Engaging State Forest and State Parks Visitors - … · about Pennsylvania State Forest and State...

Visitor Use Monitoring (VUM) surveys are conducted by Penn State

University to complete a systematic approach for answering questions

about Pennsylvania State Forest and State Park visitors.

Pennsylvania is the first and only State Forest system to adopt this

approach from the US Forest Service for monitoring recreational use.

These reports are part of a current 5-year agreement with Penn State

University which will evaluate 10 State Forest Districts and 30 State

Parks. Previous surveys were also completed for the Bald Eagle,

Tiadaghton and Tioga State Forests.

. The objectives of the study are:

To conduct surveys of visitors to selected Pennsylvania State

Forest and State Park areas and develop a visitor profile

To measure overall recreation use and specific visitation

patterns within the selected State Forests and State Parks

To identify visitor expectations and levels of satisfaction with

various aspects of their visit

To examine visitor opinions about possible future area

management and facility development decisions

To examine visitor reactions to Marcellus gas activities and the

impacts of these activities on recreational visitation patterns

and experiences

To measure visitor expenditures and levels of economic impact

on surrounding communities

Participating forests and completed reports include:

Study Year Forest Evaluated Report

1999 Bald Eagle Report attached

2008 Tioga & Tiadaghton Report attached

2011-12 Sproul & Susquehannock Report attached

2012-13 Forbes & Delaware Report attached

2013-14 Tioga & Tiadaghton

2014-15 Elk & Moshannon

2015-16 Michaux and Buchannan

Visitor Use Monitoring (VUM) Surveys Engaging State Forest and State Parks Visitors

For More Information

Questions and requests for additional information should be directed to:

PA DCNR Bureau of Forestry Recreation Section

Phone: (717) 783-7941

Email: [email protected]

Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle State Forest:

Report on a 1999-2000 Visitor Survey

Submitted to:

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

Bureau of Forestry

Submitted by:

Harry Zinn

Deborah Kerstetter

Alan Graefe

Chieh-Lu Li

Brijesh Thapa

& Laurlyn Harmon

The Pennsylvania State University

Recreation & Park Management Program

January 29, 2002

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iv

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

Study Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 1

Methods..................................................................................................................................... 2

Study Population and Sample ............................................................................................... 2

Study Instrument ................................................................................................................... 3

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Estimated Use Levels ............................................................................................................ 4

Visitor Profile........................................................................................................................ 6

Visitation Patterns ................................................................................................................. 6

Activity Participation and Location ...................................................................................... 8

Attachment to Specific Locations in BESF ........................................................................ 10

Importance of and Satisfaction with Forest Recreation Characteristics ............................. 13

General Forest Management Issues .................................................................................... 14

Trends in Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences ............................................ 15

Discussion of Results .............................................................................................................. 21

Annual and Seasonal Visitation Levels .............................................................................. 21

Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences............................................................. 22

Trends in Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences ............................................ 23

Recommendations for Future Survey Methods ...................................................................... 26

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A: On-site and Follow-up Questionnaires............................................................. 30

Appendix B: Sampling Strategy ............................................................................................ 41

Appendix C: Results Tables................................................................................................... 43

Table 1. Sampling dates and locations by season and method .............................. 44

Table 2. Number of interviews completed by sampling zone and season ............. 48

Table 3. Profile of respondents .............................................................................. 49

Table 4. Visitation patterns by season ................................................................... 50

Table 5. Primary activity on day of interview, by season ...................................... 51

Table 6. Activity participation rates on day of interview, by season ..................... 52

iii

Table 7. Anticipated location of activity participation by season .......................... 53

Table 8. Location of favorite place in Bald Eagle State Forest ............................. 54

Table 9. What makes this place more special to you than other places that might be

similar to it? ............................................................................................................ 65

Table 10. If you could ask managers to keep one thing the same about this favorite

place, what would that be? ..................................................................................... 77

Table 11. If you could ask managers to change one thing about the way they

manage this favorite place, what would that be? .................................................... 85

Table 12. Characteristics of Forest: Mean importance and satisfaction by season 94

Table 13. Characteristics of Forest: Importance and satisfaction categories ......... 95

Table 14. Mean scores of responses to management issues on Forest by season .. 96

Table 15. Year of first visit to Bald Eagle State Forest and newcomer/veteran

categories ................................................................................................................ 96

Table 16. Background characteristics of newcomer, intermediate, and veteran

visitors ..................................................................................................................... 97

Table 17. Day trips, overnight trips and overnight quarters of newcomer,

intermediate, and veteran visitors ........................................................................... 97

Table 18. Season of most visits to Forest, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran

visitors ..................................................................................................................... 98

Table 19. Activity participation at BESF during 12 months prior to being

surveyed, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors ........................................ 98

Table 20. Satisfaction with Forest characteristics, newcomer, intermediate, and

veteran visitors ........................................................................................................ 99

Table 21. Responses to Forest management issues, newcomer, intermediate, and

veteran visitors ........................................................................................................ 99

iv

Executive Summary

Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle State Forest:

Report on a 1999-2000 Visitor Survey

Submitted by


Recreation & Park Management Program

To estimate overall recreational use of Bald Eagle State Forest (BESF), profile visitor

characteristics, and identify recreational use patterns, a year-long survey of visitors was

conducted from June 1999 through May 2000. For the survey, the Forest was divided into

eight zones, and random sampling was conducted in each zone. A multiple sampling

approach was used, including traffic counts, on-site interviews, and mail-back questionnaires.

Use estimates. During summer, early fall, and spring, 593 on-site interviews were

conducted. During late fall and winter, an additional 502 questionnaires were distributed by

placing survey packets on the windshields of parked vehicles. Data from the four seasons

were treated as a stratified random sample to calculate an overall annual use estimate of

143,428 recreation visits 35,916 (margin of error = 5%, confidence level = 95%). Another

overall annual use estimate, 122,321 visitors, was calculated from rangers‟ patrol logs. The

estimate based on rangers‟ records should be considered less reliable than the survey-based

estimate. However, the similarity of the results tends to validate both estimates. Forest

visitation was heaviest in the spring and fall.

Visitor characteristics and behavior. Nearly nine out of ten participants were white

males 31 years old or older who lived in rural areas or small towns. More than one-third

began visiting the Forest before 1971, and fewer than one in ten were first-time visitors.

Approximately two-thirds indicated that they traveled 50 miles or less to visit the Forest.

Most were on day trips of three or more hours. Nearly half visited the Forest with members

of their family; one in five visited the Forest alone.

The largest number of participants identified fishing as their primary activity, followed

by hunting, viewing scenery, camping, snowmobiling, walking/day hiking, wildlife

watching, and picnicking. As expected, primary activities varied by season, with fishing

being most common during spring and summer and hunting most common during fall and

winter. Visitors often participated in multiple activities, so overall participation rates differed

from participation in primary activities. The highest overall participation rate was for

viewing scenery, which was followed by fishing, walking/day hiking, wildlife watching,

hunting, camping, picnicking, snowmobiling, driving through the Forest en route to another

destination, and swimming/tubing.

When asked where they expected to participate in their primary activity, nearly one third

of all participants named Penn‟s Creek or nearby areas (e.g., Poe Paddy, Cherry Run) and

one quarter named the White Deer Creek/McCall Dam area. Other areas named often

included Green‟s Valley, Hickernell North, Hairy John‟s, and R.B. Winter.

v

A total of 447 participants identified “favorite” places on the Forest. The largest single

category was places mentioned by one individual. For example, many identified a leased

cabin site. Others identified the Forest as a whole without specifying one place. Specific

places mentioned most often included Penn‟s Creek, Poe Valley, R.B. Winter, White Deer

Creek/McCall Dam, Hairy John‟s, and Tall Timbers. Favorite places tended to be located in

valleys along roads, not in remote areas. Participants reported that favorite places were

special to them because of conduciveness to a particular recreation activity, privacy, past

connections and memories associated with the place, attractive natural qualities, and

convenient location. Characteristics of favorite places that participants wanted protected

included wild or natural qualities, current maintenance practices, and current use levels.

Participants rated the importance of and their satisfaction with six characteristics of the

Forest, including (a) appearance and maintenance of areas visited; (b) opportunities to visit

without feeling crowded; (c) access to places the participant likes to visit; (d) adequacy of

signs; (e) availability of parking; and (f) the ability to obtain information about the Forest.

Ratings indicated that participants considered all six characteristics moderately to very

important and that they were moderately to very satisfied with the way these characteristics

are managed. Although differences in importance and satisfaction ratings were small,

satisfaction ratings were slightly lower than importance ratings for appearance and

maintenance, as well as opportunities to visit without feeling crowded. In contrast,

satisfaction ratings were slightly higher than importance ratings for access, availability of

parking, and ability to obtain information. Importance and satisfaction ratings for signage

did not differ, indicating participants‟ expectations matched the conditions they found.

Participants were also asked if they agreed or disagreed with four general resource

management statements including: (a) “It is more important to protect habitat for plants and

animals than provide opportunities for recreation,” (b) “The Forest should encourage more

timber harvesting,” (c) “More fish should be stocked in streams and lakes to provide

increased sport-fishing opportunities,” and (d) “More public lands such as Bald Eagle State

Forest should be set aside as wild or natural areas.” Participants agreed most strongly that

protecting habitat is more important than providing for recreation and more public lands

should be set aside as wild or natural areas. They also agreed that more fish should be

stocked in streams but disagreed with increased timber harvesting on State Forest land.

Trends. Veterans (first visited Forest 1927-1990), Intermediates (first visited Forest

1971-1990), and Newcomers (first visited Forest 1991-2000) had similar socio-demographic

characteristics, but differed in other ways. Newcomers were most likely to live more than 30

miles from the Forest, indicating that the market area and stakeholder group for the Forest

may be expanding. Newcomers were also most likely to make day-trips to the Forest and

most likely to visit in summer and winter, suggesting that traffic patterns, demand for day-

use areas, and seasonal need for ranger patrols may change over time. Newcomers were least

likely to participate in hunting or fishing, suggesting that these activities may become less

common. In contrast, Newcomers were most likely to participate in snowmobiling and

horseback riding, suggesting future growth in these activities. All three groups reported high

levels of satisfaction with Forest characteristics, suggesting that visitors will continue to look

favorably on current management practices.

vi

Management implications. Overall visitation exceeds 143,000 annually. Because the

Forest has multiple access points and an extensive road system and the survey had limited

logistic and financial resources, this is likely to be a conservative estimate.

The Forest has a strong core of loyal visitors. They have been visiting for many years

and tend to visit often, typically with family and/or friends. First-time visitors are currently a

small group, but they may influence the way the Forest is managed in the future.

Fishing and hunting were the most commonly reported primary activities, and visitation

was heaviest during spring and late fall, the prime fishing and hunting seasons. Relatively

heavy visitation during early fall may have corresponded with the prime period for fall color.

winter visitation nearly equally the summer level, perhaps because the Forest held adequate

snow cover for snowmobiling for the first time in several years.

Two-thirds of Forest visitors limited their stays to a single day. If managers want to

increase or extend visitation to the Forest, educating current and potential visitors about

dispersed camping opportunities on the Forest as well as lodging and camping opportunities

near the Forest could be effective.

Although satisfaction with Forest characteristics was generally high, satisfaction with

levels of crowding was an issue. Providing visitor information about alternative locations for

recreation, high-use versus low-use areas of the Forest, and high-use versus low-use time

periods may be helpful.

Few children visit the Forest, perhaps because opportunities that typically attract families

with young children, (e.g., beaches, playgrounds, etc.) are not provided in State Forests. It

may be desirable to promote more use of the Forest by families and young people. Those

who learn early in life to enjoy the opportunities available on the Forest, may also learn to

support State Forests and their mission throughout their lives. If promoting family use of the

Forest is important, managers should publicize the Forest‟s opportunities for “family

friendly” recreation in undeveloped settings.

Survey participants enjoyed favorite places within the Forest because of natural settings,

privacy, and memories about past experiences, suggesting many visitors place high value on

the Forest and/or sites within it. Sharing this information could help elected representatives,

appointed officials, and the general public of the Commonwealth appreciate the powerful

positive impact State Forests have on people who visit them.

Recommendations for future survey methods. This survey was designed, in part, to test

data collection methods for use in future visitor surveys of other State Forests. Stratifying

the Forest into data collection zones was effective. The two data collection methods used

each had advantages and disadvantages. On-site interviews and mail-back questionnaires

yielded a high response rate (60%) but the logistical demands of this approach were costly.

Placing survey packets on windshields was simpler and less expensive. However, because of

low response rates (20%), this approach raises questions about the representativeness of the

vii

sample. In winter, neither approach could be used on unplowed roads, but it was possible to

place survey packets on the windshields of vehicles parked at Forest access points along

plowed roads.

Before conducting other State Forest visitor surveys, managers should evaluate the

advantages and disadvantages of each survey approach, as well as other alternatives.

Advantages of simple methods include low logistical and monetary costs. Disadvantages of

simple methods include the high probability of obtaining biased estimates and the inability to

calculate meaningful margins of error. In contrast, complex methods (like that used in the

current survey) are costly, but they are likely to produce unbiased estimates and meaningful

margins of error.

During this study, vehicle and trail counters were tested unsuccessfully. Making secure

installations and maintaining counters proved to be prohibitive, particularly during cold

weather. Furthermore, trail counters were unreliable during high winds. In another study, it

is unlikely that counters can be used successfully unless they can be maintained and read by

personnel who do not need to travel long distances.

Ultimately, any decision about survey methods in other Pennsylvania State Forests

should be based on each Forest‟s physical characteristics, seasonal differences in

accessibility, traveling distances for data collection, and long-term availability of data

collection personnel. All of Pennsylvania‟s State Forests share some important

characteristics and management issues, but other important characteristics and issues may

vary between Forests. For example, a sampling method might be highly successful in one

Forest but less successful in another because of differences in road and trail networks or use

patterns.

1

Introduction

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) manages

over two million acres of State Forest land across the Commonwealth, all of which abuts or

surrounds other public (e.g., State Parks, State Game Lands) or private lands. State Forests

can be entered via state, county, municipal, and forest roads; informal and formal trails; and

waterways. Hence, it is difficult to obtain accurate estimates of current recreational use

levels and patterns.

Estimates of current use on State Forest lands are imperative to the DCNR and the

agencies with whom it works because:

1) activities and areas with high potential for conflict can be identified and managed;

2) plans for access, resource protection, visitor services, enforcement and maintenance

can be created;

3) marketing efforts can be focused to develop awareness of opportunities for

consumers;

4) communication can be improved with specific constituent groups; and,

5) visitation patterns can be linked to management plans and operating and capital

budgets.

Given the importance of documenting and understanding current users, a visitor use study

was conducted at Bald Eagle State Forest (BESF) from June, 1999, through June, 2000. The

study was implemented to document levels and type of use occurring on BESF and the

characteristics of forest visitors, including their activity choices, demographics, attitudes and

travel behavior. The study was designed to test methods that could be used to measure use at

other District Forests across the Commonwealth.

Study Objectives

In order to address the overall purpose of this study, the following objectives were

developed:

Estimate overall recreational use of BESF; and,

Develop a profile of visitors, including their demographic characteristics, activity

participation patterns (on the Forest and elsewhere), length-of-stay, party size and

composition, and place of residence.

2

Methods

Study Population and Sample

The study population targeted in this study was visitors to BESF. Because they can

access the Forest through multiple points on roads, trails and waterways and engage in

diverse activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, hiking) across the year, a multiple sampling

approach was utilized. This multiple sampling approach included traffic counts and

monitoring as well as on-site interviews at key access points. In addition, to verify use

estimates, they were compared to visitor data collected by Forest rangers.

To achieve the study‟s first objective of estimating overall recreational use levels on the

BESF, the Forest was divided into eight separate zones:

1. Rainsares

2. South Eastville (including Mile Run, White Deer Creek & McCall Dam)

3. Hickernell North (including Jones Mountain, Stoney Run & Winklebleck Road)

4. Hickernell South (including Woodward, Bear Run & Cherry Run)

5. New Lancaster Valley (including Poe Paddy, Sand Mountain, & Bear Gap)

6. Troxelville (including Tall Timbers, Snyder-Middleswarth, & Wiekert Run )

7. Shade Mountain

8. Green‟s Valley

Each zone contains distinct natural and man-made features and offers somewhat different

recreational opportunities. Visitors were sampled at multiple access points in each of the

eight zones. Sampling locations within each zone were chosen based on criteria including

traffic patterns and primary use areas within the zone, as well as the safety of field personnel.

BESF staff was consulted on all issues tied to sampling. In addition, every effort was made

to sample throughout the Forest each week, when appropriate.

The second study objective, profiling visitors, was addressed with on-site and follow-up

questionnaires. Interviewers approached visitors, and each visitor who agreed to participate

was asked a minimum of seven questions. At the end of the interview visitors were asked if

they would participate in a longer, more in-depth survey. Those who agreed were given a

packet, which included a cover letter, questionnaire and postage-paid return envelope.

The sampling procedure was changed during the late fall and winter seasons (late

October to early April) when on-site interviewing was nearly impossible due to inclement

weather, patterns of use, and/or the safety of interviewers. During this time, the on-site and

3

follow-up questionnaires were combined into a single document. Interviewers drove

throughout the Forest looking for users and their vehicles. When a vehicle was spotted, the

interviewer placed a packet (cover letter, questionnaire and postage-paid return envelope),

covered by a plastic bag, on the windshield of the visitor‟s vehicle.

A total of 698 on-site interviews were conducted. An additional 397 questionnaires were

distributed via the windshield method (Table 1). (For a complete record of sampling

methods, dates, and locations, see Appendix C, Table 1.)

Table 1. Number of survey responses by season

Season

Method Summer Fall Winter Spring Total

On-site interview 466 127 0 105 698

Windshield 0 92 305 0 397

Total 466 219 305 105 1,095

Study Instrument

The on-site questionnaire included seven primary questions (Appendix A). The first was

used to gauge whether visitors were visiting the Forest for the day or overnight. If visiting

for the day, they were asked how many hours they intended to spend in the Forest. If staying

overnight, they were asked how many nights they planned to be in the Forest and where they

planned to stay (e.g., designated campsite vs. leased cabin site). In addition, visitors were

asked what activities they planned to participate in while visiting the Forest, where they were

going to participate in the activity, whether or not they had been to the Forest previously and,

if applicable, questions about the composition of their visitor group. To determine the

distance traveled by visitors, they were also asked how far they live from the Forest.

The questions on the follow-up questionnaire were much more detailed and fell into five

separate sections (see Appendix A). The first section, which focused on visitors‟ experience

at BESF, included four questions. The first question dealt with visitors‟ satisfaction with

their most recent visit to the Forest. It was followed by a question that addressed their

perception of the overall quality of their experience. The last two questions were open-ended

and requested that individuals indicate what they liked most and least about their most recent

visit to the Forest.

4

The second section allowed visitors to describe their favorite place or area in BESF.

They did so through answering eight open-ended questions. The ninth question gave

respondents an opportunity to indicate their feelings about a favorite place within Bald Eagle

Forest. The final two questions offered respondents an opportunity to describe what should

or should not be changed about their special place by the staff of the Forest.

To profile visitors‟ recreational behavior, they were asked to indicate how many days in

the last 12 months they had participated in a series of recreational activities in BESF and

other locations. They were also asked to describe which activities are most important to

them, the number of years they‟ve been involved in them, and their level of skill and

involvement with the activities. The last question in the third section focused on the

importance individuals attach to six separate characteristics of the Forest.

Generally, it is expected that individuals who participate in outdoor activities will have

respect for the environment and exhibit behaviors that reflect their respect. Thus, the fourth

section of the questionnaire included a question that addressed respondents‟ opinions on a

wide range of environmental issues and a question that focused on the degree to which

individuals engaged in environmentally responsible behavior. A third question requested

information about conservation or environmental groups with which individuals are

involved.

The final section included questions designed to profile respondents. They focused on

respondents‟ gender, age, ethnic origin or background, childhood and current residence, level

of education, household composition, level of income and political outlook.

Results

Estimated Use Levels

As noted earlier, data collection began in the summer with on-site interviews. Hence,

summer and spring use estimates are based entirely on this method. However, beginning part

way through the fall season and lasting through the winter season, a modified data

“windshield survey” method was used to collect data. Because of this change, two fall use

estimates were computed, one for early fall using on-site interview data, and one for late fall

using windshield survey data. A single winter estimate is based entirely on windshield data.

5

Data from each season were treated as a simple random sample. Using formulae proposed by

Scheaffer, Mendenhall and Ott (1990), seasonal data were treated as a stratified random

sample to calculate an overall annual use estimate of 143,428 visits 35,916 (margin of error

= 5%, confidence level = 95%, see Table 2). Note that a margin of error and confidence

interval were calculated only for the overall annual estimate. These values are useful

because they are based on the aggregate sample size of the year-long survey. In contrast,

margin of error and confidence interval values were not calculated for the seasonal estimates.

The small sample size for any one season and the normal variation in recreation use between

sample periods make it impossible to calculate meaningful margins of error for the seasonal

estimates. In some cases, the margin of error would be nearly as large as the estimated

seasonal use level. (For a more detailed description of sampling strategy, see Appendix B.)

Table 2. Overall annual use estimate and underlying seasonal estimates

Period

Use

estimate

Margin

of error a

Confidence

interval a

Overall annual use 143,428 35,916 107,512 – 179,343

Summer season (6/1/99-9/6/99, 98 days) 28,230 NA NA

Early fall season (9/7/99-10/1/99, 25 days) 22,720 NA NA

Late fall season (10/2/99-12/17/99, 77 days) 34,454 NA NA

Winter season (12/18/00-3/31/00, 105 days) 27,245 NA NA

Spring season (4/1/00-5/31/00, 61 days) 30,781 NA NA

a For the overall annual use estimate, the confidence interval was computed using a 5%

margin of error and a 95% confidence level.

In an effort to “triangulate” data sources, a second overall annual use estimate was

calculated from visitor estimates recorded by Forest rangers on their daily patrols. To

account for different daily routes used by rangers, this estimate used only data from 59 patrol

logs recorded on days during which rangers spent all or nearly all of their time inside one of

the Forest‟s eight sampling zones. Data from these sheets were treated as a random sample

stratified by zone. The overall annual use estimate calculated from the patrol sheets was

122,321 visitors. Two important limitations apply to this estimate. First, no sampling was

done during the winter when rangers did not patrol. Second, useable patrol sheets were

available from only five of the eight Forest zones because rangers were never able to spend

all or nearly all of a single patrol inside the isolated Rainsares, Green Valley, or Shade

Mountain areas. Because of these limitations, this estimate should be considered less reliable

6

than the survey-based estimate. However, the similarity of the results obtained by the two

methods tends to validate the use estimates.

Visitor Profile

Overall, nearly all survey participants were white (99%) males (86%) living in rural areas

or small towns (81%). (For a detailed summary of socio-demographic characteristics of

participants by season, see Appendix C, Table 3.) The majority was between the ages of 31

and 50 (51%) or older (37%), and fewer than one percent were 18 or younger. More than

one-half (58%) reported having no children living in their household. Half of all participants

had completed senior high school or less, and just over half (55%) reported an annual

household income of less than $50,000.

Visitation Patterns

Survey participants tended to be regular, long-time visitors who lived near BESF. Fewer

than one in ten (7%) were first-time visitors. (For a detailed summary of visitation patterns

by season, see Appendix C, Table 4.) Among repeat visitors, 41% had visited the Forest 5

times or less during the preceding 12-month period. In contrast, 26% had visited the Forest

more than 20 times (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Number of visits in past 12 months

5 or fewer 6 - 10

11 - 20 21 or more

7

Nearly three-fourths (72%) of the respondents visit the Forest in the summer or fall The

largest proportion of participants (44%) visited the Forest with members of their family. Of

interest, however, is that 19% of the respondents indicated that they visited the Forest alone

When asked how far they had traveled to visit the Forest, two-thirds indicated 50 miles or

less (Figure 2). Only 19% had traveled over 100 miles to visit the Forest. Given that the

majority of respondents indicated they had traveled a short distance to the Forest, it is not

surprising that they were most likely to be on a day trip (67%) and to spend three or more

hours at the Forest (59%). (For a detailed summary, see Appendix C, Table 4).

A majority of visitors (67%) were day-users. Among those who visited the Forest for

more than one day (33%), two thirds indicated that they would be in the area for two to five

nights. Just over one-half (53%) reported that they would spend their nights inside the

Forest, most often at a leased cabin site or a designated Forest campsite (Figure 3). Those

who were staying outside the Forest (47%) were most likely to spend the night in a state

park, a private campground, or in a private cabin. (For a detailed summary, see Appendix C,

Table 4).

Figure 2. Miles traveled to Forest

Under 25 25-50 51-100 Over 100

8

Activity Participation and Location

Survey participants were asked to list all activities they would participate in during their

visit to the Forest. They were then asked to indicate which of these activities they considered

to be their primary activity. The largest percentage of participants (Figure 4) identified

fishing as the primary activity. Other primary activities identified by at least five percent of

participants (in descending order of frequency) were hunting, viewing scenery, camping,

snowmobiling, walking/day hiking, wildlife watching, and picnicking. As expected, these

primary activities varied substantially by season. Fishing, for example, was most common

during spring and summer, while hunting was most common during fall and winter. (For a

detailed summary of primary activities by season, see Appendix C, Table 5).

Figure 3. Location of overnight stays

0 10 20 30 40

Leased cab in

Designated campsite

Backcountry site

State park

Private campground

Private cab in

Bed and Breakfast

Percent

Forest site Outside forest

Figure 4. Primary activities of visitors

0 5 10 15 20 25

Picn icking

W ild life watch ing

W alking/dayhiking

Snowmobiling

Camping

Viewing scenery

Hunting

Fish ing

Percent

9

Table 6 in Appendix C highlights all types of activities respondents indicated they would

engage in on the day they were interviewed at BESF. Viewing scenery was mentioned by

39% of participants, making it the activity with the highest overall participation rate (Figure

5). Other activities with overall participation rates above five percent included (in

descending order of frequency) fishing, walking/day hiking, wildlife watching, hunting,

camping, picnicking, snowmobiling, driving through the Forest en route to another

destination, and swimming/tubing. Like the primary activities, overall participation rates

varied substantially by season, particularly for activities like fishing, hunting, and

snowmobiling.

In addition to reporting primary and secondary recreation activities, survey participants

were also asked to indicate where on the Forest they expected to participate in their primary

activity. For the study year as a whole, one quarter of all participants named the White Deer

Creek/McCall Dam area, and one fifth named the Poe Paddy area. No other area was named

as often (Figure 6). It should be recognized, however, that participants named many areas

without distinct boundaries or “official” names, and they may have used different names for

the same area or used different parts of an extended area. For example, all those who named

Poe Paddy (21%), Penn‟s Creek (4%), and Cherry Run (4%) could be considered to have

Figure 5. Overall rates of activity participation

0 10 20 30 40 50

Sw imm ing/tubing

Driving through

Snowmobiling

Picnicking

Camping

Hunting

W ild life watching

Walking/dayhiking

Fishing

View ing scenery

Percent

10

been visiting the extended Penn‟s Creek area. (For a detailed summary of anticipated

location of activities by season, see Appendix C, Table 7.)

Attachment to Specific Locations in BESF

To develop a better understanding of attachment to specific places in the Forest, the mail-

back survey included a series of open-ended questions about “favorite” places. A total of

441 participants identified specific places, 96 (22%) of which were unique, i.e., identified by

only one participant (Figure 7). Nearly ten percent of the participants identified a leased

cabin site, and nearly nine percent identified the Forest as a whole without specifying one

place. Among specific areas identified, Penn‟s Creek (including Poe Paddy, the tunnel, and

Cherry Run) was mentioned most often. Poe Valley, R.B. Winter, White Deer Creek/McCall

Dam, Hairy John‟s, and Tall Timbers were also mentioned by at least two percent of the

participants. In general, the favorite places mentioned by participants tended to be located in

readily accessible parts of the Forest, in valleys and along higher standard roads, rather than

hike-in sites in remote areas. (For a complete, categorized list of verbatim responses about

favorite places, see Appendix C, Table 8.)

Figure 6. Anticipated location of activities

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Mid-State Tra il

Treaster Valley

Sand Mounta in

Bear Gap

Jones Mt Road

Cherry Run

Penns Creek

R B W inter

Hairy John Picnic

Hickernell N.

Greens Valley

Poe Paddy

W hite Deer

Percent

11

Participants reported a variety of reasons why favorite places were special to them

(Figure 8). A location‟s conduciveness to a particular recreation activity, such as hunting,

fishing, or wildlife watching, was mentioned by more participants (21%) than any other

characteristic. Other characteristics of favorite places that were mentioned by at least five

percent of participants included privacy and quiet (19%), past connections, memories, or

traditions associated with the place (14%), natural qualities (13%), proximity or convenient

location for the individual participant (11%), and views or scenery (5%). (For a complete,

categorized list of verbatim responses about why favorite places were special, see Appendix

C, Table 9.)

Figure 8. What makes favorite place special?

0 5 10 15 20 25

Views, scenery

Proximity, convenience

Natural qualities

Past connection

Privacy, quiet

Conducive to recreation

Percent

Figure 7. Location of favorite place in the Forest

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ta ll Timbers

Ha iry John's

W hite Deer/McCa ll

R .B. W inte r

Poe Va lley

Penns Creek

Fores t in genera l

Leased cabin s ite

Unique responses

Percent

12

Participants were also asked what characteristics of favorite places were most important

to keep the same and to change. Characteristics of favorite places that were most important

to keep the same (Figure 9) included natural qualities, mentioned by 22% of the participants,

as well as “everything” and current use level, each of which was mentioned by 18% of

participants. Current maintenance practices were mentioned by 17% of participants, and five

percent or fewer mentioned access or current rules and regulations. (For a complete,

categorized list of verbatim responses about what characteristics of favorite places were most

important to protect, see Appendix C, Table 10.)

Changes that participants wanted at their favorite places (Figure 10) included improvements

to facilities (mentioned by 25% of the participants), nothing (21%), modifications to visitor

use patterns (16%), modifications to resource management (12%), enforcement of rules and

regulations (9%), and road improvements (8%). (For a complete, categorized list of verbatim

responses about what characteristics of favorite places were most important to change, see

Appendix C, Table 11.)

Figure 9. Characteristics of favorite place

to keep the same

0 5 10 15 20 25

Rules & regs.

Access

Maint. practices

Use level

Everything

Natural qualities

Percent

13

Importance of and Satisfaction with Forest Recreation Characteristics

To help managers assess visitor responses to Forest recreation characteristics, survey

participants were asked to rate the importance of and then report their satisfaction level with

six characteristics of the Forest. The recreation characteristics included: (a) appearance and

maintenance of areas visited, (b) opportunities to visit without feeling crowded, (c) access to

places the participant likes to visit, (d) adequacy of signs, (e) availability of parking, and (f)

the ability to obtain information about the Forest. Participants rated both importance and

satisfaction on five-point scales (1 = Not at all important / Not at all satisfied; 5 = Extremely

important / Extremely satisfied). Mean importance ratings indicated that participants

considered all six characteristics moderately to very important (Figure 11). (For a detailed

summary of importance and satisfaction ratings by mean scores and by category, see

Appendix C, Tables 12 & 13.)

Mean satisfaction ratings indicated that participants were also moderately to very

satisfied with the manner in which these Forest characteristics are managed. Differences in

mean importance and satisfaction ratings were small, indicating that there was little

discrepancy between what participants wanted and what they found on the Forest. Although

small, five of the differences were statistically significant. For two characteristics (i.e.,

appearance and maintenance, opportunities to visit without feeling crowded), satisfaction

ratings were slightly lower than importance ratings, indicating that participants preferred

Figure 10. Characteristics of favorite

place to change

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Improve roads

Enforce regs.

Modify res. mgmt.

Modify use patterns

Nothing

Improve facilities

Percent

14

somewhat better conditions than they found in each area. For three characteristics (i.e.,

access, availability of parking, ability to obtain information), satisfaction ratings were

slightly higher than importance ratings, indicating that, in these areas, participants‟

preferences were somewhat exceeded by the conditions they found on the Forest.

Importance and satisfaction ratings for signage were not significantly different, indicating a

close match between participants‟ expectations and the actual conditions they found.

General Forest Management Issues

In addition to rating recreation characteristics of the Forest, survey participants were also

asked to respond to four general management issues. Participants were asked if they agreed

or disagreed that: (a) “It is more important to protect habitat for plants and animals than

provide opportunities for recreation,” (b) “The Forest should encourage more timber

harvesting,” (c) “More fish should be stocked in streams and lakes to provide increased

sport-fishing opportunities,” and (d) “More public lands such as Bald Eagle State Forest

should be set aside as wild or natural areas.” Responses to each statement were based on a

five-point scale (-2 = Strongly disagree; +2 = Strongly agree). On average, participants

agreed most strongly that protecting habitat is more important than providing for recreation

and more public lands should be set aside as wild or natural areas (Figure 12). Participants

Figure 11. Importance of & satisfaction with

Forest recreation characteristics

1 2 3 4 5

Adequacy o f signs

Appearance & maintenance*

Ability to obtain info rmation*

Absence o f crowding*

Availability o f parking*

Access to places I like*

Importance Satisfaction

*Importance & satisfaction differed significantly.

Scale: 1 = Not at all; 2 = Extremely

15

also agreed that more fish should be stocked in streams for sport-fishing, but disagreed with

more timber harvesting on State Forest land. (For a detailed summary of responses to

questions about management issues, see Appendix C, Table 14.)

Trends in Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences

To better understand visitation trends in BESF, survey participants were grouped by year

of first visit to the Forest, so characteristics and use patterns of these subgroups could be

compared. Over 74% of the participants reported that they had first visited the Forest in

1990 or before. These long-time visitors were divided almost equally between those who

first visited the Forest in 1970 or before and those who first visited the Forest between 1971

and 1990 (Figure 13). Only 25% of the participants reported that they first visited the Forest

between 1991 and 2000. For convenience in describing the characteristics and use patterns

of these three subgroups, they have been named Veterans, Intermediates, and Newcomers,

respectively. (For a detailed summary of year of first visit to the Forest and subgroup

categories, see Appendix C, Table 15.)

Figure 12. Responses to general management issues

-2 -1 0 1 2

Should set aside

more wild areas

Should stock

more fish

Should harvest

more timber

Habitat more

important

*Issue ratings did not differ significantly.

*

*

Strongly

disagree

Strongly

agreeNeutral

16

Background characteristics of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans. Analysis of

variance and chi-square tests of independence were used to compare 10 background

characteristics of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans. (For detailed results of these

statistical tests of background characteristics, see Appendix C, Table 16.) The three

subgroups did not differ significantly with respect to:

Gender (86% male),

Ethnic background (99% Caucasian);

Annual income (57% reported household incomes ranging from $30,000 to $79,999);

Current residence (77% reported living in a rural area or a town with a population

smaller than 10,000);

Political orientation (57% considered themselves moderately or very conservative); or

Environmental orientation (average score = 3.5 on a 15-item scale ranging from 1

[strong beliefs that environmental problems are not serious and can be managed

easily by humans] to 5 [strong beliefs that environmental problems are serious and

cannot be managed easily by humans]).

Four characteristics of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans did differ significantly.

First, Veterans were significantly older (52.8 years) than both Intermediates (42.9 years) and

Figure 13. Year of first visit to Forest

37%

25%

38%

Veterans 1927-1970 Intermediates 1971-1990

Newcomers 1991-2000

17

Newcomers (43.5 years). Second, although the difference was small, Veterans (13.3 years)

had significantly fewer years of formal education than Newcomers (13.9 years). Third,

Veterans (56%) and Intermediates (55%) were more likely than Newcomers (37%) to live

within 30 miles of BESF. Fourth, Veterans (83%) were more likely than Intermediates

(79%) or Newcomers (69%) to have grown up in a rural area or small town. However, a

large majority of each subgroup grew up in rural areas or small towns.

Forest use patterns of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans. The results of the

statistical test for differences among the subgroups in day trips, overnight trips, and overnight

lodging approached significance (p = .061). Although these results should be interpreted

cautiously, they suggest that Newcomers were somewhat more likely than Intermediates or

Veterans to make day trips to the Forest (Figure 14). Furthermore, the results suggest that,

when making overnight trips, Newcomers were less likely to spend the night at a leased or

private cabin site. (For detailed results of this statistical test, see Appendix C, Table 17.)

Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans reported significant differences in the season

during which they visited the Forest most often (Figure 15). Newcomers were more likely

than Intermediates or Veterans to report that they visited most often in summer or winter. In

contrast, Newcomers were less likely to report that they visited most often in fall. The three

Figure 14. Day trips versus overnight trips & lodging,

Newcomers, Intermediates, & Veterans

0

20

40

60

80

Day trip Cam ping at

BESF

Leased or

private cabin

State Park Com m ercial

T rip typ e

Pe

rce

nt

N ew co m ers

In term ed .

Veteran s

18

subgroups were most similar in regard to spring. (For detailed results of this statistical test,

see Appendix C, Table 18.)

Participation rates for 16 different outdoor recreation activities were calculated for

Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans. These rates were based on responses about

activities participation at BESF during the 12-month period prior to being surveyed.

Participation differences were tested with logistic regression, which made it possible to

control for the effect of age differences across subgroups as the tests were conducted.

Controlling for the effect of age was important because age is often associated with

decreasing participation rates for outdoor activities, and Veterans in this study were, on

average, significantly older than Intermediates or Newcomers. Tests of subgroup

participation rates showed significant differences for eight activities and approached

significance for two more activities ― camping and horseback riding (Figure 16). For eight

activities, including viewing scenery, fishing, day hiking, wildlife watching, hunting,

camping, picnicking, and swimming, participation rates were higher among Veterans and

Intermediates than among Newcomers. For two activities, snowmobiling and horseback

riding, participation rates were highest among Newcomers. (For detailed results of the

statistical tests of subgroup activity participation rates and the related effect of age, see

Appendix C, Table 19.)

Figure 15. Season of most visits to forest,


0

20

40

60

80

Spring Sum m er Fall W inter

Seaso n o f m o st v is its

Pe

rce

nt

N ew co m ers

In term ed .

Veteran s

19

The average satisfaction levels of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans with six

Forest characteristics were compared (Figure 17). All three subgroups reported relatively

high levels of satisfaction with all Forest characteristics, but significant differences were

found on two of the characteristics. Compared to Veterans and Intermediates, Newcomers

reported higher levels of satisfaction with opportunities to visit Forest sites without feeling

crowded. In contrast, Veterans reported the highest level of satisfaction with the ability to

obtain information about the area. (For detailed results of the statistical tests of subgroup

satisfaction with Forest characteristics, see Appendix C, Table 20.)

Figure 16. Activity participation at BESF,


0 20 40 60 80

Horseback*

Swim m ing

Snowm obiling

Picnicking

Cam ping*

Hunting

Wildlife

Day hiking

Fishing

SceneryA

cti

vit

y

Percent

Newcom ers

Interm ed.

Veterans

*Differences approached significance (p < .07%).

20

The responses of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans to four general forest

management issues were also compared (Figure 18). Significant differences were found only

among responses regarding timber harvesting. On average, all three subgroups disagreed

with the statement that the Forest should encourage more timber harvesting, but

disagreement was significantly stronger among the Intermediates than the Veterans. Average

scores of the Newcomers were close to those of the Intermediates but did not differ

significantly from those of either subgroup. Average scores of three subgroups did not differ

significantly for any of the other three forest management issues. (For detailed results of the

statistical tests of subgroup responses to forest management issues, see Appendix C, Table

20.)

Figure 17. Satisfaction with Forest characteristics,


1 2 3 4 5

Adequacy of

signs

Appearance &

m aintenance

Ability to obtain

inform ation*

Absence of

crowding*

Availability of

parking

Access to

places I like

Mean scores

N ewcom ers

In term ed.

Veterans

*Subgroups differed significantly.

Scale: 1 = Not at all satisfied; 5 = Extremely satisfied

21

Discussion of Results

Annual and Seasonal Visitation Levels

As measured by this survey, overall use of BESF exceeds 143,000 visits annually.

Because of the nature of the Forest and the limitations of the survey, this is likely to be a

conservative estimate. Multiple access points and the extensive Forest road system, as well

as the logistic and financial constraints of the survey, made it impossible to be assured of

capturing all visitation during any one sampling period.

Seasonal variation in visitation was consistent with patterns of recreation behavior on the

Forest. Fishing and hunting were the most commonly reported primary activities, and

visitation was heaviest during spring and late fall, the prime fishing and hunting seasons.

The relatively high level of visitation during the short (25 day) early fall season may have

corresponded with interest in viewing scenery during the prime period for fall color. It was,

perhaps, surprising that winter visitation nearly equaled the summer level. This may have

Figure 18. Responses to general management issues,


-2 -1 0 1 2

Should set aside more wild areas

Should stock more fish

Should harvest more timber*

Habitat more important than rec.

Veterans In term ediates N ewcom ers

*Subgroup responses differed significantly.

Strongly

disagree

Strongly

agreeNeutral

22

been because the Forest held adequate snow cover for snowmobiling for the first time in

several years.

Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences

BESF has a strong core of loyal visitors. They have been visiting the Forest over an

extended period of time and tend to visit it often. Further, they tend to be older and, when

they visit the Forest, do so with their family and/or friends. It is important, however, to

recognize that there is a small group of first-time visitors who may, in time, have an

influence on the way in which BESF is managed. Given the estimated number of individuals

visiting the Forest, this group may range in number from 7,525 to 12,554.

Regardless of type of user (i.e., first-time vs. repeat), most individuals visit the Forest in

spring or fall. Hence, it is not surprising that when asked about their level of satisfaction

with specific characteristics of the Forest, respondents were likely to indicate that crowding

was an issue. One way to respond to concern about crowding is to provide information to

visitors, including information about alternative locations for recreation, high-use versus low-

use areas of the Forest, and high-use versus low-use time periods (e.g., weekends versus

weekdays).

Two-thirds of Forest visitors limited their stays to a single day. In part, this is likely to be

a function of at least three factors. First, Pennsylvania State Forests provide some

undeveloped campsites and opportunities for backcountry camping but do not provide

overnight cabins or developed campgrounds. Providing more highly-developed facilities of

this type has not been considered consistent with the State Forests‟ mission, which

emphasizes providing opportunities for dispersed recreation. Second, many Forest visitors

spend nights in numerous private cabins located on leased cabin sites or private land near or

inside Forest boundaries. Third, a majority of Forest visitors (66%) reported traveling less

than 50 miles from home. If management wants to increase or extend visitation to the Forest,

a promotional campaign designed to educate current and potential visitors about camping

opportunities on the Forest as well as other types of lodging or camping opportunities near

the Forest should be implemented.

Few children visit BESF. Most visitors (88%) were 31 or older, and nearly 60% reported

having no children living in their household. Fewer than one percent of all visitors were 18

23

or younger. This pattern may be related to the Forest‟s dispersed recreation mission;

opportunities that typically attract families with young children, (e.g., beaches, playgrounds,

etc.) are not provided by Pennsylvania State Forests. The pattern also may be related to

choices made by adult recreationists accompanied by children. For example, a Central

Pennsylvania adult who wishes to take children fishing might choose to visit a State Park

rather than a State Forest. In many cases, the State Park would offer easier road access, more

frequent patrols, and amenities like play equipment, picnic tables, benches, and toilets that

are typically not available in the State Forest.

It may be desirable to promote more use of the Forest by families and young people.

Those who learn early in life to enjoy the opportunities available on the Forest, may also

learn early in life about the State Forest mission and support that mission throughout their

lives. If promoting family use of the Forest is important, management should publicize the

Forest‟s opportunities for “family friendly” recreation like picnicking, walking, hiking,

biking, and wildlife viewing in undeveloped settings.

When asked about their favorite places within the Forest, most indicated that the natural

setting, the privacy of the location and their memories about past experiences contributed to

their feeling that a place within the Forest was special. This information suggests many

visitors place high value on the Forest and/or sites within it. It may be important for

management to share this type of information with several constituencies. Understanding the

high value that visitors place on the Forest could help elected representatives, appointed

officials, and the general public of the Commonwealth appreciate the powerful positive

impact Pennsylvania State Forests have on the people who use them.

Trends in Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences

A comparison of Veteran visitors, Intermediates, and Newcomers to BESF revealed that

the backgrounds of Forest visitors were largely similar. Subgroup members were similar in

gender, ethnic background, income, and current residence, as well as political and

environmental orientation. The average age of Newcomers (42 years old) was significantly

less than that of Veterans (53 years old) but not significantly different than the age of

Intermediates (43 years old). Although Newcomers and Intermediates were younger than

Veterans, all three subgroups averaged more than 40 years old. The overall similarity among

24

the three subgroups suggests that the socio-demographic characteristics of Forest visitors will

not change rapidly in the near future.

Newcomers were likely than Intermediates or Veterans to live more than 30 miles from

the Forest, which suggests that the core market area for recreational use of the Forest may be

expanding. This trend is likely to continue as long as the availability of discretionary time

and money do not decrease. To the extent that the Forest‟s recreational market area

continues to expand, the portion of visitors without long-time connections to the Forest is

likely to grow larger. This change may eventually result in a population of stakeholders who

hold more diverse opinions about how the Forest should be managed.

Not only did Newcomers travel farther to visit the Forest; their visitation patterns also

differed from those of the Intermediates and Veterans. Newcomers were more likely than

Intermediates or Veterans to report that their primary season of visitation was summer or

winter, suggesting that growth in recreational use of the Forest is likely to be greatest during

these two seasons. Over time, this change in seasonal visitation patterns may make winter

ranger patrols increasingly important. Although the evidence was not conclusive, survey

data also suggest than Newcomers were more likely than Intermediates or Veterans to make

daytrips to the Forest. This finding is consistent with the results of studies in other areas

across the country that provide opportunities for resource-based recreation. Like the

expanding market area for the Forest, this trend may be linked to the availability of

discretionary time and money. Increasing day-use of the Forest may influence traffic

patterns and volume on Forest roads and may lead to increased demand for day-use areas and

parking.

Differences in activity participation among Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans

were complex. Some differences suggest that the mix of recreation activities on the Forest

may be changing. For example, Newcomers were less likely than Intermediates or Veterans

to participate in hunting or fishing. Because Newcomers averaged over 40 years old, it is

unlikely that many of them will become hunters or anglers. Extensive research demonstrates

that few individuals begin hunting or fishing after adolescence. Thus, survey results suggest

that, over time, hunting and fishing may become less common on the Forest. This trend

would be consistent with state and national data that show gradual declines in the numbers of

hunting and fishing licenses sold. In contrast to participation patterns for hunting and

25

fishing, Newcomers were more likely that Intermediates or Veterans to participate in

snowmobiling and horseback riding, suggesting that demand for these activities on the Forest

may continue to grow in the future.

The implications of other participation differences are less clear. Newcomers were less

likely than Intermediates or Veterans to visit the Forest for viewing scenery,

dayhiking/walking, wildlife watching, camping, picnicking, or swimming. These results

appear to be inconsistent with national trends that show growing participation in all these

activities. This apparent inconsistency cannot be resolved with the survey data, but several

explanations are possible. For example, it may be that participation trends in central

Pennsylvania do not match national trends. It is also possible that Newcomers participate in

these activities at other sites or have not yet learned of opportunities to participate in these

activities at BESF.

Differences in satisfaction and responses to general forest management issues among

Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans were small. All three subgroups reported high

levels of satisfaction with six Forest characteristics, but significant differences were found

for two characteristics. On one hand, Newcomers expressed the highest level of satisfaction

with opportunities to recreate without feeling crowded. On the other hand, Veterans

expressed the highest level of satisfaction with the ability to obtain information about the

area. These findings are consistent with other research. Newcomers are often most satisfied

with use levels because their frames of reference for the area do not include an earlier period

when visitation was lower. In contrast, Veterans are often most satisfied with the availability

of information because their experience level makes their need for information about the area

low. Given the overall high levels of satisfaction, these differences should not cause undue

concern, but monitoring satisfaction trends would be valuable. Over time, satisfaction with

use levels could remain high among new visitors but decrease among experienced visitors. A

trend of this type could indicate that experienced visitors would gradually be displaced or

“crowded out” of the area and replaced by new visitors with higher tolerance for user density,

leading to continually higher use levels.

Significant differences were found for only one general Forest management issue.

Although all three subgroups disagreed with the statement that the Forest should encourage

more timber harvesting, disagreement was significantly stronger among the Intermediates

26

than the Veterans. Because the difference was small and the scores of Newcomers did not

differ significantly from those of Intermediates or Veterans, no clear trend in user opinions is

indicated.

Recommendations for Future Survey Methods

This visitor survey was designed, in part, to test data collection methods for use in visitor

surveys of other Pennsylvania State Forests. For the survey, the Forest was divided into

eight zones, and data was collected from each zone in a stratified sampling procedure.

During the summer, early fall, and spring of the study year (June 1999 – June 2000), data

was collected with brief, on-site interviews conducted at stops along Forest roads and more

extensive mail-back questionnaires were distributed to individuals who completed on-site

interviews. During the early fall and winter, data was collected by placing survey packets

(cover letter, questionnaire and postage-paid return envelope, covered by a plastic bag) on

the windshields of visitors‟ vehicles.

Using a combination of on-site interviews and mail-back questionnaires, a higher

response rate (60% versus 20%) was achieved, allowing for more confidence about the

representativeness of the sample. However, this approach incurred high labor and

supervision costs associated with fielding interviewers at multiple sampling locations and

presented security concerns for interviewers left in the field without transportation. In

addition, the organizational demands of sustaining this approach for an extended period

placed a considerable burden on management staff, making consistent sampling and survey

administration difficult.

The second approach, placing survey packets on windshields, was less expensive and less

complex because a single driver could cover an extensive area. However, because of low

response rates, this approach raises questions about the representativeness of the sample. In

winter, both approaches were impossible to use on unplowed roads, but it was possible to

place survey packets on the windshields of vehicles parked at Forest access points along

plowed roads.

The advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches are typical when surveying

users of dispersed recreation areas like Pennsylvania‟s State Forests, which are characterized

by extensive, fragmented ownership patterns, multiple access points, and extreme variation in

27

the behavior of recreationists. For that reason, future visitor survey methods should be

evaluated in light of:

Physical characteristics (size, topography, road network, etc.) of the State Forest

being studied;

Seasonal differences in accessibility to the interior of the Forest;

Commuting distance for data collection personnel; and

Consistent, long-term availability of data collection personnel.

Each factor will influence the logistical and monetary cost of any visitor survey. In

considering methods for future surveys, it may be useful to evaluate the advantages and

disadvantages of one simple and one complex survey alternative.

Simple alternative. A simple survey method might use a brief, “self-mailer”

questionnaire (e.g., 5 8 inch card stock or 8½ 11 folding stock imprinted with return

postage) distributed by Forest staff during other, regular duties. These questionnaires could

be placed on vehicle windshields or handed to visitors at comparatively low cost. At the

same time, the number of parties in the area could be estimated by tallying the number of

vehicles and/or parties seen. Party-size information from questionnaires and vehicle/party

tallies could be extrapolated into estimates of overall visitor numbers.

Advantages of this approach include simplicity and low cost. Disadvantages include the

high probability of obtaining biased estimates and the inability to calculate meaningful

margins of error. The brief questionnaires might enhance response rates, but rates likely

would remain low because no personal contact would exist with questionnaires left on

vehicles and significant delays would often occur between the time questionnaires were

distributed and the time they were dropped into the return mail. Those who returned

questionnaires would constitute a self-selected sample unlikely to represent Forest users

accurately. More importantly, any survey method relying on Forest staff to distribute

questionnaire during other, regular duties is likely to return biased estimates. Ranger patrols,

for example, focus by necessity on high-use and problem areas. If rangers were to distribute

questionnaires during patrols, high-use and problem areas would be over-sampled and other

areas would be under-sampled. Furthermore, distributing questionnaires in this manner

would fail to constitute a probability sample, providing no basis for estimating meaningful

margins of error.

28

Complex alternative. A complex survey method would use a stratified random sample of

data collection zones and periods, similar to the approach used on BESF. During each data

collection period, survey staff would, to the extent possible, contact visitors and complete

questionnaires using interviews. Questionnaires could be simple or complex, depending on

the quantity of information desired. (If very complex information was desired, names and

addresses of survey participants could be recorded for follow-up mail contact.) As

interviews were conducted, the number of parties in the area could be estimated by tallying

the number of vehicles and/or parties seen. Party-size information from interviews and

vehicle/party tallies could be extrapolated into estimates of overall visitor numbers.

Disadvantages of this approach include high logistical and monetary costs. Advantages

include the high probability of obtaining unbiased estimates and an ability to calculate

meaningful margins of error. Compared to a simpler method, this approach improves the

probability of obtaining unbiased estimates in two ways. First, the use of field interviews

improves response rates (reducing self-selection bias) and improves the accuracy of

participant responses by eliminating recall bias as a source of error. Second, stratified

random sampling schemes avoid sampling biases associated with distributing questionnaires

in the course of regular staff duties and enable surveyors to subdivide a study area into

relatively homogenous sub-units or strata, reducing the margin of error in overall use

estimates. Finally, stratified random sampling produces a probability sample and provides a

basis for estimating meaningful margins of error.

Employing a complex survey design of the type described here would be costly, just as it

was on BESF. The advantage is in the trustworthiness of the results. In future surveys, some

savings could be realized by eliminating the follow-up, mail-back portion of the survey.

However, this should not be done by collecting more information during on-site interviews

because longer interviews would reduce response rates. Any decision about using a follow-

up, mail-back questionnaire should be based on evaluating the importance of collecting

complex information requiring thoughtful responses. For example, if it were important to

collection information about participant attitudes toward contentious and/or complex Forest

management issues, using a follow-up, mail-back questionnaire would be particularly

valuable.

