UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Preferences of mountain park visitors regarding some British Columbia and Alberta forest habitat Apt, Kamill J.Z. 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A6 A78.pdf [ 6.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0103940.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0103940-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0103940-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0103940-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0103940-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0103940-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0103940-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0103940-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0103940.ris

Full Text

PREFERENCES OP MOUNTAIN PARK VISITORS REGARDING SOME BRITISH COLUMBIA AND ALBERTA FOREST HABITATS by KAMILL J . Z. APT B.S.F. (Sopron) U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1961. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF FORESTRY i n the Department of F o r e s t r y . We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the re q u i r e d standard. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h June, 1968. Columbia In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and Study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by hiis r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada D a t e ^ O U ^ *2- \ ABSTRACT Information was collected i n 1967 from 1116 visitors to some mountain parks in British Columbia and Alberta regarding their preferences, knowledge and interest i n the kind and condition of the surrounding forest habitat. Data concerning v i s i t o r characteristics such as socioeconomic standing, camping experience, age, sex, regional origin, level of education, type of equipment used (tents, t r a i l e r s or campers) and reasons for selecting the campground were also recorded. Because of the d i f f i c u l t y quantifiable nature of the data, analyses had to be done using only tests of independence and simple correlations of the observed frequencies. It was found that most park visitors were travellers staying overnight, then moving on, rather than camping for several days. Two-thirds of them were able to recognize the common tree species of the parks, but their preferences regarding forest habitat were weak and vague. Those who were well satisfied with the f a c i l i t i e s and the general conditions of the campground tended to prefer some particular feature of the local forest. The firm opinions and strong preferences of the small group of wilderness enthusiasts reported in other surveys were not found among the park visitors sampled in this study. - i i -ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my most sincere gratitude to Dr. J . Harry G. Smith of the Faculty of Forestry of the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, for making i t possible for me to undertake this study, and for his guidance throughout the process of preparing and wri t ing of this thes is . The opportunity to carry out the f i e l d work provided by Mr. Gordon Taylor of the National Parks Branch of Canada is much appreciated. I also wish to thank the B r i t i s h Columbia Prov inc ia l Parks Branch for the ir f ine co-operation. The helpfulness of the f i e l d s taf f of the National and Prov inc ia l Parks surveyed is much appreciated. I am indebted to Professors L . Adamovich, P. G. Haddock, D. Haley, and A. Kozak of the U . B . C . Faculty of Forestry for their valuable advice in the analyses of data and in the wri t ing of the thes is . Last but not l eas t , I thank my family for the help and patience they granted me during a hard year of s tudies . - i i i -TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v INTRODUCTION 1 DATA COLLECTION 4 ANALYSES OF THE DATA 10 Sort ing 10 Test of independence 11 Corre lat ion coef f ic ients 17 RESULTS 19 V i s i t o r character i s t i c s 21 S ign i f i cant corre lat ions 24 Unpleasant features seen in parks 26 Tree i d e n t i f i c a t i o n knowledge 27 Importance placed on the kind of trees 28 Preferred forest types 29 Preferred tree species 31 Reaction to human a c t i v i t i e s 33 Reaction to burns, windfa l l s , etc 34 CONCLUSIONS 35 LIST OF REFERENCES 39 - i v -TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) APPENDICES 42 The q u e s t i o n n a i r e used 42 System of coding the r e p l i e s 43 Independent v a r i a b l e s 43 Dependent v a r i a b l e s 48 I n i t i a l r e p o r t of the survey 55 - V -LIST OF TABLES 1. Summary table 12 2. Example of a contingency table of observed frequencies 13 3. Example of a contingency table of hypothetical frequencies 14 4. Computation format used in the test of independence . 15 5. S ign i f i cant corre lat ions of v i s i t o r charac ter i s t i c s , 25 - 1 -INTRODUCTION Modern l i f e i s easy and comfortable. Modern man does not need to worry about s u r v i v a l , but rather should worry about keep-ing himself phys ica l ly f i t and mentally sane under the over-protective l e i s u r e l y conditions of our new age. Increasing urbanizat ion, developing technology, r i s i n g l i v i n g standards, and increasing l e i sure time compose a s i tuat ion which is i n acute contrast to the way of l i f e that man used to l i v e . Soon i t w i l l be, not work, but l e i s u r e , with which man has to learn to cope. Finding ways and providing resources for sound recreat ion are the increasingly important challenges of our soc iety . Managing forest lands for recreat ional purposes is part of the challenges. The t r a d i t i o n a l enterprise-centered economical approach in forest management gradually becomes combined with p o l i t i c a l de-c i s ions based on public opinion (Nelson 1966). Much research is being done to provide a basis for se lect ing land, formulating management p o l i c i e s , and for developing management techniques to meet the recreat ional needs of soc iety . Outdoor recreat ion research combines the f i e l d s of natural and humanistic sciences. The physical properties of the resources must be examined in the context of the pursuits and the number of the users. Bcologis ts , foresters , landscape s p e c i a l i s t s , soc ia l s c i e n t i s t s , psychologists , and mathematicians are working together to investigate the numerous re lated branches of the problem. The - 2 -kind and quantity of demand for outdoor recreat ional resources have been invest igated by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission ( O . R . R . R . C . ) (Study Rep. No. 5, 1962), Sessoms (1963), Clawson and Knetsch (1966), Burch (1966), and Hendee (1966). The influence of socioeconomic factors on par-t i c i p a t i o n in outdoor recreat ion i s the central problem of O . R . R . R . C . (Study Rep. No. 20, 1962), Taylor (1 9 6 4 ) , Burch (1967) , and King (1968). Some human character i s t i c s inf luencing environmental perception are discussed in the a r t i c l e s of Lucas (1 964), and Sonnenfeld ( 1 9 6 6 ) . Taylor (1 966 and 1 967) examined techniques for inventory and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and for the evalua-t ion of recreat ional use. Clawson and Knetsch (1966), and Pearse (1968) presented theories of economical evaluation of recreat ional resources. Recreational research i s a r e l a t i v e l y new f i e l d . Adequate methods of data c o l l e c t i o n and analyses are s t i l l being developed as shown in the works of Burch (1 9 6 4 ) » - Wenger ( 1 9 6 4 ) , Cooley and Lohens (1966), Hendee (1967), and Shafer (1967). Much new informa-t ion is needed in a l l of the f i e lds of recreat ion. This thesis contains a descr ipt ion of data c o l l e c t i o n , analyses of the data, and conclusions drawn from a survey carr ied out by the author in the summer of 1967. The survey was based on the hypothesis that d i f ferent aesthetic values of various forest types and tree species w i l l be indicated by corresponding high and low preferences of park v i s i t o r s . It was hoped that the knowledge obtained would be helpful to park planners and forest - 3 -land managers in B r i t i s h Columbia and Alberta . The aim of the survey was to c o l l e c t information from v i s i t o r s to mountain parks regarding the ir preferences and knowledge of, and interest i n , the kind and condit ion of the f l o r a of the surrounding forest habi tat . As wel l , the intent was to learn about some factors that may influence a person in his appreciation of a forest environment. A study of the spec i f ic contributions of fauna and other elements to habitat preferences of park v i s i t o r s would be of interes t but was beyond the scope of our study. The sa t i s fac t ion gained from the outdoor a c t i v i t y may depend on the environment in which the a c t i v i t y was pract iced . Therefore, preferences of large proportions of v i s i t o r s for a par t i cu lar feature of a forest must be kept in mind in forest recreation management. The resul ts of this survey could be used as guide-l ines to help a l locate campgrounds according to people's des ires , and to determine necessary s i te maintenance a c t i v i t i e s . The lack of strong preferences appears to grant a r e l a t i v e l y free hand in decision-making to the professional manager. - 4 -DATA COLLECTION The p r o j e c t was s p o n s o r e d f i n a n c i a l l y t h r o u g h a r e s e a r c h c o n t r a c t w i t h the R e s e a r c h S e c t i o n of the P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n of the N a t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c P a r k s B r a n c h of the Department o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s and N o r t h e r n Development of Canada. F o l l o w i n g t h e i r r e v i e w o f the p r o j e c t proposed, the f i e l d work was c a r r i e d out by the a u t h o r i n the summer of 1 9 6 7 . D a t a were summarized, by camp-grounds only, i n an i n i t i a l r e p o r t by Apt and S m i t h ( 1 9 6 7) which i s appended. The f o l l o w i n g b a s i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were t a k e n as g u i d e -l i n e s i n d e c i d i n g the method o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , the l e n g t h o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the t y p e of q u e s t i o n s to be a s k e d , and the s e l e c t i o n of campgrounds to be s u r v e y e d . O p i n i o n s about f o r e s t s were to be g a i n e d from p e o p l e w i t h l i m i t e d knowledge of f o r e s t r y . The s u r v e y had to be c o n d u c t e d i n s e v e r a l campgrounds o f d i f f e r e n t f o r e s t t y p e s to g e t a p o t e n t i a l l y wide range o f v i s i t o r p r e f e r e n c e s . A l a r g e number o f samples was needed to e l i m i n a t e the e f f e c t s of u n c o n t r o l l a b l e human v a r i a t i o n s . The work had to be c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n the e i g h t weeks o f peak t o u r i s t s e a s o n . C o n d u c t i n g p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s was c h o s e n as the most s u i t -a b l e method f o r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n . There a r e b o t h f a v o u r a b l e and u n f a v o u r a b l e a s p e c t s of t h i s method. The m e r i t s of p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s c o n s i s t m a i n l y of the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a v o i d i n g m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the q u e s t i o n s . T h i s - 5 -was p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t i n our c a s e b e c a u s e the use o f some t e c h n i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s c o u l d n o t be o m i t t e d . The o t h e r f a v o u r a b l e a s p e c t of i n t e r v i e w i n g i s the h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of r e s p o n s e i t y i e l d s . A good example to i l l u s t r a t e the p r o b l e m o f r e s p o n s e i s the e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d i n t h i s s u r v e y a t Pinewoods M o t e l i n Manning P r o v i n c i a l P a r k . There the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were handed out by-m o t e l employees to g u e s t s a t the r e c e p t i o n desk. One hundred and t w e l v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were g i v e n out and o n l y f o u r were c o m p l e t e d and r e t u r n e d . On the o t h e r hand, where i n t e r v i e w i n g was p r a c t i c e d 97.7% of the a t t e m p t e d i n t e r v i e w s were s u c c e s s f u l . The a d v a n t a g e s of p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s o v e r the hand-out method i n t h i s c a s e a r e o b v i o u s . D i s a d v a n t a g e s r e s u l t f r o m s u b j e c t i v i t y . The e x p l a n a t i o n i n t e n d e d to a v o i d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the q u e s t i o n may become g u i d a n c e t h a t s u g g e s t s the answer. The o t h e r d i s a d v a n t a g e i s t h a t a number o f p e o p l e w i t h v e r y vague knowledge o r p r e f e r e n c e s w i l l a c t u a l l y be f o r c e d by t h e i r own p o l i t e n e s s i n t o a n s w e r i n g q u e s t i o n s i n which t h e y have l i t t l e o r no i n t e r e s t . T h i s w i l l l e a d to u n c o n t r o l l a b l e v a r i a t i o n s , b e c a u s e t h e s e answers a r e s p o n t a n e o u s and g i v e n w i t h l i t t l e t h o u g h t . Some v a r i a t i o n s may a l s o be i n t r o d u c e d by a shy, a g g r e s s i v e , b r i g h t o r d u l l p e r s o n a l i t y of b o t h the i n t e r v i e w e r and the i n t e r v i e w e e . A s e r i o u s a t t e m p t was made to make use of the a d v a n t a g e s and, as much as p o s s i b l e , to c o n t r o l the d i s a d v a n t a g e s . A l a r g e sample - 6 -was taken to overcome the uncontrol lable v a r i a t i o n s . Pr inc ip le s for in terpre t ing the questions were stated at the beginning of the survey and were prec ise ly followed throughout the work, and a l l the interviews were conducted by the same person. The questionnaire was designed in order to gain two types of information. Data concerning factors to which the variat ions i n preferences may be a t t r ibutab le , were co l lected on the fol lowing topics; Travel distance Camping experience Reason for se lect ing campground Occupation of v i s i t o r Regional or ig in of v i s i t o r Education of v i s i t o r Sex of v i s i t o r Age of v i s i t o r Camping equipment used by the v i s i t o r Site of interview (campground) Period (week day vs. week-end day) The information regarding the person's preferences and att i tude toward the environment was gained on the basis of the fol lowing: Something unpleasant seen i n the park A b i l i t y of the v i s i t o r to recognize trees Importance placed on the kind of trees Forest type preferred Tree species preferred - 7 -Preferred age and size of trees Conifers or broadleaves preferred Preferred type of undergrowth Reaction to management of forests Reaction to windfa l l s , burns, dead trees or defective trees . Both d irec t and ind irec t questions were formulated to minimize the necessity of in terpre ta t ion . For example, the preferred forest type could not be named by many people. In many such cases the ind irec t approach was used successful ly by defining the type on the basis of the locat ion where the interviewee saw i t . Eleven campgrounds were selected for sampling. These camp-grounds represent a l l of the important forest types of the mountain park regions of B r i t i s h Columbia and Alber ta . In addit ion to representing di f ferent forest types, the campgrounds d i f f e r from each other in layout, comfort f a c i l i t i e s and locat ion in respect to popular points of in teres t . The fol lowing camp-grounds were surveyed: 1 . Coldspring (Manning P r o v i n c i a l Park) 2. Wasa Lake (Wasa Lake Prov inc ia l Park) Redstreak (Kootenay National Park) 3. Tenting area 4. T r a i l e r area 5. Marble Cany on (Kootenay National Park) Tunnel Mountain (Banff National Park) - 8 -6. T e n t i n g a r e a 7. T r a i l e r a r e a Lake L o u i s e ( B a n f f N a t i o n a l P a r k ) 8. T e n t i n g a r e a 9. T r a i l e r a r e a 10. Hoodoo C r e e k (Yoho N a t i o n a l P a r k ) 11. I l l e c i l l e w e a t ( G l a c i e r N a t i o n a l P a r k ) (A d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f the campgrounds was g i v e n i n the r e p o r t by Apt and S m i t h (1967)). The campgrounds can be g r o uped i n t o c a t e g o r i