United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Senri~e 

Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Stat ion 

General Technical 

Report SE-67 

Southeastern Recreation 

Research Conference 

\ RESEARCH / 
These proceedings have been prepared using copy supplied by 

the authors. Authors are responsible for the content and accuracy 

of their papers. 
Proceedings 

Southeastern Recreation 

Research Conference 

Volume 12 

February 14-16, 1990 

Asheville, North Carolina 

1990 Conference Director 

M. Kathleen Perales 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Editor 

Dr. Daniel Hope 111 

University of Georgia 

Produced by 

Institute of Community and Area Development 

A Service Unit of The University of Georgia 

Athens, Georgia 

Published by 

USDA Forest Service 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station 

February 1991 

The 12th annual Southeastern Recreation Research (SERR) Conference was held on 

February 14- 16, 1990, in Asheville, NC. The theme of the conference was Ethics, Values, and 

Recreation Management. 

The purposes of the conference were threefold: to provide an environment for the exchange of 

infomatLon among researchers, managers, and students; 

4 to promote and present recreation research findings; and 

to discuss trends and directions in and for recreation research and management. 

The Committee Chairmen provided the means to meet these goals by organizing this three-day 

conference. The first-day Management Symposium was arranged by Dr. Randy Botkin and Mses. Chris 

Cornell, Barbara McDonald and Kathleen Perales. The Poster Session, now a two-day event, was lead by 

the efforts of Drs. Jim Absher and Cary McDonald. The second day began with the presentation of 

Invited Papers, chaired by Dr. Randy Botkin and Ms. Debbie Klinko. The Contributed Papers Session 

was chaired by Drs. Jim Absher and Cary McDonald. The third-day forum was a Management Research 

Needs panel discussion, chaired by Messrs. John Titre and Phil Flood. 

The work of the Proceedings editor, Dr. Dan Hope, began with the end of the conference. 

Without his efforts and those of Brenda Mattox and the staff of The University of Georgia's Institute of 

Community and Area Development, this document would not have been possible. 

This Proceedings includes the papers presented at the conference, now reviewed. Our special 

thanks go to those persons who assisted in the manuscript review process: 

Dr. James Absher 

Ray Argo 

Dr. Randy Botkin 

Tom Burkiewicz 

Howard Clonts 

Dr. Walter L. Cook 

Dr. H. Ken Cordell 

Phil Flood 

Dr. John Granrose 

Bill Hammitt 

Dr. Tom Hodler 

Lou Hyman 

Ray Kisiah, Jr. 

Dr. Doug Kleiber 

Bill Leuscher 

Barbara McDonald 

Dr. Gina Mcllelan 

Dr. Forster Ndubisi 

Dr. Dick Patterson 

Sharon Randall 

Diane Ridenour 

Howard Schretter 

Jim Youngquist 

Karen Zera 

We would like to thank the conference co-sponsors and agencies that made this conference and 

proceedings possible. They include Southern Appalachian Research, Resource Management Cooperative 

(SARRMC); USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station (USFS); Society of American 

Foresters (SAF); South East Council of State Outdoor Recreation Planners (SECSORP); Nations Society 

for Park Resources (NSPR); Tennessee Valley Authority, Land Between the Lakes (TVA); US Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (CEWS); and the University of Georgia. 

M. Kathleen Perales 

1990 SERR Chairman 

Daniel Hope 111 

1990 Proceedings Editor 
Table of Contents 

Foreword .................................................... i 

Management Symposium 

What is Economic Development For? by John-Hodges-Copple ............. 1 

Changing Role of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 

Provision of Outdoor Recreation Opportunities by William J. Hansen ........ 11 

Research Posters 

A Thematic Analysis of the Expectations 

and Experiences of the Great 

Smoky Mountain Visitor by Cynthia P. G. Franz, 

Rebecca L. Van Cleave, David L. Franz, A. Kent Van Cleave, Jr. .......... 19 

Monitoring Impacts at Backcountry Campsites 

and Shelters at Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park by J. M. Klein and John ti. Burde .................... 29 

An Automated Mapping Procedure for 

Urban Recreation Planning by Juihn Kuo and Hugh Devine ............. 37 

Estimating Dispersed Recreation Use 

In Multiple Access Settings Using Parked Vehicles 

by Kathy King Mengak and M. Kathleen Perales ..................... 53 

Invited Papers 

Examining Our Assumptions by Michael L. McGowan ................. 61 

Environmental Ethics and Recreation Resource 

Management: An Academic Perspective by James D. Absher ............. 65 

Professional Ethics: How Are They Defined, 

Taught, Enforced by Richard C. Field ........................... 73 

Ethical Dilemmas in Economics by George L. Peterson ................. 83 

Contributed Papers 

Moral Development and Environmental Ethics: 

Managerial Implications by nomas C. Swearingen ................... 93 
Economic and Social Impacts of Hunting 

Land Access by H.A. Clonts, S. A. Randall, 

M. S. Wallace and H. L. Stribling .............................. 109 

Recreational Incentives in the Adoption of 

a Forest Land Management Program by Non-Industrial Private 

Landowners: Marketing the Treasure Forest 

Program in Alabama by Mchael A. Jones and Donald R. Self ............ 123 

Family Participation in Auxiliary Activities Associated with 

Developed Camping by Christine Cornell and Joseph T. O'Leary .......... 13 1 

Attitudes, Perceptions, and Characteristics of Summer 

Visitors to the Great Smoky Mountains Region 

by Rebecca L. Van Cleave, Cynthia P. G. Franz, 

David L. Franz, Jr. and A. Kent Van Cleave, Jr. .................... 14 1 

Designing Recreation Monitoring Systems : 

Some Comments on the Participant Observer Design 

by Kenneth Chilman, David Foster and Alan Everson .................. 163 

The Role of Involvement in Identifying Users' 

Preferences for Social Standards in the Cohutta Wildlerness 

by J. Mark Young, Daniel R. Williams and Joseph Roggenbuck ............ 173 

WHAT IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR? 

John Hodges-Copplel 

Abstract Economic development is too often regarded as an end in itself rather than the 

means to sustain and improve people's lives. Public opinion polls, recreation participation 

rates, and business climate surveys all indicate that Southerners highly value recreation and 

broader environmental concerns. Yet public investment levels indicate that these values are 

not reflected in the governing ethic of the South, which continues to emphasize what public 

goods and services cost rather than what they provide. Increasing attention to en.rl-ironmenta1 

concerns in the public consciousness, in state governments outside of the South, and in 

literature may herald greater state involvement in recreation and associated environmental 

concerns in the South in the 1990s. 

Daniel Boorstin, who was the Librarian of Congress, once said that "the great obstacle to progress is 

not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge." Yogi Berra, who was not the Librarian of Congress, said the 

same thing in a different way. He said, "what gets us into trouble isn't what we don't know, its what we 

know for sure that just ain't so." 

Too much of what passes for conventional economic development thinking might fall into the 

category of what we know for sure that gust ain't so. And this conventional thinking may especially detract 

from the role that recreation and broader natural resource concerns play in people's lives. 

This conventional thinking is that "economic development" is an end in itself, a goal to be attained. 

The problem with this thinking was summed up by George Tindall, Kenan Professor of History at the 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Tindall posed the question, "what is economic development 

for if not to improve the quality of people's lives?" (Tindall, 1986). It makes little sense if, in pursuing 

economic development, the South ignores or even degrades the very aspects of people's lives and 

surroundings that society wants economic development to sustain and improve. 

That is one of the reasons that the Southeastern Recreational Research Conference's focus on ethics 

and values is so timely. Values and ethics are not subjects practitioners in the economic development field 

spend much time on. But it is short-sighted to think of economic development apart from values and 

ethics, since an economic system arises out of, and can only be sustained by, shared values and ethics. And 

it is equally short-sighted not to see economic development as a means to sustain and improve what we 

value. 

One of the things the Southern Growth Policies Board tries to do is inject this broader focus into 

public policy. The Board, for lack of a better term, is an economic development "think tank" for its 13 

member states plus Puerto Rico. It is funded and governed by its members, with the governor, a state 

senator, a state representative, and two citizen members serving on the Board from each state. This 

combination of gubernatorial, legislative, and private sector membership gives the Board a unique strength 

and one critical in today's economy. The Board also has an associate membership program which includes 

over 250 corporations, universities, colleges, and non-profit agencies. 

The Board defines "economic development" very broadly, with the aim of promoting economic 

development in addition to economic growth. The difference between growth and development is the 

difference between spurring short-term economic activity on the one hand-which is growth-and 

developing the long-term capacity to generate self-sustaining economic activity on the other-which is 

Staff Associate for Research and Programs, Southern Growth Policies Board, P.O. Box 

12293, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 
development. Now both are important, but too often the South has ignored the hard, long-term chailenges 

of development and concentrated on short-term growth. 

The Southern Growth Policies Board concentrates on state government plicy+specidly within a 

regional context-and the Board's audience consists of governors, state legislators, educators, state agency 

staffs, and corporate executives. The Board's staff, though small, is engaged in research on such issues as 

education, technology, internatiod trade and finance, state and local government relations, and natural 

resources. The Board publishes research reports, creates networks-such as the Southern Technology 

Council devoted to issues of technology and innovation-and sponsors conferences. 

One particularly impomnt Board project was the Commission on the Future of the South, whose 

final report is titled, IIalfway Home and a Long Way to Go (Southern Growth Policies Board, 1988). The 

Commission was made up of 20 distinguished Southerners, who developed ten regional economic 

development objectives, one of which was to enhance the South's natural and cultural resources. One of the 

companion documents to the final report was devoted to the quality of life in the South (Tindall, 1986). 

Although the Board can and has played a number of roles, perhaps its most frequent is to take an 

important issue and frame it in terms of state economic development policy, then see that it gets before the 

eyes of the region's leaders-the governors, legislators, and others. Four general points that the Southern 

Growth Policies Board propounds in its work are: 

take a long term view, 

* recognize interdependence, 

think globally, and 

emphasize quality. 

This is the perspective from which the Board views public policy issues-a perspective that so far has 

said a lot about economic development and very little explicitly about values, ethics, and recreation. In 

discussing recreation, it may be helpful to also discuss broader conservation and natural resource issues of 

which recreation, and particularly outdoor recreation, is a part. 

First, values, which-to the disgust of philosophers everywhere-Webster's defines as "principles, 

standards, or qualities considered worthwhile or desirable." In this simplified view, values can be thought of 

as "product-oriented" in an economic sense (if one can imagine that); people most often talk of valuing 

things or qualities. Well, one of the things Southerners value, one of the qualities considered worthwhile or 

desirable, is recreation, which, quite literally, means to re-create, "to create anew, to impart fresh life to, to 

refresh mentally or physically." John Shelton Reed, a sociologist at Chapel Hill and chronicler of southern 

tastes, makes clear that recreation, and the associated issues of open space and nature, are highly valued. 

Writing for the Commission on the Future of the South, Reed noted that when asked what is the best 

thing about the South, two-thirds of survey respondents mentioned the South's climate, its forests, 

mountains, or coast, its lack of crowding and pollution, and the opportunities it offers for outdoor recreation 

(Reed, 1986). 

These southern conservation values are reinforced by the statistics on participation by Southerners in 

various recreational pursuits and in annual polls that ask whether we spend too little, too much, or about 

the right amount on improving and protecting the environment. Figure 1 depicts southern environmental 

opinion in the South. 
Figure 1. Southern Public Opinion on Environmental Spending 

Are we spending too much, too little, or about the right amount on improving and protecting 

the enviroment? 

KEY Spend too little Spend too much 

a Data not collected. 

People in the Census South who think we spend too little have always outnumbered those who think 

we spend too much, but during the 1980s the support for greater spending has become overwhelming. 

Perhaps more important, this support strengthened during and immediately following the steep 1981-82 

recession, unlike the two recessions in the mid- and late-1970s following which such support waned 

(National Opinion Research Center, 1988). 

And numerous studies of the business climate--the factors that attract businesses-identify "quality of 

life" in general, and pleasant natural smoundings in particular, as increasingly important to the business 

community. Although there is somewhat of a minor industry in business climate studies, which is not 

worth delving into here, they tend to find that-for many emerging technology and service industries- 

"ambiance" factors such as recreation, environment, and climate, frequently rank second in importance to 

personnel factors (supply of skilled workers, etc.) and well ahead of cost factors (land, water, labor, energy) 

mosenfeld, 1986). But the cost factor argument is frequently invoked to fight steps to improve the 

"ambiance" factors. 

Which brings up ethics, a concept the great philosopher Webster defines as "principles of right and 

good conduct," If, in this simplified view, values can be thought of as product-oriented, then ethics can be 

thought of as more process-oriented. 

The public policy process in the South, the reflection of the governing ethic, is one that too often 

dismisses recreation and conservation concerns by categorizing hem as "amenities," with the connotation 
that amenities are things that are extra, nice to have if you've got extra money lying around. Again tuming 

to Webskr, amenities are "things that increase physical or material comfort," things that could be viewed 

not as competing with economic development, but as the goal of economic development. 

The nature of this governing ethic can be hinted at by contrasting the values espoused by Southerners 

with the values implied by the funds we devote to environmental and namaI resource concerns. 

h by the Council of State Governments and the Bureau of Economic Analysis permit an 

analysis of state environmental and natural resource invesments not previously possible. In 1988, the 

Council published a resource guide on state environmental management which, among other information, 

included 1986 state spending on an array of envir~nmental and natural resources categories (Brown and 

Gamer, 1988). Also in 1988, the Bureau published estimates of 1986 gross state product for each state 

(Renshaw, et. al., 1988). Gross state product, analogous to gross domestic product at the national level, is 

a measure of the gross market value of goods and services attributable to labor and property located within a 

state and serves as a measure of economic output. 

Analyzing state environmental and natural resource spending relative to gross state product and other 

measures such as population, total personal income, and total state spending, permits comparisons between 

the South and the rema4nder of the nation on efforts to conserve and develop natural resources and protect 

the environment. The discussion below is taken from a longer analyses of state environmental and natural 

resource spending in the southern states (Hodges-Copple, 1989). 

The spending totals reported by the Council of State Governments consist of all state, federal, and 

other monies which have passed through the state budgetary process. The Council notes that local 

government environmental spending is significant in many states, but is not reflected unless it passes 

though the state budget. Although each dollar of spending is assigned to a specific category, in reality it is 

difficult to narrowly classify environmental spending because environmental concerns overlap. Some water 

quality protection programs, for example, may have significant land management aspects although they tend 

to be primarily water resource related. 

Figure 2 shows per capita environmental and natural resource RNR) investments in each southern 

state and for the region as a whole. Southern states spent an average of 15 dollars per person on ENTI. in 

1986 as compared to 24 dollars per person in states outside the region. There is a wide range of per capita 

spending among states in the South, from a low of $1 1.30 to a high of $24.08. Only Kentucky and West 

Virginia, with large mining reclamation expenditures tied to their mining industries, and Mississippi, with 

large spending related to its forestry industry, had per capita spending above the 22 dollar national average. 

Figure 2. Environmental and Natural Resources Spending Per Capita (1986) 

AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TM VA W South NonSouth 

Figure 3 shows investments as a percent of one measure of the economic resources available to states, 

gross state product. This "ability to pay" measure may be a fairer indication of state efforts, because it 

recognizes that southern states tend to be poorer than states outside the region. On average, southern states 

spent an average of 10 cents per 100 dollars versus 13 cents per 100 dollars outside the South, a significant 

difference. Again, only Kentucky, West Virginia, and Mississippi exceed the national averages, although 
other states register closer to the nationd average than under the per capita spending measure. Results were 

similar for ENR spending as a percenl of total personal income, another ability-to-pay measure. 

Figure 3. Environmental and Natural Resources Spending As a Percent of Gross State Product 

(1986) 

AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN VA W South NanSouth 

Figure 4 shows Em spending as a percent of total state expenditures in each state, indicating the 

relative importance of natural resource conservation and development compared to other public concerns. 

On average, southern states devote $1.06 to the environment and natural resources out of every 100 dollars 

of total state spending. States outside of the South devote an average of $1.57 of every 100 dollars in total 

spending to the environment and natural resources. 

Figure 4. Environmental and Natural Resources Expenditures Per $100 of Total State 

Expenditures (1986) 

1.83 

AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC VA South NanSouth 

Figure 5 summarizes some demographic and economic measures in the South as a percentage of 

national totals, including investments in the environment and natural resources and investments in state 

parks, a category of spending not included in the Council of State Governments analysis National 

Association of State Park Directors, 1988). As with all gross measures, care must be taken in interpreting 

the data on state parks system spending. Although the data indicate that southern states spend relatively 

more than other states on their state parks system (as measured by total operating budget), this is likely a 

reflection of a greater concentration of "resort" parks in the South, with attendant hotel, restaurant, marina, 

and other facilities that raise budgets but also bring in revenues. Another measure, the amount of state park 
system land per capita, indicates a lower level of effo~l in the South. Even excluding Alaska's mwmoth 

park system, states outside of the Sou& average 1,500 square feet of pxk system per capita versus 900 

square feet per capia in the South. 

Figure 5. Demographic and Economic Measures of the Southern States as a Percent of 

the U.S. (1986) 

Total Personal Income 21.8% 

TotL~l Statcl Sp~nding 

State Prlrk System Spending 26.5% 

Total Environmcntal and 17.6% 

Natural Resource Spending 

hlining Iicclamation Spcnding 30.5% 

Forestry Spending 29.5% 

I_,~nd hlandgernvnt Spcnding 26.1 5 

Soil Conscr~ lor, Spcnding 20.6'; 

Cc.ologicnl Survcy Spcndizg 

Air Rt.scurci~s Spcndi1:g 

Fi~h and 'ivildlifc Sptrtding 

I'csticidc Control Sper~din:; - l.1.9(,; 

Waste Management Spending 12.7% 

Water Resources Spending 12.3% 

Figure 5 shows lhat relative to its e~onomic resources----whether me~ured by gross state product or 

total personal income-the South inves~ relatively more than the rest of the nation in forestry, land 

management, and mining reclamation. In addition, the South invests almost the same relative to the rest of 

the nation in soil conservation. But in olher crihcally impmnt carcgories, such as air resources, water 

resources, and waste management, southern spending fdfs short of that ou&ide of the South. For example, 

although 22 percent of the nation's personal income md goss domestic product is athbutable to the South, 

only 12 to 13 percent of state investmen& in waiter resources and waste management occur in the South. 

Care should also be used in bwhg conclusions from the Em data, since spending is a broad 

measure that may obscure the reasons behind md ~e resuf& sf the levels of invesment in particular states. 

Some of the difference in EM spending among states, far exmple, is due to the mture and condition of 

natural resources in the sta&s. To use one example, Oklahoma, without; a coastline and with less extensive 

forests than most other southern states, might be expected to spend less on the environment and natural 

resources unless other naturd resources are more prominent in Oaahoma than other states. In other cases, 

resource abundance might lead to lower spending if threats to the resource are small or are thought 

insignificant relative to the qumtity of the resource. 

In addition, the data do not reflect the differences in "needs'hong states for investments: in other 

areas. For exmple, states with relatively large percen&ges of pople living in poverly would not only 

have less resources to invest in EM than relatively better off sQtes, but would have a greater demand for 
state investments in progams to reduce pvertgr, SimFtarly, sBtes wirh relatively more school-age children 

would have @eater education investment ne&. A Representafive Expenditurr: System developed to address 

these relative needs indiates that dl of the sou&em states except for and Vkginia have investment 

needs @eater than the national avemge mafuse, 1988). 

Since the data include fderd monies ht pas rhrough the state budgem pwess, fderal legislation 

and grants may influence state spnding levels, regardless of state decisions on how much of their own 

funds to devote to environmentall and na resource sgending. 

Data on levels of spending also can not rekt how well money is spent-whether environmentdi and 

natural resource objectives are accomplished in the most efficient way. For example, North Carolina, with 

a long coastline and extensive est es, is generally considered to have one of the better marine and coastal 

programs in the nation, yet it spends relalively litlle on the progam compared to some other coastal states. 

The data include spending to bth consenre and develop resources and stales may differ over the proper 

division between the public and private sectors in paying the costs to develop or support the development of 

natural resources, forestry being one exmple. The dab make no distinctions between consemation and 

development spending40 the degree such distinctions can be made--or whether a "proper balance" is being 

smck. For example, some state expenditures to develop a resource in the short term may be detrimental to 

the long tern sustainability of the resource, 

Finally, the data are for a particular pint in 6me and for a broad but not necessarily all-inclusive array 

of environmental and natural resomce categories. Beriodiie coIteetion of the data for subsequent years would 

be necessary to show trends or fluctua~ons. 

There is nothing inhmntriy wrong witla Utrie Sou& invesdng less in the environment and natural 

resources than other regions and in some instances, such as those described above, there may be ample 

justification for doing so. But the dab do make clear that it is not the ability of the region to invest in 

Em that prevents the region from doing so, but the will. And the relalively low investment levels could 

place the region at a disadvantage in ensuring high quality resources to provide future economic benefits. 

If the problem with conventional economic development thinking is that it ignores what economic 

development is for-r~reational opportunities and broader conservation concerns being two prime 

examples-the problem of this conventional thinking might be most succinctly summed up by the phrase, 

"read my lips." 

People protect what they value. And public funds, managed and spent wisely, are how people pay for 

many of those things they value most: education for knowledge, police officers and fire fighters for 

protection, parks and open spaces for enrichment and recreation, roads and buses for mobility. 

If people value parks and open space and environmental protection-which polls indicate they do--and 

if these qualities are provided through the public sector rather than the private sector-which in many cases 

they are-then strategies that the public can embrace are needed that can provide these qualities. If people 

can be assured that increased revenues would be applied to specific problems that they care about, they may 

be more likely to support tax increases or new fees, especially if the revenue source has a reasonable 

relationship to the problem to be solved (Haas, 1989). Examples might include using a real estate transfer 

tax to fund land acquisition, or a water bill surcharge to fund watershed protection. 

The recent spate of sometimes massive bond issues for open space preservation and environmental 

protection at both the state and local levels in this country is one hopeful sign-$1.9 billion proposed for 

parks, historic preservation, and solid waste in New York in 1990, approximately $1 billion for 

environmental projects in Minnesou in 1988, $140 million for parks and $660 million for environmental 

projects in Michigan in 1988, $162 million in 1983 and $500 million in 1987 for open space in 

Massachusetts, $300 million for open space in New Jersey in 1988, $100 million in Pennsylvania for 

farmland preservation in 1987, $225 million for parks in two California counties in 1988, and 

approximately $190 million between 1985 and 1989 for watershed land acquisition and open space in tiny 

Rhode Island (Bureau of Nationd Affairs, 1988a, 198&b, 1988c, 1989, 1990; American Planning 

Association, 1988, 1989; National Civic kague, 1989; Lord, 1988). 
The South is not generally a leader in this new around of conservation although there are exceptions. 

Rorida, in particular, has aggressively targeted sensitive lands for acquisition. The state's "Save Out 

Everglades," "Save Our Coasts," "Save Our Rivers," and "Save Our Keys" initiatives are expected to result 

in over $800 million in land acquisition (Brisson and Hodges-Copple, 1987). 

Another less concrete, but perhaps equally hopeful sign, is the re-emergence over the past few years of 

writers addressing the conservation ethic and being taken seriously. If the writings of the 19th Century 

naturalists John Muir and Henry Thoreau helped propel one stage of the conservation movement and the 

writings of Rachel Carson another, perhaps the serious attention given Bill McKibben's The End ofNature 

and Thomas Berry's The Dream of the Earth will launch the next phase (McKibben, 1989; Berry, 1988). 

Berry writes: "nature will not be bargained with. In its ever-renewing processes, it is enomously prodigal 

in the nourishment it provides all living creatures. This abundance is available for humans so long as we 

are sensitive to the needs of other life systems as well as our own, and so long as we accept nature's 

rhythms =...our own .... significant achievements can and do come about when spiritual orientation, a sense 

of ecological integrity, and economic functioning come together ..." (Berry, 1989). 

In addressing the objective to Enhance the South's Natd and Cultural Resources, The Commission 

on the Future of the South stated, "Here, as in every objective of the Commission's report, the people of 

the South must declare their interdependence-not only with one another, but with the natural world" 

(Southern Growth Polices Board, 1988). Instilling this ethic, this principle of right and good conduct, into 

public policy may be one of the most important challenges facing the South's leaders. 

LITERATURE CITED 

American Planning Association. 1988. Saving the countryside. Planning 54(4):28. 

American Planning Association. 1989. The voters sp eak... Planning 55(12):28. 

Berry, T. 1988. The dream of the earth. The Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA. 

Berry, T. 1989. Planetary progress. Earth Ethics 1(1):6-8. 

Brisson, C. and J. Hodges-Copple. 1987. Case studies in southern growth management. Growth 

and Environmental Management. Southern Growth Policies Board, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Brown, R. S. and L. E. Garner. 1988. Resource guide to state environmental management. The 

Council of State Governments, Lexington, KY. 

Bureau of the Census, 1987. Statistical abstract of the United States, 1988. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Washington, DC. 

Bureau of National Affairs. 1988a. Voters approve environmental fund to finance projects 

throughout state. Environment Reporter 19(29): 1477. 

Bureau of National Affairs. 1988b. Voters approve $800 million in bonds for environmental 

cleanups, park projects. Environwnt Reporter 19(29): 1476. 

Bureau of National Affairs. 1988c. Dukakis record, Democratic platform point to tougher 

environmental regulation. Environment Reporter 19(12):382. 

Bureau of National Affairs. 1989. Rhode Island voters approve environmental fund. Environment 

Reporter 20(29):1310. 

Bureau of National Affairs. 1990, Cuomo proposes $1.9 billion bond act. Environment Reporter 

20(37): 158 1. 
Waas, L. J. 1989. The terrifying t-word. Natittnal Journal. 21 (22) 1354-1357. 

E-Todges-Copple, J. 1989. State environmental and natural resource investments. SGPB Alert No. 26. 

Souahern Growth Policies Board, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Lord, P. 1988. An environmental chief tries to protect Rhode Island from its economic success. 

Governing 2(2):46-50. 

McKibben, W. 1989. The end of nature. Random House, New York, NY. 

National Association of State Park Directors. 1988. Annual information exchange. Texas Parks 

and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. 

National Civic League. 1989. National Civic Review 78(3):230. 

National Opinion Research Cent;er, 1988, General Social Surveys 1972-1988: Cumulative 

Codebook, conducted for the National Data Program for the Social Sciences. The Roper 

Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. question #69. 

Search and computer assistance provided by David Sheaves and Diana McDuffee of the University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institute for Research in the Social Sciences. 

Rafuse, R. 1988. Representative expenditures: addressing the neglected dimension of fiscal 

capacity. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, DC. 

Reed, J. S. 1986. Southern public opinion on the south's quality of life. In Education, 

environment and culture: the quality of life in the south. pp, 18-23, Southern Growth 

Policies Board, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Renshaw, V., E. Trott, Jr., and H. Friedenberg. 1988. Gross state product by industry. Survey of 

Current Business 68(5):30-46. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, Washington, DC. 

Rosenfeld, S. 1986. Let the chips fall where they may, Business & Economic Review 32(4):3-8. 

College of Business Administration, The University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 

Southern Growth Policies Board. 1988. Halfway home & a long way to go. Research Triangle 

Park, NC. 

Tindall, G. 1986. Education, environment and culture: the quality of life in the south. Southern 

Growth Policies Board, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

C GING ROLE OF THE U.S. A Y CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

PROVISION OF OUTDOOR CREATION 

OPPORTUNITIES1 

William J. Hansen 

The US Army Corps of Engineers is one of the nation's largest suppliers of outdoor recreation 

opportunities. Although known primarily for the recreation opportunities provided at the multi-purpose 

reservoir projects it constructs and manages, the Corps is also involved in the planning, design and construction 

of recreation developments at a wide variety of non-reservoir type projects. Over 500 million recreation days2 

of use were reported at the 462 lake projects it managed during 1986. Estimates of the additional amounts of 

use that occurred on the non-reservoir projects in which the Corps participated in planning, design, and 

construction are unknown. 

The Corps has been officially involved in the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities for less than 

one quarter of its 200 plus year history. During this period the Corps' role as a recreation provider expanded 

from simple accommodation of public use on project lands to provision of highly developed recreation areas. In 

addition, its stewardship of resource responsibility expanded from a general laissez-faire posture to conscious 

and deliberate management of existing and potential project resources. ~oug~out this period, state and local 

governments, quasi-public, and private organizations have also played an important, but ever changing, role in 

the provision of recreation opportullities at Corps water resource development projects. 

Many individuals not familiar with the Corps often wonder how a "military" organization became 

involved in providing public recreation opportunities, or why the Corps is sometimes limited in the types of 

recreation developments it can provide. The purpose of this paper is to provide some insight into these issues 

by discussing the historical involvement of the Corps in providing outdoor recreation opportunities at new water 

resource development projects. Significant changes in the legislative and administrative environment under 

which the Corps has planned and developed recreation facilities are discussed. Factors influencing this political 

environment, such as increasing demand for recreation opportunities, public awareness of limitations on natural 

resources, and the nation's economic viability are identified. Also discussed are the changing information needs 

from social, behavioral and natural sciences that occurred during these periods. 

EVOLUTION OF CORPS INVOLVEMENT IN RECREATION 

Early History 

The Corps was indirectly involved in recreation as far back as the 1870's, when it took part in the 

exploration, development, and maintenance of Yellowstone National Park (Verburg 1975, 76). It's first 

' The views expressed are those of the author and not of the Department of the Army or the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. Adapted from forthcoming Policy Studies ReviewlGreenwood Press Publication on Outdoor 

Recreation Policy and paper presented at 1990 Outdoor Recreation Trends I11 Symposium. 

A recreation day is defined in Supplement No. 1 to Senate Document 97 as a visit by one individual to a 

recreation development or area for recreation purposes during any reasonable portion or all of a 24-hour period. 
legislative involvement came with the Fletcher Act in 1932. This Act broadened the scope of the Federal 

interest in navigation to include as "comerce" the use of waterways by ". . . seasonal passenger craft, yachts, 

houseboats, fishing boats, motor boats, and other similar water craft, whether or not operated for hire" (47 Stat. 

42, 33 U.S. C. 541). Although this Act achowledgd recreation as a user of navigation facilities, it did not 

involve the Corps in the provision of park-related recreation opportunities. 

New Deal Era 

The period 1933-43 has been described by Holmes (1972, p. 13) as the "New Deal" era in water 

resources planning. An important initial consideration in New Deal planning was the need for immediate action 

in the form of public works projects to stimulate construction industries and provide jobs for the unemployed 

(Holmes 1972, 13). This was a period of severe unemployment, and public works projects were considered a 

means of creating jobs. In addition, partially as a result of severe floods in 1927 and again in the Spring of 

1936, Congress recognized the need for increased Federal flood control assistance, to include larger structures, 

such as dams and reservoirs. The Flood Control Act of 1936 addressed both of these national problems. 

The Flood Control Act of 1936 authorized $320 million for the construction of 250 projects and a 

number of investigations and surveys. Section 1 of the Act declared flood control to be a proper Federal 

activity, and one in which the Federal government should participate, ". . . if the benefits to whomsoever they 

may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs, and if the lives and social security of people are otherwise 

adversely affected" (49 Stat. 1570, 33 U.S.C. 701a). Section 3 further stipulated what became known as the 

"a-b-c" requirements of local cooperation for projects authorized therein, that is: (a) provide without cost to the 

United States all lands, easements, and right-of-way required for project construction; (b) hold and save the 

United States free from damages due to the construction works; and (c) maintain and operate all the works after 

completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. 

The 1936 Flood Control Act was important in several ways. First, by declaring flood control to be a 

proper Federal activity, it led to Corps participation in a wide variety of water resource development projects 

with significant recreational development capabilities. The stipulation that the Federal government should 

participate ". . . if the benefits . . . are in excess of the estimated costsw established an evaluation standard that 

was subsequently applied to the incremental costs of recreation developments. Finally, the requirements for 

local cooperation, delineated joint Federal and local responsibilities that were also, subsequently extended to the 

provision of recreation developments. Although there have been changes through the years to the particulars of 

the "a-b-c" requirements, the joint Federal and local cooperation continues to be an important integral part in 

the Corps' participation in the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities. 

Initial Authorization for Recreation 

Following the enactment of the 1936 Flood Control Act, the Corps became involved in the construction 

of dams for flood control purposes. The lakes created behind these dams proved immediately attractive for 

fishing and other recreational uses. Project lands were also leased to local governments on a short-term basis. 

In 1944, the State of Ohio, generated interest in long-term leases. The State wanted the long-term leases at two 

Corps projects for recreation and wildlife magement purposes. At that time, however, the Corps was short 

on authority to assist and sustain public outdoor recreation and was not prepared to enter long-term leasing 

arrangements (Lawyer 1970, 6). Congress eliminated these barriers with the first sentence of section four of 

the 1944 Flood Control Act, which authorized the Chief of Engineers to ". . . construct, maintain and operate 

public park and recreational facilities in reservoir areas . . . and to permit the construction, maintenance and 

operation of such facilities. . . " (58 Stat. 889, 16 U.S.C. 460-b). 
The 1944 Act granted rather broad authority for the provision of recreation areas. Not only could the 

Corps provide recreation developments, but leases could be grmted to other Federal or non-Federal government 

bodies, non-profit organizations, or comercial enterprises for developing and maintaining such areas. 

Preference was to be given to local, state, and other Federal governmental agencies, with monetary 

considerations waived when considered in the public interest, Any revenue received from leases were to be 

deposited in the United States Treasury as miscellaneous receipts (Verburg 1975, 77). The Act also stipulated 

that the water areas of all reservoirs were to be open to public use generally without charge. 

With the authority of the 1944 Act and the pressing public demand for use of its lake areas, the Corps 

faced an imediate need to provide basic facilities for public access, health and safety. Early recreation 

planning efforts concentrated on the preparation of Master Plans, site plans, and facility designs to expedite 

construction. The primary concern was to provide access and sanitation facilities for health and safety; 

behavioral and motivational aspects of recreation planning were not of major concern. 

In the years immediately following the 1944 legislation, recreation development was treated as an 

incidental use of project resources, or, in other words, a byproduct of the project. Recreation facilities could be 

provided, but only if a project was justified for other purposes (e.g., flood control or navigation). Recreation 

developments were, therefore, not subject to the test of economic feasibility (i .e., benefits exceeding costs), nor 

were they considered in the project formulation process. As such there was little impetus to determine the 

underlying factors affecting recreation demand and benefits. 

Full Project Status 

The 1950's and 1960's were periods of tremendous growth in the demand for outdoor recreation 

opportunities. Study after study cited increases in leisure time, mobility, and income of the American public 

and their effects on the demand for leisure services. During this period, reported recreation use at Corps' lakes 

increased from 16 million recreation days in 1950, to 109 million in 1960, to 250 million in 1970 (Lawyer 

1970, 5). At the same time that recreation demand was increasing nation-wide, the supply of outdoor recreation 

resources was sharply and visibly decreasing because of water pollution, highway construction, drainage of 

wetlands, improper uses of pesticides, and many other factors (Foss 197 1). 

During the 1950's, the pressing problems of outdoor recreation was a matter of concern for Members 

of Congress and others. By 1958, Congress had decided that an intensive nationwide study should be made of 

outdoor recreation, involving all levels of government and private suppliers. On June 28 of that year with 

Public Law 85-470, Congress established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) 

with the threefold mission to determine: the outdoor recreation wants and needs of the American people now 

and in the years 1976 and 2000; the recreation resources of the Nation available to satisfy those needs now and 

in the years 1976 and 2000; and what policies and programs should be recommended to ensure present and 

future needs are adequately met (ORRRC 1962a, 2). 

As part of its comprehensive study, the ORRRC directed that a special analysis be made of the multiple 

use of land and water areas. In responding to this special study, the Department of the Army stated that, 

although the 1944 Flood Control provided wide latitude to the Secretary of the Army in the planning and 

construction of recreation facilities, several considerations have made it necessary, until about 1959, to treat 

recreation largely as a byproduct of the land and water resources of its civil works projects (ODC 1962b, 

25). These considerations included: ". . . only in the last 3 years has Congress appropriated funds for urgently 

needed recreation improvements" and ". . . the position of the Bureau of the Budget", in the absence of an 

acceptable method for calculating recreation values, the decision to add recreation facilities . . . can be 

addressed only on a well informed opinion (ORRRC 1962b, 25)." The Department of the Army concluded in 

Now the Office of Management and Budget. 
its statement to the Co ssion that "The principal barrier confronting the broader application of multiplepurpose theory and practice as it relates to recreation is general recognition of rereation as a purpose of 

Federal Resource development projects (ORRRC 1962b, 26). " 

Partially in response to issues raised by the O C, in 1962 Congress once again amended Section 4 

of the 1944 Flood Control Act. The words "at reservoir areas" were replaced by "at water resource 

development projects," broadening the Corps authority to include recreation in all types of water resources 

projets, not just resewoirs. Adoption of Senate Document 97, also in 1962, gave recreation status equivalent 

to other project purposes in the dete~nation of project benefits and provided a basis for estimting rwreation 

values. This status was enacted into law in 1965 with the passage of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act 

(79 Stat. 213, 16 U.S.C. 460-1-12). 

The 1965 Act was important, not only for authorizing recreation as a project purpose, but also for 

further delineating the Federal and non-Federal role in providing recreation opportunities. The Act stipulated 

that recreational use of a project will be coordinated with other existing and planned Federal, state, or local 

recreational developments. Non-Federal bodies will be encouraged to operate and maintain the project's 

recreational and fish and wildlife enbancement facilities. The Act further stipulated that such facilities will only 

be provided (and rwreation and fish and wildlife benefits included in project benefits), if non-Federal bodies 

agree, in writing, to administer the facilities at their expense and to pay one-half their separable first cost. If 

non-Federal bodies do not agree, facilities for recreation and fish and wildlife may not be provided, except those 

justified to serve other purposes or as needed for public health and safety. 

The Act contained additional provisions concerning types of projects affected, fee collection by nonFederal interests, methods for repayment of project costs, and options for purchasing land to preserve the 

recreation potential in the event non-Federal bodies did not agree to provide the necessary "cost sharing" 

required by the Act. 

The implications of the 1965 Act were wide-spread. Recreation and fish and wildlife were given a new 

status, comparable to other project purposes, in the calculation of economic benefits and costs. In addition, the 

joint Federal and non-Federal role in providing recreation benefits was reaffirmed. The movement to absolve 

the Federal government from a large portion of the financial responsibility, and especially of the long term 

cohtment to operation and maintenance, was somewhat of a turnaround from the initial authorization of 

recreation in the 1944 Act, but more consistent with the "a-b-c" of local participation contained in the original 

Flood Control Act of 1936. 

Within the Corps' organizational structure, recreation resources planning was now established as an 

integral part of multiple-purpose project planning. This meant that the full complement of planning concerns for 

determining demand, need and supply, projecting use, and estimating economic costs and benefits were 

applicable. The need to advance the state-of-the-art of recreation resources planning and develop an in-house 

capability was also apparent. District Engineers responded by expanding their staff to include landscape 

architects, biologists, architects, rwreation resource planners, and foresters. In most Districts, a Recreation 

Section was established within the existing Planning Branch. 

Early efforts for projecting outdoor recreation demand, detebning project use and estimating benefits 

were highly judgmental and depended heavily upon infomtion provided by the National Park Service and 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Projections for fishing and hunting use were provided by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. These early visitation estimates proved later to be grossly understated (US Army Corps of 

Engineers 1978, 5). 

During this period, the Corps acknowledged the need for improved information on visitors and visitor 

behavior for planning and managing its recreation resources. In 1965 the Corps Director of Civil Works 

authorized studies to be undertaken to develop theoretical models and methodologies to direct the Corps' water 

related outdoor recreation pl ing , Specific objectives were to: evaluate the recreation-use data collection 
prucdures currently used at Corps9ake projects and to develop methodologies for predicting recreation use, 

benefits and facility needs for proposed lake projects (Crane et al. 1974, i). Thus the Corp initiated research 

efforts to support its recreation planning and agement functions which continue today. 

Increased Concern for Conservation 

An increased awareness of the environment and conservation issues was observed in the nation during 

the 1960's and 1970's. Most notably, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 declared a 

national policy ". . . to use all practicable means and measures . . . to create and maintain conditions under 

which man and nature can exist in productive hamony and fulfill the social, econormc, and other requirements 

of present and future generations of Americans." (83 Stat, 852, 42 U.S.C. 4331). 

Partially in response to NEPA, the Corps, once again, broadened the types of social, biological, and 

economic issues that it addressed in the pl ing and magement of its water resources development projects. 

The previous Recreation Sections were renamed Environmental Planning Sections, and staffs were expanded 

with increased expertise, especially in the biological and social sciences. 

Also during this period, new multi-objxtive planning procdures were developed by the Water 

Resources Council C) to guide the formulation and evaluation studies of the major Federal water resources 

development agencies (WRC 1983, 1). These guidelines, initially referred to as the Principles and Standards 

and subsequently as the Principles and Guidelines, established four accounts to facilitate the evaluation and 

display of the effects of alternative water resources development plans. The national economic development 

account displays changes in the economic value of the national output of goods and services and is required. 

Other information that is required by law or that will have a material bearing on the decision-making process 

should be included in the other accounts. These include: (a) the environmental quality account, which displays 

nonmonetary effects on significant natural and cultural resources; (b) the regional economjc development 

account, which registers changes in the distribution of regional economic activity that result from each 

alternative plan; and (c) the other social effects account, which registers plan effects from perspectives that are 

relevant to the planning process, but are not reflected in the other three accounts. 

Current Legislative and Administrative Policies 

During the 1980%, domestic concerns have included inflation, deficit spending, and the roles of the 

Federal and state governments in providing public services. Under President Ronald Reagan's administration, 

there has been a continued effort to reduce the role of the Federal government in the economic and political life 

of the nation. This effort has included reducing Federal expenditures, as well as increasing the role of the states 

(and in some instances the private sector) in providing public services. With respect to the Corps, this effort is 

reflected in the Omibus, Water Resources Development Act of 1986 WRDA) (PL99-662). 

A was the first major water project legislation passed in 16 years, and was, therefore, very 

evitalizing the Corps' Civil Works Program. An important component of WRDA is guidelines 

for, and congressional agreement to, an expansion of cost-shari ired by nowFederal project sponsors for 

mny of the water resource development outputs. In addition, requires non-Federal sponsors to pay for 

one-half of the cost of feasibility studies, Thus, non-Federal sponsors will not only be participating to a larger 

degree in the construction and mintenance of water resource development projects, but they will also be 

sharing in the cost of planning for these projects. 

With the increased cost-sharing rquirements of WZIDA, non-Fj'ederal sponsors will be even more 

concerned as to the impacts of projects on their constituents. Although national economic development will 

continue to be an impo t decision criterion, greater importance will likely be placed on delineating the 
incidence of project benefits (including disbenefits) and their impacts on local and regional economies. There 

will be a greater nd for underslanding the impacts of recreation related expenditures on such factors as local 

and regional tax receipts, sales and employment. 

Increased non-Federal cost sharing is one approach for decreashg the Federal role in the provision of 

water resources developments. Another, which may have an even greater impact on the Corps' provision of 

future outdoor recreation oppomrUties at new water resource developments, is to limit the purposes that are 

considered to be appropriate for Federal kvolvement. 

One policy initiative of the previous Administration was to reduce Federal competition with private and 

non-Federal public sectors in providing recreation opportrunfties. This is reflected in the Corps9 present policy 

for planning new water resource devellopment projects. This policy is that Federal funds should only be used to 

support development of recreation facilities when the recreation benefits are less than 50 percent of the total 

benefits &, (a) are produced jointly with other project benefits (i.e., recreation costs are not separable), or (b) 

result from development of recreation potential created by projects fomulated and justified for other purposes. 

This means that future projects which depend on separable recreation benefits to be economically justified or for 

which recreation benefits are greater than 50 percent of total benefits should not be part of the Corps' Civil 

Works program. 

Partially because of limited Federal funds, recreation will once again be considered as a byproduct of 

the other water resource development outputs. Separable recreation facilities can still be included in a new 

project if economically justified and a local interest is willing to provide the necessary cost sharing. The 

separable recreation benefits from such facilities are not, however, to be used to justify a project that is not 

economically feasible without the recreation features. There will be less participation by the Corps in the 

provision of recreation opportunities at new water resource development projects under these conditions. 

Corps Recreation Study 

In addition to limiting hrther participation in the development of recreational opportunities at new 

water resource development projects, the Corps recreation Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program at 

existing projects is also experiencing budgetary pressures. As a result, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works has recently requested the Corps to establish a Recreation Task Force to review its recreation 

O&M program. Specifically, the Task Force is to develop a proposal to maintain andlor enhance public 

recreational opportunities at Corps projects while reducing Federal expenditures andlor increasing revenues for 

recreation. 

The proposed plan is to focus on development, enhancement, and operation of recreational facilities at 

Corps projects by non-Federal agencies and the private sector. One perception is that the broader flexibility of 

non-Federal entities may offer the potential for better serving recreation demands. In keeping with the objective 

of maintaining and/or improving public recreational opportunities, neither the closure of recreation areas nor the 

deferral of maintenance are to be considered as part of the Task Force Study. In addition, existing constraints 

in law, regulation, or policy are to be identified, but are not to limit proposals being considered. 

The study will identify a series of magernent programs and strategies; their advantages, 

disadvantages, and potential applications; their probable impacts on recreation services and the Federal burden; 

and a recommended plan for implementation. In developing the plan, the Task Force is to consult with State 

and local officials, user groups, the private sector, and the academic comunity. 

The overall Task Force effort is being directed by a Policy Steering Committee, comprised of the 

Executive Director of the Recreation Study, eight members of the Corps senior staff, and chaired by the Deputy 

Chief of Engineers. The one year study is due to be completed in September of 1990. As it is just underway, 
there are no fmdings to report at this time. Again, however, the objectives are to identify O&M strategies and 

program that will maintain andlor enhance public recreation opportunities at Corps projects, while reducing the 

Federal burden. 

CONCLUSION 

The role of the Corps of Engineers in providing rerational opportunities is directed by legislative 

action and administrative policy, which in turn reflect the changing problems and needs of the nation. The 

Corps' initial involvement in recreation resulted when public work projects it built, to provide needed flood 

protection and jobs, also created lakes with substantial recreation opportunities. As the public began using these 

lakes, the Corps was authorized to develop, or have developed by others, the facilities necessary to support this 

use. 

When the nation's economy improved and there was a tremendous increase in the demand for outdoor 

recreation opportunities, the Corps role in providing these opportunities also expanded; recreation was 

authorized as a project purpose and allowed to be included in all water resource development projects, and 

economic evaluation and cost-sharing requirements became formalized. 

Following the dramatic increase in dernand for recreation opportunities came a greater concern for 

conservation and an awareness of the limitations of our natural resources; the Corps' planning and evaluation 

procedures were expanded to provide for greater consideration of environmental and social impacts in the 

development of recreation, as well as other project outputs. Today, the concern is with budget deficits and the 

role ~f the Federal government in providing public services; policy constraints will limit the Corps' role in 

providing additional recreation opportunities at new water resources development projects. The Corps is also 

currently reviewing strategies and programs for its current 0&M program that will maintain and/or enhance 

public recreation opportunities, while reducing the Federal burden. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Crane, Dale M., Richard E. Brown, and Arthur M. Kinsky. 1974. Plan Formulation and Evaluation Studies - Recreation, Vblume I, Evaluation of Recreation Use Suwey Procedures (Fort Belvoir, VA: U.S. Army 

Engineer, Institute for Water Resources). 

Foss, Phillip 0. 1971. Consewation in the United States, A Documentary History, Recreation (New York: 

Chelsea House Publishers). 

Holmes, Beatrice H. 1972. A History of Federal Water Resources Programs, 1800-1960 (Washington D.C.: 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Lawyer, Donald E, 1970. "Recreation Boom, Water Spectrum (Summer): 5-12. 

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Co&ssion. 1962a. A Report to the President and to the Congress by 

the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Washington, D . C. : U. S. Government Printing 

Office). 

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Co&ssion. 1962b. Multiple Use of Land artd Water Areas, ORRRC 

Study Report 17 Fashington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office). 

U.S. Amy Corp of Engineers. 1978. Infomation Report on Determination of Recreation Benefits, Corps of 

Engineers Civil Work Water Resources Projects (Unpublished). 
Verburg, Edwin A. 1975. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Remeation Development Program: A 

Comparative Perspective of Equily Related to Policies and Program Outcmes (Fort Belvoir, VA: U.S. 

Amy Engineer Institute for Water Resources). 

Wter Resources Council 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Wirter and Iielated 

Land Resources Implementation Studies rjVashington,D. C. : Govemrnent Printing Office). 
A THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE EXPECTATIONS AND 

EXPERIENCES 

OF THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAIN VISITOR 

Cynthia P.G. Franzl 

Rebecca L. Van Cleave2 

David L. Franz, Jr.) 

A. Kent Van Cleave, ~r.~ 

Abstract. The motivations involved in choosing a particular place to visit are reflected in the 

types of experiences and sensations that an individual expects to have. Within the entire Great 

Smoky Mountain region the potential for a person to express diversity in these motivations is 

great. Opportunities in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park include a variety of "nature" 

experiences like camping and hiking. Gatlinburg, TN, on the border of the Park, is a 

community primarily oriented toward tourism. In this community there exist opportunities for 

shopping, dining, and amusement activities. Forty-seven adults were interviewed to examine 

the expectations and experiences of visitors to these different locales. Semi-structured 

phenomenological interviews were conducted that included descriptions regarding the visitor's 

expectations, best and worst experiences, activities engaged in, and elements of the experience 

that were figural in the person's awareness. Thematic analysis revealed that individuals who 

visit primarily for either a "nature-oriented" or "tourism community-oriented" experience 

possessed differing expectations and perceptions of the region. These two groups also differed 

in the sensory modality they found to be most figural. Other comparisons and contrasts 

between these groups are also discussed within this paper. 

INTRODUCTION 

This paper is a report of an investigation into the expectations and experiences of individuals visiting 

the Great Smoky Mountain region. The topic of needs is introduced as a theoretical backdrop for the discussion 

of expectations. Otherwise, this project represents an exploratory study without theoretical context. 

Vacations are important to a majority of people. As a form of leisure, they represent opportunities to 

pursue freely chosen recreational activities. These activities may represent experiences that are difficult to 

obtain during the workday or even everyday life. Researchers (Beard and Ragheb 1983; Mehrabian and Russell 

1974; Rubenstein 1980) have theorized that the desire to pursue these leisure activities may reflect unsatisfied 

individual needs. Needs that go unmet by routine daily activities may be fulfilled during leisure, in which the 

Wepartment of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 

Uplands Field Research Laboratory, Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

Hiwassee Mental Health Center 

House, Van Cleave and Associates 
individual is able to pursue his or her own desires to a greater extent. These desires, or motivations, may 

reflect needs for social interaction, opprhrnities to enhance physical and personal competence, increase 

intellectual stimulation, and the need for simple rest and relaxation (Beard and Ragheb 1983). 

Not only will these needs differ according to the person, but also, the type of activities perceived to 

meet those needs will vary. One person's need for rest and relaxation may be met by activities that are vastly 

different from another's activities. A basis for these differences lies in the perceptions an individual has 

regarding certain activities. A particular activity may possess vastly different meanings for different people. 

While it was not within the scope of this project to examine the origins of an individual's perceptions, the effect 

of these perceptions upon recreational choices was observed. 

e plans for recreation, whether it be an extended vacation or one-day excursion, 

expectations are fod. The individual anticipates that he or she will have certain experiences, facilitated by 

the pursuit of particular activities (Rubenstein 1980). To some people, spending the day shopping and 

sight-seeing may be perceived as restful and relaxing; to others, spending an afternoon around a campfire may 

be perceived as ultimately facilitating relaxation. The perceptions a person has of an activity will determine the 

type of experiences that person expects that activity to offer. Based upon these expectations, the individual 

makes choices as to the type of recreational activity he or she will pursue. 

4 

These expectations are refleeted in the broad decisions people make regarding vacations, such as locale. 

