National Visitor Use Monitoring Results

October 2008

Data collected FY2001 and FY2007

USDA Forest Service

Region 3

APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL FOREST

Last updated 2 November 2008

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION.. 2

VISITATION ESTIMATES. 6

DESCRIPTION OF THE RECREATION VISIT. 10

ECONOMIC INFORMATION.. 21

SATISFACTION INFORMATION.. 27

WILDERNESS VISIT DEMOGRAPHICS. 38

APPENDIX TABLES. 42

INTRODUCTION

Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use Monitoring program

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides reliable information about recreation visitors to national forest system managed lands at the national, regional, and forest level. Information about the quantity and quality of recreation visits is required for national forest plans, Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National Recreation Agenda. To improve public service, the agency’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans require measuring trends in user satisfaction and use levels. NVUM information assists Congress, Forest Service leaders, and program managers in making sound decisions that best serve the public and protect valuable natural resources by providing science based, reliable information about the type, quantity, quality and location of recreation use on public lands. The information collected is also important to external customers including state agencies and private industry. NVUM methodology and analysis is explained in detail in the research paper entitled: Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation; English, Kocis, Zarnoch, and Arnold; Southern Research Station; May 2002 (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).

In 1998 a group of research and forest staff developed a recreation sampling system (NVUM) that provides statistical recreation use information at the forest, regional, and national level. Several Forest Service staff areas including Recreation, Wilderness, Ecosystem Management, Research and Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment were involved in developing the program. From January 2000 through September 2003 every national forest implemented this methodology and collected visitor use information. Using a five year rotation, every national forest collected information a second time from October 2004 through September 2009.

This NVUM data is useful for forest planning and decision making. The description of visitor characteristics (age, race, zip code, activity participation) can help the forest identify their recreation niche. Satisfaction information can help management decide where best to place limited resources that would result in improved visitor satisfaction. Economic expenditure information can help forests show local communities the employment and income effects of tourism from forest visitors. In addition, the credible use statistics can be helpful in considering visitor capacity issues.

Before the surveys begin, each forest stratifies all recreation sites and areas into five basic categories called “site types”: Day Use Developed Sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), Designated Wilderness Areas (Wilderness), General Forest Areas (GFA), and View Corridors (VC). Only the first four categories are considered “true” national forest recreation visits and are included in the visit estimates. Each site was given a rating of very high, high, medium, low, or no use for the likelihood of finding recreational visitors leaving a site or area for the last time (last exiting recreation use) for each day of the year. Each day on which a site or area is open is called a site day. Site day is the basic sampling unit for the survey. Results of this forest categorization are shown in Table 1.

A map showing all General Forest Exit locations and View Corridors was prepared and archived with the NVUM data for use in future sample years. NVUM also provided training materials, equipment, survey forms, funding, and the protocol necessary for the forest to gather visitor use information.

Definition of Terms

NVUM has standardized measures of visitor use to ensure that all national forest visitor measures are comparable. These definitions are basically the same as established by the Forest Service in the 1970s, however the application of the definition is stricter. Visitors must pursue a recreation activity physically located “on” Forest Service managed land in order to be counted. They cannot be passing through; viewing from non-Forest Service managed roads, or just using restroom facilities. The NVUM basic use measurements are national forest visits and site visits. NVUM provides estimates of both types of visits and statistics measuring the precision of the estimates. These statistics include the error rate and associated confidence intervals at the 90 percent confidence level. The NVUM methodology categorizes recreation facilities and areas into specific site types and use levels in order to develop the sampling frame. Understanding the definitions of the variables used in the sample design and statistical analysis is important in order to interpret the results. Following are the definition of the important terms used in this report.

National forest visit - the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A national forest visit can be composed of multiple site visits.

Site visit - the entry of one person onto a national forest site or area to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time.

Recreation trip – the duration of time beginning when the visitor left their home and ending when they return to their home.

Confidence level -- defines the degree of certainty that a range of values contains the true value of what is being estimated. For example, a 90% confidence level refers to the range of values within which the true value will fall 90% of the time. Higher confidence levels necessarily cover a larger range of values.

Confidence interval width (also called error rate) - these terms define the reliability of the visit estimates. The confidence level defines the desired level of certainty. The size of the interval that is needed to reach that level of certainty is the confidence interval width. The confidence interval width is expressed as a percent of the estimate and defines the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. The smaller the confidence interval, the more precise is the estimate. A 90 percent confidence level is very acceptable for social science applications at a broad national or forest scale. For example: There are 205 million national forest visits plus or minus 3 percent at the 90 percent confidence level. In other words we are 90 percent certain that the true number of national forest visits lies between 198.85 million and 211.15 million.

Site day - a day that a recreation site or area is open to the public for recreation purposes.

Site types -- stratification of a forest recreation site or area into one of five broad categories as defined in the paper: Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation, May 2002, English et al. The categories are Day Use Developed sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), General Forest Areas (GFA), Wilderness (WILD). Two other categories were also developed but not used in the final site visit estimates. These were View Corridors and Off-Forest Recreation Activities. For details see the methods paper (English et al).

Proxy – information collected at a recreation site or area that is related to the amount of recreation visitation received. The proxy information must pertain to all users of the site and it must be one of the proxy types allowed in the NVUM pre-work directions (fee receipts, fee envelopes, mandatory permits, permanent traffic counters, ticket sales, and daily use records).

Nonproxy – a recreation site or area that does not have proxy information. At these sites a 24-hour traffic count is taken to measure total use for one site day at the sample site.

Use level - for proxy or nonproxy sites, each day that a recreation site or area was open for recreation, the site day was categorized as very high, high, medium or low last exiting recreation traffic, or no use. No Use was defined as either administratively closed or having zero expected last exiting use. For example Sabino Picnic Area (a DUDS nonproxy site) is no use for 120 days, has high last exiting recreation use on open weekends (70 days) and medium last exiting recreation use on open midweek days (175 days). This accounts for all 365 days of the year at Sabino Picnic area. This process was repeated for every developed site and area on the forest.

Limitations of the Results

The information presented here is valid and applicable at the forest, regional, and national level. It is not designed to be accurate at the district or site level. The quality of the visitation estimate is dependent on the sample design development, sampling unit selection, sample size and variability, and survey implementation. First, preliminary work conducted by forests to classify sites consistently according to the type and amount of visitation influences the quality of the estimate. Second, visitors sampled must be representative of the population of all visitors. Third, the number of visitors sampled must be large enough to adequately control variability. Finally, the success of the forest in accomplishing its assigned sample days, correctly filling out the interview forms, and following the sample protocol influence the error rate. The error rate will reflect all these factors. The smaller the error rate, the better the estimate.

Large error rates (i.e. high variability) in the national forest visit (NFV), site visit (SV) and Wilderness visit estimates are primarily caused by a small sample size in a given stratum (for example General Forest Area low use days) or having a few observations where the use observed was beyond that stratum’s normal range. For example, on the Clearwater National Forest in the General Forest Area low stratum, there were 14 sample days. Of these 14 sample days, 13 days had visitation estimates between 0-20. One observation had a visitation estimate of 440. Therefore, the stratum mean was about 37 with a standard error of 116. The 90% confidence interval width is then 400% of the mean, a very high error rate (variability). Whether these types of odd observations are due to unusual weather, malfunctioning traffic counters, or a misclassification of the day (a sampled low use day that should have been categorized as a high use day) is unknown. Eliminating the unusual observation from data analysis could reduce the error rate. However, unless the NVUM team had reason to suspect the data was incorrect they did not eliminate these unusual cases.

The descriptive information about national forest visitors is based upon only those visitors that were interviewed. If a forest has distinct seasonal use patterns and activities that vary greatly by season, these patterns may or may not be adequately captured in this study. For the first round of sampling, the study was designed primarily to estimate total number of people during a year. Consequently, sample days were distributed based upon high, medium, and low exiting use days, without regard to seasons or he spatial distribution of days across the forest. For the second round, the sampling frame was adjusted to obtain both a valid estimate of visitation volume, but also a representative sample of visitors. For the second round, the sampling plan took into account both the spatial and seasonal spread of days across the forest. However, the issue of not adequately representing certain use patterns may still occur, particularly for activities that are limited in where or when they occur.

Note that the results of the NVUM activity analysis DO NOT identify the types of activities visitors would like to have offered on the national forests. It also does not tell us about displaced forest visitors, those who no longer visit the forest because the activities they desire are not offered.

Some forest visitors were counted and included in the total forest use estimate but were not surveyed. This included visitors to recreation special events and organization camps.

VISITATION ESTIMATES

Forest Definition of Site Days

The population of available site days for sampling was constructed from information provided by forest staff. Each site was given a rating of very high (used only in round 2), high, medium, low, or no use for the likelihood of finding recreational visitors leaving a site or area for the last time (last exiting recreation use) for each day of the year. The stratum, a combination of site type and use level, was then used to construct the sampling frame. For both years sampled on this forest the results of the recreation site/area stratification and days sampled are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Site days and percentage of days sampled by stratum on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

		Round 1, FY2001			Round 2, FY2007
Stratum^*		Site Days^* in Stratum Population	Days Sampled	Sampling Rate (%)	Site Days^* in Stratum Population	Days Sampled	Sampling Rate (%)
Site Type^*	Use Level^c or Proxy Code^*
DUDS	High	272	12	4.41	276	5	1.81
DUDS	Medium	267	10	3.75	427	10	2.34
DUDS	Low	5185	11	0.21	5578	23	0.41
DUDS	RE1	167	3	1.80	0	0	n/a
DUDS	RF1	0	0	n/a	167	9	5.39
GFA	High	556	15	2.70	556	16	2.88
GFA	Medium	2169	19	0.88	2169	5	0.23
GFA	Low	10111	14	0.14	10311	12	0.12
GFA	FR1	276	4	1.45	276	9	3.26
OUDS	High	15	4	26.67	15	.	.
OUDS	Medium	42	8	19.05	42	1	2.38
OUDS	Low	1751	9	0.51	1751	8	0.46
OUDS	DUR4	3945	7	0.18	4207	10	0.24
OUDS	DUR5	123	0	0.00	0	0	n/a
OUDS	PTC1	139	1	0.72	0	0	n/a
OUDS	RE4	365	4	1.10	72	2	2.78
OUDS	RF4	0	0	n/a	365	8	2.19
WILD	High	56	9	16.07	56	6	10.71
WILD	Medium	130	9	6.92	130	11	8.46
WILD	Low	1194	9	0.75	1194	6	0.50
Total		26763	148	0.55	27592	141	0.51

^a Stratum is the combination of the site type and use level or proxy code. Sample days were independently drawn within each stratum.

