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]
349
Embed
Engaging State Forest and State Parks Visitors - … · about Pennsylvania State Forest and State Park visitors. ... Alan Graefe Chieh-Lu Li ... Creek/McCall Dam, Hairy John‟s,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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:
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
a Year of first visit to BESF.
b Differences among subgroups tested with
2 test of independence.
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
a Year of first visit to BESF.
b Difference among subgroups tested with
2 test of independence.
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
a Year of first visit to BESF.
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
a Year of first visit to BESF.
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
a Year of first visit to BESF.
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
The Pennsylvania State University
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
2 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction
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
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Trip Visitation Patterns
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Trip Visitation Patterns
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.
13 Recreation Use on the State Forests Activity Participation
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
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”
15 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
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
Cleanliness of restrooms 4.8 0.4 14.4 13.1 38.0 29.4 4.1
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
Availability of information on recreation 5.3 2.8 24.0 13.5 38.8 15.5 4.0
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
16 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
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).
17 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
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.
18 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
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
19 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
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
20 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
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”
21 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
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.
23 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
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
24 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
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)
26 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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)
27 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Differences by Forest
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
a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent)
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
28 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Differences by Forest
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”
29 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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”
30 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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%
31 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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”
32 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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.
33 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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
34 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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”
35 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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
36 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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.
38 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
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
40 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
41 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Appendix B
Visitor Responses to Open-Ended Questions
42 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
43 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
44 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
45 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
46 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
47 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
48 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
49 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
50 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
51 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
52 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
53 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
54 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Appendix C
Survey Instrument
55 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
_____ 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
56 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
57 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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)
58 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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 ______________________________
59 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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)
60 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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:
61 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Satisfaction Addition
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
62 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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 _____________________________________________________________________
63 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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):
64 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Moderately 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
65 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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.
Not at all Important
Somewhat Important
Moderately 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
66 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
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?
67 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Final Report Submitted to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
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
1 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction
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?
2 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction
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.
3 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction
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
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 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.
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
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
4 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction
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.
On-site face-to-face interviews were used to obtain data from a sample of recreationists
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.
Organization of this Report
This report summarizes the results of visitor surveys conducted on the State Forests
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
5
Recreation Use Estimates
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
6
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 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
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.
Table 1. Description of the Sampling Sites. Sproul Susquehannock Percent of
Sampling Days* Percent of
Interviews* Percent of
Sampling Days* 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.
About one-third of the sampling days and corresponding interviews were completed during high,
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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.
Results from the traffic counts and completed surveys were used to estimate total
recreational use of the State Forests. 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 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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
10
Table 3. Recreation Use Estimates for the Sproul and Susquehannock State Forests
*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).
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
13
Table 4. Trip Visitation Patterns in the State Forests
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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.
15 Recreation Use on the State Forests Demographic Characteristics
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
16 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 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)
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
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.
17 Recreation Use on the State Forests Activity Participation
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%).
18 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, thirteen 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. 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.
Table 7. Satisfaction Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests (Percent)
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
Availability of parking 1.7 1.7 13.7 29.1 48.7 5.1 4.28
Parking lot condition 1.7 .9 8.5 35.9 34.2 18.8 4.23
Adequacy of signage 4.3 6.0 15.4 29.1 41.9 3.4 4.02
Adequacy of signage 4.7 8.5 17.0 24.5 40.6 4.7 3.92
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).