e s a c c o r d i n g to the use most p e o p l e make of them. R e d s t r e a k , T u n n e l M o u n t a i n and Lake L o u i s e b e l o n g i n one c a t e g o r y . These campgrounds a r e u s e d by p e o p l e m a i n l y as low-c o s t accommodation n e a r widely-known p o i n t s o f i n t e r e s t . T h e i r c o m f o r t f a c i l i t i e s a r e h i g h l y d e v e l o p e d , and o n l y a few o f the v i s i t o r s a r e engaged i n o u t d o o r a c t i v i t i e s . C o l d s p r i n g , Wasa Lake and I l l e c i l l e w e a t make up the n e x t c a t e g o r y . These a r e a s a r e remote f r o m t o u r i s t h i g h l i g h t s where o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n i s the o n l y s o u r c e o f e n t e r t a i n m e n t . The com-f o r t f a c i l i t i e s a r e m o d e r a t e l y d e v e l o p e d . A c o n s i d e r a b l e number of v i s i t o r s s t a y a t t h e s e campgrounds d u r i n g the day f o r the sake of r e c r e a t i o n . To some e x t e n t a l l of the campgrounds a r e u s e d as o v e r n i g h t s t o p p i n g p o i n t s , b u t M a r b l e Canyon and Hoodoo Cre e k a r e p r o m i n e n t i n t h i s r e s p e c t . As f a c i l i t i e s t h a t a r e u s e d a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y as o n e - n i g h t accommodation they r e p r e s e n t the t h i r d c a t e g o r y . The - 9 -c a m p s i t e s , w i t h v e r y few e x c e p t i o n s , a r e v a c a n t d u r i n g the day. The i n d i v i d u a l c a m p s i t e s to be s u r v e y e d w i t h i n a campground were s e l e c t e d by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e random s a m p l i n g . S i t e s were s e l e c t e d randomly f r o m each s u b d i v i s i o n of the campground. The d e s i r e d number o f samples was 56 p e r p e r i o d p e r campground. T h i s i s e q u a l t o the t o t a l number o f s i t e s a t the s m a l l e s t campground, which was M a r b l e Canyon. The t o t a l d e s i r e d number o f samples was 1,232. Because of d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the f i e l d o n l y 1,142 v i s i t o r s were a p p r o a c h e d f o r i n t e r v i e w i n g . Some o f t h e s e p e o p l e r e f u s e d to g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n ( 2 0 ) ; o t h e r s were met t w i c e a t d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s ( 6 ) . As a r e s u l t , the number o f s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r v i e w s was 1,116. The major d i f f i c u l t y i n the f i e l d was c a u s e d by the m i g r a n t n a t u r e of the v i s i t o r s . D u r i n g the day the s i t e s were e i t h e r v a c a n t , or the o c c u p a n t s were away e n j o y i n g w h a t e v e r daytime a c t -i v i t y t h e y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n . T h e r e f o r e , i n t e r v i e w i n g had t o be done w i t h i n the l i m i t e d time a v a i l a b l e i n the e a r l y m o r n i n g and i n the e v e n i n g . There were no r e c o r d s k e p t of the s t a t e o f o c c u p a t i o n o f the s i t e s d u r i n g the day. T h e r e f o r e , r e c r e a t i o n days and a c t i v i t y days ( T a y l o r ( 1 9 6 7) ) c o u l d n o t be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . The l e n g t h of s t a y a l s o was n o t r e c o r d e d . The l a c k o f t h e s e d a t a was a n o t i c e -a b l e h a n d i c a p i n e x a m i n i n g a t t i t u d e s o f the v i s i t o r s . F o r the same r e a s o n the r e c r e a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e ("a f i v e - f o l d phenomenon" Clawson and K n e t s c h ( 1 9 6 6 ) ) g a i n e d by the p e o p l e c o u l d n o t be vi e w e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y . - 10 -ANALYSES OF THE DATA The analyses had two basic purposes. The f i r s t was to define v i s i t o r preferences, knowledge, and react ion to various environmental features. The second was to evaluate personal charac ter i s t i c s as factors inf luencing people in the ir r e l a t i o n -ship to the environment. The data to be analyzed were co l lected through the prev-ious ly described personal interviews. Each questionnaire consis t -ed of 21 questions. A to ta l of 118 d i f ferent answers were given to the 21 questions. The 1,116 completed questionnaires represent the same number of combinations of the 118 types of answers. There was a choice of predetermined answers given on the questionnaire, but in many cases they were not s u f f i c i e n t , as addi t ional types of rep l ies were given to some questions. Handling of the large amount of complex data was only possible by using an e lectronic computer. For this purpose the d i f ferent types of answers were i d e n t i f i e d by numeric codes. (The types of answers and the codes used are appended.) Then the information from each questionnaire was transferred to an IBM punchcard. A l l the sort -ing and mathematical and s t a t i s t i c a l procedures were carr ied out by the computer. The f i r s t phase of the analyses consisted of simple sort ing of the data. The purpose of the sort ing was to show how many times a p a r t i c u l a r type of answer was given to a question. Following sort ing the re la t ive frequencies of each type of answers - 1 1 -were ca lcu la ted . These percentage values can be observed in the extreme r ight column and in the bottom row of table 1, and w i l l add to 100$ for any question. The re la t ive frequencies express the proportion of the v i s i t o r s who preferred a certa in environmental feature. They also show the composition of the v i s i t o r group with respect to each factor that may influence environmental perception. In the l a t t e r part of the analyses the s igni f icance of the high and low preferences was tested together with the s ignif icance of the inf luencing fac tors . For this purpose the information was separated into dependent and independent var iab le s . The data concerning v i s i t o r s ' preferences, knowledge, and interes t i n the kind and condit ion of the surrounding forest habitat are represented by ten dependent var iab les . These variables make up the hor izonta l headings of the summary table No. 1. The independent variables represent the inf luencing fac tors . These can be found as the v e r t i c a l headings in table No. 1. A considerable portion of the information i s of d i f f i c u l t l y quanti f iable nature. For this reason no true regression l ine could be f i t t e d to describe the re la t ionsh ip between var iab les . This fact eliminated the p o s s i b i l i t y of u t i l i z i n g several conventional s t a t i s t i c a l procedures. The most feas ib le method for making the desired analyses was the test of independence (L i 1966 p 496). This method was used to test the hypothesis that a variable i s dependent upon another. The population was c l a s s i f i e d in turn by one independent and one - 12 -S U M M A R Y O F V I S I T O R P R E F E R E N C E S R E G A R D I N G F O R E S T H A B I T A T TREE KINDS CENTFICAT KN CM/LED MPORTANJ ' i f I 5 FOREST TYPE PREFERRED E E I It | S g S |^ i i C - 1 M - 29 91 1 ' , 5 0 17» S4 17 S3 — r 6 0 C 2 - 4 M 11 111 4 ( 1 4t It 103 13 3t C 4 00 . i i 215 1> • s 221 91 35 323 11 11 U S 200 - 2 12 1 0 0 t 1 0 10 4 ll ' u S 2-400 < 41 1 2 0 11 t 32 1 11 U S 400 • 32 224 H 4 1 1S7 13*40 . 1 " 35 67 ' OTHER _ 1 5 r 3 0 0 4 1 0 5 2 2, L 71 8 5 1, II 1~IS It 17 J *7i 41 > I t I I 11 7 I t 1 24 77 II 10 It l t P I 61 21 54 I, 50 4 1 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 II a 31 37 • 1 I t 1 o ' S 4 0 7 0 « 71 7 t t 10 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 20 • 11 141 10 6 1 130 10.lt 112 27 40 51 6 1 6 4 0 24 5 37 10 27 41 16 6 6 10 12 13 19 21 2 12 3 1 1 4 30 74 13 54 1 16 IS 6 72 r 2 7 41 54 1 31 4 1 7 IS 11 H St 13 10 I 16 0 1 10- It 20196 11 8 9 1S4 54 19 151 12 5* '67 II U ' 14 1 31 P 22 31 16 32 177 21 10 9 12 1 32 13 24 2 20 1 1 2 r 7 21 92 30 79 12 19 121 11 13 26 44 94 13 59 5 11 121 15 7 • 1 101 4 ] 10 21 5 5- I ' l l 211 9 6 0 IS2 80 23 111 37 91 1 4 I 12 1 50 1  17 10 46 94 21 11 13 12 6 30 20 34 1 16 1 I 0 1 23 111 23 87 « 21 123 1 112 26 55 93 11 74 6 13 111 111 11 104 111 38 10 211, 1 - 4 45 236 14 12 4 113 80 3. 117 41 71 61 1 1 7 17 5 51 22 47 19 46 112 31 9 15 20 12 33 25 31 1 13 2 1 1 1 21 ISO 31 64 20 14 157 13 117 22 65 IIS 16 • 4 6 15 140 141 11 121 129 4 3 13 271 0 17 tt 1 2 0 66 39 » 61 17 JSJ 31 1 I R9 4 4 21 3 17 0 14 46 10 R9 3 6 6 10 a 17 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 51 1 33 12 7 55 4 54 10 31 42 S 26 4 6 52 51 1 42 57 t t a 10J ' ACTIVE REC 11 74 1 3 1 76 19 4 | 12 *il 12 | 32 3 0 1 1 0 11 1 u 4 13 11 12 3 1 7 7 7 4 12 '2 13 - 3 0 0 0 10 II 1 21 7 ] 1 59 1 29 1 1 'so I 21 0 3 51 42 2 31 31 30 4 714 | POPULAR 'St U4 7 <4 •j 112 51 26 133 17,41 i 1 36, 1 I t 7 r 5 29 13 43 13 29 62 17 7 11 10 6 11 17 24 0 9 0 R5 0 4 21 II II 41 14 11 90 6 79 24 53 '5. 7 1 1 ' t I 65 84 9 66 17 36 *d 174 710 CHOICE 1 • 37 0 1 0 1 30 II s l i t S 16 10 0 t 1 3 1 1 3 1 4 4 17 7 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 0 1 1 0 r 1 0 4 It 4 11 2 1 17 0 11 a I 12 1 10 0 1 21 22 0 21 17 7 1 43 PREV EXP ' 14 ISO S 1 '1 111 to 15 !l!4 IS 39 h 1 6 t 13 0 r 4 3 10 77 4 21 59 16 7 10 11 10 21 7 11 0 9 1 2 1 s 11 71 24 56 9 13 77 10 71 15 32 75 4 91 1 a tt 77 1 19 77 24 1 110 SPONTAN OB j 27 201 11 s 1 ISO ts 25 I6S 35 90 61 11 I 10 7 1 39 u 39 11 39 77 26 13 12 10 1  35 17 27 2 14 1 0 0 > 24 106 20 90 10 IS 116 7 112 21 59 t i 9 63 5 14 122 91 II •4 101 31 f i 205 FACILITIES 11 ts l o 1 0 67 25 IS , 51 13 T l 33 3 1 t 4 1 •x I 17 To 19 41 ^ 4 5 3 3 14 9 16 0 7 1 1 1 0 12 46 10 31 I to 52 2 43 12 20 • i i t r4> 2 4 41 44*10 31 41 It 6 13 OVERNIGHT ' 20 203 t ft 1 , 148 71 12 1137 41 II 0 5 5 u 9 1 34 « « 42 9 40 91 19 6 4 IS II 21 26 33 2 12 2 1 1 2 21 107 22 73 16 24 128 IS 79 26 59 93 16 "d I 'A 112 100 1 101104 32 9 U J LABORER 32 219 10 1 t 162 79 » 111 33 69 76 5 4 10 14 4 49 16 51 13 33 h 26 10 11 I n 38 20 4! 1 12 1 3 1 3 12 101 36 78 19 10, 144 16 100 20 63 91 13 79 4 ! 13 121 111 0 Ii0 101 26, 11 244 CLERICAL 11 199 11 1G 0 163 63 156 45 4^ 7J • 1 4 7 1 46 14 40 I 44 16 22 7 7 20 9 29 10, 34 0 18 t 2 0 1 27 109 24 71 16 21 123 6 97 30 SO 1! 11 39 1 1 14 111 107 14 M 100 44 15 221 BUSINESS 23 121 4 2 4 j " 40 -74 93 11 31 41 1 0 I 7 1 26 s \n 4 23 33 12 6 4 12 4 11 16 17 0 12 t 1 0 "5 11 13 15 53 9 16 77 3 59 12 33 so 7 41 5 S • l l 1 54 73 1 2 1 131 FARMER 2 34 1 0 0 11 11 t 14 3 10 14 0 0 2 9 1 7 1 4 2 5 14 % 1 r 4 a 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 r t 15 3 7 3 "l 17 1 12 \ 5 10 2 7 2 4 I t is 2 11 11 3 1 3 2 : PROFESSION 32 204 14 1] 9 , M S » jl51 35 %2 St 10 * 11 15 4 34 10 41 '22 31 16 20 16 13 13 15 27 21 2'd r 4 II 4 2 0 1 14 110 20 16 14 20 130 13 115 21 164 101 12 63 2 9 151 11 15 7 2 J l 2 l ' s i » 21.7 HOUSE WIFE 4,11 2 1 0 " 32 IS 61 12 15 31 2 0 1 6 1 16 6 w 5 20 43 5 3 4 5 5 6 4 14 0 4 0 1 1 3 12 44 7 30 5 13 43 3 39 14 II 31 S 20 1 7 41 17 5 41 41 14 2 1 9 STUDENT 1 34 J 2 0 I * It 1 |12 7 2, 7 r 4 r s t 1 1 1 4 0 1 4 12 6 0 3 0 3 5 3 4 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 25 2 12 1 0 24 1 16 3 10 7 3 7 1 0 26 11 2 11 12 t « 1J UNDERGROWTH CONCFR74 FJ ENVIRONMENT BURNS AND WINDFALLS i i i ! 21 19 115 I 64 2 II 17 54 4 44 S 29 72 121 19 t l II 1 5 1 0 2 0 1*20 IS 5 I 1 40 17 II 17 (4 6 2 1 1 0 2 0 11 i g S 1 5 S II 111 101 10 4 II IS 4 11154 165 1 5 1 7 t 1 5 24 25 2 II 14(103 19 0 t o r I 3 tn I I 2 O / 1 : /o 11101 11 HI 13 10 22 io' 145 145 47 ISi 5 7 2 l | 20 22 11 1 I J13 I 52 9 0 2 I 22 2 139 31 5 1 3 SO 2S 2 01 PACIFIC NW 26 191 I 11 1 OTHER NAM 14 592 21 17 I EUROPE 16 101 I 6 3 OTHER I I 0 0 0 ELEMENTARY' I t 126 3 I I HIGH SCHOOLJ 49 111 12 9 2 SOME COLLBS, 26 114 IS 11 4 BACHELOR I 24 151 t 5 1 M OR PH D ' l l 51 t r 6 *4 166 52 19 ]154 3 7 4 6 44S 202 12 4 4 3 102114 I t 12 I 3 19* 11 11 29 40 13 1 0 14 22 3S 1 0 3 1 16 0 35 24 70 122 10 2 21 1 0 0 15 3* I 41 39 '30 42 101 II XI 1 22 1 9 * 2 I 74 11^11 4 248P81 I t 10 71 S3 It 264 123 S3 111 14 23 135 48 11 15 9 . 7 WEEK DAY .12 410 23 17 WEEKEND IS 411 11 17 "•COLD SPRIWJJI 77 I j WASA LAKE I 8 15 2 R S TENT f -R S TRAILER 11 11 S M CANYON 1 4 74 1 TM TRAILER1 7 71 2 T M TENT *45 13 L L TRAILER 7 CO L L TENT IS HOODOO 6 98 I LLECILL 1 0 6 0 3 0 1 1 « ' I 2 2 I "d Id °> 1 1 MALE FEMALE 30-30-50 90 • TENT HI 753 37 33 11 1 J 4 7 7 1^  \_ 20 10 6 I I 90 612 33 15 10 ! 17 127 6 3 I T. I 0 It I 14 11 34 31 61 61 9 9 14 6 1 0 0 1 B4 27 31 277 69 94 161 31 51 112 25 59 46 9 21 372 95 123 '315 16 145 11 21 1 j 71 27 4 70 11 11 63 17 10 17 11 7 59 11 11 70 21 11 71 7 21 14 22 2 . 42 7 U 51 II 64 29 15 34 *2I 10 17 30 13 t l 2 3 122 1  \j 57 I I 44 l l 9 17 2 F l 3 20 I 19 1 10 2 36 10 2 21 4 2 10 t 71 1 II 19 71 21 II 1 1 % I 17 15 27 12 11 I n i l I 161 11 14 11 111 14 II 17 a 11 94 22 1 14 14 17 14 71 32 »4 21 19 59 17 2 I 155 45 It 14 ,72 2 0 7 1 0 15 IjT! 10 '22 1 5 t 204 SO 19 17 173 49 24 29 4 t 16 I 27 11 44 10 IS 11 10 19 11 S 24 21 1 1 4 7 21 1 19 1 14 0 I 1 11 0 5* 4 1 11 4 7 10 1 a • 0 0 20 9 1 ) 1 T 0 1 o* i 0 1 1 7 0 3 1 1 0 0 21 21 17 51 11 21 51 34 71 1 fl S II 73 11 24 31 12 22 24 24 I | |5t 17 11 14 10 21 ,131 4 17 2 21 I 21 I 25 rJ 21 2 22 0 2 l l j I 5 11 1 1 11 t 1 1 4 , < 11 1 77 2 11 • 71 1 11 1 70 I 9 2 271 2 U • a t ! 21 i s 1 11 j i t ' l l 11 7 1 4 10 4 11 1 t l 7 72 t 12 10 I 11 71 0 17 4 0 It 10 t 11 f t f l 21 1A 1 11 IS 9 21 2 I IS 11 4 44 12 I 41 t I 5 2 1 4 12 1 21 2 11 0 0 0 1 • 1 Tt 1 s 0 1 t 4 1 4 2 It 1 i « 10 11 • • s t 7 n 1 t 12 1 12 S n II 17 10 0 11 1 15 0 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 112 11 24 20 I IRAlJ 77 1-71 HJ 5 4 CAMPER j tO 17 I 4 0 CAR 1 20 1 I 0 TENT TRAILj 27 175 1 N U 2  : 112 249 90 563 139 229 93 41 24 104 22 39 r 79 33 11 |73 ^ f 7 54 0 217 1 2 513 105 221 I f 47 21 ,101 23 10 [275 67 101 jllO It 50 .205 4] 74 57 17*41 20 3 0 , 213 127 33 141 SS 13 77 10 10 17 4 2 725 21 23 34 41 4 4 4 r 3 , 4 V V 221 21 IS 21 [*• "d ' ' 121 u I t 17 52 f I 10 10 1 I 7 14 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5^ O N TT' . 1' " S 2 C 1 43 11 149 I 1 29 5 1 14 I t 11 141 7 0 23 27 S H f 2 42 10 1 44 3 0 20 1 0 4 60 114 45 139 6 27 10 26 7 11 I II 51 141 40 124 I 21 I 23 310 I I 31 42 I 17 11 7 4 53 40 103 74 7 7 15 11 113 I 21 0 2 10 2 4 25 56^16 71 11 45 I 25 19 19 17 42 I 71 1 It 1 4 1 1 41 11 2 2 779 76 15 40 157 12 I 4 '63 41 1t 21 l l 21 10 7 4 1 29 9 2 10 7 7 11 11 II II 41 21 1  10 21 IS 17 5 1 I 21 1 15 S 11 0 11 2 27 1 44 2 12 1 0 0 1 1 1 12 0 1 1 5 0 1 1 I 0 0 0 0 20 120 77 103 11 13 0 I 22 12 13 73 234 40 11 17 12 0 2 1 21 52 40 114 21 101 fJTos 17 41 1 47 135 24 21 76 17 11 SI n • IS 5 10 U l 14 141 11 10 I 4 6 10 25 297 II 51 1 2 12 14 35 211 11 111 14 107 7 I t 10 43, 15 172 t 114 1 64 72 251 43 234 ~1 -53 174 3 3 53 If 3 33 : 47 212 40 211 31 230 12 201j 10 51 S SI • 17 ( 41 I IS 11 11 II 46 77 11 7 SI 11 41 10 54 4 ^ 1 1 5 11 11 10 12 19 4 13 30 1 S 31 I 12 I 15 10 32 17 II S 16 91 411 95 290 59 11 47 7 12 f t 70 372 7 27 I II 267 41 II 41 1 41 114 15 95 42 134 10 57 0 11 4] 130 21 15 13 11 25 104 17 12 31 ( 1 • a si $ 11 17 • 65 • « 4 41 1 41 • 41 I 44 I 41 10 52 1 4| 7 17 2 35, 1 n 3 i i 1 40 1 ts 4 11 7 41 1 11 1 I I 10 14 56 411 21 71 I 41 25 145 10 52 31 120 11 17 27 151 • 71 1 11 20 115 10 TO 1 127 I 14 0 I 15 56 96 II 160 245 14 22 51 i r S 2 13 55 2 35 i n 20 f 40 2 0 0 1 14 21 49 49 11 151 13 55 13 I 46 6 II 107 11 9 6] 7 11 r 56 17 11 44 1 12 11 14 1 21 0 II lit 117 61 105 114 11 151 14 22 111 11 10 111 100 10 11 351 304 3 7 6 66 62 7 0 1 1 0 IS 10 41 261 130 109 SI 52 22 1 f 1 214 65 2 12 f 0 1 12 21 f l I 20 191 199 22 9 117 109 16 1 m u 7 71 54 74 174 T i l U n 111 11 56, 92 40 1« . 10 292 247 19 2 2 249 2 20 35 217 253 92 l i l t 21S 11 13 6 M l 2 2 1 17.1 7 1 21 I 52 9 n 1' 47.1 • 17 rt2 iA II 41 7 20 29 11 30 31 1 17 n 14 II 19, 10 24 11, 12 II II .1 17 is 11 Ki 15 f 5 f 14 0 2 f l 2 t 11 I f 21 2 1 62 I f 1 4 SI 45 1 5 49 46 5 10 40 51 f 1 41 40 S 1 40 40 r t S 41 51 f 1 40 21 1 5 50 SO 5 1 t l 41 I t 54 13 7 9 2 213 335 19 30 t l 45 245 11 8 38 4 45 451404 44 7 IS t l 10 I 23 57 71 114 101 27 I f 41 f 27 2 41 217 11 4 11 5 43 91 171 11 41 12 I t 71 l l IS 30 l> 3 I 17 112 7 10 51 4 11 I t 10 I II 4 5 3 1 70 41 I 39 399 311 39 10 73 15 I 31 46 23 3 11 31 13 7 " 39 15 5 45 44 11 2 29 36 16 » 35 37 16 4 37 47 21 1 24 37 7 4 37 56 14 5 41 45 17 • 21 SI 17 11 11 1 4 11 79 12 97 6 5 99 1 !. 