_ P _.~— h. ..,;-- - - u ’- m- m - a- 4 . ’m'— o u . ~0— -. «-h ,<- A .7 J “a. . .‘.. , . - ”.CI'. 0..-“.- ”.mmn ”C“. A: v. - .4 - "'4...— b... , ‘- ‘ moo; c at -~ ~ A z«qr—L W - .-T.' ~“J _ A - ‘91 . “fin-I‘M I. '4‘ . I. I. I'l - ‘ - rm AA . . . n- .- a“... .77.“? ,_A . . ‘ 3.3::- 3 ' ‘ >~§ #:2222373:- .__,v._.- ' 'n‘" ._. . ._ .. - ~ c.- ~———- :71" W W"" 5“ r ,. -. 4-5....— . I ~.- , - 1222.15. - : -- ,v-D-‘o': «.5‘“ ...:-:.v.. .. .. w . .._ - ... - — # A I r I ‘ h a ..-: ‘ _ _4 -o. «-u. o _ 4 I u , . . . C .- g- . - w - NW ‘1 w _ _‘ ~. . u. “ ’1 ‘ ‘ v a- V - ‘ -- . ‘ . - to. " ... -- ¢ r . . _,..... ......._.. --. O . . . . _. t, . . -. . - «w—«— 0““ — .‘....< "4-,. ‘ ‘ 9 1‘ {3151333 III“ I; I IN”: bl II I 'IIITTI’I'I'IIJ I J I} “W '7' § ll I: i I . W | =.I,IIIIIEI:IISI'3""' II , II; ”19.4% . . t'i I}! < «i‘ I“ I W1, '5‘ I 3.. {IIIIJLII‘I “I‘SIETEUYI, I’ (1:13.: III“! IIII‘LIIIIII 1M Ii I J rW'Wrfifi Him .. '. - . w " 0 . ‘ 3:. ‘ a In. I‘Ik'éirfi I II; I; I“ A ‘ ‘I'i[\IJ1'A."‘ :. 3'; ‘ .‘l A ' I :a ' :. . . fl: ' n | ' . v “I, IIIIHIIII ‘ Izq: . : :‘2 -. Xyfl’zt‘fi v ,. . in '. " 1'.» . . \l " v... :‘. z : . ' ‘ t“ I ' =~‘:".I I. '1‘ ' '. 9:: ‘ = T". I. . (5' :' " ,J; I {IN :3; ' _‘ ;"'5, ‘. ' 3"";5I'2“ {$131! 7.2] ° III“ . "" 3:. " 3" M‘ ”II L} 2. '1'. I“? "‘ <1 I. . l : It I In“? ' I {II ti“ I fihtfig” ”I”. “I?” I a "h Iii} '0 ‘ . J I ,b I I ' ' III‘I ‘3, L .‘i I 'II.‘ I '. I I (LII; J ,‘ "VI-II: : ‘ .'. .’ I I . I”: j!" I! WIIIQ III?" .I . ‘ , ' i , ' . . , . D \ | , .1 H ‘ l 4 . ': - A '. 4 o ' .1. I n. ‘ . ‘.fl ' . )l’II‘fi IIIFIIII 1:. Y ffifilg.‘ Yxé ‘IIYV'E ‘ fl .2 J n I ' V ‘ q I I. II '. 3:) IE" it” '. :I'.‘I IA? ;: II ;I II :I!! h I" (I? t. .‘:'I:‘ ' ‘. ‘ I . ‘ IFIII if??? . ' I |' I I n I ' " I § ";?'5"'3"Jl.iI 1 III; II IIIIIIII“ "I I "I. IIIHmm MAI WWI 1% Away 3 . O" Q IHIHUIIHIIll!“IIIHillllllmllIIHIIIIHHHIJIHHI 310607 6908 " LIZBRA K Y I‘I‘Iichigan State U n ivcmty 'WW’ 4“ w 9 -'.‘ O k:-’ This is to certify that the thesis entitled NONCOMPLIANCE WITH OFF-ROAD VEHICLE REGULATIONS: A CASE STUDY EVALUATION ON THE HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS i IN MICHIGAN presented by PHYLLIS ANNE DORMAN O has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. Jeyeein Parks 5 Recreation @2447 Air/7A,, Major prof/5301' Date Cam 9; /9 the survey that was not distracting to the driver. After completion, the interviewer collected the survey, thanked the respondents and answered any questions he/she could not previously in order not tx> bias the respondents answers. In the case of camping ORV users at Benton Lake, they were asked to return their surveys to the campground hosts. Appendix A includes a summary of the format interviewers were to follow. The Enduro event selected fell cut a previously selected sampling day on the other sites, so the researcher could not supervise the data collection. A volunteer handed out the surveys, and due to other conflicts stayed for approximately an hour and a half before and slightly after the race started. Benton Lake had two full time campground hosts who volunteered to distribute the survey to any campers who had ORV's with them. This included 4 }( 4's, dune buggies, ATV's, and motorcycles. The dispersed camping sites near the Cedar Creek Cycle Trail and North Branch, and were checked (nu: on each sampling day. During the course of the study only one camper was found and surveyed at the Cedar Creek Cycle Trail. Although five camping groups were encountered at North Branch none had ORV vehicles with them. They were fisherman and families camping or local youth partying. “On the first day of sampling, the order of the sites to be visited was randomly selected. Then, the visitation order was rotated in order through the time periods so that each site eventually formed a composite day. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS Questionnaire DevelOpment The questionnaire was designed to: l) gather data on the frequency and duration of ORV use on the District; 2) identify communication channels used to find District ORV areas as well as gain knowledge of the ORV regulations; 3) enable the ORV user to evaluate the District ORV areas; 4) identify mass media channels users watched read, or listened to; 5) determine the socio-economic profile of ORV riders on the White Cloud District; and 6) determine ORV user attitudes and preferences. The primary objective used for designing the questionnaire was to obtain the desired information from the largest number of reSpondents in the most accurate form possible. Research suggests that recall is a reliable measure comprehension :uul of marketing media impact (Berkman and Gilson, 1978; Engel, Blackwell and Kollat, 1978). Consequently, ORV riders were asked to recall ORV regulations messages in general. The questionnaire was limited to a 15 ndnute time frame for completion and it was felt the addition of lengthy scales would cut into the time alloted :fin: complethni of other pertinent data. However, the pretest was implemented to try and close some of the open-ended questions, yet the response was so low it was felt the questions could not be closed. Portions of the questionnaire neccesitated Opinionated responses, comments, and/or recommendations and conventionally structured 31 32 close-ended questions might have biased the results. Thus for the purpose of this study, open-ended questions were used. It was felt the scales would be more appropriate in later studies of this pOpulation after the ORV users had supplied relevant perceptual information with a minimum of prompting. It was felt open-ended questions would elicit responses which are more realistic, reliable and valid than a structured attitude testing. A combination of open and close-ended question were used as recommended by Sommer and Sommer (1980). The questionnaire was divided into four sections. An introduction, explaining the purpose of the survey, who sponsored it and a brief rationale for the need for the ORV users input. The second section consisted of socio-economic data, use information, and ORV regulation awareness which were short answer or closed-ended questions. The third section consisted largely of open-ended questions concerning opinions and recommendations, interspersed with a few general close-ended questions. The fourth and last section included information (x1 mass media channels the ORV rider used. A statement at the end was included at the request of Forest Service officials notifying the user where he could obtain ORV information from the Forest Service. In addition it notified the respondents as to where they could contact the researcher if they had questions or complaints. The reason for the section arrangement was based on the assumption that a respondent would react more favorably to questions requiring short answers at the beginning and would thus move into the body of the questionnaire quickly (Sommer & Sommer, 1980). Questions with larger answers were in the center and questions requiring shorter, answers were used at the end. 33 Two variations of time questionnaire were developed (See Appendix A). Form A was for ORV users who where not actually using their vehicle at the time the research made contact with them (camping ORV users and enduro riders). Form B was given to on-site riders who were actually driving their vehicles. The primary differences in the two forms was the use of verb tense and the length of recall an ORV user needed to answer a question. For example, Question 8 Survey Form A asked: "How many hours a day do you usually ride your ORV?". In comparison, Question 9 of Form B asked: "How many hours, today, will your ORV be in use?". Other subtle differences included the cuder of questions which was changed only slightly with the questions still remaining in the same section outlined previously. On-site users (Form B) were asked if they used their (HUI in competitive events, Enduro riders and campers (Form A) were not. Form A reSpondents were also asked where they intended to ride on the Forest and whether they would do this primarily on weekends or weekdays. These questions were not asked on Form 13 because it was felt interviewer observation of where the respondents were and the days they frequented the different sites would reflect this information. The implications of these differences will be discussed in the results section as they are applicable. Other factors taken into consideration in design of the questionnaire for this survey included questionnaire length questionnaire attractiveness, and its ease of completion and return. The language was fairly simple and straightforward so riders down to the age of 12 could easily respond to the questions.1 Two respondents were 8 and 9 years of age, respectively. They were able to answer the majority of questions on their own with minor help from the researcher. 34 Pre-testing of the Questionnaire In order to determine problems in the question format and interpretation, questionnaire Form B was pre-tested before final production. The questionnaire was mimeographed and the researcher selected two reportedly high-use ORV areas on the Cadillac District. A different district was used so that the potential respondents on the White Cloud District were not sampled. The researcher spent 4 hours per site for 2 days sampling on-site ORV users. The pretest sample collected was small (7 respondents), so the pretest was by no means definitive. Minor modifications were indicated in the questionnaire after examining and evaluating the responses. The revised questionnaire was then printed. Due to a low-budget, the questionnaire was printed on plain white paper with a standard type face. An effective use of white space was used to enhance readability (Turnbill and Baird, 1968). Coding and Processing of Completed Surveys There was a total of 8 sites or study areas included in the survey yet only 6 yielded information since there were no ORV campers at North Branch, and only one at Cedar Creek. Each completed questionnaire was coded with a location and survey number for quick identification and retrieval. Only fully completed questionnaires and those which were at least half full were coded and used for analysis. InapprOpriate or insensible answers were eliminated. A total of 144 usable surveys were collected. A code book was prepared, and in the case of the open-ended questions, all actual reSponses were coded except if very similar 35 answers were given. These were consolidated into a single dimensional category. Using tin: code book, questionnaires were coded for computer processing before key punching. A 10% sample was randomly selected and checked for error and accuracy. The error rate was 2% and all errors found were corrected. A 10% sample of key punched cases was randomly checked and no errors were found. A scan of the card printout found the numbers on one card tranSposed one column to the left. This was corrected and it is assumed the key punching error rate was negliable. Limitations Having been guaranteed anonymity, once a subject agreed to fill out a questionnaire it was assumed all answers would be honest and his/her own Opinion and not a concensus of a group. All on-site survey was conducted by the researcher. In addition a campground host contacted some camping subjects and another volunteer collected the enduro responses. There were minor differences in individual presentation, but it is felt interview training kept interview biases to the minimum. In absence of any other socio-economic opinion and media research on ORV users on the Huron-Manistee National Forests it is believed that the data collected will have useful planning and information and education progrmn applications within these National Forests. Findings from this study cannot be considered totally representative of the Michigan ORV user pOpulation. In addition, it's usefulness is probably more appropriate for the Manistee National Forest than the Huron because the two forests share slightly different user clienteles. 36 Unless otherwise noted in the analysis of results the camping ORV users and on-site ORV users are treated as one subgroup (trail riders) and the enduro riders are in the second subgroup. Doing this involves analysis combining form A and form B in subgroup 1. There are minimal limitations involving the slightly' different phraseology ‘between time two surveys. The reason for the distinction is it is assumed enduro riders come to the District to use their vehicles for competitive purposes in an organized event. The other ORV riders were on the District for non—competitive purposes. The typical constraints of time, budget and researcher availability were present. These factors where recognized and the researcher assumed the reSponsibility of insuring the validity, reliability and accuracy of the sample within these constraints. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The Sample A total of 84 ORV riders were sampled during on-site interviews at Benton Lake (44), Cedar Creek (31), and North Branch (9). Sixteen subjects were interviewed during the campground survey and 44 riders were interviewed at the enduro. The total number of subjects interviewed during this study was 144. The non-reSponse rate ranged from 7% to 40% for specific sites. The average nonresponse rate was 22% for the om-site stations. A 22% sample of enduro riders was obtained representing a 6% sample of the summer enduro riders on the district. ORV Users Knowledge and Awareness of Regulations To determine whether the majority of ORV users on the White Cloud District were knowledgeable of (HUI regulations, subjects were asked what they remembered most about the regulation message. Any response, general or specific, which could be directly related to an ORV regulation was scored as a valid answer for the recall (remember) question. When the reSpondents (N=140) replied to a question of general knowledge, 64.3% of them indicated they "knew" or were aware of regulations. However, 102 (71%) of the subjects could not or would not respond to the recall question. Twenty-one (20%) gave a correct 37 38 response, 6% gave incorrect responses, and 3% of the subjects complained about the rules (an incorrect response). Overall for the questionnaire the non-response rate averaged 13% per question. After subtracting this figure from the (71%) non-response rate for this question, it was approximated that 58% of the respondents did not g.“ a—-— __._. respond because they did not recall any specific information about ,-____‘___‘ ,,— ---' .. .. -_,__.-' regulations. These results suggest the majority of riders do not know any specific regulations. Appendix B summarises the specific responses (Table B1). The primary sources of information of ORV users' knowledge and/or awareness were through informal information channels. Of all the subjects, 39% received information by word of mouth; 27% from Forest Service sources; and 15% from ORV clubs (see Appendix B). It was expected that the number of years ORV users have ridden on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be related to the user's specific knowledge of particular regulations. Using a Chi-square analysis it was determined there was no relationship between the number of years a rider professed to have ridden on the Forest and his knowledge of rules (Table 1). Table 1 Relationship Between the Number of Years Ridden on the Forest and Knowledge and Recall of ORV Regulations by ORV Riders Regulation Knowledge and Recall Accurate Inaccurate Total Years Ridden % (N) % (N) % (N) O - 1 10.7 (3) 26.2 (27) 23.0 (30) 2 - 5 42.9 (12) 36.9 (38) 38.1 (50) 6 - 10 32.1 (9) 25.2 (26) 26.7 (35) 11 & greater 14.3 (4) 11.7 (12) 12.2 (16) TOTAL (N) 100.0 (28) 100.0 (103) 100.0 (131) X2 = 3.032; 3df, p < .3687; Not significant. 39 However, the number of years a rider has ridden on the Forest did have a significant relationship with whether he said he was "aware" of the regulations in general. As the number of years of riding increased the rider was more apt to say he knew of the regulations (Table 2). Table 2 Relationship Between the Number of Years Ridden on the Forest and Awareness of Regulations by ORV Riders Regulation Awareness Aware Not Aware Total Years Ridden % (N) % (N) % (N) O - 1 13.1 (11) 49.9 (18) 22.6 (29) 2 - 5 42.9 (36) 31.8 (14) 39.1 (50) 6 - 10 31.0 (26) 15.9 (7) 25.8 (33) 11 & greater 13.1 (11) 11.4 (5) 12.5 (16) TOTAL (N) 100.1 (84) 100.0 (44) 100.0 (128) X2 = 13.364; 3df, p < .0039; Significant. Several other variables were expected to relate to knowledge of the rules, but for each case knowledge was unrelated to age, club membership and type of rider (Table 3, 4 and 5). Respondents were asked WW h—.____ if they thought that the majority of other ORV riders obeyed the rules. Ninety-one (73%) felt riders did comply, while thirty-three (27%) felt that other riders did not comply. Those who felt any rules were being violated supplied the follow- ing information. The rules percieved to be broken most Often included: off-trail riding (32%); not having an ORV sticker (21%); a noisy muffler (13.5%); and no spark arrestor (1.2%). It should be noted that only 39% of the subjects responded to the question (see Appendix B). 40 Table 3 Relationship Between Age and Knowledge and Recall of ORV Regulations by ORV Riders Regulation Knowledge and Recall Accurate Inaccurate Total Age % (N) % (N) % (N) 8 - 19 13.8 (4) 10.0 (11) 10.8 (15) 20 - 29 27.6 (8) 46.4 (51) 42.4 (59) 3O - 39 41.0 (12) 30.9 (34) 33.1 (46) 40 - 49 6.9 (2) 6.4 (7) 6.5 (9) 50 - 62 10.3 (3) 6.4 (7) 7.2 (10) TOTAL (N) 100.0 (29) 100.0 (110) 100.0 (139) X2 = 3.488; 4df, p < .4797; Not significant. Table 4 Relationship Between ORV Club Membership and Knowledge and Recall of ORV Regulations Regulation Knowledge and Recall ORV Accurate Inaccurate Total Club Member % (N) % (N) % (N) Yes 53.6 (11) 28.2 (24) 26.7 (35) No 46.4 (17) 71.8 (79) 73.3 (96) TOTAL (N) 100.0 (28) 100.0 (103) 100.0 (131) X2 = 2.878; 1df, X2 . = 3.84 at .05; Not significant. obs crit Table 5 Relationship Between the Type of Rider and Knowledge and Recall of ORV Regulations Regulation Knowledge and Recall Type Accurate Inaccurate Total of Rider 2 (N) Z (N) z (N) Trail Riders 76.7 (23) 67.5 (77) 69.4 (100) Enduro Riders 23.3 (7) 32.5 (37) 30.6 (44) TOTAL (N) 100.0 (30) 100.0 (114) 100.0 (144) Corrected X2 = .551; 1df, p<.4578; Not significant. 41 Ignorance and indifference have been perceived as two primary reasons for ORV rule violations. Only 36 subjects (25%) responded to the query of why do people disobey the rules. Of these respondents, 22% felt people's indifference was a reason for noncompliance. Ignorance of the rules was mentioned by 19% and an additional 14% of the reSpondents indicated they thought that ORV rules were too limiting. Evaluating the I & E Plan Several factors enter into the decision of whether or not the I & E Plan was a success: ORV riders knowledge of regulations; the ORV users rating of the FS information dissemination; and whether the media channels used to disseminate ORV information matched the media's used by ORV riders. As mentioned previously, the majority of riders are not knowledgeable of regulations. When ORV riders were asked Ix) rate how well the Forest Service had advertised the location of ORV areas on the Huron—Manistee National Forests, 40% of the reSpondents gave it a poor rating, 35% thought it was average, and 25% felt it was above average. A majority of the riders heard of the area through friends or found it just by riding in the area. A listing of radio and television stations, and ‘magazines and newspapers that (HUI riders either watch, listen to, or read are found in Appendix B. Also included are the ORV or other sports clubs that ORV riders belong to. Table 6 summarizes the media most frequently mentioned by ORV users. Subjects were not asked to differentiate between the media channels as 11) which one was their primary source of information. The 42 .umwcmm OOHuumHa mnu me emuuoaou mm EsHeOE umcu :H mmHHOOO mo unease ecu «H z H mamz amcmem m H .nmecH mOaHH uconmum q H OHOHcouso cowmxmsz m ZmImhM3 m cam mucsoo owxmsmz N o 6:02 H >933 H \z<33 m umwcon H z muuuaom z mmouaom z mmuusom Hz muonsom wcchwm mcHnwwmz OOHOH>OHOH OHemm mumnmaw3oz cmHm m w H CH eONHHHu: mHeOz n mHnme N quuz Hmuoe .mmmconmmu mo Hocmsvmum he emxcmm H "Ouoz a eHuoz mHqu m zmzz a use: a HmcHucum acmHHom m mH uHuAuuz .Hz a xHHs a onz NH 8362 OHouuuo q 8H mHqu s wwxs m mHmz Hm sauce «was “Houumo m 8H msmz uHuAu 8 >903 HH new: em mamas meHamm cameo N om mme uuHa Ho 2NN3 hm >

OHOH oHemm wpwamamsmz H e mHnaH muweHm >mo qu mmuusom prmz aumEHum 43 purpose of the media questions was to obtain the most complete list of specific mass media watched, listened to, and read so that an all-inclusive campaign could be developed in the future. However, looking at the frequency of responses for the different media gives an indication of the order of importance of the media. Seventy-two percent of the subjects listed one or more newspapers, 70% listed a radio station, 67% listed a television station and 57% listed one or more magazines (See Appendix B for complete listing of media sources). Twenty-six percent of the subjects listed two Grand Rapids radio stations, WLAV and WGRD, as the stations they listened to most often. The television station most frequently ‘mentioned was WZZM in Grand Rapids (42%). A small percentage of subjects (4%) indicated they did not watch television at all. Table 7 summarizes the primary media used by the ‘White Cloud District for disseminating ORV information. The feature articles resulted from personal contact by the District Ranger to the media or to a freelance writer who then sold the story. If the standard news release sent to all media sources was used by' the media, the supervisors office has no record substantiating that the release was printed or utilized in a media story. In comparing the media sources in Table 6 and T7 the primary television and radio stations mentioned by ORV riders on the District were not the primary ones utilized in the I & E Plan. Although ORV clubs are not a mass media channel, a communication network exists among their members. Twenty-five percent of the ORV riders on the District were ORV club members. The American Motorcycle Club was the club most often listed (60%), followed by the Cycle Conservation Clubs 44 of Michigan (20%) (see Appendix B for other club membership). Establishing Possible Reasons for Non-compliance Results mentioned in the first section of this chapter indicated some ORV users felt ignorance and indifference were causes of ORV rule violation. Also, a small percentage indicated the rules were too constricting. Another approach in determining what factors may influence non-compliance is examing why the ORV riders chose the ORV area; what they disliked about it; how they rated it; and what improvements they would like done to the area. To effectively analyze the question asking ‘why ORV riders had chosen the Forest as their recreation site, the responses to this were divided into 7 categories. Appendix C summarizes how and why the distinctions were made. Enduro riders were {KHZ asked why they chose the site because the site was determined by race sponsers. Campers received the same form as enduro riders and are not included in the following percentages. There were 84 trail riders. Twenty-six riders (31%) indicated they chose the area for reason which fell within the convenience category; and 30% used the site because of the man-made features of the trails. An additional 5% indicated social reasons had influenced their decision. Only 2% of the respondents cited reasons related to the esthetic (woods, wildlife, scenery) attributes of the area (see Table C2 in Appendix C). Specific attributes that were most often mentioned were near home (24%), eXpert trails (9%) marked trails (5.6%), and numerous or many trails (5.6%). 45 Subjects were asked what they disliked about the ORV area. The response from ammorcyclists was high (102 out of total N of 130). The response from other ORV use was very small (6 out of an N of 14). The dislikes of all ORV users are summarized in Table Cl, Appendix C. Table 8 summarizes the main attributes that ORV riders disliked. To present a focused profile of what factors ORV riders disliked, all the answers were categorized into the dimensions similar to those previously' mentioned for why riders chose the ORV area. Appendix C summarizes which answers were included into each dimension. Table 8 Attributes Least-liked by ORV Users on the White Cloud District ATTRIBUTE RESPONSESl z (N) Felled trees 12 (18) Flat terrain 7 (11) Mud holes 7 (10) Bumps 5 (7) Cars and 4X4's 4 (6) Numbers only include responses from ORV motorcycle riders and not any from 4X4 or dune buggy drivers. Overall, 51% of the respondents disliked attributes which were within the man-made features dimension; 24% did not like features related to the land; and 11% did not like features related to social situation. 46 Although there were complaints, overall ratings of the ORV areas by the ORV riders were quite good. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best, the average score for all ORV areas was 7.8, a score on the positive side of the scale. The standard deviation for the group (2.1) also indicates the rating is clustered on the positive side (If the scale from the average (5) to almost the best (10). A t-test of means revealed no statistical difference between enduro riders and trail riders in terms of their rating of ORV areas (Table 9). Table 9 Mean Rating Scores of ORV Areas by Enduro and Trailriders Enduro Trailriders ‘R = 7.03 i’= 7.76 SD = 2.86 SD = 2.05 N = 36 N = 94 Note: Areas were rated on a scale of l to 10, 1 being the worst and 10 being the best. robs = .15, Tav = 2.57, df = 128, p < .05, NS. Even with the overall favorable rating 58% of the motorcycling ORV users (N=130) had suggestions for improving the ORV areas. Thirty percent of the enduro riders wanted more trails followed by ‘better marked trails (10%). In contrast onLy 10% of the trail riders wanted more trails and 11% wanted the trails marked better (see Appendix C). Seven enduro riders indicated a need to restructure the regulations in such a way as to make more country available to them. 47 Suggestions included Opening all lands unless posted closed, opening up closed areas, and having no regulations at all. Only 5% of the enduro riders indicated they would be riding illegally when they reSponded to the question "where will you be riding" by checking the box "any place attractive". Increasing the Effectiveness of Future I & E Plans Defining who the audience will be and how to contact them is an essential part of developing an I & E plan. Additional information on what appeals to the audience is useful in determining message strategies. A General Profile of ORV Users. The sport of ORV riding is dominated by male participants (94% male and 6% female in this study). The average age of ORV users on the White Cloud [fistrict was 30, the median 29, and the mode 21. Overall, 58 (40%) of the subjects made between $11,000 and $20,000 annually. The mean was $19,000, the median $17,000 and the mode was $15,000 (see Appendix B). Thirty-nine percent of the reSpondents completed high school and 21% had attended, yet not completed a college education. A small number of reSpondents held advanced degrees (6.4% beyond a undergraduate level). Employment listed by respondents (N=135) was fairly evenly divided between the following categories: professional and technical workers (24%); craftsmen and kindred, mechanics (16%) and operators and factory workers (20%) (see Appendix B). 48 Over half (54%) of the trail riders (N=100) indicated that they never compete :hi ORV competition. Most ORV users (40%) owned only one vehicle, 27% owned two, 19% owned three, and 11% owned four or more (N=144). Kawasaki was the brand owned by the largest group of subjects (22%) followed by Yamaha (19%) and Honda (10%). A majority of the ORV respondents (N=l42) came from within a 50 mile radius of the District (56%). In addition, 17% of the reSpondents came from a 51 to 100 mile radius, 19% from a 101 to 150 mile radius and only 8% from a greater than 150 mile radius. The percentage of ORV riders who were repeat users on the site as determined by Observation was 18%. i}, ‘ I . eXploring in the area. An additional 21% found it through a friend and Thirty percent of ORV riders found their recreation sites by 14% found the areas through an ORV club. Only 2% of the riders reported finding the areas as a result of Forest Service maps or contact with an officer. When the ORV riders (N=l37) came to the District they were usually with a group of friends (49%) or with family and friends (30%). Single family groups were listed by only 10% of the sample. Only 7% of the respondents indicated they tunm: part of an organized group and only a few (3%) came alone. Use Patterns and Activities Of ORV Users. Figure 3 illustrates the number of years ORV users have ridden on the Huron-Manistee National Forest. Table 10 is a comparison of ORV weekend/weekday use patterns observed and reported in this study, and other studies. 49 % 3O ' 16» 3 / . / Z 10 ‘ gag 9 / . 5 g / g a 0 a 5 a First visit First year 2 to 5 6 to 11 11+ Number of years ridden 1 Figure 3. Years ridden on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Note: 1 Percentage will not add up to 100%; the non-response was 24%. 50 Table 10 ORV Use on the White Cloud District in Comparison to Other Studies . . Allegheny Endurouggported 8HVeUggi fi§3é§3n Nat'l Forest3 Weekend 71.9% 64.1% 42% 67% Weekdays 7.0% 35.9% 58% 33% Both 21.1% 1 Observed use was compiled from on-site nonrespondent forms. Michigan DNR survey report (1977). U.S.D.A. Forest Service (1978). On-site riders typically began riding in the morning (72.8%) starting between the hours of 7 am and 12 am. Early morning hours were less favored since 54.6% of all riders started between 10 am and 12 am. Riders starting in the afternoon (1 pm to 4 pm) and evening hours (after 5 pm) occurred less frequently, 24.7% and 2.6% respectively.1 ORV users rode their vehicle an average of 29 days per season. The duration of ORV use is reflected by the average time (4.7 hours) an ORV rider spends recreating on his vehicle. Since the majority of riders began between the hours of 10 and 12 in the morning this means use is concentrated from 10 to 7 on weekends. The primary purpose given by ORV subjects for visiting the District was motorcycle riding (58.1%). As expected, 75% of enduro riders primary prupose for visiting the forests was motorcycle riding Percentages include information from cmrsite rider not campers or Enduro riders. 51 as opposed to 52% of the trail riders visiting for the primary purpose of motorcycle riding. Other activities listed in the order of importance included; camping in Forest Service deve10ped campgrounds and dispersed areas, as well as canoeing, fishing and hunting. ORV Users Reasons for Enjoying the ORV Sport. Since the survey used primarily open-ended questions there was a need to categorize data. The specific reSponses of why subjects enjoyed the ORV sport were placed in categories similar to Driver's Recreation EXperience Preference Scales (1977). Examples of these dimensions include: experiencing nature, mental change, achievement, general escape, tension release and exercise. Drivers' (1977) dimensions were used to quantify this data for two primary reasons. 1) The dimensions differentiate between similar responses by attaching them to a specific motivational dimension. 2) The data obtained in this study could be evaluated for the two types of riders (enduro and trail riders) to see if there were differences in their enjoyment of the Sport. The following is an example of how the answers were categorized into dimensions. The dimension of achievement included responses such as skill, competition, and self-accomplishment. These correSponded with the following sentences from Driver's (1977) work: Because I thought it would be a challenge (challenge). To try and improve my skills in doing it (skill). To show others I could do it (competition). I thought it would give me a feeling of confidence in myself (self-achievement). 52 Appendix C explains how these distinctions were made and summarizes the responses in each category by user type. Overall, the most important reasons for the White Cloud ORV riders' enjoyment of the sport were experiencing nature (22%), fun and recreation (14%), and a challenge (14%). The dimensions with the most responses for enduro riders included, achievement (26%), followed by experiencing nature (19%) and general escape (14%). For trail riders, experiencing nature received the largest response rate (23%), followed by mental change (18%), and achievement (10%). Additional Results. This section includes results of the study that were not specifically covered in the objective of increasing the effectiveness of future I & E plans; yet they are important and relevant findings. The ORV population of the District was determined by the Forest Service in 1980 by various means including observation and traffic counts (Table 11). Analysis comparing survey use figures and Forest Service use figures indicates a large discrepency. Comparable figures for the three sites are summarized in Table 12. The most accurate comparisons are of motorcycle use at Benton Lake and Cedar Creek. All use figures are expressed as use per 1000 visitor days. Forest Service use figures are easily 50% higher than they should be. In addition, figures from this study for the 3 sites were extrapolated into seasonal use figures by using 4.7 hours/day as the average duration of motorcycle use as determined by the study. This should have increased the total visitor days determined by the study to a figure 53 Table 11 White Cloud ORV Use Figures for 1980 Recreation Composite (Survey Station) 1980 Automobile Motocycle Use/1000 Use/1000 Roads Recreation Visitor days Visitor days Pere Marquette, Newaygo (Benton Lake) .4 .6 Hardy-Croton, Newaygo 1.6 2.0 White River, Muskegon (Cedar Creek) .1 .1 White River Oceana (North Branch) .1 .2 Little Muskegon, Montcalm .1 .2 Little Muskegon, Newaygo .2 .3 Subtotal 2.5 3.4 Trails Recreation LCC Cycle Trail Newaygo (Benton Lake) .0 2.4 Cedar Creek Motorcycle Trail Muskegon (Cedar Creek) .0 2.8 Little Muskegon, Montealm 0.1 0.2 Little Muskegon, Newaygo 0.1 0.1 Subtotal 0.2 5.5 General Undeveloped Areas Pere Marquette, Newaygo 1.5 1.9 Pere Marquette, Oceana 1.1 1.4 Hardy-Croton, Mecosta 0.6 0.7 Hardy-Croton, Newaygo (Enduro) 2.4 4.0 White River, Muskegon 1.4 1.6 White River, Oceana (North Branch) 1.8 2.8 Subtotal 8.8 12.4 Total 11.5 21.3 1 District personnel estimate that 4x4, dunebuggy and all terrain vehicle use is 1% of the automobile traffic. 54 .mOHOH£O> chuumu HHw cam mmewsn mane .m.¢x¢ muesHOcH auowwumu umzuo ocoH \ HOOOmOm osu :H mzwe x AmH \ Ammo mo aoHumuse x OOOVVH .hmv OOOHmH> oooH\Om= mm emwwmunxm mum mwustw HH< .muuoemu .2 .H.m OOH>uOm ammuom co momma mum mmustw Om: mH.H mH.c No.0 m¢.N q.o mH.o mm.o No.0 w.m w.H mw.o Ho.o Ho.o w.~ ¢.H -Mmmmmm:WHEN“: {as 83332. 838mm: mm>u=m >mo ome. Nmumn OOH>uOm ummumm th>usm >mo ome mnu cu mwustw Om: >mo OOH>umm ummuom mo OOmHumano NH OHan Ome acucmm nocmum :uuoz xmmuu umemo 55 higher than the use figures estimated by the Forest Service which uses 3.1 hr/day for their figures. In addition, the survey use figures should be higher than the Forest Service's since the sampling period was during the high use period of lime summer and included two holiday weekend days. The total size of the ORV population on the District cannot be ascertained by extrapolating the 1980 ORV survey. DISCUSSION Knowledge and Awareness of Regulations The results determined that 80% of the ORV users on the White Cloud District could not provide adequate recall of ORV regulations. Recall is believed to be the accurate estimate of ORV regulation knowledge. It is true that 64.3% of the riders said they knew of ORV regulations, yet only 20% provided accurate recall answers. Unless an ORV rider realizes what the regulation said and can repeat some part of it, professed knowledge should be considered as awareness of the regulation. In other words, the majority of ORV users on the White Cloud District are aware that regulations exist, but they do not know what the regulations are. Only 20% of the reSpondents could list a regulation when asked specifically about them. Yet when subjects were asked what rules were broken, 39% listed a viable regulation. This indicated that knowledge of ORV regulations may be somewhat higher than mentioned above but still a majority of users do not know regulations. The interesting point of this difference may be the attitude of the riders towards being asked about regulatory questions. There was a higher regulation recall response to a question which dealt with the users perceptions of violations as opposed to their recall of regulations when it was related to specific messages given to them by a regulatory agency. The results suggest that some ORV riders may have 56 57 reacted negatively to inquiries on specific regulations, or know the regulations in a behavioral sense but cannot verbalize them. When asked their opinions of regulation violations riders could freely associate regulations with perceived violations. This slight indication that there are negative feelings towards regulatory agencies is supported in the results discussing desired improvements needed in ORV areas. A small percentage of enduro riders (14%) seem to feel a need to restructure the regulations in such a way as to make more country available to them. Suggestions from enduro riders included opening all lands unless posted closed, opening up closed areas, and having no regulations an: all. Only 5% of the enduro riders indicated they would be riding illegally when they responded to the question "where will you be riding" by checking the box "any place attractive". Only 2% of the on-site trail riders were observed riding illegally. This may be due to ignorance of the rules rather than disregard. The scope of the problem of ORV riders not knowing ORV regulations increases when you consider the fact that the age of the riders and their number of visits to the Forest and their membership in an ORV club had no relationship to their knowledge of regulations. Close to three-quarters of the respondents felt the majority of ORV riders were obeying the ORV regulations. However, the results indicated that the majority of ORV users