United States 

Department of Visitor Perceptions of Crowding and Agriculture 

Forest Service Discrimination at Two National Forests 

Pacific Southwest 

Research Station in Southern California 

Research Paper 

PSW-RP-216 

Deborah J. Chavez 
Chavez, Deborah J. 1993. Visitor perceptions of crowding and discrimination at two National 

Forests in southern California. Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 17 p. 

Visitors to southern California National Forests are urban dwellers and as a group are culturally 

diverse. To manage the National Forests for this diverse group of visitors, information is needed on 

their expectations, preferences, and experiences at recreation sites. To evaluate visitor perceptions 

of crowding and discrimination, to determine favorite activities, and to determine the potential of 

visitor displacement from recreational sites, observations and surveys were collected during July 

and August 1990 in two of the National Forests. Racial and ethnic groups were categorized into 

Anglo American, Hispanic American, Mexican American and Others. In general all groups rated 

crowding similarly, although Hispanic groups expected more people than were found at the sites. 

Additionally, enjoyed activities differed only slightly between ethnic groups: all reported hiking, 

picnicking and visiting with others as favorite activities. The biggest difference between ethnic 

groups was exposure to discriminatory acts. Members of minority groups were more likely to report 

being subject to these acts. There was little evidence of displacement at the sites studied. Potential 

management actions include suggestions for improving interaction and communication between 

resource managers and the visiting public, reducing depreciative behaviors, and better signs. 

Research needs include evaluating these suggested management actions. 

Retrieval Terms: crowding, cultural diversity, discrimination, displacement, participant observation, 

symbolic interaction 

The Author: 

Deborah J. Chavez is a supervisory social scientist and project leader of the Station's research unit 

studying Wildland Recreation and the Urban Culture, at the Forest Fire Laboratory, 4955 Canyon 

Crest Drive, Riverside, California 92507-6099. 

Acknowledgments: 

This paper was written in partial fulfillment of Utah State University's Shortcourse on Professional 

Development for Outdoor Recreation Managers/Planners. I thank David Simcox, Susan Odell, and 

Alfonso Chavez for their reviews of the first draft of this paper. I also thank the Utah State 

Shortcourse reviewers for their comments: Michael Butkus, BrandE Faupell, Lyle Laverty, Randy 

Sheffield and Robert Wick. I also thank Lola Thomas for her editorial review and Roberta Burzynski 

for in-depth technical editing. 

Cover photo: Deborah S. Carr 1991 

Publisher: 

Pacific Southwest Research Station 

Albany, California 

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

Telephone: 510-559-6300) 

February 1993 
Visitor Perception of Crowding and 

Discrimination at Two National Forests 

in Southern California 

Deborah J. Chavez 

Contents 

In Brief .......................................................................................................................................................ii 

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1 

Project Objectives ..............................................................................................................................1 

Definitions .........................................................................................................................................1 

Ethnic Groups, Prejudice, and Discrimination ...........................................................................1 

Density, Crowding, and Succession or Displacement ..............................................................1 

Methods ......................................................................................................................................................2 

Site Observations ..............................................................................................................................2 

Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................2 

Results .........................................................................................................................................................3 

Data From Site Observations .............................................................................................................3 

Sociodemographics ...................................................................................................................3 

Depreciative Behavior ..............................................................................................................3 

Preferences, Norms, and Roles ..................................................................................................3

Social Interactions .....................................................................................................................3 

Data From Survey Questionnaire ......................................................................................................4 

Sociodemographic Profile of Respondents.................................................................................4 

Cultural Group Preference .........................................................................................................4 

Addressing Research Objectives ...............................................................................................4

Perceptions and Expectations of Crowding ..........................................................................4 

Activities Most Enjoyed ......................................................................................................5

Perceptions of Discrimination ..............................................................................................5 

Visitor Displacement ............................................................................................................5

Management Implications ..........................................................................................................................6 

Depreciative Behavior .......................................................................................................................6 

Signs ...................................................................................................................................7 

Litter ....................................................................................................................................8 

Interactions with Resource Agency .....................................................................................8 

Visitor Characteristics ......................................................................................................................8 

Crowding ..........................................................................................................................................8 

Activities ..........................................................................................................................................9 

Discrimination ...................................................................................................................................9 

Displacement ...................................................................................................................................10

Research Needs .........................................................................................................................................10

Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................10

References ................................................................................................................................................11 

Appendixes ...............................................................................................................................................11 

A-Results of Site Observations ...................................................................................................11

B-Results of Survey Questionnaire .............................................................................................13 
In Brief ... 

Chavez, Deborah J. 1993. Visitor perceptions of crowding 

and discrimination at two National Forests in southern 

California. Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. Albany, CA: Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 17 p. 

Retrieval Terms: crowding, cultural diversity, discrimination, 

displacement, participant observation, symbolic interaction 

Visitors to southern California National Forests are urban 

dwellers and as a group are culturally diverse. To manage the 

National Forests for this diverse group of visitors, information 

is needed on their expectations, preferences, and experiences at 

recreation sites. To evaluate visitor perceptions, observations 

and surveys were collected during July and August 1990 in two 

of the National Forests. The objectives of the research were 

these: (1) to provide information about perceptions and expectations of crowding; (2) to determine which recreational activities are most enjoyed relative to ethnic identity; (3) to determine 

perceptions about discrimination; and (4) to provide information about displacement of visitor groups. This paper reports 

exploratory research that begins to address the dearth of information on these topics. 

Two research techniques were implemented for this exploratory study: site observations and self-administered questionnaires. The sites observed were the Apple White picnic area of 

the San Bernardino National Forest and the upper San Antonio 

Canyon of the Angeles National Forest. These research sites are 

concentrated dispersed use areas located near water. Both sites 

were used later to administer the questionnaire. 

Information acquired from site observations were used to 

develop the survey questionnaire. To keep the questionnaire to 

a reasonable length, some issues identified during site observations, such as depreciative behavior, were not addressed further 

in the survey questionnaire. These issues are addressed to the 

extent possible in this paper. The questionnaire was developed 

in English and Spanish from a combination of past research 

reported in the literature and findings from the site observations. Four sites were studied to ensure an adequate representation of various cultural and ethnic groups. On the San Bernardino National Forest data was collected from visitors at the 

Apple White campground (mostly Anglos), and the Apple 

White picnic area (mostly Hispanics). On the Angeles National 

Forest data was collected from visitors on the west fork of the 

San Gabriel Canyon (mostly Hispanics), and the upper San 

Antonio Canyon (mostly Anglo, Asian, and Middle Eastern 

visitors). 

Given the exploratory nature of the research and the small 

sample size (n=312), results are probably applicable only to the 

study sample. Respondents ranged in age from 11 to 75 with an 

average age of 30.9 years. Almost half were married, while 

one-third were never married (many of these were under age 

18). Slightly over half the respondents were male, and almost 

two-thirds were employed. About one-third of the respondents 

had some college, while another 19 percent had less than high 

school education. Six in ten of the respondents were born in the 

United States, and those born elsewhere had lived in the United 

States an average of 11.6 years. Seven in ten respondents filled 

out the English version of the survey questionnaire. Over half 

the respondents preferred to be known as an American of 

"Hispanic" descent. This group includes Mexican American 

(27.5 pct), Hispanic American (25.7 pct), Central American 

(1.1 pct), and Cuban American (1.1 pct) respondents. Anglo 

Americans made up another quarter of the respondents (24.6 

pct), and the remainder were from various backgrounds including American Indian (3.6 pct), Middle Eastern American (3.3 

pct), Black/African American (1.8 pct), and several Asian American groups (less than 1 pct each). 

Site observations suggested culturally diverse visitation, large 

group sizes, little active depreciative behaviors, preferences for 

sites close to water and sites in the shade, and little betweengroup interaction (both between visitor groups, and between 

visitors and resource managers). 

