United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northeastern

Research Station

General Technical

Report NE-309

Thomas A. More

Susan Bulmer

Linda Henzel

Ann E. Mates

Extending the Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum

to Nonfederal Lands

in the Northeast:

An Implementation Guide
Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

August 2003 Fax: (740)368-0152

Visit our homepage at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne

Abstract

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is one of the most powerful recreation

inventory tools ever devised. Originally formulated in the late 1970’s for use on

public lands in the Western United States, the ROS was quickly adopted by federal

land-management agencies. However, its application to public lands in the East

proved problematic, as did its extension to state lands, which often are smaller and

closer to cities. Additionally, in the 25 years since its development, there have been

major changes in technology for both recreation users and managers. We report

results of an effort by the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation to

adapt the ROS for use on public lands managed by state governments, regional

authorities, and nongovernmental organizations, particularly in New England. The

ROS tables have been updated, but the basic content of the spectrum remains the

same. This guide outlines the steps involved in its application.

The Authors

THOMAS A. MORE, research social scientist with the Northeastern Research

Station at Burlington, Vermont, received B.S. and M.S. degrees in forestry from the

University of Massachusetts, and a PhD. degree in forestry from the University of

Michigan.

SUSAN BULMER, parks regional manager for Vermont’s Department of Forests,

Parks and Recreation, received a B.S. degree in forest management from the

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, and an M.S. degree in recreation resources

development from Texas A&M University.

LINDA HENZEL, lands stewardship coordinator for Vermont’s Agency of Natural

Resources, received a B.A. degree from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.S.

degree in natural resource planning from the University of Vermont.

ANN E. MATES, resource information coordinator for the Green Mountain and

Finger Lakes National Forest in Rutland, Vermont, received a B.S. degree from

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse, New York, and

an M.S. degree in recreation resources from North Carolina State University.

Manuscript received for publication 13 January 2003
1

Executive Summary

Conserving scarce recreation resources requires an inventory of existing resources and potential

opportunities that transcends traditional agency and political boundaries. While traditional

inventories often focus on facilities or activities, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is an

experience-based inventory system that is spatially oriented and easily applied. Land types ranging

from city open space to large, remote primitive areas can sustain different kinds of experiences. For

example, the experience of hiking or hunting on primitive land far from the sights and sounds of

people differs from an activity at a more developed location. Categorizing and mapping these lands

according to ROS criteria can assist land managers in multiple ways:

• The ROS does not focus solely on activities; it is a holistic approach that examines the

recreational experience based on the evidence of humans and their impacts on the natural

environment.

• The ROS provides a rational and consistent basis for recreationally based land-management

decisions. It identifies potential locations where specific uses may be allowed without

degrading the type of recreational experience for that area.

• Using the ROS can bring recreation inventory information to the same level that currently is

available for other resources in land-management planning and decisionmaking.

• The ROS places individual areas (such as state or county parks) in a broader, regional

perspective and helps protect rare primitive lands in a larger, regional context.

• The ROS can identify supply shortfalls and excesses in various categories and help set

acquisition priorities or guide management directions on specific public lands.

• The ROS can help determine “niche” opportunities in relation to what others provide,

facilitating interagency cooperation. In Vermont, state lands provide few opportunities for

primitive recreation experiences because state land units often are relatively small and close to

roads. However, the Green Mountain National Forest is a larger land mass that provides

primitive opportunities. Regionally, northern New Hampshire, Maine, and the Adirondack

Park in New York provide additional opportunities for primitive experiences and

opportunities.

• This implementation guide is intended for use on nonfederal lands. The USDA Forest

Service, along with other federal land-management agencies, remains committed to retaining

the preexisting ROS and its categories in the current round of forest planning. Many of the

changes in this guide were required because states often manage smaller land parcels and those

located closer to cities than federal agencies.
2

Introduction

The conservation of open space is about to become critical. The U.S. Census Bureau (2001)

estimates that the population will double by 2050 (http://www.census.gov/population/projections/

nation/summary/np-t.pd). This suggests that we are entering an era of unprecedented development.

More people will require more houses and more supporting infrastructure—offices, roads, malls, etc.

Also, the demand for outdoor recreation of all kinds likely will increase—from the use of small parks

in central cities to visits to wilderness areas on the distant horizon. There is a clear need for

foresighted conservation to protect and preserve diverse recreation opportunities. Unfortunately,

conservation could be impeded by the multiplicity of federal, state, and local agencies involved as

well as nonprofit groups, each with its own mandates, goals and objectives, and definitions and

procedures. Our efforts are likely to be incomplete until conservation efforts can be coordinated

across governmental levels, involving both interested not-for-profits and the private sector.

The first step in the conservation process is a sound inventory. Recreation inventories typically

enumerate specific facilities—picnic tables, benches, playgrounds, ball fields, etc. Often, too, there

are activity-specific inventories—numbers of campgrounds, hunting areas, hiking trails, and so on.

But inventories and inventory methods can differ across agencies, organizations, and levels of

government. To avoid duplication of effort and to optimize the use of scarce resources, those involved

in the providing recreation opportunities need to develop a common inventory language based on

shared categories and concepts. One step in this direction occurred in the late 1970’s when the Forest

Service developed the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (Clark and Stankey 1979). The

original ROS was a map-based inventory system that recognized the need to maintain a spectrum of

opportunities supporting a variety of experiences. The key term is “experiences” and the crucial

assumption is that different kinds of land (or landscapes) can support different kinds of experiences.

For example, the experience of primitive hiking or camping differs from the experience of hiking or

camping in more developed areas. Such differences need to be recognized in an inventory system.

The original ROS classified lands as primitive, semiprimitive, nonmotorized; semiprimitive

motorized; roaded natural; and urban. These categories should not be confused with wilderness,

which is a special, legally designated category that can cross classes. At the primitive end of the scale

are landscapes that support wilderness-like experiences. However, such experiences can be easily

intruded upon by human activity, so evidence of people was the key factor in differentiating among

classes. This evidence generally was operationalized for mapping purposes as distance from different

types of roads. Using this criterion, Forest Service recreation planners developed maps of the different

categories for inventory purposes (much like a timber-type map) that provided baseline information

with which professionals and the public could assess proposed management actions. For example, if a

road was proposed in a particular location, the ROS map could easily illustrate its impact on the

distribution of land across various experience categories.

