MSU LIBRARIES m RETURNING MAI§325K§I Place in book droo to remove this checkout from your record. £3Q§§ will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. f: " /‘ LE 0 . : MAY 1 05001" ,..~ KELLOGG FOREST VISITORS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY By v Patricia Newmyer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Parks and Recreation Resources 1984 ABSTRACT KELLOGG FOREST VISITORS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY By Patricia Newmyer The goal of this study was to describe visitors to the Kellogg Experimental Forest in Augusta, Michigan. The objec- tives were to outline use patterns; to develop a typology of visitors including group characteristics, respondent charac- teristics, and motives linked with characteristics of the Forest by activity group; to collect visitor data on issues of concern to Forest management; and to compare some results with a similar study (Kielbaso, 1967). The methods employed included: traffic counts, systematic observation, and 267 personal interviews. . Major findings follow.. An estimated 95,939 people visited between August, 1983 and July 1984. This is an increase of approximately 2502 over the 1967 attendance. The visitors described were a devoted group. Primarily, they were highly educated white, repeat visitors living within 15 miles of the Forest. Visitors in all activity categories stated similar motives and chose similar characteristics of the Forest as important. Visitors voiced satisfaction with the site and facilities. Implications for management are included. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who have earned my gratitude fer their assistance in the production of this thesis. My thanks go to Joe Fridgen and Cass Book, two members of my committee, for their time and helpful suggestions. Maureen McDonough, my advisor and Chair of the committee, also offered her time and suggestions as well as criticisms and moral support through this experience. My appreciation also goes to the Michigan State University Department of Forestry and the Kellogg Biological Station for funding this study. Tom Stadt, the final member of my committee and Resident Forester at the Kellogg Forest, was especially help- ful as were the members of the Forest crew - Dave England, Don Alkema, and Steve Noble. Through my many trips to the Forest, Tom and Mary Stadt and the Forest crew offered their hospitality, humor, and enthusiasm for this project. Working at the Forest has been one of the best integrations of work and recreation I have experienced. Another source of encouragement and suggestions during this project and my entire program has been my friends and colleagues in the Parks and Recreation Resource Department. Their numerous consultations, stimulating discussions and jokes have made my stay at Michigan State University fun. Just whenIIthought this thesis would never get typed in time, Laurie Kimble, confidently assured me it would. Laurie's commitment and dedication were an inspiration in meeting the deadline. Finally, a special note of appreciation goes to two of my favorite people. Thanks, Ellen and Mark, for putting up with yet another weirdness. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. IV. 'Study Design . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Justification. . . . . . . . Study Objectives . . . . . . . . .-. METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Area . . . . Use Estimation . . . . . Systematic Observations. Persdnal Interviews. . . Coding and Processing of Limitations. . . . . . . U). o e e 6 0 He 0 e e e 4 O ‘4 0) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . Attendance Patterns. . . . . . . . . Description of Recreation Activities Typology of Visitors . . . . . . . . Group Characteristics . . . . . . Respondent Characteristics. . . . Management Concerns. . . . . . . . . Comparison with 1967 Study . . . . . SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . .—. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications and Recommendations . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page ix 10 10 17 17 ' 21 22 30 Page APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 A. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 B. Traffic Count Calibration Form . . . . 152 C. Others: Places Similar to Kellogg Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 D. Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 154 E. Systematic Observation Form. . . . . . 161 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Seasonal Attendance (August, 1984-Ju1y, 1984). 2. Seasonal Load Factors. . . . . . . ... . . . . 3. Percent Vehicle Traffic on Weedays and Weekends. 4. Five Most Frequent Multiple Activity Clusters. 5. Top Five Ranked Activities by Season . . . . . 6. Percentages of Visitors by Group Size. . . . . 7. Percentages of Visitors by Group Type. . . . . 8. Visitors by Age Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Number of Visitors by Age Group Observed and Expected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Analysis of Variance Test for Adolescents in Activity Categories . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Analysis of Variance Test for Seniors in Activity Categories . . . . . . . . . . . 12. Percentages of Visitors by Gender. . . . . . 13. Ages of Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. Analysis of Variance Test for Ages of Seven Activity Categories . . . . . . . . . . 15. T-Test for Ages of Activity Categories . . . . 16. Racial Comparisons of Kalamazoo and Calhoun Counties and Kellogg Forest Visitors.. .. 17. Education Level of Visitors by Percentages . . 18. Number of Visitors by Eduation Level Observed and Expected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19. Education Levels by Activity Categories. . Page 34 36 38 39 40 45 47 48 49 SO 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 $8 59 Table A Page 20. Analysis of Variance Test for Education Levels by Seven Activity Categories. . . . . . . . . 60 21. T-Test for Education by Activity Category. . . . 61 22. Distance Traveled by All Visitors. . . . . . . . 62 23. Distance Traveled by Activity Categories . . . . 64 24. Number of Visits by Season . . . . . . . . . . . 66 25. Number of Visits by Activity Categories. . . . . 67 26. Length of Visit by All Visitors and Activity Categories (Minutes). . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 27. Analysis of Variance Test for Length of Visit by Activity Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 28. T-Test for Length of Visit by Activity category. C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 70 29. Participation in Unplanned Activity. . . . . . . 71 30. Other Planned Stops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 31. Similar Places to the Kellogg Forest . . . . . . 73 32. Motives for Visiting the Forest, A11 Visitors. . 76 33. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Picnickers. . . 77 34. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Motorists . . . 78 35. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Hikers. . . . . 79 36. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Skiers. . . . . 79 37. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Exercisers. . . 80 38. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Hunters/ Anglers C C O O I O C O . C O C C I C O C C O 80 39. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Miscellaneous . 31 40. Motives by Activity Category . . . . . . . . . . 82 41. Characteristics of the Forest, All Visitors. . . 34 42. Characteristics of the Forest, Picnickers. . . . 86 43. Characteristics of the Forest, Motorists . . . . 37 vi Table 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics of of of of of the Forest, the Forest, the Forest, the Forest, the Forest, Hikers. . . . . Skiers. . . Exercisers. Miscellaneous . Hunters/Anglers Forest Characteristics by Activity Categories. Visitors Source of Knowledge . Drivers Self-Guiding Trail Pamphlet. . . . . . Trail Users - Map and Self Guiding Pamphlet Used. . . . Trail Users - Which One Used? (Map or Pamphlet). Areas of the Forest Visited, Hunters/Anglers . . Areas of the Forest Visited, All Other Trail Users (Excluding Hunters/Anglers) . . . . . General Opinions . Picnicking Opinions. . Road Users Opinions. . Trail Users Opinions Administering Agency . Primary Purpose of the Kellogg Primary Purpose of the Kellogg Responses . Attendance Comparison 1967 and Forest. . . . . . Forest - "Other" 1984. O C O O 0 Percent Vehicle Traffic on Weekdays and Weekends 1967 and 1984. Average Group Size of Activity Category 1967 and 1984 Ages of Visitors, 1967 vs. 1984. . . . . . . . Education Levels of Visitors by Percent 1967 vs. 1984 vii Page 88 90 91 92 94 97 98 99 99 103 104 107 108 111 112 115 116 117 119 120 121 122 122 Table Page 68. Distance Travled to the Forest, 1967 vs 1984 . . 123 69. Percent of Visits per Year, All Visitors 1967 vs. 1984 O O C O I O O O O O O I O O O O 124 70. Percent of Visitors in Time Periods, All Visitors 1967 vs. 1984. . . . . . . . . . . . 125 71. Visits Part of a Trip or Forest Sole Destination, 1967 vs. 1984. . . . . . . . . . 125 72. Visitors Source of Knowledge, 1967 vs. 1984. . . 126 73. Satisfaction Ranking by Index Values for Vieitors. O O O I O O I O O I O C O I O O O O 127 A1. Others: Places Similar to Kellogg Forest. . . . 153 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Map of General Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Trail Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. Total Hunting Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4 . Forest Sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Recreation, especially' outdoor recreation, is an integral element in our society. A 1977 nationwide survey of households and.visitors to federal recreation areas reported that 592 of all Americans rate outdoor recreation as very important in comparison with other interests (Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1979L. This survey also reported an increase in the frequency of participation in outdoor recreation. The importance placed on outdoor recreation has translated into a growing demand for outdoor recreation opportunities in the United States. One concern today is the availability of outdoor recreation sites close to population centers. Our population has shifted from rural to urban areas. Since the 1960's an emphasis on providing recreation opportunities in close proximity to the urban population centers has been a recognized need. Currently, the majority of sites are removed from the cities. When the demand exceeds the supply, visitor pressure is exerted on the available recreation sites. "Intermediate" type forests (Clawson and Knetsch, 1966) those within easy driving distance of population centers that are mainly undeveloped or moderately developed, serve a vital need in meeting outdoor recreation demand. Since they are closer to population centers, they are visited with a greater frequency than the more distant resource-based recreation areas. Z The Kellogg Experimental Forest is located within 15 miles of the cities of Battle Creek and Kalamazoo, Michigan. As an intermediate type forest, it serves to meet the demand'. for outdoor recreation close to home. The problem at the Kellogg Forest is the increase in recreation use at a primarily research oriented site. Some use studies have been done in the past. However, the manage- ment need is to assess current visitors, and to use visitor data as a basis for recreation management decisions. Also important is the development of a monitoring system to evaluate use changes over time. PROBLEM JUSTIFICATION Recreation is a complex human phenomenon influenced by a variety of factors. The challenge to resource managers is to provide recreation services that meet the needs and desires of the visitors, and to adapt these services to change. The first step in planning management strategies to meet visitor needs is knowing the visitor. Information on who the visitors are, where they come from, what they seek from their recreation experience, their interests, and their recreation behavior is the foundation for decision making. Sometimes managers also desire information evaluating specific recreation services. Socio-demographic variables are a standard method for describing the visitor. Information on visitors'age, sex, race, education, income, occupation, and place of residence- are explanatory variables for recreation behavior. They describe individual characteristics of the people who participate in specific activities (Burch, 1969; ORRC, 1962; Owens, 1970). Other descriptive variables address what visitors do. These variables include how often visitors participate and in which activities. Data on characteristics of the visiting group are also an important concern reflecting recreation's social aspect and the satisfactions derived from group interaction (Cheek, Field and Burdge, 1976). These factors are some ways to assess the visitor. However, there are also other variables that affect recreation behavior and participation. Understanding the 4 reasons people participate-their motives-is another important aspect of defining the visitor. This view assumes that people participate as the means to a particular end. Another theory outlined by Sessoms (1984) defines recreation activities as»a pleasurable end in themselves. An additional aspect, especially pertinent to managers, is matching visitor desires with the types of settings best able to meet those desires. Thus, the optimal benefits are provided to the visitor along with the optimal compatible utilization of the resource base. This dual optimalization is seen as the goal of management(Lucas and Stankey, 1974). Visitor motives have long been touted as playing a pivotal role in explaining recreation behavior. These motivations may be: curiosity, to develop a skill, exploration, socialiZation, to learn to relax, to enjoy solitude, to cope with adverse conditions at home, in the community or at work, a form of self expression, competition, lexercise; or a combination of these reasons. Understanding motives is seen as an aid to resource managers in recreation planning, too. By recognizing dif- ferent motives for engaging in activities, managers can develop strategies and opportunities to meet those motives. (Knopf, Driver, Bassett, 1973). Visitor motives have also been suggested as a means to deal with a wide range of use problems including visitor conflicts (Gramann and Burdge, 1981) and vandalism (Clark, 1976). There are a number of theoretical approaches for explaining recreation motives. The social organizational 5 model (Cheek and Burch, 1976) explains leisure in terms of its social, cultural, and environmental components and seeks to understand how people organize themselves for leisure. For some activities, Buchanan, Christensen, and Burdge (1981) found evidence that social groups do vary in their defini- tions of activities. They suggest exploring the possibility of a connection between the various definitions of an experience and social groups. This perspective further implies that recreation sites could be managed to optimize experiences by specific social groups (Burch, 1964). A complex evaluation of motives examines variations in motives related to differing experience levels (Schreyer, 1982). The basic tenet is that more experienced individuals differ from novices in the extent of their information, skill level, and frame of reference for evaluating recreation experiences. The social-psychological needs approach proposes linkages between various motives and preferred environmental features. It is a composite motivational model of human behavior: one that views recreation behavior as problem- solving (Driver and Brown, 1975). Problem solving does not have a negative connotation, but can imply a need for a more positive state. It relies on the person's goal directed nature and looks beyond the on-site activity in evaluating effectiveness. This behavioral approach is being used to classify, not activities, but recreation experiences. It advocates matching a: person's desired outcomes with an experience. These desired outcomes vary across and within activities. There are also relations between outcomes and preferred environmental factors (Driver and Brown, 1975; Stankey, 1977; Hendee, 1974). This relationship between motives and environmental preferences is the basis of the recreation opportunity spectrum (Clark and Stankey, 1979). It is a system for recreation planning seen as being particularly useful to resource managers. Increased demand for outdoor recreation has placed pressure on the available resource. Recently, planners and managers have modified strategies from attempting to provide more recreation opportunities to providing opportunities that meet specific needs. This approach is aimed at accommodating a diversity of recreation preferences. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) defines three sets of opportunities: activity opportunities; setting opportunities; and experience opportunities. The opportunities are organized into six classes along a spectrum from primitive to urban. They are also defined according to the levels of physical, social and management characteristics (Brown, et al, 1979L. The physical environment is seen as the prime determinate of the recreation experience. The goal of ROS is to match desired outcomes with preferred environmental features. There have been a number of studies conducted on the linkages between activity, desired outcome, motive, and pre- ferred environmental characteristics. AA study of recreationists at Glenwood Springs Resource Area in Colorado 7 indicated different settings provided different experiences, and the preferences for those settings are influenced by the type of experience desired (Brown and Ross, 1982). This reinforces the experience setting link. However, the study was inconclusive in establishing the relationships between activities, outcomes, and settings. Additional studies have not been successful at defining the relationships (Allen, 1979). Manfredo and Anderson (1982) found managerial rele- vant differences between groups of Oregon trout anglers, but the preferences were diverse. Recently, river users motives from different settings were compared. The study reported the possibility that intergroup motive differences are greater than the differences between river settings (Knopf, Peterson, Leatherberry, 1983L. The authors suggest that there are a limited number of general motives. It also casts doubts on the importance of the physical environment in recreation site selection. These research findings point out the descrepancies of the various motive perspectives. Components of the motive debate include: Are motives linked to activities?; How do people choose sites?; Are the visitors seeking a specific outcome from their visit or are visitors more generalists in what they seek? A convenient site was available at the Kellogg Forest to investigate the relationships of motives and environmental characteristics. One goal of this study was to investigate the two variables as an aid to management. 8 The results of this study will describe visitor motives and physical characteristics of the Kellogg Forest. An understanding;of the visitor motives could help to explain the phenomenon of recreation in urban forests. As an emphasis on providing outdoor recreation opportunities in close proximity to population centers is a recognized need, the motives and preferred characteristics sought by visitors could be used in planning similar urban recreation opportunities. More specifically, the managers at Kellogg Experimental Forest could benefit from the information about visitors. The provision of services and facilities would be facilitated by an understanding of visitor desires. The data from the study could be used: to define planning alternatives by matching motives and preferences with environmental constraints; in planning cost efficient facilities; and in visitor management. The visitor would be the ultimate beneficiary by having their needs met. The results of this study will also be compared to a similar study done in 1968 (Kielbaso) to assess visitor trends at Kellogg Experimental Forest. 