Survey respondents were asked a series of questions concerning crowding at the recreational site. The first question 

presented a scale of 1 to 9 where 1 was "not at all crowded" and 

9 was "extremely crowded." The average level of perceived 

crowding was 4.3 (n=310), indicating a slightly crowded condition. All ethnic groups rated crowdedness similarly. About half 

of all ethnic and racial groups expected a different size crowd at 

the site than was actually there. Anglo Americans were more 

likely to expect fewer people, while Hispanic American and 

Mexican American respondents expected larger crowds of people 

at the site. 

In general, respondents reported picnicking, hiking, and 

visiting with others as the most enjoyable activities on their 

recreational outing. 

The majority of respondents reported not having been treated 

unfairly because of their ethnic identity. Only 2.9 percent of all 

Anglo Americans and 12.7 percent of all others perceived 

themselves as having been victimized by an act of discrimination, while 32.4 percent of all Hispanic and Mexican Americans perceived themselves as having been victimized by an act 

of discrimination. 

About one-third of the respondents were first time visitors at 

the site (32.2 pct). Another 18 percent had visited one or two 

times previously, and the remainder had visited three or more 

times before. Ethnic group comparisons were nonsignificant. 

Additionally, respondents were asked if they had plans to 

return to the area. Almost all (94.5 pct) had plans to return. 

Ethnic group comparisons were nonsignificant. 

Site observations indicate potential management applications for one site only. These include topics of signs, litter, and 

ii USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 
visitor-agency interactions. Implications of the survey focus on 

the issues of crowding, visitor activities, discrimination, and 

displacement. 

Signs---Signs could be modified to consider cultural diversity, clarify messages, and-perhaps-to decrease depreciative 

behaviors. Considering cultural diversity requires multiple languages and an understanding of the visitors. For example, 

Spanish signs ought to be available in addition to English. 

Signs can also focus on positive messages when possible. 

Litter---Trash cans should be moved nearer to where visitors actually recreate-near the streambeds. The trash cans can 

be painted a more readily seen color and be imprinted with 

"Feed Me" to attract use. 

Interactions---Any attempt to speak English was readily 

accepted by the visitors. Resource managers could try using 

some Spanish phrases. Resource managers should not assume 

that all Hispanic-looking visitors speak only Spanish. 

Crowding---None of the groups reported crowd size to 

influence their enjoyment of the site. This finding probably 

would have been different for extremely crowded conditions. 

Findings suggest that Anglos might be more affected by 

crowded sites. 

Activities---In general, visitors to the sites studied are more 

similar than different in the activities they enjoy. Natural resource managers of these areas, and areas like these (near urban 

areas, with visitors from multiple cultural groups) should understand the similarities and provide the amenities necessary to 

satisfy these needs. Also, some accommodations should be 

provided for large groups that frequent these areas---perhaps 

picnic tables in clusters of three or four. 

Discrimination---Resource managers should be sensitive 

to cultural group differences, be from culturally diverse 

popula-tions, and have more interactions with visitors that are 

not based solely on law enforcement actions. 

Displacement---The data indicate that displacement does 

not seem to be a factor at these sites. No ethnic group was any 

more likely to be either a first-time visitor to a site or a manytime visitor to a site, nor was any group any more likely to plan 

not to return to a site. Two possibilities remain: displacement 

from an area may have occurred before the survey and thus was 

not captured here; or, racial and ethnic groups are interacting in 

this rural environment, and no group is being moved to accommodate the influx of another group. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. iii 
Introduction 

V

 isitor groups to southern California National Forests 

tend to be urban dwellers from the Los Angeles basin. 

The cultural diversity of the Los Angeles basin manifests itself into culturally diverse populations visiting wildland 

recreation sites. Thus, two key characteristics of visitors to 

southern California National Forests are (1) they come from an 

urban culture, and (2) they have diverse ethnic and racial 

affiliations. 

Many natural resource management techniques are geared 

toward rural, Anglo populations (Simcox 1988). Evidently these 

techniques may not be applicable to urban, culturally diverse 

populations. This disparity has been the subject of research, 

with particular emphasis on National Forests located near the 

large, urban populations of southern California. 

The first phase of a multi-phase study focused attention on 

land ethics held by urban, culturally diverse visitors to the 

Angeles National Forest in southern California (Simcox and 

Pfister 1989). The data seemed to indicate that Hispanic populations visited the recreational sites in larger groups than did 

other ethnic or racial groups. Common sense might suggest that 

large groups of Hispanic visitors simply follow from typically 

large family size; however, the alternative hypothesis formulated for this phenomenon was that visitors felt safer in larger 

numbers than in smaller numbers (Ewert 1992). Perhaps the 

Hispanic visitors simply wanted to be safe from ethnic slurs 

and conflicts and going in large groups helped assure this. 

Interpretation of these research findings leads to two possible research hypotheses. One hypothesis concerns racism: 

ethnic minority groups could be the subject of discriminatory 

acts. The other hypothesis concerns displacement: Hispanics 

could be starting to populate an area and in so doing are 

displacing Anglo visitors. 

A preliminary search of the literature indicated two things. 

First, little research has examined racism in recreational settings, particularly urban National Forests. Second, intergroup 

contact does not necessarily create assimilation but sometimes 

increases ethnic group divisions, which may lead to displacement of one group of visitors from a recreational area. 

Project Objectives

To research the hypotheses on racism and displacement, I 

observed and surveyed visitors on two National Forests in 

southern California. I collected data relative to visitor perceptions about such seemingly diverse topics as types of activities 

most enjoyed on wildland recreation sites, crowding, evidence 

of discrimination, and displacement. The objectives of the 

research were these: 

(1) to provide information about perceptions and expectations of crowding; 

(2) to determine which recreational activities are most enjoyed relative to ethnic identity; 

(3) to determine perceptions about discrimination; and 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 

(4) to provide information about displacement of visitor 

groups. 

This paper reports exploratory research that begins to address the dearth of information on these topics. First, it examines whether the problem of racism exists. And second, it looks at 

displacement of visitor groups. 

Definitions 

Ethnic Groups, Prejudice, and Discrimination 

An ethnic group may be defined as a collectivity existing 

within a larger society and having real or putative common 

ancestry, memories of a shared historical past, and a cultural 

focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome 

of their peoplehood. Examples of such symbolic elements are 

kinship patterns, religious affiliation, language or dialect forms, 

nationality, or a combination of these (Schermerhorn 1970). 

Prejudice refers to an attitude of aversion and hostility toward the members of a group simply because they belong to it 

and therefore are presumed to have the objectionable qualities 

ascribed to the group. Whereas prejudice is a state of mind, 

discrimination is actual behavior. Discrimination entails the 

arbitrary denial of power, privilege, and status to members of a 

minority group whose qualifications are equal to those of the 

dominant group (Vander Zanden 1987). 

Density, Crowding, and Succession or Displacement 

Density is the number of encounters that occur between 

recreationists, while crowding is defined as a negative, personal, subjective evaluation of some density level (Hartley 

1986, Shelby and others 1989). Density at a recreation site may 

increase until it begins to restrict the recreationist's personal 

goals, and then it becomes crowding. 

Whether population density has a negative effect on people 

has attracted much attention from social scientists for a quarter 

of a century. No clear conclusions have emerged, and the debate 

continues. Density does and does not produce negative effects on 

people. When density is held constant, some people will feel 

crowded and others will not, because some people can tolerate or 

adapt to higher levels of density than can others (Gillis and 

others 1986). Adaptability varies across a spectrum of variables 

including culture (Gillis and others 1986, Gove and Hughes 

1983, Porteous 1977, Rapoport 1978). 

The succession or displacement phenomenon has attracted a 

great deal of attention also (Clark and others 1971, Dustin and 

McAvoy 1982, Schreyer 1990b, Schreyer and Knopf 1984). The 

best example of management-induced displacement is the 

visitor "invasion-succession" phenomenon, whereby veteran 

recreationists who prefer little or no human-made developments

are displaced by others such as resource managers who build 

new facilities in response to increasing use pressures (Dustin 

and McAvoy 1982, Schreyer and Knopf 1984). 