In general, the ROS system proved robust and was quickly adopted by other federal landmanagement agencies, but problems emerged over time. Most importantly, the ROS was suited

primarily to applications on the vast public lands of the American West rather than the Eastern States

where public lands are smaller and landscapes are more intimate. Consequently, in 1985, the Forest

Service issued an Eastern Regional Supplement to facilitate ROS application on eastern national

forests (USDA For. Serv. 1985).

Unfortunately, the Eastern Regional Supplement also has proven problematic. Lynch and Nelson

(1996) identified three major difficulties:

• Vague, poorly defined standards that are not specific, measurable parameters.

• Direct inconsistencies and contradictions.

• Absence of standards and guidelines for selected recreation facilities.
3

For example, much of the application of the ROS depends on the presence or absence of roads, but

specific guidelines are needed for particular kinds of roads in certain ROS classes. Similarly, there is a

lack of specific standards for facilities such as boat launches, cross-country ski trails and horse trails,

and the Eastern Regional Supplement was issued prior to the mountain biking trend. Such

difficulties can lead to ambiguous opportunity settings that fail to meet user expectations, resulting in

conflict between managers and the public.

As stated earlier, the ROS system was designed for the needs of large federal land-management

agencies. It is less well adapted to the needs of states, counties, and municipalities where properties

tend to be smaller and more diverse, and may be located near or within, major metropolitan areas.

Thus, the ROS is more finely differentiated at the primitive end of the spectrum than at the urban

end. This greater diversity at the urban end necessitates the development of more finite categories.

These difficulties with the ROS are understandable given the needs and interests of the Forest Service

as the originating agency. Unfortunately, despite its revisions, the current ROS remains unsuited to

multiagency, cross-jurisdictional planning. We need to develop an inventory system that accounts for

diversity in both activities and experiences, that reveals deficits in specific experience categories, and

that identifies potential areas for conservation based on the kind of experience they are capable of

sustaining. For example, a ROS inventory might identify a shortfall in semiprimitive, nonmotorized

areas, or identify a primitive area that should be conserved. Here we report results of an interagency

effort to extend the existing ROS to include both federal and state lands planning in the Northeast.

While our effort centered on Vermont state lands, the results should be applicable to other

Northeastern states and eventually to county and municipal-level planning.

Our priority was to construct a manual that will be helpful in training field personnel in the

application of the ROS to nonfederal land planning. We begin with a description of the original ROS

and the changes we initiated. This is followed by a set of implementation guidelines that include a

general description of inventory goals, key concepts (Appendix I), and instructions for implementing

the guidelines. Explicit descriptions of the ROS categories and standards and are presented in Tables

1-8 in Appendix II.

Background: The ROS Old and New

The original ROS inventory system (and the one currently used by federal land-management

agencies) embodies six land classes: primitive; semiprimitive, nonmotorized; semiprimitive,

motorized; roaded, natural; rural; and urban. Each class is described by a “typical” setting based on

factors such as size, naturalness, and the presence or absence of motorized vehicles and other sights

and sounds of humans. The different settings prompt experiences that range from a sense of isolation,

self-reliance, and closeness to nature at the primitive end of the scale to social experiences in highly

structured environments at the urban end. Both the setting and experience scales associated with each

ROS class are described in the original ROS Users Guide (USDA For. Serv. 1982).

The ROS produces a set of inventory maps based on multiple criteria: remoteness, area size, evidence

of humans, and social and managerial settings. With the remoteness criterion, primitive lands must

be at least 3 miles from all roads, railroads, etc. and roaded natural lands are within one-half mile of

roads that are better than primitive; there is no distance criterion for rural or urban lands. For the size

criterion, primitive lands generally must exceed 5,000 acres and semiprimitive lands, both motorized

and nonmotorized, must exceed 2,500 acres; there is no size criterion for roaded natural, rural, or

urban lands. These criteria are fully described in the ROS Users Guide and, as noted, are combined

to produce inventory maps much like timber-type maps. These maps are a useful tool for organizing

baseline information to assess the potential effects of future recreation management and policy

alternatives.

We attempted to adapt the ROS to nonfederal land planning in New England. There have been

many recreation developments in the nearly 25 years since the ROS was first implemented,
4

particularly in equipment such as mountain bikes and trail rollerblades. An initial difficulty was

accommodating these developments while retaining the integrity of the original ROS system without

affecting existing federal inventories.

Our changes fell into five general categories. First, we tried to clarify the language of the existing

ROS, resolving contradictions to make the guidelines easier to understand and implement. For

example, the experience character of the rural class in the original ROS states that the “probability for

experiencing affiliation with individuals and groups is prevalent, as is the convenience of sites and

opportunities.” This was reworded to: “Encounters with other individuals and groups are common.

Site and activity access is convenient.”

Second, we wanted to clarify the more general or vague guidelines and increase the consistency of

interpretations. For example, the primitive setting guidelines state that the area appears to be an

essentially unmodified natural environment that is relatively large in size. Because managers

experienced difficulty interpreting which management actions were consistent with an area that is an

“essentially unmodified natural setting,” we added the following language: “Timber harvesting and

most other vegetation management techniques usually are not compatible with this class.

Management techniques such as prescribed burns and other vegetative treatments using highly

specialized treatments may be acceptable on a limited basis but must be evaluated relative to this

class” (Table 1, Appendix II).

Similarly, we included uses that were not mentioned in the original ROS (cf. Lynch and Nelson

1996). Rather than relying on managers to interpret where such uses are appropriate, we added

language to clarify when and where mechanized uses are most appropriate within the spectrum.

Third, the original ROS allowed modifications to some guidelines (e.g., remoteness and size criteria)

during implementation based on site-specific features. For example, while the remoteness criteria

states that a primitive area is at least 3 miles from all roads, railroads, and trails with motorized use, it

allows for modification to conform to natural barriers, screening, topography, and vegetative cover.

