,. ‘ . - - 1 d. a (_ ’9‘ ,-v - _ ‘95:. .15.. gighwx "t 1 121.3: -. 3&vfijiztn; "‘ ‘ a. _m—=-n- 3,, ' ngryxififiivfigfi aM‘Em “2335;; ‘ ‘ 1'...» . w v ‘W“i-§§;; \z‘:':‘ ‘ . 4 p ”3.. . tub-Vugmnu m a...» N :;. ,4 w; “1;; , iv. 21:33: sifw .u .1 x" “ a. “$3233.? ‘Lw; ‘ -~:.. 3. . «I .- ;’. 2‘“ “a $31." ‘2 ‘ - $;..".‘S‘,E 1‘1 . q!" -23 V ~a mm This is to certify that the thesis entitled Stakeholders Opinions Concerning The Concept And Amount Of Semiprimitive Areas In The Huron-Manistee National Forests presented by Greg Paul Claesson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters Science . degree in Major professor l/é7ésl / ( ' 0-7639 MS U is an Afinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution lllllllllllllllllIIIHIIHIIIIIIHIHllll’llllllllllllllllllll 31293 01025 9012 LIBRARY Mlchigan State University PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove thb chockwt from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before dd. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU In An Affirmative Mount Opportunity Institutlon Wanna-m STAKEHOLDERS OPINIONS CONCERNING THE CONCEPT AND AMOUNT OF SEMIPRIMITIVE AREAS IN THE HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS BY Gregory Paul Claesson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park and Recreation Resources 1993 ABSTRACT STAKEHOLDERS OPINIONS CONCERNING THE CONCEPT AND AMOUNT OF SEMIPRIMITIVE AREAS IN THE HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS BY Gregory Paul Claesson This study investigates opinions of segments of the stakeholding public concerning semiprimitive areas in the Huron-Manistee National Forests (HMNF). Concerns have been raised over the designation of motorized and nonmotorized semiprimitive areas. This study of semiprimitive area users, dispersed forest recreationists, and landowners within the designated boundaries of the HMNF found the majority of respondents approved of the concept of semiprimitive areas and desired an increase in the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized and motorized area. Respondents who opposed the designation of additional semiprimitive acres, were more likely to desire direct car and truck access to recreation features. Respondents in general supported the attributes semiprimitive nonmotorized areas provide including a natural appearance, quiet surroundings, nonmotorized recreation, and opportunities for privacy. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I would like to thank my family members who provided positive support throughout the many difficult and frustrating times during my masters thesis research. I would also like to thank Julie Tsatsaros who went through this entire process with me. Julie provided valuable editorial guidance and moral support in many different aspects of this project. Finally, I truly appreciated all the help and encouragement I received for this project from friends and faculty at Michigan State University. iv Public Involvement in Decision Making There are many great interests on the national forests which sometimes conflict a little. They must be made to fit into one another so that the machine runs smoothly as a whole. It is often necessary for one person to give a little here, another a little there. But by giving way a little at present, they both profit by it a great deal in the end. National Forests exist today because the people want them. To make them accomplish the most good, the people themselves must make clear how they want them run (Knudson, 1984, p.493). -Gifford Pinchot (1947) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.. ..................................... Vii LIST OF FIGURES ............ . ......... . ............... X I. INTRODUCTIONOOO0......COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......0.. 1 H United States Forest Service History ............ Public Participation and the USDA Forest Service................ ............. The Planning Process....................... ..... The Management Problem.......................... Appeal Concerning Semiprimitive Areas........... USDA Forest Service Agreement................... The Objectives of the Study..................... Background Information........ ............ . ..... \Okoflmbww II. LITERATURE REVIEW................................ 13 Selected Demographics of Wilderness Users ....... 14 Motivations for Participation in Wilderness Areas........ ............... . ....... . 16 Wilderness Designation......... ........ . ...... .. 19 sumamoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooocoo 21 III. HYPOTHESES AND METHODS.......................... 22 Hypothesis One: Familiarity Predictor........... 22 Hypothesis Two: Demographic Predictor........... 24 Hypothesis Three: Recreation Activity Predictor....................................... 25 Hypothesis Four: Motivational Predictor.. ....... 26 Methods.... ................ . .................... 27 The Sample............. ...... .... ............. . 27 Data Collection Instrument and Procedures ....... 29 Data Analysis................................... 31 vi Iv. RESULTSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Characteristics of Stakeholders........ ........ . Motivations Desired by Stakeholders............. Semiprimitive Area Desired...................... Summary....................................... V. HYPOTHESES TESTS AND DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS..... Hypothesis One: Familiarity Predictor. .......... Hypothesis Two: Demographic Predictor...... ..... Hypothesis Three: Recreation Activity Predictor..................................... Hypothesis Four: Motivational Predictor...................... ...... ..... ...... Discriminant Analysis................ ....... .. VI. SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS........ ...... Summary of Findings.... ........ ....... .......... Hypotheses Summary.................... .......... Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Predictor Model Summary....................... ............ Management Implications....................... Limitations of the Study...................... Research Recommendations... .......... . ....... . APPENDICES...00.00.0000...O... 00000000000000 0...... A. B. C. D. E. LIST OF Legislation Summary............. ....... .... Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Categories................................. List of Semiprimitive Nonmotorized and Semiprimitive Motorized Areas.......... Postcard Questionnaire....................... Telephone Survey................... ..... ..... REFERENCESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ........... vii 33 34 42 45 47 49 49 53 60 64 67 71 71 73 76 77 82 83 85 86 89 90 91 92 98 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 10. 11. 12. Current acreage within the Huron-Manistee National Forests in each Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Category ............ . ................... Number of individuals surveyed and responding within each stakeholder group .................... Age and gender of respondents in each stakeholder group.. .............................. Highest level of education stakeholders have completed and the percentage going beyond high school .................. . ..... ....... ............ Percentage of stakeholders employed in the natural resource or related fields ........ . ...... Percentage of stakeholders belonging to selected conservation organizations ....................... Percentage of stakeholders belonging to selected preservation organizations.... ..... ...... ........ Percentage of stakeholders participating in selected outdoor related activities .............. Mean desirability of selected attributes during outdoor recreation rated by stakeholders......... Mean percentage of the Huron-Manistee National Forests desired as semiprimitive by Stakeh01der800000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..00.... Percentage of respondents familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas and percentage who have visited a semiprimitive area............ Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who were familiar or unfamiliar with the concept of semiprimitive areas........ ........ ........... viii Page 10 33 34 39 40 41 43 45 46 47 51 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who have visited or have not visited a semiprimitive nonmotorized area.................. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by known semiprimitive nonmotorized users to other stakeholder groups... Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals with some college education to those with no college.. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by preservation and conservation members to non-members.............. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals living in an urban or suburban setting to those living in a rural setting............................... Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who work in the forest products industry to those who do not.. ........... ....... ....... ............ Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who hunt ruffed grouse, woodcock or whitetail deer to those stakeholders who do not................. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals belonging to Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) to non-members...................... Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who ride off—road vehicles to those who don't........ Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who felt "motorized access" was desirable during their outdoor recreation to those who did not.... Correlation of the attributes natural surroundings, quiet surroundings, and privacy with the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired ..... ................................ ix 52 54 56 57 59 61 62 63 65 66 24. Summary table of significance levels ...... . ....... 68 25. Standardized canonical discriminant function coeffiCientSOOO......OOOOOOOOCOOOO......0.0.0.... 70 26. Classification results of the discriminant analysis................................ ...... ... 7O LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Location of the Huron-Manistee National Forests in Michigan................... ............ 10 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION United states Forest Service History The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA-PS) has had a long standing policy that encourages outdoor recreation use in its forests. This policy has produced the nation's largest system of campgrounds, picnic areas, and wilderness preserves. Forest Service lands provide opportunities for hunters, hikers, anglers, and off-road vehicle riders. The National Forests have long been managed for other uses besides outdoor recreation including, water resources, wildlife, and timber. In 1960, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA)1 officially mandated these uses. In 1964, wilderness was added as a major legal responsibility of the USDA Forest Service through the Wilderness Act} CKnudson 1984). Due principally to the lack of areas satisfying wilderness area requirements in the eastern United States, the Eastern Wilderness Act was enacted in 1975. This Act allows Forest Service lands east of the 100th meridian to be included as wilderness (Hendee et a1. 1978). 1See Appendix A for information on the MUSYA and Wilderness legislation. 2 Public Participation and the USDA Forest Service An official policy of the USDA Forest Service is to share knowledge, resources, and capabilities with public and private sectors and seek public comment on its policies (Knudson 1984). This open policy stems from two pieces of legislation, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Planning Act (RPA)2 of 1974, and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)2 of 1976. The NFMA amended the RPA to provide more specific planning procedures. The RPA established a process for assessing the nation's public and private forest resources in order to develop long-range plans (Forest Plans) to insure a sustainable supply of natural resources. The NFMA requires standards and guidelines will be developed for resource planning within the National Forest System and that public participation will be an integral part of Forest Service management (Knudson 1984). One way public participation is initiated by the Forest Service is through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is a written statement of environmental effects required for all major federal actions under Section 102 of ‘the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)2 of 1969. This comprehensive document spells out the environmental consequences of any proposed management direction and is released to the public and other agencies for comment and review before any federal action is taken. 2 For information on RPA, NFMA, and NEPA see Appendix A. The Planning Process To comply with the RPA, NEPA and NFMA, the Huron- Manistee National Forests in 1979 began preparation of a Forest Plan and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement. The first step in this planning process was to identify any issues and management concerns. Issues were received from individuals in the general public along withconcerns from Forest Service employees in order to determine what was needed in the form of goods, services, and environmental conditions. These were combined into five Management Problems to help guide the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-F8 1985a). This research project addresses issues and management concerns related to semiprimitive areas stated in Management Problem Two. Five Management Problems 1. Management of the forest's timber resources. 2. Management of the forest's recreation resources. 3. Management of the forest's road system. 4. Management of special areas and recommended wilderness. 5. Management of the forest's fish and wildlife resources. The next step in the planning process was to determine the future demands on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. A range of management alternatives were developed to address 4 the management problems and estimated future demand. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was then prepared by the Huron-Manistee staff. The NEPA along with the NFMA guided this process and allowed the general public to provide direct input concerning National Forest management (USDA-F8 1985a). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was completed in 1986 using public and agency input. The preferred alternative identified in the FEIS as the Forest Plan was then chosen for the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Forest Plan, the final document of the planning process guides all natural resource management activities of the Huron-Manistee National Forests for a 10- year period (USDA-FS 1985a). The Management Problem During the early development of the Environmental Impact Statement in the 1980's, concerns regarding opportunities for dispersed recreation and the natural appearance of the forest were raised. These concerns and issues raised by the public and Forest Service personnel were stated as Management Problem Two in the Environmental Impact Statement. Management Problem Two A. How many acres of the Huron-Manistee National Forests should be designated semiprimitive? 