1 
A research project, directed by the California State University at Los Angeles, on the Angeles National Forest in southern 

California, looked at displacement and why visitors stop using 

a particular recreation site (Hartley 1986). Seventy percent of 

visitors surveyed had changed their past recreation site. Seeing 

damage from vandalism was the primary cause for changing 

recreation sites for 48 percent of the displaced visitors, while 28 

percent cited not feeling safe as the primary reason. Other 

frequently cited reasons were litter, too much noise, too few 

facilities, or too many people (Hartley 1986). 

Methods 

Two research techniques were implemented for this exploratory study: site observations and self-administered questionnaires. Multi-method techniques are often deemed necessary (Campbell and Fiske 1959), especially when the research is exploratory. 

Site Observations 

The sites observed were the Apple White picnic area of the 

San Bernardino National Forest and the upper San Antonio 

Canyon of the Angeles National Forest. These research sites 

are concentrated dispersed use areas located near water. By 

definition, dispersed use occurs in natural areas with little site 

modification. Some areas have become so popular with urban 

visitors that these sites need to be managed as if they were 

developed sites (Hartley 1986). Both research sites were used 

later to collect the questionnaire data. 

Before the observation sessions, one day was spent at another concentrated dispersed use site on the Angeles National 

Forest, Barbecue Alley in the San Gabriel Canyon, to develop 

categories of interest. These included sociodemographic variables (e.g., age composition, size of groups, and equipment), 

land ethics variables (e.g., passive and active littering, and 

depreciative behaviors), norms for behavior (e.g., activities and 

sanctions), and social interactions (e.g., within groups, between 

groups, and between natural resource agency and visitors). 

Three individuals observed the Lytle Creek Apple White 

site on July 14, 1990, and two individuals observed the upper 

San Antonio Canyon site on July 15, 1990. The author collected information at each site. 

The usual guidelines for participant observation were followed including these on when and how to take field notes 

(Webb and others 1966): 

•Position yourself on the outer fringes 

•Engage in the same environmental context as the group 

being studied-such as wading in the streambed 

• Avoid overt recording, which may influence subject's 

behavior 

•Record data immediately after a function 

•Seek out patterns of behavior. 

Information acquired from site observations was used to 

develop the survey questionnaire. In an effort to keep the 

questionnaire to a reasonable length, some issues identified 

during site observations were not addressed further in the survey questionnaire (such as depreciative behavior). These issues will be addressed to the extent possible in this paper. 

Survey Questionnaire

The questionnaire for the survey portion of the study was 

developed in English and Spanish from a combination of past 

research reported in the literature and findings from the site 

observations. A survey team, already established for the second 

phase of the land ethics study (Simcox and Pfister 1989), 

collected data for this project. The survey team was briefed on 

the goals of the project and trained before beginning data 

collection. The team was divided into pairs; each pair had 

responsibility for a particular data collection site, and a graduate student served as coordinator of the team. The team pretested the questionnaire and made minor modifications to the 

Spanish version. 

The team was instructed on how to approach subjects and 

encourage participation in the survey. While the questionnaire was designed for self-administration, the survey team 

members were available for questions. Also, some team members were bilingual and were available for Spanish-speaking 

visitors. Team members did have occasion to conduct faceto-face interviews when respondents were unable to complete the questionnaire on their own. 

Four sites were studied to ensure an adequate representation 

of various cultural and ethnic groups. On the San Bernardino 

National Forest data was collected from visitors at the Apple 

White campground (mostly Anglos) and the Apple White picnic area (mostly Hispanics). On the Angeles National Forest 

data was collected from visitors on the west fork of the San 

Gabriel Canyon (mostly Hispanics), and the upper San Antonio 

Canyon (mostly Anglo, Asian, and Middle Eastern visitors). 

In general, the questionnaire topics covered the issues of 

crowding and its effects on enjoyment, activities most enjoyed, 

number of visits to an area and plans to return, perceptions 

about discrimination, and sociodemographics. The first ques

tion on crowding came from a single item used to indicate how 

crowded an area was at time of visit (Heberlein and Vaske 

1977), and was recommended for comparisons across studies 

(Shelby and others 1989). These studies suggest that if one area 

is extremely crowded, displacement studies of nearby areas 

may be warranted. 

The data from the questionnaire were used to determine 

norms for group size by ethnic identity and to indicate when 

"crowding" was thought to occur. The data also indicated how 

crowding and enjoyment of recreation activities were related. 

Importantly, the data indicated if discrimination (as a measure 

of racism) exists in forest recreation areas and, where it does 

exist, who the perpetrators were, as well as how much of a 

problem it was (measured by return visits and displacement). 

2 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 
SAS (Statistical Analysis System) version 5.18 was used to 

analyze the survey data. Tests of statistical significance included Chi Square and ANOVA where appropriate. 

Results 

Given the exploratory nature of the research and the small 

sample size (n=312), results are probably applicable only to the 

study sample. 

Data From Site Observations 

All findings from site observations are presented in 

appendix A. 

Sociodemographics 

The following sociodemographic measures were obtained 

from site observations: 

•Age composition was site-specific 

•Cultural diversity was not site-specific 

•Groups generally had six to eight members 

•Many languages were spoken 

•Vehicles in parking lot had a wide price range 

•Equipment suggested that visiting this site was not neces

sarily a "cheap day out" 

•Equipment indicated the level of pre-planning and seemed 

to be site-specific. 

In general, the sites reflect the cultural diversity found in 

southern California. And like southern California, some enclaves exist. For example, while the ethnic identity of visitors to 

San Gabriel Canyon is mixed, the majority of visitors are of 

Hispanic origin. 

In general, visitors of all ages were noted, but use of areas 

seemed to be linked to age. For example, San Antonio Canyon 

seemed to attract visitors of many ages, while the Lytle Creek 

picnic site had few elderly visitors and consisted mostly of 

young families. Group sizes varied but generally averaged 

between six and eight members; most larger groups were nonAnglo. Several languages were spoken, especially at the San 

Antonio Canyon site, but the most common languages were 

English and Spanish. Also, activity at the San Antonio Canyon 

site seemed to be planned, while there were signs of unplanned 

activities at the Apple White picnic site. Planned activities were 

indicated by used--not new--equipment, pre-cooked and packaged food; unplanned activities were indicated by items such as 

new barbecues and bags of groceries. As a measure of income, 

equipment and types of vehicles were observed. In general, the 

San Antonio Canyon site attracted visitors with larger incomes. 

Depreciative Behavior 

The following observations concerned depreciative 

behavior: 

• Passive littering was common 

• Active littering was not as common 

• Past use such as broken glass and litter was evident 

• Gang-related activities such as graffiti were evident 

• Some active depreciative behaviors such as tree carving 

were observed 

• Trash cans were available but not convenient to visitors 

• Rules and regulations, while posted in English and Spanish, were covered with mesh wire and almost unreadable. 

In general, most people did not engage in active depreciative 

behaviors (such as littering or tree carving) but did engage in 

passive behaviors (such as watching litter being blown by and 

not picking it up). There was a good deal of evidence of past 

depreciative behaviors, mostly consisting of tree carving, spray 

painting, broken glass, and litter on the ground. Some of the 

spray painting and tree carving were thought to be gang-related 

since the script matched that found in gang-related graffiti in 

the southern California valleys. 

Additionally, management actions appeared to be geared 

toward mitigating or stopping depreciative behaviors. Signs 

were posted giving rules and regulations for the area. The 

assumption of literacy may be problematic, however, and not 

all signs were readable. For example, one sign posted outside a 

restroom facility listed rules and regulations in English and 

Spanish but was covered with a mesh wire (used to prevent 

vandalism), which hindered the legibility. Other management 

actions included placing trash cans at the sites. Mostly these 

cans were used, but some had not been recently emptied and 

were overflowing. In other cases, the trash cans were not 

placed near the visitors and were instead placed near the parking area. These cans did not get much use, indeed did not get 

enough use. 

Preferences, Norms, and Roles 

Visitor preferences, norms, and roles were as follows: 

• Preference was for sites close to water (not necessarily by 

picnic tables) 

• Preference was for shaded areas 

• Activities were varied and included stream walking, 

picnicking, game playing, sleeping or relaxing, and fishing 

• Parents offered little negative sanctioning of children. 

