Research to Support Application of the Visitor Experience and Resource... Framework at Zion National Park

Research to Support Application of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection

Framework at Zion National Park

Robert Manning

University of Vermont

Wayne Freimund

University of Montana

Jeffrey Marion

Virginia Tech University

Introduction

As the name suggests, the national park system contains natural and cultural resources of national, and increasingly, international significance. Units of the national park system contain natural and cultural resources of great importance to the nation and, in many cases, to the international community. Given the significance of this resource base, public demand to se and experience these areas is not surprising. Data on visitation to the national park system dramatically support this premise. Visits to the national park system are approaching 300 million per year.

The increasing popularity of the national park system presents substantial management challenges. Too many visitors may cause unacceptable impacts to fragile natural and cultural resources, and may also cause crowding and other social impacts which degrade the quality of the visitor experience. How many visitors can ultimately be accommodated in a park or related area? How much resource and social impact should be allowed? These and related questions are commonly referred to as carrying capacity (Manning 1999; Stankey and Manning 1986; Shelby and Heberlein 1986;

Graefe et al. 1984).

Zion National Park is a good example of the issues noted above. This unit of the national park system contains significant natural and recreational resources. The area draws increasing number of visitors, and this can result in significant resource and social impacts. How much and what types of visitor use can ultimately be accommodated in Zion National Park? This question is of special urgency in the backcountry/wilderness portion of the park for which a management plan is now being formulated.

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection: A Carrying Capacity Framework

Several years ago, the National Park Service began developing a carrying capacity framework titled Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) (National

Park Service 1997). As the name suggests, this planning framework is aimed at maintaining the quality of the visitor experience and protecting natural and cultural resources in the face of increasing visitor use. VERP is built upon the same basic principles and concepts that drive other contemporary carrying capacity and related planning/management frameworks, including Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey et al. 1985), and Visitor Impact Management (Graefe et al. 1990).

VERP contains several critical steps that can be supported by research. The first is collecting baseline data on visitor use and associated resource and social impact.

How many and what types of visitor uses are occurring where, and what resource and social impacts are associated with such use? The second step is identification of indicators and standards of quality for natural/cultural resources and the visitor experience. Indicators of quality are measurable, manageable variable that help define the quality of natural/cultural resources and the visitor experience. Standards of quality

define the minimum acceptable condition of indicator variables. Research suggests that visitors often have norms or standards about the resource and social conditions acceptable in a park or related area, and that such norms can be useful as a means of formulating indicators and standards of quality (Shelby and Heberlein 1986; Shelby et al. 1992; Manning et al. 1996a; Manning et al. 1996b). The third step is monitoring of indicator variables. When monitoring demonstrates that indicator variable are no longer within acceptable standards, carrying capacity has been exceeded, and management action is required. The fourth step is selecting and implementing management actions.

Management of visitor use can take many forms, but management actions should be both effective and as acceptable as possible to visitors.

VERP was initially applied to Arches National Park as a test case and a model for other units of the national park system (Hof et al. 1994; Manning et al. 1996b;

Manning et al. 1993; Lime et al. 1994; Manning et al. 1995). This application resulted in a carrying capacity management plan that has now been implemented at that park

(National Park Service 1995). A second application of VERP resulted in a carrying capacity management plan of the carriage roads at Acadia National Park (Jacobi and

Manning 1997; Manning et al. 1998; Jacobi and Manning 1999). Additional applications of VERP are now proceeding at selected units of the national park system.

Study Objectives

The overall purpose of this study was to gather information that will help support application of VERP to the backcountry/wilderness portion of Zion National Park. In particular, study objectives focused on the four elements of the VERP framework that

can benefit the most from empirical data: 1) collecting baseline data on visitor use and associated resource and social impacts, 2) identifying indicators and standards of quality, 3) monitoring indicator variables, and 4) management of visitor use to ensure that the standards of quality are maintained. Specific study objectives were as follows:

1. Determine baseline conditions of visitor use levels, types and locations, and associated resource and social impacts. Carrying capacity frameworks, including

VERP, should be as informed as possible regarding current visitor use and related resource and social impacts. Data were gathered on visitor use levels, activities, and locations, the type and degree of related resource and social impacts, including trail and campsite degradation and crowding and conflicting uses.

2. Identify indicators and standards of quality. As described above, indicators of quality are measurable, manageable variables that help define the quality of natural/cultural resources and the visitor experience. Standards of quality represent the minimum acceptable conditions of indicator variables. Data were gathered from visitors to help managers identify indicators and standards of quality for natural/cultural resources and the visitor experience in the backcountry/wilderness portion of Zion National Park. Where appropriate, a visual approach using simulated photography was used to measure visitor norms for both resource and social conditions.

3. Study the relationship between use levels and potential indicators of quality.

Better understanding of the relationship between use levels of Zion National Park and potential indicators of quality can be useful in monitoring and managing visitor use. This objective focused on determining the relationship between the number of visitors at one time to selected areas within Zion National Park and potential indicators of quality, such as selected measures of crowding and congestion. This relationship was studied by means of computer-based simulation models of visitor use.

4. Explore the acceptability of alternative visitor management practices. VERP requires that management actions be undertaken to ensure that standards of quality are maintained. A study of visitor attitudes toward potential management actions was conducted to ensure that management actions implemented are as acceptable as possible to those who will be most directly affected.

Study Report

Research methods to accomplish the study objectives noted above, along with study findings derived from these methods, are outlined in this report. The report is designed as a reference manual for park planners and managers. Each of the following sections of the report outline the study objectives, methods and findings from each component of the study. The report is assembled in a three-ring binder so that additional materials developed from study findings (e.g., papers delivered at

conferences and symposia, graduate student theses, scholarly journal articles) can be added as they become available.

5. ZION DAY USE (NON-PERMITTED) BACKCOUNTRY SURVEY

– 2002

Purpose:



Collect baseline data on visitor use and users



Identify indicators of quality for the visitor experience



Identify standards of quality for trail encounters and group size



Measure visitor attitudes about selected management issues

Methods:



On-site surveys of a representative sample of 357 visitors (80% response rate) as they exited the Weeping Rock, Grotto and Narrows trailheads during July and

August of 2002.

Findings:



Data on group size and type, state or country of residence, and sociodemographic information are presented in the tables below.



The results of several open-ended and close-ended questions designed to probe visitors for indicators of quality show that issues of maintaining natural conditions, crowding, and peacefulness/quiet are potentially important indicators of quality.



Data about the number of encounters with other persons/groups experienced, preferred and expected and the acceptability of group sizes are also presented.

 An “importance-performance analysis” for selected park issues is presented.

1

2

3

4

5

Response by location

Weeping Rock

Frequency Percent

89 24.9

Narrows

Grotto

N = 357

Q1. Group size

121

147

33.9

41.2


33

155

33

58

15

9.3

43.8

9.3

16.4

4.2

6

7

8

9

10

12

10

4

8

5

3.4

2.8

1.1

2.3

1.4

11

12

13

4

6

1

1.1

1.7

0.3

14

15

1

1

0.3

0.3

More than 15 8 2.4

N = 354; Mean = 4.0; Median = 2

Q2. Group type

Family


217 64.2

Friends

Family and friends

Organized group

Commercial group

Other

N = 338

63

22

14

7

15

18.6

6.5

4.1

2.1

4.4

Frequency Tables

Q3. Residence


U.S. 278

International

N = 347

69

Q3A. State of residence

80.1

19.9


California

Utah

Nevada

New York

Arizona

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Virginia

76

25

20

20

13

11

10

9

27.3

9.0

7.2

7.2

4.7

4.0

3.6

3.2

New Jersey

North Carolina

Texas

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

New Mexico

Washington

Connecticut

Illinois

Kansas

Wisconsin

Arkansas

8

8

8

7

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

2

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

0.7

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.5

2.2

1.8

1.8

1.8

Idaho

Montana

Oregon

Alabama

District of Columbia

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana

New Hampshire

North Dakota

Ohio

Rhode Island

Tennessee

N = 278

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

Q3B. Country of residence


Germany

United Kingdom

11

10

15.9

14.5

France

Netherlands

Switzerland

England

Spain

9

8

5

4

3

13.0

11.6

7.2

5.8

4.3

Canada

Japan

Czech Republic

Belgium

Mexico

Tunisia

Ireland

Poland

Italy

New Zealand

Australia

Israel

Austria

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4.3

2.9

2.9

2.9

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

Paraguay

N = 69

Q4. Enjoyed most

1 1.4

Scenery/ views/ natural beauty

Being outdoors/ in nature/ natural surroundings

Facilities/ resource condition

Weather

Quiet/ peacefulness/ solitude/ uncrowded

Recreation/ exercise/ challenge/ adventure

Social interaction

Transportation services/ no cars

Wildlife

Miscellaneous

N = 354


216 61.0

56 15.8

34

17

23

66

9.6

4.8

6.5

18.6

5

19

26

15

1.4

5.4

7.3

4.2

Q5. Enjoyed least

Weather/ heat/ insects

Crowds/ noisy people

Personal preparedness/ difficulty/ strenuousness


82

48

34

38.5

22.5

16.0

Facilities/ Services/ trail conditions/ information

Miscellaneous

N = 213

Q6. Suggestions for management

Nothing/ don't change/ keep as is

29

22

13.6

10.3


102 38.3

More or better facilities/ services/ development

More or better information/ signs

Miscellaneous

N = 266

Q7A. First visit

98

43

23

36.8

16.2

8.6

Yes


223 65.2

No

N = 342

119 34.8

Q7B. Changed for the better

Bus/ transportation services/ fewer cars/ less traffic

Same/ nothing changed

Better trails/ improved facilities

Fewer people

Miscellaneous

N = 101

Q7C. Changed for the worse



66

21

13

5

4

65.3

20.8

12.9

5.0

4.0

Nothing

Crowds/ more people

Transportation services/ traffic

Miscellaneous

Facilities/ development

N = 74

29

27

11

8

5

39.2

36.5

14.9

10.8

6.8

Q7D. Have you changed the way you hike?


Yes 31 26.3

No

N = 118

87 73.7

Q7E. How and why have you changed the way you hike?

I hike less often because of increased crowding

I hike less often because of environmental deterioration of trails

I hike different trails because of increased crowding

YES NO

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

12

1

29

4

27.3

2.3

61.7

8.9

32

43

18

41

72.7

97.7

38.3

91.1 I hike different trails because of deterioration of trails

I hike during less busy times (e.g., week days, off-season) because of increased crowding

I changed the way I hike at Zion in some other way

31

11

70.5

36.7

13

19

29.5

63.3

Q8. Importance-Performance

IMPORTANCE PERFORMANCE a. Opportunity to experience solitude while hiking

Percent Mean Percent Mean

36.0 45.5 15.6 2.3 0.6 1.9 19.3 40.7 29.2 9.0 1.9 2.3 b. Opportunity to see few other visitors while hiking 17.3 43.1 28.3 6.9 4.3 2.4 12.0 37.8 36.3 11.1 2.8 2.5 c. Opportunity to avoid seeing large groups of visitors while hiking (groups greater than 12 visitors) 34.2 37.4 19.1 7.0 2.3 2.1 21.0 36.1 28.4 10.8 3.7 2.4 d. Opportunity to avoid seeing organized groups of visitors while hiking

(e.g. clubs, scouts) e. Opportunity to avoid seeing commercial groups of visitors while hiking

(i.e., groups where visitors pay to participate) f. Opportunity to use trails that do not show a lot of recreation-related impact

24.6 32.1

32.2 34.5

31.3 40.1

30.6

22.6

22.8

8.7 4.0

7.2 3.5

3.5 2.3

2.4

2.2

2.1

21.1 37.9 31.7 6.5 2.8

28.1 35.6 28.7 5.4 2.2

27.8 44.6 23.7 2.5 1.3

2.3

2.2

2.0 g. Opportunity to avoid seeing and/or hearing aircraft h. Opportunity to use the park's shuttle bus system to get to and from trailheads i. Opportunity to avoid seeing evidence of recent fires (either naturally ignited fires or management prescribed burns)

