U.S. Department of Agriculture

The Recreation Opportunity

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station

Spectrum: A Framework for

General Technical Report

PNW-98 December 1979 Planning, Management, and

Research

Roger N. Clark and George H. Stankey
ROGER N. CLARK is recreation

research project leader, Pacific

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Seattle, Washington.

GEORGE H. STANKEY is research

social scientist, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station, Missoula,

Montana.

Abstract

The end product of recreation

management is a diverse range of opportunities from which people can derive

various experiences. This paper offers

a framework for managing recreation

opportunities based on six physical,

biological, social, and managerial

factors that, when combined, can be

utilized by recreationists to obtain

diverse experiences.

Keywords: Recreation, land use,

multiple use -) recreation,

management planning (forest).

Metric Equivalents

1 acre = 0.4047 hectare

1 mile = 1.61 kilometers
PREFACE

In 1890, two alpine lakes on the

east flank of the Cascade Range in

Washington State--Little Kachess and

Big Kachess--were accessible only by

game trails and were used infrequently

by people. The lakes (about 2 miles

apart) were connected by a trout-filled

stream. The area was rich in wildlife.

Groves of trees many hundreds of years

old were interspersed through the area.

Human impacts were virtually nonexistent; only a few people entered

the area for recreational activities.

Hunters and a few trappers were known

to use the area on occasion. The

Kachess area offered a true wilderness

opportunity for those wishing to use it.

In the early 1900’s, as part of

its water program, the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation designated the Kachess

drainage as a potential impoundment,

and a dam was soon constructed. The

water in the newly created lake reached

its first high level in the spring of

1912. The resulting lake, known as

Lake Kachess, was approximately 11

miles long and became an attraction

for a variety of recreational

activities. For the next several

decades, the road system used for

building the dam and for logging was

expanded, facilitating access to

recreational opportunities. Evidence

of use became obvious as people camped

and played along both the lakeshore

and several streams that emptied into

the recently completed lake. The

primeval conditions that once

characterized Lake Kachess were no

longer present, but the people who

came looking for semiprimitive types

of recreation were apparently happy

with what they found.

By the 1940’s, use at Lake Kachess

had increased markedly, and several

camping areas had been established by

users. Firepits abounded in favored

spots, trails led to prime fishing

locations, and vegetation had been

trampled in frequently used areas. In

response to these impacts, the USDA

Forest Service, the agency responsible

for managing the area adjacent to the

lake, developed several sites that had

been heavily used for recreation along

the west side of the lake. Roads were

improved and rustic tables and outhouses

installed. Agency presence became more

evident as fire prevention and directional signs and a list of Federal

regulations regarding recreational use

were posted. The area, now much more

developed, appealed to people looking

for some of the conveniences of modern

living. Most were apparently happy

with what they found.

In response to rapidly growing

recreational use and the increasing

impact on resources, the USDA Forest

Service further modified the area in

the early 1960’s. Paved roads were

developed within the campgrounds, a -

new camping area was constructed to

accommodate the increasing number of

travel trailers, and heavily used areas

were closed to overnight camping.

Parking barriers were also added to

prevent cars from driving off established road systems. The l00-acre

recreation complex included three

separate camping areas with a total

capacity for nearly 100 parties, and

a mile-long nature trail. Most

resemblance to a primitive area had

disappeared by this time. Campers had

the convenience of paved roads, modern

toilets, and running water. Campers

seeking modern kinds of camping

opportunities came in ever-increasing

numbers and were apparently happy with

what they found.
As use increased, the USDA Forest

Service further developed the area.

New campsites brought the total to

nearly 200. More flush toilets,

permanent fireplaces, and concrete and

wood tables were built. The access

road, extending some 5 miles from

Interstate 90, was widened and paved.

By the late 1970’s, Lake Kachess

represented a modern, highly developed,

intensively used recreation complex,

readily accessible to large numbers of

people. On a typical summer weekend,

hundreds of recreationists enjoy a

variety of pastimes.

The level of recreational

activities in the Lake Kachess area

has slowly evolved for more than threequarters of a century from a primitive

environment to a highly developed,

modern setting for recreation. Several

questions can be asked about this:

process of change: What opportunities

for recreation was Lake Kachess best

suited to provide? What range or mix

of opportunities might be developed in

conjunction with the Lake Kachess

development? What effects have past

management decisions had on opportunities for recreation in the area? How

have the changes in the nature of the

opportunity affected the kinds of

experiences the area provides?

The scenario of recreational

development at Lake Kachess is not

uncommon. Many campground and

recreational areas throughout the

country have followed a similar pattern

of development. Nor are the questions

we raise unusual. In the following

pages, we try to answer them.
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

DIVERSITY AND QUALITY IN OUTDOOR RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

THE LINK BETWEEN RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND EXPERIENCES . . . . . . . . . 5

DEFINING OPPORTUNITY FACTORS ......................... 8

Opportunity Setting Factors ....................... 8

1. Access ................... . . ........ 8

2. Nonrecreational resource uses. ................. 9

3.

Onsite management ....................... 10

Social interaction ....................... 11

5. Acceptability of visitor impacts ....... ........ 13

6. Acceptable regimentation .................... 13

POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF FACTORS ....................... 14

Other Features of Settings ....................... 16

Inconsistencies ............................. 17

USING THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM .................. 21

Allocating and Planning Recreational Resources ............. 21

Inventory of Recreational Opportunities .................. 23

Identifying the Consequences of Management Actions ........... 24

Matching Desired Experiences with Available Opportunities ........ 24

CONCLUSIONS .................................. 26

RESEARCH NEEDS ................................ 27

ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................ 28

LITERATURECITED............................... 28
INTRODUCTION

Today, many agencies at Federal,

State, and local levels are responding

to the burgeoning demand for outdoor

recreation. In addition, many private

firms offer facilities and services

for recreation, such as campgrounds,

computerized reservation systems, and

equipment rentals. With this expansion

in the demand for recreational services

has come a number of complex policy

issues. What range and mix of

opportunities should be provided and

what are the roles of the various

suppliers? Who can most effectively

and efficiently serve public needs at

national, regional, and local levels?

In this paper we describe a

framework for outdoor recreation

managers and policymakers who must

answer questions concerning both the

allocation and management of opportunities for recreation. This framework

rests on the concept of the Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). It is

distinguished by varying conditions,

ranging from modern and developed to

primitive and undeveloped, or as Nash

(1973) succinctly phrased it, "from

the paved to the primeval." We will

review the background of the opportunity

spectrum concept and how it has been

used in the past; describe six manageable factors or setting attributes that

influence the opportunities for

recreation; and describe uses of the

spectrum concept for identifying and

measuring the consequences of alternative allocations of and management

actions on opportunities for outdoor

recreation.

Figure 1 .--A recreation opportunity

setting includes features provided by

nature or management and associated

with recreational use.

THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITY

SPECTRUM

In this paper we focus on the

setting in which recreation occurs.

When considering opportunities for

outdoor recreation, people must make

choices about activities in which to

engage, settings in which to recreate,

and kinds of recreation experiences to

seek. We believe that, by describing

the factors that influence or define

the range of possible settings and by

communicating this information to recreationists, they will be able to choose

the experiences they desire.

We define a recreation opportunity

setting as the combination of physical,

biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place.

Thus, an opportunity includes qualities

provided by-nature (vegetation; landscape, topography, scenery), qualities

associated with recreational use (levels

and types of use), and conditions

provided by management (developments,

roads, regulations). By combining

variations of these qualities and

conditions, management can provide a

variety of opportunities for recreationists (fig. 1).

i

1
Recreation opportunity settings

imply a choice for recreationists;

people must be aware of the opportunities, and the opportunities must be

comprised of conditions desired by

recreationists. Thus, opportunities

are a function of user preference and

a product of management actions designed

to provide desired settings and to make

people aware of their existence.

We recognize that the recreational

value of an opportunity is a function

of the perceived ability of that

opportunity to provide certain activities

and experiences. Our definition focuses

on the social, physical, and managerial

attributes of settings, not on the

psychological values that may be derived.

The link between the setting and

experiences or “psychological outcomes”

(Driver and Brown 1978) is an issue to

which we will turn shortly.

The basic concept underlying ROS

is not new. Many authors have remarked

that a range or continuum of opportunities is needed to efficiently serve

diverse public tastes for recreation.

Wagar (1966) called for campgrounds

ranging from highly developed sites

suitable for modern self-contained

campers to remote locations accessible

only to backpackers. Similar continua

have been suggested for hunting (Potter

et al. 1973)) wildland areas (Marshall

1933, Lloyd and Fischer 1972, Helburn

1977, Driver and Brown 1978), and parks

(Field 1976, McCool and Elmer 1975).

All these continua are characterized by

a range of conditions from modern to

primitive.

The spectrum concept is also

reflected in a variety of land management descriptions. A basic recommendation of the Outdoor Recreation Resources

Review Commission (1962) was for

classification of recreational resources

along “a spectrum from areas suitable

for high-density use to sparsely used

extensive primitive areas.”

2

To implement terms of the National

Forest Management Act (NFMA) (U. S. Laws,

Statutes, etc. 1976a), the USDA Forest

Service published draft regulations

that note, “a broad spectrum of

dispersed and developed recreation

opportunities . . . will be provided.”