did not know the regulations so it follows that it would be very difficult for them to perceive the regulations being violated. ReSpondents cited ignorance and indifference as two reasons for non-compliance. Other reasons cited included: adventure; hasshe in obtaining ORV registration; problem in getting equipment parts (Spark arrestors) that are not stock equipment 58 and a general dislike of the regulations. The lack of knowledge of ORV regulations may be helpful, if it is not backed by a negative predisposition towards the regulations. Berelson anul Steiner (1965) indicated that communication of facts is typically ineffective in changing opinions against an audience's predispositions. In this sense, since the ‘majority of riders do not know the regulations the potential of an effective I & E program is good. Yet, in developing persuasive message strategies the small number of riders with what appears to be a negative predisposition should be considered. I & E Plan Evaluation If the success of the Information and Education campaign conducted by the Forest is measured by the number of ORV users who were knew ORV regulations, then the plan was a failure as indicated by the low percentage (20%) of riders who knew a general regulation. Considering the information available to planners of the I & E program, the plan was good in principle. The Forest Service could not target the correct media outlets unless they have the type of data this study provides. Overall, the majority of riders felt the Districts advertising of ORV areas was average to poor (40% and 35% respectively). This tends to indicate that general information on the ORV areas is not reaching the ORV audience. Several metropolitan newspapers, radio, and television stations were not utilized in the past I 6: E plan. The District had no way of knowing which medias would be the most effective in reaching the intended audience. Only one Cadillac radio station was contacted, and no television coverage was obtained. However 37% of the respondents 59 indicated that they listened to two Grand Rapids radio stations, WLAV and WGRD, and over half of the respondents mentioned one particular Grand Rapids television station, WZZM. The results (Table 6 and 7) indicated that the medius utilized in the I & E Plan were a poor match with the media ORV riders used. Thus the likelihood of the I & E plan reaching its intended audience through the targeted media. channel. was ininimal. The respondents in this study listed at least one television or radio station as :3 media source. These media can be utilized by using their public service anouncements or through the news departments and public affairs programming. A Gallup poll noted that radio commercials received an 8% registration (in a test measuring recall) against a 10% level for television (In: Berkman and Gilson, 1978). Subjects were not asked to differentiate between the media channels as to which one was their primary source of information. The purpose of the mass media questions was to obtain as much information about the media patronized so that an inclusive campaign could be deve10ped in the future. However, looking at the frequency of responses for the different media gives an indication of the order of importance of the media. Seventy-two percent of the subjects listed one or more newspapers, 70% listed a radio station and 66% listed a television station and 57% listed one or more magazines. The primary newspapers mentioned were in descending order, the Muskegon Chronical, Grand Rapids Press, Detroit Free Press, and the Detroit News. Only one of these papers was listed by the Forest Service as having published ORV feature stories. 60 All of the media sources the respondents listed are summarized in Appendix B and are individually ranked in order from the highest frequency to the lowest. These tables can be used to target the media for a future I & E program on the District. The type of information to be included in the campaign will take careful consideration. It is not within the scope of this research paper to design the individual message strategies for a future I & E plan. However it is beneficial at this time to point out factors which may play a significant role in the development of the campaign. Possible Reasons for Non-compliance Results of this study indicated convenience was a primary factor in choosing the ORV site. Only a two respondents mentioned esthetic attributes of the area. This indicates that the esthetics of «the land W is not a primary concern in choosing an arga. However, experiencing nature was an important dimension for 22% of the riders when they listed reasons for enjoying the ORV sport. If experiencing nature an important dimension in the enjoyment of the sport then perhaps an effective communication strategy would by to inform users of environmental damage resulting from the sport. If non-compliance is a result of ignorance and indifference to the rules than appeals connecting the rules to a perception the ORV rider can relate to (experiencing nature) may be effective. ORV riders, in general, disliked attributes related to man-made features; cements frequently mentioned felled trees, closed trails and trail markings. Land features were also mentioned as being disliked. Responses included flat terrain, mudholes and bumps. 61 The complaint about flat land is understandable since the White Cloud District is not known for having hills. It does have a moderately rolling terrain with occassional hills, however. This suggests that a small percentage of riders (7%) would like more hills in ORV areas. It is possible that hills nearby legal riding areas are very strong attractions to riders. A review of the trails may indicate where legal hill climbs could be added to the ORV legal areas. Fallen trees, however, are another matter. One possible reason for this complaint is that felling trees to make ORV barriers is a common practice used in closing an ORV area or hill climb. Land ‘managers survey trails and roads regularly to eliminate these hazards on approved areas. It could. be suggested that the problemi with fallen trees may result from. encounters during cross-country travel. or on favorite hill-climbs that have been closed. Riders disliking trail closures indicates a need to communicate the rationale for closures. Only a small percentage of reSpondents (2%) indicated trail marking was a problem. Yet poorly marked trails is a serious problem. If ORV riders can not follow the marking for legal riding areas it increases the likelihood of illegal travel. Eleven percent of the respondents mentioned a dislike for running into other recreationists. Comments included a dislike of running into other vehicles or horseback riders. A rationale for having legal ORV areas could mention the fact that the areas are designed to keep such conflicts to a minimum. Overall, it appeared the ORV riders viewed the present ORV areas favorably, seemingly indicating satisfaction with legal ORV areas. However since 11 large number of users do not know ORV regulations, it 62 may be that the users satisfaction with ORV areas includes illegal and legal use. This is further reflected by the results indicating users desired more and better marked trails. Also, a small number of riders (7) wanted to restructure regulations to make more land available. Presently, the legal ORV areas are not congested and do not appear to be heavily used. Therefore the non-compliances problem 1might be decreased if ORV riders were more aware of other legal opportunities available. Effective I & E Plans in the Future In regard to implementing an Information and Education program on the Forest the potential to contact ORV riders with regulation messages appears good. The use patterns and activites of ORV riders on the District give an indication of effective methods of contacting riders on the district. Five factors should be considered: 1) the percentage of repeat users observed (18%); 2) the percentage of riders who indicated they had spent 2 or more years riding on the Forest (71%); 3) the fact that the majority of the riders (56%) are from within a 50 mile radius of the District; 4) 25% of the riders are club members; and 5) the fact that enduro riders represent approximately 10% of the total ORV use on the District. The above factors indicate that the future I & E plans must give equal weight to disseminating messages at the District level as well as through mass media channels. The success of the I & E plan may have been limited because the local media was not saturated and the apparent effect of normal signing on the district was minimal. Since only 21% of 63 the ORV riders were first year visitors it can be assumed the majority of riders composed a potential audience for the I & E messages when they were disseminated in 1979 and 1980, yet the connection was not made. In addition, club members and enduro riders are an easily accessible audience, representing roughly 35% of the ORV population on the District. Therefore, an I & E Plan that focuses on the local area and clubs and enduros should be effective. The following results are helpful in improving the dissemination of the plan. One of the reasons ORV riders did not connect with the I & E messages is probably because ORV riders typically do not stay in Forest Service campgrounds where ORV messages are posted on bulletin boards. Only 13% of the total subjects interviewed become aware of regulations via a Forest Service bulletin board. An additional 14% had gained regulation information from either a Forest Service officer or brochure. It would probably be more cost-effective if ORV regulation information was made availgbl ORV dealerships within a 50 mile radius of White Cloud. When contacting ORV dealerships, theeprimary dealerships that should be contacted first are those that stock the three most frequently owned brand of ORV's this study reported. Contacting the ORV user on the District is eSpecially important if you consider how many ORV riders cannnot be contacted through a mass media channel. The percentages of ORV riders who did not watch TV, listen to a radio, or read a newspaper were all under 4%. Consequently there is a small percentage of ORV riders (4%) who were not consumers of at least one mass media channel., There is still a potential to reach this small percentage of the riders through contact initiated on the 64 District by signing, direct contact by a enforcement officer, or word of mouth from other ORV users. Information packets could be distributed at enduro or club events. However, mass media channels have the potential of reaching the majority of ORV riders that use the White Cloud District. Before discussing the implications of the umdia data gathered it should be mentioned that ORV users' patterns and activities need to be understood Ix) allow for effective law enforcement. The results indicated rider use is concentrated on weekends between the hours of 10 a.m. and 7 p.m.. These results are not startling as they are reflected in other ORV studies. In addition, weekends are a peak time for other dispersed recreation activities. Yet, the results imply that heavier staffing during these hours would increase the effectiveness of enforcement by having the officers on duty during the peak hours. Developing the umssage strategies will be an important part of a future I & E program. The strategies discussed previously will guide the plan to targeted media dissemination. The results indicating reasons for non-compliance and the perceptions of why ORV riders enjoy the sport are essential in developing message strategies. Future I & E programs should also contain. a plan. to evaluate effectiveness and provide feedback to improve the plan. When developing the objectives of the plan, goals that can be measured can provide the basis for analysis. It will be extremely‘ difficult Ix) measure the effectiveness of attitude change as a result of an I & E program unless it results in a behavioral change. Behavioral change could be measured by observing increased compliance of ORV users or less use on illegal ORV areas. But the reliability of observations by the District 65 in estimating ORV use and environmental damage needs to be improved before this can be used as an indicator. In the beginning of this report the difficulty in obtaining accurate use figures on diSpersed recreation areas was pointed out. The results illuminate this fact by indicating Forest Service use figures are easily 50% higher than what they should be. On a scale of 1 being the most accurate and 55 being the least accurate, the District rates it's use figure at the 4 level. The survey use figures on 3 sites were biased upwards because of sampling during the peak use season. However, they probably reflect use on the three sites accurately, because of similarities to the methods used to obtain a rating of 1 by Forest Service criteria. Techniques to meet the FS criteria involve: 1) selecting 2 or three key indicator sites; 2) selecting randomly 6 to 8 sample days between May I“) to September 7, half the sampling to occur on weekdays and half (n1 weekend days; 3) observing recreation use on each site by spending a half hour at each walking through the area and recording activities; 4) Spending 1/2 hour at each site counting people entering it to supplement traffic counter readings; and 5) rotating visits to each site (n1 a sampling day by starting at one site for an hour then moving Ix) the next for an hour and rotating the site visits until the end of a sampling day (James, 1966; James and Ripley, 1963). This survey sample used the following methods: 1) three sites were selected that represented Iflma ORV pOpulation; 2) 9 days were selected between June and September; 6 of the days were randomly selected on weekends and 3 randomly selected on weekdays; 3) recreation use was observed and recorded at each site; 4) recreation visitors were 66 tallied; and 5) the observer spent. 