. Congressional reports accompanying wilderness laws have most often provided the

necessary clarification and interpretation of the

Wilderness Act.

The 89 million acres of wilderness already

classified would surprise the original authors of the

Wilderness Act, who anticipated a NWPS of only

40-50 million acres (Church 1977). Yet 30 million

acres or more of wilderness may be added to the

NWPS from the roadless areas in Alaska, national

parks in the 48 contiguous States, remaining national

forest roadless areas and those under soft release,

and the Bureau of Land Management wilderness

study areas.

For at least another decade, and perhaps for

two or three decades, it is likely that wilderness

legislation will continue to be a major natural resource

issue. We expect it will focus first on remaining national

forest roadless areas, national parks and wildlife

refuges in Alaska, then BLM wilderness study areas,

and finally the national park roadless areas in the 48

contiguous States. As national forest planning cycles

are completed in the next decade, another focus of

activity may evolve from the expiration of release

provisions for certain national forest roadless areas.

We expect a continuation of the trend in wilderness

laws toward omnibus legislation covering more than

one area in individual States, and the inclusion of

more language to affirm and clarify management

direction and address local concerns. Congress will

increasingly have to address smaller areas, those

previously modified to some degree, and areas with

strongly competing alternative uses. To resolve some

of the very difficult wilderness allocations and management issues in the future, a variety of special

provisions, exceptions and compromise provisions

are likely to be proposed for wilderness classification.

The evidence suggests that Congress will generally

hold the line on proposals for major exceptions and

unique provisions in wilderness laws.

REFERENCES

Baldwin, Pamela; Gorte, Ross W. 1984. National

forest wilderness bill release alternatives: a legal

analysis and policy issues. CRS Report No. 84-542

ENR. February 21, 1984. Washington, DC: U.S.

Library of Congress, Congressional Research

Service, 26 pp.

Beal, Lawrence E.; Rabinowitch, Sanford P. 1987.

Alaska: National Park Service wilderness review.

Prepared for 4th World Wilderness Congress,

September 14, 1987, Estes Park, CO. 14 pp.

Bloedel, Ed. 1987. Managing wilderness as a resource:

basic principles. Prepared for the 4th World

Wilderness Congress, September 14, 1987, Estes

Park, CO. 17 pp.

Chidlaw, Jeff. 1988. Personal communication:

telephone conversation with James A. Browning,

April 18, 1988.

Church, Frank. 1977. Wilderness in a balanced land

use framework. Wilderness resource distinguished

lectureship 1. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho

Wilderness Research Center. 18 pp.

Coggins, George C., Wilkinson, Charles F. 1987.

Federal public land and resources law. 2d ed.

Mineola, NY: The Foundation Press, Inc. 1066 pp.

Evans, Kent E. 1986. Indian mounds wilderness

area: perceived wilderness qualities and impacts

of oil and gas development. pp. 156-165. In:

Kulhavy, David L.; Connor, Richard, eds. Wilderness

and natural areas in the eastern United States: a

management challenge. Nacogdoches, TX:

Stephen F. Austin State University. 416 pp.

Frome, Michael, ed. 1985. Issues in wilderness

management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

252 pp.

Gorte, Ross W. 1987. History of release language in

wilderness legislation, 1979-l 984. CRS Report No.

87-559 ENR. Washington, DC: U.S. Library of

Congress, Congressional Research Service,

June 12,1987.26 pp.

Gorte, Ross W. 1988a. Personal communication:

letter dated April 5, 1988, from Mr. Gorte to James

A. Browning.

315
Gone, Ross W. 1988b. Wilderness: overview and

statistics. CRS Report No. 88-l 6 ENR. Washington,

DC: U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service, January 5, 1988. 23 pp.

Gone, Ross W. 1988c. Wilderness in Montana: impacts

on resource use. CRS Report No. 88-229 ENR.

Washington, DC: U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, March 18, 1988.

17 PP.

Gone, Ross W.; Baldwin, Pamela. 1987. Wilderness

release language history and effectiveness. Unpublished CRS Memorandum. Washington, DC: U.S.

Library of Congress, Congressional Research

Service, June 25, 1987. 6 pp.

Hendee, John C. 1976. Public involvement in the

United States Forest Service roadless area review:

lessons from a case study. pp. 84-103, Chapter 7.

In: Sewell, Derrick; Coppock, V.T., eds. Public

participation in planning. New York: John Wiley

and Sons.

Hendee, John C.; Smith, Zane G.; Lake, Robert M.

1980. Public involvement in resource decisions:

Rare I and II and their implications for the future.

Proceedings, multiple use symposium; September

1979; Clemson, South Carolina. 26 pp.

Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Robert

C. 1978. Wilderness management. Misc. Pub.

1365. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 381 pp.

Kulhavy, David L.; Conner, Richard eds. 1986.

Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern United

States: a management challenge. Nacogdoches,

TX: Stephen F. Austin University. 416 pp.

Loop, Donna J. 1986. Claiming the cabinets: the

right to mine in wilderness areas. The Public Land

Law Review 7:45-77.

Lotan, James E. [and others]. Tech. coords. 1985.

Symposium and workshop on wilderness fire:

Missoula, Montana; 1983 November 15-l 8; Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-182. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 434 pp.

Lucas, Robert C., camp. 1986. Proceedings, national

wilderness research conference: current research;

1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: US. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 553 pp.

Matthews, Olen P.; Haak, Amy; Toffenetti, Kathryn.

1985. Mining and wilderness: incompatible uses

or justifiable compromises? Environment

27(3):12-l 7, 30-36.

McClure, James. 1985. Congressional directives and

expectations. pp. 7-15. In: Frome, Michael, ed.

Issues in wilderness management. Proceedings,

national wilderness management workshop;

October 1983; Moscow, ID. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press. 252 pp.

Porter, David E. 1988. Personal communication:

telephone conversation with James A. Browning,

April 20, 1988.

University of Idaho. 1987. Report to the governor on

the Idaho timber supply study and forest plan

effects on timber supply. Moscow, ID: University

of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range

Sciences. 39 pp.

U.S. Government Accounting Office. 1984. Private

mineral rights complicate the management of

eastern wilderness areas. GAO/RCED-84-101. July

26, 1984. 26 pp.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1974. House Report

93-872. 93rd Congress, 2d Session. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office. 5 pp.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1976. House Report

94-l 562. 94th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office. 45 pp.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1977. House Report

95540. 95th Congress, 1st Session. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office. 31 pp.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1978. House Report

95-l 460. 95th Congress, 2d Session. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office. 13 pp.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1979. House Report

96-97, Part 1.96th Congress, 1 st Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 692 pp.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1979. House Report

96-617. 96th Congress, 1 st Session. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office. 14 pp.

316
US. House of Representatives. 1980. House Report

96-l 126. 96th Congress, 2d Session. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office. 27 pp.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1983. House Report

98-40. 98th Congress, 1st Session. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Cffice. 63 pp.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1984. House Report

98-1019, Part 1. 98th Congress, 2d Session.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 21

PP.

US. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 88-577. Wilderness Act of 1964. Act of September 3, 1964. 78

Stat. 890.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 91-82. Act of

October 10, 1969. 83 Stat. 131.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 92-400. Act of

August 22, 1972. 86 Stat. 612.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 93-429.

Act of October I, 1974. 88 Stat. 1179.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 93-622. Act of

January 3, 1975. 88 Stat. 2096.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 94-199. Act of

December 31, 1975. 89 Stat. 1117.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 94-357. Alpine

Lakes Area Management Act of 1976. Act of July

12, 1976. 90 Stat. 905.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 94-579. Federal

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Act of

October 21, 1976. 90 Stat. 2743.

US. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 94-588. National

Forest Management Act. Act of October 22, 1976.

90 Stat. 2949.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 95-237. Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978. Act of

February 24, 1978. 92 Stat. 40.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 95450. Indian

Peaks Wilderness Area, the Arapaho National

Recreation Area and the Oregon Islands Wilderness

Area Act. Act of October 11, 1978. 92 Stat. 1095.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 95495. Act of

October 21, 1978. 92 Stat. 1649.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 96312. Central

Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980. Act of July 23,

1980. 94 Stat. 948.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 96487. Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Act of

December 2, 1980. 94 Stat. 2371.

US. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 96-550. Act of

December 19, 1980. 94 Stat. 3221.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 96-560. Act of

December 22, 1980. 94 Stat. 3265.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.: Public Law 97-384. Act of

December 22, 1982. 96 Stat. 1942.

US. Laws, Statutes, etc.: Public Law 97407. Paddy

Creek Wilderness Act of 1981. Act of January 3,

1983. 96 Stat. 2033.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 97-466. Act of

January 13, 1983. 96 Stat. 2538.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98-322. Vermont

Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of June 19, 1984. 98

Stat. 253.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98-328. Oregon

Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of June 26, 1984. 98

Stat. 272.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98-339. Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of July 3,

1984. 98 Stat. 299.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.: Public Law 98406. Arizona

Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of August 28, 1984.

98 Stat. 1485.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98-425. California

Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of September 28,

1984. 98 Stat. 1619.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.: Public Law 98-428. Utah

Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of September 28,

1984. 98 Stat. 1657.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98-430. Florida

Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of September 28,

1984. 98 Stat. 1665.

317
U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98508. Arkansas

Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of October 19, 1984.

98 Stat. 2349.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98550. The

Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of October

30, 1984. 98 Stat. 2807.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98-574. Texas

Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of October 30, 1984.

98 Stat. 3051.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98-585. Pennsylvania Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of October 30,

1984.3 98 Stat. 3100.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 98-586. Virginia

Wilderness Act of 1984. Act of October 30, 1984.

98 Stat. 3105.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 99-504. Nebraska

Wilderness Act of 1985. Act of October 20, 1986.

100 Stat. 1802.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 100-184.

Michigan Wilderness Act of 1987. Act of December

8, 1987. 101 Stat. 1275.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 100-225. Act of

December 31. 1987. 101 Stat. 1539.

U.S. Senate. 1969. Senate Report 91-97. 91 st

Congress, 1st Session, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 5 pp.

U.S. Senate. 1975. Senate Report 93-803. 93d

Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 47 pp.

U.S. Senate. 1980. Senate Report 96-914. 96th

Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 64 pp.

U.S. Senate. 1984. Senate Report 98-416. 98th

Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 28 pp.

U.S. Senate. 1984. Senate Report 98-463. 98th

Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 37 pp.

U.S. Senate. 1984. Senate Report 98-465. 98th

Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 37 pp.

US. Senate. 1984. Senate Report 98-580. 98th

Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 16 pp.

U.S. Senate. 1984. Senate Report 98-581. 98th

Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 26 pp.

U.S. Senate. 1984. Senate Report 98-614. 98th

Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 27 pp.

Weaver, James; Cutler, Rupert. 1977. A colloquy

between Congressman Weaver and Assistant

Secretary Cutler. Journal of Forestry. 75(7):392394.

Wilderness Society. 1984. The wilderness act

handbook. Washington, DC: The Wilderness

Society. 64 pp.

Wilhelm, Bob. 1988. Personal communication: Telephone conversation with James A. Browning, April

15, 1988. (Mr. Wilhelm is planning team leader for

the Chugach National Forest.)

Wilkinson, Charles F.; Anderson, H. Michael. 1987.

Land and resource planning in the national forests,

Washington, DC: Island Press. 396 pp.

318
NONFEDERAL WILDERNESS, WILD, AND NATURAL

AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES-A SURVEY

Walter L. Cook, Jr. and Donald B.K. English’

Abstract-Nonfederal wilderness, wild, and natural

areas are inventoried by requests for data mailed to

likely owners and managers. Number and acreage of

tracts meeting criteria are tabulated by State, region,

size of tract, and ownership category. The characteristics of the inventoried tracts are described and

compared with the characteristics of areas in the

National Wilderness Preservation System. Characteristics compared include purpose, size, distribution,

degree of naturalness, and values to the American

people. Trends in the preservation and management

of nonfederal wilderness and natural areas are

discussed, and some useful research questions are

proposed.

wilderness advocates are quite familiar with the

Wilderness Areas in their State and often in their

region.

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written and said about wilderness

in the National Wilderness Preservation System

(NWPS) since its inception in 1964. The community

of individuals and organizations devoted to the cause

has spent much time, energy, and money in the

effort to save wilderness by adding it to the System.

Studies have been made, hearings have been held,

and lawsuits have been pursued, all in an effort to

add more areas and acreage to the Federal System.

We even distinguish the areas in the NWPS by calling

them capital ‘w’ Wilderness. And the effort has not

been in vain. The total, as of January 1987, comes

to 474 areas and 88,9!58,628 acres (U.S. Department

of the Interior, Geological Survey 1987). All of this

activity has been attended by considerable publicity,

especially in the conservation community press.

Members of the many organizations and other

Given the map and comprehensive list published

by the Geological Survey in 1987, McMahon might

say to Carson, “That list has all the wilderness in the

entire country; there’s not a single acre of wilderness

that is not on that list.” To which Carson might reply,

“No, bear’s breath, there’s more.” And indeed there

is more, much more. Most of us are aware of the

Adirondack wilderness in New York, and some of us

may be aware of other State wilderness areas. Or,

perhaps, we have read that a paper company has

given a large tract of swamp to a prominent conservation organization. But, for the main part, any area

that is not a part of the Federal System is not well

known, or, if it is, it may be considered less than

equal to a Federal Wilderness, regardless of its size

or qualities. But the truth is that many State wilderness

areas are very large, very wild, and very pristine, and

are every bit as ‘good” as Federal Wilderness.

Another category of wildland that provides many

of the same values as wilderness is the natural area.2

Natural areas may be owned by the Federal govemment (in which case they were excluded from

consideration in this paper), State or local govemments, colleges and universities, corporations, private,

nonprofit organizations (PNPO’S),~ or private individuals. They differ from wilderness areas in several

ways-size, number and distribution, degree of

*Natural area is a generic name adopted by the author to include

all areas with similar characteristics and purposes; specific names

include Natural Area Preserves, Natural Heritage Areas, and

Research Natural Areas. Some have no specific or categorical

name-they are just called preserves or natural areas.

‘Assistant Professor, School of Forest Resources, University of

Georgia, Athens, GA; Outdoor Recreation Planner, Outdoor

Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Project, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Athens, GA.

‘These organizations are frequently referred to in the literature as

NGO’s for Nongovernment Organizations. The authors felt that

private, nonprofit organizations would be more meaningful to a

greater number of readers.

319
protection, and purpose-which will be discussed in

detail in a later section. On the other hand, they and

their close relatives, the nature centers, were included

in this inventory of wilderness-like areas because

they provide many of the same benefits and values

as wilderness, and they may provide a substitute

resource for people seeking a wilderness experience.

State wilderness areas and natural areas comprise

most of the nonfederal property in this inventory.

There are other, miscellaneous areas that are included,

such as Maine’s Baxter State Park, and the Allagash

River Wilderness Waterway in the same State.

Theuses of this inventory are manifold. The

primary use of the information, the original instigation

for the work, is as a part of the 1988 Resources

Planning Act (RPA) Assessment, the decennial review

of forest’and wildland resources assembled by the

U.S. Forest Service. The study will also provide

participants in the National Wilderness Colloquium

and National Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness

Forum with a better understanding of the nonfederal

wilderness and wilderness-like resource- its magnitude, distribution, characteristics, utility, and outlook

for growth. Another value of the survey is to indicate

to the wilderness and conservation community in

general the considerable extent of the resource (which

is not widely appreciated-see table 55) as well as

to guide those interested individuals toward a goal

of preserving at least one example of each ecosystem

in the nation, and establishing other preserves so as

to prevent the extinction of any species of flora or

fauna.

While the study, in a general way, points up the

value of such areas to science, it stops short of an

inventory of ‘elements,’ the array of plant and animal

species, communities, and ecosystems that is a

guiding criterion for much natural area preservation.

This information is available from the Nature Conservancy (TNC) through its Natural Heritage Data Centers

in each State. Nor does the study identify specific

tracts, although the tabulations were summarized

from information that listed individual tracts by name.

A logical next step in sophistication of the data is to

enter each tract into a Geographic Information System

database, with State coordinates defining the boundaries of each tract. The descriptive information on

each tract could be entered as well. The Nature

Conservancy has also begun this work for areas in

its inventory, using latitude and longitude instead of

State coordinates (The Nature Conservancy 1987a).

The two primary objectives of this study were:

1) to inventory nonfederal wilderness, wild, and

natural areas, and to summarize the data by State,

size of tract, and ownership category;

2) to describe several characteristics of the areas:

their purpose, their relationship to the standards of

the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the NWPS areas,

their size, distribution, and degree of naturalness,

and their values to the American people.

The criteria for inclusion in the inventory were as

follows:

1) Land that is not owned by the Federal

government;

2) Land that is owned by a State or local

government which has preserved it from development

or manipulative management by a State law or local

ordinance;

3) Land that is owned by a public or private

college or university which has specifically and publicly

preserved it from development, manipulative management, or manipulative research;

4) Land that is owned by a corporation which

has specifically and publicly preserved it from

development or manipulative management;

5) Land that is owned by a private, nonprofit

organization which has, through legally and publicly

stated intent or deed restriction, preserved it from

development or manipulative management; and

6) Land that is owned by one or more private

individuals who have, through a publicly recorded

life tenancy agreement or a legal purchase option to

a State or local government or private, nonprofit

organization, preserved it from development or

manipulative management.

The above are stated as criteria, but should be

considered as basic guidelines. Many tracts of land

do not neatly fit the criteria, yet were deemed to

qualify for inclusion. At the same time, some tracts

ostensibly fit the criteria, but were excluded for one

reason or another. The authors have tried to describe

examples of these exceptions at appropriate points

in the paper. For a more thorough discussion of the

criteria problem, the reader is referred to Crispin

(1980). The important factors in most exceptions

were intent, lack of interference with the natural

processes or their natural restoration, and absolute

320
restriction of mechanized intrusions. Of less importance was permanency of dedication, which is very

difficult to determine-laws can be changed by the

next legislature, and decisions of corporation directors

and university regents can change with the membership of the governing bodies. Deed restrictions are

likely the most trustworthy mechanisms for preservation of land.

The study was aimed at nonfederal wilderness,

wild, and natural areas that have been dedicated for

preservation. Specifically excluded were ordinary

State parks, wildlife management areas, and State

forests, unless these entities or parts thereof were

dedicated as preserves and protected from development, commodity resource extraction, and mechanized recreation. Trails for nonmechanized travel are

the only general exception to the exclusion of

management activities. Also excluded were areas

owned by the Federal government but leased to one

of the five types of owners listed above. Likewise,

tracts that were protected by less than fee simple

deeds, such as conservation easements, were

excluded.

This paper will describe (1) the collection and

tabulation,of the data, (2) the scope and limitations

of the data that may affect their interpretation, (3) the

nature of the tracts, utility to potential users, and

comparison with Federal wilderness, (4) the values

of the tracts, particularly in relation to the various

sizes and objectives of dedication, (5) the current

trends and prospects for additional areas, and (6)

opportunities and constraints to growth. Finally, it will

list some potential research questions into the

relationship among visitors to Federal and State

wilderness and natural areas.

METHODS

The data for this paper were obtained from several

types of sources. First, the U.S. Forest Service’s4

National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information

System (NORSIS), provided some data on State

wilderness areas. Second, a major source of information resulted from a letter of inquiry sent to those

State agencies deemed most likely to have information

on wilderness, wild, or natural areas in their State.

Similar letters were sent to all private organizations

which were known or guessed to have a natural

areas protection program. The “Conservation Directory” (National Wildlife Federation 1987) was consulted

for likely agencies and organizations. Replies to

these letters often offered other names, agencies,

and organizations which the correspondent knew to

be involved in wilderness, wild, or natural areas, and

these leads were followed up.

Another source was from the published literature.

SOUTHFORNET, the U.S. Forest Service literature

search service at the University of Georgia, was

asked to search for information published after 1970

on nonfederal wilderness, wild, and natural areas.

Although the search provided a lot of out-of-date

and nonpertinent information, it did give a few key

items. A major find, the very comprehensive work by

Radford and others (1981), explained and illustrated

the ecological diversity classification system, which

is the basis for selecting natural heritage areas in

North Carolina. Also, the search revealed the existence

of the relatively new Natural Areas Journal (NAJ),

which was helpful in several ways. George Stankey’s

1984 article on State wilderness helped to identify

those States from which a positive reply to the mailing

could be expected. An NAJ editorial by George Fell

(1983), on the philosophy behind natural area

protection, supported the rationale for including the

natural areas in the inventory by discussing several

values that are shaped by wilderness and natural

areas. A second paper by Stankey (1987) on values

of natural areas to science, further strengthened that

decision.

An unexpected but important source of literature

is comprised of brochures, directories, and promotional material sent in response to the letters of inquiry.

Especially noteworthy were the natural area directories

from Ohio, Missouri, Washington, and Indiana, as

well as from the Trustees of Reservations and the

Natural Lands Trust. A Michigan correspondent sent

information concerning a directory of that State’s

natural areas that began as a Master’s thesis and

was subsequently published in its entirety in the

“Michigan Botanist’ (Crispin 1980). This publication

was extremely helpful, not only in interpreting the

data from Michigan, but in defining quite precisely

what constituted a natural area and what was

considered to be adequate legal protection. This

and the other State natural area directories were

also useful sources of values, of restrictions on use,

and of the history of the natural area movement

within a State or organization. Most of the information

on nature centers was obtained from the Directory of

‘Natural Science Centers” (Natural Science for Youth

Foundation 1984).

Q.S. Forest Service’s Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,

Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Project at Athens, GA.

321
Data were cross-checked wherever possible to

eliminate duplications, nonconforming areas, or

otherwise unusable information. Within each State,

each tract was assigned to one of five ownership

categories, and to one of six size classes. Data from

each State summary were aggregated by standard

region (tables l-4), and then summarized for all 50

States (table 5). The ownership categories were

selected partly to reflect the degree of protection

and permanence one might expect for the areas.

State areas are protected by law, in most cases; the

private, nonprofit organization tracts are mostly

protected by deed covenant, which is as good or

better than State law. Privately held tracts are often

protected by a life tenancy, or a legal option to a

private, nonprofit organization. The other two categories are less well protected, although they, too,

are considered permanent. Tracts protected by

conservation easements, development rights easements, or leases, while probably quite safe, were not

included; areas merely registered as a natural heritage

area were likewise excluded.

The size classes were selected somewhat

arbitrarily. The 5,000-acre break matches the Federal

guidelines. The 1 ,OOO-acre break matches the smallest

minimum size for any State wilderness or wild area

(Missouri). The 25,000-acre break compares roughly

to the 36 square miles in a congressional township.

The IOO-acre and lOO,OOO-acre breaks seemed to

be useful for describing to the reader the true nature

of the tracts. Hindsight would have created an

under-lo-acre category as well; it could be argued

that areas of less than 10 acres should have been

excluded from the inventory.

NATURE OF THE DATA

A one-word description of the data would be

variable. Each State keeps records differently, and

each responded somewhat differently to the request.

The trusts and other private, nonprofit organizations

are also slightly different from one another. In this

section, both the quality of the data received and the

gaps left by data not received will be described.

The State wilderness and wild areas are probably

quite accurately reported. Although the acreage, and

in some cases the number of areas, do not agree

very well with Stankey’s 1984 data nor the NORSIS

data, most of the differences are explainable. For

example, New York’s Adirondack Park has several

categories of wildland (Adirondack Park Agency

1985); NORSIS included only the areas called

“wilderness,’ while Stankey apparently included a

category called “wild,” and possibly others. In this

study, the ‘wild’ areas were excluded due to permitted

development, but the one ‘canoe” area was included

since its description closely matches that of the

‘wilderness’ areas.

Table 1 .--Number and acreage of nonfederal wilderness, wild, and natural areas, by ownership and size

class, in Pacific Coast Region1

Ownership class

Size class

(Acres) State Local' PNP03 Private' Other' Total

< 99 38/1,650 14/365 44/1,419 40/820 12/277 148/4,531

100-999 69/26,672 11/3,439 40/12,501 g/2,359 4/577 133/45,548

l,OOO-4,999 22/46,984 4/11,376 13/29,376 2/3,518 3/7,576 44/98,830

5,000-24,999 14/151,230 l/5,711 2/29,925 l/5,230 18/192,096

25,000-99,999 s/234,519 l/54,500 6/289,019

> 100,000 2/448,320 2/448,320

Totals 150/909,375 30/20,891 100/127,721 51/6,697 20/13,660 351/1,078,344

Pacific Coast Region includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.

'Local includes counties, cities, school districts, regional authorities, etc.

3

PNPO - Private, nonprofit organization.

4

Private includes only private individuals.

5

Other includes industry, banks, universities and colleges (both public and private).

322
Table 2 .--Number and acreage of nonfederal wilderness, wild, and natural areas, by ownership and size

class, in Rocky Mountain Region1

Ownership class

Size class

(Acres) State Local' PNP03 Private' Other' Total

< 99 4/191 6/352 16/499 g/444 7/315 42/1,801

100-999 21/8,857 g/2,398 25/10,642 8/2,939 8/2,978 71/27,814

l,OOO-4,999 5/9,150 3/4,734 g/15,731 8/18,306 25/47,921

5,000-24,999 4/60,269 7/75,595 l/8,712 12/144,576

25,000-99,999 l/27,601 2/103,889 3/131,490

> 100,000

Totals 35/106,068 18/7,484 59/206,356 26/30,401 15/3,293 153/353,602

1

Rocky Mountain Region includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,

North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

2

Local includes counties, cities, school districts, regional authorities, etc.

3

PNPO - Private, nonprofit organization.

4

Private includes only private individuals.

5

Other includes industry, banks, universities and colleges (both public and private).

Table 3 .--Number and acreage of nonfederal wilderness, wild, and natural areas, by ownership and size

class, in Southern Region'

Ownership class

Size class

(Acres) State Local2 PNP03 Private' Other5 Total

< 99 39/1,568 17/459 77/2,772 17/394 22/713 172/5,906

100-999 68/32,313 18/6,135 59/22,314 13/4,407 15/4,018 173/69,187

l,OOO-4,999 53/133,628 4/7,585 17/40,297 4/11,548 6/14,642 84/207,700

5,000-24,999 27/324,464 2/24,979 7/71,611 l/18,000 37/439,054

25,000-99,999 4/145,306 l/26,380 3/125,597 8/297,283

> 100,000

Totals 191/637,279 42/65,538 163/262,591 35/34,349 43/19,373 474/1,019,130

1

Southern Region includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North

Carolina, Oklahoma, South Caroloina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

2

Local includes counties, cities, school districts, regional authorities, etc.

3PNP0 - Private, nonprofit organization.

4 .

Private includes only private individuals.

5

Other includes industry, banks, universities and colleges (both public and private).

323
Table 4 .--Number and acreage of nonfederal wilderness, wild, and natural areas, by ownership and size class,

in Northern Region'

Ownership class

Size class

(Acres) .State Local2 PNP03 Private' Other5 Total

< 99 314/12,839 201/6,709 739/ 24,561 322/8,113 107/3,316 1,683/55,538

100-999 316/104,515 118/36,210 394/118,172 60/16,351 35/10,926 923/286,174

l,OOO-4,999 83/195,098 18/36,734 41/82,504 g/21,737 6/11,815 157/347,888

5,000-24,999 29/345,521 2/19,550 2/23,350 l/6,045 2/45,480 36/439,946

25,000-99,999 14/606,695 l/48,519 15/655,214

> 100,000 5/777,317 5/777,317

Totals 761/2,041,985 339/99,203 1,176/248,587 393/100,765 150/71,537 2,819/2,562,077

1

Northern Region includes Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,

West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

2

Local includes counties, cities, school districts, regional authorities, etc.

3

PNPO - Private, nonprofit organization.

4

Private includes only private individuals.

5

Other includes industry, banks, universities and colleges (both public and private).

Table 5 .--Number and acreage of nonfederal wilderness, wild, and natural areas, by ownership and size class,

in United States

Ownership class

Size class

(Acres) State Local1 PNPO' Private3 Other' Total

< 99 395/16,248 238/ 7,885 8?6/29,251 388/9,771 148/4,621 2,045/67,776

100-999 474/172,357 156/ 48,182 518/163,629 90/26,056 62/18,499 1,300/428,723

l,OOO-4,999 163/384,860 29/ 60,429 80/167,908 23/55,109 15/34,033 310/702,339

5,000-24,999 74/881,484 5/ 50,240 18/200,481 3/32,757 3/50,710 103/1,215,672

25,000-99,999 24/1,014,121 l/ 26,380 6/283,986 l/48,519 32/1,373,006

> 100,000 7/1,225,637 7/1,225,637

Totals 1,137/3,694,707 429/193,116 1,498/845,255 505/172,212 228/107,863 3,797/5,013,153

1

Local includes counties, cities, school districts, regional authorities, etc.

2

PNPO - Private, nonprofit organization.

3 .

Private includes only private individuals.

4

Other includes industry, banks, universities and colleges (both public and private).

324
In Pennsylvania, NOR!.% received information

only on the areas designated “wild’ by the legislature;

two other candidate areas that were not legislatively

approved due to outstanding mineral rights were

included in this study. In Michigan and Maine, the

areas of the Porcupine Mountains State Park and

Baxter State Park, respectively, were counted in their

entirety by the NORSIS and Stankey inventories,

while this inventory counted only those portions of

the parks which have been dedicated to wilderness.

Information on the State-owned or Staterecognized natural areas was likewise quite good,

but variable in detail. Some States sent data only on

State-owned property, while others sent information

on all dedicated natural areas, along with the

ownership category. Some States provided information on use restrictions on individual tracts, some on

the program as a whole, and some didn’t send any.

The trusts and other private, nonprofit organizations were quite cooperative, and several correspondents sent additional information on their organization’s

philosophy and management policy. The major

problem with the trust lands is determining whether

the land is wild or managed. Many of the tracts were

working farms, or were managed to maintain the

pastoral character of the landscape. Where these

situations were identifiable, they were excluded, but

very likely many were not discovered. Two sizable

natural areas were excluded because the trust owners

allowed dune buggies on the beach.

Nature centers are a difficult category to interpret.

Most have some land that would qualify as natural,

and all have some land that is obviously developed.

In most cases, an arbitrary 50 acres were deducted

to allow for the developed portion. Most centers

associated with State or county parks or with arboreta

were excluded altogether. Also, the information in

the Natural Science for Youth Foundation (NSYF)

Directory is admittedly incomplete. Ownership was

not stated, and the areas were assigned to the most

likely category. Many entries did not indicate an

acreage and so were excluded.

The Nature Conservancy sent data that were

different in many ways from any other private, nonprofit

organization, and they will be discussed separately.

TNC, as it is often called, sent a large computer

printout containing information on the over 2,000

properties it had dealt with over the years, including

those it owned and those it had conveyed to others.

The printout was accurate to 1984, when the organization changed its record keeping methods; more

recent data were unavailable. According to Frank

Boren, President of TNC, they are presently protecting

an average of 1,000 additional acres each day.5 At

that rate, the 1984 data have become quite obsolete.

Nevertheless, for some States, the data supplied are

the best available, so they were used.

The TNC printout listed, by State, the tract name,

its acreage, and its owners. Many tracts were held

by more than one owner, and in several cases the

co-owners were in different ownership categories.

The property was arbitrarily assigned to the category

of the first owner listed, unless a better solution was

evident. Also, in cross-checking tracts from the TNC

list with State lists, serious discrepancies in acreage

were often discovered. Assumptions were made

about each tract to approximate the most accurate

answer, but in many cases, the acreage was tabulated

arbitrarily; no property was tabulated twice, however.6

Another limitation of the data is the difficulty in

differentiating fee simple deed properties from

easement holdings. Properties that are protected by

easement or lease were excluded, but undoubtedly,

there were some that went undetected. Also, some

tracts abut others, making a single reserve in practice

where two or more are in the inventory. Conversely,

other tracts may be a group of several separate

tracts. These situations affect the quality of the reserve

in several ways, including perceived remoteness to a

visitor, as well as minimum home range for an animal

species. It should be noted, however, that the same

conditions are occasionally found in the NWPS. Two

examples are the Bob Marshall-Scapegoat-Great

Bear group in Montana and the Joshua Tree Wilderness Area in California; the former are listed as three

individual wilderness areas, but since they are

contiguous, they actually form one large wilderness

area; the latter is actually seven separate parcels,

the largest of which has two sizable inholdings (U.S.

Department of the Interior, Geological Survey 1987).

Probably the most serious problem associated

with the inventory is uncollected data, either from a

lack of response to the letter or from the authors

being unaware of the existence of wilderness or

natural areas. Nonrespondents will be recontacted

and other land-owning organizations will be queried

5ln a speech by Frank Boren at the World Wilderness Forum at

Denver, Colorado, September 12, 1987.

BPossible reasons for such discrepancies are many. TNC’s tract

may have included portions that were not natural, or could have

included investment property that was sold separately. Also, the

State could have acquired the total natural area from two or more

sources, one which was TNC. Whatever the truth is, the discrepancies tended to cancel each other, so that the resulting total was

not greatly affected.

325
as their existence becomes known; as new data are

received, they will be added to the RPA Assessment.

Even so, a ‘complete and up-to-date’ inventory is an

unattainable goal. There is no feasible way to canvas

all the local governments, colleges, and universities,

to get a complete list of their dedicated natural areas.

Likewise, there are more than 600 local trusts (Pryor

1986) and numerous larger trusts. Without a directory,

there is no way to contact them.

Corporate owners of reserves are a little easier

to identify, since most are paper or timber companies.

Many of the larger companies were contacted, but it

is suspected that some are reluctant to release the

information. The data for the corporate owner category

are misleading, since they do not reflect the sizable

tracts of land transferred from corporate to PNPO,

State, or Federal ownership. Most timber based

companies prefer not to hold land that is essentially

not profitable. Rather, they prefer to give or bargain-sell

it to another ownership category. The Great Dismal

Swamp in North Carolina and Virginia is a notable

example, but a great many other tracts, large and

small, have been placed in a permanently protected

status under other ownership.

A similar statement could be made for private,

nonprofit organizations. The Nature Conservancy, in

addition to owning and managing natural areas, has

transferred many of its tracts to public ownership.

The Trust for Public Land has protected 346,000

acres in 373 tracts, yet does not own or manage any

land. Many other examples could be given.

Another large category of land that should be

recognized is the land that has been intentionally

excluded from the inventory, yet may provide the

same benefiis as that which was included. A few of

these lands have already been mentioned, but others

have not. Examples include the Wisconsin Wilderness

Lakes (Germain 1984) the Adirondack (Adirondack

Park Agency 1985) and Catskill Wild Forest Areas

(New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation 1985), and the Pinelands National

Reserve in New Jersey (Good and Good 1984).

These are, for the most part, rather large areas that

are essentially wild, but because of permitted nonconforming management practices or visitor use (salvage

cutting of timber, snowmobile trails, etc.), or because

of vagueness of protection status, they have been

excluded. Crispin (1980) appended a list of areas

she considered but rejected for inclusion in her

inventory of Michigan’s natural areas. Such a list on

a national scale would be an enormously timeconsuming endeavor. Also, when one backs away

from a strict interpretation of wilderness and natural

area definitions, one is faced with a ‘continuum of

wildness’ that ends in New York City’s Central Park.

Which areas to include in such an inventory of

near-wilderness and nearly-natural areas would be

an unanswerable question. Nevertheless, such areas

do exist, they do have meaning and value, and they

should not be overlooked entirely in any study of

wilderness or wilderness-like land. It is hoped, but

not expected, that no such exclusions from this

inventory were due to ignorance of the true situation.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRACTS

The intent of this inventory was to include only

areas that have been formally dedicated to the

maintenance of a wilderness or natural environment.

That criterion has been followed, with certain exceptions, and has insured that the areas are reasonably

comparable to the NWPS areas. Except for size and

other characteristics based on size, the variation in

physical characteristics among the nonfederal areas

is probably no greater than the variation within the

NWPS.

State wilderness and wild areas are quite similar

in all respects to their Federal counterparts. Many

States have used the same or similar definitions in

their wilderness legislation as is found in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Stankey 1984) except for the

Federal size limitation of 5,000 acres-Missouri allows

1,000 acres, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan

allow 3,000 acres, California allows 5,000 acres, and

New York requires a lO,OOO-acre minimum. On the

other hand, these minimums have been more closely

adhered to by the State legislatures than is the case

with the Congress; several nonisland areas of less

than 5,000 acres, including at least one of less than

1,000 acres, have been accepted into the NWPS

(U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey

1987).

The degree of “wildness’ on State areas varies

greatly, as it does on Federal areas, Pennsylvania

allows roads (but no new roads) and utility rights-ofway: on the other hand, the legislature disallowed

one of the largest and wildest areas in the State

because some of the mineral rights were privately

owned. New York’s Adirondack wilderness areas are

quite likely wilder and less developed than any Federal

areas in the eastern States. The Adirondack area

also has a much longer history of protection, and its

purity often has been fiercely defended against

326
encroachment of any kind. Michigan’s Porcupine

Mountains wilderness contains the second largest

virgin forest in the East, after the Adirondacks (Crispin

1980).

The inventory had been planned to include State

wild and scenic rivers, and the letters to State officials

asked for such information. So few States responded,

however, that not much meaningful information was

obtained; notable exceptions are Ohio and California.

Ohio’s Wild and Scenic Rivers are described in the

same directory with the natural areas, indicating that

the State’s officials regard the two resources as

quite similar, and probably of interest to the same

people. This is also obvious from the descriptions of

the rivers. Rather than describing the canoeability of

the rivers, which is the primary concern of most

visitors to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers, the

emphasis is on the more intellectual topics of history,

geology, biology, and natural beauty. The California

correspondent likewise ignored the canoe and raft

users of the rivers, but, instead of relating to a

naturalist’s interests, the attention was almost solely

on the fishing opportunities. Both States used

selection criteria and restrictions that were similar to

those in the Federal system.

In comparing wilderness areas and natural areas,

one could begin with a definition of wilderness, Bloedel

(1987) has expertly condensed the familiar definition

in the Wilderness Act of 1984 to three conditions:

I. It is a place not controlled by humans, where

natural ecosystem processes operate freely, and

where its primeval character and influence are

retained.

2. It is a place not occupied or modified by

mankind, where humans are merely visitors and the

imprint of their work is hardly noticeable.

3. It is a place with outstanding opportunities for

solitude or for a primitive and unconfined recreational

experience.

The first two conditions could be applied to a

definition of natural areas with no change. The third

item, however, is not applicable to natural areas.

Although many natural areas do offer ‘outstanding

opportunities for solitude,’ none offers an ‘unconfined

recreational experience’ of the type we are accustomed to enjoying in wilderness areas. Natural area

designation is primarily and sometimes solely (Washington State Department of Natural Resources 1987)

for the purpose of preserving plant or animal species,

critical habitat, or an example of an ecosystem,

whereas the Federal and State wilderness areas are

largely the result of political decisions, with selection

criteria that include the social objectives of recreation

and solitude (Scott 1984). Several States and The

Nature Conservancy have programs of selection

based on ‘elements.’ An element is a terrestrial or

aquatic ecosystem, a special plant or animal species,

or a rare geologic feature (Polunin and Eidsvik 1979;

Radford and others 1981; Washington State Department of Natural Resources 1987). Each element in

the State is identified and given a priorii ranking for

protection, and each protected natural area is

identified as having protected one or more of the

listed elements. The goal is to locate and protect all

the elements not yet protected.

Most States are not as strictly oriented to scientific

objectives as is Washington. Most have adopted

three main objectives for natural areas -scientific

study, environmental education, and low impact

recreation, including ‘activities such as nature study,

bird-watching, hiking, and nature photography’ (Ohio

Department of Natural Resources 1987). Scenery is

included as an objective in Tennessee and several

other States (Tennessee Department of Conservation

1985). The Trustees of Reservations, possibly the

oldest such private organization in the nation, ‘is

dedicated to preserving properties of exceptional

scenic, historic, and ecological value’ in Massachusetts (Trustees of Reservations 1986). This

broad goal is typical of the trusts and other PNPO’s.

Many of the private organizations select land because

of its outstanding naturalness and attractiveness in a

region otherwise very developed or altered by

commodity resource use.

Natural areas usually offer opportunities for

environmental education, and Ohio has specifically

designated interpretation as the primary objective of

several areas (Ohio Department of Natural Resources

1987). In this regard, such areas tend to merge with

nature centers in objective and function. While the

primary purpose of nature centers is education,

most also have dedicated at least pan of their property

to preservation of nature; the rules of visitor use are

also generally the same as for natural areas.

Secondly, most natural areas are more natural

and enjoy better protection than wilderness. Karel

(1984) opined that much of the Federal wilderness in

the East is on land that ‘would not qualify as natural

areas in most State systems.’ Natural areas have

stricter rules for selection and visitor use, and may

attract a different type of visitor. Recreation of the

sort enjoyed by the usual wilderness seeker is not

an objective, nor is it permitted. Ohio has a long list

of regulations, written in the purest of legal language,

that prohibit everything from rock climbing to drinking

327
alcoholic beverages. Most States and organizations

forbid camping, fires, picnicking, pets, motorized

vehicles, straying off the trail without written permission, and collecting anything. Many States have

different rules for different areas, and a few areas

are off limits to any public visitation. Hunting is

sometimes permitted, sometimes not.

Likewise, natural areas receive no development

except trails and trail head parking; a few offer

restroom facilities. Managers of areas that have prairie

remnants often practice prescribed fire to maintain

the prairie vegetation. This manipulative practice was

accepted by this inventory, since many NWPS area

managers recommend the same treatment to control

artificial fuel accumulation; however, those areas

where fields were mowed or grazed to maintain an

historic pastoral landscape were excluded from the

inventory.

Another reason for the better protection of natural

areas from misuse is the proprietary interest in them

by local naturalists, who in all likelihood were the

people who worked and sometimes paid to protect

the resource. Often, the “saving’ of a tract of land is

the r&on d’efre for the formation of a local nature

organization. The Michigan Nature Association began

just this way 35 years ago, and now owns 4,800

acres on 103 tracts in all parts of the State (Michigan

Nature Association 1984).

The actual degree of protection received by

natural areas and State wilderness areas varies widely

by ownership and the managing agency. A few natural

areas that receive relatively large numbers of visitors

are staffed; at the other extreme are areas that are

off limits to visitors and may be inspected annually

for boundary maintenance and evidence of disturbance. The financial health of the owning agency or

organization, the degree of interest taken by those

responsible for the area, and the history of abuse of

the area are all factors that help determine the degree

of protection received.

The situation is not a great deal different with the

Federal wilderness areas. Although all four Federal

wilderness agencies are guided by the same 1965

Wilderness Act, the actual management and protection of the Wilderness Areas varies considerably

among the agencies. The National Park Service has

been traditionally more protective of the wilderness

character of its lands than has the U.S. Forest Service.

The latter allows much greater freedom of travel and

choice of activities (e.g., off trail travel, fire building,

campsite location) than does the Park Service. This

difference in wilderness management policy is an

extension of the historic role of the two agencies.

Variation within the agency may also be significant.

An illustration involves a trail crossing a stream in a

Southern Appalachian National Forest Wilderness

Area. At the time of establishment of the Wilderness,

there was a substantial, but appropriately designed,

wooden foot bridge across the stream. The District

Ranger interpreted the Act to mean there should be

no bridges, and the bridge was removed. The next

Ranger thought the wilderness character could be

better preserved with a bridge, and a simple, but

appropriate, foot log was emplaced. A hand cable

was added later for safety. When this bridge was

destroyed, a third Ranger installed an elaborate,

poorly designed, and very inappropriate wooden

bridge. This extreme lack of consistency may be the

exception, but some inconsistency in the interpretation

of the Wilderness Act is to be expected.

Protection of wilderness and natural areas from

changes in policy or law is inherently more variable

in the nonfederal areas, simply because there are 50

States and hundreds of other owners, all having

slightly different laws, objectives deed interpretations,

and degrees of managerial dedication to preserving

the resource values. And there is an equal number

of legislatures, boards, commissions, and trusts

whose frequent membership and leadership changes

create possibilities for changes in law or policy.

The Federal areas, on the other hand, are largely

guided by interpretation of the 1964 Act by the four

managing agencies. While attempts have been made

by the Federal administration to either remove areas

from the Wilderness System or to ignore the Act’s

restrictions on development, client organizations

have been successful in preventing the changes.

There have been no such serious challenges from

Congress.

A third major difference is in the number and

distribution of natural areas compared with the Federal

Wilderness Areas. There are several times as many

natural areas as there are Wilderness Areas. More

importantly, in the East, where the population is

dense, the landscape is thoroughly altered, and

Federal Wilderness is scarce, there are many more

natural areas than in the West, where Federal

Wilderness is relatively abundant. By their numbers

and distribution, and in spite of their generally smaller

size, they offer an easily accessible place to escape

from the artificial environment.

The fourth and most obvious difference between

natural areas and wilderness is size. Over half of the

natural areas are less than 100 acres (table 5), and

many are less than 10 acres. On the other hand,

many natural areas would easily qualify for the NWPS

328
if they were Federally owned; the largest is over

60,000 acres. Size and location interact to affect an

area’s protection from unauthorized uses. Size is

also a strong determinant of wildness, and, to a

lesser extent, naturalness. The effect of size on values

and benefits will be discussed in the next section.

Corporately owned wilderness and natural areas

are quite varied in size and other characteristics.

Westvaco maintains several small natural areas that

have been developed more or less as environmental

education sites for public use. Bowaters Southern is

well known in the forest industry for its Pocket

Wilderness Areas- tracts from 100 to 700 acres

whose scenic and recreational values outweigh their

value for timber production. Until recently, Buckeye

Cellulose owned a 3,000-acre tract of wilderness

along the lower Suwanee River in Florida.

Most privately owned wilderness and natural

areas are small, usually less than 25 acres, and

many are not available for public use, or require

explicit permission for entry. A notable exception is

Grandfather Mountain, a privately owned 3,500-acre

tract in North Carolina’s Blue Ridge Mountains that

may be the nation’s only commercially successful

wilderness. A few hundred acres adjacent to the

public highway are operated as a tourist attraction,

while the remainder can be visited only by a rugged

trail that sometimes becomes a wooden ladder

fastened to a cliff. Dayhikers pay only the basic

entrance fee for the entire attraction, while backpackers pay a modest extra charge (Johnson 1983).

A COMPARISON OF VALUES

The many human values of wilderness have

been enumerated many times before, beginning

perhaps with Catlin and Thoreau, and more recently

summarized by Hendee and others (1978) Bloedel

(1987) and Nash,’ to name a few. Likewise, the

values of natural areas have been frequently described

(Hinds 1979; Olson 1984; Thorn and lffrig 1985).

This section will very briefly review and compare

values provided by the State and Federal wilderness

areas with those offered by the generally smaller

natural areas.

Most of the valdes of wilderness areas are also

provided by natural areas. Both types of areas are

valuable to science, in at least three ways:

1) As a comparison or control with other areas

altered by use or development;

2) As a preserve of genetic material that has

evolved without artificial assistance or hindrance;

3) As a reservoir of plant and animal species

that may, at some future time, be of great value to

humans for food or medicine.

Stankey (1987) has written a thorough discussion of

scientific values in wilderness. A noteworthy observation is that since he did not set a specific minimum

acreage for a wilderness area, from the standpoint

of its value to science, ostensibly he would include

natural areas in his definition.

Stankey did discuss the effect of size of area on

biological integrity, and an area’s value as a species

reservoir is directly related to the spatial requirements

of the species. The larger the range of the species,

the less the value of the small natural areas. At the

extreme, in the case of mountain lion or caribou, all

but the largest Federal wilderness areas (or the

Adirondacks) are inadequate. On the other hand,

natural areas of 100 acres are generally able to

maintain the medium-sized mammals (fox, squirrel,

skunk, etc.). Some plant species can be protected

on even very small sites. For plants or animals,

however, the smaller the site, the less likely it is that

natural events can be relied upon to maintain the

successional stage required by the species, and

therefore, the more necessary artificial manipulation

becomes (Morse 1987).

The effect of tract size on ecosystem and species

preservation has been the topic of much discussion

and speculation among biologists (e.g., Harris 1984)

and is a key element in the developing science of

landscape ecology (e.g., Forman and Godron 1986).

Lewin (1984) reports on a major research effort to

find the relationship between tract size and species

distribution, Forty tracts of Brazilian wilderness 1

hectare, 10 ha., 100 ha., 1,000 ha., and 10,000 ha. in

size, will be studied for 30 years for plant and animal

species compositional changes, edge effects, and

chain effects (e.g., loss of ants leads to loss of

ant-eating birds). If it can survive the Brazilian political,

social, and economic environment, the ‘Minimum

Critical Size of Ecosystems Project” promises to yield

some very useful and interesting information.

%I a speech by Roderick Nash at the World Wilderness Forum at

Denver, Colorado, September 11, 1987.

329
In spite of Nash’s admonition to exclude recreation as a wilderness value, recreation is in fact a

major value of wilderness, as well as of natural areas.

Whether people visit wilderness in order to hike and

camp, or they hike and camp in order to enjoy the

wilderness is a question that is difficult to answer,

and may never have been asked; perhaps there is

an indivisible synergism at work. But wherever the

truth is, people do value the experience of hiking

and camping in wilderness and other natural environments. They enjoy the psychological values described

by Nash, which are probably wilderness dependent,

and they enjoy the challenge of physical exercise

often associated with wilderness travel, although it is

not wilderness dependent.

Many of the psychological values associated

with wilderness recreation may be enjoyed on naturai

areas as well, but those values deriving from physical

exercise are very limited. Long hikes are impossible,

camping is prohibited, and getting off the trail is

discouraged if not banned. These restrictions effectively prevent a visitor from getting remote from human

development -“out of sight and sound of

civilization”-which for many is the essence of a true

wilderness experience.

Of course, accessibility and lack of remoteness

can be an advantage, in that it allows more people

to enjoy the natural environment more frequently.

With proper management, including prohibition of

camping, horses, dogs, fires, etc., the smaller, close-in

areas can provide most of the benefits of larger

areas, even including solitude. One should remember

that Thoreau’s Walden was essentially a small natural

area, close to the Village of Concord and not far

from the City of Boston. In addition, by providing

what might be called a mini-wilderness experience,

the smaller areas protect the larger wilderness areas

from much of the overuse they might otherwise get.

Also, most visitors to even the smallest natural areas

have an ethical kinship to wilderness seekers, and

they are a likely source of valuable support for

wilderness preservation.

Wilderness areas and, to a lesser extent, natural

areas are valuable as examples of the wilderness

faced by our pioneer ancestors. Our national character

was forged in the contest with wilderness, and each

generation should be introduced to and reminded of

the pioneers’ constant struggle for existence. Similarly,

in wilderness and in the larger natural areas, visitors

can experience the sense of vastness and emptiness

that the pioneer knew.

Finally, any natural or wilderness area provides

opportunities to appreciate nature in ways that are

impossible on developed or managed land. Our

mental health may be positively affected by preventing

or overcoming stress associated with our fast-paced

civilization. One can relax and enjoy the simple

pleasures of contemplation, inspiration, or even

worship. At the same time, one can learn to appreciate

the truly good aspects of our modern, mechanized,

electrified, and computerized society. When one

spends some time away from unnatural sources of

power, communication, or personal comfort, one

returns home with a sharpened perspective of what

is music and what is noise.

Both wilderness and natural areas are valuable

as natural laboratories for environmental education;

for this purpose, natural areas probably have the

edge, since they are more accessible. Nature centers

are frequently natural areas that have been dedicated

to the major objectives of education, rather than

preservation. Although the two objectives are not

mutually exclusive, nature centers require some

development, such as an interpretive building, road,

parking lot, and utilities. Depending on the specific

program, there may be some environmental manipulation for demonstration or for maintenance of successional stages. Nevertheless, the area preserved in

natural conditions is nearly always substantial, and

visitors to nature centers seek and find the same

experience as on an undeveloped natural area.

TRENDS IN NONFEDERAL WILDERNESS

AND NATURAL AREAS

The literature on natural area preservation and

wilderness preservation does not indicate any formal

or direct relationship between the establishment and

growth of the National Wilderness Preservation System

and the establishment and growth of the natural

area preservation movement. Two possible relationships may be surmised, however. In the more likely

situation, the two movements may have nearly

coincided in time because they were being propelled

by the same need. People who were aware of and

alarmed by the growing scarcity of undeveloped,

unmanaged areas were likely the source of both

movements. The differentiating factor was the specific

objective of each group. One group was concerned

with the preservation of wildness, which subsumed

the preservation of nature, while the other was

concerned with the preservation of nature, i.e., species

and communities, with the concept of wildness being

given much less, if any, consideration.

330
A second possible scenario recognizes only one

undifferentiated group of activists who worked to

preserve both wilderness areas and natural areas.

Perhaps a few individuals could claim allegiance to

both movements, but, there is no evidence to indicate

that this happened on a large scale. On the contrary,

the literature contains few names that are familiar to

both movements. George Stankey’s (1984) paper in

the ‘NAJ” on State wilderness is the exception rather

than the rule.

In addition to the environmental movement

sparked by Rachel Carson’s book in 1962, it is quite

likely that a major impetus to the natural area

movement has been the income tax provision for a

charitable deduction of the accrued value of property.

People who owned tracts of land but who really did

not want to liquidate the timber had an option that

allowed some remuneration but still preserved the

environment. The Nature Conservancy, regional and

local trusts, State and local governments took

advantage of the situation to protect millions of acres

on thousands of individual tracts. A more recent

technique that is becoming popular is the State

income tax refund check-off program (Ohio Department of Natural Resources 1987).

Natural area preservation has been with us at

least since the Trustees of Public Reservations8 was

formed in 1891, but only since 1950 has it attracted

serious attention. In that year, the Ecologists Union,

which had been engaged in natural area preservation

on a case-by-case basis, became The Nature

Conservancy. TNC then embarked on a planned

effort to acquire examples of ecological communities

and to protect species by acquiring critical habitat

(Fell 1983). The movement grew slowly at first. In

1951, Wisconsin passed the first State legislation for

natural area protection; in 1963, Illinois began the

first State system of dedicated natural areas; in 1976,

South Carolina became the first State to establish a

cooperative natural heritage program with TNC; in

1978, the Natural Areas Association was formed;

and the ‘Natural Areas Journal’ was begun in 1981

(Fell 1983).

Much additional evidence exists to indicate the

natural area preservation movement is young and

still growing. The recent birth of the ‘Natural Areas

Journal,’ the newness of the State natural area

directories (Ohio and Washington-l 987, Indiana and

Missouri-l 985, Michigan-l 980) and the speed at

which they become obsolete, the number of States

that are just now getting their program underway,

and the growth of Research Natural Areas on the

*The name was changed to Trustees of Reservations in 1954.

national forests (Juday 1986) are just some of the

indicators of a youthful movement. The phenomenal

growth of The Nature Conservancy is another

indicator. A “progress report’ in the November/

December issue of “TNC Magazine” (The Nature

Conservancy 1987b) compared the first six months

of 1987 with the same period of 1986: a 28 percent

growth in overall contributions, a 43 percent increase

in contributions from individuals, an 86 percent

increase in unrestricted gifts of $1,000 or more, a 46

percent increase in corporate gifts of cash, and an

808 percent increase in the cash value of corporate

gifts of land. Individual memberships increased by

12 percent during the same period. The Nature

Conservancy now has a Natural Heritage Inventory

program in nearly every State and is moving toward

the goal of identifying and protecting each natural

element in each State (The Nature Conservancy

1987b). The Nature Conservancy believes the problem

of the loss of endangered species and ecosystems

can be solved in 15 to 20 years by acquisition and

other site protection methods (Nutter 1984).

Although the natural area movement is still gaining

momentum, the rate of acquisition will begin to wane

after 10 to 20 years. The rationale for this prediction

is that, as the list of unprotected elements is reduced,

the more difficult it will be to locate and acquire the

properties containing them. The possibility also exists

that some of the elements may disappear or become

totally unavailable before they can be acquired. Frank

Boren, President of TNC, alluded to this problem

when he said that, although TNC was adding 1,000

acres a day to the protected category, that figure

must rise if we were to have an example of each

element in a protected status.g

Natural area protection is not limited to one

example of each of the elements, and replication is

both desirable and expected. Also, as “second growth”

forests mature, they too will become attractive to

new generations of nature admirers; even then, more

old fields will succeed into more “second growth

forests, and there will always be more land to be

added to the total. Therefore, while the rate of natural

area acquisition will eventually decline, it will not

come to a nearly complete stop as the State wilderness

preservation movement will do.

The number and sizes of State wilderness areas

will increase slowly, if at all, in the near future. Most

of the States with large, unroaded tracts already

have reserved them in a wilderness program. Those

States with a large State forest system, such as

% a speech by Frank Boren at the World Wilderness Forum at

Denver, Colorado, September 12, 1987.

331
Michigan and Pennsylvania, have the option of

removing land already roaded and managed to a

wilderness status, but this is very unlikely to happen.

An investment has been made in those forests, their

quality is steadily increasing, and the States will

soon be enjoying the benefits of well-managed forests.

To abandon that investment would not only be illogical

and uneconomic, it would be politically unwise.

The Nature Conservancy has provided much of

the impetus to put and keep the movement in high

gear. They are able to work almost as a quasigovernment agency, to provide a reasonable and

reachable goal of preservation, to define the criteria

for natural area selection, and, perhaps more important, to attract the people with the wealth to give

land or pay for the acquisitions. Other State-wide

and local organizations have emulated them or

followed their lead. The Michigan Nature Association

described earlier is but one of hundreds of successful

citizen organizations. The Nature Conservancy’s

success in protecting tracts, their lead in establishing

criieria, and their ability to cope with the organizational

variety presented by the 50 States have clearly

established the organization as the leader in natural

area preservation. In light of this, the call for a “uniform

system of National Biological Accounts” in the report

of the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors

(President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors

1987) is very puzzling, akin to a plea for the re-invention

of the wheel. Instead, TNC should be recognized for

its leadership, and should be given every appropriate

assistance in its pursuit of the goal of protecting at

least one of every species and natural community in

the nation.

Another movement that is just now being born

and will soon increase in importance for nonfederal

wilderness and natural areas is the acquisition of

corridors, including mountain ridges but especially

river floodplains, to link existing nodules of natural

areas, parks, forests, and other undeveloped land

into a network of linear natural areas, These corridors

will often reach into and through cities and towns,

allowing urban residents the opportunity of experiencing a natural environment without traveling great

distances. The term greenway has been used in

recent years to describe this corridor concept,

especially since the report of the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (President’s Commission

on Americans Outdoors 1987) but the term trailway

is really more descriptive, since these corridors will

be more like wilderness than like parks, and their

major development will be trails.

Even before the PCAO hearings, biologists had

been recommending the protection of existing

-corridors and the establishment of new corridors of

natural environment to combat the problem of habitat

fragmentation (Harris 1984). In response to that need,

at least one State has begun an acquisition program

aimed at increasing the quantity and quality of wildlife

habitat; the effort will be directed, at least partially, at

floodplains.

Floodplains are an attractive target for several

reasons. One, since they are unsuitable for residential,

industrial, or commercial development, they have a

relatively low commercial value, and more area can

be acquired per dollar. Secondly, they are often

continuous (unbroken), allowing a physical link

between points. Thirdly, although they do not offer

great diversity in habitats, they are rich in fauna and

flora, and the presence of the stream helps to ensure

the continuous existence of those populations.

Mountain and ridge crests are also desirable

sites for natural corridors, and the Appalachian Trail

corridor is an excellent example. Ridge lines are

more frequently broken by roads, however, and the

ridges themselves are rapidly becoming high priced

real estate. Also, many of the mountain crests, both

east and west, are already in public ownership. Further

major ridgeline acquisition would be very costly and

probably not economically justifiable. Individual ridge

tracts will continue to be protected, but not in any

systematic way.

The greenway movement will contribute to the

preservation of natural areas and wilderness in two

ways. One, at least some of the greenways will be

established in areas relatively remote from population

centers (for example, along a river between two

cities). These greenways may themselves be dedicated natural areas and, in any event, could provide an

experience not unlike a wilderness experience. The

people who visit an urban or suburban greenway

may forgo a visit to a natural area or wilderness

area, thus reducing the social and environmental

impact on those areas. This is not to imply that urban

greenways will provide a wilderness experience;

rather, that many people visit wilderness areas for an

“outdoor experience” that they can’t get elsewhere,

because there isn’t any elsewhere. The value of

greenways to wilderness and natural areas will be

lessened to the extent that the greenways themselves

become crowded with visitors, or become overwhelmed by joggers, cyclists, or other users who

would destroy the illusion of a natural or wild

environment.

332
The use of nonfederal wilderness and natural

areas will undoubtedly increase. Unfortunately, there

are few data on numbers of visitors to support that

prediction. It is based on the belief that people will

become dissatisfied with the crowded conditions in

many of the Federal wilderness areas. As they search

for less crowded areas, they will discover the less

well known State wilderness areas. They will also

discover that solitude and natural environments exist

outside of wilderness, and will discover what the

nature seekers and bird watchers have known all

along, that, for day use, nearby natural areas, nature

centers, and river floodplains are an excellent

substitute for wilderness.

ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND

CONSTRAINTS

The separateness of the advocacy groups for

the three categories of wild lands -federal wilderness,

State wilderness, and natural areas- has thus far

not been a problem. Each group had its agenda,

and each has been fairly successful. Now, however,

there needs to be more interaction, more cooperation,

and most important, a mutual appreciation of the

values of all three types of wild land.

All three groups need to redirect some of their

efforts, energy, and attention to the protection of

corridors. This may be accomplished by a combination

of fee or easement acquisition and floodplain protection ordinance. The groups should cooperate with

wildlife and game interests to further increase their

political influence.

One of the problems, at least in some States, is

the ignorance of public officials and even some

conservation commissioners on the value of presetving natural areas. People who occupy these positions

of influence tend to be pro- development, but

anti-science, anti-nature, and anti-aesthetics. Wildland

advocacy groups should pay more attention to who

gets elected and appointed. Many rear-guard defensive battles may be prevented by a little more

aggression in the right places.

If and when the Federal government restores the

Land and Water Conservation Fund, as PCAO has

recommended, a unified wilderness and natural area

lobby should steer at least a substantial part of the

fund toward land acquisition for natural area protection, rather than allot all the money to developed

recreation facilities.

The “wildland lobby’ should also support renewed

emphasis on cleaning up the rivers. Sewage disposal

facilities and water quality monitoring has paid off

very well; the gains should be maintained and

increased.

NEEDEDRESEARCH

In all the copious literature, in all the correspondence with State, PNPO, and trust representatives,

one major gap in our knowledge is easily recognized.

Wilderness research seems to be reasonably

balanced between physical, biological, and ecological

topics on the one hand with social, psychological,

and aesthetic topics on the other. Natural area

literature, however, appears to be nearly all on the

biological and ecological aspects. This may be due

to the movement’s youthful stage of development,

where the preservation of natural areas is more

immediately important than their management and

use. Indeed, recreational use of natural areas is

perceived by some to be a great danger (Fell 1983).

Few correspondents had any visitor-use data,

although most letters and promotional material

included information on permitted and forbidden

activities.

The above-mentioned gap in our knowledge is

the lack of information on the natural area visitor.

One reference stands out (although an exhaustive

search was not made) -Olson’s study of visitors to

Ohio’s natural areas, and his comparison of them

with visitors to Federal wilderness areas (Olson 1984).

He found a remarkable similarity between the two

groups in sex, age, income, education, professions,

and membership in conservation organizations.

This information, if it is generally true, is potentially

very useful to wilderness managers, who may at last

find an audience sufficiently concentrated to make

some of the off-site educational techniques really

feasible. But first, Olson’s work needs to be replicated

and expanded. Specifically, the following questions

need to be answered:

1.

2.

a) Are visitors to natural areas aware of

(NWPS) Wilderness?

b) Do visitors to natural areas also visit

Wilderness?

c) What is the attitude of natural area visitors

toward Wilderness?

a) Are visitors to Wilderness aware of natural

areas?

333
b) Do visitors to Wilderness also visit natural

areas?

c) What is the attitude of Wilderness visitors

toward natural areas?

3. What, if any, is the relationship between

Wilderness visitors, natural area visitors, and those

attempting to establish greenways and trailways?

4. What is the opinion of Wilderness visitors on

the quality of nonfederal wilderness? of natural areas?

5. What type of organizations do Wilderness

visitors belong to, compared with natural area visitors?

REFERENCES

Adirondack Park Agency. 1985. Adirondack Park

state land master plan. Forest preserve centennial

edition. New York: Ray Brook. 68 pp.

Bloedel, Ed. 1987. Managing wilderness as a resource:

basic principles. Paper presented at the 4th

world wilderness congress, symposium on

management of park and wilderness preserves.

Estes Park, CO. September 1987.

Crispin, Susan R. 1980. Nature preserves in Michigan,

1920-l 979. Michigan Botanist. 19(3):99-242.

Fell, George B. 1983. The natural area movement in

the United States, its past and its future. Natural

Areas Journal. 3(4):47-55.

Forman, Richard T.T.; Godron, Michael. 1986.

Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley and

Sons.

Germain, Cliff. 1984. Wisconsin’s wild resources

system. Natural Areas Journal. 4(4):36-41.

Good, Ralph E.; Good, Norma F. 1984. The Pinelands

National Reserve: an ecosystem approach to

management. Bioscience. 34(3): 169-l 73.

Harris, Larry D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island

biogeography theory and the preservation of

biotic diversity. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. 211 pp.

Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Robert

C. 1978. The wilderness management. Misc.

Publ. 1365. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 381 pp.

Hinds, W. Ted. 1979. The cesspool hypothesis versus

natural areas for research in the United States.

Environmental Conservation. 6(1):13-20.

Johnson, Randy. 1983. The Grandfather experiment.

American Forests. 89(10):22-27, 54-55.

Juday, Glenn Patrick. 1986. The outcome of research

natural areas in national forest planning. Natural

Areas Journal. 6(1):43-53.

Karel, John. 1984. Guest editorial. Natural Areas

Journal. 4(4):4-5.

Lewin, Roger. 1984. Parks: how big is big enough?

Science. 225:61 l-61 2.

Michigan Nature Association. 1984. [Promotional

brochure]. Avoca, Ml.

Morse, Larry E. 1987. Rare plant protection, Conservancy style. The Nature Conservancy Magazine.

37(5):33.

National Wildlife Federation. 1987. Conservation

Directory, 32d ed. Washington, DC. 306 pp.

Natural Science for Youth Foundation (NSYF). 1984.

Directory of natural science centers and other

environmental education facilities. New Canaan,

CT. 222 pp.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1985. Catskill park state land master

plan. Albany, NY.

Nutter, John. 1984. The Nature Conservancy and

special management areas. pp. l-5. In: Kolenbrander, Lawrence G., camp. and ed. Proceedings,

special management areas conference, Denver,

CO. Denver: The Nature Conservancy, Denver

Botanic Gardens, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, and US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1987.

Ohio’s natural areas and preserves: a directory.

Columbus, OH.

Olson, E.C. 1984. Visitor management: assessing

visitation in four Ohio state nature preserves.

Natural Areas Journal. 4(1):30-35.

Polunin, Nicholas; Eidsvik, Harold K. 1979. Ecological

principles for the establishment of National parks

and equivalent reserves. Environmental Conservation. 6(1):21-26.

334
President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors

(PCAO). 1987. Americans outdoors: the legacy,

the challenge: with case studies. Washington,

DC: Island Press.

Pryor, Caroline. 1986. The land trust exchange. Natural

Areas Journal. 6(4):35-36.

Radford, A.E.; Otte, D.K.S.; Otte, L.J. [and others].

1981. Natural Heritage- classification, inventory,

and information. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Press, 484 pp.

Scott, Douglas W. 1984. The national wilderness

preservation system-its place in natural area

protection. Natural Areas Journal. 4(4):6-l 9.

Stankey, George H. 1984. Wilderness preservation

activity at the state level: a national review. Natural

Areas Journal. 4(4):20-28.

Stankey, George H. 1987. Scientific issues in the

definition of wilderness. In: Lucas, Robert C.,

camp. Proceedings, national wilderness research

conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future

directions; 1985 July 23-26; Ft. Collins, CO. Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecological

Services Division. 1985. Tennessee Natural Areas

System Plan, Nashville, Tennessee. 56 pp.

The Nature Conservancy. 1987a. Natural heritage

data centers. [pamphlet].

The Nature Conservancy. 1987b. Resources for action:

fiscal year 1987. The Nature Conservancy

Magazine. 37(5):33.

Thorn, Richard H.; Iffrig, Greg. 1985. Directory of

Missouri natural areas. Jefferson City, MO:

Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri

Department of Natural Resources. 115 pp.

Trustees of Reservations, 1986. Annual report. Beverly,

MA.

US. Department of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS).

1987. National wilderness preservation system,

January 1987. [Map and tabulated inventory].

Reston, VA.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources

(DNR). 1987. State of Washington natural heritage

plan. Olympia, WA. 129 pp.

335
WILDERNESS RECREATION SUBSTITUTES:

THE POTENTIAL OF LANDS OUTSIDE THE

NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM

James D. Absher, Ellen M. Absher, and Lawrence A. Hartmann’

Abstract7 The availability of lands outside the National

Wilderness Preservation System that may provide

wilderness-type recreation opportunities is approximated. Acreage of these lands is estimated and broken

down by managing Federal agency (for Federal lands),

or level of government (for nonfederal lands). Recreationists’ perception of recreation substitutes are

examined, based on readily available data. Suggestions for future research are given.

INTRODUCTION

Baseline information on wilderness is important

to a better understanding of future changes in the

nationwide supply of and demand for wilderness

recreation. Equally important are data on lands outside

the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS).

It is logical to ask what, if any, of the demand for

wilderness-type recreation can be met on lands that

have not been formally designated as wilderness

under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Although there have

been some significant additions in recent months, as

of January 1987 there were about 88.8 million acres

currently in the NWPS (U.S. Department of the Interior,

Geological Survey 1987). An informed hunch is that

there are at least this many acres outside the NWPS

that are similar enough to provide high quality

wilderness-type recreation. Whether or not people

use these lands as substitutes for NWPS lands is

still unknown. Thus, the question of recreation

substitution as it applies to wilderness lands is really

two-fold. First, how much wilderness-type land exists

and, second, to what extent do recreationists actually

make substitutes?

‘Assistant Professor, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies,

University of Georgia, Athens, GA; Assistant Educational Coordinator, State Botanical Garden of Georgia, Athens, GA; Outdoor

Recreation Planner, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, GA.

336

This paper will not try to answer these questions

completely. Instead, it will present an initial, nationwide

attempt to inventory non-NWPS lands that retain

some, if not all, of the primary characteristics of de

jure wilderness.2 These lands should encompass

most of the potential alternative sites for wildernesstype recreation. The second issue of recreation

substitution behavior will be addressed, albeit indirectly. It would be preferable to present data on

actual substitution behavior, but this is not possible

from existing nationwide databases. As a first step in

this direction, data on recreationists’ perceptions of

substitutes will be presented, as will a more in-depth

look at the theoretical issues involved.

From a management perspective it would be

helpful to know if, or to what extent, unroaded lands

outside the NWPS alleviate crowding, conflict, or

excess use on wilderness lands. Some empirical

investigations into this idea have been done with

generally positive results. Although some reservations

linger, it seems clear that substitution does occur

and that it should be addressed in wilderness

management plans (e.g., Brown and others 1987;

Cole and others 1987; Lucas, 1980). Irrespective of

the stumbling blocks that these studies suggest

might lie ahead, this paper begins with the presumption that a national assessment of the substitution

potential of non-NWPS lands is a useful idea and is

feasible at least in principle. Yet, as with almost any

new direction, the initial stages are fettered with

problems of concept definition and data availability.

This time is no exception.

As noted above, for a non-NWPS inventory there

is the issue of where to draw the definitional (and

thereby actual) boundary. Some wilderness substitute

*Throughout this paper the term wilderness will be used to refer to

lands in the NWPS. Where it is important to distinguish between

these formally designated lands and others that are of the same

character, it will be done through the use of terms such as ‘defacto,’

*-type,’ or some other explicit means.
lands are defacto wilderness and may become part

of the NWPS at some future date.3 Others meet only

part of the definition for inclusion but can offer

recreational opportunities of sufficiently high quality

to make them reasonable substitutes (particularly for

less ‘purist’ oriented recreationists). Unfortunately,

data do not exist to easily identify all lands in either

of these two categories. Even though the two types

of substitute lands are grouped together in the data

below, the past successes of the wilderness preservation movement suggest that most of the lands reported

below fall into the latter category. This notwithstanding,

the analysis below is also forced to rely on some

crude measurement devices. As will be seen the

original <databases are often developed for other

purposes and/or the data may be self-reported and

thereby are colored by agency policy directions, It is

hoped that reporting such data will not alter the

overall conclusions, even though confidence in the

validity of parts as they relate to the task at hand

may be questionable at times.

Similarly, the second aspect of the overall question

(substitution behavior) has confusing, muddied

definitional waters. Wilderness recreation, per se, is

not merely a function of NWPS designation. Precisely

because the primary focus is on a behavior, wilderness

recreation, the substitution process may be defined

in terms of the motivations of visitors. Nonetheless,

the criterianecessary to define activity substitutes in

motivational terms have yet to be agreed upon by

researchers. And, as might be expected, a consistent

nationwide database of this sort doesn’t exist either.

