observation at locations suggests that much trail hiking
is enjoyed by either organized groups, or families
plus friends 7/ (table 1.03.09),

When size of place of residence is considered by
region, the relationships previously mentioned hold
up. In the West the populations in standard metro-
politan areas participate more heavily than other
residence groups. In the Northeast, however, parti-
cipation is heaviest among small city populations.
In the South the participation level is low for all
size of place of residence classes (table 1.02.09).

Putting youth aside for the moment, let us consider
the hiking participation among those aged 25 or more
according to years of education. The participation
rate increases with each educational level, from
zero for those who only have had up to 4 years of
schooling to 0.62 occasions per person during the
summer for those who finished college or more.
This pattern characterizes the Northeast and the
West, but is not typical of the North Central region
nor the South. One would suspect that these well-
educated hikers in the Northeast and West also
are in the higher income brackets. The absence of
such association in the North Central States and the
South is partly accounted for by the low participation
rates in these two areas (table 1.02.09).

The white population (on the average) hikes more
than four times as frequently as the nonwhite (0.28
compared with 0.06 days per person during the sum-
mer). This relationship is fairly consistent across
regions, and for each size of place of residence
class. Among nonwhites both male and female rates
are uniformly low, White female rates are slightly
Jess than male rates for each size of place of resi-
dence class, but differences are not great. The over-
all difference between white male and white female
is 0.35 to 0,21, while comparable nonwhite rates are
0.07 and 0.05 (tables 1.02.09 and 1.03.09),

Among employed persons 14 years of age and over,
only the professional, technical and the white-collar
group participate to any appreciable extent. Together
these groups account for 65 percent of all hiking
among employed persons 14 years of age and over.
These two occupational groups stand out, also, when
we consider region or size of place of residence
(tables 1.02.09 and 1.03.09).

Hiking participation is closely associated with one’s
reported state of health, only those reporting excellent
or good health participating to any appreciable extent.
This generally holds for each age and sex group
(table 1.04.09),

Hiking is fairly strenuous and those with limiting
impairments hike very little. On the other hand, the
rate for those whose impairments are not limiting

For example, the fourth ranking “activity most enjoyed"* by
various types of groups surveyed at recreation sites was
“trail hiking’ among “family plus friends or relatives" and
among “organized groups (troop, team, club)". See: Lesli
M. Reid, James H. Holl, and Raleigh Borlowe, ‘The Quality
of Outdoor Recreation Areas as Evidenced by User Sa
faction." ORRRC Study Report 5. Washington: Outdoor
Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962. See es-
pecially table 22, and app. IV, table 6. Among organized
groups, picnicking, swimming, and comping preceded trail
hiking in the preference order.

35

is about the same as the rate among those who have
no impairments (table 1.04.09).

ing preferences

Hiking is quite low in the preference order for
outdoor activities, only 3 percent listing ‘some’
preference for hiking. The degree of preference
increases with more frequent participation in hiking
for such active recreations as swimming, camping,
horseback riding, and bicycling. These are vigorous
activities, characteristic of youth (table 1.12),

One-third of those who prefer hiking are able to
hike as frequently as they would like. Another one-
third of those who prefer hiking do not engage as
often as they would like because of insufficient
available time, Another 12 percent are restricted
because facilities are not immediately available.
Restrictions due to financial ability are insignificant.
Females who prefer hiking mention more often than
males the unavailability of paths and other facilities,
but both mention the time restriction about equally
(table 1.14).

For the adult population, the association of hiking
with income, with professional and white-collar oc-
cupations, and with education, suggests that the older
hikers are a fairly well-identified group, But hiking
is not generally popular throughout the adult popula-
tion,

Hiking in the United States does not have the appeal
that it has in Europe. Our youth (12 through 17
years) are the principal hikers. With a pack, it
becomes a strenuous activity, and to engage requires
considerable physical effort. "Among those who have
tried hiking but did not like it, more than half say
it is too strenuous for them.

One may hike on trails with a pack for brief
periods of leisure time, provided one is proximate
to open country with trails. In such cases the exer-
tion need not be great. More typically, however,
our urban population must travel from home to the
open country site before beginning a hike along a
trail, Consequently, his trek may be overnight
or longer, and the physical activity may be quite
strenuous. In either case, little income outlay is
involved, the chief requirement being available leisure
time. The requisite knowledge and skill are not
difficult to acquire: walking skills of normal persons
need only be augmented by knowledge of safety pre-
cautions and attention to bodily comforts—experience
easily acquired from companions. More important
a requirement than skill, however, is an interest in
hiking, and obviously the physical challenge it offers
appeals to the young male or female more than other
groups. The level of status achieved through hiking
is generally low, perhaps, for most of our population
segments, There may be considerable notoriety at-
tached to unusually long or hazardous hikes, such as
a trek across continental United States. Among some
age groups, such as adolescents, there may be con-
siderable status accruing to one who hikes 20 miles
a day, say, or traverses an unusually rough terrain.
Except for such cases, status as a motivational factor
is insignificant, perhaps, when compared with the
motivations associated with the physical activity of
movement, of seeing new and varied scenes from



health. With these regional, color, occupational, health
and age-sex associations, hunters have a number of
unique characteristics.

Hunting and mobility

Table 11 shows the days per person hunting by
present and previous region, Previous region is de-
fined as the last region from which the individual
moved if the move occurred during the past 10 years,
The rates in parenthesis are for the segment whose
present and previous region is the same, that is,
they have not moved between regions within 10 years.
For example, those who have remained in the South
have a participation rate of 2.34 days per person
hunting during the 6-month period, Those who moved
from the South to the Northeast have a participation
rate of 0.88, while those who moved to the North
Central States have a rate of 1.16, Those who moved
from the West (1.31) appear to gain if they move to
the South (2.48), but lose if they move to the North

Table 11. Hunting days per person during the 6-month
period September 1960-February 1961, by present and
previous region (up to 10 years previous)

Days per person~present region
Previous region [United [North | North | cou, | west
States | east |Central
1.53] 1.03 | 1.58 | 2.04 |, 1.09
Northeast. 98] (1.07)| 1.04] 09 | 21.14
North Central 1.50] 1.12} (L7D{ 76 98
South 2.01] 88] 1.16 | (2.34)} 58
West. 1.40((% 4] 97 | 248 | 1.31)
Same region:

Some State... | 1.89) 1.08 | 1.81} 2.68 | 1.74
Different State 1.28] 1.06 | 1.36 | 1.57 81

VoOmitted because of insufficient sample size.
Less thon 0.005 days per person.