39.1 33.3 18.6 4.9 4.1 2.0 52.2 31.4 13.0 2.2 1.2 1.7

61.2 26.2

15.8 21.7

7.9

37.8

2.3 2.3

13.4 11.3

1.6

2.8

76.4 14.7 7.7 0.6 0.6

41.2 37.5 17.2 1.4 2.7

1.3

1.9

Q8. Importance-Performance

5

4

3

2

1

1 h a g f c e b d

2 i

3

Importance

Q9A. Number of groups encountered


0-5

6-10

11-15

140

77

28

44.9

24.7

9.0

16-20

21-25

25

7

8.0

2.2

26+ 35 11.2

N = 312; Mean = 13.2; Median = 6

4 5

Q9A. Number of people encountered

1-5

Frequency

13

Percent

4.6

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

31-35

17

28

24

12

24

5

6.1

10.0

8.6

4.3

8.6

1.8

36-40

41-45

18

3

6.4

1.1

46-50 33 11.8

51+ 103 36.8

N = 280; Mean = 103.2; Median =40

Q9B. Expectations for encounters


Fewer than expected

More than expected

79

96

23.2

28.2

About the number I expected

N = 341

166

Q9C. Preferences for encounters

Fewer than preferred

Frequency

15

48.7

Percent

4.5

51.2

44.3

More than preferred 170

About the number I preferred

N = 332

Q10. Acceptability of group size

147

Very Unacceptable

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

Very Acceptable

2 3 4

Four

Six

Eight

5.9 0.3 1.0 0.3 3.9 2.3 3.3 9.5 73.4

4.4 1.3 1.7 1.7 7.4 3.4 9.7 20.8 49.7

6.4 3.0 5.4 3.7 13.5 8.4 16.6 14.5 28.4

Ten

Twelve

12.4 4.3 7.7 10.7 13.7 13.0 12.7 9.7 15.7

19.9 7.7 17.2 8.4 14.1 9.4 5.1 7.1 11.1

Fourteen 31.8 16.9 14.5 7.1 8.1 5.4 4.7 3.4 8.1

Sixteen 50.8 8.9 9.2 3.0 8.9 4.3 3.0 2.6 9.2

Mean

3.0

2.6

1.5

0.4

-0.6

-1.6

-2.0

Q10. Norm Curve for group size

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

Four Six Eight Ten

Group Size

Twelve Fourteen Sixteen

Q11A. Gender

Female

Frequency

157

Percent

46.9

Male

N = 335

Q11B. Age

178 53.1


Under 20

20-25

9

36

2.7

10.8

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

49

42

46

53

49

51-55

56-60

61-65

28

10

7

8.4

3.0

2.1

Older than 65 5 1.5

N = 333; Mean = 44.5; Median = 39

14.7

12.6

13.8

15.9

14.7

Q11C. Education

Some high school

High school graduate or GED

Business school, trade school, some college

College graduate

Some graduate school

Masters, doctoral, or professional degree

N = 336

Q11D. Income

Less than $20,000


32 10.0


5 1.5

16

45

96

37

137

4.8

13.4

28.6

11.0

40.8

$20,000 to $39,999

$40,000 to $59,999

$60,000 to $79,999

$80,000 to $99,999

$100,000 or more

N = 321

33

50

53

52

101

10.3

15.6

16.5

16.2

31.5

ZION DAY USE (PERMITTED) BACKCOUNTRY SURVEY

– 2002

Purpose:













Methods:



Mailback survey of a representative sample of 204 visitors (78% response rate) receiving permits to hike in backcounty canyons from July through

October of 2002.

Findings:












Q1. Group size

3

4

5

6

7


1 14 7.0

2 61 30.3

27

22

18

14

5

13.4

10.9

9.0

7.0

2.5

8

9

10

11

8

9

7

6

4.0

4.5

3.5

3.0

12 10 5.0

N = 201; Mean = 4.6; Median = 3

Q2. Group type

Family

Friends

Family and friends

Organized group


60 30.9

62 32.0

52

13

Other

N = 194

Q2. Other

7


26.8

6.7

3.6

85.7

14.3

Alone 6

Couple

N = 7

1

Q3. Residence

US resident

Non-US resident

N = 199


187

12

94.0

6.0



Utah

California

Colorado

Nevada

Arizona

105

22

7

6

5

56.1

11.8

3.7

3.2

2.7

Vermont

Washington

Idaho

Michigan

New Jersey

Oregon

Florida

Maryland

5

4

3

3

3

3

2

2

2.7

2.1

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.1

1.1

Massachusetts

Montana

Ohio

Illinois

Kansas

Louisiana

Minnesota

New Mexico

New York

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Virginia

Wisconsin

1

1

1

1

Wyoming 1

N = 187


1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

Canada

Germany

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

N = 12


8 66.7

2 16.7

1

1

8.3

8.3

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.1

1.1

1.1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5


Scenery/ views/ beauty/ natural features

Adventure/ activity/ challenge/ recreation

Few people/ un-crowded/ solitude

Peace/ quiet

Camaraderie/ friendly people


159

66

51

13

11

80.7

33.5

25.9

6.6

5.6

Miscellaneous

Wildlife

Facilities/ services/ cleanliness

Undeveloped/ wildness

N = 197


8

7

6

6

4.1

3.6

3.0

3.0

Too many people/ crowds

Nothing

Lack of or condition of facilities/ services


32 17.9

31

23

17.3

12.8

Personal preparedness

Litter/ un-cleanliness

Weather/ insects/ rodents

Management practices/ policies

Information/ education/ signs

Miscellaneous

Transportation/ parking

N = 179

Q6. NPS recommendations

21

18

17

14

11

9

8

11.7

10.1

9.5

7.8

6.1

5.0

4.5

Mentions need for more or better info/ education/ signs

Nothing/ keep up the good work

Mentions concern for management practices/ polices

Mentions need for more, better, or change in facilities/ development/ services

Mentions need to limit number of people

Miscellaneous

N = 175

Q7A. First permit

Yes


No

N = 200

101

99

50.5

49.5


48

40

35

29

25

9

27.4

22.9

20.0

16.6

14.3

5.1

Q7B. Changed for the better

No change/ same

More facilities/ services/ development

Miscellaneous

Transportation/ shuttle


Fewer people

N = 84

Q7C. Changed for the worse

Nothing

Mentions condition of resources

Mentions crowds/ number of people

Mentions management practices/ policies

Mentions condition of facilities/ services

Miscellaneous

N = 84

Q7D. Changed visitation


42

13

12

7

6

5

50.0

15.5

14.3

8.3

7.1

6.0


30

23

13

10

7

4

35.7

27.4

15.5

11.9

8.3

4.8

Yes


37 40.2

No 55 59.8

N = 92

Q7E. How and why changed visitation

1. I visit less often because of increased crowding

2. I visit less often because of environmental deterioration

3. I visit different canyons because of increased crowding

4. I visit different canyons because of environmental deterioration

5. I visit during less busy times (e.g., week days, off-season) because of increased crowding

6. I have changed how I visit this canyon in some other way.

Yes No

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

37 40.2 55 59.8

7 18.9 30 81.1

26

9

66.7

24.3

13

28

33.3

75.7

36

12

85.7

44.4

6

15

14.3

55.6

Q7E. Other

Prices/ permit system/ regulations

Different times

Different activities

Different locations

Different friends

Smaller groups

Miscellaneous

N = 18


9

3

2

1

1

1

1

50.0

16.7

11.1

5.6

5.6

5.6

5.6

Q8. Importance – Performance

Percent Percent a. Opportunity to experience solitude in the canyon 40.9 39.9 13.6 4.5 1.0 35.7 36.7 21.9 4.1 1.5 b. Opportunity to see few other visitors c. Opportunity to avoid seeing large groups of visitors in the canyon (groups greater than 12 visitors) d. Opportunity to avoid seeing organized groups of visitors in the canyon (e.g., clubs, scouts)

24.2

52.3

42.4

23.4

19.7

14.2

9.6

7.1

4.0

3.0

28.4

42.6

35.1

31.3

30.4

16.9

5.2

7.2

1.0

2.1

29.6 18.9 29.1 12.2 10.2 34.4 34.4 23.3 6.3 1.6 e. Opportunity to avoid seeing commercial groups of visitors in the canyon (i.e., groups where visitors pay to participate) 45.2 18.8 20.3 f. Opportunity to avoid seeing a lot of recreation-related impact in the canyon 49.0 28.8 13.1

9.1

6.6

6.6

2.5

42.7

36.8

26.6

43.0

25.5

15.5

3.6

3.6

1.6

1.0 g. Opportunity to avoid seeing and/or hearing aircraft h. Opportunity to use the park's shuttle bus system to get to and from trailheads i. Opportunity to avoid seeing evidence of recent fires (either naturally ignited fires or management prescribed burns)

26.0 29.1 25.5 11.7

28.6

11.4

30.7

14.0

24.5

43.0

8.9

15.0

7.7 36.6 27.7 30.4 4.2 1.0

7.3

16.6

40.4

31.9

21.9

32.4

25.1

34.1

7.1

1.1

5.5

0.5

Figure 2. Importance-performance graph

5

4

3

2 c f a b h e g d i

1

1 2 3

Importance

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

Q9A. Number of groups encountered

Number of groups Frequency Percent

0 33 17.4

29

29

34

25

15

15.3

15.3

17.9

13.2

7.9

4

2

1

1

10

12

5

2

15 1

20 or more 9

N = 190; Mean = 9.8; Median = 3

2.1

1.1

0.5

0.5

2.6

1.1

0.5

4.7

4 5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1

2

3

4

Q9A. Number of people encountered

Number of people Frequency Percent

0 26 13.5

4

6

6

11

2.1

3.1

3.1

5.7

6

15

6

3

3

15

2

3.1

7.8

3.1

1.6

1.6

7.8

1.0

16

17

18

19

12

13

14

15

6

1

3

8

4

1

1

1

3.1

0.5

1.6

4.2

2.1

0.5

0.5

0.5

20 19 9.9

More than 20 45 23.4

N = 192; Mean = 27.5; Median = 10

Q9B. Expected

Fewer than expected

More than expected

About the number expected

N = 195

Q9C. Preferred


71 36.4

28

96

14.4

49.2

Fewer than preferred

More than preferred

About the number preferred

N = 192


17

59

116

8.9

30.7

60.4

Q10. Acceptability of maximum group size

Very

Unacceptable

Very

Acceptable

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 a. Four b. Six

N Percent

194 20.6 1.0 0.0 0.5 3.1 1.0 3.6 6.2 63.9

195 14.4 3.1 2.1 1.5 8.2 5.1 5.1 13.3 47.2 c. Eight d. Ten

195 14.9 4.6 4.6 7.2 10.8 10.3 11.3 9.2 27.2

193 22.3 8.3 8.8 7.3 13.5 6.2 10.4 7.8 15.5 e. Twelve 194 33.5 5.2 11.3 4.6 13.9 4.6 6.2 4.1 16.5 f. Fourteen 193 49.2 8.8 10.4 4.7 6.7 4.7 3.6 3.6 8.3 g. Sixteen 194 63.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.7 4.6 3.1 2.1 7.2

Figure 2. Norm curve maximum group size

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

4

3

Four Six Eight Ten Twelve Fourteen Sixteen

Maximum Group Size

Q11A. Gender

Female


42 21.2

Male

N = 198

Q11B. Age

156 78.8


Under 20

20-29

30-39

4

58

48

2.0

29.1

24.1

40-49

50-59

51

36

25.6

18.1

Over 60 2 1.0

N = 199; Mean = 37.8; Median = 37

Q11C. Education

Some high school



College graduate


1 0.5

7

44

67

3.6

22.4

34.2



N = 196

Q11D. Income

17

60

8.7

30.6

Less than $20,000

$20,000 to $39,999

$40,000 to $59,999


19 9.9

37

34

19.4

17.8

$60,000 to $79,999

$80,000 to $99,999

$100,000 or more

N = 191

29

26

46

15.2

13.6

24.1

ZION OVERNIGHT BACKCOUNTRY SURVEY

– 2002

Purpose:













Methods:



Mailback survey of a representative sample of 133 visitors (74% response rate) receiving permits for overnight hikes in the park’s backcounty from

July through October of 2002.