Through provision of this spectrum,

land management planners will best be

able to offer the diversity deemed so

important by NFMA. To develop operational guidelines for the implementation of the ROS, the USDA Forest

Service has established a task force of

managers and researchers. l

/ This group

will be responsible for development of

procedures to apply the opportunity

spectrum concept on the ground. The

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, is similarly

involved in developing such guidelines.

4

‘Y

1

/ Members of the task force include Thomas

Hoots (Task Force Leader, Washington Office),

John Asterford (San Bernadino National Forest),

Wendell Beardsley (Northern Region, USDA Forest

Service), Perry Brown (Colorado State University),

Leon Buist (University of Nevada), Roger Clark

(Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station, USDA Forest Service), Charles McConnell

(Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service),

Gary Morrison (Mount Baker-Sncqualmie National

Forest), George Olson (North Carolina National

Forest), Doug Smith (Southwestern Region, USDA

Forest Service), George Stankey (Intermountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest

Service), Lance Tyler (Arapaho-Roosevelt National

Forest), Donald Waxman (Pacific Northwest Region,

USDA Forest Service), Bev Driver (Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest

Service).
The tabulation below further

illustrates the spectrum concept as

used in legislation, in land management

planning procedures, and in useroriented classifications of recreational opportunities, such as river running

and mountain climbing. These examples

are evidence of growing recognition by

both managers and recreationists of the

importance of diversity in settings for

recreational opportunities.

Federal legislation:

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Recognizes three classes of rivers

(U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. varying in level of modification,

1976c) development, and permitted activities

National Trails Act

(U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.

1976b)

Recognizes three classes of trails

varying in purpose, permitted uses,

and adjacent development

National Forest Management

Act (U. S. Laws, Statutes,

etc. 1976a)

Federal agency planning :

USDA Forest Service

Heritage Conservation and

Recreation Services

(formerly Bureau of

Outdoor Recreation)

Opportunity for recreation:

River running (e.g. Arighi

and Arighi 1974)

Mountain climbing

(e.g., Robbins 1971)

Calls for providing a broad spectrum

of dispersed and developed recreational

opportunities

Recognizes five recreation experience

levels, ranging from those offering

challenge, solitude, and demanding

high skills to those involving extensive

facilities and few skills.

Recognizes six types of outdoor

recreation settings ranging from class

I (high density recreation areas) to

class VI (historic and cultural sites)

International scale of river difficulty

recognizes six classes of conditions,

ranging from class I (moving water

with a few riffles and small waves,

and no obstructions to class VI (nearly

impossible, very dangerous)

International Decimal System describes

climbing skills ranging from class 1.0

(hiking) to class 5.0 to 5.11 (increasingly

difficult piton-protected climbing)
DIVERSITY AND QUALITY

IN OUTDOOR RECREATION

The basic assumption underlying

the ROS is that quality in outdoor

recreation is best assured through provision of a diverse set of opportunities.

A wide range of tastes and preferences

for recreational opportunities exists

among the public and, as Wagar (1966)

points out, "Quality seems to be a

highly personalized matter." Providing

a wide range of settings varying in

level of development, access, and so

forth insures that the broadest segment

of the public will find quality recreational experiences, both now and in

the future (fig. 2).

The importance of supplying diverse

opportunities for camping has been

illustrated by Wagar (1966). As he

indicates, even a few different kinds

of camping facilities greatly increase

the probability of meeting more people's

desires. If any generalization can be

made from the body of knowledge about

recreationists, it is that people vary

enormously in what they desire from

their recreational pursuits. This

generalization is true, even for

specific categories of recreationists;

not all campers, hikers, or wilderness

users are alike. Building management

programs around average tastes can

greatly miss the mark, because often

such averages are statistical phenomena

that do not adequately account for the

wide variation in tastes (Shafer 1969).

4
Diversity represents an important

characteristic of any recreation system.

Managing opportunities for recreation

to promote a diversity of experiences

is crucial for social equity (Watt 1972)

Failing to provide diversity of opportunity invites charges of favoritism,

elitism: and discrimination. Further,

diversity insures the flexibility

necessary to mitigate changes or disturbances in the recreation system

stemming from such factors as social

change (changing age structure of U.S.

population) or technological change

(outdoor recreation vehicles, etc.).

But diversity is only a means to

an end. Quality recreation, producing

desired satisfactions and benefits for

participants, is the objective and

concern of both managers and recreationists. But what is quality? From an

individual perspective, it is fairly

easy to describe a quality recreational

experience. For one person, it might

be an extended backpacking trip in a

very primitive area. For another, it

might mean a camping trip in a motor

home along a lightly used logging road.

For yet another, a quality recreational

experience may be camping in a 5OO-unit

intensively developed campground

where it is easy to visit with other

people. Furthermore, the same person

may find all these experiences enjoyable and of high quality at one time

or another. Recreation is indeed a

phenomenon in which quality is in the

eye of the beholder.

The existence of different conceptions of quality does not mean that

it is a meaningless concept; the provision of opportunities for quality

outdoor recreation is a legitimate

goal of recreation management. Quality

is a relevant notion along the entire

spectrum. Quality, then, is not

judged by the presence or absence of

some factor (facilities, naturalness,

or other visitors), but as the extent

to which a given setting satisfies the

desires of a particular recreationist.

The recreation opportunity spectrum

helps clarify the quality issue by

providing a framework that calls for

the systematic provision of diverse

settings for recreation (fig. 3).

Figure 3.--The opportunity spectrum is

not a quality continuum. Quality

reflects the extent to which a

setting meets the recreationists'

desires and needs. Camping in a

clearcut area is as satisfying to

some people as camping in a wilderness is to others.

THE LINK BETWEEN

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

AND EXPERIENCES

Development of opportunities for

recreation is not an end in itself.

By providing different kinds of recreational settings and accommodating

different types and styles of recreational use, managers can best give

people the opportunity for various

kinds of experiences.

5
Driver and Brown (1978) proposed

a hierarchical framework that specifies

four distinct levels of recreational

demands: (1) for activities, (2) for

certain situational attributes (setings) ,

(3) for specific psychological

outcomes--experiences and satisfactions

and (4) for benefits. Our focus is

primarily on level 2, the situational

attributes that comprise a recreational

opportunity. We concur with these

authors that level 2 demands do not

Users with diverse motives,

- J

seeking a variety of recreational

experiences consistent with their

preferences,

\

use opportunities

provided by

exist in and of themselves, but for the

satisfactions and benefits derived at

levels 3 and 4. Figure 4 shows the

link between these levels of demand and

the opportLmities provided by managers.

Some gains have been made in the

ability to define links between activities and outcomes (Driver and Tocher

1970, Brown et al. 1977, Potter et al.

1973). And it is clearly possible to

facilitate the achievement of certain

Managers use visitor information,

research, and experience to

develop programs consistent

with laws and policies; they

have a variety of tools

which thev use

to change or maintain features

managers of the physical and

social environment

that lead to visitordays spent in a which, combined

variety of appropriately,

activities (Recreationists result in a

(in many spectrum of diverse

styles) styles) ;; opportunities in a

\

they obtain

various

satisfactions satisfactions and

experiences,

leading ultimately to benefits

to individuals and society.

Figure 4. --Link between recreationists' desires and the opportunities

provided by managers.

6
experiences by the way situational

attributes are manipulated. Furthermore, by altering the setting, the

same activity can be participated in in

a variety of styles, thereby producing

different satisfactions (fig. 5). As

Knopp (1972) indicates, characteristics

of a place will influence whether or

not a given individual will recreate

there, because the place is closely

tied to the function of specific activities. As our knowledge of the linkage

among settings, activities, experiences,

and satisfactions improves, our ability

to fine-tune the supply sector to most

efficiently meet demands of visitors

will grow.

Opportunities for recreation ought

to differ in terms of producing distinctive experiences or "psychological

outcomes" (Driver and Brown 1978).

Work by a number of investigators increasingly improves the ability to do

this (Lime 1971, Clark et al. 1971,

Knopf et al. 1973, LaPage and Ragain

1974, Brown et al. 1977). Application

of the opportunity spectrum framework

outlined in the following pages, however,

is not contingent on understanding the

link between experiences (a psychological

outcome) and opportunity settings.

Simply put, the ROS can be used by

managers to provide specific information to potential visitors about what

a place is like, not about experiences

they will derive.

The individual's choice of

opportunity (or their expressed preference) provides feedback on the

degree to which the opportunities might

fulfill the desired outcomes. The

specific experiences derived are a

function of the individual's past

experience, expectations, present state

of mind, and so forth, not a function

of an explicit management decision to

produce a given outcome or set of

outcomes.

ROS offers a framework within

which to explicitly vary situational

attributes (access, density, etc.) to

produce different recreation opportunity

settings. From these opportunity

settings, recreationists participating

in different kinds and styles of

activities derive different satisfactions and experiences and, ultimately,

benefits. Our intent here is to

systematically and explicitly describe

a framework that permits managers to

provide diversity in the range of

opportunity settings available to

individuals.

Figure S.--Different activities can produce different experiences. But different

styles of the same activity, carried out in various settings, can also produce

different experiences.

7
DEFINING OPPORTUNITY FACTORS

Four criteria were used to select

factors that define the opportunity

spectrum:

1. The factor is observable and

measurable,

2. The factor is directly under

management control,

3. The factor is related to

recreationists’ preferences

and affects their decisions

about areas to use, and

4. The factor is characterized

by a range of conditions.