10.1 ; - 4 J L " - J 147410 141 t t I I 24 13 0 ISO is w i n ti 10 n 10210 11 141 III tt '0 61 31 I t 13 I 0 3 5 45 11 11 311 357 i n 51 11 27 150 191 71 90 17 27 l i t 117 51 10 47 I f 10 1 t II 1 74.7 14.0 395 111 211 101 14 DISTRIBUTION OF ABSOLUTE AND PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES Of VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED. EACH UNE ACROSS OR DOWN IN EACH BLOCK REPRESENTS A FREOUENCY DISTRIBUTION WHICH IN TOTAL IS THE PER-CENTAGE OF REPLIES SHOWN ON THE RIGHT AND BOTTOM SIDES. SYMBOLS: t SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH d SIGNIFICANTLY L O W SHADED BLOCKS SHOWED SIGNIFICANCE IN THE TEST OF INDEPENDENCE R S REDSTREAK TM TUNNEL MOUNTAIN L L L A K E LOUISE Table 1. ^mmary of v i s i t o r preferences regarding f o r e s t habitat. - 13 -dependent var iab le . The observed frequencies of the n types of answers concerning the dependent variable were taken as they correspond to the m di f ferent v i s i t o r charac ter i s t i c s within the independent v a r i a b l e . These frequencies were tabulated in an n x m contingency table . Then hypothetical frequencies were calculated as i f the two variables were independent of each other. The observed frequencies (f) were compared to the hypothetical p p p frequencies by use of the s t a t i s t i c X = (f-h) . This X , h s t a t i s t i c for large samples w i l l follow the chi squared d i s t r i b u -t ion . If the chi squared value is not s ign i f i cant the hypothesis was v a l i d . But i f the chi squared value i s s i gn i f i cant i t means that one of the variables i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y dependent on the other. As an example l e t us test the a b i l i t y of v i s i t o r s to recognize tree species as a dependent variable against camping experience as an independent var iab le . Table 2. Example of a contingency table of observed frequencies. A b i l i t y to recognize tree species CD O c CD •H U CD P M CD W •H P a ai o Yes No Saying Yes, but No Total 21 years + 1 30 30 19 179 11 - 20 years 164 58 19 241 6 - 1 0 years 162 80 23 265 1 - 5 years 183 90 38 31 1 none 66 39 15 1 20 Total 706 297 114 1,116 Relative frequency 0.63206 0.26588 0.10206 1.0000 - 14 -The h y p o t h e t i c a l frequencies are c a l c u l a t e d by m u l t i p l y i n g the pooled r e l a t i v e frequency of a category of the dependent v a r i a b l e by the t o t a l frequency of the corresponding category of the independent v a r i a b l e . For example, the h y p o t h e t i c a l frequency of those with 20 years of experience r e c o g n i z i n g tree species w i l l be 0.63206 x 179 = 113.1387. While f o r people with 1 - 5 years of experience not r e c o g n i z i n g trees i t w i l l be 0.26588 x 311 -82.6887 as shown i n table No. 3. Table 3- Example of a contingency table of h y p o t h e t i c a l f r e q u e n c i e s . A b i l i t y to recognize species Yes No Yes, but No O 0 • H u <B Pi X <D • r t P e td o 21 years + 11 - 20 years 6 - 1 0 years 1 - 5 years None 1 1 3.1387 152.3265 167.1304 196.5707 75.8472 47.5925 64.0771 70 . 7 3 17 82.6887 31.9056 18.2687 24.5965 27.1459 31.7407 12.2472 A f t e r having c a l c u l a t e d the f_ and h values the computation f o l l o w s with the use of the formula (f-h) . Table No. 4 shows h the computations of the c h i squared values i n the same format as i t can be found on the computer output sheets. - 15 -Table 4. Computation format used in the test of independenc e. Test of Independence for 3 x 5 contingency table (Set No.^Exp. 7) Row Column Obs. Freq . F Hypo. Freq. H F-H Squared (F-H)**2 H 1 1 1 30. 113.14 1 6.86 284.3617 2.5134 1 2 30. 47.59 -17.59 309.5646 6.5042 1 3 19. 1 8.27 0.73 0.5350 0.0293 2 1 1 64. 152.32 1 1 .68 136.3271 0.8950 2 2 58. 64.08 -6 .08 36.9625 0.5768 2 3 19. 24.60 -5.60 31 .3179 1.2733 3 1 1 62. 167.13 -5.13 26.2691 0.1562 3 2 80. 70.73 9.27 85.9895 1 .2158. 3 3 23. 27.15 -4.15 17.2036 0.6337 4 1 183. 196.57 -13.57 184.0795 0.9365 4 2 90. 82.69 7.31 53.4064 0.6458 4 3 38. 31 .74 6.26 39.1829 1.2345 5 1 66. 75.85 -9.85 96.9440 1.2782 5 2 39. 31 .91 7.09 50.3122 1.5768 5 3 15. 1 2.25 2.75 7.5785 0.6188 TOTAL 1116. 1116.00 0.00 CHI SQUARED = 20.0884 -WITH 8 DEGREES OF FREEDOM The chi squared value 20.0884 exceeds the value tabulated for the 5% point (15.5073) of the chi squared d i s t r i b u t i o n with (n-1) x (m-1) = (3-D x (5-1) = 8 degrees of freedom This suggests that the a b i l i t y to recognize tree species i depends s i g n i f i c a n t l y on camping experience. The test of independence also provided the opportunity to decide with reasonable accuracy whether the high and low observations are s ign i f i cant or not. The tabulated 5$ point of the chi squared d i s t r i b u t i o n with one degree of freedom is 3.84146. Any calculated value in the (f-h) column of table h No. 4 exceeding 3.84146 indicates a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ign i f i cant observation. The sign of the number in the same row under the heading (f~h) w i l l indicate whether the observation i s low or high. In the case of our previous example the (f-h) value h corresponding to row 1 and to column 2, (6.5042), exceeds 3.84146. The (f-h) value in the same row i s negative (-17.59). This means that the observed frequency of row 1, column 2 i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y low. In other words, i t means that amongst those who did not recognize any tree species there was a s i g n i f i c a n t l y low number of people with 20 or more years of camping experience. A l l the dependent variables were tested against a l l the independent variables by the method described above. The s i g -n i f i c a n t re lat ionships are indicated in the summary table No. 1 by the shaded areas. The s i g n i f i c a n t l y high observations are indicated by an arrowhead point ing upwards at the upper left-hand s ide, while the low values are marked by an arrowhead pointing downwards at the lower right-hand side of the number. The test of independence made i t possible to see which factors had a s i gn i f i can t influence on certa in aspec-tTrof people's re lat ionships to a forest environment. But i t did not show the quantity of var iat ions a t tr ibutable to each independent var iab le . Thus, i t did not provide an objective basis for ranking the - 17 -independent variables by importance. It was poss ible , however, to observe how many dependent variables were influenced s i g n i f i c a n t l y by a cer ta in independent v a r i a b l e . On this basis i t was possible to d i s t inguish between the inf luencing factors of most importance, the factors of i n t e r -mediate importance, and those of least importance. But the order within these categories and the exact d i s t i n c t i o n among them could not have been defined further without introducing some rather subjective value judgments. As the la s t step in the analyses, simple corre la t ion co-e f f i c i en t s were calculated for a l l of the independent var iab les . This provided the opportunity to measure the degree of associat ion between di f ferent v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The s ign i f i cant corre lat ions can be observed in table No. 5. The ca lcu la t ion of the corre la t ion coef f ic ients was done on the basis of analyzing the observed frequencies of the d i f ferent types of answers given to questions concerning the independent var iab le s . It was not possible to compare, for example, trave l distance as a whole against any other var iab le , because the ind iv idua l types of answers within the variables cannot be plotted along correct scale . This i s obvious in the case of the d i f ferent tree species, where neither the order nor the spacing along a regression l ine could be done on an objective bas i s . Most of the variables presented the same d i f f i c u l t y . Although the short, intermediate and long-range trave l classes could have been plotted on the basis of some average distance representing the class - 18 -midpoint, the la s t category of the var iab le , represented by people from Europe, A f r i c a , As ia , and A u s t r a l i a would upset the scale . This i s one reason why instead of the ind iv idua l observa-t ions , only subclasses of the variables were analyzed. An attempt was made to f ind the amount of var iat ions a t tr ibutable to the d i f ferent independent variables through the use of the mult ivariate procedure "pr inc ipa l component analysis". As i n the contingency tables the observed frequencies were used as measures to provide a basis for transforming the data in a way such that they are l inear on a logarithmic or arithmetic scale . Then corre la t ion matrixes were set up out of which the degree of. contr ibut ion to the variat ions could have been determined on the basis of the corresponding eigen-values. Unfortunately, i t did not work because the program needed more samples than var iab les , and by going back to the ind iv idua l observations we were up against the l imi ta t ions of the d i f f i c u l t l y quanti f iable values. RESULTS Before observing v i s i t o r preferences regarding forest habitat i t i s necessary to examine the factors that may influence people in forming the ir opinion. Every one of the large number of campers was an i n d i v i d u a l , a "human unit" with a unique combination of i n t e l l i g e n c e , knowledge, and personal i ty . The resemblance usual ly found in groups of common interes t was lack ing . Accordingly the informa-t ion gained was extremely var ied . However, there were some common denominators providing a basis for s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of the v i s i t o r s . Ten v i s i t o r charac ter i s t i c s were used as independent variables in the survey. The eleventh independent variable was represented by the campground where the data was co l l ec ted . One of the goals of the analyses was to determine the importance that could be ascribed to the independent variables as factors causing var iat ions in people's att i tudes and opinions. It was found that a l l of them had s ign i f i cant interact ions witti some of the dependent var iab les . On the basis of both the number of s i gn i f i cant interact ions and the l eve l of s ign i f i cance , campgrounds were observed to con-tr ibute the most to the variat ions in preferences. This phenomenon has two causes. One of the causes i s a b u i l t - i n charac ter i s t i c of the camp-ground. It i s the influence that the immediate surroundings have on a person who i s undecided, or has no strong preferences, or - 20 -has l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n the f o r e s t . T h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the campground c o n s i s t s of s e v e r a l f a c t o r s . Some of the most im-p o r t a n t ones a r e the e c o l o g i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n o f the f o r e s t , the c o n d i t i o n of the f o r e s t h a b i t a t , and the q u a l i t y of the campground as a camping f a c i l i t y . I t was f o u n d t h a t i n most campgrounds the l o c a l f o r e s t t y p e or some of the l o c a l t r e e s p e c i e s were p r e f e r r e d by a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h number of p e o p l e . Some s i x t y p e r c e n t , of the p e o p l e who p r e f e r r e d l o c a l f e a t u r e s were o v e r n i g h t campers. T h e i r d e c i s i o n i n s e l e c t i n g the campground was e i t h e r s p o n t a n e o u s as d r i v i n g by o r was b a s e d on a s e t d a i l y t r a v e l d i s t a n c e w i t h o u t p r e v i o u s -> •< .• . . . . knowledge of the campground. Thus the f a v o u r i n g of the l o c a l f e a t u r e was g e n e r a t e d s p o n t a n e o u s l y by the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of the f o r e s t or by good f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s . The q u a l i t y of the e n v i r o n m e n t and of the camping f a c i l i t i e s p l a y e d the most i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n t h i s r e s p e c t . To p r o v e t h i s i s t a t e m e n t we must l o o k a t the n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f low q u a l i t y . T h i s c o u l d be o b s e r v e d i n the T u n n e l M o u n t a i n t e n t i n g a r e a , inhere the v i s i t o r s a r e crowded t o g e t h e r i n a h e a v i l y worn, d u s t y camp-gro u n d . T h e r e , more t h a n 40$ of the v i s i t o r s c o m p l a i n e d about campground f a c i l i t i e s , and two n o n - l o c a l f o r e s t t y p e s were f a v o u r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . (The p r e f e r e n c e f o r the l o c a l type was below a v e r a g e . ) A l t h o u g h the h i g h l y p r e f e r r e d t r e e s p e c i e s , B l a c k c o ttonwood, can a l s o be f o u n d on T u n n e l M o u n t a i n , i t i s not a t y p i c a l component of the f o r e s t i n the t e n t i n g a r e a i t s e l f . A l s o B l a c k cottonwood was p r e f e r r e d by v i s i t o r s from the p r a i r i e - 21 -provinces, therefore, i t should rather be considered as a species "near home" than a l o c a l one. The species composition of the l o c a l forest may be of influence mainly in the case of undecided or d is interested v i s i t o r s . For such people naming the l o c a l type as their favour-i te could be the easiest immediate answer. The preference for the l o c a l forest of those campers who return to the same campground regularly i s se l f -ev ident . The other cause of the high amount of var iat ions a t t r i b u t -able to the separate campgrounds i s that each one at tracts a v i s i t o r group of a spec ia l composition. This was proved by test-ing the d i f ferent v i s i t o r character i s t i c s for independence against campgrounds. The var ia t ion in group composition from campground to campground was s ign i f i cant for each one of the ten character i s -t i c s . These var iat ions were not reduced s i g n i f i c a n t l y by grouping the campgrounds on the basis of the main use people make of them. The d i f ferent group compositions tabulated in contingency tables can be observed i n a report by Apt and Smith (1 967). (Appended). The ten v i s i t o r character i s t i c s investigated in the survey are not equally important inf luencing fac tors . Taking the number of s ign i f i cant interact ions and the l eve l of s ignif icance into account, the approximate order of importance was found to be as fol lows: Education of the v i s i t o r The type of equipment used Occupation of the v i s i t o r - 22 -Age of the v i s i t o r The reason for se lect ing the campground Travel distance from home to the campground Week day or week-end day camper Camping experience Regional o r i g i n of the v i s i t o r Sex of the v i s i t o r The sex of the v i s i t o r de f in i t e ly was the least important fac tor . The only nearly s ign i f i cant difference between the opinion of the two sexes was that women had r e l a t i v e l y less complaints about camping f a c i l i t i e s than did men. It is important to note that the above ranking i s only approximate, and that the d i s t inc t ions between any three consecu-t ive factors are not sharp. In other words, i t could not be decided whether education, type of equipment or occupation of the camper was the most important fac tor . But there are noticeable differences between the importance of the education and the age of the v i s i t o r , or between that of the type of equipment used and the reason for se lec t ing the campground. Sonnenf'eld (1 966) stated that regional or ig in i s a more im-portant inf luencing factor in environmental perception than i s s o c i a l or c u l t u r a l standing. On the other hand, Lucas (1966) claimed that education is the most important. Although this survey could not completely ver i fy the statement by Lucas (" . . .pro fes s ion-als have more mature o p i n i o n s . . . " ) , i t did show that education is a more important factor than regional o r i g i n . However, the author - 23 -would fear to favour ei ther of the theories , because the two major factors , regional or ig in and education, influenced people regarding d i f ferent elements of the environment. Regional or ig in caused var iat ions in the preferred kind and species of trees, while education had s ign i f i cant influence on less spec i f i c questions concerning general att i tudes of the v i s i t o r s toward a forest environment. As indicated by the shaded areas in the summary table No. 1, a l l of the v i s i t o r charac ter i s t i c s had s ign i f i cant interact ions with a d i f ferent set of dependent var iab les . Therefore, ranking the independent variables on the basis of the overa l l resul ts would be of l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l use. The importance of the d i f ferent human charac ter i s t i c s has to be looked at separately for any spec i f i c management