i... ... .3133. ‘l.\‘: . . ._ ...: ... . . ....P..... pf......}:......;.£.v..x.... 3:253:12... ,. ...... .....T‘: ....x... ...... ......... .. ........:.._..:... .... ..n......_..... ..x. 2...... ....T: ........ ..............:...., .....l..l.2._..__._.... ...... ,. ......f .. . . 21...... . I... .. , .... ...»... 1..-... ..........._....._. ......2. .. .............. ._ . ...... , Z 1 ...,.2...... ........._.:..., . , ..U...................2.. . ... ... : .. 2. . ...r. ......e........., . . ....... ..-...J ». 9—K. .‘ . H.H..\ .n... . .. ......r. ......... ... . . . ,. .. . ,........./ 21...... ......T a 'a u JAE—“.‘L‘. "45.4% A m A ...: ._ . 2...... ........_..._\..........._ l ... 3... 1r . ...: ”1815‘?- 0-169 |||||||||||UU||\WNWI’llHI!WIWHOHllflllllllHl 3 1293 10401 This is to certify that the thesis entitled USE AND USERS OF THE KELLOGG FOREST: AN URBAN—ORIENTED AREA presented by Julian James Kielbaso has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D 0 degree in ForeStry i/7i/ L/?’(’j'. {/ Major professor DMe Sept. 19, 1968 Lhnven “5.;in ._; 1 ulLY ABSTRACT USE AND USERS OF THE KELLOGG FOREST: AN URBAN—ORIENTED AREA By Julian James Kielbaso Recreation potentials of urban forests have been generally overlooked. Numerous examples of urban forests exist in Europe but are almost nonexistent in the United States. For possible illumination of this idea, a con- venient case was available for study at Michigan State University's Kellogg Forest, a 600—acre research forest between Battle Creek and Kalamazoo, Michigan. About 350,000 people live within 25 miles of this Forest. A largely denuded area when acquired in 1932, Kellogg Forest has been planted to trees in a large number of research and demonstration projects. Special points to note about Kellogg Forest are its man—made aspects, the dedication to several purposes, the willingness to cut when necessary for management or re— search objectives, supervision of the area which is apparent to all visitors, and the compatability of re- search and management objectives with recreational use. Julian James Kielbaso No advertising is done to attract people to Kellogg Forest. Visitor facilities are maintained at a minimum and have been permitted to deteriorate gradually, but regular cleanup is part of the management program. On this unencouraged basis, Kellogg Forest was visited by about 38,000 persons in 1967, when 2A5 inter— views were made. The users were divided as follows: motorists, A9 per cent; picnickers, 2“ per cent; hikers, 13 per cent; fishermen, 2 per cent; hunters, 2 per cent; and miscellaneous, 10 per cent. Hunting and fishing are permitted in the Forest on a sign-in, sign-out basis. Visitors to Kellogg Forest are of higher socio- economic status than the average population from which they come. Users also tend to be younger than the average population. Automobiles entering the Forest had an average of four persons in them. Most visitors were from the generally urbanized areas of Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. Distance appears to be a limiting factor for use of the Forest, since only 10 per cent of all visits were from more than 25 miles away. The most important satisfaction sought at Kellogg Forest is the opportunity to observe woodland scenery. Second is the opportunity to rest and relax. The third— ranked satisfaction is allowing children to play in the woods. Many interviewees volunteered that ”nature" was an important reason for their visit. Most persons return Julian James Kielbaso several times per year and also tell other friends about the Forest. Many users take pride in showing the Forest to their guests. Most persons learned of Kellogg Forest from a friend or family member or while driving by it. Differences in socio—economic characteristics, as well as in certain attitudes and satisfactions sought, were found between various user groups. At present use rates, recreation and research are compatible uses of Kellogg Forest. Reasons for the com— patability include supervision by a Resident Forester at the Forest entrance; the many explanatory signs along the road; the variety provided by the many research projects; and the fact that visitors have a sense of responsibility while on the Forest since there is no fee and they feel as guests rather than customers. Many persons desire the natural aspects of a forest not provided by more develOped parks. In the future, there will be a much broader urban sprawl and more of the population will be even more removed from nature. Now may well be the best time to prepare to make the environ- ment more hospitable for these people. The Kellogg Forest is fulfilling a definite need for recreation in an urban setting, and may well form the pattern for developing similar areas near large urban centers. Such recreational use also appears to be fully compatible with major research objectives on such an urban-oriented forest. USE AND USERS OF THE KELLOGG FOREST: AN URBAN—ORIENTED AREA By Julian James Kielbaso A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry l968 1 (..J ‘ F\ l I t ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere apprecia- tion to the several persons whose cooperation and assist- ance made this study possible: particularly Dr. Lee M. James under whose direction and guidance this study was made, also the guidance committee for their timely sug- gestions and constructiVe criticism—-Drs° R. S. Manthy and V. J° Rudolph of the Forestry Department, and Dr. M. H. Steinmueller of the Department of Resource Development. A special word of gratitude is also due to Mr° Walter Lemmien, Resident Forester at Kellogg Forest who made many valuable contributions to the study as well as his crew at the Forest--Mr. D. England and Mr. A. Holtman. Special gratitude is due the author's wife, Gloria, who spent many hours in discussion of the problems and still more untold hours of clerical assistance, not to mention her encouragement on many an occasion. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. II. LITERATURE REVIEW The Urban Forest Socio— Economic Characteristics of Recreationists III. THE STUDY AREA Kellogg Forest . . . . . . Visitor Source Area . IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Sampling Estimation of Attendance. The Interviews V. USER GROUPS AT KELLOGG FOREST Description of Groups and Activities . . . . . . . Sample Allocation Attendance Patterns Purpose of Other Visits to Kellogg Forest. . . . . Other Sources of Recreation in Kellogg Forest Region. Visitor Party Characteristics Head of Party Characteristics Expenditures for Recreation Visits iii Page ii A8 50 52 63 66 79 9A Chapter Page VI. USER SATISFACTIONS . . . . . . . . 98 Picnickers. . . . . . . . . . 98 Motorists . . . . . . . . . . 100 Hikers . . lOO Fishermen, Hunters, and Miscellaneous Users . . . . . . . . . . 103 All User Groups . . . . . . . . 108 VII. USER ATTITUDES, . . . . . . . . . 113 Attitude Toward Fees . . . . . 113 Importance of Travel Distance . . . 117 Exclusiveness of Visits to Kellogg Forest . . . 119 Source of Knowledge About Kellogg Forest . . . . 121 Visitors' Recommendations of Kellogg Forest to Others. . . 123 Number of Visits to Kellogg Forest. . 123 Open— —End Responses by Visitors . . . 125 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. . . . . . . 132 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . 1AA APPENDICES A. Visitors' Guide . . . . . . . . . ISA B. Outdoor Recreation Motivation Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . 157 C. Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 iv Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Annual Man-Hour Requirements of Various Recreation—providing Activities—— Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . POpulation by County Within Specified Distances of Kellogg Forest, 1967. . . Allocation and Actual Sampling of Recre— ationists by User Class . . . . . . Allocation Re—estimated at End of Study. Distribution of Recreational Use of Kellogg Forest by Use Groups According to Number of Visits and Time Spent at Forest—- 1967 Weekly Pattern of Visitor Attendance as Evidenced by Car Counter Crossings at Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . Game Taken by Species and Number of Hunter Visits at Kellogg Forest for 196A- 1968 Seasons . . . . . . Characteristics of Hunters and Hunter Groups by Game Animal Hunted——Kellogg Forest, 1967. . . . . . . . Answers to Question: Do You Sometimes Visit Kellogg Forest for Purposes Different from Today's Trip? Areas Near Kellogg Forest Visited for Recreational Activities by Ten or More Respondents, 1967 . . Percentages of Various Users Staying for Designated Time Periods—-Kellogg Forest, 1967. . . . . . Page 36 38 51 53 5A 59 62 6A 65 68 69 Table 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2A. 25. Age and Sex of Visitors to Kellogg Forest by User Group, 1967 . . . . . . . Numbers of Families Per User Group at Kellogg Forest, 1967. . . . . . . Organized Groups Visiting Kellogg Forest, 1967 o o o o o o o o 0 Average Party Size of User Groups at Kellogg Forest, 1967. . Number of Visitors Expected and Estimates Based on Sampling by Age and Sex—— Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . Age of Party Heads Visiting Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . . . Heads of Parties Visiting Kellogg Forest Classified by Occupation, 1967 . . . Percentages of Heads of Parties of Various User Groups Into Designated Family Income Categories-—Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . . . . Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected at Kellogg Forest by Two- Family Income Categories, 1967 Percentages of Heads of Parties of Various User Groups Attaining Different Edu- cational Levels, 1967 . . Marital Status of Heads of Parties Visit- ing Kellogg Forest, 1967 Distance Traveled by Various User Groups to Reach Kellogg Forest, 1967. . Place of Residence of Various User Groups at Kellogg Forest, 1967. . . . . Travel Costs for Visitors to Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . vi Page 71 72 7A 76 78 80 82 83 86 87 9O 93 95 96 Table 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. 35. 36. 37. 38. Page Index Values and Rankings of Satisfactions by Picnickers at Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . 99 Index Values and Rankings of Satisfactions by Motorists at Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . 101 Index Values and Rankings of Satisfactions by Hikers at Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . 102 Index Values and Rankings of Satisfactions by Fishermen at Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . 10A Index Values and Rankings of Satisfactions by Deer Hunters at Kellogg Forest, 1967 . 105 Index Values and Rankings of Satisfactions by Small Game Hunters at Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Index Values and Rankings of Satisfactions as Determined for All Users of Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . 110 Rank of Index Values Attached to Satis— factions by User Groups. . . . . . . 112 Percentage of Various User Groups Who Volun— teered in Open-end Questions That Nature Was an Important Reason for Their Visit to Kellogg Forest, 1967. . . . . . . 11A Responses of Various Groups to Question to Determine Importance of Free Access in Making Decision to Come to Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . 116 Responses of Users to Question About Impor- tance of Travel Distance to Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . 118 Answers to Question: Is This Visit to Kellogg Forest Part of Some Other Trip Today?, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . 120 Source of Visitor's Knowledge About Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . 122 Vii Table 39. C-3. C-A. 0-5. C—6. C-7. C-8. 0‘9 0 Responses of Interviewees Indicating Number of Persons to Whom Kellogg Forest was Recommended, 1967 . . . . Frequency of Visits to Kellogg Forest Each Year, 1967 . . . . . Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Ex- pected by User Groups andLWhether or Not Other Visits Are for Different Purpose Than Current Visit--Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . . . . . Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected by User Group and Length of Stay at Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected by User Group and Professional or Wage Earner-—Kellogg Forest, 1967 Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected by User Group and Three Family Income Categories—-Kellogg Forest, 1967 Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected by User Group and Two-Family Income Categories—-Kellogg Forest, 1967 Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected by User Group and Three Classes of Education at Kellogg Forest, 1967 0 o o o o o o o o 0 Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected at Kellogg Forest by Four Education Attainment Categories, 1967 Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected by User Group and Three Classes of Distance Traveled to Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . . Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected by User Group and Attitude Toward Importance of Distance to Kellogg Forest, 1967. . . . . viii Page 12A 126 16A 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 Table Page C—lO. Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected by User Group and Whether or Not This Visit is Part of Some Other Trip-—Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . 173 0—11. Number of Sampled Persons Observed and Expected by User Group and Frequency of Visits Each Year——Kellogg Forest, 1967 . . . . . 17A ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. (A) Some Campers Want Simple Facilities While Others Want More Elaborate Facili— ties. (B) If All Facilities Are Aimed at the Average Desire, the Wishes of Most PeOple Will be Missed by the Amount Shown in Shading. (C) However, if Just a Few Different Opportunities are Pro- vided, the Amount by Which Most People's Desires are Missed Can be Greatly Re- duced . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2. Effects of Crowding on the Quality Which Results from Satisfaction of the Needs That Commonly Motivate Outdoor Recre- ation. On the Horizontal Axes, Number of PeOple Increases to the Right. On the Vertical Axes, Quality Increases with Height . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. Location of Kellogg Forest and Other Important Areas Within Designated Dis— tances of the Forest . . . . . . . 26 A. Aspects of a Man—Made Forest. (A) Kellogg Forest as It Appeared Around 1935, (B) Same Scene as ”A" in 1968, (C) Kellogg Forest Headquarters as Seen at Entrance, (D) Visitors Enjoying a Man—Made Forest. 29 5. Map of W. K. Kellogg Forest. . . . . . 30 6. Scenes in Picnic Area of Kellogg Forest. . 31 7. Scenes Along Augusta Creek and Road in Kellogg Forest. (A) A View of Augusta Creek, (B) Road Winding Through Handwood Stand in Compartment 22, (C) Trail Entrance to Road in Compartment 22-—Such Entrances Often Serve as Start— ing Points for Hikes, (D) Road Through Pines in Compartment 7 . . . . . . 33 Figure Page 8. Examples of Rustic Signs Seen in Kellogg Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A 9. (A) McCrary Memorial; (B) View from McCrary Memorial. . . . . . . . . 35 10. Examples of Picnic Facilities at Kellogg Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 11. Weekly Totals of Visitors to Kellogg Forest. 55 12. Fishermen Visits and Number of Fish Caught at Kellogg Forest, l96A—1967. . . . . 