United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 

Research Paper NE-653 

Northern Forest Lands: 

Resident Attitudes and 

Resource Use 

Herbert E. Echelberger 

Albert E. Luloff 

Frederick E. Schmidt 
Abstract 

Residents of the northern forest lands of New England rely heavily on the natural 

resources of the region for their economic welfare and outdoor recreation 

opportuniiies. For many decades, the relationship between large landholders and 

the citizens of this region has remained stable. However, recent events portend 

drastic changes in ownership of large tracts of forest land. For area residents, this 

change may signal changes in their access to land-based economic and 

recreational opportunities which they have traditionally enjoyed. A telephone 

survey of residents in the five-county region of northern Vermont and New 

Hampshire was conducted to determine resident attitudes and resource use 

patterns. Respondents were asked to: (1) Assess problems confronting their 

communities and region and express their attitudes toward local and regional 

planning; (2) Indicate their frequency of participation in a variety of outdoor 

recreational activities and their knowledge of ownership of the land they used for 

recreation; and (3) Indicate their support for or opposition to certain options that 

might be available to ensure the continuation of the large, single landownership 

patterns within northern forest lands. Data from the survey were used to develop 

implications for policy alternatives. 

The Authors 

HERBERT E. ECHELBERGER is a research social scientist and Project Leader of 

the Forest Recreation Research unit at the Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station's George D. Aiken Forestry Sciences Laboratory at Burlington, Vermont. 

ALBERT E. LULOFF is an associate professor with The Pennsylvania State 

University's Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at 

University Park, Pennsylvania. 

FREDERICK E. SCHMIDT is Director of the Center for Rural Studies at the 

University of Vermont's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Burlington, 

Vermont. 

Manuscript received for publication 10 January 1991 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

5 Radnor Corporate Center 

100 Matsonford Road, Suite 200 

P.O. Box 6775 

Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 

August 1991 
Contents 

......................... Introduction ...................................... 2 Summary and Conclusions 20 

Site Description ............................. ................................... 2 Community Problems 20 

StudyDesign ................. ..................................... 5 Knowledge of Ownership Patterns 20 

Results ............. .......................................... 5 Public Expenditures and Forest Lands 20 

Vermont Versus New Hampshire .......................... ................... 5 Recreational Activities 20 

Characteristics of Respondents ........................ ................. 5 Local/Regional Planning 20 

Community Problems .................. ......................... 6 Implications for Policy Decisions 21 

Outdoor Activities .................................. ............................ 8 Literature Cited 21 

Land Ownership Patterns ..................................... ...................... 9 AppendixA 22 

LocallRegional Planning Preference ............................ .............. 9 Telephone Interview 22 

Public Expenditures and Forest ..................................... lands ........... 11 AppendixB 24 

Population of Communities ...... in Survey .............. 13 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents 24 

Population Characteristics .................... 14 LengthofResidency ............................ 25 

Community Problems ........................ 14 

Outdoor Activities ........................... 15 

Planning for Future Growth .................... 16 

Public Expenditures and Forest Lands ........... 18 
Introduction 

New Hampshire and Vermont's northernmost counties, like 

those in New York and Maine, rely heavily on natural 

resources for their economic base. For many decades, land 

ownership and residence have been stable. Several large 

land holders, often represented by companies headquartered 

outside.the region, have practiced consistent land use 

patterns, primarily wood production. For many decades 

the relationship between these large landowners and the 

citizens of this region has remained relatively stable. 

Recently, however, the potential for a drastic change 

in ownership patterns has become evident. For residents, 

this change in ownership portends a change in traditional 

access to land-based economic and recreational 

opportunities. 

As a result, a study was initiated on how best to protect the 

forest resource of the region (Harper et al. 1990). The focus 

of this Northern Forest Lands Study was to identify 

"alternative strategies to protect the long-term integrity and 

traditional uses of the lands." To do this requires that we 

also focus on the human dimensions of land management 

policies. Residents of the area may suffer diminished 

employment opportunities, environmental quality, and 

recreational access as a result of changes in land 

ownership or land use. To better understand the potential 

human impacts of changes in land ownership and land use 

in the region, a telephone survey of Vermont and New 

Hampshire North Country residents was conducted. 

Specifically, this study sought to collect data on the 

attitudes and patterns of resource use of area residentstheir perceptions of community problems, frequency of 

participation in a variety of outdoor activities, knowledge of 

land ownership, and attitudes toward local and regional 

planning. 

Site Description 

By almost any definition, northeastern Vermont and 

northern New Hampshire have a significant, if not dominant, 

rural character. Lying well beyond the influence of several 

large metropolitan areas-Boston, Massachusetts; Portland, 

Maine; and Montreal, Quebec, Canada-and just beyond 

several smaller metropolitan arees, the region contains 

some of the most sparsely settled land in New England (Fig. 

1). Because of its location, demographics, and reliance on 

land-based resources for both recreational and economic 

opportunities, this area is well suited for a study on how 

large-scale restructuring of land ownerships may impact 

local residents. There are, however, differences in the 

structure of the two states. Much of the economic engine 

driving the four counties in northeastern Vermont is 

agriculturally oriented, while forest-oriented activities 

dominate Coos County in New Hampshire. Public land 

occupies a significant portion of Coos County but there is 

little public land in northeastern Vermont. These two 

differences may contribute to different perceptions between 

residents of the two states. 

Figure 1 .-North Country of northeastern Vermont and northern New Hampshire 

2 
As of July 1, 1986, the total population of this two-state the smallest politically recognized census unit for which 

region was about 109,600. This represents an increase of data are gathered, including city, town, township, purchase, 

about 2 percent from the 1980 census, reflecting a stable or andlor grant. The 1986 populations of these units ranged 

slightly expanding population base. However, Coos County from 50 in Victory, Vermont, to 12,200 in Berlin, New 

in New Hampshire actually experienced a net loss of 3.2 Hampshire. In 1986, the average population size for 

percent during that time, while Lamoille County, Vermont, communities in this five-county area was 961 persons, and 

had a significant gain of 7.9 percent (Table 1). Within the only 12 communities had populations exceeding 2,500. 

five-county region, there are 114 minor civil divisionsTable 1. -Changes in population and per-capita income in New Hampshire 

and Vermont counties included in telephone survey, 1980-86 

(US. Dep. Commer. Bur. Census 1988) 

Population Per-capita income 

State and county 1986 1980 Percent 1986 1979 Percent 

change change 

New Hampshire 

Coos 

Vermont 

Caledonia 

Essex 

Larnoille 

Orleans 

--- Number - - - 

Employment, development, and economic opportunity of 

the area rely heavily on the natural resource reserves 

contained within large tracts of unfragmented forest land. 

The sale of 100,000 acres of land in northern New Hampshire 

and Vermont by the Diamond Paper Company in 1988 

significantly reduced the large unfragmented forest land 

in the region. Approximately 4,430 jobs in the northern 

Vermont region are related to the timber harvesting and 

primary and secondary timber processing industry 

according to figures cited by the Northern Vermont 

Resource Conservation and Development Group 

(1 989). 

Moreover, the five counties selected for this study are 

characterized by low per-capita income averages (Table 1). 

All reported smaller increases in per-capita income for the 

period 1979-85 than did their states, and only Lamoille 

County, Vermont, was within 10 percent of the state 

average. That this region failed to enjoy the kind of 

economic and demographic expansion experienced by 

the balance of New Hempshire and Vermont further 

--- Dollars - 

supports the need for attention to the human impact of a 

major restructuring of resource allocation within the area. 