We did not change the original remoteness criteria but clarified how conditions in New England

could be accounted for in modifications. In the case of primitive remoteness, we added the statement:

“In New England, a 2-mile distance may be appropriate due to the nature of topography and other

features.”

Fourth, the most obvious change was renaming some classes. As various categories were discussed, we

encountered conundrums like: Can there be rural areas in a city? Eventually we realized that we were

dealing with both a continuum of development and a range of naturalness, so we renamed the classes

accordingly:

• roaded natural was changed to semideveloped natural;

• rural became developed natural; and

• urban became highly developed.

Note that the basic content of each class remains unaltered; our goal was simply to show a

continuous scale of development.

Fifth, the most substantive change is the addition of characterizations and guidelines for the (now)

“highly developed” class. In adapting the ROS to all lands in Vermont and potentially New England,

we had to capture the experience characteristics for those who use highly developed areas for

recreation. Highly developed recreation experiences are as wide ranging as the settings in which they

occur. For example, we discussed the variety of experiences supported by a large park like New York

City’s Central Park compared to small “pocket” parks or athletic fields devoted to facilities like ball

fields or tennis courts. Each of these entailed obvious differences in setting, user motivation, and the
5

nature of the experience. It is much easier to experience a limited sense of solitude in a large park

where the street is out of view than in a small park where the surrounding city is constantly in

evidence. Such differences are obvious but we also identified differences in user motivation and

experience by subdividing the urban classification into two primary categories:

• Settings in which facilities are dominant and exist to support a particular recreation activity.

Here the experience is about the activity, e.g., a baseball diamond.

• Settings that are naturalistic and are not developed to meet the needs of particular activities.

The experience here is about escaping an urban landscape to participate in unstructured

activities—strolling, sunbathing, or simply sitting under a tree. The naturalistic category was

divided into two subcategories—large (more than 15 acres) and small—since we expected

that each category would sustain different kinds of experiences.

These changes led us to retain a six-class ROS with the highly developed category comprising three

subclasses. Thus, we were able to preserve the content of the original ROS so that existing inventories

would not be compromised while offering finer differentiation at the urban end of the spectrum.

Implementing the Recreation Inventory and ROS

To determine appropriate recreational opportunities, experiences, and uses of public lands, land

managers need a systematic and consistent inventory and assessment of these items as part of the

long-range planning process. We recommend following this implementation guide both for newly

acquired parcels and existing parcels that are due for plan revision. The resulting consistent protocol

can be used in management planning on both federal and state public lands. Such coordination will

facilitate consistent messages given to the public on the types of recreation experiences to expect in

various areas, regardless of the agency that provides the opportunity. The guide is the first attempt to

ensure interagency consistency at multiple governmental levels.

The steps outlined in this guide are not the only methods by which recreational resources can be

inventoried and mapped. In fact, future revisions and improvements are likely as experience is gained

at the developed end of the spectrum.

General Goals of Recreation Resources Inventory and Mapping Process

• Provide the most current recreation resources information available on parcels of nonfederal

lands for long-range management planning.

• Emphasize outdoor recreation management and establish standards and guidelines for

specific management areas based on other resource data layers.

• Use the outcomes of the recreation inventory and assessment in conducting tradeoff analyses

for various management activities or areas for protection.

• Provide current information with respect to day-to-day management decisions, future

projects, and public requests related to recreational uses and activities.

• Separate incompatible managerial and user activities to provide facilities and settings that are

consistent with user expectations (i.e., minimize user conflicts).

• Identify inappropriate uses and activities for various areas to protect for specific

opportunities and experiences.

• Produce maps with digital information that meets the National Map Accuracy Standards for

positional accuracy.
6

Using the Implementation Guide

The process that follows is designed to produce at least two maps: an Existing Recreational Resources

Map, and an Existing ROS Inventory Map. After integrating the ROS with other resource data layers

during the planning process, a third map—of potential opportunities—could be produced if the

current recreation situation needs to be revised. Before applying the ROS, managers should review

the key concepts listed in Appendix II.

Information Gathering and Mapping for

Existing Recreation Facilities, Activities, and Uses

The purpose of gathering existing information is to document what people are doing, where they are

doing it, how many people are using various areas, and the facilities and infrastructure that are

available for these activities. This process also will help explain why people go where they go and do

what they do, and identify key attraction sites, activity areas, and “hot spots”.

The following steps are required:

1. Identify a team with expertise related to recreation on the parcel (e.g., foresters, planners, GIS

specialists, and wildlife biologists.) Designate individuals on the team to conduct the inventory

and mapping process.

2. Determine what information exists, including concurrent mapping or inventory efforts. Collect all

pertinent existing data including information from discussion with knowledgeable individuals,

and from preliminary site visits. Important information includes:

• Trails and roads. Use established databases and protocols in collecting information. Include

data on roads on and around the property, trail locations, trail heads, parking areas, and

shelters and lean-tos associated with trails.

• Buildings/structures/facilities. Use established databases and protocols to collect information.

Include data on park structures, lean-tos, maintenance shops, parking areas, campgrounds,

beaches, access areas, toilet buildings, and utility corridors.

• Special features. Identify point locations for items that attract people, e.g., vistas, viewpoints,

waterfalls, swimming holes, cliffs, gorges, cellar holes, historic sites, and apple trees, etc.

During the planning process it may be decided that people should be directed away from

such areas.

• Identify appropriate activities. Identify appropriate activities such as hiking, cross-country

skiing, viewing scenery, snowmobiling, and camping.

• Activity nodes. Identify areas where certain activities are concentrated, e.g., trailheads,

swimming holes, and shelters, as well as areas where various activities tend to occur (legally

or illegally), e.g., hiking, skiing, snowmobiling, and camping.

3. Review the legal and political constraints on the property, e.g., deed restrictions, conservation

easements, funding requirements, and political promises, to determine their impact on recreational

use of the property.

4. Map existing information on the land parcel using an appropriate map base and scale (paper or

digital orthophoto, USGS topo sheet, color infrared, digital maps) by plotting on Mylar overlays.

