United States 

Department of Proceedings of the Agriculture 

Forest Service Second Symposium on Social Aspects 

Pa

Re

ci

se

fic

arc

 S

h

o

 St

uth

a

w

tio

es

n 

t and Recreation Research

General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-156 February 23-25, 1994 San Diego, California 
Abstract: 

Chavez, Deborah J., technical coordinator, 1995. Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Social 

Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 1994, San Diego, California. Gen. Tech. Rep 

PSW-GTR-156. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; 186 p. 

Examination of natural resources often leaves out one important component-the human element. To 

enable resource managers and researchers to exchange information and ideas about the human dimensions of 

natural resources, the second Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research was held February 

23-25, 1994, in San Diego, California. The format of the symposium offered various opportunities for 

interactive communication among attendees. The proceedings contain abbreviated versions of 29 oral 

presentations, and summaries of sessions covering poster presentations, simulated field trips, and round 

table discussions. Issues addressed include these: conflicts, ecosystem management, multicultural groups, 

land ethics, protection and safety, partnership and service delivery, pilot project and new paradigms, 

economic issues and resource management case studies. 

Retrieval terms: conflict, conflict resolution, ecosystem management, human dimensions, land ethics, 

multicultural groups 

Technical Coordinator: 

Deborah J. Chavez is a Research Social Scientist with the Station's Wildland Recreation and Urban 

Culture Research Unit headquartered at the Forest Fire Laboratory, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507. 

Publisher: 

Pacific Southwest Research Station 

Albany, California 

(Mailing address: P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701-0245 

Telephone: 510-559-6300) 

April 1995 
Proceedings of the 

Second Symposium on Social Aspects 

and Recreation Research 

February 23-25, 1994 San Diego, California 

Deborah J. Chavez, Technical Coordinator 

Contents 

Preface .................................................................................................................... v 

Welcoming Address..............................................................................................vii 

Anne S. Fege 

First Concurrent Session: Wednesday Morning 

Social Issues and Conflicts in Multiple Use 

Transforming Controversy Into Consensus: The Steens Mountain Initiative ...............................................3 

Steven W. Anderson 

The Urban Wilderness Park: An Oxymoron? ..............................................................................................5 

Susan P. Rust 

Conflicts and Issues Related to Mountain Biking in the 

National Forests: A Multimethodological Approach ...................................................................................7

Steven J. Hollenhorst, Michael A. Schuett, and David Olsen 

Conflicting Goals of Wilderness Management: Natural Conditions 

Versus Natural Experiences .....................................................................................................................11 

Alan E. Watson and Michael J. Niccolucci 

Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management 

Human Dimensions in Ecosystem Management: A USDA Forest Service Perspective ................................19 

Deborah S. Carr 

Technology Transfer for Ecosystem Management......................................................................................23 

Tim O'Keefe 

Impact of Multicultural Groups on Resource Management 

To Be or Not To Be a Park: That is the Question ......................................................................................29 

Deborah J. Chavez, Janna Larson, and Patricia L. Winter 
CONTENTS 

Differences in Behavioral Conventions: A Comparison of U.S.-Born and 

Mexico-Born Hispanics, and Anglo Americans ................................................................................... 35 

John L. Heywood and Raquel L. Engelke 

Development and Testing of a Cultural Identity Construct for 

Recreation and Tourism Studies ........................................................................................................... 41 

Patrick T. Tierney 

Ethnic Use of the Tonto: Geographic Expansion of the Recreation Knowledge Base ........................ 45

Denver Hospodarsky and Martha Lee 

Second Concurrent Session: Wednesday Afternoon 

Land Ethics in Natural Resources 

A Preliminary Analysis of Environmental Dilemmas and Environmental

Ethical Reasoning Among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Forest Visitors .............................................. 51

Tommy Swearingen and Robert E. Pfister 

Environmental Values, Ethics, and Depreciative Behavior in Wildland Settings ............................... 59

Dorceta E. Taylor and Patricia L. Winter 

Ecology is a White Man's Problem .................................................................................................... 67

Francisco P. Valenzuela 

Protection, Safety and Use Issues in Natural Resources 

Accessibility Benchmarks: Interpretive Programs and Services in 

North Central California ......................................................................................................................... 75 

Laura J. McLachlin, Emilyn A. Sheffield, Donald A. Penland, and Charles W. Nelson 

Is Alaska Really Different? A Review of CUSTOMER Recreation Visitor Survey Data .... 79

Patrick C. Reed 

Partnership and Service Delivery Strategies for Natural Resources 

Partnerships in Natural Resource Agencies: A Conceptual Framework .............................................. 87

Catherine V. Darrow and Jerry J. Vaske 

A Content Analysis of USDA Forest Service Recreation Partnerships .............................................. 89

Steven Selin 

Seeking Common Ground: Establishing Interpark Partnerships .......................................................... 93

B. Noah Tilghman and Ray Murray 

Educational Poster Session 

User Issues ........................................................................................................................................... 101 

Environmental Education .................................................................................................................... 101 

Partnerships ......................................................................................................................................... 102 

The Urban-Wildland Interface ............................................................................................................ 102 

Economic Issues .................................................................................................................................. 103

ii USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
CONTENTS 

Wednesday Evening Session 

Simulated Field Trip Session 

National Focus ......................................................................................................................................107 

Alaska....................................................................................................................................................107 

California .............................................................................................................................................107 

Washington ...........................................................................................................................................107 

Third Concurrent Session: Friday Morning 

Pilot Projects and New Paradigms 

Getting Alice Through the Door: Social Science Research and 

Natural Resource Management ............................................................................................................111

Alan W. Ewert 

ACCESS America's Great Outdoors: Public Lands Are For Everyone ............................................117 

Joe Meade and Gregory J. Lais 

A Field Critique of the 3-Year Pilot Test for the CUSTOMER Recreation

Visitor Survey ......................................................................................................................................121

Patrick C. Reed and Gwen Hirsch 

Using Challenge Cost-Share Partnerships to Communicate with Ethnically Diverse 

Recreation Users in Southern California ..............................................................................................127 

Thomas W. Spencer and Robert E. Pfister 

Economic Issues in Policy Formation and Resource Management 

Marketing a National Forest: The Resource Managers Dilemma........................................................133 

Howard A. Clonts and Jeffery R. Hibbert 

Protecting Oregon Old-Growth Forests From Fires: How Much Is It Worth? ...................................139 

Armando Gonzalez-Caban, John B. Loomis, and Robin Gregory 

Coordinated Fee Structure for Developed Recreation Sites on the Ashley, Uinta,

and Wasatch-Cache National Forests ...................................................................................................145 

Brent H. McBeth 

What's a Walk on the Wildside Worth? ..............................................................................................147 

Elwood L. Shafer 

Resource Management Case Studies 

The Potential Impacts of the Homeless on Public Lands ....................................................................153

Sidney M. Blumner and Carolyn M. Daugherty 

Community Based Research for an Urban Recreation Application of

Benefits-Based Management ................................................................................................................159 

William T. Borne and Joseph W. Roggenbuck 

Total Quality Management: Managing the Human Dimension in

Natural Resource Agencies ................................................................................................................. 165

Denzil Verardo 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. iii
CONTENTS 

Friday Afternoon 

Round Table Session 

Visitor Issues .........................................................................................................................................175 

Human Dimensions ..............................................................................................................................175 

Management Tools ...............................................................................................................................175 

Research Issues ....................................................................................................................................175

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Symposium Agenda ..................................................................................................... 179 

Appendix B: List of Participants ..................................................................................................... 183

iv USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Preface 

The second Social Aspects and Recreation Research 

(SARR) Symposium was held February 23-25, 1994 in San 

Diego, California. The theme was the human dimensions of 

natural resources. Sponsors were the Pacific Southwest Research Station of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; the Social Aspects of Resource Management 

Institute at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona; 

the California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior; and the Society of American Foresters. 

The idea for the symposium was first proposed in a 

meeting of the Wildland Recreation and Urban Culture Research Work Unit of the USDA Forest Service's Pacific 

Southwest Research Station in late 1990. In several meetings 

we refined what we wanted to get out of the symposium and 

what we wanted others to get from it. The first SARR Symposium was held February 19-22, 1992, in Ontario, California. 

Our vision for the SARR Symposiums was interaction. 

We viewed them as a golden opportunity for communication 

between and among resource managers and researchers. We 

expected participants to gather social and recreational information and share their thoughts about that information. We 

offered many ways for this communication to take place, 

including these: (1) keynote addresses on the human dimensions of natural resources; (2) concurrent sessions of extended length allowing for questions and responses; (3) an 

educational poster session; (4) round table sessions where 

up to 10 participants could discuss a topic of mutual interest; 

(5) simulated field trips where resource managers could 

describe their resource area to participants and answer questions about that area; and (6) an actual field trip where 

participants could visit one of two natural resource areas to 

learn about it directly from the site resource managers. 

Keynote addresses at the second SARR symposium were 

given by Anne Fege, USDA Forest Service, and Mark 

Nechodom, University of California at Davis. There were 52 

concurrent session speakers and session topics included these: 

social issues and conflicts in multiple use; human dimensions 

of ecosystem management; land ethics; protection, safety, and 

use issues; partnership and service delivery strategies; pilot 

projects and new paradigms; economic issues in policy formation; and resource management case studies. In these Proceedings you will find copies of the presentations made available 

to us by the keynote and concurrent session presenters. 

Summaries of presentations at the educational poster, 

round table, and simulated field trip sessions are also included. Educational posters were presented by 19 people, 9 

people presided over round table discussions and 5 people 

gave simulated field trips. 

The volume of abstracts including all of the symposium 

sessions are available from the Wildland Recreation and Urban Culture Research Work Unit, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507. 

Two groups were responsible for planning and running 

the symposium. From the Wildland Recreation and Urban 

Culture Research Work Unit of the Pacific Southwest Research Station, Project Leader Deborah J. Chavez served as 

Program Chair, and unit staff members Victor Caro, Sarah 

Ellinger, Arthur Magill, Robert Pfister, Steven Sanchez, 

Linda Tocco, and Patricia Winter provided valuable support. Special thanks go to Technical Editors Laurie Dunn 

and B Shimon Schwarzschild, Editorial Assistant Lola Thomas, Visual Information Specialists Kathy Stewart and 

Esther Kerkmann, Photo Scientific Technician Anthony 

Gomez, and Maintenance crew member Warren Hannaall from the Pacific Southwest Research Station-and Anthony Martinez of the Angeles National Forest. Special 

thanks also go to the Cleveland National Forest for its 

support, in particular Anne Fege, Forest Supervisor. The 

Department of Social Science, California State Polytechnic 

University at Pomona, Professor Sidney Blumner and staff 

of the Social Aspects of Resource Management Institute, 

Lisa Caro, K.C. Cheung, and Bruce Hoffman all provided 

technical assistance before and at the symposium. We also 

thank Robert Chin, graduate student at San Francisco State 

University for volunteering his services at the Symposium. 

Most importantly, thanks go to every presenter and attendee at the SARR Symposium. The 130 attendees represented the the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park 

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior; the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the Department 

of Fish and Game; and various state offices, regional parks 

and open spaces. The attendees also represented the following universities and colleges: Arizona State University; Auburn University; California State University at Chico, Pomona, 

Sacramento, San Diego, and San Luis Obispo; Colorado 

State University; Indiana University; Metro State College; 

Northern Arizona University; Ohio State University; Oregon 

State University; Pennsylvania State University; San Francisco State University; Southwest Texas State University; 

University of Alabama; University of Alaska; University of 

Arizona; University of Calgary; University of California at 

Berkeley and San Diego; Utah State University; Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute; and West Virginia University. 

We hope to see you again in 1997, when the third SARR 

Symposium is planned. 

Deborah J. Chavez 

Technical Coordinator 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. v 
Welcoming Address 

I Live in a City and I Like to Recreate Outdoors1 

Anne S. Fege2 

Welcome to San Diego! We are delighted to share our 

sunshine and warm weather, our beaches and mountains and 

deserts with you. Tomorrow the Cleveland National Forest 

is proud to invite you out of this hotel room on two field trips 

to the mountains and to places along the ocean. On behalf of 

all 200 Cleveland National Forest employees, I welcome 

you and invite you to stay and enjoy the 1/2 million acres of 

chapparal and forest land we manage in urban Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties. 

Today we begin 3 days of learning about and experienceing the social aspects of recreation. I invite you to look at 

these from a personal perspective, and to think about your 

values about outdoor recreation in the urban setting. I invite 

you to recognize different values between yourself and others as you learn more about recreation this week. 

Yesterday was Thinking Day, a day when Girl Scouts 

and Girl Guides around the world recognize their international connections and community. The Girl Scouts of San 

Diego-Imperial Counties, where I'm an active volunteerasked girls and adults to celebrate it by wearing different 

shoes to demonstrate differences. I'm celebrating it today 

with two different shoes and I offer the following agreement 

for Thinking Day to value differences: 

To those who are different from me, I promise: to learn 

about you, to understand you, to befriend you, to value you 

and your differences, and to appreciate that our similarities 

are larger than our differences. 

In the next 20 minutes, I invite you to participate in 

valuing differences in our interests in outdoor recreation. 

And then I invite you to connect personally to your outdoor 

recreation experiences. 

For the following questions, I ask you to stand up to 

answer them, and look around you to see who answered the 

same and who answered differently, so you can value similarities and differences. 

Our values and interests are shaped by where we were 

raised and where we live. Please stand up if you were raised 

in a city or town of 100,000 or more. You have many urban 

values, and your colleagues who remained seated have many 

rural values from their upbringings. 

Now, please stand up if you live in a city of 1,000,000 

including suburbs. Also stand up, if you live in the city 

limits of a city of 100,000. You have urban values and 

1

This address was presented at the Second Symposium on Social 

Aspects of Recreation Research, February 23, 1994, San Diego, California. 2

Forest Supervisor, Cleveland National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 

10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, San Diego, CA 92127-2107. 

needs, and your colleagues who remain seated have more 

rural needs. Most of us here at this conference are urban 

residents. We live in cities. This conference relates personally to us. 

Our values are expressed in how we choose to spend our 

time. Think about how you spend time in the outdoors, within 

an hour of your home. Do not include your daily exercise, 

jogging, bicycling to work, etc. Stand up, if you spend most 

of your outdoor time alone. Stand up, if you spend most of it 

with one other person. Stand up, if you spend most of it with 

two or more people. Look around, see who has similar values 

about outdoor recreation time, and who has different values. 

We also express our values in the activities we choose. 

What activities have you enjoyed in the outdoors in the past 

2 years, within an hour of your home? Stand up, to answer 

each question, then sit down again. 

Did you hike or walk? 

Ride a bicycle?

Ride an off-highway vehicle?

Ride a horse?

Go on a picnic?

Go target shooting?

Go skiing?

Camp
overnight?

Drive for pleasure with out-of-town guests?

Go with international or non-English speaking guests?

Stand up if you have enjoyed any other activities, and 

stay standing. Please tell us what these activities were. 

Now I'm inviting you to recall a recent personal outdoor 

recreation experience. I am inviting you to bring the outdoors into this room. Please close your eyes. Sit comfortably, relax your arms, relax your legs, relax your neck. 

Breathe deeply. 

You're going to go to your favorite outdoor recreation 

place within an hour of home. Decide on the destination. Put 

on the clothes you need for the activities there. Decide who 

will be going with you. Pack your lunch and any gear and 

equipment. Get all the gear and people together outside your 

home. Get in your car or bicycle or walk to the bus stop. 

Now you are traveling to this destination. Enjoy the scenery 

along the way. 

You are now at your favorite nearby recreation spot. Get 

out of the vehicle and get all the gear and supplies you 

packed for the excursion. Start doing the outdoor activity. 

You're having a good time. You're enjoying yourself. Now 

notice the people around you, others enjoying the same 

place. Notice how they are dressed and how they talk within 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. vii 
their group. Notice those doing the same activities. Notice 

those doing something different. 

If you've been enjoying the activity in a group, go off by 

yourself for a minute, back to a quiet place or down a trail. 

Take a look around you. Breathe deeply. Remember the last 

time you were here. Smell the air and plants and soil. See the 

bright colors, the greens and blues and browns, maybe some 

small flowers next to where you're sitting. Reach out and 

touch the plants. Feel the sand or rock or soil. Listen. Do you 

hear wind in the trees or the surf, or birds singing, or water 

rushing? Or do you hear complete silence? Breathe deeply. 

The outdoors is speaking to you. 

Go back to your group. Finish your activity and pack up 

to go home. Get back in your car or on your bicycle or the 

bus. Drive back home. Listen to others talking about the day 

and the activities. Enjoy the scenery and the late afternoon 

sunlight. Now you are home. Slowly open your eyes and 

look around you. You are back in San Diego. You are back 

at a conference on Social Aspects and Recreation Research. 

As we share the papers, posters, field trip, other experiences and hallway talk this week, let us remember that 

outdoor recreation is a very personal experience. It is one of 

the activities that gives our lives a sense of quality and joy. 

In choosing recreational activities, we reflect our individual values. Let us honor and celebrate the differences 

among us here, but more importantly among recreation 

visitors and the public. Please join me in the spirit of the 

Girl Scout agreement to value these differences. I'm delighted to welcome you to San Diego, and learn with you 

this week. 

viii USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
First Concurrent Session: Wednesday Morning


Social Issues and Conflicts in Multiple Use


Chair: Michael A. Schuett 

Southwest Texas State University 
Transforming Controversy into Consensus: The Steens 

Mountain Initiative1 

Steven W. Anderson2 

Abstract: Even bitterly disputed management issues can be tempered or eliminated. Agency outreach efforts in conjunction with 

the media, working groups, effected interests, field trips, and “open 

house” social events can result in unified management efforts. In 

addition, distortions or misconceptions can be clarified. Recurrent 

efforts are required to build good working relationships among 

varied interest groups. 

The Steens Mountain rises to 1 vertical mile above the 

Alvord Desert and stretches horizontally for over 30 miles. 

This fault block mountain is located in sparsely populated 

southeastern Oregon. The Steens possess remarkable 

opportunities to view glacially carved canyons and gorges, 

abundant wildlife, and the Donner and Blitzen National 

Wild and Scenic River. Abundant, uncrowded open space, 

and outstanding natural features, have contributed to the 

heightened sense of public awareness and concern over the 

management of the Steens. 

Controversy 

To the uninformed public it appears that there are two 

bifurcated, intolerant camps. One camp consists of the historic 

users of much of the Steens, the cattle ranchers, and area 

residents who hunt, fish and often value the land as their 

own. The other camp is composed of preservation minded 

individuals and groups. The management agency, in this 

case, the USDI Bureau of Land Management, often appears 

to be in a third camp, attempting to be empathetic, and in 

some instances attempting to placate everyone. 

In recent years almost all proposed management actions 

by the Bureau have been questioned, protested or appealed. 

Trust was almost nonexistent. If the Bureau published a 

brochure, some area residents felt it was “advertising.” 

Preservation groups would issue newsletters stating, “Human 

activities are threatening this fierce, yet fragile land and its 

inhabitants.” Yet in the same newsletter, members would be 

encouraged to “Visit the high desert. Take some friends. 

Take pictures. Write about what you have seen. Tell others 

about it.” 

1An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2Project Manager, Human Resource Development Committee, USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

Dialectic Outreach 

Bureau personnel recognized that in many cases both 

camps were often desiring the same future for the Steens. A 

review of numerous letters, appeals and protests showed that 

no one wanted to impair the land. The goal, by all parties 

was to achieve sustainability. Sustainability for some meant 

maintaining their way of life on a ranch; for others it meant 

continued good fishing or a hike in the pristine backcountry. 

Historically, public outreach was conducted in compliance 

with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations 

or in order to share a management initiative. Bureau personnel 

felt a new approach was needed. Not unlike a department 

store finding an excuse for a sale, the Bureau found excuses 

for having non-traditional meetings. The Bureau also 

recognized that studies had established that more than 80 

percent of visitors to the Steens came from outside the 

region. Therefore, outreach efforts would include distant 

areas such as Portland, Oregon which is more than 200 miles 

from the Steens. 

A Steens video was produced that detailed the Bureau’s 

management practices. A Visitor Use Study was conducted 

and the results shared with the media and numerous groups 

to discuss the findings and management implications. Open 

house events were held simply to bring people together and 

answer questions. These non-NEPA type meetings stopped 

the spread of distorted information. Working groups were 

formed from diverse interests to bring all groups to the table 

in the decision-making process. Follow-up meetings showed 

the Bureau’s commitment to public involvement and good 

communications. Guest speakers from outside the agency 

shared their opinions. Finally, field trips and individual tours 

were conducted. 

Results 

The results of this outreach effort are positive and 

ongoing. Early reactions from some interest groups were 

that the Bureau’s attempts were merely a public relations 

scheme. In subsequent meetings some of these same critics 

defended the Bureau to newcomers, thereby showing a desire 

to work together. In a few cases those who enjoyed vilifying 

the Bureau were annoyed that the Bureau would go beyond 

the required NEPA meetings, and questioned, “Why are you 

having these meetings anyway?” Critics often found that, 

realistically, issues were more complicated than they had 

assumed. Detractors were disarmed by meetings aimed at 

information sharing, or at working in a group that required 

exposure to divergent views. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 3 
Outreach efforts are not without cost; they are time 

consuming and labor intensive. Initially, some staff members 

were wary of any type of outreach based on past formal 

NEPA public involvement meetings. Finally, too many 

working groups can be counterproductive. It may be more 

beneficial to tackle one or two high priority concerns rather 

than the top four or five. 

Conclusion 

• Building trust, once it has been lost, is very difficult. 

• Creative tools such as video’s and studies, allow the 

agency to show it is willing to lead. 

• Private opinion creates public opinion; agencies cannot 

simply hope that people will understand. 

• Guest speakers such as county officials, researchers, 

and interest groups show that there are many beliefs 

and that the agency will listen. 

• Autocratic management will fail (one must be able to 

modify plans, etc.) 

• Being timid will also result in failure (one must be able 

to express why a management action is needed). 

• Legitimacy is earned, not given (actions, in this case 

on the land, speak louder than words, or more rules 

and regulations). 

• Reasonable opinions will most often prevail. 

4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
The Urban Wilderness Park: An Oxymoron?1


Susan P. Rust2 

Abstract: The concept of wilderness in an urban context is explored by using Friedrich Wilderness Park in San Antonio, Texas, 

as an example. The issue of how natural resources protection and 

environmental education can be accomplished in spite of inadequate public funding is addressed. 

In her will conveying a tract of undeveloped land to the 

city of San Antonio in 1971, Norma Friedrich Ward specified 

that “... insofar as possible, the natural vegetation and native 

trees and shrubs be protected, and that native birds and 

wildlife be protected and encouraged to use the park as a 

sanctuary.” These stipulations provide the definition of 

“wilderness” as it applies to the park today. 

Commonly known as Friedrich Wilderness Park, the 

park is comprised of 232 acres of wooded hills and drainages, 

in a relatively natural condition. It is the most environmentally 

sensitive land in the inventory of the city’s Department of 

Parks and Recreation and is the only city park land on which 

traditional recreational development is restricted. It provides 

critical habitat for two endangered bird species and numerous 

locally rare plant and animal species. It accommodates 

ecological research, environmental education, primitive 

hiking, and other passive recreational opportunities. 

When it first became city property, the park was located 

several miles north of the San Antonio metropolitan boundary 

within a rural landscape. At that time, because of its relatively 

low visibility and public use, the lack of perceived threats to 

its ecosystem, the legal restrictions on its development, and 

a chronically low Departmental budget for parks, the most 

reasonable course for the city was to fence it off and construct 

a primitive trail system to provide some minor amenities for 

public day use, and essentially leave it alone. Thus, the 

designation of the park as a wilderness seemed reasonable 

even by the United States legal definition as “an area where 

the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, 

where man is himself a visitor who does not remain.” 

Unfortunately however, this park is located in the most 

rapidly urbanizing region of central Texas, at the edge of the 

Nation’s tenth largest city, along a major growth corridor, 

within a half mile of a major interstate highway. In the past 

10 years, land speculation in this area has reached epidemic 

proportions. A major university, world-class theme park, 

numerous thoroughfare expansions and all the typical urban 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Director of Research and Science, Friedrich Wilderness Park, P.O. 

Box 691371, San Antonio, TX 78269. 

residential and commercial development associated with 

them is resulting in an explosive conversion of the landscape, 

and the amoeboid boundary of the city has reached the park. 

A large upscale subdivision is located near the park’s south 

boundary, a destination resort hotel and residential complex 

is under construction adjacent to the park on the north and 

west, and commercial development is anticipated along the 

park’s east side. 

As the park becomes a wild island in an urban sea, the 

natural community that it was intended to preserve and the 

species for which it provides sanctuary have become 

increasingly ‘trammeled’ by man. Noise, lights, pollution, 

domestic and introduced species, vandalism and trespass 

are now eroding the park’s wildness. In addition to this 

activity around the park, public visitation to the park has 

grown from several hundred annual visitors in the 1970’s to 

more than 78,000 last year, and the demand for the passive 

recreational opportunities the park offers has increased almost 

exponentially. 

This scenario has been repeated in urbanizing areas 

throughout the country, and may be painfully familiar to 

many. The loss of the rural environmental context of nature 

parks such as Friedrich will result in permanent alterations 

of natural ecosystems and a severe compromise of the 

traditional wilderness character. But does this loss mean 

that the designation “wilderness” is no longer appropriate? 

“Relative” Wilderness 

Fortunately, wilderness is a relative concept, and the 

less rigid the perspectives of an urban public about wilderness, 

the greater the importance of urban nature parks and the 

critical role of such parks in addressing wilderness 

preservation and conservation objectives at a different scale. 

Although a 232-acre patch of undeveloped land in an 

otherwise urban matrix cannot provide sanctuary to all the 

native plants and animals that once called it home, it can 

continue to provide a close approximation of a wilderness 

experience for many urban dwellers. Therefore, the “relative” 

wilderness of such nature parks can be regarded as no less 

real than if it were “true” wilderness in the biological sense. 

The most important role for Friedrich Park in the future is 

not its ability to preserve endangered species or natural 

ecosystems, but rather its ability to educate an urban public 

about the wonder and fragility of the natural world...using 

itself as the model. 

Parks as Education Centers 

Although we can acknowledge the changing role and 

growing value of a park like Friedrich, providing the necessary 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 5 
methods to ensure that the park fulfills its new mandates is 

not an easy task. The city of San Antonio, like many other 

communities, lacks experience with parks as education centers. 

Given the severe social problems facing most cities today, 

this type of park is often perceived as merely undeveloped, 

under-utilized, low maintenance land of little importance. 

Therefore, quite reasonably, most nature centers and 

low-impact recreation parks receive the lowest funding priority 

within parks department budgets, and typically parks 

departments receive the lowest budgetary allocations of a 

city’s major departments. Because of the increasing urban 

impacts, growing public use, and continually declining public 

dollars, how can parks like Friedrich hope to preserve any 

remnant of wilderness character and, at the same time, begin 

to realize their educational potential? 

Is the situation hopeless? No! Of course not. Typically, as 

in the case of Friedrich Park, once certain concerned segments 

of the general public come to understand both the tremendous 

significance of the urban natural area and the limitations of the 

city’s budget, they are often galvanized into action. In the 

early 1970’s, volunteers from the local Sierra Club chapter 

helped the city define and construct an initial trail system. In 

the mid 1980’s, the local chapter of the National Audubon 

Society adopted the park as part of its conservation and education 

outreach program and organized service outings, educational 

programs, and environmental research there. At various times, 

scouting groups and other service organizations have provided 

manpower and funds for projects that could not have been 

accomplished without their help. 

During the past 10 years, volunteers have contributed 

more than 1,500 hours of research, over 2,800 hours of 

public education, more than 2,100 hours of physical labor, 

and more than 1,500 hours of planning, fundraising and 

public relations. Billed at $20.00/hour these efforts have 

effectively augmented the city Parks Department’s meager 

budget by approximately $160,000.00. 

Friends of Friedrich Wilderness Park 

In 1990 a private volunteer support group, the Friends 

of Friedrich Wilderness Park (FOF), was formally 

incorporated. FOF’s mission is to work cooperatively with 

the city to promote ecosystem conservation and environmentally sensitive park management, and to increase public 

understanding and appreciation of the natural environment 

through the development of educational and scientific 

programs at the park. 

FOF now sponsors and coordinates a broad range of 

environmental education programs, organizes fundraising 

and public relations campaigns, lobbies decision-makers on 

behalf of the park, contributes time and expertise to park 

planning and maintenance, and works with the city to address 

a variety of resource management issues. In cooperation 

with local academic institutions, audubon groups and the 

park’s naturalist, FOF supervises a number of nationally 

significant science and research projects. FOF has received 

support from the San Antonio Junior League to develop and 

implement a first-rate docent training program, and with the 

help of local scout troops and service organizations and the 

park naturalist, FOF coordinates a variety of stewardship 

and maintenance projects. In addition, in its short life, FOF 

has successfully raised more than $20,000.00 in grants, and 

public and private donations. 

FOF has recently founded the Norma Friedrich Ward 

Center for Education and Research, which currently operates 

out of the park’s only building—a horse stable and 

maintenance garage. The Center umbrellas the usual 

activities of FOF and has added several ambitious initiatives 

including the acquisition of additional land, development 

of a park master plan, and the construction of a “real” 

headquarters and nature center. Most recently, FOF has 

successfully lobbied the mayor and city council to earmark 

$300,000.00 of an impending bond package for the nature 

center development. 

Preserving the Park and the Wilderness 

This type of two-pronged approach is the key to 

cultivating an appreciation of wilderness in the larger context: 

it simultaneously preserves the park’s natural community 

and wilderness quality so that the public has an opportunity 

to personally experience a sense of the wild, while also 

reinforcing and expanding the wilderness experience with 

strong environmental education programs. 

Growing evidence shows that the more separated a 

person becomes from the natural world, the less likely he/ 

she will value and conserve it. Wilderness approximations 

such as those preserved at Friedrich Wilderness Park may 

provide a growing urban population with the only tangible 

connection between their intensely developed environment 

and the rural or natural environment that supports it. This 

critical connection is one on which the future of all wilderness 

may ultimately depend. 

6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Conflicts and Issues Related to Mountain Biking 

in the National Forests: A Multimethodological Approach1 

Steven J. Hollenhorst Michael A. Schuett David Olson2 

Abstract: One of the key reasons for the tremendous increase in 

mountain biking on the National Forests is the myriad of opportunities available for off-road cycling enthusiasts. The issues of land 

access, trail maintenance and conflict are reinforced as complex 

problems that will need to be resolved through the cooperation of 

land managers, user groups and clubs/organizations. Quantitative 

and qualitative methods for sampling, data collection, and data 

analysis were used to explore issues and problems related to mountain biking on the National Forests. The problems and issues 

uncovered in this study should not be allowed to develop into “win 

or lose” situations, but should be pursued through a community 

decision approach. 

Increased participation by mountain bikes on multiple 

use trails and off-road areas is an issue that has seen continued 

attention (Hollenhorst and others 1993). Concerns about 

increased participation have resulted in much controversy 

surrounding the problem of conflict affecting users and land 

managers. Contention on trails among various users (e.g. 

equestrians and hikers) have led to concerns about participation 

dissatisfaction, displacement, resource impacts, and safety 

(Chase 1987, Jacoby 1990, Watson and others 1991, Viehman 

1990). The issues and problems involving the use of mountain 

bikes on public lands needs to be studied. 

According to the Sporting Goods Manufacturing 

Association (SGMA), participation levels for mountain biking 

have increased by 114 percent between 1987 and 1989, 

from 1.5 million to 3.2 million total days (SGMA 1991). 

Frequent participation (52+ days a year) rose by 153 percent 

between 1987 and 1989 from 216,000 to 546,000. The core 

of participation has been centered in the western United 

States where 59.7 percent of all participants live. California 

has the highest rate (25 percent) of all participants, and 

Colorado had a high rate as well (8.1 percent) (SGMA 

1991). Sales of mountain bikes has experienced considerable 

increases in the last 10 years. The number of mountain bikes 

have increased from 200,000 in 1983 to over 11 million in 

1989 (Keller 1990). 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Associate Professor of Wildlands Recreation, Division of Forestry at 

West Virginia University, PO Box 6125, Morgantown, WV 26506; Assistant 

Professor of Recreation Administration, Department of Health, Physical 

Education and Recreation, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, 

TX; Recreation Research Technician, Division of Forestry, West Virginia 

University, Morgantown, WV. 

The heightened popularity of this activity is of 

considerable concern to land managers because of the 

increased interest of off-road uses of mountain bikes on 

multiple use trails and roads on public lands, especially 

those on state and National Forests. Considering the 

attractiveness of the National Forests for mountain biking 

and current participation rates, the potential for increased 

use of public lands could reach high levels, resulting in 

greater demands on resource managers. 

Increased participation in off-road areas is an issue that 

has seen continued attention. Concerns about increased 

participation have led to much controversy. Potential conflicts 

on trails with other users (equestrians and hikers, for example) 

have led to concerns about participant dissatisfaction, 

displacement, resource impacts and safety for other user 

groups (Chase 1987, Jacoby 1990, Watson and others 1991, 

Viehman 1990). Watson and others (1990) found that conflict 

existed between hikers and mountain bikers at the Rattlesnake 

Recreation Area in Montana. More than one quarter of the 

bicyclists thought hikers were a problem compared to almost 

two-thirds of the hikers who thought cyclists were a problem. 

This lack of acceptance of hikers towards mountain bikers 

was unclear because the reasons for this objection to the 

bikers was not specified. In a related study of readers of 

Backpacker magazine, Viehman (1990) found that over two 

thirds of magazine readers thought that the use of mountain 

bikes on trails was objectionable. Similarly, Chase admits 

“... many people will piously declare that mountain bikers 

are bad for trails, when they really just don’t like them” 

(Knize and Chase 1987). 

Additional concerns of land managers have involved 

resource impacts of mountain bikes on trails and enforcement 

of rules (Keller 1990). The studies on environmental impacts 

show that “minimal” if any observable differences were 

reported when comparing the results of resource impacts of 

mountain bikes and hikers (Santa Clara County Parks and 

Recreation 1986, Seney 1990). In examining the impacts of 

mountain bikes on trails, this issue will continue to be 

debatable until more research is done, “...on a variety of 

soils and under different conditions” (Keller 1990). 

Because mountain biking is one of the fastest growing 

outdoor activities on public lands, the issues of conflict 

should be examined so that potential areas of concern can be 

identified for our land managing agencies. This participation 

trend is likely to continue and further investigation is needed 

about educational material, conflict with other user groups, 

and guidelines for land managers and users in determining 

how to effectively manage federal lands. Therefore, the 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 7 
purpose of this study was to identify issues, conflicts, and 

problems related to mountain biking in the national forests. 

Method 

This study used quantitative and qualitative methods for 

sampling, data collection, and data analysis. The project was 

conducted over a 9-month period from the summer of 1992 

through the spring of 1993. The method section is detailed in 

terms of data sampling, data collection and analyses. 

Data Sampling and Collection 

Questionnaires were collected on-site from a sample of 

750 mountain bikers. The survey was administered in National 

Forests in California, West Virginia and Texas to both 

mountain bikers on informal rides and to participants and 

spectators at mountain bike competitions. The information 

collected assessed the demographic characteristics, patterns 

of participation of mountain bikers on selected National 

Forests, information and communication opportunities and 

barriers, and an analysis of conflict issues involving mountain 

bikes. The format of the questionnaire included both scaled 

items and open-ended items. 

Focus groups were used to obtain a more thorough 

perspective about the phenomenon of mountain biking. Focus 

groups consisted of 6 to 10 persons who were interviewed by 

a group moderator. As a data collection technique the value 

of this approach lies in the researcher’s ability to explore 

information more thoroughly and examine individual insights 

(Morgan 1991). 

Three focus groups were conducted for this study. Two 

were done in Texas, one in Houston (N=9) and one in Austin 

(N=8), and the third in Morgantown, West Virginia (N=8). 

The focus groups consisted of willing participants made up 

of mountain bike riders, retailers, employees, and general 

enthusiasts from the mountain bike community. The age of 

the group members ranged from 17 to 18 years to the late 

40’s with levels of formal education varying from no college 

to those with several years of graduate school. Interviews 

were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. 

Data Analyses 

The open ended items of the on-site survey and the 

transcripts of the focus groups were analyzed by triangulating 

the qualitative data analysis techniques of typological 

analysis, clustering (Goetz and LeCompte 1984), and 

enumeration (Miles and Huberman 1984). Typological 

analysis involves dividing the information into groups or 

categories on the basis of some criterion for disaggregating some phenomenon (Goetz and LeCompte 1984). 

Enumeration allows the researcher to tabulate the frequency 

of key words or phrases which are the units of analysis 

(Miles and Huberman 1984). Enumerative techniques 

augment attempts to generate, refine or verify hypotheses 

(Goetz and LeCompte 1984). Clustering is used when 

information acquired through data sources does not fit into 

previously identified themes or categories (Miles and 

Huberman 1984). 

Validity and reliability were addressed through the use 

of external reviewers (Goetz and LeCompte 1984, Lincoln 

and Guba 1985). These external reviewers included 

researchers familiar with qualitative research techniques, 

participants within the focus groups, key informants, and 

mountain bikers. The use of these confederates was planned 

in order to validate the outcomes of the analysis and verify 

the concepts in the study as a way to establish consensus and 

consistency (Glancy 1988, Goetz and LeCompte 1984, 

Henderson 1991). 

Results 

Of the approximately 750 surveys distributed, a total of 

696 (92.8 percent) were usable. Most of the survey respondents 

were male (85 percent). The mean respondent age was 29.8 

years, and the mean level of formal education was 15 years. 

Open-Ended Items 

After analyzing and interpreting the open-ended items, 

response categories (Pugach 1985) were created for each 

question. The responses to the item “Important issues and 

problems facing mountain biking in the National Forests” 

included “access” (n=244), “impacts” (n=199), “conflict” 

(n=189), “education/rules/etiquette/ethics” (n=101), and 

“trail maintenance” (n=86). Thus, dominant focus for 

mountain biking was access, impacts, conflict and education 

of the users. 

Focus Groups 

Results from data reduction techniques showed that 

concerns did exist about the problems and issues facing 

mountain biking in the National Forests. The responses were 

very specific and focused on these areas: access, trail 

maintenance, impacts, conflict, education/ etiquette/rules, 

information dissemination, management, and practices/policies. 

Examples of comments: 

“...they should be issued a handbook with their bicycle 

if they are going to ride it ...like a motor vehicle handbook. 

They should know the rules.” 

“The hikers don’t interfere with your experience 

(mountain bikers), the bikers interfere with the hiker’s 

experience.” 

The comments put forth by these riders are indicative of 

the information that has been reported by other users in 

numerous locations. Mountain bikers are very concerned 

about access, conflict with other users, and impacts (e.g., 

resource and psychological impacts to other users). According 

to focus participants, these problems are complex and will 

be addressed most effectively within the context of a 

cooperative, “community” approach including users, land 

managers, club/organizations and policy makers. 

8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Discussion 

From a management perspective, the issues and problems 

that are facing mountain biking in the National Forests are 

real and very specific. Mountain bikers are troubled about 

continued trail access in the National Forests. Mountain 

bikers are even more concerned by the effect of future 

increases in usage as it relates to trail access. In the brief 

history of mountain biking, participants have strongly 

advocated the use of trails on many tracts of public land. 

These concerns have been one of the foci of mountain 

biking clubs. These clubs and other bicycling organizations, 

i.e., Bicycling Federation of America, have been instrumental 

in working for continued access on public lands. Both 

resource managers and riders will also need to become 

more conscious of the access issue in dealing with other 

trail other users. 

This study showed that mountain bikers are concerned 

about conflict with other users but are tolerant of other 

users, such as equestrians or hikers. This conclusion partly 

supports the findings of Watson and others (1991) showing 

that mountain bikers are tolerant of hikers. In the focus 

groups however, it was found that mountain bikers feel 

that other trail users, e.g., hikers and equestrians, need to 

change their outlook and maintain a less “possessive” attitude 

about the trails and become more understanding of increases 

in trail usage by mountain bikers. The issue of separate 

trails for various trail users was discussed in the focus 

groups but was not regarded as a plausible solution by any 

of the participants. 

Additional concerns that surfaced in this study pertained 

to educational programs and rider etiquette. These types of 

issues could be resolved through an integrated approach. 

Rider education by way of a minimum impact trail strategy 

is essential but may have limitations unless this philosophy 

is adopted by all users. Inconsiderate behavior by individual 

users is a possibility, but education is an integral part of 

minimizing the shortcomings caused by carelessness and 

ignorance. As suggested by respondents, the mountain bike 

manufacturers and bicycle retailers are a critical link in 

educating the user and should take a leadership role. 

Lastly, respondents expressed concern about the 

maintenance and construction of trails. The problem of trail 

maintenance may be handled differently depending upon 

the terrain, rate of usage, region, and trail type, but it is one 

issue that will need to be addressed by land managers. 

Federal dollars for new trails may be difficult to acquire, 

but the modification of present trail systems through the 

assistance of all interested trail users may be a partial 

answer. More involvement by volunteers from mountain 

bike clubs may reduce the need for public resources for 

trail expenditures. Organized networks of volunteers on a 

state or regional basis should be promoted by clubs. This 

type of system has been effective for hiking organizations 

such as the Green Mountain Club, Inc. or Appalachian 

Mountain Club. In addition, improved communication 

between land managers and mountain biking clubs can aid 

in the development and maintenance of specific trail features 

that are desired by riders such as trail head information. 

Multiple use trails, however, may not be modified for 

mountain bikers because these trails are used by a more 

diverse group of trail users. 

Conclusions 

If mountain biking on the National Forests continues to 

grow at its current rate, it will require continued investigation 

and will necessitate that all trail users, club members, and 

land managers remain in constant communication. All parties 

connected by mountain biking will need to take a community 

approach to the development of policy and management 

guidelines. We recommend a national conference, attended 

by representatives from all affected user groups, clubs, and 

land managing agencies, to address the issue of mountain 

biking and trail use conflicts. 

Acknowledgments 

We thank Dr. Debbie Chavez for assistance on the 

conceptual development and data collection for this project. 

Funding for the project was provided by the USDA Forest 

Service’s Pacific Southwest Research Station. A special 

thanks is extended to the mountain bike community leaders 

in Texas and West Virginia who agreed to participate in 

the focus group sessions. Their input enabled us to 

understand and interpret many of the findings that emerged 

from the questionnaire. 

References 

Chase, J. 1987. Mountain bikes, the gnarly question of knobby tires. 

Backpacker: 36-37. 

Glancy, M. 1988. The play-world of setting of the auction. Journal of 

Leisure Research 20(2): 135-153. 

Goetz, J.P.; LeCompte, M.D. 1984. Ethnography and qualitative design 

ineducational research. Orlando, FL:Academic Press. 

Hollenhorst, S.; Schuett, M.A.; Olson, D. 1993. An examination of the 

characteristics, preferences, and attitudes of mountain bike users of the 

national forests: A preliminary analysis. Riverside, CA: Pacific Southwest 

Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Report No. PSW-920019CA. 

Jacoby, J. 1990. Mountain bikes: A new dilemma for wildland recreation 

managers? Western Wildlands 16(1): 25-28. 

Keller, K. 1990. Mountain bikes on public lands: A manager’s guide to 

the state of the practice. Washington, D.C.: Bicycle Federation of 

America, Inc. 

Knize, P.; Chase, J. 1987. Our nation’s trails, Part II: The new intruders. 

Backpacker: 33-37. 

Lincoln, Y.S.; Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage. 

Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook 

of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Morgan, D.L. 1991. Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, 

CA: Sage. 

Pugach, M. 1985. Controlling qualitative data: Meeting the challenge of 

large sample sizes in a study of special education referral policy. Paper 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational 

Association; Chicago, IL. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 9 
Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation. 1986. Survey of sociological Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association. 1991. Mountain biking - on 

considerations related to mountain bike use on park trails in Santa the way up. (Available from Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association, 

Clara County. Prepared by W. Charleson and C. Crockett (Available 200 Castlewood Drive, North Palm Beach, FL, 33408.) 

from Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation, Los Gatos, CA 95030.) Viehman, J. 1990. Let’s build trails, not walls. Backpacker :3. 

Seney, J. 1990. Erosional impacts of hikers, horses, motorcycles and Watson, A.E.; Williams, D.R.; Daigle, J.J. 1991. Sources of conflict 

mountain bikes on mountain trails: Preliminary results. Dept. of Earth between hikers and mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. 

Sciences, Montana State University. (Paper presented at the Association Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 9(3): 59-71. 

of American Geographers.) 

10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Conflicting Goals of Wilderness Management: Natural 

Conditions vs. Natural Experiences1 

Alan E. Watson Michael J. Niccolucci2 

Abstract: Beliefs and attitudes underlying wilderness visitors’ 

support for use restrictions were studied. Some evidence shows 

that in overused places visitors cite both protection of the resource 

and the wilderness experience as reasons for supporting restrictions. The research reported here provides the opportunity to 

assess the relative contribution of each of these reasons, and 

others, to visitor support for use restrictions at three wildernesses 

in Oregon. Support for reducing the total amount of use was best 

predicted by crowding measures for day visitors and by a combination of crowding and physical environment impact (dominated 

by physical impacts) for overnight users. This knowledge has 

implications for other situations involving conflicting demands on 

natural resources. 

To manage our great wealth of natural resources in the 

United States, managers often face conflicting goals and 

difficult decisions in the allocation of resources because of 

competing interests. These conflicting goals may be related 

to conflicting consumptive uses of a resource, such as using 

wood fiber for building material or for firewood. Or this 

conflict may be between consumptive and nonconsumptive 

values of the resources, such as between use of the trees for 

building or for firewood versus the value of those trees to 

recreation or watershed protection. 

As the USDA Forest Service implements a strategy for 

ecosystem management, conflict and compromise are going 

to be integral components of decisions about resource 

management. Ecosystem management practices have 

continuously been described as those practices that are socially 

acceptable. While the components of acceptability have been 

outlined by Brunson (1993), the method of determining 

acceptability and how social acceptability will be incorporated 

into specific decisions is not clear. 

One previously unrecognized value of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System is the idea of a laboratory 

within the context of ecosystem management. The scientific 

and educational value of wilderness preservation should 

provide substantial returns for our public servants’ forethought 

to create such a system. It provides a means in which 

management goals can be clearly specified within the 

authorizing legislation; and the American people substantially 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Research Social Scientist, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807; Economist, Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT. 

recognize the values of those goals. The values have been 

clearly specified: substantial investment has already been 

made to provide understanding of visits, visitors, and attitudes 

toward wilderness; and substantial discussion has already 

occurred about how to handle necessary compromises. 

The Wilderness Act, which was enacted in 1964, posed 

a challenge to those eventually responsible for administering 

the more than 500 units of the current National Wilderness 

Preservation System. The need for compromise was set in 

motion by specifically mandating conflicting goals for 

wilderness management. Several statements in the Act mention 

preserving and protecting lands in their natural condition. 

Yet, in most of these same sentences it is also emphasized 

that these areas are for use and enjoyment by people for 

recreation participation. 

In section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, the recreation 

potential for wilderness is more specifically defined as 

“outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation.” Hendee and others (1990) 

interpret the Act’s elaboration on preservation and recreation 

values as an indication that the criteria of naturalness and 

solitude are the distinguishing qualities of classified wilderness. 

They also believe naturalness and solitude to be the principal 

criteria to guide the management of wilderness. 

This interpretation presents a dilemma for managers. 

One of the primary threats to both naturalness and solitude 

in wilderness is the number of people. Their behavior in 

the wilderness and interactions with various biological 

elements and other visitors affect impact levels. In addition, 

visitor traffic volume along trails, at campsites, and at 

other heavily used sites poses a severe threat to providing 

wilderness conditions. In these high-use cases, restrictions 

of numbers of visitors may serve to protect the resource 

and the solitude aspect of the experience. To many, however, 

these restrictions reduce feelings of primitiveness, 

spontaneity, freedom, and unconfinement. 

The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning system 

was developed in response to the need to balance the 

conflicting goals of recreational use and maintaining natural 

conditions (Stankey and others 1985). A fundamental premise 

of the LAC process is that primary attention is focused on 

wilderness conditions and the actions needed to protect or 

achieve acceptability for key parameters (Stankey and others 

1985). Cole (in press) clarifies that two conflicting goals 

cannot be maximized, but through the LAC process the 

compromise between goals is optimized. Adopting a limited 

use permit system is one resource management technique 

used to protect wilderness conditions and experiences, with 

optimal cost to visitor experiences. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 11 
The purpose of this paper is to examine visitor acceptance 

of a new permit system and the potential of limiting 

recreational use at three Oregon wildernesses, even though 

these limits will compromise available recreation opportunities. Understanding how visitors decide on acceptability 

of a management technique based on compromise is likely 

to provide insight into other conflicting demand situations. 

Background 

In 1980, a total of 69 wildernesses had permit systems. 

Of these 69, only 17 limited the number of permits available 

(Washburne and Cole 1983). Today, only about 50 

wildernesses issue permits. The number of wildernesses with 

use limits has increased from 17 to about 25. 

Permits for wilderness use may vary in the following 

ways: (1) they may be self-issued or issued only by agency 

personnel or their representatives; (2) they may be limited 

(as part of a use limitation system) or unlimited; and (3) they 

may be required for all users or only some visitors (e.g., 

overnight users only, or overnight users only during high-use 

times, such as summer weekends). 

Despite personal disagreement among scientists on the 

value of use limitation systems (Behan 1974, Hendee and 

Lucas 1974), results of previous research on visitor reaction 

to permit systems that limit use has suggested that restricting 

numbers when an area is being used beyond its capacity is 

strongly supported by visitors (Lucas 1980). In a 1972 study 

of visitors to the Desolation Wilderness in California, 90 

percent of respondents supported restrictions if capacity was 

exceeded (Lucas 1980). In a 1990 study, 93 percent of a 

sample of those acquiring permits to the Desolation Wilderness 

found restrictions desirable if capacity was exceeded. Even 

67 percent of a sample of those in the wilderness without 

permits supported use restrictions in 1990 (Watson 1993). 

Similarly, Stankey (1979) found 81 percent of unsuccessful 

permit applicants supported restrictions at the San Gorgonio 

and San Jacinto Wildernesses in California. In eight other 

study areas, Lucas (1980) found about 75 percent of 

respondents felt it was desirable to limit use if capacity was 

exceeded, while only 10 or 12 percent said it would be 

undesirable. Lucas (1985) also found a high level of support 

for limiting use in studies conducted in 1970 and 1982 at the 

Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana. Interestingly, he also 

noted that the question would be hard for visitors to disagree 

with; but, the more interesting question would be to understand 

visitors’ definition of “beyond capacity.” 

Few studies have examined why visitors support use 

restrictions. In a study of why visitors supported use 

restrictions at the San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Wildernesses 

in 1973 (82 percent did support it), Stankey found that 

“protecting the resource” and “protecting experiences” 

dominated visitor responses. Neither these findings, nor 

subsequent research, however, suggest why visitors so readily 

support limiting use given the potential of a personally costly 

compromise. Some visitors appear willing to relinquish some 

positive wilderness experiences, such as unconfinement, 

spontaneity, and freedom, to maintain naturalness and solitude 

opportunities for those who are fortunate enough to obtain 

access. The research reported here was intended to further 

understand the strength of the relationship between support 

for use limitation systems and visitor perceptions of threats 

to naturalness and solitude. 

Methods 

This study was conducted in 1991 at three Forest Service 

wildernesses in Oregon--Three Sisters, Mt. Washington, and 

Mt. Jefferson. That year marked the reintroduction of a 

permit system that had existed before 1982, but had been 

dropped during the intervening years. Beginning in 1991, 

permits were again required for both day and overnight 

users. While day-use permits could be obtained at trailheads, 

overnight permits had to be obtained from agency offices or 

other designated outlets. The number of permits was not 

limited, though it is anticipated that in 1995 use limits will 

be applied for at least some heavily impacted areas. 

A sample of 1,450 permit holders (1,096 day, 354 

overnight) was obtained through a stratified (based on strata 

of entrance points varying in use intensity), systematic sample 

of permits. The mail survey assessed users’ reactions to the 

new permit requirement and their attitudes toward potential 

use limits implemented through restrictions on the number 

of permits issued. An overall response rate of 82 percent 

was obtained for the 11-page mailback questionnaire after 

three mailings. 

The possibility of limiting use was introduced in a 

slightly different way than previously discussed by Lucas 

(1980, 1985) and Watson (1993). Still hypothetical, the 

question more closely approximated the questioning Stankey 

(1979) posed to unsuccessful permit applicants. The exact 

question posed to visitors in the current study was: “Do you 

feel that a limit is needed on the number of people using this 

wilderness, recognizing that your own opportunity to visit 

this wilderness may be limited in the future?” Responses 

related to future visits to the specific area, and they related 

to conditions previously witnessed by the visitors to that 

area. Visitors could respond that they supported limiting 

use immediately, to either (1) reduce use or (2) to hold use 

at the current level. They could also respond that they (3) 

supported limiting use, but only at that time in the future 

when overuse occurred, or (4) that they felt limits would 

never be appropriate at any time. 

Analysis 

To statistically identify independent variables that explain 

support of a use limitation system, discriminant analysis was 

used to classify respondents into two categories: those that 

believed overuse had occurred and those that believed use 

limits were unacceptable. Initial efforts with four separate 

categories found little discriminant ability between those 

12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
who supported immediate limits to hold use at the current 

level and those that supported limits in the future when 

overuse occurred. For that reason, only two categories of 

users were used in the discriminant analysis. 

Seven independent variables were entered into the 

discriminant analysis. Three variables measured how present 

conditions compared to what they expected. Specifically, 

the items dealt with expectations about number of encounters 

with others, number of places impacted by previous visitors, 

and number of managers’ strategies to correct impacts by 

previous visitors. Another variable measured whether the 

visitor generally felt crowded during the trip. Two variables 

measured how enjoyment of the visit was influenced by 

numbers of people and amount of physical damage from 

other visitors. The number of years since a visitor first 

visited the wilderness was also entered as a potential 

predictor variable. 

A bootstrap approach was used in preliminary model 

building to better understand the stability of the model 

specification and the classification results. The bootstrap 

process involved randomly generating five sets of data for 

model building and five sets of data for model testing. For 

all users, and then for overnight visitors only, the following 

four-step process was used: 

1. A stepwise discriminant analysis (PROC STEPDISC) 

(SAS 1987) was conducted to identify model specification. 

2. From the stepwise results two model specifications 

were identified--one consisting of variables which were found 

to be statistically significant in each of the five stepwise 

models, and another consisting of variables which were 

found significant in at least three of the five stepwise models. 

3. The model specification leading to the best 

classification results when applied to the model testing data 

was chosen to be the best model specification (both a good 

predictor and identifier of consistent variables). 

4. Coefficients and classification results (PROC 

DISCRIM) (SAS 1987) were generated from the five 

model-building and five model-testing databases for each of 

the models chosen from #3 above. 

Based on the information derived from the bootstrap 

analysis, final model specifications and classification results 

were generated for all users (day use and overnight) and for 

overnight users separately. 

Results 

Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of day hikers and 44 

percent of overnight campers did not consider the permit 

requirement inconvenient, with overnight campers more likely 

than day users to consider the permit requirement a slight or 

major inconvenience (table 1). Even though a substantial 

number thought the requirement of a permit only to learn 

about use levels and use distribution was an inconvenience, 

only 10 percent of day users and 12 percent of campers 

thought it was not justified (table 1). 

Twenty percent of campers supported restrictions—even 

though they may be refused access at some point in the 

future—to reduce use from current levels; 20 percent 

supported maintaining use at its current level; 47 percent 

supported limits at some time in the future if overuse occurs; 

and 14 percent felt there should never be use limits (table 1). 

Day users were slightly less supportive of lowering the 

current level of use, with only 11 percent supporting a forced 

decrease in use; 21 percent supported limits to maintain use 

at its current level; 52 percent supported limits at some time 

in the future if overuse occurs; and 16 percent felt there 

should never be use limits (table 1). 

These results are comparable to those compiled by Lucas 

(1980, 1985). For overnight users, for example, 87 percent 

indicated support of limits if overuse occurs. This percentage 

can be broken down into three groups: (1) those who believe 

overuse is already occurring (lower immediate use); (2) 

those who believe overuse is near occurrence (maintain use 

at this level); and (3) those who believe overuse may occur 

at some time in the future (limit use at that time). 

Not only did support vary between day users and 

overnight campers, but discriminant analysis produced 

different results when day and overnight users were examined 

Table 1—Response of Oregon wilderness visitors to new permit system and potential for use limits 

User _____________________________________________________________ 

Response Day hiker Overnight 

------------percent------------

Permit no inconvenience at all 63 44 

Permit is not justified to learn about use 10 12 

Initiate use limits: 

To reduce use from current level 11 20 

To hold use at its current level 21 20 

At some time in the future if overuse occurs 52 47 

Never 16 14 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 13 
--

--

together or when overnight users were analyzed separately 

(tables 2, 3). For all users (dominated by day users), 

perceptions of crowding (CROWDED) during the visit was 

the only significant predictor to emerge from the stepwise 

discriminant analysis (table 2). The discriminant function 

enabled correct classification of more than two-thirds (69 

percent) of all respondents into supporters or opponents of 

use limits. 

When only overnight users were included in the 

discriminant analysis, crowding (CROWDED) was again a 

significant predictor (p<0.004) (table 3). However, perception 

of physical impacts to trails and campsites (IMPACTS) also 

made a significant contribution (p<0.0009). The overall 

classification of overnight visitors into the two response 

categories was 78 percent. Considerable improvement in 

classification was achieved within the group that advocated 

immediate reduction of use; correct classification increased 

from 47.5 percent to 75.5 percent. 

Discussion 

A large majority of wilderness visitors indicated they 

support limiting use to maintain the qualities of the wilderness. 

Day users and overnight users differed about when they 

thought use limits should be applied. Twenty percent of 

overnight campers felt use restrictions should be initiated 

immediately. Only 11 percent of day users, however, supported 

immediate reduction of use. The majority of all visitors 

believed that overuse had not occurred at these sites, indicating 

they supported use levels when capacity was reached. 

The methods we used could not discriminate between 

the two groups who supported use limits but did not think 

capacity had been met or exceeded. None of the measures 

explained differences in these responses. Given these results, 

it may be difficult for managers to convince visitors that 

setting use limits to reduce use from the current level is the 

right action. In all cases, it appears that the most prevalent 

reason for supporting use limits is when visitors express 

general feelings of being crowded. 

The amount of visitors’ experience at the wilderness 

was not a significant predictor of support for use limits in 

this study. In contrast, results of an earlier study (Frost and 

McCool 1988) found familiarity with Glacier National Park 

related to support for restrictions on visitor behavior during 

eagle migration. Discrepancies between visitor expectations 

and what they encountered was another set of variables that 

were not significant predictors of support for use limits. This 

difference is somewhat contrary to some research on recreation 

Table 2—Discriminant model and group-level classification results for all users of the three 

Oregon wildernesses1 

Coefficients _________________________________________ 

Variable Group 12 Group 23 Final F-value Level of significance 

CROWDED .89 .45 65.071 0.0001 

Constant -2.49 -1.05 --

1Wilks’ Lambda = 0.824; F= 65.0709; Level of significance = 0.0001; Overall predictive 

power = 68.7 percent. 2Initiate immediate use limits to reduce use. 

3Never limit use. 

Table 3—Discriminant model and classification results for overnight users of the three Oregon 

wildernesses1 

Coefficients _________________________________________ 

Variable Group 12 Group 23 Final F-value Level of significance 

CROWDED .71 .35 8.727 0.0040 

IMPACTS 1.37 .40 11.902 0.0009 

Constant -2.93 -1.27 --

1Wilks’ Lambda = 0.705; F = 18.5904; Level of significance = 0.0001; Overall predictive 

power = 78.3 percent 2Initiate immediate use limits to reduce use. 

3Never limit use. 

14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
visitor satisfaction which suggests that for nonconsumptive 

recreationists, satisfaction with a visit is higher for those 

with more readily achievable goals (Williams 1989). 

The best predictors of whether campers support use limits 

to reduce use or do not support use limits are a combination of 

general feelings of being crowded and perceptions of impacts 

along trails and at campsites by previous users. Physical 

impacts appear to be the most important predictor when 

considering only overnight users, though it is the combination 

of feeling crowded and physical impacts that allows high 

classification success. When the entire sample of users 

(dominated by day use) was examined, only the crowding 

perception variable predicted whether or not someone supported 

use limits. For the entire population of users, most thought 

that simply the numbers of other visitors was the factor to 

determine support for use limits. If visitors felt crowded, they 

were more likely to support limits to reduce use. 

Increasing use of some wildernesses will pressure 

managers to consider adopting permit systems as a use 

restriction tool. The type of research reported here can help 

managers anticipate visitor responses to management tactics 

aimed at maintaining ecosystem integrity and minimizing 

conflict. However, this approach will necessitate human 

value compromises. Support for use limitation systems that 

reduce recreational access appears to be dependent upon a 

combination of visitor perceptions that the area has too 

many people and that visitor impacts have reached 

unacceptable levels. However, beliefs underlying support 

vary by the user type. Support of overnight campers for 

reducing use depended on their extended stay and exposure 

to physical resource impacts. Day users were more influenced 

by numbers of people. 

Conclusion 

The study results offer insight into the challenges of 

managing wilderness as well as other resource areas where 

conflicting goals are common. Although visitors overwhelmingly accepted a technique that would compromise their 

ability to recreate in the wilderness, the majority of respondents 

did not think overuse had occurred yet. Researchers were 

unable to predict support based on various potential predictors 

that had previously been identified as important to the wilderness 

experience. This provides important insight into how public 

opinion on other important resource issues may evolve. A 

minority of the visitors consider current conditions unacceptable 

and support immediate action to provide balance to the conflict. 

The majority, however, do not perceive the constraining variable 

a problem to the extent that movement to protect conditions is 

warranted. This research failed to provide much information 

about this group and possibly a similarly positive, yet reluctant, 

public response will likely be a serious challenge to policymakers 

in other resource management issues. If future research could 

offer a better understanding of this “cautiously supportive” 

group, managers could better predict their response to future 

management activities. 

References 

Behan, R.W. 1974. Police state wilderness--a comment on mandatory 

wildernesspermits. Journal of Forestry 72(2): 98-99. 

Brunson, Mark W. 1993. “Socially acceptable” forestry: what does it 

imply for ecosystem management? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 

8(4): 116-119. 

Cole, David N. In press. Defining fire and wilderness objectives: applying 

Limits of Acceptable Change. National Fire in Wilderness Symposium, 

Missoula, MT. April 1993. 

Frost, Jeffrey E.; McCool, Stephen F. 1988. Can visitor regulations enhance 

recreational experiences? Environmental Management 12(1): 5-9. 

Hendee, John C.; Lucas, Robert C. 1974. Police state wilderness--A comment 

on a comment. Journal of Forestry 72(2): 100-101. 

Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Robert C. 1990. Wilderness 

Management. 2d ed. Golden, CO: North American Press; 546 p. 

Lucas, Robert C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor characteristics, attitudes, 

and preferences in nine wilderness and other roadless areas. Res. Pap. 

INT-253. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 89 p. 

Lucas, Robert C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns 

in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, 1970-1982. Res. Pap. INT-345. 

Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 32 p. 

SAS. 1987. SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 Edition. 

Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1028 p. 

Stankey, George H. 1979. Use rationing in two southern California 

wildernesses. Journal of Forestry. 77(5): 347-349. 

Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C.; Petersen, Margaret 

E.;Frissell, Sidney S. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) 

system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: 

Intermountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; 37 p. 

Washburne, Randel F.; Cole, David N. 1983. Problems and practices in 

wilderness management: a survey of managers. Res. Pap. INT-304. 

Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 56 p. 

Watson, Alan E. 1993. Characteristics of visitors without permits compared 

to those with permits at the Desolation Wilderness, California. Res. 

Note INT-414. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station, Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 7 p. 

Williams, Daniel R. 1989. Great expectations and the limits to satisfaction: 

a review of recreation and consumer satisfaction research. In: Watson, 

Alan H. [E.], comp. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proceedings 

of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum; 1988 January 13-14; 

Tampa, FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52. Asheville, NC: Southeastern 

Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; 498 p. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 15 
Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management 

Chair: Deborah S. Carr 

USDA Forest Service 
Human Dimensions in Ecosystem Management: A USDA


Forest Service Perspective1 

Deborah S. Carr2 

Abstract: For many decades, the natural resource profession has 

approached the management of public lands as exclusively a 

natural science endeavor requiring purely technical solutions. With 

the adoption of an ecosystem management philosophy, the USDA 

Forest Service has acknowledged the centrality of people in land 

management policy and decision-making. This paper explores the 

human dimension of ecosystem management, with emphasis on 

the role of social science research in the implementation of ecosystem management. 

At its very heart this debate is about people...it’s 

about people who care deeply about their communities and a way of life passed from one generation 

to the next, rich in tradition, strengthened over 

time. It is about people who care about the forests, 

water, and fish. 

Vice President Albert Gore 

Forest Conference (1993) 

The needs of people drive the use and misuse of the 

forest. Our efforts to understand how people think 

about and act on forests have been minimal, and yet 

most controversies and shortages ultimately arise 

from human activity. 

National Research Council (1990) 

Most of the critical issues facing the natural resource 

profession—including global change, endangered species, 

commodity production, wilderness preservation, wildfire, 

and forest health—share a common bond: they are all 

inherently human issues. These issues arise from human 

activity, are brought to light because of human concerns, and 

are addressed through human ingenuity. 

For many decades, the natural resource profession has 

approached these issues as if they were exclusively natural 

science questions requiring technical solutions. Recently, 

however, because of changing expectations about the 

steward-ship of public lands and perceptions of the 

“problem,” a different understanding of the nature of these 

issues has emerged. 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Research Social Scientist, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 

USDA Forest Service, 1407 S. Harrison, Room 220, East Lansing, MI 48823. 

This paper examines these changes and their implications 

for social science research within the realm of natural 

resource management. 

Changing Expectations 

Several changes have occurred in the American public’s 

expectations related to the stewardship of public lands. 

Specifically, environmental protection has become more 

central to the concerns of the American public (Dunlap and 

Mertig 1992). Consequently, citizens have become 

increasingly aware of and involved with the stewardship of 

public lands. The impact of this change is compounded by a 

society-wide decrease in willingness to allow professionals 

the exclusive right to make policy value judgements on 

issues of concern (Probst and Crow 1991). As concern 

about the environment grew, a wider array of publics and 

values have been involved in the stewardship of public 

lands (Bullard 1993). 

These many changes have come together to present 

natural resource professionals with a startlingly (some might 

say shockingly) different social context in which to do their 

jobs. Decisions about caring for the land that were once 

viewed as straightforward must currently be evaluated from 

a seemingly endless set of perspectives. The best natural 

science and technical expertise used to manage forests has 

been questioned by citizens who are reacting from the range 

of their experiences and concerns for the environment; thus, 

natural resource professionals are uncertain about the needs 

of the American public. 

During this climate of change and uncertainty, in 1992 

F. Dale Robertson, former Chief of the USDA Forest Service, 

announced the Agency’s shift to a new management 

philosophy of ecosystem management. After much work 

and interagency coordination, the Forest Service has defined 

ecosystem management as “the use of an ecological approach 

that blends social, physical, economic, and biological needs 

and values to assure productive, healthy ecosystems” (USDA 

Forest Service 1994). 

Ecosystem management offers a significantly different 

view of the goals of land stewardship: from single value 

commodity production to a more holistic sustaining of natural 

and social systems (Mrowka 1993). By using this definition 

of ecosystem management, the Agency has shifted toward a 

much different conceptualization of natural resource issues— 

it has moved into the realm of wickedness. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 19 
From Innocence to Wickedness: Is this 

Really Progress? 

In their article “Complexity, Wickedness, and Public 

Forests,” Allen and Gould (1986) detail the differences 

between “innocent” and “wicked” problems and relate these 

problem types to the management of public forests: 

Problem type 

Innocent Wicked 

Approach Tactical Strategic 

Worldview Complex Holistic 

Arena Science Politics 

Solutions True/False Good/Bad 

Tools Analytical People 

Innocent problems represent a more traditional view of 

problems. They are seen as complex, but solvable, eventually 

yielding one correct solution. Many of the natural science 

aspects of ecosystem management would be characterized as 

complex—needing extensive scientific and technical expertise 

in order to operationalize an ecological approach to 

management. 