The relatively low population totals and densities which 

characterize these northern New England counties may 

contribute to economic problems as much as they do to the 

quality of life. In particular, employment, unemployment, 

and underemployment, as well as changes in job quality, 

are of concern. According ta Krmzei (1980), the "social 

costs of space" contribute to the burden of problems 

besetting rural areas. Generally, geographic isolation and 

distance have inhibited rural people and communities from 

participating in many public programs and efforts that 

promote economic development, provide jobs, andlor 

enhance the quality of life (Martin and Luloff 1988). Further, 

rural areas often escape the attention of the policymakers: 

the political agenda of most states has been dominated by 

urban interests (Swanson 1989; Luloff 1990). It is not 

uncommon for state legislatures to struggle with the burden 

of sustaining growth and development, regardless of the 

presence of places which have been repeatedly bypassed 

(Whiting 1974; Wilkinson 1986). 
JapeJey3 10 948 .uo!6a~ 

paz!seqdwaJano u! 1146!1 lo a41 Alas~eds 'pavq-tdod IeJnJ 

alu!t-a~ns!al pue luawalddns-pool 'aypads~ad iouue3 aq 

'sa!i!n!m aql a3ueyoduy 40 asaqi 'sa!i!n!pe UOJJ qloq a 

SJaUMCl S~~!AOJ~ SSa33e JOJ I3 A$~!J€?A 40 JOOp$nO lE!UO!lEaJ3aJ 

6u!6601 ~suo!le~od~o3 aql peo~ yJonnlau payddns Aq asaqz 

ssame 01 aqj lsen spe~l lo isaJo4 puel pauMo Aq Jaded pue 

sluap!sabl 40 aqj eaJe aneq paAo[ua All~nlJ!~ pal!w!lun 

'spaJo) a41 lsaq6y syead u! qloq %awls pue aqj -peaq 

a1!4~ ulelunoyy leuo!jeN 'wa~oj IeJanas a6m1 pau~o-ams 

pun01 1euo!jea~3a~ .sa!g!unuoddo y ~o[ew uo!laas 40 aqj 

aql lemjeu samnosal u! s!q1 eaJe p~oue 'luepunqe -~eaA 
Study Design 

With the potential for change from large land ownership, 

land utilization, and people-to-land relationships in the 

region, impacts of growth and development proximate 

to one of New England's major recreational areas may 

increase. To assess these impacts, a telephone sample 

survey of the indigenous population of the area was 

undertaken. The survey was designed by modifying the 

"total design" methodology developed by Dillman (1978), 

who suggests an advance letter to improve response rate 

and quality. We were confident of a high response rate 

and quality due to the "currentness" of the subject matter. 

Residents of Coos County (New Hampshire) and of Caledonia, 

Essex, Lamoille, and Orleans Counties (Vermont) were 

chosen in proportion to the size of the population of their 

towns. In New Hampshire, 175 interviews were completed 

and in Vermont 271 interviews were completed. 

Surveys were conducted in both states over a 6-day period 

with randomly generated calls made on weekdays and 

weekends. Selection of 500 calls in the two-state North 

Country region ensures a sampling error of less than 2.3 

percent. In general, the standard error for a percentage, P, 

based on a number, n, less than the total population (e.g., 

n = 175 for New Hampshire) can be estimated from the 

formula, se(P) = SQRT(P(100-P)ln). Consequently, the 

standard errors are less than & 4 percent for New 

Hampshire and & 3 percent for Vermont. Confidence 

intervals may be computed from 1.96se(P). 

The survey specifically sought to identify the most important 

issues facing participants' communities and to determine 

the frequency of respondents' participation in a variety of 

recreational activities; their knowledge of ownership of the 

land on which they recreate; their attitudes toward growth 

and development in their community and in their surrounding 

communities; and their willingness to support public 

expenditures of funds to purchase forest lands and to support 

the wood-products industry. Demographic questions were 

included to establish sample characteristics. 

In this report, demographic characteristics of the sample by 

state are presented along with a comparison of responses 

to the survey questions, also by state. Significant differences 

are highlighted. A comparison of responses to the survey 

questions, by community size, also is given. Finally, 

interpretations are made in light of potential policy 

implications, especially with respect to the profound 

changes to the natural-resource base of the area. 

Vermont Versus New Hampshire 

This section reports respondents' perceptions of community 

problems, of local planning efforts, and of support for 

several options for preserving large tracts of forest lands 

in the two-state region. Outdoor recreation patterns also 

were determined. Several types of statistical tests were 

selected to analyze study data. The chi-square statistic 

was used to test nominal data and the t-test was applied to 

Vermont versus New Hampshire scale data. Because oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) extends the applicability 

of the t-test to more than two categories, it was used to 

analyze disparities between size of community (population) 

and the scaled data. 

Characteristics of respondents 

The survey instrument (Appendix A) included a series of 

questions designed to determine the socioeconomic 

characteristics of persons interviewed. Data regarding 

respondent sex, age, number of persons over age 18 in 

the household, marital and work status, income levels, and 

educational attainment are reported in Appendix B. 

Demographic and economic characteristics of this sample 

are believed to be typical of North Country communities. 

More women than men responded to the phone survey. 

In terms of age, just over 2 in 5 respondents were over age 

50, 1 in 5 were under 30, and an additional 41 percent were 

representative of the middle years, 30 to 50. About 20 

percent of the respondents were from single adult 

households versus two-thirds from households with two 

adults. One in five respondents has a college degree, twothirds completed high school and/or attended some college, 

and 16 percent indicated some schooling without completing 

high school. At 5.6 percent, unemployment was double the 

states' rates for the period as is generally characteristic of 

rural areas. An additional 58 percent worked full or part 

time. Nearly 1 in 4 were retired, and the balance were 

homemakers or students. Reported house'loid incomes 

were not surprising-one-third of those responding earned 

$1 5,000 to $30.000 annually, 38 percent had incomes 

exceeding $30,000, and about 1 in 4 ~eported an income 

below $15,000. Seventy percent of the respondents were 

married. Length of state residence showed a wide 

distribution, with 1 in 4 reporting residence in excess 

of 50 years, 1 in 5 with less than 10 years residence, and 

the balance distributed between these poles. Half reported 

native or near native status, with 1 in 5 having spent less 

than 25 percent of their lives in New Hampshire or Vermont. 

We hope these characteristics of the sample will be helpful 

in understanding some of the results that follow. 
Community problems 

New Hampshire and Vermont survey participants were respondents from both states (Table 2). Access to forest 

asked to rate the seriousness of a variety of community lands, maintaining an industrial wood supply, and 

problems, such as solid waste disposal, population growth, opportunities to participate in outdoor recreation activitiesthe preservation of forested lands, and other issues. did not receive scores that indicated respondents perceived 

Disposing of solid waste was the greatest concern of them as serious problems: 

Table 2.-Seriousness of community problems, by state 

Community problema 

New Hampshire Vermont 

Mean SD Mean SD 

Disposing of solid waste 

Preservation of forested land 

Development's impacts on wildlife 

Preservation of agricultural land 

Development's impacts on 

rivers and streams 

Developing adequate 

sewer and water services 

Population growth 

Maintaining an industrial wood supply 

Opportunities to participate 

in outdoor recreation 

Development's impacts on lakeshores 

Access to forest lands in your area 

=Respondents rated the seriousness of community problems as 

1 = very serious; 2 = serious; 3 = not a problem. 

* Significant difference between New Hampshire and Vermont respondents at .05 level 

(using Bonferonni's inequality resulted in no significant differences for "Maintaining 

an industrial wood supply" and "Opportunities to participate in outdoor recreation"). 

Respondents from the two states differed significantly in 

assigning the level of seriousness to several of the 

problems. Vermont respondents were more concerned 

about preservation of agricultural land (t = 3.15, p < .01) 

and impacts of development on lakeshores (t = 3.05, 

p < .01). New Hampshire respondents voiced greater 

concern regarding the maintenance of an industrial wood 

supply (t = 2.17, p = .03) and opportunities to participate 

in outdoor recreation (t = 2.24, p = .03), though these 

problems were rated low in importance. These differences 

may be explained by the context: agriculture makes a 

greater direct economic contribution in Vermont than in 

New Hampshire. The dominance of wood industries in 

northern New Hampshire, when contrasted with the more 

diversified economy in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom, helps 

explain the different perceptions of the importance of 

maintaining an industrial wood supply. Differences in the 

perceived importance of development impacts on 

lakeshores and opportunities to participate in outdoor 

recreation are not so clear. 
Disposing of solid waste was cited as the single most Table 3.-Most serious community problem, by state, 

serious problem by more than one-third of both New in percent 

Hampshire and Vermont respondents (Table 3). Population 

growth ranked a distant second (14 percent), followed by 

mesewation of farm land (12 ~ercent), and develo~ment's Most serious problema New Hampshire Vermont Total 

impact on wildlife and on iakekhores (8 percent each). For 

the Vermont sample, differences among lesser ranked items 

were slight: preservation of agricultural land ranked second 

in seriousness (15 percent), followed by population growth 

(1 2 percent). New Hampshire respondents selected population 

growth as the second most serious problem (12 percent), 

followed by development's impact on wildlife and 

lakeshores (8 percent each). 

