National Visitor Use
Monitoring Results
September 2001
USDA Forest Service
Region 6
COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE
NATIONAL SCENIC AREA
Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use Monitoring project 1
CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION3
The NVUM Process and Definition of Terms3
Constraints On Uses of the Results4
The Forest Stratification Results4
CHAPTER 2: VISITATION ESTIMATES. 5
Table 2. Annual recreation use
estimates by forest for region 6. 1/6
Table 3. Gender distribution of
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area visitors.7
Table 4. Age distribution of
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area visitors.7
Table 5. Race/ethnicity of
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area visitors.7
Table 6. Zip codes of Columbia
River Gorge National Scenic Area recreation visitors.8
Average number of people per vehicle and average axle count per vehicle
in survey8
CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS VISITORS9
CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT9
Use of constructed facilities and designated areas. 10
Table 10. Substitute behavior
choices of visitors on Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 12
Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation12
Visitors average spending on a trip to Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area12
Visitor Satisfaction Information13
Other comments from visitors17
The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project was implemented as a response to the need to better understand the use of, importance of and satisfaction with national forest system recreation opportunities. National forest plans, Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National Recreation Agenda require this level of understanding. The agency’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans require measuring trends in user satisfaction and use levels to be able to improve public service. It will assist 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; SE Experiment Station; May 2001 (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recuse/recuse.shtml).
In conjunction with guidelines and recommendations from the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission, the USDA-Forest Service has estimated recreation use and maintained records since the 1950s. Many publications on preferred techniques for estimating recreation use at developed and dispersed recreation sites were sponsored by Forest Service Research Stations and Universities. Implementation of these recommended methodologies takes specific skills, a dedicated work force, and strict adherence to an appropriate sampling plan. The earliest estimates were designed to estimate use at developed fee recreation facilities such as campgrounds. These estimates have always been fairly reliable because they are based upon readily observable, objective counts of items such as a fee envelope.
Prior to the
mid-1990s, the forest Service used its Recreation Information Management (RIM)
system to store and analyze recreation use information. Forest managers often found they lacked the
resources to both manage the recreation facilities and simultaneously monitor
visitor use following the established protocols. In 1996, the RIM monitoring protocols were no longer required to
be used.
In 1998 a group of research and forest staff were appointed to investigate and pilot a recreation sampling system that would be cost effective and provide statistical recreation use information at the forest, national, and regional level. Since that time, a permanent sampling system (NVUM) has been developed. Several Forest Service staff areas including Recreation, Wilderness, Ecosystem Management, Research and Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment are involved in implementing the program. A four-year cycle of data collection was established. In any given year, 25 percent of the national forests conduct on-site interviews and sampling of recreation visitors. The first 25 percent of the forests included in the first four-year cycle completed sampling in December of 2000. The last 25 percent of the first, four-year cycle forests will complete their sampling in September 2003. The cycle begins again in October 2004. This ongoing cycle will provide quality recreation information needed for improving citizen centered recreation services.
NVUM has standardized definitions of visitor use measurement to ensure that all national forest visitor measurements are comparable. These definitions are the same as established by the forest Service since 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. In addition, information about the visitor’s trip is also collected. Along with these use measurements basic statistics, which indicate the precision of the estimate, are given. These statistics include the confidence level, and error rate. The definitions of these terms follow.
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 got back to their home.
Confidence level and
error rate - used together these two terms define
the reliability of the estimated visits.
The confidence interval defines the range of values around the estimated
visits with a specified level of certainty.
The error rate (which is never a bad thing like making an error on a
test) is the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. The lower the error rate and the higher the
confidence level the better the estimate.
An 80 percent confidence interval is very acceptable at a broad national
or forest scale. The two terms are used
to statistically describe the estimate.
For example: At the 80 percent
confidence level there are 209 million national forest visits plus or minus 17
percent. In other words we are 80
percent confident that the true number of national forest visits lies between
173.5 million and 244.5 million.