Our overall approach is to summarize what h known

about substitutability as an experience-based phenomenon and, as part of this task, to develop a

first-cut inventory of the lands upon which the

recreational experiences depend, even if the two

cannot be closely linked with the data available. This

makes a somewhat disjoint presentation, and the

reader is asked to integrate seemingly disparate and

rough-cut ideas. It is hoped that, despite this, some

consistent sense of the next research steps will

emerge.

BACKGROUND

If the research focus is broadened to more than

just wilderness recreation experiences, two basic

approaches to recreational substitution are dominant

in the literature. Researchers have approached it as

a problem of either area substitution or experience

% fact, given the time lag from data collection to analysis, some

of these lands are already in NWPS. The data are current as of

January, 1987. Wilderness bills passed in the last session of

Congress are not included.

substitution. The essential distinction is whether a

person goes to a new area for a given experience or

maintains an interest in the original area and changes

his/her experiential objective(s). Data are presented

below that address the concept of substitutability

from each of these perspectives. Under the first

approach is the issue of how much substitutable

land may exist. It seems safe to assume that many,

if not all, of the primary experience values associated

with the use of NWPS lands are available to visitors

of the areas that have some of the characteristics of

wilderness. As pointed out in another paper, ‘with

proper management . . . the smaller, close-in areas

can provide most of the benefits of larger areas,

even including solitude’ and thus function as reasonable substitutes for NWPS lands (Cook and English

1988). Nonetheless, this involves something of an

act of’faith in that only rarely have people actually

measured substitution behavior, per se. It is presumed

that if it ‘looks like wilderness’ people going there

are likely to have what they would term a ‘wilderness

experience: By counting acres that have wilderness

qualities you can begin to assess the potential to

provide these experiences at non-NWPS places.

More progress has been made on the experience

substitution idea. As a general topic, this type of

research goes back about 20 years. In 1969, Moss

took what has been a fairly standard approach and

factor analyzed participation in recreation activities.

He then asserted that activities that mathematically

grouped would be substitutable in as much as they

probably meet similar drives or needs. However, this

and similar work, seems to run counter to the viewpoint

that wilderness recreation is more or less unique

and relies on an individual’s state of mind. Or as

Nash (1973) put it, that wilderness ‘produces a certain

mood or feeling in a given individual . . . One man’s

wilderness may be another man’s picnic area.’ Despite

such view points, the ‘activity grouping’ approach

has been continued. Later studies such as the one

by Hendee and Burdge (1974) also followed this

mathematical modelling paradigm.

Irrespective of the relative merits of factor analysis,

hierarchical clustering, MANOVA, etc. these approaches are basically attempts to group activities based

on geometric or mathematical similarities in the data.

Usually, the analyses are based on variables that

either measure amount/frequency of participation or

the subjective importance of the activity. The primary

criticism of this approach is that none of the studies

explicitly addresses substitutability as a function of

similarities among any of the constituent parts of the

activity (e.g., social norms, psychological outcomes).

Instead, these approaches rely on common sense,

or face validity, of the similarities for any given activity

type/category across individuals. With the increased

337
understanding of the social-psychological dimensions

of recreation that has emerged over the past 20

years it is reasonable to now reassess this approach.

And, as noted below, some people have done so.

A radically different theoretical approach that

emerged at about the same time was an application

of classical economic theory. In the key article by

Cordell(l976) the concept of substitutability is defined

by acre-to-acre elasticity based on supply and demand

determinants. That is, he reported the mathematical

relationships among variables such as average family

income, percentage of land in golf courses, or density

of residential structures and used these as predictors

of substitution behaviors. Clearly, this approach is

vastly different from the activity-based substitution

definitions of other researchers. Despite its solid

theoretical underpinnings this line of research has

not been carried forward. Analyzing demand from a

paradigm of indifference curves and elasticities is

apparently not as appealing as viewing it from the

more commonly understood perspective of psychological variables such as motivations, need fulfillment,

or desired experiences.

Complicating today’s picture further is the recent

criticism of past approaches to substitutability

especially the activity-based, mathematical models.

This is in part because most social scientists have

neglected the econometric formulation in favor of

more familiar theoretical social-psychological ground.

However, even this more common approach to

substitutability has been appropriately criticized

because it relies on similarities in actual use patterns

to represent essential features of the recreationist’s

substitution decision process. If someone skis as

often as she fishes, it may make the two activities

cluster together and thereby be judged (by researchers) to be substitutes when, in fact, the two

are “apples and oranges’ in the mind of the recreationist as far as outcomes or benefiis are concerned.

Concerns about the adequacy of the “traditional

approach to activity-substitutes began to appear by

the late 1970’s (Becker 1976; Christensen and

Yoesting 1977). Recently, the whole question of just

what makes an activity substitutable has been raised

many times (e.g., Baumgartner and Heberlein 1981;

Iso-Ahola 1986; Vaske and others 1988; Vaske and

Randall 1984). Most recently, one study seems to

have summarized the concern well by concluding

that even though a substitute activity may be similar

to the first choice activity, the substitute may have

quite different perceived qualities (Manfredo and

Anderson 1987). They added that they had found a

lack of relationship between the similarity of an

activity/substitute pair and the importance of the

constituent attributes of one or another of that pair.

From which they concluded that substitutability is

‘appealing in concept but untenable in practice.’ In

particular, they assert that specialized users (in their

case fly-fishermen) have fewer substitutes than

generalized categories of users (e.g., campers).

However, the problem that their data point to may

be caused by the way that activities have been treated

theoretically, as much as a fundamental flaw in the

overall logic of substitutability itself. In summary,

recent studies have focused on a number of substantive problems, but at this point it is hard to choose

from among competing theoretical explanations,

largely due to the simplicity (some might say crudeness) of the basic variables employed. And there is

no compelling reason to drop this line of investigation

as “untenable.’ Better tests are needed first.

For wilderness users then, researchers must

decide whether 1) all users (or some subset, e.g.,

backpackers) make similar substitutions (or better

yet exactly same) by virtue of their group membership

(sui generis) or 2) whether we need to focus on

specific, situated experiential outcomes that inhere in

each recreationist independently. Then, it will be

possible to deal with the adequacy of substitutes in

a more highly differentiated fashion (and if the latter

choice is made, which theoretical approach will be

most productive). Studies of wilderness users have

shown quite different patterns of motivation from

place to place (Lucas 1980; Stankey and Schreyer

1987) or even within one wilderness area (Absher

1981). Such geographic variation in experience

expectations must be addressed in order to more

accurately operationalize the concept of substitutability, however defined.

Finally, the empirical analysis in this paper will

have to be based on existing data sources. The

measures available are extremely crude relative to

these questions, but raising these issues will sensitize

us to the type of conclusions that can be made at

this point about area or experience substitution

potential, and at the same time point us in the right

direction as far as further work that is needed.

METHODS

The empirical information presented below came

from three primary sources. The data about recreationists’ substitution preferences are from the 1987 Public

Area Recreation Visitors Study (PAWS). PARVS is a

nationwide database of over 35,000 cases taken

from on-site interviews and mailback questionnaires.

338
However, within this study the Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS) and wilderness site information

exists only for interviews conducted on Forest Service

lands. Even though not originally gathered for this

task, the ROS encoded areas are consistent with the

need for information about the wilderness-like characteristics of non-NWPS lands. After case weighting,

the total possible n for this segment of the PARVS

database is 5,243.

Estimates of unroaded acreage in various land

ownership were compiled as part of the National

Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System

(NORSIS) effort. The data available include acreage

of a given unit and the miles of developed roads it

contains, For this paper the NORSIS data were put

through a simple mathematical algorithm to subtract

wilderness lands and an acreage equivalent to a

mile-wide corridor (i.e., roughly equivalent to lands

one half mile to either side of their roads) for each

mile of road reported to be associated with each

tract of land. This subtracts 1) lands already in the

NWPS and therefore not substitutable for them; and

2) a very rough estimate of lands that are not likely

to produce wilderness experiences due to their

proximity to development. Both the PARVS and the

NORSIS databases are products of the Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station’s Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Project at Athens, GA. The acres

of wilderness land, even though included in the

NORSIS database, are taken from the compilation

done by the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Department

of the Interior, Geological Survey 1987) and are

accurate as of January 1987. Any discrepancies

between the NORSIS inventory and the USGS one

are likely to be due to reporting errors and/or date of

the initial report from the agency. Visual inspection

of the two lists shows them to be nearly identical in

acreage.

RESULTS: EXPERIENCE SUBSTITUTES

First, will people look for substitutes? Table 1

cross-classifies the wilderness status of the interview

site and the ROS categorization of the land. In theory,

wilderness designation should only occur on lands

under primitive (P) or semi-primitive nonmotorized

classes (SPNM). Only 10 percent of the wilderness

interviews occur outside of these two ROS categories.

By definition P and SPNM lands are the lands most

likely to offer substitutes for wilderness recreation

opportunities. There are 608 cases in these two

categories. Of this total, 283 or about 46.5 percent of

the interviews are in non-NWPS sites. This suggests

that about half of all P or SPNM recreation occurs

outside designated wilderness. Even though the

data are weighted on a nationwide basis, such a

direct extrapolation to all Forest Service lands is not

warranted without caution: the PARVS database is

much larger and the ROS data naturally refer only to

interviews on Forest Service lands where the ROS

classification has been applied. Some Forests in

Montana, for instance, have yet to apply the ROS

classifications to their lands even though we are

certain that substantial proportions may fall into P or

SPNM classes.

Nevertheless, if this pattern holds elsewhere as

well, substantial wilderness-type (P and SPNM)

opportunities exist outside the NWPS. This sounds

like a bonanza of unrecognized potential wilderness

Table 1. --Respondents by ROS categories and wilderness status of site

(PARVS data)

ROS categories

Primitive SPNMl Other All

Wilderness

status n % n % n % n %

Nonwilderness

Wilderness

Total

Row percentage

110/29.6 173/73-o 1,850/90.0 2,139/80.0

261170.4 64127.0 208/10.0 5x3/20.0

371/100.0 237/100.0 2,064/100.0 2,672/100.0

(13.9) (8.9) (77.2) (100.0)

'Semiprimitive nonmotorized.

339
Table 2. --Wilderness recreationists' perception of available substitute

areas by main activity (PARVS data)

Substitute mentioned?

Activity No Yes Total

n % n % n col. %

Backpacking/ 39.2 66.8 19.5 33.2 58.7 a.7

primitive camping

Water-based 24.2 34.2 46.5 65.8 70.7 10.4

recreation

Nature-oriented 22.5 63.1 13.2 36.9 35.7 5.3

activities

Day use and 332.1 73.2 121.5 26.8 453.7 67.0

day hiking

Fishing 22.6 57.3 16.8 42.7 39.4 5.8

Hunting 11.6 .7 2.8

All activities 452.1 66.8 225.1 33.2 677.3 100.0

experiences, but managers should proceed with

caution. Before we suggest adding yet more recreationists to these areas it will be necessary to

investigate the conflict or displacement potential that

might exist if the existing users are in fact seeking

nonwilderness experiences and thus are perhaps in

some way incompatible with additional users who

are. Or vice versa, are many of the people who use

nonwilderness areas there because they feel that

that is where the best wilderness experiences, with

the fewest other people, are available?

A second point to be made from the data in

table 1 is that these nonwilderness lands are substantially more likely to be in the SPNM class than in the

primitive category. This is especially true outside of

Alaska and more so the further east you look in the

lower 48 States. Ignoring the lands in the ‘Other

ROS’ category, over 80 percent of all wilderness

interviews were on primitive lands. In contrast, less

than half as many (38.8 percent) of nonwilderness

visitors were in Primitive as opposed to SPNM sites.

This seems to belabor the obvious that wilderness is

mostly Primitive class lands, but it reinforces the

conclusion that, on average, there are qualitative

differences between NWPS lands and the potential

substitutes presented here. If these differences are

important in a causal way to wilderness experiences,

then the nonwilderness lands cannot be thought of

as replacements on an acre-for-acre basis. Such

qualitative differences need to be explored.

The data in table 2 report visitors’ perceptions of

the availability of substitutes for wilderness, broken

out by main activity reported. Overall, 33.2 percent

of all recreationists stated that they knew of a substitute

for the wilderness site they were visiting when

interviewed. From the data it is not possible to

differentiate whether or not the substitute site is

another wilderness area. That notwithstanding, about

two-thirds of the people felt that they did not have a

ready substitute for that particular site.

This proportion varied by activity. Backpackers/

primitive campers (8.7 percent of all users) and

nature-oriented recreationists (5.3 percent of all users)

were roughly the same as the overall proportion

(33.2 percent and 36.9 percent named a substitute,

respectively). The day hikers were the largest category

of users (67 percent of all respondents) and were

the least able to name a substitute site (73.2 percent

“no”). At the other end of the spectrum, water-based

recreationists (10.4 percent of all users) named a

substitute location about two-thirds of the time (65.8

percent). Consumptive activities (hunting and fishing,

8.6 percent of all users) were alike in that substitutes

were named slightly more often than the average:

about 50 percent of the time, overall.

Again, a methodological digression is in order:

the number of cases in the table is a small percentage

of the overall PARVS database. Only about 12.9

percent of PARE’ 5,254 wilderness respondents are

340
in the table. Even so, it seems reasonable to conclude

that there probably are large variations in the

perception of substitutes from one activity to the

next. Managers may wish to be sure of the substitution

potential of an area relative to one or another group

of users in particular, Secondly, it also seems safe to

say that, in general, substitutes are not commonly

thought about (or at least admitted to). Thus,

knowledge and/or intended use of ready substitutes

may be a major barrier to the substitution potential

of those lands that do have the physical potential to

serve as such.

RESULTS: INVENTORY

Table 3 presents a summary of the NORSIS data

on lands greater than a half mile from a road, or a

reasonable equivalent thereof when that wasn’t

calculable. The half mile breakpoint was chosen

because it conforms to the published definition for

SPNM lands under the ROS classification scheme

and, as we have seen, a substantial percentage (27

percent) of wilderness recreation occurs on this type

of land. The data suggest that there are very

substantial amounts of land that can be characterized

Table 3. --Potential wilderness substitute lands' by agency and by

approximate Forest Service region, NORSIS data, in 1,000's acres

Region FS NPS FWS BLM2 State3 Local4 Total

1 7,702 1,086 110 502 22 6,276 15,698

2 12,627 2,407 0 1,447 334 13,277 301093

3 11,266 2,038 160 3,408 130 3.151 20,154

4 22,751 2,237 0 10,094 154 2,268 20,155

5 7.197 2,043 0 7,355 989 2,477 20,061

6 7,382 1,883 4 2,886 123 2,260 14,538

105 5,519 1,366 0 0 2,865 0 9.749

8 1,516 2,108 362 0 8,484 1,173 13,644

9 2,499 747 145 0 998 36 4,425

Total 78,460 15,914 782 25,692 14,099 30.919 165,866

1

Estimates of lands more than one-half mile from a road.

2

WSA's and natural areas combined: no adjustment for roads or other

developed features.

3All types of State lands. When possible, adjusted for road miles.

Mostly state park acres.

4

Private, nonindustrial lands open to the public and nature conservancy

lands.

5 Intentionally out of order to preserve RPA Assessment region order.

There is no Region 7.

341
Fore s t Se rvice

78.46 47.30%

Local/ Private

30.9 2 18.64%

Fish & W ild . Se rvice

0.788 0.48%

State O w ne d

14.1 8.50%

Park

b.9 1 9

Se rvice

.59 %

Bure au of Land M gm t.

25.69 7 15.49 %

M illions of Acre s

National O utdoor Re cre ation Supply

Inform ation System (NORSIS)

Figure 1. -Distribution of potential wilderness substitution lands by agency ownership.

as potentially substitutable: about 166 million acres.

This is roughly twice the acreage currently in the

NWPS (88.8 million acres) and in some cases may

under-report available acreage. This is suspected for

the BLM because the NORSIS data from them is

essentially only their Wilderness Study Areas (WSA).

Also, the distribution of the 166 million acres is not

uniform across regions or ownership categories.

Figure 1 displays the ownership pattern of these

lands. Cf the 166 million acre total, 18.7 percent are

owned and managed by local governments, nonprofit

agencies, or nonindustrial private ownership. Another

8.5 percent are in State ownership, almost all under

a State park classification. The remaining 72.8 percent

are Federal lands with the biggest share under Forest

Service jurisdiction (47.3 percent overall). Only the

Fish and Wildlife Service has what must be termed

as negligible acreage (0.47 percent).

The regional categories in table 3 roughly conform

to Forest Service regions, but since the data is on a

State-by-State basis, this is not exact. Figure 2 displays

this on a map. For instance, note that the Idaho

panhandle is presented with the rest of the state in

Region 4, whereas it is actually in Forest Service

Region 1. This the only major acreage difference

caused by this nonstandard partitioning.

What is the overall picture for substitution on

non-NWPS lands? The largest single contribution to

the pool of potential substitutes is Forest Service

lands in Regions 2, 3, and 4, local and ‘other’ lands

in Region 2, and BLM lands in Region 4 (cf. table 3).

These five entries combined encompass over 42

percent of the lands listed. All of these are in the

Rocky Mountain/Great Plains macro region (Regions

1, 2, 3, and 4). Areas of densest population, such as

California and the eastern U.S., are relatively less

well supplied with substitute wilderness areas. But

these two areas are not equally ‘disadvantaged’ by

lack of substitutes. In the case of California, many

acres are in the NWPS (about 6 million acres), whereas

the entire 2OState Eastern Region (9: actually

geographically, it’s only the Northeast plus the

Midwest) has only 1.4 million acres. As expected,

Regions 2 and 4 account for 40.75 percent of the

acres, and Region 9 contributes only 2.67 percent.

Note that omitting Alaska (Region 10) does not alter

the picture that much. The only anomalous contribution is the 8.4 million acres in State ownership in the

South (of a total 13.6 million acres State owned).

Part of the explanation for this is that Texas and

Florida each have undeveloped tracts as State parks

that exceed a million acres each.

342
SUMMARY

The data suggest that there are substantial lands

outside the NWPS that may provide wilderness-type

recreation opportunities. From the available data it is

estimated that about two-thirds of the available

unroaded acreage in the United States is outside the

NWPS. And nearly half of this land is under Forest

Service management. State, local, and private lands

also manage a significant percentage of the total.

Clearly, the future trend is for this substitutable

base to decrease. This is, in part, due to the obvious

changes from urban development, resource development, or growth in nonwilderness. Another cause of

this decrease will also occur: as the wilderness

movement continues to be successful in adding

more acreage to the NWPS, the potential substitutability of the residual lands can be expected to be

reduced. The tables incorporate many high-quality

acres whose NWPS status is yet to be decided. For

example, the data included Olympic National Park’s

nearly one million acres of backcountry, almost all of

Region

14.538

8.77%

Region 1

15.698

6

F-----Ii----- ,

9 .5%

n

which is high quality wilderness. Most, if not all, of

this will likely be put in the NWPS at some point in

the future. Or consider the vast tracts of land in Utah,

Nevada, or Arizona that the BLM manages. They

have not been put in the NWPS either. Yet all of

these are in the substitutable lands database (even

if not in table 3). Other acreage, such as the State

lands in the Southeast, may have large tracts of high

quality State park land (as in Texas or Florida), but

in general the wilderness experience potential of

nonfederal lands is not great throughout the country.

Most of the holdings are in tracts that offer fine

recreation but not a pristine wilderness experience.

The bulk of the other lands shown in the table are in

scattered tracts of various sizes, generally much

smaller. It is not reasonable to expect them to

substitute on a 1:l basis for high quality NWPS

acreage found elsewhere in the same Region.

The inventory process used here is only an

approximation. Better information should be obtained

on roadless areas, especially in relation to the type

of experiences they might provide. Because this

Region 10

9.749

5.9%

Region 3

20.155

12.1%

Region 8

13.644

8.2%

TOTAL ALL REGIONS

165.867 Million Acre s

SOURCE: National Outdoor Re cre ation Supply -__

Information Sys tem (N~ RSIS).

Figure 2. -Pote ntial wilderness substitute lands, by approximate Forest Service regions: millions of acres, pe rCe nt.

3 4 3
would be a large undertaking it seems logical to

focus attention on situations where the need for

substitutes is the greatest. Examples might be

individual forests or parks with overuse problems, or

entire regions where an integrated approach might

be tried. There is also an opportunity for this sort of

analysis to be incorporated into management plans

or carrying capacity formulations. This might be part

of an integrate carrying capacity that would seek to

estimate decision effects on one wilderness (defacto

or NWPS) in a delineated system of recreation

opportunities. The need for relatively detailed, accurate

information suggests that inventories that are compiled

for the task are required, rather than simply a

secondary analysis of available data, as was done

here. Nonetheless, it may be possible to add critical

variables to existing databases such as NORSIS to

extend them to this purpose.

Finally, because substitutability relies on visitors’

perceptions, it may be that very few of the 165.8

million acres in table 3 are currently seen as substitutes, This idea was supported by the data in table

2, which suggest that only about 33 percent of all

wilderness visitors can readily name a substitute.

Moreover this result is quite variable by activity with

dayhikers the least likely to name a substitute. More

needs to be done on this idea. The data are

suggestive, but not conclusive. Still unknown in this

context are the reasons why a particular site was

chosen, or what attributes are the critical attributes

for another area to be a substitute. Unfortunately, we

can only raise these issues in this paper.

Overall, recreationists’ preferences and/or expectations will have to change before substitution can

be widespread. Of course, information campaigns

may raise this threshold of known substitutes. But to

what extent this can be successful in part depends

on the inherent qualities of the land as well as people’s

willingness to accept available substitutes. Much

work needs to be done to assess the experiential

characteristics that are critical to this process of

substitution and the nature of the substitution decision

process.

REFERENCES

Absher, J. 1981. Geographic variations in experience

expectations. Paper presented at the 2d annual

conference on social research in national parks

and wildland areas, Great Smoky Mountain National

Park; 1981 March 18-l 9; Gatlinburg,TN.

Baumgartner R.; Heberlein, T. 1981. Process, goal

and social interaction differences in recreation:

what makes an activity substitutable. Leisure

Science. 4(4)443-458.

Becker, B. 1976. Perceived similarities among recreational activities. Journal of Leisure Research.

8(2):112-122.

Brown, P.; McCool, S.; Manfredo, M. 1987. Evolving

concepts and tools for recreation user management

in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. pp.

320346. Proceedings, national wilderness research

conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future

dimensions; 1985 23-26 July; Fort Collins, CO.

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Cole, D.N.; Petersen, M.E.; Lucas, R.C. 1987.

Managing wilderness recreation use: common

problems and potential solutions. Gen. Tech. Rep.

INT 230. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station.

Cook, W; English, D. 1988. Non-federal wilderness,

wild, and natural areas in the United States- survey.

Paper presented at Benchmark 88: A national

outdoor recreation and wilderness forum; 1988

January 14-l 5; Tampa, FL.

Cordell, Harold K. 1976. Substitution between privately

and publicly supplied urban recreational open

space. Journal of Leisure Research. 8(3):160-l 74.

Hendee, J.; Burdge, R. 1974. The substitutability

concept: implications for recreation research and

management. Journal of Leisure Research.

6(2) : 157-l 62.

Iso-Ahola, S. 1986. A theory of substitutability of

leisure behavior. Leisure Science. 8(4):367-383.

344
Lucas, Robert C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor

characteristics, attitudes and preferences in nine

wilderness and other roadless areas, Res. Pap.

INT-263. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station, 89 pp.

Moss, W. 1969. Substitutability of recreation activities

in meeting stated needs and drives of the visitor,

and implications for planning of recreation sites.

Paper presented to the annual meeting of the

Rural Sociological Society; 1969 August 28-31;

San Francisco, CA.

Nash, R. 1973. Wilderness and the American mind.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 300 pp.

Manfredo, M.; Anderson, D. 1987. The influence of

activity importance and similarity on perception of

recreation substitutes. Leisure Science. 9(2):77-86.

Stankey, G.; Schreyer, R. 1987. Attitudes toward

wilderness and factors affecting visitor behavior: a

state-of-knowledge review. pp. 246-293. In: Lucas,

Robert C., camp. Proceedings: national wilderness

research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge,

future dimensions; 1985 23-26 July; Ft. Collins,

CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Vaske, J.; Donnelly, M.; Tweed, D. 1983.

Recreationists-defined versus researcher-defined

similarity judgements in substitutability research.

Journal of Leisure Research. 15(3):251-262.

Vaske, J.; Randall, S. 1984. Leisure repertoire and

the concept of substitutability. 1983 SERR conference proceedings; 1983 February 17-l 9; Asheville,

NC.

United States Geological Survey. 1987. National

wilderness preservation system, January 1987.

Map with tabulated inventory. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey, Stock #38077-BK-NA-OSM-00.

345
WILDERNESS RECREATION USE:

THE CURRENT SITUATION

Joseph W. Roggenbuck and Alan E. Watson’

Abstract, The total amount of recreational use of the

National Wilderness Preservation System is currently

at about 14.5 million visitor days per annum. Trends

indicate a stab/e or declining overall use; use on a

per acre basis is declining. The common stereotype

of the wilderness user as young, wealthy, urban,

leisured, and a nonresident of the State or region is

largely incorrect. The one characteristic that does

sharply distinguish wilderness users is their very high

education level. Use patterns in wilderness also differ

from commonly held perceptions. Size of individual

user groups is small, and getting smaller. Most visits

are day-use only. Distribution of use is highly skewed

toward weekends and summers, but the trend is

toward increased dispersal of use across time and

space. Higher impact and consumptive activities like

hunting and horse use are declining as a percentage

of total use.

INTRODUCTION

An assessment of recreational visitation to the

National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS)

requires an understanding of three basic components

of wilderness use: the total amount of use, characteristics of that use (e.g., when it occurs, where it occurs,

and size of user groups), and characteristics of the

users (e.g., age, gender, and income). Knowledge of

these user variables, and trends of their change, are

also required if legislators, policy makers, planners

and managers are to intervene in the system to

increase the flow of wilderness benefits to the

American people. Finally, use information is a

necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making

‘Associate Professor of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic and State

University, Blacksburg, VA; Research Social Scientist, Intermountain

Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Missoula, MT.

346

trade-offs and allocation decisions about the proper

mix of wilderness and other human values to be

produced on public lands.

This paper provides a summary of the current

use and user situation in the NWPS, indicates trends

in use characteristics, and concludes with an assessment of the policy, planning, and management

implications of the data. Throughout the paper, we

lean heavily upon a state-of-knowledge review of the

topic from the National Wilderness Research Conference at Fort Collins, Colorado in 1985. Readers are

referred to that paper for more detailed information

(Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). In this paper, we

touch only briefly upon changes in trends of wilderness

recreation use, and leave the thorough and important

discussion of those surprising findings to Lucas and

Stankey (1988) who follow us at this benchmark

conference.

TOTAL AMOUNT OF WILDERNESS

RECREATION USE

In 1986, between 14 and 15 million visitor days

of recreation use occurred on the 89.9 million acre

NWPS (table 1). Most of this use (11.2 million visitor

days) occurred on national forest wilderness, the

only agency that separates use estimates of wilderness from other dispersed recreational use. The

National Park Service in 1986 reported 0.88 million

backcountry overnight stays for parks with wilderness

or wilderness potential. This is probably equivalent

to about 1.8 million i2-hour recreation visitor-days.

Day-use data for national park backcountry are

generally unavailable, but day use is high in virtually

all wilderness-often accounting for more than half

of all wilderness visits (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987).

For example, unpublished use data for Yellowstone

National Park in 1975 showed about 100,000 backcountry day-use visits and 65,000 overnight stays.

Assuming about 150,000 12-hour visitor-days for the
Table 1. --National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) acreage and

use ( 1986)

Agency Areas Acreage Visitor days

Millions Millions

Forest Service 329 32.5 11.2

National Park Service 2: 37.8 about 2.7

Fish and Wildlife 19.3 .28 (1978)

Service

BLM -24 .37 -05 (1978)

Total 457 89.97 between 14 and 15

65,000 overnight stays, and around 60,000 IBhour

visitor-days for the 100,000 day users, this means

that total visitor days of day-use of the Yellowstone

backcountry was just under half of the total overnight

visitor days (Hendee and others, in press). If the

day-use to overnight use ratio of Yellowstone backcountry is typical, then all national park wilderness

and backcountry use amounted to about 2.7 million

visitor days of use in 1986.

There are almost no use figures for Fish and

Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management

Wilderness, but use there is very light. Based on a

1978 survey of agency managers, Washburne and

Cole (1988) estimated recreation use on FWS

wilderness at 0.28 million visitor-days, and BLM

primitive area use at 0.05 million.

Trends in backcountry and wilderness use

indicated rapid growth in the 1950’s and 1960’s,

often exceeding 10 percent annual increases. Growth

slowed in the late 1960’s and 1970’s to 3 to 5 percent

average annual increases. Indeed, by 1976, overnight

stays in national park wilderness and backcountry

had peaked, and 1986 use was only 62 percent of

that highest use year. Use of national forest wilderness

has fluctuated a great deal in the 1980% some years

increasing and some years decreasing. However,

the use levels of national forest wilderness have only

remained at this level because of the addition of new

areas to the NWPS. Use levels of the core areas of

the NWPS established by the 1964 Act peaked in

1979, and current use is 87 percent of that level

(Lucas and Stankey 1988). Overall, because national

forest use dominates the Wilderness System, use for

the System as a whole peaked at about 16 million

visitors days in 1985, and was down to below 15

million in 1986.

WILDERNESS USER CHARACTERISTICS

Within this and the use characteristics section to

follow, two kinds of data will be presented. The first

is a description of the wilderness user and use

characteristics as they were found at the time of the

study cited. Visitors to more than 30 wilderness areas

located throughout the country have been surveyed

(Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987) so we have considerable confidence in making statements about the NWPS.

However, we caution that some regions, e.g., the

deep South and much of the Southwest, have been

little studied, and virtually all studies were completed

between the mid-1960’s and the mid-1970’s. Our

review has less sensitivity to any changes in use

patterns and user characteristics in the last decade.

Also, since the summarized studies were completed

by many authors working at different times, often

with differing objectives and using different data

classifications, the precision of the data varies a

great deal across studies. For this reason, we report

only replicated and general patterns.

Secondly, where we have data that suggest

changes in use patterns or user characteristics across

time, we will acknowledge those trends. However,

we have less confidence in the generalizability of

these data. Thus far, only one study has compared

use and users in a given area across two points in

time. That was for the Bob Marshall Wilderness

Complex (a complex that includes the Bob Marshall,

Great Bear, and Scapegoat Wildernesses), where

Lucas (1980, 1985) studied use and users in 1970

and 1982. Other indications of trends come from

comparisons of different areas surveyed in the

mid-l 960’s and the late 1970’s. Changes found might

be due to area differences rather than trend shifts

across time, but several studies have shown that

wilderness use and users are strikingly similar across

areas and regions (Boteler 1981; Lucas 1980;

Roggenbuck 1980; Timm 1980).

347
The Wilderness User Stereotype

A common stereotype of wilderness users portrays

them as young, wealthy, athletic, urban, travelling

long distances to visit the wilderness, and leisured

enough to have large blocks of free time necessary

for foot travel into wilderness (Hendee and others, in

press; Norgaard and others 1979; Stankey 1971).

This stereotype is so widely shared that it has formed

the basis for opposition to additional wilderness

allocations in Congressional testimony (Hendee and

others, in press), and fostered management regulations to limit length of stay in wilderness as one

means to reduce congestion in wilderness and allocate

use more equitably among potential users. In this

paper, we will summarize the scientifically drawn

surveys of wilderness user characteristics, and will

attempt-once and for all-to put to rest the user

stereotype and the erroneous policy and management

decisions that have flowed from it.

Age

Wilderness users do tend to be young, younger

than the general population, Roggenbuck’s and

Lucas’s (1987) review of about 30 wilderness user

studies showed that between 25 percent and 40

percent of wilderness visitors to most areas were

between 16 and 25 years of age. The percentage of

the general U.S. population in this age category was

just under 20 at the time of the various studies.

Wilderness visitors in the 26 to 35year-old category

represented from about 20 to 40 percent of all use,

but only about 15 percent of the U.S. population falls

into this age bracket. However, middle-aged people

are also commonly found in wilderness, often in

larger percentages than exist in the general population. For example, 36 to 45year-olds make up about

10 to 20 percent of all wilderness users and about

11 percent in the general population. About 10 percent

of the US. population is between 46 to 55 years of

age; the percentages of wilderness users in this

category ranges from about 10 to 15 percent. Only

in the post 55-year-old age bracket are wilderness

users substantially underrepresented. About 20

percent of the general population and between 5

and 10 percent of wilderness users are past 55.

Wilderness-use studies indicate that between 0 and

25 percent of all wilderness visitors are below 16

years of age; for most areas this percentage is

between 5 and 10 percent. These numbers suggest

that children too are underrepresented, since about

25 to 30 percent of the general population is in this

age bracket. However, wilderness user studies likely _

underestimate use by children, because individuals

below 16 are often excluded from wilderness sampling

frames.

Gender

Roggenbuck and Lucas (1987) reported that

between 70 and 85 percent of the visitors to the

wilderness areas surveyed are male. Males are,

therefore, overrepresented in wilderness, but women

represent a significant minority-often 25 percent.

Also, because some studies only collected data

about the party leader and since the party leader is

most often a male, women are underrepresented in

some study samples. Finally, there is some evidence

to suggest that the percentage of women in wilderness

is increasing. For example, Lucas (1985) reports that

the proportion of female visitors to the Bob Marshall

wilderness grew from 20 percent in 1970 to 30 percent

in 1982.

Place of Residence

Visitors to wilderness areas are generally from

the state in which the area is located. Such in-state

users usually number from 66 to 75 percent, but for

lesser known areas and for all Forest Service

wildernesses studied in California, this percentage

exceeded 84 percent (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987).

In addition, Lucas (1985) has reported that wilderness

visitors often come from the State’s region closest to

the wilderness area. For example, 60 percent of all

visitors to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex

were from Montana, and 54 percent of all its visitors

were from northwestern Montana-the region where

the areas are located.

Wilderness areas in the East that have been

studied tend to have more out-of-state visitors. For

example, about half of all visitors surveyed in the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area and the Allagash

Wilderness Waterway in Maine were from out-of-state.

This likely reflects the smaller size of eastern States,

the relative scarcity of wilderness resources there,

and high demand.

Finally, a few areas with national and international

reputations, like the Great Smoky Mountains and

Yosemite National Parks and their backcountries,

have high nonresident use- sometimes amounting

to more than 65 percent. These areas, however, are

the exception and not the rule.

Urban/Rural Residence

Most visitors to wilderness areas are from urban

areas, as are most Americans. Indeed, the percentage

of urban users of wilderness is a remarkably accurate

representation of the States or regions from which

the visitors come. For example, Lucas (1985) found

that 50 percent of the Montana visitors to the Bob

348
Marshall Complex were from urban areas; 51 percent

of the Montana population is urban. About 90 percent

of the visitors to the Desolation Wilderness in

California, a highly urbanized State, were urban

residents (Lucas 1980). In southern California, with

many large cities in the region, over 90 percent of

the wilderness visitors come from cities with over a

million people (Hendee and others 1978). Finally,

Lucas (1985) reported that 74 percent of the out-ofstate visitors to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex

were urbanites, a proportion equal to that of all the

U.S. population.

,Hendee and others (in press) have recently noted

one difference in the urban-rural nature of wilderness

users versus the general population. Wilderness

visitors are much more likely to have grown up in

rural areas or small communities. In his 1970 study

of visitors to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex,

Lucas (1980) found that about 21 percent more

visitors had grown up in rural surroundings than

currently live there- about twice the size of the national

shift from rural to urban residents for that time period.

By 1982, the trend toward movement to urban areas

had slowed considerably, but 7 percent more

wilderness visitors to the Bob Marshall Complex had

previously lived in rural areas than currently lived

there. This shift was again about twice as large as

that for the general population.

Education

The feature that most distinguishes wilderness

users from the general population is their high

education. In almost all areas studied, at least 40

percent of wilderness visitors have completed college

(Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). In many areas, the

number exceeded 50 percent. This far exceeds the

schooling of the U.S. general population, where 11

and 18 percent completed college or attended

graduate school in 1970 and 1980, respectively. In

most areas, the proportion of wilderness visitors

going to school beyond college was greater than the

proportion of the U.S. population that goes beyond

high school (Lucas 1980). Also, the education levels

of wilderness users reported in studies are artificially

low-as compared to the general populationbecause wilderness surveys often include people

down to ages 14 or 16. They have not yet completed

their education. In contrast, general population

surveys only include people 25 years of age and

older.

Occupation

In almost all of the 20 or so wilderness areas

where occupation has been studied, the most

common visitor was a professional or technical worker

(Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). Their numbers usually

represented 30 to 40 percent of all wilderness visitors,

or about four times the national average. In some

areas in the East, like the Appalachian Trail and the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area, percentages exceeded

60. Students were the second most frequent visitors,

numbering from 20 to 33 percent for most areas.

Students thus are also overrepresented in wilderness,

because only about 4 percent of the U.S. population

was students in 1980. Homemakers and clerical,

sales and service workers (many of whom are female)

were the most underrepresented in wilderness.

Interestingly, in the only study where use and

users of the same area have been compared across

time, Lucas (1985) noted a drop in the percentage

of students and homemakers by about half between

1970 and 1982. In 1970, students made up about 17

percent and homemakers equalled about 9 percent

of all users of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex.

These numbers dropped to 11 percent and 4 percent,

respectively, in 1982. Numbers of people in these

categories in the general population did drop slightly

during this time period, but not enough to explain

the change among wilderness visitors. The drop in

student participation likely reflects an attitude change

about the desirability of wilderness recreation. The

reduction in participation by homemakers is more

difficult to explain, given the general increase in

wilderness use by women. Perhaps there is a growing

tendency for women who were homemakers and

who visited wilderness to seek employment outside

the home-and thus move to a different occupation

category.

Income

Wilderness visitors have above-average incomes,

but so do most outdoor recreationists (Roggenbuck

and Lucas 1987). Their moderately high incomes

likely reflect the high educational and/or professional

occupational status of most wilderness users. Variation

in income across areas is, however, very high. For

example in the early 1970’s, 16 percent of the users

of the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness (Montana), 21

percent of the Cranberry backcountry (West Virginia)

users, 40 percent of the users of four California

wildernesses, and 46 percent of the Desolation

Wilderness (California) visitors had family incomes of

$15,000 or more. About 23 percent of the general

U.S. population had family incomes this high at the

349
time of the wilderness studies. These figures suggest

that average income of users of some areas are at

or even below the national average, but income for

other areas far exceed it. These differences largely

reflect the variation in the general population’s income

in the States in which the areas are located. Thus,

the incomes of the Cranberry area users don’t seem

high compared to the national average, but they still

exceed the State average for West Virginia.

The relatively high incomes of wilderness visitors

have led some to suggest that wilderness is only

used by the wealthy. Data on use and users do not,

however, support this notion. For most areas studied

in 1970,‘from one-third to one-half of all users had

family incomes below $10,000 at a time when the

median U.S. income was about $9,000 (Lucas 1980).

In addition, we have already demonstrated that most

visitors to wilderness come from the region within

the State where the area is located, so travel costs

are typically low. Finally, typical expenditures for

wilderness visits are low-usually about $10 per day

in the early 1970’s (Lucas 1980; Stankey 1971).

Club Membership

While some have suggested that wilderness

visitors represent a relatively small cadre of people

committed to wilderness protection, data on user

membership in conservation organizations refute this

notion. For almost all areas that have been studied,

conservation club membership numbered only from

20 percent to 35 percent (Roggenbuck and Lucas

1987). And among these club memberships, fewer

than half- usually only about a third-belonged to

organizations like the Sierra Club or the Wilderness

Society that were oriented toward wilderness preservation. Most of the remaining club members belonged

to rod and gun clubs or some other outdoor activity

group (Lucas 1980). Exceptions to these findings

were a few areas in the Appalachians and in New

England, where conservation organization membership was somewhat higher-as high as 57 percent

in the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness of North

Carolina.

Previous Wilderness Experience

The previous use history of most wilderness

visitors can be characterized by a few words: high

experience, frequent visits, and short stays. For most

western areas studied, 70 percent to 90 percent of

all visitors had made at least one previous trip to a

wilderness area (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). This

percentage was somewhat less in the East, where

wilderness areas are fewer and typically more recently

established. Variation in the number of times the

study area had been previously visited was high. For

many areas, the number of people who had no

previous visits to the area where they were surveyed

was 30 or 40 percent, but this percentage reached

60 percent for some areas. At the same time, many

areas also had between 20 percent and 30 percent

of their visitors who had made six or more visits.

Visitors averaged three or four wilderness visits a

year, and spent a total of 6 to 10 days in wilderness

(Lucas 1980).

Type of Group

The family is the most common type of group

within wilderness, often comprising about 40 percent

of all groups (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). Wilderness user trend studies have shown that the predominance of the family is growing, and is spreading

more evenly across seasons of the year and travel

methods. Lucas (1985) reported 1970 horse users

and fall visitors of the Bob Marshall Wilderness

Complex more frequently to be groups of friends. By

1982, family groups were as common in the fall as in

the summer, and the proportion of family groups

and groups of friends were similar for horse users

and hikers. Also, almost half of the groups studied

have contained children. Finally, when groups

containing family members and friends are added to

those composed solely of family members, family

groups almost always exceed 50 percent.

Groups of friends are the second most common

type of wilderness user group, frequently numbering

from 30 to 40 percent. For a few areas like the Great

Bear in Montana, with its large hunter contingency,

or the Fitzpatrick in Wyoming, with its high use by

outdoor education groups, friendship groups exceed

50 percent.

Use of the wilderness by organized groups or

clubs and by lone individuals is low everywhere.

Solo hikers seldom equal 10 percent of all user groups,

and for the organized groups, like Boy Scout or Girl

Scout groups, the number is usually below 5 percent.

WILDERNESS USE PAlTERNS

Group Size

Wilderness visitor groups are typically small, and

getting smaller. The average size for National Forests

is four to five people; and for National Park lands,

the number is two to three individuals. For virtually

all areas, two to four person groups account for 50

percent to 75 percent of all parties (Roggenbuck

350
and Lucas 1987). Two-person groups are the most

common. As mentioned earlier, lone individuals are

rare in wilderness- usually numbering fewer than 10

percent of all visitor groups. National Park wilderness

does, however, tend to have somewhat more solo

hikers than do Forest Service wildernesses. Finally,

groups larger than 10 people are completely absent

in some areas, and account for about 5 or 6 percent

in several others. Only rarely do such large groups

exceed 10 percent, and then only in such areas as

the San Gorgonio in California with its nearby summer

youth camps.

In the one study, which compared use patterns

of the same areas across time, party size has dropped

dramatically (Lucas 1985). In 1970, groups in the

Great Bear and Scapegoat Wildernesses averaged

5.2 and 5.6 individuals, respectively. By 1982, these

numbers had declined to 3.8 and 4.4. During this

time period many wilderness managers had implemented group size limitations to 10 persons, but this

does not seem to account for much of the reductions

in average party size. Few parties had previously

exceeded 10.

Length of Stay

A surprising use characteristic, and one which

sharply refutes the wilderness stereotype, is the

short length of stay of most wilderness visits. For the

majorii of areas, the most common visit is for one

day or less (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). Even for

large western wildernesses, the one-day visit is often

the most common. For example, Lucas (1980) found

that more than 60 percent of all visits to the Cabinet

Mountains and Mission Mountains Wildernesses and

the Spanish Peaks Primitive Area of Montana were

for one day. Even in the very large and nationally

known Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness of Idaho and

Montana, 48 percent of all visits were for a day or

less. Trips of a week or more are almost nonexistent;

half of all the western areas studied had no sampled

trip of this length. Average length of stay for most

areas across all regions of the country is 2 to 3 days.

Exceptions to the typically short lengths of stay

are those areas with disproportionately high horse,

canoe or hunting use, or high use by outdoor

education schools, For example, the Bob Marshall

and Great Bear wildernesses are well known for

horse use and hunting attractions, and their average

length of stay is 4 to 5 days. Outdoor education

schools likely explain the longer stays in the Popo

Agie, Bridger, and Fitzpatrick Wildernesses in

Wyoming.

Length of stay is also getting shorter in wilderness.

For example, Lucas (1985) found visits to the Bob

Marshall Wilderness Complex averaged 5.7 days in

1970; by 1982, trip length had decreased to 4.7

days, This decline is probably due to the presence

of proportionately more hikers, fewer horse users,

and fewer hunters in wilderness in recent years, Far

fewer horse users and hunters than hikers are one-day

users.

Method of Travel

The vast majority of wilderness visitors are hikers,

except for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and a

very few horse-oriented wildernesses in the West. In

the East, hiking is the only method of travel for many

areas. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area exception

has 75 percent paddle canoeists, 21 percent motor

boaters or motor canoeists, and 4 percent hikers.

Even in the Rocky Mountain West, horse parties

usually comprise fewer than 20 percent of all groups.

In those few areas, like the Bob Marshall, the Great

Bear and perhaps the Teton, where horse use is at

or above 50 percent, hiking use is increasing relative

to horse use. For example, the Outdoor Recreation

Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) study (1962)

estimated that 90 percent of all Bob Marshall visitors

were horse users in 1959. By 1970, this number was

59 percent (Lucas 1980) and in 1982, there was an

even split between the horse users and hikers (Lucas

1985). Indeed, the shift away from horse use and

toward hiking use was the biggest change that Lucas

(1985) found in his comparison of 1970 and 1982

use and users of the Bob Marshall, Great Bear, and

Scapegoat Wildernesses, In 1970, horse users were

the clear majority in this three-area complex. By

1982, the situation had reversed, and hikers had

become the most common users (Roggenbuck and

Lucas 1987).

Time of Use

Most wilderness use occurs during the summer

months, generally accounting for 60 percent or more

of all use (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). Even for

areas with high amounts of fall hunting, like the Great

Bear or the Bob Marshall, the majority of all use

occurs during the summer. For alpine areas, and

many National Forest Wildernesses of the West are

alpine, this use characteristic suggests high concentrations of use during July and August, because

snow makes many trails impassible until late June.

Wiihin this general trend of high summer use,

certain areas have short peaks of intense use in

other seasons. The first week or two of hunting season

351
causes sharp climbs in use in a few western wildernesses, and the fall color season makes October a

high use time in New England and the Southern

Appalachians. Spring is the most attractive use period

in some areas of the South, Southeast, and the lower

elevations of wilderness in the Southwest and

Southern California. Finally, winter use of wilderness

is little studied, but it appears to be light. However, it

is much more common than a decade ago, and it

seems to be growing.

Like most outdoor recreation, wilderness use is

concentrated on weekends, For example, Lucas

(1980) repotted that two-thirds to three-fourths of all

visitors to the nine western areas he studied in 1970

entered on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Weekend

concentration levels in the accessible San Gorgonio

and San Jacinto Wildernesses in California were also

severe in the early 1970’s (Hendee and others 1978).

Fears that even higher concentrations of use would

be found in the wilderness areas in the East have

not, however, materialized. In the Great Gulf Wilderness, three National Forest wildernesses in the

Southeast, and the Great Smoky National Park in the

summer, weekday use accounted for 40 to 68 percent

of all use (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). This

diminished weekend peaking may simply reflect the

later dates of the Eastern studies. Lucas (1985) has

reported that in 1982, weekend use accounted for

58 percent of all use of the Bob Marshall Wilderness

Complex, down from about 70 percent for the three

areas in 1970. This shift away from weekend peaking

of use may be a response to educational efforts by

management agencies to obtain greater dispersal of

use across time and area.

Distribution of Use Among Areas

Wilderness recreation use is extremely variable

across areas. In 1984,ll National Forest wildernesses

(the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (MN), John Muir

(CA), Frank Church-River of No Return (ID), AbsarokaBeartooth (MT), Indian Peaks (CO), Alpine Lakes

(WA), Weminuche (CO), Selway-Bitterroot (ID-MT),

Desolation (CA), Bridger (WY), and Emigrant (CA))

received 41 percent of the total recreational use of

the 165 Forest Service areas. One area, the Boundary

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, reported 1,252,700

visitor days-or more than 12 percent of total national

forest wilderness use. Heavily used areas tend to be

located near population centers, often in the Southern

Appalachians, New England, Minnesota, and California.

Limited National Park Service backcountry use

data also reflect uneven distributions of use. In 1984,

Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Sequoia and the Grand

Canyon all reported close to or over 100,000 backcountry overnight stays. At the same time, several

National Park Service wilderness-like areas, including

Badlands, Big Thicket, Craters of the Moon, Death

Valley, Katmai, and Lava Beds, reported fewer than

1,000 overnight stays. Some wilderness areas

reported no use (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987).

The estimates of visitor-days of use per acre

also demonstrate extremely variable use. For example,

while the average visitor-days of use per acre for

National Forest wilderness was 0.31 in 1984, use of

North Carolina wildernesses averaged 5.24: Indiana,

2.36; Tennessee, 2.29; Georgia, 2.07; Minnesota,

1 .16; and New Hampshire, 1.07. Proximity to population centers alone was not an adequate predictor of

use, because many areas in the populated East, like

Hell Hole Bay in South Carolina and Bradwell Bay in

Florida, with their swamps and frequently flooded

forests, have 0.05 visitor-days per acre or less.

Roggenbuck and Lucas (1987) have suggested that

area size, character of the resource, presence of

attractions, managing agency, time of establishment

as wilderness, extent of area access, season and

year, trail system configuration, type of user, and

tradition all influence amount of use.

Intra-Wilderness Use Distribution

Typically, use within a wilderness, as reflected in

use of trailheads, trail segments, and camping areas,

is also distributed very unevenly. In his study of nine

wilderness areas in the West, Lucas (1980) generally

found that about one-fourth of all the access points

accounted for 80 percent or more of all use. In all

areas, except the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, just

three trailheads accounted for at least one-half of all

use. In Yosemite National Park backcountry, 4 percent

of the trailheads received 68 percent of all use. Use

of trailheads within wilderness areas in the East

seems more evenly distributed.

Some recent data suggest that use is becoming

more dispersed. For example, Lucas (1964) reported

that 52 percent of all paddling canoeists in the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area originated from one

access point. In 1974, seven of the BWCA’s 70 entry

points accounted for 70 percent of all use. In 1976

the trend toward greater use dispersal was reinforced

by the adoption of quotas by entry points. Thus,

when use was reported for 88 entry points in 1984,

the top 10 accounted for 51 percent of all use

(Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). In 1970 in the Bob

Marshall, Great Bear, and Scapegoat wildernesses,

between 7 percent and 25 percent of the entry points

to these three areas accounted for 80 percent of all

use. In 1982, this amount of use entered at 33 to 45

percent of the areas’ trailheads (Lucas 1985).

352
Use of the various trail segments within an area

is also highly variable, because of trailhead location

relative to population centers, ease of road access

to trailheads, location of attractions within the area,

extent of trail development, trail configuration within

the area, and distance from the wilderness periphery.

For example, even though the Spanish Peaks Primitive

Area had one of the most evenly distributed trail use

patterns among the areas that Lucas (1980) studied,

about 50 percent of all the visitor-miles of travel

occurred on 10 percent of its trail miles, Thirty percent

of the trail miles had 70 percent of all use. In the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area, paddling canoeists

are 40 times more likely to see other parties on some

lakessthan on others (Lime 1975).

Camping also tends to occur at attraction points

in the backcountry, typically at such places as lakes,

streams, or viewpoints. Concentration, however,

seems somewhat less pronounced than at trailheads

or along trail segments, perhaps because of the

greater need for solitude in campsites. Still, in the

Desolation Wilderness of California, 16 percent of

the campsites accounted for over half of all overnight

use; the least used half had only 18 percent of all

use (Hendee and others 1978). Lucas (1985) reported

that many campsites in the Bob Marshall Wilderness

Complex received fewer than 30 nights of use per

year, while several had 120 nights of use (or almost

constant occupation during the visitor-use season).

Finally, winter camping use-while much lighter than

in the summer-is apparently even more concentrated. Hughes (1985) reported greater concentration of

use at shelters in the Smokies backcountry in winter

than in summer; and among shelter use, there was

greater use concentration at fewer shelters.

Activities

Fishing (where possible), photography, nature

study, and swimming (particularly in the Southeast

and California) follow hiking as the most common

activities in wilderness, Hunting is prevalent in some

areas, but is always less than what might be expected.

Even in such hunting hot spots as the Bob Marshall

and the Great Bear wildernesses, just over 30 percent

and 40 percent, respectively, of the sampled visitors

hunted. Even in the fall hunting season, most visitors

are not hunters.

In a study of activity trends in the Bob Marshall

Wilderness Complex, hiking, fishing, and photography

remained important across 1970 and 1982 users

(Lucas 1985). Of these, only fishing declined, and

that only slightly. Hunting was the only activity with a

substantial change, and it dropped sharply in percent

of total visitation.

SUMMARY

The amount of recreational use of the NWPS

appears to have stabilized or is declining. In the

1980’s, use of Forest Service wilderness has increased

some years and dropped in others, The overall result

has been a generally stable visitation trend. However,

on a per acre basis, use is declining. For example,

in 1975 there were 15.4 million acres of Forest Service

wilderness with 7.5 million visitor days of use, for an

average of 0.49 visitor days per acre. By 1986, Forest

Service wilderness had increased to over 32 million

acres and 11.2 million visitor days, for an average of

0.35 visitor days per acre. This represents a sharp

reversal in use trends, for in recent decades wilderness

use had been increasing rapidly.

The common stereotype of the wilderness users

as young, wealthy, urban, leisured, and a nonresident

of the State or region is largely incorrect. Wilderness

visitors are young, but so too are most outdoor

recreationists. Also, people in their thirties, forties

and early fifties are found in wilderness in equal or

greater proportions than exist in the general population. Women are a sizeable minority in wilderness,

and their numbers seem to be growing. Most

wilderness users live in urban areas, but so do most

outdoor recreationists and so do most U.S. citizens.

Most wilderness visitors come from the region within

the State closest to the wilderness. Thus, travel time

and cost to the wilderness visitor are not high. The

family group and the group made up of family and

friends are the most common kind of wilderness

user. Also, the use of the wilderness as a family

recreational resource seems to be increasing. Income

of families of wilderness visitors are higher than

average for the States within which they live, but

only moderately so and typically not any further

above State income averages than for other outdoor

recreationists. Most wilderness visitors are in professional and technical occupations; students are the

second most numerous, However, a recent trend

study of wilderness users suggests that the proportion

of students is dropping significantly. Wilderness

users do not seem to be an elite group of zealous

resource preservationists or outdoor adventurists.

Typically, fewer than 30 percent of an area’s visitors

belong to conservation organizations, and most of

the memberships are with rod and gun clubs and

not the traditional wilderness advocacy groups. The

one characteristic that does sharply distinguish

wilderness users from the general population and

other outdoor recreationists is their very high education levels. The nation’s higher education system

with its many courses and outing clubs promoting

wilderness appreciation seems to have fueled the

353
demand for wilderness use (Hendee and Roggenbuck

1985). Whether this relationship is one of direct

causality is, however, unknown. For example, some

other variable or variables may have caused both

the interest in wilderness coursework and the

increased visitation to wilderness.

Use patterns in wilderness also differ from

commonly held perceptions, and trends suggest

continued change away from the stereotype. Size of

individual user groups in wilderness is small, and

getting smaller. However, the lone individual is rare.

Privacy and intimacy in small, closely knit groups are

the norm, not complete solitude away from all others.

Length of stay is surprisingly short, with most visits

being day-use only. Trends suggest that the average

length of stay is getting shorter. Distribution of use

across time and across areas is highly skewed, with

most use’ occurring on weekends during the summer

on a small percentage of wilderness areas. However,

there is considerable evidence suggesting that use

is beginning to disperse. Weekday use is becoming

more common; winter use is increasing, and there is

less concentration of use at attractions which can

become impact and conflict zones within wilderness.

Finally, the higher impact and consumptive recreational activities in wilderness are declining as a proportion

of total use. For example, limited data suggest that

horse use is declining, fishing is stable to slightly

declining, and hunting as a percentage of total use

is dropping sharply.

IMPLICATIONS

The above review of wilderness use and user

characteristics suggests that managers, planners,

and policy-makers should view wilderness in a new

light. We believe that six changes in the meaning of

wilderness and destroyed myths about wilderness

use must be attended to.

First, the need for additional wilderness allocation

on the basis of recreational use demand is dropping.

Use has stabilized or dropped in recent years.

Population demographics suggest that use may

decline even further. For example, the proportion of

the U.S. population over 55 years of age and the

proportion of blacks and Hispanics in the population

are increasing. These population groups are underrepresented in wilderness. This does not, however,

mean that we have enough classified wilderness

everywhere. There are many other legitimate reasons

for wilderness protection besides recreational use,

such as protection of representative examples of

natural ecosystems and protection of endangered

species. Also, the greatest recreational use of

wilderness is the vicarious user (Driver and others

1987), and we haven’t even addressed that important

user here. The number of vicarious users-those

people who dream of wilderness, spend money to

view wilderness literature and films, and spend time

and money supporting the wilderness allocation

process- is probably increasing in the general

population. Policymakers need to give greater

consideration to these off-site and nonrecreational

demands for wilderness.

Second, the benefits of wilderness recreation

use accrue primarily to individuals in the region

immediately surrounding the wilderness. People do

not travel far to wilderness. Therefore, it is important

to have a NWPS with individual units distributed

widely throughout the country. One could argue that

wilderness, like iron ore deposits, is where it exists.

However, others have argued that wilderness has

more to do with wrinkles on the brow than wrinkles

on the landscape (Nash 1982). The history of

wilderness allocation in the country favors the latter

position-as evidenced by the so-called Eastern

Wilderness Act (PL 93-622), the Endangered Wilderness Act (PL 95-237) and the Forest Service RARE

II study criteria. Data on wilderness use and users

confirm this philosophy, and the National Park Service,

the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and

Wildlife Service should follow the lead of the Forest

Service in bringing the wilderness to the people to

the largest extent possible.

Third, the use of wilderness and the role of

wilderness in the American cultural context have

matured. Wilderness recreation and protection have

become legitimized. Wilderness is no longer a fad.

Thus, we no longer see the sharp increases in

recreational use of wilderness, but we see increasing

use and support for wilderness by the ‘common

man; i.e., the middle and upper middle class American

family. This suggests broad-based political support,

and managers have the opportunity to,view, and

must view, the business of protecting wilderness and

providing visitor services over the long haul.

Fourth, because wilderness use has stabilized or

is declining and because user behavior appears to

be becoming more sensitive to wilderness values,

the task of wilderness management should be easier

in the future than in the past. This has two important

implications for management. Managers can now

confidently and enthusiastically begin to focus on

wilderness quality. Now, more than in the past,

managers have an opportunity to know their clientele,

define high quality wilderness experiences, and shape

354
use and users to protect the wilderness resource

and its human benefits. Next, managers will have the

opportunity to focus on the delivery of benefits to

people- to improve quality of life and thereby develop

supportive constituencies. This contrasts sharply

with the past when many managers-rightly or

wrongly-felt compelled to focus attention on crowding, conflicts, impacts, and use and user restrictions,

and thereby often incurred the displeasure rather

than the pleasure of constituents (Burch 1984).

Fifth, some of the surprising wilderness use

patterns suggest that we don’t have a very good

understanding of the benefits of wilderness recreation.

As the focus of wilderness management shifts more

and more toward quality rather than quantity, and

toward individual human benefits rather than broad

societal outputs, this lack of knowledge will increasingly become a sore spot. For example, many

wilderness philosophers and advocates suggest that

people need considerable time in wilderness before

they can begin to attain such spiritual and mental

benefits as time-environment fusion, feelings of

oneness with the earth, and feelings of stability and

relaxation through connection with ancient rhythms

and our ancestral past (Olson 1972). Yet, most of

our wilderness visits are for one day or less. Is the

NWPS now providing the optimum mix of wilderness

benefits? Should planners and managers intervene

to shape the attainment of benefits, as in the past

they intervened to reduce impacts?

Sixth and last, education-because it is the key

indicator of the wilderness user-appears to play the

pivotal role in wilderness allocation, planning, and

management. While education is very important in

fueling wilderness demand (Hendee and Roggenbuck

1985) we don’t yet fully understand that process.

We need to find these answers. We do know that

wilderness users are highly educated; and as such,

will have influence beyond their numbers in the political

process, will actively be involved in wilderness

planning processes, and will expect high quality

management. The high educational levels offer a

unique opportunity for wilderness suppliers and

recipients to work closely together for mutual benefit.

The manager-generated information-education programs to reduce impacts or disperse use in wilderness

represent one success story that almost certainly

reflects the high education levels of the wilderness

user. Other opportunities building on high education

levels also exist. For example, wilderness users are

likely to seek and process more, and more complex,

information when they choose recreation sites to

visit. Managers can influence user decisions to the

mutual benefit of both parties through the provision

of appropriate information. For instance, they might

be able to shift use from heavily-used areas to

under-used wilderness. Finally, as wilderness managers shift their focus from responding to the negative

impacts of great quantities of visitors to the provision

of individual human benefits, they may want to

advertise their high quality areas and service. After

all, building supportive constituencies who receive

personal benefits from resource management and

use will increasingly become a prerequisfte to agency

well-being. When that time comes, communications

with existing and potential wilderness users will

become increasingly important, and knowledge of

education levels will be an important variable in

identifying, shaping, and responding to the needs

and opinions of this important clientele group.

Boteler, Franklin E. 1981. Eastern and western wildland

users: a comparison of their characteristics with

implications for management decision making. pp.

95105. In: Proceedings of the conference on

social research in national parks and wildland

areas; 1980 March 21-22; Gatlinburg, TN: US.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

Southeast Regional Off ice.

Burch, William R. 1984. Much ado about nothingsome reflections on the wider and wilder implications of social carrying capacity. Leisure Sciences.

6(4):487-496.

Driver, Beverly L.; Nash, Roderick; Haas, Glenn.

1987. Wilderness benefits: a state-of-knowledge

review. pp. 294-319. In: Lucas, Robert C., camp.

Proceedings - national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions;

1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Hendee, John C.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1985.

Wilderness-related education as a factor increasing

demand for wilderness. pp. 273-278. In: International forest congress 1984: forest resources

management-the influence of policy and law;

1984 August 6-7; Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.

Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Robert

C. 1978. The wilderness management. Misc. Publ.

1365. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 381 pp.
Hughes, J. L. 1985. Winter backcountry campers in

the Great Smoky Mountains National Park: their

behavior, use patterns and characteristics.

Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. I I6 pp.

MS. thesis.

Lime, David W. 1975. Sources of congestion and

visitor dissatisfaction in the Boundary Waters Canoe

Area. pp. 68-82. in: Proceedings, the QueticoSuperior Foundation, 1975. Institute on the BWCA;

May 9, 1975; Duluth, MN. Minneapolis, MN:

Quetico-Superior Foundation.

Lucas, Robert C. 1964. The recreational use of the

Quetico-Superior area. Res. Pap. LS-8. St. Paul,

MN: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Lakes States Forest Experiment Station. 50 pp.

Lucas, Robert C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor

characteristics, attitudes, and preferences in nine

wilderness and other roadless areas. Res. Pap.

INT-253. Odgen, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 89 pp.

Lucas, Robert C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall

Wilderness complex, 1970-82. Res. Pap. INT-345.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 pp.

Lucas, Robert C.; Stankey, George H. 1988. Shifting

trends in wilderness recreational use. Paper

presented at Benchmark 1988: a national outdoor

recreation and wilderness forum, Tampa, FL.

Sponsored by U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station, Georgia Southern College, and Clemson

University. January 13-l 5. 29 pp.

Nash, Roderick. 1982. Wilderness and the American

mind. 3d ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

425 pp.

Norgaard, Judith King; Kovalicky, Tom; Stankey,

George. 1979. Wilderness myths: some falsehoods

are put to rest. Montana Magazine. 9(6):53-56.

Olson, Sigurd F. 1972. Wilderness days. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf. 233 pp.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission

(ORRRC). 1962. Wilderness recreation-a report

on resources, values, and problems. ORRRC Study

Report 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 352 pp.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1980. Wilderness user

preferences-eastern and western areas. pp.

103-l 46. In: Proceedings of wilderness management symposium; November 13-I 5; US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Lucas, Robert C. 1987.

Wilderness use and user characteristics: a state-ofknowledge review. pp. 264-245. In: Lucas, Robert

C., camp. Proceedings- national wilderness

research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge,

future directions: 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins,

CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Stankey, George H. 1971. Myths in wilderness decision

making. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

26(5):183-I 88.

Timm, Wendy. 1980. A comparison of the carrying

capacity perceptions of eastern and western

wilderness users. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic and State University. 125 pp. MS. thesis.

Washburne, Randel F.; Cole, David N. 1983. Problems

and practices in wilderness management, a survey

of managers. Res. Pap. INT-304, Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

56 PP.

356
SHIFTING TRENDS IN WILDERNESS RECREATIONAL USE

Robert C. Lucas and George H. Stankey’

Abstract- Wilderness recreational use grew rapidly

during most of the post World War II era, but growth

has Slowed or reversed recent/y. National park

backcountry use began declining in the 1970’s and

national forest use slowed or declined in the 1980’s

in many areas. Reasons are unclear, but an aging

population and changing interests are the most

apparent causes. This change has implications for

wilderness allocation and management.

INTRODUCTION

Wilderness recreational use has grown greatly

over the last 40 years (fig. 1). Growth has often been

considered inevitable, and references to “burgeoning

growth, ” “explosive increases,’ and so on have

commonly been made by managers and interested

individuals. Continued rapid growth has been assumed in most discussions of the need for additional

wilderness, impacts to ecosystems, crowding, and

the need for regulation and control of use.

But the rate of increase in wilderness recreational

use has been slowing for some time, and recently it

has leveled off and even declined in many areas.

This shift in wilderness use trends has not been

widely recognized. It will be described, possible

reasons for it will be explored, and policy and

management implications will be considered.

WILDERNESS USE DATA SOURCES

Of the four agencies that manage lands in the

National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS),

Forest Service wilderness use data are most complete

and cover the longest period. Total use, including

‘Project Leader and Research Social Scientist, Intermountain

Research Station, U.S. Department of Agricutture, Forest Service,

Missoula, MT; Visiting Principal Fellow, Juring-gai College of

Advanced Education, Lindfield, New South Wales, Australia.

1 1

1 0

OVERNIGHT STAYS

J I I I II I I I I

.-_ ._-

L

1 9 46 ‘5 0 ‘5 5 ‘6 0 ‘6 5 ‘7 0 ‘7 5 ‘00 .86

Figure l.-Trends in recreational use

of national forest and national park wilderness

and backcountry, 1946-86.

overnight and day use, has been estimated for each

wilderness and primitive area since 1946, and some

data go back to 1941 (Elsner 1985).

National Park Service data are more limited and

cover a shorter period. Data are not available

specifically for designated wildernesses, but, since

1971, overnight stays in backcountry have been

reported. Most national park backcountry (roadless,

357
undeveloped areas) provides use opportunities similar Table 1. --Growth in total

to those found in national forest wilderness. However, National Forest wilderness1

although day use is common in many wildernesses, use, 19 46-86

often &counting for a majority of visits (Roggenbuck

and Lucas 1987) it is not reported for national park

backcountty.

Recreational use of wildernesses managed by

the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land

Management is minor and data are scarce (Washburne and Cole 1988). This discussion will omit both.

_

Average

Year Use annual change

Thousands Percent

Man-days2

Besides variation in units of measure and length

of records, the National Park Service and Forest

Service wilderness recreation data also vary in

accuracy. Park Service figures probably are more

accurate than Forest Service data for most areas,

although both have serious problems.

19 46 406 --

19 55 1.175 12.5

19 64 2,872 10.4

Visitor-days3

As use figures are aggregated for large regions

or for the Nation, errors probably cancel out to some

extent and remaining errors have a diminished effect

on large amounts of more reliable data. Particularly

at the national level, we think wilderness use data

are good enough to be worth analyzing, but with

some caution. Trends are most reliable if considered

over a period of years, rather than emphasizing

change from one year to the next. Although we could

wish for better data, these are all we have, and we

will discuss them without repeated warnings of the

need for caution, first for national forests, then for

national parks.

TRENDS IN NATIONAL FOREST

WILDERNESS USE

Table 1 shows the growth in national forest

wilderness use from 1946 through 1986, roughly by

decades. Changes in definitions of the units for

reporting use between 1964 and 1965 make it

impossible to compare directly the growth rates over

the 40 years. During the 18 years from 1946 through

1964, however, use grew sevenfold, at an average

annual growth rate of 11.5 percent. In the 21 years

following passage of the Wilderness Act, use has

increased more than 2-l/2 fold, averaging 4.4 percent

per year. Lately, growth has slowed even more. From

1981 through 1986, use grew only 5 percent, or, on

an average annual basis, less than 1 percent per

year. During the 1980’s, year-to-year changes have

been negative more often than positive.

1965 4,522 --

19 75 7,802

19 86 11,233

1

Includes use of primitive

areas.

2

A man-day was defined as one

person present for 1 day, but

quarter days varied: onequarter was 15 minutes to 3

hours, one-half was 3 to 5

hours, three-quarters was 5 to

7 hours, and a full man-day was

7 to 24 hours. Thus, man-days

cannot be converted to visitorhours or visitor-days.

3A visitor-day is defined as

one person present for

12 hours.

forests contained 88 units reporting wilderness use.

This included 54 areas designated as wilderness by

the Act and 84 primitive areas, managed as wilderness

pending review for possible wilderness classification.

Over the years, all but one of these primitive areas

have been reclassified as wilderness. Many new

areas also have been added to the NWPS; at present

there are 880 national forest units in the NWPS. To

trace underlying trends in wilderness use, it is

necessary to consider this major expansion in the

number of units reporting use (Petersen 1981).

In recent years, part of the increase in use stems

from the addition of new wildernesses. At the time of

passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, the national

358
To do this, we can separate the growth of

recreational use of the original 88 units, the ‘core

system,’ from that of new areas (fig. 1). The size of

the core system has been relatively stable, although

some areas have been expanded. Since 1965, the

rate of annual growth in use of the core system

declined steadily:

Years Average annual change

(Percent)

1965-w

1970-75 2:;

1%‘5-80 2.3

1980-86 -2.4

From 1965 through 1986, use of the core system

has grown at an average annual rate of 2 percent,

about half that reported for the total national forest

wilderness system. Since 1980, use has declined.

The peak year of use of the core system occurred in

1979; in 1986, use of the core system was 87 percent

of 1979 use.

Still, in absolute terms, the growth in national

forest wilderness use is impressive (fig. l), exceeding

that for many other forms of recreation taking place

in the national forests. As a percentage of total national

forest recreation use and, for comparison, as a

percentage of national forest developed campground

total use, wilderness use has grown steadily except

in the last year for which data are available:

Year

Percent of Percent of

total use campground use

1941 0.4 2.2

1946 1.2 5.1

1951 1.8 - -

1956 2.0 - -

1961 1.9 7; 2

1964 2.1 9.0

1965 2.8 13.3

1970 3.4 16.9

1975 Zl 19.9

1980 23.0

,1985 1986 5.63 ;z*i .

Wilderness use has increased its share of national The decline in national park use is not limited to

forest recreation in most of this period, despite recent the backcountry. All recreational overnight stays in

slower growth in wilderness use because most other the national parks declined 8 percent from a peak in

types of national forest recreation also have leveled 1977 through 1986, but backcountry stays declined

off or declined since 1980. more.

TRENDS IN NATIONAL PARK

WILDERNESS USE

Change in national park backcountty use is

shown for 5-year periods in table 2. -During the first 5

years following 1971, use grew rapidly, more than

doubling from 1.1 million overnight stays to a peak

of 2.6 million in 1976. This was followed by a long

decline (fig. 1). Reported use in 1986 was less than

in 1973, despite a 20-percent growth in the number

of units reporting backcountry use. From 1976 through

1986, national park backcountry use declined about

37 percent, while in the same period national forest

wilderness use (including new areas) grew nearly 65

percent. (Use of the core system grew only 4 percent.)

There is little association between the patterns of

change in annual use for the two wilderness-managing

agencies; from 1971 through 1986, there are only 5

years when the changes reported by the two agencies

were in the same direction, up or down.

Table 2. --Changes in total

overnight stays in National

Park backcountry, 1971-86

Average

Overnight annual

Year stays change

Thousands Percent

1971 1,096 __

19% 2,609 18.9

1981 2,330 -2.3

1986 1,645 -6.7

The decline in national park backcountry use is

further confirmed by examining the year of peak use

and contrasting it with 1986. As table 3 indicates, in

17 national parks with significant backcountry or

wilderness portions, the peak year of use in 12

instances was before 1980 and in only one case

was it as recent as 1982. In Shenandoah National

Park, for example, 1986 use was only 32 percent of

the 1973 peak.

359
Table 3. --Peak year of wilderness use, National Park areas1

National Park

Peak year Percentage of

of overnight peak year use

backcountry use occurring in 1986

Yosemite (CA)

Everglades (FL)

Olympic (WA)

Shenandoah (VA)

Denali (AK)

Grand Canyon (AZ)

Great Smoky Mountains (NC-TN)

Grand Teton (WY)

Glacier (MT)

Rocky Mountain (CO)

19712 48

1973 61

1973

1973 ;;

1976 91

1976 45

1976

1976 z

1977 49

1977 56

Mount Rainier (WA)

Voyageurs (MN)

King's Canyon (CA)

Sequoia (CA)

North Cascades (WA)

Yellowstone (WY-MT-ID)

Big Bend (TX)

Total overnight backcountry use, all

National Parks

1979

1979 :2

1980 54

1980

1981 2;

1981

1982 zl

1976 62

1

Based on annual National Park Statistical Abstracts.