Source: Tables 2.05.31 ond 3.05.11.

Central area (0.97). However movers from the North-
east and North Central regions to the South appear to
Jose in participation levels, as well as those who move
from the North Central to the West. Migrants un-
doubtedly represent unique age, occupation, and resi~
dence characteristics. One would expect the Northeast
to South migrants to include many retirees as well as
migrants from Northeast and North Central States to
the West. Conversely, migrants from the Southto the
Northeast and North Central might be expected to be
in younger ages. ‘These possibilities, for which no
evidence is directly available from this survey, sug-
gest that migrants who move to retire do not resume
the hunting habits of their youth in large numbers,
even though an opportunity exists. On the other hand
there is some evidence that younger migrants assume
the hunting participation rate of the area into which
they move,

During the fall, 22 percent of the population say
they prefer hunting (first, second, and third prefer-
ences), and 16 percent express a preference for
hunting in the winter.- This places hunting among the

40

top five in preference for winter and among the top
three for fall, This preference order is higher than
one would expect from the percent participating. In
relation to the actual percent participating (13 percent
in the fall and 11 percent in the winter), hunting
(along with fishing} exhibits a strong unmet demand.
One must except ice skating and snow skiing—winter
sports exhibiting the strongest preference in relation
to the actual participants during the winter (tables
2,12 and 3,12),

Of the 22 percent who indicated hunting as a prefer-
ence during the fall, 14 percent mentioned hunting as
their first choice, 6 percent as the second, and 2
percent as the third. The first figure (14 percent)
is larger than any other fall activity, indicating that
commitment among hunters is high. This is shown,
also, by the high relationship between the number of
days participating and preference for hunting (table
2.12),

More frequent hunting is associated with larger
proportions expressing a preference for fishing and
camping, Except for horseback riding, participation
in hunting is negatively associated with preferences
for almost all other activities (table 2.12).

For the winter period, 16 percent express a pref-
erence for hunting (first, second, and third choices),
and a pattern similar to the above is observed, Par-
ticipation in hunting is highly associated with pref-
erence for fishing and horseback riding, but the per-
centage expressing a preference for camping is too
small to exhibit any relationship at all, Conversely,
Participation in hunting is negatively associated with
a number of factors, including sightseeing and others.
Thus, hunters express quite clearly defined outdoor
preferences. Their liking for fishing, camping, and
horseback riding uniquely defines their resource
needs (table 3,22),

Reasons for not hunting

For the fall period, 4 percent of the population would
like to engage in hunting but do not for some reason.
Except for playing outdoor games (6 percent), the
percentage who would like to engage in hunting but
do not is larger than for any other fail activity. This
ig not true in the winter, however, when the winter
sports (ice skating, snow skiing), find much larger
proportions who desire to engage but do not for some
reason (tables 2.16 and 3.16).

In the fall the most frequently given reason for
not going hunting more often is a lack of time, 39
percent so mentioning. But other factors are men-
tioned often, also, Sixteen percent mention factors
associated with ability to hunt, 13 percent indicate
a lack of finances, while 10 percent say they don’t
have the necessary equipment. Only 8 percent report
that ‘facilities’? are too crowded, inadequate, or too
distant for them to use. In the winter, the same
relative ranking of these factors results: time is
most frequently mentioned and ability next.

More time to hunt, knowledge of how to hunt and
possession of the necessary equipment, then, appear
to be critical for hunting. Unsatisfactory or unavail-
able facilities are not mentioned often by this group,
88 percent of whom know and use hunting facilities of
some kind (tables 2,16, 3.16, and 2.12),



Table 7. Hunting days per person by socioeconomic characteristics for region and size of place
September-November 1960 combined with December 1960-February 1961

of residence

Socio- Days per person
economic . Rural in
chor | United | Northeast | chor | South | West ait] SHA Gver | SHA Under | Urban, nett and out
acteristic tates entra! million million in ‘of SMA
All classes 1.53 1.03 1.58 2.04 1.09 1.53 0.25 0.83 1.14 2.87
Male (aye in
yeors)..... 3.02 2.28 2.97 3.91 2.08 3.02 52 1.66 2.38| 5.41
1217. 5.31 5.70 5.59 5.56 3.05 5.31 22 1.94 5.45 8.84
18-24 .. 4.23 3.08 3.78 6.24 1.48 4,23 1.07 1.75 % 8.18
25-44. 3.01 1.82 3.08 3.57 3.17 3.01 54 2.37 2.84 4,86
45.64 2.04 1.56 1.77 3.10 94 2.04 53 1.04 1.21 3.87
65 and
over... ww 13 1.60 1.69 66 Ww 08 48 33) 2.47
Female (age
in years) .. 18 2.93 29 20 2 18 2.02 -09 217 36
12.17. 19 7.03 38 9 .08 AW 201 2.03 715 39
18-24 .. 22 (=) AT 10 7,38 22 % 31 (22) 36
24d. 2 7.98 25 31 .22 23 04 13 210 43
45.64 Wy (o) 34 22 28 119 (2) 201 Y35} 239
65 and 2 3 a 3
(% (% 4 (% (4 * io) 4 ” ”
88 1.07 1.37 51
2B 213 44 7 )
million 83 58 72 1.07 72
ural . 2.13 2.28 3.43 2.06 Al
Not in SHA 2.60 3.14 2.31 2.63 2.33
Urban .. 1.16 64 1.96 78 15
Rural,
form .. 4.43 (2) 3.43 4.01 (2)
2ural
non-
farm... 2.80 3.68 1.73 3.17 2.38 |

Yomitted because of insufficient sample size for one or both seasons.
Yone or both seasons less than 0,005 days per person.

meaning that young rural males continue to go hunting
into middle life. Even the rate for rural males over
65 is quite high, 2.5 occasions per person for the
6-month period. For females, by size of place of
residence and age, the data show only a higher par-
ticipation rate among females in rural areas, Even
so, rural female participation is quite minimal,

The association between hunting and income is neg-
ligible, If anything, participation is somewhat higher
in the lowest income class and the highest income
class, and lower between them. This nationwide
pattern is reproduced in the South, but in the North-
east participation appears to decrease as income
increases, None of these differences are very large.