problem. For example, i f we were to a l locate a campground and we would be interested in preferences for d i f f -erent tree species, our most important inf luencing factor would be regional o r i g i n , while i f invest igat ing the favourite type of undergrowth i t would be education and age of the v i s i t o r s . The ranking of the v i s i t o r charac ter i s t i c s could be biased for another reason. There were s ign i f i cant pos i t ive corre lat ions found between some factors from the opposite ends of the rank scale . For example, short range t rave l l er s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with intermediate camping experience, low income occu-pation, high school education, active recreation and week-end v i s i t s . Furthermore, these factors are pos i t i ve ly correlated with a b i l i t y to recognize tree species and negatively correlated with - 24 -the importance placed on the kind of trees. The associat ion of these charac ter i s t i c s well describes the week-end fisherman or swimmer who wants to get away from the c i ty for a few hours, hut does not have a wide interest in nature. The corre lat ions that were s i gn i f i can t at the one per cent, l e v e l are shown i n table 5. Considerably more s ign i f i cant corre-lat ions were found at the f ive per cent, l eve l but many of them probably were random re la t ionsh ips , and, therefore, they did not provide a r e l i a b l e basis for the drawing of conclusions. The corre la t ion coef f ic ients suggest that in spite of the differences in importance the inf luencing factors were not com-ple te ly separable; but neither were they associated strongly enough to provide a basis for an att i tude scale to d i s t inguish a l l the d i f ferent groups of v i s i t o r s . Consequently, each v i s i t o r charac ter i s t i c had to be examined only in connection with the p a r t i c u l a r feature i t had influenced s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Any further discr iminat ion or general izat ion could eas i ly have become biased. A s imi lar p r i n c i p l e was followed when examining the r e l a t i o n -ship of v i s i t o r s to environmental features. A l l of the questions were in some way related to each other. But the d i f ferent features were d i s t i n c t enough to prevent the drawing of an overa l l conclu-sion regarding people's att i tudes toward forests . Therefore, the information on every question had to be looked at separately. The data on which the discussion is based are tabulated in the summary table No. 1 . •3 i-3 > *: CO M t-1 > =3 [d t~ C/) H CD cm o CD O t-1 o O o X o 3" to 3 CO s CD B CD s rt- •rt 3 O H- rt- co CD S H- CD CD C«i •1 1—' CD VJl v ^ 3 1 CD H * «! M •1 rt-CD •1 O o CO o 3 3 CD •O H - •) •a 1 CO 3 O rt- O CD CD 1-f o •< «+ a. w to O • i • I VJl 3 3 CO co 1 •1 o t-» •1 a CD H - O c?q 3 CO CO •s CD "< CD O CD rt CD CD (X) • p- C»3 •1 3 O CD H * O CO CD CO CD O ro rt-0<) •o h*- o 9 CD v O O rt-C M V i rt- 3- rt- » 1 C <i O O H- v j «S 0> O CO CO o O •1 H CD <! (0 • 3 CO CO CD + + VJl co + rv) vo + I rv> vo + o VO o o O o\ vn o o + VO + o + r o o I rv) + + r o — CD — I + ro -» — O O l - * + ro o v>» -* o — I + r o crt + 11 + + + + + I + + + • l c o ^ l - J C T » - » v j l - * r o r o c ^ M O O — 0 0 O < J l v J I - J » r o " K O K O CTi \SI l o I- - o o r o o — o a o VO I 103 — | r o CD + V>1 O + r o CD 1+ CO + 1+ + + + + 1+ I I + • J - J V j l o 4 V > l - ^ | - 4 V j i v J l * k | vx — vji — a | o \ ^ « « o -1 T T t ! t t \T \! ! t C O v j i o r o o j v ^ f - 3 | — 3 - r * r o r o o - * - 3 O C 0 l v j 4 | c 7 v r o — vo cn Short range t r a v e l Long range t r a v e l ( U . S . ) E x p e r i e n c e 20 y r s . + 5 to 9 y r s . No exper i ence a A c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n o o 2 Low income Elementary s c h o o l o CD "> Some c o l l e g e rt- Week-end v i s i t o r Women Age 30 to 50 y r s . Age 50 y r s . p l u s Tenters T r a i l e r e r s •-3 1-* - 92 -- 26 -Unpleasant features seen by v i s i t o r s in parks. The corresponding question (question number 7) was meant to get information on what features people think of as unpleasant or d is turbing in the scenery of a park. It was also to show how far from the road people see such features. It was found that the overwhelming majority of the people (80.6$) did not see anything unpleasant. This fact is d i f f i c u l t to explain, because when answering another question 37$ of the v i s i t o r s claimed that they think of windfal ls or burns as un-pleasant features. There i s eas i ly noticeable wind or f i r e damage in every park along the roadside. The reason for some people not not ic ing such damaged areas could be that they do not look at the scenery while t r a v e l l i n g or that general good impressions make minor bad ones fade away. The fact that v i s i t o r s involved in h i k i n g , and people with high education, tended to notice unpleasant features more than the rest of the people implies another point . It i s that the majority of park v i s i t o r s are simply t r a v e l l e r s . They derive great sa t i s fac t ion from their experience of t r a v e l l i n g in remote places, but their enthusiasm about parks perhaps is mainly re lated to cheap accommodation. This observation would need further invest igat ion to be proved. However, the author suggests that policy-making, based on information gained from small groups of outdoor enthusiasts or other minor i t i e s , could be, in many cases, a retreat from r e a l i t y . - 27 -Any complaints about campground f a c i l i t i e s were also re -corded within this same question. A s i g n i f i c a n t l y high number of people complained about t o i l e t f a c i l i t i e s and a shortage of drinking water in Coldspring campground. The highest number of complaints was recorded in the Tunnel Mountain tenting area. Here, over 40 per cent, of the v i s i t o r s voiced the ir displeasure about dust, over-crowding, and untidy t o i l e t s . j The unpleasant features not iced, other than poor campground f a c i l i t i e s , were man-mad* scars and signs of c i v i l i z a t i o n in the fores t . For example, mention was made of a developed beach in the Lightning Lake area in Manning Park and the Lake Louise Hotel in Banff Park. Some people (4), mentioned the heavy wear of the alpine meadows near Lake Agnes in Banff Park, and another group (13), was concerned with the burned area at Radium Pool in Kootenay Park. Many of the v i s i t o r s from the United States ex-pressed their appreciation of the lack of roadside developments and concession stands in Canadian Parks. Tree i d e n t i f i c a t i o n knowledge. Since park v i s i t o r s are people interested in the outdoors, i t i s not surpr i s ing that nearly two-thirds of them were able to recognize d i f ferent tree species. There were some variat ions between the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n knowledge of people with d i f ferent camping experience, d i f ferent education and occupation, and with d i f ferent camping equipment. Travel distance and the period of the interview were also of some inf luence. - 28 -Seventy-three per cent, of the campers with 20 years or more experience recognized tree species we l l . Long-range t rave l l ers from the United States with high income and intermediate or low education knew less about trees, but some of them exhibited a stronger tendency to deny their lack of knowledge than other people. This has some soc io log ica l implicat ions as i t i s probably caused by an insecur i ty of s o c i a l standing. Using expensive equipment and seeking for s u p e r f i c i a l grandeur are common i n d i -cators of status s t r i v i n g (Marquand 1947). People of high education had good knowledge about tree i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Eighty per cent, of the v i s i t o r s with post graduate degrees recognized the various tree species in the surrounding habi tat . The act of being engaged in outdoor a c t i v i -t ies while camping and of high education were pos i t ive but not s i g n i f i c a n t . The good knowledge of nature confirms the attach-ment of educated people to forests as reported by Hendee (1967). Importance placed by people on the kind of  trees seen in parks. Over 60$ of the people stated that the kind of trees they see in parks i s important to them. The variat ions due to di f ferent v i s i t o r charac ter i s t i c s were rather low. S i g n i f i c a n t l y high and low observations were caused by some correlated fac tors . Short range t r a v e l l e r s , active recreat ion-i s t s and professionals are correlated i n the sense that they - 29 -recognize tree species we l l . Interest ingly enough, a s i g n i f i c a n t -ly high number of these v i s i t o r s (47$) thought that the kind of trees they see i s not important. The explanation to this may be that people do not f ind well-known things p a r t i c u l a r l y exc i t ing , or that because of knowing the d i f ferent kinds of trees wel l , they are able to appreciate a l l trees equal ly . Unfortunately, the data do not provide an opportunity to invest igate the ques-t ion in further depth. Preference of forest type. The question concerning the preferred forest type covered a broad f i e l d . Any strong preference for a cer ta in forest type should have determined the preference of tree species and stand charac ter i s t i c s as we l l . However, the answers to the questions aimed at the preferences for the elements of a forest habitat seldom were in accordance with the preferred forest type. Most v i s i t o r s described at least two di f ferent forest types through the tree species, the type of undergrowth and the age and size of the trees they preferred. This means that most people did not have previously formed preferences and that the ir answers to the questions were spontaneous. The lack of strong preferences may have caused the high var ia t i ons . The preferred forest type was s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n -fluenced by trave l distance, camping experience, the reason for se lect ing the campground, visitor's occupation, v i s i t o r education, - 30 -the equipment used by the v i s i t o r s , and the immediate surround-ings. The effect of the campground on the preference of d i f ferent types of forest was discussed previously . It was found that the qual i ty of the campground had the most important role i n inf luenc-ing people to select the l o c a l types as favouri tes . Amongst the human propert ies , camping experience, trave l distance, the reason for se lect ing the campground and the type of equipment used, were some correlated factors of inf luence. Long-range t r a v e l l e r s , with some camping experience, who did not part i c ipate in active recreat ion , tended to prefer non-native forest types. The use of a house t r a i l e r i s p o s i t i v e l y correlated with these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Although high education is negatively correlated to the above fac tors , a s i g n i f i c a n t l y high number of people with Ph. D. degree and of the profess ional group, also preferred some exotic type of forest,. These deviations from the majority may have been based on an acquaintance with a greater var iety of forest types. The favourite non-local forest type, the mature Douglas f i r , Western hemlock and Western Red cedar type of the coast was pre-ferred by 1 4.8$ of the v i s i t o r s . None of the inf luencing factors affected s i g n i f i c a n t l y the preferences for the coast type fores t . This indicates a more determined standpoint than that in the case of the highly varying preferences. - 31 -Preference of tree species. The tree species preferred by the v i s i t o r s were approxi-mately in accordance with the preferred forest type. One-third of the v i s i t o r s did not have any preference. Highly preferred species were Lodgepoie pine, ( 1 2 . 2 $ ) , Douglas f i r , ( 1 0 . 4 $ ) , and Engelmann spruce ( 8 . 9 $ ) . These species are dominant components of the two most popular forest types. The influence of the immediate surroundings i s ref lected in the s i g n i f i c a n t l y high preferences for Ponderosa pine at Wasa Lake, ( 1 5 . 2 $ ) , Dougl as f i r in Redstreak campground, ( 2 0 . 0 $ ) , Engelmann spruce and Alpine f i r at Marble Canyon, ( 2 9 . 5 $ ) , and Western hem-lock in I l l e c i l l e w e a t campground, ( 4 $ ) . Regional or ig in of the v i s i t o r s caused s ign i f i cant v a r i a -t ions . Many people from C a l i f o r n i a and from Eastern North America favoured Redwood or eastern type broadleaved trees. The reason for this may be sentimental or may be a lack of f a m i l i a r i t y with the Pac i f i c Northwest species. Some people, ( 1 1 . 7 $ ) , gave indef in i te answers l ike "variety of d i f ferent species" or conifers in general. This probably re -sulted from a lack of knowledge of trees. A l l other species, l o c a l or exot ic , were preferred by a s i g n i f i c a n t l y low number of people. The next question ("What type of forest do you prefer for recreation?") was answered on the basis of four subqtiestions - 32 -concerned with the fol lowing d e t a i l s : a. Preferred age and size of trees b. Preference for coniferous or broad-leaved f ores t c. Preferred type of undergrowth d. Reaction to the effects of human a c t i v i t i e s on the forest When answering these subquestions, the number of people with no preference was considerably lower than in the case of the previous more spec i f i c questions. The var iat ions in preferences were also lower. The inf luencing factors that caused some variat ions were corre lated . Long-range t rave l l er s of 50 years of age or over, with low education, tended to have no preference. The same people usual ly had much camping experience. The high preference for large , old trees (44.3$) and for a mixture of large and small trees (30.0$), was barely altered by other v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The influence of campground was also found to be of l i t t l e s ign i f i cance . Conifers were favoured by most people (48.9$) as components of a recreat ional fores t . The next highest preference (39.3$) was for mixed fores t s . There were some variat ions in the prefer-ences due to d i f ferent regional o r i g i n , education, and age of the v i s i t o r s , but the preference for broad-leaved trees never reached the l eve l of s ign i f i cance . As expressed by many v i s i t o r s , people tend to associate unpolluted fresh a i r with coniferous trees - 33 -rather than with broad-leaves. The c l ear , mossy type of f l oor and the dry i n t e r i o r type of undergrowth were highly favoured. A p a r t i c u l a r l y high number of part ic ipants of outdoor recreat ion , such as h ikers , preferred a forest with l i gh t under-growth. The same high preference for l i gh t undergrowth can be found among short-range t rave l l er s on week-ends. This underlines the s ignif icance of the previously discussed corre lat ions of these fac tors . Although the influence of the d i f ferent campgrounds was s i g n i f i c a n t , the var iat ions cannot be explained on the basis of the l o c a l forest type o t campground qua l i ty . The deviations are most l i k e l y based on the d i f ferent group compositions, but the analyses did not permit more deta i led explanations. Reaction to human a c t i v i t i e s in the fores t . The terms "managed forest" and "virgin forest" had to be explained to many of the interviewees. In order to have r e l i a b l e resul ts in the survey some pr inc ip le s were consistent ly followed in the explanations. A forest where there is any cut t ing , c lean-ing , thinning or p lant ing , was ca l l ed managed fores t . Having a t r a i l or a road through a forest was not regarded as management. In a v i r g i n forest only f i r e prevention is pract iced . The var iat ions due to d i f ferent v i s i t o r character i s t i c s were low and only influenced a small number of people. - 34 -The preference for v i r g i n forest (48.5$) was s l i g h t l y higher than for managed fores t , (41.9$). Some of the v i s i t o r s who pre-ferred managed forests were simply afra id of wilderness condit ions; others had advanced ideas about multiple use of forest lands. The number of neutral answers to this question was lower than to any other in this survey. Reaction to windfa l l s , burns, dead trees or conks. Nearly 43$ of the people thought that these features are not unpleasant to see, considering them just a natural part of a fores t . The highest variat ions in the att i tude of people were caused