29

Vehicle and trail counters. As part of this study, the practicality of using vehicle and trail

counters was also tested.1 Neither device was used successfully. Making secure installations

was difficult for counters of both types. Each needed to be protected from passersby but, at

the same time, be positioned to record their passing. In addition counters needed to be

accessible to survey staff. Furthermore, because they were battery-powered, both types of

counters required frequent maintenance, particularly during cold weather. Trail counters not

only needed frequent maintenance, but also failed to make reliable counts during periods of

high winds. The need for frequent maintenance combined with the 40-70 mile commute

from State College to various counter sites quickly exhausted the resources allocated to the

use of counters. With easier access to the counter sites and additional time spent on

installation, calibration, and maintenance, it might have been possible to use both types of

counters successfully. In order to use counters of any type successfully in another study, it is

likely counters would need to be installed permanently or semi-permanently and read and

maintained by personnel who do not need to travel long distances.

Ultimately, decisions about visitor use survey methods in other Pennsylvania State

Forests should be tailored to individual forests. For example, a sampling method might be

highly successful in one Forest but less successful in another because of differences in road

and trail networks or use patterns. Similarly, all of Pennsylvania‟s State Forests share some

important management issues, but other important issues may vary between Forests.

Literature Cited

Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, L. (1990). Elementary Survey Sampling (4th

Ed.). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.

1 The vehicle counter tested was the Nu-Metrics brand Hi-Star NC-47. The trail counter tested was the

TrailMaster brand TW1500 active infrared counter.

30

Appendix A: On-site and Follow-up Questionnaires

41

Appendix B: Sampling Strategy

42

Sampling Strategy for the Study

The sampling frame was all five-hour time periods of the study year crossed with the eight

geographic zones created for the study. Thus, the sample units were a series of five-hour

daylight time periods within individual zones. Measurements taken on each sample unit

included date, site(s), number of parties, and party-size(s). To obtain a representative sample,

the five-hour time periods included in the sample were varied between weekdays and weekend

days, as well as among mornings, afternoons, and evenings.

The study year was also stratified seasonally in order to capture seasonal variation in

activities and use levels and facilitate computing seasonal use estimates in addition to an

overall annual estimate. Four unequal-length seasonal strata were designed in consultation

with the Forest‟s District Manager and staff. Beginning and ending dates for each seasonal

stratum were selected to correspond with important annual changes in Forest use patterns. The

summer stratum (mid-June through Labor Day) corresponded to school vacation time and to

moderately active fishing. The fall season (September through mid-December) began with the

return of the school year and extended through fall color and all the major hunting seasons.

The winter season (mid-December through March) was selected to approximate the traditional

snow season. Finally, the spring season (April through mid-June) corresponded with peak

fishing activity.

43

Appendix C: Results Tables

44

Table 1. Sampling dates and locations by season and method

Season

Sampling method a

Date

Day of

week Zone and Location b

Questionnaires

distributed

Summer 6/12/99 Sat. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 8

Onsite/mail-back 6/18/99 Fri. 2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 13

3 Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd. 5

6/19/99 Sat. 4 Cherry Run & Weikert Rds. 17

6 Snyder-Middleswarth Picnic Area 5

7 Shade Mt. Rd. 1

6/24/99 Thurs. 4 Ingleby 4

6/25/99 Fri. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 9

4 Cherry Run & Weikert Rds. 2

6/26/99 Sat. 3 Jones Mt. Rd. 9


7/2/99 Fri. 3 Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd. 11


7/3/99 Sat. 3 Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd. 17

5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 12

8 Greens Valley Rd. 1

7/4/99 Sun. 5 Bear Gap Picnic Area 13

7/5/99 Mon. 2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 46

7/9/99 Fri. 4 Cherry Run & Weikert Rds. 14

7/10/99 Sat. 3 Jones Mt. Rd. 5

7/16/99 Fri. 2 Mile Run Rd. 4

1 Rainsares Rd. 1

7/17/99 Sat. 7 Shade Mt. Rd. 2

5 Bear Gap Picnic Area 5


7/18/99 Sun. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 17


8 Greens Valley Rd. 9



7/25/99 Sun. 2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 12

3 Jones Mt. Rd. 7

7/29/99 Thurs. 5 Bear Gap Picnic Area 2



7/30/99 Fri. 5 Sand Mt. Rd. & S-M Pike 45

8 Green Valley Rd. 1



8/13/99 Fri. 5 Sand Mt. Rd. & S-M Pike 23

8/14/99 Sat. 2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 11

8/21/99 Sat. 2 Mile Run Rd. 9

8/22/99 Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 10

8/27/99 Fri. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 2

8/29/99 Sun. 5 Sand Mt. Rd. & S-M Pike 40

Table continued next page.

a During summer, early fall, and spring, surveyors stationed at key intersections or roads counted passing

vehicles and asked drivers to stop and complete a brief questionnaire, as well as a longer, mail-back

questionnaire. During late fall and winter, surveyors drove major roads and distributed questionnaire packets

on the windshields of parked vehicles.

b Zones: 1 Rainsares; 2 South Eastville; 3 Hickernell North; 4 Hickernell South; 5 New Lancaster Valley; 6

Troxelville; 7 Shade Mountain; 8 Green‟s Valley.

45

Table 1 continued. Sampling dates and locations by season and method

Season

Sampling method a

Date

Day of


Questionnaires

distributed

Fall 9/12/99 Sun. 3 Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd. 25

Onsite/mail-back 9/19/99 Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 25

9/26/99 Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 25

10/3/99 c

Sun. 8 Green Valley Rd. 16

10/17/99 c

Sun. 8 Green Valley Rd. 21

10/24/99 c

Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 18

Windshield 10/2/99 Sat. 1 3

2 10

3 8

4 0

5 1

6 26

10/3/99 Sun. 3 2

5 17

10/8/99 Fri. 7 7

10/16/99 Sat. 4 11

5 13

6 19

10/30/99 Sat. 2 8

3 7

4 4

5 0

6 29

7 23

11/13/99 Sat. 1 4

2 7

3 11

11/22/99 Mon. 1 13

2 9

3 13

4 14

5 34

6 78

7 12

8 17

11/29/99 Mon. 2 14

3 33

4 22

5 35

6 129

12/11/99 Sat. 2 9

3 26

4 3




questionnaire. During late fall and winter, surveyors drove along major roads and distributed questionnaire

packets on the windshields of parked vehicles.



c Onsite/mail-back survey results collected during October were not used to compute use estimates because

these results overlapped with windshield method results collected during the same month.

46


Season

Sampling method a

Date

Day of


Questionnaires

distributed

Winter 12/18/99 Sat. 2 5

Windshield 3 1

4 2

12/27/99 Mon. 2 3

3 3

1/9/00 Sun. 3 1

6 4

1/16/00 Sun. 3 1

5 3

8 1

1/22/00 Sat. 2 28

5 6

1/29/00 Sat. 2 48

3 23

4 4

5 8

2/5/00 Sat. 2 91

3 5

4 10

2/13/00 Sun. 2 1

3 3

2/19/00 Sat. 2 27

3 11

2/26/00 Sat. 4 3

5 1

3/16/00 Thurs. 4 2

3/19/00 Sun. 2 1

4/1/00 Sun. 3 2

4/1/00 6 7






On winter sampling days when Forest roads were inaccessible because of snow, questionnaire packets were

placed on vehicles at the following locations: Zone 2 – Mile Run Snowmobile Parking Lot, R.B. Winter

Snowmobile Parking Lot, Route 192 Parking Lot; Zone 3 – Hairy Johns Picnic Area Parking Lot; Zone 4 –

Weikert Parking Lot, District Office Parking Lot; Zone 5 – Jack's Mt. Snowmobile Parking Lot.



47


Season

Sampling method a

Date

Day of


Questionnaires

distributed

Spring 4/1/00 Sun. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 5

Onsite/mail-back 4/15/00 Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 28

4/17/99 Tue. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 8

4/30/00 Mon. 2 Mile Run Rd. 6

2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 1


5/6/00 Sun. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 6

5/14/00 Mon. 6 Snyder-Middleswarth Picnic Area 6


5/15/00 Tue. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 9

5/27/00 Sun. 4 Cherry Run & Weikert Rds. 2

4 Ingleby 2

5/28/00 Mon. 2 Mile Run Rd. 9

5/29/00 Tue. 2 Mile Run Rd. 8

2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 2








48

Table 2. Number of interviews completed by sampling zone and season

Number of On-site Interviews

Zones/Sites Summer Fall Spring Overall

Zone 1

Rainsares 1 -- -- 1

Zone 2

Mile Run Rd 23 65 50 138

McCall Dam Rd 82 -- 3 85

Zone 3

Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd 84 25 -- 109

Jones & Brandon Rd 21 -- -- 21

Zone 4

Cherry Run & Weikert Rds 56 -- 3 59

Ingleby 2 -- 4 6

Zone 5

Sand Mt. Rd 109 -- -- 109

Poe Paddy Picnic Area 45 -- 39 84

Bear Gap Picnic Area & Treaster

Valley Rd

20

--

-- 20

Zone 6

Snyder-Middleswarth Picnic Area 9 -- 6 15

Zone 7

Shade Mt. Rd 3 -- -- 3

Zone 8

Greens Valley Rd 11 37 -- 48

Total 466 127 105 698

Note. A total of 92 windshield-survey responses were received in fall, compared to 135 in winter.

49

Table 3. Profile of respondents

Percentage (n)

Summer Fall Winter Spring Overall

Gender

Males 81% (195) 93% (136) 91% (124) 83% (33) 86% (548)

Females 19% (47) 8% (11) 9% (12) 18% (7) 14% (77)

Age

Under 19 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (2)

19-30 12% (29) 11% (15) 17% (23) 7% (3) 12% (70)

31-40 21% (51) 21% (31) 27% (37) 34% (14) 24% (133)

41-50 24% (59) 33% (49) 25% (34) 20% (8) 27% (150)

51-60 17% (40) 15% (22) 14% (19) 24% (10) 16% (91)

61and older 26% (63) 20% (29) 167% (23) 15% (6) 21% (121)

Education

High school or less 45% (109) 55% (81) 56% (77) 44% (18) 50% (285)

Technical school or college 35% (85) 35% (52) 34% (46) 34% (14) 35% (197)

Graduate School 20% (48) 10% (14) 10% (14) 22% (9) 15% (85)

Income

Under $ 19,999 10% (22) 7% (9) 7% (9) 17% (6) 9% (46)

$20,000-$29,999 19% (41) 19% (25) 16% (20) 3% (1) 17% (87)

$30,000-$49,999 33% (72) 30% (39) 25% (31) 17% (6) 29% (148)

$50,000-$79,999 21% (46) 29% (38) 40% (49) 37% (13) 29% (146)

$80,000+ 17% (36) 15% (19) 12% (15) 26% (9) 16% (79)

Current residence

Farm, ranch, rural area 35% (45) 43% (61) 41% (56) 45% (18) 40% (180)

Small town (under 10,000) 40% (51) 41% (58) 45% (61) 30% (12) 41% (182)

Large town (10,000-49,999) 14% (18) 11% (15) 7% (9) 15% (6) 11% (48)

Small/Large/Metropolitan area 12% (15) 6% (8) 7% (10) 10% (4) 8% (37)

Children living in household

0 child 60% (146) 54% (79) 61% (84) 49% (20) 58% (329)

1 child 12% (28) 21% (27) 15% (21) 10% (4) 14% (80)

2 children 18% (43) 14% (20) 15%(21) 22% (9) 16% (93)

3 or more 10% (25) 14% (21) 8% (11) 20% (8) 12% (65)

Ethnicity

Caucasian or White 98% (238) 100%(147) 100% (136) 100% (40) 99% (561)

Others 2% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (4)

Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

50

Table 4. Visitation patterns by season

Percentage (n)

Visitor Behavior Summer Fall Winter Spring Overall

First time visitor

Yes 10% (48) 1% (3) 5% (7) 7% (8) 7% (66)

No 90% (416) 99% (214) 95% (129) 93% (104) 93% (863)

If no, no. of visits last 12 mos.

0-5 visits 39% (161) 40% (81) 40% (51) 55% (57) 41% (350)

6-10 visits 18% (73) 17% (37) 26% (33) 14% (15) 18% (158)

11-15 visits 9% (38) 9% (20) 141% (14) 10% (10) 10% (82)

16-20 visits 4% (15) 7% (15) 5% (7) 8% (8) 5% (45)

Over 20 visits 31% (129) 29% (61) 19% (24) 14% (14) 26% (228)

If no, primary season of use

Spring 9% (35) 9% (18) 4% (5) 66% (63) 15% (121)

Summer 57% (218) 18% (38) 13% (16) 19% (18) 36% (290)

Fall 31% (118) 63% (131) 24% (29) 10% (10) 36% (288)

Winter 2% (9) 11% (22) 59% (72) 5% (5) 13% (108)

Composition of visitor group

Alone 22% (102) 23% (49) 10% (13) 13% (15) 19% (179)

Family 50% (231) 44% (96) 26% (34) 38% (43) 44% (404 )

Friends 15% (70) 23% (50) 29% (38) 28% (31) 21% (189)

Family & friends 13% (61) 10% (22) 35% (46) 21% (23) 17% (152)

Miles traveled to Forest

Under 26 41% (190) 53% (115) 37% (51) 43% (48) 43% (404)

26-50 22% (104) 21% (45) 29% (40) 20% (22) 23% (211)

51-100 16% (76) 12% (27) 17% (23) 15% (17) 15% (143)

Over 100 21% (96) 14% (31) 17% (23) 22% (25) 19% (175)

Type of Trip

Day trip 62% (287) 78% (169) 77% (106) 56% (63) 67% (625)

Under 1 hour 36% (103) 23% (39) 0% (0) 14% (9) 24% (151)

1-2 hours 24% (68) 15% (25) 2% (2) 11% (7) 16% (102)

3-5 hours 32% (91) 27% (46) 20% (21) 21% (13) 27% (171)

Over 6 hours 9% (25) 35% (59) 78% (83) 54% (34) 32% (201)

Overnight 38% (179) 23% (50) 23% (30) 44% (49) 33% (308)

1 nights 19% (34) 18% (9) 13% (4) 2% (1) 16% (48)

2 nights 35% (62) 41% (20) 20% (6) 35% (17) 34% (105)

3-5 nights 31% (55) 29% (14) 52% (16) 27% (13) 32% (98)

Over 5 nights 16% (28) 12% (6) 16% (5) 37% (18) 19% (57)

Locations of overnight stays

Forest sites 47% (83) 92% (11) -- 67% (32) 53% (126)

Designated campsite 41% (35) 9% (1) -- 64% (21) 45% (57)

Leased cabin site 58% (48) 91% (10) -- 33% (11) 54% (69)

Backcountry site 1% (1) -- -- 3% (1) 2% (2)

Outside Forest 53% (94) 8% (1) -- 33% (16) 47% (111)

Private campground 28% (26) 0% (0) -- 29% (4) 28% (30)

Bed & Breakfast 7% (7) 0% (0) -- 0% (0) 6% (7)

State park 38% (35) 100% (1) -- 36% (5) 38% (41)

Private cabin 27% (25) 0% (0) -- 36% (5) 28% (30)

Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

51

Table 5. Primary activity on day of interview, by season

Fishing 18% (57) 6% (11) 2% (3) 79% (84) 21% (155)

Hunting 0% (0) 41% (79) 31% (42) 0% (0) 16% (121)

Viewing scenery 18% (56) 16% (30) 2% (2) 1% (1) 12% (89)

Camping 18% (56) 6% (11) 0% (0) 8% (8) 10% (75)

Snowmobiling 0% (0) 0% (0) 55% (74) 0% (0) 10% (74)

Walking/day hiking 13% (43) 5% (10) 7% (9) 8% (8) 9% (70)

Wildlife watching/feeding 13% (42) 12% (23) 1% (1) 0% (0) 9% (66)

Picnicking 12% (37) 4% (8) 0% (0) 4% (4) 7% (49)

Mountain biking 3% (15) 2% (3) 1% (1) 1% (1) 3% (20)

Backpacking 2% (7) 1% (1) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (9)

Horseback riding 0% (0) 5% (9) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (9)

Driving ORV 2% (6) 1% (4) 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (8)

Collecting stone 0% (0) 2% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (3)

Cutting firewood 0% (0) 1% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (2)

Photography 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Cross-country skiing 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Jogging/trail running 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Sledding 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Individuals were asked what they anticipated doing

during their visit to BESF. What they actually did during their visit may vary.

Percentage (n)


52

Table 6. Activity participation rates on day of interview, by season

Viewing scenery 34% (159) 51% (111) 53% (72) 19% (21) 39% (363)

Fishing 18% (84) 8% (18) 12% (16) 82% (92) 23% (210)

Walking/day hiking 23% (109) 18% (39) 21% (29) 24% (27) 22% (204)

Wildlife watching/feeding 17% (81) 27% (59) 17% (23) 12% (13) 19% (176)

Hunting 0% (0) 39% (85) 35% (48) 0% (0) 14% (133)

Camping 18% (82) 6% (14) 7% (10) 17% (19) 13% (125)

Picnicking 11% (51) 7% (16) 8% (11) 15% (17) 10% (95)

Snowmobiling 0% (0) 1% (1) 58% (79) 0% (0) 8% (80)

Driving through 13% (61) 2% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 7% (65)

Swimming/tubing 9% (43) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 5% (44)

Cabin maintenance 5% (24) 8% (17) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4% (41)

Mountain biking 5% (23) 4% (8) 4% (5) 4% (4) 4% (40)

Photography 2% (7) 4% (8) 10% (14) 6% (7) 4% (36)

Rest & Relax 5% (23) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (25)

Backpacking 2% (9) 2% (5) 4% (5) 2% (2) 2% (21)

Cutting firewood 0% (0) 4% (8) 1% (2) 3% (3) 1% (13)

Visiting Friend/Relatives 3% (12) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (12)

Horseback riding 0% (0) 5% (10) 1% (2) 0% (0) 1% (12)

Driving ORV 1% (6) 1% (2) 1% (2) 1% (1) 1% (11)

Collecting stone 1% (5) 1% (2) 1% (2) 0% (0) 1% (9)

Target shooting 1% (1) 1% (2) 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (4)

Scout activity 0% (0) 1% (3) 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (4)

Berry picking 1% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (4)

Jogging/trail running 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (2) 0% (0) 1% (3)

Family reunion 1% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (3)

Using restroom 1% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (2)

Cross-country skiing 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Sledding 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Get water 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Collecting insects 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Caving 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Activity

Percentage (n)


53

Table 7. Anticipated location of activity participation by season

Percentage (n)

Area used Summer Fall Winter Spring Overall

White Deer Creek/McCall Dam 25% (98) 34% (53) 13% (10) 63% (5) 25% (166)

Poe Paddy 33% (134) 2% (3) 3% (2) 13% (1) 21% (140)

Greens Valley 3% (11) 25% (39) 1% (1) 0% (0) 8% (51)

Hickernell North 7% (27) 13% (21) 0% (0) 0% (0) 7% (48)

Hairy John Picnic Area 4% (15) 10% (16) 16% (12) 0% (0) 7% (43)

R.B. Winter 1% (2) 1% (1) 38% (29) 0% (0) 5% (32)

Penn‟s Creek 5% (21) 1% (1) 3% (2) 13% (1) 4% (25)

Cherry Run 6% (23) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4% (23)

Jones Mt Rd. 5% (19) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 3% (20)

Bear Gap 4% (15) 1% (1) 3% (2) 0% (0) 3% (18)

Sand Mt. 4% (15) 1% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (17)

Treaster Valley 1% (1) 6% (9) 4% (3) 0% (0) 2% (13)

Mid-State Trail 2% (7) 0% (0) 4% (3) 0% (0) 2% (10)

Poe Valley 0% (0) 2% (3) 6% (5) 13% (1) 1% (9)

Tall Timbers 2% (7) 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (8)

Shade Mt. 1% (3) 3% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) !% (7)

Pine Creek Rd. 1% (4) 1% (1) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (6)

Strong Improvement 0% (0) 1% (1) 6% (5) 0% (0) 1% (6)

Stony Run 1% (2) 2% (3) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (6)

Penn‟s View 1% (5) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (5)

Note. Only locations mentioned 5 or more times overall are listed.

54

Table 8. Location of favorite place in Bald Eagle State Forest

Category Count

(n = 441) Percent Wording of response

No specific place 39 8.8%

I ride the roads. So I ride “thru” – No specific location.

No favorite place.

Bald Eagle State Park.

New in area. Only visited one site.

Parks.

Sightseeing.

Bald Eagle State Park – has clean showers and bathrooms. Larger camping area,

nice lake.

All state parks.

No favorite in particular, we just drive to see wildlife and relax.

I have no favorite place.

I like all of Bald Eagle State Forest. I like being in the outdoors without

convenience of home.

Don‟t have one.

I just like riding the roads.

No particular spot like all equal.

I don‟t have a favorite place. I like it all.

Anywhere.

I do not have an available place.

The great outdoors in general.

No favorite.

I visit a few different areas of the state forest. All are equally good.

No favorite spot.

Did not visit enough to see it all.

Any part away from the highway.

Anywhere alone.

I don‟t really have a favorite place.

Have no favorite place.

It‟s all good.

Don‟t really have a favorite. We enjoy area.

All snow scenery.

All areas.

I don't have a favorite place.

All over.

I like the whole park, it's a great place to snowmobile.

All the same.

Parks.

I like them all.

I don't have a favorite - I enjoy the whole trail.

I don't have just one favorite place, but they are all former logging roads in

western Union County.

Prefer not to identify anything.

The forest/woods (in general) 7 1.6%

The woods.

Anywhere in the woods.

The entire forest is wonderful.

The whole forest.

Woodland all around, no noise, very little traffic.

I like to ride through the woods and see snow.

The woods.


*Response counted in more than one category; underlined words counted in this category.

55

Table 8 continued. Location of favorite place in the Bald Eagle State Forest

Category Count


The trails (in general) 7 1.6%

The trails and the dam and the waterfalls.

Natural trails.

I trail horse ride and like the trails (not road) through the forest.

Trails for horse back riding.

Anywhere along Mid-state trail.

Hiking.

All snowmobile trails.

Mountains (in general) 7 1.6%

I really love the mountains, so it is hard for me to just select one area, but, I like

the Bear Run Rd. to Bear Gap areas the best.

Mountains.

Around mountains.

Anywhere in the mountains.

A large rock that I set on being able to observe some hollows that come up to the

top of the mountain.

The look out spots when snowmobiling.

Some of the vistas (the views are awesome).

Picnic areas (in general) 5 1.1%

Swimming and picnic area.

Picnic area close to swimming.

We liked picnic area.

Picnic area.

Picnic area.

Creeks (in general) 4 .9%

The stream.

Along the creek.

Along the streams.

Creeks.

A lake (unspecified) 2 .5%

The lake area – it‟s very pretty and offers things to do as a family.

The lake.

Camping areas (in general) 1 .2%

Camping area – in season fishing in stream.

Penns Creek, Poe Paddy, Cherry Run, Railroad Tunnel Area 58 13.2%

Penns Creek.

Area above PFBC, Penns Creek at Cherry Run.

You can look down and see Penns Creek along the trail.

Rock slide/face on south side of Penns Creek on White Mountain, near

intersection of Cherry Run and Penns Creek.

Harleton/Penns Creek area.

Penns Creek fly stretch.

I fish Penns Creek from 19 bridge to 1.5 miles into the no kill area.

Penns Creek from cabin to Cherry Run.

Penns Creek.

Any where along Penns Creek and from towns and cabin.

Penns Creek.

Penn‟s creek below Poe Paddy bridge.

Penns Creek.

Penns Creek and Poe Valley.

Next to Penns Creek 1 ½ mile west on Cherry Row Rd.



56


Category Count


Penns Creek, Poe Paddy, Cherry Run, Railroad Tunnel Area, continued

Penns Creek between Weikert and Cherry Run.

Penns Creek from Swift Run to Eagles Bay.

Cherry Run Road – fishing Penns Creek.*

Penns Creek cold water fishery.

The area from Poe Paddy and Harry Johns, especially along Penns Creek.

Poe Paddy camping area. There is approximately 7-10 miles of great fly fishing

and miles of bicycle riding without traffic.

Poe Paddy.

Poe Paddy Park and lake.

Poe Paddy state park – camping, fishing meeting nice people – lovely place.

Poe Paddy area – trestle and tunnel.

Poe Paddy.

Poe Paddy Park.

Poe Paddy.

Trail end camp – Poe Paddy Area.

Trail end cabin.

Poe Paddy area.

Little Poe park.

Poe Paddy area.

Cherry Run Road – fishing Penns Creek.*

Cherry Run.

PA fish commission project. North of Cherry Run.

The catch and release area near Cherry Run a few miles west of Weikert.

In the Cherry Run area, along old Mingle Road.

Cherry Run.

Cherry Run area.

On Cherry Run Road.

Love the Cherry Run area – always seeing wildlife and not many people.

Cherry Run to the tunnel.

Cherry Row Road to Paddy mountain.

Cherry Run, Poe Paddy area.

Cherry Run hollow. Bear Run hollow.

Cherry Run area.

The old railroad tunnel/cave.

I enjoyed the tunnel and the surrounding area.

On the trestle bridge just before the railroad tunnel I love water.

I love walking through the tunnel at Poe Paddy and walking along that trail. It is

so tranquil, beautiful, natural.

The old rail road tunnel.

I guess the railroad tunnel.

Paddy Mt tunnel area.

Train tunnel at Poe Paddy.

All around Poe Paddy Park and the tunnel.

Railroad tunnel at Poe Paddy.

Tunnel (railroad tracks) west of Cherry Run.



57


Category Count


Poe Valley Area 34 7.7%

Poe and New Lancaster Valley. Great access and maintained trail.*

In general, the Poe Valley/High Valley area.

Poe Valley Park.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley lake.

Poe Valley.

The Creek – Treaster Run. Poe Valley State Park.

Poe Valley state park picnic area.

Poe Valley.

The stream below the dam in Poe Valley.

Poe Valley State Park – quiet surrounding.

Overlook looking into Poe Valley.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley camping area.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley State Park.

Woods along Poe Creek.

Poe Valley dam.


Lake at Poe Valley.

Poe Valley camp area.

I really like Poe Valley – plenty of parking, trails, nice lake.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley.


Area between Poe Valley and Poe Paddy. Poe Valley state park in the fall.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley park.

Valley area.

Poe Valley area.

Poe Valley.


Poe Valley is remote and sparsely inhabited.

Raymond B. Winter, Halfway Dam Area 27 6.1%

I liked Raymond B. Winter Lake

Raymond B. Winter State Park.

R B. Winter in Autumn, Summer…. The body of water makes it.

The R.B. Winter area.

R.B. Winter/half way dam area.

R.B. Winter State Park.

R.B. Winter beach.

The swimming area at R.B. Winter.

R.B. Winter.

R.B. Winters park.

R.B. Winter Park.

Raymond State Park.

Raymond B. Winters Park

Overlook close to R.B. Winters

R.B. Winter Park.



58


Category Count


Raymond B. Winter, Halfway Dam Area continued

Lake & campground - R.B. Winters Park.

R.B. Winters.

Lake at R.B. Winter.

R.B. Winter Park.

Halfway dam area.

Halfway dam.

Halfway dam.

Halfway dam.

Halfway Dam and everything.

Halfway Dam. Black Gap.*

Halfway Dam.

Overlook at Halfway Dam.

White Deer Creek/McCall Dam 26 5.9%

White Deer Creek camping site, they are close to water and fishing. White Deer Creek Rd. area and 5 Points area near Mile Run.

Along White Deer Creek.

White Deer Creek, fishing.

White Deer Creek and surrounding areas.

White Deer Creek.

White Deer Creek area.

White Deer Creek. Some of the more secluded areas.

White Deer Creek fly fishing areas.

White Deer Creek area.

White Deer Creek fishing hunting.

White Deer Creek.

White Deer Creek.

White Deer Creek Road

Upper area of White Deer Creek watershed.

White Deer Creek.

All along the White Deer Creek.

Eastville to Hairy Johns & Whitedeer Creeks areas.*

McCall Dam picnic area.

McCalls Dam – secluded and pleasant for picnic, etc.

My favorite area is on top of a mountain very close to McCall Dam Picnic Area.

McCall Dam area.

McCall Dam area. White deer Creek road.

McCall Dam.

McCall area

McCall Dam picnic area.

Hairy Johns 13 2.9%

Eastville to Hairy Johns & Whitedeer Creeks areas.*

The area from Poe Paddy and Harry Johns, especially along Penns Creek.

Harry Johns.

Harry Johns.

Harry Johns picnic area – quiet, peaceful, not crowded like state park.

Harry John‟s Park – Winkelbleck Mtn – vista.

The Harry Johns area.

Harry John State Park.

Harry Johns area trail.

Harry Johns stone pavilion.



59


Category Count


Hairy Johns continued

Harry John‟s

Harry John State Park.

Hairy John's.

Tall Timbers 10 2.3%

Tall Timbers/Snyder – Middleswarth state park.*

Tall Timbers –Snyder Middleswarth pristine.*

Tall timbers.

Tall Timbers Trail.

Tall Timbers.

Tall Timbers.

Tall Timbers.

Tall Timbers.

Tall Timbers and Snyder Middleswarth.*

Snyder-Middleswarth and Tall Timbers*

Pine Creek 8 1.8%

Pine Creek road.

Headwaters of Pine Creek.

Pine Creek area.

Pine Creek.

Pine Creek valley.

Pine Creek.

I go all over the Pine Creek area.

Pine Creek road.

Hook Natural Area 8 1.8%

In The Hook – near stream, large moss covered rocks, large trees.

Hooks natural area.

Hook natural area – Union County.

Hook natural area.

The Hook natural area.

Natural Hook Area.

Hook Natural Area.

Hook Natural Area.

Treaster Run 7 1.6%

View‟s into Triester and New Lancaster Valley.

Treaster run, fly fishing for stream raised native trout. Good water, not over

fished, should be made 100% catch and release.

Treaster Valley area.

Mostly visit for hunting or work in Treaster valley.

Treaster valley.

Treaster Valley.

Treaster Valley along the creek and the Bear Gap area.

Snyder/Middleswarth 7 1.6%

Tall Timbers and Snyder Middleswarth.*

Snyder-Middleswarth and Tall Timbers*

Tall Timbers/Snyder – Middleswarth state park.*

Tall Timbers –Snyder Middleswarth pristine.*

I have 3 favorite places depending on what I‟m doing Snyder-Middleswarth for

hiking, Spruce Run for fishing, Bald Eagle Park for picnicking.

A beautiful lookout near Snyder – Middleswarth park.

Middleswarth Park – I like the camp site with the water fall.



60


Category Count


Green Valley Area 7 1.6%

It is a certain area in Greens Valley where I always see and harvest deer every

year. I visit the entire Greens Valley area but most often visit the western end

of the valley.

Greens Valley.

Only ever been to Greens Valley area to get firewood. Don‟t have any favorite

place.

Upper green valley about 3 miles into dirt road at top of Centre Hall Mountain.

At the end of Greens Valley Road by stream where bridge is out.

Green Valley area.

Greens Valley.

Winklebleck 5 1.1%

Winklebleck cabin is located in the center of the forest. It is just fun to get away

from the busy life.

Winklebleck over look.

Winklebleck.

Winkelblecks view.

The view of Winklebleck.

Bear Gap 5 1.1%

Bear Gap area.

Bear Gap camp – Hartley Township, Union County.

Bear Gap camp.

Bear Gap.

Bear Mountain.

Black Gap 5 1.1%

Black Gap vista.

Black Gap road.

Burkholder cabin in Black Gap area.

Black Gap lookout.

Halfway Dam. Black Gap.*

Shade Mountain 4 .9%

Shade Mountain on south side of Bear Spring.

Shade Mountain. Between fire tower and Targap trail.

Top of Shade Mountain. Along the dirt road that runs between Rts. 235 and 104.

Shade Mountain.

Buffalo Mountain 4 .9%

The end of Buffalo Mountain where Cooper Mill Rd. and Spruce Run Rd. meet.

There is a gate near Cooper Mill Rd. The road goes over the top of Buffalo Mt.

On top of Buffalo.

Buffalo Mountain.

Weikert Run 4 .9%

Weikert run road, Devil‟s Elbow area, White Mt. (which was a favorite camping

area for me but you can't camp there).

Weikert run area, with the stream, mountain.

Weikert.

Weikert.

Penn‟s View 4 .9%

Penns view.

Penns View.

Penns view, it is so pretty.

Penns View overlook.



61


Category Count


Paddy Mountain 3 .7%

Paddy mountain.

Camp site 25 on Paddy Mountain.

On top of Paddy Mountain where I camp, also, down from camp at the creek.

New Lancaster Valley 3 .7%

New Lancaster Valley.

Camp in New Lancaster Valley.

Poe and New Lancaster Valley. Great access and maintained trail.*

Other 97 22.0%

Strong‟s Mountain area.

Molasses Gap.

Jack‟s Mountain - Kettle Gap.

Fishing Rapid Run.

Sand Mountain road.

Knob Ridge in Mifflin County.

Deep Waters.

Rattle Hole.

Buffalo flats, very serene

Stony Run road.

Henster Valley, because of its unique mountain stream and solitude setting.

Always cool even in August.

The area in the Cinder Pile Spring.

Wolf swamp.

Group Oak Trail area.

Scenic over looks.

Fish area.

Front Round Top (Kleckner Spring Cabin).

The fishing area.

RT 144 – clear water and clean air.

Peaceful, not crowded, quiet.

I like the different quiet places were a person can meditate with god and with the

forest.

All ATV trails.

Nittany Mountain around „Mile Run‟ exit of Rt 80. It‟s a familiar area.

Little Pine State Park.

The south part – it‟s high with a look out.

Between Loganton and 192, small but nice to have family gathering.

Climbing Rock, hunting spots close to Climbing Rock.

The Wildcat Trail – it has diverse terrain and a lot of moss.

Fly – special regulation stretch.

There is a spot directly above – about 60 feet – overlook the blue rock pool that

affords an excellent view of White Mountain. At this point, I switch my

favorite place to my summer home, as the questions are more appropriate to

it.

Upstream from cabin: No road.

Mid State Trail from Shower Road at switch back to R.B. Winter Park.

North side of mountain sloping terrain – tree covered.

Sharpback Mountain.

Rt. 192 up through R.B. Winter State Park to Rt. 880.



62


Category Count


Other continued

Scenic over look area where observers can see many miles and lake and many

mountains.

Dirt roads.

Enjoy the Hemlock and Pine forest.

Look out tower.

Along the creek, where the beavers have built dams, one can just marvel at nature's

handiwork and beauty.

Back the East Kettle Road, Snyder County.

The overlooks were a beautiful view.

Broken Anvil camp at cross roads of Stoney Road and Shale Pit.

It is a trail that leads to a bridge after walking approximately 45 minutes, also the

powerline hike.

Cooper Mill overlook.

The powerline lookout on the east end of Jones Mountain.

Fire tower.

The amphitheater – is where my family pitched our tent every summer, all summer

– 1950 thru 1964. Beautiful place.

The falls in the campground area a few years ago before the damage of the

flooding and hard winter.

Pavilion – far end.

A valley off of Buffalo Flats Mtn., along the creek.

A rock out cropping on the south face of a mountain.

My favorite place is along a stream in a valley between two mountains.

Delayed harvest fishing area.

White Mountain. I have enjoyed hunting on White Mountain since the time I was

in college at Penn State. It reminds me of the forest on the west coast where

they set aside land in wilderness preserves.

Milroy Vista.

1st pavilion off highway.

The mountains around Woodward.

Sugar Valley east of Carroh.

Green Township.

Cow Bell Trail.

I have not been through the other paths. I have been ride on the south road of I-80

immediately after exiting.

Little Pine.

Lick Run Road.

Area between Greens‟ Valley Road and Hecla Park.

The bottom by the creek with the missing bridge.

South side of Jones mountain near Mifflinburg reservoir. (Hook Natural Area)

Hunting areas.

Hunting spot.

Area I can hike into easily, but be away from most crowds.

Behind the Laurlton center at the reserve.

Sunny side of the Hutt trail area.

It's a place that seems to follow you around...sometimes even after you get back

home

I really like the clear cut that is on Red Gobble Rd.

About 5 miles from Rt. 322. Good bear hunting area.

(where) Hook, Middle Ridge and Jones Mountain come together.



63


Category Count


Other continued

The swamp area off summit trail, it‟s beautiful there.

Student trail.

Jack‟s Mountain east of Troxelville. I like to hunt and hike in mountains with farm

fields below.

I like to hike in Hunter Road area.

Little zoo and hunting camp.

A ravine.

Strong‟s improvement.

Almost to the top at Indian trail.

Potter Township.

South of Jones Mountain.

Roaring Creek Valley road.

Buckhorn hunting camp.

Mountain road.

Main parking lot near Forest Hills.

North side of Little Round Top Mountain.

The less traveled trail. The camping area. The trail around the park & dam.

Perhaps the roads open to snowmobiling.

Overlook views with picnic area.

It's along the White Deer Pike and it is very pleasant and quiet with a lot of nature.

Cooper Mill Road trails in firetower vicinity.

I like the fishing between the two bridges on Weikert Run.

Personal cabin/camp 41 9.3%

My camp on Pine Creek Road.

My cabin.

Hunting camp.

Cabin in Bald Eagle State Forest.

Private cabin Winklebleck Road).

Cabin.

Our cabin in the Livonia area.

I personally enjoy the fly fishing area near our winter cabin.

Buck Ridge hunting cabin.

Cabin.

Cabin on leased state forest land on Round Top above Harry Johns park.

Cabin on Pine Creek Rd. in Center Co. on state land.

Our cabin on Cherry Run Rd.

My cabin site.

Private camp within 11 miles of Poe Valley State Park, isolated and usually quiet.

Camp.

Camp – Treaster valley.

Hunting camp in New Lancaster valley, Poe Valley, Walker Lake.

I have a cabin within 2 miles of the dam – it is beautiful scenery and lots of

animals.

Our camp.

The hunting camp.

Buckhorn hunting camp.

Lease C-7-3 at cabin running gap road.

Hunting camp.

My camp.

My camp.



64


Category Count


Personal cabin/camp continued

My cabin area. Green Valley Road.

My cabin about ¼ along Lime Run exit.

Our hunting camp.

Little zoo hunting camp.

Camp site.

Our deer camp borders the forest.

The gap that the cabin sits in.

Spending time at our cabin.

Our hunting camp-Haines Twp.- now without water due to new regulations.

My camp.

Our cabin.

Reading Gun Club along Treaster Valley Road.

Our camp.

Hunting cabin.

My cabin in Negro Hollow.


65

Table 9. What makes this place more special to you than other places that might be similar to it?

Category Count


Recreation experiences - conduciveness (including accessibility) 100 21.2%

Good hunting, good trail access, nice pines.*

Fishing is not bad and not too many people.*

The deer hunting is good and it's not shoulder to shoulder with hunters.*

Good mt. biking, privacy.*

I have been very successful in hunting deer and turkey in this area. Also there is a

beautiful view of Treaster Valley from this location.*

Various terrain, easy access. Numbers of trails.*

Access, pets allowed.*

It seems to be less populated with camps and there are a lot of 4 wheel (or

mountain bike) roads, which allow me to enjoy nature at its best.*

Access in all areas of park and natural beauty.*

The quality of the trout fishing, and the natural beauty of the area.*

The kids (my daughters 7 to 12) love the sand and cool water. I love the scenery

and geology of the area.*

Probably Penns Creek.*

Wild trout stream.*

I love fishing and this creek in this beautiful forest.*

Its great fishing, the scenery, and the creek itself.*

The stream & related scenery is beautiful. The stream is accessible here but not

too accessible.*

Limited access, few people, wildlife, fishing.*

Its natural beauty, quiet, peaceful, serenity and road. Trout fishing.*

Rustic – out of the way camping area.*

Fishing and quiet.*

Good fishing, good hunting, and no crowds.*

It is a quiet place and trails are good.*

It is not overly crowded - it is clean and taken care of - the trails are open.*

Not crowded - adequate length - not too hard nor too easy and it is a good trail.*

It‟s secluded and really scenic and the fishing is good.*

My favorite place to camp has many good qualities – flat, shady, private. No

other place like it in the forest.*

I‟ve walked it a lot and collected insects there.*

I have been visiting this area since 1968 and always enjoyed trout fishing in Penns

Creek.*

We used this place for over 40 years for picnic.*

The recreation and it‟s remained the same for many, many years. It is not

commercialized.*

I hunt there often with my sons and son in law. I‟ve taken several deer there.*

Lot of family memory and fun hunting. I took 7 bucks over the year.*

It was the first place I started hunting deer, the most productive AT.*

Fishing is good. Close to home.*

Stream and good hunting.

Great camping in the camp areas.

Prolific hiking, trout population.

We hunt there.

The beach and lots of picnic tables.

Camping availability.

Swimming, picnic, fishing, and hunting.

Availability of fishing and water.



66

Table 9 continued. What makes this place more special to you than other places that might be similar to

it?

Category Count


Recreation experiences - conduciveness (including accessibility) continued

Availability of parking, availability and wood for camping and cooking, always

has visitors.

Like to hunt there.

My children ride tubes ground the loop of Penn‟s Creek – I could catch big brown

trout and bicycle for miles.

Fishing, well kept, felt welcome.

Very good fishing.

Can ride bikes or roller blade for kids – paved roads for walking.

Excellent fishing.

Good trout fishing.

Fishing.

It provided an excellent food supply for deer and turkeys.

Excellent turkey hunting.

It was a nice place to go to relax and still be in the water nice deep hole for

swimming.

Swimming.

Fishing.

Has everything my family needs to have a fun vacation.

Fishing is always good.

Fly fishing.

Good fishing and camping.

Good fishing.

Quality of wild trout fishing.

The beach is a larger one than Whipples Dam and Greenwood Furnace.

The Sound or White Deer Creek. Running through the mountain.

The fishing in creeks.

Nice for horseback riding.

Camping and hiking.

The fishing.

You can go tubing on the Penn‟s Creek, start and finish in the same spot.

Mountain biking on roads and trails closed to cars

It used to be good hunting but decreased app. 60% from 1987.

Just a nice place, good fishing and hunting.

Game trails, successful past trips.

The beach area – all the recent improvements.

Good hunting.

The game found there.

Being able to have a place to camp.

My hunting area for big game.

Handicap toilet facility.

Easy trail, nice to walk and hunt.

I do 90 % of my hunting there.

To be able to hunt.

I have hunted white-tail deer for the past 53 years.

Shot another buck in same area.

I like hunting in this area.

Access.

Availability of activities.



67


it?

Category Count


Recreation experiences - conduciveness (including accessibility) continued

The almost perfect place to culminate a deer drive.

Walking.

Usually can find deer here.

Access to hiking.

Parking for snowmobilers & bathrooms.

The groomed trails when proper snowfall.

Nice wide road. Good visibility for riding.

My main purpose there is for snowmobiling.

Nice picnic area.

Great hunting.

It is where I hunt and I enjoy it.

Because it contributes to my favorite winter sport.

Great trails by creeks.

Privacy/quiet/relaxing/uncrowded 91 19.3%

It‟s peaceful and beautiful.*

Limited access, and wildlife.*

Fairly remote and can usually see wildlife.*

My year of being in quiet area – it is home.*

Close to home, easy to get to, not crowded.*

Close, uncrowded.*

Not too much traffic and past our camp.*

It doesn‟t take long to get away from civilization.*

It seems to be less populated with camps and there are a lot of 4 wheel (or

mountain bike) roads, which allow me to enjoy nature at its best.*

Rustic – out of the way camping area.*

Fishing and quiet.*

Good fishing, good hunting, and no crowds.*

It is a quiet place and trails are good.*

It is not overly crowded - it is clean and taken care of - the trails are open.*

Not crowded - adequate length - not too hard nor too easy and it is a good trail.*

Peaceful and great scenery.*


My favorite place to camp has many good qualities – flat, shady, private. No

other place like it in the forest.*

Walking areas make it more private.

It‟s back off from the road and is more private.

Quiet.

Privacy, quietness.

The piece of mind you get coming here.

It is very quiet and me and the family go there a lot.

Relax.

Relaxing.

Not a whole lot of noise and loudness.

Peace and relax able to think.

Remoteness.

Solitude.

Isolation – location.

It‟s by itself, not close to roads.



68


it?

Category Count


Privacy/quiet/relaxing/uncrowded continued

Peaceful, beautiful, restful.

Solitude.

Not crowded.

It is very peaceful.

Less crowded.

No phone, no TV, and little traffic.

It is just a relaxing place to be.

It is very peaceful.

Quiet – peaceful.

Not a lot of traffic, no paved roads, few houses.

Serenity.

Seclusion.

Not too many other people.

Privacy and peaceful.

Away from busy area.

Secluded.

Because it is far enough off the trails to provide solitude.

Quiet and not crowded.

Quiet peaceful atmosphere.

Quiet and tranquility – a place to walk and sit in peace.

Solitude.

It is back in the forest and you can walk on trail and not find a crowd of people.

Out of the way place to get to.

Peaceful and quiet.

Remoteness and uncluttered.

It is secluded – not very much traffic.

Solitude.

The out of the way and restful place it has.

Quiet and peaceful.

Solitude.

Extreme solitude.

Peaceful, clean, relaxing.

It‟s just always been a good relaxing area for me.

Walking to get back into it.

Not many people.

Remoteness.

Seclusion.

No camps.

Vast open space and few hunters or hikers.

Just getting away from so called civilization.

Not as developed, but it‟s getting there.

The remoteness and the structure of the landscape.

It‟s out of society, free from all people.

Not so crowded.

I can easily get off the road and walk away from the world for a while.

Quiet mother nature.*

The obscurity of the trail and its changes by nature such as wind and snow

storms.*



69


it?

Category Count


Privacy/quiet/relaxing/uncrowded continued

Quiet and large trees.*

The stream, seclusion, accessibility, mixed woods, the trail overlooks.*

Long stretch of relatively isolated trail, relatively flat, very green and

overgrowth.*



Beautiful scenery – Peacefulness.*

The view is great but not crowded like other vistas.*

Fishing is not bad and not too many people.*

The deer hunting is good and it's not shoulder to shoulder with hunters.*

Good mt. biking, privacy.*

Since I live along Thomas Dam Road, they are all near home; usually I see no

other person; I do see wildlife and great scenery.*

A dying man showed me this spot. I hardly ever see a soul even if there are 10

cars‟ parked there.*

Past connection/memories/tradition/familiarity 68 14.4%

I know the area very well. Wildlife.*

A dying man showed me this spot. I hardly ever see a soul even if there are 10

cars‟ parked there.*

It‟s special because I have a lot of fond memories at the cabin and I enjoy being

there with my wife and friends.*

Spending time with friends fishing. A lot of good memories.*

It‟s close to home. I don‟t have to travel far to show my children where we had

fun when we were kids. We did not need TV.*

Most familiar and close to home.*

I‟ve walked it a lot and collected insects there.*

I have been visiting this area since 1968 and always enjoyed trout fishing in Penns

Creek.*

We used this place for over 40 years for picnic.*

The recreation and it‟s remained the same for many, many years. It is not

commercialized.*

I hunt there often with my sons and son in law. I‟ve taken several deer there.*

Lot of family memory and fun hunting. I took 7 bucks over the year.*

It was the first place I started hunting deer, the most productive AT.*

My dad had it since I was small and now I own it.

The good times.

It was the first place my father took me to the mountains.

Started with dad since 1947.

The first camping area my husband and I were ever camping at years ago.

My kids grew up there in the summers while I had the concession.

30 years.

My family grew up in the area. It‟s where I learned to hunt and fish. My relatives

logged and were firemen on the logging trails.

Grew up visiting these woods.

I‟ve been going to there since 1969 and the area in general since about 1950.

In an area I grew up in.

Personally it‟s all new memories for me.

Traveled it when I was a kid, now it is blocked off except for hunting season.



70


it?

Category Count


Past connection/memories/tradition/familiarity continued

Childhood family gatherings.

As a young boy, my uncle used to belong to a cabin in this area and he always

took time to take me hunting here, also fishing in Penns Creek.

Come here as a kid.

Memories with my grandma.

This place is my favorite spot all year, especially in the fall and hunting season.

Have been going to this spot since 1959.

55 years of being with friends and relatives.

I belong to it.

Because my parents and grandparents camp there.

I would come there as a child.

Familiarity.

Camped here for years.

Camped there with family as a small child.

Familiarity. Parents used to bring us there while growing up.

Past memories – dating/fishing.

Because it is a place I grew up with.

I‟ve been going there for 14 years to hunt.

I grew up in the area.

Have been going all my life.

That has been in my family for so many years.

I am familiar with it.

I have been there for years, I feel at home there.

Always hunted with pap – so it‟s extra special.

Place where my pappy hunted.

I‟ve been coming here for about 44-45 years. Started coming up here with my

grandfather

I know and hunted the area for over 20 years.

Our camp has a history going back to the early 1900‟s (1903). The history is

primary.

27 years of hunting/hiking memories.

Was built by my grandfather, father and friends.

This place is special to me because of the relationship forged over the years with

the area.

Our kids loved Poe Valley Park in the 70s.

Been going there for years.

My friends and neighbors started to come here in 1994 and camped in tents for 2

weeks during deer season.

It‟s something that we belong to.

I know the movement of the deer through this area.

Childhood memories.

I've been coming since I was a small child.

Years of being there.

A lot of memories.

Snyder – Middleswarth – I grew up around there also I like to see the big

hemlocks and the stream (swift run).*

I have lived in the area my whole life and can count on it not being developed and

its natural beauty destroyed.*



71


it?

Category Count


Past connection/memories/tradition/familiarity continued

My year of being in quiet area – it is home.*

Its access is easy and we know the area pretty well.*

Natural quality 59 12.5%

Quiet mother nature.*

The obscurity of the trail and its changes by nature such as wind and snow

storms.*

Quiet and large trees.*

The stream, seclusion, accessibility, mixed woods, the trail overlooks.*

Long stretch of relatively isolated trail, relatively flat, very green and

overgrowth.*



Snyder – Middleswarth – I grew up around there also I like to see the big

hemlocks and the stream (Swift Run).*

I have lived in the area my whole life and can count on it not being developed and

its natural beauty destroyed.*

Close to the camp I belong to, lots of different covers and trees.*

Access in all areas of park and natural beauty.*

The quality of the trout fishing, and the natural beauty of the area.*

The kids (my daughters 7 to 12) love the sand and cool water. I love the scenery

and geology of the area.*

Probably Penns Creek.*

Wild trout stream.*

I love fishing and this creek in this beautiful forest.*

Its great fishing, the scenery, and the creek itself.*

The stream & related scenery is beautiful. The stream is accessible here but not

too accessible.*

The stream, history, and etc.*

Scenery is great and many trails to explore.*

It‟s scenic.

It is very close to nature, no houses, good fishing.

My son and I observed two eagles while fishing and the next day returned with

rest of family and saw huge black snake (6-7 feet).

The waters flowing and birds singing.

Very mountainous, cheers.

Not commercial.

Undeveloped.

It has an early prehistoric area.

Scenery and water volume in Penns Creek make for outstanding trout fishing.

Beauty.

Its natural beauty.

Beautiful secluded trout stream.

Fall foliage.

Penns is a classic example of a trout stream in the Appalachians. It has an

abundance of wild trout.

It‟s so natural.

It is a wilderness area. I like there that they haven‟t scarred the mountain with

man made things (excessive trails, camp sites, litter, etc).



72


it?

Category Count


Natural quality continued

Somewhat wild, not developed.

Turkeys, deer and squirrels.

I‟ve been successful at seeing plenty of deer, grouse, and turkeys in this area.

I have seen deer, bear, and even seen about 10 porcupines in one area.

Woodland all around.

The timber.

A small meadow with a mountain stream, where mountains reach for the sky.

Deer crossings.

Have saw deer, turkey, and bear.

The forest area.

The trees.

Beauty, natural, healthy stream, and trout.

The woods and snow.

Stream, snow covered trees.

Mixed field & forested areas through which the stream flows.

Wildlife is more prevalent here.

We walk this road in fall and winter and have seen bear, turkey and many kinds of

wildlife.

I know the area very well. Wildlife.*

Good hunting, good trail access, nice pines.*



It‟s peaceful and beautiful.*

Limited, access, and wildlife.*

Fairly remote and can usually see wildlife.*

Proximity/convenience 52 11.0%



Its access is easy and we know the area pretty well.*

Close to home, very clean and nice people.

Fishing is good. Close to home.*

Distance from State College and its unfamiliarity (from my perspective).*

Close to home

Location.

Nice place and close to home.

It‟s closer to my friend‟s camp.

Close to home.

Convenience –easy access from highway.

Close to where we live.

Direct route to where I have to go.

Close to where we stay when in the area.

Close to our hunting cabin.

Way to my cabin so I go through it a lot.

Travel distance to it.

Close to home.

First place I stopped at.

Easy to get to end of the road, close to my home.

Within reasonable distance from home.



73


it?

Category Count


Proximity/convenience continued

Where it is close to home.

Most convenient.

Nearness to our home.

Easy to access.

Accessibility. Own a cabin in Poe Valley.

It‟s a lot closer home.

I‟m from the area.

Nearby.

Close to home.

Our hunting camp is in this area.

Location-close to home.

Close to home.

Closer to home.

Closer than most places.

Location

Close to home.

Close to camp.

Mileage to get there.

Close to home.

It's close to home.

Close to home & it's within driving of home. I can tell how snow is there.

Close to home.

Close to home.

Close to the camp I belong to, lots of different covers and trees.*

Close to home, easy to get to, not crowded.*

Close, uncrowded.*


It doesn‟t take long to get away from civilization.*

It‟s close to home. I don‟t have to travel far to show my children where we had

fun when we were kids. We did not need TV.*

Most familiar and close to home.*

View and can be walked to.*

Views/scenery 23 4.9%

Scenery.