If financial ability were a significant factor in the
decision to hunt, one would expect it to be demon-
strated by the joint distribution of days per person
hunting by family income and size of place of residence.
However, such is not the case. Persons in higher
income brackets who live in largest cities, furthest

37

removed from hunting areas, hunt very little. In
cities 50,000 to 1 million, peak hunting rates are the
highest income group and the group earning $6,000
through $7,999 annually. Within small cities (under
50,000) hunting rates increase to the group earning
$10,000 and more, when apparently the rate declines
considerably. This increase is from 0.6 days per
person for the income group under $1,500 to 3.36 days
per person for the $8,000 to $9,999 group. Finally,
persons living in rural areas participate more in
hunting if they are at the extremes of income dis-
tribution and less if in the middle,

The heavier hunting of the lower income groups
most probably represents hunting primarily for food
rather than chiefly for sport. The combination of the
high rate for the highest income group(5.31 days per

_ person) in rural territory, with the relatively high

rate in the rural SMA population, even in the North-
east, suggests that these hunters are suburban sports-
men,


heights achieved on foot, and from satisfactions re-
sulting from fellowship and personal encounters along
the trail. Hiking with a particular purpose in view,
such as to collect specimens or to reach an unusually
stimulating locale, becomes a genuine learning ex-
perience. Whether such experiences are capable of
continuously contributing to learning depends upon
the individual. Certainly, hiking is more frequently a
group than a solitary activity, and the group feature
of the activity has made it a favorite outing experience
for young people’s organizations, study groups, etc.
Perhaps programs to increase the frequency of
hiking should be directed at organizations, particu-
larly young people’s groups, and should emphasize
physical satisfactions, fellowship, and the creation of
learning experiences. Individual facilities may ap-
propriately emphasize particular physical features
(a peak, a waterfall, a mine, a historical site, etc.)
or nature objects for collecting.

MOUNTAIN CLIMBING

Approximately 1 percent of the population 12 years
of age and over engages in mountain climbing during
the summer months. An estimated 12 million occa-
sions occurred during the 12-month period (June 1960-
May 1961, inclusive), This is approximately 0.09 occa-
sions per person, a very low participation rate
compared with other outdoor activities. Mountain
climbing is engaged in slightly more than snow skiing
but slightly less than sailing over a 12-month period
(tables 1.01, 2.01, 3.01, and 4.01),

The rate during the summer and spring is about
the same (0.04 and 0.03, respectively), but is lower
during fall and winter (0.01).

The annual rate is greater in the South (0.14) than
other regions: West (0.09), Northeast (0.08) and North
Central (0.05). The Northeast participates more fre-
quently in the summer than in other seasons, where-
as the South participates more frequently in the spring.
Participation in the West is greater in the summer
and fall. These variations by region by season evidently
reflect climatic differences.

These data do not provide sufficient frequencies for
analysis of the characteristics of participants. Neither
do preferences provide adequate data for analysis.
Perhaps those who climb mountains are more vigorous
hikers, and the demographic characteristics of hikers
may be considered the best estimates of characteris-
tics of mountain climbers.

HUNTING

Hunting is engaged in over the year ata rate of 1.86
days per person, These are chiefly infall and winter.
The rate for fall 1960, was 0.73 and for the following
winter 0.80. Because of the similarity in rate for these
two seasons, and because the rate is lowfor analytical
purposes, it is useful to combine fall and winter rates.
This is done in the accompanying table. The discus-
sion below concerns the 6-month period September 1,
1960, to February 28, 1961. In addition to these half-
year rates, participation amounts to only 0.33 occa~
sions per person during the remaining 6 months, Part

II of this report contains tables for each of the sea- -

sons (tables 1.02.11, 2.02.11, 3.02.11, 4.02.11, and
others).

36

The National Survey of Fishing and Hunting provides
evidence of a slight increase in hunting days per
person between 1955 and1960. The difference between
the National Survey of Fishing and Hunting 1960 es-
timate and the National Recreation Survey estimate
for 1960-61 is due to differences in definition of a
hunter, as is explained inthe Appendix B of this report.
Hunting was found to occur among the population 12
years of age and over, as follows: 8/

1955 “times” per person (NSHF) ....... 1.20
1960 days per person (NSHF) . see. LAT
1960-61 days per person (NRS)......... 1.86

There are about two times more hunting days per
person in the South than in the Northeast and West,
the days per person for the 6-month period in the
South being 2.04. The rate for the North Central
region is 1,58,

Hunting is almost exclusively a male recreation.
Females during this 6-month period participated only
0.18 occasions per person compared with 3.02 for
males. The female rate is uniformly low throughout
the regions, but is somewhat higher among females
aged 18 to 24 years living in the North Central States
than among other age groups. (See accompanying
Table 7.)

Among males the rate declines with age, from 5.31
occasions per person for the 12-17 year age group to
1,11 occasions per person for those 65 years and
over. The decrease is fairly uniform with advancing
age.

The number of days hunting per person is indirectly
associated with size of place of residence. As resi-
dence becomes more rural, hunting rates increase.
For example, for the Nation as a whole the days per
person for residents of urban places of over 1
million was 0.25, This rate increased successively
for each size of place of residence class, reaching
4,43 days per person for the rural farm population
outside standard metropolitan areas.9/ This asso-
ciation with the urban-rural continuum is fairly con-
sistent for each region.

The age and sex rates by urbanization show the
depressing effect of urban living upon the hunting
participation of younger males (12 to 17 years), On
the other hand, those living in urban places less
than 50,000 show a pattern of hunting participation
which generally decreases with age. This, also, is
true for rural territory, except that there is little
decrease between the first and second age classes,

*Wource: 1. Estimated from table 8, p. 59 (1955), ‘National
Survey of Hunters and Fishermen.” The open end class was
estimated from NRS data to have a midpoint of 61.4. Pop-
ulotion was estimated at 125,536,000.

2. From table 13, 1960 National Survey of Fishing and
Hunting.””

3. From tables 1.01, 2.01, 3.01, and 4.01, National ‘ec-
reation Survey.

2/The urban-rural continuum was assumed to be as follo
SMA, urban, over 1 million; in SMA, urban, under 1 mi
in SMA, urban; in SMA, rural; not in SMA, rural nonfarm; not in
SMA, rural, farm. This sequence is also used in the essay by
Philip M. Hauser, “Demographic and Ecological Changes os
Factors in Outdoor Recreation,” in ORRRC Study Report 22,
“Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation."