20 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
Table 8. Importance Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests (Percent)
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 roads 1.0 4.0 14.0 37.0 44.0 4.19
Adequacy of signage 4.1 1.0 18.6 24.7 51.1 4.19
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
Condition of developed recreation facilities 6.4 5.1 20.5 29.5 38.5 3.88
Availability of parking 8.9 2.0 29.7 25.7 33.7 3.73
Parking lot condition 8.8 4.4 29.7 31.9 25.3 3.60
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
Condition of Forest roads 1.0 3.1 11.5 29.2 55.2 4.34
Adequacy of signage 5.2 1.0 11.3 24.7 57.7 4.29
Condition of developed recreation facilities 7.8 1.3 10.4 20.8 59.7 4.23
Condition of Forest trails 5.4 3.3 8.7 32.6 50.0 4.18
Helpfulness of employees 8.0 5.3 8.0 24.0 54.7 4.12
Availability of information on recreation 8.6 5.4 15.1 18.3 52.7 4.01
Cleanliness of restrooms 16.7 1.5 9.1 21.2 51.5 3.89
Availability of parking 12.8 5.3 19.1 22.3 40.4 3.72
Parking lot condition 13.8 7.5 17.5 20.0 41.3 3.68
21 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
Other Visitor Satisfaction Ratings
Respondents for the Experience Addition were asked some additional questions about how they would rate the quality of various aspects of the State Forest.
Most respondents indicated very favorable ratings (mean of 4.0 or above) for all of the items rated.
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”
22 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
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.
Very few respondents indicated conditions near the “overcrowded” end of the scale.
The average crowding score on the 10-point crowding scale was 2.7 among both Sproul and Susquehannock Forest visitors.
a Response code: 1 = “hardly anyone” to 10 = “overcrowded”
23 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 12). These questions were asked to establish a context for
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.
24 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
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
25 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
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).
Table 13. Summary of Trip Spending Patterns of State Forest Visitors
Sproul Susquehannock
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
26 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
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
Sproul Susquehannock
Average Amount Spent - Among
Visitors Spending Something in
Each Category
Average Amount Spent – All
Visitors
Average Amount Spent - Among
Visitors Spending Something in
Each Category
Average Amount Spent – All
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
Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment (park fees, movies, mini-golf, etc.)
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.
27 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
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.
28 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.
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)
29 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Recreation Experience
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 people in surrounding communities
3.1 5.1 11.2 21.4 34.7 24.5 4.1
Susquehannock State Forest
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
a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent)
30 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Place Attachment
Visitors were asked to choose their most important reason for visiting the State Forest
from a list of alternative choices.
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
I went there because I enjoy being in the forest 37.6 22.9
I went there because I wanted to spend time with friends/family 17.8 18.1
I went there because it’s a good place to:
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
Other Reason 9.9 13.3
31 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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.
Table 18. Summary of Place Attachment Scale Items (Percent)
Place Attachment Items Strongly disagree Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Meana
Sproul State Forest
This place means a lot to me 0 1.0 12.0 28.0 59.0 4.5
I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit
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
Susquehannock State Forest
This place means a lot to me 0 0 5.7 22.9 71.4 4.7
I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit
0 2.9 15.2 28.6 53.3 4.3
I am very attached to this place 2.9 1.9 12.5 21.2 61.5 4.4
I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places 1.9 1.9 19.0 25.7 51.4 4.2
a Response Code: 1="Strongly Disagree" and 5="Strongly Agree”
32 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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
Moderately 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
For relaxation 0 1.0 5.8 35.9 57.3 4.5 To get away from the regular routine
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”
33 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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 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.
Table 20. Visitor Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services Not at all
Important Somewhat Important
Moderately Important
Very Important
Extremely Important
Meana
Sproul State Forest
Wildlife viewing areas or opportunities 3.0 10.1 17.2 29.3 40.4 3.9
Parking 12.2 13.3 21.4 27.6 25.5 3.4
Signs directing me to recreation facilities 19.4 7.1 20.4 25.5 27.6 3.4
34 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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
Snowmobile Trails 48.0 6.9 7.8 16.7 20.6 2.6
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
35 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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
36 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
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.
37 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
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.
38 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
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.
Type of Comment Number of Comments Sproul Susquehannock
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.
39 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
Table 26. Responses to How Marcellus Shale-related Activity has Changed your Recreational Experience at the Forest?
Type of Comment Number of Comments Sproul Susquehannock
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.
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 27. Responses to Why Marcellus Shale-related Activity has not Changed your Recreational Experience at the Forest.
Type of Comment Number of Comments Sproul Susquehannock
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
40 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
Summary and Conclusions
The results published in this report are a compilation of the data collected at numerous
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
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. Most of
the respondents (70% in the Sproul and 85% in the Susquehannock) indicated that they spent
41 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
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).