by differences in education. A s ign i f i cant number of v i s i t o r s with elementary schooling thought of a l l of these features as un-pleasant, while the number of highly-educated people with the same opinion was s i g n i f i c a n t l y low. V i s i t o r s of the high-educational l eve l dist inguished between f ire-caused scars in the forest and natural signs of decadence. They thought that burns are unpleasant to look at, but the other features are more a t trac t ive than ugly. Reaction of the v i s i t o r s to f i r e damage is largely associated with the negative react ion to human a c t i v i t i e s in the fores t . Most people considered forest f i r e s as ent i re ly man-made damage. - 35 -CONCLUSIONS The group of campers in the survey was of highly heterogen-eous composition. It was a loose conglomerate of ind iv iduals with d i f ferent s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l standing, and with d i f ferent per-sonal backgrounds. Although the separate campgrounds attracted people of d i f ferent in teres t , the within campground variat ions were as high as those for the whole population, because a large proportion of the v i s i t o r s were t rave l l er s rather than campers. The perpetually-moving and changing population of the camp-grounds inh ib i t ed c l a s s i f y i n g the campgrounds according to the use made of them. The widely varying charac ter i s t i c s of people exposed to con-stantly changing surroundings did not show enough corre lat ions to provide a basis for d i s t inguish ing set categories of d i f ferent a t t i tudes . Thus the preferences for the d i f ferent elements of the environment had to be examined separately for each of the in f luen-cing v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The att i tudes and preferences of people were found to be highly variable and mostly spontaneous. Favouring some features of the l o c a l environment was predominant in most campgrounds. It seems as i f people who were s a t i s f i e d with the general condition of the surroundings rewarded the campground by favouring some of the elements of i t s fores t . The greatest sa t i s fac t ion was induced by well-planned campsites, pr ivacy, and comfortable environment rather than by the type of the surrounding fores t . - 36 -The upper middle class wilderness puris t with firm opinions and strong preferences described by Hendee (1967), and by Meriam (1968) cannot be found among the large masses of park users. Our resul ts agree with the statement made by Burch (1966): ". . .none of the pr inc ip l e forest recreation a c t i v i t i e s represented a majority vote of American p e o p l e . . . " . The v i s i t o r s "almost unanimously expressed their sa t i s fac t ion with the ir v i s i t s " ( O . R . R . R . C . Study Report Wo. 20). Most of our v i s i t o r s selected their campgrounds on the basis of i t s locat ion in respect to some popular point of interest o f fer ing away from home type soc ia l entertainment. Their prefer-ences for the elements of the surrounding forest were vague and varied with general impressions or moods. In well-managed, com-fortable campgrounds, most ,of them were pleased with any forest habitat that has not deteriorated badly, regardless of species or age composition. These people represent the majority of park v i s i t o r s . The resul ts of this survey did not show exactly their pursuits i n the parks. The qual i ty of their experience may be argued, but the value of that experience for them i s just as great as in the climbing of a peak for an a l p i n i s t . Although Sessoms (1 963) may be r i g h t , and the recreat ion a c t i v i t i e s of today's upper middle class w i l l be the pursuits of the lower middle class of tomorrow, our results suggest that in some of our actual management problems we should consider the needs of the average v i s i t o r of today, rather than follow the opinion - 31 -of small groups of e n t h u s i a s t s . I t appears as i f the main source of s a t i s f a c t i o n of the v i s i t o r s sampled i n t h i s survey, i s d r i v i n g f o r pleasure i n r e l a t i v e l y undeveloped areas and barbecueing at open f i r e s ' i n the evening. I t would be necessary to examine where parks do f i t i n t o the p i c t u r e . Are there some p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s of d r i v i n g and camping i n s i d e of a park that make the experience d i f f e r e n t from doing the same things on s i m i l a r areas outside of parks? . Is i t the popular points of i n t e r e s t that a t t r a c t people to parks, or i s i t the f i f t h phase of Clawson's f i v e - f o l d phenom-enon ( t e l l i n g f r i e n d s about the t r i p ) ? What do people r e a l l y look f o r i n parks? This study d i d not answer these questions, but i t has the i m p l i c a t i o n that when we ask them we must not j u s t t a l k about people. We must s p e c i f y t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f u l l y and r e l a t e preferences to these. Hendee (1967) s t a r t e d the development of an a t t i t u d e s c a l e to d i s t i n g u i s h between wilderness use r s . The a m p l i f i c a t i o n of t h i s a t t i t u d e s c a l e , or the development of some-th i n g s i m i l a r i n c l u d i n g a l l c a t e g o r i e s of park v i s i t o r s would be e s s e n t i a l as a b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r s t u d i e s . Having a p o p u l a t i o n adequately s t r a t i f i e d f o r the purpose of sampling f o r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n research, i t would be p o s s i b l e to determine the p u r s u i t s and the s i z e s of the d i f f e r e n t s t r a t a . This i n f o r m a t i o n would provide a s o l i d b a s i s f o r p o l i c y and de-c i s i o n making. Lack of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n might cause r e c r e a t i o n management to be guess-work to a great extent, or to be biased by - 38 -u n i l a t e r a l sources of knowledge. Because this information is lack ing , the implicat ions of our study cannot be further extended. We found that trees are important to most v i s i t o r s , but obviously, i t is not the trees that a t tract v i s i t o r s to d i f ferent parks. For drawing further conclusions we should know what made ' people prefer the l o c a l forest types in the campgrounds. In addi t ion , there i s a need to define what governs habitat qual i ty and user sa t i s fac t ion within each l o c a l forest type. Because many park users did not understand much about the forest habitat in which they camped there i s a need for extended and improved programs of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . - 39 -LIST OF REFERENCES Burch, W. D. J r . , 1964. Two Concepts for Guiding Recreation Management Decis ions. Jour. For . 62(10): 702-12. 1966. Wilderness — The Li fe Cycle and Forest Recreational Choice. Jour. For. 64(9): 606-10. and W. D. Wenger, 1967. The soc ia l Character-i s t i c s of Part ic ipants i n Three Styles of Family Camping. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper, PNW-48, 29 p. Clawson, M. and J . L . Knetsch, 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Published for Resources for the Future, Inc . , by The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 317 p. Cooley, W. W. and P. R. Lohens, 1966. Mult ivar iate Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New l o r k . 208 p. Hendee, J . 1966. An Evaluation of the North Cascade Study Report. Univers i ty of Washington, College of Forestry , Inst i tute of Forest Products, Seatt le , Washington. 12 p. , T. W. Steinburn, and W. R. Catton, 1967. Wildernism - The Development, Dimensions, and Use of an Att itude Scale. Abstract of a Paper to be presented at the Natural Resources Section of the Rural Soc io log ica l Society Meeting, August, 26, 1967, in San Francisco . The Univers i ty of Washington, Dept. of Sociology, Seatt le , Washington. 22 p. King, D. A. 1968. Socioeconomic Variables Related to Campsite Use. Forest Science, 1 4 ( l ) : 4 5 - 5 3 « L i , J . C. R. 1966. S t a t i s t i c a l Inference. V o l . 1. Edwards Brothers, Inc . , Ann Arbor, Michigan. 643 p. Lucas, R. C. and G. B. Pr idd le , 1964. Environmental Perception: a comparison of two wilderness areas. (Abstract - f u l l paper unpublished). Annals, Assoc. American Geographers, 54, 428-9. - 40 -Marquand, J . P. 1947. Por tra i t of a S t r i v e r . In Readings in Sociology, 1967- (Edi tors: E . A. Schuler, T. P. Hault , D. L . Gibson and W. D. Brookover.) Thomas Y. Crowell Co. New York. Chapter 39, 316-23. Meriam, L . C. and R. B. Adams, 1968. Wilderness Users and Management in Three Montana Parks. Jour. For . 66(5): 390-95. Nelson, D. W. 1966. Wise Use of Natural Resources Has Changing Values. Jour. For . 64(4):227-29. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962. The Quality of Outdoor Recreation: As Evidenced by User Sa t i s fac t i on . O . R . R . R . C . Report No. 5, 95 p. , 1962. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affect ing Demand Among American Adults . O . R . R . C . Report No. 20, 94 p. Pearse, P. H. 1968. A New Approach to the Evaluation of Non-Priced Recreational Resources. Land Economics, XLIV, ( l ) : 88-99. Sessoms, H. D. 1963. An Analysis of Selected Variables Affect ing Outdoor Recreation Patterns. Soc ia l Forces 42(1 ):112-15. Shafer, E . L . J r . and H. D. Burke, 1965. Preferences for Outdoor Recreation F a c i l i t i e s in Four State Parks, Jour. For. 63(7):512-8. Sonnenfeld, J . 1966. Variable Values in Space and Landscape: An Inquiry into the Nature of Environmental Necessity. Journal of Soc ia l Issues, XXII (4):71-82. Taylor , G. D. 1964. A Camper Survey, Tunnel Mountain and Two Jack Lake Campgrounds, Banff National Park. National Parks Branch, Dept. of Northern A f f a i r s and National Resources. Planning D iv i s ion Research Report No. 12, 23 p. , and C. W. Thomson, 1966. Proposed Metho-dology for an Inventory and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Land for Recreational Use. Forestry Chronic le , 42(2):153-9. . 1 967. Techniques in Evaluation of Recrea-t ional Use. A paper prepared for the Ninth Commonwealth Forestry Conference. 33 p. - 41 -Wenger, ¥ . D. J r . 1964. A Test of on Wilderness T r a i l s : Factors U. S. Forest Service Research Unmanned Registrat ion Stations Influencing Effect iveness . Paper, PNW-16, 48 p. - 42 -APPENDIX 1. The questionnaire used in the survey. University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry, 1967. Survey of visitor preferences regarding forest habitat in some Parks of British Columbia and Alberta. 1. Have you already filled out this form in some other park? Yes_ No_ 2. Your home address city province or state country 3. In how many previous years did you spend your holidays camping? 4. Why did you select this camp ground? a Close to other facilities_ b. Only one available c. Prefer the type of camp ground d Convenience to travel pattern 5. Is the kind of trees you see in parks important to you ? Yes No 6. Do you remember in which park you have seen the type of forest you most like? Yes No If yes, please give name of park and approximate location within the park What type was it? 7. Have ycu seen anything in this park you thought was disturbing or unpleasant in the scenery? Yes No What was it? Was it a. on the road side b. close by the road c. far off the road 8. Do you recognize some tree species in the Park? Yes No If yes, which ones -Which tree species form the most pleasing forest VThat type of forest do you prefer for recreation? a. Age and size of trees: large old trees smaller young trees mixture of the two mixture of trees and shrubs b. Conifers hardwoods c. Undergrowth: clear floor, moss on trees light undergrowth heavy undergrowth grassy, small shrubs d. Effect of human activities: untouched, virgin forest Managed Do x^ndfalls burns dead trees conks appear to you as unpleasant features of a forest , or do you just take them as a natural forest ? What is your occupation? School place years Subsequent education. place years degree , "Interview taken: Date Hours Park__ Camp ground Camp site_ Person Interviewed M F 30 50 No in party Equipment used by camper: tent tent trailer housetrailer camper Remarks _ 43 -2. Pr inc ip le s used in in terpre t ing questions and system of coding answers. The information col lected in the survey was p a r t i a l l y t echnica l . Some of the questions had to be explained to the interviewees. The pr inc ip le s followed in in terpre t ing the ques-tions that needed explanation are presented below, together with the types of answers that were given to the questions. Numeric codes that were used in the analyses of the variables to ident i fy the d i f ferent types of r e p l i e s , the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number of the var iab le , and the column number of the punchcard i n which the variable was recorded, are also l i s t e d . Independent var iab les . Travel distance (Variable No. 1, punched in Column 4) was investigated on the basis of the home address of the v i s i t o r . The question did not have to be explained. Seven categories were d is t inguished. Categories Codes Within Canada: 200 miles or less 1 200 to 400 miles 2 More than 400 miles 3 Prom the U . S . : 200 miles or less 4 200 to 400 miles 5 More than 400 miles 6 Prom outside of North America 7 - 44 -Camping experience (Var. No. 2, Col . 6) divided the people into f ive groups. Categories Codes Experience of: 20 years or more 1 10 to 19 years 2 5 to 9 years 3 1 to 4 years 4 None 5 Reason for se lect ing the campground. (Var. No. 3, (Col. 9). The question did not have to be explained. The types of repl ies given to the question divided the population into seven cate-gories . Categories (reasons) Codes Outdoor recreat ion 1 Popular point of interes t 2 The only one avai lable 3 Preference based on previous v i s i t 4 Recommendation by friends or pamphlets 5 Good comfort f a c i l i t i e s 6 Convenient stopping point 7 Occupation of the v i s i t o r s . (Var. No. 14, Co l . 32). The seven categories are somewhat a r t i f i c i a l , for they do not follow income ranges or contemporary soc ia l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . They were established on a rather subjective basis having poss ib ly di f ferent att i tudes in mind. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a wide variety of occu-pation into cumulative categories had to be done with a certa in - 45 -degree of f l e x i b i l i t y . Any tendency of people to t w i s t the t r u t h could not be c o n t r o l l e d . Categories Codes P h y s i c a l worker 1 S e m i - i n t e l l e c t u a l ( o f f i c e worker or t e c h n i c i a n ) 2 Businessman (running own business or employed salesman) 3 A g r i c u l t u r a l worker 4 P r o f e s s i o n a l or a r t i s t 5 Housewife 6 Student 7 Regional o r i g i n . (Var. No. 1 5 , C o l . 3 4 ) . The aim was to separate the p o p u l a t i o n i n t o groups of n a t i v e and non-native v i s i t o r s . People from the P a c i f i c Northwest were c a l l e d n a t i v e . The r e s t of the v i s i t o r s were f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o three groups. The o r i g i n was decided on the b a s i s of the l o c a t i o n of the elementary school attended. Categories Codes P a c i f i c Northwest 1 Elsewhere i n North America 2 Europe 3 Other 4 Education of the v i s i t o r . (Var. No. 1 6 , .Col. 3 6 ) . In c e r t a i n cases t h i s question was a d e l i c a t e one. The r e p l i e s r e c e i v e d could not be c o n t r o l l e d . - 46 -(Education continued) Five categories were dis t inguished. Categories Codes Elementary school 1 Highschool completed 2 Some college 3 Bachelor course completed 4 Post graduate degree 5 Period of interview. (Var. No. 17, S o l . 38). Categories Codes Weekdays 1 Week-end period 2 Sex of interviewee. (Var. No. 19, C o l . 49) Categories Codes Male 1 Female 2 Campground. (Var. No. 18, >Col. 43) where the interview was conducted. The campgrounds were numbered in sequence as they are located along the trave l route without any respect to the qual i ty or character of the campground. - 47 -(Campground continued) Categories Codes Coldspring (and Cambie) 1 Wasa Lake 2 Redstreak tenting area 3 Redstreak t r a i l e r area 4 Marble canyon 5 Tunnel Mountain t r a i l e r area 6 Tunnel Mountain tenting area 7 Lake Louise t r a i l e r area 8 Lake Louise t r a i l e r area 9 Hoodoo Creek 10 I l l e c i l l e w e a t 11 Age of v i s i t o r s . (Var. No. 20, Sol . 