Banning State Park is the least developed of the study Swimmers enjoy Lake Kabetogama at Woodenfrog areas. Here is its entrance road, which is unpaved. Camp on the edge of Voyageurs National Park.
Preface This study is primarily the work and Robin Nelson of Lands and college resources. We also thank the of the senior author, with the assist Forestry aided the study, as did Myrl Cooperative States Research Service, ance of two junior authors. However, Brooks, superintendent of the Voya USDA, Director of the Agricultural many others were involved, and the geurs National Park, and his staff. Experiment Station Keith Huston, authors want to thank them. From Mary Cloyd of Sociology reviewed and Former Director (now Dean of the Minnesota Department of Natur the study. the Institute of Agriculture, Fores al Resources, U. W. Hella, Don Davi try, and Home Economics) W. F. so n, Milton Krona, John Helgerson, Dean R. A. Skok and Dean Emer Hueg, Jr. , for Mcintire-Stennis Co Orville Kobberdahl, and Nor itus F. H. Kaufert of the College of operative Forestry Research Funds man Reitan of Parks and Recreation Forestry made available funds and for the project and this publication.
Summary and implications Campers are the focus of this developments should occur before velopment than do hikers, and the study, including those who used four others. We tested attitude structure farther people hike, the less develop camping areas which varied greatly and found that preferences for park ment they want. Also, among over in development. Also considered development were, indeed, cumula night and long term campers, the was a random sample of residents of tive. Campers are often stereotyped predominant preference was for fa Roseville, a suburb in the northeast as those who prefer at least some cilities, and to a significantly lesser Minneapolis-St. Paul metropoli "roughing it." Those residing where degree, for activities. tan area (1972). Campers were inter much of their resources are used for viewed in 1971 and 1973 at Ban a relatively high standard of living We conclude that camping equip ning, St. Croix, and Scenic State could also be expected to prefer this ment is not generally related to de Parks and at Woodenfrog State For type of camp development. How velopment preferences, but there is a est campground adjacent to Voya ever, we found this was not true. significant relation ship between oc geurs National Park. The field areas Campers tend to be found in camp cupational status and preference for ranged from near wilderness (Ban grounds that match their preferences development. Also, rural residents ning) to highly developed (St. for development; they tend to return are considerably more oriented to Croix). only to such areas; and they are more the highest two levels of develop This study tested the reliability satisfied with those types of camp ment and considerably less oriented and predictive validity of a scaling grounds after they set up camp. Peo to parks with facilities only or to no technique (the Minnesota scale) used development at all. ple's expressed preferences and their to assign discrete development pref camping behavior are consistent. erence scores to campers in North We suggest that, within easy ac ern Minnesota's public park camp Assuming that the relationship we cess, parks should be developed that grounds. Also, background variables found would hold with a larger sam range from near primitive to highly were isolated that were significantly ple of first-time campers, we con developed. There appear to be syn associated with camper scale score clude that the camping experience dromes of park orientation; when a types, and suggestions were made for promotes preferences for a less de match between preference and camp management agencies to use this scal veloped park. Where actual develop site is achieved, these syndromes are ing technique. ment is extreme and where campers' the basis for public support for both The public prioritizes park devel preferences match the level of devel environmental protection and park opment in such a way that certain opment, nonhikers prefer more de- development.
