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:
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%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% at the 80% confidence level.
In other words we are 80% 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
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
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
Table 1. Population
of Available Site Days and Percentage of Days Sampled by Stratum on the White Mountain National Forest
|
Site Typea |
Proxy Codeb |
Use Levelc |
Number of site days in population |
Number of days sampled |
Sampling Rate (%) |
|
DUDS |
|
LOW |
2502 |
8 |
0.32 |
|
DUDS |
|
MEDIUM |
726 |
11 |
1.52 |
|
DUDS |
|
HIGH |
407 |
16 |
3.93 |
|
DUDS |
|
VERY HIGH |
595 |
16 |
2.69 |
|
DUDS |
FR1 |
|
101 |
9 |
8.91 |
|
DUDS |
FR3 |
|
82 |
9 |
10.98 |
|
DUDS |
SV1 |
|
1675 |
18 |
1.07 |
|
GFA |
|
LOW |
13655 |
11 |
0.08 |
|
GFA |
|
MEDIUM |
3534 |
25 |
0.71 |
|
GFA |
|
HIGH |
1101 |
22 |
2.00 |
|
GFA |
|
VERY HIGH |
90 |
18 |
20.00 |
|
OUDS |
|
LOW |
161 |
4 |
2.48 |
|
OUDS |
|
MEDIUM |
23 |
2 |
8.70 |
|
OUDS |
DUR4 |
|
3793 |
14 |
0.37 |
|
OUDS |
FE4 |
|
260 |
9 |
3.46 |
|
OUDS |
RE1 |
|
3975 |
11 |
0.28 |
|
OUDS |
SUP4 |
|
485 |
5 |
1.03 |
|
WILDERNESS |
|
LOW |
2084 |
8 |
0.38 |
|
WILDERNESS |
|
MEDIUM |
607 |
10 |
1.65 |
|
WILDERNESS |
|
HIGH |
54 |
8 |
14.81 |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
35910 |
234 |
0.65 |
a Site Type -
DUDS = Day Use Developed Site, GFA =
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
The
There were approximately 1,692,000 national forest
visits (Table 2) on
Table 2. White Mountain National Forest Visit Estimate
(NVUM FY2005 data)
|
Visit Type |
Visits (thousands) |
80% confidence level (%)f |
|
|
1692.0 |
4.1 |
|
Total Site Visits |
2117.6 |
3.6 |
|
Designated Wilderness Visitsd |
31.4 |
23.6 |
|
Special Events and
Organizational |
None reported |
. |
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 shows that a total of 2,794 visitors were
contacted on the forest during the sample year.
Of these, 2,442 agreed to be interviewed. Of those who agreed to be interviewed, 1,521 were
recreating and 1,400 of them were leaving the recreation site sometime that
day.
Table 3. Number of Visitors Contacted by Site Type on White Mountain National Forest
|
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 |
1740 |
1521 |
742 |
727 |
638 |
|
GFA |
616 |
534 |
449 |
431 |
399 |
|
OUDS |
364 |
319 |
272 |
186 |
158 |
|
Wilderness |
74 |
68 |
58 |
56 |
47 |
|
Total |
2794 |
2442 |
1521 |
1400 |
1242 |
a Site Type - DUDS = Day
Use Developed Site, GFA =
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
Table 4. Number of Complete Interviews on White Mountain National Forest
|
Form Typeg |
Day Use Developed Site |
Overnight Use Developed Site |
Undeveloped Areas (GFAs) |
Wilderness |
Total |
|
Basic |
286 |
69 |
165 |
21 |
541 |
|
Economics |
225 |
59 |
146 |
19 |
449 |
|
Satisfaction |
216 |
58 |
120 |
16 |
410 |
|
Total |
727 |
186 |
431 |
56 |
1400 |
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.
Figure 1. Purpose
of visit by visitors who agreed to be interviewed on White Mountain National Forest
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 38.2% of national
forest visits on the
Table 5. Percent of National
Forest Visits by Gender on White Mountain National Forest
|
Gender |
National
Forest Visits
(%)h |
Number
of Survey Respondentsi |
|
Female |
38.2 |
1517 |
|
Male |
61.8 |
1944 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
3461 |
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. The data for this forest show that the
highest national forest visit
percentage (24.5%) occurred in the 20-29 age category and the lowest
percentages were in the 16-19 and 70 and over 70 age categories.