Findings:












Q1. Group size

Group size Frequency Percent

1

2

3

4

18

74

15

12

4

8

13.7

56.5

11.5

9.2

3.1

6.1

5

More than 5

N = 131

Q2. Group type

Family

Friends

Family and Friends

Organized group

Other

N = 125

Q2. Other


57 45.6

49

5

2

12

39.2

4

1.6

9.6

Alone


10 83.3

16.7 Couple

N = 12

2

Q3. Residence

US resident

Non-US resident

N = 130


124

6

95.4

4.6



California

Utah

Texas

Oregon

Florida

27

23

7

7

5

21.8

18.5

5.6

5.6

4.0

Washington

Montana

Virginia

Arizona

Georgia

Idaho

Michigan

Nevada

5

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

4.0

3.2

3.2

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

North Carolina

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Massachusetts

Wisconsin

Colorado

Connecticut

District of Columbia

Kentucky

Maine

Maryland

Minnesota

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Mexico

New York

Oklahoma

Rhode Island

Vermont

N = 124

1


Canada

0.8


3 50.0

United Kingdom

Netherlands

N = 6

2

1

33.3

16.7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

2

2

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

2.4

2.4

2.4

1.6

1.6

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8


Scenery/ views/ beauty/ natural features

Few people/ un-crowded/ solitude

Facilities/ services/ cleanliness

Adventure/ activity/ challenge/ recreation

Peace/ quiet

Miscellaneous

Undeveloped/ wildness

Camaraderie/ friendly people

Wildlife

N = 129


Too many people/ crowds

Resource condition


92

49

28

17

16

15

9

7

5

71.3

38.0

21.7

13.2

12.4

11.6

7.0

5.4

3.9


20

16

17.5

14.0

Weather/ insects/ rodents

Lack of or condition of facilities/ services

Personal preparedness

Shuttle service/ transportation/ parking


Nothing

Miscellaneous

Un-cleanliness/ litter

15

15

14

11

10

8

5

3

13.2

13.2

12.3

9.6

8.8

7.0

4.4

2.6

Aircraft over-flights

N = 114

Q6. NPS recommendations

2 1.8

Mentions need for more, better, or change in facilities/ development/ services

Mentions need for more or better info/ education/ signs

Nothing/ keep up the good work

Mentions concern for management practices/ polices

Mentions need to limit number of people

Miscellaneous

N = 106

Q7A. First overnight trip

Yes


No

N = 131

101

30

77.1

22.9


29 27.4

24

18

22.6

17.0

16

12

11

15.1

11.3

10.4

Q7B. Changed for better

Nothing


11 44.0

Shuttle system

Change in policies

Fewer people

5

2

2

20.0

8.0

8.0

Information/education

Less traffic

Facilities/services

Miscellaneous

N = 25

Q7C. Changed for worse

Nothing

Number of people

2

1

1

1

8.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Management practices/policies

Miscellaneous

Level of impact

N = 21

Q7D. Changed visitation


7

4

33.3

19.0

4

4

2

19.0

19.0

9.5

Yes


15 55.6

No

N = 27

12 44.4

Q7E. How and why changed visitation

6. I have changed how I visit in some other way

Yes No

1. I visit less often because of increased crowding

2. I visit less often because of deterioration of trails and/or campsites

3. I visit different areas of the backcountry because of increased crowding

4. I visit different areas of the backcountry because of deterioration of trails and/or campsites

5. I visit during less busy times (e.g., week days, off-season) because of increased crowding

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

4 26.7 11 73.3

1

11

3

10

6.3

68.8

18.8

62.5

15

5

13

6

93.8

31.3

81.3

37.5

5 41.7 7 58.3

Q7E. Other

Away from RV users

I visit in a drier season

More canyoneering for challenge and solitude

Time of year due to weather conditions

N = 4


1

1

25.0

25.0

1

1

25.0

25.0

Q8. Importance – Performance

Importance Performance a. Opportunity to experience solitude b. Opportunity to see few other visitors while hiking c. Opportunity to see or hear few other groups camped around you d. Opportunity to avoid seeing large groups of visitors (groups greater than 12 people) e. Opportunity to avoid seeing organized groups of visitors (e.g. clubs, scouts) f. Opportunity to avoid seeing commercial groups of visitors (I.e., groups where visitors pay to participate) g. Opportunity to use trails that do not show a lot of recreation-related impact h. Opportunity to use campsites that do not show a lot of recreation-related impact i. Opportunity to avoid seeing and/or hearing aircraft j. Opportunity to use the park's shuttle bus system to get to and from trailheads k. Opportunity to avoid seeing evidence of recent fires (either naturally ignited fires or management prescribed burns)

53.0

36.4

56.1

50.0

36.6

44.7

41.7

41.7

31.1

35.9

9.8 18.9

43.2

47.7

31.1

35.6

27.5

27.3

38.6

40.2

33.3

32.1

3.8

9.1

6.8

12.1

27.5

0.0

6.1

3.8

0.8

6.1

22.7

16.7

15.2

22.0

21.4

2.3

2.3

1.5

10.6

6.1

0.0

0.8 41.7

2.3 66.4

1.5

2.3

3.0

0.8

53.5

59.1

50.0

57.9

36.0

1.5 45.2

3.0 32.5

4.6 50.4

41.7 17.4 12.1 38.4

36.2

33.1

23.4

26.0

29.4

7.9

19.7

7.8

12.6

18.3

26.2

36.8

33.3

34.9

17.9

14.3

22.4

18.3

23.0

15.4

1.6

4.8

3.2

7.9

11.1

28.8 30.4 1.6

2.4

5.5

1.6

2.4

2.4

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.6

5.1

0.8

Figure 1. Importance-performance graph

5

4

3

2 a g h c d b f e j i k

1

1 2 3

Importance

Q9B. Number of groups encountered

N Mean Median

Day/Night 1 Hiking

Camping

127

123

3.3

0.2

Day/Night 2 Hiking

Camping

84

40

14.5

0.6

2

0

3

0

Day/Night 3 Hiking

Camping

19

11

Day/Night 4 Hiking 7

Camping 3

Q9C. Hiking expectations

2.5

0.2

19.0

0.0

2

0

3

0


Less than expected

More than expected


N = 127

Q9D. Hiking preferences

Less than preferred

More than preferred


N = 128

64

13

50

50.4

10.2

39.4


6 4.7

37

85

28.9

66.4

4 5

Less than expected

More than expected


N = 127

Q9E. Camping expectations


75

9

43

59.1

7.1

33.9

Q9F. Camping preferences


Less than preferred

More than preferred


N = 125

Q10A. Off-trail hiking

Yes


46 35.7

8

8

109

6.4

6.4

87.2

No 83 64.3

N = 129

Q10B. Number of people seen while hiking off-trail

Number of people Frequency Percent

0 31 62.0

1

2

3

4

6

10

2

5

3

6

1

1

4.0

10.0

6.0

12.0

2.0

2.0

11

N = 50

1 2.0

Q11. Acceptability of maximum group size

Very

Unacceptable

Very

Acceptable a. Four b. Six c. Eight

N -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

126 5.6 0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.8 4.8 4.8 81.0

127 3.9 1.6 0.8 0.8 11.0 8.7 13.4 14.2 45.7

126 12.7 2.4 4.0 7.1 18.3 18.3 8.7 11.9 16.7 d. Ten 126 26.2 4.8 9.5 10.3 20.6 8.7 7.1 5.6 7.1 e. Twelve 125 38.4 7.2 16.8 8.8 12.8 3.2 2.4 4.0 6.4 f. Fourteen 126 63.5 11.9 7.1 7.1 4.0 0.8 2.4 0.0 3.2 g. Sixteen 125 72.8 6.4 8.8 3.2 2.4 2.4 1.6 0.0 2.4

Figure 1. Norm curve for maximum group size

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

Four Six Eight Ten Twelve Fourteen Sixteen

Maximum Group Size

Q12A. Gender

Female


47 35.9

Male

N = 131

Q12B. Age

84 64.1


Under 20

20-29

30-39

3

45

50

2.3

34.4

38.2

40-49

50-59

19

12

60 or older 2

N = 131

Q12C. Education

14.5

9.2

1.5

Some high school



College graduate



N = 132


1 0.8

4

26

3.0

19.7

52

10

39

39.4

7.6

29.5

Q12D. Income

Less than $20,000

$20,000 to $39,999

$40,000 to $59,999

$60,000 to $79,999

$80,000 to $99,999

$100,000 or more

N = 127


19 15.0

21

19

20

17

31

16.5

15.0

15.7

13.4

24.4

Purpose:

COMPUTER SIMULATION MODEL OF VISITOR USE

– 2002



Collect detailed measures of trail use in the Weeping Rock area



Develop a computer-based simulation model of visitor use in the Weeping

Rock area.



Determine the effect of increased use levels on visitor encounters

Methods:



Visitor hiking routes and times on each portion of the trail system were sampled using a map and diary survey during July and August, 2002. A total of 106 map and diary surveys were completed and useable for a response rate of 58%.



Counts of visitors entering the Weeping Rock area on 5 days in July and

August 2002.



Directional counts of the number of visitors getting on and off shuttle buses at the Weeping Rock stop for 3 days in July, 2002.

Findings:



Data on sections of trial used by visitors, number of visitor arrivals during each half hour of the day, and shuttle bus embarkation and debarkation are presented in the tables below.



A computer simulation model of the Weeping Rock area was developed



Encounters levels on each section of trail based on survey data are presented in tables below.



Model output of number of simulated encounters are presented for four different total use levels.

1:30-2

2-2:30

2:30-3

3-3:30

3:30-4

4-4:30

4:30-5

5-5:30

5:30-6

6-6:30

6:30-7

7-7:30

Daily Use of Weeping Rock Area Across Five Days

July 6 July 12 July 15 July 23 August 4 Average

8-8:30

8:30-9:00

9:00-9:30

3

2

10

30

4

8

0

5

4

15

7

12

15

7.3

12.0

6.6

9:30-10:00

10-10:30

10:30-11

11-11:30

11:30-12

12-12:30

12:30-1

1-1:30

14

15

9

11

3

2

5

1

13

14

20

9

5

2

9

16

13

9

0

5

7

0

0

9

2

5

13

13

0

5

6

3

12

28

1

8

11

5

7

5

10.8

14.2

8.6

9.2

5.2

2.8

5.4

6.8

7:30-8

Total

3

8

0

0

2

3

8

7

0

0

2

2

100

15

2

13

4

0

3

5

2

2

4

0

0

2

184

12

6

7

10

2

5

2

11

2

0

0

0

1

114

0

3

1

0

1

2

0

0

6

0

1

7

94

12

1

5

4

6

5

7

3

0

3

0

0

2

152

2.0

1.4

0.6

1.8

1.7

132.4

8.4

4.0

5.2

3.6

2.2

3.6

4.4

4.6

Average Number of Groups Starting Hikes in the Weeping Rock Area

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

8-8

:3

0

8:

30

-9

:0

0

9:

00

-9

:3

0

9:

30

-1

0:

00

10

-1

0:

30

10

:3

0-1

1

11

-1

1:

30

11

:3

0-1

2

12

-1

2:

30

12

:3

0-1

1-1

:3

0

1:

30

-2

2-2

:3

0

2:

30

Time of Day

-3

3-3

:3

0

3:

30

-4

4-4

:3

0

4:

30

-5

5-5

:3

0

5:

30

-6

6-6

:3

0

6:

30

-7

7-7

:3

0

7:

30

-8

Route Survey Results

Average Hiking times

Trail Section A

N

212

Average

Hiking Time

(minutes)

19.0

Trail Section B

Trail Section C

135

61

21.9

46.3

Trail Section D

Average Number of Encounters

50 45.8

Average

Number of

Encounters

Trail Section A

N

192 9.4

Trail Section B 129 10.2

Trail Section C 66 7.4

Trail Section D 48 9.0

Simulation model outputs based on 10 days at each use level

Summary Outputs for All the Trails

Total Use

Approximate Proportion to 2002

Mean (128 people per day)

