Table Of Contentdocument
Historic, archived
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
C
3
United States Visitor Characteristics and
Department
of Agriculture
Preferences for Three National
Forest Service
Intermountain Forest Wildernesses the
Research Station in
Research Paper South
INT-455
July 1992
Alan E. Watson
Daniel R. Williams CO
^folflftOfU Joseph W. Roggenbuck
John J. Daigle I -
) «
CO
THE AUTHORS RESEARCH SUMMARY
ALAN E. WATSON is research social scientist with the Inter- Greater knowledge is needed aboutvisitors tofederally
mountain Research Station's Wilderness Management re- classified wilderness in the South, the reasonstheyvisit
search work unit atthe Forestry Sciences Laboratoryon the wilderness, and the wayswilderness conditions influence
University of Montanacampus, Missoula. Dr. Watson attended their experiences. This information will allow areaswithin
the School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Poly- the region to be compared, and it will improvethe potential
technic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, receiving fortracking future changesthat may require management
a bachelor's, a master's, and in 1983, a Ph.D. degree. His changes.
research interests are primarily in wilderness experiencequal- Visitorstothe CohuttaWilderness in Georgia, Caney
ity, including the influences ofconflict, solitude, and visitor Creek Wilderness in Arkansas, and Upland Island Wilder-
impacts. ness in Texas were surveyed to gatherbaselinedataon
DANIEL R. WILLIAMS is assistant professorofforest recre- use and usercharacteristics. Thesecharacteristics included
ation, Departmentof Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute length ofvisit, groupsize, activities participated in, social en-
and State University, Blacksburg. Dr. Williams received his counterlevels, availability of substitute sites, placeof resi-
dence, sociodemographic information, previous wilderness
B.S. degreefrom the University of Nevada, Reno; his M.S. de-
greefrom Utah State University, Logan; and his Ph.D. degree experience, level of attachmentforwilderness, and visitor
preferencesforwilderness conditions.
iihnnavf1io9or8re,4s.tparrHetecirceuhalaatsrilowynritfthrteoemnroetlxehteoefUnnspiiavvseetrlsyeixtopyneorofiuetMndicnoenoerosnroetrcaer,ceraSettai.toinPoanbuel,- thrReeesuwlitlsdesrungegsesstarmeaasnystduidfifeedr.enTchees aamreoansgdivfisfietroerdsitnostoheme
motivation and choice. aspects of visit characteristics, visitorcharacteristics, and
visitorpreferences. This baseline information also suggests
JOSEPH W. ROGGENBUCK is associate professorofforest differences among these areas and otherwilderness areas
recreation, Departmentof Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Insti- studied, most located in the Western United States.
tute and State University, Blacksburg. Dr. Roggenbuck re- This report provides knowledge about currentvisitation.
ceived his B.S. and his M.S. degreesfrom the Universityof It may help in planning future educational programs, selecting
Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his Ph.D. degree inforest recreation wildernessquality indicatorsfor LimitsofAcceptable Change
from Utah State University, Logan, in 1975. He has written applications, and establishing management objectivesfor
many papers on wilderness management, particularlyon use experience-related issues.
and usercharacteristics.