^b DUDS = Day Use Developed Site, GFA = General Forest Area (“Undeveloped Areas”), OUDS = Overnight Use Developed Site, WILD = Designated Wilderness

^c Use level was defined independently by each forest by defining the expected number of recreation visitors that would be last-existing a site or area on a given day. The forest developed the range for very high, high, medium, and low and then assigned each day of the year to one of the use levels.

^d Proxy Code - If the site or area already had counts of use (such as fee envelopes or ski lift tickets) the site was called a proxy site and sampled independent of nonproxy sites.

^e Site Days are days that a recreation site or area is open to the public for recreation purposes.

Visitor Use Estimates

Visitor use estimates are available at the national, regional, and forest level. This document provides only Forest level data. Other documents may be obtained through the National Visitor Use Monitoring web page: www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

When reviewing the results, forest personnel should inquire if this forest experienced any unusual circumstances such as forest fires, floods, or atypical weather that may have created an unusual recreation use pattern for the years sampled.

Table 2 displays the number of national forest visits and site visits by site type for this National Forest. The site visit estimate includes the Wilderness site visits.

Table 2. Annual visitation estimate (thousands) for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 data and FY2007 data)

Visit Type	Round 1, FY2001		Round 2, FY2007
	Visits (thousands)	90% confidence interval width(%)^e	Visits (thousands)	90% confidence interval width (%)^e
Total Estimated Site Visits	2,516.71	20.6	1,886.7	20.8
Designated Wilderness Visits^b	38.12	46.9	5.1	34.4
Special Events and Organizational Camp Use^c	71.53	0.0	0	0
Total Estimated National Forest Visits	2,109.29	20.2	1,547.0	20.7

^b Designated Wilderness visits are included in the Site Visits estimate.

^c Special events and organizational camp use are not included in the Site Visit estimate, only in the National Forest Visits estimate. Forests reported the total number of participants and observers so this number is not estimated; it is treated as 100% accurate.

^e This value defines the upper and lower bounds of the visitation estimate at the 90% confidence level, for example if the visitation estimate is 100 +/-5%, one would say “at the 90% confidence level visitation is between 95 and 105 visits.”

The quality of the use estimate is based in part on how many individuals were contacted during the sample day and how many complete interviews were obtained from which to estimate NVUM numbers and visitor descriptions. Tables 3 and 4 display the number of visitor contacts, number of completed interviews by site type and survey form type. This information may be useful to managers when assessing how representative of all visitors the information in this report may be.

Table 3. Number of individuals contacted by Site Type on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007)

Site Type	Round 1, FY2001			Round 2, FY2007
	Total Individuals Contacted	Individuals Who Agreed to be Interviewed	Individuals who were last exiting recreation	Total Individuals Contacted	Individuals Who Agreed to be Interviewed	Individuals who were last exiting recreation*
DUDS	708	642	479	323	208	138
GFA	572	535	397	101	71	38
OUDS	323	305	194	175	138	49
Wilderness	154	148	135	58	54	39
Total	1757	1630	1205	657	471	264

* for round 2 this includes individuals last exiting sometime during the interview day; in round 1 it includes only individuals last exiting when interviewed.

Table 4. Number of complete interviews^a on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest by Site Type and Form Type (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

Form Type^b	Day Use Developed Site		Overnight Use Developed Site		Undeveloped Areas (GFAs)		Wilderness		Total
	FY 2001	FY 2007	FY 2001	FY 2007	FY 2001	FY 2007	FY 2001	FY 2007	FY 2001	FY 2007
Basic	242	47	99	20	201	16	73	17	615	100
Economic	115	47	47	17	99	10	33	15	294	89
Satisfaction	122	52	48	16	97	12	29	14	296	94
Total	479	146	194	53	397	38	135	46	1205	283

^a Complete interviews are those in which the individual contacted agreed to be interviewed, and fell into the targeted group (was recreating on the national forest and was exiting the site or area for the last time that day).

^b Form type is the type of interview form administered to the visitor. The Basic form did not ask either economic or satisfaction questions. The Satisfaction form did not ask economic questions and the Economic form did not ask Satisfaction questions.

Visitors were interviewed regardless of whether they were recreating at the site or not, however the interview was discontinued after determining that the reason for visiting the site was not recreation. Figures 1a and b display the various reasons visitors gave as their purpose for stopping at the sample site.

Figure 1a. Purpose of visit by visitors who agreed to be interviewed on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (FY2001).

Figure 1b. Purpose of visit by visitors who agreed to be interviewed on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (FY2007).

DESCRIPTION OF THE RECREATION VISIT

Demographics

Descriptions of forest recreational visits were developed based upon the characteristics of interviewed visitors (respondents) and expanded to the national forest visitor population. Basic demographic information helps forest managers identify the profile of the visitors they serve. Management concerns such as providing recreation opportunities for underserved populations may be monitored with this information. Tables 5 through Table 7 provide basic demographic information about visitors interviewed regarding Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Age, respectively. Table 8 shows the most common reported origins for recreation visitors. A complete list of reported zipcodes for respondents is found in Appendix A. Table 9 provides information about self reported travel distance from home to the interview site for round 2 data only; this information was not collected in round 1.

Table 5. Percent of National Forest Visits by gender on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

Gender	Survey Respondents^a		National Forest Visits (%)^b
	FY2001	FY2007	FY2001	FY2007
Female	357	245	30.55	44
Male	734	377	69.45	56
Total	1091	622	100.00	100

^a in round 2 of sampling survey respondents were asked to give the gender and age of themselves plus up to 3 other people in their party, therefore there are more respondents here than the number of people who completed full interviews.

^b Calculations are computed using weights that expand the sample of individuals to the population of National Forest Visits. For more detailed information regarding weights used contact the NVUM program manager.

Table 6. Percent of National Forest Visits^a by race/ethnicity on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

Race/Ethnicity^a	Number of Survey Respondents		National Forest Visits (%)
	FY2001	FY2007	FY2001	FY2007
American Indian/Alaska Native	8	5	1.17	5.0
Asian	7	3	0.73	1.3
Black/African American	6	0	0.62	0.0
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	3	2	0.23	1.0
Other	6	na	0.18	Na
White	990	195	89.42	92.7
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	72	18	7.64	8
Total	1092	205	99.99	100.0

^a The race/ethnicity questions were not asked identically in rounds 1 and 2. Due to OMB requirements in round 2, “Spanish, Hispanic or Latino” was presented in a separate question because it is an ethnicity not a race. In round 2 respondents first stated whether they were of this ethnicity, then in a separate question were asked which ones of the racial categories they felt applied to them. Respondents could choose more than one racial group. “Other” was allowed in round 1 but OMB required its removal in round 2.

^c Calculations are computed using weights that expand the sample of individuals to the population of National Forest Visits. For more detailed information regarding weights used contact the NVUM program manager.

Table 7. Percent of National Forest Visits^a by age on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

Age	National Forest Visits (%)
	FY2001	FY2007
Under 16	26.4	20.4
16-19	0.6	1.0
20-29	8.2	7.7
30-39	14.3	14.1
40-49	16.4	14.1
50-59	13.6	18.9
60-69	14.0	14.7
70 and over	6.5	9.1
Total	100.0	100.0

Figure 2. Comparison of age distributions for visits to Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (FY2001 and FY2007).

Table 8a. Most commonly reported Zip Codes, states, and counties of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest survey respondents in Round 1 (FY2001 data)

Round 1, FY2001
ZIP Codes	State	County	Survey Respondents (%)	Survey Respondents (n)
UNKNOWN ORIGIN			9.6	116
85929	AZ	Navajo	1.9	23
85920	AZ	Apache	1.8	22
86025	AZ	Navajo	1.8	22
85901	AZ	Navajo	1.7	20
85254	AZ	Maricopa	1.5	18
85296	AZ	Maricopa	1.5	18
85202	AZ	Maricopa	1.3	16
85302	AZ	Maricopa	1.3	16
85936	AZ	Apache	1.2	15
85203	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	13
85345	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	13

Table 8b. Most commonly reported Zip Codes, states, and counties of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest survey respondents in Round 2. (FY2007 NVUM data)

Round 2, FY2007
ZIP Codes	State	County	Survey Respondents (%)	Survey Respondents (n)
85901	AZ	Navajo	8.1	23
85929	AZ	Navajo	4.6	13
85925	AZ	Apache	3.5	10
85254	AZ	Maricopa	2.8	8
85920	AZ	Apache	2.5	7
85205	AZ	Maricopa	2.1	6
85935	AZ	Navajo	2.1	6
85296	AZ	Maricopa	1.8	5
Foreign Country			1.4	4
85260	AZ	Maricopa	1.4	4
85927	AZ	Apache	1.4	4

Table 9. Percent of National Forest Visits^a by distance traveled to Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. (FY2007 NVUM data)

Miles from Survey Respondent’s Home to Interview Location^b	National Forest Visits (%)
	FY2001	FY2007
0 - 25 miles	NA	36.8
26 - 50 miles	NA	4.8
51 - 75 miles	NA	0.2
76 - 100 miles	NA	3.0
101 - 200 miles	NA	24.3
201 - 500 miles	NA	20.9
over 500 miles	NA	9.9
Total		99.9

^a National Forest Visits are defined as the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A National Forest Visit can be composed of multiple Site Visits.