Table 9. Hunting days per person by socioeconomic characteristics for region and size of place of residence,
September-November 1960 combined with December 1960-February 1961

; , Doys per person
einai a h ‘SMA SMA ‘Urban Rural in
United | Northeast | Nom South | West | All over under in| and out
States Central T million |1million | SMA _ | of SMA
All employed, 14
cond over . a 1,90 1.23 1.79 2.70 1.47 1.90 0.29 1 1.34 3.66
Professional, tech-
nical, and kindred
workers. . 99 56 9 1.60 61 99 7.01 73 94 2.22
Managers, officials,
‘and proprietors, ex-
cept farm 1.98 1.14 78 3.43 3 1.98 60 1.05 ca) 3.63
Clerical and sales
workers (other
white collar) ..... in 26 75 v2} 245 n %01 “49 1.05 1.54
Craftsmen, fore-
men, and kindred
workers .......0. 2.34 1.57 2.78 2.90 1.49 2.34 53 1.80 (2) 4,37
Gperatives and
kindred workers,
laborers . 2.86 2.64 2.37 3.58 3.44 2.86 Al 2.63 2.37 4.87
Service workers (i
cluding private) .. 69 .07 1.20 5) (Vv %# 69 39 38 32 1.56
Farmworkers...... 471 ey) 416 5.67 eu 471 (en) eo ( 4.92

Vomitted because of insufficient sample size for one or both seasons.

One or both seasons less than 0.005 days per person.

Table 10. Hunting days per person for health and
impairments by age, September-Novermber 1960
combined with December 1960-February 1961

Days per person

Characteristics

au} 1217 | 1e44 | 4564 | end
over

Allclosses.....] 1.53] 2.79{ 1.68} 1.08] 0.50
No impairments} 1.62} 2.81] 1.67| 1.19 50
Impairments

not limiting ..) 1.65) 2.52| 227] 48 C2)
Limiting im-
pairments....] 69] 2.52] 1.43] 56 31

State of Health—

Male 3.02] 5.31{ 331) 204) 1.0
Excellent . 3.70| 4.52] 3.81] 2.52 wm
Good. 255] 6.05| 2.65/ 1.66 59
Fair . 280; (A} 359) 210] 1.03
Poor , uaz} 49] 4] 79 1.90

Stote of Health—

Female {18} a9] 22} tg A)
Excellent . 4] 25 3p %u| (44
Good 22] .43} 34) or] (2%)
Fair. 20] (A) os, (%
Poor. Hy at ?

“Omitted because of insufficient sample size for one or both
seasons.
2One or both seasons less than 0.005 days per person.

impairments (1.62), Neither do impairments limit
hunting among those aged 18 to 44, but among those
45 and above, the presence of impairments restricts
hunting.

By state of health, only data for males are adequate
for study. It shows a decrease in the rate of hunting per
person as health is assessed excellent to poor.
Moreover, those rating their health as poor hunt only
about one half as often as those who rate their health
as excellent. As a matter of fact, in the age group
65 and over, hunting is more frequent among those
who rate their health as poor than among those who
rate their health as excellent to fair. The latter data
are subject to sampling variation to a greater extent
than the remainder of the table, but the rate of hunting
among those who say that their health is fair or poor
is higher than one would expect from examining some
of the more active sports. Apparently, hunting is an
activity in which one may engage at his own rate of
speed, and devotees find ways to engage regardless of
poor health.

Hunting, then, is largely a male sport. It is highly
associated with the rural-urban continuum, and resi-
dence more than income, appears to affect participa~
tion, Members of less prestigeful occupations appear
to participate more than higher status occupations,
but this too is affected by size of place of residence.
Nonwhites participate heavily if they live in rural
areas or in the South or West. Limiting impairments
restrict hunting among males, and so does poor

39



CHAPTER FIVE

BACKWOODS RECREATION

Camping and hiking are typical backwoods activities,
Mountain climbing and hunting, similarly, are in-
cluded among the activities presented in this chapter.

Activities similar to hiking such as walking for
pleasure and nature walks also receive relatively
high factor loadings for this group of activities, as
is shown in table 4, appendix A, Negative weights
are assigned to driving for pleasure and attending
outdoor sports events—signifying that persons who
are typical backwoods sportsmen tend to shun these
forms of recreation.

Neither hunting nor mountain climbing were in-
cluded in the factor analysis presented in appendix
A, because neither of these activities had a suffi-
ciently high level of activity for the summer.

The backwoods score is not highly predictable from
personal characteristics. According to table 12, ap~
pendix A, the amount of the variance accounted by
background characteristics varies from a low of 4
percent for females in the South to 20 percent among
males in the West. (See, also appendix A, table 20.)

Age provides the most dependable basis for esti-
mating the backwoods score. Income also contributes
significantly. Other factors of minor significance are
urbanization, the presence of children, and the non-
work status of head of household. The high weight
given to camping is also reflected in the moderate
rate for bicycling and for sightseeing—-the one because
of the youthful nature of campers and the other
because of the utility of camping in traveling,

Camping is already increasing faster than the sites
for camping can be provided. Even camping inremote
and undeveloped areas is extensive. Increases in
camping will most certainly accompany increases
in travel, for camping makes it possible for families
to enjoy weekends and vacations economically far
from home. Camping facilitates other outdoor activi-
ties, such as fishing and hunting, When resources
are developed for such purposes, facilities for camp-
ing should be included, also. The Survey Research
Center study showed that about one-third of the
campers enjoy camping in remote areas removed
from other people, while about the same proportion
enjoy camping in an area where they can visit and
talk with other campers. 1/ Consequently, both types
of camping areas are needed.

Further increases in camping rest upon the answer
to the question, ‘Camping for what?” After camping
for sightseeing and travel and camping for fishing
and hunting, other interests must be introduced into
the camping pattern in order to make it a creative
and challenging aspect of outdoor recreation, There
are many such interests served by living close to
nature in a new and stimulating locale for brief

YE va Mueller and Gerald Gurin, “Participation in Nutdoor
Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American
Adults," ORRRC Report 20, chapter 6.

31

periods of time: photography, art and sketching,
collecting plants and mineral specimens, visits to
historical locales. Group camping with portable equip-
ment provides a basis for groups and organizations to
isolate themselves for brief periods, Such isolation
serves to intensify interaction and communication and
to achieve goals gained through group integration or
through other learning experiences.

Hiking on trails with a pack is closely related to
camping and requires only trails and occasional shel-
ters, The construction of trails in parks needs to
be accompanied by stimulation of their use by trail
clubs. Mountain climbing with gear is a logical
extension of hiking; an increase in this activity can
be expected only from the more vigorous hiker.