9 The specific study objectives follow. To describe visitors to the Kellogg Forest by: a. describing use patterns, b. f. ages. a. developing a typology of the visitors including demographic information and characteristics of the recreation activities pursued, defining visitor substitutes for the Kellogg Forest (alternative sites participants would visit if not the Kellogg Forest), obtaining access information from visitors including distance traveled and determination if the Forest was the sole destination of the visitor's trip, discovering visitors perceptions of who administers the Forest and the type of research conducted, and obtaining Forest visitors rating of the site and facilities. ‘To investigate, motive, activity, and environment link- Explore the relationship between motives and ac- tivities. There are no significant differences in mo- tgves for participation among activity categories. H1: There are significant differences in motives for participation among activity categories. Study the relationship between activities and visitor choice of characteristics of the Forest. H : There are no significant differences in Forest characteristics selected by visitors in the various activity categories. There are significant differences in Forest cEaracteristics selected by visitors in various activity categories. CHAPTER II METHODS srunr AREA The site of this study was the .W. K. Kellogg Experimental Forest which is operated on a multiple use objective by the Michigan State University Department of Forestry. . The Forest is located two miles north of Augusta in Ross Township, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. It is about half way between the cities of Battle Creek and Kalamazoo; the distance from either city is approximately 15 miles. (Figure 1). ' an...” '0 GRAND ll'IOS uuwoo CO CALM” CO. FIGURE 1. MAP OF GENERAL AREA 10 ~70“ 11 The rolling hills of the Forest are a reminder of the glacier that descended from the Artic over Michigan. There is a diversity of habitat types from marshy lowland to upland dry sands. The initial tract of land was donated by W. K. Kellogg, the breakfast cereal magnate of Battle Creek, in 1932 to serve. as a model for reforestation and conservation practices. During the 1920's, 902 of the 602 acres that comprise the Forest was planted agricultural crops. The farming methods employed, however, were destructive, leading W.K. Kellogg to donate the abandoned, eroded farms. Since the original donation, the Forest has undergone an evolution of natural and planted vegetation types. A large number of tree species have been planted in the intervening 52 years as a: result of the on-going forestry research. Today, forestry research is the primary function of the forest. The emphasis in research began in 1947 with the acknowledged need to do statistically sound studies with a diversity of tree and shrub species. Many long-term research projects have been conducted at the Forest. Some examples of the types of research conducted there include: genetic studies, demonstration of Forest management techniques. silvicultural studies, tree planting techniques, herbicide studies, stream research, wildlife habitat studies, hunting and fishing studies, and ecological studies. 12 The Forest is also the site for a variety of educational activities. Seminars and workshops are sponsored through the Forest in conjunction with the Michigan State University C00perative Extension Service. Recent seminars have included topics such as Forest Management for Small Landowners, Sawmill Clinics, and Twilight Forestry Tours. Classes from Michigan State University, Purdue, Western Michigan University, Central Michigan, and the University of Michigan use the Kellogg Forest as a living laboratory. The Forest is also visited annually by school classes and a variety of organized groups. Recreation is another of the uses of the Forest and is the emphasis of this study. The Forest was first opened to use by recreationists in 1940 with the implementation of a multiple use plan. Access first was provided through a gravel road around the east side of the Forest and into the picnic area. In 1982 other improvements were made at the Forest through a Kellogg Foundation grant. The grant money financed the paving of the entrance road, the construction of a new office shop, and classroom with public restrooms, and the fencing of the boundaries. The 602 acre Forest is divided by 42nd Street into west and east sections. Most of the recreation at the Forest is concentrated (M1 the approximately 307 acres on the east side. 13 The Forest is open and staffed every day of the year from dawn to dusk and accommodates a variety of recreation activities. Activities include: driving, picnicking, hiking, leaf collecting, exercising, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, photography, reading, foraging, etc. There is also a diversity in the uses by organized groups at the Forest: local schools use the Forest for track and cross country team practice and meets; Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts visit for outings and cook-outs as do church and school groups; a road rally has used the Forest as part of its event; and couples are married at the Forest. School classes utilize the Forest quite extensively especially in the Spring. Figure 2 shows the roads and trails available for use by visitors. The dotted lines mark trails used in the day-to-day management of the Kellogg Forest. These trails are accessible to visitors by foot. Vehicular use is limited to the Forest road and picnic area road indicated by the heavy dark lines. The Forest road is open to motorists during all but the snowy winter months. Then, it is closed due to hazardous conditions. Foot propelled visitors also choose to travel the road and can do so in all seasons. 14 W.KQ'KELLOGG'FOREST AUGUSTA, MICHIGAN ‘ ‘KALAMAzoo couwrv ROSS TWP. - TIS new ‘i l l u .p \ s ‘4‘:- I \ \ \ ’- --- -‘ LEGEND — dOflPARTHENT LINES I BUILDINGS . "-0 FOOT PATHS --- TRAILS SCALE - =—:— 400 ON use use new FIGURE 2. TRAIL MAP 15 The 2.5 mile road is an unpaved one-way, one-lane circuit of the east side of the Forest. Signs are spaced along the road to explain the research being conducted in the Forest compartments and are also used to label many species of trees. A scenic point of interest along the road is McCrary Lookout. Many visitors stop at the shelter to enjoy the view of the surrounding hills. Another area where recreationists congregate is the picnic area. It is the only area of the Forest specifically set aside for recreation. The picnic area is located on the west side of Augusta Creek in Compartments 17C and B. A few sites are spaced separately along the creek, but the majority of the 24 tables are in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac. Grills, garbage cans, and pit toilets comprise the facilities available for visitor use. A foot bridge, located in the area, enables visitors to cross the creek. Management for Recreation The Kellogg Forest is not an intensively managed recreation area, rather, it is similar to other natural and undeveloped sites with a low level of management. Natural is a deceptive term when applied to the Forest. In fact, the Forest is managed intensively for forestry research. All the compartments have been planted as part of some research project with the exception of a few control plots. However, due to the nature of the research projects and their long term aspects, the research management may not be apparent to the casual visitor. 16 Management specifically for recreation currently consists of maintenance of the picnic area, restrooms, roads and some trails, and staffing the Forest during weekends .and holidays. Since 1941, when hunting was first permitted at the Forest, hunters have been required to sign in and out. Until recently anglers were also required to register as part of the management procedure. A number of information and interpretive services are provided. Forest maps, a brochure, and a self-guiding trail pamphlet are hand-out materials available outside the Forest office to augment visitor experience.' Group tours are available upon request. Previous Studies There have been two previous studies of recreation at 'the Kellogg Forest. The first was a summary of recreational use written by Lemmien and Geis (Lemmien and Geis, 1955). This article related attendance figures, the distance visitors travelled, and cost of providing recreation at the Forest. Forest visitors were divided into four categories: hunters, fisherman, picnickers, and visitors. An in-depth study of recreation was done by James Kielbaso in 1967. (Kielbaso, 1968). Kielbaso described user groups, attendance patterns, satisfactions sought from recreation, and user attitudes. An attempt was made to replicate some aspect of the 1967 study. 17 STUDY DESIGN This study of recreational uses of the Kellogg Forest is cross sectional in design. The data were collected from August, 1983 until May, 1984. A year was determined as the appropriate length of time to record the cyclic changes in recreation participation and to include all the types of activities at the Forest. Q§§_ESTIMATION A variety of methods were employed to describe recreation use at the Forest and to meet study objectives. One fundamental way to describe usage is by measuring the number of visitors. Amount of visitation is the traditional way to measure effectiveness of recreational services, can be used in future planning, and is the basis for other types of analysis. In addition to measuring volume of use, total use figures can be collapsed into categories that describe the percentage of visitors participating in different activity types. These figures provide a gross picture of recreation at the Forest. The use figures can also be compared with previous estimations of use to describe changes that have occurred over time in the recreational use at the Forest. [Different methods were used to estimate attendance according to the resources available and limitations dictated by the season of the year. During the summer and fall seasons of 1983, traffic counts were taken by meters. Both the Michigan Department of Transportation and the 18 Kalamazoo County Road Commission placed counters at the Forest for one week periods in each season to count the number of cars entering the Forest. During the Spring season, the use of a traffic counter on a continual basis. became available. The counter was used through the Spring and Summer of 1984. Therefore, the use of a traffic counter for the Spring and Summer seasons are the most reliable. Since traffic counters are not an accurate and reliable measure of use in the Winter season, a vehicle count observation schedule was set up to record the number of vehicles present at the Forest. Patrols were made of the parking area and the number of.vehicles recorded to develop an estimation of use. Both the traffic meter and observation methods for estimating use are described below. Traffic Meter The traffic meter method to estimate use assumes that visitors enter by vehicle at a fixed point. This method seems suited to the Forest where most of the visitation occurs on the east side of 42nd Street property and visitors drive to reach the Forest. However, there are certain portions of some user groups that were not counted. They are visitors who may not enter by vehicle or who use the west side of the Forest property. This group includes some joggers, horseback riders, .snowmobilers, and anglers. To include some estimation of this uncounted use, hand counts were made of cars parked along the road during peak use periods such as beginning of fishing season and peak winter weekends. 19 Records were kept during the use estimation sampling periods of the number of employee trips over the counter. This number was subtracted from the total count to yield the number of visitor vehicles entering and exiting the Forest. The double count was divided by two to arrive at the final count of visitor vehicles. In order to calibrate the traffic counters, £1 census survey was done during random weekly periods in each season. Exiting cars were stopped and the number of people per car recorded. Visitors were also asked the length of their stay at the Forest and the activities in which they had participated. The average number of people per car is the "load factor" The load factor is used with the total number of visitor vehicles entering the Forest to estimate: total number of people visiting the Forest. Load factors can also be used in determining other usage figures. Observation Methods Vehicle counts were taken during the Winter season to estimate use. Patrols were made of the parking area, and the number of vehicles recorded, to develop an estimation of use from January 28 through March 26. For data representativeness, the Winter sampling was stratified into three four-hour time periods. The counts ‘were scheduled evenly through the sampling to overcome factors such as weather. A total of 12 counts were made during weekends; 8 counts were made on weekdays. 20 The estimate of vehicles is a ratio of (McCurdy, 1968): Number of Counts 3 Number of Days in Estimation Period NEEFZ?-BT_VZFTET33 X (Total Vehicle Estiizfion, Uncorrected) This estimation is not corrected to account for the difference between the length of sampling time periods and the length of visitor's stay. To correct the total estimation the following formula is used: Corrected Estimate - Uncorrected Estimate X 10 Hour Day Assumed Average Length of Stay The average length of stay was determined from Winter calibrations. Corrected estimates from weekends and weekdays were added to determine the total use. Yearly Attendance Yearly attendance was estimated by combining three different methods. Each of the methods divides months into weekdays and weekend days to compute the total attendance for the month. The number of vehicles during the weekdays or weekend days is then multiplied by the appropriate load factor to determine the number of visitors. September and October, 1984, estimates were computed using the Michigan Department of Transportation counts taken from September 1, to September 7. Since the counts measured both entering and exiting vehicles, the total was divided by two. Then, employee round trips were subtracted from the count. From those counts, the average number of vehicles 21 per weekday was multiplied by the number of weekdays in each month to calculate the total number of vehicles visiting on weekdays. Finally, the total number of vehicles was multiplied by the Fall weekday load factor to calculate the total number of visitors in the month. The same procedure was used in obtaining weekend estimates. Labor Day fell into the September 1-7 count and was included as a weekend day. November estimates used averages from the Khlamazoo County Road Commission counts taken from August 12-18: (March, 1984 estimates use Kalamazoo County counts taken during March 28 to April 4.) Winter estimates employed the observation counts outlined earlier. The attendance for April through July 1984 were .calculated from the stationary counter at the Forest during the entire period. That procedure was also outline earlier. SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION Systematic observation was employed primarily in the Summer to collect data on picnicking behavior. During specified time periods, information was recorded on the number of people in the picnicking group, the age distribution represented, group type, location of the group in the picnic area and types of activities picnickers were engaged in. Contact was made with some groups to record their comments of the picnic area and the Forest in an informal setting. 22 Data on the use of the picnic area were collected to discover how and which facilities in the area were used. The form for recording the observation data is in Appendix E. PERSONAL INTERVIEWS Use estimations and systematic obeservation, however, are only a gross way to describe recreation and do not reveal many of the characteristics of the users. To collect more detailed information on visitors, personal interviews were conducted. Personal interviews were conducted with visitors as they left the Forest with the exception of hunters (noted below). The survey took an average 10-15 minutes to complete. Sometimes, with more talkative visitors, the surveys took longer. There was little difficulty in getting people to stop for the survey. During the entire year there were only five refusals. Beginning in August of 1983 and ending in May, 1984, 267 interviews were conducted at the Kellogg Forest. The first three questions regarding number of people per group, group composition, and age distribution pertained to the entire visiting group. Subsequent questions were directed only at one respondent per group. For some of the questions, many respondents chose to discuss their reply with others in the group. Study Sampling The elements} in the systematic random sampling plan were: season of the year; day of week; and time of the day. 23 Over the course of the year each of the elements were slightly modified. The predominate activities change as the season does. The forest conforms to the number of daylight hours in a season; this effects the number of sampling periods available. For example, during Summer the two hour sampling periods started at 8:00 a.m. and ended at the Forest's approximate closing time of 8:00 p.m. In the Winter, closing time was at approximately 6:00 p.m. Another change in visitation patterns that effected the sampling in any particular season was day of week. Weekday visitation drops when school opens in the Fall for example. The sampling proportions for weekend and weekday times were based on Kielbaso's 1967 data. The sampling days were spaced throughout each season. Visitors sixteen years of age and older were the 'respondents in the survey. The sixteen year old age group is included to assess the recreation desires of young adult visitors. Since visitors usually drive to the Forest, sixteen, the age when a driver's license may be obtained, was determined as the appropriate age. A deliberate attempt was made to interview equal numbers of male and female group members. During the sampling periods, an attempt was made to stop each car exiting. However, it was not possible to interview every car. Cars often exited in spurts, so, some groups were missed while an interview was in progress. 24 There were certain problems with activity sampling size in the fall and winter seasons. Hunters are required to register, so, as the season neared its end it became evident that there was an insufficient representation of hunters in the sample. Therefore, it was decided to conduct telephone interviews of that group. A systematic sampling scheme choosing every tenth name was used with the hunter registration sheets as the sampling frame. Duplicate registrations were omitted. Three attempts were made ‘to reach each possible respondent (ll-27 starting date). If three attempts failed, the next name on the list was chosen. Four interviews were conducted by phone. The weather had a major influence on winter sampling. December .to mid-January were ideal for winter activities, but conditions deteriorated for the remainder of the season. Twenty skiers were interviewed, but only two snowmobilers were interviewed. Although snowmobiling is permitted on the east side of the Forest on the road, few snowmobilers use the east side where the interviews were conducted. Cross-country skiers predominate on the Fbrest's east side; one reason for the few snowmobiles may be the presence of skiers. Also, snowmobilers are allowed anywhere on the west side, whereas, they are restricted to the road (”I the east side. Another reason for the small number of snowmobilers interviewed is that they don't use the parking lot as an entry point. They 25 often enter and exit through an adjoining property using the forest property as a part of their excursion. Snowmobilers are also difficult to stop for an interview. Instrument Development One aspect of this study was to compare the responses with. the 1967 study. Therefore, it was determined that similar questions, providing similar response categories would be used. Group size and type categories, frequency and length of participation, and access information remained constant. Demographic information also remained the same with the exception of household income queries. From the previous study and current recreation research, it was determined that income data would. not provide: any added explanation of recreation at the forest Another important consideration in excluding income was the sensitive nature of the question to many visitors. A number of revisions were indicated however, both as a result of the 1967 study and due to changes in society occurring in the 17 intervening years since data was collected. In order to access visitor trends, the activity categories were the same as in Kielbaso's 1967 study. The categories are: motoring; picnicking; fishing; hunting; (deer and small game); and miscellaneous. Skiing and snowmobiling were included as additional categories during the Winter season. As the study progressed, it became apparent that an exercise category was important and was added. 