Many recreation locales tend to fall into general categories; they are stereotyped according to the leisure 

opporhtnities they are perceived to provide. The type of perceptions a person has about a locale and the leisure 

opportunities it affords can be assessed directly by inquiry and by discovering what types of experiences the 

person bas or anticipates having wbile visiting that locale. For different people, the ability to experience 

relaxation or togetherness may be perceived to be more or less facilitated by some locales than others. 

The Great Smoky Mountain (GRSM) region of eastern Tennessee provides an ideal area in which to 

study the differing perceptions and leisure motivations of individuals. Two recreational locations which appear 

to provide very different sets of opportunities are adjacent to one another. The Great Smoky Mountain 

National Park (GSMNP) provides opportunities for camping, hiking, picnicking, and sight-seeing. Immediately 

adjacent to the GSMNP are several communities; the most developed and publicized of these is Gatlinburg, 

TN, a town oriented toward tourism. Gatlinburg provides oppodunities for shopping, amusements, dining, etc. 

(The abbreviation GRSM is used by the Park Service to refer to the entire Great Smoky Mountain region; 

GSMNP refers specifically to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park.) 

The goal of this research was to examine the expechtions and experiences of visitors to these areas, 

and to observe what differences existed between individuals choosing either a nature-oriented or tourist-oriented 

experience. A methodology that would allow the greatest amount of descriptive infomation was necessary; a 

semi-struchred interview format which encouraged participant description was the methodology of choice. This 

type of interviewing is referred to as phenomenological, meaning "experience-near. " In the phenomenological 

method, an attempt is made to classify and describe people's experiences without any attempt at metaphysical 

explanation, i.e., outside of a theoretical context. (The interested reader is encouraged to examine 

Existential-Phenomenological Alternatives for psycho lo^, cited in the references.) A variety of topics have 

been investigated using this tec~que, including death (Ross and Pollio 19881, time (Dapkus 1985), and 

language (Franz 1989), Using this methodology, pabticipants were asked to provide descriptions of their 

experiences for analysis. 

METHOD 

Forty-seven adults participated in this study. Their ages ranged from 21 to 59 years, with an average 

age of 40 years. Sixty percent were married, and the sample represented a variety of occupations. Ninety 

percent had visited the area previously on at least one other occasion. 
bterviews were conducted in two locations. Gatlinburg interviews took place within outdoor mall 

areas, located centrally in the town, and National Park interviews took place within Elkmont campground, 

GSMNP. All National Park interviews were conducted with individuals staying at least one night in the 

campground, but no control was placed on the length or location of stay for visitors interviewed in Gatlinburg. 

However, none of the participants in Gatlinburg were staying overnight in the National Park, and several 

indicated they were staying at least one night within Gatlinburg. Although these groups were not matched in 

this respect, this did not appear to impact upon results of the interviews. Interviews were conducted with 37 

individuals within Gatlinburg and 10 persons with the National Bark. All interviews took place between the 

latter half of June and September 1, 1989, and represent only the summer visitor. 

Participants were approached individually or in small groups (2-3 people), and invited to express their 

feelings concerning issues relating to Gatlinburg and the National Park. Consent was obtained to tape-record 

the interview, and participants provided demographic and relevant data. 

These interviews were semi-structured, and participants were asked to provide a detailed description of: 

1) what they were primarily aware of while in the area, 2) their best and worst experience while in the area, 

3) activities they participated in or intended to participate in, and 4) other information specifically useful to 

Gatlinburg managers. 

The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. As outlined by Colaizzi (1978), these 

verbatim transcripts were then reduced; redundant material, extraneous reports, and irrelevant responses were 

removed from the transcript, and the remaining content was categorized according to subject heading. The 

reduced transcripts were then thematically analyzed, a process which yields common patterns or descriptions of 

the event as provided by the interview participants. These co n themes remain applicable to any one 

participant; in examining the transcripts, inferential analysis was not used--the final description of the particular 

topic remains true to the words of the participants. This method of analysis was successful in discovering 

several themes, or common perceptions that individuals possessed regarding the Great Smoky Mountain region. 

RESULTS 

The themes that were disseminated from these analyses are grouped by interview topic. 

Topic: Awareness and Expectations of Visitors to the GRSM Region. 

Questions regarding this theme included, "What were your expectations when visiting this area?, " 

"What image do you have of this area?," and "What are you aware of while you're here?" Analysis revealed 

the following themes relating to this topic: sensory awareness and connection to others. 

Theme: Sensory Awareness. For both Gatlinburg and Park visitors, experiences revolving around 

what could be categorized as "sensory awareness" became clear. However, these groups differed in the type of 

sensory modalities that were figural. 

In Gatlinburg, people were aware of "things to see and do. " Gatlinburg was perceived as stimulating 

and exciting, and the figural perceptual sense was visual. Visitors were enthusiastic about the variety of store 

window fronts, the decor and arrangement ("lay-outn) of shops and malls, and enjoyed seeing decorations and 

lights. They liked to "people watch," and repeatedly talked about the beautiful scenery around Gatlinburg, 

particularly within the outdoor malls that are set away from the main street. Coupled with this visual awareness 

was a strong activity "things to do" theme. For people who had not visited before or had not visited in some 

years, the variety of opportunities within Gatlinburg was pleasantly surprising. Gatlinburg was described as 

" hn, " as having a " festive" and even "carnival atmosphere. " This pervading atmosphere included themes 

revolving around crafts, mountains, and a country setting. People also reported a general feeling of physical 
safety within Gatlinburg. Overall, Gatlinburg appeared to be an adult-oriented carnival. People came to 

Gatlinburg with the expeetation of being able to relax, and pursue activities at their own pace. Gatlinburg was 

perceived as a place that would deliver fun to the consumer in a relatively safe, contained environment. 

As one participant described Gatlinburg: 

they have a little bit of everything. If you can" find what you want on this corner, 

move on to the next, and it's there. It don't e no difference what youke going to do, it's 

here. " 

And another: 

"I like the carnival atmosphere. You have all these shops and everyone seems to be in such a 

good mood all the time. When I was a child this was what the carnival was like." 

While a person in Gatlinburg was primarily aware of opportunities to "see and do," the Park visitor 

was perceptually aware of "sounds and smells. " Park visitors described an "awakening of the senses," 

comenthg repeatedly about the sound of the streams, the rain on the branches, the wind in the trees, the 

singing of birds, the chirping and buzzing of insects. People were particularly aware of these sounds at night, 

and many credited their good night's sleep to the sounds of the streams and insects. In addition to the cool fresh 

air, participants described the smell of the damp earth, the pines, and the smell of smoke from the campfire. 

The smell of the campfire was sought even in the height of summer; it was part of the "nature experience." In 

contrast to the festive excitement described by Gatlinburg visitors, Park visitors continually referred to the 

"peacefuhess" of the Park. Cmping within the Park brought them "peace of mind," a sense of "serenity.'" 

Wile some visitors anticipated hiking and other physically challenging activities, many reported that they 

expected to "do nothing" all day, These "do nothing" activities included reading, working on small projects, 

watching the river and small wildlife, and contemplation (described often as "just thinking"). Overall, the Park 

was described as a quiet, peaceful, relaxing place to get away from it all. 

As one person reported, when asked what he was aware of while camping in the Great Smoky 

Mountain National Park: 

"Sounds and smells. The birds singing, the locusts. The campfire. I guess we wouldn't come 

up here without the campfire. We just like the fire, even when it's not necessary. I like to sit 

there and look at it. This is as far away from pressure as f can get., People who want to 

harass me will just have to wait a week to harass me. This week I am not going to worry 

about it." 

And another: 

"Sounds, smells, certainly nothing that 1" aware of at home. It kind of awakens your senses. " 

Theme: Connection to Others. This category reflects the relationship described by visitors to their 

environment. Again, this category demonstrated clear differences bemeen the two groups. 

Visitors in Gatlinburg were connected to other people, including other visitors and service personnel. 

Repeatedly, participants described the "good mood" of people within Gatlinburg. Shop owners and other 

service workers were descnibed as "helpful, friendly, pleasant." Visitors commented that the area was nice, and 

prices were generally reasonable, which contributed to the good feeling. Other visitors to Gatlinburg were 

described as "joyful," and participants felt that they could (and would) start a conversation with a stranger and 

feel comfortable. "Friendly" was probably the most common word used to describe the atmosphere of 

Gatlinburg. 
fn contrast, visitors to the Park emphasized that they were there "to get away from people. " Although 

people were also perceived as being friendly within the Park, crowds and prolonged contact with strangers were 

not sought. Instead, the theme that kept arising for these visitors was a desire to "get back to naturelGod." 

People described comecting with nature, God, and historyltime. Swing a tree growing out of a dead tree, 

seeing moss growing on a rock, were experiences that contributed to an appreciation of natural processes. 

Sitting on a settler's porch and imgining what life was like, realizing that the trees and earth have been here 

before one's birth and knowing they will continue on after -- these were reported as making the person feel a 

sense of history, of time, and of their place in it. Problem became smaller, and individuals felt that they were 

"a part of it; " they described "a sense of oneness, " "wholeness, " "becoming closer to God. " These descriptions 

define what psychologists refer to as "grounding." "Being grounded" refers to the experience of greatness and 

insignificmce; the security of feeling one with the world is held in contrast with the relative insignificance of 

everyday problems. In contrast to Gatlinburg, the Park does not offer a sense of controlled security; accidents 

happen, it rains, and animals get into food supplies. But these are generally not viewed negatively. The Park 

visitor is not expecting the packaged experience that the Gatlinburg visitor is expecting. There is a greater 

achowledgement of risk, and of the potential experiences that can be found in the Park and not in Gatlinburg, 

For example, one rnan commented: 

"We were at Cades Cove yesterday, and have been many times before.. .but this time I looked at the 

building differently. We got caught in a rain shower at Tipton place (a settler's house) and we sat on 

the front porch and listened to it rain. Sitting on that porch yesterday, looking out towards the Cove on 

the front of the porch.. .he built his barn and his wagon shed, all this kind of stuff. My wife 

commented that he kind of blocked his view of the mountains.. .anyway, it was tough. Self-sufficient. 

I wonder what they called a vacation in those days. I doubt they had one." 

Topic: Best Experiences 

Individuals were asked, "What has been your best experience during your stay here?," "What have you 

enjoyed the most?," and "What has been the highlight of your trip?" Analysis revealed the following themes 

relating to this topic: social, activities, and contact with wildlife. 

-- Theme: Social. This category was very strong for both Gatlinburg and Park visitors, and contained 

similar themes for both groups. 

Gatlinburg was the site for many reunions of family, friends, and loved ones. People had 

honeymooned here, andlor had long-standing traditions sf gathering in Gatlinburg on an annual basis. Some 

had visited as children, and enjoyed the nostalgia associated with Gatlinburg. Many people could pinpoint no 

particular "best experience" but enjoyed all aspects of the visit, citing being with family and friends as being 

most important. Gatlinburg was for many the ideal place to gather, with opportunities for all interests, and 

again, the pervasive "good mood." The friendliness of Gatlinburg was often comented upon as being a "best" 

experience. Dining, drinking, and restaurant service was for many people the highlight of their stay in this 

area. Sitting on tree-shaded benches, talking with friends and watching those around them was also a favorite 

social activity. 

For many people, camping in the Park was also the place for the reunions of family and friends. Many 

people had long-standing traditions of annual or seasonal visits to the Park, and viewed these as opportunities to 

re-establish ties with loved ones in a nature setting. 

Theme: Activities. This category consisted of the instances in which people described activities as 

their best experience, Most of these had a "social" orientation to them. 
The most frequent favorite activity for Gatlinburg participants involved dining at restaurants. For 

other-, the variety of opportunities within Gatlinburg was the highlight. Other favorite activities included 

playkg miniature golf, wabg around Gatlinburg during the Christmas celebration, looking at the scenery, and 

visiting Christus Gardens. 

Participants in the National Park reported their favorite activities included walking, hiking the 

Appdachian Trail, and fishing. For many people, there seemed to be an element of personal accomplishment. 

People talked about the self-competence of camping within the Park, of being able to be self-reliant while 

engaged in activities within the Park. For example, one man reported: 

"My most favorite experience was catching my first rainbow trout. Fly-fishing, cause I had 

never known how to fly-fish. And it was probably when I was 10 or 11 years old, and pulling 

it in and then actually being able to skin it there and then cook it on the grill, eating it for 

dinner. From start to finish. So that was pretty remarkable. I remember that well." 

Theme: Contact with wildlife. This was probably the most dominant theme for Park visitors. Seeing 

a bear, deer, and other wildlife in their natural habitat was the highlight for many people. Others described the 

excitement of having a skunk in close proximity try to get into foodstuffs, and of patiently waiting for a squirrel 

to eat peanuts out-of-hand. Campers emphasized that they felt like visitors to the "home" of the wild animals, 

and so incidents involving stolen food, damaged coolers, etc., were generally viewed extremely positively. 

While interaction with the wildlife was a hoped-for experience for visitors to the Park, it was recognized that 

this might or might not happen; when there was experience involving a wild animal (excluding actual danger), 

the event was often a highlight for the visitor. Damaged gear was often a souvenir, and at the least, the 

individual had an experience which could be re-told to others. As one person related: 

"Every trip has something unique, just like that bear the other day. Well, I never would have 

believed I would get up at four in the morning and a bear would be in the back of the truck. 

He opened the truck [bed] himself. It was closed but not locked. So he opened it up and went 

in, just like if you would climb in over the bumper.. .and got in there at the two coolers and 

got him a pound of bacon out and ate it." 

Topic: Worst Experience 

Subjects were asked, "What was the worst experience you have had while visiting this region?, " "What 

have you liked least about your stay here?," and "What was the least pleasant aspect of your visit?" Many 

participants could not recall a "worst" experience; many said there had been no bad experience for them during 

this visit or any previous visit. Quite often, "What was the least pleasant aspect of your visit?," was asked in 

order to obtain any response at all. From these responses, one central theme emerged: lack of control. 

Theme: Lack of Control. For both Gatlinburg and Park visitors, there appeared one dominant theme 

relating to an individual's worst experience; these were events over which the visitor had no control. Physical 

injury to self or others was listed as a worst experience for both groups of visitors. The weather and bugs was 

also a common "worst" experience. For Park visitors, the intrusive noise of dogs and generators was a negative 

experience. For visitors to Gatlinburg, the heavy traffic, difficulty finding parking, large trucks passing next to 

the sidewalk, and crowds were reported to be the least pleasant aspect of their stay. "Good food and service" 

was often a best experience; conversely, bad food and poor service were listed as worst experiences, although in 

this shrdy this was rarely indicated. Tired legs and feet was a common experience for Gatlinburg visitors 

(which led many people to suggest "more benches" when asked about improvements). Finally, for one couple 

camping within the Park, an interpretive hike to an "old grill cemetery" and the waste of resources they 

perceived, was a worst experience. 
Topic: Activities 

Participants were asked, "What activities will you do while you're here?," and "What kinds of things 

do you enjoy doing?" The results of these questions was a listing by the participant of all the things they had 

done or expected to do while on this visit. This category was difficult to thematize, as participants did not talk 

about the experience of doing the activity. The type of activities listed was predictable for each group of 

visitors; however, it was noteworthy that Gatlinburg visitors perceived Park 0pporh;mities differently than did 

Park visitors. 

As noted in themes concerned with an individual's awareness or image of Gatlinburg, people stressed 

the oppomnities to "see and don within Gatlinburg, and an emphasis was placed on "window-shopping," 

"people watching," and "sight-seeing." The level of activity that people engaged in appeared quite high; with the 

exception of a few people who wished to simply sit and look, most people spent the day walking, shopping, 

playing miniature golf, and visiting attractions. While visitors who were staying in the Park also perceived the 

these same activities to be available in Gatlinburg, the affective connotation of these activities tended to be 

negative. 

Perceptions of what opportunities existed within the Park differed according to the orientation of the 

visitor. Most Gatlinburg visitors who were interviewed perceived the Park primarily as an opportunity to view 

scenery while driving. The idea of hiking appeared to be foreign to some these visitors. Some did not believe 

any possibilities other than viewing scenery existed within the Park; for example, one man said "What's in the 

Park? ... other than the [aerial] tram, I don't know of any[thing]." For individuals camping within the Park, 

activities described were predictably nature-oriented. People walked, hiked, and watched wildlife, Most people 

who were interviewed intended to visit Gatlinbuag only to find a restaurant or shop for crafts. 

DISCUSSION 

This project involved two lines of inquiry. The first of these concerned the goal of this research, 

which was to explore people's expectations and experiences as they engaged in recreational pursuits. As one 

would assume, these expectations were directly linked to perceptions the individual held of the recreation locale 

and available activities. A secondary outcome of this research was the support of previous studies indicating 

that people possess common needs which may be satisfied through leisure activities. 

People who intended to spend the primary part of their visit in the tourist community tended to have 

different perceptions of the National Park than those who were camping within the Park. It appeared that those 

staying in the Park possessed a significantly greater degree of knowledge about Park opportunities and hazards. 

Many visitors interviewed in Gatlinburg did not perceive the Park as an opportunity for anything other than 

viewing scenery while driving. The vague skepticism with which these participants viewed outdoor activities, 

such as hiking in the woods, was brought into sharper focus by the companion study to this project (VanCleave 

et al. 1990). In those results, it became apparent that outdoor Park activities were perceived by Gatlinburg 

visitors to be dangerous. This provides a clear contrast to descriptions of Gatlinburg (by Gatlinburg visitors) as 

a safe, secure place to have fun. In this respect, this study supports efforts directed toward the modification of 

people's perceptions by improving their knowledge base. 

On the other hand, it appeared that Park visitors were knowledgeable about the opportunities Gatlinburg 

had to offer, but were largely uninterested in pursuing those activities. Park visitors tended to perceive 

Gatlinburg activities as too noisy, flashy, and irritating, rather than fun and exciting. Overall, the "carnival, 

festive" atmosphere of Gatlinburg contrasted sharply with the peaceful, "getting back to Godlnature" feeling 

associated with camping in the GSMNP. While these are not surprising descriptions, they exemplify the 

differences that exist in individual perceptions and expectations. 
In this small study, there were no instances of people's expectations being challenged or changed while 

visiting this area. For example, no Gatlinburg visitor reported, "I never realized there were so many things to 

do and see in the Park." Behavior appeared to follow expectations, so that even though a person might have 

visited the area several times, no action was taken that might have changed perceptions. This is not surprising; 

people rarely go out of their way to change their perceptions. However, in the future it would be worthwhile to 

focus this research upon visitors who were new to the area, in order to examine any differences in perceptions 

and expectations that occurred as a result of experience. 

The differences in figural sensory modalities between these groups was not anticipated. The theme of 

Gatlinburg as a place to "see and do," with its emphasis upon the visual and kinesthetic senses, was 

pronounced. Equally strong among Park visitors was the focus upon olfactory and auditory modalities. Wile 

it is not within the realm of this research to propose a theoretical explanation for these differences, they become 

more interesting when reviewing research which investigates the link between emotions and sensory modalities 

(Stein 1986). Not only is the olfactory system the oldest evolutionary part of the human brain, but also the 

senses of smell and sound are the two systems most intimately associated with human emotion. It would be 

worthwhile to see whether or not these differences were replicated in future studies. 

Although the activities these two groups pursued tended to differ, many of the desired outcomes were 

similar. Across both groups, individuals reported a desire to strengthen relationships with others, experience 

adventure, obtain intellectual stimulation, improve physical or personal competence, and to rest and relax. 

These resemble the leisure needs described by Beard and Ragheb (1983), Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and 

others. Individual perceptions and expectations dictated which activities best fulfilled these needs, so that the 

opportunities an individual perceived to be available within a specific locale determined the choices made. 

Several potential research questions arose from this preliminary study. The first of these concerns the 

process by which perceptions are formed; it would be interesting to pursue the history which led to an 

individual's perception of Park opportunities as minimal or even dangerous. Lack of knowledge and experience 

account for the majority of these perceptions; however, some people attempt to overcome these deficiencies, 

while others do not. Currently this topic is being examined by the second author. Another interesting topic is 

the process by which perceptions and expectations shape experiences. Expectations may determine choices, but 

they also impact upon the experiences people have. The same situation is not experienced in the same manner 

for two individuals whose expectations toward that event may be vastly different. It would also be interesting to 

perform this study in another season, to examine whether any differences appeared between summer visitors and 

visitors during other seasons. 

In closing, it is worthwhile to note the contributions of the phenomenological interview to a qualitative 

analysis of visitor data. The use of these and other phenomenological techniques allows for a much clearer and 

more detailed description of the information sought, and is valuable for researchers who are interested in 

human experience. 

LITERATURE: CITED i 1 

Beard, J., & M. Ragheb. 1983. Measuring Leisure Motivation. Journal of Leisure Research 15(3):219-228. 

Colaizzi, P.F. 1978. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R.S. Valle and M. King 

(Eds.). fiistential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Dapkus, M.A. 1985. A thematic analysis of the experience of time. Journal of Personalily and Socinl 

Psycholagy 49@):408-419. 

Franz, C.P. 1989. Awareness of language: A phenomenological analysis. Paper presented at the Southeastern 

Psychological Association Convention, Washington, D . C. 
Mehbian, A*, and J.A. Russell. 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge: NIT Press. 

Ross, L.M. , and H.R. Pollio. 1988. Metaphors of death: a thematic analysis of personal meanings. 

Unpublished muscript. 

Rubnsteh, C. 1980. Vacations: Expectations, satisfactions, frustrations, fantasies. Psychology Today 

14~62-66, 71-76. 

Stein, M. 1986. Reconsideration of specificity in psychosomatic medicine from olfaction to the lymphocyte. 

Psychosomatic Medicine 1 : 3 -22. 

Van Cleave, R.L., C.P. Franz, D.L. Franz, & A.K. Van Cleave. 1990. Attitudes and perceptions of visitors to 

the Great Smoky Mountain region. Paper presented at the southeastern Recreation Research 

Conference, Asheville, NC. 

MONITORING CTS AT BACK TRY CAMPSITES AND 

LTERS AT T SMOKY M n\TS NATIONAL PARK 

ne M. Klein & John El. Burdel 

Abstract. Backcountry camping and hiking have become increasingly popular in the last 20 

years. Tfiis cumulative use has caused both physical and social impacts on trails and 

campsites. According to Cole (1983), "wilderness use affects trails, meadows and lakeshores 

but impacts are usually most pronounced on campsites." Because campsites receive a high 

concentration of use, they need to be measured periodically to assess the changes that are 

occurring. Monitoring changes that occur in the backcountry is necessary in order to 

determine at what point impacts become a problem for managers and users. It is also 

necessary in dete~ning at what point rnanagement should intervene, and what alternative 

management strategies might follow. An organized backcountry management plan that has 

specific objectives and standards will serve as a basis for these rnanagement decisions. 

INTRODUCTION 

At Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina, 

approximately 90 percent of the park is managed as backcountry. Uses that occur in the backcountry include 

hiking, backpacking, fishing, camping, photography and horseback riding. Camping, which is one of the most 

popular uses, is confined to 1QO designated sites (82 campsites and 18 shelters) in the backcountry. This 

concentration of use causes physical impacts at these areas. These physical impacts are severe enough that a 

specific monitoring plan is needed that assesses the impacts to determine if changes are occurring, their 

acceptability and specific management alternatives to remedy the situation. 

There have been three major attempts at monitoring in the past. In 1976, Bratton measured the 

physical impacts on all campsites and shelters using 15 variables. Site dimensions were measurements of the 

longest length multiplied by the widest width of the bare soil, using a tape measure. 

From 1980 to 1985, Wightman (1981) monitored all backcountry campsites and shelters based on seven 

variables. A rating was given for each variable and a total score was summed for the site. A plane table was 

used to map the bare soil with a map prepared of the site showing the bare soil zones. 

In 1983, Renfro (1985) measured the physical impact on all shelters along the Appalachian Trail. 

Eighteen variables were measured. The distance to the edge of the bare soil and to the undisturbed vegetation 

was measured using line trmsect mapping. Thirteen transects were established at 90 and 45 degrees from the 

corners of each shelter. A map was drawn showing the entire disturbed area and the location of the impacts on 

the site (trash etc.). In 1989, the bare soil measurement methods mentioned above were compared on a sample 

of 10 campsites and 6 shelters. Seventeen other variables were also used. (See Table 1 for a list of the 

variables used in each of the above mentioned studies). 

Authors are, respectively, Research Associate, Associate Professor, Department of Forestry, Southern Ilinois 

University, Carbondale, IL 6290 1 
Table 1. Physical Impact Variables Used by Great Smoky Mombins National Park Researchers 

Wight 

(1980) 

Renfro 

(1985) 

bare soil 

mad 

bare rock 

leaf litter 

trampled veg, 

firewood 

tree dantage 

erosion 

trash 

hog damage 

horse Bamge 

attractions 

developments 

topography 

water 

bare soil 

firewd 

bar kcidents 

horse waste 

damged veg. 

compaction 

bare soil 

bare rock 

fire %;cars 

fire rings 

trash 

sp~gs 

exposed roots 

domed trees 

danaaged veg. 

hog &age 

drainage 

humn waste 

stumps 

hitching rail 

trails 

signs 

she1 ter 

bare soil 

damged veg. 

social trails 

fire rings 

fire scars 

hmiture 

hitch rail 

trash 

horse waste 

human waste 

# trees b,s. 

mutilations 

downed trees 

exposed root 

stumps 

hog damage 

bear damage 

hazard trees 

Sources: Wightm,B. 198 1 .BackcountryCampsitelEvaluation System. 25p. Bratton, S.P. et al. 1977.Trail and 

Campsite Erosion Susvey for GSMNP. Part 1-htroduction and Methods. 6 lp. Renfro, J. R. 1985. The Incidence 

and htensity of Backcountry Trail and Campsite Impacts along the Appalachian Trail in GSMNP. 66p. Klein, 

J.M. 1989. Monitofig Physical Impacts at Backcountry Campsites and Shelters at GSMNP. 

STUDY OBJECTIVES 

1. To dete~ne the parameters that define physical impacts at backcountry campsites and 

shelters, 

2. To detede the relationship between change in bare soil and change in use over a period of 

10 years, 

3. To detehne the time and effort kvolved in different methods of measurements, and 

4. To suggest a plan for mo~toring impacts at backcountry campsites and shelters at Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park. 

Impact and Use 

Prelinrunary resmrch on the measurement of backcountry impacts and their relationship to use was done 

by Wagar (1964). h "The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands far Reereation", simulated recreation use was 

applied to a series of plots in the Brighton Recreation Area in southeast Michigan. Simulation was done by 

using a tamp, a wooden contraption that, when dropped, applied about 8 foot-pounds of energy per square foot 

of surface area. Results showed that survival of vegetation decreased as the amount of use increased. One of 

the conclusions drawn was: "relationships between vegetation, visitor use and site factors can be described and 

show pro~se as tools for predicting the impact of visitors on re~reation areas." 
Another primary study of impact on campsites is firissell and Duncan's (1965) research on the 

Quetico-Superior Canoe Country. Twenty campsites were exa ed at Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) 

and Quetico Park. Control sites were also established to measure changes resulting from use. Some of the 

variables measured were: mil compaction, basal area, depth of litter and humus, Intensity of use was 

estimted from observation and co unlcation vvith guides, Also, intemiews were given out to 33 cmoe 

parties to abtain info tion on campsite preferences. 

Xesults showed that most campers prefenrd island sites and a pine vegeation. The campsites showed 

iate deteraoration with any kind of use (light or havy). The results showed that 

unieation with users, dispersal of users or closure of heavily impacted sites. 

In 1967, Merriam (1983) and shrdents from the Uoiversity of Minnesota began a study of changes at 

BWGA on newly developed campsites. After 2 yars, soil compaction was masurd and it had increased 

substafltially as bad the percentage of dead trees md expos4 roots. The size of the site had increased about 10 

percent, These same sites were again measured after 5 years. Compaction dwlined, but percentage of dead 

trees and exposed roots increased as did exposure of bare will. Results of the shdy concluded that impacts are 

greatest the first 2 years and generally level of6 but site enlargement continues, This study continued and in 

1974 and 1981 measures were repeated on a small sample of these sites. Bare soil was still increasing, soil 

compaction had increased only slightly and tree momlity also continued. Root exposure did not increase. 

However, site enlargement was still increasing, but at a slower rate. 

In 1982, D.N. Cole sbdied 26 campsites at the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon. In "Wilderness 

Campsite Impacts: Effects of Amount of Usew (Cole 1982), several sites were sampled and different monitoring 

system were exanained to ddetennine the most sensitive indicator of impact. Each site that was sannpled also 

had a control site. Soil infomation was collected at 4 places on each campsite. Each site was also given a 

class rating based on a visual estimate of its condition. Twenty types of change were documented. Out of these 

20 variablm, 7 were more pronouncd on heavily used sites. This shows that most of the change that occurs on 

these campsites can result from finirnal use of the site (a few times a year). The campsite condition class 

rating (Frjlssell) was the most sensitive indicator of iqact. 

Marion and Sober, in "Environmental Impact Management in Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

Wilderness" (19871, state that more intensive visitor and resource management is necessary in wilderness. Both 

visitor dispersal and containment have been utilized, but according to Cole (1981) visitor conkinment is a more 

agement tool. Also, campsite rehabilitation has been extended to sites cumently in use to both 

restore areas and prev rther impact. This paper sumarizes a few of the techniques employ& as both 

preventative (indirect) gement and intense, direct management of the visitors at backcountry campsites. 

Moaitoring Systems 

A widely used monitoring system is the Gode-A-Site system, proposed by Hendee et al. (1976). 

tiort about each site is collmted and recorded. The system asks for a judgment of whether 

impact of previous use is extreme, heavy, moderate or light. As of 1983, the infomation was stored on 

edgepunch cards. However, much of the infomation obtained is iarelevant in the backcountry. Schreiner and 

Moorebead (1979), adapt& the cards to wilderness, 

In 1976, Bratton, Hickler and Graves measured visitor impact on backcountry campsites in GSMNP. 

The purpose of their study was "to investigate the backcountry campsite system of the park, look at the types 

and locations of damge and relate them to visitor use patterns( Bratton et al. 1978)." Both visitor use statistics 

and campsite conditions were studied. Use data were compiled by analy&g backcountry campsite permits. All 

legal sites (shelters and campsites as well as any illegal sites located on or near the trails) were sampled. The 

location, legal stahs, forest type, successional state and understory type were recorded. Disturbances were 

mapped and measurgd. These incliudd soil, leaf litter, trampled vegetation, firewood clearing, tree damage and 

trash dispersal. 
Some of the results of this study showed that intense backcountry use occurs from mid-March to late 

October. Group size tends to be small (1-3 people), with the average length of stay being 2 nights. The sites 

with the worst total disturbance were shelters, which also received more use, on the average, than campsites, It 

was found that visitation is the primary factor in campsite damage and deterioration. In campsites, amount of 

damaged area is closely correlated to visibtion. From this information, they concluded that distribution of 

visitors is a primary problem of backcountry magement at GSMMP. The majority of visitors frequent the 

more sensitive high elevation ecosystems. Some suggestions of alternative systems were: 1) establishment of a 

revised permit system to develop absolute carrying capacities for sites and sections, 2) replacement of shelters 

with tent platforms to keep the area less developed, 3) establishent of a zone system-dispersed rnanagement 

(to exclude certain areas from camping) and 4) establishent of a trailhead quota system. None of these were 

used but in 1974, rationing of the highly used sites was implemented. Overall, this research has provided a data 

base for future monitoring of effects of human impacts. 

In 1978, Frissell defined different levels of impact in his condition class system. Five condition classes 

are recognized. From these, visual estimates are made and the condition of the site is dete~ned. This method 

is more precise than the Code-A- Site system because of its specific stratification. 

The Camp Area Inventory System was developed by Parsons and MacLeod in 1980 and applied at 

Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park. It uses 8 visual criteria to evaluate the level and extent of impact in each 

backcountry campsite. Each variable is rated on a 5 point scale with 5 being maximum impact. In addition to 

the rating, descriptive information is recorded for each site (overstory, understory,distance to water, etc.). A 

freehand map is drawn of each site showing geographical features, direction and popular camping areas. 

In his pager "Monitoring the Condition of Wildenrress Campsites" (19831, D .N. Cole provides an 

overview of monitoring systems. Discussed are: desirable characteristics of a backcountry campsite inventory 

and monitoring system, evaluation of existing methods and suggestions for developing a system that builds on 

the existing techniques. Desirable characteristics of a system include meaningful measures of impact, reliable 

and sensitive measures, inventory all sites and precisely relocatable measurement units. According to Cole, 

many of the existing systems (1983), were too general. They asked for a visual judgment of impact and gave 

overall rating of the site, rather than ratings of specific variables. In his recommendations, Cole suggests that 

the most useful campsite inventory 1) evaluate a number of meaningful parameters, 2) records each parameter 

separately and 3) uses precise methods and inventory all sites (if money allows). 

In 1986, Chilman designed a low-cost monitoring system for the Desolation Wilderness in California. 

This system included a set of 10 questions that were previously used in other research projects. The wilderness 

rangers were given the questionnaires to distribute in the backcountry in order to save time and money. 

Documentation was made of the visitor's perceptions of existing conditions and changes that are occurring. It 

was found that the rangers had the time to distribute the questionnaires and analyze the results of the 

questionnaires . 

METHODOLOGY 

The procedures for this study began with a literature review of previous physical impact and monitoring 

research both generally and at the Smokies. A review of the existing data that has been collected on 

measurements of backcountry campsites and shelters at GSMNP (Bratton et al. 1978, Wightman 1980-1985, and 

Renfro 1985) was necessary. From the review of GSMNP literature and other research, a total of 19 variables 

were chosen (see Table 1). These consisted of some of those previously measured by Bratton, Wightman and 

Renfro . Additional variables were chosen according to level of importance to managers and researchers as 

well as ease of measurement (time and personnel constraints). 

A sample of 10 campsites and 6 shelters were chosen, based on level of use, elevation, type of user 

and rationed vs. unrationeed sites. Sites are located thoughout the park. Three primary methods of 
measurement were used and methods compared to determine which provides the best information using the least 

time and personnel. Also, a combination of methods and variables may be suggested as a monitoring plan. A 

data sheet was developed to record the results of measurements on the sites. Also, a daily journal was kept 

which consisted of notes and thoughts about the sites and the different methods of measurements, observations 

and mytfiFng else that happened that day in the backcountry. 

Use figures were collected from the sites measured. This was done either by the computer printouts of 

site occupancy reports, or by tallykg the permits by hand when computer printouts weren't available. Use 

figures were analyzed to determine trends in use from 1980-1989 on the sites measured. These figures will be 

compared to the bare soil measurements from 1980-1989 obtained to determine the relationship between these 

two variables. 

Correlations were run on the mainframe computer at Southern Illinois University using the Statistical 

Analysis System (SAS). Change in bare soil was correlated with change in use from 1985- 1989. Cumulative 

use from 1985-1989 was correlated with amount of bare soil. Other correlations will be done to determine 

which variables are related to amount of use and which are related to other factors such as type of user. By 

determining the best methods of measurement and current use trends, a monitoring plan can be established for 

backcountry campsites and shelters at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 

The physical impacts at GSMNP campsites and shelters were evident in both the bare soil and the 

surrounding area. At campsites, the bare soil area ranged from 189.56 m2 to 1176.55d, with an average of 

525.71m2. At shelters, bare soil ranged from 22.39 m2 to 11 1.10 m2, with an average of 55.93 m2. 

The surrounding disturbed area ranged from 150.41 m2 to 6175.35 m2 at campsites, while at shelters, 

the disturbed area ranged from 459.74 m2 to 1768.03 m2. All of the campsites sampled had more than one bare 

soil area. The average number of bare soil areas was 3.5 zones per campsite. At the shelters, impacts were 

more localized, but illegal campsites existed at all 6 that were sampled. Exposed roots in the bare soil was 

widespread at the campsites. At nine out of ten campsites measured, sixty percent or more of the trees had 

exposed roots. Tree mutilations were also evident at many sites. At three out of ten campsites measured, fifty 

percent or more of the trees had mutilations. Because there were no trees in the bare soil at the 6 shelters, 

number of exposed roots and mutilations were not a problem. 

The correlation between amount of use and amount of bare soil for 1989 was -.25. This was not 

significant at alpha = .05. There was no significant relationship found between cumulative use (1985-1989) and 

amount of bare soil (1989), or between cumulative use and total campsite area (1989-bare soil + damaged 

vegetation). 

As seen in table 2, use decreased on twelve sites, while bare soil decreased on thirteen sites from 1985 

to 1989. These changes in use and bare soil from 1985-1989 were correlated. No significant relationship was 

found at the .05 alpha level. 

The average time taken to measure bare soil using each method (Wightman, Renfro and Bratton) was 

analyzed. For the Wightrnan method, the average time was 25.2 minutes, the Renfro method averaged 71.8 

minutes and the Bratton method averaged 6.4 minutes. A method that uses minimum cost and personnel will be 

most efficient and useful for managers. Although Bratton's method was the shortest, it didn't necessarily give 

the best infomtion. Wightmn's method only looked at the bare soil area and needed 2 people. Renfro's 

method looked at both bare soil and disturbed vegetation, and could be done with one person. 
Table 2. Bare.mil Trends at CampsiteslShelters Related to Visitor Use 

Cam~site Number/ 

Shelter Name 

mange in baresoil 

1985-1989 

Percent 

Icewater Springs 

Double Spring Gap 

Spence Field -27 

Russell Field -66 

Kephart 

Scott Gap 

Change in visitor use 

1985-1989 

Percent 

Sources: North and South DistrictBackcountryRanger Office campsite monitoring program, 1985-1988. 

Communications-Backcountry Reservation Office-GRSMNP. Klein (1989) Physical Impact Monitoring at 

Backcountry Campsites and Shelters-GRSMNP. 
DISCUSSION 

Besides amount and type of use at a site, there are other factors that are related to physical impact. 

Site dumbility is often related to slope steepness, position, topography, elevation and aspect (Hammitt and Cole 

1987). At GSMNP, sites that are located on ridges and adjacent to streams are causing undue erosion and 

possibly polluting the water. 

In dete-g the best method of measurement, the surromdkg disturb& area as well as the bare soil 

area should be analyzed. Cole (1983), in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Study, measured from the center point of 

the bare soil to the edge of the bare soil and to the edge of the disturbed area. This gives an overall view of the 

impacts that are occurring at the site. Along with this, a detailed map showing all of the impacts on the site, 

not just the bare soil, will be more effective and useful in comparison over years. 

Finally, to get an overall idea of impacts on sites, both physical and social impacts need to be 

measured. Physical impacts show the result of human activity on the site. Measuring the social impacts by 

interviews and observations will give managers an idea of what causes these impacts. "In most situations a 

variety of visitor use and behavioral variables must be examined to accurately determine the consequences of 

recreational use on resources" (Hammitt and Cole 1987). 

Specific management objectives need to be outlined in the backcountry management plan, and standards 

set for the following categories: 

Water: water quality, trash, horse and human waste 

Wildlife: ha and hog damage or encounters 

- Soil: bare soil, fire rings 

damaged vegetation, exposed roots, tree mutilations, hazardous trees, cut stumps 

Social: visitor perceptions of impacts occurring 

Other criteria for monitoring impacts in the backcountry are time, effort and practicality. A monitoring plan 

that takes as little time and personnel as possible and obtains results that are usable is a necessary part of a 

backcountry management plan. 

A suggested plan for GSMNP is to measure all the sites approximately every 5 years using the Renfro 

method. This method measures both the bare soil and the surrounding disturbed area. Also on the map, other 

variables such as exposed roots, stumps, trash, social trails, human and horse waste should be indicated in order 

for comparison from year to year. Also,this method only takes one person and is most feasible with the low 

budget of the park. 

Along with measuring all the sites, a sample of the sites should be monitored in-depth. Establishing 

control plots for comparison with similar disturbed areas, vegetation mapping, hazardous tree analysis, water 

quality samples, photo point establishment, and interviews and observations are some methods that have been 

used by other researchers (Cole 1982; Brewer and Berrier 1984; Parsons and MacLeod 1980) to monitor 

backcountry sites. This in-depth research on a sample of sites can be done to get an idea of the impacts 

occurring throughout the park. Also, cost and time can be kept at a minimum while obtaining more detailed 

infomtion than what is presently being done. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Bratton, S.P., M.G. Hickler and J.H. Graves. 1977. Trail and campground erosion survey for Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park. Part 1-Introduction and Method. Management Report 16. National Park 

Service. Uplands Field Research Lab, Gatlinburg, TN., 6 1 p. 
Bratton, S.P., M.G. Hickler and J.H. Graves. 1978. Visitor impactf on backcountry campsites in the Great 

SmoQ Mountains, Environmental Idanagernent 215): 43 1-442, 

Brewer, L. and D. Bemer, 1984, Photographic techniques for monitoring resource change at backcountry sites. 

Gen. Tech. Report. NE-86. Broomall, PA. USDA Forest Service. Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 13 p. 

, K.C., A. Everson, D. Foster, T. Wikle, D. be, and M. oy . 1987. Monitoring wilderness 

visitor perceptions: developing low-cost system for maoagement. In Proceedings: Fourth World 

Wilderness Congress, Estes Park, C0. 10p. 

Cole, D.N. 1982. Wilderness campsite impacts: Eflects of amount of use. Res. Paper INT-284. Ogden, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 34 p. 

Cole, D.N. 1983. Monitoring the condition of wilderness campsites. Res. Paper INT-302. Ogden, UT. USDA 

Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 10 p. 

Frissell, S. S. and D .P.Duncan. 1965. Cavite preference and deterioration in the Quetico-Superior canoe 

country. J. For. 63(4): 256-260. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1987. Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. New York: Wiley and 

Sons. 341 p. 

Herrdee, J.C., R.N. Clark, M.E. Hogans, D. Wood and R. W. Koch. 1976. Code-A-Site: a system for 

inventory of dispersed recreation sites in roaded areas, backcountry and wilderness. USDA For. Serv., 

Portland, OR, 33p, 

Lucas, R.C. and C.H. Stankey. 1985. Role of research in applying the Limits of Acceptable Change system. In 

Proceedings: Southeastern Recreation Research Conference, Asheville, N. C. pp 1-15. 

Marion, J.L. and T.Sober. 1987. Environmental impact management in the Boundary Wbters Canoe Area 

Wilderness. N. Journal of Applied For. 4(1): 7-10. 

Merriam, L.C. and R.F. Peterson. 1983. Impact of 15 years of users on some campsites in the Boundav 

Waters Canoe Area. USDA For. Serv. St. Paul, MN. 3p. 

Parsons, D. J. and S. A. MacLeod. 1980. Measuring impacts of wilderness use. Parks 5(3): 8-12. 

Renfro, J.R. 1985. i%e incidence and intensity of backcountry trail and campsite impacts along the Appalachian 

Pail in Great Smoky fMountains National Park. M.S. Thesis. Department of Forestry. Southern 

Illinois University. 66 p. 

Wagar, J. A. 1964. Be carrying capacity of wild landsfor recreation. Forest Science Monograph 7. 

Washington D. C. Society of American Foresters. 23p. 

Wightm, R. 1981. Backcountry campsite evaluation system. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park 

Service. Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 25 p. 
AUTOMATED MAPPING PROCEDURE FOR 

ATION PL G 

Juikun Kuo and Hugh A. Devinel 

Abstract. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the application of Geographic Information 

Systems and Computer Aided Design (i.e, computer mapping systems ) to urban recreation 

planning. To accomplish this evaluation, four tests were developed. These tests were as 

follows: 1) Address matchine studv for a recreation survey. This test developed a spatial 

distribution of the characteristics, expressed needs, and preferences of recreation survey 

participants. That is, the test developed a demonstration comparison of participant home 

locations with survey response and facility locations. The test used actual survey data and 

facility information from the city of Raleigh, NC. 2) Accessibilitv studv of transportation 

routes. This test demonstrated a methodology to evaluate the public transportation systems in 

the context of recreation opportunity provision. It is important that urban recreation planners 

incorporate public transportation accessibility into their assessments of recreation potential. 

Better transportation to parks is not only an inexpensive means to expand recreation 

opportunities, but also can save consumption of energy and reduce provision barriers to special 

pspmiations. Often minor changes irn existing, transporntion system can de a significant 

recreation opportunity differences. 3) Recreation service area studv, This test delimited 

recration oppoatmities by "effective" time-distance zones from home locations for both 

walking and driving access. The effective service areas were calculated by measuring actual 

street distance as opposed to the normal method of drawing a straight line from the home to 

the boundary of the facility. That is, the facilities available to the respondents were those that 

fell within the estimated walking and driving time limits. 4) Efficiency study of a sample 

recreation site planning process. This test demonstrated the potential of computer mapping 

procedures in the recreation site planning process. The purpose of this test was to suggest 

efficient procedures for site planning and to examine the advantages and disadvantages of 

different mapping approaches. The test focused on the development of a park design drawing 

accomplished by both manual and automated techniques. 

The data base for the first three tests was constructed from the 1988 Citizen's Survey 

of Parks and Recreation, City of Raleigh, North Carolina2. The survey measured the 

expressed recreation "needs" of the Raleigh residents. For test 4, an existing Raleigh 

community park was used in the site planning test. The computer programs used included a 

Juikun Kuo is a graduate research assistant and Hugh A. Devine is a professor in the Department of Recreation 

Resources Adestration, North Carolina State University. Address all correspondence regarding this article to 

the first author at: Geographic Information Systems Research Program, Department of Recreation Resources 

Addstration, College of Forest Resources, Box 8004, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8004. 

Source: The City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department. May 1989. 1988 City of Raleigh Parks and 

Recreation Department Market Analysis: A Survey of Resident Awareness and Use of Programs and Facilities 

Provided by the City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department. The report was prepared by Jonelle Nuckolls, 

Richard R. Perdue, Carter Betz, Cindy Trumbower, and Bill Cingletary. 

3 7 
Geographic In ) and a Computer Aided Design package 

(AUTOCAD4 t~ts prove$ successful and indicated that 

further investigatio hould be unde~en toin_corporate computer mpping technology into 

urban re~reation pl 

STUDY BACKGROUND 

There is considerable evidence that rwreation is one of the largest kdustaries in the United States. It 

was estimated that expenditure on leisure accounts for about $1 in eveq $8 spent by Amriean consumers. 

There was an estimtd 182.2 billion dollars of cclasurner recreation expenditures in 1986, a 58.4 percent 

increase from the 115 billion spent in 1980 (Manufacturers Hwer 1987). However, today's provision of 

recreation services is challengecit by a number of si~ficmt difficulties caused by changes in political, social, 

and e~onomic system. Decision- ers are not only facing tighter budgetzary lirnits, but also the challenging 

task of doing better both and qualibtivefy with fewer resources (Goodale and Witt 1985). 

Several studies have pointed out that in the context of the overall budgetary problem rwreation 

agencies have mjor difficulties in espwially facing pl ing problem. In fact, these studies ranked planning 

second among needed agement skills for tion professionals (Hunt and Brooks 1983; Minshall 1983). 

One study pointed out professionals fear the g process, beeause it thrusts them into complex situations 

with a great degree of uncertainty (Chakraborty and David 1981). Further, once a plan is completed, it 

provides a yardstick for critique and evaluation (Reinharth et al. 1981), thus putting on more pressure for 

competent and effective planning. 

Many authors (Reid, L. M. 1973; mite and Patterson 1979; Gold 1980) have argud the importance 

of systematic recreatio approaches to deal with both internal (e.g. resource characteristics, capability 

for development, etc. ) a1 (e. g, regional environment system, transportation system, etc.) 

characteristics of recration areas. Hunt and Brooks (1983) emphasized that comprehensive recreation planning 

future-orient& and considers both short- and long-range alternatives. It is 

ng be multidimensional and that it be integrated into all facets of recreation 

ery complex procedure, 

Previous studies regarding rwreation plaming explored this complexity in three major areas. These 

include need assessment (Reid, D. G. 1985; More 19851, systematic planning (Seabrooke 1987; White and 

Patterson 1979), and participation motivation (Peine 1979; Godbey 1985), Each of these studies recognized the 

importance of the integration of spatial analysis into reereation plwing process, be~ause it is necessary to view 

people in a spatial context in assessing recreation needs. Spatial analysis in recreation plaming enables the 

plmer to consider all factors regarding recreation provision from ra geographic or multi-dimensional 

perspective. It can help the plamer to make a better decision. However, the above studies did not step into the 

domain of how to do this spatial analysis. Perhaps, this is beGause recreation researchers have not found an 

appropriate approach to apply spatial analysis in addressing pl 

is a registered trademark of GeoBased System. The cornpastes sofhvare used in this study was 

Version 3.4.3 in December, 1988. 

AUTOCAD is a registered trademark of Autodesk, Lnc. The eomputet sofware used in this study was Release 

10 of the AUTOCAD design package of November, 11988. 

LANDCADD is a registered trademrk of LANDCADD, Inc. The cornputer software used in this study was 

Version 9.5 in July, 1988. 
THE IMPORTMCE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS IN =CREATION PLAN'MZNG 

Spatial analysis in this paper refers to any pl ing activity that hcludes portraying where participants 

live, where locations of available facilities for re~reation uses are, and how these two are linked via a 

transp~tion system. It is broadly agrd that the primary purpose for practitioners to conduct surveys is that 

they are trying to know more about the users and tial users of reereation facilities and program. Most 

efforts, however, have been focused on a statistical ry of user characteristics rather than analyzing the 

network of activity provision. CertiPidy, it is hard to hntegrate spatial malysis into a survey (i.e. people have 

difficulty reading maps). But beyond this, Gold (1980) stat& "the lack of new ideas or successful examples 

results in perpetuating traditional techniques which may be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. " 

It is, therefore, understandable why a spatial context is not often included in rwreation surveys. 

is it importat to apply spatial analysis in recreation pl kg? hstead of focusing on numerical 

can view the study area from the geogragbic and mu1 mensional perspective. For example, 

lot the home locations of the recreation participants and the locations of the existing recreation 

facilities on the map, then the service areas of facilities can be determined and the network of recreation 

facilities can be delimited thus providing an account of the distribution of services for each citizen. With this 

advantage, it is possible to allocate facilities to the needy comunities, avoid duplicative investment, capture 

both internal and external characteristics of the study area, evaluate accessibility, assess visual aesthetics, and 

decide upon an appropriate land magement strategies. 

COMPUTERIZED MAPPING IN RECREATION PLANNING 

Salichtchev (1983) pointed out that cartography concentrates and stores in maps a tremendous amount 

tion, a sum of knowledge about the location, the state, the interrelations, and the dynamics of 

natural and socioeconomic phenomena. He further argud that a comprehensive analysis of these phenomena is 

necessary for successful utilization of maps. Therefore, maps for spatial analysis could be defined as anything 

that can add insight into patterns of distribution, gradients, densities, and associations (Carter 1984). Recreation 

planning maps can be of two basic types: I.) a resource base map, and 2.) a series of comprehensive resource 

facility maps "overlayed" to produce a composite map or maps (Devine 1979). In the past, manual drawing 

was the only way to produce any map. With advan~es in computers, today it is possible to produce maps more 

efficiently and accurately than can be done manually. It has been stated that any discipline that has to do with 

graphics can use computer cartography to their advantage (Carter 1984). Within the arena of computer 

cartography, two general mapping techniques may offer promise for urban recreation plaming. These include 

Geographic Infomation Systems (GLS) and Computer Aided Design (CAD). 

CIS technology, an analytic toolbox, provides a means for quantitative modeling of spatial relationships 

(Berry 1986). GIs can be defined as internally referenced, automated, spatial information system designed for 

data management, mapping and analysis. GIS processing functions allow spatial data base management, spatial 

statistics, and cartographic modeling within the automated environment. For example, if the planner needed to 

decide a new location that meets certain criteria, such as public-omed lands, appropriate soil types, recreation 

lands in land use plan, etc., it is relatively easy to identify all possible locations automatically with the GIs. 

Producing "overlayed" mps of multiple features (e.g. ownership, soil type, land use, etc.) is a major advantage 

of CIS. 