Table 6. Percent of National
Forest Visits by Age on White Mountain National Forest
|
Age |
National
Forest Visits
(%) h |
Survey Respondents
i |
|
Under 16 |
11.0 |
659 |
|
16-19 |
6.6 |
190 |
|
20-29 |
24.5 |
587 |
|
30-39 |
14.2 |
572 |
|
40-49 |
21.4 |
699 |
|
50-59 |
13.2 |
444 |
|
60-69 |
7.0 |
218 |
|
70 + |
2.2 |
90 |
|
Total |
100.1 |
3459 |
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 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.
In
Table 7, data show that 28 (1.4%) survey respondents were of Spanish, Hispanic,
or Latino ethnicity. Table 8 summarizes
respondent’s race, showing that 98.6% of national forest visits on the
Table 7. Percent of
National Forest Visits by Ethnicity on the White Mountain National Forest
|
Ethnicity j |
National |
# Respondents
Indicating This Ethnicity |
|
Hispanic /
Latino |
1.4 |
28 |
j Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino was asked as a separate question
Table 8. Percent of
National Forest Visits by Race on White Mountain National Forest
|
Race
j |
National
Forest Visits
(%)d |
Number
of Survey Respondentsc |
|
American Indian/Alaska Native |
0.2 |
3 |
|
Asian |
1.2 |
23 |
|
Black/African American |
0.6 |
8 |
|
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander |
0.1 |
2 |
|
White |
98.6 |
1356 |
|
Total |
100.7 |
1392 |
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. 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 10 displays the percent of national
forest visits by people from other countries.
On the
Table 9. Top Ten ZIP Codes of White Mountain National
Forest Survey Respondents (NVUM FY 2005 data)
|
Home
Location |
# Of Respondents |
% Of Respondents |
|
Foreign
Country |
87 |
6.2 |
|
03570 |
42 |
3.0 |
|
03223 |
19 |
1.4 |
|
03581 |
19 |
1.4 |
|
03264 |
16 |
1.1 |
|
03251 |
14 |
1.0 |
|
03818 |
14 |
1.0 |
|
03301 |
13 |
0.9 |
|
03801 |
12 |
0.9 |
|
03860 |
11 |
0.8 |
Table 10. Percent of
National Forest Visits to White Mountain National Forest USA
|
Country Of Origin (other than US) |
National |
Number Of Respondents |
|
|
0.0 |
0 |
|
|
3.2 |
57 |
|
|
0.9 |
30 |
|
|
0.0 |
0 |
|
|
0.0 |
0 |
|
Another
Country |
0.1 |
1 |
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 12.5 hours. The average
site visit was 7.8 hours, but time spent varied considerably by type of site (Table
11) with visitors to Day Use Developed sites spending an average of 3 hours and
Overnight Use Developed site visits lasting an average of 34.8 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.
Table 11. Visit Duration
on White Mountain National Forest
|
Visit Type |
Average Duration (hours) |
Median Duration (hours) |
|
Site Visit |
7.8 |
3.10 |
|
Day Use Developed |
3.0 |
2.30 |
|
Overnight Use Developed |
34.8 |
22.50 |
|
Undeveloped Areas |
11.2 |
4.50 |
|
Designated Wilderness |
9.0 |
3.85 |
|
National Forest Visit |
12.5 |
4.90 |
About eighty-eight percent (88.2%) of
Table
12. Group Characteristics for White Mountain National Forest
|
Characteristic |
Average |
Median |
|
Party size |
2.5 |
2 |
|
number of Axles
per vehicle |
2.0 |
2 |
|
Percent of
recreational visitors who visit just one national forest site during their entire National Forest
Visit (%) |
88.2 |
. |
|
Number of national
forest sites visited during each National Forest Visit |
1.2 |
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
Table 13. Percent of National Forest Visits by Annual Visit
Frequency to White Mountain National Forest
|
Number of Reported |
Percent of National Forest Visitors (%) for
ALL activities |
Percent of National Forest Visitors (%) for
MAIN activity |
|||
|
1 – 5 |
48.7 |
59.5 |
|
|||
|
6 – 10 |
9.8 |
10.2 |
|
|||
|
11 – 15 |
8.0 |
6.1 |
|
|||
|
16 – 20 |
6.5 |
3.7 |
|
|||
|
21 – 25 |
4.0 |
1.9 |
|
|||
|
26 – 30 |
2.2 |
4.7 |
|
|||
|
31 – 35 |
0.7 |
1.0 |
|
|||
|
36 – 40 |
3.1 |
3.0 |
|
|||
|
41 – 50 |
5.8 |
5.2 |
|
|||
|
51 – 100 |
7.9 |
3.8 |
|
|||
|
101 – 200 |
2.3 |
0.6 |
|
|||
|
201 – 300 |
1.0 |
0.2 |
|
|||
|
301 – 365 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
|
|||
During their visit to the
forest, the top five recreation activities of the visitors to the White
Mountain National Forest were relaxing, viewing natural features, downhill
skiing, hiking/walking, and viewing wildlife (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, viewing natural features, cross country skiing, and other
non-motorized activities.