JOHN J. DAIGLEwas an outdoor recreation plannerwith CONTENTS
the Intermountain Research Station's Wilderness Manage- Page
ment research work unit atthe Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Introduction 1
Missoula, MT, when this project was begun. He is nowstudy- Baseline Surveys 2
ing rural community development issues atthe University of Study Areas 2
Massachusetts, Amherst, assigned to the Northeastern Forest Stratification ofWilderness Areas 2
Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agri- Selected Areas 3
culture. He received his B.S. degree in recreation resources Survey Methods 7
managementfrom the University of Maine, Orono, in 1986. Season of Use 7
He received a master's degree in recreation resources and Sources of Samples 7
landscape architecturefrom Colorado State University, Fort Sampling Procedures 7
Collins, in 1990. He has written publications on wilderness Mail Questionnaire Procedures 7
recreation visitorconflict and management. Visitor Response Rates 8
Implications of Nonresponse Findings
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS for Results 8
Results 8
This research was partiallyfunded bythe Virginia Polytech- Visit Characteristics 8
nic Institute and State University, and Southern Region, Forest Visitor Characteristics 14
Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. Special acknowledg- Visitor Preferences 19
mentto Larry Phillips, Southern Region wildernessspecialist; Summary of Results 24
Jim Morphew, Clinton Sykes, and Gordon Steele, National Visit Characteristics 24
Forests in Texas; Robert Waldon, Ouachita National Forest; Visitor Characteristics 24
J. Mark Young, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station; Visitor Preferences 25
Bill Black, Mike Davis, JohnnyJones, and Harriett DiGioia, Management Implications 25
Chattahoochee National Forest; and Kathleen Goggin and Research Implications 26
Tim Hammond, Intermountain Research Station, for excep- References 26
tional contributionsduring datacollection.
Intermountain Research Station
32425th Street
Ogden, UT84401
and
Visitor Characteristics
Preferences for Three National
Forest Wildernesses in the South
Alan E. Watson
Daniel R. Williams
Joseph W. Roggenbuck
John J. Daigle
INTRODUCTION resource. Recreational use is the threat that might
be easiest to manage.
Since 1964, a series oflegislative acts (Browning The research reportedhere is intended to help
and others 1989) hasbuilt our National Wilderness managers in the South:
Preservation System from an original 9 million acres
in 55 areas to more than 91 million acres in nearly 1. Understand who visits wilderness.
500 separate management units. Each unit is man- 2. Understand why people visit wilderness.
aged by the Forest Service, U.S. Department ofAgri- 3. Understand how wilderness experiences are
culture, orthe National Park Service, Bureau ofLand influenced by conditions in wilderness.
Management, or Fish andWildlife Service, all ofthe 4. Have abaseline for comparisons offuture
U.S. Department ofthe Interior. Classified wilder- wilderness conditions and visitor preferences.
ness exists in all but six States (Kansas, Rhode Is- Roggenbuck and Lucas (1987) and Watson (1990)
land, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and Iowa). have summarized why wilderness managers are in-
The growth ofthe wilderness system can be illus- terested in information aboutwildernessvisitors and
trated by changes in the Forest Service's Southern how they use wilderness. Thisknowledge could in-
Region. Extendingfrom Texas, eastto Florida and crease the effectiveness ofvisitormanagement.
north to include Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas, Knowledge ofvisitors and their use ofwilderness
this region had only two wilderness units designated is considered essential to lighthanded management
in 1964—both in North Carolina. By 1979, the num- (Lucas 1980). Such approaches are usuallypreferred
ber ofindividual areas had grown to 16. Between for influencingthe behavior ofwilderness visitors
1980 and 1984, five additions were made to existing (Watson 1989). Lighthanded approaches emphasize
areas and 46 new areas were established. From 1985 subtle, unobtrusive management tohelp maintain
until 1988, six more additions were made to existing the freedom, spontaneity, and sense ofescape that
areas and 15 new areas were established. Every visitors expectfrom wilderness. Knowledge ofvisi-
State in the Region now includes classified wilder- tor characteristics could help managers understand
ness. The number ofwilderness areas in the Region who is likely to comply with lighthanded appeals
has increased only slightly since 1988, to a total of (Swearingen and Johnson 1990). In addition, such
76. Future increases probably will be minimal. Re- knowledge couldbe helpful when selecting direct
cent growth trends are not likely to be repeated. management strategies. Visitor education has long
While the supply ofwilderness is not expected to been heralded to help persuade visitors to refrain
increase much in the Southern Region, recreation from high-impactbehaviors they don't realize are
demand on these lands remains high. Wilderness harmful in wilderness. Much ofthe confidence in
areas in this Region are relatively easily accessed visitor education arises from the high formal educa-
by a large portion ofthe Nation's population. The tion ofwilderness visitors (Roggenbuck and Lucas
importance ofwilderness is expected to growin every 1987).