Peaceful and great scenery.*


Beautiful scenery – Peacefulness.*

The view is great but not crowded like other vistas.*

View and can be walked to.*

The view.

Awesome view of steep valley.

The view.

View.

The view.

The view of the moon and stars in night. The view of South toward Harrisburg in

day.

Great viewing of forest.

A beautiful view.



74


it?

Category Count


Views/scenery continued

The view.

It affords an opportunity to see a large area of forest surrounding valley and farms.

Ever changing views.

Scenery.

Our camp - beautiful scenery.

It has a great view.

View.

The view.

I have been very successful in hunting deer and turkey in this area. Also there is a

beautiful view of Treaster Valley from this location.*

Own a camp/cabin 21 4.4%


My family has a hunting cabin there.*

I own/lease it and the only people that ever come. There is good friends, family,

or invited guests.*

Belong to hunting camp.*

I belong to the Cinder Pile Spring Camp.*

Hunting camp – great members.*

Member of hunting camp since 1947.*

Hunting camp is located in this area.

Own a cabin.

Our cabin located there.

We own.

My cabin is there.

Own a cabin.

Have a cabin there.

Our cabin.

Our hunting cabin.

Our cabin.

Our cabin.

Our hunting cabin.

Our camp.

Own property.

Preference & expectation for encounters with prim. & sec. reference groups 13 2.7%

My family has a hunting cabin there.*

I own/lease it and the only people that ever come. There is good friends, family,

or invited guests.*

Belong to hunting camp.*

I belong to the Cinder Pile Spring Camp.*

Hunting camp – great members.*

Member of hunting camp since 1947.*

The other members.

All my friends come here.

I am a member of an organized camp with good friends.

I made a second family up here with the fellows I hunt with.

Spending time with family.

It‟s special because I have a lot of fond memories at the cabin and I enjoy being

there with my wife and friends.*

Spending time with friends fishing. A lot of good memories.*



75


it?

Category Count


Variety 10 2.1%

It‟s my home away from home. Bald Eagle S.F. is special because there is so

much variety: Hemlock Hollows, Oak Ridge Tops, Rocky areas, Mt. Laurel,

steep Mt. Sides, streams….

Variety for hiking – pretty stream, tall trees, steep climb, ridge trail, airplane

history.

The ability to see so many mountains.

Variety of activities.

We can go to mountain and creek.

Lots of summer and winter activities.

Various terrain, easy access. Numbers of trails.*

Distance from State College and its unfamiliarity (from my perspective).*

The stream, history, and etc.*

Scenery is great and many trails to explore.*

Other 35 7.4%

I own it.

It is wonderful to have a place were you can go because the public owns the land.

The fact that it‟s in original condition.

Location.

Poe Paddy is a wonderful place to experience.

I like the mountain.

Can see landmarks, etc. that are seen by us daily.

It‟s the only one we‟ve been to.

It is unique.

N/A.

Location.

It‟s unique.

Now used for Sunday church.

Can‟t answer, undecided.

Luxuries and comforts are limited.

The history behind the tunnel.

The cabin.

None.

Nice tree.

Nothing.

Rattlesnakes.

Terrain.

Feels like home.

Only visited one small area.

Permission to be there anytime.

Location of leased cabin site.

Cabin.

Penns Creek.

No roads for motorized vehicles.

Penns Creek.

Neat and clean.

Penn's Creek.

Nice place.

Area in general.



76


it?

Category Count


Other continued

Access, pets allowed.*

The location and unique setting in the mountain.


77

Table 10. If you could ask managers to keep one thing the same about this favorite place, what would that

be?

Category Count


Natural/wilderness qualities 73 21.8%

I think this is a continuing answer, maybe a few more out houses for public use,

keep it looking natural and we thank them for their hard work.*

Limited access –by nature of few roads, keep it as wild and natural as possible.*

Accessibility to the view.*

The remoteness, accessibility to the Hook.*

Undictated landscape –wilderness –high quality.

Keep the trees and stuff just add more eating area and not so close together.

The unspoiled beauty of the area.

Keep natural beauty.

The scenery, keep the area natural.

Closeness of nature.

Natural appearance.

Keep it as natural as possible.

Visibility of deer.

Remoteness and natural areas.

The natural areas should never be changed to make things “comfortable”, but

existing places should never be an "eye sore".

Quiet and clean.

I liked the beauty and the solitude of where I visited.

Maintain pollution free Cherry Run.

It is not overly developed, i.e., it‟s not mulched and landscaped, so it‟s a very

natural setting.

Undeveloped nature –very little picnic or playground areas.

Protect the water quality.

Maintain its natural environment.

Trees.

Don‟t hurt the tree.

Keep the trees and creeks.

Limit the build up – keep it a wilderness and open to everyone.

Forest.

The setting.

Preserve the forest.

Maintain rustic environment.

Seclusion.

Let nature manage it.

The seclusion.

The beach and peaceful atmosphere.

Natural and environment.

The stream.

Leave White Mountain in this wildness area program.

Keep it as natural as possible.

Serenity, beautiful Hemlocks, permitting pets and the horses that visited.

Quiet.

Leave it to mountain. No roads –signs- improvement a trail is a trail.

The beauty.

Peacefulness.

Preserve the natural beauty and stocking program.

Its beauty and tranquility.



78

Table 10 continued. If you could ask managers to keep one thing the same about this favorite place, what

would that be?

Category Count


Natural/wilderness qualities continued

The trees.

Remote.

Water quality.

Keep it wild.

Keep it a beautiful place.

Do not cut areas that have huge trees located in them.

The beautiful way the cover and area is still very wild looking.

Do not change the view.

Keep the trees in the mountain area. Trimmed to avoid loss of the view.

No buildings – leave it wild just like it is.

No urban sprawl.

Protect the environment.

Keep it remote.

Keep it primitive.

Keep its natural beauty.

Keep it wild.

Natural.

Mountain the view.

Keep it as natural as it is.

Scenery.

The overall quality of the stream for fishing purpose.

Wild nature and clean water.

Keep access limited to preserve wildlife.

Keep natural, don't need "paved" parking or flush toilets or fancy buildings.

Stream.

Towering pines over the lake.

Not making the stream any more accessible than it is now. Having to walk

through the dense brush/laurel is part of the fishing experience

Availability of wildlife.

Change nothing/keep everything 61 18.3%

Not sure.

I don‟t know.

Keep area the way it is.

Leave it like it is.

No comment.

Leave it the same.

Leave it alone (except path maintenance).

Change nothing.

Nothing.

Keep it state land.

It‟s fine the way it is.

Nothing.

Everything.

Everything, not just one.

Keep up the good work.

Don‟t know.

Keep it the same.

N/A.


*Response counted in more than one category; underlined words counted in this category

79


would that be?

Category Count


Change nothing/keep everything continued

Keep this pretty much the way they are.

N/A.

Everything is fine.

Everything, don‟t change it.

Don‟t change anything.

Nothing.

Not sure.

Not sure.

Seems to be run well as it is.

Can‟t think of anything.

Everything the same.

Leave it alone.

Everything.

Keep up the good work that they are doing and have been doing only improve on

it and expand it. I'm sure other good people will help them.

Everything.

Keep doing what you are doing.

The way it is now.

Not sure.

No change.

Nothing.

N/A.

Leave it the way it is.

Keeping as it is.

Keep it the way it is.

The way it is now except for none of cable at top.

Everything.

No more cabins

Never allow electricity to enter this area.

Leave it alone.

No more roads.

Don‟t change a thing.

Leave alone.

As is.

Nothing.

Stay out.

Let it be.

I think the people responsible for managing these areas are doing a great job.

Don‟t change anything.

N/A

Just the way it is.

Leave it alone.

Keep it as it is.

Don't change a thing.

Existing use allowances 60 18.0%

Creek‟s great fishing, just difficult - enough accessibility.*

Keep trails open and maintained.*

We love the new fire ring/grills.



80


would that be?

Category Count


Existing use allowances continued

No ATV‟s.

No more houses or shelter built – keep it as it is.

No added buildings, limited timber harvest.

Keep it simple, don‟t add a lot of recreation items.

Keep it open to the public.

Keep it open for use.

Restricted by fishing area.

The area for picnic.

The fishing – the restrictions of ATV‟s – the uncrowded atmosphere.

Camp area.

Keep snowmobiles out.

Keep the new camp sites spaced far apart.

Don‟t allow snowmobiles and ATV‟s. Too noisy, damaging, and irresponsible

people.

Bridge for foot traffic only.

No showers, keep it rustic.

Don‟t commercialize the tubing area. I‟m sure those who have camps there

wouldn't appreciate super highways and long lines becoming a part of their

away time. It's nice to go down to Penns Creek without worrying about if

your hour is up or to bring your wallet because of the price of admission, etc.

To always keep lifeguarded waters

Keep a lot of roads 4x4 only – keep it promotion.

The tables.

Beach and picnic.

Keep trails designated.

The swimming beach.

The way the camps are set up.

Keep it open to public.

Open to the general public.

Continue the fine job of forest management.

Delayed harvest fishing.

Good fishing.

Leave it open to everyone to enjoy.

Keep it open to fishing.

Allowing everyone to use it.

Keep it open to horses.

To keep the amount of camps to a minimum.

Keep it open so everyone can enjoy it.

Don‟t allow any new camps to be built.

Never close it to hunting.

Hiking only. Don‟t join forces with the State Game Lands.

Continues to let us come to our camp on the leased ground.

The hiking trails.

Keep the fire place.

The number of camp sites.

No more camps in area.

Keep the trail open.

Keep 4 wheelers out. No motor vehicles.



81


would that be?

Category Count


Existing use allowances continued

No more additional leased land cabins.

Keep the same amount of camps.

Keep it open.

Keep it open for snowmobiling.

Keep open for sleds.

Let snowmobiling continue.

Keep it open to snowmobiling.

Keep it available to the public.

Keep opening the gate for archery hunters.

Keep gate closed during spring and summer.

Leave gate closed during summer so 4-wheelers stay out so they don't ruin the

road.

Public & protected.

Maintain the current profile so it doesn't ever get over-used.

Existing maintenance practices 55 16.5%

Keep trails open and maintained.*

I think this is a continuing answer, maybe a few more out houses for public use,

keep it looking natural and we thank them for their hard work.*

The accessibility to get into it and the good maintenance.*

Keep up the good maintenance.

The way they maintain roads.

Keep the cabin in the good shape.

Keeping things clean

Keep on keeping it clean.

Clean like now, parking is good.

Keep maintenance the some.

Clean - not to litter.

Maintain trails.

Keep up the good work on road maintenance and parks (Poe valley is excellent)

but don't tell too many people.

Cleanliness.

Litter free.

Keep the dirt roads dirt – not black top.

Marking of trails –excellent roads.

To keep up the good roads which uses do repair, and to keep up the replacement

of the new trees for the new forest areas.

Clean bathrooms.

Litter – free area.

Cleanliness.

Don‟t pave the roads.

Keep it clean and roads maintained.

Keep the parks maintained.

The clean pavilions – clear paths.

Cleanliness, general upkeep.

Keep it free of garbage.

Keep it clean.

How clear the park is (its very clean).

Clean.



82


would that be?

Category Count


Existing maintenance practices continued

Cleanness.

Keeping the road (good shape).

Roads repaired.

Cleanliness of it.

The condition of the roads.

Not cut too much timbers.

Clean outside of toilets.

Do not pave the roads into the park.

Keep it clean.

Roads.

Keep road in repair.

Do not clear cut timber.

Keep the road open end to the other.

Maintain great roads.

Keep roads and trails.

How clean this place is.

Keep as clean as possible.

Clearing parking lots, grooming of trails.

Easy access and maintained trails.

Keep the parking lot open & semi plowed.

Keep up the good job grooming the snow (when it arrives)

Keep trails & roads groomed.

Dirt roads only, no paved roads.

I think they do a great job maintaining the roads, it is a never-ending job.

Keep using the trail groomer like this year. The trails were kept in excellent

shape.

Accessibility/access 17 5.1%

Creek‟s great fishing, just difficult - enough accessibility.*

Accessibility to the view.*

The accessibility to get into it and the good maintenance.*

The remoteness, accessibility to the Hook.*

Keep roads open in winter months.

Maintain the easy access to the area.

The surrounding grounds, road leading to the cabin.

Keep it open to public.

The access to all the different areas.

Limit the amount of access, this eliminates excessive traffic.

Public access.

Access roads. Great job maintaining dirt road.

Access.

Access to and from it.

Do not add more roads.

Keep the area free and accessible to all.

Accessibility.

Open to public also keep trails open wide so it‟s easy walking.

Existing rules & regulations 8 2.4%

Catch and release rules.

Fishing restriction.



83


would that be?

Category Count


Existing rules & regulations continued

Clean conditions including quiet times to rest, no alcohol.

Keep gates lock for hunting season.

A set of rules.

No motorized vehicles and no open fires.

Watch speeding snowmobiling at rest room area and give them a warning or fine.

The alcohol policy stricter.

Existing maintenance practices because it keeps other people out 6 1.8%

Limited access –by nature of few roads, keep it as wild and natural as possible.*

Limited access via motorized vehicle.

Do not increase access or allow more vehicles.

Limited access to stream and wild areas.

Don‟t improve access.

Patrol roads and check cabins for break-ins.

Quiet & peacefulness 1 .3%

The solitude.

Other 53 15.9%

I have no other complaints other than idiots who travel through at 50 miles plus.

Keep managers from having workers continually operate the graders and stone

rake when the forest roads are in good condition. When someone decides

the grader operator needs something to do to keep busy again. Next it rains -

mud and muddy water wash into the streams. Managers don't know what

happens in their district!

Be friendly to those who are not destroying the land. Remember that we all use

and pay for this land.

Frequent checks on visitors.

Allow rock built fire pits or larger metal fire pits with grills.

The old railings.

Restrict vehicles that leave roads –travel in the woods off the roads.

Layout of the area.

Restricting unauthorized camping.

Open roads and trails for all uses.

Freedom to bring my dog (he is small) off leash when no one is around (I strongly

disagree with PA leash law in county).

Let it be available for multiple use.

Trimming does enhance the view.

Everything.

No crowds.

No new bridges.

Do not open areas to vehicle travel. Restrict more areas for vehicle travel.

All areas around the cabin site.

The related (away from it all) feeling.

Isolating lack of development. The bad road and signs do contribute to this.

Preserve tunnel and bridge.

How it used to be a few years ago.

The lean-to‟s at Poe Paddy.

The friendly managers.

Railroad tunnel.

Limit access, development and promote hunting and fishing.



84


would that be?

Category Count


Other continued

Their down home friendliness. Ranger stopped while we were introducing my

daughter to fishing and was most helpful and friendly, made her day (and

ours).

To be able to shoot at target range at cabin.

Increased trout stockings of Poe Lake and Poe Creek.

Everything but restrooms.

Private.

Leased land for recreational camps.

Keep big government and city-slickers out.

I would ask them not to make it more attractive to the public – example hiking,

trails, off road, or better road conditions.

I dislike trash that has been left behind by other people. This may be why

camping is no long permitted.

Rebuild bridge.

Quit clear cutting.

Improve stream for better fishing.

Its location.

Keep out.

Openness.

Allow lease cabins on State Game Land.

Quit timbering this area for a few years. I know periodically this has to be done.

Don‟t reduce its size.

Think about discontinuing snowmobiling.

Chase more bucks into the area.

Up-grade roads and road map.

No timbering.

Keep members.

Don‟t allow any form of degradation or pollution.

Snow year round.

Simplicity with buildings.

Don't take anything more away!


85

Table 11. If you could ask managers to change one thing about the way they manage this favorite place,

what would that be?

Category Count


Improve facilities 87 24.5%

Better roads and trails maintaining.*

Make information more easily available such as trails and road maps of the park.

Control speed of motor vehicles on the roads.*

Put a handicap car area in and more eating area and do something about the

outhouse.

This is a very unspoiled area so I am not sure this would be a practical or

advisable idea. Walking paths could be cleaned and widened a little more

for walking safety.

Make rest room easier for elderly to use and keep it clean.

Bear gap picnic area (I am not sure is this area is still in the B.E.S.F) needs a lot of

work.

More parking

Cut and mark more old trails shown on maps.

Keep more restrooms open in winter for people who walk in the park.

Modern restrooms.

Mark the trails more clearly (they may have improved this. In 1997 we lost our

way on a trail).

Improve road signs.

Marking all culverts with poles.

Add more and maintain trails.

Have information of the historical facts available.

Put shower houses in at camp grounds, keep the trophy trout and the no kill trout

fishing areas.

More maintenance on picnic area.

Trim trees along trails a bit more since hiking with an infant on your back can be

dangerous.

Keep it clean.

Trail guides – posts, etc.

Put water at every site.

Trash cans/ bench.

Keep the trails open and well marked.

Control anyone littering on the area.

Make every other site reservable, put in horseshoe pits.

Put in flush toilet and showers at the camp ground

If cabins are for sale, buy them and make retail units available to everyone.

Get better restroom facilities (no water to wash hands).

Litter.

Water bathrooms.

Do the snack shop employees have running water for proper cleanliness and

hygiene.

More signs.

Put running water in the bathrooms.

Maintain the restrooms, make water available.

Should offer a more up to date trail map.

More sign on highway to park.

Better parking and picnic facilities.

Do more to control odor in restrooms.



86

Table 11 continued. If you could ask managers to change one thing about the way they manage this

favorite place, what would that be?

Category Count


Improve facilities continued

Not sure. Park seems to be run well. Maybe sell firewood there instead of having

to travel to get to it.

Better beach/more sand; improve restrooms.

Electric outlets on camp sites.

Cleaner restrooms.

Open more trails and add volunteers. We would need your responses.

More garbage cans.

Add a small picnic area on top of mountain.

Better mark directions to fly fishing only areas.

Provide more parking, try to keep trails.

Keep the area clean from people.

There‟s a broken automobile bridge that spanned the creek 5 miles down on

Green‟s Valley Road. Fix it please. It‟s the only other way out by vehicle.

Keep the area clean and fix the bridge.

Put back the bridge and stop blocking all the trails.

Need help to find road.

Put cable at top to stop vehicle from rolling down to timbered area.

Put boxes in to play horseshoes.

Put up map of the area so you can see the valley and forest terrain.

Have maps at the entrances so people who never were there would know where

they are.

Keep up Bear Gap (table, fire places).

Ask them to put in a trail to walk around the gap.

Provide firewood.

New trail signs.

Take better care of trails.

Fix the bridge.

Have more snow cleared away for parking of all the snowmobiles.

Trails need to be opened up or blazed.

Get rid of the rocks on the trail.

Have electric.

Put the bridge back in and leave everything.

More snowmobiling trails.

More clearing and grooming of trails.

Keep the snowmobile trails groomed & open up to ATV's when there is no snow.

Put more parking for snowmobile vehicles.

Post signs for very sharp turns.

Always give snow conditions thoroughly & honestly.

To put a street light up at landing and unload snowmobile area.

Provide additional winter parking for truck & trailer parking with trail access.

Enlarge the area.

Use the groomer more than they do.

Prep the snowmobile trails better before snow falls so the trails (roads) are

smoother and don't have rocks laying on them.

Put gates at the ends of Hairy John's parking lots so they could be opened for

snowmobile trailers to park easier.

Food.

Install restroom facilities.



87



Category Count


Improve facilities continued

Put a snowmobile bridge across Penns Creek.

Provide lighting at night, provide better winter maintenance to ride to Hairy

John's.

Allow my father who can't walk (only one leg) to use another form of

transportation to get back to it or he'll never see it.

Clear blow down a little better.

We need a bridge above Weikert to get across Penns Creek so we can have more

trails to ride and so we can ride to Troxelville.

If they want people to use old logging roads as hiking trails, perhaps a very basic

map and distance of trail could be posted at the trail where it leaves the road.

Nothing 74 20.8%

Nothing. (26 responded with this specific answer)

Difficult task.

Maintain the current ambiance.

Everything is fine.

Don‟t mess with it.

I am in agreement in the way it is being managed.

Leave it alone, unchanged.

Nothing.

Can‟t think of anything.

No comment.

Nothing, its O.K. the way it is.

Cannot think of anything.

It‟s O.K.

Can‟t think of any changes.

I have no questions.

Not a thing.


Don‟t know.

Leave it alone.

Not sure.

I don‟t think it‟s damaged by anyone.

No changes.

Same as now.

N/A.

This is a well run organization – high quality people.

Could not think of anything.

Nothing, it‟s great.

N/A.

Leave it as private as it is now.

Not sure.

N/A

Not sure.

None.

Nothing they do a fine job.

No change.

N/A.

Leave it the way it is.



88



Category Count


Nothing continued

It‟s okay the way it is.


They do a good job.

Nothing different.

Keep it the same.

Leave it alone.

They do a very good job as it is.

Leave it alone.

This is a place in the mountains. I would not change it.

Not a thing, they‟re obviously doing a great job.

Leave alone.

Don‟t change a thing.

Keep it the way it is.


Keep it the way it is, no vehicle.

Let it be.

Don‟t over develop.

Nothing new.

N/A

Keep it as it is – A natural area.

Modify use patterns 57 16.1%

Stop doe hunting in state forest and stop people from dumping.*

Less access to remote areas by motorized vehicles, greater presence of the game

commission during hunting and fishing seasons. You have to get out of the

vehicle to catch offenders.*

Let us shoot target with the use of a proper back stop.

Discontinue snowmobiling on forest roads – it packs the snow and I‟m unable to

get into the area until late spring. Discontinue ATV's on trail - their use

causes trails to erode and causes damage to stream.

Do not add other campsites too close together, add more sites closer to a water

source.

If a lot people swimming, open of all swimming area.

Destroy logging roads after they are done logging an area – having too many

logging roads gives the forest too much access.

Eliminate doe season.

Let people camp here.

Limit motor vehicle access, and less timbering of forests.

Allow camping on the site, and make it easier to get a permit.

Limit road access to card holders.

Try to get some more area to hunt so people do not crowd game lands.

Open gates during hunting seasons.

Open fishing in the no kill area to fishing 24 hours.

Get rid of Hosterman pit mine and the politicians that allowed it to be opened.

No doe hunting for a couple of years.

Keep the people out that go tubing.

Keep the ATV‟s off of the roads.

Don‟t let any camping along Cherry Run.

Not have day camping only.



89



Category Count


Modify use patterns continued

Special reg. area, min. size trout 9”, check upstream areas for acid.

Provide off road access in BESF. Increase animal population.

Allow dogs in overnight camping.

Restricted vehicle and other mechanical things.

Less cabins.

Limit people/day.

No motor vehicles.

Less cabins and permanent camping.

Not much except curb development and lower catch limits and enforce them.

Allow pets if you clean up after them.

Allow camping.

Limit vehicle access.

No camping or building fires.

People that have ATV license should have a place set aside to ride.

Come up with some sort of permit to allow ATVs to ride the roads.

Keep motorized vehicles out of there.

Close some roads and make areas accessible by foot only.

No ATV‟s.

Restrict vehicle access to student trail area.

ATV trails.

Allow ATV‟s on State Game Land.

Allow alcoholic beverages at picnic area as in N.Y. State, in moderation of course.

Open the locked gates for all hunting seasons, not just doe season.

Close roads to vehicle traffic.

Limit access.

Allow the use of ATV‟s in the forest like snowmobiles are allowed.

Limited motored access from private land to the west.

Open the gate before archery season so I can spend some time scouting for deer.

Figure out a way to keep cars and trucks off the trails unless they have a good

reason to be there like going to their camp. It costs money to groom trails,

why destroy them?

Open the gate a few weeks before archery season so I may have some time to

scout the area.

Leave gate open before hunting season so we can scout the area.

Discontinue "no snowmobiling" up the road to the lookout. Showers (coin

operated). Snowmobile ramp for people without trailers.

Do not be so quick to post "closed to snowmobiling" when a lumbering operation

is scheduled a few months in advance.

Restrict any kind of development or alteration of the environment.

Not allow 4-wheel drive vehicles on it during snowmobiling season.

Restrict vehicular access.

Modify practices with respect to natural amenities (streams, woods) 43 12.1%

Fix up the roads. Stock more fish.*

Wider road, marked, cleaned parking areas. More wildlife cuts but not as big an

area as at West Boyer Rd. And don't cut area.*

Maintain the roads better and provide more survival areas for the wildlife.*

Only stock Pine Creek preseason it once was a wild trout stream – too many

fisherman killed the wild trout.



90



Category Count


Modify practices with respect to natural amenities (streams, woods) continued

Water flow.

Use select cutting of timber land. Replanting of cherry and oak trees.

Renew forest trees.

Could use stream improvement.

I have written to them about trashing stream parallel to gravel roads by allowing

or pushing cuttings into these streams. Results have been less than

satisfactory.

Release big racked bucks on opening day of deer season at my favorite place.

More deer.

Stock more trout.

Control the logging, no more clear cutting.

Keep it like nature.

Keep bushes cut away so as not to block view.

Forbid logging.

Increase “No Kill” fishing zone on Penn‟s Creek upstream to Coburn.

Clean up fallen trees. Get a place where you can rent horses to ride along the

roads reaching the Poe Valley.

Classify Pine Creek as a wild trout stream again or at least reduce stocking.

Stock more trout and patrol more often.

Clear cut small sections of the forest in a patchwork design. This would improve

bird & deer hunting.

Open all areas to allow cutting of dead wood.

Quit destroying the forest by clear cutting.

Put fish in the lake beside it.

No wood cutting.

Some of the timber should be harvested.

Utilize alternative wood products and stop cutting trees.

Do more to promote wildlife.

More deer (less timber).

Maximize the deer area.

Manage deer herd better.

More trout in creek (year round).

Clearcut some timber.

Trim some of brush along the shoreline of the lake but not enough to cause

erosion.

More clear cutting and planting to attract birds and other wildlife.

Keep it managed for game.

Replant trees that produce food for wildlife.

Improve deer habitat (greater food sources).

Improve deer population.

Try to improve the regeneration of mass producing trees upon harvesting timber.

Stop cutting timber for profit.

More fish.

Remove amenities. Encourage use by people willing to rough it more.

Enforce rules & regulations 30 8.5%

Make information more easily available such as trails and road maps of the park.

Control speed of motor vehicles on the roads.*

Stop doe hunting in state forest and stop people from dumping.*



91



Category Count


Enforce rules & regulations continued

Less access to remote areas by motorized vehicles, greater presence of the game

commission

Slow the idiots (and red-necks) who come flying through in their vehicles.

We went along with the changes that were made but can‟t understand why can‟t

pull RV at bear run station area. People should obey rules and take care of

area.

Make everyone comply with park rules.

Inspect campsite prior to, during, and following visits by campers to ensure

cleanliness.

Better patrolling – more visible DCWR.

Keep out riff raff.

Prevent break-ins.

Patrol more for beer parties at tower somewhat close to cabin. They leave it a

mess with cans and litter.

Probably greater supervision.

Somehow magically keep people from littering.

Keep it better.

Enforcement of littering and vehicles travel in restricted area.

Control language – (foul) at times.

Tighten up on illegal action at night.

Patrol it more – take licenses and numbers to keep the riff raff in tow. Also catch

these people breaking into cabins. More observation.

Stronger/tighter security.

Allow camping while strictly enforcing litter bug laws and all state park rules.

Slow down the vehicle.

Patrol it more often. There are a lot of ATV‟s and speeders and some parties that

go on.

Keep noise down at night.

Enlist more rangers to police and prosecute people who abuse the environment.

Get a set of rules and stick to them instead of every new person that takes over

changing something and some get a personality.

Keep people from dumping garbage.

Up the fines for littering.

Arrest and fine the people who abuse it.

Keep vehicles out of roads when the snow gets too deep they only cut the roads

and get stuck all the time.

My primary activity is hunting and I wish there was more done to increase the

deer population including, but not limited to, action against illegal hunters.

Improve roads 27 7.6%

Better roads and trails maintaining.*

Fix up the roads. Stock more fish.*

Wider road, marked, cleaned parking areas. More wildlife cuts but not as big an

area as at West Boyer Rd. And don't cut area.*

Maintain the roads better and provide more survival areas for the wildlife.*

Fix roads to them.

The road.

Have better roads.



92



Category Count


Improve roads continued

Keep roads maintained better and plowed in the winter so that it can be easily

traveled all year round.

Mark the interior roads more clearly.

Maintain roads.

Fix the road.

Improve some roads.

Repave the road in the park. Dust comes down over the picnic tables.

Fix access road.

Pave the road.

Grade the unimproved/unmaintained roads once every few years.

Oil dirt roads.

Road maintenance.

Fix the roadway and clean up the trash in the woods.

Fix roads.

Keep the White Deer Pike maintained better.

The roads are greatly in need of repair.

Take down the stakes on Nittany Mountain road.

Mountain the mountain roads better.

Reopen the road so I don‟t need to travel 40 miles.

Some roads need to be improved, but don‟t make it too good.

Repair the road going up the mountain from Treaster Valley to the Wolf Swamp.

Memories.

Other 37 10.4%

Open designated company site.

Secure funding so that the resources can be intensely managed and promote

mountain bike racing

To lease it to me.

Raise the cost of out of state trout license to $500.00.

Tell employees of State Dept of Environmental Resources to work rather than

goof off. While in the forest areas, managers had no concept of what some

employees are doing.

Less rules and regulations.

Don‟t be so picky on cabin owners.

Have it off the road more.

Let more people know where it is located.

Stay as anonymous as possible.

By not adding more regulations to the area.

Keep it quiet.

Why we had to get rid of our deer feeder, and to quit changing rules (wood, etc).

Remember that it‟s not their place, it‟s the people‟s place.

Rebuild it like it use to be a few years ago, try to clean up the area a little better.

I don‟t like the reservation of 11 months ahead.

Remove some of stone on parkway spots by White Deer Creek so it was like it

was 10 years ago.

Control the outside source of pollution.

Add more land to the wilderness set aside already. Close Longwell Draft Road

and return the valley floor to its original contour.

Nothing except remove Rt. 80.



93



Category Count


Other continued

Keep the Game Commission from placing bears in this area – it‟s too close to

communities and homes in that area – maximum distance they can go is five

miles from the nearest house with the bridge out.

Change the name of Negro Hollow Rd. to something less offensive.

Have a volunteer day to pick up trash and help clean paths and improve roads.

Make it easier to cut wood.

To successfully manage this place, one must work to put himself out of a job.

Stay out.

Eliminate DCNR.

Reduce the amount of government. It is not their area, it everyone‟s area.

No doe permits.

Outlaw bright eyes or reflectors taped to trees by hunters.

Make this area and most others garbage.

Limit areas.

Pay more attention to the long term quality.

Keep from plowing the roads that I snowmobile.

Not to plow off the parking lots and trails.

Stop making it bad for snowmobiling.

Maybe designate this water as an all tackle catch & release area. Good native

trout fishing is hard to find and this waterway definitely needs to be

protected.


94

Table 12. Characteristics of Forest: Mean importance and satisfaction by season

Characteristics

Mean (Std. Deviation)


Access to the places I like to

visit

Importance 3.81 (1.06) 3.90 (1.04) 4.14 (0.86) 3.56 (1.35) 3.89 (1.05)*

Satisfaction 3.96 (0.82) 4.19 (0.72) 3.91 (0.94) 3.98 (0.83) 4.01 (0.83)

Availability of parking in areas

I like to visit

Importance 3.52 (1.14) 3.37 (1.15) 3.95 (1.06) 2.97 (1.33) 3.54 (1.16)***

Satisfaction 4.04 (0.70) 3.97 (0.90) 3.98 (0.93) 3.83 (0.81) 3.99 (0.83)

Opportunity to visit without

feeling crowded

Importance 4.36 (0.79) 4.05 (1.08) 4.26 (0.70) 4.26 (0.88) 4.24 (0.88)***

Satisfaction 4.13 (0.82) 4.05 (0.82) 4.05 (0.80) 3.98 (0.83) 4.07 (0.82)

Ability to obtain information

about areas I like to visit

Importance 3.49 (1.15) 3.21 (1.29) 3.71 (1.04) 3.03 (1.16) 3.43 (1.19) **

Satisfaction 3.74 (0.82) 3.64 (0.93) 3.54 (0.99) 3.40 (0.87) 3.64 (0.90)

Appearance & maintenance of

areas I visit

Importance 4.27 (0.80) 4.33 (0.83) 4.28 (0.75) 4.21 (0.87) 4.29 (0.81)***

Satisfaction 4.07 (0.81) 3.99 (0.99) 4.01 (0.81) 4.20 (0.76) 4.03 (0.87)

Adequacy of signs

Importance 3.59 (1.12) 3.64 (1.19) 4.03 (0.97) 3.28 (1.34) 3.68 (1.14)

Satisfaction 3.76 (0.98) 3.74 (0.92) 3.74 (0.96) 3.68 (1.19) 3.75 (0.97)

Note. Participants rated the importance of each Forest characteristic and their satisfaction with each characteristic

using 5-point scales ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely). For each Forest characteristic, differences between

mean importance ratings and mean satisfaction ratings were tested with t-tests.

* Mean importance and satisfaction scores differed at the .05% level.

** Mean importance and satisfaction scores differed at the .01% level.

*** Mean importance and satisfaction scores differed at the .001% level.

95

Table 13. Characteristics of Forest: Importance and satisfaction categories

Percentage (n)

Characteristics Not at all Somewhat Moderately Very Extremely

Access to the places I like to visit

Importance 3% (15) 8% (44) 20% (109) 36% (195) 34% (185)

Satisfaction 1% (8) 5% (26) 11% (64) 56% (315) 26% (146)

Availability of parking in areas I

like to visit

Importance 7% (38) 12% (63) 24% (133) 34% (186) 23% (125)

Satisfaction 1% (6) 4% (19) 17% (95) 51% (282) 27% (147)

Opportunity to visit without

feeling crowded

Importance 1% (7) 3% (17) 12% (63) 38% (207) 46% (251)

Satisfaction 1% (5) 2% (13) 17% (95) 48% (264) 32% (178)

Ability to obtain information

about areas I like to visit

Importance 8% (43) 14% (73) 26% (140) 33% (178) 20% (108)

Satisfaction 2% (11) 8% (40) 30% (162) 45% (242) 15% (81)

Appearance & maintenance of

areas I visit

Importance 1% (3) 3% (15) 10% (56) 41% (220) 46% (249)

Satisfaction 1% (6) 5% (25) 14% (80) 49% (271) 31% (172)

Adequacy of signs

Importance

6% (33)

9% (47)

23% (127)

35% (192)

27% (148)

Satisfaction 4% (20) 6% (31) 25% (135) 45% (247) 21% (116)

Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Participants rated the importance of each Forest

characteristic and their satisfaction with each characteristic using 5-point scales ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5

(Extremely).

96

Table 14. Mean scores of responses to management issues on Forest by season

Issue

Mean (Std. Deviation)


It is more important to protect

habitat for plants and

animals than provide

opportunities for recreation. 0.74 (1.04) 0.98 (0.99) 0.62 (1.12) 0.78 (1.05) 0.77 a (1.06)

The Forest should encourage

more timber harvesting. -0.64 (1.11) -0.52 (1.25) -0.21 (1.14) -0.65 (1.31) -0.52 b (1.18)

More fish should be stocked in the

streams and lakes to provide

increased sport-fishing

opportunities. 0.33 (1.18) 0.39 (1.06) 0.41 (1.01) 0.40 (1.32) 0.37 c (1.12)

More public lands such as Bald

Eagle State Forest should be

set aside as wild or natural

areas. 1.08 (1.01) 0.88 (1.23) 0.40 (1.21) 1.08 (1.10) 0.86 a (1.16)

Note. Participants responded to each issue on a 5-point scale ranging from -2 (Strongly disagree) to +2 (Strongly

agree). In the “Overall” column, means sharing the same subscript did not differ at the .05% level.

Table 15. Year of first visit to Bald Eagle State Forest and newcomer/veteran categories

Period

Number reporting

first visit

Percent reporting

first visit

Newcomer/veteran category

Number (Percent)

1927 - 1935 11 1.3

Veterans

317 (36.6%)

1936 - 1940 18 2.0

1941 - 1945 12 1.3

1946 - 1950 32 3.7

1951 - 1955 22 2.6

1956 - 1960 62 7.4

1961 - 1965 57 6.5

1966 - 1970 103 11.9

1971 - 1975 95 11.0

Intermediates

331 (38.3%)

1976 - 1980 112 13.0

1981 - 1985 62 7.1

1986 - 1990 62 7.2

1991 - 1995 69 8.0 Newcomers

217 (25.1%) 1996 - 2000 148 17.1

97

Table 16. Background characteristics of newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors

Background characteristic

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317)

Test for difference

among groups

Gender (% male) b

83.3 88.1 86.0 2 = 1.53, p = .466

Age (mean years) c

43.5 a

42.9 a

52.8 b

F = 33.30, p < .001

Ethnic background (% Caucasian) b 99.0 99.5 99.2

2 = 1.74, p = .783

Formal education (mean years) c 13.9 a 13.5 ab 13.3 b F = 3.42, p = .034

Annual income (% $30,000 -

$79,999) b

56.8 59.2 56.0 2 = 15.46, p = .217

Residence in youth (% rural or

town < 10,000 people) b

68.5 78.8 83.4 2 = 22.43, p = .013

Current residence (% rural or town

< 10,000 people) b

76.3 82.1 80.3 2 = 8.62, p = .568

Political orientation (%

moderately-very conservative)

bd

61.6 55.6 57.3 2 = 9.44, p = .307

Environmental orientation (mean

score) ce

3.49 a

3.61 a

3.56 a

F = 1.23, p = .294

Distance from residence to BESF

(% 30 miles) b

36.7 54.8 55.6 2 = 22.02, p < .001

a Year of first visit to BESF.

b Differences among subgroups tested with

2 test of independence.

c Differences among subgroups tested with oneway analysis of variance. In each row, subgroup means sharing

the same subscript did not differ significantly in a post-hoc Scheffe test.

d Participants identified themselves as Very Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Slightly Liberal or

Conservative, Moderately Liberal, or Very Liberal.

e Scores represent the mean of responses to 15 items. The minimum score (1) indicates strong beliefs that

environmental problems are not serious and can be managed easily by humans. The maximum score (5) indicates

strong beliefs that environmental problems are serious and cannot be managed easily by humans.

Table 17. Day trips, overnight trips and overnight quarters of newcomer, intermediate, and veteran

visitors

Day trips/overnight quarters

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Overall b

Percents

Day trip 75.7 70.2 68.8 71.3

Camping on BESF 9.0 6.0 6.3 6.5

Leased or private cabin site 6.7 12.0 16.7 13.0

State Park 4.3 6.4 4.2 4.5

Commercial lodging or camping 4.3 5.4 4.2 4.7


b Differences among subgroups tested with


2 = 14.93, p = .061.

98

Table 18. Season of most visits to Forest, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors

Season

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Overall b

Percents

Spring 15.8 16.7 12.9 15.1

Summer 45.4 35.0 33.7 36.6

Fall 20.4 35.4 42.9 35.3

Winter 18.4 12.9 10.5 13.1


b Difference among subgroups tested with


2 = 24.73, p < .001.

Table 19. Activity participation at BESF during 12 months prior to being surveyed, newcomer,

intermediate, and veteran visitors

Activity

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Wald statistic &

probability b

Percent participating

Viewing scenery 63.8 76.2 79.3 11.68, p = .003

Fishing 33.6 44.3 59.0 19.39, p < .001

Walking/day hiking c 47.3 60.3 66.5 17.72, p < .001

Wildlife watching 36.6 52.1 54.0 12.57, p = .002

Hunting 22.9 51.5 68.0 55.29, p < .001

Camping c 18.2 20.6 27.0 5.37, p = .068

Picnicking 30.5 38.5 48.0 11.63, p = .003

Snowmobiling 21.2 19.0 10.0 6.11, p = .047

Swimming c 12.9 21.5 23.0 8.05, p = .018

Mountain biking 9.1 12.8 11.0 1.08, p = .5.83

Photography 21.2 24.1 31.0 3.67, p = .160

Backpacking c 7.6 7.7 7.0 0.94, p = .624

Horseback riding 6.1 2.6 1.5 5.43, p = .066

Driving ORV c 11.4 7.2 9.5 2.82, p = .244

Jogging/trail running 2.3 6.2 4.0 2.70, p = .259

Cross-country skiing 1.5 3.1 4.5 2.01, p = .366


b Differences in participation rates among subgroups tested with logistic regression.

c Activities for which age was also a significant predictor at the .05% level. For each of these activities,

participation rates decreased significantly as age increased.

99

Table 20. Satisfaction with Forest characteristics, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors

Forest characteristic

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Overall

Mean scores b

Access to place(s) I wanted to visit 4.15 a 3.99 a 3.95 a 4.01

Availability of parking in areas I visited 4.02 a 3.97 a 3.98 a 3.99

Opportunity to visit without feeling

crowded

4.31 a 4.08 b 4.02 b 4.10

Ability to obtain information about the area 3.53 a 3.54 a 3.81 b 3.65

Appearance & maintenance of areas I

visited

4.20 a 4.01 a 4.04 a 4.06

Adequacy of signs 3.71 a 3.72 a 3.83 a 3.77


b Responses ranged from Not at all Satisfied (1) to Extremely Satisfied (5). Differences among subgroups tested

with analysis of variance and found significant at the .05% level. In each row, subgroup means sharing the same

subscript did not differ significantly in a post-hoc Scheffe test.

Table 21. Responses to Forest management issues, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors

Forest management issue

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Overall

Mean scores b

It is more important to protect habitat for

plants and animals than provide

opportunities for recreation.

0.63 a 0.88 a 0.73 a 0.77

The Forest should encourage more timber

harvesting.

-0.59 ab -0.62 a -0.33 b -0.50

More fish should be stocked in the streams

and lakes to provide increased sport-

fishing opportunities.

0.28 a 0.45 a 0.32 a 0.36

More public lands such as Bald Eagle State

Forest should be set aside as wild or

natural areas.

0.77 a 0.98 a 0.73 a 0.84


b Responses ranged from Strongly Disagree (-2) to Strongly Agree (+2). Differences among subgroups tested

with analysis of variance and found significant at the .05% level. In each row, subgroup means sharing the same

subscript did not differ significantly in a post-hoc Scheffe test.

Recreation on the Tiadaghton and Tioga State Forests: A Survey of User Characteristics, Behaviors, and Attitudes

by

Alan R. Graefe

Harry C. Zinn

Elizabeth A. Covelli

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management


and

Donald B. K. English

USDA Forest Service

Final Report Submitted to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

November 28, 2008

Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................1 Organization of this Report ..................................................................................................2 Survey Results .....................................................................................................................3 Recreation Use Estimates ..............................................................................................3 Trip Visitation Patterns ..................................................................................................8 Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................................11 Activity Participation ...................................................................................................12 Satisfaction Addition .........................................................................................................14 Importance Ratings ......................................................................................................15 Average Importance and Satisfaction Ratings .............................................................16 Crowding Ratings ........................................................................................................17 Facility Use ..................................................................................................................18 Differences by Forest ...................................................................................................19 Economics Addition...........................................................................................................22 Expenditure Categories ................................................................................................24 Experience Addition ..........................................................................................................25 Other Visitor Satisfaction Ratings ...............................................................................25 Forest Access ...............................................................................................................26 Recreation Experience .................................................................................................26 Place Attachment .........................................................................................................27 Pine Creek Fishing .......................................................................................................30 Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the State Forest ......................................................31 Visitor Response to Potential Facilities and Services ..................................................33 Information Services ....................................................................................................35 PA Wilds ......................................................................................................................36 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................37 Appendices .........................................................................................................................39 Appendix A – Zip Codes of State Forest Visitors ........................................................39 Appendix B – Visitor Responses to Open-ended Questions ........................................41 Appendix C – Survey Instrument .................................................................................54

List of Tables 1 Description of the Sampling Sites .....................................................................4 2 Summary of Mechanical and Observational Counts at Sampling Sites ............6 3 Recreational Use Estimates for the Tioga and Tiadaghton State Forests .........7 4 Trip Visitation Patterns in the State Forests......................................................9 5 Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors ....................................11 6 Activity Participation of State Forest Visitors ................................................12 7 Primary Activity Participation by Forest ........................................................13 8 Satisfaction Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests .....14 9 Importance Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests......15 10 Summary of Importance, Satisfaction, and Gap Scores for Customer Service Attributes .........................................................................................16 11 Summary of Perceived Crowding Ratings ......................................................17 12 Reported Facility Use by State Forest Visitors ...............................................18 13 Differences in Satisfaction with Customer Service Attributes by Forest .......19 14 Differences in Importance of Customer Service Attributes by Forest ............20 15 Differences in Crowding by Forest .................................................................21 16 Reported Facility Use by Forest .....................................................................21 17 State Forest Recreation Trip Profile (for economics section) .........................23 18 Summary of Trip Spending Patterns of State Forest Visitors .........................24 19 Visitor Satisfaction Ratings for Various Forest Attributes .............................25 20 Differences in Satisfaction with Forest Attributes by Forest ..........................25 21 Visitor Ratings of Access to the State Forests ................................................26 22 Differences in Satisfaction with Forest Attributes by Forest ..........................26 23 Visitor Ratings for Various Recreation Experience Attributes .......................26 24 Differences in Outdoor Recreation Experience Attributes by Forest ......................................................................................27 25 Most Important Reason for this Visit to the State Forest ................................27 26 Differences in Primary Reason for Visiting by Forest ....................................28 27 Summary of Place Attachment Scale Items ....................................................28 28 Differences in Place Attachment Items by Forest ...........................................29 29 Summary of Responses to Pine Creek Fishing Questions ..............................30 30 Summary of Motivations/Reasons for Recreating in the State Forests ..........31 31 Differences in Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the Forest by Forest ...........32 32 Visitor Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services ......24 33 Differences in Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services, by Forest .................................................................................34 34 Visitor Responses to Questions about Information Services ..........................35 35 Visitor Responses to Questions about the PA Wilds ......................................36

List of Figures 1 Gap Score Analysis for Items Showing Significant Differences between

Importance and Satisfaction .............................................................................17

2 Differences in Motivations for Visiting the State Forests, by Primary Activity ...33

1 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction

Introduction

Resource managers in Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Forestry have identified a need to better

understand the recreational visitors who use the State Forests. This need includes understanding

visitors’ use patterns as well as their expectations, desires and satisfaction levels. Such

understanding is particularly relevant in the State Forests within the PA Wilds region of

Pennsylvania, due to the current high priority of marketing and planning for this part of the state.

The purpose of this study is to acquire recreation use data on Pennsylvania State Forest

Land. Specifically, the study is being conducted on the Tiadaghton State Forest (District #12)

and the Tioga State Forest (District #16) to measure recreation use and develop a profile of

various types of State Forest visitors and their use patterns. This study is the initial phase of a

planned multi-year project that will encompass other State Forest districts in Pennsylvania.

Objectives 1. To develop a profile of recreational trips to the two State Forests. This profile will include

information on the origin of visitors, size and type of visiting groups, previous visitation history, length of stay in the area, activities pursued, and patterns of visitation across seasons and types of recreation areas within the forests.

2. To measure overall recreation use and specific visitation patterns within the two State

Forests, including the number of visitors per vehicle and the distribution of use across different types of sites within the area.

3. To develop a demographic profile of State Forest visitors. 4. To identify visitor expectations and levels of satisfaction with various aspects of their visit. 5. To examine visitor opinions about possible future area management and facility development

decisions. 6. To measure visitor expenditures and levels of economic impact on surrounding communities.

Methodology

Data were collected through the use of on-site interviews and use measurements at a

stratified random sample of the forests’ developed sites and dispersed areas open for recreation.

The overall survey methodology and sampling design is directly comparable to and consistent

with the procedures established for the U.S. Forest Service’s national visitor use monitoring

(NVUM) program. Details for the sampling and analysis approach for that program can be


found in a report titled “Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research

Method Documentation”, which is available on the NVUM website:

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum. A detailed sampling schedule, which

identified the site, day, and time of day for on-site interviewing, was established for each forest

in consultation with NVUM coordinators and Bureau of Forestry personnel. The sampling

schedule provided for a total of 200 sampling days per forest, allocated over about 10 sampling

strata per forest, and distributed throughout the calendar year.

Sampling for the survey was designed to obtain a database that accurately describes

overall use of the forests as well as use of selected types of sites and individual areas of

particular interest within the State Forests. All on-site interviewing, data entry, and analysis

were conducted by trained project staff. Concurrent with the visitor survey, area use patterns

were measured through traffic and trail counters and observations of vehicles using the area.

Both the visitor count data and visitor survey data will later be used to validate and calibrate

visitor use monitoring methods for future application in the State Forests.

On-site face-to-face interviews were used to obtain data from a sample of recreationists

visiting the Tiadaghton and Tioga State Forests. The on-site survey took approximately 5-15

minutes to complete, depending on the version of the instrument that was used in the interview.

Approximately one-third of the visitors were interviewed with the basic version/experience

addition, another third received the basic/satisfaction addition and the remaining third completed

the basic/economic addition.

Organization of this Report

This report summarizes the results of visitor surveys conducted on the State Forests

during the period May 16, 2007 through May 15, 2008. The results are organized by topic area,

with different sections corresponding to different versions of the survey. Each section follows a

consistent format, beginning with the overall results for the entire sample. Results are then

broken down by forest. Appendices to the report include a copy of the survey instrument used,

responses to open-ended questions in the survey, and a summary of the zip codes of forest

visitors.

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum

Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates

3

Survey Results Field work was conducted during the period, May 16, 2007 - May 15, 2008. A total of

about 180 sampling days were completed on each forest district. The sampling rates varied

across strata from about 10 percent of days in the population to about 0.4 percent. In general,

sampling rates were higher for days when greater volumes of visitation were expected; and lower

when the volume was expected to be smaller. Over half of the sampling days occurred in

General Forest Area sites; this type of site accounted for over 60 percent of all the days in the

population for the two forests.

Overall, 590 interviews with forest visitors were conducted. All of the sampling for this

study followed a detailed sampling schedule and took place between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm,

during a morning shift or an afternoon shift. The morning sampling period ran from 8:00 am to

2:00 pm, while the afternoon sampling period ran from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm.

A total of 541 of the 590 visitors approached for the study were willing to participate, for

a response rate of 92%. Among these forest visitors, 83% stated they were visiting the forest for

recreation, while the remaining individuals were working or commuting to work (6%), just

passing through (7%), stopping to use the bathroom (2%) or there for some other reason (< 2%).

Other reasons mentioned by respondents included cutting wood, bringing a trailer to someone

else, getting their dog a drink of water, and stopping to see if fish had been stocked. Only those

respondents who were visiting the forest for recreation were included in the estimates of

recreation use and descriptions of visitors in this report.

Among the recreation visitors, 72% reported that they were leaving the forest for the last

time during that visit. Use estimations were based on these exiting visitors, while the remaining

28% of the cases provided additional data on the characteristics of forest visitors.

Recreation Use Estimates

Following the NVUM protocols, recreation use of the State Forests was estimated

through a process of obtaining mechanical traffic counts, calibrated by observation and on-site

interviewing, at the sample of recreation sites and days scheduled throughout the study year.

Mechanical traffic counts were obtained for a 24-hour period on the targeted sample days.

Interviewers were on site for a 6-hour period. During that time, they would both visually

calibrate the mechanical counter to exiting traffic, and interview a random sample of exiting

traffic to determine what portion was finishing a recreation visit. State Forest sampling sites


4

included all potential places that recreation users could exit the forests, and were classified by

types and exiting volume levels (Table 1). Most of the sampling days were conducted at general

forest area (GFA) sites. Such sites provide access to the forest without concentrating use at the

site itself, and include trailheads, river put-in and take-out points, forest roads, etc. Other

sampling categories include day use developed sites (DUDS) such as picnic areas, scenic

overlooks and the like, overnight use developed sites (OUDS) including campgrounds, cabins,

resorts, etc., and “special areas.” The latter category includes designated “natural” and “wild”

areas of the state forests, and is similar to the designated Wilderness areas within the national

forests.

Since most recreation use of the State Forests is dispersed rather than focused at

developed day use or overnight use areas, GFA sites accounted for over 75 percent of the total

sampling days across both forests. These sites provided an even greater percentage of the

interviews conducted (84.5%), reflecting the fact that interviewers collected more interviews per

day with visitors at these sites than at other types of forest sites.

Table 1. Description of the Sampling Sites. Percent of Sampling

Days Percent of Interviews

Site Type General Forest Area (GFA) 53.9 84.5 Day Use Developed Site (DUDS) 13.0 9.9 Overnight Use Developed Site (OUDS) 21.7 2.3 Special Area 11.4 3.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Use Level Stratum High 40.4 29.0 Medium 32.8 35.5 Low 26.0 29.3 None 0.8 6.2 Total 100.0 100.0

Sampling of State Forest sites was also stratified by level of recreational use, including

four use levels as estimated by Bureau of Forestry personnel (Table 1). More specifically, the

sampling strata were defined by volume of exiting recreation visitation, and classified as None,

Low, Medium, and High. These estimated levels were based on relative criteria for each type of

site and based on the collective knowledge and experience of Bureau of Forestry personnel.

Visits were counted as individuals exiting the forest for the last time for the day. Counting and


5

interviewing visitors as they finish their visit ensures consistency in describing the visit, and

avoids several sampling bias issues.

Stratification was necessary to reduce the overall variance of the visitation estimate, and

to ensure an adequate representation of varying levels of recreation throughout the study year.

About one-third of the sampling days and corresponding interviews were completed during high,

medium, and low use periods, with a small number occurring at sites where no use was expected

or allowed. Survey results were weighted to correctly represent the use distribution across the

various types of sites within the State Forests.