Disposing of solid waste 

Population growth 

Preservation of 

agricultural land 

Development's impact 

on wildlife 

Development's impact on 

lakeshores 

Development's impact on 

rivers and streams 

Developing adequate 

sewerlwater services 

Maintenence of an industrial 

wood supply 

Opportunities to participate 

in outdoor recreation 

Number of responses 62 155 217 

a"Preservation offorested lands:' and "access to forest lands 

in your area" were not rated. 
Outdoor Activities 

Participants were asked to indicate how frequently they take Country residents participated in all-terrain vehicle use, 

part in various outdoor recreational activities. Walking and maple sugaring, and horseback riding. Respondents 

driving for pleasure were listed as frequent outdoor differed significantly by state regarding only one activity, 

activities by respondents from both states (Table 4). with New Hampshire residents more likely to engage in 

Respondents also participate in fishing, berry picking, canoeing (t = -2.05. p = .04). However, if Bonferroni's 

hiking, bird watching, firewood gathering, swimming, inequality is used, there were no differences found. 

bicycling, stargazing, and picnicking. Relatively few North 

Table 4.-Frequency of outdoor activities 

Outdoor activitya 

New Hampshire Vermont 

Mean SD Mean SD 

Walking 

Driving for pleasure 

Picnicking 

Swimming 

Berry picking 

Bird watching 

Hiking 

Fishing 

Stargazing 

Bicycling 

Gathering firewood 

Cross-country skiing 

Sunbathing 

Canoeing 

Motor boating 

Skating 

Developed camping 

Hunting 

Downhill skiing 

Snowshoeing 

Backcountry camping 

Snowmobiling 

Sugaring 

Horseback riding 

All-terrain vehicle use 

Trapping 

- - - - 

aRespondents indicated the level of participation in outdoor activities as 

1 = frequently; 2 = occasionally; 3 = seldom; 4 = never. 

* Significant difference between New Hampshire and Vermont respondents at .05 level. 
Land ownership patterns Locallregional planning preference 

Survey participants were asked if they knew who owned the 

land they recreated on, if the land was public land, and if 

there were restrictions on access to places they frequently 

visited (Table 5). It should be noted that we did not attempt to 

ascertain the accuracy of responses. Most of the respondents 

(91 percent) indicated an awareness of who owns the land 

where they engaged in outdoor recreation. Responses were 

not significantly different by state. One dimension of land 

ownership patterns-public versus private ownership--was 

used to further probe the level of respondents' awareness of 

the type of ownership of the lands they frequented. Most 

reported using public land for outdoor recreation. The chisquare statistic indicated that significantly more New 

Hampshire respondents said they engaged in recreational 

activities on public land than did Vermont respondents (p = 

.04), probably due to their proximity to the White Mountain 

National Forest in New Hampshire. Related to the larger issue 

of land ownership are issues regarding the posting of lands. 

One-fourth of the respondents said they found no trespassing 

signs in places they frequently visited. More New Hampshire 

participants indicated having found such signs than Vermont 

respondents, but the difference was not statistically significant. 

Table 5.-Knowledge of land ownership issues, in percent 

Issue New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Awareness of land ownership 

Yes 88 92 91 

No 12 8 9 

Use of public land 

Yes 66 57 60 

No 34 43 40 

No trespassing signs present 

Yes 29 22 24 

No 68 72 71 

Don't know 3 6 5 

Sample size (na.) 1 75 271 446 

A series of questions addressed respondents' attitudes toward 

growth and development, their evaluation of planning efforts 

within their own community as well as in other communities, 

and their preferences for regional versus local planning 

groups. 

Half of the respondents from both states favored limitations to 

growth in their own community: 29 percent favored strong 

limitations and 21 percent moderate ones (Table 6). One-third 

of the total believed that their community should encourage 

development-13 percent would strongly encourage it and 20 

percent would moderately encourage it. The chi-square 

statistic showed that respondents from New Hampshire and 

Vermont differed in their attitude toward future growth (p = 

.02). The New Hampshire respondents tended to be split in 

their attitudes toward growth: about 42 percent believed 

growth should be limited while 36 percent reported that growth 

should be encouraged. By contrast, 54 percent of the Vermont 

respondents indicated that growth should be limited; only 30 

percent would encourage future growth. About 10 percent of 

the Vermonters and 14 percent of the New Hampshire sample 

reported that growth is a minor problem. 

Table 6.-Community management of, further growth, by 

state, in percent 

Management 

of growth New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Strongly limit 30 29 29 

Moderately limit 12 25 21 

Not much of a problem 14 10 12 

Moderately encourage 23 17 20 

Strongly encourage 13 13 13 

Don't knowlno answer 8 6 7 

Sample size (no.) 1 75 271 446 

In sum, attitudes toward the growth issue differed significantly 

between the two states (chi-square = 13.82 with 5 df and p = 

.025), probably because: of the notoriety of Act 200 in Vermont. 

This legislation was passed in 1988 to encourage appropriate 

development within the state based on thorough and welldesigned local and regional plans. Act 200 seems to have 

either strong proponents or strong opponents, but there are 

few knowledgeable Vermonters (probably about 1 in 4) who 

have not given it considerable thought. 
Local planning can provide a means for promoting or 

discouraging growth. Without raising specific local planning 

problems, respondents were asked to evaluate the performance of their own town's planning. More than 40 

percent rated their town planning as good to excellent 

(Table 7). Another 30 percent found the local efforts to be 

fair. Commmunity planning was rated as poor by 16 percent 

of the total survey participants. Thus, 7 of 10 North Country 

repondents appeared to react positively to their local 

planning effort. 

Table 7.-Quality of current planning level in respondent's 

community, in percent 

Own town's New Hampshire Vermont Total 

planning level 

Excellent 4 10 8 

Good 30 35 33 

Fair 38 24 30 

Poor 18 15 16 

Don't knowlno answer 10 15 13 

Sample size (no.) 1 75 271 446 

The Vermont respondents were relatively more positive 

about their communities' planning efforts. The chi-square 

statistic showed that attitudes differed significantly by state 

(p = .01). Approximately 10 percent of the Vermonters 

rated their community planning as excellent, versus 4 

percent of the New Hampshire respondents. Community 

planning efforts were rated good by 35 percent of the 

Vermont respondents compared to 30 percent of the New 

Hampshire respondents. 

Respondents were asked to rate the planning efforts of the 

communities surrounding their own. Their responses 

indicate that they placed neighboring communities' current 

planning levels below their own (Table 8). Other 

communities' planning efforts were rated excellent by 4 

percent of the survey participants. About 60 percent rated 

those efforts as good or fair, and 15 percent rated planning 

efforts in neighboring communities as poor. 

Table 8.-Perceived quality of planning in other 

communities, in percent 

Other communites' 

planning 

Excellent 

Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Don't knowlno answer 

Sample size (no.) 

New Hampshire Vermont Total 

3 4 4 

26 32 30 

33 28 30 

16 14 15 

21 22 22 

1 75 271 446 

Study participants were asked whether they favored local 

planners working in a regional planning group or 

maintaining local activities by themselves. Nearly one-third 

of the respondents had not given much thought to the 

relative benefits or disadvantages of regional versus local 

community planning (Table 9). However, 43 percent 

expressed a preference for regional planning cooperation. 