CAMPING

The population camped 0.86 days per person during
1960-61, About one-half of these camping days were
spent during the summer, and about one-fourth in the
fall, Over the year, there is a much higher rate of
camping in the West (2 days per person) than in other
areas, The South is second (0,79 days), This regional
variation is consistent with the weather, andthe lower
rates by season for the Northeast and North Central
suggest the effect of climate upon participation
(tables 1.01, 2.01, 3.01, and 4,01), Altogether there
were approximately 113 million camping days during
the 12 month period, June 1960 - May 1961,

Among outdoor land-related activities, camping
during June - August 1960, was engaged in by 8 percent
of the population, An estimated 10,440,000 persons
12 years of age and above camped one or more times
during June - August 1960, For the United States during
this period, the average camping days per person
was 0,46 (table 1.02.06).

On the average, residents of the West camp nearly
three times the rate of other regions, with the North-
east area camping somewhat less than the others
(table 1.02.06).

Males participate in camping at rates greater than
females: about one and a half times more for the
United States, and up to two times more in the South,
For the United States as a whole, this relationship
holds for each age group, except the 25-44 year group.
Females of these ages camp at higher rates than
males in each region, except the South, where the mate
rate is three times greater, Evidently, camping is
less family oriented in the South (table 1.02.06).

The youngest age-sex groups camp more frequently
than others, and the rate declines to very low rates
for the 65 years and older group, except for males
45 to 64 years living in the west (2,11).

Camping and income are directly related, each higher
income group participating at rates greater than the
preceding, except for the highest income class ($15,000
and over}, This relationship generally holds within



Table 14. Percent of hunting leases held ‘‘during last
12 months" according to type of game by whether

lease is single individual or group

Notional Recreation Survey

Table 15. Percent of group hunting leases held ‘during
last 12 months” by type of game and number of other
joint leaseholders

National Recreation Survey

Type of game Total | Single | Group
Total 0... eeeee cece 100.0] 23.6 76.4
Big game . 49.6 57] 43.9
‘Small game 42.3| 14.6 76
Waterfowl 8.1 3.2 49

42

Number of other persons in lease

Type of game JT) da) oe] Ne

more |answer

Total .... 100 1 uw 16 67 5
Big game... 54 1 6 4 43 0
‘Small game 7 0 5 8 2 3
Waterfowl . 7 0 0 3 3 1
No answer. 2 0 0 1 0 1 -



The median income of those who hunt as freely as
they would like is $3,900 (table 1.15), Those who feel
a time or financial restriction on their hunting par-
ticipation have a median income of $400 more than
this amount. This reflects hunting experience during
the summer when very little hunting activity takes
place, Since it is based upon less experience, it is
less reliable.

The preference table for the first survey, reflecting
the summer experience shows that hunting is a
preferred summer activity for 10 percent of the
population (table 1.17), As might be expected, this
preference is expressed far more frequently by rural
inhabitants than those living in other areas (18percent
so expressing for rural areas outside of SMA’s and
11 percent among rural persons in SMA’s), The per-
centage preferring hunting is greatest in the South
(14 percent) and least in the Northeast (5 percent).
Preference for hunting is exclusively a male attitude,
19 percent of males so expressing, compared with
only 1 percent among females. Summer preferences
for hunting are related to years of schooling, the rate
declining as education increases, This, of course,
concerns only those 25 years of age or more (table
1,19).

Summertime preferences for hunting on vacation,
weekend trips, day’s outing, or for 2 or 3 hours, are
quite low, only 1 percent, and hence, insufficient for
study (table 1.21).

Hunting leases

The survey ascertained whether the respondent
“during the last 12 months .. . had hunting rights on
someone’s property under a purchase or lease ar-
rangement?’ As is shown in table 12, approximately
1 percent of the population 12 years of age and over
owned a hunting lease during the period, This per-
centage is estimated from combined data from the
second, third, and fourth National Recreation Surveys.
This procedure combined data which refer to 12-
month periods ending Dec. 1, 1960, Mar, 1, 1961,
and June 1, 1961. Hence, the period of reference is
not as satisfactory as might be desired, but may be
considered as representing the 1960-61 hunting season.

Regionally, hunting leases are much more popular
in the South (the area extending from Texas and Okla-
homa through Delaware and Maryland) than other re-
gions. There are approximately 20 persons with
leases per thousand population 12 years of age and
over in the South, compared with approximately 5
per thousand in the Northeast and North Central
regions, and 7 per thousand in the West.

Using the estimate of hunters made for the calendar
year 1960 by the 1960 National Survey of Fishing and
Hunting, one may relate the estimated number of
hunters with leases to the estimated number of hunters.
There are approximately 88 hunters with leases per
thousand hunters. This figure varies from a low of
38 in the North Central States to 149 in the South, as
is shown by table 12, Altogether, it is estimated that
there are 1,287,000 hunters who held leases in effect
during part or all of this period.

The tenure of leases vary, as shown by table 13.
For big game, the most popular type of lease is 1-5
months, 42 percent so reporting. However, 18percent

41

report periods of less than 1 month and 16 percent,
periods of 6 years or more. Most leases for small
game and waterfowl are for periods of less than 1
month (34 percent). However, large proportions (26
percent) are for periods of 1 to 5 years, inclusive.
The column showing small game and waterfowl
leaseholders distributed by length of time reflects
primarily the small game leases, as may be inferred
from table 14.

Table 14 shows the distribution of all leases reported
according to whether they were concluded by a single
individual or by the respondent in association with
others. The table shows that about three-fourths of all
hunting leaseholders report group leases. Table 14
also shows that about one half of all reported are for
hunting big game.

In group leases, more than two-thirds are ar-
rangements which involve the respondent and four
or more persons. This type of lease was the most
frequent for both big game and small game hunting.
These percentages are shown for group leases in
table 15. Because of group leaseholding, the data
presented here must be interpreted as leaseholders,
rather than leases, for the data contain an unknown
number of duplicate reports.

Table 12. Estimated number of persons with hunting
lease, and per capita hunting leases held ‘“‘during
last 12 months,"’ by region

National Recreation Survey

; Region
Persons with
persons jnited | North- | Nor
vnting lease | States| east | Centrol| South | West
Number (add 000).. | 1,287/ 170 180] 792/145
Per 1,000 population
T2years and over | 10.09} 4.88] 4.87] 20.35] 7.07
Per 1,000 hunters . | 87.9 | 75.9 | 38.4 | 149.3 | 60.4

Note: Estimates of hun ters from the “1960 National Survey of
Fishing and Hunting,” p. 52.