Wicked problems are those that have no right or wrong 

answer, only more or less useful solutions. They do not simplify 

into a system of inputs and outputs, but rather are an intricate 

grouping of interwoven factors that cannot be separated from 

one another. Solutions are seen as good or bad rather than true 

or false. People, rather than analytic methodologies, are the 

tools for resolving a wicked problem. Once a solution is 

chosen, the problem frequently decomposes into a series of 

innocent problems. For example, ecosystem management 

contains many wicked problems arrayed around a series of 

questions related to a desired future condition within a range 

of sustainable ecological conditions that will be selected and 

managed. Questions about what will be sustained (e.g., rural 

economies, biological diversity, recreation opportunities, 

commodity production, etc.) are not inherently right or wrong 

and must be resolved before the complex, but solvable, task of 

managing for the chosen desired future condition can begin. 

The issues associated with ecosystem management put 

people and the social sciences at the center of Agency concerns. 

The Human Dimension of Ecosystem 

Management 

The importance of people within an ecosystem 

management framework was recognized early in the 

implementation of the new policy. For many this recognition 

was more an intuitive acceptance than a professional 

understanding of the role of people within ecosystems or the 

social sciences. Through the work of many individuals, as 

well as regional and national human dimension task teams, 

the human dimension is defined as: 

An integral component of ecosystem management 

recognizes that people are part of ecosystems, that 

people’s pursuits of past, present, and future desires, 

needs and values (including perceptions, beliefs, 

attitudes and behaviors) have and will continue to 

influence ecosystems and that ecosystem management must include consideration of the physical, 

emotional, mental, spiritual, social, cultural and 

economic well-being of people and communities 

(USDA Forest Service 1994). 

This definition contains two important points. First, it 

recognizes that people are an inextricable part of ecosystems. 

Human desires, needs, and values have impacted ecosystems 

and the need for management. Second, it establishes ecosystem 

management as an inherently human endeavor, seeking the 

well-being of people and communities as well as the health 

of ecosystems. Within this human dimension both wicked 

and innocent problems should also be addressed. 

Wickedness Within the Human Dimension 

Much of the wickedness in ecosystem management is 

within the realm of the human dimension and tough social 

and political choices have to be made. Competing and 

conflicting values are healthy symbols of the diversity of the 

many publics who care about their public lands. The wicked 

challenge to the natural resource profession is in devising 

processes and policies that integrate this diversity into the 

solutions. 

A significant component of understanding and 

incorporating any phenomenon into ecosystem management 

is the ability to predict the future. Although no subject area 

is perfectly predictable, the future as it relates to the human 

dimension is, perhaps, less “knowable” than that of the 

natural sciences. This problem arises in part from less 

information available about the human dimension (an innocent 

problem that is discussed below), but is also attributable to 

the seemingly more volatile nature of the human dimension 

relative to the physical and biological dimensions. But 

although physical and biological phenomena are not 

unchanging and absolutely knowable and human phenomena 

are not absolutely unknowable or unpredictable, the range of 

predictability is currently greater within the natural sciences 

compared to the social sciences. 

The changeablity of the three dimensions of ecosystem 

management leads to short-lived solutions. Optimal solutions 

(if they can be found) are fleeting achievements. This 

changeability is recognized and addressed within an ecosystem 

management framework by the adoption of adaptive 

management strategies (Bormann and others 1993). 

In addition to these wicked problems, implementing and 

practicing ecosystem management is an information intensive 

endeavor because of the complexity involved. This is 

particularly true for the human dimension where work in the 

social sciences lags behind that in the natural sciences 

(National Research Council 1990). 

20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Complexity Within the Human Dimension 

Two primary factors add complexity to the consideration 

of the human dimension. First, ecosystem management 

requires the consideration and incorporation of information 

at varying geographic and temporal scales representing both 

human and ecological units of measurement. The complexity 

of working within this framework is obvious and requires 

the incorporation of a much broader array of information as 

well as new analytical and visual tools. 

The second factor is the development of the information 

necessary to fully integrate the human dimension into an 

ecosystem management framework. Several recent national 

reports addressing future information needs of the natural 

resource profession (National Research Council 1990, Society 

of American Foresters 1993, Bormann and others 1993) 

recognize both the need for and lack of social science 

information. These reports provide only a brief, but useful, 

beginning to identifying human dimensions research needs. 

The National Research Council’s (NRC) report, Forestry 

Research: A Mandate for Change (1990), perhaps provides 

the most detailed account of “human/forest interactions” 

research needs. The report identifies six areas of research to 

be pursued: 

(1) Community Systems—Research focusing on “social 

structure, the network of institutions providing order to human 

affairs” is needed to understand the linkages and interactions 

between human and ecological systems. Research within 

this area represents a wide variety of subject matter and 

academic disciplines examining actual geographic communities as well as the communities created through social 

ties (Stowkowski and Lee 1990). 

(2) Urban Forests—Research focusing on the urban 

environment and its residents is crucial to ecosystem 

management. The majority of people in the United States 

reside in urban environments. Consequently, the majority of 

political influence also resides in urban areas. Understanding 

and integrating urban dwellers’ relationships to the country’s 

wildlands is of key importance to the successful implementation of ecosystem management. Equally important is gaining 

an understanding of what urban dwellers need and want 

from their urban forests—frequently their only contact with 

the natural environment. Research in urban forestry 

incorporates many issues including those of land use (e.g., 

expanding urbanization and issues of the wildland/urban 

interface), the relationship of urban dwellers to urban and 

wildland areas (e.g., the role and benefits of urban forests 

and ethnic/racial minority’s relationship with public lands), 

and urban influences on public land policy (Dickerhoof and 

Ewert 1993). 

(3) Regional Resource Systems—Research in this area 

is critical to developing and incorporating geographic scale 

into ecosystem management. Research focusing on the human 

and ecological context of ecosystem management policies 

and decision-making is needed. This includes developing an 

understanding of the human ecology of areas and integrating 

human and ecological units of scale. Additionally, successful 

implementation of ecosystem management requires integration 

and cooperation across numerous administrative boundaries, 

which also requires a more thorough understanding of 

institutional structure and function. 

(4) Recreation and Aesthetics—Much of the existing 

human/forest interaction research has focused on recreation 

and aesthetics and will continue to be an important aspect of 

human dimensions research. The NRC report (1990) suggests 

that the focus of this research needs to shift toward 

understanding recreation experiences in a wider array of 

recreation settings and developing basic research programs 

to supplement the problem-driven research that is currently 

more prevalent. 

(5) International Context—The logical extension of the 

philosophy behind ecosystem management is the extension 

of concern to the global environment and its people. Research 

in this area would add diversity of cultures and a global 

context. Additionally, research in developing countries within 

the realm of social forestry contributes greatly to the quality 

of life and conservation of local resources for local peoples 

and provides information, theory, and methods to further 

human dimensions research in developed countries. 

(6) Extension Services—A significant barrier to the 

implementation of the human dimension within ecosystem 

management is the gap between social science data and 

information useful for the policy development and 

decision-making process (Ewert and Carr 1994). Within the 

physical and biological sciences, the current extension service 

network in large part fills this void. Given the limited number 

of individuals with social science expertise currently employed 

by land management agencies, a social science extension 

service is critically important for the implementation of 

ecosystem management. 

The preceding categorization of human/forest interaction 

research needs is presented as a starting point for further 

elaboration of human dimension research needs. The research 

examples are meant to be illustrative, rather than an exhaustive 

listing of research topics. 

Rather than focusing on the specific content of research, 

Baerwald (1990) lists characteristics of what he deems 

successful human dimensions of global climate change research. 

Although the reader should define the quality of successful 

research, this listing provides a useful set of characteristics by 

which potential human dimension research program options 

(including those not focusing upon global climate change) can 

be compared. Baerwald’s characteristics are: 

(1) Research must be both basic and applied—Basic 

and applied research are not mutually exclusive. 

(2) Research should evaluate processes and phenomena 

across the globe—Understanding the interaction of human 

systems with physical and biological systems requires 

comparison across diverse human systems. 

(3) Research should pay more attention to the role 

of location as a factor affecting the human dimension— 

Frequently social science research is conducted with no 

reference to or understanding of the geographic space in 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 21 
which people are found; it is as if the social phenomena being 

studied occur separately from the physical world. 

(4) Research must make stronger connections among 

analyses at different scales of inquiry. 

(5) Research should focus on the direct links among 

different human, natural, and physical systems—Developing 

both conceptual and mathematical models that elaborate the 

linkages among these three dimensions will yield significant 

advances in policy development and decisionmaking capabilities. 

(6) Research should also examine the indirect links 

among different systems—Given the complexity of the 

interactions among the systems, indirect linkages need to be 

considered and incorporated in policy development and 

decision-making as well. 

(7) Research will require more “industrial-style” efforts 

rather than the “craftwork” projects in which social scientists 

usually have participated—Social science information 

requires participation in large-scale, multidisciplinary efforts that have not been traditionally undertaken 

in the social sciences. 

Conclusion 

This paper has attempted to present ecosystem 

management, particularly the human dimension, as both an 

innocent and wicked problem. The ideas that wickedness is 

good and science and technology are but a tool for resolving 

problems both tend to contradict the typical notions about 

natural resource management. We do not like to accept that 

problems and their solutions can be messy. Schroeder (1993) 

addresses this issue: 

Like it or not, we are all active participants in an 

ongoing and acrimonious debate over values, in 

which no one group can force others to accept its 

views. We can only try to play our role responsibly 

in this debate, by encouraging open and respectful 

discussion of diverse views, trying to understand 

the views of others, and identifying and questioning 

our own values as an agency [referring to the Forest 

Service]. Social science can help a great deal in this 

human process of understanding and dialog but 

there are no data or models, social or otherwise, 

that can calculate the “right” answers for us. There 

is no easy way out, no formula, no research, no 

technology that will free us from the responsibility, 

uncertainty, and pain of being in conflict with other 

people over some of our most deeply held values. 

The wickedness Schroeder describes so well clearly 

makes our job as natural resource professionals more difficult 

than it has been in the past, but the wickedness can, to a 

degree, be tamed. If we persevere, we will be rewarded with 

a more diverse and vibrant profession and a strengthened 

relationship with the publics we seek to serve. 

References 

Allen, Gerald M.; Gould, Ernest M. 1986. Complexity, wickedness, and 

public forests. Journal of Forestry 84(4): 20-23. 

Baerwald, Thomas J. 1990. Research opportunities related to the human 

dimensions of global environmental change. Proceedings, The Rio 

Grande Basin--Global Climate Scenarios. WRRI Report M24: 67-71. 

Bormann, Bernard T.; Brookes, Martha H.; Ford, E. David; Kiester, A. 

Ross; Oliver, Chadwick D.; Weigand, James F. 1993. A broad, strategic 

framework for sustainable-ecosystem management; 59 p. 

Bullard, Robert D. 1993. Confronting environmental racism: Voices from 

the grassroots. Boston: South End Press; 259 p. 

Dickerhoof, H. Edward; Ewert, Alan, W. 1993. Urban forestry research: 

The Forest Service perspective. Journal of Arboriculture 19: 143-151. 

Dunlap, Riley E.; Mertig, Angela G. 1992. American environmentalism: 

The U.S. environmental movement, 1970-1990. Washington, DC: Taylor 

& Francis; 121 p. 

Ewert, Alan W.; Carr, Deborah S. 1993. Owls, trees and cows: Social 

science and the “hotbuttons’ of natural resource management. Submitted 

to Social Science Perspectives Journal. 

Mrowka, Robert. 1993. Some ecosystem management thoughts. Timber 

Talk, Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Timber Management 

Program March: 1 

National Research Council. 1990. Forestry research: A mandate for change. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 84 p. 

Probst, John R.; Crow, Thomas R. 1991. Integrating biological diversity 

and resource management. Journal of Forestry 89: 12-17. 

Robertson, F. Dale. 1992. Statement before the Subcommittee on Forests, 

Family Farms, and Energy; Committee on Agriculture; U.S. House of 

Representatives related to H.R. 1969. Washington DC: USDA Forest 

Service. 

Schroeder, Herbert. Letter to D. Carr 1993. April 7: Chicago IL. Society of 

American Foresters. 1993. Sustaining long-term forest health and 

productivity. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters; 83 p. 

Stowkowski, Patricia A.; Lee, Robert G. 1991. The influence of social 

network ties on recreation and leisure: An exploratory study. Journal of 

Leisure Research 23:95-113. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Ecosystem 

Management Glossary. Final Draft. 

22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Technology Transfer for Ecosystem Management1 

Tim O’Keefe2 

In many parts of our country today, forest health and 

sustainability are important management questions. Some 

individuals and groups have observed that during the past 

century the emphasis in American forest management on 

commodity production has, in many cases, contributed to a 

unhealthy forest landscape. For example, the forestland in 

eastern Oregon has considerably declined because of the 

overharvest of commercially valuable ponderosa pine because 

of over-intensive fire control. 

In addition to this forest decline problem, public concern 

has grown about lack of sustainability in traditional (clearcut 

and replant) timber management. It is increasingly evident 

that even successful timber management is essentially a 

systematic conversion of both public and private forest land 

to a “tree-farm,” fiber-production system. This commodity 

approach to forestry has also decreased natural biodiversity, 

and replaced the diverse forest ecosystem with a monoculture, 

highly susceptible to insects/disease, and fire. 

The Thomas report (1992) on the conservation of the 

spotted owl habitat, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

introduced wildlife as a significant forest management 

element. In addition to the biological aspects of that report, 

the socio-economic implications were also highly significant. 

Throughout the northwest, that report resulted in prolonged 

controversy, reduced timber harvest, and most recently Option 

9, the Presidential Preferred Alternative (PPA). 

In response to the Thomas report, and growing public 

pressures for a diverse, sustainable management system, the 

USDA Forest Service developed a program originally called 

“New Perspectives” that has now evolved into the “ecosystem 

management” program. This new program is a belated effort 

to redirect public forest management away from commodity 

timber harvest towards a more diverse, sustainable forestry 

system. Ecosystem management is composed of both 

biological (ecosystem sustainablitily and diversity) and 

sociological (public participation and collaboration) elements. 

For years, most traditional forest managers have concentrated 

on timber production, at the expense of both biological and 

sociological elements. Thus, ecosystem management is an 

attempt to integrate the biological with the human dimension 

to build a sustainable forestry system on a long-term basis. 

Ecosystem management represents a significant departure 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, Febuary 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Professor, Natural Resource Management, California State Polytechnic University at San Luis Obispo, CA. 

from traditional forestry, primarily because most professional 

forestry training has been and continues to be, directed at 

timber production alone. As a new forest management 

philosophy, the Forest Service ecosystem management 

program will force managers to be more responsive to a 

wide array of both biological, and social forestry issues. 

The process of redirecting traditional forest management 

to an ecosystem forestry approach requires both short-term, 

immediate, and long-term, sustainable action. Long-term 

ecosystem management will require a major change in 

professional forestry training. The addition of some new 

hardware, or some minor curriculum changes, are insufficient 

to redirect the training focus from the traditional timber 

emphasis. Thus, an effective ecosystem forestry education 

will require removal of the old standard timber courses like 

mensuration, regulation and economics,and replacement with 

new conservation forestry courses like habitat restoration, 

and social forestry. 

Short-term ecosystem implementation requires a 

significant shift in management emphasis from commodity 

to non-commodity forest resources. In addition, successful 

and meaningful public participation is a critical element in 

effective ecosystem management. Thus, from an area, regional 

or forest basis successful short-term ecosystem management 

requires application of sound technology trasfer (TT) 

programs. As a focal point for this TT effort, the Forest 

Service ecosystem management program has supported the 

development of a network of specialized Learning Centers. 

In the Pacific Northwest Region, the Learning Center concept 

has been very effective as a productive technology transfer 

effort for external and internal ecosystem management. 

Forest Service Technology Transfer 

Since the early 1980’s the Forest Service has pioneered 

effective TT programs aimed at shifting the focus of research 

information from the laboratory to field application on the 

National Forest Ranger District level. In those early years, 

Hal Marx, of the Agency’s Washington office staff, 

emphasized the importance of TT as a coordinated outreach 

effort to encourage public participation. Since that time, the 

Ecosystem Learning Center concept has been developed as 

an effective vehicle to inform forest managers about 

Ecosystem Management and to focus public participation. 

In addition, adaptive management as a basis for ecosystem 

collaboration, has also been directed from some Learning 

Centers. Adaptive management is an integrated system of 

applied research that attempts to combine management and 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 23 
research skills, in a forest area that will also have long-term 

demonstration (TT) value. 

Although the Learning Center concept is still relatively 

new (since 1991), two Centers in the Pacific Northwest 

Region have made good progress. The Blue Mountains 

Learning Center, directed by Jim McIver, Blue Mountain 

Natural Resources Institute, and the Olympic Learning Center, 

directed by Kathy Snow, Olympic National Forest have both 

been effective in developing a wide variety of ecosystem, 

technology transfer projects. Some of the most successful 

TT projects have included public information and 

participation, and the development of demonstration areas to 

show-case ecosystem management. 

Last year, at the Olympic Learning Center, a special 

technology transfer project was developed to provide 

information about ecosystem management for the general 

public. The basic idea of this Olympic East Demonstration 

Project was to develop a series of ecosystem demonstration 

sites, accessible from a main road, on the east side of the 

Olympic Peninsula. Most of the specific demonstration sites 

were located on two districts, the Quilcene and the Hood 

Canal, as well as on State forest lands, and some private 

lands. Thus, initial Project planning, and later implementation, 

required close collaboration between both public and private 

forestland owners. The planning phase of this Project was 

completed in a series of three steps: 

1. Preliminary site location/evaluation 

2. Network discussionst view and evaluated each site 

on-the-ground. 

3. Draft plan/report preparation, and implementation 

scheduling. 

Each demonstration site was selected to illustrate some 

aspect of ecosystem management, such as “green-tree 

retention,” or habitat improvement for wildlife. Main road 

accessibility was a key aspect in site selection, and eventually 

all sites will be tied into a single visitor network. The purpose 

of this network of ecosystem demonstration sites is to provide 

the general public with a good visual demonstration of selected 

aspects of the ecosystem management concept. Each 

demonstration site will be marked along the main road, and 

interpreted on-site with appropriate signs, brochures, and 

audio. This demonstration site network can be used as part 

of an individual auto tour, or as a guided group tour, where 

staff is available. In addition, these demonstration sites may 

be used off-site, in the form of video and/or slide-tape products 

for groups in urban locations. 

Many of the demonstration sites selected will illustrate 

not only biological aspect of ecosystem management, but 

frequently they will also illustrate some social element, such 

as participation and/or collaboration. In terms of collaboration, 

local sections of larger organizations, such as the USDA 

Cooperative Extension Service (CES), the Society of 

American Foresters (SAF), and local Resource Conservation 

Districts (RCD) have all been directly and indirectly involved 

in site selection and planning. Other State and Federal 

agencies, such as Washington State Forestry (DNR) National 

Park Service (NPS), and State Fish and Game were also very 

helpful with many aspects of this project. 

In general, this initial site selection and planning seemed 

to be successful. During the planning process, the wide array 

of contacts with local forest land owners, industrial foresters, 

and community organizations provided a very substantial 

degree of public exposure, and involvement with this initial 

planning process. Thus, this technology transfer effort was a 

valuable way for the Learning Center to focus community 

attention on the ecosystem management process. In addition, 

the Forest Service staff, both National Forest and Ranger 

District level, also developed some additional awareness 

about ecosystem management and the technology transfer 

process. At this point, pending further resource allocation, 

this ecosystem management, technology transfer project is 

now ready for implementation. 

But although the Olympic Peninsula landscape has a rich 

diversity of natural beauty, unfortunately during the past 

century, a large part of this forest landscape has been heavily 

cut for timber, and replanted. In addition, significant wildfires 

and wind throw have also shaped the visual appearance of 

forest stands in this area. During the past few decades increased 

use of clearcutting to harvest timber, and subsequent replanting, 

has decreased diversity, reduced wildlife habitat values, and 

most recently threatened valuable shellfish beds by siltation 

from logging. Clearcutting on ridges separating narrow east 

side Olympic valleys may also promote genetic isolation of 

elk herds that have recently migrated from the west side of 

the Peninsula. These problems have been more common on 

both public and private forest lands. 

More recently, in the last 5 or 6 years, there has been a 

very rapid rate of residential development, particularly on 

the east side of the Peninsula. This has resulted in all the 

management problems associated with parcelization, including 

the fact that many private forest land owners are now most 

interested in land speculation. Almost any management 

activity that could result in more attractive wildlife habitat is 

frequently considered to be a professional invitation for 

expensive litigation, and lost profits under the ESA or similar 

environmental regulations. In many cases, this intense rapid 

residential development has also resulted in local water 

pollution because of septic system failure. 

The most significant obstacle for effective ecosystem 

management technology transfer included: 

•A division between forest landowners/timber managers 

and the environmental community 

• A rapidly growing public interest, accompanied by a 

lack of knowledge, about forest resources 

• Growing public pressures on traditional (clearcutting) 

timber management systems 

• A lack of understanding (distrust) of ecosystem 

management by professional foresters 

•	 Some private forestland owners lack of stewardship, 

replaced by greed for high short-term profits 

24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
•	 Some small community feelings of “right to Federal 

timber,” for jobs; limited understanding of biodiversity 

and sustainability 

• Limited forest landscape that was suitable for 

ecosystem demonstration. 

Clearly, most of these technology transfer problems 

were socio-economic in nature. However, from a practical 

viewpoint, the limited number of forest sites suitable for 

visually clear ecosystem demonstration areas was undoubtedly 

the greatest obstacle. Most of the road accessible forest sites 

on the east side were managed on a traditional clearcut/ 

replant even-age timber system. A few medium-age stands 

were treated by selective thinning, and other natural stands 

were harvested by a type of seed-tree system, that was 

locally called “green-tree retention.” Some of this cutting 

called green-tree retention was the result of a professional 

misunderstanding, or an outright attempt to misrepresent the 

ecosystem management process. 

In terms of the socio-economic technology transfer 

problems, the deep division between the commodity (timber 

production/utilization) management programs, and noncommodity (environmental) groups is still significant. Of 

course, the relatively rapid reduction in timber/mill related 

jobs in small single-industry towns was also a significant 

factor. Families that had enjoyed generations of forest/mill 

employment and rural, small town lifestyle, were forced out 

of this traditional system. The resulting unemployment caused 

an increase in social/community problems and family discord 

throughout this area. Thus, locally, the ecosystem management 

concept is frequently viewed as another government/ 

environmental plan to further curtail timber harvest--and 

community jobs. 

During most of the planning stage of this technology 

transfer project, formal public participation was a relatively 

weak element. Only a few years ago, on the Quilcene District, 

the Spenser Project was a good example of active, public 

participation. Unfortunately, this participation has not 

continued. On a short-term planning process, public 

participation was not given any high priority, so only a 

limited amount of informal participation occurred, mainly 

through the local RCD councils. On a long-term basis, any 

successful ecosystem technology transfer effort had to be 

developed on a strong program of formal public participation. 

Another significant socio-political problem has been 

the lack of understanding about ecosystem management by 

professional foresters. Many timber managers, by training 

and inclination, favor only a traditional clearcut/replant harvest 

system. Professional reluctance to consider ecosystem 

management results in a TT effort that is much more difficult, 

time consuming, and expensive. On many forest districts, 

ecosystem management seems to be considered as a public 

relations means to reduce public pressure about management 

issues such as clearcutting. Of course, under such 

circumstances, it is difficult to develop any meaningful 

ecosystem TT plan. For example, on one district, the ranger 

wanted to cut 20 mm feet from a sales area to keep the local 

mill in operation, and to maintain local jobs. However, on 

the same site, when the SO staff forester suggested reducing 

this Annual Sales Quantity (ASQ) for ecosystem considerations, the ranger implemented the full cut. On the other 

hand, in 1990 on Pine District, Wallow-Whitman National 

Forest, the ranger initiated a very productive Consensus 

Project for ecosystem public participation. 

The Ecosystem Learning Centers have also developed 

successful demonstration projects to illustrate ecosystem 

techniques like improved wildlife habitat, riparian cattle 

exclusion and rehabilitation, use of large woody debris (LWD) 

in streams and forest, and green tree retention. Demonstration 

projects can be established on very specific, physical sites, 

or as an ecosystem process, such as public participation. 

Thus, some TT demonstration projects will be easier to 

view, while other projects will require more video to illustrate 

the process. 

Both industrial forest landowners and woodlot owners 

have also been important positive and negative elements in 

ecosystem technology transfer. Many industrial forest 

companies, such as Paper Resources, were very supportive 

and offered forest areas as potential demonstration sites. 

However, some companies preferred to avoid any association 

with ecosystem management, based on the concern that this 

was another type of environmental plot to completely close 

timber harvesting on private as well as public lands. Similarly, 

woodlot owners often supported ecosystem management, 

especially if land stewardship was a major management 

goal. However, where the woodlot was held for land 

speculation, most landowners were hostile to the ecosystem 

concept. In eastern Oregon, the Consensus Program and 

other similar public participation programs have been used 

to develop a productive ecosystem management technology 

transfer process. Some local organizations, like the Extension 

Service, and RCD can be very effective community links to 

facilitate public participation and closer cooperation with 

woodlot owners. 

Ecosystem technology transfer has also been hindered 

by a “fortress attitude.” Some environmental groups see 

ecosystem management as a cynical effort at public relations, 

while traditional timber harvest (clearcutting) continues 

unchanged. At the other end of the spectrum, some local 

landowners maintain a “frontier mentality,” where “unlimited” 

resources were exploited by pioneers without any concern 

about sustainability. Any attempt to change this traditional 

pattern of cheap, unrestricted resources—“welfare resources” 

according to some—is considered an “unAmerican 

environmental plot.” Ecosystem technology transfer must 

be developed on a basis of mutual understanding and trust. 

Discussion 

Successful ecosystem management requires a continuing 

commitment to a strong technology transfer effort. At present, 

ecosystem management is a poorly understood program that 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 25 
has also produced some heated reactions in both the public 

and the professional communities. Urban and rural populations 

are divided concerning ecosystem management. As a result 

of these conditions, a detailed technology transfer program 

is essential for more productive ecosystem management. 

Because of this continuing controversy, ecosystem 

technology transfer will continue to be difficult, timeconsuming, and expensive. Successful ecosystem technology 

transfer will require some significant changes, such as: 

• Increased public participation, both short and 

long-term. 

• Clearly defined ecosystem demonstration projects. 

•	 Sound field examples of correct ecosystem management techniques, such as green tree retention. 

•	 Focus timber management on a more diverse 

non-commodity, ecosystem program. 

In addition, successful ecosystem management should 

also require a major change in professional forestry education. 

At present, most forestry programs continue to focus on 

commodity, timber management training. The present 

traditional timber related courses like mensuration, regulation, 

and economics must be replaced with training in habitat 

restoration, conservation forestry, and social forestry. 

Technology transfer is a production tool that can stimulate 

public participation and understanding about ecosystem 

management. Long-term successful ecosystem management 

will require a new system of forest regulations or an incentive 

system such as the new Stewardship Incentives Program 

(SIP). Ecosystem management also requires a shift from the 

traditional stand-level management system. Another important 

aspect of ecosystem management is development of a sound 

forest health program, including an active system of forest 

restoration. A complete ecosystem program will also require 

a major shift silviculturally from the traditional even-age, 

clearcutting system to an uneven-age selection system. 

Conclusions 

Technology transfer for ecosystem management will 

continue to be a major forestry challenge, both biologically 

and socially. Full implementation of ecosystem management 

will force a complete reconstruction of traditional American, 

commodity-focused, forestry. The era of free, welfare resources 

is over, and the pioneer, frontier mentality is a relic. 

In addition to technology transfer, a new system of 

ecosystem forestry education and research will be required 

to implement effective ecosystem management. A complete 

ecosystem management program will require a balanced 

approach, for sustainable and ethical forest land use. As 

Aldo Leopold once observed: “The first rule of sound tinkering 

is to save all the parts.” Thus, technology transfer, as one 

important part of ecosystem management, provides another 

tool that helps us “save all the parts.” 

References 

Thomas, Jack Ward. 1992. Turmoil and Transition, University of California, 

Berkeley, CA. 

O’Keefe, T.G. Olympic East Ecosystem Demonstration Project. Olympic 

National Forest, WA. 1993. 

26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Impact of Multicultural Groups on Resource Management 

Chair: John L. Heywood 

Ohio State University 
To Be Or Not To Be a Park: That Is The Question1 

Deborah J. Chavez Janna Larson Patricia L. Winter2 

Abstract: The Applewhite Picnic Area of the San Bernardino 

National Forest is a site of change. This has been evidenced by 

the user groups who have visited the site, and the activities 

engaged in during the early 1990’s. Because the picnic area is 

scheduled for renovation in fiscal year 1995, resource managers 

desired input from their user groups prior to renovation. A questionnaire was distributed to gather information from visitors about 

their preferences for the picnic site amenities and facilities. Overall, the respondents to this study specified preferences for developing the area. 

To be, or not to be a park, —that is the question: 

Whether ’tis nobler as a resource professional to 

suffer the crowding and conflict by overdemand, 

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, 

And by redesigning end them? 

-To survey, -to change, -Once more; 

and by a change to say we end 

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks 

That visitors fall heir to, -’tis an experience 

Devoutly to be avoided. 

To survey, -to plan; -to change 

To change! Add flush toilets, grass and swingsets: 

ay there’s the rub; 

For in those changes what other visitors may come 

When we have shuffled off this wildland appearance 

Must give us pause: there’s the decision 

That makes our job a challenge. 

(After Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”) 

The Applewhite Picnic Area of the San Bernardino 

National Forest is a site of change. This has been evidenced 

by the user groups who have visited the site, and the activities 

they have engaged in on the site during the early 1990’s. 

Statistics show that part of this change is because of the 

reshaping of the population in southern California as the 

Hispanic population increases. Applewhite has experienced 

a concurrent change in users because more Hispanics are 

recreating there than ever before, and they are recreating in 

1 An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2 Project Leader–Wildland Recreation/Urban Culture Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 4955 Canyon Crest 

Drive, Riverside, CA 92507; Recreation Planner, Cajon Ranger District, San 

Bernardino National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 1209 Lytle Creek Road, 

Lytle Creek, CA 92358; Research Social Scientist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, 

CA 92507. 

larger groups than previous user groups. These users are 

also engaging in “different” activities than prior users. For 

example, although picnicking remains the primary activity, 

the new user groups make meals from scratch that can take 

several preparation hours, in contrast to the methods of 

prior picnickers. 

Another pending change in the area is the renovation of 

the picnic site. Currently, the site contain more that 100 

parking spaces and about 30 picnic tables. And although the 

area was designed for about 250 people, actual visitation 

levels are commonly as high as 1,200 people (fig. 1). 

This paper reports a study to gather information from 

visitors about their preferences for the picnic site amenities 

and facilities. This information will be used in the site 

development plan for renovation of the picnic area. 

Our research objectives included obtaining information 

about: 

•	 The socio-demographic background of site visitors, 

their patterns of visitation and the activities in which 

they engage; 

• Visitors’ favorite recreation areas within the picnic 

site, and their preferences for site features and facilities; 

• Visitor opinions about potential changes in the picnic 

area; and 

• New and repeat visitors’ picnic site preferences. 

Methods 

The questionnaire used in this study to determine user 

preferences was based on a U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget approved document that addresses part of the day-use 

series emphasis of the Pacific Southwest Research Station’s 

Wildland Recreation and Urban Culture Research Work Unit. 

The approval designates issues that are expressed in specific 

questionnaire items. The terminology of the items was 

determined in cooperation with resource managers of the 

Cajon Ranger District. 

Data were collected on-site using a self-administered 

questionnaire format. A field team member approached a 

group, described the purpose of the study, and asked visitors 

who were 16 years of age or older to participate. Participation 

was voluntary. 

Data were collected on weekends from July 3-18, 1993. 

During that period, 334 respondents completed an English 

or Spanish version of the questionnaire. Of the 761 adults 

approached, 44 percent participated and completed the 

questionnaire. This is a high percentage, despite that a 

Spanish version was not available at the beginning of the 

survey season. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 29 
Figure 1—The San Bernardino National Forest’s Applewhite Picnic Area was designed to accommodate 250 visitors, but commonly it 

has held as many as 1,200.Forest Service, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507. 

Results 

Socio-Demographic Profile 

More than three-quarters (78 percent) of the visitors to 

the Applewhite Picnic Area were of Hispanic descent (40 

percent were Hispanic American, 36 percent were Mexican 

American and 2 percent were Central American). Another 7 

percent were Anglo-American. Less than half of the sample 

(43 percent) were born in the United States, with Mexico 

being the most common (50 percent) birthplace. Respondents 

had resided in the United States for an average of 22 years 

(with a standard deviation of 13). 

More than half (54 percent) were female and the average 

age was 32 (with a standard deviation of 11). Respondents 

had an average of 11 years of education. More than 6 of 10 

primarily speak and read English (3 of 10 speak and read 

English exclusively while another 3 of 10 speak and read 

English and Spanish; one-third read and speak Spanish only). 

Groups were comprised of an average of eight adults (standard 

deviation of 1) and seven children (standard deviation of 5). 

Patterns of Visitation 

Almost three-quarters of the visitors (72 percent) were 

repeat visitors to the Applewhite Picnic Area. Repeat visitors 

have been to the site an average of five occasions in the past 

(with a very large standard deviation of 9--which suggests 

that there were very wide ranges in responses), and they 

have been coming to the site for 6 years (with a standard 

deviation of 7). 

Most respondents (71 percent) had plans to stay at the 

site the entire day. Another 16 percent had plans to stay for 2 

to 4 hours. Only 2 percent had plans to stay for less than 2 

hours. When asked about the level of crowding, on a scale of 

“not crowded” to “extremely crowded,” visitors perceived a 

“moderately crowded” condition. 

Activities Engaged In 

Respondents enjoyed a variety of activities at the 

Applewhite Picnic Area. The highest ranked activities were 

picnicking, relaxing, playing in the creek, wading, hiking 

and visiting with others; among these the most favorite 

30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
activities were picnicking (28 percent) or relaxing (26 percent). 

In addition, 8 of 10 respondents (79 percent) reported that 

their group had enough space for their activities. Those 

visitors reporting a need for more space wanted playgrounds, 

volleyball courts, a baseball field or other sports areas. 

Favorite Recreation Areas and Preferred Features 

Most respondents (70 percent) reported that they prefer 

to picnic in the shade while 9 percent preferred to picnic in 

the sun. Given the choices of picnicking near water, on or 

near the parking lot, on rocky areas or grassy areas, most 

respondents (76 percent) expressed a preference for picnicking 

near the water. Only 17 percent of the visitors said they were 

able to picnic at their favorite place all the time. A 

cross-tabulation of sun/shade preference and duration that 

people picnicked at their preferred area was not significant--78 

percent of those preferring the sun recreated there some or 

most of the time, and 79 percent of those preferring the 

shade recreated there some or most of the time. The features 

most often desired by picnickers included creeks, trees, picnic 

tables, rocks/boulders, and easy access to the road. 

Site Facility Preferences 

Picnic Tables 

Eight in ten respondents (81 percent) desired more picnic 

tables at Applewhite. About half the respondents (49 percent) 

thought that the picnic tables should be moved close to the 

water while about one-third (31 percent) thought the tables 

should not be moved. 

Almost all the respondents (95 percent) preferred tables 

in a large group configuration (52 percent chose 10 foot 

tables that seat eight people and 43 percent chose side by 

side tables for large groups). 

Trash Containers 

Most of the respondents (90 percent) preferred trash 

cans near the picnic tables; and although more than half (63 

percent) desired trash dumpsters in the parking area, another 

31 percent did not prefer trash dumpsters in the parking area. 

Other Amenities 

About 8 of 10 respondents (79 percent) reported a lack 

of barbecue grills available at Applewhite. Although 30 percent 

reported a sufficient number of restroom facilities at 

Applewhite, 68 percent disagreed. And most respondents (88 

percent) preferred flush toilets available at the picnic area. 

Parking Preferences 

A series of questions elicited information about parking 

preferences. More than one-third (36 percent) of the 

respondents reported that they prefer to pay nothing to park 

at the Applewhite picnic area. Another 4 in 10 (40 percent) 

reported they would pay $3 per day. 

About half (54 percent) reported that they would return 

to Applewhite if a fee was charged for parking, but 28 

percent said they would not, and 18 percent said they were 

uncertain. Most of the respondents (83 percent) said they 

would be willing to walk one-quarter mile or less from an 

overflow parking area to the picnic area (67 percent said less 

than one-quarter mile and 16 percent said one-quarter mile). 

Although 44 percent reported they would prefer to pay nothing, 

another 44 percent report they would be willing to pay $3 or 

less to park some distance away from the picnic area. 

Opinions About Change 

Visitors were asked about their opinions regarding 

changes to the picnic area. Although about one-third (36 

percent) stated that the changes was unnecessary, other 

respondents reported that changes should be made to the 

restrooms (26 percent), tables (12 percent), parking (7 percent), 

and the barbecues (2 percent). Respondents then indicated 

the improvements they desired at Applewhite. The most 

frequently listed improvements were adding more parking 

spaces and a playground. 

When asked to choose the most important improvement, 

about one-fourth (26 percent) asked for the addition of parking 

spaces; others asked for lawn (16 percent), a playground (14 

percent), shade trees (13 percent) and picnic area information 

on bulletin boards (6 percent). 

Janna Larson, Recreation Planner for the Cajon Ranger 

District of the San Bernardino National Forest, provided 

renderings of three development options. The field team 

displayed the three choices, outlining the main features of 

change for each, and told respondents that choice number 4 

was Applewhite in its current condition. 

Choices 1, 2 and 3 displayed varying degrees of 

development. Choice 1 maintained the existing design 

capacity of 120 parking spaces, 33 picnic tables (all single, 

none clustered), no grassy lawn, and some additional shade 

trees. Choice 2 doubled the design capacity with 240 

parking spaces, 60 picnic tables, lawn/gravel and rock in 

the main picnic area, and half clustered, half single tables. 

The greatest degree of development was depicted in choice 

3: this choice tripled the existing design capacity with 480 

parking spaces, 120 picnic tables (most clustered), lawn, 

shade trees, and playgrounds. Choice 3 was the most 

preferred (53%) when compared to the picnic area as it 

presently exists, and development options 1 and 2. A 

preference for more development was also demonstrated 

in visitors’ second preference: Choice 2, the second greatest 

degree of development (30%) also received a high 

preference rating. 

Another question relating to current and preferred 

management strategies queried visitors about management 

preferences for the picnic area. The highest percentage 

reported was for current management by the Forest Service 

(53 percent), but 10 percent preferred management by picnic 

area hosts and another 5 percent favored an outside group 

or concessionaire. Less than one-third (31 percent) reported 

no preference. 

Another question asked visitors about their interest in 

hosting the picnic area, but only 1 percent replied affirmatively. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 31 
Socio-Demographics and Activities 

No statistical differences were found between new and 

repeat visitors regarding socio-demographic characteristics. 

Preferred Features and Favorite Recreation Areas 

A statistically significant difference (p<.05) was 

discovered between new and repeat visitors regarding 

indications of their favorite place at Applewhite; new visitors 

showed a greater preference for places in the sun than did 

repeat visitors. No significant differences were found between 

new and repeat visitors regarding geographic preferences, 

e.g., grassy versus rocky areas. 

A significant difference between new and repeat visitors 

was found regarding the perception of crowding (Chi-square, 

p<.05): a greater percentage of repeat visitors were likely to 

rate the picnic area as moderately or extremely crowded. 

No other differences were found between new and repeat 

visitors about site features and indicated preferences. Only 

repeat visitors responded to the majority of these items, 

precluding any comparisons. 

Opinions About Change 

No significant differences were found between repeat 

and first time visitors regarding development options, 

willingness to pay for parking, or most preferred improvement. 

Discussion and Management Implications 

Socio-Demographic Profile 

Average visitors to the Applewhite Picnic Area are of 

Hispanic descent—United States or Mexico born—and had 

resided in the United States for 22 years. These visitors on 

the average were 32 years old, had some high school education, 

and primarily spoke and read English. Average groups of 

visitors were comprised of eight adults and seven children. 

Most respondents were repeat visitors to the Applewhite 

picnic area who had visited the site an average of five times 

in the past 6 years. On average, Applewhite visitors did not 

consider the site to be crowded. And although the highest 

visitation occurred after midday, most respondents reported 

plans to stay at the site all day. 

Favorite activities at the Applewhite Picnic Area area 

included picnicking, relaxing, playing in the creek, wading, 

hiking and visiting with others. The favorite activity question revealed the two most popular activities—picnicking 

and relaxing. 

Resource managers should be prepared to continue 

serving the Hispanic population at the Applewhite area and 

plan for large size groups. People have been using the area 

for the intended purposes-- picnicking and relaxing. Visitors 

have not been concerned about the numbers of other visitors 

at the site; this suggests that managers can redesign the area 

to match current use or possibly expand to include even 

more visitors. However, given that repeat visitors are more 

concerned about crowding, an optimal to design for 

Applewhite would not include more space for many more 

visitors than are currently recreating at Applewhite. 

Favorite Recreation Areas and Preferred Features 

Visitors’ favorite places to picnic at Applewhite are in 

the shade, near the water. The features respondents liked 

most at Applewhite were the creek, the trees, the picnic 

tables, the rocks/boulders and a picnic area that was close to 

the road. 

Most respondents thought that there were not enough 

picnic tables at Applewhite. About half the respondents 

thought that picnic tables should be moved close. Most 

respondents wanted tables in a large group configuration, 

and they preferred more barbecue grills at Applewhite. 

Although most of the respondents preferred trash cans 

near the picnic tables, they seemed to have no strong 

preferences about the location of trash dumpsters in the 

parking lot. More than half the respondents preferred more 

restroom facilities at Applewhite and most expressed a 

preference for flush toilets. 

The responses to questions about parking lots also reveals 

a mixed preference. Many respondents did not want to pay 

to park at Lytle Creek although many others said they might 

pay up to $3 per day to park there. About half reported that 

they would return to Applewhite if a fee was charged for 

parking, although many said they would not. Overflow parking 

responses suggested that visitors would walk one-quarter 

mile or less from an overflow parking area to the picnic area. 

Many respondents did not want to pay to park at an overflow 

area although many others said they might pay up to $3 per 

day to park there. 

Overall, the respondents to this study have preferences 

for developing the area. They prefer shade, more picnic 

tables (particularly in large group configurations), trash cans 

near those tables, more barbecue grills and more restrooms 

(especially flush toilets). All these items suggest that 

renovation of the site will be favorably considered by the 

current user groups. Their preferences also provide a guide 

to resource managers about the specific items that the visitors 

prefer at the site. 

Because trees and bushes are favored by respondents, a 

site designed for a larger capacity of visitors should include 

these, which could serve as privacy regulators and perhaps 

give the impression of fewer, not more, visitors at the site. 

Opinions About Change 

Visitors’ opinions about changes to the picnic area 

included about one-third who stated that change was not 

necessary, but other respondents reported that changes should 

be made to the restrooms, tables, parking, and the barbecues. 

Improvements they would like to see at Applewhite included 

adding more parking spaces and a playground. Parking spaces 

were considered the most important improvement needed at 

Applewhite. Several respondents also mentioned that they 

might like to have information available on bulletin boards. 

32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Respondents who were shown sketches of potential site 

development preferred a high level of development. 

Although many expressed no management preference 

for the site, about half preferred the current management by 

the Forest Service. Few supported the idea of a picnic area 

host and almost no one expressed an interest in hosting the 

picnic area. 

Thus, more than two-thirds preferred development of 

the site, and parking lots and playgrounds were prioritized as 

the most important items in need of change. The respondents 

also expressed a desire to continue with Forest Service 

management of the area—even though this may not be feasible 

under a high development design. 

Comparison Between New and Repeat Visitors 

Few significant differences were found between new and 

repeat visitors to the Applewhite Picnic Area, although these 

groups did differ: new visitors showed a greater preference 

for places in the sun than did repeat visitors, and a greater 

percentage of repeat visitors were more likely than new visitors 

to rate the picnic area as moderately or extremely crowded. 

But the overall lack of significant differences suggests 

that design planning of the picnic area does not need to focus 

on one particular user group--except that repeat users were 

more sensitive to crowding. 

Management Plans 

The final site development plan for the area has been 

developed. This design includes 100 picnic tables total--with 

50 picnic tables in family clusters and longer tables and 

bigger grills. Trash cans will be placed near the picnic 

tables. Flush toilets will be installed in the picnic area. Two 

play areas are planned along with two creekettes (small, 

gravity-fed creek extensions) with boulders and shade. Half 

the site will have lawn and additional shade trees will be 

provided. The area will be managed by a concessionaire who 

will oversee 200 parking spaces and charge a fee at the 

entrance to the parking area. There will be fencing around 

the perimeter of the picnic site and efforts will be made to 

provide use to a maximum capacity 800 people. 

Conclusions 

The goal of this research was to gather information from 

visitors about their preferences for amenities and facilities 

for the picnic site that would be incorporated into the site 

development plan for the renovation of the site. 

Results from the self-administered questionnaire 

suggested that resource managers should be prepared to 

continue serving the Hispanic population at the Applewhite 

area and plan for large size groups. Although visitors did not 

seem concerned about the numbers of other visitors at the 

site, repeat visitors were more concerned about crowding, so 

it would not be optimal to design for many more visitors 

than are currently recreating at Applewhite. 

Overall, respondents to this study have preferences for 

developing the area. They preferred shade, more picnic tables 

(particularly in large group configurations), trash cans near 

those tables, more barbecue grills and more restrooms 

(especially flush toilets). Respondents considered parking 

lots as the feature in most need of change. Each of these 

items suggested that renovation of the site would be favorably 

considered by the current user groups. 

Finally, given that there were few differences between 

new and repeat visitors to the site, the design of the picnic 

area should not focus on one particular user group--with the 

caution that repeat users showed more sensitivity to crowding. 

Management plans for the area incorporated most of the 

preferences of the respondents as measured by the survey. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 33 
Differences in Behavioral Conventions: A Comparison of 

United States-Born and Mexico-Born Hispanics, 

and Anglo Americans1 

John L. Heywood Raquel L. Engelke2 

Abstract: Past research on ethnicity in outdoor recreation has 

focused on park use and participation in recreation activities. Explanations of differences in park use and participation rates by 

minorities and non-minorities have emphasized the marginality 

and ethnicity hypotheses. A different approach can be used that 

emphasizes visitor’s expectations and preferences for appropriate 

behaviors at an urban proximate forest recreation site. Four social 

regularities are identified based on birth place and ethnic identity: 

cross cultural, United States indigene, Mexican born Hispanic, and 

Hispanic. The complexity of social regularities means that managers must maintain a high degree of familiarity with different visitor 

groups and the problems they encounter. 

With a few recent exceptions (Carr and Williams 1993, 

Floyd and Gramann 1993, Floyd and others 1993), previous 

recreation studies on ethnic groups have focused on differences 

in participation rates and activity preferences between the 

minority ethnic groups and the dominant social group, usually 

Anglo Americans (McMillen 1983). Earlier studies focused 

particularly on differences in recreation usage by 

African-Americans and whites. In these studies the Hispanic 

population was largely ignored. However, research recently 

has expanded to include Hispanic populations recognizing 

the possible differences in recreation styles due to cultural 

influences not present in the dominant Anglo-American 

culture. As before, these studies generally compare 

participation rates and activity preferences of Hispanics to 

Anglo Americans and occasionally to other minorities. 

The two hypothesis most often used to explain 

underparticipation of minorities in recreation activities are 

the marginality hypothesis and the ethnicity hypothesis 

(Allison 1988, Carr and Williams 1993, Floyd and Gramann 

1993). The marginality hypothesis attributes differential rates 

of participation to socioeconomic barriers against minorities 

that prohibit them from taking advantage of recreation 

opportunities available to others. These barriers are the results 

of discrimination practices that keep minorities at lower 

income levels and segregated from the recreation opportunities 

available to the dominant social group (McDonald and 

Hutchison 1987; Kelly and Godbey 1993). The ethnicity 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Associate Professor of Natural Resources and Graduate Research 

Associate, respectively, Ohio State University. 

hypothesis attributes differences in recreation participation 

and style to cultural differences that exist between ethnic 

groups and the dominant social group. According to this 

hypothesis, minority groups use recreation to maintain their 

ethnic identity and re-establish cultural ties that differentiate 

them from the dominant social group (Washburne 1978). 

More recently, some researchers have become interested 

in how assimilation and acculturation of minority groups 

affects recreation participation. Yinger (1985) defined 

assimilation as “... a process of boundary reduction that can 

occur when members of two or more societies, ethnic groups, 

or smaller social groups meet.” One aspect of assimilation is 

acculturation. Acculturation occurs when the minority group 

adopts the dominant group’s cultural characteristics such as 

diet, language, and religion (Yinger 1985; Floyd and Gramann 

1993; Negy and Woods 1992). Floyd and Gramann (1993) 

found least acculturated Mexican-Americans participated in 

significantly fewer activities than Anglos and concluded 

that higher levels of acculturation in Mexican-Americans 

result in more similarities in recreation style with Anglos. 

Another aspect affecting recreational choices and 

behavior is the generational status of the minority group 

(Carr and Williams 1993). Generational status refers to the 

number of generations that have lived in close contact with 

the dominant social group. Socialization is affected by 

generational status as a cumulative effect from one generation 

to the next (Kelly and Godbey 1993). Carr and Williams 

(1993) found the “primary dimension contributing to 

similarities and differences in outdoor recreation preferences 

and behavior is ancestral group membership.” As generational 

status increased, so did the similarities in recreation styles 

and preferences between Hispanics and Anglos. 

Research to determine differences in behaviors and recreation styles is needed to understand more fully diversity 

within ethnic groups. Ethnic groups are not homogeneous 

entities but they are typically treated as such by most 

researchers. Recently, however, recreation research has 

recognized differences within the Hispanic culture. Carr and 

Williams (1993) found significant differences between 

Central-Americans and Mexican-Americans and their 

generational status. Social and cultural processes can result 

in behavioral differences between minority ethnic groups 

and Anglo Americans participating in recreation. Social 

conventions and norms establish patterns of social regularities 

that arise and are maintained through social interactions within 

groups. An important Hispanic social regularity is simpatía, 

the maintenance of harmonious interpersonal relations 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 35 
characterized by dignified and respectful behavior (Triandis 

and others 1984). Simpático behavior would be different 

than the more individualistic, self-centered behavior 

characteristic of Anglo Americans,and such differences could 

express themselves in dissimilar social conventions and norms. 

The purpose of the research reported here was to describe 

differences in behavioral expectations and preferences among 

Hispanics and between Hispanics and Anglo Americans for 

a number of behavioral problems encountered in a high 

density, day use, urban proximate forest recreation setting. 

Studying behavioral expectations and preferences can provide 

information on behavioral conventions (Heywood 1993). 

Behavioral conventions are found in situations that have 

two or more equally acceptable solutions to a behavioral 

problem. Lewis (1969) defines convention as a regularity in 

the behavior of the members of a population when they are 

agents in a recurrent situation in which some fraction of 

everyone prefers and expects some fraction of everyone 

else to prefer and expect some fraction of everyone to 

conform to the regularity. 

Methods 

Respondents’ expectations and preferences for behaviors 

were determined through a series of two part questions. The 

respondent was first given a problem situation and then 

asked to think about what other users would expect to happen. 

The respondent was asked to estimate the percent of other 

users who would expect him or her to behave as suggested in 

the problem. For example: 

•	 When you visit Lytle Creek, what percent of other 

users do you think would expect you to use a picnic 

site having a table and grill, if you bring food to cook? 

The respondent was then instructed to mark a scale 

showing percentages from zero to 100 percent in 10 percent 

increments. 

The second part of the question determined strong 

personal preference associated with the behavior by presenting 

an either/or statement that could be answered affirmatively, 

negatively or ambivalently. For example: 

•	 When visiting Lytle Creek should you always use a 

picnic site having a table and grill to cook food? 

If the response is “YES” or “NEVER” the respondent 

held a strong preference towards behaving consistent with or 

contrary to the behavior suggested in the problem situation. 

An ambivalent response, “MAYBE,” “NO OPINION,” or 

“MAYBE NOT” indicated the lack of a strong personal 

preference towards the suggested behavior. 

Because the preference items used the normative term 

“should,” the measures of expectations and preferences can 

not be considered to be valid operationalizations of 

conventions. Respondents expectations and sense of 

obligation, from the normative preference items, can be 

combined to determine whether social regularities exist for 

the problems under study. Social regularity results from 

social interactions where actors consider the situation and 

the other person’s expectations and definitions of the situation 

(Kelly 1983). 

We developed a questionnaire to assess the expectations 

and normative preferences of visitors to the Applewhite Picnic 

Area on Lytle Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest, 

in southern California. On the basis of previous studies and 

the knowledge and experience of USDA Forest Service 

researchers and technicians, a number of problem situations 

were identified that were relevant to conditions at the 

Applewhite picnic area. Expectations and preferences were 

measured concerning: (1) the use of formal picnic sites to 

cook food or to eat prepared food; (2) the disposal or recycling 

of trash from food and drinks; (3) whether visitors should be 

able to walk into or through other visitor’s formal picnic 

sites, or informal picnic sites located on the stream bank or in 

the stream; (4) the appropriate volume for Spanish language 

audio programs (music or talk programs played on a radio, 

cassette or CD player); (5) the appropriate volume for English 

language audio programs (music or talk programs played on 

a radio, cassette, or CD player); and (6) whether large, medium 

and small dogs should be kept on a leash. 

The questionnaire was translated into Spanish, and both 

English and Spanish versions were field tested over the July 

4, 1992 holiday weekend. Minor changes were made in 

question format and wording, particularly in the Spanish 

language version, and the final Spanish and English language 

versions were distributed on-site over four weekends in late 

August and early September 1992. A team of bi-lingual 

interviewers from California State Polytechnic University, 

Pomona selected respondents and collected data as part of a 

number of studies funded through the USDA Forest Service’s 

Wildland Recreation and the Urban Culture Research Unit. 

The data collection team canvassed all groups present on 

sampling days and attempted to get one adult to respond 

from each group. A total of 341 groups were contacted and 

in 215 one adult responded. 

Using data on place of birth and ethnic identification, 

we classified respondents as United States-born Hispanics, 

Mexico-born Hispanics, or Anglo Americans. Using 

Chi-square and T-tests, ethnic classes were compared for 

proportions completing Spanish language questionnaires, 

mean years lived in the U.S., and mean age. 

Respondents expectations were analyzed to determine if 

differences existed in the distributions for each of the 16 

variables. The median and skewness were determined for 

each variable, and then the median was used to split the 

respondents for each variable into two approximately equal 

categories which had expectations above or below the median. 

The above and below median categories normative preferences 

for each variable were then compared, using Chi-square. 

Non-significant Chi-squares indicate that normative 

preferences were similar for those above and below the 

median, whereas significant Chi-square indicate that normative 

preferences were different. 

36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
The normative preference profiles for the ethnic classes 

were then compared for visual and proportional similarities. 

Normative preference profiles were plotted as bar graphs 

showing the percentages with YES, Ambivalent, or NEVER 

normative preferences for those above and below the medians 

for each variable. Similar visual and proportional patterns 

were grouped into several different categories showing 

agreement or disagreement between ethnic categories, and 

between those above or below the median expectations within 

ethnic categories. 

Results 

The comparisons of U.S.-born Hispanics, Mexico-born 

Hispanics, and Anglo Americans showed differences between 

the ethnic classes and the percent completing Spanish language 

questionnaires, mean years lived in the U.S., and mean age 

(table 1). The completion rates of Spanish language 

questionnaires were significantly different for each ethnic 

class. A very small proportion of Anglo Americans completed 

Spanish language questionnaires. A higher proportion of 

U.S.-born Hispanics, about one-fifth, completed Spanish 

language questionnaires, while a substantial majority of 

Mexico-born Hispanics, about three-quarters, completed 

Spanish language questionnaires. Even though Mexico-born 

and U.S. born Hispanics reported similar ages, Mexico-born 

Hispanics had lived in the U.S. about half as long--an average 

of 14.9 years—as U.S.-born Hispanics (27.5 years). Both 

U.S.-born and Mexico-born Hispanics were younger on 

average than Anglo Americans and consequently both U.S.-

and Mexico-born Hispanics reported fewer years in the U.S. 

than Anglo Americans. 

The median and skewness were determined for each of 

the expectation variables. Three patterns were evident: (1) 

variables with very high medians (70 to 90 percent) and 

relatively large negative skewness values, such as leashing 

large and medium size dogs, disposing of trash in a trash 

can, and cooking food at formal picnic sites; (2) variables 

with very low medians (15 percent) and relatively high 

positive skewness values, such as playing English and Spanish 

language audio programs at their loudest volumes; and, (3) 

variables with medians in the low-middle range (35 to 55 

percent) and relatively small positive or negative skewness 

values, such as playing English language audio programs at 

moderate volumes, eating prepared food at formal picnic 

sites, and entering other’s formal picnic sites or informal 

stream bank picnic sites. 

The appropriateness of splitting the results for each variable 

into those above and below the median was justified through 

the results of Chi-square tests. Significant differences were 

found in the normative preferences of those above and below 

the median expectations for each variable except trash disposal. 

Based on similarities and dissimilarities between the 

ethnic classes in the normative preferences of those above 

and below the medians, four ethnically based social regularities 

were identified plus one grouping characterized by no 

agreement ethnically or expectationally. The four social 

regularities identified were: (1) cross cultural social regularities 

with a sub-group of consensus only for those above the 

median expectations; (2) U.S. indigene social regularities; 

(3) Mexican-born Hispanic social regularities; and (4) one 

Hispanic social regularity. 

Cross cultural social regularities included disposing 

of trash in a trash can, recycling trash, leashing large dogs, 

playing English language audio programs at their lowest 

volume, leashing medium and small size dogs, and always 

entering in-stream picnic sites if consensus was above the 

median expectations. The bar graphs for the first four 

cross cultural social regularities—consensus for both those 

above and below the median expectations—are shown in 

figure 1. As the bar graphs illustrate, substantial majorities 

of almost all ethnic classes have positive normative 

preferences for disposing of trash, recycling and leashing 

large dogs. The only exceptions were the relatively high 

proportions of Mexico-born Hispanics who were ambivalent 

about leashing large dogs (below the median), and playing 

English language audio programs at their lowest volumes 

(both above and below the median). Yet majorities did 

express positive normative preferences for leashing large 

dogs and playing English language audio programs at 

their lowest volumes. 

In the sub-group of cross cultural social regularities 

substantial majorities above the medians (more than 60 to 90 

percent) from all ethnic classes had positive normative 

Table 1—Comparison of U.S.-born and Mexico-born Hispanics and Anglo Americans 

Percent completing 

Spanish language Mean years 

Population questionnaire lived in U.S. Mean age 

U.S. Born Hispanics 119.6 2,327.5 529.8 

Mexico Born Hispanics 175.4 2,414.9 631.6 

Anglo Americans 10.4 3,434.5 5,636.5 

1

p = 0.000; 2 & 4p = 0.000; 3p = 0.037; 5p = 0.025; 6p = 0.050 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 37 
Figure 1—Cross cultural social regularities 

preferences for leashing medium and small size dogs and 

always entering others’ in-stream picnic sites. Pluralities or 

majorities of those below the medians were ambivalent but 

there were three exceptions. Majorities of U.S.-born Hispanics 

and Anglo Americans had positive normative preferences 

for leashing medium size dogs, and a majority of Mexican 

born Hispanics had positive normative preferences for entering 

others’ in-stream picnic sites. 

U.S. indigene social regularities were characterized by 

substantial majorities (70 to 90 percent) of U.S. born Hispanics 

and Anglo Americans above or below the median expectations 

who had positive or negative normative preferences for 

leashing medium size dogs, listening to Spanish language 

audio programs at their lowest volume, and never listening 

to Spanish or English language audio programs at their 

loudest volumes (figure 2). U.S. born Hispanics and Anglo 

Americans above and below the medians had positive 

preferences for leashing medium size dogs, but U.S. born 

Hispanics below the medians were ambivalent about lowest 

volumes for Spanish language audio programs and loudest 

volumes for English and Spanish language audio programs. 

T-tests showed significant differences in the ages of U.S.-born 

Hispanics above and below the median expectations for 

lowest Spanish (T=2.26, 31.1 d.f., p=0.031), loudest English 

(T=2.19, 30.2 d.f., p=0.036), and loudest Spanish (T=2.30, 

27.4 d.f., p=0.029) audio volumes. For each audio volume, 

U.S.-born Hispanics whose expectations were below the 

medians were eight to nine years younger on average than 

those whose expectations were above the medians. 

Mexico-born Hispanic social regularities were characterized by majorities or pluralities of both those above and 

below the medians having positive normative preferences 

for entering other’s formal picnic sites and informal sites in 

the stream and on the stream bank. In all cases, however, 

substantial proportions (30 to 49 percent) were ambivalent 

about entering others’ sites. 

Hispanics, both U.S.- and Mexico-born, and above and 

below the medians, had positive normative preferences (54 

to 94 percent) for always cooking food at formal picnic sites. 

This Hispanic social regularity was supported by a majority 

(63.3 percent) of Anglo Americans above the median, but a 

majority (57.9 percent) below the median were ambivalent. 

38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Figure 2—U.S. indigene social regularities 

Consensus was not found ethnically or expectationally 

about eating prepared food at formal picnic sites and listening 

to Spanish or English language audio programs at moderate 

volumes. All ethnic groups, both above and below the 

medians, were ambivalent about eating prepared food at 

formal picnic sites. Majorities of U.S.- and Mexico-born 

Hispanics above and below the medians were ambivalent 

about listening to Spanish language audio programs at 

moderate volumes. Although a majority (81 percent) of 

Anglo Americans below the median were ambivalent about 

moderate volume Spanish language audios, a majority (64 

percent) above the median had negative normative 

preferences. Majorities of U.S.-born Hispanics (56 percent) 

and Anglo Americans (52 percent) above the medians had 

negative normative preferences for listening to English 

language audio programs at moderate volumes, but larger 

majorities below the medians (72 percent of U.S.-born 

Hispanics and 82 percent of Anglo Americans) were 

ambivalent. Majorities of Mexico-born Hispanics both above 

and below the medians were ambivalent about moderate 

volume English language audios. 

Discussion 

A diversity of social regularities were found: some showed 

little or no ethnic variation while others were characterized 

by differences in place of birth and/or ethnic identity. A 

consensus thought that trash should be disposed of properly 

or taken home to recycle later and that dogs should be leashed. 

Visitors born in the U.S., regardless of ethnic identification, 

generally agreed that audio volumes should not be intrusive, 

while Mexico-born Hispanics expressed more general 

agreement about entering other users sites regardless of the 

type of site or its location. Hispanics, whether U.S.- or 

Mexico-born, generally agreed that food should be cooked 

only at formal picnic sites with tables and grills. 

The cross cultural consensus about trash disposal and 

recycling does not appear to be consistent with the findings 

of Carr and Williams (1993), who, in a study of southern 

California National Forest recreation sites, found that when 

asked about their definition of respect for the forest, Anglos 

and Hispanics born in the United States expressed support 

for anti-littering and clean up behaviors, while Hispanics 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 39 
born outside the U.S. did not express such sentiments. Their 

open ended question format found different forest meanings 

for U.S. natives than for non-natives. The meaning of the 

forest recreation setting is the combination of thoughts, 

feelings, memories and interpretations the place evokes 

(Schroeder 1991), which is not the same as the expectations 

and preferences for particular behaviors in that setting. When 

specifically asked to rate their expectations and preferences 

for trash disposal and recycling in this study, Mexico-born 

Hispanics strongly supported these behaviors. Although the 

forest means different things to natives and non-natives, the 

results of this study indicate that both natives and non-natives 

have high expectations and strong preferences for behaviors 

that should result in a litter free and clean recreational setting. 

Carr and Williams’ caution--that their findings do not reveal 

the respondents’ actual behavior--also applies to the present 

study. The findings concerning expectations and preferences, 

however, do indicate that a behavioral standard for trash 

disposal and recycling could exist for most users regardless 

of ethnicity. Such a standard could provide the basis for 

management actions to enhance these behaviors. 

Anglos and Hispanics born in the U.S. generally agree 

that audio programs, whether Spanish or English, should 

not be played at their loudest volume. For half of the U.S. 

born Hispanics whose expectations are below the median, 

however, majorities are ambivalent about audio volumes. 

This finding is similar to the preferences of Mexican-born 

Hispanics. Because these U.S.-born Hispanics are 

significantly younger than those whose expectations are 

above the median, younger U.S. born Hispanics may identify 

more strongly with Mexican social regularities than they do 

with Anglo social regularities. Ambivalent preferences about 

a behavior that intrudes on many other picnickers experiences 

does not seem consistent with the respectful behavior 

prescribed by simpatía, however. 

In a different context, Mexican born Hispanics were the 

only respondents in which majorities or pluralities, regardless 

of their expectations, preferred that all use sites be open for 

others to enter. In the stream and on the stream bank this can 

result in site occupants splashed with water, while at formal 

picnic sites other users can stir up dust or track wet feet over 

ground covers. Such preferences would not seem to be 

consistent with simpatáco behavior. Perhaps simpatía is not 

associated with recreation in this wildland-urban setting. 

Consensus about cooking food only at formal picnic sites 

was only found among Hispanics, whether U.S.- or 

Mexico-born. The question was worded to specify sites with 

tables and grills, but even so this may not have been understood 

by many respondents. Casual observations at Lytle Creek 

show that some Hispanic users bring portable tables and charcoal 

grills with them. The strong cooking preference, regardless of 

expectations, does not seem to be consistent with findings 

from other research on southern California National Forests 

that showed that two of the most appealing environmental 

conditions were nearness to water and shade (Simcox and 

Pfister 1990). The formal picnic sites, located on a flood plain 

between Lytle Creek and Lytle Creek Road, are at some 

distance from the creek and generally have little or no shade. 

Conclusion 

The findings from this study show similarities and 

differences between Hispanics and Anglo Americans and 

confirm previous research findings that Hispanic social 

regularities are not unidimensional. Hispanic’s expectations 

and preferences differ depending on place of birth, age, and 

the type of behavioral problem considered. Although all 

users--both Hispanics and Anglos—generally agree about 

certain behavioral problems, other behavioral problems are 

much more complex. The complexity of expectations and 

preferences for some behavioral problems means that 

managers must maintain a high degree of familiarity with 

the various constituent groups who visit areas like Lytle 

Creek and the types of problems they encounter. Periodic 

surveys that observe and measure social regularities are also 

needed to confirm behavioral trends as recreation settings 

and visitor populations evolve and change. 

References 

Allison, M.T. 1988. Breaking boundaries and barriers: future directions in 

cross-cultural research. Leisure Sciences. 10: 247-259. 

Carr, D.S.; Williams, D.R. 1993. Understanding the role of ethnicity in 

outdoor recreation experiences. Journal of Leisure Research 25: 22-38. 

Floyd, M.F.; Gramann, J.H. 1993. Effects of acculturation and structural 

assimilation in resource-based recreation: The case of Mexican 

Americans. Journal of Leisure Research 25: 6-21. 

Floyd, M.F.; Gramann, J.H., Saenz, R. 1993. Ethnic factors and the use of 

public outdoor recreation areas: the case of Mexican Americans. Leisure 

Sciences 15: 83-98. 

Heywood, J.L. 1993. Game theory: A basis for analyzing emerging norms 

and conventions in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences 15: 37-48. 

Kelly, J.R. 1983. Leisure identities and interactions. London: George 

Allen & Unwin. 

Kelly, J.R.; Godbey, G. 1992. The sociology of leisure. State College, PA: 

Venture Publishing, Inc. 

Lewis, D. 1969. Convention: a philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press. 

McDonald, J.M.; Hutchison, I.J. 1987. Minority and ethnic variations in 

outdoor recreation participation: trends and issues. Therapeutic 

Recreation Journal 21: 26-35. 