2 .

This was the year before backcountry permits were issued and data may be

unreliable. The annual National Park Statistical Abstracts show 1972 with

almost as much use as 1971. but van Wagtendonk (1981) shows 1975 as the peak,

with about the same use as 1971 and 1972. with 17 percent more use than shown

in the Statistical Abstracts.

For comparative purposes, data for more than

20 national forest core system wildernesses (chosen

mainly by elimination of those areas that showed

such extreme fluctuations from year to year that the

data seemed unreliable) are also shown (table 4);

three show 1986 as the peak year, but a number are

similar to the national park areas, with most reporting

their peak year as 1982 or earlier.

TRENDS IN RELATED ACTIVITIES

Examining the growth in activities associated

with wilderness use provides mixed results when

compared to trends in wilderness recreational use.

For example, membership in the Sierra Club grew

from 84,000 in 1970 to 344,000 in 1983, a rate of

nearly 12 percent annually, and many other environmental organizations also grew rapidly (Hendee

1984). In contrast, the National Sporting Goods

Association described the traditional outdoors market

as a mature, or perhaps declining, market. Furthermore, national forests in Montana and northern Idaho,

and some other areas as well, indicate fewer volunteers for wilderness work and fewer applicants for

wilderness ranger positions.

We must conclude, therefore, that wilderness

use, like participation in many other recreational

activities, has begun to stabilize. Much of the apparent

growth is accounted for by the rapid expansion in

the number of units that report wilderness use,

primarily those under national forest administration.

This growth, however, results largely from bookkeeping, as new areas with a history of recreational use

are tabulated as wilderness. Previously, their use

was included within some other recording category.

POSSIBLE REASONS FOR SLOWING

GROWTH

Many factors can be considered as potential

causes of slower growth. Possible reasons are

complex and uncertain, but an aging population and

changing tastes appear to be key factors. We will

examine these and other factors and try to judge

their roles.

360
Table 4 .--Peak year1of wilderness use, selected National Forest core

system wildernesses

Wilderness

Percentage of

Peak year of peak year use

wilderness use occurring in 1986

San Gorgonio (CA)

Three Sisters (OR)

Desolation (CA)

Hoover (CA)

John Muir (CA)

Pecos (NM)

Mazatzal (AZ)

Bridger (WY)

Sawtooth (ID)

Great Gulf (NH)

San Jacinto (CA)

Selway-Bitterroot (ID-MT)

Mount Jefferson (OR)

Jarbridge (NV)

Bob Marshall (MT)

Absaroka-Beartooth (MT)

Boundary Waters Canoe Area (MN)

Eagles Nest (CO)

Linville Gorge (NC)

Teton (WY)

Cloud Peak (WY)

High Uintas (UT)

Glacier Peak (WA)

1966 49

1973

1974 ;46

1975 26

1975

1978

1978

31

1979 38

1979 71

1980 53

1980

1981 2;

1981 93

1981

1982 :z

1982

1982 ;z

1983 71

1984 47

1985 80

1986 100

1986 100

1986 100

1Based on annual summaries of wilderness use from the Forest

Service national office.

Changing Age Structure

Virtually all studies of recreation participation

point to age as one of the most powerful predictive

measures of future participation (Marcin and Lime

1977; McCool and Frost 1987). However, English

and Cordell (1985) found that recreation participation

rates for older age groups have risen steadily since

1960, a fact that suggests that the normal dampening

effects of increased age on recreation participation

might be less in the future than in the past. One of

the most fundamental changes in American society

today is the increasing age of the population. As the

following tabulation shows, the increase, especially

recently, has been substantial, but with uneven effects

in different age categories (table 5).

Although the population is aging, changes in the

age classes of people who visit wilderness the most

are not striking. The number of people in the 18-24

Table 5.-- Increases in United States population with selected percentage

changes, 1960-85

Total population Percent change

Age group

1960 1970 1980 1985 1970-85 1980-85

Millions

Under 18 64 70 63 63 -10

18-24 16 24

25-34 23 25 ;I: 228 ::

2::;: 24 20 23 23 26 23 32 39 23

55 and over 32 39 2; 51 3: :

361
age class has declined slightly since 1980, but the

25-34 class, the most inclined to visit wilderness of

any age class in many areas, increased throughout

the period (especially in the 1970’s when use grew

rapidly). The 35-44 category, also common wilderness

visitors, grew, especially in the 1980’s, as the “baby

boomers” moved up a step. Decreases in the under

18 and increases in the 55 and over classes should

have had little effect because neither age class is a

major wilderness user in most places. The decrease

in numbers of children and teenagers is likely to

reduce potential wilderness use in future decades,

however.

Population age trends are a partial explanation

of slower growth in wilderness use, but clearly not

the whole story. One analysis concluded that projected

shifts in the age structure, by themselves, would

lead to a future rate of growth for several national

forestwildernesses in Montana approximately half

that for the 1970’s and early 1980’s (Polzin 1987).

Changes in Population Distribution

While changes in the age structure of the

population have the potential to affect trends in total

wilderness use, spatial changes in population distribution could affect trends in specific regions. Changes

in population distribution, however, show little relationship to changes in wilderness use. For example,

from 1975 to 1985, the population of California grew

22 percent and classified national forest wilderness

acreage more than doubled, but recreational use

during this same period fell 29 percent. Backcountry

use of national parks in California also declined

sharply. The large migrations to the South and West

during the 1970’s are not matched by significant

growth in wilderness use in those areas.

Constraints on Leisure Time

Contrary to the conventional idea that leisure

time will expand in the future and make it possible

for people to enjoy more recreation, leisure time

appears to be contracting. From 1975 to 1984, the

median workweek increased from 43 to 47 hours,

and leisure time per week shrank from 24 to 18 hours

(President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors

1986). Another factor that may affect likely wilderness

visitors is the increase in households in which both

spouses work (Hornback 1985). From 1975 to 1986,

the number of married women working at paid jobs

grew 32 percent (U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census 1986). Although the discretionary income of such households increases, the

coordination of vacations and free time between

spouses often is difficult because of differing work

schedules.

Effects of System Expansion

One possible explanation for the declining use of

long-established core-system wildernesses in both

national forests and national parks might be the

large increase in the size of the NWPS. A prospective

wilderness visitor now has 445 established wildernesses to choose from, 316 of which were added in 1980

or later. Although some of the decline in use of older

areas is likely attributable to dilution of demand due

to system expansion, the effect is probably limited

for several reasons.

First, the market population is not fixed. If a new

area is classified as wilderness, many of the visitors

to it are the same people who visited the area before

it was so designated. The wilderness is new, in an

official sense, but the land and its recreational

attractions were always there. Other visitors could be

new entrants into the market, perhaps nearby

residents attracted by the publicity generated by

wilderness designation. This last group exemplifies

the so-called “designation effect,’ the stimulation of

demand that some think results from calling an area

wilderness (McCool 1985). Although new areas might

divert some use from older areas, they would be

expected to add to total use of the system, thus

accelerating the rate of growth in use, not causing it

to slow down, as has been happening.

Second, growth of wilderness recreation opportunities is less impressive if acres are considered rather

than number of areas. The almost 57 million acres of

new wilderness in Alaska are best left aside because

their great distance from most of the U.S. population

results in light use. The wilderness system in the

conterminous 48 States now includes 32 million

acres, about double the pre-1980 total. But most of

the acreage growth outside Alaska occurred in one

year, 1984-too recently to help explain the decline

from use peaks for core system areas in the 1970’s

and early 1980’s.

Third, some of the growth in acres and numbers

of areas in the NWPS resufts from shifts of national

forest primitive areas to wilderness, or official designation of portions of a national park as wilderness. In

both cases, the recreational use was already being

counted. There is little basis for any designation

effect because these areas have long been specially

designated and widely perceived as wilderness even

though not technically so classified, and we have

defined them as part of the core system. This type

of system growth appears unrelated to dilution of

demand.

362
Fourth, the new areas generally are less attractive

as recreation sites than the older wildernesses. New

areas usually are smaller and have less spectacular

scenery. Although the Wilderness Act clearly indicates

that wilderness has many purposes besides recreation, the original national forest wildernesses and

the national parks were established mainly because

of scenic quality, natural attractions, and recreation

potential. These original areas commonly are perceived as the crown jewels of the wilderness system,

and many of the new areas are not strong competitors

for visitors.

Finally, whatever effect major expansion of the

wilderness system may have had on past use of

older areas, its future effect probably will be less.

The recent large expansion of the system (over 300

areas and 71 million acres added from 1980 through

1985) is not likely to be duplicated in years to come.

Effects of Changing Educational Levels

The most distinguishing socioeconomic characteristic of wilderness users is their high educational

level (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). Trends in number

of Americans enrolled in colleges and universities

suggest lessening impetus for growth in wilderness

recreation. Enrollment grew rapidly in the 1960’s,

increasing 126 percent from 1960 through 1970.

Growth slowed to 32 percent from 1970 through

1980. From 1980 through 1985, enrollment grew

only 10 percent, with older students, over 24,

accounting for most of the increase-another reflection of the aging postwar ‘baby boomers.’ This likely

has contributed to slower growth in wilderness use.

Changing Gasoline Cost and Supply

The impact of changing gasoline prices on travel

for wilderness recreation does not appear significant.

First, during the 1973-74 oil embargo, when gasoline

prices rose sharply, use of national forest wilderness

continued to grow (although the rate of growth

slowed). Second, in recent years, increases in the

price of gasoline have not kept up with inflation, in

effect, making gasoline cheaper. Despite this, the

use trend has been downward.

Availability of gasoline has been a problem from

time to time, but typically this has been a localized

and temporary situation, usually before the recent

slowdown in growth of use. Most wilderness visitors

originate from areas relatively close to the wilderness,

and it seems unlikely that either energy cost or

availability problems would have a significant effect

on overall use.

Changing Interests and Preferences

The socioeconomic variables examined here,

particularly age and perhaps education, appear to

explain only part of the declining rate of wilderness

recreation participation. Thus, the question is whether

public interest in wilderness is beginning to wane.

Was the rapid growth witnessed in the 1960’s and

early 1970’s simply a function of the heightened

interest in the environment that characterized that

period? Could declining rates of participation be

partly a reflection of increasing dissatisfaction among

users?

First, wilderness probably is not losing broad

public support. A national survey by Opinion Research

Corporation in 1977 found strong public support

(Cordell and Hendee 1982). A more recent statewide

poll conducted in Montana (Utter 1983) also found

strong support-almost 85 percent of the respondents

favored designation of wilderness. Although these

cross-sectional studies do not permit an assessment

of the trends in public attitudes toward wilderness,

they nevertheless suggest that there is a high and

continuing interest in wilderness preservation. (Perhaps the “yuppie” lifestyle supports the concept of

wilderness, but not its actual use.)

Second, we can examine general population

surveys of recreation participation to see how

involvement in wilderness-related recreation activities

is changing. The mixture of activity definitions and

methodologies makes it difficult to interpret these

results. However, it appears that in recent decades

the percentage of U.S. citizens participating in

wilderness-related activities has remained relatively

stable at about 5 percent. Thus, the proportion of

the population whose recreation interests might

likely be met in wilderness settings does not appear

to be changing greatly, although the frequency or

length of visits may have changed.

Third, there appears to be little likelihood that

rising dissatisfaction is leading to declining use levels

in wilderness. Most studies of wilderness users report

high levels of satisfaction (Van Horne and others

1985). Lucas (1985) found Bob Marshall wilderness

visitors surveyed in 1970 and 1982 about equally

satisfied. Furthermore, he found that in 1970 over

one-third of the experienced visitors found conditions

worse than on earlier trips, but in 1982 only 16 percent

felt this way. We are not aware of any similar studies

of national park backcountry visitors, although their

large declines in use and generally greater regulation

of visitors raise speculations about possible effects

of dissatisfaction.

363
Finally, it is possible that the declining rates of

wilderness recreation participation might be a function

of the increasing levels of diverse recreation activity

by many people. Van Horne and others (1985) report

that since 1960 the percentage of the population

participating in many activities has risen. At the same

time, data from the National Recreation Survey also

indicate that although 18 percent of the respondents

said they were spending more time at present in

outdoor recreation, 88 percent said they were

spending less (Van Horne and others 1985). What

these data may suggest is that there is simply not

enough time to do the increasing number of things

people might want to do, including wilderness

recreation.

An analysis of entry into wilderness recreation by

new participants, dropout of former participants, and

changes in amount of participation by active wilderness recreationists, modeled after the study of

camping by Kottke and others (1975) would clarify

the changes taking place and the role of preferences.

Limited data of this sort are available for backpacking

and day hiking (Van Horne and others 1985). In the

previous 2 years, 17 percent of all backpackers started

the activity-a good recruitment rate, and only 5

percent stopped backpacking. Persons who said

they expected to start backpacking in the next 2

years equaled 14 percent of the current backpackers.

Day hiking figures display a similar pattern of good

recruitment, little dropout, and considerable potential

future participation, None of this suggests declining

participation.

Changing Patterns of Wilderness Use

Lengths of stay have become shorter in some

areas, and groups have become smaller (Lucas

1985) which would reduce visitor-day totals. Day

use may have become more common relative to

camping use, but day use is unreported for national

park backcountry and, because it is difficult to

measure, might go underreported for national forest

wilderness.

Effects of Limiting Use

Use limits have been imposed in some areas in

both national parks and national forests in the last

decade or two, including the most heavily used

wilderness of all, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Wilderness. This could slow or eliminate further growth

in use, but could it lead to declines? Van Wagtendonk

(1981) examined this question in Yosemite National

Park and concluded that use limits did not account

for declines in backcountry use, although they did

lead to changes in the timing and spatial distribution

of use.

Changing Wilderness Images

Perhaps the image of wilderness recreation has

changed in ways that might contribute to slackening

use. Many visitors probably feel pressures to use

wilderness with minimum impact. This is generally a

positive development, but it may create anxiety about

what to do and guilt about mistakes that may have

been made that take away some of the free and

easy pleasures of an earlier, more innocent era.

Many areas also have more regulations. In

addition, giardia infection has become widely recognized as a problem in wilderness waters. A decade

or two ago, visitors might have relaxed with clear

consciences around a roaring campfire next to a

high mountain lake, perhaps sipping clear, cold

water dipped from the lake. Now they might get a

ticket from a wilderness ranger for camping too close

to the lake, or for having a campfire, and catch diarrhea

from the water. If this shift of image is common, it

might help explain recent trends. Conceivably, some

visitors might even be choosing to restrain their own

use of wilderness as their contribution to wilderness

protection.

QUESTIONABLE USE DATA

The more we have worked with agency wilderness

use estimates, the more we have become aware of

their serious shortcomings. The leveling off and

declines in reported use are so widespread that

there seems little doubt about the direction of change,

but its magnitude, especially for individual areas, is

questionable. For example, the official wilderness

annual use report from the Forest Service national

office shows peak use of the Boundary Waters Canoe

Area Wilderness in 1982, with 1986 use only 74 percent

of the peak (table 4). But, other figures issued by the

Superior National Forest, which manages the area,

show 1981 as the peak and 1986 use as 99.6 percent

of peak use. Two sets of use figures for Grand Canyon

National Park show similar divergence.

Wild swings in reported use of individual areas

from year to year are common, particularly for national

forest wildernesses. Many of these fluctuations are

so large that it seems impossible that they represent

real changes; estimation errors must be large and

common. For example, the Galiuro Wilderness in

Arizona reported 28 times as much use in 1976 as in

1975. These kinds of inconsistencies hamper research, but more important, they devastate professional management. Should managers relax because

use of a particular wilderness is plummeting or gear

364
up for a crisis because use is exploding? For some

areas, it appears impossible to decide as the answer

switches from year to year. For example, the Eagle

Cap Wilderness in Oregon reports use shifts that

remind one of a yo-yo. From 1979 through 1986, use

repeatedly dropped by half or more one year and

doubled or tripled the following year. These examples

are not isolated instances. There are many other

puzzling examples from most parts of the country.

Improvement in the accuracy of use estimates

seems essential. This will require commitment to

develop reliable technology, transfer it to managers,

and apply it carefully (Watson and others 1987).

REASONS FOR SLOWING GROWTH

UNCLEAR

Trends in wilderness use present a complex

pattern, but the inescapable conclusion is that onsite

recreational use is flattening or declining. The reasons

underlying this trend are not clear, but it seems likely

that a combination of changes in the sociodemographic structure of society, particularly an aging population,

and changes in social preferences and tastes are

important parts of the explanation.

This slowing trend should not be seen as

inconsistent with the general trends forecast for

other outdoor recreation activities. Clawson (1985)

for example, speculates that the rate of increase in

outdoor recreation activity for the next 25 years will

be more on the order of 4 percent annually, as

opposed to the 10 percent rates found in the past

25 years. Jungst and Countryman (1982) project

wilderness use to 2020 to grow at a rate between 2

and 7 percent, depending on the prediction model

used and the assumptions about the independent

variables used in the models.

Wilderness use will undoubtedly remain an

important form of recreation in the national forests

and national parks. Despite the apparent decline in

national park backcountry use, it remains about 7

percent of total national park overnight use. As noted

earlier, wilderness use in the national forests has

increased its share of the total recreation pie, now

accounting for more than 5 percent.

IMPLICATIONS OF SLOWING GROWTH

A Chance for Managers to Catch Up

If the changes in wilderness use continue, they

carry with them some important implications for the

management of such areas. Stable or lower use

might represent an opportunity for wilderness managers to “catch up” with problems that a few years

ago looked overwhelming. Not only are growth rates

slowing, but trends in the character of use and users

also hold promise for reducing impact levels. This

includes a shift toward activities having lower impacts

(for example, a shift from horse use to hiking), smaller

groups, greater visitor knowledge of how to minimize

impact, and a reduction in littering (Lucas 1985).

The Wilderness Allocation Debate

For years many people have cited rapidly growing

recreational use as a reason to designate more

wilderness. This now appears to be an uncertain

foundation. Wilderness has many purposes besides

recreation; lack of growth in recreational use suggests

that other important functions such as ecosystem

representation, scientific activities, and vicarious

enjoyment will need to become more central to

debates over whether certain lands should be

wilderness.

Reconsider Management Policies

Many wilderness management policies were

adopted when use was growing rapidly and in

anticipation of massive future growth. Use rationing,

assigned campsites, length of stay limits, camping

setbacks from water, bans on taking in cans or bottles,

and other policies often adopted to head off serious

problems before use got out of hand may now merit

reconsideration in light of reduced use and possible

future declines. Perhaps visitor freedom can be

increased and the quality of visitors’ experiences

thus enhanced.

Quality deserves special emphasis. Although

available measures suggest no decline in satisfaction

generally, there are many opportunities to raise

satisfaction with specific aspects of wilderness visitors’

experiences. Stable use suggests a sophisticated,

demanding market that will challenge the skill of

wilderness managers.

Managers might even consider some promotion

of appropriate wilderness use. This would be an

about-face from recent policies that have sought to

avoid stimulating use, but if managers believe

365
wilderness provides important benefits to visitors

and that use of some areas has declined more than

necessary, it may be worth advertising opportunities

for appropriate wilderness experiences.

Increase Understanding of Trends

Formulation of long-term wilderness policies

needs to be based on a better understanding of

trends in recreational use and of factors associated

with changes in use. The past confidence that use

was increasing and would continue to do so should

be abandoned. The future seems highly uncertain.

The downtrends are recent and short term in most

places. Use could rebound or sink lower (like the

stock market), Better use estimates seem essential

to track trends, and increased knowledge of the

reasons for ups or downs would help develop policies

that fii the situation. For example, changing age

structure has very different policy implications than

dissatisfaction with trail maintenance or restrictive

regulations.

Slow growth or even declines in wilderness use

do not imply a decline in the importance of wilderness.

Wilderness is not intended to be primarily a recreation

area. The visitor numbers game can be a dangerous

trap. Many people have used past growing use as

an easy argument for more wilderness or larger

budgets for management and research, but slackening use can help solve crowding and impact problems

and increase the effectiveness of improved management. Good results from management are less likely

to be buried by ever-increasing use and proliferation

of problems. This should provide additional motivation

to increase our efforts to manage and protect the

wilderness resource for all of its values.

REFERENCES

Clawson, Marion. 1985. Outdoor recreation: twentyfive years of history, twenty-five years of projection.

Leisure Sciences. 7(1):73-l 00.

Cordell, H. Ken; Hendee, John C. 1982. Renewable

resources recreation in the United States: supply,

demand, and critical policy issues, Prepared for

the national conference in renewable natural

resources. Washington, DC: American Forestry

Association. 88 pp.

Elsner, Gary H. 1985. Recreation use trends: a Forest

Service perspective. pp. 143-l 47. In: Wood, James

D., Jr., ed. Proceedings- 1985 national outdoor

recreation trends symposium II; 1985 February

24-27; Myrtle Beach, SC. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Science

Publications Office. Vol. 2.

English, Donald B.K.; Cordell, H. Ken. 1985. A

cohort-centric analysis of outdoor recreation

participation changes. pp. 93-l 10. In: Watson,

Alan E., ed. Proceedings: southeastern recreation

research conference; 1985 February 28-March 1;

Myrtle Beach, SC. Statesboro, GA: Georgia

Southern College, Department of Recreation and

Leisure Services; Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station.

Hendee, John C. 1984. Public opinion and what

foresters should do about it. Journal of Forestry.

82(6):340-344.

Hornback, Kenneth E. 1985. Social trends and leisure

behavior. pp. 37-48. In: Wood, James D., Jr., ed.

Proceedings - national outdoor recreation trends

symposium II; 1985 February 24-27; Myrtle Beach,

SC. Atlanta, GA: US. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Science Publications Office.

Vol. 1.

Jungst, Steven E.; Countryman, David W. 1982. Two

regression models for projecting future wilderness

use. Iowa State Journal of Research. 57(1):33-41.

Kottke, Marvin W.; Bevins, Malcolm I.; Cole, Gerald L.

[and others] 1975. Analysis of the campground

market in the Northeast, Report Ill: a perspective

on the camping-involvement cycle. Res. Pap.

NE-322. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station. 35 pp.

Lucas, Robert C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall

Wilderness Complex, 1970-82. Res. Pap. INT-345.

Ogden, UT: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 pp.

Marcin, Thomas C.; Lime, David W. 1977. Our

changing population structure: what will it mean

for future outdoor recreation use? pp. 42-53. In:

Hughes, Jay M.; Lloyd, R. Duane, camps. Outdoor

recreation: advances in application of economics -

proceedings of a national symposium on the

economics of outdoor recreation; 1974 November;

New Orleans, LA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service.

McCool, Stephen F. 1985. Does wilderness designation lead to increased recreational use? Journal of

Forestry. 83(1):39-41.

366
McCool, Stephen F.; Frost, Jeffrey E. 1987. Outdoor

recreation participation in Montana: trends and

implications. Montana Business Quarterly.

25(3):22-24.

Petersen, Margaret E. 1981. Trends in recreational

use of national forest wilderness. Res. Note INT-319.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 3 pp.

Polzin, Paul. 1987. [Personal communication]. August.

Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Bureau of

Business and Economic Research.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

1986. Report and recommendations to the President of the United States. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. 210 pp.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Lucas, Robert C. 1987.

Wilderness use and user characteristics: a state-ofknowledge review. pp. 204-205. In: Lucas, Robert

C., camp. Proceedings- national wilderness

research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge,

future directions; 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins,

CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

1986. Statistical abstract of the United States,

1987: national data book and guide to sources.

107th ed. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office. 960 pp.

Utter, Jack. 1983. Opinions of Montanans on wilderness and resource development. Journal of

Forestry. 81(7)X35-437.

Van Horne, Merle J.; Szwak, Laura B.; Randall, Sharon

A. 1985. Outdoor recreation activity trendsinsights from the 1982-83 nationwide recreation

survey. pp. 109-130. In: Wood, James D., Jr., ed.

Proceedings- national outdoor recreation trends

symposium II; 1985 February 25-27; Myrtle Beach,

SC. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Science Publications Office.

van Wagtendonk, Jan W. 1981. The effect of use

limits on backcountry visitation trends in Yosemite

National Park. Leisure Sciences. 4(3):31 l-323.

Washburne, Randel F.; Cole, David N. 1983. Problems

and practices in wilderness management, a survey

of managers. Res. Pap. INT304. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

56 PP.

Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Odum,

Geraldine. 1987. Wilderness use estimates: opportunities for technology transfer. pp. 127-133. In:

Cordell, Barbara McDonald, ed. Proceedings:

southeastern recreation research conference;

1986 February; Asheville, NC. Athens, GA:

University of Georgia, Institute of Community and

Area Development, Recreation Technical Assistance Off ice.

367
WILDERNESS RECREATION DEMAND AND VALUE:

AN ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING KNOWLEDGE AND

RESEARCH NEEDS

Cindy Sorg Swanson and George L. Peterson’

Abstract-,This assessment of existing knowledge

and research needs on the demand-side of wilderness

economics presents a review of demand-side economic theory from the perspective of total value, including

use value, option value, quasi-option value, and

existence value, a summary and critique of the travel

cost and contingent valuation methods for estimating

demand-side values, a summary of the current status

of knowledge in water quality, wilderness, wildlife,

and air quality, and a review of research needs in the

areas of wilderness products, markets, production

and supply, demand and valuation, and price and

rationing policy.

INTRODUCTION

This paper is an assessment of existing knowledge

and research needs in wilderness recreation demand

and value. The scope includes (1) the theory of

wilderness demand-side economics and valuation,

(2) a review and critique of the travel cost and

contingent valuation methods for estimating demandside values, (3) an assessment of current knowledge

of on-site economic value for water quality, wilderness,

wildlife, and air quality, and (4) a statement of research

needs. The scope excludes noneconomic valuation.

It also excludes demand modeling and forecasting,

except as implied by the valuation methods.

The theory of wilderness demand and valuation

is developed from the perspective of “total value,”

and includes the components of use value, option

value, quasi-option value, and existence value. The

section on research needs is necessarily general

and brief. Covered topics include wilderness recreation products, markets, production and supply,

demand and valuation, and price and rationing policy.

‘Research Economist and Project Leader, respectively. Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department

of Agricutture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.

368

OVERVIEW OF DEMAND-SIDE

WILDERNESS ECONOMICS

A wilderness area represents many things to

many people and many of the values people hold

are not directly related to actual interaction with the

resource. Most wilderness areas in the United States

are free (or charge a minimal fee) for access; therefore,

even the value associated with use cannot be readily

measured by observing the price for access. How,

then, can the full economic effect of a policy which

effects a nonmarket good be captured and measured?

Consider a single household whose preferences

are expressed by an ordinal utility function (U) which

fulfills the preference assumptions of completeness,

reflexivity, transitivity, and increasing and continuous

overall goods. The household maximizes utility over

a vector of activities (2) that yield satisfaction (Randall

1987a);

max U = F(Z).

These activities are produced by the household

comparing not only market activities (X) but also

nonmarket activities. Therefore, the household

production function for activities using a natural

resource (wilderness), Q, is given by

2 = SK 0

where:

X = goods and services other than Q, and

T = household production technology.

Since the Hick’s compensating measure of consumer

surplus uses initial level of welfare as the reference

level it is the appropriate measure of welfare change

under the Potential Pareto Improvement criteria. As

such, the household minimizes expenditures subject

to a given level of utility.
min \‘

x (

PX + A@ - F(Z))

where: PX = vector of prices for commodities X,

and

Z = g(X, Q/T) and Q is at its initial level.

Solving the minimization problem results in compensated demand curves which can be substituted into

the objective function to obtain the expenditure

function

E#, CL U)

The derivative with respect to Q yields an inverse

demand equation for Q;

dE/dQ = - E,(P, Q, U)

If a measure of total value associated with the

wilderness were desired, we can integrate over the

without wilderness to the current level of the wilderness

and obtain the compensated measure of welfare;

TV = u JQo Eq(P, Q, WQ

0

The Total Value Curve can also be represented

‘diagrammtically as shown in figure 1 (Brookshire

and others 1980; Randall 1987a). The origin represents the individual’s initial welfare position and using

this as the reference level, compensating measure of

consumer surplus can be measured directly. The

total value curve holds utility constant and therefore

represents an indifference curve between income (Y)

and the amenity (Q). For example, the compensating

PRICE LINE

/

TOTAL VALUE

CURVE

Y0

I

9’

INCREMENTS IN 0

-

measure of an increment of the wilderness amenity

from Q” to Q’ is read from the figure directly as Y”-

Y- which is willingness to pay for an increment from

Q” to Q’. Alternatively, if faced with a proposed

decrement in the amenity level, the household would

demand a payment of Y + - Y” to leave it indifferent

between Q” and Q-.

The total value framework above is consistent

with the Potential Pareto Improvement criterion since

compensating measures result. Before addressing

other issues relating to total value it is useful to

explicitly define the components which make up total

value of an environmental good. These components

are not mutually exclusive and often overlap; however,

for ease of explanation they can be categorized into,

use, option, quasi-option, and existence value. Each

are briefly discussed below.

Use value is most readily understood and can

be measured using a variety of methods. Any activity

which takes place in conjunction with an environmental

resource can be thought to generate use values. As

such it is possible to infer use values by observing

the transactions of goods and services which require

use of the environmental resource. This type of

interaction is referred to as weak complementarity

and is the basis for the Travel Cost Method. As will

be discussed in more detail later, the majority of

applications of the weak complementarity only capture

a portion of use values; often referred to as direct or

primary purpose use. Other components of use can

include (Randall 1987b): incidental use, off-site and

non-participant uses.

Option value is most easily thought of as an

insurance premium since it is an adjustment to welfare

which reflects future uncertainty. The notion was first

introduced by Weisbrod (1984) and has seen much

subsequent discussion (Bishop 1982; Graham 1981;

Schmalensee 1972) on the restriction of the sign

associated with option value. Option price is defined

as current willingness to pay for the option of future

use and is related to option value in the following

manner.

OP = ES + OV

where:

OP = Option Price,

OV = Option Value,

ES = Expected Surplus, and

= Expected Value of Future Use (riskless).

Figure 1. -Total value curve.

369
Bishop (1982) shows that when demand is certain

but supply uncertain, then option value is always

positive. Additionally, Freeman (1984) concludes if

demand is uncertain due to uncertainty of future

income, option value is negative for risk adverse

individuals and further option value may be large.

Graham (1981) defines a fair bet point which is

appropriate to policy analysis, however, since it is

not easily observable he suggests option price as

the “second best” alternative. The discussion therefore

of the sign of option value is not relevant to the

estimation of total value in a policy context.

The,introduction of Quasi-option Value can be

credited to Arrow and Fisher (1974) and Henry (1974)

and deals with the value of future information in

current decisionmaking. The concept is most often

used in reference to an irreversible policy decision

which’ can be undertaken now or delayed one time

period. If the policy action is delayed and new

information is available at the beginning of the next

time period then there is value associated with the

delay. Hanemann (1982) suggests that quasi-option

value will be large for decisions involving “all or nothing”

policy states and not well defined for incremental

decisions. Issues relating to wilderness preservation

may be incremental in some situations and thus

quasi-option value may be viewed as small and not

critical to estimation of total value. However, for policies

implicating large land areas or critical habitats,

quasi-option value may be quite large and therefore

a critical component of total value.

For a remote and unique wilderness resource,

existence values may represent the largest portion of

total value. Krutilla (1967) and Krutilla and Fisher

(1975) were perhaps the first to suggest the economic

concept of existence value:

“There are many persons who obtain satisfaction

from the mere knowledge that part of the

wilderness of North America remains even though

they would be appalled by the prospect of being

exposed to it.”

Subsequent to this broad definition, several authors

have attempted to refine the definition in order to

allow clear delineation of total value concepts and

allow empirical measurement.

Randall (1987a) uses the household production

function to define existence value as;

z = g(0, Q/r).

Existence value is generated by Q alone with no

elements of X involved in the current time period.

Activities involving X and Q in previous time periods

seems necessary to generate a production technology, T, for existence value in the current time period.

Randall and Stall (1983) feel existence value can be

broken into 2 components; bequest and intrinsic

values. Bequest values are conceived as the values

generated from knowing Q will be available to future

generations. Knowing Q is available for others to use

is referred to as intrinsic-value. Drawing from Krutilla’s

(1967) argument that irreversibility and uniqueness

are necessary to existence value, Randall and Stall

(1983) point out that these are not necessarily true.

On a local level, existence values may exist for

nonunique resources such as a local State park

which provides a wilderness escape for a local city.

Further, Brookshire and others (1986, 1987) suggest

existence value has two components; one economic

and the other ethical. Only the economic component

can be directly incorporated into a benefit-cost

analysis,

If economic valuation is to capture the full

spectrum of a wilderness experience whether on-site

or off-site it is critical to incorporate all components

of total value. As suggested above, a study which

measures only on-site, primary purpose values may

grossly underestimate the full value of a resource,

particularly if the wilderness is visually unique or

houses the last remnants of species of flora and

fauna. The problem of measurement is further

complicated when choosing the units of measurement.

On-site values are most often measured on a trip

basis. Measurement of option, quasi-option, and

existence values on a trip basis would be nonsensical,

and aggregation to obtain a total value measure is

not possible. Further, management planning (USDA’s

FORPLAN) uses values based on a 12-hour recreational visitor day (RVD) and as currently practiced,

valuation techniques do not apply to an RVD in a

straightforward manner. As will be suggested below,

the Contingent Valuation Method can be applied

directly to obtain an estimation of total value of a

proposed project or an existing area, usually on a

monthly payment basis, but translating this into a

daily value is not possible. Either method or management must be modified.

Another issue related to total value which is

particularly relevant to wilderness has to do with

quality factors. Often, studies will report the average

value of, for example, hiking, camping, or hunting in

a particular area or region, No reference is made to

the setting of the experience; as if these activities

are supplied and experienced in a homogeneous

370
manner. In the case of wilderness, nothing could be

further from the truth. The quality or setting of the

experience is perhaps the most important variable of

the experience, and, therefore, should be explicitly

incorporated and repotted in a study. All methods of

nonmarket valuation can easily incorporate quality

variables, and have more recently begun to include

variables which reflect setting as it relates to quality.

The issue of quality is also critical when considering

substitute sites. Wilderness areas are often unique

unto themselves and supplying a perfect (or even

imperfect) substitute site is often not possible.

Encroachment or destruction of a wilderness therefore

may have more significant impacts than merely

diverting use to another area. If another comparable

area is not available, then the full loss in total value

is much more extreme.

Before discussing methods to measure total

value, perhaps it would be useful to first ask the

question: ‘Are there markets for these products, and

how do they work?’ Both of these questions are

legitimate and many people have suggested that the

competitive, free market solution is the way to go in

recreation allocation. A brief explanation of why the

market solution is not appropriate to wilderness

allocation is useful at this point.

be developed, and while the wilderness resource

exhibits high total value, it would not be profitable for

a market firm to own and operate. Market prices

(when they exist) do not represent efficient measures

of value in these cases of nonmarginal changes,

nonexclusion, nonrivalry, and inability to capture (as

revenue) total value.

When markets fail for any of the above reasons,

the public sector often steps in to provide the good

or service. The public sector often manages a resource

with two considerations in mind, those of equity and

efficiency. Equity is concerned with who benefits

from public policy and how distribution of income

and resources flow from one sector to another as a

result of policy changes. Efficiency is concerned with

providing a net increase in national income as a

result of policy. If the gainers from a policy could

(hypothetically) fully compensate the losers then the

policy is considered efficient and should be undertaken. While the focus of this paper is on efficiency

issues, it should be noted that equity issues may

dictate the appropriateness of a policy. Often employment is the issue of concern, and, in that case, appeal

to a benefit-cost analysis which is purely an efficiency

criterion is inappropriate.

In a perfectly competitive market, prices often

reflect economic value, and if a proposed policy will

affect only small quantities of outputs when compared

to the total, then the measure of value can be found

by multiplying price by the quantity change. This

can be seen by again referring to figure 1. The dashed

line through the origin is the market price line and

for small increments and decrements in Q, the price

line and total value curve nearly coincide. Thus

measurement error is minimal when price is used as

a proxy for total value when quantity change is

marginal. However, as quantity changes get larger

so does the error associated with using market prices.

Unfortunately, policy effects are often nonmarginal or

markets exhibit attenuated ownership in the form of

property rights not being fully specified, nonexclusive,

nontransferable or not fully enforceable (Randall

1983). In addition to many goods and services not

exhibiting nonattenuated ownership, they may also

face nonrivalry in consumption. Nonrivalry violates

competitive market conditions since the consumption

of the good or service by one individual does not

diminish the availability of the good for another

individual’s consumption. A wilderness experience is

an example of a good which is both nonrival and

nonexclusive and thus violates the conditions of a

competitive market. Finally, for values such as option,

quasi-option, and existence, a competitive market

which captures these values as revenue could not

With efficiency in mind, this section will discuss

how measures of economic value can be derived for

wilderness using the Travel Cost Method (TCM) and

the Contingent Value Method (CVM). This will be

accomplished as follows, The discussion will start

with a basic single-site travel cost model and then

build on this model to include: travel time, substitute

measures, choice of appropriate variables, and

functional form of the regression. The discussion will

end with an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of the method. Next, the Contingent Valuation

Method will be discussed. This will be accomplished

by considering survey data collection requirements,

sources of error, and data analysis. The advantages

and disadvantages of CVM will be discussed. Finally,

a general comparison of the two methods will be

made.

The Travel Cost Method

The Travel Cost Method (TCM) estimates demand

for a recreation site based on observed variations in

distance traveled and quantity of trips demanded for

that site. From these variations it is possible to infer

how a group of people would respond to increases

in the cost of travel to the site. Since the demand

curve is derived using increases in current prices,

TCM measures net willingness to pay or consumer

surplus. Total (gross) willingness to pay for a site

can be obtained by adding current prices (expendi371
tures) to the TCM estimates of consumer surplus. In

addition, TCM assumes that an individuals‘ primary

purpose for traveling to a site is to recreate at that

site. Therefore, a trip to visit relatives where you stop

on the way to do a few hours of fishing would not

qualify for analysis using TCM.

Consider a single site, such as camping in the

Shoshone National Forest. Develop origins of travel

to that site, such as counties and assume travel

distance (costs) to that site is the same for all

individuals in origin i.

The first step involves estimating the trip demand

curve for,the camping trip. In order to be able to

derive this curve, there must be variations in prices

(or distance) for individuals visiting that site. The

estimated equation will be of the form;

Vi/Ni = f(TCi)

where:

Vi = number of trips by residents in origin i

(i = 1, k),

N; = population of origin i, and

TCi = average roundtrip travel cost from origin i to

the site.

Trips per-capita is measured as a function of average

roundtrip distance from each origin to the camping

site. The ‘per-capita’ specification adjusts for differences in population sizes of counties of origin. The

second step involves estimating an aggregate demand

curve function which shows estimated trips by all

recreationists at various prices. This effectively involves

adding a hypothetical fee to the trip demand curve

and determining how the associated trips to the site

decrease. Since each origin has a different population

size, visits per capita is estimated for each origin

from the trip demand curve and then multiplied by

the origin’s population size. The resulting trips are

then summed across origins to arrive at a total

visitation rate. Total visits can then be expressed as:

V(P) = E(Vi(P)/Ni)*Ni

This basic model highlights the fundamental concepts

of TCM but it does not incorporate all theoretically

relevant variables. Some of these will now be

considered.

As the model exists, adding a hypothetical fee to

a close origin results in the same total costs as those

faced by someone in a more remote origin. Not only

do those living farther away have higher costs per

trip but also expend more time getting to the site.

There is an opportunity cost associated with this

additional time, and therefore we would not expect

visitation from the close origin and the far origin to

be the same when both face the same travel costs.

Since individuals’ in the close origin spend less time

traveling to the site, more trips will occur from that

origin given the same travel cost.

Although there is no consensus on how to value

travel time, the U.S. Water Resources Council (1979,

1963) recommends one-third of the wage rate. This

is the mid-point of values of travel time found by

Cesario (1976) in a review of the transportation

planning literature. This value is not intended to

measure wages foregone due to travel, rather, it

includes the deterrent effect of scarce time on the

decision of which site to visit.

As the price to a site increases, individuals may

decide to go to an alternative camping area. A

comparison is made between the two sites in terms

of travel costs, quality, and services offered.

Most often, not accounting for the ability of

individuals to visit a substitute site results in an

overestimate of benefits associated with the primary

site. In order to incorporate substitute sites and

therefore quality measures, a Regional (Generalized)

Travel Cost Model (RTCM) has been developed

(Cesario and Knetsch 1976). This method requires

extensive data to allow estimation of trips per Capita

of the form:

where:

Vi$Ni = f(TCii , Si, Qi)

Vii = number of trips by residents in i to site j,

Ni = population of origin i,

TCij = average roundtrip travel cost (including a

measure of travel time),

Si = measure of substitute sites available to origin i,

and

Qj = measure of quality at site j.

Quality measures can include acres of wilderness,

number of backcountry permits (congestion), miles

of streams (variety/congestion), or any important

physical or biological variable associated with the

sites. Substitutes may include travel cost to the next

best site, total permits at the next best site, or acres

of wilderness at the next best site. For wilderness

areas, specification of quality variables may be critical

372
to value estimation and may further indicate availability

or inavailability of an adequate substitute site. Once

this regression system has been modeled, the second

stage proceeds as before; successively higher prices

are added until zero visits are observed.

It should be obvious that RTCM involves far

more data and more involved computer modeling.

Not only is it necessary to collect data relevant to

Shoshone National Forest, but also data on other

camping areas. It should also be obvious, however,

that RTCM more accurately captures the interaction

of available camping sites. Using RTCM, a demand

equation for a single site can be obtained by plugging

in the quality characteristics for the site of interest.

This single site demand curve is preferable to the

“basic” model because substitute sites have been

incorporated. By including site characteristics it is

also possible to value the change in economic value

associated with changes in site characteristics

(Anderson and Bishop 1986).

The discussion of substitutes and quality measures was presented in general terms without

specifying which measures to choose or how they

should enter the model. A complete RTCM should

include travel costs, travel time, income, substitutes,

and quality, but how they are measured is often a

matter of trial-and-error depending on statistical

properties of the resulting regression equations.

Unfortunately, inclusion of different variables can

have a strong effect on the resulting value estimates.

The choice of functional form can also be data

dependent. Vaughan and Russell (1982) suggest

that the natural log of visits per capita is better than

a linear form because of the pattern by which trips

per capita fall off at higher travel costs. Bowes and

Loomis (1980) suggest taking the square root of

each origins’ population which corrects for heteroskedasticity resulting from larger populations

exhibiting larger variances. As with the choice of

variable inclusion, choice of functional form is often

left to statistical analysis of the regression equations.

The primary advantage of TCM is the ability to

use secondary data and thus avoid the time and

expense of primary data collection. Campground

receipts, hunting and fishing licenses, or trailhead

self-registration forms can often be supplemented

with census data routinely collected by the State,

and the Department of Transportation’s estimates of

vehicle mile costs. Most often, per capita income

and standard mid-size car cost per mile are used.

Additionally, the inclusion of quality variables allows

valuation of changes in management practices which

alter quality.

Some of the disadvantages of TCM have been

mentioned: inclusion of travel time, specifying substitutes and quality measures, and choice of functional

form, In addition, TCM does not work well for large

sites with several entry points, multi-purpose trips,

multi-destination trips, sites which have capacity

constraints, or measuring off-site benefits such as

option, existence, or bequest values. This latter

restriction may be of particular relevance to wilderness

areas which exhibit large off-site values. In these

cases, TCM provides a gross underestimate of total

value.

The Contingent Valuation Method

The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) elicits

value data directly by designing an exchange situation

in which individuals can price the total value of a

current (proposed) policy impact. By confronting

individuals with various cost increases, a demand

curve can be derived for the particular policy issue.

Since the question is based on current expenditures,

net willingness to pay can easily be derived and the

area under the demand curve represents net willingness to pay (consumer surplus) for current conditions

or for a proposed change in conditions,

Survey Format

CVM collection of willingness to pay can be

broken into five parts (based on Hoehn and Krieger

1986):

1. Presentation medium

2. Description of policy impacts

3. Method of provision

4. Method of payment

5. Bid elicitation procedure

Each part is discussed below.

Surveys can be implemented in a variety of ways,

including; person-to- person, mail, telephone, computer simulation, or some combination of these. Often

the presentation is aided by the use of graphs,

diagrams, quality ladders, or photographs. It is

important to provide individuals with information

which will help them understand how they will be

affected by a policy or how their participation may

be altered by a policy.

In order for CVM results to be reliable it is essential

that policies be fully described. This means the survey

must not be biased, misleading, or inconsistent with

373
actual alternatives. The use of aids in the presentation

often facilitates clear policy description. Schulze and

others (1982) used photographs depicting actual

levels of emissions, ambient pollution loadings, and

perceptible haze levels in photographs of atmosphere

in the Grand Canyon. Individuals were asked net

willingness to pay for a specific improvement in air

quality, and the photographs accurately depicted

these changes. Brookshire and others (1979) used

photographs depicting changes in elk habitat which

would result from mining in Western Wyoming. Hunters

were asked willingness to pay to avoid the depicted

habitat degradation. A clear description of policy

impacts allows individuals to more easily weigh the

effects of, a policy on their activities and willingness

to pay.

How the policy is presented can often effect the

values elicited. The survey should avoid specific

links to an agency, and, therefore, keep the survey

general enough to avoid focus on any specific agency

and keep the focus on the environmental issue. A

policy which will be implemented by the Department

of Defense may generate much different values than

a policy which does not specify an agency. The

survey may result in valuing the ability of the Department of Defense to implement a policy rather than

the actual policy.

As with method of provision, the method of

payment can move the survey focus from the policy

to the payment vehicle used to collect dollar estimates

of willingness to pay. In the past, studies have used

electric bills, lump sum taxes, user fees or sales

taxes. Sometimes the vehicle is not realistic in that a

person who rents may not pay electric bills, and,

therefore, willingness to pay via electric bills is not a

realistic vehicle for value elicitation. Additionally,

respondents may not believe the money will actually

be used for implementation of the proposed policy.

Rather, they may see electric bill increases as another

example of utility companies getting rich at the

expense of the working class. Current studies (Tolley

and others 1987) avoid a payment vehicle focus by

avoiding reference to a specific payment vehicle.

Instead, willingness to pay is collected via a lump

sum cost of the policy which will take the form of

generally higher taxes and prices. Again, focus of

the survey is moved away from the payment mechanism and directed toward the actual policy.

The bid elicitation procedure is the process

through which value data are obtained. Several

formats can be implemented. The first asks individuals

to directly state their maximum willingness to pay for

the policy. This method is called the open-ended

format.

The second format states a fixed amount and

the respondent accepts or rejects the policy for that

particular policy/payment pair. This technique is

referred to as the dichotomous choice method.

The third format is used in combination with the

first or second format. Once an initial bid is obtained,

the surveyor increases the amount to successively

higher levels ($B + !§C,, $B + SC,) until a “no’ response

is elicited. The final “yes’ bid is recorded. This method

is called an iterative bidding procedure and is

intended to force individuals to fully analyze their

preferences and therefore state a maximum willingness to pay.

From the above discussion it is obvious that

much care must be taken in the design of a CVM

survey. The potential to inadvertently bias willingness

to pay bids must be recognized and surveys must

be designed to avoid potential biases. The sources

of error (bias) can be summarized as three types

(Anderson and Bishop 1986; Cummings and others

1986; Hoehn and Krieger 1986):

1. Hypothetical bias

2. Information bias

3. Strategic behavior bias

These are summarized as follows.

Most people’s initial reaction to CVM is, ‘Ask a

hypothetical question, get a hypothetical answer.’

Surveys must be designed so individuals feel their

response will have some impact on policy decisions,

Such a bias can be minimized by careful description

of the policy which allows individuals to evaluate the

gains and losses of the proposed policy. Using survey

aides minimizes errors in perception and comprehension by providing information to help a respondent

fully absorb a range of impacts. Often a policy will

involve complex and unfamiliar changes, such as the

effects of minimum stream flows in a river basin. In

order to allow the respondent to fully grasp policy

implications, time must be allowed for the respondent

to review policy aspects and weigh how recreation

activities and market good purchases will be rearranged. Minimum stream flows will improve fishing

and therefore mean a respondent may want to fish

more, but what activities will he(she) have to decrease

in order to have more fishing time? In addition, how

will minimum stream flows affect water bills, etc.? A

survey must convey realism and allow time for

comprehension.

374
Information bias arises as individuals formulate

an expectation of policy impacts subject to information

in a CVM survey. In one sense, the value elicited

should be sensitive to the information conveyed

since a small change in policy should be reflected in

a change in willingness to pay. However, there are

certain aspects of the survey which should not affect

the bid elicited.

In the bid elicitation procedure, if an iterative

bidding procedure is used, the first bid obtained

may have an effect on the final bid stated. It the

initial bid and the final bid are correlated, then starting

point bias is present. Using dichotomous choice

with no iterative bidding can be implemented but

data analysis is more involved; requiring an understanding of logit model analysis. Alternatively, starting

point bias often results from respondent fatigue and

can be minimized if iteration is done quickly.

As mentioned under method of payment, payment

vehicle bias can result in unintended information

bias. If possible, avoid specific reference to an agency

or a specific payment mechanism, pose the questions

as a lump sum tax or a general increase in prices.

Strategic behavior is said to occur when an

individual attempts to influence the survey outcome

by not revealing a true value. Such a bias can be

minimized if the survey is designed in a dichotomous

choice framework such that the policy will be

implemented if a majority favor the policy/payment

pair and individual payment will be equal to the per

person cost of implementation. This type of questionnaire design is similar to referendum voting and is

said to be incentive compatible (Hoehn and Randall

1988). Even when incentives for truth-telling are not

explicit, little evidence exists to suggest strategic

behavior occurs (Schulze and others 1981).

Oncethe survey has been implemented accounting for the above considerations, data analysis is

fairly straightforward. A decision rule must be made

as to what bids are considered outliers of the data

set and which zero bids are protest bids. Some

systematic methods (Desvousges and others 1988)

exist for identifying high bid outliers. Zero bids made

in protest to the survey and not as a true willingness

to pay must not be included in the analysis. The

survey should include a question which asks whether

the zero bid is in response to the survey, a true

expression of willingness to pay, or a bid given

because of the difficulty in arriving at a value.

As mentioned previously, dichotomous choice

survey data analysis involves an understanding of

logit model analysis. This is a relatively new method

for CVM analysis, but some guidelines exist (Bishop

and others 1988; Hanemann 1984). For other survey

data designs, analysis often involves merely determining a mean value of willingness to pay.

Often socioeconomic variables such as income,

experience, age, residence, or visitation rates are

collected. These variables allow systematic hypothesis

testing of the relationship of willingness to pay to

various variables. CVM results are more credible

when hypotheses are supported. Measurement of

these variables also allows development of bid curves

(see Brookshire and others 1980) but as was found

for TCM, inclusion of variables often depends on

statistical properties rather than theoretical properties.

Finally, if the appropriate variables are collected, a

TCM model can be developed and values compared

across methods.

The primary advantages of CVM are the ease of

data analysis and the fact that it does not require

on-site participation. The latter advantage means

CVM can be used to measure option, existence, and

bequest values. TCM requires visitation and therefore

can not be used for off-site measures of value. At

this time, CVM is the only method which can measure

total value. In addition, CVM can be used to measure

the values associated with specific proposed policy

impacts. The time and expense of implementing a

CVM survey is the primary disadvantage of this

method. Considerable expertise is needed in survey

design, and the actual implementation can involve

many people over an extended period of time. Another,

in our opinion, unfounded disadvantage is the

reluctance of many agencies to ‘believe’ the results

from a CVM study. While the reluctance is lessening,

TCM is much more widely accepted.

Both TCM and CVM are methods to derive the

economic value associated with wilderness resources.

Since markets do not accurately capture or measure

these values, prices can not be used as a measure

of economic value and therefore these alternative

methods are necessary.

CURRENT STATUS

Measurement of on-site recreation values has

been the focus of extensive research (Sorg and

Loomis 1984). In these studies, regardless of the

method, the definitions associated with on-site use

have been fairly consistent. These definitions do not,

however, quantify specific aspects of a wilderness

375
experience, therefore, wilderness values can only be

broadly inferred. Currently, emphasis is on identifying,

defining, and measuring off-site recreation values.

Since most individuals do not visit wilderness areas,

the major component of total value is existence value,

and studies of existence are discussed below (drawn

from Brookshire and others 1986, 1987). As with

on-site use values, existence values are estimated

without specific regard to the wilderness quality/

experience. Empirical studies are grouped by the

resource addressed to allow direct comparison within

a specific resource setting.

Water Quality

Desvousges and others (1983) used CVM to

measure existence values for water quality in the

Monongahela River basin in Southwestern Pennsylvania. The questionnaires included several aids for

clarification: a map of the river basin, a water quality

step ladder; a description of activities associated

with each water quality step. To elicit existence value

for users and nonusers in regard to willingness to

pay to avoid a deterioration of water quality, two

questions were asked. The first asked willingness to

pay each year to keep water quality at a boatable

level even if the respondent would never use the

river. An average value of $42.12 was elicited. The

second existence value question asked willingness

to pay for a period longer than the respondent’s

lifetime. The value is not reported.

Cronin (1982) surveyed households along the

Potomac River in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan

area in the fall of 1973 to determine user and nonuser

willingness to pay for four levels of improvement in

water quality in the Potomac River. A nonuser was

defined as any individual who did not participate in

swimming, boating, fishing, hiking, bicycling, camping,

or picnicking near the Potomac River. The nonuser

value does not represent existence value exclusively

because it may also encompass option value.

To measure water quality values for the South

Platte River basin, Greenley and others (1981) used

an iterative bidding procedure. Household residents

in Fort Collins and Denver, Colorado were sampled

by means of personal interviews during the summer

of 1976. Respondents were shown color photos of

three stream sites and the degree of heavy metal

pollution at each site was described. Existence values

were gathered based on a scenario of willingness to

pay to improve and maintain water quality at a level

where no heavy metals were present and mining

development would not take place. Yearly average

willingness to pay bids of $24.98 and $6.00 were

derived for sales tax and water fee payment vehicles,

respectively.

Mitchell and Carson (1981) used CVM to value

water quality for US. waterways. They divided values

into two categories: recreation use benefiis and

intrinsic benefits (which included indirect, option,

and existence values). An indirect benefit is that

added benefit imparted by clean water to an activity

indirectly associated with water. This personal

interview home survey began with questions regarding

recreational use of fresh water. Then a water qualii

ladder (similar to that used by Desvousges and others

1983) depicting four levels was shown, and possible

uses and activities at each level were delineated. To

establish a point of reference, each respondent was

asked which level represented water quality in a

nearby river, lake, or stream. Then, before respondents

were questioned regarding willingness to pay, via

taxes and higher prices, for improvements in water

quality they were reminded that they already pay for

water quality improvements, via taxes, sewer fees,

etc. For a fishable level of water quality, an average

value of $111 per year per household is reported.

Gramlich (1977) provided an indirect measure of

existence value for water quality throughout all the

nation’s rivers, using an iterative bidding procedure

with a fixed starting point of $20 per year. Households

in the Boston area surrounding the Charles River

watershed were sampled during the Fall of 1973 to

determine willingness to pay for guaranteed water

quality improvements to a swimmable level for three

scenarios: (1) throughout all the Nation’s rivers

(including the Charles River); (2) throughout the

Charles River; (3) throughout all of the Nation’s rivers

(excluding the Charles River). It is doubtful any

household could visit all rivers; therefore, a large

component of the values reported would incorporate

existence values. However, because the survey did

not explicitly discuss all values associated with a

swimmable water quality, the values derived would

vary, depending on each individual’s interpretation

of the question’s meaning. An average value of $30.54

was reported for the Charles River, a value of $55.43

for all the Nation’s rivers (including the Charles River)

and a value of $25.49 for all other rivers (excluding

the Charles River).

Wilderness

Walsh and others (1982, 1984) measured recreation, option, existence, and bequest values for

wilderness in the State of Colorado. During the

summer of 1980, Colorado households were surveyed,

via mail, on willingness to pay for current levels of

wilderness and for proposed increases in the availabil376
ity of wilderness as depicted on enclosed maps. The

open-ended questionnaire utilized willingness to pay

into a special wilderness fund as the payment vehicle.

Average existence and bequest per year per household values for the current 1.2 million acres of

wilderness were $4.87 and $5.01, respectively; for

2.6 million acres, these would be $6.56; for 5 million

acres, $8.86 and $9.10; and for 10 million acres,

$11.14 and $11.46.

Wildlife

Brookshire and others (1983) measured option

and existence values for increments in the supply of

Bighorn sheep and Grizzly bears in Wyoming. A

CVM mail survey was used to randomly sample

Wyoming resident elk, deer, and antelope hunters

on willingness to pay annually for such increments.

The payment vehicle was a Bighorn sheep (or Grizzly

bear) stamp similar to the duck stamp currently used

to preserve wetlands. To isolate existence value,

respondents were asked if they ever planned to hunt

the species in question. If they did not, they were

then asked if they ever planned to view the animal.

A second negative answer was followed by questions

on existence value willingness to pay. For a 5year

time horizon, an average per person existence value

of $24.00 and $7.40 was reported for Grizzly bears

and Bighorn sheep, respectively. A 15-year time

horizon resulted in values of $15.20 and $6.90.

Stall and Johnson (1984) measured existence

value associated with the Whooping Crane (an

endangered species). The survey was administered

from December 1982 through March 1983 using two

distribution methods. A mail survey was sent to

residents of Texas, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York,

and Atlanta, and the same survey was handed out

to users of the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in

Texas. The existence portion of the survey used a

closed-ended CVM to elicit willingness to pay, via

contributions, to a foundation that would purchase

and maintain refuge land for species preservation.

Annual average existence values of $9.33, $1.03,

and $1.24 were reported for refuge visitors, Texas

residents, and out-of-state residents, respectively.

Boyje and Bishop (1985) sampled 1,000 Wisconsin

residents by mail to obtain a total value measure

associated with preservation of bald eagles and

striped shiners in Wisconsin. Existence value was

explicitly restricted to nonuse values based on altruistic

motives. The payment vehicle was contributions to a

preservation foundation, similar to that used by Stall

and Johnson (1984). Reported values were separated

according to whether or not the respondent contributed to the State’s Endangered Resources Donation

Program. Nonviewer bald eagle mean values were

$18.02 and $11.84 for contributors and noncontributors, respectively. Striped shiners means were $5.66

and $4.16 for contributors and noncontributors,

respectively.

Air Quality

Schulze and others (1980) and Brookshire and

others (1985) measured preservation values associated with air quality in the national parklands of the

Southwest. During the summer of 1980, residents of

Denver, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, and Chicago

were shown sets of photographs depicting five levels

of regional visibility in Mesa Verde, Zion, and Grand

Canyon National Parks. The photos depicted various

levels of sulfur dioxide emission. Respondents were

asked to specify willingness to pay to prevent a

plume from being seen in a pristine area. Preservation

value is described by two components: use value

and existence value. The latter is attributed to

individuals who might never visit the Grand Canyon

region but still value visibility simply because they

wish to preserve a national treasure. Visitors may

also wish to know that the Grand Canyon maintains

pristine air quality even on days when they do not

use it. Table 1 shows the results of the survey for

mean preservation values in dollars (Schulze and

others 1980). Nonuser existence values were not

separated out.

Table 1. --Air quality willingness to pay

Other Southwest

City Grand Canyon National Parklands Plume avoidance

Albuquerque 4.09 4.14 4.25

Los Angeles 5.14 4.50 2.84

Denver 3.72 2.89 2.89

Chicago 9.06 7.10 4.32

377
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

ON WILDERNESS DEMAND AND VALUE

Research needs and unsolved problems in

wilderness demand and value fall into five categories:

1, Wilderness recreation products,

2. Wilderness recreation markets,

3. Wilderness recreation production and supply,

4. Demand and valuation,

5. Price and rationing policy.

This section presents a brief discussion of some

research needs in each area.

Wilderness Recreation Products

Outdoor recreation products are not well understood and wilderness recreation is a worst case

situation. In part, this problem is due to inadequate

knowledge. In part, it is a problem of sloppy thinking

and inadequate rigor in defining words and ideas.

‘Recreation’ is a catch-all term. At one extreme the

product may simply be access to sites or facilities. A

person passing through a gate, so to speak, is one

unit of the product. At the other extreme it may be a

subjective and unobservable recreation experience.

Forms of observable behavior such as trips or

activity-days lie between these two extremes. Nonrecreation products of wilderness, such as those

associated with option, existence, and bequest value,

are even more difficult to define and less well

understood.

The definition problem is aggravated by the

heterogeneous and composite nature of most outdoor

recreation events. A trip to a recreation site jointly

produces a composite set of experiences and

activities. Each recreation site and each composite

experience is an unique product, and defining the

“trip” as the product does not solve this problem.

People often seek economies of joint production by

combining several destinations in a multiple purpose

trip. Estimating the value of such a trip is easy, but

decomposing that value into the several destinations

or components of experience is an unsolved and

perhaps unsolvable problem.

There are several different definitions of the

recreation product, because there are several different

recreation ‘products,” each of which is relevant to a

different kind of policy or management question. We

need to decide which products relate to what

questions, those products then need to be defined

in operational terms so that product quantity, quality,

and price can be measured. Some products, such

as recreation experience, are so poorly understood

that product definition and measurement are major

challenges requiring extensive research.

Given previous definitions, however, there still is

need for development and refinement of measurement

methods. The question, “how much of the good has

been produced,’ requires not only clear and precise

definition of the good in operational terms, but also

standard units and methods of measurement. Measurement of recreation quantity currently is a collection

of things like recreation visitor days (RVD’s), recreation

activity days, wildlife user days (WFUD’s), persons at

one time (PAOT’s), trips, visits, acres of land, units of

a given facility (e.g., number of campsites or picnic

tables, miles of trail), and who knows what. These

measures often are misapplied and misunderstood.

Measurement of recreation quality is primitive and

largely unsuccessful.

Wilderness Recreation Markets

A wilderness recreation market is one of strongly

differentiated public or quasi-public goods produced

and consumed in a spatial economy under monopolistic competition with government intervention. Sites

tend to be unique and locationally lumpy, creating

the condition of spatial economics and monopolistic

competition. Each site therefore tends to be a separate

market with a unique demand function. Where the

population of users is locationally dispersed, each

potential visitor to a given site faces a different price

and a different substitute environment. Many opportunities and facilities are supplied noncompetitively by

government and rationed by means other than efficient

pricing. Wilderness recreation on public land is

generally nonpriced or underpriced because of: (1)

political preferences and traditions, (2) impossibility

or high cost of fee collection, (3) unknown and/or

external marginal cost, or (4) zero marginal cost.

The theories and paradigms needed to understand wilderness recreation markets are available,

but have not been integrated or applied effectively.

Three bodies of knowledge are required: (1) the

theory of nonrival, nonexcludable, and/or government

supplied or regulated goods (Randall 1984); (2) the

theory of spatial markets (Abelson 1979; Anas 1982;

Losch 1964; Mills 1980; von Thunen 1826); and (3)

the theory of product differentiation and monopolistic

competition. Wilderness recreation has characteristics

that fall into all three categories. These bodies of

knowledge need more effective integration into an

improved framework for analyzing and managing

wilderness recreation resources.

378
Wilderness Recreation Production and

SUPPlY

The theory of recreation supply is incomplete.

Effective measures of the relative scarcity of outdoor

recreation corresponding, for example, to price in a

competitive market, are not available. Current measures of supply are ineffective and misleading. These

problems prevent evaluation of the adequacy and

efficiency of wilderness recreation resources (Harrington 1987).

Inadequacy of supply-side theory also prevents

estimation of supply functions needed for marginal

and nonmarginal valuation in benefit-cost analysis.

Public agencies produce forest and wildland recreation in a hierarchical framework of multiple public

objectives, Public investments in recreation resources

thus serve and are motivated jointly by numerous

purposes (Hof and others 1985; Rideout and Hof

1987). For example, production of recreation sites

and facilities on national forests tends to benefit from

and contribute to timber and wildlife management.

Roads built for timber harvest create access for

recreation, and timber harvest may enhance or impair

wildlife habitat. Jointness in production at this level

prevents cost allocation and evaluation of investment

productivity (Bowes and Krutilla 1979; Duerr 1960;

Herfindahl and Kneese 1974; Hof and others 1985)

thereby contributing to such problems as the ‘below

cost timber sale” controversy.

In the specific wilderness context, on-site recreation is only one of several motivations behind

wilderness designation and preservation. Other

purposes include research, protection of habitat for

threatened or endangered species, cultural preservation, and preservation of indigenous ecosystems. It

is difficult, therefore, to separate the production cost

of wilderness recreation from the cost of serving

other public objectives.

At the ‘household production’ level, individuals

invest time, money, travel, effort, equipment, and

skill, in combination with sites and facilities supplied

by the government, to produce wilderness recreation

(Becker 1965; Harrington 1987). Recreation events

and experiences seldom if ever are single purpose.

While wilderness managers want to know the value

of single activities that occur at their sites, visitors

jointly produce composite experiences that consist

of several activities. Or, they jointly produce visits to

several destinations on a single trip. Such joint

production makes it difficult or impossible to estimate

demand-side value in the terms requested by

wilderness management and policy institutions. At

the extreme end of household production, some

people derive satisfaction and value simply from

knowing that wilderness exists (Bishop and others

1987; Boyle and Bishop 1987; Fisher and Raucher

1984; Peterson and Sorg 1987; Randall 1987a; Randall

and Stall 1983).

It is easy to count acres of wilderness, but because

of inadequacy of supply-side theory and measurement

method, we do not have an effective inventory of

wilderness supply as it pertains to recreation opportunity (Harrington 1987). Consequently, it is difficult to

evaluate the adequacy of existing resources or to

plan for future needs, Our understanding of the

interaction of public and private recreation markets

also is inadequate. How do public policies and publicly

managed wilderness areas affect the private recreation

sector? Are governments providing services that are

more appropriately handled by private enterprise? Is

government intervening efficiently to correct imperfections in the recreation market?

Demand and Valuation

The demand-side theory of recreation economics

is well developed but intriguing questions have begun

to challenge the theory, and serious problems confront

practical application. Credibility of demand-side

valuation methods for nonpriced recreation is not

well established in management and policy circles.

Demand-side valuation is severely hampered by the

heterogeneous and composite nature of recreation

products. Jointness in production of multiple destination trips and composite recreation prevents estimation of demand-side value. Many available studies of

wilderness demand and value are ad hoc and not

generalizable. Data are sparse and expensive to

collect. Substitution in forest and wildland recreation

is not well understood. The effect of congestion and

other site characteristics on the quality and value of

recreation experience currently is an unsolved

research problem (Freeman 1979; Freeman and

Haveman 1977; Harrington 1987). Very little is known

about the variation of demand and value over time

(Peterson, in press; Peterson and others 1985).

An example of the theoretical challenge is the

need for reconciliation between: (1) the behavioral

axioms and propositions of microeconomic theory,

(2) theoretical implications of empirical measurements

of economic value, and (3) behavioral propositions

of their disciplines, such as psychology (Peterson

and others, in press; Peterson and others 1988;

Simon 1985). For example, economic theory predicts

that willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to

accept compensation (WTA) should be equal except

379
for income effect, which for most recreation cases

should be trivial. Empirical experiments show substantial differences that are inconsistent with economic

theory (Fisher and others 1988; Gregory 1986; Knetsch

and Sinden 1984). Some economists argue that

inadequate experimental methods cause the empirical

discrepancies (Gregory 1986). Some behavioral

scientists contend that economic theory is inconsistent

with human behavior and that such differences are

real and expected (Tversky and Kahneman 1981).

For these reasons, research on wilderness

demand and valuation is needed in the following

areas:

1. Further develop the theory of recreation demand

and household production for imperfect markets,

and heterogeneous and composite products.

2. Improve and validate economic valuation

theories and methods as applied to wilderness, and

reconcile theoretical and empirical discrepancies.

Conduct basic research on human economic behavior

to determine whether microeconomic theory adequately describes behavior, and/or whether behavior

is appropriate.

3. Develop a better understanding of substitution

in wilderness demand. Develop improved demand

function specifications that adequately incorporate

substitute prices. Explain the choice process by

which people make the decision to substitute, and

develop rigorous and practical methods for estimating

a substitute price index for wilderness.

4. Develop valid and reliable data and data

collection systems for monitoring wilderness participation and estimating wilderness demand models.

5. Estimate and catalog generalized wilderness

demand models as well as valid and reliable estimates

of marginal and nonmarginal wilderness demand

prices.

6. Describe and explain changes in wilderness

participation, demand, and value over time and

develop effective forecasting techniques, theories,

and models.

Pricing and Rationing Policy

Pricing public sector outdoor recreation for

efficiency, revenue, and rationing is not well understood in policy circles (Rosenthal and others 1984).

Part of the problem is institutional, because such

things are legislatively and politically controlled.

Although the economic theory of pricing and price

rationing is well developed (Musgrave and Musgrave

1973; Winston 1985) application to wilderness

recreation is not.

Four problems stand in the way: (1) Identification

of efficient marginal cost price is hampered by

inadequately defined products and inability to specify

demand and marginal cost. Wilderness recreation is

not a competitive market commodity, and markets

cannot be relied on to set efficient prices. Prices

must be determined analytically, and such analysis

requires knowledge of the demand and marginal

cost functions. (2) Technical pricing issues frequently

are intermingled with political concerns, such as

concern for equity and income redistribution, as in

‘free’ education. (3) Public recreation resources

often are involved in multiple purpose resource

allocation decisions that occur at several levels in

the political and administration hierarchy. Efficiency

therefore requires multiple part pricing, a topic not

well understood or accepted in recreation resource

management (Guldin and Kroon 1987). (4) Use of

price to regulate or ration the quantity demanded is

not well established in the public sector, although it

is the “natural” means whereby private goods are

rationed in the private sector.

Because social and political objectives may be

intermingled in decisions about allocation of public

recreation resources, it is important to understand

the distributional impacts of pricing policy. However,

such impacts are not understood. For example, the

fixed location of wilderness areas and their concentration in the Western States discriminates against

large numbers of low income people through travel

cost. The distributional impacts of entry fees for

such sites are of little social interest, except to the

local population. Fees may be strong distributional

agents, however, within urban areas where the

transportation cost is a negligible part of total price.

A related aspect of recreation pricing that is not

well understood is subsidy and below-cost income

transfer. Cost allocation is difficult because of jointness

in production and hierarchical resource allocation to

multiple public purposes. It is not often clear where

or whether there is income transfer. Where marginal

cost is zero and price is set below the marginal cost,

excess demand is the result, costly nonprice rationing

is needed, and income gets transferred. Income

transfer obviously is a political decision, but such a

decision cannot be effective without good technical

information about the income transfer implications of

alternative policies.
REFERENCES

Abelson, P. 1979. Property prices and the value of

amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics

and Management. 6(1):1 l-28.

Anas, Alex. 1982. Residential location markets and

urban transportation. New York: Academic Press.

263 PP.

Anderson, Glen A.; Bishop, R.C. 1986. The valuation

problem. pp. 89-139. In: Bromley, D.W., ed. Natural

resource economics. Policy problems and contemporary analysis. Boston, MA: Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing.

Arrow, K.J.; Fisher, A.C. 1974. Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility. Quarterly

Journal of Economics. 55(2):313-319.

Becker, Gary S. 1965. A theory of the allocation of

time. The Economic Journal 75(299):493-517.

Bishop, R.C. 1982. Option value: an exposition and

extension. Land Economics. 58(1):1-l 5.

Bishop, R.C.; Boyle, K.J.; Welsh, M.P. 1987. Toward

total economic valuation of Great Lakes fishery

resources. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society. 116338345.

Bishop, R.C.; Heberlien, T.A.; Kealy, M.J. 1983.

Contingent valuation of environmental assets:

comparisons with a simulated market. Natural

Resources Journal. 23(3):619+X33.

Bowes, M.D.; Krutilla, J.V. 1979. Cost allocation in

efficient multiple-use management: a comment.

Journal of Forestry. 77(7):419-420.

Bowes, M.D.; Loomis, J.B. 1980. A note on the use

of travel cost models with unequal zonal populations. Land Economics. 56(4):465-470.

Boyle, K.J.; Bishop, R.C. 1985. The total value of

wildlife: a case study involving endangered species.

American Agricultural Economics Association and

the Association of Environmental and Resource

Economists, August 4-7, Iowa State University.

Boyle, K.J.; Bishop, R.C. 1987. Valuing wildlife in

benefit-cost analyses: a case study involving

endangered species. Water Resources Research

23(5):943-950.

Brookshire, D.S.; Eubanks, L.S.; Sorg, C.F. 1986.

Existence values and normative economics:

implications for valuing water resources. Water

Resources Research. 22(11):1509-l 518.

Brookshire, D.S.; Eubanks, L.S.; Sorg, C.F. 1987.

Existence value: alternative notions and benefit-cost

analysis. In: Peterson, G.; Swanson, C.F., eds.

Towards a measure of total economic value. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-148, Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Brookshire, D.S.; Randall, A.; d’Arge, R. [and others].

1979. Methodological experiments in valuing wildlife

resources: Phase I interim report to the U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Brookshire, D.S.; Randall, A; Stoll, J.R. 1980. Valuing

increments and decrements in natural resource

service flows. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics. 62(3):478-488.