2 The Scenic State Park study area features lakes and coniferous for ests in a northwoods setting.
By Allan S. Mills, Lawrence C. Merriam, Jr., and Charles E. Ramsey* Continuing public opinion re tors and others to influence policy in though the amount of research is search concerning development of park and wilderness areas is but a increasing, for parks it is still too parks and recreation areas is taking short step away when the environ limited to describe in detail. The on added dimensions because of pro mental issue is defined as it is today. research presented here is focused in nounced social trends in the past It is highly questionable whether this area. decade. One trend is the increasing previous weights given to informa While the research clearly indi public discourse on the quality of the tion, professional understandings, cates that public opinions vary in environment. This has greatly inten public stereotypes, and the like will discussions among both professional sified the concern for both preserva remain the same in park policy re and lay people, references are made tion and use of parks and wilderness. view. The way these variables enter to " the public" as if it were a large, The ecology movement has given into decisionmaking and policymak monolithic body. The research pre considerable impetus both to conser ing is not well-understood, even in sented here shows: (I) there are vationist organizations and to profes formal organizations such as indus many "publics," classified according sional organizations immediate tries and schools. to their use of parks; (2) these pub ly concerned about the preservation Regarding state and national park lics define a park differently, includ of natural surroundings. policy, the process has varied greatly ing some attitudes best described as Even among groups having a cen and has not been well-researched. A passionate interest; and (3) there is tral concern for our forests, conflicts major difficulty occurs in generaliz variation within each of these pub have arisen over forest products vs. ing from ongoing research in indus lics, with opposite extremes found wilderness preservation as well as trial and bureaucratic decisionmak within each. over other public policy issues. But ing to park policy development in Several researchers have asked even more fundamental are such volving public input. This difficulty planners to emphasize optimum conflicting trends as increasing gaso stems from the lack of an arena in camper satisfaction, with a range line prices and energy shortages, on which professionals and the public of complementary developments the one hand, and increasing num can negotiate. There are limited matching camper needs and prefer bers of retired travelers and family channels for communication among ences (Gold, 1961 ; Lucas, 1964; vacationers on the other hand. the general public, organized volun Burch, 1964; Burdge and Hendee, The impact of these issues and teer associations, and professionals 1972 ; Schafer, 1969, and Lime, trends may be considerable. Not on involved directly in park policy. 1974). In 1971 , the Minnesota De ly will the projection of park use be Therefore, we contend that increased partment of Natural Resources Bu made difficult because of trends research is needed on public defini reau of Planning in the Project 80 countering each other in potential tions of park development. Staff Report said Minnesota's public impact, but new voices are likely to Professional and managerial per outdoor recreation facilities should be heard in decisionmaking. The sonnel are assigned to develop policy be made more effective by defining consumer movement, so highly vis for the public, at worst, to avoid and coordinating the public areas ible concerning material consump public conflict and, at best, to make providing outdoor recreation. Before tion, is already being extended into policy which corresponds to public a match can be attained between park environmental issues concerning nu needs and definitions. At this point, development and the needs, inter clear power plants and air and water we must depend primarily upon ste ests, and preferences of users, more pollution. Organized efforts for visi- reotypes of public opinions. AI- work needs to be done on the latter. *Allan S. Mills was a graduate research assistant in the University of Minnesota College of Forestry and is now assistant professor of environmental horticulture at the University of California, Davis; Lawrence C. Merriam, Jr., is a professor in the University of Minnesota College of Forestry; and Charles E. Ramsey is professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul. 3 tiona! Park . 1 The fi eld areas ranged from a near wilderness (Banning) to a highly developed park in which mo st camp sit es resembled suburban law ns (St. C roix) . In each grouping, a probability samp le was drawn. For camp grounds, the sample was based upon the campsite; those who occupied the campsite on a particul ar day were interviewed. For the suburban sam pl e, a ci ty directory of Rosev ill e was used. The pa rt of the questio nn a ire which applied to this analysi will be evident from th e tabl es and di scus sion which follow. A more detailed di scuss ion of the methodology is in appendix A.