McMillen, J.B. 1983. The social organization of leisure among 

Mexican-Americans. Journal of Leisure Research 15: 164-173. 

Negy, C.; Woods, D.J. 1992. The importance of acculturation in 

understanding research with Hispanic-Americans. Hispanic Journal of 

Behavioral Sciences 14: 224-247. 

Schroeder, H.W. 1991. Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes: 

Combining quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology 11: 231-248. 

Simcox, D.E.; Pfister, R.E. 1990. Hispanic values and behaviors related to 

outdoor recreation and the forest environment. Technical Research Report. 

Triandis, H.C.; Lisansky, J.; Marín, G.; Betancourt, H. 1984. Simpatía as a 

cultural script of Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 

47: 1363-1375. 

Washburne, R.F. 1978. Black under-participation in wildland recreation: 

Alternative explanations. Leisure Sciences 1: 175-189. 

Yinger, J.M. 1985. Assimilation in the United States: The Mexican 

Americans.In: Connor, W. ed., Mexican Americans in comparative 

perspective. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press: 29-55. 

40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Development and Testing of a Cultural Identity Construct 

for Recreation and Tourism Studies1 

Patrick T. Tierney2 

Abstract: A cultural identity construct for use in recreation research was developed. Findings from a survey of 233 university 

students in San Francisco, suggest that ethnic identity can be 

quantified and is an important factor influencing differences in 

vacation travel participation, motivations and barriers. The method 

used can be applied in diverse multi-cultural settings. 

Recognition of the need to assess the motivations, barriers 

and recreation use patterns of our country’s increasingly 

diverse cultural and ethnic population is growing. Carr and 

Williams (1992) and Floyd and others (1993) have suggested 

that differences in minority recreation participation are due 

to: (1) marginality differences or socio-economic status and 

access; (2) ethnic identity; and (3) behavioral reception 

(discrimination). Much of the research on ethnic influences 

in recreation participation has been designed to show 

differences between ethnic groups. Dwyer and Gobster (1992) 

found that African Americans had lower participation rates 

in dispersed outdoor recreation activities, such as camping 

and hiking, than did whites. While intra-group comparisons 

are important, their usefulness in predicting recreation 

behaviors is limited due to the tremendous variation in social 

and economic variables that can occur within an ethnic or 

cultural group. In addition, a survey respondent often is 

classified as Hispanic or Asian, regardless of how strongly 

she/he identifies with that ethnic group. Research that combines 

divergent segments of an ethnic group can present misleading 

results, reinforce ethnic stereotypes and ignore the evolving 

inter-cultural boundaries and relationships (Allison 1992). 

This paper describes how a cultural identity construct 

was developed for recreation and tourism studies. 

Ethnic Identity 

A promising area of investigation into the underlying 

reasons for differences in recreation patterns within ethnic 

groups is the construct of ethnic identity. Phinney (1990) 

defined the term ethnic identity to mean “that part of an 

individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge 

of his membership in a social group together with the value 

and emotional significance attached to that membership.” 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Associate Professor of Recreation and Leisure Studies, San Francisco 

State University, San Francisco, CA. 

Almost all studies using ethnic identity have incorporated 

self identification as a key component. However, self-labeling 

alone is not sufficient, as it does not provide an idea of the 

importance associated with ethnic membership. We propose 

a model suggesting that ethnic identity is composed of four 

components: self identification of one’s ethnic group; 

sense of belonging to the ethnic group; attitude toward the 

group; and a persons level of ethnic involvement. Ethnic 

identity then influences intention to participate and actual 

recreation behavior. 

Sense of belonging to the identified ethnic group is 

critical to provide an idea of the level of membership in the 

group. Operationalization of sense of belonging is proposed 

through use of the key phrase “attachment to my group,” as 

suggested by Parham and Helms (1985). In addition to 

attachment, an individual can have both positive and negative 

attitudes towards their own group. Driedger (1976) and 

Phinney (1989) incorporated the concept of pride in one’s 

group as a measure of attitude towards it. Respondents in 

this study were asked to agree/disagree with a statement 

about pride in belonging to their group. 

Ethnic involvement refers to the degree of participation 

in the social life and cultural practices of one’s ethnic group. 

Studies have measured involvement by determining friendship 

(Garcia 1982), religious affiliation (Phinney 1990), and 

political ideology (Parham and Helms 1981). In the present 

study, ethnic involvement is introduced by asking respondents 

if their friends are mostly from their own ethnic group. The 

proposed model and ethnic identity construct were tested in 

an exploratory study of vacation travel. 

Method 

Data for the study came from a written questionnaire 

given to a non-random sample of students in classes at San 

Francisco State University in May 1992. All students were 

asked to return the completed questionnaire before they left 

class, and response rate was over 95 percent. A total of 233 

completed surveys were returned. 

Vacations were defined as work-free periods of 4 or 

more consecutive days where most of the time was spent in 

leisure activities. Survey questions asked students to describe 

how frequently they expected to take a summer vacation and 

the expected duration of it. It also asked them to choose their 

expected vacation from eight vacation types. The identification 

of motivations associated with this leisure activity used items 

taken from studies by Driver (1976) and Jacobs (1985), 

while barriers were similar to those from Tierney (1988) and 

Norman (1991). 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 41 
Each of the four components of ethnic identity was 

measured. Individuals were grouped, based on self-labelling, 

into one of seven ethnic groups; Native American, African 

American, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, and European 

Americans or white. Each of the three remaining ethnic 

identity components, sense of belonging, attitude toward 

group and ethnic involvement were summed to produce an 

ethnic identity scale. A high total score on the one to seven 

point scale suggested a high degree of ethnic involvement. 

The Reliability program in Statistical Package for Social 

Science, Personal Computer (SPSS PC) was used to assess 

the performance of the ethnic identity scale. 

Determination of differences in frequency of taking a 

vacation and the type of vacation was accomplished using 

one-way analysis of variance and chi-square programs in 

SPSS PC. Because of low numbers of respondents in some 

ethnic groups, only Asian, African and European American 

groups were included in detailed statistical analysis. 

Results 

Because of the exploratory nature of this model test, 

findings are based on a limited sample of ethnically diverse 

San Francisco State University students, which may not be 

representative of other segments of the public or other areas. 

Respondents were 46.6 percent Asians, 24.9 percent 

European, 14.3 percent African Americans, 9.8 percent 

Hispanic, 4.5 percent Middle-Eastern and less than 1 percent 

Native American. 

Mean scores for the three components of the ethnic identity 

construct, for the total sample, ranged from 5.73 for attitude 

towards group (pride), 4.17 for sense of belonging (attachment), 

to 3.83 for ethnic involvement (friends). Crohnbach’s alpha 

for a scale incorporating all three variables was 0.512. One 

variable—ethnic involvement—did not appear to contribute 

to the reliability of the scale and was removed. If the ethnic 

identity scale consisted of only sense of belonging and attitude 

towards group, the alpha increased to 0.770. 

Levels of ethnic identity varied considerably between 

the three ethnic groups. Black respondents indicated the 

highest level of ethnic identity with 83.3 percent showing 

either high or very high levels, 48.8 percent of Asians, and 

14.3 percent of European Americans. 

Significant differences were not found between African-, 

Asian-, and European-Americans in their expected frequency 

of taking a summer vacation during 1992, or in the number 

of days they planned to vacation. In addition, respondents 

with high and low levels of ethnic identity differed 

significantly regarding their expected frequency to take a 

vacation. Significant differences in the type of summer 

vacation that different student ethnic groups planned to take 

were derived. African Americans were more likely to plan 

to take a vacation to visit friends and relatives (47.1 percent) 

than were European Americans (33.3 percent). Asian 

Americans were more likely to plan to take a resort (16.4 

percent) or cruise vacation (7.3 percent) than were European 

Americans (3.7 and 0.0 percent, respectively). European 

Americans were more likely to plan to take outdoors (37.0 

percent) and touring vacations (14,8 percent), than were 

African Americans (11.8 and 5.9 percent, respectively). 

European Americans were also much less likely to plan to 

take a city trip (3.7 percent) than were African (17.6 percent) 

or Asian Americans (21.8 percent). 

Respondents with a high level of ethnic identity were 

more likely to plan to take vacations in which they visited 

friends and relatives (34.1 percent) than were those with a 

low level of identity (2.4 percent). This finding may represent 

a desire--especially by African Americans--to be with others 

of similar ethnic composition and values. Significant 

differences were also found in respondent motivations for 

taking a summer vacation. Blacks were significantly less 

likely to vacation in order to view scenery and seek solitude 

and quiet, compared to Asian and white groups. Whites were 

less concerned about going to a safe area or impressing 

others with their travels, than were Asian and black 

respondents. Although not significant, blacks were more 

likely to go on a vacation to maintain ties with their culture 

and family roots (4.62 on a 7 point scale) compared to 

whites (3.52) and Asians (4.16). 

Significant differences in vacation participation barriers 

between ethnic groups were also present. African Americans 

were more likely limited by a lack of transportation options 

(3.11), information on where to go (3.06), and interest in 

vacations (2.05) compared to Asian (2.77, 2.75 and 1.62) 

and European Americans (1.89, 1.78 and 1.14). Whites were 

significantly less likely to cite others taking advantage of 

them while traveling (1.89), and being discriminated against 

when traveling (1.42) than were African (2.82 and 2.52) and 

Asian Americans (2.50 and 2.37). 

Ethnic identity scores illustrated significant betweengroup variation in vacation motives and barriers. Findings 

showed that respondents with a high level of ethnic identity 

had a significantly higher rating (5.27) to the vacation motive 

of “maintaining ties with their culture and family roots,” 

than did those with lower ethnic identity (1.66). Respondents 

with a high level of ethnic identity were more likely to 

identify “I am discriminated against when traveling” as 

barriers to travel (2.62), versus those with low ethnic identity 

(1.01). Although the difference was not significant, it tends 

to support findings by Floyd and others (1993) that 

discrimination is a part of recreation decision-making of 

ethnic populations. 

Another measure of intragroup variation is provided by 

comparing respondent’s level of ethnic identity with vacation 

motives and barriers. Results for Asian Americans showed 

that the importance of the vacation motive of maintaining 

ties with their culture and family roots increased significantly 

as the respondents level of ethnic identity increased. 

42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Summary 

This exploratory study provides some preliminary 

findings and suggests areas for additional research. The 

model of ethnic identity proposed appears to characterize an 

important factor influencing differences in recreation use 

and the underlying motives and barriers to participation. It 

seems applicable to a variety of ethnic populations, not just 

those with unique languages or those with large numbers of 

recent immigrants. However, further work is needed with a 

larger, more representative sample to complete verification 

of the model. 

Overall, level of ethnic identity varied significantly 

between African and Asian Americans who had significantly 

higher levels of identity, attachment, and sense of belonging, 

than European Americans. 

Although there are few differences in planned frequency 

of vacation travel between African, Asian, and European 

American student groups, significant differences were found 

regarding the type of vacation sought, why different groups 

vacation, and the barriers that limit vacation pursuits. 

However, to generalize differences between ethnic groups 

can lead to stereotyping: considerable variation exists within 

ethnic groups. The level of ethnic identity is one of many 

variables that influences vacation motives and barriers. 

And finally, the findings imply that as the population 

in the United States becomes more ethnically diverse, 

and groups continue to identify strongly with their ethnic 

group, the potential is considerable for a tremendous 

change in the types of vacation products and services that 

will be demanded. 

References 

Allison, Maria T. 1992. Valuing cultural diversity: research and policy 

questions. In: Chavez, Deborah J. ed. Proceedings of the symposium 

on social aspects and recreation research; 1991 February 19; Ontario, 

California: Pacific Southwest Research Station; pg 22-24. 

Carr, Deborah; Williams, Daniel R. 1992. Social structural characteristics 

of hispanic recreationists on the angeles and San Bernardino National 

Forests. In: Proceedings of the symposium on social aspects and 

recreation research; 1991 February 19; Ontario, CA. 

Driedger, L. 1976. Ethnic self-identity: a comparison of ingroup evaluations. 

Sociometry 39: 131-141. 

Driver, B. 1976. Psychological outcomes and preferences of wildlands 

users. Gen Tech Rep. RM-GTR. Ft. Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experimental Station. 

Dwyer, John F.; Gobster, Paul. 1992. Black/white outdoor recreation 

preferences and participation: Illinois State Parks. In: Proceedings, 

1991 northeastern recreation research symposium; 1992, April; Saratoga 

Springs, NY: Saratoga Spa State Park. 

Floyd, Myron F.; Gramann, James H; Saenz, Rogelio. 1993. Ethnic factors 

and the use of public outdoor recreation areas: the case of Mexican 

Americans. Leisure Sciences 15: 83-98. 

Garcia, J. 1982. Ethnicity and chicanos: measurement of ethnic identification, 

identity and consciousness. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 4: 

295-314. 

Norman, William C. 1991. The influence of constraints on the generic 

decision of whether or not to take a summer vacation. In: Proceedings 

National Parks and recreation research symposium; 1991 October 17; 

Baltimore, MA. 

Parham, T.; Helms, J. 1981. Attitudes of racial identity and self-esteem of 

black students: an exploratory investigation. Journal of Counseling 

Psychology 28: 250-257. 

Phinney, Jean S. 1990. Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: review of 

research. Psychological Bulletin 108(3): 499-514. 

Tierney, Patrick T. 1988. Colorado welcome centers; their users and 

influence on length of stay and expenditures. May 17. Colorado Tourism 

Board, Colorado State University. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 43 
Ethnic Use of the Tonto: Geographic Expansion of the


Recreation Knowledge Base1 

Denver Hospodarsky Martha Lee2 

Abstract: The recreational use of the Tonto National Forest, Arizona was investigated by using data on ethnic and racial subgroups. The Tonto is a Class 1 urban proximate forest adjoining 

the large, culturally diverse population of the Phoenix. An on-site 

survey of 524 recreating groups found sufficiently large numbers 

of Anglos (n=425) and Hispanics (n=82) who participated in our 

study. Analyses indicated Anglos sought more equipment-oriented 

experiences, while Hispanics sought experiences centered around 

basic site services and facilities. The marginality hypothesis and 

ethnic assimilation perspectives suggested a causal basis for observed differences. Despite differences, the two groups were quite 

similar on many other characteristics. Management and research 

implications are discussed. 

Urban-proximate lands, including National Forests, 

present among the most profound challenges in resource 

management (Bradley 1984). A special challenge to recreation 

managers arises from huge and growing numbers of users 

bringing myriad expectations, desires, and behaviors with 

them to the forest (Ewert 1991). In this urban-forest 

environment, “the” visitor can appear to the manager as a 

distorted, composite reflection of the complex, culturally 

diverse, urban populations from which he/she comes. One 

way to comprehend this complexity is to analytically 

decompose use by assessing the attributes of ethnic and 

racial sub-groups of forest recreation users. Considerable 

research of this kind has been done in southern California 

(Baas and others 1993, Carr and Williams 1993, Chavez 

1993, Chavez and others 1993, Chavez 1992), but much less 

is known about recreational diversity on urban forests 

elsewhere (with the exception of a study of Phoenix area 

households by Floyd and others [1990]). 

In an effort to extend the generalizability of ethnic 

recreation research, the geographic information base on ethnic 

use was expanded to describe ethnic and racial minority use 

on the Tonto National Forest, Arizona. The Tonto is a USDA 

Forest Service Category 1 urban proximate forest located 

within 50 miles of 2 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan 

area. About 30 percent of the Phoenix population is non-white, 

comprised of about 300,000 Hispanics, 100,000 AfricanAmericans, 29,000 Native Americans, and 180,000 other 

1 An abreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Assistant Professor and Director, Recreation and Leisure Services 

Program, and Assistant Professor, respectively, School of Forestry, Northern 

Arizona University, Box 15018, Flagstaff, AZ 86011. 

non-whites (US Bureau of Census 1991). The Phoenix 

population’s influence upon the Forest is most profound 

especially in its southern half, while the northern part of the 

Forest is perhaps more influenced by local residents of small 

towns and other rural areas. 

Prior to the study’s inception, Forest managers had little 

quantitative information about recreational use by racial and 

ethnic sub-populations. Moreover, knowledge was limited 

regarding recreational use of the Tonto as a whole, and of 

specific areas throughout the Forest. This dearth of information 

left managers to largely speculate about the recreation 

opportunities desired by their diverse clientele. 

Thus, research was conducted to address the goal of 

providing Tonto’s resource managers with information on 

forest-wide recreation use, and on the recreation activities 

and preferences of ethnic minority users. A second goal was 

to expand existing knowledge about ethnic forest users to 

forest environments in geographic areas outside California. 

These goals were addressed by the following research objective: 

To determine the kind, extent, and location of summer 

recreation use on the Tonto through an on-site survey 

des-cribing the behavior, preferences, and socialdemographic characteristics of the forest user population, 

including racial and ethnic sub- populations of forest 

recreationists. 

Methods 

On-site, face-to-face interviews were conducted of 

recreating groups during July, August, and September 1992 

at 25 interview locations identified by district recreation staff 

as representative of recreation use on the Tonto’s six Ranger 

Districts. The sample was stratified by time-of-day and 

day-of-week. Out of 542 attempted, 524 group leader interviews 

were completed for a response rate of 96 percent. An evaluation 

of the survey sample indicated that the sample was similar to 

the populations of Maricopa County and the State of Arizona 

as a whole with regard to race or ethnic affiliation, age, 

education, and household income. Because prior information 

was unavailable with which to describe the Forest’s user 

population, the sample’s representativeness of the user 

population could only be inferred from the sample results. 

Results 

The survey results contained sufficient numbers of 

observations with which to compare Anglo (n=425) and 

Hispanic or Mexican (n=82) forest visitors. Although 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 45 
affiliation as either Hispanic or Mexican was asked as a 

separate category in the questionnaire (Carr and Williams 

[1993] found differences in recreation behavior and 

preferences between Hispanics and Mexicans), too few 

Mexican individuals (n=21) were contained in the sample to 

allow separate analysis of the Hispanic and Mexican groups. 

The small numbers of individuals representing other racial 

and ethnic groups similarly prohibited their separate 

consideration in the analysis of the data. 

The Hispanic and Anglo groups were found to be very 

similar on most preference and behavioral items. Some 

noteworthy areas of apparent agreement between the two 

groups were: proportion who were first-time visitors (10 

percent); length of stay (mode=1 to 4 days); period of time 

as a returning forest visitor (about 10.5 years); frequency of 

visitation (about 3.5 times/year); group size (median=4.1); 

original source of information about the forest (family/ 

friends=70 percent); whether or not they were at their favorite 

place on the forest (yes=71 percent); three most favored 

activities (jet/water ski, fishing, resting/relaxing); and two 

most important site attributes (place to recreate with family, 

low cost recreation area). Yet, although the two groups were 

similar with regard to many recreation characteristics, Anglos 

and Hispanics remained sufficiently different to suggest 

separate consideration in recreation resource planning and 

management on the Tonto. 

Statistically significant (p=.05) areas of difference were 

found with regard to Anglos’ greater access to a boat as part 

of their outing and motor-boating as an activity; Anglos’ 

greater frequency of participation in jet skiing or water 

skiing; Anglos’ greater incidence of canoeing, sailing, or 

kayaking; Anglos’ greater incidence of RV camping outside 

of a campground; Anglos’ preference for a place where they 

can use their equipment; Anglos’ greater preference to finding 

a boat launch; Anglos’ greater preference for enjoying the 

sounds and smells of nature; Hispanics’ greater incidence of 

hiking or walking on trails; and Hispanics’ greater preference 

for finding a picnic area. 

While there is a somewhat greater likelihood that the 

groups are similar on a particular variable (i.e., p>.05), other 

differences indicated between the two groups,were Hispanics’ 

greater incidence of tent camping in a camp ground (p=.10); 

Hispanics’ greater incidence of group or team sports (p=.16); 

Hispanics’ greater preference for obtaining information about 

the Forest by learning from their own group of family or 

friends (p=.11); Hispanics’ greater importance given to finding 

a place to park (p=.17); Hispanics’ greater importance given 

to finding hiking trails (p=.12); Hispanics’ greater importance 

given to finding toilets (p=.07); and Anglos’ greater incidence 

of tubing or rafting (p=.06). 

Additional differences between Hispanics and Anglos 

were evident with regard to various social-demographic 

characteristics: the median age of Anglo groups was 20 to 29 

years, while the age of Hispanic groups was 13 to 19 years; 

the average education of Anglos was 14.1 years, while the 

average of Hispanics was 12.6 years; and the median income 

of Anglos was $40,000 to $49,000, while the income of 

Hispanics was $20,000 to $29,000. 

Discussion 

Although Anglos and Hispanics are similar with regard 

to many recreational characteristics, the two groups are 

sufficiently different to suggest separate consideration in 

recreation resource management on the Tonto. If the survey 

sample accurately represents the Forest user population, 

about one in every six visitors to the Tonto is Hispanic, with 

a higher proportion of Hispanic visitors at some locations. 

The sheer size of this clientele group dictates that management 

consider characteristics of the recreation experience that 

will potentially enhance the quality of experience for Hispanic 

visitors, as well as the Anglo visitors. 

The recreation experiences of Anglos on the Tonto 

suggest a strong equipment orientation sought in a natural 

setting. The centrality of home-brought equipment to 

recreation experiences is supported by the somewhat higher 

median incomes of Anglo, as compared with Hispanic visitors. 

The recreation experiences of Hispanics on the Forest suggest 

less reliance on expensive home-brought equipment and 

greater reliance upon basic on-site services and facilities. 

The extent that observed differences between Anglo 

and Hispanic visitors can be attributed to differences related 

to income (the marginality hypothesis), to innate subcultural 

differences in values and expectations (the ethnicity 

hypothesis), or to some other cause remains undetermined 

(Carr and Williams [1993] provide an excellent discussion 

of the role of these variables in outdoor recreation 

experiences). However, both Anglos and Hispanics express 

preferences for the same “most preferred” activities and site 

attributes, suggesting that a lack of available personal 

resources is a factor in constraining demand by Hispanics. 

These findings suggest support for the marginality hypothesis 

and the ethnic assimilation perspective of diminishing 

inter-cultural differences (Floyd and others 1993). 

Conclusions 

Management Implications 

This study’s goal has been to provide an increased 

understanding of recreationists on the Tonto National Forest. 

From a management perspective, this knowledge can be 

useful in numerous ways. Our study’s results showed that 

two main groups of summer visitors, Anglos and Hispanics, 

recreated at the Tonto. These groups represent quite different 

recreation experience types as is evident in their expectations 

for settings and use of on-site services and facilities. At the 

same time, an abundance of similarities between the groups 

suggest a considerable overlap in the recreation opportunities 

provided. This redundancy makes the task of management 

more tractable, since it allows management to focus on 

providing opportunities that help ensure the uniqueness of 

each group’s recreation experiences. 

46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
The study also provides insight into the area of visitor 

education and safety. The current accident rate among 

Hispanics involved in water activities is dramatically higher 

than the rate for Anglos involved in similar activities at 

similar locations on the Forest. The information in the study 

pertaining to equipment access, activity locations, preferred 

means of gaining visitor information, and visitor age, group 

type, and educational profiles can be used to mount a water 

safety education project aimed at Hispanics at risk of drowning. 

Research Implications 

The study suggests several avenues for further research. 

The research conducted on the Tonto assessed recreation use 

during only the summer season. Managers believe that use 

on the Forest varies considerably throughout the other months, 

including levels of use and the activities of racial and ethnic 

user groups such as Native Americans. Research into use 

during these other seasons is needed to present a more 

complete picture of recreation on the Tonto. 

Because considerable forest use by ethnic and racial 

groups is believed to occur at a distance from more easily 

accessible, heavily used sites, a household survey of remote 

forest users should be conducted. This approach would be 

especially useful in assessing use of the forest by the several 

Native American tribes who have reservations that adjoin 

the Forest. Essentially nothing is known about Native 

American use of the Tonto, (Taylor 1992) but proximity 

suggests the Forest plays an important role in the lives of 

some of these people. 

These combined studies promise to effectively expand 

the geographic and social perspectives of recreation research, 

providing resource managers with a solid basis for 

management decisions. One method to achieve better decisions 

is to profile the experience attributes that promise to further 

enhance the recreation experiences of diverse forest users. 

The challenge to researchers is to contribute to these recreation 

profiles without building mere stereotypes of what are 

obviously complex and dynamic phenomena. 

Acknowledgments 

This research was done in cooperation with Deborah J. 

Chavez, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest 

Service, and the Tonto National Forest recreation staff. 

References 

Baas, J.; Ewert, A; Chavez, D. 1993. Influence of ethnicity on recreation 

and natural environment use patterns: Managing recreation sites for 

ethnic and racial diversity. Environmental Management 17(4):523-529. 

Bradley, G. 1984. The urban/forest interface. In: Bradley, G. ed., Land use 

and forest resources in a changing environment. Seattle, WA: University 

of Washington Press. 

Carr, D. S.; Williams, D.R. 1993. Understanding the role of ethnicity in 

outdoor recreation experiences. Journal of Leisure Research 25(1):22-38. 

Chavez, D. 1993. Visitor perceptions of crowding and discrimination at 

two national forests in southern California. Research Paper PSW-RP-216. 

Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 

Chavez, D. 1992. Hispanic recreationists in the wildland-urban interface. 

Trends 29(4):23-25. 

Chavez, D.; Baas, J.; Winter, P. 1993. Mecca Hills: Visitor research case 

study. BLM/CA/ST-93-004-9560. 

Ewert, A. 1991. The wildland-urban interface: Future forest management 

near the urban megalopolis. Proceedings of the World Forestry Congress; 

1991 Sep.17-26; Paris,France. 

Floyd, M. F.; Gramann, J.H.; Saenz, R. 1993. Ethnic factors and the use of 

public outdoor recreation areas: The case of Mexican Americans. 

Leisure Sciences 15:83-98. 

Taylor, C. 1992. Telephone conversation with Denver Hospodarsky, USDA 

Forest Service, Tonto National Forest, Arizona. 

United States Bureau of the Census. 1991. 1990 census of the population: 

Preliminary statistics. Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 47 
Second Concurrent Session: Wednesday Afternoon


Land Ethics in Natural Resources 

Chair: Robert M. Laidlaw 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 
A Preliminary Analysis of Environmental Dilemmas 

and Environmental Ethical Reasoning Among Hispanic and 

Non-Hispanic Forest Visitors1 

Thomas C. Swearingen Robert E. Pfister2 

Abstract: In a preliminary investigation of environmental reasoning, Hispanic and Anglo-American visitors were interviewed during the summer of 1991 in two National Forests near Los Angeles. 

A bilingual research technician approached parties visiting the 

sample sites and, after a brief introduction, requested that they 

participate in the study. No more than two persons from each party 

were interviewed, and a total of 132 interviews were conducted. 

The data collected during the interviews were evaluated by using 

theoretical frameworks of environmental ethical reasoning based 

upon the moral reasoning contributions of psychologists L. Kolhberg 

and C. Gilligan. 

Greater diversity of cultural heritage is a significant 

demographic trend in the United States and the number of 

forest visitors of Hispanic ancestry is increasing in many 

urban proximate areas throughout the country. Resource 

managers are now faced with the need to effectively 

communicate to visitors with diverse cultural backgrounds 

and value systems rules about safety and environmental 

protection. This creates a need to clarify visitors’ values and 

behavior toward the natural environment as associated with 

their cultural or ethnic heritage. 

An ethical theme of ecological protection is the content 

of many persuasive interpretive communications to visitors. 

The success of this communication strategy depends on both 

the effectiveness of the message in prompting behavior and 

the ability of the visitor to comprehend the message. It is 

unclear if ethical messages about the natural environment 

are likely to have a uniform or common appeal to a culturally 

diverse visitor population. Such messages may not be 

appropriate to the reasoning ability (cognitive development) 

or level of comprehension of a highly varied audience. 

Partridge (1982) proposed a theory about ecological 

morality as a basis to integrate the developmental theory of 

Kohlberg (1981, 1984) with an environmental ethical context. 

Subsequently, Christensen and Dustin (1986) suggested that 

Kohlberg’s theory could be used as a guide to design 

interpretive visitor communications. 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, CA. 2

Assistant Professor, Department of Health, Physical Education and 

Leisure Studies, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688; Social 

Scientist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Riverside, CA, 92507 

Previous research indicated that additional empirical 

investigations about the development of environmental ethical 

reasoning would be desirable prior to using Kohlberg’s theory 

in the design of communications about environmental 

protection (Swearingen 1989). 

This paper reports on our study that compared the 

environmental ethical reasoning of both Anglo-American 

and Hispanic forest visitors. 

Methods 

In a preliminary investigation of environmental reasoning, 

Hispanic and Anglo-American visitors were interviewed 

during the summer of 1991 in two National Forests near Los 

Angeles. The sampling procedure consisted of quota sampling 

at random visitor contact points in dispersed recreation areas 

of the forests on weekend days during June, July and August 

1991. A bilingual research technician approached parties 

visiting the sample sites, and after a brief introduction, 

requested participation in the study. No more than two persons 

from each party were interviewed, and a total of 127 interviews 

were conducted. 

The interview procedure included a one page selfadministered form to collect demographic information (age, 

gender, marital status, years of education, ethnicity, years of 

residence in the United States) and a taped interview. After 

completing the questionnaire, the subjects were asked to 

read and respond to a scenario that posed an ethical dilemma 

involving conflicting values toward the natural environment. 

During the preliminary data collection, several dilemmas 

were used in the study. Two dilemmas were determined 

most effective in eliciting thoughtful responses, and these 

two scenarios were then used for the remainder of the data 

collection. One involved a conflict between species 

preservation and resource extraction, and the other scenario 

compared preferences for personal freedom to hike off trail 

to efforts of the managing public agency to prevent such 

behavior to protect the park environment. Respondents were 

asked for their opinion of the appropriate resolution of the 

dilemma and to explain their rationale for that opinion. After 

completing this structured component of the interview, 

respondents were then asked to describe their perception of 

an ethical conflict involving the natural environment. If the 

respondents could not readily relate a personal experience, 

they were asked to offer a more general or even a hypothetical 

conflict in environmental ethics. The subjects were again 

asked to explain their opinions concerning these self-generated 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 51 
dilemmas and to explain their rationales. A total of 132 valid 

responses were obtained from structured interviews, and 44 

valid responses to self generated dilemmas. 

The data collected during the interviews were evaluated 

using an environmental reasoning framework based upon 

Kohlberg’s theory of development of moral reasoning. Analysis 

of the data consisted of a two stage content analysis of the 

visitors’ comments categorizing both the normative content of 

the arguments and the rationales for their normative statements. 

Each visitors’ comments were then further classified according 

to prototypical stage content of their arguments. This analysis 

was based on a standard scoring procedure when feasible 

(Colby and Kohlberg 1987), and an evolving theoretical 

extension of this scoring procedure used in a hermeneutic 

process to understand ethical reasoning in an environmental 

context. Responses were then analyzed by ethnicity and duration 

of residence in the United States to determine if there were 

significant differences in normative attitudes or reasoning 

abilities of ethnic subgroups of the sample. 

Results 

Demographic Profile 

The descriptive data from the self-administered 

questionnaires were examined to determine if there was any 

bias in the sampling procedures. Contacts were evenly 

distributed throughout the sampling period. Male respondents 

represented 61 percent of all respondents; and the majority 

of respondents (57 percent) were married, living with partners. 

The mean age of all respondents was 33; and the average 

respondent had completed about 10 years of education. Of 

those responding to the question of ethnic heritage, 

Anglo-Americans comprised 42 percent and MexicanAmericans comprised 58 percent of the respondents. 

Earlier investigations of the forest visitor also reported 

visitor demographic and cultural characteristics similar to 

the characteristics of this sample (Carr and Williams 1993; 

Ewert and Pfister 1990). The bilingual technician used the 

same dispersed sites from the previous studies in which the 

comparable data were collected. 

The majority (54 percent) of the respondents who 

completed a questionnaire were born in Mexico (table 1). 

About 40 percent of the respondents were born in the 

United States. 

Of the respondents, 94 percent were born in the United 

States or Mexico. Because place of birth does indicate the 

level of cultural influences on cognitive patterns, this group 

served as a basis for comparison. Duration of residence and 

nationality (place of birth) were combined as a measure of 

the degree of acculturation in the United States (table 2). Of 

the respondents completing the questions pertaining to 

socio-demographic characteristics, 42 percent were from the 

United States, 23 percent were Mexico-born with less than 

10 years of residence in the United States, and 35 percent of 

the Mexico-born residents had been in the United States 

more than 10 years. 

Structure Dilemmas 

Subjects were asked to respond to one or more different 

structure dilemmas, and we then analyzed the norm and 

stage of reasoning associated with these responses. The 

Wilderness Resource dilemma presented a choice between 

resource exploitation and endangered species preservation. 

This particular dilemma elicited the most elaborate moral 

arguments by the respondents. When asked to explain their 

position, 41 percent invoked a public or private property 

rights moral norm, 32 percent of the respondents favored an 

environmental life preservation norm, and 11 percent advanced 

an argument based on preservation of human quality/quantity 

of life (table 3). 

To further explain the rationale for their positions on the 

Wilderness Resource dilemma, a significant proportion of 

all respondents (45.2 percent) were concerned about the 

collective and individual consequences of resource extraction 

for human society (table 3). Only 16 percent of the responses 

concerned the consequences of resource development on the 

environment, and 28.7 percent of the arguments were based 

on abstract moral ideals of duty, rights, and equity or other 

principled arguments (table 4). 

Similar patterns of predominantly anthropocentric social 

concern for environmental problems emerged in responses to 

other dilemmas. The second structured dilemma, called the 

“Shortcut” presented a scenario where a visitor is confronted 

with a choice of hiking on or off an established trail for 

personal reasons. Respondents invoked either agency authority, 

or law and punishment as the basis for decisions of 63.4 

percent of the cases to this scenario. Significantly, 26.8 percent 

of the respondents favored an argument for responsibility 

and care for others in explaining this dilemma (Table 5a/5b). 

One critic of Kohlberg’s approach (Gilligan 1982) has 

argued that his standard scoring procedure (Colby and others 

1983) does not adequately recognize the “care orientation” 

in moral judgments. Gilligan objected to Kohlberg’s use of 

male subjects in formulating his model, and his emphasis on 

justice reasoning as the primary basis for moral judgments. 

The care orientation is considered more characteristic of 

female moral reasoning. Thus, the standard scoring procedure 

understates the level of moral reasoning of some females. 

Most of the responses to this dilemma which favored a care 

orientation were from females. These qualitative data support 

the critics of Kohlberg; thus, Gilligan’s observations on 

gender differences in moral reasoning also apply to an 

environmental context (table 6). The use of a care orientation 

in resolving environmental ethical dilemmas has also been 

noted in other research. 

Although the interviews primarily included brief 

responses, many of the respondents responses to the 

Wilderness Resource dilemma (n = 67) were sufficiently 

developed to tentatively offer a characterization of their 

stages of moral reasoning in an environmental context (table 

7). As expected, few respondents (4.5 percent) advanced 

preconventional stage 2 arguments. The majority (76.1 

percent) of all respondents’ reasoning could be considered 

52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Table 1—Respondents’ place of birth1 

Place of Birth Frequency Percent 

United States 28 40 

Mexico 38 54 

Other 4 6 

TOTAL 70 100.0 

1Missing cases: 62 

Table 2—Foreign born and native born1 

Place of Birth Frequency Percent 

United States 28 42.4 

Mexico 15 22.7 

Mexico 23 34.8 

TOTAL 66 100.0 

<10 years in USA 

>11 years in USA 

1Missing cases: 66 

Table 3—Wilderness resource dilemma-norm1 

Moral Norm Frequency Percent 

Property - Public 25 33.3 

Property - Private 6 8.0 

Life Preservation 24 32.0 

Life Quality - Human 5 6.7 

Life Quantity-Environmental 3 4.0 

Affiliation 3 4.0 

Civil Rights 3 4.0 

Life Quantity - Human 2 2.7 

Rights of Nature 2 2.7 

Life Quality-Environmental 1 1.3 

Authority 1 1.3 

TOTAL 75 100.0 

1Missing cases: 15 

Table 4—Wilderness resource dilemma-element1 

Moral Element Frequency Percent 

Group Consequences - Human 29 39.7 

Group Consequences - Nature 12 16.4 

Having A Duty/No Duty 9 12.3 

Serving Ideal Social/Env Principle 7 9.6 

Reciprocity 5 6.8 

Individual Consequences - Human 4 5.5 

Intergenerational Equity 3 4.1 

Having A Right 2 2.7 

Obey/Consent From Authority 1 1.4 

Balancing Perspective 1 1.4 

TOTAL 73 100.0 

1Missing cases: 17 

Table 5a—Shortcut dilemma1 

Moral Norm Frequency Percent 

Authority 17 41.5 

Care 11 26.8 

Punishment 6 14.6 

Law 3 7.3 

Life Quality - Human 2 4.9 

Life Preservation - Human 1 2.4 

Affiliation 1 2.4 

TOTAL 41 100.0 

1Missing cases: 5 

Table 5b—Shortcut dilemma1 

Moral Element Frequency Percent 

Obey/Consent from Authority 3 7.5 

Having a Duty/No Duty 1 2.5 

Reward/Punishment 1 2.5 

Individual Consequences 27 67.5 

Group Consequences - Human 5 12.5 

Group Consequences - Nature 3 7.5 

TOTAL 40 100.0 

1Missing cases: 6 

Table 6—Norms used to decide structured dilemmas (general content categories) 

Norms Frequency Percent 

Life Preservation - Environmental 29 22.0 

Human Consequences 44 33.3 

Law/Authority 41 31.1 

Care 12 9.1 

Other 6 4.5 

TOTAL 132 100.0 

Table 7—Stage content of all structured dilemma responses1 

Stages Frequency Percent 

Stage 2 18 15.4 

Stage 2/3-3 39 33.3 

Stage 3/4-4 46 39.3 

Stage 4/5-5 14 12.0 

TOTAL 117 100.0 

1Missing cases: 45 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 53 
conventional reasoning, with 29.8 percent using stage 3 

reasoning and 46.3 percent using stage 4 reasoning. A small 

minority (19.4 percent) of respondents used more abstract 

post conventional reasoning in their arguments. 

A comparison of norms by stages is revealing despite 

the low expected frequencies of too many cells confounding 

the validity and interpretation of the chi square statistic 

(table 8). These data arefor the structured dilemmas with 

categories of norms collapsed to facilitate interpretation of 

the results. In general, ethical considerations for the 

environment were characteristic of both normative reasoning 

(stages 3 and 4) and principled reasoning (stage 5). More 

normative reasoning expressing concern for the human 

consequences of environmental conflicts is evident at the 

conventional stages (stage 3 and stage 4). The respondents 

classified at the low stage 2 or 3 level showed more concern 

for law and the roles of authority. The care orientation was 

most evident at stage 4. These results are consistent with 

theoretical expectations. 

Ethnic Differences 

Results of these preliminary findings were also 

examined in the context of the respondents ethnic heritage 

(table 9). The similarities in the ethnic groups’ responses 

Table 8—Norms used to decide structured dilemmas by respondents’ stage of reasoning1 

Stage of moral reasoning ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

NORM 2 2/3-3 3/4-4 4/5-5 Row total 

Life Preservation - Environmental 

Count 0 5 10 12 

Exp val 4.2 9.0 10.6 3.2 27 

Row pct 0.0 18.5 37.0 44.4 23.1 pct 

Col pct 0.0 12.8 21.7 85.7 

Human Consequences 

Count 3 13 22 0 

Exp val 5.8 12.7 14.9 4.5 38 

Row pct 7.9 34.2 57.9 0.0 32.5 

Col pct 16.7 33.3 47.8 0.0 

Law/Authority 

Count 15 18 5 1 

Exp val 6.0 13.0 15.3 4.7 39 

Row pct 38.5 46.2 12.8 2.6 33.3 

Col pct 83.3 46.2 10.9 7.1 

Care 

Count 0 1 9 1 

Exp val 1.7 3.7 4.3 1.3 11 

Pow pct 0.0 9.1 81.8 9.1 9.4 

Col pct 0.0 2.6 19.6 7.1 

Other 

Count 0 0 0 0 

Exp val 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 2 

Row pct 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 

Col pct 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

COLUMN TOTAL 

Exp val 18 39 46 14 117 

Row pct 15.4 33.3 39.3 12.0 100.0 

1› Chi-Square D.F. Significance Cells with E.F. < 5 

77.07647 12 .0000 12 of 20 (60%) 

Eta = .41397 Cramer’s V = .46861 

2 Rows of datas (top to bottom) 

Count 

Experimental Value 

Row (percent) 

Column (percent) 

54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
was very evident. The difference between the Hispanic and 

Anglo environmental ethical arguments was low. Both 

ethnic groups primarily favored conventional stages of 

reasoning and offered anthropocentric norms in stating 

their position. A measure of acculturation, was examined 

to explain these results (tables 9, 10 and 11). A significant 

difference was not found between native born respondents, 

Mexico-born respondents in the United States 10 years or 

less and Mexico-born respondents in the United States 

more than 10 years. On the basis of these limited findings, 

difference in environmental ethical reasoning among the 

ethnic grouping in this sample is not evident. However, to 

generalize these findings beyond the sample of forest visitors 

contacted in this study would require further investigation. 

Table 9—Foreign-born and native-born respondents1 

Value Label Frequency Percent Valid percent Cum. percent 

United States 28 21.2 42.4 42.4 

Mexico 15 11.0 22.7 65.2 

Mexico 23 17.4 34.8 100.0 

66.0 50.3 MISSING 

TOTAL 66 132.0 100.0 100.0 

<10 Yrs 

>11 Yrs 

1Valid cases: 66 Missing cases: 66 

Table 10— Stage of reasoning: Self dilemmas by birthplace &length of time in USA1 

Born in Mexico ___________________________________________________________________ 

Stage Born in U.S. In U.S. < 10 years In U.S. > 11 years Row total 

Stage 2 

Count 1 0 2 

Exp val 1.2 0.9 1.0 3 

Row pct 0.0 18.5 37.0 (6.8) 

Col pct 0.0 12.8 21.7 

Stage 2/3-3 

Count 4 5 4 

Exp val 5.0 3.8 4.1 13 

Row pct 30.8 38.5 0.8 (29.5) 

Col pct 23.5 38.5 28.6 

Stage 3/4-4 

Count 11 5 7 23 

Exp val 8.9 6.8 7.3 (52.3) 

Row pct 47.8 21.7 30.4 

Col pct 64.7 38.5 50.0 

Stage 4/5-5 

Count 1 3 1 5 

Exp val 1.9 1.5 1.6 (11.4) 

Row pct 20.0 60.0 20.0 

Col pct 5.0 23.1 7.1 

COLUMN TOTAL 

Exp val 17 13 14 44 

Row pct 38.6 29.5 31.8 (100.0) 

1› Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E.F. Cells with E.F. < 5 

5.84523 6 .4407 .886 8-12 (66) 

Eta = .17957 Cramer’s V = .25773 Number of Missing Observations = 118 

2 Rows of datas (top to bottom) 

Count 

Experimental Value 

Row (percent) 

Column (percent) 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 55 
Table 11— Stage of foreign-born and native-born respondent1 

Born in Mexico ___________________________________________________________________ 

Stage Born in U.S. In U.S. < 10 years In U.S. > 11 years Row total 

Stage 2 

Count 1 1 0 

Exp val 0.5 0.9 0.6 2 

Row pct 50.0 50.0 0.0 8.0 

Col pct 16.7 12.8 21.7 

Stage 2/3-3 

Count 1 2 4 

Exp val 1.7 3.1 2.2 7 

Row pct 14.3 28.6 57.1 28.0 

Col pct 16.7 18.2 50.0 

Stage 3/4-4 

Count 1 6 4 

Exp val 2.6 4.8 3.5 11 

Row pct 9.1 54.5 54.5 44.0 

Col pct 16.7 54.5 50.0 

Stage 4/5-5 

Count 3 2 0 

Exp val 1.2 2.2 1.6 5 

Row pct 60.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 

Col pct 50.0 18.2 0.0 

COLUMN TOTAL 

Exp val 6 11 8 25 

Row pct 24.0 44.0 32.0 100.0 

1› Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E.F. Cells with E.F. < 5 

8.93693 6 .1772 .480 12 of 12 (100.0 pct) 

Eta = .22308 Cramer’s V = .42277 Number of Missing Observations = 137 

2 Rows of datas (top to bottom) 

Count 

Experimental Value 

Row (percent) 

Column (percent) 

Conclusions 

The predominant norms used to resolve dilemmas were 

based on anthropocentric concerns. The most common norms 

mentioned were concerns for the human quality of life, 

authority, property, and preservation of human life. Although 

these patterns were consistent, the shortcut dilemma that 

involved discussion of rule infractions prompted more to 

resort to authority or law norms. 

The quartile results were all consistent with theoretical 

expectations of response distribution for a sample of adults. 

The most common stage of reasoning was stage 4 with stage 

3 being the second most common. Stage 5, or postconventional 

reasoning was more common than the stage 2, preconventional reasoning. 

The care orientation was found in some responses. 

This orientation was most commonly used by female 

respondents to resolve the shortcut dilemma as an expression 

of concern for the welfare and safety of others. This use of 

a care orientation would be more characteristic of stage 4 

reasoning than stage 3 reasoning. This finding is consistent 

with the literature originally critical of Kohlberg’s model 

and scoring procedures. 

Our qualitative study confirms the appropriateness of 

the methods in field interviews of a culturally diverse audience. 

Cross-cultural psychology literature supports this premise 

and suggests that the variability between samples of Hispanic 

or foreign born individuals would increase if we conducted 

worldwide samples in the interviews: the representatives of 

Hispanic culture could be more representative if the non-native 

born Hispanic sample included residents of Spain, Caribbean 

nations, Central and South America. 

The ethnicity variable should be identified as precisely 

as possible and the best operational measures should be 

identified to empirically test the efficacy of this methodology. 

Moreover, these results may not represent a consistent 

explanation of ethical values toward the natural environment 

or a theoretical developmental process. Our data cannot 

resolve this issue. 

56 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Future investigations on this subject might be to adopt 

a research design linking ethical reasoning with message 

comprehension and respondents behavior. In addition, 

cohort analysis and longitudinal data should be used to 

clarify the developmental process related to environmental 

ethical reasoning. 

References 

Carr, Deborah; Williams, Daniel R. 1993. Understanding the role of ethnicity 

in outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 25(1): 22-38. 

Christensen, H.H; Dustin, D.L. 1986. Reaching recreationists at different 

levels of human development. First National symposium on social 

science in resource management; 1986 May 12-16. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University. 

Colby, A. and others 1983. The measurement of moral judgment. A manual 

and its results. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Colby, A.; Kohlberg, L. 1987. The measurement of moral judgment. 

Volume I: theoretical foundations and research validation. New York: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Ewert, Alan; Pfister, Robert. 1991. Cross-cultural land ethics: motivations, 

appealing attributes, and problems. In: Sustaining conservation an 

international challenge: transactions of the 56th North American wildlife 

and natural resource conference; Wildlife Management Institute. March 

22-27. Edmonton, Alberta; 146-151. 

Ewert, Alan; Pfister, Robert. 1992. Changing forest recreation environments: 

the influence of demographics, culture, and ethnicity. In: Proceedings 

berichte comptes rendus actas. 52. Secretariat of the International 

Union of Forestry Research Organizations. 1992 August 31-September 

4; Berlin-Eberswalde, Germany; 52 p. 

Gilligan, C. 1977. In a different voice: women’s conceptions of the self 

and of morality. Harvard Educational Review. 47: 481-517. 

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s 

development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and sequence. In: Goslin ed. handbook of 

socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally. 

Kohlberg, L. 1976. Moral stages and moralization. In: Lickona, T. ed. 

Moral development and behavior: theory, research, and social issues. 

New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 

Kohlberg, L. 1981. Essays in moral development, Vol. 1: The philosophy 

of moral development. New York: Harper and Row. 

Kohlberg, L. 1984. Essays in Moral Development, Vol. II: The psychology 

of moral development. San Francisco: Harper and Row. 

Patridge, E. 1982. “Are we ready for an ecological morality?” Journal of 

Environmental Ethics. 4(2): 175-190 

Pfister, Robert E. 1994. “Ethnicity and environmental concerns.” In: 

Proceedings of leisure research symposium, academy of the leisure 

sciences. National Recreation and Park Association; October 19-21, 

San Jose, California. 

Simcox, David; Pfister, Robert. 1990. Hispanic values and behaviors related 

to outdoor recreation and the forest visitor. Contract Report for the 

Wildland and Urban Culture Research Project, Pacific Southwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 57 
Environmental Values, Ethics, and Depreciative Behavior 

in Wildland Settings1 

Dorceta E. Taylor Patricia L. Winter2 

Abstract: Preliminary results were examined from a self-administered questionnaire regarding the relationships between personal 

values, individual characteristics, and depreciative behaviors. Respondents were queried about socio-demographics, reasons for 

visiting forest recreation areas, reasons for liking and disliking the 

forest, activities witnessed while visiting the forest, activities and 

occurrences that bothered the respondent, depreciative behaviors 

engaged in, and suggested penalties. Interesting racial variations 

were revealed in several areas of inquiry. Findings are useful to 

resource managers and researchers seeking insight into depreciative behaviors. 

In recent decades, the Nation’s forests have been 

pressured by mining, logging, real estate, and recreational 

interests to develop forest lands in a variety of ways. The 

USDA Forest Service has had to work towards meeting 

and balancing the needs of the various interest groups 

while continuing to keep the organization’s goals and 

mission on track. 

Although many areas have been set aside for human 

use, including recreation, the impact of uses, particularly in 

urban proximate areas has been tremendous. These sites are 

accessible to large numbers of diverse people and have 

become quite popular because of their unusual beauty, and 

unique features and challenges (fig. 1). This popularity has 

resulted in noticeable signs of decline at some sites like trail 

damage, litter, damage to vegetation, noise, and overcrowding. 

Conflicts between user groups and between users and resource 

managers have also become more likely. 

Because these signs of decline eventually detract from 

the very characteristics that make natural areas pleasurable, 

and because the restoration involved to bring them back to 

their natural state is time-consuming, costly, and frustrating, 

the desire to understand behaviors leading to this decline has 

become of greater interest. 

We hypothesized that individual values affect environmental ethics, which in turn influence behavior at a recreation 

site. Personal characteristics and perception of the recreation 

site also influence behavior. Perhaps wildland areas are 

viewed as an urban extension rather than as forest or 

wilderness. A view of wildland areas as urban extensions 

1 An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2 Assistant Professor, School of Natural Resources, University of 

Michigan, 430 E. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; Research Social 

Scientist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 4955 

Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507. 

may cause visitors to engage in behaviors expected within a 

city, such as littering or tagging. These behaviors are 

detrimental in either setting, but are especially discordant 

with maintaining pleasurable natural areas. 

This paper examines the problem of forest decline by 

addressing the relationship between depreciative behavior 

and people’s perceptions or values about the forest. 

Methods 

A self-administered questionnaire was constructed 

for this study. Respondents were queried about sociodemographics, perceptions of recreation settings, personal 

values and behaviors, and recommended management 

interventions related to instances of depreciative behaviors. 

Forty-three respondents voluntarily completed the survey 

on-site. When the time for completion proved to be too 

cumbersome (an average of 30 minutes on-site), we switched 

to an on-site mini-survey with a delayed self-administered 

mail-back. Visitors in the mail-back portion of the study 

were asked to complete a brief survey requesting some 

socio-demographic information and their address for 

participation in a mail survey. Those who agreed to participate 

received the same questionnaire that had been used for the 

on-site survey respondents, along with a letter of explanation 

and a self-addressed stamped envelope. A postcard reminder 

was sent out one week after the mailing of the questionnaire 

packet, and a whole packet with questionnaire and return 

envelope was sent out to those who did not respond during 

the initial mailing periods. The final response rate for the 

mail-back survey was 44 percent, with many non-responses 

because of incorrect mailing addresses. An analysis comparing 

differences between on-site and mailed survey respondents 

showed a significant difference in education levels; however, 

other responses were not significantly different and the two 

pools of respondents were combined for this paper. 

Data were collected on weekends between July and 

September of 1993 on three southern California National 

Forests including the Los Padres (Pfeiffer Beach, Arroyo 

Seco Recreation Area and Santa Ynez Recreation Area), the 

Cleveland (Desert View and San Luis Rey), and the Angeles 

(Charlton Flat, Crystal Lake and Stoneyvale). A total of 308 

completed surveys were collected from visitors to those sites. 

Results 

Respondent Socio-Demographics 

Fifty-one percent of respondents were female, and 49 

percent were male. Ages ranged from 16 to 83 years old, 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 59 
Figure 1— Typical recreational use in one of southern California’s National Forest settings 

where study data was collected. 

with most being between 26 and 40 (48 percent). The majority 

were white (68 percent) and about one-fifth were Latino (18 

percent), one-tenth were Asian, and a small number were 

either Native-American or African-American (4 percent). 

Respondents were well-educated: 51 percent had at least 

some undergraduate college education, and 23 percent had 

attended graduate school. Information on occupation was 

grouped into four categories: management/professional, 

clerical/technical, laborer/service, and not employed 

(unemployed, retired, student). One third of the sample fell 

into the management/professional category, almost a quarter 

were in the clerical/technical category (24 percent), just 

over a quarter described themselves as not employed (27 

percent), and the remaining 16 percent were in laborer/ 

service jobs. 

Each respondent was asked to indicate which of 10 

income categories best described their annual household 

income. Twenty-one percent of the sample came from 

households with incomes of less than $20,000, 40 percent 

from households of $20,000 to $49,999, a quarter from 

households with incomes of $50,000 to $79,000, and the 

remaining 15 percent were from households with incomes of 

$80,000 or more. 

Reason for Visiting Recreational Area 

Respondents at the recreational area were asked to choose 

one reason that best described why they were visiting the 

area. Most respondents (22 percent) said they visited the 

area for the scenery/wildlife/being-in-the-forest while almost 

one-fifth said they visited for peace and quiet (table 1). 

60 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Table 1—Reasons for visiting the recreational area 

Reason to visit Percent 

Scenery, wildlife, being in the forest 22 

For peace and quiet 18 

For outdoor activities 15 

To rest and relax 14 

For get-togethers 12 

To camp 11 

Other 8 

Variations in the responses of the racial groups was 

interesting. While Native-Americans/African-Americans and 

whites were most likely to say that they visited the forest 

because of scenery and wildlife, Asians were most likely to 

visit to get together with family and friends, and Latinos 

were most likely to visit to camp. A third of all 

Native-Americans/African-Americans and a quarter of all 

whites visited for the scenery while one-fourth of all Asians 

visited the forest for get-togethers. One-fifth of the Latino 

respondents said they visited in order to camp. 

Reasons for Liking and Disliking the Forest 

Respondents were asked to list the three things they 

liked most and the three things they disliked most about the 

forest recreation area. Respondents listed scenery and the 

desire for peace and privacy as the main features they liked 

about the forest. Respondents also liked being outdoors, by 

the water, the trails, the accessibility of the forest, and the 

facilities in the forest. On the other hand, respondents listed 

inaccessibility, inadequate facilities, vandalism, and 

discomfort while in the forest as things they disliked about 

the forest (table 2). 

Similarly themed questions elicited different responses. 

For instance, although 9 percent liked the forest for its easy 

access, 17 percent disliked it for its inaccessibility; and 

although 6 percent liked the forest for its facilities, 14 percent 

disliked the forest for inadequate facilities. 

Scenery was the number one characteristic listed by all 

racial groups as reasons for liking the forest. Whites and 

Asians were about three times as likely to list access and 

about two times as likely to list peace/privacy than 

Native-Americans/African-Americans. The latter group was 

least likely to mention being outdoors as something they 

liked about the forest. Native-Americans/African-Americans 

were far more likely than other respondents to mention 

being by the water as something they liked about the forest 

(table 3). 

More than a third of the Latinos and Asians listed litter 

as a reason for disliking the forest. They were far more 

likely to list this reason than whites or Native-Americans/ 

African-Americans. Asians and Latinos were also more 

likely than other groups to list poor maintenance. Signs of 

overuse were listed most often by whites and NativeAmericans/African-Americans as a reason for disliking the 

forest (table 4). 

Depreciative Activities Witnessed by Respondents 

A list of 14 depreciative or socially distracting behaviors 

was provided to respondents, who were then asked to indicate 

whether they had witnessed or experienced the occurrence 

of any of the activities while recreating in the forest. With 

the exception of hunting or fishing in undesignated areas, 

constructing wading pools, and making barbecue or campfires 

in undesignated areas, more than half of the respondents 

reported seeing each of the activities listed in table 5. Litter 

was the most frequently observed condition. 

Activities and Occurrences That Bothered Respondents 

Respondents were provided with a list of 22 activities or 

occurrences that might be encountered in the forest. They 

were asked to indicate whether each bothered them a lot, a 

little, or not at all. Table 6 displays only those items which 

Table 2—Reasons for liking and disliking the forest1 

Reasons for liking the forest(pct)2 Reasons for disliking the forest(pct) 

Scenery 25 Out of place activity 26 

Peaceful/private 16 Litter/dirty 25 

Being outdoors 12 Inaccessibility 17 

Being by the water 9 Inadequate facilities 14 

Easy access 9 Vandalism 8 

Hiking/trails 6 Discomfort at site 7 

For the facilities 6 Signs of overuse 7 

For fresh air 6 Poor maintenance 3 

Exercise 5 Not enough wilderness 2 

Maintenance 4 

1

Number of respondents who liked the forest totalled 798; number of respondents who 

disliked the forest totalled 600. 2

Percents reflect multiple responses: each respondent could list three answers. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 61 
Table 3—Reasons for liking the forest offered by racial groups.1 

Native-Americans/ 

Reasons for liking the forest African-Americans Latinos Asians Whites 

-----------------------------------------percent2------------------------------

Scenery 36 25 31 24 

Peaceful/Private 9 13 17 17 

Being by the water 18 11 4 8 

Being outdoors 3 10 7 14 

For the facilities 9 11 8 4 

Easy access 3 5 8 10 

For fresh air 6 3 9 6 

Hiking/trails 3 7 4 7 

Exercise 6 5 4 4 

Maintenance 3 7 4 3 

Other 3 3 4 4 

1

Total number of respondents for each racial category: Native-American/African-American—33, 

Latinos—149, Asians—75, whites—541. 2

Percents reflect multiple responses: each respondent could list three answers. 

Table 4—Reasons for disliking the forest offered by racial groups.1 

Native-American/ 

Reasons for disliking the forest African-Americans Latinos Asians Whites 

----------------------------------------percent2-------------------------------

Litter/dirty 16 36 35 21 

Signs of over-use 21 18 21 28 

Inadequate facilities 16 14 14 14 

Feeling discomfort while at the site 16 7 7 6 

Inaccessibility of the area 21 4 3 7 

Out-of-place activities 5 9 7 10 

Vandalism 5 7 7 9 

Poor maintenance 0 5 5 3 

Not enough wilderness 0 2 2 2 

1

Number of respondents for each racial category was: Native-American/African-American—19, 

Latinos—106, Asians—58, whites 417. 2

Percents reflect multiple responses: each respondent could list three answers. 

50 percent or more of the respondent said bothered them a 

lot. The highest percentage of respondents were bothered by 

seeing spraypaint on rocks and trees, and by seeing litter on 

the trails or along the road (almost 90 percent each). 

Interestingly, 44 percent of the respondents said that seeing 

people smoking bothered them a lot, but only 29 percent 

were bothered a lot by seeing people drinking alcohol. 

Racial variations in activities and occurrences that 

bothered respondents a lot were not that noticeable, with the 

top three items selected being the same for all races including 

seeing spraypaint on rocks and trees, seeing litter on trails/ 

along the road, and seeing litter at picnic sites (table 7). 

Ninety-five percent of whites claimed that they were bothered 

a lot by litter on the trails or roads, and 90 percent were 

bothered by litter at picnic sites. These percentages are 

higher than that reported by any other group of respondents. 

Whites were also more than two times as likely as 

Native-Americans/African-Americans to report they were 

bothered a lot by loud music. 

Asians were much less likely than other groups to say 

large crowds in the recreational area or many people on the 

trails bothered them a lot. For instance, they were about 

three times less likely than others to say that seeing many 

people on the trails bothered them and two times less likely 

than whites to be bothered by large crowds in the forest. 

Although high percentages of respondents were bothered a 

lot by seeing evidence of spray painting, Asians were the 

least likely to report being bothered a lot by it. 

62 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Table 5—Activities and occurrences witnessed or experienced in the forest 

Activities Percent 

Litter at picnic sites/along the road 83 

Carvings on trees 75 

Other recreators making loud noises 71 

Other recreators playing loud music 68 

Other recreators walking dogs without a leash 68 

Paintings, graffiti on rocks 67 

Writing on the walls of the toilets 64 

Cars parked on the grass or other no-parking areas 55 

Others walking around on areas without trails 50 

Tree branches used for barbecue fires 50 

Other recreators making wading pools in the river 39 

Barbecue/campfires in undesignated areas 38 

Other recreators fishing in undesignated areas 18 

Other recreators hunting in undesignated areas 14 

Table 6—Activities or occurrences that bothered respondents. 

Activity or occurrence Percent 

Spraypaint on rocks and trees 90 

Litter on trails/along the road 89 

Litter at picnic sites 86 

Evidence of barbecues/campfires in undesignated areas 58 

Trampled plants 57 

People picking flowers, plants, or catching animals 55 

On the other hand, Asians were five times more likely 

than Native-Americans/African-Americans to report that they 

were bothered a lot by seeing someone smoking. They were 

also twice as likely as Native-Americans/African-Americans 

to report being bothered by other recreationists’ laughter. In 

addition, Asians were more than twice as likely as other 

respondents to be bothered a lot by people walking or wading 

in the river, seeing evidence of trail damage, dogs playing in 

the river and dogs unleashed. Latinos were more likely than 

any other group to report that they were bothered a lot by 

seeing picnic tables in need of repairs, while NativeAmericans/African-Americans were more likely than any 

other group to report being bothered by seeing trampled 

plants (table 7). 

Activities That Respondents or Members of Their Party 

Engage In 

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they or any 

member of their party engaged in any of the activities listed 

in Table 8 while recreating in the forest. Almost 40 percent 

of the respondents reported that they or members of their 

party walked around forested areas that had no trails, more 

than 20 percent reported that they or others in their party 

walked a dog without a leash and 20 percent reported making 

loud noises. Less than five percent reported painting or 

writing graffiti on rocks, hunting in undesignated areas, 

carving on trees, writing on bathroom walls, or fishing in 

unauthorized areas (table 8). 

Racial variations in these activities were also of interest. 

Although Latinos were the group most likely to report picking 

up litter at picnic sites (fig. 2) and Asians the group most 

likely to report that they look for a cleaner spot to recreate, 

or leave the forest if it was littered (table 9), these two 

groups were far more likely to report that they or members 

of their party had left litter at a picnic site or along the road. 

Respondents’ Interventions 

Respondents were asked to say whether they engaged in 

any one of 16 actions/interventions while visiting the forest. 

The majority had picked up litter at picnic sites (90 percent) 

and looked for a cleaner spot to recreate (73 percent). About 

a third had left the forest because of crowding (44 percent), 

asked another recreator to stop making noise (33 percent), 

and asked another recreator to stop littering (31 percent). 

Very few (15 percent) had called the police or a ranger. 

Differences between the Asian subsample and the rest 

of the respondents were striking. Although most respondents 

reported that they picked up litter at picnic sites, Asians 

were far less likely to report taking such actions (65 percent 

Table 7—Activities/occurrences that bothered respondents by race. 

Native-American/ 

Reasons for disliking the forest African-Americans Latinos Asians Whites 

---------------------------------------percent1-------------------------------

Spraypaint on rocks and trees 92 83 71 94 

Litter at picnic sites 83 80 77 90 

Litter along trails/roads 75 79 74 95 

Barbecues/campfires in undesignated sites 58 56 63 57 

People picking flowers/plants/catching animals 58 44 45 59 

Trees with broken branches 50 46 43 49 

1

Only the first six highest percentage categories were listed, and at least 50 percent of one racial group was bothered 

a lot by the activity or occurrence. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 63 
Table 8—Activities engaged in by respondents or members of their party 

while visiting the forest. 

Activities Percent 

Walked around forested areas that have no trails 37 

Walked a dog without a leash 23 

Made loud noises 20 

Parked cars on grass or other no-parking areas 16 

Made wading pools in the river 14 

Used tree branches for barbecue fires 14 

Played loud music 11 

Made barbecue or camp fires in undesignated areas 8 

Left litter at a picnic site or along the road 8 

Fished in unauthorized areas 4 

Wrote on the walls of the toilets 4 

Made carvings on trees 4 

Hunted in unauthorized areas 3 

Put paintings, graffiti on rocks 3 

versus 91 to 94 percent). This is even more interesting when 

one notes that Asians were far more likely than other groups 

to ask forest rangers about litter pick-up (29 percent versus 

14 to 19 percent for others), to look for cleaner spots to 

recreate (81 percent versus 70 to 73 percent), and to leave 

the forest because of litter, noise, crowding, drinking, or fear 

of violence. Almost half of all Asians reported leaving the 

forest because of litter. Asians were the least likely of all the 

other racial groups to approach other recreators and ask 

them to stop littering, making noise, drinking, or smoking. 

Despite the finding that Asians visited the forest for 

get-togethers with family and friends (26 percent) and were 

less likely than others to be bothered a lot by crowds at the 

recreation site or by many people on the trails (19 and 7 

percent respectively), they were most likely to leave the 

forest because of crowding (52 percent). This finding suggests 

that Asians are leaving the forest to go elsewhere to find a 

place to recreate with their families and friends. 

Latinos were most likely to report picking up litter at the 

picnic site (95 percent), yet they were the least likely to look 

for a cleaner spot to recreate (70 percent versus 72 to 81 

percent for others). Latinos were far more likely to ask 

others to stop drinking, smoking, spraypainting, and cutting 

down trees and branches. 

Suggested Penalties for Engaging in Depreciative 

Behaviors 

Respondents were provided with a list of 17 activities 

which might occur in the forest, and were asked to indicate 

which penalties should be applied to the perpetrator. Penalties 

included paying a fine, being asked to leave the forest, 

receiving a verbal warning, arrest, and watching a forest 

Figure 2— Young man depositing litter at trash can in recreational area that is part of this study. 

64 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Table 9—Activities engaged in by respondents or members of their party while visiting the forest. 

Native-Americans/ 

Activities African-Americans Latinos Asians Whites 

----------------------------------------percent-----------------------------

Walked around forested areas that have no trails 42 28 21 42 

Walked a dog without a leash 18 24 7 25 

Made loud noises in the forest 25 18 7 21 

Made wading pools in the river 18 15 21 13 

Parked cars on the grass or other no-parking areas 9 2 14 15 

Used tree branches for barbecue fires 8 20 10 13 

Made barbecue or campfires in undesignated areas 17 9 10 7 

Left litter at picnic sites or along the road 0 11 0 3 

Fished in authorized areas 0 11 3 2 

Put paintings/graffiti on rocks 0 9 4 1 

Made carvings on trees 0 11 0 2 

Wrote on the walls of toilets 0 11 0 2 

Hunted in unauthorized areas 0 11 3 2 

2

conservation film. Respondents clearly considered some 

activities more deserving of serious penalties than others. 

Verbal warnings and fines seemed to be the most agreed 

upon consequences in many cases (table 10). 

Differences between the Asian subsample and the rest 

of the respondents on this section of the questionnaire were 

striking. Asians were the group least likely to say there 

should be no penalty for collecting fallen branches and twigs 

to make barbecues or campfires (40 percent versus 52 to 58 

percent). Asians were more likely than others to say that 

visitors should be fined for 14 of the 17 activities listed, in 

some instances they were three to four times more likely to 

suggest a fine. They were slightly less likely to suggest a 

fine for only three activities: carving/spraypainting, breaking 

tree branches, and lighting campfires/barbecues in 

undesignated areas. 

Table 10—Respondents suggesting penalties for forest visitors engaging in depreciative/socially annoying activities. 