In general, visitor preferences were for shaded areas located 

near the water. Preferences for activities were varied but mostly 

included water activities and food-related activities such as 

picnicking. Food choices ranged from making salsa from scratch 

to fast-food fare. Water activities included stream walking, 

dam building, splashing, and fishing. Other activities included 

relaxing and visiting with others. In general, negative sanctioning, especially by parents, did not take place. Mostly, visitors 

experienced a care-free environment. 

Social Interactions 

The following patterns of social interaction were observed: 

• Little interaction between groups of visitors 

• Most intragroup interactions were child-care related 

• Very little interaction between Forest Service and visitors-mostly law enforcement activities. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 3 
The brief interactions between visitor groups were mostly 

child-related. Interactions within groups also were related 

mostly to child-care or food. The few resource agency contacts 

with visitors were law enforcement activities. 

Data From Survey Questionnaire 

Data obtained using the survey questionnaire are given in 

appendix B. 

Sociodemographic Profile of Respondents 

Respondents ranged in age from 11 to 75 with an average 

age of 30.9 years. Almost half were currently married, while 

one-third were never married (many of these were under age 

18). Slightly over half the respondents were male, and almost 

two-thirds were employed (many of the unemployed included 

students under age 18). About one-third of the respondents had 

some college, while another 19 percent had less than high 

school educations. Six in ten respondents were born in the 

United States, and those born elsewhere had lived in the United 

States an average of 11.6 years. Seven in ten respondents filled 

out the English version of the survey questionnaire. 

Cultural Group Preference 

Over half the respondents preferred to be known as an 

American of "Hispanic" descent: this group includes Mexican 

American (27.5 pct), Hispanic American (25.7 pct), Central 

American (1.1 pct), and Cuban American (1.1 pct) respondents. 

Anglo Americans made up another quarter of respondents 

(24.6 pct), and the remainder were from various backgrounds 

including American Indian (3.6 pct), Middle Eastern American 

(3.3 pct), Black/African American (1.8 pct), and several Asian 

American groups (less than 1 pct each). 

The first phase of the land ethics study indicated that Hispanics are made up of several subgroups and do not comprise a 

homogeneous unit (Simcox and Pfister 1989). To this end, 

further analyses will not force all Hispanic respondents into one 

group but keep them separate. Sample sizes limit the groupings 

to Hispanic and Mexican Americans. Cuban American and 

Central American will be added to the "Other" category. Thus, 

further analyses will examine four groups: Anglo American, 

Hispanic American, Mexican American, and Others. Figure 1 

depicts the recoded cultural identification preference of the 

respondents in the study reported here. 

Addressing Research Objectives 

Perceptions and Expectations of Crowding---Respondents 

were asked a series of questions concerning crowding at the 

recreational site. The first question presented a scale of 1 to 9 

where 1 was "not at all crowded" and 9 was "extremely crowded." 

The average level of perceived crowding was 4.3 (n=310), 

indicating a slightly crowded condition. 

All ethnic groups rated crowdedness similarly: Anglo American 3.3, Hispanic American 4.2, Other 4.7, and Mexican American 4.8. Anglos were slightly less likely to indicate a recreational site was crowded than any other ethnic or racial group. 

This rating, however, was not statistically significant according 

to a Scheffe test. 

The next question asked if this was the size of crowd that the 

respondent expected to find at the site. About 6 in 10 respondents (57.2 pct, n=306) reported the crowd not to be the size 

expected and indicated in the follow-up question that they had 

expected a larger crowd. Additionally, respondents reported 

that the size of crowd at their site did not make any difference in 

their enjoyment of the recreational site. 

Two questions were asked concerning perceptions of actual 

crowd size and expectations of crowd size. Respondents were 

first asked if the crowd there was the size crowd they expected 

to find. If the respondent answered "no" then they were asked if 

they expected a larger crowd or a smaller crowd. About half of 

all ethnic and racial groups expected a different size crowd at 

the site than was actually there (table 1). Anglo Americans 

Table 1-Perceptions of crowding and expectations for size of crowd 

Ethnic identity Crowd not Expected smaller Expected larger 

as expected1

 crowd crowd 

-------------------------Percent ----------------------------

(n=269) (n=41) (n=140) 

Anglo American 45.6 43.3 56.7 

Hispanic 2 25.6 74.4 

Mexican 9 14.6 85.4 

Other 52.4 40.0 60.0 

66.

62.

1

If respondents answered "No" to the question, "Was this the size crowd 

that you expected to find?" then they also responded to "Did you expect a 

larger crowd or a smaller crowd?" 

Figure 1-Several subgroups of respondents who preferred to be 

known as Americans of Hispanic descent were recoded into two groups: Hispanic 

Americans and Mexican Americans. Other American includes Cuban 

Americans and Central Americans. 

4 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 
were more likely to expect fewer people, while Hispanic American and Mexican American respondents expected larger crowds 

of people at the site. 

Activities Most Enjoyed-In general, respondents reported 

picnicking, hiking, and visiting with others as the most enjoyable activities on their recreational outing (fig. 2). Picnicking 

was more enjoyable for Hispanic subgroups than for Anglo 

Americans, while hiking was more favorable to Anglo Americans than to Mexican Americans or others. 

An unexpected finding concerns visiting with others. While 

traditional knowledge indicates Hispanic American groups like 

to socialize on outings, it did not show up as the most enjoyed 

activity here. Indeed, proportionately more Anglo Americans 

reported this as an enjoyed activity than did any other group. 

Perceptions of Discrimination-Respondents were asked to 

report discriminatory activities. Questions about acts of discrimination were asked about mistreatment by law enforcement people and mistreatment from other visitors. The questions referenced the current recreational site and another matching 

set of questions concerned another forest recreational site. 

The majority of respondents reported not having been treated 

unfairly because of their ethnic identity. Only 2.9 percent of all 

Anglo Americans and 12.7 percent of all others perceived 

themselves as having been victimized by an act of discrimination, while 32.4 percent of all Hispanic and Mexican Americans perceived themselves as having been victimized by an act 

of discrimination (fig. 3). 

Hispanic Americans and Mexican Americans were more 

likely to be victimized by law enforcement officials than were 

Anglo Americans or others (table 2). Almost 8 in 10 of all 

reported acts were against people of Hispanic origin. 

Hispanic American visitors and Mexican American visitors 

identified law enforcement persons of Anglo American and 

Hispanic descent as the perpetrators of discriminatory acts. 

Mexican Americans were slightly more likely to identify Hispanic law enforcement as the perpetrators whereas Hispanic 

Americans identified almost equal percentages of Anglo and 

Hispanic law enforcement persons as perpetrators. 

Visitors were also queried about other forest visitors and 

acts of discrimination (table 3). Hispanic Americans and Mexican 

Americans were more likely to report being victimized by other 

forest visitors than were Anglo Americans or others. The majority of all reported acts were against people of Hispanic origin. 

Hispanic American visitors identified other forest visitors of 

Anglo American and Hispanic descent as the perpetrators of 

discriminatory acts. Mexican American visitors identified other 

forest visitors of Anglo American and other descent as the 

perpetrators of discriminatory acts. 

Visitor Displacement-About one-third (32.2 pct) of the 

respondents were first time visitors at the site. Another 18.1 

percent had visited one or two times previously, and the remainder (49.7 pct) had visited three or more times before. 

Ethnic group comparisons were nonsignificant (Chi 

Square=8.953, df=6, p=0.176). 

Additionally, respondents were asked if they had plans to 

return to the area. Almost all (94.5 pct) had plans to return. 

Ethnic group comparisons were nonsignificant (Chi 

Square=6.503, df=3, p=0.090). 

Figure 2-Activity preference for all cultural groups included hiking, picnicking, and visiting with others 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 5 
Figure 3-Hispanic and Mexican Americans most often reported being treated unfairly because of their ethnic identity, and Anglo Americans 

were most often reported as the perpetrators of such treatment. 