Findings Structure and diversity in preferences for development Playground equipment provides activities for children at this camp ground in St. Croix State Park. A campground such as this, with some clearing, is preferred by family campers. In spite of frequent references to " the public," the expectation based The first approach to this, beginning ly fishing-than were the adm ini s on research in this and other areas of probably in I 964, was to develop trators. However for the most part, attitude leads to th e hypothesis that classification schemes based on envi differences did not appear to be there is considerable variation in th e ronmental attributes of a camp greatly contradictory in their func way camp users and th e general pub ground making a difference in camp tions, since most of the activities lic views public park development. ers' satisfaction (Burch, I 964; Cor campers considered important for a A closely associated problem is the dell, I 972; Malemberg and Schultz, park would not be destructive unless way that va ri ation is pattern ed. To I 972). Other classification attempts the volume of use was great (M ill s, say that the public is best charac ter have concentrated exclu sively on the I 972; Merriam, et. al., I 973; and ized in terms of variable opinion activities in which people participate Merriam, Wald, and Ramsey, I 972). does not mean such opinions are (Hendee, et. al. 197 I; Hendee and This study, th en, shows th at the random. It is the duty of the re Burdge, I 974; and McKechnie, public does not have a consensus, searcher to discover whatever pat I 974). More empirical methods but rather has widely varying and terns occur. were later used, with distinctions contradictory views of parks. How Several possibilities ex ist. Sim being made between car campers and ever to say there are great differences pl es t is th at people differ in how wilderness campers (Hendee et. a/., of opinion does not suggest these they view a multitude of types of I 968; Burch, I 969). These studies opinions are random, but rather that development in a park; by counting reveal differences between various they show definite patterns which these development items, persons groups; also, regardless whether th e have implications for park policy. can be characterized as prefering approach is with data or with classifi mo re or less development. A second cation schemes, certain patterns are way, in which attitude structure is Method of study revealed. more rigid, is that such attitudes are In a further specification of the Campers are the focus of this cumulative, i.e., th ere is an ordering differences noted in the literature study, including those who used four of development types by th e public mentioned above, we have reported camping areas which varied greatly in such a way th at some types should results showing that, when park ad in development. Also considered be d eveloped b efo re others. We ministrators are not responding as was a random sample of residents of tes ted for this type of attitude struc administrators, but as campers, they Roseville, a suburb in the northeast ture, finding that preferences for view development much the same Minneapoli s-St. P au l metro po li park development were indeed cu way as do other campers. While most tan area. Field work was performed mulati ve. administrators and some users were in 1971 , I 972, and 1973. Campers viewing parks in terms of preserva were interviewed at Banning, St. 1Woodenfrog campground was con tion and conservation, the campers Croix, and Scenic State Parks and at sidered a surrogate for Voyageurs were much more inclined to see the Woodenfrog State Forest camp National Park which was undevel park in terms of activities-especial- ground adj acent to Voyageurs Na- oped at the time of th e study.
4 Table 1. Development preferences for respondents of all five samples data is the differences found among parks. The range-especially at the Developments intermediate level of development Respondent sample group where both facilities and activities preferred Roseville Banning St. Croix Wooden- Scenic are provided for-is all the way from frog a mere 13 percent at Banning to 0. None 28% 38% 4% 12% 6% almost half (45 percent) in Wooden 1. Facilities 40 45 38 27 38 frog. Also important in table I is what 2. Facilities & was a rather surprising finding. activities 23 13 44 45 38 Campers could be stereotyped as 3. Facilities & those preferring at least some orien activities & tation toward "roughing it." How camp clearing 9 4 14 16 18 ever, many of the suburbanites, en joying a relatively high level of living within their home and community, Total% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% might be expected to prefer the same Number (35) (100) (281) ( 99) (97) benefits in parks. That was not the case (table I). Whether this would be In the suburban sample and in the one park to another. Only 13 percent true of other types of residents is not park having little development, a wanted this in Banning Park, a rela known. The much lower levels of large minority preferred no develop tively undeveloped park, compared living found in large urban centers or ment. However even in the three to 45 percent in Woodenfrog, which in rural areas might lead people to more developed parks, around 7 is more highly developed. Interest prefer limited park development. percent responded this way (table I). ingly, only at one park were fewer Do attitudes make a difference At the next level of development, people in favor of facilities and ac the self-sorting process? unexpectedly high proportions tivities than in the suburban sample. of people in the four campgrounds This suggests, as our findings gener We often say one thing and do and in the suburban sample wanted ally indicate, that variations of a another. There is long standing re facilities, but no other development. sample of suburban residents is dis search supporting this. While atti This development is primarily sani tributed toward the low end of park tudes are important in and of them tary toilets and, in some instances, development. Nearly half preferred selves, apart from their ability to running water. This lowest level of only facilities, and over one-fourth predict behavior, the relationship be development preference may seem preferred no development. This