If accurate locations cannot be determined from existing information, collect accurate field data

with global positioning system equipment.
7

5. Develop a preliminary Existing Recreational Resources Map at an appropriate scale for use in field

work. Using digital orthophotos, one can produce field maps that include the GIS data layers for a

particular parcel. Refer to field map protocols for natural community mapping.

6. Design and conduct field work to confirm mapped facilities and to make necessary additions or

changes to the map.

7. Develop final Existing Recreational Resources Map using GIS standards and attributes as adopted

by the agency.

8. Identify other recreational facilities and uses in a regional context, including comparable lands

managed by other state and federal agencies. Develop a separate GIS map at an appropriate scale

that identifies the regional context.

Conducting the ROS Inventory

Providing opportunities for a range of visitor experiences is an important part of planning for most

public lands as most people use them for different and sometimes conflicting reasons. A diversity of

settings and opportunities allows visitors to select the experience(s) most closely matching their

reason for using public lands. Planning for a diversity of experiences also helps avoid conflicts among

visitors who want different things from their visits.

After inventorying and mapping existing recreational facilities and uses, conduct the ROS inventory

for recreational opportunities using the tables in Appendix II, the ROS Eastern Region Supplement

(USDA For. Serv. 1985), and other supporting information.

The following are general criteria used in delineating ROS class:

1. Each class is defined with respect to its combination of activity, setting, and experience

opportunities (Table 1). Three criteria are used to deliniate the setting component for mapping:

physical, social and managerial. The mapping criteria for the physical setting are remoteness, size,

and evidence of humans. User density is the criterion for the social component, and (managerial)

regimentation and noticibility are the criteria for the managerial setting.

2. Use the Existing Recreation Resources Map as the base map to conduct the ROS. Use Mylar

overlays, trace paper, or the GIS Existing Recreation Resources Map to draw ROS categories on

the map. A GIS-based program can be developed to prepare the Remoteness and Size of Area

overlays as the first step in defining the Physical Setting Overlay. Otherwise, this must be done

manually on the base map. If the map is “busy” or difficult to read, adjust the base map scale for

developing the ROS class designation. Seasonal maps—one for summer and one for winter—are

highly recommended as activities, setting, and experience can change significantly with the

season.

Physical Setting

The physical setting (ROS Users Guide, p. 16) is defined by the absence of human sights and sounds,

size, and amount of environmental modification caused by human activity. Three criteria are

combined:

• Remoteness. Determine class boundaries using distance from roads, railroads, and trails with

motorized use under the criteria in Table 3.

• Size of area. Adjust class boundaries based on size criteria for each ROS class from Table 4.
8

• Evidence of humans. Apply criteria from Table 5 to determine whether the impact of human

modification on the landscape is appropriate for each class designation on the inventory

overlay. Adjust class boundaries if necessary and reevaluate size criteria.

This will create the Physical Setting Map Overlay.

Social Setting

The social setting (ROS Users Guide, p. 25) reflects the amount and type of contact between

individuals and groups, indicating opportunities for solitude, or interactions with selected individuals

or within large groups.

• User density. Apply criteria from Table 6 to the class boundaries and adjust as necessary. This

will create the Social Setting Map Overlay (for less complex land parcels, this overlay can be

combined with the Physical Setting Map Overlay).

Managerial Setting

The managerial setting (ROS Users Guide, p. 27) reflects the amount and kind of restrictions placed

on people’s actions by the administering agency or private landowner, which, in turn, affect

recreation opportunities.

• Managerial regimentation and noticeability. Apply criteria from Table 7 to the class

boundaries and make further adjustments as needed. This will create the Managerial Setting

Map Overlay which can be combined with Physical Setting and Social Setting Map Overlays.

Resolving Setting Inconsistencies

Take the following steps to resolve setting inconsistencies (ROS Users Guide, p. 29) for the current

situation:

• Map the ROS class that best reflects current management direction.

• Emphasize the physical setting.

• Average the differences if emphasizing the physical setting yields unrealistic results.

• If averaging is necessary, it is easier to shift from primitive to highly developed along the

spectrum than from highly developed to primitive.

3. Prepare the Existing ROS Inventory Map. The ROS class delineations should be digitized to

develop a GIS data layer. Use the Existing Recreation Resources Map as the base and place the

ROS classifications on top of the base map. If the map is too difficult to read, use an appropriate

base map to depict existing ROS class delineations.

4. At this point you may be able to develop a preliminary Potential ROS Inventory Map based on

your knowledge of the parcel and if there are areas with no management conflicts. This map need

not be completed if there are no areas for which you want to change management strategies or the

ROS classification. If it is not possible to complete the map at this time, prepare it when you enter

into the decisionmaking process for a specific parcel.

Entering into Management Decisionmaking

After the inventory and mapping process is complete for existing recreation resources and ROS, the

recreation component for management mapping is complete unless a Potential ROS Inventory Map

is required. The existing ROS inventory map should be used as one data layer for management and
9

planning. Other data layers may include special constraints (deed and legal), natural resource

information such as wildlife and timber data, natural communities map, cultural/historic resources,

and existing recreational resource information and ROS. GIS data layers and maps are helpful in

determining:

• The appropriateness of existing activities, facilities, experiences, and opportunities.

• Areas in which current facility development, use, and activity is inappropriate or potentially

inappropriate.

• Areas suitable for specific types of new recreational activities.

Conclusion

If the U.S. population doubles by 2050 as expected, increasing public demand will necessitate

interagency and cross-jurisdictional planning to preserve increasingly scarce recreation opportunities.

The inventory process is basic to such planning and the ROS is one of the most powerful recreation

inventory and analysis tools ever devised. As currently formulated, ROS is best applied on the large

public tracts in the Western United States. Several modifications were required before it could be

applied in the East. These included adding clarifying language and management/implementation

guidelines, adapting ROS to accommodate the New England landscape, renaming certain classes, and

developing the urban category more completely. ROS mapping has been applied successfully to state

lands in Vermont and we hope that other states will be interested in adopting it for their inventory

and planning. The problems we encountered are hardly unique to Vermont, and the goal of broadbased, integrated planning is in the general public interest.