Approximately 25 percent favored local planners working 

alone. 

Table 9.-Preference for regional vs. loci planning, in 

percent 

Regional or 

local planning New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Strongly regional 20 20 20 

Moderately regional 22 24 23 

Not thought about it 40 26 31 

Moderately local 9 11 11 

Strongly local 8 19 15 

Sample size (no.) 171 271 442 

Responses to this question were significantly different by 

state (p = .01). Although similar portions of New Hampshire 

and Vermont residents expressed preferences for 

locallregional planning efforts, New Hampshire respondents 

(40 percent) were much less able to express opinions than 

Vermonters (26 percent). While Vermont respondents were 

evenly split in their preferences for strongly regional versus 

strongly local planning, New Hampshire respondents 

showed a large disparity, possibly due to the notoriety of Act 

200 in Vermont. Thirty percent of Vermonters said they 

would prefer local planning compared to only 17 percent of 

New Hampshire respondents. 
Public expenditures and forest lands 

One possibility for maintaining large expanses of forested 

land in the North Country is through public purchase of 

land. We asked participants if they would be in favor of 

public purchase to acquire forest lands for wildlife habitat, 

recreational opportunities, a continued supply of timber, and 

wilderness protection.' The highest level of support (85 

percent) was registered for public purchase of land for 

wilderness protection (Table 10). Respondents from the two 

states were similar in their level of support for public land 

acquisition to protect wilderness. Respondents also 

indicated strong support (81 percent) for public purchase 

of land to protect wildlife habitat. Vermonters were slightly 

more supportive of this measure, though the differences 

were not statistically significant. An equal number of 

respondents (81 percent) indicated their support for public 

land acquisition to maintain recreational opportunities. 

Vermont and New Hampshire responses to this issue were 

similar. A sizeable majority (72 percent) favored public land 

acquisition to assure a continued supply of timber. Threefourths of the Vermont respondents favored this expenditure 

compared to two-thirds of the New Hempshire residents. 

'"Wilderness" was not defined for survey participants. Some people may have responded to the term believing 

that motorized vehicles would be prohibited; others may 

have believed that wilderness-like opportunities would exist. 

Table 10.-Support for public land acquisitions, in percent 

Item New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Protect wilderness 

Yes 83 86 85 

No 11 10 10 

Not sure 6 4 5 

Sample size (no.) 1 72 270 442 

Maintain recreational opportunities 

Yes 80 

No 16 

Not sure 4 

Sample size (no.) 

Maintain wildlife habitat 

Yes 

No 

Not sure 

Sample size (no). 

Assure timber supply 

Yes 67 

No 20 

Not sure 13 

Sample size (no.) 172 271 443 
Another option for preserving large tracts of forest land is to 

maintain the current ownership pattern characterized by 

large private timber holdings. One method to ensure this 

pattern entails creating more favorable business conditions 

for landowners within the timber industry. Respondents 

were asked if they would favor public expenditures to 

improve business conditions for the wood-products industry. 

Those respondents favoring such expenditures were then 

asked to react to four different kinds of assistance: tax 

incentives, marketing, technical assistance, and grants. Of 

the total responses, 59 percent did not favor such use of 

public funds (Table 11). There was no significant difference 

between responses by state. 

Those who responded favorably toward expending public 

funds to promote the wood-products industry were asked to 

indicate their support for various program options for such 

expenditures. In general, the use of public expenditures for 

both marketing purposes and grants was favored, followed 

by technical assistance (Table 12). Tax incentives received 

the support of less than half the respondents. In all four 

cases, Vermonters were more supportive of individual types 

of assistance than their New Hampshire counterparts. 

Table 12.-Uses of public funds to assist wood-products 

industry that are favored by survey participants, 

in percenta 

Table 11 .-Support for public funding of wood-products 

industry, in percent 

Funds for 

wood-products 

industry New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Yes 38 43 4 1 

No 62 57 59 

Sample size (no.) 149 237 386 

Method New Ham~shire Vermont Total 

Tax incentives 36 50 45 

Marketing 52 70 64 

Technical assistance 46 67 60 

Grants 46 75 65 

Subsample size (no.) 56 101 157 

a Column totals to not sum to 100 percent because 

participants responded yes or no to each method. 
Population of communities in survey 

The following section focuses on the relationship between 

size of community and the survey items. In such small, highly 

rural states, population density is an important consideration 

in policy decisionmaking. For example, in the five-county 

study region, no county has more than 42 people per square 

mile. For the states as a whole, the population densities are 

58 people per square mile in Vermont and 113 in New 

Hampshire. By contrast, Massachusetts has more than 700 

people per square mile. Community size is examined with 

respect to residency, perceptions of community problems, 

frequency of outdoor activities, planning preferences, and 

attitudes about public acquisition of lands in the study area. 

Figure 3 shows the population density of each county in 

the study. 

Legend 

00 - 10 people/sq. mil. = 0 

11 - 20 peopleJsq. mil. = 

21 - 30 people/sq. mil. = 

31 - 40 people/sq. mil. = 

41 - 50 people/sq. mil. = . 

Figure 3.- Population density of Vermont and New Hampshire counties included in the 

survey. 
Population characteristics Table 13.-Distribution of survey respondents by 

community size 

The population size of respondents' towns of residence 

varied greatly, ranging from less than 100 to more than 

12,000 persons. In 1986, the population of the average 

community for the five counties in the study was 1,261 (U.S. 

Dep. Commer. 1988). Although most communities have 

from 1,000 to 5,000 residents, nearly 1 in 5 exceeds 5,000, 

and nearly 30 percent have less than 1,000 (Table 13). 

Respondents 

Cumulative 

Population (no.) Number Percent Percent 

Under 500 

501 to 1000 

1 001 to 2500 

2501 to 5000 

5001 + 

Community problems 

Differences exist among respondents by size of community 

(Table 14). Respondents from towns of 2,501 to 5,000 

residents differed from those living in towns with 501 to 

1,000 people with respect to population growth, defining this 

as a more serious problem. And respondents from towns in 

the 1 to 500 class expressed significantly less concern 

about developing adequate water and sewer services than 

those living in towns in the largest population class. There 

also was a significant difference in concern about access to 

outdoor recreation opportunities. Respondents from towns 

of 2,501 to 5,000 view access as a more serious problem 

than those from towns with populations exceeding 5,000. 

Total 

Table 14.-Seriousness of community problems, by size of respondents' community 

Population (no.) 

1 to 501 to 1001 to 2501 to 

Community problema 500 1 000 2500 5000 5000+ 

-- Level of seriousness 

Disposing of solid waste 2.23 2.25 

Preservation of agricultural 

land 

Development's impact 

on wildlife 

Preservation of forest land 

Development's impact on 

rivers and streams 

Development's impact 

on lakeshores 

Population growth 

Maintaining an industrial 

wood suppy 

Access to forest land 

Developing adequate water 

and sewer services 

Access to outdoor recreation 

opportunities 

a Respondents rated the seriousness of community problems as 

1 = very serious; 2 = serious; 3 = not a problem. 

*Significant difference with at least one other population category at .05 level using 

one-way ANOVA with LSD contrasts. 
Outdoor activities 

Respondents differed somewhat in participation in outdoor likely to hunt, fish, pick berries, gather firewood, picnic, or 

activities according to community size (Table 15). Participants stargaze than residents of towns with fewer than 2,501 

from towns with populations exceeding 5,000 reported residents. However, motorboating and use of all-terrain 

significantly less cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, vehicles were enjoyed by significantly more respondents 

canoeing, sugaring, and horseback riding than those from towns in the larger population classes than by those 

from towns in the smaller population classes. Respondents from towns of 1 to 500 people. 

from towns with 2,501 to 5,000 persons were much less 

Table 15.-Frequency of participation in outdoor activities, by size of 

respondents' community 

Population (no.) 

