This data can be very useful for forest planning and decision making. The information provided can be used in economic efficiency analysis that requires providing a value per National Forest Visit. This can then be compared to other resource values. The description of visitor characteristics (age, race, zip code, activity participation) can help the forest identify the type of recreation niche they fill. The satisfaction information can help management decide where best to place limited resources that would result in improved visitor satisfaction. The 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.

Definition of Terms

NVUM has standardized definitions of visitor use measurement to ensure that all national forest visitor measurements are comparable. These definitions are basically 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. Along with these use measurements basic statistics, which indicate the precision of the estimate, are given. These statistics include the error rate and associated confidence intervals at the 80 percent confidence level. 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 - defines the degree of certainty desired in an estimate. For example, an 80 percent confidence level refers to a range of values around a point estimate within which the true value will fall 80% of the time. Naturally, higher confidence levels cover larger ranges of values.

Confidence interval width (also called error rate) - these two terms define the reliability of the visit estimates. The confidence level provides the specified level of certainty for a confidence interval. The confidence interval width (error rate) is expressed as a percent of the estimate and can be used to obtain the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. Smaller interval widths indicate more precise estimates. An 80 percent confidence level is very acceptable for social science applications at a broad national or forest scale. Confidence interval widths are defined with respect to identified confidence levels. For example: There are 205 million national forest visits plus or minus 3 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. In other words, we are 80 percent confident that the true number of national forest visits lies between 198.85 million and 211.15 million.

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

The NVUM Process and Definition of Terms

To participate in the NVUM process, forests first categorized all recreation sites and areas into five basic categories called “site types”: Day Use Developed Sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), Wilderness, General Forest Areas (GFA), and View Corridors (VC). Only the first four categories are considered “true” national forest visits and were included in the estimate provided. Within these broad categories (called site types) every open day of the year for each site/area was rated as high, medium or low last exiting recreation use. Sites/areas that are scheduled to be closed or would have “0” use were 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 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.

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 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), and View Corridors (VC). Another category called Off-Forest Recreation Activities (OFRA) was categorized but not sampled.

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 site 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 last 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 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.

Constraints on Uses of the Results

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 will reflect all these factors. The smaller the error rate, the better the estimate. Interviewer error in asking the questions is not necessarily reflected in this error rate.

Large error rates (i.e. high variability) in the national forest visit (NFV), site visit (SV) and Wilderness visit estimates is primarily caused by a small sample size in a given stratum (for example General Forest Area low use days) 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 80% 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 analyis could reduce the error rate. However, the NVUM team had no reason to suspect the data was incorrect and 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. This study was designed to estimate total number of people during a year. Sample days were distributed based upon high, medium, and low exiting use days, not seasons. When applying these results in forest analysis, items such as activity participation should be carefully scrutinized. For example, although the Routt National Forest had over 1 million skier visits, no sample days occurred during the main ski season; they occurred at the ski area but during their high use summer season. Therefore, activity participation based upon interviews did not adequately capture downhill skiers. This particular issue was adjusted. However, the same issue- seasonal use patterns- may still occur to a lesser degree on other forests. Future sample design will attempt to incorporate seasonal variation in use.

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 Forest Stratification Results

The results of the recreation site/area stratification and sample days accomplished by this forest are displayed in Table 1. This table describes the population of available site days open for sampling based on forest pre-work completed prior to the actual surveys. Every site and area on the forest was categorized as high, medium, low, or closed last exiting recreation use. This stratification 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.

Table 1. Population of available site days for sampling and percentage of days sampled by stratum on Dixie National Forest (2003).