Table 13. Percent of hunting leaseholders with leases
held “during last 12 months," by length of lease
and type of game

Notional Recreation Survey

‘Small game
Total Big game ond
waterfowl

Total... 100 100) 100

Less than 1 month... 25 8 a
1-5 months inclusive 31 42 18
10 “ 4

1-5 years inclusive 7 10 %6
6 years or more .... 7 16 18



Table 8. Hunting days per person by socioeconomic characteristics for region and size of place of residence,

September-November 1960 combined with December 1960-February 1961

Days per person
Socioeconomic United North SMA SMA Urban, Rurol in
sti Northeast South West All over under not in ‘and out of
characteristic | States Central Vmillion | 1 million | SMA SMA
Family income:
Less than
$1,500... 2.07 0.98 0.25 3.07 274 }
$1,500 to
$2,999... 1.48 1.35 1.13 1.90 83 173 0.16 0.40 0.60 3.02
$3,000 to
$4,499... 1.48 1.27 1.97 1.66 55 1.48 au 35 81 2.80
$4,500 to
$5,999... 1.45 1.00 1.76 7 1.24 1.45 31 60 1.50 291
$6,000 to
$7,999........ 1,44 14 1.72 1.63 1.05 1.44 49 1.43 1.40 2.25
$8,000 to
$9,999... 1.46 69 1.90 1.96 1.06 1.46 225 65 3.36 2.88
$10,000 to
14,999... 1.37 69 2.05 1.30 1.03 1.37 2 88 55 3.22
$15,000 and ,
over . 2.23 Md 1.76 lo) Y 223 08 2.64 (e2) 5.31
Education, age 25
and over .. 1.21 65 1.26 1.68 1.03
4 years or less. 1.32 ».02 2.03 1.88 ()
5 to 7 years 1.39 41 9% 2.32 1.2
8 years . : 1.01 93 97 1.29 1.03
High Schoo! 1 to 3
years. 1,35 1 1.34 1.54 1.41
A years . 1.04 54 1.56 193 mn
College; 1 10 3
years. ve -1.47 2.28 1.02 3.14 -60
4 years or more. 1.09 58 1.20 LW 1B
White. 1.52 1.12 1.67 1.97 9 1.52 27 87 1.23 2.73
Nonwhite 1.64 %.02 27 2,38 2.65 1.64 16 44 72 4.44

Vomitted because of insufficient sample size for one or both seasons.

/One or both seasons less tnan 0.005 days per person.

In considering occupation, one finds that days per
person hunting ranks occupations almost in reverse
order of occupational prestige. For example, the oc-
cupations array themselves as follows: farmworkers
(4.7), laborers (2.9), skilled workers (2.3), managers
(2.0), professional (1.0), white collar (0.7), service
(0.7). Except for the last two occupations, the se~
quence is fairly suggestive of increasing occupational
prestige. This rank order is consistent in each
region,

As one would expect, all occupations participate
more heavily if they reside in rural areas. Service
workers, unless they live in rural territory, partici-
pate very little. Most other occupations appear to
increase in hunting as their place of residence be-
comes more rural. In the case of laborers, partici-
pation is fairly high, even for those living in cities
50,000 to 1 million.

The participation rate by color for the United States
as a whole shows only slightly greater participation
by nonwhite over white (1.64 for nonwhite compared
with 1.52), Nonwhite groups in the South and West
participate more than corresponding white groups.

38

The discrepancy is much greater in the West. Con-
versly, in the Northeast and North Central States
white participation is much greater than nonwhite.
In fact, nonwhite participation is quite low in the North-
east. Nonwhites living in rural territory participate
considerably more than whites in rural territory,
but in other areas whites participate at higher rates
than nonwhites within the residence group. So far as
size of place of residence is concerned, however,
the rate of participation for both groups increases as
one moves from the large cities to rural areas.

Among the population 25 years of age and over,
there is no significant association of years education
and hunting.

Hunting and impairments

Limiting impairments apparently restrict hunting,
but impairments which are not considered limiting
have no effect on hunting. The rate indays per person
during the 6-months period September 1960- February
1961, for persons with impairments which are not
limiting (1.65) is almost the same as those with no



Those who had camped in ‘‘undeveloped’”’ areas
were asked, ‘‘For the type (kind) of camping you were
doing, were the places where you camped or planned
to camp crowded? That is, were too many people
there?’ Nine percent of the campers in undeveloped
areas said, “tyes”. Thus, crowding in undeveloped
areas during fall, winter, and spring does not appear
to be a problem. Those responding ‘‘yes’’ were also
asked, ‘‘Did the presence of these people cause you to
change your camping plans in any important way?’
Only 4 percent of all campers in “undeveloped” areas
said, ‘‘yes.’? Below is shown the percent of campers
who report camping in undeveloped areas and the
percent changing plans because of crowding during
fall, winter, and spring, 1960-61, (three surveys
combined).

Total percent 100
Camped developed area only... . 65
Camped undeveloped area only... . 33
Camped both... . . bee eee eens 2

Total undeveloped area campers....... 100
Undeveloped area campers reporting area

not crowded .......eeeeeeeeeeeeees 9
Undeveloped area campers reporting area
crowded... ..- +e eee eens see eee 9

Undeveloped’ area’ campers’ reporting area
crowded but did not change plans because of
Crowd 2. ee eee eee eens

. . . changed plans because of crowd.

HIKING

Hiking is chiefly a summer activity. More than half
of all hiking days for the year (June 1960-May 1961)
(0.42 days per person) occur during the summer.
Only 0.16 days per person occur during other seasons.
Hiking in the West (0.72 annually) is about twice
greater than hiking days per person in other regions.
This is primarily due to the unusually high rate of
hiking in the summer, but also partly from heavier
hiking in the fall in the West (0.16). (See tables 1.01,
2.01, 3.01, and 4.01.)

Only 6 percent of the population went hiking one or
more times during the summer 1960, The population
12 years of age and over hiked at about the same rate
as it went water skiing or attended outdoor concerts.
This was 0.26 occasions per person for the summer
(table 1.02.09).

Our definition of hiking required that it be along
trails with a pack, thereby distinguishing it from
walking for pleasure, mountain climbing, and nature
walks,

With this specialized definition of hiking, we find
that slightly more than half of the hiking occasions
engaged in during the summer 1960 by the population
12 years of age and over were by boys or girls 12
to 17 years. This group alone hiked more than 17
million days (or part days) during June-August 1960.