26 Satisfaction response categories were expanded. Additional questions were written tn) meet the study objectives. One of them was a question concerning environmental attributes. It was divided into six categories that outline the range of Forest attributes. Within each of the categories there was a variety of responses. The categories indicate the importance to the visitors of location, free access, Forest environment, educational opportunities, and site facilities. A new series of questions were also formulated to collect data on specific management concerns. The concerns were: the effectiveness of informational and interpretive services; visitor's rating of the facilities; sources of information about the Kellogg Forest; visitor's perception of the purpose and management of the Forest; use patterns of areas within the Forest; and sites visitor's perceived as similar to the Forest (substitutes). Each respondent was asked all questions pertaining to use patterns, demographics, access, substitutes, and general management concerns. Questions evaluating specific facilities, or informational or interpretive services, were chosen according to the activity type in which the visitor had participated. For example, picnickers rated the picnic site and facilities while trail users rated the trails, maps, or pamphlets they had used. Since visitors often participate in multiple activities, some users responded to more than one set of specific questions. 27 Pre-Test The pre—test of the survey questionnaire was conducted on August 7, 1983 at the Kellogg Forest. Thirty-eight individuals were interviewed. Respondents were interviewed in the picnic area, and upon exiting to complete as many interviews as possible. The pre-test confirmed some of the revisions already made in the satisfaction and attribute categories. It also indicated other categories to be included in those two questions. However, since the pre-test was not conducted in the other three seasons and because of its limited trial, it was not extensive enough to delimit all the categories for the two questions. Therefore, additional categories were added as indicated. Coding and Processing of Surveys Early in the study it was decided to capitalize on the advantages of using a microcomputer to manage the data. One of the advantages is that current and future data will be easily accessible to personnel at the Forest through the IBM microcomputer there. A program to enter the survey data using the Condor Database Management System was written by the consulting services of the Michigan State University Computer Center. The data from the questionnaire were entered directly into the IBM microcomputer from the questionnaire form, thereby, eliminating extra coding. Preliminary analysis of the data was also done using Condor. 28 For more detailed analysis, the data files from the micro-computer were loaded into the Michigan State University Cyber where the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. Analysis The major data transformation that were done was the assigning of visitors to one activity category. Many visitors participate in multiple activities at the Fbrest. For analysis by activity type, users were assigned to categories on the basis of their predominate activity, thus, -creating discrete user groups. The amount of time visitors spent in each activity was the determining factor in ‘the assignment of categories. A number of different statistical tests were performed on the data. Frequencies on each of the questions were used to check for errors in data entry and tn) obtain a description of respondents. The initial frequencies were conducted on all the data. Subsequent frequencies were run on various subgroups of respondents-—first time visitors, repeat visitors, organized groups, and seven activity categories. Selected frequencies were also done by season. Nominal level data from the surveys was analyzed using the Chi-Square test. Chi-Squares were also used to compare 1984 data with Kielbaso's 1967 study and with 1980 U. S. census data from Calhoun and Kalamazoo Counties. Chi-Square is :1 non-parametric test that compares two distributions to determine if they are statistically different. It implies a relationship, but not the direction 29 or strenth (Hi the relationship. The test evaluates the difference between expected and observed frequencies in various categories. Chi-Squares of the 1984 data uses a theoretical. distribution to compute the expected frequencies. In comparison with 1967 and census data, the expected frequencies from either 1967 or census results are compared with the observed frequencies from 1984 data to test their statistical significance. Corrections were made to account for the differences in sample size. These Chi-Square computations were done by hand. Cramer's V is included as a measure of strength of the Chi-Square relationship since Chi-Square is influenced by sample size. The range of values for this statistic is from 0, indicating independence, to 1, indicating complete dependence. For some analysis, Lambda was used as a measure of association. It is a test used on nominal level variables and was employed when the conditions for a Chi-Square test were not met. Asymmetric Lambda is a statistic that measures the percentage of improvement in predicting the dependent variable when the value of the independent variable is known. Predictions without error can be made when Lambda equals 1.0. For example, an assymmetric Lambda of .298 indicates a 29.82 improvement in predicting the dependent variable (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, Bent, 1975). 30 Another statistical test, performed on ratio level variables was the student's T-test for independent samples. This test compares two sample means for significant differences. It was used to evaluate differences between activity categories. Responses to the satisfaction question were marked by the order in which the responses were made. Up to three responses to the question were recorded. Each response was weighted by the order it was mentioned, with the first response receiving the most weight. The values for each of the satifactions mentioned were added and then divided by the total number of responses to construct an index. The index value is also a percentage. LIMITATIONS . The major deficiency of the use estimation results from the lack of :reliable traffic counters from September to March. At the start of the survey year the problem was one of locating a traffic counter. After a counter was located, the problem became one of the counter's reliability. During the Spring season the use of a reliable traffic counters on a continual basis became available. Therefore, the use figures for the Spring and Summer months of 1984 are the most accurate of the seasons. Fall months usage was calculated using the Michigan Department of Transportation and Kalamazoo County Road Commission's traffic counts. The figures represent averages and may not be indicative of the cyclic pattern of recreation participation. 31 The Winter use figure is also an incomplete estimation of attendance. Weather is a major factor influencing Winter recreation participation. The primary consideration is a sufficient snow cover to permit Winter sports. The observation counts taken to estimate Winter attendance started in mid-January of 1984. It was in mid-January that the snow melted. The remainder of the season had insufficient snowfall to permit Winter sports. However, December and early January were ideal for Winter sports. Casual observation during this time indicates that the Winter use figure is an underestimation. This underestimation is probably especially true of cross-country skiing at the Forest. Skiing appears to have become a large segment of the recreation population at the Forest and the dominate one in Winter when the snow cover permits. Another limitation of this study is the small size of some samples. For example, only eight ‘visitors ‘used ‘the self-guiding trail pamphlets. This sample is very small for generalizable results. A number of visitors participate in multiple activities while at the Forest. For analysis by activity types, activity in which they had spent the most time. This arbitrary assignment to an activity on the basis of time may not reflect the character of the visitors recreation experience. A final limitation of this study is the Summer period. Interviews were not conducted in June and July during the 32 sampling year. Users during these two months may be different than those who visit in the other months of the year. CHAPTER III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The goal of this study was to construct a clearer picture of the recreationists who visit the Kellogg Forest. This chapter is divided into five sections to describe the visitors. First, attendance figures from use estimation outline the amount and pattern of usage. A description of seasons follows to give an overview of recreation at the Forest. The third section presents a typology of visitors including: characteristics of the visiting group, a detailed accounting of individual responses to survey questions and motives related to preferred characteristics of the Forest. The typology section. is further divided into subheadings summarizing the reponses of all visitors and by the seven activity categories. In the next section management concerns are addressed. Comparison of the 1984 data with the results of J. J. Kielbasso's study in 1967 are in the final section of this chapter. ATTENDENCE PATTERNS The yearly attendance figure from August, 1984 until July, 1984 was estimated at 95,939 visitors. The figure was estimated using a variety of methods described in the previous chapter. The load factors derived from seasonal calibration were mutliplied by the vehicle count to estimate 33 34 attendance (Table 2). Table 1 gives a breakdown of attendance by season. Table 1. Seasonal Attendance (August, 1983-July, 1984) All Visitors Excluding Visitors in Organized Groups Organized Groups Monthly Seasonal Monthly Seasonal Total Total Total Total September 5,561.3 133.0 October 6,242.9 15,980.6 195.0 441.0 November 4,176.4 113.0 December Observation 10.0 January Estimate for 5,743.0 0.0 10.0 February Entire Season 0.0 March 13,460.1 100.0 April 14,451.9 50,505.1 272.0 2,558.0 May 22,593.1 2,186.0 June 6,035.1 404.0 July 6,299.5 19,427.5 229.0 1,274.0 August 7,092.9 641.0 Total Visitors 91,656.2 4,283.0 Summed Totals 95,939.2 Hunters by Attendance Patterns Exact attendance figures are available participants in one activity category. Figure 1 charts the attendance patterns for small game and rifle hunters from 1959 to 1984. Generally, the figures indicate a decline in the number of visits by hunters from a peak in the 1960-61 season. There mh_m_> @z_hzzz 4 -< A A A ca o.on c.o c.o4 c.o o.o o.o o.o o.n o.n~ A AAAAAA A A A 4A n.o o.o n.nn o.o c.o o.o «.4 5.oA n.5n A AAAauAA A A \asnussu A mu ~.A~ A.- ~.H~ o.c o.o o.o o.o o.o 5.00 A usuawuuewu A A A on «.mA o.o m.n o.n o.o 5.5 o.o n.4n m.on Assesseuneueux A oa H.An 5.9 5.5“ o.o o.o ~.~ 4.4 «.an a.mn A magnum A A A we ".55 m.n o.5N n.~ o.o a.n 0.5 n.ou 4.5 A usnpwun A An c.5A n.4A «.4 n.4A a.4 n.a 0.4 o.o~ o.o A uuAsuAauAA m muse» on ens-u mm A A usuawauum< soueaunu uoso new have: new sumo» on muse» mfi A A but «saunas oa saws leauso\s Ivnuso\s ue>o can move: sea A A Isa museum mesons» evaewum musouum luauso\s nunuso\z muoufiea> A A z monmsoo eowuasuuo messiah a 5awssm a new-em a and-em sowdwssm newsflash onuawm A 5uw>auu< .959 nsouu 4 I 0559 asouu 5a ensue-w» no eeueueeuuem .5 ounce 48 of all the groups interviewed. Children comprised 212 of the visitor groups. Adolescents were present in 11.62 of the groups. As would be expected, adults were present in the overwhelming majority of groups at 93.62. Seniors were in 122 of the groups. The number of preschoolers, children and adolescents are a reflection of the predominance of family groups at the Forest. Table 8. Visitors by Age Group Percent Present 1 Percent Present Age In All Groups In All Groups Preschoolers (0-5 years) 65 12.42 Children (6-12 years) 305 21.02 Adolescents (13-17 years) 74 11.62 Adults (18-60 years) 589 93.62 Seniors (60 plus years) ‘61 12.02 Totals 1,100 149.62 To facilitate comparisons between age groups in the papulation of the surrounding counties and the Kellogg Forest, a Chi-Square test of significance was done. A Chi-Square testing the distribution of age groups in Kalamazoo - Calhoun counties and Kellogg Forest visitors shows significance at the .001 level (Cramer's stat - .2849) indicating the differences in the population are not due to chance. (Table 9) Those cells that contribute more than 5 to the Chi-Square are preschoolers, children, and seniors. This 49 indicates those three cells may be more likely to account for the descrepancies between Kalamazoo-Calhoun counties age distribution and that of the Kellogg Forest age distribution. There is no direction implied in the Chi-Square test. Table 9. Number of Visitors by Age Group Observed and Expected (Census of Population, 1980, pp 443,445) ngerved Expected Preschoolers (0-5) 65.00 92.798 Children (6-12) 305.00 118.698 Adolescents (13-17) 74.00 91.69 Adults (18-60) 589.00 643.83 Seniors (60+) 67.00 152.748 Sample Size - 1,100 Chi-Square - 18.465, four degrees of freedom, significant at .001 level aContributes more than Sito Chi-Square By Activity Categories An Analysis of Variance Test indicates a significant variation in the number of adolescents and Seniors in the seven activity categories (Tables 10 and 11). 50 Table 10. Analysis of Variance Test for Adolescents in Activty Categories Standard Activityp GrouppMeans Deviation N Picnicking .9048 1.670 21 Driving .1471 .530 68 Hiking .1556 .520 90 Misc .2308 .514 26 Exercising 1.1110 3.230 18 Hunting-Fishing .2083 .660 24 Skiing 0.0000 0.000 20 Sum of Mean Source D.F. Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 6 24.9780 4.1630 3.7003 .0015 Within Groups 260 292.5127 1.1250 Total 266 317.4906 51 Table 11. Analysis of Variance Test for Seniors in Activity Categories Standard Activity Group Means Deviation N Picnicking * .6190 1.11 21 Driving .5882 1.44 68 Hiking .1110 .57 90 Misc .0385 .20 26 Exercising 1.1110 .32 18 Hunting-Fishing .0417 .20 24 Skiing 0.0000 000, 20 Sum of Mean Source D.F. Squares Squares . F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 6 16.1778 2.6963 3.5765 .002 Within Groups 260 196.0095 .7539 Total 266 212.1873 Respondent Characteristics Information was collected during the survey year to discover more about the people who visit the Forest - who they are, where they come from, what they do during their visit, and their motives. The preceding information on group characteristics was collected from the entire group visiting the Forest. The following data reflects the replies of one respondent per group. 52 GENDER All Visitors As was noted earlier, a conscious attempt was made to interview an equal number of female and male visitors. The result was that 40.42 of the respondents were female, while 59.62 were male. The primary reason the sexes are not more equal is women's underrepresentation in the hunting and fishing category (Table 12). Table 12. Percentages of Visitors by Gender Gender Activity Female Male N Picnicking 47.6 52.4 21 Driving . 36.8 63.2 68 Hiking - 46.7 53.3 90 Misc. 53.8 46.2 26 Exercising 44.4 55.6 ' 18 Hunting/Fishing 0.0 100.0 24 Skiing 45.0 55.0 20 All Visitors 40.4 59.6 267 By Activity Category The only activity that shows a higher percentage of female participation than male is the miscellaneous category. However, due to the higher percentage of males interviewed, it is difficult to make comparisons. 53 AGE All Visitors The mean age of the respondents was 37.5 years. The median age was 34.4 with a range of 16 to 78 years (Table 13). Table 13. Ages of Visitors Age Appiyity, Mean Mode Median Range, N Picnicking 42.8 51.0 41.0 18-69 21 Driving 41.6 32.0 36.5 19-78 68 Hiking 34.9 26.0 33.5 18—57 90 Misc. 33.7 18.0 32.0 17-75 26 Exercising 34.9 21.0 34.5 17-74 18 Hunting/ Fishing 38.6 34.0 34.5 16-67 24 Skiing 35.3 24.0 32.8 22-63 19 All Visitors 37.5 32.0 34.4 16-78 266 By Activity Categories To discover if there was significant variation across the categories, a comparison was made of the mean ages of the seven activities. Table 14 shows that there. is a significance at the .0173 level. 54 Table 14. Analysis of Variance Test for Ages of Seven Activity Categories AGES Standard Activity Group Means Deviation N Picnicking 42.8 16.8 21 Driving 41.6 15.4 68 Hiking 34.9 11.5 90 Misc. 33.7 13.6 26 Exercising 34.9 14.5 18 Hunting/Fishing 38.6 14.6 24 Skiing 35.3 11.7 20 Sum of Mean Source D.F. Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between 1 Groups 6 2963.2634 493.8772 2.625 .0173 Within Groups 259 48729.1013 188.1432 Total 265 51692.3647 ' Since the F-Probability indicates there is a statistical significance in the mean ages of the activities, T-tests were conducted on all combinations of the seven categories. T-tests compares two sample means to determine if there is a statistical significance between them. Those T-tests that showed significance are shown in Table 15. The three pairs of means showing significance are: driving and hiking; driving and miscellaneous; and miscellaneous and picnicking. This indicates that there is a statistical difference of ages between each of the three pairs of activities. 55 Table 15. T-Test for Ages of Activity Categories Activity Category T Value DF T-Prob. Driving vs. Hiking 3.03' 119.21 .003 ' (separate) Driving vs. Misc. 2.29 92.00 .024 (pooled) Misc. vs. Picnicking 2.04 45.00 .048 (pooled) RACE All Visitors The overwhelming majority of (97.82) of Forest visitors were white. Blacks were 1.92 of those interviewed while Asians are represented in only one case (.472). when the racial composition of Kalamazoo and Calhoun Counties is compared with that of the Forest, there is ’significant difference (.001; Cramer stat. - .1595) between the two (Table 16). The cell contributing more than 5 to Chi-Square is the Black population. This indicates that fewer Blacks recreate at the Forest than would be expected from the racial composition of the 2 surrounding counties. 56 Table 16. Racial Comparison of Kalamzaoo and Calhoun Counties and Kellogg Forest Visitors Observed Expected White 261 243.01 Black 5 22.493 Asians l 1.50 Sample Size 267 Chi-Square - 15.1, 2 degrees of freedom, significant at .001 Cramer's V - .1595 aContributes more than 5 to Chi-Square By_Activity Catggp£y_ Because the number of Black and Asian visitors was so small, all the Chi-Square cells in the non-white category had expected frequencies less than 5. Therefore, it was not possible to use the Chi-Square test to compare activity categories by racial composition. EDUCATION All Visitors Another variable used to describe visitors was their level of education. An outstanding feature of the data is that 40.52 of Forest visitors have graduated from college or have done post-graduate work (Table 17). One possible explanation for the large percentage of visitors with high levels of education could be the Kellogg 57 Forest's affiliation with Michigan State University and the number of teachers who utilize the Forest. However when organized groups and Michigan State University groups are accounted for there are still 28.22 of the visitors who have graduated from college or done post-graduate work. Table 17. Education Level of Visitors by Percentages Highest Grade 2 of 2 Excluding Completed Visitors Organized Group; 8th Grade .4 .4 9th-11th Grade 7.0 7.1 High School 29.6 30.6 1-3 Years College 22.5 23.8 College Graduate 18.4 17.9 Post Graduate 22.1 20.3 To further explore the education variable, a Chi-Square test was done. The following table (Table 18) compares the distribution of Kellogg Forest visitors twenty-five years or older with the combined distribution of residents twenty-five years or older in Kalamazoo and Calhoun Counties. The differences between the two distributions appear to be related to four cells. They are the cells indicating the following educational levels: 8th grade, 9-11 grades, college graduates, and post graduate education. It appears that the educational level of visitors is different than would be expected from the composition of the two surrounding counties. 58 Table 18. Number of Visitors by Education Level Observed and Expected Grade Level Observed Expected 8th 1.0 26.68 9-11th 12.0 34.38 12th ' 59.0 81.6 13-15th 49.0 37.8 College Graduate 44.0 20.3: 17 years or more 56.0 20.3 Sample Size - 222 Chi-Square - 139.26, five degrees of freedom, significant at .001 By Activity Category A percentage breakdown of education levels by activity categories is given. in Table 19. It shows that skiers attain the highest level of education with» mean of 16.3 years of schooling. Although, hunters and anglers have the lowest mean, 13.1 years, the mean indicates that the "average” hunter and angler has completed one year of school after high school graduation. To determine if there was a significant difference between the seven category means, an analysis of variance was conducted. Table 20 shows that there was a significance at the .0008 level. This indicates there was a difference between the mean education levels of the activites. 