find tween park preferences and behavior to be little different from those want ing may be because Roseville is a in relation to parks is an important ing no development, but differences middle class suburb with a relatively consideration. exist which appear important to the high level of living. Therefore, a trip To test the relationships between respondents. For example in one to a park may be to "get back to preferences and behavior, we em park with little development, a toilet nature" in the extreme. ployed three techniques to deter was built which had an electric fan At the highest level of develop mine: (1) whether campers go to for air circulation. Noise from the ment preference are those preferring campgrounds matching their devel fan could be heard throughout the facilities, activities, and camp clear opment preferences; (2) whether close by campgrounds. Since much ing. Few people in the subsamples campers return to campgrounds motivation for going to such a park preferred this level, the highest matching their preferences; and (3) is to get away from civilization, noise being 14 percent at St. Croix and 18 whether campers are more satisfied from a fan which would not even be percent at Scenic-the two most with campgrounds matching their heard in a city could be most dis highly developed parks. preferences. tracting. Electric water pumps and Several important inferences can The first test indicated that people similar machines could provide simi be drawn from table I. Perhaps most tend to choose the campground cor lar distractions. important is that, between parks and responding to thei rdevelopmen !pref within any given park as well as erences. A statistical treatment of At a lower level on the scale is the within a suburb, much variation ex data already discussed supported the inconvenience and discomfort ists in the preferences for the amount inference that preferences for devel caused by the absence of toilets and of development. Secondly, these de opment are significantly higher in running water. Therefore, a consid velopments apparently followed more developed locations. Banning, erable difference exists between "no a somewhat rigid pattern, with peo the least developed, had significant facilities" and "facilities only." ple who want some provision for lower preferences, while the other The next level of preference in fishing, games, and the like also three areas, with a store, running cluded both facilities and the provi wanting facilities, and those who water, and a swimming beach, were sion for activities, such as games and want camp clearing preferring all consistently higher. fishing. The percentage at this level other facilities and activities also. The second test also confirmed a of preference varied greatly from Another important feature of these self-sorting process, but this confir-
5 mation applied mainly to extreme ing. Several differences were exam development than would family cores. Those wanting no develop ined in relation to development pref camping. The sa me pattern held for ment, even facilitie , were first-time erences. the Ro ev ill e sampl e. visitor at the highly developed St. The data indicate thi s relation hip Croix Park. Likewise, camper in Family vs. individual camping i espec ially consi tent at th e ex the lea t developed park, Banning, tremes of development preference. who indicated a preference for all Since most campers are family groups (over 90 percent in each park In each park and in Rosev ill e, more three development types were fir t respondents would prefer no devel time visitors. Thus, at the extremes, and in Ro eville), it was important to determine the influence of such opment when camping alone than the self- orting hypothesis i con when camping with a fami ly. Lik e firmed-people wanting no develop camping as oppo ed to individual camping. The preponde rance of wi e, the high es t development level ment tend not to return to a highly (clearing) was more often a ociated developed park, and people wanting family camping m ade th e te ts difficult to make, but some pattern s with family th a n with individual high levels of development tend not camping. Indeed, only four respon to return to parks resembling a wil in the data ugge t th e need for further re earch. dents would prefe r less developm ent dernes . when camping with th e family than The third test was the number of In so me sampl es, each respondent was asked to respond to th e ques when camping alone. The consi tent complaint about the park at the time pattern found in th e campground the interview was taken. Again , we tions which measured development preference in two ways: one regard ample and in Rosev ill e sugge t find confirmation at the extremes. more research i needed in this area. All persons wanting a high level of ing personal prefe rence; and one development, but who were at the regarding camping with a family. least developed campground area, The pattern was consistent for each Experience in camping expressed complaints, and 83 per sample, although it was not statisti cent of the respondents wanting no cally significant. Camping alone Another factor suspec ted to be development, but who were inter wo uld call for a lower level of park important in development preferenc- viewed at the area having the highest level of development, similarly ex pressed complaints. The percentage An important convenience facility is this trailer dump station at St. of persons expressing complaints Croix State Park where most people with trailers wanted facilities only. were far lower for any other combi Many of the amenities of camping are carried in their trailers. nation of preference and develop ment. Based on the consistency of these three types of evidence, we suggest the hypothesis of campers' self-sort ing selection of areas. Campers tend to be found at the location matching their preference for development; they tend to return only to that kind of area; and they are more satisfied with that type of location once they set up camp. The indication of the self-sorting hypothesis also points to much evi dence favoring the idea that people's expressed preferences and thei r camping behavior are consistent. Unlike many research areas howing people say one thing and do another, in park development, people' atti tudes and behavior seem consistent.