Brookshire, D.S.; Schulze, W.D.; Thayer, M.A. 1985.

Some unusual aspects of valuing a unique natural

resource. Draft manuscript, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, WY.

Brookshire, David S.; Eubanks, Larry S.; Randall,

Alan 1983. Estimating option prices and existence

values for wildlife resources. Land Economics.

59(1):1-15.

Cesario, F. 1976. Value of time in recreation benefit

studies. Land Economics. 52(1):32-40.

Cesario, F.; Knetsch, J. 1976. A recreation site demand

and benefit estimation model. Regional Studies.

pp. 97-104.

Cronin, F.J. 1982. Valuing non-market goods through

contingent markets. Report to U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency by Pacific Northwest Laboratory,

US. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial

Institute.

Cummings, R.G.; Brookshire, D.S.; Schulze, W.D.,

eds. 1986. Valuing environmental goods. An

assessment of the contingent valuation method.

NJ: Rowman & Allanheld Publisher.

Desvousges, W.H.; Smith, V.K.; McGivney, M.P.

1983. A comparison of alternative approaches for

estimating recreation and related benefits of water

quality improvement. Draft report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis

Division. July:1 vol.

381
Duerr, W.A. 1960. Fundamentals of forestry economics. New York: McGraw-Hill. 579 pp.

Fisher, A.; McClelland, G.A.; Schulze, W.D. 1988. In:

Peterson, G.; Driver, B.L.; Gregory, R., eds.

Valuation of public amenity resources: an integration of economics and psychology, University

Park, PA: Venture Press.

Fisher, A.; Raucher, R. 1984. Intrinsic benefiis of

improved water quality: conceptual and empirical

perspectives. Advances in Applied MicroEconomics. 3:37-66.

Freeman, A.M. 1984. The sign and size of option

value. Land Economics. 60(2):1-l 3.

Freeman, A.M. Ill. 1979. The benefits of environmental

improvement. Washington, DC: Resources for the

Future. 272 pp.

Freeman, A.M. Ill; Haveman, R.H. 1977. Congestion,

quality deterioration, and heterogeneous tastes.

Journal of Public Economics. 8:225-232.

Graham, D.A. 1981, Cost-benefit analysis under

uncertainty. American Economic Review.

71(9):715-725.

Gramlich, F.W. 1977. The demand for clean water:

the case of the Charles River. National Tax Journal.

30(6):183-l 94.

Greenley, D.A.; Walsh, R.G.; Young, R.A. 1981, Option

value: empirical evidence from a case study of

recreation and water quality. Quarterly Journal of

Economics. 96(4):657-673.

Gregory, R. 1986. Interpreting measures of economic

loss: evidence from contingent valuation and

experimental studies. Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management. 13(4):325-337.

Guldin, R.W.; Kroon, H.J. 1987. Economic and social

aspects of user fees. pp. 217-229. In: Kaiser, F.;

Brown, Perry, eds. Proceedings: 18th IUFRO world

congress, Yugoslavia. economic value analysis of

multiple-use forestry. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University, Department of Resource Recreation

Management.

Hanemann, W.M. 1982. Information and the concept

of option value. Working paper #228, California

Agriculture Experiment Station, Gianinni Foundation

of Agricultural Economics, October.

Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Discrete/continuous models

of consumer demand. Econometrica.

52(3):541-562.

Harrington, W. 1987. Measuring recreation supply.

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 77 pp.

Henry, C. 1974. Optional values in the economics of

irreplaceable assets. Review of Economic Studies.

pp. 89-104.

Herfindahl, O.C.; Kneese, A.V. 1974. Economic theory

of natural resources. Columbus, OH: Charles E.

Merrill. 405 pp.

Hoehn, J.P.; Krieger, D. 1986. Review of techniques

for weighing or valuing the benefits associated

with environmental quality improvements. Submitted to the Scientific Authority of the International

Journal Commission.

Hoehn, J.P.; Randall, A. 1983. Incentives and performance in contingent policy evaluation. Selected

paper presented at summer meetings of the

American Agricultural Economics Association,

August.

Hof, J.G.; Lee, R.D.; Dyer, A.A.; Kent, B.M. 1985. An

analysis of joint costs in a managed forest ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management. 12(4) :338-352.

Knetsch, J.L.; Sinden, J.A. 1984. Willingness to pay

and compensation demanded: experimental

evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures

of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics.

99(3):507-521.

Krutilla, J.A. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review 57(9):777-786.

Krutilla, J.V.; Fisher, A. 1975. The economics of natural

environments: studies in the valuation of commodity

and amenity resources. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Losch, A. 1954. The economics of location. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 520 pp.

Mills, E.S. 1980. Urban economics. Glenview, IL:

Scott, Foresman & Co. 241 pp.

Mitchell, R.G.; Carson, R.T. 1981. An experiment in

determining willingness to pay for national water

quality improvements. Washington, DC: US.

Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Report.

382
Musgrave, R.A.; Musgrave, P.B. 1973. Public finance

in theory and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

762 pp.

Peterson, G.L. [In press]. Estimating recreation values

over time. Benchmark 1988 Symposium, Tampa,

Florida. January.

Peterson G.L.; Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J. [In press].

The benefits and costs of recreation: dollars and

sense. in: Johnson, R.L.; Johnson, G.V., eds.

Economic valuation of natural resources: issues,

theory, and applications. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

Peterson, G.L.; Driver, B.L.; Gregory, R. 1988. Valuation

of public amenity resources: an integration of

economics and psychology. University Park, PA:

Venture Press.

Peterson, George L.; Sorg, Cindy F. 1987. Toward

the measurement of total economic value. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-148. Fort Collins, CO: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 44 pp.

Peterson, G.L.; Stynes, D.L.; Arnold, J.R. 1985. The

stability of a recreation demand model over time.

Journal of Leisure Research. 12(2):121-l 32.

Randall, A. 1983. The problem of market failure.

Natural Resources Journal. 23: 131-i 47.

Randall, A. 1984. Theoretical bases for non-market

benefit estimation. pp. 77-88. Peterson, G.; Randall,

A., eds. In: Valuation of wildlife resource benefits.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Randall, A. 1987. The total value dilemma. pp. 3-13.

In: Peterson, G.; Sorg, C.F., eds. Toward the

measurement of total economic value. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RM-148. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Randall, A.; Stoll, J.R. 1983. Existence value in a

total valuation framework. In: Rowe, R.D.; Chestnut,

L.D., eds. Managing air quality and scenic resources

at national parks and wilderness areas. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.

Rideout, D.; Hof, J. 1987. Cost sharing in multiple

use forestry: a game theoretic approach. Forest

Science. 33(1):81-88.

Rosenthal, Donald H.; Loomis, John B.; Peterson,

George L. 1984. Pricing for efficiency and revenue

in public recreation areas. Journal of Leisure

Research. 16(3):195-308.

Schulze, W.D.; Brookshire, D.S.; Walther, E.; Kelley,

K. 1982. Methods development f6r environmental

control assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Grant, Office of Research and Development.

Schulze, W.D.; Brookshire, D.S.; Walther, E.G.; Kelley,

K. 1980. Methods development for environmental

control benefits assessment. Vol. 3, The benefits

of preserving visibility in the national parklands of

the Southwest. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Exploratory Research and Development.

Schulze, W.D.; d’Arge, R.C.; Brookshire, D.S. 1981.

Valuing environmental commodities: some recent

experiments. Land Economics. 57(2):151-l 72.

Schmalensee, R. 1972. Option demand and consumer’s surplus: valuing price changes under

uncertainty. American Economic Review.

62(5):813-824.

Simon, H.A. 1985. Human nature in politics: the

dialogue of psychology with political science. The

American Political Science Review. 79:293-304.

Sorg, Cindy F.; Loomis, John B. 1984. Empirical

estimates of amenity forest values: a comparative

review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-107. Fort Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 23 pp.

Stall, J.R.; Johnson, L. 1984. Concepts of value,

non-market valuation, and the case of the whooping

crane. Technical Article 19360. College Station,

TX: Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Natural Resource Workgroup.

Randall, Alan 1987. Total economic value as a basis

for policy. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society. 116(3):325-335.

383
Tolley, G.S. [and others]. 1987. Establishing and

valuing the effects of improved visibility in the

eastern United States. Washington, DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Draft report.

Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of

decisions and the psychology of choice. Science.

211(4481):453458.

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1979. Procedures for

evaluation of national economic development

(NED) benefits and costs in water resources

planning. Federal Register. 44(243):72892-72976,

December 14.

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and

environmental principles and guidelines for water

and related land resources implementation studies.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 137

Pp:

von Thiinen, J.H. 1826. Der isolierte staat in beziehung

auf landwirtschaftund national-okonomie. Hamburg, West Germany.

Walsh, R.C.; Gillman, R.A.; Loomis, J.B 1982. Wilderness resource economics: recreation use and

preservation values. Denver, CO: For American

Wilderness Alliance.

Walsh, Richard C.; Loomis, John B.; Gillman, Richard

A. 1984. Valuing option, existence and bequest

demands for wilderness. Land Economics.

60(1):14-29.

Weisbrod, B.A. 1964. Collective-consumption services

of individual-consumption good. Quarterly Journal

of Economics. 78(3):471-477.

Winston, D. 1985. Conceptual developments in the

economics of transportation: an interpretive survey.

Journal of Economic Literature. 23(1):57-94.

Vaughan, William J.; Russell, Clifford S. 1982. Valuing

a fishing day: an application of a systematic varying

parameter model. Land Economics. 58(4):450463.

384
THE CHALLENGE OF MANAGING WILDERNESS

IN AN ERA OF CHANGE

Stephen F. McCooP

Abstrqct- Wilderness management is confronted with

a number of obstacles. While funding is an obstacle,

others are the focus of this paper. The paper identifies

these obstacles and suggests specific actions needed

to overcome these and improve the quality of management.

INTRODUCTION

Management of wilderness is entering an era of

change. Like other components of our culture, new

ways of doing things are rapidly replacing old customs

and traditions. Our beliefs about natural resources,

their function in society, and how they should be

used and managed are a part of this cultural

transformation. The significant change in both

manager and visitor attitudes toward the role of fire

in wilderness settings is one illustration. In a study of

visitors to the Selway-Bitterroot wilderness conducted

in 1971, Stankey (1976) found that 56 percent favored

a policy of fire suppression in wilderness. A followup

study in 1984 revealed a major shift-only 17 percent

supported this type of fire management policy (McCool

and Stankey 1986b).

Wilderness, as a land designation, is a cultural

institution; as such, its meaning-and management -

reflects the social and cultural norms dominant at

any given point in time. For example, when Yellowstone

National Park was established in 1872, it was termed

a ‘pleasuring ground.‘* Now we recognize the park

as an irreplaceable component of an intricate regional

ecosystem, where the role of humans is minimal,

‘Professor of Wildland Recreation Management, University of

Montana, Missoula, MT.

*Nathanial P. Langford even proposed that islands in Yellowstone

Lake be garnished ‘with the attractions of cultivated taste and

refinement’ (Langford 1972).

and natural processes, including the full array of

predator-prey relationships, may operate unimpeded

by those ‘cultivated tastes” of American society.

As our culture evolves, we can expect a parallel

evolution in definitions of wilderness. Wilderness is

not necessarily the biophysical aspects of the

environment but rather is, as Nash (1985) has argued,

.

. . , a state of mind. It has more to do with mental

than physical geography.’ Such changes in definitions

are not new to wilderness:

From roughly the last decade of the 19th century

through the first two decades of the 29th century,

a great transition occurred in America’s attitude

toward wilderness. . . This period of transition

featured a gradual rethinking of the relationship

between wilderness and society, characterized

then, as well as now, by conflicting interests and

competing values of the worth of wilderness

(Stankey and Schreyer 1987).

Such changes carry significant implications for

amenity resources and their management (McCool

1988). For example, the view of wilderness as a

static (and beautiful) landscape is giving way to the

notion that it is a dynamic (and sometimes ugly)

place that is valued because freely operating ecological processes generate landscapes that are natural,

shifting, complex and, to some extent, unpredictable.

The beauty that we behold here is not totally one of

the product, but also one of process. And, we have

changed our attitudes toward animals considerably

since the time that Albright and Taylor (1928) wrote

about National Park Service rangers:

The rangers have grown to love all wild life except

those predatory species which they so often

observe destroying young antelope, deer, or elk

. . . Winter patrolling introduces an added element

of sport into the lives of the rangers in trapping

and shooting of predatory animals . . . One of

the Yellowstone rangers . . , sets his quota at

one hundred coyotes each winter.

385
The belief that some native animals are good

and others bad has been replaced by an appreciation

for the intricacies of predator-prey relationships.

Wildness comes not only from the lack of permanent

human occupation, but also from our commitment to

noninterference in natural events. How we perceive

the wildness of these places in a period of change,

and thus the protection of the integrity of that wildness

are the fundamental sources of the obstacles to

improving wilderness management.

Brown and others (1987) have noted that during

periods of change, particularly, more than one

interpretation of wilderness may exist, and there may

be conflict among interpretations. Thus, how we

manage wilderness to protect, restore, or enhance

these values not only reflects these social transitions,

but also becomes an important pan of the process

of change.

Intrinsic to the process of change is the inevitability

of conflict. Conflict has always been a natural

outgrowth of pluralistic America. However, conflict

borne of cultural change also engenders new rules

for resolving conflict. Thus, the process to deal with

conflict and change becomes as important as the

changes themselves.

These factors suggest that wilderness managers

must be perceptive, sensitive, and creative in order

to retain their relevancy, effectiveness, and leadership.

In this paper, I wish to explore what I feel are

fundamental obstacles to improving the quality of

wilderness management in an era of rapid cultural

change, discuss opportunities to improve wilderness

management, and suggest appropriate Forest Service

responses.

OBSTACLES TO WILDERNESS

MANAGEMENT IN AN ERA OF CHANGE

There are numerous obstacles confronting the

principal land managing agencies in their relatively

new role as wilderness managers. These obstacles

cannot be considered independent of each other: to

a large extent, they reflect different aspects of the

same problem, and in general have developed out

of changing social values and perceptions of wilderness.

Lack of Understanding of the Meaning of

Wilderness

There are approximately 470 areas designated

as ‘wilderness’ under the provisions of and amendments to the Wilderness Act, the Eastern Wilderness

Act, the Federal Land Management Policy Act, and

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Numerous other areas are managed by the National

Park Service as wilderness, and many others will be

designated wilderness when Bureau of Land Management administered lands go through the allocation

process in the 1990’s.

Unlike that of many other natural resources, the

concept of wilderness is based on a specific philosophical tradition, rooted in the romanticist writings

and transcendentalism of the 19th century. Understanding the origins of this tradition, how it has evolved,

and the historical and philosophical context of current

conditions is essential to the success of wilderness

management; that is, it is difficult to develop the

management sensitivity needed to recognize and

resolve future problems without comprehending the

traditions and contributions of the past. Yet, few of

the hundreds of designated wildernesses have

managers with training in wilderness philosophy and

history. Two examples will help clarify how understanding of philosophical traditions is important to wilderness management.

Trails are vital to recreational use of wilderness.

However, many of today’s trail systems originated

from the need to access wilderness for administrative

and fire suppression purposes, and for a much lower

level and different type of use. Consequently, many

trail systems are no longer appropriate and need a

comprehensive evaluation of their suitability for

recreational use. Managers can make four decisions

about trails: location, construction technique and

standard, maintenance level and frequency, and

type of recreational use. Too often, such decisions

are based solely on technical and engineering criieria.

Each of these decisions should include consideration

of the philosophical and historical traditions of

wilderness, as well as the values for which the

wilderness was established. For example, the decision

to construct a trail may involve consideration of the

level of solitude to be provided in a specific area, or

it may include an analysis of how recreational use

will affect endemic threatened or endangered species.

The specific trail construction standard used reflects

the type of recreational opportunity provided in that

part of the wilderness. And, there may also be places

in wilderness left without trails so that individuals

must rely on competent backcountry navigation skills

and therefore may enjoy the opportunity for high

levels of challenge.

386
History itself is an important value of wilderness

and serves as another example. The Forest Service

has a rich tradition of backcountry and wilderness

management dating back to 1924, when the Gila

Wilderness was established in New Mexico. That

tradition serves as an important model for the

stewardship challenges of the future. Unfortunately,

through a process of incremental decisions and

changes, much of that tradition is being rapidly

depleted. If you walk into a backcountry ranger station

in the West, where such stations have been present

for 50 years, you will be confronted with a jumble of

29th century technologies. It is common to see a

wilderness ranger hauling foodstuffs in by horseback,

cooking meals over a propane-powered stove, and

then washing dishes by the light of a fluorescent

fixture using stored solar energy. The argument for

such technology has been efficiency rather than

appropriateness; few recognize that unnecessarily

lost skills and traditions are significant and irretrievable

costs to wilderness management. Understanding

wilderness philosophy would help managers make

explicit decisions about retaining historical values

and traditions rather than continue the current series

of incremental, implicit decisions.

Lack of Creativity and Accountability in

Wilderness Management

Management of wilderness is an important and

sensitive task. Wildernesses are special places, and

they demand proper attention and adequate protection. In an era of change, organizations must be

creative in order to maintain leadership, prevent

preemption of administrative discretion, manage

conflict, and preserve credibility when attempting to

meet this mandate. Unfortunately, bureaucracies

tend to reward uniformity over creativity, favor caution

over risk, discipline failure rather than recognize

innovativeness. I have noted elsewhere that there

are considerable personal and bureaucratic tendencies that stifle creativity in wilderness management

(McCool 1986). Being creative implies taking risks.

Taking risks carries with it the potential for failure.

Organizations must be willing to tolerate occasional

failure if they wish their employees to be successful,

innovative, and productive.

The responsibility for managing wilderness and

achieving certain objectives must be also written into

job descriptions to develop accountability. Assigning

responsibility also means accountability. We must

build into job performance evaluations how well

specific goals in wilderness management are met.

Poor Knowledge About Natural Processes

and Clientele

Wildernesses are complex, dynamic ecosystems.

We are only now beginning to identify, let alone

understand, the complicated interactions among the

flora, fauna, and ecological processes endemic to

any one area. We have made considerable progress

in grasping the role of fire as a shaper of the vegetative

mosaic. But how much do we understand about the

more subtle ecological consequences of naturally

occurring fire such as the effect on nutrient cycling

and its impact on fish populations?

Only recently have we identified how changes in

air quality may affect the biotic environment, and we

have yet to understand how other forces of natureavalanches, earthquakes, insects, animals, weather

patterns, floods- interact. More complete understanding of natural processes can also help us use

wilderness as the scientific baseline from which we

can compare or contrast the effects of contemporary

civilization. However, our perceptions of these

processes appear to be based more upon how they

impact specific components of the resource than the

wilderness itself.3

We know far too little about the people who use

wilderness and how they use it. For example, reliable

data describing how much recreational use occurs

in wilderness settings are difficult to find (Lucas and

Stankey, In press). The literature on benefits and

visitor attitudes is only now beginning to be cumulative

(Driver and others 1987; Stankey and Schreyer 1987).

Certainly, our ability to manage wilderness is influenced by our knowledge of what people seek from it.

Failure to Recognize the Implications of

Change for Wilderness Management

I’ve noted how our society is in a state of turmoil

as it shifts from one set of values to another and the

implications of these shifts for wilderness management. The old ways of ‘doing business” simply are

no longer acceptable. For example, affected publics

now demand legitimate involvement in land management decisions: the old process of writing plans in

ranger station basements and then ‘going public’

causes additional and unnecessary conflict (McCool

Jlncidentally, we still often refer to the effects of unusual natural

events as ‘damage’ to certain components of wilderness, as when

a flash flood ‘damages’ fish habitat. The flood may impact the

habitat, but the term ‘damage” suggests a value judgment. This

rather narrow viewpoint probably reflects our tendency to look at

wilderness as a recreation area, our knowledge about ecological

process, and our level of enlightenment about wilderness philosophy, history and purpose.

387
and Ashor 1984) and in many cases produces plans

that cannot be implemented. intimate, ongoing public

involvement in wilderness management can be

conducted with real results in terms of improved

quality of management and better chances for

implementation,

The land manager is now more of a facilitator

than an omnipotent decision-maker (Lee and Burch

1986). What this means is that managers help people

identify what they want (goals, outcomes) and then

work with them to help achieve those goals. In terms

of wilderness management, this suggests that

managers must clearly identify their publics, the

benefits these publics seek from wilderness, and

how the wilderness setting can be managed to

maintain, enhance or restore those benefits.

Focus on Carrying Capacity as a Solution

to Recreation Impact Problems

Recreational carrying capacity has been a

dominant theme in wilderness management and

research for over two decades. Unfortunately, a

definition of recreation management problems that

relies on the carrying capacity concept is an obstacle

to wilderness management for several reasons. First,

the carrying capacity literature has demonstrated

that neither biological nor social impacts are linear

functions of use levels, Our understanding of the

use-impact relationship indicates that it is anything

but direct and linear (Cole 1987; Graefe and others

1986; Merriam and others 1973). Biophysical impacts

and opportunities for solitude are affected by numerous influences, and amount of use is only one of

these. By continuing to look to carrying capacity and

use limits to solve impact problems, managers are

directing their attention to the question ‘How many is

too many?’ The technical literature and management

experience tells us that this approach is no longer

appropriate, and its continued use is an obstacle to

solving many of the complex recreation-induced

problems confronting managers.4

While the Wilderness Act mandates that ‘outstanding opportunities for solitude’ be provided, it does

not state that the solution is to limit use, as implied

by the notion of carrying capacity. Rather, the

Wilderness Act directs managers to maintain, restore

or enhance acceptable social and environmental

conditions in wilderness settings. Management

systems that focus on identifying acceptable or

desirable conditions are now available.

Lack of Training of Wilderness Managers

Most managers of wildernesses are especially

well trained in biological sciences or in natural

resource extraction activities such as range, wildlife,

or timber management. This training generally

emphasizes economic utilization of biomass rather

than preservation of naturally functioning ecosystems

for important nondollar benefits and uses. Often, the

fundamental rationale for natural resource management activity is neglected in undergraduate curricula,

which instead concentrate on intricate biological

details. Training of wilderness managers encompasses several areas in addition to the basic biological

and natural sciences: human ecology, social psychology, conflict management, public administration,

organizational behavior. The ability to integrate diverse

technical subjects is fundamental to the task.

About 90 million acres are currently designated

as part of the National Wilderness Preservation

System. How do we manage these 90 million acres?

How do we train former timber harvesting specialists,

wildlife biologists, and range managers to protect

these places? Importantly, there exists no comprehensive, systematic, and continuing education program

for wilderness managers that will help develop and

implement appropriate management policies.

Increased Number of Areas with

Nonconforming Uses

One of the major challenges to improved management of wilderness is the tendency to designate

areas that include nonconforming uses. These are

uses and practices that normally conflict with the

free operation of ecological processes or are inconsistent with wilderness philosophy. Examples include

dams and water diversions, power lines, resorts,

grazing, mining, aircraft, roads, mechanized means

of transport, oil and gas wells, fire suppression, and

timber harvesting under special circumstances.5

These uses are allowed in many wildernesses because

of compromises made during the legislative process,

These compromises send a mixed signal to

managers: the areas are wilderness, but the nonconforming use is allowed to continue, making ft difficult

to protect wilderness values, as mandated by the

Wilderness Act. Such situations represent a clear

conflict arising from cultural transitions-the old

values, still entrenched colliding with, but not yet

yielding to the accepted conventions of the future.

4 strongly suggest that the time has come for us to consider

dropping the term recreation carrying capacity from the vocabulary

of wilderness management.

SHunting and fishing, while traditional recreational uses of wilderness, could also be viewed as nonconforming because they interfere

with natural population dynamics.

388
Dealing with and mitigating such conflicts in

objectives does require that we develop a more

complete understanding of how these uses affect

ecological processes. For example, to what extent

does grazing by domestic livestock change vegetation

composition as opposed to what would occur with

grazing by native species? Or, how important is the

change in stream regimen induced by small irrigation

reservoirs?

Tendency to View Wilderness as a

Recreation Area

Wilderness is a special place, one that contains

values which depend on unmodified natural environments where ecological processes operate freely.

These values are well documented in the polemical

literature and, to some extent, are substantiated by

the, technical and scientific literature. They include

spiritual, personal renewal, solitude, learning, appreciation of the natural environment, scientific, historic,

aesthetic, and many other values, including recreation.

Perhaps because of its pervasiveness, especially in

the original components of the Wilderness System,

as well as the problems it forces managers to address,

recreation has come to dominate managerial thinking

about wilderness.

One example is the tendency to view wilderness

as a place to hunt and fish. Another example is the

overriding attention given to the issue of recreational

use and carrying capacity in the literature of wilderness

management. The focus on recreation has carried

with it an unintended yet unfortunate neglect of other

significant values that we are only now beginning to

identify (Driver and others 1987). While some of us

feel that we know what processes occur in predominately natural settings, our understanding about the

linkages among the various natural processes and

the intricate, often subtle (yet important) and sometimes fragile consequences, is actually confined by

limited integration of research experience. How the

use of wilderness can be managed to protect this

wildness mirrors our knowledge of these items. For

example, the tendency of managers defining terms

such as ‘resource damage’ as impacts on individual

biotic or abiotic components (i.e., soil) rather than on

the total wilderness resource itself (i.e., wildness)

suggests incomplete awareness of wilderness as

process.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT

The obstacles identified above are not without

solutions. It should be noted that improved management depends more upon recognizing the obstacles,

identifying how to capitalize on current conditions

and trends, and having the commitment to take

specific steps to achieve identified goals than on

large influxes of revenue. While shortages in funds

to manage wilderness will always be a concern,

much can be done to make the present budgets

more effective. There are several opportunities that

currently exist that, if taken advantage of, can lead

to removal of obstacles.

Social Change Provides an Opportunity to

Develop Leadership

The significant change in social values and norms

provides a real opportunity for improving wilderness

management. For example, it is clear that the

traditional method of land management planning -

rational-comprehensive planning - may no longer be

appropriate and is itself responsible for its own failure

(McCool and Ashor 1984; McCool and Stankey 1986a).

Our publics demand legitimate involvement in planning. They want to be involved from the beginning,

not just to review a draft plan as part of some formal

environmental assessment procedure.

The public continues to maintain a high level of

interest in wilderness. As the debate over allocation

winds down with the end of the 29th century, more

attention will be placed on management. Indeed,

many conservation groups have already developed

specific policies or statements with respect to

wilderness management.

This increased interest in management by the

public provides a significant opportunity for wilderness

managers to get to know their clientele, to gain a

more valuable understanding of wilderness philosophy

and history, to develop more responsive management

plans, and to wriie plans with broader political support

for implementation. In turn, the publics would come

to understand and appreciate the complexity of

wilderness management and the problems posed by

nonconforming uses. Interested groups could afford

managers with immediate feedback about changes

in wilderness conditions, as well as the political

acceptability of proposed management actions. This

would be an authentic learning experience for both

the affected publics and wilderness managers as

they learn to act as partners.

389
The decentralization in decision-making accompanying Toffler’s (1980) Third Wave provides additional

opportunities for improving wilderness management.

By acknowledging the legitimacy of decentralization

and ‘bottom-up” decisions, central offices play a

significantly different role than those in industrial

society. The leadership function is now one of

facilitating the field in achieving quality decisions, not

dictating standardized solutions to seemingly similar,

but in reality different, problems. In addition, central

offices can communicate to field managers a new

spirit of confidence, encourage creativity and experimentation, and accept the fact that occasionally a

failure will occur.

New Management Systems can Improve

Wilderness Management

When dealing with recreational induced problems

in wilderness, managers have four options: (1) do

nothing; (2) make decisions on an ad hoc basis; (3)

limit or disperse use; or (4) use a comprehensive

decision-making framework (McCool and others

1987). Given the nature of social change, knowledge

developed from wilderness research, and the mandate

of the Wilderness Act, only the fourth option is really

acceptable.6 Several new management systems now

provide effective decision-making frameworks. These

include the Limits of Acceptable Change wilderness

planning system (Stankey and others 1984, 1985)

the Visitor Impact Management system (Graefe and

others 1984), and Shelby and Heberlein’s Social

Carrying Capacity model (1986).

Each of these management systems emphasizes

identifying acceptable and desirable social and

environmental conditions within any given wilderness.

Each provides a process for developing specific,

explicit and quantifiable standards of acceptability.

Each requires that conditions be monitored to

determine the outcomes of management actions.

Although not all the issues associated with these

frameworks have been completely resolved (Haas

and others 1987; McCool and others 1987) each

holds a distinctive promise of effectively confronting

wilderness management issues. Both the LAC and

VIM methods are also applicable to nonrecreation

issues inside and outside of wilderness. And, each

may be combined with new approaches to public

involvement (Ashor and others 1986; Stokes 1988)

to provide meaningful opportunities for constructive

public comment.

6Limiting or dispersing use may be identified as a technique as a

result of the planning process. This is distinguished from suggesting

these techniques as panaceas.

RESPONSES TO OBSTACLES IN AN ERA

OF CHANGE

There are five specific responses that the Forest

Service could initiate that would help improve the

quality of wilderness management over the next

decade. The cost of these responses would be

minimal, yet the benefits would be substantial.

Develop a Wilderness Management

Training Program

Training is needed to improve the quality of

wilderness management. Training is needed in all

areas: philosophy and history, natural processes,

conflict management, understanding wilderness

clientele and their needs, and public involvement

techniques. The Forest Service should develop, in

conjunction with leading universities, a continuing

education program that will eventually encompass all

wilderness managers. The continuing education

program should be one that builds upon itself, that

is, first year participants will cover one set of topics,

second year participants a related, but more advanced

set, and so on. It should be comprehensive, so that

over time an individual becomes thoroughly exposed

to all aspects of wilderness management. Another

component of this would be annual updates of recent

research.

Initiate A New Spirit of Public Involvement

Toff ler has indicated that participatory democracy

appears to be one of the values of the future. The

littany of appeals, demonstrations, and litigation the

last several years over Forest Service plans and

actions certainly indicates a level of dissatisfaction

among the affected publics. Public involvement that

allows and encourages early resolution of issues

during the planning process, constructive comment

on proposed actions, and open discussion of goals

and problems can be helpful in producing plans that

can be implemented (Ashor and others 1986). This

type of public involvement means more than holding

a few meetings, and asking for comment; it requires

a fundamental change in attitude about the usefulness

and role of the public in the planning process. Such

public involvement must be continuous, developed

prior to the point when insurmountable conflicts

arise, and recognize that plans be developed in

partnership with the public, in order to create

ownership in it.

Developing a new perspective on public involvement will require disposing of current myths and

attitudes toward one’s role as a planner, and a

390
redefinition of what successful planning means. It will

also require that managers accept affected publics

as meaningful partners in planning. The Forest Service

could take a leadership position in encouraging this

type of planning.

Develop a New Administrative Climate

Which Encourages Accountability and

Creativity

The literature of organizational behavior and

industrial psychology is filled with references on job

performance, productivity, and satisfaction. I encourage the Forest Service to examine how it views the

managerial function, how it rewards excellence, and

how it recognizes innovation. If we have learned one

thing out of this literature it is that administrators

must understand the fundamental motivations for

work if an organization is to be successful. Certainly,

it is important in an era of change for administrators

to create a climate in which employees are motivated

to excel and to be creative. Part of the process of

creating this new climate may be to give upper- and

mid-level managers training in new concepts of

employee supervision and motivation.

Job descriptions should include wilderness

management as a key element. And, achievement of

management objectives should be considered as

part of annual performance evaluations and step

and grade salary increments.

Encourage Managers to Develop

Wilderness Management Plans

Wiih management systems like LAC and VIM

available, the Forest Service should encourage

application and evaluation of the utility of these

systems in resolving both recreational and nonrecreational problems. Wiih implementation of these

systems, monitoring of wilderness conditions - always

an important job-now has an easily understood

rationale, and provides systematic feedback as to

the success or failure of specific management actions.

These systems could easily be integrated with new

approaches to public involvement and high technology, such as Geographic Information Systems, to

produce wilderness management direction that is

acceptable, feasible, and implementable. These

decisionmaking frameworks also suggest how research on various aspects of wilderness can be

integrated into wilderness management in a more

effective way than we have in the past (Lucas and

Stankey 1985).

Enhance the Role of Research in

Wilderness Management

Research plays essential roles in improving the

quality of wilderness management. Without the

research to provide the knowledge about wilderness

ecosystems, clientele, and benefits, it is unlikely that

management can maintain, enhance or restore the

values for which wildernesses have been established.

The ability of research to assist management is

dependent on several factors, including that of

funding. Lucas (1987) has pointed out that:

It seems only reasonable to presume that the

production of new knowledge, solution of important problems, and technology transfer from

researchers to managers reflect in general the

resources devoted to wilderness related research.

Research and researchers serve several functions

in wilderness management: (1) production and

dissemination of new knowledge, (2) assisting in

problem identification, (3) and technology transfer.

The level of resources devoted to each of these

functions has not kept pace with the expansion of

the National Wilderness Preservation System (Lucas

1987). The current capability in technology transfer,

particularly with respect to Limits of Acceptable

Change lags far behind the demand. The Forest

Service should consider strengthening its wilderness

research program, and embarking on a new program

of technology transfer in wilderness management.

This latter suggestion would enhance the continuing

education program recommended earlier.

Wilderness management has come a long way

from the days when it involved only fire patrol and

trail maintenance. Todays’ manager is far more

sophisticated and has a greater range of tools to

use in the management job than has been available

in the past. This has helped managers respond to

the immediate needs, but the decisive issue is will

these managers be able to exercise the leadership

needed to meet the demands of the early twenty-first

century? Social change certainly implies greater

flexibility in management as well as a larger wilderness

management tool chest. The question for wilderness

management agencies is, are they willing to take

actions now to develop the tool chest needed later?

391
REFERENCES

Albright, H.M.; Taylor, F.J. 1928. Oh, ranger: a book

about the national parks. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford

University Press. 178 pp.

Ashor, J.L.; McCool, S.F.; Stokes, G.L. 1986. Improving

wilderness planning efforts: application of the

transactive planning approach. pp. 424431. In:

Lucas, Robert C., camp. Proceedings- national

wilderness research conference: current research;

1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Brown, P.J., McCool, S.F.; Manfredo, M.J. 1987.

Evolving concepts and tools for recreation user

management in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge

review. pp. 320346. In: Lucas, Robert C., camp.

Proceedings - national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions.

1985 July 23-26, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Experiment Station.

Cole, D.N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in

wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. pp.

135-177. In: Lucas, Robert C., camp. Proceedingsnational wilderness research conference: issues,

state-of-knowledge, future directions; 1985 July

23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Driver, B.L.; Nash, R.; Haas, G. 1987. Wilderness

benefits: a state-of-knowledge review. pp. 294-319.

In: Lucas, Robert C., camp. Proceedings- national

wilderness research conference: issues, state-ofknowledge, future directions; 1985 July 23-26;

Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Graefe, A.R.; Kuss, F.R.; Loomis, L. 1986. Visitor

impact management in wildland settings. pp.

432439. In: Proceedings - national wilderness

research conference: current research. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Graefe, A.R., Kuss, F.R.; Vaske, J.J. 1984. Social

carrying capacity: an integration and synthesis of

twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences.

6(4):395-431.

Haas, G.E.; Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J.; Lucas, R.G.

1987. Wilderness management zoning. Journal of

Forestry. 85(12):17-21.

Langford, N.P. 1972. The discovery of Yellowstone

Park: journal of the Washburn Expedition to the

Yellowstone and Firehole Rivers in the year 1870.

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 125 pp.

[Reprint of 1905 ed.]

Lee, R.G.; Burch, W.R., Jr. 1986. Sociology of forestry:

continuities in the sociological study of natural

resources. Paper presented at 18th world congress,

International Union of Forest Research Organizations, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, September 7-21, 1986.

29 PP.

Lucas, R.C. 1987. Perspectives on the history of

wilderness research. pp. 15-28. In: Lucas, Robert

C., camp. Proceedings- national wilderness

research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge,

future directions; 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins,

CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Lucas, R.C.; Stankey, G.H. [l.n press]. Changing

trends in wilderness recreational use. (This proceedings.)

Lucas, Robert C.; Stankey, George H. 1985. Role of

research in applying the limits of acceptable change

system. pp. 1-l 5. In: Proceedings- southeastern

recreation research conference, Myrtle Beach, SC.

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

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station.

McCool, S.F. 1983. The national parks in postindustrial America. Western Wildlands. 9(2):14-19.

McCool, S.F. 1986. Experiencing management for

quality: implementing the limits of acceptable

change planning system. Paper presented at

conference on science in the national parks - 1986;

1986 July 13-18; Fort Collins, CO. 13 pp.

392
McCool, S.F.; Ashor, J.L. 1984. Politics and rivers:

creating effective citizen involvement in management decisions. pp. 136-l 51. In: Proceedings of

the 1984 national river recreation symposium;

1984 October 31-November 3; Baton Rouge, LA:

Louisiana State University.

McCool, SF.; Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C.; Stankey, G.H.

1987. Maintaining wilderness quality through the

limits of acceptable change planning system.

Paper presented at symposium on management

of park and wilderness reserves, 4th world wilderness congress; 1987 September 13-l 8; Estes

Park, CO. 16 pp.

McCool, S.F.; Stankey, G.H. 1986a. Planning and

social change: responding to the revolution in

recreation demand. pp. 67-77. In: Proceedings,

section 6.01, 18th world congress, International

Union of Forest Research Organizations. IUFRO

Secretariat, Vienna, Austria.

McCool, Stephen F.; Stankey, George H. 1986b.

Visitor attitudes toward wilderness fire management

policy- 1971-84. Res. Pap. INT-357. Ogden, UT:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 7 pp.

Merriam, L.C., Jr.; Smith, C.K.; Miller, C.E. [and others].

1973. Newly developed campsites in the Boundary

Waters Canoe Area-a study of five years’ use.

Bull. 551. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota,

Agricultural Experiment Station.

Nash, R. 1985. Sorry, Bambi, but man must enter

the forest: perspectives on the old wilderness and

the new. pp. 264-268. In: Proceedings-symposium

and workshop on wilderness fire; 1983 November

15-18; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Shelby, B.; Heberloin, T.A. 1986. Carrying capacity in

recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Press. 164 pp.

Stankey, George H. 1976. Wilderness fire policy: An

investigation of visitor knowledge and beliefs. Res.

Pap. INT-180. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 17 pp.

Stankey, G.H.; Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C. [and others].

1985. The limits of acceptable change (lAC) system

for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176.

Ogden, UT: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 37 pp.

Stankey, G.H.; McCool, S.F.; Stokes, G.L. 1984. Limits

of acceptable change: a new framework for

managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex.

Western Wildlands. 10(3)X%-37.

Stankey, G.H.; Schreyer, R. 1987. Attitudes toward

wilderness and factors affecting visitor behavior: a

state-of-knowledge review. pp. 246-293. In: Lucas,

Robert C., camp. Proceedings- national wilderness

research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge,

future directions. 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins,

CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Stokes, G.L. 1988. Involving the public in wilderness

management decision making: The Bob Marshall

Wilderness Complex- a case study. pp. 157-l 61.

In: Economic and social development: or role for

forests and forestry professionals. Bethesda, MD:

Society of American Foresters. 393 pp.

Toffler, A. 1980. The third wave. New York, NY: Bantam

Books.

393
WILDERNESS VISITOR

A BENCHMARK AND AN

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS

Alan E. Watson1

Abstraq-In the short time that wilderness visitor

management practices have been monitored, some

obvious trends have developed. The managing

agencies, however, have appeared to provide different

solutions to similar problems. In the ear/y years, these

problems revolved around concern about overuse of

the resource and crowded conditions. Some of those

concerns exist today, but they may be overshadowed

by feelings that inadequate budgets and workforce

are the primary hindrances to wilderness management.

The differences in solutions used are largely due to

differences in policies guiding the various agencies.

Continued monitoring of wilderness visitor management practices is needed.

Wilderness management in the United States is

relatively young. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L.

88-577) established legislative protection for 9.1

million acres (54 areas) that prior to 1964 were only

partially protected. Legislation over the subsequent

years has increased the amount of land in the National

Wilderness Preservation System to just over 89 million

acres. The 470 units exist in 44 States and are

managed by four Federal agencies. Only the USDA

Forest Service, the USDI National Park Service, and

the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service were intended to

manage wilderness at the time of the original

Wilderness Act. Subsequent legislation in 1976 (P.L.

94-579) added the USDI Bureau of Land Management

as a potential wilderness management agency.

As new wilderness areas have been designated

recently (the number of designated areas has nearly

doubled since 1983) new wilderness managers

have necessarily come into existence. The quality of

wilderness recreation opportunities depends upon

how well current and future wilderness managers

*Research Social Scientist, Wilderness Management Research

Unit, Intermountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula, MT.

394

are able to do their part. This paper assesses

wilderness visitor management practices in the United

States. As part of the Benchmark 1988 Assembly,

this paper looks at past and current situations and

points out opportunities and needs for improved

management, policy, education, research, and

legislation. It identifies barriers or constraints to

needed improvements and suggests ways that our

baseline of knowledge can be improved.

HISTORY OF WILDERNESS VISITOR

MANAGEMENT

In the literature, studies of wilderness visitor

management are newer than wilderness management

itself. Documenting what wilderness managers are

doing and thinking dates back less than 10 years

(Bury and Fish 1980; Fish and Bury 1981; Godin and

Leonard 1979). The studies during that time emphasized assessment of interagency differences in how

use control was viewed and what problems managers

encountered.

Godin and Leonard (1979) used survey information from 35 Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife

Service wilderness managers to determine the eight

most serious management problems. They concluded

that only one problem was consistently considered

serious by at least half of the managers contributing

responses: site deterioration attributable to overuse

of the resource. Eighty percent of the managers said

this was a serious problem. The second most

mentioned problem, by 40 percent of the managers,

was confusion over the meaning of wilderness. Not

only were visitors confused with restriction of permissible actions, but managers did not seem to be in

harmony with legislation and agency policy. Some

managers reported that the appropriate wilderness

ethic was lacking in much of the user public and in

a substantial portion of managers.
The remaining six of the eight problems were

boundary designations (31 percent), user conflicts

(29 percent), vehicle and other equipment use (23

percent), disaster control (17 percent), disagreement

between legal uses and the wilderness concept (17

percent), and the lack of wilderness resource and

use data over time (11 percent).

Bury and Fish (1980) and Fish and Bury (1981)

through a 1978 survey of wilderness managers,

identified several differences in management among

the agencies. They described the National Park

Service (NPS) wilderness managers as more likely to

initiate use of control measures to prevent anticipated

resource damage. At the time of the survey, 84 percent

of NPS areas had use control of some type in place.

NPS wilderness managers frequently assigned

campsites and limited the number of people who

could enter an area at a given time. Fish and Bury

(1981) cited USDI policy that extensively reviewed

regulatory controls available. In this policy review of

alternatives for controlling use levels and impacts,

little mention was made of indirect methods of use

control. This policy and subsequent management

actions taken reflect the National Park Service’s

historical commitment to maintain balance in their

dual charge of resource preservation and visitor

access.

National forest managers were more likely to

defer use control until problems of overuse appeared

as a result of resource change or visitor complaints.

Fish and Bury (1981) found that 66 percent of national

forest wilderness areas had programs to control use.

In 1978 the approach most widely used by the Forest

Service was to minimize regulatory control, opting

for more indirect use control methods such as

providing public information on impacts of behavior

and alternative places to go.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in contrast

with the other two management agencies, does not

place priority on recreational access. In fact, this

agency is much more likely to initiate use controls

because recreation use interferes with other values

of wilderness (Fish and Bury 1981).

Washburne and Cole (1983) surveyed all National

Wilderness Preservation System Units in 1980;

exploring much more than the extent of use controls.

They concluded that most of the National Wilderness

Preservation System components shared common

problems, Resource degradation and loss of solitude

were reported as problems in a majority of areas.

They found, however, that consistent responses to

common problems were rare. There appeared to be

major differences in how the Federal agencies

responded to these similar problems. Like Fish and

Bury (1981) they reported that the National Park

Service typically had more aggressive visitor management programs. More national parks had established

carrying capacities and had initiated regulations to

control the amount and types of recreational use in

wilderness. On the other hand, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management

were characterized as particularly passive wilderness

administrators. Few areas administered by these

agencies had established carrying capacities, and

regulations were very rare.

Washburne and Cole (1983) reported that use

of national forest wilderness areas was more often

believed to exceed carrying capacity than use of

NPS areas. The national parks, however, were more

likely to ration use to maintain optimal use levels,

Crowding and resource damage were more pronounced on national forests than in the national

parks, but the resource preservation objectives of

NPS led to control before damage occurred. In 1980,

Washburne and Cole (1983) saw a need for increased

management action for national forest wilderness

areas.

Shortly after Washburne and Cole surveyed all

National Wilderness Preservation System areas in

1980, Roggenbuck and Watson (1981) intensively

examined wilderness management in the two eastern

Regions of the Forest Service. Their interest was to

further establish a baseline of information for identifying management problems and measuring progress

toward Regional objectives.

As found in earlier studies, Forest Service

managers in the two eastern Regions regarded

crowding, the need for carrying capacity estimates,

and the need for use dispersal methods as their

most serious problems. Even though crowding was

perceived to be a problem by 13 of the 29 managers

responding, only 3 areas had an imposed use ceiling

and no manager assigned campsites. Six managers

did report alteration of access routes to the wilderness

to modify use, and 12 reportedly had programs to

disperse use. Carrying capacity estimates had been

produced for 5 of the 20 areas. Managers also reported

little use monitoring or environmental impact monitoring despite their reports of overuse and crowding in

many areas.

Additional problems frequently cited included

vandalism, off-road recreation vehicles, budgets, and

workforce in the South (Region 8). Site impacts and

the need for information on amount of use occurring

were most frequently cited, after crowding and use

dispersal problems, in the Eastern Region (Region 9).

395
THE CURRENT SITUATION

Robertson (1984) provided some more recent

information on wilderness management in the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service. Managers

reported overcrowding and overuse as major management problems, exceeded now, however, by inadequate funding. The need to establish carrying

capacities was mentioned, but infrequently, despite

low frequency of having established estimates of

carrying capacities.

Watson and others (1987), recently surveyed 38

Forest Service wilderness managers in the Southern

Region. In this attempt to update the 1981 Forest

Service wilderness manager study, overuse of

wilderness was again overshadowed only by the

need for increased funding and workforce, just as in

the western study by Robertson. Only 5 of 38

managers reported programs to disperse use, and

only 6 of 38 have established estimates of recreational

carrying capacity. In both the East and West, about

half monitor the amount of use received, but most

are not satisfied with the accuracy of estimates that

are being produced.

The need for reliable estimates of use cannot

be overemphasized. The National Forest Management

Act does not specifically mandate wilderness use

monitoring. There are regulations (36 CFR 219,18(a)),

however, that require ‘periodic estimates of the

maximum levels of use permissible.’ These estimates

imply upper limits of wilderness supply. These

estimates of permissible use levels would be related

directly to actual use levels experienced, and subsequent impacts. Accurate measurement of use is

therefore necessary (Watson and others 1987).

Current information on management practices

of other agencies is not available. There has been

successful testing of lighthanded management

methods more recently in NPS backcountry (Huffman

and Williams 1987, Krumpe and Brown 1982, Peine

1988) possibly suggesting a greater acceptance of

this approach than in the past, though follow-up

adoption has not been evident.

OPPORTUNITIES AND NEEDS

Forest Service District rangers usually have

many responsibilities besides wilderness management, and these concerns likely reflect general

cutbacks in availability of funds and people in the

face of increased demands on District resources.

District level budgets in general would likely have to

be increased to provide the staff support that District

managers would like for wilderness management.

But, in this time of great budget demands, the

more appropriate need may be for education.

Managers need to be educated in effective management of wilderness within budget and workforce

constraints. In 1983 Washburne and Cole indicated

that the Forest Service needed more active wilderness

management. More recent studies have shown that

there are still needs for establishment of use monitoring systems, estimation of acceptable levels for social

interactions, and programs to change user behavior

to reduce impacts.

The opportunities to improve wilderness management are abundant. One of the most important is

probably the opportunity for information exchange

about management practices. The rapidly increasing

use of computers opens new doors for information

exchange. Information on specific management

strategies that has previously been printed and subject

to limited distribution can now be available to many,

accessible through computer networks. For example,

the recent publication ‘Managing Wilderness Recreation Use: Common Problems and Potential Solutions’

(Cole and others 1987) provides evaluations of

alternative management practices used to solve

common wilderness management problems. This

information could be made available to personnel in

a computerized form. Within the Forest Service,

personnel could access such information through

the Data General System. External users could be

provided access to the information through a call-up

service or mail-out diskette. Continuous update of

information could occur, and recording of user

feedback would be beneficial.

“Wilderness Management -A Five Year Action

Program’ (University of Idaho 1983) emphasized the

need for educating the public about wilderness values.

Increased emphasis on telling visitors why programs

are initiated or continued would likely improve

compliance with adopted practices. Also, increased

cooperation with membership groups, such as the

Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club, on management issues should lead to more mutually acceptable

practices.

Use monitoring systems exist. However, the

technology needs to be evaluated and communicated

to managers. Emphasis is highly desirable concerning

integrated systems that include cost effective sampling

plans and methods for accomplishing data analysis.

New technology has produced mechanical use

measurement devices that can be calibrated fairly

precisely for application in a variety of environmental

and user situations. Photography and visual observation methods of checking accuracy and compliance
have been tested and reported. Of great importance

to managers will be the accuracy and costs of systems

reviewed.

The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) (Stankey

and others 1985) framework for wilderness planning

and management brings together years of carrying

capacity and public involvement work. Currently,

managers apparently need methods of establishing

management objectives and dealing with social and

environmental overuse and abuse problems. The

diffusion and adoption of LAC or the Visitor Impact

Management Framework (Graefe and others 1987)

in wilderness management offers tremendous opportunity for increased consistency in management and

methods for evaluating progress. Increased understanding and adoption of these planning and management concepts should also lead to increased emphasis on social and environmental monitoring systems.

CONSTRAINTS OR BARRIERS

Effective technology transfer channels among

Forest Service wilderness managers have been

documented by considerable research. Roggenbuck

and Watson (1981); Watson and others (1987);

Watson and Roggenbuck (1983) suggest that

wilderness managers will be most responsive to

information channels originating within their respective

Regions. Memos, letters, and other interpersonal

communication from a Region’s wilderness specialist

or from the Forest Supervisor’s office can help

delineate important management ideas from the

barrage of information that District rangers receive

about the many aspects of their job. Also, training

sessions that incorporate and demonstrate cost

effective procedures for monitoring use and impacts,

educating visitors, and sharing information among

managers promise to be productive technology

transfer tools.

The greatest barriers to improved wilderness

management are managers’ perceptions of the

prohibitive cost of programs. Innovative methods

that are not cost prohibitive must be developed,

evaluated, and presented to managers through

personal and localized channels (Watson and

Roggenbuck 1983).

FUTURE STRATEGIES TO INCREASE

KNOWLEDGE

There is a noticeable lack of information on

wilderness management in agencies other than the

Forest Service. A joint effort by all concerned agencies

to assess wilderness management is strongly recommended between now and the 1995 Renewable

Resources Planning Act (RPA) update. The intention

would be to provide updated information on management policies and practices of agencies other than

the Forest Service.

Continued monitoring of problems all wilderness

managers face is also recommended, Managers are

going to be more receptive to technology transfer

tools that address problems that they acknowledge

exist. If problems of low priority to the managers

need to be addressed, a campaign must be undertaken to increase the perceived importance of selected

problems, This situation exists now with the need to

increase use of existing visitor use estimation procedures. If managers do not perceive use estimation

as an important activity, they will not be particularly

responsive to attempts to transfer use estimation

technology.

REFERENCES

Bury, Richard L.; Fish, C. Ben. 1980. Controlling

wilderness recreation: what managers think and

do. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

35(2):90-93.

Cole, David N.; Petersen, Margaret E.; Lucas, Robert

C. 1987. Managing wilderness recreation use:

common problems and potential solutions. Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-230. Ogden, UT: US. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Fish, C. Ben; Bury, Richard 1981. Wilderness visitor

management: diversity and agency policies. Journal

of Forestry 79(9):608-612.

Godin, Victor B.; Leonard, Raymond E. 1979. Management problems in designated wilderness areas.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

34(3):141-143.

Graefe, Alan R.; Kuss, Fred R.; Vaske, Jerry J. 1987.

Recreation impacts and carrying capacity: a visitor

impact management framework. Washington, DC:

National Parks and Conservation Association.

[Review Draft].

397
Huffman, Michael G.; Williams, Daniel R. 1987. Use

of microcomputers for park trail information

dissemination. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration. 5(1):35-46.

Krumpe, Edwin E.; Brown, Perry J. 1982. Redistributing

backcountry use through information related to

recreation experiences. Journal of Forestry

80(6):360-362.

Peine, John 1988. Smokies study visitor communication. Park Science. 8(2):6.

Robertson, Rachel D. 1984. An empirical analysis of

perceived problems and management techniques

of southwestern wilderness managers: implications

for technology transfer. Res. Pap., Tempe, AZ:

US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Arizona State University, College of Public Programs.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Watson, Alan E. 1981.

Technology transfer planning for strengthening

wilderness management in the East: phase I,

baseline information for technology transfer planning. Final report for the Pinchot Institute for

Conservation Studies and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station.

Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert

C. [and others]. 1985. The limits of acceptable

change (LAC) system for wilderness planning.

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station, 37 pp.

University of Idaho. 1983. Wilderness management -

a five-year action program. Moscow, ID: Wilderness

Research Center.

Washburne, Randel F.; Cole, David N. 1983. Problems

and practices in wilderness management: a survey

of managers. Res. Pap. INT-304. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

56 PP.

Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Muth,

Robert M. 1983. Diffusion of a campsite inventory

system. Journal of Forestry. 81(5):308-311.

Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Odom,

Geraldine. 1987. Wilderness use measurement:

opportunities for technology transfer. In: Proceedings, southeastern recreation research symposium;

February 1986; Asheville, NC. Statesboro, GA:

Georgia Southern College.

398
Section 7.

Social Psychological Dimensions

of Recreation Participation

399

ATTITUDES OF VISITORS TOWARD OUTDOOR RECREATION

MANAGEMENT POLICY

Stephen F. McCool and David W. Lime’

Abstract - Understanding visitor attitudes about management policy helps administrators not only understand the types of opportunities being sought, but it

may also help translate broadly written policy guidelines into specific on-site actions. The paper summarizes visitor attitude research about six management

issues: heavy-handed versus light-handed techniques,

use-limit policies, activity controls, developments,

information and fees and charges. Synthesizing such

research is difficult because of the lack of a unifying

conceptual approach, differing methodologies and

definitions, and general absence of replication studies.

Recommended actions to improve the efficacy of

visitor attitude research are made.

INTRODUCTION

If we can make one conclusion about what people

seek during their leisure time it is that what they

pursue is in a constant state of change. For example,

how Americans perceive wildland recreation resources

has moved from the concept of a “pleasuring ground,”

as articulated in the 1872 act establishing the

Yellowstone Park, to the concept of wilderness as a

place where the human presence is minimal and the

dynamic elegance of freely operating natural forces

can be contemplated. As the American culture has

continued to evolve away from the values and

traditions of the late 19th and early 29th centuries,

we have seen a corresponding growth in the variety

of activities pursued as well as an expansion in the

role of recreation that, in turn, has been accompanied

by an increasing diversity in the types of outcomes

participants seek.

In attempting to meet this changing role and

shifting demand, resource managers have learned

‘Professor of Wildland Recreation Management, School of Forestry,

University of Montana, Missoula, MT; Research Associate, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

that the motivations for recreational engagements,

preferences for different levels and types of site

attributes, and attitudes towards management greatly

influence levels of visitor satisfaction and, consequently, the flow of benefits to the public.

The interface between the activities visitors seek

and the satisfactions derived from those activities is

the recreation setting, because it is here that activity

occurs, and it is here too, that the conditions present

within the setting contribute to varying levels of visitor

satisfaction. The attributes of recreation sites are, in

fact, an important part of any visitor’s experience,

because they influence the activities in which individuals engage, how satisfying those engagements are,

and even whether or not the activity is physically

possible. Although the literature of recreation satisfaction mystifies many, it has helped establish the

principle that the relationship between site attributes

and visitor satisfaction is anything but clear and

linear (Probst and Lime 1982; Williams, in press).

The concept of a spectrum of site attributes

which, in turn, leads to a continuum or spectrum of

opportunities (Clark and Stankey 1979; Driver and

Brown 1978) has been one of the key advances in

improving the quality of outdoor recreation management in the United States. The spectrum is commonly

described as variance along three types of site

attributes: (1) biophysical- the landscape character

and amount of human-induced modification visible;

(2) social-the type, number, and location of encounters with other recreationists; and, (3) managerial-the

amount, type, and visibility of management actions

including information, regulation, and enforcement.

Understanding visitor attitudes (or predispositions

to act) toward management actions-their benefits,

consequences, costs and values- can help managers

more effectively provide opportunities for satisfactory

recreational experiences. Managerial actions in

recreational settings are particularly significant

because, potentially, they directly infringe upon the

recreationist’s desire for autonomy and freedom of

40!
choice-values that are essentially synonymous with

the definition of recreation itself. Levy (1978), for

example, defines recreation as consisting of three

components, one of which is internal locus of control,

that is, ‘the degree to which individuals perceive that

they are in control of their actions and outcomes.’

Obviously, numerous management actions (such as

use-limit policies, group size limits, fixed backcountry

travel itineraries, and prohibitions on such activities

as wood fires) may potentially intrude upon this

freedom through restriction or regulation of visitor

choice or behavior.

In this paper, we explore research concerning

visitor attitudes toward outdoor recreation management policy. Our objectives in doing so include

creating a better understanding of the use of information about visitor attitudes in managing recreational

opportunities, identifying what visitor attitude researcn

suggests to management about the acceptability

and effectiveness of differing techniques, and recommending methods to strengthen visitor attitude

research.

THE IMPORTANCE OF VISITOR

ATIITUDES FOR RECREATION

MANAGEMENT

Social science research in recreation includes

many similar and overlapping fields of inquiry.

Considerable effort has been expended developing

measures of expectations - or the expected socialpsychological outcomes from engaging in recreational

experiences (e.g., Knopf 1988). Such research has

developed a better understanding of what people

seek during recreational engagements and potentially

allows managers to more effectively develop higher

quality opportunities. Related to this line of inquiry is

the emerging area of research on the social and

psychological benefits of recreational engagements

(Driver and others 1987).

Another important area of research has focused

on achieving higher levels of knowledge about visitor

preferences toward site attributes (MacKay and

McCool 1986). Information about what people seek

in terms of the attributes of the setting has immediate

implications for management, and, ultimately of

course, benefits the visitor. This research has strongly

emphasized biophysical attributes, except in wilderness settings where an extensive collection of studies

has involved social attributes (Roggenbuck and

Lucas 1987).

Researchers have also attempted to develop a

greater understanding of visitor attitudes toward a

variety of recreation management policies. Again,

many studies have focused on wilderness and

primitive recreational settings and were directed

primarily at visitor attitudes toward use-limit policies

and activity controls (Brown and others 1987; Stankey

and Schreyer 1987).

All three lines of inquiry have helped managers

develop the insight and tools necessary to provide

opportunities for high quality recreation experiences.

This paper, however, deals only with visitor attitudes

toward management policies and techniques.

It is important to understand visitor attitudes for

at least four reasons. First, attitudes influence

behavior. While there continues to be a sizeable

debate about the attitude-behavior relationship, we

believe the evidence demonstrates that attitudes are

one of the factors influencing individuals to behave

in certain ways in recreational settings (Fedler and

Kuss 1986). While attitudes may not be entirely

predictive of behavior, they do help, when properly

measured, identify predispositions to act (Fishbein

and Ajzen 1975). Knowledge of visitor attitudes, then,

can help managers understand visitor behavior in

recreation settings.

Second, knowledge of visitor attitudes can help

translate broadly written policy guidelines and

objectives into more specific and useful management

direction in situations where there may be wide latitude

in discretionary authority to act. One obvious illustration is the Wilderness Act. The broadly written goal

of providing opportunities for ‘primitive and unconfined

recreation’, for example, provides initial guidelines

for policy makers, but requires translation into more

explicit direction for management. Stankey’s (1972)

research identifying wilderness purists has helped

advance the notion of identifying and managing for

the normative standards of a specific user population

rather than reducing management to the ‘lowest

common denominator’ (Schreyer 1976).

Third, knowledge of visitor attitudes can directly

influence the managerial component of the setting.

Research on visitor attitudes toward management

policy can help identify actions that not only will be

effective but also will reduce the intrusiveness of the

action into the recreation experience. Additionally,

information about visitor attitudes toward management

policy can help structure the managerial component

of the setting so recreational opportunities can be

enhanced, maintained, or restored. For example,

research on visitor attitudes may reveal the degree

402
of social control visitors expect in any given recreational setting. Schreyer and others (1976) found that a

majority of river floaters in Dinosaur National Monument favored controls on visitor use such as river

trip scheduling, campsite assignments and overall

seasonal limits on use. This type of information can

help managers implement necessary rules and

regulations.

Fourth, attitudes about management policy can

help establish normative preferences or tolerances

for specific techniques or actions. This information

can be useful in developing realistic policies, identifying actions that visitors will accept rather than reject,

and determining what type of education may be

necessary to inform visitors of the rationale and need

for potentially intrusive techniques. In their study of

visitors to Glacier National Park during the annual

bald eagle migration, Frost and McCool(1988) learned

that ‘most visitors accepted a variety of restrictions

on their behavior (such as limits on where the eagles

could be viewed) because the benefits of the

restrictions - reduced impact on eagles-were readily

apparent. This research also suggested to managers

the need to continue to inform visitors of the rationale

for such restrictions.

WHAT VISITOR AlTlTUDE RESEARCH

TELLS MANAGEMENT

Identifying and synthesizing research on visitor

attitudes in recreation settings is, indeed, a formidable

task. Results are found not only in numerous journal

articles, symposia proceedings, and other outlets,

but there is also no overall organizing or conceptual

framework uniformly employed by researchers.

Innumerable methodologies, theories (or lack thereof),

settings studied, and a dearth of replication characterize this field of study. As a result, much of this research

is tempered by such cautions as ‘however’, ‘on the

other hand’, or ‘it depends”, making conclusions

difficult to construct as well as tenuous to apply.

In our review of the literature, we attempted to

use the concept of the Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS) to organize our conclusions. It was

our hope that given the assumptions ROS makes

about the linkages among activities, settings and

outcomes, we would be able to discover some type

of consistent pattern. Several studies have demonstrated relationships between visitors in specific ROS

settings and expected outcomes. These studies

suggest, as hypothesized, that individuals seek

settings that they expect will permit or enhance

achievement of certain outcomes. However, research

that identifies relationships between preferences for

individual setting components (including attitudes

toward management actions) and expected outcomes

is limited. Where researchers have investigated this,

their results have not been all that helpful. For example,

Utter and others (1981) reported only one statistically

significant correlation of 26 studied between river

floaters’ preferences for a variety of use allocation

techniques and the importance of stress-release/

escape as an expected outcome from the floating

experience. Given the intrusiveness of this technique

and the sizable controversy about use allocation

(Buist 1981; McCool and Ashor 1984) this finding is

a disappointing reminder that the ROS concept needs

more refinement and study.

During our review, we were impressed by the

striking variation in visitor attitudes not only among

activities within a given setting but within any particular

activity across geographically different settings.

People’s opinions about management depend upon

the activity; the type of outdoor setting with its physical,

social, and managerial conditions; the types of visitors

attracted to a place; and, their social and experiential

characteristics. This tremendous variation in attitudes,

while making sweeping conclusions difficult, does

suggest an important recommendation to management: developing standardized solutions to seemingly

similar problems is inappropriate. In addition to legal

mandates and constraints, management actions

should reflect local conditions, the regional, historical

and social context of the problem, resource conditions,

site management objectives, and the attitudes of

current and potential visitors.

Visitor attitude research dealing with management

policy has encompassed at least six themes. We will

briefly describe each of these themes and then identify

the conclusions research allows us to make.

Research on Heavy-handed vs. Lighthanded Management Actions

Researchers, managers and visitors have argued

that management should emphasize the use of

light-handed techniques whenever possible over

more heavy-handed or intrusive ones (Lime 1976;

Lucas 1982,1988; McCooll976; Wuerthner 1985).

While this theme dominates many recommendations

for management and is intuitively appealing, research

neither has been directed at confirming the existence

of a light-handed - heavy-handed continuum nor has

it established where on the continuum any given

policy may be placed.

403
Some research, however, appears to suggest

that in certain situations visitors prefer, or at least

accept, relatively heavy-handed techniques. Research

indicates that users will accept overall limits on use

in both wilderness and river recreation settings, if

social or ecological impact problems are evident

(Brown and others 1987; Stankey and Schreyer

1987) and if a clear benefii and rationale accompany

the restriction (Frost and McCool 1988). There is

some feeling also that restricting access to a resource

and minimizing regulation of onsite behavior may be

acceptable to visitors in some situations.

These results should not be interpreted as a

mandate to employ heavy-handed techniques across

the board, but suggest they may be acceptable to

visitors if a careful analysis of the problem is followed

by fair implementation and enforcement and explanations of the rationale to visitors (Lucas 1983). Clearly,

it would be helpful if some research attention could

be directed toward identifying situations and conditions where visitors found heavy-handed techniques

acceptable or desirable.

Research on Use-Limit Policies

Research on limiting levels of visitor use has

been a major topic in wilderness and river recreation

settings as a result of rapid increases in visitation in

the 1960’s and 1970’s as well as legislative mandates

to provide opportunities for solitude. Understanding

visitor attitudes toward use-limit policies is important

because this potentially intrusive technique directly

determines access to highly valued resources and

influences opportunities for solitude. As noted above,

it appears that, in general, visitors will accept limits

on use if there is a clearly defined problem. However,

the more controversial issue is how such limits will

be administered when more people want to ‘get in’

than the limit allows.

Research indicates that attitudes toward techniques of distribution or allocation vary by user type

and situational characteristics. Wilderness users, for

example, generally prefer queuing approaches while

many river floaters prefer reservation and lottery

techniques. Even this finding must be tempered by

differences within types. For example, river floaters

on commercial trips prefer reservation systems over

others while floaters on noncommercial trips prefer

lotteries (Utter and others 1981). It appears that

preferences are directly influenced by the kind of

system in-place at the area studied and the experience

of visitors with other systems elsewhere.

A study illustrating the diversity of attitudes is

reported by Shelby and others (1982). They investigated visitor attitudes in two wilderness and one river

situation toward five different rationing systems

(pricing, reservation, lottery, queuing, and merit).

River runners were the most likely group to agree

that a reservation system would have little or no

effect on their chance of obtaining a permit, that the

reservation system is fair and acceptable, and that

they would be willing to try the system. They also

were more likely to try a lottery than the backpackers.

Backpackers, on the other hand, viewed pricing

more favorably than the river runners. All three groups

strongly disagreed with the statement that a merit

system is fair, but the backpackers were more willing

to try a merit system than the river runners.

This line of research indicates several conclusions:

1. There is generally no association between a

setting and attitudes toward use-limit policies. This is

primarily because of the diversity of expectations

visitors may hold in any one setting. Expectations,

and the saliency of certain attributes, are more likely

associated with attitudes than settings (Schreyer

and Roggenbuck 1978; Stankey and McCool 1984).

2. Attitudes vary by recreational activity.

3. Attitudes vary according to the degree to

which visitors affected by a use-limit policy recognize

a biophysical or social impact problem.

Research on Activity Controls

Another line of inquiry deals with attitudes toward

management controls on visitor activity once the

recreationist enters the site. These controls and

restrictions include limitations on where people may

camp or travel, the necessity of securing a permit to

camp or float, and prohibitions on campfires. Again,

the research shows an incredible diversity in opinions.

For example, Schomaker and Knopf (1985) describe

results of research on users of 38 rivers across the

United States. Respondents were asked to indicate

the degree of opposition or support for 21 management actions, including requiring people to carry out

their trash, prohibiting motorized watercraft, prohibiting wood fires, providing more access points, and

assigning time of day when groups could launch.

On only a few items did they find consistent support

or opposition. Such diversity in attitudes toward

activity controls also is supported by Lucas’ (1980)

study of visitors to nine wildernesses.

An apparently heavy-handed technique, fixed

itineraries for backcountry travel, is not favored by

404
either wilderness or river floaters (Anderson and

Manfredo 1986; Lucas 1985) but visitors are apparently willing to accept them if this is a condition of

entry into the area. Fixed itineraries assume that

visitors will comply with them, but a variety of factors

including weather, trail conditions, and personal

capability, work against compliance. Fixed itineraries

may solve some ecological impact problems but

they carry with them the negative consequence of

concentrating people at campsites, precisely the

place in the backcountry that people prefer over all

others to have privacy and solitude. Finally, fixed

itineraries also are more likely to be accepted in

national park backcountry - where visitors normally

expect, high levels of social control- and rivers where

campsites may be scarce.

Research on Attitudes Toward Facilities

an! Developments

Considerable research has been conducted in a

variety of settings to assess attitudes toward recreation

facilities and developments. Most of this research is

fairly consistent in findings: Visitors tend to prefer

the current level of development and generally oppose

expansion in number and types of facilities, with the

exception that in more developed settings, visitors

prefer cleaner restroom facilities.

Again, however, such conclusions must be

tempered by the great variation in responses. For

example, Lucas (1980) reported that for a variety of

developments- bridges across small streams, pit

toilets, fireplaces, and horse corrals-visitors to the

nine wildernesses he studied gave widely mixed

responses. On other items, such as high standard

trails and bridges across dangerous streams, the

response was more consistent-most everyone

favored them. In river settings, research shows that if

visitors desire more facilities, they prefer them to be

located at existing access and development sites,

rather than placing them at previously undeveloped

locations along the river (Anderson and Manfredo

1986; Schomaker and Knopf 1985).

Research on Attitudes Toward Information

Some research has been conducted on visitor

attitudes toward the use of information as a management tool-what most researchers, managers and

visitors would agree is a light-handed action. How

effective information is depends partly on use of it

by visitors, which probably varies considerably. For

example, Dowell and McCool (1983) found that only

29 percent of the visitors to the Bob Marshall

Wilderness had contacted a Forest Service office

prior to planning their trip even though most visitors

had never camped in the area before. Yet, research

indicates that information is an acceptable tool to

visitors in basically all types of settings. Nevertheless,

as Schomaker and Knopf found, there is no consistently high level of agreement about types of information desired. The kind of information people might

seek or that managers provide varies in desirability.

Dowell and McCool found that most visitors rated

accurate maps and guidebooks as desirable, while

explanatory signs in the wilderness were opposed

by over 40 percent of the sample and desired by

just over one-third. Results from Anderson and

Manfredo (1986) also showed resistance to the use

of agency information within an area.

Information about minimum impact behavior is

generally acceptable in many settings. A number of

studies have found that such programs can be

effective in changing knowledge levels as well as

behaviors (Dowell and McCool 1986; Oliver and

others 1985; Robertson 1981). Information dealing

with use distribution, which occurs off-site as well as

on-site, also varies in acceptability and effectiveness

(Lime and Lucas 1977; Lucas 1981).

A number of factors influence visitor attitudes

toward the use of information. These include previous

experience in the area and elsewhere, type of social

group and level of specialization (Huffman and

Williams 1986; Williams and Huffman 1986). Clearly,

this means that managers must know their clientele

if they wish to make information an effective management tool.

Research on Fees

With the increased interest in using fees to

augment recreation management budgets, understanding attitudes toward these actions assumes

greater importance. There appear to be two major

questions: (1) the acceptability of imposing entrance

fees and user charges, and (2) the acceptability of

differing prices, Howard (1987) concluded his literature

review on this subject by stating:

Despite a persistent conventional belief that

users oppose higher fees, research results

consistently show that most participants would

be willing to pay substantially higher user fees

for most publicly provided recreation activities.

Research as well as management experience suggest,

again, that if users see a specific benefit -such as

improved trail maintenance, more facilities- they will

favorably react to a fee. Fees which appear to

“disappear into the general fund” probably will not

405
be supported. At what level should fees be set? This

is an important question, and again, it is related to

local situations and perceived benefits.

RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM

VISITOR AlTlTUDE RESEARCH

From this research, we offer four recommendations for recreation resource management:

1. Avoid rapid and significant departures or

deviations from the status quo. Major shifts require

substantial agreement among the affected publics

about the< immediacy of the problem that requires

such change. Major changes in management direction

may be perceived by visitors as a loss in the type of

recreational opportunity being provided. Continuous

and intimate public involvement in the management

situatidn (McCool and Ashor 1984) may help educate

both managers and visitors about the necessity of

the change as well as how significant the change

may be. Incremental changes will be more acceptable

to the affected publics, assuming they are a component of a systematic management process.

2. Information and education programs are useful,

acceptable, and can be effective (Roggenbuck and

Berrier 1981; Dowell and McCool 1986) if properly

designed and targeted to specific problems and

clienteles. Visitors will accept, and indeed, look forward

to receiving information about specific areas, although

the type of information they need varies depending

on the kind of experience they seek, their previous

experience in the area and in similar activities

elsewhere, and in the level of specialization. In

undeveloped recreational settings, information is

more readily accepted and used if it is provided

off-site and well ahead of the visit or at access points.