5 B. How should semiprimitive areas be managed? The dispersed recreation issue centers on conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized uses. The majority of individuals that addressed these concerns in the Environmental Impact Statement favored dispersed recreation opportunities in areas with little or no evidence of resource management and motorized use. Individuals from the general public wanted more semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities and generally were opposed to the designation of semiprimitive motorized areas. Due to the high road density that currently exists on National Forest land, the general public recognized little difference between semiprimitive motorized areas and roaded natural areas. General public opinions also varied as to the amount and type of management that should occur within semiprimitive areas. Some individuals felt there should be no timber harvesting and mineral exploration, while others supported more timber and mineral extraction (USDA-FS 1986). In response to general public comments, the management direction for semiprimitive areas changed substantially between the draft and final Forest Plan. The new management direction was a shift towards providing more semiprimitive nonmotorized opportunities and dropping all semiprimitive motorized areas from the original Forest Plan (USDA-F8 1986). 6 After the Forest Plan was chosen as the new management direction, the general public had another opportunity to review the Plan and officially appeal any proposed management actions. One appeal and counter appeal made at this time addressed issues which were raised concerning semiprimitive areas and opportunities for dispersed recreation. Appeal Concerning Semiprimitive Areas One appeal was made by the Sierra Club et al., (USDA-FS 1988) which also represented the Wilderness Society, the Detroit Audubon Society, the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, and the Hamlin Lake Association. The primary concerns stated by the Sierra Club et al., included: 1) the need for semiprimitive areas, 2) how semiprimitive areas should be managed, and 3) the size and amount of these areas. The Sierra Club was also concerned that the present amount and distribution of semiprimitive areas would not meet the demands for dispersed recreation in the future (USDA-F8 1988). This initial appeal was countered by the Michigan Multiple Use Coalition (MMUC) which represented the Michigan Forest Products Industry Development Council, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan Association of Timbermen, the Ruffed Grouse Society, Michigan-Wisconsin 7 Timber Producers Association, Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The Michigan Multiple Use Coalition was concerned that semiprimitive areas are defacto wilderness, within which no timber harvesting or management for deer and grouse would be allowed (USDA-PS 1988). USDA Forest Service Agreement An agreement was reached between the USDA Forest Service and the appellants which stated hunting, fishing, wildlife management, protection of biological diversity, all forms of dispersed recreation, and certain types of timber production are all valid uses of semiprimitive areas by the USDA Forest Service. In addition, 24,234 acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized area was added to the existing 46,284 acres. The Plan was also amended to include 7 semiprimitive motorized areas totalling 23,971 acres. See Appendix C for the current list of semiprimitive areas (USDA-PS 1988). The USDA Forest Service also agreed to base all future designations of semiprimitive areas on demand analysis, additional public input and assessments to be conducted as a result of the agreement (USDA-PS 1988). To implement this mandate for additional public input and demand analysis, the USDA Forest Service contracted with the Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State University to 8 gather additional public input from the stakeholding public concerning their opinions about semiprimitive areas. Stakeholders include special interest groups, individuals who live, work, and recreate in the area, and certain industries dependent on natural resources. Stakeholders Identified 1. Adjacent land owners- Individuals who own land within the dedicated boundaries of the Huron- Manistee National Forests. 2. Semiprimitive nonmotorized area user- Individuals who have visited semiprimitive nonmotorized areas in the Huron-Manistee National Forests in Michigan. 3. Dispersed recreation user- Individuals who have engaged in a dispersed recreation activity in the Huron-Manistee National Forests or adjacent AuSable State Forest. The stakeholder groups identified for this study do not represent all possible stakeholder groups. There are many governmental units, citizen and industry groups, and corporations, who have a legitimate stake in the designation of semiprimitive areas in the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Objectives of the Study 1. To determine the familiarity of stakeholder groups with the concept of semiprimitive areas. 2. To determine the opinion of stakeholder groups concerning the percentage of Huron-Manistee National Forests land designated as semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized. 3. To compile demographic profiles of semiprimitive nonmotorized users of the Huron-Manistee National Forests, and contrast their profiles with those of other stakeholder groups. 4. To determine how motives for participation in recreation activities and selected demographics are associated with an individuals opinion concerning the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Background Information The Huron-Manistee National Forests are two distinct units in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (Figure 1). The Huron National Forest on the east side of Michigan was established in 1909 and encompasses 423,398 acres of federal forest land. The Manistee National Forest on the west side of Michigan was established in 1938 and encompasses 519,352 acres of federal forest land. Combined, the Huron-Manistee National Forests include 964,709 acres of federal forest land that stretches from the shore of Lake Michigan to the shore of Lake Huron (USDA-F8 1986). 10 Huron National Forest Manistee National Forest F / 1L, Figure 1. Location of the Huron-Manistee National Forests 11 The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The Huron-Manistee National Forests use the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) developed by Clark and Stankey (1979) to classify all land areas into six categories (see Appendix B). The ROS system arranges recreation experiences, settings and opportunities the user can expect to find in an area into the following distinct categories: primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban. Under the current management direction of the Huron- Manistee National Forests, the semiprimitive ROS category is emphasized to meet current and future dispersed recreation demands (Table 1) (USDA-FS 1985a). Table 1. Current acreage within the Huron-Manistee National Forests (HMNF) in each Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Category. Recreation Opportunity Percentage of Category Acres HMNF Primitive 0 0.0 Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 73,918. 7.6 Semiprimitive Motorized 23,971 2.5 Roaded Natural 829,132 86.0 Rural 37,688 3.9 Urban 0 0.0 Total 964,709 100.0 'Includes Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. Source: Krejcarek, Donald E. (personal communication, October 25, 1993). 12 Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas emphasize a natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, and few developed facilities which are closed unless posted open for motorized use within (USDA-F5 1985c). Management goals for semiprimitive nonmotorized areas include maintaining the natural or natural-appearing environment and providing nonmotorized recreation opportunities (USDA-FS 1986). The Huron-Manistee National Forests presently has 73,918 acres designated as semiprimitive nonmotorized including Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area and 23,971 acres of semiprimitive motorized. This total represents 10.1% of the entire Forest. Management Actions in Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Areas Commercial timber outputs are reduced in semiprimitive nanmotorized areas. Vegetative management occurs, but is limited to those activities that emphasize a natural- appearing environment. Examples of timber activities include limited selective cuttings and small clear cuts in aspen of less than 5 acres in size (USDA-F8 1986). Many of the existing roads are obliterated or converted to foot trails and no new roads are built. A minimum number of roads needed for administration purposes and management aspects including fire control and water sampling remain in place, but are closed to vehicular use by the public (USDA- FS 1986). CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW A literature review of research concerning public opinions about semiprimitive areas, and demographic information regarding users of semiprimitive areas found none. However, a substantial amount of research was found that focused on wilderness areas and their users. According to Clark and Stankey (1979), semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and wilderness areas have many similar characteristics. These include a focus on dispersed recreation, restrictions on motorized vehicles, and experiential opportunities for solitude. Also, most wilderness areas in the eastern region of the United States are inventoried as semiprimitive nonmotorized because of past use and close proximity of motorized roads and trails. Because of the similarities between wilderness areas and semiprimitive nonmotorized areas, and the lack of information concerning users of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas, wilderness literature was used as surrogate literature for semiprimitive areas. Roggenbuck and Lucas (1988) in a major review of wilderness research stated demographics, the visitors current knowledge of wilderness areas, and motivations of users are related to visitor's opinions concerning management options for wilderness areas. 13 14 Selected Demographics of Wilderness Users Activities Wilderness users typically participate in a variety of activities during a wilderness trip. Lucas (1980) interviewed recreationists in nine wilderness and roadless areas to determine use patterns, visitor characteristics, and attitudes. Hiking, fishing and nature photography were the most common activities in which individuals participated. At least three-fourths of all visitors hiked during their wilderness visit, and more than one-half fished or took pictures. Nature study was generally the most common activity after nature photography. Hunting in National Forest wilderness ranged from almost none to fairly common. In a major review of wilderness use by Roggenbuck and Lucas (1988), only two wilderness areas had 20% or more of the visitors participating in hunting related activities. Age Wilderness users tend to be younger than the general population. Between 30% and 57% of wilderness users are under age 25. There is also a substantial over representation of 26 to 45 year olds compared to the general population (Roggenbuck and Watson 1988). 15 Gender According to Lucas (1980), most wilderness visitors are male (70% to 80%). In smaller hiking-oriented areas, females are usually somewhat more common. Lucas (1985) studied visitor characteristics and use patterns between 1970-1982 in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area and reported the number of females is increasing slowly. Approximately 20% to 25% of wilderness visitors are women and they represent a significant minority of wilderness users. Education The most distinguishing characteristic of wilderness users is their high education level. Around 40% of wilderness users have completed college compared to 20.3% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census 1990). At least 25% of wilderness visitors to most areas are either attending or have attended graduate school (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1988). Urban/Rural Residence Most wilderness visitors live in urban areas. Lucas (1980) reported a range of 45% to 90% urban visitors for the nine western wilderness areas he studied. However, most of the U.S. population is urban (74%), so urban residents appear to use wilderness in proportion to their numbers in the general population. Lucas (1985) found 50% of Montana visitors to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area were urban 16 residents, equal to the percent urban residents in the state (51%). Also, 74% of visitors from outside the state of Montana were urban residents, equal to the urban population of the United States. Organization Membership Lucas (1980) examined the types of outdoor organizations to which visitors to wilderness areas belong. Approximately 20% to 35% of wilderness users belonged to some type of outdoor organizations. In many areas, wilderness visitors belonged primarily to conservation organizations (Roggenbuck and Watson 1988)._ Hunters were less likely to be members of preservation organizations and more likely to belong to rod and gun clubs or conservation organizations oriented towards hunting (Lucas 1985). gptivapions for Participation in Wilderness Areas Variations in the specific motives identified in the wilderness literature varied by individual, place and activity. However, the combined set of motives identified in the wilderness literature was most consistent in terms of its similarities rather than its differences. According to Stankey and Schreyer (1988) in a major review of the wilderness literature the five motives, solitude, escape, scenic surroundings, natural surroundings and quiet surroundings, are considered important during a 17 visit to wilderness areas. Lucas (1985) asked wilderness users the main reasons why they visited a wilderness area instead of some other type of recreation area. Enjoying scenic beauty was mentioned most often, followed by to relax, escape, avoid mechanized recreation, and experience solitude. Escape The escape motive is a strong indicator of wilderness participation. However, the escape motive is also an indicator of other outdoor recreation activities (Stankey and Schreyer 1988). Privacy One motive traditionally associated with wilderness use is solitude or privacy. Solitude or privacy is a legally mandated and distinguishing characteristic of wilderness recreation (Hendee 1978). Brown and Hammitt (1984) stated solitude is one of the basic dimensions of privacy. Hendee (1978) stated solitude and other forms of privacy are major attributes of wildland recreation experiences. Privacy is commonly defined in terms of "control over unwanted encounters with others or one's group and is recognized as an important human need" (Patterson and Hammitt, 1991, p.261). Wilderness areas are valued as they provide opportunities where high degrees of privacy are possible. 18 Natural Surroundings Another motive reported regularly in studies on wilderness is the appreciation of the natural environment. This motive, along with solitude, tend to be the most consistent motives among wilderness users (Stankey and Schreyer 1988). According to the 1986 E18, semiprimitive nonmotorized areas are managed to provide a natural or natural-appearing environment. Quiet Surroundings According to the 1986 FEIS, semiprimitive nonmotorized areas are established to provide opportunities for quiet recreation experiences. Quiet surroundings were also identified as an important motive of wilderness areas in a major review of wilderness literature by Stankey and Schreyer (1988). Competition According to Peine (1974) many owners of off-road vehicles feel competition is an important motive during their outdoor recreation. Peine identified "vehicle- oriented" off-road recreationists' main motives as challenge and competition. Over 44% of off-road vehicle enthusiasts interviewed by Peine (1974) ranked challenging terrain and comparing performances of machines as the number one reason for participating in off-road recreation. 19 Motorized Access Hendee et al. (1968) in a study of 1,950 wilderness users found greater than eight out of 10 persons felt motorized vehicles should be prohibited within wilderness boundaries. According to Iker (1989) some off-road vehicle enthusiasts who desire motorized access to areas are against the designation of wilderness areas due to their nonmotorized policy. Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas within the Huron-Manistee National Forests are unique areas managed to provide nonmotorized recreation opportunities. wilderness Designation There are usually many agencies and groups which have a legitimate interest in any new wilderness initiative. Carruthers (1990) identified stakeholders at the national, state, and local government levels, as well as individuals in agriculture, hunting and trapping, and other special interest groups. Stakeholders can also include local people who may live or work in the area. Carruthers (1990) also stated there is usually a direct relationship between the degree of public support from the surrounding community and the success of a wilderness proposal. According to Iker (1989), individuals involved in timber cutting, mining, oil and gas exploration, road development and some forms of outdoor recreation are usually 20 opponents to the designation of wilderness areas. Individuals belonging to conservation and preservation organizations at the grass roots level are instrumental in the designation of wilderness. Organizations including the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the National Wildlife Federation play active roles in designating new wilderness. It is common to find support for wilderness designation among the general public. In an opinion poll conducted by Utter (1983) of 400 residents of Montana, 85% indicated they strongly approve of the wilderness concept. There was wide spread support for wilderness areas among all kinds of Montanans in relation to demographics and actual wilderness users. In a telephone survey of 503 residents of the Illinois general population by Young and Crandall (1974), respondents generally approved of the wilderness concept. Respondents who were wilderness area users knew more about wilderness and approved of the concept in greater proportion (91%) than the general population (51%). David Cole, a researcher at the Missoula Wilderness Research Station in Montana stated research to determine demographics and characteristics of wilderness supporters is scare. Dr. Cole assumed wilderness supporters comprise the same segment of the population as wilderness users (Cole, David. personal communication, October 25, 1993). 2 1 Summag Certain characteristics of wilderness users presented in this chapter will be used for hypotheses testing. These demographic characteristics include education level, organization membership, and urban or rural origin. The USDA Forest Service manages semiprimitive nonmotorized areas to provide nonmotorized recreation opportunities and privacy in quiet-natural surroundings. These four motives or attributes will be analyzed to determine if they influence an individual's opinion concerning the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired. CHAPTER III HYPOTHESES AND METHODS Mew; Certain motivations and demographics were identified in the wilderness literature as being important to or characteristic of wilderness users. The following hypotheses are designed to test for significant differences within stakeholder groups in relation to the dependent variable of the percentage of National Forest lands desired to be designated as semiprimitive nonmotorized. Hypothesis One: Familiarity Predictor Individuals familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas, or who have recently visited an area, or who are known semiprimitive nonmotorized area users will desire more semiprimitive nonmotorized area. The first part of hypothesis one tests if an individual's familiarity with the concept of semiprimitive areas would be associated with the desire for more acres. As stated previously, the USDA Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) as a framework during their land management planning. According to Driver (1989), the public can understand the ROS concept of a recreation opportunity (a setting, an activity, and experience), and the six categories represented by the spectrum from urban to primitive. A t-test of means and a 0.05 level of 22 23 significance was used to determine if significant differences in the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired exist between individuals who are familiar with the semiprimitive concept to those who are unfamiliar with the concept. The second part of hypothesis one tests if individuals who stated they had visited a semiprimitive area or who are known semiprimitive nonmotorized users desire a greater percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area than other stakeholders. To test the hypothesis, the semiprimitive user sample involved all known semiprimitive nonmotorized area users, as they were sampled on-site. Second, all respondents were asked if they had recently visited a semiprimitive area. Lastly, all respondents were asked how much of the National Forest they desired to be designated semiprimitive nonmotorized. A multiple comparison procedure (Bonferroni test) was used compare the mean percentage of forest land desired as semiprimitive nonmotorized at the 0.05 level of significance. Hypothesis Two: Demographic Predictor Individuals with higher education levels, who belong to preservation organizations and live in urban or suburban areas will desire more semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Individuals with lower education levels, who belong to conservation organizations and live rural areas will desire less semiprimitive nonmotorized area. 24 The second hypothesis addresses the idea that semiprimitive nonmotorized users have similar demographic and organization membership characteristics as wilderness users. According to Roggenbuck and Lucas (1988), Lucas (1980, 1985), Roggenbuck and Watson (1988), and Hendee et al. (1968), there are certain demographic characteristics that set wilderness users apart from other recreationists. Wilderness users are likely to have higher levels of education, belong to preservation-oriented organizations, and live in urban/suburban settings. Further, preservation organizations including the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Detroit Audubon Society, stated the desire for more acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized area in the appeal of the Huron-Manistee Forest Plan. Michigan Multiple Use Coalition (MMUC) countered this appeal stating the desire for less acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized area. MMUC represented the interests of conservation organizations, including Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan Association of Timbermen, and the Ruffed Grouse Society. The main objective of hypothesis two is to determine if support for semiprimitive nonmotorized areas is coming from the same segment of society as wilderness users. If this is the case, managers will know from which segments of society support comes and will have a profile of semiprimitive nonmotorized users. 25 A t-test of means at the 0.05 level of significance was used to determine if differences exist in the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals in relation to education, place of origin, and organizational membership. Hypothesis Three: Recreation Activity Predictor Individuals that hunt ruffed grouse, woodcock or whitetail deer or who ride off-road vehicles (ORV's) will likely desire less semiprimitive nonmotorized area than those who do not hunt these types of wildlife or ride ORV's. The third hypothesis addresses the idea that individuals who participate in certain types of hunting or off-road vehicle activities will desire less semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) and the Ruffed Grouse Society did not support as much semiprimitive nonmotorized acreage as the USDA Forest Service proposed: they viewed these areas as defacto- wilderness in which little management for deer or grouse would occur. MUCC feels timber management within these areas is too limited and does not create young forests. Only select cuttings of individual trees and little clear cutting is allowed (USDA-F8 1986). These restrictions on timber cutting may reduce the managers ability to provide more intensive management for game species such as whitetail deer and ruffed grouse. 26 The first objective of hypothesis three is to determine if stakeholders involved in deer or ruffed grouse hunting, or those who are members of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs desire a smaller percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area than individuals who do not hunt these species or belong to MUCC. A t-test of means was used to determine if significant differences exist at the 0.05 level. The second part of hypothesis three will determine if ORV enthusiasts support a smaller percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area than individuals who do not ride ORV's. Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas eliminate the opportunity for legal ORV use within their boundaries. A t-test of means was used to determine if significant differences exist at the 0.05 level. Hypothesis Four: Motivational Predictor Individuals desiring privacy in quiet natural surroundings, while not having direct car/truck access to recreation sites are likely to support more semiprimitive nonmotorized area than those not desiring these qualities. The final hypothesis addresses the management goals of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas are managed for quiet, nonmotorized recreation activities in a natural-appearing environment providing good opportunities to experience solitude or privacy (USDA-F8 1986, 19858, 1985C). 27 According to McCool and Lime (1988), Stankey and Schreyer (1988), and Patterson and Hammitt (1990) the motives solitude, quiet, and natural surroundings are considered important to a visitor during a wilderness experience. The ratings for respondents commenting on their desire for privacy, and quiet, natural surroundings will be summed and correlated with the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area they desired. A 0.05 level of significance was used in the analysis. A t-test of means at the 0.05 level of significance was used to test if individuals who desire restrictions on motorized access will desire more semiprimitive nonmotorized area than individuals who feel motorized access to their recreation site is desirable during their outdoor recreation. Methods The research methods used in this study are presented in three parts, the sample, the data collection instrument and procedures, and data analysis. The Sample A sample was generated from the stakeholders identified by Greg Claesson, Dr. Charles Nelson, and USDA-F8 personnel during a previous research project conducted by the 28 Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State University. This earlier project measured dispersed recreation use on the Huron-Manistee National Forests and Au Sable State Forest during April-December 1992. Dispersed recreationists were sampled on randomly selected tracts of forest land on systematically selected days to determine their participation in dispersed recreation. Individuals sampled were requested at the end of a postcard questionnaire (see Appendix D) to indicate if they would be willing to discuss their opinions of forest recreation management. If they answered "yes", they provided their name and telephone number. In addition, all land owners in the sample compartments of the Huron-Manistee National Forests measured for dispersed recreation were surveyed with a similar dispersed recreation use questionnaire by mail. Land owners were asked to provide their name and phone number if they were interested in discussing forest recreation management. This pool of names and phone numbers represented: 1. Semiprimitive nonmotorized area users (n=85) - individuals who have visited either Hoist, Reid or Wakely Lakes semiprimitive nonmotorized areas in the Huron-Manistee National Forests. 2. Dispersed recreation users (n=800) - any individual that has engaged in dispersed recreation activities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests or adjacent AuSable State Forest. 3. Adjacent land owners (n=228) - individuals who own land within the dedicated boundaries of the Huron- Manistee National Forests. 29 A random sample was then taken from the pool of names and phone numbers from the land owner group (n=200) and dispersed recreation user groups (n=200). All available names and numbers from the semiprimitive nonmotorized user group (n=85) were utilized due to the low initial number of names collected. Additional semiprimitive nonmotorized user phone numbers were obtained during the summer of 1993 by the researcher of this study and field technicians of the Huron- Manistee National Forests at Hoist, Reid, and Wakely Lakes semiprimitive nonmotorized areas using the same instrument as in the 1992 dispersed recreation study. These extra names and phone numbers brought the sample of semiprimitive nonmotorized users to (n=200), and total sample to (n=600). Data Collection Instrument and Procedures A telephone survey instrument (see Appendix E) was developed by Greg Claesson, Dr. Charles Nelson, and USDA-FS personnel to gather information from stakeholders. It was reviewed and approved by personnel from the North Central Forest Experimental Station and Huron-Manistee National Forests. The telephone survey was comprised of four basic sections. The first section gathered information about stakeholder participation in selected outdoor recreation activities. The second section provided the stakeholder with a definition of semiprimitive areas, and requested 30 opinions concerning the percentage of semiprimitive area desired. Additional management and background information about the Huron-Manistee National Forests was also provided in order for the stakeholder to make a more informed opinion. The third section collected selected demographic information about the stakeholder. The last section asked the stakeholders to rate the importance of certain motives for outdoor recreation. A telephone interview was utilized to survey stakeholder groups for the following reasons. First, it provided the best opportunity to control the quality of the data collection process. Second, it is more cost effective than personal interviews. Third, is the rapid speed at which data can be collected. A disadvantage of the telephone interview was the complexity and length of the description of tradeoffs related to semiprimitive designation (Lavrakas 1987). Individuals were contacted May—July 1993. Interviews were initially conducted between 6:30 pm-9:30 pm Monday through Friday. If individuals were unavailable at that time, individuals were contacted when convenient for the respondent. Each interview took approximately 8 to 10 minutes to complete. Interviews were conducted by Greg Claesson, and trained graduate and undergraduate student interviewers from Michigan State University. 31 Data Analysis The data were collected, coded and stored on disk. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data. Pearson's chi-square was used to determine whether two variables were related in the population. "When two variables are related, knowing the value of one variable is helpful in predicting the values of the other variable" (Norusis, 1990, p.255). Chi-square calculations were based on the assumptions of normality, expected frequencies greater than five, and that samples came from two or more independent random samples. All analyses were conducted using a 0.05 level of significance. The t-test of means and the Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure were used to test the hypothesis that two population means were equal. These calculations were based on the assumption of normality, and that samples came from two independent random samples. All analyses were conducted using a 0.05 level of significance. Lastly, discriminant analysis was used for the purpose of building a model to predict who might desire more or less semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Linear combinations of certain independent variables, sometimes called predictor variables were formed in order to classify cases into two mutually exclusive groups. The first group included individuals who desired an increase in the percentage of 32 semiprimitive nonmotorized area, and the second group included individuals who desired status quo or less area of semiprimitive nonmotorized. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Two hundred interviews were completed from each stakeholder group (see p.8 for stakeholder definitions), for a total of 600 interviews (Table 2). Table 2. Number of individuals surveyed and responding within each stakeholder group. Number of Stakeholders Interviewed Stakeholder Number Number Response Group Contacted Responding Rate (%) Semiprimitive User 200 200 100.0 Group Dispersed User 208 200 96.0 Group Land Owner 203 200 98.0 Group Total 611 600 98.0 Throughout this chapter a comparison will be made between semiprimitive nonmotorized users and wilderness users. A case will be made showing semiprimitive nonmotorized users and wilderness users are similar in relation to the demographics and motivations identified in chapter II. 33 34 Characteristics of Stakeholders Age The age of semiprimitive users ranged from 15 to 74 years old. The mean age of semiprimitive users (37) was the youngest mean age among stakeholder groups (Table 3). Table 3. Age and gender of respondents in each stakeholder group. Age (i) and Gender (%) of Stakeholder Groups Semiprimitive Dispersed Land 1990 User User Owner U.S. Category Group Group Group Census (2) Age 37.0 42.0 52.0 32.9 in years“ Maleb 82.0 90.0 81.0 49.0 Femaleb 18.0 10.0 19.0 51.0 'Significant difference among stakeholder groups using t-test at 0.05 level of significance. ”Significant difference among stakeholder groups using Pearsons chi-square P=0.05. The age of dispersed users ranged from 17 to 73 years, land owners ages ranged from 23 to 81 years. Semiprimitive users were significantly younger than dispersed users (t=-3.85 P=0.000) and land owners (t=-12.09 P=0.000). Dispersed users were also significantly younger than land owners (t=-7.55 P=0.000). 35 The age group 26-45 is over represented in most wilderness areas compared to the general U.S. population. This age group is also over represented in the semiprimitive user group. Sixty-four percent of all respondents fall in the 26-45 year old category compared to 32% in the Michigan population (1990 U.S. Census). Gender Of the 600 respondents, 164 (82%) of the semiprimitive users, 180 (90%) of the dispersed user group, and 162 (81%) of land owners were male (Table 3). These percentages are much higher than the proportion of males in Michigan (49%) (1990 U.S. Census). The dispersed user group had a significantly higher proportion of males than other stakeholders (XZ=6.48 df=2 P=0.039). According to Lucas (1980, 1985) most wilderness users tend to be male. This was the case among semiprimitive users as 82% were male. Education Level Almost 80% of semiprimitive users had some type of education beyond high school compared to 44.5% in the Michigan population (Table 4). The proportion of semiprimitive users who had attended some college was significantly higher than dispersed users (52%) and land owners (62%) (x2=31.15 df=2 P=0.000). 36 Table 4. Highest level of education stakeholders have completed and the percentage going beyond high school. Percentage of Stakeholders . Semiprimitive Dispersed Land 1990 Education User User Owner Michigan Level Group Group Group Census 8th Grade 0.5 1.5 3.0 23.3 High School“ 21.0 46.5 35.0 32.3 1-3 years ' Of College 31.5 32.0 35.5 27.1 Bachelors‘ Degree 28.5 13.0 15.5 11.0 Advanced' Degree 18.5 7.0 11.0 6.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Stakeholders Going Beyond High School“ 78.5 52.0 62.0 44.5 aSignificant difference among stakeholder groups using Pearsons chi-square P=0.05. Almost half of semiprimitive users (47%) possessed a bachelors or advanced degree compared to 17.4% in Michigan (U.S. Census 1990). The proportion of semiprimitive users possessing a bachelors degree (X%=17.99 df=2 P=0.00012) or advanced degree (XS=12.75 df=2 P=0.00170) was significantly higher than both dispersed users and land owners. The most distinguishing characteristic of wilderness users is their high education level. This may be the case 37 among semiprimitive users as well. Between a fourth to one- half of all wilderness visitors have completed a bachelors degree or higher (Roggenbuck and Watson 1988), and almost half (47%) of semiprimitive users in this study had received a bachelors degree or higher. Urban and Rural Residence The largest percentage of respondents classified as semiprimitive users (73%) were urban or suburban residents, compared to 70.5% in the Michigan population (U.S. Census 1990). Fifty-nine percent of dispersed users and 49% of land owners were from either an urban or suburban area. The proportion of semiprimitive users from urban or suburban areas was significantly higher than other stakeholders (AF=25.21 df=2 P=0.000). Wilderness users also tend to be from urban or suburban areas. The highest percentage of individuals from rural areas occurred within the land owner group (51%). This proportion was significantly higher than semiprimitive users (27%) and dispersed users (41%) (X2=24.70 df=2 P=0.0000). This was expected due to the rural location of the Huron-Manistee National Forests and the sampling scheme. Land owners identified within the boundaries of the National Forest whose principal home was there classified themselves as rural. 38 Second Home/Property Owners Semiprimitive users were less likely to own additional property (6.5%) in northern lower Michigan compared to land owners (44.5%) and dispersed users (20%) (A?=82.163 df=2 P=0.0000). Land owners had the highest proportion of respondents owning a second home (59.5%) compared to semiprimitive users (14.5%) and dispersed users (13%) (x2=143.23 df=2 P=0.0000). Rey Employment Respondents were asked if they were employed in the tourism industry, forest products industry or with a government natural resource agency. The largest percentage of respondents working in one of these fields (16%) were from the semiprimitive user group (Table 5). Almost 8% of semiprimitive users were employed with a natural resource agency (e.g. Department of Natural Resources), 5% were employed with the forest products industry, and 3.5% were employed in the tourism industry. 39 Table 5. Percentage of stakeholders employed in the natural resource or related fields. Key Employment (%) Semiprimitive Dispersed land Owner Employment Field User Group User Group Group Tourism Related '3.5 2.5 4.0 Forest Products Industry 5.0 5.5 3.0 Government Natural Resource Agency 7.5 0.5 3.0 Total 16.0 8.5 10.0 Organizational Membership Dispersed users were significantly more likely than semiprimitive users and land owners to belong to conservation organizations (Table 6) (X@=7.81 df=2 P=0.0201). The highest percentage of respondents belonging to preservation organizations were semiprimitive users for all preservation organizations except the Wilderness Society, which had low membership from all stakeholders (Table 7). Semiprimitive users had a significantly higher proportion of preservation members than dispersed user and land owner groups (X2=16.13 df=2 P=0.00031). 40 Very low percentages for organizational membership related to the forest products industry occurred within all three stakeholder groups ( < 1%). Table 6. Percentage of stakeholders belonging to selected conservation organizations. Conservation Membership Land Conservation Semiprimitive Dispersed“ Owner Organization User Group User Group Group Michigan United Conservation Clubs 16.0 24.0 21.0 The Ruffed Grouse Society 1.0 1.5 0.0 Whitetails Unlimited 1.0 4.5 1.0 Michigan Bowhunters Association 1.5 10.0 4.5 Fred Trost's Outdoor Club 2.0 9.0 6.5 Wild Turkey Federation 1.0 2.0 2.0 The Wildlife Society 1.0 1.5 1.0 The Society of American Foresters 0.5 0.0 0.0 Michigan Association of Timbermen 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 16.5 32.0 24.5 “Significant difference among stakeholder groups belonging to 1 5 conservation organizations using Pearsons chi-square P=0.05. 41 Table 7. Percentage of stakeholders belonging to selected preservation organizations. Preservation Membership Preservation Semiprimitive Dispersed Land Owner Organization User Group“ User Group Group The Wilderness Society 1.0 1.5 0.5 The Sierra Club 10.5 2.5 1.5 The Nature Conservancyb 7.5 3.5 2.5 Greenpeace 2.5 2.0 2.0 The Audubon Society 3.5 2.5 3.5 Trout Unlimited 8.0 2.0 1.5 Total 12.0 6.0 5.0 “Significant difference among stakeholder groups belonging to 1 g preservation organizations using Pearsons chi-square P=0.05. bSignificant difference for Nature Conservancy membership using Pearsons chi-square P=0.05. 42 Outdoor Recreation Activities Respondents were asked if they had participated in selected outdoor recreation activities during the past 12 months (Table 8). Dispersed users participated less in nature-oriented activities compared to other stakeholder groups (z?=13.18 df=2 P=0.00137). Land owners participated less in camping-oriented activities (Xz=62.23 df=2 P=0.000) and water based activities (X2=1l.28 df=2 P=0.00354) compared to the other stakeholder groups. Semiprimitive users participated more in nonmotorized trail activities (X2=40.80 df=2 P=0.000) and less in motorized trail activities (X@=32.51 df=2 P=0.000) than other stakeholder groups. Participation in hunting was less likely for semiprimitive users compared to other stakeholder groups (X2=39.48 df=2 P=0.000) . The only activity which received similar levels of participation among groups was fishing. Motivations Desired by Stakeholders Individuals were asked to rate the importance of selected motives for participation in outdoor recreation. An interval Likert scale was used to rate motives ranging from 5 (highly desirable) to 1 (highly undesirable). 43 Table 8. Percentage of stakeholders participating in selected outdoor related activities. Recreation Participation (%) Recreation ‘Semiprimitive Dispersed Land Activity User Group Users Owners Nanmotorized Traila Activities 97.0 80.0 95.0 Hike/walking“ 95.0 74.0 94.0 Cross-country skiing“ 46.5 19.0 28.5 Mountain bike“ 26.5 11.0 14.0 Horseback riding“ 10.0 19.0 10.5 water.Based Activities“ 95.0 93.0 86.0 Swimming“ 82.0 76.0 66.5 Canoeing“ 66.5 46.5 47.0 Boating“ 58.5 77.0 68.0 Tubing 19.0 20.5 15.5 Nature Oriented“ .Activities 94.0 85.0 94.0 Nature observation“ 88.5 74.5 86.0 Nature photography“ 54.5 35.0 50.0 Pick berries or 60.0 59.0 73.0 mushrooms“ camping'Oriented“ Activities 88.5 79.0 55.0 Camping“ 86.5 79.0 52.5 Backpacking“ 53.0 13.0 6.5 Fishing 80. 5 84 . 5 80. a Hunting Activities“ 50.5 79.0 71.5 Deer hunting“ 45.5 74.5 68.5 Other hunting“ 31.5 48.5 44.0 Grouse and woodcock“ 30.5 42.0 34.0 Turkey 20.0 23.5 21.0 Firewood cutting“ 29.0 44.0 64.5 Mbtorized Trail“ Activities 23.0 44.5 49.0 ORV riding' 16.0 35.0 37.5 Snowmobiling“ 13.5 25.0 29.0 “Significant difference among stakeholder groups using Pearsons chi-square P=0.05. 44 Motives typically associated with wilderness in the literature are listed in Table 9. The highest mean ratings were by semiprimitive users for privacy (i=4.58), quiet surroundings (i=4.62), escape (ié4.72), and being in natural surroundings (i=4.80). Land owners rated scenic surroundings the most desirable (i=4.60). Two motives not associated with wilderness in the literature are also shown in Table 9. The lowest means for competition (i=1.80) and motorized access (i=2.14) were from semiprimitive users. Semiprimitive users rated privacy as significantly more desirable compared to dispersed users and land owners (F=8.4532 P=0.0002). Semiprimitive users also rated quiet surroundings more desirable than dispersed users and land owners (F=4.3038 P=0.0139). Land owners desired motorized access more than dispersed users and semiprimitive users (F=81.4483 P=0.000). Dispersed users rated motorized access more desirable than semiprimitive users (F=81.4483 P=0.000). Lastly, competition during outdoor recreation was rated more desirable by dispersed users compared to semiprimitive users and land owners (F=7.0975 P=0.0009). 45 Table 9. Mean desirability of selected attributes during outdoor recreation rated by stakeholdersd“’ Motives Rated by Stakeholders Land Selected Semiprimitive Dispersed Owner Motives User Group User Group Group Privacy 4.58b 4.32 4.33 Quiet Surroundings 4.62b 4.45 4.44 Escape 4.72 4.70 4.64 Natural Surroundings 4.80 4.75 4.78 Scenic Surroundings 4.54 4.53 4.60 Competition 1.80 2.22b 1.88 Motorized Access 2.14 3.30b 3.61b “Rating scale ranged from 5=highly desirable; 4=moderately desirable; 3=neither desirable or undesirable; 2=moderately undesirable; to 1=highly undesirable. “Multiple comparison procedure (Bonferroni test) was used to determine which means were significantly different from other stakeholder groups at the 0.05 level of significance. Semiprimitive Area Desired Stakeholders were asked what percentage of the Huron- Manistee National Forests they desired as semiprimitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized and motorized (Table 10). Semiprimitive users desired a greater percentage of semiprimitive area than the dispersed users and land owners (F=13.6212 P=0.000). Semiprimitive users also desired a greater percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized than dispersed users and land owners (F=21.6769 P=0.000). Lastly, dispersed users desired significantly more 46 semiprimitive motorized area compared to semiprimitive users (F=3.9006 P=0.0208). Table 10. Mean percentage of the Huron-Manistee National Forests desired as semiprimitive by stakeholder groups. Mean Semiprimitive Area (%) Desired by Stakeholders Recreation Opportunity Semiprimitive Dispersed Land Owner Spectrum Class User Group User Group Group Total Semiprimitive 35.5“ 27.4 24.2 Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 29.1“ 18.2 16.9 Semiprimitive Motorized 6.4 9.2“ 7.3 “Multiple comparison procedure (Bonferroni test) was used to determine which means were significantly different from other stakeholder groups at the 0.05 level of significance. Familiarity with the Semiprimitive Concept Semiprimitive users were the most familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas (Table 11). Semiprimitive users were significantly more likely to be familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas than dispersed users and land owners (x2=17.79 df=2 P=0.00014). 