Pneumatic traffic counters were used where vehicular use could be counted (80% of the

counts), such as forest roads and parking lots. Infrared trail counters were used at areas where

road counters were not feasible and individual forest users could be counted, such as trails (20%

of the counts). In both cases, field personnel recorded counts at the end of each 6-hour sampling

period and again after 24 hours had elapsed. Comparing the mechanical and observational

counts at the end of the 6-hour period provides exiting-to-total-traffic calibration that can be used

with the 24-hour mechanical count to obtain total exiting traffic. The survey screening questions

discussed above were used to determine the proportion of exiting traffic that was completing a

recreation visit, as compared to other uses of forest sites. Additional survey questions were used

to convert vehicle counts to visitor estimates, based on the number of people per vehicle.

The 6-hour vehicular traffic counts ranged from 0 to 189, with a mean of 12.9 vehicles

counted (Table 2). About one-fourth of these counts were zero, reflecting no traffic during the 6-

hour sampling period. The 24-hour counts ranged from 0 to 485, with a mean of 42.8. Only

about 8% of the 24-hour counts were zero, and about one-fourth of them were between 1 - 10

vehicles. The hand tally counts for the 6-hour sampling periods averaged 4.9, with about one-

third (32.5%) zero values. These counts were naturally lower than the corresponding mechanical

counts because the observational counts included only one-way (exiting) traffic while the

mechanical counters recorded traffic moving in both directions.

Visitor use counts from the infrared trail counters tended to be lower than the vehicular

traffic counts, as many of the relevant sites were low use areas. As with the pneumatic traffic

counters, the trail counters recorded movement in both directions rather than one-way traffic.

Over two-thirds (70%) of the 6-hour trail counts were zero, and the average was 5.1 people. The

corresponding hand clicker counts averaged 2 people per 6-hour interval. The 24-hour counts

averaged 10.8, with nearly one-third (31.7%) zeros.


6

Table 2. Summary of Mechanical and Observational Counts at Sampling Sites Valid Percent Pneumatic Traffic Counter 6-hour Traffic Counts 0 24.9 1 - 2 18.3 3 - 5 12.9 6 - 9 15.4 10 - 30 17.0 31 or more 11.6 Total 100.1 Mean 12.9 24-hour Traffic Counts 0 7.9 1 - 5 14.2 6 - 10 13.3 11 - 25 25.8 26 - 40 12.5 41 - 60 6.2 61 or more 20.0 Total 99.9 Mean 42.8 Hand Clicker Counts (6-hour) 0 32.4 1 – 2 21.6 3 – 5 20.3 6 – 10 10.8 11 or more 14.9 Total 100.0 Mean 4.9 Infrared Trail Counter 6-hour Counts 0 70.0 1 – 2 11.7 3 – 6 6.7 7 or more 11.7 Total 100.1 Mean 5.1 24-hour Counts 0 31.7 1 – 2 20.0 3 – 6 21.7 7 or more 26.7 Total 100.1 Mean 10.8 Hand Clicker Counts (6-hour) 0 73.3 1 – 2 11.7 3 – 6 8.3 7 or more 6.7 Total 100.0 Mean 2.0


7

Results from the traffic counts and completed surveys were used to estimate total

recreational use of the State Forests (Table 3). Data were extrapolated from the sampled site-day

combinations to all site-days within each stratum and totaled for the entire forest. The results

include two measures of recreational use per forest: 1) the total number of individual site visits,

and, since a number of forest visits include visits to several individual sites, 2) the total number

of recreational forest visits. Since most visits to Tiadaghton and Tioga Forests tend to include

visits to more than one different site during each visit, the total site visits are considerably higher

than the number of forest visits.

Table 3. Recreation Use Estimates for the Tioga and Tiadaghton State Forests Tiadaghton Tioga State Forest Visits Number of Visits 177,316 331,193 90% Confidence Interval Width (as % of total visits) 28.4 28.4 State Forest Site Visits Number of Visits 262,630 534,246 90% Confidence Interval Width (as % of total visits) 27.7 26.1

The Tiadaghton State Forest received an estimated 177,316 recreational visits during the

study year (May 2007- May 2008). Because of the relatively wide range of daily traffic counts

within each sampling stratum, the 90% confidence interval width on the visitation estimate is

plus or minus 28.4% of this estimate, or between 126,958 and 227,674. These forest visits

accounted for a total of 262,630 individual site visits, or about 1.5 site visits for each State Forest

visit. The 90% confidence interval for site visits on the Tiadaghton State Forest (plus or minus

27.7%) ranges from 189,881 and 335,379 site visits.

The Tioga State Forest received about 331,193 recreational visits and 534,246 individual

forest site visits during the same period (1.6 site visits per forest visit). The 90% confidence

interval for forest visits ranges from 237,134 and 425,252. The 90% confidence interval range

for total site visits on the Tioga State Forest was between 394,808 and 673,684 visits.

The total site visitation estimates include use of different overnight facilities, day use

areas, and undeveloped areas within a State Forest visit. Table 4 provides more details on these

use patterns, and Appendix B includes a listing of specific sites reported by forest visitors.

Recreation Use on the State Forests Trip Visitation Patterns

8

Trip Visitation Patterns on the State Forests About four-fifths of the visitors contacted (78.1%) were repeat visitors to the State Forest.

Among those who were repeat visitors, nearly half (46.2%) had made their first visit to the Forest prior to 1980. Another one-quarter (24.6%) made their first visit during the 1980s and 7.8% first visited during the 1990s. About one-fifth (21.5%) were relatively new visitors, reporting their first visit between 2000 and 2008.

Over half (54.8%) of the visitors contacted indicated that they typically make between 0 and 10 visits to the State Forest per year, and the average number of trips to the forest per year was about 21.

Likewise, the majority (61.7%) of the visitors contacted indicated that they typically make between 0 and 10 visits to other forest areas each year, and the average number of trips to other forests per year was about 16.

About one-third (31.3%) of the respondents had spent the previous night in the State Forest.

Of those respondents who were overnight visitors, about two-thirds (67.8%) had spent only one or two nights, and the remaining one-third (32.2%) had stayed for three or more nights.

About half of the respondents (54.2%) reported that they had used no overnight facilities during this trip, while 41.0% indicated that they used one overnight facility during this trip. Very few visitors (1.3%) reported using more than one overnight facility (These overnight facilities can include accommodations that are or are not located on the State Forest, including private cabins and both public and private campgrounds).

About two-thirds of visitors (68.1%) indicated that they used no day use facilities during their visit, while the remaining visitors used one or more day use facilities on this trip.

About one-half of the respondents (49.6%) reported spending one or more days in undeveloped areas of the Forest on this trip.

About two-thirds (68.8%) of the respondents had just one or two people in their vehicle, while nearly one-fourth (22.8%) had 3-4 persons in their vehicle on this trip. The average number of persons per vehicle was 2.3.

About one-fourth (22.6%) of the respondents reported that they had at least one child under the age of 16 with them.

About one-third of the visitors contacted (34.2%) came to the Forest in family groups, with 26.6% coming in groups of friends and 14.9% in groups containing family and friends.

Nearly one-fourth (23.9%) of the visitors came to the Forest alone.


9

Table 4. Trip Visitation Patterns in the State Forests

Valid Percent* Previous Visitation History First Time Visitor 21.9 Repeat Visitor 78.1 Total 100.0 Year of First Visit Prior to 1980 46.2 1980-1989 24.6 1990-1999 7.8 2000-2008 21.5 Total 100.1 Number of Visits to State Forest in Typical Year 0-10 54.8 11-20 20.0 21-50 15.9 More than 50 9.4 Total 100.1 Mean 21.3 Number of Visits to Other Forests in Typical Year 0-10 61.7 11-20 17.4 21-50 13.7 More than 50 7.2 Total 100.0 Mean 16.4 Length of Stay Overnight Visitor 31.1 Day User 68.9 Total 100.0 Number of Nights Spent (Overnight Visitors) 1 33.9 2 33.9 3-5 16.9 6 or more 15.3 Total 100.0 Number of Overnight Facilities Used During This Trip 0 56.2 1 42.5 2 or more 1.4 Total 100.1 Number of Day Use Facilities Used During This Trip 0 68.1 1 14.2 2 7.0 3 or more 10.7 Total 100.0


10

Number of Days Spent in Undeveloped Areas During This Trip

Valid Percent

0 49.6 1 25.3 2 9.8 3-5 10.8 6 or more 4.5 Total 100.0 Number of People in Vehicle 1-2 68.8 3-4 22.8 5 or more 8.4 Total 100.0 Mean 2.3 Number of People Less than 16 Years Old in Vehicle 0 77.4 1 12.0 2 6.4 3 or more 4.2 Total 100.0 Type of Group alone 23.9 family 34.2 friends 26.6 family and friends 14.9 other 0.5 Total 100.1 *Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.

11 Recreation Use on the State Forests Demographic Characteristics

Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors

Nearly four-fifths (79.7%) of all the visits to these State Forests are made by males, and

about 20.3% are made by females.

Almost half of the visitors surveyed in the State Forests (47.3%) were between the ages of 30-49, while a similar proportion (45.5%) was 50 or older.

The average age of State Forest visitors was 49.

Almost all of the State Forest visitors surveyed (99%) reported their race/ethnicity as White/Caucasian.

Other ethnicities reported by visitors included African-American (2), American Indian/Alaskan Native, Spanish/Hispanic, and Italian.

Less than one-tenth of the visits (7.7%) included a person with a disability in their household.

Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors Valid Percent Gender Male 79.7 Female 20.3 Age Under 20 0.5 20 to 29 7.6 30 to 39 20.3 40 to 49 26.0 50 to 59 19.0 60 to 69 18.7 70 or older 7.8 Mean 49 Ethnicity Caucasian 99.0 Other 1.0 Does anyone in your household have a disability? Yes 7.7 No 92.3

12 Recreation Use on the State Forests Activity Participation

Activity Participation

The basic survey administered to all visitors included a detailed list of recreational

activities. Respondents were asked to identify each activity that they had participated in (or

planned to participate in) during their visit, as well as their primary activity on this trip (Table 6).

The first column (activity participation) shows the range in numbers of visitors participating in

the various activities, while the primary activity column reflects what the visitors considered

their most important purpose for visiting the Forest on this trip.

Many forest visits included various viewing and sightseeing activities, but relatively few people reported such activities as their primary recreation activity on the State Forests.

About one-fourth of the visits (23.9%) involved biking as the primary recreation activity on the State Forests.

Table 6. Activity Participation of State Forest Visitors (during this recreation visit) Activity Participation* Primary Activity+ Viewing and Sightseeing Activities

Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc. 28.7 3.4 General viewing activities, sightseeing 18.6 2.8 Driving for pleasure on roads 9.8 0.5 Viewing while traveling off-forest 5.0 0 Nature study 4.8 1.6 Visiting a nature center, nature trail or visitor center 1.9 0.2 Visiting historic and prehistoric sites 1.3 0

Recreational Activities Hiking or walking 29.4 7.6 Bicycling, including mountain bikes 28.4 23.9 Fishing all types 21.2 15.0 Primitive camping 6.8 3.0 Camping in developed sites 12.3 6.5 Picnicking and family day gatherings 8.1 2.9 Off-highway vehicle travel 3.3 0.8 Resorts, cabins, other accommodations on FS lands 8.6 2.8 Backpacking 2.9 1.7 Other non-motorized activities (swimming, sports, games) 1.0 1.0 Non motorized water travel (canoe, raft) 4.0 2.4 Horseback riding 0.6 0.1 Gathering mushrooms, berries, or other natural products 1.3 0 Other motorized activities 1.5 0 Hunting - all types 17.7 16.0 Motorized water travel 0 0 Downhill skiing 0 0 Snowmobile travel 6.3 6.3 Cross-country skiing 1.4 1.4

*Percentages do not equal 100% because respondents could report more than one activity. +Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.


Many of the sampled visitors did some hiking during their visit (29.4%), but relatively

few (7.6%) reported hiking or walking as their primary activity.

Hunting (16%) and fishing (15%) were the next most popular activities and both tended to be the primary activity for those who participated in them.

Over one-tenth of forest visitors surveyed reported some type of camping as their primary activity.

Differences by Forest The most popular activity among visitors sampled in both forests was biking. About one-

quarter of the visitors to both the Tiadaghton (24.8%) and Tioga districts (23.5%) reported biking as their primary activity.

Fishing was more common as a primary activity on the Tiadaghton (24.1%) than on the Tioga State Forest (10.5%).

Camping was a more popular primary activity in the Tioga Forest (14.6%) than in the Tiadaghton Forest (4.5%).

Hiking or walking was the more popular primary activity in the Tiadaghton (13.2%) than in the Tioga State Forest (4.9%).

A small minority of the visitors in both forests reported viewing-related activities as their primary forest activity.

Table 7. Primary Activity Participation by Forest (Percent)* Primary Activity Tiadaghton Tioga Total Viewing activities 5.1 10.1 8.5 Hiking or walking 13.2 4.9 7.6 Camping 4.5 14.6 11.3 Fishing 24.1 10.5 15.0 Biking 24.8 23.5 23.9 Hunting 13.8 17.1 16.0 Other 14.5 19.3 17.7 *Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.

14 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition

Satisfaction Addition

This section of the survey asked forest users about the importance they attached to, and

their satisfaction with, fourteen customer service attributes in the State Forest they visited.

Respondents were provided with the opportunity to choose “not applicable” for any attributes

that they did not experience during their visit.

The State Forests were generally rated highly on each of the fourteen satisfaction attributes, with over 50% of the scores in the “very good” or “good” categories.

State Forest visitors were most satisfied with the scenery (99% good/very good) and attractiveness of the forest landscape (97% good/very good).

Attributes receiving the most “poor” or “fair” ratings included the adequacy of signage (13% poor/fair), condition of forest roads (12% poor/fair), and cleanliness of restrooms (10% poor/fair).

The items that received the most not applicable (N/A) responses included value for fee paid (87% N/A), helpfulness of employees (72% N/A), cleanliness of restrooms (44% N/A), and condition of developed recreation facilities (29% N/A). Generally these responses reflect the fact that the visitors did not encounter these attributes during their visits.

Table 8. Satisfaction Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests (Percent)

Satisfaction Item Poor Fair Average Good Very Good

Not Applicable

Meana

Scenery 0.9 22.8 76.3 4.7

Availability of parking 5.6 6.7 32.9 50.6 4.2 4.3

Parking lot condition 6.6 11.2 25.5 47.6 9.2 4.3

Cleanliness of restrooms 1.2 8.7 8.2 13.0 24.6 44.3 3.9

Condition of the natural environment 0.1 9.5 28.1 62.0 0.2 4.5

Condition of developed recreation facilities 0.4 8.2 27.5 35.3 28.7 4.4

Condition of Forest roads 1.2 10.9 19.0 33.6 26.9 8.5 3.8

Condition of Forest trails 0.3 0.9 7.2 25.7 47.9 18.0 4.5

Availability of information on recreation 2.4 6.3 10.4 27.2 27.8 25.9 4.0

Feeling of safety 1.9 10.9 22.3 63.5 1.5 4.5

Adequacy of signage 3.4 9.8 21.7 26.2 36.9 1.9 3.9

Helpfulness of employees 1.8 11.3 14.6 72.2 4.5

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 2.8 25.2 71.5 4.7

Value for fee paid 5.2 8.2 86.6 4.6 aResponse Code: 1="Poor" through 5="Very good”


Importance Ratings

Importance ratings for the customer service attributes generally followed the same pattern as the satisfaction ratings across the attributes.

The condition of the natural environment (97% very important/most important), attractiveness of the forest landscape (96% very important/most important) and scenery (94% very important/most important) were the most important attributes to the State Forest visitors.

The least important items included parking lot condition and availability (12% and 9% not important/least important, respectively), availability of information on recreation (8% not important/least important), and condition of developed recreation facilities (7% not important/least important).

The greatest numbers of not applicable (N/A) responses were noted for value for fee paid (57%), and helpfulness of employees (41%).

Table 9. Importance Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests (Percent)

Importance Item 1 2 3 4 5

Not Applicable

Mean

Scenery 5.3 13.9 80.0 4.8

Availability of parking 4.0 5.3 16.8 17.4 54.5 2.0 4.2

Parking lot condition 1.9 10.2 20.0 14.8 47.4 5.4 4.0


Condition of the natural environment 2.3 13.9 83.5 0.2 4.8

Condition of developed recreation facilities 2.3 4.7 17.7 17.6 40.5 17.1 4.1

Condition of Forest roads 5.7 17.8 22.5 49.2 4.7 4.2



Feeling of safety 2.0 5.1 11.6 15.3 64.1 1.9 4.4

Adequacy of signage 1.2 14.1 27.6 53.1 3.9 4.4

Helpfulness of employees 1.3 2.8 19.4 10.4 25.6 40.6 4.0

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 2.3 20.1 76.1 1.5 4.8

Value for fee paid 1.3 0.4 11.7 7.0 22.9 56.8 4.2


Average Importance and Satisfaction Ratings Comparing the importance and satisfaction ratings for customer service attributes (also

known as “gap score analysis”) can help to identify how well the various attributes are meeting

visitor expectations (Table 10). Items with very similar importance and satisfaction scores can

be interpreted as matching visitor expectations. Those with positive differences (satisfaction

greater than importance) may be exceeding their expectations, while those with negative

differences (satisfaction lower than importance) may not be meeting expectations, and thus

might be logical targets for managerial attention (Figure 1).

Value for fee paid (.20), parking lot conditions (.17), and helpfulness of employees (.16) showed positive differences, suggesting that visitor expectations were exceeded for these attributes.

Significant negative gap scores were found for three items: cleanliness of restrooms (-.47), condition of forest roads (-.41), and adequacy of signage (-.57). These results suggest there is room for improvement in the delivery of these services in the Forests.

Gap scores for the remaining items were smaller, suggesting a closer match between visitor expectations and perceptions of on-site conditions.

Table 10. Summary of Importance, Satisfaction, and Gap Scores for Customer Service Attributes

Item Average Satisfaction

Average Importance

Difference (Gap Score)*

Scenery 4.8 4.8 -.01

Availability of parking 4.3 4.2 .09

Parking lot condition 4.3 4.0 .17

Cleanliness of restrooms 3.9 4.1 -.47

Condition of the natural environment 4.5 4.8 -.29

Condition of developed recreation facilities 4.4 4.1 .17

Condition of Forest roads 3.8 4.2 -.41

Condition of Forest trails 4.5 4.3 .03

Availability of information on recreation 4.0 3.9 -.04

Feeling of safety 4.5 4.4 .12

Adequacy of signage 3.9 4.4 -.57

Helpfulness of employees 4.5 4.0 .16

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 4.7 4.8 -.07

Value for fee paid 4.6 4.2 .20 *Gap scores may not equal the apparent difference between importance and satisfaction scores due to “not applicable” responses (some respondents answering only the importance or satisfaction question).


Figure 1. Gap Score Analysis for Items Showing Significant Differences between Importance and Satisfaction.

Crowding Ratings Crowding scores tended to be relatively low, with about half of the respondents (57.5%)

choosing 1 or 2, reflecting that they encountered “hardly anyone” during their visit.

About one-fifth (17.5%) of the respondents chose a 3 or 4, indicating that they felt moderately crowded during this trip.

Very few respondents indicated conditions near the “overcrowded” end of the scale.

The average crowding score was 3.1 on the 10-point crowding scale.

Table 11. Summary of Perceived Crowding Ratings (Percent). Perception of Crowdinga 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

30.8 26.7 8.3 9.2 9.6 3.2 7.5 2.2 1.8 0.8 a Response code: 1 = “hardly anyone” to 10 = “overcrowded”

3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6

Helpfulness ofemployees

Parking lot condition

Adequacy of signage

Cleanliness ofrestrooms

Condition of forestroads

Importance Satisfaction


Facility Use State Forest visitors were most likely to report using hiking, biking, or horseback trails

(44.9%) and forest roads (44.2%).

About one-tenth reported visiting designated wilderness (8.8%), probably referring to specially designated natural or wild areas within the Forests.

Table 12. Reported Facility Use by State Forest Visitors (Percent) Valid Percent

Developed campground 12.7

Swimming area 2.5

Hiking, biking, or horseback trails 44.9

Scenic byway 15.6

Designated wilderness 8.8

Visitor center, museum 1.2

Picnic area 13.4

Boat launch 11.4

Designated ATV area 2.7

Other forest roads 44.2

Interpretive sites 0.4


Differences by Forest – Satisfaction with Attributes Only one item (adequacy of signage) differed significantly between the two State Forests.

In general, slightly higher satisfaction scores were reported in the Tiadaghton Forest. Table 13. Differences in Satisfaction with Customer Service Attributes by Forest (Mean) Tiadaghton Tioga Scenery 4.7 4.8 Available parking 4.4 4.3 Parking lot condition 4.4 4.2 Cleanliness of restrooms 4.1 3.9 Condition of the natural environment 4.6 4.5 Condition of developed recreation facilities 4.5 4.3 Condition of forest roads 4.0 3.7 Condition of forest trails 4.4 4.5 Availability of information on recreation 4.0 4.0 Feeling of safety 4.5 4.5 Adequacy of signage* 4.1 3.7 Helpfulness of employees 4.5 4.4 Attractiveness of the forest landscape 4.6 4.7 Value for fee paid 4.8 4.5 aResponse Code: 1="Poor" through 5="Very good” * Differences between forests statistically significant


Differences by Forest – Importance of Attributes There were no significant differences in the importance ratings of customer service

attributes between the two State Forests.

Table 14. Differences in Importance of Customer Service Attributes by Forest (Mean) Tiadaghton Tioga Scenery 4.6 4.9

Available parking 4.0 4.2

Parking lot condition 3.8 4.1

Cleanliness of restrooms 4.0 4.2

Condition of the natural environment 4.9 4.8

Condition of developed recreation facilities 4.1 4.1

Condition of forest roads 4.1 4.3

Condition of forest trails 4.1 4.3

Availability of information on recreation 3.9 4.0

Feeling of safety 4.1 4.5

Adequacy of signage 4.2 4.5

Helpfulness of employees 3.7 4.1

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 4.7 4.8

Value for fee paid 4.2 4.1 aResponse Code: 1="Least important" through 5="Most important”


Differences by Forest – Perceived Crowding Perceived crowding did not differ significantly between users of the two State Forests.

Table 15. Differences in Crowding by Forest (Average) Tiadaghton Tioga

Perceived Crowdinga 2.6 3.3

a Response Code: 1 = “hardly anyone” through 10 = “overcrowded” Differences by Forest - Facility Use Facility use differed significantly between users of the two State Forests for only two

types of facilities (developed campgrounds and picnic areas).

Tioga State Forest visitors were about four times as likely (17%) as Tiadaghton visitors (4%) to use developed campgrounds.

Tioga Forest visitors were also more likely (17%) than Tiadaghton visitors (6%) to report using a picnic area.

Table 16. Reported Facility Use by Forest (Percent) Tiadaghton Tioga Total

Developed campground* 3.8 17.0 12.7

Swimming area 2.2 2.6 2.5

Hiking, biking, or horseback trails 55.5 39.6 44.9

Scenic byway 14.3 16.2 15.6

Designated wilderness 7.1 9.6 8.8

Visitor center, museum 3.8 0 1.2

Picnic area* 6.0 16.7 13.4

Boat launch 10.7 11.7 11.4

Designated ATV area 2.6 2.8 2.7

Other forest roads 40.9 45.8 44.2

Interpretive sites 0 0.5 0.4

* Differences between forests statistically significant

22 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition

Economics Addition

About one-third of the survey respondents were asked about their monetary expenditures

during their trip to the State Forest. Additional questions in the “economics addition” focused on

the respondents’ trip itinerary (Table 17). These questions were asked to establish a context for

evaluation of the reported trip expenditures. Due to the small number of individuals answering

some of these questions, only the overall results are presented for this section of the report. The

number of respondents answering these questions was not sufficient for meaningful comparison

of sub-groups of visitors.

When asked what they would have done if, for some reason, they had been unable to go to the State Forest on this visit, the majority of the respondents (55.1%) stated that they would have gone somewhere else to pursue the same activity.

Another one-fifth of the visitors (18.5%) said they would have come back another time.

Very few of the visitors (4.2%) would have gone elsewhere for a different activity, but about one-fifth (21.3%) would have stayed home.

Overnight visitors were mostly on trips of 3-5 days (48%) or longer (24.8%).

Day visitors were more evenly divided in being away from their home for 1-2 hours (27.3%), 3-5 hours (28.1%), and more than 5 hours (44.6%).

About four-fifths (79%) of the respondents surveyed were visiting only the State Forest on this particular trip, and 89% of them indicated that the State Forest was their primary destination.

When queried about how they were paying their expenses, a variety of responses were noted. More than one-third of the visitors (39.2%) indicated that they were sharing expenses and another third (33.4%) were paying just their own expenses on this trip. The remaining 27.4% were paying expenses for themselves and others in their group.

About three-fourths of the visitors (74.1%) reported visiting the State Forest specifically to participate in their primary activity 10 times or less during the previous year.

Survey respondents reported spending between nothing and $50,000 on outdoor recreation activities, including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses per year.


Table 17. State Forest Recreation Trip Profile (for economics section) Valid Percent What Visitor Would have done if Unable to Visit SF Gone elsewhere for same activity 55.1 Gone elsewhere for different activity 4.2 Come back another time 18.5 Stayed home 21.3 None of these 0.9 Total 100.0 Time Away from Home (Days) 1-2 27.2 3-5 48.0 6 or more 24.8 Total 100.0 Time Away from Home (Hours) 1-2 27.3 3-5 28.1 6 or more 44.6 Total 100.0 Single or Multiple Destination Trip Visited State Forest only 79.0 Visited other places 21.0 Total 100.0 Was State Forest Primary Destination for Trip Yes 89.4 No 10.6 Total 100.0 Annual Trips to State Forest for Primary Activity 0-10 74.1 11-20 13.9 21-50 7.5 More than 50 4.5 Total 100.0 Mean 13.3 How Trip Expenses were being Handled Respondent sharing expenses with other people 39.2 Respondent paying for just his/her own expenses 33.4 Respondent paying for him/herself and others 27.4 Some one else paying respondents’ expenses 0.0 Total 100.0 Annual Dollars Spent on Outdoor Recreation Equipment

$500 or less 33.8 $501-$1,000 24.9 $1,001-$2,500 18.3 $2,501 or more 23.0 Total 100.0


Expenditure Categories

In the economics addition, visitors were asked how much they spent for ten categories of

expenditures on this trip within 50 miles of the site visited (Table 18).

Many respondents indicated that they spent no money at all on many of the expenditure categories listed on the survey instrument.

Few visitors reported any spending for “other transportation” and “activities” (including guide fees and equipment rental).

The greatest single expenditure was for food/drink at restaurants/bars (mean = $84.77) followed by gas/oil (mean = $79.15).

A lesser amount of money went to the category of “other food and beverages” (mean = $38.85).

Table 18. Summary of Trip Spending Patterns of State Forest Visitors

Economic Expenditure Items Proportion of Visitors Spending Something (percent)

Average Amount Spent

Government lodging 24.0 $12.58

Privately-owned lodging 21.1 $33.23

Food/drink at restaurants and bars 84.7 $84.77

Other food and beverages 69.2 $38.85

Gasoline and oil 95.0 $79.15

Other transportation 6.2 $2.22

Activities 8.2 $13.99

Entry, parking, or recreation use fees 8.7 $1.75

Souvenirs/clothing 37.0 $21.27

Any other expenses 11.2 $6.20

25 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition

Experience Addition

This section of the survey asked a series of additional questions of interest to managers of

the Pennsylvania State Forests. As was the case for the “satisfaction” and “economics”

additions, about one-third of the respondents were asked these questions. Some of the questions

enhanced other sections of the basic survey and have been reported earlier (e.g. previous

visitation to the forest and group composition were reported with other visitor trip characteristics

in Table 4). The results presented below focus on visitor motivations, feelings towards the

Forest, and opinions about various topics in the Pennsylvania State Forests.

Other Visitor Satisfaction Ratings

Most respondents indicated very favorable ratings (mean of 4.1 or above) for all of the items rated.

Table 19. Visitor Satisfaction Ratings for Various Forest Attributes (Percent) Awful Fair Good Very Good Excellent N/A Meana Sanitation and cleanliness 0.5 6.7 38.6 54.1 4.5 Safety and security 11.8 27.6 58.0 2.6 4.5 Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities

3.7 1.2 12.9 21.7 37.4 23.0 4.1

Responsiveness of staff 6.4 3.9 22.7 67.0 4.5 Natural environment 5.1 18.2 76.6 4.7 a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent) Differences by Forest There were no significant differences in these ratings between the two State Forests.

Table 20. Differences in Satisfaction with Forest Attributes by Forest (Mean)a Tiadaghton Tioga Sanitation and cleanliness 4.3 4.5 Safety and security 4.6 4.4 Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities 4.1 4.2 Responsiveness of staff 4.8 4.4 Natural environment 4.6 4.8 a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent)


Forest Access

Most respondents indicated favorable ratings for access to the State Forests by both roads and trails (mean of 4.5 – 4.6).

Table 21. Visitor Ratings of Access to the State Forests (Percent) 1 2 3 4 5 Meana By roads 8.0 28.6 63.4 4.6 By trails 1.4 0.5 4.3 32.2 61.5 4.5 a Response scale = 1 (poor) to 5 (very good)

Differences by Forest

There were no significant differences in the accessibility ratings between the two State

Forests.

Table 22. Differences in Satisfaction with Forest Attributes by Forest (Mean)a Tiadaghton Tioga By roads 4.6 4.6 By trails 4.4 4.6 a Response scale = 1 (poor) to 5 (very good)

Recreation Experience

Most respondents indicated favorable ratings (mean of 4.1 or above) for all of the

recreation experience items rated. Table 23. Visitor Ratings for Various Recreation Experience Attributes (Percent) Awful Fair Good Very Good Excellent N/A Mean a Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 2.8 7.6 5.2 41.4 43.1 4.1

Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 5.7 5.6 3.6 37.5 47.4 4.2

Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 3.3 0.4 13.7 26.5 52.6 3.6 4.3

Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 3.1 5.4 29.1 61.6 4.7

Helpfulness/courteousness of people in surrounding communities

0.5 6.0 29.5 44.6 19.3 4.5

a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent)



There were no significant differences in the outdoor recreation experience ratings between the two State Forests.

Table 24. Differences in Satisfaction with Outdoor Recreation Experience Attributes by Forest (Mean)a Tiadaghton Tioga Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 4.2 4.1 Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 4.3 4.1

Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 4.4 4.3 Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 4.6 4.7 Helpfulness/courteousness of people in surrounding communities 4.5 4.5


Place Attachment

Visitors were asked to choose their most important reason for visiting the State Forest

from a list of alternative choices.

About one-fourth of the visitors (28.9%) said they went there because they “enjoy being in the forest.”

Another one-quarter of the visitors (24.3%) went there primarily to “spend more time with my friends/family.”

Most of the remaining respondents stated that the Forest is a good place for their chosen activity (hunting, hiking, biking, fishing, etc.).

Table 25. Which of the following was the most important reason for this visit to the State Forest? Valid Percent I went there because I enjoy being in the forest 28.9 I went there because I wanted to spend time with friends/family 24.3 I went there because it’s a good place to: Hunt 11.4 Hike 7.6 Bike 10.2 Fish 8.8 Horseback ride 0.0 Other Reason 8.6 Total 99.8



Tioga State Forest visitors were more likely to select enjoying the forest or being with friends and family as their primary reason for visiting the forest, while Tiadaghton State Forest visitors were more likely to focus on their chosen activities.

Table 26. Differences in Primary Reason for Visiting by Forest (Percent) Tiadaghton Tioga

I went there because I enjoy being in the forest 16.3 34.7

I went there because I wanted to spend time with friends/family 13.8 29.2

I went there because it’s a good place to:

Hunt 19.5 7.7

Hike 14.8 4.3

Bike 4.7 12.8

Fish 17.0 5.0

Horseback ride 0.0 0

Other Reason 13.9 6.2

Visitors also responded to a set of statements designed to measure the extent of place attachment

to the State Forest.

The vast majority of respondents (88.6%) agreed that the State Forest they visited “means a lot to

them,” with almost half strongly agreeing.

Most also reported that they enjoy recreating in the State Forest more than at other places, and get more satisfaction out of visiting the State Forest than from visiting other places.

Table 27. Summary of Place Attachment Scale Items (Percent)

Place Attachment Items Strongly disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly agree

Meana

This place means a lot to me 11.4 41.7 46.9 4.4

I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit

9.9 26.5 32.6 30.9 3.9

I am very attracted to this place 1.3 12.2 29.8 21.3 35.4 3.8

I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places 2.9 10.6 37.9 23.9 24.7 3.6 a Response Code: 1="Strongly Disagree" and 5="Strongly Agree”


Differences by Forest In general, visitors to the Tiadaghton State Forest showed slightly more place attachment

than those to the Tioga State Forest.

Table 28. Differences in Place Attachment Items by Forest (Mean) Tiadaghton Tioga

This place means a lot to me 4.5 4.3 I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit 4.0 3.8

I am very attracted to this place 3.9 3.8 I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places 3.8 3.5

a Response Code: 1="Strongly Disagree" and 5="Strongly Agree”


Pine Creek Fishing

State Forest visitors were asked a series of questions about their participation and

attitudes towards fishing in Pine Creek.

About one-fifth of the respondents reported fishing an average of 19.3 days per year in Pine Creek.

A notable proportion of this fishing effort was spent in special regulation areas (5.5 days for delayed harvest, 3.4 days for catch-and-release, and 2.6 days for trophy trout areas).

Nearly all of these anglers reported that they normally fish for trout.

Table 29. Summary of Responses to Pine Creek Fishing Questions.

How many days per year do you go fishing in the Pine Creek Valley? (Mean) 19.3 days

How many of your fishing days are made to special regulation areas in the Pine Creek Valley? (Mean)

Delayed Harvest 5.5 days Catch-and-Release 3.4 days Trophy Trout Areas 2.6 days What species of fish do you fish for when visiting this natural area?

Trout 97.6% Smallmouth Bass 2.4% Walleye Other What would encourage you to fish more often in this area? More special regulation areas 13.1% Larger fish 34.4% More fish 29.1% Fewer or simpler regulations 16.2% Other 7.1%


Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the State Forest

Visitors’ most important motivations (reasons for visiting) the State Forest were to be outdoors (mean = 4.8) and to experience natural surroundings (mean = 4.7).

Visitors also attached great importance to the opportunity to relax (mean = 4.6) and get away from their regular routine (mean = 4.7).

Moderately important motives for visiting the forest included the social motives of family recreation (mean = 4.0) and being with friends (mean = 4.2), as well as getting physical exercise (mean = 4.0).

Visitors were more evenly divided on the importance of seeking challenge or sport (mean = 3.6) and developing their skills (mean = 3.7).

Table 30. Summary of Motivations/Reasons for Recreating in the State Forests (Percent)

Reasons Not at all important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

Meana

To be outdoors 3.9 14.5 81.7 4.8 For relaxation 5.8 26.7 67.4 4.6 To get away from the regular routine

3.6 2.2 16.0 78.2 4.7

For the challenge or sport 11.6 8.3 24.3 24.4 31.5 3.6 For family recreation 7.3 6.7 13.8 24.1 48.2 4.0 For physical exercise 4.7 9.0 13.0 27.0 46.4 4.0 To be with my friends 7.5 0.5 15.3 20.9 55.8 4.2 To experience natural surroundings

1.8 2.7 17.1 78.5 4.7

To develop my skills 3.8 14.9 26.7 18.2 36.5 3.7 a Response Code: 1="Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important”


Differences by Forest The only noteworthy difference between forests in responses to the motivations/reasons

questions was that Tiadaghton Forest visitors showed greater importance for challenge/sport (mean = 4.0) than Tioga Forest visitors (mean = 3.4).

Table 31. Differences in Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the Forest by Forest (Mean)a

Reason Tiadaghton Tioga To be outdoors 4.6 4.8

For relaxation 4.5 4.7

To get away from the regular routine 4.5 4.8

For the challenge or sport 4.0 3.4

For family recreation 4.0 4.0

For physical exercise 4.0 4.0

To be with my friends 3.9 4.3

To experience natural surroundings 4.5 4.8

To develop my skills 3.7 3.7 a Response Code: 1="Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important”

Differences by Primary Activity There were several notable differences in the motivations of visitors participating in

different primary activities (Figure 2).

Campers attached the most importance to the social motives of family recreation and being with friends, and the least importance to challenge and skill development.

Hikers and bikers were exceptionally motivated by getting physical exercise.

Challenge and skill development were quite important to both the hunters and anglers.

Campers and sightseers placed the least importance on challenge and skill development.


Figure 2. Differences in Motivations for Visiting the State Forests, by Primary Activity.

Visitor Response to Potential Facilities and Services

Visitors surveyed were asked what facilities/services in the State Forest are most

important to them.

The respondents attached the most importance to trails (mean = 4.4) and the Pine Creek Rail Trail in particular (mean = 4.0).

Visitors also attached great importance to wildlife viewing areas or opportunities (mean = 3.9) and signs directing them to recreation facilities (mean = 3.8).

Among the alternatives listed, they assigned the least importance to picnic areas (mean = 3.0).

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

FamilyRecreation

Be withFriends

For theChallenge

PhysicalExercise

Develop Skills

CampingHikingSightseeingFishingBikingHunting

Primary Activity

Motivation


Table 32. Visitor Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services Not at all

Important Somewhat Important

Moderately Important

Very Important

Extremely Important

Meana

Wildlife viewing areas or opportunities 4.9 5.0 23.4 28.6 38.0 3.9

Picnic areas 19.1 18.4 24.2 21.4 16.9 3.0

Parking 5.3 18.2 28.0 21.6 26.9 3.5

Signs directing me to recreation facilities 8.5 9.0 14.4 29.9 38.1 3.8

Pine Creek Rail Trail 11.4 2.2 17.8 16.4 52.3 4.0

Printed interpretive information 11.6 6.4 27.4 23.6 31.0 3.6

Trails 2.6 2.4 6.0 34.0 55.0 4.4

Interpretive Information 17.1 7.9 19.6 29.1 26.3 3.4

a Response Code: 1="Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important” Differences by Forest There were no significant differences in the importance ratings for facilities and services

between the two State Forests.

Table 33. Differences in Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services, by Forest (Mean)a

Tiadaghton Tioga Wildlife viewing areas or opportunities 3.8 4.0

Picnic areas 3.1 3.0

Parking 3.6 3.4

Signs directing me to recreation facilities 3.6 3.9

Pine Creek Rail Trail 4.0 3.9

Printed interpretive information 3.2 3.8

Trails 4.5 4.3

Interpretive Information 3.5 3.3 a Response Code: 1=”Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important”


Information Services

State Forest visitors were asked a series of questions about their use of various types of

forest information.

One-fifth of the visitors surveyed reported that they had obtained information about the area they visited during or in preparation for their trip.

Nearly equal proportions of visitors sought the different types of information listed in the survey (maps, visitor guides, other information).

Nearly all of those visitors who had obtained information did so before leaving home, in preparation for their trip.

Nearly all of them also reported that the information obtained was helpful in planning their trips.

Table 34. Visitor Responses to Questions about Information Services Valid Percent Did you obtain any information about this area during this trip or in preparation for it?

No 79.4 Yes 20.6 What type of information did you obtain? State Forest map 20.5 Trail map 27.6 PA visitors guide 27.9 Other 24.0 When did you receive information? Before leaving home 86.0 After arriving here 14.0 Was the information you received helpful to plan your trip?

Yes 97.4 No 2.6


PA Wilds

State Forest visitors were also asked a series of questions about the PA Wilds.

Less than half of the visitors surveyed (37.4%) reported that they were familiar with the

PA Wilds designation.

Nearly all of the visitors surveyed (94%) indicated that the PA Wilds program did not influence their decision to visit the State Forest.

Most of the respondents (92%) indicated they were not planning to visit any other areas in the PA Wilds during their forest visit.

Among those who were familiar with the PA Wilds, most made favorable comments about the program. See Appendix B, page 53 for a listing of these comments.

Table 35. Visitor Responses to Questions about the PA Wilds Valid Percent Are you familiar with the PA Wilds designation in North Central Pennsylvania?

No 62.6 Yes 37.4 Did the PA Wilds program influence your decision to visit the state forest?

No 94.0 Yes 6.0 Are you planning to visit any other areas in the PA Wilds during your visit?

No 92.0 Yes 8.0

37 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion

Conclusion

The results published in this report are a compilation of the data collected at numerous

recreation sites during the period of May 16, 2007 through May 15, 2008 (n = 590 interviews).

Besides the basic visitor use survey, three supplemental instruments were used to query visitors

about their satisfaction levels, economic expenditures, and recreation experiences.

This report provides a summary of the characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes of visitors to the

Tiadaghton and Tioga State Forests in north central Pennsylvania. The results indicate that the

Tiadaghton and Tioga State Forests receive about 177,316 and 331,193 annual recreation visits,

respectively. Forest visitors tend to go to more than a single site during their trips to the forests,

resulting in a higher number of recreational site visits in each State Forest.

Most State Forest visitors are repeat users, and many have considerable years of

experience in the forests. Regarding satisfaction levels, most respondents were clearly satisfied

with their recreation experience and with the satisfaction attributes listed on the survey

instrument. While the data suggest that there is room for some improvement in a few areas, it is

equally important to recognize the numerous positive scores for various satisfaction attributes.

The economic section of the study asked visitors about their monetary expenditures in and

near the State Forests. About half of the forest visitors indicated that they would have gone

somewhere else to do the same activity if they had not been able to visit the State Forest,

indicating that they were serious about pursuing their recreation activities on that trip. As

expected, most visitors were not staying overnight, so there were few expenditures for lodging

accommodations. The largest expenditures reported were for food/drink at restaurants and bars,

gasoline and oil, and other food and beverages.

The experience section of the study was given to about one-third of the visitors, providing

rich data about visitor attitudes, motivations, and management preferences. The data clearly

show that State Forest visitors are interested in experiencing the outdoor natural surroundings

available in the forest areas. Relaxing out of doors, getting away from the routine, and other

nature-based social activities are very important to these recreationists. Motivations to recreate in

the State Forests were different for those pursuing different activities. Hunters and anglers are

more interested in pursuing outdoor recreation activities that involve skill development and

challenge, while hikers and bikers seek physical exercise. All activity groups greatly value

relaxing and getting away from their regular routine in an outdoor, natural environment.


Visitor responses to potential management options were examined to ascertain support or

opposition to various management alternatives. The highest degree of support was seen for

recreational trails, additional wildlife viewing areas or opportunities, and directional signs to

recreation areas.

This report provides a representative snapshot of recreational use in two Pennsylvania

State Forests. It thus provides a start on the development of baseline data on Pennsylvania State

Forest visitors. It is hoped that Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry managers will continue to

support the development of this visitor use database to assist in their efforts to meet the needs of

their recreation constituency.

39 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix

Appendix A

Zip Codes of State Forest Visitors


Valid Percent State Visiting From Pennsylvania 86.6 New York 73.0 Maryland 2.1 Other 4.5 Total 100 Pennsylvania Counties Lycoming 21.8 Tioga 11.3 Clinton 8.1 Lancaster 6.2 Bradford 5.4 York 4.9 Centre 3.8 Berks 3.5 Montgomery 2.7 Dauphin 2.4 Cumberland 2.2 Schuylkill 2.2 Northumberland 1.9 Allegheny 1.6 Chester 1.6 Lebanon 1.6 Other 18.8 Total 100.0 Lycoming County MCD Jersey Shore 39.5 Williamsport 22.5 South Williamsport 8.6 Montoursville 8.6 Muncy 4.9 Woodward 3.7 Cummings 3.7 Other 91.5 Total 100 Tioga County MCD Wellsboro 61.9 Mansfield 19.0 Covington 3.7 Other 1.1 Total 100 Clinton County MCD Lock Haven 60.0 Avis 16.6 Other 23.3 Total 1000 Mean Travel Distance to Forest for All Respondents 101.9 miles Mean Travel Distance to Forest for PA Residents 68.8 miles


Appendix B

Visitor Responses to Open-Ended Questions


If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do? (Experience Addition, question #8) Facilities Bathrooms more bathrooms and trash cans cleaner porta potties and more restrooms more restrooms at each trailhead or parking area more restrooms better restrooms with showers restroom access for kayakers, too difficult to get to from creek flush toilets, running water, link to horseback riding info on the web porta potties at all parking lots turn on the water more restrooms Other concrete area for accessibility playground areas parking at campsites to unload gear playground, tent camping at pavilion snack bar, drinks trash cans primitive campers only, too many regulations, no logging more benches benches along the trail at Ramsey, Slate Run, Clark Farm, picnic tables ease regulations for overnight camping, make it simpler to get permits trash cans at picnic areas more campgrounds with amenities more fire pits, lower restrictions don't allow camping in parking areas of trail heads such as red run Information Maps and Information comprehensive website for DCNR and fish and boat maps available at sites biking club info, maps available at trail, open jersey shore restrooms friend of pine creek rail trail interactive web site telephone, more information, should charge a fee, more sites, separate areas for tents better maps along trail/ snowmobile information more maps


snowmobile safety courses pamphlets on snakes better advertising, let people know what is here better maps at visitor area lack knowledge about trail with local government agencies

Signs more wildlife identification signs better sign for Bradley Whales and west rim road signs informing people to not walk in ski tracks better signs more signs and better maps increased signage, drinking water on rail trail more signs and mile markers on rail trail

Ranger/patrols rangers in campgrounds ranger at campground more rangers no guns on rangers

Trails and roads remove gates on some of the forest roads open Trout Run to Cammal crosswalks at road crossings on rail trail more overlooks atv trails more rail trail access areas more access to logging roads atvs on trails allow more roads to be open keep gates closed to keep people off private property more water stops on rail trail groom the smaller trails better roads and trail maintenance cut brush more road pull offs, more camp grounds more roads open to public travel

Hunting/Fishing fewer restrictions on fishing, more golf courses


stop killing deer more deer, no beaver dams more deer, don't shoot does more deer limit doe tags more deer stock more deer stop doe hunting more deer, better marking of county boundaries for hunting regulation more deer more fishing access more fish more fish

Forest management bug control bug control, even out the rail trail ban generators from County Bridge

Other trap shooting range, pistol range cell tower for better reception


Is there some accommodation or assistance we could offer that would be helpful to you or anyone

else in your group to improve your recreation experience? (Satisfaction Addition, question #2)

Facilities Bathrooms clean restrooms more bathrooms more bathrooms cleaner bathrooms flush toilets hand sanitizer in bathrooms more bathrooms fix remote bathroom sites keep a watch on toilet paper levels more bathrooms bathrooms with working water pumps more restrooms for women Other cleanliness of facilities phones, water fountains add playgrounds bear proof containers or bear ropes clean graffiti on picnic tables more trash cans working water pumps fix water pump at black walnut bottom more pavilions at day use areas first aide station more recycling centers more places to get drinking water overnight parking at Tiadaghton camp more benches on trails be able to drive into Black Walnut to drop off gear water at lookouts allow people to drop gear at campsite (black walnut bottom)

Information and signage more information signs, information center, mile markers maps at recreation sites printed information at trails


mile markers more historical markers more mile and trail markers more online information more information online more signs on trails better signs better signage maps and information about hiking more trail markers more maps

Ranger/patrol more ranger patrol in areas more rangers and dog control more rangers more rangers in the forest, especially on the rail trail more rangers more patrols

Trails and roads pave the rail trail pave rail trail more equestrian trails and camps fewer roads oil roads to reduce dust close open gates fewer roads update trail conditions check hiker registry open ATV trails more access to trails improve access to Tiadaghton picnic area maintain more trails more information about ATV trails better trails and campgrounds better roads more orange blazes on west rim trails more information about water stops on west rim


Hunting/fishing keep hunters involved, more deer stop killing deer, need more deer for hunting introduce elk more deer more fish more deer fix the jack dams or build a few more for the brook trout more wildlife viewing deer control, stop doe archery more fish raise deer levels maintain Sundays as no hunting days cheaper out of state fishing licenses more access to fishing areas

Forest management private landowners abuse the forest manage development in the area less development more timber harvesting more clear cuts and more undergrowth have someone else maintain the forest and start charging for use pest management, gypsy moths, Asian longhorn beetle, elan span worm, etc cut down over hanging trees manage lumber sales more carefully more chestnut trees budget more money for gypsy moth spraying more clear cuts


Other areas visited or plan on visiting for recreation on this State Forest Trip (Basic Addition, question #4)

Sites and Areas Visited Frequency

Pine Creek Gorge/Valley 45

Slate Run 21

Blackwell 18

PA Grand Canyon 16

Little Pine Creek State Park and Area 14

Cedar Run 9

Asaph Area 8

Darling Run 7

Tiadaghton Picnic/Camp 6

Sproul State Forest 5

Black Walnut Bottom 5

Colton Point 5

Waterville 5

West Rim Trail 4

Black Forest Trail and Area 4

Ansonia 3

Camal 3

Ramsey 3

Leonard Harrison State Park 3

East Rim 3

Jersey Mills 3

Clark Farm 3

Potter County 3

Bonnell Flats 2

Cherry Springs 2


County Bridge 2

English Center 2

Francis Run 2

Jersey Shore 2

Turkey Path 2

Red Run 2

Barber Rock Trail 1

Big Meadows 1

Ross Run 1

Torbet Island Area 1

Whitetail 1

Wellsboro Area 1

Mill Run Road 1

Dire Road 1

Fishing Creek 1

Frying Pan Trail 1

Golden Eagle Trail 1

Hoffman Camp 1

Kettle Creek 1

Trout Run 1

Lebo Vista 1

Spring Brook 1

Stony Fork 1


List of other expenditures (Economics Addition, question #2) Supplies for cabin

Heat

Wood

Motel

Other areas used or visited for recreation (Satisfaction Addition, question #4) Lookouts

Areas for dog training

Cabin

Fishing Creek

Hunting

Pine Creek Rail Trail

Camp visit

Other most important reasons for this visit to the state forest (Experience Addition, question #4) Driving through

Geocaching

Snowmobiling (2)

Skiing

Therapeutic healing

Solitude


Other species of fish sought while visiting the state forest (Experience Addition, question #4c) Bass

Golden Trout

Trout (3)

Other reasons which would encourage you to fish more in the area (Experience Addition, question #4d) More time (2)

Reduced cost of fishing license

Opinions about facilities for people with disabilities (Experience Addition, question #6a) Set up really well and there are usually ramps

Yes, ramps are present

Yes, adequate (3)

Yes, but there need to be phones nearby in case of an emergency

Other type of information obtained for this trip (Experience Addition, question #11a) Geocache guide

H2O levels online

Internet (2)

Rail trail pamphlet

Fishing conditions and phone numbers

Trail map

Travel guide

West Rim booklet (2)

Word of mouth


Where or from whom did you receive information (Experience Addition, question #11c) Bureau of Forestry (3)

Book Shop

DCNR (2)

Friends (2)

Previous trips

Geocache.com

Internet (4)

Jersey Shore Library

Little Pine State Park

Local motel and people

Pine Creek Outfitters (3)

State Parks

Visitor Center (3)

What could have made the information more useful (Experience Addition, question #11d) More detailed maps

Phones and cell phone coverage

Rules and regulations more clear

Other primary destination besides state forest (Experience Addition, question #14)

Allegheny National Forest

Golf Tournament in Wellsboro

Niagara Falls

Renovo


What do you think of the PA Wilds designation (question #15, Experience Addition) Don’t know much about it

Good (4)

Good for protection and bad for development

Good for some people

Good thing/idea (3)

Great (2)

Great for protection and tourism

Great idea, brings people into the woods

Great idea, made more public

Important

Helpful because there is more information on activities

Like it (2)

Nice to have designated areas

No opinion

Ok

Only heard of it, no opinion

Protects wildlife in the area

Vaguely familiar

Other areas visited in PA Wilds on this trip (Experience Addition, question #16) Canyon Museum

Ives Run

Mt. Pisgah State Park

To see elk

Sproul State Forest

Worlds End


Appendix C

Survey Instrument


_____ State Forest: 2007 Recreational Use Survey

Developed Day Use and Overnight Version Interviewer:_________________ Site: ___________ Date: _____________

Time of Interview: ___________ Vehicle Axle Count: ____________ Clicker Count: _______

Section 1 (Screening Questions) 1. Would you be willing to take a few minutes to participate in this interview?

Yes No If yes, continue, if no thank visitor and end the interview

2. What is the primary purpose of your visit to this site? Recreation—CONTINUE INTERVIEW

Working or commuting to work (stop interview) Just stopped to use the bathroom (stop interview) Just passing through, going somewhere else (stop interview) Some other reason (specify)________________________________________________

Complete 3 and 3a for DUDS, OUDS and Proxy ONLY 3. Are you leaving (site name) for the last time today or will you return later? Leaving for last time today—CONTINUE INTERVIEW Will return later (CONTINUE INTERVIEW FOR INTERNAL USE)

3a. When did you first arrive at (site name) on this visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________

Complete for GFA ONLY

4. Are you leaving the _____ SF for the last time today or will you return later? Leaving for last time today—CONTINUE INTERVIEW Will return later (CONTINUE INTERVIEW FOR INTERNAL USE)

Section 2 (Basic Information)

Now I want to ask you some more questions about where you went on your whole visit to the _____ SF, which includes the use of this area and other portions of the _____ SF.