Average frequency of 1 to 501 to 1001 to 2501 to 

outdoor activitiesa 500 1 000 2500 5000 5000+ 

Walking 

Driving for pleasure 

Swimming 

Picnicking 

Berry picking 

Bird watching 

Hiking 

Stargazing 

Fishing 

Gathering firewood 

Cross-country skiing 

Bicycling 

Canoeing 

Hunting 

Skating 

Sunbathing 

Backcountry camping 

Snowshoeing 

Downhill skiing 

Snowmobiling 

Developed camping 

Motorboating 

Sugaring 

Horseback riding 

Trapping 

All-terrain vehicle use 

a Respondents rated the frequency of outdoor activity as 

1 = frequently; 2 = occasionally; 3 = Seldom; 4 = never. 

*Significant difference with at least one other population category at .05 level using 

one-way ANOVA with LSD contrasts. 
Planning for future growth 

Respondents differed in their attitudes toward further were more likely to encourage it. Respondents from towns 

growth in their communities based on community size with more than 5,000 people were significantly more likely 

(Table 16). Those from smaller towns were more likely to to favor encouraging growth than those from smaller towns 

favor limits on growth while those from the largest towns (p = .01). 

Table 16.-Preferences for community management of further growth, by size of 

respondents' community, in percent 

Population (no.) 

Community management 1 to 501 to 1001 to 2501 to 

of growth 500 1000 2500 5000 5000+ Total 

Strongly limit growth 32 42 26 31 18 29 

Moderately limit growth 20 22 25 2 1 8 20 

Not much of a problem 17 5 15 8 17 12 

Moderately encourage 

growth 20 14 20 16 29 20 

Strongly encourage 

growth 7 9 9 14 24 13 

Don't knowlno answer 5 8 5 9 4 7 

Sample size (no.) 4 1 86 129 107 83 446 

Respondents were asked to rate the quality of their own good or excellent (Table 17), while respondents from towns 

town's current planning efforts. Their responses differed with larger populations more often characterized their 

s~gnificantly (p = .04) depending on community size. The community's planning efforts as fair. 

majority of those from small towns rated local planning as 

Table 17.-Perceived quality of planning in town of residence, by size of 

respondents' community, in percent 

Population (no.) 

Planning quality 

in own town 

1 to 501 to 1001 to 2501 to 

500 1000 2500 5000 5000+ Total 

Excellent 12 7 9 11 1 8 

Good 41 35 33 3 1 30 33 

Fair 15 26 29 32 40 30 

Poor 22 24 12 12 17 16 

Don't knowlno answer 10 8 19 14 12 13 

Sample size (no.) 4 1 86 129 107 83 446 
Respondents also were asked to rate the planning efforts give the planning of other towns a good rating (Table 18). 

of other communities. While more respondents from larger Respondents from smaller towns appeared to be more 

towns reported that planning in their neighboring communities willing or able to answer this question than those from 

was excellent, those from smaller towns were more likely to towns with higher populations. 

Table 18.-Perceived quality of planning in other communities, by size of 

respondents' community, in percent 

Population (no.) 

Planning quality 

in other towns 

1 to 501 to 1001 to 2501 to 

500 1000 2500 5000 5000+ Total 

Excellent 2 4 5 5 4 

Good 39 36 30 22 29 30 

Fair 29 27 32 33 29 30 

Poor 12 16 13 15 16 15 

Don't knowlno answer 20 19 2 1 25 22 21 

Sample size (no.) 41 86 129 107 83 446 

Respondents from towns with larger populations tended to one-third of all respondents had not given much thought to 

view regional planning more favorably than those from the concept, indicating their lack of knowledge, or concern, 

smaller towns (Table 19); conversely, those from smaller about planning in general. 

towns were more likely to prefer local planning. Nearly 

Table 19.-Preference for regional vs. local planning, by size of respondents' 

community, in percent 

Population (no.) 

1 to 501 to 1001 to 2501 to 

Type of planning 500 1000 2500 5000 5000+ Total 

Strongly regional 20 19 18 18 26 20 

Moderately regional 15 27 26 25 17 23 

Not thought about it 22 26 32 32 40 3 1 

Moderately local 12 10 13 9 7 11 

Strongly local 32 19 10 16 10 15 

Sample size (no.) 41 86 127 106 82 442 
Public expenditures and forest lands 

A possible way to ensure the maintenance of large tracts of purchase of forest lands due to population size of respondents' 

forested lands in northern New Hampshire and Vermont towns (Table 20). The greatest support (85 percent) was for 

would be to purchase these lands with public funds. There wilderness protection while the least support (72 percent) 1 

were no significant differences in preferences for public was for acquisition to assure continued timber supply. 

Table 20. -Support for public land acquisitions, by size of respondents' 

community, in percent 

Population (no.) 

1 to 501 to 1001 to 2501 to 

500 1000 2500 5000 5000+ Total 

Protect wilderness 

Yes 

No 

Not sure 

Sample size (no.) 

Maintain wildlife habitat 

Yes 

No 

Not sure 

Sample size (no.) 

Maintain recreational 

opportunities 

Yes 

No 

Not sure 

Sample size (no.) 

Assure timber supply 

Yes 

No 

Not sure 

Sample size (no.) 
There were no significant differences among population There were no significant differences among respondents 

groups regarding attitudes for using public funds to improve by community size for the four types of public expenditures 

business conditions for the wood-products industry (Table listed (Table 22). In descending order, respondents tended 

21). Those who favored expending public funds for this to favor assistance through grants, marketing, technical 

purpose were asked to indicate their level of support assistance, and tax incentives. 

for various program options for such expenditures. 

Table 21 .-Support of public funding to assist wood-products industry, by size of 

respondents' community, in percent 

Public funds for Population (no.) 

wood-products 1 to 501 to 1001 to 2501 to 

industry 500 1000 2500 5000 5000+ Total 

Yes 

No 

Sample size (no.) 37 74 116 90 69 386 

Table 22.-Uses of public funds to assist wood-products industry that are favored 

by survey participants, by size of respondents' community, in percent 

Population (no.) 

1 to 501 to 1001 to 2501 to 

500 1000 2500 5000 5000+ Total 

Tax incentives 40 57 43 39 40 45 

Marketing 40 77 63 66 53 64 

Technical assistance 40 63 74 56 47 60 

Grants 30 74 67 69 57 65 

Subsample size (no.) 10 35 46 36 30 157 

a Column totals do not sum to 100 because study participants responded yes or no 

to each method. 
Summary and Conclusions 

Residents of the North Country of New Hampshire and 

Vermont use their forest lands for a variety of recreational 

and economic activities. Results from this survey of the fivecounty region indicate that, while they share many concerns 

about their region, residents differ in opinion with regard to 

specific community problems and planning issues. 

Community Problems 

Three development-related issues were mentioned most 

often: solid waste disposal, population growth, and impacts 

of development on lakeshores, wildlife, rivers and streams. 

Concerns also were expressed about the development of 

adequate sewer and water services. Vermont residents 

viewed the preservation of agricultural lands as a very 

serious problem, while those from New Hampshire voiced 

greater concern about the maintenance of an industrial 

wood supply and opportunities to participate in outdoor 

recreation. 

There also were differences among respondents by 

population of town of residence with respect to community 

problems, particularly those related to issues of growth. 

Persons residing in larger communities identified population 

growth and the development of adequate sewer and water 

services as serious problems. By contrast, residents from 

middle-size communities expressed concern about access 

to outdoor recreation opportunities. Rural residents were 

less likely to perceive or be concerned about infrastructurebased community problems such as adequate sewer and 

water services. 

Knowledge of Ownership Patterns 

In rural regions, such as this study area, it is not surprising 

that residents were well aware of who owned the land they 

used for various recreational activities. In fact, many people 

reported using public lands for outdoor recreation. Public 

forested land appears to be an asset for recreational 

opportunities. This study did not attempt to identify specific 

patterns or knowledge regarding land ownership. As a 

result, it would appear that additional research in this area 

is warranted. 

Pl~blic Expenditures and Forest Lands 

One possibility for maintaining large expanses of forested 

land in the North Country is through public ownership. 

Survey results revealed that a majority of residents from 

both states would support public land purchase to protect 

wilderness, maintain recreational opportunities, protect 

wildlife habitat, and assure a continued supply of timber. 