region because ofother values (Cordell and others Previous research in both the social and ecological
1990). These include contributions to air quality, wa- impacts ofvisitor use suggests the relationship with
ter quality, wildlife habitat protection, and ecosys- increasinguse is not linear. Itis influenced by use
tem preservation. To maintain these values, manag- characteristics as much or more than by the amount
ers must remain alert to threats to the wilderness ofuse (Cole 1982; Helgath 1975; LaPage 1967). Many
1
—
ofthe threats to wilderness, as well as wilderness 3. Visitorpreferences for wilderness conditions
benefits, stemfromwildernessvisitation (Roggenbuck including such things as the relative influence ofthe
and Lucas 1987). Managers must maintain natural number and type ofsocial encounters on the quality
conditions while providing opportunities for wilder- ofwilderness experiences.
ness recreation. Visitors' numbers and their style
ofuse can threaten both objectives. STUDYAREAS
Research on wilderness use and users is less com-
mon nowthan itwas a decade ortwo ago, even though Several study areas were selected in the Forest
problems have multiplied with expansion ofthe wil- Service's Southern Region to learn about differences
derness system (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). The within the Region. Areas were stratifiedbased on
growth in the wilderness system in the South dem- similarities in use levels anduse characteristics.
onstrates the needforbetter understandingthe use One area was chosen from each stratum.
ofthese areas. Three case studies ofwildernesses in
the South will allow some intraregional comparisons Stratification ofWilderness Areas
andprovide baselines for examiningtrends in this
region. Thesefindings were compared to Roggenbuck National Forest wilderness areas were subjectively
and Lucas' summary ofprevious research findings. classified into three strata based on agency percep-
Some differences could be caused by changes in wil- tions ofsimilarities in landform or ecosystem type,
derness use across time for all areas. Some differ- geographical location, and the type ofusebelieved
ences maybe caused by variations in sampling to occur there. The three strata (fig. 1) were:
methods. 1. Southern Appalachian Mountains wilderness.
The Southern Appalachians include atleast 37
BASELINE SURVEYS individual National Forest wilderness units, many
alongthe Appalachian backbone. These wilderness
In 1989, the U.S. General Accounting Office re- areas extend from northern Virginia through North
leased a Congressionallydirected evaluation ofForest Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and northern
Service wilderness management (GeneralAccounting Georgia. They includeAppalachian oakforest, north-
Office 1989). The General Accounting Office was ern hardwoods alongthebackbone ofthe Appalachians,
critical ofthe Forest Service's lack ofbaseline data or oak-hickory-pine forests in some areas (Bailey
on wilderness conditions and use for most areas. 1980). Besides some local users, visitors could come
The best example ofa regional baseline study of from metropolitan areas such as Baltimore, MD;
wildernessvisitors is Lucas (1980). Lucas established Washington, DC; Richmond, VA; Knoxville, TN;
baseline information for nine western wilderness ar- Atlanta, GA; Asheville, Raleigh, and Charlotte, NC;
eas and roadless areas. Lucas (1985) demonstrated and Columbia, SC. At least six wildernesses in the
thevalue ofthis baseline information when he re- adjoining Forest Service Region in WestVirginia
peated the 1972 study ofvisitors to the Bob Marshall wouldfit this category.