The experience section of the study was given to about one-third of the visitors, providing
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.
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
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
42 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
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.
This report provides a representative snapshot of recreational use in two Pennsylvania
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.
43 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Appendix A
Visitor Responses to Open-Ended Questions
44 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
45 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
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
46 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
47 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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)
48 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
49 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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)
50 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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)
51 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
52 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
53 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
54 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
55 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
56 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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)
57 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
58 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
59 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
60 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
61 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (25)
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
62 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Not Drilling Here (or in areas I care about) (17)
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
63 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
64 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
65 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
66 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (38)
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
67 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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 Drilling Here (or in areas I care about) (31)
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 (implies concern for future) (30)
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
68 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
69 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
70 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
71 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
72 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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 (implies concern for future) (29)
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
73 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
74 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Appendix B
Zip Code Analysis of Sproul and Susquehannock State Forest Visitors
75 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
76 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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%
*may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Table 3. Sproul State Forest Pennsylvania Responses by County (n = 293)
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
home ZIP code in Pennsylvania (Table 5). The Pennsylvania respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 52 different counties (Table 6).
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)
Distance (miles) Number of Responses Percent*
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%
*may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Table 5. Susquehannock State Forest Responses by State (n = 304)
State Number of Responses Percent*
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%
*may not add up to 100% due to rounding
79 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Table 6. Susquehannock State Forest Pennsylvania Responses by County (n = 263)
Time of Interview: ___________ Vehicle Axle Count: ____________ Clicker Count: _______
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)
1. 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 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
85 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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) __________________________________________________________
86 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
9. What is your home ZIP code or Canadian postal code? ______________ Visitor is from a country other than USA or Canada
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
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 ______________________________
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
87 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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 $ ___________
Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment (park fees, movies, mini-golf, etc.)
$ _______________
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?_______________________________________________________________________
88 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Satisfaction Addition
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?
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. 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?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
89 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
6. Does anyone in your household have a disability? Yes No
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)
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 _____ Other reasons for visit (e.g., cabin owner, private inholding):
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
90 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Not at all Important
Somewhat Important
Moderately 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
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.
Not at all Important
Somewhat Important
Moderately 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
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
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
91 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
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:____________________________________
15. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
16. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report Submitted to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
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
1 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction
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?
2 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction
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.
3 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction
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
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 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.
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
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
4 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction
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 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.
Organization of this Report
This report summarizes the results of visitor surveys conducted on the State Forests
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
5
Recreation Use Estimates
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
6
the Allegheny National Forest, and validated with the activity participation data collected in the
current State Forest study.
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 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
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.
Table 1. Description of the Sampling Sites. Delaware Forbes Percent of
Sampling Days* Percent of
Interviews* Percent of
Sampling Days* 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.
About one-third of the sampling days and corresponding interviews were completed during high,
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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.
Results from the traffic counts and completed surveys were used to estimate total
recreational use of the State Forests. 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 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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates
10
Table 3. Recreation Use Estimates for the Delaware and Forbes State Forests
Recreation Use on the State Forests Trip Visitation Patterns
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Trip Visitation Patterns
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.
Recreation Use on the State Forests Trip Visitation Patterns
13
Table 4. Trip Visitation Patterns in the State Forests
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
Recreation Use on the State Forests Trip Visitation Patterns
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.
15 Recreation Use on the State Forests Demographic Characteristics
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.
16 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 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)
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
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.
17 Recreation Use on the State Forests Activity Participation
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.
18 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, thirteen 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. 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.
Table 7. Satisfaction Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests (Percent)
Delaware State Forest Poor Fair Average Good Very Good
Not Applicable Meana
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
Availability of information on recreation 6.0 6.0 20.3 23.3 32.3 12.0 3.8
Cleanliness of restrooms 4.5 5.3 3.8 11.3 15.0 60.2 3.7
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).