To participate
in the NVUM process, forests first categorized all recreation sites and areas
into six basic categories
called “site types”: Day Use Developed
Sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), Wilderness, General Forest
Areas (GFA), On-Forest Viewing Corridors (OFVC), and Off-Forest Recreation
Activities. Only the first four
categories are considered “true” national forest visits and were included in
the estimate provided. Within these
broad categories every open day of the year for each site/area was rated as
either high, medium or low exiting recreation use. Sites and areas that were closed or had “0” use was also
identified. Each day on which a site or
area is open is called a site day and 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 On-Forest Viewing
Corridors was prepared. Both the
categorization and the map are 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.
NVUM terms used in the site categorization framework are defined below:
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 six broad categories as defined in the paper: Forest Service National
Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation, May 2001,
English et al. The six categories are
Day Use Developed sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), General
Forest Areas (GFA), Wilderness (WILD), On-Forest View Corridors (OFVC), and
Off-Forest Recreation Activities (Off Forest).
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, it must be
an exact tally of use 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 day at the sample site.
Use level strata - for either
proxy or nonproxy sites, each day that a recreation site or area was open for
recreation, the site day was categorized as either high, medium or low exiting
recreation traffic, or closed. Closed
was defined as either administratively closed or “0” use. For example Sabino Picnic Area (a DUDS
nonproxy site) is closed for 120 days, has high exiting use on open weekends
(70 days) and medium 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.
The
information presented here is valid and applicable at the forest level. It is not designed to be accurate at the
district or site level. The quality of
the visitation estimate is dependent on the preliminary 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 and
coefficient of variation will reflect all these factors. The smaller the error rate, the better the
estimate. Interviewer error in asking
the questions is not reflected in this error rate.
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.
The results of
the recreation site/area categorization and accomplished sample days done by
this forest are displayed in Table 1.
This table describes the population of available site days open for
sampling. This information was obtained
from work done by the forest prior to the actual surveys. Every site and area on the forest was
categorized as high, medium, low, or closed exiting recreation use. This categorization was then used to
randomly select sampling days for this forest.
The project methods paper listed on page one describes the sampling
process and sample allocation formulas in detail. Basically, at least eight sample days per stratum are randomly
selected for sampling and more days are added if the stratum is very
large. Also displayed on the table is
the percentage of sample days per stratum accomplished by the forest.
|
|
Nonproxy
|
Proxy |
||
|
Strata |
Total
days in nonproxy population |
Days
sampled * # percent |
Total
days in proxy population |
Days
sampled * # percent |
|
OUDS
H |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
OUDS
M |
0 |
0 |
540 |
5 0.9 |
|
OUDS
L |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
DUDS
H |
269 |
14 5.2 |
|
|
|
DUDS
M |
618 |
15 2.4 |
|
|
|
DUDS
L |
1366 |
10 0.7 |
|
|
|
Wild
H |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
Wild
M |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
Wild
L |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
GFA
H |
2423 |
66 2.7 |
|
|
|
GFA
M |
2014 |
31 1.5 |
366 |
4 1.0 |
|
GFA
L |
6909 |
16 0.2 |
|
|
|
TOTALS |
13599 |
152 |
540 |
9 |
* Total sample days may
not match total accomplished because some sample days were eliminated due to
various errors or statistical anomalies.
Nationally there were 209
million national forest visits plus or minus 17 percent error rate at the 80
percent confidence level. These
visitors participated in 257 million site visits that included 14.3 million Wilderness
visits. Additionally, another 258
million people enjoyed viewing national forest scenery from non-Forest Service
managed travel ways. A national report
with additional information is available (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recuse/recuse.shtml).
Region 6, the “Pacific Northwest” region includes national forest units in Oregon and Washington. It received 33.9 million national forest visits +/-45.1 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. There were 41 million site visits and within these site visits were 3.1 million Wilderness site visits. As shown in Table 2, five national forests in region 6 were sampled in the first year of the project. The results from these Forests were then expanded to estimate total regional recreation use.