64.8

0.5

130.9

1

Encounters per visitor per trip

Mean 17.6 35.1

261.2

2

70.9

512.6

4

137.1

Std. Dev. 8.8

Std. Dev. 7.2

15.5

Encounters per visitor per hour

Mean 11.0 22.4

14.3

30.7

46.7

29.4

57.6

90.8

55.0

Average Encounters per Visitor per Pass, by Segment

Trail Section A

Trail Section B

Trail Section C

Trail Section D

64.8

4.3

4.2

3.1

2.7

Total Uses

130.9 261.2

8.6

8.3

6.3

5.6

17.8

16.7

12.5

11.1

512.6

34.3

32.3

24.7

21.2

Average Segment Use per Day

Trail Section A

64.85

129.7

Total Uses

130.9

261.8

261.25 512.6

522.5 1025.2

Trail Section B 88.9 175.9 348.5 683.2

Trail Section C 40.6

Trail Section D 31.1

82.5

63.8

161.2

125.9

317.6

241.4

Daily Use of Shuttle Bus at Weeping Rock - Northbound

July 7

Off

July 7

On

July 12 July 12 July 15 July 15

Off On Off On

8:00-8:59

9:00-9:59

10:00-10:59

11:00-11:59

12:00-12:59

1:00-1:59

2:00-2:59

3:00-3:59

4:00-4:59

5:00-5:59

6:00-6:59

7:00-7:59

Total

100

56

80

42

18

666

61

90

62

69

5

56

44

83

36

43

44

20

467

70

45

83

56

0

11

10

49

90

42

32

19

679

47

82

45

38

44

48

99

93

36

44

21

16

432

51

54

48

35

7

17

36

67

Average Shuttle Bus Use - Northbound

51

43

44

21

657

51

79

76

53

28

49

68

94

41

26

39

14

456

44

76

45

60

5

19

38

49

90

80

70

40

30

20

60

50

10

0

8:00-8:59 9:00-9:59 10:00-10:59 11:00-11:59 12:00-12:59 1:00-1:59 2:00-2:59 3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00-7:59

Time of Day

Off

On

8:00-8:59

9:00-9:59

10:00-10:59

11:00-11:59

12:00-12:59

1:00-1:59

2:00-2:59

3:00-3:59

4:00-4:59

5:00-5:59

6:00-6:59

7:00-7:59

Total

Daily Use of Shuttle Bus at Weeping Rock - Southbound

July 7

Off

2

4

33

34

46

25

29

27

42

11

31

8

292

July 7

On

2

8

46

60

89

39

29

61

54

67

57

22

534

July 12 July 12 July 15 July 15

Off On Off On

0

6

39

23

15

4

16

19

20

47

32

20

241

13

13

40

41

48

64

61

29

23

37

44

34

447

3

6

26

55

58

20

88

39

49

25

25

12

406

2

18

24

65

53

71

73

109

53

75

39

24

606

70

Average Shuttle Bus Use - Southbound

30

20

10

60

50

40

0

8:00-8:59 9:00-9:59 10:00-10:59 11:00-11:59 12:00-12:59 1:00-1:59 2:00-2:59

Time of Day

3:00-3:59 4:00-4:59 5:00-5:59 6:00-6:59 7:00-7:59

Off

On

ZION DAY USE (NON-PERMITTED) THE GROTTO

– 2003

Purpose:






Determine standards of quality for selected indicator variables



Measure visitor attitudes toward selected management actions

Methods:



On-site survey of a representative sample of 159 visitors (80% response rate) as they exited the Grotto trailhead during July and August of 2003.

Findings:






A range of potential standards of quality for relevant indicator variables are shown in the tables below

Zion National Park Backcountry Visitor Survey 2003

Grotto (On-Site Survey)

Q1 How many people are in your group today?

1

2

Frequency

13

83

3

4

17

21

5 3

6

7

3

4

8

9

10

4

3

2

12

14

2

1

15 1

28 1

Mean = 3.4 Median = 2.0

Q2 Which of the following best describes your group?

Percent

8.2

52.5

10.8

13.3

1.9

1.9

2.5

2.5

1.9

1.3

1.3

0.6

0.6

0.6

Family

Friends

Family and friends

Organized group

Commercial group

Other

Q3A Do you live in the United States?

Frequency Percent

93 59.6

29 18.6

11

4

7

12

7.1

2.6

4.5

7.7

Yes

No

Frequency

122

33

Percent

78.7

21.3

Q3B If yes, which state do you live in?

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Q3C If no, what country do you live in?

United Kingdom

Canada

Germany

Netherlands

France

Ireland

Italy

Switzerland

Holland

Australia

Austria

Spain

New Zealand

Kazakhstan

Frequency

2

1

11

1

4

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

Percent

6.7

3.3

36.7

3.3

13.3

6.7

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

6.7

3.3

2

4

25

2

2

2

3

1

7

1

1

7

3

8

Frequency

1

5

25

4

4

2

2

1

1

1

8

2

1

1.6

3.2

20.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

0.8

5.6

2.4

6.4

2.4

0.8

5.6

0.8

Percent

0.8

4.0

20.0

3.2

3.2

1.6

1.6

0.8

0.8

0.8

6.4

1.6

0.8

Q4A1 We would like to know how many other hikers you think it is acceptable to see without this trail being too crowded. Please rate the acceptability of each of the following numbers of other hikers seen per day along this trail. A r ating of “-4” means the number of other groups seen is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the number of other groups seen is very acceptable.

See no hikers

See up to 20 hikers

-4

8.9

0.0

-3

4.4

1.4

-2

7.4

0.0

-1

3.7

3.5

0

0.7

5.7

1

3.7

3.5

2

9.6

11.3

3

3.0

19.1

4

58.5

55.3

Mean

2.0

3.0

See up to 40 hikers 2.8 1.4 2.1 2.8 10.6 7.7 19.0 22.5 31.0 2.2

See up to 60 hikers 4.3 2.9 10.0 7.9 15.7 17.1 14.3 11.4 16.4 .9

See up to 80 hikers 11.3 11.3

31.4 8.2

11.3

8.2

11.3

8.8

8.8

8.8 See up to 100 hikers

8.2 11.9 8.2

5.0 8.2 3.8

6.3

5.7

-.4

-1.4

Social Norm Curve for Number of Hikers Seen per Day

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

0 20 40 60 80 100

40

41

50

60

20

25

30

35

6

10

12

15

0

1

2

5

Q4B What is the number of other hikers per day that you would prefer to see along this trail?

Frequency

4

Percent

2.7

1

1

2

2

0.7

0.7

1.4

1.4

12

1

7

24

8.1

0.7

4.7

16.2

9

13

1

6.1

8.8

0.7

30

1

11

8

20.3

0.7

7.4

5.4

70

80

100

150

1

3

11

3

0.7

2.0

7.4

2.0

200

250

1,000


1

1

1

0.7

0.7

0.7

Q4C What is the maximum number of other hikers per day that you think you could see before you would no longer hike this trail? If you would continue to hike this trail regardless of the number of other groups seen, you may indicate that.

75

80

90

100

150

200

210

40

50

60

70

15

20

25

250

300

400

500

I would continue to hike this trail regardless of the number of other hikers seen.

Mean = 126.7 Median = 100.0

Frequency

1

2

1

3

9

7

28

8

16

1

1

1

9

1

2

1

2

2

55

Percent

0.7

1.3

0.7

2.0

6.0

4.7

0.7

0.7

6.0

0.7

18.7

5.3

10.7

0.7

1.3

0.7

1.3

1.3

36.7

Q4D What is the maximum number of other hikers seen per day that the National Park Service should allow on this trial? In other words, at what point should visitors be restricted from hiking this trail? If the number of hikers should not be restricted, you may indicate that.

70

80

99

100

150

180

200

40

45

50

60

4

20

30

250

300

400

500

600

1000

The number of hikers on this trail should not be restricted.

Mean = 175.1

Frequency

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

2

6

1

17

3

1

10

1

4

3

2

2

1

83 56.1

Median = 100.0

Percent

0.7

0.7

1.4

1.4

0.7

2.0

1.4

1.4

4.1

0.7

11.5

2.0

0.7

6.8

0.7

2.7

2.0

1.4

1.4

.07

65

70

75

80

45

50

60

61

30

35

39

40

8

10

20

25

1

2

5

7

Q4E What is the approximate number of other hikers you saw today while hiking this trail?

Frequency

1

Percent

0.7

1

1

1

1

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

3

15

3

15

2.0

9.8

2.0

9.8

2

1

16

1.3

0.7

10.5

2

33

16

1

1.3

21.6

10.5

0.7

1

3

3

8

0.7

2.0

2.0

5.2

85

100

120

150

1

14

1

5

0.7

9.2

0.7

3.3

160

200

500

Mean = 59.7

Q4: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Median = 50.0

Mean

47.1

126.7

175.1

59.7

73.8

1

3

1

Median

30.0

100.0

100.0

50.0

0.7

2.0

0.7

Q4F Approximately how long did you spend hiking on this trail today?

202

205

210

225

240

265

270

280

135

150

165

168

179

180

190

200

24

30

45

60

90

105

120

130

Minutes

3

5

15

20

21

300

320

360

420

450

Mean = 184.6 Median = 180.0

1

8

1

7

1

16

1

27

1

1

1

1

35

2

1

1

15

2

1

1

Frequency

4

1

1

1

1

3

1

7

2

1

3

1

3

2

0.6

10.3

0.6

17.4

0.6

5.2

0.6

4.5

9.7

1.3

0.6

0.6

22.6

1.3

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

Percent

2.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

1.9

1.9

0.6

1.9

1.3

0.6

4.5

1.3

0.6

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

Q5A1 The National Park Service can develop and maintain trails at different levels to accommodate more hikers and minimize environmental impacts of hiking. We would like to know what level of trail development/maintenance would be acceptable on this trail. To judge this, we have a series of photographs that show different levels of trail development/maintenance. Please rate each photograph by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the level of trail development/maintenance shown. A rating of “-4” means the level of trail development/mai ntenance is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the level of trail development/maintenance is very acceptable.

Photo 1

Photo 2

-4

9.7

2.0

-3

6.5

3.3

-2

6.5

2.6

-1

3.2

8.5

0

9.0

9.2

1

7.7

9.8

2

9.7

12.4

3

16.1

17.0

4

31.6

35.3

Mean

1.3

2.0

Photo 3

Photo 4

1.3 0.0 0.7 3.3 5.3 12.5 14.5 21.7 40.8 2.6

4.6 6.6 5.9 1.3 11.2 8.6 13.2 13.2 35.5 1.7

Social Norm Curve for Level of Trail Development/Maintenance

4

Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4

Q5B Which photograph shows the level of trail development/ maintenance that you would prefer to see on this trail?

1

Frequency

14

Percent

9.7

2 38 26.4

3 52 36.1

4 40 27.8


Q5C Which photograph shows the level of trail development/maintenance that is so unacceptable that you would no longer hike on this trail? If none of the photographs represents this condition, you may indicate that.

1

Frequency

17

Percent

11.1

2 3 2.0

3 0 0

4 11 7.2

None of the photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer hike on this trail.

122

Median = 1.0 Mean = 2.2

79.7

Q5D Which photograph shows the highest level of trail development/ maintenance that the National Park Service should allow on this trail?

In other words, at what point should people be restricted from hiking this trail instead of developing/maintaining the trail to a higher level? If visitor use should not be restricted at any point represented in the photographs, or not restricted at all, you may indicate that.

1

2

Frequency

2

Percent

1.4

3

4

7

29

31

5.1

21.0

22.5

None of the photographs show a high enough level of trail development/maintenance to restrict people from hiking this trail.

The number of people hiking this trail should not be restricted

37

32

26.8

23.2


Q5E Which photograph looks most like the level of trail development/maintenance you typically saw today on this trail?

1

2

3

4

Frequency

3

6

14

117

Median = 4.0

Percent

2.1

4.3

9.9

83.0

Mean = 3.8

Q5: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Mean

2.8

2.2

3.3

3.8

N/A

Median

Q6 How crowded did you feel on this trail today?

1 (Not at all crowded)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 (Extremely crowded)

Mean = 3.4

Frequency

31

28

31

22

16

16

8

3

0

Median = 3.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

4.0

Percent

20.0

18.1

20.0

14.2

10.3

10.3

5.2

1.9

0

Q7A We are interested in the type of management you think is appropriate on this trail.

Please indicate the degree to which you support or oppose the following management actions for this trail.