61 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Recreation, particularly outdoor recreation, con- tinues to play an increasingly important role in the American life style. Some of the more obvious reasons for this situation are the expanding population and its urbanization, increasing real per capita income, longer non—work periods, increasing mobility, and some changes in living patterns. It might even be argued that in the not-too—distant future, Americans will be trained to use leisure. Forests have always played an important role for Americans seeking outdoor recreation, and there is reason to expect their importance will increase. Since 19A3, total visits to National Forests have increased each year, and in 1967 totaled 1A9,6A7,100 visitor days. The number of visits tripled between 1955 and 196A, increasing at a rate faster than either population or Gross National Pro- duct. Dramatic increases in recreational use have also taken place on other federal forests, state and municipal forests, and public parks largely characterized as forests. Much of the outdoor recreational use that has developed around forested areas has been directed to forests of large size, but small forests can play a significant role in recreational use. Small forests, located near centers of population, may attain far greater value to society than the larger, more distant forests. Perhaps the greatest value of forests in the urban environment is their role in air conditioning. The ability of trees to clean the air and ameliorate temperature has been known a long time. The urban forest may serve as a filter to buffer man from the sights and sounds and smells of civilization. Forests serve as local reservoirs and sources of clean water, and they offer protection against soil erosion and flooding. Water influences, in fact, were the historic justification for establishment of the National Forests in eastern United States. Forests also serve as the habitat for many forms of bird and animal wildlife. The green masses of the forests offer soothing re— lief for human nervous systems, counteracting the irritating effects of the many colors present in our cities, especially the reds. Forests are able to absorb sounds, and by counteracting the excessive noises of urban centers may help to reduce the incidence of human deafness. Property values are enhanced greatly by proximity to a wooded area. Real estate agents often indicate that lots with trees sell for $500 to $1,000 more than lots without trees. PeOple are willing to pay for a location close to woodland. They recognize values of natural beauty, protection against intense sunlight and heat, inspiration, and variety to the urban scene. The variety of plant and animal life within the forest is also a source of great satisfaction to many people. The forest serves as a source of recreation or re—creation for man to break up the rigors of the work-a- day world. This recreation may take various forms from communing, to walking, or observing, or hunting, or fish— ing-~in.short, any activity, which serves to refresh the body or the mind. Large forests are severely limited, by virtue of size, to locations away from population concentrations. However, it is the unique quality of the small forest that its location is much more flexible and may be near popu— lation centers as well as away from them. The small urban forest may or may not be used for timber production, but it offers more opportunities for enhancement of environ— mental values than have been generally realized. This opportunity is being more and more appreciated as evidenced by the fact that the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Recreation and Natural Beauty has as recently as June 12, 1968 recommended that an urban and community forestry program be created in the United States Forest Service which would encourage research and training in the direction of urban and community forestry. The Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture has also prOposed a program of grants—in— aid to the states and local governments for urban forestry. For illumination of this idea, a convenient case was available for study at Michigan State University's .Kellogg Forest. This 600-acre research forest is located in an urban environment mid—way between Battle Creek and Kalamazoo. Managed by the University's Forestry Depart— ment primarily for research in wood production, Kellogg Forest has been open to recreational use by the public for many years. Recreational use has been growing and now represents a major function of the Forest. The case study undertaken at Kellogg Forest, which is the focus of this thesis, was directed to the following objectives: (1) to determine the volume of use of this urban- oriented forest managed primarily for research in wood production; (2) to determine the recreational activities participated in by users while at Kellogg Forest; (3) to describe the users of Kellogg Forest and to compare them with the general population in the region; (A) (5) (6) (7) to make comparisons between user groups; to determine satisfactions derived by users while on the Forest; to determine user attitudes on various questions regarding Kellogg Forest; to observe the possible role of an urban- oriented forest in helping to fulfill the recreational needs of an urban population in search of leisure-time activities. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW The Urban Forest The introduction has already stressed the impor- tance of forests in the urban environment. But urban forests are scarce. Forests have been pushed back from the cities. In 1826, Johann H. von Thunen wrote in Isolated State that forests should be located near cities for greatest location efficiency owing to the weight and bulk of timber. Time has passed, and former transportation restraints as well as limited demands on land for alternative uses no longer hold as rigidly as in his idealized model. Might there be more to von Thunen's concept than is immediately apparent? Might there be reasons other than economies of transport, for maintaining forests nearer to the larger cities? Must our forest resources be large and contiguous for economical management or might they be nearer to population concentrations and more dispersed? The answers to these questions may be considered from two VieWpoints: the economist considering efficiency and feasibility of timber production, and the planner attempt- ing to provide a more desirable environment for an in— creasingly urbanized society. 6 Forest economists have generally conceded that timber production on small, private holdings is not yet feasible, due in part to the short-term objectives of owners and the long timber rotations. With the increas- ing emphasis on clear—cutting harvesting methods, this situation is not likely to improve. Foster (1965) in a presentation entitled "Forestry and Megalopolis," addressed himself to the problem of forestry in the urban fringe. He noted that foresters supposedly could harvest 100,000 board feet of sawtimber from Boston itself on a sustained annual basis. He also made several recommendations on how to approach such an objective. Ultimately, the result would be to provide income to the owners, raw material for some small timber industries, and amenity values for many people. The forester's role in this environment will be different from his traditional one; foresters will have to "come out of the woods" as has been advocated by James (1968). Speaking to the Society of American Foresters in Seattle, Davis (1966) pointed out the same theme, that foresters should become more concerned with urban area forestry and its potentials. The one great economic advantage of the urban forest is proximity to its potential market——exact1y the theme of von Thunen more than 100 years ago. It may be time to re—evaluate his theory and bring forestry back to the urban environs. Attesting to the economic ad- vantages of such forestry, the village of Juriens, Switzerland, is a case in point. A village-owned forest of about 900 acres accounts for all taxes for the A00 inhabitants: no one pays a tax. The forest, on a hill back of the village, is criss-crossed by logging roads, making it easy for the people of Juriens to enjoy it. In the summer they picnic in it or sit in its cool shade. In spring and fall they go on hikes and in winter they can ski through it. The forest is an intimate part of their lives. They look on it as a living, grow- ing thing of great beauty and they watch over it passionately (Fraley, 1967). The Juriens forest meets the viewpoints of both the economist and the planner. Today, von Thunen would perhaps be known as a great planner since his theory of woodland near the city would correspond with urban planning theories as propounded by Sir Raymond Unwin (Creese, 196A), among others. Unwin advocates providing green areas for better living conditions within the urban environment. Another Swiss example is the well-known and admired Sihlwald, the town forest of Zurich. The first forest working plan was made for this forest in 1680-1697, and as early as 1A9l the boundaries of this historic forest were definitely demarcated (Illick, 1939, p. 278). Fisher (1960, p. 3A) states further: . . . all towns like Zurich are eager to keep their ownership. . . . But first of all, forests are considered as a most important recreation place for city dwellers and are therefore under a silvicultural management fitted to create park— like stands. Since such stand composition re- quires constant maintenance, the forests draw even more attention. In this connection it is noteworthy that forests of this type, not managed primarily for economic yield, nevertheless produce an annual net income of $15 to $20 per acre. It is generally true, however, that the income from such forests within the com- munities of the Swiss lowlands does not contribute more than about 10 percent to the total community budget. The small village of Bassins, in the Jura Vaudois region of Switzerland has about 2,600 acres of communal forest which is highly prized, much like the Sihlwald, although it does not contribute substantially to the economy (Mayor of Bassins, 1950). Ebner (19A0) notes two German villages as good examples of the importance of community forests. Both Weissenburg and Freudenstadt are cited as important com- munity forests. Another notable example is the Frankfurt City Forest in Germany. It is an 11,000-acre forest adja- cent to 600,000 people, and serves as many as A0,000 visi- tors on an active day. People ride, hike, cycle, use the park areas or the restaurants and swimming pools. Two- thirds of the forest is used for wood production, one- third for recreation activities and the entire area for water supply (Harper, 1965). This discussion has considered merely a forest on the urban fringe without regard to an accepted designation for it. Urban forest may well be the most appropriate term since such a forest is quite near to or at least greatly affected by urban populations. The Lockwood Conference (Waggoner and Ovington, 1962) would seemingly 10 prefer to call it a suburban forest. As Stephens (1962) noted at that conference "the suburban forest . . . is that part of our forest land which is man oriented. . . and a backdrop against which man carries out his daily activities." Europeans have written regarding this type of forest at times but usually refer to it as amenity forest or protection forest. It is quite interesting to observe that the British usually refer to amenity forests and in one case (Shaw, l96A) four forms of amenity are defined: (1) near per- spective, (2) distant perspective, (3) small arboreta or forest plots, and (A) picnic sites and forest vantage points. On the other hand, the French, German, and Russian writers usually refer to protective forests, often being much more specific regarding the health and betterment of society. Many writers have addressed themselves to the protection and welfare functions of the forest, discussing the role of forests in mitigating some of the evils of modern life such as pollution, crowds, noise, and traffic (Battig, 1961; Gathy, 1962; Eyer, 1962; and Nesterov, l96A). Trees, and more specifically, masses of trees have been termed green air conditioners and compared by function to our mechanical air conditioners. Such terms as 11 precipitation, narcosis, oxidation, transpiration, and re—odorization may apply to either system (Robinette, 1968). Ryle (1963), a Britisher, has written that "forests are for the health, wealth, and happiness of the human race. Too often the second purpose has been considered with the omission of the others." Pursuing this theme further, Sinden and Sinden (196A) in indicating that urban areas in England are in need of open spaces, say that we should evaluate the present situation, and in so doing, consider the "people profit" as a social value derived from forests. Aside from being urban or suburban, amenity or pro— tective forests, the forested areas near cities may also be included under the concept referred to as open space—- which is "that area within an urban region which is re— tained in or restored to a condition in which nature pre— dominates" (Strong, 1965). The report from which this statement is taken, while not forestry oriented, acknowl— edges the benefits to be derived from forested lands as open spaces. Among the benefits attributed to open space in general is the value of low density and open space for mental and physical health (Strong, 1965, p. 2). Edlin (1963) refers to open space in a more general way concerning types of amenity found in forests by referring to the senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, 12 and touch. He then adds a new sense which he calls the "sense of individual movement" or the freedom to wander. The urban forest can be composed of relatively small units and located close to centers of population. Several EurOpean cases of successful urban forestry have been cited. These forests produce protection and amenity values to society as well as the economic products nor— mally expected. This same situation should be feasible in the United States, too. The Outdoor Recreation Re— sources Review Commission Report (1962) has indicated in its recommendations a great need for recreational oppor- tunities near the metropolitan centers. The specific opportunity is not spelled out, but the tone of the report would imply more parks: parks of regional scope, well developed, and likely typified with trees. Urban forests with their protective and amenity values may well provide some of these satisfactions. With increased affluence also comes a trend toward rest and relaxation without much sacrifice of the conven— iences of home. Some persons seemingly prefer to make their outdoor vacation a "home-away-from—home," replete with showers and televisions, etc. A look at some state parks would indicate that this is the current value system of American outdoor vacationers. Nature for them is not so much a goal as a new setting for their home-away-from- home. 13 A report by Gregerson (1965) of camping practices in Michigan state parks is aptly summarized in this statement: "People not only don't seem to want to get away from it all-~they take it with them. Electric fry- ing pans, irons, television sets, and other electrical appliances are standard equipment with many campers." Etzkorn (1965) found a similar situation in California campgrounds. In his study, campers wanted as campground improvements such things as "ice machines, laundries, etc." These facts could undoubtedly be observed in parks in every state and might erroneously lead to the conclusion that this is what everyone wants——"open air mass recre- ation" (Gregerson, 1965). At the other end of the scale is the wilderness recreationist who may be satisfied with nothing less than complete isolation from all human influences. In l96A the national forests had 99 areas in wilderness cate- gories comprising 1A,6l7,A61 acres and used to the extent of 973,800 visits (U. S. Forest Service, 1965, p. 92). This is a use ratio of approximately one person per 15 reserved acres per year. Such wilderness use comprises less than 1 per cent of all national forest recreation visits. The above are two extremes of persons seeking out— door recreation: the mass—recreationist and the wilder— ness purist. Within the Forest Service may be seen a 1A tendency to provide various sorts of "campgrounds for many tastes" (Wagar, 1963). Camp-sites range from central campgrounds, somewhat like state parks, to small back— country camps, with several intermediates in development. This is an attempt to satisfy almost anyone desiring to camp. The rationale for this sort of varied opportunity provision is shown well by Wagar (1966) in Figure l which demonstrates how a greater proportion of users may be satisfied by not attempting to satisfy a single average, but instead by providing facilities along a continuum from simple to elaborate. In a similar vein, Gould (1961) has proposed developing a concept of "recreation complexes." It is essential that a satisfactory selection of outdoor recreation activities is made available to those who use recreation facilities. . . . A concept is needed that will visualize the task of planning recreation facilities as a whole and not just in pieces or fragments. . . . In short, variety is the spice of outdoor recreational activity——something to suit all tastes (Gould, 1961). The same reasoning is appropriate for day—use activities, assuming that some persons prefer simple facilities and others elaborate facilities. The well- equipped state parks are examples of the one extreme, but for the other end of the scale, it is difficult to find examples. Day—use parks are normally well developed and more park—like than forested. What of the persons who may want to get close to nature? These would be l5 elab. A simple some other elab. B (I) Lu .