Site type	TYPE	SAMPLING STRATUM	# DAYS SAMPLED	# DAYS IN POPULATION	SAMPLING RATE
DUDS	NONPROXY	HIGH	11	145	7.59
DUDS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	10	401	2.49
DUDS	NONPROXY	LOW	10	535	1.87
DUDS	PROXY	DUR5	5	432	1.16
DUDS	PROXY	FR1	4	60	6.67
DUDS	PROXY	FR3	4	130	3.08
DUDS	PROXY	SV1	4	149	2.68
GFA	NONPROXY	HIGH	16	678	2.36
GFA	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	27	4,108	0.66
GFA	NONPROXY	LOW	14	8,803	0.16
OUDS	NONPROXY	HIGH	10	124	8.06
OUDS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	9	766	1.17
OUDS	NONPROXY	LOW	10	2,204	0.45
OUDS	PROXY	DUR4	7	2,453	0.29
OUDS	PROXY	DUR5	7	383	1.83
OUDS	PROXY	RE4	3	42	7.14
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	HIGH	11	71	15.49
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	12	464	2.59
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	LOW	10	366	2.73
TOTAL			184	22,314

CHAPTER 2: VISITATION ESTIMATES

Visitor Use Estimates

Visitor use estimates are available at the national, regional, and forest level. Only forest level data is provided here. For national and regional reports visit the following web site: (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).

Table 2. Annual Dixie National Forest recreation use estimate

VISIT TYPE	VISITS	80 % CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
SITE VISITS	900,873	12.6
NATL FOREST VISITS	773,789	13.3
WILDERNESS VISITS	13,952	53.2

The Dixie National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from October 2002 through September 2003. The forest coordinators were Max Molynuex and Gretchen Merrill. The forest did not report any unusual circumstances or weather conditions during the sample year.

Recreation use on the forest for fiscal year 2003 was 773,789 national forest visits. The 80 percent confidence interval width was +/- 13.3 percent. There were 900,873 site visits, an average of 1.15 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 13,952 Wilderness visits.

A total of 1,277 visitors were contacted on the forest during the sample year. Of these, 9.2 percent refused to be interviewed. Of the 1,159 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 31.4 percent were not recreating, including 10.1 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 9.1 percent were working, 6.8 percent were just passing through, and 5.4 percent had some other reason to be there. About 68.6 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 80.4 percent of them were exiting for the last time. Table 3 displays the number of last-exiting recreation visitors interviewed at each site type and the type of interview form they answered.

Table 3. Number of last-exiting recreation visitors on Dixie NF by site type and form type 1/

FORM TYPE	DEVELOPED DAY USE	DEVELOPED OVERNIGHT	GENERAL FOREST AREA	WILDERNESS
BASIC	89	48	97	13
ECON	74	25	82	14
SATIS	65	44	71	17

1/ Form type means 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.

Description of Visitors

Basic descriptors of the forest visitors were developed based upon those visitors interviewed then expanded to the national forest visitor population. Average forest visitor gender and age information are displayed in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4. Gender distribution of Dixie NF recreation visitors

MALE	FEMALE
69.0	31.0

Table 5. Age distribution of Dixie NF recreation visitors

AGECLASS	PERCENT
UNDER 16	21.18
16 TO 19	5.86
20 TO 29	16.40
30 TO 39	12.64
40 TO 49	21.12
50 TO 59	12.79
60 TO 69	7.71
70 PLUS	2.29

Visitors categorized themselves into one of seven race/ethnicity categories. Table 6 gives a detailed breakout by category.

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of Dixie NF recreation visitors

WHITE	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	AFRICAN AMERICAN	ASIAN	PACIFIC ISLANDER	OTHER
95.2	2.5	0.8	0.6	1.2	1.2	0.0

About one percent (1.2) of forest visitors were from another country. The survey did not collect country affiliation. The most frequent zip codes reported by sampled visitors are shown in Table 7. Additional zip code information was collected and is available upon request. This information can be used to help determine the forest’s primary market area.

Table 7. Most common zip codes of Dixie NF recreation visitors

ZIPCODE	COUNT	PERCENT
84770	43	8.39844
84720	33	6.44531
84790	26	5.07813
84780	14	2.73438
84737	11	2.14844
89015	9	1.75781
84738	8	1.56250
84741	7	1.36719
84765	7	1.36719
89123	6	1.17188
84726	5	0.97656
84759	5	0.97656
84761	5	0.97656
89012	5	0.97656
89110	5	0.97656
89128	5	0.97656
89131	5	0.97656
84118	4	0.78125
84745	4	0.78125
84781	4	0.78125
89027	4	0.78125
89149	4	0.78125

Average number of people per vehicle and average axle count per vehicle in survey

There was an average of 3.13 people per vehicle with an average of 2.15 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.

CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS VISITORS

Several questions on the NVUM survey form dealt directly with use of designated Wilderness. Wilderness was sampled 33 days on the forest, and 44 interviews were obtained. There were 51.5 percent male and 48.5 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the forest. Tables 8 and 9 display the age distribution and race/ethnicity of Wilderness visitors. Since individuals could list more than one racial category, it is possible that the percentages add up to more than 100.

Table 8. Age distribution of Dixie NF Wilderness visitors

AGECLASS	PERCENT
UNDER 16	46.41
16 TO 19	2.05
20 TO 29	6.74
30 TO 39	19.13
40 TO 49	17.81
50 TO 59	7.61
60 TO 69	0.25
70 PLUS	0.00

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of Dixie NF Wilderness visitors

WHITE	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	AFRICAN AMERICAN	ASIAN	PACIFIC ISLANDER	OTHER
100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.8	0.6	0.0

The Wilderness visitors were from a wide variety of zip codes. The most common Wilderness visitor zip codes are shown in Table 10. Additional zip code information is available upon request.

Table 10. Most common zip codes of sampled Dixie NF Wilderness visitors

WLDZIP	COUNT	PERCENT
84770	8	18.6047
84790	5	11.6279
84720	2	4.6512
84738	2	4.6512
84780	2	4.6512
28804	1	2.3256
33706	1	2.3256
80027	1	2.3256
80206	1	2.3256
80305	1	2.3256
84057	1	2.3256
84092	1	2.3256
84105	1	2.3256
84722	1	2.3256
84725	1	2.3256
84726	1	2.3256
84757	1	2.3256
84765	1	2.3256
84767	1	2.3256
84782	1	2.3256
87021	1	2.3256
87505	1	2.3256
87508	1	2.3256
89074	1	2.3256
89120	1	2.3256
89121	1	2.3256
89128	1	2.3256
93526	1	2.3256
97267	1	2.3256

The average length of stay in Wilderness on the forest was 6.1 hours. In addition, all visitors were asked on how many different days they entered into designated Wilderness during their national forest visit even if we interviewed them at a developed recreation site or general forest area. Of those visitors who did enter designated Wilderness, they entered one day each.

None of those interviewed in Wilderness said they used the services of a commercial guide.

Table 11 gives detailed information about how the Wilderness visitors rated various aspects of the area. A general example of how to interpret this information: If the visitors had rated the importance of the adequacy of signage a 5.0 (very important) and they rated their satisfaction with the adequacy of signage a 3.0 (somewhat satisfied) then the forest might be able to increase visitor satisfaction. Perhaps twenty-nine percent of visitors said the adequacy of signage was poor. The forest could target improving this sector of visitors for increased satisfaction by improving the signage for Wilderness.

Wilderness visitors on the average rated their visit 1.5 (on a scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they felt there were few people there. Zero percent said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale) and 75.3 percent said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale).

Table 11. Satisfaction of Dixie NF Wilderness Visitors.

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Avg	Good	Very Good	Avg Rating*	N obs	Mean Importance**
Restroom cleanliness	.	.	.	.	.	.	0	.
Developed facility condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	0	.
Condition of environment	0.0	0.0	0.0	5.8	94.2	4.9	17	4.8
Employee helpfulness	.	.	.	.	.	.	1	.
Interpretive display	.	.	.	.	.	.	1	.
Parking availability	1.2	0.0	3.5	45.3	50.1	4.4	17	3.6
Parking lot condition	0.0	0.0	0.0	82.0	18.0	4.2	16	3.1
Rec. info. available	.	.	.	.	.	.	8	.
Road condition	0.0	0.0	1.4	76.6	22.0	4.2	13	4.1
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.0	0.0	22.5	77.5	4.8	16	4.5
Scenery	0.0	1.2	1.2	2.3	95.4	4.9	17	4.8
Signage adequacy	2.3	1.2	10.8	65.6	20.1	4.0	17	3.5
Trail condition	1.2	16.7	2.3	75.3	4.6	3.7	17	3.7
Value for fee paid	.	.	.	.	.	.	0	.