1. Did you spend last night in the _____ SF? No Yes

We are surveying only

people who are here


If yes, how many nights in a row did you spend in the _____ SF? __________

2. When did you first arrive at the _____ on this recreation visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________ Same as site arrival time

3. When do you plan to finish your visit to the _____ SF on this recreation visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________ Same as site arrival time 4. What other areas did you visit, or do you plan to visit in the _____ SF for recreation on this trip? (List sites or areas visited) _______________________________________________________________________________________ 4a. How many different overnight lodging facilities (like campgrounds, cabins, or lodges) will you use on this trip to the _____ SF? Number______________

4b. How many other developed day use sites (like picnic areas or visitor centers), not including trailheads, will you use on this trip to the _____ SF? Number______________

4c. How many different days will you enter into undeveloped areas of the _____ SF on this trip? Number______________

5. In what activities on this list did you participate during this recreation visit at the _____ SF?

6. Which of those is your primary activity for this recreation visit to the _____?

Question 5 answers Question 6 answer

Camping in developed sites

Primitive camping

Backpacking

Resorts, cabins, organization camp use, and other accommodations on FS managed lands (private or FS)

Picnicking and family gatherings in developed site (family or group sites) (circle one)

Viewing while traveling off-forest

Viewing natural features such as scenery, wildlife, birds, flowers, fish, etc. (on FS lands) (circle one)

Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/areas (circle one)

Viewing a nature center, nature trail, or visitor center (circle one)

Nature study


General viewing activities, sightseeing

Fishing—all types

Hunting—all types

Off-highway vehicle travel

Driving for pleasure on roads

Snowmobile travel

Motorized water travel

Other motorized activities

Hiking or walking

Horseback riding

Bicycling, including mountain bikes (circle one)

Nonmotorized water travel (sailboarding, kayaking, rafting, etc.) (circle one)

Downhill skiing or snowboarding (circle one)

Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing (circle one)

Other nonmotorized activities

Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products (circle one)


7. NOT including this visit, about how many times did you come to the _____ SF for recreation in the past 12 months? Number______________

8. What is your home ZIP code or Canadian postal code? ______________ Visitor is from a country other than USA or Canada

9. How many people (including you) traveled here in the same vehicle as you? Number____________

9a. How many of those people are less than 16 years old? Number______________

11. What is your age? Age______________

12. Gender? Male Female

13. Which of the following best describes you? Black/African American Asian White American Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Other ______________________________


Economics Addition

Section 1 (This Recreation Trip)

1. If for some reason you had been unable to go to the _____ SF for this visit what you would you have done instead: Gone elsewhere for the same activity Gone elsewhere for a different activity Come back another time Stayed home Gone to work at your regular job None of these: _____________________________________________________________

2. About how much time, in total, will you be away from home on this recreation trip? Days ________________ or Hours _______________

3. On this trip, did you recreate at just the _____ SF, or did you go to other State Forests, parks, or recreation areas? Just the _____ SF (go to section 2) Other places (go to question 4)

4. Was the _____ SF your primary destination for this recreation trip? Yes No

Section 2 (Annual Recreation Use and Spending)

1. How many times in the last year have you visited the _____ SF specifically to participate in the primary activity that you mentioned previously? Number______________ 2. About how much money (to the nearest $100.00) do you spend each year on all outdoor recreation activities, including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses? Dollar Amount_______

Section 3 (Trip Expenditure Profile)

1. For this trip are you: Sharing expenses with other people (report just what you spent) Paying just for your expenses (report just what you spent)

Paying for yourself and others: How many others ___________ (report what you spent for all these people)

Someone else is paying for you (report your portion of the total that person spent)


2. For the following categories, please report the amount spent within 50 miles of here on this trip. Government-owned lodging (campgrounds, etc)

Food/drink at restaurants and bars

Gasoline and oil Activities (including guide fees and equipment rental)

Souvenirs and clothing

$ $ $ $ $ Privately-owned lodging

Other food and beverages

Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.)

Entry, parking or recreation use fees

Any other expenditures (list below)

$ $ $ $ $

List of “other” expenditures:



This section asks about your satisfaction with the recreation services and facilities at the _____ SF.

1. This section asks you about your satisfaction with the recreation services and quality of the recreation facilities in the _____ SF. Please rate the following attributes of this recreation site or area of the forest. Also rate the importance of this attribute toward the overall quality of your recreation experience here. Rate importance from 1 (=not important) to 5 (=very important) in terms of how this attribute contributes to your overall recreation experience.

Poor Fair Average Good Very Good

N/A Importance

Scenery 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Availability of parking 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Parking lot condition 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Cleanliness of restrooms 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Condition of the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Condition of developed recreation facilities

1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Condition of Forest roads 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Condition of Forest trails 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Availability of information on recreation 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Feeling of safety 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Adequacy of signage 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Helpfulness of employees 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Value for fee paid 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

2. Is there some accommodation or assistance we could offer that would be helpful to you or anyone else in your group to improve your recreation experience?

No Yes If yes, what would that be?

3. Please rate your perception about the number of people at this area today. Use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means there was hardly anyone else there, and 10 means that you thought the area was very overcrowded?

HARDLY ANYONE

VERY OVERCROWDED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


4. Finally, while at the _____ SF, which of the following did you visit or use for recreation? Developed campground Swimming area Hiking, biking, or horseback trails Scenic byway Designated wilderness Visitor center, museum Picnic area Boat launch Designated ORV area Other forest roads Interpretive sites Other _____________________________________________________________________


State Forest Experience Addition

1. Is this your first visit to the state forest? Yes No

[If no]

In what year did you make your first visit to the state forest

_______ year

In a typical year, how many days do you spend recreating in the state forest?

_______ days

In a typical year, how many days do you spend recreating at other forest recreation sites outside of the state forest?

_______ days

3. Overall, how would you rate the quality of each of the following at the state forest: Awful Fair Good Very

Good Excellent Not

applicable Sanitation and cleanliness 1 2 3 4 5 NA Safety and security 1 2 3 4 5 NA Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities

1 2 3 4 5 NA

Responsiveness of staff 1 2 3 4 5 NA Natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 NA

2. Which of the following best describes the composition of your group? [check only one] Alone Family Friends Family & friends Commercial group (group of people

who paid a fee to participate in this trip)

Organized group (club or other organization)

Other [please specify]_________________________________________________________

4. Which of the following was the most important reason for this visit to the state forest? [Please check only one] _____ I came here because I enjoy being in the forest _____ I came here because it is a good place to spend time with friends/family _____ I came here because it’s a good place to : _____ Hunt _____ Hike _____ Bike _____ Horseback ride _____ Fish (if yes, answer below

questions)

_____ Other reasons for visit (cabin owner, private inholding):


6. Does anyone in your household have a disability? Yes No

6a. [If yes] Please tell us if you believe our facilities are adequate 7. Here is a list of possible reasons why people recreate at outdoor recreation sites. Please tell me how important each of the following benefits is to you when you visit a state forest in Pennsylvania. [one is not at all important and five is extremely important] [ N/A does not apply to this question. Should be able to answer for each] REASON

Not at all Important

Somewhat Important


Very Important

Extremely Important

To be outdoors 1 2 3 4 5 For relaxation 1 2 3 4 5 To get away from the regular routine 1 2 3 4 5 For the challenge or sport 1 2 3 4 5 For family recreation 1 2 3 4 5 For physical exercise 1 2 3 4 5 To be with my friends 1 2 3 4 5 To experience natural surroundings 1 2 3 4 5 To develop my skills 1 2 3 4 5

4a. How many days per year do you go fishing in the Pine Creek Valley_____________ 4b. How many of your fishing days are made to special regulation area in the Pine Creek Valley, such as Delayed Harvest, Catch-and-Release and Trophy Trout Areas? _____ Delayed Harvest _____ Catch-and-Release _____ Trophy Trout Areas

4c. What species of fish do you fish for when visiting this natural area: Trout Smallmouth bass Walleye Other:

4d. What would encourage you to fish more often in this area? More special regulation areas Larger fish, indicate species: More fish, indicate species: Other Fewer or simpler regulations Other:

5. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you feel about access to the forest: [1 poor, 5 very good] By roads 1 2 3 4 5 By trails 1 2 3 4 5


8. If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do? ___________________________________________________________________________________________

9. We are interested in knowing what facilities/services in the state forest are most important to you. Please tell me how important each of the below listed items is to you.


Somewhat Important


Very Important

Extremely Important

No Opinion

Wildlife viewing areas or opportunities

1 2 3 4 5 x

Picnic areas 1 2 3 4 5 x Parking 1 2 3 4 5 x Signs directing me to recreation facilities

1 2 3 4 5 x

Pine Creek Rail Trail 1 2 3 4 5 x Printed interpretive information

1 2 3 4 5 x

Trails 1 2 3 4 5 x Interpretive information 1 2 3 4 5 x

10. Please look at this list of statements that address your feelings about the recreation area that you visited on this trip in the state forest. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the statements listed below.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

This place means a lot to me 1 2 3 4 5 I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit

1 2 3 4 5

I am very attached to this place 1 2 3 4 5 I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places

1

2

3

4

5

11. Have you obtained any information about this area during this trip or in preparation for it? Yes No

[If yes] Please continue with follow-up questions


12. What services in nearby communities (OFF of the forest) do you wish were available? Please list: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 13. This section asks about your satisfaction with your recreation experience at this recreation site or area of the forest. Please rate the following attributes of this recreation site or area of the forest.

Awful

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Not

applicable Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded

1 2 3 4 5 NA

Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors

1 2 3 4 5 NA

Compatibility of recreation activities at the area

1 2 3 4 5 NA

Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees

1 2 3 4 5 NA


1 2 3 4 5 NA

14. Was the state forest your primary destination for this recreation trip? Yes No

[If no] Please list your primary destination for this recreation trip:____________________________________

11a. What type of information did you obtain? State forest map Trail map PA visitors guide Other: 11b. When did you receive information? Before leaving home After arriving here 11c. Where or from whom did you receive information? 11d. Was the information you received helpful to plan your trip? Yes No [If no] what would have made the information more useful?


15. Are you familiar with the PA Wilds designation in North Central Pennsylvania? Yes No

[If yes] What do you think of this designation?

16. Did the PA Wilds program influence your decision to visit the state forest? Yes No

17. Are you planning to visit any other areas in the PA Wilds during your visit? Yes No

[If yes] Please indicate other areas you are planning to visit:

Visitor Use Monitoring of Pennsylvania’s State Forests: Year 1 Report – Sproul and Susquehannock State Forests

by

Alan R. Graefe

Andrew J. Mowen

D. Kyle Olcott

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management The Pennsylvania State University

David A. Graefe Marshall University

and

Donald B. K. English USDA Forest Service



August 1, 2014

Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................3 Organization of this Report ..................................................................................................4 Recreation Use Estimates ....................................................................................................5 Survey Results ...................................................................................................................11 Trip Visitation Patterns ................................................................................................12 Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................................15 Activity Participation ...................................................................................................16 Satisfaction Addition .........................................................................................................18 Satisfaction Ratings .....................................................................................................18 Importance Ratings ......................................................................................................19 Other Visitor Satisfaction Ratings ...............................................................................21 Overall Satisfaction ......................................................................................................21 Crowding Ratings ........................................................................................................22 Economics Addition...........................................................................................................23 Visitor Expenditures ....................................................................................................25 Experience Addition ..........................................................................................................28 Forest Access ...............................................................................................................28 Recreation Experience .................................................................................................29 Place Attachment .........................................................................................................30 Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the State Forest ......................................................32 Visitor Response to Potential Facilities and Services ..................................................33 Information Services ....................................................................................................34 Desired Services in Nearby Communities ...................................................................35 Visitor Response to Questions about Marcellus-Shale Related Activity .....................36 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................40 Appendices .........................................................................................................................43 Appendix A – Visitor Responses to Open-ended Questions ........................................43 Appendix B – Zip Code Analysis of Sproul and Susquehannock Forest Visitors .......74 Appendix C – Survey Instrument .................................................................................83

List of Tables 1 Description of the Sampling Sites ........................................................................... 6 2 Summary of Mechanical and Observational Counts at Sampling Sites .................. 8 3 Recreation Use Estimates for the Sproul and Susquehannock State Forests ........ 10 4 Trip Visitation Patterns in the State Forests .......................................................... 13 5 Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors .......................................... 15 6 Activity Participation of State Forest Visitors ...................................................... 16 7 Satisfaction Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests ........... 18 8 Importance Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests ............ 20 9 Visitor Satisfaction Ratings for Various Forest Attributes ................................... 21 10 Overall Satisfaction of State Forest Visitors ......................................................... 21 11 Summary of Perceived Crowding Ratings ............................................................ 22 12 State Forest Recreation Trip Profile (for economics section) ............................... 24 13 Summary of Trip Spending Patterns of State Forest Visitors ............................... 25 14 Amount Spent for Various Categories of Trip Expenditures ................................ 26 15 Visitor Ratings of Access to the State Forests ...................................................... 28 16 Visitor Ratings for Various Recreation Experience Attributes ............................. 29 17 Most Important Reason for this Visit to the State Forest ...................................... 30 18 Summary of Place Attachment Scale Items .......................................................... 31 19 Summary of Motivations/Reasons for Recreating in the State Forests ................. 32 20 Visitor Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services ............ 33 21 Visitor Responses to Questions about Information Services ................................ 34

22 Responses to Services Visitors Wish Were Available in Nearby Communities... 35

23 Visitor Responses to Questions about Marcellus Shale-Related Activity ............ 36

24 Responses to How Marcellus Shale-related Activity has Changed your Use of the Forest ................................................................................................... 37

25 Responses to Why Marcellus Shale-related Activity has not Changed your Use of the Forest ................................................................................................... 38

26 Responses to How Marcellus Shale-related Activity has Changed your Recreation Experience at the Forest ...................................................................... 39

27 Responses to Why Marcellus Shale-related Activity has not Changed your Recreation Experience at the Forest ...................................................................... 39


Introduction

Resource managers in the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources have identified a need to better understand the recreational visitors who use the State

Forests and State Parks. This need includes understanding visitors’ use patterns as well as their

expectations, spending patterns, desires and satisfaction levels. Relevant questions asked by

managers include:

i) Who are our customers?

• What are the primary customer segments and sub segments?

• What is the profile of each segment and sub segment?

• What are the patterns of use, trip characteristics, purpose of visit, and

demographic characteristics of our visitors?

• What is our market niche?

• What is the average number of vehicles entering/exiting State Forest/Park sites?

• What is the average number of people per vehicle?

ii) What are our customers looking for?

• What are their expectations and satisfaction levels?

• What gaps exist between expectations and satisfaction levels?

• What do they want in terms of information/interpretation, services, and amenities?

• What kind of experience do they desire?

• What are their preferences for facilities?

• How well are we performing in key areas (service, facilities, law enforcement,

information/interpretation, resource protection, and visitor experience)?

• What is an acceptable level of services/maintenance given existing and projected

budget constraints?

• What are the barriers to participation?

iii) What is the economic impact of State Forest/Park visitors?

• How are State Forest/Park visitors impacted by oil and gas drilling operations on

and surrounding State Forests and State Parks?


Purpose

The purpose of this study is to develop a long-term, systematic approach for answering

such questions about Pennsylvania State Forest and State Park visitors. The study will survey

visitors to selected State Forests and Parks over a five year period to measure recreational use

and gather data to provide a profile of recreational visitors. Sampling will be designed to

measure and describe recreation use on two State Forests and six State Parks per year over a

five-year study period. In total, 10 forests and 30 parks will be surveyed during the five-year

duration of the project. After the initial study period, additional surveying may be conducted on

other forests or parks.

This report provides results from the first year of the project. Specifically, surveys were

conducted in the Sproul State Forest (District #10) and the Susquehannock State Forest (District

#15) to measure recreation use and develop a profile of State Forest visitors and their use

patterns. Concurrently, surveys were conducted in six State Parks located adjacent to or near

these two State Forests (Bald Eagle, Kettle Creek, Hyner Run, Lyman Run, Cherry Springs, and

Sinnemahoning). Results from the State Park surveys are presented in a separate report.

This project builds on earlier surveys and will incrementally create a database that can be

used to better understand State Forest and State Park visitors and provide a longitudinal database

for tracking trends in State Forest and State Park use. For example, results can be used to

compare participation patterns and visitor characteristics for different individual forests and

parks. As the database grows, findings can be extrapolated to the entire state systems and will

ultimately represent all State Forests and State Parks within the Commonwealth by the end of the

five-year study.

Objectives 1. To conduct surveys of visitors to selected Pennsylvania State Forest and State Park areas and

develop a visitor profile, including information on the origin of visitors (e.g. local, non-local resident, out of state), trip context and purpose (e.g. day versus overnight visitor, primary purpose versus casual visitor), length of stay in the area, spending patterns, size and type of visiting groups, previous visitation history, activities pursued, and different patterns of visitation across seasons.

2. To measure overall recreation use and specific visitation patterns within the selected State

Forests and State Parks, including the number of visitors per vehicle and the distribution of use across different types of sites within the area.

3. To develop a demographic profile of visitors at the designated State Forests/Parks.


4. To identify visitor expectations and levels of satisfaction with various aspects of their visit. 5. To examine visitor opinions about possible future State Forest and State Park management

and facility development decisions.

6. To examine visitor reactions to oil and gas activities and the impacts of these activities on recreational visitation patterns and experiences.

7. To measure visitor expenditures and levels of economic impact on surrounding communities. Methodology




with the procedures established for the U.S. Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring


found in a report by English et al. (2001), available on the USDA Forest Service website for the

National Visitor Use Monitoring Program.1 A detailed sampling schedule, which identified the

site, day, and time of day for on-site interviewing, was established for each forest in consultation

with Bureau of Forestry personnel. Prior to the survey, meetings were held with the district

forester and key staff in each forest to identify the range of sampling locations for each forest.

The potential survey sites were visited by project personnel to confirm their suitability for the

study and identify an optimal protocol and design of the sampling station for each site. A sample

site inventory was created, with input from each forest’s staff, to categorize the use levels for all

designated sites and days of the year. From this matrix, a detailed random sampling calendar

was developed by Dr. Donald English, manager of the NVUM program for the USDA Forest

Service. The sampling schedule provided for a total of 200 sampling days per forest, allocated

over various sampling strata per forest, and distributed throughout the calendar year.


overall use of the forests, as well as use of selected types of sites and individual areas of



1 English, D. B. K., Kocis, S. M., Zarnoch, S. J., & Arnold,. J. R. 2001. Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum



were measured through traffic counters and observations of vehicles using the area. Both the

visitor count data and visitor survey data will later be used to validate and calibrate visitor use

monitoring methods for future application in the State Forests.


visiting the Sproul and Susquehannock State Forests. The on-site survey took approximately 5-

15 minutes to complete, depending on the version of the instrument that was used in the

interview. Approximately one-third of the visitors were interviewed with the basic

version/experience addition, another third received the basic/satisfaction addition and the

remaining third completed the basic/economics addition.

All of the sampling for this study followed a detailed sampling calendar and took place

between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm, during a morning shift or an afternoon shift. The morning

sampling period ran from 8:00 am to 2:00 pm, while the afternoon sampling period ran from

2:00 pm to 8:00 pm. These times were adjusted to fall within daylight hours during different

seasons of the year.



during the period October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012. The results are organized by

topic area, with different sections corresponding to different versions of the survey. Each section

follows a consistent format, with the results reported separately for each forest. Appendices to

the report include responses to open-ended questions in the survey, a zip code analysis of the

geographic origins of forest visitors, and a copy of the survey instrument used.


5


Following the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) protocols, recreation use of the

State Forests was estimated through a process of obtaining mechanical traffic counts, calibrated

by observation and on-site interviewing, at the sample of recreation sites and days scheduled

throughout the study year. Mechanical traffic counts were obtained for a 24-hour period on the

targeted sample days. Interviewers were on site for a 6-hour period. During that time, they both

visually calibrated the mechanical counter by observing and counting exiting traffic, and

interviewed a random sample of exiting visitors. State Forest sampling sites included all

potential places that recreation users could exit the forests, and were classified by types and use

levels (Table 1). Most of the sampling days were conducted at general forest area (GFA) sites.

Such sites provide access to the forest without concentrating use at the site itself, and include

trailheads, river put-in and take-out points, forest roads, etc. Other sampling categories include

day use developed sites (DUDS) such as picnic areas, scenic overlooks and the like, overnight

use developed sites (OUDS) including camping areas, cabins, resorts, etc., and “special areas.”

The latter category includes designated “natural” and “wild” areas of the state forests, and is

analogous to the designated Wilderness areas within the national forests.

In addition to these categories, field personnel spent six days in each Forest at “View

Corridor” sites. The view corridor sites were located on the higher volume paved roads in each

forest (Routes 120, 872, 44 and 144). The intent of sampling at those sites was to estimate the

volume of scenic driving through the respective State Forests, above and beyond that occurring

on the forest roads already included in the sampling of GFA sites. Since traffic on these state

routes includes all types of vehicles (work and commuting vehicles, etc.) and cannot all be

considered scenic driving in the State Forest, the total traffic counts were adjusted to estimate the

number of vehicles that could be considered participating in sightseeing or scenic driving to any

degree. As for the other types of sites, mechanical traffic counts were obtained after 6 hours and

24 hours. Simultaneously, traffic was observed and counted in hourly intervals and categorized

as regular vehicles and commercial vehicles during the 6-hour field visit. The visual counts were

used to validate the 6-hour mechanical traffic counts. No interviews were conducted at these

sites due to safety concerns related to the higher speed and volume of traffic. The proportion of

scenic driving was estimated using data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring study

conducted in the Allegheny National Forest, and validated with the activity participation data

collected in the current State Forest study.


6


developed day use or overnight use areas, GFA sites accounted for the greatest number of

sampling days and completed interviews across both forests. Sampling of State Forest sites was

also stratified by level of recreational use, including three use levels as estimated by Bureau of

Forestry personnel (Table 1). More specifically, the sampling strata were defined by best

available estimates of the daily volume of exiting recreation traffic at each site, and classified as



Table 1. Description of the Sampling Sites. Sproul Susquehannock Percent of

Sampling Days* Percent of

Interviews* Percent of


Interviews* Site Type General Forest Area (GFA) 42.5 45.4 48.3 61.5 Day Use Developed Site (DUDS) 22.0 23.4 24.4 21.3 Overnight Use Developed Site (OUDS) 21.0 20.4 23.9 17.3 Special Area 11.5 10.7 0 0 View Corridor 3.0 0 3.3 0 Total 100.0 99.9 99.9 100.1 Use Level Stratum High 27.5 22.6 31.7 37.9 Medium 26.0 25.8 27.2 26.5 Low 46.5 51.5 41.1 35.6 Total 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.9

*Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.

Stratification was designed to reduce the overall variance of the visitation estimate, and to

ensure an adequate representation of varying levels of recreation throughout the study year.


medium, and low use periods. Survey results were weighted to the population of days in each

stratum to correctly represent the use distribution across the various types of sites within the

State Forests.

Pneumatic traffic counters were used to measure vehicular use at suitable locations such

as forest roads and parking lots. Field personnel recorded counts at the end of each 6-hour

sampling period and again after 24 hours had elapsed. Comparing the mechanical and

observational counts at the end of the 6-hour period provides a calibration that can be used with

the 24-hour mechanical counts to obtain an estimate of total daily exiting traffic. Survey


7

screening questions were used to determine the proportion of exiting traffic that was completing

a recreation visit, as well as the proportion of recreational visitors compared to other users of

forest sites. Non-recreational forest users included those who were working or commuting to

work, just passing through, or there for some other reason. Additional survey questions were

used to convert vehicle counts to visitor estimates, based on the number of people per vehicle.

The 6-hour mechanical traffic counts ranged from 0 to 864, with a mean of 21.4 vehicles

counted on the Sproul and 25.1 vehicles on the Susquehannock (Table 2). About 10% of these

counts were zero, reflecting no traffic during the 6-hour sampling period. The 24-hour counts

ranged from 0 to 1325, with a mean of 62.4 on the Sproul and 53.6 on the Susquehannock. The

hand tally counts for the 6-hour sampling periods averaged 7.7 and 5.7 on the Sproul and

Susquehannock State Forests, respectively. These counts were naturally lower than the

corresponding mechanical counts because the observational counts included only one-way

(exiting) traffic while the mechanical counters recorded traffic moving in both directions. The 6-

hour counts obtained via the hand tally clickers and mechanical traffic counters showed a high

degree of correlation (.90 on the Sproul and .93 on the Susquehannock), lending additional

validity to the estimates of visitor use levels.


recreational use of the State Forests. Data were extrapolated from the sampled site-day



and 2) the total number of recreational forest visits. Since many visits to the Sproul and

Susquehannock Forests tend to include visits to more than one different site during each visit, the

total site visits are considerably higher than the number of forest visits.


8

Table 2. Summary of Mechanical and Observational Counts at Sampling Sites Sproul Susquehannock Pneumatic Traffic Counter 6-hour Traffic Counts (Percent) 0 10.2 13.1 1 - 2 9.6 14.9 3 - 5 12.8 14.3 6 - 9 19.3 12.6 10 - 30 32.1 33.1 31 or more 16.0 12.0 Total 11.0 100.0 Mean 25.1 21.4 24-hour Traffic Counts (Percent) 0 1.3 2.6 1 - 5 6.3 13.6 6 - 10 6.4 9.1 11 - 25 25.5 29.2 26 - 40 19.7 11.7 41 - 60 14.0 13.0 61 or more 26.8 20.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 62.4 53.6 6-hour Hand Clicker Counts (Percent) 0 14.9 18.4 1 – 2 24.7 20.7 3 – 5 19.6 25.3 6 – 10 21.1 20.1 11 or more 19.6 15.5 Total 99.9 100.0 Mean 7.7 5.7

*Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.

A State Forest recreation visit is defined as “one person entering and exiting a State

Forest for the purpose of recreation” (English et al., 2001). A single visitor may participate in

any number of activities and visit any number of sites within a single visit. Also, a single visit

can last multiple days or might be one person or group visiting a single site on a day trip for any

amount of time. Site and forest recreation visits were estimated using the following process and

data shown in Table 3. First, 24-hour traffic counts were used to measure the number of vehicles

leaving the forest on any given day (Table 3, column 1). The vehicle counts within each stratum

were multiplied by the percentage of exiting traffic whose purpose for visiting the forest was for

recreation (column 2). To avoid double counting visitors who may be traveling to and from a

site within the day, the next step was to multiply the number of vehicles on recreation trips by


9

the percentage of visitors reporting they were leaving the site for the last time that day (column

3). To convert the units from vehicles to people, the next step was to multiply by the average

number of people per vehicle for each site-use stratum (column 4), resulting in an estimate of

total daily recreation visits for each site-use category (column 5). One additional variable was

used to estimate the number of State Forest visits for each strata: the number of sites visited

within the forest during the current visit (column 6).

To convert daily recreation use measures to total forest use for the entire calendar year,

the average daily use estimates were extrapolated to the population of site days (or total number

of days at all sites for each site type and use level) in the year. The results shown in column 7 of

Table 3 represent the total yearly recreation site visits for all sites in each site type-level

category. Finally, the number of site recreation visits was adjusted by the number of sites visited

by each respondent, resulting in the estimated number of forest visits (column 8).

The Sproul State Forest received an estimated 173,173 recreational visits during the study

year (October 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012). These forest visits included a total of 255,601

individual site visits, or about 1.5 site visits for each State Forest visit. The Susquehannock State

Forest received an estimated 64,744 recreational visits and 101,637 individual forest site visits

during the same period (about 1.6 site visits per forest visit). The lower estimates of recreation

use on the Susquehannock are based mainly on the smaller number of sites located on that forest.

For example, there were no “Special Areas” (designated Wild or Natural Areas) included in the

Susquehannock State Forest sampling (eliminating one category of recreation use) and there are

fewer day use developed sites in the Susquehannock State Forest compared to the areas available

in the Sproul State Forest.

In addition to these recreation visits to the State Forests, the number of scenic driving

visits was also estimated via the sampling procedure described above for the “View Corridor”

locations. From the observational counts conducted, the number of vehicles per day ranged from

392 to 879 total vehicles, and the proportion of non-commercial traffic ranged from 81% to 84%

for the different highways in these Forests. From these traffic counts and data from the visitor

surveys on activity participation and number of people per vehicle, the total number of

“viewing” or “sightseeing” visits was estimated to be 654,951 visits for the Sproul State Forest

and 653,711 visits for the Susquehannock State Forest.


10

Table 3. Recreation Use Estimates for the Sproul and Susquehannock State Forests

Sproul State Forest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Type and Use Strata

1-way Traffic Count

% Recreation

Visits

% Leaving for Last

Time

People per

Vehicle

Recreation Visits per

day

Number of Sites Visited

Total Site

Visits

Total Forest Visits

GFA–High 19.98 0.60 0.59 2.48 17.57 1.43 33,015 23,010 GFA-Medium 16.91 0.30 0.69 2.30 8.03 1.76 17,094 9,726 GFA–Low 25.60 0.17 0.60 2.00 5.30 1.45 83,497 57,489 DUDS–High 23.50 0.43 0.81 2.85 23.63 1.73 6,050 3,502 DUDS-Medium 37.09 0.40 0.84 2.45 30.34 1.36 18,995 13,930 DUDS–Low 11.79 0.56 0.61 2.15 8.64 1.29 30,330 23,590 OUDS–High 28.25 0.45 0.54 2.46 16.87 1.27 726 572 OUDS-Medium 20.78 0.26 0.85 2.00 9.14 1.23 1,106 898 OUDS–Low 19.70 0.44 0.58 2.22 11.22 1.47 6,372 4,328 Special–Low* 31.74 0.48 0.89 1.96 26.60 1.62 58,418 36,127 Forest Total 255,601 173,173

Susquehannock State Forest

GFA–High 31.98 0.49 0.43 2.33 15.84 1.65 9,297 5,630 GFA-Medium 15.80 0.39 0.42 2.06 5.42 1.59 3,683 2,311 GFA–Low 13.62 0.45 0.70 2.00 8.61 1.61 64,733 40,280 DUDS–High 5.50 0.68 0.67 2.29 5.69 1.36 938 691 DUDS-Medium 24.75 0.55 0.80 2.32 25.26 1.23 10,940 8,888 DUDS–Low 12.47 0.40 0.41 2.13 4.31 1.62 3,733 2,308 OUDS–High 13.47 0.60 0.93 2.84 21.55 1.20 1,034 862 OUDS-Medium 11.05 0.63 0.71 3.41 16.75 1.50 1,809 1,206 OUDS–Low 15.44 0.50 0.60 2.05 9.50 2.11 5,469 2,598 Forest Total 101,637 64,774

*All special areas in the Sproul were considered low use areas; thus there are no measures for medium and high use special areas. No special areas were included in the Susquehannock State Forest as this forest contains only one informal area (Hammersley Wild Area).


11

Survey Results

Overall, the survey sampled a total of 1,595 State Forest visitors. Among these, 1,395

people were willing to participate in the interview, resulting in a response rate of 85%. Of the

unwilling visitors, 61 (3.8%) were people who had already completed the survey and were thus

screened out. Thus the overall response rate reflecting those willing to complete the survey was

89%.

One of the initial screening questions in the survey asked the visitors, “What is the

primary purpose of your visit to this site?” Responses included: recreation, working or

commuting to work, just stopping to use the bathroom, just passing through/going somewhere

else, and some other reason. Among these forest visitors, about half (48.9%) stated they were

visiting the forest for recreation. Only these respondents who were visiting the forest for

recreation were included in the descriptions of visitors in this report. Most of the remaining

individuals in the sample were working or commuting to work (37.9%), just passing through

(6.0%), stopping to use the bathroom (2.3%) or there for some other reason (< 2%). Other

reasons mentioned by respondents included cabin maintenance, cutting or purchasing wood, just

turning around or making a wrong turn, scouting for hunting, and working with special events

such as a road rally.


12

Trip Visitation Patterns on the State Forests

Most of the visitors contacted (85% in the Sproul and 93% in the Susquehannock) were

repeat visitors to the State Forest.

Among those who were repeat visitors, about half had made their first visits to the Forests prior to 1980. Another one-quarter made their first visit during the 1980s or 1990s. The remaining one-quarter were relatively new visitors, reporting their first visit between 2000 and 2012.

About half of the visitors contacted in each Forest indicated that they typically make between 0 and 5 visits to the State Forest per year. The average number of reported trips to the forest per year was about 31 for the Sproul and 15 for the Susquehannock.

Likewise, nearly half of the visitors contacted indicated that they typically make between 0 and 5 visits to other forest areas each year (these could include other state forests or any other public or private forests the respondent visited). The average number of trips to other forests areas per year was about 21 and 23, respectively for the Sproul and Susquehannock State Forests.

The majority of Sproul visitors (60%) were day users, while the majority of Susquehannock visitors (63%) were overnight users who had spent the previous night in the State Forest.

Of those respondents who were overnight visitors, the average length of stay was 3.4 nights in the Sproul and 4.5 nights in the Susquehannock.

About two-thirds of visitors in both forests indicated that they used no day use facilities during their visit, while the remaining visitors used one or more day use facilities on this trip.

About three-fourths of the respondents (72% in the Sproul and 74% in the Susquehannock) had just one or two people in their vehicle on this trip. The average number of persons per vehicle in both forests was 2.3.

Less than one-fourth (21-24%) of the respondents in both forests reported that they had at least one child under the age of 16 with them.

About one-third of the visitors contacted came to the Forest in family groups, with smaller proportions coming in groups of friends (22-24%) and groups containing family and friends (21-25%).

Less than one-fifth (16-18%) of the visitors came to the Forest alone.


13


Valid Percent* Sproul Susquehannock Previous Visitation History First Time Visitor 15.0 6.7 Repeat Visitor 85.0 93.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Year of First Visit Prior to 1980 50.6 52.6 1980-1989 15.3 9.3 1990-1999 12.9 12.3 2000-2012 21.2 25.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Visits to This State Forest in Typical Year 0-5 50.9 51.6 6-10 11.7 19.3 11-20 12.5 13.2 21-50 12.5 12.5 More than 50 13.5 3.4 Total 100.1 100.0 Mean 30.8 15.1 Number of Visits to Other Forests in Typical Year 0-5 45.2 43.8 6-10 20.3 23.6 11-20 13.1 11.3 21-50 14.3 12.3 More than 50 7.1 9.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 21.1 23.1 Length of Stay Overnight Visitor 39.8 62.8 Day User 60.2 37.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Nights Spent (Overnight Visitors) 1 19.6 11.5 2 33.0 26.4 3-5 39.1 41.2 6 or more 8.3 20.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 3.4 4.5 Number of Day Use Facilities Used During This Trip 0 65.5 69.4 1 22.8 21.6 2 11.7 9.0 Total 100.0 100.0


14

Number of People in Vehicle 1-2 72.1 74.4 3-4 19.9 18.2 5 or more 7.9 7.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 2.3 2.3 Number of People Less than 16 Years Old in Vehicle 0 82.4 82.2 1 8.8 10.3 2 3.5 5.0 3 or more 5.3 2.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Type of Group alone 17.8 16.2 family 38.6 32.4 friends 21.8 23.8 family and friends 20.8 24.8 other 1.0 2.9 Total 100.0 100.1 *Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.


Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors Over four-fifths (86-87%) of the respondents in both State Forests were males.

Almost one-third of the visitors surveyed in the State Forests were between the ages of 36-50, while another one-third were between 51 and 64.

The average age of visitors was 50 in the Sproul and 52 in the Susquehannock State Forest.

Almost all of the State Forest visitors surveyed reported their race/ethnicity as White/Caucasian.

Other ethnicities reported by visitors included Asian, African-American, and American Indian/Alaskan Native.

More than one-tenth of the visiting groups (14% in each Forest) included a person with a disability in their household.

Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors Valid Percent Sproul Susquehannock Gender Male 87.0 86.3 Female 13.0 13.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Age 18 to 35 17.0 14.0 36 to 50 31.1 29.8 51 to 64 32.8 37.2 65 or older 19.1 19.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 50.3 52.2 Ethnicity Caucasian 98.0 99.1 Other 2.0 0.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Income Under $25,000 13.7 9.1 $25,000-$49,999 25.9 23.6 $50,000-$74,999 29.5 30.4 $75,000-$99,999 16.9 16.7 $100,000-$149,999 7.6 14.1 $150,000 or over 6.5 6.2 Total 100.1 100.1 Does anyone in your household have a disability? Yes 13.7 14.4 No 86.3 85.6 Total 100.0 100.0


Activity Participation The basic survey administered to all visitors included a detailed list of recreational



The first column for each forest (activity participation) shows the range in numbers of visitors

participating in the various activities, while the primary activity column reflects what the visitors

considered their most important purpose for visiting the forest on this trip.

Table 6. Activity Participation of State Forest Visitors (during this recreation visit)

Sproul Susquehannock

Consumptive Activities Activity

Participation* Primary Activity+

Activity Participation*

Primary Activity+

Fishing—all types 18.6 15.9 15.6 4.5 Hunting—all types 22.7 17.7 35.6 29.9

Viewing, Learning about Nature & Culture Viewing natural features such as scenery, wildlife, birds, flowers, fish, etc. 60.5 11.6 54.7 7.1 Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/areas 9.0 0.6 8.1 0 Nature study 7.8 0 6.3 0.3 Visiting a nature center, nature trail, or visitor center 5.2 0.3 6.9 0

Nonmotorized Activities Hiking or walking 38.4 4.6 42.8 3.6 Horseback riding 0.6 0.3 3.8 2.9 Bicycling, including mountain bikes 2.3 0.3 3.8 1.0 Nonmotorized water travel (canoeing, sailing, kayaking, rafting, etc.) 2.0 0.6 1.9 0 Downhill skiing or snowboarding 0.3 0 0 0 Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 0.3 0 2.2 1.3 Other nonmotorized activities (e.g. swimming, games & sports) 2.9 0.9 1.3 0

Motorized Activities Driving for pleasure on roads 48.1 16.8 40.0 9.4 Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas (non-snow) 11.3 8.3 20.3 17.5 Snowmobile travel 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.6 Motorized water travel (boats, etc.) 0 0 0 0 Other motorized activities (endure events, games, etc.) 1.2 0.3 1.9 1.3

Camping or Other Overnight Camping in developed sites (family or group sites) 10.4 2.8 9.7 2.3 Primitive camping (motorized) 1.4 0.3 0.6 0 Backpacking or camping in unroaded areas 2.9 1.5 1.9 1.6 Resorts, cabins, or other accommodations on State managed lands 9.3 2.4 15.6 4.5

Other Activities Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products 5.8 0.9 9.1 1.0

Relaxing, hanging out, escaping heat, noise, etc. 37.4 4.6 38.8 4.9 Picnicking and family gatherings in developed sites (family or group sites) 7.8 2.1 11.3 1.6

Other 9.3 6.7 7.8 4.5 *Percentages do not equal 100% because respondents could report more than one activity. +Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding.


Many forest visits included various viewing and sightseeing activities, but relatively few

people reported such activities as their primary recreation activity on the State Forests.

o About 12% of Sproul State Forest visitors reported viewing natural features, such as scenery, as their primary activity, while about 17% chose driving for pleasure as their primary activity.

o These activities were a little less common on the Susquehannock State Forest, with about 7% of those visitors reporting viewing natural features, such as scenery, as their primary activity and about 9% choosing driving for pleasure as their primary activity.

About one-third of the State Forest visitors sampled reported consumptive activities (fishing and hunting) as their primary activity at the Forest.

o Fishing was more common as a primary activity on the Sproul (16%) than on the Susquehannock State Forest (5%).

o Hunting was more common as a primary activity on the Susquehannock (30%) than on the Sproul (18%).

Many of the sampled visitors did some hiking or walking during their visit (38-43%), but relatively few reported hiking or walking as their primary activity.

Less than one-tenth of forest visitors surveyed reported some type of camping as their primary activity.

About one-quarter of the respondents in both forests reported motorized pursuits as their primary activity.

o Driving for pleasure was a more common primary activity on the Sproul (17%) than on the Susquehannock State Forest (9%).

o ATV riding in designated areas was more common as a primary activity on the Susquehannock (18%) than on the Sproul (8%).


Satisfaction Addition This section of the survey asked forest users about the importance they attached to, and

their satisfaction with, thirteen customer service attributes in the State Forest they visited.


that they did not experience during their visit. Additional satisfaction-related questions were also

asked in the basic survey administered to all visitors and in the experience addition. Responses

to those questions are also included in this section.

Satisfaction Ratings The State Forests were generally rated highly on each of the thirteen satisfaction attributes,

with over 50% of the scores in the “very good” or “good” categories.

State Forest visitors were most satisfied with the feeling of safety and the scenery and attractiveness of the forest landscape (>90% good/very good).

The only attributes receiving “poor” or “fair” ratings by more than 10% of visitors were the availability of information on recreation (11% poor or fair in the Sproul) and the adequacy of signage (10% poor/fair in the Sproul and 13% in the Susquehannock).

The items that received the most not applicable (N/A) responses included helpfulness of employees and cleanliness of restrooms (over 50% N/A). Generally these responses reflect the fact that the visitors did not encounter staff or latrines during their visits.


Sproul State Forest Poor Fair Average Good Very Good

Not Applicable Meana

Feeling of safety .9 3.4 1.7 30.8 63.2 .9 4.55

Scenery 0 0 6.8 34.2 59.0 0 4.52

Attractiveness of the forest landscape .9 1.7 7.7 24.8 65.0 0 4.51

Helpfulness of employees 1.7 0 2.6 13.7 24.5 57.3 4.40

Condition of the natural environment 2.6 2.6 6.0 32.5 53.8 2.6 4.36

Condition of developed recreation facilities 0 1.7 8.5 23.9 29.9 35.9 4.28


Parking lot condition 1.7 .9 8.5 35.9 34.2 18.8 4.23







Susquehannock State Forest Poor Fair Average Good Very Good


Scenery 0.9 0 5.7 17.0 75.0 0.9 4.68

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 0 0 6.6 21.7 69.8 1.9 4.64

Feeling of safety 0.9 0.9 6.6 20.8 68.9 1.9 4.59



Cleanliness of restrooms 1.0 0 2.9 11.4 22.9 61.9 4.45

Condition of the natural environment 0.9 1.9 6.6 31.1 55.7 3.8 4.44

Availability of parking 0 1.9 12.3 22.6 50.9 12.3 4.40

Parking lot condition 0 1.9 13.2 21.7 34.9 28.3 4.25





aResponse Code: 1 = "Poor" through 5 = "Very good”

Importance Ratings Importance ratings for the customer service attributes generally followed the same pattern as

the satisfaction ratings across the attributes.

The condition of the natural environment (mean = 4.7 in both Forests), attractiveness of the forest landscape (mean = 4.7 in both Forests) and scenery (mean = 4.5 in both Forests) were the most important attributes to the State Forest visitors.

The least important items included parking lot condition and availability (mean = 3.6-3.7 in both Forests).



aResponse Code: 1 = Least Important through 5 = Most Important

Sproul State Forest 1 2 3 4 5 Meana

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 1.0 0 3.9 22.3 72.8 4.66

Condition of the natural environment 1.0 0 2.0 26.0 71.0 4.66

Scenery 1.0 0 13.3 21.9 63.8 4.48

Feeling of safety 5.0 0 14.9 26.7 53.5 4.24



Condition of Forest trails 3.8 2.6 17.9 26.9 48.7 4.14

Helpfulness of employees 7.1 1.4 12.9 30.0 48.6 4.11

Availability of information on recreation 6.7 2.2 14.6 29.2 47.2 4.08

Cleanliness of restrooms 10.6 1.5 12.1 33.3 42.4 3.95




Susquehannock State Forest 1 2 3 4 5 Meana

Condition of the natural environment 0 1.0 3.0 17.0 79.0 4.74

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 0 3.0 4.0 11.9 81.2 4.71

Scenery 1.0 2.9 5.9 20.6 69.6 4.55

Feeling of safety 4.0 2.0 8.9 14.9 70.3 4.46












Respondents for the Experience Addition were asked some additional questions about how they would rate the quality of various aspects of the State Forest.


Table 9. Visitor Satisfaction Ratings for Various Forest Attributes (Percent) Awful Fair Good Very Good Excellent N/A Meana Sproul State Forest Safety and security 0 5.0 10.9 23.8 55.4 5.0 4.4 Natural environment 3.0 5.0 10.9 22.8 57.4 1.0 4.3 Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities

2.0 5.9 5.0 17.8 24.8 44.6 4.0

Responsiveness of staff 4.0 2.0 5.1 10.1 21.2 57.6 4.0 Sanitation and cleanliness 2.0 11.0 12.0 27.0 43.0 5.0 4.0 Susquehannock State Forest Natural environment 1.0 1.9 3.8 21.9 69.5 1.9 4.6 Sanitation and cleanliness 0 2.9 14.3 23.8 52.4 6.7 4.4 Safety and security 0 3.8 10.5 25.7 55.2 4.8 4.4 Responsiveness of staff 1.0 1.0 6.7 16.2 36.2 39.0 4.4 Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities

0 3.8 9.5 25.7 26.7 34.3 4.1

a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent) Overall Satisfaction Overall satisfaction scores tended to be high, with over two-thirds of the respondents in both

Forests reporting that they were “very satisfied” with their visit to the State Forest.

Table 10. Overall Satisfaction of State Forest Visitors Valid Percent Sproul Susquehannock Very Dissatisfied 3.8 2.5 Somewhat Dissatisfied 4.4 2.2 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied 6.1 4.7 Somewhat Satisfied 19.3 17.5 Very Satisfied 66.4 73.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Meana 4.4 4.6 a Response code: 1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied”


Crowding Ratings Crowding scores tended to be relatively low, with over 60% of the respondents choosing 1 or

2, reflecting that they encountered “hardly anyone” during their visit.

About one-fifth of the respondents in each Forest chose a 3 or 4, indicating that they felt slightly crowded during this trip.


The average crowding score on the 10-point crowding scale was 2.7 among both Sproul and Susquehannock Forest visitors.

Table 11. Summary of Perceived Crowding Ratings (Valid Percent). Perception of Crowdinga 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sproul 40.4 21.1 14.9 3.5 10.5 3.5 0.9 2.6 1.8 0.9

Susquehannock 32.7 28.8 11.5 10.6 8.7 2.9 1.9 1.9 0 1.0

a Response code: 1 = “hardly anyone” to 10 = “overcrowded”


Economics Addition




evaluation of the reported trip expenditures.

When asked what they would have done if, for some reason, they had been unable to go to the State Forest on this visit, the most common response (40% in the Sproul and 46% in the Susquehannock) was that they would have gone somewhere else to pursue the same activity.

About one-third of the visitors in each forest said they would have stayed home.

About one-tenth of the visitors reported they would have come back another time.

Very few of the visitors would have gone elsewhere for a different activity.

Overnight visitors were mostly on trips of 3-5 days (53% in both forests).

Day visitors were more evenly divided in being away from their home for 1-2 hours (9-19%), 3-5 hours (36-41%), and more than 5 hours (40-55%).

About four-fifths of the respondents surveyed (78% in the Sproul and 86% in the Susquehannock) were visiting only the State Forest on this particular trip.

Nearly all of the visitors who reported multiple destinations for their trip indicated that the State Forest was their primary destination.

When queried about how many people their reported expenditures were covering, the most typical response (42% for Sproul and 33% for Susquehannock) was just one person (themself).

Almost one-third of the visitors (29% in the Sproul and 31% in the Susquehannock) reported expenditures covering 2 group members. The remaining visitors (30% in the Sproul and 36% in the Susquehannock) were paying expenses for 3 or more people.

Besides the detailed spending questions about various spending categories, visitors were asked to estimate how much money everyone in their vehicle spent on the entire trip, from the time they left home until they return home. Sproul State Forest visitors reported spending considerably less on average ($81.09 per group) than Susquehannock State Forest visitors ($209.31). These total trip spending estimates are close to the sum of the individual category spending reported in the following section.


Table 12. State Forest Recreation Trip Profile (for economics section) Valid Percent Sproul Susquehannock What Visitor Would have done if Unable to Visit SF Gone elsewhere for same activity 46.3 40.4 Gone elsewhere for different activity 6.5 5.5 Come back another time 8.9 10.1 Stayed home 32.5 32.1 Gone to work at your regular job 3.3 10.1 None of these 2.4 1.8 Total 99.9 100.0 Time Away from Home (Days) 1-2 30.3 21.2 3-5 53.1 53.0 6 or more 16.7 25.9 Total 100.1 99.0 Time Away from Home (Hours) 1-2 19.0 9.1 3-5 41.2 36.3 6 or more 39.7 54.5 Total 99.9 99.9 Single or Multiple Destination Trip Visited State Forest only 77.7 86.1 Visited other places 22.3 13.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Was State Forest Primary Destination for Trip Yes 79.0 90.7 No 21.0 9.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of People Covered by Expenses 1 41.7 33.3 2 28.6 31.2 3 15.5 11.8 4 or more 14.3 23.7 Total 100.1 100.0 Estimated Total Trip Expenses for Group $25 or less 23.8 7.5 $26-$50 22.6 7.6 $51-$100 21.5 22.5 $101-$200 17.8 31.2 More than $200 14.3 31.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean $81.09 $209.31


Visitor Expenditures

In the economics addition, visitors were asked how much they spent on this trip for ten

categories of expenditures within 50 miles of the site visited (Table 13). The results shown

below provide the proportion of visitors reporting spending any money on their trip within 50

miles of the forest, the percentage reporting expenditures in each category, and the average

amount spent in each category.

Most of the respondents (70% in the Sproul and 85% in the Susquehannock) indicated that they did spend some money within 50 miles of the forest on their current trip.

Many respondents, however, indicated that they spent no money on many of the specific expenditure categories listed on the survey.

Few visitors in either Forest reported any spending for “local transportation” and outdoor recreation and outfitter-related expenses (including guide fees and equipment rental).



Proportion of visitors spending any money within 50 miles of this state forest

70.0% 85.1%

Economic Expenditure Items Proportion of Visitors Spending Something in Each Category (percent)

Motel, Lodge, Cabin, B&B, etc. 8.3 15.6

Camping Fees 1.7 1.8

Restaurants & Bars 35.0 53.2

Groceries 26.7 49.5

Gasoline and oil 52.5 64.2

Local Transportation (bus, shuttles, etc.) 0 0

Outfitter Related Expenses (guide fees & equipment rentals) 6.8 0

Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment (park fees, movies, mini-golf, etc.)

0 0.9

Sporting Goods 5.8 10.1

Souvenirs, Clothing, Other Misc. 4.2 11.9


Susquehannock Forest visitors were more likely than their counterparts in the Sproul to report expenses in several categories, including restaurants and bars, groceries, and accommodations.

The majority of visitors in both Forests (53% in the Sproul and 64% in the Susquehannock) reported buying gas or oil during their trip.

Table 14. Amount Spent by State Forest Visitors for Various Categories of Trip Expenditures

Economic Expenditure Items


Average Amount Spent - Among

Visitors Spending Something in

Each Category

Average Amount Spent – All

Visitors



Each Category


Visitors

Motel, Lodge, Cabin, B&B, etc. $106.50 $8.88 $272.35 $42.48

Camping Fees $71.50 $1.19 $49.50 $0.91

Restaurants & Bars $54.38 $19.03 $80.91 $41.86

Groceries $47.13 $12.57 $84.28 $41.06

Gasoline and oil $49.94 $26.22 $106.27 $67.46

Local Transportation (bus, shuttles, etc.) 0 0 0 0

Outfitter Related Expenses (guide fees & equipment rentals) $250.00 $2.08 0 0


0 0 $20.00 0.18

Sporting Goods $154.29 $9.00 $98.55 $8.75

Souvenirs, Clothing, Other Misc. $37.00 $1.54 $46.69 $4.10

Total NA $80.51 NA $206.81

The first column for each Forest in Table 14 shows the average amount spent among only those visitors reporting spending something in each category. These numbers cannot be totaled because they are based on a vary number of individuals making the various types of purchases.

The second column for each Forest in Table 14 shows the average amount spent among all visitors in the survey. These averages include those spending nothing in various categories, and therefore can be totaled to indicate the average total amount spent for all categories.


For example, camping fees were paid by only about 2% of the visitors in each Forest, but the average amounts spent for these fees were $71.50 and $49.50 for Sproul and Susquehannock Forest visitors, respectively.

In general Susquehannock State Forest visitors spent considerably more across all spending categories than Sproul State Forest visitors.


Experience Addition








Forest Access

Most respondents in both Forests indicated favorable ratings for access to the State Forests by both roads and trails (mean of 4.0 – 4.2).

There were no significant differences in the accessibility ratings between the two State Forests.

Table 15. Visitor Ratings of Access to the State Forests (Percent) 1 2 3 4 5 Meana Sproul State Forest By roads 1.0 6.9 10.9 32.7 48.5 4.2 By trails 2.5 1.2 22.2 38.3 35.8 4.0 Susquehannock State Forest By roads 3.8 0 6.7 30.5 59.0 4.4 By trails 1.0 6.3 18.8 28.1 45.8 4.1 a Response scale = 1 (poor) to 5 (very good)



Most respondents also indicated favorable ratings (mean of 4.1 or above) for all of the recreation experience items rated.

Table 16. Visitor Ratings for Various Recreation Experience Attributes (Percent) Awful Fair Good Very Good Excellent N/A Mean a Sproul State Forest Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 0 6.1 14.1 19.2 59.6 1.0 4.3

Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 1.0 9.1 12.1 15.2 62.6 0 4.3

Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 0 6.1 18.2 16.2 40.4 19.2 4.1

Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 2.0 5.1 8.2 9.2 27.6 48.0 4.1


3.1 5.1 11.2 21.4 34.7 24.5 4.1


Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 0 2.9 5.7 24.8 66.7 0 4.6 Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 0 1.9 9.5 27.6 61.0 0 4.5 Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 1.0 0 4.8 19.0 40.0 7.6 4.3 Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 1.0 0 9.5 28.6 54.3 35.2 4.5 Helpfulness/courteousness of people in surrounding communities

0 1.9 12.4 33.3 44.8 6.7 4.5



Place Attachment



Sproul State Forest visitors were more likely to report “enjoy being in the forest” as their primary reason for visiting the forest, while Susquehannock State Forest visitors were more likely to focus on their chosen activities, (especially hunting, ATV riding, and horseback riding).

About one-fifth of the visitors (18% in both forests) went there primarily because it’s “a good place to spend time with friends/family.”