Activity None Fine Leave Forest Verbal Warning Arrest Watch Film 

------------------------------------------percent of visitors1

-----------------------------------------

Throwing garbage on trails/roads 63 14 11 

Playing loud music 27 59 

Carving/spray- painting trees 45 13 33 

Spraypainting rocks 44 13 33 

Breaking off branches 29 17 34 12 

Parking or driving unauthorized area 33 14 45 

Walking on young plants 14 11 44 24 

Picking or remove plants/animals 34 16 22 18 

Lighting barbecue/ fire in undesig. 45 16 22 

Camping/picnicking in undesig. area 22 17 49 

Collecting fallen branches/twigs 53 28 

Hanging hammocks from trees 45 41 

Fishing in undesig. area 42 39 

Swimming in undesig. area 20 61 

Loud/rowdy behavior 47 

Making wading pools 17 11 56 

Walking dogs without a leash 18 22 51 

1

Percentages are provided only when they are equal to, or greater than 10 percent. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 65 
Asians were also more likely than others to suggest that 

visitors be expelled from the forest for playing loud music, 

walking on plants, lighting campfires or barbecues in 

undesignated areas, collecting twigs/branches for barbecues 

or campfires, swimming in undesignated areas, and walking 

dogs without leashes. 

In contrast, Latinos were more likely than other groups to 

suggest a verbal warning for playing loud music, walking on 

plants, picking or removing plants or animals, making campfires 

or barbecues in undesignated areas, fishing or swimming in 

undesignated areas, engaging in loud or rowdy behavior, and 

making wading pools. For many of the activities, whites were 

the group most likely to suggest the offender watch a forest 

conservation film (suggested for nine of the activities by 

between 5 and 26 percent of the white respondents). 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Although the results of our survey are preliminary, they 

do indicate a relationship between people’s values about the 

forest, and their personal perceptions of the recreation site, 

and depreciative behavior. The findings show that visitor’s 

reasons for visiting the forest--such as enjoyment of scenery 

and natural areas--are similar. Most respondents also liked 

and disliked the same aspects of the forests. But perhaps of 

greatest interest was the reporting of actions engaged in, and 

respondents reactions to them. Racial variations were much 

greater in these areas of inquiry. 

Racial affiliation was found to be an important factor in 

reactions to depreciative acts, as well as perceptions of 

appropriate agency intervention. The willingness of some 

groups to admit leaving litter may reveal something worthy 

of further investigation. For instance, because Latinos and 

Asians were most likely to admit leaving litter, they either 

were much more likely to do so, or more likely to admit to it. 

But because our data was obtained from a survey, some 

respondents may not have accurately reported actions and 

potential reactions to depreciative behaviors. Thus, future 

research should include other independent variables so that 

more insight and understanding can be obtained about 

depreciative behaviors and informed strategies of intervention 

can be implemented. 

66 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Ecology is a White Man’s Problem1

Francisco P. Valenzuela2 

Abstract: A synthesis of statements and research is presented on 

different minority communities, and a response to the statement 

that “ecology is a white man’s problem” is examined. These characterizations provide insight into why ecology may be perceived 

as a “white man’s problem.” The common themes are then used to 

develop several suggested agency responses. These actions can 

help to make ecology or ecosystem management more relevant to 

minority communities and in turn foster more widely based acceptance and support. 

Ecology is indeed a “white man’s problem” if it primarily 

benefits white men. A “white man’s” ecology or ecosystem 

management is a problem in a diverse society. It is a social 

problem if its solution raises questions of inequity and, 

through self-interest, divides and excludes classes and 

“minority groups” in our society. A limited definition of the 

problem and solution to ecology or ecosystem management 

problems may be better thought of as: “ecology, the luxury 

of white men”. If the pressing problem of ecology neglects 

the poor and those who do not have access to natural areas, 

then ecology is the concern of only a minority. 

In a recent poll, Americans considered hazardous waste, 

solid waste, and garbage the most important environmental 

issues (NBC News 1991). Ecosystem management as often 

defined by the USDA Forest Service may miss the mark 

because the expressed concerns of ecosystem management 

are distant from the every day concerns of most Americans, 

and very far from the minds of most of the poor. National 

environmental organizations also neglect the needs of 

minorities and their agenda often conflicts with the interests 

of the poor. They have few minority group members on their 

staffs or boards of directors (Steinhart 1991) 

At a meeting in southern California, the resource managers 

estimated that 70 percent or more of their visitors were from 

minority populations and almost 100 percent were from urban 

areas (Chavez 1992). In Lincoln Park in Chicago, USDA 

Forest Service researchers found that park users interviewed 

identified with 25 different ethic groups. Conflicts in park 

setting issues—from discrimination to park equity—can 

generate anger and physical violence, and result in user 

displacement or non-use by some groups (Gobster 1992). 

To understand the perspective of minority groups that 

ecology is a “white man’s problem,” characterizations for 

five major groups were constructed. These characterizations 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Recreation Team Leader, Eastern Region, USDA Forest Service, 310 

West Wisconsin Ave., Room 500, Milwaukee, WI 53203. 

are a synthesis of past statements of several outspoken 

representatives from a few major minority group, and a 

distillation of relevant research. The characterizations were 

developed as a communication device to bring together many 

related issues and help create better understanding on the 

part of the listener. They bring together differing values and 

world views to expose the thinking behind what seems like 

unreasonable statements to many mainstream audiences. 

This paper offers first-person characterizations of the 

perspectives of five minority groups responding to the 

statement that ecology is a “white man’s problem. 

Perspectives of Different Minority Groups 

The following five characterizations are generalizations, and do not represent the opinions of all members of 

the five groups: 

A Native American Responds 

Ecology is a problem for white men. They worry about 

losing a snail and yet they have destroyed the Native American 

cultures and in some cases have committed genocide (Sale 

1990). White men still are destroying our culture by deigning 

to us our own land and our own wildlife use rights. Yet we 

are still here. Already more than a third of the North American 

Continent has indigenous people as its majority populations 

(Anthony 1993). Indigenous people, who number about 300 

million today, are the traditional guardians of the law of the 

Mother Earth, a code of conservation inspired by a universally 

held belief that the source of all life is the earth, the mother of 

all creation (Martin 1993). We are not part of and do not wish 

to be part of the mainstream of America (LaDuke 1993). 

An Onondaga clan mother has spoken on the white 

man’s word ‘nature’: “there is no word for ‘nature’ in my 

language. In English, it seems to refer to that which is 

separate from human beings. It is a distinction we don’t 

recognize.” (Shenandoah 1991). Native people consider 

themselves part of nature. There’s no separation, like the 

one that necessarily exits in the industrial mind. The challenge 

faced by environmentalists is to de-colonize their industrial 

minds (LaDuke 1993). We still depend on the earth to care 

for us, we are saddened by the loss of salmon to cool office 

buildings in the dead cities. We have a relationship with 

nature, we need our hunting and fishing rights. We need to 

protect our sacred lands. The Lakota and other plains Indian 

tribes see the Black Hills as the heart of the earth mother. 

Large mining corporations see them as a place to mine 

uranium for electrical power and weapons (Swan 1986). 

Your parks and reserves were often our lands. To us, 

these parks were created for white men, who can still hunt in 

the parks, who can go into parks and do whatever they want 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 67 
(Hanson and Ngankam 1993). You want to take both our land 

and culture. Your historian, Francis Parkman noted that if the 

Indian would not “learn the arts of civilization, he and his 

forest must perish together” (Frontenac 1915) That has been 

our history with you, why should we think it will change? 

Why is it that you try to teach us ecology? Original 

forest inhabitants and pastoralists had never heard of 

conservation. But their culture and way of life depended 

on it, embodied it. Their life meant conservation (Martin 

1993). The first Americans were indeed the first ecologists 

(Martin 1987). 

White man places the burden of his ways on us. In the 

Four Corners we live in the pollution of giant coal burning 

power plants. The hunting people, the Cree in Northern 

Quebec, have paid a great price for hydroelectric development 

in the region. Now, two-thirds of the total Cree population, 

about 9,800 individuals, have mercury levels that exceed the 

World Health Organization’s safe limits (Rhaphals 1992). 

While they struggle to survive, your culture’s animal rights 

groups fight the traditional animal trapping that their culture 

depend on. They also have a deep love of animals (Alexander 

1993). But, live downwind of nuclear test sites. Fifteen of 

the 18 Federal research grants for Monitored Retrievable 

Storage Facilities (for nuclear wastes) went to Indian 

reservations (LaDuke 1993). Why is this? 

An Inner City African American Responds 

I wanted to walk through the redwoods, but I was afraid. 

Maybe this fear was self-imposed or it was fed by hints both 

subtle and overt? My timidity is colored by, I believe, our 

experience of racism and sexism in the nation. We fear 

people along the way (White 1991). 

Many of us, due to the historical effects of slavery, 

learned to hate the land. It was a place of sweat and pain. 

Then there was the post-slavery segregation, we were limited 

in our outdoor recreation pursuits. Racial incidents were 

pervasive during the 1930’s and 1940’s. They would say, 

put all colored off the beach. I remember as a child being 

driven away by a group of white children when trying to 

swim at a local lake. Recreation was not safe for us. Your 

natural areas were not meant for us (Taylor 1989). Even 

now discrimination affects 1 in 10 of the minority users at 

Lincoln Park in Chicago (Gobster 1992). 

In the 1960s we were involved in civil rights and perceived 

the environmental movement as a white thing. When we 

visited your environmental groups we found that differences 

in social backgrounds made things difficult and uncomfortable, 

fellowship was hard and you didn’t seem to care about the 

community (Taylor 1989). You do not represent our concerns. 

There is a lot of talk in this country about recreation, 

about parks, about playgrounds, and camping sites. If you 

are rich, if you have got wheels, if you aren’t trapped by 

shanties or slums, maybe all that talk means something to 

you. But to the poor people of America, you might as well be 

talking about trips to the moon (Aberty 1968). If black 

Americans were as likely as whites to take vacations, the 

number of adult vacationers would swell by more than 2.8 

million. We go on about half as many overnight trips as 

whites (Simmons Market Research Bureau 1993). Poor people 

of color in the cities use up to 35 percent of our income to 

purchase energy; renters get none of the incentives to 

weatherize their homes, but we are stuck with big heating 

bills. We have a hard time affording to go visit these far 

away places (Anthony 1993). 

The Commission for Racial Justice in 1993 found that 

the single most significant factor in the siting of 

hazardous-waste facilities nationwide was race. The National 

Law Journal found that the Environmental Protection Agency 

took 20 percent longer to identify superfund sites in minority 

communities, and that polluters of those neighborhoods were 

fined only half as much as polluters of white communities 

(Sierra 1993). 

For example, in Emelle, Alabama, located in the heart 

of west Alabama’s economically impoverished “Black Belt,” 

African-Americans make up more than 90 percent of the 

rural communities. Emelle is home to Chemical Waste 

Management’s hazardous waste land fill, the Nation’s largest 

hazardous waste dump. Public opposition began after 

residents discovered the new job-generating industry was 

not a brick factory (as was rumored) but a toxic waste dump 

(Bullard 1990). 

If you want us to support your ecological concerns, then 

you need to support our values (Taylor 1990). 

Our guiding principle is that our work must be done 

from a grassroots perspective, and it must be multiracial and 

multicultural; it is a movement for justice. Social justice 

movements often leave spirituality out, but the environmental 

justice movement holds spirituality as a very key element. 

The denial of racism in this country perpetuates it. We 

should be impatient with justice: if you really want to conserve 

the earth, then join the environmental justice movement; this 

is the movement that is going to constrain the destroyers of 

the earth, because the destroyers of the environment are the 

destroyers of our communities (Chavis 1993). 

A Woman Responds 

As a woman and a feminist and ecological radical feminist 

I am angry. I am mad that the powerful white males and their 

corporate America has raped Mother Nature. But I have 

hope that as women rediscover their instinctual selves and 

their bonds with nature and gain an equal footing with men 

that we can begin to heal the earth. Rachel Carson thought 

that loving the world was what science had to be about. That 

is essential to love the world before you understand it. She 

knew it would be dangerous to undertake understanding 

without that love, as well as love’s classy child—awe—and 

its everyday child responsibility (Paley 1990). We seek a 

renewed stirring of love for the earth (Newhall 1961). 

The control of nature is a phrase conceived in arrogance, 

born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy, 

when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience 

of man (Carson 1962). Environmental issues are women’s 

68 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
issues, for women sicken, starve, and die from toxins, droughts, 

and famines. Their capacity to bear new life is threatened by 

pollution. They bear the brunt of care for the sick and dying, 

as well as for the next generation (Starhawk 1990). For 

ecologists and feminists the earth’s house and the human 

house are habitats to be cherished. The home, where women 

and children spend much of their time, is no longer a haven 

(Merchant 1985). Do most ecologist care about the 

environmental safety of our homes? 

The themes of some feminist writers parallel the ultimate 

norms and principles of deep ecology. The “Age of Ecology” 

was started by a woman who cared and wrote the book Silent 

Spring (Carson 1962). 

Environmental issues cannot be intelligently approached 

without the perspectives of women, the poor, and those who 

come from other parts of the globe, as well as those of all 

races and cultural backgrounds (Starhawk 1990). This male 

dominated culture is an earth-alienated culture. We need to 

have rituals in earth bonding (LaChapelle 1985). We need to 

acknowledge the power, authority, and mystery of nature 

(Starhawk 1990). In each of us is a wild woman who can run 

with the wolves (Estés 1992). 

A Hispanic Responds 

For centuries, people of color in our region have been 

subjected to racist and genocidal practices, including the 

theft of lands and water, the murder of innocent people, and 

the degradation of our environment. Your organizations 

continue to support and promote policies that emphasize the 

cleanup and preservation of the environment on the backs of 

working people in general and people of color in particular 

(Moore 1993). 

Where my brother lives in Los Angeles, it’s bad—just 

about every type of toxic fume is experienced there. 

Prevailing winds are toward East Los Angeles, so every 

night we have more than our share of impacts from the 

freeways and industries (Villalobos 1991). The root of the 

race gap is class difference—often minorities or recent 

immigrants experience the government as oppressive. They 

have little experience of political institutions working for 

them (Steinhart 1991). We often forget that there are more 

than 60 million people of color in the United States; soon 

we aren’t going to be “minorities” anymore (Anthony 1993). 

The days when others determined our environmental future 

are over (Mauro 1991). 

Who is it you are advocating for? In New Mexico, 

where I’ve lived 25 years now, there has been a history of 

problems and conflicts between our communities and 

environmental organizations. We’re talking about land issues, 

water issues, regulations that environmental organizations 

have been pushing forward—for protection of who? for 

what? If it’s for the protections of us then why haven’t we 

been involved in it? If it is to protect our interests, then bring 

us to the table, because we do very fine at protecting our own 

interests. The Sierra Club has been responsible and a 

co-conspirator in attempting to take away resources from 

our communities (Moore 1993). 

Perhaps the greatest obstacle facing minority communities 

fighting for change was the fact we saw environmental 

problems as luxury issues. The environmental movement 

was full of hippies, middle-class housewives, and crazy 

white people tying themselves to redwood trees (Rivera 

1991). How can a poor black or Hispanic mother living near 

a hazardous waste incinerator be concerned about saving the 

spotted owl? Minorities realize that the environmental health 

issue is a civil rights issue (Moore 1993). Issues of the 

environmental destruction are issues of our long-term survival 

(Sierra 1993). 

A Poor Appalachian Family Responds 

Rural America is in the final days of a profound 

transformation. Appalachian whites that once worked the 

land are now dispossessed. Although most people perceive 

racial minorities as distinct groups, they do not usually act 

like groups. Instead, like other people, each individual member 

makes decisions based on his best solutions to his own 

problems. What racial minorities in rural areas do share 

consistently is a common profile of poverty and deprivation. 

We are particularly vulnerable to economic and social changes. 

For two decades we have been reluctantly selling our lands 

and moving away (Deloria 1993). 

Rural minorities are frequently fearful as well as 

distrustful of an outside authority, and may be afraid to 

challenge outsiders. That leaves us in a very vulnerable 

position. It is easy for the majority to perpetuate feelings of 

helplessness and inevitability in minority communities that 

keep them at the bottom of the social and economic pyramid. 

The cost may be protection of the affluent majority’s lust for 

recreational health obliterating the rural minorities’ security 

in the next two decades (Deloria 1984). 

People aren’t choosing between jobs and the environment; 

they’re choosing between death—their jobs are killing them— 

and unemployment. It’s a sick choice (Douglas 1993). We 

depend on the land. Our land is poor and has been abused. 

Now we are losing what is left. You do not seem to care 

about us. We seem less important than a rare fern. 

In Reply 

These five responses contain many similar threads that 

could be developed into a more inclusive model of ecosystem 

management. A model that includes many different 

communities of interest can generate greater public support 

for ecology in ecosystem management. 

The first key to inclusion is the acceptance that other 

groups have valid environmental and ecological concerns 

and that these concerns are also the concern of the land 

manager. Each of the groups characterized expressed concern 

about the environment but not without reference to their 

group’s quality of life and freedom for self determination. In 

our political environment, the activities of the government 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 69 
require the support of groups outside the current main stream 

of the environmental movement. Clearly, minority communities 

are increasing their political mobilization on environmental 

issues (Taylor 1990). Land managers should consider the 

group’s world view even if it may differ from the mainstream. 

Do not dismiss it in the planning process. Avoid setting up 

win/lose value conflicts but instead act to find mutual goal 

attainment in an atmosphere of respect for these differing 

values. Do not trade off the importance of a community’s 

environmental health against the health of distant ecosystems; 

both of these should be considered important. 

The second key is the inclusion of the human dimension 

in the ecosystem management framework. Positive work in 

this area is taking place by the National Task Force on the 

Human Dimension. The task force expanded the definition to 

include ecological survival values. It proposes the use of 

Maslow’s hierarchy of motivational needs (Maslow 1968) to 

help understand the community level relationship to the 

demands from the National Forest system. This is useful 

because it expands the understanding of the human’s 

community relationship to ecological processes to include 

physiological needs. The poor and minority groups are also 

concerned about these higher level needs (Taylor 1990). Also 

this view of motivation leaves out an analysis of the barriers 

between concern and ability to take action to meet those 

needs. An inner-city poor may have met his lower level 

needs, but may also desire relaxation at the distant forest; he 

may be unable to take action, however, because of many 

factors such as fear, or lack of knowledge or transportation. 

Also this model is based on a value system or world view not 

accepted by all. 

All people and culture should be included in decisions 

regarding integral elements of the ecosystem. As planners 

define the ecological communities and the desired future 

condition of these communities, the human element must be 

part of that definition. The kind of relationships and benefits 

for human cultures should be explicit. 

The third key to an inclusive model of ecosystem 

management is the active pursuit of involvement by the 

minority or underprivileged community. This involvement 

needs to include education, dialogue, and information 

exchange focused on enabling groups to become engaged in 

land planing processes. This goal may require extensive 

out-reach. Part of this effort also requires that the organizations 

undergo change and diversify the cultural background of the 

decision-makers; employees with greater diversity of values 

should be sought, and long-term value investments should 

be made in diversity. 

A recent outstanding example of local involvement 

occurred between the Chequamegon National Forest and the 

Lac du Flambeau, Red Cliff, and Lac Courte Oreilles Bands 

of Lake Superior Chippewa. A memorandum of understanding 

was signed between the groups to promote increased 

cooperation and understanding of ecosystem management. 

The Tribe Bands stated, “Whereas the forest and waters that 

make up the Chequamegon National Forest have provided 

for the spiritual and physical needs of the Potawatomi, Cree, 

Winnebego, Lakota (Sioux), and the Anishinabe (Chippewa 

or Ojibwe) people for thousands of years....the original people 

believe all life is sacred and the woods are filled with 

consciousness, ... Since people are dependent upon all creation, 

we must live with and respect the earth and all living things.” 

The Forest Service goes on to say, “It is the intention of the 

parties to this Agreement to Strive for Balance, Equity, 

Respect, and Harmony Between People and Environment 

across interests, across regions, and across generations by 

sustaining the land community, meeting this generation’s 

needs and maintaining options for those generations who 

will follow in our footprints.” 

Finally, recreation, interpretation, and environmental 

education play a special role in providing a portal to direct 

experience of the non-human world. Agencies need to be 

active in providing greater institutional accommodations 

through not only physical design but through information 

systems as well. Agencies need to provide culturally diverse 

recreational and interpretation opportunities. Recreation 

should be emphasized that supports the cultural values of 

different groups and provides opportunities for people to get 

close to nature. Interpretation should address the concerns 

and issues of different groups. Relevant as the audience 

understands it or discovers it in the message is basic to 

interpretation (Tilden 1957) but may be confused by the 

internal agency understanding of relevancy. 

An excellent example of a systematic approach to 

relevancy occurred during the development of a visitor center 

interpretive plan on the Caribbean National Forest in Puerto 

Rico. A team of specialists in psychology, sociology, 

anthropology and resource management carried out field 

observations and interviewed local and international visitors. 

This included a series of short, open-ended interviews for 

target groups followed by probing questions to elicit more 

information on different aspects of the interface between 

visitors and the local forest, or employees and visitors. The 

study also provided information on visitors’ existing 

knowledge, cultural themes, and information needs associated 

with the development of a visitor center (Valdes 1992). 

Interpreters could be considered as ambassadors of the 

non-human world. Interpreters help communication between 

the non-human community and the human community. The 

lack of direct experience and communion between human 

and the non-human is hazardous. It can promote a public that 

is uncaring about the non-human world as well as a public 

not grounded in the ecological realties of life and the abilities 

of the non-human world to survive in harmony with the 

needs of humankind. To become true community members, 

people need to understand that their citizenship involves the 

stewardship of the non-human world (Snyder 1994). Agencies 

need to be actively involved in creating an inclusive view of 

providing service to all and instilling the responsibilities of 

stewardship in all the citizens. 

70 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Conclusion 

This paper treads on two sensitive areas. One is the 

problem of generalization about “minority groups” and 

speaking for them, and the other is an increasingly common 

generalization and attack on “white men.” The first was 

tread carefully. The second was not. In the general media, 

expressions of a hard-edged race and gender ideology (Leo 

1993) have become common. There is a need to recognize 

that this serves very little purpose and is misleading. First 

of all, many different ethnic groups comprise the group 

‘white men’ and many are not affluent nor privileged. By 

the year 2050, the nonwhite, non-Hispanic population will 

still only comprise about 25 percent of the U.S. population. 

Thus, divisions along race and ethnic lines most likely will 

not best serve these groups. Blame may relieve stress, but 

it is also disempowering and depressing (Andrews 1987). 

Minority groups need to empower themselves and work 

with the majority. The majority need to understand that to 

act to improve the environment for all and protect the 

rights of the minority benefits everyone. Mahatma Gandhi 

said, “No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive.” 

Likewise ecology or ecosystem management can not protect 

the natural ecosystems if it fails to include the concerns of 

the diverse publics. 

Public land managers, communicators, and researchers 

have a responsibility to provide public service to all. 

Government land managers need to understand the concerns 

of different groups and the results of their management 

decisions on these groups. Managers need to take on the 

challenge to provide and actively encourage greater access to 

planning and decision-making processes. The government 

needs to actively create not only greater institutional 

accommodation for these concerns and needs as expressed 

by these ‘minority groups,’ but participation in public education 

as well. The ideal is not a parental relationship toward minority 

groups but participation in the empowerment of these groups. 

Land managers are stewards of every one’s resources and 

need to consider their decisions in that light. 

Acknowledgments 

I thank John Dwyer and others at the research station in 

Chicago for providing the majority of the research papers. I 

also thank Linda Hecker in the USDA Forest Service’s 

Rocky Mountain Regional Office for providing the 

encouragement and title for this paper, and I thank Dorceta 

Taylor for her insightful research. 

References 

Aberty, Ralph. 1968. Under-representation and over-representation in 

outdoor recreation: who gets what and why? In: Dustin, D.L., ed. 

Justice in outdoor Recreation Resource Allocation. 

Alexander, Bryan. 1993. The Cree, gifts from the North Wind. Kemf, 

Elizabeth, ed. The law of the mother: protecting indigenous people in 

protected areas. Sierra Club Books. 

Andrews, Lewis, M. 1987. To thine own self be true. Doubleday. 

Anthony, Carl. 1993. A place at the table: A Sierra roundtable on race, 

justice, and the environment. Earth Island Institute. 

Bullard, Robert D. 1990. The quest for environmental equity: mobilizing 

the African-American community for social change. Society and Natural 

Resources Vol. 3 

Carson, Rachel 1962. Silent Spring. 

Chavis, Benjamin. 1993. A place at the table: A Sierra roundtable on race, 

justice, and the environment. 

Chavez, Deborah J. 1992. Environmental education: teaching land ethics 

that value diversity. Trends 28(3): 9-11. 

Delores, LaChapelle. 1985. Devall, B.; ed. Deep ecology. 

Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1984. Minority report: what has happened to blacks, 

Hispanics, American Indians, and other minorities in the eighties. Land 

and Natural Resources. 

Devall, Bill; Sessions, George 1985. Deep ecology. 

Douglas, Scott. 1993. A place at the table: A Sierra roundtable on race, 

justice, and the environment. 

Estés, Pinkola. 1992. Women who run with the wolves. 

Gobster, Paul H. 1993. Ethnicity and recreation use in Chicago’s Lincoln 

Park: in-park user survey findings: In Gobster, Paul H. (Ed.) Managing 

urban and high-use recreation settings. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-163. St. 

Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station; 75-81. 

Hanson, L. Njiforti; Ngankam Martin Tchamba 1993. Conflict in Cameroon, 

Parks for or against people? Elizabeth Kemf, ed. The law of the mother: 

protecting indigenous people in protected areas. Sierra Club Books. 

LaChapelle, Dolores. 1985. In: Devall, B; Sessions, G., eds. Deep Ecology. 

LaDuke, Winona 1993. A place at the table: A Sierra roundtable on race, 

justice, and the environment. 

Leo, John. 1993. The demonizing of white men. U.S. News and World 

Report. 

Martin, Clavin. 1978. Indian ecology: keepers of the game. Berkeley: 

University of California Press. 

Martin, Claude. 1991. The rain forests of west Africa. Kemf, Elizabeth, ed. 

The law of the mother: protecting indigenous people in protected areas. 

Sierra Club Books. 

Martin, Claude. 1993. Kemf, Elizabeth, ed. The law of the mother: protecting 

indigenous people in protected areas. Sierra Club Books. 

Maslow, Abraham. 1968. Towards a psychology of being. New York: Van 

Nostrand Reinhold; 240 p. 

Mauro, Garry. 1991. De La Pena, Nonny, ed. Fighting for the environment. 

Merchant, Carolyn. 1985. Feminism and ecology. Devall, Bill; Sessions, 

George, eds. Deep Ecology. 

Moore, Richard. 1993. A place at the table: A Sierra roundtable on race, 

justice, and the environment. 

NBC News. 1991. The Wall Street Journal poll. American Demographics. 

Newhall, Nancy. 1961. This is the American earth 

Paley, Grace. 1990. Reweaving the world: the emergence of ecofeminism. 

Diamond, Irene; Orenstein, Gloria Feman, eds. 

Parkman, Francis. 1915. Frontenac, ed. Francis Parkman’s Works, New 

York Scribner’s. 

Rhaphals, Philip. 1992. New Scientist. London; 50 p. 

Rivera, Roger. 1991. De La Pena, Nonny ed. Fighting for the environment. 

Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1990. The conquest of paradise: Christopher Columbus 

and the Colombian Legacy. New York: Knopf. 

Snyder, Gary. 1994. Not here yet. Shambhala Sun. March: 19-25. 

Sierra. 1993. A place at the table, A Sierra roundtable on race, justice, and 

the environment. 

Shenandoah, Audrey 1991. Wisdom-keepers: meetings with Native American 

spiritual elders. Beyond Words Publishing. 

Simmons Market Research Bureau. 1993. The difference in black and 

white. American Demographics. 

Starhawk. 1990. Power, authority, and mystery. Diamond, Irene; Orenstein, 

Gloria Feman, eds. Reweaving the world: the emergence of ecofeminism. 

Steinhart, Peter 1991. What can we do about environmental racism? 

Audubon. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 71 
Swan, Jim 1986. Sacred ground: myth and science investigate the powers Tilden, Freeman. 1957. Interpreting our heritage. University of North 

of the earth. Shamans drum: A Journal of Experimental Shamanism. Carolina Press. 

Taylor, Dorceta E. 1989. Blacks and the environment toward an explanation U.S. Bureau of Census. 1990 Census. 

of the concern and action gap between blacks and whites. Environmental Valdes, Manuel Pizzini. 1992. El Portal front end evaluation of visitors, 

Behavior 21(2): 175-205. Centro de Investigacion Social Aplicada. Universitario de mayaguez. 

Taylor, Dorceta. 1990. Can the environmental movement attract and maintain Villalobos, Frank 1991. Audubon Essay: Environmental racism. 

the support of minorities? Bunyan, Bryant; Mohai, Paul eds. The White, Evelyn C. 1991. Black women and wilderness. Outdoor Woman. 

proceeding of the Michigan conference on race and incidences of Wright, Beverly. 1991. De La Pena, Nonny, ed. Fighting for the environment. 

environmental hazards. 

72 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Protection, Safety and Use Issues in Natural Resources 

Chair: Deborah S. Carr 

USDA Forest Service 
Accessibility Benchmarks: Interpretive Programs and 

Services in North Central California1 

Laura J. McLachlin, Emilyn A. Sheffield, Donald A. Penland, Charles W. Nelson2 

Abstract: The Heritage Corridors Project was a unique partnership between the California Department of Parks and Recreation, 

the California State University, and the Across California Conservancy. The purpose of the project was to develop a map of 

selected northern California outdoor recreation and heritage sites. 

Data about facility accessibility improvements (restrooms, clear 

access from the designated parking space to the site or facility, 

Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), Braille materials, large print materials, and sound amplification devices), and 

interpretive and recreation amenities were collected. The current 

accessibility status of interpretation in north central California is 

reported and serves as a benchmark for access enhancements to 

sites and programs. 

Several tourism researchers have discussed the swift 

rise of heritage tourism (Crompton 1990, Makens 1992; 

Steel-Prohaska 1990; Tighe 1990a, 1990b), the importance 

of effective interpretive programs to enhance visitor enjoyment 

(Gunn 1990, Hayward 1989), and the need to create a critical 

mass of attractions to promote tourism at the regional level 

(Lue and others 1993, Schneider and Kaldenberg 1991). The 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has stimulated interest 

in site and programmatic accessibility for visitors with 

limitations (Elsner 1992), estimated to be as many as 100 

million citizens (Kermeen 1992). 

Project Overview and Purpose 

The Heritage Corridors Project was a partnership between 

the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the 

California State University, and the Across California 

Conservancy (a non-profit disability access and advocacy 

organization). The purpose of the Project was to develop a 

map of outdoor recreation and heritage sites in Northern 

California. Because ADA compliance plans were first required 

in 1992, the interpretive programs and services (hereafter 

called amenities) data collected in 1992 for the Heritage 

Corridors Project provide a unique and timely dataset. 

This work was authorized through California Assembly 

Bill 4044 and served as part of a comprehensive plan for a 

statewide system of trails. The “heritage” portions of this 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Associate Professors of Recreation & Parks Management, California 

State University, Chico; Director of the College of Communications and 

Education Computer Laboratory, California State University, Chico; Director of the Cartographic Laboratory, California State University, Chico. 

system will be a part of an eventual nationwide network of 

heritage-related outdoor recreation resources. Although the 

project was initiated at the State level, local and Federal 

outdoor recreation and heritage sites were also featured. 

Access for Persons with Disabilities 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has played 

an important role with access to outdoor recreation and 

cultural heritage resource areas (Elsner 1992). “With an 

estimated 43 million people in the United States with 

disabilities severe enough to be recognized by the ADA,” 

with another 10 percent of the population temporarily disabled 

at any given moment, and with yet another 10 percent with 

mobility impairments due to old age, as many as 100 million 

United States citizens can benefit from improved site 

accessibility (Kermeen 1992). 

The ADA was designed to eliminate discrimination 

against people with disabilities in the areas of employment, 

transportation, public accommodations, public services and 

telecommunications (Schleien 1993). The Act supports 

architectural and attitudinal modifications to maximize 

opportunities for people with disabilities. “Handicapped 

travelers make up a segment of the travel market that is 

growing and is deservedly receiving greater consideration 

in the physical design of tourism facilities” (Mill and Morrison 

1985, Mueller 1990). In addition, families are another one 

of the fastest growing tourism markets (Makens 1992), 

which means that destination areas can anticipate increasing 

numbers of families who have children with disabilities. 

Fortunately, with the passage of the ADA, the necessary 

incentive for the design and construction of accessible sites 

and amenities is in place. 

Although people with disabilities desire recreation 

experiences similar to those of the able-bodied population, 

many of them face numerous constraints to travel. Studies 

have found that for persons with disabilities, social contacts 

are reduced and financial responsibilities are increased 

(Murphy 1982). In addition, parents of children with 

disabilities have restricted free time because of their increased 

child care responsibilities (Lucca and Settles, 1981). These 

are examples of some of the constraints experienced by 

individuals with disabilities and families who have a member 

with a disability. 

Furthermore, most people with disabilities require 

extensive planning and preparation prior to a trip. This may 

be because of the need for assistive devices such as a 

wheelchair or a walker, large print materials, or a telecommunication device (TDD). 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 75 
While there are many things to think about when planning 

a camping trip, probably the most important thing for a 

wheeler is obtaining accurate information. Most parks have 

made some modifications to make them more accessible to 

disabled people, especially wheelchair users. However, the 

extent of modification varies widely from park to park and 

from camping area to camping area (Ellis 1992). 

Destination points must be contacted to verify access 

and availability to special services. In outdoor recreation 

and interpretation, this may include such features as a ramped 

and paved campground site, a visitor center with sound 

amplification devices, or a nature trail with large print 

self-guided materials. 

Interpretation 

“Interpretation” is a broad and encompassing concept 

that is used in a variety of public and private areas. Tilden 

(1967) describes interpretation as “an educational activity 

which aims to reveal meaning and relationships through the 

use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by 

illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual 

information”. Aquariums, zoos, parks, forests, museums, 

and other attractions all use interpretation techniques. Hayward 

(1989) espouses a comprehensive approach to interpretation 

that combines “a leisure setting with an educational or cultural 

experience”. Sharpe (1992) describes interpretation as serving 

three purposes: 1) helping the public to understand and 

appreciate the resource; 2) assisting the public in pursuing 

its own interests about the resource; and 3) providing resource 

stewards with a management tool. Sharpe’s first two purposes 

of interpretation apply to the Heritage Corridors sites. Because 

the majority of sites are public sector entities, the third 

purpose also applies, although in ways not directly apparent 

to visitors. 

Tourism promoters have started to recognize the value 

of “heritage” in travel decision-making. “Visiting historic 

sites and museums ranks as the first, second, or third most 

popular activity for tourists in every state in the United 

States” (Steel-Prohaska 1990). This trend is increasing for at 

least three reasons: 1) the “baby boomers” are approaching 

middle-age, a time when people generally become more 

interested in culture and heritage; 2) the senior adult 

population, strong supporters of cultural and heritage activities, 

is also increasing; and 3) cultural resources are often suitable 

for mini-vacations, another trend within the travel and tourism 

industry (Tighe 1990a). Furthermore, family vacations are 

on the rise and historic and/or outdoor recreation sites are 

popular family vacation activities (Makens 1992). These 

trends provide evidence that cultural and heritage travel will 

flourish in the future. 

Methods 

In the present study, we compiled a list of outdoor 

recreation and heritage sites by using primary and secondary 

information sources. A panel of tourism, therapeutic recreation, 

and geography specialists selected 300 sites for further 

investigation. A survey was designed to collect interpretive 

amenity information from sites in north central California. 

Development of Survey Instruments 

Site Selection 

A secondary source search of the state parks map, 

American Automobile Association publications, commercial 

tourism guidebooks, Federal resource agency listings, 

recreation access guides, and the California Office of Tourism 

files generated an extensive list of possible sites. Each site 

was then evaluated against the three criteria for map inclusion. 

First, potential sites were required to be of cultural, outdoor 

recreation, or conservation education significance to 

California. Second, sites had to have interpretive materials 

for “self-guided tourism.” Third, sites had to possess 

significant site improvements for persons with vision, hearing, 

or mobility impairments. Sites meeting two of the three 

project criteria comprised the master list from which the 

map sites were selected. These sites included parks, forests, 

museums, attractions, parkways, and vista points administered 

by local, county, state, or Federal agencies or organizations. 

After discussions with agency officials, various disability 

access groups, and other key informants, the list was reduced 

to the 300 most promising sites. 

Self-Administered Mailed Survey 

A 4-page survey instrument was designed to collect 

amenity and accessibility data about each site. The project 

co-directors developed the initial version of the survey that 

was then sent to a panel of State and National Park interpreters. 

After this pilot study, minor revisions were made in the 

survey instrument. Agency directors at each site received a 

survey packet just after Labor Day in 1992. 

Telephone Survey 

A more concise version of the mailed survey was prepared 

for use in a telephone interview with managers or access 

coordinators at sites that had not responded to the written 

survey. Four trained interviewers conducted the telephone 

calls between November 1992 and February 1993. 

Data Collection 

By using these two data collection strategies (mailed 

questionnaire and telephone interview), all sites were contacted. 

Of the 300 sites, 172 were selected for detailed analysis 

based on their recreational and interpretive amenities and 

their accessibility status for persons with mobility impairments. 

Data about facility accessibility improvements (restrooms, 

clear access from the designated parking space to the site or 

facility, TDD, Braille materials, large print materials, and 

sound amplification devices) were collected. Nine interpretive 

amenity categories were evaluated (exhibits, guided tours, 

nature trails, museums, visitor centers, printed interpretive 

materials, site signage, interpretive audiotapes, and 

videotapes). If an amenity was present, respondents were 

76 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
asked to answer an additional question about site accessibility 

for visitors with mobility impairments. Three levels of access 

were identified: not accessible, “easy” or assisted accessibility, 

and independent accessibility. For an amenity to receive the 

“independent” access designation, a mobility impaired visitor 

traveling alone should be able to exit his/her vehicle, enter 

the site or facility from the designated (handicap) parking 

space and utilize the site or facility. 

Results 

Sites were classified according to management agency 

and site type. Forty-nine (28 percent) of the sites were 

managed by Federal agencies, 74 (43 percent) were under 

the administration of State agencies, and 49 (28 percent) 

were governed by local agencies. Each of the sites were also 

categorized as natural heritage or cultural heritage sites. In 

addition, if a cultural heritage site had been identified as a 

California Historic Landmark that designation was noted. 

One hundred and twenty-nine (75 percent) of the sites were 

natural (e.g., outdoor) heritage sites, 55 (32 percent) of the 

sites were categorized as cultural heritage sites, and 45 (26 

percent) of the sites were historical landmarks. (Categories 

were not mutually exclusive; 7 percent of the sites were 

classified as both a natural and a cultural resource area.) 

Data were collected for nine types of interpretive 

amenities and six types of access improvements. Interpretation 

amenities included programs, materials, and services provided 

to the public for educational purposes. Of the interpretation 

amenities measured by the survey, the average site had 8.5 

amenities. Only 31 percent of the amenities were accessible 

to visitors with mobility impairments. The most frequently 

occurring amenities were: printed materials (79 percent of 

the sites), exhibits (70 percent), interpretive signage (67 

percent), guided tours (59 percent), visitor centers (43 percent), 

video tapes (40 percent), museums (39 percent), nature trails 

(38 percent), and audio tapes (8 percent). 

“Access improvement” was defined as an amenity that 

improved site accessibility to persons with mobility, visual, 

or hearing impairments. These amenities included restrooms, 

clear access from the designated parking space to the site or 

facility, large print materials, sound amplification devices, 

telecommunication device (TDD) for the deaf, and Braille 

materials. One hundred forty-nine (87 percent) of the sites 

had accessible restrooms. More than half of the sites (58 

percent) had clear access from the parking lot to the facility. 

Improvements for people with visual impairments included 

large print information at 15 (9 percent) of the sites and 

Braille materials at 5 (3 percent) of the sites. Amenity 

improvements designed for individuals with hearing 

impairments included sound amplification devices at 12 (7 

percent) of the sites and a TDD at ten (6 percent) of the sites. 

Five interpretation amenities (exhibits, guided tours, visitor 

center, museums, and nature trails) were evaluated for 

accessibility to visitors with impairments (table 1). In addition, 

restrooms were included as an important amenity in terms of 

dictating destination stops. 

Discussion 

Printed materials, exhibits, and guided tours are examples 

of interpretation found at many destination locations. Printed 

materials can be mailed in advance, allowing people with 

disabilities to plan ahead. In addition, printed materials 

improve the interpretive experience for many visitors and 

offer a helpful mechanism for visitors with hearing 

impairments. Audio-tape tours, available in fewer that 10 

percent of the sites, can be enjoyed by visitors with visual 

impairments. Increasing the number of these materials could 

enhance the interpretive experience for all visitors. 

Table 1—Levels of accessibility for selected interpretation and access improvements1 

Not accessible Accessible with assistance3 Independently accessible ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________ _________________________________________ 

Amenity Sites with amenity2 Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 

Interpretation Amenities 

Guided Tours 102 46 45 56 55 31 30 

Visitor Center 74 12 17 62 83 37 50 

Museums 67 14 21 55 79 32 48 

Nature Trails 65 35 54 30 46 12 18 

Exhibits 121 0 0 121 100 95 79 

Other Amenity 

Restroom 149 19 13 130 87 90 60 

1

Accessibility figures were calculated as the percentage of the particular amenity that were reported as accessible with assistance or independently accessible.� 2

 Number of sites out of 172 that had the amenity.�

3

The accessible with assistance frequencies and percentages include sites that are independently accessible.�

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 77 
Exhibits are the most capital-intensive interpretive 

amenity. These are particularly valuable interpretation tools 

as facility staff continue to decline or take on additional 

duties. However, exhibits are also the most accessible 

interpretation amenity, with more than half classified as 

independently accessible to persons with mobility 

impairments. Access improvements for other types of 

disability groups are practically nonexistent. This is partially 

alleviated by the frequent occurrence of guided tours. Tour 

guides are typically able to make minor adjustments in their 

interpretive talks to accommodate the differing needs and 

interests of groups. Many provide alternative experiences 

for visitors with visual or hearing impairments. 

Nature trails are included as an interpretive amenity. 

They differ from hiking trails because they have fixed 

interpretive signage, guidebooks, or other printed materials. 

As the “trails movement” continues to rise, nature trails are 

expected to increase. Characteristics of nature trails include 

a shorter trail than that of a hiking trail, intersecting loops, 

and rest benches. These qualities make them particularly 

popular with travel parties, such as groups comprised of 

people with varying ages and ability levels. These same 

characteristics make nature trails good candidates for 

accessibility improvements. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

The Heritage Corridors Project is one of the first steps 

toward a nationwide system of heritage trails. Continued 

research on the types of assistive devices that are consistent 

with the needs of current site users will be useful to site 

planners and managers. On-site access inventories are also 

needed. To be effective such inventories will require 

collaboration between trained researchers and persons with 

mobility, hearing, and vision impairments. Although an 

ambitious task, local disability access and advocacy groups 

could facilitate such an effort. Finally, access and 

interpretation information needs to be disseminated to benefit 

persons with disabilities. 

A wealth of opportunities for outdoor recreation and 

heritage exploration is available in northern California. The 

map and database provide visitors with valuable information 

to assist in trip planning and site visitation. This research 

reports the most comprehensive and current accessibility 

status of heritage recreation in north central California and 

serves as a benchmark by which future efforts and 

improvements can be measured. 

References 

Crompton, J.L., ed. 1990. The recreation - tourism partnership: An 

international perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 

8(1). 

Ellis, W. 1992. Accessible camping in the national parks. Sports n’Spokes. 

17(5): 47-51. 

Elsner, G., 1992. Access initiatives. In: Chavez, Deborah J., technical 

coordinator.Social aspects of recreation research symposium; 1992 

February 19-22; Ontario, CA; General Technical Report PSW-GTR-132. 

Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 

Gunn, C.A. 1990. The new recreation - tourism alliance. Journal of Park 

and Recreation Administration 8(1): 1-8. 

Hayward, L. 1989. Urban parks: research, planning and social change. In: 

Altman, I; Zube, E.A., eds. Public places and spaces. New York: 

Plenum Press. 

Kermeen, R.B. 1992. Universal site design. In: Design guide for universal 

access to outdoor recreation. Unpublished draft supplied by author. 

Lucca, J.A.; Settles, B.H. 1981. Effects of children’s disabilities on parental 

time. Journal of Physical Therapy 61: 196-201. 

Lue, C.C.; Crompton, J.L.; Fesenmaier, D.R. 1993. Conceptualization of 

multi-purpose destination pleasure trips. Annals of Tourism Research 

20: 289-301. 

Makens, J.C. 1992. Children at resorts: customer service at its best. Cornell 

Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly 33(4): 25-35. 

Mill, R; Morrison, A. 1985. The Tourism System. Englewood Cliffs: 

Prentice-Hall, Inc. 

Murphy, M.A. 1982. The family with a handicapped child: A review of 

literature. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 3: 73-82. 

Mueller, J. 1990. Toward universal design: An ongoing project on the 

ergonomics of disability. American Rehabilitation 16(2): 15-19. 

Schleien, S. 1993. Access and inclusion in community leisure services. 

Park and Recreation 4: 66-72. 

Schneider, K.A.; Kaldenberg, R. 1991. Laying the foundation for heritage 

in the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

Heritage interpretation international third global congress, Honolulu, 

Hawaii. 

Sharpe, G.W. 1982. Interpreting the environment. New York: John Wiley. 

State of California Legislature. 1990. Assembly Bill 4044. 

Steel-Prohaska, S. 1990. Cultural heritage as recreation resource: Interest 

is growing. Recreation Executive Report 20: 5,7. 

Tighe, A.J. 1990a. 1991 outlook for cultural travel. In: 1991 Outlook for 

Travel and Tourism. Washington, DC: United States Travel Data Center. 

Tighe, A.J. 1990b. Aspen: Beyond skiing, there’s cultural tourism. Travel 

& Tourism Executive Report, 3-4. 

Tilden, F. 1967. Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: 

The University of North Carolina Press. 

78 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Is Alaska Really Different? A Review of CUSTOMER 

Recreation Visitor Survey Data1 

Patrick C. Reed2 

Abstract: Many believe that Alaska is unique and that its location, 

resources, and population influence the use patterns and attitudes 

of its National Forest recreation visitors so that they seem notably 

different from visitors to other National Forests outside Alaska. 

Data from a recreation visitor survey called CUSTOMER were 

analyzed for the years 1991 to 1993 to identify signs of differences 

between recreation visitors to the Chugach National Forest and 

other selected National Forests outside Alaska. Although some 

significant differences do appear, a definitive conclusion may not 

be drawn from the existing CUSTOMER data. 

Alaska is popularly regarded as different from other 

States of the union, a view that encompasses beliefs about its 

geography, natural resources, cultural heritage, population, 

and lifestyle. Many assert that such characteristics influence 

or create different use patterns and attitudes among its 

recreation visitors (State of Alaska 1993, International Tourism 

and Resort Advisors 1993). In lieu of comprehensive and 

substantive data to the contrary, this basic assertion may 

have influenced the management plans and the activities of 

State and Federal recreation managers in Alaska, including 

those of the Chugach National Forest (CNF). But is outdoor 

recreation in CNF really different, and more importantly for 

its recreation managers, are recreation visitors there really 

different from those of National Forests outside Alaska? 

Addressing the latter issue is important to better meet the 

needs and desires of recreation visitors to CNF. 

Clearly, CNF is distinguishable from other forests in the 

National Forest. Two hundred miles across and the size of 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island combined, the 5.6 

million-acre CNF is second in size only to Alaska’s other 

National Forest, the Tongass. CNF is bounded to the north 

by the rock and ice of the Chugach Mountains and to the 

south by the 3,500 mile coastline of fjords and islands of the 

Prince William Sound. Despite its size, the vast majority of 

CNF is accessible only by small aircraft, boat, or foot. 

The natural and cultural resources of CNF seem 

unmatched elsewhere. Only 500 miles below the Arctic 

Circle, the climate supports dozens of active glaciers. Probably 

more wolves, bears, and bald eagles can be found in CNF 

than in any National Forest outside Alaska. Prince William 

Sound is itself a haven for a rich and diverse marine life, 

including several species of whale, sea lions, otters, as well 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, 

3301 C. Street Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99501. 

as its renowned salmon and shellfish. The 700,000 acre 

Copper River Delta in the eastern half of CNF is the largest 

contiguous wetland ecosystem on the west coast of the Nation 

and the yearly destination for millions of migratory birds. 

CNF is also the aboriginal and contemporary home of 

populations of Eskimos and Indians, whose ancestors have 

inhabited the coastal areas for more than 10,000 years. 

Recreation visitors to CNF can choose from a full 

spectrum of recreation opportunities. Developed facilities 

range from the modern Begich, Boggs Visitor Center (the 

most visited tourism site in Alaska) to developed overnight 

campgrounds equipped with flush toilets. Those seeking 

more primitive recreation experiences can choose from 

backpacking in de facto wilderness to cross-country skiing 

and sea kayaking. Still others may choose to see glaciers and 

wildlife from automobiles, aircraft, ships, or on foot. 

Thus, CNF does indeed have many special and unique 

characteristics that may influence its recreational visitors. 

However, whether the physical and social settings of CNF 

are different from those of other National Forests outside 

Alaska is a moot point. The more relevant issue is whether 

the settings influence the attitudes and behavior of recreational 

visitors so that they are different from those of visitors to 

other National Forests outside Alaska. Unfortunately, research 

has not been done that definitively establishes a cause and 

effect relationship. Perhaps the best that can be done at this 

time is to sort through existing data for clues to the following 

question: do recreation visitors to CNF exhibit characteristics, 

preferences, reasons for participating, and levels of 

satisfaction significantly different from those of National 

Forest visitors elsewhere? This paper addresses these 

questions through an examination of one recent recreation 

visitor survey applied to CNF and other sites outside Alaska. 

CUSTOMER Recreation Visitor Survey 

To examine the question of “difference,” both relevant 

and commensurate information about the recreation visitors to 

CNF and other sites outside Alaska is needed. Although 

location-specific visitor and tourism surveys have been 

administered for a number of years across the Nation, only 

one survey using a consistent questionnaire and sampling 

procedure—the Customer Use Survey Techniques for Operation, Management, Evaluation and Research (CUSTOMER) 

recreation visitor survey--has been applied to National Forests 

and other locations both within and outside Alaska. 

Developed and implemented by the USDA Forest 

Service’s Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 

CUSTOMER was designed to provide a range of general 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 79 
and site-specific recreation visitor data useful in the 

management of individual National Forests as well as in the 

preparation of the Forest Service’s national Renewable Forest 

and Rangeland Resources Planning Act (RPA) for the analysis 

of recreation and wilderness (English and others 1993; Cordell 

and others 1990). By compiling the results of individual 

National Forests and other locations, CUSTOMER may also 

be used to develop a basic national database on visitor 

demographics, trip profiles, reasons for choosing a site, 

activity participation, and visitor importance and satisfaction 

with general site attributes. 

Between 1990 and 1993, CUSTOMER was implemented 

on a U.S. Office of Management and Budget-approved pilot 

test basis in over 35 “sites” (defined for purposes of this 

paper as a unique combination of an administrative unit and 

a recreation season) across the Nation. More than 19,850 

recreation visitors nationwide were interviewed on-site and 

also asked to complete one or more additional mailback 

surveys. Three CNF sites were sampled in 1991 and 1992. 

With more than 2,800 recreation visitors interviewed during 

summer and winter seasons, CNF accounted for about 14 

percent of the national total. 

Because of its scope, consistency, and the number of 

interviews completed, CUSTOMER should be an ideal data 

source for comparing recreation visitors to Alaskan and sites 

outside Alaska, including sites administered by the Forest 

Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National 

Park Service. Nevertheless, several problems arise from the 

CUSTOMER sampling method, and thus efforts to make robust 

comparisons among individual sites are complicated. 

First, the sample of national sites was actually 

self-selecting because participation in CUSTOMER was either 

administratively mandated or voluntary. As a consequence, 

the sites did not represent a true random sample of National 

Forest visitors nationwide. Second, each site was responsible 

for defining the activity groups of interest. Thus, a description 

of “developed camping” may actually differ considerably 

according to a remote or poorly funded site, in comparison 

to an urbanized and well-funded site’s description of 

“developed camping.” 

Another problem was the weighting of the collected 

data. Most sites had a poor idea of the actual amount of 

annual visitor use, as well as the relative proportions of the 

various component activity groups. Therefore, the basis to 

properly weight data is low for developing summary means 

and frequencies for any single site and for all sites combined. 

Because of the relatively high cost of on-site survey sampling, 

small sample sizes--especially from mailback surveys--were 

inadequate for reliable statistical analysis for many of the 

activity groups. 

Last, but certainly not least, compilations of CUSTOMER 

data are not readily accessible. An independent working 

database, limited to summary means and frequencies contained 

in individual CUSTOMER site reports, was therefore created 

for this paper. The summary nature of the database severely 

limits extensive data analysis. 

Comparison Methodology 

Despite these difficulties, CUSTOMER data are used as 

the basis for comparing CNF recreation visitors with those 

of other sites outside Alaska in the attempt to detect visitor 

differences. Specific activity groups, representing the visitors’ 

stated primary recreation activity during a visit to a site, are 

chosen as the focus of comparison. Some preliminary 

manipulation of the data was necessary, however. The original 

self-reported activity groupings in the individual CUSTOMER 

survey reports are re-classified in the working database into 

groups that are assumed to be the most closely analogous in 

actuality. This reclassification results in a total of 27 possible 

activity groups. Of these, it is found that 19 cannot be used 

for comparison for one of the reasons: (1) a particular activity 

group has no representation in both CNF and non-Alaskan 

sites; (2) the total sample size for an activity group is 

determined to be too small for purposes of analysis; or (3) 

the activity group could only be classified as miscellaneous. 

This reduced the available overall sample sizes by 35 percent 

for CNF and by 47 percent for the non-Alaskan sites. The 

eight activity groups suitable for comparison are: 

• Angling�

• Developed overnight use�

• Dispersed day use�

• Motorized boating�

• Nonmotorized boating�

• Roaded sightseeing�

• Trail use�

• Visitor information service (VIS) activities�

The working database of summary CUSTOMER data 

contains more than 200 separate variable means and 

frequencies which describe the use patterns and attitudes of 

recreation visitors. Attempting to compare CNF and 

non-Alaskan recreation visitors across all of these variables 

is beyond the scope of this paper. Thus, five of the most 

relevant subsets of the larger dataset are chosen as the basis 

of comparison. The five data subsets include: 

• Selected demographic characteristics (age and income). 

• Selected visitation characteristics (primary vs. 

secondary destination; repeat vs. first-time visitation; 

in-state vs. out-of-state residence). 

• Reasons for choosing site (scenic beauty; good facilities; 

prior knowledge; convenient location; personal reasons; 

crowding at other areas; seeing new attractions; traveling 

with a group; trying a new site; and other). 

• Importance of general site attributes (reasonable fees; 

location of site; barrier-free accessibility; quality of 

scenery; cleanliness of facilities; clear directional signs; 

good roads and parking; helpfulness of personnel; 

information on site history; nearby shopping and supplies; 

presence of agency personnel; safety and security; site 

maps and information; and trip planning information). 

• Satisfaction with general site attributes (same as 

importance attributes). 

80 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Measurement of difference within the 5 data subsets for 

the 8 activity groups is dependent upon the nature of the data 

being compared. At least three measures of difference are 

possible given the data limitations: 

• Range of data subset variable means and frequencies. 

• Rank correlation of data subset variable means and 

frequencies. 

• Overall mean of data subset variable means and 

frequencies. 

The first and simplest measure of difference involves 

examining the data subset variables for CNF recreation visitors 

to find means and frequencies that are outside the range of 

means and frequencies in the other sites outside Alaska. 

Thus, if data subset variable means and frequencies for CNF 

recreation visitors are either higher or lower than the highest 

or lowest mean or frequency recorded among non-Alaskan 

sites, it is considered an indication of a possibly important 

difference between the Alaskan and non-Alaskan sites. This 

measure of difference is applied throughout the comparisons 

because it does not rely upon any statistical assumptions and 

can be used with the categorical data in the first two data 

subsets (demographic and visitation characteristics). 

A second measure of difference involves the rank ordering 

of data subset variables rated by CNF recreation visitors to 

determine if the order differs from the order of visitors to 

non-Alaskan sites. This second measure of difference is 

usable on lists of items that can be rank-ordered, including 

the third, fourth and fifth data subsets (reasons for choosing 

site, site attribute importance, and satisfaction with site 

attributes). Within each data subset, variables are rank-ordered 

for both CNF and non-Alaskan sites and compared to see if 

there is a positive correlation in the rankings. Because the 

data under analysis were nonparametric in nature, the 

Friedman two-way analysis of variance is chosen to test 

whether the rank-orders agreed (Wilkinson 1990). 

A third measure of difference considers whether CNF 

visitors rated general site attributes higher or lower than 

visitors to the non-Alaskan sites. This measure is applied to 

the fourth and fifth data subsets (importance of, and 

satisfaction with, general site attributes). A t-test is applied 

to the variable means of data subsets for CNF and non-Alaskan 

sites in order to determine if visitors rated the variables 

higher or lower. 

Assumptions different than those used in the selection 

of the activity groups, data subsets, and measures of difference 

used in this analysis could produce different results and 

conclusions in the comparisons. 

Results 

Selected Demographic Characteristics 

Age and income are two characteristics that are key 

variables in modeling recreation consumption (English 

and others 1993). We found main differences between 

visitors to CNF, and their non-Alaskan site counterparts as 

a whole (table 1). 

The most common age category among all eight activity 

groups in CNF is 25 to 44 years of age, followed generally 

by 45 to 64 years of age and 12 to 24 years of age. Seven of 

the eight activity groups in the non-Alaskan sites also show 

that the 25 to 44 years of age category is the most common. 

Differences between visitors in CNF and sites outside Alaska, 

as reflected in the range of frequencies measured (table 1), 

are evident in four of the eight activity groups (developed 

overnight, dispersed day use, and nonmotorized boating 

activity groups show no differences). 

The most common annual household income category 

for five of the eight activity groups in CNF is $25,000 to 

$49,999, followed by $50,000 to $74,999 in the remaining 

three activity groups. This is the same in the non-Alaskan 

sites except that the identity of the specific activity groups 

are different. 

Regardless of whether they are recreating in CNF or 

non-Alaskan sites, motorized boaters and nonmotorized 

boaters display larger proportions of higher income categories. 

Differences between visitors in CNF and sites outside Alaska, 

as indicated by the range of frequencies measure, are evident 

in six of the eight activity groups (angling and developed 

overnight activity groups show no differences). 

Selected Visitation Characteristics 

Few consistent differences are indicated among visitors 

to CNF and non-Alaskan sites in terms of visitor residence 

and prior visitation. In CNF, in-state visitors are more common 

in seven of the eight previously listed activity groups (the 

exception is dispersed day use groups). Among non-Alaskan 

sites, in-state visitors are also more common in seven of the 

eight activity groups (VIS activity group is the exception). 

Both of the activity groups in exception exhibit higher 

percentages of in-state visitors than observed in non-Alaskan 

sites. Visitor differences are indicated in only two of the 

eight activity groups (dispersed day use and VIS activities) 

by using the range of frequencies measure (table 1). 

CNF is the primary destination for the majority of 

recreation visitors in half of the eight activity groups. In 

contrast, non-Alaskan sites are the primary destination of 

the majority of visitors in all eight activity groups. By using 

the range of frequencies measure, differences between visitors 

in CNF and sites outside Alaska are indicated in six of the 

eight activity groups (developed overnight and VIS activities 

groups show no difference). 

Repeat visitation is more common than first-time 

visitation for six of the eight activity groups in CNF, the 

exceptions being the dispersed day use and trail activity 

groups. Repeat visitation is also more common in seven 

of eight activity groups in the non-Alaskan sites. The 

range of frequencies measure shows differences in only 

two of the eight activity groups, dispersed day use and 

motorized boating. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 81 
--

--

Table 1—A Summary of indications of differences between Chugach National Forest and sites outside Alaska. 

Activity groups ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Data subset Developed Dispersed Motorized Nonmotorized Roaded VIS4 

Measures of difference Angling overnight day boating boating sightseeing Trail activities 

1. 

A. Age 

Range of frequencies measure1 — — Yes — Yes Yes Yes 

B. Income 

Range of frequencies measure — — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

2.Visitation characteristics: 

A. Residence 

Range of frequencies measure — Yes — — — — Yes 

B. Destination 

Range of frequencies measure Yes — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — 

C. Visitation 

Range of frequencies measure — — Yes Yes — — — — 

3.Reasons for choosing site: 

Range of frequencies measure Yes — Yes Yes Yes — — — 

Rank correlation of frequencies measure2 — — — Yes(p=.05) — — — 

Mean of frequencies measure3 — — — — — — 

4.Importance of site attributes: 

Range of means measure — Yes — Yes Yes — — Yes 

Rank correlation of means measure Yes(p<.05) Yes(p<.05) Yes(p<.05) Yes(p<.05) — Yes(p<.05) Yes(p<.05) Yes(p<.05) 

Mean of means measure Yes(p<.01) — — Yes(p>.05) Yes(p<.01) Yes(p>.01) — — 

5.Satisfaction with site attributes: 

Range of means measure — Yes Yes Yes Yes — — Yes 

Rank correlation of means measure — Yes(p<.05) — Yes(p=.05) — — Yes(p<.05) Yes 

Mean of means measure — Yes(p<.01) — Yes(p<.01) Yes(p<.01) Yes(p<.01) — Yes(p<.01) 

Demographic characteristics: 

— 

— — 

1Chugach NF mean higher or lower than observed range in non-Alaskan sites.�

2Rank correlation of means and frequencies using Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance (Kendall’s coefficient of concordance).�

3Overall mean of means and frequencies using two sample-paired T-test.�

4Visitor information service activities. 

Reasons For Choosing Site 

Scenic beauty is the most often stated reason for choosing 

CNF as a site in four of the eight activity groups, followed 

by convenient location and previous experience. This is 

generally consistent with the rank ordering of reasons in 

most activity groups in non-Alaskan sites. Among activity 

groups, motorized boaters in CNF on average choose 6 of 

the 10 reasons more often (table 1). 

Nonmotorized boaters choose three of the reasons more 

often than visitors to the non-Alaskan sites. In both cases, try 

new area, other areas too crowded, and/or scenic beauty are 

reasons mentioned more often by CNF recreation visitors 

than non-Alaskan site visitors. VIS activity group visitors 

choose two of the reasons (try new area and other areas too 

crowded) less often. 

Indications of differences between CNF and non-Alaskan 

sites are seen in four of the eight activity groups (angling, 

dispersed day use, motorized boating, and nonmotorized 

boating) using the range of frequencies measure. Using the 

rank correlation measure, only the nonmotorized boating 

group shows a statistically significant difference (p ≤ .05) 

between rank orders of reasons by visitors in CNF and 

non-Alaskan sites. In none of the eight activity groups do the 

82 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
overall mean frequencies for all 10 reasons show a statistically 

significant difference (p ≤.05). 

Importance of General Site Attributes 

Quality of scenery is ranked as the most important 

attribute among visitors in all eight of the activity groups in 

CNF except developed overnight users, who rank cleanliness 

of facilities highest. Other attributes that are also consistently 

ranked as important by CNF visitors are cleanliness of 

facilities, reasonableness of fees, safety and security, and 

trip planning information. Cleanliness of facilities is ranked 

most important by visitors in seven of the eight non-Alaskan 

site activity groups. 

Motorized boaters in CNF rate 3 of the 14 general site 

attributes higher than their counterparts in non-Alaskan sites, 

but also rate five attributes lower. Nonmotorized boaters in 

CNF rate 9 of the 14 attributes lower than did the visitors in 

non-Alaskan sites. 

Indications of differences between CNF and non-Alaskan 

sites are seen in four of the eight activity groups (developed 

overnight, motorized boating, nonmotorized boating, and 

VIS activities) by using the range of means measure (table 

1). By using the rank correlation measure, all but the 

nonmotorized boating group shows a statistically significant 

difference (p ≤ .05) between rank orders of attribute importance 

by visitors in CNF and non-Alaskan sites. Four of the eight 

activity groups (angling, motorized boating, nonmotorized 

boating, and roaded sightseeing) show indications of 

statistically significant difference (p ≤ .05) considering the 

overall mean of the 14 individual attribute means. 

Satisfaction with General Site Attributes 

In all activity groups except trail use (which rates it a 

close second), CNF visitors are most satisfied with the quality 

of scenery attribute. Likewise, quality of scenery is rated as 

the most satisfactory attribute by visitors in all eight activity 

groups in non-Alaskan sites. Another attribute that consistently 

rates high among both CNF and non-Alaskan activity groups 

is reasonable fees. 

Indications of differences between CNF and nonAlaskan sites are seen in five of the eight activity groups 

(angling, roaded sightseeing, and trail use activity groups 

show no difference) considering the range of means measure 

(table 1). Three of the eight activity groups (developed 

overnight, motorized boating, and trail use) indicate a 

statistically significant difference (p ≤ .05). Five of the eight 

activity groups indicate a statistically significant difference 

(p ≤ .05) considering the overall mean of the 14 individual 

attribute means (angling, dispersed day use, and trail uses 

show no differences). 

Discussion and Conclusions 

This examination of existing summary CUSTOMER 

data to determine indications of differences between recreation 

visitors in CNF and sites outside Alaska is only exploratory 

at best. It does not represent the level of comparative analysis 

that is possible given access to the full CUSTOMER data 

set. It does represent, however, the nature of problems any 

CUSTOMER site will have in attempting to establish a 

larger frame of reference by which to view the responses of 

its visitors. 

The results of this effort to find indications of summary 

differences between CNF and non-Alaskan site recreation 

visitors are less than conclusive. The three measures of 

difference often simply result in inconsistent conclusions. If 

the three measures of difference for the eight activity groups 

are directly compared, consistent agreement occurs less than 

half of the time. The rank correlations and range of means/ 

frequencies measures yield evidence of a difference an equal 

number of times, and both indicate differences more often 

than measuring magnitude of means. Clearly, any questions 

regarding difference should be properly framed, and a method 

should be chosen that is most appropriate to the type of data 

and issue. 

CNF recreation visitors as a whole appear to be most 

different from their non-Alaskan counterparts in terms of the 

lower importance they attach to general site attributes. 

Conversely, as a group they are the least different overall 

from non-Alaskan site visitors in terms of the reasons why 

they choose a site: both highly value scenery. 

Summarizing the results of the measures of difference 

by activity group, the activity group in CNF that appears to 

be the most different from sites outside Alaska is motorized 

boating and the activity group with the least differences is 

developed overnight. However, in neither group is there 

complete agreement among the five data subsets. 

In terms of selected demographic and visitation 

characteristics, the dispersed day use and motorized boating 

activity groups show the most differences between CNF and 

non-Alaskan sites. When considering reasons for choosing a 

site, the nonmotorized boating activity group shows the 

most difference. The motorized boating activity group 

consistently indicates a difference in importance of site 

attributes; while both the motorized boating and developed 

overnight activity groups consistently show a difference in 

satisfaction with site attributes, with only the angling activity 

group consistently indicating no difference. 

Perhaps equally useful information can be derived from 

noting important similarities between CNF and non-Alaskan 

visitors: the near universal importance and appreciation of 

scenery; the dominance of 25 to 44 year visitors; the high 

probability of repeat visitation; and greater importance shown 

for barrier-free accessibility compared to presence of personnel 

in the field. 

CUSTOMER data—not unlike that of other comparable 

recreation visitor surveys—has genuine limitations for any 

robust comparisons among different activity groups and sites 

because of its statistically compromised sampling procedures. 

As a result, CNF, as well as sites outside of Alaska, must be 

content with low levels of reliability if available summary 

CUSTOMER data is to be used to compare the characteristics 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 83 
and attitudes of their recreation visitors. Unfortunately, given 

the current era of smaller resource management budgets, 

there should be little expectation that another national survey, 

one which will use improved methodology and a geographic 

base, will be forthcoming anytime in the near future. 