3 hours on each site and then rotated to the next until the sampling day was completed. The above similarities indicate the survey figures should be more accurate than the Forest Service figures on the three sites. To increase the accuracy of FS survey figures will incur increased costs. If the ORV problem is a high priority, perhaps funds should be made available to do so. In the meantime, observation of the ORV activity revealed several use patterns which should be considered. Aside from mechanical problems with setting up and maintaining traffic c0unters, placement is crucial. The traffic counters at Benton Lake and at Cedar Creek were set close to major traffic areas (a staging area and a heavily used dispersed campground). At Cedar Creek, ORV riders would often lOOp around the trails near the staging area several times to make sure the bike was running well before the riders started trail-riding. On Benton Lake this problem is even more pronounced. ORV campers would let their children ride close to the campsite and they would end up making circles around the area frequently. Observation of ORV area activity before and after establishing a sampling spot would be extremely beneficial in increasing the accuracy of traffic counters. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS At the start of this paper it was asked "Is there an ORV problem?" According to Forest Service land managers, yes there is :1 problem because ORV users are riding illegally and environmental damage and user conflicts are occuring. Yet, this problem seemingly doesn't exist in the world of the riders. Although riders are "aware" there are regulations they do not know what the regulations are in a specific sense; yet they perceive the majority of ORV riders as complying with ORV regulations. This suggests part of the problem lies ‘within the differences in attitudes. Wendling's (1976) study focused on the perceived differences between land managers viewpoints and the ORV riders viewpoints. He found that the ‘majority of trail riders had negative images of the government managers regardless of the quality of the site the riders were using. This study supports the contention that communication is the backbone of a compliance program. People need to have relevant information upon which to base an attitude. Communication through mass media, signs, and enforcement officers may initiate ORV users to change their attitude and perhaps even their behavior. Testing this assumption, however is beyond the sc0pe of this research study, but it is the next logical step. In the meantime, as a result of this study, it has been determined that there is a communications breakdown between the regulating 67 68 agencies and the ORV riders who are regulated. The extent of the problem being as behavioral one has not been determined, nor can it be until it has been ascertained that peOple know the regulations. The indications are that behavioral problems exist. Since the majority of riders are "aware" that regulations exist but ck) not know them, this study's observations and results suggest that this may occur because: information on regulations is not easily obtained; and ORV riders do not like being regulated. In this society, it is the citizens' responsibility to be aware of laws regulating their behavior. Ignorance is rarely a good defense in court. However, this is an issue dealing with on conflicts arising Over an activity undertaken during people's leisure time on public land. In this case, the regulating agencies have a responsibility to make the information readily available to the public. Signing on the District is a major form of communications to recreationists. Yet vandalism: of signs is a common problem in dispersed areas, thus other communication channels are needed in the area to supplement signing. />€" One of the ways the White Cloud District can effectively deal with the above problems is to educate and inform the public as to how and why the regulations exist. In the future, the major thrust of an I & E program on the District should be to 1) inform the majority of the riders of the rules in such way that the riders perception of the rules become more positive; and 2) promote better public relations. Based on the survey results, the District should consider the following elements in a future information and education program for ORV users. 1) Messages should appeal to a younger audience in their late 20's and early 30's. 69 2) The important dimensions of the sport that appeal to the rider should be incorporated into the message design to: a) catch their attention and arouse their interest. b) increase awareness of recreationists conflict with ORV riders. 3) Messages should be clear, concise and simple. 4) Stressing the environmental "costs" of illegal riding may be used effectively as one aSpect of the campaign. 5) The District should be nwre involved with the DNR to facili- tate the ORV rider education programs in the area. 6) Messages should include positive information such as where good ORV areas are located so that the riders do not tune out the message, before they are informed of the regulations and how the rules have helped minimize problems for the rider as well as other users. Message dissemination (Hi the District should increase the utilizathmn of the radio and television mediums. It was noted that 4% of the ORV riders (Hi the District did not list any mass media or ORV club connections and cannot be reached by these mediums. If an effec- tive campaign is disseminated successfully, this small percentage of people may became aware of the regulations through informal information channels. The dissemination strategy should concentrate on the following: 1) Target the specific media mentioned by ORV riders within the 50 mile radius. 2) Concentrate on radio and television outlets since this is where the previous plan was lacking. 3) 4) 5) 6) In 70 Over a period of time saturate these media with the messages repeatedly. Repetition will increase recognition, if not recall of the message strategy. Utilize free public air time effectively by developing radio and T.V. ads. Potential contacts at the local level (i.e. county fairs, enduro races) should be established and ORV information should be easily available on the District. The other metropolitan areas identified during this study should also receive the ORV messages, but for cost- effectiveness the major emphasis should be focused closer to the White Cloud District. general, the majority of the ORV riders were satisfied with the current areas offered by the VHdte Cloud District. However, there was an indicathmn that ORV riders desired more trails to be built. On the basis the results of the study suggest the following recommendations: 1) 2) 3) No new trails be established until an accurate estimate of present use and future demand is made. This estimate should access recreation opportunities being developed by the state. Michigan is currently eXpanding trails and establishing run: ORV areas. ORV trails and areas with cross-country travel permitted a currently available could be advertised as alternate ORV use sites so the riders are well aware of legal riding areas available to them. Better advertising of the existing trails be incorporated into the I & E program. 71 It would appear that the present method of closing an area with felled trees is zni effective one, since it is one thing the riders like the least. When possible a combination of felled trees and water barriers would probably be the most effective deterrent. The other land features that riders disliked are too general or too dependent upon the riders skill to be successfully incorporated into a management program. The comments concerning the specific trails should be considered. ORV users feel that the trails need to be better marked and other suggestions included keeping the trails from crossing roads and having one-way trails. These are included. for consideration, not as recommendations. There are many factors involved in trail maintenance and design which are too numerous to be discussed adequately in this report. However, the trails and areas should be reviewed no see if these complaints are justified. If so, then proper action should be initiated to correct the problems. In summary, ORV use has evolved into a controversial topic. On the White Cloud District ORV riding has developed into a highly regulated recreation in comparison to other outdoor recreation activities such as hiking (n: birdwatching. This is because the nature of the sport makes it more intrusive into other recreationists' "space" through noise or the visual impact of the treads left on the landscape. It remains, however, a very valid, exciting, and dynamic form of recreation. The types of riders who come to the White Cloud District require a large land base with the esthetic qualities similar to those desired by other recreationists. Overall, this study indicates the present ORV areas have the potential to satisfy the vast majority of riders on the White Cloud District. But, there is a need to let people 72 know that the potential is there. An eXpanded Information and Education program is warrented on the White Cloud District. It should inform the public of ORV areas and motivate them to comply with ORV regulations. APPEND IX A APPENDIX A Interviewer Instructions Data will be collected by surveying at three major ORV use sites: at campgrounds, at on-site ORV areas, and at an enduro. The methods will involve a survey questionnaire introduced through personal contact by the interviewer. The data collection overlaps in such a way that it is possible that a subject may be contacted twice. To avoid double sampling and interviewer bias all interviewers will follow the general procedures outlined below. Although you may or may not be in favor of ORV use on the Forest, please keep in mind: 1) A biased for or against presentation could invalidate the study. 2) Be objective, keep conversation friendly but ‘brief Ix) help eliminate bias. 3) If negative attitude is apparent on the part of the interviewer, it will be harder to gain the cooperation you need and you'll be wasting your time in the field. 0n arriving at the site, the interviewer will set up a sign and try and flag down ORV riders. For those who stop, it will be determined whether they were contacted in a campground. If not, only the driver will be handed a survey form; provided he/she is willing to fill out 73 74 the form. If the ORV user declines, the interviewer will try to determine non- respondent data by filling out non-respondent Form 1. On the site - try to avoid long conversations but some information is necessary. 1) Introduce yourself, identify yourself. 2) Introduce the study using the introduction on survey form. 3) Stress a) study sponsors: U.S. Forest Service, Michigan State University. b) Anonymous responses: information cannot be be traced to individual, yet each individual helps present a picture of the whole group. 4) If asked, or feel it's necessary to gain subjects response to the interview - explain why the study is being conducted. ORV users will probably best relate to the following reason. The Manistee National Forests is in the planning stage for ORV management. In order to provide adequate recreation experiences for ORV users as well as analyze the riders concerns and problems, this study has been independently funded to evaluate ORV riders Opinions on the White Cloud District. Other reasons for conducting the study include: 1) it relates to other ORV user studies across the country. 2) it determines if there's a communication problem between the Forest Service and ORV recreationist. 