Those who selected an “other reason” were also asked to describe that reason. Typical responses included other activities or combinations of activities such as observing nature, photography, skiing, and swimming.

Table 17. Which of the following was the most important reason for this visit to the State Forest? Valid Percent Sproul Susquehannock




Hunt 22.8 29.5

Hike 3.0 1.0

Bike 0 1.0

Fish 7.9 2.9

Horseback ride 0 3.8

ATV ride 1.0 7.6



Visitors also responded to a set of statements designed to measure the extent of place

attachment to the State Forest.

The vast majority of respondents (87-94%) agreed that the State Forest they visited “means a

lot to them,” with over half strongly agreeing.

Most visitors also reported that they enjoy recreating in the State Forest more than at other places, and get more satisfaction out of visiting the State Forest than from visiting other places.


Place Attachment Items Strongly disagree Disagree



Meana

Sproul State Forest

This place means a lot to me 0 1.0 12.0 28.0 59.0 4.5


1.0 4.0 24.2 31.3 39.4 4.0

I am very attached to this place 6.0 8.0 23.0 23.0 40.0 3.8

I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places 5.0 7.0 28.0 28.0 32.0 3.8


This place means a lot to me 0 0 5.7 22.9 71.4 4.7


0 2.9 15.2 28.6 53.3 4.3





Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the State Forest Visitors’ most important motivations (reasons for visiting) the State Forest were to be

outdoors and to experience natural surroundings.

Visitors also attached great importance to the opportunity to relax and get away from their regular routine.

Moderately important motives for visiting the forest included the social motives of family recreation (mean = 4.0 - 4.1) and being with friends (mean = 4.1 for both Forests).

Visitors were more evenly divided on the importance of getting physical exercise (mean = 3.6 - 3.7), seeking challenge or sport (mean = 3.7) and developing their skills (mean = 3.2 - 3.5).

Table 19. Summary of Motivations/Reasons for Recreating in the State Forests (Percent)

Reasons for Visiting Not at all important

Somewhat important


Very important

Extremely important

Meana

Sproul State Forest To be outdoors 0 0 3.0 33.3 63.6 4.6 To experience natural surroundings

0 1.0 7.0 27.0 65.0 4.6

For relaxation 0 1.0 7.1 30.3 61.6 4.5 To get away from the regular routine

0 3.0 9.0 23.0 65.0 4.5

To be with my friends 2.0 7.1 17.2 24.2 49.5 4.1 For family recreation 10.3 5.2 9.3 29.9 45.4 4.0 For the challenge or sport 8.1 9.1 21.2 26.3 35.4 3.7 For physical exercise 8.1 15.2 24.2 19.2 33.3 3.6 To develop my skills 18.2 10.1 28.3 22.2 21.2 3.2 Susquehannock State Forest

To be outdoors 0 1.9 4.9 35.9 57.3 4.5 To experience natural surroundings

0 2.9 4.9 31.1 61.2 4.5


1.0 4.9 3.9 32.0 58.3 4.4

For family recreation 6.8 3.9 5.8 38.8 44.7 4.1 To be with my friends 8.7 1.9 8.7 35.0 45.6 4.1 For the challenge or sport 8.7 8.7 17.3 32.7 32.7 3.7 For physical exercise 6.8 6.8 23.3 36.9 26.2 3.7 To develop my skills 10.7 13.6 21.4 25.2 29.1 3.5 a Response Code: 1="Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important”




important to them.

The respondents in both Forests attached the most importance to wildlife viewing areas or opportunities (mean = 3.9).

Visitors also attached relatively high importance to signs directing them to recreation facilities (mean = 3.4 – 3.6) and printed interpretive information (mean = 3.4 – 3.6).

Visitors’ interest in various types of trails tended to reflect their activity interests. For example, although many visitors showed little or no interest in ATV or snowmobile trails, those types of trails were very important to motorized visitors.




Very Important

Extremely Important

Meana

Sproul State Forest


Parking 12.2 13.3 21.4 27.6 25.5 3.4


Hike, bike & horse (non-motorized) Trails 18.9 9.5 18.9 22.1 30.5 3.4

Printed Interpretive Information 14.3 17.3 16.3 17.3 34.7 3.4

Picnic areas 19.6 10.3 27.8 25.8 16.5 3.1

ATV Trails 47.4 14.7 10.5 8.4 18.9 2.4

Snowmobile Trails 52.1 11.7 8.5 9.6 18.1 2.3





Parking 14.7 9.8 19.6 29.4 26.5 3.4



Picnic areas 18.3 19.2 23.1 26.0 13.5 3.0

ATV Trails 41.3 3.8 12.5 11.5 30.8 2.9


a Response Code: 1="Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important”

Information Services State Forest visitors were asked a series of questions about their use of various types of

forest information.

About one-fifth of the visitors surveyed reported that they had obtained information about the area they visited during or in preparation for their trip.

Nearly equal proportions of visitors sought the different types of information listed in the survey (maps, visitor guides, other information).

The majority of Sproul visitors (61%) obtained information before leaving home, while the majority in the Susquehannock (52%) obtained information after arriving at the Forest.

“Other” types of information sought by visitors included information from the web, information on trail availability or conditions, and information on geocaching.

Most of the visitors who sought information reported that the information obtained was helpful in planning their trips.

Table 21. Visitor Responses to Questions about Information Services Valid Percent Sproul Susquehannock Did you obtain any information about this area during this trip or in preparation for it?

No 81.8 80.0 Yes 18.2 20.0 What type of information did you obtain? State Forest map 16.7 38.1 Trail map 27.8 61.9 PA visitors guide 16.7 14.3 Other 55.6 28.6 When did you receive information? Before leaving home 61.1 47.6 After arriving here 38.9 52.4 Was the information you received helpful to plan your trip?

Yes 72.2 95.2 No 27.8 4.8


Desired Services in Nearby Communities State Forest visitors were asked what services in nearby communities (off of the forest)

they wished were available. A small minority of respondents (34 in the Sproul and 37 in the

Susquehannock) offered suggestions, which are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22. Visitor responses to other services they wish were available in nearby communities (off of the forest). Number of Responses Sproul Susquehannock Services Cell phone service/tower 8 7 Gas stations 6 5 Bathrooms 2 Fresh water 1 Forestry building 1 Shopping opportunities More stores/General shopping 1 2 Convenience store 2 1 Grocery stores/Better food shopping 2 5 Hardware/building supply store 1 1 Sporting goods/ camping supplies store 1 3 Beer distributor 1 Liquor store 1 Wal-Mart 1 1 Restaurants General restaurants 3 6 Better restaurants 1 2 More restaurants 2 Bars 3 Family restaurant, not a bar 1 Taco Bell 1 Lodging More options for lodging 1 Hotels 1 Lodge with hot tub 1 Recreation General recreation opportunities 1 Horseback riding 1 Recreational boating 1 1 Ski resort 1 Service chopper rides 1 Trail maps and information on recreation 1 Guide services 1 ATV and snowmobile rentals 1


Visitor Responses to Questions about Marcellus Shale-Related Activity

Forest visitors were asked several questions about how Marcellus shale-related activity

had affected their use of the State Forest and their enjoyment of their recreation experience at the

State Forest.

The majority of visitors in both forests (72% in the Sproul and 81% in the Susquehannock) reported that Marcellus shale-related activity had not affected their use of the State Forest.

Visitors were slightly more likely to report that gas-related activity affected their recreation experience at the forest. However, again, the majority of visitors in both forests (65% in the Sproul and 77% in the Susquehannock) reported that Marcellus shale-related activity had not affected their recreation experience at the State Forest.

Sproul State Forest visitors were slightly more likely than their counterparts in the Susquehannock State Forest to indicate that Marcellus shale-related activity had affected both their use and recreation experience at the State Forest.

Table 23. Visitor Responses to Questions about Marcellus Shale-Related Activity Valid Percent Sproul Susquehannock Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest?

Yes 27.7 19.1 No 72.3 80.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest?

Yes 34.7 22.9 No 65.3 77.1 Total 100.0 100.0

Follow-up questions probing the reasons for the visitors’ responses to the initial yes/no

questions revealed the following major themes (Table 24):

Among those reporting that their use of the State Forest had been impacted by shale-related operations, one of the most common themes among the responses reflected traffic-related issues.

The most frequently mentioned traffic concerns included increased road traffic, poor driving behavior, roads being blocked or areas made inaccessible to the public.


Table 24. Responses to How Marcellus Shale-related Activity has Changed your Use of the Forest.

Type of Comment Number of Comments Sproul Susquehannock

Traffic-related Issues 30 19 Effects on Wildlife/Hunting 32 10 Changing Use patterns (Displacement) 24 13 General Environmental Concerns 13 10 Noise and Visual Impacts 6 6 Positive Impacts/Statements 6 5

Many respondents in both Forests also mentioned various wildlife and hunting-related

concerns.

The most common hunting-related issues were that the drilling activity scares game away or reduces their places to hunt, although some offered general statements indicating that drilling affects hunting and/or wildlife negatively.

A third major theme of shale-related impacts on recreation use included several general environmental concerns.

These concerns included pollution, habitat destruction, and water quality as well as changes in landscape, noise pollution, and crowdedness and loss of a relaxing and serene environment.

Some respondents in both Forests reported that shale-related activity had directly affected their use of the Forest, mainly by preventing access to areas or causing visitors to avoid drilling locations or use the Forest less often.

A few respondents specifically mentioned noise and visual pollution associated with the gas drilling activity.

A few respondents also expressed positive impacts of the shale-related activity.

These comments focused on the creation of new access roads providing better access to the Forest and road improvements.

Those visitors who stated that their recreational use of the Forest had not been affected by

Marcellus shale-related activity were also asked to explain why not. Their responses also

reflected several dominant themes, which were grouped into awareness-related issues and

general acceptance of the drilling activity (Table 25).

Many visitors reported that the drilling activity doesn’t bother them, hasn’t changed their use or doesn’t affect their activities.


Many visitors in both Forests indicated that they had not noticed the activity or had not noticed it in the areas they visit.

The next most common acceptance-related comment was that it had not changed their use yet, reflecting a concern for possible future impacts to develop.

Some visitors stated that they were not aware of (of had not even heard) of the Marcellus Shale phenomenon.

A few visitors expressed support for the drilling activity, based on the opinion that it does not have a negative effect, is controlled, or is good for the economy.

Table 25. Responses to Why Marcellus Shale-related Activity has not Changed your Use of the Forest.


No effect on use 45 47 Don’t notice/Haven’t seen any activity 23 38 Not drilling here (or in areas I care about) 27 31 Not yet (implies concern for future) 23 30 Don’t know about it 8 7 Pro-drilling 5 12

Forest visitors were also asked to explain the reason why Marcellus shale-related activity

had or had not affected their recreation experience at the State Forest (Table 26). As in the case

of the previous question, many of their responses did not refer specifically to experiential

impacts, but rather expressed a variety of types of opinions about the drilling operations.

Responses to the experiential impacts tended to reflect the same themes as the answers to the questions about the impacts of shale-related activity on visitors’ use of the Forests.

Noise pollution was mentioned more frequently as a factor affecting visitors’ recreation experience than a factor affecting their recreation use.

Changes in landscape and crowdedness/changes in atmosphere were also mentioned more frequently as factors affecting visitors’ recreation experience than as factors affecting their recreation use.

Some specific experiential impacts of shale-related activity included loss of satisfaction, light pollution, and bad smells.


Table 26. Responses to How Marcellus Shale-related Activity has Changed your Recreational Experience at the Forest?


Traffic-related Issues 38 14 Effects on Wildlife/Hunting 24 10 Changing Use patterns (Displacement) 12 9 General Environmental Concerns 13 12 Noise and Visual Impacts 24 11 Crowding/Loss of Solitude or Relaxation 9 7 Positive impacts 3 5

Responses by those visitors who stated that their recreation experience at the Forest had

not been affected by Marcellus shale-related activity also reflected the same awareness-related

and general acceptance of drilling activity themes as their previous explanations for why the

shale-related activity had not affected their recreational use of the Forests (Table 27).

Again, many visitors in both Forests indicated that they had not noticed the activity or had not noticed it in the areas they visit.

Some visitors stated that they had not heard of the Marcellus Shale phenomenon.

Many visitors in both Forests reported that the drilling activity doesn’t bother them, hasn’t changed their experience or doesn’t affect their activities

The next most common acceptance-related comment was that it had not changed their experience yet.


Table 27. Responses to Why Marcellus Shale-related Activity has not Changed your Recreational Experience at the Forest.


No effect on experience 43 40 Don’t notice/Haven’t seen any activity 25 35 Not drilling here (or in areas I care about) 18 19 Not yet (implies concern for future) 14 29 Changed Location/Adapted 6 8 Don’t know about it 6 4 Pro-drilling 6 7


Summary and Conclusions


State Forest recreation sites during the period of October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012 (n

= 1,395 interviews with Forest visitors). Besides the basic visitor use survey, three supplemental

surveys were used to query visitors about their satisfaction levels, economic expenditures, and

recreation experiences.

This report provides a summary of the characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes of visitors

to the Sproul and Susquehannock State Forests in north central Pennsylvania. The results

indicate that most State Forest visitors are repeat and frequent users, and have many years of

experience in the forests. About three-fourths of the respondents in each Forest reported making

their first visit to the Forest before the year 2000. Several notable differences existed in the use

patterns and characteristics of recreation visitors in the two Forests. First, the Sproul State Forest

has more “frequent visitors,” showing an average of about 31 visits to the Forest per year versus

15 visits in the Susquehannock. Secondly, visitors in the Sproul were more likely (60%) than

those in the Susquehannock State Forest (37%) to be day users. The majority of Susquehannock

visitors were overnight visitors who stayed an average of 4.5 nights in the Forest. Activities that

were popular in the Sproul included fishing and driving for pleasure, while those reported more

frequently by Susquehannock visitors included hunting and ATV riding.

Regarding satisfaction levels, most respondents in both Forests were clearly satisfied with

their recreation experience and with the satisfaction attributes listed in the survey. State Forest

visitors were most satisfied with the scenery and attractiveness of the forest. They also reported

very high feelings of safety while in the Forest. The data suggest that there is room for some

improvement in the provision of information for recreation, adequacy of signage and condition of

forest roads and trails.

The economics section of the study asked visitors about their monetary expenditures in

and near the State Forests. Nearly half of the forest visitors indicated that they would have gone


indicating that they were serious about pursuing their recreation activities on that trip. Most of

the respondents (70% in the Sproul and 85% in the Susquehannock) indicated that they spent


some money within 50 miles of the forest on their current trip. The largest expenditures reported

were for gasoline and oil, food/drink at restaurants and bars, and groceries. In general

Susquehannock State Forest visitors spent considerably more across all spending categories for

their trip (average = $206.81) than Sproul State Forest visitors ($80.51).


rich data about visitor attitudes, motivations, perceptions, and management preferences. The data

clearly show that State Forest visitors are interested in experiencing the outdoor natural

surroundings available in the forest areas. Relaxing out of doors, getting away from the routine,

and other nature-based social activities are very important to these recreationists.


opposition to various management alternatives. The highest degree of support was seen for

additional wildlife viewing areas or opportunities. Visitors’ interest in various types of trails

tended to reflect their activity interests. For example, although many visitors showed little or no

interest in specific types of trails, such as ATV or snowmobile trails, those kinds of trails were

very important to notable segments of visitors pursuing these motorized activities. Respondents

also attached relatively high importance to signs directing them to recreation facilities and

printed interpretive information. Only about one-fifth of visitors in each Forest obtained

information about the area they visited during their trip or in preparation for it. These visitors

were almost equally divided between those who sought information before leaving home and

those who obtained information after arriving at the Forest. In both Forests, though, most of

those who sought information found it helpful in planning their trip.

The majority of visitors in both forests reported that Marcellus shale-related activity had

not affected their use of or recreation experience at the State Forest. Among those reporting that

their use of the State Forest had been impacted by shale-related operations, the most common

responses reflected traffic-related issues, concerns with hunting, and general environmental

concerns including pollution, habitat destruction, and water quality, as well as changes in

landscape, noise pollution, and crowdedness and loss of a relaxing and serene environment.

Among those reporting that gas drilling activity had not affected their use of the State forest,

many indicated that they had not noticed the activity or had not noticed it in the areas they visit,

or that the drilling activity doesn’t bother them, hasn’t changed their use or doesn’t affect their

activities. Responses to the experiential impacts of Marcellus shale-related activity tended to


reflect the same themes as the answers to the questions about the impacts of shale-related activity

on visitors’ use of the Forests. Sproul State Forest visitors were slightly more likely than those

in the Susquehannock State Forest to indicate that Marcellus shale-related activity had affected

either their recreation use or their recreation experience at the State Forest.


State Forests. It thus provides a start when building a profile of Pennsylvania State Forest

visitors. Surveys are currently continuing in other forests and the overall database will include a

total of ten forest districts by the completion of the five-year project. Future reports will provide

yearly summaries of the individual forests studied, as well as comparative and targeted data

analyses aimed at assisting Bureau of Forestry managers in their efforts to meet the needs of their

recreation constituency.


Appendix A



If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do? (Experience Addition, question # 8, Satisfaction Addition, question #2) Note – Some responses addressed multiple topics and are coded in multiple categories

Sproul State Forest, 220 responses No Suggestions (56) Keep Up the Good Work (7) Improve Recreation Facilities (61)

Improve road maintenance (20) Road maintenance (5) Fix roads (3) Keep improving the roads for car travel (2) Fix the bridges on the roads (2)

Fix up some roads to make them more drivable Wider roads Grade roads more often Clear roads Road conditions Camp roads need to be improved Roads need brushed out Plow roads in winter, hard to get trailer into sites ATVs (8)

More ATV trails (2) Develop more recreation ATV riding trails. Improve hill heading to site

A lot of blown down trees on the ATV trails Mark the ATV trails better Sign out front of road should say “Bloody Skillet” ATV parking Would like to see ATVs allowed in the forest ATV access on roads, pay for permits $100 General trails (8) Trails need to be marked better (4)

Trail maintenance for hiking – would like to see it better maintained Ensure trail maintenance is done properly and completed end to end. Campbell Hollow Tr, #2,3,4, Hollow Tr, Stone quality Hollow on in Lycoming Co. on Big Trail Rd. Sam Corson Tr. from top of Lebo to Millers Run Open more snowmobile trails

Scenic views/overlooks (6) Clear vegetation from views (3) Make more scenic views


Add trash can at overlook Improve access to overlook, smoother trail use the ADA approved road for path

Restrooms (4) Cleaner Restrooms (2)

More restrooms at Bloody Skillet (2) Campsites (4) More camping sites (2) More remote campsites Increase space between sites

Add parking (4) Add parking (3)

More parking, when it is busy people have to park on dangerous roads Trash (4) Improve trash pickup at this site (Karthaus Canoe Access) Add trash can at overlook (Bucktail State Park Natural Area) Put trash can here (Karthaus Canoe Access) Site could be cleaner (Chuck Keiper Trail) Improve facilities (2) Better facilities More developed sites

Misc. (1) Offer more showers at the different state parks, have seen portable showers for seasonal use at other locations

Forest Management (42) Anti-fence (9) Remove fences (6) Stop wasting money fencing areas

Provide information as to why there are chicken wire fences around trails and drilling areas Remove fences and unnatural features

Restrict development (7) Restrict development (2)

Remove fences and unnatural features Keep it primitive/underdeveloped, no more exploitation Too many activities too much expansion More natural areas preserved Keep area remote

Reduce logging (5) Less clearcutting (4) Stop clearcutting

Increase law enforcement (4) Enforce the speed limit Would like to see more patrol of these areas Stop ATV riders from drinking and driving ATV’s


Get rid of partiers Remove dead trees (3)

Remove dead trees Dead trees need to be taken out/utilized Better forest management, take care of dead wood and gypsy moths

Other timber management (3) Need more timber management in the eastern side of Rt. 144 Cut old timber to promote growth A lot of trimmed trees, would like to see that better managed Misc. (11) Add cell towers for emergencies (2) Controlled burning needed (2)

Improve Beech Creek Sell more timber and fix road 50 years of free use of spring water and now they ask us to pay

Round off camping fees, just have straight dollar amounts and don’t include change. Running water in camps Should be more people here at this time of year, a lot of beautiful country here, get more to visit here Open all gates

Game Management (32) Not Enough Game (15) More game, deer herds are depleted More deer in the area for hunters Too little deer population in surrounding areas

Not enough deer for hunting, bear management to reduce their numbers Manage the deer herds better, hunting is awful, not a lot of deer Management of the coyote population, there are hardly any deer

Is there any way to increase the deer population? Not a lot of deer in the area More game Manage the game population better, not enough game Deer herd Increase deer numbers

Deer are being harvested faster than they can reproduce Not enough deer for hunting Stock more deer

Stock more pheasants Increase Food Plots (4) More fruit trees More clearing for food plots Additional feed plots for the deer would be beneficial More grouse feeding


Limit/eliminate doe hunting (5) No doe hunting (4) Limit doe hunting Misc. (8) Have deer mapping No deer hunting for one year Cut back hunting season to improve deer population Give deer a chance, lessen hunting season Wildlife habitat reconstruction Improve wildlife habitat, keep the habitant diverse More animals, change in management practices

DCNR needs to take control of wildlife- too many permits issued for this area, deer are being harvested faster than they can reproduce

Signs/Maps (17) Improve/maintain signs (12) Improve signage (7) Post more speed limit signs Approximate distances on signs directing to areas

Adequate signage in advance of pull-offs or attractions to give the driver time to stop Increase trail signage, I got lost Better signage for roads/trails, had trouble finding the trailhead

Improve maps/information (5) Provide maps Fill information holders, keep them stocked Update trail map More trail information Update website Anti-Fracking/Gas Drilling (16)

Stop drilling for gas/fracking (6) Stop drilling (2)

Get gas companies out, no more fracking Get the drillers out of here Get rid of gas drillers Stop the fracking

Gas trucks/road damage issues (3) Fix roads, too many gas trucks Maintain roads or have gas trucks out of here

Limit the drilling because of all the trucks Misc. (7) Tax the gas companies (2)


Drilling is causing problems with hunters Fracking is polluting the environment, I blame that on the current Republican administration, not charging gas companies enough Would like to see the gas wells stay out of the forest, it takes away from the natural beauty Don’t continue to allow gas development

Fish/Stream Management (8)

Trout stocking (4) Stock more trout (2)

Stock the streams for memorial weekend Trout stocking program needs improvement, spread them out further

Misc. (4) Need better stream manager Close small tributaries to fishing for a few years More stream access Clean up stream


If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do? (Experience Addition, question # 8, Satisfaction Addition, question #2)

Susquehannock State Forest, 206 responses Note – Some responses addressed multiple topics and are coded in multiple categories No Suggestions (51) Keep Up the Good Work (6) Improve Recreation Facilities (94)

ATVs (27) More ATV trails (11) Improve signs/maps (4)

Better signage for ATV trails, open more trails for recreation Partner with nearby townships to hand out maps of the ATV

trails connecting the 4 townships to private roads/trails Better maps Better maps and township maps in Potter County.

Open forest roads for ATVs (3) Open forest roads to ATVS (2) Selected forest roads should be open to ATV traffic, open road for ATV use to access restaurant – Rock Run Road

Improve ATV facilities (3) Need outhouses on the ATV trails, at each parking area Improve parking lot condition at the ATV lot

Add concession stand on ATV trail for snacks, etc., bathroom could have been cleaner

Misc. (6) Make more difficult ATV trails Dangerous corner on ATV trail should be widened

More trails, specifically ATV throughout state, too many snowmobiles trails, open them up to 4-wheelers Connect ATV trail system, or use existing snowmobile trail to make it less crowded Extend ATV season ATVs are noisy near Lyman Run Park

General trails (16) More trails (6) Maintain trails better (6)

Billy Lewis trail needs maintenance (2)


Areas of the Susquehannock Trail System are overgrown to the point of the trail completely disappearing

Donut Hole trail needs major maintenance Clean trails – Mudlick Cut the brush back on the trails Trail marking/blazing (3) Mark trails better Mark trails better, signs are missing Trails need to be re-blazed Make roads more passable for hikers and skiers Improve/maintain roads (13) Improve forest roads (4) Maintain forest roads (3) Widen road Road grading and pull over spots Keep the roads well managed Roads – better maintenance in Potter County

Dyer Road and several others could use a grading/surface improvement Cut back the brush on the side of the forest roads

Horses (8) Reconsider number of horses per site versus number of rigs; go by number of horses (3) Place to dump horse manure instead of packing out or spreading it, have access to good potable water in or near campground, but like the site to remain uncrowded Dyer camp picnic tables need repaired, should offers water availability at the camp, add a compost pile there too More horse/trail friendly/ in tune with needs and goals Continue to improve horse camp areas Get rid of horses at horse campsite

Improve/maintain signs (7) Signage on roads needs improvement (3) Some roads not on the map Need better signs Improve visibility of signs entering/exiting roads Better road intersection signs Improve maps/information (7) Provide more comprehensive maps for horse riding & hiking Regional trail map with signage, availability of maps Maps at trailhead Update trail map More trail information Improve maps for the STS, needs to indicate distances better Better snowmobiling maps Restrooms (7) Add more restrooms (5) Cleaner restrooms (2)


Better parking near trailheads (2) Misc. (7) Picnic tables need to be repaired Add overlook near reservoir

Re-do vistas, they are overgrown Install public treehouses Have a lean-to for backpackers Why not recommission the CCC camp, they should be reactivated, some trails are in complete disarray Improve mountain biking trails, add a loop trail in this area like Allagrippis trail, specifically built for mountain biking

Wildlife management (33)

Limit/eliminate doe hunting (10) No doe hunting (7) Less doe hunting (2) Deer management needs improvement, make doe season shorter Increase deer population (9) Increase deer population (7) There are not many deer in these woods Where are all the deer at? Increase food for game (8) More food plots (5) Plant better trees for wildlife, there is no vegetation Put more oak trees in to provide more food for wildlife Feed turkeys more Misc. (6)

Have hunters give more input in deer management Game management could be improved, want to see more game More cutting to attract more wildlife

Problems with deer management, no DCNR here anymore Do more to better hunting Leave the deer alone Forest Management (19) Timber management (4) Take more pole stage timber out Thin some of the forest out selectively Better firewood Clear timber Reduce logging (3) Timber sales too close to trails, logging trucks drive on ski trails Leave the trees, no clear cuttings Slow down clear cutting


Restrict development (2) Don’t allow any more development – keep it remote Keep it natural as much as possible Increase law enforcement patrols (2) Misc. (8) Fix right of way access at 3912 Twelve Mile Road Remove fence Clever marketing Gate the camp area so only campers can use it Don’t release black flies Get rid of invasive species Do something about snakes near Lyman Lake

If leased cabins, leave a grandfather clause to let things be as they have been, less nit picking

Anti-Fracking/Gas Drilling (5) Stop drilling Reduce gas well traffic Regulate drilling No Marcellus drilling in this State Forest Only use fracking on private land Fish/Stream Management (4)

Stock more fish (2) Stream restoration

Maintain streams


Marcellus Shale Open-Ended Responses by Forest

Sproul SF Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this State Forest? n = 317, Yes = 87, No = 230 218 total open-ended responses If yes, why?

Road/Traffic Issues (30)

Traffic (2) More traffic (3) A lot of traffic (2) Some traffic On the roads more Limited access on roads, truck traffic is heavy Way too many vehicles on roads to driveway Too much traffic and water trucks Way too much traffic & road delays, gas trucks Trucks on roads Truck traffic Heavy road traffic A lot of truck traffic & road damage Traffic is more dangerous Truck traffic is dangerous Heavy truck traffic makes roads less safe feeling – speed limits not obeyed A lot more traffic, was in an accident Been run off road, hurts relaxation aspect of experience Every time I come up here, I am almost killed by a pickup truck Extremely dangerous to drive on back roads, oil companies are idiots More caution on roads Roads Roads are bad Ruin roads More roadwork Roads terrible, need fixed

Effects on Wildlife/Hunting (32)

Kill[s] wildlife Concerned about wildlife habitat Scaring deer away (4) Too many extra people in the woods scaring deer Hunting is affected


Hunting has been impeded Hunting Screwing up hunting Disrupted ecosystems associated with snake hunting Hunting and trapping areas impacted Can’t hunt at usual sites Hunting area disrupted Changes hunting locations Took away hunting spot No hunting at well sites Rigs are where I used to hunt Can’t hardly hunt anywhere anymore They are in our hunting area Some hunting spots are taken away Limited access to hunting areas Cleared places that I used to hunt Inability to access regular hunting areas Threw hunting out of whack – not seeing the same amount of wildlife before they

started drilling Drilling activity has limited hunting area, has caused the wildlife to migrate out of the

area, decrease in numbers Hunting, changed way animals travel, don’t see them period Hunting, pushed animals Changed hunting Game has been chased out, woods used to be undisturbed Had to change our hunting style, drillers seem to wait till hunting

Changing Use Patterns (Displaced/Closed Areas) (24)

Have to stay off certain roads Traffic, avoiding areas with high traffic Can’t go to some places because of traffic Changed the route to cabin Off-roading, some areas closed to use Prevented me from riding ATV because trails were torn up from pipeline construction Can’t go to some areas Closed areas Closed due to drilling Some places can’t get into Avoiding areas with high traffic Avoid certain locations where there is activity Don’t visit certain areas anymore to avoid drilling activity Places I don't go any more because of gas drilling, they have a well pad in the Miller Run

Natural Area The roads are blocked A lot of roads are now blocked off


Roads are closed that could be open to the public I will not come back here again because of the development in gas Many favorite areas have been disrupted/destroyed Taken, don’t use as much Would have come more Berry picking sites destroyed Took two acres of this land Certain areas were more accessible, others became inaccessible

General Environmental Concerns (13) Concerned about pollution and water quality (2) Becoming crowded, taking a lot of space for clear cuts Pristine areas of peaceful forest gone Destroy area Destroy forest It’s a mess Change in landscape, new road Changed some areas, clear cutting messed the place up Lots of activity and equipment and people Don’t like the clearing of the woods Taking the mountain, ruining the forest, nothing is the same Need more inspection and regulation

Noise and Visual Impacts (6) Drilling is disruptive noise-wise Noise Noise pollution Noise from helicopters last year Helicopters flying over state game land Keep hidden and neat, can see them

Positive Impacts/Statements (6) Last year, not so much this year The road is in much better shape Made better roads Increased access roads My son worked for them, bought me this truck Phone service


If no, why not? No Effect on Use (45)

No change (10) No effect (8) No negative effect (2) Not affected by it for fishing or hunting Not affected; works for gas company and knows that it isn't in this area Still will use it despite the change Still visit Still fish Still useable Still use forests Did not interfere with use Doesn't get in the way of our activities Hasn't changed anything they do Has not affected his use specifically of the forest area Doesn't prevent access to areas No impact from it No impact, forest is still gorgeous Doesn't impact at all, non-invasive Haven't been impacted Doesn't get in the way Not issue with his group Doesn't bother me Not a lot of impact Hasn't hurt anything Does not hurt anything Just has not Not really Just adapt to the changes

Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (23)

Haven't noticed anything (8) Haven't seen it (6) No visible activity (4) Only notice it on the roads sometime Don't visit enough to notice a change First time visiting the area Not in the area much Haven't been here

Not Drilling Here (or in areas I care about) (27)

Not in this area (5) No drilling here (5) No impact here (3)


Areas visited are not affected (3) Haven’t seen in this area (2) Areas visited have not been altered, haven't seen anything directly ruined by drilling Not much activity in the area Right now they are not in this area Haven't around property Not in area of my cabin No impact in areas traveled Can't say it has here, but I saw lots of trucks traffic on way here Not around so much Not this state forest, other places it has, only here for limited time

Not Yet (implies concern for future) (23)

Not yet (9) No impact at all yet Not as of now To date, no change They haven't been drilling in this area yet (2) Not impacted where I hunt yet Not in this location yet No, It has not changed yet, think it will though Not yet, but coming Not yet, but it may Not yet, road messed up in other forest Not yet - too early to tell, noticed the road is being widened They haven't f***ed anything up yet, when they do I will be very upset, whatever

economic benefit there is will not offset if they damage the forest Don't have pipeline yet, site can't hook up well on our properly, hasn't changed anything

yet Don’t Know About It (8)

Didn't know what it was (4) Wasn't sure if it was here Didn't know there was any activity going on in this location Haven't drilled in the state forest that I know of Because didn't know until recently, saw a map in a restaurant

Pro-Drilling (5)

Marcellus shale doesn't bother me here, already drilled on my property Every well site I've seen is well kept, have people who work for gas and confident they

are doing their job I have no problem with them drilling, they can drill all they want Good for the economy Need gas; doesn't affect their everyday life


Sproul SF Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this State Forest? n = 317, Yes = 107, No = 210 227 total open-ended responses If yes, why? Road/Traffic Issues (38)

Traffic (6) Too much traffic Extra traffic, extra people Extra traffic on roads (2) Extra traffic, messing with spring Traffic, no visible benefits seen for the parks and forests Changed some areas, traffic Before it would have been way less traffic Yes. More traffic on the small roads leading into the parks and throughout the

surrounding community Have to put up with forest truck traffic Truck traffic is very unpleasant Seeing a lot of trucks and extra traffic Truck traffic is a concern Roads too busy Lots of truck traffic and noise Trucks on roads Saw way too many semi-trucks on the roads. Interrupted the trip multiple times (had to

pull off roads) Following tanks/Lots of extra traffic Roads have been rough Just roads Not friendly people, have torn up roads and forest Much more traffic, heavy traffic destroying roads Limited access, dusty roads Coming up on the mountain, roads are bad Unsafe driving Yes, been run off road Driving is a challenge Traffic is more dangerous Dangerous, areas are crowded, roads are dangerous Mountain Rd 144 dangerous Truck traffic annoying, potentially dangerous More careful


Effects on Wildlife/Hunting (23) Less wildlife in forest Less wildlife, further in the woods due to drilling Wildlife is now very limited Less wildlife Can't see any wildlife Scaring nature and animals away so they are not seen Less fish Ruined hunting, too many roads Less deer, less enjoyable Hunting has not been as enjoyable, the landscape has also been altered Hunting is not as enjoyable due to the decline of the deer population Hunting not as good Hunting messed up Messed up archery hunting Worse hunting Game deferred, crowding of land There aren't any deer like there used to be Surveys and seismic crews were very intrusive, caused a drop in deer populations as well

sort of ruined hunting season Scares deer (2) Spooked deer Drilling and blasting drives off the wildlife and makes hunting difficult Occupy hunting land, blocking off roads for drivable trails Now, he goes to different areas to hunt Destroyed hunting areas

Noise/Visual Impacts (24)

Noise and traffic (8) Noise and extra people Traffic gets very noisy next to wells Noise, traffic, pipe lines, extra unnatural features Dramatically changed, wilderness no longer quiet, lots of truck traffic and noise A lot of noise disturbance from the helicopter today Helicopters, people all over the place Come to the area to escape noise, drilling and pumping stations cause noise, State Forest

should be left solely undeveloped Last year it did, noise, all day long In the winter, the heavy drilling noise, he likes to come out to SF for silence Eyesore Gas sites are incredibly ugly and noisy Changes scenery (2) Drilling sites are noticeable on side roads Orange flagging all over the place Too many markings Don't think it looks the way it used to before the drilling


Changing Use Patterns (Displaced/Closed Areas) (10)

Places where the wells are, can't hunt there or get down to fishing area, I don't go camping there. I can't go other places

Can’t use some area Berry picking sites destroyed Some areas are not accessible More posted land Don't drive normal routes, have to use more caution Changed some of routine Shuts roads down, loss of prior experience, can't hunt in forest areas Restricted where they ride their motorcycles-potholes and road conditions, truck traffic Areas around drill sites are not pleasurable to visit Can't go on certain mountains because of gas people and related activity Was going to buy a cabin but changed mind when found out about it

General Environmental Concerns (13)

Contaminate with smells What used to be more pristine forest areas is now all torn up with gas activity; good for

country that we have these resources but government has to make sure the companies are doing the right thing; should fine some out of business; the companies should be accountable for their damage

Not in agreement with the drilling, has changed their perspective of the forests with industrialization

Need more inspection and regulation Destroying the forest It has destroyed the pleasant feeling this forest once had Locals should get perks from drilling Negatively- they need to go Not happy with the whole thing Clearing of trees, pads It's not as nice Setting Mixed blessing

Crowding/Loss of Solitude or Relaxation (9)

Limited access and extra people Had to be more careful and alert, more people In different areas - not bad at camp, but north is more crowded Helicopters, people all over the place More traffic/less serenity Annoying Hurts relaxation aspect of experience Losing privacy that would have been here previously Not as private as it used to be


Positive Impacts/Statements (3) Lots of trees, better roads Some trails are better Roads all in great shape

If no, why not? No Effect on Experience (43)

No change (7) No direct effects (6) Just doesn't affect me (4) No effect on activities Not affected by it for fishing or hunting Do the same thing as always Does not interfere with my activities Doesn't prevent access to areas No negative effect (2) No impact, forest is still gorgeous Doesn't impact it all, non-invasive No impact from it No visible impact (2) No, hasn't hurt anything No marked change Not a lot of impact Walked through and did recognize it but didn't bother me Doesn't bother me Not issue with his group It is fine by him Hasn't bothered No conflict from it Not much, more trucks from out of state on roads Only notice it on the roads sometime Other than traffic not really Not that I know of Not really


No visible activity (5) Haven't seen it (2) Didn't see anything Do not see it on this trip or any others Didn't see any No noticed change Haven't noticed a change Don't notice any difference


No noticeable drilling Haven't noticed any effect Haven't seen any eyesores, see some activity Haven't noticed it so much Not directly exposed to it right now No, still hidden, very neat Hasn't had much contact with it We came up camping years ago before it started No comparison, first time here (2) Don't visit enough to notice a change Only a once a year trip


No activity here (6) Haven't seen much of it here (2) Hasn't changed here. They use this area or their camp Right now they are not in this area Not affected in the area Haven't noticed it in this area Has seen the activity elsewhere and its negative effects but hasn't seen them here Didn't know there was any activity this far south No impact in areas traveled Areas visited are not affected at all Not around so much

Changed Location/Adapted (6)

Just adapt to the changes (2) Because we changed spot Just hunt somewhere else So far it hasn't affected it that much because I avoid other areas Still going to recreate, lots of places to go to get away from, drillers are trying to be good

neighbors Not Yet (implies concern for future) (14)

Not yet (7) They haven't been drilling in this area yet Not affected this area yet To date, no change Not so far Not seeing yet Not yet, but it may Concerned about dumping No impact at all yet


Don’t Know About It (5) Didn't know what it was (2) Don't know about it Not aware of Marcellus shale activity Haven’t drilled in the state forest that I know of Because didn't know until recently, saw a map in a restaurant

Pro-Drilling (6) Need gas, doesn't affect their everyday life I like seeing the industry developing in our area Every well site I've seen is well kept, have people who work for gas and confident they

are doing their job I have no problem with them drilling, they can drill all they want Long term benefit, timber cutting beneficial It’s good for area


Susquehannock SF

Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest? n = 297, yes = 56, no = 242 223 total open-ended responses If yes, why?

Road/Traffic Issues (19)

Heavy truck traffic Traffic, road conditions Lots of truck traffic, road conditions are worse Traffic is heavy, dangerous Too many trucks on the roads - Almost hit by one on my ATV Water trucks make travel dangerous Truck traffic has really increased here on this road Gas trucks were all over the road Road traffic and condition/deterioration, trucks ruin the road Roads are bad, more traffic Roads (2) Road quality They ruin the roads Yes, Screw roads and woods up/ Heavy trucks destroy roads Ruined a lot of things, ruined road. Dislike the gas well presence Changed condition of roads Tearing up roads, ruining trail traffic Bad Roads

Changing Use Patterns (Displaced/Closed Areas) (13) Avoids roads used by trucks Changes in where you can go Some of the best ATV trails are now closed Some areas (near Haneyville) are restricted Used to enjoy hiking in areas that are now used for drilling; now he goes elsewhere Don't like the area disturbed by drilling Block ski area, gravel on ski roads If in snowmobile areas, access is more limited to trails because of drilling So far some areas are not available because of drilling Impact on the Chuck Keiper trail minimizes use and traffic limits visits, wiped out path of

trail across from here Concerns about whether to come here Try to plan visit around well sites and reports of spills Avoid where they are Some areas, roads


Effects on Wildlife/Hunting (10) Use it less / less game Change when I hunt Can't hunt places where I used to Changed hunting areas Traffic diminished the hunting areas Hunts deer - has to hunt harder Scaring away game Fire wells here, constant blowoff of something here, scares deer and turkey Deer Disturbs wildlife

Noise and Visual Impacts (6)

Too noisy, affects hiking Ribbons and stakes and helicopter flying around is annoying Visually unappealing Wells are an eyesore Ambient light is worse

General Environmental Concerns (10)

Risk of contamination; drillers are not local jobs Environmental impact Worried about water pollution Important to test water, won't drink the water Worried about water quality Land takeover, chemicals Lessen Wilderness Trails a mess Negatively Very little impact, some trail damage

Positive Impacts/Statements (5) Trucks are plowing roads not normally plowed for the winter Allows more access to roads More trails have been added Helped pay for ATV with lease money Works in industry - stays at camp 2 weeks


If no, why not? No Effect on Use (47)

The area is beautiful as is Love it still, come here the same Come out here just as often (2) Come here same amount as before they took over Still recreate anyway Do what we always do I don't do anything differently (2) Doesn't affect his activities Doesn't affect him Just doesn't affect it at all No change at all (5) Just come here anyways No direct effects (4) No effects at all from it (2) Just doesn't bother them (3) Doesn't bother him, used to the drilling, avoids problem areas Hasn't bothered me, check every year so I'm not worried about them ATVs are not obstructed by drilling activity No interference to me Not interfered with trail riding, camping Doesn't interfere with trails Drilling doesn't interfere with hunting (3) We see it while hunting but hasn't really changed what we do Hasn't changed where I hunt Does not impact this recreational activity Drill sites haven't impacted recreation Not affected him so much Not directly impacted (2) No, did not impede anything Because the area is state protected game lands Wouldn't matter Concerned but no change in use


No visible activity (10) Have not seen it (6) Haven't encountered it (5) Haven't experienced any Didn't see any evidence No noticeable activity, just some traffic Not noticeable Has not noticed a change No visible impacts or interactions


Couldn't tell any difference Didn't see any sign of any activity No activity to be seen; only logging Haven't seen much activity (2) Not much activity Doesn't visit often Never been here before Don't get in the woods as much as he used to, maybe would have affected him when he

was younger No reason (2)


Not here (no drilling activity in this area) (18) No change in this area directly Areas used not in proximity to drilling (2) Don't see them doing anything here; I don't have a problem; worried about habitat loss Not affecting hunting here Susquehannock trail system still open Not on trails Hasn't interfered with areas visited Haven't run into any of it, not where I'm going Haven't seen any in this area Not really here, didn't notice them Don't pay attention, haven't been where I am Don't use these areas


Not yet (16) Not yet, but traffic Not drilling here yet (3) Not drilling in area yet (much) Haven't seen any impact yet Hasn't affected them yet Hasn't affected us at all in the areas we are, so far Stay at Ole Bull state park, no impact yet Not here not yet, hope they don't mess the area up too bad, we have water well Hasn't impacted yet where we ride, could impact water source Hasn't changed it yet but I'm sure it will have an impact, worried about water/stream

pollution, don't think there is enough enforcement of environmental regulations, as long as they clean up I don't have a problem, worried about habitat loss

No, as long as it doesn't ruin hunting Been out of way, nothing seems too bad, worry about the creeks but Mother Nature will

hopefully take the course Don’t Know About It (7)

Didn't know they were drilling


Not aware of any drilling activity here Didn't know it was present Didn't know where it was Never heard of it I don’t know Not really, don't know much about it

Pro-Drilling (12)

Wish they'd do more of it, doesn't affect us at all Waters unaffected, drillers cleaned-up areas drilled As far as he knows, drilling has little to no impact on surface of land More road access State replaced old bridge - better roads No, but very interested in seeing the drilling. Hasn't bothered me, check every year so I'm not worried about them Only thing I have against drilling is they are doing too much and flooding market, gone

overboard with regulations on fracking (in NY), I work in oil business It's a damn good idea to drill and get more, I like oil and gas Making money from it They are doing a good job, protecting water quality and environment Good for everybody, creates jobs


Susquehannock SF Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest? n = 295 , Yes = 68, No = 228 204 total open-ended responses If yes, why? Road/Traffic Issues (14)

Traffic (3) Truck traffic Higher traffic, delays Extra traffic Traffic is heavy, dangerous Road condition Roads have been greatly used and damaged They ruin the roads Made roads a lot worse, they were bad to start with and are worse now Roads are beat up making the drive in slow between the trails they haul Trucks run me off the road Trucks are scary drivers on main and back roads

Crowding/Loss of Solitude or Relaxation (7)

More people than previously, extra traffic on roads Some areas are more crowded More people on weekends Slows me down Limited space Raised levels of anxiety concerning visits Experience is less relaxing, more aggravating

Noise and Visual Impacts (11) Visually Some areas aren't as pretty and some areas are more crowded Detracted from the natural setting Wells are an eyesore Visually unappealing environmental impact Landscape stripped, changed beauty of landscape Deforestation, loss of trails, light pollution equals a less enjoyable visit Wilderness beauty Inconvenience, big clearing up the roads on way in Engine breaking noises Noise, but has been better


General Environmental Concerns (12) Concern about water quality (3) Saw film of oil on road; won't drink the water Risk of contamination, drillers are not local jobs Downstream from Lyman Run, concern that pollutants have already or have possibility of

entering water table Seen where they've bulldozed and cut well pads; state is going to be "caught holding the

bag" in the future when clean-up is needed Not as nice, messy and blocked trails, better signage for blocked trails Feel vibration, really close He has never seen the Susquehannock River so dry. Says the Marcellus drillers are taking

water from the river to flush out oil "Gasholes" men in the area are rude to locals Pisses him off

Effects on Wildlife/Hunting (10) Less game / more traffic/ gates Less deer There are less deer, more coyotes Could have chased game out, didn't see much More traffic on road disrupts wildlife Truck traffic noise in deer season, fairly quiet here Blow off scaring game, and noise Too much noise - poor hunting now Hard on hunting Can't hunt in some areas

Changing Use Patterns (Displaced/Closed Areas) (9) Some areas (near Haneyville) are restricted Don't hunt some areas, if received royalty it would be better Can't use some of the trails Limits the range of rides causing inconvenience Well pads on trail Cuts into trails Less trails = less for enjoyment Has turned me off to going to areas for hiking where drilling is on-going, avoided these

areas Used to enjoy hiking in areas that are now used for drilling, now he goes elsewhere

Positive Impacts/Statements (5)

Roads are completed, the drive is nicer in some areas, bad in others Made roads nicer in forest, made main roads worse, though Makes more trails, better access to trails More access = more areas to recreate Has opened it up a bit, places where they have cleared wells, opening trails to see

different area


If no, why not? No Effect on Experience (40)

No effect (9) Not directly impacted (6) No change at all (4) Just has not (3) Not affected him so much Just doesn't bother them Not interfere with me No effect on motorcycle riding today Just come here anyways Do everything I always did Still able to enjoy the activities Still recreate anyway Still hunt Hasn't changed where I hunt Not really, more people [on] roads Truck traffic, but no change in experience Still hunting, clear cutting, roads in better shape Not much Because the area is state protected game lands Commonly occurring subject here As far as he knows, drilling has little to no impact on surface of land Don't get in the woods as much as he used to, maybe would have affected him when he

was younger Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (35)

No visible activity (12) Haven't encountered any activity (6) Not drilling No activity No activity to be seen, only logging Have not seen it Wouldn't know, haven't seen anything, doesn't affect us No evidence of change (2) Couldn't tell any difference Not noticeable No noticeable activity, just some traffic Didn't see any sign of any activity Haven't experienced any Haven’t seen much activity (2) Never been here before Doesn't visit often


Been out of way, nothing seems too bad, worry about the creeks but Mother Nature will hopefully take the course

Not Drilling Here (or in areas I care about) (19) Not here (6) Not drilling in this area (7) Don't see them doing anything here, I don't have a problem, worried about habitat loss Not in state forest, we live in Wellsboro and the roads are bad there Susquehannock trail system still open Areas used not in proximity to drilling Haven't run into any of it, not where I'm going Did not run into any activity


Not yet (15) Not drilling here yet (7) Hasn't affected us at all in the areas we are, so far As of right now, they aren't drilling where we hunt, haven't seen any activity here either Stay at Ole Bull state park, no impact yet Not drilling in area yet (much) Not yet, but traffic But we notice it more and more Not yet but coming

Changed Location/Adapted (8)

Just adapts (2) Go to other areas (2) Don't go there I stay away Stay away / noisy Doesn't bother him, used to the drilling, avoids problem areas

Don’t Know About It (4)

Didn't know where it was Didn't know they were drilling Didn't know it was present Never heard of it

Pro-Drilling (7) Anything they do, they put it back to natural condition, my camp is right down there,

haven't noticed anything. It's good for PA, lots of jobs Still hunting, clear cutting, roads in better shape Only thing I have against drilling is they are doing too much and flooding market, gone

overboard with regulations on fracking (in NY), I work in oil business All for it, drill it up, got to get the 'gas,' don't give money to the 'ragheads' Making money from it


They are doing a good job, protecting water quality and environment Haven't seen it except that improvements to the roads are nice/more accessible firewood

from trimming trees


Appendix B

Zip Code Analysis of Sproul and Susquehannock State Forest Visitors


2011-12 Pennsylvania Visitor Use Monitoring

ZIP Code Data

Each of the three versions of the survey asked for the respondent’s home ZIP code as part

of the socio-demographic data. These ZIP codes were then uploaded into ArcMap GIS software

(ESRI, 2012). A basic spatial analysis was conducted for each forest to determine the geographic

distribution of the respondents. Straight-line distances were computed from the respondent’s ZIP

code to the forest headquarters. Additionally, a breakdown of respondents by state and

Pennsylvania county was performed. The results are shown below, segmented by forest. Maps

illustrating the geographic distribution of visitors are included at the end of this section.

Sproul State Forest Highlights The average straight-line distance from the respondents’ home ZIP code to the Sproul

State Forest Headquarters was 78 miles.

About one-third (32.8%) of respondents’ home ZIP codes were within 25 miles of the Sproul State Forest Headquarters, 68.4% were within 100 miles (Table 1).

Respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 12 states; 87.5% of the respondents reported a

home ZIP code in Pennsylvania (Table 2). The Pennsylvania respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 47 different counties (Table 3).

The top three counties were Clinton (28.7%), Centre (17.7%), and Lycoming (6.5%).

Table 1. Straight-Line Distance from ZIP Code to Sproul State Forest Headquarters (n = 335)

Distance (miles) Number of Responses Percent*

Less than 25 110 32.8% 25-49 61 18.2% 50-99 58 17.3% 100-149 73 21.8% 150-199 18 5.4% 200+ 15 4.5%

*may not add up to 100% due to rounding


Table 2. Sproul State Forest Responses by State (n = 335)

State Number of Responses Percent*

Pennsylvania 293 87.5% New York 13 3.9% New Jersey 12 3.6% Ohio 5 1.5% Maryland 4 1.2% Wisconsin 2 .6% Colorado 1 .3% Delaware 1 .3% Florida 1 .3% Illinois 1 .3% Michigan 1 .3% West Virginia 1 .3%


Table 3. Sproul State Forest Pennsylvania Responses by County (n = 293)

County Number of Responses Percent*

Clinton 84 28.7% Centre 52 17.7% Lycoming 19 6.5% York 15 5.1% Berks 10 3.4% Clearfield 10 3.4% Lancaster 10 3.4% Cambria 6 2% Dauphin 6 2% Schuylkill 6 2% Chester 5 1.7% Cumberland 5 1.7% Northumberland 5 1.7% Allegheny 3 1% Blair 3 1% Lehigh 3 1% Montgomery 3 1% Perry 3 1% Potter 3 1% Snyder 3 1% Union 3 1% Bucks 2 .7% Columbia 2 .7% Crawford 2 .7%


Elk 2 .7% Erie 2 .7% Indiana 2 .7% Jefferson 2 .7% Lebanon 2 .7% Philadelphia 2 .7% Westmoreland 2 .7% Adams 1 .3% Bedford 1 .3% Bradford 1 .3% Butler 1 .3% Cameron 1 .3% Carbon 1 .3% Franklin 1 .3% Juniata 1 .3% Luzerne 1 .3% Mifflin 1 .3% Montour 1 .3% Northampton 1 .3% Tioga 1 .3% Washington 1 .3% Wayne 1 .3% Wyoming 1 .3%



Susquehannock State Forest Highlights The average straight-line distance from the respondents’ home ZIP code to the

Susquehannock State Forest Headquarters was 109 miles.

About one-tenth (11.5%) of respondents’ home ZIP codes were within 25 miles of the Susquehannock State Forest Headquarters; 42.1% were within 100 miles (Table 4).

Respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 10 states; 86.5% of the respondents reported a


The top three counties were York (11.8%), Potter (11%), and Lancaster (9.5%).