Responses did not differ by state. 

Despite 75 percent support for public purchase of land to 

assure a continued supply of timber, only 40 percent of the 

study participants were willing to expend public money to 

support the wood-products industry. New Hampshire 

residents were significantly less supportive of this concept, 

probably because of the presence of the White Mountain 

Nalional Forest. Of those respondents who indicated 

support for the wood-products industry, about 65 percent 

favored the use of public expenditures for grants and for 

marketing purposes. Vermonters expressed significantly 

more support for all four types of assistance than their New 

Hampshire counterparts. 

Community size was not a factor in types of support for 

public purchase of land. Similarly, there were no significant 

differences by community size with regard to respondents' 

preferences for the use of public funds to improve business 

conditions for the wood-products industry. 

Recreational Activities 

State of residence had a limited effect on participation in 

different types of recreational activities. However, results 

suggest that participation did vary by community size. 

Persons living in larger towns were less inclined to 

participate in cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, canoeing, 

sugaring, and horseback riding, and more inclined to 

engage in activities involving motorboats and all-terrain 

vehicles. Persons in smaller communities were more likely 

to hunt, fish, pick berries, gather firewood, picnic, and 

stargaze. Further study might shed light on possible 

relationships between community size and participation in 

different types of recreational activities. 

Local/Regional Planning 

North Country respondents had strong opinions regarding 

the growth and development of their communities and 

community planning efforts. Nearly half favored limitations 

on growth within their communities. Vermonters indicated a 

preference for controlled growth in much greater numbers 

than they did for encouraging growth. New Hampshire 

respondents were more evenly divided, with one-third 

favoring limits on growth and one-third encouraging growth. 

In general, respondents were positive about their 

communities' planning efforts, though Vermonters were 

slightly more positive than their New Hampshire 

counterparts. Respondents from both states were more 

positive about planning in their own communities than about 

planning efforts in neighboring communities. Although 

nearly one in three had not considered the concept, more 

than 40 percent of the respondents from both states favored 

the idea of local/regional planning cooperation. In Vermont, 

where there is much debate about planning at the 

local/regional level, an equal number of respondents 

favored local planning versus local/regional planning 

cooperation. 

Community size was marginally related to attitudes toward 

growth and planning. Respondents from large communities 

were more likely to favor encouraging growth, while those 

from smaller communities preferred limiting growth. In 

general, survey participants from smaller communities 

looked more favorably on local planning then respondents 

from larger communities. Community size was unrelated to 

opinions about local planning relative to neighboring 

community planning and to preferences for local/regional 

planning cooperation. 
Implications for Policy Decisions 

The results of this survey suggest that North Country 

residents are quite knowledgeable and have considerable 

concern about issues of resource use and population 

growth. Residents of both states were most concerned 

about the disposal of solid waste. Problems of population 

growth and the impacts of development on water resources 

and wildlife also were cited, as was concern about local 

infrastructure in terms of providing water and sewer 

services. Policymakers can use a number of these findings 

in their planning activities. For example: 

If a move is made to secure large tracts of North Country 

lands with public funds, there will likely be much local 

support if the money is used to secure wilderness areas, 

or to maintain recreational opportunities, protect wildlife 

habitat, or assure a continued supply of timber. However, 

officials would not find broad-based support for the use of 

public funds to improve business conditions for the woodproducts industry. 

Although size of community does not appear to be a 

significant factor affecting attitudes of North Country 

residents, it should be noted that the area encompassed 

in this study represents a highly rural region of both 

states. Since the largest community barely exceeds 

12,000 persons, community size is less differentiated 

than it would be in more urban areas of the two states. 

A substantial number of North Country residents hold 

strong opinions at both ends of the spectrum regarding 

growth and development in their region. As a result, 

planners should be careful when proposing programs that 

reflect "a generally held opinion." Vermonters indicated 

a strong preference for controlled growth while New 

Hampshire respondents were more evenly divided 

between favoring limits on growth and encouraging 

growth. 

Any effort to initiate a locallregional planning mechanism 

should be preceded by a well thought out public 

education program. In general, respondents were positive 

about local community planning efforts, especially 

Vermonters. However, the idea of locallregional planning 

cooperation is met with some skepticism by residents of 

both states. 

Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the 

total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Harper, Stephen C.; Falk. L. L.; Rankin, E. W. 1990. The 

northern forest lands study of New England and New 

York: a report to the Congress of the United States on 

the recent changes in landownership and land use in 

the northern forest of Maine, New Hampshire, New 

York and Vermont. Rutland, VT: U.S. US. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Kacprzynski, Frederick T. 1990. Condominium 

development in the White Mountains-how will it 

impact recreation management on the White 

Mountain National Forest? In: More, Thomas A,; 

Donnelly, Maureen P.; Graefe, Alan R.; Vaske, Jerry J., 

eds. Proceedings of the 1990 northeastern recreation 

researchers symposium; 1990 February 25-28; Saratoga 

Springs, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-145. Radnor, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Forest Experiement Station: 71-78. 

Kraenzel, Carl F. 1980. The social cost of space in the 

Yonland. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Books. 

Luloff, A. E. 1990. Community and social change: how do 

small communities act? In: Luloff, A. E.; Swanson, L. 

E., Jr., eds. American rural communities, Boulder, CO: 

Westview Press. 

Martin, Kenneth M.; Luloff, A. E. 1988. State rural policy 

initiatives: their time has come. Journal of the 

Community Development Society. 19(2): 30-41. 

Northern Vermont Resource Conservation and Development 

Group. 1989. Testimony to the U.S. Northern Forest 

Lands Study. November. Island Pond, VT: Northern 

Vermont Resource Conservation and Development 

Group. 

Swanson. L. E., Jr. 1989. The rural development dilemma. 

Resources. 96: 14-16. 

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

1988. Northeast 1986 population and 1985 per capita 

income estimates for counties and incorporated 

places. Curr. Popul. Rep., Ser. P-26, No. 86-NE-SC. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of the Census. 

Whiting, Larry R. 1974. Communities left behind: 

alternatives for development. Ames, IA: Iowa State 

University Press. 

Wilkinson, Kenneth P. 1986. In search of the community 

in the changing countryside. Rural Sociology. 51(1): 

1-17. 
Appendix A 

Telephone Interview 

Attitudes and Resource Use: 

A Study of North Country Citizens 

ID Number: 

Hello, my name is and I am calling on behalf 

of the Institute for Policy and Social Science Research at 

the University of [UVM or UNH]. We are doing a survey in 

the state to obtain opinions on some environmental issues. I 

would like to ask you just a few questions. But, first, is this a 

residential number? [IF NO, "THANK YOU" AND 

TERMINATE] 

Are you 10 years of age or older? [IF NO, ASK FOR 

SOMEONE WHO IS. IF NO ONE, GET A TIME TO CALL 

BACK, THEN "THANK YOU" AND TERMINATE.] 

1. What city or town is this? 

2. How long have you lived in Istate I? -years 

[IF NOT A RESIDENT OF STATE, THEN "THANK YOU" 

AND TERMINATE] 

3. How long have you lived in your current community? 

years 

Now, here are several problems that some people have 

mentioned in other areas of your state. For each one, 

please indicate how serious a problem you feel it is for 

your community. Is this a very serious problem for your 

community, a serious problem, or is it not a problem at 

all? 

[READ FROM TOP: HALFWAY THROUGH THE LlST 

REPEAT THE CATEGORIES] 

Very 

ser 

4. Population growth 1 

5. (Getting rid of solid waste 1 

6. Access to forest lands in 

your area 1 

7. IDeveloping adequate sewer 

and water services 1 

8. Preservation of agricultural 

land 1 

9. Preservation of forested 

lands 1 

10. Maintaining an industrial 

wood supply 1 

11. Opportunities to participate 

in outdoor recreation activities 1 

12. Development's impacts on 

wildlife 1 

13. Development's impacts on 

lakeshores 1 

14. Development's impacts on 

rivers 1 

Not a 

Ser Prob DK 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

2 3 9 

15. Of those you mentioned as being "Very Serious" 

above, which problem do you see as the single most 

serious? [READ ITEMS FROM LlST ABOVE UNDER 

VERY SERIOUS] (number of items) 

For the next series of questions. I would like you to indicate 

how frequently you participate in each activity. Do you 

frequently do it, occasionally do it, seldom do it, or is it 

something you never participate in? 