|
|
National
Forest Visits |
Site
Visits |
Wilderness
Visits |
|||
|
Forest |
Visits (millions) |
Error Rate +/- % |
Visits
(millions) |
Error
Rate +/- % |
Visits (millions) |
Error Rate +/-
% |
|
Columbia River Gorge |
2.0 |
14.7 |
3.2 |
13.9 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mt. Baker Snoqualmie |
5.0 |
14.9 |
5.4 |
13.7 |
0.7 |
15.2 |
|
Ochoco |
0.6 |
18.6 |
0.7 |
18.1 |
0.007 |
33.0 |
|
Okanogan |
0.4 |
23.1 |
0.5 |
20.3 |
0.032 |
29.7 |
|
Olympic |
0.5 |
13.9 |
0.5 |
12.7 |
0.04 |
34.2 |
|
R6 expanded use
estimate for CY 2000 2/ |
33.9 |
45.1 |
40.9 |
14.6 |
3.1 |
75.8 |
1/
Region 6, the “Pacific Northwest” region includes national forest units in
Oregon and Washington.
2/
Calendar Year
The Columbia
River Gorge NSA participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM)
project from January 1 through December 31, 2000. The main contact person was Stan Hinatsu. The forest was assigned 167 sample days and
accomplished 166 (99.9 percent) of them.
Pennsylvania State University conducted the on-site surveys under the
leadership of Professors Robert Burns and Alan Graff. Karen Robinson was the University project leader and lead
interviewer. There were no unusual
weather patterns or forest fires that affected use during the sample year.
Recreation use on the
Columbia River Gorge NSA for calendar year 2000 at the 80 percent confidence
level was 1,992,881 national forest visits +/-14.8 percent. There were 3,199,252 site visits, an average
of 1.6 site visits per national forest visit.
No designated Wilderness is located within this management unit
therefore a Wilderness use estimate was not produced.
A total of 1368 visitors were contacted on the Columbia River Gorge NSA
during the sample year. Of these, 9
percent refused to be interviewed. Of
the 1247 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 2 percent were not
recreating, including 1 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 0 percent
were working, .6 percent were just passing through, and 0.2 percent had some
other reason to be there. About 98
percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was
recreation and 99 percent of them were exiting for the last time. Of the visitors leaving the forest agreeing
to be interviewed, about 97 percent were last exiting recreation visitors (the
target interview population).
Basic descriptors of the forest visitors
were developed based upon those visitors interviewed then expanded to the
national forestvisitor populationAbout sixty-two percent of the Columbia River
Gorge NSA visitors were male and 37.9 percent were female (Table 3). About twelve percent of the visitors were
under age 16 and not interviewed. About
3.5 percent of the visitors were over 70 years old and the 41-50 year old age
group comprised 22.5 percent of the visitors.
See Table 4 for a complete age group break-out.
|
Gender |
62.1
percent males |
37.9
percent females |
|
Age Group |
Percent
in group |
|
Under
16 |
12.4 |
|
16-20 |
3.1 |
|
21-30 |
20.0 |
|
31-40 |
21.6 |
|
41-50 |
22.5 |
|
51-60 |
12.0 |
|
61-70 |
4.9 |
|
Over
70 |
3.5 |
Visitors categorized
themselves into one of 7 race/ethnicity categories. Over 91 percent of the visitors were ethnically white. Table 5 gives a detailed breakout by
category.
|
Category |
Total percent national forest visits |
|
Black/African American |
1.7 |
|
Asian |
1.4 |
|
White |
91.3 |
|
American Indian/Alaska Native |
1.4 |
|
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0.5 |
|
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
2.8 |
|
Other |
0.9 |
Almost two
percent (1.8 percent) of forest visitors were from another country. The survey did not collect country
affiliation. Visitors most frequently
reported zip codes are shown in Table 6.