Table 2-Ethnic identification of victim and law enforcement perpetrator of 

discriminatory act Management Implications 

Victim Law enforcement perpetrator 

Ethnicity/ 

race Number Anglo Hispanic Other Don't know 

-------------------------P er ce n t -------------------------------

Anglo 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Hispanic 18 44.4 50.0 5.5 0.0 

Mexican 13 30.8 69.2 0.0 0.0 

Other 5 40.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 

Depreciative Behavior 

In a study of natural resource agencies, Dustin (1990) examined the most common depreciative behaviors and the most 

effective techniques to resolve those problems. The behaviors 

included littering, leaving graffiti, and vandalizing. These 

behaviors were also the most costly along with stealing or 

destroying signs. The most to least effective techniques Dustin 

(1990) identified to resolve these behaviors were the following: 

Table 3-Ethnic identification of victim and forest visitor perpetrator of •Visibility of park and recreation personnel 

discriminatory act •Increased patrols by law enforcement personnel 

•Presence of host or volunteer at the site 

•Stricter enforcement of the rules 

•Increased visitor involvement 

•Better communication of reasons behind the rules 

•On-site education or interpretive programs 

•Incentives to visitors for proper behavior 

Victim Forest visitor perpetrator 

Ethnicity/ 

race Number Anglo anic Other 

------------------------- Pe rc e nt -------------------------

Anglo 1 00.0 100.0 0.0 

Hispanic 10 60.0 40.0 0.0 

Mexican 4 75.0 0.0 25.0 

Other 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 

Hisp

The findings from site observations and field interviews for 

the study reported here did not deviate a great deal from Dustin's 

findings. 

6 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 
Management is the key to controlling vandalism and other 

forms of depreciative behavior (Stikkers 1983). Actions can be 

both direct and indirect, and some level of activity can occur at 

any budget level. Suggestions include these (Stikkers 1983): 

• Continue to develop and implement cost effective law 

enforcement measures 

• Coordinate with other agencies 

• Repair vandalism aggressively 

• Establish incentive litter programs and "pack-it-in/pack-itout" programs 

• Improve communication with users both on site and off 

site 

• Improve identification of user groups and problem users 

and develop strategies to reduce graffiti 

• Continue to improve and build vandal-resistant facilities. 

Several of the suggestions from the current survey are similar to suggestions made by Stikkers. 

Several patterns emerged from site observations. Findings 

indicated areas where the natural resource agency could potentially institute changes, while other changes would require 

more in-depth investigation before action could be taken. The 

areas where potential management actions are indicated will be 

discussed first. These suggestions have already been presented 

to staff at the Lytle Creek Ranger Station, and some of the 

recommendations have been instituted or are in the process of 

change. Other recommendations may not be met because of 

personnel or budget constraints. Also, the emphasis of this part 

of the discussion is on the Lytle Creek Apple White picnic area 

on the San Bernardino National Forest and is applicable in 

varying degrees to the upper San Antonio Canyon site on the 

Angeles National Forest. 

Signs 

Signs could be modified to consider cultural diversity, clarify 

messages, and-perhaps-to decrease depreciative behaviors. 

Considering cultural diversity requires multiple languages and 

an understanding of the visitors. For example, Spanish signs 

ought to be available in addition to English. 

One sign was in both English and Spanish, but a screen over 

the sign (used to prevent vandalism) rendered both languages 

unreadable. Other signs on the same post were much larger and 

could be read but were in English only. 

On the road to this site was a sign indicating that campfires 

were allowed with permits but did not indicate where the 

permits might be available or why they might be necessary. 

This sign was in both English and Spanish (fig. 4). 

Figure 4-Although this sign gives information in English and Spanish, it does not tell where permits may be obtained. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 7 
Other signs at this site varied between positive ("do") signs, 

such as "Shooting permitted 5 miles," and negative ("don't") 

signs, such as "Picnic area closed 10 pm to 6 am." 

Staff at the Ranger Station indicated that cultural diversity 

was foremost in consideration, and some signs were being 

amended relative to this concern. The "campfires with permits" 

sign may be more problematic though. The solution was to 

have two signs: one in English and one in Spanish. If two signs 

were available, then more information could be included on 

each, such as where to obtain the permits or why permits were 

necessary. Negative psychological reactance (negative reactions to threats to one's freedom) could be mitigated by using 

an explanation or justification for making a request. Messages 

should contain three essential elements: the task (getting the 

point across), identity (message should convey the agency as it 

really is), and relational (message should build, maintain, pare 

down relationships between the agency and the visitor) (Stutman 

1990). For example, the new sign might say that permits are 

required, can be obtained at the ranger station, and are necessary for fire prevention. The problem concerns ordinances 

about signs, as the resource agency may not be able to add to 

what is already in place. Should this be the case, then perhaps a 

sign at the Ranger Station could read in English and Spanish, 

"Campfire permits available here." 

Also problematic is the issue of positive versus negative 

signing. From trial and error the resource managers have learned 

that negative signs work best for visitors who are new to the 

area (about one-third of the visitors). Positive signs are better 

for repeat visitors. Positive signs are harder to enforce, however, especially if a case goes to court. Negative signs were 

suggested only for those rules in which safety is a factor and for 

those which are actually enforced on the site. It was estimated 

that sign changes would not be overly costly to implement, 

because the signs are often replaced due to vandalism anyway. 

Litter 

Not much active littering was observed. Several trash cans 

and a few trash dumpsters were available. Most of these were 

located near parking areas, however, and were not in the immediate vicinity of the visitors (at the water's edge). A large 

amount of trash and broken glass was on the ground after 

visitors left. 

I suggested moving more trash cans nearer to where visitors 

actually were. The reasons were these: first, after a day of 

chasing kids, chasing dogs, and cooking, parents probably had 

little energy left to make one last trip back to the site and 

retrieve trash; and, second, since resource managers had to go 

to the water's edge to retrieve trash anyway they could just as 

readily go there to retrieve trash cans. This idea was approved 

and acted upon. The resource managers are considering painting the trash cans a more readily seen color and perhaps imprinting "Feed Me" on the cans. While this may not be esthetically pleasing to all visitors, it may help alleviate the littering 

problem. Of course, "Feed Me" should be in English and 

Spanish. Handing out trash bags to visitors was another idea to 

be implemented at the start of the next tourist or visitor season. 

This strategy has worked at other sites and may work well here 

too. Litter control measures were seen as cost-effective improvements. 

Interactions with Resource Agency

Implementing changes in interactions between the resource 

agency members and the visitors is more problematic. Little 

interaction was observed between the two groups. Mostly the 

agency members were in vehicles passing by the site, or the 

interactions were of a law enforcement variety. While law 

enforcement is necessary, in many cases need for law enforcement may be reduced by visibility of natural resource agency 

members, especially those who walk through an area. 

Discussions at the Ranger Station centered on two main 

issues: funding and communications. While agency members 

recognized the importance of this kind of activity (deterrence 

and public image), funding was not available for the personnel 

necessary for this type of activity. Should funding become 

available, a problem would still exist with communication. 

Communication may be more challenging but is also important. Few of the agency members stationed in this area were 

bilingual and communications were difficult. Some agency 

members are stationed in an area for only 2 or 3 years at a time 

and are not able to learn a new language before moving to a 

new location. Some resource agency members attempted to 

mitigate the communication gap by taking courses offering 

Spanish-speaking skills but found these skills did not match the 

dialect of the visitors. The resource managers at the site also 

attempted to recruit seasonal help with bilingual skills. 

The research team found that any attempt to speak Spanish 

was readily accepted by the visitors. Perhaps the resource 

managers could start by testing a few key phrases until they feel 

more comfortable speaking Spanish. If the team used Spanish 

when approaching a group, the group would respond in Spanish; but in almost all cases, someone in the group spoke English, if not all members in the group. While it seems risky to 

try a new language and perhaps become embarrassed, the 

outcome may well be worth it. Also, resource managers should 

not assume that all Hispanic-looking visitors speak only Spanish. 

Visitor Characteristics 

The survey study sites are visited by multiple-cultural groups 

that reside in urban environments. As the humorous cartoon in 

figure 5 depicts, urban visitors may think differently about a 

natural resource area than resource managers do. While this 

survey did not explore the differences between these two groups, it 

did explore the relationship of the visitors to the resources. 