When these criteria were applied

to existing conceptions of the ROS,

previous research on recreationists’

preferences, management experience,

and state-of-the-art judgment, six

factors emerged:

1. Access,

2. Other nonrecreational resource

uses,

3. Onsite management,

4. Social interaction,

5. Acceptability of visitor

impacts, and

6. Acceptable level of regimentation.

Each factor is described below. Natural

features (topography, scenery water,

wildlife, etc.), which are important

across the spectrum are discussed in a

later section.

In this paper we describe the end

points of the opportunity spectrum as

modern to primitive. Other authors

have used urban, developed, wild,

natural, remote, etc. The labels are

really unimportant and reflect authors’

preferences rather than any conceptual

difference between what we are proposing

here and what is described in papers by

others.

Opportunity Setting Factors

1. Access

Several elements can be used to

describe access. Managers can control

the ease of access by the types of

access (e.g. , roads, trails, crosscountry travel) and by the means of

conveyance allowed (e.g., cars, allterrain vehicles, horses, feet). Both

access elements can vary across the

spectrum from easy to difficult. Design

and management standards are important

in defining the range of access systems.

For example, roads and trails can be

designed as high standard systems,

requiring intensive maintenance, to low

standard roads and trails needing little

or no maintenance. In many cases, the

topography and type of vegetation will

help define the conveyances that can be

used. Thus, managers are able to use

a combination of natural features,

design and maintenance standards, and

regulations for determining and enforcing ease of access.

Research indicates that recreationists’ preferences for alternative

types of access cut across the range

of access conditions (fig. 6). For

example, among wilderness users, there

is a spectrum of preferences for trails

ranging from highly developed to no

trails at all (Stankey 1973, Lucas

1973). Although users of forest lands

with roads are there because they

prefer a more primitive recreational

setting than is typically found in

developed campgrounds, they, too, vary

in their preferences for paved or

unpaved roads. 2/

2/ Clark, Roger N. Russell W. Koch,

Mack L. Hogans, and Harriet H. Christensen.

Dispersed recreationists along forest roads in

three areas of the Pacific Northwest: Their

recreation patterns, opinions, and attitudes.

Unpublished data on file at Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Seattle,

Washington.
Figure 6.--visitor preferences for access within recreation areas range from welldeveloped, paved roads, to gravel roads, to trails, to cross-country travel.

Access also controls the type of conveyance recreationists may use.

2. Nonrecreational resource uses

This factor considers the extent

to which nonrecreational resource uses

(grazing, mining, logging) are

compatible with various opportunities

for outdoor recreation. Other uses

can severely conflict with opportunities

for primitive experiences. For example,

Stankey (1973) found that grazing in

the Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming was

the most serious source of conflict

reported by visitors. In other cases,

a variety of resource management

activities that might even contribute

to visitor enjoyment can be found in

conjunction with outdoor recreation.

For example, recreationists in semiprimitive areas with roads often find

grazing and logging acceptable (see

footnote 2). But these users do express

concern about large clearcuts, so the

scale at which the activity is

conducted, as well as the activity

itself, influences perceived compatibility (fig. 7). Planners and managers

must consider the lasting effects of a

resource activity (mines, clearcuts),

as well as short-term effects (logging

trucks, noise from a mine) to determine

the impacts on the recreational opportunity.

9
Figure 7.--Generally opportunities for

primitive experiences are incompatible with nonrecreation resource uses.

For example, timber harvests conflict

with the kinds of experiences wilderness visitors seek. But in semiprimitive or semimodern areas with

roads, clearcuts may be acceptable

to some recreationists.

3. Onsite management

The onsite management factor

includes site modifications, such as

facilities, exotic species of vegetation,

vegetation management, landscaping,

traffic barriers, etc. The appropriateness of site management should be

considered in light of four elements:

a. Extent of the modification.

Is it limited to a few isolated locations

or distributed throughout the area?

b. Apparentness of the modification. Has the use of native materials

helped blend the modification into the

natural setting or do artificial

materials make the modification readily

apparent?

Complexity of the modification.

A bridge could be a simple log footpath (fig. 8) or a complicated engineering effort.

Figure 8.--0nsite management includes

modifications, such as bridges, which

can vary from simple logs for foot

travel to complex developments capable

of supporting automobiles.

Figure 9.--In modern settings, welldeveloped toilet facilities may be

provided for convenience of visitors:

in more rustic settings, they may be

for safety of visitors or for protection of resources.

.

d. Facilities. Facilities can be

largely for convenience and enjoyment

or safety of users, or only for protec- 4

tion of the resources. In some areas,

no facilities whatsoever are appropriate;

in others, all possible conveniences

would be appropriate. Toilet facilities

can range from heated buildings with

flush toilets and showers? to pit

toilets, or, in some settings, to no

toilet facilities at all (fig. 9).

10
4. Social interaction

The appropriate amount of social

interaction is an important characteristic of different recreational opportunities. Generally, in more primitive

settings, low levels of interaction are

appropriate and expected. In more

modern settings, interaction can rise

to very high levels. The level of use

beyond which crowding occurs, then, is

not absolute but varies by expectations

of visitors and the extent to which

interaction levels are perceived as

appropriate (fig. 10). Insufficient

levels of interaction in some modern

settings can be just as unacceptable to

some people as excessive levels in

primitive settings (Heberlein 1977).

Both natural variations (topography

and vegetation patterns) or management

actions (access) can greatly influence

the actual level of contact among

people. Consequently, standard measures

of density (number of people or parties

per unit area) are inappropriate

because they fail to consider the

I potential for contact between people.

The number of people in an area, how

they are distributed in space and time,

and the probability of interaction

between parties are important elements

in determining the appropriate social

carrying capacities at different points

along the opportunity spectrum.

Although the recreation opportunity

spectrum will not give a specific

number for the carrying capacity of a

specific opportunity type, the basic

ij

concepts underlying the framework help

in resolving the carrying capacity

issue. Managers and planners must

t

apply these concepts on an area-by-area

basis.

Appropriate levels of interaction

vary along the spectrum; they can also

vary for the same physical setting

defined as a different kind of recreational opportunity. For example,

for travelers on the Rogue River in

Oregon who defined the area as

wilderness, appropriate daily levels

of contact averaged 2.6; for those who

perceived the river as a semiwilderness

setting, 4.4; and for those who defined

the river as an undeveloped recreation

area, 7.0.3/

In addition to the level of interaction, managers must also give attention to the type of use appropriate

for each setting. Generally speaking,

there is greater diversity of activities

possible in modem settings than in

primitive. Such factors as access may

account for some of this difference;

for example, in the most primitive

setting, travel is by foot, but farther

along the spectrum, travel by horses,

outdoor recreational vehicles, and

automobiles becomes appropriate. In

the most modern setting, all types of

groups and activities might be

acceptable.

It is necessary to consider the

acceptable diversity of use because

interaction alone is not a sufficient

measure of an area’s social carrying

capacity; the types of use found at a

particular setting may be more

important in defining capacity than

the amount of use. Lucas (1964) found

that canoeists in the Boundary Water

Canoe Area thought that up to five

encounters per day with other canoeists

was acceptable, but even one contact

with a motorboat was not acceptable.

There are probably many reasons why

this variable pattern of acceptability

occurs (perceived inappropriateness of

use, experience, or values), but the

central implication for management is

that a greater diversity of uses can

be accommodated in modern settings than

in primitive.

3/ Presentation made by Dr. Bo Shelby,

Oregon State University, Corvallis, at the Rural

Sociology Society Annual Meeting in San Francisco

in 1978.

11
Figure 10. --In primitive settings, any other people might represent crowding; in

modern settings, large numbers are acceptable. Crowding is a relative measure;

there are no absolute standards.

12
5. Acceptability of visitor impacts 5’ 

Human use of resources inevitably 

results in impacts, and recreation is 

no exception. These impacts might be 

on resources (trampling of vegetation 

or polluting of water) or on other 

people (noise, depreciative behaviors, 

inappropriate activities). Any use 

creates some impact; thus, the relevant 

question for managers is not “how can 

impacts be prevented” but “what level 

of impact is consistent with the type 

of opportunity being supplied.” 

The acceptable level of impacts 

on recreation is a concern to both 

users and managers. Managers must be 

concerned about maintaining opportunities for quality recreation, as well 

as protecting other resource values. 

Research indicates that managers’ 

perception of what constitutes impacts 

may be very different (generally more 

conservative) from users’ perceptions 

(Clark et al. 1971, Bultena and Hendee 

1972, Downing and Clark 1979, Lucas 

1970). When users’ perceptions are 

considered, acceptable impacts take on 

a range of conditions across the ROS. 

Two concepts are useful in resolving how much impact is appropriate. In 

assessing environmental impacts, one 

should consider both magnitude and 

w 

The magnitude of impacts 

is base on an objective assessment-- 

there should be no substantive disagreement on the magnitude of the impact. 

The importance of environmental impacts 

is based on a value judgment which can 

result, however, in considerable disagreement between managers and recreationists, depending on expectations, 

knowledge, and points of view of each 

group. It is the professional’s 

responsibility to insure that objective 

measurement procedures are used to 

- 4’ See Clark and Stankey (1979) for 

discussion of the xceptability of recreation 

impacts, noise in particular. 

determine the magnitude of environmental 

impacts resulting from recreational 

use. It is also a professional responsibility to provide accurate assessments 

of the kinds of impacts stemming from 

recreational use, their implications 

for the environment and solutions to 

their management. But the importance 

of impacts must be considered in light 

of the desired opportunity and 

subsequent impacts on people’s 

experiences. As noted above, total 

prevention of impacts is impossible, 

short of complete prohibition of recreational use. 