No doubt, additional changes will be required as we delve further into the urban end of the

spectrum. Moreover, there are questions about the public’s ability to discriminate across classes at the

primitive end (Dawson et al. 2002) and questions about the experiential basis of this technique. Still,

the ROS is the best available inventory technology for planning a highly problematic future, and is

increasingly important that it be applied at governmental levels.

Acknowledgment

We thank Floyd Thompson, USDA Forest Service, and Herbert Echelberger, USDA Forest Service

(retired), for their reviews of an earlier draft of this report.

Literature Cited

Clark, R; Stankey, G. 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: a framework for

planning, management, and research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-98. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 32 p.

Dawson, C.; Oreskes, R.; Kacprzynski, F.; More, T. 2002. Visitor satisfactions: backcountry and

wilderness users in the White Mountain National Forest. In: Todd, Sharon, comp., ed.

Proceedings of the 2001 northeastern recreation research symposium; 2001 April 1-3: Bolton

Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-289. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 144-152.

Lynch, J.; Nelson, C. 1996. Updating the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum user guide—

Eastern regional supplement. In: Kuentzel, Walter, ed. Proceedings of the 1996 northeastern

recreation research symposium; 1996 March 31-April 1: Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep.

NE-232. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Research Station: 157-159.
10

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982. ROS users guide. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1985. Ros users guide—eastern regional

supplement. Milwaukee: WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region.
11

Appendix I

Key Concepts

“Managing for recreation requires different kinds of data and management concepts than do most

other activities. While recreation must have a physical base of land or water, the product—recreation

experience—is a personal or social phenomenon. Although, the management is resource based, the

actual recreation activities are a result of people, their perceptions, wants, and behaviors” (Final

Report of the Committee of Scientists for Implementation of Section 6 of the National Forest

Management Act of 1976, February 22, 1979, as published in the Federal Register, Part V, May 4,

1979, p. 26628).

Visitor (social) carrying capacity is defined as “the type and level of visitor use that can be

accommodated while sustaining acceptable resource and social conditions that complement the

purpose of the park (land base).” It is intended to safeguard the quality of the natural, aesthetic, and

cultural resources and of the visitor experience. It is primarily a prescription of resource and social

conditions, and secondarily a prescription for the appropriate number of people.

Recreation opportunity is “the availability of a real choice for a user to participate in a preferred

activity within a preferred setting, in order to realize those satisfying experiences which are desired.”

(ROS User Guide, p. 4).

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is an inventory system built on the premise that

people expect certain types of recreational experiences on public land, and that land managers should

be able to direct people to appropriate places. ROS allows the land manager to provide recreational

opportunities across a spectrum, or continuum, of six land-use classes so that the user may find

satisfying recreational experiences in a variety of recreation activities.

ROS separates incompatible managerial and user activities and helps managers provide facilities and

settings in keeping with user expectations. For example, visitors seeking a remote camping

opportunity in areas with little evidence of humans or contact with other users might be disturbed to

find themselves in what they consider crowded, socially oriented, developed campgrounds or in an

area currently undergoing timber harvest. Conversely, users seeking experiences with high social

contact, numerous facilities, and other evidence of human activity may be fearful or uncomfortable

in remote, completely natural settings.

The entire spectrum of ROS classes need not be present on each land parcel In fact, only large tracts

of land are likely to have more than one ROS class present.
12

Appendix II

Table 1a.—ROS classes for New England—setting characterization and clarifications

SETTING CHARACTERIZATION

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

Area appears to be an essentially

unmodified natural environment of

relatively large size. It may contain

evidence of past human activities and

historical-cultural sites, but these are

subordinate to its natural state.

Interaction between users is very low,

and evidence of other users is

minimal.

The area is essentially free from

evidence of management restrictions

and controls.

Motorized or mechanized use is not

permitted.

Dispersed (low density) pedestrian

recreation is the primary

management goal.

Saddle, pack, and draft animal use

could be compatible if trails are

designed and maintained to a

primitive standard, (e.g., trail

construction should avoid

structures).

Timber harvesting and vegetation

management are not compatible with

this class. Other management

techniques such as proscribed burns

should be evaluated relative to the

class.

Area appears to be a predominantly

natural or natural appearing

environment of relatively medium-tolarge size.

Interaction between users is low, but

there is often evidence of other users.

The area is managed so that minimum

on-site controls and restrictions, if

needed, are subtle.

Nonmechanized uses predominate.

Mechanized uses may be permitted.

Motorized use is not permitted.

The area is managed for dispersed (lowdensity), pedestrian recreation.

Trail uses are managed in designated,

maintained corridors. The impacts of

mechanized use on the semiprimitive

recreation experience must be

considered in locating mechanized trails.

Saddle, pack, and draft animal use may

be permitted.

Timber harvesting and vegetation

management may occur on a short-term

basis if effects are minimized or

mitigated to maintain class consistency

(seasonality, scheduling harvest,

aesthetics, road placement). Sights and

sounds associated with skidder and

chain saw use generally are not

consistent with this class.

SETTING CLARIFICATIONS

Area appears to be a predominantly

medium-to-large size natural or

natural appearing environment.

Interaction between users is low, but

there is often evidence of other users.

The area is managed so that

minimum on-site controls and

restrictions, if needed, are subtle.

Mechanized uses may be permitted.

All mechanized and motorized uses

are restricted to designated corridors.

Primary* motorized travel corridors

are not permitted. Designated

secondary, ** local, or loop motorized

use is permitted within designated

corridors.

*Primary trails are typically twolane, long-distance, high-speed

travelways designed for heavy

use.**Secondary “or connecting”

trails are typically one lane, shorter

distance, and slower speed,

designed for low to moderate use.

Timber harvesting and vegetation

management are compatible.

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized
13

Table 1b.—ROS classes for New England—setting characterization and clarifications

SETTING CHARACTERIZATION

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

Area is a natural appearing

environment. Evidences of the

sights and sounds of people are

moderate. Such evidences

usually harmonize with the

natural environment.

Interaction between users may

be low to moderate, but

evidence of other users is

prevalent.

Resource modification and

utilization practices are evident

but harmonize with the

natural environment.