59 o.o~ n.4A o.m4 o.nm o.oA o.oA o.o o.o AAAAAm o.4~ A.mA «.4 A.oA a.o~ m.n4 a.mA o.o maAamAA \mefiussm a.mA 6.4A m.- A.AA m.5~ m.mm e.n o.o ouAuuoau o.4~ n.4A «.aA A.m~ «.aA 6.4m m.m o.o maooaoAAouuA: o.oa A.4A «.4N ~.- n.4N A.~N 6.6 o.o maAAAz a.me A.mA A.oA m.m o.n~ a.mm m.AA m.A m=A>AAn o.AN 4.4A a.mu o.oA c.5A A.mm o.o o.o maAAuAauAm :1 emu: mumsvmuu mfloaaoo mcmuu Hoonumtmmwm ovmuw mango muu>fiuu< 066a ausmaeauu aAnAnmA euaoaasuo AAAAuo sum mqm>ua Aauu< 5n mHo>ma souumusem .oH manna 60 Table 20. Analysis of Variance Test for Education Levels by Seven Activity Categories EDUCATION LEVEL Standard Activity Gropp Means Deviation Picnicking 14.5714 2.6565 Driving 13.7059 2.8862 Hiking 14.7333 2.5864 Misc. 14.5000 2.3707 Exercising 14.5556 2.5718 Hunting/Fishing 13.0800 2.0624 Skiing 16.3000 2.0545 Sum of Mean Forest Forest Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 6 157.8696 26.3116 3.9639 .0008 Within Groups 260 1725.8383 6.5378 Total 266 1883.7079 To ascertain which of the activities were responsible for the variation, a series of T-Tests were conducted. Table 21 lists those T-Tests that indicate significance. The skiing category appears as an unique population differing from all other categories; it shows the highest level of education. Hunting and fishing is also a distinct population differing from all categories except driving; it was the lowest level of education. The only other pair of categories to exhibit significance was the driving vs. hiking pair. Table 21. T-Test for Education by Activity Category Activity Category T Value DF T-Prob= Skiing vs. Picnicking -2.32 39.00 .026 Skiing vs. Driving -3.74 86.00 .000 Skiing vs. Hiking -2.53 108.00 .013 Skiing vs. Misc. 2.70 44.00 .010 Skiing vs. Exercising 2.32 36.00 .026 Skiing vs. Hunting/ Fishing 5.16 42.00 .000 Hunting/Fishing vs. Picnicking 2.11 43.00 .040 Hunting/Fishing vs. Hiking 2.89 112.00 .005 Hunting/Fishing vs. Misc. 2.26 47.84 .028 Hunting/Fishing vs. Exercising 2.06 40.00 .046 Driving vs. Hiking -2.35 156.00 .020 DISTANCE All Visitors That the Kellogg Forest qualifies as an intermediate type recreation area is indicated by the distance traveled by visitors. the Forest. visitors. 78.72 of all visitors live within 15 miles of Table 22 shows the distances traveled by all 62 Table 22. Distances Traveled by All Visitors Distance Traveled Percent of Visitors Within 15 Miles 78.72 15-30 Miles - 9.42 Southern Lower Michigan 6.42 Northern Lower Michigan 1.12 Upper Peninsula .42 Out-of-State Visitors 4.12 Of the 78.72 within 15 miles, 552 live in either Kalamazoo (152) or Battle Creek (402). Kalamazoo and Battle Creek are the largest urban areas in the vicinity of the Forest. The discrepancy in visitor participation between Kalamazoo and Battle Creek is not easily explained. Both cities are are approximately the same distance from the Forest. Battle Creek has a population of 77,789. Kalamazoo's population is 154,990; almost two times the population of Battle Creek. Kielbaso (1968) noted the same discrepancy in visitor participation between Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. One explanation for the discrepancy may be the recreation opportunities available in the area around each city. One of the subsequent questions in the survey asked visitors to name places similar to the Kellogg Forest. This question was meant to identify substitutes for the Forest. After eliminating the responses that could be applicable to either Kalamazoo or Battle Creek visitors (the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary, Fort Custer, Other and None), the next most 63 frequent responses are sites closer to Kalamazoo. These sites are: Yankee Springs, Allegan Forest, and the Kalamazoo Nature Center. The residents of Kalamazoo may have a wider choice of recreation opportunities that are similar to the Forest than the residents of Battle Creek. Other source areas to the Kellogg Forest with percentages of visitors over 12 from highest to lowest: Augusta (92); Richland (7.12); Galesburg (1.12); Cersco (1.52); Climax (1.52); Hickory Corners (1.52); Allegan (1.12); Marshall (1.12); and Plainwell (1.12). Of the places listed above only Allegan and Marshall are more than 15 miles from the Kellogg Forest. By Activity Category Table 23 lists distances traveled by visitors in each activity category.- The exercising category shows a concentration of users who travel 50 or fewer miles to visit. Hunting/fishing shows the second highest percentage of visitors who traveled 15 miles to the Forest. There were no hunters or anglers who came from northern lower Michigan, the Upper Peninsula, or out of state. Picnicking and skiing have the highest percentage of visitors who travel 15 miles or more and travel from southern lower Michigan. They have the fewest in the 15 miles or less range. So, generally, the exercisers, hunters/anglers travel the least distance; while picnickers and skiers travel further to the Forest. 64 o.o~ o.n o.o o.o o.n o.n~ o.n4 maAAam o.4~ o.o o.o o.o m.m «.4 n.5m maAsmAa \mewucsm a.mA o.o o.o o.o o.o A.AA 5.4m ouAuuoxm o.o~ m.m o.o o.o ask 4.4 n.4m maooeaAAuquz o.oa m.m A.A ~.~ 4.4 a.» o.cm AAAAA: a.mo m.n o.o m.A 4.A o.n 4.55 4=A>Aun o.A~ m.m o.o o.o n.4A A.mA A.5n AAAquauAm z mumum masmmwemm H: more; H: A0304 mod“: mafia: nu .Nufi>«uu< we use Anna: suoauuoz euosusom omlmu saga“: nmqm>uuo< 5a eono>mus museum“: .mm ounce 65 NUMBER OF VISITS All Visitors Another' way' to describe :recreation is by visitation patterns: number of visits by season and annually, length of visits, and type of activity. The "average" respondent visited 12.9 times in the last twelve months. Users divide their visits evenly throughout the season although there was a slight tendency to visit more often in the Fall as shown in Table 24. Rgpppt Visitors It has been anticipated that most of the visitors to the Forest would be repeat visitors. This is indicated by the number of repeat visitors interviewed. Repeat visitors comprised 89.142 of the interviews. The tendency to visit more often in the Fall seems to contradict the previous indication that Spring is the season of highest visitation. One explanation of the discrepancy might be the predominance of organized groups in the Spring. Although, there are fewer organized groups than other visitors, organized groups have- more people per group accounting for the high Spring attendance. 66 Table 24. Number of Visits by Season NUMBER OF VISITS (N - 267) Season Mean Mode Median Range Summer 5.3, 1 ' 2.2 1-84 Fall 6.3 1 2.5 1-84 Winter 5.5 1 2.1 1-50 All Seasons 12.9 1 3.8 1-280 By Activity Category Of the seven categories, exercisers had the highest mean number of visits (56.1). The next highest mean was 13.6 in the miscellaneous category. Hikers had the lowest mean number of visits. However, these means should be interpreted with caution. Visitors often participate in different activities on the other occasions they visit. For example, a visitor classified as a picnicker from the interview may hike or drive on subsequent visits to the Forest. No analysis of seasonal visitation by activity category was done for this reason. Refer to Table 5 for the five top ranked activities by season. 67 Table 25. Number of Visits by Activity Categories NUMBER OF VISITS Activity Mean Mode Median Range N Picnicking 10.6 g 1 1.5 1-144 21 Driving 10.8 1 2.5 1-200 68 Hiking 8.1 1 3.8 1-100 40 Misc. 13.6 1 .8 1-100 26 Exercising 56.1 3 25.5 1-280 18 Hunting/ Fishing 8.8 1 5.2 1- 27 24 Skiing 9.2 1 2.5 1- 62 20 TIME All Visitors The average amount of time visitors spend at the Forest is approximately an hour and one half. Visitors spent anywhere from 5 minutes for a quick trip through the picnic area in Winter to 7 hours in a hunting excursion during their visit. Table 26 indicates length of visit by all visitors and activity categories. Table 26. Length of Visit by All Visitors and Activity Categories (Minutes) Activity Mean Mode Median Rangg_ N Picnicking 89.8 120 93.30 15-180 21 Driving 28.5 30 27.70 5- 60 68 Hiking 97.2 90 89.50, 10-360 90 Misc. 91.7 90 8.95 15-240 26 Exercising 61.1 90 52.50 20-120 18 Hunting/ Fishing 217.1 120 200.00 60-420 24 Skiing 114.3 120 116.40 50-190 20 All Visitors 88.2 120 62.40 5-420 267 68 ByyActivity Category When means are ranked from shortest to longest length of stay, their order is as follows: Driving, exercising, picnicking, misc., hiking, skiing, and hunting/angling. When comparing -the shortest to longest length of stay. hunter/anglers stay 7.6 times longer than drivers. The picnicking, miscellaneous and hiking categories (the middle ranks) have means indicating visitors in these categories stay a similar amount of time. The three means are within seven minutes of each other (approximately). When an analysis of variance is conducted on the length of visit variable, it shows a significance at the .000 level (Table 27). 69 Table 27. Analysis of Variance Test for Length of Visit by Activity Category. TOTAL TIME Standard Activity Group Means Deviatipp__ Picnicking 89.7619 41.9963 Driving 28.4559 14.4361 Hiking 97.2222 55.6984 Misc. 91.7308 61.4808 Exercising 61.1111 27.2545 Hunting/Fishing 217.0833 107.9746 Skiing 114.2500 40.5318 Sum of Mean Source D.F. Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 6 .6759E +06 .1126E +06 40.194 .000 Within 1 Groups 260 .7318E +06 2814.7181 Total 266 .1408E +07 T-tests (Table 28) indicate a considerable difference between pairs of activities on length of visit. Three activities - driving, exercising and hunting/fishing differ from all other activities. These activities represent the two shortest length of stays (driving and exercising) and the longest length of stay (hunting/fishing). 70 Table 28. T-Test for Length of Visit by Activity Category Activity Category T Value DF T-Prob. Driving vs. Picnicking 6.57 21.48 .000 Driving vs. Hiking -11.22 104.43 .000 Driving vs. Misc. - 5.19 26.06 .000 Driving vs. Exercising - 4.90 19.59 .000 Driving vs. Hunting/ Fishing - 8.53 23.29 .000 Driving vs. Skiing - 9.29 20.44 .000 Exercising vs. Picnicking 2.48 37.00 .018 Exercising vs. Hiking 4.15 50.53 .000 Exercising vs. Misc. - 2.24 36.84 .031 Exercising vs. Hunting/ Fishing - 6.79 26.81 .000 Exercising vs. Skiing 4.69 36.00 .000 Hunting/Fishing vs. Picnicking - 5.33 30.59 .000 Hunting/Fishing vs. Hiking . - 5.26 26.35 .000 Hunting/Fishing vs. Misc. - 4.99 35.87 .000 Hunting/Fishing vs. Skiing - 4.32 30.38 .000 OTHER ACTIVITIES All Visitors When asked whether they had done activities other than they had expected, most visitors responded that they had not (90.52). This may have to do with familiarity with the Forest. But, 72.42 of first time visitors who would not be expected to have familiarity with the Forest also participated in the activities they had planned. It may be that first time visitors adapt to the conditions they find or visitors may have only a general "plan" for their recreation activities. 71 The responses by those who did participate in unplanned activies may shed some light on the question. Approximately 57.02 of the people did not expect to wade in the creek hike, or exercise. Another 9.52 of the responses were at the Forest by an unplanned stop (Table 29). The final category is serendipitous responses and indicate one of the problems of classifying the recreation experience. Approximately 33.32 of the responses were in this category (other). They include a pine cone fight, spotting trout, walking further than expected, hiking the back trails, looking at maple trees (Spring), and laying out on the bridge and contemplating. Table 29. Participation in Unplanned Activities Activities 2 of Reponses Other 33.32 Wading 28.62 Hiking 23.82 Unplanned Stop 9.52 Exercise 4.82 EXCLUSIVENESS/SUBSTITUTES/RECOMMENDATIONS All Visitors Another way to typify the recreation experience is to rate the Forest attraction by the exclusiveness of visits, places visitors perceive as similar and by how often visitors recommend the Forest to others. 72 The Kellogg Forest was the sole destination of 69.42 of visitor trips. A quarter of the visitors had stopped or were planning to stop at some other recreation site. Approximately, 4.12 of the- visitors were unsure if they would stop somewhere else. Most of the other sites where visitors planned to stop were located in the vicinity of the Forest. Half of the stops are a part of the Kellogg Biological Station (Table 30). Specific names of sites in the category are are listed in Appendix C. Table 30. Other Planned Stops Site 2 of Responses Other 39.22 Fort Custer Recreation Area _26.52 Gull Lake Station 14.92 - Gull lake Township Park 8.12 Kellogg Farm 2.72 Kellogg Company 1.92 Yankee Springs 1.42 A1 Sabo 1.42 SUBSTITUTES All Visitors To discover which recreation sites were substitutes for the Kellogg Forest, visitors were asked to name those places they thought were similar to the Forest. Approximately 35.92 acknowledged the uniqueness of the Forest by responding that there were no similar places. Responses indicate some visitors may have chosen sites they also 73 visit, not that those sites are necessarily similar to the Forest. Perhaps some respondents do not differentiate between levels of management. For example, the nearby Kellogg Bird Sanctuary is a site that is intensely managed for visitors. It has captive birds and mammals, hardened trails, a visitor center and charges an entrance fee. The remainder of the responses indicate the Forest is in the same category as: Fort Custer, Yankee Springs, Allegan Forest, other state, county and metropolitan parks, national areas, and national forests and parks. These sites can be classified as natural, undeveloped areas. Table 31. ‘Similar Places to Kellogg Forest 2 of ' 2 of Site Responses Site Repponses None 35.92 Binder Park 2.52 Other 11.92 MI State Parks 2.52 Kellogg Bird Other Parks* 2.52 Sanctuary 9.12 Natural Areas 2.52 Fort Custer 8.42 National Forests 2.22 Yankee Springs 6.92 Kimball Pines 1.92 Allegan Forest 5.02 National Parks 1.92 Kalamazoo Nature Center 3.82 Al Sabo 3.12 RECOMMENDATIONS All Visitors Another indication of visitor rating of the Forest is their recommendation of 14: to others. Approximately 702 of the respondents had recommended the Forest during the 74 past 12 months. Some respondents (2.92) could not remember if they had recommended the Forest. The number of visitors who had not suggested the Forest is 27.22. This figure does not indicate that visitors were displeased with their recreation experience at the Forest as subsequent results show. There are alternative explainations such as having no opportunity to recommend the Forest. MOTIVES An important aspect of this study was to investigate vistior's motives for visiting the Forest, and the characteristics of the site that attracted the visitors. -The motive categories used were the same as those used by Kielbaso in 1967 with some additions. The question was a mutliple response one with up to three responses ranked by the order they were mentioned. Forest characteristics was another multiple response question and was divided into the following categories: location, fee, environmental attributes, educational aspects of the Forest, developed aspects of the site, and other. All Visitors The predominate reason visitors gave for visiting the Forest was the view. They enjoy the natural surrounding. It outrated the next highest ranked motive, exercise, by 22.72. The third ranked motive - do something with children reflects the family orientation of the visitors (Table 32). 75 The diversity of motives people gave are an indication of the variety of appeal the Forest has for visitors. More than two thirds of the responses are in categories with 9.52 or less of all responses. Seven of the response categories are actually activities and not motives. The seven categories are exercising, hunting/fishing, photography, leaf collecting, skiing and picnicking. The visitors who gave these responses were seeking a particular end - fish, leaves, photographs,.etc. Activity responses were most often the first reponses of visitors. When asked other responses for their visit, visitors usually replied with additional responses. By Activity Categppy When motives are examined by activity categories, view-enjoy the natural surroundings ranked first in four categories (picnicking, motorists, hikers, miscellaneous). The motive view-enjoy the natural surroundings ranks second in the skiing and exercising categories and third in hunting/fishing category. After the view-enjoy motive is eliminated, further examination of the ranking of motives shows some differences by activities (Table 33). Picnickers cited getting way from crowds picnicking and spending time with their families as highest ranked motives. Showing family and friends the Forest and doing with something with their children were the second and ‘third ranked motives of motorists. Hikers were interested in 76 doing something with their children and exercising. In the miscellaneous category second and third ranked motives were leaf collecting and photography. Table 32. Motives for Visiting the Forest, All Visitors (N- 267) Rank \OCDNOUML‘UONH NHHHHHHHHHHHHH OOOOQNNGM§NNHO N H 22 Value (2)* w HHHHHNNNNUJ-‘bbmmflxom oo NmemCDONNUINOHWrFNmHNNvFNr-‘UIN Motive (Satisfaction — Kielbaso) View-enjoy natural surroundings Exercise Do something with children Ski Get away from crowds Other Hunt Rest-relaxation Show family/friends Forest Fish Photography Learn about nature Spend time with family Socialize Leaf collecting Observe wildlife Pass time Picnic Enjoy creek/wade Forest as a classroom Lost Run Dogs Enjoy weather Cool off Teach family about nature *Doesn't equal 1002 due to rounding. 77 Skiers, exercisers and hunters/anglers all mentioned their activity as first ranked motives. Their second ranked motive was view-enjoy the natural surroundings. Their next ranked motives were: exercising by skiers; socializing by exercisers; and rest-relaxation by hunters/anglers. Table 33. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Picncikers (N-21) Index Rppk Value (2) Motives 1 26.8 View-enjoy natural surroundings 2 11.6 Get away from crowds 2 11.6 Picnic 3 10.5 Spend time with family 4 9.3 Learn about nature 5 5.8 Rest-relaxation 5 5.8 Show family/friends Forest 6 3.5 Other 6 3.5 Socialize . 6 3.5 Do something with children 7 2.3 Exercise 7 2.3 Observe Wildlife 100.0 78 Table 34. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Motorists (N-68) Index Value (2)* Motives W D b r 39.6 View—enjoy natural surroundings Show family/friends Forest Do something with children Get away from crowds Rest-relaxation Other Explore new area Pass time Socialize Learn about nature Spend time with family Lost Cool off Use Forest as classroom Observe wildlife Exercise QOQNOU4§WNH HHHNNNU§GNNQ© e e e e e mmNNNO-l-‘J-‘O‘OCDNO‘ON *Doesn't equal 1002 due to rounding 79 Table 35. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Hikers (N-90) Index Rank Value (2)* Motives 1 44.4 View-enjoy natural surroundings 2 10.9 Do something with children 3 9.2 Exercise 4 7.3 Other 5 3.2 Use Forest as classroom 5 3.2 Get away from crowds 6 2.0 Show family/friends Forest 7 2.6 Learn about nature 7 2.6 Rest-relaxation 8 2.3 Run dogs 9 2.0 Explore new area 10 1.7 Observe wildlife 11 1.4 Spend time with family 11 1.4 Lost 12 1.2 Enjoy the weather 12 1.2 Photography 13 1.1 Socialize 14 .9 Enjoy creek 15 .6 Teach family nature 100.1 *Doesn't equal 1002 due to rounding. Table 36. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Skiers (N-20) Index Rank Value (2)* Motives 1 79.2 Ski 2 11.1 View-enjoy natural surroundings 3 5.6 Exercise 4 2.8 Socialize 5 1.4 Observe wildlife 100.1 *Doesn't equal 1002 due to rounding. 80 Table 37. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Exercisers (N-ZO) Index Rank Value (2) Motives 1 81.8 Exercise 2 9.1 View-enjoy natural surroundings 3 6.1 Socialize 4 3.0 Get away from crowds 100.0 Table 38. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Hunters/Anglers (N-24) Index Rank Value (2) Motives 1 49.4 Hunt 2 31.8 Fish 3 7.1 View-enjoy natural surroundings 4 4.7 Rest-relaxation 5 3.5 Observe wildlife 5 3.5 Other 100.0 81 Table 39. Motives for Visiting the Forest, Miscellaneous (N-26) Index Rank Value (2)* Motives 23.5 View-enjoy natural surroundings 19.4 Leaf collecting 15.3 Photography 12.2 Get away from crowds 10.2 Do something with children . Other 8 2 6.1 Enjoy creek/wade 2.0 Spend time with family 2.0 Rest-relaxation 1.0 Observe wildlife \OGWVCIUIbLDNO-d *Doesn't equal 1002 due to rounding. To explore the relationship between. motives and activities an analysis of the motives for participation by activity categories was conducted. The hypothesis was tested using asymetrical Lambda. Lambda, rather than Chi-Square, was used as a measure of association since there were fewer than 5 cases in many cells of the motive by activity matrix and since the variables were nominal level. Motive-Activity Link Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in motives for participation across activity categories. Alternative: There is a significant difference between different motives in various activity categories. Decision: Fail to reject for all activity categories. 