Mean

Increase trail markers to make route finding easier

Increase trail markers to reduce shortcutting and other impacts to natural resources

Pave or apply gravel to trails to reduce resource impacts

Pave or apply gravel to trails to allow more hikers to use the trail

Restrict visitor use through a permit system to ensure opportunities for solitude

Restrict visitor use through a permit system to protect natural resources

Implement short-term area closures for the protection of sensitive resources

Strongly oppose

(1)

Oppose Support Strongly support

(2) (3) (4)

Don’t

Know

12.6

8.8

10.7

22.6

32.1

17.6

10.7

33.3

18.9

27.0

35.8

37.1

34.6

13.8

32.1

35.8

32.7

25.2

14.5

27.7

45.9

10.1

27.7

18.9

8.2

6.3

11.3

23.3

8.8

6.3

6.9

6.3

6.9

5.7

5.0

2.5

2.9

2.7

2.2

1.9

1.4

2.9

ZION DAY USE (NON-PERMITTED) NARROWS

– 2003

Purpose:










Methods:



On-site survey of a representative sample of 213 visitors (88% response rate) as they exited the Narrows trailhead during July and August of 2003.

Findings:








Virgin River Narrows (On-site Survey)


5

6

7

8

9

10

12

18

1

2

3

4

Frequency

4

92

28

40

18

11

5

4

2

3

1

1

19

20

Mean = 4.0

1

1

Median = 3.0


Percent

1.9

43.2

13.1

18.8

8.5

5.2

2.3

1.9

0.9

1.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Family

Friends

Family and friends

Organized group

Commercial group


Frequency Percent

139 66.8

38 18.3

19

3

9

9.1

1.4

4.3

Yes

No

Frequency

166

43

Percent

79.4

20.6


Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Illinois

Indiana

Kansas

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

0.6

3.7

1.9

1.2

1.9

0.6

0.6

1.2

1.9

3.1

3.7

0.6

3.1

8.1

0.6

1.2

2.5

16.1

3.1

1.9

Percent

0.6

0.6

6.2

19.3

1.2

1.9

5.6

2.5

0.6

0.6

1.9

0.6

0.6

3

1

1

2

1

6

3

2

4

26

5

3

5

13

1

2

3

5

6

1

Frequency

1

1

10

31

2

1

3

1

1

3

9

4

1


United Kingdom

Korea

Canada

Germany

Netherlands

France

Italy

Mexico

Switzerland

Belgium

Holland

Australia

Isreal

Austria

England

Czech Republic

Spain

New Zealand

China

Frequency

3

1

3

9

1

1

3

1

8

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2.2

2.2

4.4

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

Percent

6.7

2.2

6.7

20.0

17.8

11.1

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

6.7

2.2

Q4A1 We would like to know how many other hikers you think it is acceptable to see in the Zion Narrows without it being too crowded. To help judge this, we have a series of photographs that show different numbers of hikers in this area. Please rate each photograph by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the number of people shown. A rating of “-4” means the number of people is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the number of people is very acceptable.

-4

Photo 1 (0) 6.6

Photo 2 (6) 0

Photo 3 (12) 0.5

Photo 4 (18) 4.3

Photo 5 (24) 17.4

Photo 6 (30) 17.4

Photo 7 (36) 62.5

-3

1.4

0.9

0.0

0.9

11.1

11.1

13.0

-2

2.8

1.9

2.4

6.2

18.4

18.4

7.7

-1

0.5

0.9

2.4

6.6

14.0

14.0

3.4

0

3.3

1.9

7.7

15.2

11.6

11.6

4.3

1

0.9

3.8

8.6

15.6

7.7

7.7

2.4

2

4.2

5.2

19.1

13.7

9.7

9.7

1.0

3

4.2

25.1

24.4

18.5

5.8

5.8

1.4

4

75.9

60.2

34.9

19.0

4.3

4.3

4.3

Mean

2.9

3.2

2.5

1.4

-.9

-2.2

-2.8

Social Norm Curve for Number of Hikers Seen

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

0 people 6 people 12 people 18 people 24 people 30 people 36 people

Q4B What photograph shows the number of people that you would prefer to see in this area?

Photo 1 (0)

Frequency

33

Percent

16.3

Photo 2 (6)

Photo 3 (12)

Photo 4 (18)

Photo 5 (24)

75

50

35

4

37.1

24.8

17.3

2.0

Photo 6 (30) 0 0

Photo 7 (36)

Mean = 2.6 (9.6 people)

5

Median = 2.0 (6 people)

Q4C Which photograph shows the number of people that is so unacceptable that you would no longer hike in this area?

2.5

Photo 1 (0)

Frequency

4

Percent

2.1

Photo 2 (6)

Photo 3 (12)

Photo 4 (18)

Photo 5 (24)

0

1

9

55

0

0.5

4.7

28.5

Photo 6 (30) 27 14.0

Photo 7 (36)

None of the photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer hike in this area.

58

39

Median = 6.0 (30 people) Mean = 5.8 (28.2 people)

30.1

20.2

Q4D Which photograph shows the highest number of people that the

National Park Service should allow in this area? In other words, at what point should people be restricted from hiking in this area?

Photo 1 (0)

Photo 2 (6)

Photo 3 (12)

Frequency

0

1

11

Percent

0

0.5

5.7

Photo 4 (18)

Photo 5 (24)

37

62

19.2

32.1

Photo 6 (30) 22 11.4

Photo 7 (36) 14 7.3

None of the photographs show enough hikers to restrict people from hiking in this area.

The number of people hiking this trail should not be restricted.


18 9.3

28 14.5


Q4E Which photograph looks most like the number of hikers you typically saw today in this area?

Photo 1 (0)

Frequency

2

Percent

1.0

Photo 2 (6)

Photo 3 (12)

Photo 4 (18)

Photo 5 (24)

Photo 6 (30)

Photo 7 (36)


26

51

72

30

13.3

26.0

36.7

15.3

12 6.1

3 1.5


Q4: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Mean

21.6 people

9.6 people

28.2 people

23.4 people

16.2 people

Median

N/A

6 people

30 people

24 people

18 people

Q5A How crowded did you feel in this area today?

1(Not at all crowded)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Mean = 3.8

Frequency

26

37

39

35

22

20

15

6

2

Median = 3.0

Percent

12.9

18.3

19.3

17.3

10.9

9.9

7.4

3.0

1.0

Q6 Please indicate the degree to which you support or oppose the following management actions for this trail.




Strongly oppose

(1)

Oppose Support Strongly

(2) (3) support

(4)

Don’t

Know

18.9 32.5

8.9 16.3

13.8 15.8

34.5

47.3

40.9

8.3

22.7

26.6

5.8

4.9

3.0

Mean

2.3

2.9

2.8

ZION DAY USE (NON-PERMITTED) WEEPING ROCK

– 2003

Purpose:










Methods:



On-site survey of a representative sample of 138 visitors (87% response rate) as they exited the Weeping Rock trailhead during July and August of

2003.

Findings:








Weeping Rock (On-Site Survey)

4

5

6

7

8

15

16

25

Q1 How many people are in your group today?

1

2

3

Frequency

21

63

14

Percent

15.2

45.7

10.1

18

11

4

3

1

1

1

1

Mean = 3.1

13.0

8.0

2.9

2.2

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

Median = 2

Q2 Which of the following best describes your group?

Frequency Percent

Family

Friends

77

30

57.9

22.6

Family and friends

Organized group

7

4

Other 15

Q3A Do you live in the United States?

5.3

3.0

11.3

Yes

No

Frequency

105

28

Percent

79.0

21.1

Q3B If yes, which state do you live in?

Frequency Percent

Arizona

California

8

22

8.3

22.7

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Hawaii

1

2

3

1

1.0

2.1

3.1

1.0

Illinois

Indiana

Kansas

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

3

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

3.1

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.1

1.0

3.1

1.0

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

1

2

6

1

2

5

3

1

2

2

4

1

11

3

1

2

2.1

2.1

4.1

1.0

11.3

3.1

1.0

2.1

1.0

2.1

6.2

1.0

2.1

5.2

3.1

1.0

Q3C If no, what country do you live in?

United Kingdom

Canada

Frequency

2

3

Percent

7.1

10.7

Germany

Netherlands

France

Italy

9

1

1

2

32.1

3.6

3.6

7.1

Belgium

Australia

Austria

England

Czech Republic

Denmark

Costa Rica

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

3.6

7.1

3.6

7.1

3.6

3.6

3.6

Columbia 1 3.6

Q4A When visitors hike, they can cause impacts to soil and vegetation. We would like to know how much impact is acceptable to see on the trail you just hiked. To help judge this, we have a series of

photographs that show different levels of impact to trails. (Please look at the photographs in Panel A.) Please rate each photograph by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the amount of impact shown. A rating of “-4” means the amount of impact is ve ry unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the amount of impact is very acceptable.

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Mean

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

0

1.5

18.5

64.0

2.2

1.5

19.3

11.8

0.7

8.2

24.4

5.9

0.7

4.5

11.9

2.9

1.5

11.9

10.4

5.2

7.4

21.6

3.0

2.2

7.4

22.4

5.9

1.5

23.5

15.7

3.7

5.2

56.6

12.7

3.0

1.5

3.1

1.3

-1.6

-2.8

Social Norm Curve for Level of Trail Impacts

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4


Q4B Which photograph shows the amount of environmental impact you would prefer to see on this trail?

Frequency Percent

1

2

107

14

83.6

10.9

3

4

3

4

2.3

3.1

Mean = 1.3

Q4C Which photograph shows the amount of environmental impact that is so unacceptable that you would no longer hike on this trail at Zion? If none of the photographs represent this condition, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

1

2

3

2

2

21

1.6

1.6

16.9

4 50 40.3

None of the photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer hike on this trail in Zion.

49 39.5

Mean = 3.6

Q4D Which photograph shows the highest level of environmental impact you think the National Park Service should allow on this trail at Zion? One way to limit the amount of environmental impact to trails is to limit the amount of use they receive. Which photograph shows the highest level of environmental impact you think the National Park Service should allow before it restricts people from hiking this trail? If visitor use should not be restricted at any point represented in the photographs, or not restricted at all, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

1 14 11.5

2

3

4

None of the photographs show a high enough level of environmental impact to restrict people from hiking this trail.


Mean = 2.3

61

29

11

3

4

50.00

23.8

9.0

2.5

3.3

Q4E Which photograph looks most like the amount of environmental impact you typically saw today on the trail?

Frequency Percent

1

2

3

4

75

36

7

4

61.5

29.5

5.7

3.3

Mean = 1.5

Q4: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Mean

1.3

3.6

2.3

2.5

Median

1.0

4.0

2.0

Typically Seen 1.5 1.0

Q5A The National Park Service can develop and maintain trails at different levels to accommodate more hikers and minimize environmental impacts of hiking. We would like to know what level of trail development/maintenance would be acceptable on this trail. To help judge this, we have a series of photographs that show different levels of trail development/maintenance.

(Please look at the photographs in Panel B.) Please rate each photograph by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the level of trail development/maintenance shown. A rating of “-4” means the level of trail development/maintenance is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the level of trail development/maintenance is very acceptable.

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Mean

Photo 1

Photo 2

0.8

1.6

3.9

1.6

3.9

3.2

4.7

1.6

2.4

5.6

13.4

9.6

7.9

18.4

14.2

20.8

48.8

37.6

2.4

2.4

Photo 3

Photo 4

0.8

8.7

1.6

8.7

0.8

8.7

3.2

3.2

6.4

11.9

9.6

11.9

16.0

8.7

36.0

8.7

25.6

29.4

2.4

0.9

Social Norm Curve for Level of Trail

Development/Maintenance

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

4

3

2

Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3

Q5B Which photograph shows the level of trail development/maintenance that you would prefer to see on this trail?

Frequency Percent

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

25

43

37

20.3

35.0

30.1

Photo 4 18 14.6

Mean = 2.4

Q5C Which photograph shows the level of trail development/maintenance that is so unacceptable that you would no longer hike on this trail? If none of the photographs represent this condition, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

3

4

4

2.3

3.1

3.1

4

No photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer hike.

Mean = 3.0

12

105

9.4

82.0

Photo 4

Q5D Which photograph shows the highest level of trail development/maintenance that the National Park Service should allow on this trail? In other words, at what point should people be restricted from hiking this trail instead of developing/maintaining the trails to a higher level? If visitor use should not be restricted at any point represented in the photographs, or not restricted at all, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

Photo 1

Photo 2

7

16

5.7

13.1

Photo 3

Photo 4

No photograph shows high enough development to restrict hikers.

No photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer hike.