3. Avoid heavy-handed, authoritarian techniques

to control or limit use. While, as we have pointed

out, there is some acceptance of these approaches,

intuitively they conflict with the very nature of recreation. Often, the problems these techniques are

designed to resolve are not simple linear functions

of use level (Cole 1987) and may seduce managers

into a management regime and set of issues they

are ill-equipped to handle (McCool 1986).

4. Visitors will accept heavy-handed use controls

if local resource or social conditions warrant such

severe actions. Visitors apparently are willing to trade

off reduced freedom for specific benefits, if a consensus exists about those benefits. Again, this suggests

a continuing public involvement program that will

educate visitors about the necessity of such actions.

STRENGTHENING THE USEFULNESS OF

VISITOR ATTITUDE RESEARCH

The review of literature in the previous sections,

while not comprehensive, was intended to represent

the various lines of inquiry researchers have pursued

on visitor attitudes and the general conclusions one

can make about the implications of such research.

And, while there is considerable research in this

field, certain limitations are obvious. In this section,

we suggest ways in which future research on visitor

attitudes can be strengthened to improve its overall

utility in managing for quallty recreational opportunities.

Improve the Theoretical Basis of Research

We echo Lee’s (1977) observation that much of

the research conducted in the area of outdoor

recreation management is nontheoretical. While

some underlying conceptualization of visitor attitudes

must guide all such research, rarely is the paradigm

used explicitly reported or described. The lack of

theoretical foundation significantly limits research in

several ways. First, the model upon which research

is based should have real world applications. The

lack of a well developed model reduces the utility of

the research to managers. Second, the research

paradigm leads to hypotheses which then lead to

hypothesis testing. The result of the hypothesis testing

process advances understanding of a particular

phenomenon. Finally, the iterative deductive-inductive

reasoning process that comes with development,

application, and testing of theories, models, and

concepts is a requisite for advancement of science.

Non Site-Specific Research is Needed on

Visitor Attitudes

The dominant limiting factor in understanding

and using research on visitor attitudes is its sitespecific nature. Most studies are conducted only

once, and only at one recreation site. Because

recreationists are most easily sampled at sites, nearly

all research on visitor attitudes has been conducted

on visitors to recreation sites. This has lead to two

significant weaknesses. First, the researcher is limited

in ability to generalize about attitudes of visitors at

other sites which may be characterized by similar

site attributes or use conditions. Even though these

sites may appear to be similar, the types of visitors

that use the area, their belief systems, and cultural

values may vary considerably. Thus, the research is

limited in its utility. Second, because site attributes

form much of the basis for selecting recreation areas,

individuals seeking recreational experiences not

supported by the site are unlikely to be tapped in a

406
site-based study of attitudes. Thus, the full range of

visitor attitudes- and their relation to behavior- is

not explored.

Multi-Site Research. Would Help Improve

Understanding

At the same time we suggest research that is

not site-specific, we also recommend studies of visitors

at multiple sites, using similar theoretical and methodological orientations. These types of studies allow us

to make comparisons of how users in different settings

respond to the same set of management actions

(Knopf and Lime 1984). By comparing and contrasting

responses, we learn more about what people seek

in specific settings, how they respond to proposed

changes in management attributes, and the potential

for regional recreation management (Bruns 1984;

Schreyer 1985). Examples of this kind of study include

Lucas (1980) Schomaker and Knopf (1985) Shelby

and others (1982) and Stankey (1973).

Studies of Trends in Attitudes are Needed

Most studies of visitor attitudes are single,

one-time case studies and are limited in potential for

comparative analysis. However, tastes and preferences as well as attitudes often change over time.

For some subjects, such changes may be influenced

by broader sociocultural shifts, while for others,

change may be directly related to visitor knowledge,

increasing sensitivity to resource conditions, or

changes in the local situation. Thus, the crosssectional case study, while useful in the short-run,

does little to tell us about what happens over a period

of time. Few studies have examined how visitors in a

setting change attitudes over time. Where this has

happened, the information has been illuminating. For

example, Lucas (1985) compared visitors to the Bob

Marshall Wilderness in both 1970 and 1982. He found

some significant changes in both perceptions of

problems and attitudes toward some management

actions. McCool and Stankey (1986) found significant

shifts in attitudes toward wilderness fire management

policy over a 13-year period.

Examine the Relationship Between ROS

and Visitor Attitudes

We noted earlier the lack of research scrutinizing

relationships between visitor attitudes toward management actions in relation to the location of a place

along the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).

This is an important issue, because it bears directly

upon the validity of the ROS concept itself. An example

would be the attitude of visitors toward use-limit

policies. We hypothesize that visitors in primitive

settings- where the value of autonomy may be

highest-would oppose such policies with greater

vigor than those in more developed settings. Confirmation of this hypothesis would reinforce current

definitions of the ROS. Lack of support, however,

might lead to a new line of research about recreational

settings.

If our hypothesis is confirmed, still other questions

arise. For example, is there some type of continuum

underlying the ROS other than the primitive-developed

one? Under what conditions are visitors willing to

support use-limits and activity controls? Are these

conditions associated with specific kinds and conditions of site attributes? What types of trade-offs are

people willing to accept? That is, are people willing

to accept a limit on use if there are higher levels of

solitude? How do people deal with inconsistencies in

settings? Are such inconsistencies (for example, a

highly developed highway access to a remote

wilderness trailhead) ignored, a source of dissatisfaction, or do they result in a sort of product shift? These

questions are important to answer if we wish to

continue to use ROS as a framework for management.

Visitor Attitude Information Requires a

Decisionmaking Framework

Although researchers produce information about

visitor attitudes, managers must find some way to

use that information when formulating and implementing policies. Managers are frequently confronted with

the situation of having information about visitor

attitudes, but not knowing how to use it when making

decisions. We feel the most efficient use of visitor

attitude information is made when it can be incorporated into a decisionmaking framework.

A number of decisionmaking frameworks for

dispersed recreation management have been proposed. These include the Visitor Impact Management

System (Graefe and others 1984) the Social Carrying

Capacity approach (Shelby and Heberlein 1986)

and Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey and others

1984,1985). The decisionmaking framework enhances

the utility of visitor attitude information by suggesting

the type of attitude information needed as well as

how and when it can be used during the management

policy formulation process.

An excellent example of how research on visitor

attitudes was used in a decisionmaking framework is

the Recreation Management Direction for Montana’s

Flathead Wild and Scenic River, adopted in March

1986 (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1986). One of

the objectives of this management direction was to

develop specific indicators and accompanying

407
quantitative standards of the acceptability of intergroup encounters. This information was needed as

part of the Limits of Acceptable Change planning

system. For example, information was provided by

McLaughlin and others (1984) that helped identify

the importance of solitude on different segments of

the river as well as preferences for encounters with

other groups. These data led to the development of

an explicit standard of acceptability for intergroup

encounters: ‘An 80 percent probability of no more

than four encounters per day.’ By monitoring encounters, managers can determine the effects of differing

levels of use and can implement management actions

to prevent unacceptable levels of encounters from

occurring

Management actions, while designed to preserve

resources, enhance opportunities, and reduce conflict,

can negatively impact the visitor. Use of management

techniques requires an understanding of how the

visitor perceives such actions as well as the objectives

for which the site is managed and the expectations

of the visitor, Management actions, particularly those

which limit, control, or restrict visitor activity, may

directly interfere with the nature of recreation itself.

Such management actions are designed to secure

uniformity rather than enhance diversity. Fortunately,

most management policies are not irreversible. This

characteristic distinguishes managerial attributes

from biophysical attributes. Mistakes can be corrected,

policies refined, effectiveness monitored, changes

made. But only through an understanding of visitor

attitudes can this be accomplished successfully.

REFERENCES

Anderson, D.H.; Manfredo, M.J. 1986. Visitor preferences for management actions. pp. 314-319. In:

Lucas, Robert C., camp. Proceedings- national

wilderness research conference: current research.

1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Brown, P.J.; McCool, S.F.; Manfredo, M.J. 1987.

Evolving concepts and tools for recreation user

management in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge

review. pp. 320346. In: Lucas, Robert C., camp.

Proceedings- national wilderness research conference: issues, state of knowledge, future directions.

1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Bruns, D. 1984. Rivers in a regional context: an

overview. pp. 68-89. In: 1984 national river recreation symposium proceedings. Baton Rouge, IA:

Louisiana State University.

Buist, Leon J., ed. 1981. Recreation use allocation.

In: Proceedings of the national conference on

allocation of recreation opportunities on public

land between outfitted and nonoutfitted publics.

R-149. Reno, NV: University of Nevada-Reno,

Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station. 357 pp.

Christensen, J.E.; Yoesting, D.R. 1977. The substitutibility concept: a need for further development.

Journal of Leisure Research. 9(3):188-207.

Clark, Roger N.; Stankey, George H. 1979. The

recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for

planning, management, and research. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Forest and

Range Experiment 32 pp.

Cole, D.N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in

wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. pp.

135-l 77. In: Proceedings- national wilderness

research conference: issues, state of knowledge,

future directions; 1985 July 23-25; Fort Collins,

CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

408
Dowell, D.L.; McCool, SF. 1983. Information: a

management tool to help optimize wilderness

users’ satisfaction. pp. 62-83. In: The Bob Marshall

wilderness visitor study. Missoula, MT: University

of Montana, School of Forestry.

Dowell, D.L.; McCool, S.F. 1986. Evaluation of a

wilderness information dissemination program. pp.

494-500. In: Lucas, Robert C., camp. Proceedingsnational wilderness research conference: current

research; 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J. 1978. The opportunity

spectrum concept and behavioral information in

outdoor recreation resource supply inventories: a

rationale. pp. 2431. In: Integrated inventories of

renewable natural resources: proceedings of a

workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-55. Fort Collins,

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

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Driver, B.L.; Nash, R.; Haas, G. 1987. Wilderness

benefits: a state-of-knowledge review. pp. 294-319.

In: Proceedings- national wilderness research

conference: issues, state of knowledge, future

directions. 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: US. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Fedler, A.J.; Kuss, F.R. 1986. An examination of the

effects of wilderness designation on hiker attitudes.

pp. 308-313. In: Proceedings - national wilderness

research conference: current research. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention

and behavior: an introduction to theory and

research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 578 pp.

Frost, J.E.; McCool, S.F. 1988. Can visitor regulations

enhance recreational experiences? Environmental

Management. 12(1):5-g.

Graefe, A.R.; Vaske, J.J.; Kuss, F.R. 1984. Social

carrying capacity: an integration and synthesis of

twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences.

6(4):395-431.

Howard, D. 1987. Issues related to the pricing of

outdoor recreation opportunities. pp. F15-F22. In:

A literature review. Washington, DC: President’s

Commission on Americans Outdoors.

Huffman, M.G.; Williams, D.R. 1986. Computer versus

brochure information dissemination as a backcountry management tool. pp. 501-508. In:

Proceedings - national wilderness research conference: current research. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agricufture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Knopf, R.C. 1983. Recreational needs and behavior

in natural settings. pp. 205-240. In: Behavior and

the natural environment. New York, NY: Plenum.

Knopf, R.C.; Lime, D.W. 1984. A recreation manager’s

guide to understanding river use and users. Gen.

Tech. Rep. WO-38. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 37 pp.

Lee, R.G. 1977. Alone with others: the paradox of

privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 1(1):3-l 9.

Levy, J. 1978. Play behavior. New York, NY: John

Wiley and Sons. 232 pp.

Lime, D.W. 1976. Principles of recreational carrying

capacity. pp. 122-134. In: Proceedings of the

Southern States recreation research applications

workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-g. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agricufture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Lime, D.W.; Lucas, R.C. 1977. Good information

improves the wilderness experience. Naturalist.

28(4):18-21.

Lucas, R.C. 1982. Recreation regulations-when are

they needed? Journal of Forestry. 80(3):148-l 51.

Lucas, R.C. 1983. The role of regulations in recreation

management. Western Wildlands. 9(2):6-l 0.

Lucas, Robert C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor

characteristics, attitudes, and preferences in nine

wildernesses and other roadless areas. Res. Pap.

INT-253. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station.

409
Lucas, Robert C. 1981. Redistributing wilderness use

through information supplied to visitors. Res. Pap.

INT-277. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 15 pp.

Lucas, Robert C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall

Wilderness complex 1970-82. Res. Pap. INT-345.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 pp.

Mackay, S.; McCool, SF. 1986. The role of recreation

site attributes in integrated forest management.

Technical Completion Report. Missoula, MT:

University of Montana, School of Forestry. 97 pp.

McCool, SF. 1976. Strategies and techniques for

managing dispersed recreation in national parks.

pp. 259-290. In: Proceedings of the 3d resources

management conference; Albuquerque, NM: U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

McCool, S.F. 1986. Experiencing management for

quality: implementing the limits of acceptable

change planning system. Paper presented at

conference on science in the national parks, July

13-18, 1986. Fort Collins, CO. 11 pp.

McCool, S.F.; Ashor, J.L. 1984. Politics and rivers:

creating effective citizen involvement in management decisions. pp. 136-151. In: 1984 national

riier recreation symposium. Baton Rouge, LA:

Louisiana State University.

McCool, Stephen F.; Stankey, George H. 1986. Visitor

attitudes toward wilderness fire management

policy - 1971-84. Res. Pap. INT-357. Ogden, UT:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 7 pp.

McLaughlin, W.J.; Krumpe, E.E.; Sanyal, N.; Weesner,

M.W. 1984. The Flathead River study: management

unit analysis. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho,

College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences.

345 PP.

Oliver, S.S.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. 1985.

Education to reduce impacts in forest campgrounds. Journal of Forestry 83(4):234-236.

Probst, D.B.; Lime, D.W. 1982. How satisfying is

satisfaction research: a look where we are going.

pp. 124-133. In: Forest and river recreation:

research update. Misc. Pub. 18-I 982. St. Paul,

MN: University of Minnesota, Agricultural

Experiment Station.

Robertson, R.D. 1981. An investigation of visitor

behavior in wilderness areas. Iowa City, IA:

University of Iowa. 174 pp. Ph.D. dissertation.

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Berrier, D.L. 1981. Communications to disperse wilderness campers. Journal of

Forestry. 79(5):295-297.

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Lucas, R.C. 1987. Wilderness

use and user characteristics: a state-of-knowledge

review. pp. 264-245. In: Proceedings- national

wilderness research conference: issues, state of

knowledge, future directions. Gen. Tech. Rep.

INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station.

Schomaker, J.H.; Knopf, R.C. 1985. Recreation

management on rivers: the consumer’s reaction.

Western Wildlands. 11(2):17-20.

Schreyer, R. 1976. Sociological and political factors

in carrying capacity decision-making. pp. 228-258.

In: proceedings of the 3d resources management

conference. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of

the Interior, National Park Service.

Schreyer, R. 1985. Managing rivers in a regional

context: necessary concept or impractical idea?

Western Wildlands. ll(2):l l-l 6.

Schreyer, R.; Roggenbuck, J.W. 1978. The influence

of experience expectations on crowding perceptions and social psychological carrying capacities.

Leisure Sciences. 1(4):373-394.

Schreyer, Richard; Roggenbuck, J.W.; McCool, S.F.

[and others]. 1976. The Dinosaur National Monument whitewater river recreation study. Logan, UT:

Utah State University, Institute for the Study of

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 165 pp.

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

recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Press. 164 pp.

Shelby, B.; Danley, M.S.; Gibbs, K.; Petersen, M.E.

1982. Preferences of backpackers and river runners

for allocation techniques. Journal of Forestry.

80(7):416-419.

410
Stankey, George H., Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C. [and

others]. 1985. The limits of acceptable change

(lAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: US. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 37 pp.

Stankey, G.H. 1972. A strategy for the definition and

management of wilderness quality. pp. 88-l 14. In:

Krutilla, J.V., ed. Natural environments: studies in

theoretical and applied analysis. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press. 352 pp.

Stankey, G.H. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness

recreation carrying capacity. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

61 PP.

Stankey, G.H.; McCool, S.F. 1984. Carrying capacity

in recreational settings: evolution, appraisal and

application. Leisure Sciences. 6(4):453473.

Stankey, G.H.; Schreyer, R. 1987. Attitudes toward

wilderness and factors affecting visitor behavior: a

state-of-knowledge review. pp. 246-293. In:

Proceedings- national wilderness research conference: issues, state of knowledge, future directions,

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: US.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Amendment to

management area 18 direction, Flathead National

Forest land and resource management plan

(recreation management direction for the Flathead

Wild and Scenic River). Kalispell, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Flathead

National Forest.

Utter, J.; Gleason, W.; McCool, S.F. 1981. User

perceptions of river recreation allocation techniques. pp. 2732. In: Some recent products of

river recreation research. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-63.

St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Williams, Daniel R. [In press]. Great expectations

and the limits to satisfaction: a review of recreation

and consumer satisfaction research. (This proceedings).

Williams, D.R.; Huffman, M.G. 1986. Recreation

specialization as a factor in backcountry trail choice.

pp. 339344 In: Lucas, Robert C., camp.

Proceedings- national wilderness research conference: current research; 1985 July 23-26; Fort

Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Wuetthner, G. 1985. Managing the wild back into

wilderness. Western Wildlands. 11(3):20-24.

Stankey, G.H.; McCool, S.F.; Stokes, G.L. 1984. Limits

of acceptable change: a new framework for

managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex.

Western Wildlands. 10(3):33-37.

41 1.
QUALITY IN RECREATION EXPERIENCE

Perry J. Brown’

Abstract - Quality in recreation is reviewed as it relates

to recreation places and experiences. Delivery of

quality recreation opportunities is discussed focusing

especial/y on recreation opportunity spectrum and

limits of acceptable change processes. This is followed

by a review of how we have traditionally approached

understanding quality in recreation experience and

what we need to study to more thorough/y understand

the concept. Greater examination of recreational

habitats, the role of information, and recreationists’

backgrounds and behavioral scripts would be helpful.

Quality in recreation experience is a complex

topic. It embraces three concepts over which recreation professionals have struggled for some time.

Rather than continuing the debate, I will state how

recreation, experience, and quality are viewed in this

paper and then move on to a review of what we

know and what we need to know to provide opportunities for quality recreation experiences.

RECREATION EXPERIENCE

According to Driver and Tocher (1970) recreation

is a type of human experience based on intrinsically

rewarding voluntary engagements during nonobligated time. With this definition, emphasis is put on

the rewards from participation in activities, not on

the activities themselves. This general definition fits

well with a definition of experience as the result of

being engaged in an activity. Recreation experiences

then are realizations of intrinsic outcomes from

engaging in recreation activities (Brown 1983). If we

camp, we might realize outcomes related to understanding nature, to affiliating with our camping group,

‘Professor of Recreation Behavior and Forest Policy, Head of the

Department of Forest Recreation Resources, and Associate Dean

of the College of Forestry at Oregon State University, Corvallis,

OR.

412

and to developing woodsman skills; whereas if we

play tennis, the salient outcomes might be exercise,

affiliation with one other, and development of selfconfidence. Recreation in both cases is characterized

by the specific outcomes which are realized and

those that are salient to the individual make up the

recreation experience. Individual outcomes are

specific types of experiences which in combination

are the recreation experience.

Besides the writings of Driver and Tocher (1970)

and Brown (1983) already cited, many other authors

have approached the definition of recreation experiences similarly (Hendee 1974; More 1973; Roggenbuck 1980; Schreyer and others 1976; and Wagar

1966). Also, it is consistent with both Lancaster’s

(1966) concept of consumer behavior and the

expectancy-value theory of social psychology (Lawler

1973).

RECREATION QUALITY

Given the experience-oriented definition of

recreation which has been used, quality is seen as

relating to the quality of experience which is realized.

In his seminal paper in 1966, Wagar suggested three

guiding principles for recreation management. He

first noted that recreation management is done to

provide benefits to people. Second, he stated that

recreation behaviors (activities) are done to realize

outcomes. Third, he suggested that the quality of

recreation experience depends upon how well desired

outcomes are realized. Quality in this context,

therefore, depends upon which specific experiences

are salient to recreationists and the extent to which

they are realized. Quality can be affected by management to the extent that management influences

realization of desired experiences through its manipulation of information and opportunities for recreation.

Considerable recreation research has been

structured around these notions, but a direct test of

them necessary to define quality in recreation is

lacking. Quality has remained an abstraction which
is implicitly accepted in the recreation research

community. Since quality is removed from operational

aspects of recreation management and is an abstract

consequence of behavior, research often has contributed to understanding it, but has not directly led

to defining it.

PRODUCTION OF EXPERIENCE AND

QUALITY IN RECREATION

Over the past 25 years researchers have increased

our understanding of the factors involved in the

production of recreation experiences and of quality

recreation. Their work has progressed from independent looks at behavior, natural resources, social

situations, and psychological concepts such as

motives, perceptions, and outcomes to integration of

these elements into more holistic concepts of

recreation production and management and of

recreation as a human phenomenon.

Many researchers have contributed to our

understanding of how recreation experiences are

produced. Major early contributions were made by

the work of Wager (1951) Burch (1964), Lucas (1964)

Wagar (1964, 1966) and Tocher and others (1965)

among others, but integration of their ideas into

models of production did not emerge until the 1970’s.

In 1975, Driver and Brown published a paper

hypothesizing the consumer choice processes which

lead to realizing recreation experiences. This was

followed by a model of the kinds of decisions which

must be made by management (Brown and other

1976; Brown 1977). Then, emerging from a workshop

focused on measuring and improving effectiveness

of public outdoor recreation programs was a model

which depicts the production of recreation benefits

from raw recreation resources and recreationist inputs

(Driver and Rosenthal 1988; Brown 1984). This model

depicts recreation experiences as intermediate

products in the production of benefits from recreation.

The production of recreation benefits begins

both with recreationists and raw recreation resources.

Land, labor, and capital are combined to produce

opportunities for recreation, but recreation does not

take place without consumers of these opportunities.

Consumers enter the recreation situation with past

experiences, knowledge, skills, equipment, time, and

other resources. Nature and managers provide places

where recreation activities might occur and recreationists select those opportunities which they believe will

fit their desires. In using recreation opportunities,

recreationists are producing recreation experiences

which in turn are used in producing benefits from

recreation, In summary, nature and managers produce

places for recreation and recreationists produce use,

experiences, and benefits. The quality of experiences

can be influenced by input factors provided by

managers, as they can be influenced by natural

forces, but to a considerable extent the quality of

experiences depends upon choices made by recreationists and how they use the many factors of

production.

DELIVERY OF QUALITY RECREATION

OPPORTUNITIES

While recreation opportunities are only one input

to quality recreation experiences, they are one of the

factors controlled by managers and often have

important influences on recreation experiences. One

of the early statements about recreation opportunities

was J.V.K. Wagar’s (1951) writing about recreational

variety. He suggested that a variety of opportunities

was necessary to meet the needs of a diverse public.

His writings were followed by those of his son, J.A.

Wagar (1968,1964,1966), Burch (1964) Lucas (1964)

Tocher and others (1965) and others who argued

similarly based upon observation and empirical study.

During subsequent years, managers faced with

an ever increasing demand for outdoor recreation

opportunities sought to meet needs in effective and

efficient ways. At times, as Clark and Stankey (1979)

have noted, this led to a reduction in recreational

variety and a decrease in the ability to meet the

desires of many recreationists. This result counters

Wagar’s (1966) notion that quality in recreation

depends upon how well desired outcomes are

attained. If the opportunities necessary to meet the

desires of recreationists are not provided, according

to Wagar’s premise, quality must be less than optimum

and possibly declining.

During the 1970’s two things happened which

refocused attention on providing recreation opportunities to ensure recreational quality. At that time

recreation research had matured to the point where

observations were being made about the change in

recreation opportunities, and researchers were

beginning to conceptualize the nature of the recreation

phenomenon (Brown and others 1973; Clark and

others 1971; Driver 1976; Driver and Brown 1975,

1978; Driver and Tocher 1970; Hendee and others

1971; Hendee 1974). Secondly, Federal legislation

was passed which required new initiatives in integrated

land management planning. These spurred the search

for ways to better integrate recreational demands

and opportunities into resource management plans.

The outcome of these two forces was rearticulation

of recreational variety through a spectrum of recreational opportunities.

413
Building upon observations from research, Driver

and Brown (1978) suggested that there are at least

four different kinds of recreationist demands. There

are demands for participation in recreation activities,

for settings in which to recreate, for specific experiences from recreational participation, and for benefits

from recreational experiences. This articulation has

helped to broaden our conception of recreation

opportunities from a focus on either recreation

activities or places to a multidimensional concept

incorporating recreation activities, places (settings)

and experiences, all of which facilitate gaining

recreation benefits. Thus, recreation opportunity has

been defined as the chance to engage In specific

recreation activities in specific settings to realize

probable and desired recreation experiences (Driver

and Brown 1978).

At about the same time, Clark and Stankey (1979)

observed both how recreational places had been

changing without clear direction and that a framework

for recreation management decisions was needed to

guide recreational change. They also suggested that

recreational places were the focus of most management attention and that the character of these places

(attributes of the recreational setting) were important

in providing a variety of recreation opportunities to

meet a variety of recreationist desires.

The observations of Driver and Brown (1978)

and Clark and Stankey (1979) when combined with

the land planning requirements of the National Forest

Management Act and the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act, and with earlier ideas put forth by

Marshall (1937) Wagar (1951) Wagar (1963, 1964,

1966) Burch (1964) Lucas (1964), Tocher and others

(1965) LaPage (1967a), and others led to development of an operational system for planning, using

the concept of a recreation opportunity spectrum

@OS). The concept and the planning system are

best articulated in Stankey and Brown (1981) and

Driver and others (1987). Some important pitfalls,

limitations, and realizations about this approach are

laid out in Clark (1982) Manning (1985) and Driver

and others (1987).

In terms of delivery of quality recreation opportunities the ROS approach does several things. First, it

provides a framework for identifying and defining

recreation opportunities. Second, it requires specifying

the conditions under which different opportunities

are provided, and third, it provides guidance for

carrying out allocation and management decisions

and the subsequent evaluation of those decisions

and practices. Since recreation opportunities are an

input to the production of recreation experiences,

being able to see clearly the characteristics of different

opportunities and to provide a variety of opportunities

enables delivering opportunities which fit the desires

of different groups of recreationists. Then, when

relevant opportunities are available, those seeking to

participate in outdoor recreation have one necessary

ingredient for producing quality recreation experiences.

While the ROS helps us realize how to provide

recreation opportunities which can lead to quality in

recreation, a second framework has been developed

which aids planning for delivery of quality recreation

opportunities. The Limits of Acceptable Change (lAC)

framework was borne from extensive research and

conceptualizing about carrying capacity and from

articulation of the ROS framework. Two streams of

information came together to develop a process for

planning and managing for quality recreation opportunities.

Some of the more pertinent literature regarding

recreational carrying capacity is Wagar (1964);

Stankey (1971, 1973); Lime (1977); Burch (1984);

Graefe and others (1984); Schreyer (1984); and

Shelby and Heberlein (1984, 1986). These and many

other writings lead us through a search for a holistic

model to guide recreation management. Generally,

they deal with the social aspects of recreation and

the effects of numbers, kinds, and behaviors of others

on recreation experiences. A general question is

asked about the point at which the number of

recreationists decreases the quality of some defined

recreation experience. The point at which aggregate

net quality declines is viewed as the capacity of the

recreation opportunity and strategies are developed

to regulate the amount or distribution of use to ensure

maintaining opportunity for the desired recreation

experience. Management tools from very subtle

behavioral tools to very coercive regulatory tools are

available to keep use within capacity (Gilbert and

others 1972).

A few authors (Anderson and Brown 1984; Knopp

and others 1979; Lucas 1973; Peterson 1974) have

suggested that physical-biological and managerial

factors also are important in discussion of carrying

capacity and some research, most notably that of

researchers such as Merriam and Smith (1974) Cole

(1982) and Leonard and others (1985) has been

devoted to these questions. Still, a preponderance

of carrying capacity research has focused on social

issues in carrying capacity (Burch 1984; Graefe and

others 1984; Schreyer 1984; Shelby and Heberlein

1986).

414
With the articulation of ROS, with extensive

research on carrying capacity, and with the need for

integrated research planning (including recreation),

thought shifted from the usual carrying capacity

question of “how much is too much?’ to one of “how

do we provide recreation opportunities which can be

used in producing quality recreation experiences?’

This question is related to the former but leads to a

broader set of questions and answers and to more

encompassing management. Answers to it require

that we define an array of opportunities, specify

those features of the environment which are indicative

of the opportunity, and establish standards which

indicate minimum acceptable conditions for each

indicator. Once standards are established, we can

know if conditions are approaching these standards

and thus the limits of change which are acceptable.

This concept of definitions, indicators, standards,

and observations is fii into a planning framework in

the lAC model proposed by Stankey and others

(1985): Using that framework we are able to specify

how quality recreation opportunities might be provided

through planning and management activities and

how we can monitor and evaluate whether or not we

continue to meet our goal of providing desired

opportunities for recreationists.

OUR APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING

QUALITY

Trying to understand quality recreation usually

has focused on either the perceived quality of

environmental features or the degree to which

expectations have been met. Either the neo-classical

model of economic behavior or the behaviorists’

satisfaction model has been used to evaluate quality

in recreation opportunities and experiences.

Several studies of environmental features have

been undertaken to identify significant features or

their conditions, Hunt (1968) identified variables

affecting tourist behavior in Logan Canyon, Utah.

Lime (1971) elicited perceptions of campground

features in Minnesota. Willis and others (1975) showed

the differential value of lake-side versus nonlake-side

campsites. Lucas (1964) characterized perceived

boundaries between developed and backcountry

recreation opportunities. Peterson (1974) identified

features of a wilderness environment and user

evaluation of them. Knopp and others (1979) characterized environments and their relationship to satisfaction, and Anderson and Brown (1984) showed how

environmental factors affect displacement in an area.

Wernnergren and Fullerton (1972) showed which

features of deer hunting environments resulted in

higher economic values. Finally, among many other

works, LaPage (1967b) was able to show what features

are necessary for high quality private campgrounds.

An even longer list of studies represents the look

at satisfaction. Many of these studies focused on the

role of crowding and congestion in satisfactory

experiences, often to the exclusion of other factors.

Some of the earliest work on this topic was Lucas’

(1964) examination of users of the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area where he identified differential effects of

motor boaters, motor canoeists, and canoeists on

each other. Hendee and others (1968) evaluated the

perceived effects of management actions on user

satisfaction for Northwest wildernesses. Stankey

(1971, 1973) followed with a look at users of four

wilderness/primitive areas and attempted to assess

the effect of encountering others on user satisfaction.

Fisher and Krutilla (1972) examined the satisfaction

notion from an economic perspective for the Spanish

Peaks Primitive Area. Several other studies were

undertaken during the 1970’s with some such as

Lee’s (1977) raising questions about either the model

itself or the way its parameters were being defined

and measured. Such criticism led especially to better

definition and model articulation, and work on

questions of social conditions such as crowding,

congestion, and privacy proceeded. Many of these

studies are reviewed in Graefe and others (1984),

Manning (1985) and Shelby and Heberlein (1986).

Included in this topic are studies such as Vaske, and

others (1980, 1982), Shelby (1980), Shelby and Colvin

(1982) Shelby and others (1983) Heberlein and

Vaske (1977) Absher and Lee (1981), Becker (1981)

Manning and Ciali (1980), Twight and others (1981),

West (1981) Ditton and others (1982, 1983), Hammitt

(1982, 1983) Hammitt and others (1984) and

Gramman and Burdge (1984).

One thing which characterized nearly all studies

related to use and satisfaction, and nearly all dealing

with environmental character is their focus on specific

factors rather than a more holistic characterization of

place or experience. Two studies of a somewhat

broader nature are the cognitive mapping and

behavior sequence study of Knopf (1979) and Knopf

and Barnes (1980) and the recreation opportunity

preference study of Brown and Ross (1982). Knopf

and Barnes described how users of Gettysburg

National Battlefield cognitively processed and moved

through the environment, and whether or not they

understood it based on this processing and behavior.

Brown and Ross attempted to integrate desired

experiences with both descriptions of recreation

settings and activities in determining which settings

were perceived to provide satisfying experiences. To

better understand what we mean by quality in

415
recreation experiences, more studies such as these

which tend toward the Gestalt, rather than the pieces,

will likely prove valuable.

WE NEED TO STUDY MORE TO

UNDERSTAND MORE

Three areas of investigation would lead to much

greater understanding of quality in recreation experiences. We need to understand better the relatlonships between recreational habitats and quality as

perceived by users. A major future issue is how do

we create and maintain habitats for people. We need

to understand better the role of information in

forming expectations and in regulating the realization of experiences. Managers, outfitters, conservation organizations, and many others produce and

supply jnformation that can affect perceptions of

quality. We also need to understand better the

backgrounds and behavioral scripts of recreationists which help to regulate perception of quality in

experience. The effects of the context of recreation

engagement, social and economic constraints, past

experience, and culture are only partially understood,

and in some cases not even recognized.

Recreational habitats have been the subject of

study, some of which has been noted previously.

Usually, however, they have not been perceived as

habitats for people, but rather in their discrete

attributes. Both scientists and managers often have

approached the understanding of recreation places

from the perspective of isolating the importance of

individual attributes of the environmental, social, and

managerial situations. An alternative approach would

be to assess the impact of a more holistic characterization of the recreation place on the perceived quality

of the recreation experience. Greater attention to

observations of environmental psychologists such as

Sommer (1969) and Kaplan and Kaplan (1978, 1982)

might prove enlightening.

Recreational habitats are only one of the variables

affecting recreation experience (Knopf 1988; Brown

1984) but they are within the responsibility and

potential control of managers. Understanding their

roles in recreational experiences and better understanding how they can be characterized should

enable more effective provision of recreation opportunities and enable raising the quality of recreational

experiences.

The roles and functioning of information about

recreation activities, places, and experiences and

about recreation in our culture can be understood

better, thus enabling use of information to enhance

opportunities to realize desired recreation experiences. Information provided by managers, outfitters,

conservation groups, movies, one’s recreation companions, and others can affect greatly both

expectations and realizations of experiences. Information can influence images of activities, places, and

experiences and it can aid in successful functioning

in recreation habitats. It also can be used to legitimize

recreational engagement and investment in our culture

and thus affect recreation choice and behavior.

While there has been some study of information

in recreation (Brown and Hunt 1969; Dowell and

McCool 1988; Fazio and Gilbert 1974; Huffman and

Williams 1986; Lime and Lucas 1977; Roggenbuck

and Berrier 1981) our understanding of how it affects

experiences of recreationists is not very complete.

As with a better understanding of recreation environments, if we better understand the functioning of

information we should know better how we might

facilitate realization of high quality recreation experiences.

The backgrounds and perceived roles of recreationists have long been believed to be important

factors in recreation choice, behavior, and realization

of experiences. These factors have been prominent

in the literature about recreation behavior (Klausner

1969; Driver and Brown 1975; Knopf 1988) and they

have underlain a lot of our study of recreation

preferences and behaviors. Recently, there has been

renewed interest in them as evidenced by studies

such as those by Schreyer and Lime (1984), which

have shown the importance of past experience as a

factor in realization of recreation experiences. With

the evidence which is now beginning to surface it

would appear that much more understanding of

background, experience, and perceived role variable

in recreation behavior would be very useful in

understanding what makes quality in recreation

experience.

CONCLUSION

Researchers and managers both consider quality

an important notion. It has been roughly characterized,

but there has been little study of the concept so that

we know when high quality has been realized. At

best, we know only a little more than that quality in

experience depends upon the correspondence

between what is desired and what is realized. Since

recreationists demand activities, settings, experiences,

and benefits with varying degrees of consciousness,

quality will depend upon how well recreationists can

do what they want, where, when, with whom, and

then realize desired experiences and benefits.

416
The delivery of information and recreation opportunities to enable realization of quality in recreation

experience is limited by our lack of understanding

about what is necessary. However, we are learning

about recreationist behavior, tastes and preferences,

and factors which regulate realization of recreation

experiences, and frameworks for planning and

management, such as ROS and LAC, are providing

managers with tools to better meet recreationist

desires.

Still, considerable understanding needs to be

obtained to more effectively assure the provisions of

opportunities for quality recreation experience opportunities. Our understanding would be significantly

aided if we focused more attention on recreational

habitats, roles of information, recreationist characteristics and roles, and how information, recreational

places, and recreationists interact to produce quality

recreation experiences.

REFERENCES

Absher, J.D.; Lee, R.G. 1981. Density as an incomplete

cause of crowding in backcountry settings. Leisure

Sciences. 4(3):231-247

Anderson, Dorothy H.; Brown, Perry J. 1984. The

displacement process in recreation. Journal of

Leisure Research. 16(1):61-73.

Becker, R.H. 1981. Displacement of recreational

users between the lower St. Croix and upper

Mississippi rivers. Journal of Environmental Management. 13(3):259-267.

Brown, P.J. 1977. Whitewater rivers: social inputs to

carrying capacity based decisions. pp. 92-l 21. In:

Proceedings: managing Colorado River whitewater:

the carrying capacity strategy. Moab, UT. Logan,

UT: Utah State University, Department of Forestry

and Outdoor Recreation, Institute for the Study of

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism.

Brown, P.J. 1983. Defining the recreation experience.

pp. 3-12. In: Rowe, R.D.; Chestnut, L.G., eds.

Managing air quality and scenic resources at

national parks and wilderness areas. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press. 314 pp.

Brown, P.J. 1984. Benefits of outdoor recreation and

some ideas for valuing recreation opportunities,

pp. 209-220. In: Peterson, George L.; Randall,

Alan, eds. Valuation of wildland resources benefits.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Brown, P.J.; Driver, B.L.; Stankey, G.H. 1976. Human

behavioral science and recreation management.

pp. 53-63. Proceedings of 16th IUFRO World

Congress-Division 6, Oslo, Norway. 337 pp.

Vol. 6.

Brown, P.J.; Dyer, A.; Whaley, R.S. 1973. Recreation

research-so what? Journal of Leisure Research.

5(1):16-24.

Brown, P.J.; Hunt, J.D. 1969. The influence of

information signs on visitor distribution and use.

Journal of Leisure Research. 1(1):79-83.

Brown, P.J.; Ross, D.M. 1982. Using desired recreation

experiences to predict setting preferences. pp.

105-l 10. In: Forest and river recreation: research

update, Mis. Rep. 18. University of Minnesota,

Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous

Report 18.

Burch, W.R., Jr. 1964. Two concepts for guiding

recreation management decisions. Journal of

Forestry. 62(10):707-712.

Burch, W.R., Jr. 1984. Much ado about nothing-some

reflections on the wider and wilder implications of

social carrying capacity, Leisure Sciences.

6(4):487-496.

Clark, R.N. 1982. Promises and pitfalls of the ROS in

resource management. Australian Parks and

Recreation. 12:9-l 3.

Clark, R.N.; Hendee, J.C.; Campbell, F.L. 1971. Values,

behavior, and conflict in modern camping culture.

Journal of Leisure Research. 3(3):143-l 59.

Clark, Roger N.; Stankey, George H. 1979. The

recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for

planning, management, and research. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 32 pp.

Cole, D.N. 1982. Controlling the spread of campsites

at popular wilderness destinations. Journal of Soil

and Water Conservation. 37(5):291-295.

Ditton, R.B.; Fedler, A.J.; Graefe, A.R. 1982. Assessing

recreational satisfaction among diverse participant

groups. pp. 134-l 39. In: Forest and river recreation:

research update. University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station. Misc. Publ. 18.

417
Ditton, Robert B.; Fedler, Anthony J.; Graefe, Alan R.

1983. Factors contributing to perceptions of

recreational crowding. Leisure Sciences.

5(4):273-280.

Dowell, D.L.; McCool, S.F. 1983. Information: a

management tool to help optimize wilderness

users’ satisfaction. pp. 62-83. In: The Bob Marshall

Wilderness visitor study. University of Montana,

School of Forestry.

Driver, B.L. 1976. Toward a better understanding of

the social benefits of outdoor recreation participation. pp. 62-83. In: Proceedings of the Southern

states ‘recreation research applications workshop.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-g. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 302 pp.

Driver,‘B.L.; Brown, Perry J. 1975. A sociopsychological definition of recreation demand,

with implications for recreation resource planning.

pp. 62-88. In: Assessing demand for outdoor

recreation. Washington, DC: National Research

Council, Committee on Assessment of Demand.

Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J. 1978. The opportunity

spectrum concept and behavioral information in

outdoor recreation supply inventories: a rationale.

pp. 2431. In: Integrated inventories of renewable

resources: Proceedings of a workshop. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RM-55. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 482 pp.

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

T.G. 1987. The ROS planning system: evolution,

basic concepts and research needed. Leisure

Sciences. 9(3):201-212.

Driver, B.L.; Rosenthal, D.H. 1983. Measuring and

improving effectiveness of public outdoor recreation

programs. Report of the workshop on recreation

output measures. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Agriculture, Forest Service: U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; George Washington University. 40 pp.

Driver, B.L.; Tocher, R.C. 1970. Toward a behavioral

interpretation of recreational engagements, with

implications for planning. pp. 931. In: Driver, B.L.

Elements of outdoor recreation planning: Proceedings of a national short course; 1968 May 6-l 6;

Ann Arbor, Ml. University microfilms.

Fazio, J.R.; Gilbert, D.L. 1974. Mandatory wilderness

permits: some indications of success. Journal of

Forestry. 72(12):753-756.

Fisher, A.C.; Krutilla, J.V. 1972. Determination of

optimal capacity of resource-based recreation

facilities. Natural Resources Journal. 12:417-444.

Gilbert, G.C.; Peterson, G.L.; Lime, D.W. 1972. Towards

a model of travel behavior in the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area. Environment and Behavior.

4(2):131-157.

Graefe, A.R.; Vaske, J.J.; Kuss, F.R. 1984. Social

carrying capacity: an integration and synthesis of

twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences,

6(4):395-431.

Gramman, J.H.; Burdge, R.J. 1984. Crowding perception determinants at intensively developed outdoor

recreation sites. Leisure Sciences. 6(2):167-l 86.

Hammitt, W.E. 1982. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude. Environment and Behavior.

14(4):478-493.

Hammitt, William E. 1983. Toward an ecological

approach to perceived crowding in outdoor

recreation. Leisure Sciences. 5(4):309-320.

Hammitt, William E.; McDonald, Gary D.; Noe, Frank

P. 1984. Use level and encounters: important

variables of perceived crowding among nonspecialized recreationists. Journal of Leisure

Research. 16(1):1-8.

Heberlein, Thomas A.; Vaske, Jerry J. 1977. Crowding

and visitor conflict on the Bois Brule River. Tech.

Rep. 77-04. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

100 pp.

Hendee, J.C. 1974. A multiple-satisfaction approach

to game management. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

2(3):104-l 13.

Hendee, J.C.; Catton, W.R., Jr.; Marlow, L.D.;

Brockman, C.F. 1968. Wilderness users in the

Pacific Northwest-their characteristics, values

and management preferences. Res. Pap. PNW-61.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 92 pp.

Hendee, J.C.; Gale, R.P.; Catton, W.R., Jr. 1971. A

typology of outdoor recreation activity preferences.

Journal of Environmental Education. 3(1):28-34.

418
Huffman, M.G.; Williams, DR. 1986. Computer versus

brochure information dissemination as a backcountry management tool. pp. 501-508. In: Lucas, Robert

C., camp. Proceedings, national wilderness research conference: current research; 1985, 23-26

July; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Hunt, John D. 1968. Tourist vacations-planning and

patterns. Bull. 474. Logan, UT: Utah State University,

Agricultural Experiment Station, 40 pp.

Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R. 1978. Humanscape: environments for people. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury

Press.

Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R. 1982. Cognition and environment: functioning in an uncertain world. New York:

Praeger Publishers.

Klausner, S.Z. 1969. Recreation as social action.

pp. 61-73. A program for outdoor recreation

research: report on a study conference conducted

June 2-8,1968. Washington, DC: National Academy

of Sciences.

Knopf, R.C. 1979. Cognitive map formation as a tool

for facilitating information transfer in interpretive

programming. Proceedings of the 2d National

Park Service science conference. San Francisco,

CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service.

Knopf, R.C. 1983. Recreational needs and behavior

in natural settings. pp. 205-240. In: Altman, I.;

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

environment. New York: Plenum Press.

Knopf, R.C.; Barnes, J.D. 1980. Determinants of

satisfaction with a tourism resource: a case study

of visitors to Gettysburg National Military Park. pp.

217-237. In: Tourism marketing and management

issues, Washington, DC: George Washington

University. 412 pp,

Knopp, T.; Ballman, G.; Merriam, L.C., Jr. 1979. Toward

a more direct measure of river user preferences.

Journal of Leisure Research. 11(4):317-326.

LaPage, W.F. 1967a. Camper characteristics differ at

public and commercial campgrounds in New

England. Res. Note NE-59. Broomall, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

LaPage, W.F. 196r‘b. Successful private

campgrounds-a study of the factors that influence

the length and frequency of camper visits. Res.

Pap. NE-58. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station.

Lancaster, K. 1966. A new approach to consumer

theory. Journal of Political Economy 74:132-l 57.

Lawler, E.E. 1973. Motivation in work organizations.

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Lee, R.G. 1977. Alone with others: the paradox of

privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 1(1):3-l 9.

Leonard, R.E.; Conkling, P.W.; McMahon, J.L. 1985.

The response of plant species to low-level trampling

stress on Hurricane Island, Maine. Res. Note

NE-327. Broomall, PA: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 pp.

Lime, D.W. 1971. Factors influencing campground

use in the Superior National Forest of Minnesota.

Res. Pap. NC-60. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station.

Lime, D.W. 1977. Principles of recreation carrying

capacity. pp. 122-l 34. Proceedings of the Southern

States recreation research applications workshop,

Asheville, NC.

Lime, D.W.; Lucas, R.C. 1977. Good information

improves the wilderness experience. Naturalist.

28(4): 18-20.

Lucas, R.C. 1964. Wilderness perception and use:

the example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

Natural Resources Journal. 3(3):394-411.

Lucas, R.C. 1973. Wilderness: a management

framework. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

28(4):150-l 54.

Marshall, R. 1937. The universe of the wilderness is

vanishing. Nature Magazine. April:235-240.

More, T.A. 1973. Attitudes of Massachusetts hunters.

pp. 72-76. In: Human dimensions in wildlife

programs. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Management Institute.

419
Manning, R.E.; Ciali, C.P. 1980. Recreation density

and user satisfaction: a further exploration of

satisfaction model. Journal of Leisure Research.

12(4)329-345.

Manning, R.E. 1985. Diversity in a democracy:

expanding the recreation opportunity spectrum.

Leisure Sciences. 7(4):376-398.

Merriam, L.C., Jr.: Smith, C.K. 1974. Visitor impact on

newly developed campsites in the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area. Journal of Forestry. 72(10):627-630.

Peterson, G.L. 1974. Evaluating the quality of the

wilderness environment: congruence between

perception and aspiration. Environment and

Behavior. 6(2):169-l 93.

Roggenbuck, J.W. 1980. Wilderness user preferences:

eastern and western areas. Proceedings of wilderness management symposium. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern and Southern

Regions.

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Berrier, D.L. 1981. Communications to disperse wilderness campers. Journal of

Forestry. 75(5):295-297.

Schreyer, R. 1984. Social dimensions of carrying

capacity. Leisure Sciences. 6(4):387-394.

Schreyer, R.; Lime, D.W. 1984. A novice isn’t necessarily a novice: the influence of experience use history

on subjective perceptions of recreation participation. Leisure Sciences. 6(2):131-l 49.

Schreyer, R.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; McCool, S.F. [and

others]. 1976. The Dinosaur National Monument

Whitewater River recreation study. Logan, Utah:

Utah State University, Department of Forestry and

Outdoor Recreation, Institute for the Study of

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 165 pp.

Shafer, E.L., Jr. 1969. The average camper who

doesn’t exist. Res. Pap. NE-142. Broomall, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 27 pp.

Shelby, B. 1980. Crowding models for backcountry

recreation. Land Economics. 56(1):43-55.

Shelby, B.; Colvin, R. 1982. Encounter measures in

carrying capacity research: actual, reported and

diary contacts. Journal of Leisure Research.

14(4):350-360.

Shelby, B.; Heberlein, T.A. 1984. A conceptual

framework for carrying capacity determination.

Leisure Sciences. 6(4):433-451.

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

recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Press. 164 pp.

Shelby, B.; Heberlein, T.A.; Vaske, J.J.; Alfano, G.

1983. Expectations, preferences, and feeling

crowded in recreation activities. Leisure Sciences.

6(1):1-14.

Sommer, R. 1969. Personal space; the behavioral

basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Stankey, G.H. 1971. The perception of wilderness

recreation carrying capacity: a geographic study

in natural resources management. East Lansing,

Ml: Michigan State University. 351 pp. Thesis.

Stankey, G. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness

recreation carrying capacity. Res. Pap. INT-142.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Stankey, George H.; Brown, Perry J. 1981. A technique

for recreation planning and management in

tomorrow’s forests. pp. 63-73. Proceedings of

17th IUFRO World Congress-Division 6, Kyoto,

Japan.

Stankey, George H.; Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C. [and

others]. 1985. The limits of acceptable change

(LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 37 pp.

Tocher, S.R.; Wagar, J.A.; Hunt, J.D. 1965. Sound

management prevents worn out recreation sites.

Parks and Recreation. (March 1965).

Twight, B.W.; Smith, K.L.; Wissinger, G.H. 1981.

Privacy and camping: closeness to the self vs.

closeness to others. Leisure Sciences.

4(4):427-441.

Vaske, J.J.; Donnelly, M.P.; Heberlein, T.A. 1980.

Perceptions of crowding and resource quality by

early and more recent visitors. Leisure Sciences.

3:367-381.

420
Vaske, J.J.; Graefe, AR.; Dempster, A. 1982. Social

and environmental influences on perceived crowding. pp. 21 l-227. Proceedings of the wilderness

psychology group conference. Morgantown, WV:

West Virginia University.

Wagar, J.A. 1963. Campgrounds for many tastes.

Res. Pap. INT-6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 10 pp.

Wagar, J.A. 1964. The carrying capacity of wild lands

for recreation. Forest Science Monograph 7.

Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.

24 PP.

Wagar, J.V.K. 1951, Some major principles in recreation land-use planning. Journal of Forestry.

49:431-435.

Wernnergren, E.G.; Fullerton, H.H. 1972. Estimating

quality and location values of recreational resources. Journal of Leisure Research. 4(3):170-l 83.

West, P.C. 1981. Perceived crowding and attitudes

toward limiting use in backcountry recreation areas.

Leisure Sciences. 4(4):419-425.

Willis, C.E.; Canavan, J.J.; Bond, R.S. 1975. Optimal

short-run pricing policies for a public campground.

Journal of Leisure Research. 7(2):108-l 13.

Wagar, J.A. 1966. Quality in outdoor recreation.

Trends. 3(3):9-12.

421
GREAT EXPECTATIONS AND THE LIMITS TO SATISFACTION:

A REVIEW OF RECREATION AND CONSUMER SATISFACTION

RESEARCH

Daniel F?. Williams’

Abstract- The concept of satisfaction is a widely

used measure of recreation quaky. The origins of

recreation satisfaction are discussed including the

major resource factors that appear to influence

satisfaction. Issues in measurement and conceprualizarion are identified as they have been addressed in

both recreation and consumer behavior. The review

leads to some suggestions for future research in

sarisfaction including: more rigorous definition of

comparative standards, broadening the attirudepreference focus of satisfaction research to address

a wider spectrum of emotional content, and a greater

appreciation for the limirs to satisfaction as a construct

of recreational quality.

INTRODUCTION

Quality has been the consistently stated goal of

outdoor recreation management (Manning 1986)

and satisfaction has been consistently advocated as

the most appropriate surrogate of quality (LaPage

1968; 1983). As a result visitor satisfaction is one of

the most studied topics since the Outdoor Recreation

Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) reports.

LaPage and other early researchers (Bultena and

Klessig 1969; Wagar 1963) were largely concerned

with customer satisfaction associated with the use of

public and private campgrounds where the expectation of a service was prominent. In this context,

satisfaction seemed to make a reasonably good

indicator of quality. In more recent years the concept

of satisfaction that these early efforts popularized

has been invoked to evaluate the quality of recreation

in wildland and undeveloped settings (Ditton and

others 1981; Peterson 1974).

‘Assistant Professor of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 81

State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Employing a commodity analogy of satisfaction

in recreation resource management has been attractive because managers of natural resources have a

tendency to define recreation as a product like timber,

water, and wildlife. But despite the popularity of the

consumer satisfaction metaphor, recreation in wildland

settings may not fit easily into the commodity oriented

production models that resource management has

been based on for most of this century. The struggle

to incorporate recreation into the commodity framework is evident in the effort to establish commodity

or market prices for what is essentially a public,

nonmarket good (Walsh 1986). Unlike timber and

water, managers of recreation resources cannot

observe market behavior to evaluate quality.

Given this commodity framework, managers

have pursued satisfaction as an alternative measure

of quality and management effectiveness. Satisfaction

appears to have important advantages over another,

all too frequently used, alternative- measuring the

quantity of people using a resource. Quantity is a

measure of efficiency and not effectiveness. In

recreation, efficiency (quantity provided) and effectiveness (quality provided) are often negatively correlated;

perhaps more than in other spheres of production

and service.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the

concept of satisfaction as a basis for evaluating

recreation quality. The review builds on the premise

that the potential and limits of satisfaction as an

evaluative approach may be better understood

through a review of consumer behavior research.

The first section addresses the origins of satisfaction

research within recreation resource management.

This section summarizes what we know about the

major sources of satisfaction including crowding,

goal attainment in consumptive and nonconsumptive

recreation activities, and resource impacts. In addition,

the methodological and conceptual origins of recreation satisfaction are highlighted. The major conceptual issues underlying satisfaction measurement are

422
reviewed in the second section. Most of these issues

involve the relationship between alternative comparison standards and product or experience outcomes

in evaluating satisfaction. The final section includes

some suggested revisions to the satisfaction model

which include approaching recreation as experience

and broadening the attitude-preference focus of

satisfaction research to include a wider spectrum of

affect, emotion, feelings, and ultimately self-identity.

The paper concludes with a commentary on the

inherent limits a commodity view of recreation places

on our understanding of recreation quality.

ORIGINS OF SATISFACTION RESEARCH

Scope and Definitions

An important first question that must be addressed

is to define more precisely what is meant by satisfaction research and how it differs from other approaches

to evaluating management performance and recreation quality. Though satisfaction has been the primary

means to evaluate quality, within the broader context

of environmental psychology there are numerous

ways to assess environmental quality (Canter 1983;

Craik and Feimer 1987; Craik and Zube 1976). For

example, landscape beauty (Schroeder and Brown

1983) has been suggested as an alternative measure

of recreation quality. Satisfaction research can be

distinguished from more general interests in evaluation

in that satisfaction research has focused on the

subjective nature of responses to recreation opportunities and the individual differences in these responses.

Satisfaction has many definitions. From Webster

to satisfy is ‘to grant fully the wants, wishes or desires

of.” Satisfaction is the ‘gratification of appetite or

desire’ or ‘contentment in possession and enjoyment.”

In describing wilderness quality, Stankey (1972, p.

93) wrote it ‘can be judged only by examining the

extent to which motivations and objectives of the

visitor. . . are fulfilled.’ LaPage (1983 p. 280) described

a quality outdoor recreation experience as ‘one that

meets or exceeds each visitor’s expectations.’ Within

recreation satisfaction research, the most widely

cited definition is provided by Bultena and Klessig

(1969, p. 349): ‘satisfaction . . . is a function of the

degree of congruency between aspirations and the

perceived reality of experiences.’ Collectively, these

definitions reduce to some statement about the extent

to which expectations, needs, goals, values, desires,

wishes, beliefs, or some other anticipatory cognitions

are fulfilled or not fulfilled. This comparative process

has been operationalized in terms of expectancy

models of attitudes, principally the formulations by

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) as extended.and applied

in consumer satisfaction (Oliver 1980) and need

theories of job satisfaction (Lawler 1973).

Sources of Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction

Crowding

Despite considerable effort we have accumulated

only modest knowledge of the major sources of

dissatisfaction. One of the most important and

thoroughly investigated has been the effect of

crowding, or human encounters, on satisfaction.

Interest in crowding has been especially important

within more primitive, unconfined forms of recreation

where the goal is presumed to be some form of

solitude. Unfortunately, the hypothesized effects of

use levels and encounters on satisfaction have not

been evident. Graefe and others (1984) reviewed 36

studies measuring different dimensions of crowding

(density, actual contacts, reported contacts, perceived

crowding) and satisfaction. Of the 14 studies measuring the correlation between actual density and

satisfaction, only two showed a significant correlation

and both were in the positive direction. In 21 studies

measuring the relationship between reported contacts

and satisfaction, three found significant relationships,

but only one was in the expected direction. The

more objective measures of encounters and use

levels, however, did seem to be correlated with

perceived crowding. The most consistent findings

pertained to the link between perceived crowding

and satisfaction in which 8 of 12 studies reported

significant negative correlations. Thus, use levels

and actual encounters appear to have an indirect

effect on satisfaction through their influence on

perceived crowding.

The impact of crowding, and particularly density,

has also been examined in the context of hunting.

Heberlein and others (1982) observed in an experimental study that higher densities were evaluated

negatively (hunters would prefer to see fewer other

hunters), but because the presence of more hunters

resulted in more game sightings, success and

satisfaction were actually higher. Similarly, in a study

of waterfowl hunters, the number of contacts with

other hunters was positively correlated with satisfaction, but perceived crowding was negatively correlated

(Vaske and others 1986).

Goal Attainment and Specificity

A second source of satisfaction/dissatisfaction

has to do with goal attainment, particularly the degree

of hunting or fishing success. Early research suggest423
ed that satisfaction in consumptive forms of recreation

was not very dependent on harvest success, but

instead was linked to outcomes such as experiencing

nature, social companionship, and opportunities for

new experiences (Vaske and others 1986). However,

research has reported a positive correlation between

game seen, shots taken, and satisfaction (Vaske and

others 1982) and between perception of fish biting,

others’ success as well as personal fishing success,

and satisfaction (Graefe and Fedler 1986). Further,

in a review of 13 studies, Vaske and others (1982)

found large differences in reported satisfaction

between consumptive (hunters and anglers) and

nonconsumptive (hikers, campers, rafters) recreationists. Consumptive recreationists consistently reported

lower satisfaction than nonconsumptive recreationists.

The authors suggested that differences were related

to goal specificity. A hunter, for example, armed with

a clear goal, but relatively low probabilities of success,

is more likely to report lower satisfaction than his or

her nonconsumptive counterpart who has less specific

but more readily achievable goals.

A recent study of bird watching (Applegate and

Clark 1987) further illustrates the role of goals in

consumptive and nonconsumptive recreation. The

authors hypothesized that because the goals are

more explicit for bird watching (observing and keeping

track of bird species, much like consumptive recreation), lower satisfaction would also be reported

among bird watchers. Overall, however, bird watchers

were more like nonconsumptive recreationists in

their patterns of high satisfaction, with only the more

competent bird watchers reporting significantly lower

ratings. The authors offer the explanation that the

more competent bird watchers were most like

consumptive users in that they had very specific

goals (adding that rare bird to their life list). With

such specific goals the competent bird watcher had

a greater probability of being disappointed. In general,

results from studies of consumptive recreation indicate

that satisfaction is lower, more easily predicted, and

varies more in consumptive recreation than for

nonconsumptive recreation. Furthermore, based on

more recent studies, potential for harvest success

appears to be more important to satisfaction than

previously thought (Graefe and Fedler 1986).

Resource Impacts

Perceived crowding and consumptive success

are not the only determinants of satisfaction. Many

other sources of dissatisfaction appear to be linked

to evaluations of resource impacts, particularly littering

(Stankey and Schreyer 1987). In a study by McCool

and Peterson (1982) the most common dissatisfier,

after human encounters, was littering (reported by

57 percent of the respondents). Other studies have

made similar reports. Downing and Clark (1979)

reported that 92 percent of respondents mentioned

littering as a management problem and 37 percent

mentioned vandalism. Knopf (1982), reporting data

from the National River Recreation Study (Lime and

others 1981) found that the most common problem

reported by participants was littering, with 54 percent

of all respondents across 38 rivers indicating that it

was at least a slight problem. Other use-related

impacts have also been shown to affect satisfaction.

For example, in a study of Boundary Waters Canoe

Area visitors, Anderson (1980) reported that, in

addition to seeing litter, having to camp at heavily

used sites and seeing peeled bark on trees were

among the most negatively rated conditions.

Research on the factors that contribute most to

satisfaction or dissatisfaction can provide managers

with feedback indicating the extent to which they are

providing desired setting conditions. In summarizing

the factors affecting wilderness satisfaction, Stankey

and Schreyer (1987) concluded that the presence of

others (including perceived impacts of others such

as littering) is the most negative factor in many

settings. They also conclude, however, that dissatisfaction depends as much on individual differences in

motivation or previous experiences as on the objective

conditions of the environment. The topic of individual

differences has received a great deal of theoretical

attention in consumer behavior and is a topic that

will be developed in a later section.

Methodological and Conceptual Origins

Initial criticism of satisfaction research was linked

to the relative lack of attention devoted to the measures

of satisfaction per se (Ditton and others 1981; Shelby

and others 1980). Frequently subjects were simply

asked to rate a single item measure of general or

overall satisfaction (Dorfman 1979; Manning and

Ciali 1980; Nielson and Shelby 1977). To overcome

the reliability and validity limitations of such a measure,

efforts were made to develop Likert-type multiple

item satisfaction scales (Ditton and others 1981,

1982; Lime and others 1981). The approach taken

by Ditton and others (1981), based on the National

River Recreation Study questionnaire, has been

found to be highly reliable (Graefe and Fedler 1986;

Vaske and others 1986), although its generalizability

across some contexts has been questioned

(Schomaker and Knopf 1982a, 1982b). Alternative

wording and intermixing satisfaction items with other

questions apparently affects satisfaction scores.

However, context effects are likely to be observed on

any type of scale. The fact that such investigations

have been done on satisfaction attests to the rigorous

424
efforts to improve satisfaction measurement. The

currently popular six-item version has reported alpha

levels ranging from 0.79 to 0.89. (Graefe and Fedler

1986; Vaske and others 1986).

While approaches to measuring satisfaction

have ranged from broad unidimensional measures to

multiple item scales, theoretical models of satisfaction

have sought to identify the determinants of satisfaction

with a particular recreation outing. Models of satisfaction can be linked to two themes of outdoor recreation

research that have dominated the past 20 years: the

multiple satisfactions paradigm and norm based

models growing out of crowding and carrying capacity

research.

Multiple Satisfactions

~ In addition to the development of multiple-item

general satisfaction scales many studies have

addressed satisfaction in terms of separable components (Propst and Lime 1982) or motives (Noe 1987),

or what Mannell (1986) termed ‘post-hoc satisfaction.’

The idea that recreation is motivated by multiple

sources of satisfaction has dominated much of the

thinking about recreation experiences and has served

as the model linking major variables of interest in

recreation planning and management; motivation,

choice, satisfaction, and benefits (Driver and Brown

1975).

Satisfaction is measured by how well a leisure

activity is perceived to fulfill basic needs, motives, or

experiences. Extensive lists of “multiple’ satisfactions

have grown out of the interest in recreation motivation

(Driver 1977; Tinsley and others 1977) spawning a

plethora of studies on their psychometric properties

and structure (Driver and Knopf 1977; Rosenthal and

others 1982; Tinsley and Kass 1979; Tinsley and

others 1981; Williams and others 1988) as well as

their distribution and importance across activity and

setting categories (Knopf and others 1983; Williams

and Knopf 1985). In fact, the multiple satisfactions

approach has been so pervasive that it is arguably

the dominant research paradigm in recreation

resource management.

Vaske and others (1986) have expressed concern

over the motive or separable components approach

to satisfaction in light of attitude research which has

shown little consistency between general attitudes

and specific behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977;

Heberlein and Black 1976). Because predictions

from the general satisfactions motivating participation

to the degree of satisfaction received from a specific

outing may be unreliable, Vaske and others (1986)

argue that the multiple satisfactions approach must

be more directly tied to a specific outing. Thus, in at

least certain applications, the multiple satisfactions

approach perhaps is better described as identifying

the experience attributes that are important to various

activity participants (Hendee 1974; Potter and others

1973) and the differences that subgroups of participants within an activity place on various aspects of

the sport (Hautaloma and Brown 1978). As a general

approach, multiple satisfactions does not measure

participant satisfaction, but measures instead the

elements of the experience that are generally valued.

The criticism raised about the multiple satisfactions approach being too general has been addressed

to some degree by employing the same attitude

theories on which the criticism is based. Drawing on

expectancy theory (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Lawler

1973; Vroom 1964) participants are assumed to

engage in recreation activities with the expectation

that their action will lead to certain rewards or

satisfactions (Schreyer and Roggenbuck 1978). An

‘expectancy” represents the probability that a recreation activity or setting will provide a particular

experience attribute. Assuming people are motivated

to participate in recreation to satisfy multiple experience expectations, satisfaction (or the lack of it) may

be represented by the degree of discrepancy

(Schreyer and Roggenbuck 1978) or incongruence

(Peterson 1974) between expectations and outcomes,

or as a ratio of outcomes to expectations (Iso-Ahola

1980).0verall satisfaction for any particular occasion

is determined by summing across a list of experience

attributes (motives), the positive and negative discrepancies between attribute expectations and outcomes,

hence a multiple satisfactions interpretation is given

to recreation experiences (Connelly and others 1986;

Ditton and others 1981; Dorfman 1979; Hendee 1974;

Peterson 1974; Schreyer and Roggenbuck 1978).

While the exact specification of this model varies

somewhat from study to study, the general reliance

on beliefs (as subjective probabilities of attribute

occurrence (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975); or as probabilities that a particular act will be followed by a particular

outcome (Lawler 1973) makes the discrepancy model

of recreation satisfaction analogous to the belief-based

information processing and satisfaction models that

have dominated consumer behavior (Bettman 1979).

Norm Based Models of Satisfaction

As described earlier, many satisfaction studies

have been inspired by the desire to document the

effects of crowding and identify carrying capacities.

Discontent (ii not dissatisfaction) over the inability to

show a negative correlation between crowding-related

variables and satisfaction (particularly in primitive or

wilderness settings where crowding would be expect425
ed to be a major source of dissatisfaction) and the

positive correlations sometimes observed in other

contexts (i.e., hunting) has caused investigators to

re-evaluate the standards used to judge satisfaction.

Thus, where the multiple satisfactions paradigm has

focused on experience expectations as the comparative standard, crowding researchers have turned to

personal and social norms as ‘contact preference

standards’ that determine crowding and satisfaction

(Manning 1985; Shelby 1981; Shelby and Heberlein

1986). A normative approach has also been employed

to establish evaluative standards for ecological

impacts of primitive campsites (Shelby and Harris

1985; Shelby and others, in press).

According to Shelby and Heberlein (1986) “A

contact preference is a normative construct based

on shared beliefs about the appropriate number and

type of encounters for a particular setting. It is a

social norm which characterizes a group and is derived

from individual or personal norms’ (p. 74). The idea

is that normative standards regulate behavior and

define what is acceptable. Sometimes these norms

are formalized as written rules of play, or policies of

use or access such as permit systems, but in the

case of most outdoor recreation, the normative

standards are based on an informally arrived at

consensus of personal norms. Research on contact

preference standards represents an effort to formalize

‘what is informally present in the minds of visitors

and managers’ (Shelby and Heberlein 1986, p. 75).

An important premise of the normative approach

is that no standard can be identified without some

agreement by participants about the kind of experience to be provided. The approach has been to

develop ‘encounter preference curves’ (Shelby and

Heberlein 1986). Rather than just asking what the

optimal number of encounters is, an encounter

preference curve reveals the extent to which there is

a range of acceptable encounters and the degree of

‘crystallization’ (agreement) around the norm. To

establish the social norm, respondents are asked to

think of the recreation experience in different social

settings. For example, in a study of Grand Canyon

norms, Shelby and Heberlein (1986) instructed

subjects to respond by imagining the Canyon as

wilderness (unaffected by man), semiwilderness

(solitude not expected), and undeveloped (meeting

others is part of experience). For each setting, subjects

indicated the highest level of encounters they would

tolerate before the desired experience was no longer

present. These questions were included in the

evaluation of different types of social encounters

such as contacts with other boaters on the river,

near camp and so forth. From preference curves

constructed with these data, the social norm for a

given experience objective may be derived.

While the standard for evaluating satisfaction is

no longer linked to expectations of encounters, by

tying what is desirable and appropriate to some

broader social consensus, some might argue that

we have simply returned to linking capacity to the

hypothetical relationship between encounters and

satisfaction that has been shown to be unrelated to

actual encounters and satisfaction (Graefe and others

1984; Manning and Ciali 1980). The movement away

from an expectation approach to a normative approach, however, does have its merits, many of which

can be related to the theoretical arguments for a

norm based approach that have emerged in consumer

behavior.

SATISFACTION IN CONSUMER

RESEARCH

Recreation research on satisfaction has made

extensive use of theoretical approaches and methods

from disciplines studying analogous questions.

Considerable important work has addressed job

satisfaction (Staw 1984) life satisfaction (Schuessler

and Fisher 1985) home and community satisfaction

(Marens and Rodgers 1975) as well as how various

domains of satisfaction interact and contribute to

overall well-being. One such discipline that bears

most directly on recreation is consumer satisfaction.

An essential feature of almost all satisfaction

research in consumer behavior is that satisfaction

results from a comparative process- the discrepancy

between preconsumptive and postconsumptive

product attitudes and perceptions. Within consumer

behavior, however, several different and complex

functional relationships have been proposed between

various antecedent constructs and satisfaction, and

a number of different comparison level constructs

have been defined (Cadotte and others 1987; Churchill

and Surprenant 1982; LaTour and Peat 1979; Oliver

1980; Olson and Dover 1979; Swan and Trawik 1981;

Tse and Wilton 1988; Woodruff and others 1983).

Functional Relationships

Contrast Theory

Contrast theory is essentially a simple discrepancy

approach in which satisfaction is a function of an

initial standard or reference point and some discrepancy from the initial reference point. Derived from

Helson’s (1964) adaptation-level theory, contrast

426
theory suggests that consumers will compare actual

performance of a product to their expectations about

performance. The level of expectation about a product

outcome can be seen as an adaptation level, although

cognitions other than expectancies (i. e., norms,

desires, etc.) could form the basis of an adaptation

level. Thus, what Oliver (1980) calls positive dlsconflrmation occurs when performance exceeds the

adaptation level and negative disconflrmation occurs

when performance is less than the adaptation level.

In practice, individual discrepancies or disconfirmations are summed across multiple product attributes

to get an overall measure of satisfaction.

The central concept of discrepancy or disconfirmation has been addressed in two different ways in the

literature. In recreation, discrepancy as been measured as the observed difference between ratings of

realized and desired experience attributes (Dorfman

1979). In consumer behavior this is described as a

subtractive or inferred measure of disconfirmation

(Swan and Trawick 1981). The more common

approach in consumer behavior is to measure

perceived or subjective disconfirmation (Oliver 1980;

Tse and Wilton 1988). In describing subjective

disconfirmation, Oliver (1979) argues that consumers

make explicit judgments about whether a product

performed ‘better than’ or ‘worse than’ expected.

While inferred and subjective disconfirmation represent alternative approaches to measuring the same

construct, in application they produce different results.

For example, subjective disconfirmation was found

to better explain satisfaction for nondurable products

and inferred disconfirmation to better explain satisfaction with durable products (Churchill and Surprenant

1982).

The most widely accepted model based on the

contrast theory has been developed by Oliver (1980).

This model has two important features that tend to

be overlooked. First, it focuses on subjective disconfirmation. Second, unlike most of the formulations

suggested in the recreation literature, Oliver’s model

hypothesizes that satisfaction is an additive function

of expectations (comparison level) and perceived

disconfirmation between expectation and performance. Oliver (1979) suggests that an even greater

amount of variance in satisfaction is explained when

the expectation level is included in the model along

with subjective disconfirmation. Both of these features

(subjective disconfirmation and satisfaction as a

function of both the level of expectations and the

degree of disconfirmation) have been largely overlooked in the recreation literature.

Consistency Theory

The second major approach has grown out of

the research on the effects of expectations on

perceived product performance independent of

satisfaction. The basic premise is that some form of

distortion takes place in the perception of product or

experience outcomes (product performance) in order

to make these perceptions consistent with expectations (LaTour and Peat 1979; Olson and Dover 1979).

Building on cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger

1957) research attempts to identify the magnitude

and direction of cognitive changes that reduce the

inconsistency created by disconfirmation of expectations. Similar to cognitive dissonance, assimilationcontrast theory (Sherif and Hovland 1961) sees

expectations as an anchor for the judgment of product

performance. A postconsumption outcome may be

perceived either closer to one’s preconsumption

expectations (assimilation) or more discrepant from

expectations (contrast) depending on the degree of

discrepancy or disconfirmation (Olson and Dover

1979). If discrepancy is not too large assimilation

occurs such that ‘expectations higher than obtained

outcomes should result in higher performance

judgments (and therefore greater satisfaction) than if

expectations match obtained performance. Similarly,

expectations lower than obtained outcomes should

result in perceptions of poorer performance (and

less satisfaction) than if expectations match obtained

outcomes’ (LaTour and Peat 1979, p. 431). Only if

discrepancy is very large does the “contrast’ effect

occur. Thus, assimilation-contrast theory represents

a refinement of contrast theory with contrast effects

occurring only when the discrepancy between

expectations and obtained performance is extreme

(LaTour and Peat 1979).