82 The results of the Lambda tests of motives by activity categories presented in Table 40 indicate that knowing the activity category does not aid significantly in the prediction of motives for participation. The first response to the motive question is a 29.82 improvement in prediction ability, while the second and third responses add (1 to the ability to predict activity. It appears that the motives of visitors to the Kellogg Forest do not vary across the seven activity categories as would be expected from the social-psychological need fulfillment approach. Visitors in all activity categories show a tendency to report similar motives. Perhaps visitors to the Kellogg Forest are more "generalists" in their motives. Table 40. Motives by Activity Category First Response Asymmetric - 0.29817 Second Response - 0.00000 Third Response - 0.00000 One explanation for this may be the Forest's intermediate and multiple use classification. The Forest can be visited often and provides the opportunity for various activities. It is not a one-time'only site that visitors would invest extensive time, energy and money to visit and enjoy unique environmental features. There may be many substitutes for the Forest. 83 Another consideration in the interpretation of the findings is the possibility of bais as a result of the wording of the questions. Much has been written examining the effects of question wording (Schuman and Presser, 1981). It has been found that the manner in which questions are worded can have major influence on the results. An effort to eliminate wording bias was made during the pre-test of the survey instrument. However, question wording can not be ruled out as a source of bias. FOREST CHARACTERISTICS All Visitors When asked their primary reason for choosing the Kellogg Forest, instead of somewhere else, visitors most often responded with an environmental response (43.42). The aim of this questions was to discover which characteristics were important factors in the visitors' selection of the Forest (Table 41). The next most frequent reason 31.12 for choosing the Forest was the Forest's location. "Other" responses were cited by 16.12 of respondents. Developed characteristics of the site were mentioned by 9.72 of the visitors; followed by the educational aspects of the Forest with 7.12 of respondents mentioning it. Only 4.52 of the respondents cited the free access as a reason for visiting the Forest. 84 Table 41. Characteristics of Forest, All Visitors (N- 267) 2 of Responses Forest Characteristics Count By Visitors Location: Close 54 20.22 On the way 29 10.92 Total responses 83 31.12 Fee: None required 12 4.52 Total responses 12 4.52 Environment: Cool 3 1.12 Quiet 26 9.72 Good place to... 23 8.62 Beautiful setting 33 12.42 Natural environment 12 4.52 Has creek 1 ' .42 Unique environment 5 1.92 Trout present 4 1.52 Other ._2 3.42 ‘Total responses 116 43.42 Education: Trees labeled 10 3.72 Demonstration forestry site 5 1.92 Other .3. __1_-.SJ_ Total responses 19 7.12 Site: Many and variety of trees 16 6.02 Maintained facilities 1 .42 Picnic area 2 .82 Other 7 2.62 Total responses 26 9.72 Other: New area 10 3.72 Few other people 8 ' 3.02 Familiar with Forest 6 2.22 Other 19 7.12 Total responses 43 16.12 85 By Activity Categpgy_ Environmental responses were ranked first in five of the seven categories (picnicking, hiking, exercising, hunting/fishing, and miscellaneous).- The Forest location was ranked first by motorists, while skiers rated "other" first (Tables 42-48). Location was second ranked in three categories (hunting/fishing, picnicking, and miscellaneous). "Other" was also rated second be visitors in three activities (hunting/fishing, exercising and driving). The site, primarily the number and variety of trails, was ranked second by skiers. 86 Nc.o Nm.c No.a season-cu Hausa . um.4 uosuo Nc.o . one: Nm.v some uuauwm Nw.c vegan-H momma lfluouumu> Ha nonuc 11muowwmu> ma euum muouwew> no 11mouumusvm summonses as N someones: no N season-om no N Nc.un Nw.c No.54 seesomaeu Hench Nnna use-seuapso Houses: No.4 uswuuos Havana-on Nn.o sued: eooo . Nn.a he: eau so No.m~ noise No.4 one: N~.mn oeomo agendas» he uselaouapmm euouweu> an ooh muouueq>.um soausuoa noeaoaeeu no N summon-om as N nonsense: no N Adalzv unexcusuwm .ueeuom us moan-nueuueueso .Nc munch 87 No.nu Nn.~ Nn.4 consensus Hausa No.5n nesuo No.n eun- ueeuom N¢.c some :0: ouonawu newusuuesolen Nn.~ canoe: menus mom Nn.u menuo Nn.q monsoon eoouh euouueu> an sumac anonwma» Ha euum .mMouwm«> an sown-usum season-ea no N eoeaomeem no N someones: no N N~.NN No.0 N~.¢< season-em Hausa Nu." use-mouwpee «ensue: Nm.n usuuuoe usuuuswen N4.5 seen: vooo N¢.n uoaso N¢.on 5n: esu so Nn.— Hooo No.0 one: NN.n~ eeono assumed» an use-aouupam 1MM0uueu> no can .muou«e«> an souueuoa awesome-m no N nonsense: as N nausea-ea no N I II I IIIIIII Ame-=4 euenuouoz .ueeuoh no euauouueuueussu .n4 quash 88 Na.cu Nn.n~ NN.~H summonses neuoh Nn.n Anemonueusvev uosuo No.w~ usauo N4.c neauo Nm.n eufie uesuom No.n some so: euonawu N~.~ some owsuwm sonueuueaomea Ne.e canoe; aesuo rem No.5 endsuu 5am: No.n semen-n eeeuh luuouamu> ha Mmmuo enouueu> Hm euwm .ruuouwmw> Ha moan-usum someones“ we N season-em no N eoeaoaeem as N Nn.nn season-ea Hench N5.o¢ Nn.n Nn.n unauo Ne.c unouom uo maemesvuaa NA." scene as: No.n use-mounpse Humans: N5.o~ unquues usuuussen No.n sauna coco no.o usuac Nn.n no: sea :0 AA.A Aoou an.n .66: no.oA oavo auouqeu> an use-souu>mm. amended» Hm. ooh 1uuouwuw> an sedumuoq messages“ as N someones“ as N season-om «o N Acmlzv macaw: .ueeuoh us soda-aneuueusnu .44 snack 89 No.n4 Nc.nn No.o senses-cu neueh Na.nn unsuo No.n seam sea oueaawm No.n some sauna No.n ouaeon segue mom No.cn adieu» 5am: No.o one: amended» an nonuo .mAeu«e«> Mm seam amended» Ha .MMAueusvu senses-om no N No.on No.on nonsense“ we N season-om no N nueuwuu> an sequences no N nausea-om no N No.on No.4 season-en Hausa asufiuseom No.on one: No.4 onenu use-eeuasam aueuueu> an «on useuueu» an 1meuuouea nonsense: we N Aounzv oquAm .A..A6A «6 euwuewueuueusao ”me ounce 90 NASA 2.2 no... 336...: A38. N~.Hn uenuo N~.- assoc No.n ounce: uoaue mom No.n veauwuausz No.0 use: eueuqmw> Hm momma eueumum> Hm seam euemflfldb HA sequeusvu season-ea no N eeeeenaem we N consensus no N Nn.nm No.n N5.o~ messes-en Haney N~.n~ nosuo Nn.~u useleeuueae Hansen: NN.NN unusua- Hauuuseom N~.A~ seen: veeu N~.NN ususc No.n Heeo No.n one: N5.o— oeeao Idneuummw hm uselaeuummm numeuaeu> an sob eueuumw>1fim sewuouea seamen-om no N seamen-en no N someone-u no N Amnlzv sue-«uuewu .ueeueh «e sown-wusuueueso .mm “mm-H 91 No.n~ No.5 Nn.ww menses-ow Hausa N~.ow nesuo Nm.n uosuo Nm.n cameos segue mom Na.n ewwsuu was: Nn.ww managed Issue Idueume> no wmmuo eueuwaw> 5a ouwm .1uueuwow> an .mewueusum eonseaeea we N seamen-om we N successes we N Nw.o¢ Nm.n nosuo N5.5 use-seuw>eo Houses: N5.5 uawuuee stwuseom an.AA .uaAa 4664 54.nA sauna 1| mueuwew> an use-seuwpsn eoeeeaeou we N Nw.n Nc.n~ nonsense» Hausa Nn.AA 5.: on» so Nm.n one: Nn.~w eeewu eueuwew> an .. mmm eueuwew> Ma mw«ueeea nonsense“ we N eeeaeaoom we N AONIIV ISOOCOHHOUIH: AUIONON NO lUfiuafihOuUCHIA—O oh' OHACH 92 uo.c~ ne.o uo.o nouaoawou Aauoa N5.0w henna NN.¢ some see snowman No.° nonuo No.0 one: Imueuwmw>xun wenuo eueuwew> ha euwm aueuwew> Ma menususeu someones“ we N momseneem we N seamen-em we N Nn.5n seamen-ow Hench N~.en No.0 44.4 ensue No.ow unseen; useuh n~.4 nausea. HawAusaon No.nN muons veeo No.0 use: Nn.5n osewo eueuwewb no use-aeuwpml. “seawew> mm . ooh .uueuwew> an aeoeeamea we N eeeeeaeea we N aewusueq seamen-em we N awn-xyleuewus<\sueuusm .ueoueh we euwuewuouususso .oq swash 93 Activity-Characteristics Link Another of the study objectivies was to investigate the relationship between activities and visitor's choice of characteristics of the Forest. The purpose was to discover if participants in the various activity categories deemed certain characteristics as more important than others in their selection of the Forest. Null Hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the Forest characteristics selected by visitors in the various activity categories. Alternative: There are significant differences in Forest characteristics selected by visitors in various activity categories. Decision: Fail to reject for all activity categories. An examination of characteristics by activity categories was conducted. The asymmetric Lambda value for each characteristic of the Forest by activity was 0. Thus, the choice of characteristics does not appear to be related to activity. Table 49 indicates that knowing activity categories does not significantly aid in predicting which characteristics of the Forest visitors rate as important. The results of this test seem congruent with the results of the motive-activity linkage. Visitors in all activity categories have similar motives and choose similar characteristics of the Forest as being important. The data seems to support the view of visitors as generalists in both motivation and site selection. 94 A possible explanation is that the nature of the Forest site attracts generalists. It is an intermediate multiple use Forest. The site is conducive to a variety of activities. Visitors may participate in multiple activities during the same visit or visitors participate in different activites on different occassions. Table 49. Forest Characteristics by Activity Categories Lambda Location 0 Fee 0 Educational characteristics 0 Site characteristics 0 Environmental characteristics 0 Other 0 95 MANAGEMENT CONCERNS Part of this study focuses on the interests of the manager of the Forest. Its purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of recreation management and the visitors' perceptions of the administration of the Forest. INFORMATION A question of concern at the recreation areas is how visitors find out about the area's availability for recreation. Visitors' source of knowledge is interesting at the Forest since until recently the Forest has not been advertised as a recreation site. Within the past year the Forest was publicized as a cross-country skiing location and is mentioned as one of the excellent trout streams in Michigan. Neither of these advertisements were the result of management efforts. In the past, publicity concerning the Kellogg Forest was limited to its forestry emphasis. The largest category of reponses for visitors'source of information was word of mouth (Table 50). Family and friends account for 47.92; school - 9.72. School responses may be attributed to field trips or teachers recommendations of the Forest as a leaf collecting site. At least some portion of the 16.12 of visitors who responded they knew about the Forest since they "lived here" could be assigned to the word of mouth category and their sources of information were certainly informal. These visitors could not be more specific about their source of knowledge. They 96 accepted knowing about the Forest as common knowlege. They, along with visitors who could not remember their source of knowlege, seem to be long-time visitors to the Forest. Some older visitors remembered when the Forest was first established, but could not remember how they found out about it. A few visitors "discovered" the Forest while driving by and noticing the entrance sign. Others learned about it through the Forest affiliation with Michigan State University or a recommendation by the Kellogg Biological Station. Approximately 1.12 of ‘visitors attribute their source of knowledge to a newspaper article presumably related to forestry. The "other" response was a brochure at the Kellogg Cereal Company in Battle Creek. Visitors source of knowledge about the Forest is related to the previous question on recommendation of the Forest to others in the past 12 months. The two compliment each other since recommendations are by word of mouth. 97 Table 50. Visitors Source of Knowledge 2 of Source Responses Word of mouth 57.62 -Family & friends (47.92) -Scheol ( 9.72) Live here/Common knowledge 16.12 Don't remember 10.12 Entrance sign/Passing by 9.42 Michigan State University 3.72 Newspaper 1.12 Kellogg Bird Sanctuary 1.12 Other .42 Missing .42 99.92* *Due to rounding. Sample Size - 267 The next aspects of information to be discussed are those concerning informational signage and materials. As visitors enter the Forest, there is a sign by the office for visitor information. Three types of materials are available to visitors -- a map; a brochure describing the various compartments within the Forest, and a self guiding trail pamphlet for use on the auto trail. Approximately 902 of visitors did not stop for information upon entering. Twelve percent of the 902 indicated they had stopped for information on previous occasions or visited often and had no need for information. When asked if they had noticed the sign for visitor information 46.82 of respondents said they had not. It appears that visitors do not stop for 98 information most commonly because they do not know information is available, or, because they are repeat visitors and feel they are familiar with the Forest. To further explore the effectiveness of information services visitors in .activities categories were querried about the Forest map and self-guiding trail pamphlet. Visitors using the road were a target population for the self-guiding pamphlet. Approximately 202 of road users knew that the pamphlet was available. Four percent of all road users used the pamphlet (Table 51). Thus, a small portion of drivers knew the pamphlet was available and only a few drivers actually used it. Table 51. Drivers - Self-Guiding Trail Pamphlet Knew Pamphlet Used Was Available Pamphlet No 80.42 96.02 Yes 19.62 4.02 Sample Size - 101 The target population for the map and self-guiding trail pamphlet is trail users. Of all trail users, 122 used either the map or self-guiding pamphlet during their visit. Of the trail users who chose information, 81.32 of respondents used the trail map, 18.82 used the self-guiding trail pamphlet. 99 Table 52. Trail Users - Map and Self-Guiding Trail Pamphlet Used Used Either Map 2 of or Pamphlet Responses No 88.02 Yes 12.02 Sample Size - 133 Table 53. Trail Users - Which Material Used? (Map or Pamphlet) Map 81.32 Pamphlet 18.82 Sample Size - 16 When drivers and ‘trail ‘users are combined into one category to summarize use of information, only 8.52 of visitors utilized these materials. It appears this low proportion of use may be attributed to visitors being unaware of their availability. This is indicated by the 80.42 of drivers who did not know the self-guiding pamphlet was available. Informing visitors of the materials available may be one technique utilized in management of visitors to disperse use. A comment by one visitor echos this thought - "I didn't know you could drive, until I was half-way around. I like to walk anyway". All of the eight visitors who used the self-guiding trail pamphlet were satisfied with it, but three visitors 100 offered suggestions for its improvement. The pamphlet follows marked posts around the Forest road. One visitor suggested increasing the size of the markers as he found some of them were easy to miss. Another visitor indicated that locating different species of trees on the pamphlet would improve the information provided. The final suggestion for improvement concerns the form of the pamphlets information and was made by an English teacher. He commented that the information could be made to read more easily. To improve the pamphlet's readability he suggests reducing the amount of information and reducing the number of clauses in the text. Approximately, 642 of the trail users were satisfied with the map, but 58.32 thought the map could be improved. All the comments for improvement focused on locating landmarks on the map to orient the visitors. Suggestions include: locating the office on the map with a "you are there" device; numbering the trails in the Forest and corresponding trails on the map as reference points; one visitors suggested using the markers from the self-guiding pamphlet as reference points; and adding other prominent Forest landmarks to the map. AREAS OF THE FOREST VISTED The areas of the Forest visted were a multiple-response question. For determining which sections of the Forest were used most often, the Forest was divided into twelve geographic sections. There were also categories for 101 specific’ seemingly. often traveled trails. The following percentages are reported as the percent of cases, so, the totals exceed 100. prters and Anglpgg The areas most often used by hunters were the acreage west of 42:16 Street, and Sections 5 A. 2 of the Forest (Figure 3). Frequencies are shown in Table 54. These three areas contain the most attractive type of habitat for wildlife. The west side of the Forest has the additional advantage of attracting few other visitors. In fact, the only other visitor group that regularly utilizes the west side is snowmobilers. Anglers chose most often to fish in the. southern sections of the Augusta Creek. 'No one reported fishing the creek in Section 1. All Other Trail Ugers‘(ExcludingHunters and Anglers) The most frequently utilized areas by all other trail users were: the Forest road, Section 4 which includes the McCrary Lookout, and parts of the Forest road (Table 55). The road seems to be a favored choice of visitors since it is an obvious route to follow. The Lookout is a defined scenic spot. It is a shelter with a view of the surrounding hills. Section 7 was the next highest category of responses. Again, this may be a choice of visitors since it is the first obvious trail the visitors see. Most often visitors park their cars around the office and travel across the 12 102 NLKI_KELLQ§5_EQBESI M o. J/ .’ \ 2 ’4 5 k LOOKOUT ENTRANCE 10 42N0 ST. N_* FI URE 4. FOREST SECTIONS 11 103 Table 54. Areas of the Forest Visited, Hunters/Anglers Percent of Cases Area of Forest Hunters (N-lS) Anglers (N-9) North Area Section 1 0.0 2 33.3 3 6.7 33.3 4 13.3 5 40.0 Entire North Area (1-5) 6.7 Total North Area 100.0 South Area Section 6 0.0 66.7 7 20.0 8 20.0 9 0.0 66.7 10 6.7 11 13.3 Entire North Area (6-11) 6.7 Total North Area 66.7 West Side 53.3 220.0 116.7 104 Table 55. Areas of the Forest Visited, All Other Trail Users (Excluding Hunters/Anglers) (N-132) Area Percent of Cases North Area Section 1 3.02 2 8.32 3 9.82 4 (Lookout) 25.02 5 17.42 Entire North Area 5.32 68.82 South Area Section 6 14.42 7 20.52 8 12.92 9 6.82 10 9.12 11 6.12 Entire South Area 7.62 77.22 Road 37.92 Part of Road 22.72 Picnic Area at Lookout 12.92 Other 9.92 West Side __2;§2 231.82 OPINIONS OF THE SITE AND FACILITIES The most obvious way to determine people's opinions is to ask them. Visitors were asked to rate their satisfaction with the facilities in the Forest. All respondents were asked their opinions on the general facilities of parking and entrance road conditions. Then visitors were asked about these facilities related to their activity, i.e. 105 creek by way of the entrance road. This leads them to Section 7 which has a number of trails intersecting the road. It appears that many visitors utilize these areas that are obvious routes such as the road or the first opportunities they have of leaving the road. The previous section on useage of information lends support for this conclusion. The areas of the .Forest visitors choose to travel may be an indication of the underutilization of informational materials including maps. One way to redistribute use in the Forest may be the use of information. 106 picnic area, road, and trail facilities. The data that follows is a summary from those visitors who used the facilities. £222.29}. The parking. and road conditions' responses overwhelmingly indicate visitors' approval of the recent improvements at the Forest. Approximately, 98.02 were satisfied with the parking conditions; approximately 99.02 of the respondents were satisfied with road conditions (Table 56). These two questions prompted comments from one segment of visitors concerning future improvements. The theme of these comments was to discourage any future improvements. These visitors like the Forest the way it is. One typical comments was "there is less dust since the road was paved, but a fancier Forest brings out more people. I don't like improvement that bring out 'city folk'. The Forest is almost too good now." However, one interesting occurance during the Winter was some confusion about parking. Some visitors did not realize there was additional parking to the east of the office. These comments were made during heavy use periods. During good skiing weekends, parking at the Forest can be a_ problem. The problem seemed to be compounded by inconspicuous signage. The signage confusion. is another aspect of the information system problem. 