Thus, damage or a level of impact 

necessitating correction by management 

occurs only when the impact exceeds 

the magnitude defined in area management plans as appropriate for an 

opportunity level. The level of impact 

defined as damage in an area managed 

for modern opportunities will be quite 

different from that in the same area 

managed for primitive opportunities. 

Definitions of impact as “damage ,” 

then, depend on the type of opportunity 

or context in which they occur, rather 

than on any absolute measure. Generally, 

recreationists’ tolerances for impacts 

(ecological, social, or managerial) are 

greater among modern styles of recreation than among primitive styles in 

both degree and prevalence. 

6. Acceptable regimentation 

The nature, extent, and level of 

control over recreational use is an 

important factor characterizing different opportunities. A continuum of 

controls can be described, ranging 

from subtle techniques--such as site 

design and providing visitors with 

information to fairly heavy-handed 

measures that are authoritarian and 

perhaps accompanied by legal sanctions 

(Lime 1976). Specific techniques for 

regimenting recreationists’ activities 

include regulations, rules, side design, 

and laws. 

13 
Modern opportunities are generally

characterized as more highly organized

and regulated than are primitive types.

But the “principle of minimum regimentation” should apply across the spectrum;

we should regiment only as much as

necessary to protect the qualities of

the opportunity in question (Stankey

and Baden 1977).

Ideally, the most primitive opportunities should have few regimenting

influences. With the reality of increasing pressures from use of primitive

settings, regimentation may be necessary

to protect the integrity of the opportunity and to insure its use into the

future. This is particularly true

where management objectives call for

the preservation of naturalness. Thus,

management actions that might otherwise

be appropriate for protecting an area

(facilities, onsite management) would

not be satisfactory if they themselves

would alter natural integrity. Control

of visitation would be necessary, and

such measures have been instituted in

several Wilderness Areas and in National

Park back country (Stankey 1979, Fazio

and Gilbert 1974).

POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS

OF FACTORS

In figure 11, each factor is

displayed graphically. The range of

conditions that a factor can have (for

example, from very easy to very difficult access), represents relative

rather than absolute limits of what is

acceptable and appropriate along the

ROS . Certainly, when the framework is

applied, specific criteria must be

developed. Our objective, however, is

to focus on the process by which the

ROS factors can be managed to achieve

desired objectives in a conceptual

fashion. After the reader understands

the approach, then more specific values

for each factor can be estimated.

Readers are encouraged to review Driver

and Brown (1978) and Brown et al. (1978)

for examples of proposed criteria

developed for recreation inventory

purposes. Information for selecting

management objectives is found in Brown

(1977).

dip’ i !

A recreation opportunity setting is

the result of a specific combination of

the six factors in a particular location.

Alternative combinations of the factors

(and other natural features discussed

later) create different opportunity

settings that give recreationists many

options from which to choose. Considerations about appropriate criteria for

any one of the factors are largely

judgmental; there are seldom absolute

standards.

There are no obvious points at

which boundaries for the different

opportunities can be established. For

purely illustrative reasons, we use

four generic opportunity types in the

discussion below. But any number of

categories could be substituted across

the top of figure 11. For example,

modern-urban, semirural, rural, semiprimitive motorized, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and primitive as used by

Driver and Brown (1978). The key is

that the type of setting is determined

by the combination of factors, rather

than the name or number of categories.

Existing knowledge about visitors’

preferences, managers ’ judgments, and

public involvement can help guide development of appropriate opportunity setting categories. By packaging recreational settings in terms of the six

factors we have described, we can begin

to explicitly develop a range of opportunities to better meet public desires.

14
Management factors 

1 Access 

o. Dlfflculty 

2 NonrecreatIonal resource uses 

3. Onsite management (modification): 

0 Extent 

b Apparentness 

c Complexity 

d Facillhes 

4 Social interactton 

5. Acceptability of visitor impacts 

o. Degree of impact 

b Prevalence of Impacts 

6. Acceptable regimentation 

b. Access system 

(I) roods 

(2) trails 

c Means of conveyance 

Ronge of opportunity setting classes: 

Modern Semiprimitive Primitive 111/1111,11,,,,,,,, ~//~l/,,,,,,,,,,,,, ll/~~/,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

l/ll~,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ~l~~ll,,,,,,,,,,,,, ll~~,l,l,,,,,,,,,,, 

very easy 

..YIIIl*“II ,/,,l,,,,,, e 

~l~llll~,,~,,,,,,,, 

- 

~~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

~~l~l~ll,~,,,,,,,,, 

very difficult 

l,,,,,,,,,, <,/,,,,,,,,a l.lll,l.l_ll_ ,oII terrainvehlcle roods 

no development 

f lll~l~~ll,l,,,,,,,, ~~~~~,,~~/,,,,,,/,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,~~~~~~ Infrequent ~nterporty contacts 

no Interparty contocts- 

-4 l~l,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1~111111///1,,,,/,, lll,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,, #~~,~,,,,,l,,,,,,,, 

stnct reglmentotlon:::::::::::::: 

none 

none 

ill/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ~~llll,,,,,,,,,,,,, 11111,1,,,,,,,,,,,, ~ll/l/,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

mwnum reglmentotion 

none 

llll/~,,,l,,,,,,,, /1111,,,,,,,,,,,,, l/l,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

SC~~~~~~~::::::::: 11111111,1,,,,,,,, l/ll,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Acceptable combinations for semimodern opportunities 

111111//,,,,,,,,,, l~l/~~/,,,,,,,,,,, 

Figure Il.--Factors defining outdoor recreation opportunity settings. 
In this discussion, we assume that

all the factors have coequal weight;

they all influence recreational behavior

in the same way. In reality, we are

sure that this is not the case. For

some people, type of access might be the

most important influence. For others,

it might be the type of facilities, or

the nature of previous visitor impacts,

etc. When choices of recreation in

general, are considered however, such

individual differences may balance out.

Further research will be required to

determine under what conditions this

assumption is appropriate.

An approach for combining the

factors is shown in figure 11. All the

conditions represented by the six

factors are arrayed along the modern to

primitive opportunity continuum. For

any generic type of opportunity--modern,

semimodem, etc.--a band of acceptable

combinations can be described in area

management plans through the use of

objectives and standards.

In figure 11, for example, we show

a band of acceptable combinations for

the semimodern types of opportunities.

This band simply means that any of the

conditions within the range indicated ,

for the six factors are acceptable in

an area managed as semimodern. Anything

outside the band would be unacceptable.

We will talk more about conditions

outside the band of acceptability in

the section, “Inconsistencies. ”

It should be clear that, although

we describe only four generic opportunity

types here, each represents many possible

combinations of the six factors. It is

important that we provide diversity,

not only between opportunity types but

also within individual types. For

example, semimodern opportunity settings

might include sites where access,

facilities, and so forth are relatively

highly developed; other settings might

have developed facilities but be accessible only by foot or bicycle; still

others might feature a rustic setting

reached by gravel roads, but with extensive site modification to minimize

impacts on the resources. The point is,

designation of an opportunity as “semimodern”, “primitive”, etc. , does not

imply a single standard of development

for areas within that category. Variations in settings within and among

opportunity types within a band of

acceptability further increases the range

of options for recreationists pursuing

different types and styles of activities.

Other Features of Settings

We have mentioned several times

that a recreation opportunity setting

is composed of other natural features

in addition to the six factors. Landform types, vegetation, scenery, water,

wildlife, etc., are all important

elements of recreation environments;

they influence where people go and the

kinds of activities possible. Considerable work has gone into developing

procedures for measuring and managing

visual resources (USDA Forest Service

1974). Planners and managers should

also consider these features when

determining for which types of opportunity to manage an area.

But it is important to recognize

that -there is no intrinsic quality of

these other natural features that

suggests the appropriate type of

recreation opportunity setting. Any

of the opportunity types are as

possible and appropriate in mountainous areas as they are in desert

settings. Indeed, greatest diversity

would be assured if the full spectrum

of opportunity types (modem to

primitive) could be found across the

range of environmental settings

(fig. 12).

16
ii;;;I;Fen+ol*

Modern modern primitive Primitive

All possible

combinations

ore appropriate

Figure 12.--Appropriate combinations

of opportunity types and environmental settings.

And it is the combination of these

environmental settings and opportunity

types that determines the range of

allowable recreational activities in

a specific area. The nature of

participation in recreational activities

depends on the place in which it occurs

(Cheek et al. 1976). Thus, natural

features (terrain? rivers, lakes) will

influence the activities that are

possible; for example, you cannot

waterski without a relatively large

body of water. The type of opportunity

for which the area is managed, however,

will help determine the appropriateness

and styles of activities. It is

inappropriate to expect to be able to

waterski in primitive areas, even if

there is a large body of water and one

could get a powerboat there. Conversely,

it would be inappropriate for a backpacker to expect to find a low level of

social interaction in a highly

developed, modern campground (fig. 13).