An assimilation-like process might account for

the consistent observation that outdoor recreation

participants almost always report high levels of

satisfaction (Propst and Lime 1982; U.S. Department

of the Interior 1979) and is essentially what Schreyer

(1979) describes as a denial mechanism, in which

participants deny the condition of discrepancy by

raising their perception of outcomes (see also Ditton

and others 1981). The recreation literature, however,

appears to have addressed both the “misperception”

of the outcomes, in the form of denial, and in addition,

a ‘product shift” which involves the misperception of

expectations (Ditton and others 1981; Manning and

Ciali 1980; Schreyer 1979). The notion of a product

shift (e. g., changing the priority attached to anticipated

outcomes such as the number of social encounters),

does not appear to be addressed in consumer

research perhaps because of its focus on perceptions

of tangible product attributes and the experimental

manipulation of product expectations.

/. 3 7
Contrast Versus Consistency

Even though LaTour and Peat (1979) found several

problems interpreting the evidence in support of

consistency models, they speculate that under certain

conditions expectations will have some influence on

the consumer’s post-consumption beliefs about the

performance of a product (i.e., distort product

performance judgments). Distortion would occur only

when the consumer is uncertain about the level of

the attribute possessed by the product. This conclusion is supported by basic research in assimilationcontrast theory which suggests that the assimilation

affect is stronger when the attribute dimensions are

ambiguous- i.e., poorly defined attributes lacking

explicit anchors (Sherif and Hovland 1961). In such

cases where attributes are ambiguous (i.e., the

consumer is uncertain of their performance) the

assimilation effect is hypothesized. The contrast

effect would be expected when attribute performance

is unambiguous, which LaTour and Peat (1979) argue,

is generally the case within consumer behavior (i.e.,

gas mileage, handling, and reliability of automobiles).

This helps to explain recreation satisfaction differences

observed along the consumptive-nonconsumptive

continuum. The nonconsumptive recreationists have

only ambiguous attributes on which to form a

satisfaction judgment, therefore the assimilation effect

produces high satisfaction. Consumptive and other

highly goal directed recreationists employ less

ambiguous attributes and have more explicit anchor

points that lead more directly to contrast effects.

The potential for consistency effects with recreation experiences raises important questions about

the role of expectations in satisfaction. The process

of assimilation associated with raising expectations

may have the effect of raising satisfaction (or reducing

dissatisfaction if there remains a negative discrepancy). While this may seem at first counter-intuitive,

there is some logic to it that has to do with the direct

role product outcomes may have on satisfaction,

or disconfirmation of expectations about those

attributes. A couple of examples illustrate the problem

with expectancy based standards. First, the logic of

expectancy confirmation would invite the strategy of

managers or marketers lowering expectations for a

setting or product and having the users then discover

a superior outcome than expected leading to greater

satisfaction. Obviously low expectations also affect

motivation and would therefore reduce consumption

or participation. In another instance, if a person is

forced by some circumstance to choose what is

known to be an inferior product (low expectations),

according to LaTour and Peat he or she is still likely

to be dissatisfied even if the product performs up to

expectations because of his/her unfavorable evaluation of its attributes in the first place. Finally, in the

case of a product in which the manufacturer creates

unreasonably high expectations, yet the product is

still superior to others, LaTour and Peat argue we

would still anticipate reasonable satisfaction. Obviously, expectations do play a role in satisfaction, but

confirmation/disconfirmation of expectations alone is

not enough to predict satisfaction,

In addition to the logical argument presented by

LaTour and Peat (1979) two theoretical reasons for

a direct link between performance and satisfaction

are suggested by Tse and Wilton (1988). The first

has to do with cognitive dissonance strategies.

Product performance perceptions will dominate in

the postconsumptive evaluation if the psychological

costs of adjusting the product performance cognition

in line with a preconsumptive anchor exceeds the

costs of not adjusting the performance cognition but

modifying the preconsumptive anchor. Such a strategy

would be more likely after a very good (or bad)

experience. The second explanation has to do with

the consumptive motive. If learning from the experience is an important motive (as in experiencing a

new product or activity), then whenever the product

performs well a consumer is likely to be satisfied

regardless of the preconsumptive comparison standard and discrepancies from it.

The Direct Role of Product Performance

Comparison Level Issues

LaTour and Peat (1979) find it odd that satisfaction

researchers have largely ignored the role of evaluations associated with obtained product attributes. In

several instances, product or experience outcomes

themselves have explained more variation in satisfaction than discrepancy, disconfirmation, or various

other complex measures (Churchill and Surprenant

1982; Dorfman 1979; Sobel and McGuire 1977).

LaTour and Peat (1979) build a strong logical

argument that consumers’ evaluations of product

attributes themselves may account for more of the

variability in satisfaction than would the confirmation

Despite the potential direct role of product

perceptions, the notion that satisfaction is a comparative process is almost axiomatic (Oliver 1979).

However, the question of what forms the comparative

standard remains an issue at least for some. The

proposed standards have included desired, preferred

or ideal (can be), equitable or deserved (should be),

and minimal (must be), in addition to expected (will

be) (Miller 1977).

428
Oliver (1979) makes a good case for the use of

expectations as the comparative standard in consumer

satisfaction based on ‘marketplace behavior,’ but in

the process casts some doubts about the appropriateness of expectations as the comparison standard for

public resource-based recreation. While consumers

can express what they ‘would like,” these ideal

products according to Oliver are rarely available in

real markets, Further, Oliver sees no reason why

consumers would consider a product below minimum

tolerable levels. The equitable or normative “should

be” is not as easily dismissed, but its shortcoming

according to Oliver (1979, p. 2), is that it ‘necessarily

involves considerations of equity, personal values,

cultural norms, socioeconomic and political philosophy, and quality of life.’ The marketplace, however,

does not respond to equity (what a product should

do) but expectations of what a product will do. The

contexts where equity has been explored (e. g., life

satisfaction, job satisfaction, neighborhood satisfaction) represent long-term commitments where the

standards for comparison and discrepancies arise

from “nonmarket’ forces. ‘It is this short-term perspective and well-defined marketplace-generated ‘expectations’ which distinguish consumer satisfaction from

other emotional facets of life’ (Oliver 1979, p. 2).

The Normative Approach in Consumer Satisfaction

However appropriate the expectancy standard

for recreation satisfaction, the normative standard

has its supporters in consumer research. For example,

in a model proposed by LaTour & Peat (1979) the

comparison level is not simply a weighted sum of

attribute expectations, but the weighted sum of (1)

attributes of the product personally experienced in

the past (a form of expectations), (2) attributes known

through the experience of significant others (a social

comparison), and (3) expectations created based

on the unique characteristics of the present interaction

(such as those created by guidebooks, ranger

information, etc.). In addition, this information could

come from experience of products or opportunities

other than the one selected; for example, productbased as opposed to brand-based norms (Woodruff

and others (1983). Thus, the evaluative standard is

defined more from social exchange theories (Thibaut

and Kelly 1959). In a sense the person compares

performance to what one deserves given the current

and similar situations, and what others are known to

have received in similar situations.

In another example, Woodruff and others (1983)

propose an “experience-based norm” model in which

prior product experience influences a performance

norm, a brand attitude (affect or feeling toward a

brand), and a brand expectation. In addition the

latter two variables influence perceived product

performance (i.e., create the potential for an assimilation effect). Thus, performance norms represent

comparison standards, but do not affect perceived

product performance directly. Carrying this idea

further, Tse and Wilton (1988) found empirical

evidence that consumers simultaneously use multiple

comparison standards (including norms and expectations) in forming satisfaction judgments. Similarly,

the consumptive situation is an important factor in

determining which standard is used (Cadotte and

others 1987). For example, Churchill and Surprenant

(1982) found that satisfaction processes differ across

durable and nondurable products. Apparently no

one standard will always be best for explaining

satisfaction.

These findings in support of norm-based models

of satisfaction would seem particularly relevant to

recreation. For example, Cadotte and others’ (1987,

p. 313) conclusion that the comparison standard is

“rooted in one’s total experience with the focal and

related brands’ would certainly apply to recreation

participation. Disconfirmation may be linked to the

discrepancy between performance and performance

norms in much the same way as Shelby and other

researchers (Manning 1985; Shelby and Heberlein

1986) describe crowding in terms of normative

standards in which the situation (experience goals)

must be considered.

While the consumer behavior literature has

devoted far more attention to the theoretical aspects

of comparison level issues in satisfaction research,

recreation has avoided much of it, in part because

expectations have been much more broadly interpreted from the beginning. The reasons may have to do

with the ambiguous character of recreation “product”

attributes. Thus, in recreation there has been a certain

looseness in the use of the term ‘expectation” relative

to consumer behavior as a descriptor of the comparison level. For example Dorfman (1979) explored

alternative notions of the comparison level in outdoor

recreation by examining the impact of various

combinations of attribute importance (value), perception (performance), preference (desire), and expectation on satisfaction, Similarly Peterson (1974) measured congruence between “perception” and

“aspiration.’ In Dorfman’s (1979) comparison, perception (alone or weighted by importance) was the only

significant predictor of satisfaction. When subtracted

from perceptions (performance), neither expectations

nor preferences predicted satisfaction as well as

perceptions alone, however, the preference comparison standard was more highly correlated with

satisfaction than was expectation.

429
Construct Validity: Cognition or Emotion?

Probably the most important emerging issue

regarding consumer satisfaction research is construct

validity. The issue spans concerns for whether

satisfaction is anything more than a brand attitude

(LaTour and Peat 1979) or refers to a full range of

emotions (Westbrook 1987) and whether satisfaction

refers to the product or the consumptive experience

(Woodruff and others 1988). Some have gone so far

as to question the entire belief-based information

processing paradigm that has dominated satisfaction

and consumer behavior for some time (Holbrook

and Hirschman 1982).

Research has addressed satisfaction as a purely

cognitive process leading to an emotional (satisfaction) state. According to Hunt (1977, p. 459) ‘Satisfaction is not the pleasurableness of the experience, it

is the evaluation rendered that the experience was

at least as good as it was supposed to be: For

example, in a cognitive assessment a respondent

would be asked: ‘Were the rapids on your float trip

fast and exciting enough?’ According to Westbrook

(1980; 1987) a separate question is the emotion

attached to the cognitive assessment: “How did

those rapids make you feel?” With satisfaction scales

typically anchored using the terms ‘satisfaction’ and

‘dissatisfaction’ it is not clear what these terms are

measuring with respect to affect or emotion. Thus,

Westbrook (1987) argues that positive emotions

such as contentment, delight, pleasure, joy, and

interest should be linked to positive disconfirmation

and negative emotions such as anger, frustration,

disgust, and contempt should be associated with

negative disconfirmation.

In addition, Woodruff and others (1983) observe

that there is no reason to assume that confirmation/

disconfirmation will vary directly in magnitude and

direction with the gap between performance and the

comparison level. For example, the assimilation/

contrast effect represents a zone of indifference

around the norm (Woodruff and others 1988). Only

when there is sufficient arousal (often a function of

degree of involvement, Oliver and Bearden 1988) will

there be an emotional reaction attached to the

discrepancy (Woodruff and others 1988).

Another aspect of the construct validity issue is

whether measuring affect toward a consumptive

experience is more appropriate than affect toward

the product itself (Woodruff and others 1988).

Theoretical mechanisms used to explain the affective,

emotional or feeling tone of experience involves

cognitive appraisal of the causes of a particular

affective state (Westbrook 1987). In effect, emotions

are “explained’ or assigned a cause. Causality may

be ‘attributed” to the stimulus, the individual, or the

situation. In the context of consumptive experiences,

the pattern of attributions (Le., to the product, provider,

individual, or situation) may be associated with

different emotions. Westbrook (1987) suggests that

positive affect is generally linked to the stimulus

(product). Different negative emotions on the other

hand, may be attributed to the product or provider

(anger, disgust, or contempt), the individual (guik or

shame), or the situation (distress or sadness).

In the context of recreation the issue of causal

attribution may be even more significant. To what

extent does a participant in a recreation context

assign affect to the provider, the self, or the situation?

Although empirical research is lacking, the nature of

attributions regarding satisfaction with recreation

experiences may be quite different than the attribution

process for satisfaction with commodities. In many

instances in recreation the consumer is the producer

(Roberts and others 1988) and the extent to which

the provider (Le., the Forest Service) is held responsible for “performance’ is uncertain. Moreover, with

recreation it is often the situation (things over which

the provider and the participant have little control,

i.e., the weather, bears and insects, or other people)

that people find undesirable (Knopf 1982; Peterson

1974).

The most serious challenge to the construct

validity of satisfaction comes from a number of

challenges to the general belief based model (the

cognitive consumer) that has dominated consumer

behavior (Bettman 1979). These challenges revolve

around questions of product involvement, emotion,

and symbolism. First, cognitive models rely heavily

on the assumption of an involved informationextracting individual seeking the correct decision on

a product. Olshavsky and Granbois (1979) present

evidence that many purchases do not involve

decision-making at all, even on first time purchases.

Moreover, concepts involving brand loyalty and

political decision making suggest a consumer or

decision maker that is muddling through rather than

maximizing utility (Kassarjian 1982). In low involvement

situations the self-perception framework (Bern 1972)

may be a more accurate reflection of how satisfaction

beliefs are derived from product experience (Scott

1981). Accordingly, individuals ‘come to ‘know’ their

own attitudes, emotions, and other internal states

partially by inferring them from observations of their

own overt behavior and/or the situation in which this

behavior occurs’ (Bern 1972, p. 2). To use Bern’s

own example, if asked whether I like brown bread, I

might respond, ‘I guess I do, I’m always eating it:

430
Second, those representing the “experiential

view’ (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Solomon 1983)

have made similar comments in criticizing the belief

based, information processing model in consumer

behavior. These consumer researchers are concerned

by the lack of attention given to consumptive phenomena such as playful leisure, sensory pleasures,

daydreams, fantasies, aesthetic enjoyment, and

emotional responses. Consumption is regarded as a

‘primarily subjective state of consciousness with a

variety of symbolic meanings, hedonic responses

and aesthetic criteria’ (Holbrook and Hirschman

1982, p, 132). In essence, they have argued that

issues of the consumer’s experience, emotion and

such thi,ngs as fantasies and the symbolic functions

of consumption need to be addressed in addition to,

if not in place of, the attitude-belief formation process

which does not capture these aspects.

Finally, investigators have argued that subjective

experience associated with the consumption of

products is important in the process of structuring or

maintaining self-concept and social reality (Belk 1988;

Haggard 1988; Solomon 1983). In the social/symbolic

view of consumption, products are used to assign or

affirm meaning and identity to oneself. According to

Schlenker (1984) there are several ‘mechanisms’

people use to affirm their self-identity. These include

displays of signs and symbols, selection of self relevant

tasks and hobbies, as well as social interaction and

cognitive strategies that elicit and interpret self relevant

information. Thus, through careful selection of certain

products consumers may affirm some aspect of their

identity. Similarly, through the choice of recreation

activities and the display and use of outdoor equipment or other symbols of participation, recreationists

may affirm self-identity. The importance of outdoor

recreation as an opportunity for self-affirmation is

discussed in some detail by Williams and others

(1989).

Summary of Consumer Satisfaction

Research

Consumer satisfaction, like recreation satisfaction,

has been conceptualized as a cognitive appraisal of

the degree to which a product or service performs

relative to a subjective standard. The level of the

standard differs among individuals and groups

depending on a wide range of previous experiences

including experiences with the given product and

similar products, experiences of comparable social

groups and even experiences in other spheres of life

(Olander 1977). Satisfaction involves two important

antecedent constructs; the comparison level and

perceived or inferred disconfirmation. The relationship

between these, however, turns out to be exceedingly

complex because: (1) the impact of contrast and

consistency effects depends on the type of product

and the relative “costs” of dissonant cognitions and

(2) consumers potentially make use of multiple

comparison standards that include expectations and

various product and experience norms. In addition,

some have come to question the validity of the

satisfaction construct. Wiihin consumer behavior the

notion of “product’ satisfaction is evolving from an

attitude toward a multiattribute cognitive entity to the

emotional and symbolic meaning assigned to an

object or experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Some Research Recommendations

The recreation and consumer behavior literatures,

despite little if any cross-referencing, seem to address

many of the same issues. An important difference,

however, and one that recreation research may still

benefii from, is that the consumer literature has tended

to address satisfaction with greater depth and

theoretical rigor. Of course the volume of the effort

may account for some of this. Hunt (1983) reported

that in the lo-year period from 1972 to 1982 over

600 papers in consumer behavior had addressed

satisfaction. Moreover, consumer researchers often

work within an experimental paradigm that allows

the manipulation of expectations and measurement

before and after consumptive experiences.

Still, much of the knowledge gained from consumer research can be applied to recreation satisfaction. First, recreation research has relied almost

exclusively on an inferred (subtractive) approach to

measuring discrepancies or disconfirmation. The

exception has been in the crowding literature where

respondents are sometimes asked to report the

extent to which actual encounters were “more than”

or ‘less than” expected (Roggenbuck and Bange

1983). Moreover, inferred approaches raise important

methodological problems. The first problem is that

difference variables are notoriously unreliable (Overall

and Woodward 1975; Prakash and Lounsbury 1983).

The second is an overspecification problem (Weaver

and Brickman 1974). Two variables (expectancy and

outcome) are being used to define three constructs

(expectancy, outcome, and disconfirmation).

431
Second, recreation has been rather “loose’ in

defining and employing comparison standards.

Expectancy and norm-based approaches have

established theoretical underpinnings, but these

have not been closely followed in many cases.

Moreover, the normative standard has been used

more as a basis for making carrying capacity decisions

than as a comparison standard in satisfaction

research.

Third, the role of consistency versus contrast in

recreation satisfaction is largely unknown despite a

few attempts to address it (Manning and Ciali 1980).

In fact, this is one area in which the nature of recreation

experiences may have quite different implications for

understanding satisfaction, given that contrast effects

depend to a large extent on the degree to which

“product’ attributes are perceived “unambiguously’

along\ dimensions having explicit anchors.

Finally, the role of emotion and attribution

processes have not been explored. To make satisfaction relevant to management we need to know more

about how feelings and emotions associated with a

recreation experience are differentially attributed to

the product, the individual, and the situation. How

recreationists attribute satisfaction is perhaps the

most important research question from the satisfaction

paradigm. Here again, the special character of

recreation experiences is critical, foremost because

recreation may not fit the product or commodity

metaphor. Economists recognize that recreation is

unusual in that is self-produced (Walsh 1986) and

consumer researchers have suggested that in leisure,

like craftsmanship, satisfaction can come from the

production process itself (Roberts and others 1988).

This question of how recreationists make attributions

about the quality of their experiences perhaps most

clearly exposes the limits of the commodity metaphor.

The Commodity Metaphor and the Limits

to Satisfaction

The limits to satisfaction have to do with the

adequacy of the commodity view of recreation. When

we assume recreation is a product of land management activities such as cultivating fish and game for

eventual harvest, the product metaphor leads us to

evaluate recreation satisfaction in a manner similar

to the way consumer researchers attempt to determine

the momentary satisfactions with the consumption or

use of a product. Unlike consumer goods, however,

recreation is not a product of a distant corporate

machine- though at times recreation service providers

seem to want to move in that direction (Dustin and

others 1987). If recreation is largely self-produced,

whose performance is to be evaluated; the performance of the participant or the managing agency?

Managers are presumably interested in satisfaction as a way to evaluate the quality of recreation

resources and management activities. Implicit in

multi-attribute commodity oriented models is that

product performance discrepancies reflect the quality

of the product. In effect, product performance

judgments imply the attribution of quality to the

product because the product possesses the attributes.

In the recreation context, however, many of the

attributes are not clearly attributable to the resource

or the efforts of management. To the extent that

recreation is ‘produced’ by the participant, many of

the important elements may not be under the control

of management. Further, to the extent that recreation

is dependent on the weather and other situational

factors, many of the important elements may be

independent of participant and management control.

It becomes difficult to distinguish between performance of the resource itself and the performance of

the participant in creating a successful recreation

experience. While the quality of the resource is

important and we should not back away from our

commitment to resource quality, the lesson here is

that the ultimate arbitrator of satisfaction is the

participant - happiness lies with the self.

Recreation experiences might be more usefully

described as transactional in nature. Or as lttleson

and others (1976 p, 187) describe ’. . . that product

of an active endeavor by an individual to create for

himself a situation within which he can optimally

function and achieve his own pattern of satisfaction.”

Yet management is based on the assumption that it

is delivering a product, working more or less exclusively with the supply end of the process. It is as if

recreationists bring little to the site other than

expectations. With such a strong emphasis on

products and outcomes of recreation management

(rather than how the participant shapes the experience) we run the risk of creating the illusion of

experience engineering (Mannell 1985) and environmental determinism (Schreyer 1985; Williams and

others 1988). In contrast, the transactional perspective

suggests that the recreationist actively creates the

recreation experience, through a transaction with the

physical and social setting, including what the

recreationist brings to the process in terms of use

history, perceptions, companions, skills, equipment,

identities, hopes and dreams (Berger and Schreyer

1986; Williams 1986). In a transactional perspective

more consideration is given to the meaning assigned

432
to the place and the behavior, and the participants

knowledge and skill in experiencing it.

The commodity metaphor also leads to a view of

recreation as consummatory behavior emphasizing

extrinsic fulfillment of needs (consumptive leisure).

Satisfaction as a comparison of what one gets relative

to what everyone else has, in many ways, is the

antithesis of leisure. In leisure, the value is in the

doing, the being, the activity itself. Intrinsic enjoyment

is in the doing not in the fulfilling-especially when

the standards for fulfillment have so much to do with

social norms. It may not be appropriate to call this

satisfaction. Satisfaction may not even be a desirable

goal for public policy (Olander 1977). The solution

has to do with understanding the intrinsic value of

opportunities. Put another way, we need to insure

that opportunities exist for intrinsic enjoyment and

self-expression. Clearly, not all recreation engagements are expressive self-produced affairs, Many

participants may be out in the woods for instrumental

purposes, but there is a danger of placing too much

emphasis on the successful fulfillment of needs or

wants.

To summarize, there is a larger context of quality

that is lifestyle. The quality of a single recreational

outing cannot be measured for the experienced,

advanced participant by whether the goal of sighting

a rare bird or running a new river was accomplished.

Quality is better understood as the extent to which a

recreation engagement succeeds as an expression

of one’s self. This context of quality is not captured

by a normative satisfaction measure that emphasizes

relative worth in place of that worth having. That

worth having is derived from expressive selfaffirmation, valuing the experience of production and

not the production of value, valuing the hunt and not

necessarily the harvest, valuing the process and not

necessarily the product.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to thank Alan Graefe, Lois

Haggard, Tom Parker, and Richard Schreyer for their

helpful suggestions on this paper.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations:

a theoretical analysis and review of empirical

research. Psychological Bulletin. 84:888-918.

Anderson, D.H. 1980. Displacement of visitors within

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Fort Collins,

CO: Colorado State University. 130 pp. M.S. thesis.

Applegate, J.E.; Clark, K.E. 1987. Satisfaction levels

of birdwatchers: an observation on the

consumptive-nonconsumptive continuum. Leisure

Sciences. 9: 129-l 34.

Belk, R. 1988. Possessions and the extended self.

Journal of Consumer Research. 15139-l 68.

Bern, D.J. 1972. Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz,

L., ed. Advances in experimental social psychology.

6: l-62.

Berger, J.L.; Schreyer, R. 1986. Comparative evaluation of alternative recreation experience paradigms

and evaluation of their comparative utility to

recreation resource management. Paper presented

at the 1st national symposium on social science

in recreation resource management; 1986 May;

Corvallis, OR.

Bettman, J.R. 1979. An information processing theory

of consumer choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bultena, G.L.; Klessig, L.L. 1969. Satisfaction in

camping: a conceptualization and guide to social

research. Journal of Leisure Research. 1348-354.

Cadotte, E.R.; Woodruff, R.B.; Jenkins, R.L. 1987.

Expectations and norms in models of consumer

satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research.

24:305314.

Canter, D. 1983. The purposive evaluation of places:

a facet approach. Environment & Behavior.

15659-698.

Churchill, G.A., Jr.; Surprenant, C. 1982. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction.

Journal of Marketing Research. 19:491-504.

Connelly, N.A.; Brown, T.L.; Wilkins, B.T. 1986. Factors

critical for camping satisfaction. pp. 389392. In:

Lucas, R., camp. Proceedings, national wilderness

conference: current research; 1985 July 23-26;

Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

433
Craik, K.H.; Zube, E.H. 1976. Perceiving environmental

quality: research and applications. New York:

Plenum Press.

Craik, K.H.; Feimer, N.R.. 1987. Environmental

assessment. pp. 891-918. In: Stokols, D.; Altman,

I., eds. Handbook of environmental psychology.

New York: Wiley.

Ditton, R.B.; Fedler, A.J.; Graefe, AR. 1982. Assessing

recreational satisfaction among diverse participant

groups. pp. 134-139. In: Lime, D., coord. Forest 81

river recreation: research update. Misc. Pub. 18.

St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Agricultural

Experiment Station.

Ditton, R.B.; Graefe, A.R.; Fedler, A.J. 1981. Recreational satisfaction at Buffalo National River: some

measurement concerns. pp. 9-17. In: Lime, D.;

Field, D., coords. Some recent products of river

recreation research. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-63. St.

Paul, MN: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

61 PP.

Dorfman, P.W. 1979. Measurement and meaning of

recreation satisfaction: a case study in camping.

Environment & Behavior. 11:483-510.

Downing, K.; Clark, R.N. 1979. Users’ and managers’

perceptions of dispersed recreation impacts: A

focus on roaded forest lands. pp. 18-23. In: Ittner,

R; Potter, D.; Agee, J.; Anschell, S., eds. Recreational impacts on wildlands. Conference Proceedings.

WA No. R-6-001. Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of

Agricufture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Region.

Driver, B.L. 1977. Item pool for scales designed to

quantify the psychological outcomes desired and

expected form recreation opportunities. Fort Collins,

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

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station (mimeographed).

Driver, B.L.; Brown, Perry J. 1975. A socialpsychological definition of recreation demand,

with implications for recreation resource planning.

pp. 65-88. In: Assessing demand for outdoor

recreation. Appendix A. Washington, DC: National

Academy of Science.

Driver, B.L.; Knopf, Richard C. 1977. Personality,

outdoor recreation, and expected consequences.

Environment & Behavior. 9(2):169-l 93.

Dustin, D.L.; McAvoy, L.H.; Schultz, J.H. 1987. Beware

of the merchant mentality. Trends. 24(3):4446.

Festinger, Leon. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention,

and behavior: an introduction to theory and

research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing

Company. 578 pp.

Graefe, A.R.; Fedler, A.J. 1986. Situational and

subjective determinants of satisfaction in marine

recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences. 8:275-295.

Graefe, A.R.; Vaske, J.J.; Kuss, F.R. 1984. Social

carrying capacity: an integration and synthesis of

twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences.

6(4):395431.

Haggard, L. 1988. The %elr concept in recreation

activity participation. Salt Lake City, UT: University

of Utah. Ph.D. dissertation.

Hautaluoma, J.E.; Brown, P.J. 1978. Attitudes of the

deer hunting experience: a cluster-analytic study.

Journal of Leisure Research. lo:271 -287.

Heberlein, T.A.; Black, J.S. 1976. Attitudinal specificity

and prediction of behavior in a field setting. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology. 33:474479.

Heberlein, T.A.; Trent, J.N.; Baumgartner, R.M. 1982.

The influence of hunter density on firearm deer

hunters’ satisfaction: a field experiment. pp.

665-676. Transactions of the 47th North American

wildlife and natural resources conference. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute. 722 pp.

Helson, H. 1964. Adaptation-level theory. New York:

Harper & Row.

Hendee, J.C. 1974. A multiple satisfaction approach

to game management. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

2(3):104-l 13.

Holbrook, M.B.; Hirschman, E.C. 1982. The experiential

aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies,

feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research.

9: 132-l 40.

434
Hunt, H.K. 1977. CS/D - overview and future directions. pp. 455588. In: Hunt, H., ed. Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction

and dissatisfaction. Cambridge, MA: Marketing

Science Institute.

Hunt, H.K. 1983. Consumer satisfaction: discussant

comments. Advances in Consumer Research.

10:262.

Isodhola, SE. 1980. The social psychology of leisure

and recreation. Dubuque, IA: WC. Brown.

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

nature of environmental experience. pp. 187-206,

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

Experiencing the environment. New York: Plenum.

Kassarjian, H.H. 1982. Consumer psychology. Annual

Review of Psychology. 33:619-649.

Knopf, R.C. 1982. Management problems in river

recreation -what river floaters are telling us.

Naturalist. 33(2):12-l 7.

Knopf, R.C. 1987. Human behavior, cognition, and

affect in the natural environment. pp. 783-825. In:

Stokols, D.; Altman, I., eds. Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: John Wiley.

Knopf, Richard C.; Peterson, George L.; Leatherberry,

Earl C. 1983. Motives for recreational river floating:

relative consistency across settings. Leisure

Sciences. 5(3):231-255.

LaPage, W.F. 1968. The role of customer satisfaction

in managing commercial campgrounds. Res. Pap.

NE-105. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 23 pp.

LaPage, W.F. 1983. Recreation resource management

for visitor satisfaction. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 1(2):37-44.

LaTour, S.A.; Peat, NC. 1979. Conceptual and

methodological issues in consumer satisfaction

research. Advances in Consumer Research.

6431437.

Lawler, E.E. 1973. Motivation in work organizations.

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lime, D.W.; Knopf, R.C.; Peterson, G.L. 1981. The

national river recreation study: growing new data

base with exciting potential. pp. l-8. In: Lime, D.;

Field, D., coords. Some recent products of river

recreation research. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-63. St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

61 PP.

Mannell, R.C. 1985. The ‘psychologization’ of leisure

services. pp. 118-129. In: Goodale, T.; Wii, P.,

eds. Recreation and leisure issues in an era of

change. Revised ed. St. College, PA: Venture

Publishing.

Mannell, R.C. 1986. Problems, progress and usefulness of theory and research on leisure as experience. Paper presented at the leisure research

symposium, national recreation and park congress;

1988 October; Anaheim, CA.

Manning, R.E. 1986. Studies in outdoor recreation:

search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis,

OR: Oregon State University Press.

Manning, Robert E. 1985. Crowding norms in backcountry settings: a review and synthesis, Journal

of Leisure Research. 17(2):75-89.

Manning, R.E.; Ciali, C.P. 1980. Recreation density

and user satisfaction: a further exploration of the

satisfaction model. Journal of Leisure Research.

12:329-345.

Marens, R.W.; Rodgers, W. 1975. Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In: Hawley,

A.H.; Rock, V.P., eds. Metropolitan America in

contemporary perspective. NY: Halstead Press.

McCool, Stephen F.; Peterson, Margaret. 1982. An

application of the two factor theory of satisfaction

to recreational settings. Report submitted to the

Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Missoula, MT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station. 2

vol.

Miller, J.A. 1977. Studying satisfaction, modifying

models, eliciting expectations, posing problems,

and making meaningful measurements. pp. 72-91.

In: Hunt, H.K., ed. Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

435
Nielson, J. M.; Shelby, B. 1977. River-running in the

Grand Canyon: how much and what kind of use.

Proceedings: River recreation management and

research symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-28. St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

455 pp.

Noe, F.P. 1987. Measurement specification and leisure

satisfaction. Leisure Sciences. 9:163-l 72.

Olander, Folke. 1977. Consumer satisfaction-a

skeptic’s view. pp. 72-91. In: Hunt, H., ed. Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction

and dissatisfaction. Cambridge, MA: Marketing

Science Institute.

Oliver, R.L. 1979. Conceptualization and measurement

of disconfirmation perceptions in the prediction of

consumer satisfaction. pp. 2-6. In: Hunt, H.K.;

Day, R.L., eds. Refining concepts and measures

of consumer satisfaction and complaining behavior:

papers from the fifth annual conference on

consumer satisfaction and complaing behavior.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

Oliver, R.L. 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents

and consequences of satisfaction decisions.

Journal of Marketing Research. 17:460-469.

Oliver, R.L.; Bearden, W.O. 1983. The role of involvement in satisfaction processes. Advances in

Consumer Research. 10:250-255.

Olshavsky, R.W.; Granbois, D.H. 1979. Consumer

decision-making -fact or fiction? Journal of Consumer Research. 6(2):93-l 00.

Olson, J.C.; Dover, P.A. 1979. Disconfirmation of

consumer expectations through product trial. The

Journal of Applied Psychology. 64(2):179-l 89.

Overall, J.E.; Woodward, J.A. 1975. Unreliability of

difference scores: a paradox for measurement of

change. Psychological Bulletin. 82:85-86.

Peterson, G.L. 1974. Evaluating the quality of the

wilderness environment: congruence between

perception and aspiration. Environment & Behavior.

6: 169-l 93.

Potter, D.R.; Hendee, J.C.; Clark, R.N. 1973. Hunting

satisfaction: game, guns, or nature? pp. 62-71.

Transactions of the 38th North American wildlife

and natural resources conference. Washington,

DC: Wildlife Management Institute. 541 pp.

Prakash, V.; Lounsbury, J.W. 1983. A reliability

problem in the measurement of disconfirmation of

expectations. Advances in Consumer Research.

10:244-249.

Propst, D.B.; Lime, D.W. 1982. How satisfying is

satisfaction research? A look at where we are

going. pp. 124-133. In: Lime, D., camp. Forest &

river recreation: research update. Misc. Pub. 18.

St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Agricultural

Experiment Station,

Roberts, S.D.; Scammon, D.L.; Schouten, J.W. 1988.

The fortunate few: production as consumption.

Advances in Consumer Research. 15:430X35.

Roggenbuck, J.; Bange, S.P. 1983. An assessment

of the float-trip carrying capacity of the New River

gorge national river. Final report prepared for the

New River gorge national river, National Park

Service. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University, Department of

Forestry.

Rosenthal, Donald H.; Waldman, Donald A.: Driver,

B.L. 1982. Construct validity of instruments measuring recreationists’ preferences. Leisure Sciences.

5:89-l 08.

Schlenker, R.R. 1984. Identities, identification and

relationships. pp. 71-104. In: Derlaga, V., ed.

Communication, intimacy, and close relationships.

New York: Academic Press.

Schomaker, J.H.; Knopf, R.C. 1982a. Effect of question

context on a recreation satisfaction measure.

Leisure Sciences. 5:35-43.

Schomaker, J.H.; Knopf, R.C. 1982b. Generalizability

of a measure of visitor satisfaction with outdoor

recreation. Applied Psychological Measurement.

6(2):173-l 83.

Schreyer, R. 1979. Succession and displacement in

river recreation. Res. Proj. Pap. 1901-78-07. St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Schreyer, R. 1985. Subjective state as a management

concept -or why everyone is satisfied but nobody

is particularly happy. Paper presented at the leisure

research symposium; national recreation and park

association national congress: 1985 October;

Dallas, TX.

436
Schreyer, R.; Roggenbuck, J.W. 1978. The influence

of experience expectations on crowding perceptions and social-psychological carrying capacities.

Leisure. Sciences 1:373-394.

Schroeder, H.W.; Brown, T.C. 1983. Alternative

functional forms for an inventory-based landscape

perception model. Journal of Leisure Research.

15(2):156-163.

Schuessler, K.F.; Fisher, G.A. 1985. Quality of life

research and sociology. Annual Review of Sociology. 11:129-l 49.

Scott, C.A. 1981. Forming beliefs from experience:

evidence from self perception theory. pp. 296-305.

In: Kassarjian, H.H.; Robertson, T.S. Perspectives

in consumer behavior. 3d ed. Glenview, IL: ScottForesman.

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

recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Press.

Shelby, B.; Lowney, B.; McKee, P. 1980. Problems

with satisfaction as a criterion for management

and change. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the Rural Sociology Society; 1980 August; Ithaca,

NY.

Shelby, B.; Vaske, J.J.; Harris, R. [in press]. User

standards for ecological impacts at wilderness

campsite. Journal of Leisure Research.

Shelby, Bo. 1981. Encounter norms in backcountry

settings: studies of three rivers. Journal of Leisure

Research. 13:129-l 38.

Shelby, Bo; Harris, Richard L. 1985. Comparing

methods for determining visitor evaluations of

ecological impacts: site visits, photographs, and

written descriptions. Journal of Leisure Research.

17(1):57-67.

Sherif, M; Hovland, C.I. 1961. Social judgment:

assimilation and contrast effects in communication

and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sorbel, R.S.; McGuire, H. 1977. Subtractive models

of satisfaction: cognitive processes or measurement

artifact? The Journal of Psychology. 77(96):251-258.

Solomon, M.R. 1983. The role of products as social

stimuli: a symbolic interactionism perspective.

Journal of Consumer Research. lo:31 9:329.

Stankey, G.H. 1972. A strategy for the definition and

management of wilderness quality. pp. 88-l 14. In:

Krutilla, J.V., ed. Natural environments: studies in

theoretical and applied analysis. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press. 352 pp.

Stankey, G.H.; Schreyer, R. 1987. Attitudes toward

wilderness and factors affecting visitor behavior: a

state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, R., camp.

Proceedings national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions;

1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Staw, B.M. 1984. Organizational behavior: a review

and reformulation of the field’s outcome variables.

Annual Review of Psychology. 35:627-666.

Swan, J.E.; Trawick, I.F. 1981. Disconfirmation of

expectations and satisfaction with a retail service.

Journal of Retailing. 57(3):49-67.

Thibaut, J.W.; Kelly, H.H. 1959. The social psychology

of groups. New York: Wiley.

Tinsley, H.E.A.; Barrett, T.C.; Kass, R.A. 1977. Leisure

activities and need satisfaction. Journal of Leisure

Research. 9:ll O-l 20.

Tinsley, H.E.A.; Kass, R.A. 1979. The latent structure

of the need satisfying properties of leisure activities.

Journal of Leisure Research. 11:278-291.

Tinsley, H.E.A.; Kass, R.A.; Driver, B.L. 1981. Reliability

and concurrent validity of the recreation experience

preference scales. Educational and Psychological

Measurement. 41:897-907.

Tse, D.K.; Wilton, P.C. 1988. Models of consumer

satisfaction formation: an extension. Journal of

Marketing Research. 25:204-212.

U.S. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,

1979. Third nationwide outdoor recreation plan,

Appendix I. Heritage Conservation and Recreation

service. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office. 6 vol.

Vaske, J.J.; Donnelly, M.P.; Heberlein, T.A.; Shelby,

B. 1982. Differences in reported satisfaction ratings

by consumptive and nonconsumptive recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research. 14:195-206.

437
Vaske, J.J.; Fedler, A.J.; Graefe, AR. 1986. Multiple

determinants of satisfaction form a specific waterfowl hunting trip. Leisure Sciences. 8:149-l 66.

Vroom, V.H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York:

Wiley. 331 pp.

Wagar, J.A. 1963. Campgrounds for many tastes.

Res. Pap. INT-6. Ogden, UT: US. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 10 pp.

Walsh, R.G. 1986. Recreation economic decisions.

St. College, PA: Venture.

Weaver, D.; Brickman, P. 1974. Expectancy, feedback,

and disconfirmation as independent factors in

outcome satisfaction. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology. 30(3):420-428.

Westbrook, R.A. 1980. Intrapersonal affective influences on consumer satisfaction with products.

Journal of Consumer Research. 7:49-54.

Westbrook, R.A. 1987. Product/consumption-based

affective responses and postpurchase processes.

Journal of Marketing Research. 24:258-270.

Williams, D.R. 1986. Psychological perspectives on

the environment-experience relationship: implications for recreation resource management. pp.

1731. In: A literature review. Appendix to the

Report of the President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Off ice.

Williams, D.R.; Ellis, G.D.; Nickerson, N.P.; Shafer,

C.S. 1988. Contributions of time, format, and subject

variation in recreation experience preference

measurement. Journal of Leisure Research.

20:57-68.

Williams, D.R., Haggard, L.M.; Schreyer, R. 1989.

The role of wilderness in human development. pp.

169-180. In: Freilich, Helen R., camp. Wilderness

benchmark 1988: proceedings of the national

wilderness colloquium; 1988 January 13-l 4; Tampa,

FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-51. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 228 pp.

Williams, Daniel R.; Knopf, Richard C. 1985. In search

of the primitive-urban continuum: the dimensional

structure of outdoor recreation opportunities.

Environment & Behavior. 17:351-370.

Woodruff, R.B.; Cadotte, E.R.; Jenkins, R.L. 1983.

Modeling consumer satisfaction processes using

experience-based norms. Journal of Marketing

Research. 20:296-304.

438
THE SPECTRUM OF CONFLICT IN OUTDOOR RECREATION

William E. Hammittl

Abstract - Outdoor recreation conflict is one of the

most common and difficult problems with which

recreation planners and managers must contend.

Recreational activities are an important aspect of a

quaky ‘life, driven by some strong participation goals

and motives, and conflict is bound to happen when

goal interference occurs. To prevent potential conflict

from occurring, it is necessary to identify and understand the causes, levels, and means of prevention of

recreational conflict. This paper reviews the broad

spectrum of factors underlying the major causes of

recreational conflict, the various levels (i.e., user to

user, user to manager, etc.) of conflict, and the

spectrum of recreational opportunities (130s) as a

means of analyzing and managing conflict potential.

The paper stresses the need to address the causes,

levels, and management of outdoor recreation conflict

before it reaches the political and legal arena of conflict

resolution. Once conflict resolution reaches the costly

political and legal process, it is basically out of the

hands of the recreation planner and manager.

INTRODUCTION

Leisure is now estimated to constitute one-third

of our daily time and lifespan (Chubb and Chubb

1981). For many Americans the most precious use

of this leisure is the pursuit of outdoor recreation

activities. There is a sound basis in the quality of life

literature for recreation having an ever increasing

importance in adding meaning to people’s lives. The

activities that many people pursue during their leisure

are valued more highly than their work activities.

With such value and importance placed on recreational activities by people, it is no wonder that conflict

occurs in outdoor recreation, whether it is between

the Wilderness Society and a Federal agency, between

recreation manager and visitor, or between different

user groups. Conflict in outdoor recreation is one of

the most common and difficult problems with which

‘Professor of Forest Recreation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,

TN.

recreation managers must contend. It is a complex

problem that recreation resource managers have not

been trained to deal with, and one which is seen far

too often as only a space allocation problem.

Conflict in outdoor recreation is often simplistically

viewed as competition between two different activii

groups for the same resource area, e.g., competition

for space between snowmobiler versus skier, horseback rider versus hiker, and powerboater versus

canoer. While it is true that ample space to separate

these user groups will solve most conflict, it is not

space per se that is the cause of recreational conflict.

‘Research has tended merely to describe conflict

situations, with few attempts made to systematically

define and study basic causes of conflict situations

(Jacob and Schreyer 1980): For example, if lack of

ample space is the cause of conflict, why do hikers

hate horseback riders but not vice versa? Research

has also concentrated on user to user conflict, while

devoting far less attention to other levels of recreation

conflict, such as among and between community,

agency, manager, and user (Liile and Noe 1984).

What is needed is a theoretical basis for defining

and scoping the boundaries of recreational conflict,

a framework for analyzing the different levels of

recreational conflict, and a planning-management

conceptualization for potentially solving conflict in

outdoor recreation areas.

The purpose of this paper is to address the

above mentioned concerns, as follows:

1. To offer a conceptional basis for defining and

scoping the causes and antecedental conditions of

outdoor recreation conflict.

2. To present a framework for relating and

describing different levels or categories of conflict in

outdoor recreation.

3. To analyze various aspects of recreational

conflict within the framework of the Recreational

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and analyze ROS as a

planning-management tool for resolving conflict in

outdoor recreation areas.

439
CONCEPTUALIZING OUTDOOR RECREATION CONFLICT

Whether defined at the individual, interest group,

or agency level, conflict can be defined as goal

Interference attributed to the behavior of others.

The rewards of outdoor recreation participation are

valued by individuals, and any interference in obtaining

those rewards can lead to conflict. Because outdoor

recreation is believed to be strongly goal oriented,

interference with goal achievement due to others is

a common conflict occurrence.

Jacob and Schreyer (1980) provide an excellent

review of the conflict literature to that time, and

theoretical conceptualization of conflict. As they point

out, goal interference does not necessarily equate

with conflict. For goal interference to lead to conflict,

the interference must be attributed to another’s

behavior. For example, bad weather, the fish not

biting, or your forgetting to pack appropriate equipment, may interfere with your fulfillment of planned

recreational goals, but this is not defined as conflict

since it can not be attributed to another. However,

there are situations where no one else is directly

responsible for the goal interference but it is blamed

on others- a process of scapegoating where a pseudo

source of goal interference is identified. Feelings of

personal frustration or failure sometimes cause the

displacing of the locus of responsibility on others,

causing a conflict situation (Aiiport 1958).

Other concepts discussed by Jacob and Schreyer

worth reviewing are goal incompatibility and visitor

dissatisfaction. Goal incompatibility is the major source

of goal interference, however, differences between

people over the means of attaining the same goal or

the resources required may lead to conflict. Concerning visitor satisfaction, it is important not to equate

recreationist dissatisfaction with recreational conflict.

While most conflict leads to visitor dissatisfaction,

not ail sources of visitor dissatisfaction are conflict

generated.

Recreational conflict is also far too often conceptualized as being an asymmetrical situation, where one

type of user (skier) is in conflict with another (snowmobiier), but the reverse is not true. More and more we

find that recreational conflict is not a static, asymmetrical situation, but a dynamic interactive process where

an asymmetrical situation will evolve toward symmetrical interference, where both parties involved exhibit

bad feelings (Jackson and Wong 1982).

related to conflict to guide us. While my intent here

is not to discuss each of these, I feel it is important

to outline each of them. I encourage readers to go

to the original source for a full discussion of the

items.

Factor I

Activity Style = the personal meanings attached to

the set of behaviors constituting a recreational activity

(i.e., intensity of participation, status, definition of

quality experience).

1. The more intense the activity style, the greater

the likelihood a social interaction with less intense

participants will result in conflict.

2. When the private activity style (intrinsic orientation) confronts the status conscious activity style

(extrinsic), conflict results because the private activii

style’s disregard for status symbols negates the

relevance of the other participant’s status hierarchy.

3. Status based intra-activity conflict occurs when

a participant desiring high status must interact with

others viewed as lower status.

4. Conflict occurs between participants who do

not share the same status hierarchies.

5. The more specific the expectations of what

constitutes a quality experience, the greater the

potential for conflict.

Factor II

Resource Specificity = the significance attached to

using a specific recreation resource for a given

recreation experience.

6. When a person who views the place’s qualities

as unequaled confronts behaviors indicating a lower

evaluation, conflict results,

7. Conflict results when users with a possessive

attitude towards the resource confront users perceived

as disrupting traditional uses and behavioral norms.

8. Conflict occurs for high status users when

they must interact with the lower status users who

symbolize a devaluation of a heretofore exclusive,

intimate relationship with the place.

As a conceptual framework for setting some

boundaries on outdoor recreation conflict, Jacob

and Schreyer offer four factors and ten propositions

440
Factor III LEVELS OF RECREATION CONFLICT

Mode Cf Experience = the varying expectations of

how the environment will be perceived.

9. When a person in the focused mode (specialist)

interacts with a person in the unfocused mode

(generalist) conflict results.

Conflict in outdoor recreation is generally characterized as confrontation between different activity

groups, a user to user conflict over preferred and

appropriate use of a resource area. Three characteristics are primarily responsible in influencing the degree

of conflict between outdoor recreational activities

(Bury and others 1983:401):

Factor IV

Tolerance For Lifestyle Diversity = the tendency to

accept or reject lifestyles different from one’s own.

(1) The spatial or temporal proximity of the

activities (i.e., crowding).

IO.’ If group differences are evaluated as undesirable or a potential threat to recreation goals, conflict

results when members of the two groups confront

one another.

(2) The degree of environmental dominance

inherent in each activity (i.e., consumptive vs nonconsumptive activities).

Summary- Jacob and Schreyer offered these

four conflict factors and ten propositions as a foresight

for recognizing potential conflict in recreation. ‘In

failing to recognize the basic causes of conflict,

inappropriate resolution techniques and management

strategies are likely to be adopted. The traditional

tendency to define conflict as confrontation between

activities has left the sources of recreation conflict

unrecognized far too long (Jacob and Schreyer

(3) The extent of participants’ dependance on

technological products (motorized vs nonmotorized

equipment).

1980:3?8).’

Crowding and exceeded carrying capacities are

a logical source of conflict, as too many people

commonly lead to goal inference for the recreationist.

Concerning dominance over environment and dependence on technology, Bury and others 1983

have presented a conceptual model where recreational activities can be categorized as to conflict potential,

based on these two factors (fig. 1). For example,

k

Amateur

BQWOl3O~Y Source:

Bury et al.

1983

Figure 1. -A conceptual model of recreational conflict.

441
cross-country ORV-motorcycle scrambling ranks

high on both environmental dominance and technology dependence, while nature study ranks low on

both. The analysis of activities on these two factors

and the placement of them on the grid can be

instructive for identifying users with differing activity

goals.

2. Visitor to Management-Visitors often cause

impact and conflict upon both management and the

resource. An obvious example is that of resource

degradation, such as campsite impacts, littering, and

inappropriate use of scarce resources (endangered

species). Visitors often do not have the resource

ethic knowledge to use resources wisely, and are

therefore at conflict with management.

Conflict in outdoor recreation goes far beyond

the user to user level, and it is important to analyze

these levels, for conflict resolution occurs at each.

Liile and Noe (1934) suggest there are four sources

of recreation conflict, including visitors, managers,

local officials, and local residents. These sources

interact in multi-dimensional ways, leading Liile and

Noe to propose an interactive model for conflict (fig.

2).

A brief example of the type of conflict that may

occur at each of the nine levels will be offered:

3. Visitor to Community-Recreation, particularly

in the form of tourism, can become an “attractive

nuisance’ for nearby communities. The very attractiveness of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park

and the birth of gateway cities such as Gatlinburg,

Tennessee, means that nearby towns will suffer

periodic problems with traffic flow, parking availability,

littering, and other functions of crowds. In more rural

areas, the influx of ‘foreigners’ are at conflict with the

traditional lifestyles of ‘locals.’

1. Visitor to Visitor - Liile explanation is needed 4. Management to Visitor-Visitors are not always

here, for this is the typical hiker vs ORV, canoe vs the source of conflict: management often is the

powerboat, skier vs snowmobile conflict. However, originating source. Restrictions on use is a common

power equipment does not have to be the source of example here. Users may feel they have the right to

this type of conflict. Trout fishermen may be as odds use wilderness without obtaining a permit, or even if

with swimmers over proper use of a resource. In all a given number of visitors are already using the

cases, the two groups do not share the same values resource. Management is charged with resource

regarding the ‘proper’ use of the recreation resource, protection, yet recreationists want ‘freedom of choice’

and this value conflict has been known to develop when recreating and therefore balk at the idea of not

into more overt forms of conflict. being allowed to use all areas of a park or forest.

‘Source” of

Impact

Qecipientlr of Impact

Visitors Park Community

I 1

Visitors

Visitor - Visitor

Park

4

Park - Visitor

7

Community

Community - Visitor

2 3

Visitor - Park Visitor - Community

5 6

Park-Park Park- Community

Source: Little and Noe 1984

Figure 2. -Interaction model for various levels of recreation conflict.

442
5. Management to Management-Just as different

visitor groups may have different sets of values

regarding the proper use of the resource, so may

management personnel from different backgrounds

have different values and beliefs regarding the

management of resources. Management of fire and

insects in wilderness is an example, where some

resource managers feel strongly that both fire and

insects need to be managed on an ecosystem basis,

even in wilderness zones. ‘Stocking of fish’ in

wilderness lakes is another conflict issue among

recreation-resource managers.

6. Management to Community - Management of

recreation resources and use often conflicts with

how local people from surrounding communities

have traditionally used these areas. Newly formed

parks that prohibit hunting, collecting of ginseng,

picnicking on the roadside, and the use of short-cut

roads are resented because local community residents

have long considered these ‘territorial” rights. In

these situations, management is interfering with the

recreational goals of local residents as they have

traditionally learned to use resource areas.

7. Community to Visitor- Many national parks,

such as Great Smoky Mountains and Rocky Mountain,

have gateway cities that detract from the wildland

recreation experience of many visitors. The highly

developed tourist economies and gaudy visual

displays of these areas are in conflict with the

nonurban experience that many visitors are seeking.

Noise and visual impacts on the boundary of parks/

forest also detract from solitude expectations of visitors

within the interior of some areas.

8. Community to Management-Special interest

groups, community officials, and even influential

community citizens can place pressures upon

management of nearby resource areas that result in

conflict. Community interests may force management

of nearby recreation areas to allow community events

that are considered inappropriate by management.

Some examples are the annual raft race in the

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area and

the National Kayak Competition on the Tellico River

in the Cherokee National Forest. Conflict resolution

is often necessary to arrive at an agreeable solution

concerning these demands upon recreation management agencies.

9. Community to Community- Business interests

within communities and among adjacent communities

may be at odds in receiving concession contracts

for recreational services. Competition among outfiiers

can be fierce and lead to recreational conflict,

particularly when it comes to allocation allotments.

The purpose for discussing and illustrating the

matrix of conflict level offered by Liile and Noe has

been to emphasize that conflict in outdoor recreation

is not simply a user to user confrontation over the

spatial allocation of recreational activities. Conflict

commonly occurs at each of these levels and it is

important to recognize this potential. Only by being

aware of the full spectrum of conflict potential can

recreation managers aim to prevent conflict situations

from reaching the costly political and legal arena of

conflict resolution.

MANAGING RECREATIONAL CONFLICT

WITHIN THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITY

SPECTRUM

Now that we have considered some of the major

causes of outdoor recreation conflict, and the many

levels at which conflict can occur, it is time to consider

a scheme for preventing and managing conflict.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is

an organizing framework for setting recreation

management objectives (Driver and others 1987).

One of those objectives could be the reduction of

outdoor recreation conflict. In this portion of the

paper, recreation conflict will be analyzed in view of

the ROS framework; it will be suggested that ROS

should assist in conflict prevention and even resolution.

The ROS framework adopts the viewpoint that

recreation resource managers produce recreation

opportunities and that recreationists use these

opportunities to produce recreation experiences and

benefiis for themselves (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1982). Within ROS, a recreation

opportunity has three components: an activity, a

resource setting, and a experiential component.

Using these three components, a recreation opportunity is defined as the opportunity to participate in a

desired recreation activity within a preferred type of

setting to realize desired and expected experiences.

For example, people participating in a variety of

recreation activities of a chosen style (cross-country

skiing versus downhill) in chosen settings (wilderness

versus developed ski areas) will realize preferred

and satisfied experiences (exercise, companionship,

etc.). These opportunities for activities, settings,

and experiences range across a spectrum from

modern-urban to primitive (table 1).

443
1

Ta b le l.--Re cre ation opportuni ty spe ctr um

R OS class Activities en gaged in W ith spe ci fic re cre ation a l s e tti n gs To re alize ce rtain experien ce s

Prim i ti ve (P)

Se m iprim itive

n on m otoriz e d

( SPNM)

Se m iprim itive

m otoriz e d

(SPM)

Roaded na tural,

appe aring

(RNA)

Vie w i n g ou ts tandin g s cene ry

Enjoying unique and /or unusual

e n viron m e n ts

H ik ing

Cross- cou n try sk i touring an d

s n ow sh oe ing

H orseba ck riding

Can oe ing

Saili n g

O th e r n on m otorized w ate rcraft

use

Sw im m ing

Divi n g (sk in or Scuba )

Fish i n g

Ph otograph y

Cam ping

Snow play

H u n ti n g (b i g, s m all gam e , u p land

birds , and w ate rfow l)

Nature s tudy

Acquiring gene ral k n ow le d ge /

unde rstandin g

U n guided h ik ing

Gene ral In form ation

All of th e activities m e n tioned in

a b ove classes p lus th e follow i n g:

M otor-driven ice and sn ow craft

O RV touring

Pow e r b oating

All of th e activities m e n tioned in

a b ove classes p lus th e

follow i n g:

Are a is ch aracte rized by essen tially unm odi fied na tural e n viron m e n t of fairly

large size . In te raction be tween use rs

is ve ry low and e viden ce of oth e r are a

use rs is m inim al. Th e are a is m anaged

to be essen tially free from e viden ce of

m an-indu ced re s trictions and con trols.

M otorized use wi th in th e are a is n ot

pe rm itte d .

Are a is ch aracte rized by a pred om inan tly

n a tural or n a tural-appe aring

e n viron m e n t of m od e rate - to- large size .

In te raction be tween use rs is low , b u t

th e re is often e viden ce of oth e r users.

Th e are a is m anaged in such a w ay th at

m ini m u m onsite con trols and res triction s

m ay be presen t, b u t are sub tle .

M otorized use is n ot pe rm itte d .

Are a is ch aracte rized by a pred om inan tly

n a tural or n a tural-appe aring e n viron -

m e n t of m od e rate - to- large size .

Con ce n tration of use rs is low , b u t th e re

is often e viden ce of oth e r are a users.

Th e are a is m anaged in such a w ay th at

m ini m u m onsite con trols and res triction s

m ay be presen t, b u t are sub tle .

M otorized use is pe rm itte d .

Are a is ch aracte rized by p re d om inan tly

n a tural-appe aring e n viron m e n ts w ith

m od e rate e viden ces of th e si gh ts and

Extre m e ly h igh probabi lity of

e xpe riencih g considerab le isolation

from th e sigh ts and sounds of m an.

independen ce , closeness to n a tur e ,

tra nqui li ty , and se lf-r e lian ce

th rough th e application of w oodsm an

sk ills in an en viron m e n t th at offe rs

a h igh d e gree of ch alle n ge and risk .

H igh , b u t n ot e xtre m e ly h igh , probabi lity

of e xpe rie n ci n g th e a b ove listed na tural

e n viron m e n t e le m e n ts.

M od e rate probabi lity of e xpe rie n ci n g th e

a b ove listed na tural e n viron m e n t e le m e n ts,

e xce pt th at th e re is a h igh d e gree of

i n te raction w ith th e n atural e n viron m e n t.

Explicit opportuni ty is a vaila b le to use

m otorized equip m e n t w h ile in th e are a.

Ab ove equ al probabi lity to e xpe rie n ce

affiliation w ith oth e r user groups and

for isolation from sigh ts and s ounds of m a n .
1

Table l.--Recreation opportunity spectrum --Continued

ROS class Activities engaged in With specific recreational settings To realize certain experiences

Rural (R)

Picnicking

Gathering forest products

Auto touring

Water skiing and other water

sports

Automobile camping

Trailer camping

Viewing interpretive signs

Organization camping

Lodges

Power boating

Resort-commercial public

services

Resort lodging

All of the activities mentioned in

above classes plus the

following:

Competitive games

Ice skating

Scooter-motorcycle use

Bicycling

Spectator sports

Jogging

Passive use of developed parks

and open space

Picnicking

Outdoor concerts

Modern-urban All of the activities mentioned in

(MU) above classes

sounds of man. Such evidences usually

harmonize with the natural environment.

Interaction between users may be low

to moderate, but with evidence of other

users prevalent. Resource modification

and utilization practices are evident,

but harmonize with the natural environment

Conventional motorized use is provided for

in construction standards and design of

facilities.

Area is characterized by substantially

modified natural environment. Resource

modification and utilization practices

are primarily to enhance specific

recreation activities and to maintain

vegetative cover and soil. Sights and

sounds of man are readily evident, and

the interaction between users is often

moderate to high. A considerable number

of facilities are designed for use by a

large number of people. Facilities are

often provided for special activities.

Moderate densities are provided for a way

from developed sites. Facilities for

intensified motorized use and parking are

available.

Area is characterized by a substantially

urbanized environment, although the

background may have natural-appearing

elements. Renewable resource modification and utilization practices are

Opportunity to have a high degree of

interaction with the natural environment.

Challenge and risk opportunities associated

with more primitive type of recreation are

not very important. Practice and testing

of outdoor skills might be important.

Opportunities for both motorized and

nonmotorized forms of recreation are possible

Probability for experience affiliation

with individuals and groups in prevalent

as is the convenience of sites and

opportunities. These factors are

generally more important that the

setting of the physical environment.

Opportunities for wildland challenges,

risk-taking, and testing of outdoor

skills are generally unimportant except

for specific activities like downhill

skiing, for which challenge and risktaking are important elements.

Probability for experiencing affiliation

with individuals and groups is prevalent,

as is the convenience of sites and opportunities. Experiencing natural environments,

having challenges and risks afforded by
When analyzing recreation conflict in light of

ROS, it is obvious that the two concepts are related.

Jacob and Schreyer’s (1980) conceptualization of

conflict, particularly the factors of activity style,

resource specificity, and model of experience,

correlate well with the three ROS components of

activity, resource setting, and experience. In fact,

most causal factors related to conflict can be

discussed under the three broad components of

activity, resource setting, and experience. The same

thought processes and analyses that are required

for classifying activities, resource settings, and

experience outcomes under the ROS framework will

serve to classify many of the causal factors of conflict

that occur. Following is an analysis of how some

factors underlying recreation conflict might be

classified under the ROS system.

Activity

Type and Style-Certain types of recreational

activities just are not compatible from a safety

standpoint. Deer hunting and hiking, motorboating

and swimming, and similar activities have to be zoned

for the safety of visitors. Styles of camping, such as

tent versus recreational vehicle camping, need to be

separated due to noise and equipment requirements

(Bond and Ovellette 1968; LaPage 1967a, 1967b).

Tent campers resent the noise of RV compressors,

while RV campers commonly resent the lifestyle of

many young tent campers. Status and social class

conflicts certainly fall into this class, as indicated by

the work of West (1977). ROS is based on the

principles of resource inventorying, mapping and

area classification, and zoning to provide for a diversity

of uses without undue user conflict.

Specialization- Over the life-time of participation

in an activity or due to the character of certain

individuals, people tend to specialize in the way they

recreate (Bryan 1977; Donnelly and others 1987;

Roggenbuck and others 1980). Specialization occurs

in terms of equipment, resource setting, commitment,

style of participation, etc., and how one views the

appropriateness of other users and the activii style

selected. The specialization within fishing (from the

canepole bluegill fisherman to the dry-fly trout

fishermen) or within wilderness camping (weekend

shelter user to the through hiker on the Appalachian

Trail) is a common cause for conflict. ROS provides

opportunities for the specialist, particularly toward

the semi-primitive and primitive ends of the spectrum.

Mode of Travel -At issue here is the appropriateness of machines and motors in outdoor recreation

environments. For some visitors, outdoor recreation

is a means to escape the mechanized-urban world;

446
for others the machine is a means of escaping into

the unconfines of the outdoors (Bury and others

1976; Jackson 1957). Many factors are at play behind

judging the appropriateness of travel mode in outdoor

recreation, including psychological motives for

participation (Driver and Knopf 1976; Knopf 1983)

consumptive versus nonconsumptive attitudes (Knopp

and Tyger 1973) wilderness attitudes (Hendee and

others 1971) and the simple principle of effort

extended (i.e., tired backpackers commonly resent

the easy travel of horseback riders). While most

mode-of-travel conflict starts out as asymmetrical

(only one-way conflict) (Jackson and Wong 1982)

the conflict resolution process, if political or public,

commonly evolves into a symmetrical relationship

where both sides are at conflict. Using the ROS

process to plan mode of travel activities can lead to

the prevention of conflict, and the eventual confrontations characteristic of public conflict resolution

processes.

Resource

Crowding-Crowding conflicts are both resource

and experience based, but under our ROS classification are placed under resource, for crowding by

definition deals with density, and density translates

to numbers per unit area (Heberlein 1977). Visitor

definitions of crowding vary by activity and resource

setting, and their expectations and feelings as to

what use levels are appropriate in what areas are

instrumental in evaluating crowding as an interference

to recreation satisfaction (Hammitt 1983). The ROS

classifications from modern-urban to primitive take

density and crowding into consideration, offering

guidelines for level of interaction within each of the

spectrum classifications.

Possessiveness and Aff iliatlon With ResourcePeople who have used a resource for many years

(repeated users) and those who live adjacent to a

resource (locals) commonly display a possessive

attitude toward the resource. The visitor’s affiliation

with the resource is often very strong, to the point

that ‘it is their place by virtue of knowledge and

familiarity (Lee 1972): The resource becomes a

special, a unique place, not because of its physical

qualities, but rather, due to memories, tradition, and

familiarity of place (Jacob and Schreyer 1980; Tuan

1977). Because of this attachment with place,

‘outsiders’ are viewed as ‘taking over the area’ and

have no right to do so (Driver and Bassett 1975).

Such feelings cause conflict at several levels within

the Little and Noe (1984) model. For example,

possessive users resent outside users, feel they

should have a major say in management of the area,

and even view the resource area as a community

property. ROS is of little assistance in preventing this

type of recreational conflict.

Resource Character - Many resource areas,

and perhaps even settings, can be classified for

their tolerance toward or capacity to handle conflict

situations. As an example, river areas and in particular

river rapids, are recreational environments prone to

conflict. Rivers are restricted corridors that concentrate

users, making it more difficult to classify the resource

into a broad spectrum of use’ zones that can

accommodate large numbers of users with varying

activity styles, preferred resource settings, and desired

experience outcomes. However, the ROS process

does require that resources be inventoried and

classified according to their recreation resource

character. The ROS concept can also be applied at

different levels of resource classification (i.e. million

acre wilderness or a 30 mile stretch of river corridor).

Once the resource is classified and zoned according

to its character, management prescriptions can be

developed to protect that character. Thus, ROS

provides a scheme for recognizing and managing

resource character, which should reduce conflict for

users requiring different levels of resource character

for their leisure activities.

Experience

User Behavior-The behaviors displayed by

various individuals, groups, and types of users are a

source of much recreation conflict. Outdoor recreation

is a ‘shared’ phenomenon, often resulting in shared

beliefs (norms) of how activities ought to be carried

out in commonly perceived resource settings. For

example, most dry-fly, brook trout fishermen have

shared feelings and expectations as to how the activity

should be conducted, and what behaviors are

appropriate. Most activity groups have a set of

appropriate behaviors that are shared. Thus, they

are quick to recognize ‘inappropriate’ behaviors, and

this is a major source of recreation conflict.

The social structure of groups often determines

their shared beliefs concerning appropriate behavior.

Teenage groups desiring a high degree of interaction,

affiliation, and social oriented behavior are commonly

at conflict with adult groups seeking a passive,

isolated, and nature oriented experience. Yelling,

loud radios, and littering are common associates of

teenage recreation that are little appreciated by adult

recreationists and resource managers. The modernurban and rural end of the recreation opportunity

spectrum allows for more socially oriented behaviors

and experiences. Group and organizational camping

fits this end of the spectrum, while remote camping

is more suited to the primitive side of the spectrum.

447
Use Patterns-Size of group and mode of travel

are two important use pattern issues that are a major

source of conflict in wildland recreation. Wilderness

backpackers find large groups of hikers and

horseback/trailbike riders inappropriate in wilderness

areas. They argue that these types of use in wilderness

detract from the solitude and primitive experience

that backpackers seek (Hendee and others 1978).

Wilderness backpackers commonly desire size limits

on group size and separate trails for hikers versus

horse/bike riders. Group size and mode of travel are

also conflict issues on wild and scenic rivers. ROS

does not address these use pattern issues directly;

it does indirectly through activity classification. For

example, wilderness camping is placed at the primitive

end of the ROS but no provision is made for small

versus large groups or foot versus horse travel within

the primitive category of the spectrum, However, the

ROS concept can be applied at various levels, and

perhaps adapted to deal with other issues than activity,

resource setting, and experience. The concept of

resource inventory, classification, and zoning so as

to provide a diverse spectrum of recreational opportunities can be applied to trail management as well as

broad scale land management.

Participation Motives- Because outdoor recreation is goal oriented (Le., to bag a deer, catch fish,

find a peaceful, tranquil environment, develop outdoor

skills, etc.), recreationists usually are motivated to

participate in activity situations that offer a good

possibility of fulfilling these goals (Driver and Tocher

1970). They anticipate the opening day of trout fishing

season, have expectations for the experience, and

are motivated often by very strong feelings when

engaging in this annual event. However, the expectations and participation motives of canoeists, on the

same river as the trout fishermen, are likely to be

quite diierent from those of the fishermen. The

method, behavioral actions, and intensity with which

both groups are driven to fulfill their expected goals

will likely vary. Thus, the goals and participation

motives of each group of users may be at odds with

each other, result in goal interference, and, recreation

conflict.

The “experience’ component at ROS is based on

motivation theory and recreation motivation research

(Driver and others 1987). ROS provides a means to

classify, zone, and manage recreation lands in an

attempt to provide opportunities where differing

participation motives can be fulfilled. However, outdoor

recreation behavior and motivation behavior are both

complex, and it is impossible for ROS to eliminate

motivation-caused recreation conflict. ROS does

offer a process for analyzing recreational lands in a

way that should reduce potential conflict situations.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper has attempted to review the broad

and varied spectrum of conflict in outdoor recreation.

There is a broad spectrum of psychological and

social factors that serves to describe potential

situations for conflict occurrence. There is also a

spectrum of levels at which recreation conflict can

occur, from the user to the surrounding community.

And finally, there is the spectrum of recreation

opportunity (ROS) framework that offers a means for

planning and managing recreation lands so as to

prevent potential recreation conflict situations from

occurring. ROS is not a complete solution for

managing outdoor recreation conflict, but the concept

does address the major conditions necessary for

conflict, social contact, and resource character.

Because outdoor recreation, and leisure in

general, are important aspects of a quality life and

are continuing to increase in popularity, the potential

for recreation conflict is likely to increase. To this

extent it is essential that the recreation planning and

management process strives to understand the

causes, situations, clientele, and prevention of

recreation conflict. Being able to understand and

identify conflict potential could be a valuable asset

for the recreation planning/management process. It

can serve to reduce the number of conflict situations

that evolve into interest group battle grounds that

eventually have to be resolved in political arenas.

This paper has not concentrated on the specific

and complex issue of conflict resolution. More and

more conflicts seem to be ending up in the legal

courts for resolution. Special interest groups and

institutions are heavily involved with the conflict

resolution cause. The purpose of this paper has

been to address the causes, levels, and management

of outdoor recreation conflict before it reaches the

stage of political and legal means of resolution. As

stated by Jacob and Schreyer (1980:378), ‘once

recreationists have allied themselves with interest

groups and causes, conflict resolution becomes a

costly political and legal process over which the

resource managers may have little control. Therefore

it is imperative that the potential for conflict be

recognized at a stage where preventative actions

may be taken.’

448
REFERENCES

Allport, G.W. 1958. The nature of prejudice. Garden

City, NY: Doubleday. 496 pp.

Bond, R.S.; Ovellette, G.J. 1968. Characteristics of

campers in Massachusetts. Bull. 572. Amherst,

MA: University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts

Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative

Extension Service.

Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational

specialization: the case of trout fishermen. Journal

of Leisure Research. 9(3):174-l 87.

Bury, R.L.; Holland, S.M.; McEwen, D.N. 1983.

Analyzing recreational conflict, Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation. 38(5):401-403.

Bury, Richard L.; Wendling, Robert C.; McCool,

Stephen F. 1976. Off road recreation vehicles, a

research summary 1969-l 975. MP-1277. College

Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

Publication. 84 pp.

Chubb, M.; Chubb, H.R. 1981. One third of our

time: an introduction to recreation behavior and

resources. New York: Wiley.

Donnelly, M.P.; Vaske, J.J.; Graefe, A.R. 1987.

Recreation specialization and commitment. Paper

presented at the NRPA Research Symposium,

New Orleans, LA.

Driver, B.L.; Bassett, J.R. 1975. Defining conflicts

among river users: a case study of Michigan’s Au

Sable River. Naturalist. 26(1):19-23.

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

T.G. 1987. The ROS planning system: evolution,

basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure

Sciences. 9(3):201-212.

Driver, B.L.; Knopf, R.C. 1976. Temporary escape:

one product of sport fisheries management.

Fisheries. 1:21-29.

Driver, B.L.; Tocher, R.C. 1970. Toward a behavioral

interpretation of recreational engagements, with

implications for planning. pp. 931. In: Driver, B.

L., ed. Elements of outdoor recreation planning;

proceedings of a national short course held in

Ann Arbor, Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml: University of

Michigan Press,

Hammitt, William E. 1983. Toward an ecological

approach to perceived crowding in outdoor

recreation. Leisure Sciences. 5(4):309-320.

Heberlein, T.A. 1977. Density, crowding, and satisfaction: sociological studies for determining carrying

capacities. pp. 67-76. Proceedings, river recreation

management and research symposium. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-28. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station. 455 pp.

Hendee, J.C.; Gale, R.P.; Catton, W.R. 1971. A

topology of outdoor recreation activity preferences.

Journal of Environmental Education. 3(1):28-34.

Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Robert

C. 1978. The wilderness management. Misc. Publ.

1365. Washington, DC: United States Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 381 pp.

Jackson, Edgar L.; Wong, Robert A.G. 1982. Perceived

conflict between urban cross-country skiers and

snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research. 14(1)47-62.

Jackson, J.B. 1957. The abstract world of the

hot-rodder. Landscape. 7(2):22-27.