^b Travel distance is self-reported

¤ Not enough surveys were collected to make inferences about this variable.

Visit Descriptions

Characteristics of the recreation visit such as length of visit, types of sites visited, activity participation and visitor satisfaction with forest facilities and services help managers understand recreation use patterns and use of facilities. This allows them to plan workforce and facility needs.

The average national forest visit length of stay and average site visit length of stay by site type on this forest is displayed in Table 10. Since the average values displayed in Table 10 may be influenced by a few people staying a very long time, the median value is also shown.

Table 10. Visit duration on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

Visit Type	Round 1, FY2001		Round 2, FY2007
	Average Duration (hours)	Median Duration (hours)	Average Duration (hours)	Median Duration (hours)
Site Visit	37.2	4.9	16.1	3.1
Day Use Developed	2.7	1.3	2.7	1.8
Overnight Use Developed	66.7	45.8	43.1	24.6
Undeveloped Areas	59.9	45.9	3.6	2.0
Designated Wilderness	8.9	3.5	5.0	3.1
National Forest Visit	51.9	25.1	57.0	7.8

¤ Not enough surveys were collected to make inferences about this variable.

Many of the respondents on this National Forest went only to the site at which they were interviewed (Table 11). Some visitors went to more than one recreation site or area during their national forest visit and the average site visits per national forest visit is shown below. Also displayed are the average people per vehicle and average axles per vehicle. This information in conjunction with traffic counts was used to expand observations from individual interviews to the full forest population of recreation visitors. This information may be useful to forest engineers and others who use vehicle counters to conduct traffic studies.

During the interview, visitors were asked how often they visit this national forest for all recreational activities, and how often for their primary activity. Table 12 summarizes the percent of visits that are made by those in each frequency category for this National Forest.

Table 11. Group characteristics for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

Characteristic	Average
	FY2001	FY2007
Percent of recreational visitors who visit just one National Forest site during their entire National Forest Visit	89.1	87.1
Average number of national forest sites visited during each National Forest Visit	1.3	1.2
Average Group size	2.8	3.1
Average number of Axles per vehicle	2.2	2.2

Table 12 Percent of National Forest Visits by annual visit frequency to Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

	Number of Reported Annual Forest Visits		Percent of National Forest Visits (%)
			FY2001			FY2007
		All Activities		Main Activity	All Activities		Main Activity
1 – 5 times per year		61.2		55.22	50.6		54.2
6 – 10 times per year		9.2		16.25	16.3		15.1
11 – 15 times per year		6.0		2.51	6.0		5.2
16 – 20 times per year		5.2		8.50	3.3		3.5
21 – 25 times per year		3.0		0.86	2.2		4.0
26 – 30 times per year		2.3		4.55	2.3		1.6
31 – 35 times per year		0.2		0.00	0.0		0.0
36 – 40 times per year		2.2		0.21	1.0		0.1
41 – 50 times per year		0.8		0.03	3.0		2.7
51 – 100 times per year		2.8		1.98	8.2		7.6
101 – 200 times per year		5.8		9.85	3.4		3.4
201 – 300 times per year		0.8		0.00	3.5		2.5
Over 300 times per year		0.6		0.03	0.2		0.0

Activities

In the second round of NVUM data collection, an additional question about activity participation was asked. After identifying their main recreational activity, visitors were asked how many hours they spent participating in that main activity during this national forest visit. Some caution is needed when using this information. Because most national forest visitors participate in several recreation activities during each visit, it is more than likely that other visitors also participated in this activity, but did not identify it as their main activity. For example, on one national forest 63 % of visitors identified viewing wildlife as a recreational activity that they participated in during this visit, however only 3% identified that activity as their main recreational activity. The information on average hours viewing wildlife is only for the 3% who reported it as a main activity. Duration of main activity was only collected in round 2.

It is tempting to compare the activity participation rates between the first and second round of data collection on the forest. While this may provide the forest with some interesting trend analysis, one must be cautious of interpreting any significant changes. The allocation of sample days changed between the first and second round of data collection. The second round of data addressed seasonal distribution of sample days in order to better capture activity participation that is highly seasonal in nature, such as big game hunting. Therefore, some differences between activity participation between round 1 and round 2 may be attributed to the change in sample day allocation and not a change in actual participation rates. The extent of this affect is unknown.

Use of constructed facilities and designated areas

This section of data collection has undergone several changes in the interview process. Managers should use caution comparing results between rounds of data collection. About one-third of recreation visitors interviewed were asked about the facilities and special designated areas they used during their visit. In round 2 of data collection, the list of facilities was changed to remove those seldom selected, and focus on information to assist management in addressing off-highway vehicle usage. These results are displayed in Table 14.

Table 13. Activity participation on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

	Round 1, FY2001		Round 2, FY2007
Activity	% of visitors who participated in this activity^a	% who said it was their primary activity^b	% of visitors who participated in this activity^a	% who said it was their primary activity^b	Average hours spent in primary activity^c
Camping in developed sites	32.44	6.93	24.4	8.6	29.9
Primitive camping	18.06	2.18	4.0	0.0	.
Backpacking	3.52	0.28	7.0	0.0	.
Resort Use	11.38	0.05	2.2	0.0	.
Picnicking	43.49	1.68	16.7	2.5	7.3
Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc	70.93	0.77	70.1	0.8	16.7
Viewing natural features (scenery)	76.75	10.19	67.8	3.3	3.2
Visiting historic/prehistoric sites	8.60	0.12	6.6	0.8	4.0
Visiting a nature center	15.76	0.27	3.7	0.0	.
Nature Study	4.49	0.03	17.2	0.0	.
Relaxing	76.89	39.58	81.4	19.5	51.9
Fishing	45.66	18.00	35.4	22.6	5.0
Hunting	3.76	1.96	1.3	0.8	12.5
OHV use	8.10	1.97	9.4	0.0	.
Driving for pleasure	46.97	3.74	47.2	3.5	4.8
Snowmobile travel	0.03	0.00	0.0	0.0	.
Motorized water travel	4.80	0.10	7.6	0.5	0.8
Other motorized activities	0.86	0.00	0.0	0.0	.
Hiking or walking	57.04	8.18	63.4	25.9	11.3
Horseback riding	2.60	0.52	1.5	0.5	3.0
Bicycling	9.71	0.51	5.8	0.7	0.6
Non-motorized water travel	4.84	0.06	4.2	1.2	6.3
Downhill skiing or snowboarding	0.13	0.05	0.0	0.0	.
X-C skiing, snow shoeing	0.02	0.00	0.0	0.0	.
Other non-motor activity (swim, etc.)	6.69	0.82	2.7	0.0	.
Gathering forest products mushrooms, berries, firewood	22.90	0.19	10.8	0.5	4.0
Motorized trail Activity			7.6	6.4	2.0
No Activity Reported	7.08	7.19	5.1	4.4	.

^a Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%.

^b Respondents were asked to select one activity as their main one; some selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%.

^c Computed only for those who indicated the activity was the main activity on their visit. This information was collected starting in Round 2.

Table 14. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest visitor use of facilities and areas (FY2001 and FY2007).

	Respondents who used this item (%)
FACILITY/ Area	FY2001	FY2007
Developed Campground	34.48	NA^a
Developed Swimming Site	2.82	6.5
Forest Trails	51.82	NA
Scenic Byway	46.74	16.9
Wilderness	12.91	NA
Museum	15.92	7.6
Picnic Area	39.79	NA
Boat Launch	13.80	NA
Designated OHV Area	2.01	3.6
Forest Roads	49.44	5.2
Interpretive Displays	2.97	5.0
Information Sites	9.27	6.5
Organization Camps	3.53	NA
Developed Fishing Site	32.76	30.0
Snowmobile Area/Trails	0.14	NA
Downhill Ski Area	0.22	NA
Nordic Trails	0.00	NA
FS Lodge	0.80	NA
FS Fire Lookout	3.48	NA
Snowplay Area	1.04	NA
Motorized Trails	1.95	NA
Motorized Single Track Trail	NA	3.2
Motorized Dual Track Trails^b	NA	3.6
Recreation Residence	3.76	NA
None of these	0.44	58.3

^a this activity was only asked in round 1

^a ‘NA’ indicates that use of that facility was not part of the survey in that round of data collection.

ECONOMIC INFORMATION

Forest managers are usually very interested in the impact of National Forest recreation visits on the local economy. As commodity production of timber and other resources has declined, local communities look increasingly to tourism to support their communities. When considering recreation-related visitor spending managers are often interested both in identifying the average spending of individual visitors (or types of visitors) and the total spending associated with all recreation use. Spending averages for visitors or visitor parties can be estimated using data collected from a statistically valid visitor sampling program such as NVUM. To estimate the total spending associated with recreation use, three pieces of information are needed: an overall visitation estimate, the proportion of visits in the visitor types, and the average spending profiles for each of the visitor types. Multiplying the three gives a total amount of spending by a particular type of visitor. Summing over all visitor types gives total spending.