*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

CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT

A description of visitor activity during their national forest visit was 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 this forest for a national forest visit was 37.2 hours. Over 23 percent (23.59%) 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 12.

Table 12. Site visit length of stay (in hours) by site/type on Dixie NF

Site Visit Average	Developed Day Use	Developed Overnight Use	General Forest Area	Wilderness	National Forest Visit
17	3.5	49.3	14.6	6.1	37.2

The average recreation visitor went to 1.15 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. 91.9 percent of visitors went only to the site at which they were interviewed.

During their visit to the forest, the top five recreation activities of the visitors were viewing natural features, relaxing, hiking/walking, viewing wildlife, and driving for pleasure (see Table 13). Each visitor also picked one of these activities as their primary activity for their current recreation visit to the forest. The top primary activities were downhill skiing, hunting, relaxing, fishing, and developed camping (see Table 13). 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.

Table 13. Dixie NF activity participation and primary activity

Activity	% Participating	% as Main Activity
Developed Camping	15.78	7.84
Primitive Camping	10.49	2.53
Backpacking	0.94	0.04
Resort Use	0.90	0.15
Picnicking	13.60	4.07
Viewing Natural Features	57.29	5.48
Visiting Historic Sites	4.60	0.47
Nature Center Activities	6.74	0.35
Nature Study	3.96	0.23
Relaxing	51.49	10.57
Fishing	17.97	9.03
Hunting	10.03	10.24
OHV Use	12.84	2.45
Driving for Pleasure	35.48	5.00
Snowmobiling	2.39	0.00
Motorized Water Activities	2.44	0.00
Other Motorized Activity	0.16	0.15
Hiking / Walking	42.14	5.90
Horesback Riding	1.89	1.20
Bicycling	6.63	3.79
Non-motorized Water	6.13	1.38
Downhill Skiing	29.03	27.31
Cross-country Skiing	1.23	0.00
Other Non-motorized	3.30	0.03
Gathering Forest Products	4.01	1.06
Viewing Wildlife	57.17	2.75

Note: this column may total more than 100% because some visitors chose more than one primary activity.

Use of constructed facilities and designated areas

One-third 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 five most used facilities/areas were: forest roads, scenic byways, downhill ski area, forest trails, and developed camping. Table 14 provides a summary of reported facility and special area use.

Table 14. Percentage use of facilities and specially designated areas on Dixie NF.

FACILITY	PERCENT
Developed Campground	11.19
Developed Swimming Site	0.73
Forest Trails	18.10
Scenic Byway	34.00
Wilderness	3.01
Museum	2.73
Picnic Area	10.07
Boat Launch	3.34
Designated OHV Area	2.43
Forest Roads	30.34
Interpretive Displays	2.18
Information Sites	0.94
Organization Camps	0.62
Developed Fishing Site	6.58
Snowmobile Area/Trails	3.02
Downhill Ski Area	18.71
Nordic Trails	0.15
FS Lodge	0.23
FS Fire Lookout	0.15
Snowplay Area	0.00
Motorized Trails	6.63
Recreation Residence	0.00

Economic Information

About one-third of visitors interviewed were asked a series of questions that enabled economic analyses. Several questions focused on the trip away from home that included their visit to the national forest, and others about their annual visits to the forest and annual spending on all outdoor recreation.

This trip away from home

While away from home, some people just go to the forest, while others incorporate a national forest visit as part of a larger trip away from home. On this forest, 79.0 percent said that recreating on 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 15. Just over 56 percent of forest visitors indicated their trip would include at least one night away from home, and the average nights away from home was 5.2 for those spending at least one night away from home. About 51 percent of visitors indicated they would be staying overnight within 50 miles of the forest, and the average for those staying nearby was 2.6 nights.

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of recreation visitors

Substitute response	Percent who would have:
Come back another time	20.6
Stayed at Home	10.2
Gone elsewhere for the Same activity	52.4
Gone elsewhere for a Different activity	8.6
Gone to Work	3.1
Had some other substitute	5.5

Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation

In the 12 months prior to the interview the typical visitor had come to this forest 20.2 times for all activities, including 7.4 times to participate in their identified main activity. Visitors were asked about their typical yearly spending on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses. Results are given in Table 16. Nearly twenty-five percent reported spending less than $500 per year on recreation, while about seven percent reported spending over $10,000 per year.

Table 16. Annual spending of Dixie NF recreation visitors on outdoor recreation

$$ spent each year on outdoor recreation	Percent of Total
UNDER 500	24.52
500 - 999	13.55
1000 - 1999	15.48
2000 - 2999	14.84
3000 - 3999	7.10
4000 - 4999	6.45
5000 - 9999	10.97
OVER 10000	7.10

Visitors’ average spending on a trip to the forest

Visitors estimated the amount of money spent per person 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). This information will be available in a separate report and data file that can be used for planning and analysis.

Visitor Satisfaction Information

About one-third 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 usually have 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 firefighting 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 17 through 19 summarize visitor satisfaction with the forest facilities and services at Day Use Developed sites, Overnight Developed sites and General Forest areas. Wilderness satisfaction is reported in Table 11. To interpret this information for possible management action, one must look at both the importance and satisfaction ratings. If visitors rated an element a 1 or 2 they are telling management that particular element is not very important to the overall quality of their recreation experience. Even if the visitors rated that element as poor or fair, improving this element may not necessarily increase visitor satisfaction because the element was not that important to them. On the other hand, if visitors rated an element as a 5 or 4 they are saying this element is very important to the quality of their recreation experience. If their overall satisfaction with that element is not very good, management action here can increase visitor satisfaction.

Table 17. Satisfaction of Dixie NF recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Avg	Good	Very Good	Avg Rating *	Mean Importance **	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	0.0	0.4	19.5	41.7	38.4	4.2	4.0	47
Developed facility condition	0.0	0.9	23.6	23.8	51.7	4.3	4.4	55
Condition of environment	0.8	10.3	12.3	42.3	34.3	4.0	4.4	63
Employee helpfulness	0.0	1.3	11.8	17.8	69.1	4.5	4.4	41
Interpretive display	0.0	0.0	44.4	33.9	21.6	3.8	3.6	25
Parking availability	0.0	1.8	1.6	19.0	77.6	4.7	3.7	63
Parking lot condition	0.0	0.0	12.2	43.8	44.0	4.3	3.8	58
Rec. info. available	0.0	1.3	6.2	48.2	44.3	4.4	4.2	34
Road condition	3.8	0.0	4.5	50.7	41.1	4.3	4.0	47
Feeling of safety	0.0	1.7	0.0	36.9	61.4	4.6	4.5	62
Scenery	0.0	0.0	9.4	12.8	77.8	4.7	4.5	62
Signage adequacy	0.0	1.7	20.7	42.7	34.8	4.1	3.8	60
Trail condition	0.0	3.4	3.0	34.8	58.8	4.5	4.2	38
Value for fee paid	1.0	0.0	13.4	30.2	55.4	4.4	4.2	40

*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 18. Satisfaction of Dixie NF recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Avg	Good	Very Good	Avg Rating *	N obs	Mean Importance **
Restroom cleanliness	0.3	0.0	0.0	41.8	57.9	4.6	32	4.6
Developed facility condition	0.0	0.8	0.0	36.4	62.8	4.6	40	4.1
Condition of environment	0.0	0.0	0.5	14.3	85.2	4.8	42	4.9
Employee helpfulness	0.0	0.0	22.0	0.4	77.6	4.6	19	4.6
Interpretive display	.	.	.	.	.	.	4	.
Parking availability	0.5	9.3	0.7	17.1	72.3	4.5	41	4.4
Parking lot condition	0.8	0.0	23.6	28.7	47.0	4.2	39	3.7
Rec. info. available	5.6	0.0	0.0	65.8	28.7	4.1	12	4.2
Road condition	0.0	1.8	10.4	42.6	45.2	4.3	41	4.4
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.0	0.0	16.7	83.3	4.8	41	4.7
Scenery	0.0	0.0	0.0	12.4	87.6	4.9	42	4.8
Signage adequacy	0.0	0.0	3.6	72.6	23.8	4.2	39	4.2
Trail condition	0.0	0.0	0.3	64.0	35.8	4.4	20	4.5
Value for fee paid	0.0	0.2	0.7	42.2	56.8	4.6	39	4.7

*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 19. Satisfaction of Dixie NF recreation visitors in General Forest Areas

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Avg	Good	Very Good	Avg Rating *	N obs	Mean Importance **
Restroom cleanliness	0.0	5.7	27.8	27.8	38.7	4.0	14	4.4
Developed facility condition	4.4	0.0	8.9	60.5	26.2	4.0	18	3.8
Condition of environment	3.5	5.9	11.6	34.0	45.0	4.1	46	4.7
Employee helpfulness	0.0	0.0	13.1	19.9	67.1	4.5	11	4.4
Interpretive display	8.6	0.0	30.3	30.3	30.7	3.7	12	4.0
Parking availability	0.0	0.0	17.8	47.1	35.2	4.2	34	3.8
Parking lot condition	5.4	0.0	22.3	50.0	22.3	3.8	26	3.4
Rec. info. available	13.7	8.3	14.0	28.0	36.0	3.6	24	4.0
Road condition	9.1	5.3	11.9	51.0	22.7	3.7	44	4.0
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.0	10.4	11.8	77.8	4.7	47	4.5
Scenery	0.0	2.3	2.3	34.6	60.8	4.5	47	4.5
Signage adequacy	6.9	4.8	5.8	47.3	35.2	4.0	47	4.5
Trail condition	10.8	0.0	28.0	39.1	22.1	3.6	25	4.1
Value for fee paid	0.0	0.0	0.0	20.3	79.7	4.8	10	3.9

*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.

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 20 summarizes 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.

Table 20. Perception of crowding by Dixie NF recreation visitors by site type (% site visits)

Crowding Rating	Developed Day Use	Overnight Use	General Forest Area	Wilderness
10 Overcrowded	0.0	0.2	6.9	0.0
9	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
8	11.1	0.4	0.0	0.0
7	19.4	22.3	1.2	0.0
6	0.7	0.0	2.3	0.0
5	7.5	21.5	14.0	0.0
4	10.9	11.3	3.6	2.3
3	13.8	13.1	33.7	17.8
2	19.0	15.9	14.1	4.6
1 Hardly anyone there	17.6	15.4	24.3	75.3

Other comments from visitors

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. Responses are summarized in Table 21.