The existence of even perfect data nationwide will not 

ensure that participating sites such as CNF will be able to 

take advantage of the information. Such data first must be 

made accessible to individual sites. And secondly, the sites 

must have either trained staff or adequate funding to contract 

for investigation of the data. Both issues are roadblocks to 

any current effort to make even a summary level of 

comparison. 

Is the creation of a national recreation visitor database 

and the making of detailed comparisons among sites of real 

value? Might such comparisons simply have more theoretical 

than practical benefit? Might it not be sufficient to simply 

know the recreation visitors at a site and manage accordingly, 

irrespective of whether the visitors are different from those 

at another site? Yes, and no. Many management issues are 

unique and are more properly examined and solved within 

their immediate context, making data comparisons with other 

sites a superfluous activity. Other issues may be more universal 

in nature and solution. A national database can help improve 

a manager’s ability to identify and react to the true cause of a 

problem. In most instances, unless it is patently incorrect or 

misleading, some data is probably better than no data when 

it comes to helping to understand recreation visitors. Surely 

relying solely upon the assumptions and preconceptions of 

some recreation managers can be as perilous as facing an 

issue without an information base. 

Given the status of past and future research efforts it is 

debatable whether CNF managers can know for certain 

whether their recreation visitors are indeed different from 

non-Alaskan counterparts, and whether those differences or 

similarities are a significant piece of the management puzzle. 

Like other National Forests outside of Alaska today, CNF 

can only hold its breath and hope it is not. 

References 

Cordell, H. Ken; Berstrom, John C.; Hartmann, Lawrence A.; English, 

Donald B.K. 1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreation and wilderness 

situation in the united states: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-189. 

Ft. Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station; 28 p. 

English, Donald B.K.; Betz, Carter J.; Young, Mark; Bergstrom, John C.; 

Cordell, H. Ken. 1993. Regional demand and supply projections for 

outdoor recreation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-230. Ft. Collins, CO: 

Rocky Mountain Research Station; 4 p. International Tourism and 

Resort Advisors. 1993. Destination: Alaska. 

Strategies for the visitor industry. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Visitors 

Association; Task 1: Inventory of resources, destination sites, business, 

facility, and systems; A. Recreation Resources. 

State of Alaska. 1993. Alaska’s outdoor legacy. statewide comprehensive 

outdoor recreation plan 1992-1996. Anchorage, AK: Department of 

Natural Resources. Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation; 1 p. 

Wilkinson, Leland. 1990. SYSTAT: The system For statistics. Evansville, 

IL: SYSTAT, Inc. 

84 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Partnership and Service Delivery Strategies for Natural Resouces 

Chair: Alan Schmierer 

USDI National Park Service 
Partnerships in Natural Resource Agencies: A


Conceptual Framework 1 

Catherine V. Darrow Jerry J. Vaske2 

Abstract: To meet financial constraints while maintaining or 

improving programs, natural resource managers have increasingly turned to partnerships with other public agencies or private 

businesses. The process of developing a successful partnership, 

however, is rarely chronicled, much less empirically studied. By 

using the available natural resource and business management 

literature, a set of criteria have been suggested as necessary components of successful partnerships. The resulting conceptual model 

provides a framework for guiding future empirical verification. 

Partnerships between natural resource agencies and 

other organizations have emerged as an innovative 

management strategy to meet agency goals while responding 

to financial constraints. The National Park Service, for 

example, has over 400 such arrangements. Similarly, the 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, the USDA Forest Service, 

and the USDI Bureau of Land Management have been 

active in creating partnerships. 

Although the need to develop partnerships is well 

established, most public-private partnerships have not been 

systematically evaluated. The few existing studies have 

examined the characteristics (LaPage 1994) or process 

components (Selin and Chavez 1992, 1993; Darrow and 

others [In press]) of partnerships, and are typically based on 

comparisons of a limited number of case studies. Without 

empirical and theoretical scrutiny, the criteria needed to 

create and maintain a successful alliance are difficult to 

identify. Moreover, because unsuccessful partnerships are 

rarely discussed, much less chronicled, it is difficult to 

identify techniques and strategies to be avoided. 

The limited natural resource literature as well as the 

business management literature suggests three distinct phases 

associated with successful partnerships: (1) initiation, (2) 

planning, and (3) implementation/evaluation. Each phase is 

characterized by different processes that influence the direction 

of the partnership. 

This paper offers a conceptual framework for systematically evaluating natural resource partnerships, and provides 

a foundation for future empirical exploration. 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Research Assistant and Associate Professor, respectively. Department 

of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism, Colorado State University, 

Fort Collins, CO 80523. 

Initiation Phase 

The need for initiating a partnership may originate from 

economic issues, an administrative mandate, or other sources. 

During this phase, the process elements include an evaluation 

of the agency’s internal and external environment relative to 

its orientation to other agencies / organizations (Lewis 1990). 

The ability to identify key resources, forecast potential 

problems, and evaluate “principles of fair exchange” are key 

indicators of success (Lane and Beamish 1990). Principles 

of fair exchange involve an evaluation of the perceived 

equal reciprocity of human and non-human resources. 

Although prospective partners may have been considered, 

more intensive partner selection occurs during this initiation 

phase. Natural resource agencies appear to be more sensitive 

to the role of careful partner selection (Maxwell 1994, personal 

communication). After the field of potential partners has 

been narrowed, initial non-binding agreements may be made. 

Forming these initial agreements serves as a testing ground 

for how well partners actually work together. 

Planning Phase 

Once the core group of partners has been selected, more 

formal partnership meetings begin. During the initial 

meetings, the lead partner is either selected or emerges, and 

the roles of other partners are clarified (Collins 1991, Kent 

1991, Killing 1983, Lewis 1990). A review of case studies 

from the National Park Service indicates that there may be 

different leaders for different parts of the partnership project 

(Darrow and others [In press]). Clarification of the roles 

each partner will play is an indicator of the ultimate success 

of a partnership. 

A second indicator during the planning phase is the 

development of a strategic plan which includes mutually 

agreed upon vision statements and goals (Collins 1991, 

Stodder 1991). The vision and goals statements provide a 

foundation for formulating a written plan, essentially a “map” 

for the direction of the partnership. The written plan should 

include clear financial plans (Dent 1990, Lynch 1989, Selin 

and Chavez 1993), address legal, regulatory, and tax issues 

(Carter and others 1988), and consider the role of incentives, 

recognition, and rewards for all partners (Merrifield 1992, 

Selin and Chavez 1993). These issues are particularly 

important for partnerships with volunteer organizations that 

are not tangibly compensated. For the natural resource 

agencies, this step can be particularly complex because of 

the array of business structures in partnership with the agency. 

For example, partners may include volunteer organizations, 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 87 
for profit businesses, or non-government organizations, each 

having different legal/regulatory, and tax structures. 

Third, partnerships may alter the responsibilities of the 

existing staff or involve the hiring of new personnel. Therefore 

personnel needs should be determined during the planning 

process (Ganitsky and Watzke 1990, Killing 1983). As the 

strategic plan develops, an indicator of successful partnerships 

is staff and public involvement. Without internal and external 

support even the best planned partnerships may fail (Darrow 

and others [In press]). The business management literature 

presents a strong case for involving all levels of staff in an 

ongoing manner during partnership development (Lewis 1991 

1992, Zeira and Shenkar 1990). The process of including the 

public or staff in partnerships entails a determination of who 

should be involved and a plan for how to involve them. 

Equally important is the design of a marketing strategy, 

a practice not nearly as common with natural resource 

agencies as with private businesses. Marketing strategy is 

essential to the success of the partnership (Kitchell and 

Kraayenbrink 1992, Selin and Chavez 1993). For natural 

resource agencies, a marketing plan tends to take the form 

of providing public education and planned communication 

about the partnership project. Media and messages should 

be targeted to specific audiences. 

Finally, the planning process should include the 

construction of information systems. This involves the 

development of data organization, data storage, and a 

determination of how information systems will be operated. 

Implementation/Evaluation Phase 

During the implementation/evaluation phase, priority 

should focus on creating criteria for measuring project progress 

(Killing 1983). The selected criteria should remain flexible 

so changes can be made as needed. A key indicator of success 

is ongoing evaluation and monitoring (Selin and Chavez 

1993). Successful partnerships merge evaluation and resulting 

changes with information systems and marketing plans. 

This phase should include exit or termination strategies 

for the partnership (Killing 1983, Merrifield 1992, Slowinski 

1992). As the project nears conclusion, partners can consider 

one of three options: (1) continuation of the partnership via 

extension of the current project or creation of a new project 

with the same partners, (2) the inclusion of new partners to 

work on additional aspects of a current project, or (3) terminate 

the partnership. 

Conclusion 

By documenting process elements associated with each 

phase of an existing partnership, managers and researchers 

will be better positioned to evaluate the potential success of 

new partnerships. 

The three phases outlined here raise a number of questions 

for future research. During the initiation phase, for example, 

can evaluation criteria be identified to assist in the screening 

of potential partners? What components should be included in 

an analysis of the agency’s internal and external environment? 

During the planning phase, which specific issues must be 

included in the vision and goals statements? What are the 

most effective ways of involving the staff and relevant publics 

in the development of a partnership? For the implementation/ 

evaluation phase, what are appropriate indicators of a project’s 

success? Can effective and efficient strategies be identified to 

assist in conflict resolution between partners? 

Overall, this paper raises more questions than it answers. 

Our goal is to encourage the adoption of more formal procedures 

for evaluating existing partnerships. Conceptualizing a 

partnership as a series of distinct phases, provides a framework 

for examining specific components. 

References 

Carter, J.D.; Cushman, R.F.; Hartz, C.S. 1988. The handbook of joint 

venturing. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones—Irwin. 

Collins, T. M. 1991. Teaming up for the 90s: A guide to international joint 

ventures and strategic alliances. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin. 

Darrow, C.V.; Vaske, J.J.; Donnelly, M.P.; Dingman, S. [In Press]. 

Evaluating public lands/natural resource agency—private business 

partnerships. In: Proceedings of North East Recreation Research 

Symposium; 1993 April 18-20. Saratoga Springs, NY. 

Dent, H.S. 1990. Corporation of the future. How strategic alliances and 

networks will reshape the 90s. Small Business Report 15(5): 55. 

Ganitsky, J.; Watzke, G.E. 1990. Implications of different time perspectives 

for human resource management in international joint ventures. 

Management International Review 30(spec): 37. 

Kent, D.H. (1991). A longitudinal comparative study of two joint ventures. 

The Journal of Management Studies 28(5): 253. 

Killing, J.P. 1983. Strategies for joint venture success. New York: Piacger. 

Kitchell, K.; Kraayenbrink, J. 1992. The power of partnerships: A guide to 

developing and maintaining successful cost-sharing partnerships. 

Lakewood, CO: Bureau of Land Management State Office. 

Lane, H.W.; Beamish, P.W. 1990. Cross-cultural cooperative behavior in 

joint ventures in LDCs. Management International Review 30: 87. 

LaPage, W. F. 1992. Partnerships for parks: To form a more perfect union. 

A handbook for building and guiding park partnerships. National 

Association of State Park Directors and North Atlantic Region US 

National Park Service. Draft paper. 

Lewis, J.D. 1992. The new power of strategic alliances. Planning Review 

20(5): 45. 

Lewis, J.D. 1991. Competitive alliances redefine companies. Management 

Review 80(4): 14. 

Lewis, J.D. 1990. Partnerships for profit: Structuring and managing strategic 

alliances. New York: The Free Press. 

Lynch, R.P. 1989. The practical guide to joint ventures and corporate 

alliances. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Merrifield, D.B. 1992. Global strategic alliances among firms. International 

Journal of Technology Management 7(1/3): 77. 

Selin, S.W.; Chavez, D.J. 1993. Recreation partnerships and the USDA 

Forest Service: Managers’ perceptions of the impact of the National 

Recreation Strategy. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 

11 (1). 

Selin, S.W.; Chavez, D.J. 1992. Developing a theory of recreation 

partnerships in the national forest system. Paper presented at the 

Recreation Working Group session at the Society of American Foresters 

Convention, Richmond VA. 

Slowinski, G. 1992. The human touch in successful strategic alliances. 

Mergers and Acquisitions 27(1): 44. 

Stodder, G.S. (1991). Opposites attract. Entrepreneur 19(11): 138. 

Zeira, Y.; Shenkar, O. 1990. Interactive and specific parent characteristics: 

Implications for management and human resources in international 

joint ventures. Management International Review 30: 7. 

88 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
A Content Analysis of USDA Forest Service


Recreation Partnerships1 

Steve Selin2 

Abstract: The USDA Forest Service has been implementing a 

partnership initiative for 6 years as part of the National Recreation 

Strategy. Several internal efforts have been undertaken to evaluate 

the progress made in this initiative as well as to make adjustments 

in the initiative for the future. These evaluation efforts are extended 

to present a content analysis of recreation partnerships operating in 

the National Forest system in 1991. Results are tabulated from a 

sample of 292 partnership reports submitted by each National Forest 

to the Washington Office in 1991. Information about geographic 

distribution is highlighted, as well as scope, size, purpose, type of 

partner, and benefiting resource area and recreation activity. Results 

from the study have important implications for analyzing trends and 

informing future resource allocation decisions. 

The USDA Forest Service’s National Recreation Strategy 

was envisioned as a conceptual framework to encourage 

Forest Service managers to emphasize partnerships, customer 

satisfaction, and professionalism in providing outdoor 

recreation services in the National Forests. As an incentive 

to field units, a competitive Challenge Cost-Share grant 

program was established in 1988 to match private investments 

in innovative recreation projects. 

This paper summarizes several internal efforts to monitor 

and evaluate the impact of the partnership component of the 

National Recreation Strategy and the Recreation Challenge 

Cost-Share program. In addition, results from a content 

analysis of recreation partnerships are presented that extend 

previous assessments and may offer one analytic approach 

to future appraisals of the partnership initiative. 

Appraisal of Partnership 

The partnership initiative has been appraised internally 

by two methods. One monitoring effort is the annual summary 

of the Recreation Challenge Cost-Share program. All field 

units are requested by the Forest Service Washington Office 

to send in profile information on partnerships partially funded 

through the cost-share program. These partnership profiles 

are compiled in an annual publication available since 1988 

that highlights Forest Service and partner contributions as 

well as listing names and organizational affiliation of all 

participating partners. 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

San Diego, California. 2

Assistant Professor of Wildlands Recreation, West Virginia University, PO Box 6125, Morgantown, WV 26506-6125. 

A second attempt to monitor progress in the partnership 

initiative was begun in 1990 when a partnership commission 

convened to critically examine the partnership component of 

the National Recreation Strategy. The Commission compiled 

information from a number of sources including a survey of 

partners (Selin and Chavez 1993). In addition, testimony 

from Commission members and related reports and program 

reviews were used to define issues and interpret responses. 

Based on these information sources, the Commission made a 

number of recommendations for improving partnership 

programs within the Forest Service. 

These two monitoring efforts have contributed to our 

knowledge of partnership initiatives within the Forest Service. 

However, other analytic methods exist which can extend our 

understanding of partnerships, illuminate trends, and inform 

future policy decisions regarding partnerships. The following 

study uses a content analysis method to examine a number 

of partnership trends within the National Forest system. 

Method 

The sample for this study consisted of partnership reports 

compiled from two sources. As part of a larger study, I 

mailed a letter to Recreation Staff Officers on all National 

Forests requesting cost-share agreements and supporting 

documents from two of their most successful recreation 

partnerships. In addition, a copy of all USDA Forest Service 

regional reports on partnerships during the 1990-91 fiscal 

year was obtained. The final sample consisted of partnership 

reports on 292 partnerships representing 69 different National 

Forests from every Forest Service region. 

A content analysis method was used to systematically 

analyze the content of the partnership reports. The content 

analysis procedure consisted of several stages. First, major 

categories of data were identified in the partnership reports. 

These included geographic distribution and scope, size, type 

of agreement, purpose, legal status of partner, benefiting 

resource area and recreation opportunity enhanced. Next, 

recording units of the actual text corresponding to each 

major category were manually transferred under each major 

category. To minimize inter-rater error, the data was coded 

by only one trained research assistant. The primary investigator 

and research assistant reached consensus on identifying 

categories and questionable recording units. Once recording 

units were coded under each major category, this data was 

transferred to database software program known as Paradox. 

Sub-categories were identified within each major category 

and the data was recoded. Again, only actual recording units 

in the text were transferred using a query option in the 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 89 
Paradox software. Once recoded, descriptive summary statistics 

were calculated for each sub-category including frequencies 

and percentages. When one recording unit was present in 

each partnership, the descriptive statistics totaled 292 and 

100 percent. However, in some cases, recording units were 

absent in some partnerships and descriptive statistics were 

based only on those partnerships where the recording unit 

was present. Also, in some cases, several recording units 

were identified for one sub-category (i.e., when a partnership 

benefited several resource areas). In these cases, the descriptive 

statistics totaled more than 292 and 100 percent. 

Results 

In this sample, 69 different National Forests submitted 

partnership reports. However, the number of partnerships 

submitted was not evenly distributed. In fact, 21 percent, or 

60 of the 292 partnerships in the sample were submitted by 

two National Forests, the Chattachoochie and the BridgerTeton. In addition, 20 partnerships were submitted by the 

White River National Forest and 28 percent of all partnerships 

in the sample were submitted by three National Forests. 

Although all 10 Forest Service regions are represented 

in the sample, 63 percent of the partnerships were submitted 

by western regions (table 1). The Rocky Mountain Region 

(Region 2) had the highest number of reported partnerships 

(61). Interestingly, the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) 

only submitted six partnerships. 

Most partnerships in the sample were relatively small, 

with one to three partners. Only 7 percent of the partnerships 

included more than seven external partners (table 2). 

The sample was dominated by small community-based 

partnerships (table 3). Three local sub-categories were 

identified: those initiated by the Ranger District, those 

initiated by the Forest recreation staff, and those classified 

as partnerships initiated by an unverified source. 

Table 1—Partnerships, by USDA Forest Service Region 

External partnerships 

Forest Service Region (E or W) Number Percent 

Region 1 (W) 8 3 

Region 2 (W) 61 21 

Region 3 (W) 16 5 

Region 4 (W) 56 19 

Region 5 (W) 6 2 

Region 6 (W) 17 6 

Region 8 (E) 47 16 

Region 9 (E) 60 21 

Region 10 (W) 21 7 

Total Eastern Regions 107 37 

Total Western Regions 185 63 

Total 292 100 

Table 2—Partnerships, by number of external partners 

External partnerships 

External partners per partnership Number Percent 

1-3 229 85 

4-6 21 8 

>7 20 7 

Total 270 100 

Table 3—Partnerships, by geographic scope 

Scope Number Percent 

Local 249 85 

State 26 9 

Local-Ranger District 10 3 

Local-Forest 7 2 

National 4 1 

Tribal 2 <1 

International 2 <1 

Total 292 1001 

1Before each percentage is rounded off to nearest percent, total percentage 

equals 100 percent. 

As might be expected because of the matching funds 

available, challenge cost-share agreements were the most 

widely used type of agreement (table 4). However, a number 

of other types of agreements were represented in the sample. 

Informational services had the highest number of 

partnerships with many emphasizing interpretive materials, 

promotional brochures, kiosks along scenic byways, and 

visitor guides (table 5). Many partnerships also focused on 

either new construction or rehabilitating older structures or 

buildings. Common purposes in these two areas included 

constructing visitor centers, campgrounds, trail maintenance, 

and refurbishing old Civilian Conservation Corps era 

structures. 

The legal status of external partners was evenly distributed 

among state agencies, businesses, and the nonprofit sector 

(table 6). However, if one assumes that many of the 

associations, user clubs, and civic organizations mentioned 

were incorporated as tax exempt nonprofit organizations, 

then the importance of the nonprofit sector becomes evident. 

As expected, recreation partnerships dominated in the 

sample (table 7). However, in many partnerships several 

other resource areas were involved. For example, public 

affairs benefited from the significant number of partnerships 

that emphasized informational services. In addition, wildlife 

management partnerships have their own challenge cost-share 

funds and are summarized annually in a separate publication. 

Some outdoor recreation opportunities were enhanced 

more by partnership outcomes than others (table 8). Though 

90 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Table 4—Partnerships, by type of agreement 

Agreement Number Percent 

Challenge Cost-Share 167 87 

Cooperative 5 3 

Memo of Understanding 5 3 

Participating 5 3 

Collection 5 3 

Interagency 2 1 

Interpretive 2 1 

Partnership 2 1 

Total 193 

Table 5—Partnerships, by purpose 

Purpose Number Percent1 

Information 155 53 

Construction 140 48 

Maintenance 89 30 

Rehabilitation 77 26 

Administration 53 18 

Cultural Resources 32 11 

Special Events 7 2 

1Several partnerships had multiple purposes resulting in percentages 

exceeding 100 percent. 

Table 6—Partnerships, by legal status of partner 

Partner Number Percent1 

Public (State) 94 32 

Nonprofit 84 29 

Business 83 28 

Association 50 17 

Volunteers 44 15 

Public (Town) 29 10 

User Club 28 10 

Civic Organization 26 9 

Public (County) 24 8 

Public (Federal) 24 8 

Foundation 4 1 

Tribal Government 1 

1Several partnerships benefitted multiple areas resulting in percentages 

exceeding 100 percent. 

Table 7—Partnerships, by benefiting resource area 

Resource Number Percent1 

Recreation 233 80 

Public Affairs 48 16 

Cultural Resources 25 9 

Wilderness 16 5 

Wildlife 15 5 

Administration 8 3 

Ecosystem Management 4 1 

1Several partnerships benefitted multiple areas resulting in percentages 

exceeding 100 percent. 

Table 8—Partnerships, by activity 

Activity Number Percent1 

Hiking 64 22 

Visitor Services 59 20 

Camping 24 8 

Fishing 22 8 

Cultural Appreciation 21 7 

Miscellaneous 17 6 

Historic Preservation 16 6 

Snowmobiling 15 5 

Driving For Pleasure 15 5 

Cross Country Skiing 13 4 

Facilities 12 4 

Picnicking 12 4 

Parking 11 4 

Wildlife Viewing 11 4 

Lake Oriented Recreation 10 3 

Tourism 10 3 

Mountain Biking 8 3 

Lodging 5 2 

ATV 4 1 

River Recreation 4 1 

Shooting Range 2 

1Several partnerships benefitted multiple areas resulting in percentages 

exceeding 100 percent. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 91 
the diversity of activities represented is striking, many 

partnerships focused on enhancing hiking opportunities 

through trail construction and maintenance projects. Visitor 

service projects were also enhanced by partnerships dominated 

by the development of interpretive and promotional materials. 

Discussion 

The ability to generalize study findings to all recreation 

partnerships on the National Forest system is limited by 

several factors. First, National Forests that did not submit 

partnership reports to the Washington Office or to the 

investigator upon request may or may not have had a vigorous 

partnership program. One can only speculate whether this 

lack of reporting was due to disinterest in partnerships or 

only to the reporting function. Also, this data reflects only 

those partnerships in progress in 1991 and cannot be 

extrapolated to 1994 trends. 

However, results from this study present a composite 

view of recreation partnerships operating in the National 

Forest system in 1991. Perhaps the breadth and diversity of 

partnership forms is the most striking finding of this study. 

Diversity in purpose, type of partners, benefiting resource 

area, and enhancement of recreation opportunities all support 

the contention that partnership initiatives within the Forest 

Service have been an unqualified success. 

Despite the diversity of partnership forms represented 

in the data, the character of the typical recreation partnership 

has also emerged. Although the Chrysler Corporation’s 

support of the scenic byway program is a high-profile 

partnership, most partnerships are community-based with 

only a small number of partners. These community 

partnerships make intuitive sense because at the community 

level people have strong attachments to special places and 

are empowered to protect and enhance them. Also social 

networks exist at the community level that can lead to 

productive partnerships. 

Although the sample cannot be generalized to the entire 

National Forest system, it is disturbing that partnerships 

were so unevenly distributed across National Forests. The 

findings suggest that partnerships have been inconsistently 

applied at different forests. Success in implementing 

partnership programs appears to be dependent on the discretion 

of line officers at the National Forest and district levels 

rather than unqualified system-wide success. 

This study is important because it establishes a baseline 

profile of recreation partnerships operating in the National 

Forest system. However, partnerships are dynamic relations 

between organizations and interests and are therefore 

constantly evolving. The study’s real potential will be realized 

by replicating it at specified time intervals so that trends can 

be systematically analyzed in partnership initiatives. In 

addition, more comprehensive and flexible databases will be 

needed to monitor partnership progress. Incentives are needed 

to ensure more representative reporting from field units. 

Acknowledgments 

I thank Deborah Chavez, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, USDA Forest Service, for assistance in the conceptual 

development and data collection for this project; Nancy 

Myers, a graduate student at West Virginia University, for 

the data analysis in the project; Paul Wright, Forest Service 

Eastern Region who provided copies of all the Forest Service 

regional partnership reports for 1991. Funding for this project 

was provided by the Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

USDA Forest Service. 

References 

Selin, S.; Chavez, D. 1993. Recreation partnerships and the USDAForest 

Service: Managers’ perceptions of the impact of the National Recreation 

Strategy. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 11(1): 1-8. 

92 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Seeking Common Ground: Establishing


Interpark Partnerships1 

B. Noah Tilghman Ray Murray2 

Abstract: As Californians struggle to maintain their parks during 

tight economic times, closer partnerships between providers must be 

sought to protect the resources of many parks while also maintaining 

desirable levels of service. A process is discussed that has been used 

by the USDI Park Service and the California Department of Parks 

and Recreation in reviewing park goals, administration and management of interpretive, recreational, natural and cultural resources of 

11 parks within 3 joint clusters, with common recommendations for 

interagency cost efficiencies and improved public service. This ongoing effort may point the way for increased cooperation between 

State and Federal and other levels of park management. 

Beginning in May 1993, discussions between the Directors 

and staff of the California Department of Parks and Recreation 

(CDPR) and the USDI National Park Service (NPS), Western 

Region led to a decision to explore potential joint operational 

improvements and cost savings that might be achieved between 

adjacent State and National Park units. 

This initiative was undertaken as a result of public 

comment received in spring 1993, during the California 

State Park and Recreation Commission’s Statewide public 

workshops on the status of California’s park and recreation 

needs. It was also partially in response to a proposal by NPS 

for a temporary transfer of management responsibilities for 

the three State park units within the Congressionally authorized 

boundary of Redwood National Park. 

In 1968 when Congress authorized what ultimately had 

become the 106,000-acre Redwood National Park, it made 

provisions for accepting by donation any or all of Jedediah 

Smith, Prairie Creek and Del Norte Coast Redwoods State 

Parks within its boundary, envisioning the potential for single 

agency management under the National Park Service. In 

1978, an interim management transfer of the three State 

parks to NPS for a 15-year period was negotiated and readied 

for signature, but was not consummated by NPS for several 

reasons, including the sudden increase of its responsibilities 

in Alaska as a result of an Executive Order by President 

Jimmy Carter. In recent years, the possibility of a 5-year 

interim transfer of management or fee ownership of the State 

parks to NPS was raised again. 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Senior Park and Recreation Specialist, Resource Management Division, California Department of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 942896, 

Sacramento, Ca 94296-0001; and Chief, Division of Planning, Grants, and 

Environmental Quality, Western Region, USDI National Park Service, 600 

Harrison Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

The issue of transfer holds a high level of local interest in 

Humboldt and Del Norte Counties. The local perception is 

that the Federal government has not delivered on its projection 

for improved rural economic growth resulting from Redwood 

National Park creation and expansion (Kiester 1993). Projected 

attendance projections and daily visitor expenditures have 

not materialized. Recently, despite tough local economic times, 

the consolidation theory has been advanced by some local 

leaders, who have suggested that single agency management 

would accelerate public acceptance of the Redwood National 

Park as a destination, resulting in longer visits and more local 

spending. Unfortunately, this suggestion was perceived by 

some as a threat, and resulted in the creation of an adversarial 

relationship between the National and State Parks as well as 

their constituents. This heightened uncertainty and limited 

conditions for cooperative projects and management. 

The California Park Service and the National Park Service 

have a long history of working together. An example of this 

cooperation is the transfer of some park units such as those 

at the Marin Headlands, Stinson Beach and the historic ships 

as building blocks to create the Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. Consequently, despite the increasing 

interagency friction in the northwest corner of California, 

both agencies recognized that they had units in close proximity 

in other locations that could benefit from similar cooperation. 

Such cooperation was particularly needed, not only because 

of recent budget constraints for park managers but because 

park management focus in the National Park Service had 

shifted in the creation of newer California park units. This 

shift was from a strictly “within the park boundary,” single 

agency management approach, to an emphasis on empowering 

interagency and public-private partnerships both within and 

beyond park boundaries. Also, the rate of encroaching 

development had created an urgency to coordinate agency 

resources to protect joint park values. Therefore, both agencies 

agreed to start an assessment of operational efficiencies and 

cost saving possibilities where state park units occurred 

within some congressionally-authorized boundaries. In 

addition to the north coast redwood parks, the San Francisco 

Bay Area parks were reviewed, including Angel Island State 

Park and Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and the 

Malibu coast parks, composed of Malibu Creek, Point Mugu 

and Topanga State Parks, Leo Carrillo State Beach, and 

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. 

Methods 

To explore the potential of increased cooperation, NPS 

and CDPR appointed “The California Coordinating 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 93 
Committee on Operational Efficiencies.” Membership 

consisted of in-house park management professionals with 

matched representation from CDPR and NPS. The 10 

individuals who were to make up the committee membership 

were chosen for their professional objectivity and breadth of 

practical park management knowledge. Collectively they 

represented several hundred years of park-related experience 

from throughout the United States and California as rangers, 

naturalists, and superintendents, park evaluation personnel, 

and high-level managers. In an effort to maintain objectivity, 

however, deliberate efforts were made to select individuals 

who had never served in the subject parks. 

We were assigned to act as the staff liaisons to facilitate 

the committee’s efforts. The committee’s charge was to 

independently and objectively develop and review the 

appropriate factual and intangible elements relevant to the 

efficient administration, provision of necessary common 

support facilities, resource protection and visitor management 

within the authorities and purposes for which the various 

units were established. To give the committee direction and 

support, a joint work program and schedule were quickly 

developed by the staff liaison from each service and agreed 

upon by the Western Region Director of NPS and the 

Director of CDPR. The purpose of this process was to 

objectively evaluate the management of these park groups 

and to make recommendations for the best management of 

these units so as to maximize efficiencies for park 

administration, resource management, facility maintenance, 

law enforcement, visitor information, sharing of interpretive 

facilities, services, and staff. 

Both agencies recognized the need for public involvement 

from this project’s inception because a significant amount of 

correspondence and verbal comment on the redwood park 

consolidation issue had been received. Consequently, in 

August 1993, the committee began soliciting public input on 

issues it could address. Unfortunately both media and public 

response was very limited. 

In preparation for individual park reviews, each involved 

CDPR and NPS park superintendent was requested to review 

his or her responsibilities and to prepare a briefing paper 

covering prescribed categories for each of the units administered. Each paper was to give a description of the park, its 

purpose, usage, established park management and themes, 

an inventory of visitor facilities and developed areas, staffing 

and operating budgets, and major issues facing each unit. 

Each superintendent was also asked to prepare a preliminary 

list of recommendations for joint efficiency and cost saving 

initiatives. The superintendents were encouraged to discuss 

their recommendations with their counterpart in adjacent 

National or State Parks. This consultation occurred to a greater 

or lessor degree in each park cluster and was a foreshadowing 

to the committee of the existing level of interagency 

cooperation. When completed, the briefing papers were 

organized along with maps, other background materials, and 

a detailed schedule that was then distributed to each member 

of the committee in advance of their field review of the units. 

On-site park reviews by the coordinating committee of 

the north coast redwood and Malibu coast parks occurred 

during the week of August 29 to September 2, 1993. Because 

of time constraints the San Francisco Bay area review was 

limited to a slide orientation. The other reviews consisted of 

individual park and site tours conducted in common by the 

superintendents of each cluster. All reviews included 

individual presentations by each superintendent of the main 

issues and threats facing the units in their care, a description 

of ways they were currently cooperating with their adjoining 

park counterparts, and recommendations on how these efforts 

might be improved. These presentations were followed by 

intensive questions and answers between the committee 

members and the individual superintendents. The committee 

met nearly every day in private after the field reviews and 

superintendent presentations. At these meetings, based upon 

the briefings, site tours and professional insights, the 

committee started to identify park-specific efficiencies. At 

the last meetings, its members also agreed to recommend 

improved NPS-CDPR agency-wide information sharing and 

collaboration mechanisms. In its deliberations, the 

coordinating committee carefully considered how each 

alternative might affect the local economy. 

Results 

The joint coordinating committee was impressed with 

the professional commitment of all park employees to protect 

resources, complete their respective missions, and show 

concern about park threats that were reflected in the overall 

condition of the individual parks. Generally, the committee 

found more similarities in common problems and commitment 

to resolution than they did in differences. This approach led 

to their conclusion that both agencies would benefit if 

agreements at the headquarters level were negotiated to 

enable and invigorate programmatic cooperation and sharing 

of solutions so as to avoid having to individually “reinvent 

the wheel.” Although differing levels of existing cooperation 

at each of the park clusters were observed, the committee 

agreed that greater efforts at the superintendent levels to 

meet regularly and map out programs for joint interpretation 

programs, shared facilities, goal development and 

implementation would result in greater trust and cooperation 

at all levels of the park staff structures. 

Despite some initial minor differences, in general the 

level of consensus among the committee members was 

extraordinary as to their observations, findings, and 

recommendations. Although this diverse group from two 

separate park cultures, had common interests, some feared 

that their positions and conclusions might be radically 

different, necessitating the preparation of minority reports. 

Fortunately, this was not the case, and the staff liaisons, 

based upon the committee’s discussion and direction, were 

then able to draft the committee’s report and recommended 

actions; these actions were designed to provide better 

protection for each park’s natural and cultural resources in a 

94 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
more complete ecosystem context and to improve the park 

visitor’s information and in-park experience, while providing 

the best return on the taxpayer’s dollars. The report went 

through three in-house draft reviews involving committee 

members and the involved park superintendents. The revised 

draft report was then presented to Donald Murphy, Director 

of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and 

Stanley Albright, Western Regional Director of the National 

Park Service. With some very minor changes, they approved 

the draft recommendations of the report. 

The following highlights cover the coordinating committee’s joint agency and park specific recommended actions. 

Agency-Wide 

The committee found and strongly expressed their 

belief that cooperation is most successful when it is 

formalized by written agreements and accountability 

measures between multiple levels of different agencies. 

Agency level coordination is needed to invigorate 

park-to-park as well as agency-to-agency programmatic 

cooperation. From the headquarters level, through the park 

superintendents to the maintenance foremen and the trail 

crew bosses, all must be empowered to work together. But 

to be most effective at successive levels, cooperation must 

start on a day-to-day basis at the superintendent’s level 

with positive direction and oversight from headquarters 

providing incentive and accountability. Accordingly, the 

following initiatives were recommended: 

• The directors of the two park agencies should sign a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that directs 

the superintendents of the three park clusters to identify 

and implement cooperative initiatives. 

• Key program staff from both agencies should be 

brought together to address agency-wide cooperative 

initiatives including: dispatch for emergency 

response, 1-800 public park information numbers, 

visitor orientation training, concessions management, 

signage, park visitor information packaging, visitor 

safety, control of exotic species and feral animals, 

response to gangs and graffiti, coordination with 

tour operations, etc. 

• In an effort to assure that the agreed upon actions 

are carried forth in a timely manner, a schedule of 

implementation is proposed, with twice yearly 

progress reports. At the end of a 3-year period, 

NPS and CDPR would conduct an analysis to 

determine the overall success of the coordination 

program and make recommendations for any 

corrections needed. 

North Coast Redwoods 

Consolidation of the three State parks under the single 

management of the National Park Service was considered by 

the committee to be neither necessary nor desirable. The 

consensus of the committee was that the condition of these 

parks is good to outstanding, because of significant progress 

in resource restoration and visitor improvements, such as 

combined park resources and recreation experiences of all 

four redwood parks that result in an internationally significant 

park. However, Federal and State budgets can fluctuate, with 

Federal funding levels healthier in some years and State 

funding faring better in others. The two major park agencies 

that operate side by side have a larger, more effective voice 

in coping with threats and providing services with their 

combined staff expertise and support bases. Further, the three 

State park units almost pay their own way, largely due to 

entrance fees, higher campground revenues, and staffing levels. 

Consequently, cost savings to the CDPR would have been 

very limited if management were turned over to the NPS. The 

agencies concluded that the financial reality is that park 

resources and visitor experiences would be best served by the 

most cost effective use of both NPS and CDPR budgets. 

Rather than transferring these parks from the State Park 

System, the committee suggested that focus should be on 

strengthening partnerships. 

It was agreed that the National and State Park 

superintendents should jointly prepare a Memorandum of 

Understanding addressing the management of these four units. 

The detailed goals and operating principles for the joint 

accomplishment of specific tasks include the assignment of 

responsibilities for common park functions, resource 

management, road and trail maintenance, interpretive programs, 

signage, alternative visitor transportation, public information, 

maintenance, and additional recreational opportunities such 

as coordinated trail development and signing, interpretive 

programs, joint visitor center staffing and environmental 

education. Cost efficiencies should be reinvested in park 

operations. Other recommendations included: 

• Locate a State park liaison, with management authority 

over the three State parks, at the National Park 

headquarters to act as ombudsman for State park matters 

and to assure closely coordinated operation of the 

four redwood parks. 

• Expand resource management activities of Redwood 

National Park to include the three State redwood parks 

to include the entire park ecosystem. A CDPR resource 

management liaison position will be established to 

work with NPS on shared resource protection issues. 

• Prepare an updated park-wide general management 

plan to provide an integrated blueprint for all four 

park units and the adjacent communities. 

• Target a needed planning effort to provide additional 

recreational opportunities and allow use of less 

accessible parts of the park within acceptable park 

resource carrying capacities so as to help fulfill the 

promise of the Redwood National Park as a destination 

park and stimulate the economy of the local 

communities. 

San Francisco Bay Area Parks 

The committee decided that the two park superintendents should convene senior managers and key program 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 95 
staff to pursue mutual initiatives with priority to stabilizing, 

rehabilitation and fund-raising for historic structures, 

removal techniques for Scotch broom and eucalyptus, and 

efforts to package and promote visitor service on Angel 

and Alcatraz Islands. 

In addition, the superintendents should explore potential 

cost efficiencies between other units in the Bay Area, including 

Mt. Tamalpais and Samuel P. Taylor State Parks and Muir 

Woods National Monument. 

Malibu Coast Parks 

The committee recommended that State and National 

Park superintendents should renew inter-park cooperative 

processes to include program staff and the Santa Monica 

Mountains Conservancy. 

It was also suggested that a centralization of geographic 

information systems (GIS) functions should be evaluated, as 

well as development proposal reviews, resource management 

functions, visitor information services, adoption of uniform 

trail, brush clearance, and sign standards, and establishment 

of an interagency visitor center. 

As previously reported, in addition to the above 

recommendations, each of the six superintendents had 

prepared specific cooperative joint efficiency and cost saving 

initiatives as part of their briefing materials for the committee’s 

August/September site visits. These initiatives were 

recommended as starting points for each area’s management 

interaction. 

Reaction to the Report 

The “Draft Report: California Coordinating Committee 

on Operational Efficiencies” was mailed to known interested 

members of the public, environmental groups, Chambers of 

Commerce, locally elected officials and the media. Open 

houses, which provided opportunities for the public to discuss 

the report and its recommendations with its authors, were 

scheduled for the week of February 7, 1994. About 20 

individuals attended each of the three public meetings held. 

Some conservationists voiced frustration with the limited 

public involvement and still favored transfer of interim 

management of the three State redwood parks to NPS. Several 

individuals expressed their concern about the complexities 

of making such a partnership effort successful. Many others 

voiced very constructive ideas for implementation of the 

report and supported coordinated management. Their general 

attitude seemed to be “put old differences and rivalries behind 

us, and let’s get on with working toward common goals.” A 

subsequent opportunity for public review and written comment 

through the end of February was provided before the report 

was finalized. Comments received were reviewed and should 

be included in an addendum to the final report, which is 

expected to be completed in the spring 1994. 

The first ever all-staff meetings of National and State 

Park employees have been held in the North Coast Redwood 

and the Malibu Coast park clusters. (The latter meeting also 

included the employees of the Santa Monica Mountains 

Conservancy.) We attended the North Coast Redwood 

meeting, where the staffs were briefed on the report in the 

morning and spent the afternoon in six program groupings 

brainstorming potential cost efficiencies and other 

implementation of the report’s recommendations. Although 

some staff were concerned about how the report may affect 

them personally, most experienced a high level of excitement, 

interest and anticipation about the prospect of working more 

closely together. In this case at least, the implementation 

process was clearly task oriented and the managers must be 

swift to stay ahead of their eager employees. Consequently, 

the park Superintendents have already met to draft their 

MOU and initiate discussions of a coordinated work plan in 

anticipation of the summer season. The draft MOU is also 

being prepared at the interagency level. 

Recommendations 

For those interested in adopting a similar partnership 

process, several basic ingredients are recommended for 

success based upon our experience. 

• Solicit written, top level buy in and agreement at 

the start. 

• Clearly state the purpose. A clear exposition of the 

purpose of the effort will not only give direction, but 

may assuage fears of some of the participants. 

• Give the effort specific focus and goals that are in 

both agencies’ mutual interests, such as operating 

efficiencies and cost savings that can be reinvested in 

park resources and visitor services management. 

• Open the process. Strive to make the process as fair, 

balanced, objective and open to employees and the 

public as you can. Building trust is critical to gain 

cooperation and achieve success. 

• Make it a cooperative effort. Think in terms of 

incentives for the park managers to work together. 

Inform and involve the park managers at the onset 

and throughout the process. Let them make their best 

case and explore and present initial recommendations. 

• Assign independent inter-staff liaisons. Staff liaisons 

must be committed, patient, and process and people 

oriented. They will staff the process and keep it 

moving. It is crucial to appoint the right people and 

that liaisons have access to decision makers. 

• Agree on a work plan and schedule for the process, 

and include a public involvement strategy from 

the beginning. 

• Recruit the best people from each agency so that the 

coordination team is balanced. Look for a balance of 

park management experience and insight, a strategic 

sense and awareness of policy and budget realities. 

Make sure both the park superintendents and 

headquarters managers are included. Select people who 

are not directly vested in the specific park issues and 

who are open to a wide range of innovative solutions. 

96 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
• Consider an outside member. While not used in this 

program, a member of the committee from outside of 

the two involved organizations might have added to 

its objectivity, veracity, and credibility. 

• Follow through. Keep promises, expectations and 

commitment on a timely basis. Follow-through 

establishes the credibility of the process. 

• Communicate. Inform everyone of progress, decisions 

or delays. This not only fosters a positive team sense, 

but works to relieve the anxiety of the unknown. 

• Accountability. Establish an oversight, appeals, and 

trouble-shooting process. Set forth management performance standards, require reporting of results periodically, 

and have an evaluation program for accountability. 

Conclusion 

We are greatly encouraged by the cooperation and success 

shown by the development of this joint report. In spite of 

fire, earthquake, and mud flow, park superintendents are 

already meeting and working to find ways to allow their 

programs to mesh, holding joint, all-staff meetings and sharing 

training and resource information. 

We are confident that the effort in preparing this report 

will point the way for increased cooperation and efficiencies 

between the State and Federal levels of park management. 

Although the committee’s report already suggests that other 

opportunities existing within the park clusters should be 

reviewed, other possibilities may also arise from this report. 

Its implementation may serve as a pilot program, particularly 

if pending Congressional legislation for the expansion of Point 

Reyes National Seashore is passed and if the California Desert 

Bill is enacted. But this report may also serve as a model for 

cooperation between the State and local, and Federal and local 

levels as well. In this period of economic stress, when park 

agencies at all levels are struggling to maintain their park 

systems, such partnerships will serve as an important method 

for continued service to the public, and they will preserve the 

resources that our parks are designed to perpetuate. 

References 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, National Park Service. 1994. 

Public Review Draft Report: California coordinating committee on 

operational efficiencies. Sacramento and San Francisco, California; 35 p. 

Kiester, Edwin Jr. 1993. A new park saved the tall trees, but at a high cost 

to the community. Smithsonian: 42. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 97 
Educational Poster Session 

Chair: Patricia L. Winter 

USDA Forest Service 
Educational Poster Session 

Deborah Chavez, Compiler 

The educational poster session provided a way of 

increasing the ordinarily limited time available for discussion 

of papers, while simultaneously making it easier to 

communicate visual materials not well suited to oral 

presentations. Poster presenters were available for 2 hours 

to discuss their displays. Poster presentations were divided 

into five categories: user issues; environmental education; 

partnerships; the urban/wildland interface; and economic 

issues. These poster sessions are summarized below. This 

symposium session was chaired by Patricia L. Winter, USDA 

Forest Service. 

User Issues 

Five of the posters in part addressed the common issue 

of user characteristics. The first two examined the mountain 

bike user group. The first, “Slickrock Trail Mountain 

Bike Survey: Implications for Resource Managers and 

Area Communities” by Dale J. Blahna, Susan Van Patten, 

Scott A. Dawson, Doug Reiter, and Russ Von Koch, focused 

on an area known for mountain bike riding—the Slickrock 

trail near Moab, Utah. Blahna and others reported results 

from a 1993 study. The study was designed to identify the 

background and behavioral characteristics of bikers on the 

trail, and their preferences for current and future mountain 

bike management. The majority of survey respondents were 

male, between age 21 to 35, with an annual household 

income of about $42,000. Most respondents were on their 

first or second trip to Slickrock. Findings suggest that 

management interventions, like use restrictions, are not 

necessary. Respondents were concerned with protecting 

resources so that management interventions, like closing 

trails to protect resources, could be used. 

The second mountain bike study, “Mountain Biking 

in the San Jacinto Region” by Deborah J. Chavez focused 

on an area where a regional mountain bike system is 

envisioned. Respondents to this survey were typically, 

male, about 34 years of age, residents of large towns or 

cities, with an average annual income between $20,000 to 

$39,999. Most respondents had been mountain bike riders 

for several years and had made large time and money 

commitments to the sport. Like the participants in the 

Blahna study, these respondents did not see a need for 

user restrictions unless it was needed to protect soils, 

scenic vistas and vegetation. The users had frequented 

many trails in the areas, which suggested a regional system 

might be perceived favorably by users. The findings also 

suggested that plans for development should not include 

many amenities as they are not desired by current users. 

Desired features included maps of trails with mileage, 

signs indicating permitted and prohibited trail users, and 

drinking water. 

The third poster, “Commercial and Non-Commercial 

Visitors to BLM Recreation Sites Along the Mokelumne 

and Merced River Corridors of the Western Sierras” by 

Sam A. Lollar and Robert E. Pfister examined river users. 

These users were mostly Anglos who expressed satisfaction 

with their river experiences. User opinions indicated a desire 

for site conditions to remain the same, for more information 

about the area, for better clean-up, and to enforce more 

rules and regulations. Trash bins, facilities for people with 

disabilities, restrooms, and trails headed the list of 

improvements desired. Friends and family were the primary 

means for learning about the areas. User knowledge of who 

maintained the areas was not strong. 

Water-related activity was also the focus of “Boating 

Capacity Review and Determination for Pineview 

Reservoir” by Randy T. Welsh. Pineview Reservoir is a 

heavily used recreation/irrigation reservoir located adjacent 

to the Wasatch Front urban area in Utah. According to Welsh, 

the issue is how to maximize the boating capacity of the 

reservoir to provide recreation opportunities while maintaining 

public safety and perceptions of a quality recreation experience. 

Reservoir managers feel the allowed numbers in the current 

carrying capacity policy are too high in order to effectively 

increase public safety and decrease boating congestion. This 

poster examined carrying capacity literature, recalculated 

useable acres, and made recommendations on revising the 

carrying capacity for Pineview Reservoir. 

User information was also a focus for “GIS Display of 

Recreational Activity and Associated Economic Value” 

by Julie Schaefers. The poster described a study of the 

Sweet Home Ranger District in Oregon. The data collected 

included group size, location of activity, user preference of 

available resources, trip expenditures, willingness to pay, 

and socio-economic information. The data was used to 

develop a dollar value for each activity and the demand for 

recreation activities in the area. This information can be 

used by resource managers as a land use planning tool as 

one measure (or layer) in a geographical information system 

(GIS) map of the area. Decisions made from this information 

could be used to improve the recreation opportunities of an 

area and to minimize conflicts between the recreational use 

and other competing uses of an area. 

Environmental Education 

Environmental education and land use ethics were the 

topics of three posters. The first, “Children’s Forest: 

Involving Tomorrow’s Leaders Today” by Robert Louden, 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 101 
described a program meant to empower youth to participate 

in forest stewardship. The Children’s Forest is a 3,400-acre 

section of the San Bernardino National Forest in California. 

The planners envisioned that youth will do all the planning, 

research, and implementation of forest management activities. 

From this, youth will learn leadership and educational skills 

to pass on their knowledge. 

The second poster, “National Forest Resource Game 

for Ecosystem Management” by Brent H. McBeth, described 

a computer natural resource game. Many years ago, the 

Forest Service produced a cardboard game entitled Woodsy’s 

Natural Resource Game. This material was distributed for 

home and small group environmental education purposes. 

The game consists of a game board that has land types as 

spaces around the board. These include rangelands, timbered 

mountains, rivers, streams, deserts, wetlands, grasslands and 

others to represent the full spectrum of lands that are managed 

by the USDA Forest Service. The playing cards represented 

land uses, from camping to harvesting timber for houses. 

Surprise cards had statements that begin with “Act of Nature,” 

“Act of Man,” and “Act of Congress” and instruct the player 

to add or remove use cards. Each player is dealt a hand of 

“Use” cards. The objective of the game is to properly place 

the “Use” on a compatible land type as you move around the 

board in turn. The first player to successfully place all of the 

“Uses” wins. Other players may challenge the placement of 

a “Use” card on any land type. A computer version of this 

game is being developed. The computer game will be 

accessible for home and public school use to teach sound 

ecosystem management principles of land use and stewardship. 

The third poster, “History of the Trabuco District” by 

Judith L. Behrens visually portrayed historic land use ethics 

of this Ranger District of the Cleveland National Forest in 

California. The poster emphasized the cause-effect processes 

that influenced historic land management practices. The 

photographs and narrative summaries focused on the impacts 

of early users and demonstrated that land use ethics in the 

“good old days” were not necessarily positive from an 

environmental or ecological standpoint. 

Partnerships 

Two posters described partnership activities. The first, 

“Look What’s Blooming on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest” by Laura Potash and Penny Falknor was a 

visual display celebrating wildflowers. Celebrating 

Wildflower events are largely educational, emphasizing 

wildflower appreciation and conservation by the public. In 

1992 the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest cooperated 

with 22 businesses and community groups in creating a 

beautiful “Celebrating Wildflowers” quilt; hosted a wildflower 

festival; produced 15 “Look What’s Blooming...” table top 

displays; and produced 10,000 copies of a “Celebrating 

Wildflowers!” newsletter. The program was expanded in 

1993 with a full day wildflower festival in Darringtom, 

Washington. The program was expanded again in 1994 with 

a 2-day festival, development of a native plant school 

curriculum, and 20,000 copies of the “1994 Celebrating 

Wildflowers!” newsletter. 

The second poster, “Puget Sound Eyes on Wildlife— 

A Watchable Wildlife Program,” by Mary Sagal and Charlie 

Vandemoer described a partnership between the Mt. 

Baker-Snoqualmie and Olympic National Forests, the 

Washington Department of Wildlife, and the Pilchuck and 

Black Hills Audubon Society Chapters. Goals of the program 

were to promote the protection of wildlife and its habitats in 

both forests; provide enhanced opportunities for all people 

to view wildlife and wildlife habitat while at the same time 

protecting this resource; promote learning about forest wildlife 

and its habitats needs; develop broad public support for 

forest practices that maintain healthy ecosystems for all 

forest wildlife; and establish internal and external partnerships 

that foster a sense of ownership in the use and management 

of National Forests. 

The Urban/Wildland Interface 

Two posters examined issues in the urban-wildland 

interface. The first, “Emerging Challenges to Natural 

Resources: Keeping the ‘Wild’ in Wilderness” by Lee 

DiGregorio and Sue Zahn, describes the San Mateo Canyon 

Wilderness (SMCW) on the Cleveland National Forest in 

southern California. The SMCW contains 40,000 acres nestled 

within the Santa Ana and Santa Margarita Mountains. Primary 

features of the SMCW are the many canyons that support 

intermittent and perennial streams that support a wide variety 

of riparian vegetation. Located within a 1-hour drive from 

the densely populated cities of Los Angeles and San Diego, 

this island of Wilderness is surrounded by encroaching 

residential neighborhoods and urban growth. Primary 

management challenges are related to easy access to the 

Wilderness, ever growing conflicts among our visitors, and 

a general lack of understanding of wilderness ethics by the 

public. The poster summarizes the effects of urban pressures 

and the emerging challenges to manage the natural resources 

while resolving conflict issues among users. 

The second poster, “Fire Managers Must Talk With 

People” by Arthur W. Magill, examined fire-related issues in 

the urban-wildland interface. Managers have repeatedly stressed 

the need to avoid building with flammable materials and 

landscaping with fire-prone vegetation yet residents continue 

overlook these warnings. Several problems may prevent 

managers from achieving their fire management goals. 

Communicating with homeowners is challenging; professionals 

in the building trade build to satisfy the desires of homeowners; 

community plans frequently do not address the interface fire 

issue; and fire managers do not spend enough time dealing 

with the public. Some barriers may be removed if fire managers 

overcome their reluctance to public involvement and become 

leaders in interpersonal communication. This could be achieved 

102 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
in part by training in the social sciences that emphasizes 

interpersonal relations, and communication strategies. 

Economic Issues 

Two posters examined economic issues. The first, 

“Natural Resources in the Invisible Economy of Rural 

New England” by Ron Glass, Thomas More, and Rod Zwick 

examined the nature and magnitude of the invisible economy 

in Vermont’s northeast area. This rural area is faced with 

economic loss of traditional resource-based industries and is 

characterized by high unemployment rates and low household 

incomes. The data, based on a mailed survey, suggests that 

residents are quite active in resource harvesting activities. 

The study results also suggest that the “invisible economy” 

is a highly significant factor in the lives of many rural 

residents. Knowledge of this economy may be of value for 

resource management decisions. 

The second poster, “The Role of Natural Resource 

Managers In International Tourism and Rural Development” by Arthur W. Magill, examined the economic potential 

of regional complexes. The United States had a service trade 

export surplus of $31.7 billion in 1990. Tourism is the 

largest category of service exports, and foreign tourism 

accounted for a surplus of nearly $2 billion in 1990. Wildland 

areas of the United States are important destinations for 

international visitors, but little is known about these visitor’s 

use of wildlands, their contribution to local economies, or 

their influence on the service export surplus. The surplus 

might be increased if resource agencies encouraged 

international visitation to wildlands. This poster describes 

how lesser known wildland attractions can be packaged to 

develop regional complexes to attract more tourists than the 

attractions may draw alone. It suggests that increasing foreign 

tourism may provide more dollars to support rural community 

development, to bolster sagging rural economies, and to 

reduce the United States trade deficit. Resource managers 

are encouraged to overcome their reluctance to public 

interactions and assume the leadership for building an 

international tourism strategy for wildlands. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 103 
Wednesday Evening Session


Simulated Field Trips


Chair: Linda Hecker 

USDA Forest Service 
Simulated Field Trips 

Deborah Chavez, Compiler 

The Simulated Field Trip session offered resource 

managers an opportunity to “show” Symposium attendees 

their resource areas. One presentation had a national focus, 

two examined recreational and cultural issues in Alaska, another 

focused on management of a National Forest in southern 

California, and the last presentation looked at recreational 

opportunities at a National Forest in Washington. The session 

was moderated by Linda Hecker, USDA Forest Service. 

National Focus 

Joe Meade’s “Universal Design and the Outdoor 

Recreation Environment” simulated field trip was designed 

to raise audience awareness of access to outdoor settings. It 

addressed national efforts to establish universal design 

guidelines for outdoor recreation settings. The main premise 

behind the development of these guidelines was the 

interrelationship of recreation settings, customer expectations, 

and levels of accessibility. Dynamic slides illustrated the 

concept of universal design, which is to provide facilities, 

programs and services that foster a sense of dignity, 

independence, and social integration. A diversity of visitors, 

activities, and recreation settings (i.e. Urban/Rural, Roaded 

Natural, Semi-Primitive, and Primitive) were shown, including 

people in wheelchairs rappelling from rock cliffs, anglers, 

campers, hikers, and boaters. Part of the simulated field trip 

included exposure to new, state-of-the-art ultra light outdoor 

sports equipment for individuals with mobility disabilities. 

The presentation challenged participants to promote access 

for all to America’s Great Outdoors. 

Alaska 

Two simulated field trips offered views of resource use 

in Alaska. Geneen Granger’s “The Many Cultural Uses of 

the Alaska Resource Area” looked at issues related to 

culturally specific uses of natural resources in Alaska. Patrick 

Reed, F. Clark, L. Ziemann, and S. Randall’s “Born of Ice: 

A Simulated Field Trip Through the Chugach National 

Forest” focused on the Chugach National Forest in Alaska. 

This Forest is the Nation’s northernmost and the second 

largest in the National Forest System. Its unique recreation 

opportunities and settings draw visitors from around the 

world and accommodate more than 16 million visits annually. 

Here Forest visitors may see glaciers and watch whales in 

the beautiful Prince William Sound, visit the rich wildlife 

habitat of the Copper River Delta, and fish the rivers and 

coasts for four species of salmon. They may camp, hike, 

hunt, kayak, downhill and cross-country ski, study the natural 

and cultural history of Alaska, or just relax--all amid 

spectacular mountain and coastal scenery. Managing the 

recreational opportunities in the Chugach is truly a challenge, 

due to factors such as the Forest’s size and remoteness, 

Federal statute provisions, the Alaskan transportation 

infrastructure, changing land ownership status, the growth 

of all forms of tourism, traditional and subsistence resource 

use issues, and even oil spills. 

California 

Joan Wynn’s “Armchair Tour of the Cleveland National 

Forest” focused on the many opportunities presented on the 

Cleveland National Forest in southern California. The 

National Forest covers 600,000 acres in San Diego, Riverside, 

and Orange Counties and many management issues are related 

to the proximity to urban areas. The land is predominantly 

chapparal, with steep canyons and intermittent streams, oak 

woodland meadows, Jeffrey and Coulter pine stands, and 

peaks up to 6,140 feet in the Santa Ana, Palomar and Laguna 

mountain ranges. Employees there manage campgrounds, 

other recreation sites, four wildernesses, wildlife habitat, 

range, watershed and soils, timber, fire prevention and 

protection, cultural resources, lands and special uses, 

communication sites, roads and trails, and more. Support 

programs include budget and fiscal management, personnel, 

civil rights, health and safety, fleet and facilities maintenance, 

computers, communications, and public affairs. Attention is 

currently focused on managing ecosystem diversity and 

valuable open space in southern California, protecting 

threatened and endangered species, and managing some of 

the last remaining large parcels of land used by wildlife. 

The increasing population in San Diego, Orange, and Riverside 

counties means a growing demand for recreation opportunities 

such as picnicking, camping, hiking, riding bicycles, and 

off-road vehicles. 

Washington 

Sue Lampe’s “Defining the Human Dimension in the 

Lewis Integrated Resources Analysis Project” simulated 

field trip focused on the Mt. Adams Ranger District on the 

Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. The Forest 

is conducting an Integrated Resource Analysis (IRA) on an 

estimated 21,000 acre planning area. Within the IRA area, 

about 44 miles of road are closed, restricting motorized 

vehicle access into about 60 percent of the IRA area. This 

area is commonly referred to as the Lone Butte Wildlife 

Emphasis Area and is allocated to several resource uses, 

including wildlife, recreation, and timber harvesting. The 

closure was implemented in 1988 with the purpose of 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 107 
reducing harassment of elk from vehicle traffic. Since The human “dimension” includes spiritual, ethical, cultural,�

then, conflicting issues have resulted over resource use of historic, esthetic, economic, and social concerns. Often,�

the area. Timber industry is concerned that the closed area the human dimension of project planning has stopped at the�

restricts land availability, making the 12,000 acre unavailable analysis of its ability to provide timber or aesthetic values.�

for timber harvest. Many recreationists perceive the area to The aim of the IRA will be to incorporate more information�

be a wildlife and recreation area where timber harvesting on the human components of the landscape, and then in�

would not occur unless it benefits wildlife habitat. The turn contribute to a model that can be used Forest-wide in�

IRA process allows for the analysis of landscape functions other IRA’s.�

for organisms which “use” the landscape, including humans.�

108 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Third Concurrent Session: Friday Morning�

Pilot Projects and New Paradigms 

Chair: Anne S. Fege 

USDA Forest Service 
Getting Alice Through the Door: Social Science Research 

and Natural Resource Management1 

Alan W. Ewert2 

Abstract: A number of trends are altering the role of science in 

natural resource management. These trends include the growing 

political power of science, the recognition that most natural resource problems are extremely complex and not prone to 

uni-dimensional solutions, and the increasing need to integrate an 

understanding of the human component into the planning and 

decision-making process. A sampling of the various roles of the 

social sciences and the types of questions amenable to social 

science are examined. 

In Lewis Carroll’s Alice Through the Looking Glass, 

Alice espies a strange-looking rabbit, follows it down a hole 

and ends up trying to get through a door that is much too 

small for her. In some ways we are faced with a similar 

analogy in natural resource management in which we have 

been confronted with a creature called heightened public 

awareness and interest in the management of our natural 

resources and followed that creature along unfamiliar 

terrain--public involvement in decision-making—and have 

come to a door that is difficult for us to get through— 

actually integrating the social sciences into policy and 

decision-making. 

Ascertaining the management preferences of a small 

segment of a population is a much easier task than 

understanding the overall human dimensions of natural 

resource management. Sometimes it seems that the prime 

directive of natural resource agencies has shifted from “what 

can we do for the public” to “what can the public do to us?” 

Moreover, from a national perspective, questions such as 

value (Bengston 1993, Brown 1984), the impact of attitudes 

on behavior (Vincent and Fazio 1992), and the relationship 

between environment usage and the impact upon social 

structures (Force and others 1993) are not always easy to 

ascertain from local-based public meetings and issues. Many 

of the problems society now faces in the management of its 

natural resources transcend easy solutions because they are 

global in nature, represent a longevity of neglect, are 

cross-cutting in boundaries and disciplines, involve damage 

that, in some cases, is irreversible and requires long-term 

and expensive solutions. Landre and Knuth (1993) argue 

that the success of groups, such as public advisory committees, 

often depends on the situation and composition of the 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, CA. 2

Branch Chief, Recreation, Wilderness, and Urban Forestry Research, 

USDA Forest Service, Washington DC. 

community, and as such, is prone to a great deal of variance 

in both process and outcome. Therefore, a re-examination of 

the role of social science is needed to effectively develop 

natural resource policy and management. 

This paper reviews some current trends surrounding 

science and natural resource management, discusses some 

potential roles for the social sciences and proposes a structure 

in which to “house” social science research in a natural 

resource agency, such as the USDA Forest Service. 

Current Trends 

Natural Resource Issues 

The number of situations now confronting natural 

resource management far exceed the capability of any one 

scientific group or governmental organization to adequately 

deal with these issues. These issues include the following: 

• Environmental degradation�

• Global deforestation�

• Global climate change�

• Loss of biological diversity�

• Changing demands for forest products�

• Wilderness preservation and the proper role of�

reserve areas�

• Sustainable production and harvesting practices�

• Forest health�

• Conflicting demands from society for preservation,�

recreation and commodity production�

Because of the number and complexity of these and 

other issues, science is gaining political power (Dietrich 

1992). This political power has increased because of the 

relatively objective nature of the research endeavor; the 

different scales of effects (e.g., site, forest, landscape, 

ecosystem, and global) that result in management solely 

based on intuition and past experience; and the overall lack 

of comprehensive data bases. In the latter case, the lack of 

comprehensive data sets allows the manager and policy-maker 

to develop premature closure on specific issues. For example, 

the belief that overharvesting is simply a result of leveraged 

buyouts and economic incentives of the timber companies 

tends to oversimplifies a complex situation. 

As a result of this incomplete information, scientists 

increasingly are asked to provide a foundation for the 

development of policy by defining the various alternatives. 

This implies that research serves an “up-front” role in 

decision-making that is used to develop policy rather than 

support for a decision already made. Research must also 

provide monitoring information about the outcomes and quality 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 111 
of the decisions and policies implemented, and maintain 

impartiality despite the pressure from the political process. 

And finally, another problem with the current role of research 

is the development of multi-approach and multi-discipline 

predictions rather than uni-dimensional solutions. 

Values 

A second trend is the growing diversity of values human 

beings place on natural resources. This diversity is not only 

situational but also a function of space and time. For example, 

to a person building a house, the wood products and price of 

those products are of critical importance. Most people, 

however, only build one or two houses in our lifetime and in 

the interim, other values take precedence in our value system. 

These other values might include forest preservation in order 

to escape the noise and congestion of the urban environment 

or cherishing the recreational activities offered by the forest 

environment. Others might value large wilderness landscapes 

as a way for the experience of adventure and challenge. 

Westman (1977) has previously distinguished between 

the goods and services produced by the natural environment. 

Table 1—Selected values associated with wildland areas1 

Goods include marketable products such as timber or forage 

or even the use of the environment for recreation. Services, 

on the other hand, are the functions of an ecosystem and how 

these various functions interact. These services include the 

absorption and breakdown of pollutants, the cycling of 

nutrients, and the fixation of solar energy. One example of 

this is the buffering effect of coastal wetlands. 

Juxtaposed to goods and services is the concept of values. 

A number of authors have identified a wide range of values 

associated with the natural environment (Roston 1985). These 

values include scientific, therapeutic and recreational entities 

(Ewert and Carr 1993). Associated with all of these values 

are differing levels of potential conflict (table 1). For example, 

aesthetic values have a high potential for conflict because of 

the individual nature of aesthetics. One person’s beautiful 

setting is another person’s boring scene. 

Human Impacts 

A third trend surrounding the interface of science and 

management is the growing omnipresence and omnipotence 

of human impact upon the earth’s landscape. There can be 

Values Level of Comments 

Potential Conflict 

Scientific Low Not well advanced; loss of wildlands is outstripping 

the ability to collect information. 

Therapeutic Low Many acknowledge the cathartic and rehabilitation 

qualities of wildland environments. 

Ecological/bio-diversity Low The importance of saving gene pools for future 

generations is widely recognized. 

Recreation Medium Can conflict with other values such as scientific; as a 

highly personal quality of life issue, these values often 

invoke high levels of emotion. 

Symbolic/cultural identity Medium Symbols from wildland areas such as the bald eagle or 

bison represent certain societal and national values 

(e.g., freedom, strength, “rugged individualism”). 

Aesthetic High The intangible and subjective nature of these values 

often lead to disagreement as to worth and value. 

Inherent worth High For many, wildlands have an intrinsic value just being 

there. Others feel that wildlands should be more 

“productive” for the good of society. 

Market High Usually are extractive and compete with most other 

values. This exclusivity creates high levels of emotion 

and conflict. 

1Sources: Roston (1985); Ewert(1990). 

112 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
little doubt that few landscapes or sites now exist free from 

the influence of humans. Most scientists agree that the net 

loss of the world’s forests due to human activity since 

preagricultural times is about 8 million square kilometers or 

an area about the size of the continental United States. Of 

this amount, more than three-quarters has been cleared since 

1680. In addition, the annual human withdrawal of water 

from natural circulation is now about 3,600 cubic kilometers 

or an amount exceeding the volume of Lake Huron. In 1680, 

the annual withdrawal was less than 100 cubic kilometers. A 

number of other statistics indicate the decline of global and 

environmental health (Postel 1992). 