Construction standards and

facility design accommodate

conventional motorized and

mechanized uses.

Motorized and mechanized

uses are permitted. Trail uses

are managed in designated,

maintained corridors.

Strive to maintain a spectrum

of development levels in this

class. Sites that are farther

from asphalt roads and that

provide access to more remote

areas should be managed

toward the semiprimitive

(more rustic) end of the

spectrum.

Many timber harvesting and

vegetation management

practices are compatible.

Area is a substantially

modified natural

environment. Resource

modification and utilization

practices enhance specific

recreation activities and

maintain vegetative cover

and soil. Sights and sounds

of people are readily evident.

Interaction between users

often is moderate to high.

Many facilities are designed

for use by a large number of

people. Density levels

decline with increasing

distance from developed

sites.

Facilities often are provided

for special activities.

Facilities for intensified

motorized and mechanized

uses and parking are

available.

All trail uses may be

permitted.

Recreationists may pass

through various landscape

types, including developed

and natural appearing.

Many timber harvesting and

vegetation management

practices are compatible.

The setting contrasts with the

surrounding cityscape, but

urban elements are common

and readily apparent.

Vegetation often is exotic and

manicured. The design

enables users to choose

amongst solitude and social

experiences in a naturalistic

setting (e.g., there may be

footpaths, benches, and social

focal points).

Large numbers of users can

be expected, both onsite and

in nearby areas.

Facilities are designed to serve

individuals or small groups

but can accommodate high

use.

Facilities accommodate access

by a variety of means,

including pedestrian,

motorized, mechanized, and

mass transit.

Organized/structured uses are

not necessarily incompatible

with individual/small group

uses, depending on design.

Most types of recreational

experience are consistent with

this class, but emphasis is on

generally unstructured

activities (e.g., gardens, open

trails, beaches, picnic areas).

The setting contrasts

with the surrounding

cityscape, but urban

elements are common

and readily apparent.

Sights and sounds of

people are expected

and desired.

The design facilitates

social encounters in a

naturalistic setting.

“Naturalistic” may

include highly

designed environments

that incorporate

noninvasive, exotic

species.

Area is characterized by a

substantially developed

environment. The setting

is highly structured to fit

the activity being

provided.

Social encounters are

expected and often

programmed.

Design is dictated by the

requirements of the

particular activities

involved.

Facilities are designed for

large groups typical of

sports and special events.

Most types of

recreational experience

are consistent with this

class, but facilities tend

to be designed and

managed for specific

activities (e.g., skate

parks, tennis courts, ball

fields).

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

SETTING CLARIFICATIONS
14

EXPERIENCE CHARACTERIZATION

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

Extremely high probability of

experiencing isolation from human

development, use, and impact.

Extremely high probability of

experiencing independence,

closeness to nature, tranquility, and

self-reliance by applying outdoor

skills in an environment that offers

a high degree of challenge and risk.

This class does not change

seasonally.

Moderately high probability of

experiencing isolation from human

development, use, and impact.

High probability of experiencing

independence, closeness to nature,

tranquility, and self-reliance by

applying outdoor skills in an

environment that offers challenge

and risk.

ROS class may change seasonally, but

the character of the area must remain

unchanged. For example, a summer

foot trail could become a winter

motorized trail.

Moderate probability of

experiencing isolation from human

development, use, and impact.

Opportunity for high degree of

interaction with the natural

environment. Moderate probability

of experiencing independence,

closeness to nature, tranquility, and

self-reliance by applying outdoor

skills in an environment that offers

challenge and risk.

Opportunity to use motorized

equipment.

ROS class may change seasonally,

but the character of the area must

remain unchanged.

EXPERIENCE CLARIFICATIONS

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

Table 2a.—ROS classes for New England—experience characterization and clarifications
15

Table 2b.—ROS classes for New England—experience characterization and clarifications

EXPERIENCE CHARACTERIZATION

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

About equal probability of

encountering other user

groups and isolation from

sights and sounds of

people.

Opportunity for a high

degree of interaction with

the natural environment.

Challenge and risk

opportunities generally are

not important. Practicing

and testing outdoor skills

might be important.

Opportunities for both

motorized and

nonmotorized forms of

recreation are possible.

Strive to maintain a

spectrum of development

levels in this class. Sites

with limited road noise

that are located away from

developments like

concessions, stores, towns,

and cities should be

managed toward the

semiprimitive (more rustic)

end of the spectrum.

Encounters with other

individuals and groups are

common. Site/activity

access is convenient. The

physical setting is not as

important as the activity

opportunity.

Wildland challenges, risk

taking, and testing of

outdoor skills generally are

unimportant except for

specific activities in which

challenge and risk-taking

are important elements,

e.g. mountain skiing.

Amenities for user

convenience are

appropriate, e.g.,

telephones, camp store.

Design generally offers

users a choice between

social encounters and

solitude in an urban

setting.

Observing natural

appearing elements is

important. Naturerelated challenge and risk

opportunities generally

are not important

The presence of other

people often is expected

and desired.

Observing natural

appearing elements is

important. Naturerelated challenge and risk

opportunities generally

are not important.

Opportunities for unstructured uses of highly human

influenced parks and open spaces are common.

Social encounters are

expected. Site/activity

access is convenient. The

physical setting is not as

important as the activity

opportunity.

Challenge and risk

opportunities are not

important, except for

specific activities in

which challenge and risk

taking are important

elements, e.g., sports

competition.

Opportunities for

competitive and spectator

sports and organized

events in highly humaninfluenced parks and

open spaces are common.

EXPERIENCE CLARIFICATIONS

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities
16

Table 3a.—ROS classes for New England—remoteness criteria and clarifications

REMOTENESS CRITERIA

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

Area is at least 3 miles from all

maintained roads, railroads, or trails

with designated motorized or

mechanized use. In New England, a

2-mile distance may be appropriate

due to the nature of topography and

other features.

The criteria can be modified to

conform to natural barriers and

screening, or other relevant features

of local topographic relief, vegetative

cover, land-use history, and adjacent

privately conserved lands. This fits

the criteria into the context of the

surrounding landscape.