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 White Mountain National Forest
|
Activity |
Total Activity Participation (%) l/m |
Was Main Activity (%) n |
# Of Respondents As |
Average Hours Doing Main Activity (Hours) |
|
Downhill
Skiing |
43.7 |
43.1 |
183 |
4.8 |
|
Hiking
/ Walking |
41.4 |
19.9 |
478 |
6.5 |
|
Viewing
Natural Features |
54.5 |
10.0 |
195 |
3.3 |
|
Cross-country
Skiing |
7.1 |
5.9 |
34 |
2.8 |
|
Other
Non-motorized |
14.3 |
5.8 |
163 |
3.3 |
|
Some Other Activity |
7.7 |
4.0 |
45 |
4.4 |
|
Other
Motorized Activity |
6.1 |
3.0 |
14 |
1.0 |
|
Relaxing |
60.7 |
2.7 |
62 |
8.8 |
|
Developed
Camping |
5.2 |
2.6 |
74 |
32.6 |
|
Driving
for Pleasure |
17.5 |
1.7 |
42 |
2.7 |
|
Fishing |
2.6 |
1.1 |
21 |
3.1 |
|
Picnicking |
17.0 |
0.9 |
27 |
6.0 |
|
Backpacking |
2.3 |
0.9 |
29 |
18.8 |
|
Non-motorized
Water |
2.2 |
0.7 |
9 |
3.0 |
|
Snowmobiling |
0.5 |
0.5 |
4 |
4.4 |
|
No
Activity Reported |
0.5 |
0.5 |
7 |
. |
|
Viewing
Wildlife |
25.9 |
0.3 |
6 |
2.1 |
|
Bicycling |
1.4 |
0.3 |
6 |
4.4 |
|
Primitive
Camping |
0.7 |
0.3 |
12 |
24.8 |
|
Nature
Study |
3.8 |
0.2 |
3 |
4.1 |
|
Resort
Use |
3.8 |
0.1 |
9 |
19.0 |
|
Hunting |
0.1 |
0.1 |
2 |
3.4 |
|
|
6.8 |
0.0 |
1 |
1.0 |
|
|
4.5 |
0.0 |
1 |
1.0 |
|
Visiting
Historic Sites |
3.8 |
0.0 |
0 |
. |
|
OHV
Use |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0 |
. |
|
Motorized
Water Activities |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1 |
0.8 |
|
Horseback
Riding |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1 |
10.0 |
|
Motorized
Trail Activity |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1 |
4.0 |
l Survey
respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than
100%.
m The 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 a lot of 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 White Mountain National Forest
|
Facility Type |
Percent Of NF Visits Using The
Facility l |
|
Developed
Swimming Site |
17.0 |
|
Motorized
Single Track Trail |
0.0 |
|
Motorized
Dual Track Trails |
0.1 |
|
Designated
ORV Area |
0.3 |
|
|
0.7 |
|
Scenic
Byway |
65.4 |
|
|
12.8 |
|
Interpretive
Displays |
4.1 |
|
Information
Sites |
7.9 |
|
Developed Fishing Site |
3.0 |
|
None
of these Facilities |
32.1 |
l Survey
respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than
100%.
CHAPTER
6: ECONOMIC INFORMATION
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. Thirty-eight percent of White Mountain
National Forest visits are by groups with a household income of under $50,000
and 20.8% are $100,000 and over.
Table 16: Percent of National
Forest Visits by Household Income Categories for the White Mountain National Forest
|
Annual Household
Income Categories |
National |
|
Under $25,000 |
16.3 |
|
$25,000 –
49,999 |
21.7 |
|
$50,000-74,999 |
20.2 |
|
$75,000-99,999 |
21.0 |
|
$100,000 –
149,999 |
13.9 |
|
$150,000 And
Over |
6.9 |
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, 84% (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). About forty percent of visitors said
their substitute behavior choice was activity driven (gone elsewhere for same
activity) and 34.6% said they would have come back later to this national
forest. About twelve percent of visitors
said they would go elsewhere for a different activity and 6% 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.
Just over forty-six percent of the substitute choices would have been
within 50 miles of the respondents home (Table 19).