For the most part, visitors were at the site to have a nice day 

away from the heat of the Los Angeles valley. They were there 

to enjoy the cool breezes, the water, the food, and each other. 

Crowding 

In general, visitors did not consider the sites to be too 

crowded and did not experience crowds as interfering with their 

activities. The visitor groups did not interact much, and most 

8 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 
people had a good enough time to plan to return to the sites in 

the future. 

I expected Anglo Americans to rate a site as more crowded 

than would either Hispanic group, but the ratings did not differ 

statistically. No group thought the sites were overly crowded, 

and Hispanic groups were more likely to have expected more 

people at the sites. None of the groups reported crowd size to 

influence their enjoyment of the site. This finding probably 

would have been different for more extremely crowded conditions. 

Overly crowded conditions, while not found in this study, 

have been reported at these sites (Hartley 1986, Simcox and 

Pfister 1989, Stikkers 1983) and may need to be mitigated 

through management actions. Staff at some sites have already 

planned for this contingency or are setting up entrance gates 

and limited numbers of parking permits to restrict traffic to 

certain areas. This strategy is useful to a point. Where people 

live near the sites, it will be difficult to determine a point at 

which no more cars may enter. Additionally, at least with the 

Lytle Creek site, there is more than one destination area which 

complicates restrictions and guidelines. Resource managers 

from areas like this will have to consider alternative plans such 

as site-specific parking permits. Lytle Creek, for example, 

could have parking permits assigned to each picnic site and to 

the shooting range. 

Activities 

While all groups reported hiking, picnicking, and visiting 

with others as the most enjoyed activities, they differed in their 

order of preference. Anglo Americans' preferences were for 

hiking, visiting with others, then picnicking, while Hispanic 

Americans' preferences were for hiking, picnicking, then visitCity Dog

Hang in there. 

Figure 5-Different cultural groups may think differently about the 

same natural resource area (Credit: W. Park 1987). 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 

ing with others. Mexican Americans and Others differed slightly 

with their preferences: picnicking, hiking, then visiting with 

others. These differences might suggest a preference by Anglos 

and Hispanic Americans for high-energy activities, and by 

Mexican-Americans and others for more low-energy activities, 

such as eating. Also, I expected Hispanic groups to rate visiting 

with others higher than did other groups as an enjoyed activity, 

but proportionately more Anglo Americans gave this response 

than any other group. This finding is contrary to the popular 

belief that Hispanic groups like to visit with others or it may 

mean that Hispanics don't view visiting with others as an 

"activity." 

The literature indicates typologies for expectations of benefits and the meanings people attach to wildland recreation 

experiences. A collection of scientists from a range of disciplines identified potential benefits of recreation participation in 

four main areas: (1) social and personal; (2) material, (3) environmental, and (4) psychological. These four categories do not 

represent benefits per se so much as indicate what people 

expect the benefits to be (Schreyer 1990a). Schreyer (1990b) 

suggested the need to understand the benefits derived from 

recreational activities. Expectations of benefits for respondents 

from this survey could be placed into two categories: (1) social 

and personal benefits (health activities), and (2) psychological 

benefits (sharing, family, and escape). It is important for resource managers to understand the needs of visitors to recreation sites in order to meet them. 

In general, visitors to these sites studied are more similar 

than different in the activities they enjoy. Natural resource 

managers of these areas, and areas like these (in proximity to 

urban areas, with visitors from multiple cultural groups), should 

understand the similarities and provide the amenities necessary 

to satisfy these needs. This recommendation is not meant to 

suggest that all needs must be met---that natural resource areas 

should accommodate all desires. Rather, it suggests that hiking 

trails and picnic tables should be abundant. Also, some accommodations should be made for large groups that frequent these 

areas---perhaps picnic tables in clusters of three or four. 

The open ended question concerning additional comments 

visitors would like to make elicited several responses concerning amenities. About half indicated they were satisfied 

with the amenities available to them. Those who were not 

satisfied requested more restrooms, servicing restrooms more 

frequently, better parking facilities, and enforcement of littering laws. Each of these areas can be addressed by natural 

resource managers. 

Discrimination 

The majority of visitors said they had not experienced discriminatory acts at these recreational sites or at another recreational site. This is surprising given the incidence of discriminatory acts in urban areas. Of those who perceived themselves 

to be victims of discriminatory acts, proportionately more were 

Hispanic Americans and Mexican Americans. I am unsure 

what this finding really indicates. It could indicate that Hispanic and Mexican groups are more attuned to the term "dis9 
crimination" and report more because of this. It might be that 

they actually experience more and correctly perceive this to be 

the case. It might be that Anglo Americans have never been 

thought of or thought of themselves as discriminated against, 

yet this wouldn't explain why others held their perception. The 

findings offer more questions than answers. 

This study did not examine ways in which these problems 

can be solved, but several suggestions are appropriate here. 

While little apparently can be done about interactions between 

natural resource agents and visitors, there are three needs to 

address: (1) managers should be sensitive to cultural group 

differences; (2) natural resource managers should be from culturally diverse populations; and (3) more interactions are needed 

between managers and visitors that are not based solely on law 

enforcement actions. These needs can be filled agency-wide 

and are not necessarily meant just for these survey sites. 

Displacement 

The data indicate that displacement does not seem to be a 

factor at these sites. No ethnic group was any more likely to be 

either a first-time visitor to a site or a many-time visitor to a site, 

nor was any group any more likely to plan not to return to a site. 

Two possibilities remain: displacement from an area may have 

occurred before the survey and thus was not captured here; or, 

racial and ethnic groups are interacting in this rural environment, and no group is being moved to accommodate the influx 

of another group. 

Assuming that displacement has already occurred, managers can work to decrease related problems. Resource managers 

can, for example, suggest alternative sites for either or both 

parties. This may defuse an immediate problem but does not 

alleviate the underlying issue. Solving the problem will require 

resource managers to show by example how to integrate a site, 

for example, by an integrated and visible workforce. Alternative measures, especially with budget constraints, may be more 

suitable. An example would be setting up trash gathering parties or other cooperative efforts that incorporate visitors from 

diverse backgrounds. Resource managers should consider activities that include children from diverse backgrounds---they 

may be more amenable to tasks as a group and may work well 

with members of other cultural groups. 

Research Needs 

Management implications for the issues presented in this 

discussion section will need to be examined further, especially 

those measures that do not require large budgetary constraints, 

as they may be most often used. In particular, these include 

suggestions for signs and litter control. 

For signs, future research could involve measuring positive 

versus negative signs for "new" and previous visitors, or measuring the effectiveness of multilanguage signs. 

For litter control, future research might include an experimental design. At the Lytle Creek site, for example, there are 

four parking and picnic areas. The litter cans at one parking 

and picnic area could remain in their present condition, while 

cans at the second parking and picnic area could be brightly 

painted; cans at the third parking and picnic area could be 

brightly painted with "Feed Me" printed in one language, while 

cans at the fourth parking and picnic area might be brightly 

painted with "Feed Me" in multiple languages. The most 

successful alternative would be identified. 

Other issues require further research as well, such as 

preplanned and nonplanned visits, and age use patterns. For 

nonplanned visits, shopping bags could be surveyed to determine where nonplanners shop on their way to the site. If one or 

two sites are central shopping locations, then one site could 

pass out litter bags, while the other could serve as a control site 

and pass out no bags. Visitor behaviors related to littering could 

then be surveyed. Other studies might focus on use patterns 

related to age. A survey could be implemented to determine the 

factors which push and pull visitors of specific age groups 

toward and away from particular recreational sites. 

Conclusions 

To research hypotheses on racism and displacement, visitors on two National Forests in southern California were observed and surveyed. Data were collected relative to visitor 

perceptions about such seemingly diverse topics as types of 

activities most enjoyed on wildland recreation sites, crowding, 

evidence of discrimination, and displacement. Displacement 

was not evident at the sites studied. Activities enjoyed and 

perceived crowding were similar among four racial and ethnic 

groups: Anglo-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Mexican Americans, and all others. The biggest difference among the groups 

was perceived exposure to discriminatory acts, which were 

reported more often by minority groups. Research needs and 

management implications involve improving interactions and 

communication with visitors, reducing depreciative behavior, 

and posting better signs. 