47 Semiprimitive users reported that 99% had visited a Huron-Manistee National Forests semiprimitive nonmotorized area. This proportion was significantly higher than other stakeholder groups (X@=118.43 df=2 P=0.000). This was due to the sampling scheme, where semiprimitive users were originally sampled while visiting a semiprimitive nonmotorized area within the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Table 11. Percentage of stakeholders who were familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas or have recently visited a semiprimitive area in the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Familiar with the concept of Semiprimitive Areas Semiprimitive Dispersed Land Owner Category User Group User Group Group Familiar with the concept“ 79.0% 62.5% 61.0% Recently Visited area“ 99.0% 65.0% 51.5% “Significant difference among stakeholder groups using Pearsons chi-square P=0.05. Summary Semiprimitive users tend to be younger, male, achieve higher levels of education, live in urban/suburban areas, and belong more to preservation organizations. They also 48 participate more in nonmotorized trail activities including hiking and walking, and less in motorized trail activities and hunting than other stakeholder groups. There are also distinct differences in the percentage of total semiprimitive area desired by the identified stakeholder groups. Semiprimitive nonmotorized users desire the greatest percentage (35.5%) of the Huron-Manistee National Forests as semiprimitive, compared to 27.4% for dispersed users and 24.2% for land owners. However, all stakeholder groups desire much more semiprimitive area than the present amount (10.1%) designated on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. All three stakeholder groups desire a greater percentage of the Huron-Manistee National Forests be designated semiprimitive nonmotorized and motorized. The smallest percentage of the Huron-Manistee National Forests desired as semiprimitive nonmotorized area by land owners (16.9%) is still over twice the current 7% designated as semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Approximately the same relationship held true with the desired percentage of semiprimitive motorized area. Semiprimitive users desired the percentage of the Huron-Manistee National Forests designated for this use be increased from 3% to 6.4%. CHAPTER V HYPOTHESES TESTS AND DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS The statistical test results for the hypotheses outlined in Chapter III are presented in this chapter. Each hypothesis is restated, followed by a discussion of the hypothesis test and associated test results. Hypotheses tests were conducted within each stakeholder group in order to determine how certain demographics and motivations influence an individual within their stakeholder group. A 0.05 level of significance was used in the analyses. In addition to the separate hypotheses tests, discriminant analysis was preformed in order to determine which characteristics from the four hypotheses are the best predictors of whether one might desire an increase, decrease, or status quo in the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area. For the purpose of model building, stakeholder groups were combined and the results were presented along with the hypotheses test results. The results of the discriminant analysis are presented in the last section of this chapter. Hypotheses Hypothesis One: Familiarity Predictor Individuals familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas, or who have recently visited an area, or who are known semiprimitive nonmotorized area users will desire more semiprimitive nonmotorized acres. 49 50 The first part of hypothesis one tests if individuals familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas or those who have visited a semiprimitive nonmotorized area would desire more area. During the telephone interviews, the following definition explaining the six different recreation opportunity categories was read to individuals. Special emphasis was placed on the characteristics of semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized areas. Semiprimitive definition Semiprimitive areas have two key characteristics. First, trees and other forest vegetation are managed for wildlife and scenic beauty, emphasizing a natural appearance. Trees that are harvested are generally individual trees selected for cutting. Little clearcutting is allowed. Second, travel by cars and trucks is severely restricted within these areas. There are two types of semiprimitive areas, motorized and nonmotorized. The key difference between the two types is in motorized areas, the use of off-road vehicles and snowmobiles is allowed on designated trails only, while in nonmotorized areas, these recreational vehicles are rarely allowed with very few exceptions. Individuals were then asked if they were familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas. Almost 80% of semiprimitive users, 63% of land owners and 62% of dispersed users were familiar with the basic concept of semiprimitive areas. Individuals who were familiar with the semiprimitive concept were then compared to individuals who were not (Table 12). No significant differences existed within any stakeholder group. 51 Table 12. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who were familiar or unfamiliar with the concept of semiprimitive areas. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired t-value Prob. semiprimitive USer Group 198 Familiar 157 29.3 Unfamiliar 41 28.4 .22 .826 Dispersed User Group 191 Familiar 120 17.4 Unfamiliar 71 19.7 .74 .462 Land Owner Group 176 Familiar 111 16.7 Unfamiliar 65 17.3 .26 .797 Stakeholders Cbmbined 565 Familiar 388 22.0 Unfamiliar 177 20.8 .63 .531 Respondents were then asked if they had visited a semiprimitive area in the Huron-Manistee National Forests (since there designation in 1988. Fifty-six percent of land owners, 65% of dispersed users, and 99% of the semiprimitive area users had visited a semiprimitive area. Individuals who had visited a semiprimitive area were then compared to individuals who had not (Table 13). 52 No significant differences existed within any stakeholder group. Table 13. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who visited or have not visited a semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired 't-value IProb. Semiprimitive USer Group 198 Visited 196 29.0 Not Visited 2 36.0 1.11 .446 Dispersed user Group 191 Visited 121 20.1 Not Visited 70 15.1 1.92 .056 Land’Owner Group 176 Visited 94 16.8 Not Visited 82 17.0 .07 .943 Stakeholders COmbined 565 Visited 411 23.6 Not Visited 154 16.4 4.45 .000 53 The last part of hypothesis one tested if known semiprimitive nonmotorized area users would desire more semiprimitive nonmotorized area than other stakeholders. The members of the semiprimitive user group are known semiprimitive nonmotorized users since they were originally sampled on-site (Table 14). Known semiprimitive nonmotorized users desired a greater percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area than dispersed users and land owners. Table 14. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by known semiprimitive nonmotorized users to other stakeholder groups. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired Semiprimitive Nonmotorized User Group 198 29.1“ Dispersed User Group 191 18.2 Land Owner Group 176 16.9 “Multiple comparison procedure (Bonferroni test) was used to determine which means were significantly different from the other stakeholder groups at the 0.05 level of significance. Hypothesis Two: Demographic Predictor Individuals with higher education levels, who belong to preservation organizations and live in urban or suburban areas will desire more semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Individuals with lower education levels, who belong to conservation organizations and live rural areas will desire less semiprimitive nonmotorized area. 54 The first demographic characteristic tested was education level. Education is the most distinguishing characteristic of wilderness users and may be associated with the desire for more semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Table 15 shows the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired.by individuals who have some college education to individuals who have not had any college education. No significant differences existed between stakeholders. Table 15. Comparison of the mean percentage semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals with some college education to those with no college education. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired ‘t-value. Prob. Semiprimitive user Group 198 College 155 29.4 No College 43 27.9 .40 .693 .Dispersed USer Group 191 College 100 17.8 No College 91 18.7 .30 .768 Land Owner Group 175 College 111 17.8 No College 64 15.5 .91 .367 Stakeholders combined 564 College 366 22.7 No College 198 19.7 1.70 .089 55 The second part of hypothesis two tested if belonging 'to a preservation or conservation organization would influence the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area a stakeholder would desire. Individuals belonging to strongly oriented preservation organizations like the Sierra Club are hypothesized to desire more semiprimitive area as their organizations strongly lobby for such designations. Preservation members within the semiprimitive user group (t=2.77 P=0.006) and land owner group (t=2.55 P=0.012) desired significantly more acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized than non—members (Table 16). Dispersed users who were members of conservation organizations desired a greater percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area than non-members (t=2.23 P=0.027). The next part of hypothesis two compared individuals living in an urban or suburban setting to individuals living in rural setting (Table 17). No significant differences existed between stakeholders. Table 16. 56 Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by preservation and conservation members to non-members. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired. t-value Prob. Semiprimitive USer Group 198 Preservation Member 23 41.2 Non Member 175 27.5 2.77 .006 Conservation Member 33 27.9 Non Member 165 29.3 .34 .732 Dispersed USer Group 191 Preservation Member' 11 22.3 Non Member 180 18.0 .71 .482 Conservation Member' 61 22.9 Non Member 130 16.1 2.23 .027 Land Owner Group 176 Preservation Member' 10 29.6 Non Member 166 16.1 2.55 .012 Conservation Member 43 17.0 Non Member 133 16.9 .02 .983 Stakeholders Cbmbined 565 Preservation Member 44 33.8 Non Member 521 20.6 3.30 .002 Conservation Member 137 22.2 Non Member 428 21.4 .37 .712 57 Table 17. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals living in an urban or suburban setting to those living in a rural setting. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired t-value Prob. Semiprimitive USer Group 198 Urban/Suburban. 145 29.9 Rural 53 26.9 .85 .399 Dispersed USer Group 191 Urban/Suburban 113 18.0 Rural 78 18.6 .18 .858 Land Owner Group 175 Urban/Suburban 86 14.9 Rural 89 18.9 1.64 .104 Stakeholders combined 564 Urban/Suburban 344 22.2 Rural 220 20.7 .86 .391 58 Concerns were raised after the data were collected for this project that certain stakeholders were not selected to be sampled as stakeholder groups. In particular those employed in natural resource management, the forest products or tourism industry were discussed. These individuals and agencies have a legitimate interest in public land allocation. For this reason, respondents were asked if they were employed in these fields. Sixteen percent of the semiprimitive users, 10% of land owners, and 8.5% of dispersed users were employed in one of these fields. Stakeholders employed in the forest products industry were compared to other stakeholders to determine if employment in the forest products industry would influence the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area they desired. Five percent of respondents in the semiprimitive user and dispersed user groups were employed in the forest products industry. In comparison, 1.4% of the Michigan labor force age sixteen and over were employed in the forest products industry in 1987 (Chappelle and Pedersen 1991). No significant differences in the amount of acres desired existed between forest products workers and other Stakeholders (Table 18). 59 Table 18. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who work in the forest products industry to those who do not. Stakeholder Desired Group (n) (%) t-value iProb. semiprimitive USer Group 198 Forest Product Worker 10 21.5 Other Stakeholders 188 29.5 1.09 .276 Dispersed USer Group 191 Forest Product Worker 10 17.5 Other Stakeholders 181 18.3 .13 .900 Land Owner Group 176 Forest Products Worker 3 6.1 Other Stakeholders 173 17.1 1.15 .253 Stakeholders COmbined 565 Forest Products Worker 23 17.7 Other Stakeholders 542 21.8 .90 .377 60 Hypothesis Three: Recreation Activity Predictor Individuals who hunt ruffed grouse/woodcock or whitetail deer or who ride off-road vehicles (ORV) will desire less semiprimitive nonmotorized area than those who do not hunt these types of wildlife or ride ORV's. The first part of hypothesis three tests if individuals who hunt ruffed grouse, woodcock, or whitetail deer desire less semiprimitive nonmotorized area compared to those individuals who do not. Hunters may feel the management actions prescribed for semiprimitive nonmotorized areas do not produce large numbers of deer, grouse and woodcock. The Michigan United Conservation Clubs and the Ruffed Grouse Society cited this view in their appeal of the original Huron-Manistee Forest Plan. In none of the stakeholder groups did deer or grouse/woodcock hunters desire significantly less acreage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area than respondents not hunting these species (Table 19). Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) was a prominent member of the MMUC which opposed additional designation of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas in the appeal of the original Huron-Manistee National Forest Plan. Michigan United Conservation Club members sampled for this study desired similar percentages of semiprimitive nonmotorized area compared to those who were not MUCC members (Table 20). 61 Table 19. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who hunt ruffed grouse, woodcock or whitetail deer to those stakeholders who do not. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired. t-value, Prob. semiprimitive USer Group 198 Deer or Grouse Hunter 96 28.3 Other Stakeholders 102 29.9 .49 .628 Dispersed USer Group 191 Deer or Grouse Hunter 148 17.6 Other Stakeholders 43 20.3 .73 .470 Land Owner Group 176 Deer or Grouse Hunter' 125 16.3 Other Stakeholders 51 18.3 .81 .420 Stakeholders COmbined 565 Deer or Grouse Hunter 369 20.0 Other Stakeholders 196 24.8 2.65 .008 62 Table 20. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals belonging to Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) to non-members. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired 't~value ‘Prob. Semiprimitive user Group 198 MUCC Member 32 29.8 Non Member 166 28.9 .20 .844 Dispersed User Group 191 MUCC Member 46 19.7 Non Member 145 17.8 .62 .534 Land Owner Group 176 MUCC Member 39 17.9 Non Member 137 16.6 .43 .670 Stakeholders Cbmbined 565 MUCC Member 117 21.9 Non Member 448 21.6 .14 .885 63 The last part of hypothesis three tests if off-road vehicle riders desire less semiprimitive nonmotorized area compared to individuals who do not ride ORVs (Table 21). Table 21. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who ride off-road vehicles (ORV) to those who do not. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired ‘t-value Prob. semiprimitive USer'Group 198 ORV Rider 31 25.7 Non Rider 167 29.7 .96 .342 Dispersed user Group 191 ORV Rider 66 7.8 Non Rider 125 23.8 7.45 .000 Land Owner Group 176 ORV Rider 68 14.3 Non Rider 108 18.5 1.67 .098 Stakeholders COmbined 565 ORV Rider 165 13.9 Non Rider 400 24.8 6.75 .000 Due to the limitations placed upon off-road vehicle riding in the Huron-Manistee National Forests (closed unless posted open), and the nonmotorized policy of semiprimitive 64 nonmotorized areas, off-road vehicle riders may desire less acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Dispersed users who ride off-road vehicles desire significantly less acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized area compared to dispersed users who do not ride ORVs (t=7.45 P=0.000). No significant differences occurred within other stakeholder groups. Hypothesis Four: Motivational Predictor Individuals desiring privacy in quiet, natural surroundings, while not having direct car/truck access to their recreation sites are likely to support the designation of more acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized area than those not desiring these attributes. Certain motives were identified in the wilderness literature as being important during a wilderness eXperience. Hypothesis four tests if these motivations influence the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired. Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas are managed by the USDA Forest Service to provide nonmotorized recreation opportunities in a natural-appearing environment that is quiet and suitable for the provision of solitude. (USDA-F3 1986, 1985a, 1985C). The first attribute tested was motorized access since this is the antithesis of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. Individuals within all 3 stakeholder groups who desired motorized access to their recreation site desired a smaller 65 percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area than individuals who felt motorized access was undesirable (Table 22). Table 22. Comparison of the mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area desired by individuals who felt "motorized access" was desirable during their outdoor recreation to those who did not. Stakeholder Group (n) (%) Desired 't-value Prob. semiprimitive USer Group 198 Not Desirable 161 30.5 Desirable 37 23.1 1.99 .051 Dispersed User Group 191 Not Desirable 95 21.6 Desirable 96 14.9 2.38 .018 Land Owner Group 1 76 Not Desirable 68 22.2 Desirable 108 13.6 3.12 .002 Stakeholders COmbined 565 Not Desirable 324 26.1 Desirable 241 15.6 6.46 .000 Desirability was rated on a scale of 1-5 with 5=highly desirable and 4=moderately desirable. If rated 4 or 5, response classified as desirable. If rated 3=neither 66 desirable or undesirable or less, response classified as not desirable. The next attributes tested were the ones these areas are managed to provide. The ratings for respondents commenting on their desire to privacy, quiet, and natural surroundings were summed and correlated with the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area. The results of this correlation are shown in Table 23. Table 23. Correlation of the attributes natural surroundings, quiet surroundings, and privacy with percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM) area desired. Stakeholder Correlation Coefficient Group (n) (SPNM area with motives) Semiprimitive User Group 198 .3199“ Dispersed User Group 191 .2223“ Land Owner Group 175 .1626 Stakeholders Combined 564 .2641“ “1-tailed test of significance P=.001. 67 Discriminant Analysis Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Predictor Model After combining the three stakeholder groups, they were separated into two groups, those who desired more semiprimitive nonmotorized area and those who desired the same or less semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Discriminant analysis was then used for two main purposes. First, to determine what percentage of the variance in group membership could be explained by the variables. Second, to develop an optimal prediction model with those variables that were significant using the Wilks Lambda stepwise method (Norusis 1990). Certain choice rules were used in the stepwise variable selection procedure. First, the minimum tolerance level was .00100. Second, the minimum F to enter was 1.000, and lastly, the maximum F to remove was 1.000. Ten different variables were available for inclusion: 1) familiarity with the semiprimitive concept: 2) prior visit to a semiprimitive area: 3) education level; 4) urban/rural origin: 5) preservation membership: 6) conservation membership; 7) grouse or deer hunting participation: 8) ORV participation; 9) motorized access to recreation sites; and 10) natural, quiet, and privacy attributes. Of the ten variables included in the discriminant analysis, six were significant (Table 24). These six 68 variables explained 16.8% of the variance in group membership. Table 24. Summary table of significance levels. Variables Wilks' Lambda Significance Level 1 Motorized access .91908 .0000 2 Off-road activities .86535 .0000 3 Attributes .84873 .0000 4 Grouse/Deer hunting .83932 .0000 5 Prior visit .83399 .0000 6 Education .83237 .0000 The equation for calculating the discriminant score was: -.4283 * (prior visit) -.2491 * (natural/quiet/privacy attributes) -.2330 * (education level) .5299 * (grouse/deer hunting) 1.1343 * (off-road vehicle participation) .3805 * (motorized access) (+) 2.0607 (constant) = Discriminant Score. The group of individuals who wanted an increase in the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area (negative values) had a mean discriminant score or group centroid of -.23120. The group of individuals who wanted the same percentage or less semiprimitive nonmotorized area (positive 69 values) had a mean discriminant score or group centroid of .86797. Standardized coefficients of the significant variables were examined to determine relative contribution of discriminating between the two groups. Variables with the highest or lowest value were the most discriminating (Table 25). These results are consistent with the concerns raised by appellants of the Huron-Manistee National Forest Plan. Sierra Club et al. appellants desired the attributes provided by semiprimitive nonmotorized areas: quiet, privacy, no vehicular access, and natural appearance. They are also likely to have high levels of education and visit semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. Those likely to be negatively impacted by semiprimitive nonmotorized designation represented by the MMUC were hunters, ORV users and those desiring motorized access for recreation and to harvest timber resources. This model correctly classified 79.0% of the cases into the appropriate group (Table 26). This model is a moderately useful predictive tool since it does considerably better than chance. 70 Standardized canonical discriminant function Table 25. coefficients. Function One Desire More Area Desire Less Area (variables) (variables) Most -.34981 (attributes) Powerful .49893 (motorized access) -.11068 (education) .49561 (ORV) Least .24945 (hunting) -.18816 (visit) Powerful Table 26. Classification results from the discriminant analysis. Actual Group Cases Predicted Group Membership (1)Desire More (2)Desire Less (1)Desire more semiprimitive 419 26 nonmotorized 445 94.2% 5.8% (2)Desire less semiprimitive 93 25 ‘nonmotorized 118 78.8% 21.2% Percentage of grouped cases correctly classified 78.8% CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Sggmagy of Findings Demographics and Motives Semiprimitive users were likely to be younger, achieve higher levels of education, live in an urban or suburban area, and belong to preservation organizations more than land owners and dispersed users. In addition, semiprimitive users were more likely to participate in nonmotorized recreation activities and nature observation. Semiprimitive users were the most likely to be familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas and desire privacy and quiet surroundings. Semiprimitive users were least likely to desire motorized access to outdoor recreation sites. When the three stakeholder groups were compared to wilderness users, semiprimitive nonmotorized users seemed the most similar. Semiprimitive Acreage Desired All stakeholder groups desired a mean increase in the percentage of semiprimitive area. When converted from percentage of the forests to acreage, land owners desired the smallest increase from the current 94,494 acres to 233,459 acres, dispersed users to 264,330 acres, and semiprimitive users to 342,471 acres. 71 72 Semiprimitive nonmotorized users wanted the most semiprimitive nonmotorized area (280,730 acres) and the least semiprimitive motorized area (61,741 acres). Dispersed users desired 175,577 acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized and the most semiprimitive motorized area (88,753 acres). Land owners wanted the least semiprimitive nonmotorized area (163,035 acres) and 70,423 acres of semiprimitive motorized area. A majority of each stakeholder sample desired more acres of total semiprimitive than the present amount designated on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Of the 600 stakeholders interviewed 90.5% of semiprimitive users, 69.8% of dispersed users, and 63% of land owners desired an increase in total number of semiprimitive acres. A majority of each stakeholder sample wanted more semiprimitive nonmotorized acres than the present amount designated. Ninety-three percent of semiprimitive users, 68% of dispersed users, and 71.6% of land owners desired an increase in semiprimitive nonmotorized acreage within the forests. Lastly, a majority of each stakeholder sample desired more acres of semiprimitive motorized than the present amount designated. Fifty-one percent of semiprimitive users, 64.4% of dispersed users, and 66.5% of land owners desired an increase in semiprimitive motorized acreage within the forests. 73 E122£§2§2§_§E!22£1 Hypothesis One: Familiarity Predictor Individuals familiar with the concept of semiprimitive areas or individuals who had visited a semiprimitive area did not desire significantly more semiprimitive nonmotorized area than individuals who were unfamiliar with the concept or those who had never been to a semiprimitive area. This suggests widespread support for the attributes of semiprimitive areas which were described in the interview. These attributes include a natural appearance, nonmotorized recreation, and less intensive forest management. Individuals who were known semiprimitive nonmotorized users desired significantly more semiprimitive nonmotorized area than other stakeholders. However, mean responses from all 3 sample groups indicated a desired increase of more than 100% in semiprimitive acreage. This suggests support for semiprimitive nonmotorized areas is more widely based than just semiprimitive nonmotorized users. Therefore, hypothesis one was only partially accepted. Hypothesis Two: Demographic Predictor It was hypothesized certain demographic characteristics might be associated with an individual desiring more semiprimitive nonmotorized acres. This was based on selected characteristics being prominent in wilderness area users. However, high education levels and principal home in 74 an urban/suburban setting was not associated with desiring significantly more semiprimitive nonmotorized area. Membership in a preservation organization was associated in the semiprimitive user sample and landowner sample with a greater percentage of the forest desired as semiprimitive nonmotorized. Conservation group membership was not associated with favoring less semiprimitive area designation in any group and was positively associated with favoring semiprimitive nonmotorized designation in the dispersed user sample group. This suggests support for semiprimitive nonmotorized designation is not associated with place of residence and education, and may be positively associated with conservation and preservation group membership. Therefore, hypothesis two was only partially accepted. Hypothesis Three: Recreation Activity Predictor A key concern of appellants supporting the designation of less semiprimitive nonmotorized area was that deer, grouse, and woodcock hunters would be poorly served. The Michigan Multiple Use Coalition (MMUC) believes these types of hunters would not desire the designation of additional semiprimitive nonmotorized acres. The MMUC view semiprimitive nonmotorized areas as defacto wilderness in which little management for whitetail deer or ruffed grouse would occur. 75 However, deer, grouse, and woodcock hunters in each stakeholder group preferred similar mean percentages of semiprimitive nonmotorized area compared to individuals who did not hunt these species using a t-test. Further, Michigan United Conservation Club members (who were represented by MMUC) preferred similar mean percentages of semiprimitive nonmotorized area compared to non-members in each stakeholder group. This suggests deer, grouse, and woodcock hunters, may value settings potentially less productive for these species since they contain other attributes hunters deem desirable. Therefore, hypothesis three was rejected. Hypothesis Four: Motivational Predictor The Huron-Manistee National Forests manage semiprimitive nonmotorized areas to provide users with quiet surroundings, and nonmotorized experiences in a natural-appearing environment suitable for the provision of solitude (USFS 1985a, 1985b: ROS Guide 1985). Individuals who wanted these attributes during their outdoor recreation desired significantly more semiprimitive nonmotorized area than those who did not. This suggests respondents understand the attributes of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. Therefore, hypothesis four was accepted. The desire for "motorized access" to reach a recreation site was associated with individuals who wanted less 76 semiprimitive nonmotorized area among all stakeholder groups. Half of all dispersed users, and 63% of land owners desired motorized access to their recreation sites, suggesting motorized access to recreation areas may be a key indicator of approval from certain segments of the public regarding ROS designation. Only 18.5% of the known semiprimitive nonmotorized users desired motorized access to their recreation site, suggesting the other attributes of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas may be more desirable to this group. Semiprimitive gonmotorizeg Predictor Model Summapy Individuals predicted to want more semiprimitive nonmotorized area in the model are more likely to have some college education, to have visited a semiprimitive area, and to desire privacy in natural, quiet surroundings during their outdoor recreation. Individuals who wanted the status quo or less semiprimitive nonmotorized area in the model are more likely to be deer or grouse hunters, to desire “ motorized access to their recreation sites, and to participate in off-road vehicle riding. This seems logical and is representative of many of the arguments presented by the appellants in the Forest Plan appeal. The model was moderately useful in predicting group membership. However, it only explained 16.8% of the variance between those who wanted more semiprimitive 77 nonmotorized area and those who wanted less or the same percentage of the Huron-Manistee National Forests designated as semiprimitive nonmotorized. The problem related to predicting group membership lies in the lack of clear predictors of those who oppose more semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. For example, 62% of respondents who desire an increase in the percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area hunt deer or ruffed grouse while 80% of respondents who desired a decrease or same amount of semiprimitive area were deer and grouse hunters. Overall, almost one-half of these hunters sampled desired more semiprimitive area. Management Implications More Semiprimitive Areas Support for more semiprimitive, semiprimitive motorized, and semiprimitive nonmotorized acreage is wide spread across these three stakeholder groups. On average, members of all groups desire at least twice the current amount to be designated in each semiprimitive category. Therefore, it is likely there will be increased pressure to designate more semiprimitive acres. One opportunity to increase the number of semiprimitive acres is by the designation of candidate old growth forest. Approximately 181,000 acres of candidate old growth forest within the Huron-Manistee National Forests may be available 78 for semiprimitive designation. While much of this already is designated semiprimitive, designating additional old growth acres to semiprimitive would provide several benefits to the overall management goal of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Several thousand acres of old growth located along the AuSable River in the Harrisville District would link and expand existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas through corridors of old growth. A system of semiprimitive areas linked by old growth forests would provide a ecosystem approach to forest management by providing important wildlife habitat for old growth species, and improving the ranges of some large mammals including the black bear (Don, Krejcarek. personal communication, November 12, 1993). Lastly, this system could increase hunting and nonmotorized trail opportunities by creating a diverse network of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas connected by trails for backpackers, mountain bikers and hunters. Alternatives to Old Growth Forest Designation It is likely the Huron-Manistee National Forests does not have suitable size tracts of forest land which meet all ROS guidelines to be designated semiprimitive, especially semiprimitive nonmotorized. However, the USDA Forest Service may have options for providing more semiprimitive opportunities without increasing the current number of semiprimitive acres. 