On the other hand, CAD has been broadly applied to graphic design, engineering design, and 

architectural layouts in recent years. Essentially, GAD refers to any activity where a computer is used to 

design, construct, analyze, or store a map (Carter 1984). CAC) enables users to concentrate on the creative role 

of planning and design as opposed to the tedious drafting of that design. However, CAD is not without 

limitations. The most obvious shortcoming of CAD is that data analysis is not automated. That is, the CAD 

map has no automated reference to the data it is displaying and the operator must create a new data set for each 

map. In the above example, if the planner was considering the omerships, soils, and land uses, he would need 
to map each layer separately and mually identify all possible development sites from these layer maps by 

overlaying the layer maps on a light table. Then, the composite map of suitable development locations would 

have to be manually digitized to a new map file. This process is rather tedious and mistakes may arise because 

it is very difficult to search through "overlayed" layers. However, the visual quality of CAD is generally 

excellent for presentation. This is because CAD allows more ease and flexibility in editing and changing any 

specified linetype, font, shading pattern, and thickness of the graphic elements. For most GIs to do the same 

viswl job, it would involve more procedures and sometimes it would be very time-consuming. 

PURPOSE OF STUDY 

A 1983 study indicated more than one-third of U.S. recreation agencies use computers (Stuyt and 

Siderelis 1984). But the uses of the computer have been limited to primarily business operations. Very little 

attention has been focused on mapping efforts. In addition, the exploration of computer mapping technology to 

assist broader recreation planning has also been very limited. As such, the purpose of this study is to evaluate 

the application of automated mapping procedures to urban recreation planning. 

FOUR TESTS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS STUDY 

To accomplish the evaluation, several planning analyses tasks were examined through application of a 

computer mapping system in a representative test. That is, four tests were developed to demonstrate the 

applicability of computer mapping to urban recreation planning. The follouring tests were used to perfom the 

evaluations. 

1. Address Matching Study for a Recreation Survey. 

This test was an attempt to relate expressed recreation needs to geographic location. Survey responses that 

indicated a desire for more facilities were analyzed from a spatial perspective. That is, survey respondents' 

answers were evaluated relative to their home locations and locations of the existing facilities. With this spatial 

perspective, planners are able to allocate recreation facilities and programs to the expressed needs more 

effectively. In addition, the survey participant's spatial distribution was also identified. This test included two 

measurements, 1.) time consumed for each sample address matching and 2.) distance from home location to the 

nearest park. All measures were performed manually and with a GIs automated procedure. The test compared 

both methods for efficiency and accuracy. 

2. Accessibility Study of Transportation Routes. 

This test evaluated the effectiveness of existing public transportation routes in serving the recreation needs of the 

public. To determine transportation service area manually, two circles with a radius of 0.25 and 0.50 miles6 

respectively were drawn from the respondent's home location. If there was a park within the 0.50 mile radius, 

it was assumed that people could walk to the park without transportation. However, if there was no park within 

0.50 mile radius, it was assumed that they could get to the park by bus and that 0.25 miles was a comfortable 

distance to get to the stop from both home and park locations. On the other hand, to determine the 

transportation service area automatically, polygons as opposed to circles were drawn by connecting actually 

reachable street links within 5 and 10 minutes. That is, in addition to comparing the efficiency of manual and 

automated transportation analysis procedures, this test also demonstrated an approach to assessing the existing 

public transportation system's effectiveness in affording residents access to parks. 

0.25 and 0.50 mile radii were derived from converting 5 and 10 minutes walking distances based on 3 

mileslhours. 
3. &ration Service Area Study. 

'I'his test evaluated comety-setting recreation opportunities through "effective" time-distance zones from 

home loeations by walking and driving. If the resident could walk to the park in 10 minutes, it was assumed 

that they could get to the park without driving. Otherwise they would probably need to drive to get to the park, 

The effective service areas were detehned by actual street distanGe as opposed to drawing a straight line 

centered on the facility. That is, the effective service area was derived by connwting the end points of street 

links reached in 10 minutes driving. In this test, if a survey response of "Too Far" to get to a specified facility 

was encountered, then this response was checked against the actual traveling distance to the closest facility and 

compared with the effective recreation service area. 

4. Efficiency Study of a Sample Recreation site Planning Process. 

This test was to experiment with the different mapping procedures in a recreation site planning process. The 

purpose of this test was to suggest the most effective procedure for site planning and to examine the advantages 

and disadvantages of different mapping approaches. The test focused on the development of a park design 

drawing accomplished by both manual and automated techniques. The test emphasized a map production effort. 

It combined manual and automated drafting procedures to produce a draft recreation site plan. Time and quality 

measurements of manual and automated elements of these efforts were recorded. 

The construction of street data for the first three tests of automated procedures was based on the 1980 

DIME (Dual Independent Map Encoding) files, developed by the Census Bureau. A digital DIME map files 

related to households by the appropriate block face, block, and tract (Monmonier 1985). For the purpose of 

computerized map accuracy and distance calculation, DIME files use latitude/longittade coordinates for 

geographic reference. TIGER (Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing) files are the 

updated and improved version of DIME. It is foreseeable that any discipline that needs to deal with geographic 

relationships would benefit from the release of 1990 TIGER files by the Census Bureau. TIGER is a 

nationwide, non-confidential, and publicly available data base for the general user community (Cooke 1990). 

A good way to characterize the relationships between recreation planning and these mapping tasks is to 

consider the National Recreation and Park Association's (NRPA) planning activities (Reed and Perdue 1979) 

and Gold's (1983) recreation planning principles. NRPA stated that there are four major planning tasks. They 

are: 

1. Regional Analysis. establishing the function of the park in relation to the community, region, state or 

nation. 

2. User Analysis. identification of social and behavioral characteristics of users. 

3. Management Analysis. analysis of the agency or organization process for planning and operation of the 

park. 

4. Resource Analysis. analysis of site characteristics to determine developmental capability and 

recreational suitability. 

Gold identified the following six recreation planning principles as basic to the success of any planning 

effort. They are: 

1. All people should have access to activities and facilities. 

2. Public recreation should be coordinated with other community recreation opportunities. 

3. Public recreation should be integrated with other public services. 

4. Facilities should be adaptable to rapidly changing and special ppulations. 

5. Citizens should be involved in the planning process throughout all stages. 

6. Facilities should make the most efficient use of land; should be designed and managed for the welfare 

of intended users; and should represent a concern for people and the environment. 
TABLE 1 describes the correspondence of each of the four tests in this study to Gold's planning 

principles and NRPA's analysis tasks. 

Table 1. The correspondence of each of the four tests in this study to Gold's planning principles, and NRPA's 

four analysis tasks. 

Contents of Four Tests Software NRPA's Four Gold's 

Package Analysis Tasks Principles 

Test 1 Address matching study for a recreation survey. 

Purpose: To identify 

1. recreation participant's spatial location. 

2, characteristics and opinions of participants 

in a spatial context. 

3. spatial distribution of recreation facilities. 

Test 2 Accessibility study of transportation routes. 

Furpose: To evaluate 

1. public transp~rtiltion system in the context of 

recreation opportunity provision. 

2. effectiveness of public transportation service. 

Test 3 Recreation service area study. 

Purpose: To evaluate 

1. spatial distribution of recreation opportunities. GIs 1, 3 

2. effectiveness of recreation opportunity provision. 4, 5 

3. spatial perspective of users needs and demands. 

Test 4 Efficiency study of a sample recreation site planning process. 

Purpose: To evaluate the efficiency of 

1. preliminary analysis of site plan. CAD 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5 

2. upgrading and modifying existing facilities. 4 6 
Study Results and Discussion 

The sohare packages used included a Geographic Infomtion System (LANDTRAK7) for the first 

three tests and a Computer Aided Design package (AUTOCAD8 / LANDCADD"))or the final one. All of 

these four tests were performed on a 386 workstation (20 MHz). The software selection factors considered 

included ease of use, training, cost of software, and intention of software application. LANDTRAIC, a 

vector-based package, was selected because of its excellent characteristics with more networking and 

'pulating capabilities. It can easily provide an optimal path between two or more locations as well as 

time-distance allocation of street network from one or multiple selected locations. Once data is completed, it is 

possible to train an operator to perform basic functions of LANDTRAK in less than two hours. On the other 

hand, there were two reasons to use AUTOCAD incorporated with LANDCADD. One was because most of 

the design firms use CAD in their operation. AUTOCAD is the overwhelming leader among CAD software in 

the planning marketplace. Therefore, recreation planners should take advantage of this software when involved 

in a drafting project. In addition, LANDCADD, a site planning third party software package of AUTOCAD, 

provides many useful tools for recreation planners to analyze the feasibility of new facility development in 

conceptual site planning process. In short, it is more efficient for the recreation planner to operate an 

user-friendly drafting package for site planning than to bear the overhead (i.e., difficulty of use) of employing a 

full GIs where it is not needed. 

Test 1. Address Matching for a Recreation Survey. 

Address matching for a recreation survey is a very useful approach for a researcher to view participant 

location in relation to existing facilities and survey responses (FIGURE 1). In this evaluation a manual and an 

autsmritd procedure were compared. The automated procedure was more efficient in terms of time consumed. 

To rnanually measure the distance of each participant's home location to its nearest park, it took approximately 

5.3 minutes. To measure the same distaxlce with a computer procedure, it took approximately 2.6 minutes 

(TABLE 2). 

In terms of accuracy of the distance measurements, manual results were longer than those of the 

automated technique by an average of 0.3 miles. This is because the manual measuring process often did not 

find shortest path. That is, the shortest path of manual measurements was determined by operator's intuition. 

On the other hand, the automated procedure's results were derived through a computer based search process to 

find the actual optimal path. 

In general, to locate the home locations on the base map manually was a tedious task. First of all, it 

depends on researcher's familiarity with the city. It is still hard to find street names on the map. Second, not 

every block is equipped with address ranges on the map. It was only possible to locate the home address 

through approximate location. Accuracy is a major weakness of the manual approach. Third, it is difficult to 

analyze simultaneously several variables from the survey data on the same geographic sheet. Therefore the 

process includes considerably more time and complexity by requiring multiple sheets. Finally, reproduction of 

an analysis map is another labor consumptive task. 

LANDTRAK is a registered trademark of GeoBased Systems. The computer software used in this study was 

Version 3.4.3 in December, 1988. 

AUTOCAD is a registered trademark of Autodesk, Inc. The computer software used in this study was Release 

10 of the AUTOCAD design package of November, 1988. 

LANDCADD is a registered trademark of LANDCADD, Inc. The computer software used in this study was 

Version 9.5 in July, 1988. 
FIGURE 1. Address tnatct~~ng of survey rtSs[wnscs, spa~ral d~suibuuon of recrcrrrton frrc~ltt~es, and dcltncatron of elleci~vc rccrclttion service arc3 withtn 10 

minutes dnving urne of Mxsh Creek Park. 

----....- : Boundq of the recrmuon service area 

* : Marsh Creek Park 

* : Recrealion sires 

1. 2, 3, 4 : Survey responses 

Table 2. An efficiency evaluation of address matching by manual and automated procedures. 

Procedure: 

Time Consumed* Distance Measurement** 

(minutes) (miles) 

Manual Automated Manual Automated 

Point: 

3 143 5.1 2.2 1.6 1.4 

2054 4.5 1.5 0.5 0.4 

1068 5.6 2.1 3.4 2.3 

21 15 5.4 2.6 1.6 1.5 

116 6.3 4.3 2.5 2.5 

3132 4.8 1.6 0.2 0.1 

21 13 5.0 3.8 1.3 1.1 

1224 5.2 2.3 0.6 0.4 

1201 5.7 2.9 2.1 1.6 

1184 5.8 2.7 1.7 1.3 

Average 5.3 2.6 1.6 1.3 

* : time consumed in measuring each participant's home location to its nearest park by both procedures. 

**: actual street distance measured between participants home location and its nearest park by both procedures. 
Locating street addresses by automated procedures did show some advantages. First, it eliminated the 

painful effort of hding street links and labels mually on the map. The most time-consunning process of the 

automated procedure was typing in these addresses. Second, it is possible to analyze certain spatial relationships 

very quickly. For example, it enabled the researcher to compare survey requests for more tennis courts to the 

locations of existing tennis facilities in 10 seconds. This is important and useful when considering the allocation 

of new facilities. Third, it is very likely that accuracy would be the most important advantage. The automated 

method was not only able to locate the survey responses to the DIME-based sample links accurately, but also 

relieved the problem due to uncertainty of street address ranges. That is, the DIME procedure reasonably 

located address positions on the street map in one step. Most manual procedures would require the cataloging 

of the all address ranges for each street link prior to location. Finally, map reproduction is another important 

advantage of the automated procedure. A new map can be produced (i.e., a new question evaluated) in as little 

as 30 minutes. 

In terms of measuring distances, the automated procedure was far better than the manual procedure. It 

easily provided a "Shortest Path" with a detailed street description (TABLE 3 & FIGURE 2). These results 

were accomplished by using the GIs to make geographic searches. This unique function will be a very helphl 

tool for recreation agencies which may wish to establish an "Information Division for Recreationists", similar to 

an emergency dispatch system. 

Table 3. An example of shortest path street listing 

Direction Street Dist. Time* 

Starting on SKYCREST DR 0.00 0.00 mins 

Turn left on E TRAWICK RD 0.25 0.61 mins 

Turn right on MARSH CREEK RD 0.78 1.51 mins 

Ending on MARSH CREEK RD 1.43 3.07 mins 

*: Driving time is derived from automated procedure, based on the following speed standard: 

Interstate: 55 miles/hour U.S. Routes: 45 mileshour 

Primary: 35 mileshour Secondary: 25 miles/hour 

FIGURE 2. Shortest paths to the recreation site. effective walking zones, and accessib~liiy study of transporntion routes. 

I 

0 0.31 MILES 

CREEK 

/' 

I . . . . . . . . I SHORTEST PATH 

--=-- BUS ROUTE 

5 MINUTES WALKING AWAY 

FROM HOME 

10 MINUTES WALKING AWAY 

FROM HOME 

5 MINUTES WAiKlNG AWAY 

FROM PARK 

t A, B RESPONDENTS EXPRESSING 

'TOO FAR" TO GET TO 

THE PARKS 
Automted procedures are not without shortcomings. It is extremely important to acquire an accurate 

and up-to-date &ta base for street links. It is very common for a computerized data base of street links to be 

far behind the actual street system. For example, in this demonstration study 323 survey samples were used. 

However, only 126 sample addresses were matched. The mtching rate was only 39 96 (100 % for recreation 

sites with accurate detailed addresses). Those unmatched samples were due to bad addresses or the rapid 

growth of the city. That is, the data base of streets acquired in 1980 did not keep track of the tremendous 

changes of the city after that date. This could be improved by periodic editing the street link file or perhaps by 

using the software to create a list of unidentified addresses (LANDT is able to identi@ and assign to an 

individual file those with address errors). 

Test 2. Accessibility Study of Transportation Routes. 

To integrate the public transportation system into recreation opportunity provision, it is essential to 

process existing bus routes. To place these routes in a map took about 15 minutes manually and 29 minutes 

with an automated procedure for routes with a 13 mile average service length (TABLE 4). Continuously 

changing view windows to connect street links explained the time difference for the automated procedure. 

However, this process was an one-time only effort. For further analysis and map production, only a little effort 

(e. g. 10 seconds for a new map display) was needed. 

In this representative accessibility evaluation, there were no existing recreation facilities within a 10 

minute walking zone of the home locations of the two survey sample participants (FIGURE 2). That is, the 

respondents have to walk more than 10 minutes to get to the nearest park. In addition, the most likely way for 

them to get to the park is driving, because the existing public transportation system does not stop within a 5 

minute walking zone of the nearest park. It took 6 minutes for respondent A to get to the nearest bus stop and 

32 minutes for respondent B. With this analysis, it was understandable why the respondents complained that 

existing facilities were "Too Farw. 

Table 4. Efficiency of bus Route entry by manual and automated procedures 

Procedures: 

Bus Route Entry Bus Route Measurement 

(minutes) (miles) 

Manual Automated Manual Automated 

Route: 

10 

3 

17 

6 

11 

Test 3. Recreation Service Area Study. 

Evaluating the public's expressed desires in relation to existing recreation facilities is a very helpful 

method in determining development priority. This exercise calculated the service needs of survey respondents 

relative to the "street" distance to existing facilities. For demonstration it was assumed that a respondent was 

"served" by an existing facility if the facility was 10 minutes or less driving time from the respondent's home. 
Therefore the cornputer systern was queried for a sample set of respondents who answered that they 

needed "wren of a facility. For each selected respondent a de ation w~ automatically made that 

identified facilities witbin the 10 minute driving service polygon (FIGURE 3). 

FI<;URE 3. Application of cotnpuler mrtppfng tcchniqucs to recreation site planning. 

ORE H 

1 RALEIGEI, NORTH CAROLINA 
The effective service polygon discussed in this study is an attempt to define the service area on the 

basis of actual time that it takes for a participant to reach the facility from the participant's home with the 

participant driving or walking. Here, it is important to identify the difference between service radius and 

effective service polygon or zone. The service radius technique has been extensively adopted by recreation 

planners to determine effective service area. The service radius method merely delimits a service area via a 

radius of fixed length. A circle defined by this radius is centered on the facility and is assumed to be the 

service area of the facility. For example, a tennis facility might be deemed to serve all residents within a 0.50 

mile radius. The advantage of this technique is ease of use. Planners may draw many different radii to assess 

different facilities' service areas on the same site. However, in terms of actual accessibility, the service radius 

is likely not accurate. First of all, it assumes the actual geographic distance is a straight line from center to the 

end point reached. This is generally not true. People walk drive, or ride public transportation on the roads; 

that is, follow the street links. Only very few shortcuts exist for people to walk in a straight line to a facility. 

Second, it does not take into account the differences of road types. It is unlikel:., that a visitor could drive with 

a constant speed on different standard roads. 

The effective polygon (i.e. calculated service area via street links) was derived from two steps. It first 

used a computer program to identify every possible street link within defined time-distance criteria. Then, the 

effective polygon was formed by connecting the end points of each reaching street link. This approach seemed 

to be reasonable given real world driving conditions. However, the major shortcoming of this technique is 

difficulty of use. It is very difficult to conduct manually. Even with advantage of computer capability, it still 

took a considerable period of time to identify all possible street links (e.g. it may take up to 1 hour to determine 

the 10 minute driving range over a computerized street network). This problem may be improved by the arrival 

of faster computers. 

The majority of the respondents who requested more facilities were within 10 minutes driving time of 

an existing facility (TABLES 5-7). This implies that either the existing facilities are very crowded or the 

respondents are unaware of their presence assuming that 10 minutes is an acceptable service range. 

Table 5. Distance and time to the nearest facility for respondents expressing the need for "more" tennis courts 

Point Distance Driving Time Location of NearestFacilities 

(miles) (minutes) 

Chavis 

Millbrook 

Cedar Hills 

B rentwood 

Lions 

Jaycee 

Glen Eden 

Eastgate 

Average 1.50 2.95 
Table 6. Distance and time to the nearest facility for respondents expressing the need for "more" swimming 

Point Distance Driving Time Location of Nearest Facilities 

(miles) (butes) 

1.48 Chavis 

2.76 Millbrook 

2.55 Optimist 

6.16 Millbrook 

6.85 Pullen 

2.63 Pullen 

7.12 Pullen 

3.75 Chavis 

Average 2.05 4.16 

Table 7. Distance and time to the nearest facility for respondents expressing the need for "more" ball fields 

Point Distance Driving Time Location of Nearest Facilities 

(miles) (minutes) 

Chavis 

Millbrook 

Kentwood 

Pullen 

North Hills 

Jaycee 

Green Road 

Kiwanis 

Average 1.98 3.85 

Test 4. Efficiency Study of a Sample Recreation Site Planning Process. 

In this evaluation study, different approaches to site mapping were tested by the following criteria to 

determine the best procedure. 

1. Initial drafting. To produce the base map with initial characteristics, including streets, property boundaries, 

and existing facilities took 3.5 hours with a entirely computerized process (FIGURE 3). It is estimated from the 

former experience that it would take 6 hours to manually draft the base map. In the manual effort, most of the 

time was; spent referencing maps of different scales to the appropriate base map (4 hours minimum). The most 

advantageous element of the computer process was the construction of curved lines. A smooth curved line can 

be accomplished easily with computer. On the contrary, to derive smooth curve lines manually is a complicated 

and time consuming process. 

2. Change Scale. To change scale by computer is simple. It can be accomplished within less than half hour in 

the plotting process. That is to assign the desired scale in the plotting set-up step. However, it is a significant 
effort to change scale manually. The time required for manual change is about the same as to draw a new map 

(i.e. 6 hours). 

3. Addition of New Facilities, To locate a new facility on an existing site or to modifjf existing facilities to 

hction better is part of the recreation planning effort. In addressing these potential cl .ages, Computer Aided 

Design (CAD) is a very helpful tool to handle these tasks. For example, to locate new facilities on an existing 

site, planners can get a quick view about how the new facilities may impact the site and its spatial relation to the 

other facilities by automatically moving them around the site. On the other hand, doing the same tasks 

manually would require drawing several maps. 

In general, the computerized map was characterized by precision and the capability of mass production. 

A unique time-saving advantage was its powerful data bank of various hatch patterns and plant symbols.. These 

elements are important factors in successful map communication. Although some critics may view them as 

non-human symbols, they do give designer more free time for creative thinking instead of tedious and repetitive 

manual drawing. In addition, in terms of map reproduction, the manual drawing technique is far behind the 

capabilities of computers. Combination of both procedures may soften the mechanical image of a computerized 

map and improve the precision of manual drawing. 

In summary, CAD can not only assist planners to produce high-quality maps more efficiently, but also 

can facilitate more comprehensive decision-making. This is because CAD enables the planner to have more 

time in creative thinking instead of focusing on time-consuming drafting. For recreation planners to achieve 

effective planning efforts, it will be a wise choice to computerize existing recreation site plans. 

CONCLUSION 

To achieve effective recreation planning, it is essential to have a better understanding of the recreation 

participants. In addition to standard information concerning people's rids, a spatial context is indispensable in 

considering recreation opportunity provision. With a spatial perspective, it is more likely that a well-balanced 

recreation system can be built and participants' needs can be met. 

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how computer mapping techniques could be applied by 

recreation planners to view people and people's needs from a spatial perspective. In addition, the study 

demonstrated the efficiency of computer mapping in the recreation site planning process. Computer mapping 

techniques will enable the planner to conduct more explicit analyses with less effort. 

In the address matching test, the geographic distribution of survey respondents and existing recreation 

facilities was analyzed. This analysis provided insight into the correspondence of survey responses to 

participant and facility location. 

A comprehensive recreation plan not only has to take internal factors into account, but also has to 

consider external factors and cooperation with other public services. Better transportation could be a very 

useful facilitator for urban dwellers to access recreation opportunities. Meanwhile, it is important for recreation 

planners to explore how other public services can best assist in the provision of recreation opportunity. For 

example, more uses of a greenway system could potentially be served if it was planned in concert with the 

transportation system. Participants could perhaps experience and easily access different segments of greenways 

without taking time to find a parking space nor walking back to where they parked on the same greenway. This 

objective may be easily accomplished by analyzing the greenway system and public transportation system from a 

spatial context to determine appropriate service zones. 
Perhaps geographic needs are one of the most important determinants in recreation opportunity 

provision. By analyzing the spatial relationship of user's needs and existing facility locations, unbalanced 

lwations of facilities were identified in the sample test. To determine an effective service radius, it is better to 

employ a timedistan~e approach instead of drawing a circle from recreation site with specified radius. This is 

because actual street links are not always straight lines stretching from recreation sites to home locations. 

Geographic Infomtion Systems (GIs), with geographic search capabilities are a useful tool for the recreation 

planner to determine more explicit effective service radius. 

With advances in Computer Aided Design (CAD), manual drafting in the site planning process should 

become automated. The efficiency of the use of CAD systems in the recreation design was demonstrated in this 

study. This efficiency advantage allows planners to concentrate more on the quality of planning instead of on 

the details of drawing. In addition, it enables the planner to reproduce colorful and dependable maps more 

easily. With the editing ability of CAD, it also provides considerable time-saving in up-dating procedures 

Recreation planners can benefit from the existing computer mapping technology. However, it is also 

important to explore the application of similar technology to more comprehensive activities than just map 

production. For example, computer programs to handle visualizations of new designs, formulation of design 

hypothesis, and intelligent CAD systems are very likely. In this study, computer mapping technology did 

provide some favorable results which without the computer would be very hard to derive. Further research 

should be undertaken to apply these experiments on a larger scale and with more extensive applications. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Berry, J. K. 1986. Geographic information systems report part 111: Learning computer-assisted map analysis. 

Journal of Forestry 84(10): 39-43. 

Carter, J. R, 1984. Computer Mapping, Association of American Geographers. State College, Pennsylvania: 

Commercial Printing, Inc. p. 6. 

Chakraborty, S. and G. David. 1981. Why managers avoid planning and what top management can do about 

it. 132e Practice of Planning: Strategic, Administrative, and Operational. New York: Van Nostrand 

Reinhold. 

Cooke, D. F. 1990. Using TIGER to solve business problems. 132e American Congress m Surveying and 

Mr,pping Bulletin 128: 27-30. 

Devine, H. A. 1979. A discussion of computer cartography and recreation planning, In Proceedings of 

National Workshop on Computer and Recreation and Park. National Park & Recreation Association. 

Godbey, G. 1985. A model of non-use of urban leisure services. In Proceedings: 1985 National Outdoor 

Recreation Trends Symposium II, Volume II--Concurrent Sessions. Department of Parks, Recreation, 

and Tourism Management, Clemon University. 

Gold, S. M. 1983. A human service approach to recreation planning. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration l(1): 27-37. 

Gold, S. M. 1980. Recreation Planning and Design. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 22. 
Goodale, T. L, and P. A. Witt. 1985. Changing services and resources: doing more with less. In Recreation 

and Leisure: Issues In An Era of Change, Revised Edition, edited by T.L. Goodale and P.A. Witt. 

State College, Pennsylvania: Venture PuNishing. 

Hunt, S. L. and K. W. Brooks. 1983. A planning model for public recreation agencies. Journal of Park ad 

Recreation Administration 1 (2): 1 - 12. 

Mmufacbrers Hmover, 1987. halysis of business trends plus selected finmcial indicators. Finandal Digest 

24(13): 1-4. 

Minshall, L. 1983. Recreation problems and practices: an analysis. Recreation Research Review lO(1): 35-38. 

Momonier, M. S. 1985. Technological Transition in Cartography. The University of Wisconsin Press. p. 

116. 

More, T. A. 1985. Evaluating and interpreting use data in urban park settings. In Proceedings: 1985 National 

Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium 11, Volume 11--Concurrent Sessions. Department of Parks, 

Recreation, and Tourism Management, Clemson University. 

Peine, J. D. 1979. Getting to know park users. In Proceedings of the Specialty Conference: First Annual 

National Conference on Recreation Planning and Development. American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Reed, D. J. and R. R. Perdue. 1979. Park Planning and Design: An Evaluation Approach. National 

Recreation and Pzrk Association. p. 5. 

Reid, D. G. 1985. Assessing need for community recreation planning. Recreation Research Review 12(2): 

54-58. 

Reid, L. M. 1973. Planning the recreation and park system. In Managing Municipal Leisure Services, edited 

by S. G. Lutzin and E. W. Storey, Institute for Training in Municipal Administration, International City 

Management Association. 

Reinharth, L., J. Shapiro, and E. Kallrnan. 1981. me Practice of Planning: Strategic, Administrative, and 

operational. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. p. 6. 

Salichtchev, K. A. 1983. Cartographic communication: a theoretical survey. In Graphic Communication and 

Design in Contemporary Cartography, edited by D.R.F. Taylor. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Seabrooke, A. K. 1987. A descriptive model for planning urban park. Recreation Research Review 13(3): 

39-46. 

Stuyt, J. and C. Siderelis. 1984. The 1983 national survey of computer in parks and recreation. Park and 

Recreation 19(11): 36-39. 

White, G. N. and W. T. Patterson. 1979. Approaches to urban recreation planning. In Proceedings ofthe 

Specialty Conference: First Annual National Conference on Recreation Planning and Development. 

American Society of Civil Engineers. 
ESTIMATING DISPERSED RECREATION USE IN 

TIPLE ACCESS SETTINGS USING PARKED VEHICLES 

Kathy King Mengak and M. Kathleen Peralesl 

Abstract. Limited research has been conducted on the amount and nature of dispersed 

recreation use with multiple access points such as lakes and reservoirs. This research outlines 

a six-step procedure used to estimate the number and type of recreators found in this type of 

area. 

INTRODUCTION 

In order to make informed planning and management decisions, resource managers need accurate 

information regarding the amount, type, and distribution of recreation use on their lands. This information is 

often essential for determining such things as facility and road construction, redistribution of use pressures, and 

allocation of personnel and money. In addition, government agencies are placing more emphasis on obtaining 

accurate visitation figures from their sites. 

While use estimation techniques for developed areas such as campgrounds, swimming areas, and picnic 

grounds exist, those from the low density or dispersed use areas are limited. Dispersed recreation can be 

defined as "those forest, range, and desert- oriented recreation activities that normally take place outside of sites 

or areas that are developed or managed to concentrate recreational use" (Shafler and Lucas 1978). Estimating a 

park's dispersed recreation use can be difficult since this type of use is usually thinly scattered over large 

expanses of land and water and use is highly mobile and constantly in flux (James 1971). 

Previous techniques have estimated visitation in dispersed use settings by identifying visitors as they 

enter or exit a roadway (Cushwa and McGinnes 1964), a trailhead (Lucas et al. 197 1 ; Leatherberry and Lime 

1980), a launch site (James et al. 1971), or as they pass a given segment of waterway (Marnell 1977). In these 

studies, access to the dispersed use areas is limited. Well-defined accesses, such as trailheads, channel visitors 

through a controllable entrance or exit which aids in estimating visitor use. 

In some dispersed use settings access to the resource is not limited thereby making use estimation more 

difficult. An example of this type of multiple access area would be large public lakes and reservoirs. These 

areas usually have a narrow band of shoreline around a body of water and parcels of land managed for 

low-density recreation or wildlife. Usually a number of paved roads and jeep trails crisscross the area allowing 

visitors to park their vehicles in a variety of places such as roadsides, ends of bridges, small parking areas, and 

roadends. Once access to these lands is obtained, recreation use is not limited to these areas and can easily 

extend to the water resource. 

The purpose of this paper is to outline a technique that was developed to estimate visitation at Corps of 

Engineers (COE) dispersed recreation settings with multiple access points. From the Corps perspective it was 

essential that any visitor estimation technique satisfy the following four criteria: 

Division of Recreation and hisure, Ferrum College, Ferrum, VA 24088 

US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory, PO Box 63 1, Vicksburg, 

MS 
1) Be standardized for wide-spread use but adaptable enough to acco date a variety of areas. 

ages about 472 projects,) 

2) htegrate well with existing use estimtion techniques used for developed areas such as 

campgrounds and swi g baches to avoid double counting. 

3 Meet reporting requirements that specify use in te of visitor hours, (Visitor hour is defined 

as the presence of one or more persons on an area of land or water for the purpose of 

engaging in one or more recreation activities during continuous, intehttent, or simultaneous 

periods of time aggregating 60 

4) Possess a mechanism for periodically uphting visitation figures. 

The test site for this procedure was John H. Ken- Reservoir which is located in the Piedmont region 

along the border of Virginia and North Carolina. The project encompasses approximately 50,000 acres of water 

and supports significant levels of dispersed recreation use. 

METHODS 

In studying dispersed use settings with multiple access points and fluctuating use patterns, it became 

readily apparent that covering all possible access points or trying to locate recreators in the field would be 

extremely difficult. Therefore, it was decided that finding the recreatorsl parked vehicle would be the most 

reasonable means of identiQing use in an area. The use of a combination of mail-back surveys placed on the 

recreator's vehicle and car counts was proposed. Return& surveys would provide information on the number of 

people per vehicle, visitor's length-of-stay, type of r~reational pursuits, and other infomtion of interest. The 

vehicle counts conducted by surveyors would provide the total number of vehicles in area during a specified 

time. Visitation figures could be generated by correlating these two sources of infomtion and then expanding 

the estimate to the entire area. The six step procedure used at John He Kerr Reservoir to accomplish this task is 

described below: 

1. Defining Dispersed-Use Seasons 

Since the amount and type of dispersed recreation use differs throughout the year, the first step is for 

knowledgeable project personnel to group significant use patterns into "seasons. " At Kerr, these "seasons" 

were not based solely on seasons of the year (i. e. spring, su r) but also reflected various hunting and fishing 

seasons (i.e. fall deedturkey hunting season and spring turkey hunting season). It should be emphasized that 

other dispersed uses could take place during these seasons but these were believed to rernain constant or were 

negligible in extent. Also due to time and budget constraints, the Kerr study was limited to October 1986 

through May 1987 despite the year-round occurrence of dispersed recreation use. 

2. Designating the Dispersed-Use Areas and Mapping the Road Nelwork 

The second step was to identify all Kerr's dispersed use areas. These areas lay outside developed 

project lands that are monitored by traffic counters or other means of detehning use. Based on aerial 

photographs and project personnel knowledge, Kerr was divided into ten dispersed use sampling areas. 

Whenever possible, these areas were divided at county and state boundaries which proved to be useful since 

hunting seasons varied by state and county. Since an extensive road network traversed the areas, all roadways 

and jeep trails that visitors might use were identified and marked. Checkpoints, such as roadends, roadsides, 

and bridge crossings where users parked and dispersed to recreate were likewise identified. Each of the ten 

areas and their associated checkpoints were designed to be patrolled in two to three hours based on heavy use. 

Based on past research of visitor length-of- stay, this would capture most recreators. 
3. Preparing a Sampling Plan 

Sampling was conducted using a stratified random sampling approach. Potential sample days (N) from 

October to May were stratified into nine nonoverlapping strata b on expected similarities in dispersed 

recreation use. Strata were based on a combination of hunting and fishing seasons and days of the week as 

follows: 

Stramm 1 - Satisrdayslkiolidayslspening days during fall deerlturkey season (N = 144) 

Stratum 2 - Weekdays during fall deerfturkey season (N = 421) 

Stratum 3 - Sundays durLng fall deerlturkey season (N = 110) 

Stratum 4 - SaturdayslSundays after hunting season (N ~260) 

Stratum 5 - Weekdays after hunting season (N = 700) 

Stratum 6 - Saturdayslopening days during spring turkey season (N=57) 

Stratum 7 - Weekdays during spring turkey season (N = 235) 

Stratum 8 - SaturdayslSundays after spring turkey season (N = 103) 

Stratum 9 - Weekdays after spring turkey season (N = 120) 

A simple random sample of the resulting sampling units in each stratum was then taken. The number of sample 

units chosen from each stratum were determined by an optimal allocation process. 

4. Conducting the Survey 

Researchers with the help of project personnel designed a survey appropriate for Kerr Reservoir. On 

the specified sampling day, surveyors drove through the designat area on a continuous and regular Ws from 

sunrise to sunset completing each round every two to three hours. Whenever parked vehicles were encountered 

at or near designated checkpoints, a survey was left on the drivers door handle. Each survey was numbered and 

pre- stamped so it could easily be returned by mail or by the readily available drop boxes. Observational data 

such as vehicle type, license number, and educated guesses about the number of recreators per vehicle and their 

activities were recorded on data sheets. Vehicle description and license numbers were used to ensure that 

vehicles were not surveyed twice in a given day. 

5. Analyzing the data 

Survey and data sheet data were entered into a database management system and analyzed using a 

computer package called SAS (Statistical Analysis System) and Lotus 123. Of chief interest were visitation 

estimates from each strata that were totaled to yield project estimates for the study period. Other information 

such as recreational activities, distance traveled from vehicles, perceptions of land ownership, and home town 

information were also analyzed. 

6. Monitoring Future Use 

In order to estimate future recreation use, load factors generated from survey information. These load 

factors can then be applied to future vehicle counts within each starturn using similar sampling strategies. 

A total of 1,753 surveys were given out to visitors during the study period from October 1986 to May 

1987. Since the recreators' names and addresses were unknown no follow-up reminders could be sent. Of the 

surveys given out, 535 surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 30.5%. Much of this low 

response rate was attributed to the high rate of return visitors. Through comparing license plate numbers, it 

was found that some visitors were counted and surveyed as my as five times. Persons receiving more that 

one survey had an increasingly higher chance of not responding to the survey than these receiving their first 
survey- Most of the surveys were returned by mail (80%) although drop boxes were often available in the 

dispersd use areas where visitors parked. These boxes were used more frequently at the beginning of the study 

than towards the end. Reduced use of the drop boxes could be traced to vandalism and problems revolving 

around the maintenance and transport of the boxes. 

Kerr's dispersed use recreators were largely day-users (98 %) that came from the six counties 

sunounding the lake. Although hunting was believed to be the primary dispersed use activity, it was found that 

persons fishing were actually more prevalent. Table 1 illustrates how the various recreational activities were 

distributed over the nine strata. As shown, hunting was largely a fall activity while fishing picked up in the 

spring- Walking was the next most popular activity (8 % of respondents) followed by picnicking, boating, 

nature study and collecting. "Other" activities included such things as sighting in rifles, bait fishing, sunbathing 

and o ff-road-vehicles (ORVs). 

Visitors spent an average of 4.3 hours recreating at Kerr's dispersed use areas although 2 hours was the 

most common length- of-stay. Roughly 13.8 vehicles were found in each sampling unit (i.e. any possible 

samplhg area on any possible sample day). Each vehicle contained an average of 1.69 persons. When asked 

how far they dispersed from their cars to recreate, many of the respondents (47%) reported traveling less than 

0.2 miles, although there were a number of visitors (28 %) that traveled over a mile from their vehicles. Most 

of these long distance travelers were either hunters or fishermen using boats. In comparing the first two strata, 

which were composed largely of hunters, persons recreating on weekends/opening hunting days (strata 1) were 

more likely to disperse farther from their vehicles than those recreating on traditional weekdays (strata 2). Also 

fishermen tended to stay closer to their vehicles than hunter unless they had a boat with which to disperse. 

h looking at when the respondents arrived at the lake, a peak was noticed around seven to eight in the 

morning with a drop-off around noon and a smaller resurgence of arrivals in early afternoon (Figure 1). 

Hunters differed slightly from this pattern in that most came before noon with few arriving after lunch. In the 

winter season (stratas 4 and 5), the peak arrival time occurred shortly after lunch, probably corresponding to 

warmer afternoon temperatures. 

Departure times of visitors from the lake showed a peak just prior to noon with a larger peak around 

four to five in the afternoon (Figure 1). Figure 2 shows the total number of parties that recreated in dispersed 

areas during each daylight hour. This total use of dispersed areas peaks between ten and eleven in the morning 

and remains high in early afternoon. 

Visitation estimates were obtained using the following formula: 

TOTAL VISITOR TOTAL # REC. MEAN NUMBER MEAN 

HOURS PER - - VEH. PER * OF PERSONS * LENGTH-OF-STAY 

STRATUM STRATUM PER VEHICLE PER PERSON 

In this fomula, the total number of recreation vehicles was obtained form the data sheets recroded by surveyors. 

The mean number of vehicles counted in each sample unit was multiplied by the total number of available 

sampling units within that stratum. In order to reflect only vehicles containing recreators, an adjustment to the 

estimate was calculated removing non-recreational vehicles. The mean number of recreators per vehicle and 

length-of-stay were calculated from responses to survey questions. 

Once visitation for each stratum was calculated, the figures for each stratum were added together to 

obtain the project-wide visitation estimate for the study period. It was was estimated that Kerr received 

262,952.7 visitor hours of use during the eight-month study. 
Table 1. Number of parties' participating in each activity by strata. 

NUMBER OF PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN EACH ACTIVITY 

Sat - /Holidays; 

1 Fall Deer/ 

Turkey Season 

Weekdays; Fall 

2 DeerITurkey 

Season 

Sundays; Fall 

3 DeerITurkey 

Season 

4 Sat. /Sundays; 

No Hunt 

5 Weekdays; 

No Hunt 

Sat. /Opening 

6 Day; Spring 

Turkey Season 

Weekdays; 

7 Spring Turkey 

Season 

8 Sat. /Sunday; 

No Hunt 

9 Weekdays; 

No Hunt 

All Strata 290 174 48 23 21 17 17 6 1 29 
CONCLUSIONS 

Little was known about the amount and nature of dispersed recreation use on lands with multiple access 

points. The technique outlined in this paper helped capture a mobile, fluchlating group of recreators by targeting 

their parked vehicles. Observational data taken by surveyors was correlated with data from returned mail-back 

surveys left on the recreator's vehicle. Estimates of project-wide visitation for the eight-month period were obtained 

for reprting purposes. Rather than guess use, resource managers now have accurate estimates of visitation and 

could plan for and age their dispersed areas accordingly. 

While estimates of dispersed recreation use were obtained, several cautions should be stated. The first 

caution concerns trying to obtain specific site information from the estimates. The survey strategy used did not 

sample extensively enough in any given area to draw any specific conclusions about its amount and type of use. 

This technique is geared toward project-wide visitation only. 

Second, seasons and strata for this technique must be carefully selected. At Kerr, winter stratas 4 and 5 

may have extended too far into the warm weather of March and April and the onset of spring fishing since visitation 

picked up dramatically during this time. Since a basic assumption in Kerr's stratification was that each of the nine 

strata exhibit a similar type and level of recreational use, this flux of use created more variability withing the strata 

than was desirable. 

A final caution involves use of this technique at other dispersed recreation areas with multiple access points. 

Due to the variety of potential sites and type of use, this technique should serve as a guide only with the realization 

that certain adaptations may be to be made in order to accommodate a particular project. 

In addition to use estimates, this study also provided valuable insights about the dispersed recreation user. 

Resource managers at Kerr were interested to find out that while more vocal, hunters were not the largest group 

of dispersed recreators on the lake. As a result, resource managers may be more attuned to the needs of anglers 

and other identified recreators. Knowing when recreators characteristically use dispersed areas could also be useful 

to managers. During busy seasons and daily peaks of use, managers may wish to concentrate additional ranger 

patrols if necessary. 

In the future, it is hoped an entire year of data will be obtained from Kerr Reservoir or some other site so 

that yearly use patterns can be examined. Also, more work should be done on using observational data obtained 

by surveyors to get such information as length-of-stay and number of people per vehicle. This may serve to reduce 

or eliminate in some cases the cost and time involved in surveying visitors. With additional refinement, this 

technique will hopefully be used for obtaining visitation estimates and use patterns in a variety of dispersed use 

settings with multiple access points. 

LITERATUW CITED 

Cushwa, C. T. and B. McGimes. 1964. Sampling procedures and estimates of year-round recreation use on 100 

square miles of the George Washington National Forest. In 28th North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resource Con$ Trans. l6pp. 

James, G. A. 1971. hventorying recreation use. USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station. In 

Proceedings: Recreation Symposium. p78-95. 

James, G.A., H.P. Wingle, and J.D. Griggs. 1971. Estimating recreation use on large bodies of water. USDA 

Forest Service Southeast Experiment Station Research Note SE-18 1. 8pp. 

Leatherberry, E. C. and D. W. Lime. 1980. Unstaffed trail registration compliance in a backcountry recreation 

area: some preliminary findings. In Proceedings: National Trails Conference, Duluth, NM. 
Lucas, R. C., H.T. Schreuder and G. A. James. 197 1. Wilderness use estimation: a pilot test ofsampling procedures 

on the Mission Mountains Primitive Area. USDA Forest Service Intennt. Forest and Range Experiment 

Station Res. Paper INT-109. 44pp. 

Mamell, L.F. 1977. Methodsfor counting river recreation users. USDA Forest Service North Central Forest 

Experiment Station General Technical Report NC-28. p 77-82. 

Shafler, E., Jr., aod R. C. Lucas. 1978. Research n ppnof-ities for disperse8 recreation management. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 10: 3 1 1-320. 

EX BASIC ASS 

Dr. Michael Lewis Mc6owm1 

Abstract. This presentation examines the theological assumptions of Humanism and Positivism 

and proceeds with a dialectical consideration of the philosophical ramifications of 

operationali~g these assumptions. Past and current enviromental policy and attitudes are 

discussed in light of wide spread adoption of the hudst-positivist theology. 

INTRODUCTION 

The crisis before us today encompasses the state of the entire biosphere. Whole ecosystems are being 

disrupted, multitudes of species are being extinguished and the fundamental ability of the planet to sustain the 

cosmic miracle of life is being systematically compromised. We appear to have encountered a problem that 

modem methods and practices of control and power cannot handle. No application of technological, political 

or economic know how applied to a specific aspect of the problem appears to offer a solution that does not in 

some way result in de-stabilizing, compromising or otherwise exacerbating some other aspect of the situation. 

The difficulty in developing viable and workable solutions to the present conundrum, I believe, lies in 

the fact that various and vastly different definitions of the problem have been formulated . Defined as a 

technological problem, we have pumped vast resources and billions of dollars into research and development, 

assuming that there must be a technological fix for a technological problem. Defrned as an economic problem 

we have assumed it can be addressed by stronger economic growth and a world wide diffusion of production 

that will provide the wealth to address the problem. Defined as a political problem we create political policies 

assuming that politics at least will allow us to balance the effects of technology and economics. Consequently, 

the current administration appears to be intent upon performing the impossible alchemy of having it's cake and 

eating it too. More and better education has been proposed as a solution to the problem. As a former high 

school teacher, camp director and presently a member of the higher academic community, I can assure you that 

the present system of environmental education is inadequate to the task of addressing a problem of this 

rnagnitude. Environmental education and school camping programs are the first areas of study to suffer attrition 

from political and economic pressure. It appears that our scientific, economic and political institutions are 

unable to agree upon a clear definition of the problem. 

I respectfully submit that we have not defined the problem accurately and that all our attempts to 

address the problem have been ineffective for that very reason. I also contend that this has been due largely to 

the fact that we have confined our attempts at defining the problem to currently fashionable and extremely 

narrow minded methods of examination and def~tion. I further contend that limited and narrow minded 

methods of examination and definition have resulted in the development and exacerbation of the problem as it 

exists today. These methods have caused us to point at symptoms and pronounce that we have found causes. 

Some other method of examination and definition must be found which will allow us to accurately define the 

problem and thus take effective action toward ameliorating the situation. 

It has been said that theological and philosophical arguments are meaningless and in no way practical. 

After all theologians and philosophers argue about silly things such as: How many angels may dance on the 

head of a pin? Physicists on the other hand argue about important things such as how many atoms may dance 

in the head of a pin. The practicality of such discussions and whether either argument affects us personally, 

' Western Illinois University 
individually in our daily lives is clearly Ea doubt. But thwlogy, p&losophy and physics a11 affect us in important 

ways. Ceminly the effmts of these disciplines are more far reacbg thaki the absurd examples I have chosen. 

ney were, however, chosen purposefully to illustrate that theological, philosophical and scientific inquiries all 

are subjeet to absurdity if they are put to eds byond their ~erent capacities. 

To undersland the inter-related roles that thmlogy, pklosophy and science play in our lives we must 

the relationship behvwn them and the methods by which they kfom each other and as they therefore 

infonn us. The first pht in tks exa~narion is rather st g for we find that the logical methods of inquiry 

in tfreology, philosophy and science are more si&lar than they are different in their essential characters. 

Indeed, the logical method was first develop4 in theology then phJlosopby and has been borrowed by science. 

mectlogy is the root of gtbilosophy for it is concegned with the pivotal assumptions that color our view 

of the universe. Is there a God? mat is the character of God? mat 's relationship to God? What is 

God's role? What is 's responsibility to Cod. Theology thus info ilosophy with a set of assurnptions 

regarding the universe. Primary theologicd assumptions underpin the philosopher's logic and influences his 

experiential search for trulh, goodness and beauty. For example; What should the universe look like if there is 

a God? mat should it look like if there isn't? h personal observation and experience the philosopher 

tests these truths for validity. Philosophy then dire~ts and controls scientific inquiry. It is impossible 

to alter the order of this hierarchy with out destroying also, the reliability and validity of ones experiential 

findings. Objecticrns have been raisd to this principle and attempts to circumvent it have been tried but the 

principle itself has never been invalidatd. Indeed the modem experiment with psychology and technology has 

served to provide a ass of evidence regarding the fundamenhl connection between truth, goodness and 

beauty , 

Pursuing truth rquires the choosing of the truth from among various lesser truths. Similarly, the 

pursuit of "the good" implies choosing among valrous lesser goods, The idea is to choose the greatest truth that 

will enable the greatest good. Ethics which is concerned with behavior becomes possible only in the act of 

choosing a spwific good from among various goods. Means and ends are inextlrcably mixed. To engage in 

good behavior one must choose the greatest truth of the mtter for the greatest good will always arise out of 

the greatest truth. 

This b~gs us to the hart of the problem. Not only do we choose means but we also choose the ends 

to be served by those means. It is the fundamental prlinciple of freedom that lies at the heart of the matter. 

Man either has freedom or he doesn?. If we e the theological assumption that he does possess free will to 

choose we may then procd to a discussion of his ethical responsibility or irresponsibility toward the truth. If 

he has no free will then any such discussion will not only be fruitless it will be absurd. 

The fact that science by design is insensitive to questions of right and wrong makes it impossible for 

science to answer questions regarding right and wrong, good and evil in our treatment of fellow creatures and 

the environment. Seienee can only deliberate upon questions of efficacy, predictability and congruence. These 

deal with "Gow Howw not "&ow Wby." Science develops technology! This places technology rightly and 

squarely under scrutiny by theology and philosophy which are concerned with matters of means of bringing 

about the good. I am reminded of a quote from an Indiana Jones movie, "Archaeology is about facts. If you 

are looking for truth try Dr. So and So's philosophy class dom the hall. 

The scientific age does not exist in a theological and philosophical vacuum but possess it's own 

md philosophical creeds. In the last 400 years we have replaced humane theology and 

philosophy with scientific humanism. As with all philosophies, the basic theological assumptions determine 

the character of the ethics that are derived through the action of theology upon philosophy. Judging from the 

outeornes, it appeaas that &ere is a fundamental problem with humanism in that it's basic assumptions are 

metaphysically unsound, 
For a g example one has only to contrmt political philosoflies that were arrived at through both 

theistic and po diale~tical processets, in tGs example; Soviet Maawaism md Amr?can democracy. One 

was fouded upon positivist assumptions wkch pedtted md provoked the dehu ization of subjjects, The 

other vvas founded upon principles of justice, gromdd in theological assumptions of nghts and responsibilities 

which are held to inalienable and self wident hause &ey are the gifis of God. Tbe house of Soviet Marxism is 

now crumbling for it% lack of substamtial fouo&tion. We in the west, however, should not be smug at this turn 

of events, for our om theological-psliticstl founhtion appears to be erodlng from wit'zah and our house is 

certaiazfy not in order. 

theology and p&losoplay to guide them, the logical sciences--politics, economics, 

psychology and technology--iaevitably m rough-shod over pple. Science is oblivious to hum rights and 

dignjty. Ptnt to ill hfomed use, techology devwtates not ody hu ty but the biosphere as well. The irony 

pursue social science and te~hnology jin order to gak quality of life, as though quality of life was 

sometkg that can be measured by the Slanford Bhet, net lincome, political affiliation or gross national product 

(GNP). ?Ihe theologicat assumptions of positivism serve as the EounBation for the pursuit by humanistic 

sciemes for develop ts in mediche, econonoics, engiaeehg and psychology. How ironic that they succeed 

only because they p and the universe as hnctioning like a machine within a big machine. 

Efficacy, prediction, and congruence are the tools applied by humanistie logic to understarrd how the machine 

works. Closer examination of these methods proves them to be not logical tests of validity but tests of 

reliability. Efficacy is neither good nor bad. Prediction does not evaluate the process it predicts. A fact's 

congruence to currently held theory does not evaluate the justness of it's consquences in reality. 