10 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 
References 

Campbell, Donald T.; Fiske, D.W. 1959. Convergent and divergent validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56: 

81-105. 

Clark, Roger N.; Hendee, John C.; Campbell, Frederick L. 1971. Values, 

behavior, and conflict in modern camping culture. Journal of Leisure 

Research 3(3): 143-159. 

Dustin, Daniel L. 1990. Depreciative behavior impacts and controls: an 

assessment of southern California recreation agencies. Unpublished 

report supplied by author. 

Dustin, Daniel L.; McAvoy, Leo. 1982. The decline and fall of quality 

recreation opportunities and environments. Environmental Ethics 4(1): 

49-57. 

Ewert, Alan W. 1992. Demographic and behavioral variable changes in 

urban-proximate wilderness: managing for the difference. Presented 

at the 34th Annual Conference of the Western Social Science Association, 1992 April 22-25, Denver, CO. 

Gillis, A. R.; Richard, Madeline A.; Hagan, John. 1986. Ethnic susceptibility to crowding: an empirical analysis. Environment and Behavior 

18(6): 683-706. 

Gove, Walter; Hughes, Michael. 1983. Overcrowding in the household: 

an analysis of determinants and effects. New York: Academic Press; 

335 p. 

Hartley, Marilyn S. 1986. An analysis of recreation management of southern California National Forests. Unpublished paper supplied by author. 

Heberlein, Thomas A.; Vaske, Jerry A. 1977. Crowding and visitor conflict 

on the Bois Brule River. Report WISC WRC 77-04. Madison: University of Wisconsin Water Resources Center; 35 p. 

Appendixes 

A---Results of Site Observations 

Porteous, John D. 1977. Environment and behavior: planning in everyday 

urban life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 446 p. 

Rapoport, A. 1978. Culture and the subjective effects of stress. Urban 

Ecology 3(3): 241-261. 

Schermerhorn, R. A. 1970. Minorities and national integration. Journal of 

Social Research 13(l): 25-35. 

Schreyer, Richard M. 1990a. Professor of Forest Resources, Utah State 

University, Logan. [Conversation with Deborah J. Chavez]. 2 April 1990. 

Schreyer, Richard M., Professor/Instructional Staff, Professional Development for Outdoor Recreation Managers/Planners Shortcourse, Utah State 

University, Logan. 19 March - 6 April 1990. 

Schreyer, Richard M.; Knopf, Richard C. 1984. The dynamics of change in 

outdoor recreation environments-some equity issues. Journal of Park 

and Recreation Administration 2(1): 9-19. 

Shelby, Bo; Vaske, Jerry J.; Heberlein, Thomas A. 1989. Comparative 

analysis of crowding in multiple locations: results from fifteen years 

of research. Leisure Sciences 11: 269-291. 

Simcox, David E. 1988. Cross-cultural land ethics and implications for 

management of southern California's National Forests. Research proposal, California State University, Chico. 

Simcox, David E.; Pfister, Robert E. 1989. Cross-cultural land ethics and 

implications for management of southern California's National Forests. Unpublished report supplied by author. 

Stikkers, Donald E. 1983. An examination of depreciative behavior and 

management options in San Gabriel Canyon, Angeles National Forest. Unpublished draft supplied by author. 

Stutman, Randall K., Instructional Staff, Professional Development for Outdoor Recreation Managers/Planners Shortcourse, Utah State University, 

Logan, 19 March - 6 April 1990. 

Webb, Eugene J.; Campbell, Donald T.; Schwartz, Richard D.; Sechrest, Lee. 

1966. Unobtrusive measures: nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Company; 225 p. 

Vander Zanden, James W. 1987. Social psychology. New York: Random 

House; 567 p. 

Lytle Creek/Apple White San Antonio Canyon 

San Bernardino National Forest Angeles National Forest 

Age Composition Few elderly 

Many young families 

Few teenagers 

Some preteens 

Few young couples 

Ethnic composition Anglo 

Hispanic 

Few Black 

Asian 

Few multi-ethnic groups 

Type of group Average Five to six. 

Nuclear families 

Sociodemographic characteristics 

Several elderly

Few young families 

Several teenager,

Some preteens

Sonic young couples

Anglo 

Hispanic 

Few Black 

Asian 

Many Middle Eastern

No multi-ethnic groups 

Average seven to eight

Extended Families

Grandparents 

Teens 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 11 
Appendix A, continued 

Lytle Creek/Apple White San Antonio Canyon 

San Bernardino National Forest Angeles National Forest 

Sociodemographic characteristics 

Language spoken English 

Spanish 

Asian--spe cifi c clinic group 

unknown 

Cars in parking lot Large range-up to Mercedes 

Few nice cars 

Old vans and trucks 

All terrain vehicle 

Several motorcycles 

Equipment Many radios (few loud) 

Barbecues 

Ice Chests, lawn chairs 

Mattress 

Table and kitchen chairs 

Hammocks 

Blankets 

Land ethics 

Littering Passive littering 

Active littering 

Girl picking up litter 

Broken glass 

Plastic bags 

Few diapers 

Depreciative behaviors Rock throwing (for fun) 

Dam building (even adults) 

Person showering under water faucet 

Trash can availability Dumpster in parking lot 

Trash cans available 

Most by road and not by creek 

Roles, behavior, and norms 

Site selections Couldn't tell how decided 

Shade preferred 

Close to water preferred 

Activities, games Stream walking popular 

Balls, inner tubes, rafts

Rocks and logs as "toys"

Plastic toy guns (boys)

Plastic pop guns (boys)

Rules made as play progresses

Girls making mudpies

Sunbathing

Guitar playing 

Eating 

Eat and run 

Sleeping

English 

Spanish 

Armenian 

Arabic

Other middle-eastern 

High end of range

Several nice cars

Fairly new vans and trucks

Recreational vehicle

Several motorcycles

Few radios

Barbecues

Ice chests, lawn chairs 

Japanese floor mats 

Camcorder

Hammock

Blankets

Camera, 

Tupperware 

Car seat to lay on 

Passive littering 

No active littering 

No one gathering litter

Broken glass 

Plastic bags

Few diapers

Beer cans

Playing cards 

Cardboard, particle board 

Barbecues without permit 

No dumpsters

Few trash cans-mostly distant 

Most by parking area

One by creek overflowing 

Couldn't tell how decided 

Shade preferred

Close Io eater preferred 

Few stream walkers-mostly

young males 

Few water toys

Rocks and logs for sitting

Plastic toy guns (boys)

Girls holding hands

Sunbathing

Eating

Eat and stay 

Sleeping 

12 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 
Appendix A, continued 

Lytle Creek/Apple White San Antonio Canyon 

San Bernardino National Forest Angeles National Forest 

Roles, behavior, and norms 

Drinking beer 

Dam building 

One teen swinging small girl and 

dipping her in stream

Game started but lasted few minutes between 

group members 

Pole for vaulting from rock to rock

Boys racing "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles"

down stream

Few dogs 

Splashing 

Choice of food Tortillas on barbecue grill 

Salsa from scratch 

Grocery bags 

Watermelons cooling in stream

Asian group had rice swapped in seaweed

Chicken 

Steak 

Hot dogs 

Posted rules and regulations Posted at restrooms 

Could not read print through mesh screen 

Could only see large signs, like "Dogs on Leash Only" 

Sign down road from site: No barbecues (easy to miss) 

Sign indicating picnic area 

Between groups Some watching but little else 

Groups keep space between them 

Some talking between groups 

Some in water---play oriented (children) 