Topographic guideline: 1000

vertical feet elevation change may be

considered roughly equivalent to 1

mile horizontal distance.

Planning maps should be

comprehensive, displaying all

known roads.

Area is at least 0.5 mile (but not

farther than 3 miles or perhaps 2

miles in New England) from all

maintained roads, railroads, or trails

with designated motorized or

mechanized use; can include

unimproved roads and trails if

usually closed to motorized use.

The criteria can be modified to

conform to natural barriers and

screening, or other relevant features

of local topographic relief, vegetative

cover, land-use history, and adjacent

privately conserved lands. This fits

the criteria into the context of the

surrounding landscape.

Unimproved roads are not

constructed to an improved

standard, are temporary, and are not

maintained. They typically are used

by vehicles not intended primarily

for highway use. These include skid

trails, temporary log truck roads,

abandoned roads, and town trails.

Planning maps should be

comprehensive, displaying all known

roads.

Area may contain unimproved roads

or secondary trails but is at least 0.5

mile from any improved,

maintained roads, railroads, or

primary motorized or mechanized

trails.

The criteria can be modified to

conform to natural barriers and

screening, or other relevant features

of local topographic relief, vegetative

cover, land-use history, and adjacent

privately conserved lands. This fits

the criteria into the context of the

surrounding landscape.

Improved roads are constructed to a

standard. These include graded and

drained, aggregate surface, or

pavement travelways, such as

logging roads.

Planning maps should be

comprehensive, displaying all known

roads.

REMOTENESS CLARIFICATIONS

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized
17

Table 3b.—ROS classes for New England—remoteness criteria and clarifications

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

REMOTENESS CRITERIA

REMOTENESS CLARIFICATIONS

Area is within 0.5 mile

from improved,

maintained roads,

railroads, or trails.

Improved roads are

constructed to a standard.

No distance criteria. No distance criteria. No distance criteria. No distance criteria.
18

Table 4a.—ROS classes for New England—size criteria and clarifications

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

SIZE CRITERIA

SIZE CLARIFICATIONS

Minimum of 5,000 acres. In New

England, 3,000 acres may be

appropriate.

Size may be smaller if contiguous to

semiprimitive nonmotorized class or

other private or public lands that are

protected or managed in a

complementary or consistent

manner.

Minimum of 2,500 acres. In New

England, 1,000 acres may be

appropriate.

Size may be smaller if contiguous to

primitive class or other private or

public lands that are protected or

managed in a complementary or

consistent manner.

Minimum of 2,500 acres. In New

England, 1,000 acres may be

appropriate.

Size may be adjusted to account for

difficulty of access or if adjacent to

other private or public lands that are

protected or managed in a

complementary or consistent

manner.
19

Table 4b.—ROS classes for New England—size criteria and clarifications

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

SIZE CRITERIA

SIZE CLARIFICATIONS

No size criteria. No size criteria. No size criteria. Usually more than 15

acres.

Usually fewer than 15

acres.

Includes “pocket” parks

which may be less than

1 acre.

Although there are no

size criteria, different

sizes of areas and

facilities may provide

different experiences

and need to be

considered in planning.
20

Table 5a.—ROS classes for New England—evidence of humans criteria and clarifications

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CRITERIA

EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CLARIFICATIONS

Setting appears to be an essentially

unmodified natural environment.

Evidence of recent human activities

would be unnoticed by an observer

wandering through the area.

Evidence of past human activities

may be compatible.

Trails may be acceptable but must

be designed to a primitive standard.

Structures are extremely rare.

Very low trail density.

Natural appearing setting may have

subtle modifications that could be

noticed but not draw the attention

of an observer wandering through

the area.

Little or no evidence of unimproved

roads and motorized use of trails

(e.g., snowmobile trail in winter

with no evidence of its presence in

summer).

Structures are rare and isolated.

Low road and trail density.

Natural appearing setting may have

moderately dominant alterations but

would not draw the attention of

motorized observers on trails and

primitive roads within the area.

Unimproved roads and trails with

motorized use are present.

Structures are rare and isolated.

Low road and trail density.
21

Table 5b.—ROS classes for New England—evidence of humans criteria and clarifications

Setting is predominantly

natural, but design

elements are obvious and

prominently located.

Natural or natural

appearing elements may

play an important role but

are visually subordinate.

May include fountains,

benches, statues, etc.

Designed travelways,

including roads, paths,

sidewalks, trails, highways,

and streets are common.

Structures like picnic

shelters, boat ramps, etc.

are designed to support

specific activities. These

differ from facilities that

are highly organized areas

usually designed for a

specific activity (e.g., ball

diamonds). Facilities may

incorporate multiple

structures.

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CRITERIA

EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CLARIFICATIONS

Natural appearing setting

may have obvious

modifications, ranging from

easily noticed to strongly

dominant. However these

alterations remain unnoticed

or visually subordinate from

visually scenic and heavily

traveled routes and use areas.

Designed roads and/or

highways are present.

Structures generally are

scattered, remaining visually

subordinate or unnoticed by

observers on visually scenic

or heavily traveled routes.

Structures may include

power lines, microwave

installations, etc.

Moderate road and trail

density.

Strive to maintain a

spectrum of development

levels in this class. Sites with

flush toilets as well as those

with fewer structures and/or

with more distance between

them should be managed

toward the semiprimitive

(more rustic) end of the

spectrum.

Natural appearing setting has

been culturally modified so

that the modifications are

dominant.

Pedestrian or other slowmoving observers are

constantly within view of

culturally changed landscape.

May include pastoral,

agricultural, intensively

managed wildland resource

landscapes, or utility corridors.

Designed roads and/or

highways are present.

Structures are readily apparent

and may range from scattered

to small clusters that could

dominate the landscape.

Structures may include power

lines, microwave installations,

local ski areas, minor resorts,

and recreation sites.

Moderate road and trail

density.

No road-density criteria.

Setting may appear

primarily natural, but

design elements are obvious

and prominently located.

Pedestrian and other slowmoving observers are

constantly within view of

artificial enclosure of spaces.

Designed travelways,

including roads, paths,

sidewalks, trails, highways,

and streets are common.