79 First, providing more information to the general public (especially uninvolved publics) about existing semiprimitive areas may increase opportunities without designating additional acres. This may include signing existing areas as is now done only at Hoist, Reid, and Wakely Lakes semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. Second, developing partnerships with nonprofit organizations, private landowners, and other public land agencies could be a cost effective way to increase semiprimitive opportunities; the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is the most likely partner. Lastly, improving access, parking, trails, and other facilities at existing areas may increase semiprimitive opportunities. Hunters Opinions The results of the t-tests for the separate sample groups provided evidence that deer and grouse hunters desire percentages of semiprimitive nonmotorized similar to non- hunters. When the three samples were grouped for model building using discriminant analysis, individuals who participated in grouse or deer hunting were likely to be more associated with the desire for less or the status quo percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area than those not hunting these species. However, the majority of respondents hunting deer or grouse were still in favor of a greater percentage of the Huron-Manistee National Forests as 80 semiprimitive nonmotorized area. So, while this designation may have a negative effect on certain game populations, hunters may desire many of the attributes these areas provide such as privacy, quiet and natural surroundings at the expense of optimal game populations. Broad-Based Support The third management implication is that the wilderness user profile and semiprimitive nonmotorized user profile are too narrow to fit those who support more semiprimitive nonmotorized area. The attributes of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas appear to be desirable to a much broader segment of the population. Therefore, it is important the U.S. Forest Service designate, manage, and inform a wider range of the public about semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the attributes they provide. The majority of known semiprimitive nonmotorized users in this study, were from urban and suburban areas in Michigan. According to Cordell et al. (1990), providing quality recreation opportunities to urban residents will be a major challenge to managers in the future. Therefore, the designation of quality semiprimitive opportunities as close to urban areas as those in the Huron-Manistee National Forests is highly important. Other land managers even closer to urban areas should consider acquisition, easements, or partnerships with private land owners, non- 81 profit organizations and public land agencies to provide these opportunities. Vehicle Access Individuals desiring motorized access to their recreation site desired a significantly smaller mean percentage of semiprimitive nonmotorized area. However, these same individuals were also likely to favor a natural appearance, quiet surroundings, and privacy. As stated previously, potential old growth designation would provide most of the attributes of a semiprimitive area without great restrictions on vehicle access. This designation may meet the needs of this segment of the population. However, it would further exacerbate the situation with the forest products industry and some hunters. Reducing conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized uses should be considered. One of the major goals of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is to reduce conflicts between users by creating distinct land units which meet certain recreation needs and expectations. Therefore, semiprimitive nonmotorized areas not currently meeting ROS guidelines should be reevaluated. For example, several existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas still have interior roads open for public use. Individuals who commented on recreation resource issues in the 1986 Environmental Impact Statement stated semiprimitive 82 nonmotorized areas are unique since they provide nonmotorized recreation opportunities (USDA-FS 1986). Therefore, all existing roads within semiprimitive nonmotorized areas not currently used for administrative purposes should be closed to the public, or the area should be put into another classification (e.g. semiprimitive motorized) if appropriate. However, many road closures will not be feasible in the near future. Problems related to the jurisdiction of roads, along with the benefits and costs of closure, will need to be considered and handled carefully. However, the goal of totally nonmotorized recreation experiences should be sincerely considered. The overall management strategy for the Huron-Manistee National Forests should be to inform the public about the spectrum of national forest recreation opportunities. The USDA Forest Service should direct specific user groups (e.g. ORV riders) to areas managed to meet their particular recreation needs, or the needs of those of like mind. Understanding the range of opportunities offered and the range of non-recreation uses of the forest is critical to the acceptance and functioning of the ROS system. Limitations of tpis Study One of the limitations of these data presented is that it was limited to only three stakeholder groups. For 83 instance, no separate samples of individuals working in the forest products industry, developed site recreation users, or MUCC members or Sierra Club members was utilized. However, the stakeholder sample groups selected for this study included forest products industry employees, MUCC and Sierra Club members in greater proportion than in the general Michigan population. Another limitation of these data is the complexity of tradeoffs related to semiprimitive designation which stakeholders needed to comprehend in order to make an informed opinion. The use of a telephone interview limited the explanation of these tradeoffs. A final limitation is the actual amount of potential acres available for semiprimitive designation. The proportion of the forest that could be reasonably classified as semiprimitive due to the presence of innumerable two- tracks, power lines, etc., is much less than 100%. However, the function of this study was to explore the preferences of stakeholders for semiprimitive designation, not to actually designate the acres on the ground. Research Recommendations First, one of the major foundations of this research project was the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). It would be valuable in the future to explore stakeholder knowledge of the ROS and then ask about preferences for the 84 forest related to all ROS categories. These data would prrrvide a more realistic picture of the desires of Stakeholders, rather than asking about only two of the six ROS options for designation. Second, it needs to be determined if stakeholders have a (:lear understanding of the tradeoffs of designating armreage as one ROS class versus another. While this research attempted to clarify this with an explanation of ‘the trade offs of semiprimitive designation, it was impossible to provide economic and other data on the subject. A separate study devoted more extensively to the trade offs would be beneficial. Lastly, USDA Forest Service managers will need to anticipate changes in the public needs. Establishing monitoring programs to identify changes in public attitudes, demand, and demographics would provide trend information using the current study as a baseline. It would enable managers to better anticipate changes and meet the needs of the public. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Legislation Summagy Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 "This act authorizes the secretary of agriculture to prepare a decennial assessment document to facilitate long- term planning for the national forests. The minimum content of the assessment includes (a) an analysis of present and anticipated demand and supply of renewable resources, (b) an inventory of present and potential renewable resources, (c) a description of Forest Service programs and responsibilities, and (d) a discussion of policy considerations, laws, and regulations affecting forest management. As part of the assessment, the secretary must develop and maintain on a continuing basis a comprehensive inventory of renewable resources. In addition, a five-year program document that includes alternatives for the protection, management, and development of the national forest system must be prepared and submitted to the president. The assessment and program documents, together with the detailed statement of policy, are intended to be used in framing presidential budget requests for Forest Service activities" (Cubbage, O'Laughlin and Bullock, 1993, p.533). National Forest Management Act of 1976 "This act amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974 and the Organic Administration Act of 1897 by requiring land and resource management planning for units within the national forest system and additional regulation of timber harvesting on national forests. The major provisions of the act require (a) public participation in the planning process, (b) regulations for the preparation and revisions of the management plans, (c) resource management guidelines for controversial management activities such as clear-cutting, and (d) economic analysis of management alternatives" (Cubbage, O'Laughlin and Bullock, 1993, p.535). 86 87 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 This act codifies the national policy of encouraging harmony between humans and the environment by promoting efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment, thereby enriching our understanding of ecological systems and natural resources. It declares the federal government to be responsible for (a) coordinating programs and plans regarding environmental protection, (b) using an interdisciplinary approach to decision making, (c) developing methods to ensure that nonquantifiable amenity values are included in economic analyses, and (d) including in every recommendation, report on proposals for legislation, or other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment a detailed Environmental Impact Statement. It authorizes the creation of the Council on Environmental Quality to advise the president on environmental issues. It triggered policy efforts for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency to consolidate federal efforts to control air, water, and land pollution, especially water and air quality standards and pesticide controls (Cubbage, O'Laughlin and Bullock, 1993, p.535). Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 This act codifies the policy that national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. The act was intended to supplement the policy established in the Organic Administration Act of 1897. The secretary of agriculture is directed to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield. A utilitarian definition of multiple use is given: The management of all of the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people. Similarly, sustained yield is defined as the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regulated output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land (Cubbage, O'Laughlin and Bullock, 1993, p.535). 88 The Wilderness Act of 1964 This act establishes the National Wilderness Preservation System composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as wilderness areas for the purpose of preserving these areas in their natural condition. A wilderness area is defined as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor and does not remain. This definition includes undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements of human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions. A review process for evaluation of potential wilderness areas, including five predominate characteristics of wilderness, is described. Amendments include special provisions for the creation of eastern wilderness areas. The act limits the use of public land designated as wilderness and specifies the rights of state and private landowners whose land is surrounded by wilderness (Cubbage, O'Laughlin and Bullock, 1993, p.538). APPENDIX B Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Categories Primitive These areas are characterized by essentially unmodified environments where trails may be present but structures are rare. Probability of isolation from the sights and sounds of humans is extremely high. Semiprimitive Nonmotorized These areas are characterized by predominantly natural or natural appearing environments of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted. Semiprimitive Motorized These areas are characterized by moderately dominant human alterations with strong evidence of permanent roads and/or trails. Motorized use by recreation vehicles (ORV's) is provided for on designated trails. Roaded Natural These areas are characterized by a predominately natural environment with evidence of moderately permanent alternate resources and resource utilization. Evidence of the sights and sounds of humans is moderate but in harmony with the natural environment. Opportunities exist for both social interaction and moderate isolation from sights and sounds of others. Rural These areas are characterized by an area on which the sights and sounds of humans are frequent and the landscape has been considerably altered by humans. Urban These areas are characterized by a natural setting that is dominated by structures built by humans, the sights and sounds of humans predominate. 89 Appendix C List of Semiprimitive Nonmotorized and Semiprimitive Motorized Areas Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Areas 1. Hoist Lakes 8,780 2. Reid Lake 3,423 3. AuSable River 6,607 4. South Branch 3,813 5. AuSable Addition 3,438 6. Wakely Lake 2,137 7. Whitewater Creek 4,177 8. Cooke Pond 4,003 9. Silver Creek 3,047 10. The White River 6,164 11. Whelen Lake 4,627 12. Manistee River 5,442 13. Briar Hills 6,246 14. Bowman Lake 1,182 15. Pine River Corridor 4,191 16. Condon Lakes West 3,246 Total 70,523 Semiprimitive Motorized Areas 1. Condon Lakes East 3,172 2. Pere Marquette River 1,360 3. Brandy Brook 3,565 4. Nordhouse East 3,060 5. Nordhouse North 2,190 6. Loda Lake 5,343 7. Au Sable Scenic 5,281 Total 23,971 Total Semiprimitive Area 94.494 90 Appendix D Postcard Questionnaire IN THE NECESSARY IF WILED NO P051302 "II“ In In 5 MICHIGAN STATE 8 NATIONAL FOREST 3 RECREATION USE ASSESSMENT m '2' Time 0m Fee. 3 Forest __ Cm. __ Code 0 Deer Duvet: Met-gen Stete University. the Mctigen Oeeenment el News! Resources and IM U.S. Forest Service ere mm to meeeue recreeeen use et we tenets. Hesse lets the 3 minutes neceeeerv to cm. the 3 3 mesmeleveaiiveuheveuemtycmhtedeneluudmditeect 0 "E tempesteoepdd. wa-Ibemwsilyeudenotweeiaw a: ._: numJtyoueremlinotodiscussyeureemiomebwttheW D = M Ieoest reereeuen. oleeee Me your name end tetephene W. 0 __§ YumflmtucmmmdeMdtt-s g” _.‘_' veseevehendwe wilenly eel Ieethemeteted shove. Yen We 42 D: -; quywmteWewwwwmw-e 22 Z ..3 mums-re. a o .