Each of these trends suggests that people need to be 

considered in any long-term management strategy. The 

research community would be challenged to describe any 

major scientific advancement that ultimately did not involve 

a human dimension. Reidel (1992) poses the idea that in 

natural resource policy, perhaps management has been asking 

the wrong questions. The research community could also be 

asked the same question. What then would be the right 

questions and how can information be generated toward 

answering those questions? 

The Role of the Social Sciences 

in Natural Resource Decision-Making 

Bormann (1993) suggests that concepts of the 

environment such as sustainability, forest health, biodiversity, 

and ecosystem management are essentially human constructs 

that serve as expressions of human values. If we believe that 

natural resource management is one manifestation of the 

society in which we live, what type of scientific structure 

must be in place to provide the information necessary for 

effective natural resource decision-making? Machlis (1992) 

observed that biologists, ecologists, and other natural science 

professionals are now faced with a hard reality: ultimate 

solutions to natural resource problems are related to social, 

cultural, economic and political systems--the very systems 

that are the focus of the social sciences. While, traditionally, 

the social science disciplines have included political science, 

geography, anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics, 

and philosophy, more recent areas of inquiry could include 

the recreation and leisure sciences, education, demography, 

and social ecology. 

What is the role of the social science disciplines in the 

formation of natural resource policy? Global climate change 

presents one scenario that is both timely and of profound 

importance. The irony in this example is that while the issue 

has primarily been defined in terms of meteorological and 

chemical processes, the causes are almost exclusively human. 

Indeed, Maloney and Ward (1973) suggest that most 

environmental crises facing our society and the world are 

really “crises of maladaptive [human] behavior.” For instance, 

the various social sciences could affect the development of a 

comprehensive solution to any emerging changes in the 

global climatological systems: 

• Anthropology—What have been the patterns of human 

adaptation in response to historical changes in the climate? 

Did communities develop large scale adaptive methodologies, migrate, or simply die-out? Knowledge of our 

ancestors’ reactions may provide some insight into about 

the species general behavior in this type of crisis. 

• Political Science—What political and/or governmental 

institutional structures have been effective in producing 

global awareness, monitoring, and enforcement 

procedures? As a global community, we already have 

some examples of international discussion and action 

on far-reaching environmental issues such as nuclear 

weapons, regulating the use of the oceans, and 

international cooperation on issues such as illegal trade 

of threatened and endangered species (Feldman 1991). 

• Economics—What mixes of economic incentives would 

be most effective in altering behaviors to produce a 

more environmentally-friendly set of actions? 

• Education—What educational vehicles would be most 

influential in modifying the behaviors of individ 

uals? What will be the most effective mechanisms 

whereby methods of education can be translated into 

behaviors and knowledge that are not detrimental to the 

global environment? 

• Psychology/Sociology—How can the individual and the 

society be more responsible in modifying their behaviors 

to lessen the overall impact upon the natural resource 

base? What specific attentional cues “tell us” that there 

is a threat to global health? 

• Recreation and Leisure Sciences—Because outdoor 

recreation is often the primary avenue from which a 

large segment of the population experiences a direct 

contact with the natural environment, can the outdoor 

recreation experience be managed to increase the 

individual’s sensitivity and willingness to act environmentally-conscious (Ewert, 1991)? 

A growing set of literature now addresses the need to 

integrate the social, physical, and biological sciences 

(Heberlein 1988). The fact that our research community has 

failed to do so points to a message of inertia and lack 

ofwillingness on the part of the scientific institutions we 

have developed. Holden (1988) has argued that: The social 

sciences have lagged far behind in assessing the interactions 

between physical changes and human activities. Far more is 

known about the processes of global warming, deforestation, 

resource depletion, and pollution than about the processes of 

the human institutions that create these effects. 

However, merely rallying against the status-quo can 

ultimately be counterproductive. As we seek to bring about 

a greater awareness of the need for the social sciences in the 

context of natural resource research and decision-making a 

number of points should be considered (Machlis, 1993): 

• Include incentives for the integration of the biological 

and physical sciences such as competitive grants, research 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 113 
proposals and workshops. These could frame the 

questions in such a way as to be of interest to the other 

sciences. For example, identifying the inelasticity of 

entrance fees at a particular location could also include 

the anticipated physical and biological impacts upon the 

resource based on the different use levels. 

• Social science research programs need to be multi-scale 

including individuals, groups, communities, landscape 

and counties (human-equivalent landscape level), 

ecosystems, biomes, and global systems. 

• Where possible, recreation and similar disciplines should 

be linked with the mainstream social science literature. 

Failing to do so tends to marginalize and downgrade the 

information our scientists generate in the eyes of other 

disciplines and the courts. 

• From a funding agency perspective, design our 

cooperative agreements to meet natural resource 

management needs, both in terms of the actual science 

but also with respect to the overall visibility of the 

research. In addition, priority should be given to 

cooperative agreements that incorporate a consortia of 

universities and other research institutions in order to 

bring a variety of ideas and approaches to the issue 

under study. 

• Increasing our sensitivity about our managers and public 

who are not always cognizant of the human dimensions 

of natural resource management. The social sciences 

need to focus on defining the human dimension in natural 

resource management in addition to identifying the 

potential research questions. 

Although this list is incomplete, the emerging scientific 

challenge is to incorporate the social sciences into the 

policy and decision-making agenda because they bring a 

scientific focus on the human dimensions aspects of natural 

resource use. 

A Proposed Structure for Doing Social 

Science Research 

There is no prescription for success in any scientific 

endeavor. Any structure or “housing” arrangement has its 

drawbacks as well as advantages. Stern (1993) suggests 

some overriding and compelling questions to consider about 

the role of social science research in natural resource 

management. These questions include: 

• What forces drive the types of human activities that 

contribute to environmental degradation? 

• What are the mechanisms through which humans create 

environmental change? 

• How and in what ways does this environmental change 

effect the things people value (e.g., agriculture, coastal 

sea-levels)? 

• How do these changes impact social organizations such 

as governments, environmental/citizen groups and 

communities? 

In addition to these macro-level questions, the actual 

mechanics of social science research and natural resource 

decision-making will require that social science expertise be 

available for a variety of micro-level, shorter-term and 

localized research needs, such as the study of the 

socio-demographics of the visitors to a particular location or 

how changes in harvesting have impacted specific 

communities. 

In the case of social science research and global 

environmental change, Stern and others (1992) have 

recommended that the Federal government join with private 

funding sources to establish three to five national centers for 

research on the human dimensions of global change. This 

scenario consolidates social science efforts of the USDA 

Forest Service into two social science centers. 

One center would be based in the west and the other in 

the east. Each center would have the dual responsibilities of 

providing contracted service to National Forests, districts 

and other research units in addition to conducting research 

about theoretical social inquiry. A number of pervading 

issues suggest that each center should be located on or close 

to universities that have strong social science programs. 

Research would be conducted through center-directed, 

investigator-initiated RFP’s (Requests for Proposals), 

fellowships, or cooperative agreements. In addition, it would 

be of paramount importance for these centers to develop an 

extensive network of social scientists from a broad-spectrum 

of disciplinary expertise to study a particular issue. 

Conclusion 

The issues facing the social sciences now exceed visitor 

and experience characteristics and often include the very 

fabric of many of our social systems. Issues such as global 

climate change, the spotted owl, and old growth remind 

one of the Yukon traveler in Jack London’s To Build a 

Fire. The man was wise in the ways of the world but not in 

their significance. He never “saw” the clump of snow 

hanging from the tree, directly over his fire; the clump of 

snow that ultimately caused his demise. Our failure to 

include the human component in our environmental 

decision-making, at the very least will increase the 

probability of making poor decisions as a result of incomplete 

information. People make the problems but they also create 

the solutions. Fortunately, at this point in time, we still 

have a choice about what the future holds for some of our 

natural resources and perhaps, even for us. However 

uncomfortable the fit, integrating the social sciences with 

the rest of natural resource decision-making is a door we 

need to pass through. 

114 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
References 

Bengston, D. 1993. The nature of value and the value of nature. SAF 

National Convention, 1993 November 7-10, Indianapolis, IN. 

Bormann, B. 1993. Is there a social basis for biological measures of 

ecosystem sustainability? Natural Resource News 3: 1-2. 

Brown, T. 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics 

60(3): 231-246. 

Dietrich, W. 1992. The final forest. New York: Simon and Schuster. 

Ewert, A. 1991. Outdoor recreation and global climate change: Resource 

management implications for behaviors, planning, and management. 

Society and Natural Resources 4: 365-377. 

Ewert, A. 1990. Wildland resource values: A struggle for balance. Society 

and Natural Resources 3: 385-393. 

Ewert, A.; Carr, D. 1993. Owls, trees, and cows: Social science and the 

“hotbuttons” of natural resource management. National Social Science 

Perspectives Journal (In Press). 

Feldman, D. 1991. International decision-making for global climate 

change.Society and Natural Resources 4: 379-396. 

Force, J.; Machlis, G.; Zhang, L.; Kearney, A. 1993. The relationship 

between timber production, local historical events, and community 

social change: A quantitative case study. Forest Science 39(4): 722-742. 

Heberlein, T. 1988. Improving interdisciplinary research: Integrating the 

social and natural sciences. Society and Natural Resources 1: 5-16. 

Holden, C. 1988. The ecosystem and human behavior. Science 242: 663. 

Landre, B.; Knuth, B. 1993. Success of citizen advisory committees in 

consensus-based water resources planning in the Great Lakes basin. 

Society and Natural Resources 6: 229-257. 

Machlis, G. 1992. The contribution of sociology to biodiversity research 

and management. Biological Conservation 62: 161-170. 

Machlis, G. 1993. Personal communication. 

Maloney, M. & Ward, M. 1973. Ecology: Let’s hear from the people. 

American Psychologist 28: 583-586. 

Postel, S. 1992. Denial in the decisive decade. In: L. Brown, ed. State of 

the World. New York: W.W. Norton and Company; 3-8. 

Reidel, C. 1992. Asking the right questions. Journal of Forestry 90(10): 

14-19. 

Roston, H. 1985. Valuing wildlands. Environmental Ethics 7: 23-48. 

Stern, P. 1993. A second environmental science: Human-environment 

interactions. Science 269: 1897-1899. 

Stern, P.; Young, O.; Druckerman, D. 1992. Global Environmental Change. 

National Academy Press, Washington DC. 

Vincent, M.; Fazio, R. 1992. Attitude accessibility and its consequences 

for judgement and behavior. In: M. Manfredo, ed. Influencing Human 

Behavior Champaign, IL.: Sagamore Publishing Inc; 51-75 

Westman, W. 1977. How much are nature’s services worth? Science 197: 

960-963. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 115 
ACCESS America’s Great Outdoors: Public Lands


Are for Everyone!1 

Joe Meade Gregory J. Lais2 

With nearly 200 million acres of majestic mountains, 

deep rugged canyons, pristine high lakes, wild rivers, immense 

forests, and open meadows, the National Forest System 

provides the largest variety of outdoor recreation opportunities 

in the United States. Federal lands encompass a combined 

total of nearly one-third of this country. 

Most outdoor recreationists have the freedom to choose 

the type of recreation activity they want, the setting they 

want, and the personal level of challenge they desire for a 

quality recreation experience. People are drawn to the National 

Forests for different reasons. Some seek the solitude of the 

primitive backcountry; others, a rustic campsite nestled in 

the woods; and others, a social setting with convenient 

facilities. These visitors have a choice. 

Yet, for millions of Americans, choices for a desired 

recreation experience are limited. Historically, recreation 

facilities and programs were created by traditional design 

for the “average” person, which usually excluded people 

with disabilities. Thus, many people regard the great outdoors 

as inaccessible. 

Recreation uses and customer expectations have changed. 

Recreationists, land managers, and designers are recognizing 

that all people should have the opportunity to participate in 

outdoor recreation. In response to this expectation, Play and 

Learning in Adaptable Environments, Inc. (PLAE)—a 

multi-disciplinary, non-profit organization—and the USDA 

Forest Service have developed Universal Access to Outdoor 

Recreation: A Design Guide. This state-of-the-art design 

guide is breaking new ground in the area of accessibility by 

focusing on integrating universal design into all outdoor 

recreation environments (PLAE 1994). 

Universal Design Removes the Barriers 

Universal design is a relatively new approach that 

considers the needs of all users—children, the elderly, and 

people with mobility, sensory, cognitive, and temporary 

disabilities. In this approach, aspects and elements of 

accessibility are incorporated in the earliest planning stages 

and are designed to blend with the natural environment. The 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

National Accesibility Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, National Headquarters, Washington DC; Executive Director, Wilderness Inquiry. 

Minneapolis, MN. 

goal of universal design is to develop facilities, programs, 

and services that foster a sense of dignity, independence, 

and social integration for all visitors. 

The philosophy and guidelines presented in Universal 

Access to Outdoor Recreation relate customers’ expectations 

and choices with accessibility. Just as people seek different 

recreation opportunities and experiences in the National 

Forests, their expectations of accessibility also vary. To 

ensure that a diversity of recreation settings and customer 

expectations are considered, the USDA Forest Service and 

other natural resource management agencies use the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), an innovative 

recreation management and planning tool that divides outdoor 

recreation settings and levels of accessibility into four broad 

categories: urban/rural (easy), roaded natural (moderate), 

semi-primitive (difficult), and primitive (most difficult). 

Are Accessibility and Protection of the 

Natural Environment Mutually Exclusive? 

Because urban/rural settings are generally highly 

developed, people expect an easy level of accessibility to 

facilities and programs, such as visitor centers and its displays 

and programs. Trails in such settings are likely to be paved, 

with only gentle slopes. Developments such as fishing sites 

and scenic overlooks would include handrails designed for 

both safety and accessibility. 

Roaded natural settings are somewhat less developed 

than urban sites. People visit these areas expecting a moderate 

level of accessibility. Rustic campsites nestled in the woods 

may have leveled surfaces; instead of asphalt, campers might 

find compacted gravel surfaces. Trails, too, may be of natural 

compacted material, and slopes may increase slightly. 

Handrails at fishing sites may be replaced by natural materials 

such as boulders, giving anglers a greater sense of adventure 

and of being “out on the water.” 

Semi-primitive settings seldom offer developed features, 

and expectations of a difficult level of accessibility prevail. 

Campers are usually left to their own devices to find a 

relatively flat piece of ground for their tents. Trails in rugged 

terrain are usually narrow and steep. Accessibility is a 

secondary consideration. Scenic views and fishing sites occur 

as part of the natural environment. 

Primitive settings preserve the natural environment and 

accessibility standards are often not applicable because the 

primary concern is the sense of personal risk and challenge. 

As a result, people expect the level of accessibility to be the 

most difficult. People access primitive areas by various means, 

from canoeing and kayaking, to horseback riding and hiking. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 117 
One important point to remember is that all developed 

structural elements—restrooms, water hydrants, picnic tables, 

and cooking units—will be designed to meet full accessibility 

standards at all sites. 

Who Benefits? 

More than half the American population will benefit 

from campgrounds, restrooms, trails, and other visitor facilities 

and programs that are designed with access for everyone: 

• One in 5 Americans (43 million) experiences a disability 

• One in 10 Americans (25 million) is temporarily disabled 

at any one time 

• Nearly 1 in 3 older Americans (11.2 million of the 30 

million people over age 65) has a disability. 

In addition, if one family member cannot participate, 

most likely the entire family will be affected. So the initial 

figure of 43 million is actually just the beginning. Thus, the 

number of people directly benefiting from universal design 

can easily be multiplied three or four times. 

What’s on the Horizon? 

In addition to facilities and activities, universal design 

should be integrated into all programs and services. This 

integration will benefit all ages, abilities and cultures, as 

well as increase customer satisfaction. Individuals visiting 

an interpretive center or a visitor station expect and desire 

equal access to the information and services offered there. 

Information should be available in a variety of formats: 

visual, audible and tactile. Programs should be offered with 

options that allow for the greatest range of participation. 

The need for programmatic access underscores the 

importance of ensuring that service providers are sensitive 

to the needs of persons with disabilities and understand the 

vital importance of providing this access. Training and 

exposure to the issues and concerns of universal access is 

critical. Universal design improves the program and service 

for everyone. 

Collaboration 

American institutions are being encouraged and 

compelled to combine resources with other agencies for 

collaborative projects. The USDA Forest Service has 

developed several partnerships related to universal access 

which demonstrate that the whole is greater than the sum of 

the parts. One example of this is the Universal Design Short 

Course. For this partnership, the Forest Service formed a 

team with Wilderness Inquiry, Inc., a non-profit travel 

organization serving people with and without disabilities on 

wilderness adventures throughout the world, and the 

University of Minnesota, a land-grant university. The short 

course offered an intense exposure to universal design and 

presented guidelines on integrating it into the outdoor 

recreation environment. By acquiring personal experience, 

course participants developed the understanding that universal 

design is the only design approach that makes sense in a 

democratic society. 

The Forest Service has also established a partnership 

with Wilderness Inquiry, Inc., and America Outdoors, an 

association of trade outfitters. Through this challenge 

cost-share agreement, the outfitter industry and the Federal 

public land management agencies have developed a 

handbook to assist outfitters and guides in providing universal 

access to their programs and services (National Council on 

Disability 1992). 

Currently the American Ski Federation (AFS) has 

collaborated with the USDA Forest Service to develop access 

guidelines for the ski industry. This effort reflects not only a 

legal response to requirements of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, but also the industry’s view that providing 

accessible facilities makes good business sense. Developing 

guidelines together will create workable solutions that focus 

on quality customer service. 

Quickie Designs, a manufacturer of ultra-light outdoor 

recreation sport equipment for people with mobility 

disabilities, has formed a partnership with the USDA Forest 

Service and Wilderness Inquiry’s state-of-the-art technology 

for accessing America’s Great Outdoors.3 

These examples of partnerships underscore the fact that 

agencies do not need to have or develop expertise in every 

area. However, they do need to know where to find specific 

skills and how to develop effective partnerships that will 

make the best use of that expertise. 

Accessing the Wilderness 

Another partnership involving the National Council on 

Disability and Wilderness Inquiry Inc. produced a 

Congressionally mandated report on Wilderness Accessibility 

for People with Disabilities. This study, presented to the 

President and Congress, focused on lands managed under 

the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The 

report concluded that people with disabilities were as 

concerned with protecting the integrity of the wilderness as 

non-disabled individuals; accessibility should be a secondary 

consideration to the preservation and protection of the 

environment in the NWPS. 

The report also contained several recommendations to 

Congress related to the need for adopting policies that are 

consistent with Section 507c of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, such as developing guidelines for special 

permits and modifications that are consistent with the 

Wilderness Act; conducting trainings for NWPS managers 

to raise awareness of disabilities issues and use of NWPS by 

people with disabilities; and providing information to the 

3

Trade names and commercial enterprises or products are mentioned 

solely for information. No endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is implied. 

118 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
public about recreation opportunities in the NWPS for people 

with disabilities. 

A significant majority of persons with disabilities 

surveyed in the report enjoy the NWPS. Further, 76 percent 

of those surveyed do not believe that the restrictions on 

mechanized use stated by the Wilderness Act diminish their 

enjoyment. People with disabilities visit the NWPS in the 

same ways and for the same reasons that people without 

disabilities visit the NWPS. 

Conclusion 

The ideals we have described are based on broad input 

from consumers of accessible outdoor recreation. However, 

much additional research is needed. Two critical issues that 

warrant further study are: the social expectations of consumers 

of accessible recreation in the diversity of recreation settings; 

the energy consumption and physical capabilities required to 

utilize the universal design guidelines being established for 

outdoor recreation environments. 

References 

National Council on Disability. 1992. Wilderness Accessibility for People 

With Disabilities, Washington, DC: Wilderness Inquiry; 108 p. 

Play and Learning in Adaptable Environments (PLAE) 1994. Universal 

Access to Outdoor Recreation: A Design Guide. Berkeley, CA: MIG 

Communications; 240 p. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 119 
A Field Critique of the 3-Year Pilot Test for the CUSTOMER 

Recreation Visitor Survey1 

Patrick Reed Gwen Hirsch2 

Abstract: From 1990 to 1992, the USDA Forest Service implemented a 3-year pilot test of CUSTOMER, a standardized nationwide 

recreation visitor survey. Intended as a partnership between the 

agency’s Research and National Forest System branches, CUSTOMER 

has been a limited success to date. By the end of 1993, nearly 

20,000 recreation visitors had been interviewed in more than 35 

different sites, including 15,800 National Forest visitors from Alaska 

to Puerto Rico. Resulting data have not been fully analyzed to date 

nor been made available for recreation researchers, managers, or 

the general public. The results of a telephone interview of past 

CUSTOMER users is presented regarding their evaluation of the 

recreation visitor survey. Inherent conflicts within the multiple 

goals of CUSTOMER are examined, as well as insufficient funding 

and sponsorship, methodological compromises, and availability of 

alternative means for data collection that may be curbing a 

wide-spread demand for the survey in its present form. Six general 

recommendations are offered to help improve identified problems 

in CUSTOMER. 

The need to better understand the recreation use and 

users of the National Forest System has been evident since 

the passage of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act (RPA) in 1974 and the National Forest 

Management Act in 1976. Since the passage of these acts, 

the practical and theoretical goals of studying recreation 

have evolved from the collection of relatively simple 

quantitative measures to more complex qualitative measures 

of user behavior (Manning 1986). As suggested in the 1989 

USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment, and by others 

including the Office of Technology Assessment (1992), further 

effort is needed to collect comprehensive recreation visitor 

information that will enable recreation providers to improve 

the quality of recreation planning and management nationwide 

(Cordell and others 1990). The importance of studying Federal 

“customers” was most recently reinforced in an Executive 

Order signed by President Clinton on September 11, 1993, 

which charged all executive departments and agencies 

(including the Forest Service) with “ensuring that the Federal 

Government provided the highest quality service possible to 

the American people” (Clinton 1993). Specifically, the Order 

called for agencies to “survey customers to determine the 

kind and quality of services they want and their level of 

satisfaction with existing services.” 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, CA. 2

Social Scientists, Chugach National Forest, 3301 C. Street, Suite 300, 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

One of the more ambitious efforts in recent years to 

improve understanding of recreation visitors nationwide, the 

Public Area Recreation Visitor Study (PARVS), was begun 

in 1985 by the USDA Forest Service’s Southeastern Forest 

Experimental Station (SEFES). That Station has proposed to 

supersede PARVS by the more comprehensive Customer 

Use Survey Techniques for Operation, Management, 

Evaluation, and Research (CUSTOMER) recreation survey. 

In response, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

issued approval in 1990 for a 3-year pilot test (1990-92) of 

CUSTOMER to evaluate the methodology and potential 

effectiveness of CUSTOMER. During the past 3 years, 

CUSTOMER has been one of the few large scale studies of 

the Federal land recreation visitors and the only one to be 

conducted by a Federal agency. 

This paper offers a field-level review and discussion of 

the 3-year pilot test of the CUSTOMER recreation visitor 

survey. After the achievements of CUSTOMER during the 

3-year pilot test are summarized, the results of a telephone 

interview of personnel from sites that have utilized 

CUSTOMER are presented. Finally, three general issues 

associated with the CUSTOMER survey are discussed, as 

well as six recommendations for improving CUSTOMER (or 

other subsequent recreation survey projects). 

CUSTOMER Achievements and 

Current Status 

During the 3-year pilot test (and 1993) on selected Federal 

lands nationwide, CUSTOMER was successful in generating 

a wide range of recreation visitor data using a combination of 

on-site interviews and mailback question-naires. As of 

December 31, 1993, CUSTOMER had been implemented at 

more than 35 sites (defined as a unique combination of a 

specific administrative unit and recreation season) in 17 States, 

including 28 sites administered by the Forest Service, 7 by 

the USDI Bureau of Land Management, and one each by the 

USDI National Park Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 

(CUSTOMER has also been used as a component of several 

other economic value studies around the Nation.) More than 

19,850 recreation visitors were interviewed on site, with 43 

percent also completing and returning one or more additional 

mailback surveys. Some 80 percent of the total interviews 

(15,800) occurred within National Forests in all major 

geographic regions although the regions were sampled 

disproportionate to the amount of recreational use they received 

(USDA Forest Service 1993). Within the National Forests 

sampled, visitors engaged in all major categories of recreation 

activities (as defined by the Forest Service’s RIM [Recreation 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 121 
Information Management] and RRIS classifications) were 

interviewed, although again, disproportionate to use. 

CUSTOMER on-site interviews yielded information on 

selected demographic characteristics of visitors, including 

respondent sex, age, race/ethnicity, education level, 

employment, physical and learning impairment, household 

type, household income, group type, and group size. Selected 

trip characteristics of respondents included residence or market 

area; trip purpose; information sources for trip planning; 

primary destination; repeat versus first-time visitation; distance 

and hours travelled; length of stay; nights on site; visits 

during last 12 months; year of first visit; reasons for choosing 

a site; and identification of substitute sites. Finally, the 

on-site interview collected visitor attitudes about selected 

site-specific recreation planning and management issues. 

Following the on-site interview, visitors were given 

mailback questionnaires asking them to rate the importance 

of generalized setting attributes for both ideal settings and 

those at the site. Visitors also rated their satisfaction with 

those same attributes. In accordance with the work of Martilla 

and Hames (1977), importance and satisfaction ratings were 

subsequently combined to suggest appropriate general 

management responses. An optional second mailback 

questionnaire captured visitor trip and equipment expenses 

that could be utilized in the IMPLAN economic input-output 

model to indicate the economic impact of recreation use on 

surrounding counties. 

A Field Evaluation of CUSTOMER 

Despite the cost and amount of effort involved in the 

development and application of CUSTOMER during the 

3-year pilot test, to date the survey’s implementation, 

effectiveness, or use by the sites that have implemented 

CUSTOMER have not been systematically evaluated. 

Accordingly, for this paper one or more representatives from 

each site that had contracted for CUSTOMER during its 

3-year pilot test were interviewed over the telephone by the 

authors between December 1993, and January 1994. The 

purpose of the interview was to evaluate CUSTOMER based 

upon the experiences of the sites. Two types of site 

representatives were defined and contacted: (1) “planners,” 

or those involved in initiating and structuring the customer 

survey for the site, and (2) “users,” or those who now apply 

the results of CUSTOMER data in the ongoing planning and 

management of the site. A total of 47 site representatives 

were identified and interviewed. (Four representatives had 

retired subsequent to their involvement with CUSTOMER 

and were not contacted.) The responses of each site 

representative were weighted equally in the analysis of the 

interview results although in several cases an individual was 

involved as both a planner and a user at the site, or was 

involved in multiple implementations of CUSTOMER. 

The responses of planners and users were compared in 

order to detect differences in their expectations for 

CUSTOMER and its subsequent performance. And responses 

for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992 seasons were compared 

in order to recognize improvement or maturation of the 

CUSTOMER project. And the Forest Service was compared 

with other agencies in order to suggest whether CUSTOMER 

was found more or less suitable by Forest Service site 

representatives as a group. 

Expected Use of CUSTOMER Data 

Site representatives were asked to indicate whether they 

had expected to use CUSTOMER data for several advertised 

uses of CUSTOMER. The most expected and most frequently 

used application of CUSTOMER data reported was for uses 

associated with new investments and capital improvement 

projects (89 percent), followed by site planning (83 percent), 

and forest planning and plan revision (77 percent). The 

application with the least expected and actual use was training 

(17 percent). Other possible expected uses included marketing 

and publicity, environmental impact statements and 

assessments, congressional data requests, budgeting and 

staffing, and conflict resolution. Up to 35 percent of the site 

representatives reported that they had not yet had an 

opportunity or need to use the data for one or more of the 

expected purposes. Many expected that they would eventually 

use the data. 

Usefulness of CUSTOMER Data 

Site representatives were asked to rate 10 specific areas 

of CUSTOMER data in terms of usefulness for meeting their 

planning and management needs. Using a 5-point scale ranging 

from “very good” (5) to “very poor” (1), the highest ratings 

were given to visitor demographic profiles (4.2), trip profiles 

(4.1), and visitor setting preferences (4.1). The least useful 

data were associated with spending and economic impact 

(2.9). Other possible areas of data included activities engaged 

in, visitor setting satisfactions, values and markets, special 

issues, and willingness-to-pay. The mean ratings for several 

areas of information differed significantly (p <= .05) by 

agency and by year. 

CUSTOMER Implementation 

Using the same scale, site representatives were asked to 

rate how well nine different stages of CUSTOMER were 

implemented at their sites. Volunteer training and interviewing 

(4.2), pre-survey consultation (3.9), and on-site set-up and 

sampling (4.0) were most highly rated. The lowest rated 

implementation stage was post-survey consultation (2.4). Other 

implementation stages included final data report, presentation 

of results, mid-survey consultation, and contract administration. 

The mean ratings for several implementation stages were 

significantly different (p <= .05) by year, the highest ratings 

given to CUSTOMER implementation in 1991. 

122 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Future Use and Recommendation 

Site representatives were asked if they would consider 

conducting another CUSTOMER survey at their site within 

the next 3 to 5 years. The most common responses were 

“No—no need to update data” (20 percent), “Maybe—survey 

funding is uncertain” (17 percent), and “No—would seek 

other sources for data” (15 percent). Thirteen percent indicated 

“No—not satisfied with CUSTOMER” and only 6 percent 

indicated “yes—satisfied with CUSTOMER.” The frequency 

for the “No—not satisfied with CUSTOMER” response 

differed significantly (p ≤ .05) by agency, with Forest Service 

site representatives less likely to be unsatisfied. 

Most site representatives responded “Yes—without 

conditions or reservations” (47 percent) when asked if they 

would recommend CUSTOMER to other National Forests, 

parks, wildlife refuges, or Bureau of Land Management 

districts. Forty percent indicated “Yes—with conditions or 

reservations,” but 13 percent responded “No—would not 

recommend CUSTOMER.” 

Comments 

Site representatives were asked whether they had additional 

comments regarding CUSTOMER or suggestions for 

improving or changing CUSTOMER. The most common points 

expressed in the comments of the representatives included: 

•A need and desire for social survey data on recreation 

visitors in general. 

• A need for data that can address site-level planning 

and management problems and issues, as opposed to 

data structured for use in a national research database 

or national modeling efforts. This site-level data is 

without a doubt the reason that most sites became 

involved in CUSTOMER. 

•A wide range of physical and social conditions and 

available management resources among sites, as will 

as analytical capability and sophistication among 

site managers. The implementation of CUSTOMER 

needs to be flexible to fit unique situations and available resources. 

• Some of the most desired information, especially 

economic impact and market analyses, is also the least 

well developed in CUSTOMER in terms of its scope, 

comprehension, and applicability. 

• One of the most often expressed complaints was that 

CUSTOMER did not also capture total use estimates as 

well as profiles of typical visitors. 

Issues Facing CUSTOMER 

As reflected in the responses from the telephone interview 

of site representatives, field-level support of CUSTOMER 

as it was implemented was less than unanimous. Not 

suprisingly, usage of CUSTOMER has declined since its 

peak year in 1991. In 1993, only six sites participated and, to 

date, only half that many expect to implement CUSTOMER 

in 1994. The apparent concern about CUSTOMER expressed 

in the interviews suggests that if CUSTOMER is to mature 

and thrive in the future as a corporate recreation visitor 

research tool at least three very much interrelated issues 

must be addressed: (1) the purpose of CUSTOMER; (2) the 

administration of CUSTOMER; and (3) the methodologies 

of CUSTOMER. These issues are easy to identify but will 

require some hard decisions and a full recognition of the 

implications and trade-offs of the choices made. 

Purpose of CUSTOMER 

CUSTOMER was implemented to serve multiple 

purposes, especially to aid National policy planning and 

National Forest-level management. Like its predecessor 

PARVS, which was one of the foundation databases used in 

the Forest Service’s legislatively mandated 1989 RPA 

Assessment (Cordell and others 1990) and 1993 RPA 

Assessment update (English and others 1993), CUSTOMER 

was intended foremost to provide baseline and continuing 

data for RPA Assessment analysis of the outdoor recreation 

and wilderness situation in the United States. This purpose 

has dictated much of the structure of the CUSTOMER 

sampling methodology and survey questionnaires. 

Another purpose of CUSTOMER was to provide visitor 

information to individual sites participating in the survey. 

Thus, in addition to information used in the RPA Assessment 

analysis, CUSTOMER also contained questions to help 

provide insight into managing recreation resources, including 

visitor reasons for choosing a site; visitor satisfaction with 

various site and management attributes; and up to a dozen 

unique questions developed in consultation with each site. 

A third purpose was to develop a nationwide database 

that would be capable of providing a composite picture of 

recreation visitors at public recreation areas across the country. 

The data base would also be utilized to compare visitors of 

one site with those of other sites in order to help establish a 

frame of reference for interpreting results. 

CUSTOMER most likely can serve only one master well. 

The multiple purpose intent of CUSTOMER has contributed 

to conflicts in its implementation and to some limitations in 

its usefulness for the RPA Assessment analysis of recreation 

and for the management of individual sites. For example, by 

virtue of its trying to assess comparable national trends, 

CUSTOMER questionnaires have purposefully retained some 

vagueness in question structure in order to be applicable at a 

variety of sites and for a variety of activities. This purposeful 

vagueness, however, may in turn increase confusion among 

visitors when responding to survey questions and among site 

managers interpreting ambiguous data results. Both tend to 

limit the specificity and usefulness of information needed for 

management at any given site. In addition, the number of 

questions whose primary usefulness is for RPA Assessment 

analysis modeling (and national database purposes) consumed 

most of the time it took to complete an interview. As a result, 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 123 
few site-specific questions could be added to the questionnaire 

without the entire survey often requiring one-half hour or 

more to administer. 

CUSTOMER sampling plans were structured around 

specific groups of recreation activities, preferably those that 

could be easily incorporated into RPA Assessment analysis 

modeling equations for set activity groups, rather than focal 

areas of activities. Site managers were encouraged (if not 

effectively restricted) to label and treat their recreation visitors 

as standard activity groups rather than as unique visitor groups 

with unique desires and needs. The sampling plans in turn 

relied upon a site manager’s ability to estimate the number 

and distribution of recreation visitors by the standard activity 

groups. In many cases the site managers were unable to 

supply accurate estimates, which led to less effective sampling 

plans. More importantly, since it was not entirely random, 

sampling by activity group precluded the almost universally 

desired capability of estimating total recreation use. 

Such limits on the usefulness of CUSTOMER data to 

sites has contributed to an annoyance among some site 

managers. Some consider that they have in a sense helped 

underwrite the cost of the RPA Assessment analysis out of 

their own forest budgets at the expense of gaining more 

reliable site-specific data. 

CUSTOMER’s multiple purpose nature has also affected 

the usefulness of the data for national database purposes as 

well. Because of the use of individual sampling plans and 

the self-selecting nature of participating sites, the ability to 

derive and validate weighting factors to proportionately weight 

site data for national aggregation has also been adversely 

affected. Finally, regardless of the reason, no national database 

has been made available to datenor have the summaries of 

individual results been compiled and published. 

Administration of CUSTOMER 

Developed within the Research branch of the USDA 

Forest Service Service, CUSTOMER was initially considered 

to be a research project. Thus, the development costs of the 

3-year pilot test were primarily funded by the Research 

branch. Nevertheless, sites participating in CUSTOMER 

transferred funds to SEFES to help cover the cost of travel 

for consultation, developing sampling plans, providing and 

monitoring volunteer interviewers, data analysis, and report 

monitoring volunteer interviewers, data analysis, and report 

preparation. An average cost per site for implementing 

CUSTOMER was about $15,000, although some sites 

contributed as much as $100,000 for extended or multiple 

seasons of interviewing. During the middle of the pilot test, 

a recommendation was made by the National Forest System 

branch to set an unofficial cap of $20,000 for an average site. 

Without additional base funding, this amount would not be 

adequate to support a full-time staff at SEFES dedicated to 

the operation and development of CUSTOMER. 

In 1992, the Research branch considered CUSTOMER to 

be sufficiently developed and therefore no longer considered 

it a proper research function (although it retains its original 

ties to SEFES). The National Forest System branch, however, 

has yet to assume the direction and funding of CUSTOMER. 

As a consequence, CUSTOMER now receives little or no base 

funding sufficient to maintain a dedicated staff. CUSTOMER 

is effectively if temporarily in administrative limbo. 

Although the cost per site for implementing CUSTOMER 

is too low to support a full-time staff, it is nevertheless a 

considerable amount to many National Forests. The decision 

to implement CUSTOMER often comes at the expense of 

hiring seasonal employees needed to help manage the sites. 

The perceived high cost of CUSTOMER in comparison to 

other priorities for National Forest recreation budgets, in 

combination with the acknowledged need for visitor data, 

has and will continue to force a number of site managers to 

pursue other avenues for collecting recreation use and 

information (especially the use of nearby universities). The 

reliance upon independently operated research will not further 

the development of a standardized national database of 

recreation visitor information. 

The cost of research will also likely promote the 

continued sampling of activity groups, which for one reason 

or another have become a management problem or interest. 

Alternatively, site managers may choose to maximize data 

collection by sampling only the most cost-effective activity 

groups, such as developed overnight and day use, sightseeing, 

and visitor information centers. There is evidence that this 

has occurred. To date, little if any extensive sampling has 

been done in designated wilderness areas because of the 

very high per capita cost of interviewing wilderness visitors. 

Without some form of reduced cost or subsidization, the 

information available about backcountry visitors in particular 

will continue to be sub-standard by comparison. As a result, 

the breadth of recreation visitor knowledge will likely remain 

rather narrow in scope and focused on more heavily used 

and developed sites. 

Resolving the administration of CUSTOMER may also 

affect its overall sampling strategy and the flexibility of the 

survey instrument. If CUSTOMER were to be administered 

by the National Forest System branch—essentially as just 

one tool in a manager’s “toolbox”—concern for ensuring 

“representatives” of sites when compiling results from a 

national database would be minimal. Rationale for retaining 

a rigid questionnaire format and length would also be reduced. 

Again, such a course will not further the development of a 

standardized national database of recreation visitor information. 

CUSTOMER Methodology 

Other problematic issues that affect the sampling 

procedures used for CUSTOMER, include problems of poor 

specificity of sampling unit; nonrandomness on the selection 

on sites and visitors; bias and representativeness of results; 

aggregation and weighting of data; and confidence levels 

for results. 

As a source of data for national planning, some argue 

that existing CUSTOMER data has a degree of bias in terms 

of geography, activity, and towards repeat visitation. The 

124 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
sites that have participated in the 3-year pilot test essentially 

represent a self-selected sample of all such sites where people 

recreate. To date, general regions such as the Rocky Mountains 

(especially the Rocky Mountain Region) and the Pacific 

Coast (especially the Pacific Southwest Region) have been 

proportionately under-sampled in terms of the visitor use 

they receive annually, while areas such as Alaska and the 

South have been over-sampled. This problem compounded 

by the fact that the sites sampled within the regions are not 

necessarily a good cross-section of the range of site types in 

the region. 

Another problem has resulted from the fact that each 

site involved in the 3-year pilot test was responsible for 

assigning a definition to an activity group. Although this 

should rightly be their choice, activity groups may be defined 

differently: an urban-oriented site (such as the Las Vegas 

District of the Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada) may 

define ‘over-night camping’ differently than a more remote 

site (for example, the Steens Mountains in the Bureau of 

Land Management’s Burns District in Oregon). Comparisons 

and aggregations of such data seem logical but may result in 

the proverbial mixing of apples and oranges. 

Still another problem stems from the fact that 

CUSTOMER data in fact represents only the visitors who 

used the site. CUSTOMER was not intended to be a household 

survey capable of assessing the recreation behavior of the 

population in general without regard to whether to, or how 

often, they used a site. In this respect, CUSTOMER data is 

most likely biased toward visitors who frequent sites most 

often and may be biased toward those who haven’t been 

displaced because of dissatisfaction with the setting attributes 

or management. As a result, data on infrequent users and 

dissatisfied visitors is under-represented. This is one possible 

explanation for the consistently high visitor satisfaction ratings 

for site attributes observed throughout CUSTOMER results. 

Mailback responses were not examined to disclose the 

possibility of non-response bias among visitors. 

Although systematic weighting adjustments suggested 

by other National Forest use information may compensate 

for non-random, disproportionate, or biased sampling, the 

end product cannot be better than the other information. In 

truth, the reliability of National Forest recreation use 

information at all levels is highly variable. Thus, even if 

problems with randomness and adequate sample size could 

be resolved, final estimates may be compromised by unreliable 

weighting factors. 

A true pre-test of the CUSTOMER survey was lacking. 

Instead, the prior PARVS instrument, from which the 

CUSTOMER questionnaire was adapted, was assumed to 

have already been tested in service. However, CUSTOMER 

included several new “modules” and a new pre-test might 

have been able to detect how well visitors actually understood 

some new key concepts and phrases. For example, in questions 

concerning satisfaction, visitors were asked to rate 

“barrier-free access.” Although the phrase is generally 

understood among recreation professionals as referring to a 

degree of accessibility to persons with a physical or other 

disability (a qualitative measure), visitors could also have 

interpreted the phrase as referring to whether enough trails 

or roads were open to the public (a qualitative measure). 

Also needing additional examination are statistical 

confidence levels that may be placed on CUSTOMER survey 

results. To date, there has been little if any discussion as to 

what constitutes acceptable error bounds for survey mean 

and frequency estimates, considering the implications of 

their use for both Federal and National Forest level 

applications. Without such an examination, sites especially 

are resigned to “getting what they get” from sample sizes 

that their budgets permit. In addition, site managers have not 

been provided with confidence intervals for means and 

frequencies estimated in the standard CUSTOMER reports 

in order that they might at least make their own judgments 

with a known level of risk. 

Summary and Recommendations 

The range and volume of data needed to plan and manage 

our National Forests and other Federal lands—both 

individually and collectively—is extensive and varied. Like 

other Federal agencies, the Forest Service has been making 

slow but steady progress towards recognizing those needs 

and to improving their efforts to gain the necessary 

information. Clearly, though, much remains to be done in 

terms of conceptualizing and implementing a comprehensive 

visitor information monitoring strategy. 

The PARVS and CUSTOMER recreation visitor surveys 

have been valuable tests for the collection of some necessary 

information. Nevertheless, like many other Federal, state 

and private recreation visitor surveys, CUSTOMER has its 

flaws and may have a limited future as it has been structured 

and implemented. Given the potential for conflicts involved 

in gathering site-specific management data and nationwide 

planning data, the expectation that one type of survey can 

meet multiple needs may not be feasible. CUSTOMER has 

been developed and implemented without the benefit and 

guidance of a truly comprehensive national information 

strategy. From the results obtained from telephone interview 

of site representatives, the conflicts and the lack of direction 

could undermine widespread user confidence in and 

application of CUSTOMER. 

In the longer term, other data collection strategies— 

existing, proposed, or future strategies can equally if not 

better fulfill the separate purposes of CUSTOMER. For 

example, the recently developed, shorter, and more flexible 

(CUSTOMER) Report Card may be a superior method for 

collecting data and specific management issues. Household 

surveys, such as the proposed National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, are in theory superior for 

collecting nationwide recreation visitor use and general 

preference information. 

In the near term, we recommend several general actions 

that would increase the attractiveness of CUSTOMER to 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 125 
either the Research or National Forest System branches of 

the Forest Service, (and other potential users) by correcting 

some of the surveys major weakness, including the following: 

• Establish a new national task force or working group 

composed of national planners, field recreation managers, 

and researchers to review the Forest Service’s future 

recreation planning and management data needs. Further, 

the group should develop a reasoned and comprehensive 

strategy and set of quality standards to guide site-speciic 

and national recreation information collection and 

analysis. (This recommendation is consistent with 

conclusions of the Office of Technology Assessment 

(1992) regarding the data condition and needs for the 

RPA Assessment analysis of recreation and wilderness.) 

• Resolve which branch of the Forest Service—Research 

or the National Forest System—will administer and fund 

the operation and development of CUSTOMER. 

• Resolve whether the purpose of CUSTOMER data 

collection is for RPA Assessment analysis, the national 

recreation visitor database, or National Forest-level 

management. 

• Conduct an in-depth review of CUSTOMER’s theoretical 

and technical strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, other 

existing and proposed surveys should be reviewed so that 

CUSTOMER may be compared to systems and methodologies (Chavez and others 1993). Establish protocols 

for linking or modifying CUSTOMER so that is may also 

serve in a secondary support role to other equally 

sophisticated survey efforts previously implemented. 

• Improve the standard CUSTOMER sampling methodology, data analysis, and reporting format to include 

more useful marketing data and economic expenditure 

and regional impact analyses. Confidence intervals on 

mean and frequency estimates should be included to 

help managers assess the “risk” of relying upon an 

estimate. Better pre-survey consultation should be 

conducted, and post-survey follow-up procedures to 

evaluate experience should be improved. More flexibility 

in sampling approach that permits estimation of activity 

and total site use should be available, if not preferred. 

Finally, the summary results of pilot test sites should be 

compiled, published and updated annually. 

• Develop a short course or module in the national correspondence course curriculum (such as exists at 

Colorado State University) that could teach site managers 

to become more knowledgeable in survey research 

methodology and data analysis, including the use of 

available computer software to compile and analyze 

CUSTOMER survey data. 

References 

Chavez, Deborah; Winter, Patricia L.; Baas, John 1993. Imperial Sand 

Dunes. Visitor research case study. USDI Bureau of Land Management; 

33-39. 

Clinton, William J. 1993. Executive Order. Setting Customer Service 

Standards. September 11. 

Cordell, H. Ken; Bergstrom, John C.; Hartman, Lawrence A.; English, 

Donald B.K. 1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreation and wilderness 

situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

GTR-RM-189. Ft. Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

USDA Forest Service; 93. 

English, Donald B.K.; Betz, Carter J.; Young, J. Mark; Bergstrom, John 

C.; Cordell, H. Ken. 1993. Regional demand and supply projections for 

outdoor recreation. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-230. Ft. Collins, CO: 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 4. 

Manning, Robert E. 1986 Studies in outdoor recreation. Corvallis: Oregon 

State University Press; 6-8. 

Martilla, J.C.; James, J.A. 1977. Importance-performance analysis. Journal 

of Marketing 41 (1); 77-79. 

Office of Technology Assessment. 1992. Forest Service Planning. Congress 

of the United States; 3. 

US Department of Agriculture. 1993. Report of the Forest Service. FiscalYear 

1992; 103-105. 

126 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Using Challenge Cost-Share Partnerships to 

Communicate with Ethnically Diverse Recreation Users in 

Southern California1 

Thomas W. Spencer Robert E. Pfister2 

Abstract: Recreation managers have established more effective 

communication with dispersed recreation users of the Angeles 

National Forest in southern California, through the development 

and use of Challenge Cost-Share Partnerships with regional 

non-profit organizations. From 1988 to 1990, researchers conducted a series of surveys of recreation visitor populations in the 

heavily used dispersed recreation areas of San Gabriel Canyon, on 

the Mt. Baldy Ranger District. The findings revealed that most of 

these users only decided to come to the National Forest 24 hours or 

less before their arrival. This finding suggested that recreation use 

of the National Forest was mostly the result of spontaneous choice 

behavior and that communication with groups in advance would 

not be easy or certain. Thus, they would not have current information on changes in regulations or fire restrictions. Nearly 70 percent of the users surveyed were Hispanic, of which 81 percent 

listed Spanish as their primary language. The fact that many of 

these users were recent immigrants offered insight into their lack 

of familiarity with the programs and practices associated with an 

outdoor land ethic. 

The Angeles National Forest (ANF) in southern 

California has become the quintessential urban National 

Forest. More than 15 million people reside within a 1-hour 

drive of the National Forest boundary--the skyscrapers of 

Los Angeles Civic Center are only 9 miles away. Forest 

managers serve an annual number of 30 to 35 million 

recreation visits. 

Communicating complex messages about forest 

regulations, resource ethics, visitor safety, fire restrictions 

and recreation opportunities to the user population was 

perceived to be somewhat ineffective in the context of the 

tendency to use traditional information delivery strategies. 

This problem was particularly evident in communicating 

with dispersed recreation customers. In 1988, a study was 

begun to examine what could be done to improve the 

communication process between the USDA Forest Service 

district staff and and seasonal visitors arriving in large 

numbers to dispersed areas of the Angeles National Forest. 

1 An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2 Recreation Officer, Mt. Baldy Ranger Station, USDA Forest Service, 

Angeles National Forest, Glendora, CA 91740; Research Social Scientist, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 4955 Canyon 

Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507. 

This communication study had two primary objectives: 

•	 to examine the decision-making process of the visitors 

in terms of planning their trip and to describe the trip 

characteristics of the dispersed site visitors; and 

•	 to test the adequacy of a two-stage questionnaire in 

obtaining specific information about the com-munication 

networks of the new (non-traditional) visitors engaging 

in recreational activities at the dispersed sites. 

Methods 

In summer 1988 data was collected from more than 

230 “non-traditional visitors” at nine sites in the Mt. Baldy 

Ranger District. Based upon field observations of district 

staff and a report by the Supervisor’s Office (Hartley 

1986), the data collected showed that a variety of activities 

and uses in specific areas were new to the lower canyon 

area and little was known about the customer. Data were 

collected from personal interviews and from the distribution 

of a self-administered questionnaire. The field investigators 

also completed a record about group characteristics and 

recorded comments provided by the user concerning how 

they each felt about the area, the facilities, and the general 

management. The procedures involved a stratified random 

sample of nine sites for the interview procedures. The 

dispersed sites where the visitors were contacted are shown 

in the sketch map of the Mt. Baldy District and the Arroyo 

Seco District (fig. 1). 

Results 

Only a portion of visitor responses are described herein 

and these results relate to their trip characteristics, 

trip-planning, and their preferred style of communication. 

Complete information pertaining to the observations that 

follow are reported in their entirety in Appendix A of the 

project technical report (Simcox and others 1989). 

Trip Characteristics 

The majority of the respondents (76 percent) indicated 

they spent approximately 1 hour or less to arrive at the area. 

The variation in travel time was noteworthy: the average 

was 62 minutes with a standard deviation of 50 minutes. 

This average travel time applies to an extensive area of the 

Los Angeles Basin; and the responses of visitors to the 

question of “residence” (ZIP codes) showed that the Mt. 

Baldy District serves a basin-wide market. The summer trips 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 127 
Figure 1—Angeles National Forest 

involved large groups with an average size of eight individuals 

and a variation ranging from 1 to 50 individuals. Ten percent 

of the groups had from 16 to 50 individuals in their party. 

Trip Planning 

The results revealed very little advance planning for the 

trip—most of the visitors decided 24 hours or less before 

arriving to the area. This response was true for the majority of 

the respondents (70 percent) and made the task of broadcasting 

advance public notices more uncertain. Generally everyone 

in the group participated in the decision to visit the area (65 

percent), but this was not a time-consuming decision because 

the site was the only place they considered (61 percent). The 

majority (76 percent) of the visitors were self-identified “new 

users” because they visited the recreation site either once the 

previous summer or perhaps the day they were interviewed. 

Interpretation 

The investigators concluded from these results that the 

new customers have different characteristics, use patterns, 

and preferences in comparison to the established use patterns. 

The new visitors were often “New Americans” in the context 

that they had immigrated to the United States. They tended 

to prefer interpersonal oral messages to learn about the area 

and the opportunities available to them. The new visitors’ 

knowledge and perceptions were based upon communication 

with peers and friends and not the printed material published 

by the managing agency. Nearly three-quarters of those 

surveyed first heard about San Gabriel Canyon from another 

person. Except for guidebooks, mass media were unimportant 

sources of information. This finding was consistent with 

previous studies that focused upon the communication 

networks of newly immigrated individuals. As stated by J.O. 

Yum (1983) “Newly immigrated individuals will seek out 

their own culture in a new country and will only expand their 

communication networks over a long period of time.” This 

meant that some of the visitors to the area, whose cultural 

experiences or values were based upon closely knit family 

systems, would tend to have a more limited interpersonal 

communication network. That is to say an interpersonal 

communication network which can be contrasted to what 

would be characteristic of a California-born Anglo; the kind 

of visitor who is most likely to have one of the widest range 

of communication networks. This difference was revealed in 

the responses of the U.S.-born visitors whom were more 

likely than other visitors to use guidebooks as a source of 

information about the area (p <.03). 

128 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Also, beyond the questions related to the communication networks, there were questions related to spatial 

patterns and timing of public messages. Because the sociodemographic variation was substantial among the culturally 

diverse visitors, targeting public announcements to specific 

local residential communities would be difficult—given 

the dispersed nature of the customer. Moreover, given the 

spontaneous nature of the visitors’ trip-planning, the resource 

managers’ ability to systematically contact them in advance 

and deliver accurate and timely messages about regulations, 

site closures, or use restrictions would be very limited. In 

addition, the recreation experience of the visitor was not 

tied to a specific entry point (e.g.-ORV area) nor an 

established check-in procedure (e.g.-wilderness permit), so 

the implementation of some form of on-site communication 

would have to be well-thought out. 

Research Applications and 

Recommendations 

The recreation leadership group on the Mt. Baldy Ranger 

District (MBRD) examined the research findings and 

recommendations generated by field investigation conducted 

by California State Polytechnic University-Pomona and 

California State University-Chico along with other reports 

produced by the research staff at the Pacific Southwest 

Research Station (PSW), USDA Forest Service. 

The studies suggest that natural resource professionals 

need to listen more attentively to the public to clearly 

understand their wishes and values (Magill 1988). Listening 

to, and communicating with the dispersed recreation 

customers is a challenge. The Forest Service is effective in 

communicating and interpreting detailed, and sometimes 

complex, information to the public at “fixed” locations 

like information bulletin boards and Visitor Centers. The 

agency has no effective strategy for informing visitors in 

dispersed recreation settings. Mt. Baldy District staff 

evaluated a range of options to help educate the user 

audience such as: 

• Use existing systems and infrastructure. The public can 

obtain forest information from knowledgeable staff at 

15 “fixed” locations. This number could be increased to 

about 40 seasonally if all fire stations were staffed with 

information personnel. 

• Design new curriculum for the public school systems. 

Adapt messages to existing programs such as Project 

Learning Tree. 

• Utilize the existing news and information media networks. 

• Improve information and interpretive signs, handouts, 

and brochures. 

• Increase the use of volunteer and other human resource 

programs. 

• Develop and expand the use of Challenge Cost-Share 

Partnerships. 

A Thorny Problem 

It was evident from the research that limiting the delivery 

of complex messages about regulations and environmental 

awareness to signs and bulletin boards was not going to be 

sufficient to result in compliant behaviors when the visitor 

profile revealed a bilingual audience with considerable 

variability in their literacy and their prior knowledge about 

the area. It was suggested that more emphasis be placed 

upon face-to-face interpersonal contacts in the recreational 

setting rather than off-site contacts. Nearly 70 percent of the 

users in San Gabriel Canyon made their decision to come to 

the forest within 24 hours of actually making their visit so 

that planning the outing was more a spontaneous event 

(Simcox and others 1989). On the other hand, it was impossible 

to implement face-to-face contact utilizing paid Forest Service 

employees for at least four reasons: 

• Bilingual Skills—Only two employees in the field operation 

functions of law enforcement, fire prevention, and 

recreation had fluent bilingual skills (Spanish/English). 

• Shrinking Workforce—In the early 1990’s the Forest 

Service has downsized the workforce nationally so that 

few opportunities existed to fill vacant permanent or 

temporary positions with candidates who possessed 

bilingual skills. 

• Time Constraints—Retraining existing employees to be 

articulate in a second language would be costly and 

time-consuming. Some indicated resistance to being 

so trained. 

• Declining Budget—The MBRD was able to field only 14 

employees at peak periods, because of budget and staffing 

limitations. Most of the district’s time was consumed responding to critical incidents, or meeting the requirements 

of operations and management in developed recreation 

sites. Its staff was generally unavailable for work that 

involves public contacts with dispersed recreationists in 

the canyon bottoms and along streamsides and trails. 

If the agency opted for training the existing workforce, 

the numbers of available employees were too few to effectively 

communicate with the numbers of users who need personal 

contact. An estimate of 10 to 15 bilingual employees would 

be needed during periods of high visitation to communicate 

messages about user safety, environmental awareness, and 

regulations. Considering the rates of returning visitor use, it 

was estimated that 1,000 to 2,000 contacts were needed per 

day during periods of high visitation. 

Crafting a Solution 

Because a skilled bilingual public contact staff will be 

slow to develop within the existing workforce, managers 

should consider opportunities outside the workforce. 

In 1991, the MBRD began working with California 

Environmental Project (CEP), a regional non-profit 

organization that coordinates volunteer clean-up events and 

recycling efforts on private and public lands. CEP leaders 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 129 
indicated that they were interested in expanding their 

relationship with the Forest Service. 

We shared the research findings provided by PSW with 

CEP. Both CEP and the Forest Service had procedures for 

cleaning-up litter and graffiti on public lands. As cooperators, 

we recognized that cleaning-up after users was only a part of 

the solution. The many canyons and dispersed recreation 

areas of the Angeles National Forest (ANF) had been cleaned 

and recleaned hundreds of times over the past three decades. 

To continue this process without a more permanent objective 

was both endless and hopeless. 

Thus, after several sessions with CEP and PSW staff, 

we recognized a unique opportunity to develop a strategy. 

CEP has also been involved in a separate cooperative 

relationship with the Los Angeles Conservation Corp (LACC), 

another regional non-profit organization, headquartered in 

South-Central Los Angeles. As part of the agreement, LACC 

provided paid crews—from the primarily Hispanic and 

African-American neighborhoods of the inner-city—for the 

conservation and clean-up efforts of CEP. Thus, LACC had 

an unlimited supply of enrollees readily available, offering a 

variety of linguistic skills from several ethnic and cultural 

backgrounds. 

In addition, because the cooperative volunteer 

relationship between CEP and the MBRD was formalized 

as a Challenge Cost-Share Partnership, a new source for 

funding became available to the Forest Service through a 

separate agreement with the Los Angeles County Department 

of Parks and Recreation (LACPR). A portion of those funds 

have been made available for support to the partnership 

with CEP. Thus, as the Challenge partner, CEP could assume 

the role of clearinghouse for recruiting, training, equipping, 

organizing, scheduling, and supervision of volunteers and 

LACC members. 

Genesis of the Eco-Teams 

The first step was to acknowledge the premise that 

interpersonal communication appeared to be the most efficient 

solution to contact and educate dispersed users. From there, 

focus was placed upon the opportunity presented by the 

relationship between CEP and LACC. 

In concept, we were creating a highly mobile group of 

environmental educators, who would individually possess 

the following capabilities and attributes: 

• Broad knowledge and understanding of general forest 

information, rules and regulations, fire prevention, 

outdoor safety precautions, and ecological systems. 

• Ability to relate to and communicate with the user 

groups predominant in a particular dispersed recreation 

area, by using bilingual skills. 

• The desire to learn and train others. 

A major emphasis for these contact teams would be to 

educate users about their individual and collective role in 

protecting the quality of the environment. The complex 

relationships between organisms (in this case, humans) and 

the forest environment form a community, termed an 

ecosystem, from which the name Eco-Teams was derived. 

The Results - A Success Story 

The first Eco-Teams were recruited by CEP in the spring 

1992 from the ranks of seasoned LACC crews. The Forest 

Service assisted CEP with the training and equipment. The 

recruits received 16 hours of intensive classroom training 

that included practice public contact scenarios. The trainees 

were then paired with experienced public contact staff to 

observe and assist with actual public contact work. 

Beginning in late May 1992, as many as eight two-person 

Eco-Teams (ET) were deployed in San Gabriel Canyon. The 

ET’s contacted thousands of recreationists, distributed various 

forms of bilingual information and passed out litter bags. 

The following is a partial list of the accomplishments of the 

ET’s from May 1992 to October 1993: 

• Over 40,000 public contacts made on three National 

Forest Ranger Districts. 

• During 1992, a 48 percent increase in voluntary compliance 

with the San Gabriel Canyon Parking Fee Program. 

• Forest users packing out an estimated five hundred 

Eco-Team supplied trash bags. 

•A positive response from forest users, canyon businesses, 

residents and Forest Service staff. 

• A visibly more attractive, less littered National Forest. 

The Challenge Cost-Share Partnership between the Forest 

Service and CEP has been expanded to include LACC and 

every Ranger District of the Angeles National Forest. The 

total net value of the Partnership was $57,000 in 1992, 

increasing to more than $433,000 in 1993. Challenge 

contributions to the partnership are about 5:1 in comparison 

to those by the Forest Service. 

The MBRD sought, and obtained, funding support for 

the ET’s from other grant programs including the Natural 

Resource Conservation and Education Program, and the Urban 

Forest Demonstration Project. 

References 

Baas, John M. 1992. Identifying service delivery strategies for ethnically 

diverse users of a wildland-urban recreation site. In: Proceedings of the 

Symposium on social aspects and recreation research; 1992 February 

19-22; Ontario, CA. Pacific Southwest Research Station; 40-41. 

Ewert, Alan; Pfister, Robert E., 1991. Cross-cultural land ethics: motivations, 

appealing attributes and problems. In: Transactions of the 56th North 

American wildife and natural resource conference; 1991 March 17-22; 

Edmonton, Alberta Canada. Wildlife Management Institute. 146-151. 

Magill, Arthur W. 1988. Natural resource professionals: The reluctant 

public servants. The Environmental Professional 10:295-303. 

Simcox, David E.; Pfister, Robert E.; Hodgson, Ronald W. 1989. 

Communicating with users of the Angeles National Forest: Report No. 

1. Department of Recreation and Parks Management, California State 

University, Chico; 1-34. 

Yum, J.O. 1983. Social Network Patterns of Five Ethnic Groups in Hawaii. 

In: Communication Yearbook, Vol 7. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 

Publications; 574-591. 

130 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Economic Issues in Policy Formation and Resource Management 

Chair: 	Howard A. Clonts 

Auburn University 
Marketing a National Forest: The Resource


Manager’s Dilemma1 

Howard A. Clonts Jeffrey R. Hibbert 2 

Abstract: National Forests throughout the United States are facing critical management decisions regarding optimal resource use 

amidst strong countervailing pressures for access. Visitors to 

Talladega National Forest in Alabama were surveyed to develop 

appropriate marketing strategies. Cluster analysis showed that 

separate homogeneous user groups exist. This information was 

vital to the formation of appropriate marketing strategies. 

Forest based recreation is continually gaining participants. 

Opportunities to pursue traditional activities such as hunting 

and hiking, as well as new ventures such as rock climbing or 

rafting, may all occur within one National Forest area. The 

USDA Forest Service has a unique role: forest managers 

must consider demands for timber management as well as 

highly diverse forest recreational uses. 

The 217,000-acre Talladega National Forest (TNF) 

located in the lower Appalachian Mountain chain, was used 

to evaluate conflicting user demands and develop appropriate 

marketing strategies for non-timber forest resources. 

Contained within the boundaries are a 2,000-acre resort state 

park, the 7,940-acre Cheaha Wilderness, a 100-mile National 

Recreation Trail, a National Scenic Byway, a major interstate 

highway, two wildlife management areas, and an array of 

lakes, rivers, streams, and trails that make the area a strong 

recreational attraction. The National Forest also contains 

colonies of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and 

other threatened and endangered species. In addition, the 

Talladega is a resource well-suited for rapid growth of southern 

pine and hardwood. 

Marketing Resources 

The concept of market segmentation involves the use 

of one or more variables in classifying visitors into 

homogeneous groups (Kotler 1983, Pride 1989). Crompton 

(1983) referred to the possible variables as geographic, 

sociodemographic, and behavioral. While many studies have 

focused on geographic variables, (Cornell and O’Leary 

1989, Jorgensen 1990, May 1992), the most commonly 

used variables for segmentation were sociodemographic 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Professor of Resource Economics and Graduate Research Assistant, 

Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849. 

characteristics (Pride 1989). Kotler (1983) noted that because 

sociodemographic data are generally easiest to obtain, it is 

the most popular variable. 

The perception that geographic and sociodemographic 

characteristics alone are not sufficient to properly classify 

consumers led to more sophisticated approaches to 

segmentation. Among these, marketers have commonly used 

benefit segmentation to divide the market. (Kotler 1983, 

Calantone and Johar 1984). 

Only a few studies have applied the more common 

segmentation principles to National Forest users (Jorgensen 

1990, May 1992). However, these studies typically employed 

locational or sociodemographic factors for defining potential 

market segments. More clearly defined market segments are 

needed for forest managers to provide proper recreational 

opportunities to the public. 

Theoretical Framework 

National Forest services are examples of public goods. 

Public goods are those which are not controlled by one 

individual, accessible by all, and show consumption 

indivisibilities. A public good is not divided among consumers 

but is available to all. Therefore, since no one is excluded, 

no one can capture the full benefit of the good. The benefit 

derived from the good is a function of the total amount of the 

good made available. 

The appropriate model for public good analysis is the 

pure market discrimination model. This model recognizes 

that each individual receives different levels of marginal 

benefits from a public good. However, it is impossible to 

estimate individual demand curves for thousands of visitors. 

Thus, it is important to group individuals who receive similar 

benefits. Cluster analysis is a commonly used method for 

grouping visitors who seek similar benefits. Using this method, 

respondents may be placed into relatively homogeneous 

groups based on the similarities they share (Kachigan 1986). 

The clustering technique was applied to the TNF to 

group respondents based on the types of benefits sought. 

This site was chosen for empirical analysis because of its 

popularity for highly diverse outdoor recreational activities. 

Methods and Procedures 

During 1993 personal interviews were conducted of 

visitors on the TNF. A sample period of 65 days resulted in 

193 visitor contacts from which a total of 148 usable 

questionnaires were obtained. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 133 
The survey questionnaire contained several sections 

focusing on recreational activity in and around the TNF. A 

benefits sought section using a one to five importance ranking 

was included to determine activities and facilities visitors 

considered important to their satisfactory recreational 

experience. Geographic and sociodemographic questions such 

as distance travelled, income, education, and travel cost 

were also included. 

Visitors rated 37 possible benefits during the survey. 

Because evaluation of all these different variables was vague, 

factor analysis was used to condense the 37 potential benefits 

into grouped variables. Using condensed variables, cluster 

analysis was performed on the visitor use data to determine 

what segments existed in the visitor population. Once visitor 

segments were identified, they were tested for stability with 

discriminant analysis. 

Market Segments Defined 

Data on all respondents were combined to obtain a general 

demographic profile which showed a strong white male 

prevalence among forest visitors. Furthermore, the results 

characterized the average respondent as being a middle-class, 

full-time employee with 2 years of college-level education. 

Additionally, trip distance data showed a regional pattern 

of visitation with the majority of visitors from northern 

Alabama. The mean distance travelled to the forest was 78 

miles, but the median distance was only about 35 miles, 

indicating that a small number of visitors travelled much 

greater distances. 

Cluster analysis allowed identification of user groups 

based on personal characteristics and the benefits they were 

seeking in personal recreational experiences, including visits 

to TNF. The analyses indicated the particular benefits sought 

by different user groups. 

Using the condensed variables derived through factor 

analysis (table 1), clustering was effective in defining 

survey respondents (table 2). A three-cluster solution 

provided the best picture of the benefits respondents were 

seeking. Four of the seven composite benefits-sought 

variables were significant in defining the relevant clusters 

(table 3). Yet, these variables alone were not sufficient to 

define distinct clusters. In initial analyses using only 

benefits-sought, the distances between cluster centroids 

were relatively small, e.g., the distances between clusters 

two and three showed distinctions detectable only at levels 

beyond two decimal points. To increase the distinction 

between clusters, visitor characteristics of trip distance, 

education, income, and employment status were added as 

bases for clustering. 

To better understand what visitors wanted, rankings 

for the significant benefits-sought variables were contrasted 

between the clusters (table 4). Members of clusters two 

and three were similar with respect to benefits sought, but 

differ-ences in other characteristics showed they were 

distinct groups. 

Cluster means for the composite wilderness variable 

showed agreement among all three groups that these 

activities and facilities were generally important to the 

region. Statistically significant differences among the 

clusters existed only for hiking and backpacking. More 

than two-thirds of the respondents in cluster one specifically 

said that hiking was an extremely important benefit, but 

only 40 percent of respondents in the other clusters indicated 

it was important. 

Additionally, nearly two-thirds of the respondents in 

cluster one said that backpacking was an important activity 

while half or less of the members in clusters two and three 

felt it was an important recreational experience. 