Inconsistencies

One important issue that must be

considered when specific opportunity

settings are being developed is the

avoidance of inconsistencies. An

inconsistency occurs when the status

of a factor (or factors) exceeds the

parameters specified in the area

management plan; for example, Brown et

al. (1978) propose a series of standards

Figure l3.--There is nothing intrinsic

in the landscape to dictate the best

type of opportunity. Modern opportunities in an alpine setting are

needed as much as primitive opportunities in deserts or plains.

for selected criteria that define

appropriate conditions for different

opportunity types. Although their

criteria differ somewhat from ours,

their process is identical. By

specifying standards for the range of

appropriate conditions for a given type

of opportunity, managers have a

rational basis for determining inconsistencies. Formulation of appropriate

standards combines information from

research, public input, administrative

policies, legislative guidelines, and

managers ’ judgment s . Examples of

standards would include such things as

standards for constructing highways

and trails, frequency and type of user

interaction, types and amounts of

facilities, and other specific onsite

management actions.

In some cases, laws or policies

provide guidelines for what is

appropriate (no mechanized access is

permitted in Wilderness Areas). More

commonly, managers must rely on other

guidelines. Studies of recreationists’

preferences or other measures of

appropriateness can help identify the

factors that users define as consistently

related. In other cases, managers will

be able to use the ROS framework to

identify potential undesirable consequences that would follow from an

inconsistent combination of factors.

17
For example, when access roads along 

the southern edge of the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area were paved and straightened, levels of use rose rapidly (much 

as they did at Lake Kachess). Following 

this change in the access factor, 

pressures developed for increased 

facilities and other measures to control 

use--developments generally inconsistent 

with primitive type opportunity and so 

recognized by land managers, recreationists, and the Wilderness Act (fig. 14). 

Figure 1&--A road used to reach the 

timber near wilderness is now used by 

increasing numbers of recreationists. 

This may lead to increased need for 

facilities and more regimentation. 

The opportunity spectrum does not 

offer a prescribed formula for providing 

outdoor 'recreation opportunities. It 

does provide a systematic framework for 

looking at the actual distribution of 

opportunities and a logical procedure 

for assessing possible management action. 

To demonstrate how one might use the 

framework to test for consistency, we 

present the following example: 

For illustrative purposes, we have 

shown within the band of acceptability 

the relative range of conditions one 

might describe as a "semimodern" 

opportunity (fig. 11). Such an 

18 

opportunity could be characterized in 

general by relatively well-developed 

access roads, extensive development of 

facilities for both resource protection 

and visitor convenience, relatively 

high densities of users and social 

interaction, etc. Thus, the opportunity 

setting has all six factors approximately 

equal in their position along a modern 

to primitive continuum; i.e., there is. 

a "consistency" among the various 

factors within the band of acceptability. 

But what if one or more factors is 

outside the band of acceptability? In 

figure 15 the overall pattern suggests 

that the area has potential as a 

supplier of a primitive type opportunity; however, access to the area is 

well developed along paved roads (in 

the "modern" category). Thus, an 

apparent inconsistency exists. If an 

objective of the opportunity spectrum 

concept is to minimize the effects of 

inconsistencies, a series of questions 

concerning the apparent inconsistency 

can be asked. 

Managemen+ factors. Recreation opportunity types (X= existmg condition 

for me management factors). 

Modern Semlmodern Semiprlmdive Prlmitlve 

t. Access x 

d c 

2. Nonrecreational 

,eso”K!e “92s X 

e * 

3 Onsite management X 

* * 

4 Social lnterOCtl0” x 

4 e 

5. Acceptable impacts X 

w 

6 Reglmentotion X 

1 

Figure Is.--An example of an 

inconsistency. 
How did the inconsistency occur? A

variety of causes could be responsible

for the inconsistency. It might result

from an earlier management action

(e.g., roadbuilding for timber harvest),

for which the effects on recreational

use were never identified or anticipated.

Had these effects been recognized, the

road might not have been built, the

type of construction or the road’s

location might have been changed, or

perhaps the road would have been closed

after the timber was removed.

Or, the impacts on recreation of

an earlier action might have been

identified and considered but judged

to be unavoidable. Such a situation

might develop where the anticipated,

benefits seem to outweigh costs (the

benefit of a timber harvest exceeding

the costs incurred by changing the

nature of the recreational opportunity).

Perhaps different administrative

jurisdictions were involved, one

controlling the management action, the

other the recreational opportunity.

Even though the latter jurisdiction

had fully identified anticipated

impacts, it did not control the management action and was thus unable to

influence the other organization’s

decision.

Finally, the inconsistency could

be the result of a purposeful course

of action. The apparently inconsistent

factor might, in fact, be more in line

with the kind of opportunity most needed

in the area. For example, there might

be plans to convert the generally

primitive opportunity in figure 15 to

a semimodern opportunity where relatively easy access is desirable. This

conversion could be based on an assessment that the relative availability

of primitive opportunities in the

region is high, whereas the supply of

semimodern opportunities is low. Or

it might be that an apparent inconsistency is required to achieve certain

objectives; it may be desirable to

provide a primitive setting with some

form of modern access to allow easy

entry for the handicapped or to provide

cabins for protection in primitive

areas with dangerous bears.

What are the implications of the

inconsistency? Consistency as we

describe it above is an ideal concept.

In reality, one or more factors may

be inconsistent with the others. It is

not the inconsistency per se that should

be of concern; rather, the consequences

of the inconsistencies constitute the

problem, particularly when they are

not anticipated or recognized.

In the early 1900’s, the Lake

Kachess campground was a primitive

setting. Access was difficult and

use was light. But over the ensuing

three-quarters of a century, a number

of changes altered Lake Kachess.

Improved access made it possible for

greater numbers of people to reach the

area. Management concerns with overuse

(both resource impacts and crowding)

led to development of various facilities

(tent pads, vault toilets, parking

areas) and other onsite modifications.

Each action at Lake Kachess changed the

nature of the opportunity the area

provided. Yet visitors still filled

the campground. Clearly there was no

optimum environment for recreation at

the lake; nor is it possible to say

that current conditions are either

better or worse than they once were.

But they certainly are different.

Our purpose in describing the

evolution of events at Lake Kachess is

not to cite it as an unnatural situation

nor to suggest that one particular set

of conditions was better than another.

Rather, it is to illustrate the

consequences stemming from the lack of

precise management objectives and an

explicit monitoring and evaluation

process. As problems arise and management responds to them in an effort to

correct or offset impacts,. inconsistencies may result and a chain reaction

of secondary changes can occur,

19
ultimately altering the entire nature

of the original opportunity. The

principal implication of the Lake

Kachess example is that the process of

change was largely inadvertent and

that most of the changes were the

result of reactions to problems rather

than a deliberate and conscious effort

to alter the kind of opportunity the

area provided.

Serious problems can develop from

inadvertent changes. As the nature of

a setting is altered, inconsistencies

may occur, resulting in subsequent

changes in use. The “new” campground

attracts a different type of user,

camping in a different style and

seeking different kinds of experiences.

As the new type of user becomes increasingly established, original users move

to other locations more to their liking;

that is, where the combination of all

opportunity factors (including access,

use density, and facilities) still

resembles the kind of opportunity

formerly enjoyed. This process of

“invasion and succession” (Clark et al.

1971) can drastically change the nature

of the available opportunities, the

clientele served, and their recreational

experiences. Particularly where the

process is unnoticed, opportunities can

be lost and clientele disfranchised.

Given inconsistencies such as those

that occured at Lake Kachess, managers

must answer the question, What are the

implications associated with the factors

for both themselves and the users? Part

of the answer to this question rests on

how far out of line the factor apparently

is. It is obvious that a factor only

moderately out of line (e.g., density

and regimentation in fig. 15) has less

significant implications than one

substantially inconsistent with the

remaining factors (e.g., access).

Managers must make judgments about the

importance of these inconsistencies.

Implications for managers might

involve questions, such as: Will the

inconsistency accelerate change in other

factors that will, in turn, lead to

further undesired changes in the kind of

opportunity provided (such as at Lake

Kachess) ? For example, will the highly

developed access shown in figure 15

lead to higher levels of resource impact

because of increased use at the site and

necessitate development of more

facilities or further regulation of use?

And, if these outcomes appear likely,

are they desirable or undesirable?

It is important to remember that we

are looking at recreation as a system,

with an interdependence among the various

elements of that system. Thus, a change

or modification in one element may

affect (perhaps slowly or very quickly)

the other parts of the system. Remoteness from humans and their impacts? for

example, is a major consideration in

primitive settings. But the level of

remoteness can be affected by changes

in several management factors--access,

social interaction, and nonrecreational

resource uses. Changes in any one

factor may lead to an inconsistency

resulting in a negative impact on other

factors. Consequently, remoteness in

an area managed for primitive values

may be reduced below acceptable limits.

The basic problem of an inconsistency is that it introduces the

potential for triggering a chain of

events that might alter the entire

nature of the intended opportunity.

When such a situation develops, rapid

changes in the distribution and use of

opportunities can occur.

20
What should be done about

inconsistencies? When inconsistencies

occur, managers have three basic

responses available. First, a “no

action” response can be adopted. This

might be the case if no significant

effects are anticipated, at least

within the foreseeable future. Or

jurisdictional problems between

agencies or functional problems within

an agency may mean the inconsistency

cannot be directly controlled by

recreation managers; for example,

planned changes in the access to an

area by one government agency might

affect adjacent recreation lands

managed by another agency. Offsetting

the problems brought about by these

changes might involve such measures as

site modifications, development of

facilities, and regimental controls--

actions whose costs outweigh any benefit

they might have.

A second response is to restore the

inconsistency to a status in line with

the parameters specified for it.