Boys of these ages hiked an average of 1.4 times
during the summer, compared with 0.41 for girls.
These are the peak participation rates within each
sex group (table 1.02.09).

The people in the West hiked approximately 0.5
occasions per person during the summer, which is

twice the national rate. Conversely, the people of
the South (0.17 occasion per person) hiked less than
other regions. The 12 to 17 year old males are the
most active hikers in each region, The rates are
quite low for the male population to age 45, except
in the West where the rates for males are higher,
age by age. The retired Northeasterner, aged 65
and over, also hikes frequently, approximately 0.97
occasions during the summer. The rates by age and
region for females are lower and less stable. In
general, younger females engage more heavily than
other females (table 1.02.09).

This general age-sex pattern is repeated when age
and sex are considered by size of place of residence.
The small urban place (less than 50,000) shows slightly
higher participation rates than other size of place of
residence classes, and part of this is due to heavier
participation among males 65 and over who live in
these communities and to young females (18-24 years),
Other than this, the young male, irrespective of place
of residence, is the principal hiker (table 1.03.09),

Hiking and income

Although hiking cannot be considered an expensive
outdoor activity, the rate of participation, nevertheless,
is associated with income. The rate increases from
almost no participation among the class receiving
Jess than $1,500 annually per family to 0.68 occasions
per person during the summer among the group
earning $10,000 to $15,000 per family. Participation
falls off for the highest income class. This pattern
also characterizes the four regions, except for a small
variation in the West and for a ‘“‘peak’’ reached with
the $8,000 to $9,999 income group inthe North central
region, In the West, there is heavier participation in
the lower third of the income classes, than is
characteristic of other regions (table 1.02.09).

Interesting variations appear when one considers
income by size of place of residence. In the very
large cities, there is heaviest participation in the
$8,000 to $9,999 family income group, but also
relatively heavy participation in the $3,000 to $4,499
class and the top income class. In cities 50,000 to a
million, the $10,000 to $14,999 family income class
hikes at higher rates and, conversely, there is
practically no hiking among the $3,000 to $4,499
income class. The latter group, however, participates
relatively heavily in the small cities (less than 50,000
population), but the heaviest participation in this size
community is among families earning $10,000 to
$14,999 annually. The $8,000 to $14,999 income
group participates more heavily in rural areas. This
inconsistent pattern of income in relation to hiking
participation evidently reflects variations in organi-
zational membership of 12 to 17 year olds according
to economic status of the family. One would suspect
that there is greater effort in the very large cities to
encourage affiliations with organizations which include
hiking as part of their program, as contrasted with
the cities under 1 million (50,000 to 1 million), In
small cities, on the other hand (under 50,000), such
organizational affiliation is chiefly within the upper
middle classes, although the lower income groups
also participate. The survey does not provide evidence
that occasions were sponsored by organizations, but



Participation in camping is negatively associated
with a preference for other passive activities, such
as driving for pleasure, sightseeing, and attending
outdoor sports events, and milder outdoor activities,
such as picnicking and walking for pleasure (table 1.12).
As is shown below, camping is more highly associated
with participation in water activities than with other
types of outdoor activity. It has very little association
with some of the activities more popular with urban
people. Below is presented the correlation coefficient
(summer 1960, data) of participation in selected ac-
tivities with camping participation. 2/

Hiking. . an : . 0.28
Fishing . . a 221
Boating. be eeeeee 22
Swimming seeeeee 221
Water skiing see eee 21
Horseback riding ......... 209
Attending outdoor sports events. . .08
Walking for pleasure wee tenes 06

From this it is clear that nothing would please
campers more than to camp beside a lake to enjoy
the associated pleasures of fishing, boating, swimming,
etc.

Twenty-three percent of those who prefer camping
participate as often as they would like (table 1.14B),
Time is by far the most frequently mentioned reason
for not participating more often, 47 percent of those
who prefer camping so indicating. Only 10 percent
mention financial restrictions. Slightly more of the
group earning less than $3,000 (67 percent), indicate
the time-money restriction than do other income
classes, and fewer in this income class participate
as often as they would like (table 1.13). Consequently,
financial restrictions may impede camping in the
lower income class.

Tent ownership

Ownership of tents is much more prevalent in the
West, 14 percent so reporting, than in other regions.
The South stands lowest, with3 percent reporting tents
large enough to stand in, The percentage reporting
tents increases with income, from 2.5 percent for the
Jess than $4,500 income group to 8 percent for the
$4,500 to $9,999 class, and 13 percent for the highest
income class, Vacation trailers are reported by about
1 percent of the population (table 5.48).

Camping appeals partly because it is a different
way to live. In the wilderness study, reasons for
wilderness camping most frequently mentioned were
to get away from civilization, and to observe nature. 3/
These two reasons were also the most frequently
quoted reasons for ‘‘liking to rough it’’ among approxi-
mately 1,000 respondents who said that they pre-
ferred to “rough it” during a vacation in preference
to enjoying comfort.4/ Other reasons for camping

see appendix A, table 3c.

Wilderness and Recreation—A Report on Resources, Values
and Problems,"" ORRRC Study Report 3.

Eva Mueller and Gerald Gurin, with the assistance of
Margaret Wood, '‘Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors
Affecting Demand Among American Adults,"” ORRRC Study
Report 20.

33

which have been reported in studies include esthetic-
religious reasons, for health, sport, or play, and for
socialability, or to respond to the pioneer spirit.5/
To this might be added the economic reason, since
to some a camping vacation enables the family to
travel and see the country which otherwise would be
prohibited by costs.

Camping is most appropriately engaged in on a
weekend or vacation. Some minimum income level
is required for a person to possess the tent, vehicle,
and other paraphernalia necessary to camp, In addi-
tion, a variety of skills is required from cooking to
woodcraft, and one undoubtedly improves upon these
skills as one camps more frequently. In particular,
whether one travels by automobile, with mule pack,
or with back pack, determines the type of equipment
and the type of skills which come into play on a camping
outing. The physical activity involved, similarly, will
vary with these factors, camping by automobile being
the most moderate, physically. There probably is low
status achievement through camping participation,
although this probably is higher among younger age
groups.