Jacob, Gerald R.; Schreyer, Richard. 1980. Conflict

in outdoor recreation: a theoretical perspective.

Journal of Leisure Research. 12(4):368-380.

Knopf, R.C. 1983. Recreational needs and behavior

in natural settings. pp. 205-232. In: Altman, I.;

Wohlwill, J., eds. Behavior and the natural environment. New York: Plenum Press.

Knopp, T.B.; Tyger, T.O. 1973. A study of conflict in

recreational land use: snowmobiling vs. ski-touring.

Journal of Leisure Research. 5(3):6-l 7.

LaPage, W.F. 1967a. Successful private campgrounds: a study of factors that influence length

and frequency of camper visits. Res. Pap. NE-58.

Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment

Station.

LaPage, W.F. 1967b. Camper characteristics differ at

public and commercial campgrounds in New

England. Res. Note NE-59. Durham, NH: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station,

449
Lee, R.G. 1972. The social definition of outdoor

recreation places. pp. 68-84. In: Burch, W.R.; Cheek,

N.H.; Taylor, L., eds. Social behavior, natural

resources, and the environment. New York: Harper

and Row.

Little, W.; Noe, F.P. 1984. A highly condensed

description of the thought process used in developing visitor research for southeast parks. Atlanta,

GA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, Southeast Regional Office. 40 pp.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Space and place: the perspective

of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press. 235 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982.

ROS user’s guide. Washington, D.C. 38 pp.

West, P.C. 1977. A status group dynamic approach

to predicting participation rates in regional recreation demand studies. Land Economics.

63(2):196-211.

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Wellman, J.D.; Smith, A.C. 1980.

Specialization, displacement, and definition of

depreciative behavior among Virginia canoeists.

Final Report. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic

and State University, Department of Forestry. 109

PP.

450
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY

Alan R. Graefel

Abstract-Social psychological carrying capacity is a

management concept that incorporates both scientific

and jtidgmental elements. It involves a wide range of

variables that influence the quality of the outdoor

recreation experience. Use of the concept has

progressed from an initial concern with “finding the

carrying capacity” to a new emphasis on identifying

and maintaining the conditions that will produce the

desired quality experiences.

INTRODUCTION

in 1964, Wagar defined carrying capacity as ‘the

level of recreational use an area can withstand while

providing a sustained quality of recreation.’ Implicit

in this definition, as well as other writings of this

time, was recognition of at least two components of

carrying capacity: a quality environment and a quality

recreational experience. Since that time, the concern

for maintaining a quality recreation experience in the

face of increasing numbers of visitors has generally

been identified with the term, social psychological

carrying capacity (or social carrying capacity). The

concept has evolved considerably, however, over

the years and social psychological carrying capacity

has different connotations today than it did 20 to 25

years ago. A definition reflecting more current

concepts and viewpoints identifies social psychological carrying capacity as the ‘level of use beyond

which experience parameters exceed acceptable

levels specified by evaluative standards” (Shelby and

Heberlein 1986).

The evolution of social psychological carrying

capacity came about during a period of burgeoning

recreational use of natural areas. Literally hundreds

of studies have addressed various aspects of social

carrying capacity in a wide variety of outdoor

‘Associate Professor, Department of Recreation and Parks, The

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

recreation environments. A number of recent publications provide in depth summaries of this literature

(Graefe and others 1984a, 1984b; Manning 1985;

Shelby and Heberlein 1986; Stankey and Schreyer

1987). This paper will not repeat the detailed literature

reviews provided in these previous articles. Instead,

it will attempt to identify the dominant themes and

trends evident in existing literature related to this

topic. To accomplish this, the paper discusses four

major principles that encompass the major findings

and conclusions of research conducted to date.

PRINCIPLE 1

Social psychological carrying capacity involves a

wide range of variables that may influence the

quality of the outdoor recreation experience.

One of the major conclusions that can be derived

from research related to social carrying qapacity is

that there is no single predictable response of visitors

to varying use levels. Rather, visitors are affected by

a series of interrelated impacts which result from

recreational use of a given area (fig. 1). Recreational

use leads most directly to tangible outcomes, like

contacts between visitors and impacts on the natural

environment. These social and environmental impacts,

in turn, can lead to a variety of perceptual and

behavioral responses by visitors.

It is useful to view the various items shown in

figure 1 as potential types of impact to the experience

and to recognize that several sequential levels of

impacts may occur. First order impacts (contacts

between users and resource impacts) may contribute

to any combination of impacts within the next level

(i.e. perceived crowding, dissatisfaction, perceived

resource impacts, and conflicts between users.) But

not all of these impacts will necessarily occur in all

situations. When they do occur, the various impacts

may tend to reinforce each other. For example, a

person may feel more crowded if he/she perceives

the environment to be degraded or if he/she experi452
I

I I

Con!act5 Between users ksoarce impacts

I

I

I

I I 1 I

Perceived CrortigH Dissatisfaction Perceived ~esonrce Impacts H confects between users

I

I 1 I

I

I

I 1

Visitor Displacement

Figure 1. -Social impacts of increasing recreational use.

encesconflicts with other visitors (Stankey and

Schreyer 1987). On the other hand, some forms of

impact may act to offset or cancel out other impacts.

The perception of crowding may be reduced, for

example, if a person responds by moving to a different

environment (displacement) or by changing his or

her perceptions of the experience (experiential

change).

Since social psychological carrying capacity

ultimately is concerned with the quality of the

recreation experience, it must incorporate consideration of all of these potential impacts to the experience.

A common shortcoming of most previous carrying

capacity studies is that they have typically considered

only a subset of these indicators and thus have

provided an incomplete picture of what is happening

in a given situation.

PRINCIPLE 2

Social psychological carrying capacity is a management concept or framework, not a scientific theory.

There is, generally, consensus in the literature

that carrying capacity is most appropriately viewed

as a management concept or tool, a means toward

the end of providing a certain type of quality experience. The initial concern with Yinding the carrying

capacity’ is gradually being replaced with an emphasis

on identifying and maintaining the conditions that

will produce the desired quality experiences. For

example, current management frameworks like the

Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey and others

1985) and Visitor Impact Management (Graefe and

others 1987) address the concerns that originated in

the carrying capacity concept, yet barely mention

the term ‘carrying capacity.’

452

Carrying capacity management frameworks

recognize that the implementation of social psychological carrying capacities requires value judgments as

well as scientific information. Virtually everything

written about carrying capacity in recent years has

recognized that it is not simply a matter of research.

Carrying capacities cannot be determined in the

absence of value judgments that specify the type of

experience a given area is attempting to provide.

In spite of widespread recognition of the necessary

role of value judgments, the task of incorporating

judgments into the decision making process has

remained difficult. Fortunately, several recent publications have addressed this issue. Shelby and Heberlein

(1986) provide a useful framework that clearly

delineates the scientific and judgmental components

of carrying capacity. Their framework includes a

descriptive component, which is concerned with

documenting relationships between use-related

variables and their corresponding impacts, and an

evaluative component that incorporates value judgments about the desirability of various use impacts.

The descriptive component is further broken down

into two important types of variables: management

parameters (e.g., use level) and impact parameters

(e.g., crowding and the other types of impacts shown

in fig. 1). The evaluative component identifies the

types of information that can be used in selecting

the appropriate levels of relevant impact parameters

(for example, for deciding how much crowding is too

much).

While many authors (e.g., Hendee and others

1978) have stressed the importance of developing

management objectives that clearly specified the

type of experience to be provided, managers often

seem reluctant to write such objectives. In response,
current visitor management frameworks, such as the

Limits of Acceptable Change and Visitor impact

Management, include explicit steps that isolate the

evaluative aspects of the capacity question. Both of

these frameworks feature a step-by-step process for

identifying unacceptable conditions, probable causes

of these conditions, and alternative management

solutions. Some of the preliminary steps in these

processes require selecting indicators and corresponding standards to identify the conditions that

are judged to be acceptable in a given situation.

These steps are designed to provide a mechanism

to assist in incorporating necessary value judgments

into the visitor management process.

PRINCIPLE 3

Relationships between visitor use levels and

impacts to the experience are complex and mediated by a variety of background and situational

factors.

Shelby and Heberlein (1986) suggest that

determining social carrying capacities requires

knowing the relationship between use levels (and

other management parameters) and relevant impact

parameters. This is true because it is not possible to

manage for a specified level of impact without

understanding how the impact parameters are

affected by visitor use.

Research indicates that the relationships between

use and the quality of the visitor experience are not

as simple as the original carrying capacity concept

implied. Impacts to the outdoor recreation experience

are, by definition, a consequence of recreational

use. But the strength and nature of the relationship

with use intensity varies widely for different types of

impacts, and under differing circumstances, for a

given type of impact. Numerous studies have challenged the fundamental hypothesis underlying social

psychological carrying capacity, namely that increased visitor density would reduce the quality of

the recreation experience. Instead, studies have

shown that the amount of use affects the quality of

the experience differently for different people. It

appears that use level influences the experience

primarily through a series of mediating variables and

in combination with other factors.

One of the most important factors affecting

use/impact relationships is the inherent variation in

tolerance among individuals and user groups. Put

simply, all people do not respond the same way to

encounters with other visitors. The importance of

solitude varies for participants in different activities

and depends on many different background characteristics, such as previous experience, motivations and

attitudes (Graefe and others 1984a; Stankey and

McCooll984; Wagar 1964). Manning (1985) suggests,

for example, that prior experience affects crowding

perceptions and norms either through refinement of

tastes or by virtue of exposure to lower density

conditions during earlier participation.

The response of recreationists to contacts with

others also depends on the characteristics and

behaviors of those encountered. A given individual

may be quite tolerant of contacts with one type of

user (e.g., hikers) and very intolerant of contacts

with another user type (e.g., off road vehicles). The

extent to which one type of use impacts another

depends upon the norms visitors use to evaluate the

appropriateness of specific behaviors they encounter.

Method of travel and group size are the most visible

cues for determining the extent of perceived similarity

between different user types.

Visitor evaluations of their recreation experiences

are also influenced by environmental and situational

factors. In other words, the response of a given

individual to a particular type of contact may also

depend on the time and location of the contact. For

example, encounters at a trail head or on a trail are

typically viewed more favorably by visitors than

encounters with similar numbers of people within

sight or sound of one’s campsite (Hendee and others

1978; Stankey 1973).

In sum, the relationships between use levels and

various impacts to the experience are neither simple

nor uniform. Yet these relationships are the basic

building blocks for social psychological carrying

capacity.

PRINCIPLE 4

For any given area, there is no inherent single

carrying capacity; rather these will be a range of

capacities corresponding to various objectives for

the area.

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that

carrying capacity is a relative concept. The answer

to the question, “what is the carrying capacity’ of a

given area, should never be an unqualified single

number. The answer should always be, ‘it depends.’

It depends on evaluative considerations; what are

the objectives and the corresponding impact standards for the area in question? It also depends on

scientific information: what is the nature of the

relationship between use and the relevant impact

indicators? Finally, it depends on activity and site453
specific issues; what type of use and what particular

times and places are under consideration?

This does not mean that it is impossible to

determine social psychological carrying capacities. It

does imply that it is important to consider carrying

capacity in very specific terms. It also implies that, in

cases where there is no relationship between the

number of visitors and the relevant impact indicator(s),

the question of capacity is not applicable because

the problem is not associated with use level. In other

cases where use/impact relationships are weak or

indirect, as has been found in many studies, other

management strategies, focused specifically on

factors that are contributing to the problem conditions,

may be more effective than attempting to determine

carrying capacities.

A common theme in the literature suggests that

carrying capacity should be approached from a

systematic perspective that considers each recreational area as part of a larger system of areas. A range

of carrying capacities is an important element of

such a systematic approach to recreation management. Providing a diversity of opportunities to meet

the wide diversity of tastes among outdoor recreationists should be a goal of recreation management now

and in the future (Stankey and Manning 1986).

REFERENCES

Graefe, AR.; Kuss, F.R.; Vaske, J.J. 1987. Recreation

impacts and carrying capacity: a visitor impact

management framework. Washington, DC: National

Parks and Conservation Association. 107 pp.

Graefe, AR.; Vaske. J.J.; Kuss, F.R. 1984a. Social

carrying capacity: an integration and synthesis of

twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences

6(4):395-431.

Graefe, A.R.; Vaske, J.J.; Kuss, F.R. 1984b. Resolved

issues and remaining questions about social

carrying capacity. Leisure Sciences. 6(4):497-507.

Hendee, J.C.; Stankey, G.H.; Lucas, R.C. 1978.

Wilderness management. Misc. Pub. 1365. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service.

Manning, R.E. 1985. Crowding norms in backcountry

settings: a review and synthesis. Journal of Leisure

Research. 17(2):75-89.

Shelby, B.; Heberlein, T. 1986. Carrying capacities in

recreational settings, Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Press.

Stankey, G.H. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness

recreation carrying capacity. Res. Pap. INT-142.

Ogden, UT: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 62 pp.

Stankey, G.H.; Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C. [and others].

1985. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system

for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 37 pp.

Stankey, G.H.; Manning, R.E. 1986. Carrying capacity

of recreational settings. In: A literature review.

Washington, DC: President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors, Management-47 to

Management-57.

Stankey, G.H.; McCool, S. 1984. Carrying capacity in

recreational settings: evolution, appraisal and

application. Leisure Sciences. 6(4):453-474.

Stankey, G.H.; Schreyer, R. 1987. Attitudes toward

wilderness and factors affecting visitor behavior: a

state-of-knowledge review. pp. 246-293. In: Proceedings, national wilderness research conference:

issues, state-of-knowledge, future direction. Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Wagar, J.A. 1964. The carrying capacity of wildlands

for recreation. Society of American Foresters,

Forest Science Monograph. 23 pp.

454
MAKING BARRIERS MANAGEABLE: A CALL FOR THE USE

OF PARADIGMS IN BARRIERS RESEARCH

Gary D. Ellis and Craig Rademacherj

Abstract- The central premise on which this paper is

based is that the topic of recreational barriers, as

current/y pursued in the professional literature, is

unmanageably broad. It is argued that significant

progress cannot be made in developing an understanding of that topic until paradigms are established

to facilitate theory development and guide research.

Examples are provided of how the barriers topic

might be addressed within four emerging paradigms:

Neulinger’s ‘Paradigm of Leisure,’ the arousal seeking

theory of play, “Leisure Diagnostic Battery paradigm,

and the flow mode. Common themes across these

models are also explored and some future directions

for inquiry on the topic of recreational barriers are

suggested.

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps one of the most intuitively obvious

directions for research in recreation and leisure is

that of barriers to recreation participation. The barriers

issue is as relevant to park managers as lt is to

therapeutic recreation personnel who work in treatment facilities. In park settings, managers are

challenged not only to identify obstacles which

preclude participation by their ‘latent demand’ markets

(Howard and Crompton 1980) but also to facilitate

the alleviation of barriers which limit the frequency,

duration, and style of participation of current users.

In treatment centers, recreation therapists must

identify and alleviate personal and environmental

factors which constrain both recreation participation

and the rehabilitation process of individuals who

have suffered injuries and disabilities.

Despite the ubiquity of the problem, only a limited

number of studies have been conducted in which

Vlirector, Western Laboratory for Leisure Research, Instructor,

Department of Recreation and Leisure, University of Utah, Salt

Lake Cii, UT.

the authors specifically identified barriers as the

central topic under investigation (Boothby and others

1981; Ellis and Witt 1986; Francken and Van Raaij

1981; Henderson and others 1988; Jackson 1988;

McGuire 1984; Searle and Jackson 1985a; Searle

and Jackson 1985b; Wii and Goodale 1981; Wi

and Goodale 1985). Typically in these studies a list

of potential barriers is linked to some external predictor

or criterion. Witt and Goodale (1981) for example,

examined variation in such barriers as time, money,

knowledge of use of available resources, and family

obligations across family life stage. Jackson (1988)

studied a similar list of barriers as they relate to nine

different categories of leisure activities.

In their review of literature related to barriers to

recreation participation for the Presidents’ Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO), Ellis and

Rademacher (1986) noted that, although research

involving lists of barriers is very limited, ‘. . . the topic

of barriers to recreation and leisure is virtually as

broad as the field itself.’ In fact, lf a barrier is defined

as ‘any factor which precludes or limits an individual’s

frequency, duration, or quality of participation in

recreation activities,’ (Ellis and Rademacher 1986)

any study in which recreation participation serves as

a dependent variable can be thought of as a study

of a potential barrier. User density, for example,

becomes a barrier when density levels become so

great that the individual perceives the setting as

being crowded. The absence of density levels, which

create perceived crowding, on the other hand, may

be thought of as a facilitator of recreation participation

(Barefoot and others 1981; Manning and Ciali 1980;

Shelby 1981; Shelby and others 1988).

The potential scope of the barriers topic, therefore,

is enormous. Wade (1985) has edited an entire book

on the topic and, in the PCAO review, Ellis and

Rademacher (1986) identified major categories of

potential personal and environmental barriers. Table

1 includes a summary of these categories, along

with representative barriers within each.

455
Table 1 .--Some major categories of barriers of leisure

Category Examples

Optimal barriers to arousal

Physical adaptation

Biological rhythms

Perception of competence

and control

Intrinsic motivation

Awareness of opportunities

and resources

Roles and norms

Social skills

Quality of available resources

Quality of interpersonal

environment

Availability of resources

Personal

Illness: disability; lack of

homeostasis

Fitness: stress

Ciradiam and diurnal rhythms

Depicted failures; self degenerative

attributions; lack of perceived

contingency between behaviors and

outcomes

Overjustification via extrinsic

rewards; lack of curiosity

Knowledge of leisure; inappropriate

information provided

Inappropriate role

resources to use

identity

Poor interpersonal

Environmental

models; lack of

leisure to affirm

skills

Given the scope of the barriers issues, leisure

researchers are faced with an incredibly challenging

task. How does one gain insight into the nature of

barriers and their relationship to recreation participation when the topic is unmanageably broad? As a

first step in addressing this question, it is useful to

note that the problem of narrowing one’s focus is

not at all unique to researchers who are interested in

the barriers issue. In fact, the problem of establishing

focus is common to science itself (Kuhn 1970). Faced

with the challenge of understanding the nature and

motion of subatomic particles, biological processes,

and the infinite and perplexing array of human

behavior, scientists adopt ‘paradigms’ to develop

understandings and insights. Paradigms consist of

theoretical and conceptual propositions about the

nature of the phenomenon under investigation. These

propositions enable scientists to focus on the most

relevant variables within the paradigm, and to ignore

the myriad additional variables which are not targeted

by the paradigm as being relevant to understanding

the phenomenon.

Lack of Opportunity for novelty,

complexity, dissonance

Poor aesthetic quality

e.g.. crowding, noise, litter,

absence of opportunity for

tranquility

Overdirectiveness of significant

others: user density and perceived

crowding; inappropriate social

groups; lack of friends with

similar interests

Lack of time; lack of sufficient

money; distance; fear

It seems reasonable to assume that the problem

of narrowing the scope of the barriers issues can be

effectively addressed through the use of paradigms.

Rather than continuing to study arbitrary lists of

potential barriers which intuitively make sense, the

use of paradigms can provide direction and focus

for barriers research. Mannell (1986) and Wii and

Ellis (1985) showed how the use of paradigms has

partially resolved problems of definition and meanings

of such key terms as play, recreation, and leisure,

thereby permitting operationalization of key variables

and, ultimately, scientific growth in recreation and

leisure. This paper will consider some major recreation

and leisure paradigms, and propose some major

barriers which may be prominent within those

paradigms. Four major paradigms will be considered:

Neulinger’s (1981) paradigm of leisure, the arousal

seeking theory of play (Ellis 1973) the Leisure

Diagnostic Battery paradigm (Ellis and Witt 1986)

and the flow model (Csikszentmihalyi 1975).

456
BARRIERS WITHIN NEULINGER’S

PARADIGM OF LEISURE

Neulinger’s (1981) paradigm of leisure is an

attempt to categorize the conditions which produce

leisure and nonleisure states of mind. According to

the paradigm, two variables determine an individuals’

experiential state at a given point in time: perceived

freedom and motivation. Neulinger points out that

perceived freedom is the ‘one and only’ essential

criterion for leisure experiences to occur (Neulinger

1981). Individuals experience leisure when they

perceive their involvement in an activity to be freely

chosen. Individuals who are involved in an activity

due to necessity or ‘perceived constraint,’ on the

other hand, are not experiencing leisure.

Neulinger’s (1981) paradigm, however, also

proposes the existence of different types of leisure

and nonleisure experiences. These experiences

include all possible combinations of experiences of

‘leisure,’ ‘work,’ and ‘job.’ The specific type of leisure

or nonleisure experience in which an individual is

involved is determined by the particular combination

of perceived freedom and the type of motivation the

individual has for being involved in the activity. Three

types of motivation are of concern: intrinsic motivation,

extrinsic motivation, and a combination of intrinsic

and extrinsic motivation.

Different leisure and nonleisure states are associated with each combination of the levels of the

perceived freedom and motivation variables. If, for

example, an individual is under the condition of

intrinsic motivation and perceived freedom, his or

her experiential state will be best described by a

condition of ‘pure leisure.’ If motivation is extrinsic

but perceived freedom is present an experiential

condition of ‘leisure-job’ will be present. Nonleisure

conditions are also explained by the model. ‘Pure

work’ exists when motivation is intrinsic and a

“perceived constraint’ exists. Neulinger’s (1981)

diagram which succinctly summarizes the paradigm

is presented in figure 1.

With this brief introduction to Neulinger’s (1981)

paradigm, we may now turn to the issue of barriers.

The paradigm clearly targets the “perceived

freedom/perceived constraint’ variable as the key

determinant of whether or not a condition of leisure

is being experienced. Barriers are any factors which

are causally linked to that variable.

Identification of these barriers must begin with

an explicit definition of the perceived freedom/

perceived constraint continuum. Neulinger (1981) is

particularly explicit about the meaning of perceived

freedom. He points out that perceived freedom to be

.

. . . a state in which the person feels that what he/she

is doing is done by choice and because one wants

to do it’ (p. 15). The meaning of this term is also

held to be intuitively obvious: ‘no philosophical

definition of freedom is required (since) everyone

knows the difference between doing something

because one has to and doing something because

one wants to’ (p. 15).

Freedom

Perceived Freedom

Motivation Motivation

Intrinsic Intrinsic Extrinsic

and

Extrinsic

Intrinsic Intrinsic Extrinsic

and

Extrinsic

(1) (2) (3)

Pure Leisure- LeisureLeisure Work Job

Leisure

Perceived Constraint

(4)

Pure

Work

(5)

WorkJob

(6)

Pure

Job

Non-Leisure

____________________________ State of Mind ____________________________

Figure 1.-A paradigm of leisure.

457
Perceived constraint, therefore, can be thought

of as a perception that one is doing an activity

“because one has to’ rather than *because one wants

to.’ Barriers, within Neulinger’s (1981) paradigm of

leisure, are factors which promote this sense of

obligation.

Identification of major barriers, therefore, requires

the identification of the major sources of individuals’

perceptions of obligations. To a great extent, it seems

that such perceptions would stem from the presence

of overbearing conditions and overdirective’significant

others” (Bishop and Jeanrenaud 1985). For children,

major sources of overdirectiveness might include

parents, teachers, older siblings, domineering peers,

and recreation leaders who do not appreciate the

need of the individual for independence. Potential

sources of overdirectiveness for adults would include

perceived obligations from work (Sprietzer and Snyder

1987) church and civic organizations, and demands

and expectations from spouses, children, and

members of friendship groups. In a park setting,

overdirectiveness might be experienced by visitors

who encounter interpreters and rangers who seek

more to obtain conformity with rules than to help

people learn to understand and respect rules. The

emerging practice of rangers wearing firearms may

even create a stronger sense of obligation among

visitors. For ill and disabled individuals in institutions

a major source of overdirectiveness would be the

medical and rehabilitative staff of the institution (Langer

1988).

Other factors may also create a sense of obligation, The fitness fad in popular culture, for example,

makes us feel obligated to maintain an active lifestyle

and to pursue fitness and appropriate nutrition. We

may feel obligated to get in our 20 minutes of exercise

each day rather than read a favorite book or watch a

favorite television show. Cultural pressures for upward

mobility occupationally and “keeping up with the

Jones family’ may lead us to feel obligated to spend

nights working rather than in freely chosen activities

which produce leisure experiences.

Within Neulinger’s (1981) paradigm, therefore,

both cultural and interpersonal forces may be the

most important direction for barriers research.

Additionally, it is possible within Neulinger’s paradigm

to identify barriers which discriminate among the

type of leisure experiences, i.e., pure leisure, leisurework, and leisure-job, The identification of these

barriers would begin with an analysis of the intrinsic

motivation and extrinsic motivation concepts (which

Neulinger considers to be separate and orthogonal).

With knowledge of the conditions under which intrinsic

motivation and extrinsic motivation apply, along with

knowledge of sources of perceived obligation, one

could effectively specify the nature of the experience

of individuals in particular sets of circumstances. The

Neulinger (1981) paradigm clearly offers the potenti;

to provide focus on the enormously broad topic of

barriers.

BARRIERS WITHIN THE LEISURE

DIAGNOSTIC BATTERY PARADIGM

Another conceptual model which proposes that

a condition of freedom is at the heart of leisure is

the Leisure Diagnostic Battery (LDB) paradigm (Ellis

and Wii 1984, 1986). Although both the LDB and

Neulinger’s paradigm focus on freedom, fundamental

differences exist between the two. Rather than

focusing on the nature of individuals’ experiences in

particular sets of circumstances, the LDB addresses

relatively stable beliefs people hold about themselves,

with regard to their perceived degree of ability to

determine the initiation, process, and outcome of

leisure experiences. An individual who believes that

he or she is able to freely choose and participate in

activities in such a manner that positive feelings of

self determination and competence are produced is

assumed to have a high degree of perceived freedom

in leisure. Individuals who do not feel capable of

making such choices and who expect to have

unsuccessful and unrewarding experiences, on the

other hand, are assumed to have low degrees of

perceived freedom in leisure.

Attribution theory has been used to explain how

this sense of perceived freedom is established,

changed, or maintained (Weiner and others 1971).

Of concern are the attributions people make to their

own competence or incompetence following successful and unsuccessful recreation engagements. An

individual’s perceived freedom is enhanced when he

or she attributes successes to his or her personal

competence (skill, ability, wisdom, creativity, etc.)

and failures to such unstable or uncontrollable factors

as fate, bad luck, fatigue, or lack of effort. The opposite

attributional pattern is considered to be a “selfdegenerative’ attribution pattern and is assumed to

undermine individuals’ perceived freedom in leisure

(Ellis and Witt 1986). This self-degenerative pattern

has been linked to depression and associated

dysfunctional behaviors (Ellis and Niles 1985; Ellis

and Witt 1986; Iso-Ahola 1980).

The question of barriers within the LDB paradigm

has been approached conceptually as well as

empirically. From a conceptual standpoint, the

attributional explanation targets as major barriers

those factors which lead individuals to the utilization

458
of a self-degenerative attribution pattern. An example

would be an inability to find indicators of success

within engagements which overtly seem to be failures.

The fly fisherman who hiked 10 miles to a remote

lake only to find the fish uncooperative could find

indicators of competence in his or her casting

technique or ability to match the aquatic insects with

artificial flies. Attributions of such successes to

personal competence and the overall failure to catch

fish to, say, the changing weather or water temperature, would serve to protect the fisherman’s sense of

perceived freedom. An attribution in the order of ‘I’m

not a good fisherman,’ on the other hand, would be

dysfunctional. If such an attribution were the fisherman’s typical response to an unsuccessful engagement, a barrier to perceived freedom would exist.

Similar to Neulinger’s (1981) paradigm, overdirective significant others may be a prominent force in

establishing these self-degenerative attributional

patterns. Of particular concern would be the significant

other who provided feedback which either supported

the self-degenerative attribution pattern or was not

contingent upon the individual’s performance. The

lack of contingency between the individual’s behavior

and the outcome does not permit a sense of self

determination and, if noncontingent responses

become the norm, a sense of helpless depression

can result (Miller and others 1985). People need a

chance to succeed as well as to fail. Wiihin the LDB

paradigm, barriers exist when an individual is unable

to recognize successes as being a result of his or

her competencies.

Barriers within the LDB paradigm have also been

addressed empirically. The presence of personal

and environmental behaviors such as lack of time,

money, transportation, and appropriate social group

would seem to limit an individual’s repertoire of

potential recreation activity choices. As discussed in

the introduction to this paper, however, the number

of barriers which could be problematic is endless.

Ellis (1983) conducted a study which was designed

to work toward a parsimonious grouping of barriers

which would distinguish between people who were

high and low in perceived freedom. In that study,

groups of individuals at various levels of perceived

freedom responded to a series of questions representing 24 barriers to their recreation participation. Two

discriminant functions explained the significant

variation between the groups. The first of these was

comprised of such items as “there are enough places

nearby where I can go play; ‘it is easy for me to find

fun things to do,’ and there is a park near me where

I can play if I want to.’ That function was named

“Availability of Resources.’ Items such as “I have a

lot of friends to do things with,” ‘I can easily talk in a

group,” and ‘other children usually let me play with

them’ produced high correlations with the second

discriminant function. Each of these items included

an interpersonal theme, leading to a name of

‘gregariousness/sociability barriers” for the second

function. This study provides an example of an

empirical approach to the problem of identifying

manageable groups of barriers within a particular

paradigm.

BARRIERS WITHIN THE AROUSAL

SEEKING PARADIGM

The arousal seeking theory of play paradigm is

based on the theoretical position that humans, as

animals, seek information loads which foster an “ideal

physiological and affective condition of activities’

(Ellis 1973). This optimal condition is in effect a

reflection of the ebb and flow of personal and

environmental elements of arousal. Arousal has been

described as an enhancement of a primal investigatory

reflex known as the orienting reflex (Pavlov 1927). In

man, the orienting reflex serves much the same role

as in other animals; readying the organism for some

appropriate action (Berlyne 1960). Arousal then,

manifests itself as a complex and integrative process

of selective attention and information processing

which has a specific tie to the immediate environment.

Environmental attributes such as novelty, complexity,

and dissonance (Berlyne 1960) impact the relative

degree of activation which is experienced by a person

at a given time. Although the environment plays a

significant role in arousal seeking behavior it is

important to understand arousal as phenomena with

strikingly individual characteristics.

The arousal process originates in two areas of

the brain-the cerebral cortex and the reticular

activating system (RAS) (Ellis 1973). The RAS is a

gatekeeper of stimuli, letting input flow to the cortex

where it is then processed resulting in a regulation

of the PAS. The cyclical form of arousal is referred to

as cortical arousal-focusing on attention, alertness,

vigilance, and information processing (Zillman 1982).

The ability of an organism to maintain arousal at an

optimal level allows that organism to function more

efficiently within an environment. Sensoristasis

(Schultz 1965) is the term used to describe the level

of arousal which is considered to be optimal for an

organism. The complexity and individuality of sensoristasis in humans is compounded by the recognition

that arousal can be produced through levels of

thinking-cognitive activity (Stephenson 1967; Berlyne

1960). Zuckerman (1983) explains the complex

biological makeup of sensation seeking as involving

neural chemicals, gonadal hormones, genetic relation459
Supraoptim al

Range of

optim al

arousal

Suboptim al

Anlm a 1

acts to

optlm lz e

arousal

~pcfect

Low Inform ation load H igh

Figure 2. -Model of arousal theory and play.

ships and the involvement of the limbic system . . .

(arousal) is described as a complex, possibly inherited,

certainly individualized phenomenon (Ellis and

Rademacher 1986). Ellis’ (1973) theory of play as

arousal regulating behavior presents a conceptual

backdrop which posits that there exists in man a

need for arousal, and that the drive toward optimal

arousal may be utilized to explain behavior and leisure

experiences, The conceptual model of arousal-seeking

behavior is presented in figure 2.

The position that arousal seeking behavior may

account for play behavior and other leisure experiences holds several assumptions:

1. Individuals have a need for optimal arousal.

2. The movement of an individual toward optimal

arousal is pleasant.

3. Individuals learn to associate feelings of arousal

with behavior.

4. Stimuli vary in their capacity to arouse.

5. The drive toward optimal arousal forces the

changing of behavior, and the continued engagement

with stimuli, which is arousing.

6. Arousing stimuli are forms of information which

provide some involvement with novelty, complexity,

and/or dissonance.

These assumptions present a picture of the

arousal phenomenon as being innately driven yet

460

strongly dependent on environmental conditions/

situations. In addition, there is a suggestion that

arousal seeking behavior may be learned and

manipulated by higher organisms- particularly man.

The proposition that individuals pursue behavior

that either avoids or integrates arousing stimuli, with

the primary purpose being movement toward optimal

arousal, suggests that some aspects of the arousal

phenomenon may be manipulated while others

cannot. Barriers to recreation participation, as viewed

from the ‘optimal arousal as play’ paradigm, are a

function of the complex arousal potentiality of the

human organism and the relationship of that organism

with stimuli of a given environment.

Physiological Attributes as Barriers to

Recreation Participation

Within the confines of the arousal paradigm,

recreation participation, “is behavior which is motivated

by the need to elevate the level of arousal toward

the optimal’ (Ellis 1973). Any factor which significantly

affects the arousal potentiality of an individual may

be interpreted as being a barrier to recreation

participation.

It is important to underscore the idea that arousal,

and the barriers to arousal, are integrative and

dynamic in nature. As such, the physical potentiality

of an individual plays a significant role in the functioning of an organism as lt pertains to arousal seeking

behavior and so recreation participation. The dynamic

quality of arousal seeking is illustrated in the interplay

between sensoristasis and homeostasis (Wade 1985).
Homeostasis (Cannon 1932) is the regulation of

biological processes directly tied to physical activity.

Regulation of activity is linked to individual biological

limitations (e.g., heart rate, temperature, oxygen

consumption, etc.), which form a physiological

‘window’ within which optimal arousal seeking

behavior must function. In essence, the relationship

between homeostasis and sensoristasis may be

viewed as counterbalancing and mutually inclusive

in determining the range of behavior which may fall

into the category of recreation participation. In this

sense, an individual’s physiological health, level of

conditioning, biological predispositions, and neurological functioning affect one’s homeostatic balance,

and so may be considered barriers to participation.

Although resource managers may have little

influence as to the range of arousal seeking behavior

that an individual brings into a recreation setting, it

is important to understand three important concepts

which originate in the discussion of physiological

attributes. First, there is likely to be a broad spectrum

of physiological potential inherent in any individual

or group of resource users. Second, the concept of

resource use is integrally tied to a complex sensing

and interpretation of the resource environment as

forms of information which are for all intents and

purposes arousal stimuli (Kaplan and Kaplan 1982).

Finally, individual recreation/leisure behavior is part

of a dynamic, and in some respects a self generating

process with roots in the learned movement toward

the satiation of optimal arousal needs. The importance

of these concepts to modern land management

theory and practice is in the recognition that the

manipulation of recreation resources, or lack of

manipulation, is a key component in availability/

limitation of information, and so arousal potential.

Environment Attributes as Barriers to

Recreation Participation

Attributes of the environment provide and enhance

stimuli for an organism. The arousal paradigm views

information when novel, complex, or dissonant as

the primary source of stimuli for an organism. The

ability to manipulate information, in all its forms, is

how Ellis (1973) described the role of play in moving

an organism toward optimal arousal.

Paramount in understanding the role environmental attributes play in clarifying the barrier issue is the

awareness that the “environment’, which the arousal

paradigm speaks to, is understood as diverse and

not limited to the typical land area classification.

Environment also refers to one’s psychological/

cognitive frame of reference in a given situation or

setting. Working from this perspective, the environment may become a barrier to recreation participation

if the information present provides a level of novelty,

complexity, or dissonance which is unsuitable for

physical or cognitive stimulation of the organism. In

this sense, some environmental conditions, although

managed with good intentions, fail in moving an

individual or groups of individuals toward the preferred

level of optimal arousal. In some cases environmental

conditions may actually deter optimal arousal.

Land managers who are involved in decision

making based on the concept of optimal arousal

become manipulators of information which may or

may not act as stimuli to recreation land users. The

importance in viewing land management as information manipulation has been addressed from slightly

different perspectives. The Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum @OS) (Clark and Stankey 1979) was

developed as a means of varying available experience

across a particular setting or groups of settings.

Essentially the ROS may also have preserved a high

degree of novelty, complexity, and dissonance in

those same settings. Similarly, environmental interpretation strives to enhance user arousal/attention by

building psychological/cognitive novelty, complexity,

and/or dissonance into public relations, resource

management, education, or law enforcement based

materials (Sharpe 1982).

Understanding that managing the environment is

integral in building and tearing down barriers to

recreation participation means managers must weigh

the inherent and produced stimuli of the environment

within their charge and make decisions accordingly.

The optimal arousal paradigm, although seeming to

add direction to land management decisions, certainly

expands management responsibility. By projecting

the impact of barriers beyond the scope of the physical

environment there is an added incentive for managers

to understand the impact of psychological/cognitive

environmental factors.

461
BARRIERS TO PEAK EXPERIENCES: THE

FLOW MODEL

The flow paradigm sprang out of a study of

enjoyable experiences which took place in both work

and leisure settings (Csikszentmihalyi 1975). Flow is

based on the experiential state described by Mihalyi

Csikszentmihalyi (1975) as a singular construct with

the following experiential characteristics:

1. A merging of action and awareness;

2. A centering/intense focusing of attention;

3. Loss of self consciousness/ego awareness:

4. Perception of great power and control:

5. C\lear demands for action and unambiguous

feedback;

6. The absence of a need for external rewardsautotelic activity.

The flow state is often described as a peak

experience which represents a matching of participant

skills with the challenge at hand. The flow model (fig.

3) illustrates the relationship between skills and

challenges. Wiihin the confines of the paradigm,

mismatched-skills challenges produce the experiential

states of boredom and anxiety.

High

Perhaps the most important aspect of the Ylow’

paradigm is the concept of peak experiences within

recreation activities. The presence of peak experiences in recreation and leisure activities/setting

certainly speaks to the issue of recreation participation

possibly being tied to a developmental process.

Peak experiences in other life situations are often

viewed as developmental in their benefit (Damon

1963; Horney 1950; Maslow 1962). So, the Ylovf

paradigm is an assumption that peak experiences,

composed of the six flow characteristics previously

mentioned, are encountered during participation in

recreation activities. As this occurs, the flow experience

becomes one of positive affect and so the experience

is viewed as enjoyable. Barriers to recreation participation within the Vow’ paradigm would limit the ability

or opportunity of an individual to experience ‘flow’ in

a particular setting or situation.

Several undiscussed elements of this paradigm

may prove to be barriers to recreation participation

within the Vow paradigm. These issues may be

addressed as barriers tied to skill development and

barriers linked to challenges within a particular

situation/setting.

The barrier issues that relate directly to skills of

a recreation participant are issues of depth in a

particular skill and the development of a large

recreation skill repertoire. Both the depth and breadth

Action Capabilities

(Skills)

*High

Figure 3. -Model of the flow experience.

462
of skill development become barriers to recreation

participation within the flow paradigm due to the fact

that differing skill components require a matching of

differing challenge components in the flow model.

This raises questions of how the experience of flow

varies within and across enjoyable experiences. Is

the flow experience transferable across similar

activities?

The specific nature of the flow experience is not

clearly understood in regard to these questions.

Barriers to recreation participation based on the

“skill” side of the flow paradigm may include both

actual skill limitations as well as perceived limitations.

Perceived skill is an important limiting factor to take

into account as potential recreators are inundated

with information and queries as to how to conduct

leisure experiences. The plurality of leisure opportunities in modern times certainly may be viewed as a

psychobgical constraint in activity selection, and so

skill development. A prime example of this phenomenon is the white water rafter who can only have

a leisure experience while consuming alcohol because

that is how he has come to understand rafting from

prior experiences with media, other rafters, etc.

Barriers to recreation participation based on the

challenge of specific settings become issues of

access/opportunity and conflict between competing

skills in a particular setting. Setting management, as

a function of flow management, is a very salient

feature of wildland management. It is important in

that the resulting peak experiences of wilderness

recreationists seems to depend upon a psychological

and physical relationship with risk/challenge inherent

in wildland settings. Being cognizant of the myriad

recreation activities that take place in public lands

makes addressing barrier issues in an equitable way

nearly impossible. Within the flow paradigm, a need

exists to assure varied recreation opportunity while

limiting activity conflict within any particular setting.

In doing so, land managers guarantee a level of

experiential opportunity which may otherwise be lost.

It is important to mention that exploring potential

barriers to recreation participation within the flow

paradigm of leisure requires an understanding of

flow as a simplified model of experience. However,

although the model has heuristic value it cannot

substitute for a thorough understanding of the

complexity of the actual flow experience. In addition,

if we are to understand leisure from an experiential/

subjective frame of reference we must realize that no

experience takes place as an unrelated isolated

event.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The paradigms discussed within this paper may

prove to be valuable tools in separating questions

concerning barriers to recreation participation.

However, the value of each paradigm in specifically

identifying barriers is limited by the validity of each

paradigm in clarifying the nature of the recreation

activity/experience. It should also be noted that

questions concerning the nature of recreation participation, leisure, and barriers to participation are

expanding well beyond the current knowledge base

in this field. The burgeoning ‘need to know” about

barriers to recreation participation is in essence a

call for further efforts in understanding the relationship

between people, their recreation and leisure, and

environmental conditions which influence participation. It is a call for tools of understanding which may

better guide leisure services and recreation/resource

management in the future.

Common Themes

A common theme evident in the barriers to

recreation participation question involves the personal

nature of the recreation/leisure experience. The nature

of participation may, therefore, be viewed as a function

of individual potentiality and identity. Each paradigm

examined in this paper has consistently presented a

basis of understanding recreation and leisure phenomena which reflects the intensely individual nature of

participation/ experience and the psycho-social

confines within which recreation occurs. Although

the paradigms overtly address the individuality of the

recreation participation question there is also an

underlying theme which addresses the psycho-social

nature of modern recreation and leisure participation.

As suggested earlier, recreation participation does

not occur in a vacuum. The psycho-social setting

within which the recreation participation question is

seated in is known as modernity. Modernity is the

psycho-social condition which individuals face in

post-modern/post-industrial society. Modernity is

typically described as a sense of personal

fragmentation-loss of identity. John Marx (1980, p.

162) describes the societal aspect of the dilemma of

modernity as follows:

‘The most distinctive characteristics of postindustrial/post-modern society will be the bewilderingly rapid rates of change in the symbolic

meanings, models, and interpretations that

constitute the domain of expressive culture; the

other defining attribute of this type of society is

the stability, rigidity, and resilience to change of

its basic institutional designs, structural patterns,

and role-status relations.”

463
Marx explains ‘. . . that identity as well as the

rest of expressive culture is so thoroughly detached

and segregated from institutional structures that it

becomes self-consciously constructed model of/for

subjectively experiencing private meaning, meanings

which have no (public) significance for (changing)

the world out there’ (p. 164-165).

The impact of Marx’s comments are quite strong

if we adopt any leisure paradigm which is based on

subjective experience- which all four paradigms

discussed here are. Modernity becomes a barrier to

recreation participation because it establishes identity

formation as an experiential process. As such, the

interplay between modernity and self-definition, (and

so self-perception, self-regulation, feelings of power

and control, and sources of motivation) becomes

muddled. From this perspective the recreation

experience is part and product of modernity. In this

sense, modernity may be a significant barrier to

recreation participation and vice versa.

Recognizing the personal and psycho-social

themes within the barriers discussion gives us some

insight into the complexity of the barriers issue-in

spite of using paradigms as defining elements. The

job of the recreation/resource manager of modern

times becomes more complicated, and so management more sophisticated. The discussion of barriers

to recreation participation may impact management

of resources the most by bringing out the need for

more individualized management schemes. Perhaps

we’re seeing the final days of the “shot gun’ approach

to recreation management on public lands. The

management agenda for the future must be supported

by a better understanding of the recreation participation issues - particularly barriers to participation.

Future Directions

Several needs for conceptualization and research

on barriers are implied by this paper. One of these is

to determine the outcomes with which to associate

barriers. The outcomes associated with the paradigms

discussed in this paper were leisure experiences

(Neulinger’s paradigm), perceived freedom (LDB),

arousal, and flow. What barriers are associated with

recreation activity choice decisions and styles of

participation preferred? What barriers affect preferences and how do these relate to expectations,

satisfaction, and user experiences? The development

of such paradigms to describe such phenomena

must precede barriers research in these areas.

In addition to the need for development of

additional paradigms to explain a broader array of

leisure phenomena is the need for validation of existing

models. Neulinger’s (1981) paradigm is frequently

cited and seems easily testable through experience

sampling methodology (Larson and Csikszentmihalyi

1988), but only limited validation research on that

model has been reported (Hultsman and Russell

1988). The LDB measure of perceived freedom has

been subjected to tests of convergent and discriminant

validity (Ellis and Witt 1986) but only one limited test

of the attributional underpinnings of the concept

which is measured by the instrument has been

attempted (Ellis and others 1986). Although arousal

is a thoroughly researched topic, only a few studies

have utilized the concept in play behavior studies

and none of these were directed at validation. Serious

questions also remain with regard to the flow model.

Critics of the model have raised the question of

whether a flow experience associated with low skills

and low challenge is equivalent to the flow experience

associated with high skills and high challenge.

Validation efforts of these and other major paradigms

(e.g., Driver 1977; Tinsley and Tinsley 1985) is

essential for scientific growth in recreation and leisure

to continue. Finally, the modernity issue raised in the

previous section is a very important, yet neglected,

direction for leisure research.

Barriers research becomes manageable and

relevant following this process of validation of

paradigms. Experimental and correlational methods

may be used to determine the extent to which barriers

such as those proposed in this paper actually interfere

with the targeted outcome. Within Neulinger’s

paradigm, for example, the extent to which perceived

obligation actually precludes leisure experiences

should be addressed. Studies are also needed to

examine barriers within the other paradigms.

At the heart of this paper is a call for increased

reliance on paradigms. The use of these conceptual

devices narrows our focus and provides the opportunity for parsimonious solution to a very large and

complex problem. Further attempts to generate

knowledge about barriers without such focus can

only lead to additional confusion and frustration.

464
REFERENCES

Barefoot, J.C.; Strickland, L.H.; Housch, S. 1981.

Ego-threat and the privacy-sociability of leisure

activity choice. Journal of Leisure Research.

13(4):307-310.

Berlyne, D.E. 1960. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity.

New York: McGraw-Hill. 350 pp.

Bishop, D.W.; Jeanrenaud, C. 1985. Creative growth

through play and its implications for recreation

practice. pp. 87-l 04. In: Goodale, T.L.; Wii, P.,

eds. Recreation and leisure: issues in an era of

change. State College, PA: Venture.

Boothby, J.; Tungatt, M.F.; Townsend, AR. 1981.

Ceasing participation in sport activity: reported

reasons and their implications. Journal of Leisure

Research. 13(1):1-l 4.

Cannon, W.B. 1932. The wisdom of the body. New

York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Clark, Roger N.; Stankey, George H. 1979. The

recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for

planning, management, and research. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 32 pp.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975. Beyond boredom and

anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Damon, W., ed. 1983. Social and personality development: essays of the growth of the child. New York:

W.W. Norton.

Driver, B.L. 1977. Item pool for scales designed to

quantify the psychological outcomes desired and

expected from recreation opportunities. Fort Collins,

CO: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Ellis, G. 1983. The development and explication of a

typology of adolescents’ leisure functioning.

Denton, TX: North Texas State University. Ph.D.

dissertation.

Ellis, G; Niles, S. 1985. Development, reliability, and

preliminary validation of a brief leisure rating scale.

Therapeutic Recreation Journal. 19(1):50-61.

Ellis, G.; Rademacher, C. 1986. Barriers to recreation

participation. In: A literature review: President’s

Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office.

Ellis, G.; Williams, D.; Ramos, C. 1986. An examination

of the attributional explanation of perceived freedom

in leisure among college students. Abstracts from

the 1986 symposium on leisure research. Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Ellis, G.; Witt, P. 1984. The measurement of perceived

freedom in leisure. Journal of Leisure Research.

16(2):110-123.

Ellis, G.; Witt, P. 1986. The leisure diagnostic battery:

past, present, and future. Therapeutic Recreation

Journal. 20(4):31-47.

Ellis, M.J. 1973. Why people play. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Francken, D.A.; van Raaij, W.F. 1981. Satisfaction

with leisure time activities. Journal of Leisure

Research. 13(4):337-352.

Henderson, K.A.; Stalnaker, D.; Taylor, G. 1988. The

relationship between barriers to recreation and

gender role personality traits for women, Journal

of Leisure Research. 20:69-80.

Horney, K. 1950. Neurosis and human growth: the

struggle toward self-realization. New York: Norton.

391 pp.

Howard, D.R.; Crompton, J.L. 1980. Financing,

managing, and marketing recreation park resources. Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown Co. Publishers.

490 pp.

Hultsman, J.; Russell, R. 1988. Assessing the reliability

of the measurement component of Neulinger’s

paradigm. Journal of Leisure Research. 20:1-9.

Iso-Ahola, S.E. 1980. Social-psychology of leisure

and recreation. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Jackson, E.L. 1983. Activity specific barriers to

recreation participation. Leisure Sciences.

6(1):47-60.

Jackson, Edgar L.; Wong, Robert A.G. 1982. Perceived

conflict between urban cross-country skiers and

snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research. 14(1):47-62.

Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R. 1982. Cognition of the environment: functioning in an uncertain world. New York:

Prager.

Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions,

(2d ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langer, E.J. 1983. The psychology of control. Beverly

Hills: Sage.

465
Larson, R.; Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1983. The experience

sampling method. In: Reis, H., ed. New directions

for naturalistic methods in the behavioral sciences.

San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Mannell, R.C. 1986. Problem, progress, and usefulness

of theory and research on leisure as experience.

Abstracts from the 1986 symposium on leisure

research. Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and

Park Association.

Manning, R.E.; Ciali, C.P. 1980. Recreation density

and user satisfaction: a further exploration of the

satisfaction model. Journal of Leisure Research.

12(4):329-345.

Marx, J.H. 1980. The ideological construction of

post-modern identity models in contemporary

cultural movements. pp. 145169. In: Roland;

Robertson; Burkhart; Holzmer, eds. Identity and

authority: explorations in the theory of society. NY:

St. Martin’s Press.

Maslow, A.H. 1962. Toward a psychology of being.

Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. 214 pp.

McGuire, F.A. 1984. A factor analytic study of leisure

constraints in advanced adulthood. Leisure Sciences. 6(3):313-326.

Miller, W.R.; Rosellini, R.A.; Seligman, M.E.P. 1986.

Learned helplessness and depression, pp. 181-219.

In: Coyne, J.C., ed. Essential papers on depression.

New York: New York University Press. 507 pp.

Neulinger, J. 1981. The psychology of leisure.

Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Pavlov, I.P. 1927. Conditioned reflexes: an investigation of the psychological activity of the cerebral

cortex. (trans. G.V. Anrep). [London]:Oxford

University Press: Humphrey Milford. 430 pp.

Schultz, D.P. 1965. Sensory restriction: effects on

behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Searle, M.S.; Jackson, E.L. 1985a. Socioeconomic

variation in perceived barriers to recreation participation among would be participants. Leisure

Sciences. 7227-249.

Searle, M.S.; Jackson, E.L. 1985b. Recreation and

nonparticipation and barriers to participation:

considerations for the management of recreating

delivery systems. Journal of Recreation and Park

Administration. 3:2335.

Sharpe, G.W., ed. 1982. Interpreting the environment.

New York: Wiley.

Shelby, B.; Heberlein, T.A.; Vaske, J.J.; Alfano, G.

1983. Expectations, preferences, and feeling

crowded in recreation activities. Leisure Sciences.

6(1):1-14.

Shelby, Bo. 1981. Encounter norms in backcountry

settings: studies of three rivers. Journal of Leisure

Research. 13(2) : 129-l 38.

Sprietzer, E.; Snyder, E. 1987. Educationaloccupational fii and leisure orientation as related

to life satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research.

1 g(2): 149-l 52.

Stephenson, W. 1967. The play theory of mass

communication. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Tinsley, H.E.A.; Tinsley, D.J. 1985. A theory of the

attributes, benefits, and causes of leisure experience. Leisure Sciences. 8(1):1-45.

Wade, M.G. 1985. Constraints on leisure. Springfield,

IL: CC. Thomas.

Weiner, B.; Frieze, I.; Kukla, A. [and others]. 1971.

Perceiving the causes of success and failure. New

York: General Learning Press. 26 pp.

Witt, P.A.; Ellis, G.D. 1985. Conceptualizing leisure:

making the abstract concrete. pp. 105-l 17. In:

Goodale, T.L.; Witt, P., eds. Recreation and leisure:

issues in an era of change. State College: Venture.

Witt, P.A.; Goodale, T.L. 1981. The relationship

between barriers to leisure enjoyment and family

stages. Leisure Sciences. 4(1):29-49.

Witt, P.A.; Goodale, T.L. 1985. Barriers to leisure

across family stage. pp. 227-242. In: Wade, M.G.

Constraints on Leisure. Springfield, IL: Charles C.

Thomas.

Zillman, D. 1982. Television viewing and arousal.

pp. 53-67. In: Television and behavior: ten years

of scientific progress and implications for the

eighties. vol. 2: Technical reviews. Rockville, MD:

National Institute for Mental Health.

Zuckerman, M., ed. 1983. Biological bases of sensation

seeking, impulsivity, and anxiety. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

466
EQUITY ISSUES IN OUTDOOR RECREATION

Daniel L. Dustin and Richard C. Knopf’

Abstract- Outdoor recreation service delivery has

moved from a stage of rapid growth and development

to a stage characterized by limits. During this transformation, traditional conceptions of the public ‘right’ to

outdoor recreation are being shaken by the reality of

inadequate supply. Four categories of equity issues

that have loomed in face of this reality are described.

While these issues carry no easy solutions, the onus

is on the research community to render insight.

INTRODUCTION

In the closing chapter of Wildland Recreation

Policy, J. Douglas Wellman (1987) suggests that

management is today’s policy frontier. By that he

means we can no longer expect problems associated

with recreational use of public lands to be resolved

by a simple expansion of resources. Increasingly the

challenge is to manage wisely what we have. As

Wellman characterizes it, ‘wildland recreation managers are in the hot seat, and the future prognosis is

for more conflict as expansion of the wildland

recreation estate slows, recreation participation rises,

and the variety of recreation tastes increases.’

The wise management of existing resources is

our professional challenge. But wise management in

terms of what? To what goals or purposes do we

owe our allegiance? As public servants, is our

obligation only to serve the citizenry’s expanding

tastes for recreation? Or is it our duty, as Joseph

Sax (1980) argues, to elevate those tastes, to

encourage certain kinds of recreation and discourage

others? As public servants, are we to accommodate

only those people who express a demand for outdoor

recreation opportunities, or are we to seek out those

others who are disenfranchised, who are not participat-

‘Professor and Head, Department of Recreation, San Diego State

University, San Diego, CA; Associate Professor and Coordinator,

Leisure Studies, Arizona State University-West Campus, Phoenix,

AZ.

ing, and find out why? And what of our obligations

to the environment? Is wise management a humancentered notion only?

The purpose of this paper is to explore these

questions in the context of equity or fairness. Given

the public nature of outdoor recreation resources,

and given the fact that in a democracy all citizens

have an equal stake in the public trust, wise management necessarily means doing what is fair or equitable

for everyone.

However admirable this injunction, working

towards it is complicated and often times frustrating.

That it should be so is no excuse to forgo it. On the

contrary, that we should be willing to engage in the

debate indicates the progress we have made as a

human service profession. It is in this spirit that we

now take stock of our successes and failures in

outdoor recreation planning and policy so that we

might better serve the American public in the future.

THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

Perhaps the watershed incident in outdoor

recreation management occurred in the summer of

1970 in Yosemite National Park. Until that time the

history of outdoor recreation had been largely one of

expansion and growth. Lands had been set aside for

recreational purposes, agencies had been created

to administer those lands, and facilities had been

developed to serve greater and greater numbers of

Americans who were expressing their newly acquired

taste for outdoor recreation.

But now, in the heat of that Yosemite summer,

conflict occurred between recreationists with differing

needs and interests who were competing for the

same recreational space. The ‘freaks versus straights’

incident, as it was popularized in a National Park

Service film, symbolized the end of recreation

management as a process of accommodation and

the beginning of recreation management as a process

467
of conflict resolution. The idea of limited resources

was ushered in along with a sense of recreation as a

problem.

This problem of recreation precipitated an

ambitious research agenda over the last two decades

ranging from inquiries into the nature of recreation

needs and motivations, to the benefits derived from

recreation pursuits, to the various impacts associated

with recreation engagements, to alternative resource

management strategies. A recent review of the

resulting literature (Manning 1986) gives the distinct

impression that a concern for limits colors contemporary thought along with a concern for doing a better

job with what we have.

This concern is intensified by what seems to be

insufficient public funding for the proper management

of outdoor recreation lands. No matter how sincere

the professional commitment, in the absence of

adequate fiscal support it is difficult to accommodate

the public’s interest in outdoor recreation in a way

that maintains the quality of what they are enjoying.

What is currently being resorted to in the way of

alternative funding strategies, as we shall soon see,

is fraught with equity implications.

The research literature is also beginning to

sensitize us to the complex workings of things, to

the untold rippling effects that occur as a result of

our managerial and policy actions. We are beginning

to see connections previously unseen, to feel impacts

previously unfelt, to understand relationships heretofore not understood.

Emerging equity issues are thus beginning to

take form. They can be categorized broadly as issues

of access, use, environment, and management.

The Access Issue

In an era of increasing use of limited resources,

the question of carrying capacity has dominated the

literature. How many people can be accommodated

in a particular recreation area or facility without doing

irreparable damage to either the resource or the

quality of visitor experiences? It was hoped that an

answer to this question would provide justification

for any subsequent decisions to limit access to

overburdened recreation areas and facilities. While

the concept of recreation carrying capacity has proven

to be problematic as a management tool (Graefe

and others 1984; Stankey and McCool 1984), and

while there is movement away from it to the idea of

limits of acceptable change, resource managers are

still left with the thorny question of an equitable basis

upon which to limit access should it be deemed

necessary, Who gets in and who doesn’t?

The establishment of user fees for public recreation may be appropriate both from a social equity

perspective and from a more pragmatic economic

perspective (Fedkiw 1986). The sense is that for too

long taxpayers who have not benefited directly from

the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities

have subsidized others who have. Proponents of

user fees argue that it is only fair and equitable that

those who benefit directly should assume a larger

share of the cost of maintaining those recreation

areas and facilities (Howard 1988). User fees are the

mechanism for shifting that burden.

Not only do user fees appear to be socially

equitable, they offer welcome relief from the economic

pinch felt by most recreation land managers. If the

revenue generated by user fees can be earmarked

for maintenance of those same outdoor recreation

environments, then they seem even more reasonable.

Counterarguments to user fees generally include

a concern for possible discrimination against the

poor, a concern for the privatization of public

recreation, a concern for social stratification, and a

concern for the effect of fees and charges on the

meanings derived from outdoor recreation experiences (Cockrell and Wellman 1985). User fee opponents admonish the profession to consider carefully

the potential inequities of fees and charges before

moving forward with them (Dustin and others 1986;

Schultz and others 1988).

Besides user fees, there are many other rationing

mechanisms that have been touted for limiting access

to heavily used outdoor recreation environments.

They range from first come-first served arrangements,

to reservation systems, lotteries, geographical quotas,

length-of-stay limitations, and eligibility requirements.

All of these mechanisms, however, have been

shown to favor one segment of the population over

others (Cole and others 1987: Knopf and Schreyer

1985). So the search continues for the most equitable

rationing mechanism or combination thereof.

This search is made all the more difficult by a

lack of consensus regarding the fundamental purpose

of parks in American life. Should parks be considered

a basic need (Le., a ‘public good”), then certain

means for limiting access seem more equitable than

others. Should parks be considered a discretionary

item (i.e., a “private good’), then other rationing

mechanisms seem more appropriate. Until such a

consensus is reached, however, the debate over the

access issue is likely to intensify.

468
The Use Issue

Even if the access issue were resolved, there

would still be the question of what one is allowed to

do in outdoor recreation settings. This, too, is an

equity issue in light of the public nature of outdoor

recreation resources. Who determines appropriate

use? Should it be left to the individual who is exercising

his or her public property rights? Or should it be left

to professionals who are entrusted with the stewardship of outdoor recreation environments? This issue

is especially troublesome because most recreation

land managers come from forestry backgrounds and

are primarily concerned with resource protection

(Knopf’l988). Their mindset nourishes a view of

recreationists that is largely negative. According to

managers, recreationists do things to the environment,

things that should be stopped. Is this orientation to

service likely to result in equitable policy and management decisions or is it likely to lead to highly

discriminatory practices in the guise of eco-centric

concern?

And what of those who are left out of the use

issue altogether because the current menu of outdoor

recreation opportunities offers them nothing of interest

to begin with? What of ethnic minorities, disabled

populations, the elderly, etc.? If the flow of benefits

from public outdoor recreation resources is to wash

over the entire population, should we not be working

harder to serve the needs and wants of those groups

currently underrepresented in outdoor recreation

pursuits? (Knopf and others 1987).

Once again the issue boils down to the purpose

for which public recreation lands have been set aside.

If the professional obligation is to provide outdoor

recreation opportunities to meet expressed demand,

then we appear to be doing a good job. If the

professional obligation extends farther to the

identification - indeed the stimulation-of latent

demand and the creation of opportunities yet unimagined, then there is much to be desired. All of this

presupposes, of course, that serving human beings

is our primary professional mission.

have not taken. Such consideration would undoubtedly result in calls for increased restraint and

temperance in human recreational conduct for the

benefit of other members of the biotic community

(Leopold 1949). What can be anticipated in this

respect are heated discussions about human ‘rights’

conflicting with nonhuman ‘rights’. Whether or not

we have the capacity to step out of our humancenteredness for the sake of such discussions remains

to be seen.

The Management Issue

Intertwined with the aforementioned equity issues

is the possibility that management practices themselves unwittingly discriminate against certain segments of the population. The best example of

management-induced discrimination is the visitor

‘invasion-succession’ phenomenon, whereby veteran

recreationists who prefer little or no man-made

developments are displaced by others as resource

managers who build new facilities in response to

increasing use pressures (Dustin and McAvoy 1982;

Schreyer and Knopf 1984). Similarly, the delineation

of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum along an

urban-primitive continuum has been challenged as

only one possible dimension along which outdoor

recreation opportunities might be categorized

(Williams and Knopf 1985). There may be others as

well. To what extent, then, does our commitment to

that system limit the possibility of our envisioning

others?

Increasingly, recreation planners and policymakers must be aware of the equity implications associated with management induced change. As much as

possible, they must assess the possible rippling

effects of their decisions and anticipate the full costs

and benefits of their intended actions. Such assessment may well require a fundamentally different

orientation to planning, one that is sensitive to the

systemic properties of decision making processes.

(Knopf and Schreyer 1985).

FUTURE PROSPECTS

The Environment Issue

More and more, however, a concern for the

environment itself has entered into resource management discussions. If being fair to everyone includes

nonhuman living things, then our traditional thought

must be expanded to include what we perceive to

be the interests of things natural (Stone 1974). To

extend such ‘rights’ to the environment represents a

dramatic step in ethical consideration that we as yet

In addition to greater competition for limited

public recreation resources, economic pressures,

and a professional community that is increasingly

aware of, and sensitive to, the complexities of outdoor

recreation planning and policy, a more enlightened

citizenry can be expected to demand more professional accountability in the future. Such demands will

likely be manifested in political platforms, interest

group activities, lobbying, and the like, but they

469
undoubtedly will be characterized by a heightened

level of individual participation. Rationales for service

delivery will have to be thought through thoroughly

for they will be scrutinized more closely than ever.

In all likelihood, the following questions typify

equity concerns of the future:

What is the purpose for the existence of public

outdoor recreation resources?

What rights are associated with the word

‘public’ in terms of access and use?

What criteria are the above-mentioned ‘rights’

based on? Can they be made explicit? Can

we agree on them? If not, what is the most

equitable way to proceed?

Who has a ‘right’ to participate in the ‘rights’

discussion? Those who use outdoor recreation

resources? Those who would like to but feel

disenfranchised? Those who are indifferent?

The environment itself?

The onus is on the research community to address

these questions. This means an agenda for inquiry

ranging from basic philosophical debate about what

we ought to be doing and why, to practical matters

such as the appropriateness of fees and charges

and various methods of limiting access to overused

outdoor recreation environments.

CONCLUSION

The surfacing of equity issues in outdoor recreation should not be interpreted as a sign of failure.

On the contrary, we are evolving from one stage of

service delivery, characterized by rapid growth and

development, to another stage characterized by

limits. These days it makes sense to evaluate what

we have accomplished, to make sure we continue to

do a good job with what we have. A concern for

equity is a reflection of our professional maturation.

It is a time for fine tuning, for making necessary

adjustments so that we might do even better work in

the future.

REFERENCES

Cockrell, D.; Wellman, J. 1985. Democracy and leisure:

reflections on pay-as-you-go recreation. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration. 3(4):1-l 0.

Cole, D.; Peterson, M.; Lucas, R. 1987. Managing

wilderness recreation use: common problems and

potential solutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-230.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 60 pp.

Dustin, D. 1986. Outdoor recreation: a question of

equity. Forum For Applied Research and Public

Policy. 1(3):62-67.

Dustin, D.; McAvoy, L. 1982. The decline and fall of

quality recreation opportunities and environments?

Environmental Ethics. 4(1):49-57.

Dustin, D.; McAvoy, L.; Schultz, J. 1987. Beware of

the merchant mentality. Trends. 24(3)&l-46.

Fedkiw, J. 1986. U.S. outdoor recreation policy:

strengthening private initiatives. Forum for Applied

Research and Public Policy. 1(3)X3-55.

Graefe, A.; Vaske, J.; Kuss, F. 1984. Social carrying

capacity: an integration and synthesis of twenty

years of research. Leisure Sciences. 6(4):395431.

Howard, D. 1988. Pricing public parks and recreation.

pp. l-9. In: Dustin, Daniel L.; Lamke, Gene G.,

eds. User fees for public recreation? A question of

equity. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University,

Institute for Leisure Behavior. Vol. 1, no. 4.

Knopf, R. 1988. A gathering of geese. pp. 23-24. In:

Dustin, Daniel L., ed. Wilderness in America:

personal perspectives. San Diego, CA: San Diego

State University, Institute for Leisure Behavior.

Knopf, R.; Allison, M.; Robertson, R.; Leatherberry, E.

1987. Under-representation and overrepresentation in outdoor recreation: who gets

what and why? pp. 19-30. In: McAvoy, Leo H.;

Dustin, Daniel L., eds. Justice in outdoor recreation

resource allocation. San Diego, CA: San Diego

State University, Institute for Leisure Behavior. Vol.

3, no. 1.

470
Knopf, R.; Schreyer, R. 1985. The problem of bias in

recreation resources decision making. pp. 23-37.

In: Dustin, Daniel L., ed. The management of human

behavior in outdoor recreation settings. San Diego,

CA: San Diego State University, Institute for Leisure

Behavior.

Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county almanac, and

sketches here and there. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Manning, R.E. 1986. Studies in outdoor recreation:

search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis,

OR: Oregon State University Press. 166 pp.

Sax, J.L. 1980. Mountains without handrails: reflections

on the national parks. Ann Arbor, Ml: The University

of Michigan Press.

Schreyer, R.; Knopf, R. 1984. The dynamics of change

in outdoor recreation environments- some equity

issues. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 2(1):9-l 9.

Schultz, J.; McAvoy, L.; Dustin, D. 1988. What are we

in business for? Parks and Recreation. 23(1):52-54.

Stankey, George; McCool, Stephen. 1984. Carrying

capacity in recreational settings: evolution, appraisal, and application. Leisure Sciences.

6(4):453-473.

Stone, C.D. 1974. Should trees have standing? Toward

legal rights for natural objects. Los Altos, CA:

William Kaufmann, Inc.

Wellman, J.D. 1987. Wildland recreation policy: an

introduction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Williams, Daniel; Knopf, Richard. 1985. In search of

the primitive-urban continuum: the dimensional

structure of outdoor recreation settings. Environment and Behavior. 17(3):351-370.

471
THE BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION

Richard Schreyer and B.L. Driver’

Abstract- One of the most crucial elements in

assessing ,the value of recreational uses of natural

resources is an understanding of the benefits derived

by participants. As a nonmarket commodity, recreational values have been hard to assess. The psychological

benefits derived have been particularly difficult to

represent in ways which could guide resource

allocation decisions. This paper examines what

benefits are, problems in gathering data about them,

previous research on the topic, and major issues in

the use of benefit information in resource management.

Recommendations are made for future directions.

THE CONCEPT OF BENEFIT

To observe that outdoor recreation participation

is beneficial is almost tautological. We define recreation in terms of freely chosen activities that are

engaged in because they do good things for us. In

this sense, recreation is beneficial to us almost by

definition. It would be as awkward to assert that art

is beneficial or that music is beneficial. Without having

to identify what the exact nature of those benefits

are, we can see through the substantial expenditures

people make over art and music that they must derive

some tangible outcomes from them. Similarly, we

can see this in the willing participation in outdoor

recreation pursuits - 89 percent of all Americans

according to the 1983 survey of recreation (U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service

1986) -and in the billions laid out for purchase of

recreational goods and services.

The problem comes when we start talking about

recreation resource management and planning.

Recreation then becomes a public service rather

‘Professor of Recreation Resources, Utah State University, Logan,

UT; Research Forester, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort

Collins, CO.

472

than a market commodity. While art and music are in

the public sector as well, they are more strongly tied

to well defined pricing systems, such as charging

fees for admission to art galleries and concert halls.

Recreation pursued on public lands is charged for

on a much more limited basis.

Further, recreational uses of resources must

compete with other resource uses that do have more

clearly defined market values, such as the use of a

tree for timber. We may therefore be concerned

about the relative worth of outdoor recreation in the

resource allocation picture. Our rational/empirical

heritage in resource management suggests that

decisions about use be based on “objective’ indicators of relative merit. Hard commodities such as

timber are not only more tangible than psychological

experiences such as recreation, their utility is more

immediately apparent. There is also the mindset that

providing timber for housing is more ‘important” than

providing recreation for our pleasure.

Thus, recreation often appears at a disadvantage

because it is not tied to market indicators of worth,

and appears at best superfluous. If the true worth of

this resource use is to be characterized, we must

find some more tangible ways to identify and express

the benefits derived from recreation participation.

That has proven to be a substantial challenge, for

what may be taken on faith as being beneficial may

be quite difficult to document.

What is a recreation benefit? Most simply, a

benefit may be defined as an improved condition or

desired change in state, or the prevention of a worse

condition (Driver and Peterson 1987). In this sense,

the improved condition would be an outcome of the

recreation participation, as opposed to the panicipation itself. Further, recreational opportunities would

not be considered as benefits, so much as they are

seen to be facilitators of benefits. It is also important

to distinguish a benefit from the value of the benefit.

The benefit is the improved condition. The value is

the extent to which that condition is desired. It may
be expressed as the relative importance of that

condition, in terms of tradeoffs we might make with

other resources or conditions (Brown 1984).

The range of benefit could be extremely wide,

from physiological benefits to improved states of

mind (Driver and others 1987). It could encompass

societal benefits (Driver and Brown 1987) as well as

other spinoff benefits (Driver and Rosenthal 1982). It

could also include nonhuman benefits, such as the

benefits derived from preserving natural ecosystems

(Rolston 1985).

We know that the recreational and noncommodity

values of our public lands are becoming increasingly

important. Our urban public sees wildlands as

desirable places to maintain in a wild state, whether

they actually visit them or not. This interest has been

manifested in the wilderness preservation movement,

in the adoption of the Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum as a means of classifying the range of

recreational opportunities available on public lands,

and in the passage of legislation such as the

Renewable Resources Planning Act and the National

Forest Management Act, which are pointed toward

providing for more systematic input from the public

on resource values. The challenge has thus become

how to translate this shift in cultural values into

systematic resource planning and management.

The documentation of recreation benefiis could

stand to serve a significant function in this regard. It

would give decision makers information which would

allow them to make more rational allocation decisions,

as it would provide them with a clearer picture of the

worth of such resource uses. It might then lead to

more realistic policies on establishing fees for

recreation. This in itself could help recreation resource

uses pay their way and provide even more information

on their relative worth. It could also establish a firmer

base for the for the professional status of recreation

resource management. Professional positions could

be defined with greater status and opportunities in

resource agencies (Drier and others 1987).

Resource managers would be in a position to

provide more and higher quality opportunities if they

knew what aspects of recreation resources were

most beneficial and why. Traditionally recreation has

been perceived somewhat as trivial or superfluous

(Driver and others 1986). However, identification of

benefits would lead to a clearer understanding of the

outputs of the resource management process. Thus,

managers may be better able to identify specific

objectives for recreation resource management, and

gain a better sense of the relative substitutability of

different types of opportunities (Driver and others

1987).

Such information could help citizens as well. It

would help them make more informed decisions

about their choices of recreational opportunities, as

they would have a clearer picture of the nature of

the benefits to be derived. It would also allow them

to make more useful input into the resource allocation

process, in expressing their preferences. People

would have a clearer sense of the tradeoffs involved

in different types of resource allocation. They could

also formally express these preferences in the political

arena as more informed voters (Driver and others

1986).