Freq Bccasly Seldom Never 

16. Hunting 1 2 3 4 

17. Fishing 1 2 3 4 

18. Trapping 1 2 3 4 

19. Cross-country skiing 1 2 3 4 

20. Downhill skiing 1 2 3 4 

21. Snowmobiling 1 2 3 4 

22. Berry picking 1 2 3 4 

23. Hiking 1 2 3 4 

24. Backcountry camping 1 2 3 4 

25. Developed camping 1 2 3 4 

26. Birding (bird watching) 1 2 3 4 

27. Gathering firewood 1 2 3 4 

28. Canoeing 1 2 3 4 

29. Swimming 1 2 3 4 

30. Motor boating 1 2 3 4 

[REPEAT CATEGORIES HERE] 

31. ATV use (all terrain vehicle) 1 2 3 4 

32. Snowshoeing 1 2 3 4 

33. Skating 1 2 3 4 

34. Sugaring 1 2 3 4 

35. Bicycling 1 2 3 4 

36. Driving for pleasure 1 2 3 4 

37. Walking 1 2 3 4 

38. Star gazing 1 2 3 4 

39. Sun bathing 1 2 3 4 

40. Picnicking 1 2 3 4 

41. Horseback riding 1 2 3 4 

[FOR EACH OF THE NEXT THREE QUESTIONS, IF A 

RESPONSE OTHER THAN YES OR NO IS PROVIDED, 

WRITE IN THE RESPONSE GIVEN] 

42. When you engage in the most frequent activities 

mentioned above, are you aware of who owns the 

land? Y N 

43. Is this public land Y N 

44. Have you found "No Trespassing" signs in a place that 

you frequently visit? Y N 

The next several questions concern your attitudes toward 

growth and development. 
45. Do you think that in the next several years your 

community should limit further growth and development 

or encourage growth and development, or isn't growth 

much of a problem one way or the other? [IF THEY 

CHOOSE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, ASK: "Do you 

feel strongly about this matter or not strongly?] 

1. strongly limit growth 4. moderately encourage 

growth 

2. moderately limit growth 5. strongly encourage 

growth 

3. not much of a problem 6. DKlNA 

46. How well do you think your community is doing right 

now in planning for the future: excellent, good, fair, or 

poor, or are you unsure? 

1. excellent 2. good 3. fair 4. poor 5. UnsurelNA 

47. How well do you think other communities around you 

are doing in planning for the future: excellent, good, 

fair, or poor, or are you unsure? 

1. excellent 2. good 3. fair 4. poor 5. UnsurelNA 

48. As far as you are concerned, would you prefer that your 

local community planners work in a regional planning 

group or by themselves? Or, haven't you thought much 

about this problem one way or the other? [IF THEY 

CHOOSE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. ASK: "Do you 

feel strongly about this matter or not strongly?] 

1. strongly regional planning group 

2. moderately regional planning group 

3. not thought much about itlunsure 

4. moderately work alone 

5. strongly work alone 

49. One possibility for maintaining large expanses of 

forested lands in the north country is for a public 

purchase of these lands to occur. Would you be in favor 

of the public expenditure of funds to acquire lands for: 

[NO PROMPT.. .THIS IS A YESlNOlNOT SURE 

QUESTION - REPEAT FULL QUESTION FOR FIRST 

TWO ITEMS, THEN ASK C&D DIRECTLY] 

a. maintaining wildlife habitat Y N NS 

b. maintaining recreational opportunities 

(e.g., fishing, trapping, andlor camping) Y N NS 

c. to assure a continued supply of timber Y N NS 

d. wilderness protection Y N NS 

50. Would you favor public expenditure of funds to improve 

business conditions for the wood-products 

industry? Y N [If NO, GO TO #52] 

51. How should these expenditures for the wood-products 

industry be made? Would you favor: [IF ASKED 

MEANING OF ANY OF THE FOUR ITEMS BELOW, 

READ DEFINITIONS PROVIDED) 

a. tax incentives YN 

b. marketing YN 

c. technical assistance YN 

d. grants YN 

Finally, I'd like to ask just a few final questions about 

yourself. Please remember that all responses are 

anonymous and will be used for statistical purposes only. All 

of your answers will be kept strictly confidential. 

52. Including yourself, how many members of your 

household are 18 or over? 

- actual number 8. 8 or more 9. Refused 

[WRITE IN NUMBER] 

53. Is your marital status currently [READ LIST] 

1. married 4. single 

2. divorced 5. widowed 

3. separated 6. REFINA 

54. Are you currently employed? [IF YES: "Part-time or fulltime?" IF NOT EMPLOYED. ASK: "Are you retired, a 

student, or a homemaker?"] 

1. full-time 4. student 9. REFINA 

2. part-time 5. homemaker 

3. retired 6. not employed now 

55. What was the last grade in school you completed? 

1. 8th grade or less 4. some college, voc. tech. 

2. 9-1 1, some high school 5. graduated college 

3. graduated high school 6. postgraduate work 

GED 

9. REFINA 

56. What was your total family's income in 1988? Was it 

more or less than $30,000? 

more than 30,000 less than 30,000 

if more, was it more or if less, was it more or less 

less than 45,000 than 15,000 

1. more 2. less 3. more 4. less 9. REFINA 

57. And, finally, in what year were you born? [WRITE 

TWO LAST DIGITS] 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION. YOU 

HAVEBEENVERYHELPFULTOUS. 
Appendix B 

Sscioeconomic Characteristics of 

Respondents 

Sixty-four percent of the New Hampshire and Vermont 

residents participating in the survey were female (Table 23). 

Table 23.-Gender of respondents, by state, in percent 

Gender New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Female 62 66 64 

Male 38 34 36 

Sample size (no.) 1 70 268 438 

Tho average age of New Hampshire respondents was 41, 

and of Vermont respondents, 42 (Table 24). Nearly one in 

five respondents were between 18 and 30 years of age and 

23 percent were between 31 and 40. Approximately 40 

percent of the respondents were between 41 and 65 years 

old and 19 percent were over 65. 

Table 24.-Respondents' age, by state, in percent 

Age 

(vears) New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Sample size (no.) 

Sixty-one percent of the respondents reported that, 

including themselves, two persons age 18 or over lived in 

their households (Table 25). Approximately 18 percent 

indicated having households with one person 18 or over, 

that is, the respondent lived alone. Twelve percent reported 

three household members 18 years or over and 8 percent 

reported four or more persons in that category. 

Table 25.-Persons age 18 and over in household, by state, 

in percent 

Persons age 

18 and over New Hampshire Vermont Total 

1 18 17 18 

2 59 62 61 

3 11 13 12 

4 or more 9 7 8 

Refused to answer 2 - - 1 

Sample size (no.) 175 271 446 

Forty-three percent of the respondents were high school 

graduates while 16 percent reported having a grade school 

or partial high school education (Table 26). Approximately 

40 percent indicated educational experience beyond high 

school: 20 percent had some college or vocational school 

experience, 16 percent were college graduates, and 5 

percent reported some postgraduate work. Educational 

attainment differed significantly between the Vermont and 

New Hampshire samples (p = .04). Approximately the 

same percentage of New Hampshire and Vermont 

respondents reported being high school graduates-44 and 

43 percent, respectively. More New Hampshire respondents 

reported having some college or vocational/technical school 

than Vermont respondents (21 and 19 percent, 

respectively). However, New Hampshire respondents had a 

higher percentage of persons with less than a high school 

degree (20 percent) than Vermont respondents (13 percent). 

Also, more Vermonters (25 percent) reported having 

completed college andlor some postgraduate work than 

New Hampshire respondents (22 percent). 