Wilderness complex. These studies showhow use 2. Ozark Highlands wilderness. Twelve National
and users changed duringthattime. Such informa- Forest wildernesses in Arkansas and Oklahoma and
tion couldhelp wilderness managersrespondto these eight areas in the adjoining Forest Service Region
changes.
in Missouri are reasonably similar. These lands are
The data reported here provide insight into three mostly oak-hickory-pine forests (Bailey 1980). Be-
quite different areasin the ForestService's Southern sides some local residents, users could come from ur-
Region. These data will provide a basis for compar- ban areas in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and
inguse and users in the future as well as comparing
Texas.
the differentareas in the Region to each other. Ifthe 3. Coastal/swamp/piedmont wilderness. About29
areashave greatdiversity in users and use activities, southern wilderness areas are not within mountain
the regional approach to wilderness management ranges. These areas include the piney woods ofeast-
should reflect this diversity. ern Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; the piedmont
Information to be analyzed in this reportincludes: ofAlabama and North Carolina; and swamps of
—
1. Visit characteristics including such factors as Florida and South Carolina. Bailey (1980) classifies
length ofvisit, group size, group type, activities, so- these forests as Southern Mixed Forest. Very little
cial encounter levels, availability ofsubstitutes, and is known about recreational use ofthese areas. Most
points offocus for particular visits. were designated as wilderness in recentyears to in-
—
2. Visitor characteristics includingplace ofresi- crease ecosystem diversity in the wilderness system.
dence, sociodemographic information, previous wil- Recreational use is believed to be low atmost areas.
derness experience, and the level and type ofattach- Most use occurs at relatively small, easily accessible
mentfeltfor wilderness. locations within each wilderness.
2
—
Figure 1 Stratification ofwilderness units in the Southern Region and study areas selected.
Selected Areas areais moderate in size by national standards, is close
to a large population center, and receives a lot ofuse
The CohuttaWilderness (fig. 2) inthe Chattahoochee (table 1). Estimated use peaked in 1983 at 152,800
National Forest in northern Georgia was selected to RVD's. Three trailheads are believed to receive 56
represent Southern Appalachian Mountains wilder- percentofthe annual use, with mostofthe remaining
ness. The Cohutta is only abouta 272-hour drive north use distributed across eight other trailheads.
ofAtlanta. About80percent ofthe usersarebelieved The Caney CreekWilderness (fig. 3) in the Ouachita
to be from Georgia, even though the wilderness ex- National Forest in Arkansas was selected to repre-
tends north into Tennessee. This 37,000-acre area sent Ozark Highlands wilderness. Caney Creek Wil-
is the South's largest National Forest wilderness. derness contains 14,460 acres. Other wilderness ar-
The Cohutta's proximity to Atlanta and surrounding eas in this stratum range fromjust under 5,000 acres
communities contributes to the estimated annual use to nearly 17,000 acres. Caney Creek receives an esti-
of71,680 recreation visitordays (RVD's) in 1989. The mated 11,400RVD's peryear(table 1). Use estimates
—
Table 1 Size and recreational use of survey areas
Recreational use Visitor
Area Approximate size (1988estimation) days/acre
1,000acres Visitordays
Cohutta (Georgia) 37.0 71,680 1.93
Caney Creek (Arkansas) 14.5 11,400 .79
Upland Island (Texas) 12.5 2,500 .20
3
4
TDHWT$* ^
—
Figure 3 Caney CreekWilderness.
show a slight annual increase, growingfrom 10,500 swamp/piedmont wilderness. In general, use is low
RVD's in 1982. Visits include overnight and day forthese small, often trailless areas. Upland Island,
trips. Most use is in the fall and spring, with light with about 2,500 RVD's peryear on its 12,562 acres,
use in the summer. Many visitors are believed to has thehighestuse (table 1), and is the largestoffive
come from nearby urban areas, although a substan- Texas wildernesses. Some users are believed to come
tial number ofTexas and Louisiana license plates are from Stephen F. Austin University in Nacogdoches.
commonly seen at trailhead parking areas. The bulk Some use comes from Houston to the south. Many
ofuse occurs alongthree trails, accessible atfour other users are from local rural population centers.
trailheads. A new guide service is expected to attracthunters
Upland Island (fig. 4), in the Angelina National from Houston and the Dallas/FortWorth metropolitan
Forestin Texas, was selected to representcoastal/ areas. The primary use-season is reportedlyfrom
5
Figure 4—Upland Island Wilderness.
6