Table 4. Straight-Line Distance from ZIP Code to Susquehannock State Forest Headquarters (n = 304)


Less than 25 35 11.5% 25-49 22 7.2% 5099 71 23.4% 100-149 117 38.5% 150-199 51 16.8% 200+ 8 2.6%


Table 5. Susquehannock State Forest Responses by State (n = 304)


Pennsylvania 263 86.5% New York 25 8.2% Ohio 4 1.3% Virginia 3 1% Maryland 2 .6% Massachusetts 2 .6% New Jersey 2 .6% Delaware 1 .3% New Hampshire 1 .3% Vermont 1 .3%



Table 6. Susquehannock State Forest Pennsylvania Responses by County (n = 263)


York 31 11.8% Potter 29 11% Lancaster 25 9.5% Montgomery 12 4.6% Snyder 11 4.2% Chester 11 4.2% Berks 9 3.4% Dauphin 8 3% Adams 7 2.7% Northampton 7 2.7% Clinton 6 2.3% Blair 6 2.3% McKean 6 2.3% Perry 6 2.3% Cambria 5 1.9% Cumberland 5 1.9% Tioga 5 1.9% Schuylkill 4 1.5% Centre 4 1.5% Westmoreland 4 1.5% Lebanon 4 1.5% Northumberland 4 1.5% Somerset 3 1.1% Columbia 3 1.1% Erie 3 1.1% Franklin 3 1.1% Bucks 3 1.1% Washington 3 1.1% Mifflin 3 1.1% Butler 2 .7% Cameron 2 .7% Carbon 2 .7% Clearfield 2 .7% Philadelphia 2 .7% Lehigh 2 .7% Elk 2 .7% Huntingdon 2 .7% Allegheny 2 .7% Bradford 2 .7% Clarion 1 .4% Indiana 1 .4%


Juniata 1 .4% Lycoming 1 .4% Delaware 1 .4% Fayette 1 .4% Greene 1 .4% Armstrong 1 .4% Bedford 1 .4% Union 1 .4% Venango 1 .4% Warren 1 .4% Montour 1 .4%

*may not add up to 100% due to rounding Reference ESRI 2012. ArcGIS Desktop. Release 10.1. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research

Institute.


Appendix C

Survey Instrument


Sproul/Susquehannock State Forest: 2011 - 2012 Recreational Use Survey

Interviewer:_________________ Site: ___________ Date: _____________


Hello, my name is ________, I’m from Penn State and we are doing a survey of State Forest visitors. The information collected will help the DCNR better serve their visitors. Your participation is voluntary and all information is confidential. May I have a few minutes of your time to complete this survey? ___ Yes (If refusal, thank them for their time.)

Section 1 (Screening Questions)


Working or commuting to work (stop interview)

Just stopped to use the bathroom (stop interview)

Just passing through, going somewhere else (stop interview)

Some other reason (specify)________________________________________________ Complete 2 and 2a for DUDS and OUDS ONLY 2. Are you leaving (site name) for the last time today or will you return later? Leaving for last time today

Will return later

2a. When did you first arrive at (site name) on this visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________ Complete for GFA ONLY 3. Are you leaving the Sproul/Susquehannock SF for the last time today or will you return later? Leaving for last time today

Will return later Section 2 (Basic Information) Now I want to ask you some more questions about where you went on your whole visit to the Sproul/Susquehannock SF, which includes the use of this area and other portions of the Sproul/Susquehannock SF. 1. Did you spend last night in the Sproul/Susquehannock SF?

No Yes If yes, how many nights in a row did you spend in the Sproul/Susquehannock SF?

__________

2. When did you first arrive at the Sproul/Susquehannock on this recreation visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________ Same as site arrival time


3. When do you plan to finish your visit to the Sproul/Susquehannock SF on this recreation visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________ Same as site arrival time 4. What other areas did you visit, or do you plan to visit in the Sproul/Susquehannock SF for recreation on this trip? (List sites or areas visited) 4a. Lodging facilities include campgrounds, cabins, hotels and lodges. How many different overnight lodging facilities will you use during this State Forest visit? Number______________ 4b. How many developed day use sites (like picnic areas or visitor centers), not including trailheads, will you use on this trip to the Sproul/Susquehannock SF? Number______________ 5. In what activities on this list did you participate during this recreation visit at the Sproul/Susquehannock SF? (Can choose more than one)

6. Which of those is your primary activity for this recreation visit to the Sproul/Susquehannock? (Choose only one)

Question 5 answers Question 6 answer Fishing—all types Hunting—all types Viewing & Learning Nature & Culture Viewing natural features such as scenery, wildlife, birds, flowers, fish, etc. (circle one) Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/areas (circle one) Nature study Visiting a nature center, nature trail, or visitor center (circle one) Nonmotorized Activities Hiking or walking Horseback riding Bicycling, including mountain bikes (circle one) Nonmotorized water travel (canoeing, sailing, kayaking, rafting, etc.) Downhill skiing or snowboarding (circle one) Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing (circle one) Other nonmotorized activities (e.g. swimming, games & sports) Motorized Activities Driving for pleasure on roads Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas (non-snow) Snowmobile travel Motorized water travel (boats, etc.) Other motorized activities (endure events, games, etc.) Camping or Other Overnight Camping in developed sites (family or group sites) Primitive camping (motorized) Backpacking or camping in unroaded areas Resorts, cabins, or other accommodations on State managed lands Other Activities Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products Relaxing, hanging out, escaping heat, noise, etc. Picnicking and family gatherings in developed sites (family or group sites) OTHER (fill in activity) __________________________________________________________


7. Including this visit, about how many times have you come to the Sproul/Susquehannock SF for recreation in the past 12 months? Number______________ 7a. How many of those visits were to participate in the main activity you identified a moment ago? Number______________ 8. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this visit to the Sproul/Susquehannock State Forest? ______________ (1) Very dissatisfied (2) Somewhat dissatisfied (3) Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (4) Somewhat satisfied (5) Very satisfied


10. How many people (including you) traveled here in the same vehicle as you? Number____________ 10a. How many of those people are less than 16 years old? Number______________ 11. What is your age? Age______________ 12. Gender? Male Female


14. Information about income is important because people with different incomes come to the forest for different reasons. Into which income group would you say your household falls? Under $25,000 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000 or over

___ Don’t Know

___ Refused to Answer


Economics Addition 1. If for some reason you had been unable to go to the Sproul/Susquehannock SF for this visit, what would you have done instead: Gone elsewhere for the same activity

Gone elsewhere for a different activity

Come back another time

Stayed home

Gone to work at your regular job

None of these: _____________________________________________________________

2. About how much time, in total, will you be away from home on this recreation trip? Days ________________ or

Hours _______________

3. On this trip, did you recreate at just the Sproul/Susquehannock SF, or did you go to other State Forests, parks, or recreation areas? Just the Sproul/Susquehanna SF (skip question 4, go to question 5)

Other places (go to question 4)

4. Was the Sproul/Susquehannock SF your primary destination for this recreation trip? Yes No

5. Did you or other members of your party spend any money on this trip within 50 miles of this park? ___ Yes (Go to Question 6) ___ No (Skip to Question 7)

6. For the following categories, please estimate the amount you (and other members of your party) will spend within 50 miles of here on this trip. Motel, Lodge, Cabin, B&B, etc. $ ___________

Restaurants & Bars $ _______________

Groceries $ __________

Outfitter Related Expenses (guide fees & equipment rentals) $ _______________

Sporting Goods $ _______________

Camping $ ___________

Local Transportation (bus, shuttles, etc.) $ _______________

Gasoline & Oil $ ___________


$ _______________

Souvenirs, Clothing, Other Misc. $ _______________

6a. How many people do these trip expenditures cover? _____ group members 6b. In total, about how much did you and other people in your vehicle spend on this entire trip, from the time you left home until you return home? Dollar Amount_______ 7. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ 8. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________



1. This section asks you about your satisfaction with the recreation services and quality of the recreation facilities in the Sproul/Susquehannock SF. Please rate the following attributes of this recreation site or area of the forest. Also rate the importance of this attribute toward the overall quality of your recreation experience here. Rate importance from 1 (=not important) to 5 (=very important) in terms of how this attribute contributes to your overall recreation experience.

Poor Fair Average Good Very

Good N/A Importance

Scenery 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of parking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Parking lot condition 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of restrooms 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of developed recreation facilities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of Forest roads 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of Forest trails 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of information on recreation 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Feeling of safety 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Adequacy of signage 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Helpfulness of employees 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Attractiveness of the forest landscape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


HARDLY ANYONE

VERY OVERCROWDED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

5. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________




[If no] In what year did you make your first visit to the state forest _______ year In a typical year, how many days do you spend recreating in the state

forest? _______ days


_______ days


Good Excellent Not


1 2 3 4 5 NA



6a. [If yes] Please tell us if you believe our facilities are adequate

2. Which of the following best describes the composition of your group? [check only one] Alone Family

Friends Family & friends

Commercial group (group of people who paid a fee to participate in this trip)



4. Which of the following was the most important reason for this visit to the state forest? [Please check only one] _____ I came here because I enjoy being in the forest _____ I came here because it is a good place to spend time with friends/family _____ I came here because it’s a good place to : _____ Hunt _____ Hike _____ Bike _____ Horseback ride _____ Fish _____ Other reasons for visit (e.g., cabin owner, private inholding):



7. Here is a list of possible reasons why people recreate at outdoor recreation sites. Please tell me how important each of the following benefits is to you as a reason for visiting a state forest in Pennsylvania. [one is not at all important and five is extremely important] [N/A does not apply to this question. Should be able to answer for each] REASON


Somewhat Important


Very Important

Extremely Important


8. If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do? _____________________________________________________________________________________________



Somewhat Important


Very Important

Extremely Important

No Opinion


1 2 3 4 5 x


1 2 3 4 5 x

ATV Trails 1 2 3 4 5 x Snowmobile Trails 1 2 3 4 5 x Hike, bike, & horse (non-motorized)Trails

1 2 3 4 5 x

Printed Interpretive information 1 2 3 4 5 x


Strongly Disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly Agree


1 2 3 4 5


1

2

3

4

5




12. What services in nearby communities (OFF of the forest) do you wish were available? Please list: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 13. This section asks about your satisfaction with your recreation experience at this recreation site or area of the forest. Please rate the following attributes of this recreation site or area of the forest.

Awful

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Not

applicable Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 1 2 3 4 5 NA Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 1 2 3 4 5 NA Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 1 2 3 4 5 NA Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 1 2 3 4 5 NA Helpfulness/courteousness of people in surrounding communities

1 2 3 4 5 NA





11a. What type of information did you obtain? State forest map Trail map

PA visitors guide Other: 11b. When did you receive information? Before leaving home After arriving here 11c. Where or from whom did you receive information? 11d. Was the information you received helpful to plan your trip? Yes No [If no] what would have made the information more useful?

Visitor Use Monitoring of Pennsylvania’s State Forests: Year 2 Report – Delaware and Forbes State Forests

by

Alan R. Graefe

Andrew J. Mowen

D. Kyle Olcott

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management The Pennsylvania State University

and

Donald B. K. English USDA Forest Service



August 13, 2014

Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................3 Organization of this Report ..................................................................................................4 Recreation Use Estimates for the Delaware and Forbes State Forests ................................5 Survey Results ...................................................................................................................11 Trip Visitation Patterns ................................................................................................12 Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................................15 Activity Participation ...................................................................................................16 Satisfaction Addition .........................................................................................................18 Satisfaction Ratings .....................................................................................................18 Importance Ratings ......................................................................................................19 Other Visitor Satisfaction Ratings ...............................................................................21 Overall Satisfaction ......................................................................................................21 Crowding Ratings ........................................................................................................22 Economics Addition...........................................................................................................23 Visitor Expenditures ....................................................................................................25 Experience Addition ..........................................................................................................28 Forest Access ...............................................................................................................28 Recreation Experience .................................................................................................29 Place Attachment .........................................................................................................30 Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the State Forest ......................................................32 Visitor Response to Potential Facilities and Services ..................................................33 Information Services ....................................................................................................34 Desired Services in Nearby Communities ...................................................................35 Visitor Response to Questions about Marcellus-Shale Related Activity .....................37 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................41 Appendices .........................................................................................................................44 Appendix A – Visitor Responses to Open-ended Questions ........................................44 Appendix B – Zip Code Analysis of Delaware and Forbes State Forest Visitors ........69 Appendix C – Survey Instrument .................................................................................76

List of Tables 1 Description of the Sampling Sites .....................................................................6 2 Summary of Mechanical and Observational Counts at Sampling Sites ............8 3 Recreation Use Estimates for the Delaware and Forbes State Forests............10 4 Trip Visitation Patterns in the State Forests....................................................13 5 Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors ....................................15 6 Activity Participation of State Forest Visitors ................................................16 7 Satisfaction Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests .....18 8 Importance Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests......20 9 Visitor Satisfaction Ratings for Various Forest Attributes .............................21 10 Overall Satisfaction of State Forest Visitors ...................................................21 11 Summary of Perceived Crowding Ratings ......................................................22 12 State Forest Recreation Trip Profile (for economics section) .........................24 13 Summary of Trip Spending Patterns of State Forest Visitors .........................26 14 Amount Spent for Various Categories of Trip Expenditures ..........................27 15 Visitor Ratings of Access to the State Forests ................................................28 16 Visitor Ratings for Various Recreation Experience Attributes .......................29 17 Most Important Reason for this Visit to the State Forest ................................30 18 Summary of Place Attachment Scale Items ....................................................31 19 Summary of Motivations/Reasons for Recreating in the State Forests ..........32 20 Visitor Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services ......33 21 Visitor Responses to Questions about Information Services ..........................34

22 Visitor Responses to Services Visitors Wish Were Available in Nearby Communities ......................................................................................35 23 Visitor Responses to Questions about Marcellus Shale-Related Activity ......37

24 Responses to How Marcellus Shale-related Activity has Changed your Use of the Forest .............................................................................................38

25 Responses to Why Marcellus Shale-related Activity has not Changed your Use of the Forest .............................................................................................39

26 Responses to How Marcellus Shale-related Activity has Changed your Recreation Experience at the Forest................................................................40

27 Responses to Why Marcellus Shale-related Activity has not Changed your Recreation Experience at the Forest................................................................40


Introduction

Resource managers in the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources have identified a need to better understand the recreational visitors who use the State

Forests and State Parks. This need includes understanding visitors’ use patterns, as well as their

expectations, spending patterns, desires and satisfaction levels. Relevant questions asked by

managers might include:

i) Who are our customers?

• What are the primary customer segments and sub segments?

• What is the profile of each segment and sub segment?

• What are the patterns of use, trip characteristics, purpose of visit, and

demographic characteristics of our visitors?

• What is our market niche?

• What is the average number of vehicles entering/exiting State Forest/Park sites?

• What is the average number of people per vehicle?

ii) What are our customers looking for?

• What are their expectations and satisfaction levels?

• What gaps exist between expectations and satisfaction levels?

• What do they want in terms of information/interpretation, services, and amenities?

• What kind of experience do they desire?

• What are their preferences for facilities?

• How well are we performing in key areas (service, facilities, law enforcement,

information/interpretation, resource protection, and visitor experience)?

• What is an acceptable level of services/maintenance given existing and projected

budget constraints?

• What are the barriers to participation?

iii) What is the economic impact of State Forest/Park visitors?

• How are State Forest/Park visitors impacted by oil and gas drilling operations on

and surrounding State Forests and State Parks?


Purpose

The purpose of this study is to develop a long-term, systematic approach for answering

such questions about Pennsylvania State Forest and State Park visitors. The study will survey

visitors at selected State Forests and Parks over a five year period to measure recreational use

and gather data to provide a profile of recreational visitors. Sampling will be designed to

measure and describe recreation use on two State Forests and six State Parks per year over a

five-year study period. In total, 10 forests and 30 parks will be surveyed during the five-year

duration of the project. After the initial study period, additional surveying may be conducted.

This report provides results from the second year of the project. Specifically, surveys

were conducted in the Delaware State Forest (District #19) and the Forbes State Forest (District

#4) to measure recreation use and develop a profile of State Forest visitors and their use patterns.

Concurrently, surveys were conducted in six State Parks located adjacent to or near these two

State Forests (Promised Land, Jacobsburg, Tobyhanna, Ohiopyle, Laurel Hill, and Keystone).

Results from the State Park surveys are presented in a separate report.

This project builds on earlier surveys and will incrementally create a database that can be

used to better understand State Forest and State Park visitors and provide a longitudinal database

for tracking trends in State Forest and State Park use. For example, results can be used to

compare participation patterns and visitor characteristics for different individual forests and

parks. As the database grows, findings can be extrapolated to the entire state systems and will

ultimately represent all State Forests and State Parks within the Commonwealth by the end of the

five-year study.

Objectives 1. To conduct surveys of visitors to selected Pennsylvania State Forest and State Park areas and

develop a visitor profile, including information on the origin of visitors (e.g. local, non-local resident, out of state), trip context and purpose (e.g. day versus overnight visitor, primary purpose versus casual visitor), length of stay in the area, spending patterns, size and type of visiting groups, previous visitation history, activities pursued, and different patterns of visitation across seasons.

2. To measure overall recreation use and specific visitation patterns within the selected State

Forests and State Parks, including the number of visitors per vehicle and the distribution of use across different types of sites within the given State Forest/Park.

3. To develop a demographic profile of visitors at the designated State Forests/Parks.


4. To identify visitor expectations and levels of satisfaction with various aspects of their visit. 5. To examine visitor opinions about possible future management practices occurring in State

Forests/Parks and facility development decisions.

6. To examine visitor reactions to oil and gas activities and the impacts these activities have on recreational visitation patterns and visitor experiences.

7. To measure visitor expenditures and extrapolate these to determine their level of economic

impact on surrounding communities. Methodology




with the procedures established for the U.S. Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring


found in a report by English et al. (2001), available on the USDA Forest Service website for the

National Visitor Use Monitoring Program.1 A detailed sampling schedule, which identified the

site, day, and time of day for on-site interviewing, was established for each forest in consultation

with Bureau of Forestry personnel. Prior to the survey, meetings were held with the district

forester and key staff in each forest to identify the range of sampling locations for each forest.

The potential survey sites were visited by project personnel to confirm their suitability for the

study and identify an optimal protocol and design of the sampling station for each site. A sample

site inventory was created, with input from each forest’s staff, to categorize the use levels for all

designated sites and days of the year. From this matrix, a detailed random sampling calendar

was developed by Dr. Donald English, manager of the NVUM program for the USDA Forest

Service. The sampling schedule provided for a total of 200 sampling days per forest, allocated

over various sampling strata per forest, and distributed throughout the calendar year.


overall use of the forests, as well as use of selected types of sites and individual areas of



1 English, D. B. K., Kocis, S. M., Zarnoch, S. J., & Arnold,. J. R. 2001. Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum



were measured through traffic and trail counters and observations of vehicles using the area.

Both the visitor count data and visitor survey data will later be used to validate and calibrate

visitor use monitoring methods for future application in the State Forests.


visiting the Delaware and Forbes State Forests. The on-site survey took approximately 5-15

minutes to complete, depending on which survey was used in the interview. Approximately one-

third of the visitors were interviewed with the basic version/experience addition, another third

received the basic/satisfaction addition and the remaining third completed the basic/economics

addition.

All of the sampling for this study followed a detailed sampling schedule and took place

between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm, during a morning shift or an afternoon shift. The morning

sampling period ran from 8:00 am to 2:00 pm, while the afternoon sampling period ran from

2:00 pm to 8:00 pm.



during the period October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. The results are organized by

topic area, with different sections corresponding to different versions of the survey. Each section

follows a consistent format, with the results reported separately for each forest. Appendices to

the report include responses to open-ended questions in the survey and a copy of the survey

instrument used.


5


Following the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) protocols, recreation use of the

State Forests was estimated through a process of obtaining mechanical traffic counts, calibrated

by observation and on-site interviewing, at the sample of recreation sites and days scheduled

throughout the study year. Mechanical traffic counts were obtained for a 24-hour period on the

targeted sample days. Interviewers were on site for a 6-hour period. During that time, they both

visually calibrated the mechanical counter by observing and counting exiting traffic, and

interviewed a random sample of exiting visitors. State Forest sampling sites included all

potential places that recreation users could exit the forests, and were classified by types and use

levels (Table 1). Most of the sampling days were conducted at general forest area (GFA) sites.

Such sites provide access to the forest without concentrating use at the site itself, and include

trailheads, river put-in and take-out points, forest roads, etc. Other sampling categories include

day use developed sites (DUDS) such as picnic areas, scenic overlooks and the like, overnight

use developed sites (OUDS) including camping areas, cabins, resorts, etc., and “special areas.”

The latter category includes designated “natural” and “wild” areas of the state forests, and is

analogous to the designated Wilderness areas within the national forests.

In addition to these categories, field personnel spent twelve days in each Forest at “View

Corridor” sites. The view corridor sites were located on the higher volume paved roads in each

forest (Routes 6, 390, and 402 in the Delaware and Routes 31, 381, Skyline Road, and Mt. Davis

Road in the Forbes). The intent of sampling at those sites was to estimate the volume of scenic

driving through the respective State Forests, above and beyond that occurring on the forest roads

already included in the sampling of GFA sites. Since traffic on these state routes includes all

types of vehicles (work and commuting vehicles, etc.) and cannot all be considered scenic

driving in the State Forest, the total traffic counts were adjusted to estimate the number of

vehicles that could be considered participating in sightseeing or scenic driving to any degree. As

for the other types of sites, mechanical traffic counts were obtained after 6 hours and 24 hours.

Simultaneously, traffic was observed and counted in hourly intervals and categorized as regular

vehicles and commercial vehicles during the 6-hour field visit. The visual counts were used to

validate the 6-hour mechanical traffic counts. No interviews were conducted at these sites due to

safety concerns related to the higher speed and volume of traffic. The proportion of scenic

driving was estimated using data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring study conducted in


6

the Allegheny National Forest, and validated with the activity participation data collected in the

current State Forest study.


developed day use or overnight use areas, GFA sites accounted for the greatest number of

sampling days and completed interviews across both forests. Sampling of State Forest sites was

also stratified by level of recreational use, including three use levels as estimated by Bureau of

Forestry personnel (Table 1). More specifically, the sampling strata were defined by best

available estimates of the daily volume of exiting recreation traffic at each site, and classified as



Table 1. Description of the Sampling Sites. Delaware Forbes Percent of


Interviews* Percent of


Interviews* Site Type General Forest Area (GFA) 39.4 51.4 43.6 40.3 Day Use Developed Site (DUDS) 30.0 30.8 22.3 36.6 Overnight Use Developed Site (OUDS)* 0 0 0 0 Special Area 23.9 17.8 27.4 23.1 View Corridor 6.7 0 6.7 0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Use Level Stratum High 25.6 36.7 27.9 28.5 Medium 26.7 29.3 29.1 31.5 Low 47.8 34.0 43.0 40.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

* No OUDS sites were included in the sampling as overnight use in these two State Forests occurs at dispersed campsites/cabins or other places; there are no developed campgrounds in the Delaware or Forbes State Forests.

Stratification was designed to reduce the overall variance of the visitation estimate, and to

ensure an adequate representation of varying levels of recreation throughout the study year.


medium, and low use periods. Survey results were weighted to the population of days in each

stratum to correctly represent the use distribution across the various types of sites within the

State Forests.

Pneumatic traffic counters were used to measure vehicular use at suitable locations such

as forest roads and parking lots. Field personnel recorded counts at the end of each 6-hour

sampling period and again after 24 hours had elapsed. Comparing the mechanical and


7

observational counts at the end of the 6-hour period provides a calibration that can be used with

the 24-hour mechanical counts to obtain an estimate of total daily exiting traffic. Survey

screening questions were used to determine the proportion of exiting traffic that was completing

a recreation visit, as well as the proportion of recreational visitors compared to other users of

forest sites. Non-recreational forest users included those who were working or commuting to

work, just passing through, or there for some other reason. Additional survey questions were

used to convert vehicle counts to visitor estimates, based on the number of people per vehicle.

The 6-hour mechanical traffic counts ranged from 0 to1,333, with a mean of 57.2

vehicles counted on the Delaware and 26.9 vehicles on the Forbes (Table 2). A significant

number (4.8%-17.7%) of these counts were zero, reflecting no traffic during the 6-hour sampling

period. The 24-hour counts ranged from 0 to 3,217, with a mean of 181.3 on the Delaware and

81.9 on the Forbes. The hand tally counts for the 6-hour sampling periods averaged 21.4 and

16.0 on the Delaware and Forbes State Forests, respectively. These counts were naturally lower

than the corresponding mechanical counts because the observational counts included only one-

way (exiting) traffic while the mechanical counters recorded traffic moving in both directions.

The 6-hour counts obtained via the hand tally clickers and mechanical traffic counters showed a

high degree of correlation (.84 on the Delaware and .70 on the Forbes), lending additional

validity to the estimates of visitor use levels.


recreational use of the State Forests. Data were extrapolated from the sampled site-day



and 2) the total number of recreational forest visits. Since many visits to the State Forests tend to

include visits to more than one different site during each visit, the total site visits are

considerably higher than the number of forest visits.


8

Table 2. Summary of Mechanical and Observational Counts at Sampling Sites Delaware Forbes Pneumatic Traffic Counter 6-hour Traffic Counts (Percent) 0 17.7 4.8 1 - 2 9.2 4.2 3 - 5 16.5 10.9 6 - 9 13.7 12.6 10 - 30 30.9 45.2 31 or more 12.0 22.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 57.2 26.9 24-hour Traffic Counts (Percent) 0 4.2 5.3 1 - 5 11.5 0.7 6 - 10 10.2 1.3 11 - 25 20.5 15.9 26 - 40 19.9 19.2 41 - 60 12.6 19.2 61 or more 21.1 38.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 181.3 81.9 6-hour Hand Clicker Counts (Percent) 0 19.1 5.1 1 – 2 22.5 11.3 3 – 5 25.8 28.8 6 – 10 16.9 26.6 11 or more 15.7 28.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 21.4 16.0

A State Forest recreation visit is defined as “one person entering and exiting a State

Forest for the purpose of recreation” (English et al., 2001). A single visitor may participate in

any number of activities and visit any number of sites within a single visit. Also, a single visit

can last multiple days or might be one person or group visiting a single site on a day trip for any

amount of time. Site and forest recreation visits were estimated using the following process and

data shown in Table 3. First, 24-hour traffic counts were used to measure the number of vehicles

leaving the forest on any given day (Table 3, column 1). The vehicle counts within each stratum

were multiplied by the percentage of exiting traffic whose purpose for visiting the forest was for

recreation (column 2). To avoid double counting visitors who may be traveling to and from a

site within the day, the next step was to multiply the number of vehicles on recreation trips by


9

the percentage of visitors reporting they were leaving the site for the last time that day (column

3). To convert the units from vehicles to people, the next step was to multiply by the average

number of people per vehicle for each site-use stratum (column 4), resulting in an estimate of

total daily recreation visits for each site-use category (column 5). One additional variable was

used to estimate the number of State Forest visits for each strata: the number of sites visited

within the forest during the current visit (column 6).

To convert daily recreation use measures to total forest use for the entire calendar year,

the average daily use estimates were extrapolated to the population of site days (or total number

of days at all sites for each site type and use level) in the year. The results shown in column 7 of

Table 3 represent the total yearly recreation site visits for all sites in each site type-level

category. Finally, the number of site recreation visits was adjusted by the number of sites visited

by each respondent, resulting in the estimated number of forest visits (column 8).

The Delaware State Forest received an estimated 88,726 recreational visits during the

study year (October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013). These forest visits included a total of

115,526 individual site visits, or about 1.3 site visits for each State Forest visit. The Forbes State

Forest received an estimated 121,233 recreational visits and 190,196 individual forest site visits

during the same period (about 1.6 site visits per forest visit). The lower estimates of recreation

use on the Delaware are based mainly on the smaller number of recreation visits per day on most

of the site types in that forest.

In addition to these recreation visits to the State Forests, the number of scenic driving

visits was also estimated via the sampling procedure described above for the “View Corridor”

locations. From the observational counts conducted, the number of vehicles per day ranged from

1,204 to 3,217 total vehicles in the Delaware and from 188 to 586 in the Forbes, and the

proportion of non-commercial traffic ranged from 81% to 98% for the different highways in

these Forests. From these traffic counts and data from the visitor surveys on activity

participation and number of people per vehicle, the total number of “viewing” or “sightseeing”

visits was estimated to be 1,943,614 visits for the Delaware State Forest and 352,006 visits for

the Forbes State Forest. These annual visitation estimates might be considered another form of

more passive or secondary use of the State Forests, above and beyond the primary recreation use

measured in the visitor surveys conducted at the various sites throughout the Forests. While we

have no data on how much sightseeing or other recreation activities these people may be doing,

they are traveling through the Forests and may be partaking of their scenic or other values.


10

Table 3. Recreation Use Estimates for the Delaware and Forbes State Forests

Delaware State Forest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Type and Use Strata

1-way Traffic Count

% Recreation

Visits

% Leaving for Last

Time

People per

Vehicle

Recreation Visits per

day

Number of Sites Visited

Total Site

Visits

Total Forest Visits

GFA–High 28.00 0.34 0.54 2.35 12.18 1.48 19,786 13,385 GFA-Medium 26.22 0.20 0.52 2.48 6.83 1.48 9,528 6,438 GFA–Low 13.58 0.25 0.46 2.10 3.30 1.52 6,892 4,546 DUDS–High 38.34 0.48 0.85 2.35 36.35 1.16 21,085 18,157 DUDS-Medium 27.34 0.34 0.86 2.35 18.66 1.10 18,121 16,546 DUDS–Low 10.07 0.46 0.87 2.22 8.85 1.35 25,035 18,575 Special-High 14.11 0.63 0.70 1.84 11.33 1.47 2,016 1,373 Special-Medium 8.79 0.45 0.86 2.43 8.27 1.14 4,799 4,199 Special–Low 9.50 0.35 0.92 1.92 5.77 1.50 8,263 5,509 Forest Total 115,526 88,726

Forbes State Forest

GFA–High 25.84 0.417 0.702 2.19 16.56 1.60 7,155 4,462 GFA-Medium 20.70 0.276 0.719 2.29 9.40 1.68 21,499 12,824 GFA–Low 36.39 0.237 0.789 2.13 14.49 1.44 55,823 38,804 DUDS–High 57.10 0.427 0.702 2.14 36.63 2.08 14,798 7,107 DUDS-Medium 41.68 0.265 0.902 2.12 21.12 1.63 21,332 13,054 DUDS–Low 48.93 0.286 0.878 2.13 26.17 1.70 48,960 28,800 Special–High 27.04 0.386 0.955 2.15 21.43 1.11 3,021 2,719 Special-Medium 26.94 0.369 0.805 2.45 19.61 1.46 7,176 4,903 Special–Low 30.36 0.305 0.844 2.27 17.74 1.22 10,432 8,559 Forest Total 190,196 121,233


11

Survey Results Overall, the survey sampled a total of 1,976 State Forest visitors. Among these, 1,474

people were willing to participate in the interview, resulting in a response rate of 75%. Of the

unwilling visitors, 26 were people who had already completed the survey and were screened out.

Thus the overall response rate, reflecting those willing to complete the survey, was 76%.

One of the initial screening questions in the survey asked the visitors, “What is the

primary purpose of your visit to this site?” Responses included: recreation, working or

commuting to work, just stopping to use the bathroom, just passing through/going somewhere

else, and some other reason. Among these forest visitors, less than half (45.0%) stated they were

visiting the forest for recreation. Only those respondents who were visiting the forest for

recreation were included in the estimates of recreation use and descriptions of visitors in this

report. Most of the remaining individuals in the sample were working or commuting to work

(18.5%), just passing through (23.3%), stopping to use the bathroom (1.2%) or there for some

other reason (12.0%). Other reasons mentioned by respondents included travel to residences or

private cabins, cutting or purchasing wood, and just turning around or making a wrong turn.


12

Trip Visitation Patterns on the State Forests

Most of the visitors contacted (87% in the Delaware and 88% in the Forbes) were repeat

visitors to the State Forest.

Among those who were repeat visitors, about one-third had made their first visit to the Forests prior to 1980. About 40% made their first visit during the 1980s or 1990s. The remaining one-quarter were relatively new visitors, reporting their first visit between 2000 and 2013.

Delaware State Forest visitors reported visiting the forest more often than Forbes State Forest visitors.

About half of the Forbes visitors (49.4%) and one-third (36.9%) of the Delaware visitors indicated that they typically make between 0 and 5 visits to the State Forest per year.

The average number of reported trips to the forest per year was about 29 for the Delaware and 22 for the Forbes.

Likewise, nearly half of the visitors contacted indicated that they typically make between 0 and 5 visits to other forest areas each year (these could include other state forests or any other public or private forests the respondent visited), and the average number of trips to other forests per year was about 24 and 18, respectively for the Delaware and Forbes State Forests.

The majority of visitors in both forests (65% for Delaware and 87% for Forbes) were day users.

Of those respondents who were overnight visitors, the average length of stay was 2.6 nights in the Delaware and 1.9 nights in the Forbes.

Over two-thirds (67.8%) of Forbes visitors and four-fifths (82.5%) of Delaware visitors indicated that they used no day use facilities during their visit, while the remaining visitors used one or more day use facilities on this trip. Day use facilities included several picnic and parking areas, ponds, and trail systems.

About three-fourths (74%) of the respondents in both forests had just one or two people in their vehicle on this trip. The average number of persons per vehicle was 2.2 in the Delaware and 2.3 in the Forbes State Forest.

Less than one-fourth (20-22%) of the respondents in both forests reported that they had at least one child under the age of 16 with them.

The most common group type in both Forests was family groups (51.2% in the Delaware and 42.3% in the Forbes), with smaller proportions coming in groups of friends and groups containing family and friends.

About one-fifth (21-22%) of the visitors in both Forests came to the Forest alone.


13


Valid Percent* Delaware Forbes Previous Visitation History First Time Visitor 13.3 11.7 Repeat Visitor 86.7 88.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Year of First Visit Prior to 1980 30.9 29.4 1980-1989 17.6 19.6 1990-1999 22.1 23.4 2000-2013 29.4 27.5 Total 100.0 99.9 Number of Visits to This State Forest in Typical Year 0-5 36.9 49.4 6-10 15.9 14.7 11-20 17.7 12.9 21-50 18.4 12.4 More than 50 11.1 10.5 Total 100.0 99.9 Mean 28.6 21.7 Number of Visits to Other Forests in Typical Year 0-5 44.1 43.1 6-10 25.0 19.6 11-20 11.8 21.6 21-50 8.8 10.8 More than 50 10.3 4.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 23.6 18.2 Length of Stay Overnight Visitor 34.7 12.9 Day User 65.3 87.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Nights Spent (Overnight Visitors) 1 25.4 48.4 2 44.4 25.8 3-5 23.8 22.6 6 or more 6.4 3.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 2.6 1.9 Number of Day Use Facilities Used During This Trip 0 82.5 67.8 1 10.4 24.0 2 or more 7.1 8.3 Total 100.0 100.1


14

Valid Percent* Delaware Forbes

Number of People in Vehicle 1-2 73.7 74.5 3-4 21.8 20.6 5 or more 4.5 4.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 2.2 2.3 Number of People Less than 16 Years Old in Vehicle 0 80.4 77.8 1 11.1 12.8 2 7.0 5.5 3 or more 1.5 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Type of Group alone 21.4 22.0 family 51.2 42.3 friends 11.9 21.1 family and friends 14.3 13.0 other 1.2 1.6 Total 100.0 100. *Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding.


Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors About three-fourths (72-75%) of the respondents in both State Forests were males.

Almost one-third of the visitors surveyed in the State Forests were between the ages of 36-50, while another one-third were between 51 and 64.

The average age of visitors was 50 in the Delaware and 46 in the Forbes State Forest.

Almost all of the State Forest visitors surveyed reported their race/ethnicity as White/Caucasian.

Other ethnicities reported by visitors included Asian, African-American, and American Indian/Alaskan Native.

Less than one-tenth of the visiting groups included a person with a disability in their household.

Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors Valid Percent* Delaware Forbes Gender Male 71.8 74.9 Female 28.2 25.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Age 18 to 35 15.6 27.4 36 to 50 32.2 30.8 51 to 64 40.3 32.1 65 or older 11.9 9.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 50.0 46.4 Ethnicity Caucasian 95.6 94.2 Other 4.4 5.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Income Under $25,000 5.6 8.7 $25,000-$49,999 27.1 20.7 $50,000-$74,999 29.0 30.5 $75,000-$99,999 18.2 18.0 $100,000-$149,999 14.0 14.7 $150,000 or over 6.1 7.5 Total 100.0 100.1 Does anyone in your household have a disability? Yes 7.1 8.9 No 92.9 91.1 Total 100.0 100.0 *Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding.


Activity Participation The basic survey administered to all visitors included a detailed list of recreational



The first column for each forest (activity participation) shows the range in numbers of visitors

participating in the various activities, while the primary activity column reflects what the visitors

considered their most important purpose for visiting the forest on this trip.

Table 6. Activity Participation of State Forest Visitors (during this recreation visit)

Delaware Forbes

Consumptive Activities Activity

Participation* Primary Activity+

Activity Participation*

Primary Activity+

Fishing—all types 31.7 19.7 5.6 3.4 Hunting—all types 21.0 13.3 11.9 9.8

Viewing, Learning about Nature & Culture Viewing natural features such as scenery, wildlife, birds, flowers, fish, etc. 55.4 4.9 45.3 8.5 Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/areas 6.6 0 9.9 0.5 Nature study 11.4 0 6.6 0.3 Visiting a nature center, nature trail, or visitor center 7.4 0 3.0 0

Nonmotorized Activities Hiking or walking 53.5 17.8 57.2 30.5 Horseback riding 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.6 Bicycling, including mountain bikes 5.9 0.4 8.1 5.2 Nonmotorized water travel (canoeing, sailing, kayaking, rafting, etc.) 8.9 1.5 0.5 0.3 Downhill skiing or snowboarding 0 0 1.5 1.0 Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 0 0 15.2 14.0 Other nonmotorized activities (e.g. swimming, games & sports) 1.1 0 1.0 0

Motorized Activities Driving for pleasure on roads 38.4 9.5 29.4 8.8 Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas (non-snow) 6.6 3.4 1.5 0.3 Snowmobile travel 0.7 0.4 5.1 4.7 Motorized water travel (boats, etc.) 1.1 0 0.5 0 Other motorized activities (endure events, games, etc.) 0.7 0.4 0 0

Camping or Other Overnight Activities Camping in developed sites (family or group sites) 3.0 1.5 1.0 0.3 Primitive camping (motorized) 0 0 0.5 0 Backpacking or camping in unroaded areas 1.1 0.8 2.3 0.8 Resorts, cabins, or other accommodations on State managed lands 13.7 8.0 3.5 1.6

Other Activities Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products 6.3 0 3.3 1.0 Relaxing, hanging out, escaping heat, noise, etc. 42.4 9.8 19.5 1.8 Picnicking and family gatherings in developed sites (family or group sites) 11.1 3.0 8.4 2.8 Other 8.1 5.3 6.8 3.1

*Percentages do not equal 100% because respondents could report more than one activity. +Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding.


Many forest visits included various viewing and sightseeing activities, but relatively few

people reported such activities as their primary recreation activity on the State Forests.

o Forbes State Forest visitors were about twice as likely (8.5%) as Delaware State Forest visitors (4.9%) to report viewing natural features, such as scenery, as their primary activity, while about one-tenth of visitors in both Forests chose driving for pleasure as their primary activity.

About one-third (33%) of the Delaware State Forest visitors sampled reported consumptive activities (fishing and hunting) as their primary activity at the Forest, compared to just 13.2% of Forbes State Forest visitors.

o Fishing was more common as a primary activity on the Delaware (19.7%) than on the Forbes State Forest (3.4%).

o Hunting was also more common as a primary activity on the Delaware (13.3%) than on the Forbes (9.8%).

The majority of the sampled visitors in both Forests did some hiking or walking during their visit. Hiking/walking was the most common primary activity among all activities on the Forbes State Forest (30.5%) and second most popular behind fishing on the Delaware (17.8%).

Few of the Forest visitors surveyed reported some type of camping as their primary activity.

Relatively few of the respondents in either Forest reported motorized pursuits as their primary activity.

o Driving for pleasure was the primary activity for close to ten percent of visitors on both State Forests.

o About five percent of the Forbes visitors reported snowmobile travel as their primary activity.



This section of the survey asked forest users about the importance they attached to, and

their satisfaction with, thirteen customer service attributes in the State Forest they visited.


that they did not experience during their visit. Additional satisfaction-related questions were also

asked in the basic survey that was administered to all visitors and in the experience addition.

Responses to those questions are also included in this section.

Satisfaction Ratings The State Forests were generally rated highly on each of the thirteen satisfaction attributes,

with over 50% of the scores in the “very good” or “good” categories.

State Forest visitors were most satisfied with the scenery and attractiveness of the forest landscape (>90% good/very good).

The items that received the most not applicable (N/A) responses included helpfulness of employees and cleanliness of restrooms (over 50% N/A). Generally these responses reflect the fact that the visitors did not encounter staff during their visits, and that restrooms are usually only present in developed areas in State Forests.


Delaware State Forest Poor Fair Average Good Very Good


Condition of the natural environment 0 1.1 1.1 33.7 62.9 1.1 4.6

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 0 1.1 4.5 30.3 61.8 2.2 4.6

Feeling of safety 0 1.1 7.9 27.0 61.8 2.2 4.5

Scenery 1.1 0 9.0 34.8 52.8 2.2 4.4

Condition of Forest trails 1.1 0 10.2 41.6 29.2 18.0 4.2










Forbes State Forest Poor Fair Average Good Very Good


Scenery 0 0.8 3.8 18.8 76.7 0 4.7

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 0 0 3.8 21.1 75.2 0 4.7

Condition of the natural environment 0 0 1.5 30.1 66.2 2.3 4.7

Feeling of safety 0 0.8 3.8 30.8 63.9 0.8 4.6

Helpfulness of employees 0 0 4.5 10.5 21.1 63.9 4.5



Condition of Forest trails 0 1.5 9.0 38.3 41.4 9.8 4.3

Condition of developed recreation facilities 0.8 1.5 4.5 26.3 30.1 36.8 4.3

Condition of Forest roads 0 3.8 20.3 39.8 35.3 0.8 4.1

Adequacy of signage 1.5 6.8 18.0 36.8 36.8 0 4.0



aResponse Code: 1 = "Poor" through 5 = "Very good”

Importance Ratings

Visitors were also asked how important they found each of the listed attributes or services.

Importance ratings for the customer service attributes generally followed the same pattern as

the satisfaction ratings across the attributes.

The condition of the natural environment (mean = 4.7 - 4.8 in both Forests), attractiveness of the forest landscape (mean = 4.8 in both Forests) and scenery (mean = 4.6 – 4.8 in both Forests) were the most important attributes to the State Forest visitors.

The least important items included parking lot condition and availability (mean = 3.7 – 4.1 in both Forests).



aResponse Code: 1 = Least Important through 5 = Most Important

Delaware State Forest 1 2 3 4 5 Meana

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 0 0 4.7 10.5 84.9 4.8

Condition of the natural environment 0 0 2.3 11.6 86.0 4.8

Feeling of safety 0 1.2 4.8 9.5 84.5 4.8

Scenery 0 1.2 5.8 20.9 72.1 4.6

Condition of Forest roads 0 0 11.6 24.4 64.0 4.5


Helpfulness of employees 0 1.4 15.3 25.0 58.3 4.4







Forbes State Forest 1 2 3 4 5 Meana

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 0.8 0 4.7 11.0 83.5 4.8

Scenery 0.8 0 3.9 14.1 81.3 4.8

Condition of the natural environment 0.8 0.8 4.0 14.3 80.2 4.7


Feeling of safety 1.6 0 8.7 24.4 65.4 4.5

Availability of information on recreation 0 1.7 13.8 31.9 52.6 4.4










Respondents for the Experience Addition were asked some additional questions about how they would rate the quality of various aspects of the State Forest.


Table 9. Visitor Satisfaction Ratings for Various Forest Attributes (Percent) Awful Fair Good Very Good Excellent N/A Meana Delaware State Forest Natural environment 0 1.2 6.0 27.4 63.1 2.4 4.6 Responsiveness of staff 0 0 3.6 4.8 13.1 78.6 4.4 Sanitation and cleanliness 0 3.6 10.7 31.0 51.2 3.6 4.4 Safety and security 0 1.2 13.1 32.1 48.8 4.8 4.4 Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities

1.2 1.2 11.9 14.3 15.5 56.0 4.0

Forbes State Forest Natural environment 0 0 1.6 11.8 85.0 1.6 4.8 Sanitation and cleanliness 0.8 0 9.4 26.0 59.1 4.7 4.5 Safety and security 0.8 2.4 7.9 26.0 58.3 4.7 4.4 Responsiveness of staff 0 0.8 5.5 8.7 23.6 61.4 4.4 Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities 2.4 2.4 11.8 20.5 28.3 34.6 4.1

a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent) Overall Satisfaction Overall satisfaction scores tended to be high, with around three-fourths of the respondents in

both Forests reporting that they were “very satisfied” with their visit to the State Forest.

Table 10. Overall Satisfaction of State Forest Visitors Valid Percent Delaware Forbes Very Dissatisfied 1.1 1.5 Somewhat Dissatisfied 1.1 0.5 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied 3.0 4.6 Somewhat Satisfied 22.5 14.9 Very Satisfied 72.3 78.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Meana 4.6 4.7 a Response code: 1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied”


Crowding Ratings Crowding scores tended to be relatively low, with over half of the respondents in the Forbes

and over one-third in the Delaware choosing 1 or 2, reflecting that they encountered “hardly anyone” during their visit.


Conditions appear to be slightly more crowded in the Delaware State Forest. The average crowding score on the 10-point crowding scale was 2.7 among the Forbes visitors and 3.4 among Delaware State Forest visitors.

Table 11. Summary of Perceived Crowding Ratings (Valid Percent). Perception of Crowdinga 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Delaware 23.9 11.4 22.7 11.4 15.9 4.5 6.8 1.1 1.1 1.1

Forbes 35.1 21.6 16.4 6.7 10.4 4.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 0

a Response code: 1 = “hardly anyone” to 10 = “overcrowded”


Economics Addition




evaluation of the reported trip expenditures.

When asked what they would have done if, for some reason, they had been unable to go to the State Forest on this visit, the most common response (59% in the Delaware and 49% in the Forbes) was that they would have gone somewhere else to pursue the same activity.

About one-third (31%) of the visitors in the Delaware and one-fifth (21%) of those in the Forbes said they would have stayed home.

About 14% of the visitors in the Forbes and 6% in the Delaware reported they would have come back another time.

Likewise, more Forbes visitors (11%) than Delaware visitors (4%) would have gone elsewhere for a different activity.

Overnight visitors were mostly on trips of 1-2 days (54% in the Delaware and 47% in the Forbes).

Day visitors were most likely to be away from their home for 6 hours or more.

Over 90% of the respondents surveyed in both forests were visiting only that State Forest on this particular trip.

Nearly all (84 – 91%) of the visitors who reported multiple destinations for their trip indicated that the State Forest was their primary destination.

When queried about how many people their reported expenditures were covering, the most typical response for Forbes visitors (47%) was just one person, while Delaware State Forest visitors were most likely covering the expenses of two people (36%).

Besides the detailed spending questions about various spending categories, visitors were asked to estimate how much money everyone in their vehicle spent on the entire trip, from the time they left home until they return home. Both Delaware State Forest visitors and Forbes State Forest visitors reported spending about $90 on their trips to the Forest.


Table 12. State Forest Recreation Trip Profile (for economics section) Valid Percent Delaware Forbes What Visitor Would have done if Unable to Visit SF Gone elsewhere for same activity 58.5 48.5 Gone elsewhere for different activity 4.3 10.6 Come back another time 6.4 13.6 Stayed home 30.9 21.2 Gone to work at your regular job 0 2.3 None of these 0 3.8 Total 100.1 100.0 Time Away from Home (Days) 1-2 53.6 46.9 3-5 35.8 34.3 6 or more 10.7 18.7 Total 100.1 99.9 Time Away from Home (Hours) 1-2 15.9 12.7 3-5 27.5 36.2 6 or more 56.5 51.0 Total 99.9 99.9 Single or Multiple Destination Trip Visited State Forest only 97.9 91.7 Visited other places 2.1 9.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Was State Forest Primary Destination for Trip Yes 83.8 90.7 No 16.2 9.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of People Covered by Expenses 1 27.6 47.4 2 36.2 21.8 3 15.5 10.3 4 or more 20.7 20.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Estimated Total Trip Expenses for Group $25 or less 47.9 60.6 $26-$50 14.6 10.6 $51-$100 16.7 9.9 $101-$200 8.3 9.8 More than $200 12.5 9.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean $89.29 $90.17


Visitor Expenditures

In the economics addition, visitors were asked how much they spent on this trip for ten

categories of expenditures within 50 miles of the site visited (Tables 13 and 14). The results

shown below provide the proportion of visitors reporting spending any money on their trip

within 50 miles of the forest, the percentage reporting expenditures in each category, and the

average amount spent in each category.

The majority of respondents (63% in the Delaware and 58% in the Forbes) indicated that they did spend some money within 50 miles of the forest on their current trip.

Many respondents, however, indicated that they spent no money on many of the specific expenditure categories listed on the survey instrument.

Few visitors in either Forest reported any spending for local transportation, camping fees, outdoor recreation and outfitter-related expenses (including guide fees and equipment rentals).

Significant proportions of visitors in both forests reported trip expenses in the categories of restaurants and bars and groceries.

Nearly half of the Delaware State Forest visitors (45%) and one-third of the Forbes visitors (31%) reported buying gas or oil during their trip. This is not surprising since the majority of visitors in both forests live within 50 miles of the site visited (79% in the Forbes and 67% in the Delaware).



Delaware Forbes

Proportion of visitors spending any money within 50 miles of this state forest

62.5% 57.6%

Economic Expenditure Items Proportion of Visitors Spending Something in Each Category (percent)

Motel, Lodge, Cabin, B&B, etc. 8.3 7.5

Camping Fees 0 0.8

Restaurants & Bars 31.2 32.6

Groceries 34.4 22.0

Gasoline and oil 44.8 31.1

Local Transportation (bus, shuttles, etc.) 0 0

Outfitter Related Expenses (guide fees & equipment rentals) 1.0 1.5


2.1 0.8

Sporting Goods 12.5 3.8

Souvenirs, Clothing, Other Misc. 3.1 3.8

The first column for each Forest in Table 14 shows the average amount spent among only

those visitors reporting spending something in each category. These numbers cannot be totaled

because they are based on a different number of individuals making the various types of

purchases. The second column for each Forest in Table 14 shows the average amount spent

among all visitors in the survey. These averages include those spending nothing in various

categories, and therefore can be totaled to indicate the average total amount spent for all

categories.

For example, camping fees were paid by only about 1% of the visitors in the Forbes State Forest, but the average amount spent for these fees was $48.00.

In general, the categories showing the highest expenditures included gasoline and oil, groceries, and restaurants and bars.


Table 14. Amount Spent by State Forest Visitors for Various Categories of Trip Expenditures

Economic Expenditure Items

Delaware Forbes



Each Category


Visitors



Each Category


Visitors

Motel, Lodge, Cabin, B&B, etc. $126.00 $10.50 $421.90 $31.72

Camping Fees 0 0 $48.00 $0.36

Restaurants & Bars $68.62 $20.73 $39.90 $12.80

Groceries $55.42 $19.05 $71.83 $15.78

Gasoline and oil $66.60 $29.83 $60.71 $18.86

Local Transportation (bus, shuttles, etc.) 0 0 0 0

Outfitter Related Expenses (guide fees & equipment rentals) $40.00 $0.42 $70.00 1.06


$60.00 $1.25 $80.00 0.61

Sporting Goods $25.17 $3.15 $68.00 $2.58

Souvenirs, Clothing, Other Misc. $80.00 $2.5 $135.00 $5.11

Total NA $87.43 NA $88.88


Experience Addition








Forest Access

Most respondents in both Forests indicated favorable ratings for access to the State Forests by both roads and trails (mean of 4.3 – 4.5).

There were no significant differences in the accessibility ratings between the two State Forests.

Table 15. Visitor Ratings of Access to the State Forests (Percent) 1 2 3 4 5 Meana Delaware State Forest By roads 1.2 0 17.9 26.2 54.8 4.3 By trails 0 1.3 17.1 34.2 47.4 4.3 Forbes State Forest By roads 0 1.6 11.9 31.0 55.6 4.4 By trails 0.8 0.8 6.7 35.0 56.7 4.5 a Response scale = 1 (poor) to 5 (very good)



Most respondents also indicated favorable ratings (mean of 4.2 or above) for all of the recreation experience items rated.

Table 16. Visitor Ratings for Various Recreation Experience Attributes (Percent) Awful Fair Good Very Good Excellent N/A Mean a Delaware State Forest Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 0 2.4 10.6 16.5 69.4 1.2 4.6

Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 0 2.4 8.2 28.2 60.0 1.2 4.5

Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 0 1.2 9.4 31.8 47.1 10.6 4.4

Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 0 0 2.4 11.8 15.3 70.6 4.4


0 0 14.1 27.1 29.4 29.4 4.2

Forbes State Forest

Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 0 1.6 8.7 22.2 67.5 0 4.6 Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 0 0 10.3 31.0 57.9 0.8 4.5 Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 0 0.8 13.5 33.3 46.8 5.6 4.3 Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 0 2.4 8.0 9.6 32.8 47.2 4.4 Helpfulness/courteousness of people in surrounding communities

0.8 1.6 9.6 22.4 39.2 26.4 4.3



Place Attachment



The most common response (about one-third of the visitors in both State Forests) was “enjoy being in the forest.”

A substantial group of visitors (19% in the Delaware and 14% in the Forbes) went there primarily because it’s “a good place to spend time with friends/family.”

Delaware visitors were more likely coming to the forest for fishing, while Forbes visitors were more likely to be hunting or hiking as their primary reason for visiting the forest.

In the Delaware, the “other” responses included using their cabin, getting water, and trapping.

In the Forbes, the “other” responses included wanting to see the highest point in Pennsylvania and winter activities (snowmobiling, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and dog sledding).

Table 17. Which of the following was the most important reason for this visit to the State Forest? Valid Percent Delaware Forbes




Hunt 7.1 11.9

Hike 8.3 11.1

Bike 1.2 5.6

Fish 14.3 4.8

Horseback ride 0 0.8



Visitors also responded to a set of statements designed to measure the extent of place

attachment to the State Forest.