Closures of certain types of roads,

elimination of facilities, or other

onsite modifications might be instituted

to restore consistency.

Finally, managers can respond to

an inconsistency by altering the

remaining factors to bring them into

line with’ the original inconsistent

one. This could occur where changing

conditions of demand call for an

opportunity not presently provided.

Response to a situation where welldeveloped access is inconsistent with

a primitive type opportunity might

involve altering the remaining factors

to make the area semimodern. Such a

change would have its justification

outlined in the area management plan.

USING THE RECREATION

OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM

At the broadest level, the ROS

offers a way of thinking about opportunities for recreation, of considering

recreation as something more than

activities or areas. But beyond this,

the opportunity spectrum has specific

application for at least four major

concerns : (1) allocating and planning

recreational resources, (2) inventory’

ing recreational resources, (3)

estimating the consequences of management decisions on recreational opportunities, and (4) matching experiences

recreationists desire with available

opportunities.

Allocating and Planning

Recreational Resources

The ROS is a helpful concept for

determining the types of recreational

opportunities that should be provided.

And after a basic decision has been

made about the opportunity desirable

in an area, the ROS provides guidance

about appropriate planning approaches- -

standards by which each factor should

be managed.

Three concepts related to the ROS

are useful in making such decision:

(1) the relative availability of

different opportunities, (2) their

reproducibility, and (3) their spatial

distribution.

Relative availability, although not

directly manageable by any one recreation supplier, is a fundamental

consideration affecting decisions about

the opportunities that should be

provided. The concept addresses the

issue of supply as well as the

appropriate role of the recreation

supplier. Adequacy of supply is a

function of, among other things, the

spatial distribution of opportunities,

21
and it may be appropriate to estimate

relative availability within a regional

framework that extends beyond agency

boundaries. When one type of opportunity

is in abundant supply, it may be

necessary for an agency to provide

alternative opportunities even though

these are not normally a responsibility

of the agency. For example, the USDA

Forest Service recreation program emphasizes the provision of opportunities

for dispersed recreation. In an area

like southeast Alaska, however, where

such opportunities are abundant and the

USDA Forest Service manages most of the

land, the agency might find it necessary

to also provide modern and semimodern

opportunities in the interests of offering diversity (Clark and Lucas 1978)

(fig. 16).

Figure 16.--The role of the private

sector will be especially important in

areas where the public sector is not a

major supplier of certain opportunities.

Reproducibility and reversibility

are also fundamental considerations.

They address the question of the extent

to which an opportunity can be

technologically reproduced, as well as

the ability of management to reverse

the outcome of decisions. Opportunities

at the modem (developed) end of the

spectrum are generally more reproducible (capable of creation through use

of technology, infusion of capital,

etc.) than those at the primitive end.

There is a test of reasonableness here,

because it is at least possible to

reproduce any opportunity, given

sufficient time and money. The spectrum

is characterized by asymmetry in the

reversibility of management actions

because changes from modern to primitive

can be more easily reversed than

changes in the other direction (fig. 17).

The obvious implication here is that

decisions transforming an area from a

primitive condition to something more

developed needs to be carefully weighed

because of the relative inability to

reverse that decision.

Figure 17.--Through use of capital,

design, and engineering, modern opportunities can be more readily created

than can primitive settings which are

a product of natural processes.

In planning and managing 'large

areas for recreational purposes?

managers must consider the spatial

distribution of opportunities (fig. 18).

Sharply dissimilar opportunities

generally should be kept apart so that

conflicts are minimized (Hart 1966,

Gould 1961, Stankey 1974, Clawson 1975).

2 2
Figure 18 .-- Sharply dissimilar opportunities should be separated. Conflicts

between mechanized and nonmechanized use,

for example, can seriously interfere

with the experiences of both users.

Spatial zoning can help reduce such

conflicts.

For example, opportunities featuring

high standard road systems and highly

developed campgrounds should not be

constructed adjacent to primitive

opportunities. Keeping dissimilar

opportunities apart also reduces the

likelihood that impacts from one

opportunity will "spill over" onto an

adjacent opportunity (e.g., noise from

an area catering to outdoor recreational

vehicle users reaching an adjacent area

managed for primitive opportunities).

Some recent planning efforts have

attempted to incorporate this concept;

the recently dedicated Alpine Lakes

Wilderness in Washington's Cascade

Range will be bordered by a management

area featuring primarily semiprimitive

recreational opportunities.

Unfortunately, planners and managers

often do not have the necessary flexibility to organize opportunities

according to this ideal spatial arrangement. They are constrained by previous

management decisions, other resource

uses, established recreational use, or

a variety of other factors that complicate the job. But even within these

limitations, mapping recreational

opportunities--existing and proposed--

can help identify potential conflicts.

Inventory of Recreational

Opportunities

The ROS provides a useful framework for the review and evaluation of

inventory data (for a good review of

various recreation inventory systems,

see Brown et al. 1978). Because the

ROS focuses on specific situational

attributes (access, facilities, etc.)

that comprise recreation opportunity

settings, managers easily can relate

inventory data to the spectrum. From

this, the relative availability of

different settings can be determined.

Moreover, because of the focus on

situational attributes, managers will

be able to tell how they could change

the relative availability of different

settings. For example, if semimodern

settings were in short supply, the

inventory could indicate areas where

such settings could be most easily

created.

Inventories should encompass at

least regional levels and transcend

administrative boundaries. Ideally, the

goal should be to insure that recreation

opportunity suppliers--public and

private--collectively provide a range of

diverse opportunities. This clearly

calls for interorganizational coordination in inventory of planning for

recreational opportunities.

A comprehensive inventory conducted

at a regional scale and involving all

public and private suppliers would

provide several critical pieces of

information: (1) a profile of existing

and potential opportunities; (2) a

catalog of administrative responsibilities (i.e.,

ties);

who has which opportuniand (3) an indication of the

spatial relationships between various

opportunities for recreation (thereby

suggesting the potential for conflicts

or complementary relationships).

Additionally, when such inventory data

are combined with studies of recreation

demand and preference, it may be

23
possible to determine gaps in the

distribution of opportunities that

ought to be filled. Conversely, such

information could reveal which opportunities are in excess supply.

Inventory data compiled over a

regional setting is critical data in

the formulation of appropriate roles

for the various suppliers. Seldom will

any one supplier be capable of meeting

the entire range of recreation opportunity demands. Data about existing

and potential opportunities, who manages

them, and their location would be

important input to decisions about who

is best equipped to fulfill which roles.

The USDA Forest Service recently

completed an analysis of its appropriate

role in the provision of opportunities

for outdoor recreation (USDA Forest

Service 1977). This study is based on

assessment of the kinds of opportunities

the agency has under its jurisdiction,

as well as on such things as expertise,

legislative direction, and so forth.

Identifying the Consequences

of Management Actions

Because the recreation opportunity

spectrum focuses on specific features

of the physical, social, and managerial

setting, it facilitates analysis of

how proposed management actions will

alter the nature of a specific opportunity.

For example, the decision to

develop an area for timber harvest has

the obvious consequence of changing the

level and obtrusiveness of nonrecreational resource uses. But logging also

often alters the amount and type of

access into an area. This improved

access, in turn, can lead to higher use

and greater demand for facilities.

Many of these changes can be anticipated,

however, and the ROS provides a simple,

graphic way of portraying these anticipated outcomes and evaluating whether

or not they are appropriate or desirable.

Such an approach means that

explicit recognition of changes affecting the opportunity spectrum is assured.

By providing a framework in which the

consequences of different decisions can

be considered in relation to how they

affect opportunities for recreation and

their use, many undesirable problems

related to functional decisionmaking

(about logging, road development, etc.)

can be anticipated and possibly avoided.

The key to using the ROS effectively

is the area’s management plan. Only

with clearly specified management

objectives is it possible to say whether

the consequences of an action are

acceptable and appropriate or not.

Management without such objectives can

only be reactive.

Matching Desired Experiences

With Available Opportunities

Matching the experiences visitors

seek with opportunity settings best

suited to providing those experiences

is one of the major challenges to the

outdoor recreation manager. We often

assume this requires direct management

actions, whereby managers know who

wants what and direct recreationists

accordingly. But without good information about the various types of

experiences recreationists seek, this

is a hopeless task. To further complicate matters, there is no simple link

between experiences sought, recreational

activities, and opportunity settings.

One approach that does not rely on

a prior knowledge of desired experiences

is to upgrade the flow of information

to people about the nature and location

of existing opportunity settings. At

present, recreationists’ lack of knowledge about existing opportunities is

sometimes as great a deterrent to

participation as is the actual unavailability of opportunities (fig. 19).

24
Figure 19.-- Providing visitors with

information about available alternatives

may be one of the most effective actions

open to recreation managers. From descriptions of opportunities, visitors

can choose the setting that seems to

best meet their particular desires.

If the recreationists are given

information about the various opportunities, they can then choose the

most appropriate locations for their

particular types and styles of activity.

For example, recreationists' interests

in driving for pleasure (a type of

activity) might range from looking at

fall leaf colors along a modern paved

highway to four-wheel driving off roads.

Several examples of efforts to

improve information to users can be

cited. On the Suislaw National Forest

in Oregon, managers have described five

types of camping experiences available,

ranging from remote wilderness to

highly developed settings. They have

not only identified what is available

on National Forest lands but also

included opportunities provided by other

agencies, such as highly developed

campgrounds in State parks. After

selecting experiences desired, visitors

can examine a listing of available

campgrounds in the area, categorized

by the type of opportunity provided.