— 3 U 4 ‘L simple some , other elab. C simple some other CAMPERS Figure 1.-—(A) Some campers want simple facilities while others want more elaborate facilities. (B) If all facilities are aimed at the average desire, the wishes of most people will be missed by the amount shown in shading. (C) However, if just a few different opportunities are provided, the amount by which most people's desires are missed can be greatly reduced (adapted from Wagar, 1966). 16 persons who obviously regard nature as having a different significance than would Etzkorn's (1965) and Gregerson's (1965) campers. These persons would probably shy away from overdeveloped areas, preferring a simpler, more natural environment. It has been noted that forests may well have their place near population centers for economic as well as amenity values. A place has been shown in the system for day-use areas far less develOped than most presently are, i.e., forested areas near cities to be managed as forests and as "natural" recreation areas. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Recreationists Questions need to be raised about the recreational usefulness of the urban forest. Case studies are needed, and these can be guided by approaches used in the past few years by researchers who have studied users and their characteristics on at least two national forests and other public and private campgrounds. Perhaps the most readily available fact to deter— mine is the visitor's residence. Studies have normally ascertained origin in terms of county or state. Examples of this type are found in Milstein (1966), Johnson (1961), and King (1965). The concern of these studies has been a macro—model of origins and destinations of visitors. 17 Each study reviewed almost invariably concerns itself with the socio—economic characteristics and/or status of the visitors. Most have had major concern with these traits of the users per se. Titles such as "A look at private campground users" (McCurdy and Mischon, 1965), "Characteristics of family campers . ." (King, 1965), "Visitor characteristics and recreation activities" (Wagar, 1963), and others, are project reports on just this tOpic. Most are concerned with camping areas. An attempted ranking of socio—economic data, based on observations of other research, might look as follows: (1) Age (5) Occupation (2) Sex (6) Family Life Cycle (3) Income (7) Urban—Rural Residence (A) Education (8) Race Some of the selections and rankings may easily be debated, but for the current purpose the approach seems fairly reasonable. Basically, these data are to be used pri- marily as population parameters so that they may give added clues to other questions or hypotheses which may be asked. Age was considered by Palmer (1967) in determining that most hunters are between the ages of 25 and 5A. Other studies have also dealt to some extent with age. Sessoms (196A) indicates that type of recreation pursued 18 is related to age—~"the older one becomes, the more passive his pursuits." Sessom's work is a compilation of other studies. Sex may play a significant role. Palmer (1967) determined that 98 per cent of hunters are male. Burch (1965) also considered sex to a greater extent. He noted that in differentiating play types, there are some types which may be called man's play, woman's play, and joint ventures. Income and education have significance as policy determinants as well as parameters of the population. As King (1965) noted, "The socio-economic characteristics of these families indicate that they are probably above average in political awareness and activity." Burch and Wenger (1967) also considered income in discussing differ- ences between camping styles of Oregon campers. Some persons have speculated that hunters, for instance, are from lower income and education classes, whereas Palmer (1967) found them to be definitely middle class. Wagar's (1963) results show a wide range in these characteristics, but weighted a little more toward the upper classes than chance would dictate. Occupation has also been noted in several studies. Burdge, Sitterly, and So (1962) for example, used occu- pation as a guide to social status using the commonly employed and accepted North-Hiatt Occupational Scale l9 (Nosow, 1962). Differences in attitudes and beliefs were then correlated with this status. They found particular recreation activities to be associated with social classes. As one example, they found that hunters were from the lower classes as contrasted to Palmer (1967) above. Burch and Wenger (1967) utilized occu- pation in their comparisons of camping style. Occu- pation may be useful in considering time of visit or length of stay as well as purpose of visit. Clawson (1966) has considered this concept in connection with a discussion concerning what the make-up of leisure time will be and its consequences. Family life cycle is a concept not found as often. Sessoms (l96A) noted in a literature review, that several studies demonstrate that family recreation patterns are associated with family stage. In a 1965 study McCurdy and Mischon noted that 55 per cent of campground users consisted of a single family. Also noted was the fact that most camping families consist of parents 25-AA years old and at least one child younger than twelve. Burch and Wenger (1967) utilized this concept by con- sidering the number of children per family as the family stage. The next factor to consider is with rural-urban residence. This may well be included with origin infor— mation already mentioned. Several persons have considered 20 place of residence, to some extent, in their studies (Palmer, 1967; Sessoms, l96A; and Burdge gt_al., 1962). Burch and Wenger (1967) also considered size of present home community, home community before age eighteen, and any shift of home community from childhood to present. One major problem in such a delineation is definition of rural, suburban, and urban. There is sufficient con- fusion in the literature to indicate that place of resi— dence may not yield clear answers. Palmer (1967) defined urban as any city, town, or village, and rural as any place outside of such a community. He could not compare his estimates with U. S. Census Bureau data, however, since the Census Bureau includes only locations with 2,500 persons or more as urbanized. Nevertheless, deter— mining which portion of the pOpulation is most likely to participate in various recreational activities may have sound implications for forest management and advertising for recreational areas. Cushwa et_al. (1965), for example, were able to utilize such information in making attendance predictions. Concerning race, Palmer (1967) found that non-white hunters have more difficulty locating a place to hunt than whites. This type of information is not often indicated in recreation research. As a brief resume of demographic considerations, Ferriss (1963) noted: 21 In identifying predictors of recreation be— havior, the authors,Mue11er and Gurin (1962) made a multivariate analysis of background factors associated with participation in outdoor activity. They found sex, age, income, occupation, family cycle, size of place of residence, race, region, and education, significantly associated with level of participation in outdoor recreation activity, even when each of the other factors was held con— stant (Ferriss, 1962). Katz and Lazarsfeld (196A) introduced an interesting concept in Personal Influence which concerns determining how important person-to—person communications are in decision—making for the consumption process. They were interested in discovering if advertising or word—of—mouth was most effective. It amounts to asking, "How did you hear of product Y?” Also, "Did you tell anyone else about product Y?" ' Beardsley and Duncan (1965) concerned themselves with attitude of recreationists to a state park visitor fee. McCurdy and Miller (1968) inquired as to visitor awareness of a fee, how visitors learned of the fee, their understanding of the fee, and their acceptance of it. Satisfaction is a more difficult criterion to deter- mine. Reid, Hall, and Barlowe (1962) conducted a study dealing with the problems of user satisfactions. Questions were asked regarding specific facilities. Another approach might be an open—end question. One study approached user satisfaction by utilizing photographs to allow users to choose which facility would be their choice under price 22 constraints at various levels (Shafer, l96A). This might also serve as a sensitivity model in decision-making. Chappelle (1968) indicated a problem of trying to obtain photographs depicting specific conditions in a satis— factory manner. Wagar (l96A), in dealing with uses of wildlands and satisfactions, developed conceptual graphs in which he plotted user satisfaction against numbers of other persons present for various activities. For most needs which commonly motivate outdoor recreation, the quality of satisfaction tends to lessen as the number of participants increases. The graphs demonstrating this are shown in Figure 2. No data were presented to support these graphs. Burch (1965) classified his observations of outdoor recreation activities as types of play and categorized them as symbolic labor, expressive play, subsistence play, unstructured play, structured play, and sociability. This seems to be another dimension for measuring motivations and values received from outdoor experiences. What people really do when "on site" may be quite different from what they say they do. Burch (l96A) discusses observation as a research tool. The results he obtained in the 1965 article show the efficacy of this tool, but trained ob— servers are required for valid results. Observation is also the method used by Whyte (1965) in Street Corner Society and by many other sociologists. Karnig (1966) 23 A EXERCISE B HEALTHFUL C ESTEEM AND ENVIRONMENT PRESTIGE D ESTHET IC E UNDERSTANDING F FREEDOM ENJOYME NT CHOICE AND EARLY ‘ s\ TRADITIONS ”' k G H CHANGE l SOLITUDE SELF -REL IANCE \ 0£L4£./7'Y J K NEW L COOPERATIVE COMPANIONSHIP COMPANIONSHIP ENDEAVOR , NUMBER .OF PEOPLE Figure 2.—-Effects of crowding on the quality which results from satisfaction of the needs that commonly moti- vate outdoor recreation. On the horizontal axes, number of people increases to the right. On the vertical axes, quality increases with height (adapted from Wagar, l96A). 2A classified visitors by activity while on the Black Rock Forest. King (1966) classified activities in determining the time budget of campers on the Huron-Manistee National Forest. Cushwa g£_a1. (1965) used activities in their prediction method for the George Washington National Forest. CHAPTER III THE STUDY AREA This study of the recreational use of the Kellogg Forest is an interesting case illustrating the use of an urban forest. Kellogg Forest is a man-made, small forest located between two urban centers, readily accessible, and made available to the general public. The recreational use of the Forest which has developed over the years is an interesting subject of study in itself; but, more im- portantly, it suggests a unique role in meeting recre— ational needs that urban forests might serve in many urban areas. Kellogg Forest Kellogg Forest is a 600—acre intensively developed research forest in Sections 21 and 22 of Ross Township, TlN, R9W, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. Ross is the north— easternmost township of Kalamazoo County. Kalamazoo and Calhoun Counties are in the second tier of counties north of the Indiana border in southwestern Michigan. Figure 3 is a location map of the Kellogg Forest area. In 1932, W. K. Kellogg donated to Michigan State University an initial 280 acres of mostly abandoned farm 25 26 Grand Rapids \ 25 miles Yankee —“——] Springs ecreatior Allegan Area . State ans1ng jiiijt 10 mil- 89 8 Gull Lake Kellogg Bird Sanctuary ellogg Cl . “3 Forest / [I Augusta _ ,' 1-9. .96 KaI%mazoo ~96 Figure 3.——Location of Kellogg Forest and other important areas within designated distances of the Forest. 27 land. Subsequent gifts, purchases and exchanges in- creased the area to its present 600 acres. The original donor expressed the desire that the land be used to demonstrate reforestation of poorly managed land by proper conservation practices. Tree plantations were begun immediately, although research work has guided the plantings more than the idea of demonstrations. By 1938 though, nearly 200 acres of Open land had been planted. Many of the persons interviewed remember the Kellogg Forest of those early days. The topography of the forested land is variable, ranging from wet marsh in the creek valley to well drained upland hillsides. This provides a physical variety pleas- ing to visitors. In l9AO, a Multiple Use Program was initiated to better demonstrate the more complete use of forest lands. A gravel road was built, a picnic area begun, trail-type signs erected, and the forest opened to the public. Use by the public has increased steadily. Some forest re— search was begun as early as 1932, but not until 19A7 was major emphasis placed on this aspect. Between 19A7 and 1957, several long-term projects were established, ranging from studies of soils, thinning and pruning, entomology, plant pathology, and silviculture, to Christmas tree shearing, and herbicide treatments. In the same period several research projects were undertaken in 28 connection with trout production and wildlife management. Augusta Creek, coursing through the forest, has been im— proved by more than 100 improvement structures and appro- priate plantings along the stream. Most research, how— ever, has been related primarily to forest production practices. In 1958, an ambitious forest genetic improve— ment program was begun and continues today, leaving little of the open land still unplanted. Since 19A1, hunting and fishing have been permitted on a sign-in, sign-out basis. Consequently, numbers of sportsmen and their take can be tabulated quite accurately. Until 1960, all the hunting was for small game, but in 1960, the Michigan Conservation Department authorized deer hunting in the area and so Kellogg Forest was opened to deer hunting. Except for 70 acres of woodland included with the original grant to Michigan State University, Kellogg Forest is a man—made forest (Figure A). This fact in itself is interesting, and some of its implications will be discussed later. The forest is divided into management units designated as compartments. The various compartments are described in the Visitor's Guide to Kellogg Forest (Appendix A). Figure 5 is a map of Kellogg Forest. The picnic area is contained primarily in Com- partment 17, but also in portions of 8 and 12 (Figure 6). The major portion of the forest is located on the east 29 Figure A.