Mean = 2.8

30

15

44

10

24.6

12.3

36.1

8.2

See up to 40 hikers

See up to 60 hikers

See up to 80 hikers

See up to 100 hikers

Q5E Which photograph looks most like the level of trail development/maintenance you typically saw today on this trail?

Frequency Percent

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

10

18

19

8.6

15.4

16.2

Photo 4 70 59.8

Mean = 3.3

Q5: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Mean

2.4

3.0

N/A

Median

2.0

3.5

Management Action

Typically Seen

Q6A We would like to know how many other hikers you think it is acceptable to see without this trail being too crowded. Please rate the acceptability of each of the following numbers of other hikers seen per day along this trail.

A rating of “-4” means the number of other groups seen is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the number of other groups seen is very acceptable.

-4 -3

2.8

3.3

-2 -1 0

4.0

4.0

1 2 3 4 Mean

See no hikers

See up to 20 hikers

3.1 1.6

0.8 0.00

4.7

0.8

0.8

0.8

6.3

3.8

2.3 2.3 6.3 72.7

6.9 10.7 29.0 47.3

2.9

3.0

6.3

13.8

1.6

1.6

0.00

11.4

5.5

13.8

13.4

12.2

22.7 13.3 15.6 12.5 13.3

44.6 10.0 15.4 6.2 10.8

18.1

18.7

7.0

2.3

19.7

11.4

5.5

3.1

20.5

8.9

4.7

1.5

15.0

8.1

5.5

6.2

1.4

0.0

-1.2

-2.1

Social Norm Curve for Number of Hikers Seen per

Day

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

0 20 40 60 80

60

80

100

30

34

40

50

10

15

20

25

Q6B What is the number of other hikers that you would prefer to see along this trail?

Frequency Percent

0

1

2

14

1

2

10.8

0.8

1.5

3

5

6

7

1

2

2

1

0.8

1.5

1.5

0.8

16

5

48

4

9

1

14

2

4

2

2

Mean = 21.8

12.3

3.8

36.9

3.1

6.9

0.8

10.8

1.5

3.1

1.5

1.5

Median = 20.0

100

50

60

75

80

100

120

150

20

25

30

40

Q6C What is the maximum number of other hikers you could see before you would no longer hike this trail? If you would continue to hike this trail regardless of the number of other hikers seen, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

6

10

1

1

0.8

0.8

5

1

3

13

3.8

0.8

2.3

10.0

6

16

1

10

19

1

1

4.6

12.3

0.8

7.7

14.6

0.8

0.8

200

237

300

1000

I would continue to hike this trail regardless of the number of other hikers seen.

Mean = 89.3

4

1

2

1

44

3.1

0.8

1.5

0.8

33.8

Median = 60.0

40

50

51

60

Q6D What is the maximum number of other hikers seen per day that the National Park Service should allow on this trail? In other words, at what point should visitors be restricted from hiking this trail? If the number of hikers should not be restricted, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

20

25

30

4

2

2

3.3

1.6

1.6

7

6

1

7

5.7

4.9

0.8

5.7

80

100

160

200

237

300

500

1000

The number of hikers on this trail should not be restricted.

Mean = 115.2

4

19

1

4

1

2

2

1

59

3.3

15.6

0.8

3.3

0.8

1.6

1.6

0.8

48.4

Median = 80.0

70

75

80

100

125

200

Q6: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

40

50

55

60

25

30

34

35

16

17

20

22

10

12

14

15

5

6

8

9

Q6E What is the approximate number of other hikers you saw today while hiking this trail?

Frequency Percent

3 2 1.5

4

4

2

1

3.0

3.0

1.5

0.7

11

8

1

9

1

1

40

2

8.2

6.0

0.7

6.7

0.7

0.7

29.9

1.5

Mean

21.8

89.3

115.2

25.1

9

18

1

1

9

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Mean = 25.1

60

Median

20.0

60.0

80.0

20.0

6.7

13.4

0.7

0.7

6.7

1.5

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

Median = 20.0

Q6F Approximately how long did you spend hiking on this trial today?

Minutes Frequency Percent

20

25

30

45

1

1

2

1

0.8

0.8

1.5

0.8

50

60

75

90

120

150

180

207

1

6

2

11

27

11

19

1

0.8

4.5

1.5

8.3

20.3

8.3

14.3

0.8

210

224

240

270

285

300

330

380

1

9

2

1

3

1

18

10

420

450

540

2

1

1

700 1

Mean = 185.3 Median = 180

2.3

0.8

13.5

7.5

0.8

6.8

1.5

0.8

1.5

0.8

0.8

0.8

Q7 How crowded did you feel along this trail today?

1 (Not at all Crowded)

2

3

Frequency

65

39

12

Percent

49.2

29.5

9.1

4

5

6

7

10

1

4

1

8


0

0

Mean = 1.9

7.6

0.8

3.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

Median = 2.0

Q8 We are interested in the type of management you think is appropriate on this trail. Please indicate the degree to which you support or oppose the following management actions for this trail.

Strongly

Oppose

(1)

Oppose

(2)

Support

(3)

Strongly

Support

(4)

Don't know

Mean

Increase trail markers to make route finding easier. 12.6 31.1 37.8 13.3 5.2 2.6

4.5 18.7 39.6 35.1 2.2 3.1 Increase trail markers to reduce short-cutting and other impacts to natural resources.

Pave or apply gravel to trails to reduce resource impacts.

Pave or apply gravel to trails to allow more hikers to use the trail.

Restrict visitor use through a permit system to ensure opportunities for solitude.

Restrict visitor use through a permit system to protect natural resources.

Implement short-term area closures for the protection of sensitive resources.

9.8

23.5

23.5

13.5

5.3

22.6

34.1

47.0

34.6

13.5

51.1

32.6

18.2

33.1

49.6

13.5

6.8

6.1

12.8

27.1

3.0

3.0

5.3

6.0

4.5

2.7

2.2

2.1

2.5

3.0

ZION DAY USE (PERMITTED) OVERNIGHT

– 2003

Purpose:






Determine Visitor standards of quality for the visitor experience



Measure visitor attitudes about selected management actions

Methods:



Mail-back survey of a representative sample of 91 visitors (44% response rate) who received a permit for an overnight hike in the summer and fall of

2003.

Findings:






The results of several close-ended questions designed to establish standards of quality for trail encounters, resource impacts, and appropriateness of different management actions are shown in the tables below.


Overnight (Mail-back Survey)


1

2

3

4

Frequency

20

56

5

4

5

7

8

Mean = 2.2

4

1

1

Median = 2.0


Percent

22.0

61.5

5.5

4.4

4.4

1.1

1.1

Family

Friends

Family and friends

Organized group

Commercial group

School group

Other


Frequency Percent

38 44.2

27 31.4

5

0

0

0

16

5.8

0

0

0

18.6

Yes

No

Frequency

81

10

Percent

89.0

11.0


Alaska

Arizona

California

Connecticut

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Kansas

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin


United Kingdom

Canada

Germany

Netherlands

Switzerland

Czech Republic

Frequency

1

2

11

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

1

7

1

4

4

16

5

1

1

Frequency

1

3

1

2

1

1

Percent

11.1

33.3

11.1

22.2

11.1

11.1

Percent

1.4

2.7

15.1

1.4

4.1

1.4

4.1

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

2.7

2.7

4.1

1.4

9.6

1.4

5.5

5.5

21.9

6.8

1.4

1.4

Q4A When visitors hike, they can cause impacts to soil and vegetation. We would like to know how much impact is acceptable to see on the backcountry trails you hiked. To help judge this, we have a series of photographs that show different levels of impact to trails. (Please look at the photographs in Panel A.)

Please rate each photograph by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the amount of impact shown. A rating of “-4” means the amount of impact is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the amount of impact is very acceptable.

Photo 1

-4

0

-3

1.1

-2

0

-1

1.1

0

2.2

1

2.2

2

15.4

3

27.5

4

50.5

Mean

3.1

Photo 2

Photo 3

17.6

41.8

12.1 13.2 14.3

20.9 16.5 7.7

8.8

2.2

13.2

3.3

9.9

4.4

8.8

2.2

2.2

1.1

-.8

-2.5

Photo 4 81.3 7.7 4.4 0 0 4.4 1.1 0 1.1 -3.5

Social Norm Curve for Trail Impacts

0

-1

2

1

4

3

-2

-3

-4


Q4B Which photograph shows the amount of environmental impact you would prefer to see on backcountry trails?

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Mean = 1.0

Frequency

85

1

0

0

Percent

98.8

1.2

0

0

Q4C Which photograph shows the amount of environmental impact that is so unacceptable that you would no longer hike on backcountry trails at

Zion? If none of the photographs represent this condition, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

0

4

21

34

0

4.7

24.4

39.5

None of the photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer hike on backcountry trails at Zion.

Mean = 3.5

27 31.4

Q4D Which photograph shows the highest level of environmental impact you think the National Park Service should allow on backcountry trails at Zion? One way to limit the amount of environmental impact to trails is to limit the amount of use they receive. Which photograph shows the highest level of environmental impact you think the National Park Service should allow before it restricts people from hiking backcountry trails? If visitor use should not be restricted at any point represented in the photographs, or not restricted at all, you may indicate that.

Photo 1

Frequency

31

Percent

36.0

Photo 2 37 43.0

Photo 3

Photo 4

None of the photographs show a high enough level of environmental impact to restrict people from hiking backcountry trails.

The number of people hiking backcountry trails should not be restricted.

Mean = 1.8

10

3

3

2

11.6

3.5

3.5

2.3

Q4E Which photograph looks most like the amount of environmental impact you typically saw on backcountry trails?

Frequency Percent

Photo 1 76 87.4

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

10

0

1

11.5

0

1.1

Mean = 1.2

Q4: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Mean

1.8

1.0

3.5

1.8

1.2

Median

1.0

4.0

2.0

1.0

Q5A . The National Park Service can develop and maintain trails at different levels to accommodate more hikers and minimize environmental impacts of hiking. We would like to know what level of trail development/maintenance would be acceptable on backcountry trails in Zion. To help judge this, we have a series of photographs that show different levels of trail development/maintenance. (Please look at the photographs in Panel B.) Please rate each photograph by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the level of trail development/maintenance shown. A rating of “-4” means the level of trail development/maintenance is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the level of trail development/maintenance is very acceptable.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

-4

0

1.1

3.3

30.8

-3

1.1

1.1

8.8

18.7

-2

4.4

0

5.5

5.5

-1

1.1

5.5

8.8

6.6

0

11.0

6.6

11.0

8.8

1

2.2

12.1

13.2

8.8

2

9.9

7.7

13.2

5.5

3

24.2

34.1

13.2

4.4

4

42.9

28.6

20.9

7.7

Mean

2.6

2.4

1.1

-1.4

Social Norm Curve for Trail Development/Maintenance

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4


Q5B Which photograph shows the level of trail development/maintenance that you would prefer to see on backcountry trails?

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Mean = 2.0

Frequency

27

34

22

1

Percent

32.1

40.5

26.2

1.2

Photo 4

Q5C Which photograph shows the level of trail development/maintenance that is so unacceptable that you would no longer hike on backcountry trails at Zion? If none of the photographs represent this condition, you may indicate that.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

None of the photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer hike on backcountry trails at Zion.

Mean = 3.7

Frequency

2

1

3

33

49

Percent

2.3

1.1

3.4

2.3

55.7

Q5D Which photograph shows the highest level of trail development/maintenance that the National Park Service should allow on backcountry trails? In other words, at what point should people be restricted from hiking backcountry trails instead of developing/maintaining the trails to a higher level? If visitor use should not be restricted at any point represented in the photographs, or not restricted at all, you may indicate that.

Photo 1

Frequency

2

Percent

2.3

Photo 2 22 25.6

Photo 3

Photo 4

None of the photographs show a high enough level of trail development/maintenance to restrict people from hiking backcountry trails.

The number of people hiking backcountry trails should not be restricted.

Mean = 2.7

32

8

15

7

37.2

9.3

17.4

8.1

Q5E Which photograph looks most like the level of trail development/maintenance you typically saw on backcountry trails?