The forest can determine what percent of local visitor use they have by
comparing the local forest zip codes to those listed. The zip code data for the forest will also soon be available on a
database. This information can be used
with programs such as “fipzip” for more extensive analysis.
|
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
97214 |
59 |
5.1 |
|
97031 |
49 |
4.3 |
|
97030 |
29 |
2.5 |
|
97058 |
24 |
2.1 |
|
97080 |
22 |
1.9 |
|
98672 |
19 |
1.6 |
|
97060 |
18 |
1.6 |
|
97202 |
18 |
1.6 |
|
97212 |
16 |
1.4 |
|
97206 |
15 |
1.3 |
|
97219 |
15 |
1.3 |
|
97014 |
14 |
1.2 |
|
97213 |
14 |
1.2 |
|
98671 |
13 |
1.1 |
|
97201 |
11 |
0.9 |
|
97211 |
11 |
0.9 |
|
97221 |
10 |
0.9 |
|
97223 |
10 |
0.9 |
|
98620 |
10 |
0.9 |
|
98661 |
10 |
0.9 |
|
97035 |
9 |
0.8 |
|
97045 |
9 |
0.8 |
|
98610 |
9 |
0.8 |
|
98648 |
9 |
0.8 |
|
456 other zip codes |
1-8 each |
|
There was an average of 2.6 people per vehicle on the
forest with an average of 2.0 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.
There is no designated Wilderness on the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic area therefore this section of the report does not have any Wilderness information.
Through the interview process a description of what visitors did during
their national forest visit was also developed. This basic information includes participation in various
recreation activities, length of stay on the national forest and at recreation
sites, visitor satisfaction with national forest facilities and services, and
economic expenditures.
The average length of stay on Columbia River Gorge NSA for a national
forest visit was 1.8 hours. Four
percent of visitors stayed overnight on the forest.
In addition, visitors reported how much time they spent on the specific
recreation site at which they were interviewed. Average time spent varied considerably by site and is displayed
in Table 7.
|
Site Visit Average |
DUDS |
OUDS |
Wilderness |
GFA |
|
4.6 |
1.0 |
16.8 |
NA |
5.2 |
The average Columbia River Gorge NSA visitor went to 1.6 sites during
their national forest visit. Forest
visitors sometimes go to just one national forest site or area during their
visit. For example, downhill skiers may
just go the ski area and nowhere else.
Almost fifty-four percent of visitors went only to the site at which
they were interviewed.
During their visit to Columbia River Gorge NSA the top five recreation
activities of the visitors were viewing wildlife/nature, hiking/walking,
general relaxation, driving for pleasure, and visiting historic sites. The visitor picked one of these activities
as their primary activity for their current recreation visit to the
forest. The top primary activities were
viewing wildlife/nature, general relaxation, hiking/walking, viewing scenery,
and driving for pleasure (Table 8).
Please 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.
|
Activity |
Percent participation |
Percent who said it was their primary activity |
|
Camping in
developed sites (family or group) |
2 |
0 |
|
Primitive camping |
0 |
0 |
|
Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas |
1 |
0 |
|
Resorts, cabins and other accommodations on Forest
Service managed lands (private or Forest Service run) |
0 |
0 |
|
Picnicking and family day gatherings in developed
sites (family or group) |
9 |
2 |
|
**Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc on national
forest system lands |
82 |
30 |
|
**Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers,
etc on national forest system lands |
38 |
12 |
|
Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/area |
38 |
1 |
|
Visiting a nature center, nature trail or visitor
information services |
33 |
0 |
|
Nature Study |
13 |
0 |
|
General/other- relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise
and heat, etc, |
51 |
23 |
|
Fishing- all types |
3 |
2 |
|
Hunting- all types |
0 |
0 |
|
Off-highway vehicle travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes,
etc) |
1 |
0 |
|
Driving for pleasure on roads |
47 |
5 |
|
Snowmobile travel |
0 |
0 |
|
Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc) |
1 |
1 |
|
Other
motorized land/air activities (plane, other) |
0 |
0 |
|
Hiking or walking |
63 |
22 |
|
Horseback riding |
0 |
0 |
|
Bicycling, including mountain bikes |
5 |
3 |
|
Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft, etc.) |
2 |
2 |
|
Downhill skiing or snowboarding |
0 |
0 |
|
Cross-country skiing, snow shoeing |
1 |
1 |
|
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games and
sports) |
4 |
3 |
|
Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other
natural products |
1 |
0 |
*
less than 1 percent participation
** first version of survey form used October
through March had these two viewing categories combined as viewing scenery
Twenty-five
percent of the last exiting recreation visitors interviewed were asked about
the types of constructed facilities and special designated areas they used
during their visit. The most used
facilities were visitor centers/museums, hiking trails, interpretive sites, and
picnic areas. The most used specially
designated area was Scenic Byways. Table
9 provides a summary of reported facility and special area use.