51). Three age groups were dis t inguished. The age of the v i s i t o r s was estimated. Categories Less than 30 years 30 to 50 years More than 50 years Codes 1 2 3 Equipment used by the v i s i t o r . (Var. 21, Col . 55). Five types of equipment were recorded. Categories Codes Tent 1 - 48 -(Equipment continued) Categorie s Codes Tent t r a i l e r 2 House t r a i l e r or mobile home 3 Pickup camper 4 Sleeping bag 5 Dependent var iab les . Unpleasant features seen. (Var. No. 6, Co l . 15). The corresponding question did not need to be explained. Whatever the unpleasant feature was, i s recorded on the questionnaire, but i t was not punched onto the cards. Categories Codes Complaints about f a c i l i t i e s 1 Nothing unpleasant noticed 2 Something unpleasant seen: on the road side 3 close to the road 4 far off the road 5 Tree i d e n t i f i c a t i o n knowledge. (Var. No. 7, C o l . 17). The question did not need to be explained. The question: "Do you recognize some tree species in the park?" was asked f i r s t and i t - 49 -(free i d e n t i f i c a t i o n continued) was followed by "Which ones?" This method permitted us to see whether the pos i t ive answer given was true or not, but i t often created some s i tuat ions that were very uncomfortable for both the interviewer and the interviewee. Categorie s Codes Able to recognize trees 1 Wot able to recognize trees 2 Said yes, but not able to recognize trees 3 Importance placed on the kind of trees. Var. No. 4 , C o l . 1 l ) . In this question the word "kind" was used in a broad sense. It included the species, shape and condition of the trees. There were three types of r e p l i e s . Categories Codes The kind of trees i s important 1 The kind of trees i s not important 2 Trees are important, but the kind is not 3 Forest type preferred. (Var. No. 5 , C o l . 1 3 ) . The preferred type was e i ther named by the v i s i t o r or i t was defined on the basis of the locat ion where the v i s i t o r saw i t . Ten forest types were dis t inguished. - 50 -Types No preference Alpine or Subalpine (Species composition: Engelmann spruce, Alpine f i r , Western larch) Broadleaved forests Conifers i n general Dry i n t e r i o r (Species composition: Ponderosa pine, Douglas f i r ) The type near home The l o c a l type Mixed forest Rocky Mountain type (Species composition: Lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, Alpine f i r ) Redwood forest West Coast type (Species composition: Douglas f i r , Western red cedar, Western hemlock) Codes (output) 0 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Symbols (cards) 0 A B C D H L M R S W Tree species preferred (Var. No. 8, C o l . 19 and 2 0 . ) There was a very large number of tree species mentioned by the people, but many of the species such as Walnut and Yellow poplar were only preferred by one or two v i s i t o r s . For this reason, cumulative categories had to be established i n which the most preferred - 51 -(Tree species preferred continued) species was included from each questionnaire. Categories Codes Symbols (output) (punched) No preference 0 0 Engelmann spruce 1 SS,SR,S,SP,SA,PS,RS, Alpine f i r (Abies) 2 B ,SB,FS ,SF ,BS ,FB,BF, Variety of species 3 VA, Western red cedar 4 SC,CS ,CR,RC,C,CF,FC, Local deciduous trees 5 DE,A,PA,AP,M,BI ,PP, Douglas f i r 6 F ,FH,HF,RF,FR, Conifers in general 7 EV, Lodgepole pine 8 PL,PM,BP,PB,P,MP, Western white pine 9 PW,CP,PF, Ponderosa pine 1 0 FP.PY, Western hemlock 11 H,HP,PH,SH,HS,HB,Bh, Redwood 1 2 R,RP,PR, Western larch 13 L , L F , F L , L P , Non-local deciduous 14 E , G F , G , Q J , J Q , J , Q , J P , PJ,SQ,QS, Preferred age and size of trees (Var. No. 9, C o l . 22). Five types of answers were given to the corresponding question. - 52 -(Preferred age and size of trees continued) Categories Codes No preference 0 Large old trees 1 Small young trees 2 Mixture of large and small trees 3 Mixture of trees and shrubs 4 Conifers or broadleaved trees preferred (Var. No. 10, C o l . 24). There was no explanation needed. Pour types of repl ies were received. Categories Codes No preference 0 Conifers 1 Broadleaves 2 Mixed forest 3 Preferred type of undergrowth (Var. No. 11, C o l . 26). The question did not need to be interpreted . There were six types of rep l i e s given to this question. Categories Codes No preference 0 Clear mossy f loor 1 Light undergrowth 2 Heavy undergrowth 3 - 53 -(Preferred type of undergrowth continued) Categories Codes Grassy with small shrubs 4 Lawn 5 Concern for environment. (Reaction to human a c t i v i t i e s i n the fores t . Var. No. 12, C o l . 28). The terms "managed forest" and "virgin forest" had to be explained to many v i s i t o r s . The pr inc ip l e s of the explanation are discussed on page 34 of this thes is . Pour types of answers were given to the question. Categories Codes No preference 0 V i r g i n forest preferred 1 Managed forest preferred 2 Both preferred for d i f ferent a c t i v i t i e s 3 Concern for burns, dead trees, windfa l l s , and defected  trees . (Var. No. 13, C o l . 30). The corresponding question was: "Do windfa l l s , burns, dead trees, or conks on the trees appear to you as unpleasant features of a fores t , or do you just take them as natural parts of a forest?" There were four types of repl ies received. - 54 -(Concern for burns, dead trees, windfa l l s , and defected  trees. continued) Categories Codes A l l of them appear unpleasant 1 They are a natural part of a forest 2 Burns are unpleasant, the rest not 3 A l l are unpleasant i f there i s too much of them 4 - 55 -I n i t i a l report of the survey SURVEY OF VISITOR PREFERENCES REGARDING FOREST HABITAT IH SOME MOUNTAIN PARKS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND.ALBERTA By K. Apt and J . H. G. Smith GENERAL INTRODUCTION In the sunnier months of 1967 a survey of forest habitat preferences by park visitors was carried out by the Faculty of Forestry of the University of British Columbia, with the financial support of the Research Section of the Plann-ing Division of the National and Historic Parks Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of Canada, The aim of the survey was to collect information from visitors to mountain parks, about their preferences, knowledge, and interest in the kind and condition of the surrounding forest habitat. Data also were collected concerning some features that may influence a person in his appreciation of the elements of a natural ^ivironment. The analysis of the survey will show preferences in forest types and tree sracies, and ability to recognize tree species. Importance placed by people on t b s kir.d of trees In parks will also be evaluated. This report will include a presentation of all data acquired. A percentago £r?.qv.oncy distribution of the types of answers is shown for each question. These C\.:tributions may not indicate, fully the relative significance of factors such as coc.-.cmc or social standing, education, age, sex, camping experience or regional crigin of the people questioned. Further examination of these factors will be undertaken in a Master of Forestry thesis, because there is not enough time a*."*''1 -able now for a complete anrlysis. Much can be learned from our analyses of data grouped on the basis of the campgrounds where they were obtained. The importance of the campground is examined in our tables. The impressions gained by campers from their immediate surroundings should be felt strongly and these probably cause wide variations in environmental appreciation. Eleven campgrounds of different forest types and of different habitat quality were chosen to provide a potentially large range of visitor preferences within the eight weeks of the por.k tnurist season. Nine campgrounds were in Fed-eral Parks and two in Provincial Parks. The two Provincial Parks were needed to give a more complete representation of the important mountain type forests of the Pacific North-West. We are very much obliged to the British Columbia .Provincial Parks Branch of the Department of Recreation and Conservation for their generous cooperation. Respectively Graduate Student and Professor, Faculty of Forestry, Universe./ of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, B. C, 2 The work consisted of four phases: 1) Preliminary planning of the survey. 2) Collecting information (Field work). 3) Sorting of the replies to questionnaires. 4) Presentation of results. A fifth stage involving thorough evaluation of the implications of the survey will be the subject of an M. F, thesis by K. Apt. PRELIMINARY PLANNING The goal of the survey was to learn about peoples' opinion concerning forest habitat in parks. The method of observation and the time schedule had to be defined. Campgrounds representing a variety of forest types were chosen. The elaboration of questionnaires was critical because the information was to be gained from the public which in its vast majority has a very superficial knowledge of forests. It was decided to perform personal interviews because it was the most adequate system in which a reasonably short questionnaire would gain information on the most important questions. After correcting and reforming several proposed forms, the questionnaire which is appended was accepted. Because the summer tourist season is only a period of approximately eight weeks, careful study was required in setting up the time schedule. Three visits to the campgrounds and two office work periods had to be accommodated in the three summer months in a way that would assure a minimum loss of time due to travelling. The program needed flexibility to allow minor changes in the field as conditions might dictate. The work was carried out as shown below: May 31 to June 4 The purpose of this trip was reconnaissance and the collection of data,, for the random selection of campsites to be surveyed. June 5 to June 14 This period of time was spent in Vancouver at the University of British Columbia in elaboration of the final form of the questionnaire and preparation of the field work. June 15 to June 25 Both weekend and weekdays interviews were conducted at Manning and Wasa Lake Provincial Parks. After completion of the weekday samples at Wasa Lake, the survey in National Parks could not be started because final details of the contract for the survey had not been settled. June 26 to June 29 Awaited legalized contract in Vancouver. Days off. 3 June 30 to July 19 Conducted both weekday and weekend interviews in Federal Parks. July 20 to July 29 Organized the data collected, in Vancouver at the University. Set up coding system. Coded and recorded data. Prepared for final field trip. July 30 to August 25 Conducted interviews at all campgrounds in last field trip. Two basic principles were kept in mind in the selection of campgrounds: first, to provide a wide range for observations; second, to have the sample areas along a reasonably convenient travel route. Since, as formerly stated, the influence of the immediate surroundings on the people is thought to be considerable, it is necessary to present a description of the basic environmental characteristics of each campground surveyed, MANNING PROVINCIAL PARK Pinewoods Hotel The Motel is owned by the British Columbia Provincial Government and is operated by private management on a lease basis. It is located approximately 40 miles east of Hope, which is the nearest community. The surrounding areas offer excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation. The rates of the units are generally on the same level as in other motels of equal quality. Commercializa-tion of the area is at a minimum. " Since motel guests do not like to be bothered in their suites a total of 112 questionnaires were handed out by motel employees at the reception desk, during the three weeks period from August 3 to August 24. The only significant information gained was that out of the 112 questionnaires only 4 were completed and returned. Whether the difference between the failure of the survey at Pinewoods Motel and the success in the other campgrounds, is a result of not collecting the data personally or having a different kind of people, could be discussed but would be rather hard to decide. The answers to these four questionnaires are not included in our analysis. Coldspring Campground This campground consists of 52 campsites on the left bank of the Similka-meen River in a Lodgepole pine, Spruce, and Alpine fir stand. The type changes several times having Spruce and Alpine fir as dominant species. There is a fairly dense stand of tall trees with a very light undergrowth of Mountain tea berry on the grassy floor. Where Spruce or Alpine fir are dominant, the under-growth is somewhat heavier and consists of"Mountain tea berry, Blue bilberry and some Apine f ir regeneration. On the river side Red alder and Black cottonwood are found. There is a network of small trails and footpaths leading through the whole campground area, but i t does not disturb one's feeling of being away from civilization. The natural conditions and the l i t t le wear makes the campground ideal for relaxation. A Nature Trail , Nature House and an Outdoor Theatre are located in the close vicinity. 4 The comfort facilities are the negative features of the campground. Drink-ing water is available"in only two locations and the restrooms are pit toilets often attracting flies. Because there are only 52 campsites at Coldspring some samples had to be taken at Cambie Campground too. Cambie Campground This campground is near Coldspring. The species composition is similar to that of the forest at Coldspring but the stand is of a poorer quality. The total capacity of Cambie is 14 parties. There are no numbered or marked sites for tent-ing and no dividing lines between one site and the other. The whole area is available on the "pick your spot" basis. The parties interviev.'ed at this camp-ground were selected as people were available, in the early morning, noon and late afternoon. In other words, the campground was visited three times a day and any , party that could be contacted was questioned, until the desired number of eight samples on weekdays and eight samples on weekend days was completed. No spectacular scenery can be seen from either of the campgrounds surveyed in Manning Park. WASA LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK This is a very small park located on the east side of Wasa Lake, 17 miles away from the town of Kimberley and 32 miles from the city of Cranbrook, It is a typical Yellow Pine stand with a grassy floor and it has some Juniper, Western Tea berry and Larkspur as undergrowth. The forest is open on the lake shore but it is more dense around the campsites, providing fair privacy. There are no large trees. Maximum diameter at breast height is 14 inches. A total of 106 campsites are available for any type of equipment. There are no trails or nature programmes in this campground. The whole Park seems to be established to provide access to Was a Lake. The major part of the shore line is privately owned. Only part of the beach is government property. A large number of people from Kimberley and Cranbrook take advantage of the excellent water sport opportunities offered by the small, warm lake and the sandy beach. Outside of the local people inter-ested in the lake, there is a number of travellers using the campground for over-night stays. The campsites are numbered and well separated. Good drinking water is available In many locations throughout the campground. The unpleasant feature is pit toilets. KOOTENAY NATIONAL PARK Redstreak Campground The campground is divided into trailer and tent areas. However, the description of the forest and campground facilities can be discussed in the. same section because of the similar conditions in both divisions.. The forest is open and i t is a fairly dry site, Douglas f ir , Lodgepole pine, and Aspen form a stand with soms patches of immature Lodgepole pine and Spruce, thickets In i t . The whole campground has the warm colorful atmosphere of an open, mixed forest with flowers and shrubs on a grassy floor. The size of the trees 5 varies from seedlings to old Douglas firs 20 inches in diameter at breast height and 100 feet tal l . The lesser vegetation consists of a light growth of berries, Western tea berry, Juniper, False box, Blueleaf strawberry, Violets and Dandelion. The campground is provided with excellent comfort facilities, including hot showers and kitchen shelters. Campfires are not permitted in trailer areas. Some of the trailer sites have picnic tables and electric connections only; others are equipped with all the hookups but have no tables. The campground is located within hiking distance of Radium Hot Pool. A network of trails is available for hikers, and pictures are shown in the amphi-theatre daily. Marble Canyon Campground There are 56 campsites located in a forest