——Aspects of a man—made forest. (A) Kellogg Forest as it appeared around 1935, (B) Same scene as "A" in 1968, (C) Kellogg Forest Headquarters as seen at entrance, (D) Visitors enjoying a man-made forest. 30 W. K. KELLOGG FOREST AUGUSTA MICHIGAN KALAMAZOO COUNTY ROSS TWR- TIS.R9W ‘00..--O-.--. , ...------- 23 l n n l r v c r I l. TE. CREEK LEGEND —- COMPARTMENT LINES — ROADS I BUILDINGS ----- TRAILS 400 800 IZOO l600 FEET SCALE — Figure 5.-—Map of W. K. Kellogg Forest. 31 3:»: .... Figure 6.-—Scenes in picnic area of Kellogg Forest. 32 side of Forty—Second Street. This is the side which also includes Augusta Creek, the picnic area, and the forest road (Figure 7). The forest road traverses the forest for about three miles, winding through the various compartments illustrating many types and practices. Many rustic signs provide information about the research work in progress (Figure 8). At the highest point, McCrary Memorial shelter is located; a distance view can be obtained from this point (Figure 9). AS mentioned earlier, the 1.8 miles of Augusta Creek in the Forest have been improved for trout fishing. Each year, the Michigan Conservation Department stocked legal size or "keeper" trout in the Creek, but discontinued this practice a few years ago. More recently, only finger- lings have been planted. The picnic area strung out along the creek, has fourteen tables and accompanying charcoal grills. In the late 1950's the University administration made a decision to permit the facilities to deteriorate in hopes that people would stop using them. Some of the tables and benches are now approaching the point of being unusable. However, people still use all the facilities (Figure 10). According to Walter Lemmien, the Resident Forester, the man—hour recreation management requirements for the Forest in 1967 were as indicated in Table l. The total of 872 hours is about 12 per cent of the man-hours re- quired for management of Kellogg Forest. 33 Figure 7.--Scenes along Augusta Creek and road in Kellogg Forest. (A) A view of Augusta Creek, (B) Road winding through hardwood stand in Compartment 22, (C) Trail entrance to road in Compartment 22——such entrances often serve as starting points for hikes, (D) Road through pines in Compartment 7. W K KELLOGG 'FORESI" MICHIGAN STATE UN ERS FORESTRY W .v . z 5 NATURAL AREA ms woomor Is DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVAHON or 3A . . . J ‘ q lg. HARDW 00 MANAGEMENT RESEW ' RMlNE szsr cuTYINe Him SOUTHERN MICHIGAN HARDWOODS [STAB L959 I FORESTRY DEPARTMENT MICHIGAN STIQQE UNIVERSITY L‘, _ g , . ~ ’1 , s A COMPARTMENT 9 PLANTED WITH RED PINE All!) WHITE HAY I936. PINE SEEDINGS IN EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS WERE THINNIID IN I96I AND AGAIN IN I967. Figure 8.--Examples of rustic signs seen in Kellogg Forest. 35 . a». Yh‘ TR r (IIIIA‘, "' ‘I H. Al I Figure 9.-—(A) McCrary Memorial, (B) View from McCrary Memorial. Figure lO.--Examples of picnic facilities at Kellogg Forest. 36 TABLE 1.——Annua1 man—hour requirements of various recreation-providing activities—-Kellogg Forest, 1967. Activity Man-hours Road and trail maintenance 168 Public relationsa 67 Overtime supervisionb 375 Signs 109 Picnic area maintenance 98 Fish and wildlife __5_§_ 872 aPrimarily conducting tours. Primarily weekends. 37 Visitor Source Area In order to understand the recreational services provided by Kellogg Forest, it is necessary to consider first the characteristics of the "Visitor—shed" or region from which the bulk of visitors come. According to the 1960 Bureau of Census data, a population of about 65,000 is within ten miles of Kellogg Forest. Within the 11—25 mile zone, the population is approximately 350,000 (Table 2). Calhoun and Kalamazoo Counties are seemingly quite near to an "average" county in Michigan, and perhaps even to the United States average. The United States In— formation Service selected Kalamazoo as the typical Ameri- can city twice between 1956 and 1961. A story has even been attributed to movie producer, Sam Goldwyn, concerning a time when he was told that his latest picture was a flop in New York. He replied, "I don't care what it does in New York. How did it go in Kalamazoo?” (Kalamazoo Gazette, 1961, p. 5). With these few facts in mind, it appears that the population characteristics of the counties from which users come are ”average” pOpulations. Battle Creek, the major source of visitors to Kellogg Forest, has a population of AA,169. It is the breakfast food center of the nation. The Kellogg Company, Post Cereals Division of General Foods Corporation, National Biscuit Company, and the Ralston Purina Company, are some 38 TABLE 2.—-Population by county within specified dis- tances of Kellogg Forest,a 1967. Governmental Unit Population Within 10 miles Barry County 5,02A Kalamazoo County 21,232 Calhoun County 39,181 Total 65,A37 Within 25 miles Barry County 31,738 Kalamazoo County 169,712 Calhoun County 138,858 Allegan County 19,276 Total 359,58A aSource: United States Bureau of Census, 1962. 39 of the best-known firms located in Battle Creek. Other manufacturers are Eaton Manufacturing Company, Oliver Farm Equipment Company, Michigan Carton Company, Clark Equipment, and many other smaller firms. Battle Creek is the home of Kellogg Community College. It is also the home of the internationally recognized W. K. Kellogg Foundation as well as the Battle Creek Sanitarium which has been in continuous operation for 99 years. The private art collection of the late C. W. Post may be seen daily at the Postum Club House near the Post Products plant. There are several major parks in the Battle Creek park system, John W. Bailey Park is the scene of annual national amateur baseball tournaments. Irvin Park is a beautifully landscaped area with rock gardens, winding drives, lagoons, and picnic grounds. Binder Park, four miles southeast of the city, offers golf, camping, pic- nicking, toboganning, and skiing. Willard Park at Goguac Lake, has an excellent beach, picnic area, playground and bathhouse facilities. Leila Arboretum, a 205-acre tract of rare plantings, also contains the Kingman Memorial Museum of Natural History which houses many interesting and rare exhibits. Kalamazoo is a city of 82,089. It is one of the important paper manufacturing centers of the country, with an annual production of more than three million tons. A0 It is prominent in the manufacture of drugs—-Upjohn Pharmaceutical Corporation is located here. Unlike many other cities, it is not dominated by durable goods manu- facturing. Because of this diversification, it has more economic stability than most cities. Kalamazoo College and Western Michigan University are both in Kalamazoo, and Nazareth College is in nearby Nazareth. An Art Center features a collection of twentieth century American art. A Public Museum has exhibits of natural and local history featuring Pioneer and Egyptian rooms. Many public parks and several golf courses provide a source of relaxation and recreation. The Milham Park Zoo is a popular attraction. Most like Kellogg Forest is the Kalamazoo Nature Center, a A00—acre preserve featuring area plant history and emphasizing nature study through nature trails and exhibits. SubtrOpical plants similar to those that once thrived in Michigan grow in a controlled climate Sun-Rain Room, which is complete with 100 tons of boulders. An interpretive center, nature trails, and wild and domestic animal displays are open most of the year. A little to the north, and about mid-way between Battle Creek and Kalamazoo is Kellogg Forest. The rural country surrounding the area is devoted to general farming, raising of celery, pansies, peppermint, and orchard fruit Culture. Al Since the two counties, Kalamazoo and Calhoun, were glaciated and have typical morainic topography, many hills, kettle-lakes, and bogs or marshes may be found interspersed with rolling farmland. About four miles to the northwest of Kellogg Forest is Gull Lake, called by some the "Geneva of Michigan," which serves as a fishing and boating resort. There are two public township parks on the lake providing picnic areas, beaches, and boat launches. Gull Lake was early de— veloped as a hotel resort with day-long steamer trips to the end of the lake and back, a lO—mile round trip. The Kellogg Biological Station of Michigan State University fronts on Gull Lake. Today, the shoreline of Gull Lake is mostly residential with some estate—type holdings remaining from earlier developments. To the east of Gull Lake, about one—fourth mile and about three and one—half miles from Kellogg Forest is Wintergreen Lake where the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary is located. The Sanctuary is primarily a bird refuge, re— search area, and outdoor teaching laboratory which has a yearly attendance of about 200,000 people. There are many lakes and streams in the area with many of the smaller streams boasting fine trout fishing. The Kalamazoo River is also an important stream. It is sufficiently polluted to exclude trout, though many other fish species tolerate it. The Yankee Springs Recreation Area of more than A,OOO A2 acres is about 17 miles north of Kellogg Forest. It affords Opportunity to participate in almost any form of outdoor recreation from swimming to hunting. Fort Custer Recreation Area is primarily a public hunting site on land released from the Fort Custer Military Reservation. A state park is proposed on this site eventually, but at present, it is an undevelOped area. Allegan State Forest is another sizable area affording a diversity of the more undeveloped outdoor recreation activities. It is about the same distance as Yankee Springs, but has less developed facilities as attractions. There are two township parks on the north shore of Gull Lake which afford swimming and picnicking primarily, plus limited camping and limited boat—launching facilities. Many other small city parks are available in the surrounding cities as well as roadside parks and public fishing sites provided by the State. The above is an indication of alternate facilities available in the general area of Kellogg Forest. CHAPTER IV METHODS AND PROCEDURES Sampling During the summer of 1967, 2A5 persons (heads of parties) were personally interviewed while on the Kellogg Forest. Two were not usable in some calculations. The sample allocation was an early problem to be resolved. The frame was to be the people who visit Kellogg Forest. Visitors were selected at random while on the Forest. The Sampling was a stratified sample among the various user groups at the Forest for recreational activity. The initial problem was that very little was known about this pOpulation, either by totals or by characteris- tics. The only current counts were for fishermen and hunters from the previous year. Numbers of other users were recorded only in 1955 (Lemmien and Geis), twelve years earlier when other users were recorded as either picnickers or as "visitors." It was believed that the picnicker group would still hold, but that "visitors" might well include hikers and other miscellaneous groups. A3 AA Some major assumptions were made. Hunters and fishermen totals would be used as known for 1966. For others, the 1955 data would be used as a basis for the sample but divided equally between motorists and hikers, a distinction not made in 1955. To allow for the possi— bility, a miscellaneous group was included. With these admittedly gross figures the problem then was to arrive at an acceptable allocation of 200 interviews among the user groups. In view of time and funds available, 200 was deemed an adequate sample size. The initial allo- cation was based on rather old data. It was observed that some changes appeared necessary for precision. As time permitted, improvements were made in the sampling so that a total of 2A5 interviews was obtained. The actual sampling was done on a quota basis according to the original scheme with some adjustments being made as the original estimates were discovered to be out of proportion. Since the hunting classes called for such low samples, the number of interviews was sub— stantially increased to gain precision in the data. Estimation of Attendance For a more accurate measure of actual attendance at Kellogg Forest for the year, the prime device was use of three highway traffic counters obtained from the Michigan State University Highway Traffic Center. The counters were set to count cars entering the Forest, A5 those entering the picnic area, and those proceeding on the forest road. Hourly periods were selected at random in which counters were checked for accuracy and counts were made of the number of persons in each passing car. At random periods of an hour, all cars leaving the area were stopped briefly to determine activity while in the Forest and the length of stay. This sample provided the breakdown of total attendance participating in the various activities. Use of the counters could only be arranged for the period from June 26 through December 31. Estimates of use for the January—June period were made from records kept by the Resident Forester and systematic counts made by the forest crew at random, hour—long periods beginning May 7. Early year use was deliberately estimated on the low side to avoid biasing attendance in a positive direction. Since hunters and fishermen visit on a permit basis dependent on their cooperation in signing the register, an accurate count could be made of these groups so that no estimate was necessary except to determine how many actually drove across one of the traffic counters. The Interviews Interviews were first attempted on site, particularly for the picnickers. It was not difficult to gain rapport with this group, but at the site there was no sense of uI’gency and conversation would wander and last for an hour on many occasions. A6 The questionnaire used was three pages in length (Appendix B). Several points were quite specific, so that it was necessary to follow the questionnaire directly rather than attempt to obtain needed information without reference to the questionnaire. At no time did the writer get the feeling that this procedure interfered with the interview. Most people were more than willing to COOperate. When names and addresses were requested at the end of interviews, all COOperated, and some even offered telephone numbers. The questionnaire was designed to record the makeup of the party by sex, age, activity, value of the trip, time spent, frequency, distance traveled, where knowledge of Forest was obtained, whether it was part of another trip, and general socio-economic factors of the party head. Questionnaires were hand-tabulated and summarized by user groups. Numbers and percentages