About one-third of the NVUM surveys included questions about trip-related spending within 50 miles of the site visited. For the first round of sampling, spending data were analyzed at Michigan State University by Dr. Daniel Stynes and Dr. Eric White. A description of that analysis and the results are in the report “Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors: NVUM four-year report”, available at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/NVUM4YrSpending.pdf. Analysis of spending data for the second round will commence after all the data for that round are collected. For now, only round 1 spending profiles are available.

Spending Segments

The spending that occurs on a recreation trip is greatly influenced by the type of recreation trip taken. For example, visitors on overnight trips away from home typically have to pay for some form of lodging (e.g., hotel/motel rooms, fees in a developed campground, etc.) while those on day trips do not. In addition, visitors on overnight trips will generally have to purchase more food during their trip (in restaurants or grocery stores) than visitors on day trips. Visitors who have not traveled far from home to the recreation location usually spend less than visitors traveling longer distances, especially on items such as fuel and food. Analysis of spending patterns has shown that a good way to construct segments of the visitor market with consistent spending patterns is the following seven groupings:

1. local visitors on day trips,

2. local visitors on overnight trips staying in lodging on the national forest,

3. local visitors on overnight trips staying in lodging off the national forest, and

4. non-local visitors on day trips,

5. non-local visitors on overnight trips staying in lodging on the national forest,

6. non-local visitors on overnight trips staying in lodging off the forest,

7. non-primary visitors.

Local visitors are those who travel less than 50 road miles from home to the recreation site visited and non-local visitors are those who travel greater than 50 road miles to the recreation site visited. Non-primary visitors are those for whom the primary purpose of their trip is something other than recreating on that national forest. Table 15 shows the distribution of visits by spending segment for both sample years.

Table 15. Distribution of National Forest Visits^a by Spending Segment^b on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

	Non-local Segments			Local Segments			Non- Primary^c	Total
	Day	Overnight on NF	Overnight off NF	Day	Overnight on NF	Overnight off NF
Percent of National Forest Visits, FY2001^a	3	42	35	8	4	6	2	100%
Percent of National Forest Visits, FY2007	9.02	26.84	11.09	37.05	2.25	1.01	12.74	100%

^a A National Forest Visit is defined as the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A National Forest Visit can be composed of multiple Site Visits.

^b The market segments shown here relate to the type of recreation trip taken. A recreation trip is defined as the duration of time beginning when the visitor left their home and ending when they got back to their home. “Non-local” trips are those where the individual(s) traveled greater than approximately 50 miles from home to the Site Visited. “Day” trips do not involve an overnight stay outside the home, “overnight on-forest” trips are those with an overnight stay outside the home on National Forest System (NFS) land, and “overnight off-forest” trips are those with an overnight stay outside the home off National Forest System land.

^c “Non-primary” trips are those where the primary recreation destination of the trip was somewhere other than the national forest under consideration.

Spending Profiles

Spending profiles for each segment for this forest can be found in the Stynes and White report noted above. Appendix Table A-1 in that report identifies whether the forest has a high-spending profile (Table 7 of Stynes and White), an average profile (Table 5), or a low-spending profile (Table 8). It is essential to note that these spending profiles are in dollars spent per party. Obtaining per-visit spending is accomplished by dividing the spending for each segment by the average people per party for the forest and segment found in Appendix Table A-3 of that report.

Total Direct Spending

Total direct spending made within 50 miles of the forest and associated with national forest recreation is calculated by combining estimates of per-visit spending averages from the spending profiles with estimates of the number of national forest visits in the segment. The number of visits in the segment equals the percentage in Table 15 times the number of National Forest visits reported in Table 2 of this report.

Other Visit Information

There are several other important aspects of the trips on which the recreation visits to the forest are made. These are summarized in Table 16. The first aspect relates to total amount spent by the recreating party on the trip. This includes spending not just within 50 miles of the forest, but anywhere. The table shows both the average and the median. Another set describes the overall length of the trips on which the visits are made. The table shows the percent of the visits that were made on trips where the person stayed away from home overnight (even though the forest visit may be just a day visit), and the average total nights away from home and nights spent within 50 miles of the forest. For those spending one or more nights in or near the forest, the table shows the percentage that selected each of a series of lodging options. Together, these results help show the context of overall trip length and lodging patterns for visitors to the forest. These data are only available for Round 2 data.

Table 16. Visitor Trip Information for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest visitors (FY2001 and FY2007).

Item
	FY2001	FY2007
Average total trip spending per visiting party	n/a	556.0
Median total trip spending per visiting party	n/a	150.0
Percent of visitors who stayed away from home overnight on the trip that included this NF visit		52.8
Percent of visits that occur on trip with an overnight stay within 50 miles of the visited forest	n/a	47.9
For overnight visits, average number of nights within 50 miles of this forest	n/a	11.0
For those staying overnight within 50 miles of the forest, Percent indicating each type of Lodging
NF campgrounds ON this national forest	n/a	43.9
Camping in undeveloped areas of this national forest	n/a	20.6
Cabins, lodges, hotels or huts ON this national forest	n/a	3.8
Other public campgrounds (Park Service, BLM, State, other)	n/a	4.1
Private campgrounds NOT on this national forest	n/a	2.4
Rented home, condo, cabin, lodge or hotel NOT on this nf	n/a	18.2
Private home of friend or relative	n/a	8.1
Home, cabin, or condo visitor owns	n/a	7.0
Other	n/a	2.3

Household Income

Beginning in the second round of data collection, respondents were asked to report a general category for their total household income. Only very general categories were used, to minimize the intrusive nature of the question. Results help indicate the overall socio-economic status of visitors to the forest, and are found in Table 17.

Table 17. Apache-Sitgreaves NF recreation visitor’s annual household income (FY2007 data).

Household Income Categories	Percent of those interviewed who reported household income within these levels
UNDER $25,000	1.5
$25,000 – 49,999	14.8
$50,000-74,999	24.9
$75,000-99,999	34.5
$100,000 – 149,999	16.6
$150,000 and OVER	7.6

Substitute behavior

Visitors were asked to select one of several substitute choices, if for some reason they were unable to visit this national forest (Figures 3a and 3b). Choices included going somewhere else for the same activity they did on the current trip, coming back to this forest for the same activity at some later time, going someplace else for a different activity, staying at home and not making a recreation trip, going to work instead of recreating, and a residual ‘other’ category. On most forests, the majority of visitors indicate that their substitute behavior choice is activity driven (going elsewhere for same activity) and a smaller percentage indicate they would come back later to this national forest for the same activity. Round 2 of data collection added an additional question for visitors: for those visitors who said they would have gone somewhere for recreation they were asked how far from their home this alternate destination was. These results are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3a. Substitute behavior choices of Apache-Sitgreaves NF visitors (FY2001 data).

Figure 3b. Substitute behavior choices of Apache-Sitgreaves NF visitors (FY2007 data).

Figure 4. Reported distance visitors would travel to alternative recreation location if this NF was not available. (FY2007 only).

SATISFACTION INFORMATION

An important element of outdoor recreation program delivery is evaluating customer satisfaction with the recreation setting, facilities, and services provided. Satisfaction information helps managers decide where to invest in resources and to allocate resources more efficiently toward improving customer satisfaction. Satisfaction is a core piece of data for national- and forest-level performance measures. To describe customer satisfaction, several different measures are used. Starting in Round 2, all recreation visitors were asked to provide an overall rating of their visit to the national forest, on a 5-point Likert scale. For both rounds, about one-third of visitors interviewed on the forest rated their satisfaction with fourteen elements related to recreation facilities and services, and the importance of those elements to their recreation experience. Visitors were asked to rate the specific site or area at which they were interviewed. Visitors rated both the importance and performance (satisfaction with) of these elements using a 5-point scale. The Likert scale for importance ranged from not important to very important. The Likert scale for performance ranged from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. Although the satisfaction ratings specifically referenced the area where the visitor was interviewed, the survey design does not usually have enough responses for any individual site or area on the forest to present information at a site level. Rather, the information is generalized to overall satisfaction within the three site types: Day Use Developed (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed (OUDS), General Forest Areas, and on the forest as a whole.

The satisfaction responses are analyzed in several ways. First, a graph of overall satisfaction for Round 2 is presented in Figure 5. Next, two aggregate measures were calculated from the set of individual elements. The satisfaction elements most readily controlled by managers were aggregated into four categories: developed facilities, access, services, and visitor safety. The site types sampled were aggregated into three groups: developed sites (includes both day use and overnight developed sites), dispersed areas, and designated Wilderness. The first aggregate measure is called “Percent Satisfied Index (PSI)”, which is the proportion of all ratings for the elements in the category where the satisfaction ratings had a numerical rating of 4 or 5. Conceptually, the PSI indicator shows the percent of all recreation customers who are satisfied with agency performance. The agency’s national target for this measure is 85%. It is usually difficult to consistently have a higher satisfaction score than 85% since given tradeoffs among user groups and other factors. Table 18 displays the aggregate PSI scores for this forest for both rounds of NVUM.

Another aggregate measure of satisfaction is called “Percent Meet Expectations (PME)”. This is the proportion of satisfaction ratings in which the numerical satisfaction rating for a particular element is equal to or greater than the importance rating for that element. This indicator tracks the congruence between the agency’s performance and customer evaluations of importance. The idea behind this measure is that those elements with higher importance levels must have higher performance levels. Figures 6a through 6c display the PME scores by type of site for each round of NVUM for each type of site.

An Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) (Hudson, et al, Feb 2004) was calculated for the importance and satisfaction scores. A target level of importance and performance divides the possible set of score pairs into four quadrants. For this work, the target level of both was a numerical score of 4.0. Each quadrant has a title that helps in interpreting responses that fall into it, and that provides some general guidance for management. These can be described as:

1. Importance at or above 4.0, Satisfaction at or above 4.0: Keep up the good work. These are items that are important to visitors and ones that the forest is performing quite well;

2. Importance at or above 4.0, Satisfaction under 4.0: Concentrate here. These are important items to the public, but performance is not where it needs to be. Increasing effort here is likely to have the greatest payoff in overall customer satisfaction;

3. Importance below 4.0, Satisfaction above 4.0: Possible overkill. These are items that are not highly important to visitors, but the forest’s performance is quite good. It may be possible to reduce effort here without greatly harming overall satisfaction;

4. Importance below 4.0; Satisfaction below 4.0: Low Priority. These are items where performance is not very good, but neither are they important to visitors. Focusing effort here is unlikely to have a great impact.

To better enable comparison between Round 1 and Round 2, we present tables that show the I-P rating title for each satisfaction element side-by-side for the two rounds. Each sitetype is presented in a separate table. Results are presented in Tables 19 - 22.

The numerical scores for visitor satisfaction and importance for each element by site type, and the sample sizes for each are presented in Appendix B (Tables B1 – B4). Most managers find it difficult to discern meaning from these raw tables; however they may wish to examine specific elements once they have reviewed the other satisfaction information presented in this section. Note that if an element had fewer than 10 responses no analyses are performed, as there are too few responses to provide reliable information.

Finally, in Round 2 visitors were asked about their overall satisfaction with and the importance of road condition and the adequacy of signage. Figures 7a and 7b show the results.

Figure 5. Percent of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest visits by overall satisfaction rating (FY2007)

Table 18. Percent Satisfaction Index^a scores for aggregate categories, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data)

Satisfied Survey Respondents (%)
Items Rated	Developed Sites^b		Undeveloped Areas (GFAs)		Designated Wilderness
	FY2001	FY2007	FY2001	FY2007	FY2001	FY2007
Developed Facilities (includes restroom cleanliness and facility condition)	71.6	90.8	94.0	.	94.3	100.0
Access (includes parking availability, parking lot condition, road condition and trail condition)	74.9	88.5	73.0	21.8	79.0	91.6
Services (includes availability of information, signage, employee helpfulness)	86.3	75.7	84.6	76.8	70.0	71.6
Perception of Safety	93.0	97.4	90.9	100.0	100.0	92.2

^a This is a composite rating. It is the proportion of satisfaction ratings scored by visitors as good/satsified or very good/very satisfied. It is computed as the percentage of all ratings for the elements within the grouping that are at or above the target level, and indicates the percent of all visits where the person was satisfied with agency performance.

^b This category includes both Day Use and Overnight Use Developed Sites.

Figure 6a. Percent Meets Expectations scores for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest visits to Developed Sites (FY2001 and FY2007)

Figure 6b. Percent Meets Expectations scores for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest visits to Undeveloped forest areas (FY2001 and FY2007)

Figure 6c. Percent Meets Expectations scores for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest visits to Designated Wilderness (FY2001 and FY2007)

Table 19. Importance – Performance ratings for satisfaction elements, Day Use Developed Sites, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data

ITEM	I-P Rating, Round 1	I-P Rating, Round 2
Restroom cleanliness	Concentrate Here	Keep up the Good Work
Developed facility condition	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Condition of environment	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Employee helpfulness	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Interpretive display	*	Keep up the Good Work
Parking availability	Concentrate Here	Keep up the Good Work
Parking lot condition	Possible Overkill	Keep up the Good Work
Rec. info. available	Possible Overkill	Keep up the Good Work
Road condition	Concentrate Here	Keep up the Good Work
Feeling of safety	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Scenery	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Signage adequacy	Concentrate Here	Keep up the Good Work
Trail condition	Low Priority	Keep up the Good Work
Value for fee paid	Low Priority	*

_{* Indicates fewer than 10 people responded, so no information is provided due to small sample size.}

Table 20. Importance – Performance ratings for satisfaction elements, Overnight Use Developed Sites, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data

ITEM	I-P Rating, Round 1, FY2001	I-P Rating, Round 2, FY2007
Restroom cleanliness	Concentrate Here	Keep up the Good Work
Developed facility condition	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Condition of environment	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Employee helpfulness	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Interpretive display	*	Concentrate Here
Parking availability	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Parking lot condition	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Rec. info. available	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Road condition	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Feeling of safety	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Scenery	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Signage adequacy	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Trail condition	Possible Overkill	Keep up the Good Work
Value for fee paid	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work

_{* Indicates fewer than 10 people responded, so no information is provided due to small sample size.}

Table 21. Importance – Performance ratings for satisfaction elements, General Forest Areas, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data

ITEM	I-P Rating, Round 1	I-P Rating, Round 2
Restroom cleanliness	Keep up the Good Work	*
Developed facility condition	Keep up the Good Work	*
Condition of environment	Keep up the Good Work	*
Employee helpfulness	Keep up the Good Work	*
Interpretive display	*	*
Parking availability	Possible Overkill	*
Parking lot condition	Possible Overkill	*
Rec. info. available	Possible Overkill	*
Road condition	Concentrate Here	*
Feeling of safety	Keep up the Good Work	*
Scenery	Keep up the Good Work	*
Signage adequacy	Low Priority	*
Trail condition	Concentrate Here	*
Value for fee paid	Possible Overkill	*

_{* Indicates fewer than 10 people responded, so no information is provided due to small sample size.}

Table 22. Importance – Performance ratings for satisfaction elements, designated Wilderness, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2001 and FY2007 data

ITEM	I-P Rating, Round 1	I-P Rating, Round 2
Restroom cleanliness	Keep up the Good Work	*
Developed facility condition	Keep up the Good Work	*
Condition of environment	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Employee helpfulness	Keep up the Good Work	*
Interpretive display	*	Concentrate Here
Parking availability	Possible Overkill	Possible Overkill
Parking lot condition	Possible Overkill	Keep up the Good Work
Rec. info. available	Concentrate Here	Keep up the Good Work
Road condition	Low Priority	Keep up the Good Work
Feeling of safety	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Scenery	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Signage adequacy	Concentrate Here	Concentrate Here
Trail condition	Keep up the Good Work	Keep up the Good Work
Value for fee paid	*	*

_{* Indicates fewer than 10 people responded, so no information is provided due to small sample size.}

Figure 7a. Overall Satisfaction with Road Condition and Signage Adequacy on the forest, FY2007 data.

Figure 7b. Overall Importance ratings for Road Condition and Signage Adequacy on the forest, FY2007 data.

Crowding

Visitors rated their perception of how crowded the recreation site or area felt to them. This information is useful when looking at the type of site the visitor was using since someone visiting a designated Wilderness may think 5 people is too many while someone visiting a developed campground may think 200 people is about right. Table 23 shows the distribution of responses for each site type. Crowding was reported on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 denotes hardly anyone was there, and a 10 indicates the area was perceived as overcrowded. Managers may find a comparison of visitors’ perception of crowding between data collection in round one and round two useful. If changes in facilities or services have occurred managers may determine if visitor perception of crowding has also changed and further consider whether there is a relationship between management actions and a perception of crowding by site type.

.

Table 23. Comparison of Apache-Sitgreaves NF recreation visitor perception of crowding by site type between first and second round of data collection. (FY2001 and FY2007 data).

Perception of Crowding by Site Types (Percent site visits %)
Crowding Rating	Day Use Developed Sites^c		Overnight Use Developed Sites		Undeveloped Areas (GFAs)		Designated Wilderness Areas
	FY2001	FY2007	FY2001	FY2007	FY2001	FY2007	FY2001	FY2007
10 Overcrowded	9.1	0.0	0.4	0.0	6.9	0.0	0.0	0.0
9	5.3	8.7	0.1	6.9	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0
8	23.3	7.6	7.1	13.8	5.6	0.0	0.0	7.8
7	9.1	7.9	7.6	6.9	10.8	0.0	0.0	0.0
6	8.0	7.6	31.9	13.8	16.7	4.1	7.9	23.5
5	14.8	11.3	20.8	6.9	10.1	0.0	0.9	7.8
4	9.5	24.5	3.8	6.9	23.3	0.3	11.2	20.3
3	8.2	10.5	14.4	6.9	15.8	4.1	13.1	0.0
2	11.4	21.9	13.4	31.0	7.7	91.4	50.0	28.1
1 Hardly anyone there	1.3	0.0	0.4	6.9	2.5	0.0	16.8	12.4

Disabilities

Providing barrier-free facilities for recreation visitors is an important part of facility and service planning and development. Round one of data collection asked an open ended question which was intended to measure visitor satisfaction with facilities and services for persons with disabilities. However, the question was not interpreted as intended and the results were unsuccessful in obtaining any measurable information for managers. In round two of data collection a specific question asked visitors if anyone in their group had a disability. If they responded yes, the visitor was then asked if the facilities at the sites they visited were accessible for this person (Table 24).

Table 24. Accessibility of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest facilities by persons with disabilities (FY2007).

Item	Percent
% of visitors interviewed with group member having a disability	10.2
Of this group, percent who said facilities at site visited were accessible	78.1

WILDERNESS VISIT DEMOGRAPHICS

Visits to Wilderness are sometimes made by a particular subset of the overall visitor population. In this chapter, tables are presented that describe the demographic characteristics of those who visit designated wilderness on this forest. Table 25 shows the gender breakdown, Table 26 the racial and ethnicity distribution, and Table 27 the age composition. In Table 28, a frequency analysis of Zipcodes obtained from respondents is presented, to give a rough idea of the common origins of Wilderness visitors.

Table 25. Gender distribution of visits to Apache-Sitgreaves NF Wilderness (FY2001 and FY2007).