Photo 1

Frequency

33

Percent

40.2

Photo 2 36 43.9

Photo 3

Photo 4

Mean = 1.8

9

4

11.0

4.9

Q5: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Mean Median

3.4

2.0 2.0

3.7

2.7

1.8

4.0

3.0

2.0

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

4

3

2

1

Photo 1

Social Norm Curve for Campsite Impacts


Q6A When visitors camp, they can cause impacts to soil and vegetation. We would like to know how much impact is acceptable to see in the backcountry campsites you used. To help judge this, we have a series of photographs that show different levels of impact to campsites. (Please look at the photographs in Panel C.) Please rate each photograph by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the amount of impact shown. A r ating of “-4” means the amount of impact is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the amount of impact is very acceptable.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

-4

0

1.1

7.7

51.6

-3

1.1

0

8.8

11.0

-2

1.1

2.2

19.8

8.8

-1

0

2.2

16.5

8.8

0

1.1

4.4

8.8

4.4

1

2.2

8.8

17.6

5.5

2

6.6

15.4

6.6

3.3

3

15.4

35.2

7.7

3.3

4

71.4

28.6

4.4

2.2

Mean

3.5

2.5

-.4

-2.4

Q6B Which photograph shows the amount of environmental impact you would prefer to see at backcountry campsites?

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Mean = 1.3

Frequency

65

19

2

2

Percent

73.9

21.6

2.3

2.3

Q6C Which photograph shows the amount of environmental impact that is so unacceptable that you would no longer use backcountry campsites at Zion? If none of the photographs represent this condition, you may indicate that.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

None of the photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer use backcountry campsites.

Mean = 3.6

Frequency

1

1

16

29

42

Percent

1.1

1.1

18.0

32.6

47.2

Q6D Which photograph shows the highest level of environmental impact you think the National Park Service should allow at backcountry campsites in Zion? One way to limit the amount of environmental impact to campsites is to limit the amount of use they receive. Which photograph shows the highest level of environmental impact you think the National Park Service should allow before it restricts people from using backcountry campsites? If visitor use should not be restricted at any point represented in the photographs, or not restricted at all, you may indicate that.

Photo 1

Frequency

4

Percent

4.8

Photo 2

Photo 3

39

21

46.4

25.0

Photo 4 9 10.7

None of the photographs show a high enough level of environmental impact to restrict people from using backcountry campsites.

The number of people using backcountry campsites should not be restricted.

8

3

9.5

3.6

Mean = 2.5

Q6E Which photograph looks most like the amount of environmental impact you typically saw at backcountry campsites?

Frequency Percent

Photo 1 16 19.0

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

50

15

3

59.5

17.9

3.6

Mean = 2.1

Q6: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Mean Median

2.9

1.3 1.0

3.6

2.5

2.1

4.0

2.0

2.0

Social Norm Curve for Campsite Development/Maintenance

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4


Q7A The National Park Service can develop and maintain campsites at different levels to accommodate more hikers and minimize environmental impacts. We would like to know what level of campsite development/maintenance would be acceptable in the backcountry of Zion. To help judge this, we have a series of photographs that show different levels of campsite development/maintenance. (Please look at the photographs in Panel D.) Please rate each photograph by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the level of campsite development/maintenance shown. A rating of “-4” means the level of campsite development/maintenance is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the level of campsite development/maintenance is very acceptable.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

-4

0

3.3

5.5

16.5

-3

1.1

2.2

3.3

9.9

-2

0

3.3

5.5

9.9

-1

0

4.4

7.7

13.2

0

2.2

4.4

7.7

6.6

1

1.1

12.1

14.3

15.4

2

7.9

22.0

15.4

6.6

3

18.0

23.1

18.7

7.7

4

69.7

23.1

5.5

12.1

Mean

3.5

1.9

1.3

-.3

Q7B Which photograph shows the level of campsite development/maintenance that you would prefer to see at backcountry campsites?

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Mean = 1.4

Frequency

62

14

9

0

Percent

72.9

16.5

10.6

0

Q7C Which photograph shows the level of campsite development/maintenance that is so unacceptable that you would no longer use backcountry campsites? If none of the photographs represent this condition, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

0

2

4

8

0

2.2

4.4

8.8

None of the photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer use backcountry campsites.

Mean = 3.4

77 84.6

Q7D Which photograph shows the highest level of campsite development/maintenance that the National Park Service should allow at backcountry campsites? In other words, at what point should people be restricted from using backcountry campsites instead of developing/maintaining campsites to a higher level? If visitor use should not be restricted at any point represented in the photographs, or not restricted at all, you may indicate that.

Photo 1

Frequency

15

Percent

17.9

Photo 2

Photo 3

12

25

14.3

29.8

Photo 4

None of the photographs show a high enough level of campsite development/maintenance to restrict people from using backcountry campsites.

The number of people using backcountry campsites should not be restricted.

Mean = 2.4

5

24

3

6.0

28.6

3.6

Q7E Which photograph looks most like the level of campsite development/maintenance you typically saw at backcountry campsites?

Photo 1

Frequency

56

Percent

63.6

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Mean = 1.5

24

8

0

27.3

9.1

0

Q7: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Mean Median

3.8

1.4 1.0

3.4

2.4

1.5

4.0

3.0

1.0

Q8A We would like to know how many other groups of hikers per day you think it is acceptable to see without backcountry trails being too crowded. Please rate the acceptability of each of the following numbers of other groups seen per day along backcountry trails. A rating of “-4” means the number of other groups seen is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the number of other groups seen is very acceptable.

No other groups

Up to 2 other groups

-4

2.2

1.1

-3

0

1.1

-2

0

0

-1

1.1

0

0

3.3

2.2

1

2.2

2.2

2

5.5

6.6

3

0

24.2

4

80.2

57.1

Mean

3.4

3.3



0

2.2

2.2

3.3

1.1

4.4

2.2

8.8

6.6

16.5

15.4 14.3 31.9

24.2 9.9 14.3

22.0

11.0

2.3

1.0



12.1 5.5 14.3 13.2 14.3 11.0 11.0

28.2 12.9 10.6 16.5 14.1 2.4 5.9

6.6

5.9

6.6

3.5

-.3

-1.4

Up to 12 other groups 35.2 12.1 17.6 7.7 4.4 7.7 5.5 1.1 2.2 -2.0

Up to 14 other groups 51.2 18.6

65.1 9.3

9.3

9.3

5.8

4.7

4.7

4.7

5.8

3.5

2.3

1.2

1.2

2.3

1.2

0

-2.7

-3.0 Up to 16 other groups

Social Norm Curve for Number of Hiking Groups Seen

2

1

0

4

3

-1

-2

-3

-4

No groups

Up to 2 groups

Up to 4 groups

Up to 6 groups

Up to 8 groups

Up to 10 groups

Up to 12 groups

Up to 14 groups

Up to 16 groups

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

8

9

10

Q8B What is the number of other groups per day you would prefer to see?

Number of other groups

Mean = 2.3

Frequency

28

4

17

6

5

3

6

1

1

2

Median = 2.0

Percent

38.4

5.5

23.3

8.2

6.8

4.1

8.2

1.4

1.4

2.7

12

14

15

16

6

8

9

10

2

4

5

Q8C What is the maximum number of groups per day you think you could see before you would no longer hike backcountry trails? If you would continue to hike backcountry trails regardless of the number of other groups seen, you may indicate that.

Number of other groups Frequency

1

1

1

Percent

1.2

1.2

1.2

7

11

1

20

5

2

3

1

8.5

13.4

1.2

24.4

6.1

2.4

3.7

1.2

20

30

3

2

3.7

2.4

35 1 1.2

I would continue to hike backcountry trails regardless of the number of other groups seen.


23 28.0

Q8D What is the maximum number of other groups seen per day that the National Park Service should allow on backcountry trails? In other words, at what point should visitors be restricted from hiking backcountry trails? If the number of groups should not be restricted, you may indicate that.

2


1

Percent

1.3

8

9

10

12

3

4

5

6

15

20

4

2

30 2

The number of groups on backcountry trails should not be restricted.

15

Median = 10.0 Mean = 9.9

12

2

23

4

1

3

1

8

1.3

3.8

1.3

10.3

15.4

2.6

29.5

5.1

5.1

2.6

2.6

19.2

5

6

7

8

9

10

20

0

1

2

3

4

Q8E What is the approximate number of other groups per day you saw while hiking backcountry trails?


4

15

22

10

11

1

3

1

3

2

1

3

Percent

5.3

19.7

28.9

13.2

14.5

3.9

2.6

1.3

3.9

1.3

3.9

1.3


Q8: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Mean Median

7.5

2.3 2.0

11.1

9.9

3.3

10.0

10.0

2.0

Q9 How crowded did you feel along the backcountry trails?


2

3

4

5

6

7

8



Frequency

51

19

8

3

0

1

1

1

0

Percent

60.7

22.6

9.5

3.6

0

1.2

1.2

1.2

0

Q10 We are interested in the type of management you think is appropriate on backcountry trails. Please indicate the degree to which you support or oppose the following management actions for backcountry trails.

Increase trail markers to make route finding easier

Increase trail markers to reduce short-cutting and other impacts to natural resources

Strongly oppose

(1)


(2) (3) support

(4)

11.6

0

31.4

16.3

38.4

47.7

12.8

34.9

Pave or apply gravel to trails to reduce resource impacts

Pave or apply gravel to trails to allow more hikers to use the trail




26.7

40.0

8.3

5.8

4.7

25.6

40.0

13.1

9.3

8.1

38.4

18.8

44.0

34.9

44.2

5.8

1.2

33.3

50.0

40.7

Don’t

Know

5.8

1.2

3.5

0

1.2

0

2.3

Mean

2.6

3.2

2.4

1.8

3.0

3.3

3.2

ZION DAY USE (PERMITTED) THE NARROWS

– 2003

Purpose:










Methods:



Mail-back surveys of a representative sample of 80 visitors (67% response rate) wo received a permit for day hiking the Virgin River Narrows during the summer and fall of 2003.

Findings:








Virgin River Narrows (Mail-back Survey)


1

2

3

4

5

Frequency

4

29

17

10

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

4

3

1

1

1

1

3



Family

Friends

Family and friends

Organized group

Other


Percent

5.1

36.7

21.5

12.7

6.3

5.1

3.8

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

3.8

Frequency Percent

25 32.1

32

11

5

41.0

14.1

6.4

5 6.4

Yes

No

Frequency

75

2

Percent

97.4

2.6


Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Dist. of Columbia

Georgia

Illinois

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Utah

Vermont

Washington


United Kingdom

Netherlands

Frequency

1

2

1

8

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

32

1

3

Percent

1.5

3.0

1.5

12.1

3.0

1.5

3.0

3.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

3.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

48.5

1.5

4.5

Frequency

1

1

Percent

50.0

50.0

Q4A1 We would like to know how many other groups you think it is acceptable to see on this hike (between the head of the Virgin River Narrows and Orderville Canyon) without this area being too crowded. Please rate the acceptability of each of the following numbers of other groups seen in this a rea. A rating of “-4” means the number of other groups seen is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the number of other groups seen is very acceptable.

No other groups









-4

5.6

1.4

0.0

5.6

14.3

22.9

35.7

53.5

71.0

-3

0.0

1.4

0.0

-2

1.4

1.4

4.1

-1

4.2

2.8

5.4

0

2.8

2.8

10.8

1

4.2

6.9

6.8

2

1.4

3

4.2

6.9 22.2

25.7 21.6

4.2

7.1

6.9 5.6 13.9 19.4 18.1 12.5

12.9 11.4 18.6 12.9 7.1 7.1

17.1 10.0 17.1 15.7

17.1 17.1 8.6 7.1

5.7

4.3

2.9

1.4

5.7

4.3

19.7

4.3

7.0

7.2

4.2

4.3

2.8

1.4

4.2

2.9

0.0

2.9

4.2

1.4

4

76.4

54.2

25.7

13.9

8.6

2.9

4.3

4.2

4.3

Mean

2.96

2.89

2.12

.94

-.33

-1.40

-2.00

-2.58

-2.86

Social Norm Curve for Number of Other Groups Encountered

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

No other groups









Q4B What is the number of other groups that you would prefer to see?

0

1

2

3

4

Frequency

9

4

9

10

10

Percent

14.3

6.3

14.3

15.9

15.9

10

11

12

18

5

6

7

8

7

5

2

2

1

1

2

1

11.1

7.9

3.2

3.2

1.6

1.6

3.2

1.6

Mean =4.0 Median = 3.0

Q4C What is the maximum number of groups you think you could see before you would no longer hike in this area? If you would continue to hike in this area regardless of the number of other groups seen, you may indicate that.