107 Table 56. General Opinions Parking Opinion 2 of Responses* Unsatisfied 1.02 Satisfied 97.52 No Opinion 1.02 Missing 1.02 100.52 Sample Size - 201 Road Conditions Opinion 2 of Responses* Unsatisfied .42 Satisfied 98.52 No Opinion .42 Missing .82 103.72 Sample Size - 260 *Not equal to 1002 due to rounding. 108 Table 57. Picnicking Opinions . ------.-.---.--.----III--3.a-.I-.-.I.....-..B-IBBBHBB-.---- Picnic Tables Opinion 2 of Responses* Unsatisfied 26.92 Satisfied 69.22 No Opinion 3.82 100.92 Sample Size - 33 Water Pumps Opinion 2 of Responses Unsatisfied 0.02 Satisfied 100.02 . 100.02 Sample Size - 9 Pit Toilets Opinion 2 of Responses Unsatisfied 25.02 Satisfied 75.02 100.02 Sample Size - 12 Grills/Fireringg Opinion 2 of Responses Unsatisfied 25.02 Satisfied 75.02 100.02 Sample Size - 12 Garbage - Opinion 2 of Responses Unsatisfied 0.02 Satisfied 100.02 100.02 Sample Size - 17 *Not equal to 1002 due to rounding. 109 Picnic Facilities The picnic area at the Forest consists of approximately eight groups of picnic tables with grills and fire rings along the Augusta Creek.' Garbage cans, water pumps and pit toilets are available in the picnic area. Approximately, 26.92 of picnickers were unsatisfied with the picnic tables and 252 of visitors were unsatisfied with both grills/firerings and pit toilets. Everyone was satisified with garbage facilities and water pumps. The dissatisfaction with the pit toilets may be due to the nature of the toilets, not their upkeep. One visitors comment on how well maintained they were..."It was the first outdoor toilet I've ever seen with toilet paper". The amazing interpretation of this data is that more people were not dissatisfied with the picnicking facilities. Besides garbage removal and general clean up of the area, no maintenance had been done since the 1950's when the picnic area was first developed. (Replacement of picnic tables and other maintenance was begun after' the survey period. was completed). The picnic tables, firerings, and grills have deteriorated since then, but visitors seem to take the Forest as it is, although they were dissatisfied. The comments concerning the picnicking area were quite mild. "I like firerings, but they need some work." One fact to consider is that the percentages reported here are for users of the facilities only. It may be that visitors show their dissatisfactions with the picnic area by not using the facilities. They may also be unwilling to voice their 110 dissatisfaction to an interviewer that they perceive as -representing the Forest. Visitors may not be concerned with the maintenance of the area. Read. Visitors voiced their satisfaction (95.12) with the Forest road by comments like: "the road isn't meant to be a super-highway; the road is narrow but challenging; I wouldn't want it any other way". There were 2.92 of visitors who were dissatisfied with the width of the road (Table 58). Their comments centered around ‘widening the road as it descends by compartment 7. It is a steep hill. One visitor in the Fall remarked that "the road is narrow in places and it is hard to tell where it goes with the leaves down". 4 Again, visitors are satisfied with the pullovers around the Forest road (80.62). Those visitors who were dissatisfied (8.32) suggested that more pullovers were needed. These comments were made on high use days, mainly during the fall leaf collecting days. The leaf collectors sometimes disrupt the traffic flow in the road by stopping in the road. One of the directional signs on the road drew a number of comments. The sign is located at the T intersection by Compartment 7 and contains a bi-directional arrow <-->. A right hand turn leads to cul-de-sac. Left is towards the exit. First-time visitors were confused about which way to go. This is another indication of the information system problem. 111 Table 58. Road Users Opinions Width of the Road Opinion 2 of Responses Unsatisfied 2.92 Satisfied 95.12 No Opinion __JLJ§§ 100.02 Sample Size - 102 Pullovers Opinion 2 of Responses Unsatisfied 8.32 Satisfied 80.62 No Opinion 11.12 100.02 Sample Size - 72 Trails Trail users (94.52) were satisfied with the maintenance of the Forest trails, the directional signs (692) and slope of the trails (77.42) (Table 59). Generally, visitors comments indicated they were pleased with the trails. Skiers were :1 group who mentioned the variety, number, or quality of the trails quite often. 112 Table 59. Trail User Opinions Maintenance of Trails Opinion 2 of Responses Unsatisfied .92 Satisfied 94.52 No Opinion 4.62 100.02 Sample Size - 109 Directional Signs Opinion 2 of Responses Unsatisfied 16.72 Satisfied 69.02 No Opinion 14.32 100.02 Sample Size - 42 Slope of Trails Opinion ' 2 of Responses Unsatisfied 22.62 Satisfied 77.42 100.02 Sample Size - 93 GENERAL COMMENTS The previous questions illicted many spontaneous comments on the excellence of the maintenance and appearance of the Forest. Here is a sample of the comments: "I like the clean appearance of the Forest; keep up the good work; it's an excellent Forest and is kept up well; one reason I like it here is because it is well maintained; the bathroom 113 facilities are wonderful". There were many and enthusiastic comments on the new bathrooms. Other comments are summarized on Appendix A. Another comment made by two of the women who visited the Forest alone indicates another aspect of the Forest. These women said they felt safe at the Forest alone. One commented: "I enjoy being in the woods without being hassled". There were three categories of comments that indicated possible future conflicts. The lst source of conflict is hunting. The hunting vs. non—hunting contraversy has raged in the United States in the past 15 years. Non-hunters may object on ethical principles to the killing of animals. They may object to being in the vicinity of armed hunters. Hunters dislike encountering many other users during their visit, since they detract from their experience and distrub game. Another potential source of conflict is the snowmobilers vs the skiers. Skiers usually object to the noise made by snowmobilers and the disturbance of ski tracks by snowmobiles. Snowmobilers, on the other hand, voice dissatisfaction at being harassed by skiers. The above two conflicts have become more noticeable in recent years and have no easy solution. The Forest managagement recognized the possibility of conflict and during the 1984 hunting season implemented an indirect 114 management strategy. Upon registration, hunters received a notice informing them of the other visitors at the Forest and cautioning them to be careful. A direct management strategy used to deal with conflicts is excluding one user group. Exclusion can be implemented either in time or space. Sometimes, visitors exclude themselves voluntarily. For example, some hikers avoid the Forest during hunting season. They know there will be hunters present and choose not to visit. The snowmobilers policy is respresentative of spactial exclusion. They are permitted to use the entire west side of the Forest, and are enly allowed on the read on the east side. Currently at the Forest, the hunting vs. anti-hunting and skiing vs. snowmobiling conflicts are not prominent. However, there are signs of potential problems and strategies should be developed new to avoid conflicts. Lastly, hikers object to the automobile traffic on the road. These comments were especially noticeable in the Spring time. A solution to this problem is the dispersal of hikers to another area of the Forest. As mentioned earlier, dispersal could be accomplished indirectly through a more effective» information system that tells visitors 'what is available to them. PERCEPTION OF FOREST ADMINISTRATION A final management concern was whether visitors were aware of the primary purpose of the Forest and knew the 115 sponsoring agency. To determine visitors' perception, two "test" questions were included in the survey. Approximately 642 of the visitors responded that Michigan State University administered the Forest. Approximately, 8.62 of 'respondents replied they did not know. The remaining responses were divided into the following categories: Kellogg; Department of Natural Resources; a University other than Michigan State University; and other responses (Table 60). Table 60. Administering Agency. Agency 2 of Responses Michigan State University 64.02 Kellogg 12.02 Don't know 8.62 Department of Natural Resources ' 7.92 Other University 4.52 Other 1.92 Missing 1.12 100.02 Sample Size - 267 116 Visitors' perception of the Forest's primary purpose reflect the multiple uses of the site as much as the research emphasis. The category with the largest percentage of responses was Research (40.82). An associated category, Forestry management, was the second largest group of responses (12.72). Additional categories were: education, conservation, recreation, preservation and other responses. See Table 61. Primary Purposes of the Kellogg Forest. Table 61. Primary Purposes of the Kellogg Forest Category 2 of Responses * Research 40.82 Forestry Management 12.72 Education 10.92 Conservation 8.62 Recreation 8.62 Others 6.02 Don't Know 5.62 Preservation 5.22 Missing __1p§2 99.92 Sample Size n 267 *Not equal to 1002 due to rounding. The responses in the "other" category are noteworthy. All of them include some aspect of the Forest's purpose; some of the responses combine two of the categories. For a listing refer to Table 61. Responses like "show trees in a natural environment", "for people to look at trees", and "horticulture" may indicate that visitors have the right concept of the Forest's purpose, but were unable or 117 unfamiliar with the words to describe their ideas. If it is desired that visitors are to know the exact purpose of the Forest, they may have to be educated. Table 62. Primary Purpose of Kellogg Forest - "Other" Responses. - Responses: Reclaim the land Show trees in a natural environment For people to look at trees Combination of recreation and wildlife sanctuary Demonstration Multiple use Education and recreation Research and education Botanical management Horticulture Land management 118 COMPARISON WITH 1967 STUDY Our society is a dynamic one that is continuously evolving. Recreation is a reflection of societal trends. The following is a comparison of some of the results of a 1967 study at the Kellogg Forest by J..L Kielbaso and the 1984 results. There are some differences between the two studies that demonstrate the emphasis of each study and the time in which they were conducted. For example, there were five activity categories represented in 1967 as compared with seven categories in 1984. The two new categories of activities are exercising and skiing. These two activities are currently in vogue. Exercise is one aspect of healthy lifestyle habits that are an emphasis in society. Cross-country skiing is one of the rapidly expanding recreation activities today. Gender variables between the two studies are not comparable. In 1967, the head of the party, usually a male visitor, was interviewed. As previously noted, in 1984 there was a conscious attempt to interview equal numbers of both male and female visitors. Income, occupation, and marital status were not included in 1984. There were also more variables examined in 1984. Attendance Patterns There was a 38.62 increase in the number of visitors to the Kellogg Forest between 1967 and 1984. The number of estimated visitors in organized groups is slightly less in 119 1984 than 1967 (Table 62). However, the estimated number of visitors excluding organized groups has almost tripled since 1967. Once factor to consider is that during 1967 there was no estimation of attendance from January to March since the ~ Forest was closed in 1967 during those months. Table 63. Attendance Comparisons 1967 and 1984. 19151 1.98_4 Visitors Excluding Organized Groups 32,024.0 91,656.2 Organized Groups 5,040.0 44283.0 Total 37,064.0 95,939.2 As Table 64 shows, the major difference in the‘weekly attendance pattern between 1967 and 1984 is the amount of vehicle traffic that occurs on weekend days. In 1984, the percentages are more evenly distributed between Saturday and Sunday than in 1967. There is also an increase in use during the weekdays during the Summer and Fall. No use figures are available for Spring and Winter of 1967 for comparison in those seasons. 120 Table 64. Percent Vehicle Traffic on Weekdays and Weekends 1967 and 1984. Weekdays Saturday Sunday Period 1967 1984 1967 1984 1967 1984 Summer 44.02 52.72 16.02 22.62. 40.0% 20.2: Fall 29.02 48.42 23.02 23.62 47.02 28.02 PREDOMINATE ACTIVITIES It appears a shift has occurred in the types of activities participated in by visitors since 1967. Then, the ranking frequency of activities was as follows: driving, picnicking, hiking, miscellaneous, hunting and fishing (Kielbaso, 19670. Hiking has taken over the firstposition in 1984 followed by driving and picnicking. One problem with further comparison of activities between the two years is that multiple activities were not reported in 1967. During 1984 25.82 of all. visitors participated in multiple activi- ties. Another difference in 1984 that seems to reflect a changing emphasis in recreation trends is the importance of cross-country skiing and exercising at the Forest, and the decline of hunting and fishing. GROUP CHARACTERISTICS GROUP SIZE There was a slight increase in the average size of a visiting group between 1967 and 1984. 1&11984, the average size was 4.1; the average size in 1967 was 3.75. The primary 121 difference seems to be in the size of picnicking groups. Table 65 shows average group size for 1967-1984. Table 65. Average Group Size of Activity Category, 1967 and 1984. Average Group Size Activity 1967 1984 Picnickers 5.43 8.30 Motorists 4.10 3.90 Hikers 4.50 5.00 Anglers 1.55 Hunters (Deer) 1.42 2.00 Hunters (Small Game) 1.96 Miscellaneous 3.87 2.30 All Visitors 3.75 4.10 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS AGE The mean ages for all visitors are very similar for both years. In 1967, the mean age was 37.8; in 1984, 37.5 was the mean age. A difference occurs in the picnicking, driving, and angling and hunting categories during 1984. The ages in these four categories are somewhat older than in 1967 (Kielbaso, 1967). The miscellaneous category is 7.2 years younger in 1984 (Table 66). 122 Table 66. Ages of Visitors, 1967 vs. 1984 Activity Mean Age 1967 N Mean Age 1984 N Picnickers 41.1 51 42.8 21 Drivers 41.1 58 41.6 68 Hikers 36.4 51 34.9 90 Anglers 36.8 20 37.9 9 Hunters 31.9 50 39.0 15 Misc. 40.9 15 33.7 26 All Visitors 37.8 245 37.5 267 RACE The trend of Whites as the overwhelming majority of Forest visitors continues in 1984. 98.42 of Forest visitors were White in 1967, while 97.82 were White in 1984 (Kielbaso p. 89). EDUCATION In 1984 visitors to the Forest attained higher levels of education than in 1967. The major difference is that there are fewer visitors in the primary and secondary categories and more visitors in the junior college and post graduate categories (Table 67). Table 67. Education Levels of Visitors by Percent, 1967 and 1984. Education Level 1967 1984 Primary 17.02 7.52 Secondary 44.02 34.12 Junior College 11.02 18.02 College Graduate 19.02 18.42 Post Graduate 9.02 22.12 100.02 100.12 123 DISTANCE In 1984 the percentages of visitors traveling either 10 miles of less and eleven to twenty-five miles are almost reversed from 1967 (Table 68). Approximately, 62.22 of visitors came from within ten miles of the Forest in 1984, while only 212 came from within ten miles in 1967. The cities of Battle Creek and Kalamazoo still contribute the highest percentage of visitors (552) in 1984, but the percentage is much less than in 1967 (772). The Forest still attracts a majority of visitors from within twenty—five miles, but there are fewer visitors from the two major urban centers in the area. Table 68. Distance Traveled to Forest, 1967vs. 1984. Distance 1967 1984 10 miles of less ' 21.02 62.22 11—25 miles 69.02 23.22 Over 25 miles 10.02 14.62 100.02 100.02 Battle Creek 51.02 40.02 Kalamazoo 26.02 15.02 77.02 55.02 REPEAT VISITATION There was an increase in the percentages of repeat visitors over time at the Forest. Approximately, 782 124 (Kielbaso, p. 123) of all visitors interviewed in 1967 were repeat visitors; 89.12 of visitors were repeat visitors in 1984. NUMBER OF VISITS PER YEAR Table 69 indicates the visitation difference between the two years is in the one visit per year and ten plus categories. In 1984 there are more visits in those categories and fewer visits in the middle categories. Table 69. Percent of Visits per Year, All Visitors 1967 vs. 1984 Npmber of Visits 1967 (N-245) 1984 (N-26Z) 1 17.02 27.32 2-3 29.02 21.42 4-5 20.02 11.22 6-10 21.02 14.32 10 Plus 13.02 25.82 100.02 100.02 TIME In 1984 visitors show a tendency to have shorter lengths of stay than visitors in 1967 (Table 70). One reason for this tendency may be the number of hhnters and anglers surveyed in 1967. Hunters and anglers usually have longer lengths of stay than other activity categories (Table 26). In 1967, 28.62 of the sample was comprised of hunters and anglers and could be responsible for the longer length of stay. 125 Table 70. Percent of Visits in Time Periods, All Visitors 1967 vs. 1984 Lenggh of Stay 1967 1984 1 hour 27.02 50.22 1.1 - 2.9 hrs. 49.02 38.92 2.9 - 4.9 hrs. 19.02 7.92 5 plus hrs. 5.02 3.02 EXCLUSIVENESS OF VISITS The percentage of visitors who visited the Forest as part.of another trip and those who exclusively visited the Forest are fairly similar between the two years. A difference is the percent of visitors who were undecided or missing in 1984. Table 71. Visits Part of a Trip or Forest Sole Destination, 1967 vs. 1984 1967 1984 Part of Trip 34.02 25.02 Sole Destination 66.02 69.42 Undecided ---- 4.12 Missing 1.52 100.02 100.02 VISITORS SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE. Table 72 indicates that in 1984 fewer visitors found out about the Forest through family and friends and by driving by the Forest. However, the percentage still indicates word of mouth was the primary way visitors found out about the Forest. 126 More peeple stated they knew about the Forest through living in the area, or they could not remember how they first found out about the Forest. Table 72. Visitor Source of Knowledge, 1967 vs. 1984. (N- 267) Source 1967 1984 Word of Mouth 68.02 57.62 Family and Friends 62.02 47.92 School 6.02 9.72 MSU . ----- 3.72 Newspaper ----- 1.12 Kellogg Bird Sanctuary 1.12 Live Here/Common Knowledge 10.02 16.12 Entrance Sign/Passing By 15.02 9.42 Other 7.02 .42 Don't Remember ----- 10.12 Missing ----- .42 100.02 99.92 MOTIVES All Visitors Index values and ranks for visitor motives show some differences over time. The number one ranked motive, view observe natural surroundings, remained the same in 1984 (Table 32) and 1967. Table 73 below shows 1967 results (Kielbaso, 1967). The 1967 second ranked, “Relax”, dropped to the eighth ranked motive in 1984. The number three motive in 1984, "Do something with children", is very similar to the third ranked 1967 motive, "Give children a chance to play in the woods". The changing times are shown by the 1984 second ranked motive, "Exercise". 