|
Facility/ Area Type |
Percent who said they used (national forest visits) |
|
Developed campground |
2 |
|
Swimming area |
2 |
|
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails |
44 |
|
Scenic byway |
61 |
|
Designated Wilderness |
0 |
|
Visitor center, museum |
39 |
|
Forest Service office or other info site |
16 |
|
Picnic area |
11 |
|
Boat launch |
3 |
|
Designated Off Road Vehicle area |
0 |
|
Other forest roads |
1 |
|
Interpretive site |
23 |
|
Organization camp |
0 |
|
Developed fishing site/ dock |
0 |
|
Designated snowmobile area |
0 |
|
Downhill ski area |
0 |
|
Nordic ski area |
0 |
|
Lodges/Resorts on National Forest System land |
0 |
|
Fire Lookouts/Cabins Forest Service owned |
0 |
|
Designated snow play area |
0 |
|
Motorized developed trails |
0 |
|
Recreation residences |
0 |
Twenty-five percent of visitors interviewed
were asked about the primary destination of their recreation trip. Since some people may incorporate a visit to
the national forests as only part of a larger trip away from home, not all
visitors chose the national forest as their primary destination. Eighty percent of visitors went only to this
national forest on their trip. Of the
20 percent of visitors that went to other areas, 24 percent said this forest
was their primary trip destination.
Visitors were asked to select one of several
substitute choices, if for some reason they were unable to visit this national
forest. Their responses are shown in
Table 10. Forty-four percent of the
visitors would have gone somewhere other than this forest to pursue the same
activity, while 32 percent would have come back to this forest another
time.
The average recreation visitor on the forest was away from home on their trip for 106.6 hours. Eighty percent of the visitors went only to this national forest on their trip and 20 percent said they had gone to other places such as other national forests, parks or recreation areas.
In the 12
months prior to their interview the visitors had visited the forest 3.2 times
to participate in their identified main activity.
|
Substitute Choice |
Percent who would
have… |
|
Gone
somewhere else for the same activity |
44 |
|
Gone
somewhere else for a different activity |
12 |
|
Come
back another time |
32 |
|
Stayed
home |
9 |
|
Gone
to work at their regular job |
2 |
|
None
of these |
0 |
In a typical year, visitors to this forest
spent an average of $1,251.56 on all outdoor recreation activities including
equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses.
Visitors
estimated the amount of money spent they spent within a 50 mile radius of the
recreation site at which they were interviewed during their recreation trip to
the area (which may include multiple national forest visits, as well as visits
to other forests or parks). Table 11
shows average estimated expenditures by ten categories. These expenditures are higher than the true average
spending per person per national forest visit.
To obtain a correct average spending per national forest visit, these
figures would have to be reduced to account for spending that is attributable
to visits to other areas, and for visitors who make several separate national
forest visits during their stay in the area.
It is recommended that forests work with economists in their forest and
region to obtain the correct spending profiles and estimate the economic
impacts of this spending.
|
Expenditure Category |
Average expenditure $00.00 |
|
Government owned lodging |
1.98 |
|
Privately owned lodging |
10.40 |
|
Food/drink at restaurants and bars |
6.62 |
|
Other food and beverages |
9.77 |
|
Gasoline and oil |
10.55 |
|
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.) |
1.95 |
|
Activities (including guide fees and equipment
rental) |
2.62 |
|
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees |
0.81 |
|
Souvenirs/ clothing |
5.24 |
|
Any other expenses |
0.56 |
Twenty-five percent of
visitors interviewed on the forest rated their satisfaction with the recreation
facilities and services provided.
Although their satisfaction ratings pertain to conditions at the
specific site or area they visited, this information is not valid at the
site-specific level. The survey design
does not allow enough responses for every individual site or area on the forest
to draw these conclusions. Rather, the
information is generalized to overall satisfaction with facilities and services
on the forest as a whole.