Table 17: Primary Purpose of
Trip that Included a Visit to White Mountain National Forest
|
Primary Trip Purpose |
Percent Of NF Visits |
|
Not Recreation Trip - NF Visit Was Side Trip |
5.6 |
|
Some Other Trip Purpose |
0.9 |
|
Recreation Trip: This |
84.0 |
|
Recreation Trip: Destination Is Somewhere Else |
9.4 |
Table 18. Substitute Behavior Choices of White Mountain
National Forest Respondents (NVUM FY 2005 data).
|
What
would you have done if you could not come to |
National
|
|
Come back at a later time |
34.6 |
|
Stayed at Home |
6.0 |
|
Gone elsewhere for the same activity |
40.1 |
|
Go elsewhere for a different activity |
11.8 |
|
Gone to Work |
5.4 |
|
Had some other substitute |
2.2 |
Table 19. Distance Visitors
Would Travel to Other Location if White Mountain NF Was Not Available For Recreation
(NVUM FY2005 data)
|
Distance respondent would
travel for substitute forest location (miles) |
National
|
|
0 - 25 |
26.4 |
|
26 - 50 |
19.7 |
|
51 - 75 |
6.7 |
|
76 - 100 |
18.2 |
|
101 - 200 |
19.8 |
|
201 - 300 |
3.1 |
|
OVER 300 |
6.0 |
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. About twenty-five percent of national forest
visits were by locals (those who traveled 50 miles or less from home to the
site at which they were interviewed).
Table 20. Percent of National Forest Visits by Distance Traveled
to White Mountain National Forest
|
Miles
From Survey
Respondent’s Home p |
National
Forest Visits (%) h |
Number
Of Respondents |
|
Up To 25 Miles |
18.8 |
180 |
|
26 - 50 Miles |
6.9 |
83 |
|
51 - 75 Miles |
8.0 |
101 |
|
76 - 100 Miles |
11.7 |
158 |
|
101 - 200 Miles |
33.2 |
478 |
|
201 - 500 Miles |
14.8 |
213 |
|
Over 500 Miles |
6.6 |
168 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
1381 |
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 new dollars to the local
economy. Table 21 shows that on the
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. About forty-eight percent
of national forest visits by visitors who spent the night rented a cabin,
lodge, or hotel not on the national forest and 10.5% camped in developed forest
service campgrounds.
Table 21. Visitor Trip Information for White Mountain National Forest Visitors (NVUM FY2005 data).
|
Item |
Average |
|
% Of NF Visits Made On A Trip With Overnight Stay Away From Home |
54.4 |
|
% Of NF Visits With Night Away From Home And Overnight Stay W/In
50 Mi |
52.6 |
|
Mean Nights Per Visit Spent Within 50 Miles Of NF |
4.2 |
|
Area Lodging Use (% Visits W/In
50 Mi. Of |
|
|
Cabins, Lodges, Hotels Or Huts On NF Land |
10.1 |
|
NF Campgrounds On This National Forest |
10.5 |
|
Private Campground Not On This National Forest |
5.8 |
|
Camping In The Undeveloped Area On This National Forest |
2.6 |
|
Other Public Campground (Park Service, State Parks, County,
Etc.) |
2.1 |
|
A Home, Cabin, Or Condo Respondent Owns |
13.2 |
|
Private Home Of Friend Or Relative |
13.9 |
|
Rented Home, Condo, Cabin, Lodge Or Hotel Not On Fs Land |
48.2 |
|
Other |
0.6 |
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
Table 22. Overall Satisfaction and Importance Ratings for
|
ITEM |
Avg. Rating |
Mean Importance |
|
Restroom cleanliness |
4.2 |
4.3 |
|
Developed facility condition |
4.7 |
4.4 |
|
Condition of environment |
4.8 |
4.7 |
|
Employee helpfulness |
4.7 |
4.6 |
|
Interpretive displays |
4.5 |
4.5 |
|
Parking availability |
4.6 |
4.6 |
|
Parking lot condition |
4.7 |
4.0 |
|
Rec. info. availability |
4.6 |
4.4 |
|
Road condition |
4.6 |
4.1 |
|
Feeling of safety |
4.8 |
4.6 |
|
Scenery |
4.9 |
4.8 |
|
Signage adequacy |
4.5 |
4.6 |
|
Trail condition |
4.5 |
4.7 |
|
Value for fee paid |
4.6 |
4.5 |
Figure 2. General
Importance – Performance Rating for White Mountain National Forest
Table 23. White Mountain 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 |
3.1 |
5.0 |
7.3 |
44.7 |
39.8 |
4.1 |
111 |
4.4 |
|
|||||||||
|