20 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
Table 8. Importance Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests (Percent)
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
Adequacy of signage 1.2 2.4 10.7 14.3 71.4 4.5
Helpfulness of employees 0 1.4 15.3 25.0 58.3 4.4
Condition of Forest trails 2.5 1.2 11.1 23.5 61.7 4.4
Availability of information on recreation 2.6 2.6 15.8 23.7 55.3 4.3
Cleanliness of restrooms 5.8 5.8 10.1 21.7 56.5 4.2
Condition of developed recreation facilities 1.3 6.6 13.2 28.9 50.0 4.2
Availability of parking 3.5 3.5 23.5 20.0 49.4 4.1
Parking lot condition 1.3 6.3 21.3 28.7 42.5 4.1
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
Condition of Forest trails 0.8 0.8 10.0 28.3 60.0 4.5
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
Adequacy of signage 1.6 0.8 14.4 29.6 53.6 4.3
Condition of Forest roads 2.3 2.3 19.5 24.2 51.6 4.2
Condition of developed recreation facilities 4.2 2.1 18.9 25.3 49.5 4.1
Helpfulness of employees 4.7 4.7 14.1 29.4 47.1 4.1
Availability of parking 5.7 0.8 23.6 23.6 46.3 4.0
Cleanliness of restrooms 8.1 4.7 22.1 25.6 39.5 3.9
Parking lot condition 8.3 8.3 29.8 16.5 37.2 3.7
21 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
Other Visitor Satisfaction Ratings
Respondents for the Experience Addition were asked some additional questions about how they would rate the quality of various aspects of the State Forest.
Most respondents indicated very favorable ratings (mean of 4.0 or above) for all of the items rated.
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”
22 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition
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.
Very few respondents indicated conditions near the “overcrowded” end of the scale.
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.
a Response code: 1 = “hardly anyone” to 10 = “overcrowded”
23 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 9). These questions were asked to establish a context for
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.
24 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
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
25 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
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).
26 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
Table 13. Summary of Trip Spending Patterns of State Forest Visitors
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
Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment (park fees, movies, mini-golf, etc.)
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.
27 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition
Table 14. Amount Spent by State Forest Visitors for Various Categories of Trip Expenditures
Economic Expenditure Items
Delaware Forbes
Average Amount Spent - Among
Visitors Spending Something in
Each Category
Average Amount Spent – All
Visitors
Average Amount Spent - Among
Visitors Spending Something in
Each Category
Average Amount Spent – All
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
Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment (park fees, movies, mini-golf, etc.)
$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
28 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.
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)
29 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Recreation Experience
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 people in surrounding communities
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
a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent)
30 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Place Attachment
Visitors were asked to choose their most important reason for visiting the State Forest
from a list of alternative choices.
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
I went there because I enjoy being in the forest 34.5 38.1
I went there because I wanted to spend time with friends/family 19.0 14.3
I went there because it’s a good place to:
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
Other Reason 15.5 13.5
31 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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.
Table 18. Summary of Place Attachment Scale Items (Percent)
Place Attachment Items Strongly disagree Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Meana
Delaware State Forest
This place means a lot to me 1.2 1.2 11.8 32.9 52.9 4.4
I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit
1.2 3.5 20.0 25.9 41.2 4.1
I am very attached to this place 3.5 9.4 20.0 25.9 41.2 3.9
I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places 2.4 7.1 22.4 31.8 36.5 3.9
Forbes State Forest
This place means a lot to me 0 0.8 16.3 38.2 44.7 4.3
I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit
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
I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places 1.6 4.9 37.4 30.1 26.0 3.7
a Response Code: 1="Strongly Disagree" and 5="Strongly Agree”
32 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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
Moderately 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
For relaxation 0 1.6 9.4 29.1 59.8 4.5 To get away from the regular routine
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”
33 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Visitor Response to Potential Facilities and Services
Visitors surveyed were asked what facilities/services in the State Forest are most
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).