Within groups Little parenting or sanctioning 

Preteens caring for children 

Mothers caring for children 

Few men cooking 

Men carried things from vehicle

No signs of arguing 

Mostly nuclear families

Traditional gender roles 

Forest Service (FS) with public No law enforcement 

Two vehicles drove by 

FS there early in day to clean up 

B-Results of Survey Questionnaire 

Social Interaction 

Several dogs-dog walking 

Splashing 

Lawn chairs in water 

Prepared foods 

Watermelon, cooling, in stream 

Asian group had Tupperware 

No restroom to post 

No snowballs sign 

Sign among some trees: "Land Management Survey: Please do not disturb" 

Sign in one parking area: No barbecues 

(easy to miss) 

No sign indicating Upper Canyon

Some watching but little else 

Groups keep space between them

Almost no interaction at site

Little parenting/sanctioning 

Preteens caring for children

One father caring for children

Few men cooking 

Men carried things from vehicle 

No signs of arguing

Mostly extended families 

Traditional gender roles

Enforced barbecue prohibition

One vehicle stopped 

Saw no evidence of cleanup 

Visitors completed 312 questionnaires; 71.5 percent used the English version and 28.5 percent used the Spanish version. The 

number of responses to each question is indicated by n. Percentages and averages of various responses are given in bold type. The 

survey was conducted in cooperation with the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 

84322-5235. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 13 
Dear Forest Visitor: 

We need your point of view. We are trying to better 

understand why some people like to visit some areas,

whether they plan to return to the area, and what they

think about other visitors. Please take a few minutes 

to help us out. Thank you! 

Some people like to have lots of people around them when they visit this area 

and others do not like to have many people around. We would like to know how 

you feel about this. 

1. How crowded was the area at the time of your visit? (Circle one number.)

n=310 

13.9 13.9 16.1 9.7 9.4 21.9 4.8 3.5 6.8 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Not at all Slightly Moderately Extremely

Crowded Crowded Crowded Crowded 

2. Was this the size of the crowd that you expected to find? (Circle one.) 

1. Yes 42.8 No 57.2 n=306 

2. No ---> If no, did you expect a larger crowd or a smaller crowd? 

1. Smaller 28.1 n=160 

2. Larger 57.2 

3. Did the size of the crowd add to or take away from your enjoyment? 

1. Added to enjoyment 27.8 n=306 

2. Took away from enjoyment 10.1 

3. Did not make any difference 62.1 

4. What one type of activity did you enjoy most during your stay? 

1. Picnic 27.9 n=298 

2. Hike 22.8 

3. Swim 4.7 

4. Visit with others 9.7 

5. Relax 2.7 

6. Camping 0.7 

7. Games 0.3 

8. Shooting 0.7 

9. Fishing 4.0 

10. More than one favorite 26.5 

5. With more people in this area, do you think the activity you most enjoyed

would have been more or less enjoyable? 

1. More enjoyable with more people 13.4 n=306 

2. Less enjoyable with more people 35.3 

3. Group size makes no difference 51.3 

6. How many times have you visited this site? 

1. First visit 32.2 n=304 

2. One to two times before 18.1 

3. Three or more times before 49.7 

14 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 
7. Do you think you will ever return to this area? 

1. No 5.5 n=310 

2. Yes 94.5 

Why? Enjoy area 31.1 n=174 

Nice environment 21.3 

Get away 17.8 

Why not? Poor environment 62.5 n=8 

No amenities available 37.5 

8. Who do you think takes care of/manages this area? 

1. Bureau of Land Management 2.9 n=307 

2. Department of Fish and Game 2.3 

3. Parks and Recreation 18.2 

4. Sheriffs 2.0 

5. U.S. Forest Service 46.3 

6. More than one 4.2 

8. Don't know 24.1 

Some people have reported that other people do not treat them fairly simply

because they are members of a particular ethnic group. Other people have not 

experienced this. We would like to know your experience here. 

9. Did any law enforcement person (Forest Ranger or Sheriff) here treat you

unfairly because of your ethnic identity? 

1. No 90.1 Yes 9.9 n=303 

2. Yes ------ > If yes, to which ethnic group does he or she belong?

1. Anglo American 37.0 n=27 

2. Black American 3.7 

3. Hispanic/Latino/ 51.9 

Mexican American 

4. Other 3.7 

5. Don't know 3.7 

10. Did another forest visitor here treat you unfairly because of your ethnic 

identity? 

1. No 95.7 Yes 4.3 n=301 

2. Yes ------ > If yes, to which ethnic group does the person belong?

1. Anglo American 60.0 n=10 

2. Black American 10.0 

3. Hispanic/Latino/ 20.0 

Mexican American 

4. Asian American 10.0 

Now we would like to know the same thing for other forests areas you may have 

visited. 

11. Did a law enforcement officer (Forest Ranger or Sheriff) in another forest 

area treat you unfairly because of your ethnic identity? 

1. I haven't been to any other 12.2 n=296 

forest area 

No 83.4 

Yes 4.4 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 15 
-------

-------

2. Yes > If yes, to which ethnic group did the forest ranger

belong?

1. Anglo American 30.8 n=18 

2. Black American 7.7 

3. Hispanic/Latino/ 46.2 

Mexican American 

4. Asian American 7.7 

5. Middle Eastern American 7.7 

12. In that other forest area, did another forest visitor treat you unfairly

because of your ethnic identity? 

1. I haven't been to another 10.7 n=291 

forested area 

No 85.9 

Yes 3.4 

2. Yes > If yes, to which ethnic group did the forest visitor 

belong?

1. Anglo American 44.4 n=9 

2. Black American 11.1 

3. Hispanic/Latino/ 33.3 

Mexican American 

4. Other--more than one 11.1 

13. Do you think you will ever return to that area? 

1. No 12.8 n=281 

2. Yes 87.2 

Why? Enjoy area 

Nice environment 

31.5 

18.0 

n=111 

Get away 18.0 

Why not? Poor environment 

Other areas better 

50.0 

33.3 

n=6 

No amenities 16.7 

The final questions are about you. 

14. Sex 1. Male 53.6 n=304 2. Female 46.4 

15. Your age 30.9 (years) 

16. Your current marital status 1. Single, never married 35.0 

2. Not married, living with partner 7.9 

3. Married, living with partner 46.2 

4. Separated 3.6 

5. Divorced 6.9 

6. Widowed 0.3 

n=303 

17. What was your last year of school? 

Elementary Middle High Post 

School School _____ School College _______ BA/BS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17+ 

8.3 11.3 45.7 27.0 7.6 n=300 

16 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 
18. What cultural group do you prefer to have others think of you as? 

1. Anglo American 24.6 6. Hispanic American 25.7 n=276 

2. American Indian 3.6 7. Korean American 0.7 

3. Black American 1.8 8. Mexican American 26.4 

4. Chinese American 2.5 9. Vietnamese American 0.7 

5. Filipino American 1.8 10. Other (specify) 12.0 

19. What do you do for a living? Unemp/House/Student/Retired 28.0 n=289 

Unskilled/Semi-skilled 13.1 

Skilled/Semi-professional 37.7 

Professional/Own business 8.0 

Other/Non-specific 13.1 

20. Where were you born? Inside U.S.A. 56.8 n=301 

Outside U.S.A. 43.2 (mostly Mexico) 

21. I have lived in the U.S.A.: 1. all my life 58.4 n=303 

2. for 11.6 years 

Is there anything else you think we should know about your visit to this area? 

Positive about area 40.5 n=79 

Negative about area 59.5 (mostly dirty and crowded) 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR OPINIONS! 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-216. 1993. 17 
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for Federal leadership in 

forestry. It carries out this role through four main activities: 

• Protection and management of resources on 191 million acres of National Forest System lands 

• Cooperation with State and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners to help 

protect and manage non-Federal forest and associated range and watershed lands 

• Participation with other agencies in human resource and community assistance programs to 

improve living conditions in rural areas 

• Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest resources utilization. 

The Pacific Southwest Research Station 

• Represents the research branch of the Forest Service in California, Hawaii, American Samoa 

and the western Pacific. 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, 

or with any handicapping conditions are welcome to use and enjoy 

all facilities, programs, and services of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency 

policy, and should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC 20250. 
United States 

Department of Visitor Perceptions of Crowding and Discrimination at Two NationAgriculture in Southern California Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Research Station 

Research Paper PSW-RP-216