Visitors’
site-specific answers may be colored by a particular condition on a particular
day at a particular site. For example,
a visitor camping in a developed campground when all the forest personnel are
off firefighter and the site has not been cleaned. Perhaps the garbage had not been emptied or the toilets cleaned
during their stay, although the site usually receives excellent maintenance. The visitor may have been very unsatisfied
with the cleanliness of restrooms.
In addition to how satisfied visitors were with facilities and services they were asked how important that particular facility or service was to the quality of their recreation experience. The importance of these elements to the visitors’ recreation experience is then analyzed in relation to their satisfaction. Those elements that were extremely important to a visitor’s overall recreation experience and the visitor rated as poor quality are those elements needing most attention by the forest. Those elements that were rated not important to the visitors’ recreation experience need the least attention.
Tables 12 through 14 summarize visitor satisfaction with the forest facilities and services by site type. In Table 12 note that visitors said the cleanliness of restrooms at day use developed sites is very important (4.6) to the quality of their recreation experience and they rated their satisfaction with the cleanliness of restrooms as average (3.1). The item by response category column in the second column of the table gives more information about how visitors answered the satisfaction question. For example, for cleanliness of restrooms: 6 percent rated their satisfaction with the cleanliness of restrooms as poor, 34 percent as fair, 18 percent as average, 0.29 percent as good, and 13 percent as very good. Improving the cleanliness of restrooms at day use developed sites may increase visitor satisfaction.
Table 13 summarizes information about visitor satisfaction with Overnight Developed sites such as campgrounds and resorts on the forest and Table 14 summarizes the visitor’s satisfaction with the general forest areas.
|
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors |
Mean** Importance To visitors |
|
Scenery |
0 0
2 8 90 |
4.9 |
4.9 |
|
Available parking |
0 1 10 60 29 |
4.2 |
3.9 |
|
Parking lot condition |
0 0 20 59 21 |
4.0 |
3.4 |
|
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
6 34 18 29 13 |
3.1 |
4.6 |
|
Condition of the
natural environment |
1 0
5 46 48 |
4.4 |
4.8 |
|
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
0 0
2 65 33 |
4.3 |
4.4 |
|
Condition of forest
roads |
0 1
1 68 30 |
4.2 |
4.0 |
|
Condition of forest
trails |
0 0 16 56 28 |
4.1 |
4.4 |
|
Availability of
information on recreation |
1 3
9 60 27 |
4.1 |
4.2 |
|
Feeling of safety |
0 0
7 53 40 |
4.3 |
4.6 |
|
Adequacy of signage |
2 7 12 67 12 |
3.8 |
4.2 |
|
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 7
0 56 37 |
4.2 |
4.6 |
|
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
1 2 0 13 84 |
4.8 |
4.8 |
|
Value for fee paid |
18 0 66 10 6 |
2.8 |
4.0 |
* Scale is: P= poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied
/important 2 = somewhat satisfied/
important 3 = moderately satisfied/
important 4 = satisfied/
important 5 = very satisfied/
important
|
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors |
Mean** Importance To visitors |
|
Scenery |
0 0
0 0 100 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
|
Available parking |
0 0
0 50 50 |
4.5 |
3.8 |
|
Parking lot condition |
0 0
0 50 50 |
4.5 |
4.3 |
|
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
0 0 25 50 25 |
4.0 |
4.3 |
|
Condition of the
natural environment |
0 0 0 50 50 |
4.5 |
5.0 |
|
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
0 0
0 67 33 |
4.3 |
3.3 |
|
Condition of forest
roads |
Not
applicable |
|
|
|
Condition of forest
trails |
0 0
0 33 67 |
4.7 |
4.3 |
|
Availability of
information on recreation |
0 0 50 50 0 |
3.5 |
5.0 |
|
Feeling of safety |
0 0
0 25 75 |
4.8 |
5.0 |
|
Adequacy of signage |
0 0
0 75 25 |
4.2 |
4.8 |
|
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 0
0 33 67 |
4.7 |
4.7 |
|