Developed facility condition |
0.0 |
1.1 |
1.7 |
23.0 |
74.1 |
4.7 |
184 |
4.5 |
|
|||||||||
|
Condition of environment |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.6 |
14.5 |
82.9 |
4.8 |
213 |
4.7 |
|
|||||||||
|
Employee helpfulness |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
25.1 |
74.4 |
4.7 |
110 |
4.6 |
|
|||||||||
|
Interpretive displays |
0.0 |
0.6 |
7.7 |
28.8 |
62.9 |
4.5 |
102 |
4.5 |
|
|||||||||
|
Parking availability |
0.0 |
4.4 |
4.2 |
21.8 |
69.6 |
4.6 |
209 |
4.7 |
|
|||||||||
|
Parking lot condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.1 |
24.7 |
73.2 |
4.7 |
207 |
4.2 |
|
|||||||||
|
Rec. info. availability |
0.5 |
2.0 |
2.6 |
21.6 |
73.3 |
4.7 |
131 |
4.4 |
|
|||||||||
|
Road condition |
2.5 |
0.0 |
4.5 |
19.1 |
73.9 |
4.6 |
97 |
4.5 |
|
|||||||||
|
Feeling of safety |
0.0 |
0.4 |
1.3 |
12.8 |
85.4 |
4.8 |
211 |
4.6 |
|
|||||||||
|
Scenery |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
5.7 |
93.7 |
4.9 |
215 |
4.9 |
|
|||||||||
|
Signage adequacy |
0.6 |
2.3 |
2.7 |
21.6 |
72.8 |
4.6 |
203 |
4.6 |
|
|||||||||
|
Trail condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
3.7 |
42.8 |
53.5 |
4.5 |
147 |
4.7 |
|
|||||||||
|
Value for fee paid |
0.1 |
1.5 |
2.2 |
31.2 |
65.0 |
4.6 |
176 |
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. White Mountain National Forest Visitor
Satisfaction in Day Use Developed Sites (NVUM FY2005 data).
Table 24. White Mountain National Forest Satisfaction
Ratings for Overnight Use Developed Sites (NVUM FY2005 data)
|
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 |
0.1 |
2.5 |
2.6 |
36.2 |
58.6 |
4.5 |
48 |
4.2 |
|
Developed facility condition |
2.9 |
0.0 |
2.9 |
18.5 |
75.6 |
4.6 |
43 |
4.1 |
|
Condition of environment |
0.0 |
4.4 |
4.5 |
20.7 |
70.5 |
4.6 |
57 |
4.8 |
|
Employee helpfulness |
0.0 |
2.7 |
0.0 |
11.1 |
86.3 |
4.8 |
42 |
4.6 |
|
Interpretive displays |
0.0 |
0.0 |
6.3 |
26.2 |
67.5 |
4.6 |
19 |
4.5 |
|
Parking availability |
0.0 |
2.7 |
0.1 |
6.0 |
91.2 |
4.9 |
51 |
4.3 |
|
Parking lot condition |
0.0 |
2.7 |
8.5 |
6.0 |
82.8 |
4.7 |
47 |
3.8 |
|
Rec. info. availability |
2.6 |
5.2 |
8.0 |
19.2 |
65.0 |
4.4 |
42 |
4.5 |
|
Road condition |
3.2 |
3.2 |
0.1 |
33.4 |
60.0 |
4.4 |
38 |
3.7 |
|
Feeling of safety |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
14.1 |
85.8 |
4.9 |
57 |
4.3 |
|
Scenery |
0.0 |
0.0 |
6.5 |
13.6 |
79.9 |
4.7 |
57 |
4.6 |
|
Signage adequacy |
0.0 |
7.0 |
2.3 |
21.6 |
69.1 |
4.5 |
52 |
4.4 |
|
Trail condition |
0.0 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
23.5 |
70.9 |
4.6 |
47 |
4.4 |
|
Value for fee paid |
0.0 |
2.6 |
5.2 |
30.7 |
61.5 |
4.5 |
51 |
4.3 |
*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 4. White
Mountain National
Forest
Table 25. White Mountain National Forest Satisfaction
Ratings for Undeveloped Areas (GFA) (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 |
0.0 |
2.8 |
14.0 |
31.8 |
51.5 |
4.3 |
53 |
4.1 |
|
|||||||||
|
Developed Facility Condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.5 |
11.2 |
87.3 |
4.9 |
39 |
4.5 |
|
|||||||||
|
Condition Of Environment |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
26.7 |
73.2 |
4.7 |
115 |
4.8 |
|
|||||||||
|
Employee Helpfulness |
0.0 |
0.0 |
5.0 |
22.5 |
72.5 |
4.7 |
30 |
4.4 |
|
|||||||||
|
Interpretive Displays |
0.0 |
4.9 |
11.0 |
30.5 |
53.6 |
4.3 |
44 |
4.3 |
|
|||||||||
|
Parking Availability |
1.2 |
2.3 |
3.2 |
23.0 |
70.3 |
4.6 |
114 |
4.3 |
|
|||||||||
|
Parking Lot Condition |
0.0 |
3.0 |
4.2 |
17.3 |
75.5 |
4.7 |
111 |
3.7 |
|
|||||||||
|
Rec. Info. Availability |
0.0 |
3.9 |
10.3 |
26.5 |
59.3 |
4.4 |
84 |
4.5 |
|
|||||||||
|
Road Condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
32.6 |
66.9 |
4.7 |
65 |
3.8 |
|
|||||||||
|
Feeling Of Safety |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
22.2 |
76.8 |
4.8 |
115 |
4.6 |
|
|||||||||
|