This approach also gives managers a

chance to measure demand for the

various opportunities and, if necessary,

to make adjustments in their supply

(relative availability) to more

accurately reflect the actual demand.

Using this approach effectively

requires, at a minimum, that managers

have a complete and regularly updated

inventory of various opportunities in

their areas (including those supplied

by other agencies).

This approach assumes that people

do know, in general, the characteristics

of the recreation opportunity setting

they prefer or dislike. Thus,

management ought to strive to provide

recreationists with information about

such things as the level of interparty

contact, access, or facilities they

may find at any given site. Through

a trial-and-error process, recreationists can find what suits them best.

Managers can also use predictable,

seasonal changes at specific locations

to provide diverse opportunities for

recreationists. For example, many

campgrounds have been developed to

provide modern experiences during the

summer season of peak use (June through

August). These campgrounds are often

in spectacular locations that have

year-round appeal. Frequently, however,

they are closed from August to June

(and even on weekdays during the

summer season, in some instances). Such

closures concentrate use into a

relatively short season and eliminate

the potential for off-season use.

Natural processes can also alter the

opportunities available even in open

areas--snowfall may preclude access by

conventional, wheeled vehicles, thereby

converting a modern opportunity to a

more primitive one for part of the year.

Such changes, whether by management or

natural processes, affect one or more

of the opportunity factors and thereby

change the opportunity available.

Utilizing these seasonal changes,

management can provide variety at

individual sites, thereby extending use

throughout the year, gaining greater

use of expensive recreational developments, and broadening the range of

options from which visitors can choose

(fig. 20).

25
Figure 20.-- One way to provide additional opportunities for recreationists is

to encourage off-season use of settings.

For example, summer use of developed

ski areas for picnicking, sightseeing,

etc., provides a different opportunity

for visitors, even though the same area

is involved.

We believe that the key to matching

the experiences users desire with

available opportunities is to let users

make their own choices based on reliable

information about the opportunities

available. Such information, aimed at

creating realistic expectations, should

be about the nature of the opportunities,

where they are, and how conditions might

change throughout the year.

CONCLUSIONS

The recreation opportunity spectrum

provides a framework for integrating

recreational opportunities and nonrecreational activities. The central

notion of the spectrum is to offer

recreationists alternative settings in

which they can derive a variety of

experiences. Because the management

factors that give recreational value

to a site are interdependent, management must strive to maintain consistency

among these factors so that unplanned

or undesired changes in the opportunities do not occur.

In this paper we focused primarily

on existing social conditions and

technology. But, technology and

socioeconomic changes often produce

impacts beyond the ability of managers

to fully anticipate or control. For

example, few people anticipated the

enormous growth in outdoor recreational

vehicles that has occurred in the past

decade. Similarly, the consequences

of scarce energy resources were not

foreseen until the scarcity was already

a fact (Shafer et al. 1974). The

impact of the changing age structure of

the U.S. population has yet to be fully

recognized (Marcin and Lime 1977).

Such changes can produce dramatic

shifts in the type and intensity of

demand for opportunities for outdoor

recreation. Although the future can

be only imperfectly predicted, the ROS

does provide a framework for accommodating these shifting demands, as

well as estimating the kinds of impacts

associated with these changes.

If a full range of opportunity

settings is provided, changes in demand

can be more easily accommodated

because the kinds of features an

activity requires are more likely to

be available. Although the supply to

meet the increased demand might be

insufficient, nonetheless some areas

with the necessary features should be

available. Management of the full

opportunity spectrum should permit

accommodation of these changes with

minimum disruption. Providing

opportunities for quality recreational

experiences means providing sufficient

opportunities across the spectrum.

Diversity is the key to meeting this

challenge.

There may be an insufficient supply

of the opportunities needed to meet

changing demands, however, and managers

may wish to consider increasing the

supply. Such an increase will probably

take place at the expense of some other

26
opportunity setting. The outdoor

recreation opportunity spectrum provides

a framework for identifying some of

the consequences (social impacts) of

such a decision. By identifying which

specific opportunity factors will be

altered and how, we gain knowledge

regarding the changing distribution of

opportunities, which clientele groups

may be affected, the relative availability of alternative settings to meet

these people’s needs, and the extent to

which a proposed alteration may result

in a loss of settings formerly available.

To allow such an assessment of change

requires the routine collection of

sufficient baseline information to

document the types and amounts of

recreational use occurring. Only after

the change has been documented can

managers rationally determine the most

appropriate course of action.

t

RESEARCH NEEDS

The ROS framework described in this

paper is based on state-of-the-art

judgments. As such, the relationships

we describe are tentative and need

further verification; however, we

believe that the framework offers a

useful approach founded in management

reality as well as research on visitors’

attitudes and actual behavior. New

information from research will aid full

development of the outdoor recreation

opportunity spectrum. This research

should take several directions.

First, further investigations of

the relationship between activities,

settings, and experiences are needed.

Specific efforts to define the

psychological outcomes associated with

different activity-setting combinations

would help reveal how management can

better help visitors achieve a diversity

of experiences (e.g., see Brown et al.

(1977) for an example of this in

hunting). Such data would also be

useful in defining boundaries between

the generic opportunity classes.

Second, how are people’s taste for

recreational settings and activities

shaped by the available supply? Are

preferences merely a reflection of

opportunity? If not, how can latent

demand be identified to better fill out

the opportunity spectrum?

Third, to what extent does substitutability exist among the various

experiences recreationists seek? Are

experiences uniquely linked to certain

settings or activities? If not, what

is the nature of the interchangeability

(Field 1976, Hendee and Burdge 1974,

Christensen and Yoesting 1979)? How

do differences in style account for

differences in the satisfactions

received (e.g. , what differences, if

any, exist between hunting big game,

upland-birds, or waterfowl in terms of

the satisfactions participants seek )?

Fourth, and related to the earlier

concerns with estimating demand, we

need a better understanding of how

tastes in recreation evolve over time.

Are there orderly and predictable

evolutions in tastes along the spectrum

of settings? If so, how do persons at

different stages in this evolution

differ in terms of the experiences,

activities, and settings they seek

(Bryan 1977, 1979)? Does early exposure

to modern opportunities lead to a demand

for increasingly more primitive styles--

do people learn as they recreate and

seek more demanding settings and

activities to refine their skills

(Davidson et al. 1966) ?

Finally, there is a need for

research on the analysis of policy on

such questions as: What are the

appropriate roles for the various

suppliers to adopt ? What role should

the private sector undertake and how

might this vary across the country?

What incentives might promote private

development?

27
ACKNOWLEDGMENT LITERATURE CITED

We acknowledge the help of many

managerial and research colleagues who

provided critical reviews of earlier

versions of this paper in the past

several years.

Arighi, Scott, and Margaret S. Arighi.

1974. Wildwater touring. MacMillan

Publ. Co., Inc., New York.

Brown, P. J., B. L. Driver, and C.

McConnell.

1978. The opportunity spectrum

concept and behavioral information

in outdoor recreation resource

supply inventories: Background and

application. In Integrated inven-

'tories of renewable natural resources:

Proceedings of the workshop. Gyde H.

Lund, Vernon J. LaBau, Peter F.

Ffolliott, and David W. Robinson,

tech. coords. USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-55, p. 73-84. Rocky

Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort

Collins, Colo.

Brown, Perry J.

1977. 'Information needs for river

recreation planning and management.

In Proceedings: River recreation

management and research symposium.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

NC-28, p. 193-201. North Cent. For.

Exp. Stn., Minneapolis, Minn.

Brown, Perry J., Jacob E. Hautaluoma,

and S. Morton McPhail.

1977. Colorado deer hunting

experiences. 42d North Am. Wildl.

and Nat. Resour. Conf. Trans.,

p. 216-225. Atlanta, Ga.

Bryan, Hobson.

1977. Leisure value systems and

recreational specialization: The

case of trout fishermen. J. Leisure

Res. 9(3):174-187.

Bryan, Hobson.

1979. Conflict in the great outdoors:

Toward understanding and managing

for diverse sportsmen preferences.

Social. Stud. 4, 98 p. Bur. Public

Adm. Univ. Ala. Ala.

28
Bultena, Gordon L., and John C. Hendee.

1972; Foresters views of interest

group positions on forest policy.

J. For. 70(6):337-342.

Cheek, Neil H., Jr., Donald R. Field,

and Rabel J. Burdge.

1976.. Leisure and recreation places.

172 p. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ;, Inc.,

Ann Arbor, Mich.

Christensen, James E., and Dean R. Yoesting.

1979. The substitutability concept:

A need for further development. J.

Leisure Res. 9(3):188-207.

Clark, Roger N., John C. Hendee, and

Frederick L. Campbell.

1971. Values, behaviors, and conflict

in modern camping culture. J. Leisure

Res. 3(3) :143-159.

Clark, Roger N., and Robert C. Lucas.

1978. The forest ecosystem of

southeast Alaska: No. 10, Outdoor

recreation and scenic resources.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-66

116 p. Pac. Northwest For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Clark, Roger N., and George H. Stankey

1979. Determining the acceptability

of recreation impacts: An application of the Outdoor Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum. In Proceedings

of the Wildland Recreation Impacts

Conference, October 27-29, 1978,

Seattle, Wash. Ruth Ittner, Dale R.