127 The major difference is the second ranked motive. The second ranked motive, "Relax", in 1967 dropped to eighth ranked in 1984. Relax was replaced in 1984 by "exercise". The importance of exercise is a indication of lifestyle trends in the 1980's. Table 73. Sagéafaction Rankings by Index Values, All Users, Rank Index Value Satisfactions 1 29.6 Observe woodland scenery 2 16.7 Relax 3 8.3 Give children a chance to play in woods 4 7.6 Observe wildlife 5 7.3 Get away from crowds 6 6.1 Spend more time with family 7 6.0 , Study nature A 8 5.6 Find change of scene 9 5.0 Get together with friends or relatives 10 3.0 Commune with nature 11 2.8 Other 12 2.0 Cool off - get away from heat of home CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY The goal of this study was to describe visitors to the Kellogg Experimental Forest. The objectives were: to outline use patterns; to develop a typology of visitors including group characteristics, respondent characteristics, and motives linked with characteristics of the Forest by activity group; to collect visitor data about issues concerning Forest management; and to compare some results with a similar study conducted in 1967 (Kielbaso). The study site was the W.K. Kellogg Experimental Forest in Augusta, Michigan. The Forest is operated on a multiple use objective by the Michigan State University Department of Forestry. Research is the primary function of the Kellogg Forest; Recreation is another of the uses and was the empha- sis of this study. A number of methods were employed to meet the study's objectives. Traffic counts were conducted to estimate atten- dance. Systematic observation was done to document visitor behavior in the picnic area. To collect more detailed infor- mation than either'of the two previous methods provide for, personal interviews were conducted. Two hundred and sixty- seven interviews were administered to visitors between August, 1983 and May, 1984. For some analysis respondents were divided into seven activity categories on the basis of their predominate 128 129 activity. The seven activities were: picnicking, driving, hiking, skiing, exercising, hunting/fishing and miscel- laneous. The major results are described below. ATTENDANCE PATTERNS An estimated 95,939 people visited the Kellogg Forest between August, 1983 and July, 1984. This is an increase in attendance of approximately two and one half times since 1967. Spring was the season of heaviest use in 1984 with more than 502 of the total use occurring then. The heavy Spring time use is influenced by the number of organized groups visiting. Cross-country skiing has become the dominate Winter use when Winter weather permits, a noticeable differ— ence from the 1967 study. A limitation of this study is the suspected underestimation of Winter recreationists,' mainly skiers, at the Forest. The two most common activities in all four seasons were hiking and driving. During the Winter time when there is sufficient snow, skiing is tied with hiking as the most frequent activity. During the Fall, Winter, and Spring more than half of all the vehicle traffic occurs on the weekend. Sunday is the busiest day in the Fall and Spring. No breakdown is available for Winter weekend days. In Summer, the tradi- tional recreation time, the opposite is indicated. More than half the traffic occurs on the five weekdays; Saturday is the busiest Summer day. 130 The weekly pattern of attendance in 1984 seems to have changed since 1967. Then, Sunday had three times the vehicle traffic as on Saturday. In 1984, the amount of weekend traffic is more evenly divided between the two weekend days. There is also an increase in the weekday usage in 1984. GROUP CHARACTERISTICS The most common group size were groups of two people. There were two activity categories that diverted from the trend. Picnicking groups most often had four or six people per group. Exercising was commonly a solitary activity. Group types were usually families with children under 18 years of age (25.12). The next most frequent type of group was couples (23.22). Family groups comprised 33.82 of all.‘visiting groups. Organized groups comprised 5.62 of all the interviews conducted over the year. RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS The mean age of visitors to the Forest was 37.5 years. This was very similar to the mean age in 1967 (37.8). . There were three pairs of activity categories that showed a signi+ ficant difference between their mean ages. The three pairs of activities are: driving and hiking, driving and miscel- laneous, and miscellaneous and picnicking categories. Pic- nicking (42.8) and driving (41.6) had the oldest means while the miscellaneous category had the youngest at 33.7. 131 Approximately 40.02 of the respondents were female and 59.62 were male. There was a deliberate attempt to interview equal members of male and female visitors. Only 2.42 of Forest visitors interviewed were not White. A similar percentage of non-White visitors.(1.62) was reported in 1967. A Chi-Square test comparing the racial composition of Forest visitors with the racial composition of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun counties indicates that Blacks make up less of the Forest population than would be expected from the composition of the two surrounding counties. An outstanding feature of the data was the high levels of education attained by visitors at the Forest. Approx- imately, 412 of the visitors interviewed had completed at least 16 years of formal education. There was a statistical difference between the level of education of the Forest visitors and the level of education in the two surrounding counties. The skiing category had the highest level of education of the seven activities and was significantly dif- ferent than all other categories in the level of education. The hunters/ anglers category exhibited the lowest level of education and was significantly different from five of the six other activities. Most visitors (78A72) travel 15 miles or less to visit the Forest. The exercising and hunting/fishing categories showed the largest percent of visitors traveling 151miles. Visitors live primarily’in the urban areas of Kalamazoo or Battle CreekA However, the percent of visitors from those two cities is 222 less than in 1967. 132 The visitors to the Forest tend to be a devoted group. Nearly 702 of the respondents had recommended the Forest to someone else in the past twelve months; 89.12 respondents were repeat visitors. (hithe average, people divide their visits evenly throughout the year. They visit 12.9 times each year and stay about an hour and twenty minutes. This is shorter length of stay than in 1967. However, the 1967 sample included more hunters and anglers who tend to have the longest lengths of stay. Drivers and exercisers stay the shortest length of time. Hunters and anglers stay the longest time. T-tests show a significant difference in length of stay between driving, exercising, hunting, and all other activity cate- gories. The Forest was the sole destination of 69.42 of all visitor trips. To discover which recreation sites were substitutes for the Forest, visitors were asked to name these places they thought were similar to the Forest. The largest category, containing over one third of all responses, indicates that the Forest is unique and visitors could not think of any similar places. An investigation of motives and preferred Forest char— acteristics related to activities indicate Forest visitors are generalists. Visitors in all activity categories had similar motives and chose similar characteristics of the Forest as important in their site selection. It appears that motives and site characteristics do not vary across the seven categories as would be expected from 133 the social/psychological need fulfillment approach. The results seem to support the view that visitors display a limited number of general motives and questions the importance of the physical environment in recreation site selection (Knopf, Peterson, and Leatherberry, 1983). MANAGEMENT CONCERNS The primary way visitors found out about the Forest was by word of mouth. Word of mouth was also indicated as the visitors' source of knowledge in 1967. Over a quarter of all respondents either could not remember how they found out about the Forest, or considered the information common know- ledge. This may be indicative of the many long time visitors to the Forest. Visitors were overwhelming satisfied with the Forest site and facilities. There were also many spontaneous com- ments on the excellence of the maintenance and the appearance of the Forest. Most visitors were aware that Michigan State University administers the Forest. Finally, visitors percep- tion.ef the Forest's primary purpose reflects the multiple uses of the site. There seemed to be a number of problems related to the information signage system. Most visitors do not stop for information upon entering the Forest. Many visitors are unaware of the informational materials such as trail maps and the self-guiding trail pamphlets that are.available. The areas of the Forest trail users choose to travel may be an indication of the under utilization of Forest information 134 materials. There was a tendency of visitors to travel obvious routes such as the road. Two directional signs were also confusing to visitors. General comments indicate the possibility of future conflicting uses at the Forest. Hikers objected to the vehicle traffic they encountered while traveling the Forest road. An effective information system could disperse visitor use in the Forest. It would also serve to solve the previously mentioned information signage problems. Other sources of possible user conflicts at the Forest include skiing vs. snowmobiling and hunting vs non-hunting. Conflicts currently do not exist, so developing strategies now could manage for conflicting uses before they become a problem. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this study indicate visitor management has become an important concern at the Kellogg Forest. Attendance has exhibited an increase in the past years and will most likely continue to do so. More people will learn about the Forest through word of mouth, Forest sponsored seminars and workshops, and the Forest's cooperation with the Kellogg Biological Station. Currently, there are no con- flicts among the various visitor groups and the research emphasis of the Forest. However, increase use may exert additional pressures. To provide a direction, and, to avoid conflict and con- 'troversy, recreation management goals and objectives should be formulated. These goals should consider how recreation 13S fits into the overall goals for management at the Forest, visitor preferences, and the Forest resource. Specific ob— jectives are needed to define the recreation "product" that is desired. Then, management strategies can be designed, implemented and evaluated. Developing management strategies is of particular im- portance in the area of conflicting uses. Conflicts cur- rently do not exist, but the signs of future problems are present in three user groups. They are: hunting vs. non- hunting; snowmobiling vs. skiing; and driving vs. hikers. Developing strategies now could manage for conflicting uses before they become a problem. One of the results of this study that directly effects visitor management concerns information useage at the Forest. It appears that most visitors were unaware of the information materials available. These materials were designed to enhance visits by orienting visitors to the Forest and educating them about forestry. Modifications of the delivery system appear in order to let visitors know what is available. The first step is getting information to the visitor. Most visitors do not notice the sign indicating where infor— mation istx>be found. Another directional sign indicating the parking area was also inconspicuous to visitors. A third directional sign on the road was confusing. These signs need modifications in order to be effective. Getting information to repeat visitors may be a challenge. Repeat visitors who perceive themselves as 136 familiar with the Forest may not seek information as readily as less experienced visitors. However, since the visitors to the Forest represent an educated group, they may readily utilize information once they know it is available. Additionally, information services could serve as a method to disperse visitor use and manage for the hiking- driving conflict. Visitors would be made aware of the rec- reation potentials at the Forest. Alternative trails to the road could be presented to the visitor. Careful planning would avoid ecologically or research sensitive areas. Some modifications of the informational materials were also suggested to improve their effectiveness. A continuous system for evaluation of Forest recreation is another important element in the provision of recreation services. Evaluation provides feedback for adjustments and improvement in management strategies, measures effectiveness, and charts changes over time. Often evaluation is ignored even though it is an integral component of visitor manage- ment. Visitor attendance is often used as a baseline measure for monitoring recreation. A reliable traffic counter, specifically one imbedded in the road, would provide an accurate measurement of vehicle traffic at the Forest. One of the advantages of such a traffic counter is that it needs minimal maintenance and estimates-attendance in all seasons. An estimation of Winter attendance was one limitation of this 137 study and should be calculated. Gauging Winter attendance is especially important since it is a source of increasing recreation use and a source of potential conflict. However, attendance is only a gross measure of recreation. A.plan.for monitoring Forest recreation would include some of the variables examined in this study. For example, visitor use patterns and socio-demographic informa- tion are recreation indicators. Evaluating visitors could be accomplished using an abbreviated form of the survey instru- ment. Visitor data could be collected at the same time the traffic counter is calibrated. It is recommended that traf- fic counters be calibrated in one week periods during each of the four seasons (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1982). This sampling plan would monitor the variety of recreation uses at the Forest. Ideally, basic visitor data should be collected and evaluated each year with more extensive studies conducted at longer time intervals. The Forest's microcomputer could be utilized to record and analyze visitor data. One of the implications of this study is that the Forest attracts fewer Blacks than other racial minorities that are represented.in the general population surrounding the Forest. One reason for this may be that there are fewer minorities from the surrounding county that participate in outdoor recreation. Nationally, non-Whites have a lower rate of participation than Whites. However, there is an 138 increasing percentage of non-Whites beginning to participate in outdoor recreation activities (Heritage and Conservation Service, 1979). Another reason for the discrepancy in participation rates by racial minorities may be that minorities are unaware of the availability of the Forest as a recreation site. Current visitors' primary source of knowledge was word of mouth. It is likely that minorities are not getting the word. One way to increase minority awareness is to target an information campaign directed at minorities. One final consideration in recreation management is the "segment" of the recreation population the Forest serves. Currently, visitors are loyal active users who are gen- eralists. They enjoy the natural environment of the Forest. Provision of recreation services for this type of visitor is compatible with the overall management goals of the Forest. Therefore, care should be taken not to displace this visitor segment through future development. Visitor displacement will be of special concern as the Kellogg Biological Station, and by extension the Forest, attracts more visitors. The new clientele will most likely have different recreation needs and desires than current Forest visitors. Management strate- gies based on defined recreation goals are one way to avoid displacement. In summary, recreation has become a dominate use at the Kellogg Forest. This study describes current users to gain a better understanding (Hi the visitor's desires, 139 characteristics and recreational behavior. The study has implications in recreation management and indicates future planning direction. REFERENCES 140 REFERENCES Allen,D. 1979. Wilderness User Preferences for Psychological Outcomes and Setting Attributes. Doctoral Dissertation. Colorado State University. Fort Collins. Brown,P.J., B.L. Driver, D.H. Bruns, and C. McConnel. 1979." The Outdoor Recreation Opportunity Spectrum in Wildland Recreation Planning: Development and Application".lp Proc. Speciality Conf., First Annual National Conference on Recreation Planning and Development. Vol. 11. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers. New York. pp 527-538. Brown,P.J., D. Ross. 1982. "Using Desired Recreation Experiences to Predict Setting Preferences." Ag. Experiment Stat. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Misc. Publ. 18-1982. pp. 105-110. Buchanan, T., J.E. Christensen, R. Burdge. 1981. "Social Groups and the Meanings of Outdoor Recreation Activities"Journal of Leisure Research:Third Quarter. pp. 254-266. Burch, W.R. 1964. "Two Concepts for Guiding Recreation Management Decisions." Journal of Forestry 62(October):707-712. Burch,W.R. 1969. "The Social Circles of Leisure: Competing Explainations." Journal of Leisure Research 1:125-147. Cheek,N.H., W.R. Burch. 1976. The Social Ogganization pf Leisure in Human Society. New York: Harper and Row. Cheek,N.H., D.A. Field, R.J. Burdge. 1976. Leisure and Recreation Places.Ann Arbor,MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers. Clark,R.N. 1976 "Control of Vandalism in Recreation Areas- Fact, Fiction, or Folklore." Iprandalism and Outdoor Recreation. S.S. Alfana and A.W. Magill,ed. Berkley,CA: Pac. Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stat., USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-17, pp.62-72. 141 Clark, R.N.,G.H. Stankey. 1979. "The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning,Management, and Research." USDA For. Service Gen.Tech. Report, PNW-98. Clawson,M., J.L. Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Driver,B.L., P.J. Brown. 1975. "A Social-Psychological Definition of Recreation Demand with Implications for Recreation Resource Planning."Appendix A. Assessing Demand for Outdoor Recreation Washington: National Academy of Sciences, pp. 63-88. Gramann, J.H., R.JL Burdge. 1981."The Effects of Recreation Goals and Conflict Perception: The Case of Water Skiers and Fishermen." Journal of Leisure Research. 13(1):15-l7. Hendee,J.C. 1974. "A Multiple Satisfaction Approach to Game Management." Wildlife Society Bulletin 2:3:104-113. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1979. Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan.(Appendix I) Washinton:US Government Printing Office. Kielbaso,J.J. 1968. "Use and Users of the Kellogg Forest:an Urban Oriented Area". Doctorial thesis. E. Lansing: Michigan State University. Knepf,R.C., G.L. Peterson, E.C. Leatherberry. 1983."Motives for Recreation River Floating: Relative Consistency Across Settings. Leisure Science 5:3 pp. 231-255. Knepf,R.C., B.L. Driver, J.R. Bassett. 1973. "Motivations for Fishing." presented at 38th N. Am. Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.Washington,D.C. 142 Lemein, W.A.,A.D. Geis. 1957. "Recreation Use of the Kellogg Forest" E. Lansing Mi: Michigan State University. Quarterly Bulletin of Michigan Ag. Stat. 39: 4. pp. 701- 706. Lucas, G. L., G. H. Stankey. 1974. "Social Carrying Capacity for Backcountry Recreation." In Outdoor Recreation Research: Applying the Results. USDA Forest Srv. Gen. Tech. report NC- 9. N. Central For. Exer. Stat., St. Paul. pp.14-23. Manfredo,M., D.H. Anderson. 1982. "Recreation Preferences of Oregon Trout Fishermen." Ag. Exper. Stat. Minneapolis: University iof Minnesota Misc. Publ. 18-1982. pp. 64-68. McCurdy, D.R. 1968 "A System for Measuring Public Use on the National Wildlife Refuges." Branch of Public Use, Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Washinton, D.C. Nie,N.H.,C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins,K. Steinbrenner,D.H. Brent. 1975. Statistical Packakage for the Social Sciences.New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. Outdoor Recreation Review Commission. 1962. National Recreation Survey.Report 9.Washington:US Government Printing Office. Owens,G.P.1970."Outdoor Recreation: Participation, Characteristics of Users, Distance Travelled, and expenditures." Ohio Ag. Res. Bull. 1033. Schreyer.R. 1982. "Experience Levels Affects Expectations for Recreation Participation" lg, Forest and River Recreation: Research Update. Minneapolis:Misc. Publ. 18-1982. Schuman, H., S. Presser. 1981.9uestion and Answers in Attitude Surveys.New York: Academic Press. Sessoms. H. D. 1984. Leisure Services. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, Inc. 143 Stankey,G.H. 1977. "Some Concepts for Outdoor Recreation Planning." Ip Outdoor Recreation: Advances in Application of Economics. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. WG-2. Washington,D.C. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1982."Recreation Use Estimation." Waterways Experiment Stat. Vicksburg, Miss. US Dept. of Commerce. 1980. Census of the Populatien(Part 24,MI, Pc 80—1-B-24) Washington: US Government Printing Office. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A COMMENTS 0 Seeing the couple necking on the picnic table was rejuvenating. e The Forest is a place to get away from town. 0 I come to visit every year and spend a lot of time walking the trails here. It is one of the two places I enjoy most. 0 The Forest is a nice place to visit. We like it here. 0 I like to visit here in the fall especially when the mosquitoes aren't as bad. 0 It's a romantic place. 0' This is the biggest and nicest forest preserve within 50 miles. 