Scenery |
0.0 |
2.9 |
1.1 |
10.3 |
85.8 |
4.8 |
112 |
4.8 |
|
|||||||||
|
Signage Adequacy |
0.2 |
6.2 |
13.7 |
26.5 |
53.5 |
4.3 |
108 |
4.5 |
|
|||||||||
|
Trail Condition |
0.0 |
3.1 |
1.2 |
33.2 |
62.5 |
4.6 |
109 |
4.5 |
|
|||||||||
|
Value For Fee Paid |
4.3 |
0.0 |
6.5 |
17.7 |
71.5 |
4.5 |
58 |
4.3 |
|
|||||||||
*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
Table 26. White Mountain
National Forest Satisfaction Ratings for Designated Wilderness (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 |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
3 |
. |
|
|||||||||
|
Developed
Facility Condition |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
1 |
. |
|
|||||||||
|
Condition
Of Environment |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
17.5 |
82.5 |
4.8 |
16 |
4.8 |
|
|||||||||
|
Employee
Helpfulness |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
3 |
. |
|
|||||||||
|
Interpretive
Displays |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
4 |
. |
|
|||||||||
|
Parking
Availability |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
9.6 |
90.4 |
4.9 |
15 |
3.9 |
|
|||||||||
|
Parking
Lot Condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
9.6 |
90.4 |
4.9 |
15 |
3.4 |
|
|||||||||
|
Rec.
Info. Availability |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
48.4 |
50.0 |
4.5 |
14 |
4.3 |
|
|||||||||
|
Road
Condition |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
5 |
. |
|
|||||||||
|
Feeling
Of Safety |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
18.2 |
81.8 |
4.8 |
16 |
4.6 |
|
|||||||||
|
Scenery |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
8.8 |
91.2 |
4.9 |
16 |
4.6 |
|
|||||||||
|
Signage
Adequacy |
0.9 |
10.6 |
10.6 |
11.5 |
66.4 |
4.3 |
14 |
4.0 |
|
|||||||||
|
Trail Condition |
8.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
19.7 |
71.5 |
4.5 |
16 |
4.8 |
|
|||||||||
|
Value
For Fee Paid |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
4 |
. |
|
|||||||||
*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 6.
*Note: For items with less than 10 responses
the data was not reported
Another method was developed to report aggregated
visitor satisfaction for use in forest-wide, regional, and national reporting (Table
27). Since some satisfaction elements
are not easily controlled by managers, such as quality of the scenery,
condition of the natural environment and landscape attractiveness, these items
were not included in the aggregate scores.
Although managers can influence some of these items through visual
resource management, at the national and regional level these elements do not
reflect customer satisfaction in a meaningful way. Another satisfaction element measured, value
for fee paid, does not fit within the four aggregate elements. The
remaining satisfaction elements were divided into four subgroups: developed facilities, access, services, and
visitor safety. The site types sampled
were aggregated into three groups: developed sites (includes both day use and
overnight developed sites), dispersed areas, and designated Wilderness. Two aggregate measures were computed. The first measure is called “Percent
Satisfied Visitors (PSI)”, which is the proportion of satisfaction ratings
scored by visitors as satisfied (4) or very satisfied (5). Computed as the
percentage of all ratings for the elements within the sub grouping that are at
or above the target level, the PSI indicator shows the percent of all visitors
that are reasonably well satisfied with agency performance. Currently the national threshold target is a
1% per year increase in satisfaction up to 85% in 2008. It would be very difficult to consistently
have a higher satisfaction score than 85% since many elements of a visitor’s
satisfaction with their trip are beyond management control. Table 27 displays the aggregate PSI score
for this forest.