of Spruce, Alpine fir and some Lodgepole pine. At places a heavy underbrush of White rhododendron is found. On open, gravelly patches of soil some grass and wild strawberries grow. The campground consists of two areas of very different characteristics. One is located in a fairly well stocked stand and has a more direct route of access when entering the campground. On the other area the forest has been cut, leaving only small trees of 10 to 12 feet height. This leaves the campsites completely exposed to the elements, but provides a magnificent view of the surrounding mountains. The route of access to the latter area is somewhat complicated, having to take a left turn, then another 90° curve to the left. Greater exposure and more complicated access to this area seem to be the explanation for the fact that the other area of the campground is usually favored by visitors. The campground is very well kept. Kitchen shelters and washrooms are available at convenient locations. Neither hot water nor showers are provided. The basic characteristics of Marble Canyon are peace and quietness, being most likely the result of its remoteness from any townsite, or commercial area. The near vicinity of the highway does not seem to interfere. The only source of entertainment is active recreation. BANFF NATIONAL PARK Tunnel Mountain Campground  Trailer A.re.a: Four hundred, all hook-up-equipped sites are available for trailers and mobile homes. The sites are located along both sides of eight avenues, making the campground appear like a city where the houses are mounted on wheels. There is a sparse stand of Lodgepole pine, Douglas fir and Aspen along the strips of "back yard" areas between the avenues. The floor is generally grassy. The spectacular scenery of the surrounding mountains is visible from all the campground. The washrooms are equipped with hot showers. No open fires are permitted. The general atmosphere of the campground and the attitude of the people is unfriendly, city like. 6 Tenting Area The forest on the tenting area includes basically two types. One is pure Lodgepole pine and the other, Lodgepole pine, Fir and some Aspen and Spruce. Because of the heavy use there is no undergrowth to speak of. The trees with no exception bear axe marks on their barks. There are no numbered campsites or separated areas for pitching tents. The ground surface is used as it is available. The capacity of the campground is unlimited on the basis of the "there is always room for one more" philosophy. An approximate high figure registered is 700 parties at the same time. After considering such intensity of use, one should not be surprised when observing the pitiful condition of the campground. Outside of hot showers, the panoramic view at the Southeastern corner of the area and the proximity of Banff's facilities, there is nothing good to be said about it . It is dirty, noisy and crowded. The slightest breeze will pick up dust and spread it out over the campers. There is a number of bearded young men in torn pants, entertaining by playing their guitars all day. In spite of the struggle of park employees to service them, the washrooms are untidy. However, the campground is serving perfectly the purpose it is supposed to serve, by being located within walking distance of the town of Banff. Because there was no possibility to assign camp-sites to be surveyed by random selection, the sampling was done the following way: Eight areas of different quality were defined, and seven parties were interviewed in each area. In order to have some randomization in the selection of parties, the same method was used as in Cambie Campground in Manning.Park. Tenting people at Tunnell Mountain were much more cooperative than those of the trailer area of the same campground. Nature trail walks and picture shows are held each day. No open fires are permitted. Lake Louise Campground  Trailer Area There are approximately 140 sites, in a Lodgepole pine and Spruce forest just off the highway to Lake Louise. The forest is growing on a very shallow rocky soil covered with a light undergrowth of Kinnickinnick and Moss, The area is s t i l l under construction. The fact of its being in the process of further development makes it unnecessary to speak of the only inconvenience of the camp-ground which is a shortage of washrooms and water outlets. No individual hook-ups are provided. A large sewer dump tank is located in the vicinity of the campground. No campfires are permitted. Scenery is spectacular. Tenting Area There are 182 campsites in a Lodgepole pine, Spruce and Alpine fir forest. The soil is rocky and shallow. The undergrowth is very light and consists of Kinnickinnick and Spruce seedlings. The wooden platforms provided for the tenters and a good system of footpaths help considerably to preserve the natural floor of Moss. Because of the natural conditions and the reasonable privacy due to good layout, the area is excellent for relaxation. The facilities provided are complete with hot water and kitchen shelters. There are good fishing and hiking areas within a few miles radius. The location of the campground is strategic for reaching any place in Banff, Jasper or Yoho Park in a one day round trip. 7 YOHO NATIONAL PARK Hoodoo Creek Campground There are 106 campsites, 14 miles west of Field. The forest on the camp-ground has a large variety of species. Lodgepole pine, Douglas f ir , Spruce, Aspen, Birch, Cottonwood and Western red cedar occur. There are four types that could be distinguished: 1) Birch, Aspen and Lodgepole pine. 2) Lodgepole pine, Aspen and some Spruce. 3) Lodgepole pine, Aspen, Birch and Spruce. 4) Spruce, Fir, Aspen, Cottonwood, Birch and some Cedar. The stand is generally tall and dense, with trees of about the same height. There is a very slight undergrowth of False azalea, Dwarf rose and Blueleaf strawberries. The presence of a fairly large proportion of deciduous trees is an essential feature in the character of the campground. The sites are well spaced, providing better than average privacy. The comfort facilities include everything but showers. The campground is located in a good hiking area. Nature programs are organized daily. GLACIER NATIONAL PARK Illecillewaet Campground It is a small capacity campground away from civilization in the heart of an area which could be called a hiker's paradise. The forest is a typical over-mature Wet Belt stand of Spruce, Alpine f ir , Hemlock and some Cedar, with a rich undergrowth of Devil's club and Ferns. There is False azalea on one part of the area that is more open. From the open part, magnificant vie ws of glaciers and mountain peaks can be seen. No showers nor hot water are provided but the washrooms and kitchen shelters are well kept. SAMPLING METHODS The sample size was limited by the capacity of Marble Canyon Campground. Fifty six randomly selected campsites were chosen in every campground where the campsites are numbered. In Marble Canyon all of the campsites had to be surveyed. In case any of the previously assigned campsites was not occupied at the time of the visit, the next number up or down was taken after flipping a coin. Table No. 1 illustrates the number of samples taken at each campground. The abbreviations of campgrounds in the horizontal heading of the tables stand respectively for: Coldspring, Wasa Lake, Redstreak camper area, Redstreak trailer area, Marble Canyon, Tunnell Mountain trailer area, Tunnel Mountain camper area, Lake Louise trailer area, Lake Louise camper area, Hoodoo Creek and Illecillewaet campgrounds. The same abbreviations will be used in all the tables in this report. 8 TABLE No. 1 - DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLES Successful Interviews Refused to Answer Met twice in differenb campsites Total C £ W L R Sec R S t M C T II t T M c L L t L L c H C I .Total 110 109 105 109 88 92 112 110 107 112 90 99 I 108 72 110 113 100 I 1115 20 112 73 112 114 101 1142 The desired number of samples at each campground .-as fifty six interviews to be conducted on week days and fifty six on weekend days. However the highly migratory character of the visitors, rainy weather and the limited number of week-end days available prevented us from completing the survey in many campgrounds. Nevertheless the population is s t i l l large enough for analysis. COLLECTING INFORMATION Information was collected while conducting personal interviews at the pre-viously selected campsites. Many ,of the questions needed to be explained to a large number of people. Firm principles were established for the interpretation of the questions at the beginning of the survey in order to avoid a gradual shifting away from the original meaning. Questions were interpreted in a way that would not influence the person in the answer he is just about to give. The first adult met in the party was interviewed. SORTING OF THE REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRES Manual sorting of the large amount of highly variable replies was physically impossible, therefore a coding system was set up for all questions and the data of each questionnaire were transferred to an IBM punch card. This system allows the observation of the individual samples as well as a quick sorting on the basis of any variable. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS A frequency distribution of the types of replies to each question will be ' presented in a separate table. Every vertical column of the tables represents a per-centage distribution of the different types of answers for a particular campground. The total number of successful interviews for each campground and the percentage it represents in the whole survey are shown respectively in the last two figures of the 9 of the corresponding vertical column. The horizontal lines of data show the varia-tions in the frequency of the same type of reply at different campgrounds. In the far right vertical column the total frequency of each category is shown, together with the percentage it represents, based on the total number of successful inter-views. The tables are presented in the same sequence as the corresponding questions appear on the questionnaire. Later, Chi squares analyses will be made to quantify the significance of campsite and of various factor combinations that may be of interest. TABLE Ho. 2 - TRAVEL DISTANCE Seven categories were established: People from Canada: People from the United States: 1) less than 200 miles. 4) less than 200 miles. 2) 200 to 400 miles. 5) 200 to 400 miles. 3) more than 400 miles. 6) more than 400 miles. 7) From outside of North America. C. S H L R S c R S t H C T 1! t T 11 c L L t L L c HC I Within Canada 200 65.5 23.9 37.1 24.8 36.5 5.4 5.6 4.2 g.2 14.2 13.0 Total Freq. 7. 248 22.2 Within Canada 200 - 400 10.9 32.1 n . 4 8.3 13.6 10.9 17.6 Within Canada 9.1 24.8 43.9 44.0 12.5 23.9 47.2 400 -f 2.8 5.5 19.4 34.5 4.5 4.6 1.9 0.9 1.1 -2.7 3.7 3.8 10.1 10.2 4.3 0.9 7.3 IO.? 1.9 11.9 26. 1 55.5 25.9 . - - - - - 2.S Total frequencyllO 109 105 From U. S. 200 -From U. S. 200 - 400 From U. S. 400 + From outside North America 8.3 7.3 63.9 40.9 1.4 3.6 109 88 32 108 72 110 19.5 16.0 38.8 40.0 0.9 -2.7 3.0 23.9 26.0 2.0 113 100 351 155 13.9 31.5 15 56 1.3 5.0 281 25.2 10 0.9 1116 Percentage Frequency. 9.86 9.77 9.41 9. 77 7.89 8. 24 9.68 6.45 9.86 10.10 8.95 100 Table No. 2 shows the distribution of the tourists based on the distance travelled from their homes to the campground where the interview took place. Two-thirds have travelled more than 400 miles from home to the campsite. It also shows the proportion of Canadians (57. 67.) and of the people from outside of Canada (32.47.). The last two lines of Table No. 2 also apply to most of the subsequent Tables. 10 TABLE No. 3 - CAMPING EXPERIENCE Five categories were established: over 20 years. 10 to 20 years. 5 to 10 years. 1 to 5 years. none TOTAL C S W L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Ifc L Lt L Lc H C I Freq. 179 21 years -f- 22.7 12.3 8.6 17.4 26.1 22.8 14.8 30.7 9.1 7.1 i i .O 16.0 MX) ' J1 - 20 yrs. 23.6 21.1 26.7 25.7 18.2 14.1 12.1 20.0 24.6 22.2 26.0 21.5 26b 6 - 1 0 vrs. 24.5 25.7 21.0 25.7 27.3 21.7 19.4 20.0 29.1 20.3 18.0 23.0 311 1 - 5 vrs. 19.2 32.1 40.0 21.1 19.3 29.3 35.2 20.0 23.6 26.5 36.0 27.9 120 None 10.0 8.3 3.7 10.1 9.1 12.1 18.5 6.9 13.6 15.9 9.0 10.0 Total 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 1116 Frequency Percentage Frequency 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.71 7.89 8.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 3.96 100 This s analysis can not show the role o f camp ing experience as a factor influencing environmental preferences. Nevertheless the data are o f value for they indicate the upward tendency in the number of people camping. For example, it shows an increase of 10.87. over last year's number of campers. Further analysis is needed to show the influence o f experience on habitat preference. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5 ) 11 TABLE No. 4 - REASONS FOR SELECTING CAMPGROUND Seven different types of answers were received: 1) Close to facilities providing opportunity for active outdoor recreation, such as, hiking, climbing, fishing, rock hunting or nature observation. 2) Close to highly advertised points of interest providing opportunity for away from home social entertainment, such as, town of Banff, Lake Louise, Radium Hot Springs, the Calgary Stampede, or the opening ceremonies of Fort Steele. 3) The only one available. 4) Preferring the campground for its beauty or privacy, or layout based on experience of a previous visit. 5) Campground recommended by friends, travel guide, or picked spontaneously when passing by. 6) Comfort facilities such as hot water, showers, hookups or easy parking. 7) Convenient to travel pattern. Active Recreation Widely known points of Interest c s W L R Sc R St M C T Mt T He L Lt L Lc H C I 35.5 31.3 3.8 4.4 12.6 1.6 0.7 4.7 9.9 5.1 17.5 2.2 21.8 17.8 2.7 31.2 45.1 41.8 29.5 0.7 0.8 The only one 2.3 3.7 available Been here before Comfort Facilities 0.7 1.8 1.6 6.9 8.1 2.1 15.2 4.8 20.5 20.2 28.5 29.6 22.5 3.2 7.6 3.5 3.5 15.2 19.0 Recommended or 16.7 20.9 20.3 25.3 30.6 22.4 15.3 14.0 25.4 15.9 19.0 Spontan. dec. 22.6 8.9 2. 7 36.0 11.2 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.4 Convenient to 25.0 21.7 3.0 13.3 27.1 4.0 13.2 25.6 27.5 45.7 36.5 Travel Patt. Total Freq. % 163 244 60 224 116 307 1402 Total Frequency Percentage Frequency 132 134 133 135 111 125 142 86 141 137 126 11.6 17.4 4.3 16.0 20.5 8.3 21.9 9.41 9.56 9.49 9.62 7.92 8.92 10.13 6.13 10.06 9.77 8.99 100 12 Some people selected the campground for more than one reason, hence the total frequency in table No. 4 is higher than the number of interviews taken. The total numbers indicate how many times a particular reason was given in the replies. The relative frequency of the different reasons in the campgrounds is widely variable but tends to point out the basic purposes for which each campground is used. For example: active recreation in Coldspring, Wasa Lake and Illecillewaet: or well known points of interest in Red Streak, Tunnel Mountain and Lake Louise. The highest total relative frequency, 21.9% is represented by the migratory group of overnight campers, who selected the campground only because it was ,:time to stop" when they arrived at -it. TABLE No. 5 - IMPORTANCE PLACED BY PEOPLE ON THE KIND OF TREES IN PARKS Three types of answers were received: 1) Yes, the kind of trees is important. 2) Ho, trees are not of major concern. 3) It is important to have trees but the kind does not matter. Yes No | Total C S H I R Sc R St M C T Mt T \lc L Lt L Lc H C I j Freq. % 687 57.3 71.6 56.2 72.5 47.7 60.9 67.6 52. 7 70.0 51.3 64.0 " 33.6 24.7 12.4 5.4 8.0 12.0 10.2 16. 7 8.2 15.1 10.0 Trees,yes Thekind.no 9 1 3.7 31.4 21.1 44.3 27.1 22.2 30.5 21.8 33.5 26.0 162 267 Total Frequency H0 109 105 109 83 92 108 72 110 113 100 1116 61.6 14.5 23.9 Percentage Frequency Q.B6-9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8.24 7.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 This table shows that the kind of trees was important to the majority of the people in every campground. However a consideration of other influencing factors is essential for further evaluation. The required investigations will be under taken in a later stage of the analysis. When explaining the question to the people inter-viewed, the term "kind of trees", was given a broad sense. By "kind" not only the species, but also the habit of growth and the general condition of trees were meant too. 13 TABLE No. 6 - FOREST TYPE PREFEPJIED Eleven kinds "of answers were received: 1) No preference. 7) Local. 2) Alpine or subalpine. 8) Mixed. 3) Broadleaves. 9) Rocky Mountain type. 4) Conifers. 10) Redwoods. 