Table 20. Visitor Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services Not at all
Important Somewhat Important
Moderately Important
Very Important
Extremely Important
Meana
Delaware State Forest
Wildlife viewing areas or opportunities 3.5 4.7 11.8 29.4 50.6 4.2
Signs directing me to recreation facilities 8.2 5.9 12.9 35.3 37.6 3.9
Parking 5.9 9.4 23.5 34.1 27.1 3.7
Printed Interpretive Information 14.3 6.0 16.7 34.5 28.6 3.6
Signs directing me to recreation facilities 7.1 4.0 14.3 34.9 39.7 4.0
Wildlife viewing areas or opportunities 3.2 10.3 19.0 25.4 42.1 3.9
Printed Interpretive Information 11.2 4.0 17.6 29.6 37.6 3.8
34 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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
35 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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
36 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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
37 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
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.
38 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Table 24. Responses to, How has Marcellus Shale-related activity changed your use of the Forest?
Type of Comment Number of Comments Delaware Forbes
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.
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.
39 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Table 25. Responses to why Marcellus shale-related activity has not changed your use of the forest.
Type of Comment Number of Comments Delaware Forbes
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.
40 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition
Table 26. Responses to, How has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at the Forest?
Type of Comment Number of Comments Delaware Forbes
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.
Type of Comment Number of Comments Delaware Forbes
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
41 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
Summary and Conclusions
The results published in this report are a compilation of the data collected at numerous
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
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. 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
42 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
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.
The experience section of the study was given to about one-third of the visitors, providing
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.
Visitor responses to potential management options were examined to ascertain support or
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
43 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion
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.
This report provides a representative snapshot of recreational use in two Pennsylvania
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.
44 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Appendix A
Visitor Responses to Open-Ended Questions
45 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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)
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
46 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
47 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
48 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
49 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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)
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
50 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
51 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
52 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
53 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
54 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
55 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
56 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (27)
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
Not Drilling Here (or in areas I care about) (67)
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
57 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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 Yet (implies concern for future) (18)
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
58 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
59 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
60 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Don’t Know About It (9)
Didn't know of it/about it (5) Did not know what it was (3) Haven't been involved in what’s going on
61 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
62 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
63 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
64 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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 (implies concern for future) (17)
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
Don’t Know About It (23)
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
65 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
66 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
67 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (57)
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)
68 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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 (implies concern for future) (12)
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 About It (11)
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
69 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Appendix B
Zip Code Analysis of Delaware and Forbes State Forest Visitors
70 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
home ZIP code in Pennsylvania (Table 2). The Pennsylvania respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 32 different counties (Table 3).
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)
Distance (miles) Number of Responses Percent*
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%
*may not add up to 100% due to rounding
71 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Table 2. Delaware State Forest Responses by State (n = 261)
State Number of Responses Percent*
Pennsylvania 228 87.4% New York 16 6.1% New Jersey 14 5.4% Connecticut 1 .4% Ohio 1 .4% Oklahoma 1 .4%
*may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Table 3. Delaware State Forest Pennsylvania Responses by County (n = 228)
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)
Distance (miles) Number of Responses Percent*
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%
*may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Table 2. Forbes State Forest Responses by State (n = 385)
State Number of Responses Percent*
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%
*may not add up to 100% due to rounding
73 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Table 3. Forbes State Forest Pennsylvania Responses by County (n = 346)
Time of Interview: ___________ Vehicle Axle Count: ____________ Clicker Count: _______
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)
1. 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 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)___________
78 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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) __________________________________________________________
79 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
9. What is your home ZIP code or Canadian postal code? ______________ Visitor is from a country other than USA or Canada
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
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 ______________________________
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
80 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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 $ ___________
Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment (park fees, movies, mini-golf, etc.)
$ _______________
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?_______________________________________________________________________
81 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
Satisfaction Addition
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?
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. 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?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
State Forest Experience Addition
82 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
6. Does anyone in your household have a disability? Yes No
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)
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 _____ Other reasons for visit (e.g., cabin owner, private inholding):
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
83 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
Not at all Important
Somewhat Important
Moderately 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
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.
Not at all Important
Somewhat Important
Moderately 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
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
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
84 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix
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
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:____________________________________
15. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
16. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
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?