were calculated for purposes of comparisons. The general statistical analysis and its inter- pretation included the chi—square statistic which tested whether or not the observed departures of frequencies between independent sample groups were significantly different from those expected frequencies exactly proportionate to the total number in the studied cate- gories and sample groups. Dixon and Massey (1957, p. 225) A7 refer to this analysis as a contingency table. In this study, a difference is usually considered significant or real if it has a departure from the expected values as large or larger than could occur by chance not more than 1 per cent of the time (0.1 significance level). Signifi- cance level will normally be indicated when reference is made to the statistics. If a contingency table is said to be significant, it implies that there is some signifi- cant effect Of dependence in the statistics. This method of analysis avoids most errors of varying sample size that might be caused by using per- centages that are easily calculated. For several con- tingency tables not all classifications could be utilized in the test owing to limited expected frequencies. Dixon and Massey (1957, p. 225) have said in this regard that the chi-square statistic will be valid if "two" is the minimum expected frequency or if not more than 20 per cent of the cells have an expected frequency of less than "five." When there were inadequate expected frequencies based on this standard, as indicated above, the analysis was performed on the classes with sufficient frequencies. CHAPTER V USER GROUPS AT KELLOGG FOREST Description of Groups and Activities The major user groups at Kellogg Forest-—picnickers, motorists, hikers, fishermen, hunters, and miscellaneous-— and their activities are described in capsule form below. Picnickers AS implied by the category, the major activity or reason for being at Kellogg Forest is to picnic. This group is likely to participate in more activities than other groups. They are likely, in addition to picnicking, to go for a short hike and drive along the road which tours the Forest. Their hike is likely to be across the creek, up a hill, and to the overlook and back. Adults are likely to stay at the picnic area while the children ”explore." Motorists This group tends to be an older group touring by auto and stOpping off at the Forest to drive through, perhaps stopping occasionally--especially at the McCrary Memorial. Many merely drive through rapidly without stopping, and then leave. There speed is such that one A8 A9, wonders what they can gain. Yet still others stOp and walk around, absorbing the environment much more. The average period spent at Kellogg is quite short compared with other groups. Hikers This classification is quite seasonal, visiting the forest primarily in the fall after the hot, muggy, insect—filled days have passed. They drive along the road until they find a suitable parking place (usually a trail entrance) and then begin hiking. Many just wander the woods trails, and many were observed staying on the road, getting dusty from the passing cars. Their use of the woods was too dispersed to try to follow, so little can be said of this phase. Many were families with parents showing and teaching the children about the out— doors. Many were collecting leaves for high school biology classes and stayed along the road where many trees have identifying labels. This was one of the younger visiting groups. Fishermen Fishing is not a large use relatively, but the participants tend to be of higher socio—economic status than others. It is a select group because they are trout fishermen. They would appear to be the aristocracy of the fishing breed. There are three sign-out sheets 50 located strategically along the creek. Most cooperate in signing and recording their catches. Their hours are primarily early morning and late evening, as well as early season. Hunters This class is composed of both deer and small game hunters. Their use is restricted by state hunting regu- lations. Largest numbers attend during the early part of the respective seasons. The two subgroups are the two youngest groups to Visit Kellogg Forest-—many stu— dents are active in this sport. Miscellaneous This class is a catch-all of varied users. Gener— alizations for the whole group do not mean much due to the variety of uses and small sample size. Activities in— clude photography, leaf collecting, mushroom collecting, insect collecting, reading, and bird watching. Leaf and cone collecting are likely the chief activities in the miscellaneous group. Sample Allocation The actual sample was selected from the above user groups based on what background information was available at the time. The initial allocation is shown in Table 3. As has been noted in Chapter IV, the need for reallocation 51 .oagamxo gom HHSpom Hmzpom I Umpmooaam . I mmm mm l. OON N mm U "mm UmdeEoo mm: wmmao Logan on» on COprooafim .oocmflnm> HHHEOQAQ OHnflwmog Esefixme on weflonooom Umpmooaa mo mHmQOp SaxoozII.Hfl onzmflm 55 Lonsoooo LonEo>oz EOQOpoo RODEOonm umdws< hand mach hm: Hfipg< .Lmz .pom.cmh BITL ZEI CcZI ZII 8.6T. EBII ZII ZZI ZII SQIWLOEOJOEOJOBSOOIUOOqALIWLOEO/OESOZSOOIUL0C. .1 .AI 0 . VPIIAAIIAI++0.10 w+aol «atfioaflfiduou “ vI-(IthTalIJ. ..oom a a \ e m 8 LI J 3 00: H d m w. 1 U. 000 I .5 u u S 8 S 8 com a G a e a e . A a o a u u coca H S E n w 0 w. w 1.... ...a l - S T. I U OONP U Q S O s m... m. l e e U. 00.: e o s H o m m I 1 O Aoowa O I d d u e a .. w s S u :ooma e 3 by s o u 0 d e u S 56 Late in April the trout fishing season opens. After the winter at home, fishermen are anxious to "wet a line." The Forest is opened but one night during the year and this is the night before trout season opens. The fishermen will then be able to start as early as possible in the morning. This is probably the biggest single day for fishing during the whole season. The fishing cycle is one in which there is a great concen— tration during the first week or two of the season followed by a gradual reduction in numbers. The first two weeks account for about 50 per cent of fishing use with 13 per cent in the next three, so that the first thirty-three days or 18 per cent of the 185—day season account for 63 per cent of the fishing pressure. As the weather becomes consistently more enjoyable, the weekends begin to receive more visitor use. After the winter, many persons are anxious to take advantage of good weather to get outside again. A few mushroom hunters visit the Forest early. PeOple begin to drive through as soon as spring begins in the Forest. Picnicking then becomes prominent with some rather heavy use during the warm days, eSpecially weekends, of spring. Again, there appears to be a concentration early in the season with a gradual lessening as the summer progresses. This is not nearly as pronounced as the fishing cycle. 57 The summer period receives rather constant, con- sistent use from picnickers and motorists. Hikers may visit the Forest in the spring, but usually do not continue long into the summer because the mosquitoes and deer flies make it uncomfortable along with heat and humidity. As the fall approaches, insects decline and temperatures become cooler, and the hikers again appear. They are concentrated shortly after schools reopen for fall. Many schools in the area require leaf collections for science or biology classes and Kellogg Forest is a good place to collect them. Many people hike as well as drive in search of leaves for their collections. Parents may be seen climbing precariously to collect a leaf from a "rare" tree while the child sits in the car waiting. After this initial assault, hiking and driving begin to decline except for days featuring beautiful weather. The busiest week of the year followed an all—week rain that ended with beautiful clear fall days for Saturday and Sunday. It was as if it were the last chance to get out for the winter or just a chance to get out after being "cooped up all week." Several persons may be found collecting pine cones beginning in September and continuing until late November. The hunters are the prominent group at the end of the year. They behave much like the fishermen by con- centrating on the first few days and then tapering off as the season moves on. There are two high points 58 corresponding to the opening of small game and deer seasons. The small game season continues through February, but few hunters participate during this period. In addition to the yearly cycles of visitation to the Forest, pronounced weekly cycles of visits are also evident. Table 6 depicts the usage for weekdays, Satur— days, and Sundays. It may be seen from Table 6 that A0 to 50 per cent of visitor use is on Sunday; 16 to 23 per cent on Satur— days, and 30 to AA per cent during the week. The most notable change during the season is the drop from AA per cent to 30 per cent on weekdays from pre— to post— Labor Day--the dividing date between vacation and school attendance. There is some cyclical nature to the daily use also. Weekdays have very little use until noon when a few per- sons arrive for picnics. Then there is a lull until 5 or 6 p.m. when more persons come to picnic and drive through until closing time at dark. The weekend use is somewhat different in that people arrive a little earlier and con- tinue on until dark with more coming at about 5 to 6 p.m. Fishermen pursue their sport very early and very late in the day, with few during mid—day. Hunters also concentrate their use early in the day, but not as early as the fishermen. 59 m: mmm.m om HSH.H em mom.m somooo Haze p: mom mm mam am can Hm sooEooom op Hm soooooo A: Hes mm mwm am ms: om soooooo oo m soooooo 0: mma.fl SH em: a: omm.a son sooeq oo em osse eeoo sod moama> osoo sod mesma> osoo sod moama> ooasoa mzmecsm mszASDmm mmmpxooz .mmma Apmomom mwoaaox pm mwcflmmopo poucsoo Ame he poogoefl>o mm ooQMUQoupm AOpAmfl> mo QAOppmm maxoozlr.o mqm OOHOAOQ mo memomII.wH mqm $10,000 Total Observed Expecteda Observed Expecteda Kellogg Forest Visitors 1A7 203 98 A2 2A5 Note: Chi-square = 90.11, 1 degree of freedom, significance level-—.005. aAs expected from Calhoun-Kalamazoo County statistics from United States Census Bureau, 1962, Table 86. 87 , In a a... 3 HH . :: mg 2 atom: H2. MH ON O O: HN msoozmHHoomHz : mH : om SN .AoEOO HHmEmv whopssm O : NH N: em Ahoomv weepcsm mH ON m mm m cospoanm :H NH O m: NH whome u ON :H H: NH mpmHhOpoz HH HN NH Om mH mEONOHQOHm Adopw pom: mo pqoo pom L. N; F: ...: in; IN ,1. -\ OOOSOOAO ONOHHOO Ooocm>O< ONOHHOO AOHQSO mmecooom HLOEHLN mQSOAO pom: .NOOH .mHo>OH HOQOHpmoswo pcopogmHO mQHQHmppm mgsopm how: mOOHLm> No mOHpAmQ mo mOmon mo mommpcoopomII.HN mqm N N HHnoH NH m N m N memom No mwcmno N m m m N m z N op5pwc modem N N N NH NHIHH N N N NHHENN esz msHp ecmam m min m HH m n n : mozopo Eopm Noam wow 3 N N a H a N a mNHHaHHs m>gmmpo N m a NIHIN N N N N NNHQ Op magmas empeHHnO m>HN N N N N H N N N xNHmm H H H N N H H H ecNHeooz m>nmmpo HV TN H98 HG m& H N d S_L no? nncm flue 8T? I O I. SHL nus umwpc u.e uns H. n+ 0 J 80 «+9.... 1..“ U. a O u S 08 G ..L 8 8 J J I. n_L J J Tu s t. o QOHpomgmemm S _ S S _ S X w 3 8 S J S .mdsopw moms Nb mQOHpomgmewm on oosomppm mosz> xmoQH mo xzwmll.mm mqm. 930 ' Fifi g) U > GE; User Group 0:, H Q ,4 of, N Or! 0) (l) 0H E 3 (1) £43 m -H E EC) S ()0 6:» Q m ()2 p m< mm: m m OM 0 Per cent of user group Picnickers 8 11 3A 28 8 ll Motorists 7 29 33 15 9 7 Hikers 10 1A A3 23 6 A Fishermen 10 0 65 15 10 0 Hunters (Deer) 0 A A6 17 29 A Hunters (Small Game) A 15 A6 19 0 15 Miscellaneous 0 7 20 A0 27 7 All users 6 15 A0 22 10 7 123 Visitors' Recommendations of Kellogg Forest to Others Table 39 presents the responses to the question: "How often do you recommend Kellogg Forest to other per— sons?" Fifty—two per cent of those responding claim to have recommended the Forest to six or more persons, and another 32 per cent recommended it to between two to five persons. There are no significant differences among user groups in this respect. The response implies strong visitor satisfaction with the Forest. Visitors are sufficiently impressed with the Forest to tell other people about it. In fact, only 16 per cent did not indicate telling more than one other person about the Forest, and in this way, they may be indicating some dissatisfaction; but this is not neces— sarily true. The total number interviewed has been re- duced for this question by fifty—three persons, the number of those visiting the Forest for the first time. Of this number, forty-eight indicated that they would be return— ing. The remainder were mostly from long distances that would preclude the likelihood of returning and thus cannot be said to lack interest in returning. Number of Visits to Kellogg Forest As another gauge of the satisfaction of visitors, they were asked how many times they visited Kellogg Forest per year. Owing to the vagaries of human memory, the results serve only as a relative measure. 12A TABLE 39.—-Responses of interviewees indicating number of persons to whom Kellogg Forest was recommended, 1967. Number of Other Persons Recommended User Group 0 1 2—5 6-10 11+ Total Per cent of user group Picnickers 5 8 29 29 29.‘ 100 Motorists 16 0 3O 21 33 100 Hikers 9 7 33 28 23 100 Fishermen 20 0 30 A0 10 100 Hunters (Deer) 5 0 A5 35 15 100 Hunters (Small Game) 10 20 35 20 15 100 Miscellaneous 0 10 20 10 60 100 All users 10 6 32 27 25 100 125 Frequency of use is distributed quite well as indicated by column totals in Table A0. The most frequent occurrence is in the two to three times per year class. However, all groups are well represented. Even the smallest, the greater than ten visits per year group, represents 13 per cent of the respondents. Chi-square analysis shows a significant difference at the .01 probability level (Appendix Table C-ll). Pic— nickers appear in the three larger classes less frequently than anticipated; motorists appear in the 0-1 class more frequently than expected; and hunters appear in the 0—1 class less often than expected and more often than ex— pected in the greater than 10 class. Open-End Responses-by Visitors A meaningful impression of the users' opinions re- garding Kellogg Forest is obtained from a review of their answers to open-end questions. It would be impractical to categorize such replies in great detail or to enumerate each one. Instead, they are grouped into appropriate related groupings and presented below. No indication of frequencies is attempted; the intent is to appreciate more fully the diverse motivation and attitudes of the visitors. 126 TABLE A0.—-Frequency of visits to Kellogg Forest each year, 1967. Number of Annual Visits User Group 0-1 2-3 A-5 6-10 10 Total Per cent of user group a a 8. Picnickers 2A 27 35 ll 3 100 Motorists 27a 36 11 16 10 100 Hikers 19 28 19 23 11 100 Fishermen 10 l5 15 35 25 100 Hunters (Deer) 0a 19 29 33 19a 100 Hunters (Small Game) 5a 30 10 25 30a 100 Miscellaneous 10 50 20 10 10 100 All users 17 29 2O 21 13 100 aCell contributes more than 2.0 to chi-square. 