The vast majority of respondents (83-86%) agreed that the State Forest they visited “means a

lot to them,” with about half strongly agreeing.

Most visitors also reported that they enjoy recreating in the State Forest more than at other places, and get more satisfaction out of visiting the State Forest than from visiting other places.


Place Attachment Items Strongly disagree Disagree



Meana


This place means a lot to me 1.2 1.2 11.8 32.9 52.9 4.4


1.2 3.5 20.0 25.9 41.2 4.1



Forbes State Forest

This place means a lot to me 0 0.8 16.3 38.2 44.7 4.3


0 0.8 37.4 31.7 30.1 3.9

I am very attached to this place 0 5.7 39.0 26.0 29.3 3.8




Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the State Forest

Visitors’ most important motivations (reasons for visiting) the State Forest were to be outdoors and to experience natural surroundings.

Visitors also attached great importance to the opportunity to relax and get away from their regular routine.

Moderately important motives for visiting the forest included the social motives of family recreation (mean = 4.0 - 4.1) and being with friends (mean = 3.9 in Forbes and 3.4 in Delaware).

Forbes visitors were more interested in getting physical exercise (mean = 4.2), seeking challenge or sport (mean = 3.9) and developing their skills (mean = 3.6) than their Delaware State Forest counterparts (means = 3.6, 3.5, and 3.5, respectively).

Table 19. Summary of Motivations/Reasons for Recreating in the State Forests (Percent) Reasons for Visiting Not at all

important Somewhat important


Very important

Extremely important

Meana

Delaware State Forest To be outdoors 0 0 3.5 28.2 68.2 4.7 For relaxation 0 1.2 3.5 32.9 62.4 4.6 To experience natural surroundings

0 0 1.2 35.2 63.5 4.6

To get away from the regular routine

2.4 0 7.1 35.3 55.3 4.4

For family recreation 5.9 8.2 12.9 27.1 45.9 4.0 For physical exercise 10.6 9.4 20.0 30.6 29.4 3.6 For the challenge or sport 12.9 5.9 23.5 31.8 25.9 3.5 To develop my skills 11.8 12.9 18.8 29.4 27.1 3.5 To be with my friends 18.8 12.9 9.4 27.1 31.8 3.4 Forbes State Forest To be outdoors 0 0 3.1 23.6 73.2 4.7 To experience natural surroundings

0.8 0 6.3 17.3 75.6 4.7


2.4 0 7.9 24.4 65.4 4.5

For physical exercise 1.6 1.6 17.3 30.7 48.8 4.2 For family recreation 7.1 5.5 15.0 20.5 52.0 4.1 To be with my friends 7.9 6.3 20.5 20.5 44.9 3.9 For the challenge or sport 4.7 7.1 22.8 26.0 39.4 3.9 To develop my skills 7.9 11.8 28.3 18.9 33.1 3.6 a Response Code: 1="Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important”




important to them.

Forbes State Forest visitors expressed the most interest among all items (mean = 4.3 compared to 3.5 for Delaware State Forest visitors) in hiking, biking, and horse trails (these different types of non-motorized trails were not broken out in the survey).

The respondents in both Forests attached great importance to wildlife viewing areas or opportunities (mean = 3.9 - 4.2).

Visitors also attached relatively high importance to signs directing them to recreation facilities (mean = 3.9 – 4.0) and printed interpretive information (mean = 3.6 – 3.8).




Very Important

Extremely Important

Meana




Parking 5.9 9.4 23.5 34.1 27.1 3.7



Picnic areas 15.5 17.9 21.4 28.6 16.7 3.1

ATV Trails 32.9 24.7 15.3 10.6 16.5 2.5


Forbes State Forest






Parking 5.6 8.7 26.2 27.8 31.7 3.7

Picnic areas 11.9 15.1 31.7 17.5 23.8 3.3

ATV Trails 54.8 12.7 15.9 6.3 10.3 2.0

Snowmobile Trails 57.5 9.5 7.1 7.1 16.7 2.1 a Response Code: 1="Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important”

Information Services

State Forest visitors were asked a series of questions about their use of various types of

forest information.

A minority of the visitors (13% in the Delaware and 27% in the Forbes) reported that they had obtained information about the area they visited during or in preparation for their trip. In both forests, first-time visitors were much more likely to report seeking information about the forest.

Visitors in both Forests were most interested in obtaining State Forest or trail maps. Relatively few visitors sought other types of information such as the Pennsylvania Visitors Guide.

The majority of visitors in both Forests obtained information before leaving home rather than after arriving at the Forest.

Nearly all of the visitors who sought information reported that the information obtained was helpful in planning their trips.

Table 21. Visitor Responses to Questions about Information Services

Valid Percent Delaware Forbes Did you obtain any information about this area during this trip or in preparation for it?

No 87.1 73.2 Yes 12.9 26.8 What type of information did you obtain? State Forest map 81.8 41.2 Trail map 72.7 57.6 PA visitors guide 18.0 3.0 Other 9.1 24.2 When did you receive information? Before leaving home 80.0 64.5 After arriving here 20.0 35.5 Was the information you received helpful to plan your trip?

Yes 90.9 93.9 No 9.1 6.1


Desired Services in Nearby Communities

State Forest visitors were asked what services in nearby communities (off of the forest)

they wished were available. A small minority of respondents (26 in the Delaware and 37 in the

Forbes) offered suggestions (some offering multiple suggestions), which are summarized in

Table 22.

Table 22. Visitor responses to other services they wish were available in nearby communities (off of the forest).

Number of Responses Delaware Forbes Services Access to emergency/911 telephone 2 Gas stations 7 Snowmobile gas station 1 Bathrooms/restrooms 3 2 Fresh water 1 State Forest Visitor Center with staff to answer questions 1 Better pavilions 1 Better libraries 1 Banks 1 Car wash 1 Shopping opportunities Convenience store 3 Grocery stores/Better food shopping 2 Large grocery store 1 1 Closer grocery store 1 Sporting goods/ camping supplies store 1 Beer distributor 1 Farmers market 1 Vending machines 1 Restaurants More restaurants 7 Better/nice restaurants 3 2 Small restaurant 1 Better ethnic food 1 Family restaurant 1 More bars 1 Nice bars 2 2 Pizza place 1 Ice cream place 1 Starbucks 1 Dairy Queen 2 Lodging More options for lodging 1 Better hotels 1


Recreation A good cross country skiing area 1 More rails to trails 1 Shooting range 1 Playground 1 Nature center/events open to everyone (non-members) 1 Horseback riding/rentals 1 Ski resort (re-open Laurel Falls Ski Area) 2 ATV rentals 2 Sports outfitter – mom and pop size 1 More activities for 20 year-olds 1


Visitor Responses to Questions about Marcellus Shale-Related Activity

Forest visitors were asked several questions about how Marcellus shale-related activity

had affected their use of the State Forest and their enjoyment of their recreation experience at the

State Forest.

Most of the visitors in both Forests (97% in the Delaware and 94% in the Forbes) reported that Marcellus shale-related activity had not affected their use of the State Forest.

Visitors were slightly more likely to report that gas-related activity affected their recreational experience at the Forest than their use of the Forest. However, again, most visitors in both forests (96% in the Delaware and 93% in the Forbes) reported that Marcellus shale-related activity had not affected their recreation experience at the State Forest.

Table 23. Visitor Responses to Questions about Marcellus Shale-Related Activity Valid Percent Delaware Forbes Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest?

Yes 3.3 6.3 No 96.7 93.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest?

Yes 4.5 6.6 No 95.5 93.4 Total 100.0 100.0

Follow-up questions probing the reasons for the visitors’ responses to the initial yes/no

questions revealed the following major themes. These responses are summarized in Tables 24-

27 and listed in full detail in Appendix A.

Based on the low number of visitors reporting that their use of the State Forest had been changed due to Marcellus Shale-related activity, there were far fewer open-ended responses to the initial “yes” (use was affected) responses than to the “no” (use was not affected) responses.

Among those reporting that their use of the State Forest had been impacted by shale-related operations, the most common responses reflected various environmental concerns.

These concerns included various types of pollution, natural habitat destruction, and impacts to water quality as well as changes in landscape and aesthetic quality.


Table 24. Responses to, How has Marcellus Shale-related activity changed your use of the Forest?

Type of Comment Number of Comments Delaware Forbes

Traffic-related concerns 1 3 Wildlife/Hunting-related concerns 2 0 General environmental concerns 4 15 Changing use patterns (Displacement) 1 3 Positive impacts 1 4

Some respondents also mentioned various traffic-related, wildlife or hunting-related concerns.

The most frequently mentioned traffic concerns included increased road traffic, especially truck traffic and noise pollution.

The most common hunting-related issues were that the drilling activity scares game away or reduces their places to hunt.

A few respondents in both Forests reported that shale-related activity had directly affected their use of the Forest, mainly by causing them to avoid certain locations or change their use pattern.

A few respondents also expressed positive impacts of the shale-related activity.

These comments focused on the creation of economic benefits or new access roads or trails providing better access to the Forest.

Those visitors who stated that their recreational use of the Forest had not been affected by

Marcellus shale-related activity were also asked to explain why not. Their responses also

reflected several dominant themes, which were grouped into themes reflecting awareness-related

issues and general acceptance of the drilling activity (Table 25).

Many visitors in both Forests indicated that they had not noticed the activity or had not noticed it in the areas they visit.

Some visitors stated that they had not heard of the Marcellus Shale phenomenon.

Many visitors in both Forests reported that the drilling activity doesn’t bother them, hasn’t changed their use or doesn’t affect their activities.

Another common acceptance-related comment was that it had not changed their use yet.



Table 25. Responses to why Marcellus shale-related activity has not changed your use of the forest.


No effect on use 40 58 Don’t notice/Haven’t seen any activity 27 90 Not drilling here (or in areas I care about) 67 69 Not yet (implies concern for future) 18 17 Don’t know about it 20 23 Pro-drilling 2 6

Forest visitors were also asked to explain the reason why Marcellus shale-related activity

had or had not affected their recreation experience at the State Forest. As in the case of the

previous question, many of their responses did not refer specifically to experiential impacts, but

rather expressed a variety of types of opinions about the drilling operations.

Responses to the experiential impacts tended to reflect the same themes as the answers to the questions about the impacts of shale-related activity on visitors’ use of the Forests.

Most of the specific responses to how Marcellus shale-related activity had affected their recreation experience at the State Forest were mentioned more frequently than they were for the corresponding question on how their recreation use had been impacted.


Table 26. Responses to, How has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at the Forest?


Traffic-related concerns 1 1 Wildlife/Hunting-related concerns 2 1 General environmental concerns 1 6 Impacts to experience quality/enjoyment 2 10 Changing use patterns (Displacement) 0 0 Positive impacts 2 0

Responses by those visitors who stated that their recreation experience at the Forest had

not been affected by Marcellus shale-related activity also reflected the same awareness-related

and general acceptance of drilling activity themes as their previous explanations for why the

shale-related activity had not affected their recreational use of the Forests (Table 27).

Again, many visitors in both Forests indicated that they had not noticed the activity or had not noticed it in the areas they visit.

Some visitors stated that they were not aware of, or had not even heard of the Marcellus Shale phenomenon.

Many visitors in both Forests reported that the drilling activity doesn’t bother them, hasn’t changed their experience or doesn’t affect their activities.

The next most common acceptance-related comment was that it had not changed their experience yet.

Table 27. Responses to why Marcellus shale-related activity has not changed your recreational experience at the forest.


No effect on experience 27 37 Don’t notice/Haven’t seen any activity 41 57 Not drilling here (or in areas I care about) 29 45 Not yet (implies concern for future) 9 12 Don’t know about it 9 11 Pro-drilling 0 1


Summary and Conclusions


State Forest recreation sites during the period of October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013

(n = 1,474 interviews with Forest visitors). Besides the basic visitor use survey, three

supplemental surveys were used to query visitors about their satisfaction levels, economic

expenditures, and recreation experiences.

This report provides a summary of the characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes of visitors

to the Delaware and Forbes State Forests, located in the northeast and southwest corners of

Pennsylvania, respectively. The results indicate that most State Forest visitors are repeat and

frequent users, and have many years of experience in the forests. About three-fourths of the

respondents in each Forest reported making their first visit to the Forest before the year 2000.

Several notable differences were noted in the use patterns and characteristics of recreation

visitors in the two Forests. First, the Delaware State Forest has more “frequent visitors,” showing

an average of about 29 visits to the Forest per year versus 22 visits in the Forbes. Secondly,

visitors in the Delaware were more likely (35%) than those in the Forbes State Forest (15%) to be

overnight users. Overnight visitors in the Delaware stayed an average of 2.6 nights in the Forest,

compared to 1.9 nights in the Delaware State Forest. Activities that were more popular in the

Delaware included fishing and hunting, while those reported more frequently by Forbes visitors

included hiking and cross country skiing.

Regarding satisfaction levels, most respondents in both Forests were clearly satisfied with

their recreation experience and with the satisfaction attributes listed on the survey. State Forest

visitors were most satisfied with the scenery and attractiveness of the forest landscape. They also

reported very high feelings of safety while in the Forest. The data suggests that there is room for

some improvement in the provision of information for recreation, adequacy of signage and

condition of forest roads and trails.

The economics section of the study asked visitors about their monetary expenditures in

and near the State Forests. About half of the forest visitors indicated that they would have gone


indicating that they were serious about pursuing their recreation activities on that trip. Most of

the respondents (63% in the Delaware and 58% in the Forbes) indicated that they spent some

money within 50 miles of the forest on their current trip. The largest expenditures reported were


for gasoline and oil, food/drink at restaurants and bars, and groceries. In general visitors to these

two State Forests spent about the same amount across all of the spending categories for their trip,

averaging $87.43 in the Delaware and $88.88 in the Forbes.


rich data about visitor attitudes, motivations, perceptions, and management preferences. The data

clearly shows that State Forest visitors are interested in experiencing the outdoor natural

surroundings available in the forest areas. Relaxing out of doors, getting away from the routine,

and other nature-based social activities are very important to these recreationists. Some

differences in motivations were observed across the two forests. For example, Forbes visitors

attached more importance to the motives of physical exercise and challenge, perhaps reflecting

their stronger activity preferences for active pursuits like hiking and cross country skiing, and

their slightly younger demographic profile.


opposition to various management alternatives. Forbes visitors expressed the greatest interest in

various types of non-motorized trails (hiking, biking, and equestrian), while a high degree of

support was seen in both Forests for additional wildlife viewing areas or opportunities. Visitors’

interest in various types of trails tended to reflect their activity pursuits. For example, although

many visitors showed little or no interest in specific types of trails, such as ATV or snowmobile

trails, those kinds of trails were very important to certain segments of visitors interested in

motorized activities. Respondents also attached relatively high importance to signs directing

them to recreation facilities and printed interpretive information. Only a small minority of

visitors in each Forest obtained information about the area they visited during their trip or in

preparation for it. Information was more likely sought by first-time users, and visitors in both

Forests were more likely to seek information before leaving home than after arriving at the

Forest. In both Forests most of those who sought information found it helpful in planning their

trips.

The vast majority of visitors in both forests reported that Marcellus shale-related activity

had not affected their use of or recreation experience at the State Forest. Among those reporting

that their use of the State Forest had been impacted by shale-related operations, the most

common responses reflected general environmental concerns including pollution, habitat

destruction, and water quality as well as changes in landscape, noise pollution, and loss of a


relaxing and serene environment. Traffic-related issues and concerns with wildlife and hunting

were also mentioned. Among those reporting that gas drilling activity had not affected their use

of the State Forest, many indicated that they had not noticed the activity or had not noticed it in

the areas they visit, or that the drilling activity doesn’t bother them, hasn’t changed their use or

doesn’t affect their activities. Responses to the experiential impacts of Marcellus shale-related

activity tended to reflect the same themes as the answers to the questions about the impacts of

shale-related activity on visitors’ use of the Forests. Nearly all of the visitors surveyed in both

forests indicated that Marcellus Shale-related activity had not affected either their recreation use

or their recreation experience at the State Forest, although a notable segment were worried about

future impacts or had seen or experienced impacts in other areas.


State Forests. It thus provides a start on building a profile of Pennsylvania State Forest visitors.

Surveys are currently continuing in other forests and the overall database will include a total of

ten forest districts by the completion of the five-year project. Future reports will provide yearly

summaries of the individual forests studied as well as comparative and targeted data analyses

aimed at assisting Bureau of Forestry managers in their efforts to meet the needs of their

recreation constituency.


Appendix A




Delaware State Forest, 172 responses Note – Some responses addressed multiple topics and are coded in multiple categories No Suggestions (44) Keep Up the Good Work (15)

Have always liked it the way it is Keep up the good work We all love it the way it is Everything is great as is First visit here, keep up the good work Leave it the way it is I think they are doing a great job now None, I think they are doing well Pretty satisfied None, they are doing a good job None, I think this forest is well managed I think they are doing a good job No, I think they are doing well keeping the nature clean No, everything is fine Everything is good

Improve Information and Maps (25)

Provide more information on hunting seasons and nights I would like more information clearly posted on where to hunt

More signs that say no ATV use, allow golf carts on roads, be more specific on ATV

usage More signage, available restrooms Signs could be better Make signs larger; with more contrast Make larger road signs so the people with bad eyes can see them at night Larger road signs, sign for Little Mud Pond Road" not visible Provide rules and regulation signs more in recreation area Please make signs longer with more pronounced font Make signs more visible, mark designated areas clearly so that people know where they

are recreating Better signs for trail


A sign pointing to the porta-potty Put maps in the map boxes Greater availability of maps Make sure to stock the maps more frequently There is no map in this section and trail. Providing map would be good Map is poorly marked for waterfalls

More information on recreation + cabin use of this area/is camping allowed here More detailed description for trail head More information about the site (interpretive signs) More signs for trailheads (not only main trails) Maybe better markings on trails More information about trails (e.g. how long, map, where it ends)

Improve Road Conditions (25)

Better roads Widen roads when working on them, people fly through and there is never enough room

to get over Provide better parking areas on roads, shoulders are very steep Work on blind spots bushes and trees cause Bigger pull overs on 5 Mile Meadow Road Maintain the main road, more parking Improve roads Improve road (potholes) maintain drives into cabins Some roads need repair Widen the forest roads and make new signs More road improvement, mainly the road surfaces Fix the road (holes) Road accessibility Pave the roads (2) Fix/grade Sch. Rd., very rutted Take care of roads a little bit more Do major road repairs on White Deer Road-pot holes, perform more brush cutting on the

sides of the road+ fix the pump Fix the road Better road maintenance Maintenance of the first roads (There are several holes, not safe) Better road conditions Make road accessible (closed outside the fall months) Keep certain roads open longer


Improve Recreation Facilities (23)

More signs that say no ATV use, Allow golf carts on roads, be more specific on ATV usage

Maintain the trails better. Have volunteers maintain trails. A local named Bernie Jaggers used to take care of trails Repair trails from ATV use Improve the trails/access info forest Open more trails, not easy to access areas for recreation Build at restroom or here a part-a-john and install picnic tables Better grading and maintaining of trails Trash clean up in certain areas, keep certain roads open longer, more ATV trails More ATV trails Create more space in pull-off/vista areas More lenient on camping and condition of hiking, trails. More roads for 4x4 vehicles More ramps to access water, railings, walkways, etc. around lakes. Shooting range

installed More signage, available restrooms Restrooms, basketball hoops Available restroom and keep it clean More restrooms, keep them clean Restroom Restroom condition should be improved Water to drink-none available Drinking water/picnic tables or benches on this site Open up an old campsite at Bruce Lake Natural Area Perform better grounds keeping here Put a beer tent in

Fish, Streams, and Pond Management (12)

More ramps to access water, railings, walkways, etc. around lakes. A better dock, why personal cabin docks are removed upon sale of cabin and replaced

without mooring post Better access for boat launch Clean up the boat access area Clear trees from creek More staff, clean Peck's Pond


More fish (2) Stock more fish Better stocking of the lake (Bruce Lake) for fishing Fishing licenses are extremely expensive

Wildlife Management (14)

Provide more information on hunting seasons and nights Issue less doe tags so they can reproduce, creating more deer for hunting purposes I would like more information clearly posted on where to hunt Eliminate poaching More deer + bear Cut down some under branches. Put in food plot Grouse habitat, more selective cuttings Generate higher populations of foul Gates limit access for hunting purpose, not all gates are opened during hunting. Some

people have access + others do not Improve hunting game populations. Stock more fish- more breeds/variety in creeks too Prohibit hunting More wildlife Better management of golden wing warbler More game - feed deer to encourage them to propagate

Forest Management (24)

More programs to get people out here More park programs, less logging Allow bikes Take down some of the "No Trespassing" signs Allow alcohol Supermarket nearby, beer distributor



Forbes State Forest, 258 responses Note – Some responses addressed multiple topics and are coded in multiple categories No Suggestions (67) Keep Up the Good Work (13)

Already doing good job Don't know - good job First time being in this area and very happy with it I think they do great Everything is fine Very satisfied overall Likes the SP app available (does not need improved) "It's awesome! Rangers are nice and

helpful” I love this place I am satisfied Happy I like it be way it is Pretty area, nice They did fairly well

Improve Information and Maps (48)

Improve the signage More signs (2) Better signs Add signage Signs for ranger head quarters Better signs in general/ roads and tower Better signs to other sites in the forest Better trail signage (2) Better signs on trail Signage on trails Adequacy of signage on trails Better trail markers Mark trails better More trail signs


Directions on the trail sign Trails need to be marked better Different trails have different colors Better road signs Keep the signs marked and replace the areas that are missing At intersecting of road, trails, there should be signs indicating which direction the parking

lots are Better signs down on the main road leading to the viewing forest Better signs in the Mt Davis area Signage to get here (Mt Davis) and better online maps Signage to the shelters on the LHT are not adequate enough, trail is not marked well at all Add better signs at the trailhead (Laurel Highland Trail) Tubmill Trail overgrown, had to turn around. Couldn't see the blazes, add more signs More maps (2) More trail maps and different colors for difficult trails Place more maps out at the picnic area More map stations Improve the maps Trail maps Improve the maps. They are hard to follow More maps stocking Improve the forestry maps, more details + more road names Maps need to be updated more often, they can be inaccurate and misleading.

Seems like there's always some hunting season, no postings at trail head about hunting

season Let us know when gates are open (unnecessary walking) More information on the website, more maps, signs designating where biking is

prohibited boundaries More info on website, better signs marking boundaries + where bikes are prohibited,

more maps showing bike trails Provide info booth More camping information Post more littering signs and warnings A designated snow - shoe trail, more info where to snow-shoe-where it is allowed More descriptive information of trails

Improve Road Conditions (22)

Improve the roads (3) Improve the roads + driving trails, trails need to be marked better The roads need general maintenance Maintain trails and roads to get to them. Roads are being washed out and forming large pot holes, new erosion Clear the fallen tree off this road


Please cover the holes on roads Grade the road more often Grade the road Road a little bumpy

Paved roads in forest, wider Linn Run Rd Bigger roads Like everything here as is; roads could use some widening around sketchy corners Widen roads/turn off areas to allow comfortable two-way traffic Designate areas to store logging equipment so they are out of roads Clean the snow on roads promptly Snow removal in parking lot Winter maintenance on Jones Mill Run Rd Fix the road, plow in the winter Plow roads More parking

Improve Recreation Facilities (56)

Better trail maintenance Maintain trails (2) Clearing trails better and distance and difficulty of trails Clear the trails better Improve the water drainage on the hiking trails. The trails are like creeks. There are ways

to direct the water so it does not flood the trails Work on trimming the trails A little more trail maintenance for deadfall Slightly more trail maintenance Better cooperation with the snowmobile riders, better trail maintenance Improve stream crossing on trails Extend snowmobile trails in Roaring Run Groom more Make new trails ATV trails (2) Quad trails Open all trails for mountain biking Better mountain bike trail maintenance Add mountain bike access to Roaring Run Open up more Mt. Bike trails (Roaring Run) More mountain bike trails Better mountain biking Provide trash cans, info booth Pick up litter more often


Install garbage cans Add trash can Put trash can at picnic area Trash containers More trash cans at picnic area More bathrooms A few more restrooms A few more bathrooms, more funding, more things with views Add Porta John (Laurel Highland Trail) Cleaner bathrooms Some rest areas on the trails Better facilities + water access at this site Is there any way to offer access to water at the warming hut? Put a tap at the top of the tower Water stations, fountains - parking More picnic areas around this area near parking Handicap picnic area Upgrade picnic tables. Dredge Kooser Lake. Very happy with Kooser cabins Add a restroom at high point tower parking lot. Allow ATVs in forest Add parking. Info center for the highest point in PA would be nice. Improve the parking for cross country skiing + the trails for x-country skiing Reopen the ski area (2) Open up the ski slopes Open the ski slope at Laurel Mountain Cut the grass Move the wood piles closer to the shelters on the Laurel Highland trail. Tough to carry

them so far Some washing stations for invasive species Keep Beam Rock cleaner and install permanent tack Add a campground in Linn Run Provide access to view Adams Falls. It's blocked off Invest a little more in tourism. More recreational facilities Free lodging

Wildlife Management (21)

More deer (5) More deer, take the fences down Don't cut trees down and fence off areas with deer


Add more wildlife Need more game-deer populations are way down Eliminate the deer fences Trim back the canopy, back a little bit to encourage the wildlife to come in Post more hunting signs so it is clear to everyone what is allowed Keep the hikers out during hunting - not dressing in orange for safety, issue fines for non-

compliance Post "No hunting” on hiking trails Limit the hunters Seems like there's always some hunting season, no postings at trail head about hunting

season Identity the D-map areas better! Boundaries are not clear. I think they do great. more Game Commissions trips to help with game Allow more opportunities for fishing Stock more trout, please Improve the fishing at Laurel Hill Creek

Forest Management (43)

Stop cutting timber down Stop logging Stop logging in the forest Stop allowing timber cuts in a "natural area" Timber harvesting -- is it necessary? Clearcuts ruin the views Quit cutting down so many trees I don't care for all of the logging but it's OK Manage their timber better (2) Less cutting, don't like to see clear cutting Take down the fences (2) Keep the forest as is! Maintain it as primitive Regulate snowmobiles Snowmobiles are nuisance Keep snowmobiles under control Keep ATV's and snow mobiles off hiking trails Manage the snowmobile riders better, many riders ride on the road where they are not

allowed to be Eliminate snowmobiles Better cooperation with the snowmobile riders, better trail maintenance


Try to get more volunteers to maintain the area = save $ on budget Increase the # of times they have volunteer park maintenance days each year Hire intern to maintain trail Try to get people to slow down on forest roads Enforce littering laws Curb vandalism at the observation tower more No Marcellus drilling! The less development the better. keep the wilds "wild" No fracking, Not to frack for shale gas Careful decisions on gas well placement Cut dead trees about to fall on the power lines Take down some of the dead trees Continue the wood trimming Allow more access to ATV's More family activities More advertisement about cabins for rent Manage the forest Improve conservation practices + forest management Make the forest larger Open gates Consider allowing segways on certain trails Dog free area in parks and forests Open up for public harvesting Give the visitor a walkie-talkie or a buddy for her safety State Forest should create user fees to help improve the trails. Some states charge parking

fees to supplement revenue


Marcellus Shale Open-Ended Responses by Forest

Delaware SF Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this State Forest? n = 269, Yes = 9, No = 261 183 total open-ended responses If yes, why? (9 open-ended responses) Traffic-related Concerns

Trucks all over the road Wildlife/Hunting-related Concerns

Heavy equipment everywhere is scaring the deer/bear Wildlife was skittish for awhile so I stopped hunting

General Environmental Concerns I am concerned about the environment They are all over the place They are destroying natural habitats Believes to be illegal and doesn't support it in places like this forest

Positive/Other Comments

Come out here more to see if it has an impact I work for gas company

If no, why not? (174 open-ended responses) No Effect on Use (40)

No change/no effect on use (15) The amount of times we come has nothing to do with this Doesn't affect recreation We do not like them but they aren't affecting our recreation Doesn't agree but hasn't affected him Doesn't affect her They have not affected me on my way, although I know they are drilling somewhere in

PA They are not influencing my experience It hasn't had impact on any of his activities They don't bother me Doesn't apply Do not come here often enough for it to change my use


Use the area the same First time here (3) This is my husband and my 1st trip here so it hasn't had a chance to impact our decision

whether or not to come Only come here a few times per year Live around here so going to use it no matter what It doesn't bother me enough not to come here I don't like it, but it doesn't bother me at all when I'm out here Don't really think about it when deciding to come out here; it doesn't cross my mind Did not decide to come here based on gas drilling, but don't approve Been coming here the same amount my whole life; nothing has made that change Always drive through have no matter what's going on


Haven't seen it/haven’t noticed it (12) I've never seen them here (5) Never see it (5) No visible activity (4) Haven't seen any/support it Know what it is, don't notice it here, so it doesn't affect how often we come here


No activity (12) Not here (9) Not drilling here (9) I think they are not drilling here (3) No change here at all (3) They are not around here (3) No activity here (2) Not in this area (2) Not any nearby (2) No change here (2) No impact here Unfamiliar/not around here There isn't any There is no Marcellus around here Nothing changed at this location Not drilling here that he is aware of Hasn't affected this area Don't ever see it around these parts Don't even really see it around here. Not sure I would be able to see/notice it anyway Don't come here all that often either way They aren't fracking around here. Also, they are not affecting environment around here People worry about this. And I am with them, but I don't think they are affecting here Not this forest Not occurring in this area. It's the energy of the future


No because no drilling activity in area. He hopes they don't start drilling here I am glad they are not drilling here Doesn't impact this particular area. Trails need to be marked better. Trail markers

incorrect. Distinguish where hunting is permitted and not permitted Because they are not fracking in this area Because nothing going on here As long as they are not drilling here, they don't bother me


Not here yet (5) Not yet (4) No change yet (2) Nothing here yet Not yet but it might We have not seen them yet They don't because they are not here, but if they start digging, it will impact on my

recreation, I am against it Not that I know of but for the long-term. I am concerned about water condition. Time

will tell us It will affect if they are around here. Don't allow to happen Because there is no drilling in this area now

Don’t know about it (20)

Don't know what that is (4) Didn't know about it (6) Not aware (2) Not really sure what it is Haven't ever thought about it really Haven't been involved in what’s going on No opinion either way about the gas drilling and prefer to be left out of it Marcellus who? I don't know much about them. But as long as they are careful, it will be helpful I do not know Nothing I am aware of

Pro-Drilling (2) Haven't seen any/support it I like them, we need more gas


Delaware SF Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this State Forest? n = 269, Yes = 11, No = 258 124 total open-ended responses If yes, why (8 open-ended responses) Traffic-related Concerns

Always road work, could be a good thing for improvement but bad for traffic Wildlife/Hunting-related Concerns

Heavy equipment everywhere is scaring the deer/bear See less wildlife

General Environmental Concerns Believes to be illegal and doesn't support it in places like this forest

Impacts to experience quality/enjoyment If they begin drilling - will no longer use the forest In the parking lot off of 402 we stopped and gas workers were swearing in front of my

kid Positive/Other Comments

Visit area a lot more I now have $ to eat + live

If no, why not? (116 open-ended responses) No Effect on Experience (27)

No change at all (6) No change (2) Just no (2) Not affected at all It hasn't changed her use Doesn't affect her Not affected by it N/A Doesn't agree but hasn't affected him But don't approve Have only even seen it once or twice, not enough to impact my experience


Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (41) No activity (12) Haven't seen it (8) No visible activity (4) Haven't noticed anything (2) Don't pay too much attention to it (2) Could have seen it, but I can't distinguish between what is for gas Not aware Unfamiliar/not around here Know what it is, don't notice it here, so it doesn't affect how often we come here We are from the city, so this is all new, and we have only heard through news what the

shale is When we come, it is never noticeable Can't really say what impacts are from gas and what is not Never see it, so no, it has no impact on my experience He says he is used to the drilling. It doesn't bother him This is my first time here, have no background to base it off Don't ever notice it, wouldn't be aware if saw it 1st time here People talk about it all the time even though I have no personal experience with it

Not Drilling Here or in Areas I Care About (29)

Not here (5) Not around here (3) No change here at all (3) No activity here (3) No drilling here (2) Not any nearby (2) There isn't any There is no Marcellus around here Nothing changed at this location Not in this area Not drilling here that he is aware of No impact here No affect here at all It's not going on here Hasn't affected this area Don't ever see it around these parts Because there is no drilling here Have not seen any signs of it in this particular area at least


Not Yet (implies concern for future) (9) Not here yet (4) Not yet (2) Nothing here yet Not yet but it might Person is against it


Didn't know of it/about it (5) Did not know what it was (3) Haven't been involved in what’s going on


Forbes SF Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this State Forest? n = 394, Yes = 25, No = 369 293 total open-ended responses If yes, why? (25 open-ended responses) Traffic-related concerns

Disruption of trail truck traffic, noise pollution Too many trucks on the front road I have noticed a difference in traffic density

General Environmental Concerns

Noise, dust, light pollution Some of the areas of the forest are now extremely noisy Very noisy in the forest now Negative influence on scenery I now will not allow my kids to drink their water out of the PA creek Water/stream quality, scenery, safety We consider it, unless better regulated, a hazard to the environment and the water table 75% of the water is now [non] potable water We have a cabin with water problems Fear it will impact site in future So much development on the forest is a real shame Distracting, bad impacts when enjoying nature I am taking advantage of the forest while it's still here Damage on the beauty of nature It depends if they clean up their mass and chemicals

Changing Use Patterns (Displacement)

Cut off from areas used to using They clean roads that used to be trails and now you cannot ride because of gravel We would have prepared to climb the mountain but is now access roads

Positive Impacts

I work for Chesapeake - they paid for my gasoline to get here Puts money in our pockets They provide trails I made a lot of money off of it, so I can come ride here


If no, why not? (268 open- ended responses) No Effect on Use (58)

No change at all (7) No change (5) No change here (2) 1st time here (3) Have been coming here all of the time forever, it will not change that Not really, re-routed trails at the bottom of the hill, but wasn't a problem Came here for years and always will Been coming here the same amount all of my life, it won't change Just started coming to this area this year Don't let it bother them Come here often for recreation the same amount Hasn't affected it at all Haven't seen enough of it around to affect how I come here Love this place and will always visit If they do come in and pave stuff it may make it better, but changed nothing for me They make it accessible for me. Lots of gas lines No direct effects No involvement None Doesn't really impact it. The activity I've seen is pretty well controlled Trails are not being harmed by any kind of gas development Have always come here same amount = as much as we can Raised concerns but did not change anything so far I'm new to PA Wells are off trails Have not thought about it Because I'm informed about the whole process Because it hasn't seemed to have affected Been hesitant, concerned about ground water, never said I can't go to see because of it Don't think so Has not affected me as far as I know, but totally against it I can still get to all the hiking spots I don't care for it, it's destructive I just don't see a problem with it I like being out I'm concerned about the effects on the water but haven't noticed anything around here I'm from Michigan I'm happy they’re not drilling No impact Not a bit Really hasn't affected directly, Can see it though Should not be mad for profit


Well it don't bother me none I’m against it Very against it

Don’t Notice (90)

Haven't seen it (31) No activity (16) Did not notice (15) No visible activity (8) Have not seen any change (4) Did not run into any of it First time here and haven't seen anything I never see it while here, so it doesn't bother me Never saw any of it No evidence No impact No sign of it There isn't any Haven't dealt with it Haven't noticed any changes Haven't smelled any gas I don't notice any bubbling oozing well It did not impact this area visually Just haven't come into contact with it Haven't come across it directly

Not Drilling Here or in Areas I Care About (69)

No activity here (18) Not here (6) No drilling here (7) There is none here (4) No drilling (3) I don't think it's happening here (3) Not at this particular area (2) Exempt from Marcellus shale - specifically why I'm here Hasn't effected this area I am not sure if there's any I didn't even know about it in this area It hasn't changed it way up here No evidence of it here No, not close to here No drilling here, we need gas Not much activity in this area I did not see any activity here Not close to where I use game lands There are not any wells within the area I've visited


Not yet, because it hasn't impacted this area Not this one, but many other and it pisses me off Didn't realize it was it here Haven't seen down here I am not aware of any Marcellus shale activity in this park or the forest I don't know right here I don't think it’s impacting this state forest that I know of I haven't run into anything like that around here I haven't seen any around here It's not obvious to us if it is around here Not like some other state parks Really haven't seen it around here much There is no drilling There’s no fracking going on around here We haven't had any trucks up here


Not yet (8) Not yet, but it will Not yet, haven't seen anything It’s not around here, not yet No activity here currently They’re not here yet Because it hasn't had an impact on this area yet as bad as other places Hasn't really affected me yet Hasn't took place here yet There are no wells here yet I personally wouldn't want to see Marcellus shale drilling here I would not appreciate them coming It probably will, but this should be a protected forest. I haven't noticed anything yet


Do not know what it is (4) Don't know (3) Did not know about it, very concerned Didn't know of it Never heard of it No nothing about it Not aware of it Not sure what it is What is that? No, nothing has changed that I can tell Don't know much about it I didn't know there was any I don't know if there is Marcellus shale in this forest I don't know of any drilling I don't know they have them


I don't know, I don't see flames shooting from the ground No idea We didn't even know they were fracking Wouldn't know

Pro-Drilling (6)

I am for it, until they screw up your water supply It's not hazardous. They're been drilling for 50 years, Marcellus is just a different source

and techniques Do more I'd like to see them drill a well on his personal property We need the resource We’re Marcellus shale pro people


Forbes SF Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this State Forest? n = 392, Yes = 26, No = 366 182 total open-ended responses If yes, why? (18 open-ended responses) Traffic-related Concerns

Some of the roads are beat up Wildlife/Hunting-related Concerns

Seeing the deer + wildlife General Environmental Concerns

Concerned about drilling moving into the forest When they were drilling nights were bright Noise, dust, light pollution I now will not allow my kids to drink, filter their water out of the PA creek Concerned about the pollution from drilling elsewhere Need to boil all water

Impacts to Experience Quality/Enjoyment

Just looking at those parks is disturbing I have less use in certain areas Shifted main focus to this area, used to visit other areas but not with the addition of

access roads, now I come here Limited areas to use Fears it will impact site in future Sad to see the state selling the land that we pay for Distracting, bad impacts when enjoying the nature Scenery Not as pleasurable because conditions not as good When they drill, it will severely undermine the experience


If no, why not? (163 open-ended responses) No Effect on Experience (37)

No change at all (7) No impact (4) No effects (3) No change (3) Nothing changed. They’ve been drilling. If you want no pollution then that means no

people Know nothing about it Do the same staff as always We hike all the time and there are no gas wells. The people of PA own the land and don't

want it Not on this trip it did not No, no trail impact Come here for years and always will Don't have experience to gauge what it was like before gas drilling started Don't let it bother them Hasn't affected it at all Have the same experience now as before the entire thing started It doesn't bother me that they drill for gas No involvement Not at all. I don't mind it Not for today Raised concerns but did not change anything so far They better not mess it up This is our first visit Try not to take sides either way Wells are off trails


No activity (16) Haven't seen it (14) No visible activity (8) Have not seen any change (7) No noticeable change (3) Not aware of it Again no road impact noticed Did not run into any of it First time here and haven't seen anything Haven't come across it directly No evidence No sign of it Do not notice it while out here; hunting is good so far Don't notice it (2)


Not Drilling Here or in Areas I Care About (45) No activity here (15) No drilling here (6) No drilling (3) Not here (2) No change here (2) Not at this particular area (2) There isn't any drilling (2) I never see it while here so it doesn't bother me Not in Forbes, I fish here and haven't seen any effects yet here, but I have in Keystone, in

Donegal No activity here currently Not at this one, but other forests they've made it easier to hunt Hasn't affected this area It's not applicable because it's not here It's not here at this area No change/activity here No evidence of it here No, not close to here Not applicable for this site, not aware of any drilling Not much activity in this area Not up here


Not yet (5) Haven't seen it yet, hopefully they stay away It’s not around here, not yet No change yet No effects seen yet No impact yet Not yet, because it hasn't impacted this area I am concerned if it comes


Don't know (3) Never heard of it (2) Not sure what it is Did not know about it, very concerned Didn't know of it What is that? No, nothing has changed that I can tell I am not sure if there's any Not really sure what is impacted by gas drilling

Positive Impact (1)

Makes it more accessible, plow road


Appendix B

Zip Code Analysis of Delaware and Forbes State Forest Visitors


2012-13 Pennsylvania Visitor Use Monitoring - ZIP Code Data

Each of the three versions of the survey asked for the respondent’s home ZIP code as part

of the socio-demographic data. These ZIP codes were then uploaded into ArcMap GIS software

(ESRI, 2012). A basic spatial analysis was conducted for each forest to determine the geographic

distribution of the respondents. Straight-line distances were computed from the respondent’s ZIP

code to the forest headquarters. Additionally, a breakdown of respondents by state and

Pennsylvania County was performed. The results are shown below, segmented by forest. Maps

illustrating the geographic distribution of visitors are included at the end of this section (Figure 1

and Figure 2).

Delaware State Forest Highlights The average straight-line distance from the respondents’ home ZIP code to the Delaware

State Forest Headquarters was 50.4 miles.

23.8% of respondents’ home ZIP codes were within 25 miles of the Delaware State Forest Headquarters; 93.1% were within 100 miles (Table 1).

Respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 6 states, 87.4% of the respondents reported a


The top three counties were Pike (27.6%), Monroe (12.7%), and Lehigh (7.9%).

Table 1. Straight-Line Distance from ZIP Code to Delaware State Forest Headquarters (n = 261)


Less than 25 62 23.8% 25-49 113 43.5% 50-99 67 25.8% 100-149 10 3.8% 150+ 8 3.1%



Table 2. Delaware State Forest Responses by State (n = 261)


Pennsylvania 228 87.4% New York 16 6.1% New Jersey 14 5.4% Connecticut 1 .4% Ohio 1 .4% Oklahoma 1 .4%


Table 3. Delaware State Forest Pennsylvania Responses by County (n = 228)


Pike 63 27.6% Monroe 29 12.7% Lehigh 18 7.9% Northampton 16 7% Lackawanna 14 6.1% Susquehanna 11 4.8% Montgomery 11 4.8% Wayne 10 4.4% Bucks 8 3.5% Berks 8 3.5% Chester 5 2.2% Bradford 4 1.8% Philadelphia 3 1.3% Luzerne 3 1.3% Centre 3 1.3% Carbon 3 1.3% Schuylkill 2 .9% Lancaster 2 .9% Wyoming 1 .4% Westmoreland 1 .4% Somerset 1 .4% Perry 1 .4% Northumberland 1 .4% Lycoming 1 .4% Huntingdon 1 .4% Delaware 1 .4% Dauphin 1 .4% Cumberland 1 .4% Columbia 1 .4% Clinton 1 .4% Clearfield 1 .4% Beaver 1 .4%



Forbes State Forest Highlights The average straight-line distance from the respondents’ home ZIP code to the Forbes

State Forest Headquarters was 55.72 miles.

35.1% of respondents’ home ZIP codes were within 25 miles of the Forbes State Forest Headquarters, 90.6% were within 100 miles (Table 4).

Respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 14 states and the District of Columbia; 89.9% of

the respondents reported a home ZIP code in Pennsylvania (Table 5). The Pennsylvania respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 32 different counties (Table 6).

The top three counties were Westmoreland (31.5%), Allegheny (21.7%), and Somerset (17.3%).

Table 1. Straight-Line Distance from ZIP Code to Forbes State Forest Headquarters (n = 385)


Less than 25 139 36.1% 25-49 165 42.9% 50-99 45 11.7% 100-199 22 5.7% 200+ 14 3.6%


Table 2. Forbes State Forest Responses by State (n = 385)


Pennsylvania 346 89.9% Maryland 10 2.6% Ohio 10 2.6% West Virginia 7 1.8% New York 2 .5% Arizona 1 .26% Washington, DC 1 .26% Illinois 1 .26% Massachusetts 1 .26% Michigan 1 .26% Missouri 1 .26% North Carolina 1 .26% New Hampshire 1 .26% Texas 1 .26% Virginia 1 .26%



Table 3. Forbes State Forest Pennsylvania Responses by County (n = 346)


Westmoreland 109 31.5% Allegheny 75 21.7% Somerset 60 17.3% Fayette 30 8.7% Washington 16 4.6% Cambria 15 4.3% Indiana 6 1.7% Beaver 4 1.2% Franklin 3 .08% Bedford 2 .05% Centre 2 .05% Clearfield 2 .05% Cumberland 2 .05% Dauphin 2 .05% Adams 1 .03% Berks 3 .03% Blair 3 .03% Butler 3 .03% Crawford 3 .03% Delaware 3 .03% Erie 3 .03% Greene 2 .03% Huntingdon 2 .03% Jefferson 2 .03% Lancaster 2 .03% Lawrence 2 .03% Luzerne 2 .03% Monroe 2 .03% Montour 2 .03% Perry 2 .03% Schuylkill 2 .03% York 1 .03%

*may not add up to 100% due to rounding References ESRI 2012. ArcGIS Desktop. Release 10.1. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research

Institute.


Figure 1


Figure 2


Appendix C

Surveys


Delaware/Forbes State Forest: 2011 - 2012 Recreational Use Survey

Interviewer:_________________ Site: ___________ Date: _____________


Hello, my name is ________, I’m from Penn State and we are doing a survey of State Forest visitors. The information collected will help the DCNR better serve their visitors. Your participation is voluntary and all information is confidential. May I have a few minutes of your time to complete this survey? ___ Yes (If refusal, thank them for their time.)

Section 1 (Screening Questions)


Working or commuting to work (stop interview)

Just stopped to use the bathroom (stop interview)

Just passing through, going somewhere else (stop interview)

Some other reason (specify)________________________________________________ Complete 2 and 2a for DUDS and OUDS ONLY 2. Are you leaving (site name) for the last time today or will you return later? Leaving for last time today

Will return later

2a. When did you first arrive at (site name) on this visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________ Complete for GFA ONLY 3. Are you leaving the Delaware/Forbes SF for the last time today or will you return later? Leaving for last time today

Will return later Section 2 (Basic Information) Now I want to ask you some more questions about where you went on your whole visit to the Delaware/Forbes SF, which includes the use of this area and other portions of the Delaware/Forbes SF. 1. Did you spend last night in the Delaware/Forbes SF?

No Yes If yes, how many nights in a row did you spend in the Delaware/Forbes SF? __________

2. When did you first arrive at the Delaware/Forbes on this recreation visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________ Same as site arrival time

3. When do you plan to finish your visit to the Delaware/Forbes SF on this recreation visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________


Same as site arrival time 4. What other areas did you visit, or do you plan to visit in the Delaware/Forbes SF for recreation on this trip? (List sites or areas visited) 4a. Lodging facilities include campgrounds, cabins, hotels and lodges. How many different overnight lodging facilities will you use during this State Forest visit? Number______________ 4b. How many developed day use sites (like picnic areas or visitor centers), not including trailheads, will you use on this trip to the Delaware/Forbes SF? Number______________ 5. In what activities on this list did you participate during this recreation visit at the Delaware/Forbes SF? (Can choose more than one)

6. Which of those is your primary activity for this recreation visit to the Delaware/Forbes? (Choose only one)

Question 5 answers Question 6 answer Fishing—all types Hunting—all types Viewing & Learning Nature & Culture Viewing natural features such as scenery, wildlife, birds, flowers, fish, etc. (circle one) Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/areas (circle one) Nature study Visiting a nature center, nature trail, or visitor center (circle one) Nonmotorized Activities Hiking or walking Horseback riding Bicycling, including mountain bikes (circle one) Nonmotorized water travel (canoeing, sailing, kayaking, rafting, etc.) Downhill skiing or snowboarding (circle one) Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing (circle one) Other nonmotorized activities (e.g. swimming, games & sports) Motorized Activities Driving for pleasure on roads Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas (non-snow) Snowmobile travel Motorized water travel (boats, etc.) Other motorized activities (endure events, games, etc.) Camping or Other Overnight Camping in developed sites (family or group sites) Primitive camping (motorized) Backpacking or camping in unroaded areas Resorts, cabins, or other accommodations on State managed lands Other Activities Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products Relaxing, hanging out, escaping heat, noise, etc. Picnicking and family gatherings in developed sites (family or group sites) OTHER (fill in activity) __________________________________________________________


7. Including this visit, about how many times have you come to the Delaware/Forbes SF for recreation in the past 12 months? Number______________ 7a. How many of those visits were to participate in the main activity you identified a moment ago? Number______________ 8. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this visit to the Delaware/Forbes State Forest? ______________ (1) Very dissatisfied (2) Somewhat dissatisfied (3) Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (4) Somewhat satisfied (5) Very satisfied


10. How many people (including you) traveled here in the same vehicle as you? Number____________ 10a. How many of those people are less than 16 years old? Number______________ 11. What is your age? Age______________ 12. Gender? Male Female


14. Information about income is important because people with different incomes come to the forest for different reasons. Into which income group would you say your household falls? Under $25,000 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000 or over

___ Don’t Know

___ Refused to Answer


Economics Addition 1. If for some reason you had been unable to go to the Delaware/Forbes SF for this visit, what would you have done instead: Gone elsewhere for the same activity

Gone elsewhere for a different activity

Come back another time

Stayed home

Gone to work at your regular job

None of these: _____________________________________________________________

2. About how much time, in total, will you be away from home on this recreation trip? Days ________________ or

Hours _______________

3. On this trip, did you recreate at just the Delaware/Forbes SF, or did you go to other State Forests, parks, or recreation areas? Just the Delaware/Forbes SF (skip question 4, go to question 5)

Other places (go to question 4)

4. Was the Delaware/Forbes SF your primary destination for this recreation trip? Yes No

5. Did you or other members of your party spend any money on this trip within 50 miles of this park? ___ Yes (Go to Question 6) ___ No (Skip to Question 7)

6. For the following categories, please estimate the amount you (and other members of your party) will spend within 50 miles of here on this trip. Motel, Lodge, Cabin, B&B, etc. $ ___________

Restaurants & Bars $ _______________

Groceries $ __________

Outfitter Related Expenses (guide fees & equipment rentals) $ _______________

Sporting Goods $ _______________

Camping $ ___________

Local Transportation (bus, shuttles, etc.) $ _______________

Gasoline & Oil $ ___________


$ _______________

Souvenirs, Clothing, Other Misc. $ _______________

6a. How many people do these trip expenditures cover? _____ group members 6b. In total, about how much did you and other people in your vehicle spend on this entire trip, from the time you left home until you return home? Dollar Amount_______ 7. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ 8. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________



1. This section asks you about your satisfaction with the recreation services and quality of the recreation facilities in the Delaware/Forbes SF. Please rate the following attributes of this recreation site or area of the forest. Also rate the importance of this attribute toward the overall quality of your recreation experience here. Rate importance from 1 (=not important) to 5 (=very important) in terms of how this attribute contributes to your overall recreation experience.

Poor Fair Average Good Very

Good N/A Importance

Scenery 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of parking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Parking lot condition 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of restrooms 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of developed recreation facilities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of Forest roads 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of Forest trails 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of information on recreation 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Feeling of safety 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Adequacy of signage 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Helpfulness of employees 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Attractiveness of the forest landscape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


HARDLY ANYONE

VERY OVERCROWDED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






[If no] In what year did you make your first visit to the state forest _______ year In a typical year, how many days do you spend recreating in the state

forest? _______ days


_______ days


Good Excellent Not


1 2 3 4 5 NA



6a. [If yes] Please tell us if you believe our facilities are adequate

2. Which of the following best describes the composition of your group? [check only one] Alone Family

Friends Family & friends

Commercial group (group of people who paid a fee to participate in this trip)



4. Which of the following was the most important reason for this visit to the state forest? [Please check only one] _____ I came here because I enjoy being in the forest _____ I came here because it is a good place to spend time with friends/family _____ I came here because it’s a good place to : _____ Hunt _____ Hike _____ Bike _____ Horseback ride _____ Fish _____ Other reasons for visit (e.g., cabin owner, private inholding):



7. Here is a list of possible reasons why people recreate at outdoor recreation sites. Please tell me how important each of the following benefits is to you as a reason for visiting a state forest in Pennsylvania. [one is not at all important and five is extremely important] [N/A does not apply to this question. Should be able to answer for each] REASON


Somewhat Important


Very Important

Extremely Important


8. If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do? _____________________________________________________________________________________________



Somewhat Important


Very Important

Extremely Important

No Opinion


1 2 3 4 5 x


1 2 3 4 5 x

ATV Trails 1 2 3 4 5 x Snowmobile Trails 1 2 3 4 5 x Hike, bike, & horse (non-motorized)Trails

1 2 3 4 5 x

Printed Interpretive information 1 2 3 4 5 x


Strongly Disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly Agree


1 2 3 4 5


1

2

3

4

5




12. What services in nearby communities (OFF of the forest) do you wish were available? Please list: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 13. This section asks about your satisfaction with your recreation experience at this recreation site or area of the forest. Please rate the following attributes of this recreation site or area of the forest.

Awful

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Not

applicable Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 1 2 3 4 5 NA Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 1 2 3 4 5 NA Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 1 2 3 4 5 NA Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 1 2 3 4 5 NA Helpfulness/courteousness of people in surrounding communities

1 2 3 4 5 NA





11a. What type of information did you obtain? State forest map Trail map

PA visitors guide Other: 11b. When did you receive information? Before leaving home After arriving here 11c. Where or from whom did you receive information? 11d. Was the information you received helpful to plan your trip? Yes No [If no] what would have made the information more useful?

Engaging State Forest and State Parks Visitors - … · about Pennsylvania State Forest and State...

Documents

Transcript of Engaging State Forest and State Parks Visitors - … · about Pennsylvania State Forest and State...