GENDER of Wilderness Visitors
Visitor Characteristics	Number of Survey Respondents		% of Wilderness Visits
	FY2001	FY 2007	FY2001	FY 2007
Female	48	36	22.06	35.4
Male	87	58	77.94	64.6
Total	135	94	100.00	100.0

Table 26. Race/Ethnicity distribution of visits to Apache-Sitgreaves NF Wilderness (FY2001 and FY2007).

Race/Ethnicity^a	Number of Survey Respondents		Wilderness Visits (%)
	FY2001	FY2007	FY2001	FY2007
American Indian/Alaska Native	0	1	0.00	4
Asian	1	0	0.10	0
Black/African American	0	0	0.00	0
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	0	0	0.00	0
Other	1	na	2.35	na
White	129	34	92.76	100
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	3	2	4.79	6.4
Total	134	35	104	123.3

^a The race/ethnicity questions were not asked identically in rounds 1 and 2. Due to OMB requirements in round 2, “Spanish, Hispanic or Latino” was presented in a separate question because it is an ethnicity not a race. In round 2 respondents first stated whether they were of this ethnicity, then in a separate question were asked which ones of the racial categories they felt applied to them. Respondents could choose more than one racial group. “Other” was allowed in round 1 but OMB required its removal in round 2.

^c Calculations are computed using weights that expand the sample of individuals to the population of National Forest Visits. For more detailed information regarding weights used contact the NVUM program manager.

Table 27. Age distribution of visits to Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Wilderness (FY2001 and FY2007).

AGE CLASS of Wilderness Visitors
Visitor Characteristics	% of Wilderness Visits
	FY2001	FY2007
Under 16	16.4	2.2
16-19	0.0	2.1
19-29	5.6	14.7
30-39	12.8	12.4
40-49	22.0	24.2
50-59	22.2	31.8
60-69	15.0	12.2
70 and over	6.0	0.5
Total	100.0	100.1

Non-respondents to gender, race/ethnicity, and age related questions were excluded from analyses.

Table 28. Zip codes and County of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Wilderness survey respondents (FY2001 and FY2007).

Round 1, FY2001
ZIP Codes	State	County	Survey Respondents (n)
85254	AZ	Maricopa	4
85901	AZ	Navajo	4
85935	AZ	Navajo	4
85020	AZ	Maricopa	3
85044	AZ	Maricopa	3
85614	AZ	Pima	3
85719	AZ	Pima	3
85737	AZ	Pima	3
85749	AZ	Pima	3
75093	TX	Collin	2
85018	AZ	Maricopa	2

Round 2, FY2007
ZIP Codes	State	County	Survey Respondents (n)
85254	AZ	Maricopa	3
85016	AZ	Maricopa	2
85260	AZ	Maricopa	2
85901	AZ	Navajo	2
85927	AZ	Apache	2
85929	AZ	Navajo	2
87043	NM	Sandoval	2
76531	TX	Hamilton	1
85012	AZ	Maricopa	1
85028	AZ	Maricopa	1
85029	AZ	Maricopa	1

APPENDIX TABLES

APPENDIX A. – Complete list of zipcodes obtained from recreation visitors

Table A-1. Home Location of Apache-Sitgreaves NF survey respondents, FY2001.

HOMELOC	STATE	COUNTY	Percent of Total Frequency	Frequency Count
UNKNOWN ORIGIN			9.6	116
85929	AZ	Navajo	1.9	23
85920	AZ	Apache	1.8	22
86025	AZ	Navajo	1.8	22
85901	AZ	Navajo	1.7	20
85254	AZ	Maricopa	1.5	18
85296	AZ	Maricopa	1.5	18
85202	AZ	Maricopa	1.3	16
85302	AZ	Maricopa	1.3	16
85936	AZ	Apache	1.2	15
85203	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	13
85345	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	13
85032	AZ	Maricopa	1.0	12
85051	AZ	Maricopa	1.0	12
85204	AZ	Maricopa	1.0	12
85226	AZ	Maricopa	1.0	12
85301	AZ	Maricopa	1.0	12
85205	AZ	Maricopa	0.9	11
85208	AZ	Maricopa	0.9	11
85224	AZ	Maricopa	0.9	11
85248	AZ	Maricopa	0.9	11
85546	AZ	Graham	0.9	11
85925	AZ	Apache	0.9	11
85935	AZ	Navajo	0.9	11
85053	AZ	Maricopa	0.8	10
85304	AZ	Maricopa	0.8	10
85711	AZ	Pima	0.8	10
85938	AZ	Apache	0.8	10
85020	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	9
85201	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	9
85225	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	9
85283	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	9
85022	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	8
85044	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	8
85234	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	8
85308	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	8
85710	AZ	Pima	0.7	8
85008	AZ	Maricopa	0.6	7
85018	AZ	Maricopa	0.6	7
85023	AZ	Maricopa	0.6	7
85027	AZ	Maricopa	0.6	7
85028	AZ	Maricopa	0.6	7
85210	AZ	Maricopa	0.6	7
85215	AZ	Maricopa	0.6	7
85220	AZ	Pinal	0.6	7
85257	AZ	Maricopa	0.6	7
85260	AZ	Maricopa	0.6	7
85718	AZ	Pima	0.6	7
85741	AZ	Pima	0.6	7
85937	AZ	Navajo	0.6	7
85021	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85029	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85033	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85035	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85037	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85040	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85206	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85207	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85213	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85253	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85282	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85310	AZ	Maricopa	0.5	6
85501	AZ	Gila	0.5	6
85540	AZ	Greenlee	0.5	6
85541	AZ	Gila	0.5	6
85704	AZ	Pima	0.5	6
85749	AZ	Pima	0.5	6
85750	AZ	Pima	0.5	6
85212	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	5
85219	AZ	Pinal	0.4	5
85222	AZ	Pinal	0.4	5
85249	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	5
85250	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	5
85255	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	5
85268	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	5
85281	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	5
85284	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	5
85614	AZ	Pima	0.4	5
85737	AZ	Pima	0.4	5
85902	AZ	Navajo	0.4	5
85015	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85016	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85042	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85228	AZ	Pinal	0.3	4
85233	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85258	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85259	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85303	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85331	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85338	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85351	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85381	AZ	Maricopa	0.3	4
85552	AZ	Graham	0.3	4
85650	AZ	Cochise	0.3	4
85719	AZ	Pima	0.3	4
85730	AZ	Pima	0.3	4
Foreign Countr			0.2	3
85013	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	3
85251	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	3
85252	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	3
85305	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	3
85323	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	3
85326	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	3
85547	AZ	Gila	0.2	3
85635	AZ	Cochise	0.2	3
85641	AZ	Pima	0.2	3
85715	AZ	Pima	0.2	3
85716	AZ	Pima	0.2	3
85735	AZ	Pima	0.2	3
85736	AZ	Pima	0.2	3
85742	AZ	Pima	0.2	3
85748	AZ	Pima	0.2	3
85933	AZ	Navajo	0.2	3
85939	AZ	Navajo	0.2	3
85940	AZ	Apache	0.2	3
86001	AZ	Coconino	0.2	3
86004	AZ	Coconino	0.2	3
86326	AZ	Yavapai	0.2	3
86333	AZ	Yavapai	0.2	3
75093	TX	Collin	0.2	2
84067	UT	Weber	0.2	2
85003	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85014	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85019	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85041	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85048	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85050	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85055	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85108			0.2	2
85306	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85333	AZ	Yuma	0.2	2
85340	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85367	AZ	Yuma	0.2	2
85374	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85375	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85382	AZ	Maricopa	0.2	2
85543	AZ	Graham	0.2	2
85545	AZ	Gila	0.2	2
85602	AZ	Cochise	0.2	2
85643	AZ	Cochise	0.2	2
85701	AZ	Pima	0.2	2
85705	AZ	Pima	0.2	2
85706	AZ	Pima	0.2	2
85712	AZ	Pima	0.2	2
85739	AZ	Pima	0.2	2
85743	AZ	Pima	0.2	2
85746	AZ	Pima	0.2	2
85747	AZ	Pima	0.2	2
85941	AZ	Navajo	0.2	2
85955			0.2	2
86314	AZ	Yavapai	0.2	2
86322	AZ	Yavapai	0.2	2
86323	AZ	Yavapai	0.2	2
86335	AZ	Yavapai	0.2	2
87120	NM	Bernalillo	0.2	2
01810	MA	Essex	0.1	1
06498	CT	Middlesex	0.1	1
13905	NY	Broome	0.1	1
19465	PA	Chester	0.1	1
27104	NC	Forsyth	0.1	1
32561	FL	Santa Rosa	0.1	1
34787	FL	Orange	0.1	1
34982	FL	St. Lucie	0.1	1
35803	AL	Madison	0.1	1
37857	TN	Hawkins	0.1	1
40207	KY	Jefferson	0.1	1
42848			0.1	1
44118	OH	Cuyahoga	0.1	1
45140	OH	Clermont	0.1	1
49068	MI	Calhoun	0.1	1
61108	IL	Winnebago	0.1	1
65807	MO	Greene	0.1	1
67368			0.1	1
70808	LA	East Baton Ro	0.1	1
72901	AR	Sebastian	0.1	1
72956	AR	Crawford	0.1	1
74138			0.1	1
74838			0.1	1
75253	TX	Dallas	0.1	1
75862	TX	Trinity	0.1	1
76643	TX	McLennan	0.1	1
77084	TX	Harris	0.1	1
78232	TX	Bexar	0.1	1
78621	TX	Bastrop	0.1	1
78837	TX	Val Verde	0.1	1
79762	TX	Ector	0.1	1
79906	TX	El Paso	0.1	1
79925	TX	El Paso	0.1	1
79935	TX	El Paso	0.1	1
80004	CO	Jefferson	0.1	1
80122	CO	Arapahoe	0.1	1
80326			0.1	1
83528			0.1	1
83733	ID	Ada	0.1	1
83750			0.1	1
84058	UT	Utah	0.1	1
84074	UT	Tooele	0.1	1
84084	UT	Salt Lake	0.1	1
85004	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85006	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85007	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85012	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85026	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85045	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85087	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85107			0.1	1
85146			0.1	1
85214	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85216	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85217	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85218	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85223	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85227	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85231	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85232	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85236	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85242	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
8525			0.1	1
85262	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85266	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85278	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85280	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85291	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85292	AZ	Gila	0.1	1
85297	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85327	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85334	AZ	La Paz	0.1	1
85335	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85339	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85348	AZ	La Paz	0.1	1
85350	AZ	Yuma	0.1	1
85353	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85358	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85361	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85364	AZ	Yuma	0.1	1
85365	AZ	Yuma	0.1	1
85372	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85383	AZ	Maricopa	0.1	1
85430			0.1	1
85431			0.1	1
85525			0.1	1
85533	AZ	Greenlee	0.1	1
85534	AZ	Greenlee	0.1	1
85536	AZ	Graham	0.1	1
85544	AZ	Gila	0.1	1
85553	AZ	Gila	0.1	1
85555			0.1	1
85615	AZ	Cochise	0.1	1
85618	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85623	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85625	AZ	Cochise	0.1	1
85628	AZ	Santa Cruz	0.1	1
85630	AZ	Cochise	0.1	1
85631	AZ	Pinal	0.1	1
85632	AZ	Cochise	0.1	1
85640	AZ	Santa Cruz	0.1	1
85648	AZ	Santa Cruz	0.1	1
857			0.1	1
85708	AZ	Pima	0.1	1
85713	AZ	Pima	0.1	1
85721	AZ	Pima	0.1	1
85726	AZ	Pima	0.1	1
85734	AZ	Pima	0.1	1
85738	AZ	Pima	0.1	1
85745	AZ	Pima	0.1	1
85912	AZ	Navajo	0.1	1
85923	AZ	Navajo	0.1	1
85924	AZ	Apache	0.1	1
85926	AZ	Navajo	0.1	1
85928	AZ	Navajo	0.1	1
85930	AZ	Apache	0.1	1
85932	AZ	Apache	0.1	1
85934	AZ	Navajo	0.1	1
85944			0.1	1
85959			0.1	1
85963			0.1	1
85992			0.1	1
86045	AZ	Coconino	0.1	1
86303	AZ	Yavapai	0.1	1
86320	AZ	Yavapai	0.1	1
86324	AZ	Yavapai	0.1	1
86327	AZ	Yavapai	0.1	1
86351	AZ	Yavapai	0.1	1
86401	AZ	Mohave	0.1	1
86404	AZ	Mohave	0.1	1
86426	AZ	Mohave	0.1	1
86505	AZ	Apache	0.1	1
86512	AZ	Apache	0.1	1
86555			0.1	1
86602			0.1	1
86712			0.1	1
87111	NM	Bernalillo	0.1	1
87114	NM	Bernalillo	0.1	1
87193	NM	Bernalillo	0.1	1
87327	NM	McKinley	0.1	1
87410	NM	San Juan	0.1	1
87413	NM	San Juan	0.1	1
87502	NM	Santa Fe	0.1	1
87508	NM	Santa Fe	0.1	1
87544	NM	Los Alamos	0.1	1
87832	NM	Socorro	0.1	1
88001	NM	Dona Ana	0.1	1
88006	NM	Dona Ana	0.1	1
88030	NM	Luna	0.1	1
88031	NM	Luna	0.1	1
88039	NM	Catron	0.1	1
88045	NM	Hidalgo	0.1	1
89026	NV	Clark	0.1	1
89056			0.1	1
89059			0.1	1
89060	NV	Nye	0.1	1
89542			0.1	1
89590			0.1	1
89801	NV	Elko	0.1	1
90039	CA	Los Angeles	0.1	1
91042	CA	Los Angeles	0.1	1
91402	CA	Los Angeles	0.1	1
91406	CA	Los Angeles	0.1	1
91761	CA	San Bernardin	0.1	1
91901	CA	San Diego	0.1	1
92251	CA	Imperial	0.1	1
92399	CA	San Bernardin	0.1	1
92407	CA	San Bernardin	0.1	1
92701	CA	Orange	0.1	1
92931			0.1	1
93021	CA	Ventura	0.1	1
94107	CA	San Francisco	0.1	1
95005	CA	Santa Cruz	0.1	1
95661	CA	Placer	0.1	1
97520	OR	Jackson	0.1	1
98371	WA	Pierce	0.1	1