127 Nature more natural and woodsy--plain nature—-far more natural than others like it rustic don't improve—-1ike the way it is will like fall colors not commercialized--not built up Binder Park overly landscaped one of few places to get back to nature——unspoiled pines great—-liked walk in pines no other place as nice-—not many places like this left—- not enough like this brings guests to get into some "back country" likes Forest even though from Ontario beautiful scenery--only scenic area of Battle Creek—- one of most scenic spots in area came to see sunset from Memorial——lookout most impressive—— View to learn some trees from labels like bringing North country to the South--much like North woods——reminds of Canada fresh air Quiet and Peaceful quiet and peaceful--relaxing—-not rowdy real pleasant-—refreshing therapy for wife——therapy for city life Not Crowded secluded here-—privacy less crowded-—expect no crowds——State parks too crowded nice to get into woods away from crowds (actually one of busiest days) any more development would over—crowd--don't want crowds to spoil people who now come love it and don't litter Adequacy very adequate-~well planned——large area too nice a place to criticize-—like a lot complained of rough road nicer than Cook County Preserves—-best part of whole Biological Station better here than Yankee Springs or Detroit Metro Parks some deer would add to thrill 128 preferred picnic site unless want to swim prefer over other places around nicest place around to hike-—trai1s not too s0phisticated happy that place is clean and well-tended Children children like to walk here—-kids love it here chance to teach children about outdoors brought granddaughter to show woods good place to let kids unwind get son in field for a while (hunter) Negroes happy no Negores here (only two) colored at other park Guests beautiful place to show off--a place to bring guests and be proud of a must when friends from Detroit visit-—brought visitor from England to show nieces from Texas everyone they have brought likes it Charges no charge here—~no fee fee would take away from natural feeling here not back to Sanctuary since fee charged Access most areas posted——easy access here takes so much to get permission on private areas nearby--can come after supper——can make for noon picnics Wilderness get wilderness feeling here a wilderness 129 Variety great variety on such a small area, of trees, of mush- rooms always something different——constant change of scene—- change of scenery like to see woods of different types rain makes so different Education came to look at trees--marked nicely Kalamazoo schools recommend for leaf collecting——good for leaf collecting learn more here than at Bird Sanctuary Fishing easier for fly fishing here small fish though—-not as good as formerly some pretty good fish one of better fishing spots in area—-nicest place around to fish most streams featureless, but this one improved nicely Hunting close and often good for two or three squirrels not much game--would like to see some stocked get beagle chance to run hunting is more than killing—-as much for walk as hunting—— exercise good game cover Improvements concerned about rumor that forest may close to public disappointed—-looks neglected-—dead trees--weeds--bumpy road—-not clean anymore nice not to find beer bottles could have better signs to get here picnic area needs upkeep (moldy tables, rusted burners) Miscellaneous many persons in Augusta do not even know of Kellogg Forest Would like alcohol permitted 130 good water whole experience important usually picnic and absorb environment—-have picnicked in snow usually stop by shortly when in area good place to keep out of trouble can bring dog here first to come in Spring——last in Winter like to hike without dressing for jungle--hike easily get feeling of belonging and owning in the woods much like European forests in management would hate to see place like this ruined good family spot The above listing indicates that most people are quite pleased with Kellogg Forest as it is today and prefer that the Forest remain as rustic as it now is. Most prominent in the list are the remarks about how impressive nature is at the Forest. Some people likened Kellogg Forest to a wilderness and a few likened it to Canada. Others said it reminded them of the old, estab— lished, managed forests of Europe. Peace and quiet and getting away from crowds were expressed often. Many people brought their guests to see the Forest. As would be expected in any group of people as large as the Kellogg Forest visitors, some people were not completely pleased. These comments were few in number and not of a seriously derogatory nature. In general, most persons come to Kellogg Forest because of what it is now, and they are not interested in seeing it changed. If the Forest did change it would likely lose much of its present attraction for the persons 131 interviewed. From the above listing, it can be con— cluded that visitors are satisfied with Kellogg Forest as it is today. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Recreation receives increasing attention in the American life style. Forests are an integral part of this picture, but emphasis here is on the larger forested areas at some distance from the urban centers. Recreation needs are greatest close to urban centers. Much emphasis is directed here, too, but the small urban forest has somehow been generally overlooked in the United States for its potential recreation role. Numerous illustrations exist in Europe where forests are managed close to cities, supplying timber, water, recreation, protection, and amenity values. Such forests are almost nonexistent in the United States, yet the idea is a challenging one. Small forests near urban centers might well supply multiple values including recreation. For illumination of this idea, a convenient case was available for study at Michigan State University's Kellogg Forest, a 600—acre research forest between Battle Creek and Kalamazoo, Michigan. About 65,000 people are within a ten—mile radius of the Forest, and 350,000 132 133 people live within twenty—five miles. A largely denuded area when acquired in 1932, Kellogg Forest has been planted to trees in a large number of research and demon- stration projects. The Forest now consists of a variety of species and stand sizes. It has some native hardwood stands, but is mainly plantation, with no old growth, and little forest area that has reached A0 years of age. Thinnings for pulpwood are conducted regularly with no effort made to conceal the logging. In fact, rustic signs are used to describe management and research activities in the Forest. Aside from its location in an urban area, the special points to note about Kellogg Forest are its man— made aspects, the dedication to several purposes, the willingness to cut when necessary for management or re- search objectives, supervision of the area which is apparent to all visitors, and the compatability of re— search and management objectives with recreational use. No advertising is done to attract people to Kellogg Forest. Visitor facilities are maintained at a minimum and have been permitted to deteriorate gradually, but regular cleanup is part of the management program. One road winds through the Forest with a turnout pro- vided at the McCrary Memorial which is located at a place where a distant View is available. There are some forest access roads which serve as hiking trails. 13A Otherwise, the Forest is just simply there to be enjoyed as it is. On this unencouraged basis, Kellogg Forest receives a great deal of localized use. In 1967, visits were estimated as some 32,000, plus about 6,000 other visitors in specialized, organized groups. These numbers suggest that a fairly large portion of the adjacent population visits the Forest. The user groups are divided as follows: motorists, A9 per cent; picnickers, 2A per cent; hikers, 13 per cent; fishermen, 2 per cent; hunters, 2 per cent; and miscel— laneous, 10 per cent. The miscellaneous group is highly varied, including uses such as photography, bird watch- ing, and collecting of leaves, cones, mushrooms, and in- sects. .Hunting and fishing are controlled on the Forest inasmuch as they are permitted on a sign—in, sign—out basis. It it significant to note that a high degree of recreational use occurs on the Forest despite many alter- native areas available for public recreation in the Kalamazoo and Battle Creek areas. The nearest alter— native is the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary, about three and one-half miles from Kellogg Forest. It is probably the most pOpular alternative. Also available are Yankee Springs State Recreation Area, Fort Custer State Recreation Area, and Allegan State Forest. The latter 135 three are most like Kellogg Forest in their woodland aspects. Available also in the general area are swimming beaches and city parks such as the Kalamazoo Nature Center, as well as roadside parks and many streams and lakes. A general observation regarding characteristics of visitors to Kellogg Forest is that they are of higher socio-economic status than the average population from which they come. Almost A0 per cent of the heads of parties visiting Kellogg Forest have at least attended college and another AA per cent completed high school. Almost one-third of the heads of parties are businessmen or professionals. Visitors at Kellogg Forest are from higher income strata than the average for Calhoun and Kalamazoo Counties. Forty per cent of the visitors at Kellogg Forest are from families with incomes over $10,000. The visitors at the Forest tend to be younger than the popu- lation of Calhoun and Kalamazoo Counties, with the 1-12 years and the 20—AA years groups being heavily repre- sented and the groups older than AA years represented by numbers much less than expected. Most visitors were white with only about 1 per cent Negroes. Not all persons fit neatly into the overall averages. Differences were found between various user groups regard- ing several traits such as occupation, income, length of visit, distance traveled, and frequency of Visits. 136 The average party interviewed consisted of 3.75 persons, although a tally of cars entering the Forest indicates an average of four persons per car. Most parties consist of one or two families or parts thereof. Most persons (83 per cent) visiting Kellogg Forest are from residences which are either urban or suburban. Battle Creek and Kalamazoo are the two cities accounting for most visits (77 per cent) to Kellogg Forest. The suburbs of these two cities provide some additional visitors, since 90 per cent of all visits to Kellogg Forest are from distances not exceeding twenty-five miles. It may be anticipated from the above data that use of this Forest will increase as incomes and education rise in the future. Also, as more persons become sub- urban dwellers and acquire the above socio—economic characteristics, and as free time increases, the appeal of a forest area such as Kellogg Forest will increase. Distance traveled appears to be a limiting factor since only 10 per cent of all visits were from more than twenty-five miles away. At greater distances, which take more time and effort, the visitors apparently may prefer I ":1 \ 1 ‘ K r I ‘I I ‘ I ( ill to go North to a larger forest. The role of the urban forest is destined to be that of a nearby area for short visits from nearby centers of population. As leisure time increases, some in the form of shorter work days, such use will tend to increase. 137 A move to Daylight Saving Time allows more hours of day- light after work for recreational pursuits. The Opportunity to observe woodland scenery is the greatest satisfaction sought from a trip to Kellogg Forest. There are inherent characteristics found in the forest that attract peOple to observe it. Some of these may be found in comments such as "more natural," "not built up," "like the Northwoods," etc. To some persons this 600—acre forest appeals in much the same way as do the more extensive forests. These persons have a feeling of being in a wilderness when they are in a forest which lacks most of man's cultural structures, regardless of its size. Aside from just observing nature, visitors gain a sense of relaxation while in the Forest as indicated by their frequent comments such as "quiet and peaceful" or "relaxing." Most visitor parties are families, which results in ranking in third place the satisfaction of allowing chil- dren to play in the woods. Kellogg Forest is visited by a rather restricted segment of the population not normally from the central urban core. It is not likely that an area such as Kellogg Forest will be utilized by persons from today's urban core. Certainly they should be considered in making other recreation facilities available, but at 138 the same time it must be acknowledged that there is a significant portion Of the population that uses Kellogg Forest rather heavily. These persons are in better than average financial circumstances, but nevertheless demon— strate a need for recreation Opportunities. It is not enough when concerned with recreation facilities to speak only Of numbers and man—days of use, but consider— ation should also be given to the quality Of the experi- ence——to the degree of satisfaction obtained. Aspects of nature in the satisfaction rating were volunteered by 31 per cent of all visitors, attesting to : the importance attached to nature by the users of Kellogg Forest. As further indication of general satisfaction with their Forest experience, 70 per cent of the visitors return between two and ten times each year. Eighty-four per cent of all users have recommended the Forest to two or more of their acquaintances. Ninety per cent of per- sons making their first visit to the Forest indicate that they will likely return. For many persons in the area, a visit to Kellogg Forest is a must when friends visit from other areas. They take pride in showing the Forest to their guests. Most persons first learned of Kellogg Forest by word Of mouth. Approximately 68 per cent said they learned about the Forest from friends or family members. Another 15 per cent found the Forest while driving by it. 139 The Forest sign along the highway is not especially con— spicuous. If it were desired to emphasize the recre- ational use of Kellogg Forest, it is likely that a great increase in visitors could be obtained by a more prom- inent and attractive highway sign. This is only to note a possibility and not to suggest a policy change, since most current users are quite content with the limited use the Forest now receives. To expand the pres- ent recreational use would make Kellogg Forest less desirable for them. At present use rates, recreation and research are compatible uses Of Kellogg Forest. There have been few problems as a result of recreational pursuits. There are several reasons for this compatibility. It is conspicuous at the Forest entrance that a Resident Forester is in charge, leaving no doubt that the Forest is supervised and managed. The Forest crew patrols the area during peak recreation periods. Their presence undoubtedly pre— vents many problems from occurring. Another major reason for the compatibility of recreational use and research is that many signs along the road explain what has been done or is being done. There is little doubt in the visitor's mind that he is a guest in the Forest, and as long as explanations of research projects are well made, the research activity is readily accepted and even sought after for its instructional value. The variety provided 1A0 by the many research projects undoubtedly impresses visitors in a favorable way. Further, the influence of free access to Kellogg Forest must not be overlooked. Several interviewees indicated that if a fee were charged, there would be some persons who would then think that they had some right to "litter" and "be picked up after." As it is now, visitors feel that they are guests who appreciate the Opportunity to come. They have a sense of responsibility while on the Forest. That research and recreation are compatible uses of Kellogg Forest is a most important conclusion of this study. Most parks in the Battle Creek—Kalamazoo area do not provide the same values that Kellogg Forest does. They are normally well developed, landscaped, and pro— vide activity areas for games of various sorts. Un— fortunately, in so doing, they oftentimes eliminate the natural forest aspects desired by many persons. This is not to say that all people want undeveloped natural recreational areas, but that a significant segment is interested in and will make use of a natural forest area. These people want to get away from crOwds and have a sense of being alone. In using activity—oriented parks, the majority of the population may be satisfied, but not the nature-demanding group. As indicated in Chapter II, a greater proportion of users may be satisfied by pro— viding a few different kinds of facilities along a continuum from simple to elaborate. 