5

6

7

8

1

2

4

15

16

20

25

10

11

12

14

40

I would continue to use this area regardless of the number of other groups seen.

Median =10.0 Mean =10.5

Frequency

1

1

5

2

9

2

5

12

1

8

1

2

5

3

1

1

14

16.4

1.4

11.0

1.4

2.7

6.8

4.1

1.4

1.4

19.2

Percent

1.4

1.4

6.8

2.7

12.3

2.7

6.8

17

20

25

30

12

14

15

16

7

8

10

11

Q4D What is the maximum number of other groups seen that the

National Park Service should allow in this area? In other words, at what point should visitors be restricted from hiking in this area? If the number of groups should not be restricted, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

4 2 2.8

5

6

2

8

2.8

11.3

1

6

14

1

1.4

8.5

19.7

1.4

35

130

The number of groups in this area should not be restricted.


7

1

1

2

1

6

2

1

1

1

14

9.9

1.4

1.4

2.8

1.4

8.5

2.8

1.4

1.4

1.4

19.7

8

10

12

14

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

Q4E What is the approximate number of groups you saw today while hiking in this area?

Frequency

1

4

17

10

Percent

1.4

5.7

24.3

14.3

20

30

40


9

7

6

3

4

1

3

1

1

1

2

1.4

1.4

2.9

12.9

10.0

8.6

4.3

5.7

1.4

4.3

1.4

Q4: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Mean Median

7.5

4.0

10.5

3.0

10.0

14.0

6.0

10.0

4.0

Q5 How crowded did you feel between the head of the

Virgin River Narrows and Orderville Canyon?


2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Mean =2.6

Frequency

31

19

6

7

1

5

5

1

0

Median = 2.0

Percent

41.3

25.3

8.0

9.3

1.3

6.7

6.7

1.3

0.0

Social Norm Curve for Number of Other People Seen

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

4

3

2

0 People 6 People 12 People 18 People 24 People 30 People 36 People

Q6A1 We would like to know how many other people you think it is acceptable to see on the section of

Virgin River Narrows from Orderville Canyon to the beginning of the paved trail. To help judge this, we have a series of photographs that show different numbers of people in this area. (Please look at the photographs in Panel A.) Please rate each photograph by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the number of people shown. A rating of “-4” means the number of people is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the number of people is very acceptable.

Photo 1 (0)

Photo 2 (6)

-4

4.4

1.5

Photo 3 (12) 0.0

Photo 4 (18) 4.4

Photo 5 (24) 40.3

-3

0.0

0.0

0.0

-2

1.5

1.5

4.5

-1

0.0

0.0

1.5

0

1.5

3.0

10.4

1

0.0

4.5

19.4

2

2.9

10.4

22.4

3

4.4

26.9

19.4

5.9

9.0

11.8

10.4

11.8

13.4

13.2

7.5

17.6

6.0

10.3

4.5

16.2

4.5

Photo 6 (30) 53.7 11.9 17.9 3.0 3.0 0.0 4.5 3.0

Photo 7 (36) 76.1 6.0 4.5 1.5 3.0 0.0 3.0

Q6B Which photograph shows the number of people that you would prefer to see in this area?

4.5

4

85.3

52.2

22.4

8.8

4.5

3.0

1.5

Mean

3.4

3.1

2.0

0.5

-1.8

-2.6

-3.1

Photo 1 (0)

Frequency

21

17

Percent

32.3

26.2 Photo 2 (6)

Photo 3 (12)

Photo 4 (18)

Photo 5 (24)

Photo 6 (30)

15

10

1

1

23.1

15.4

1.5

1.5

Photo 7 (36) 0 0.0

Mean =7.9 People

Q6C Which photograph shows the number of people that is so unacceptable that you would no longer hike in this area? If none of the photographs represent this condition, you may indicate that.

Photo 1 (0)

Photo 2 (6)

Photo 3 (12)

Photo 4 (18)

Photo 5 (24)

Frequency

0

0

2

13

Percent

0.0

0.0

2.9

19.1

Photo 6 (30)

Photo 7 (36)

None of the photographs are so unacceptable that I would no longer hike in this area.

Mean =25.6 People

21

8

12

12

30.9

11.8

17.6

17.6

Q6D Which photograph shows the highest number of people that the

National Park Service should allow in this area? In other words, at what point should people be restricted from using this area? If visitor use should not be restricted at any point represented in the photographs, or not restricted at all, you may indicate that.

Photo 1 (0)

Frequency

0

2

Percent

0.0

2.9 Photo 2 (6)

Photo 3 (12) 7 10.1

Photo 4 (18) 21 30.4

Photo 5 (24) 11 15.9

Photo 6 (30) 8 11.6

Photo 7 (36) 6 8.7

None of the photographs show enough hikers to restrict people from hiking in this area.


4

10

5.8

14.5

Mean =21.6 People

Q6E Which photograph looks most like the number of hikers you typically saw today in this area?

Photo 1 (0)

Photo 2 (6)

Photo 3 (12)

Photo 4 (18)

Photo 5 (24)

Photo 6 (30)

Photo 7 (36)

Mean =15.6 People

Frequency

3

8

20

20

8

5

1

Percent

4.6

12.3

30.8

30.8

12.3

7.7

1.5

Q6: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen

Mean

19.3

7.9

25.6

21.6

15.6

Q7 How crowded did you feel between Orderville

Canyon and the beginning of the paved trail?

3

4

5

6


2

7

8


Mean = 4.9

Frequency

6

12

7

10

7

6

12

10

4

Percent

8.1

16.2

9.5

13.5

9.5

8.1

16.2

13.5

5.4

Q8 We are interested in the type of management you think is appropriate in the Virgin River

Narrows. Please indicate the degree to which you support or oppose the following management actions for this area.




Strongly oppose

(1)

9.6

4.0

14.1


(2)

17.8

12.0

21.1

(3)

35.6

34.7

38.0 support

(4)

34.2

45.3

21.1

Don’t

Know

2.7

4.0

5.6

Mean

3.0

3.3

2.7

ZION DAY USE (PERMITTED) CANYONS

– 2003

Purpose:










Methods:



Mail-back surveys of a representative sample of 169 visitors (65% response rate) who received a permit for day use of selected canyons requiring a permit during the summer and fall of 2003.

Findings:








Canyoneering (Mail-back Survey)


1

2

3

4

5

Frequency

4

53

39

19

16

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10

3

2

4

10

1

7



Family

Friends

Family and friends

Organized group

Other


Percent

2.4

31.5

23.2

11.3

9.5

6.0

1.8

1.2

2.4

6.0

0.6

4.2

Frequency Percent

50 29.9

76

32

5

45.5

19.2

3.0

4 2.4

Yes

No

Frequency

162

5

Percent

97.0

3.0


Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Florida

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Kansas

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

New York

North Carolina

Oregon

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wisconsin


Korea

Canada

Germany

England

Frequency

1

2

2

1

Percent

16.7

33.3

33.3

16.7

Frequency

1

4

17

6

1

3

3

2

1

2

4

1

1

2

4

1

1

86

2

1

2

1

1

3

Percent

0.7

2.7

11.3

4.0

0.7

1.3

2.7

0.7

0.7

2.0

2.0

1.3

0.7

1.3

2.7

0.7

0.7

1.3

0.7

0.7

2.0

57.3

1.3

0.7

Q4A1 We would like to know how many groups you think could use the canyon for which you obtained a permit without it being too crowded. How many other groups do you think it is acceptable to see and/or hear in the canyon for which you received a permit? Please rate the acceptability of each of the following numbers of other groups seen and/or heard in this canyon. A rating of “-4” means the number of other groups seen/he ard is very unacceptable, and a rating of “+4” means the number of other groups seen/heard is very acceptable.

No other groups









-4

7.1

-3

1.3

4.5 0.6

7.2 2.6

17.5 4.5

31.1 7.9

46.7 10.7

57.0 10.6

68.4 7.2

77.0 3.3

-2

1.3

0.0

3.9

7.1

9.9

7.3

6.6

7.2

3.3

-1

0.0

0

6.5

0.6 7.0

4.6 11.8

10.4 11.7

7.9

8.0

6.0

1.3

3.3

14.6

8.7

5.3

6.6

5.3

1

1.3

3.8

5.9

9.7

7.3

4.0

6.0

1.3

0.7

2

3.9

3

2.6

9.6 25.5

22.2 12.4

12.3 7.8

6.6

3.3

1.3

0.7

0.7

3.3

2.0

1.3

1.3

0.7

4

76.1

48.4

29.4

18.8

11.3

9.3

6.0

5.9

5.9

Mean

2.86

2.73

1.56

0.25

-1.01

-1.87

-2.42

-2.81

-3.00

Social Norm Curve for Acceptability of Other Groups Seen/Heard

2

1

0

-1

-2

4

3

-3

-4

No other groups









Q4B What is the number of other groups that you would prefer to see/hear?

2

3

4

5

0

1

Frequency

30

14

31

11

23

4

Percent

22.1

10.3

22.8

8.1

16.9

2.9

6

7

8

10

12

14

15

13

2

1

3

1

1

1

9.6

1.5

0.7

2.2

0.7

0.7

0.7

100 1 0.7


Q4C What is the maximum number of other groups that you think you could see/hear before you would no longer use this canyon? If you would continue to use this canyon regardless of the number of other groups seen/heard, you may indicate that.

15

16

17

20

8

10

12

14

2

3

4

5

6

7

25

30

I would continue to use this area regardless of the number of other groups seen/heard.

Median = 8.0 Mean =8.6

Frequency

7

5

17

7

16

3

2

2

1

6

12

27

7

3

2

1

39

Percent

4.5

3.2

10.8

4.5

10.2

1.9

7.6

17.2

4.5

1.9

1.3

1.3

0.6

3.8

1.3

0.6

24.8

5

6

7

8

10

12

20

0

1

2

3

4

4

5

6

7

Q4D What is the maximum number of other groups seen/heard that the National Park Service should allow in this canyon? In other words, at what point should visitors be restricted from using this canyon? If the number of groups should not be restricted, you may indicate that.

Frequency Percent

1 3 2.1

2

3

4

7

2.8

4.9

15

7

18

2

10.4

4.9

12.5

1.4

14

15

20

30

8

9

10

12

11

3

25

15

3

5

6

3

7.6

2.1

17.4

10.4

2.1

3.5

4.2

2.1

50 2 1.4

The number of groups in this canyon should not be restricted.


15 10.4

Q4E What is the approximate number of other groups you saw and/or heard today in this canyon?

Frequency

34

35

20

23

16

3

2

2

8

8

1

4

Percent

21.8

22.4

12.8

14.7

10.3

5.1

5.1

0.6

2.6

1.9

1.3

1.3


Q4: Summary Table

Acceptability

Preference

Displacement

Management Action

Typically Seen/Heard

Mean

6.4

Median

3.6

8.6

9.5

2.8

2.0

8.0

8.0

2.0

Q5 How crowded did you feel in this canyon today?

3

4

5

6


2

7

8


Mean =1.9

Frequency

95

33

16

6

2

4

4

1

0

Median = 1.0

Percent

59.0

20.5

9.9

3.7

1.2

2.5

2.5

0.6

0.0

Q6 Please indicate the degree to which you support or oppose the following management actions for this canyon.




Install artificial anchors to avoid creation of paths around the small obstacles to movement up and down the canyon.

Strongly oppose

(1)


(2) (3) support

(4)

Don’t

Know

9.1

4.8

14.5

4.8

13.4 21.3

10.4 20.2

37.6

42.4

34.1

41.7

37.6

47.9

28.7

19.6

1.2

0.0

2.4

8.0

Mean

3.1

3.3

2.8

2.8

Research to Support Application of the Visitor Experience and Resource... Framework at Zion National Park

Frequency Tables

Social Norm Curve for Level of Trail Impacts

Social Norm Curve for Level of Trail

Development/Maintenance

Social Norm Curve for Number of Hikers Seen per

Day

Related documents

Products

Support

Research to Support Application of the Visitor Experience and Resource... Framework at Zion National Park

Frequency Tables

Social Norm Curve for Level of Trail Impacts

Social Norm Curve for Level of Trail

Development/Maintenance

Social Norm Curve for Number of Hikers Seen per

Day

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib