National Visitor Use Monitoring Results

For

TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST

 

 

September 2006

 

Data collected FY 2005

USDA Forest Service

Region 5

 


 

Table of Contents

 

CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION.. 1

Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use Monitoring program.. 1

Definition of Terms. 2

Limitations of the Results. 3

CHAPTER 2: THE SAMPLE POPULATION.. 4

Table 1.  Population of Available Site Days and Percentage of Days Sampled by Stratum on the Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 5

CHAPTER 3: NATIONAL FOREST VISIT ESTIMATES.. 6

Table 2.  Tahoe National Forest Visit Estimate (NVUM FY2005 data) 6

Table 3.  Number of Visitors Contacted by Site Type on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 7

Table 4.  Number of Complete Interviews on Tahoe National Forest by Site Type and Form Type (NVUM FY2005 data) 7

Figure 1.   Purpose of visit by visitors who agreed to be interviewed on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY 2005 data). 8

CHAPTER 4: DEMOGRAPHICS.. 9

Table 5.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Gender on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM 2005 data) 9

Table 6.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Age on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 10

Table 7.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Ethnicity on the Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 10

Table 8.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Race on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 11

Table 9.  Top Ten ZIP Codes of Tahoe National Forest Survey Respondents (NVUM FY 2005 data) 11

Table 10. Percent of National Forest Visits to Tahoe National Forest by Respondents from Countries Other Than USA. (NVUM FY2005 data) 12

CHAPTER 5:  DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT.. 13

Table 11. Visit Duration on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 13

Table 12. Group Characteristics for Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 13

Table 13.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Annual Visit Frequency to Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 14

Table 14. Activity Participation on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 16

Use of Constructed Facilities and Designated Areas. 17

Table 15.  Percent of National Forest Visits Indicating Use of Special Facilities and Areas on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data). 17

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC INFORMATION.. 18

Table 16: Percent of National Forest Visits by Household Income Categories for the Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data). 18

This Trip Away From Home. 18

Table 17: Primary Purpose of Trip that Included a Visit to Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 19

Table 18.  Substitute Behavior Choices of Tahoe National Forest Respondents (NVUM FY 2005 data). 19

Table 19.  Distance Visitors Would Travel to Other Location if Tahoe NF was Not Available For Recreation (NVUM FY2005 data) 19

Table 20. Percent of National Forest Visits by Distance Traveled to Tahoe National Forest. (NVUM FY2005 data) 20

Table 21.  Visitor Trip Information for Tahoe National Forest Visitors (NVUM FY2005 data). 21

CHAPTER 7: VISITOR SATISFACTION.. 22

Table 22. Overall Satisfaction and Importance Ratings for Tahoe National Forest (NVUM 2005 data). 23

Figure 2. General Importance – Performance Rating for Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 24

Table 23.  Tahoe National Forest Satisfaction Ratings for Day Use Developed Sites (NVUM FY2005 data) 25

Figure 3.  Tahoe National Forest Visitor Satisfaction in Day Use Developed Sites (NVUM FY2005 data). 26

Table 24.  Tahoe National Forest Satisfaction Ratings for Overnight Use Developed Sites (NVUM FY2005 data) 27

Figure 4.  Tahoe National Forest visitor satisfaction in Overnight Use Developed Sites (NVUM FY2005 data) 28

Table 25.  Tahoe National Forest Satisfaction Ratings for Undeveloped Areas (GFA) (NVUM FY2005 data) 29

Figure 5.  Tahoe National Forest Visitor Satisfaction Ratings for Undeveloped Areas (General forest areas) (NVUM FY2005 data) 30

Table 26. Tahoe National Forest Satisfaction Ratings for Designated Wilderness (NVUM FY2005 data). 31

Figure 6.  Tahoe National Forest visitor satisfaction in Designated Wilderness (NVUM 2005 data). 32

Table 27.  Percent of Site Visits s in Which Visitors Were Satisfied With the Item They Were Asked to Rate on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 33

Table 28.  Tahoe National Forest Visitor Satisfaction Ratings Using the Percent Meets Expectation Scores (FY 2005 data). 33

Table 29.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Satisfaction Category for the Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data) 34

Table 30. Percent of National Forest Visits by Satisfaction Category for Tahoe National Forest Roads and Signs (NVUM FY2005 data) 34

Table 31. Average Importance Score for Tahoe National Forest Roads and Signs (NVUM FY2005 data) 34

Table 32.  Accessibility of Tahoe National Forest Facilities by Persons with Disabilities (NVUM FY2005 data) 35

Crowding. 36

Table 33.  Percent of Site Visits by Crowding Rating by Site Type for Tahoe National Forest (NVUM 2005 data). 36

CHAPTER 8:  WILDERNESS VISITS.. 37

Table 34.  Percent of Wilderness Site Visits on Tahoe National Forest by Gender (NVUM FY2005 data) 37

Table 35.  Percent of Wilderness Site Visits on Tahoe National Forest by Age (NVUM FY2005 data) 37

Table 36.  Percent of Wilderness Site Visits on Tahoe National Forest by Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity (NVUM FY2005 data) 37

Table 37.  Percent of Wilderness Site Visits on Tahoe National Forest Wilderness by race (NVUM FY2005 data). 38

Table 38.  ZIP codes of Tahoe National Forest Wilderness survey respondents (NVUM FY2005 data). 38

APPENDIX A.  ZIP Codes. 42


CHAPTER 1:  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).

Prior to the implementation of the NVUM program, forest service visitor use information was of unknown quality.  In 1998 a group of research and forest staff developed a recreation sampling system (NVUM) that was cost effective and provided 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 will now be collecting information for a second time. 

This NVUM data is very 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 is instructed to first group 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 recreation 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.

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 1970’s, however the application of the definition is stricter.  Visitors must pursue a recreation activity physically located “on” system lands managed by the Forest Service in order to be counted as “recreation visitors”.  Visitors who are just passing through; site-seeing from roads that are not managed by the Forest Service, or just using restroom facilities are also not included as “recreation visitors”.  The NVUM basic use measurements are national forest visits and site visits.   NVUM provides estimates of both types of these visits and statistics measuring the precision of the estimates.  These statistics include the error rate and associated confidence intervals at the 80 percent confidence level.   The methodology used by NVUM 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. 

Definition of Terms

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, an 80% confidence level refers to the range of values within which the true value will fall 80% 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.  An 80 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 80 percent confidence level.  In other words we are 80 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), and 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 high, medium or low last exiting recreation traffic, or closed.  Closed was defined as either administratively closed or “0” last exiting 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.  

 


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 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 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.  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 issue of seasonal use patterns may still occur to a lesser degree on other forests.   The sample design for the second round of NVUM adjusts for seasonal and spatial variation in use.   

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. 


CHAPTER 2: THE SAMPLE POPULATION

 

The population of available site days for sampling was constructed from information provided by Tahoe National Forest personnel.  Each site was given a rating of very high, high, medium, low, or no recreation 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.  The project methods paper (English et al 2002) describes the sampling process and sample allocation formulas in detail.  Basically, at least eight days per stratum are randomly selected for sampling. More days are added if the stratum is very large.  The results of the recreation site/area stratification and days sampled by Tahoe National Forest are displayed in Table 1.  Also displayed is the percentage of days per stratum that were sampled.  For example, in the Day Use Developed, Low Use stratum the forest listed 1,491 days and 8 of them were sampled resulting in a .54% sampling rate for that stratum. In this second round of sampling the Tahoe National Forest had 34,091 open site days and 280 of them were sampled.


 

Table 1.  Population of Available Site Days and Percentage of Days Sampled by Stratum on the Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

Site Typea

Proxy Codeb

Use Levelc

Number of site days in population

Number of days sampled

Sampling Rate (%)

DUDS

 

LOW

1491

8

0.54

DUDS

 

MEDIUM

428

21

4.91

DUDS

 

HIGH

109

25

22.94

DUDS

 

VERY HIGH

4

4

100.00

DUDS

PTC1

 

166

10

6.02

DUDS

SV1

 

1478

10

0.68

GFA

 

LOW

12585

12

0.10

GFA

 

MEDIUM

4438

44

0.99

GFA

 

HIGH

751

29

3.86

GFA

 

VERY HIGH

218

20

9.17

OUDS

 

LOW

1872

8

0.43

OUDS

 

MEDIUM

161

7

4.35

OUDS

 

HIGH

15

2

13.33

OUDS

DUR4

 

7990

17

0.21

OUDS

DUR5

 

1321

2

0.15

OUDS

FR5

 

130

10

7.69

OUDS

RE4

 

414

10

2.42

WILDERNESS

 

LOW

376

8

2.13

WILDERNESS

 

MEDIUM

72

10

13.89

WILDERNESS

 

HIGH

66

18

27.27

WILDERNESS

 

VERY HIGH

6

5

83.33

TOTAL

 

 

34091

280

0.82

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

b 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.

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.


CHAPTER 3: NATIONAL FOREST VISIT 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/

The Tahoe National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from October 2004 through September 2005. The forest coordinator was Jerry Cowan.  Jerry reported unusually cold weather during the month of September that may have affected recreation use of the Tahoe National Forest during the sample year.

There were approximately 1,609,300 national forest visits (Table 2) on Tahoe National Forest during fiscal year 2005. There were about 1,823,100 site visits. Included in the site visit estimate are 19,900 Wilderness site visits.  Table 2 displays the average visitor use estimate, and the 80 percent confidence interval width.   It is important to consider the confidence interval width especially when comparing use on one national forest to another.  Some forests have a larger confidence interval width therefore their use estimate is not as precise as other forests. 

 

Table 2.  Tahoe National Forest Visit Estimate (NVUM FY2005 data)

Visit Type

Visits (thousands)

80% confidence level (%)f

Total National Forest Visits

1609.3

5.4

Total Site Visits

 

1823.1

4.9

Designated Wilderness Visitsd

19.9

19.8

Special Events and Organizational Camp Usee

17.6

0.0

d Designated Wilderness visits are included in the Site Visits estimate.

e 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.

f This value defines the upper and lower bounds of the visitation estimate at the 80% confidence level, for example if the visitation estimate is 100 +/-5%, one would say “at the 80% 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.  Table 3 displays the number and types of visitor contacts.  Of those visitors who agreed to be interviewed the interviewer then determined if the visitor’s purpose was recreation, and if it was recreation, whether they were leaving the recreation site for the last time sometime on the sample day.  This information may be useful to managers when assessing how representative of all visitors the information in this report may be.


Table 3 data show that a total of 2,522 visitors were contacted on the forest during the sample year.  Of these, 2,437 agreed to be interviewed.  Of those who agreed to be interviewed, 2,202 were recreating and 2,094 of them were leaving the recreation site sometime that day. 

 

Table 3.  Number of Visitors Contacted by Site Type on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

Site Type a

Total Contacts

Agreed To Interview

Visit Purpose Is Recreation

Recreating Visitors Leaving Sometime That Day

Recreating Visitors Leaving Sometime During  Current Interview Period (Target)

DUDS

730

706

637

634

555

GFA

1146

1114

964

884

789

OUDS

272

259

245

220

170

Wilderness

374

358

356

356

351

Total

2522

2437

2202

2094

1865

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

 

Visitors who were last exiting the recreation site at the time of the interview or sometime during the interview day were asked to participate in a longer series of questions.  There were three different interview forms.  The forms were the same on the first three pages, however page four was different.  One-third of the forms were blank on the fourth page, one-third had economics questions, and one-third had satisfaction questions.  Table 4 displays the number of forms by site type that were completed for the Tahoe National Forest.   This information shows managers how many responses were obtained and used to compute the remaining information in this report.

 

Table 4.  Number of Complete Interviews on Tahoe National Forest by Site Type and Form Type (NVUM FY2005 data)

Form Typeg

Day Use Developed Site

Overnight Use Developed Site

Undeveloped Areas (GFAs)

Wilderness

Total

Basic

228

76

314

125

743

Economics

209

71

275

117

672

Satisfaction

197

73

295

114

679

Total

634

220

884

356

2094

g 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.  Figure 1 displays the various reasons visitors gave as their purpose for stopping at the sample site.  Ninety percent of visitors were traveling to recreation on the Tahoe National Forest.

 

Figure 1.   Purpose of visit by visitors who agreed to be interviewed on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY 2005 data).

 

 


CHAPTER 4: DEMOGRAPHICS

Descriptions of forest visitors 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.

Basic demographics of respondent’s gender, ethnicity, race, and age are displayed in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8. Calculations in the tables are computed using weights that expanded the sample of individuals to the population of national forest Visits.  For more details regarding weights used contact the NVUM program manager.

The information in Tables 5 and 6 were obtained from up to four persons within the vehicle or group that was being interviewed.  Race and ethnicity were asked only of the survey respondent.  Data in Table 5 show that 37.7% of national forest visits on the Tahoe National Forest were made by females and 62.3% by males.  It is not correct to say 62.3% of visitors were males because the sample was designed to describe characteristics of national forest visits, not visitors.  There were a total of 4,772 survey responses to this question.

 

Table 5.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Gender on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM 2005 data)

Gender

National Forest

Visits (%)h

Number of Survey

Respondentsi

 Female

37.7

2081

Male

62.3

2691

Total

100.0

4772

h 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.

i 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 displays the percent of national forest visits by age.  Over forty-two percent (42.5%) of national forest visits occurred in the 30-49 age category and the lowest percentages were in the 16-19 and 70 and over age categories. 

 

Table 6.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Age on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

Age

National Forest

Visits (%) h

Survey

Respondents i

Under 16

9.0

775

16-19

3.5

152

20-29

16.8

651

30-39

21.1

892

40-49

21.4

1036

50-59

16.3

809

60-69

8.9

385

70 +

3.0

125

Total

100.0

4825

h 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.

i 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

 

During round 2 of data collection race and ethnicity were asked as two separate questions to conform to OMB regulations.  In round 1 race and ethnicity were combined into one multiple choice question.  Direct comparisons of the data between rounds would not be valid; more extensive analysis is needed and will be done in the future.  Calculations were computed using weights that expand the sample of individuals to the population of national forest Visits. 

The ethnicity question only asked respondents if they were or were not of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin.  The second question gave respondents a list of 5 race categories of which they could select multiple categories.  Some caution is advised when using the information provided, since it is of survey respondents only.  Some sample forests reported that certain racial groups tended to avoid encounters with interviewers and may be underrepresented. In addition some interviewers did not ask visitors this question and in other cases visitors refused to answer the question.

Table 7 data show that 102 (4.2%) survey respondents were of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino ethnicity.  Table 8 summarizes respondent’s race, showing that 94.5% of national forest visits on the Tahoe were by Whites and 2.8% by Asians.  Multiple races could be selected for this question so race may exceed 100%. 

 

Table 7.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Ethnicity on the Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

Ethnicity  j

National Forest Visits (%)

# Respondents Indicating This Ethnicity

Hispanic / Latino

4.2

102

j Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino was asked as a separate question

 

 

 

Table 8.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Race on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

 

Race  j

National Forest

Visits (%)

Number of Survey

Respondents

American Indian/Alaska Native

1.8

46

Asian

2.8

53

Black/African American

0.5

12

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

0.9

14

White

94.8

1965

Total

100.8

2090

j Respondents could choose more than one category, so race may total more than 100%.

 

 

Table 9 presents the top ten ZIP codes of survey respondents that provided a ZIP code.  Table 10 displays the percent of national forest visits by people from other countries.  This information is not the entire universe of ZIP codes from all people who recreate on your forest; it is only ZIP codes or countries of those visitors who completed an interview.   Since the entire list of survey respondent’s ZIP codes is quite lengthy, the entire list of ZIP codes is in Appendix A.

 

 Table 9.  Top Ten ZIP Codes of Tahoe National Forest Survey Respondents (NVUM FY 2005 data)

Home Location

# Of Respondents

% Of Respondents

96161

188

9.0

96160

49

2.3

95631

48

2.3

95959

48

2.3

96145

39

1.9

89436

37

1.8

89509

33

1.6

95603

33

1.6

89503

27

1.3

89523

27

1.3

 

 

Table 10. Percent of National Forest Visits to Tahoe National Forest by Respondents from Countries Other Than USA. (NVUM FY2005 data)

Country Of Origin

(other than US)

National Forest Visits (%)

Number Of Respondents

Asia

0.1

1

Canada

0.0

1

Europe

0.2

8

Mexico

0.1

1

South America

0.0

0

Another Country

0.0

0

 


 

CHAPTER 5:  DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT

 

Characteristics of the recreation visit such as length of visit, types of sites visited, day of arrival, activity participation and visitor satisfaction with forest facilities and services help managers better provide desired recreation opportunities. 

The average national forest visit length of stay on this forest was 11.2 hours.  The average site visit was about 12.4 hours, but time spent varied considerably by type of site (Table 11) with visitors to Day Use Developed sites spending an average of about 4.4 hours and Overnight Developed Use site visits lasting an average of about 71.6 hours.  Since the average values displayed in Table 11 may be influenced by a few people staying a very long time, the median value is also shown.  Note also that national forest visit duration is typically equal to or greater than site visits duration.  However, on this forest there were 47 cases in which national forest visit duration was recorded but the site visit duration was missing due to missing or bad data.  Each of these cases has more than one site visit so the true site visit duration is unknown.

 

Table 11. Visit Duration on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

Visit Type

Average Duration (hours)

Median Duration (hours)

Site Visit

12.4

4.0

Day Use Developed

4.4

4.5

Overnight Use Developed

71.6

49.8

Undeveloped Areas

10.8

3.0

Designated Wilderness

10.5

3.0

National Forest Visit

11.2

4.3

 

Almost eighty-nine percent of Tahoe National Forest respondents went only to the site at which they were interviewed (Table 12).  Since some visitors went to more than one recreation site or area during their national forest visit, the overall average is 1.1 site visits per national forest visit.  There was an average of 2.3 people per vehicle (party size) with an average of 2.2 axles per vehicle (Table 12).  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. 

 

 

Table 12. Group Characteristics for Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

Characteristic

Average

Median

Party size

2.3

2

number of Axles per vehicle

2.2

2

Percent of recreational visitors who visit just one national forest site during their entire National Forest Visit (%)

88.9

.

Number of national forest sites visited during each National Forest Visit

1.1

1

 

 

During the interview, visitors were asked how often they visit this national forest for all recreational activities. Table 13 summarizes the visitor’s reported frequency of visitation to Tahoe National Forest.  Due to “trap shy” behavior, visitors that have been interviewed once may not stop for a second interview the next time they come to the site.  The effects of “trap shy” behavior are not known nor is the potential effect on visitor frequency information in Table 13 known.   Data in Table 13 show that 26.4% of respondents came 1-5 times to the forest for all activities and 40.2% of respondents said they came 1-5 times for their main activity.  Over one percent (1.3%) of Tahoe National Forest visits were by visitors who come over 300 times a year.

 

Table 13.  Percent of National Forest Visits by Annual Visit Frequency to Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

 

Number of Reported Annual Forest Visits

Percent of National Forest Visitors (%) for ALL activities

Percent of National Forest Visitors (%) for MAIN activity

1 – 5 

26.4

40.2

 

6 – 10

13.5

14.8

 

11 – 15

9.2

7.3

 

16 – 20

5.9

6.5

 

21 – 25

4.9

3.9

 

26 – 30

4.0

4.8

 

31 – 35

1.1

1.1

 

36 – 40

2.7

2.1

 

41 – 50

5.7

3.5

 

51 – 100

11.5

9.9

 

101 – 200

8.6

4.0

 

201 – 300

5.2

1.4

 

301 – 365

1.3

0.5

 

 


During their visit to the forest, the top five recreation activities of the visitors to the Tahoe National Forest were driving for viewing natural features, relaxing, viewing wildlife, hiking/walking, and downhill skiing (Table 14).  Each visitor also picked one of these activities as their main activity for their current recreation visit to the forest.  The top main activities were downhill skiing, hiking/walking, fishing, snowmobiling, and bicycling.

The second round of NVUM data collection asked additional questions about activity participation.  Visitors were asked to identify their main recreational activity, and then, 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.

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 effect is unknown. Table 14 only gives the hours spent when the activity was identified as the MAIN activity.  Visitors who participated in this activity but did not identify it as their main activity might spend more or less time doing that activity but were not asked this question. 

 


Table 14. Activity Participation on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

Activity

Total Activity Participation (%) l/m

Was Main Activity (%) n

# Of Respondents As Main Activity o

Average Hours Doing Main Activity (Hours)

Downhill Skiing

30.0

29.1

240

4.5

Hiking / Walking

33.7

16.4

552

2.3

Fishing

16.1

12.3

234

6.4

Snowmobiling

8.2

7.7

152

3.9

Bicycling

7.8

6.1

131

2.1

Other Non-motorized

11.1

4.1

119

2.9

Viewing Natural Features

53.6

4.0

77

3.5

Cross-country Skiing

5.0

3.7

51

3.1

Relaxing

37.7

3.6

136

25.2

Driving for Pleasure

16.4

3.2

53

2.7

Motorized Water Activities

6.7

2.1

50

4.0

OHV Use

4.2

1.8

31

5.0

Hunting

2.3

1.8

21

14.0

Motorized Trail Activity

3.1

1.6

28

6.3

Non-motorized Water

3.0

1.5

31

3.8

Developed Camping

5.8

1.3

96

49.9

Primitive Camping

1.8

0.7

6

38.4

Picnicking

9.3

0.6

26

2.8

Viewing Wildlife

37.7

0.4

9

3.2

Backpacking

0.8

0.4

15

88.3

Some Other Activity

3.7

0.3

14

3.5

Other Motorized Activity

0.6

0.3

2

3.0

No Activity Reported

0.0

0.3

6

.