Design depends on activity

requirements.

Structures may include

major year-round resorts

and marinas, national and

regional ski areas, industrial

parks, condominiums, or

second home

developments.

Setting is strongly

structure dominated and

is determined by the

requirements of specific

activities.

Designed travelways,

including roads, paths,

sidewalks, trails,

highways, and streets are

common.

Design is dependent on

requirements of activities.

Structures and large

structure complexes are

dominant.
22

Table 6a.—ROS classes for New England—social setting criteria and clarifications

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

SOCIAL SETTING CRITERIA

SOCIAL SETTINGCLARIFICATIONS

Low contact frequency. Low to moderate contact frequency. Low to moderate contact frequency.

Contact frequency varies with

location, day, season, and

conditions.

Users can expect a higher number of

parties at designated concentration

points.

Usually less than 6 parties per day

encountered on trails and less than 3

parties visible at campsites.

National standards provide a relative

guide, but normative standards for

the acceptable number of

encounters need to be developed to

meet regional and local conditions.

Contact frequency varies with

location, day, season, and

conditions.

Users can expect a higher number of

parties at designated concentration

points.

Usually 6 to 15 parties per day

encountered on trails, and 6 or less

visible at campsites.

National standards provide a relative

guide, but normative standards for

the acceptable number of encounters

need to be developed to meet

regional and local conditions.

Contact frequency varies with

location, day, season, and

conditions.

Users can expect a higher number of

parties at designated concentration

points.

National standards provide a relative

guide, but normative standards for

the acceptable number of

encounters need to be developed to

meet regional and local conditions.
23

Table 6b.—ROS classes for New England—social setting criteria and clarifications

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

SOCIAL SETTING CRITERIA

SOCIAL SETTINGCLARIFICATIONS

Frequency of contact is

moderate to high on

roads, and low to

moderate on trails and

away from roads.

Contact frequency varies

with location, day, season,

and conditions. Peak days

may exceed typical limits.

Strive to maintain a

spectrum of facilities that

supports a variety of

contact levels. Sites that

connect more directly to

remote areas should be

managed toward the semiprimitive (more rustic)

end of the spectrum.

Frequency of contact is

moderate to high on roads,

and low to moderate on

trails and away from roads.

Contact frequency varies

with location, day, season,

and conditions. Peak days

may exceed typical limits.

Large numbers of users

(relative to the size of the

park) may be on site. The

surrounding area may be

commercial, industrial,

or residential.

Large numbers of users

may or may not be on

site and in nearby areas.

Area may be located in a

commercial or industrial

district but is more likely

to be in a neighborhood

or at the edge of a city.

Large numbers of users

on site and in nearby

areas. Use level depends

largely on programming

or scheduling.
24

 Table 7a.—ROS classes for New England—managerial setting criteria and clarifications

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

Primitive Semiprimitive nonmotorized Semiprimitive motorized

MANAGERIAL SETTING CRITERIA

MANAGERIAL CLARIFICATIONS

On-site regimentation is low with

controls primarily off site.

Controls can be physical (such as

barriers) or regulatory (such as

permits).

Trails and facilities are constructed,

maintained, and managed according

to accepted management standards.

Public information is provided off

site. Amount of detail is minimal.

Trail marking is infrequent.

On-site regimentation and controls

are present but subtle.

Controls can be physical (such as

barriers) or regulatory (such as

permits).

Trails and facilities are constructed,

maintained, and managed according

to accepted management standards.

On-site regimentation and controls

are present but subtle.

Controls can be physical (such as

barriers) or regulatory (such as

permits).

Trails and facilities are constructed,

maintained, and managed according

to accepted management standards.
25

 Table 7b.—ROS classes for New England—managerial setting criteria and clarifications

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

Highly developed

Semideveloped natural Developed natural Large natural Small natural Facilities

MANAGERIAL SETTING CRITERIA

MANAGERIAL CLARIFICATIONS

On-site regimentation and

controls are noticeable but

harmonize with the natural

environment.

Controls can be physical

(such as barriers) or

regulatory (such as permits).

Trails and facilities are

constructed, maintained,

and managed according to

accepted management

standards.

Trails leading to more remote

or more developed areas are

appropriate.

Users are informed that trails

may be shared and advised

on how to do so.

Bulletin boards, trailheads,

and register boxes are

appropriate here.

Regimentation and controls

are obvious and may be

numerous, largely in

harmony with the developed

environment.

Controls can be physical

(such as barriers) or

regulatory (such as permits).

Trails and facilities are

constructed, maintained, and

managed according to

accepted management

standards.

Trails leading to more remote

or more developed areas are

appropriate.Loop trails

around a site are appropriate.

Users are informed that trails

may be shared and advised on

how to do so.

Regimentation and controls are obvious and may be numerous.

Controls can be physical (such as barriers) or regulatory (such as

permits).

Structures, facilities, trails, and pathways are constructed, maintained,

and managed according to accepted management standards.

Signs direct peoples’ uses of roads and walkways.
Printed on Recycled Paper

More, Thomas A.; Bulmer, Susan; Henzel, Linda; Mates, Ann E. 2003. Extending

the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum to nonfederal lands in the Northeast:

an implementation guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-309. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 25 p.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is one of the most powerful recreation

inventory tools ever devised. Originally formulated in the late 1970’s for use on

public lands in the Western United States, the ROS was quickly adopted by federal

land-management agencies. However, its application to public lands in the east

proved problematic, as did its extension to state lands, which often can be smaller

and closer to cities. Additionally, during the 25 years since its development there

have been major changes in technology for both recreation users and managers.

We report results of an effort by the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and

Recreation, to adapt the ROS for use on public lands managed by state

governments, regional authorities, and nongovernmental organizations, particularly

in New England. The ROS tables have been updated but the basic content of the

spectrum remains the same. This guide outlines the steps involved in its application.

Keywords: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, recreation experience, planning
Headquarters of the Northeastern Research Station is in Newtown Square,

Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at:

Amherst, 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

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University

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

Warren, Pennsylvania

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political

beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET

Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call

(202)720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

“Caring for the Land and Serving People Thr ving People Through Research”