—: 22 I: -E t. Heeseeheekhuettheeemiiesinwtecheneermeoepeefieteem 2 g (D =_ wafidepufiefioetedwfleyeumpefledbeu? CIRCLE TN! >Q (I g .5 ONEACTIVITY THATISTHEWIN REASON YOU PAMEO HERE. Ill 0 O — ..I 3:153 _W‘-ino __fietine __Deeettunties Q.’ n, t "48" _Deetoeotioe _cm _WW 3 u _ O a 8 _s~wmelm _Tue-no‘ __‘l'urlev Helm tug-8 22.90.» _..v....-- —--~‘ —°~-~' II'... S “150:: __Ii¢vehne cm _n~om 3° ZCZ‘D __XCeuretySh’ine _SM_MW t 0 I'- ... a) :23 ga‘f’fifi 2. Mmeeemvefldee-tedmil .a ¢ ( 0 .J I.” (D -3 3; EECDZ _Ca~edttete _Ownhinebdueme D” 3 .1-(“25- _WMC¢W _A~Mietl1nlueme mg .- 0338’3 __oetevt - I "' 0 § 20‘2“, 6. Newmaieeieklrenmeywueyedleetmtem? Wellies s. Wye-edJevmeeeeIeeeeefievetidelegetmt e 6. “inflict-e? Cam State._ to Mmhflnhmweew‘eaeellmm milmsleeeesummeflmw.lm. bevel“. None MWI muwmhmumuwmm teeeete. M. b . . é ' ' Li. lg? ’VA"' ‘“\_ ammun- wamemm 131 “Min-I‘ll. “fly-8.0M I.“ H 4.024 “I?!” I!” 91 Appendix F Telephone Survey Code i Name Telephone # # Calls Made_1 2 3 4 5 Call back memo Completed ___ Stakeholder Attitudes Concerning Semi-Primitive Areas Telephone Questionnaire INTRODUCTION AND THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATION: (Dispersed/Semi-primitive users/Adjacent landowners): Hello, May I speak with Mr/Ms. . This is from Michigan State University following up on your response to our recent questionnaire about forest recreation. You responded that you would be willing to share your opinions concerning the management of public forests for recreation. Would you please take 10 minutes of your time to share your thoughts with me. Your responses will remain confidential and will not be related to your name in any report. ACTIVITIES SECTION: 1. Thank you, First, I would like to ask, in which of the following outdoor recreation activities did you participate in during the past 12 months. Please answer yes or no as I read each one off. (Read list slowly and distinctly) ___Hiking/Walking ___Fishing ___Deer Hunting ___Backpacking .___Canoeing ___Grouse/Woodcock Hunting ___Snowmobiling ___Tubing I___Turkey Hunting ___ORV Riding .___Boating Other Hunting Mountain Biking Nature Observation X Country Skiing Swimming Pick Berries/Mushrooms Horseback Riding Nature Photography Firewood cutting Camping 92 93 DEFINITION OF SEMI-PRIMITIVE AREAS: The next section of this interview is about the Huron Manistee National forest in Northern Lower Michigan. It is managed according to a plan that divides it into 6 types of areas managed for different sets of benefits. These benefits, which the Forest Service is required by law to provide, include wood for the forest products industry, wildlife habitat and opportunities for many types of outdoor recreation. Areas that are the most natural are called primitive areas. These areas don't allow timber harvesting and only allow recreation and access that is not motorized. There are currently 3,600 acres or less than 1% of the million acre Huron-Manistee National forest designated under this category. This amount won't change as the rest of the forest has roads, powerlines, and non-natural features. The next most natural type of area is semi-primitive areas. They have 2 key characteristics. First, trees and other forest vegetation are managed for wildlife and scenic beauty, emphasizing a natural appearance. Trees that are harvested are generally individual trees selected for cutting. Little clearcutting is allowed. Second, travel by cars or trucks is severely restricted within the areas. There are two types of semi-primitive areas, motorized and non-motorized. The key difference between the two types is that in motorized ones, the use of off road vehicles and snowmobiles is allowed on designated trails only, while in non-motorized ones, these recreational vehicles are rarely not allowed with very few exceptions. Following primitive and semi-primitive areas are four other types of areas. They progressively allow more uses including more intensive timber and wildlife management, developed recreation facilities such as campgrounds, ORV trails, and boat launches, and easy access by cars and trucks. 2. Were you familiar with the concept of Semi-primitive areas prior to my phone call? Yes No There have been many opinions concerning how much of the forest should be semi-primitive areas. Currently, 100,000 acres or 10% of the million acre Huron-Manistee National Forest is designated as semi-primitive areas. 3. If it was possible to designate any percentage of the Huron-Manistee National Forest as semi-primitive areas, what percentage would you favor? Please keep in mind that 100,000 acres or 10% is now semi-primitive. Additional semi- primitive acres would reduce the area for intensive timber 94 harvesting, easy car and truck access and intensive management for game wildlife such as deer and ruffed grouse. Fewer acres of semi-primitive area would increase the acreage for these uses. What percentage of the forest would you favor as semi-primitive areas? % 4. Of the semi-primitive acreage you just recommended, ( ) what percentage of this would you prefer to be semi-primitive motorized and semi-primitive non-motorized? Please remember the principal difference between them is that in motorized areas the use of off road vehicles and snowmobiles on designated trails is allowed along with travel by foot, horse, cross country ski, and mountain bike. In non-motorized areas, use of any portion of the area by off road vehicles or snowmobiles is rarely allowed. What percentage of the acres of semi-primitive areas you recommended would you favor as motorized semi-primitive areas? What percentage as non-motorized semi-primitive areas? % *BE SURE TOTAL OF 2 PERCENTAGES ADDS TO 100% 5. To the best of your knowledge have you visited one or more of the semi-primitive areas in the Huron-Manistee National Forest since they were designated in 1988? Yes No Don't know DEMOGRAPHICS SECTION: Now I'd like to ask a few questions about you, so we can compare your responses with people in similar situations. 6. What is your age . 7. Are you Male or Female. 8. Which is the highest level of education you have completed? 8th grade or less High School 1-3 years of college Bachelors degree in college Advanced college degree 9. In which state and county is your principal home? State County 95 10. Do you own land or a second home in Northern Lower Michigan? Land Second home 11. Would you characterize the location of your principal home as Urban, Suburban or Rural? 12. To which of the following organizations do you belong... Trout Unlimited Michigan United Conservation Clubs The Ruffed Grouse Society Whitetails Unlimited Michigan Bowhunters Association Fred Trost's Outdoor Club Wild Turkey Federation The Wilderness Society The Sierra Club The Nature Conservancy Green peace Audubon Society Michigan Forest Resources Alliance Michigan Association of Timbermen The Society of American Foresters ___The Wildlife Society 13. Are there any other natural resource related groups to which you belong? Yes No Please name them 14. Do you or any member of your household work in the: Tourism industry Forest Products industry or for a government natural resource management agency PRINCIPAL MOTIVES FOR RECREATION: 15. Finally, in your outdoor recreation activities, how desirable are the following qualities? How desirable is privacy during your outdoor recreation activities? Is it highly desirable, moderately desirable, neither desirable or nondesirable, moderately undesirable or highly undesirable? 5HD 4MD 3N 2MU IHU 96 How desirable is quiet during your outdoor recreation activities? Is it highly desirable, moderately desirable, neither desirable or nondesirable, moderately undesirable or highly undesirable? 5 4 3 2 1 How desirable is it for you to escape from every day life during your outdoor recreation activities? Is it highly desirable, moderately desirable, neither desirable or nondesirable, moderately undesirable or highly undesirable? 5 4 3 2 1 How desirable is it for you to be in natural surroundings during your outdoor recreation? Is it highly desirable, moderately desirable, neither desirable or nondesirable, moderately undesirable or highly undesirable? 5 4 3 2 1 How desirable is it for you to be in scenic surroundings during your outdoor recreation? Is it highly desirable, moderately desirable, neither desirable or nondesirable, moderately undesirable or highly undesirable? 5 4 3 2 1 How desirable is it for you to compete with others during your outdoor recreation? Is it highly desirable, moderately desirable, neither desirable or nondesirable, moderately undesirable or highly undesirable? 5 4 3 2 1 How desirable is it for you to have car or truck access with little or no walking required to reach recreation sites? Is it highly desirable, moderately desirable, neither desirable or nondesirable, moderately undesirable or highly undesirable? 5 4 3 2 1 We are done. Thank you for your assistance. Your information will be combined with others we called to become part of an MSU report to the Forest Service concerning public attitudes about semi-primitive areas in the Huron- Manistee National Forest. Your opinions will be important in shaping future policies for management of the Huron-Manistee National Forest. Should you have any questions about the forest that I have not been able to answer, please feel free to call the main office in Cadillac using this toll free number, 1-800-821-6263. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Brown, F. George Jr. and William E. Hammitt. (1984). Functions of Privacy in Wilderness Environments. Leisure Sciences. §(2), 151-166. Carruthers, A. John. (1988). Planning for New Wilderness Areas: Practical Considerations Learned from New National Park Establishment Experiences. groceggipgs, Wilderness Management Workshop. (pp.71-76). Heritage Resources Center, University of Waterloo. Chappelle, F. Daniel and Larry D. Pedersen. (1991). Economic Cgptributions of Michigan Forests: Progress during the 1980's and Future Prospects. (Research Report 514). East Lansing: Michigan State University Agriculture Experimental Station. Clark, N. Roger and George H. Stankey. (1979). The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management, and Research. (Tech. Rep. PNW- 98). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Cordell, H. Ken, John C. Bergstrom, Lawrence A. Hartmann, and Donald B.K. English. (19 ). An Analysis of the Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Situation in the United States: A Technical Document Supporting the 1989 USDA Forgst Service RPA Assessment. (Tech. Rep. RM- 189). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Cubbage, W. Frederick, Jay O'Laughlin and Charles S. Bullock III. (1993). Forest Resource Policy. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Dillman, Don A. (1978). Mail and Teiephone Surveys. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Driver, B.L. (1989). Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: Basic Concepts and Use in Land Management Planning. Proceedings, Toward Serving Visitors and Managing Our Resoupces. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. Hammitt, E. Wilson and Michael E. Patterson. (1991). Coping Behavior to Avoid Visitor Encounters: Its relationship to Wildland Privacy. Journal of Leisure Research. ;;(3), 225-237. 97 98 Hendee, C. John, George H. Stankey and Robert C. Lucas (1978). Wilderness Management. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hendee, C. John, William R. Catton, Jr., Larry D. Marlow, and C. Frank Brockman. (1968) Wilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest: Their Characteristics Values and Management Preferences. (Research Paper PNW-61). Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Iker, Sam. (1989). Struggle for the Great Wild. National Wildlife. ;1(6), 50. Knudson, M. Douglas. (1984). Outdoor Recreation. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Lavrakas, Paul J. (1987) Telephone Surygv Methods. Sage Publications, Inc. London, England. Lucas, Robert C. (1985). Visitor Characteristics attitudes and use patterns in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex. 1970-82. (Research Paper INT-345). Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Lucas, Robert C. (1980). Use patterns and visitor characteristics. attitudes and preferences in nine wiiderness and other roadless areas. (Research Paper INT-253). Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Lucas, Robert C. (1977). What We Know Of Wildland Recreation Users. Proceedings, Wildland Recreation Conference. Banff, Alberta. McCool, W. Stephen and David W. Lime. (1988). Attitudes of Visitors Toward Outdoor Recreation Management Policy. Proceeding . Outdoor Recreation Benchmark. National Outdoor Recreation Forum. Tampa, Florida. Nelson, M. Charles. (1993). Estimated Tourist Dispersed Recreational Use of the Huron-Manistee National Forests and the AuSable State Forest During April-December 1992. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. Norusis, J. Marija. (1990). The SPSS Guide to Data Analysis. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL. 99 Patterson, E. Michael and William E Hammitt. (1990). Backcountry Encounter Norms, Actual Reported Encounters, and their relationship to Wilderness Solitude. Jgurnal of Leisure Research. ;;(3), 259-275. Peine, D. John. (1974). Off-road vehicle use in Tucson, Arizona. Proceedings, 1973 Snowmobile and Offi-ppag vehicle Research Symposium. Michigan State University Agricultural Experimental Station and the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission. East Lansing, Michigan. Pinchot, Gifford. (1947). Breaking New Ground. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. In: Knudson M. Douglas. (1984). Outdoor Recreation. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Roggenbuck, W. Joseph and Robert C. Lucas. (1988). Wilderness use and user characteristics: A State-of- Knowledge Review. Proceeding , Outdoor Recreation Benchmark. National Outdoor Recreation Forum. Tampa, Florida. Roggenbuck, W. Joseph and Alan Watson. (1988) Wilderness Recreation Use: The Current Situation. Proceedings, Outdoor Recreation Benchmark. National Outdoor Recreation Forum. Tampa, Florida. Stankey, H. George and Richard Schreyer. (1988). Attitudes Toward Wilderness and Factors Affecting Visitor Behavior: A State of Knowledge Review. Proceedings, Outdoo; Recreation Benchmark. National Outdoor Recreation Forum. Tampa, Florida. Stewart, P. William and Edwin Carpenter. (1989). Solitude at Grand Canyon: an application of expectancy theory. Journal of Leisure Research. ;i(1), 4-17. Utter, Jack. (1983). Opinions of Montanans on Wilderness and Resource Development. Journal of Forestpy. §i(7), 435- 437. Wellman, J. Douglas. (1987). Wildland Recreation Policy. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Young, A. Robert and Rick Crandall. (1979). Wilderness Knowledge and Values of the Illinois Public. Journal of zorestpy. 11(12), 768-770. 100 Government Documents: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Huron-Manistee National Forest. (1986). United States Department of Agriculture. Eastern Region. Land and Resource Management Plan. (1985a). Huron-Manistee National Forests. United States Department of Agriculture. Eastern Region. Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement. (1985b). Huron-Manistee National Forests. United States Department of Agriculture. Eastern Region. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum User Guide. (1985c). Eastern Region Supplement. United States Department of Agriculture. Final Statement of Agreement for Appeals 1730, 1731, and 1735. (1988). Huron-Manistee National Forests. United States Department of Agriculture. Eastern Region. Census of United States Population. (1990). General Social and Economic Characteristics. United States Department of Commerce. U.S. Printing Office. Census of Michigan Population. (1990). General Social and Economic Characteristics. United States Department of Commerce. U.S. Printing Office. nrcnrcau STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1i1"NW1|!"I”WWI"111HMINIMUM" 31293010259012