Resort Use

1.8

0.2

6

35.9

Visiting Historic Sites

4.9

0.1

6

1.5

Nature Study

3.8

0.1

5

4.5

Gathering Forest Products

1.5

0.1

5

3.4

Horseback Riding

0.1

0.1

4

3.5

Nature Center Activities

1.9

0.0

3

1.0

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

mThe number in this column is the number of survey respondents who indicated participation in this activity.

n Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the forest visit. Some respondents selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%.

o The number in this column is the number of survey respondents who indicated this activity was their main activity.

Use of Constructed Facilities and Designated Areas

This section of data collection has undergone several changes in the interview process. Managers should use caution in comparing this data to round one data. In round one, about one-third of the recreation visitors interviewed were asked about the facilities and special designated areas they used during their visit.  In round 2 of data collection, this question was changed to assist management in addressing the emerging off-highway vehicle rule passed by Congress.  Round 2 data addresses types of off-highway vehicle use in more detail than round 1.  These results are displayed in Table 15.

 

Table 15.  Percent of National Forest Visits Indicating Use of Special Facilities and Areas on Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data).

Facility Type

Percent Of NF Visits Using The Facility l

Developed Swimming Site

1.0

Motorized Single Track Trail

1.3

Motorized Dual Track Trails

4.0

Designated ORV Area

12.5

Forest Roads

6.6

Scenic Byway

39.0

Visitor Center or Museum

1.6

Interpretive Displays

2.1

Information Sites

1.3

Developed Fishing Site

1.7

None of these Facilities

50.3

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

 

 


CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC INFORMATION

Forest managers are extremely interested in understanding 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. The Round 1 information was analyzed at Michigan State University by Dr. Daniel Stynes and Dr. Eric White. A description of that analysis and the results are available 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.  Round 2 economic data has not yet been analyzed in the detail accomplished by Stynes and White.  The analysis, which will include local versus non-local expenditures, is expected to be completed by March 2008.

 

Some results from the NVUM survey provide a general picture of the Visit and Trip characteristics on this national forest.  Annual household income as a percent of national forest visits is displayed in Table 16.  Forty-four percent of Tahoe National Forest visits are by groups with an annual household income of $75,000 or more.  This is higher than the average national forest.

 

Table 16: Percent of National Forest Visits by Household Income Categories for the Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data).

Annual Household Income Categories

National Forest Visits (%)

Under $25,000

6.7

$25,000 – 49,999

20.3

$50,000-74,999

28.8

$75,000-99,999

19.2

$100,000 – 149,999

15.5

$150,000 And Over

9.5

 

This Trip Away From Home

While away from home, some people travel just to the forest, while others incorporate a national forest visit as part of a larger trip away from home. Respondents were asked to describe the primary purpose of their TRIP which included a recreation visit to this national forest.  Table 17 summarizes the results of the visitor’s trip purpose.  When calculating economic value of national forest visits, only person’s whose primary destination was the national forest are counted. On this forest, 95.6% (Table 17) of those surveyed 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 (Table 18). Almost fifty-three percent of visitors said their substitute behavior choice was activity driven (gone elsewhere for same activity) and 23.3% said they would have come back later to this national forest.  About six percent of visitors said they would go elsewhere for a different activity and 15.1% said they would have stayed home.  Respondents who said they would have gone somewhere else for recreation were asked how far from their home this alternate destination was.  These results are shown in Table 19.  Almost half (49.4%) of visitors would have traveled 50 miles or less to pursue their substitute activity.

 


Table 17: Primary Purpose of Trip that Included a Visit to Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

Primary Trip Purpose

Percent Of NF Visits

Not Recreation Trip - NF Visit Was Side Trip

1.6

Some Other Trip Purpose

0.1

Recreation Trip: This Forest Is Destination

95.6

Recreation Trip: Destination Is Somewhere Else

2.7

 

 

 

Table 18.  Substitute Behavior Choices of Tahoe National Forest Respondents (NVUM FY 2005 data).