75 In every case this standard introduction will be given. "Hi, Michigan State University is conducting a survey to evaluate the Manistee National Forest's ORV regulations and the quality of the ORV sites. This study provides a chance for the actual users to comment on the surrounding ORV areas and Forest Service regulations. If you would like to contribute information to this study please take this opportunity 1x) fill out a survey. It only takes about 15 minutes of your time." Campground sampling was conducted by the campground hosts at Benton Lake campground and the researcher at three dispersed camping areas. The days surveyed for campground sampling will be the same as the number of random sample days for on site users. Campground interviewers will follow the same guide lines outlined previously. 76 A1 ORV RECREATION SURVEY Department of Parks and Recreation Michigan State University This survey is an important part. of’ an ongoing study' of ORV user expectations and preferences on the Huron-Manistee National. Forests. The information you provide will help to define and locate problems, relate to future ORV recreation design and planning, and provide public participation in planning and Operations. Your experience and insight cannot be duplicated from any other information source and are pessential elements in the success of this study. We very much appreciate your time and cooperation. This questionnaire is anonymous because :hi no way can it be traced back to an individual. FOR OFFICE USE Date Thme Location A2 1) 2) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 77 SURVEY FORM A Are you the major driver of the vehicle on this trip? Yes [ ] N0 1 ] Age [ ] 3) Sex: M [ ] F [ ] Occupation Where do you live? City State County Zip How many ORV's do you own? 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] >4 [ ] What make(s) of vehicles , How many hours a day do your usually ride your ORV? What days of the week do you usually ride? Weekends [ ] Weekday [ ] How many days per year do you drive your ORV on the Huron-Manistee National Forests for recreation? (Do not include snowmobiles) What was your primary purpose for visiting the Huron—Manistee National Forests? What other activities will you be participating in while on the Huron-manistee National Forests? [ ] Forest Service [ ] Fishing Campground [ ] Hunting [ ] Camping - other developed campground [ ] Canoeing [ ] Camping - other [ ] Other (please list) I 1 Hiking I ] A3 78 13) Do you know about Federal ORV regulations on the Huron-Manistee National Forests? Yes No If yes, where did you learn about the regulations? [ ] Forest Service brochure [ ] Contact with Forest Service Office Local Media: Television [ ] Radio [ ] Newspaper [ ] [ ] Through ORV Club [ ] Posted on Forest Service bulletin board [ ] Word of Mouth [ ] Other, please list: 14) What do your remember most about the announcement/regulation 15) message? Do you think most people follow the official ORV rules for this Forest? Yes [ ] No [ ] What rules are probably broken most often? Why? 16) Where will you be riding your' ORV"whi1e (Hi the Huron-Manistee National Forests? [ ] Designated ORV Sites Which ones? [ ] Trails Which ones? [ ] Any place Attractive Which ones? [ ] Roads Which ones? 17) How did you find out about or find the above areas? A4 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 79 What characteristics of the terrain makes a good ORV recreation area on the Huron-Manistee? (please list.) How would you rate the Huron-Manistee National Forests for ORV recreation on a scale of l - 10? 10 being the best. What obstacles do you least like to run into? Which of the following best describes the group you're here with today? ' [ ] came alone I I group of friends [ ] one family [ ] family and friends [ ] one couple [ ] other (please list) [ ] organized group [ ] Could you please indicate your approximate annual income for 1979 before taxes? Please check the highest level of education completed Attended Grade School [ ] Attended College [ ] Completed Grade School [ ] Completed College [ ] Attended High School [ ] Graduate Education [ ] Completed High School [ ] Post Graduate [ ] What improvements do you feel should be made in this ORV recreation area? (Please list.) A5 25) 26) 80 Please list some of the reasons you enjoy the ORV Sport? Why? Please circle the one reason that is most important to you. How willing are you to support user fees to develop, maintain and rehabilitate ORV areas and trails? Very willing [ ] Somewhat willing [ ] Indifferent [ ] Not willing [ ] 27) Which of the following methods do you prefer to fund development, 28) maintenance and rehabilitation of public ORV areas? Pleasee list in order of importance, #1 being the most important. [ ] General tax funds (taxes all people small percentages for ORV) [ ] Entrance fee charge [ ] User fee charge [ ] Combination of entrance and user fees [ ] Vehicle registration fees [ ] Gasoline tax revenue [ ] Other (Please list) How many years have you been driving your ORV on the Huron-Manistee National Forests? lst Time Exact number (years) In order for the Forest Service to improve it's information effort and for it to be able to notify you of ORV policy changes, would you please complete the following information. 81 A6 29) What do you think of the Forest Service's present methods of advertising the location of ORV areas on the Huron-Manistee National Forests? Good [ ] Average [ ] Poor [ ] 30) What ORV or Sports Magazines do you subscribe to? 31) What is the type and specific radio station you ‘listen t1) most often? (Example: Jazz, WJZZ) What is the type and Specific TV station you watch most often? What newspapers do you read? 32) DO you belong to any ORV or other special interest clubs or organizations? Yes [ ] No [ ] Which ones? Comments: Thank you for your time and cooperation! Have a nice day. If you would like to be On a Forest Service mailing list for new ORV maps and publications, please contact the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Supervisor's Office, 421 South Mitchell Street, Cadillac, Michigan 49601. If you have any questions about this survey please contact or mail the form to Phyllis Dorman, Department of Parks and Recreation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48864. 82 B1 ORV RECREATION SURVEY Department of Parks and Recreation Michigan State University This survey is an important part of an ongoing study’ of ORV user expectations and preferences on the Huron-Manistee National IForests. The information you provide will help to define and locate problems, relate to future ORV recreation design and planning, and provide public participation in planning and operations. Your experience and insight cannot be duplicated from any other information source and are essential elements in the success of this study. We very much appreciate your time and COOperation. This questionnaire is anonymous because in no way can it be traced back to an individual. FOR OFFICE USE Date Time Location B2 1) 2) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) [ 83 SURVEY FORM B Are you the major driver of the vehicle on this trip? Yes [ ] NO I 1 Age [ ] 3) Sex: M [ ] F [ ] Occupation Where do you live? City State County Zip How many ORV's do you own? 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] >4 [ ] What make(s) of vehicles , What time did you start driving your ORV today? How many hours today will your ORV be in use? How many days per year do you drive your ORV on the Huron-Manistee National Forests for recreation? (Do not include snowmobiles.) What was your primary purpose for visiting the Huron-Manistee National Forests? What other activities will you be participating in while on the Huron-manistee National Forests? ] Forest Service [ ] Fishing Campground [ ] Hunting ] Camping - other developed campground [ ] Canoeing ] Camping - other [ ] Other (please list) ] Hiking I 1 B3 84 12b) Have you ever driven your ORV in competitive events? [ ] Never [ ] Occasionally [ ] Regularly 13) Do you know about Federal ORV regulations on the Huron-Manistee 14) 15) 16) 17) National Forests? Yes No If yes, where did you learn about the regulations? [ ] Forest Service brochure [ ] Contact with Forest Service Office Local Media: Television [ ] Radio [ ] NewSpaper [ ] [ ] Through ORV Club [ ] Posted on Forest Service bulletin board [ ] Word of Mouth [ ] Other, please list: , , What do your remember most about the announcement/regulation message? How did you find out about this ORV area? What made you choose this site rather than other sites for ORV recreation. Pleas be specific i.e. type of terrain, etc. Which of the following best describes the group you're here with today? [ ] came alone [ ] group of friends [ ] one family [ ] family and friends [ ] one couple [ ] other (please list) [ ] organized group [ ] B4 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 85 Could you please indicate your approximate annual income for 1979 before taxes? Please check the highest level of education completed Attended Grade School [ ] Attended College [ ] Completed Grade School [ ] Completed College [ ] Attended High School [ ] Graduate Education [ ] Completed High School [ ] Post Graduate [ ] What do you most like about this area or trail? What do you least like about this area or trail? On a scale of one to ten, how do you rate this area or trail? 10 being the best. What improvements do you feel should be made in this ORV recreation area? In your opinion, do you think most people follow the official ORV rules for this Forest? Yes [ ] NO [ ] If rules are broken, in your opinion, which rules are probably broken most often? Why? Please list some of the reasons you enjoy the ORV sport? Of the above reasons, please circle the one which is most important to you. B5 26) 86 How willing are you to support user fees to develop, maintain and rehabilitate ORV areas and trails? Very willing [ ] Somewhat willing [ ] Indifferent [ ] Not willing [ ] 27) Which of the following methods do you prefer to fund deve10pment, 28) maintenance and rehabilitation of public ORV areas and trails? Plaease list in order of importance, #1 being the most important. [ ] General tax funds (taxes all peOple small percentages for ORV) [ ] Only entrance fee charge [ ] Only have user fee charge I ] Combination of entrance and user fees [ ] Vehicle registration fees [ ] Gasoline tax revenue [ ] Other (Please list) How many years have you been driving your ORV on the Huron-Manistee National Forests? lst Time Exact number (years) In order for the Forest Service to improve it's advertising and for it to be able to notify you of ORV policy changes, would you please complete the following information. 29) What do you think of the Forest Service's present methods of advertising the location of ORV areas on the Huron-Manistee National Forests? Excellent [ ] Good [ ] Average [ ] Poor [ ] 30) What ORV or Sports Magazines do your subscribe to? 87 B6 31) What is the type and specific radio station you listen to most often? (Example: Jazz, WJZZ) What is the specific TV station you watch most often? What newspapers do you read? 32) DO you belong to any ORV or other special interest clubs or organ- izations? Yes [ ] No [ ] Which ones? Comments: Thank you for your time and cooperation! Have a nice day. If you would like to be on a Forest Service mailing list for new ORV maps and publications, please contact the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Supervisor's Office, 421 South Mitchell Street, Cadillac, Michigan 49601. If you have any questions about this survey please contact or mail the form to Phyllis Dorman, Department of Parks and Recreation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48864. 88 uwsuo ucwecto>ow|Hu=< wEHu oz uuoawm new: :02 mu:0EEoo oEHF OEHH wHuHcm> m m OHOst> non OHQOOQ awn anoma m0 e z 2 m0 * uwzuo umzuo >mo -- >¢o mo 93¢ n3 a no make .- maze rHOzOLOqu OHOzou0uoz OH o n q n N H fi wumm 0H m c m N H * OHOHLO> H -_ 0;616-0666663661660106 6661166: ------ 20.0 (8) __ 06666661-01616766666666166 ---------- ~3.0 <2) .__._.. 06:66-06666-6-066-660—00670106 --------- 5.0 (2) ----- 06666166366663616 0106 ------- 2.5 21> ------ 0166;66:036-016.??? ----------------- 2.5 (1) __-_ Michigan United_Conservation ClubS---- 2.5 (l) ------ 02666761150666 Ride-PS------_----_-----—_2:5--(I) '''''' 060-666666-666666666-0106m"“mum-"2:371; ------ 66616.6 ----------------------------- 2.5 (13 ------ $6661 _________________________________ 100.0 (40) 97 Table B9 Sex of Respondents Sex Z (N) Male 94.3 (133) Female 5.7 (8) Total 100.0 (141) 98 Table B10 Age of Respondents Age class Response 2 (N) "3‘3"; """"""" 2.2 (21 ‘10 -16 7 1.4 (2) -I5 - 19 - CT 7.2 (10) 30722 """" 7 23.8 (33) ”SET-20 """"""" 18.7 (26) 30-732 """""""" 20.1 (28) 35 - 39 -------- 12.9 (18) "ZS‘I‘ZZ """"""""""" 4.3 (6) 7.3-37.2} “““““ 2.2 (2) 50 - 54 ------ 5.0 (7) -55 - 59“ I 1.4 (2) 6O - 65 0.7 (1) Total 99.9 (139) : X = 29.71; Mode = 21; Median = 28.6. 