Thus, it would appear that any future systematic

planning for outdoor recreation should encompass a

serious effort to identify and measure the benefits of

recreation participation. In guiding this direction, ft is

useful to examine what is already known. The following

section discusses the existing state of the knowledge

on recreation benefits.

RESEARCH ON RECREATION BENEFITS

Research Issues

While there has been a considerable body of

research addressed to the social psychology of

recreation, there has been relatively little systematic

inquiry into the nature of recreation benefits. Much

of that work has focused on the reasons for participation, as opposed to what the outcomes have been.

There are currently few comprehensive attempts to

explain the actual dynamics of benefii attainment

through participation, Perhaps the most significant

efforts to date have been those by Driver and Tocher

(1974) and Tinsley and Tinsley (1985).

There are also a number of difficulties which

affect the implementation of research on benefits. At

the most fundamental level is the concern for what

constitutes a benefit itself. Time may play a role; for

instance, smoking may be a short term benefit and a

long term cost. Persons with different values may

interpret an outcome differently, particularly where

moral issues are concerned. And of course, what

may serve to benefit one person may be a cost to

another (e.g., damming a free flowing river). Thus,

there need to be more formally defined criteria

concerning what constitutes a benefit (Driver and

Peterson 1987).

473
There are questions concerning how comprehensive it is possible to be in identifying benefits. How

do we know when we have tapped the relevant domain

of recreation benefits (Driver 1986)? There is a

question as to how dependent a benefit is on a

particular recreational opportunity. Of course, while

such an opportunity may not be unique in its provision

of a particular benefii, it may in fact be strongly

preferred as a means of attaining that benefit. There

are also concerns about how to capture off-site

benefits, such as existence values or contributions

to quality of life. Given that much of what we study

as benefits may be measures of things happening

out in the population in general, it may be difficult to

establish effective research controls in order to get a

clearer picture of the cause-effect relationships

between recreation participation and a given benefit

such as mental health (West 1987).

There are also issues in measurement. First, it is

necessary to separate the different components of

benefii identification. Initially, we must specify what

the benefiis are. Then, we have to measure the

magnitude of these benefiis to different segments of

the public (Schreyer 1987). Research to identify

these various types of benefii may use different

sources of information. For instance, one may use

experts familiar with the field of recreation to draw

on their experience in identifying possible benefits.

Such ‘Delphi’ techniques are helpful in guiding

research, but must ultimately be validated through

more systematic means.

It is also possible to ask people for their own

perceptions of benefii. There is a question as to the

subjective nature of such self-reports, #in that people

may perceive something as a benefii which may in

fact be a cost. However, to the extent that people

perceive reality in a certain way, then that may become

functional reality in shaping their choices and ultimate

behaviors. Such information may be obtained directly

through asking people about the benefiis of their

participation. It may also be indirectly gleaned from

other studies which have examined reasons for

participation or motivations for recreation.

Information about benefiis may also be obtained

through measures of changes in behavior. These

would be more objective indicators of improved

conditions, Physiological measures of a person’s

health following recreation participation could be an

example. Also, general population indicators of well

being, such as health statistics, mortality rates,

absenteeism, divorce rates, incidence of crime, etc.,

could all be used as measures of benefit (Driver and

Brown 1987). The following sections briefly review

some of the research in these areas.

Delphi Techniques

Expert judgments of the benefits of recreation

participation most commonly exist in popular wriiings

about the uses of natural environments. Such writings

are extremely diverse, and generally oriented toward

personal interpretations of benefii, as opposed to

making broad generalizations about the domain of

benefits. Driver and others (1987) describe a cross

section of ‘classical’ writings on the benefits of

wilderness to humans. Similarly, Stankey and Schreyer

(1987) also draw inferences concerning the benefits

of wilderness based on historical writings.

Few such discourses have been pointed at a

systematic attempt to identify the range of the benefits

of wildland recreation participation. One such effort

is described by Schreyer (1984) in reporting the

results of a workshop in which a collection of scientists

from a range of disciplines engaged in an exercise

attempting to identify the potential benefiis of recreation participation. Three groups generated lists of

such benefits. Tables 1 through 3 show the lists of

benefits identified by these different groups. It will be

noted that while there are many similarities, there is

considerable variation in the nature of identified

benefits, as well as in the number of different benefit

categories delineated.

Self Reports

One of the more common approaches to this

line of research has been the assessment of people’s

reasons for participation. As recognized above, this

does not represent benefits per se, so much as an

indication of what people expect the benefits to be.

There have been many such studies in outdoor

recreation in the last 20 years. Many of these have

been standardized measures, such as the Recreation

Experience Preference scales developed by Driver

(1977). The list of these scales is shown in table 4,

representing the range of types of reasons why people

seek to participate.

Driver and Brown (1987) summarize the results

of over 100 such studies, involving over 100,000

recreationists. In an attempt to summarize the common

themes in this large body of research, they proposed

a typology of personal benefits, shown in table 5.

Obviously, a breakdown by type of activity would be

impossible within the context of this study. However,

Brown (1981) provided a breakdown across a selected

set of wildland recreation activities of the relative

importance of certain types of benefits. This comparison is shown in table 6.

A number of reviews of various elements of the

benefits of outdoor recreation currently exist. A

4.74
Table 1. --Delphi listing from the benefits specification workshop (Schreyer 1984)

I. Social/personal

Health-activity

Group cohesiveness-making friends

Meeting people

Status

Skills

Learning

Increased productivity

Conflict resolution

Courtship

II. Material

Income

Trophies

Play

(Poaching)

III. Environmental

Preservation

Conservation

Husbandry

Stewardship

IV. Psychological

Independence/self-sufficiency

Mastery

"Split rail"

Atavism

Historical recall

Group solidarity

Kinship

Family

Exploration

Sharing

Achievement

Leadership

Risk Taking

Creativity

Aggression

Escape

Danger

Contrast value/compensation

Nature kinship and empathy

Aesthetics

Community stability and harmony

Cultural pride and nationalism

Historical understanding

Meat

Hides

Community development

Joint products (management)

Baseline indicators

Ecosystem appreciation

Understanding human dependency

Prowess

Privacy

Isolation

Bonding

Competence

Virility

Personal attractiveness

Nurturance

Abasement

Ethics

Value clarification

Simplicity

Savagery

Diversity

Humility

Spiritual/religious

compendium on the social benefits of outdoor

recreation was compiled by Kelly (1981). Driver and

others (1987) characterized the benefits of wilderness.

Driver (1986) addressed the benefits of river and trail

recreation. Probably the most comprehensive collection of information on benefits research to date is in

the literature for the President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors, as coordinated by Driver and

Peterson (1987). While a number of the papers were

oriented toward economic benefits, there were also

literature reviews on personal benefits (Driver and

Brown 1987) the benefits of adventure recreation

(Ewert 1987) and the social benefits of recreation

(Burch 1987; West 1987).

Behavioral Measures

Given the many barriers to carrying out research

on behavior change as an indicator of benefit, few

such studies have been done. What studies do exist

are reviewed in Driver (1986). These include studies

on the physical health benefiis of exercise (Buccola

and Stone 1985), and on beneficial physiological

responses to natural settings (Ulrich 1981, 1984).

There is also a considerable body of research on

the benefiis of adventure education programs, though

there is considerable disagreement over the validity

of such results (Ewert 1987).

475
FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The Importance of Recreation

As there is no means for the quantification of

benefits at present, it is difficult to make specific

projections. However, there is little doubt that the

value of natural settings for providing recreational

benefits will increase in the future. These increases

are likely to be substantial.

Reasons for this increase involve an everincreasing urbanization of society. This trend is not

just in the United States; it is worldwide. Urban

populations place greater value upon wildland settings

as sources of refuge from the stresses of daily life.

Such lands also constitute a component of quality of

life in providing aesthetic resources for public

enjoyment. As the rigors, stresses, and constraints

of modern urban life increase, the potential benefits

of natural settings stand to increase.

Other values related to such recreational uses of

the resource will also increase, such as wildlife and

water. The more traditional commodity uses of such

natural settings, such as timber, grazing, and minerals,

will change in their relationship to the noncommodity

uses. Our needs for these commodities will not

diminish, but the ways in which they are obtained

will change. There will likely be much more interest

in intensive production on the most productive sites,

as well as greater private sector responsibility, leaving

much of the Federal estate for maintenance as natural

settings. Mineral access will continue, but in an

atmosphere of greater regulation to comply with

noncommodity values.

An increasing linkage of the benefits of recreation

participation to the economic system, through the

establishment of fees and better means of documentation of the worth of such benefits, may lead to a

growing awareness of the importance of the provision

of such opportunities to society. Further, the economic

viability of many communities located in close

proximity to natural settings could increasingly be

supported by revenues derived from recreational

uses, such as the provision of tourist services.

Future Needs

Such a growth in the relative importance of

recreational uses of public lands will inevitably require

some substantial structural changes in the processes

of resource management and policy. Contemporary

resource management tends to be commodity-driven

Table 2.--Delphi listing from the

benefits specification workshop

(Schreyer 1984)

Individual

Psychological

Stress reduction

Stimulation

Happiness

Self

Creativity

Self actualization, esteem, etc.

Physical

Fitness

(neg: Injury)

Nature

Learning about wildlife (knowledge

gained)

Learning about physical environment

Social/cultural/historic - Knowledge

and understanding of cultures

Social

Social harmony

Better relations with family,

friends

Economic

Increased productivity

Jobs

Income

Physical

Environmental protection (many costs

too)

Animal population control =

ecological stability

or output-driven. This leads to a disproportionate

amount of attention being focused on resources

which have traditionally been easy to measure or

quantify, such as timber production. New systems

for integrated decision making will have to evolve

which will better capture social outputs. While such

outputs are already accounted for in organic legislation

for agencies such as the Forest Service, there is little

to define the specific methods of that incorporation.

This will change internally when external pressures

become sufficiently intense as to require such

response.

A more active policy dialog needs to occur at

the higher levels of administration concerning the

appropriate directions for resource management

efforts. “Business as usual’ rhetoric is becoming

increasingly difficult to accommodate. This suggests

the need for more original thinking at higher levels of

476
Table 3. --Delphi listing from the benefits specification workshop (Schreyer

1984)

Family solidarity

Cultural continuity/adoption

Mental health--capacity to cope

Self-identity/frame of reference

Physical health

Well-being

Cure/Prevention

Relaxation and enhanced concentration

Stress mediation

Social bonding/intimacy/dyad formation

Sexual potency

Group identification

Enhanced world view--cognitive maturity

Catharsis/self-disclosure

Self-confidence

Cognitive efficiency/integrative complexity

Capacity for fantasy/imagery/creativity/

reminiscence/anticipation

Social validation/communication skills

Socialization/learning social rules

Financial return/utility function

Productivity in workplace/everyday

environment

Vehicle for competition

Stability

Point of transition (moving from one

life situation to another)

Jobs

Regional well-being

Enhanced problem-solving

Spiritual communication

Humility

Skill development

Recreational

General

Organizational skills

Decision-making

Sensation of experience/arousal/

Entertainment/Play

Thrill/vertigo

Peak experience

Sense of aesthetics

Quality of life feeling

Pride/patriotism

Political action

Environmental awareness

Products of creativity--

"works of art"

Establish leadership function

Status/trophies

Validating understanding

Locus of control/autonomy

Storage function (children)

Survival capacity

Privacy/withdrawal

Eating/commensalism

administration. It is reasonable to expect that resource

agencies will tend to espouse traditional “party lines.”

Therefore, it is necessary to find other sources of

articulation for these newer values, There is currently

no institutionalized voice for the benefits of outdoor

recreation since the demise of Bureau of Outdoor

Recreation/Heritage Conservation Recreation Service

(BOFVHCRS). The need for such an in institutional

voice is becoming increasingly apparent,

Bureaucracies in general tend to be resistant to

change. This is no different with the bureaucracies

that manage our natural resources. It is unrealistic to

expect response to these changing societal needs

overnight. However, it becomes increasingly important

to look at the forces which will bring about change

in such organizations. First, there should be an active

consideration of bringing about change from the

bottom up. The lower level resource managers of

today will be the high level administrators of tomorrow.

Such persons in general will have a greater flexibility

in world view. An active and aggressive program of

training mid-career bureaucrats in the significance

and meaning of social benefits from the uses of

natural resources should be considered. Such

programs are in fact beginning to be seen in resource

management agencies; more needs to be done.

Second, there needs to be a more systematic

consideration of career entry level positions for

persons trained professionally in recreation resource

management for resource agencies. This is a particular

void as far as the Forest Service is concerned. Such

positions would lend greater credence to ‘the professional significance of recreation resource management. It would provide a greater visibility to the

discipline within the organization. It would also create

a cadre of people who could move up through career

ladders who have training in the social aspects of

recreation resource management.

This would also help to dispel some to the

mindsets which surround the practice of recreation

management. Such mindsets have to do with the

tendency to believe that “anyone can do recreation

management.* Currently, agency personnel assigned

to recreation staff positions tend to be persons trained

in other disciplines who have been reassigned for a

variety of reasons. This helps support perceptions

that the pursuit of recreation resource management

is of little importance. This is also supported by the

tendency to use volunteers for recreational tasks.

While such volunteers provide a valuable workforce

in a time of limited budgets, there is little doubt about

the priorities for such positions. They are often

assigned to innocuous tasks. Recreation, by implication, suffers from this identification.

477
Table 4 .--Recreation experience preference scales making up the recreation

experience preference domains (shown in capital letters), fr/om Driver and

Brown (1987)

1. Enjoy nature

A. Scenery

9. General nature experience

C. Undeveloped natural area

2. Physical fitness2

3. Reduce tension

A. Tension release

9. Slow down mentally

C. Escape role overloads

D. Escape daily routine

4. Escape noise and crowds

A. Tranquility/solitude

9. Privacy

C. Escape crowds

D. Escape noise

E. Isolation

5. Outdoor learning

A. General learning

9. Exploration

C. Learn geography of area

D. Learn about nature

6. Share similar values

A. Be with friends

9. Be with people having

similar values

7. Independence

A. Independence

9. Autonomy

C. Being in control

8. Family kinship2

9.

1 0 .

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Introspection

A. Spiritual

9. Personal values

Be with considerate people2

Achievement/stimulation

A. Reinforcing self-confidence

self/image

9. Social recognition

C. Skill development

D. Competence testing

E. Seek excitement/stimulation

F. Self-reliance

Physical rest2

Teach/lead others

A. Teaching-sharing skills

9. Leading others

Risk taking2

Rish reduction

A. Risk moderation

9. Risk prevention

Meet new people

A. Meet new people

9. Observe new people

Nostalgia

1

The items that make up these scales have been tested for many types of

validity and reliability, with reasonably good results.

'These domains have only one scale, with the same title as the domain.

A foundation to the above observations involves

an increasing need to carry out an active and diverse

research program on the nature of recreation benefits.

We can generate many statistics on who participates

in what, where. But as long as there is little understanding of the functional nature of recreation participation,

many of the mindsets described above will be

maintained. We need to better document the outcomes of participation, and the consequent value of

resource uses in providing opportunities for those

outcomes.

Barriers

The barriers to movement in this direction are

substantial; most have been outlined above. In brief

recapitulation, they consist of mindsets in which

recreation is considered superfluous and of little

relevance. This is abetted by our inability to document

the benefiis of recreation participation and the worth

of those benefits to the public. The lack of charging

fees for access to public recreation opportunities

adds to this concern.

478
Table 5. --A taxonomy of some probable personal benefits gained from use of

outdoor recreation opportunities, developed by Driver and Brown (1987)

A. Personal development C. Therapeutic/healing

1.

2.

2:

Z:

::

9.

Self-concept

Self-actualization

Self-reliance

Value clarification/introspection

Humility

Leadership D.

Spiritual growth

Aesthetic enhancement E.

Learning

F.

B. Social bonding

G.

1. Family kinship

2. Kinship with significant others H.

3. Meeting new people

1. Clinical problems

(drug abuse, etc.)

2. Stress/tension mediation

3. Physical rest

Physical fitness/health

Stimulation

Independence/freedom

Nostalgic

Commodity-related

Table 6 .--Highly valued specific experiences for selected recreation

activities, from Brown (1981)

Specific Experiences

Relationships with nature

Escape from physical pressures

Escape from social pressures

Achievement/challenge

Autonomy/independence/freedom

Reflection on personal values

Recollection/nostalgia

Risk taking/action/excitement

Meeting/observing other people

Use and care of equipment

Exercise/physical fitness

Being with one's recreation grp.

Learning/exploration

Family togetherness

Privacy

Security

Physical rest

X

X

X

X

X = Highly valued specific experiences.

N = Not measured so regional comparisons are not possible.

479
are

Organizationally, resource management agencies

much more oriented toward commodity outputs

and quantifiable indicators of performance. Social

service functions, while recognized, tend to be given

lower priorities. The presence of traditional political/

economic clientele and the lack of a unified political

clientele for recreation keep it from becoming a major

consideration in resource allocation decisions.

Resistance to change leads to an adversary relationship with many of the social forces seeking to change

our views of wildlands. This leads to slow change

driven by animosity and conflict, rather than active

planning and anticipation. And, of course, our current

fiscal problems constrain the allocation of funding in

directions which would help resolve some of these

issues.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

IMPLICATIONS

Research Needs

We are faced with a seemingly insurmountable

opportunity. We are aware that the value of recreation

resources to the public is important and growing.

However, the formal body of knowledge concerning

the actual benefits of participation is limited. This

information is increasingly vital in a time of changing

demands and needs for public lands. It is easy to

suggest the need for more research when one is a

researcher. Unfortunately, there is little latitude to

debate the point in this case. While the amount of

research and its scale may still be at issue, the

following are the most critical research priorities we

believe are necessary for helping to deal with

recreation resource allocation planning and management:

1. An active program of research to identify

systematically the benefits of outdoor recreation

participation.

2. Research that would cast recreation benefits

in more objective terms, such as behavioral changes.

3. Research that would identify more clearly the

role of the physical setting in providing specific types

of benefits.

4. The development of better means of control in

establishing cause-effect relationships between

participation and indicators of benefit.

5. The development of better means to measure

the magnitude of given recreation benefits.

480

6. The development of a body of knowledge that

can help lead to more refined theories about the

benefits of recreation participation.

7. The development of more sophisticated

decision-making strategies capable of incorporating

social indicators into the resource management

process, without requiring them to be reduced to

quantifiable units of output.

Issues for Discussion

The discussion in this paper obviously involves

interpretation of information, as well as a number of

assumptions about the state of society and the nature

of resource management. This may lead to the

opportunity to debate many of these issues, particularly in light of the need to forecast trends. We suggest

the following as questions to be considered:

To what extent are current administrative structures in resource managing agencies capable of

responding to the changing needs of the American

public?

Should there be significant changes in the

structure of administrative decision making, including

the abandonment of more historical means of

quantitative decision making, such as FORPlAN?

Can the responsiveness to the needs of the

public be increased by making higher agency

administrative positions subject to political appointment, rather than internal selection of agency

personnel?

How can organizational barriers to the recognition

of the significance of social values of natural resources

be overcome?

How can traditional notions of natural resource

discipline education be overcome?

Will it ultimately be necessary to cast recreation

benefits in a dollars and cents mode in order for

them to attain any relevance in the policy arena?

Can the social value of recreation participation

be adequately recognized if there is not a professionally trained cadre of recreation resource managers in

place?

How can we best predict and validate the relative

importance of natural settings for the provision of

recreation benefits?

Are the social forces in this nation actually moving

in the direction of increased valuing of wildlands for

such uses? How would we document such trends?
REFERENCES

Brown, P.J. 1981. Psychological benefiis of outdoor

recreation. pp. 13-17. In: Kelly, JR., ed. Social

benefiis of outdoor recreation. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Brown, Thomas C. 1984. The concept of value in

resource allocation. Land Economics.

60(3):231-246.

Buccola, V.A.; Stone, W.J. 1975. Effects of jogging

and cycling programs on physiological and

personality variables in aged men. Research

Quarterly. 46(2):134-l 39.

Burch, W.R. 1987. Ties that bind-the social benefits

of recreation provision. pp. 81-92. In: A literature

review - President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Off ice.

Driver, B.L. 1977. Item pool for scales designed to

quantify the psychological outcomes desired and

expected from recreation participation. Fort Collins,

CO: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. Mimeo. 31 pp.

Driver, B.L. 1986. Benefits of river and trail recreation:

The limited state of knowledge and why it is limited.

pp. 44-58. In: Seguire, S., ed. Proceedings, 1st

international congress on trail and river recreation.

Vancouver, BC: Outdoor Recreation Council of

British Columbia.

Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J. 1987. Probable personal

benefits of outdoor recreation. pp. 63-70. In: A

literature review - President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

Driver, B.L.; Brown, T.C; Burch, W.R. 1986. A proposal

for more comprehensive and integrated evaluations

of public amenity goods and services. Paper

presented at the congress of the International

Union of Forest Research Organizations. Yugoslavia. 17 pp.

Driver, B.L.; Nash, R.; Haas, G. 1987. Wilderness

benefits: a state-of-knowledge review. pp. 294319.

In: Lucas, R.C., camp. Proceedings- national

wilderness research conference: issues, state-ofknowledge, future directions. 1985 July 23-26;

Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden,

UT: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Driver, B.L.; Peterson, G. 1987. Benefits of outdoor

recreation: an integrating overview. pp. l-l 0. In: A

literature review - President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

Driver, B.L.; Rosenthal, D.H. 1982. Measuring and

improving effectiveness of public outdoor recreation

programs. Washington, DC: George Washington

University, Department of Human Kinetics and

Leisure Studies. 40 pp.

Driver, B.L.; Tocher, S.R. 1974. Toward a behavioral

interpretation of recreation engagements with

implications for planning. pp. 9-31. In: Driver, B.L.,

ed. Elements of outdoor recreation planning. Ann

Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan Press.

Ewe& A. 1987. Values, benefits and consequences

in outdoor adventure recreation. pp. 71-80. In: A

literature review- President’s Commission on

Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Off ice.

Kelly, J.R., ed. 1981. Social benefits of outdoor

recreation. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois,

Leisure Behavior Research Laboratory. 83 pp.

Rolston, Holmes, Ill 1985. Valuing wildlands. Environmental Ethics. 7:23-48.

Schreyer, R. 1984. The recreation benefii specification

workshop. Logan, UT: Utah State University,

Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism.

43 PP.

Stankey, G.H.; Schreyer, R. 1987. Attitudes toward

wilderness and factors affecting visitor behavior: a

state-of-knowledge review. pp. 246-293. In: Lucas,

R.C., ed. Proceedings-national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge,

future directions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220; 1985

July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Ogden, UT: US.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

481
Tinsley, H.E.A.; Tinsley, D.J. 1985. A theory of the

attributes, benefits and causes of leisure experience. Leisure Sciences. 8(1):1-45.

Ulrich, R.S. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: some

psychophysiological effects. Environment and

Behavior. 13(5):523-556.

Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may

influence recovery from surgery. Science.

224:420-421.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

1986. 1982-l 983 nationwide recreation survey.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Cffice.

West, P. 1987. Social benefits of outdoor recreation.

pp. 93-102. In: A literature review-President’s

Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office.

482
Section 8.

Social, Economic, and Environmental Implications

of Outdoor Recreation Demand and Supply Interactions

483

FOREST VISUAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH

R. Bruce Hull IV1

Abstract- Management and research of forest visual

quality are critically examined. The major conclusion

is that shortcomings in visual quality research and

management are in large measure due to misconceptions concerning what visual quality is. Thus, a

considerable portion of the paper is devoted to better

defining visual quality. In addition, the visual impact

of several forest management actions is summarized,

and the major visual management/ research paradigms

are compared. A recommendation is made to sponsor

basic research so that visual quality may be better

defined and better understood so that visual management may be more successful. initiating a long term,

broad based inventory of forest visual quality through

cooperation with the Forest Service’s existing Renewable Resource Evaluation program is also recommended. The paper concludes that visual quality will continue

to increase in value to society and that concern with

forest visual management should consequently

increase in priority.

INTRODUCTION

This paper differs from others in this proceedings

in that the resource being discussed is not well

defined. As a result, information about past, current,

and future amounts of visual quality simply are not

available. Suggestions will be made as to how this

information may be collected. The bulk of the

manuscript, however, critically reviews the current

state of the art of visual quality research in hopes

that new directions and new efforts will be spurred.

Publicly funded forest visual quality research

began in earnest in the late 1960’s. It resulted from

the legislative mandate of multiple use management,

the increasing demand for forest recreation, the

increasing exposure to forest and rural environments

‘Associate Professor, Department of Landscape Architecture, Texas

A&M University, College Station, TX

due to ease of transportation, and the growing public

awareness of environmental quality concerns. Unfortunately, as of 1988, visual quality research and

management have not advanced much beyond the

ideas proposed in the 1960’s. After more than two

decades of work there is little acceptable theory;

management is left to “experts” who have trouble

defending their decisions; visual quality is still

regarded as an intangible forest product, and thus

odd man out in multiple use decisionmaking; and

the existing visual management system is not

compatible with management of other forest products.

This does not reflect negatively on the many who

worked in this area but, instead, demonstrates the

enormity and complexity of the problems faced by

visual quality research and management.

Many of the difficulties arise from the ambiguous

and multifaceted nature of the definition of visual

quality. The products (i.e., the benefits) of visual

quality need to be identified. These products must

be the focus of management and research. We must

look long and hard at the role of visual quality in

forestry and ask: What exactly does the forest visual

environment produce? And then we can ask: What

is the objective of forest visual management? Until

these questions are answered little progress will

result in visual quality management. We will continue

to spin our wheels.

This paper is divided into six sections:

1. Definitions of visual quality;

2. The impact of forest management on visual

quality;

3. Efforts to manage visual quality;

4. Policy suggestions;

5. A summary of the major unresolved issues

identified in the paper; and,

6. The future significance of visual quality.

485
DEFINING VISUAL QUALITY

In order to identify, assess, predict, and consequently manage a forest resource one must first

have a precise, defensible, and meaningful definition

of the resource. There must be agreement on what

is being managed. Unfortunately, this is not the case

with ‘visual quality.” The purpose of this section is to

direct attention to this shortcoming and to offer some

suggestions. However, since the scope of this paper

is so broad, this section can only highlight important

issues. A more rigorous and exhaustive treatment of

each issue is dearly needed.

The word ‘quality’ can be defined in several

ways, The most appropriate interpretation for forestry

applications is as the ‘degree of excellence’ of some

forest resource. This implies that there exists an

amount, a quantifiable measure, which reflects how

much of the attribute is present relative to excellence.

This interpretation begs the question: What does an

excellent visual environment do that a less excellent

one does not? Or, more specifically, one might ask:

What is the product (i.e., benefii) associated with

visual quality? Wiih current state-of-the-art information

these questions, however fundamental to the validity

of visual quality research and management, are

difficult to answer, This demonstrates a fundamental

weakness. One goal of research must be to identify

what it is that forest visual quality produces. Other

forest products are not so ill defined, for example:

products of high quality timber are houses, paper,

and jobs; high quality grazing lands produce lots of

well-fed animals: high quality watersheds produce

ample irrigation and drinking water and little erosion.

But we know little of what visual quality produces.

Does it directly impact physical or mental health, or

dollars spent on recreation? Some suggestions are

offered below.

There are numerous ‘products’ of the visual

environment. For each product there must be a

standard of excellence; that is, there must be an

environment which provides the most benefits to

users. This standard can serve as a criterion by

which to judge “visual quality.” Since there are so

many products of the visual environment, there will

also be many criteria. If the product is not explicitly

identified, confusion may result, the goals of management policy will not be achieved, and management

action may be misdirected and/or unproductive.

Potential Products of Visual Quality

Several potential products are discussed below,

each will need its own criterion to serve as a guide

for management.

1. Quality of outdoor recreation is influenced

by the forest visual environment. The appearance of

the forest affects those engaged in traditional forest

uses (hiking, fishing, camping, viewing, etc.). Each

activity requires unique environmental characteristics

in order that the activity may be engaged, that

expectations may be met, and that satisfactions may

be maximized. For example, scenic beauty would be

appropriate when evaluating forest visual quality for

users whose only activity in the landscape is visual

exploration from a vantage point. Hikers, campers,

and hunters will each have their own criteria which

would consider factors such as those affecting

locomotion through the forest.

2. Emotion constitutes a large portion of possible

reactions of persons to places. There are many

purposes with which a person may approach a

landscape but there are only a few emotions that

can be experienced. This limited response set makes

the research task easier since it is more focused

(Hull and Harvey 1988). There are various theories of

emotion. One is that dimensions of pleasure, arousal,

and dominance explain most of a person’s feelings

in an environment (Russell and Pratt 1980). A person

may visit a forest to experience an emotion not

experienced in his/her normal day-to-day activities

(e.g., relaxation, awe, wonder). Scenic beauty is

merely a subset of the pleasure dimension of emotion

(see Hull and Harvey 1988; Russell and Pratt 1980);

ignoring the other components of emotion may

produce an incomplete and inaccurate picture of

what is happening to visitors.

3. The appearance of a forest advertises the

quality and policy of forest management, just as the

facade of a building advertises the quality and type

of business conducted within it. Because the visual

environment is readily available to the public and

because the public feels qualified to judge visual

quality, the appearance of the forest will be used by

the public to judge forest management and forest

policy. Walters and others (1979) suggested that the

visual appearance of clearcutting in the Monogahela

and Bitterroot National Forests triggered the political

debate on forest management in the 1960’s and

1970’s and resulted in legislative controls being

placed on forest management. This is a case where

visual quality was used by the public to evaluate

forest management policy. The implications were far

reaching.

486
4. Mental health may be one benefii of a high

quality visual environment. On the positive side,

there is stress reduction (Ulrich 1981) low arousal,

and fascination to reduce workload on forced

concentration (Kaplan 1977). Also, the organizing

effect that emotions can have (Leeper 1948) may

lead to healthier life styles. On the negative side, the

visual environment can be distracting and cause

stress or emotions that hinder the accomplishment

of one’s objectives.

5. Many mental health issues translate to physical

health. The viewing of green things (vegetation), for

example, has been shown to speed up post-operative

recovery and lessen patients’ needs for pain killing

drugs (Ulrich 1984). An attractive visual environment

is also likely to motivate people to engage in forest

activities that may indirectly increase heafth by

encouraging physical exercise.

6. A community’s economy is often dependent

upon monies from tourism which, in turn, is dependent

upon the visual quaifty of the environment. The ability

of an environment to attract people to the area and

to keep them there is critical to most tourist industries.

7. Trees in residential areas may serve as symbols

of positive factors such as social status and seclusion

(Hull 1988; Pitt and others 1976). These factors

influence residential satisfaction. Furthermore,

property value is greatly influenced by the surrounding visual environment in general, and vegetation in

particular (Devitt 1988; Seila and Anderson 1984;

Walsh and Olienyk 1981).

8. Visual characteristics influence the safety of

an environment as perceived by users (Schroeder

and Anderson 1984) and the appropriateness for

criminal activity as perceived by criminals (Krupat

1987).

9. The visual environment (perhaps along roadsides) may be the only contact some people have

with nature, with the change of seasons, and with

the forces which shaped the evolutionary past of

humans. Shepard (1982) theorizes that contact with

nature is critical for proper maturation of the individual.

The major conclusion to be reached from this

discussion is that there are numerous criteria by

which visual quality may be judged. To “manage

visual quality,’ then, can mean many things. One

could argue (as a reviewer did) that it is not practical

to specify different visual quality indices for each of

the dozens of possible products/benefits of the visual

environment, that doing so seems to confuse visual

quality with nonvisual concerns, that we should focus

on some intrinsicaliy valued quality of the visual

environment (perhaps aesthetics, whatever that is)

and ignore the others. But this puts us right back

where we started, without any idea as to what exactly

we are producing with visual quality and hence without

criteria to guide management and to measure whether

we have succeeded. it simply is not enough to say

‘It is beautiful’ or ‘it is high in visual quality’ without

also specifically identifying why this matters. Knowing

why beauty matters will help determine how it should

be managed.

These questions must be answered so we can

identify the product we are managing the visual

environment for, and therefore identify criteria useful

in guiding management. Yes, this makes the problem

more complex. That is the nature of the beast. ignoring

it will not make it go away.

Considering Viewer Purpose in the

Definition of Visual Quality

in addition to the difficulties which became

apparent when defining ‘quality; there are dlfficufties

which arise when defining ‘visual: This term is too

general to be of much use. It can be used to refer to

almost any product from scenic beauty to hunting

quality, from naturalness to vegetative screening. To

be specific one needs to refer to how the landscape

will be used. Thus, it is the viewers purpose that

must be considered. The importance of considering

a visitor’s purpose when managing visual quality is

discussed in some detail, as it is a critical yet oft

neglected issue.

A place judged to be high in visual quality for a

user with one purpose may not be high in quality for

a user with another purpose. A hiker interested in

backpacking will look for different environmental

characteristics in the environment than a fisher

interested in fishing, or a farmer interested in farming,

or a Sunday driver interested in viewing, or a home

buyer interested in settling. For example, car campers

are concerned about having adequate vegetative

screening between campsites to increase privacy

rather than having a more scenic open and penetrable

park-like view.

There is theoretical justification for being concerned with the viewer’s purpose. The sensory,

perceiving and mental encoding of the environment

is influenced by the perceiver’s purpose (Brunswik

1956; Canter 1984; ittelson and others 1974). ‘People

react to what they experience in terms of communaiities, in terms of classes and categories’ (Kaplan

1979, p. 4). A landscape is perceived as a particular

487
instance of a class of landscapes. The assignment

of a landscape to a class is likely dependent upon

the observer’s purpose-upon how that landscape

will be used. Thus, a landscape will be categorized

differently by a forester, a designer, a home buyer, a

hiker, a hunter, etc. This, in turn, will make visual

quality assessments depend upon the visitor’s

purpose.

There is empirical evidence suggesting the

influences of purpose on a person’s visual quality

evaluations. Several examples from the literature

should suffice. Taylor and Daniel (1984) found that

landscape preferences for burnt forest landscapes

were dependent upon the viewer’s contemplated

use (e.g., camping, hiking, viewing). Buhyoff and

others (1982) and Buhyoff and Leuschner (1978)

showed that knowledge about the cause of forest

health (insect damage) influenced scenic evaluations.

Perhaps the informed viewers had different uses of

the forest in mind; at least they assigned different

connotative values to the same landscape features.

Zube and others (1983) found that landscape

preferences were dependent upon a participant’s

age. Age influences a participant’s purpose: grade

school children simply do different things in the

environment than do elderly people. And Anderson

(1981) found that a description of the ‘official” land

use (i.e., wilderness versus commercial timber stand)

influenced observers’ scenic evaluations of landscapes regardless of the forest’s actual scenic beauty

or actual land use. Land-use titles suggest how the

landscape will be used, which in turn influences

what the observer would expect to do in the area,

which, apparently, influences evaluations of scenic

beauty.

Scenic beauty of the environment may be of

primary concern when the user’s primary purpose is

sightseeing. Note, however, that the number of visitors

with only this purpose may be fewer than first thought:

even people driving along scenic corridors must be

concerned with various aspects of the visual environment that influence driving safety, such as viewability,

arousal potential (to keep drivers alert), distractability,

etc. Thus there are good reasons to be concerned

with the whole range of visual quality criteria. Viewer’s

purpose must be considered when defining visual

quality.

IMPACTS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT ON

VISUAL QUALITY

Given the multiple definitions of visual quality, it

is not surprising that only a few have been examined

in detail. Studies, which make up the bulk of the

literature, have not been overly concerned with the

purpose of the observer, which is unfortunate since,

as described above, purpose seems relevant.

Nonetheless, the results seem reliable and are

probably appropriate for forest users who only intend

on viewing the landscape from a fixed vantage point.

Two major paradigms for assessment of aesthetic

impacts are the psychophysical and the formal

aesthetic (Daniel and Vining 1983; Zube and others

1982). These research paradigms have produced

the lion’s share of evidence concerning visual impacts

of forest management. As most often applied, they

are both concerned with assessment and prediction

of scenic quality. The psychophysical approach

follows the scientific method. It is characterized by

quantitative analysis of persons’ scenic evaluations

and by use of statistical methods to relate changes

in forest characteristics to changes in scenic assessments made by the public. It requires considerable

effort and expertise to implement because assessments are elicited from many persons and statistical

analyses are rigorous, The formal aesthetic approach

is characterized by rules-of-thumb developed by

design professionals through application of historically

based design principals. It also requires considerable

effort and expertise to implement. But, it is designed

to be implemented efficiently by a few experts - people

trained in the method. Thus, it is more practical, but

the results may be less defensible. Specific findings

from both types of studies are presented, but first

some more general, theoretical findings that are

relevant to forest concerns.

Theories of Visual Quality

Elements in the environment that impact scenic

beauty can be placed in one of two categoriesprocess or content (Kaplan 1977). Process elements

reflect how humans come to understand their

immediate environment. The process reflects how

humans come to grips with uncertainty in the

environment so that potentials and threats will be

taken into account. Three important processes

include: 1) making sense of the world by recognizing

and predicting situations; 2) acting on environmental

information by reaching decisions about environmental affordances; and 3) exploration of the environment

to increase the repertory of familiar situations, to

increase knowledge base, and to practice skills

488
necessary for survival (Kaplan 1977). These processes

are hypothesized to influence aesthetic quality. In

summarizing the impacts of process, Ulrich (1986, p.

32) suggests that preference or liking for unspectacular natural scenes should be comparatively high if:

1) Complexity, or the number of independently

perceived elements in the scene is moderate to high

(e.g., Kaplan and others 1972; Ulrich 1977);

2) The complexity is structured to establish a

focal point, and other order or patterning is also

present (e.g., Kijller 1972; Ulrich 1977);

3) <There is a moderate to high level of depth

that is clearly defined (e.g., Craik, 1970; Hull and

Buhyoff 1983; Ulrich 1974, 1977; Wohlwill 1973);

4) The ground surface has even or uniform length

textures that are relatively smooth, and the observer

judges that the surface is favorable to movement

(e.g., Daniel and Boster 1976; Rabinowftz and

Coughlin 1970; Ulrich 1974, 1977);

5) A deflected or curving sightline is present,

conveying a sense that new landscape information

lies immediately beyond the observer’s visual bounds

(e.g., Appleton 1975; Cullen 1961; Herzog 1984;

Kaplan 1973; Kaplan 1975; Ulrich 1977);

6) Judged threat is negligible or absent (Ulrich

1983; Zuckerman and Ulrich 1982).

Content refers to the connotations of specific

landscape features that influence an observer’s

aesthetic evaluation of the landscape. Some researchers (e.g., Ulrich 1983, 1986) hypothesize that

certain landscape features have positive connotations

that do not require learning (e.g., water is good,

snakes are bad). Other researchers (e.g., Hull and

Revel1 1988; Lowenthall968; Rapoport 1982) suggest

connotations of most features are learned. Examples

of landscape features with connotations that influence

scenic evaluations include:

Building style and material: There tends to be a

preference for the vernacular (Rapoport 1982);

Cultural artifacts: Temples and other religious

artifacts have special meaning to people and thus

increase visual quality of landscapes when present

(Hull and Revel1 1988);

Signs of progress: People of developing countries

tend to highly value landscapes with roads, transmission towers and other signs of progress as did early

American settlers who highly valued cleared land

and hated and feared the evil wilderness (Nash 1982);

Nature over urban: Findings from most studies

of current landscape preferences demonstrate that

scenes with signs of ‘Man’s” influence are negatively

valued. With the guarantee of basic necessities,

modern man prefers views of landscapes without

evidence of civilization, at least with respect to scenic

beauty.

Specific Scenic Impacts of Forest

Management

Many of the specific impacts of forest management

(listed below) are substantiated by evidence gained

empirically through psychophysical landscape preference research studies. The proof of other impacts

lies in the validity of the formal aesthetic landscape

assessment paradigm. The National Forest Landscape

Management publications (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, 1974, 1975, 1977a, 1977b,

1980, 1985) describe, in detail, the implications of

many forest management actions in a variety of

ecosystems.

Fire: Prescribed and unplanned forest burns in

the foreground view can have tremendous scenic

impacts. For example: “Prescribed fire can often be

used to create or maintain visually attractive combinations of trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, and grasses.

. . . In the mixed conifer-pinegrass plant community,

for example, the colorful and distinctive subclimax

ponderosa pine can be maintained only by reducing

the competition of the more shade tolerant white fir”

(Litton 1984, p. 16). Light burns, which leave a healthy

dominant canopy, can actually increase scenic beauty

of the stand over time, as understory is cleared out

and overstory grows stronger. Heavy burns, in

contrast, can drastically reduce scenic beauty as

overstory is destroyed and the bulk of the biomass

returns in the form of dense, impenetrable understory

(Taylor and Daniel 1984). After logging, Anderson

and others (1982) found that burns decreased scenic

beauty when compared to unburnt logged sites, but

that the burnt sites quickly regained and surpassed

the unburnt sites in beauty.

Note that evidence of fire decreases persons’

evaluations of scenic beauty because Smoky the

Bear has done an excellent job in convincing us that

fire is bad. Thus, when evidence of fire is visible

(e.g., blackened trunks) it decreases the quality

people associate with the place. Changing public

attitudes about fire may change scenic evaluations

of burnt landscapes.

A burnt area in the background of a view also

has scenic impact, but less severe. The more linear

489
the contour of the burn and the greater the contrast

in color and height of vegetation in comparison to

surrounding stands, the greater the negative scenic

impact.

Even-aged versus Uneven-aged Management:

Visual impacts of all management actions are less in

uneven-aged stands. The uneven-aged stand has

more diversity, which increases scenic beauty; it

retains vegetation after harvest, which increases

scenic beauty; it screens views that might decrease

scenic beauty; and it never reaches the very low

level of scenic beauty caused by clearcutting. In

visually sensitive areas, uneven-aged stand management should be implemented whenever possible

(Rutherford and Shafer 1969; U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 1980)

Harvest: No forest management action has a

more negative visual impact than harvesting an

even-aged stand (Hull and Buhyoff 1986). In the

foreground, trees dominate the view and frequently

block out middle and background views. Any change

to these trees will have enormous impacts on scenic

beauty. Harvesting causes a loss of trees, an increase

in dead and downed wood (slash), visibility of eroded

soil and tracks, and a general loss of order in the

forest environment. All this combines to drastically

decrease scenic beauty. Shelterwood cutting is

generally less visually destructive than clearcutting. It

is important that vegetation at the edges of a clearcut

gradually increase in height to decrease contrast

and negative scenic impact of cut as viewed from a

distance. It is also important to vary the harvest

boundary so that it appears natural, irregular, and

sympathetic to topographical contours. Skidding

trails and loading zones need to be screened since

these visual scars are the last to heal.

Scenic impacts of timber harvest are difficult to

assess in isolation. The whole forest management

program should be analyzed over the planning horizon

as suggested by Hull and Buhyoff (1986). Harvesting,

slash removal method, regeneration method, density,

site index, rotation length, etc. all are important

determinants of forest scenic beauty and all change

from year to year as the stand matures. Harvesting

is only one brief phase in the life of the forest.

\

Regeneration: After clearcuts, planted stands

are generally more scenic than naturally regenerated

stands. They have more scenic beauty because they

grow faster, create rows that allow deeper visual

penetration, and appear more neat and uniform. All

of these increase scenic beauty (Hull and Buhyoff

1986; Schroeder and Daniel 1981). In general, any

effort to keep some vegetation in the area after harvest

increases scenic beauty because it decreases visibility

and softens the contrast of soil colors verses surrounding vegetation. For example, there is an ‘esthetic

shelterwood’ management practice (U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service 1980, p. 138) that

requires one more entry into a stand than a normal

shelterwood harvest but increases scenic quality.

Thinning: People tend to prefer open, park-like

stands that result from thinning (Hull and others

1987; McCool and others 1986; Patey and Evans

1979; Schroeder and Daniel 1981). Hull and Buhyoff

(1986) found that a heavily thinned stand is actually

preferred (on average, over the long run) more than

a lightly thinned stand, and sometimes more than an

unthinned stand. The slash from both light and heavy

thinning detracts from scenic beauty in the short

term, but not enough to offset the increase in scenic

beauty that occurs in the long term from having

fewer, larger trees in the well-thinned stand. This

increase in scenic beauty even surpasses some

unthinned stands that never suffered from the loss in

scenic quality due to slash.

Slash: Thinning and harvest operations produce

dead and downed wood, which has a highly negative

impact on scenic beauty (Arthur 1977; Benson 1982;

Daniel and Boster 1976; Schroeder and Daniel 1981;

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1980).

Brown and Daniel (1984) found the long-term impacts

of slash to be moderately negative and the short-term

impacts to be extremely negative. This is intuitive,

slash will decay with time, decreasing in height,

amount and visibility.

Ground Cover: Understory vegetation (grass,

shrubs) has a strong scenic impact. Generally, the

impact is positive unless the understory becomes so

large as to prevent visual penetration of the forest

stand (Brown and Daniel 1984; Hull and others 1987;

Schroeder and Daniel 1981).

Forest Density: Large trees tend to have a positive

influence on scenic beauty and small trees a negative

impact (Brush 1979; Herzog 1984; Hull and others

1987; Schroeder and Daniel 1981). A few large trees

are preferred over many small trees, thus in two

stands with equal basal areas, the one with the fewest

trees will be preferred. This is the forest characteristic

most easily and frequently controlled through management. It is fortunate that a forest that is well managed

from a biological/economic perspective is also scenic

(Brush 1979).

Rotation Age: Older trees and more mature

ecosystems generally result in higher scenic values

(Hull and Buhyoff 1986).

490
Man’s impact: Natural landscape features are

generally preferred over urban and built features.

Likewise, signs of Man in the forest tend to decrease

scenic beauty (Cans 1974). Houses usually decrease

the scenic beauty of forested landscapes unless

they are heavily screened by vegetation and built in

harmony with the surroundings (Vining and others

1984).

Roads: A major impact of forestry is the road

network that must be built in the forest. New road

cuts are very unscenic because they contrast in

color and shape with the forest and because of their

visibility due to loss of vegetative cover. A road

continues to detract from the visual quality of an

area if it does not conform to the curves in topography.

Roads well integrated into the forest may actually

increase scenic beauty by increasing penetrability,

legibility, and mystery (Kaplan 1985; U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service 1977b).

Land-Use Designations: Anderson (1981) found

observers’ scenic evaluations to be dependent upon

a descriptive title arbitrarily assigned to the land. The

name itself influenced scenic evaluations regardless

of actual forest characteristics. From most to least

scenic in impact, the land-use labels are as follows:

“wilderness,’ ‘National Park,’ ‘recreation area,’ ‘leased

grazing land,’ ‘commercial timber stands.’ Thus,

public perception can be influenced merely by the

name a place is called.

Urban Forestry: Visual preference for urban

forests increases with the following: increasing

diameter at breast height, increasing basal area per

stem, and increasing crown enclosure (Buhyoff and

others 1984). In residential streets, scenic quality

increases with increasing stem size (Lien and Buhyoff

1986; Schroeder and Cannon 1988).

Insects: Damage done to trees by pine beetles

extends beyond the biological and economic realms.

Scenic beauty is also degraded (Buhyoff and Leuschner 1978; Buhyoff and others 1982). This is especially

true for viewers who have knowledge that tree damage

is due to insects.

Ephemeral Landscape Characteristics: Features

that change the landscape only temporarily tend to

increase scenic quality (Hull and McCarthy 1988).

Leaf color increases scenic quality, as do sunsets,

wildlife (Hull and McCarthy 1988) and snow (Buhyoff

and Wellman 1980).

General Factors Mediating Scenic Impact

of Forest Management

Three general factors that influence the scenic

impacts of all forest management actions are the

temporal nature of forest management, the distance

of the action from the viewer, and the topography in

which the impact is located. These are discussed

below.

Most forest management actions have long-term

impacts on the visual environment, since the forest

grows and continues to respond to an intervention.

Thus, the visual impact of a forest management

action is not static or temporary, it can continue for

the life of the stand. For example, a thinning operation

initially degrades scenic beauty because of creating

slash, but over time the slash disappears and the

thinned forest, which has bigger trees with more

space between them, becomes much more scenic.

Therefore, it is important to consider the scenic

impacts of forest management actions as occurring

over the whole planning horizon as suggested by

Hull and Buhyoff (1986) and Brown and Daniel (1984).

The magnitude and character of most scenic

impacts vary with the distance from which the stand

is viewed. Most impacts lessen as distance from

observer increases, but some impacts change in

character as attention shifts from the specifics to the

general (e.g., from the slash in the foreground of a

clearcut to the outline and color contrast of the clearcut

against uncut stands in the background). The Forest

Service’s Visual Management System has three basic

distance classes: foreground (0 to 0.4 km.), middleground (0.4 to 4.8 km.), and background (4.8 km. to

the horizon). Viewers are assumed to be much less

sensitive to impacts occurring in the background

and moderately less sensitive to impacts in the

middleground. Most of the impacts described below

refer to forest changes that occur in the foreground

of the observer’s view.

The magnitude and character of most scenic

impacts also depend upon topography. Topography

influences the extent to which the impact is visible.

On the top of a hill a management action will be very

visible because it disrupts the horizon. On mid-slope

a management action will be very visible if the slope

is facing the viewer because the entire action will be

visible, nothing will be screened by vegetation. On a

slope facing away from the viewer the action will be

mostly out of view and the impact will be negligible.

When the viewer is at the same elevation as the

action and the action occurs on flat land, the impact

will be minor since vegetation can easily screen

much of the action from the viewer.

491
MANAGING VISUAL QUALITY

The Visual Management System O/MS) was

developed by the Forest Service to meet legislative

mandates requiring forest management to consider

visual resources (for a review of this subject, see

Smardon and others 1986; for an introduction to

VMS see the USDA Forest Service Handbooks).

VMS assumes that aesthetic value is inherent in

abstract features of the landscape (line, form, color,

harmony, etc.). The system categorizes landscapes

based on similarity in land form in order to identify

homogeneous land form types, Within each land

form type, landscapes are further categorized by

variability/diversity of various landscape features

(topography, vegetation, water, and land use) to

identify landscapes of ‘distinctive,’ “common; and

“minimal’ visual quality. The ‘sensitivity’ of each tract

of land to public viewing is also identified to determine

how many people see the area, from what distance,

and with what purpose (e.g., touring or commuting).

With information on public sensitivity and inherent

visual quality, each tract of land is assigned one of

the following visual quality objectives, which place

limits on the extent of landscape modification forest

management can cause:

Preservation: Only ecologically induced changes

in the landscape are allowed.

Retention: Management activities may not be

visually evident.

Partial retention: Management activities must

remain visually subordinate to the naturally appearing

landscape.

Modification: The effects of management activities

in the foreground and middleground may dominate

the view but must appear natural.

Maximum modification: Management activities

may appear dominant in the foreground and middleground areas, but should appear natural when viewed

as background.

The VMS (and systems like it) is widely implemented and has proven very successful in maintaining

and enhancing visual quality. However, it is limited in

its usefulness by problems with defensibility and

incompatibility. Both of these weaknesses can be

strengthened through strategic use of quantitative

psychophysical methods.

The Forest Service landscape architect, as the

in-house expert and defender of visual quality must

“go to bat’ against experts for other resources armed

with much more tangible and better defended

resource estimates (e.g., board feet, net profii, animal

unit months). It is important that all resource specialists

have sound and defensible information to support

their arguments. The VMS data, unfortunately, have

come under fire for being low in measurement quality.

That is, the data are low in sensitivity, reliability, and

validity (Daniel and Vining 1988; Feimer and others

1981). Furthermore, in order to justify any management

action on public lands, decisionmakers must demonstrate public participation, which is difficult for VMS

since its visual quality assessments are those made

by “experts’ and not the “public,’ who feel quite able

to make their own assessments.

Psychophysics is an attempt to quantitatively

and rigorously relate changes in persons’ evaluations

of an environment to changes in the environment

(see, Hull and others 1984, 1987). Numerous viewers

are shown environmerits of interest (or surrogates- i.e.

photographs) and asked to rate or compare them to

other environments with respect to scenic beauty.

Statistical techniques are used to factor out some of

the biases due to differences among viewers in their

use of the rating technique and to aggregate the

evaluations of many viewers into one number. Once

a scenic beauty estimate is obtained, regression

analysis is used to relate the variations in scenic

beauty with variations in the forest environment (e.g.,

scenic beauty = height, age). The psychophysical

method produces estimates of high measurement

quality (Daniel and Vining 1988) and may be used to

represent the preferences of different concerned

interest groups as well as the ‘general public.’ Thus,

armed with psychophysical based estimates and

traditional VMS information, the landscape architect

will be in a better position to argue his/her case.

It is also important that the method used to

manage visual quality be compatible with traditional

forest management decisionmaking. Unfortunately,

the VMS is rather inflexible. It is not set up to explore

trade-offs between visual quality and other resources.

VMS does not provide information about changes in

visual quality which would result from proposed

forest management actions, instead it places restrictions on forest management operations. This makes

visual quality a constraint forest management must

work around rather than a resource to be managed.

Furthermore, modern forest management is often

based on complex and quantitative decisionmaking

tools (such as linear programming), which assist

management in evaluating trade-offs and identifying

492
the ‘best’ forest management option. These systems

work best with resource assessments of interval or

better measurement quality and with assessments

that are predicted by common forest variables. VMS

assessments are of ordinal quality and the relationships between traditional forest measures and visual

quality are not straight forward. Again, the psychophysical method can assist (see Brown and Daniel

1984; Hull and Buhyoff 1986; Hull and others 1987).

Psychophysically based visual quality prediction

models are quantitative, flexible, and can be driven

by the same basic forest measurements used to

assess other forest products. These properties allow

trade-offs to be made. Furthermore, psychophysical

prediction models are prescriptive and can assist the

landscape architect and forest manager by suggesting

how typical forest variables (dbh, tree height, etc.)

influence visual quality. VMS, in contrast, is based

on abstract characteristics (line, form, etc.), which

are not directly controlled by forest management.

The translation from these abstract visual properties

to forest characteristics understood and managed

by foresters requires someone with design training.

Psychophysical techniques are not without their

critics, however (Daniel and Vining 1988; Goldbeck

1986; Sancar 1985; Zube and others 1982). Major

objections include disagreement over claims of

measurement quality, the validity of theory and

findings, and the appropriateness of using public

preferences to determine aesthetic quality and to set

aesthetic policy.

On balance, the VMS and psychophysical

procedures are concerned about somewhat different

things. VMS is primarily concerned with the viewability

of the landscape and management of the landscape.

It places aesthetic value in the landscape rather than

in the viewer. And, it places heavy emphasis on the

“naturalness’ of a landscape and the ability of a

landscape to typify an ecosystem (i.e. it is concerned

with the ‘character’ of the landscape). The psychophysical procedure is primarily concerned with a

person’s reaction to the landscape. It places the

aesthetic value of the landscape in the viewer and

thus defines forest scenic beauty as whatever the

viewer thinks it is, The psychophysically produced

scenic estimates are of high measurement quality

and involve public participation. VMS derived scenic

estimates are less flexible and less defensible. VMS

is in use on thousands of acres. Psychophysics is

only beginning to be used.

Efforts to integrate psychophysically based visual

quality systems with other forest product assessment

and prediction systems have been successful (Daniel

and others 1984). The integrated pest impact assessment system (IPIAS) was developed in an effort to

enable better decisions concerning forest insect

damage in the Colorado Rockies. It integrates scenic,

recreation, timber, insect, property value, and other

forest products using prediction models driven by a

common data base. For a given stand and a given

management prescription, IPIAS will assess the impact

of the action on each of the forest products. Work

on this type of system is still in its early phases, but

thus far the results are promising. They still have a

long way to go before they can compare with the

applicability of VMS, however.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

First and foremost, basic research is needed to

define the concept of visual quality. The difficulties

with forest visual quality management and research

seem due to a poorly defined construct. We must

identify what it is that a scenic environment does to

visitors so that we can then measure and manage it.

We must identify the numerous products associated

with visual quality and sort out which are relevant to

various forest management situations. The purpose

of the visitor while in the forest must be considered

in the definition.

We should ensure that the current visual

assessment/management systems are doing what

we want. We should be asking what we need of a

visual assessment/management system and how

can it best integrate with multiple use forest management. Then, we should implement a system to meet

these criteria. Visual quality management must allow

tradeoffs to be made with other forest resources so

that optimization-based forest planning is possible.

An inventory system for forest visual quality is

needed as a basis to help answer the two issues

raised above and as a basis to satisfy the resource

inventory demands of RPA. Currently, no systematic

approach exists to determine the overall amount and

quality of the visual environment, There is not even a

baseline. Buhyoff and others (1986) experimented

with an inventory system that holds promise. The

US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, has

in place a Renewable Resource Evaluation program

that continuously monitors forest- and land-use

conditions at fixed points located around the United

States. Buhyoff and others (1986) developed a visual

quality sampling strategy, which was tied into this

larger assessment system. Wider implementation of

such a system would provide data to monitor forest

visual quality.

493
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES RAISED

HERE

Numerous important issues that deserve discussion and research were raised in this paper and are

summarized below.

1. The existing definition of visual quality is

inadequate. It must reflect how a viewer’s purpose

determines visual quality. And, it must reflect the

numerous benefits/products associated with the

visual environment. Perhaps there are numerous

definitions.

2. More attention should be paid to a person’s

entire emotional response: scenic beauty/aesthetics

is just one component of environmental affect.

3. There are numerous benefits/products derived

from the forest visual environment. There needs to

be a better understanding of these. Why is so much

money and energy devoted to visual quality? What

does it do for people?

4. There is a need to integrate formal aesthetic

and psychophysical methods to better assist forest

management. VMS has problems of defensibility and

compatibility with which psychophysical systems can

assist. Yet, psychophysical systems by themselves

are complex and expensive and not as easily applied.

Psychophysical systems can be used to validate

design rules-of-thumb, to assess scenic preferences

of various interest groups, to quantify visual quality,

and to facilitate the making of trade-offs.

5. There is a need to debate whether the aesthetic

criteria used to manage public lands should be set

by experts trained in aesthetics who will ‘lead’ the

tastes of the public to better things or whether

aesthetic criieria should be set by the public who

use the land and know what they like. Part of the

debate revolves around the issue of whether aesthetic

tastes are learned or innate. If tastes are learned,

then using the public to set aesthetic criteria risks

miring ourselves in a landscape that represents the

mediocrity of aesthetic tastes learned a generation

ago. Gussow (1979) asked the still criiical, still

unanswered question at the “Our National Landscape’

conference almost one decade ago:

‘How do we preserve the best of the past, the

quality in the present and permit additions and

changes which reflect new energies and new,

creative, adaptive capacities?’

6. Visual quality of a forest is not static. A change

in the forest that occurred yesterday impacts scenic

quality for years to come as the forest matures and

responds to the change. Visual quality assessments

should account for the temporal characteristics of

scenic beauty. The ‘impacts’ of forest management

actions should be assessed over the planning horizon

of the forest, not just after the action occurs.

7. No assessments of visual quality have adequately considered the spatial component of a visual

experience. We are animals of motion, We do not

experience landscape scenes as disconnected

entities. The major determinants of scenic beauty

are likely due to the accumulations of scenes as one

moves through the landscape.

8. A monitoring system for visual quality is needed

to set a baseline, to satisfy RPA inventory demands,

and to provide basic information about forest visual

quality.

FUTURE SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL

QUALITY

Since at least as early as the 1864 Yosemite

Park land grant, our concern with landscape beauty

has been recognized as national policy. However,

because it is an intangible phenomenon, it has not

been treated on equal footing with other resources.

But, over the years, more and more attention has

been given to the quality of our visual environmentthis trend is likely to continue.

Opportunities for people to experience forested

landscapes will increase with expanding leisure time,

expanding transportation networks, and changing

demographics. This should create a greater awareness of the benefits of visual quality and thus a greater

constituency to support visual quality in political

battles. Also, as we shift from a consumer, growthoriented society-as we must in order to avoid totally

fouling our nest, Earth-our priorities must shift (Dubos

1968, 1980). We must become less concerned with

material things and more concerned with nature,

less concerned about quantity and more concerned

with quality. An increasing appreciation of our visual

environment should result. In addition, as we continue

to take note of the visual quality we have already

494
lost and as ‘development’ continues to take farm

land, forest, and other traditional sources of scenic

views, the increasing scarcity of scenic beauty will

increase its value.

Forest visual quality advertises the quality of

forest management and forest policy. The visual

environment is readily available to the public, and

the public feels qualified to evaluate it. As the public’s

sophistication and concern with environmental issues

increases, the quality of the visual environment will

increasingly be called into question. The Forest

Service will need to maintain high standards for the

visual environment or attract negative criiicisms from

the viewing public regarding all lines of forest

management concerns.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Linda M. 1981. Land use designations

affect perception of scenic beauty in forest landscapes. Forest Science. 27(2):392-400.

Anderson, Linda M.; Levi, D.J.; Daniel, T.C.;

Dieterich, J.H. 1982. The esthetic effects of

prescribed burning: a case study. Res. Note

RM-413. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 5 pp.

Appleton. J. 1975. The experience of landscape.

London: Wiley. 293 pp.

Arthur, L.M. 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest

environments: some empirical tests. Forest Science.

23(2):151-160.

Benson, Robert E. 1982. Management consequences

of alternative harvesting and residue treatment

practices: lodgepole pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-132.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 58 pp.

Brown, Thomas C.; Daniel, Terry C. 1984. Modeling

forest scenic beauty: concepts and application to

ponderosa pine. Res. Pap. RM-256. Fort Collins,

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

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 35 pp.

Brunswik, E. 1956. Perception and the representative

design of psychological experiments. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press. 154 pp.

Brush, R.O. 1979. The attractiveness of woodlands:

perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts.

Forest Science. 25(3):495-506.

Buhyoff, G.J.; Gauthier, L.; Wellman, J.D. 1984.

Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using

vegetation measurements. Forest Science.

30(1):71-82.

Buhyoff, G.J.; Hull, R.6.; Lien, J.; Cordell, H.K. 1986.

Prediction of scenic quality for southern pine stands.

Forest Science. 32(3):769-778.

Buhyoff, G.J.; Leuschner, W. 1978. Estimating

psychological disutility from damaged forest stands.

Forest Science. 24(3):424-432.

Buhyoff, G.J.; Wellman, J.D. 1980. The specification

of a non-linear psychophysical function for visual

landscape dimensions. Journal of Leisure Research. 12:257-267.

Buhyoff, G.J.; Wellman, J.D.; Daniel, T.C. 1982.

Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle

and western spruce budworm damaged forest

vistas. Forest Science. 28(4):827-838.

Canter, D. 1984. The purposive evaluation of places:

a facet approach. Environment and Behavior.

15:659-698.

Carls, E.G. 1974. The effects of people and man

induced conditions on preference for outdoor

recreation landscapes. Journal of Leisure Research.

6:113-124.

Craik, K.H. 1970. A system of landscape dimensions:

appraisal of its objectivity and illustration of its

scientific application. Berkeley, CA: University of

California, Institute of Personality Assessment and

Research. 58 pp.

Cullen, G. 1961. Townscape. New York: Reinhold.

315 pp.

Daniel, T.C.; Boster, R.S. 1976. Measuring landscape

esthetics, the scenic beauty estimation method.

Res. Pap. RM-167. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 66 pp.

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

in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman,

I.; Wohlwill, J., eds. Human Behaviour and Environment. Vol. 6.

495
Daniel, Terry C.; White, William 8.; Hunter, Don 0.

1984. Integrated pest impact assessment system:

an interface to a forest management information

system. Rep. No. 84-2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest

Pest Management, Methods Application Group.

22 PP.

Devitt, T. 1988. What price beauty? Isthmus.

July:7-9.

Dubos, R. 1980. The wooing of earth: new perspectives

on man’s use of nature. New York: Scribner. 183 pp.

Dubos, R.J. 1968. So human an animal. New York:

Scribner. 267 pp.

Feimer, N.R.; Smardon, R.C.; Craik, K.H. 1981.

Evaluating the effectiveness of observer based

visual resource and impact assessment methods.

Landscape Research. 6: 12-l 6.

Goldbeck, A.L. 1986. Evaluating statistical validity of

research reports: a guide for managers, planners,

and researchers, Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-87.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station.

Gussow, A. 1979. Conserving the magnitude of

uselessness: a philosophical perspective. pp.

6-l 1, In: Elsner, G.H.; Smardon, R.C., camps. Our

national landscape, proceedings of a conference

on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resources. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PSW-35. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station.

Hamilton, L.; Rader, T.; Smith, R.C. 1973. Aesthetics

and owner attitude toward suburban forest practices. Northern Logger. 22(3):18-l 9, 38-39.

Herzog, T. 1984. A cognitive analysis of preference

for field and forest environments. Landscape

Research. 9-l O-l 6.

Hull, R.B. 1988. Identifying, evaluating and predicting

neighbourhood amenity. Journal of Architecture

and Planning. [In review].

Hull. R.B.; Buhyoff, G.J. 1983. Distance and scenic

beauty: a non-monotonic relationship. Environment

and Behavior. 15:77-91.

Hull, R.B.; Buhyoff, G.J. 1986. The scenic beauty

temporal distribution method: an attempt to make

scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest

planning efforts. Forest Science. 32:271-286.

Hull, R.B.; Buhyoff, G.J.; Cordell, H.K. 1987. Psychophysical models: an example with scenic beauty

perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landscape

Journal. 6:113-l 22.

Hull, R.B.; Buhyoff, G.J.; Daniel, T.C. 1984. Measurement of scenic beauty: the law of comparative

judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures.

Forest Science. 3(4):1084-l 096.

Hull, R.B.; Harvey, A. 1988. Explaining the affect

people experience in suburban parks. Environment

and Behavior. [In review],

Hull, R.B.; McCarthy, M.M. 1988. Change in the

landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning.

15(3-4):265-278.

Hull, R.B.; Revell, G.R.B. 1988. Similarities and

differences in landscape scenic beauty evaluations:

westernized tourists compared to Balinese in Bali.

Journal of Environmental Psychology. [In review.]

Ittleson, W.H.; Proshansky, H.M.; Rivilin, L.G.; Winkel,

G.H. 1974. An introduction to environmental

psychology. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

Inc. 406 pp.

Kaplan, R. 1973. Predictors of environmental preference: designers and clients, pp. 256-274. In:

Preisner, W., ed. Environmental design research.

Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Kaplan, R. 1975. Some methods and strategies in

the prediction of preference. p, 118. In: Zube,

E.H.; Brush, R.O.; Fabos, J.G., eds. Landscape

assessment. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Kaplan, R. 1985. The analysis of perception via

preference: a strategy for studying how the

environment is experienced. Landscape Planning.

12:161-176.

Kaplan, S. 1977. Tranquility and challenge in the

natural environment. pp. 181-l 85. In: Children,

nature and the urban environment. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NE-30. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Forest

Experiment Station.

496
Kaplan, S. 1979. Concerning the power of contentidentifying methodologies. in: Assessing amenity

resource values. pp. 4-13. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-68.

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

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station.

Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R.; Wendt, J.S. 1972. Rated

preference and complexity for natural and urban

visual material. Perceptions in Psychophysiology.

12:354-356.

Kenner, Brian; McCool, Stephen F. 1985. Thinning

and scenic attractiveness in second-growth forests:

a preliminary assessment. Res. Note 22. Missoula,

MT: University of Montana, Montana Forest and

Conservation Experiment Station. 4 pp.

Kuller, R. 1972. A semantic model for describing

perceived environment. Stockholm, Sweden:

National Swedish Institute for Building Research.

180 pp.

Krupat, E. 1987. Designing to fight crime. Psychology

Today. October:50-61.

Leeper, R.W. 1948. A motivational theory of ‘emotion

to replace emotion as disorganized response.’

Psychological Review. 55:5-21.

Lien, J.N.; Buhyoff, G.J. 1986. Extension of visual

quality models for urban forests. Journal of

Environmental Management. 22(3):245-254.

Lion, R. Burton, Jr. 1984. Visual vulnerability of the

landscape: control of visual quality. Res. Pap.

WO39. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 34 pp.

Lowenthal, D. 1968. The American scene, Geographical Review. 58:61-88.

McCool, S.F.; Benson, R.E.; Ashor, J.L. 1986. How

the public perceives the visual effects of timber

harvesting: and evaluation of interest group

preferences. Environmental Management.

10:385-391.

Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American mind.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Patey, R.C.; Evans, R.M. 1979. Identification of

scenically preferred forest landscapes. pp. 532-538.

In: Elsner, G.; Smardon, R.C., camps. Our national

landscape, a conference on applied techniques

for analysis and management of the visual resource.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Pitt, D.; Soeryell, K.; Zube, E. 1976. Trees in the city.

p, 205. In: Laurie, l.c., ed. Nature in cities.

Chichester, England: Wiley.

Rabinowitz, C.B.; Coughlin, R.E. 1970. Analysis of

landscape characteristics relevant to preference.

Discussion Pap. No. 38. Philadelphia, PA: Regional

Science Research Institute. 86 pp.

Rapoport, A. 1982. The meaning of the built environment: a nonverbal communication approach.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 224 pp.

Russell, J.A.; Pratt, G. 1980. A description of the

affective quality attributed to environments. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology. 38:31 l-322.

Rutherford, W; Shafer, W.L. 1969. Selection cuts

increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest

stands. Journal of Forestry. 67(6):415-419.

Sancar, A. 1985. Towards theory generation in

landscape aesthetics. Landscape Journal.

4:116-l 24.

Schroeder, H.W.; Anderson, L.M. 1984. Perception of

personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal

of Leisure Research. 16(2):178-l 94

Schroeder, H.W.; Cannon, W.N. 1983. The esthetic

contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio

Towns. Journal of Arboriculture. 9(9):237-243.

Schroeder, H.W.; Daniel, T.C. 1981. Progress in

predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest

landscapes. Forest Science. 27(1):71-80.

Seila, A.F.; Anderson, L.M. 1984. Estimation of tree

preservation costs on urban residential lots in

metropolitan Atlanta. Georgia For. Res. Pap. 48.

7 PP.

Shepard, P. 1982. Nature and madness. San

Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. 178 pp.

Smardon, R.C; Palmer, J.F.; Felleman, J.P., eds.

1986. Foundations for visual project analysis. New

York: John Wiley & Sons. 374 pp.

497
Taylor, J.G.; Daniel, T.C. 1984. Prescribed fire: public

education and perception. Journal of Forestry.

82(6):361-365.

Ulrich, R.S. 1974. Scenery and the shopping trip: the

roadside environment as a factor in route choice.

Michigan Geographical Publications, No. 12. Ann

Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan, Department of

Geography. 176 pp.

Ulrich, R.S. 1977. Visual landscape preference: a

model and application. Man-Environment Systems.

7:279-293.

Ulrich. R.S. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: some

psychophysiological effects. Environment and

Behavior. 13:523-556.

Ulrich, R.S. 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to

natural environment. In: Altman, I.; Wohlwill, J.F.,

eds. Human Behavior and Environment. New

York: Plenum. Vol. 6.

Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through the window may

influence recovery from surgery. Science.

224:420-421.

Ulrich, R.S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation

and landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning.

13:29-44.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974.

National forest landscape management. Agriculture

Handbook No. 462. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office. Vol. 2.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1975.

National forest landscape management. Chapter

2: Utilities. Agriculture Handbook No. 478. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Vol. 2.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1977a.

National forest landscape management. Chapter

3: Range. Agriculture Handbook No. 484. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Vol. 2.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1977b.

National forest landscape management. Chapter

4: Roads. Agriculture Handbook No. 483. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Vol. 2.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980.

National forest landscape management. Chapter

5: Timber. Agriculture Handbook No. 559. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Vol. 2.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1985.

National forest landscape management. Chapter

6: Fire. Agriculture Handbook No. 608. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office. Vol. 2.

Vining, Joanne: Schroeder, Harold W.; Daniel, Terry

C. 1984. Predicting scenic values in forested

residential landscapes. Journal of Leisure Research. 16(2):124-l 35.

Walsh, R.G.; Olienyk, J.P. 1981. Final reportrecreation demand effects of mountain pine beetle

damage to the quality of forest recreation resources

in the Colorado Front Range. Fort Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agricufture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Walters, R.M.; Bacon, W.R.; Twombly, A.D. 1979,

Timber management simulated field trip. pp. 3643.

In: Elsner, G.H.; Smardon, R.C., camps. Our

national landscape, a conference on applied

techniques for analysis and management of the

visual resource. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley,

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Wohlwill, J.F. 1973. Factors in the differential response

to the natural and man-made environments. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American

Psychological Association, Montreal, August 1973.

35 pp. Unpublished.

&be, E.H.; Pitt, D.G.; Evans, G.W. 1983. A lifespan

developmental study of landscape assessment.

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 3:115-l 28.

Zube, E.H.; Sell, J.L.; Taylor, J.G. 1982. Landscape

perception: research, application and theory.

Landscape Planning. 9:1-34.

Zuckerman, M.; Ulrich, R.S. 1982. Sensation seeking

and affective reactions to nature paintings. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern

Psychological Association, Baltimore, April. Unpublished.

498 ir U.S. GOVER NMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19@3- 6 3 7 - II g 2 I 0
r

_________-_-__---1

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

t

1

I

I

7
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 Congress-to provide increasingly greater

service to a growing Nation.

USDA policy prohibits discrimination because of race,

color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or handicapping

condition. Any person who believes he or she has been

discriminated against in any USDA-related activity should

immediately contact the Secretary of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250.