The phr;losophy of grat strides in science and teehology. But in doing 

so we have come to view t resources and it's ihabibnts as nothing but material 

for our self indulgent expl d. hirnals are rationalized into 

mechmism, meltapho~cally rade into somet~ng less th kality. Even man himself is subject 

to degredation by the rationalizing action of this philoso s of being such as gender, growth, 

love, marriage, farnily, and co nity are reducd to I. Human endeavors such as 

service, leadership, stewardship, craftmmship and art are reduced to econo~c functions. Human virtues such 

as courage, compassion, sensitivity, self discipline and self sztcrifiee are rduced to idiosyncratic behavioral 

attractants for insul.ling omortunities to copulate. 'VVorship of the sacred md any attempt at st~ving for 

spirituality is diagnosd as an an obsessional neurosis. 

These are all outcomes that have b*n derived from viewing the world fmrn a philosophy grounded in 

a logical positivist that de~es the very essence and holism of in nawre. Therein lies the rub 

and the great dang ism and positivism are not beniw philosophies. They constitute a religion 

founded upon a li theological assumptions. The most striEng of which is the amogant and 

anthoopocentric assumption that by virb of his focatiorzl on the evolutimasy ladder, is the highest being 

in the universe and my therefore play at being god. 

nd to apprehend m Environmental etkc he mst begin by being sensitive to his place in the 

scheme of life in this world. nis must be fundamentally m humble rather thm violent interaction with the 

world. He must Iwk more thm he acts, We must contemplate more tl?a he tirrkers. He must gaze upon more 

than he dissecsts and experjiments. Despite our attempts to became so, is not the center of the universe, not 

the ntaster of md certainly not it9 possessor. He mst live in md with it. He has liIllited do~nion not 

mastery. With ion comes noblesse oblige, the obligation of his position as a sentient and spiritual being to 

render Justice to the rest of cmtion. He mst extend his concept and pra of justice and render to the earth 

that which is it9s due. The earth can be explained as a mwhmism but it t be appreciated, loved and 

presemed when viewed as a. =chine. Nor can it be revered md held holy, &e nd not render justice to a 

machine. 

Each person carries out the actions of the theologian aad the pblosopher whether he wills to or not. 

nerefore, we mst seek afier tmth, staring it in the face, unashamedly, openly, not winnowing out that which 
is uncomfortable, unprofitable or inconvenient to us. We must strive to perceive the world with out the 

trappings of biased theories, dogma, and self serving interest: We must perceive utterly defenseless the 

awefullness of our situation. We must examine our methods of knowing the truth for their veracity. We must 

recollect that there are other valid methods of knowing what is true besides the empirical. Life speaks to our 

hearts, bodies and our spirit and not just our minds. We must listen if we are to consider our obligation to 

render justice on this earth. Only then can we begin to discuss ethical behavior. 

Last August a daughter, Kathleen Lacey McGowan, was born to my wife and I and my view of the 

universe has been fundamentally shaken and changed. mat will I leave her. How can I render to her that 

which is her due. If we will not render justice to the earth we must at least demand justice for the children. To 

do anything less will bring about their total despair born of a living hell of our own creation. The sins of the 

fathers really will be visited upon their children, * Yea even unto the third and fourth generation. " 

Ethics cannot and do not operate in a vacuum. They do not spring fully formed from the forehead of 

Leopold, Muir, Rouseau, Ghandi, Spinoza, or The Wilderness Society. We must proceed with fear and 

trembling for we trod upon a path where a misstep will result in the damnation of our children and the 

annihilation of our brother creatures on the earth. 

Philosophical maps are being drawn and policy stances are being taken that exclude the humane from 

deliberations upon the use of resources and people. The "progress of civilization" is referred to and applauded 

but never described in detail. Errors made today in the development of economic and political policy will be 

extended throughout the future and will result in very real consequences for real people. The consequences if 

we are in error will be dire. 

Thus stated the problem becomes painfully clear and personal. We must change our fundamental 

assumptions of how we will treat the earth and the irnhabimts therein. The solution lies with each individual 

and his freedom to choose. If I choose an ostentatious life style for myself, my children will suffer for my 

selfishness. And not only my children but yours as well. If I choose to view the earth as merely a mine of 

materials for my self indulgent exploitation it will become a slag heap. If I choose to view the rhino's horn 

only as a potential knife handle then the rhino will go the way of the dodo. 

Our present rights and freedoms are constrained by responsibilities to the earth and future generations. 

If we fail to live up to those responsibilities and duties our rights and freedoms will be taken from us, first 

through scarcity, necessity, and eventually through political force. Choosing a solution that is based upon 

economic growth is doomed to failure. Greed is a fundamental cause of the problem. Choosing a purely 

political solution will damn ourselves and our children to political maneuvering for industrial resources and 

wars arising out of resource scarcity. We must choose to become wise rather than clever. We must choose to 

become good rather than rich. We must choose self control and cultivate the sensitivity to recognize when 

enough is enough rather than choosing personal wealth, personal power and personal prestige. Above all we 

must recognize: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." 
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND RECREATION RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT: AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE 

James D. Absherl 

Abstract. The need for an Enviromental Ethie (EE) is briefly examined, followed by a 

discussion of how this need affects users, managers and the recreation resource base itself. 

Emphasis is placed on the role of values as they are translated into the duties and obligations 

that are the substance of ethics. A number of examples are given to illustrate the issues 

involved in defining an EE. The paper concludes with discussions of the philosophical 

underpinnings of EE and their application to weakly anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric 

issues such as scenic beauty and animal "rights". 

THE NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN RECREATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. 

It seems increasingly clear that the last decade of this millennium is going to be one of limits, 

especially from an environmental perspective. Having failed to find sufficient impetus for change in a widening 

stream of environmental protest human culture is now faced with the need for more radical changes in many of 

its institutions. And this applies not just locally, but globally. Wow can it be that ideas so simply and 

persuasively stated so many years ago by Leopold, Carson, or the Club of Rome have failed to result in a true 

envia~nmental ethic (EE)? 1 won't try to answer all this, but I'd Pike to point out how this need for a new EE 

does concern us in the parks and recreation movement. 

The search begins with the fact that resource-based recreation management is an offshoot of the 

conservation movement. And as such it shares not only the pragmatic value premises of the conservation 

movement but also at least one essential shortcoming. As Wengert (1964) pointed out over a quarter of a 

century ago, there is no clear ideological basis to conservation. Rather, it is a series of historical reactions to 

societal exigencies, all more or less resolved through application of Bentham-esque (or for foresters, Pinchotian) 

pragmatism. Nonetheless, conservation mindedness has resulted in a useful set of solutions to resource 

decision-making problems (Atfield 1983). I'm willing to agree that on the whole (and up till recently) the 

"greatest good for the greatest number" has been served. I'm not, however, willing to complete the BenthamPinchot phrase by adding ". . .over the long run. " The point is, of course, that pragmatism is not the root of the 

problem, but is nonetheless inextricably tied to it. It served us well in earlier, perhaps simpler, times. But now 

its usefblness is more circumspect. 

Therefore, I wish to argue that many of these "correct" pragmatic solutions have been for "all the 

wrong reasons." In a nutshell, pragmatic recreation resource management (RRM) must shift its basis away 

from utilitarian anthropocentcism (if that is possible). In an environmentally aware era, general societal forces, 

if not our own profession, are pushing us to re-examine our relationship with nature. An EE, unlike the preLeopold conservation ethic that preceded it, must account for a wider set of duties and obligations. This will 

not be easy but it is necessary and possible. 

The starting point is with ethics themselves as a concept2: Passmore (1974,7n) has argued that an EE 

". ..is not the sort of thing one can simply decide to have.. . A new ethic will arise out of existing attitudes, or 

' Associate Professor, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Hardman Hall, University of Georgia, 

Athens, GA 30602. 

The following passages are presented in the opening discussion of philosophical attitudes in Hargrove's 

book (Hargrove 1989). 
not at all." Or as Lmpold (1970,246) stated in his famous "hd Ethic" essay: "No impomt change in ethics 

was ever accomplished without an internal change intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affection, and conviction. " 

The clear implication is that we must be more critical about the value base from which our actions or decisions 

come. 

For my it is extremely difficult to do this vc;lthout envisiohg the antithesis of much of what we hold 

dear, either as part of the established way to do things or as part of "the good life." It has certainly not been 

popular for politicians to tell the American public to consume less, lower their standard-of-living expectations, 

or alter their life style goals. (If you doubt that, I only ask you to tell me what Jerry Brown, Jr. is doing 

today.) But society is changing: New values are supplanting old ones. And many times these new values put 

politicians and citizens alike in self-contradictory roles. This seeming paradox of "more is less" is resolved not 

by castigating lifestyles, pointing fingers, or arguing for the futility of, say, "economic reasoning," but by 

examining how existing decision making structures are changed by fundamental shifts in values or valuing. And 

there is reason for optimism and hope! I'm sure many of you were as shocked as I was to receive the new 

Society of American Foresters bumper sticker that proclaims, "For a forester, every day is Earth Day." 

Assunzing the value shift is sincere, the question emerges: What shifts in management decision making does 

this presage? The idea of a profession devoted to a perpetual Earth Day is not the same one that seemed to 

dominate the "old forestry." Just what changes might be ahead in RRM? 

Don't get me wrong: The "system" is intact: recreation managers must still work with old line 

politicians, and they must still know costs and prices and work within budgets. Nonetheless, the search must 

begin for the ethical premises of an EE, and avoid the syndrome that Ansel Adarns once imputed to our former 

president: that he "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." The first step in this search 

process is to recognize the values toward nature are the fundamental building blocks of an EE, and begin to 

look at how and whey they occur. The values that underly our EE are therefore the first aspect to examine. 

Among sociologists there is a famous dictum that "If a situation is defined as real, it is real in its 

consequences." If society chooses, by whatever cause, to value something it will find ways to promote, save, 

use, protect, act on, the thing that is valued. And not surprisingly recreation managers or researchers are part 

of this process. These values, in nature, inform our ethics which in turn shape our decisions. Even though 

there can be arguments about how much of the value, or "good" there is, or when it occurs--it is, by definition, 

a "good." 

It seems obvious that placing value on human life is in all respects no different than asserting there is 

"good" in say, a wilderness experience. And, of course, valuing is dynamic; it is subject to change over time. 

Environmental ethics, no less than any other type, includes a need to establish norms of behavior relative to 

whatever values exist. They are a part of our social history and our cultural development. In as much as this is 

dynamic, EE will develop in response to changes in valuing nature, and will never be static or universal. 

People must constantly learn these values and act on them in a process of reaffirmation and intergenerational 

transmission. 

The second aspect is less metaphysical but perhaps even more complex for any given situation. By 

their nature EE involve trade-offs and situated decision-making. Once the basic beliefs are established, the 

incorporated values or "goods" are rarely absolutes and whatever moral force they have involves establishing 

them in various structures throughout society. Religions, civic groups, user groups, professional societies, 

legislatures, etc., all give direction and legitimacy to the values that comprise our ethics, In practice many 

fundamental values are learned through participation or socialization and thus can become prescriptive: they 

take on a moral force and dictate proper action. They are the "oughts" and the "duties" we feel toward, in this 

case, the environment. 

In surnmary, the emergence of environmental ethics can be modeled as a sequential two-step process. 

The first aspect allows for change in the value premise(s) of the ethics. Subsequently, such values must be 

incorporated into social institutions that can achieve the translation of the "good" into an "ought." Social 
change almost invariably involves such value shifts - consider for a moment ethics that are anachronistic 

(paternalistic attitudes toward women, or burying garbage on wilderness trips), or under rapid change (abortion, 

or so-tourism). Thus, our relationship to nature is really no different than the traditional human-centered 

relationships that form the bulk of classical ethics. It is just more difficult to know the metaphysics involved, 

This is especially true for recreation management, in large part because the value premises of recreationists are 

not often questioned and resist inspectionfdiscovery. Often such values become known only after a "problemn 

is recognized through the emergence of some wagerial anomaly or conflict (e.g. crowding, van&alism, new 

activities). But, lest we expect too much, it is useful to remind ourselves that ethics, while normative, are not 

pres~Piptive in detail: they are only general guides to actions. 

So it is with enviromental ethics. The basic readings are general. The application is up to us as 

managers or researchers. I exhort you to (re-)read Leopold, Muir or Passmore, or perhaps if we're seeking a 

more explicit exegesis, Hargrove or Callicot or Rolston. And then the next time a recreation management 

conundrum comes before you try to envision an altered decision-making scheme based on different ethical 

premises. Did the manager, user, etc. have a different role to play, a different obligation? How could things 

have been done differently? More fundamentally, why should things have been done differently? What values 

or "goods" are really at stake? 

PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS WITH ECREATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

EXAMPLES 

Most of this is not going to mean much unless we can apply it, so below are some very general 

examples. Some of you may be familiar with Rolston's approach to these issues. (Perhaps you've even been 

fortunate to have taken a class from him.) While there are rnany from which to choose, here are a couple he 

has The first case is one where a buffalo has fallen through the thin ice of Yellowstone Lake near a 

place where a group of snowmobilers can witness the agony of the animal in its futile attempts to climb out of 

the frigid water. The park rangers are insistent that the proper policy is to "let nature take its course" and even 

threaten the spectators with legal sanctions if they interfere. Was the policy a correct one? The animal suffered 

and died. The spectators were aghast and certainly suffered in their own way as well. But ecological principles 

as well as National Park Service policy forbid undue human interference. What was the value of that one 

buffalo? What was our duty toward it as an individual? 

In case you did feel that we should have done more for that "unfortunate, thrashing, sufferingn animal 

how about asking yourself a question that goes one step further. Would it make a difference if the object of 

concern neither moved nor thought nor felt pain? A second example might be the loss of wild flowers due to 

picking or trampling. In this case the loss is not "natural," i.e. nature is not taking its own course. People are 

the agents of change and we may feel well justified to erect a sign that says "do not pick the flowers." It may 

be better, says Rolston, to not merely prohibit a behavior but put up a sign that exhorts the visitor to "let the 

flowers live." A subtle difference at first glance, but there is a strong difference in the underlying philosophy. 

This is a positive affirmation of the value of those flowers as organic individuals in their own right. No need 

for them to feel pain or to be cognizant of a world around them. They just are, so let them be. 

And if you see the logic in that example, whether you agree with it or not, please consider one more. 

Both of the first two were at least organic individuals living out (or attempting to) some genetically programed 

existence. If the ever broadening circle of enviromental concern is correct (and many ecologists believe it is) 

then our EE must also reflect some concern for non-living environmental attributes as well. A good example of 

this might be a resource management holistic "entity" like the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. How do we 

extend ethical concern to this level of environmental function? What recreation management decisions must be 

Although they may be published, these are abstracted from an oral presentation given to the University of 

Georgia Environmental Ethics Certificate Program, February 21, 1989. 
made to ensure that this large, nebulous and poorly understood entity carries out its "mission"? Strict minimum 

impact? No fires? No waste disposal? No visitors at all? What sorts of limitations on human behavior are 

crucial to this level of ethical concern? 

Now, what is to be learned from these examples? It is possible to generalize from these and other 

examples to propose a system (or process acmlly) for deciding the proper ethical stance based on the structural 

gement of the elements? This is not intended: to promote EE as a kind of situational ethics, but instead to 

ut forward a simple model that helps one think though the different ts of EE for parks and rmreation 

agers. The system is a three cornered anrangernent: userfvisitor, er, and resource base. Rights, 

duties and obligations flow somewhat differently in each of the bivariiate relationships. 

Try to envision how this occurs for a cor~crete example you rnight be familiar with. Now note that 

even with one channel, multiple relations are possible when different statuses or social relationships are 

involved. It is obvious that ethics reside in the individual, but each person has a multiplicity of roles and each 

of these may pose a radicalb different set of obligation gs" in this system have no self or cognition to 

be concerned with, they "act" amorally). The resource is charged with promoting recreation 

oppofinities, but also with efficient management or perhaps preserving some species. Visitors on the other 

hand are often at once convenience oriented and concerned about their impact. And the better we 

undersmdlrecogpllze these roles or statuses, in ourselves and others, the more efficient and effective we will be 

as managers. This is true vvhether we are making strategic planning and policy decisions, or are out in the field 

trying to cope with limited budgets, trail erosion, and conflicting user groups. 

DISCOVERING AW ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC: SOME PRACTICAL COMMENTS 

The Social and Professional Context 

So far it has been argued that ethical consideration of some "object" is both relationship-, and status-, 

dependent. It begins with the recognition of the good in the object and proceeds to emerge in various policy or 

decision g structures as the ethical basis for actions. The channels for these actions are the relationships 

that roughly conform to the familiar user-manager-resource model of recreation resource management. 

Adnaittedly this threeway model is too simple. Obviously one can enumerate many objects, statuses, or roles so 

as to make the whole project hopelessly complex. But in as much as the purpose here is to explore values 

placed on nature, it is necessary to only recogrmiu: a few crucial roles to make an improvement over what we do 

now. These were briefly illustrated by example. It should be clear that the resource may be separated into 

numerous components: plants, rocks, even ecosystem, join animals in a panolopy of possible "considerable" 

units. How many are truly morally considerable: which distinctions must be made? There is no correct 

answer. For now those four seem to represent the major philosophical differences based on cognition, life 

force, and life susta&g criteria. 

People pose another set of philosophical choices. For insknce, the manager acts in different capacities- 

-as a "professional, " an "agent, " as a "citizen, " and as a "human being. " Here there are potentially at least four 

different levels of obligation that might e a difference relative to other system components, especially the 

users (recreationists) thennselves. (e.g. should you turn in nudists? flower-pickers? Why?) Which policy 

predodnates when two conflict? Similarly, the user acts out obligations based on multiple roles as wellcitizens, human, as a member of a group such as a church or on behalf of the friends or family they are with, 

or perhaps more broadly as a member of something like a "community of hikers." 

In short, there may be as many types of obligations as there are social entities (i.e. moral identities) 

that can be defmed. Some of these will be written out in laws or regulations that govern use. The moral 

obligation that is due from less institutionally crystallized roles my only have sanctioning from informal or 

broadly held cultural norms, but these are nonetheless "real" in their consequences. And they may be just the 

ones that need to be addressed most in order to understand a use issue. Moreover, these types of roles are 
perhaps harder to identify or act from a wager" perspective because they may be from users that are new or 

ephemeral or localized (space or time) and consequently less known or not easily incorporated into existing 

policy or regulatory structures. 

Finally, focus again on the users or park visitors as a general group of people, or a subset of society, 

Viewed this way, the users constitute a "value-orient& social movement" which has implications for how 

agers approach the job sf nom-recofition or rule g (if they approach this problem at all). In fact, it 

is the discovery of such codtments to values available in our recreation lands (e.g. of being outdoors, peace 

and quiet, etc.: the "motives" for use) that "creates a moral identi@ and thus justifies and sustains 

participation" (Broom and Selznick, 264). And experiencing such values thereby creates the sense of being part 

of an important (to them) "subsociety." The danger inherent in such a situation is that as a manager focuses on 

behavior norms for such a group (e.g. their outdoor ethics, or their preference for group size), the focus is 

narrowed (to these norms) and the actual experience my inadvertently become inauthentic to some (e.g. the 

effect of burdensome regulations) or trivialized through external imposed "ethic-like" rules or settings rather 

than lived or emergent ones.4 

Under these circumstances it is reasonable to expect reformers and radicals for whom the norms are 

extremely salient to reestabljish their moral agency by either breaking the onerous rules or organizinglworking 

for their demise/change. Either way, the structural conclusion is that the mager has not initially been 

equitable or effective, instead helshe has only caused more trouble down the road. 

PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES IN RECWATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT? 

Having laid out the broad implications of the manager-user-resource relationship, let's turn our 

attention to the philosophical principles by which EE emerge or are put into practice. Specifically, it is 

instructive to ask for whom or for what reason an ethical stance is taken. The for whom question was discussed 

above relative to a person's role in the situation in question (agent, user, etc.). The "for what" question is a 

matter of determining the value, or end state, being sewed by the proposed standard of behavior. As with the 

"for whom" questions, the possibilities are manifold. Examples might include individual survival, for the good 

of the country, to promote agency goals, and so on. 

From a purely philosophical point of view the clearest distinction is whether or not the values served 

are anthropocentric or non-antlulopocentric, and secondarily whether or not they are intrinsic or instrumental in 

nature. Confounding an easy assessment of the role of values is our faith in science and technology. Because 

belief in a value has its roots in philosophy, it isn't necessary to turn to science for an explanation. For 

example, indignation over resource exploitation gave rise to a "progressive conservation movement. " Initially 

the principle came from a social philosophy in the form of Binchot's "Greatest good for the greatest number 

over the long run." In turn this principle was wedded to the logical positivism of the day to yield a "scientific 

professionalism." Unfortunately the progress of our scientific rigor and analysis have not made it easier to 

separate out the necessarily metaphysical foundations of the profession's ethic. That is, in order to "study" the 

ethical dimensions of a management problem it is not necessary to resort to a scientific process. A scientific 

analysis may solve the management problem against benchmarks such as equality or efficiency, but will leave 

the metaphysical dimensions untouched. The facts we seek from science are meant to serve the more 

constrained imperatives of who can do what to whom (or what) under what conditions. The search for an EE 

requires a wider ranging inquiry. 

This might be particularly true where the majority of users define a given use standard whereas substantial 

minorities have different needs or motives that are inconsistent with those of the first group. 
Thus discovery (or re-discovery) of an EE is more of a problem for moral philosophy, i.e. metaphysics 

rather than science. With due respeet to the limitations of Hume's work, it is a problem of ends, not means. 

Second, the greatest debate bemeen the mjor competing of resolving some recreation use issues--the 

preservatio~sts and utililariarz conservationists--are useful level, that of "practical" decision making, But 

in order to build a strong EE there is a larger issue that must be account& for. Most contemporary 

ement decisions are based solely trong anthopocentisno," i.e. an argument that only human life has 

ic value. But as was noted abov y examples suggest a need to go further. 

If nature, or in a more modem rendition, ecosystems, were not accorded more than instrumental value 

we would have no problem. But the more progressive versions of an EE propose moral considerability and 

even rights be extended to non-living units. This approach seem to have some limitations, The argument for a 

transcendental reality or deep ecology doesn? resolve the role of iatrinsic values. It merely takes a rhetorical 

high ground relative to the material use or defurnition of resources. That is, it remins strongly anthropocentric. 

hognition must be given to non-anthropocentric phciples, especially for instrumental values (e.g. ecosystem 

functions independent of hu s, the relations~p of frogs and peccaries in Rain Forests). Weak 

anthropocentism is another possibility. It is a variant of its "strong" sibling that allows for intrinsic value of 

some parts of nature so long as hu ends are served. It also has a role in as much as intrinsic value does 

occur and is of value to man (e.g. aesthetics). 

Wither Ethical Concerns in OR? 

Were do we go from here? There doesn? seem to be one clear way to refom recreation resource 

magement so as to conform to a new EE. The economic deteHLinism of the dominant resource conservation 

ethic is very ingrained in policy law and practice. And it has served agencies well so far. But to go forward, it 

would be pmdent not to do as Ehlrenfeld (1978) has admonished us and "put all our ecologic eggs in the 

ec~nomic basket, " 

The ecological imperatives of today and (tomomow) require that decisions be based on a wider range of 

end values or "goods." This is not to argue that the economic logic of decision-making that has emerged over 

the past century must be thrown out because its utilihrim roots are at odds with the emergent moral imperatives 

of non-anthropocentric metaphysics, but rather that such logics-in-use must be accorded a more circumspect 

status. Economic rationality should be allowed to work out problems (ethical or otherwise), assist decisions, 

etc. in the context of a fully non-anthropocentric, or eeologicaf, land ethic. As Callicot (1989) tells us, 

"ecological integrity.. .is a no tive ideal." It is not just a scientific fact, but a question of goodness, too. 

Once valued, such a finding of goodness provides a far reaching set of moral imperatives (ethical standards to 

be worked out?) without relying on either anthropocentric value (vs. instrumental nature) or the need to 

extendigrant some inherent rights to objects beyond humanses 

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST 

One possible implication of the last point made above has to do with the issue of "animal rights." It is 

argued by some people, especially those concerned about the use of animls for laboratory experiments, is that 

if animls have moral considerability due to their sentience, cognition, or even more broadly, their organic 

organimtion, then they have "rights:" that is, rights to exist, or even more specificall;y, to not feel pain by our 

(peoples') hand. The logical extension of this is that if they do have such rights then perhaps people should not 

kill and eat such creatures. This takes us a bit away from recreation resource agement, but there are 

situations that incorporate some of these concerns. So it is useful to review it briefly. Philosophicalfiy, this 

notion of rights relies on the assumption (finding) that there are no morally relevant differences between people 

Indeed, some philosophy "rich" system might argue that even unbom generations or fetuses or children 

under 7 years old can't have these rights, let alone animals, biotic system, etc. 
and animals, especially since it is possible to live our lives without inflictkg such pain. That is, it is needless 

and people shouldn't do it. But in arguing for a wider basis for ecological ethics the moral distinction among 

animls, plants, rocks and other entities in nature is not wily drawn--as we noted in the examples above some 

sort of *rightsw might need to be granted to vegetative mterial as well. ..and people must eat something. 

The problem is with the notion of "rights" not the moral considerability of the organism or natural 

entity. Considerability precedes both rights and obligations. Don" throw the baby out with the bathwater. As 

arguedl above, coxern for animalls, plants and even ecosystem is much more than an anthropocentric exercise. 

People must work out their duties to people, other org~c life, inorganic structures and ecosystem as well. 

These different levels require separate arguments. 

One solution to this conmdrum comes from a fmding of "goodness" in the notion of organization. 

Rolston (1988) prefers to use a sense of "life project; " Callicot (1989) talks about, "intrinsic value. " In either 

case it is a sense of value founded on the inherent organizational complexities, rather than reference to any use 

mankind has found for, or ascribed to, it. This accords status to the object without resorting to an 

anthropocentric hegemony. Even though people can (and should) be more cognizant of their role vis a vis the 

enviroment, the EE under which they operate should not position them as the sole "keeper" for gIJ life. As 

Rolston (1988,218) has grimly noted: 

"Earth is a slaughterhouse, with life a miasma rising over the stench.. nothing recognizes anything 

else's rights.. blind and ever urgent exploitation is nature's driving scheme." 

The importance of this idea is not to suggest that agers should embrace a chaotic and Hobbesian 

vision in their professional ethics. Rather, valuing non-human entities means that there is a way to give 

importance to the disentropic nature of organizationlproje~t. Intrinsic value and instrumental value can even be 

over the same objectlprocess. The crucial distinction is that rights belong to cultural or "traditional" (interhum) ethics, not environmental (nature) ethics. Humans must find the & in nature to limit the excesses of 

their own actions. 

So what of animal "rights"? The problem is with the concept of rights, not our duty to furry creatures. 

By extension, it is unnecessary to argue for the "rights of rocks", or for "chicken liberation" (Rolston's terms) 

on the basis of rights. In short, do not try to make people out of other entities. These other things don't have 

to feel pain to be morally considerable. Once rights are distinguished from duties, the projective imperatives 

can be realigned and the conundrum disappears. And, nicely, duties can be established whether the unit is some 

"individual component necessity" like the food, freedom, etc. or a less tractable unit like "ecological harmony." 

CONCLUSION 

A reformed EE should strive for what Rolston (1988) calls a "situated fitness in the global ecosystem." 

Hum relationships should be just, fair, right, and compassionate. bopold's land ethic relies on integrity, life 

support, and a sense of community to balance the greed and rapaciousness with which its "highest" members 

have traditionally based their actions (Flader 1974). It is founded on beauty and truth, where such intrinsic and 

value-laden entities are known to exist. A manager" duty is to know where such beauty and truth exist in the 

resource base and to make decisions accordingly. Duty--what one ought to do--is tied to some "goodN--what 

ought to be." The duty to promote and preserve natural beauty arises out of the recognition that beauty, 

whether experienced or not, [i.e. not necessarily anthropocentric], is a good. Rolston goes on to argue that this 

is generally non-controversial--all cultures contain an element of reverence for beauty, artistic or otherwise. 

Thus, "hurnans, as moral agents are expected to take these factors into consideration." Recreation is an activity 

that depends upon the existence of organicfecosystern integrity and scenic beauty in order to provide enjoyment 

to its participants. Moreover, much satisfaction for the existence of such conditions lies beyond the immediate 

experience (pleasure) of the participants. 
Thus, the duty of recreation resource managers is multiple: 1) to "create" beauty, 2) to "defend" it 

from umecessary loss (e.g. visual quality programs, carrying capacity decisions), 3) to provide conditions 

wherefwhen it can be apprehended (visual satisfaction) and even 4) to promote it where it can be discovered 

anew, or be shown to exist (info, programs, interpretation). 

Notice that much of what is done as recreation resource managers is tied up with the business of 

natural beauty. An EE based in part on this idea of natural beauty focuses us on decisions more akin to the 

traditional meaning of the word conservation, or as many prefer to phrase it, stewardship, over the land. 

Managers will not want to be reduced to creating playscapes and taking tickets at the gate. Rather, an initial 

assumption is that the creation of the "good" has occurred, and is on-going, and that it is hisfher duty to 

discover, promote, and protect the "essence" of that existing form. Such an EE is tied to the "good" attributed 

to nature. In this line of reasoaJng there is no need to be constantly concerned with "rights" that might be due 

to either individual animals or elements of nature. But we must seek out a detailed inventory of the "goods" we 

manage. John Muir reportedly admonished us not to hike but to saunter, to place our attention so as to gather 

as much input from nature as we can comprehend. Little has changed in 100 years in the value of his dictum, 

but much has changed in the importance of doing it! Modern living gives us few opportunities to carefully 

consider the "details of life at our feet." Appreciation of natural beauty and natural processes, thus construed, 

has a kind of moral force: An objection to not just pass through oblivious to all the natural values that exist. 

In the final analysis this paper is but a reconstruction of the obvious: A clarion call to consider that, as 

they used to say in school "neatness does count." The details are fundamental, at least when they're tied to a 

manager's moral duty to the environment. Simple decisions and simple pleasures placed in a matrix of ethical 

understanding is the crux of the EE in this paper. And such an EE in RRM will lead to a surer attainment of 

agency goals and " truer" meanings for participants. 

ILITEWUW CITED 

At field, R. 19 83. The Ethics of Concern for Nature: Ecological Problems and Western Traditions. New 

York: Columbia University Press. 

Broom, L. and P. Selznick. 1975. Sociology: A Tat with Adapted Readings. New York: Harper and Row, 

Publishers. 

Callicot, J.B. 1989. In Defense of the Land Ethic Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany, NY: State 

University of New York Press. 

Ehrenfeld, D. 1978. I;he Arrogance of Humanism. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Flader, S.L. 1974. Thinking Like a Mountain: Aldo Leopold and the Evolution of an Ecological Attitude 

Toward Deer, Wolves and Forests. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. 

Hargrove, E. C. 1989. Fbundations of Environmental Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Leapold, A. 1970. A Sand County Almanac: with essays on Consewationfiom Round River. New York: 

Ballantine Books. 

Rolston, H., 111. 1988. Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 

Passmore, J. 1974. Man 's Responsibility for Nature. London: Duckworth. 

Wengert, N. 1964. The Ideological Basis of Conservation and Natural Resources Policies and Programs. 

Annals ofthe American Academy of Political and Social Science 344: 65-75. 
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: HOW A 

TAUGHT, E 

=chard C, Field' 

Abstract. Professional ethics are more accurately called codes of professional conduct and are 

usually adopted by a foml organization of like professionals. The Society of American 

Foresters adopted such a code in 11948 and rely primarily on education and less so on 

enforcement to promote compliance. Actual results are at best, uneven. 

INTRODUCTION 

"Ethics" is one of the most widely discussed topics of our times. The recent scandals that have rocked 

our political establishments have prompted new campaign laws at all levels of government. Similar codes of 

ethics covering business practices (the private sector) are unlikely to ever be legislated but they too are receiving 

increased public exposure and support. Another ethical consideration, that of the environment, is also 

generating considerable attention as the general public becomes more aware of the environmental fragility of our 

planet. This topic is the principal ethics focus of this symposium. 

Wle this paper touches on the environmental ethics theme, it primarily addresses a fourth category of 

ethical behavior: the code of conduct followed by an organization of professional persons. As an example, the 

Code of Ethics of the Society of American Foresters is examined with regard to its history, definition, and 

implementation. Of particular interest will be its relationship to professional policies, how it differs from other 

professional codes of ethics, and the likelihood of incorporating environmental or land ethics. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROFESSION 

A History of Forestry in America 

America's forest resources have been exploited for as long as man has resided in them. This 

exploitation became more intensive with European man's concentrated arrival over three centuries ago. 

However, until less than two centuries ago there was little or no knowledge about the management of forests for 

sustained production of benefits. Another century went by before there was any interest in conserving, 

protecting and maintaining the forests of America. 

Professional forestry was recognized in America with the appointment of a forest agent in the U. S. 

Department of Agriculture in 1876. A Division of Forestry was established in 188 1. Meanwhile, a society of 

lay persons, The American Forestry Association, had already been founded in 1875 and was instrumental in the 

promotion of conservation practices and the reservation of public domain forests from sale to private interests. 

In 1897, management policies were enacted for these 38 million acres of Forest Reserves. They had grown to 

86 million acres when, in 1905, they were transferred from the Department of Interior to USDA's new Forest 

Service. Today the National Forests total 191 million acres and millions more are being managed by federal 

foresters in such agencies as the Bureau of Land Management, The Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Corps of 

Engineers. 

Public Service Assistant and Director of Forestry Programs, Georgia Center for Continuing Education, The 

University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 
By the middle of the Twentieth Century, the last of the virgin forests in private ownership had been 

hanrested and the public forests were once again being exploited for their timber products. With no new lands 

to conquer, the forest products industry was forced to become a ager of its resource base instead of just an 

exploiter. Thus, the demand for the skills of professional foresters spread from the public sector to the 

industrial sector and evenhlally to the non-industrial private sector, as this ownership became an important 

source of raw materials. Today there are an estimtd 500 million acres of commercial forest lands under all 

omerships in the United States. 

The Society of American Foresters 

The demand for forest agement attracted European professionals to America and enticed Americans 

to obtain forestry training in Europe. By 1900 two forestry schools in America were graduating foresters and 

several score of them were in practice -- most under the direction or influence of the head of the USDA 

Forestry Division, Gifford Pinchot. In that year, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) was founded by 

Pinchot, Bernhard Fernow (Pinchot's predecessor at USDA and then Dean of the Cornell Forestry School), and 

four of their associates. 

As may be surmised from the history of forestry in America, in the early years, SAF members were 

almost exclusively government foresters and academicians. The Society now numbers about 20,000 members 

from all sectors of forestry. It is recognized as the national organization representing the forestry profession 

and is the accreditation authority for professional forestry education in the United States. 

At this point it is usefull to note what constitutes a profession and what differentiates it from other 

groups of people with certain specified skills. In 1915 Flexner stated that professions must: (1) involve 

intellectual operations, (2) derive material from science, (3) involve definite and practical ends, (4) possess an 

educationally communicable technique, (5) tend to self-organization, and (6) be altruistic. That definition is still 

appropriate and may be used to compare the SAF with say, the Teamsters Union. The key elements are 

organizational objectives and responsibilities. The union's are directed towards its members; the profession's, 

towards society at large. 

DEVELOPMENT OF A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS 

What Are Ethics? 

I have heard ethics defined as "personal values in action." If this is accepted as an accurate definition, 

then it is no wonder that the subject of ethics can elicit such vigorous discussion, for nothing is so variable as 

personal values. It is a human characteristic to be free thinking and individualistic. Adding to the complexity is 

that actions are judged from at least three perspectives: an "official" view (is it legal?), a societal view (is it fair 

or balanced?), and a personal view (do I feel good about my action?). 

While ethics may be difficult to define, they cannot be dismissed. That would be analogous to ignoring 

non-market benefits because they have no monetary value. As Absher noted in his presentation, "ethics are not 

always obvious, but they are always there." And, as McGowan stated in his presentation, "they do not spring 

fully formed from the forehead of Leopold, Muir, Rouseau, Ghandi, Spinoza, or The Wilderness Society." 

Clearly then, obtaining general agrement on a code of ethics can be a formidable task. 

Developing SAF's Code of Ethics 

The difficulty in establishing a code is illustrated in the SAF's failure to adopt a code of ethics until 

1948 -- even though one was proposed as early as 1914. Of course the small size and homogeneity of the 
Forest Service-dominated profession in its early years also obviated the need for a fonnal code of conduct. 

After nearly fifty years, professional forestry in America had both diversified in its application and unified in its 

founbtions and objectives. At this point a code of ethics was not only possible but essential to guide the 

conduct of individuals, if indeed they could be accepted as members of a carefully defined profession. Thus, 

stated in his 1968 assessment of professional ethics in forestry, "a code of ethics is the mark of a mature 

profession. " 

Lammi also notes that the goals of the profession form the basis of a professional code of conduct, but 

it is also desirable to relate professional objwtives to the goals of the society of which the profession is a part. 

He states that, "ethical practices of a professional man can then be described as those which contribute to 

progress toward the goals of the profession or the human. society. Unethical practices are those which hinder 

this progress." He notes that such violations may arise from intentional misconduct, from lack of knowledge or 

from lack of resources. 

The goals of the Society of American Foresters are most succinctly stated in one paragraph of its 

Forest Policy statement as adopted in 1989 (SAF, 1990): 

Forestry is the science and art of attaining desired forest conditions and benefits. As professionals, 

foresters develop, use, and communicate their knowledge for one purpose: to sustain and enhance forest 

resources for diverse benefits in perpetuity. To fulfill this purpose, foresters need to understand the 

many demands that forests must satisfy and the potential for forest ecosystems to satisfy these demands 

now and in the future. 

The current Code of Ethics for members of the Society of American Foresters, most recently amended in 1986, 

is presented in the Appendix. As noted in the preamble to the code, the canons are intended to guide 

professionals in their relations with the public, their employers, their clients and each other. Consistent with the 

lack of quantitative goals in the Society's policies, there are no measurable standards of performance in the 

Code. 

The recent amendments to the Policies and the Code reflect the dynamic nature of both documents. 

Current discussion within the Society is focusing on the addition of an environmental or land ethic to the Code. 

This was proposed by Leopold in 1933. Its exclusion was addressed by H. A. Smith (1936) and Lammi (1968) 

and was proposed again by Coufal in 1989. Numerous letters, pro and con, have been received by the editor of 

the Journal of Forestry, but one of the most perceptive began, "an SAF land ethic is desirable, but definition 

and enforcement of standards are difficult. "2 I would concur that until the Policy and Code are rewritten as 

quantitative standards instead of general guidance, a land ethic may only be included in the preamble of the 

Code, but, the debate continues. 

TEACHING A CODE OF ETHICS 

Can Ethics be Taught? 

It follows from the definition of ethics as "personal values in action" that teaching ethics would be a 

difficult task. It would appear to be possible only with the young and very impressionable whose personal 

values have not been firmly established. Professionals are not likely to change those values that were imprinted 

during childhood. Such changes would only occur over long periods of time as societal views change or as a 

result of very dramatic events. The best that can be hoped for in ethics training of adults is that the ethical 

interpretations of actions which Absher noted may be obscure, are clearly identified and understood. 

Smith, J.H.G. 1990. Letter to the editor. Journal of Forestry 89(1):9 - 10. 
Amreness, Discussion and Experience 

An almost universally held thought is that everybody wants to do the right thing. When they do not, it 

may be that they simply do not know how or they are unaware of the negative consequences of their seemingly 

correct actions. An awareness of the consequences and interpretations of alternative actions is often sufficient to 

identify the "right" action. Discussion among different viewpoints can expand the number of alternatives and 

locate a better solution. While experience is always the "best teacher" it may be less traumatic to learn from 

somwne else's experience. 

The position of the professional forester with regard to the ethics of his or her actions can be 

treacherous. It is not uncommon for at least four divergent interests to be represented in a decision to conduct a 

forestry practice (such as a timber sale), and a single forester may be the only professional involved. These 

interests could be the forest user (buyer), forest owner (seller), society (represented by laws and regulations), 

and the forester, who is trying to make a living. Other professionals face similar dilemmas. While there are 

many decisions which may be clearly labelled as unethical, there is seldom a single decision that is ethical from 

every perspective. More likely, there are decisions which best reflect the ethical viewpoint of one party (the 

forester's employer) and are neutral with respect to the ethics of the other parties. 

SAFi (1989) has published an Ethics Guide which presents its Code of Ethics, canon by canon with 

some narrative explanation and questions for discussion. This is a very good way for an individual member to 

gain initial familiarity with the Code. Or this part of the Guide may be used for group discussion on the intent 

and implications of each canon. hother useful teaching vehicle is a set of six case studies. These describe 

hypothetical situations which cover the range of professional settings. Following each description are several 

questions about the actions of the individuals involved. The answers may be found in one or more of the 

canons of the Code. 

Courses in Professional Ethics 

Most of the ever expanding cornucopia of courses, symposia, workshops, etc. on ethics (including this 

one), tend to focus on definition, and once a definition is reached, to convince society at large -- beginning, 

presumably with the participants in the workshop, symposium, etc. -- to adopt it. Professional ethics training 

certainly involves some of this, but limits the population to be convinced to the appropriate fraternity of 

professionals. 

The Society of American Foresters and the Association of Consulting Foresters periodically conduct 

sessions which pursue the awareness-discussion-experience approach to teaching professional ethics. These are 

usually part of a larger meeting or series of meetings, or part of a formal continuing education program. 

Professional ethics training may also be included in the undergraduate education of forestry students. 

The University of Georgia's Center for Continuing Education has recently added an ethics course to its 

program of continuing professional education for foresters. This course is provided along with each short 

course offe~g, whether it is conducted in Athens or elsewhere in Georgia. It is open to short course 

participants and other local foresters. The SAF Ethics Guide is the text, and discussion focuses on the case 

studies. However, it is not uncommon for participants to discuss their own experiences. This strengthens an 

individual's ethical foundations and leads to understanding among the diverse interests that are invariably 

represented at these sessions. 
ENFORCING A CODE OF ETHICS 

Methd of Enforcement 

A new graduate was said to have noticed a similarity between his chosen profession's code of ethics 

and the alleged code embraced by pirates on the Spanish Main. In response to his question as to the difference 

between the two, he was told -- enforcement. Violators of the pirates'code could expect to lose a hand or their 

head. It would be safe to say that most professionals are not familiar with their code, the procedures for 

investigating violations, nor the penalties for unethical behavior. Should one or two violators be shot for their 

infractions, more attention would likely be gained. 

Enforcement procedures fall into three categories: legal, professional, and public opinion. To pursue 

legal enforcement, a code must have the force of law. Such is the case with some professions in some states, 

notably the legal profession. The American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility and Model 

Rules of Professional Conduct have been adopted by a number of state legislatures, making them legally binding 

on practitioners. Of course, to investigate and prosecute an alleged violation one would probably have to hire a 

lawyer! Penalties vary according to the infraction but disbarment, fines, and imprisonment would certainly be 

the most severe. 

'While a few other professional codes of ethics are incorporated into state laws, most are not, and as 

such must be enforced by the professional organization which has sanctioned them. The Bylaws of the Society 

of American Foresters has a detailed procedure for receiving, investigating, judging, and punishing violations of 

its Code. It establishes a standing Committee on Ethics, ad hoc investigating committees, and two separate 

decisions by the SAF governing Council. Sustained charges may result in expulsion of the member from the 

Society and the publication of that action in the Journal of Forestry. 

Expulsion from SAF for unethical conduct has occurred no more than twice in the last 20 or more 

years. Lesser penalties such as censure and reprimand have been a little more frequent, but with only two or 

three reported allegations of unethical conduct each year, there are very few cases. Such a low case load is 

more likely to indicate lack of reporting than it is general achievement of ethical behavior. Unfamiliarity with 

the Code and the exposure and counter accusations that may be faced by an accuser undoubtedly contribute to 

this low reporting rate. A recent change to receive and investigate allegations from non-members (general 

public) against SAfi members has not increased the number of cases appreciably. Finally, membership in SAF 

is not a requirement for employment in the forestry profession and there are probably more practicing nonmembers than there are members. Non-members are under no obligation to abide by the SAF Code of Ethics. 

If there is an order of magnitude between the effectiveness of the first and second forms of 

enforcement, the third form, public opinion, may be another order of magnitude down the scale. On the other 

hand, this is ultimately the way to achieve the first form: regulatory laws result from public demands. 

Professionals must be sensitive to their publics. As one letter to the Journal of Forestry stated, "codes of ethics 

have very little to do with the behavior of individuals, but rather are a way of communicating to persons outside 

a profession the standards that a majority within the profession deem as ethical behavior. "3 If a profession's 

goal is to serve the public purpose, then its accepted standards of behavior must be at least as high as the 

general public, if not much higher. As society embraces "higher order" ethics, such as an environmental ethic, 

so must the professional. This practice is consistent with the definition of a profession. 

Hicks, R. A., Jr. 1989. Letter to the editor. Journal of Forestry 87(9): 10. 
Compliance urithout Enforcement 

The previous paragraph recognizes that values and ethical standards are constaatly changing and 

evolving. The ethics of the general public and a profession are not the same, but they must be consistent if that 

profession is to serve society. Perhaps the best way to achieve both currency and compliance in a professional 

code of ethics is through education. The more that membrs of a profession are involved in the development 

of, discussions about, and the testing of its ethical standards, the more they will understand the consequences of 

their actions from a variety of professional and public points of view. Vltimtely, this will result in a code that 

is consistent with the public's expectations and is ~fody followed by the profession. 

This compliance through education is the means advocated by the Society of American Foresters and 

the Association of Consulting Foresters. This approach was recently embraced by the Georgia State Board of 

Registration for Foresters by including training in professional ethics in the continuing education requirements 

for a forester's licensure renewal. This approach replaced the Board's mmctioned code of ethics (taken from 

an early form of the SAF Code) that could not be legally enforced. 

To illustrate how this approach works, a participant in a recent ethics course at the Georgia Center told 

the instructor afterwards that even though the Code of Ethics had hung on his office wall since he began 

practicing, he had not paid it much attention. Recently, he discovered that he was being unjustly criticized in 

public by a new competitor in his area. Until the discussions that evening, he was unsure how to approach this 

person, whom he was sure was speaking from ignorance, but without malice. The Code of Ethics, which they 

had in common, could be the basis for resolving this problem. Wile there would be no attempt to reduce 

competition, it would reduce the presentation of erroneous information to the public such that the public could 

e a more informed decision with regard to forestry practices. 

CONCLUSIONS 

A professional code of ethics is a documented consensus of the expected conduct of that profession's 

practitioners. A society's ethics are its undocumented beliefs as reflected in the actions of its people. A 

professional code may be enforced through disciplinary action, education and perhaps legal avenues, if it has 

been adopted as law. A societal code is defined by practice, some of which may be dictated by certain laws, 

but as a whole, it is not enforceable. 

The professional code must be consistent with the societal code if that profession is to serve that 

society. However, stricter standards for the professional, while exemplary and generally expected, pose the risk 

of being mare extreme than the public would tolerate if all things are considered. The public expects to be 

objectively advised by the professional, but at the same time it has no desire to be led astray by the biased 

expert. 

LITEMTURE: CITED 

Coufal, J.E. 1989. The land ethic question. Journal of Forestry 8'7(6):22-24. 

Flexner, A. 1915. Is social work a profession? School and Society 1:901-922. 

Lammi, J. 0. 1968. Professional ethics in forestry. Journal of Forestry 66: 1 1 1-1 14. 

Leopold, A. 1933. The consemation ethic. Journal of Forestry 3 1:634-643. 

Smith, H.A. 1936. The need for common understanding. Journal offirestry 34:363-368. 
Society of American Foresters. 1987. Code of ethics. Journal of Forestry 85(12):22. 

. 1989. Ethics guide. SAP Publication 89-08. I3 

. 1990. Forest policies. Journal of Forestry 88(3): 35-38. 
CODE OF ETHICS FOR MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FOWSTERS4 

Preamble 

The purpose of these canons is to govern the professional conduct of members of the Society of 

American Foresters in their relations with the public, their employers, including clients, and each other as 

provided in Article VIII of the Society's Constitution, Compliance with these canons helps to assure just and 

honorable professional and human relationships, mutual confidence and respect, and competent service to 

society. 

The canons have been adopted by the membership of the Society and can only be amended by the 

membership. Procedures for processing charges of violation of these canons are contained in Bylaws 

established by the Council. The canons and procedures apply to all membership categories in all forestryrelated disciplines, except Honorary Members. 

All members upon joining the Society agree to abide by this Code as a condition of membership. 

Canons 

1. A member's knowledge and skills will be utilized for the benefit of society. A member will strive for 

accurate, current and increasing knowledge of forestry, will communicate such knowledge when not 

confidential, and will challenge and correct untrue statements about forestry. 

2. A member will advertise only in a dignified and truthful manner, stating the services the member is 

qualified and prepared to perform. Such advertisements may include references to fees charged. 

3. A member will base public comment on forestry matters on accurate knowledge and will not distort or 

withhold pertinent information to substantiate a point of view. Prior to making public statements on forest 

policies and practices, a member will indicate on whose behalf the statements are made. 

4. A member will perform services consistent with the highest standards of quality and with loyalty to the 

employer. 

5. A member will perform only those services for which the member is qualified by education or experience. 

6. A member who is asked to participate in forestry operations which deviate from accepted professional 

standards must advise the employer in advance of the consequences of such action. 

7. A member will not voluntarily disclose information concerning the affairs of the member's employer 

without the employer's express permission. 

Adopted by the Society of American Foresters by Member Referendum, June 23, 1976, replacing the code 

adopted November 12, 1948, as amended December 4, 197 1, and November 4, 1986. 
8. A member must avoid conflicts of interest or even the appearance of such conflicts. If, despite such 

precautions, a conflict of interest is discovered, it must be promptly and fully disclosed to the member's 

employer and the member must be prepared to act imediately to resolve the conflict. 

9. A member will not accept compensation or expenses from more than one employer for the same service, 

unless the parties involved are informed and consent. 

10. A member will engage, or advise the member's employer to engage, other experts and specialists in 

forestry or related fields whenever the employer's interest would be best served by such action, and members 

will work cooperatively with other professionals. 

11. A member will not by false statement or dishonest action injure the reputation or professional 

associations of another member. 

12. A member will give credit for the methods, ideas, or assistance obtained from others. 

13. A member in competition for supplying forestry services will encourage the prospective employer to base 

selection on comparison of qualifications and negotiation of fee or salary. 

14. Information submitted by a member about a candidate for a prospective position, award, or elected office 

will be accurate, factual, and objective. 

15. A member having evidence of violation of these canons by another member will present the information 

and changes to the Council in accordance with the Bylaws. 

ETHICAL DIL S IN ECONOMICS 

George L. Peterson1 

Abstract. Economics is a useful tool in an important game, the outcome of which counts, but 

to avoid ethical problems and undesirable results in application to public policy decisions, the 

tool must be well understood and correctly applied. This paper identifies some important 

ethical dilemmas and troublesome questions. 

INTRODUCTION 

Economics is the science of production, distribution, and consumption of resources. The principal 

concern in this paper is the use of economics in public land management decisions to achieve efficient allocation 

and fair distribution of outdoor recreation resources. The efficiency objective is to reject choices that do not 

produce more value than they consume, and to seek the alternative that produces the greatest possible net gain. 

The equity objective seeks to distribute the gains and losses fairly among the people. 

Efficiency is a technical concern. Given the assumptions, theories, and methods of microeconomics, 

one can measure values and calculate and compare the relative efficiency of alternative management actions. 

Equity, however, is a political concern. Describing the distribution of gains and losses is a techical exercise, 

but deciding whether a given distribution is fair requires the assignment of relative weights to the conflicting 

desires of different people. A sometimes advocated m!e is to assign equal weights to all people, but the 

processes that decide fairness, i.e., political and market conflict resolution, generally distribute resources 

unevenly. The technical responsibilities of economics are thus (1) to compare alternative resource allocations in 

terms of economic efficiency, and (2) to describe how those allocations distribute gains and losses. 

On face value, these are simple tasks. In application, however, they create some chaos. The reasons 

include ignorance, politics, and even guile. Economics is a complicated science. To become a competent 

economist requires years of study, and even well-versed economists sometimes get confused. To make matters 

worse, the all too complicated technical issues are often inseparable from political judgments. 