99 Table B11 Income of ReSpondents Income ReSponse z (N) 3“1‘I’10:000’""’_'"'-"'-"-_IITS'E13§_"‘ 3'1173'Igt000"’"-'-"-'-'_-_"2116’132§"" 3'16'3’20:000""'7""”"“""22‘6‘226§"" 3-21-3-2§:000""'”’""'-"'-"'6’1'E§§ ‘‘‘‘‘ 3-26-3'30:000-”“‘-"'"‘—-""IIT37213§“"” 3’31'3'3§:000 """""""""""" 4.3 (5) ‘- 6’36’1’20i000 """"""""""""" 1 7 <2) $‘ZI’I“Z§:000“"""”""-”"’"‘“‘”2“6'23§ """" 3‘26'3730:000”-___'-“_‘-'__""IT§’22§ ’’’’’ 6’00i000 """""""""""""""" 0 3 <1) '-- 6-33:000 """"""""""""""" 0 3 (11‘ _" $6261 --------------------- 100 (113)"- Note: 2 = $19,000; Median = 16,670; Mode = 15,000 100 Table 812 Education of ReSpondents Highest Education Response 2 (N) ----- 36666666-26666-666661mm"‘ -211 (3) '- ..... 06.661626616662666;—"um"”2:37;-"- ----- AEESHdSE high schooI--__---------‘_7.1 (10) ----- 0661616666 11161. 666661m-mm- 39.3 (55) ----- AZZQQSQSZSIIQQQ-Wm"mm" 21 .4“(30) _-- Completed college —-------_‘-_--——20.7 (29) _____ 06661666606623---"-"mum 4.3 (6) _ ----- EQEIQZQS'EETBT-"mmm 2.1 (3) Total 100.0 (140) 101 Table 813 Occupation of Respondents Occupation ReSponse z (N) -_P;Of;ssional & TSOhnical Workers 24.4 (33) ——Operatives; factOfy-workers— 20.0 (27) -_0666660667666666166 --—- 15.6 (21) 7 ——Students ------------ 9.6 (13) -- --S;lf-employed -------------------- 5.9 (18) - --§;66;6;;--'----—--_-‘--—_—--—-—--‘-_—-5:2-—Z§§ _____ Sales workers 5.2 (7) __£666;;;; ______________________ ' 5.2 (7) 7777 --T;;ESportation -------------------- 4.4 (6) __0666601066--'--'_---___---—_"—-_‘-'-_3:0--ZZ§ ____ “'1661663 --------------------------- 1.5 (2) --TO;;I ------------------------ - 100.0 (135) _ APPENDIX C APPENDIX C CATEGORIZING RESPONSES INTO DIMENSIONS Responses to various questions were categorized into dimensions so that they could be easily analyzed and similarities between individual responses could be noted. The general description of each dimension follows and Tables C1 to C4 show the individual responses that were placed in each dimension for each question. Multiple answers were weighted equal to a single response. 1) What did you least like about this area or trail? 2) Why did you choose this site, rather than other sites for ORV recreation? 3) What improvements do you feel Should be made in this ORV area? 4) Please list some of the reasons you enjoy the ORV sport. For the first two questions above it was determined to divide the answers into the same 8 dimensions. A summary of frequencies of individual responses are found in Table Cl and C2. The first 3 dimensions are all factors dependent upon the ORV area's general land characteristics. The remaining dimensions are attributes dependent upon the ORV user's perceptions of factors other than the land characteristics. 102 103 The general-land-characteristics category included 1) man-made features; 2) esthetic features; and 3) land features. The distinction for placing an answer in man-made features was the response mentioned an easily manipulated man-made feature of the trail (i.e. single-lane, marked, or the number trails). Fallen trees was also included in the man~made features since the [fistrict commonly fells trees to close an ORV area. The distinctions used for esthetic features were qualities of the trail not tied to physical prOperties of the terrain such as: a living, growing, aSpect of the area (i.e. woods, wildlife); or a general subjective quality of the area (i.e. scenery, wilderness). The third dimension was land features. It was distinguished by physical characteristics of the geology, and terrain (i.e. sand 18 hills). The fourth dimension was convenience. It included answers which referred to the accessibility of the area (i.e. close to home, near work). The fifth dimension was isolation. It was distinguished by answers which invloved 'getting away from it all' or referred to having no people nearby or to the remoteness of the area. The sixth dimension was other recreation. It refers to the other recreation. Opportunities available in the area. For instance .if the answer the person listed was swimming or camping nearby it would be in this category. The seventh dimension was social. It included positive attributes related to being with other recreationists, family or friends. 104 The final eighth dimension was inappropriate. These were answers which were unsuitable or invalid in terms of the question asked. The answers were analyzed to determine if there was a real relationship between the query and the answer. For example 'meet girls' was considered in apprOpriate because under 8% of the riders are females so it is not a sport conducive to meeting females. Also, when the respondents filled out this question, they indicated it was in reference to meeting female researchers. It was determined in all probability that they do not start riding with this purpose in mind since they would have no way of knowing a female researcher would be at an ORV site. The above eight dimensions were used for categorizing answers for the question of what the riders liked least about an ORV area. The difference is they were used in the opposite sense. For example, if a rider said that the site was too far away from his home the response was in the convenience dimension (Table C1). For the improvements question, five categories were develOped. Facility improvement is the first category. It includes improvements on the ORV area which involve building or develOping some type facility. The second category is communications improvement. Answers included in this category were related to the respondent asking for more information. The trail features category included all responses that were related to desired improvements of the ORV area or trail (i.e. the number, length, signing). The regulation changes category included any responses that requested an increase or decrease in the rules and regulations governing ORV areas and users. 105 The last category was no immrovements. This is where respondents specifically indicated that they did not desire any changes to the area. The reasons listed for enjoying ORV riding were consolidated into dimensions (Table C4). The dimensions used were based (n1 Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales developed by Driver (1977) to quantify the psychological outcomes desired and expected from recreation participation. This study also added two categories: 1) mental change in this study refers to general responses of fun, recreation, and enjoyment; and 2) the dimension "convenience" was added. The convenience dimension included responses that indicated it was the accessibility of the sport or sport area that made it enjoyable. Drivers' (1977) dimensions were used to quantify this data. by reveiwing the sentence structure of the scales for each dimension and determining if the response given in this study was reasonably close to it. For example, reSponses such as skill, competition and self accomplishment were inserted under the dimension of achievement. These correSponded with the following sentences from Driver's work: Because I thought it would be a challenge (challenge). To try and improve my skills in doing it (skill). To show others I could do it (competition). I thought it would give me a feeling of confidence in myself (self-achievement). 106 An inappropriate column was added to include reSponses that were not categorized into a dimension and non-response. No attempt was made to compare Drivers' results statistically with this studies results. It is felt that the methodology involved in collecting the information was too diverse. The following is a list of the dimensions with aspects of the scales used to determine them: Achievement - reinforcing self-image; social recognition; competence testing and seeking stimulation. Risktaking - risks, danger; uncertainty. Family togatherness - family togatherness. Being with people - being with friends or similar people. Learing-Discovery - general learning and exploratin. Relationships with Nature - scenery, general nature experience; learn about nature. Exercise-physical fitness - exercise and physical fitness. General Escape - Escape Personal-Social Pressures - tension release, Slow down mentally, escape daily routine, and escape perceived pressure; Escape Physical Pressures - tranquility, seek Open space; privacy; escape crowds, and escape physical stressors. Mental Change - a general category to include fun; enjoyment, entertainment or a state of mind change that occurs because of the activity. Inappropriate - answers which could not be categoried into the above dimensions and non-response. 107 Table C1 The Least-liked Attributes of ORV areas on the White Cloud District 1 DIMENSION RESPONSE NUMBER OF RESPONSES ENDURO TRAIL RIDERS DUNEBUCCY RIDERS ON-SITE CAMPER & 4X4'ERS TOTAL 2 (N) Z (N) Z (N) Z (N) Z (N) Flat (0) 14.9 (11) (0) (0) 7.2 (11) Mud Holes 20.8 (0) (O) (0) (0) 6.5 (10) LAND Bumps 2.1 (1) 8.1 (6) (0) (0) 4.6 (7) FEATURES Water 6.3 (3) 1.4 (1) S 9 (0) (0) 3.3 (5) Gullies 2.1 (1) 1.4 (l) (O) (O) 1.3 (2) Hills (0) 1.4 (1) (0) (0) 0.7 (1) Dry (0) 1.4 (1) (0) (0) 0.7 (1) Total 31 3 (15) 28 4 (21) 5 9 (1) (0) 24 2 (37) Felled Trees 22.9 (11) (O) 35.3 (6) 7.1 (1) 11.8 (18) Closed Trails (0) 5.4 (4) (0) (0) 2.6 (4) Rangers 6.3 (3) (0) (0) (O) 2.0 (3) Access (0) 2 7 (2) (0) (0) 1.3 (2) MANMADE Trail Marking 2.1 (1) 1.4 (1) 5.9 (1) 14 3 (0) 2.6 (4) FEATURES Short Trails (0) 2.7 (2) (0) (0) 1.3 (2) Not One-way 2.1 (I) l 4 (1) (O) (O) 1.3 (2) Trails Wide Trails (0) 1.4 (1) (O) (O) 0.7 (1) Road Crossing (0) 1.4 (I) (0) (O) 7.1 (1) Regulations 2.1 (l) (0) (0) (0) 0.7 (1) No Maps (0) 1.4 (1) (O) (O) 0.7 (1) Total 35 4 (17) 17 6 (13) 41.2 (0) 28 6 (0) 26 8 (41) Subtotal 66.7 (32) 45.9 (34) 47.1 (8) 28.6 (4) 51.0 (78) Pg. 1 108 Table Cl (cont'd) DIMENSION RESPONSE NUMBER OF RESPONSESl ENDURO TRAIL RIDERS DUNEBUGGY RIDERS ON-SITE CAMPER & 4x4'ERS TOTAL Z (N) z (N) z (N) Z (N) z (N) Cars & 4X4's 10.4 (5) (0) 5.9 (1) (O) 3.9 (6) Other Rider (0) 4.1 (3) 5.9 (1) 7.1 (1) 3.3 (5) SOCIAL Other People 2.1 (1) (0) 11.8 (2) (0) 2.0 (3) Equestrians (0) 1.4 (I) (0) 7.1 (1) 1.3 (2) Total 12 5 (6) 5 4 (4) 23.5 (4) 14.3 (2) 10 5 (l6) CONVENIENCE Far From Home (O) 4 1 (3) (0) (0) 2 0 (3) ESTHETICS Logged Areas (0) 1 4 (1) (0) (O) 0 7 (l) ISOLATION (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) OTHER (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) RECREATION Bugs (0) 4.1 (3) (0) (0) 2.0 (3) INAPPRO- Wire 6 Glass (0) (0) 11.8 (2) (0) 1.3 (2) PRIATE NonreSponse 20.8 (10) 39.2 (29) 17.6 (3) 57.1 (8) 32.7 (50) Total 20 8 (10) 43 2 (32) 29.4 (5) 57.1 (8) 35 9 (55) Subtotal 33.3 (16) 54.1 (40) 52.9 (9) 71.4 (10) 49.0 (75) Pg. 2 Subtotal 66.7 (32) 45.9 (34) 47.1 (8) 28.6 (4) 51.0 (78) Pg. 1 Total 100 (48) 100 (74) 100 (17) 100 (14) 100 (153) Number of reSpondents giving the correSponding answer. Multiple answers equal a single response. Total subject size was 144 with 94 respondents and 50 non-respondents. 109 Table C2 Why Trail Riders Chose to Use ORV Areas DIMENSION RESPONSE NUMBER OF TRAIL RIDERS z (N) Near Home 24.1 (26) Near Vacation 1.9 (2) Home CONVENIENCE Near Job 1.9 (2) Near Vacation 1.9 (2) In-Route 0.9 (1) Near Relative 0.9 (1) Total 31.5 (34) Expert Trails . (9) Marked Trails . (6) Many Trails . (6) Parking . (3) MANMADE Tight Turns FEATURE New Trails (2) Loop Trails Long Trails OOOOI-‘I-‘NU'IU'ICD O. VOOOQQOQO‘O‘UJ A N v Fast Trails . (1) No Enforcement . (1) Total 29.6 (32) Subtotal Pg. 1 61.1 (66) Number of respondents giving the corresponding answers. Multiple answers equal a single reSponse. Enduro riders were not asked this questicni since the race site was chosen by the race organizer and campers were not asked since they were not riding. Total subject size was 86 with 73 respondents and 13 non-respondents. Table C2 (cont'd) 110 DIMENSION RESPONSE NUMBER OF TRAIL RIDERS z (N) Variety 4.6 (5) Hills 5.6 (6) LAND Mud Holes 0.9 (1) FEATURE Jumps 0.9 (1) Sand 0.9 (1) Total 13.0 (14) With Family 1.9 (2) SOCIAL With Friends 1.9 (2) Other PeOple 0.9 (1) Total 4.6 (5) OTHER Beach 2.8 (3) RECREATION Camping 1.9 (2) Total 4.6 (5) ISOLATION Few People 2.8 (3) ESTHETICS Nice Area 1.9 (2) NONRESPONSES 12.0 (13) Subtotal Pg. 2 38.9 (42) Subtotal Pg. 1 61.1 (66) Total 100 (108) See note on first Page. 111 Table C3 Improvements Desired by ORV Users on the White Cloud District DIMENSION RESPONSE NUMBER OF RESPONSES1 ENDURO TRAIL RIDERS DUNEBUGCY RIDERS ON-SITE CAMPER 5 4X4'ERS TOTAL 1 (N) z (N) z (N) z (N) z (N) More Trails 35.6 (16) 8.5 (7) 5.9 (1) 6.7 (1) 15.7 (25) More Marking 11.1 (5) 3.7 (3) 23.5 (4) 26.7 (4) 10.1 (16) One-way Trails 2.2 (I) 6.1 (5) 17.6 (3) 13.3 (2) 6.9 (11) Wider Trails (0) 6.1 (5) 5.9 (I) (0) 3.8 (6) TRAIL Remove Bumps (0) 6.1 (5) (O) (O) 3.1 (5) FEATURE Less Pavement 2.2 (1) 3.7 (3) (0) (0) 2.5 (4) Remove Blockades (0) 3.7 (3) (O) (0) 1.9 (3) More Hills (0) 3.7 (3) (O) (0) 1.9 (3) Longer Trails (0) 1.2 (l) (0) (0) 0.6 (1) Move Trail (0) (O) 5.9 (1) (0) 0.6 (1) Total 51 1 (23) 42 7 (35) 58.8 (10) 46.7 (0) 47 2 (75) FACILITY Rest Room (0) 6.1 (S) (0) (0) 3.1 (5) IMPROVEMENT Better Access 2.2 (1) 1.2 (1) (0) 13.3 (2) 2.5 (4) Potable Water (0) 2.4 (2) (0) (0) 1 3 (2) Total 2 2 (1) 9 8 (8) (0) l3 3 (0) 6 9 (11) Remove Govern— 6.7 (3) (0) (O) (O) 1.9 (3) ment Control All Trails Open 4.4 (2) (O) (0) (0) 1.3 (2) REGULATION Except Posted CHANGES Ones Cycle Only 2.2 (1) (O) 5.9 (l) (O) 1.3 (2) Trails ORV-only Camps (0) . 