Table 27. Percent of Site Visits s in Which Visitors Were Satisfied with the Item They Were Asked
to Rate on White Mountain National Forest
|
Satisfied Survey Respondents (%) t |
|||
|
Satisfaction Element |
Developed Sites u |
Undeveloped Areas (GFAs) |
Designated Wilderness |
|
Access (includes parking availability, parking lot condition, road
condition and trail condition) |
94.7 |
94.9 |
97.2 |
|
Developed Facilities (includes restroom cleanliness and facility
condition) |
92.4 |
89.6 |
100.0 |
|
Perception of
Safety |
98.5 |
99.0 |
100.0 |
|
Services (includes availability of information, signage, employee
helpfulness) |
94.6 |
84.0 |
91.3 |
s A Site Visit is the entry of one person
onto a national forest site or area to participate in recreation activities for
an unspecified period of time.
t This is a composite rating. It is the
proportion of satisfaction ratings scored by visitors as good (4) or very good
(5). Computed as the percentage of all ratings for the elements within the sub
grouping that are at or above the target level, and indicates the percent of
all visitors that are reasonably well satisfied with agency performance.
u This category includes both Day Use and
Overnight Use Developed Sites.
Another method of interpreting visitor satisfaction
data is called “Percent Meet Expectations (PME)”. This is the proportion of satisfaction
ratings in which the numerical satisfaction rating for a particular element is
equal to or greater than the importance rating for that element. For example, for restroom cleanliness all
visitors who ranked the performance (satisfaction) rating greater than or equal
the importance rating (performance rated 4.5 and importance rated 4.0) would be
counted in the PME. This indicator
tracks the congruence between the agency’s performance and customer evaluations
of importance. To meet the criteria,
those elements with higher importance levels must have higher performance
levels. Table 28 summarizes the PME for
the
Table 28. White Mountain National Forest
Visitor Satisfaction Ratings Using the Percent Meets Expectation Scores (FY
2005 data).
|
Satisfaction Element |
Developed Sites |
Undeveloped Areas (GFA) |
Designated Wilderness |
|
Access |
81.8 |
86.0 |
91.4 |
|
Developed Facilities |
80.2 |
86.5 |
100.1 |
|
Feeling of safety |
92.4 |
85.7 |
81.8 |
|
Services |
83.2 |
73.2 |
83.6 |
Respondents were asked two additional satisfaction
questions in round 2 of data collection.
All Respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with their
current visit to this national forest using the Likert scale of 1-5. The results for this forest are displayed in Table
29. Almost ninety-nine percent (98.8%)
of national forest visits were rated as somewhat to very satisfactory. One-third of respondents were asked to rate the
importance of and their satisfaction with both signing and road condition on
this national forest as a whole. Table
30 displays the percent of national forest visits for by satisfaction category
for roads and signs on the forest as a whole.
Table 31 displays how important roads and signs are to the quality of
the person’s recreation experience. On
the
Table 29. Percent of National Forest Visits by Satisfaction
Category for the White Mountain National Forest
|
Satisfaction Rating |
National |
|
Very
dissatisfied |
0.1 |
|
Somewhat
dissatisfied |
0.1 |
|
Neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied |
1.1 |
|
Somewhat
satisfied |
15.8 |
|
Very
Satisfied |
83.0 |
Table 30. Percent of National
Forest Visits by Satisfaction Category for White Mountain National Forest Roads and Signs
(NVUM FY2005 data)
|
Satisfaction Rating |
|
Forest-Wide Signage Adequacy ( |
|||
|
Very Dissatisfied |
0.1 |
0.0 |
|
|||
|
Somewhat Dissatisfied |
0.7 |
2.8 |
|
|||
|
Not Satisfied Or Dissatisfied |
1.6 |
3.8 |
|
|||
|
Somewhat Satisfied |
22.3 |
25.0 |
|
|||
|
Very Satisfied |
73.2 |
68.0 |
|
|||
|
Not Applicable |
2.2 |
0.4 |
|
|||
Table 31. Average Importance
Score for White Mountain National Forest Roads and Signs
(NVUM FY2005 data)
|
|
Forest-Wide Signage Adequacy |
|
4.3 |
4.4 |
Providing barrier-free facilities for recreation visitors
is an important part of facility and service planning and development. In round two of data collection a specific
question asked visitors if anyone in their group had a disability. If they responded yes, the visitor was then
asked if the facilities at the sites they visited were accessible for this
person (Table 32). Almost five percent (4.8%) of national forest
visits were by groups that had at least one member with a disability. Of this group, all indicated that facilities
were accessible to them.