Most people who work with economics have good intentions. Blunders, if any, are caused by the 

darkness of the forests in which they work. We must all strive for clearer knowledge and better maps. Lurking 

in the shadows, however, are the glowing eyes of predators who take advantage of ignorance and complexity to 

feed their political offspring. Of these we must beware. 

Also lurking in the shadows are some perplexing ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas do not invalidate 

the usefulness of the economics tool, but they do raise flags of caution. As we examine these dilemmas, be 

careful not to criticize hammers that can't drive screws, or complain about trains that don't go to Australia. 

Because of the limitations of the science, it is easy to be critical and reject the game out of hand, but the game 

of econo~llics is real, and the outcome counts. It is important to play it well. 

' Project Leader, Valuation of Wildland Resource Benefits, U. S . D. A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, 3825 East Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524. 
THE POLITICAL PLATFORM OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS 

A traditional dilemma in economics is whether the science is nomtive or descriptive. Neoclassical 

microecono~cs is an exploration of the implications of positive, axiomatic, deductive theory. The intent of the 

theory is to model hum behavior, but the rational behavior of "economic man" is sometimes unrealistic. The 

underlying axioms also reflect some political assumptiom. To use the tool well, we first need to see what lies 

in the hidden compartments of the box in which it came. 

A Person's Values, or the Value of a Person? 

The technical calculations of benefit-cost analysis operate on the monetary values people assign by their 

choices to alternative goods and services. The implied political criterion is thus "one dollar one vote." Only 

with uniform distribution of wealth among the people is this criterion consistent with the American political 

ideal of "one person one vote." People with more money get more votes, both in the marketplace and in the 

economist's technical calculations. If we agree with the existing distribution of wealth in society, this criterion 

is fair. It does imply, however, that the rich are more deserving of public service than the poor, and that their 

desires are more important. 

The "triclcle down" theory presents a countering argument. By that theory, people get wealthy because 

they manage resources more effectively. This effective management serves a stewardship role for society at 

large. Not only do the wealthy become wealthier; so does all of society, including the poor. Whether one 

accepts this argument is a political choice, because the empirical facts are incomplete. It is generally accepted, 

however, that efficiency is an insufficient criterion on which to base public policy. Other objectives are also 

important, including objectives that call for redistribution of wealth. 

Consumer Sovereignty 

Do we desire a thing because it is good, or is it good because we desire it? Economics infers the 

monetary value of things from the actual choices people make. These values are thus defined and justified by 

"consumer sovereignty," which is to say that things are good because we desire them. This criterion is political 

because it says the "will of the people" decides the value of things, a very democratic approach. It is apolitical 

because within a free market system, it imposes no value judgments on free choice. 

This absence of normative evaluation of free choice, given the democratic premise, is troublesome in 

some respects. People sometimes choose things that the majority of us feel are bad. We correct this problem 

in part by imposing laws that invalidate certain choices. For example, the legal value of marijuana is zero, 

although it is a big cash crop on some national forests. Thus, things are good because we choose them, but 

subject to the constraint that by social choice, we define some things to be bad. 

Another problem is that people are not always well informed. We sometimes make choices we would 

not make if we had better knowledge of the consequences. Again, we sometimes agree to impose paternalistic 

legislation on ourselves to protect us from our own ignorance. Still another problem is that people are not 

always rational. We sometimes make choices that we believe are bad, choices that are not consistent with our 

held values. Such choices may be compulsive or simply foolish, but they demonstrate inconsistency between 

operative and conceived values. 

The alternative to consumer sovereignty is to assign economic values by some normative ethic, or 

simply by the whim of an individual or organization that has the power to impose its will on the people. 

Consumer sovereignty is thus like "life" and "democracy," which sometimes seem like the worst things we 

could have, except for the alternatives. 
Wch has greater value, $100 worth of candy, or $100 worth of education? To the economist, both 

have the same value, because one can sell the candy for $100 and buy the education. When asked this question, 

however, people invariably say that the education is more valuable. The economic criterion takes second place 

behind a value judgement that the increased productivity and quality of life obtained by education has greater 

worth than the monetarily equivalent temporary pleasure derived from candy. The result suggests that the 

answer comes from some criterion other than economics. 

Part of the apparent difference in worth between $100 in candy and $100 in education is demonstrated 

by the diamonds and water paradox. Diamonds (as jewelry) perform a trivial function, but command high 

prices. Water is essential to life, yet is virtually worthless in most everyday situations. Diamonds command 

high prices, because they are scarce and demand is high. A glass of water has zero value, because water is not 

scarce, and that glass of water will make no difference to life. The monetary value of either the diamond or the 

glass of water has little to do with the value of the function it performs. Consumers demand candy, and they 

demand education. That demand, in interaction with supply, determines the price each will command, no 

matter what our moral beliefs may be about education versus pleasure. 

What is the value of a meal? Ask an economist, and the answer will be a sum of money, say $15. 

Ask a nutritionist, and the answer will be a description of the nutritional constituents of the meal and the 

physiological consequences of consuming it. The economist's information ($15) answers some important 

questions, but is unimportant to the information needs of the nutritionist, whose job it is to make dietary 

prescriptions. The two have different objectives. 

Thus, economics is an important but incomplete criterion. Quarterbacks get a lot of money because 

they are scarce and demand for their services is high, although we could all live very well without them. 

School teachers and police officers provide essential services for which we pay very little. Most people agree 

that school teachers are more important than quarterbacks, but consumer sovereignty and supply and demand 

decide the wage rates. 

Discounting 

One must pay interest on borrowed money. The interest covers risk and the opportunity cost of goods 

and services forgone by the lender. Money is like a seed. When planted, it grows. It can also purchase things 

that people enjoy. Thus, discounting makes sense in relatively short-term financial markets. A dollar is worth 

more now than later. 

Intergenerational investments raise ethical questions, however. A dollar invested now in long-term 

productive growth produces wealth, new technology, more knowledge and skill, and expanded options for future 

generations. A dollar invested in pleasure by this generation may provide no such benefit to future generations. 

Irreversible commitments of scarce resources now may deprive future generations of the option to use those 

resources later in other ways. Thus disfranchised, future people suffer "taxation" without representation. The 

economics of market rate discounting is therefore insufficient for long-term commitments of scarce resources. 

Something more is required. In some cases a zero or negative discount rate may be appropriate. 

THE POLICY ROLE OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 

What is the proper role of technical benefit-cost analysis (BCA) in public policy decisions? Should it 

be a sovereign decision rule that determines choices, or is it merely an infomtion system clamoring for 

attention in political and market conflict resolution? Before addressing these questions, we must consider the 

purpose of government. 
Market Equilibrium and Market Failure 

Mat is the proper role of gove rivate affairs? The answer is a political statement. At the 

consemative extreme is an argument tha t should do no more than define humn rights, enforce 

among individuals, and litigate disputes. The other extreme argues that government should provide 

on to protect consumers, regulate the pnivate market, deliver goods and services, and redistribute 

income. In a democratic society, the proper role of government is whatever we agree to have it do. 

Welfare economists sometimes argue that the free market is imperfect. Some goods and services have 

characteristics that e them unprofitable to private enterprise. Without these goods, however, society as a 

whole is less wealthy, and many of us as individuals are worse off. Sometimes the signals received by 

individuals encourage poor choi Such conditions, if they exist, require some form of social agreement by 

which we constrain ourselves e more beneficial choices. One way to achieve such constraint is through 

govement intervention. Thus, our government provides national defense, public education, consumer 

protection, police and fire protection, and so on. 

But how far should such services go? When does the hefficiency of govemment intervention 

(internality) overbalance the inefficiency of market failure (externality)? One of the most perplexing questions 

on this controversial front is whether government should provide only those goods and services that it can 

justify on the grounds of direct net revenue. In other words, should government act as a profit-maximizing 

private fim? 

The extreme conservative says, "Yes, let the user gay full value for value received, and let govemment 

support itself by its own direct revenues. " The dile raised by this position is that there is no justification 

for govement to provide those goods and services that it can support and justify by direct net revenue--goods 

and services that could, in other words, be provided effectively by private enterprise. 

The middle road argument is that there are valuable and impo t goods and services that a free 

market cannot produce efficiently. For that reason we institute govements and ask services of them. In order 

to make those services efficient and effective, we try to analyze and compare the costs and benefits of 

alternative programs through benefit-cost analysis. The free market tries to maximize economic efficiency by 

equilibrating supply (mrginal cost) with demand (marginal willingness to pay). Under perfect competition, this 

condition siinultaneously maximizes private profit and social (economic) welfare, beeause marginal willingness 

to pay and marginal revenue are equal. Wen competition is less than perfect, however, marginal revenue (the 

private firm's carrot) departs from marginal willinmess to pay (society's carrot), and the result is departure 

from economic efficiency. Benefit-cost analysis is intended to show the better way. 

Sovereign Decision Rule? 

Some economists argue that public policy decisions should be detennind by rational economic 

analysis. Let economists measure all the costs and benefits and select the alternative with the maximum net 

econornic benefit. This position sets an attractive ideal, but there are problems with it. 

First, the constitution does not give BCA a bldet grant of power. The "due process" that gives equal 

protection under the law is generally something other than BCA. Second, BCA is blind to distribution and 

equity. Two equally efficient policies can. produce different distributional consequences. Therefore, BCA is an 

insufficient criterion for social choice if equ' ' ' Third, the state-of-the-art is imperfect. It is not 

always possible to identify and masure the of nonpricd costs and benefits. Indeed, these 

nonpriced costs and benefits are the very t should be involved, and they are the least 

susceptible to equal representation in the BCA. Not only are they difficult to identify and measure, the 

measurements tend to lack credibility in policy circles. Priced commodities tend to dominate the analysis and 

bias it toward the inefficient conclusion that motivated the analysis in the first place. 
Public policy dete ed by perfeet BGA would be efficient, but BCA is not perfect, and efficiency is 

not an exclusive social objective. We often choose to sacrifice effi for the sake of other social objectives, 

such as income redistribution. Perhaps BCA is better seen as an tion system by which to consider the 

efficiency objective. Public policy d~isions are reviewed and ul ed by political conflict 

resolution in any case, but that process can ody improve an; the participants beeome more infomd. To 

good decisions where some of the alternatives require a sacrifice of efficiency, we need to know the magnibde 

of that sacrifice. 

Political Exclusion Rule? 

Another view of BCA is as a tool of conservative government to impede approval of certain kinds of 

programs. Those programs that produce direct net revenue are easiest to justify. Those that enhance social 

welfare without producing net revenue are most difficult to defend, because the social benefits are the most 

difficult to measure and the least credible. Thus, BCA can act as a filter to exclude the services that justify 

government intervention in the first place. 

Local Concerns versus National Interests 

Mention economics to govement officials, and they generally think of balance of payments, 

expenditure, income, and employment. Their concern is to attract as much economic activity into their 

jurisdiction as possible. Each nation, state, and municipality tends to act as a feudal kingdom, seeking to 

expand its productive territory and capture as much wealth as possible therefrom. These concerns are primarily 

matters of economic distribution, with equity being decided by intergovernmental competition. 

Efficiency is also important, however. Efficient use of resources within a jurisdiction makes that 

jurisdiction more competitive in attracting expenditure and allows more of the imported expenditure to be 

retained as profit. Efficiency between jurisdictions es more wealth available for all. Someone has to 

prevent war among the states, for example, and ensure that one state's gain is not another's loss. There is thus 

a tug of war between local and national interests, just as there is a struggle between national and global 

interests. The ethical challenge is to figure out how to represent the broader public interest effectively in a 

social choice process driven by special interests. 

CONSUMER SURPLUS 

Consumer surplus (CS) is the usual measure of nonpriced value. Although a valid concept, CS has low 

credibility among many public decision makers. The reasons include: (1) analysts sometimes measure and 

apply consumer surplus incorrectly, (2) CS is money not spent or captured as revenue and therefore not taxable, 

and (3) giving credence to CS tends to justify government expenditures that do not produce direct revenue. 

An interesting contradiction surfaces when we compare derived-demand CS with final-demand CS. A 

timber harvester who makes abnormal profit purchasing stumpage from a forest and selling sawlogs to a wood 

processor retains derived-demand CS. His de d for the stumpage is daived from the demand for the 

sawlogs he produces. The total value of the stumpage to the harvester is the revenue he can obtain from the 

sawlogs. If he does not have to pay all the revenue in harvest costs, he retains some of it as surplus, and that 

surplus appears as real monetary profit. 
A recreationist "harvests" recreation opportunity and produces recreation experience. She is both 

producer and consumer of the experience. The total value of the experience to her is analogous to the timber 

harvester's revenue from sawlogs. The cost of producing the recreation experience is analogous to the timber 

harvester's expenditures for stumpage. The trouble with the recreation situation is that the recreationist retains 

the derived product, rather than selling it to someone else, so in effect she both pays and receives the total 

revenue that otherwise would change hands. Although the fnal demand surplus is no less real than for deriveddemand, it is more difficult to demonstrate and measure accurately. Comtly measured, however, CS is real 

morn- value whether ~phrd by defied de or by finaf demd. 

The ethical dilemma surrounding finaldemand CS is a matter of technical honesty. On the one hand, 

we must not pervert CS measurements to inflate nonpriced values. On the other hand, we must not use 

incorrect or fuzzy arguments to discredit GS for the purpose of achieving political ends. Both are common 

occurrences. Most often the cause is well-intentioned ignorance, but sometimes CS is the victim of political 

predators. 

A "political predator" is someone who knowingly abuses truth to achieve political ends. To 

aggressively pursue political objectives is a basic human right and responsibility. To exploit ignorance or distort 

truth to achieve those objectives is unethical. For example, a political choice to sacrifice economic efficiency 

for the sake of some other objective, say balancing the federal budget, is legitimate, but such a choice should be 

made with knowledge of the price as exposed by efficiency analysis. To choose to base public policy decisions 

on direct returns to the treasury and ignore consumer surplus is a legitimate political choice, but to try to 

discredit consumer surplus for incorrect reasons in order to avoid having to consider technically correct 

information about the public cost of the choice is unethical. 

BELOW-COST PUBLIC RECREATION 

Some recreation opportunity on public land is provided "below cost," meaning that the supplier does 

not receive sufficient direct revenue from the users to cover the cost. There are several complex reasons for 

this situation, and to analyze these reasons is beyond the scope of this paper. The simple reality is that "there is 

no wh thing as a free lunch." Where there is a cost, someone has to pay it. 

Some of the recreation that occurs on public land may impose no marginal cost. Viewing the sunset, 

appreciating a natural view from the highway, and listening to the song of birds are examples. Consumption of 

these goods imposes no costs on the supplier. Such goods are and should be free to the public. Much 

recreation does impose cost, however, in the form of direct services, congestion, environmental depreciation, 

and the opportunity cost of forgone alternative use. Who should pay these costs, and should they pay the full 

value of benefits, or only the cost of producing those benefits? 

One argument is that the user should pay. This position leads to marginal or average cost pricing, 

market economics, and revenue-driven policy. Such policy may be appropriate in many situations, but as 

previously discussed, policy driven by direct revenue may not satisfy social objectives. For example, what if 

the recreation delivers benefits to peopIe who are not users? We justify some of the investment in public 

education by the argument of social merit, that educating children provides benefits to society beyond the value 

received by the individual child. Does recreation have social merit? If it does, and we charge all the supply 

cost to the users, the external beneficiaries receive something for nothing. 

Another question is whether recreation should be a channel for redistribution of income. Is recreation 

like nutrition, shelter, education, and health care--something we feel is essential to adequate quality of life? 

Should we ask the rich to subsidize opportunities for the poor? This happens to some extent already through 

public school programs, city parks, etc. How far it should go is an ethical dilemma. 
THE DISCRTMINATORY EFFECTS OF PRICING POLICY 

The allocation of costs among users and beneficiaries should consider the discriminatory effects of the 

allocation. We often hear it said that fees in national parks and wilderness areas don't discriminate against the 

poor. The users of those areas, it is said, are mostly well-educated middle to upper income people. Fees, 

therefore, don't discriminate against the poor, because the poor don't use these areas in the first place. 

This argument has a flaw. Most poor people live so far away from national parks md wilderness areas 

that the travel cost excludes them. Most such areas are in western states, far from the urban centers of the 

midwest and east coast. Is this locational inequity ethical? We can't change geography, but should we provide 

"recreation stamps" to low income groups to compensate for the travel cost discrihation, or simply charge 

fees that are inversely proportional to travel cost, thereby making the cost equal to all? 

Travel cost filters demand by income and specializes the use of an area as distance increases. Visitors 

from afar tend to have higher income, and to come to an area for higher valued, more specialized purposes. 

Local people tend to make "backyard" use of the area for more general, diversified, and lower valued uses. An 

increase in travel cost, such as through rising energy costs, thus tends to aggravate locational inequity and 

localize the market. 

Site fees have the opposite effect. For distant users, a site fee is a small proportion of total cost, but 

for local users, a site fee is a large proportion. The effect of an increase in site fee is to regionalize the market 

by filtering out local low-valued uses and local low-income users. In neighborhood parks, for example, walking 

distance defines the market area, usually less than a half mile radius. Where such parks are ubiquitous 

throughout a city, everyone is within walking distance of one, and travel cost is not a significant component of 

price. Under such conditions, a site fee has a strong discriminatory effect on the poor. 

Pricing policy thus creates distributional currents in society, whether it is a decision of location price or 

a decision of site price. Both effects need to be examined on ethical grounds, because they help to determine 

how the costs and benefits are distributed among various social groups and geographic areas. 

THE TROUBLE WITH OBSERVED DEMAND 

The usual approach used to design and deliver public recreation services and facilities is to observe 

participation patterns and let manifest demand guide policy. Manifest demand is also a common basis for 

economic valuation. There are two problems with this approach. One is that observed differences in preference 

among different subcultures suggest the possibility of negative adaptation to unequal opportunity. A related 

problem is that manifest demand may simply be the result of choices among poor alternatives. In either case, to 

let observed choices drive policy may be at best a quest for mediocrity and at worst, a deliberate reenforcement 

of injustice. 

Subcultural Preferences 

Assume an ethnic subgroup of urban society has had long-standing inferior access to recreation 

oppom~ty because of low income. This subgroup therefore learns over several generations to use and enjoy 

those opportunities that are close at hand in the urban environment. Children grow up without experience with 

forests, western national parks, and wilderness areas, and the more exotic and expensive forms of recreation. 

To them, recreation means hanging out with the gang on a local street corner, fooling around in the vacant lot, 

turning on fire hydrants on a hot summer afternoon, or doing whatever you can do in the neighborhood park or 

on the basketball court. Observe their choices, and you will see a limited set of things happening. Ask them 

their preferences, and they will tend to prefer the things they have learned to enjoy. 
The ethical question is whether the Department of Parks and Recreation should give them more of the 

things they prefer or teach them to desire other kinds of opportunity. Responding to existing preferences 

reinforces patterns of social inequity, while teaching the children of the ghetto to desire things they can't obtain 

changes deeply rooted cultural values and may cause increased dissatisfaction. 

Choosing hong Poor Alternatives 

Both the rich and the poor face a common dilemma. Both must choose among available alternatives, 

given constraints on time and income. A person whose principal leisure activity is TV will probably watch a 

poor quality program on a given evening when only poor quality programs are available. Likewise, one who 

likes to fish may go to a neighborhood pond when that is the only alternative available, given constraints on 

time and income. The fisherman may knowingly prefer clean, cold water full of native cutthroat, but bluegills 

are the only available choice. 

Many people ski at local areas around Chicago on winter evenings and weekends. Most of these areas 

have a vertical rise of less than three hundred feet and are often crowded and icy. Ask these people where they 

would prefer to ski, and they will mention places like Colorado, Utah, or Switzerland. Ask them what kind of 

snow they prefer, and they will describe the champaign powder of Steamboat or Alta, but there they are, skiing 

on little hills under questionable conditions. They go to these places in great numbers because they like to ski, 

and nothing else is available within a feasible distance. 

We also see large numbers of people at crowded Chicago beaches on hot summer days. Does this 

observed demand tell us to develop more crowded city beaches for people to enjoy? A majority of the people at 

these beaches would prefer more solitude at scenic natural beaches, such as one finds in Hawaii, in the 

Caribbean, in Door County, Wisconsin, or along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. They know what they 

want, but they take what they can get on a hot summer day. How do we know people prefer solitude at scenic 

natural beaches? Because that's where they go when they have enough time and money. We must be careful 

catering to observed demand, because what we see people doing is not always what they really want. 

THE TEST OF REASON 

We conclude this excursion through ethical dilemmas and troublesome questions with a look at the 

recreation visitor day (RVD) and the "test of reason." Forest management tradition measures recreation use in 

terms of the recreation visitor day (RVD). One RVD consists of twelve hours spent by one person in the 

recreation activity in question. One RVD of fishing, for example, means twelve hours of actual fishing time, 

not twelve hours at the fishing site. A family of five might spend three days and two nights camping, 

picnicking, viewing scenery and wildlife, socializing, and fishing on a Forest Service District. Total time on 

site is 320 person-hours (two 24-hour days and one 16-hour day). The total number of RVD's on site is 26.7. 

Not all of this time was spent fishing, however, so these are not RVD's of fishing. They are RVD's 

on site. Assume only two members of the family went fishing and that they spent an average of 4 hours each 

day. The number of fishing RVD's is thus 2 (persons) times 3 (days) times 4 (hourslday) divided by 12 

(person-hourslRVD) or 2 RVD's of fishing. 

Reporting economic value in terms of the RVD as the unit measure of the good often leads to 

confusion. Assume in the above example that the total consumer surplus value of the trip is $50. Given that 

fishing was the primary purpose of the trip, the analyst assigns the full trip value to fishing, and reports the 

value of fishing as $25 per RVD.2 

This logic is valid under the weak complementarity argument that the trip would not have occurred 

without fishing opportunity at the site, and that the policy context is with versus without the fishing opportunity 

at the site. 
Later a policy maker decides to apply a "test of reason" to the reported value. His analysis goes like 

this: If my family of four goes on a 5-day fishing trip, our net WP should be 4 bersons) times 5 

(dayslpemn) times 2 (WD'slday) tirnes $25/RVD = $1,000. He concludes that the result is absurd. The 

value is much too high, because he is not willing to pay that much in addition to the trip cost for a few 

hours of fishing. The conclusion is convincing but fallacious, because it uses an incorrect defnition of the 

RVD. The mistake is legitimate i ed by ignorance. In that case, the analyst has a responsibility to comect 

the mismderstandhg . The policy r is unethical, however, if he deliberately takes advantage of confusion 

about the definition of the RVB to twist facts for political reasons. 

CONCLUSION 

Economics is an important and useful tool for policy analysis and resource allocation. It is a 

complicated tool, however, and correct use requires skill. Because of the demanding requirements, 

misunderstanding and misapplication are common, especially where nonpriced goods and services are involved 

in questions of economic efficiency and income distribution. Economic issues also tend to intermingle with 

political value judgments, thereby making correct application still more difficult. Some of these judgments 

come with the tool as baggage carried by theoretical roots. Other issues arise in application of the tool, because 

economics is, after all, a science of hum values, and human values are the substance of ethical concerns. 

The principal concern of this paper has been to identify and discuss some of the ethical questions that 

surro~~~d the application of economics to the management and allocation of public recreation resources. The 

intent is not to discredit economics, but rather to sharpen its blade and call for more wisdom, skill, good 

communication, and intellectual honesty on the part of those who wield it. 

MORAL DEVELOPMENT NTAL ETHICS: 

MANAGE 

Thomas C. Swearingen' 

Abstract. Partridge (1982) related environmental ethical ning to a theory from 

developmental cognitive psychology, Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Christensen 

and Dustin (Cbristensen and Dustin 1989; Dustin 1985) suggest that Kohlberg's theory can be 

used as a guide to designing interpretive visitor comunications. Previous research indicates 

that additional study of development of enviromental ethical reasoning would be desirable 

prior to using Kohlberg's theory in the design of comunications about environmental 

protection. This paper reviews research by Swearingen (1989) investigating the development 

of environmental ethical reasoning. The results indicate that enviromental ethical reasoning is 

a developmental psychological construct related to both age and education. The practical 

implications for resource management and interpretive message design are discussed. 

Keywords: moral development, enviromental ethics, depreciative behavior, resource 

managemen t . 

Whether managed by state or Federal agencies, most recreation areas face dual managerial objectives of 

visitor access and resource protection. Human use of an area will cause impacts to the natural environment. 

Management is charged with the responsibility for minimizing these human impacts so that the ecological 

integrity of the natural environment will be preserved for future generations. 

Rules of appropriate visitor behavior are promulgated by resource agencies to protect the natural 

environment of recreational areas. In some cases of extreme resource degradation, the authority of the agency 

to enforce rules may be exercised. When faced with a visitor population that lacks the desired ecological 

sensitivity, however, motivating the visitor to engage in appropriate behavior through persuasive communication 

and other indirect management approaches is preferred by resource managers for both practical economic and 

philosophical reasons (Hendee et al. 1978; Manning 1986). Direct managerial strategies such as rule 

enforcement are generally avoided by resource agencies* 

An ethical theme of ecological protection is common to many persuasive interpretive comunications to 

 visitor^.^ Managers assume that communications can influence park visitors' ethical decisions and behavior 

toward the natural environment. The success of this comunication strategy is dependent on both the 

effectiveness of the message in prompting behavior and the ability of the visitor to comprehend the message. 

' Assistant Professor, Department of HPELS, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688 

The messages frequently discuss desired environmentally sensitive visitor behavior using such terms as 

"minimum impact camping" and "low impact ethics. " 
The target ppulation of problemtic visitors who Aght engage in depreciative behavior? has never been clearly 

identified in my resedlrch l iterahre. Fu&bemare, it is arn~lear whether the ability to coqrehend an ethical 

mmsage abut the nabral enviroment exisb among the &tend& visitor audience. The message my not be 

appropl-;ate to the level of comprehension or kg ability (eo* tive development) of this unidentified target 

audience. 

Message des* logic%casl be based on an undersbdkg of the wgnitivi: abilities of the target audience 

(mrtessage rmipients), If the mesmge to Ibe diss agernent is to emphasize ethical 

concern for the eaviroment, then kvestigatis omitive abilities in the context of 

environraetlhl etkcs will aid in uaders~dhg the thought processes of the t audience and in formulating 

appropriate kterpretive co ication strategies, ms paper reviews prel ry research (Swearingen 19 89) 

on this subJiect, 

LITERATURE =VIEW 

Cognitive development can be studid in various dornains or contexts, such as logico-cognitive 

reasoning5 (Piaget and Inhelder 1969), cognitive mapping6 (Moore 1973, 1979), prosocial reasoning7 

(Eisenberg 1982; Eisenberg-Berg et al. 1983), or moral reasoning (Colby ixnd Kohlberg 1987; Kohlberg 1984; 

Kohlberg et al. 1983)- Tbe htent of structural slage thmries of cognitive development is to differentiate 

between values, no and other affective components of thought md the underlying levels and constructs of 

thought organization. SCages of development are defrned according to the evolving ability of the individual to 

recognize and utilize bigher level constructs of thought orghzation, 

Kohlberg (Colby and Koblberg 1989; Kohlbesg 1984; Kohlberg et al. 1983) concentrated on 

measurement of cocpoaritive development in. the domain. of morality or ethics. From Kohlberg" perspective, 

moral development refers to moral judgements at progressively more abstract, comprehensive, and universal 

levels of cognition (Colby and Koblberg 1987; Kohlkrg 1984; Kohlberg et al. 1983). A person at a lower 

level of development of moral reasoning my e an ethical de~ision based on reasoning only about egocentric 

motives such as personal gain and benefits or avoidance of negative repercussions such as fines. A person at a 

higher level of moral development my comprehend more abstract ideals of society and justice in making 

decisions about behavior in moral situations. It is not the ethical decision but the cognitive processes which 

predicate and impute ng to the dwision that are relevant to classification according to a stage theory of 

cognitive development of moral reaso~ng. Kohlberg mintahd that ontogenetic cognitive development of 

moral reasoning can be -surd in six stages of development into adult life (Colby and Kohlberg 1987; 

Kohlberg 1981; Kohlberg et al. 1983). 

Depreciativt: behavior is defined as any act by the visitor vJhich has a negative impact on the resource. The 

undesirable behavior my be hadvedent, intentional, or even mlicious. Malicious behavior would constitute 

vandalism. 

cation thmry, the message desiga logic is the level of complexity, abstraction, and 

construct differentiation employed by the co icator in desiming a message (OX~eefe 1988). 

The ability to reason using logical abstractions, as in mathematical or scientific problem. 

The ability to reason in an abstract spatial context, such as the ability to draw a map of a familiar area based 

entirely on cognition (is., memory). 

Prosmial rwoning is rasohg about positive scrcial actions based on altruistic motives. 
#;ohliberg% s&ges are ammged swb that wch sbge is the logical prerquisite of the next, The logical 

social and justice conceph of the eilrlier sbge are incopatetl into the na& shge, According to Kohlberg 

(Kohlberg 1984, Kohltrzerg et al. 3), the mjonity of a subject's ning about moral deeisions will 

consistently mur at a slinglie do t sbge of development. me six shges of Kohlberg" theory of moral 

development are fu&her catego to thee levels of rwo&g. 9"he descmptive labels assiwed lo the leveIs 

of r g are indicative of their social context md prspectiva -.- prmonventisnal (Shges 1 and 21, 

conventional (Stages 3 md 41, ad p~tcon~entimal (Shges 5 and 6). me social perspective of the 

preconventional level of rwo&ag is ~tidly ara egrxeareic wid perspective (Shge I) which then develops 

more broadly to rxognizr: the rights of ansther individul in hstrumentaf social lntera~tion (Stage 2). Early 

conventional reaso&g rnight recoMze farrally and close relaliions (Stage 3). The broader social perspective of 

later conventional reaso&g (Stage 4) rwogntim consideration for the larger colte~tivity (nation, society). 

Postconventional rwo~g (Stages 5 and 6) is cbaracte~zsd by a prjlor-to-society perspective of comprehension 

that etbical principles trmscend @rwede) social amgernenb. dl peworns do mt a~essarily achiwe the 

postconventiod level of reasoning. Moklberg felt &at social md personal cireumbnces could anest 

development at my s(age (Kohlberg et al, 1983)- 

Kohlberg held that the stages of mom2 cSevelopment were inva~ate and universal. The theory has 

received considerable validation through longiudhal shdy of Kohlberg" seginal subjects (Colby and Kohlberg 

1987; Kohlberg 1984). Assertions of universality have also been substantiat& (wilX1 reservations) through cross 

cultural research (Colby et al. 1987a; KoMberg 1969, 1984; Misan md Kohlberg 1982; Snarey et al. 1985; 

Snarey and Reim 1987; Turiel et.al 1978; Wte 1975). 

Partridge (1982) argued that Kohlberg's model of moral development offered insight into the 

development of environmental ethics. More recently, ChPLstensen and Dustin @ustln 1985; Ghristensen and 

Dustin 1989) have suggest& lhat mral development md comitive abilit;ies my influenee the way people 

understand -sages concerning environnnental protection. Tkpese authors extend Kohlberg's thway of moral 

development into hth the field of co ications and an environmental ethical context. 

unication research bdicates that cognitive development thmirres can be relatd to development of 

abilities (Burleson 1985; Clark and Delia 1979; Delia et al. 1979; O'Keefe and Delia 1982). 

However, Batrleson (1987) cites multiple studies where spmh co cations exhibit different developmental 

pattems when measured in different domins ts. O'Kwfe (1988) found evidence of a de 

progression of message logics (individml% c tisn strategies) in the study of regulative c 

situations. O'Kefe emphasid, however, nication reasonjrng is spe~id'lc to the situa 

context. Burleson (1984) noted that role takiing ability is context specific in the development of 

abilities. Role eing ability is thmretically link& to mral development (Colby and FCohlberg 1987; Kohlberg 

1984; Piaget 1965). 

'This literahre indicates that comitive developmetnt and development of c 

context spsific. nus a model of traditional (social) mow1 development de~vd 

KohIberg's thmq) my have limited relevace to the comprehension of writ 

environmental ethics.' Applying social theokles of cogruitive development to 

ications are us4 simtions in which the speaker is confronted with the necessity of 

controlling the atndesira'ble behavior of another. This is the circumtance confronting a resource 

influence visitors prone to engaging in deprwiative behavior. 

To illustrate this point, one of s used in Kohlberg's inkerviews is conhind in the Appendix. For 

comparison, examples of item or di other instmrnents discussd in this paper are also included in the 

Appertdix . 
environmental conkxt without research into the uoderlying cognitive representations (structure) in that specific 

context is a questionable approach to the design of interpretive com~cations. 

Extensions of Moral Development Theory 

Kohlberg's scoring procedure (Colby et ale 1987b) accepts global moral orientations &gher level 

cognitive ~~amcts such ;ns fairnas and pffectirinism) which inRuence moral perspectives. Different persons 

and cultures stwture their reaso&g in the moral domain using moral orientations other than or in addition to 

the justice orientation. Other researchers have cited other orientations to morality that characterize the 

development of moral reasoning among diverse peoples and cultures (Dien 1982; Gilligan 1982; Snarey et al. 

1985; Snarey and Reimer 1987). 

Empirical evidence indicates that the lower stages of Kohlberg's theory are accurate with most 

populations. Divergence occurs at the postconventional level of reasoning when subjects use different 

orientations to morality other than justice reasoning. kvels of moral development based on an orientation of 

care and responsibility to close relations diverge from Kohlberg's model primarily at the postconventional levels 

of reasoning (Gilligan 1982). It is at this level that most cultural differences are also apparent (Dien 1982; 

Snarey and Reimer 1987; Tietjen and Walker 1985). Different orientations to morality may differ in content 

somewhat at the lower stages, and will differ in structure and content at the postconventional level of reasoning 

(Dien 1982; Eisenberg-Berg et.al 1983; Gilligan 1982; Snarey and Reimer 1987; Tietjen 1986; Tietjen and 

Walker 1985). This research indicates that the study of additional orientations to moral reasoning must by 

definition include different descriptions of stage content. 

The extension of Kohlberg's model into an environmental context is consistent with a broader 

theoretical perspective which would interpret envirosunnh~isna as m additional orientation of moral reasoning. 

The essential structural elements of Kohlberg's stage theory can be viewed as an appropriate model within 

which to conduct research on the cognitive development of moral reasoning using an environmental orientation. 

Extension of Kohlberg's theory of moral development into the domain of environmental ethics has not 

been adequately investigated (Dunlap 1987; Partridge 1982). Dispoto (1977) found a relationship between 

principled moral reasoning and environmental attitudes among college aged subjects. Most of this correlation, 

however, was explained by academic ability. Iozzi (1976) compared social moral judgement and moral 

judgement in an environmental context using an existing objective test of principled moral reasoning. We 

modified the test to measure environmental ethical judgement with no theoretical consideration of the content 

and ontogenesis of environmental ethical positions or any previous investigation of subjects' moral reasoning 

about the natural environment. Iozzi did not find a significant correlation between environmental ethical 

reasoning and principled (social) moral reasoning. He concluded that moral reasoning in different contexts 

(social and environmental) would develop at different rates. All of the instruments used in the studies by Iozzi 

and Dispoto fail to measure environmental concerns other than anthropocentric considerations about poll~tion.'~ 

Vander Stoep and Gramann (1987) tested the effect af prosocial verbal messages" in deterring 

depreciative behavior among youth groups. Park personnel made different verbal appeals to describe desired 

prosocial beha~ior'~ to youth groups at the outset of their hiking trips in an historical military park. The 

lo See Appendix for examples. 

l1 Prosocial messages would be designed to appeal to altruistic motives in an attempt to influence behavior 

("Good Campers Help XYZ Agency Protect The Park"). In contrast, prescriptive messages would rely on 

explanation of rules and norms to affect behavior ("You Ought To Protect The Park"). 

l2 The messages used in the experiment made no mention of the natural environment. 
experimental treatments (messages) significantly reduced instances of depreciative behavior in the study 

ppulation. Gmmann and Vander Stoep (1986 1987) did not discuss how cognitive developmental theory might 

rela= to their message design 10gic.'~ They cited Kohlberg's work but made no reference to the 

devezopmentaf aspects of prosocial reasoning, However, Gergen, Gergen, and Meter (1972) reported numerous 

studies which found a relationship between age or education and prosocial behavior. A developmental process 

in prosocial reasoning similar to Kohlberg's structural theory has been documented by Eisenberg and others 

(Eisenberg 1982; Eisenberg-Berg et al. 1983; Tietjen 1986). 

Dunlap (1987) used Kohlberg's interview procedure to investigate moral reasoning toward animals 

amoag male youths. Dunlap found that subjectsbeasoning about animal ethics follows a developmental 

progrwsion closely related to Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. Differences in the subjects' level of moral 

reasoning about humans and animals indicated that moral reasoning in the different contexts developed at 

different rates. 

Research Design 

The decision to study Kohlberg's theory in an environmental context was prompted by the results of a 

preliminary field experiment to determine the effectiveness of trailside sign texts (Johnson and Swearingen 1986; 

Swearingen and Johnson 1986). Contrary to expectations based on earlier research (c.f., Heberlein 1971), a 

threatened sanction sign was most effective in deterring off-trail hiking in a front country national park setting. 

The idea that those persons who might otherwise hike off-trail respond to authoritarian messages was intriguing. 

This result also implied that others (who stayed on the trail regardless of which sign text was present) are 

motivated by different thought processes (such as prosocial reasoning). Kohlberg's theory extended to an 

environmental context could be used to explain both behaviors. Replication of the sign experiment in 1987 

(Swea~gen and Johnson 1988) offered the opportunity to pursue this idea. 

Several experiments to test the effectiveness of various social control techniques for deterring such 

minor rule breaking activity were administered in a popular subalpine meadow area of Mount Rainier National 

Park <Swearingen and Johnson 1988). The behavior of 17,416 visitors was observed in a sign experiment at 

three sites in the area, and a barrier experiment included behavioral data on 6,006 subjects. In conjunction with 

these applied experiments, a visitor survey was also conducted at the park to develop a descriptive profile of 

visitors who hiked off-trail into the meadow (Johnson and Swearingen 1988). The agency questionnaire was 

administered by mail to matched samples of compliers and noncompliers (N = 1606) contacted at the 

experimental sites. A series of reminder letters resulted in a 72% percent response rate (N = 1152) to the 

questionnaire (Johnson and Swea~gen 198 8). 

Thereafter, a second experimental questionnaire, designed to measure development of environmental 

ethical reasoning, was mild to the 1152 respondents to the agency questionnaire. A total of 568 responses 

was received to the second questionnaire, a 49 percent response rate. There was no attempt to achieve a higher 

response rate because the park visitors had previously been subjected to a lengthy questiomaire and reminder 

procedure in connection with the agency questionnaire. The purpose of the subsequent study was instrument 

development and theoretical investigation of moral reasoning in an environmental context. There was no intent 

to generalize to a universe of park visitors from a representative sample of respondents. 

l3 The treatment messages used in the experiment could be construed as prototypical messages appealing to the 

social perspectives of Stage 3 reasoning ("good boy-good girl") or to a Stage 2 social perspective of instrumental 

relations from Kohlberg's theory. 
Instrument Development 

Kohlberg's methods (Colby et al. 1987b) rank individuals' levels of moral development with a lengthy 

interview procedure which requires higHy trained personnel. However, an objective test of moral development 

called the Defined Issues Test (DID has been developed by Rest (1979, 1986a, 1986b). The test involves a 

recognition task using prototypical issue statements reprwntative of stages of reasoning to resolve a series of 

hpthetical moral dil .I4 The subject" ranking of most imprtant issue statements is used to determine 

an index of phcipld mml rmseg (the B score). The IP score measures the degree of importance the 

subject assigns to items that are considered representative of higher level (postconventional) reasoning. Scores 

on the DIT are only moderately correlated with Kohlberg's sore (Rest 1979). This is not unexpected given the 

difference in the assessment methods and the cognitive tasks involved. 

Since the research design dictated a mail questionnaire, an instrument similar to Rest's DIT was 

developed reflecting an environmental orientation to moral reasoning. A theoretical fornulation of cognitive 

development in an environmental ethical context was required because the research was to be based on an 

objective instrument rather than subjective interviews. To derive a theoretical stage model of development of 

environmental ethical reasoning, an a limited series of phenomenological interviews and an extensive literature 

reviews of related subjects were conducted (Swearingen 1989). This proposed model was used to design the 

experimental instrument. The experimental questionnaire was scored by deriving an index of principled 

environmental ethical reasoning analogous to Rest's P index. Other scores derived include raw stage scores for 

Stages 2 through 6 based on individual item ratings summed by stage content.15 

RESULTS 

To establish that environmental ethical reasoning is sub~ecto a cognitive development process, two 

questions were addressed. The first question was whether the hypothesized stages of environmental ethical 

development were representative of subjects' moral reasoning about environmental issues. To address this 

question, a factor analysis and tests of consistency of reasoning were performed. The purpose of these analyses 

was to consider whether subjects' reasoning exhibited patterns that would satisfy theoretical stage criteria. l6 

The second question to be addressed in the research was whether the hypothesized stage model of environmental 

ethical reasoning would be related to other measures indicative of cognitive development. To consider this 

issue, subjects' scores of p~cipled environmental ethical reasoning derived from the research instrument were 

compared with measures of cognitive or moral development. 

Both cognitive and moral development theories consider qualitative differences in consistency of 

reasoning to be indicative of structural stages of reasoning (Kohlberg et al. 1983; Piaget 1960). A series of 

factor analyses were performed to test whether subjects' reasoning (as expressed by ratings of the importance of 

the issue statements from three moral dilemmas) was consistently related to the theoretical stages of 

development. The outcome of the factor analyses offered support for the hypothesis that subjects consistently 

l4 See the Appendix for examples of issue statements. 

l5 See the Appendix for examples of dilem and issue statements. 

l6 Due to the fact that the subjects for this study were park visitors, the majority have demonstrated some degree 

of appreciation (and presumably ethical concern) for the natural environment by the choice of their recreational 

activity. It is reasonable to expect that these subjects are more likely to have a developed sense of moral 

consideration for the natural environment than the general population. Thus any variance measured in environmental 

ethical reasoning capabilities by the respondents to the survey may well understate the expected relationships in the 

general public. 
adhered to predicted stages of reasoning. Consistency in stage of reasoning among all subjects is demonstrated 

by the fact that most issue statements loaded on factors according to theoretical stage content. Twenty-seven of 

thirty issue statements (90 percent) loaded on factors of the same or adjacent stage content.'? These results 

indicated that subjects' reasoning is consistent across moral conflicts, and their reasoning conforms to 

theoretically predicted stages. 

To further investigate whether subjects' enviromental ethical reasoning was consistent at a donninarrt 

stage or adjacent stages, additional analyses were performed. There was a significant difference (T = 23.78; p 

- < -000, N = 567) between subjects' cumulative mean scores by level of reasoning (conventional and 

postconventional scores). These results would also support the hypothesis that subjects' reasoning is consistent, 

and the levels of reasoning are significantly different among the subjects. 

Tests of criterion group reliability also supported the assertion that subjects were consistent in their 

stage of reasoning. The agency questiomaire (Johnson and Swearingen 1988) that preceded administration of 

the environmental instrument18 contained two scales which were signifimtly related to off-trail hiking 

behavior. These scales were: (1) motivation to comply to agency norms, and (2) attitude toward the 

harmfulness of behavior (off-trail hiking) to the natural environment. First, one would expect that those persons 

viewing off-trail hiking as undesirable and enviroamentally destructive would also score highest on a test of 

principled environmental ethical development. Behavioral attitude scores were weakly correlated with 

environmental P scores (r = .1187, p < .01, one-tailed). Thus principled environmental ethical reasoning is 

characteristic of the "expert" criterion group with above average ecologically sensitive behavioral attitudes. 

Ascription to agency norms would be an orientation characteristic of Stage 4 reasoning, with concerns 

for social norms and authority. Persons with high postconventional principled reasoning scores would be 

expected to have a lower normative identity with the agency than persons with high Stage 4 scores. Subjects 

with high principled reasoning scores are presumd to be motivated by ethical principles rather than social 

norm. Thus postconventional reasoning should not be characteristic of subjects with above average motivation 

to comply to agency norms. 

The results of statistical analyses testing criterion group reliability clearly supported these arguments. 

Conventional reasoning (Stage 4 scores) was significantly higher among subjects concerned about conforming to 

agency expectations (higher than average agency norm scores).19 Subjects with above average agency norm 

scores had slightly lower environmental P scores. Principled ethical reasoning was not related to motivation to 

comply with agency expectations." 

l7 Of the 30 issue statements conceived as representative of a specific stage of reasoning, 22 items (73 percent) 

loaded on factors of the same theoretical stage content. Five items (17 percent) loaded on factors of adjacent stage 

content, and only three items (10 percent) loaded on other factors. The three items which didn't load on expected 

factors were not used in compiling the ENV P index. These three problematic issue statements were all Stage 3 

items. 

It is important to note that the two instruments were administered from several weeks to several months apart. 

l9 Higher Stage 4 scores are significantly but weakly associated (F = 8.6994, p = .0033, Eta = .1251, N = 

549) with higher motivation to comply to agency norms. 

" There was not a significant difference in environmental P scores between those subjects with above and below 

average agency norm scores. 
ry, the results of these analyses demonstrated that subjects' environmental ethical reasoning 

f thought organization sinrilar to the hypothesid stages. These patterns of thought 

org&zation (stages) 'gnificantly different. Further, mbjects-reasoning was consistent across related 

ethical si-tions (dil . These conditions satisfy the basic Piagetian critefia of structural stages (the first 

research question). The swond pstion is whether these patterns of reasoning are indicative of a process of 

cognitive development. 

The first test for developmentaf charactehstics sf the enviromenkl hstmment was a comparison of 

scores from that instmment with DIT scores (pretest data only). There was a significant correlation between 

environmental P scores (ENV P) and DIT P scores (r = .6423, p < .001, one-tailed) among pretest subjects. 

This result offers support for the research hypothesis that environmenbl ethical reasoning is related to a 

developental process in cognition (and some evidence of content validity of the environmentat instrument). 

The significant correlation between ENV P and DIT P scores also offers tentative supporf for the research 

assumption that development of environmental ethical reasoning is related to "social" moral de~elopment.~' 

Age is strongly rei'atd to coMtive development among children and younger adults (Piaget 1960; Rest 

1979; Rest and Deemer 1986). As age increases, adult development depends less on age than on life 

experiences (Rest 1979; Rest and Deemer 1986). Higher education is commonly associated with broader and 

more responsible occupational and social roles in society. Thus years of education is a variable used to indicate 

broader social experiences that would tend to enbance cognitive development among adults. Support for the 

hypothesis that environmental ethical reasoning reflects developmental aspects of cognition was found in analysis 

of principled enviromental ethical reasoning by age (younger subjects) and years of education (all subjects). 

Age was significantly related to principled enviromentd ethical reasoning among subjects to 25 years of age 

(r= .4069, p < .001, one-tailed, N = 60). Education was significantly related to principled environmental 

ethical reasoning among all subjects (r = .1848, p < .W, direction predicted, one-tailed, N = 535). 

Regression analyses indicated that age has a greater effect on the environmental P index than education for 

younger subjects. Education has a greater effect among subjects of all ages (16 and up). Both trends indicate a 

developmental process is involved in changes (increases) in the environmental P index. These analyses satisfy 

the second research question with evidence that environmental ethical reasoning is a developmental 

psychological construct. 

In order to be relevant to resource agement, there should be some relationship between 

environmental ethical reasoning and behavior toward the natural enviranment. There was a significant 

relationship between principled environmental ethical reasoning and behavior toward the natural en~ironment.'~ 

Mean P scores on the environmenhl instrument were significantly higher for subjects who stayed on-trail at 

experimental sites than the mean ENV P scores of those subjects who deviated off-trail (F = 6.550, p = ,011, 

N = 449, Eta = .1202). 

ry, the theoretical conclusions of this study based on the statistical analyses are: 

Environmental ethical reasoning is a developmental process in cognition related to traditional ("social") 

moral development. le the two moral orientations are related, developmental paths are held to be 

separate. 

21 These observations should be tempered with the caveat that the sample of subjects who took both tests was 

very small (N = 23). Whether the reported statistical relationship would be replicated in a larger random sample 

is unknown. 

" Visitor behavior was measured by compliance or noncompliance to the experimental treatments during the 

related sign experiment (Swearingen and Johnson 1988). 
2. The hypthesized stages of enviromental ethical development are representative of the structure and 

content (thought organization) of moral reaso~g about the environment among the sample population. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 

In an applied context in a natural resource setting, the implications of Kohlberg's theory are imp0 

in tenns of understanding visitor motives and behavior. The theory could be used in planning infomtion 

dissemination strategies and in design of other social control techniques for resource protection. This 

preliminary research indicates that visitors who engage in depreciative behavior in the natural environment have 

a different level of moral development than the rest of the visitor population. Interpretive messages directed 

toward visitors who engage in depreciative behavior might be designed to appeal to their level of development 

of reasoning capabilities (cognitive development). However, Rest (1979) cautioned against reliance on the 

assumption that ethical comunications can be directed toward specific stages of moral reasoning. Rest cited 

research which has indicated that different methods of measuring moral development result in considerable 

variation in stage assessment. Thus the design of a communication to appeal to a specific stage of moral 

development is confounded. 

Moral development theory might also provide a theoretical explanation for the relative effectiveness of 

different sign texts and other managerial strategies for protection of natural areas. For instance, the reason a 

threatened sanction sign has been shown to be a more effective deterrent to off-trail hiking in some park settings 

(Johnson and Swea~gen 1986; Martin 1987; Swearingen and Johnson 1988) might be related to the level of 

moral development of the target population. Similarly, prosocial messages may be effective with certain 

younger age groups (Gramann and Vander Stoep 1986) because these age cohorts are at a level of moral or 

cognitive development to be receptive to this type of message. 

Most interpretive communications involve very short periods of interaction and communication with the 

visitor. However, research has shown that short-term educational interventions are usually not successful in 

enhancing levels of moral development (Blatt and Kohlberg 1975; Lawrence 1980; Rest 1979; Rest and Thoma 

1986). Given the failure of short-term educational intervention strategies in enhancing moral development, 

attempts to influence visitor behavior through education about environmental ethics may be unsuccessful with 

persons at certain levels of development. The visitors may not be capable of understanding an ethical appeal 

about resource protection. Short-term interaction with agency personnel or exposure to agency comrnunica t ions 

may not be sufficient to enhance cognitive development. In such situations where communication may not be 

expected to affect behavior, direct management strategies such as rule enforcement may be necessary to deal 

with depreciative behavior. 

In elaboration on these observations, there are two issues relevant to resource management that should 

be considered. The first issue is the relationship of environmental ethical reasoning to behavior. The second 

topic to be discussed is the implications of the results for interpretive communication design. 

A significant difference between mean environmental P scores by behavior category (compliance and 

noncompliance) was noted during statistical analyses. However, the measure of the strength of this relationship 

(measure of association) is weak (Eta = .1202). The research design may have resulted in an understatement of 

the strength of this relationship. The observed measure of behavior has an indetehnant degree of 

measurement error because some proportion of the visitors classified as compliers during the applied 

experiments almost certainly engaged in some type of (unobserved) depreciative behavior elsewhere during their 

park visit. Further, park visitors could be more sensitive to environmental ethical issues than the general 

population. This circumstance would also tend to understate the relationship between environmental ethical 

reasoning and behavior (in comparison to the expected relationships in the population at large). Given these 
observations, the relationship betvveen phcipled enviromental etfiical reasoning and behavior toward the 

enviroment may have more substantive mming in rmurce protection than the shtistical results indicate.= 

As a result of the methodological lirnitatims of the current instrument and reseal-ch design, a definitive 

wsessment of the subsative impo ce of enviromental ethical reasoniing to behavior toward the natural 

t be stated with confidence. ary stage, and practical applications are 

li~td. Given imprwement in the enviromenbl instrument, the curseat resmrch offers an avenue of 

theoretical inquiry as profiskg as any behavioral study yet conducted concerning explanations for depreciative 

behavior in a park enviroment. 