5) Dry Interior type. 11) West Coast or Interior Wet Belt. 6) Around home. Total C S W L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C I Freq. % No 301 -reference 35.5 33.9 24. 8 21.1 20.4 31.4 20.4 30.6 14.6 29.2 29.0 27.0 •32 Alpine 1.8 1.0 2.0 8.0 2.2 3.7 - 2.7 0.9 5.0 2.9 28 Broadleaf 1.8 - 2.9 1.8 2.3 2.2 7.4 2.8 4.5 0.9 1.0 2.5 38 Conifer - 4.6 1.9 6.4 3.4 2.2 4.6 - 5.5 5.3 2.0 3.4 Dry 50 Interior 8.2 9.2 4.8 4.6 1.1 1.1 2.8 2.3 3.6 6.2 4.0 4.5 Around 13 Rome - 0.9 - - 1.1 3.3 4.6 1.4 0.9 0.9 - 1.2 176 Local 20.1 10*1 25.7 22.0 9.1 9.8 7.4 6.9 17.3 19.4 22.0 15.7 66 Mixed 4.5 7.3 JL__ 7.3 2.3 8.7 5.6 2.8 6.4 3.5 7.0 5.9 Rocky 192 Mountain 3.6 15.6 10.4 18. 3 26__1 23.9 23.1 22.1 22. 7 14,2 12.0 17.2 55 Redwood 3.6 1.8 2.9 7.3 2.3 6.5 5.6 15.3 3.6 2.7 6.0 4.9 W. Coast or 1 6S Interior Wet Belt . 19.1 14.8 17.0 8.4 15.9 8.7 14.8 15.3 18.2 16.8 12.0 14.8 Total Frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 . 108 72 110 113 100. 1116 Percentage Frequency 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 3.96 100 Defining the preferred forest type on the basis of where it is located, was the general practice in evaluating replies, because only a fraction of the people 14 were able to describe' or name the forest they preferred. The figures corresponding to the forest type in which the campground is located are underlined to facilitate the observation of the results. The influence of the immediate surroundings is clearly shown in the table. Although the answer "no preference" appears to be of the highest frequency, the summing of the underlined figures makes obvious the high preference of the local type. TABLE No. 7 - ANYTHING UNPLEASANT SEEN Five different types of answers were received: 1) Complaints about campground layout or comfort facilities. 2) No. 3) Yes, on the roadside. 4) Yes, close by the road. 5) Yes, far off the road. Total C S U R Sc R St II C T lit T lie L Lt L Lc H C I Freq, 128 7.6 41.7 9.7 Complaints 20.9 7.3 5.7 No 70.085.4 85.7 Yes, on the road side 0.9 1.8 6.7 Yes, close to the road 8.2 5.5 1.9 Yes, far off the -road 10.1 4.5 83.5 84.2 85.8 55.5 83.3 6.4 5.3 4.0 77.3 86. 7 91.0 4.6 3.4 0.9 • 1.1 2.2 2.8 5.6 2.2 0.9 1.1 2.2 1.4 11.8 0.9 3.6 1.8 2.0 3.5 2.7 3.0 899 44 34 11 % 11.5 80.6 3.9 3.0 1.0 Total frequency HO 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 1116 Percentage Frequency 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 The question: "Have you seen anything in this park you thought was dis-turbing or unpleasant in the scenery?" was meant to investigate, first, what do people consider unpleasant in the scenery, and second, how far from the road do people notice such things. Any complaints concerning campground facilities were also noted and are presented in this same table. Dusty roads were the main source of complaints at every campground, except at Coldspring and Tunnel Mountain camping area where, respectively, primitive comfort facilities and a lack of privacy played the most important role in inducing dissatisfaction. 15 A total of 7.97. of the people sighted something unpleasant in the scenery. The objects of dislike included litter along the highways or along trails, burned forests, and overcommercialized areas within the boundaries of Banff National Park. Some people mentioned the gradual destruction of alpine meadows accessible for horseback riders in the Lake Louise area. The great majority of the visitors did not notice anything unpleasant. TABLE No. 8 - ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE TREE SPECIES Three types of answers were received: 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) Says yes, but does not recognize any species. C S W L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc N C I Yes 73.6 64.2 63.3 64.2 72.2 55.4 59.2 47.2 60.9 71.7 56.0 No 19.1 25.7 29.5 25.7 25.0 19.6 26.9 38.9 27.3 21.2 38.0 Says yes but no 7.3 10.1 6.7 10.1 2.3 25.0 13.9 13.9 11.8 7.1 6.0 Total Frequency 110 109 105 109 83 92 108 72 110 113 100 T o t a l Freq. , 7. 704 63.1 26.6 297 115 10.3 Percentage Frequency 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 The ability of people to recognize tree species is generally high and is l i t t le influenced by the forest habitat of the campground. At the present stage of the analyses we can only emphasize that an examination of the question on the basis o f equipment used by the campers would be the most promising approach to explain h i g h variations. 16 TABLE No. 9 - TREE SPECIES WHICH FORM THE HOST PLEASING FOREST The answers were: 1) No preference. 2) - 15"* 14 different species of trees. C S T-7 L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C I r o t a I No Freq. % preference 27.3 34.9 35.1 33.0 26.1 30.4 30.6 36.0 31.8 39.0 48.0 378 33.9 98 Spruce 7.3 10.1 .3.8 9.2 17.0 2.2 13,9 2.8 11.8 10.6 6.0 8.9 Alpine 44 f ir 4.5 - - 5.5 12.5 3.3 4.6 1.4 3.6 5.3 _3^ 0 3.9 Variety of 49 , many species 1.8 3.7 6.7 1.8 4.5 7.6 4.6 2.8 3.6 5.3 3.0 4.1 56 Cedar 8.2 4.6 7.6 11.0 5.7 3.3 2.8 2.8 3.6 3.5 4.0 5.0 Local 47 Broadleaf 3.7 8.3 2.9 2.8 - 6.5 9.3 4.2 3.6 2.6 2.0 4.1 116 Douglas f ir 10.9 5.5 22.9 16.5 6.8 10.9 7.4 6.9 6.4 7.1 12.0 10.4 84 Conifers 2.7 1.8 8. 6 5.5 9.2 11.9 7.4 12.5 10.0 7.1 9.0 7.6 in General 99 Pines in Gen. 13.6 10.1 3.9 9.2 5.7 14.1 6.3 13.8 11.0 10.7 1.0 8.9 37 Lodgepole pine 7.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.5 5.4 9.4 - 3.7 .2,6 - 3.3 White pine 1.8 1.8 - - 1.1 - _ _ 0.9 _ 6 0.6 66 Ponderosa 10.0 15.6 5.5 2.8 4.5 3.3 3.7 2.8 3.7 5.3 6.0 5.8 pine Hemlock - 0.9 - - - 1.1 - 1.4 0.9 0.9 4.0 y Q 0.9 Redwood - - 1.0 - - - - 5.6 1.8 - 2.0 J /, 0.9 Larch - 0.9 - - 1.1 - - 0.9 • - - if 0.4 Exotic 14 Broadleaf 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.8 2.3 - - 5.6 2.7 - - 1.3 1116 Total 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 Frequency Percentage 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 Frequency The preference of different tree species is highly variable but generally low. Here again as in Table No. 6, the influence of the surrounding forest habitat is clearly visible when adding up the local species of the campgrounds which are under-lined on the table. 17 TABLE No. 10 - PREFERRED TYPE OF FOREST FOR RECREATION • a) Age and Size of Trees Five different ansxrers were noted: 1) no preference. 2) large old trees. 3) smaller young trees. 4) mixture of the two. 5) mixture of trees and shrubs. Total C S W L R Sc R St M C T li t T lie L Lt L Lc H C I Freq. % No preference 9.1 4.6 8.6 5.5 10.2 19.6 12.0 23.6 6.4 9.7 10.0 Large old trees 46.4 54.1 35.2 44.0 39.8 33,7 42. 7 38.9 52.7 40.8 54.0 Small young trees 10.9 3.7 10.5 11.0 14.8 5.4 7.4 12.5 9.1 15.0 5.0 Mixture of Large & Small 21.8 33.0 36. 2 35.8 34. 1 33.7 29.6 20.8 29. 1 29.2 26.0 Mixture of 11.8 4. S 9.5 3.7 1.1 7.6 3.3 4.2 2.7 5.3 5.0 trees & shrubs 114 10.2 494 106 44. 3 9.5 335 30.0 67 6.0 Total 1116 frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 Percentage frequency 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 18 TABLE No. 11 - PREFERRED TYPE OF FOREST FOR RECREATION: b) Conifers and Broadleaves Four answers were received: 1) No preference. 2) Conifers. 3) Broadleaves. A) Mixture of both. Total C S 17 L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C I Freq. % No 88 preference 10.0 7.3 8.6 3.7 5.7 8.7 7.4 11.1 9.1 8.0 7.0 7.9 546 Conifers 60.9 59.7 45.7 39.4 47.7 44.5 40.7 56.9 47.2 42.5 57.0 48.9 44 Broadleaves 1.8 6.4 3.8 5.5 3.4 3.3 0.9 5.6 6.4 2.7 3.0 3.9 Mixture of 438 both 27.3 26.6 41.9 51.4 43.2 43.5 60.0 26.4 37.3 46.8 33.0 39.3 Total 1116 Frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 Percentage Frequency 9.86 9.77 5.41 9.77 7.89 8.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 19 TABLE No. 12 - PREFERRED TYPE OF FOREST FOR RECREATION: c ) Undergrowth S i x answers were received: 1) No preference. 2) Clear, needly floor, moss on trees. 3) Light undergrowth. 4) Heavy undergrowth. 5) Grassy with small shrubs. 6) Lawn. C S W L R Sc R St M C T Kt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C I No . " preference 7.3 3. 7 6. 7 10. 1 10. 2 15. 2 9.3 16. 7 9.1 13.3 11.0 Clear floor 15.5 17.4 19.0 27.5 19.3 17.4 22.2 29. 1 34.5 23.0 15.0 moss on trees Light undergrowth 56.3 42.2 27.6 28.4 35.3 20. 7 16. 7 25.0 33.6 48.7 55.0 Heavy undergrowth 5.5 5.5 1.9 5.5 6.8 3.3 3.7 4.2 6.4 3.5 6.0 Grassy with small shrubs 14.5 31.2 42.9 25.7 26.1 40.1 40.7 18.1 15.5 11.5 13.0 Total Freq. % 112 10.0 Lawn 0.9 1.9 2.8 2.3 3.3 7.4 6.0 0.9 243 21.8 399 35.8 53 4.7 283 25.3 26 '2.4 Total 1116 frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 103 72 110 113 100 Percentage frequency 9.86 9. 77 5.41 9. 77 7.89 8.24 9. 68 6.46 9.86 10. 10 8.96 100 20 TABLE No. 13 - PREFERRED TYPE OF FOREST FOR RECREATION: d ) Effect of human activities Four different type of answers were noted: 1) No preference. 2) Untouched virgin forest. 3) Managed forest. 4) Depends on what kind of recreation. Total C S W L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C I Freq. °L No preference 8.2 3.7 4.8 9.2 1.1 3.3 4.6 4.2 4.5 0.9 6.0 Untouched 56.4 53.2 46.6 36.7 47.7 43.5 42.6 55.5 45.5 54.0 54.0 virgin forest Managed 32.7 41.3 43.8 48.6 45.5 43.4 47.2 38.9 45.5 39.8 33.0 forest It depends 2.7 1.8 4.8 5.5 5. 7 9.8 5.6 1.4 4.5 5.3 7.0 on what kind of recreation 53 541 468 54 J1116 4.8 48.5 41.9 4.8 Total 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 Frequency Percentage 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 Frequency 100 21 TABLE No. 14 - Copes with the question: "Do windfalls, burns, dead trees, conks appear to you as unpleasant features of a forest, or do you just take them as a natural forest?" Four kind of replies was received: 1) Appear unpleasant. 2) Take it as a natural part. 3) Burns unpleasant, the rest net; 4) Unpleasant i f in excess. C S VJ L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C I Appear unpleasant 34.5 46.8 43.8 41.4 33.0 38.0 33.3 33.3 33.6 36.3 28.0 Take it as 41.9 34.9 37.1 41.2 42.0 41.4 45.4 52.8 51.8 41.6 51.0 natural part Burns unpleasant rest not. 20.9 11.9 14.3 15.6 18.2 16.3 18.5 8.3 12.8 15.0 17.0 Unpleasant i f in excess 2.7 6.4 4.8 1.8 6.8 4.3 2.8 5.6 1.8 7.1 4.0 Total Freq. % 413 475 176 52 37.0 42.6 15.8 4.6 Total 1116 Frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 Percentage frequency 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 Tables No. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 show the replies to the five subquestions concerning the forest type preferred for recreation. None of the tables show variations that could be explained merely on the basis of the surrounding habitat. Further examination is needed to identify the most significant factors of influence. By observing the total results one can evaluate the relative level of preferences for the individual features. 22 TABLE No. 15 - Occupation Seven categories were established: 1) Physical worker (laborer, foreman, tradesman). 2) Bureaucrat or technician (notary, clerk, bank employee, time keeper, secretary). 3) Businessman, whether i n own business or employed i n commercial or f i n a n c i a l f i e l d . 4) Agricultural worker. 5) Professional or A r t i s t . 6) Housewife. 7) Student C S W L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C Total I Freq. % 272 Physical labour 18.2 28.4 31.4 23.9 22.7 25.0 26.0 44.4 11.8 20.4 24.0 ( s k i l l e d or unsk!) Office 248 Worker 35.5 24.8 23.8 23.9 21.6 19.6 15.7 11.1 19.1 18. 6 26.0 22.2 Businessman 13.6 8.3 6.7 25.6 13.6 22.8 22.2 15.3 10.5 s 0 . 2 8.0 13.8 36 Farmer 2.7 1.8 1.0 2.8 2.3 3.3 2.3 5.6 5.5 4. 4. 4.0 3.2 265 Professional 19.1 14.7 20.0 17.4 28. 4 23.9 24.1 15.3 35.3 34. / , 27.0 23.7 99 Housewife 10.0 11.0 15.2 6.4 3.4 4.3 4.6 8.3 9.1 13. 3 9.0 • 8.9 42 Student 0.9 - 1.9 - 8.0 1.1 4.6 - 7.3 2. 7 2.0 3.8 Total 1116 Frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 Percentage Frequency 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 S.24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10. 10 8.96 100 24.4 23 TABLE No. 16 - REGIONAL ORIGIN Four categories were established: 1) Pacific Northwest. 2) Other North America. 3) Europe. 4) Others. Total C S W L R Sc R St II C T Mt T Mc L Lt LLc H C I Freq. % Pacific 238 Northwest 32.7 42.2 15.2 26.6 25.0 18.5 9.3 13.9 16.4 8.0 23.0 21.4 Other North 728 America 46. 4 46.8 63.8 64.2 67.0 69.5 75.9 84.7 71.8 73.7 56.0 65.2 141 Europe 19.1 10.1 21.0 9.2 5.7 12,0 13.9 1.4 10.9 12.4 19.0 12.6 Others 1.8 0.9 - - 2.3 - 0.9 - . 0.9 0.9 2.0 9 0.8 Total 1116 Frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 Percentage Frequency 9.86 9. 77 9.41 9. 77 7.89 8. 24 9. 68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 24 TABLE No. 17 - EDUCATION Five categories were established: 1) High School not finished. 2) High School complete. 3) Some college, no degree. 4) University degree, Bachelor. 5) University degree, Master or Doctor. Less than high school High School Some college no degree Bachelor Degree C S W L R Sc R St H T Mt T lie L Lt L Lc 11 C 17.3 26.8 22. 1 12. 1 8.0 10.9 16. 7 15.3 7.3 7. 1 3.0 41.8 36.9 36.4 42.4 34.0 33.7 38.9 52.8 30.9 44.2 41.0 21.8 21.3 24.0 26.8 22. 7 26. 1 21. 2 19.4 20.9 19.5 24.0 13.6 12.1 15.4 14.0 27.3 22.8 13.0 5.6 27.3 21.2 20.0 Total I Freq. % 152 13. 6 Masters or Doctorsdegree 5.5 2.9 2.1 4.7 8.0 6.5 10.2 6.9 13.6 8.0 12.0 434 I P o J O . J 252 22.6 196 17.6 82 7.3 Total Frequency 1116 110 109 105 109 92 108 72 110 113 100 Percentage Frequency 9.86 9. 77 9.41 9. 77 7.89 C. 24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 25 TABLE No. 18 - SEX DISTRIBUTION Male Female C W W L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C 87.3 83.5 80.0 89.9 39.8 87.0 89.8 91.7 79.1 76.1 85.0. 12.7 16.5 20.0 10.1 10.2 13.0 10.2 8.3 20.9 23.5 15.0 Total I Freq. % 549 85.0 167 15.0 Total Frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 1116 Percentage Frequency 9.85 9. 77 9.41 9. 77 7.89 8. 24 9. 68 6.45 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 'TABLE No. 19 - AGE DISTRIBUTION Three categories were established: 1) Less than 30. 2) 30 to 50. 3) Over 50. Total C S U R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C I Freq. % 126 Less than 30 years 17.3 17.5 H.5 4.6 H.4 6.5 20.4 -. 14.5 8.1 9.0 30 - 50 yrs 70.9 70.7 79.0 72.5 73.8 62.0 67.6 75.4 81.0 83.2 84.0 Over 50 years 11.8 11.8 9.5 22.9 14.0 31.5 12.0 23.6 4.5 8.7 7.0 834 156 11.3 74.7 14.0 Total Frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 100 72 110 113 100 1116 Percentage Frequency 9.86 9. 77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8. 24 9.60 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 26 TABLE No. 20 - TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED Five kinds were noted: 1) Tent. 2) Tent trailer. 3) House trailer. 4) Camper. 5) Car or sleeping bag. Total C S W L R Sc R St M C T Mt T Mc L Lt L Lc H C I Freq. % 441 Tent 50.0 43.2 77.2 - 25.0 - 56.5 4.2 70.8 46.9 45.0 39.5 Tent trail 208 er 10.0 20.2 17.1 21.1 28.4 3.3 34.3 5.6 15.5 24. 8 19.0 18.6 House 323 trailer 25.5 20.1 _ 61.5 27.3 93.4 _ 76.4 6.4 17.7 15.0 28.9 118 Camper 13.6 9.2 1.9 17.4 15.9 3.3 7.4 13.8 6.4 8.8 2.0 10.6 26 Car or 0.9 7.3 3.8 - 3.4 - 1.8 - 0.9 1.8 - 2.4 sleeping b ag Total 1116 Frequency 110 109 105 109 88 92 108 72 110 113 100 Percentage Frequency 9.86 9.77 9.41 9.77 7.89 8. 24 9.68 6.46 9.86 10.10 8.96 100 The remaining part of the data presented in tables No. 15 to 20 consists of information concerning the composition of the group of visitors interviewed. This information was collected mainly for the purpose of investigating the importance of many features as factors influencing people in their preferences for elements of a natural environment. The proportions of groups of different education, occupation, age or regional origin can also be used as general statistical data indicating the stratification of the mass of tourists. Unfortunately the figures in the table concerning the type of equipment used cannot be taken as true measures. In spite of the random sampling, the percentage of tents tends to be higher in our survey than in reality. The reason for this is that trailers and campers being highly mobile units, had a more limited chance to be surveyed than tents. Most campsites occupied overnight by such mobile units were vacant during the day, hence more campsites occupied by parties using stationary equipment had to be surveyed. As formerly stated this report is not the final presentation of the results of the survey. It only includes a brief description of the project and a presentation of data collected. The remarks made at some tables are suggesting some conclusions, but are only based on a visual observation of the high and low values. A thorough examination of all factors and the testing of their level of significance will be undertaken. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0103940/manifest

Comment

Related Items