 

What would you have done if you could not come to Tahoe National Forest for recreation

National Forest Visits (%)

Come back at a later time

23.3

Stayed at Home

15.1

Gone elsewhere for the same activity

52.9

Go elsewhere for a different activity

6.2

Gone to Work

0.1

Had some other substitute

2.4

 

 

 

 

Table 19.  Distance Visitors Would Travel to Other Location if Tahoe NF was Not Available For Recreation (NVUM FY2005 data)

Distance respondent would travel for substitute forest location (miles)

National Forest Visits (%)

0 - 25

26.6

26 - 50

22.8

51 - 75

14.9

76 - 100

8.0

101 - 200

22.4

201 - 300

3.9

OVER 300

1.3

 

 


Table 20 summarizes the distance survey respondents traveled from their home to this national forest.  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 have no lodging expenses. In addition, visitors on overnight trips will generally have to purchase more food during their trip (e.g., spending in restaurants and grocery stores) than visitors away from home for only a day. Similarly, visitors who travel short distances from home to the recreation location likely incur lesser expenses than visitors traveling long distances to the recreation location. For example, recreation visitors from nearby the recreation site will likely purchase less for fuel and less food than visitors who traveled a longer distance to the recreation site.  Over forty-seven percent of national forest visits were by locals (visitors who traveled 50 miles or less to the recreation site at which they were interviewed).

 

Table 20. Percent of National Forest Visits by Distance Traveled to Tahoe National Forest. (NVUM FY2005 data)

Miles From

Survey Respondent’s Home p

National Forest

Visits (%) h

Number Of Respondents

Up To 25 Miles

34.3

524

26 - 50 Miles

13.2

330

51 - 75 Miles

8.9

193

76 - 100 Miles

8.3

213

101 - 200 Miles

23.7

467

201 - 500 Miles

8.7

209

Over 500 Miles

2.9

119

Total

100.0

2055

h 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.

p Travel distance is self-reported

 

 

 

 


Visitors who spend the night away from home tend to contribute more new dollars to the local economy.  Table 21 shows that on the Tahoe National Forest 37% of visitors indicated their trip included at least one night away from home.  Of those who spent the night away from home, 35.9% stayed overnight within 50 miles of this forest and they averaged about 3.2 nights away from home.  

Visitors that had spent the night within 50 miles of the interview site were asked to identify the types of lodging they used.  They could pick one or more categories shown in Table 21.  Almost thirty-six percent of national forest visits by visitors who spent the night were in rented cabins, lodges, or hotels not on FS land and 15% stayed in developed forest service campgrounds. 

 

 

Table 21.  Visitor Trip Information for Tahoe National Forest Visitors (NVUM FY2005 data).

Item

Average

% Of NF Visits Made On A Trip With Overnight Stay Away From Home

37.0

% Of NF Visits With Night Away From Home And Overnight Stay W/In 50 Mi

35.9

Mean Nights Per Visit Spent Within 50 Miles Of NF

3.2

Area Lodging Use (% Visits W/In 50 Mi. Of Forest)

Cabins, Lodges, Hotels Or Huts On NF Land

3.9

NF Campgrounds On This National Forest

15.0

Private Campground Not On This National Forest

1.5

Camping In The Undeveloped Area On This National Forest

6.8

Other Public Campground (Park Service, State Parks, County, Etc.)

1.4

A Home, Cabin, Or Condo Respondent Owns

9.7

Private Home Of Friend Or Relative

29.0

Rented Home, Condo, Cabin, Lodge Or Hotel Not On Fs Land

35.9

Other

1.1

 

 


CHAPTER 7: VISITOR SATISFACTION

 

An important element of outdoor recreation program delivery is evaluating customer satisfaction with the outdoor 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 obtain customer satisfaction information, about one-third of visitors interviewed on the forest rated their satisfaction with fourteen elements related to recreation facilities and services.   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 Likert 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 were intended to be site/area specific to the area where the visitor was interviewed, 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 within the four site types: Day Use Developed (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed (OUDS), General Forest Areas, and Designated Wilderness.  A summary of satisfaction for the forest as a whole and is presented in Table 22.  Tables 22 through 25 provide satisfaction information by site type.   Note that if an element had less than 10 responses the item will not appear in any of the other satisfaction analysis presented here since these few responses are considered too few to provide reliable information.

 

 An Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) (reference Hudson et. all Feb 2004) was calculated and is presented in Figures 2-6.  A two-dimensional grid was plotted where importance values form the vertical axis and performance values the horizontal axis.  The cross-hairs on the graph are set at 4.0 for each measure, since managers generally need to know about the attributes that customers felt were important or very important (value of 4 or 5 on the scale) and performance was below very satisfied or satisfied (values of 1, 2 or 3).  Figure 2 uses the data presented in Table 22.  Figures 3-6 are also use the data in the satisfaction table that precedes it. Using this information, managers can identify the performance items in which visitors place high importance as well as services or facilities that were rated below satisfactory.  By emphasizing improvement in this quadrant managers can increase visitor satisfaction.  This information is presented for each site type, which may help managers better determine specifically which sites or areas might need improvement. 