Camping in “undeveloped” areas

In developing its plans, the Commission recognized
the need for information on the extent of camping in
undeveloped and remote areas. Although it was not
included in the National Recreation Survey summer
questionnaire, the question was asked of campers on
each subsequent survey.6/ Thirty-three percent of
the campers reported camping in ‘undeveloped areas”
only and 2 percent reported camping in both types of
areas. Consequently, 35 percent of all campers re-
ported some camping in areas other than developed
areas.

A precaution may be helpful in interpreting this, The
percentage of campers who camped in ‘‘undeveloped
areas” is not the same as the percentage of camping
days spent in these areas, Our data do not show the
latter, Finally, the fact that the campers who were
questioned were fall-winter-spring campers rather
than summer campers may bear upon the results.
Slightly more than half of all camping days occur
during the summer.

Gregory P. Stone and Marvin J. Taves, “Camping in the
Wilderness’’, in Eric Larrabee and Rolf Meyersohn, “lass

Leisure,"" Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1958, pp. 290-305.
{The question determined whether comping had been “tin de-
veloped areas" or ‘‘in wilderness or remote areas"’. The lat-

is"' in the above report to

areas officially des-
ignated os wildemess. Wildemess was defined to the inter-
viewer as “an area not accessible by improved roads ond
without developed campsites." This definition is more gen-
eral than those used by such Federal agencies os the Na-
tional Forest Service or the National Park Servi Con-
sequently, the percentage reporting camping in undeveloped
‘areas may appear to be hi relation to the numbers camp-
ing in officially designated wilderness areas. For a further
discussion of the terms, see ‘Wildemess and Recreation—
A Report oh Resources, Values, and Problems,"” ORRRC
Study Report 3, chs. 1 and 4.



each region, although there are minor variations. In
the South and Northeast, for example, participation
reaches its peak with the $8,000 to $9,999 income class,
compared with the peak in the next higher income
class for the North Central and West regions (table
1.02.06).

Among those 25 years and older, the rate of camp-
ing increases with education to the group who finished
high school, then declines. There are some variations
in this pattern by region, the most outstanding being
the North Central States where the peak group is the
college graduate. Participation in the West varies
with education more than other regions.

Nonwhites camp very little compared with whites.
The nonwhite in the West camps more than any other
nonwhite group, but his rate is only about half the
white. Both nonwhite males and females participate
less frequently than the corresponding white sex
group, but the nonwhite female rate is quite low when
compared both with nonwhite males and white females
(table 1.03.06),

The rural resident camps more per person thanthe
urban in the West (1,05 to 0.48 days) and the Northeast
(0.33 to 0.27 days), Highest participation rates obtain
among the rural nonfarm residents of the West.
While the rural resident participates more incamping
than the United States urbanite (0.59 to 0.36 days),
this pattern is by no means uniform within each re-
gion. The North Central States, notably, deviate from
it, partly because of the low rates for the rural
population outside of SMA’s. However, not only
region, but also income and age appear to contribute
to the explanation of differences in camping rates
among residence groups (table 1.02.06).

The explanation may lie in differences in the pur-
pose of camping, which perhaps grows out of one’s
residential environment. In urban places 50,000 to
1 million population, and rural areas, both male and
female teenagers participate more frequently than
other age groups. This is true, also, for males but
not females living in very large cities. In smaller
cities, the 18-24 year olds participate more heavily.
Most probably the latter camps to hunt and fish and
the former for Boy and Girl Scout or other youth
activities (table 1.03.06).

The highest number of days per person within
SMA’s is the $8,000 to $9,999 income group, and is
one income group higher for the small urban and
rural populations. Camping holds much less attrac-
tion for the group earning $10,000 or over who live in
urban areas over 1 million population, perhaps re-
flecting the barrier of distance and the attractiveness
of other nearby forms of recreation.

Generally, those with no impairments camp slightly
more frequently than those with impairments, but the
relationship is not consistent for the several age
groups. In fact, for the 18-44 age group, the rate for
those with limiting impairments is 0.61 compared with
0.44 for those with no impairments (table 1.04.06).

The camping days per person is directly related
to the respondent’s report on the state of his health
for teenagers and young adults. However, this pattern
is not repeated for older males. State of health has
little influence upon participation rate for the male,
but has a distinct effect upon participation among

32

older females, Camping with automobiles, trailers,
conveniences at campsites, etc., is attractive, evento
older males (45-64 years) in poor health. Older fe-
males, however, if in poor health, are not attracted
to camping.

The employed population, generally, camps at the
same rate as the nonlabor force population (the former
including only employed persons 14 years of age and
over), This is also true of the rural population.
However, within urban areas, the employed camp
slightly more who live in cities of over a million,
but employed persons residing in other urban areas
camp less than the nonlabor force population 12 years
and older (table 1.03.06}. See accompanying table 6.

Table 6. Comping days per person for the labor force
(14 years and aver) and the nonlabor force (12
years ond over) by size of place of residence,

June-August 1960

National Recreation Survey

Urban in SMS Urban | Rural in

All {Over 1] Under 1) net | and out

million | million | in SMA | of SMA

Labor force... 0.45 0.38 0.47 0.26 0,58

Nonlabor force A? 22 48 ca
Source: Table 1.03.06,

Professional and technical workers and craftsmen,
foremen and kindred workers participate more in
camping than other occupational groups. The higher
participation of these two groups in the large cities
contributes to the excess of camping participation ob-
served above. These two groups also fish at relatively
high rates. Managers, officials and proprietors, ex-
cept farm, participate at rates about as low or lower
than any other occupational group in each residence
class. Occupation is associated with participation less
in the West and Northeast than in other regions (tables
1.02.06 and 1.03.06).

Camping preferences

Camping ranks ninth in the preference order, and
holds a comparable rank to boating, hunting, walking
for pleasure, and attending outdoor sports events,
Preference in terms of time available indicates that
camping is preferred for a weekend trip or ona
vacation by 4 and 3 percent, respectively, of the
population (table 1.21).

By region, a general preference for camping is
much greater in the West (24 percent) “than other
regions (8 to 10 percent), Each size of place of
residence class in the West presents a higher general
preference for camping than comparable areas in
other regions, the highest percentage being rural
residents in the West (35 percent), Males (12percent)
express slightly higher preference for camping than
females (9 percent), but differences between sexes by
age are slight (table 1.17), Vacation and weekend
preferences for camping vary little by size of place
of residence or age~sex (tables 1.22 and 1.25),

Participation in camping is more strongly asso-
ciated with preference for water activities and hunt-
ing than with other types of outdoor recreation.