1A1 That the Kellogg Forest is utilized heavily is evidenced by the more than 32,000 visits during 1967. Kellogg Forest has a total area of 600 acres. About one-half of this area, the western half, is not utilized by visitors to any great extent. This concentrates most users on slightly more than 300 acres in the eastern half, or 107 persons per acre per year. Kellogg Forest probably has not reached its capacity at this rate of use. There were very few interviewees who complained of crowded conditions in the Forest. Many said that more people would over—crowd the Forest, but no one indicated 1 j that this point had been reached, even on rather busy days. Apparently when dispersed in the Forest, most visitors do not feel as close to others as they really are. Although Kellogg Forest is a man-made forest, in the thirty-six years since its first plantings, it has grown to appear to many as a natural part of the land— scape. Many visitors come to see "the woods” which are Often likened to the "Northwoods." The area was abandoned agricultural land, and now it is a productive research forest being utilized by thousands of persons annually for outdoor recreation purposes. In the future, there will be a much broader urban sprawl, and more Of the population will be even more removed from nature. Now may well be the best time to 1A2 prepare to make the environment more hospitable for these people. Open areas should be set aside and dedi- cated for park development. In any such plans, it would appear to be advisable, based on results of this study, to include some areas for passive, woodland recreational Opportunities. Not only may Open areas be procured fairly easily and economically at this time, but pro- grams can be implemented to maintain present wooded areas. A few cities already have municipal forests. Several others have restricted watersheds and water—well fields. Forest and watershed uses are certainly com— patible objectives in managing a land area. Based on experience in the Kellogg Forest, it would appear that controlled recreational use is compatible with watershed objectives. Perhaps it is time to examine these water- shed areas tO see if they may serve a dual role, in— cluding recreational use. Although it is not likely to make a significant monetary contribution, wood production may be practiced to some extent on these areas, too. The present use Of Kellogg Forest for the dual objectives of forest research and recreation is made possible because of its location and its management pro- gram. It is obvious to visitors, but not in a detri- mental manner, that the Forest is being managed and controlled by a Resident Forester. Less than $3,000 is devoted to the recreational aspect of forest use annually, 1A3 which is only 12 per cent of all forest management expenditures. NO attempt has been made to encourage recreational use of the area, and yet, more than 32,000 visits were recorded in 1967. The Kellogg Forest is fulfilling a definite need for recreation in an urban setting, and may well form the pattern for developing similar areas easily accessi- ble to large urban centers. Such recreational use also appears to be fully compatible with major research ob- jectives on such an urban—oriented forest. LITERATURE CITED 1AA LITERATURE CITED -Battig, Von K. 1966. Beardsley, W. C., and Duncan, D. P. 1965. Beazley, R. 1961. Bultana, G., 1961. Die hygienische bedeutung des waldes fur die volksgesundheit. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Fur Forstwesen 112:652-666. Camper reactions to fees and charges in Minnesota state parks. Minnesota Forestry Notes NO. 161. School of Forestry, Uni- versity of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. Some considerations for Optimizing public forest recreational development and value. Journal of Forestry 59:6AA-650. Lucas, R., and Hathaway, W. A summary of social research. Outdoor RecreatiOn in the Upper Great Lakes Area. Forest Service Station Paper No. 89. Lake States Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. Burch, W. R., Jr. 196A. ” 1965. A new look at an old friend——observation as a technique for recreation research. U. S. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. The play world of camping: research into the social meaning of outdoor recreation. American Journal of Sociology 70:60A—612. , and Wenger D., Jr. 1967. The social characteristics of participants in three styles of family camping. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper PNW-A8. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experi— ment Station, Portland, Oregon. 1A5 1A6 Burdge, R. J., Sitterly, J.,.and So, F. 1962. Outdoor recreation research. Natural Re- sources Institute Of the Ohio State Uni— versity, Columbus. Chappelle, D. 1968. Notes from a seminar given by Dr. Daniel Chappelle to a joint Forestry—Resource Development Seminar, Michigan State Uni— versity, February 22, 1968. Clawson, M. l96A. How much leisure, now and in the future? Resources for the Future, Reprint NO. A5. Washington, D. C. , and Knetsch, J. L. 1966. Economics of outdoor recreation. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md: Creese, W. l96A. The planning theories of Sir Raymond Unwin. Journal of American Institute of Planners 30:295—3OA. Cushwa, C. T., McGinnes, B., and Ripley, T. 1965. Forest recreation estimates and predictions in the North River Area, George Washington National Forest, Virginia. Bulletin 558. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg. Davis, H. C. 1966. The significance of the forest environment to contemporary society. Proceedings, Society Of American Foresters, Seattle, Washington. Dixon, W. J., and Massey, F. J., Jr. 1957. Introduction to statistical analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Ebner, A. 19A0. German forests, treasures of a nation. German Library Of Information, New York. Edlin, H. L. 1963. Amenity value in British forestry. Forestry 36(1):65—89. 1A7 Etzkorn, K. P. 1965. Leisure and camping: the social meaning of a form of public recreation. Sociology and Social Research A9(l):76—89. Eyer, H. 1962. The forest as a counter balance to the modern ills Of civilization. Forstwiss Cbl..8l(l—2):l-ll. Ferriss, A. L. 1963. Applications of recreation surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 27:AA3—A5A. Fisher, F. 1960. Switzerland and its forests-~a synthesis of middle European forestry ideas. School of Forestry, Oregon State College, Corvallis, Oregon. Foster, C. H. W. 1965. Forestry and megalopolis. Proceedings, Society of American Foresters, Detroit, Michigan. Fraley, P. C. 1967. The forest that pays the taxes. American Forests 73(1):25. Gathy, P. 1962. La foret protectuce. Bulletin Soc. For. Belg. 69(3):l50—l67. Gould, E. M., Jr. 1961. Planning a recreation complex. American Forests 67(8):30-35. Gray, D. E. 1961. Identification Of user groups in forest recreation and determination of the charac- teristics of such groups. Dissertation Ab— stracts XXII:3258. Gregerson, H. M. 1965. Campurbia. American Forests 71(7):18-20. Harper, V. L. 1965. The new forestry. Journal of Forestry 63:752-75A. 1A8 Hendee, J. C. 1967. Recreation clientele-—the attributes of, recreationists preferring different manage- ment agencies, car campgrounds, or wilder- ness in the Pacific Northwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington. Illick, J. S. 1939. An outline of general forestry. Barnes and Noble, Inc., New York. James, G. A., and Ripley, T. H. 1963. Instructions for using traffic counters to estimate recreation visits and use. South— east Forest Experiment Station, U. S. Forest Service Research Paper SE—3. James, L. M. 1968. Adapting foresters to the changing environ- ment, address presented at Louisiana Poly- technic Institute and Mississippi State University, March. Johnson, H. B. 1961. Geographic research in outdoor recreation: a case study of recreational usage of the Whitewater Valley, Minnesota. Outdoor Recreation in the Upper Great Lakes Area. Forest Service Station Paper No. 89. Lake States Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. Kalamazoo Gazette. 1961. Market facts—~a picture Of the Kalamazoo market. Kalamazoo, Michigan. Karnig, J. J. 1966. Recreation use within the Harvard Black Rock Forest. Black Rock Forest Paper NO. 26. Harvard Black Rock Forest, Cornwall, New York. Katz, E., and Lazarsfeld, P. F. l96A. Personal influence—-the part played by people in the flow of mass communication. Free Press of Glencoe, New York. Kearns, F. W., James, L. M., and Pfeifer, R. E. 1962. An economic appraisal of Michigan's state forests. Forestry Division Tech. Publ. NO. 2. Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan. 1A9 King, D. A. 1965. Characteristics of family campers using the Huron—Manistee national forests. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper LS-l9. Lake States Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 1966. Activity patterns of campers. U. S. Forest Service Research Note NC-l8. North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minne— sota. La Page, W. F. 1967. Camper characteristics differ at public and commercial campgrounds in New England. U. S. Forest Service Research Note NE—59. North- eastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pa. Lucas, R. C. l96A. Wilderness perception and use: the example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Natural Resources Journal 3:39A—All. Lemmien, W. A., and Geis, A. D. 1957. Recreational use of the Kellogg Forest. Mich. State Univ., Agr. Expt. Station, Quarterly Bulletin 39(A):701—706. Mayor of Bassins. 1950. The communal forest of Bassins. Unasylva A(l):l2—13. McCurdy, D. R., and Mischon, R. M. 1965. A look at the private campground user. U. S. Forest Res. Paper 08—18. Central States Forest Experiment Station, Columbus, Ohio. McCurdy, D. R., and Miller, B. G 1968. The recreationist at the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge and his opinions on user fees. Southern Illinois University, Department of Forestry Pub. No. 1, Carbon— dale, Ill. Merriam, L. 0., Jr. 1963. A land use study of the Bob Marshall Wilder— ness Area of Montana. Forest and Conser- vation Expt. Station, School of Forestry, Montana State Univ., Missoula, Montana, Bulletin NO. 26. 150 Milstein, D. N., and Reid, L. J. 1966. Michigan outdoor recreation demand. Tech. Report No. 6, State Resource Planning Pro- gram, Michigan Dept. of Commerce, Lansing. Mueller, E., and Gurin, G. 1962. Participation in outdoor recreation. ORRRC Study Report 20. Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Nesterov, V. G. (ed.) 196A. Les i dolgoletie celoveka (forests and human longevity) Iydatel stvo Lesnaja Promyslennost. Moscow. Nosow, S., and Form, W. H. (ed.) 1962. Man work, and society, a reader in the sociology of occupations. Basic Books, Inc., New York. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Outdoor recreation for America. Superin- tendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Palmer, W. L. 1967. An analysis of the public use of southern Michigan game and recreation areas. Re— search and Development Report NO. 102. Mich. Dept. of Conservation, Lansing. Reid, L., Hall, J., and Barlowe, R. 1962. The quality of outdoor recreation as evi- denced by user satisfaction-—a report to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. ORRRC Study Report 5. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. 0. Reid, L. M. 1965. Utilizing visitor preferences in predicting outdoor recreation demand. Addressed to National Research Conference, Penn. State Univ. Robinette, G. 1968. Green air conditioners. Trees Magazine 28(A):16—18 and 22. Ryle, G. B. 1963. The diverse uses of forests. Forestry 36(1):3—90 Shaw, D. L. l96A. Forestry and amenity in Gwydyn forest park, Snowdonia. Quarterly Journal of Forestry 58:322—33A. 151 Sessoms, H. D. l96A. Shafer, E. L., 196A. 1965. Sinden, J. A. l96A. Stephens, G. 1962. Strong, A. L. 19650 U. S. Bureau 1962. U. S. Forest 1965. An analysis of selected variables affecting outdoor recreation patterns. Mimeo reprint from Social Forces, Oct., l96A. Jr. The photo—choice method for recreation research. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper NE—29. Northeastern Forest Expt. Sta., Upper Darby, Pa. Socioeconomic characteristics of Adirondack campers. Journal of Forestry 63:690-69A. , and Sinden, L. B. A forest recreation survey: implications for future deveIOpment. Scottish Forestry 18:120—127. R . ; 1 Proceedings of the Lockwood Conference on the Suburban Forest and Ecology, Waggoner and Ovington (editors). Conn. Agr. Expt. Sta., Bul. 652. Open space for urban America. Prepared for Urban Renewal Administration. Superintendent Of Documents, Washington, D. C. Of Census. U. S. Census of population 1960. Volume I, Part 2A, Michigan. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C. Service. Outdoor recreation in the national forests. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bul. 301. Von Thfinen, J. H. 1826. Wagar, J. A. 1963. “"‘"I§éu. Der isolierte staat. With introduction by H. Waentig (Jena, Gustov Fisher, 1910). Visitor characteristics and recreation activities. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper NE-7. Northeastern Forest Expt. Sta., Upper Darby, Pa. The carrying capacity Of wild lands for recreation. Forest Science, Monograph 7. wagar, J. A. 1966. Waggoner, P. 1962. Whyte, W. F. 19A3. 152 Quality in Outdoor recreation. Trends in Parks and Reoreation 3(3):9—l2. E., and Ovington, J. D. (ed.) Proceedings of the Lockwood Conference on the suburban forest and ecology. Conn. Agr. Expt. Sta., Bul. 652. Street cOrner society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. APPENDICES 153 APPENDIX A VISITORS‘ GUIDE 15A 155 _ 33:58:: :zal O xwuxu mgkhcu Emmmzz: BEN 23.10.: no 20.25 83.9. 2.; \ H H n? Kuhduzb ZTUZS dEo .- 5132.. 8“: . 2?».th v.~.0>> .m~. >Z<<< ...DO mn..>> ZH.m~.m>.23 mh530: I n. 2 m. 0 m. ._ L. - .-ul-lf A """ . . H . s . I....\‘ q s . \ “ NM“ ”N “ Q. .‘N r l s o\- g . I. .. 325:5 o N a o. . \\ I U - l \ II .... v. n. ... \‘ II s\\ : a .. \\ . . A ‘C" .N I . o. k. . ik .. x .N o \s nu \ .. 7... w .. o \ a Ts . . . o3 . an... n N 3 \ .. . . I I. II... \\ ow . . o .. nu .. o 49... .. . . a z .. <3 ... n no: I, ‘ ....E 3.0.. 52:8 oo~> NEE—EaEOU 82.. E 9.02: :95 9:2. NmEEeilzo ozocow ... .83 3:6 ......stoflc scoEEiEOU 2.. 3 ..H...E...N .5355 .02: 3.92.... 25......» o. @357. 52. we... so? NEH. fine. 329...... o... ... 0.0.8 .83 ...... :O 8.. use 8.55 o: .29... .22 ..m oz... mm .3. AM. .3. .2 .3 37.34.25.200 .35. c. @3257. as}. 32.9300. .05. :2... 32.2.1 ...Es. .3255”. .82 ... .5287. 9.83 95:. 3.5%: .mm... ... .0823... ... 3.9.39 .3... E NEE 0.2.3 or»: -..».i .3... E @857. 0:... .Zm [mm e2..2...:<&2¢0 .82 c. $85.7. 0.93.». 0.... HS... .532.» 3......» .53... .... 5&2. .33 3:5... Bizto. .... sesame: .28 £453.59. a: Ema—NH. OER. 538.. ......n. UP— ...EE Ash». 525.0“. 3.5 5.9:: ..an2 cc." 2%.; 93...: ....X..::.. 9.1.53 dosh..." Jon—n. .28 2.53 5.55.32 3 a9... 5 MOSHE.“— l mu hzm2hz<§200 do; .335. «53535:: c... N... ..o. OH. ....5 :5 So 2. .o: ...3 EoEtfi—Eoo NE. E 3:503 .953: BE. .832? 822.3 .233 min 57.2. 3.3 Jae 323 ...Ba. 5.2.9:”... ...c 33:00 .25. :oEom .ocm aflbms< 0.2.... 