Table 26.-Educational level, by state, in percent 

Education level New Ham~shire Vermont Total 

Grade school 

Some high school 

High school graduate 

Some collegeivo-tech 

College graduate 

Postgraduate work 

Refusedlno answer 

Sample size (no.) 
More than half of the survey respondents (58 percent) 

indicated working either full or parttime, while 6 percent 

were unemployed (Table 27). Nearly 12 percent of the total 

respondents were homemakers. More Vermont respondents 

(48 percent) reported working fulltime than New Hempshire 

respondents (37 percent). However, more of the New 

Hampshire sample (17 percent) reported working parttime 

than Vermont respondents (13 percent). More New 

Hampshire respondents than Vermont participants reported 

being retired (26 versus 21 percent). 

Table 27.-Employment status, by state, in percent 

Employment status 

Fulltime 

Parttime 

Retired 

Student 

Homemaker 

Not employed 

Sample size (no.) 

New Hampshire Vermont Total 

37 48 44 

17 13 14 

26 21 23 

2 2 2 

13 11 12 

6 6 6 

Distribution of total family income was similar for 

respondents in both states, with nearly one-third in the 

$15,000 to $30,000 range (Table 28). More New Hampshire 

respondents (25 percent) reported family incomes between 

$30,000 and $45,000 than Vermont respondents (19 percent), 

and more Vermont respondents (20 percent) reported 

incomes below $15,000 than New Hampshire respondents 

(1 6 percent). 

Table 28.-Total family income, by state, in percent 

Family income 

(dollars) New Hampshire Vermont Total 

45,000 + 19 17 18 

30,000 to 45,000 24 18 21 

15,000 to 30,000 33 32 33 

0 to 15,000 15 20 18 

Refusedlno answer 9 13 11 

Sample size (no.) 1 75 271 446 

More than 70 percent of the respondents reported being 

married (Table 29). Approximately 6 percent were divorced, 

1 percent separated, 8 percent widowed, and 14 percent 

single. 

Table 29.-Marital status, by state, in percent 

Marital status New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Married 73 69 71 

Divorced 5 7 6 

Separated 0 2 1 

Single 15 13 14 

Widowed 7 9 8 

Sample size (no.) 1 73 270 443 

Length of Residency 

Participants were asked to indicate the number of years 

they had lived in their respective states and in their current 

communities. Respondents from both Vermont and New 

Hampshire reported living in their respective states an 

average of approximately 32 years. About 21 percent lived 

in their state for 10 years or less while 22 percent had been 

state residents for more than 50 years (Table 30). 

Approximately 16 percent reported state residency of 11 to 

20 years, 15 percent between 21 and 30 years, and 16 

percent between 31 and 40 years. The smallest percentage 

of respondents (1 1 percent) was in the 41 -to 50-year category. 

Table 30.-Years lived in current state of residence, in 

percent 

Years in 

state (no.) New Hampshire Vermont Total 

10 or less 21 20 20 

11 to20 14 17 16 

21 to 30 16 14 15 

31 to 40 17 15 16 

41 to 50 10 12 11 

50 + 22 22 22 

Sample size (no.) 1 70 270 440 

The percentage of time in which survey respondents 

resided in New Hampshire or in Vermont varied widely 

(Table 31). State residency status was determined by 

dividing length of time living in the state by the respondent's 

age. Relatively more Vermonters (30 percent) were 

assigned "native" status than New Hampshire residents (25 

percent). However, 20 percent of the New Hampshire 

respondents were "longtime" residents versus only 13 

percent of Vermont respondents. More Vermont residents 

were in the "semiresident" category (1 7 percent) than New 

Hampshire respondents (12 percent). 
Table 31 .-State residence status, in percent 

State 

residence 

status New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Native (1 00010)~ 25 30 28 

Near native (90-99%) 22 21 22 

Long time iesident (50-89%) 20 13 15 

Semiresident (2549%) 12 17 15 

Newcomer (1 -24%) 20 19 19 

Sample size (no.) 1 69 271 440 

a Percentages indicate how much of a respondent's life has 

been spent in current state of residence. 

Respondents from New Hampshire had lived in their current 

communities an average of 24 years compared to an 

average of 20 years for Vermont respondents. Within the 

sample as a whole, 41 percent had lived in their towns for 

10 years or less while 20 percent had maintained their 

community residency for 11 to 20 years (Table 32). 

Approximately 22 percent of the respondents claimed 

between 21 and 40 years of residency in their towns, and 17 

percent over 40 years. About 30 percent of the Vermont 

respondents had lived in their towns for 5 years or less 

compared with 25 percent of the New Hampshire 

participants. Vermonters residing in their towns for 20 years 

or less accounted for 65 percent of the sample, compared 

with 53 percent of the New Hampshire respondents. About 

46 percent of the New Hampshire respondents resided in 

their current communities for more than 40 years while 35 

percent of the Vermonters reported that length of residency. 

Table 32.-Years lived in community, by state, in percent 

Years in 

communitv (no.) 

5 or less 

6 to 10 

11 to20 

21 to 30 

31 to 40 

40 + 

Sample size (no.) 

New Hampshire Vermont Total 

25 30 28 

13 13 13 

16 22 20 

12 11 11 

13 10 11 

20 14 17 

Not surprisingly, both Vermont and New Hampshire 

respondents had resided less time in their current 

communities than in their states (Table 33). Nearly 40 

percent of all respondents were "newcomers" in their 

communities; that is, they had lived in the community less 

than a quarter of their lives. Another 21 percent were 

"short-time residents." These two categories represented 

60 percent of the total, indicating that a majority of North 

Country residents have spent less than one-half of their 

lives in their current communities. Similar to state residency 

patterns, the Vermont residents claimed shorter community 

residency than New Hampshire respondents, Approximately 

12 percent of the New Hampshire respondents are native to 

their current community compared with 10 percent of 

Vermonters. Slightly more than 15 percent of the New 

Hampshire participants were considered "near natives," 

while only 7 percent of the Vermont respondents were in 

that category. Roughly equivalent percentages of the 

respondents from the two states were "long-time residents" 

of their current home towns. About 23 percent of the 

Vermonters were "short-time residents" versus 19 percent 

of those from New Hampshire. Approximately 42 percent of 

the Vermonters were "newcomers" compared with 35 

percent of New Hampshire respondents. 

Table 33.-Community residence status, by state, in 

percent 

Community 

residence 

status New Hampshire Vermont Total 

Native (1 OO%)a 12 10 11 

Near native (90-99%) 15 7 10 

Long-time resident (50-89%) 18 19 19 

Shorttime resident (25-49%) 19 23 2 1 

Newcomer (1-24010) 35 41 39 

Sample size (no.) 1 70 271 441 

-- 

a Percentages indicate how much of a respondent's life has 

been spent in current community of residence. 
Echelberger, Herbert E.; Luloff, Albert E.; Schmidt, Frederick E. 1991. 

Northern forest lands: resident attitudes and resource use. Res. Pap. 

NE-653. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 26 p. 

Describes socioeconomic characteristics of residents of northern New 

Hampshire and northeastern Vermont; their level of participation in outdoor 

recreational activities; perceptions of community problems; and attitudes 

concerning local versus regional planning, public ownership of northern 

forest lands, and other pertinent issues with respect to changes in patterns 

of land ownership that are potentially significant. Responses by state and by 

size of respondents' communites are compared. 

ODC 906:907.2:911:923.3 

Keywords: Local and regional planning; recreation; land ownership; 

community growth and development; wood-products industry 

aU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991 /54&088/20025 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station is in Radnor, Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amhemt, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts 

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont 

Delaware, Ohio 

Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire 

Hsmden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale Unlversity 

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University 

Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine 

Parsons, West Virginia 

Princeton, West Virginia 

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York, 

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University 

University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with The Pennsylvania State University 

Warren, Pennsylvania 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and services of 

the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy, and should be 

reported to the Secretary of Agricutture, Washington, DC 20250. 

'Caring for the Land and Serving People Through Research8