Table 1—Variables used to cluster respondents and the importance variable 

components.1 

Group name Importance variables 

Wilderness swimming in a lake or river, canoeing, visiting a 

designated wilderness area, hiking, backpacking, 

horseback riding, camping in a natural area 

Consumption hunting, fishing 

Modern swimming in a pool, water skiing, pleasure 

boating, using a marina, staying overnight in a 

cabin or a motel/lodge, eating in a restaurant 

Social socialize with other visitors, attend a visitor 

orientation program 

Nature picnicking in natural area, being alone with 

nature, viewing nature, visiting nature center, 

going for scenic drives 

Sports riding a bicycle, trail bikes, off-road vehicles, 

rock climbing/adventure sports, cross-country 

training, test or exercise outdoor skills, play 

outdoor sports or games, tennis, golf, competing 

in organized sports, having equipment to rent 

Recreational vehicle flush toilets, hot showers, RV dump station, 

camping in an area with fully developed facilities 

1Talladega National Forest Visitor Survey, Alabama 1993. 

Table 2—Cluster summary for the three-cluster solution.1 

Distance between 

Cluster Frequency Nearest cluster cluster centroids 

1 3 3 6.75 

2 8 3 4.05 

3 7 2 4.05 

1

5

7

1Talladega National Forest Visitor Survey, Alabama, 1993. 

134 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Table3— Means and ranges for all variables in each cluster. Talladega National Forest visitor survey, Alabama, 1993. 

Means _________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Variable Range P>F Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 

Wilderness 1-5 .4912 2.32 2.51 2.54 

Consumption 1-5 .0001 3.65 1.97 2.15 

Nature 1-5 .0618 1.75 2.20 2.40 

Recreational vehicle 1-5 .5338 3.33 2.87 2.86 

Trip distance Actual .0001 56-75 26-35 36-55 distance 

Education 1-25 (yrs) .0001 22 12 15 

Employment Current Status full-time full-time full-time full-time 

Income 1-10 .0001 $31,000 $19,000 $30,000 

Amount more dollars .0020 55.16 45.87 94.77 

willing to pay 

Table 4—Mean scores for each component of the composite variables.1 

Mean scores ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Variable2 P>F Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 

Wilderness 

Swimming in a lake or river .6722 2.31 2.39 2.53 

Canoeing .4012 2.46 2.86 2.75 

Visit a designated wilderness area .3564 2.23 2.24 2.26 

Hiking .0866 1.61 2.21 2.17 

Backpacking .0474 2.31 2.80 2.52 

Horseback riding .2658 3.38 3.16 3.08 

Camp in natural surroundings .6048 1.92 2.18 2.11 

Consumptive 

Hunting .0001 4.31 2.14 3.33 

Fishing .0131 3.00 1.84 2.01 

Natural 

Picnicking in a natural area .1482 1.94 1.95 2.18 

Being alone with nature .1654 1.54 2.10 1.99 

Viewing and photographing nature .2493 2.00 2.10 2.38 

Visiting a nature center .1348 2.15 2.73 2.99 

Going for scenic drives .2733 1.54 2.30 2.29 

Recreational vehicle 

Flush toilets .6450 3.25 2.70 2.80 

Hot showers .8657 3.16 3.05 2.83 

RV dump station .5786 3.83 3.19 3.43 

Camping in an area with .1802 3.08 2.31 2.62 

full-developed facilities 

1Talladega National Forest Visitor Survey, Alabama, 1993. 

2Importance scale: 1- extremely important; 5-extremely unimportant. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 135 
Unlike the wilderness variable, results for the other 

composite benefits-sought variables showed very clear 

distinctions among clusters. For example, the mean score of 

cluster one for the consumption variable of 3.65 indicated 

that these activities were not important. Specifically, most of 

the respondents in cluster one said that hunting and fishing 

were extremely unimportant. On the other hand, most of the 

respondents in clusters two and three indicated that hunting 

was an important benefit they sought in various regional 

recreation areas. This finding wasn’t a surprise since local 

hunting pressure is quite common. 

Similarly, the study revealed the importance of fishing 

to local and regional visitors. More distant travelers were 

indifferent to the activity. 

Members of all three clusters favored the components of 

the composite nature variable. For example, all respondents 

strongly favored picnicking in a natural area and being alone 

with nature. However, while members of clusters two and 

three were somewhat indifferent to visiting a nature center, 

nearly 70 percent of the respondents in cluster one said such 

a facility was an important benefit for the region. This is a 

signal that information sources are important if this group is 

to be expanded. Nature centers, interpretive programs and 

other similar events would be good means of building the 

clientele from group one. 

Mean scores among the three clusters for the composite 

RV variable were very similar. Respondents in all three 

clusters were indifferent toward most of these facilities. But, 

interestingly, almost two-thirds of the respondents in cluster 

two favored fully-developed camping facilities. No clear 

explanation was evident for this preference by local visitors. 

However, it could mean that more frequent visitors simply 

want an upgrade in facilities. 

Marketing Strategies 

In the aggregate, primary activities sought were fishing, 

hunting, hiking, and picnicking, etc. Logically, overall 

strategies for attracting forest visitors should emphasize these 

activities. Yet, because of the magnitude of resources required 

for each activity and the potential conflicts between them, 

different resource allocations and destinations should be 

provided throughout the forest. 

Because more than half of current visitors live within 25 

miles of the forest, it is reasonable to assume that the majority 

of TNF visitors will continue to be from areas in or near the 

forest. Members of this group were interested primarily in 

the consumptive activities of hunting and fishing. Provision 

and timely maintenance of areas designated for consumptive 

activities would appear to be a necessary part of any marketing 

strategy. Yet, the resource base for hunting is somewhat 

eroded. At present, any additional pressure on the wildlife 

population, particularly white-tailed deer, could significantly 

diminish the breeding population, thus reducing populations 

further. Other wildlife species suffer similar population 

problems, but to a lesser degree. Fishing resources, the 

alternative consumptive choice benefit, are presently 

underutilized, and could be safely promoted. 

On the other hand, a marketing strategy focused on the 

regional and out-of-state visitors who desire trails and 

camping areas could add to the incomes of local communities 

if they could purchase services and supplies locally rather 

than transporting them to TNF. One goal of nationwide 

National Forest management is to improve the level of 

living for communities within and near forest boundaries. 

Regional and out-of-state visitors expressed a strong 

willingness to spend more on forest recreational trips if 

supplies and services were available. Thus, a strategy for 

increasing community income is desirable. Yet, the 

out-of-state group is the smallest of those identified as 

TNF users, and the portion of the regional segment with 

similar preferences is also relatively small. Thus, a policy 

to attract more visitors who typically spend more per 

recreational trip and prefer hiking, camping, and other 

activities would likely mean displacement for local and 

regional consumptive resource users. The manager’s 

dilemma is now quite evident. 

An optimal resource protection strategy should call for 

maintaining or reducing the pressure by local and regional 

residents on the wildlife base. An optimal income strategy 

would mean that non-consumptive activities and opportunities 

for such should be increased. Achieving both resource 

protection and increased incomes may be accomplished by 

expanding facilities and promoting opportunities favored by 

non-local interests. But, that strategy would leave the larger 

local visitor group unsatisfied. 

Thus, a better alternative may be to consider either 

permanent or seasonal forest use-zones within which visitor 

activities are designated. This management strategy may be 

a means to allow maximum visitor satisfaction, given the 

resource limitations. 

A successful marketing strategy for the TNF depends 

on promotional efforts to attract and inform potential visitors 

of forest use opportunities. Forest resource development 

provides an excellent opportunity for surrounding 

communities and entrepreneurs to expand economically. 

No marketing program can be successful unless all local 

interests provide for visitors’ needs and interests. Thus, 

forest marketing strategies should evolve from the combined 

efforts and ideas of all interests in the area. 

Conclusion 

The statistical procedures used were effective in 

segmenting forest visitors. First, factor analysis was effective 

in reducing the diverse benefits sought in recreational activities 

into a manageable number of variables. 

Second, cluster analysis proved to be an acceptable tool 

for market segmentation using the variables reflecting benefits 

forest visitors were seeking plus user geographic and 

136 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
--

sociodemographic characteristics. Three clearly distinguishable 

groups of visitors to Talladega National Forest in Alabama 

were found. 

One important observation is that all respondents were 

visitors to the TNF. These active forest users were found to 

have somewhat different preferences for recreational 

satisfaction. Satisfaction is the important factor in any 

marketing and promotional plan by the Forest Service. The 

fact that clustered respondents had similar preferences for 

recreational experiences within a National Forest does not 

mean the analysis had little benefit. Rather, it shows that 

even among people with similar resource based preferences, 

clear differences may be targeted for different forest 

management and rural development purposes. 

References 

Calantone, Roger J.; Johar, Jotindar S. 1984. Seasonal segmentation of the 

tourism market using a benefit segmentation framework. Journal of 

Travel Research 22: 14-23. 

Cornell, Christine; O’Leary, Joseph T. 1989. Identifying angler travel 

segments. In: Proceedings of the Southeastern Recreation Research 

Conference; Asheville, NC. 1989, Feb. 15-17. 

Crompton, John. Selecting target markets a key to effective marketing. 

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 1 1983: 7-25. 

Jorgensen, Randi. 1990. Strategies for marketing recreation opportunity on 

the Shoal Creek Ranger District. National Forest in Alabama, Technical 

Report. 

Kachigan, Sam. 1986. Statistical analysis. New York: Radius Press. 

Kotler, Philip. 1983. Principles of marketing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 

Prentice-Hall. 

May, John. 1992. Recreation demand analysis—Francis Marion National 

Forest. National Forests in South Carolina, Technical Report. 

Pride, William; Ferrell, O.C. 1989. Marketing—concepts and strategies. 

Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 137 
Protecting Oregon Old-Growth Forests from Fires: How 

Much Is It Worth?1 

Armando González-Cabán John Loomis Robin Gregory2 

Abstract: Current fire management policies in the USDA Forest 

Service includes traditional multiple uses, but these policies do not 

adequately incorporate non-traditional uses such as preservation of 

biodiversity and related nongame and endangered animals. A contingent valuation methodology was used for valuing the general 

public’s desire to know that rare and unique ecosystems exist and 

will be protected from fire for current and future generations. The 

methodology was applied to old-growth forests and critical habitat 

units for the northern spotted owl in Oregon. A mail survey describing a simulated voter referendum on an Oregon old-growth 

fire prevention and control fund that reduces by half the number of 

acres of old-growth burned each year was sent to a random sample 

of 1,000 Oregon households. Each household was randomly assigned one of 20 alternative program cost levels ranging from $2 to 

$300. The mean dichotomous choice willingness to pay estimate 

was $90.00. By expanding the sample to Oregon’s population 

yields, estimates ranged from $45 to $99 million for the whole 

State (a low of $45 to $90 per household). The resulting value per 

acre saved from fire under the proposed scenario is more than 

$24,000; and the cost per acres of old-growth protected is $28. 

Incorporating the protection of natural values beyond 

recreation into fire management decision making is a growing 

concern of Federal agencies with wildland fire protection 

responsibilities (González-Cabán 1993; González-Cabán and 

Chase 1991). These values include people’s desire to know 

that rare and unique ecosystems exist (existence value), that 

they will be protected for future generations (bequest value), 

and that they will be available for visits at future times 

(option value) (Randall and Stoll 1983). Existence and bequest 

values have been quantified in monetary terms for eliminating 

logging of old-growth forests in Washington (Rubin and 

others 1980), and Colorado (Walsh and others 1984), but not 

for protecting these old-growth ecosystems from fire. 

The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has designated 

about 2.9 million hectares (7 million acres) of the remaining 

old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest as Northern 

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Units. The direct effects of 

1

A slightly different version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings 

of the 12th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology, Society of American 

Foresters, October 26-28, 1993, Jekyll Island, Georgia. 

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2 Economist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Forest Fire Laboratory, 4955 Canyon Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507; 

Professor of Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 

CO 80523-0002; Senior Scientist, Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, 

Eugene, OR 97401. 

such designation is to eliminate clearcutting and to impose 

severe logging restrictions, but a significant threat remains 

to the preservation of these habitat types: catastrophic fires. 

Different fire management policies and programs can reduce 

the frequency of human caused fires and the extent and 

severity of all fires. Lack of economic values in fire 

management models is a major concern of fire managers in 

the Pacific Northwest (Gregory and von Winterfeldt 1992). 

This paper describes the performance of contingent 

valuation method (CVM) for measuring the total economic 

value (sum of recreation, existence, bequest, and option 

values) for protecting old-growth forests in Oregon from 

catastrophic fires. 

Methods 

Contingent valuation is a widely used method for 

obtaining information about willingness-to-pay (the maximum 

amount a person would be willing to pay) for recreation, 

existence, bequest, and option values (Mitchell and Carson 

1989). Federal agencies recommend this method for 

performing benefit-cost analysis (U.S. Water Resources 

Council 1983) and for valuing natural resource damages 

(U.S. Department of Interior 1986). Its use has been upheld 

in Federal courts (U.S. District Court of Appeals 1989). 

By creating a simulated market, the contingent valuation 

method (CVM) obtains an individual’s values for use or 

preservation of natural resources. The simulated market is 

conveyed in a mail questionnaire, a telephone call, or personal 

interview. In this study we used a mail questionnaire. 

A CVM survey design involves three elements: 1) 

portrayal of the resource to be valued; 2) description of the 

particular mechanism used to pay for the resource; and 3) 

the question format used to elicit the respondent’s dollar 

amount willingness-to-pay (WTP). 

The resource to be valued was a fire prevention and 

control program for three million hectares of old-growth 

forests in Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitats Units (CHUs) 

in Oregon. This program consisted of: a) Greater Fire 

Prevention; b) Earlier Fire Detection; and c) Quicker and 

Larger Fire Response. Respondents were told that the proposed 

program would reduce by half the current number of fires 

(300) and acreage burned in the CHUs (7,000 acres). 

A voter referendum was the means by which all 

households would pay. Individuals were told in the survey 

“Because Oregon’s old-growth forests are also Federally 

designated critical habitat units for the threatened northern 

spotted owl all U.S. households would pay into a Special 

Oregon Old Growth Fire Control Program. This fund, by 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 139 
law, could only be used for fire protection in federally 

owned old-growth forests shown on the map. Adoption of 

the program would be decided as part of a national election”. 

Using the voter referendum approach, the WTP question 

format was dichotomous choice. The dichotomous choice 

mimics an actual vote by simply asking if the person would 

vote (e.g., pay) for the item if it cost the household a particular 

dollar amount each year. The individual must then decide if 

the values to him/her are worth this price. Varying the dollar 

amount across the sample allows the analyst to statistically 

develop a demand-like relationship between probability of a 

“yes” response and the dollar amount. The basic relationship 

corresponds to equation (1): 

Probyes(X) = 

1-{1+exp[B0-B1X+B2X2+B3X3+B4X4+B5X5]}-1 (1) 

in which B’s are coefficients estimated using logit regression, 

X is the dollar amount the household is asked to pay, X2 

represents Fire Harm, X3 represents Existence Importance, 

X4 represents Education level of respondents, and X5 represents 

Forest Recreation. 

By using Hanemann’s (1989) formula we can compute 

the expected value of WTP as: 

Mean WTP = 

 1 

 • ln{1+exp[B0

+B2X2+B3X3+B4X4+B5X5  ]}. (2) B1 

Survey respondents were randomly assigned to 20 

different bid amounts ranging from $2 to $300. The wide 

range was chosen so that at the low end, anyone who valued 

old-growth forests or the northern spotted owl would very 

likely indicate that they would pay, but almost no one was 

expected to pay $300 per year. 

Two check questions followed the WTP question. One 

determined if responses to the WTP question from persons 

who would not pay anything for the proposed prevention 

and control program represent a valid value or a protest of 

some feature of the simulated market. We also asked why 

other individuals would pay for the prevention and control 

program. Finally, simple demographic questions were asked, 

such as age, education, membership in environmental 

organizations, and income. The final questionnaire was made 

into a six-page booklet. 

Survey Development 

USDA Forest Service fire management specialists were 

consulted before we began the survey to ensure a good 

understanding of the natural resources at risk from fire in 

old-growth forests and spotted owl critical habitat areas. 

We asked them if the forest resources would be either: (a) 

adversely affected in the short term; (b) positively affected 

in the short term; or (c) not affected. The resulting information was used to describe to respondents the likely 

effects of fire. 

A meeting of two focus groups were held at Decision 

Research consulting firm in Eugene, Oregon. The main 

objectives were to determine if our basic Fire Prevention 

and Control Program was understandable and realistic and 

to discuss acceptable ways the program could be funded. A 

survey instrument was developed and pretested on a small 

sample of residents of Eugene, Oregon, and Riverside and 

Davis, California. The pretest was also used to establish an 

appropriate range of bid amounts for the dichotomous 

choice question. 

Sample Design 

The survey questionnaire was sent to a random sample 

of 1,000 Oregon households. The random sample was bought 

from Survey Sampling Inc.3 which have all the names, 

addresses, and phone numbers of Oregon’s households drawn 

randomly from Oregon telephone books on a computerized 

file. The overall survey design and mailing procedure 

followed Dillman’s (1978) total Design method (first mailing, 

reminder postcard, second mailing). The first mailing was 

sent out the first week in May, with a remainder postcard 4 

business days later. A second mailing of the survey with a 

new cover letter was sent to non-respondents the first week 

in June 1993. 

Results 

Out of the 1,000 total survey questionnaires mailed, 156 

were not usable because they were refused, undelivered, or 

the addressees were deceased. A total of 425 completed 

questionnaires were returned for a response rate a little over 

50 percent. This response rate is about average for general 

population surveys, using a first mailing-postcard-second 

mailing without any financial incentive. 

The age of the sample of Oregon households exceeded 

the population level (table 1). This finding is typical in mail 

surveys. The income level and percent of males of the sample 

also exceeds the population level. The over-representation 

of males is due to Survey Sampling Inc., drawing the majority 

of names from the phone books, which traditionally lists 

addresses and phone numbers under male names. 

Some people said they would not pay anything for the 

fire prevention and control program and offered reasons 

(table 2). The first two categories are considered valid 

responses that reflect legitimate reasons to decline to pay. 

We considered that people who indicated they could not 

afford to pay took their commitment to participate in the 

3 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader 

information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture of any product or service. 

140 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Table 1—Demographic characteristics of sample and Oregon’s households 

Characteristic Sample Oregon1 

Mean age 52.76 49.00 

Mean education (years) 14.28 13.00 

Mean income $37,831.00 $32,336.00 

Percent male 69.00 49.00 

1Source: 1990 U.S. Census 

Table 2—Reasons why people would not pay 

Reason Percent 

This program is not worth anything to me 3.35 

I cannot afford to pay at this time 7.55 

Subtotal1 10.90 

I don’t think this program would work 7.55 

It is unfair to expect me to pay 5.45 

I am opposed to new government programs 14.55 

Fire is natural and benefits forest 6.05 

Other 3.55 

Subtotal1 37.15 

1Totals from tables 2 and 3 do not total 100 percent since not everyone 

answered their respective questions. 

survey seriously. The third through fifth categories are usually 

classified as protest responses. They are usually not considered 

valid representations of the individuals willingness-to-pay, 

although they represent valid concerns. These concerns may 

include a rejection of the basic premise of the CVM market, 

some feature of the scenario, or generalized concerns about 

the issue. 

Protest responses are typically not included when 

computing WTP; thus they were not included in this analysis. 

Implicitly, though, the sample average WTP is applied to 

these individuals when expanding the sample to the population. 

Overall, an unusually high 37.1 percent of the responses 

were considered protests; therefore, the sample average WTP 

is conditioned on valid survey responses, as described above, 

of the remaining 63 percent. 

The majority (22 percent) of the protest responses 

included reasons such as the respondents “didn’t think the 

program would work” and that they “were opposed to new 

government programs.” To resolve the motivation behind 

the responses would most likely require personal interviews 

and is an important priority for future research. 

Table 3—Reasons why respondents would pay 

Reason Percent 

This program is worth at least this much 10.85 

I have a duty to protect these old-growth forests 17.75 

To contribute to a good cause 4.40 

To pay my fair share to protect these old-growth forests 11.45 

Other 2.15 

Total1 46.60 

1Totals from tables 2 and 3 do not total to 100 percent since not everyone 

answered their respective questions. 

Almost 47 percent of the respondents reported a positive 

WTP (table 3). Almost 11 percent of the respondents providing 

a positive response chose the first reason listed in the table. 

This is the category that most closely matches an economic 

interpretation. The next motivations, including a “duty to 

protect” and “paying a fair share,” reflect the majority of the 

respondents. Only about 4.4 percent indicated they would 

pay simply to give money to a good cause. In accordance 

with the economic paradigm that what matters is willingnessto-pay regardless of motivations, all positive WTP amounts 

and non-protest zeros, are retained in the analysis. 

Statistical Analysis 

WTP can be estimated either through open-ended or 

dichotomous choice questions in contingent valuation studies. 

The empirical advantage of dichotomous choice relates to the 

ease of responding to this question format. For example, 10 to 

15 percent more of the respondents answered the dichotomous 

choice as compared to the open-ended questions. However, 

the open-ended format provides more information per 

respondent. In our research we obtained similar results whether 

computing WTP using the dichotomous choice or open-ended 

questions format (Loomis and others, in press). The results 

presented here are from the dichotomous choice format. 

Mean WTP under the dichotomous choice format is 

calculated from equation (2), using the coefficients relating 

the yes/no responses to the bid amount (dollar amount 

respondents are asked to pay). The coefficients are typically estimated by using logistic regression (Hanemann 1984). 

A multivariate dichotomous choice equation allows us 

to investigate the effect of other independent or explanatory variables on dichotomous choice WTP responses. (A 

more extensive treatment of the data and the different 

regression models estimated could be found in Loomis and 

others (In Press)). 

Our analyses provided the coefficients and t-statistics of 

the multivariate equation (table 4). All the coefficients have 

the intuitive expected sign and are statistically significant at 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 141 
Table 4—Multivariate logit equation 

Variable Coefficient T-statistic 

Constant -3.8395 -3.93 

Fire harm1 0.3081 3.79 

Existence importance2 0.4085 2.46 

Education3 0.2411 3.99 

Forest recreation4 0.7165 1.98 

Bid amount5 -0.2075 -3.94 

Chi-square (5 of) 102.46526 

Pseudo R2 0.30947 

1A person’s perception of whether fire is harmful to a) diversity of plants 

and animals, b) health of trees, c) muddying of salmon spawning habitat, and 

d) northern spotted owl habitat. Responses are -1 for fire is beneficial, 0 for fire 

has no effect, +1 for fire is harmful. Thus a score of +4 would be fire is harmful 

to all, while a -4 would be fire is beneficial to all. Scores close to zero indicate 

fire having neither a positive nor negative effect. 2Importance of knowing that old-growth forests exist in Oregon. It is 

measured on a 1 to 4 scale, 4 being very important and 1 being not important. 3 Level of education in years. 

4 A dummy variable for whether they have visited forests for recreation in 

the past 12 months; 1 if they have visited the forest, 0 otherwise. 5 Dollar amount they were asked to pay. 

6 The degrees of freedom for the chi-square is five (Kmenta 1986, p. 556). 

He states “Note that in general the number of degrees of freedom of the 

chi-square variable is given by the number of explanatory variables in the 

model.” 7 See Kmenta (1986). The computational formula is 1-(LLFmax/LLFnull) 

where LLFmax is the log likelihood function value under the full model and 

LLFnull is the log likelihood function under the null hypothesis (all the B’s set 

equal to zero). 

the .05 alpha level or higher. The multivariate logistic 

regression equation had a pseudo R square of 31 percent. 

Income, age, and gender were not statistically significant. 

A statistically significant effect was not found for income 

even when education was excluded from the equation. This 

may be because the dollar amounts people were asked to pay 

being relatively small compared to their income. 

Expanding the Sample to the Population 

One critical concern when expanding the sample to the 

population is the external validity or generalizability of the 

sample values to the population. The external validity is 

partly dependent on the representativeness of the sample 

frame and the survey response rates. While our sample frame 

was a random sample of Oregon’s households, the response 

rate is a little lower than desirable. The net effect is that our 

sample education is about 1.3 years more than the State of 

Oregon as a whole (table 1). 

We developed a range of benefit estimates based on 

three approaches to expanding the sample to the population 

(table 5). The first approach, sample average, generates a 

WTP of $90 per household and about $99 million annually 

by generalizing the sample average to the entire Oregon 

population. In this approach the sample average values is 

applied to non-responding households as well. A lower 

estimates of $45 per household and a State aggregate value 

of $49.5 million annually is generated by assuming that the 

proportion of households not responding to the survey hold a 

zero value for the prevention and control program. Finally, a 

medium estimate of $77 per household and $84 million 

annually for Oregon would be obtained by replacing our 

sample average education level of 14.3 years with the State 

average education level of 13.0 years in our logistic regression 

equation (table 4). This procedure implicitly makes the 

resulting sample representative of the State population on 

the only statistically significant demographic variable. 

The benefit estimates are preliminary and do not include 

any values from households in the other 49 States of the U.S. 

regarding reducing the risk of wildfire in Oregon’s old-growth 

forests and spotted owl habitat. The U.S. has about 100 

million households and Oregon has about 1 million. Even if 

the rest of the U.S. households maintained a much lower 

value toward fire protection in Oregon’s old-growth forests, 

the rest of the U.S. value would dwarf the value of Oregon 

residents alone. 

Respondents were told in the survey that the fire 

prevention and control program would reduce by half the 

number of acres of old-growth forest that would burn each 

year. This represents a reduction of 3,500 acres of old-growth 

forests that would no longer burn each year. If the middle 

estimate of WTP of $84.6 million annually is divided by 

3,500 acres that would no longer burn, the resulting value 

per acre saved from fire is $24,170. In addition, if we divide 

the $84.6 million by the 3 million acres of old-growth forests 

in Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Units that are 

protected results in a value of $28 per acre protected. These 

methods correspond to the Forest Service fire management 

planning process. 

Conclusions And Future Research 

The overall response rate for the survey was a little over 

50 percent and the WTP amounts from both open-ended and 

dichotomous choice formats were different from zero. The 

annual WTP value per household in the sample was $90. 

The total annual Oregon resident’s willingness-to-pay ranged 

from $45.6 to $99 million with a medium estimate of $85 

million annually. And, old-growth forests protected from 

fire was $28 per acre. 

The absence of well documented statements that the fire 

prevention and control program would technically work may 

have contributed to the relatively high protest response to 

the willingness-to-pay question. Even so, many people 

indicated they were opposed to any new government programs. 

This opposition is a difficult issue that must be dealt with in 

future focus groups and survey pretesting. One possible 

strategy to deal with this issue would be to identify those 

142 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Table 5—Expanding sample willingness-to-pay to the State of Oregon 

90 Percent Mean WTP Households Total 

Item Confidence Interval Per Household (Millions) (Millions) 

Sample Average $70 - $111 $90 1.105 $98.920 

Middle Estimate $64 - $96 $77 1.105 $84.588 

(Adjusted for 

Education) 

Lower Estimate $35 - $56 $45 1.105 $49.460 

aspects of the fire prevention and control program that elicited 

this anti-government response and differentiate those program 

aspects from other general government programs. Another 

possibility is to frame the forest protection effort as a private 

or local or non-profit (i.e., not State or Federal government) 

fire prevention district or insurance program. For example, 

willingness-to-pay could be asked as an annual insurance 

premium for the fire prevention and control program. Another 

more promising alternative is to conduct in-person interviews, 

so that respondents are clearly focused on the economic 

issue of the study. 

The sample demographics over-represented older, higher 

educated, and higher income households. The sample also 

over-represented males. Only education was statistically 

significant in explaining WTP in the dichotomous choice 

logit regression. More representative demographics could be 

obtained from a more expensive random digit dialing approach 

of all households. 

Acknowledgments 

We thank Paula Stevens and Sunny Williams, University 

of California-Davis, for assistance in survey mailing and 

data entry. Kari Nelson and Geri Hanson at Decision Research 

facilitated the mailing and checking of surveys. Peter 

Teensma, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and Harold 

Lagard and Dean Longrie, USDA Forest Service, provided 

much technical information and guidance on the fire risk to 

old-growth forests and effects on spotted owls. Jim Baldwin, 

David C. Randall, and Francis Fujioka, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, USDA Forest Service, provided valuable 

statistical review. 

References 

Dillman, Donald. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys. New York, NY: John 

Wiley and Sons; 325 p. 

González-Cabán, Armando. 1993. The economic impact of fire on forest 

resources. Wildfire 2(4): 16-21 

González-Cabán, Armando; Chase, Richard. 1991. Nonmarket commodities 

valuation problem and its implications for the Forest Service national 

Fire management analysis planning system. Pacific Southwest Forest 

Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Forest Fire Laboratory, 

Riverside, CA. Unpublished report. 

Gregory, Robin; von Winterfledt, Detlof. 1992. Incorporating noncommodity values in forest fire management planning. Value Scope, 

Eugene, OR. Unpublished report. 

Hanemann, Michael. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation 

experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural 

Economics 66(3): 332-341. 

Hanemann, Michael. 1989. Welfare evaluations in contingent evaluation 

experiments with discrete responses data: reply. American Journal of 

Agricultural Economics 71(4): 1057-1061. 

Kmenta, Jan. 1986. Elements of Econometrics. 2nd. ed. New York, NY: 

Macmillan Publishing; 760 p. 

Loomis, John; González- Cabán, Armando; Gregory, Robin. [in press]. A 

contingent valuation study of the value of reducing fire hazards to 

old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Res. Paper PSW-RP. 

Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 

Mitchell, Robert C.; Carson, Richard T. 1989. Using surveys to value 

public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington DC: 

Resources for the Future; 463 p. 

Randall, A.; Stoll, J.R. . 1983. Existence value in a total valuation framework 

In: Rowe, Robert D.; Chestnut, Loraine G., eds. Managing air quality 

and scenic resources at national parks and wilderness areas. Boulder, 

CO: Westview Press. 

Rubin, Jonathan; Helf, Gloria; Loomis, John. 1991. A benefit-cost 

analysis of the northern spotted owl. Journal of Forestry 89(12): 25-30. 

U.S. Department of Interior. 1986. Natural resource damage assessments; 

final rule. Federal Register 51. Washington DC. 

U.S. District Court of Appeals (for the District of Columbia). 1989 July 14. 

State of Ohio v. U.S. Department of Interior. Case No. 86-1575. 

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and environmental 

principles for water and related land resources implementation studies. 

Washington DC. 

Walsh, R. G.; Loomis, J. B.; Gillman, R.S. 1984. Valuing option, existence, 

and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Economics 60: 14-29. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 143 
Coordinated Fee Structure for Developed Recreation Sites 

on the Ashley, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache 

National Forests1 

Brent H. McBeth2 

Abstract: A joint effort between three National Forests in northern Utah was begun to provide a uniform process for establishing 

fees at developed recreation sites, based upon the “cost approach” 

method. This method can be adapted for other National Forest and 

District use and can be modified to reflect “comparable fees” and 

updated periodically to meet local needs and changing conditions. 

The Ashley, Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests 

in northern Utah jointly analyzed procedures for establishing 

fees at developed recreation sites. The purpose was to establish 

a coordinated fee structure process for the three urban National 

Forests. Two procedures were analyzed: 

• Market analysis of other Federal and State agencies and 

private campgrounds in geographical areas of concern 

to determine fee comparability between developed 

recreation sites in the public sector and those in the 

private sector. 

• Analysis of operation and maintenance costs and benefits 

for existing or proposed campground fee sites to establish 

the fee. This analysis is based on selected cost/benefit 

ratios and interest rates, and such factors as market 

comparability and social/political climate. 

At present competition is low between developed 

campgrounds in the public and private sectors in northern 

Utah. This is because of the variety of recreation settings, 

levels of outdoor recreation experiences, and expectations 

of customers. In general, those seeking outdoor experiences 

in northern Utah can match their expectations, choosing 

between highly developed campgrounds in city/town 

environment and usually less developed sites in nearby 

forest and desert environments. 

Most private campgrounds in northern Utah are located 

within or next to communities. These campgrounds serve 

the needs of customers wanting highly developed and special 

amenities, and/or serve the needs of customers en route to 

destination recreation areas on public lands. These customers 

are willing to pay more for these sites, especially if the sites 

offer full service features and facilities, such as water, sewer, 

electricity and recreational equipment/infrastructure. 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, CA. 2Branch Chief, Recreation and Lands, Uinta National Forest, 88 W. 100 

N., Provo, Utah 84601 801-377-5780 

Therefore, the lower campground fees at nearby public 

recreation sites do not persuade customers to use public 

instead of private sites. 

Public lands in Utah offer many destination sites. 

Customers traveling to these destination sites may stay at 

private campgrounds along the way. Upon arriving at a 

chosen destination site on public lands, these customers 

usually prefer to stay at campgrounds on site. Their preference 

to stay on-site is because of the proximity of additional 

recreation opportunities at or near the public campground of 

choice, and the long distance that they would have to travel 

to stay at private campgrounds in adjacent communities. The 

preference to stay on-site is not based on the lower campground 

fees at the public campground sites. Thus, developed 

campground fees in the urban private sector markets of 

northern Utah are not in direct competition with developed 

sites on the three National Forests. 

Because the market competition between private and 

public campgrounds is low, the Ashley, Uinta, and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests selected a cost analysis 

procedure for determining fees at developed campgrounds. 

Fee comparisons with the private sector will also be 

implemented to level extreme differences between fees. 

The following Cost Analysis and Recommendations will 

be used as guidelines for District Rangers to establish yearly 

campground fees. 

Goals 

• Provide the District with rationale and method for 

establishing campground fees. 

• Ensure that the fee structure is coordinated among the 

Ashley, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests and 

reflects similarities as well as differences among 

recreation settings, uses and publics on the three Forests. 

Objectives 

Develop a fee structure that considers the following 

criteria, as listed in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Title 

2300—Recreation Management 2331.23: 

a. The amount charged for use of comparable facilities 

and services offered by the private sector in similar settings. 

b. The amount charged for use of comparable facilities 

and services administered by Federal, State, and local agencies 

in similar settings. 

c. The benefits received by the user, including the quality 

and variety of recreation opportunities offered at or near the 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 145 
site and special services such as the use of amphitheaters, 

boat launching ramps, and swimming sites. 

d. The direct and indirect costs to the United States of 

developing, maintaining, and operating the site, facilities, 

and equipment, and providing services. 

e. The cost of collection versus the amount collected. 

Process, Concept, and Basic Steps 

A. The Concept: This process is based on identifying 

the desired future condition of the site as if new; determining 

the cost to maintain this condition over time; determining 

the income needed for the costs; and selecting a fee that is 

appropriate considering investment by the government and 

other considerations. 

B. Basic Steps: The basic steps required to determine 

the fee rate at a recreation site are as follows: 

1. Determine value of the site facilities when new, using 

the comparison examples for various developmental 

scales as a guide, and enter the information on the 

electronic spreadsheet. 

2. Identify the annual maintenance, operation, resource, 

and construction/reconstruction costs to be used, and 

enter them on the electronic spreadsheet. 

3. Build the Financial Model using the information from 

the electronic spreadsheet. 

4. Check the benefit/cost ration figures in the Financial 

Model and make adjustments in proposed fees until the 

ration is 1:1 or better. 

5. Compare the fee developed in the Financial Model with 

factors such as comparable market rates and social/ 

political considerations and decide what the fee rate 

should be. 

The paper entitled “Coordinated Fee Structure for 

Developed Recreation Sites on the Ashley, Uinta, and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests,” is available from the Ashley 

National Forest. It includes a spreadsheet and worksheet for 

cost calculations as well as a Financial Model for Present 

Net Worth. 

The model also has considerable flexibility for the 

manager to consider different management and investment 

alternatives and display the benefit/cost of each alternative. 

Acknowledgments 

This process was developed by Alan G. Baird, Forest 

Recreation Planner, Ashley National Forest, with contributions 

from Garth Heaton, Recreation, Lands, and Minerals Staff 

Officer, Ashley National Forest; Brent McBeth, Recreation 

and Lands Branch Chief, Uinta National Forest; and Larry 

Lucas, Recreation, Lands, Minerals, and Wilderness Staff 

Officer, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Portions of the 

background information in the publication were assembled 

by Gordon Williams during his tenure as Forest Landscape 

Architect on the Uinta National Forest. 

146 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
What’s A Walk On The Wildside Worth?1 

Elwood L. Shafer2 

Abstract: Quantitative measures of the economic nonconsumptive 

values of observing wildlife in forest environments are not widely 

available. Six case studies of fish and wildlife amenity values are 

briefly described. The annual total consumers’ surplus value of all 

six activities was twice the total out-of-pocket expenditures spent 

to visit the six sites involved. The rationale for additional extensive research and development on nonconsumptive economic values of fish and wildlife are outlined. 

Wildlife-associated recreation is one of the country’s 

most popular forms of outdoor recreation. Observing, 

photographing, and feeding wildlife provide enjoyment to 

millions of persons in the United States, many of whom also 

fish and hunt. In 1980, 28.8 million nonconsumptive users 

aged 16 and older traveled at least one mile from their home 

primarily for the purpose of observing, photographing, or 

feeding wildlife, spending $4 billion in the process. Some 

69.4 million persons enjoyed wildlife in some way while on 

a trip for another purpose (President’s Commission on 

Americans Outdoors 1987). 

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 

authorized programs to enhance nongame species, but funds 

have never been appropriated for this purpose. In FY1986, 

the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service budgeted 1.4 million 

dollars for nongame research. State fish and wildlife agencies 

devote approximately 7 percent of their budgets to nongame 

programs, but additional funding is critical to develop 

programs to address nongame issues. 

Probably one of the reasons additional funding is not 

available to address nongame issues is because of public 

land allocation decisions--in the past these were based 

largely on the expected value of the resources that could be 

obtained from those lands. Benefits and costs were typically 

estimated only for those resource outputs that could be 

taken from the land, such as timber or fish. Economic 

evaluation of natural resources that provide pleasure without 

taking resource outputs, such as viewing wildlife, has been 

overlooked in customary analyses of benefits and costs. 

This is because quantitative measures of the amenity values 

of nonconsumptive activities of observing wildlife in forest 

and rural environments are not widely available (Sorg and 

Loomis 1984). 

This paper examines the economic estimates of amenity 

values urgently needed by regional planners and natural 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Professor of Environmental Management, The Pennsylvania State 

University, 215 Mateer Building, University Park, PA 16802. 

resource professionals for comparing economic values of 

alternative land uses, such as producing commodities marketed 

(like timber or forage) versus producing resources not usually 

marketed (such as viewing different kinds of wildlife). 

Six Case Studies In Pennsylvania 

Results of six case studies of the nonconsumptive values 

of fish and wildlife in Pennsylvania provide indications of 

the combined net economic value of these kinds of resources 

(Shafer and others 1993). During a 12-month period, teams 

of interviewers questioned visitors at six Pennsylvania sites. 

• Fisherman’s Paradise: a 1-mile stretch of Spring Creek, 

which is a nationally known trout stream in Centre 

County, where no trout may be kept and tackle is restricted 

to fly-fishing equipment and barbless hooks. 

• Spring Creek: a 3-mile section of this 21 mile stream 

that is open to fly fishing year-round, but no trout may 

be kept. 

• Hawk Mountain Sanctuary: a 2,000-acre, private 

mountaintop on the border of Berks and Schuylkill 

counties; it is the world’s first refuge created to protect 

and observe birds of prey. 

• Middle Creek Wildlife Management Area: a portion of 

state game land in Lebanon and Lancaster counties where 

visitors can observe 238 species of water fowl. 

• Elk viewing areas: a 144 square mile area of State forest 

and game land in Cameron and Elk counties, where 

Pennsylvania’s only elk herd roams unrestricted. 

• Shaver’s Creek Environmental Center: a raptor rehabilitation center in Centre County where the surrounding 

grounds feature a wide variety of ecological habitats 

and indigenous wildlife. 

The interview teams asked visitors questions related to 

destination, round trip miles and expenditures, duration of 

the trip, and length of stay. 

Two Econometric Procedures 

Two prominent econometric procedures were used to 

estimate consumers’ surplus at each location: the travel cost 

method (TCM) (Rosenthal and others 1984) and the contingent 

valuation method (CVM) (Moser and Dunning 1986). TCM 

involved statistical modeling to relate quantities of use to 

total trip costs. The CVM compared average travel costs per 

person at the interview locations with average estimated 

travel costs required to visit a substitute, equally-desirable 

site. The aggregate value of each of the six amenity resources 

was derived by multiplying a location’s total number of 

visitor days by the location’s average willingness-to-pay (or 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 147 
consumer surplus) value—as calculated by either the TCM 

or the CVM. A visitor day was defined as one recreation 

visitor at one of the study locations for part or all of one day 

(table 1). 

Consumer Surplus Varied Widely 

The resulting average willingness-to-pay values (1993 

dollars) at the five locations compared favorably in some 

instances with values estimated (using the same econometric 

procedures) for consumptive, hunting and fishing activities 

and other nonconsumptive forest recreation activities such 

as hiking and backpacking in dispersed recreation 

environments and wilderness areas in western states (Shafer 

and others 1993). 

At the high end, for example, anglers would be willing 

to pay $53 each to catch and release trout at Fisherman’s 

Paradise. But they’re willing to pay less than half that— 

$19—to fish per day on Spring Creek. Visitors at Hawk 

Mountain are willing to pay $15 to see hawks, falcons, and 

eagles in flight during their fall migration. While visitors to 

Elk County will spend $24 a day to watch elk or to even hear 

them bugle. At other locations visitors will spend $7 a day to 

watch waterfowl at Middle Creek and about $4 to spend a 

day at Shaver’s Creek Environmental Center (table 1). 

The total consumers’ surplus value (1993 dollars) of all 

six activities to participants amounted to a total of more than 

$1.5 million annually—twice the total out-of-pocket 

expenditures of approximately $769,700 spent to visit the 

sites (table 1). 

What’s On The Horizon? 

As natural resource conservation issues collide against 

development pressures, it is particularly important to know 

how much a population would pay to enjoy a natural location. 

Extensive research, development, and application efforts 

need to be expended on this issue in order to: 

• Increase resource manager’s understanding of the current 

net economic value of a wide range of natural environment 

in which wildlife can be enjoyed for its sheer natural 

beauty. 

• Demonstrate the net economic value of creating new 

amenity resources. 

• Make more allocation decisions during current and future 

wildlife resource management planning. 

• Predict—in some cases—nature-oriented tourism travel 

behavior. 

• Forecast economic consequences of physical changes in 

the quality of the amenity resources involved. 

Table 1—Annual total resource values for each of the six study locations (1993 dollars). 

Activity (location) Total number Expenditures1 Annual total Net economic value Annual total 

of visitors per visitor day expenditures2 per visitor day3 resource value4 

Catch-and-release trout fly fishing 1,648 16.56 35,597 53.40 (TCM) 86,019 or 

(Fisherman’s Paradise—1.04 miles) 84,634 per stream mile 

Catch and release trout fishing 2,894 5.19 15,002 19.32 (TCM) 55,912 or 

(Spring Creek—3.31 miles) 16,691 per stream mile 

Watching birds of prey 46,100 7.00 322,515 15.04 (CVM) 693,344 

(Hawk Mountain—2000 acres) 

Observing waterfowl 75,900 2.73 207,662 4.28 (CVM) 324,852 

(Middle Creek—5200 acres) 

Viewing elk (State Forest and 7,200 14.22 102,384 24.51 (CVM) 176,472 

Game Lands—144 square miles) 

Environmental education 45,000 1.92 86,575 4.44 (CVM) 190,800 

(Shavers Creek) 

1Average amount spent per day by a typical visitor; expenditures were total out-of-pocket costs for transportation, lodging, food, and beverages, entertainment, 

equipment rental, recreation site fees, supplies, and miscellaneous items associated with the visit. 2Total amount spent by visitor to the activity. 

3The additional amount a typical visitor would have been willing to pay per day over and above his actual expenditure as computed by TCM or CVM. (TCM-travel 

cost method, CVM-contingent valuation method.) 4Total number of visitor days multiplied by net economic value per day for that activity. 

148 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Current Net Economic Values Are 

Not Enough 

In addition to net economic value, other economic values 

are also needed. For instance, current users derive economic 

benefits from knowing that amenity resources exist (existence 

values), or knowing they exist for future generations (bequest 

values). Furthermore, many people who are not currently 

using these areas would be willing to pay to maintain the 

opportunity to use these kinds of environments in the future 

(option values). Public opinion surveys need to be conducted 

within each State to evaluate existence, bequest and option 

values (along with net economic values) for wildlife and 

other nonconsumptive forest-recreation activities (Walsh and 

others 1984). 

Conclusions 

How much is a pristine trout stream worth where you’re 

not allowed to keep your catch? Or a promontory where it’s 

possible to witness an aerobatic display of hawks and other 

birds of prey? With increasing frequency such questions 

can be answered in economic as well as emotional terms. 

The consumer surplus (or willingness-to-pay) values reported 

in this paper for five different kinds of nonconsumptive 

uses of fish and wildlife are over and above the average 

cost of travel, purchasing admission or equipment, or the 

price of food and lodging during the visit. In other words, 

these values represent what someone would pay merely for 

the experience. 

Resource economics might not entirely balance the 

scales—or accurately estimate the exact value of amenity 

resources. However, it is a step in the right direction. An old 

expression says that we know the price of everything but the 

value of nothing. It’s time to take action to more fully 

evaluate the nonconsumptive values of fish and wildlife. 

These natural resources enrich our lives in many ways with 

aesthetic, scientific, cultural, educational, recreational, and 

economic values. As sensitive indicators of the health of our 

environment, they are indeed components of the web of life 

that sustains all of us (President’s Commission on Americans 

Outdoors 1986). 

References 

Moser, D.A.; Dunning. C.M. 1986. National economic development 

procedures manual—recreation. Vol.II, a guide for using the contingent 

value methodology in recreation studies. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

IWR Report 86-R5. 

President’s Commission On Americans Outdoors. 1986. Report and 

recommendations to the President of the United States. Washington 

D.C.: Superintendent of Documents. 

Rosenthal, D.H.; Loomis, J.; Peterson, G.L. 1984. The travel cost model: 

concepts and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-109. Denver, 

CO: USDA Forest Service. 

Shafer, E.L.; Carline, R.;Guilden, R.W.; Cordell, H.K. 1993. Economic 

amenity values of wildlife: six case studies in Pennsylvania. 

Environmental Management 17 (5): 669-682. 

Sorg, C.F.; Loomis, J.B., 1984. Empirical estimates of amenity forest 

values: a comparative review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-107. Denver, 

CO: USDA Forest Service. 

Walsh, R.G.; Loomis, J.B.; Gillman, R.S. 1984. Valuing Option, existence 

and bequest demand for wilderness. Land Economics 16:14-19. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 149 
Resource Management Case Studies 

Chair: Herbert Echelberger 

USDA Forest Service 
The Potential Impacts of the Homeless on Public Lands1 

Sidney M. Blumner Carolyn M. Daugherty2 

Abstract: The multidimensional problem of the homeless population in San Bernardino and nearby counties in California is examined and its impacts on adjacent public lands. The characteristics 

of the homeless in the area are described, as well as possible 

implications of this population for public lands use. Issues related 

to the homeless population are examined, such as displacement of 

recreational uses, economic development, law enforcement, and 

population mobility. 

In the western United States, as in other parts of the 

country, the problems of homelessness are readily apparent. 

In almost every community, the number of people homeless 

and on the streets has been increasing during the last 3 years 

(Dixon 1993). In some areas, the homeless are concentrated 

in urban areas only (Orange County Register 1993). However, 

in other areas the homeless not only affect the traditional 

urban areas, but may also impact public lands that are 

adjacent to or near urban areas. Some of these impacts are 

related to health problems, drug problems, increased crime, 

children not attending school, and the issue of trespass. To 

better understand the existing impacts of the homeless on 

public lands and the potential impacts from continued 

occupancy by this group, the socio-economic and 

demographic characteristics of this group of individuals 

should be studied. To this end, the Center for Community 

Affairs, in conjunction with the San Bernardino Homeless 

Coalition, commissioned a study on the homeless population 

in western San Bernardino County (traditionally known as 

the Inland Empire) and in the city of Pomona (located in the 

east end of Los Angeles County). 

The objectives of this research were twofold. First, data 

concerning the socio-economic and demographic characteristics 

of the homeless were developed. Second, problems that this 

population present to urban and rural areas, as well as to 

public lands, were explored. 

Study Area 

Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties 

all include large amounts of public land in the form of State 

parks, USDI National Parks and monuments, USDA National 

Forests, and USDI Bureau of Land Management resource 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Chair and Professor of Economics, California State Polytechnic 

University-Pomona: and Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric 

Sciences, Metropolitan State College of Denver, respectively. 

areas. Each of these public lands in the above-mentioned 

counties is either located right next to a large urban area or 

within an hour travel time from one. 

The area selected for study included approximately seven 

small communities located within the Los Angeles urban 

milieu. These communities were Pomona, Montclair, Ontario, 

Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, and Chino Hills (figure 

1). The communities comprise about 300 square miles. The 

total population of these communities is about 250,000 people 

(State of California 1992). The study area is located near the 

Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland National Forests 

and is, in many places, not immediately adjacent to public 

lands. It is sufficiently close, however, so that speculations 

may be made from this and other data sources concerning 

the impacts on resources from the homeless, should larger 

numbers begin to occupy public lands. 

Data Collection 

Data collection occurred during the first 2 weeks of 

May 1993. Supporting data, collected by other researchers 

in the same geographic area in 1992 or 1993, are also presented 

for comparative purposes. 

Sample Size, Randomness, and the 

Interview Process 

The Coordinator of the San Bernardino County Coalition 

estimated that about 3,000 to 5,000 homeless people in the 

area were studied (San Bernardino County Homeless 

Coalition 1992). To make valid generalizations for a 

population of this size, the sample must contain about 325 

to 350 people. The interview teams conducted 329 useable 

interviews; this number was of adequate size so that 

statements about the existing population and predictions of 

future impacts from this population on public lands near the 

study area could be made. 

In many instances, inadequate sample size can present 

problems; but in this research, the concept of randomness was 

more problematic. Because those selected for interviews were 

drawn from the street as they were encountered, randomness 

in the selection process could not be guaranteed. This process 

therefore may have yielded potentially biased results. 

Nevertheless, the study does yield findings concerning the 

status of the homeless in the study area. These findings could 

form the basis for other studies conducted in a more structured 

way, which could yield statistically significant findings. 

About 30 interview teams comprised of two to three 

student members from Economics classes at the California 

Polytechnic University-Pomona, were developed. The students 

were given instruction in interviewing techniques. Although 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 153 
Figure 1—Map of the study area. 

these teams used a structured questionnaire as a basic guide, 

team members were allowed to rephrase questions if needed. 

Several of the teams contained Spanish-speaking members 

who provided assistance in helping interviewees understand 

the questions. Each team was assigned an interview area 

derived from geographic data given to the authors by the 

Homeless Coalition Coordinator for San Bernardino County 

and the Social Services Department of the City of Pomona. 

Analysis of the Data 

The data were analyzed in the form of percentages and 

tabulated. Conclusions concerning the homeless were drawn 

from these data as well as other data available to us from the 

previous research of others in the study area. The implications 

of this information for urban areas and public lands were 

drawn solely from the data gathered and telephone interviews 

conducted with USDA Forest Service personnel. 

Comparison of Current and Past 

Research Results 

The data we developed and from this and from two other 

studies of the area (the San Bernardino Homeless Study and 

the Redlands Family Service Study) were compared and 

contrasted (San Bernardino County Homeless 1993; Redlands 

Family Service Association 1993). These studies’ results are 

included in this paper so that a more complete picture of the 

homeless in the study area counties can be presented. 

Although some similarities in data do exist among the 

studies, the studies themselves surveyed differing homeless 

populations: the present study was conducted with street 

people; the San Bernardino County study (SBC) accessed 

many different types of homeless; and the Redlands Family 

Service Association study (FSA) primarily surveyed families. 

The three groups were compared, yielding many interesting 

characteristics of the homeless. 

Gender, Age, and Ethnicity of the Homeless 

The Blumner-Daugherty (B-D) and the San Bernardino 

County (SBC) data indicate that the majority of the homeless 

encountered in the interview process were males (table 1). 

The Redlands Family Service Association (FSA) data indicate 

that the majority were females. This difference may be 

explained by the FSA organization’s clientele, which is 

primarily families. Often these families are headed by females. 

Thus, the clientele of the FSA provides a different population 

pool than either the B-D data or SBC data. 

154 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
------------

Table 1—Gender of the homeless interviewed in seven southern California 

communities. 

Gender B-D1 SBC2 FSA3 

---------------------------percent------------------------

Males 79.9 55 35.7 

Females 20.1 45 64.3 

1Blumner-Daugherty data.


2San Bernardino County data.


3Redlands Family Service Association data.


The SBC and FSA data show a narrower differential in 

gender percentages than that of the B-D data. One possible 

explanation for this is that the B-D data were collected 

primarily from street people, most of whom are male. The 

other research data were collected from a variety of situations 

including, but not limited to the street, a feeding center, 

service providers, and shelters. While the B-D data may not 

offer a broad overview of all those homeless, it may give a 

better picture of those on the streets. This finding is important 

because street people may be more mobile than other homeless 

and could migrate more readily to public lands. 

The average age of the homeless adults in all three 

studies indicates that those interviewed were mainly between 

the ages of 25 and 40 (table 2). The FSA data indicated that 

while the average age of the children in their study was 

about 7.52 years, the percentage of homeless comprised of 

children was not revealed. The SBC data indicate that of the 

total population surveyed, the number of people under the 

age of 18 was 32 percent. The B-D survey indicated that 

only about 5 percent of those surveyed were under the age of 

20. Thus, because of some differences in the sample 

populations, statements about the significance of children as 

part of the homeless population are difficult to make. 

The most divergent data from the studies were those 

indicating the number of whites who were homeless (table 

3). Some possible explanations for this divergence might be 

the missions of the sponsoring agencies or the goals of the 

studies themselves. However, conclusions of importance 

can be drawn from all the data: the percentages of Hispanics 

and African-Americans as homeless differ greatly from their 

actual percentages in the American population—i.e., minorities 

comprise a higher portion of the homeless population than 

was expected. 

Socio-spatial Characteristics of the Homeless 

One question of interest to these researchers that also 

had been asked of those in the SBC survey addressed the 

issue of where the respondents sleep (table 4). The B-D data 

revealed that the majority of the homeless sleep “outside,” 

while the SBC data indicate that only 12 percent sleep 

outside and another 6 percent slept in “abandoned buildings.” 

The high number of homeless sleeping in cars, buildings, 

and outside present possible social service/law enforcement 

problems for all public agencies. 

Table 2—Average age of the homeless 

B-D1 SBC2 FSA3 

Average age of 34 27.7 32 

homeless adults 

1Blumner-Daugherty data.


2San Bernardino County data.


3Redlands Family Service Association data


Table 3—Ethnic background of the homeless 

Ethnic Background B-D1 SBC2 FSA3 

------------------------percent---------------------

White 29.2 46 63.6 

African-Amer 26.4 20 12.7 

Hispanic 27.4 29 22.5 

Native American 5.2 2 1.2 

Asian-Pacific 4.6 1 0 

Declined to State 4.6 0 0 

Other 2.7 0 0 

1Blumner-Daugherty data.


2San Bernardino County data.


3Redlands Family Service Association data


Table 4—Where the homeless sleep 

Location B-D1 SBC2 

------------- percent 

Mission 6 0 

Shelter 9 16 

Motel 8 16 

Outside 37 12 

With friends 15 39 

Cars, buildings, etc 12 18 

Other 12 0 

1Blumner-Daugherty data. 

2San Bernardino County data. 

Two of the most common misconceptions about the 

homeless problem are that the people who are homeless 

have just become that way and that they migrate readily 

from one geographic area to another. Many also perceive 

that the homeless have migrated to California because of 

social service benefits available to them, and/or the benign 

weather (O’Hare 1987). 

The three studies provide data on the length of time 

those interviewed have been homeless (table 5). 

The homeless problem is not one that has only occurred 

in the last few months. The B-D and FSA studies indicate 

that many of those sampled have been homeless more 

than 4 years. 

The length of time in the area is of some value in 

determining whether those homeless surveyed have migrated 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 155 
Table 5—Length of time homeless 

Average time period 

B-D 1 to 2 years 

SBC 16 months 

FSA 2 to 3 years 

to California to obtain increased benefits or whether they 

are long-term residents. The B-D study was the only one that 

addressed this issue. It found that the majority of the homeless 

had been in the area for quite a while (table 6). 

Unfortunately, no direct questions were asked concerning 

whether those surveyed were natives or whether they had 

migrated to California. However, the data do indicate that 

the majority of those surveyed had been in the area for a 

number of years indicating, perhaps, that although benefits 

and climate may not be the reasons the homeless came to 

California, these might be the reasons why they remain. 

Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Homeless 

All three studies obtained data on income. The studies 

reported major differences in income levels. The data 

presented by the FSA, which was reported in dollar figures 

only, revealed that most of the homeless families interviewed 

had incomes that might enable them, when combined with 

other forms of assistance, to rent or own a residence. We 

were not able, given the structure of the report, to classify 

the income data into “sources of income.” The FSA concluded 

that the majority of the homeless interviewed were homeless 

by choice and that they were abusing the system. 

The B-D and SBC data indicate a different scenario. 

The conclusions drawn from these data were that the majority 

of homeless do not receive adequate funds to have regular 

shelter and that most are living “near the margin” (table 7). 

Although the data show mixed results, those homeless 

interviewed in the SBC study received most of their income 

from welfare and food stamps. Similarly, the B-D study 

indicated that the majority of the homeless received their 

income from welfare, food stamps, and social security. 

Because of the depth of the questions in the B-D study, it 

was determined that 45 percent of those interviewed received 

no income. Further analysis of the data showed that these 

individuals received no income for two reasons: many of 

these individuals did not apply because it was a “hassle” to 

do so; and secondly, many did not have a permanent mailing 

address to receive the funds through the mail. 

Only the B-D and SBC studies examined the reasons for 

homelessness. These studies found reasons most often cited 

for homelessness that included lack of employment, substance 

abuse, and the sharing of homes with others. 

A final area of interest to these researchers--which was 

not addressed in the other studies--was skill levels in terms 

of occupation (table 8). 

The vast majority of the homeless were unskilled or 

semi-skilled. This finding has important implications for the 

Table 6—Length of time in the area 

Time Period Percentage of sample 

Days 14.9 

Months 22.3 

Years 62.3 

Table 7—Sources of income for the homeless 

Most frequently cited source B-D SBC 

------------percent--------------

Food stamps 1.4 56 

Welfare 22.3 52 

Recycled goods 0 20 

Veterans 3.8 2 

Social Security 12.4 6 

Workman’s Compensation 2.2 3 

No income 45.9 15 

Table 8—Skill level of the homeless 

Skill level Interviewees 

Unskilled 150 

Semi-skilled 110 

Skilled 35 

Technical 15 

Management 18 

California economy. As the economy recovers, less unskilled 

and semi-skilled employees will be needed as the economy 

shifts to more technical means of production. The long-term 

prospect for these workers is a continued decline in the labor 

force (Rossi 1989). 

Implications for Public Service Providers 

A large number of homeless in any given area present 

increased service demands on the providers of public services 

(Erikson and Wilhelm 1986). At present, most of the homeless 

nationwide are located in urban areas. However, many urban 

areas are located in close proximity to public lands of all 

types. If the samples used in this study described the 

approximate general homeless population of Southern 

California, the following conclusions about the homeless 

can be drawn: 

• The homeless are relatively young. 

•	 The homeless group contains a disproportionate number 

of Hispanics and African-Americans. 

156 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
• The homeless have lived in the area more than 1 year. 

•	 The homeless have little or no source of dependable 

income. 

•	 Large numbers of homeless do not sleep in traditional 

shelters. 

• The homeless have low occupational skill levels. 

•	 Large numbers of homeless may have alcohol and 

substance abuse problems. 

The Impacts of the Homeless on Public Lands 

The results of the three studies show that the homeless 

have the potential to become an increasing presence on public 

lands. With their many and varied problems, the homeless 

present a source of problems for law enforcement agencies in 

urban and rural areas and on the public lands. For example, 

the Riverside County Sheriff in Hemet and health department 

officials have had to deal with homeless individuals who 

have been squatting on land near Idyllwild that is adjacent to 

the San Bernardino National Forest. In addition, in the San 

Bernardino area, squatters have located on land in the National 

Forest and present a source of violations such as exceeding 

the time limit for camping, unhealthy sanitary conditions, 

drug and alcohol problems, littering the area by building 

temporary shelters (much like the “Hoovervilles” of the 

Depression) (USDA Forest Service 1993). 

We believe that if the economic situation in California 

continues to decline, the problem of squatters in the state’s 

National Forests and on other public lands will increase. We 

also believe that squatting on public lands outside designated 

camping areas will increase, resulting in the need to devote 

more public agency resources to law and code enforcement. 

This may occur as the number of squatters increases and the 

agencies attempt to control problems of vandalism, fire, 

crime, and drug use (USDA Forest Service 1993). The 

agencies may need to devote more resources to the training 

of personnel to deal with these problems. 

Problems of Exceeding Campground Time Limitations 

A growing problem, which has been substantiated by 

interviews with some public agency professionals, is that of 

the homeless exceeding campground time limitations. 

Homeless individuals commonly move into campgrounds 

on the public lands (USDA Forest Service 1993). However, 

in some instances, these individuals habitually exceed the 

campground limitation period of 14 days. The typical response 

is that these individuals simply move on to another district 

and repeat the cycle. Because detailed records are not kept of 

visitors to the public lands, the homeless who have been 

“evicted” from their campsite simply move on to two or 

three other districts first before returning to their first site 

(USDA Forest Service 1993). 

Bizarre cases have also been reported involving groups 

of individuals who have decided that they are “mountain 

men,” living in wilderness areas, killing wildlife, and 

destroying vegetation. These trespassers are part of the 

homeless population (USDA Forest Service 1993), but they 

are difficult to find because of the staffing limitations of 

most public agencies. 

The implications for public agencies are many. The 

homeless have a right to use public lands, as do all citizens. 

However, to the extent that they exceed their visit limitations; 

build semi-permanent residences; and leave their collected 

belongings such as cans, bottles, and other forms of refuse 

on the public lands, they do cause problems for other visitors. 

Public agencies need to increase their enforcement personnel 

to help maintain the public lands so that these lands do not 

become major homeless encampments. 

Minor Children 

An increasing number of homeless families are now 

entering the public lands (USDA Forest Service 1993). As 

these families lose their homes, many of them have relocated 

on the public lands. This poses problems for compliance 

with school attendance laws. 

In California, children must attend school until the age 

of 16 (State of California Education Code). In addition, 

parents must provide for these children until they are of the 

age of 18 (State of California Civil Code). Public agency 

officials must report the appearance of children on the public 

land to the local authorities if school attendance violations 

have occurred. 

Substance Abuse and Emotional Problems 

Substance abuse and emotional problems are increasing 

in the United States. The three studies of the homeless 

indicate that these two problems appear to be significant in 

homeless populations. Public agency professional need to be 

provided with training on how to deal with individuals or 

groups engaging in substance abuse and how to deal with 

visitors showing unusual behavior. 

Conclusions 

The long-term implications of the homeless on public 

lands can only be a matter of conjecture. Recovery for the 

California economy is predicted to occur in late 1994 or 

1995 (Bank of America 1993). The economy, at present, is 

down-sizing and in many sectors, substituting capital for 

labor. Thus, the unskilled, semi-skilled and even some 

technically-trained workers will have difficulty finding 

employment in the future. Unless some major programs are 

begun for job retraining and employment relocation, the 

number of homeless will increase nationwide. This situation 

will be particularly great in California because of the closing 

of military bases and the shrinking of the defense sector. If 

the above conditions continue, possible implications for public 

lands in California would include: 

• A potential increase in squatters on public land. 

•A potential increase in the number of homeless exceeding 

the campground time limits. 

•	 As families with young children become more common 

amongst the homeless, it may be necessary to have 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 157 
coordination with several public agencies to deal with 

possible child abuse and school absences. 

• If the homeless cannot find work because of their low 

skill levels—even as the economy improves—this group’s 

use of public lands may increase. 

•	 Because of immigration, non-English speaking peoples 

with low skill levels may become homeless and turn to 

the public lands for shelter. 

•	 To deal with non-English speaking peoples, public 

agencies will need to increase bilingual personnel. 

Because of the exploratory nature of this research, 

additional information needs to be gathered on the homeless, 

specifically addressing the issues most likely to affect the 

use of public lands by the homeless. Only primary data 

gathering will determine if homeless population characteristics 

and problems from the urban homeless are very different 

from those of the homeless who are found on the public 

lands. If the data collected reveal similar socio-economic 

and demographic characteristics, then the suggested 

implications from our research will be confirmed. If they do 

not, then additional study needs to be done to determine the 

precise nature of the socio-economic and demographic 

characteristics of those homeless who seek shelter on the 

nation’s public lands, and to develop solutions to a problem 

with important implications for public land managers. 

References 

Bank of America. 1993. Newsletter. October 1993. 

Dixon, Jennifer. 1993. Cisneros aims to house more homeless. Orange 

County Register. April 24. 

Erikson, Jon; Wilhelm, Charles. 1986. Housing the homeless. New 

Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University Press. 

O’Hare, William. 1987. Separating welfare fact from fiction. Wall Street 

Journal. December 14. 

Orange County Register, 30 June 1993. Homeless estimated at 77,100 in 

L.A. Redlands Family Service Association. 1993. The truth about 

homeless families. 

Rossi, Peter H. 1989. Down and out in America: The origins of homelessness. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

San Bernardino County Homeless Coalition. 1992. The November 1992 

homeless survey--final report. Monograph. 

State of California. 1992. California statistical abstracts. 

State of California Civil Code, Section 196. 

State of California Education Code, Section 48200. 

158 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Community Based Research for an Urban Recreation 

Application of Benefits-Based Management1 

William T. Borrie Joseph W. Roggenbuck2 

Abstract: Benefits-based management is an approach to park and 

recreation management that focuses on the positive outcomes of 

engaging in recreational experiences. Because one class of possible benefits accrue to the community, a philosophical framework 

is discussed suggesting that communities are themselves the primary sources, generators, and repositories of knowledge. Communities are valuable sources of information about their own needs, 

and are important players in benefits-based management. A strategy is described to provide an overview of the needs of two 

communities within the city of Portland, Oregon, and the usefulness of this information to implementing a benefits-based management approach. 

Park professionals believe in the value of the forest and 

parklands we study, research, and manage. The enjoyment 

and benefits that the public gains from these sites and the 

services provided are strong professional motivators. But 

somehow that conviction does not translate fully to the 

community at large. Perhaps community groups do not 

maintain the same beliefs as park managers. Despite our best 

efforts at public participation our management plans are still 

criticized by the media and the courts. And despite the joy 

and satisfaction of our programs, budgets have been frozen 

or diminished as other priorities take precedence. 

Benefits-based management (BBM) is an attempt to 

reverse this trend by providing a clearer understanding and 

documentation of the recreation management process and 

outcomes and by giving the community voice in the planning 

process. Benefits-based management aims to explicitly 

identify the unmet needs of the community, to develop specific 

time-bound management objectives that guide planning and 

programming to help meet these needs, and then to measure 

the outputs, or societal benefits, of an agency’s management. 

Social scientists from the Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station of the USDA Forest Service and 

their associates have begun trial implementations of 

benefits-based management across the country (Lee and 

Driver 1992). One of the urban pilot programs for 

benefits-based management is being conducted in conjunction 

with the Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Portland, Oregon. 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California 2

Graduate Research Assistant and Associate Professor of Forestry, 

respectively, Virginia Technical University, 305 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, 

VA 24061-0324. 

Portland has a reputation as a very livable city, partly attributed 

to its extensive urban forest and park system. The Bureau of 

Parks and Recreation, under the guidance of its director, 

Charles Jordan, seeks to provide essential social and cultural 

opportunities to the whole range of Portland’s population. 