0 I wish there were more animals in the Forest. I would like to drive through the Forest with the "Tales of the Vienna Woods" playing. It's convenient not having to get out of your car when you get older. 0 We love to take pictures here and have many of the Forest, especially the creek and from the lookout. e I like the view from the lookout...There have been a lot of changes since: I was here last (20 years). The thinning in the Forest is appreciated. 0 The new building is a good addition. Need a drinking fountain at the lookout. 0 Do like the clean appearance. 144 145 e The Forest is conveniently located. 0 It's perfect. I love it here and consider it mine. 0 Directional signs are helpful for lst time visitors, but make it less adventuresome for repeat visitors. Don't fix up the Forest anymore. 0 I prefer here to other places to ski. Road is difficult to ski. Groom trails. 0 Like the interpretive signs and maintained trails. 0 Like the improved trails. 0 Good fishing here. 0 We need more places like this close to home. Information 0 We didn't know you could drive on the road until we had walked 1/2 way around it. But we prefer to walk anyway. Parking 0 Didn't know there were more parking spaces around the side. 0 I didn't understand where to park. Confusing sign at the cul-de-sac. 0 Didn't realize there was more parking. 0 Got here early so parking was no problem. 0 Not good parking. Can't drive through. 0 Do you think more people would walk if they knew the distance around the road? Would like in) have wildflowers identified if you have the time. 146 e Confusing sign leading to the cul-de—sac. Which way is out. 0 Much improved parking. Education 0 The Forest is more interesting than a park. You can learn something here. 0 We like it here where the trees are labeled. 0 The Forest. is a «combined botanical garden and wilderness area, so it's unique — recreational and educational. 0 Best place to get a variety.of trees. 0 Like the trees labeled. Identify more shrubs. 0 Would appreciate more thorough labeling of the trees, especially where to find specific species in the Forest. 0 There: are many opportunities for kids - education, relaxation, exercise, etc. Conflicts e I love to run here except I don't like the hunters here in the Fall. It seems unsafe to me to mix people and guns. 0 The snowmobilers behave well by staying on the road, but I would prefer to have no snowmobilers or hunters. 0 Don't like the snowmobilers during cross-country skiing. They are obnoxious. 0 Good hunting early in the season. Too many people when there's snow on the ground. Chased the dogs too much today. 0 Get rid of the snowmobiles. 147 0 Too many snowmobilers on this side. 0 Get rid of the cars on the road. 0 Cut down on road traffic. 0 Too many cars. Terrain e The hills and the course here is a challenging one for a runner. o This is the best place for me to come to exercise. I can run and enjoy the scenery with no traffic on the roads. it's close too. 12212 0 Don't pave the roads! It would change the character of the experience. 0 The road could be wider. The road is much improved, landscaping too. The sign at the bottom of the hill is confusing. 0 I'm sorry to see the road paved. I liked it better before. The Forest is getting to commercialized. o On the main road need a sign to show which way to exit. 0 There is less dust since the road was paved, but a fancier Forest brings out more people. I don't like improvements that bring out city folk. The Forest is almost too good new. 0 The attraction of the road is driving slowly and enjoying it. e The road is narrow, but challenging. Wouldn't want it any other way. 148 e The road isn't meant. to be a .super-highway. Mark arrows on the map. 0 The road is narrow in places. It's hard to tell where the read went with the leaves down. 0 Need more pullovers for group tours. e The read needs to be a little wider down the hill (compartment 7). o The road should be wider around the curves. The road seemed narrower this year. 0 Picnic area road needs graded. 0 Need a few more pullovers for stopping around the road. People - Less Crowded e We come to the Forest because there are fewer people and it is not as commercialized as other areas. 0 I like it because not many people know about it and there are fewer people here. e One of the beautiful things about this Forest is that there are not many people. 0 We like it here because there are few people. Hope it stays that way; don't advertise. If a 1,000 other people started coming here, we would stop coming. 0 It's an excellent Forest. I hope it doesn't get too popular. It seems that people don't abuse it. Kept up well. 0 Don't broadcast the Forest. 0 Don't let everyone in. Don't publicize it. 149 e Peeple space themselves out in the Forest so its really not very crowded. e Surprised there aren't more peeple. Need a place to get away from cars. 0 Need a place to get away from the cars. 0 I enjoy the woods anytime — quiet or noisy. 0 Don't like 'vehicles on the 'road. Restrict traffic during heavy use periods, or close it altogether except at certain times for handicappers, etc. 0 Don't like cars on the road. One is too many. 0 Like to see more people. Bathrooms 0 One reason I like it here is the 'area is well maintained and the bathrooms facilities are wonderful. 0 Loved the restrooms. They are clean. 0 Like the bathrooms. 0 The toilets are very well kept up for an outdoor facility. I went in to them just to look. It was the first outdoor toilet I've ever seen. 0 Liked the warm, clean bathrooms. 0 Like the bathrooms. 0 Restrooms are nice. 0 New bathrooms are nice. 0 Bathrooms are nicer, kept up well. 0 Like the new restrooms. 150 Safety 0 I feel comfortable coming here alone because I feel safe here. 0 One of the things I appreciate about the Forest is feeling safe here. I enjoy being in the woods without being hassled. Special Interests/Suggestions/Comments 0 One of the beautiful things about the Forest is that there are not many people. If you wanted to attract horseback riders there are a few things that would be helpful: a place to water them; a bar for tethering them; a wider spot to turn trailers around, especially if there were more than one; .a bulletin board to tell riders where they could and could not ride; maybe, this area could include a picnic spot for riders. 0 Picnic tables are deteriorated and old. 0 The trail to the lookout is eroded. e The leaf collectors are disruptive. They stop in the middle of the road when they could pull over. 0 Paint the tables. Pit toilets eechl Like the fire rings, but they need repair. 0 Frozen horse tracks make it difficult to walk. 0 Don't like the hunting here. 0 The fire rings need work. 151 0 Try marking the trails according, to difficulty and length of time it takes to ski them. 0 The trails shouldn't be hardened. e I would like wells around the trails. APPENDIX B 152 TRAFFIC COUNT 1. HSTER READING AT START 2. METER READING AT END OF HOUR A. -1 3. DATE:- ___/____ / 4. DAY: (1)8 (2)" (3)T (4)“ (5)TH (6)F (7)5AT S.*T1NE:* IN HOURLY PERIODS (ExampI. 142PH) *START A new SHEET FOR EACH HOUR YOU STOP CARS.* b. WEATHER: TEMPERATURE: ___ eneweerweeeeweeeeeeeeeeerwweweeeeeweewwwwwweeeweeeeeeeeeewwweeeeeeeeeew NUMBER OF PEOPLE! ACTIVITIES. LENGHT OF STAY CAR IN MINUTES 5.. '0 m ‘4 0 ll # (A N 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 APPENDIX C 153 APPENDIX C Table A1. Others: Places Similar to the Kellogg Forest Other - 19.42 - 7.5 - 11.92 or 61 responses Camps 4 1.302 Nature Centers (other than Kalamazoo WC) 3 .942 Hidden Lakes Gardens 4 1.302 Friend/Relatives/Own Property 4 1.302 "Up North" 3 .942 University of Michigan Ann Arbor 2 .632 Greevers Woods 2 .632‘ Saginaw Ferest 2 .632 Potawattamee Trails - Silver Lake 1 .312 Marshall & Duojack - MSU 1 .312 Russ Forest 2 .632 Dunbar 1 .312 Yogi Bear 1 .312 Hobur Campground 1 .312 Chef Center 1 .312 Paul Smith College Woods 1 .312 Baker Woods 1 .312 Todd Farm 1 .312 Scott's Mill by Scotts, MI 1 .312 APPENDIX D 1. Interview If 2. Date:._._fl_._[_'_ 3. Day: (1)5 (2)M (3)r (4)w (5)T (6)F (7)5 4. Time: (1) 8-10AM; (2) lO-lZPM; (3) 12-2PM; 5. Location in Forest: (1) Exit (4) 2-4PM;' (5) 4-6PM; (6) 6-8PM (2) Picnic area__ (3) Other 6. Temperature: 7. Comments: (1) clear (2) cloudy (3) ptly cloudy (4) rain (5) snow (6) other INTRODUCTION - Hi! My name is . I'm working at the Forest this year. We're trying to get information about visitors to the Kellogg Forest. Do you have a few minutes to answer some questions about your visit today? Your answers will all be confidential. Thanks. 8. How many people were in your group today? _ __ (nutter) How many 9. Preschoolsers (0-5 years) _ _ were there in your group? * 10. Children (6-12 years) 11. Adolescents (13-17 years) _ 12. Adults (18-60 years) 13. Seniors (60+) 14. Group type: (1) Alone (2) Family with children under 18 (3) Family with children over 18 (4) Family and friends with children under 18 (5) Family and friends withvchildren over 18 (6) Family and friends without children (7) Friends (8) Organized aroup (specify) (9) 1611 affiliated (specify) (1:0) Comic:- ___._____.___ (11) Other (specify) -..—-’ 15. Did you stop for any information on your way into the Forest today? ) NO (2) .Yes (3) On previous occasions (4) Visit often & don't need my 5.) Other (specify) - -' y ' 16. Did you notice the sign for Visitor Information? (1) NO (2) YES (3) On previous occasions 17. How did you first find out about the Kellogg Forest? (1) Family or Friends (2) Entrance Sign (3) Newspaper (4) Radio or TV (5) 160 (6) [CBS (specify) _‘me (7) Don't remenber ('8) School (9) live? there (10)».ether (specify) ' - A 18. Have you recemmen’ded this place to anyone in the past 12 months? (only if upset) (1) NO (2) YES (3) Can't remenber . 155 2 l9-21 People come to the Forest for a variety of reasons. I'd like to find out your motives for visiting today. Would you please complete the following sentence: I can here today because I wanted to: (01) Teach my family about nature (09) Get away from the crowds and home (02) Do something with my children (10) Rest/Relaxation (O3) Spend time with family and relatives (11) Exercise (04) Explore a new area (12) Hunt (05) View the scenery (13) Fish (06) Observe wildlife (14) Show family/friends forest (07) Learn more about nature (15) socialize ' (08) Cool off (16) leaf collecting _ (l7) enjoy nature/surroundings (18) enjoy creek/wade (19) lost (20) other (specify) GAL) "LQA.FOQQO+'(16>QflaAuyanu4(0fiatirfky 22-27 What was your primary reason for choosing to come to the Kellogg Forest to (insert answer from preview question) instead of somewhere else? 22. Location (1) It was close 23. Fee: (1) None required (2) It was on the way 24, Environnnnt (1) Cool 25. Educ: (1) Trees labeled (2) Quiet (2) Demo Forestry site (3) It's a good placette. . 3) Other (specify) 64% (4) It's a beautiful setting ‘1) W (5) natural environment 26. Site: (1) Many trails (6) Has creek (2) maintained facilities (7) Other (specify) _ (specify) (3) Picnic area (4) Other (specify) 27. Other (1) Few other people (2) Explore a new area (3) other (specify) 28. Is this your first visit to the Forest? (1) NO (2) Yes 29. Do you expect to come back? (1) NO (2) Yes (3) Maybe If no, why not? 30. How often have you visited here in the last 12 months? of visits including todays) __ (Total number Could you estimate the number of times in each season (last 12 months only) you have visited here? Mark below. Which activities have you done here in the summer, fall, winter, and spring? Mark activities. MIR ACTIVITIES 31. Summer 35-38 /_ _/_ __/__ _/__ __ 32. Fall 39-42 /_ _/_ __/_ _/_ __ 33. Winter 43-46 / I / / 34 . Spring 47-50 / / / / 156 3 51. What was the total amount of time you spent at the Forest? Total (1) 0-29 min (2) 30-59 min (3) 60-119 min (4) 120-179 min (5) 180-299 min (6) 300 min or more What activities have you participated in today at the Forest? Circle activities, then would you approximate how much time you spent in each activity? ACTIVITY TIME IN MINUTES '52. (01) Picnicking __ _ _ 61. (10) Foraging __ _ __ .53. (02) Driving __ _ _ 62. (11) Phocosraphr- - _ _ _ 54, (O3) Bicycling _ __ _ 63. (12) Wildlife Watching- __ __ __ 55. (04) Trail Bike Riding _ _ _ 64. (13) Wading/Creek Hiking-z... __ __ ‘56. (OS) Hunting-Small Game __ _ __ 65. (14) Snowmobiling - _ _ _ 57. (06) Hunting Deer __ _ __ 66. (15) X-Country Ski-108 __ _ ___. ‘58. (07) Fishing _ _ _ 67. (16) Exercise _ __ .— 59. (08) Hiking __ _ _ 68. (17) Leaf collecting _ __ _ 60. (O9) Horseback Riding _ _ _ 69. (13) Other (specify) _ _ _ 70. Have you done other activities than what you expected to do today? (1) NO (2) Yes (3) Don't Know 71. What were they? / /_ __l_ _ We are interested in knowing if you were satisfied with the'facilities in the Forest. Would you tell me whether you were satisfied or dissatisfied with the following facilities that you used. GENERAL 72. Parking (1) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No Opinion (4) Didn't Use 73. Road Conditions (1) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No Opinion (4) Didn't Use 74. How would you rate the number of other people you saw today? (1) too few (2) OK (3) too many (4) No opinion 75. Approximately, how many people did you see today? (number) Coments on DISSATISFACTIONS: * ** GO TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS ** m‘ l_ * If respondent has been PICNICKING U U. 76. Picnic Tables (1) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No Opinion (4) Didn't Use 77. water Pumps (1) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No Opinion (4) Didn't Use 78. Toilet Facilities _fil) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No Opinion (4) Didn't Use 79. Grills/Firerings__.(l) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No Opinion (4) Didn't Use 80. Garbage Facilities (1) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No Opinion (4) Didn't Use Other Consents 81. 82. 83s ' Width of Road (1) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Didn't USe Pullovers (l) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Didn't Use Number of- animals seen (1) Dissatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion-(4) Didn't USe Comments on DISSATISFACTIONS: 84. Did you stOp at any of the pullovers on the Auto Trail? (1) NO (2) YES 85-87 Would you show me where they were on this map? Mark section. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. (85) Lookout/(86) _ _/(87)__ __ Did you use the Self-Guiding Trail pamphlet? (1) NO (2) YES (skip to 90) Did you know one was available? (skip to comments) (1) NO (2) YES ,_ Was the pamphlet satisfying for you to read and use or, unsatisfactory to read and use? - x (l) Unsatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No Opinion Could the pamphlet be improved in any way? (1) No (2) Yes (3) Don't know (skip to comments) How could it be improved? (4. Méutr) l. Clearer instructions 2. Clearer layout 3. Less technical information 4. Relating the information more clearly to Forest landmarks 5. More interesting information 6. Shorter 7. Other (specify) Do you have any other comments on the Self-Guiding pamphlet? Other comments: * If respondent has been HUNTING OR FISHING 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 158 Maintenance of trails (1) Unsatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Didn't Use Directional Signs (1) Unsatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Didn't Use # of animals seen (1) Unsatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Didn't Use Approximately, how many animals did you see? nunher Your success at hunting/ fishing (1) Unsatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Neutral How successful were you today? 98. Anglers: (l) Nunber of Keepers (2) Nunber of Nonkeepers Hmters: Nunber of animals taken: 99. Deer __ 100. Small game __ 101. 1’8“ 102-106 Would you show me on this map the areas of the Forest you have been in today? Comments : Mark Section: 102 _/103__ _/104___ _/105_ __/106_.. __ * If respondent has been HIKING, HORSEBACK RIDING, BEm PICKING, x-oounm SKIING, ET AL. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111 . 112. 113. 1.14. 1.15. Maintenance of trails __ (l) Unsatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Didn't use Directional Signs (1) Unsatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Didn't use Slope of the trails (l) Unsatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Didn't use Nunber of animals seen __ (l) Unsatisfied (2) Satisfied (3) No opinion (4) Didn't use Approximately, how many mimals did you see? (umber) Other consents: Have you been walking on a trail, walking on the road, or both? (1) Trail (2) Road (3) Both (4) Neither, through woods Did you use a trail map or pamphlet to guide you? (1) No (skip to consents) (2) Yes Which one did you use? (1) Trail map (2) Self-Guiding Auto pamphlet (skip to connents) Was the map satisfactory for you to read and use or, unsatisfactory to read and use? (I) Unsatisfactory (2) Satisfactory (3) No Opinion 116. Could the map be improved? (1) NO (skip next question) (2) Yes (3) Don't Know (skip next question) 117. How could the map be improved? (1 answer) (1) Clearer layout (2) Relate the map more clearly to forest landmarks (3) More signs on the trails to show directions (4) Other (specify) (5) Other (specify) Do you have any other comments on the trail map? (skip to 122 if respondent has not been on Auto Trail) * For respondents who have HIRED/ETC on the read using Self—Guiding pamphlet. 118. Was the Self-Guiding pamphlet satisfactory for you to read and use or, unsatisfactory to read and use? (1) Unsatisfactory (2) Satisfactory (3) No Opinion 119. Could the pamphlet be improved in any way? (1) No (2) Yes (3) Don't know (skip next question) 120. How could it be improved? 1. Clearer instructions 2. Clearer layout 3. Less technical information 4. Relating the information more clearly to forest landmarks 5. More interesting information 6. Shorter 7. Other (specify) Do you have any other cements on the Self Guiding pamphlet? 121-126 Would you show me on this map the areas of the Forest you have been in todav? Mark section: 121 /122 /123 /12 / 25__ /126 Other cements 127. Will or have you stopped at other places on your trip today? (1) No (2) Yes (3) Don't Know 128-130 What places are they? At Kellogg Biological Station: (01) Kellogg Farm (02) Bird Sanctuary (O3) Gull Lake Station Others: Name and location 128. / 129. / / 130. ___—- 160 . 7 131-133 What are the other places you visit that you think are similar to the Kellogg 114. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139 . 140. 141. Forest? (can do similar activities??) (01) None (02) Bird Sanctuary (03) Binder Park (04) Yankee Springs (05) Allegan Forest (06) Kalamazoo Nature Center (07) Gull Lake Township Park (08) Fort Custer (O9) Milham Park (10) Al Soho (11) Kiuball Pines !. (12) Nat'l Forest (13) Nat'l Park (14) other (specify) Would you name the agency that manages the Forest? (1) DSU (2) K35 (probe) (3) Kellogg (4) Don' t know (5) DNR (6) Other university (specify) (7) Fort Custer St. Pk. - (8) Other (specify) Would you name the primary purpose of this Forest? (1) Research (2) Education (3) Conservation (4) Recreation (5) Forest Man. (6) Preservation (7) Other (specify) (3,13%); (MCUU’ Any additional cements on your visit? In order to check that our information is representative, we need to know a little more about you. All this information will be kept strictly confidential. How old are you? years Gender of respondents: (1) Female (2) Male What is the highest grade of school you have completed: 123456789101112 12345674- (01) Grade School (02) High School (03) College Race: (1) White (2) Black (3) Asian (4) Pacific Islander (5) Hispanic (5) Native America: What city or township do you live in? / What's your zipcede? THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION” APPENDIX E 161 OBSERVATION PLAN DATE SITE: OVERLOOK TIME TRAIL(SPECIFY) WEATHER PICNIC AREA OTHER SITE# at Picnic Area "-‘ 0’ People AGE DISTRIBUTION: # of groups Preschoolers Children GROUP TYPE: Adolescents alone Adults Family with children under 18 Seniors Family with children with children 18 & up Family and friends with children Family and friends without children Friends Organized groups MSU ACTIVITIES TYPE OF ACTIVITY # & AGE COMMENTS : ’ 162 VISITOR COMMENTS Gender: Age: Where from: Repeat or new Activity ‘c***:‘c>‘<* :‘cic'k7':**************************************************************************************1k":~ Gender: Age: Where from: Repeat or new Activi ty 1: *skz': :‘nkin':****1:*******************************************************************************kirkink : Gender Age Where from: Repeat or new Activity k * 3k * * ** * ** **********************************************************************************id: *1”: 3': Gender Age Where from: Repeat or new Activity “IIIIIIIIIII‘I“III“