Table A-2. Home Location of Apache-Sitgreaves NF survey respondents, FY2007.

HOME LOCATION	STATE	COUNTY	Percent of Total Frequency	Frequency Count
85901	AZ	Navajo	8.1	23
85929	AZ	Navajo	4.6	13
85925	AZ	Apache	3.5	10
85254	AZ	Maricopa	2.8	8
85920	AZ	Apache	2.5	7
85205	AZ	Maricopa	2.1	6
85935	AZ	Navajo	2.1	6
85296	AZ	Maricopa	1.8	5
Foreign Country			1.4	4
85260	AZ	Maricopa	1.4	4
85927	AZ	Apache	1.4	4
85016	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	3
85029	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	3
85048	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	3
85208	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	3
85209			1.1	3
85218	AZ	Pinal	1.1	3
85234	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	3
85248	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	3
85268	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	3
85304	AZ	Maricopa	1.1	3
85718	AZ	Pima	1.1	3
85742	AZ	Pima	1.1	3
85938	AZ	Apache	1.1	3
85032	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85044	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85051	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85206	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85207	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85213	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85220	AZ	Pinal	0.7	2
85233	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85243			0.7	2
85249	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85251	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85297	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85302	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85374	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85382	AZ	Maricopa	0.7	2
85540	AZ	Greenlee	0.7	2
85541	AZ	Gila	0.7	2
85704	AZ	Pima	0.7	2
85712	AZ	Pima	0.7	2
85739	AZ	Pima	0.7	2
85745	AZ	Pima	0.7	2
85932	AZ	Apache	0.7	2
85933	AZ	Navajo	0.7	2
85939	AZ	Navajo	0.7	2
87043	NM	Sandoval	0.7	2
0000			0.4	1
34209	FL	Manatee	0.4	1
38610	MS	Tippah	0.4	1
39564	MS	Jackson	0.4	1
43952	OH	Jefferson	0.4	1
44677	OH	Wayne	0.4	1
45036	OH	Warren	0.4	1
54212	WI	Door	0.4	1
55437	MN	Hennepin	0.4	1
76531	TX	Hamilton	0.4	1
77351	TX	Polk	0.4	1
77399	TX	Polk	0.4	1
84315	UT	Weber	0.4	1
84601	UT	Utah	0.4	1
85006	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85012	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85013	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85022	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85028	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85033	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85042	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85053	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85201	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85202	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85204	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85210	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85217	AZ	Pinal	0.4	1
85219	AZ	Pinal	0.4	1
85222	AZ	Pinal	0.4	1
85224	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85225	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85226	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85236	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85237	AZ	Pinal	0.4	1
85242	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85259	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85266	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85281	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85283	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85284	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85293			0.4	1
85298			0.4	1
85301	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85303	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85307	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85308	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85310	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85322	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85331	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85338	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85345	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85353	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85375	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85377	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85381	AZ	Maricopa	0.4	1
85388			0.4	1
85446			0.4	1
85501	AZ	Gila	0.4	1
85516			0.4	1
85547	AZ	Gila	0.4	1
85552	AZ	Graham	0.4	1
85553	AZ	Gila	0.4	1
85604			0.4	1
85607	AZ	Cochise	0.4	1
85614	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85630	AZ	Cochise	0.4	1
85631	AZ	Pinal	0.4	1
85701	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85706	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85710	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85716	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85719	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85730	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85738	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85741	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85746	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85749	AZ	Pima	0.4	1
85902	AZ	Navajo	0.4	1
85912	AZ	Navajo	0.4	1
85921			0.4	1
85924	AZ	Apache	0.4	1
85934	AZ	Navajo	0.4	1
85936	AZ	Apache	0.4	1
85940	AZ	Apache	0.4	1
86001	AZ	Coconino	0.4	1
86004	AZ	Coconino	0.4	1
86303	AZ	Yavapai	0.4	1
86305	AZ	Yavapai	0.4	1
86323	AZ	Yavapai	0.4	1
86336	AZ	Yavapai	0.4	1
86502	AZ	Apache	0.4	1
86504	AZ	Apache	0.4	1
87106	NM	Bernalillo	0.4	1
87110	NM	Bernalillo	0.4	1
87111	NM	Bernalillo	0.4	1
88005	NM	Dona Ana	0.4	1
89519			0.4	1
90620	CA	Orange	0.4	1
92078	CA	San Diego	0.4	1
92117	CA	San Diego	0.4	1
92252	CA	San Bernardin	0.4	1
92562	CA	Riverside	0.4	1
97477	OR	Lane	0.4	1
99611	AK	Kenai Peninsu	0.4	1

APPENDIX B. Detailed Satisfaction Results, FY2001 and FY2007.

Table B-1. Satisfaction of Apache-Sitgreaves NF recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites (FY2001 and FY2007).