Potter, and James K. Agee, eds.

USDA For. Serv. and Natl. Park Serv.,

Pac. Northwest Reg.

Clawson, Marion.

1975. Conflicts and strategies in

forest land management. J. Soil and

Water Conserv. 30(2):63-67.

,

Davidson, Paul, F. Gerard Adams, and

Joseph Seneca.

1966. The social value of water

recreational facilities resulting

from an improvement in water quality:

The Delaware estuary. In Water

research, p. 175-211. Allen V. Knesse

and Stephen C. Smith, eds. Johns

Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.

Downing, Kent, and Roger N. Clark.

1979. User's and manager's

perceptions of dispersed recreation

impacts: A focus on roaded forest

lands. In Proceedings of the

Wildland Recreation Impacts Conference, October 27-29, 1978, Seattle,

Wash. Ruth Ittner, Dale R. Potter,

and James K. Agee, eds. USDA For.

Serv. and Natl. Park Serv., Pac.

Northwest Reg.

Driver, B. L., and Perry J. Brown.

1978. The opportunity spectrum

concept and behavior information in

outdoor recreation resource supply

inventories: A rationale. In

Integrated inventories of renewable

natural resources: Proceedings of

the workshop. Gyde H. Lund, Vernon

J. LaBau, Peter F. Ffolliott, and

David W. Robinson, tech. coords.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-55, p. 24-31. Rocky Mt. For.

and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins,

Colo.

Driver, B. L., and Ross Tocher.

1970. Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreational engagements,

with implications for planning. In

Elements of outdoor recreation

planning, p. 9-31. B. L. Driver,

ed. Ann Arbor, Mich.

Fazio, James R., and Douglas L. Gilbert.

1974. Mandatory wilderness permits:

Some indications of success. J.

For. 72(12):753-756.

29
Field, Donald R.

1976. Interchangeability of parks

with other leisure settings. In

Research in the parks transaction of

the National Park centennial

symposium. Annu. Meet. Am. Assoc.

Adv. Sci., December 28-29, 1971,

p. 159-168. Natl. Park Serv.

Symp. Ser. 1.

Gould, Ernest M., Jr.

1961. Planning a recreational complex.

Am. For. 67(8):30-35.

Hart, William J.

1966. A systems approach to park

planning. Int. Union Conserv. Nat.

and Natl. Resour. Suppl. Pap. 4,

118 p. Morges, Switzerland.

Heberlein, Thomas A.

1977. Density, crowding, and

satisfaction: Sociological studies

for determining carrying capacities.

In Proceedings: River recreation

management and research symposium.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

NC-28, p. 67-76. North Cent. For.

Exp. Stn., Minneapolis, Minn.

Helburn, Nick.

1977. The wilderness continuum.

Prof. Geogr. 29(4):333-337.

Hendee, John C., and Rable J. Burdge.

1974. The substitutability concept:

Implications for recreation research

and management. J. Leisure Res.

6(2):155-162;

Knopf, Richard C., B. L. Driver, and

John R. Bassatt.

1973. Motivations for fishing. In

Human dimensions in wildlife

programs, p. 28-41. J. Hendee and

C. Schoenfeld, eds. Wildl. Manage.

Inst., Washington, D.C.

Knopp, Timothy B.

1972. Environmental determinants of

recreation behavior. J. Leisure

Res. 4(2):129-138.

LaPage, Wilbur F.; and Dale P. Ragain.

1974. Family camping trends--an

eight-year panel study. J. Leisure

Res. 6(2):101-112.

Lime, David W.

1971. Factors influencing campground

use in the Superior National Forest

in Minnesota. USDA For. Serv. Res.

Paper NC-60, p. 18, illus. North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul,

Minn.

Lime, David W.

1976. Principles of recreational

carrying capacity. In Proceedings

of Southern States recreation

research applications. USDA For.

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-9, p. 122-

134. Southeast For. Exp. Stn.,

Asheville, N.C.

Lloyd, R. Duane, and Virlis L. Fischer.

1972. Dispersed versus concentrated

recreation as forest policy. 16 p.

Proc. 17th World For. Congr., Buenos

Aires, Argentina.

Lucas, Robert C.

1964. Wilderness perception and use:

The example of the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area. Nat. Res. J. 3(3):384-

411.

Lucas, Robert C.

1970. User evaluation of campgrounds

on two Michigan National Forests.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-44,

15 p., illus. North Cent. For. Exp.

Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Lucas, Robert C.

1973. Wilderness: A management

framework. J. Soil and Water Conserv.

28(4):150-154.

McCool, Stephen F., and J. Stanley Elmer.

1975. Providing recreational opportunities through state park systems.

Utah Tourism and Recreation Rev.

4(3):1-5.

30
Marcin, Thomas C., and David W. Lime.

1977. Our changing population

structure: What will it mean for

future outdoor recreation use? In

Outdoor recreation: Advances in

application of economics. Jay M.

Hughes and R. Duane Lloyd, compilers.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

WO-2, p. 42-53. Washington, D.C.

Marshall, Robert.

1933. The forest for recreation. In

A national plan for American forestry.

A report prepared by the Forest

Service in response to S. Res. 175

(72d Congress) Senate Document 12,

Separate 6, p. 463-487. U.S. Gov.

Print. Off.

Nash, Roderick.

1973. Wilderness and the American

mind. 300 p. Yale Univ. Press,

New Haven.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review

Commission.

1962. Outdoor recreation for America.

246 p. Washington, D.c.

Potter, Dale R., John C. Hendee, and

Roger N. Clark.

1973. Hunting satisfaction: Game,

guns, or nature? Proceeding 39th

North Am. Wildl. Conf. Proc. p. 220-

229. Washington, D.C.

Robbins, Royal.

1971. Basic rockcraft. 71 p. La

Siesta Press, Glendale, Calif.

Shafer, Elwood L.

1969. The average camper who doesn't

exist. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-142, 27 p., illus. Northeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

Shafer, Elwood L., George Moeller, and

Russell E, Getty.

1974. Future leisure environments.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-301, 14

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Stankey, George H.

1973. Visitor perception of wilderness

recreation carrying capacity. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-142, 61 p.,

illus. Intermt. For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Ogden, Utah.

Stankey, George H.

1974. Criteria for the determination

of recreational carrying capacity in

Colorado River Basin. In Environmental

management in the Colorado River Basin,

p. 82-89. A. Berry Crawford and Dean

F. Peterson, eds. Utah State Univ.

Press, Logan.

Stankey, George H.

1979. Use rationing in two southern

California wildernesses. J. For.

77(6):347-349.

Stankey, George H., and John Baden.

1977. Rationing wilderness use:

Methods, problems, and guidelines.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-192,

20 p., illus. Intermt. For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service.

1974. The visual management system.

In National Forest landscape management. Agric. Handb. 2(462):1-47.

U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington,

D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service.

1977. The Forest Service roles in

outdoor recreation. U.S. Dep.

Agric. Program Aid 1205, 13 p.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.

1976a. National Forest Management

Act of 1976. This Act calls for

development of guidelines for land

management that will provide for a

diversity of plant and animal

communities. Public Law 94-588.

In its United States statutes at

large. 1976. 90 Stat.:2949.

(16 USC 1600.). U.S. Gov. Print.

Off., Washington, D.C.

31
U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.

1976b. National Trails Act of 1968.

An Act that recognizes three classes

of trails varying in purpose,

permitted uses and adjacent development. Public Law 90-543. In its

United States statutes at large.

1968. 82 Stat.:919. (16 USC 1241.)

U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington,

D.C.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.

1976c. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of

1968. An Act that recognizes three

classes of rivers varying in level

of modification, development and

permitted activities. Public Law

90-542. In its United States

statutes at large. 1968. 82 Stat.:

906. (16 USC 1271.). U.S. Gov.

Print. Off., Washington, D.C.

Wagar, J. Alan.

1966. Campgrounds for many tastes.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-6,

10 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Ogden, Utah.

Watt, Kenneth E. F.

1972. Man's efficient rush toward

deadly dullness. Nat. His. 81(2):

74-77, 80, 82.

32
The mission of the PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND

RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION is to provide the knowledge, technology, and alternatives for present and future

protection, management, and use of forest, range, and related

environments.

Within this overall mission, the Station conducts and

stimulates research to facilitate and to accelerate progress

toward the following goals:

1. Providing safe and efficient technology for inventory,

protection, and use of resources.

2. Developing and evaluating alternative methods and levels

of resource management.

3. Achieving optimum sustained resource productivity

consistent with maintaining a high quality forest

environment.

The area of research encompasses Oregon, Washington,

Alaska, and, in some cases, California, Hawaii, the Western

States, and the Nation. Results of the research are made

available promptly. Project headquarters are at:

Anchorage, Alaska La Grande, Oregon

Fairbanks, Alaska Portland, Oregon

Juneau, Alaska Olympia, Washington

Bend, Oregon Seattle, Washington

Corvallis, Oregon Wenatchee, Washington

Mailing address: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station

809 N.E. 6th Ave.

Portland, Oregon 97232
.

,b^_

‘_

\ :- ;_

’ :

‘,_

The FOREST SERVICE of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated

to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation.

Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest

owners, and management of the National ,Forests and National Grasslands, it

strives - as directed by Congress - to provide increasingly greater service to

a growing Nation. :

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is, an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Applicants for all Department programs will be given equal consideration

without regard to age, race, color; sex, religion, or national origin.