1.2 (l) 5.9 (1) (0) 1.3 (2) Total 13 3 (6) 1 2 (I) 11 8 (2) (0) 5 7 (9) COMMUNICA- Make Maps (0) 4.9 (4) (0) (0) 2.5 (4) TION Post Maps (0) 1.2 (1) (0) (0) 0.6 (1) IMPROVEMENT ------------------------------------------------------- Total (0) 6 l (5) (0) (0) 3 1 (5) No Improvements 4.4 (2) 18.3 (15) (O) 6 7 (1) ll 3 (18) Nonresponse 28.9 (0) 22.0 (18) 29.4 (5) 33.3 (5) 25.8 (41) Number of respondents giving the corresponding answer. Multiple answers equal a single response. Total subject size was 144 with 103 respondents and 41 non-respondents. DIMENSION EXPERIENCE NATURE MENTAL CHANGE ACHIEVEMENT GENERAL ESCAPE RESPONSE Natural Beauty Out-Of—Doors Camping Hiking & Swimming Fishing & Canoeing Sight-Seeing Fun Enjoyment Entertainment Recreation Feel Young Challenge Exciting Competition Self- Accomplishment Skill Escape Remote No Crowds Peaceful Freedom 112 Table C4 Reasons Why White Cloud ORV Users Enjoy the ORV Sport NUMBER OF RESPONSESl ENDURO TRAIL RIDERS RIDERS ON-SITE CAMPER TOTAL 2 (N) Z (N) Z (N) Z (N) 9.7 (7) 12.6 (20) 9.4 (3) 11.4 (30) 6.9 (5) 8.2 (13) 3.1 (l) 7.2 (19) 1.4 (1) 3.1 (5) (0) 2.3 (6) (0) 0.6 (1) (O) 0.4 (1) (0) 0.6 (I) (0) 0.4 (1) 1.4 (1) (O) (O) 0.4 (1) 19.4 (14) 25.2 (40) 12.5 (4) 22.1 (58) 5.6 (4) 18.2 (29) 12.5 (4) 14.1 (37) (0) (O) 3.1 (l) 0.4 (1) 5.6 (4) 18.2 (29) 15.6 (5) 14.4 (38) 6.9 (5) 6.3 (10) 9.4 (3) 6.8 (18) 5.6 (4) 1.9 (3) (0) 2.7 (7) 8.3 (6) (O) (O) 2.3 (6) 4.2 (3) (0) (O) 1.1 (3) 1.4 (l) 1.3 (2) 3.1 (l) 1.5 (4) 26.4 (19) 9.4 (15) 12.5 (4) 14.4 (38) 6.9 (5) 9.4 (15) 6.3 (2) 8.4 (22) 2.8 (2) (0) (0) 0.8 (2) 4.2 (3) (O) (O) 1.1 (3) 13.9 (10) 9.4 (15) 6.3 (2) 10.3 (27) 65.3 (47) 62.3 (99) 46.9 (15) 61.2 (161) 113 Table C4 (cont'd) DIMENSION RESPONSE NUMBER OF RESPONSES1 ENDURO TRAIL RIDERS RIDERS ON-SITE CAMPER TOTAL Z (N) Z (N) Z (N) Z (N) TENSION Tension Release 2.8 (2) 5.0 (8) 9.4 (3) 4.9 (13) RELEASE Relax 8.3 (6) 3.1 (S) 6.3 (2) 4.9 (13) Total 11 1 (8) 8 2 (13) 15 6 (5) 9.9 (26) EXERCISE Exercise 9 7 (7) 5 7 (9) 15 6 (5) 8 0 (21) FAMILY Family- 2.8 (2) 3.1 (S) 6.3 (2) 3.4 (9) TOGETHERNESS Friendship RISK Speed 1.4 (1) 3.8 (6) 3 l (1) 3 0 (8) BEING WITH Friendship 1.4 (1) 3.1 (5) 3.1 (1) 2.7 (7) OTHERS Something to Do (0) 1.9 (3) (0) l 1 (3) Near Home 1.4 (1) (0) (0) 0.4 (1) CONVENIENCE In Route (0) 0.6 (1) (0) 0 4 (1) Total 1.4 (1) 2.5 (4) 0 (0) 1.9 (S) New Sport (0) 0.6 (l) (0) 0.4 (1) DISCOVER Adventure (0) 0.6 (1) (o) 0 a (1) Total 0 (0) 1.3 (2) 0 (0) 0 8 (2) DOMINENCE Feel in Control 0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0 (0) 0.4 (l) CONTROL of Life Loves Off Road (0) 3.1 (5) 3.1 (1) 2.3 (6) Cycling Only Legal Way (0) 0.6 (l) (O) 0.4 (l) INAPPROPRIATE to Ride Nonrespondents 6.9 (5) 5.7 (9) 6.3 (2) 6.1 (16) Total 6.9 (5) 9.4 (15) 9 4 (3) 8.7 (23) Subtotal Pg. 1 65.3 (47) 62.3 (99) 46.9 (15) 61.2 (161) Total 100 (72) 100 (159) 100 (32) 100 (263) Number of respondents giving the corresponding answer. Multiple answers equal a single response. Total subject size was 144 with 128 respondents and 16 non-reapondents. Trail riders include 4x4 'ers and dune buggiers. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Banzhaf, George & Company. 1974. U.S. Forest Survey for Use of Off-Road Vehicles. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Berelson, Bernard and Gary A. Steiner. 1965. Human Behavior, An Inventory of Scientific Findings. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, New York. Berkman, Harold W., and ChristOpher C. Gilson. 1978. Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Strategies Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc. Encino, California. Bury, Richard L. and E.R. Fillmore. 1974. Design of Motorcycle Areas Near Campgrounds: Effects on Riders and Non-Riders Department of Recreation and Parks Technical Department Report No. 6. Texas A & M University. College Station, Texas. Bury, Richard L., Robert C. Wendling & Stephen F. McCool. 1976. Off-Road Recreation Vehicles: A Research Summary 1969-1975. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station & Texas A & M University System. College Station, Texas. Chandler, Stephen. 1980. "U.S. Forest Service Interdepartment Memo-Problems with ORV Management". Unpublished manuscript. Huron-Manistee National Forests, USDA Forest Service. Cadillac, Michigan. Chilman, Kenneth C. 1978. Profile - The Trailbiker. In: Proceedings of the Great Lakes Recreational Trail Biker Workshop. Black River Falls, Wisconsin p. 4. Planning for Trailbike Recreation. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, USDI GPO. 853-177, p.82. Christensen, Harriet and Roger N. Clark. 1978. Understanding and controlling vandalism and other rule violations in urban recreation areas. Paper presented at National Urban Forestry Conference, Washington D.C., November. Clark, R.N., J.C. Hendee, and F.L. Campbell. 1971. Depreciative Behavior in Forest Campgrounds: An EXploratory Look. USDA Forest Service Research Note PNW-16l. Pacific-Northwest Experiment Station. Fort Collings, Colo. U4 115 Dabb, Jim. 1981. Law Enforcement Officer, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Personal Communication. Davey, Stuart P. & Neil J. Stout. 1976. Priority Needs in Outdoor Recreation Research. In: Proceedings of the Southern States Recreation Research Applications Workshop. USDA F.S. Technical Report SE-9, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C. Driver, B.L. 1977. Item pool for scales Designed to Quantify the pschological outcomes desired and expected from Recreation Participation. Unpublished PNW Exp. Sta. Fort Collings, Colo. Emetaz, Roland. 1978. Land Managers Views of Trail Bike Recreation It's a Matter of Attitude. In: Proceedings of the Great Lakes Recreational Trail Bike Workshop. Black River Falls, Wisconsin. Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and David T. Kollat. 1978. Consumer Behavior. The Dryden Press. Hovland, Carl 1., L. Janis Irving and Harold H. Kelly. 1953. Communication and Persuasion, Yale University Press, Birmingham, N.Y. Hronek, Bruce B. 1968. Results of Intersified Law Enforcement in Urban Oriented National Forest Recreation Areas. Unpublished report. Ogden Ranger District, Wasatach National Forest Report, Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah. Fishbein, Martin. 1967. Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York. James, George A. and Thomas Ripley. 1963. Instructions for using traffic counters to estimate recreation visits and use. Service Res. Pap. SE-3, Southeastern Forest Exp. Sta., U.S. Forest Service, Asheville, N.C. James, George A. 1966. Estimating Recreation Use on a Complex of DevelOped Sites. U.S. Forest Service Res. Note SE-64. Southeastern Forest EXp. Sta., Asheville, N.C. James, George A. 1971. Inventory Recreation Use. In: Proceedings of the Southern States Recreation Research Applications Workshop. USDA F.S. Technical Report SE-9, Southeastern Forest EXperiment Station, Asheville, N.C. Johnson, P., B. Kennedy, J. Meisenback and R. Rawlings. 1974. Off-Highway vehicle Registrants - A Survey of Their Interests and Activities. In Rec. Tip No. 7. California Resources Agency. In: Proceedings of Southern States Recreation Research Workshop, USDA F.S. Technical Report SE-9, Southeastern For. Exp. Sta., Asheville, N.C. 116 Joiner, Gordon 1979. Sociological Investigation Characterizing the Human Resources of the White Cloud Ranger District, Huron Manistee National Forests. Unpublished report. Huron-Manistee National Forests, USDA Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan. Joiner, Gordon 1980. Unpublished report. Illegal ORV use on the White Cloud District. Unplublished report. Huron-Manistee National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan. Joiner, Gordon 1980. District Ranger USDA Forest Service. Personal Communication. June. Knopf, R.C. 1972. Motivational Determinants of Recreation Behavior. As cited In: Driver, B.L. 1976. Towards a better understanding of the social benefits of’ Outdoor recreation participation. In: Proceedings of the Southern States Recreation Research Applications Workshop. USDA F.S. Technical Report SE-9, Southeastern Forest EXperiment Station, Asheville, N.C. LeValley, Charles L. 1978. Management and Enforcement of ORV Users. In proceedings of 1978 Great Lakes Trail Bike Workshop, Black River Falls, Wisconsin. Lockhart, Robert. 1980. Recreation Staff Officer. USDA Forest Service. Personal Communication. June. McCurdy, Dwight R. 1970. "Recreationists' Attitudes Towards User Fees: Management Implications." Journal of Forestry, ‘68: 645-646. McElwain, Frank. 1970. Third year results of intensified Law Enforcement in Urban Oriented National Forest Areas Ogden Ranger District. Unpublished manuscript. Wasatach National Forest Report. Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah. McElwain, Frank and Bruce Hronek. 1969. Second year results of intensified Law Enfocement in Urban Oriented National Forest Areas Ogden Ranger. Unpublished manuscript. Wasatach National Forest Report. Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Recreation. 1977. Analysis of recreation partivipation and public Opinion. on ORV's from 1976 Telephone Survey. Recreation Planning Section Survey Report #1. Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1980. Michigan's Off-Road Vehicle Guide. Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural 'Resources. 1976. Recreation Planning Section Report Number 3. Lansing, Michigan, p. 11. 117 Michigan, State of 1975. State Legislature House Bill 4729, Act. Number 319. "An Act to provide legislation and regulation of off-road recreation vehicles and to provide penalties". Lansing, Michigan. Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. 1978. 1978 Motorcycle Statis- tical Annual. NeWport Beach, California. Ray, Micheal L. 1973. Marketing Communication. In: New Models for Mass Communication Research, Peter Clark (ed). Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif. pp. 147-177. Robertson, Marc. D. and Richard 0. Bishop. 1975. Off Road Recreation Vehicles in the Upper Great Lake States: User Characteristics and Economic Impacts. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Ross, T.L. and G.H. Moeller. 1974. Communicating Rules in Recreation Areas. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. NE-297 Northeastern For. Exp. Sta. Upper Darby, Pa. Smith, Stephen L., Richard Nuxoll and Fred Galloway. 1976. Survey research for Community Recreation Services. Agric Exp. Sta. Res. Rpt. 291, M.S.U. East Lansing, Michigan. Sommer, Robert and Barbara Sommer. 1980. A_'Practical Guide to Behavioral research: Tools and Techniques. Oxford University Press, N.Y., N.Y. Turnbull, Arthur T. and Russell N. Baird. 1968. The Graphics of Communication. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., Chicago, Ill. pp. 183-210. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1978. Allegheny National Forest, DiSpersed Measurement Techniques. Unpublished manuscript. Allegheny National Forest, Warren, Pa. U.S. Government Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1976a. Huron-Manistee National Forest Land Managers Report, Unpublished manuscript, Cadillac, Michigan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1976b. Order of the Forest Supervison Restricting the use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Huron-Manistee National Forest. Unpublished manuscript. Huron-Manistee National Forest, Cadillac, Michigan. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1978. Managers Report Huron-Manistee National Forest, Cadillac, Michigan. U.S. Government Department. of .Agriculture Forest Serviceu 1979. ORV Information and Education Action Plan. Unpublished manuscript. Cadillac, Michigan. 118 Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission. 1972. Model Legislation Off-Road Recreational Vehicles. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Wagar, Alan. 1971. Communicating with recreationists. USDA Forest Service NE For. EXp. Sta. Recreation Symposiiml Proceedings. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Upper Darby, Pa. Wendling, Robert. 1976. The Influence of Managerial Attitudes on Allocation of Federal Lands for Off-road Idotorcycling. Unpublished Manuscript. Texas A & M University. College Station, Texas. LIBRARY Michigan Statc University MICHIGAN sm: UNIV. LIBRARIES 1111111111111WWIWWlHWIIWIIIWHI 31293106076908