The results have imp0 ce in consideration of interpretiv ieation design. The current 

research indicates that reasoning about enviromental etGcs is devel and specific to the context. Using 

stage descriptions from KoMberg's thwv to develop interpretive co t environmnbl issues is 

questionable. More research specific to the enviromental context efore moral development theory 

can be confidently applied to an enviromental context to interpreti 

t to consider the differences in methods of stage assessment in the design of 

comna~cations (Rest 1979, 1986a). It is unclear how the differences in issue statement recognition (on tasks 

such as the DIT or the environmental ethics instrument) and spontaneous interview thought processes (on tasks 

such as Kohlberg's interview) relate to comprehension of interpretive co unications or to behavior toward the 

natural environment. 

The stage descriptions which were the basis for design of the reswrch instmment used in this study are 

preliminary. Extending this theoretical model into interpretive message design would be questionable at this 

time. There is some degree of relationship between principled environmental ethical reasoning and behavior. 

Messages designed to appeal to this level of reasoning my be "preaching to the saved." However, the stage of 

environmental ethical development of the visitors engagling in depreciative behavior has not been adequately 

investigated. Since these visitors would constitute the target audience of a resource protection message, it is 

unclear at what stage of reasoning an interpretive message should be directed to increase effwtiveness in 

influencing behavior. If these visitors are at a lower level of development of moral reasoning, what "stage" of 

messages will they be able to comprehend? Is the interpretive mmsage recognition task easier than the stage 

assessment task? Questions of this nature must be addressed before practical applications of interpretive 

comunications are reco 

Research Note 

Since the most recognized criticism of Kohlberg's theory has concerned a potential bias against female 

moral orientations (Gilligan 1982), an analysis of principled enviromental reasoning (mean ENV P scores) by 

gender was performed. There was not a significant difference in principled environmenQ1 ethical reasoning by 

gender O, = .lo). However, the mean score of fernales (36.82) was higher than men (34.88) in the sample of 

all valid respondents (N == 535). The conclusion was that the test does not exbibit a gender bias. 

23 Further refinement and standardization of the enviromental instrument will be required before development 

of a measure comparable to Thorn's tT. This measure, derived from the DIT, is more highly correlated to behavior 

than the P index of principld ethical reasoning, Preliminary research has indicated that such a measure could 

double the correlation scores of derived from the DIT to behavior (Thorn 1985). 
LITEUTUW CITED 

Blatt, M. and L. Kobfberg. 1975. The effects of classroom moral discussion upon children" level of moral 

development. Journal of Moral Education, 4: 129- 16 1. 

Burleson, B,R. 1984. Role- cation skills in cfildhood: VVhy they aren't related and what can 

be done about it. mstern Jourrzal of STpeech Communications, 48: 155- 170. 

Burleson, B.R. 1985. Co ication skills and childhood peer relationskips: h overview. In: M. McLaughlin 

(ed.). Communication Yearbook 9. Beverly Hills: Sage. 

n, B.R. 1987. Cognitive complexity and perfon-centered co cation. In: J. McCroskey and J. Daly 

(4s.). Personalitgt and Intelpersonal Communication, Vol6. Newbury Park: Sage. 

Christensen, H.H, and D.L. Dustin. 1989. Reaching Recreatiodsts at Different Levels of Human Development. 

Journal of Park ad Recreation Administration (Winter):72-80. 

Clark, R. A. and J. Delia. 1979. Topoi and rhetorical comipetence. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65: 187-206. 

Colby, A. and L. Kohlberg. 1987. The measurement of moral judgement. Volume I: i'heoretical Foundations 

and Research Validation. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Colby, A., L. Koblberg, and M. Nism. 1987a. A longitudinal study of moral judgement in Turkish males. In: 

A. Colby and L. Kohlberg (eds.). The Measurement of Moral Judgement, Volume 1. Theoretical 

Foun&ations and Research Validation. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Colby, A., L. Kohlberg, B. Speicher, A. Hewer, D. Cmdee, J. Gibbs, and C. Power. 1987b. The 

measurement of moral judgement. Volume II: Standard Issue Scoring Manual. New York: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Delia, J., S. Kline, and B. Burleson. 1979. The development of persuasive comunication strategies in 

kindergartners through We1 fth-graders. Communicatl'on MonograpFzs. 46: 24 1-256. 

Dien, D.S. 1982. A Chinese perspective on Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Developmental Review 

2:331-341. 

Dispoto, R. G. 1977. Moral valuing and environmental variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 

14(4):273-280. 

Dunlap, J.J. 1987. Ethical Reasoning About Animal Treatment and Its Relationship to Moral Development. PhD 

dissertation. New Haven, Gt.: Yale University. 

Dustin, D.L. 1985. To feed or not to feed the bears: The moral choices we make. Parks and &creation 

1054-57, 72. 

Eisenberg, N. 1982. The development of rasoning regarding prosocial behavior. In: N. Eisenberg (4.). The 

Development of Prosocial Behavior. New York: Aeadernic Press. 

Eisenberg-Berg , N., R. Lemon, and K. Roth. 1983. Prosocial development: A longitudinal study. 

Developmental Psychology 19: 846-855. 

Gergen, K. J., M.M. Gergen, and K. Meter. 1972, Individual orientations to prosocial behavior. Journal of 

Social Issues. 28(3): 105-130. 
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a dzrerent voice. Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard 

University Press. 

, J.H. and G.A. Vander Stoep. 1986. Reducing Depreciative Behavior at Shiloh National Military 

Park. Technical Report No. 2. National Park Service. Cooperative Park Studies Unit. College Station, 

Texas. 

Gra-, J.H. and G.A. Vander Stoep. 1987. Prosocial behavior theory and natural resource protection: A 

conceptual synthesis. Journal of Environmental Management. 24: 247-257. 

Heberlein, T. A. 197 1. Moral norms, threatened sanctions, and littering behavior. Ph. D. Dissertation. Madison: 

University of Wisconsin. 

Hendee, J.C., G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas. 1978. Wilderness Management. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. Miscellaneous Pub. No. 1365. 

Iozzi, L.A. 1976. Moral Judgement, Verbal Ability, Logical Reasoning Ability, and Environmental Issues. 

Ph.D. Dissertation. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University. 

Johnson, D.R. and T.C. Swearingen. 1986. A Preliminary Analysis of Day Hiker Off-Trail Hiking in Response 

to Alternate Sign Texts at Selected Sites in the Paradise Meadows Area, Mount Rainier National Park. 

National Park Service. Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Seattle: University of Washington. 

Johnson, D.R. and T.C. Swearingen. 1988. Minor Rule Violators: A Profile of Off-Trail Hikers, Paradise 

Meadows, Mount Rainier National Park. National Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Seattle: 

University of Washington. 

Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and sequence. In: Goslin (4.). Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. 

Chicago: Rand McNally . 

Kohlberg, L. 1981. Essays in Moral Development, Vol. 1: The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: 

Harper and Row. 

Kohlberg, L. 1984. Essays in Moral Development, Vol. 11: The Psychology of Moral Development. San 

Francisco: Harper and Row. 

Kohlberg, L, C. Levine, and A. Hewer. 1983. Moral Stages: A Current Formulation and Response to Critics. 

In: John A. Meacham (General Ed.). Contributioras to Hirman Development, Vol. 10. New York: 

Karger . 

Lawrence, J.A. 1980. Moral judgement intervention studies using the Defined Issues Test. Journal of Moral 

Education. 9: 14-29. 

Mbg, R.E. 1986. Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 

Martin, D.C. 1987. Effect of Various Communicative Methods for Controlling Visitor Removal of Pumice at 

Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. Ph.D. Dissertation. Seattle: University of Washington. 

Moore, G. T. 1973. Developmental differences in environmental cognition. In: W. F. E. Preiser (ed.). 

Environmental Design Research, Vol. 2. S troudsburg, Pa. : Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross. 

Moore, G.T. 1979. Knowing about environmental knowing. The current state of theory and research on 

environmental cognition. Environment and Behavior 1 l(1): 3 3 -70. 
Nisan, M. and L. Kohlberg. 1982. Universality and cross-cultural variation in moral development. Chimood 

Development. 53:865-876. 

O'Keefe, B. J. 1988. The logic of mwsage design: Individual differences in reasonhg about comunication. 

Communications Monographs, 55: 80- 103, 

O'Keefe, B. J. and J. Delia. 1982. Impression fomtion and masage production. In: M.E. Roloff and C.R. 

Berger (4s.). Social Cognition and Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage. 

Partridge, E. 1982. Are we ready for an ecological morality? Journal of Environmental Ethics. 4(2): 175- 190. 

Piaget, J. 1960. The general problem of the psychobiological development of the child. In: J.M. Tanner and B. 

Welder (eds.). Discussions on Child Development. Vol. 4 (Proceedings of the World Health 

Organization Study Group on the Psychobiological Developmnt of the Child). New York: International 

Universities Press. 

Piaget, J. 1965. The moral development of the child. Translated by M. Gabain. New York Free Press: 

(originally published in 1932). 

Piaget, J. and B. Inhelder. 1969, me psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. 

Rest, J.R. 1979. Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 

Rest, J.R. 1986a. An overview of the psychology of morality. In: J.R. Rest (4.). Moral Development: 

Advances in Theory and Research. Westport, Ct: Praeger Press. 

Rest, J.R. 1986b. Manual for the Defined Issues Test of Moral Judgement (Third Edition). Minneapolis: Center 

for the Study of Ethical Development, University of Minnesota. 

Rest, J.R. and D. Deemer. 1986. Life experiences and developmental pathways. In: J.R. Rest (ed.). Moral 

Development: Advances in liCleory and Research. Westport, Ct: Praeger Press. 

Rest, J.R. and S.J. Thoma. 1986. Educational programs and interventions. In: J.R. Rest (4.). Moral 

Development: Advances in neory and Research. Westport, Ct: Praeger Press. 

Snarey , J.R. and J. Reimer. 1987. In Colby, A. and L. Kohlberg, (eds.). The measurement of moral 

judgement. Vol. I, ITjcleoretical Foundations and Research Validation. New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Snarey , J.R., J. Reimer, and L. Kohlberg. 1985. Development of social-moral reasoning among kibbutz 

adolescents: A longitudinal cross-cultural study. Developmental Psychology 2 l(1): 3- 17. 

Swearingen, T.C. 1989. Moral Development and Environmental Ethics. Ph.D. Dissertation. Seattle: University 

of Washington. 

Swearingen, T. C. and D.R. Johnson. 1986. Mount Rainier National Park. Paradise Meadows Visitor Survey. 

National Park Service. Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Seattle: University of Washington. 

Swearingen, T.C. and D.R. Johnson. 1988. An Analysis of Off-Trail Hiking in Response to Selected Social 

Control Techniques at Paradise Meadows, Mount Rainier National Park. National Park Service. 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Seattle: University of Washington. 

Tietjen, A.M. 1986. Prosocial reasoning among children and adults in a Papua New Guinea society. 

Developmental Psychology 22(6): 86 1-868. 
Tietjen, A.M,, and L.J. Walker. 1985. Moral reasoning and leadership among men in a Papau New Guinea 

society. Developmental Psychology 2 l(6): 9 82-992. 

"Iloma, S.J. 1985. On Improving the Relationship Between Moral Judgment and External Criteria: The Utilizer 

and Nonutilizer Dimension. Ph.D. dissertation. Mbeaplis: University of Minnesota. 

Turiel, E., C. Edwards, and L. Kohlberg. 1978. Moral development in Turkish children, adolescents, and 

young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 9:75-85. 

Vander Stoep, G. A. and J.H. Gramann. 1987. The effect of verbal appeals and incentives on depreciative 

behavior among youthful park visitors. Journal of Leisure Research. 19(2): 69-83. 

Wte, C.B. 1975. Moral development in Bahamian school children: A cross-cultural examination of Kohlberg's 

stages of moral reasoning. Developmental Psychology. 11(4):535-536. 
mPENDIX 

EXAMPLES FROM =SEARCH INSTRUMENTS 

A well known dile from Kohfberg's interview is the Heinz dife , which describes a conflict 

between individual economic freedom and the right to life: 

In Europe a wornan was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that doctors thought 

might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had discovered. The drug was 

expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost to make. He paid $200 for the 

radium and was charging $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to 

everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000, which is half of what it 

cost. We told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But 

the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to e money from it." So Heinz got desperate 

and began to think about breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz steal the 

drug? (Rest 1986b). 

Using Kohlberg's procedures, subjects first respond to the initial question. The interviewer then conducts a 

relatively unstructured interview to ascertain the basis for the subject's decision about the dilemma. The 

purpose of the interview is an in-depth analysis of the subject's reasoning about the dilernma which will allow 

classification of underlying thought patterns according to Kohlberg's model of cognitive development. 

Rest's DIT uses the Heinz dilemma and other similar dilemmas in an objective test. Subjects rank and 

rate the importance of twelve items of theoretical stage content for each dilemma. The P index is derived from 

subjects' ranking of the four most important items. Examples of items from the Heinz dilemma in the DIT are: 

Whether a community's laws are going to be upheld. [Stage 41 

Whether the law in this case is getting in the way of the most basic claim of any member of society. [Stage 51 

(Rest 1986b). 

In contrast to the short temporal horizon and more anthropocentric perspective of the dilemmas in the 

DIT, the environmental instrument (Swearingen 1989) contained dilemmas designed to address issues such 

issues as intergenerational equity (The National Welfare) or environmental preservation (The Photograph): 

The National Welfare 

The researchers at the Science Institute have discovered a method of exploiting an underground reservoir (an 

aquifer) that will give their nation a higher standard of living by increasing the nation's manufacturing 

capability. However, to sustain that standard of living, the aquifer would be drained within one generation. 

The next generation my face a declining standard of living as a result of the proposed increases in use of the 

water. The chief scientist is faced with the choice of selling the technology to a company that will exploit the 

resource or not releasing the technological infomtion. Should the scientist release the infomtion? 

The Photograph 

A park ranger saw a person go off a hiking trail to take a picture of a mountain. The ranger went over to the 

hiker, and explained to her that she would have to stay on the trail because some of the plants growing off the 

trail were very fragile and might be trampled. The hiker felt that she had been very careful to step on rocks 

and bare earth to reach the spot where she wanted a photograph. She explained that the view of the mountain 

was only accessible by hiking off the trail, and she promised to take only one picture. The ranger insisted that 

she return to the trail. Later that day, the ranger saw the same hiker go off the trail to take another picture. 

Should the ranger give the hiker a citation? (Swearingen 1989) 
The issue statements in the instrument also reflect the broader view of enviromental ethical responsibility 

evident in these dile . The environmental instrument is scored exactly like the DIT to allow more direct 

compaGson. across domains of rnoral reaso~g. 

The test used by both Iozzi (1976) and I3ispoto (1977) to measure enviromental attitudes contained 36 

item -- 22 items mmured response to concerns about pollution in hu 

It frightens me to think that much of the food I eat is contahated with pesticides. 

I get depressed on smoggy days. 

I rarely ever worry about the effects of air pollution on myself and family. (Iozzi 1976) 

Iozzi (1976) also used a modified version of the DIT to consider environmental ethical development. 

He did not develop a theoretical basis for his extension of ethics. The modified DIT used dilemmas with a 

great emphasis on the effects of pollution on the human population: 

Environmental Strike 

The heating plant and incinerator at Central High School are very old. Each time they are used large amounts 

of smoke and air pollutants are produced. The faculty at Central High is very concerned about pollution and the 

environment. They feel s pollution i to the health of their students and everyone in the 

comfllunity. The faculty ded that the Education do something to stop this pollution.. . . . (Iozzi 

1976). 
ECONOMIC SOCIAL ACTS OF HUNTING 

ACCESS 

H. A. Clonts, S. A. Randall, M. S. Wallace and H. L. Stribling' 

Abstract. Hunting as a recreational activity is generally thought to provide economic benefits 

which exceed the costs of providing access and opportunity for the sport. At issue, however, 

is whether those benefits differ across com~ties providing alternative types of land access. 

Additionally, the social implication of increased hunting by non-residents and whether 

marketing wildlife resources to "outsiders" through land access is an ethical practice are of 

concern. 

A statewide survey of licensed hunters in Alabama (N = 1,856) revealed that the economic 

impacts of recreational hunting are significant. Over $500 million were injected into the 

Alabama economy in 1986-87, $30 million of which went directly to landowners for land 

leasing and access fees. Non-resident hunters made up about 9 percent of the 1986-87 hunter 

population and accounted for approximately 5 percent of total hunter spending. 

Land supply was a key factor in the type of land accessed for hunting. Convenience rather 

than expressed preference was important in that most hunters chose areas close to home 

without strong regard to the type of access available. Annual hunter expenditures by chosen 

land types were: PUBLIC - $1,564, FREE - $1,195, OWNED - $1,083, and FEE - $2,330. 

INTRODUCTION 

Public lands throughout the United States are known for the opportunity to pursue a variety of 

recreational activities. Most activities are "non- consumptive" in that no product is taken from the land. 

However, some activities, such as hunting, do result in capturing a portion of the resource base. In recent 

years, many large timber companies in the southeastern United States have begun viewing wildlife as an 

"economic product" of the land and hence have moved toward land use practices which would "produce" 

greater quantities of wildlife (McKee et al. 1983). Whether such consumption has a negative or positive 

environmental impact is widely debated. However, it is generally assumed that the economic benefits of 

encouraging greater participation in those activities are sufficient to justify management expenses. An additional issue which is seldom addressed is the social implication of increased participation in hunting, especially 

when those who hunt are not residents of the area hunted. Increasingly, there are debates as to whether 

encouraging non-resident hunters is really an acceptable practice; and whether marketing wildlife resources to 

"outsiders" is an ethical practice (Stribling et al. 1989). 

Hunting is one of the more popular "consumptive" recreational activities on both public and private 

lands, despite the fact that hunter numbers are decreasing generally (Lichtkoppler 1989, Wallace et a1 1989~). 

This is especially true in the southern states where environmental conditions are excellent for wildlife habitat 

and population expansion. Hunting pressure accompanied by reduced areas of accessible lands and wildlife 

habitat has contributed to the creation of a market for fee hunting and land leasing in the United States. In 

western portions of the Continental United States, the relative abundance of public lands has tempered the 

Howard A. Clonts, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, AL. 

Sharon A. Randall, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Athens, GA. M. S. Wallace, Wildlife International, Ltd. 

Auburn AL. H.L.Stribling, Zoology and Wildlife Sciences Department, Auburn University, AL. 
pressure for private land access. But, in the east, the general "scarcityw of public lands has meant an expanded 

market for land leasing and fee hunting. This is true particularly in the south central region of the U.S. where 

the most highly developed fee hunting system is reported to exist wiggers and Root 1986). 

The importance of public land access, especially in the South, is increasing in part because of the 

greater quantities of private lands being closed to public access except on a fee basis. As landowners move 

from "freew to "fee" access hunting, greater numbers of hunters may be displaced by those able and willing to 

pay the price for exclusive hmting privileges. 

RESEARCH QUESTION 

If the trend toward more fee or lease hunting continues, there remains a question regarding the impact 

that restricted access may have on the economy of an area. If in fact "fee" or "lease" hunters are displacing 

others and pushing them to public lands, what are the social and economic impacts? Is there any difference in 

the value to the economy of lands in private or public ownership? The controversy over fee or lease hunting as 

opposed to free hunting is not new (Noonan and Zagata 1982, Swenson 1983, Thomas and Adam 1985, and 

Geist 1988). Most of theses studies dealt with questions regarding the social or economic exclusion of various 

groups or the effects of land access on recreation participation. This paper reports the comparable economic 

and social impacts of hunting based on land access opportunities. 

Additionally, there is the question of participation barriers in selected recreational activities which may 

establish the opportunities open to individuals (Burch 1969, Field and O'Leary 1973, and Buchanan et al. 1981). 

Use of various types of land areas may rest on the available opportunities for such use. Niepoth (1973) called 

various social and economic characteristics an individual's "opportunity framework." This framework is said to 

guide the individual's orientation, decisions, and behavior. Thus, a secondary question was whether access 

choice was a function of opportunity as well as preference for specific access types. 

METHODS 

A survey was conducted to estimate the land use, expenditures, and recreational patterns of hunters in 

Alabama. All non-resident hunters and residents of Alabama between the ages of 16 and 65 (unless hunting on 

owned lands) are required to purchase a license. Thus, a mail survey of hunters who purchased 1986-87 

Alabama hunting licenses was used. A disproportionate random sample of resident (N = 3,736) and 

non-resident (N = 1,403) licensed hunters was sent questionnaires with two follow-up reminders. Completed 

questionnaires totaled 1,856 (1,283 residents and 573 non-residents). Randomness in the sample was achieved 

by using numbered license sales receipts and following a sample number pattern established with a random 

numbers table. The sample return rate was 40 percent. The disproportionate sample was purposely drawn to be 

certain that non-residents would be well represented. Weighting was used to establish sample responses on a 

basis proportional to the number of state and out-of-state licensed hunters. Tests for homogeneity indicated 

sample size and distribution was adequate and representative. To further verifjl. this, a separate telephone 

survey (N = 200) of non-respondents was made to determine if response bias had occurred. No significant 

difference was found between respondents and non-respondents. 

Hunter frequency and spending by Alabama residents in other states was not considered in this study. 

Rather, only within state expenditures were considered relevant for economic impacts. 

Comparisons of hunters were made on the basis of dispersions about the mean, analysis of variance, 

Chi Square, and by using a hierarchical log-linear model to identify structural relationships among a hunter's 

type of land access. Log-linear models can be designed to predict cell frequencies within a given crossclassification table. The technique is comparable to analysis of variance in that single variable effects are 

functions of a "grand mean" and interactions are accounted for by the relationship of two or more variables 
(Fienkrg 1981). The objective of hierarchial log-linear modeling is to simplify the interpretation of variable 

associations by elihating interactions within the model that do not significantly contribute to the "rebuilding" 

of the observed counts in the cross-classification table. Relationships were evaluated across four types of land 

access: PUBLIC, FREE, OWNED, AND FEE. The hierarchical model allowed identification of structural 

relationships between land access, hunter income, codtment to hunting, and region of residence in the state, 

RESULTS 

Respondents were distributed unevenly with respect to access types. Over half, 52 percent, of the 

respondents in the statewide survey used FREE lands, 28 percent used FEElleased access, 15 percent chose 

PUBLIC access, and the remaining 6 percent hunted on their OWN lands, Table 1. 

Table 1. Distribution of Hunters and Hunter Expenditures by Land Access, Alabama Statewide Hunter 

Survey, 1986-87. 

* Weighted averages, column totals not equal to sum due to weighing. Total spending does not 

include expenses for vehicles, land purchases, or land maintenance for hunting. 

TOTAL 

Hunters also were found to be rather active recreationists who spent comparable amounts of money 

across all types of land access. Statewide, hunters reported spending approximately $1,521 per hunter with 

expenditures distributed across the various land access types as: PUBLIC - $1,564, FREE - $1,195, OWNED - 

$1,083, and FEE - $2,338, Table 1. In comparison with hunter expenditures nationwide, Alabama hunters as a 

group were found to spend nearly twice as much as the national average hunter, Table 2 (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1988). 

Expenditures for hunting on fee or owned lands tend to stay in the local area since a major expenditure 

is the access fee itself. Hence, areas with high concentrations of fee or "own land" hunters should be expected 

to have a greater direct impact from hunting. This isn't always the case, however, since hunting trip 

expenditures are incurred primarily where the "supply" of land may be found (Wallace et al. 1989b). Table 2 

shows that a major hunting cost is equipment. Primary, secondary, and special equipment accounted for about 

$1,200 per hunter in the statewide survey. Since hunting is done in rural "remote" areas, most of these items 

100.0 1,521* 329,580,927 100.0 
tend to be purchased in more urban settings where distribution centers are located. This purchasing pattern was 

confinned in a study of visitors to the B d National Forest in northeast Alabama (Clonts and Randall 

1989). In that study on-site expenditures represented a nominal portion of total trip costs. Because of an 

absence of "supply" outlets, most expenditures were incurred prior to departure or enroute to the hunting site. 

Table 2. Estimates Average 1 Expenditures of Hunters by Land Access Glass, United States and 

Statewide Hunter Survey, Alabama, 1987-88. 

* Golumn and row totals may not sum due to weighting. 

**Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985 National Survev of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 

Washington, D. C., 1988. 

In the statewide survey, urbanized areas accounted for nearly 90 percent of all expenditures. Hence, 

the more economically developed counties tend to retain a considerable portion of the "hunting activity" dollars 

by local residents Wallace et al. 1989~). Rural corn~ties, those without large population concentrations, 

had a higher rate of "leakage" from the economy. That is, money tended to flow out of the area to more 

urbanized centers where hunting supplies could be found, Table 3. Inter-cornunity transfers were measured by 

respondent indication of where expenditures occurred. 
Table 3. Tnter-comunity Monetry Trmsfers Behveen Hunter Residence Coaununity and Hunting Access 

Community, Statewide Hunter Survey, Alab 

* Columns and rows will not sum to 100% due to the opportunity to utilize multiple hunting areas. 

Hunting Opportunity 

The data above illustrate the impact that hunters may have within a local area as well as throughout the 

state. For example, most public land areas in Alabama are concentrated in national forests and state wildlife 

management areas. These type hunting lands are in turn more concentrated in north Alabama counties. On the 

other hand, the limited number of wildlife management areas and state or national forests in the southern portion 

of the state means hunters must turn to the other land access classes for hunting opportunities. Consequently, 

most lease opportunities are found in the southern portion, whereas most public land access opportunities are in 

the northern counties. 

Although the largest land access class is FREE, that type of access is dispersed throughout the state 

without specific concentrations. Thus, it appears initially that the greatest impact of hunters will be in the 

northern region of the state because major metro and urban centers are located there. Yet, when hunter effort 

and hunter expenditures are compared, other areas of the state also feel the impact of hunting rather 

significantly. Table 3 shows that the rural south portion of the state reeeives a positive net transfer of wealth 

from other areas even though the area is less populated and contains fewer urban centers. No transfer of funds 

from any given region to places outside the state was included. Thus, the transfers are "netw within the state 

only. 

This phenomenon results from the relative level of hunting effort in the respective areas, Table 4, The 

rural southern portion of the state receives a disproportionately greater hunting pressure than other areas. Taken 

together, the level of effort and spending indicate that there is significant transfer of wealth toward urbanized 

areas and to the rural south. Both these circumstances bring important social implications, The transfer of 

wealth from rural to urbanized areas generally is considered a negative impact on the local rural economy. 

Typically, rural areas do not have the fulancial resources to afford substantial and consistent losses. Yet, the 

rural south counties are recipients of 68 percent of non-resident expenditures, most of which is in land access 

and equipment expenses. Hence, a major portion of the income transfer to southern rural areas is a direct 

payment to landowners and is must likely to remain within the local region, if not the county. Paradoxically, 

residents of these areas protest loudest about the influx of "outsiders" and the loss of wildlife to "outsider" over 

hunting (Stribling et al. 1989). 
Table 4. Distribution of Hunter Effort by Community Type and Hunter Population, Statewide Hunter Survey, 

Alabama, 1986-87.* 

* Hunter esort was expressed in hunter days. Total greater than 1CK) due to the opportunity to utilize multiple hunting areas. 

** Metro and urban locations refer to counties in which these areas are found. Bus, hunter eflort in such an area is contained 

within the geographic boundaries of those counties. 

Interestingly, a review of success rates in hunting effort by Stribling, et al. revealed that non-residents 

made up seven percent of the hunter population, but harvested only five percent of the deer taken; although they 

did harvest 10 percent of the turkeys in 1986-87. 

An important observation with respect to the attitudes against non-resident hunters is that 18 percent of 

Alabama hunters also went outside the state to hunt. Furthermore, these hunters made numerous trips to other 

states. In terms of the number of hunters, there were about 1.5 times as many hunters from Alabama going 

elsewhere as there were corning into the state. Hence, there is actually less "import" of hunters than "export". 

Non-residents accounted for approximately 9.5 percent of the licensed hunter population in 1986-87 and 5.1 

percent of total hunter spending. It should be noted also that the USDI estimates only 79 percent of all residents 

and 21 percent of all non-residents who hunted in Alabama purchased a hunting license (USDI 1988). If over 

three-fourths of non-resident hunters truly were not licensed, the impact of hunting by both groups on the 

Alabama economy was significantly greater than estimated here. Hence, the actual impacts likely are somewhat 

greater than reported for licensed hunters only. 

Expenditures by the sample of non-residents were heavily concentrated on FEE lands, Tables 5 and 6. 

Thus, a major portion of expenditures by this group were in land use fees paid directly to landowners in the 

areas hunted; primarily south Alabama rural counties. Equipment and supply purchases by non-residents were 

not as much a part of total spending as was the case for resident hunters (47 percent versus 78 percent), but the 

impact was nevertheless important. 
Table 5. Distribution of Non-Resident Hunters and Hunter Annual Expenditures by Land Access, Alabama 

Statewide Hunter Survey, 1986-87. 

* Weighted average, total not equal to sum due to weighing. 

Table 6. Estimated Average Annual Expenditures of Non-Resident Hunters in Alabama by Land Access Class, 

Statewide Hunter Survey, 1987-88. 

* Column Total will not sum due to weighing. Individuab were classijied as to primary hunting access area. Ihe opponuniry 

was present to utilize multiple type access areas. All expenditures reporred represenr purchases in Alabama. 

Land Access Selection 

While it is difficult to project what impact fee hunting system hold for Alabama's future, the benefits 

seem to outweigh the costs. To test this hypothesis, a hierarchical log-linear model was used to identify 

structural relationships among hunter's land access types. Three demographic factors for hunters were analyzed 

for relationship across the access types: income, commitment to hunting, and region of residence. The results 

showed that hunter commitment did not vary significantly across residential regions. As expected, however,the 
hierarchical relationships showed that hunters with high commitment to the sport were more strongly associated 

with FEE hunting; although, high codtment hunters also had high levels of satisfaction from PUBLIC access 

areas. Conversely, low co~tment hunters were mare associated with FREE and OWED areas. Since FEE 

hunting was also associated with higher income groups, the study suggests that high commitment PUBLIC lands 

users would not to pay charges for FEE land access, Tables 7, 8, and 9. 

Table 7. Distribution of Hunters by Selected Variables, Alabama Statewide Hunter Survey, 1988-89. 
Table 8. Tests of Partial Association Among Combination of Variable hkractions, Alabama Statewide Hunter 

Survey, 1988-89. 
Table 9. Lambda Parameters Showkg the Relationships Among Selected Associations, Alabama Statewide 

Hunter Survey, 1988-89. 

* Indicates signijicance at 0.05 level. 

** Indicates signijicance at 0.01 level. 

Finally, the supply of land access in various categories is a sipificmt determinant in decisions 

regarding access choices. Urhen public access is limited or less convenient, hunters must choose between 

remaining access types. PUBLIC hunting areas in Alabama are concentrated more in the northern regions, 

hence they are more convenient to residents there. Most southern regions are in private ownership and 

therefore, accessible as FREE, FEE, and OWNED. Yet, since codtment did not vary across regions, fee 

hunting systems in Alabama do not appear to have decreased the individual's commitmentiinterest in hunting. 

Further analysis of selected hunter socioeconomic variables showed a striking similatity of hunters 
characteristics throughout the state. There was no significant difference (P > '05) between hunters living in 

various regions which suggests that the primary variable determining the type of land accessed is the "supply" 

of hunting land in the region of residence, whether that land be PUBLIC, FEE, FEE, or OWED. This does 

not mean that supply creates its own demand. Rather, it shows that hunters will avail themelves to whatever 

opportunities are available with respect to their place of residence and preference for travel to other areas. 

DISCUSSION 

In this study, variables representing the "oppo6ty framework" identified by Niepoth (1973) were 

evaluated to debhe if there were distinguishable differences in the impact of hunters who frequented various 

land access areas. Special attention was given to hunter expenditure patterns in order to estimate the economic 

impact of land access type. Hunters as a proportion of the population were almost identical throughout the state 

in that approximately eight percent of the state population in both northern and southern regions purchased 

licenses in the survey period. Strikingly, hunter commitment did not vary across regions of the state although, 

fee hunting systems are more numerous in the south and public land access is more prominent in the north. 

Land access type did not seem to have decreased the individual's interest in the sport. This conclusion was 

supported also by the relative expenditure levels of hunters who frequented other alternative land access areas 

such as free or owned. Basically, convenience of the land supply is a key factor in hunter choice of access 

types. Additionally, "hunter commitmentw is likely the outcome of an individual's early life experiences, 

personal community factors, and perceived barriers to hunting opportunities (Wallace et al. 1989~) 

The economic impact of hunting is significant. Alabama hunters made approximately $330 million in 

direct expenditures during the period, 1986-87. To get the full impact, direct spending levels must be adjusted 

to account for any respending that occurs once an initial purchase is made. Since most spending occurred in 

urban and metropoliw areas, a multiplier of 2.9 was used to estimte the total impact (Holmes 1988). Thus, 

over $625 million were injected into the total Alabama economy by hunters in 1986-87. If the amount of 

spending for vehicles such as four-wheel drive trucks, etc. used primarily for hunting were added to this 

amount, the total impact would exceed $900 million. Obviously, most of these vehicles are used for purposes 

other than hunting, but one can see that at least a portion of the $275 million added by vehicle purchases could 

be accounted for by hunters. Additionally, approximately $30 million ($476 per fee hunter) were allocated to 

land leases and ownership costs. Yet, despite the lack of public lands and the conflicts among recreational 

activities and between recreation and competing land uses, approximately 15 percent of all expenditures for 

hunting were made on public land. Thus, just over $50 million were spent in 1986-87 by hunters in Alabama 

on public lands, Table 1. 

Social impacts were equally important. Rural counties, especially in the southern portion of the state 

received an influx of both in-state and out-of-state non-resident hunters. Whereas, these hunters did inject a 

significant monetary amount into the counties, they also utilized FEE lands, which of course meant they leased 

land which otherwise might have been used by the local population. Negative opinions about non-resident 

hunters probably are based somewhat on real experiences by individuals being denied access to lands formerly 

hunted. However, to date, non-residents have not been shown to harvest greater quantities of wildlife nor 

occupy excessively large quantities of land. In fact, in an aggregate sense, Alabama actually is "exporting" 

more hunters to other states than it is receiving. Thus, the social reality is that non-residents do not pose an 

immediate problem with respect to lands accessed or wildlife taken. Rather, the immediate situation is an 

economic benefit to the state and especially to commmities in which expenditures are made. 
LITEIRArnRE CITED 

Buchanan, T. ,J.E. Christensen, and R. Burdge. 1981. Social groups and the meaning of outdoor recreation 

acbivities. J. Leisure Res. 13 :254-266. 

Burcb. W.R. 1969. i7te social circle of leisure: Competing explanations. J. Leisure Res. 1: 125-147. 

Clonts, H.A. and S.A. Randall. 1989. Recreation and tourism in Winston County, Alabama: A feasibility 

study. Technical Series. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. Alabama 

Agriculwral Experiment Station. Auburn University. Auburn, Alabama. 66pp. 

Field. D.R. ad J.T. O'hry. 1973. Social groups as a basis for assessing participation in selected water 

activities. J. Leisure Res. 5: 16-25. 

Fienberg , S .E. 1989. Ihe Analysis of Cross-classzped categorical data. Second edition. Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. 198p. 

Geist, V. 1988. How markets in wildlife meat and meat parts, and the sale of hunting privileges jeopardize 

wildlife conservation. Conser. Biol. 2: 15-26. 

Holmes, M.R. 1988. An input-output model of the economy of the State of Alabama for 1982 with associated 

economic multipliers. Center for Business and Economic Research. Troy State University. Troy, 

Alabama. 6Opp. 

Lichtkoppler, R.J. 1989. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and The Recreational use of the Bankhead 

National Forest. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural 

Sociology. Auburn University, Alabama. 

McKee, C. W., W.E. Kollcreas, and J. E. Waldrop. 1983. Methodology for assessing timber and white-tailed 

deer habitat tradeofls. In Proc. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 37: 103-1 17. 

Niepoth, W. 1973. Users and non-users of recreation and park services. Pages 131-142 in D. Gray and D.A. 

Pelegrino, eds.. Reflections on the recreation and park movement. W. C. Brown Co.. Dubuque, 

Iowa. 370pp. 

Noonan, P. F., and M. D. Zagata. 1982. Wildlife in the market place: Using the profit motive to maintain 

wildlife habitat. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 10: 46-49. 

Stribling, H.L., M.S. Wallace, and H.A. Clonts. 1989. Resident hunters versus non-resident hunters -- A 

problem in Alabama? Paper presented at the First Symposium on Fee Hunting on Private Lands in the 

South. Clemson University. Clemson, S. C. July 23-25. 15pp. 

Swenson, J.E. 1983. Free public hunting and the conservation of public wildlife resources. Wildl. SOG. Bull. 

11:300-303. 

Thornas, J.K., and C.E. Adams. 1985. Socioeconomic factors aflecting land access to hunt white-tailed deer. 

Wildl. SOG. Bull. 13:338-394. 

USDI, Fish and WiMlife Service. 1988. 1985 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated 

recreation,- Alabama U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C. 167pp. 

USDI. Fish and WiIdlife Service. 1982. Pages 134-135 in the 1980 national survey of fishing, hunting, and 

wildlife-associated recreation. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C. 156pp. 
Wallace, M. S., H.L. Stribling, and H. A. Glonts. 1989a. Fnaors influencing lad access selen'ion by hunters 

in Alabma. Trans. N. her. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 55: 183-189. 

Wallace, M.S., H.L. Stribling, and H.A. Clonts. 1989b. AZabama Hunters and Public Land Congestion Costs. 

Unpublished manuscript, Wildlife Department, Auburn University, AL. Oct. 

Wlaee, M.S., H.L. Stribling, and H.A. Clonts. 1989~. E$ect uf hunter apenditure distribution on comunily 

economief. Urldlf. Soc. Bull, (in process for 1991 release) 

Wiggers, E .P., and W. A. Root. 1986. Lease hunting: Views of the nation 's wildlife agencies. Trans. N. 

her. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 52525- 528. 

Michael A. Jones1 and Donald R. Self 

Abstract: This paper examines the use of recreation benefits as a means of increasing the 

adoption of forestry management practices among non-industrial private forest (NIPF) 

landowners. Data are presented from a survey of participants in an kovative multi-use 

forestry magement program in a Southern state. Evidence from the study indicates that 

participants obtained more satisfaction from recreational benefits, than production or 

investment related benefits. Implications for marketing strategies are discussed. 

INTRODUCTION 

Though nonindustrial private forest landowners (NIPF) control and supply the majority of timber 

volume produced in the Southeastern United States, this is not a reflection of effective management practices 

(Straka and Doolittle 1988). Because the capacity for increased timber growth through improved management is 

considered to be quite large among this group, numerous educational and incentive programs have been aimed at 

NIPF landowners (Royer and Convery 1981). Likewise, NIPF landowners have been the subjects of numerous 

studies over the past 50 years focused around the issues of increased production and the adoption of 

management practices (Royer 1979). 

A criticism of much of this research has centered upon understanding the "productive" objectives of 

NIPF landowners, addressing landowner characteristics, economic and technical management issues (Binkley 

1981). Non-economic motives for landowner behavior have not been investigated as extensively. As Royer 

(1 979) concludes, much of previous literature has concentrated on landowner characteristics and attitudes, but 

provides very little conclusive evidence of the relationship between landowner behavior and timber availability. 

More recently, investigators have concluded that many NIPF landowners have non-economic or 

recreational objectives for their woodlmd, as opposed to purely productive objectives (Doolittle and Straka 

1987; Reed 1989). Carpenter et a1 (1986) and Birch et a1 (1982) fourid emphasis on "non-market" benefits such 

as recreation, aesthetics and wildlife to dominate objectives. Marler and Graves (1977) found "satisfaction, " 

recreation and wildlife to be major objectives of NIPF landowners. Lee (1986) found that New England 

landowners valued scenery, personal recreation, privacy and wildlife habitat considerations more than 

commodi(y benefits such as income or timber production. Doolittle and Straka (1987) concluded that 

differences between adopters and non-adopters of regeneration practices are explained in terms of socioeconomic 

characteristics, personality variables and communication behavior. Reed (1989) found that Landowners in 

Minnesota expressed a need for more wildlife and fisheries infomtion. 

Assistant Professor and Professor of Marketing, Auburn University at Montgomery , Mon tgornery , 

Alabama. 
es the motives for participation in an NIPF landowner agement program from a 

"consumptive" or mrketing approach. Benefits from participation are considered to be related to a variety of 

humn needs. A landowner management program which is offered by a state agency for no charge (which is 

described below) is viewed as a "product" which is offered to NIPF landowners, who are viewed as customers. 

The product is viewed as possessing a "bundle" fits, the values of which are each defined by the user, 

This study attempts to identify the relative impo f various benefits for the landomer associated with 

involvement. 

agement program exa&ed in this study is referred to as the TREASURE 

Forest Program. The is ed adoptionluse of the program among landomers was the underlying 

reason for seeking the ch the study yielded. The info tion will be applied in the development 

of more effective marketing strategies for the program, particularly in the areas of product development and 

promotion. 

The "TREASUIUE Forest" Program 

The "TREASURE Forest" Program was introduced by the Alabama Forestry Cobssion in 1975 as a 

multi-disciplinary forest land agement program for NIPF landowners in that state. TREASURE is an 

acronym for: Timber - Recreation - Environment - Aesthetics - Sustained - Usable - Resource. 

The program's objectives are multiple in nature including the traditional focus on increased production 

tbrough the adoption of be agement practices. However, other objectives such as environmental 

t IresouKe conservation, wildlifelgame eveloping recreational opportunities, soil and 

ty rwognition are als parts of the program. 

Though the program was developed and initiated by the Alabama Forestry Cobssion, a group of 

related cooperating State and Federal agencies assist in the ad~istration of the program. For a landowner to 

be recognized as a "Certified TREASURE Forest," he/she must achieve objectives for the land specified in a 

management plan based upon the desired usage and benefits of the landomer. The plan is designed by a team 

whose members could be personnel from the Alabama Forestry Commission, the Alabama Cooperative 

Extension Service, The Soil Conservation Service (USDA), the Alabama Conservation Department (Wildlife/ 

Garne Management), the U.S. Forest Service and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 

(USDA). If the landowner meets the criteria agreed upon by himself and the "team" based upon inspections 

over several monthslyears, that landowner is awarded the TREASURE Forest Award. 

Less than 600 landowners have been granted the award as Certified TREASURE Forests (CFT's) since 

the program inception, which mas they completed the magement plan designed for their land. About 1500 

more have adopted the program and are at various stages of completion. Adoption of the program since its 

inception and current participation is below desiredlanticipated levels. The Alabama Forestry Commission is 

therefore undertaking an analysis of the program and current situation. 

The TIUEASURE Forest concept has been adopted by the U.S. Forest Service for use in a similar 

program which has been htroduced on a national level. 

Application of the "Marketing Concept" to a State Forestry Program 

Though xnarketing is defined as a business agement function and conventionally perceived as a 

bushess activity practiced by profit making firms, the marketing concept has gained wide acceptance and 

employment in the non-profit and governmental sectors (Kotler 1988). Marketing has been defined recently as: 
The process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of 

and services to create exchanges that will satisfy individual and organizational 

objectives (Boone and Kurtz 1989). 

The "mketing concept," which emerged in academics during the 1950's, is described as a 

management philosophy b upon the premise that custonuer satisfaction is the key to organizational success 

and/or profit (Levitt 1960). The notion is that the better the customer's needs can be identified and understood, 

the more effectively prducts and services can be developed to meet those needs, and, therefore, the more the 

organization's product will be demanded or sought. 

A basic component of this rmtnagement philosophy is that customers' needs are researched before and 

during product development as well as during distribution and promotion. Another important premise of 

marketing science is that the motives that lead to want satisfying exchanges are complex and varied, meaning 

that a customer derives a "bundle" of various benefits from a given product, and that each customer's benefits, 

or motives for purchase may differ (Boone and Kurtz 1989). 

Using the marketing concept, this study examines the want satisfying attributes of the Alabama 

TREASURE Forest Program, just as customer satisfaction is measured on product features sold by profit 

making corporations. 

Objectives 

This study was conducted to gain information useful in developing more effective marketing strategies 

for the TREASURE Forest Program. Though the program had been in effect for several years, no systematic 

or scientific effort had been made to evaluate the program from the user's perspective. This effort was 

designed to determine what attributes the users "liked" about the program, as well as the strength of such 

feelings. The specific objectives of the study were: 

To determine which featureslattributes of TREASURE Forest were salient in leading to user 

satisfaction, and to determine the relative magnitude of satisfaction from each attribute as 

perceived by adopters. 

METHODOLOGY 

Data were collected through a structured mail questionnaire administered to TREASURE Forest 

participants. Mail was used due to the clearly defined and relatively small size of the population, as well as the 

characteristics and nature of the subjects. A mailing list with names of all landowners who had adopted the 

program, referred to as "Creedsigners" because they had signed a creed confirming their values with regard to 

forestry management, as well as those who had completed the program, referred to earlier as Certified Treasure 

Foresters (CTFs) existed. 

The questionnaire was pretested prior to mailing. Questionnaires were then mailed to all 600 CTF's 

and 500 Creedsigners in order to obtain adequate response for statistical reliability. The 500 Creedsigners were 

selected at random from the 1900 names available. 

Respondents returned 402 questionnaires after one mailing for a response rate of almost 37 percent 

(CTF's returned 287 or 48 percent, while Creedsigners returned 1 15 questionnaires or 23 percent) This sample 

size provided a 95 percent confidence level and sampling error of +/- 5 percent. 

Responses were entered into a computer for tabulation using SPSS-PC V.2 software on an IBM model 

80 computer. 
RESULTS 

Sample Demographics 

Prior to this effort there was no available infomtion on the demographic characteristics of participants 

in this program other than acreage owed. The sample's average age was about 60, with a range of 19 to 87 

years. The average size of land holdings owned by ents was 1146 acres, ranging from 12 to 

35,W acres. In terms of cation the average respo 15.4 years, Fifty-nine percent had 

college degrees and about 27 percent had post graduate education. The mean annual household income was 

about $45,000. Eighty-nine percent of the sample was male and 99 percent was white. 

BenefitslMotives for Participation in the Program 

In order to determine the salient attributes of the program influencing the decision to participate, 

respondents were presented a list of possible benefits derived from participation in the program, and were asked 

to rate the level of importance of each based on their own personal experience. Responses are shown in 

Table 1. 

Stewardship. There were two benefits which appeared dominant in terms of importance: "being a good 

steward of my land" and "the enjoyment of getting out on my land." As seen in Table 1, 87 percent felt that 

being a "good steward" was very important, and 94 percent felt it was either very important or somewhat 

At issue here is whether stewardship should be classified as a productive objective, or is it a 

recreational objective? "Stewardship" certainly is related to production, as it implies responsible care for the 

land. However, it is also related to the "higher order" human needs originally identified by Maslow (1954) as 

self-actualization. It can certainly be argued that "giving something back" to society by caring for land which 

will be productive for many years is quite a different behavioral motive than financial returns associated with 

economic motives. It could therefore be argued that stewardship is a form of recreation for a segment of the 

population, in that it satisfies the "higher order needs. " The suggestion here is that after the more basic human 

needs are met, individuals want to "give something back. " 

The fact that the average age of respondents was 60 indicates that many of those in the program would 

receive very little or no frnancial gain during their lifetime. CTF's were also of higher education and income 

than average for the State of Alabama. 

These findings are consistent with recent research findings of the Stanford Research Institute referred to 

as the Value Lifestyle Studies, in which values of the U.S. population were studied. This major study, ongoing 

for several years, has identified a group referred to as the "societally conscious" as the fastest growing segment 

of the U.S. culture, based upon the shared values of being concerned about the earth (Engle et al. 1990). This 

group is older, better educated, and has higher income than the average population. 

"Getting Out On MY Land". Seventy three percent of those in the sample indicated this was a very important 

source of satisfaction they derived through participation in the program. This is clearly a recreational activity. 

Another 18 percent felt "getting out" was somewhat important, meaning that 9 1 percent felt this benefit was 

either somewhat or very important. The evidence seems clear that recreation is a major reason for participation 

in the program. 
Table 1. Perceived Benefits (Motives for Participation) in the TF Program by Level of Importance (Percentage 

Responses) . 

EXTTiNT 03; IMPORTANCE ( 96) 

Very Somewhat Not No 

BENEFITSfMOnVE Important Iaaportant Responses Total 

Satisfaction in being a 87 7 1 5 100 

good steward of my land 

I enjoy getting out on 

my land 

Because I enjoy learning 

about forest management 

Better soil control 60 27 4 9 100 

Better huntinglmore game 52 31 11 7 *lo1 

It makes my land a nice 

place for recreational 

activities 

Finmcial security to 

my dependents 

More fmancial returns 

for me 

Recognition as a good 

citizen 

Publicity which might 

help my business and my 

image in the community 

Other - 3 0 2 95 100 

* not = 10096 due to rounding of decimals. 
Learning. Another recreational activity which was confidered to be an imp t benefit associated with 

participation was learning. Ninety percent indicated that learning was either somewhat or very important as a 

source of satisfaction derived from participation (Table 1). 

Better HuntinelMore Game. Hunting and game magement are recreational activities which most participants 

felt were important benefits of involvement. Eighty two percent felt that this was either somewhat or very 

itnportant (Table 1). 

Developinn MY Land for Recreation. Though less important to the respondents than actually "getting out" 

(direct involvement in recreation), development of land for future recreation was considered important. Eighty 

one percent felt that this was either important or very important. 

Non-Recreational Benefits 

Financial GainslSecuritv. Several benefits presented to participants could be considered non-recreational or 

"productive" in nature. Financial returns, financial security for my dependents, and publicity beneficial for my 

business image were all considered of lesser importance than the recreational benefits, as seen in Table 1. It is 

interesting to note that publicity was not important to most respondents (58 percent). 

Better Soil Control. This attribute associated with productive activities was considered very important by most 

pafiicipants. Sixty percent of the sample felt this was a very important benefit and another 27 percent felt it was 

somewhat important. 

Recreation Benefits by Demographic Groups 

Cross tabulations of the data were conducted to determine if differences existed across demographic 

groups in regard to the importance of recreation as a benefit. It was interesting to note that only minor 

differences existed. Though the data is not presented here, "stewardship" was a "very important" benefit to all 

age groups, all income groups, all education groups, all land size groups, and all groups by population of 

residence! 

"Getting Out" on the land was also very important to all demographic groups. Only minor differences 

existed in age groups, acreage size groups, education level groups and even location of residence groups in 

regard to the importance of getting out. It is interesting to note that those residing in small towns and rural 

areas placed just as much importance in getting out on the land as those who lived in urban areas! A slight 

difference in the importance of getting out was reported by those with higher income who felt this was a more 

important benefit than. did those with lower income. 

Non-Recreation Benefits by Demographic Group 

Moderate differences among groups were observed with regard to the importance of non-recreational 

benefits. Various income groups differed on the importance of futancial returns as a benefit, Younger, less 

educated, rural landowners with less income felt fmancial returns were a moderately more important. 
CONCLUSION 

In order to learn what motivated landowners to participate in a NIPF landomer management program 

refem& to as the TWASUE Formt Program, participanb were asked to rate the importance level of various 

possible benefits of participation. Responses indicatd two re~reational benefits were the most important 

benefits to lmdomers of all types. were "stewardship " ity of "getting out on the land. " 

Other recrational benefits such as 1 and hunitinglgarne more important than nonrecreational benefits such as financial returns or publicity. 

These resulb are consistent with other recent investigations into the objectives NIPF landomers have 

Marketing strategy implications from the data apply to both development and modification of the 

program, as well as in promotion and co cation effo~ to potential new participants. The program can be 

modified to ensure that it most effectively raeets the needs of pa&icigants by ensuring that reereation benefits 

are "designed in" to each individual landowners program, based on the specific recreation interest of that 

landowner. It is well documented in the marketing literature that products successful at satisfying customers are 

successfbl in tern of incrwed use (sales). 