 


Table 22. Overall Satisfaction and Importance Ratings for Tahoe National Forest (NVUM 2005 data).* all site types combined

ITEM

Avg. Rating

Mean Importance

Restroom cleanliness

4.1

4.5

Developed facility condition

4.4

4.4

Condition of environment

4.7

4.8

Employee helpfulness

4.2

4.5

Interpretive displays

3.9

3.7

Parking availability

4.4

4.3

Parking lot condition

4.4

3.9

Rec. info. availability

3.9

3.6

Road condition

4.5

4.2

Feeling of safety

4.8

4.6

Scenery

4.9

4.8

Signage adequacy

4.2

3.7

Trail condition

4.6

4.6

Value for fee paid

4.3

4.6

 

 


Figure 2. General Importance – Performance Rating for Tahoe National Forest (NVUM FY2005 data)

 

 


Table 23.  Tahoe National Forest Satisfaction Ratings for Day Use Developed Sites (NVUM FY2005 data)

 

Satisfaction Element

Percent of visitors Very Dissatisfied

Percent of visitors Somewhat Dissatisfied

Percent Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Percent of visitors Somewhat Satisfied

Percent of visitors Very Satisfied

Average Satisfaction Rating

Number of Respondents for this Rating

Importance Average

Restroom cleanliness

5.6

17.9

20.3

27.7

28.5

3.6

78

4.2

 

Developed facility condition

0.0

2.4

17.7

36.1

43.9

4.2

88

4.2

 

Condition of environment

0.0

0.4

4.5

12.3

82.7

4.8

194

4.8

 

Employee helpfulness

0.0

1.7

38.3

0.0

60.0

4.2

24

3.8

 

Interpretive displays

1.7

9.2

17.8

28.8

42.5

4.0

54

3.8

 

Parking availability

5.3

1.6

6.5

21.8

64.8

4.4

116

4.4

 

Parking lot condition

1.8

2.3

11.3

34.9

49.8

4.3

115

4.2

 

Rec. info. availability

0.5

2.3

46.9

22.2

28.0

3.7

150

3.2

 

Road condition

0.0

6.2

17.5

37.5

38.8

4.1

49

3.8

 

Feeling of safety

0.0

0.6

5.3

15.2

78.9

4.7

187

4.5

 

Scenery

0.0

0.0

1.0

6.4

92.6

4.9

194

4.8

 

Signage adequacy

1.1

0.1

38.8

25.1

34.9

3.9

180

3.3

 

Trail condition

0.0

0.1

6.7

37.7

55.5

4.5

103

4.5

 

Value for fee paid

0.0

0.5

12.8

43.6

43.0

4.3

83

4.6

 

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

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

5 = very important

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

 


Figure 3.  Tahoe National Forest Visitor Satisfaction in Day Use Developed Sites (NVUM FY2005 data).


Table 24.  Tahoe National Forest Satisfaction Ratings for Overnight Use Developed Sites (NVUM FY2005 data)

 

Satisfaction Element

Percent of visitors Very Dissatisfied

Percent of visitors Somewhat Dissatisfied

Percent Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Percent of visitors Somewhat Satisfied

Percent of visitors Very Satisfied

Average Satisfaction Rating

Number of Respondents for this Rating

Importance Average

Restroom cleanliness

6.6

15.2

9.0

19.3

49.9

3.9

67

4.8

Developed facility condition

0.0

4.0

2.6

17.3

76.1

4.7

64

4.7

Condition of environment

0.0

1.4

0.0

14.7

84.0

4.8

73

4.9

Employee helpfulness

0.0

0.0

5.8

2.9

91.2

4.9

25

4.7

Interpretive displays

0.0

12.0

24.3

11.9

51.8

4.0

20

4.0

Parking availability

0.0

3.2

3.1

19.4

74.3

4.6

51

4.3

Parking lot condition

0.0

2.1

10.3

17.9

69.7

4.6

40

4.3

Rec. info. availability

0.0

1.7

21.1

26.9

50.4

4.3

53

3.9

Road condition

0.0

0.0

5.2

24.9

69.8

4.6

58

4.5

Feeling of safety

0.0

0.0

1.2

6.2

92.7

4.9

70

4.6

Scenery

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.3

97.7

5.0

73

4.9

Signage adequacy

1.2

2.5

7.9

21.7

66.8

4.5

71

4.1

Trail condition

0.0

3.9

5.4

14.2

76.5

4.6

51

4.5

Value for fee paid