Jordan, in summing up how parks and recreation services are 

more than just fun and games, appeals to social science 

researchers to provide the missing statistics and charts needed 

to convince decision-makers that the supporting role of parks 

and recreation is an essential part of the holistic solution to 

the challenges of the 90’s that are facing our society (Jordan 

1992). Benefits-based management is part of this effort to 

document the benefits to society. 

Benefits-Based Management 

A benefits-based management approach focuses on the 

effects of a recreational activity rather than on the activity 

itself. Park and recreation providers frequently concentrate 

only on the provision of activity opportunities. The successful 

classes and programs of a previous year are commonly used 

to simply replicate a defacto policy decision for future years. 

Facilities, staff abilities, and resource constraints also 

determine which opportunities are offered. These decision 

making processes focus on the provision of recreation activities 

and on the number of people who participate in them. 

Benefits-based management is different. Rather than 

concentrating on the mechanics of providing the recreation 

opportunity, it explicitly defines the outcome of the experience. 

In effect it shifts emphasis from the supply side and into the 

demand side of recreation. But BBM goes beyond simple 

exhibited demand for park and recreation opportunities because 

it looks at the needs of the people rather than just what they 

demand. Our customers’ specific recreational wants are shaped 

by their awareness of the possibilities and the known outcomes 

of these options. But this knowledge may be limited. They 

might also temper their demands by their own realistic appraisal 

of the daily constraints on their lives. But our clients do know 

their own needs. They can identify the problems and pressures 

in their lives, for which they would like some antidote. Our 

job as professionals is to find the activity and setting that 

provides them that antidote. This method is the heart of the 

benefits-based management approach. 

The shift from an activity-based management approach 

to a benefits-based approach has been echoed in the attention 

of research. Initial efforts were focused on counting the 

number of people and the number of activities, as well as 

settings and resources they would require and consume. As 

attention shifted to an experience-based approach, the quality 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 159 
of the experience rather than the quantity was important. 

According to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum planning 

framework, managers would concentrate on the provision of 

physical, social and managerial conditions optimal for a 

particular type of recreational experience. A benefits-based 

approach goes a step further and identifies not only the 

psychological and experiential outcomes of the experience, 

but also the flow of benefits to individuals, groups, 

communities and society in general. 

Our knowledge of the general benefits of recreation is 

quite advanced, particularly as documented in the wilderness 

literature (Driver and others 1987 1991a, Schreyer and Driver 

1989). Driver and others (1991b) define a benefit as a change 

that is viewed to be advantageous - an improvement in 

condition, or a gain to an individual, a group, to society, or to 

another entity. However, the techniques for specifying and 

measuring the consequences of the provision of specific 

park and recreation resources are not well-defined, nor is the 

appraisal of the value of these consequences to particular 

individuals, groups and society. The benefits-based approach 

seeks to specify clearly-defined, measurable, time bounded 

objectives. More particularly, management seeks to provide 

specific benefits at specific areas to targeted segments of the 

community within specific time periods. This approach is 

similar to MBO--”management by objectives.” 

One challenge of a benefits-based management approach 

is to turn to the community to help them identify their needs. 

We need to go out into the community and ask the targeted 

audience (e.g., single mothers) what they feel they need, 

how we can meet those needs, and what we can do for them. 

Significant effort and skill is required to become immersed 

in, and a part of, the specific target community. Consensus 

on the needs and concerns of the community is a necessary 

step, as well as the mobilization of support for any innovations. 

An Application in Two Portland 

Communities 

As a trial application of benefits-based management we 

attempted to go to the local communities in Portland to help 

them identify their needs. Because our focus was on 

community benefits, our methods were anchored within a 

philosophical framework that regards the community as the 

holder and source of knowledge. Our role as researchers is to 

help give voice to, and to gather and document that knowledge. 

As Sommer (1990) stated, “The researcher who seeks to 

understand or change a place must know and respect its 

spirit, the constellation of attributes that sets it apart from all 

other places.” 

But our knowledge is itself socially constructed and 

constrained by the evidence generated by our research efforts 

or provided to us. The standards of what constitutes evidence 

is not only a product of the scientific community but also of 

the community in which the knowledge originates. Indeed, 

the standards of evidence are relative and dynamic since 

they are developed in the process of gathering knowledge. 

Implicit within the above discussion is the notion that 

communities are the main generators, sources, stores and 

acquirers of knowledge. Thus our research must be anchored 

within those communities. This method is in marked contrast 

to a more individualist approach, which maintains that the 

self and self-knowledge are the only reality. A more 

communalist framework is neither objectivist in the sense 

that every knower sees a universal, objective truth, nor is it 

relativist in which everyone’s knowing is the truth. Rather 

because everything we sense is shaped and mediated by the 

influences, practices and traditions of the socio-historical 

context, we should focus our attention on the community. As 

Nelson (1993a) explained, “My claims to know are subject 

to the knowledge and standards constructed by the various 

communities of which I am a member; indeed, I have the 

ability to know only because there are such communities, 

and both my communities and I will judge my claims by 

reference to communal standards and knowledge.” 

Thus, the question is one of not only what is known but 

who knows. Science can be seen as a dynamic process of 

society to construct and re-construct knowledge. Science can 

aim to make sense of, explain, and document the experience 

and features of our world. A communalist approach allows 

for evidence and reasonable belief without certainty. Our 

theories and understandings are underdetermined by the 

evidence we collect. Future experiences and experiments 

may lead to different conclusions. Furthermore, all the evidence 

we collect is a product not only of the community under 

study but also of the larger system of a priori assumptions, 

theories, practices and standards of evidence. These aspects 

of research change, and so we should also expect our 

understandings and theories to change. Coherence and 

explanatory power could become important criteria for 

assessing the reasonableness of these products of research. 

Furthermore, our sensory experiences are neither objective 

nor direct. They are insufficient to discriminate a universal or 

best truth or theory. Our perceptions are shaped and moderated 

by our social and evolutionary heritage. Our senses have 

adapted and been refined to allow us to survive. We filter, 

organize and are differentially sensitive to those aspects of 

our total environment which are most adaptive and useful for 

our existence. Additionally, much of our sensory experience 

is mediated through socially constructed and meaning laden 

signs, such as language, numbers, icons, and myths. The idea 

of the independent, objective observer as a credible notion of 

science is increasingly difficult to accept. 

Indeed, the individual exists embodied and situated within 

the specific social and historical context of the community. 

Personal identity does not exist outside the social roles and 

pressures implicit in interactions with others. Although some 

would say that social roles do not determine identity (Cochrane 

1989), character and personal meaning are embedded in the 

social milieu. As MacIntyre (1981) suggests “... the story of 

my life is always embedded in the story of those communities 

from which I derive my identity. Not only do we interpret 

ourselves in the context of the community and its traditions, 

160 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
but the experiences that have shaped our characteristics are 

themselves shaped by traditions. We are not passive receivers 

of knowledge; rather we actively construct meaning and 

knowledge from within the community. 

However, the notion of a community is itself not well 

defined. Political and geographic boundaries are rarely 

appropriate. Indeed, the community should be self-defined. 

MacIntyre (1981) suggests the following requirements for 

community: a common sense of tradition and ritual; shared 

histories and common stories and myths; a common 

conception of good such as shared purposes or goals; and 

shared values and principles reflecting perhaps a common 

religious background. Much of this stems as a result of birth, 

legacy and family relations as well as geographical or physical 

proximity. However, these factors may also arise from work, 

leisure and lifestyle commitments. 

The definition by McMillan and Chavis (1986) is 

appropriate: “Sense of community is a feeling that members 

have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one 

another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ 

needs will be met through their commitment to be together.” 

That commitment also has costs in terms of limits on individual 

expression, mobility and privacy. Similarly, although 

communities provide psychological support, they also 

physically and psychologically coerce. But as Anderson and 

others (1988) suggest: Given the choice, many Americans 

chose to think of themselves in terms not only of individual, 

but community, identities. 

Nelson (1993b) defines “a group or community that 

constructs and shares knowledge and standards of evidence” 

as an epistemological community. These standards then allow 

individuals to organize their experiences. The epistemological 

communities are frequently a function of shared projects and 

purposes, reflecting perhaps the notion of community 

mentioned above. Thus, individual knowing is derivative 

and dependent on the communities knowledge: you or I can 

only know what we as a community know or could know. 

Epistemological communities are wide ranging, overlapping, 

ever-changing and also quite fuzzy at the boundaries. For 

example, the group of scientists in a laboratory or 

sub-discipline, or who collaborate on a project, generate 

knowledge as a community, but are difficult to definitively 

bound in any given time or place. 

Data Collection 

Portland is an ideal location in which to pilot test a 

benefits-based management approach. The city has an 

excellent reputation for its livability and high level of provided 

services. The city and its people are committed to the outdoors 

and are proud of their park heritage. Although Portland has a 

high proportion of whites, ethnic and racial diversity among 

the different districts of the city is still prevalent. For the 

purpose of this study, two lower-income suburban 

communities were chosen. We felt that the main outcome of 

our research efforts at this stage was the documentation of 

the community context in which we could implement 

benefits-based management. 

We used a variety of strategies to help us understand and 

explain the experience and features of these two communities. 

Our attention was focused on two community centers, one 

from each neighborhood, which would serve as the 

programmatic center for the implementation of benefits-based 

management. Initially, socio-economic data was collected 

for the service area neighborhoods for the community centers 

(Johnson 1993). Historical accounts of the growth of the area 

and current neighborhood planning documents were also 

used to inform researchers. More current topical issues were 

collated through the use of newspaper archives. 

However, the bulk of the research efforts was aimed at 

documenting the current values of the community. 

Participant observation techniques, where the researcher 

takes an active role within the community, allowed access 

to otherwise undocumented knowledge. In addition to 

spending time interacting within the community and the 

community centers, the researchers also had standing within 

the Bureau of Parks and Recreation. In addition to describing 

and coming to an understanding of the communities, we 

sought to identify the organizational context and possible 

opportunities and constraints for the implementation of the 

pilot test of a benefits-based management approach. The 

researchers were therefore invited to attend both management 

and community meetings. 

A variety of focus groups were held with general 

community members, community leaders and with those 

involved in various current community planning efforts. 

Individual interviews and personal accounts were held with 

key informants. These informants were identified using a 

snowball technique whereby each informant was asked to 

identify others who played significant roles in the community 

and who therefore should be contacted. A range of community 

leaders, including church leaders, business leaders, social 

workers and store holders were interviewed. Each session 

lasted between 1 and 2 hours and focused on describing the 

community, its uniqueness and its problems today. 

Researchers returned to some informants to check and validate 

their findings. 

Some Example Findings 

The Mt. Scott community in southeast Portland had 

traditionally been a family neighborhood of mainly British 

and Northern European descent. Although considered a 

lower-income and economically depressed area, the majority 

of houses were owner occupied family homes. Even though 

only 44 percent of the people had resided in the same house 

since 1985, many considered Mt. Scott particularly stable. 

Frequent mention was made of second and third generation 

families who had lived in the same house, as well as the 

frequent return of young parents to the home and community 

in which they grew up. Several community leaders considered 

this close kinship and insularity a problem. The community 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 161 
expressed a commitment to maintaining the status quo and a 

tendency to resist change. New members, particularly those 

of another ethnic group, struggled to feel welcome and part 

of the community. Some community members felt besieged 

by more general societal pressures. The city’s community 

center, considered by many to be the focal point of the 

neighborhood, was uniquely placed to help the community 

meet these challenges. It has been a source and symbol of 

community pride. 

The needs of the Mt. Scott community seem to focus 

around the family. Child care needs were substantially unmet. 

Further, the community maintained that many adolescents 

have little connection or responsibility toward the 

neighborhood. One long-term solution is to work with the 

very young. By attracting them to the community center at 

an early age, the goal has been to build loyalties and patterns 

of behavior that will last through their adolescence and into 

adulthood. This is particularly relevant to the Mt. Scott 

neighborhood, given the preponderance of single-mother 

households and the need for more childcare for the very 

young children. An organized child care program, for example, 

would not only bring the young children back into the 

community center and neighborhood, it would also involve 

the parents. They too would become aware of the resources 

and opportunities available. And frequently older children 

of the same family also become involved. Parallel classes 

might be proposed for those parents who do have the time 

available. Research on shared leisure experiences has 

demonstrated such positive outcomes as increased family 

satisfaction, family interactions and family stability (Orthner 

and Mancini 1990). 

The Eliot community in northeast Portland, in contrast, 

has had a long tradition as a center of African-American 

activity, but is now facing an uncertain future. Urban renewal 

programs and civic construction have driven away many 

local businesses. Cheap but attractively located houses have 

been bought by mainly white, first-home buyers and 

speculators. As the percentage of owner-occupiers has 

dropped, there has been less attention to property maintenance. 

The Eliot community has a very strong church presence, to 

which many turn for leadership. The churches are working 

on community problems, such as the high violent crime rate, 

much of which is carried out by juveniles. Church leaders 

have also worked with the Bureau of Parks and Recreation in 

sharing resources and facilities to provide better recreational 

opportunities for youth. 

The community has been eagerly awaiting the recent 

re-opening of the Matt Dishman Community Center. People 

have been waiting for an indication of whom the community 

center will serve. Many local neighbors had thought the 

community center was theirs, a high quality facility to 

serve their needs. However, they are now seeing an influx 

of people from outside the neighborhood. The new members 

on the other hand see the center as a regional resource, a 

magnet that attracts outside communities. A common theme 

from many community leaders was the hope that the 

community center could serve as a neighborhood connection. 

As a family center it could become a source not only of 

recreational activities for both boys and girls but also of 

information and help for the parents. It could become the 

hub of the neighborhood, a gathering place where everyone 

feels welcome. The community center could also become a 

showcase of neighborhood pride and achievements. 

Members of the Eliot community often mentioned the need 

to instill a greater sense of historic and cultural place 

among their young people. A mentoring program has been 

suggested that would allow community elders to pass on 

some of the traditions of the region and community to 

younger members. Such a program would also help provide 

personal contact, commitment, and guidance to the 

sometimes wayward youth. Mentors have been reported to 

help lower high risk behaviors such as drug abuse and teen 

pregnancies, and raise school related performances 

(McPartland and Nettles 1991). The mentors themselves 

would become a core representing most facets of the 

community, and would gain leadership skills from their 

training. A mentoring program would serve as the vehicle 

for bringing back the people to the community center. 

The Bureau of Parks and Recreation is ideally suited to 

help meet some of these needs identified within these two 

communities. Its mission statement mentions the aim of 

enriching people’s lives, in which recreation is only one 

piece of what is needed for a balanced and healthy 

community. The organizational context and constraints to 

implementing programs and services to meet these needs is 

documented elsewhere (Borrie and Roggenbuck 1993). The 

Bureau of Parks and Recreation aims to institute specific 

time bounded objectives for the needs of the two 

communities. The impacts and outcomes of the services 

provided will be measured as an indicator of their success. 

As a trial benefits-based management approach, we hope to 

develop both quantitative and qualitative measures of the 

clearly defined benefits. For example, the success of a 

mentoring program in the Eliot community could be 

examined by measures of incidence of problematic behaviors 

of youth participants, and by evaluations of the sense of 

belonging and attachment within the community. Other 

benefits being examined include environmental learning 

outcomes as a result of programs designed to meet the 

environmental education needs of the communities. 

Conclusion 

By focusing on the perceived needs of the community, 

benefits-based management both empowers and informs the 

clients of our park and recreation services. As a management 

and research task, it is shifting the focus from expert driven, 

generalized policy and planning objectives to more local 

concerns. If our aims are to truly make a difference in the 

lives of the communities we serve, then benefits-based 

management and community based research are appropriate 

tools that should be further developed. 

162 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Acknowledgments 

The research reported here was supported by the Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest 

Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado; the College of Forestry, Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, Oregon; and the Bureau of Parks 

and Recreation, City of Portland, Oregon. We thank Perry 

Brown, Charles Jordan and Bev Driver for their support 

throughout this project. 

References 

Alcoff, Linda; Potter, Elizabeth, eds. 1993. Feminist epistemologies. New 

York: Routledge; 312 p. 

Anderson, Ken; Piccone, Paul; Siegel, Fred; Taves, Michael. 1988. 

Roundtable on communitarianism. Telos 76: 2-32. 

Borrie, William T.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1993. Portland Parks and 

Recreation : a managerial and research context in which to implement a 

Benefits-based Management approach. Unpublished report. Blacksburg, 

VA: Department of Forestry, Virginia Tech; 66 p. 

Cochrane, Clarke E. 1989. The thin theory of community : the 

communitarians and their critics. Political Studies 32: 422-435.Driver, 

B. L.; Brown, Perry J.; Peterson, George L. 1991a. Benefits of Leisure. 

State College, PA: Venture Publishing; 66 p. 

Driver, B. L.; Brown, Perry J.; Peterson, George L. 1991b. Research on 

leisure benefits : an introduction to this volume. In: Driver, B.L. eds., 

Benefits of leisure. State College, PA : Venture Publishing; 3-11. 

Johnson, Steve. 1993. A social profile of the service areas of Mt. Scott 

Community Center and Matt Dishman Community Center. Unpublished 

draft report. Portland, OR: Center for Urban Studies, Portland State 

University; 39 p. 

Jordan, Charles R. 1991. Parks and Recreation : more than fun and games. 

Driver, B.L., eds. In: Benefits of leisure. State College, PA : Venture 

Publishing; 365-368. 

Lee, Martha E.; Driver, B. L. 1992. Benefits-Based Management : a new 

paradigm for managing amenity resources. Paper presented at the 

Second Canada/US Workshop on Visitor Management in Parks, Forests 

and Protected Areas; 1992 May 13-15; University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

MacIntyre, Alasdair C. 1981. After virtue : a study in moral theory. Notre 

Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press; 252 p. 

McMillan, David W.; Chavis, David M. 1991. Sense of community : a 

definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14(1): 6-23. 

McPartland, James. M.; Nettles, Saundra. A. 1991. Using community 

adults as advocates or mentors for at-risk middle school students : A 

two-year evaluation of Project RAISE. American Journal of Education 

99: 568-586. 

Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1993. A question of evidence. Hypatia 8(2): 

172-189. 

Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1993. Epistemological communities. In Feminist 

Epistemologies. Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter, eds. New York : 

Routledge; 121-159. 

Orthner, Dennis. K.; Mancini, Jay. A. 1990. Leisure impacts on family 

interaction and cohesion. Journal of Leisure Research 22(1): 125-137. 

Sommer, Robert. 1990. Local research. Journal of Social Issues 46(1): 

201-214. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 163 
Total Quality Management: Managing the Human Dimension 

in Natural Resource Agencies1 

Denzil Verardo2 

Abstract: Stewardship in an era of dwindling human resources 

requires new approaches to the way business is conducted in the 

public sector, and Total Quality Management (TQM) can be the 

avenue for this transformation. Resource agencies are no exception to this requirement, although modifications to “traditional” 

private enterprise versions of TQM implementation techniques 

must be done if success is going to be achieved. The application of 

TQM within a public resource agency has been the focus of the 

California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) during 

1993-94. The lessons learned form the early stages of TQM implementation within the Department; the impact and implications for 

resource management teams; a candid discussion of the human 

dimension of implementation (internal and external); and a discussion of traditional TQM versus public agency TQM are addressed. 

Although many governmental agencies were complaining 

about budget reductions in the context of California’s stagnet 

economy, the California Department of Parks and Recreation 

(DPR) took a proactive approach to the problem of managing 

under these reductions. Under the guidance of State Parks 

Director Donald Murphy, mid-management levels were cut 

and the Department reorganized eliminating an entire level 

of bureaucracy that had increased over the years. Not only 

did restructuring reduce the potential for park closure, but it 

prevented the lay-off of field employees who directly serve 

the visitor. This was done while saving valuable, dwindling tax dollars. Already known for their service, park 

employees such as rangers, lifeguards, and maintenance 

workers were directed to give renewed emphasis to 

“customer” expectations as critical to the future of the DPR. 

Administrative support to those front-line employees was 

geared toward meeting their customers’ needs; and resource 

management professionals were decentralized allowing for 

more rapid and better informed decisions at the field level 

where the resource issues were occurring. 

This restructuring began in early 1992, soon after 

Governor Pete Wilson appointed Donald Murphy as Director 

of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the 

first field Superintendent to ever become Director. Murphy 

appointed a committee, called the Phoenix Committee— 

symbolically named after the mythical bird that rose from its 

own ashes—to look at the Department’s organizational 

1

An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Second 

Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research, February 23-25, 

1994, San Diego, California. 2

Assistant Director for Quality Management, California Department of 

Parks and Recreation, 1416 9th St., Sacramento, CA 95814. 

structure. His charge to the Phoenix Committee was actually 

quite simple: simplify the reporting relationships within the 

DPR and make recommendations for change. Total Quality 

Management team practices were used by the group in carrying 

out its mission. The Director was given the duty to implement 

any recommended changes so that the Department was to 

carry out its managerial responsibilities—a true “reinventing” 

of the Department of Parks and Recreation (also referred to 

in this paper as DPR, State Park System, and California Park 

Service). 

Originally, State Parks were organized into 55 (+) districts 

that reported to 5 regions; these regions in turn reported to a 

Sacramento Headquarters chain-of-command in a traditional 

police/military fashion. As a result of the Phoenix Committee 

recommendations, the 55 park districts were consolidated 

into 23, and the 5 regions were eliminated completely. The 

districts now report directly to a streamlined Sacramento 

Headquarters operation. Two resource service centers, one 

in the northern and one in the southern part of California, 

were created and staffed with specialists who could better 

meet district and resource needs by being closer to the issues 

at hand. The number of resource specialists, such as ecologists, 

was increased to allow their placement directly in the district 

operation. This consolidation of districts, decentralization of 

resource specialists, and flattening of the organizational 

structure saved the DPR 10 million dollars annually while 

transforming the Department in such a way that quality 

management applications could be effectively integrated into 

the “culture” of the organization. 

District Superintendents and Departmental Managers 

were given broader authority to manage their units while 

being held accountable for maximizing revenue through the 

practice of sound fiscal management. Instead of levels of 

approval for even the most routine determination, these 

managers were delegated the authority to make any and all 

operational decisions within the scope of their duties. 

While businesses in the private sector had undergone 

similar transformations, the number of public agencies that 

had looked at the efficiency of their operations and that had 

actually implemented structural improvements have been 

few and far between. Motivation is low in government for 

truly efficient operations, and in fact major structural changes 

can have a negative side effect to the agency if the political 

implications are not worked out in advance. When budget 

reductions occur in government, they traditionally occur 

“across the board” regardless of any efficiencies one agency 

may have introduced. However, with proper administrative 

and legislative support, and with budgetary stresses providing 

a degree of motivation, efficiency can be achieved in spite of 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 165 
the opposing pressures to leave the traditional governmental 

hierarchy in place. 

Dealing with the human dimension of reorganization was 

a factor that was planned in advance, but planning can only 

mitigate, not eliminate resistance to change. “Upgrades,” 

“downgrades,” job changes, and relocation require management 

sensitivity as well as a sense of purpose. Communication, no 

matter how frequent or thorough, is never sufficient in the 

eyes of those impacted, and with complete restructuring almost 

everyone is impacted in one way or another. Special weekly 

bulletins, “The Insider, “ were issued by the DPR to keep all 

employees notified of the rapid changes that were occurring. 

Relocations were published, and new job assignments 

distributed so that everyone had information shortly after 

changes were initiated. Morale still suffered as individuals — 

the human dimension—were impacted. One lesson learned 

from the reinvention of the Department was never to 

underestimate the impact any change will have on morale, 

especially in an organization with a traditionally close-knit 

internal culture, such as the type that is prevalent in virtually 

all resource agencies. However, once all transitions were in 

place, and the transformation completed, morale increased as 

employees looked with a degree of enthusiasm at their new 

roles and responsibilities in a more vigorous organization. 

Total Quality Management as Defined by 

the California Park Service 

Concurrently with the restructuring efforts of the 

California Park Service, and orientation to Total Quality 

Management (TQM) took place with every employee 

participating. Customer service, coupled with the concepts 

of continuous improvement—important premises of TQM— 

and employee empowerment became the framework for the 

new management structure. The implementation of TQM 

within a resource agency required a hard, realistic look at 

what we were, what we stood for, and where we wanted to 

be. At the same time the DPR had to get TQM beyond the 

jargon stage and into the fabric of the organization’s 

management systems to institutionalize it in the culture. 

This process was by no means easy, and it certainly is not 

complete. 

TQM Application 

“Total Quality Management” is a set of management 

principles and methods by which decisions are made. It is 

based on the concept of “customers” defining quality for the 

organization. Quality is everything of value to a public service 

organization, such as wise use of resources, service, etc. 

Customers come in two basic categories: (1) external—the 

visitor to the State Park System, as well as any stakeholder in 

the system such as concessionaires, non-profit organizations, 

legislators, other resource agencies, and; (2) internal— 

employees whose job is served by other employees. Basically, 

the next person down the line to deal with a service (or 

product) is an internal customer. Personnel and accounting 

section staff and resource specialists, are all examples of 

workers who at some point in time have internal customers to 

serve. In the implementation of TQM within the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation, constant awareness is 

given to the fact that TQM could lose relevance for those who 

focus on end-user satisfaction, working with publicly intangible 

organizational services such as payroll transactions. Although 

resource specialists deal with more tangible service, TQM 

relevance must be couched in terms balancing efficiency and 

equity, a subject discussed more fully later in this paper. 

Customer feedback provides one method of determining the 

needs of the customer. Visitors need to give feedback, 

informally and formally through specially developed, 

measurable instruments, to the organization. Employees need 

to give feedback to supervisors and managers. Feedback is 

required to learn how our needs are changing, and how quality 

can be improved. However, while customer-driven quality is 

a premise of TQM, the DPR is driven by influences other than 

the customer’s expectations. The needs and demands of the 

State Legislature, the regulations imposed by State control 

agencies, and the essential “public-ness” of the government 

arena are examples of forces that impact customer driven 

quality decisions. Unless carefully and skillfully managed, 

these forces could pose a threat to the creative interaction 

necessary to institute change in general, and TQM specifically. 

Data collection is another important feature inherent in 

TQM. Customer feedback, problem solving and sorting, 

eliminating the causes of problems and inefficiency, 

monitoring the progress of improvement, are but a few of the 

items requiring valid data to base decisions. Resource agencies 

often collect resource data, but not the type of data that 

would actually focus on a specific problem so that it could 

be mitigated or “fixed.” One simple example of such a 

problem, a fictitious scenario from the DPR, is one that 

might have occurred on a guided tour of a resource area. A 

specific tour guide could not be heard well. Complaints from 

the public resulted in a counseling session with the guide--a 

typical, previous management reaction when dealing with 

complaints. However, applying the tools of TQM to gather 

and process real data actually solved the problem. The tour 

guide in question was responsible for half of all the complaints 

issued. Upon analysis the complaints were found to be 

generated from only one part of the tour—the part he 

conducted. The counseling may have ended with the guide 

talking louder, but real data showed that re-routing the tour 

permanently solved that problem, because the real problem 

was excessive noise from external sources at that one portion 

of the tour. But complaints still occurred because only half 

of them were attributable to the cause investigated. In a 

TQM organization the next step would be to determine what 

was producing the next largest number of complaints and 

then focus on that problem through developed problem 

solving, and data collecting processes. According to Dr. 

Edwards Deming (1986), one of the founders of the quality 

movement, this method “constantly and forever improve(s) 

the system of production and service.” 

166 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Continuous process improvement is a fundamental 

requirement of TQM. Keeping some processes stable, and 

improving others that cause the most problems, is how we 

achieve better results. Constantly adapting to these changes, 

and continuously improving the processes by which we 

work, will begin to improve the entire organization. The 

method by which to identify these processes and select those 

which need improvement is taught in the California Park 

Service Park Quality Management Training Program. 

In TQM, problem solving utilizes team approaches. Of 

all governmental entities, resource agencies are especially 

good candidates for widespread use of team problem solving 

using the specific scientific approaches offered in TQM 

applications. The DPR is not unique among its sister agencies 

in having a variety of resource specialists, rangers, and 

managers who, when a problem is identified, all have a piece 

of the solution. By carefully selecting a true team of individuals 

to apply TQM’s tools in a problem solving process, solutions 

are developed with a degree of accuracy and thoroughness 

not otherwise possible. Not all work is done in teams though, 

and to imply that under TQM all work is done by teams is a 

common misinterpretation of Total Quality Management 

applications. However, to utilize team approaches to solve a 

problem—real team approaches not just a group of people 

coming together to discuss an issue—has been extremely 

successful for the DPR even during the initial stages of our 

TQM journey. 

One of the more important concepts in TQM is the 

“total” part of Total Quality Management. “Total” implies 

the involvement of all sections within an organization. The 

cooperation of many parts of an organization to solve 

problems, to work together and resolve issues, to achieve 

continuously improving levels of quality for the customer, 

is essential to meet any agency’s goals, let alone its mission. 

Yet a weakness of the DPR, and indeed most resource 

agencies, is a lack of “systems thinking.” Resource specialists, 

rangers, maintenance workers and administrative staffs have 

traditionally had a degree of friction, sometimes bordering 

on jealousy or outright animosity, towards each other. 

Working together for the common good—systems thinking— 

to achieve the mission and vision of the Department requires 

a change of internal culture, one we are committed to achieve 

both for the effectiveness of TQM and for our organizational 

survival. Achieving a vision can only be done with a total 

quality effort. 

Employee empowerment, the ability to effect change 

within an employee’s sphere of influence as well as the 

ability to collaborate to “fix” problems, is important to the 

Department. Empowerment is a powerful word, and an 

even more powerful concept. Like TQM, empowerment is 

easy to describe at a jargon level, but requires commitment 

to practice. Creating an atmosphere that enhances employee 

self-esteem, and that requires staff to take personal 

responsibility for an agency’s success, leads to a quality 

organization. Empowerment is not TQM. TQM can lead to 

true empowerment, however. The concepts are mutually 

inclusive when empowerment is applied appropriately and 

when managers and supervisors know the power behind 

the concept and do not see it as a threat to their position. 

The DPR has encouraged employees toward empowerment, 

and to take responsibility for their own actions. At the 

same time, even after hours of training for all individuals 

in the organization, the concept is still misunderstood to a 

degree. Perhaps another lesson learned from our 

implementation of TQM is that we should have let our 

quality journey progress a bit farther before introducing 

the concept of empowerment as organizational policy. The 

DPR had to “catch up” to empowerment because we did 

not have the structures in place to take full advantage of, or 

to adequately define, the concept. 

Individuals within the DPR prior to the implementation 

of TQM, had often stated that, “we are already doing a lot of 

TQM.” Although our commitment to public service was 

unquestionable, we did not realize how little we were 

practicing the quality tenets of TQM. Focus on the customer, 

as we have defined them, data collection for problem solving, 

the concept of continuous process improvement, team problem 

solving with attention to results, and systems thinking, 

combined with employee empowerment, were not unified as 

a strategy within the Department of Parks and Recreation 

prior to our TQM efforts. Such unification is hardly achieved 

through jargon. 

Public & Private Sector Differences 

The focus of this paper has been to specifically define 

Total Quality Management within the context of the DPR. 

However, it is important to note that there are some 

fundamental differences between the public and private 

sectors, as well as some differences within the public sector 

between resource and other types of agencies, that need to be 

taken into account when implementing TQM. 

Management turn-over occurs differently in the public 

and private sectors. One of Deming’s “Deadly Diseases” is 

management mobility (Deming 1986). In the public sector, 

top management generally changes with each election cycle. 

In the private sector, this disease that impacts the efficiency 

of organizations is not based on factors of governmental 

politics. In the private sector management mobility is to a 

degree controllable. The public sector organization does 

not influence upper management’s mobility. Fortunately in 

resource agencies, levels of management below the appointed 

management staff may be promotionally mobile, but they 

often stay with their respective Departments for entire careers. 

This mitigates the impact of Deming’s disease of 

management mobility. 

Customer identification is more difficult in the public 

sector. In the business world, customers can be readily 

identified, both internally and externally. Quality and 

customer satisfaction levels can likewise be determined 

fairly quickly and easily. Success is measured by their 

“bottom line.” This is not possible in the public sector, 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 167 
“where not only is there no bottom-line profit, but most 

public employees are hesitant, or even reticent to call those 

whom they serve customers” (Verardo 1993). Resource 

agencies such as the DPR provide services that cannot be 

easily measured statistically, and our clients have little choice 

but to remain customers because of few alternatives. However, 

as difficult as the statistical measurement of service might 

be, it is imperative that it be done. The collection of real 

data to solve problems is the only viable means by which to 

analyze customer expectations. 

Finally, the public sector and resource agencies must 

keep this concept before them: equity is more important than 

efficiency (Deming, personal conversation). TQM is geared 

toward efficiency. Decisions made are based on customerdriven input and data within a structure that can quickly 

react to a changing environment. But no matter what the 

impact on the organization, the DPR and other resource 

agencies have a responsibility to be equitable rather than 

efficient, if that is the choice. Equal access to parks for all 

people, or protection of irreplaceable resources for future 

generations regardless of current public demands are issues 

of equity which are inherent in our mission, and are not 

violable by the concept of efficiency. Unfortunately, issues 

of equity are often used as an excuse not to be efficient 

� 

thereby weakening the ability of resource agencies to 

modernize their management processes. 

The fact that there are forces other than the customer that 

impact quality, such as control agencies, the legislature, and 

the open field upon which public agencies must play, has 

already been mentioned and need not be dwelt upon further. 

Steps in Implementing TQM, Cycle I: 

Strengthening the Organizational 

Structure and Planning for Change 

Carr and Littman (1990) have constructed a flowchart 

that illustrates the Quality Journey of the California Park 

Service (figure 1). The major concepts required in a quality 

management program are printed at the top of the chart: 

Assessment, Planning, Implementation and Institutionalization. The boxes show what we have done and where we 

are going. Although TQM can be implemented by using 

numerous models, this model is the only one which allowed 

dual tracks to be pursued simultaneously. The California 

Department of Parks and Recreation is making some rapid 

short-term improvements, while instituting and planning for 

long-term change. Another important feature of this model 

is that it allows cycling back through the process, illustrating 

ASSESSMENT PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION INSTITUTIONALIZATION� 

��������� (Capability Building) 

▲

▲

▲ ▲

▲

▲

▲

� 

(1) Misson (6) Evaluation � 

�� Goals��� Plans 

Action Improvement� 

Teams� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Management � 

Teams� 

� 

On-Going Improve-� 

ment Teams� 

� 

Quality System� 

Development� 

� 

(5) Action Plan 

Short-Term � 

Improvements 

Long-Term � 

Change 

Integration 

▲

▲

Continuous Improvement ▲

(2) Key (3) Strategy (4)Tactical����� 

Figure 1—Road map of the quality journey (California Department of Parks and Recreation [California Park Service]) 

168 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
that TQM is a journey, not a destination. The DPR is in its 

second cycle of this model. 

The First Journey 

Our Mission (1) was well-defined, although it was 

reviewed and tested as part of a visioning process. Key 

Goals (2) were developed from assessments and planned 

recommendations supplied from the Department’s Phoenix 

Committee. A Transition Team was formed to plan the DPR 

restructuring effort including costing out all relocation and 

assessing the organizational impact of reductions at the 

mid-management level. The resulting Strategy (3) lead to 

Tactical Plans (4) that were implemented, resulting in both 

short-term improvement--the saving of 10 million dollars 

annually through the reductions--and the longer term change 

triggered by the formation of an entirely new, less hierarchical, 

park service structure. During this rapid initial phase of 

implementation, a steering committee made up of the Director 

and his immediate management staff, initiated orientation 

sessions for all Departmental managers in TQM and 

Empowerment. The steering committee’s Action Plan (5) 

further called for the training of Action Improvement Teams 

consisting of selected trainers from each district as well as 

each headquarters office in the Department. This phase of 

training was conducted at the William Penn Mott, Jr. Training 

Center in Pacific Grove, the Department’s centralized training 

facility. These management teams and improvement teams 

then oriented every employee within the Department to the 

goals of the organization with regard to TQM and 

Empowerment. The results of these orientation sessions, and 

the implementation of the concurrent restructuring were 

evaluated (6) and the process began again at a more methodical 

level: one which would focus on institutionalizing the changes 

made, and one which would implement Total Quality 

Management throughout the DPR. 

The Second Journey 

The first journey through the improvement cycle 

concentrated on restructuring the Department and on orienting 

employees to a new way business would be conducted in the 

future. The second journey would be to change those business 

methods by involving increasing numbers of employees. By 

using this approach, the DPR is unique among organizations. 

“TQM has been most successful when tailored to the unique 

needs of specific entities” (Verardo 1993). The DPR has 

tailored its implementation of TQM to meet its organizational 

needs, and not to meet the needs of theoretical practices. 

In private industry, and with traditional TQM theory, 

reorganization of the business is a logical end-product of 

TQM implementation. The structure of the organization is 

carfully studied, and customer responsiveness assessed through 

a variety of data gathering and problem solving techniques. 

With the California Department of Parks and Recreation, an 

immediate budgetary crisis forced innovation. That the DPR 

was a hierarchical government bureaucracy required little 

study, let alone full TQM integration. It did need a quality 

team effort (the Phoenix Committee) to decide what structure 

would be the most responsive and most efficiently address all 

customers’ needs. Increasing the organizational responsiveness 

of the DPR by downsizing mid-management assured greater 

success with TQM implementation. 

Steps in Implementing TQM, Cycle II: 

Initial Integration of TQM Practices 

In March, 1993, I was appointed as Assistant Director for 

Total Quality Management of the DPR. The purpose of the 

position was both to assist with, and to drive, the implementation 

of TQM within the Department. A member of the Director’s 

staff, I was not in charge of a division of employees but 

instead was to formulate policy and institute change throughout 

the entire organization and across all departmental boundaries. 

The new position had among its duties the charge to work with 

each Deputy Director and Division Chief to institute necessary 

changes, and to carry out the Director’s commitment to integrate 

TQM throughout the entire Department. 

Visioning 

A logical starting point to enculturate TQM into any 

organization is to begin with its mission and values, and 

create a vision based on a realistic projection of that 

organization’s desired future state. This “visioning” is a 

necessity if TQM is going to focus on improvements and 

quality efforts geared toward achievable results. TQM 

application without vision could result in some operational 

efficiencies, but it certainly will not have any long-term 

substance or long-term quality improvements for resource 

agencies. W. Edwards Deming himself stressed the 

requirement that vision be developed to focus an entire 

organization on improvement (Deming 1986). 

The California Department of Parks and Recreation, 

like most resource agencies, has a historic mission rooted 

with overtones of preservation ethic: 

The mission of the California Park Service is to provide 

for the health, inspiration and education of the people 

of California by helping to preserve the state’s 

extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most 

valued natural and cultural resources, and creating 

opportunities for high quality recreation. 

But was the mission current? Could a Vision be 

realistically projected based on the mission’s goal of success 

for the organization and stewardship of the resources entrusted 

to the California Department of Parks and Recreation? 

Murphy and Verardo set out to test the mission and goals of 

the Department through a vision audit that included an 

evaluation, the scope, and the context of the future state of 

the DPR (Nanus 1991). The “Vision Evaluation” charted the 

movement of the Department towards the proposed vision 

by evaluating and checking the vision against a template of 

questions. The “Vision Scope” set the boundaries to the 

vision by defining the scope of what was achievable, and the 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 169 
“Vision Context” attempted to identify important future 

developments that could affect the DPR. The audit led to a 

series of meetings, including a two-day off-site meeting, of 

the full staff (all division chiefs and Director’s staff members). 

The subject of the meetings was a “visioning” effort based 

on the data collected. The future of California’s resources 

under the stewardship of the DPR, the seemingly contradictory 

recreational emphasis, the plight of the Department within 

the economic context of California were all explored during 

visioning and the end-result published under the title The 

Seventh Generation. One of the most important documents 

to come out of the Department, The Seventh Generation is 

the strategic vision of the DPR. It embodies the heritage, 

mission, values, goals, and vision of the Department. All 

employees were sent a copy and a leaflet published for 

public distribution that enumerated some of the basic tenets 

of The Seventh Generation. 

Strategic planning was begun by translating the goals 

and tactics identified in The Seventh Generation into 

operational terms. This first strategic plan was a “top-down” 

plan, although it did account for input. The DPR could not 

implement a TQM “bottom-up,” data-driven strategic plan 

because training and implementation in actual TQM tools 

had not yet taken place. Yet the DPR strategy for the future 

had to be initiated without delay, both for the benefit of the 

organization and to capitalize on the creative momentum of 

The Seventh Generation. The next strategic plan of the 

Department will be one in which the goals of the field, 

generated through the use of TQM techniques integrated 

into operations, are coupled with the goals of upper 

management—a 50-50 bottom/top generated strategic plan. 

The third strategic plan will be a “bottom-up” plan taking 

the data and goals generated by the field using TQM techniques 

and turning them into the strategy for the DPR. Strategic 

plans are a blueprint of Department operations for the future. 

As the needs of the organization change, and as TQM becomes 

more integrated within the operation of the DPR, the strategic 

plan, or portions of it, will change annually to meet progress 

toward the vision expressed in The Seventh Generation. 

Training 

Concurrently with the visioning process, the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation began planning for 

TQM training, and a timeline for the implementation of the 

various stages of integration of TQM. Because no other 

resource agencies had embarked on TQM, the Department 

had to consult with individuals who could at least shed light, 

offer suggestions, and provide some direction based on their 

efforts. Keith Smith of the California Bureau of Automotive 

Repair; Miles Ennis, strategic planner for the Department of 

Finance; and private consultant David Jones of Sentient 

Systems provided valuable advice and assistance to the DPR. 

The various training programs and trainers available were 

monitored and evaluated to assess whether they would meet 

the training needs of the Department based on the curricula 

and the training model that the organization had developed. 

The model was driven by the decision that management 

would be intensively trained in TQM basics, followed by 

joint sessions with “trainers” from each organizational unit. 

By using this method, the DPR would begin to have 

operational management buy-in while at the same time trainers 

would assist in enculturating field personnel to TQM 

techniques and team approaches. The trainers would also be 

a resource to the managers for whom they work. Once 

management and trainers were trained, administrative officers 

and higher level supervisors would receive TQM training 

tailored to their respective levels and duties. 

After numerous evaluations, Ron Black, a consultant 

with Meta Dynamics, was selected to provide lead instruction 

to managers and trainers in the application of TQM, team 

roles in a TQM environment, and the tools of the TQM trade. 

The California Department of Parks and Recreation contracted 

with the Training Source, a Sacramento-based adult education 

provider affiliated with the Los Rios Community College 

District with whom Ron Black was associated, to obtain his 

services. The resulting Park Quality Management Program 

became a framework for increasing TQM implementation 

throughout the Department. Future training programs will 

supplement, not repeat, materials presented during the initial 

year of Park Quality Management Training. 

Developmental Stages 

Meanwhile, several DPR pilot programs and projects 

were instituted on an experimental basis throughout the 

state. Those that worked well would provide information for 

the new teams and projects. The programs that did not would 

provide valuable lessons for those that followed. One effort 

was selected by the Governor’s Task Force on Quality as a 

“pioneer project,” and received support from the Governor’s 

Office on Planning and Research, the only resource agency 

project selected. 

Quality systems development began when the DPR was 

chosen as one of four state agencies to participate in a pilot 

program to switch from line-item to performance-based 

budgeting. Performance-based budgeting lends itself more 

readily to the application of TQM techniques than does 

line-item, although one does not necessitate the other. 

Moreover, the pilot departments will receive a degree of 

freedom to operate outside the parameters normally established 

and monitored by regulatory agencies of state government. 

Meaningful customer feedback requires surveys, among 

other instruments, based on meaningful data. Simply surveying 

visitors, employees or the myriad of other stakeholders such 

as concessionaires does not necessarily provide meaningful 

data. Satisfaction surveys must be correlated with the relative 

importance of the information received (relative importance 

from the customer’s viewpoint) in order to provide statistics 

that can be meaningfully analyzed. The DPR uses a visitor 

survey that can be statistically correlated with “importance” 

to provide insight into which problems need to be addressed, 

and in what relative order. The methodology of this survey 

will be extended to other surveys in the near future. 

170 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
The Future of TQM, Cycle III 

The California Department of Parks and Recreation is 

committed to continuing its quality journey. The vision is of 

an efficient, responsive organization whose planning efforts 

will provide “customer delight” to future generations. The 

results of that vision are that we will have been successful 

stewards of our resources for those generations. Total Quality 

Management, with all its implications, is the only method by 

which to realistically achieve that goal. 

References 

Carr, David; Littman, Ian. 1990. Excellence in government. Arlington, 

VA: 368 p. 

Deming, W. Edwards. 1986. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: 507 p. 

Nanus, Bert. 1991. Visionary leadership. Los Angeles, CA: 398 p. 

Verardo, Jennie. 1993. Total quality management and its potential as a 

management program in the public sector. Unpublished draft supplied 

by author. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 171 
Friday Afternoon Session


Summary of Round Table Session


Chair: Authur Magill 

USDA Forest Service 
Round Table Session 

Deborah Chavez, Compiler 

The round table session was designed for interaction 

between the presenters and other round table participants. 

Nine round tables, each capable of holding 10 participants 

were set up in one room. Presenters for the sessions were 

encouraged to lead discussions on one of many topics in 

these areas: visitor issues, human dimensions, management 

tools, and research issues. The session was moderated by 

Arthur Magill, USDA Forest Service. 

Visitor Issues 

Four round tables addressed visitor issues. Carolyn 

Daugherty and Sidney Blumner led a discussion entitled 

“Visitor Impacts: An Examination of Public Land 

Management Strategies,” which focused on alternatives to 

lessen the impacts from the growing numbers of visitors to 

public lands. Topics included user fees, visitor quotas, 

national policies, funding alternatives, and other mechanisms. 

Geneen Granger led a discussion entitled “Subsistence Use 

and Abuse in National Forests.” The discussion focused 

mostly on impacts in Alaska. 

Thomas Spencer led a group discussing “ECO-Teams.” 

Most of the discussion focused on the ECO-team approach 

on the Angeles National Forest and the impending startup of 

the team approach to environmental education on the San 

Bernardino National Forest. 

Donald Stikkers led a discussion entitled “Social Issues 

in Conflict Resolution: The Case of Mountain Bikes.” 

Information was shared on the status of conflict and ideas 

on what is working as this issue evolves. Participants 

generally agreed that conflicts are working themselves out 

as interaction between the groups improves with mutual 

understanding of goals. 

Other issues discussed included wildlife conflicts, displacement of other users, the need for trail maps, and trends. 

Human Dimensions 

Two groups discussed some current agency issues. Alan 

W. Ewert led a discussion entitled “Human Dimensions 

Research in Federal Agencies” and Robert Laidlaw and 

Harold Belisle led a discussion entitled “Human Dimensions 

of Ecosystem Management.” 

Management Tools 

A discussion entitled “Using a Geographic Information 

System (GIS) as an Analytical Tool for Decision Making” 

led by Dorothy Albright and Robert E. Pfister focused on 

social, economic, and recreational values that may be added 

to GIS models. The goals of adding layers to these models is 

to give resource managers more information from which to 

make management decisions. 

Research Issues 

Two discussions focused on research issues. The first, 

led by Elwood L. Shafer was entitled “The Challenges of 

International Ecotourism Research.” 

The second discussion, led by Richard Hansis, Susan 

Lampe, and Ann Shlisky was entitled “Methods for the 

study of a Social Assessment for the Lewis IRA Area.” 

The discussion centered on the methods used to discover 

the social values users have for the Integrated Resource 

Analysis (IRA) area. The methods included interviews and 

focus groups. Both methods helped bring stakeholders into 

the planning process at the earliest stages before any projects 

had been proposed. One issue raised in the discussion was 

accessing publics who are potential users or participants. 

The participants concluded that a random sample of the 

regional population would be the best method. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 175 
Appendixes

Appendix A: Symposium Program


Social Aspects and Recreation Research Symposium—February 23-25, 1994, San Diego, California 

Theme: Human Dimensions of Natural Resources 

— Opening Remarks: Wednesday, February 23, 1994 8:00am-9:30am 

• Deborah Chavez, Program Chair 

• Enoch Bell, USDA Forest Service, PSW Research Station 

• Anne Fege, USDA Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest 

— First Concurrent Session: Wednesday, February 23, 9:45am-11:30am 

Social Issues and Conflicts in Multiple Use


Chair: Michael A. Schuett, Southwest Texas State University


• Steven W. Anderson “Transforming Controversy Into Consensus: The Steens Mountain Initiative” 

• Susan P. Rust “The Urban Wilderness Park: An Oxymoron” 

•	 Michael A. Schuett and Steven J. Hollenhorst “Conflicts and Issues Related to Mountain Biking in the 

National Forests: A Multimethodological Approach” 

•	 Alan E. Watson and Michael J. Niccolucci “Conflicting Goals of Wilderness Management: Natural 

Conditions vs. Natural Experiences” 

Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management 

Chair: Deborah S. Carr, USDA Forest Service 

•	 Deborah S. Carr and Gloria Flora “Human Dimensions in Ecosystem Management: Research and 

Application in the USDA Forest Service” 

• Tim O’Keefe “Olympic Learning Center: Ecosystem Management” 

Impact of Multicultural Groups on Resource Management 

Chair: John L. Heywood, Ohio State University 

• Deborah J. Chavez, Janna Larson, and Patricia L. Winter “To Be or Not To Be a Park: That is the Question” 

•	 John L. Heywood and Raquel Engelke “Differences in Behavioral Conventions:A Comparison of 

United States-Born and Mexico-Born Hispanics, and Anglo-Americans” 

• Patrick Tierney “Development and Testing of a Cultural Identity Construct for Recreation and Tourism Studies” 

• Denver Hospodarsky “A Racial and Ethnic Group Analysis of Recreation on the Tonto National Forest 

— Concurrent Session 2: Wednesday, February 23, 1:00pm-2:45pm 

Land Ethics in Natural Resources


Chair: Robert M. Laidlaw, USDI Bureau of Land Management


•	 Tommy Swearingen and Robert E. Pfister “A Preliminary Analysis of Environmental Dilemmas and Environmental 

Ethical Reasoning Among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Forest Visitors” 

• Dorceta E. Taylor and Patricia L. Winter “Environmental Values, Ethics, and Depreciative Behavior in Wildland Settings” 

• Francisco Valenzuela “Ecology is a White Man’s Problem” 

Protection, Safety and Use Issues in Natural Resources 

Chair: Deborah S. Carr, USDA Forest Service 

• Daniel Harkenrider “Meeting Customer Expectations: Can Public Safety Be Assured in an ‘Urban Proximate’ Forest?” 

•	 Laura McLachlin, Emilyn Sheffield, Donald A. Penland, and Charles W. Nelson “Accessibility Benchmarks: 

Interpretive Programs and Services in North Central California” 

• Patrick C. Reed “CUSTOMER Recreation Research in the Chugach National Forest: Is Alaska Really Different?” 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 179 
Partnership and Service Delivery Strategies for Natural Resources 

Chair: Alan Schmierer, USDI National Park Service 

• Ronilee A. Clark “Opportunities for Increased Public Interaction in Habitat Restoration Efforts” 

• Kit Darrow and Jerry J. Vaske “Evaluating a Systematic Approach to Developing Partnerships in Natural Resource Agencies” 

• Steven Selin “Towards a Typology of Recreation Partnerships” 

• B. Noah Tilghman and Ray Murray “Seeking Common Ground” 

— Educational Poster Session: Wednesday, February 23, 3:00pm-5:00pm 

Session Chair: Patricia L. Winter, USDA Forest Service 

• Judith L. Behrens “History of the Trabuco District” 

•	 Dale J Blahna, Susan Van Patten, Scott A. Dawson, Doug Reiter, and Russ Von Koch “Mountain Biking: Use, 

Characteristics and Preferences” 

• Deborah J. Chavez “Mountain Biking on the San Jacinto District” 

• Lee DiGregorio and Sue Zahn “Emerging Challenges to Natural Resources: Keeping the ‘Wild’ in Wilderness” 

• Ron Glass, Tom More, and Rod Zwick “Personal Use and Barter of Fish and Wildlife in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont” 

•	 Sam A. Lollar and Robert E. Pfister “Commercial and Non-Commercial Visitors to Bureau of Land Management 

Recreation Sites Along the Mokelumne and Merced River Corridors of the Western Sierras 

• Robert Loudon “Children’s Forest: Involving Tomorrow’s Leaders Today” 

• Arthur W. Magill “Fire Managers Must Talk With People” 

• Arthur W. Magill “The Role of Natural Resource Managers in International Tourism and Rural Development” 

• Brent H. McBeth “National Forest Resource Game for Ecosystem Management” 

• Laura Potash and Penny Falknor “Look What’s Blooming on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest” 

• Mary Sagal and Charlie Vandemoer “Puget Sound Eyes on Wildlife - A Watchable Wildlife Program” 

• Julie Schaefers “Geographical Information System Display of Recreational Activity and Associated Economic Value” 

• Randy T. Welsh “Boating Capacity Review and Determination for Pineview Reservoir” 

— Simulated Field Trips: Wednesday, February 23, 7:00pm-9:00pm 

Session Chair: Linda Hecker, USDA Forest Service 

• Gary Elsner and Joe Meade “Universal Design and the Outdoor Recreation Environment” 

• Geneen Granger “The Many Cultural Uses of the Alaska Resource Area” 

• Sue Lampe “Defining the Human Dimension in the Lewis Integrated Resources Analysis Project” 

•	 Patrick Reed, F. Clark, L. Ziemann, and S. Randall “Born of Ice: A Simulated Field Trip Through the 

Chugach National Forest” 

• Joan Wynn “Armchair Tour of the Cleveland National Forest” 

— Field Trips to the Cleveland National Forest or San Diego Bay Area 

Thursday, February 24, 1994 8:00am-5:00pm 

Trip to the Cleveland National Forest and Historic Julian


Trip to San Diego Bay, National Monument, and Nature Center


— Banquet and Thursday Evening Session: Thursday, February 24, 6:00pm-9:00pm 

Lee Stetson portrays John Muir in “The Spirit of John Muir” 

— Opening Session: Welcome from USDI Bureau of Land Management 

Friday, February 25, 1994 8:30am-9:30am 

• Dick Barbar, USDI Bureau of Land Management 

• Mark Nechodom, University of California at Davis 

— Third Concurrent Session: Friday, February 25, 9:45am-11:30am 

Pilot Projects and New Paradigms 

Chair: Anne S. Fege, USDA Forest Service 

• Alan W. Ewert “Social Science Research and Natural Resource Management:Restructuring for a Future Paradigm” 

• Patrick C. Reed and G. Hirsch “CUSTOMER Recreation Research: A Critique of the 1990-1992 Pilot Test” 

180 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
•	 Thomas W. Spencer and Robert E. Pfister “Using Challenge Cost-Share Partnerships to Communicate with Ethnically 

Diverse Recreation Users in Southern California” 

• Joe Meade and Gary Elsner “Universal Design and the Outdoor Recreation Environment: Framing a Research Partnership” 

Economic Issues in Policy Formation and Resource Management 

Chair: Howard A. Clonts, Auburn University 

• Howard A. Clonts “Marketing a National Forest: The Resource Managers Dilemma” 

•	 Armando Gonzalez-Caban, John B. Loomis, and Robin Gregory “Protecting Oregon Old-Growth Forests From Fires: 

How Much Is It Worth?” 

• Brent H. McBeth “Coordinated Fee Structure for Developed Recreation Sites” 

• Elwood L. “Dick” Shafer “What’s a Walk on the Wildside Worth?” 

Resource Management Case Studies


Chair: Herbert Echelberger, USDA Forest Service


• Sidney M. Blumner and Carolyn M. Daugherty “The Potential Impacts of the Homeless on Public Lands” 

•	 William T. Borrie and Joseph W. Roggenbuck “Qualitative Research: Setting the Stage for an Urban Recreation 

Application of Benefits-Based Management” 

• Herbert E. Echelberger “Measuring Recreational Use of a Large Interstate Waterbody” 

• Denzil Verardo “Total Quality Management: Managing the Human Dimension in Natural Resource Agencies” 

— Round Table Session: Friday, February 25, 1:00pm-3:00pm 

Session Chair: Arthur W. Magill, USDA Forest Service 

• Dorothy Albright and Robert E. Pfister “Using GIS as an Analytical Tool for Decision-Making” 

• Carolyn Daugherty and Sidney Blumner “Visitor Impacts: An Examination of Public Land Management Strategies” 

• Alan Ewert “Human Dimensions Research in Federal Agencies” 

• Geneen Granger “Subsistence Use and Abuse in National Forests” 

• Richard Hansis, Susan Lampe, and Ann Shlisky “Methods for the Study of a Social Assessment for the Lewis IRA Area” 

• Robert Laidlaw and Harold Belisle “Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management” 

• Elwood L. “Dick” Shafer “The Challenges of International Ecotourism Research” 

• Thomas Spencer “ECO-Teams” 

• Donald Stikkers “Social Issues in Conflict Resolution: The Case of Mountain Bikes” 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 181 
Appendix B: List of Attendees


Dorothy Albright


USDA Forest Service


4955 Canyon Crest Drive


Riverside, CA 92507


Steven W. Anderson


USDI Bureau of Land Management


P.O. Box 177


Hines, OR 97738


John M. Baas


Colorado State University


3419 Colony Drive


Ft. Collins, CO 80526


Stan Bales


USDI Bureau of Land Management


705 Hull St.


Susanville, CA 96130


Dick Barbar


USDI Bureau of Land Management


2800 Cottage Way


Sacramento, CA 95825


Larry Belle


San Diego State University


Department of Recreation


San Diego, CA 92102


Judith L. Behrens


USDA Forest Service


1147 E. 6th Street


Corona, CA 91719


Dale J. Blahna


Utah State University


Department of Forest Resources


Logan, UT 84322-5215


Sidney Blumner


California State


Polytechnic University


3801 West Temple Ave


Pomona, CA 91768-4079


Paul Boos


USDI Bureau of Land Management


222 W 7th Ave #13


Anchorage, AK 99504


Bill Borrie


Virginia Technical Institute


305 Cheatlam


Blacksburg, VA 24060-0324


Dennis E. Bschor


USDA Forest Service


21905 64th Avenue West


Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-2278


John Butz


USDI Bureau of Land Management


6221 Boy Springs Blvd.


Riverside, CA 92507


Dianne Cahir


USDA Forest Service


701 N Santa Anita


Arcadia, CA 91024


Deborah Carr


USDA Forest Service


1407 S. Harrison, Room 220


East Lansing, MI 48823


Dr. Don Charpio


USDI Bureau of Land Management


3707 N 7th Street


Phoenix, AZ 85014


Earl W. Clayton


USDA Forest Service


6144 Calle Real


Goleta, CA 93117


Howard A. Clonts


Department of Agricultural Economics


Auburn University, AL 36849-5406


Frank Cooney


USDI Bureau of Land Management


P.O. Box 460


Cedarville, CA 96104


Dennis Danielson


Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District


Route 2, Box 317


La Honda, CA 94020


Kit Darrow


Colorado State University


1822 S. Logan Street


Denver, CO 80210


Carolyn M. Daugherty


Metropolitan State College of Denver


Campus Box 22


P.O. Box 173362


Denver, CO 80217


Terry DeGrow


USDA Forest Service


21905 64th Avenue West


Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-2278


Louis Deschenes


Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada


Jules Leger Building


25 Eddy Street


Hull, Quebec


K1A OH3 CANADA


Lee DiGregorio


USDA Forest Service


1147 E. 6th Street


Corona, CA 91719


Dianne Draper


University of Calgary


Geography Department


2500 University Drive, N.W.


Calgary, Alberta


CANADA T2N1N4


Herbert E. Echelberger


USDA Forest Service


P.O. Box 968


Burlington, VT 05402


David H. Eslinger


USDI Bureau of Land Management


P.O. Box 2000


North Palm Springs, CA 92258


Mike Evans


USDA Forest Service


857 Roosevelt Avenue East


Enumclaw, WA 98022


Alan Ewert


USDA Forest Service


14th and Independence Ave., S.W.


Washington, DC 20250


Anne Fege


Cleveland National Forest


10845 Rancho Bernardo Rd


San Diego, CA 92127


Louise Fiorillo


State of California


330 Golden Shore #50


Long Beach, CA 90802


USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 183 
Ron Freeman


USDA Forest Service


Alaska Regional Office,


PO Box 21628


Juneau, AK 99802-1628


Bob Garrison


California Department of Fish & Game


1416 9th St


Sacramento, CA 95814


Armando Gonzalez Caban


USDA Forest Service


4955 Canyon Crest Dr.


Riverside, CA 92507


Kathy Good


USDA Forest Service


6144 Calle Real


Goleta, CA 93117


Edward J. Gornowski


USDA Forest Service


6144 Calle Real


Goleta, CA 93117


Geneen Granger


USDA Forest Service


P.O. Box 21628


Juneau, AK 99802


David Greenwood


240 N Granados Ave


Salina Beach, CA 92075


Carolyn Halbrook


USDA Forest Service


517 Gold Avenue, SW


Albuquerque, NM 87102


Cynthia Hall


The Trust for Public Land


116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 300


San Francisco, CA 94105


Daniel T. Harkenrider


USDA Forest Service


P.O. Box 305


Skykamish, WA 98288


Dave Harmon


USDI Bureau of Land Management


P.O. Box 2965


Portland, OR 97208


Linda Hecker


USDA Forest Service


740 Simms Street


Golden, CO 80401


Winfield Henn


USDA Forest Service


2400 Washington


Redding, CA 96001


James D. Herring


USDA Forest Service


2455 Hwy 141


Trout Lake, WA 98650


Judy A. Higley


State Department of Water Resources


3251 “S” Street, Room D-17


Sacramento, CA 95816


Dale K. Hoffman-Floerke


California Department of Water Resources


3251 ‘S’ Street


Sacramento, CA 95816


Dennis Holcomb


USDA Forest Service


6411 Calle Real


Goleta, CA 93117


Steve Hollenhorst


West Virginia University


PO Box 6125


Morgentown, WV 26506-6125


Anne P. Hoover


USDA Forest Service


P.O. Box 96090


Washington, DC 20090-6090


Denver Hospodarsky


Northern Arizona University


Box 15018


Flagstaff, AZ 86011


Joe Hummel


USDI Bureau of Land Management


33801 Pegasus Dr


Bakersfield, CA 93308


Richard F. Johnson


USDI Bureau of Land Management


2800 Cottage Way


Sacramento, CA 95825


Randi Jorgensen


USDA Forest Service


702 N Santa Anita


Arcadia, CA 91024


Barbara Kennedy


USDA Forest Service


2955 NW Division Street


Gresham, OR 97049


Ken Kunert


USDA Forest Service


6144 Calle Real


Goleta, CA 93117


Sue Lampe


USDA Forest Service


MP 11.61 Cook/Underwood Rd


Underwood, WA 98651


Janna Larson


USDA Forest Service


1209 Lytle Creek


Lytle Creek, CA 92358


Lorraine Lawrence


San Bernardino National Forest


1824 S. Commercemter Circle


San Bernardina, CA


Logan Lee


USDA Forest Service


1920 Valley Dr


Pueblo, CO, 81001


Judy Levin


USDA Forest Service


2955 NW Division St


Gresham, OR 97080


Terri Liestman


USDA Forest Service


P.O. Box 25127


Golden, CO 80440


Sam Lollar


California State University,


6000 J Street


Sacramento, CA 95819


Bob London


USDA Forest Service


PO Box 350


Sky Forest, CA 92385


Brian Lym


University of California, Berkeley


1925 Lyon


San Francisco, CA 94115


Rod Mace


USDA Forest Service


21905 64th Avenue West


Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-2278


Ernest F. Martinsen


USDA Forest Service


10845 Rancho Bernardo Road


San Diego, CA 92127-2107


184 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 
Scott Mathes


USDA Forest Service


110 N. Wabash


Glendora, CA 91744


Brent McBeth


USDA Forest Service


88 West 100 North


Provo, Utah 84601


Joe Meade


USDA Forest Service


201 14th St


Washington D.C., 20060


Marilyn Mlazovsky


San Bernardino National Forest


1824 South Commercenter Circle


San Bernardino, CA 92408


Mark Nechodom


University of California


University Extension, UCD


Davis, CA 95616


Mary Beth Nelson


USDA Forest Service


204 Siginaka Way


Sitka, AK 99835


Tim O’Keefe


California Polytechnic


University, NRM Dept.


San Luis Obispo, CA 93407


Randy Peterson


Oregon Department of Forestry


4114 SE Lambert


Portland, OR


Margaret Phillips


USDI Bureau of Land Management


850 Harvard Way


Reno, NV 89520


Bill Ramos


USDA Forest Service


42404 S.E. North Bend Way


North Bend, WA 98045


Patrick Reed


USDA Forest Service


3301 C St., Suite 300


Anchorage, CA 99501


Douglas K. Reiter


Utah State University


1303 N. 400 E. #2-A


Logan, UT 84321


Douglas Rischbieter


California Department of


Water Resources


2440 Main Street


Red Bluff, CA 96080


Mike Rogers


USDA Forest Service


701 N Santa Anita Ave


Arcadia, CA 91006


Ethan Rotman


California Department of


Fish & Game


PO Box 724


Poway, CA 92074


Susan P. Rust


Stewardship Services


168 Chevy Chase


San Antonio, TX 78209-4243


Jeff Saley


USDA Forest Service


6144 Calle Real


Goleta, CA 93117


Julie Schaefers


USDA Forest Service


2519 La Porte Avenue #1


Ft. Collins, CO 80521


Kay Schiepan


USDI Bureau of Land Management


3380 Americana Terrace


Boise, ID 83712


Michael Schuett


Southwest Texas State


Department of HPER


San Marcos, TX 78666


Larry Seekins


USDA Forest Service


PO Box 8944


Vancouver, WA 98668


Steve Selin


West Virginia University


PO Box 6125


Morgantown, WV 26506-6125


E.L. Dick Shafer


Pennsylvania State University


215 Mateer Building


University Park, PA 16802


William E. Shands


Pinchot Institute


3601 Whispering Lane


Falls Church, VA 22041


Tim Smith


USDI Bureau of Land Management


2800 Cottage Way


Sacramento, CA 95825


Susan Spear


Kaibab National Forest


P.O. Box 248


Fredonia, AZ 86022


Tom Spencer


USDA Forest Service


110 N. Wabash


Glendora, CA 91744


Donald E, Stikkers


USDA Forest Service


2306 San Benito


Claremont, CA 91711


Tommy Swearingen


University of Southern Alabama


Department of


Health, Physical Education, &


Leisure Sciences


Mobile, AL 36688


Sonia Tamez


USDA Forest Service


630 Sansome St


San Francisco, CA 94111


Michael Tergich


USDA Forest Service


9418 Berners Ave


Jurean, Alaska 99801


Maxine Terner


East Bay Regional Park District


2950 Peralta Oaks Court


P.O. Box 5381


Oakland, CA 94605


Patrick Tierney


San Francisco State University


1600 Holloway Avenue


San Francisco, CA 94132


B. Noah Tilghman


Department of Parks & Recreation


P.O. Box 94896


Sacramento, CA 94296-0001


Francisco Valenzuela


USDA Forest Service


310 West Wisconsin, Room 500


Milwaukee, WI 53217


USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995. 185 
Charlie Vandemoer


USDA Forest Service


21905 64th Avenue West


Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-2278


Susan R. Van Patten


Utah State University


920 N. 700 E #1


Logan, UT 84321


Denzil Verardo


Department of Parks &


Recreation


P.O. Box 942896


Sacramento, CA 94296-0001


Gord Walker


Virginia Technical Institute


750 Tall Oaks #2300 J


Blacksburg, VA 24060


Alan Watson


Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research


Institute


P.O. Box 8089


Missoula, MT 59807


Susan J. Woolam


California Department of Resources


770 Fairmont Ave., PO Box 29068


Glendale, CA 91209-9068


Walter S. Weaver


USDA Forest Service


21905 64th Avenue West


Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-2278


Randy T. Welsh


USDA Forest Service


507 25th Street


Ogden, UT 84401


Britta Wichers


San Dieguito River Park


401 B Street, Ste. 340


San Diego, CA 92101


David E. Wickstrom


USDI Bureau of Land Management


2800 Cottage Way


Sacramento, CA 95825-1889


Susan Zahn


USDA Forest Service


1147 E. 6th Street


Corona, CA 91719


186 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-156. 1995.