County persomel who have face to face contact with present and potential participants should be made 

aware of the benefits which are impo t to lmdomers baause they represent the "sales force" of the 

orga~zation. Individuals in cooperating state and federal agencies who are involvd in selling and designing 

these program should also be made aware of the benefits Iandomers are most interested in. 

Recreation benefits should be clearly featured in promotional messages about the program (brochures, 

speeches, sales presentation interviews, new articleslreleases, magazine articles, etc.) due to the fact that 

services have the characteristic of being "intangible" as products. A significant body of literamre (Lovelock 

1984) suggests that when marketing services, benefits must be clearly pointed out due to the difficulty the 

buyerlprospect has in evaluating intangible products. 

Another strategy implication applies to the concept of market segmentation, which means finding subgroups of the total market based upon certain needs or characteristics. Data from this study indicate that a 

market segmentation approach based upon needs is required as a marketing strategy, because recreational 

benefits were imporbnt to all demographic groups. 

Stewardship, outdoor recreation and learning are appealing benefits which are not only consistent with 

the values of our society (Engle et al. 1990), but would seem compelling to many prospective participants for 

this program. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Bidey, C.S. 1981. nmber supplyflrom private nonindustrial sources, Yale University School of Forestry and 

Enviroment Shdies Bull. 92.97. New Haven, Connatieut, 

Birch, T.W., D.G. Lewis and HA?. Kaiser. 1982. Forestland ovvners ofthe United States. Resource Bull. 

WO-1, Washington, DC: US DeparGnaent of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Boone, L, E, and Kurtz, B. L. 1989. Contemporary Marketing, 6th. Chicago: Dryden Press. 
Carpenter, E. M., M . H. Hansen and D . M. St. John. 1986. me private forest landowners of Minnesota - 1982, 

USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, NG Resources Bull. 95: 55. 

Dwlittle, L., and T. Straka. 1987. Regeneration following harvest on non-industrial private pine sites in the 

South: a diffusion of innovation persptive, Southern Journal of Applid Forestry, 11 (1): 37-41, 

Engle, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and P. W. Minwrd, 1990. Corzfumer Behavior, 6th. Chicago: The Dryden 

Press. 

Kotler , P. 1988. Marketing Management, 6th. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 

Lee, A. 1986. Non-industrial private forest landowners relations to wildlife in New England, Ph.D. 

dissertation, Yale University. 

Lovelock, C. 1984. Services Marketing, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall: 7- 15. 

Levitt, T. 1960. Marketing myopia, Haward Business Review, 7 (3). 

Marler, R.L. and Graves, P. F. 1977. A new management rationale for small forest landowners, Applied 

Forestry Research Institute, AFRI -17. State University of New York, Ithica, N.Y. 

Maslow, A.W. 1954. Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper and Row. 

Reed, A. S. 1989. Targeting educational programs to stimulate investments in private forestland ownership, 

Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 

Royer, J.P. 1979. Conclusions from a review of 50 years of small woodland owner studies. In Proceedings: 

1979 Southern Forestry Economic Workrhop. Opp. 1-14), Chapel Hill, NC. 

Royer, J. P. and F. J. Convery (eds.). 198 1. Non-industrial private forests: data and information needs 

conference proceedings. Center For Resource and Environmental Policy Research, Duke University, 

Durham, N.C. 

Straka, T. J. and Doolittle, M.L. 1988. The propensity of non-industrial private forest landowners to 

regenerate following harvest: relationship to socio-economic characteristics, including innovativeness, 

Resource Management and Optimization. 6(2): 12 1 - 128. 
F Y PARTICIPATION IN AUXILIARY ACTLVITIES 

ASSOCLATED WITH DEVELOPED C ING 

Christine Cornell and Joseph T. 0' 

Abstract. This research deals with farnily participation in activities auxiliary to family 

camping. The premise is that leisure behavior is determined by the social group and the 

structure of that group will add on activitim which are auxiliaw to the primary purpose of 

visit. This concept was applied to Indiana families involved in developed camping. The data 

are from the 1985-1986 Public Area Recreation Visitor survey. Cluster analysis was used to 

subgroup families and identify sets of activities. It was concluded that auxiliary sets of 

activities exist for developed camping and that specific family members appear to be indicators 

of family participation in different auxiliary sets. Several activities were identified as core 

activities and an extension of the concept of auxiliary activities is suggested. It is suggested 

that these activities be integrated into existing and future camping facilities and that the concept 

of auxiliary activities be expanded. 

INTRODUCTION 

Family participation in recreation may be better understood in some situations as participation in a 

group of activities rather than a specific activity. Burch (1964) suggested that the social group with whom one 

engages in leisure activity will influence a host of activities which are auxiliary to the primary purpose of 

visits. Burch borrowed ideas from Si 1's (1922) work on 'social circles' which eventually led him to 

develop his concept of the personal community hypothesis (PCH). Although the concept of PCH was not 

labeled as such until 1969, traces of the concept are found in earlier works (Burch 1964, 1965; Burch and 

Wegner 1967). This research suggested that the organizing social group shapes auxiliary activities and the 

main activity may be a subordinate pursuit as measured by relative time spent (Burch 1964). 

Once the concept of the PCH was refined, researchers began to focus on select recreational activities 

and ignore the hypothesis that the nature of the social group may direct participation in a set of auxiliary 

activities which could, in fact, supersede time spent participating in the main activity. The varying goals of 

family members may have an influence on the number and types of auxiliary activities in which they will 

participate. Understanding this participation may be particularly helpful in the case of camping, where the 

camping resource often provides opportunity for participation in additional recreational activities. 

Identifying activities as groups or in sets has been advantageous in the past because it condenses the 

larger, more complex, numbers of activities that might occur at a recreation site into manageable units. 

Identifying sets of activities participated in by different family groups will allow management to better provide 

manageable units of activities for those different family types. 

McCml (1978) suggested that grouping activities into packages by their meaning may help managers 

and planners: (1) gain a better understanding of the kinds of oppodties visitors are seekmg and their 

uent behavior; (2) develop facilities and visitor contact programs to enhance those opportunities 

arranged around activity sets; and (3) identify those packages of activities which may conflict with other 

packages in the use of a recreation site. 

Tatham and Dornoff (1971) clustered respondents on the basis of nine demand-related characteristics. 

Their work found that "no one socioeconomic characteristic discriminated among market segments, but 

different recreational participation patterns may be linked to combinations of socioeconomic characteristics* 

(Talham and Dornoff 1971,15). 
Field (1971) introduced the analysis of leisure setting, leisure activity and social group simultaneously. 

He found that a clustering of activities by group type became evident. Field found that regardless of setting, 

specific groups selected similar activities. As the dimensions of the group changed various activities were 

dropped out and were replaced by others. This new activity set then remined constant for each leisure 

setting. Thus, it appears that several activities may qwlly satisfy objectives established by a group when they 

arrive at a leisure setting. It is possible that fa'amilies may padicipate in sets of identifiable activitis regardless 

of the leisure setting. 

Again, Field (2971) noted that s the diariensions of the social group change various activities were 

dropped out and were replaced by others. The dimensions which e up the farnify such as mMiage, 

childbirth, divorce, aging and child rearing are not static, but in constant change as Field suggested. This 

change may encourage and or &bit faIIlily participation in various sets of auxiliary activities. 

METHODS 

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the concept of auxiliary activities and to investigate their 

presence in a campground setting. To investigate the presence of auxiliary activities, this study used the 

1985-1986 Indiana Public Rwreation Visitors Survey data. Two hypothesis were developed. First, auxiliary 

sets of activities associated with developed camping would not be sirnilar in their composition and second, 

different family group types participating in developed camping would participate in different auxiliary activity 

sets. 

Secondary data were obtained from the Southeastern Forest Service station in Athens, Georgia. 

Respondents to the PARVS survey were asked to identify a main activity, defined as the primary or overriding 

purpose of the respondent's visit to the area, from a list of 53 activities. PARVS respondents could identify 

"camping in primitive groundsw or "camping in developed grounds" as a main activity. "No defition or 

clarification of any activity was provided by the interviewers to the respondents in order to eliminate a 

possible source of intenriewer-induced bias" (Hartmm 1989,84). Therefore, the definition of "camping in 

developed campgrounds" was left to the respondent. 

Burch (1964) suggested that groups will add on activities auxiliary to the reported purpose of visit. 

For the purpose of this study those activities that will be considered added on or auxiliary are those 

participated in by the respondent, but not identified as the main activity (developed camping). 

Data halysis 

In this study, family groups were identified using the number of adults under 65, the number and ages 

of children under 20 and the presence of senior citizens (65 years old or older). These classifications were 

based on Hartmamk (1989) sfudy of social group variables. 

Burch (1964,1965), King (1965) and Hendee et ai. (1971) investigated activities associated with 

camping. Based on their work the following activities were included in analyses: fishing, water skiing, 

outdoor games and sports, swi g (both pool and other kinds of swi ng), sightseeing, biking, wakg 

for pleasure, boatin e study, caaoeing and wildlife observation (and photography). 

also contained info about paaicipation in interprehtioo activities, fa~ly out 

outdoor events, dri pleasure and jogging that were included in the study. Exel 

in the developed camping data set and interview seasons were dining for fun, picnicki 

skiing, cross-country skiing, ice skating and sledding. 

A modified list of seyenteen activities was then developed based on wrk by Daigle (1989) and 

intuitive assignment, These activities were included in a cluster analysis to dete 
PARVS activities were associated with a unique variable name. If the value of the variable equaled 1, 

participation was recoded as "yes." If the value of the variable equaled zero (.) participation was recoded as 

"no. " 

Once activity sets were identified, family variables and activity sets were included in a cluster analysis 

with identified activity sets to distinguish pattems of leisure behavior (Cornell 1989; Ditton et al. 1975; Punj 

and Stewart 1983; Romesburg 1979). This study used Wards minimum variance (see SAS, Inc. (1985) for 

details). 

RESULTS 

Although compositions for each auxiliary set were similar, the percentage of individuals belonging to 

the set that participated in an activity differed significantly. For example, in the active auxiliary set 73 % of 

the cases belonging to that cluster participated in pool swimming, in contrast to the observing set in which 

only 1 percent of the cluster participated in pool swimming. If a family was a member of a particular activity 

cluster, it did not necessarily follow that they participated in all activities within the cluster nor was their 

participation exactly the same as other members of the cluster. Cluster members had similar participation 

based on participation or non-participation in different combinations of activities. Table 1 presents the 

proportion of the cluster participating in activities. 

Four auxiliary activity sets were found. First, traditional auxiliary activities, are represented by 

participation in hiking, biking and fishing. Second, family water based auxiliary activities, are represented by 

swimming, boating, fishing, biking, and hiking. Third, an active auxiliary set is identified, with heavy 

participation in biking, pool swimming, hiking, observing, historical activities, and self-guided interpretation. 

Lastly, a set of auxiliary activities is represented by participation in swimming, hiking, fishing with a strong 

preference for viewing activities, the observinq auxiliary set. 

Table 1. Auxiliary activities. 

Cluster/auxiliary Percent of 

activity set - n Cluster 

Traditional (102) (%) 

Motorized boating 

Other boating 

Pool swimming 

Nature activities 

Hiking 

Jogging 

Biking 

Horseback riding 

Fishing 

Special events 

Family gathering 

Historical visits 

Agency interpretation 

Self-guided interpretation 
Table 1. (Continued) Auxiliary activities. 

Clusterlawriliary Percent of 

activity set - n Cluster 

Family Water Based (165) 

Motorid boating 

Other bating 

Other swimming 

Nature activities 

Hiking 

Jogging 

Biking 

Horseback riding 

Fishing 

Outdoor sports 

Observing 

Special events 

Family gathering 

Historical visits 

Agency interpretation 

Self-guided interpretation 

- Active (100) 

Other boating 

Pool swimming 

Other swimming 

Nature activities 

Hiking 

Jogging 

Biking 

Horseback riding 

Fishing 

Outdoor activities 

Observing (sightseeing and 

pleasure driving) 

Special events 

Family gathering 

Historical visits 

Agency interpretation 

Self-guided interpretation 

Observing (165) (%) 

Motorized boating 

Other boating 

Pool swimming 

Other swimming 

Nature activities 

Hiking 
Table 1. (Continued) Auxiliary activities. 

Clusterlauxiliary Percent of 

activity set - n Cluster 

Jogging 

Bhg 

Horseback riding 

Fishing 

Outdoor sports 

Observing (sightseeing and 

pleasure driving) 93 93.9 

Special events 13 13.1 

Family gathering 39 39.4 

Historical visits 28 28.3 

Agency interpretation 9 9.1 

Self-guided interpretation 18 18.2 

Family Participation 

Previously, research has tested social group participation in an individual activity and ignored social 

group participation in a set of activities. This study hypothesized that different family groups would participate 

in different sets of activities. The above activity sets were placed in a cluster analysis with family groups 

variables and six groups were identified. After frequencies of family composition and activity set participation 

were generated, families could be characterized as new families, adult families, transitional families, and 

intergenerational families. In addition, two separate clusters of established families were found. A group of 

established families with youth and teens were found to participate in the active and observing activity sets. A 

second group of established families with youth and teens were found to participate in traditional and water 

based activities. Below is a detailed description of each family type and the activities they participate in (see 

Table 2 for a summary). 

Table 2. Auxiliary participation and group composition of family camping clusters. 

Family Type Composition 

Auxiliary 

activities 

New Families 

Adult Families 

Active 

Established 

Families 

Adult pairs with infants, 

toddler, and youth. 

Adults without or with 

few children. 

Adult pairs with youth 

and teens. 

Active and 

observing. 

Traditional and 

water based. 

Active and 

observing. 
Table 2. (Continued) Auxiliary participation and group composition of family camping clusters. 

Family Type Composition 

Auxiliary 

activities 

Traditional 

Established 

Families 

Transitional 

Some adults will be over 

the age of 65. Some adults 

may be single. Some children. 

Adult pairs with teens 

and youth. 

Adult pairs with some youth. 

Traditional and 

water based. 

Traditional and 

water based. 

Water based and 

observing. 

Cases belonging to the new families cluster (I1=45) camped with infants, toddlers, and youth. Toddlers 

were present in all families. Teens and senior citizens were absent in the majority of cases. These families 

participated in active and observing activities. Families did not participate in the traditional set and few 

participated in the water based set. 

Adult families @= 147) camped in parties containing two adults between 20 and 64. However, 16 % of 

the cluster members contained more than 2 adults. Persons over 65 were absent from this cluster and children 

occurred in less than 30 % of the families. Infants occurred in 11 % of the families, toddlers in 29 % of the 

families, and youth in 21 %. These families participated in traditional auxiliary activities and water based 

activities. 

Established families contained youth, teens, and adult pairs. Only three percent of the families in this 

cluster contained infants and/or toddlers. These families did not participate in traditional or water based 

activities. Forty-eight percent participated in the active set and 5 1 % were found in the observing set. 

Established families similar in composition to the established families above, but they paiticipated in the 

traditional auxiliary set and water based auxiliary set more often. Water based activities were the most popular 

with families in this cluster, with 75% participating in swimming. These families were composed of youth, 

teens, and adult pairs. Teens were represented in 87 % of the clusters and youth in 6 1 % of the clusters. 

Intergenerational families (& = 46) were over represented with senior citizens and under represented by 

infants. Teens were in 15 % of the cluster, and 11 % of the cluster contained toddlers and/or youth. Adults 

over 65 were present in 67 % of the families. Fifty-four percent of the families had no adults under the age of 

65, and 46 % of the families only contained one adult under 65. .This appeared to be a cluster of families 

composed of older members, some with children. Intergenerational families participated in all activity sets. 

The most comonly participated in auxiliary sets were traditional and water based (44% and 33 9% of the 

families respectively). These families also participated in the active set and observing set (13 95 and 11 % 

respectively). 

Transitional families (11~53) were all camping with youth and slightly over 10 % of these families were 

camping with toddlers andlor teens. Absent from this cluster were infants and only a small proportion camped 

with senior citizens. Water based pursuits were the most popular auxiliary set with 49 % of the cluster 

participating. Of these families, 15 % participated in the active set, 17 % in traditional set, and 19 % in 

observing . 
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 

Historically, leisure researchers have been concerned about identifying sets of activities for several 

reasons. First, identifying sets of activities collapses numerous activities into smaller, more manageable units. 

Second, these units have been identifieni for the purpose of dete g if various activities could be 

substituted for one another. Lastly, sets of activities are investigated in order to detede participants with 

sinrilar participation interest. 

This work has extended the concept of activity sets by identifying specific sets of auxiliary activities 

related to family camping. Early leisure research sought to identify activity sets pursued by the general 

population. The identification of auxiliary sets seeks to identify sets of activities associated with a specific 

activity. Limited attention has been given to participation in auxiliary activities. Results of this study indicate 

that patterns of activities auxiliary to developed camping do exist and that family may be associated 

with distinct auxiliary sets. 

The results of this study encourage the application of the concept of auxiliary activities to other 

activities, resource settings, and data sets to determine if this phenomenon is unique to camping or if there are 

other activities andlor resources where this phenomenon occurs. Would we find that auxiliary sets of activities 

could be associated with activities such as picnicking or fishing? Further, the concept can be extended to 

include specific sets of activities auxiliary to resources or facilities. This identification allows a further 

understanding of the "recreationists definition of the resource system" (Burch 1964) and discourages one 

dimensional management of reereation activities. The very nature of auxiliary activities creates unique 

implications for this work and future studies regarding auxiiiary activities. The link between a primary activity 

and a set of auxiliary activities determined by a particular sociail group allows for: 

1) better management and research of the total experience desired by that group ( y of these research and 

management implications are discussed later); 

2) further definition of the manageable unit of the recreation experience; 

3) a list of activities which are vital to the management of a specific activity and a list of activities which 

can be substituted for each other while the recreationists is in pursuit of the primary activity. 

The identification of auxiliary activities associated with developed camping demonstrates the diversity of 

the camping activity. Previous studies have concentrated on camping as a single recreation activity and 

differentiated participants based on style of camping (Burch and Wegner 1967; McEwen 1986) and 

so~iodemographics (King 1965). The ability to cluster family campers based on participation patterns in 

activities and composition of family members provides a foundation for a typology of family campers. 

Current family types include adult pairs and intergenerational families along with families containing children 

of all ages. These families and their participation in different auxiliary activities are important target groups 

for public and private campground operators. 

Provisions for the pnimary pursuit will always be a main concern of management, yet not far behind on 

a priority list should be those activities auxiliary to the primry pursuit. 

Sets of auxiliary activities could be identified for a resource, overnight or day use facilities, andlor a 

number crf spwifrc activities. 

The results of this study irnpfy that as ages of children shift within the family, different sets of auxiliary 

activities are pursued. This type of information will allow management to provide auxiliary activities for their 

clientele as the family membership changes, regardless of whether those changes are based on the presence or 

absence of family members or the ages of those family members. Specialized progradng may be centered 

on the types of auxiliary activities desired. For example, progradng a weekend for new families would 
include hike, bike and fish activities. A weekend for established families might center around a number of 

observing, historical and nature activities. Family camping programs can also be directed at family aimpefs 

with different incomes, education levels, ernplo y ment status and group size using pricing strategies, edu~atiod 

progmmming, and large group camping facilities. 

Attracting the support or dollars of families with children over age six will include the provision of or 

the opportunity to participate in activities included in the active and traditiondlobming auxiliary sets. 

Providing satisfactory experiences for families with infants, toddlers, and senior ci tizens will include 

provisions of activitim in the traditional ad water b auxiliary sets. Pn particular, the activities of hiking, 

biking and fishing were participated in by a large percentage of participants belonging to each cluster. These 

activities appear to be core activities auxiliary to family camping and should be incorporated into new and 

existing campground designs. 

In conclusion, this study provides some further insight into social group research. We have found that 

auxiliary activities are associated with family camping in developed areas. We can conclude that Burch's 

assertion that the social group will direct participation in auxiliary activities has merit and is particularly true 

in the case of family camping. We hope these fmdings will encourage further social group analysis with 

respect to family leisure andfor auxiliary activities. 

LITERATUW CITED 

Burch, W.R., Jr. 1964. Two concepts for guiding recreation management decisions. Journal of Forestry 

62(10):707-7 12. 

. 1965. The play world of camping: Research into the social meaning of outdoor recreation. 

Ihe American Journab of Sociology 70(5): 604-6 12. 

. 1969. The social circles of leisure: Coinpeting explanations. Journal of Leisure RRFearch 

l(2): 125-147. 

, and W. D. Wegner. 1967. The social characteristics of participants in three styles of family 

camping. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. 

Res. Pap. PNVV-48. 

Cornell, C. 1989. Family composition and activities auxiliary to developed camping. Masters Thesis, Purdue 

University, West Lafayette, IN. 

Daigle, J.J. 1989. An analysis in home range factors across trail user activity groups. Master thesis, Colorado 

State University, Bolder. 

Ditton, R.B., T.L. Goodale and P.K. Johnsen. 1975. A cluster analysis of activity, frequency, and 

environment variables to identify water-based recreation types. Journal of Leisure Research 

7(4):282-295. 

Field, D.R. 1971. Interchangeability of Parks With Other Leisure Settings. Paper presented at the AAAS 

Symposium, December, 197 1, at Philadelphia, Penn. 

, L.A. 1989. An exploratory analysis of the personal commity hypothesis as a detedant of 

camping participation. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station. 

Hendee, J.C., R.R. Gale and W.R. Catton. 1971. A typology of outdoor recreation activity preferences. Ihe 

Journal of Environmental Education 3(1):28-34. 
King, D .A. 1965. Characteristim of Family Campers Using the Huron-Manistee National Forests. U.S. 

Forest Service, Lakes States Forest Experimental Station, Research Paper LS-19, 11 pp. 

McCool, S.F. 1978. Recreation activity packages at water based resources. Leisure Sciences l(2): 163-173. 

McEwen, D.N. 1986. Recreation Quality and the Market for Tent Company. Journal of Park and Rewearion 

Administration 4(2): 83-95. 

Pmj , G, and D. W. Stewart. 1983. Cluster Analysis in Marketing Research; Review and Suggestions for 

Application. Journal of Marketing Research 20(2): 134- 148. 

Romesburg, H.C. 1979. Use of Cluster Analysis in Leisure Research. Journal ofkisure Research 

1 l(2): 144-153. 

SAS. 1985. SAS Users Guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. 

Simmel, G. 1922. Diekreuzung Sozialer Kreise. Soxiologie. Munchen: Duncker and Humbolt Translated by 

Reinhard Bendix under the title Ihe Web of Group Aflliationr. New York: Free Press, 1955. 

Tatham, R. L. and R. J. Dorno ff. 197 1. Market Segmentation for Outdoor Recreation. Journal of Leisure 

Research 2(1):5-16. 

ATTITUDES, PERCEPTIONS, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF 

SUMMER VISITORS TO THE 

GREAT SMOKY MO n\TS REGION 

Rebecca L. VanCleave, Cynthia P.G. Franz, David L. Franz, Jr., A. Kent Van Cleave, 3r.l 

Abstract. The goals of this research were twofold: 1) to provide descriptions of typical 

summer visitors to the Great Smoky Mountain region, and 2) to establish a cooperative 

program for visitor research between the Uplands Field Research Laboratory of the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) and the Gatlinburg Chamber of Commerce. 

Surveys from 412 individuals were collected in Gatlinburg and the National Park. They were 

analyzed using descriptive statistics, T-Tests, and factor analysis. Analyses revealed that 

visitors to Gatlinburg and visitors to the National Park differ in many ways, including 

demographic characteristics and in the perceptions and attitudes they possess regarding this 

region. At the same time, some of the needs that both groups of visitors hope to fulfill when 

visiting this region are quite similar. For example, many described this area as a favorite 

place for reunions of family and friends. This research also supports the hypothesis that 

visitors choosing either a tourist-oriented or nature-oriented experience differ significantly in 

many ways. These results should prove beneficial to managers of both locales, not only in 

understanding the motivations and expectations of visitors, but also in forming policy decisions 

regarding the interface of these two very different areas. It is hoped that this research marks 

the beginning of a longstanding, mutually beneficial cooperative program between GRSM and 

sumundhg communities. 

INTRODUCTION 

Until now, surveys conducted in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) concentrated on 

demographics and trip plans of visitors to the Park. The surveys did not assess attitudes or perceptions of the 

visitor about the Park nor did they collect data from people who were primarily visiting the tourist communities 

(VanCleave R. and Beard 1990; Peine and Renfro 1988; Renfro 1986; Curran 1983). Research conducted in 

the surrounding communities also concentrated on demographics and intentions. The primary purpose of this 

project was to obtain descriptive information regarding summer visitors to the Great Smoky Mountain region. 

Managers of natural recreation areas, such as National Parks, are faced with the problem of balancing 

protection of the environment with accessibility to and use by the public. If policy for doing these things is not 

based on visitor perceptions and attitudes, these managers can not optimize on either mission (VanCleave A. 

1988). Managers of the adjacent tourist communities are concerned with attracting more people into their 

communities. Information concerning the perceptions of visitors to both their communities and the adjacent 

National Park can be valuable in doing so. 

GRSM and the sunrounding com~ties, existing in the same region and drawing on the same 

population for visitors, are interdependent. Decisions made in GRSM impact on the tourist communities, and 

vice versa. To date, however, there has been little comunication or coordination in research or in policy 

making. In order to establish a precedent of cooperation and coordination, representatives of the Uplands Field 

Rebecca L. VanCleave, Uplands Field Research Laboratory, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 

Gatlinburg, TN 37738; Cynthia P.G. Franz, University of Tennessee; David L. Franz, Jr., Hiawasee Mental Health 

Center; A. Kent Van Cleave, Jr., House, Van Cleave, and Associates 
Research hboratory contacted policy s in the sumomding comdties. The Gatlinburg Chamber of 

Comere agreed to co-sponsor a joint research effort. 

It is hoped that this tion will lead to policy coordination. With the growth in the 

tourism indwtry in. the area, it is i t to undemtand the underlying dynamics of recreational choices in 

both areas. Policy decisions for ers of both National Parks and tourist cornunities should be directly 

affsted by visitor perceptions and attitudes if those policies are to be effective and if those policies are to 

respect the needs and interests of the other group. 

METHODS 

There were two procedures for data collection, a survey and phenomenological interviews. This paper 

will report only the results from the survey. Results from the phenomenological interviews are reported by 

Franz et a1 (1990). 

The written survey was designed to obtain attitudinal and demographic characteristics of summer 

visitors, as well as information regarding decisions made by the individual in visiting this area. This 

information was collected in Gatlinburg and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park between June and 

August of 1989. Data collection ceased just prior to Labor Day weekend, 1989. The total number of surveys 

collected was 412. In Gatlinburg, 282 surveys were collected, and 130 were collected within the National Park. 

Surveys were collected from three central locations within Gatlinburg and three central locations within 

the National Park. Within Gatlinburg, one cumulative collection location included motels, hotels and chalets. 

The response rate from the motels was very low, about ten percent. Another collection location included 

outdoor mall areas and a pavilion adjacent to hwmont School. The third location at which surveys were 

collected was within the lobby of the Gatlinburg Chamber of ComrnercelVisitor Center. In the latter two 

locations, souvenir pens were awarded in exchange for the completion of surveys, which increased the response 

rate to about ninety percent. 

Within the National Park, three campgrounds, Ellunont, Smokemont, and Cades Cove, were used as 

collection points. The rangers passed out surveys to campers at registration, and campers returned them to a 

drop box. The response rate was about thirty percent for all campgrounds. 

Respondent Population 

The surveys collected in Gatlinburg came primarily from visitors who were staying at least one night in 

Gatlinburg. Surveys collected in the National Park were all from visitors staying at least one night in National 

Park campgrounds. Although this paper will categorize people into "Gatlinburg visitors" and "Park visitors, " 

both groups planned activities in the other locale to some degree. 

This is especially true for Gatlinburg visitors, most of whom were interested in driving into the 

National Park, and some of whom were involved in several Park activities. Others in Gatlinburg commented 

that the view of the mountains from Gatlinburg was of prime importance. Some National Park visitors made 

trips into Gatlinburg for shopping or seeing local crafts. 

For ease of presentation and discussion of the data collected, the tables and graphs contained in this 

paper, as well as discussions of the results, will divide the entire population of respondents into "Gatlinburg 

respondents" and "Park respondents. " The reader should remember that there is overlap between these two 

populations and not conclude that each group had no intention of visiting the other locale. However, even 

though there is overlap in visiting both Gatlinburg and the National Park, there are distinct differences between 

visitors who come to the region primarily to visit one locale or the other. 
SURVEY RESULTS 

Because of the wide variety of types of questions asked in the sumey, several different statistical 

analyses were used in analyzing the data. All analyses separated respondents, by location of survey colle-ction 

site, into Gatlinburg visitors and National Park visitors, Compiuimns were made on responses to most items 

between these two groups. The results are reported for each seetion of the sumey. 

Chamtenstics of Visitors 

Refer to Table 1. The survey items assessing the chamcteristics of visitors to both Gatlinburg and the 

National Park were analyzed by computing frequencies and percentages of responses and testing for significance 

using the Chi-square analysis. As can be seen in Table 1, demogmphics of Gatlinburg visitors and Park visitors 

are similar for the most part, with the exception of education, residence as a child, and occupation. 

Number of males and females, mean age, percent married, income, and race tended to be similar for 

both Gatlinburg and Park visitors. Park visitors have obtained higher educational levels than Gatlinburg 

visitors. A greater percentage of Park visitors came from large cities, while a greater percentage of Gatlinburg 

visitors came from small towns and rural areas. When examining the occupational categories, it is apparent that 

for both Gatlinburg and the Park, managers, clerical workers and teachers made up a fairly large percentage of 

visitors. The Park had a greater percentage of retired people than did Gatlinburg. This greater percentage of 

retirees is reflected in the difference in mean age between the two locations. Although not statistically 

significant, the average age in the Park was higher than in Gatlinburg. 

The origins of Gatlinburg and Park respondents, by home state, were determined. As is show in 

Table 2, the majority sf visitors came from the Southeastern part of the country, and most were from 

Tennessee. 

Characteristics of the Trip 

Visitors were asked to rank order the importance of visiting different locations in the Smoky Mountains 

region from least to most important with a rating of '1' being the most important and '8' the least important. 

The frequencies and percentages of the ratings for each location are given in Table 3. As is apparent from 

examining the table, Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Gatlinburg were rated as the most important 

locations to visit. This is not unexpected, since the only population of visitors surveyed were from these two 

locations. Dollywood, Townsend, and the Discount Outlet Malls tended to receive very low ratings of 

importance for both Gatlinburg and Park visitors. Ober Gatlinburg was rated very low in importance for Park 

visitors and moderately low by Gatlinburg visitors. This is not surprising, since it was not ski season, and 

people were not aware of the summer activities there. 

Refer to Table 4. Several items in the questionnaire related to characteristics of the visitor's trip itself. 

Frequencies and percentages were calculated for each item for both Gatlinburg and Park visitors. For both 

Gatlinburg and the Park most respondents were with family on the trip. The most outstanding difference 

between the two groups is in the length of the entire trip and length of stay in the area. A much greater 

percentage of Gatlinburg visitors spend 2-5 days @robably weekends), while Park visitors spend a longer period 

of time, 6-10 days @robably vacations). These differences were statistically significant. 

The majority of visitors to both Gatlinburg and the Park had the Smoky Mountain region as 

their primary destination. The majority of both Gatlinburg and Park visitors were repeat visitors, although there 

was a higher proportion of first-time visitors to Gatlinburg than to the Park. Visitors to the Park come to the 

area more often in a year than do visitors to Gatlinburg. An interesting result occurred with the question "Do 

you know how to get to the Smoky Mountain National Park?" About seven percent of Gatlinburg visitors said 
Table I. Characteristics of Visitors to the Great Smoky Mountain Region 

Gatlinburg Park 

Demographics 

Mean Age 

Percent Male 

Percent Female 

Percent Married 

Percent Single 

Educational Levels *% 

(percent) 

8th grade or less 

9th - 11th grade 

High School Graduate 

13 - 15 years 

College Graduate 

Post-Graduate 

Income 

(percent) 

less than $5,000 

$5,000 to 9,999 

$10,000 to 14,999 

$15,000 to 19,999 

$20,000 to 24,999 

$25,000 to 29,999 

$30,000 to 34,999 

$35,000 to 39,999 

$40,000 to 44,999 

$45,000 to 49,999 

$50,000 to 75,000 

more than $75,000 

Race or Cultural Category 

(percent) 

Hispanic 1.13 

Asian 0.38 

Black 0.38 

American Indian 2.63 

Caucasian 93.61 

Other 1.50 
Table 1. (eont.) 

Gatlinburg Park 

Residence as child 

(percent) 

Major Metropolitan 

Metropolitan 

City 

Small Town 

Rural - Non farm 

Rural - Farm 

Occupational Categories 

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 

Accountant 

Archi tech 

Computer Science 

Engineer 

Forester 

Lawyer 

Librarian 

Physical Scientist 

Research Analyst 

Physician 

Nurse 

Health Technician 

Religious Worker 

Social Scientist 

Teacher - College 

Teacher - Public School 

Technician 

ArtistlWriter 

Research Worker 

~anager/Administrator 

Sales 

Clerical 

Craftsman 

Factory Worker 

Transportation 

Laborer 

Farmer 

Service Worker 

Self Employed 

Homemaker 

Student 

Retired 

Unemployed 

Difference between percentages is statistically significant. Chi-squares 

p. < .01. 
Table 2. Origin of Visitors to Great Smoky Mountain Region 

Sou t 

Tennessee 

Florida 

Kentucky 

North Carolina 

South Carolina 

Georgia 

Alabama 

Louisiana 

Virginia 

Mississippi 

Total 246 

Midwest 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Missouri 

Wisconsin 

Arkansas 

Iowa 

Total 95 

West 

Texas 12 

California 2 

Colorado 1 

Utah 1 

Total 16 

Pennsylvania 8 

New York 3 

New Jersey 1 

Delaware 1 

Total 13 
Table 3. Ranking of Importance of Visiting Different Places in the Great 

Smoky Mountains Region 

Location 

Great Smoky Mountains NP 

Gatlinburg 

Pigeon Forge 

Cherokee 

Townsend 

Ober Gatlinburg 

Dollywood 

Discount Outlet Malls 

Gatlinburg 

Respondent 

Park 

Respondent 

* Locations were ranked on a 1 to 8 scale with 1 being the most important and 

8 being the least important. The lower the mean ranking, the more important 

that location is to visit. 
they did not. However, it is interesting that three percent of visitors staying the Park said they did not know 

how to get there. Hopfully, this was just due to confusion about the question. 

A surprising result is that only 4.6% of respondents public transportation in Gatfinburg. Despite 

numerous complain& about traffic and parkiag (discusd in another section), the vast majority of visitors used 

their own car as the primry means of transportation while in the comunity. Perhaps this reflects the use of 

their om cars to and from Gatlinburg as well as while staying in the town. 

Decisions about and perceptions of visit to the region 

Several questions were asked regarding specific choices made and perceptions visitors had while staying in 

the region. Responses to these questions were also analyzed for differences between Gatlinburg and Park 

visitors. The results are presented in Table 5. 

The average amount of money spent was considerably greater for Gatlinburg visitors ($575) than for 

Park visitors ($445). This difference is even more pronounced when the length of stay is considered. The 

length of the trip in Gatlinburg is shorter than the length of the trip in the Park, making the amount spent per 

day even less for Park visitors than is reflected in the figures. 

There were few differences between Gatlinburg and Park visitors in their perceptions of prices and 

services in the area. Generally, both groups rated services as good to excellent, and prices are rated slightly 

high. There are several differences in how the two groups chose the place where they stayed, as can be seen by 

examining the table. Cost was rated as more important in Gatlinburg than in the Park, though cost may have 

been what caused some Park campers to stay in the campgrounds, rather than in Gatlinburg. This informal 

observation is based on the experjence of one of the data collectors as a ranger at Elkmont, where people often 

stated they preferred Ekont over other campgrounds because of its closer proximity to Gatlinburg. 

Attitude Scale 

One section of the survey asked the respondents to rate 48 items relating to features and activities of 

both the National Park and the tourist comunities. The purpose of this section was to assess visitors' attitudes 

and feelings towards the items, and to study how those attitudes are interrelated. The respondent rated each 

item on a scale from '1' to '10' with 'I' being a very negative feeling, '10' being a very positive feeling, and 

'5' being a neutral feeling. Any number from 1 to 10 could be used depending on the strength of the feeling a 

respondent had toward an item. 

The items were statistically analyzed in several ways. First, the mean (average) ratings for each item 

were calculated for both Gatlinburg and Park visitors. T-tests were used to test for significant differences in 

ratings on the items between Gatlinburg and Park visitors. Second, a frequency of response for the ratings on 

each item was graphed for both Gatlinburg and Park visitors. (These graphs are not included in this paper, as 

there are 48 of them, but are available from the authors.) Third, a factor analysis was run to assess how the 

items clustered together. 

In Table 6, the results from both the analysis of the item ratings by Gatlinburg and Park visitors and 

the factor analysis are presented. These are on the same table for ease of presentation. The mean ratings for 

each item are presented for both Gatlinburg respondents and Park respondents. Those with a '*'beside the last 

column were found to be significantly different. 
Table 4. Trip Characteristics of Visitors to the Smoky Mountain Region 

Gatlinburg Park 

Type of Group With 

(percent) 

Friends 

Family 

Organized Group 

Family and Friends 

Alone 

Length of Entire Trip *A 

(percent) 

1 day 

2 - 5 days 

6 - 10 days 

more than 10 days 

Len~th of Stay in Area ** 

(percent) 

1 day 

2 - 5 days 

6 - 10 days 

more than 10 days 

Is Area Primary Destination *A 

(percent) 

Yes 

No 

First Visit to Area ** 

(percent) 

Yes 

No 
Table 4. (cont . ) 

Times a Year Visit Area 

(percent) 

Once a year 

Twice a year 

3 times a year 

4 times a year 

6 or more times a year 

Average Length of Each Trip ** 

(percent) 

Gat linhrg 

1 day 

2 - 5 days 

6 - 10 days 

More than 10 days 

Route to Get to Area 

(percent) 

From Knoxville via 441 

From Foothills Pkwy 321 

From Cherokee via 441 

From Newport via 321 

From Maryville 

From 1-40 

Know how to get to GRSM 

(percent) 

Yes 

No 

Primary Form of Transportation 

(percent) 

Own car 

Public transportation 

Walk 

Park 

** Differences between percentages is statisically significant. Chi-squares 

p. < .05 or less. 
Table 5. Decisions and Perceptions of Stay in Great Smoky Mountains Region 

Gatlhhrg Park 

hount of Money Spent * 

Mean amount on spent on trip $575.25 

Prices in Area 

(percent) 

Inexpensive 

Reasonably priced 

Overpriced 

Services in Area 

(~ercent ) 

Very courteous 

Adequate 

Rude 

Choice of Place Staying 

(percent) 

Cost 

Recommended 

Location 

Advertisements 

Appearance 

Previous satisfaction 

Other 

Several checked 

Found out about Place Stayinq 

(percent) 

TVlNewspaper 

Travel Agency 

Telephone yellow pages 

Chamber of Commerce 

Decided while driving 

Other 

* Note: The length of the trip in Gatlinburg was shorter than the length of 

the trip in the park, making the per day spent less in the park. 
Table 6. Factor loadings and mean ratings of items in attitude scale 

- Item Factor Loading Gatlinburq - Park 

Water slides and rides 

Theme museums (like wax museums) 

Feeding bears in the NP 

Playing miniature golf 

Billboards with local information 

Souvenir shops 

Shops in Gatlinburg 

Local visitor center - Chamber 

Using tour services to see NP 

Shops in Pigeon Forge 

Amusement centers (like go-carts) 

Walking alone in the woods -,35 

Solitude -. 33 

COMMUNITY ORIENTED RA'rTur, 

- Item Factor Loading Gatlinburq - Park 

Visiting local craft shops -64 

Visiting art studios -40 

Convenient fast food -48 

Staying at budget hotels .54 

Going to a country music concert .55 

Shopping at P.F. outlet malls -51 

Eating at Family style restaurants .56 

Shops in Gatlinburg -47 

Local visitor center - Chamber .51 

Using tour services to see NP .43 

Using trolleys to get around town .49 

Campingin commercial campgrounds -33 

LUXURY VACATION lmI?WENCE i'iEAJ4 RATING 

- Item Factor Loadinq Gatlinburg - Park 

Water slides and rides 

Dining in a fine restaurant 

Visiting art studios 

Staying at luxury hotels 

Playing miniature golf 

Bars 

Staying at chalets 

Condominiums 
Table 6. (cont.) 

ACTTVITIES OW RATING 

- Item Factor Loading Gatlinburg - Park 

Hiking 10 miles in the mountains 

Bears in the backcountry 

Having a picnic in the NP 

Walking alone in the woods 

Hiking a short nature trail 

Trout fishing 

Camping in the NP 

Appalachian culture 

Interpretive programs in the NP 

Backpacking overnight in the NP 

Wilderness 

High Mountain peaks 

Swimming in mountain streams 

Dense forests 

Solitude 

Mountain roads 

Visitor Center in NP 

CONSEfPVATION MINDED HeAN RATING 

- Item Factor Loading Gatlinburg - Park 

National Bark rangers .49 

Seeing animals in the wild .48 

Bears in the backcountry .45 

Having a picnic in the NP .50 

Viewing park scenery while driving .46 

Digging plants in the NP -. 38 

Hunting animals in the NP -.67 

Cutting trees for firewood in NP -.60 

Feeding bears in the NP -. 35 

" Difference between means is statistically significant, t-test p. < .05 or 

less. 
Factor halysis 

In this survey five factors were found, three related to the local tourist communities and two related to 

the National Park. The items that made up each factor and their factor loadings are given Table 6. The factors 

on the theme reflected by the types of items within each factor. 

People in the Amusement Oriented factor tended to give consistent ratings to items having to do with 

activities found in the local tourist communities such as water slides, theme museum, wature golf, souvenir 

shops, etc. "Wahg alone in the " and "solitude" received negative loadings, indicating that the people 

who rated the 'tourist' item high did not like the idea of walking alone in the woods. People who rated the 

tourist items low rated the wilderness items high. 

Additional statistical analyses revealed that people with lower educational levels rated the positiveloading items more positively than did those with higher educational levels. Gatlinburg visitors rated items in 

this factor more positively than did Park visitors, and younger respondents rated the items more favorably. 

Items in the Community Oriented factor reflect consistent ratings for activities revolving around the 

tourist communities and local culture, such as craft shops, art studios, country music concerts, shops in 

Gatlinburg, tour services, etc. Items that relate to more budget-minded recreation also loaded on this factor, 

such as budget motels, fast food and outlet malls. Females, less educated people and Gatlinburg visitors rated 

the items more positively than did males, highly educated people, and Park visitors. The inclusion of cultural 

attractions and budget vacations may mean that people view cultural attractions as a low-cost alternative for 

recreation. This may have important implications for the people who operate cultural attractions. 

Ratings of more expensive attractions formed the Luxury Vacation factor. Items that loaded on this 

factor included dining in frne restaurants, luxury hotels, chalets, and condoAtliums. Water slides also appeared 

in this factor but the factor loading was much lower than in the Amusement Oriented factor. Gatlinburg 

visitors, females and younger respondents rated these items more favorably than did Park visitors, males and 

older respondents. 

The Park Activities Oriented factor reflects the ratings given to activities found specifically in the 

National Park. Response patterns were similar for hiking, backpacking, walking alone in the woods, fishing, 

camping, interpretive programs, etc. People who rated these items highly like active, involved activities in a 

natural environment. Park visitors, males, repeat visitors, and younger visitors rated the items in this factor 

higher than did Gatlinburg visitors, females, first-time visitors and older people. 

Items related to concerns about the environment make up the Conservation Minded factor. Item in 

this factor include a few park activities such as picnicking and viewing scenery, but the major theme is 

conservation of the park. Rangers and bears received positive ratings, while activities which are illegal in the 

park loaded negatively on this factor. These were items such as digging up plants, hunting, cutting trees, and 

feeding bears. It is interesting to note that feeding bears had a positive loading in the Amusement Oriented 

factor, but a negative loading in this one. Park visitors rated these items as more important than did Gatlinburg 

visitors, as evident in both more positive ratings for items that loaded positively and more negative ratings for 

items that loaded negatively on the factor. 

Open-ended Questions 

The responses to the eight open-ended questions were clustered into themes, and the frequency of the 

responses to each theme was calculated. These themes or response categories, the number of responses in each 

category and the percentage of responses are illustrated in Table 7. The responses are those given by all 

respondents, whether staying in the Park or in Gatlinburg. Note that the percentages for some questions do not 
equal 10096, as some people gave responses which fell into more than one response category. Also, the 

number of people responding to each question varies between questions. Some people elected to answer only a 

few of the questions, and there were several people who just did not fill out this section of the survey. 

tlfthough the table is self explanatory, a few of the more intemting results will be discussed. It is 

suggested that the reader examine the se categories for all questions, as only a few are presented here. 

The overwhelming response to the question "Plants and animals in the National Park should:" was 

preservation and protection, followed by a category of responses revolving around leaving them alone and not 

bothering them, These types of responses were given by both National Park and Gatlinburg visitors, indicating 

that preservation of resources in the National Park is an important issue to the majority visitors to the region, no 

matter where their primary destination. 

Despite the fact that people want to insure that the Park is protected, there is a large fear component to 

a lot of visitors' perceptions about the wilderness. This fear is shown in the responses to the question "When in 

the wilderness a person should:" The most frequent responses revolved around fear and caution, with responses 

such as "never be alone," "use extreme caution," or "be on guard all the time. " To a large number of visitors 

the wilderness of the National Park is perceived to be something foreign and dangerous, something external to 

themselves which has the potential for harm. However, the category of preservation still was the second most 

frequent response on this item. 

The most frequent response to the question "The highlight of my visit here was:" involved park 

activities, driving to the park, picnicking, hiking, etc. Responses relating to interacting with nature and viewing 

scenery were the second most frequent. Seeing animals was the highlight to about twelve percent of visitors. 

The rest of the responses involved Gatlinburg related activities. 

Responses to the question "The National Park Service should:" showed that most visitors to the area 

think that the Park Service is doing a good job, should continue to be concerned with preservation, and should 

insure that rules and regulations are enforced. Visitors are concerned that preservation is not possible without 

good enforcement of the rules, and many times suggested that more rangers patrol for violations. 

The most common reason that visitors come to the Smoky Mountain region is to escape, relax, "get 

away from it all" and to experience nature in the National Park. This was the most frequent type of response 

given by both Gatlinburg and National Park visitors. However, the type of escape and relaxation discussed by 

Gatlinburg visitors was geared more towards the "package vacation" with lots of activities to do, while the Park 

visitors were content to "do nothing" but experience the Park for their form of escape. 

Responses to "My worst experience here was:" were mixed. The most common response was traffic 

and parking, primarily in Gatlinburg. A lot of visitors could think of no bad experience at all. Visitors 

reporting animal interactions as their worst park experience had usually encountered a skunk or an aggressive 

bear. Most of the time the visitor was afraid of the animal which had encroached upon the visitor's space just a 

little too much, particularly in the case of skunks. 
Table 7. Responses to Open-ended questions 

m m WTIONAL PARK SEOW: 

Response Category N 

protected/preserved 

left alonelnot bothered 

enjoyed/looked at/appreciated 

naturallpart of nature 

freelwild existance 

increased in number 

accessible 

controlled better 

WHEN IN THE WIIJ3-S A PERSOH SHOULD: 

Response Category - N 

fear/ caut ion 

preservation/protection 

experience nature/enjoy wilderness 

respect environment/nature/wildlife 

rule awareness/obey laws 

guest in someone's house 

spiritual 

activity related 

"...leave only footprints" 

THE HIGHLIGHT OF MY VISIT HERE WAS: 

Response Category 

activities in the National Park 

nature related/scenery 

amusements and attractions 

seeing animals 

shopping 

family/social 

atmosphere of local culture 

eating 

Percent 

Percent 

Percent 
Table 7, (cant.) 

HATI SmWCE SHOW: 

Response Category 

keep up good work/be comended 

preserve/protect environment 

install showers/hookups 

increase patrolslenforce rules 

improve visitor services 

no changes necessary 

increase budgetllandlstaff 

more informationlinterpretation 

more signs at trails/roads 

advertizelbe visible 

WElEN I THINK OF WINTER lM GATLINEURG: 

snow 

skiing 

beauty of winterlsnowy mountains 

negative/wouldn't come 

cozy atmosphere/peace/quiet 

romance/positive feelings 

Christmas 

desire to go in winter 

hard to drivelicy roads 

too cold 

less crowds 

Percent 

Percent 

Om mR0- I WOULD BC- TO GATLINEmG WOULD BE: 

Response Category !!. Percent 

improve traffic conditions 

improve parking 

reduce number of tacky shops 

reduce prices 

nothinglits great as is 

improve visitor services 

more re~taurantsl~roceries 

more entertainment 

more bencheslbetter sidewalks 

increase "mountainf1 atmosphere 

bomb/bulldoze/nuke 
Table 7. (cont . ) 

Response Category 

escape/relax 

experience nature/see mountains 

park activities 

vacation 

have funlenjoy 

shops/crafts 

f amily/social 

local attractions 

MY WORST WWma HF3E WAS: 

Response Category 

trafficlparking 

nothinglno bad experiences 

dissatisfaction with services 

animal interactions 

social interactions 

personal discomfort/injury 

weatherIrain 

crowds 

prices in area 

things not going as planned 

Percent 

Percent 

Percentages do not necessarily equal loo%, some questions had more than one 

response category. 
DISCUSSION 

The preceding results represent a suwsful initial assessment of the sumer visitor to the Great 

Smoky Mountain region, specifically the National Park and Gatlinburg. One of the main goals of this research 

was to provide managers in Gatlinburg and the National Park a profile of visitors to this region; this research 

provides infomtion that my assist these g more effective policy decisions. It also lays 

ground for continued cmprative research and for methdoIogical development to facilitate that research. Y 

This study indicates that there are significant differences between visitors who travel here intending 

primarily to visit one locale or the other. While it was demonstrated that the National Park is an important 

factor in the decision to visit Gatlinburg, individuals intending to participate primarily in a "Gatlinburg 

experience" have expectations and perceptions that are quite different from those individuals intending to remain 

primarily within the National Park. One of the most descriptive analyses of these differences was found within 

the open-ended statements. The responses demonstrated that Gatlinburg is perceived as an "adult carnival" -- a 

secure, packaged vacation with something to do and see for everyone. Individuals with this perception typically 

view the National Park with some amount of ambivalence. By these visitors, the Park may be perceived as an 

opportunity for sight-seeing and nothing more; more commonly, the Park was also seen as an opportunity for 

misfortune -- several individuals expressed the need for caution while in the National Park. The National Park 

does not offer the same degree of safety and "packaged fun" as Gatlinburg does to these visitors. 

On the other hand, those intending primarily to visit the National Park possessed dissimilar perceptions. 

Gatlinburg was often perceived as a "tourist trap," frequented only for supplies or when shopping for a specific 

item, often crafts. VVhile visitors to the Park also maintained the attitude that the Park contained opportunities 

for unforeseeable and uncontrollable events, these tended to be viewed less negatively. Indeed, many 

individuals stay within the Park with the expectation that something different and unusual may happen. 

Interactions with wild animals are generally a hoped-for event, with a different connotation than 

displayed by the "Gatlinburg visitor." While factor analysis demonstrated that the "Amusement-oriented" visitor 

viewed feeding the bears as a desired activity, visitors staying within the Park often demonstrated more respect 

and knowledge of appropriate behaviors concerning wildlife. Campers expressed a desire to observe but not 

interfere; "we're the visitors here -- this is the animals' home" was often a statement expressed by campers 

within the Park. Potential misfortunes were perceived as part of the National Park package; for example, a 

mangled food cooler was a souvenir for one family. 