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 0
0 25 75 |
4.7 |
4.7 |
|
Value for fee paid |
0 25 0 50 25 |
3.8 |
4.5 |
* Scale is: P = poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied
/important 2 = somewhat satisfied/
important 3 = moderately satisfied/
important 4 = satisfied/
important 5 = very satisfied/
important
|
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction of visitors |
Mean** Importance to visitors |
|
Scenery |
0 0 4 13 83 |
4.8 |
4.9 |
|
Available parking |
0 4 10 48 38 |
4.2 |
4.0 |
|
Parking lot condition |
5 5 13 49 28 |
3.9 |
3.6 |
|
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
2 1 23 50 24 |
3.9 |
4.3 |
|
Condition of the
natural environment |
0 2 5 35 58 |
4.5 |
4.8 |
|
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
1 0 2 55 42 |
4.4 |
4.2 |
|
Condition of forest
roads |
0 0 17 49 34 |
4.2 |
3.9 |
|
Condition of forest
trails |
1 1 7 56 35 |
4.2 |
4.3 |
|
Availability of
information on recreation |
2 7 23 45 23 |
3.8 |
4.2 |
|
Feeling of safety |
1 4 16 48 31 |
4.0 |
4.6 |
|
Adequacy of signage |
4 5 26 43 22 |
3.7 |
4.1 |
|
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 0 6 65 29 |
4.2 |
4.0 |
|
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 0 1 21 78 |
4.8 |
4.9 |
|
Value for fee paid |
38 0 8 35 19 |
3.0 |
3.4 |
* Scale is: P = poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very
satisfied /important 2 = somewhat
satisfied/ important 3 = moderately
satisfied/ important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important
Visitors rated
their perception of how crowded the site or area they were recreating in 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 15 summaries mean perception of
crowding by site type on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means hardly anyone was
there, and a 10 means the area was perceived as overcrowded.
|
Perception of crowding |
Overnight
Developed Sites |
Day Use Developed Sites |
Wilderness |
General Forest Areas |
|
||
|
10 Over crowded |
25 |
3 |
|
0 |
|||
|
9 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
|||
|
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
8 |
|||
|
7 |
0 |
13 |
|
8 |
|||
|
6 |
0 |
10 |
|
4 |
|||
|
5 |
25 |
20 |
|
16 |
|||
|
4 |
0 |
15 |
|
15 |
|||
|
3 |
25 |
11 |
NA |
23 |
|||
|
2 |
0 |
18 |
|
20 |
|||
|
1 hardly anyone there |
25 |
3 |
|
6 |
|||
Visitors were asked if there were any accommodations or assistance that the forest could offer that would be helpful to the visitor and anyone in their group to improve their recreation experience. If the forest received any responses, they are summarized below.
|
Site Name |
Is there any other accommodation or assistance we could offer? Comments |
|
Horsetail Falls TH OR Day Use |
Fix map vending machine at Multnamah Falls |
|
Catherine Creek Coyote Wall WA General forest area |
Keep trash cleaned up! |
|
I-84 Exit Anisworth OR General forest area |
More restrooms Place info about poisonous plants on info boards |
|
I-84 Exit Bridle Veil OR General forest area |
More signs directing visitors to certain areas More bathrooms along I-84 |
|
I-84 Exit Corbett OR General forest area |
Ornithology information Provide cigarette butt receptacles at C.P. |
|
I-84 Exit Sandy River OR General forest area |
Increase the number of undeveloped campsites |
|
Sandy River Delta OR General forest area |
Leave things alone Do not put in toilets, leave it alone Have leash law, pick up after dogs, big dogs scare me |
|
Scenic Highway Corbett OR General forest area |
More historical information at visitor sites |
|
Scenic Highway Troutdale OR general forest area |
Improve handicap access at C.P- top stairs are dangerous More info on maps, didn’t use area because of fee. Proximate location of trains- use reservations |
|
Scenic Highway Bridge Veil Or General forest area |
Easier access to the waterfalls |
|
Scenic Highway Crown Pt OR General forest area |
More sites for off road vehicle use |
|
Scenic Highway Moiser OR General forest area |
Nature looking waste basket, internet information/ literature/ good personnel, no graffiti |
|
Scenic Highway Rowena OR |
Need bathrooms at this site |
14 September 2001