685.52. .353 ..x: O. 9.3 was @8— E .5283le EmEEEEOU . .Eongoo fl... E .0882 a. 3.8 2.5.3. 2.... .mma. E was. 223 o. .0351. «EO 5055: 0:5be 2.... .ooEmm 22.3 was .... me. .950 6:... 22.3 5.3 ...nm. 5 53:29.25 .moob as: $3.3». .EN 2%.}. O. $25.... I .5 ...ZmEEEZOO .50.. .o MEEN 9.. :. scion. .23 of :o $85.7. we? :03. :aomohzm .39.? =3 0... E v3.81. 82% BE? .25 83mm .85 fine was 83 5 605% .3352 3 N02 5 voacm.mlw~ FZMZHEfiEoU .82 c. 2.2. .00.. o... was $2 .... .0252... 33 0:2. Saba—5. och. .5on3. .28 0.0.03.3 A.9. .E.o 80:20 $033.58 .35?» 0.2.3 .ocE Sim L5 «Em :N.EN=< ..x: 828%.. £81 £83.28“. JON. ..x: o. 52 .2:w com. 5 @353 I ma EmEmEZOU . 63.0 c233. was :03. 5.2.8:”... desk.» 3...? 603% ....B ...: aflwsofl 6:.2. «83.28.. .38 Joe. .823 ..x: o. 59 .05... 83 c.— 2353 I: Ewes—.5200 156 00.00% 00.0.05 .0.0>0m 0:0 ...... ...—man. .000...» -32. ...000. 5.2.0.00 6.00 00. .00... 0.00.. 0:0 0.2.3 .00. 0. go. 0.. 00.5.... .:0E..0n.:.00 05 .0 300.083. .80.. .0: 0.0 0003.2. 0050.505 M. 00.0 000. 00.0.0: < 5.0.. 0. 5&0: 02:. 000.. 050m .80.. ...: 00......w 0:0 05.03 .0 00:00:07. 0m 0:0 005% 03.02 .05.. 0.00.. 0:0 0......» .00. 0. ...an .0 wEEm 0;. E 00.50... I Z 502 5.5.7.00 30.0003 >..0..0.:.0.00 .0 8:50:03. 0:0 530% 2.. :0 00.005 ”.5300 00.... .0 .0000 0... E00. 0. x00... .....EamnEE 0 E 00:. MER. 0.0 8.00 ....m 50.33 2.... MN... .0000 0055. 0:0 .02. .00 0.0.5 3.00 w. 500.00 0.... 3.00.5 .0500: .0 00.00 mv 2.0.000 l 3 5.0252230 1.0... w:..::.:.. a «50.000 .mo 05. .03 E 0005...... 0.0.0. 0... :0 0:0. 0.2.00.0 0... $00.05 055.0950 2.2.... .mca. E .00. ... 0. 00:05. 000... 00.0 .00... 3.2.3 0:... 00. 0. 30.. 0:0 82 E 00.5.... la 0203.04.07.00 .002 :. 000:5. 0:0 A... .0... 0.0., .r.._:..::.... .0 3.0.. w .0 20?. .000. .... 0. 0055. 000.. .....0 0...... 00:... 0... ..< .00.. 00.. 5.0.5.5. 0:0 £00 E255... .00.... .000..&c0 m... :00... 0......0000. 0.0.0:... 0:0 .....0 0...... ...0.... :00n.0.:m .05». 30.0053. 0:... 0...... ......z. ...: 0. ...an .0 MEEJ. 00.5.7.1» 07.02.05.700 ..{507 .50». .0. 0003 0:0 3.0.0.. w:.0:00.n. .340.— 05. c2... .0 .353 0... w:..:0 00:5... m0... .— ..0:30 5.0.50... 0... 0... .20.. .09... 00.5.... ....03 00.00.. 0.50.0 0.0.53 0.. .. 55:5. 0:... .0 .00. 0.00.. .53.... 0:: 000355. .0 00.00 on w:.>0:.0. 50.. 0.. 000...... v.03 505.0058 00E. 5.0% m 5 .00. .... 0. 0055. :00... 0.3.. 000.. no.0 @5057 .00. w v. w :0 :. 2......0 0.00.3.0 0:0 0.50. 0.050.... E 0:... 0.0.3 0:0 00.». 0... 0. No.2 .0 wfikr. 0.... 0. 00.5.... I N. #2555070... New. .... ”FEE... 0.0.. E. 002000. 000.. w x c 2.. 0:0 mm... :. E0»... 00:5... «0.5 0:000 w x w 0...... 0.00 .2. .050 «a. 00030.2. .0 00.00 mm 9.0.050. 32 E 5%.. 00:00.. 003 00.50.. m x c 0;... 0.00 ...X. 00.00 N ”00030.5. .0 00.00 .m MESS... $2 0.. 00:5... .03 0:050». -500 0.000 2E. ....wmz. E .00. 5 0. 0055. :00.— 02:. 8.5 .....0 ..8. m .. m ...... .8... 2.. ... ...a .8. 0 x 0 m. “.500... 0... 20.. .000 0... :— 00... 00.. 0. N8. .0 9.5.0 0:0 89. .0 =0. 0.0 ... 00.:05‘0 50255200 ....00 .0». 005.... 0.. :05 80b. mob cm. .027. 0000005. .0..::.. .0 5:00.. 0... 0.5.2.5. 0. .50.... 0 .....B 00.50.... 0.... 3:... .030. .005 0:0 000... .000». 0... 0.0 0.0.... 0......5... .0 A.5... .00.. 0... .0. 000:0.0. 000.. 05 0.0 .000... 00.0.. 0000:..5. .0 0.00 mm. 000 mm... 05». .0 .00. 0.00.. coed ”.0305... .00.. E 005...... .mm... E .00. .... 0. 0:0 82 E .00. m. 0. ....2: E .00. ... 0. 0.5:... 0:0 00000.8 80.. 00.0 @030»... o. .... c. .0 E mm... E 00.5.1. 00.... x0207. 0:... 00m 1 m. 07.07....5200 6.00.. 03:07.. 0.... 00.0.5.2. 3.50000 0... .... E03... .50: 000000900. 0.5.0.23 020.07. :00... m0... .0030}. .mma. :. 00%. 0.33 0. 00.5.7. I3. .207. 5......200 00.50% w:_.000m :0 9.330.... .000 .0 .0000 0... ......E -....00 0. ...:A 000.. 000.. «0.0.0.008 .000 0...... .mw... .... ......wa 0:0 3.2 E 00:5... 2.3 000.. 00.... .mma. E 0...... .....8m 0. 00.5.1.0". ..0....r=...n .05. 50> .....5 2...: .0 ...... 0... 0.. 00.5.1. 05a. 0.5.5 I .... ..7...7..E<..7.00 . _ 0:5 ..0.8m 0:0 .5004 0.00:. 00......m ...0.$...Z ......5 xvi. 0:0 >02 5 00.50.03. 00.5.w >035? 05. 0.03 0.... .0003QO 0. mad. 0.. 00.5.Elm ..x...7.....:..:£00 0...: 0.0.3.02 05.... 7:00.. 4.05.... ..0..n......m. ...z’. ........»..r.. 0.0.5.07. 0. mad. .... 00.5.7. I ...m .r/..........:f:/:U rm... 0. 00....“ 30.5.. 0;. :0 00.5.... 000.55....0 0:: .00.... -50. 00.0. 5.2.050 ......n. 40.0% 000.»... 5.0.5.07. 0:0 0......» .400:— .w:...5.... 0:0. 00.5 .I am .../.02.... .../.00 .m.0.:0:....:.0 00.2.00. 0:0 ....»00 :50... .0. .0030 00.5.7.0: l0: 0.03 8.00 0.. 0.00.0 ...:C .mma. 0. .05. 0.0550 .050. 0.... .3 0m: .0.5_.5...w0 .0. 00.00... 0.03 .00... 0;. .0 8.00 8... .097. 000.0. 000:. 00:. 0 >..0.....0. m. $0.9m 03:05:09.0 wwo..00~ 0.: m5w2h8. .0». 0...: 0.4.0.0.»: 0... £00.. 00... 3.0a. 0... war—.5 5.0.». ..000 0005...». 0.0.. 00:...“ 0&0. 0:0 50000. 0... ".00.... 00.5.... :02. 0.2... 0.00.2.5 ...... mw:_.0000 ....5. 0003 000.. 00.0.00... ...050005. ..E c: ....»C $00.00 .00.. .0. 000.057.... :00.— 00; .70 .0... 0... 09.0.... 0.50.. 0. 0.2.3 .4050 30%.}. 0.... dew. :. 00.02%... 9...... .03.. 5:00.... 0300.00.— 22. 50.5... .0 .0250: 0;... .00..» 0 .m 10......0 .8. £00.». 0 N. 250000.... .00... 0 .0. :00». v.2. 5:20. .0 00.3 0M0.0>0 0... mma. 00:..m 0:300. 0.0.2. .0... ..000 ...0 0.0.2.0 0. 0:0 ”.02.... .0 ”.055:— 0....0.. .0. in... 0. 00.5.5. .0. 5.5.0.1.. 0:0 .35... ..00m. 0:07... -0... ......t00 .....3 00.05.03. 0.0 "......5... 0.... ...—.07.... me ..(ZO_.—52: ”.50.... -0... v... .00.. 0;. 05.: 0500 0... F. ...0.00m0. 00.00.: 0:0 ......030 .00....53. 0:0 :0. $500.0... 0250.0 0...... .00» -E 000502.55. 00.. 0:0 3.00:0... ..:0E0u.0:05 000.: -05... 000509.005 0:0 0:05.32233 00.52507. .....5 0.0.0:. 0.00 8.00.0 000$... 0000:0000 v.50». 30: 0... £00.05. 40.3000. Q. :0... 0.03. 4.0.0.. 00...: 0:0 >53 -.0. 0.. 40.0000. 0. «00.0... 0... .0 0005.... .55.... 2F 05:00.50. .0 0w0=00 0... :. 50.5.0900 500.0... 0... >0 00x58... 0. .00.. .0... 00000. .0... .0... 000.0005. 50.50.500.00 .0002. .a... 0:0. 0000.0 :00» .0 000 0:0 00:00:33.0. 0... 000.55.... 0. 00...: 0A. a. .05 00.000 0... 00.8.9.0 ..D..m..0>.:D 0.3m 5%....0...‘ 8 000. 02. 9.00000 0.. .mwo..0v. .0. ...... .07. 00:00:30 0000 00; 0.00 cm»... 0... .0 mm .82 a. .35. brag—.005. 5 005.000 00.. 00.00 30.. 0 .5. :0 £000.00... 35.05.29. >500. .3 A0005 ME. 0308 00.0000 .0 0.0.083. find. 5 102000. 003 ”.05.. 80 .o «.... ...... 2:. 0on0. .0. .3 ..2 2... .0... 2. 5.3.0300 82w :0w20.2 0. 00.0000 05. .0 «0.00 Sm .0 0088 «as... 3855...... 000...... 2:. 582 ist—8&8 08.3“! up: . 0.50:0 20m 5.0%.... ... 023.... 0:0 00:30 .EE 0300ng $2.00. 0:0 .10-000% 000 ... mac—TM 0:0..— wwo=0M £03003 0.... mac—TM .8030 .8000... 0...... ....0 33.3. 00 .o 9.28 0:80 85.53. ... 805.. 000...... .0. .3 9F APPENDIX B OUTDOOR RECREATION MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE 157 OUTDOOR RECREATION MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE Date Location Day Weather Time of Interview Interviewer State or National Sticker 1. Party Information Sex (Age) 1-12 l3-2l 22—A5 A6-65 65 and over Male Female 2. Number families represented (if in- stitutional party go to No. 3) 3. Institutional Party (only) a. Primary School b. High School 0. College d. Other (specify) 158 Head of Party--All remaining questions refer to head 159 of party only. Objective List in order of importance the activities you will of Visit (Activity) participate in today. 1. Picnicking 6. Hunting (specify) 2. Hiking 7. Bird Watching 3. Driving 8. Boating A. Photography 9. Swimming 5. Fishing 10. Other (specify) Objective List your the order 1. To 2."‘ To 3.’ To A. , To 5. To 6 7 8 9 To . To .‘ To . To 10. To 11. To Other (specify) (Satisfactions) satisfactions sought from this visit in of their importance. observe woodland scenery. cool off-—get away from heat at home. give children a chance to play in woods. spend more time with family. get away from crowds of people. relax. observe wildlife. study nature. get together with friends or relatives. find a change of scene. commune with nature. Reasons for visit other than activity and satisfaction. 1. Free Access 1 Very Important 3 Not Important 2. Distance 1 from Home 3. Other (specify) Very Important 3 Not Important 2 Fairly Important 2 Fairly Important 10. ll. 12. 160 How long do you intend to be here today? 1. Less than 1 hour 2.‘ l-2.9 hours 3. 3-A.9 hours A. 5 or more hours Is this your first visit here? YeS’ No a. If yes, do you expect to come back? Yes No If not, why? Go to Question 10 b. If n2_answer Question 9. How frequently do you visit here annually? Winter Spring Summer Fall Number Annually a. Are these visits for different reasons than today's? (If so, specify) Is this visit part of a vacation period? Yes No Distance to area from home (miles) 10 or less ll-25 . 26-50 . 5l-75 . 75+ U'l-E‘LJONH How did you first learn of this area? Newspaper Radio or TV . Friend . Family . Recommendation from other recreation area (specify) Other (specify) O\ UTJI'UOMH 13. IA. 15. l6. [—1 161 Have you recommended this to others as a place to visit (applies to repeaters only). Specify how l. O 2. l 30 2‘5 240 6-10 5. ll or more a. Have you recommended against this place for someone? Yes No If yes, specify why: What other areas do you visit for similar activities? Primary How Often Activities Per Year? Example: Gull Lake Township Swimming and Boating Three Park 1. 2o 3. Ll. 5. 6. 7. 8o 9. O. a. Part of another trip? Yes No How do you compare this area with other areas visited for outdoor activities? Occupation l. Businessman or Professional 2 Wage Earner 3. Housewife or Widow A. Student 5 6 7 . Unemployed . Retired Other (Specify) l7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. I62 Residence 1. Urban (name) 2. Suburban (name) 3. Rural Sex (1) Male (2) Female Race (1) White (2) Negro (3) Other (specify) a. Age Marital Status Married Single Divorced Widowed Family Income Per Year: 1. Below $10,000 2.""_'$1o moo-$14 .999 3._____$15,000 and up Education Completed: 1. Primary 2. Secondary 3. Jr. College A. College 5. Advanced College Years Name Address APPENDIX C TABLES 163 16“ TABLE C-1.e-Number of sampled persons observed and ex- pected by user groups and whether or not other visits are for different purpose than current visit--Kellogg Forest, 1967. Yes No User Group Total Observed Expected Observed Expected Picnickers 12 21.14a 28 18.6a no Motorists 26 26.7 24 23.7 50 Hikers 27 25 20 21.9 A7 Fishermen 13 10.7 7 9.3 20 Hunters (Deer) 14 11.2 7 9.8 21 Hunters (Small Game) 13 13.9 13 12.1 26 Miscellaneous 11 6.9a 2.0 6.0a 13 All users 116 116 101 101 217 Note: Chi-square = 15.38, 6 degrees of freedom, significance 1eve1—-.O25. aCell contribution is greater than 2.0 to total chi-square. 165 .moo.IIHm>mH cosmofigficwfim «Eoommmm mo mommmop NH .m:.mma n ogmsvmlflno ”opoz paw om om ONH omH no mm mhmmz HH< mH e.m ........ e.‘ m.~ m, H.e .m msoccefificcmflz mm m.w NH m.NH HH 0.» m AmEmw HHmEmV mhmpssm 2m w.m HH w.HH 0H m.m m Aammmv mhmpcsm om w.: w 5.0 HH :.m m Cmfipmflmflm Hm :.NH m m.:m mm m.mH w mhmxflm mm 0.:H o N.wm HH p.mfi w: mpmHLOpOE mm m.ma ma p.mm mm m.:a m mmmeHQOHm Umpomaxm Um>mmmpo Umpommxm Um>hmmoo Umpomgxm ©m>hmmpo Hapoe dzopw pomp 0 can +m .mnc m.muH .ne H :pmcmH pom ozonw pom: mo ompomaxm paw pm>pomno mQOmp .mmmfi .pmmmom wwoaaom pm zmpm mo cc ecacfiem co cceeszu-.muo mgm Ompomgxo O0 popes: mHQmemoom swap whoa OHo>m ou OmcHQEoo mhmpssm Q .mhmdvmlHno HOpOp on whoa ho OO.m mH SOHOSQthsoo HHmOw .mOO.|IHm>mH mocMoHHchHm .Eopmmhm mo mmmpmmc OH .Om.Hm n ohmsvmngo ”mpoz mzm um mm H5 H5 OzH OOH whom: HH< mH :O.H H .mm.: : m0.0 OH msomCMHHmomHz om mm:.m H wm:.:H s mO0.0m m: nmaopcsm ON Om.m m mum.m OH me.mH m smEmemHm Hm OO.m O ms.:H OH mm.om 2m mpmme pm Om.m m .m:.OH Hm Om.:m mm mpmHhOpoz mm mmm.m HH mm.mH OH OO.Hm mm mpmeHQOHm Ompommxm Um>pmmno Ompommxm Om>pmmno Ompoodxm Om>pmmno Hmpce +ooo.mfis ooo.mHeuooo.oHe ooo.oas cache sch: mhowmpmo oEoocH .NOOH .pmmpom wwOHHmmnnmmHmowmpmo mEoocH mHHsmm mops» Ocm gsopw how: an Ompomdxm Ocm Om>pmmno msompmd Oqusmm mo pmbESZII.:IO mqm¢e 168 TABLE C—5.——Number of sampled persons observed and ex— pected by user group and two-family income categories—— Kellogg Forest, 1967. < $10,000 > $10,000 User Group Total Observed Expected Observed Expected Picnickers 32 31.7 21 21.1 53 Motorists 32 33.5 2A 22.3 56 Hikers 2A 30.5 27 20.3a 51 Fishermen 7 11.9a 13 8.0a 2o Huntersb A2 29.9a 8 19.9a 50 Miscellaneous 10 9.0 5 5.97 15 All users 1A7 1A7 98 98 2A6 Note: Chi-square = 21.206, 5 degrees of freedom, significance 1eve1——.005. aCell contribution is 2.00 or more to total chi— square. bHunters combined to avoid more than acceptable number of expected values below 5, and to be consistent with Table 3. 169 .OH.|IHm>mH moQOOHMHcmHm .Eocmonw mo mmomwow NH aHEOH n upmsvml H30 umpoz SN 3 .1 \_ OOH O. .. m: whom: H2. mH O.m m 0.0 O O.m : msoostHoomHz Om m.OH O :.HH mH :.: w AmsmO HHmEmV mpmucsm :N :.O m m.OH OH H.: O Apmmmv mhmpcsm ON mO.w O 0.0 HH :.m H QmEhmanm Hm 0.0m om m.mm mm 0.0 O mhmme Om O.mm mm :.mm :m 0.0 w mpme0poz mm 0.0m Om m.mm OH 0.0 O mpmeHQOHm Umpoogxm Om>pmmno Oopommxm Om>powno Ompomgxm Oo>pmmpo proe @5090 How: oonHoo Ohmcsoomm mamEHhm .OOOH .pmopom OOOHHoM pm COHpmoSOm no mommmHo ompnp cam QSOHO ammo an Oopooaxm cam Om>homno mcomaog OmHQEmm mo pmnESZII.OIO MHOOB 170 .AmOOHv smopsm mSmcoO .O .D Eonm mOHpmempw mpcsoo oommeHOMIcsouso Eopm Oopomgxmm .mOO.|:Hm>mH mosmonHcmHm «Eocmmsm Ho mmmpmmw m .:.HOO n msmsvmngO ”mpoz Nam Hm ON :m Om OO OOH OOH m: mHOpHmH> OOOHHoM sgxm who ssxm moo soxm who ogxm who Hmpoe QSOLO pmmb omcHHoo omcHHoo osoz go : .mpw mIH zamwsooom OHOEHLm .NOOH .mmHyowopmo meEchppw COHpmosww 950% mp pmohom OOOHHoM pm Ompomaxm Ocm Oo>homno mcomhmg OmHQEwm mo LmQESZII.NIO mquB 171 .m onmQ .mous> Oopomgxm mo gonads mHnmemoom swap ohoE OHo>m on OmQHQEoo whopssmp .mpmdvmngo Hmpop 0p OO.N swap mHoE mH QOHpanhpcoo HHwOw .mOO.|IHm>mH ooQOOHMHQmHm .Eowmmpm mo mmogwoc OH .OO.ON n opmsvmlHQO "opoz NON ON ON HNH HOH Hm Hm mamm: HHO mH m.H H :.OH OH H.m : msomcmHHmomHz OO OH.m .H O.:m Om m.OH OH nmpmpczm ON O.N H O.mH :H H.: m :oEngmHm Hm ON.m H mm.mm :2 m.OH O mhmme Om mO.m NH mNO: ON O.NH NH mpwHHOpoz mm sH.m O s.Om Om oO.oH O mhconson Oopoogxm Om>pmmno Ompommxm Om>pmwno Oopomaxm Om>pmmno Hmpoa Q5090 How: mcHHs mm mcHHs mmnHH moHHs OH .NOOH «pmmpom OOOHHmm 0p OmHm>mpp mocmpmHO mo mommeo mmngp Ocm gsopw poms mp Ompommxm Ocm Om>mmmpo mcompma OoHQSmm mo pmoESZII.OIO mqm Oopomaxm mo amass: OHQmeooom can» mHoE OHo>m on OmQHQEoo mLOOcsmn .opmsvmano HOpOp on O.N cmgp mHoE mH COHpanHpcoo HHmO.O .mNO.IIHo>mH moQOOHchmHm .Eowoopm go mompwmw OH fiHO.NN n OHOSOmIHQO ”mpoz 172 NON OmH OmH MO OO O: m: mpmm: HH< OH H.O O mO.m s s.m m msoossHHooth om H.Om sm es.mH O co.O sH omhoossm ON N.HH OH H.m O O.m : smEhoanm HO 0.0N ON O.mH OH m.O s mpmme Om sO.Nm He O.HH mH c0.0H H mOmHhoOoz mm 0.0m sm O.mH OH 0.0 HH whoonson Ompooaxm Om>homno Omuommxm Om>pmmno Ompomgxm Oo>HomoO Hmpoe QSOHO meb pcOpHOQEH poz .pcmppoQEH meHmm pQOpHOQEH mmm> .sOOH .pmmmom OOOHHOM on mocmpmHO mo.oosmuhogEH OHOSOp mUSpprm UGO QSopw pmm: On Umpoomxm UGO Om>pmmno msompom OOHQEwm mo HOQESZII.OIO mHm Ompomgxm mo LOQESQ OHprgooow swap whoa OHo>w 0p HmOHo SH OoOsHosH no: QSOLO msoQOHHmomHE UGO OmQSOMO mam mpmpcsmn .OLOSUmIHgo HOpOp 0p whoa Ho O.N mH QOHpanppsoo HHoOw .HO.I|Ho>0H ooGOOHmHQmHm «EOOmOHm mo mmmsmov OH A:HOm n OHOSOOIHQO ”mpoz u. mOH ON ON on or mm mm HO HO Nm Nm whoms HH< N H: OO.O OH 0.0 NH N.O O O.HH OH OH.O H nmgmpuzm ON O.N m m.: s 0.0 m m.m m :.m N soesogmHm m: O.m m m.O OH 0.0 O O.HH NH O.N O wgome :: O.m : m.O O 0.0 m H.NH OH OO.O NH mpmHH0poz :m wO.m H .OO.O : O.N mH N.OH OH :.O O mpoonqOHm me moo me moo me mpo me mno me moo Hapoa QSOHO HOOD OH OHIO ml: mIN H1O .OOOH .pmmhom OOOHHmMIImem 30mm mpHmH> mo zocmzvogm UGO gsoam hmms On Umpomgxo UGO Oo>pmmno onmth OmHQEmw mo AOQESZII.HHIO MHmHB "111111111111111F