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 

These and other differences, as well as similarities between these two groups of visitors, provide a 

potentially useful description of the types of perceptions and expectations that these individuals possess. Other 

infomtion may provide avenues for policy decisions. For example, Park managers may wish to provide more 

infomtion within Gatlinburg describing interpretative programs offered by the Park, as this was an item 

commeted upon by respondents. Other policy decisions may be aided by a program which includes 

longitudinal research of visitors to this area. Park administrators need to know the dynamics between casual 

and hard-core visitors, what their propoftions are, how this changes over time, what their basic attitudes, 

perceptions, and values are, and so on. 

This howledge is important to natural resource managers because they are faced with two objectives in 

managing their areas. First, they have the directive of conserving the natural resources. Second, they are 

tasked with providing use for people. These are not muhually exclusive, but they do conflict. In reconciling 

this conflict, wagers often structure use for minimum physical impact on resources (Vancleave A. 1988). 

In addition to &mizing physical impact, wagers are now beginning to recognize the need to study 

other impacts, such as social impacts of use levels, Carrying capacity is the operationalization of impact 
&miation-- how many persons a system can absorb during a use period without creating an adverse impact. 

This recognition of important social variables in ntanagement of resources represents a first step in turning from 

a strictly place orientation in management strategies and a turning towards a person and place interaction 

orientation. 

Gatlinburg promoters need to know what their visitors want and expect from the Park, because this has 

innplications for how to manage the iqression and image of the park in their promotions. They can benefit 

from hokg the attitudes, perceptions and needs of park visitors, too, as this information can help them more 

effwtively provide the services and facilities to meet those needs. 

RESEARCH IMPLICAmONS 

This reseafch described only the summer visitor, and out of necessity several items of potential interest 

remain unexplored. Future research, utilizing these methodologies, should not only examine the summer 

visitor in more detail, but should also extend to other seasonal visitors. 

Concerning a longitudinal program of research, several items within the present survey could be 

retained or modified for comparative purposes. This would include demographic information, attitudinal rating 

scales, and open-ended questions. Those items which provided little information, were ambiguous, or would 

yield more meaningful information in another format could easily be modified. Fixed format items could be 

developed based on the findings of the open-ended items, tested against their open-ended roots, and tailored into 

an instrument for long tern use. 

Future of Cooperative Research 

Finally, this research fulfills one of the primary goals of the study: the potential success of cooperative 

research efforts among National Park social scientists and community managers. This research was able to 

provide information useful to managers of both locales -- without this cooperation, the amount of description 

and the ability to compare these groups would not have been possible. Researchers representing the Uplands 

Field Research Laboratory and the University of Tennessee, and members of the Gatlinburg Chamber of 

Commerce have demonstrated that cooperative research efforts can be mutually beneficial. With further 

cooperative efforts an even greater understanding of visitors to both areas can be gained. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Curran, K.A. 1983 Communicating with the backcountry visitor at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 

M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Dept. of Forestry, Carbondale IL, 

Franz, C.P.G., Van Cleave, R.L., Fm, D., and Van Cleave, A.K. 1990. A thematic analysis of the 

expectations and experiences of the Great Smoky Mountains visitor. Poster session Southeastern 

Recreation Research Conference, Asheville, NC. 

Peine, J. and Renfro, J. 1986. Visitor use patterns at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Nirtional Park Service, Research/Resources Management Report SER-90. Southeast 

Regional Office, Atlanta. GA. 

Renfro, J. and Van Cleave, R.L. 1989. An evaluation of the backcountry camping permit systems for 1983 and 

1986 at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Report to the Superintendent, Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park, Gatlinburg, TN. 
VanCleave, A.K. 1988. Application of Psychological principles and research methods in national parks. 

Presented at the Fourteenth hual Science Conference, Great Smoky Momtains National Park. 

Van Cleave, R.L. and Beard, W. 1990. Monitohg trail use in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 

Report the to Supehtendent, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Gatlinburg, TN. 

DESIGNING REC ATXON MONITORTNG SYSTEMS: SOME 

CO NTS ON THE PARTICIP T OBSERVER DESIGN 

Kenneth Chilmm, David Foster, and Alan Eversons 

Abstract. Monitoring is an imp0 t step in recently-developed recreational carrying capacity 

processes. Monitoring provides current information on whether objectives are achieved and 

whether changes in conditions are occurring. Design of recreation monitoring systems for 

large wildland areas is complex because both physical-biological and social infomtion are 

needed; the areas are large and diverse; and very little funding is available. Participant 

observation, negative case analysis is the research design used in the research reported here. 

This approach begins with the identification of recreation monitoring situations where field 

level managers are willing to actively participate in developing monitoring systems. The 

researcher works with the managers as a participant in the management process, testing 

hypotheses and revising them (negative cases) as the research progresses. 

INTRODUCTION 

As recreational carrying capacity planning processes become more widely tested and used, monitoring 

becomes important as the last step in these processes (Chilman et al. 1990; Shelby and Heberlein 1986; Stankey 

et al. 1985). Monitoring provides current information on whether the carrying capacity objectives are being 

achieved and whether changes in conditions are occurring that will require management attention. Design of 

monito~g systems is complex because both physical-biological and social information is needed; the areas are 

large and diverse; and very little funding is available for monitoring data collection. 

Participant observation, negative case analysis is the research design used in the research reported here 

for developing recreation monitoring systems (Kidder and Judd 1986). Participant observers begin with a 

preliminary hypothesis, then look for data that disconfirms the hypothesis. When a single negative case is 

found, the participant observer revises the hypothesis in light of that case and applies it again in another case. 

For design of recreation monitoring systems, various parts of the monitoring systems were tested in a series of 

studies at three recreation areas (Land Between The Lakes, Ozark National Scenic Riverways, and Lake Tahoe 

Basin) to develop a generalized model that integrates the various factors involved. 

The purposes of this paper are to discuss 1) the use of participant observation, negative case analysis 

for developing a six-step process model for recreation monitoring systems on large wildland areas, and 2) 

advantages and disadvantages of using this research design. 

METHODS 

Campbell (1970) indicates that participant observation is more than a single method of data collection 

and may include a variety of techniques for gathering quantitative and qualitative data. Clark (1977) suggests 

that participant observation generally involves the investigator directly taking part in the activity to be studied. 

Kenneth Chilrnan is Associate Professor of Forestry at Southern Illinois University - Carbondale. David 

Foster is Research Biologist, National Park Service, Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri. Alan Everson 

is Associate Professor, School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri - Columbia. Address correspondence 

to Kenneth Chilrnan, Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, 62901. 
The observer is able to observe hisiher own reactions to events as well as reactions of others. Through this 

interaction with participants and continual data prwessing and evalmtion, the investigator can refornulate the 

problem as the study proceeds. 

Sdder and Judd (1986) state that field researchers begin with observations and generate hypotheses that 

fit the data. Then they proceed to revise these hypotheses by the method of negative case analysis, a procedure 

that takes the place of statistical analysis k field work. adder and Judd (1986) suggest a parallel with a series 

of experiments, where the hypotbess undergo revisions. 

How does padicipant obsemations, negative case analysis work in the design of recreation monitoring 

system? First, we becam involved in situations where monitoting info tion was needed by recreation area 

managers. Because recreation research hnding was li~ted (and becau definition, monitoring extends 

the wagers to work out a monitoring system if 

and if they agreed to provide small amounts of 

funding ($3000-5000/yar) and assist with expenses in other ways, such as housing and transpo&tion on-site. 

Specifically, we agreed to participate with them in an interactive capacity as social science advisors to their 

management staff because social monitoring methods were especially nded. 

Kidder and Judd (1986) indicate that the field resea detailed records, or field notes, of 

everything he or she hears or sees. Clark (1977) notes that a ntage of paaicipant observation is 

the possibility of becoming ovemhelmed with large amounts . Notetaking in this project was 

focused by specific interest in monitoring metbods and syst work& in field situations. 

Hypotheses (for monitoring system, models in the fom of a series of steps to follow) were developed that 

helped to focus our research documentation. Continukg dialogue with the wagers was maintained during 

study design and data collection. We prepared study reporls annually (and sometimes more often) and discussed 

these with the parhicipanb (see, for example, and Everson 1985). We also used 

feedback quest in some situations to learn wh agers understood the procedures used and 

considered them usehl (Molla 1984; Ladley 1985). apers prepared for various meetings and 

publications were also discussed with the participatin 

Finally, to aid generalization of our findings, we worked on a series of monitoring studies on three 

different kinds of wildland areas - an off-road vehicle riding area, a national scenic riveway, and a western 

wilderness area - as described below. Kidder and Judd (1986) state that external validity is acquired by 

gathering and analyzing field data so that si~larities to other situations become clear. They also suggest that a 

large sample size can be viewed as a small number of cases (as the three we have researched) studied over a 

long; period of time. If that is true, the following series of monitoring shudies should qualify as a reasonably 

large sample. 

RESULTS 

The monitoring was hitiat4 by field level agers who faced court cases or possible appeals of decisions they had mde or were going to make. The research begm with rn interest in describing visitor 

populations in specific areas, then progressed to obtaining visitors' perceptions of area conditions. As changes 

in conditions over time were noted, a nd for monitoring remeasurements was recopid. Systems of 

measurements for large areas were then desimd to organi~ data collection with limited resources for large 

land areas. 

AN OFF-ROAD VEHICLE HDINC 

Land Between the Lakes (LBL) is a 170,000-acre area of forested hills administered by Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA) in western Kentucky and Tennessee. In 1973, a 2500-acre portion of LBL was 
designated as an off-road vehicle (ORV) riding area. Because that use was controversial, a monitoring plan was 

developed WcEwen 1978). Biologists at LBL developed a system of site impact mwurements. 

hers at Southern Illinois University (SIU) were asked to develop social mwsurements of the 

ORV rid lation. A short interview - mail questionnaire method was utilized. A short interview was 

conducted with ORV riders on-site, then a follow-up mail questionnaire was sent to the riders9 home addresses. 

rate was obtained on the mail questionnaires. Important findings were that the motorcyclists 

were not stereotypical 'black leather jacket' young males: over 6096 of the questionnaire respondents were 

members of family groups (Chilman and Kupcikeviciw 1973). Several riders indicated they preferred off-road 

riding to highway riding because off-road was safer. 

The original mo~toring plan used a traffic counter on the main access road. Counts of visitors using 

that method appeared high - around 50,000 per year, so in 1975 a year-long study was conducted by stationing 

an interviewer along the access road on two weekdays and two weekend days per month (Ghilman and Mize 

1976). The actual number of visitors was found to be approximtely 17,000 annually (visitors staying overnight 

often made trips in and out of the area) and 59 percent of the visitors were found to be non-ORV riders 

(sightseeing, etc.). Various other infomtion (length of visit, amount of ORV riding, infomation on accidents, 

etc.) was also obtained by this method. 

In later studies, the questionnaire was shortened to a one-page set of questions, focusing on visitors" 

perceptions of conditions (Chilman 1976). So a useful counting method and short set of interview questions had 

been developed. These were used when monitoring measurements were repeated in 1984 (Ladley 1985) and are 

being used now for another round of measurements in 1989-90. Types and amounts of ORV use continues to 

change - from initial trailbike use to four-wheel drive vehicles to all-terrain vehicles. 

A NATIONAL RIVERWAYS 

At about the same time (1972) that the LBL monito~g research was initiated, we began what was to 

be the first monitoring measurement of visitor perceptions of crowding. Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

(ONSR) encompasses 134 miles of the Current and Jacks Fork rivers in Missouri. A variety of ecological and 

scenic conditions exist, along with multiple river accesses, more than 300,000 canoeists in 1983, and other river 

users including johnboats, jetboats, and inner tube floaters. 

Ozark Riverways was established in 1964 and administered by the National Park Service (NPS) as the 

nation's first National Scenic Riverways. It was established because of scenic attractiveness and to maintain the 

rivers as free-flowing rivers. Numbers of canoe floaters increased rapidly, from an estimated 40,000 in 1964 to 

140,000 by 1972. At that time, a five-year research program was initiated, focused on recreational carrying 

capacity for ONSR. A variety of physical-biological and social studies were undertaken (Name11 et al. 1978). 

The ONSR research program began with initial focus on the most visible and rapidly changing element 

- the numbers of river floaters. Although ranger counts and estimates indicated increases, no systematic 

counting of total use had been done. Recognizing diverse conditions, ten river zones (usually from major 

launch to take-out accesses) were identified, and time-lapse photography was used to e counts from 1972 

through 1975. During the same period, several studies of impacts of river floating on vegetation, soil, water 

quality, and fish populations were undertaken. Physical-biological impacts appeared to be minimal and 

localized, because most canoe stops were on gravel bars. It appeared that carrying capacity would need to be 

based on social conditions. 

During the period 1972-1979, several visitor surveys were conducted at ONSR. These studies included 

canoeists' visit expectations, perceptions of crowding (1972, 1977, 1979), effects of large groups of floaters, 

and comparisons of ONSR with other float rivers. These studies occurred during a period of increasing social 

research in wildlands, when researchers were developing survey methods for these large and diverse areas and 
searchg for appropriate theories and questions to use in recreation gement situations. An important 

aspect of the ONSR visitor studies, however, was that several studi agement area, and 

findings discussed in light of the total ONSR agement program (Marnell et al. 1978). 

Following that period of research, activities to prepare a General Management Plan for ONSR took 

place from 1978 to 1981. Unfortunately, an adverse wurt decision in 1976 limited the NPS's authority to 

rclall cmoe rental opemtions on. ONSR. Tn 1982 that issue was taken to federal court in St. 

Louis, and a decision favorable to NPS control was obtained in 1984. Results of that decision were that: (1) 

the total number of rental canoes available (which constitute approximately 90% of total ONSR canoe use) was 

reduced an estimated 20% by NPS control over unlicend rental businesses, and (2) a new configuration of use 

was established. The NPS needed to know just what the new configuration of use was, in terms of number of 

canoes and which concessioners were operating where. The NPS also wanted to know canoeists' reactions, by 

zones, to the new configuration. 

Two research teckcians were hired allowing a sampling design of counts at the eight most 

heavily-used river accesses in 1984. Along with counts, short interviews were conducted with randomly 

selected canoeists to determine their reactions to conditions on the river zone they had just floated. The 

one-page interview format was designed to obtain responses about the visitors' experience and present visit, 

choice of recreation setting, perceptions of changes occurring, perceptions of river use densities, and comments 

for the NPS managers. The format was developed from efforts over several years at ONSR and other wildland 

areas to design a short set of questions for management field use (Chilman 1976; Chilman and Kao 1982). 

Findings about the changed ONSR river use configuratims were that (1) a range of use densities 

existed on various zones, and (2) visitors reacted favorably to the reduced use limits, i.e., that the new use 

configuration was generally acceptable. A river use plan (carrying capacity plan) was developed in 1985, based 

on maintaining three distinctly different use densities on various river zones and providing information to 

visitors about the range of choices available. 

MonitoMg was specified in the river use plan to deteee (1) by counts whether the maximum canoe 

use by zones was within established limits, and (2) by interviews how visitors perceived conditions by zones and 

how improvements in visitor experience quality could be achieved. Because research funding was limited, it 

was decided to monitor conditions on each on the three river districts (Upper Current, Lower Current, Jacks 

Fork) every third year. We have now completed our fourth summer of those monitoring measurements, i.e., 

our second round of monitoring remeasurement on the Upper Current District. Refinements in the monitoring 

system occurred between the first and second measurements as we learned more about the system. Also during 

the second round of monitoring, we began integrating interviews of river users at sites along the river away 

from main accesses and remmurement of site impacts. 

A HEAVILY-USED WLDERNESS 

Later, in 1982, we had an opportunity to apply some of the monitoMg concepts to Desolation 

Wilderness, a 64,000-acre area on the southwwtern edge of the Lake Tahoe Basin in California. The area is 

predominantly granite rock, glaciated into expanses of open, bare rock, with scattered stands of trees. It is a 

very heavily-used area because of its proxilnity to Lake Tahoe and its easy accessibility. Wilderness use 

conditions were well- documented by an earlier study (Shechter and Lucas 1978). 

A management plan for Desolation Wilderness was prepared by the U.S. Forest Service in 1978. In 

1982, a Regional Office inspection report called for implementation of monitoring, as called for in the plan. 

Procedures for monitoring were needed and the managers called on researchers at Southern Illinois University to 

help. 
No funding was available for new monitoring Ilection, so it was initially proposed to 

edures into the work activities of the ers. Studies in 1983 and 1984 (of short 

no research funding wm available) exa ork activities of the rangers and 

t short interviews could be conducted d activities in a smll percentage of work 

time (1-2 hours per week). It was hoe to obtain 400 interviews per su 

In 1985, two rarageas and thee volmws conduca 104 ktemiews (Chi1 1986)- Mth~aough visitors 

genemlly indicated satisfaction with existing conditions, the amount of htenriews ueted was disappointing. 

Also a need was indicated for counts of visitors in ific areas of Desolation Wilderness; accordingly, 

monitoring prmedures were redesigned. 

The portion of Desolation Wilderness within Lake Tahoe Basin was divided into four zones. 

Reconnaismce of the zones was done in 1986 and 1987 to determine major travel routes and appropriate 

locations for counts and interviews. Trailheads were not used because of congestion of other recreation traffic; 

locations at the first trail junctions within the wilderness were found to provide better information. In 1988 and 

1989, counts and interviews were done at these locations along the four major access trails. 

Count information included numbers of visitors by group, whether they were backpackers or dayhikers 

(increases in dayhikers appear to be occurring), origin-destination, time spent in Desolation, and residence of 

visitors. For example, 696 visitors were recorded entering and leaving Desolation on the Eagle Lake trail near 

Emerald Bay during 11 hours on Saturday, August 12, 1989. But seventy-eight percent only dayhiked to Eagle 

Lake one mile within the wilderness. Destinations provided by the others indicated relative distribution of use 

within the wilderness. 

The questions asked of visitors exiting the wilderness provided additional information about their 

perceptions of conditions, such as crowding. Because responses were obtained by zones, comments on specific 

problems (signing, camp conditions, etc.) enabled immediate corrections to be made. In addition, eighty-three 

percent of respondents indicated solitude was important to them on that particular trip; eighty-four percent of 

those respondents indicated they had obtained the type of solitude experience they were seeking. 

A monitoring system has been designed that enables specific information to be obtained for specific 

portions of Desolation Wilderness at predetermined times and locations by wilderness rangers and volunteers. 

Data collection and data analysis can be coordinated by the wilderness manager. Monitoring data thus collected 

can be used for immediate actions to improve visit experiences, and for long term planning. Also, in 1990, we 

are beginning to integrate the social monitoring with site impact monitoring and priorities to form a management 

action plan. 

DISCUSSION 

As a result of the above series of studies, a monitoring system which provides considerable useful 

information at low costs was developed. The research design used allowed modification of the hypothesis and 

the monitoring system as problem were encountered. 

Problems included low magement budgets, design of measurement systems for large and diverse 

areas, lack of specific magement objectives, and lack of long-term codtment to data collection and 

analysis. To deal with the constraint of low budgets, available field personnel such as rangers and volunteers 

were utilized for data collection. Also, following reconnaissance of management areas, priority areas for data 

collection were identified rather than trying to measure all recreation use sites within large areas. 

The problem of lack of specific magement objectives will be more manageable as new systems of 

carrying capacity planning, such as Limits of Acceptable Change (S ey et al. 1985), are utilized. For other 

areas, including Desolation and ONSR, monitoring information can help in replanning efforts toward more 
specific objectives. Problem of lack of 1 tment should be resolved as we develop more 

evidence of the utility of the monitoaing 

Although we are still moving ahead with research and refining monitoring procedures, the outline of 

our basic system is ias follows: 

1. Divide large wilderness or wildland area into agement zones or subunits. 

2. Reconnaissarrce of individual subunits for patterns of recreation use and site impact areas. 

3. Identify priority areas for agement attention within sub~t, design system of measurements to 

monitor amounts and types of use and visitors' perceptions of conditions. 

4. Decide on critical use season, usually summer months, for sampling. 

5. Monitoring measurements recorded by management personnel, supplemented by research assistants, 

6. Analysis of measurements, reporting, management actions, follow-up monitoring. 

Again, the social monitoring measurements developed are of two kinds: (1) count recording forms, 

which in addition to numerical counts of visitors include observational information about types of visitors 

(dayhikers, backpackers, canoeists, boaters, gender and estimated ages, etc.) as well as a few brief questions 

about length of stay, origin-destination, and residence; and (2) short interviews about visitors' perceptions of 

conditions. 

The short set of questions we use is designed for field use to minimize interference with recreation 

visits and to minimize field time needed to administer. The questions are related to concepts of improving 

"quality" of recreation opportunities and include questions about what visitors think is important about the 

setting for their particular experiences and how these aspects may be changing over time. We also ask visitors 

for comments they would like to pass along to managers, and these sometimes include specific ideas for 

improvement of the recreation opportunities. The basic set of questions is short enough that one or two 

questions dealing with special conditions or current situations may be added (for example, the solitude questions 

added for the 1988 Desolation Wilderness study) while the basic questions are replicated to provide monitoring 

information on changes occurring. 

During 1988-89, we began work on integrating these social measurements with site impact measures. 

Recreation use sites, mostly campsites, have been inventoried along the 140 miles of Ozark Riverways 

(Mendiola 1986). In 1988, researchers visited all the sites with district management personnel and established 

priorities for management attention of sites for each of the three districts. Then as social monitoring proceeded 

on the Upper Cumnt District in 1989, monitoring of campsite use along the river was initiated, with special 

attention given to priority sites. Recornendations will be made for rehabilitation or other management of the 

priority campsites, based on both social and site impact monitoring information. 

For implementation of monitoring systems on recreation areas, training will be necessary for managers 

who will institute and coordinate the monitoring measurements. Basic aspects of questionnaire development, 

sampling design, and data handling and reporting may need to be reviewed, depending on the previous training 

of managem involved. 
ESEmCH IMPLICATIONS 

Research on new kinds of recreation agement system, such as rereation monitoring, need not proceed only on an ad hoc basis. Participant obs ion, negative case analysis is a research design that can speed 

up development of needed agement system. Yet there appears to be little interest in using this research 

design. There are probably several reasons why this is so, 

First of all, participant observation is a very labor intensive research design. It requires that the 

principal researcher spend consi time in the field and in discussions with ment personnel. It 

is much simpler to design surv projects where graduate studen& can data collection - and 

often the data analysis. Given ssures in universities for more research (which includes more proposal 

writing) - and often more teaching, it is dikely that y researchers will choose labor intensive research 

approaches. 

Another drawback is that funding is difficult to obtain for long-tern sbdies. Even when managers 

recognize the needs for long-term studies, hnding available for field level research is very limited and 

competition for these funds is strong. Also government requirements for competitive bidding of research 

contracts make it difficult to maintain continuing relationships with one university. At ONSR, the low level of 

funding of studies in the $3000-5000 range, and some ingenuity in meeting regulations, have enabled the studies 

to continue. 

Another difficulty with using this design is finding magers who want to actively participate (think 

about/discuss) in the research simtion. Managers often say they have a problem they would like to have researched but either do not want to get involved or do not know how. In our research at Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways (ONSR) since 1973, the managers anticipated having to defend their findings in court; they also had 

a Ph.D. biologist with research training and experience on staff to help initiate and organize the research. An 

associated difficulty in mintahg this type of long-term research is that managers who are inierested in 

participating get transferred to other locations, and their replacements may not have similar interests. 

Other difficulties, including the qualitative nature of the research and getting journal articles published, 

probably preclude the participant observer design from wide use. However, the benefit of the occasional series 

of studies over several years is recognized; National Park Service researchers noted the well-known twenty 

years of studies by firdue University researchers of moose-wolves relationships at Isle Royale as the classic 

example. Perhaps as recreation research matures, the value of using a range of research designs including 

participant observation will become more widely recognized. 

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 

If the participant observer design has so many difficulties, why bother with it? Mat are the 

advantages for management? 

Hainmitt and Cole (1987) state that "Reliable data are needed to manage rmreation just as reliable 

inventory data are needed to manage other natural resources, such as timber. Unfortunately, they are seldom 

available. In recreation, management has too frequently had to rely on guesswork or the personal experience 

and intuition of managers. le a manager's professional opinion is important, it is no substitute for reliable 

and systematically collected inventory and monitoring data. This is particularly true when turnover in personnel 

is frequent, as it is in many govemental land-maging agencies." 

Simply stated, recreation monitoring system can provide a systematic, infomtion-based foundation 

for management. For recreation magement this m-s obtaining current infomtion for resolving conflicts, 

making decisions about site development and management, and for the ager's frequent need for responding 
to questions about what is going on at specific locations. This information can also be useful in decisions 

involving multiple resources, where recreation is now at a disadvantage. 

However, monitoring systems do constitute a new job task for ers, if they are to become 

involved in data collection and utilization. As with any change in rout is resistance, especially in these 

been getting cut back for several years. Participant observation enables 

gers to identify barriers to implemmhtion arad ways to deal with these 

ong and time-eonsuming process, but a necessary one to bring recreation 

agement up to par with other fields of management. 

LITERATUB CITED 

Campbell, F.L. 1970. Participant observation in outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 

2(4):226-236. 

Chilman, K.C. 1976. Reading the visitor mind. Managing Recreation Resources for Century I11 In 

Proceedings of the John Wright Forestry Conference. Department of Forestry, Purdue University, 

West Lafayette, IN. pp. 50-59. 

Chilman, K.C. 1986. Designing a low-cost monitoring system for Desolation Wilderness, California. In 

Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research. R. C. Lucas, Compiler. 

htemounhin Research Station. Gen. Tech, Report INT-212. Ogden, UT. pp. 474-477. 

Chilman, K.C. and K. Kupcikevicius. 1973. Profile: the trail biker. Paper presented at Trail Bikes and 

Land Use Planning Training Institute, Lake Barkley , Kentucky. Department of Forestry, Southern 

Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. 

Chilman, K.C. and D. Mize. 1976. A systematic sampling of visitors to Turkey Bay off-road vehicle riding 

area. Research report submitted to Tennessee Valley Authority, Golden Pond, KY. 

Chilman, K. C. and J. Kao. 1982. Quality of outdoor recreation: a short set of questions used for field level 

resource management. Abstracts from the 1982 Symposium on Leisure Research, National Recreation 

and Parks Assoc., Arlington, VA. p. 20. 

Chilman, K.C. and A. Everson. 1985. A system to identify and monitor recreation use patterns at Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. Research report submitted to National Park Service, Midwest Region, 

Omaha, NE. 

Chilman, K. C., D. Foster, and A. Everson. 1990a. Monitoring social conditions on wildlands: designing 

low-cost systems. In Proceedings of the National Wilderness Management Conference, edited by D. 

Lime. St. Paul, MN. University of Minnesota. 

Chilman, K.C., D. Foster, and A. Everson. 1990b. Updating the recreation carrying capacity process: recent 

refinements, In Proceedings of the National Wilderness Management Conference, edited by D. Lime. 

St. Paul, MN. University of Nimmesota. 

Chilman, K.C., D. Foster, A. Everson, and D. Lane. 1990c. Monitoring systems for measuring trends in 

wildland social conditions. Paper presented at Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium 111, March 

29-3 1, Indianapolis, IN. 
Clark, R. 1977. Alternative strategies for studying river recreationists. In Proceedings: River 

Recreation Mamgment and limearch Symposium, edited by D. Lime. North Central Forest 

Exprimat Station, St. Paul, MN. 

tt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1987. Wand recreation: ecolo~ and management. New York: John 

Wiley and Sons. 

Kidder, L.H. and C.M. Judd. 1986. Research methadr in social relations (5th ed.). New York: Holt, 

Rinehart and Winston. 

Ladley, J.C. 1985. Refining the recreation resource inventory model: an application at a designated off-road 

vehicle area. M.S. Thesis, Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. 

Marnell, L.F., D. Foster, and K. Chilman. 1978. River recreation research conducted at Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways 1970-77: a summary of research projects andflndings. Van Buren, Missouri: 

National Park Service. 

McEwen, D.N. 1978. Turkey Bay oflroad vehicle area at Land Between the Lakes: an example of new 

opportunities for managers and riders. Research report, Dept. of Recreation, Southern Illinois 

University, Carbondale, IL. 

Mendiola, V.M. 1986. Visitor impacts and use patterns at primitive river campsites: an evaluation of the 

parbide system. Van Buren, M0: National Park Service. 

Molla, P.A. 1984. Application of recreation hventoay tecbques to a wildlife refurge in wuthern Illinois. 

M.S. Thesis, Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. 

Shechter, M. and R. C. Lucas. 1978. Simulation of recreational use for park and recreation management. 

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 

Shelby, B. and T. Heberlein. 1986. Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon 

State University Press. 

Stankey, G.H., D.N. Cole, R.C. Lum, M.E. Petersen, and S.S. Frissell. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable 

Change (LAC) system for witderness planning. Gen. Tech. Report INT-176. Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 

THE ROLE OF INVOLVEMENT IN IDENTIFYING 

USERS' PREFERENCES FOR SOCIAL 

STANDARDS IN COHZrrTA WILDERNESS1 

J. Mark Young, Daniel R. Williams, and Joseph W. Roggenbuck2 

Department of Forestry 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University 

Abstract. This study examined the relationship between Cohutta Wilderness 

users' level of involvement with the area, and their perceptions of acceptable 

social wilderness conditions. It was hypothesized that users showing higher 

levels of involvement with the wilderness resource would be more restrictive 

with regard to the number of alternative positions they were willing accept in 

relation to their most preferred wilderness conditions. Concepts taken from 

social judgment theory, in conjunction with past research conducted with the 

concept of involvement, were used to test these assumptions. Results showed 

that although Cohutta users are highly involved with the area, this finding did 

not strongly correlate with the number of alternative positions they were 

willing to accept. Possible explanations for this finding are discussed. 

INTRODUCTION 

rrammg metnous au~h as the increasingly popular Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) approach to 

wilderness planning place great emphasis on establishing measurable indicators that are considered important by 

managers and users, and then developing standards that are reflective of acceptable conditions for the indicators. 

Stankey et al. (1985) recognized both "social" and "resource* conditions as the major areas of emphasis for 

planners to focus upon when developing appropriate indicators and standards. This paper focuses upon social 

conditions and the relationship between involvement and wilderness users' perceptions of acceptable standards 

for social conditions in a wilderness area. 

An important step in identifying standards for social conditions is understanding the preferences users 

have for the conditions. Many of the past research efforts have taken a nomtive approach to identifying users' 

preferences for acceptable conditions (Shelby and Heberlein 1986). Typically, users are asked to indicate the 

highest level of some impact that they can tolerate before their experience reaches unacceptable conditions. 

Strong agreement among users, or subgroups of users, may indicate the existence of a social norm that can be 

used as a standard to guide planning and managing efforts. 

However, the social norm concept may hold only limited potential for understanding users' preferences 

for social conditions, and in some cases a social norm may not be present at all (Roggenbuck et al. 1989). The 

This research was supported in part by funds provided by the U. S. D. A., Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. 

Mark Young is an Outdoor Recreation Planner, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Station, Athens, GA 30602. Daniel Williams is Assistant Professor and Joseph Roggenbuck is 

Associate Professor, Department of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 

VA 24061. 
concept of social judgment theory wem to have the potential to provide planners and mnagers with additional 

infomtion on users7eelings toward social conditions. 

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY 

The concept of social judgment theory recognizes that in addition to a most preferred condition, users 

are likely to have a range of conditions which they find acceptable - the latitude of acceptarice. Furthemore, at 

some point along a continuum users may recognize a level of conditions which are unacceptable - the latitude of 

rejection. Finally, there may be a level of conditions which are neither acceptable nor unacceptable about which 

users are unsure of their felings - the non-codttal range (Petty and Cacioppo 1981; Sherif and Hovland 

1961; Sherif et al. 1965). An advantage of using this approach for identifying social standards is that it 

provides a basis for understanding the reaction users may have toward a range of possible standards for social 

conditions. 

Inherent in the social judgment approach is the assumption that people order stimuli along a 

psychological dimension in a meaningful manner, relative to an internal reference scale. This reference scale is 

developed, as are norms, through social interaction, and is also influenced by significant people in one's life, as 

well as one's own feelings. This reference scale affects the stand, or "anchor point," one will take on any given 

issue. The anchor point serves as a reference point from which alternative positions are evaluated, and can be 

thought of as the ideal level of acceptability for a given situation. A person's judgments of alternative positions 

on the issue are subject to contrast and assimilation effects relative to the anchor point (Petty and Cacioppo 

1981). 

A contrast effect occurs when one shifts a judgment away from the anchor point. An assimilation 

effect refers to a judgment shift toward an anchor point. Thus, relative to one's most preferred condition (or 

anchor point), some alternative positions on an issue may be seen as being more similar, and hence more 

acceptable, to the anchor point than they actually are, while others may be interpreted as being more unlike, or 

unacceptable, from one's anchor point than they actually are. The latitudes of acceptance, non-committal, and 

rejection establish the boundaries, or extremes, for determining whether or not an assimilation or contrast effect 

is likely to occur. 

According to Sherif et al. (1965), if an issue occupies an important part of one's scheme of things, that 

person may be more "ego-involved" than others for whom the issue is considered less important. As a result, 

for a person more highly involved in an issue, that person's attitude should serve as a stronger anchor point, 

rendering it less susceptable to contrast or assimilation effects and causing the user to discriminate more sharply 

between acceptable and unacceptable conditions when evaluating alternative positions on an issue. The 

important influence involvement is believed to have upon the latitude of acceptance indicates that an 

understanding and appreciation of involvement is important to any attempt to use the social judgment concept to 

identify and better understand users' standards for social conditions. 

INVOLVEMENT 

Mchtyre (1989) has described "enduring involvement" as a uni-dimensional concept that is considered 

by many as being synonymous with "codtment. " Selin and Howard (1988) use the term "ego involvement, " 

and describe the concept as "the state of identification existing between an individual and a recreational activity, 

at one point in time, characterized by some level of enjoyment and self expression being achieved through the 

activity. " 

Recreation researchers have recogrtized the importance involvement may play in better understanding 

recreationists' preferences and evaluations of social and managerial conditions by including measures of 

involvement in studies relating to specialimtion well- et al. 1982), and in the field of recreation choice 
behavior William 1985; Mchtyre 1989). The role of involvement is also co nly included in studies of 

consumer behavior (f.Touston and Rothschild 1978; ZaicUowsky 1985). However, some researchers have noted 

that the use of the involvement construct in research has suffered from a lack of conceptual understanding and 

theoretical development (Buchman 1985; Selin and Howard 1988; Mchtyre 1989). 

Selin and Howard (1988) have identified five dimensions that they consider impo 

understanding of the concept of involvement. These five dimensions are: 1) centrality, 2) impomnee, 3) 

plmure, 4) hterest, and 5) sel f-exprmsism. Mchtyre's (1989) trmtment of "enduhg involvement " explicitly 

recognized all of these dimensions except "interest." He found that factor analysis of helve questions thought 

to lie in the domain of these dimensions resulted in three major factors which he term&: 1) attraction, 2) 

selfexpression, and 3) centrality. Application of these three dimensions were found to be slightly predictive of 

choice of camping sites at three alternative locations in Cooloola National Park in Quwnsland, Australia 

(Mchtyre 1989). 

In regard to social judgment theory, Sherif et al. (1965) have noted that those more highly involved 

with an issue typically have a larger latitude of rejection than those less involved. However, Markley (1971) 

has pointed out that the distance between the most preferred condition and the beginning of the latitude of 

rejection is a more accurate reflection of involvement as it is less susceptable to bias in cases where the latitude 

of acceptance tends to lie dong the extremes of the continuum of alternative positions on an issue. The width 

of the latitude of acceptance was not considered reflective of involvement as experiments showed it tended to 

remain consistent among individuals with varying degrees of involvement. Yet, it should be noted that the 

issues studied were bipolar, where people often took extreme positions in favor of one end over the other, 

whereas measures of social standards typically deal with polarities on a single issue, where preferences for more 

or less of some feature of the enviroment are usually measured. 

The research reported in this paper attempts to assess the relationship between involvement and 

measures of standards for acceptable social conditions based upon social judgment theory. The results of studies 

reported above indicate that it can be hypothesized that wilderness users showing higher levels of involvement 

will also be more restrictive toward the number of alternative positions they will accept in relation to their most 

preferred conditions. Consequently, it is felt that this should result in more highly involved wilderness users 

having shorter distances from their most preferred conditions to the point were conditions become unacceptable 

to them. 

METHODS 

Study Area 

The area chosen for this study was the Cohutta Wilderness, located on the Chattahoochee and Cherokee 

National Forests in northcentral Geogia and extreme southeastern Tennessee. The area consists of 37,042 acres 

of rugged Southern Appafacihan mountain forest. The Cohutta Ranger District estimtes a use level for the area 

of about 70,000 recreation visitor days per year. Much of this use appears to be from the rapidly growing 

Atlanta region. 

Sampling 

Over a time period of approximtely 7 months, from May through November 1989, a total of 265 

groups containing a total of 797 visitors were contacted at area trailheads. hfomtion concerning arrival and 

departure times, number of previous visits, alternative sites considered, group type, and loeation of planned 

travel routes and camping sites were collected on an onsite contact form. Those visitors age 16 and over were 

asked if they would complete a mailed questiomaire which would be sent to them about 2 weeks after the initial 
contact was made. Of the 677 visitors age 16 or over, only 4 refused to participte, resulting in a sample size of 

673. 

However, due to time delays involved in completion of data coding and transfer, the data reported here 

on a sub-sample of the users surveyed. The research reported here is based on data available from 

222 of the hdividwls retudg the mailback questionnaires during the period from May through early 

Septeniber. This time period covered about 63 percent of the total number of addresses collected over the entire 

sampling period. This resulted in a respoIlse rate of about 52 percent. Due to the lilelilzood that not all of the 

questionnaires distributed to those visiting the area over the Labor Day weekend were received at the time the 

data reported here were analyzed, it is probable that the actual response rate will eventually be greater than 52 

percent. 

Measures of Involvement 

In order to measure involvement, five items considered relevant to the involvement components 

described by Selin and Howard (1988), and used in past research efforts (Wellman et al. 1982; McIntyre 1989; 

Williams and Roggenbuck 1989), were included in the mailback questionnaire (Table 1). These items included: 

"I get greater satisfaction out of visiting wilderness than other recreation places"; "I find that a lot of my life is 

organized around wilderness use"; "One of the major reasons I now live where I do is that it has opportunities 

for visiting wilderness"; "I feel like wilderness is a part of me"; and "I seldom take time to visit wilderness 

areas. " 

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for involvement measures. 

Involvement Measure n mean* s.d. 

I get greater satisfaction 

out of visiting wilderness 22 1 4.38 0.79 

than other recreation places 

I find that a lot of my life 

is organized around wilderness use 22 1 3.39 1.02 

One of the mjor reasons I 

now live where I do is that 

it has opportunities for 

visiting wilderness 

I feel like wilderness is a 

part of me 

I seldom take time to visit 221 4.11 0.95 

wilderness areas 

Involvement ** 221 3.84 0.71 

on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 

** Aggregation of the previous five measures 
The involvement items were measured on a 5-point Lilcert scale mging from "strongly agree" to 

"strongly disagree." Because there seemed to be no convincing basis for assi g various weights to the five 

item, all were considered of equal importance and aggregated into a scale ranging from 5 to 25. This scale 

was then divided by the number of involvement items to produce a find index ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being 

least involved and 5 being most involved. 

Social Conditions 

The survey also included 10 items relating to social conditions encountered in the wilderness (Table 2). 

The questions were formatted in a designed to measure the users': 1) most preferred conditions; 2) 

other conditions that were acceptable; 3) those conditions considered unacceptable; and 4) those conditions for 

which the respondents were non-committed. This was accomplished by using equal interval scales ranging from 

zero to fifty, zero to twenty-five, or zero to one-hundred percent, depending on the type of attribute and 

determined through pilot testing for the range of conditions typically considered by the users. 

The respondents were asked to place an "Xu on the scales indicating their most preferred conditions. A 

line drawn below the scale represented other conditions which the respondent found "acceptable. " Finally, the 

respondents placed a line above the scale over those conditions which they found "unacceptable. " Conditions 

which were not included in any of these three categories were considered to be non-committal. Figure 1 shows 

an example of the format used, and was also included in the questonriaire. 

Figure 1. Example of equal interval scale measure for social condition standards. 

The number of hiker groups that camp within sight or sound of my campsite. 

Unacceptable 

Acceptable 

Because it was felt that the large number of resulting scale items would possibly discourage the 

respondents from completing the entire questionnaire, the social condition items were separated into two groups. 

Thus, users were mailed one of two types of questionnaires with half the group receiving "Fom A, " and the 

other half receiving "Fom B. " 

Data Analysis 

In order to test the hypothesis that users more highly involved with wilderness would report smaller 

latitudes of acceptance than those less involved with wilderness, scores on the involvement index were 

correlated with the ranges of widths between the most preferred condition, and the point where conditions 

become unacceptable for each of the ten social conditions measured. Those respondents failing to answer four 

or more of the social condition items were discarded from the sample because it was felt that these people may 

have misunderstood the directions. In addition, those failing to answer one or more of the five involvement 

measures were discarded. 
Table 2. M~nslstandad deviations for social conditiom (n in parenthesis). 

Preferred Lower Limit Pre .lUnaccep . Social Condition Level Unacceptable Range 

The number of people 

hiking on trail in 

a 

The number of large 

groups hiking on trail 

in a day 

The number of hiker*** 

groups camped in sight 

or sound of campsite 

The number of hiker 

groups walking past 

campsite 

The number of horse 

groups seen on trail 

in a day 

The number of horse 

groups camped in sight 

or sound of campsite 

The percent of time 

other people are in 

sight while on trail 

The number of groups 

of hikers seen on 

trait in a day 

The number of hiker*** 

groups camped in sight 

or sound of campsite 

The number of horse 

groups that travel 

past my campsite 

*** Item used in both Form A and Form B 
RESULTS 

The aggregate measure of involvement resulted in a mean rating of 3.84, with a standard deviation of 

0.7 1 (Table 1). The re with the highest rating was "I get greater satisfaction out of visiting wilderness 

than other recreation places," which had a mean of 4.38. The question "One of the major reasons I now live 

where I do is that it has opportunities for visiting wilderness" resulted in both the lowest rating among the group 

of involvement mwrw (3.20), and the highest sbdard deviation (1.12). 

The social conditions conceeg "The number of people I see hiking along the trails in a dayn and 

"The percent of time other people are in sight while on the trail" showed the greatest distance from the 

preferred condition to the beginnitlg of the unacceptable range (Table 2). The ranges were 12.68 people and 

17.52 percent respectively. These were also the only two measures showing a significantly negative correlation 

with the level of involvement index (Table 3). In the former case, the correlation was -0.254 while the latter 

case had a correlation of -0.219. Both were significant at p < .05. None of the other items showed significant 

correlations, positive or negative, with the involvement measure. 

DISCUSSION 

The results reported here seem to be largely inconclusive. This can be concluded from the lack of 

many significant items in either the hypothesized direction, opposite direction, or neutral position. Of the items 

that did show significance, "the number of people I see hiking along the trail in a day," and "the percent of time 

other people are in sight while on the trailn were both significant in the hypothesized direction. That is, the 

more involved users tended to have a smaller distance between their most preferred level, and the point were 

conditions become unacceptable than those less involved with wilderness. These items also had the highest 

preferred and beginning of unacceptable range values. 

Correlations were also analyzed for the range of acceptability, as well as the non-committal range. The 

results in both cases were similar to those found for the preferredllower limit unacceptable distance, The only 

item that consistently appeared significant was "the percent of time other people are in sight while on the trail. " 

Correlation analyses for the individual involvement items did not show any of the five items as being more 

significant than the others. 

The unexpected results of this study may have been influenced by the relatively small amount of 

variation found among the involvement measure. It is possible that this resulted from a somewhat homogeneous 

sample of users as far as involvement is concerned. Our sample was drawn from primarily summer visitors, 

most of whom appeared highly involved with the concept of wilderness. Inclusion of autumn visitors, including 

those participating in hunting activities, may well introduce more diversity to the overall sample. For example, 

some of the hunters may be found to be more "functionally" involved than involved with the concept of 

wilderness. This may increase the variation in our involvement measure and result in an increase in the number 

of significant correlations between wilderness involvement and social condition preferences. Of course, 

functional involvement is likely to be present in various degrees with many of the summer users as well (i.e. 

involvement with fishing, backpacking, etc., rather than with wilderness per se). However, the small sample 

sizes that resulted from dividing our overall sample by activities prevented us from exploring this possibility. 

Another potential problem with our study concerns the reliability of our involvement measure. An 

attempt was made to include items representative of the various dimensions of the involvement concept 

identified by past researchers (Wellman et al. 1982; Selin and Howard 1988; McIntyre 1989). However, for 

the most part, our overall index of involvement was b on a single item for each of these dimensions. This 

was due in part to our greater focus on the application of social judgment theory as a means of obtaining 

realistic measures of users' opinions regarding social standards than with the role involvement plays in social 

judgment theory, but also, in part, due to the lack of guidance on appropriate measures for the involvement 
Table 3. Correlations between involvement and social conditions based on the distance 

between the most preferred condition, and the lower limit of the unacceptable range 

(number of correlations per item shown in pamnthesis). 

Social Condition hvolvment 

The number of people I see hiking 

along the trails in a day 

The number of large groups (more 

than 6 people) that I see along 

the trails in a day 

The number of hiker groups that *** 

camp within sight or sound of 

my campsite 

The number of hiker groups that 

walk past my campsite 

The number of horse groups I see 

along the trails in a day 

The number of horse groups that 

camp within sight or sound of my 

campsite 

The percent of time other people 

are in sight while I am on the 

trail 

The number of groups of hikers I 

see along the trails in a day 

The number of hiker groups that *** 

camp within sight or sound of 

my campsite 

The number of horse groups that 

travel past my campsite while I 

am there 

* = p <I= .05 

** = p <I= .O1 

*** = item included in both form A & B 
dimensions. More rch is needed to develop items that are spt4cific to, and reliably measure each of the 

involvement dimensions. 

Attempts to mmre involvement may also need to be more specifically directed toward the particular 

social conditions of interest. Our measure of involvement was focused upon the general concept of wilderness. 

Perhaps we should have asked users questions more directly hdicative of their involvement with each of the 

social conditions we measured. Users were asked about the extent to which they "care about" the specific social 

conditions that were evaluated. When these items were correlated with the coresponding social condition scales, 

the result was both greater numbers of significant items, and relatively higher negative correlations (Table 4). 

However, the extent to which users "care about" these social conditions is not likely a thorough indicator of all 

the dimensions of involvement as identified by past researchers (Selin and Howard 1988; McIntyre 1989). 

Furthermore, this measure may be so issue specific as to be circular in nature, thus potentially resulting in the 

higher correlations. 

Management Implications 

Based on the concept of social judgment theory, level of involvement should play a key role in 

determining the relative strength that recreationists hold for their attitudes toward preferred social conditions, 

and the degree to which they are willing to accept other alternative positions. To the extent that wilderness 

users are homogeneous in terms of involvement with wilderness, this concept may not be as important for 

wilderness managers as it is for other types of more diverse recreation. However, involvement on an activity 

level may show more diversity, and hence, place greater importance on the role of involvement in identifying 

social standards. 

If this potential finding turns out to be true, it will be important that wilderness planners and managers 

not only determine the acceptable extremes of social conditions for the population of wilderness users as a 

whole when developing standards for social indicators, In such a situation, establishment of social standards 

based upon the averaged measures of wilderness users' opinions of acceptable conditions may not satisfy those 

users that have more restrictive latitudes of acceptance due to their higher degree of involvement. Conversely, 

social standards based upon the acceptable extremes of the more highly involved wilderness users would likely 

also be satisfactory to those users that show less involvement. This should be true as long as the preferred 

conditions of the less involved wilderness users lie within the acceptable extremes of those more highly 

involved. 
Table 4. Comlations between degree to which respondents suted they "care about' specific 

social conditions, and their evaluations of preferred conditions and distance between 

preferred levels and the lower limit of the u~ccepuble range (n in parenthesis). 

Prefemdfhwer Limit 

Social Condition Preferred Level Unacceptable Range 

The number of people -0.311 ** 

seen hiking on trail (90) 

in a day 

The number of large -0.272 ** 

groups seen hiking on (88) 

trail in a day 

The number of hiker *** 

groups camped within -0.322 ** 

sight or sound of (85) 

campsite 

The number of hiker -0.281 ** 

groups walking past (87) 

campsite 

The number of horse -0.448 ** 

groups seen on the 07) 

trail in a day 

The number of horse 

groups camped within -0.365 ** 

sight or sound of (80) 

campsite 

The percent of time -0.321 ** 

other people are in (89) 

sight while on trail 

The number of groups -0.193 

of hikers seen on the (80) 

trail in a day 

The number of hiker *** 

groups camped within -0.205 

sight or sound of (82) 

campsite 

The number of horse -0.121 

groups that travel (76) 

past my campsite 

* = p <I= .05 

** = p <I= .01 

*** = item included in both form A & B 
Buchanan, T. 1985. Commitment and Leisure Behavior: A neoretical Perspective. Leisure Sciences 

7(4):401420. 

Houston, M. J., and M. L. Rothschild 1978. Conceptual and Methdologieal Perspectives in Involvement. In 

Raearch fiontiers in Marketing: Diabgues and Directions, 184-187. Ed. S. Jain. Chicago: American 

Marketing Association. 

Markley, 0. W. 1971. Latitude of Rqeection: An Artifact of Own Position. Psychological Bulletin 

75(5):357-359. 

McIntyre, N. 1989. Ihe Personal Meaning of Participation: EnHuring Involvement. Journal of Leisure 

Research 21(2): 167-179. 

Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo 1981. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. 

Iowa: Wm. C. Brown. 

Roggenbuck, J. W., D. R. Williams, S. P. Bange, and D. J. Dean. 1991-in press. River Float Trip Encounter 

Nom: Reining in the Runaway Social Nom Concept. Journal of Leisure Research 23. 

Selin, S. W., D. R. Howard 1988. Ego Involvement ad Leisure Behavior: A Conceptual Specification. 

Journal of Leisure Research 20(3): 237-244. 

Shelby, B., T. A. Heberlein 1986. Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State 

University Press. 

Sherif, C. W., M. Sherif, R. E. Nebergall 1965. Attitude and Attitude Change. Philadelphia: Saunders. 

Sherif, M., C. I. Hovland 196 1. Social Judgment. Yale University Press. 

Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E. Petersen, S. S. Frissell 1985. ne Limits of Acceptable 

Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. General Tech. Report INT-176. 

Wellman, J, D., J. W. Roggenbuck, A. C. Smith 1982. Recreation Specialization and Nom of Depreciative 

Behavior Among Canoeists. Journal of Leisure Research 14(4): 323-340. 

Williams, D. R. 1985. A Developmental Model of Recreation Choice Behavior. In, Proceedings - Symposium 

on Recreation Choice Behavior. U. S.D. A. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Report INT- 184, pp. 3 1-37. 

Williams, D. R., J. W. Roggenbuck 1989. Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results. Paper 

presented at the Session on Outdoor Planning and Management, NRPA Symposium on Leisure 

Research; San Antonio, Texas; October 20-22, 1989. 

Zaic&owsky , J. L. 1985. Measuring the Itavolvement Comtruct. Journal of Consumer Research 12: 34 1-352. 

I I 

Hope, Daniel, Ill, ed. 1991. Proceedings, 1990 Southeastern t 

I recreation research conference; 1990 February 14-1 6; Asheville, I 

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

I Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 pp. I 

I Vol. 12. I 

I I 

I A callection of 17 papers describing research results of interest to I 

I recreation managers and scientists in the South. I 

I 1 

t Keywords: Forest recreation, environmental ethics, user attitudes, s 

I hunting impacts, incentives. I 

I I 

Hope, Daniel, Ill, ed. 1991. Proceedings, 1990 Southeastern t 

I recreation research conference; 1990 February 14-1 6; Asheville, I 

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

I Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 pp. I 

I Vol. 12. I 

I I 

A collection of 17 papers describing research results of interest to 

recreation managers and scientists in the South. I 

t I 

I Keywords: Forest recreation, environmental ethics, user attitudes, I 

, hunting impacts, incentives. I