Table 21. List of comments received from Dixie NF recreation visitors

Site Name	What Accommodation could be made
139) Mammoth Creek Rd-D2	deal with the dead trees issue
216) Mammoth Creek-D2	fish and game management need improvement
216) Mammoth Creek-D2	raise water level at Panguish Lake
233) Navajo Lake Rd-D2	more ATV trails
233) Navajo Lake Rd-D2	more information on local trails
243a) Crystal Springs Rd-D2	ATV trails/keep roads open and seasonal closures
267) Virgin River Rim Trl-D2	fix signs at Webster’s Flat Rd crossing
305) East Fork Rd-D3	improve sign display for Tropic Res. Road
305) East Fork Rd-D3	why require spark suppressors and close some ATV trails? Why block off so many trails to A
305) East Fork Rd-D3	improve signage markings at road entrance for King Creek CG
397) Deer Creek Lake Rd-D4	fix and replace signs and clear trails
400) Garkane Rd-D4	open locked gates
417) Hell's Backbone Rd-D4	grade or pave hells backbone
443) Pine Lake Rd-D4	maintain forest facilities
443) Pine Lake Rd-D4	clean Pine Lake; improve roads (grade)
443) Pine Lake Rd-D4	increase campsite facilities; stock lake with more fish
443) Pine Lake Rd-D4	supply trash cans
443) Pine Lake Rd-D4	signage for weather/trail conditions not adequate
446) Widtsoe Jct.-D4	mark the trails better, open up FS gates
Brian Head Ski Area	remove more trees
Brian Head Ski Area	access road (highway 143) winter conditions signing could be better
Brian Head Ski Area	better weather reporting
Brian Head Ski Area	more non-skier activities
Brian Head Ski Area - Summer	more current and accurate information on recreational opportunities
Deer Haven Group CG	check fences for livestock (sheep in CG); provide signage for CG on Hwy 14; fix Webster Fl
Johns Valley Group CG	improve the Dusty Road conditions
King Creek CG	less 4-wheelers in camp (restrict)- assign parking area
King Creek Group CG	keep down dust (oil or water roads)
King Creek Group CG	notify park service for closures so they can notify recreators
Pine Valley Res. Fish Viewing NP	not having entrance stations
Pine Valley Res. Fish Viewing NP	cocktail waitress
Pine Valley Res. Fish Viewing Site	clean up stream/shoreline
Pine Valley Res. Fish Viewing Site	make restrooms unisex in campgrounds
Pine Valley Res. Fish Viewing Site	showers in campground (we would then stay overnight)
Pine Valley Res. Fish Viewing Site	keep the forest open
Pine Valley Res. Fish Viewing Site	provide flush toilets and showers in campgrounds
Pine Valley Res. Fish Viewing Site	fish catching techniques more easily displayed (types of lures/bait to use/what's best)
Posy Lake DUDS	take the road out (changed a lot since 35 yrs ago)
Posy Lake DUDS	maps displayed of national forest (ie. Big wooden maps)
Posy Lake DUDS	remove fencing that restricts access to lakes
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	no generators please
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	mark campground distances on roads
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	mountain bike trail around campground
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	showers at campground
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	trash service
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	electricity at campground
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	have naturalists available
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	make maps more available
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	keep ranger stations open on weekends
Singletree CG - Non Proxy	ranger interpretive talks available
W-28) Brown's Point Trail	trail intersections should be clearly marked
W-29) Whipple TH	make more accurate trail direction signs
W-29) Whippk TH	better help keeping the CG quiet (CG next to Wildews)
W-29) Whippk TH	restrooms on top of Pine Valley Mountain
W-29) Whippk TH	limit horse use due to trail damage
W-29) Whippk TH	less governmental interference
W-29) Whippk TH	more trail information available at site
W. Ponderosa Group Picnic	soap in bathrooms
W. Ponderosa Group Picnic	clean picnic areas better
Wildcat Picnic/Rest Area/Info	availability of maps; welcome center upon entering
Wildcat Picnic/Rest Area/Info	more information on National Parks
Wildcat Picnic/Rest Area/Info	more elevation signs
Wildcat Picnic/Rest Area/Info	better information on the Great Western Trail

Donald B.K. English

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

The Forest Stratification Results

Table 1. Population of available site days for sampling and percentage of days sampled by stratum on Dixie National Forest (2003).

Table 2. Annual Dixie National Forest recreation use estimate

Table 3. Number of last-exiting recreation visitors on Dixie NF by site type and form type 1/

Table 4. Gender distribution of Dixie NF recreation visitors

Table 5. Age distribution of Dixie NF recreation visitors

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of Dixie NF recreation visitors

Table 7. Most common zip codes of Dixie NF recreation visitors

Table 8. Age distribution of Dixie NF Wilderness visitors

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of Dixie NF Wilderness visitors

Table 10. Most common zip codes of sampled Dixie NF Wilderness visitors

Table 11. Satisfaction of Dixie NF Wilderness Visitors.

Table 12. Site visit length of stay (in hours) by site/type on Dixie NF

Table 13. Dixie NF activity participation and primary activity

Table 14. Percentage use of facilities and specially designated areas on Dixie NF.

Table 16. Annual spending of Dixie NF recreation visitors on outdoor recreation

Visitors’ average spending on a trip to the forest

Table 17. Satisfaction of Dixie NF recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites

Table 18. Satisfaction of Dixie NF recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites

Table 20. Perception of crowding by Dixie NF recreation visitors by site type (% site visits)

Table 21. List of comments received from Dixie NF recreation visitors