Table 32. Accessibility
of White Mountain National Forest Facilities by Persons with Disabilities (NVUM
FY2005 data)
|
Item |
Percent |
|
% Visits
Including Group Member With A Disability |
4.8 |
|
Of These, %
Indicating Facilities Were Accessible |
100.0 |
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 33 summarizes mean
perception of crowding by site type on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 denotes
hardly anyone was there, and a 10 indicates the area was perceived as overcrowded. For example in Overnight Use Developed sites
13.6% of site visits were rated as crowded (ratings 8, 9 and 10 on the scale)
and 23.9% of Day Use Developed site visits were rated as “hardly anyone there”
(a 1 on the scale).
Table 33. Percent of
Site Visits by Crowding Rating by Site Type for White Mountain National Forest (NVUM
2005 data).
|
Day
Use Developed Sites |
Overnight
Use Developed Sites |
Undeveloped
Areas (GFA) |
Designated
Wilderness |
|
|
10 Overcrowded |
0.1 |
2.3 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
|
9 |
2.0 |
2.3 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
|
8 |
4.6 |
9.0 |
4.1 |
0.0 |
|
7 |
4.5 |
4.7 |
4.2 |
0.0 |
|
6 |
9.5 |
9.0 |
6.0 |
0.0 |
|
5 |
12.0 |
15.9 |
20.3 |
17.5 |
|
4 |
8.5 |
2.6 |
11.4 |
1.5 |
|
3 |
17.4 |
20.4 |
21.4 |
9.5 |
|
2 |
17.5 |
20.3 |
23.5 |
43.8 |
|
1 Hardly anyone there |
23.9 |
13.5 |
7.9 |
27.7 |
CHAPTER
8: WILDERNESS VISITS
Several
questions on the NVUM survey dealt directly with use of congressionally designated
Wilderness Areas. Wilderness was sampled
26 days on the forest, and 56 interviews were obtained. Tables 34 - 37 summarize demographic
characteristics of Wilderness survey respondents. If some of the information is not shown this
means there were not enough interviews from which to make inferences. On this national forest Wilderness visits
were made by 30.7 % females and 69.3% males (Table 34). The highest percent of Wilderness site visits
were by people between 40 and 49 years of age (Table 35). There was one (4.3%) survey respondent of
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (Table 36).
The majority of Wilderness site visits were by Whites (Table 37).
Table 34. Percent of
Wilderness Site Visits on White Mountain National Forest
|
Gender |
Percent
Of Wilderness Visits |
Number
Of Survey Respondents |
|
Female |
30.7 |
53 |
|
Male |
69.3 |
75 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
128 |
Table 35. Percent of
Wilderness Site Visits on White Mountain National Forest
|
Age
Class |
Percent
Of Wilderness Visits |
Number
Of Survey Responses |
|
Under 16 |
9.4 |
16 |
|
16-19 |
4.2 |
11 |
|
20-29 |
10.8 |
25 |
|
30-39 |
17.3 |
20 |
|
40-49 |
26.5 |
26 |
|
50-59 |
15.0 |
22 |
|
60-69 |
15.3 |
6 |
|
70+ |
1.4 |
2 |
|
Total |
99.9 |
128 |
Table 36. Percent of
Wilderness Site Visits on White Mountain National Forest
|
Ethnicity |
Percent
Of Wilderness Site Visits |
Number
Of Respondents Of This Ethnicity |
|
Hispanic /
Latino |
4.3 |
1 |
Table 37. Percent of
Wilderness Site Visits on White Mountain National Forest Wilderness by race (NVUM FY2005 data).
|
Race |
Percent
Of Wilderness Visits |
Number
Of Survey Respondents |
|
American Indian / |
0.0 |
0 |
|
Asian |
0.7 |
1 |
|
Black / African American |
4.6 |
2 |
|
Hawaiian / Pacific Islander |
0.0 |
0 |
|
White |
94.7 |
53 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
56 |
ZIP codes of Wilderness survey respondents
were collected. Results are shown in Table
38. This information may be useful to
learn where Wilderness visitors come from, but it does not represent the entire
universe of ZIP codes of Wilderness visitors on this national forest because
this is only a sample.