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Number of Responses ***	Mean Importance **
Restroom cleanliness
Round 1, FY2001	13.1	6.4	22.1	34.5	24.0	3.5	82	4.5
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	4.9	2.2	13.6	79.3	4.7	32	5.0
Developed facility condition
Round 1, FY2001	7.9	0.3	15.0	36.9	40.0	4.0	97	4.3
Round 2, FY2007	2.8	2.8	2.8	21.1	70.5	4.5	43	4.7
Condition of environment
Round 1, FY2001	0.8	0.0	5.1	42.1	52.0	4.4	113	4.6
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	2.6	0.0	22.1	75.4	4.7	46	4.9
Employee helpfulness
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.3	0.0	20.1	79.6	4.8	100	4.5
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	11.9	10.8	77.3	4.7	32	4.8
Interpretive display
Round 1, FY2001	.	.	.	.	.	.	0	.
Round 2, FY2007	3.8	5.0	26.9	11.5	52.8	4.0	31	4.2
Parking availability
Round 1, FY2001	9.9	1.5	19.4	41.1	28.2	3.8	113	4.1
Round 2, FY2007	2.6	0.0	5.1	15.1	77.2	4.6	46	4.7
Parking lot condition
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	9.3	15.8	42.6	32.3	4.0	110	3.8
Round 2, FY2007	2.6	0.8	5.9	11.8	79.0	4.6	46	4.5
Rec. info. available
Round 1, FY2001	5.6	8.2	9.8	36.5	39.9	4.0	93	3.8
Round 2, FY2007	3.2	7.2	19.0	21.7	48.9	4.1	38	4.4
Road condition
Round 1, FY2001	4.4	6.8	26.7	44.8	17.3	3.6	105	4.0
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	3.5	15.1	28.7	52.7	4.3	44	4.5
Feeling of safety
Round 1, FY2001	4.4	6.8	26.7	44.8	17.3	3.6	105	4.0
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	0.0	23.2	76.8	4.8	42	4.9
Scenery
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	0.2	17.0	82.8	4.8	114	4.7
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	0.0	18.0	82.0	4.8	46	4.9
Signage adequacy
Round 1, FY2001	8.9	1.3	16.2	39.4	34.2	3.9	111	4.2
Round 2, FY2007	2.7	5.5	11.7	31.6	48.5	4.2	43	4.4
Trail condition
Round 1, FY2001	6.1	0.0	15.3	55.9	22.6	3.9	77	3.9
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	4.7	9.4	14.1	71.8	4.5	22	4.7
Value for fee paid
Round 1, FY2001	8.5	7.9	35.5	31.2	16.8	3.4	51	3.9
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	7	4.8

*Scale is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2 Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5

** Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important

*** number of visitors who responded to this item.

Note: For items with less than 10 responses the data was not reported

Table B-2. Satisfaction of Apache-Sitgreaves NF recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites (FY2001 and FY2007).

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Number of Responses ***	Mean Importance **
Restroom cleanliness
Round 1, FY2001	7.1	4.1	23.6	28.2	37.0	3.8	40	4.4
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	16.7	0.0	83.3	4.7	12	4.9
Developed facility condition
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	7.5	34.8	57.8	4.5	40	4.3
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	6.9	34.5	58.6	4.5	15	4.6
Condition of environment
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	0.1	35.8	64.1	4.6	46	4.5
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	6.9	17.2	75.9	4.7	15	4.9
Employee helpfulness
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	14.7	85.3	4.9	44	4.5
Round 2, FY2007	6.9	6.9	0.0	13.8	72.4	4.4	15	4.4
Interpretive display
Round 1, FY2001	.	.	.	.	.	.	0	.
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	21.1	31.6	5.1	42.2	3.7	10	4.5
Parking availability
Round 1, FY2001	3.7	0.1	3.5	37.5	55.2	4.4	45	4.1
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	7.4	14.8	77.8	4.7	14	4.4
Parking lot condition
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.1	17.4	15.7	66.8	4.5	42	4.1
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	16.0	0.0	0.0	84.0	4.5	13	4.4
Rec. info. available
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.1	4.7	42.5	52.7	4.5	35	4.2
Round 2, FY2007	17.4	4.2	0.0	0.0	78.4	4.2	12	4.7
Road condition
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	4.0	12.0	48.7	35.4	4.2	43	4.0
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	16.0	0.0	19.9	64.1	4.3	13	4.4
Feeling of safety
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.1	0.1	23.7	76.1	4.8	46	4.6
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	7.1	14.3	78.6	4.7	14	4.8
Scenery
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.1	3.5	13.6	82.8	4.8	46	4.5
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	0.0	34.5	65.5	4.7	15	4.8
Signage adequacy
Round 1, FY2001	3.8	0.1	4.2	30.1	61.7	4.5	44	4.5
Round 2, FY2007	6.9	13.8	0.0	0.0	79.3	4.3	15	4.6
Trail condition
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	10.9	52.8	36.2	4.3	28	3.8
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	0.0	31.6	68.4	4.7	10	4.5
Value for fee paid
Round 1, FY2001	4.9	4.9	5.7	25.1	59.4	4.3	28	4.1
Round 2, FY2007	7.1	7.1	7.1	0.0	78.6	4.4	14	4.8

*Scale is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2 Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5

** Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important

N obs means the number of visitors who responded to this item.

Note: For items with less than 10 responses the data was not reported

Table B-3. Satisfaction of Apache-Sitgreaves NF recreation visitors in General Forest Areas (FY2001 and FY2007).

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Number of Responses ***	Mean Importance **
Restroom cleanliness
Round 1, FY2001	1.3	2.6	5.2	39.2	51.8	4.4	37	4.2
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	0	.
Developed facility condition
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	1.9	1.9	64.3	31.8	4.3	46	4.0
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	1	.
Condition of environment
Round 1, FY2001	0.6	0.0	1.3	34.0	64.0	4.6	73	4.7
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	9	.
Employee helpfulness
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	3.3	17.2	79.5	4.8	62	4.2
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	3	.
Interpretive display
Round 1, FY2001	.	.	.	.	.	.	0	.
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	7	.
Parking availability
Round 1, FY2001	2.0	4.0	12.2	53.8	28.0	4.0	53	3.6
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	5	.
Parking lot condition
Round 1, FY2001	1.3	7.2	5.0	61.9	24.6	4.0	44	3.4
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	4	.
Rec. info. available
Round 1, FY2001	0.9	3.6	13.6	43.7	38.1	4.1	52	3.7
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	5	.
Road condition
Round 1, FY2001	12.8	14.1	14.2	41.1	17.8	3.4	72	4.2
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	8	.
Feeling of safety
Round 1, FY2001	0.7	0.0	8.5	32.6	58.2	4.5	70	4.4
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	9	.
Scenery
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	8.2	1.9	3.2	86.8	4.7	73	4.8
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	9	.
Signage adequacy
Round 1, FY2001	2.6	11.9	8.8	49.5	27.2	3.9	70	3.9
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	8	.
Trail condition
Round 1, FY2001	17.2	0.0	7.5	54.2	21.1	3.6	43	4.1
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	9	.
Value for fee paid
Round 1, FY2001	2.3	0.0	6.9	58.8	31.9	4.2	22	3.8
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	1	.

*Scale is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2 Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5

** Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important

N obs means the number of visitors who responded to this item.

Note: For items with less than 10 responses the data was not reported.

Table B-4. Satisfaction of Apache-Sitgreaves NF Wilderness Visitor respondents (FY2001 and FY2007).

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Number of Responses ***	Mean Importance **
Restroom cleanliness
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	6.6	49.6	43.8	4.4	19	4.3
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	3	.
Developed facility condition
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	5.1	32.3	62.7	4.6	17	4.5
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	5	.
Condition of environment
Round 1, FY2001	11.2	0.0	0.0	4.7	84.1	4.5	29	4.9
Round 2, FY2007	7.8	0.0	0.0	20.3	71.9	4.5	14	4.6
Employee helpfulness
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	12.8	10.1	77.1	4.6	26	4.5
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	6	.
Interpretive display
Round 1, FY2001	.	.	.	.	.	.	0	.
Round 2, FY2007	10.9	0.0	10.9	50.0	28.2	3.8	10	4.2
Parking availability
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	15.4	30.4	54.2	4.4	29	3.8
Round 2, FY2007	7.8	0.0	0.0	23.5	68.6	4.5	14	3.9
Parking lot condition
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	17.2	28.3	54.5	4.4	27	3.7
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	0.0	30.5	69.5	4.7	13	4.1
Rec. info. available
Round 1, FY2001	5.1	10.2	17.2	24.2	43.3	3.9	25	4.0
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	0.0	13.5	52.5	34.0	4.2	13	4.5
Road condition
Round 1, FY2001	17.6	4.9	15.4	53.3	8.8	3.3	27	3.8
Round 2, FY2007	0.0	9.0	9.0	50.0	32.1	4.1	12	4.1
Feeling of safety
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	14.5	85.5	4.9	29	4.8
Round 2, FY2007	7.8	0.0	0.0	15.7	76.5	4.5	14	4.1
Scenery
Round 1, FY2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	99.5	5.0	29	4.9
Round 2, FY2007	7.8	0.0	0.0	15.7	76.5	4.5	14	4.6
Signage adequacy
Round 1, FY2001	19.6	4.2	19.6	33.2	23.4	3.4	29	4.2
Round 2, FY2007	23.5	15.7	12.4	28.1	20.3	3.1	14	4.2
Trail condition
Round 1, FY2001	3.7	0.0	12.1	63.1	21.0	4.0	29	4.0
Round 2, FY2007	8.5	0.0	0.0	30.5	61.0	4.4	13	4.4
Value for fee paid
Round 1, FY2001	.	.	.	.	.	.	9	3.3
Round 2, FY2007	.	.	.	.	.	.	1	.

*Scale is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2 Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5

** Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important

N obs means the number of visitors who responded to this item.

Note: For items with less than 10 responses the data was not reported