Camping styles and preference for development Among various factors possibly important to park development pref erences, some of the most important are the different styles of camping. This proposition is based on th e assumption that development items are necessary to some types of camp-
6 es would be the differences between ty to nature. Furthermore, the longer farther people hike, the less develop first-time and experienced campers. the hike, the more likely the camper ment they want. This suggests that Unfortunately, only seven respon is to experience a park's various hiking in these parks represents wil dents were first-time campers, thus natural surroundings. derness orientation. In parks having intermediate development and where making the test difficult. However, To determine whether hiking (and the match of this with preferences is none of these fell into the lower two the distance hiked) makes a differ difficult to establish, the relationship preference categories- all wanted ence in development preferences, we to hiking is much more complicated facilities and activities, and four also asked respondents about their wanted clearing. "normal" hiking habits. The findings and needs further study. If greater numbers of first-time indicate a statistically significant re campers could be interviewed, test lationship, but the relationship is Length of stay ing this idea might be valuable. As complicated by several factors pre Campers may be divided into dif suming that the relationship we viously discussed. ferent types on length of stay: the found would hold with a larger In the two parks at the extremes, overnight camper (or weekend sample of first-time campers, we we found a "match" between park camper); the vacation camper (often could conclude that the camping ex a week); and the camper who goes to perience promotes preferences for a development and the preferences of those in each park. In these two one park for a relatively long time, less developed park. For those who would promote camping for nature parks, a consistent relationship ex oftentimes a retiree. We classified isted between hiking distance and campers on the basis of: (a) I or 2 education and for developing posi development preference: the further nights; (b) 3-6 nights; and (c) 7 tive attitudes toward protecting our the respondent was likely to hike, environment, this explanation would nights or more. be particularly important. Parks hav the less development he preferred. Based on our sparse findings on ing greater development might be Similarly, nonhikers preferred more first-time short-stay campers, we ex development than did those who encouraged among those who have pect further research will confirm not camped before. As pleasant ex hike. The relationship is especially that first-time campers prefer greater periences and increasing confidence dramatic in comparing those who do development. Opposing this argu encourage more trips to camp not hike with those who hike 6 miles ment is the notion that those who grounds, the inclination toward less or more. Over half the nonhikers stay for longer periods have more development would evolve. How prefer both facilities and activities, need for facilities and probably for ever at this time, we can only suggest while half the long distance hikers activities to vary their experience. this as a hypothesis. prefer only facilities. We counterposed these two argu We asked respondents in some In the two intermediate parks, the ments to determine which best de samples whether they had visited relationship held. Indeed, almost the scribed the relationship between national parks. While less directly same percentage of nonhikers pre length of stay and preference. The relevant to the question of camping ferred both facilities and activities as data supported neither in the general experience on development prefer in the two parks at the extremes. relationship. In the two parks at the ences, it provided a better distribu However, the distance hiked was extremes of development (Banning tion to test the idea. Although not related somewhat differently. Short and St. Croix), the campers staying statistically significant, the pattern distance hikers (2 miles or less) and the intermediate length of time was consistent with a previous find long distance hikers (6 miles or preferred the greatest development. ing: persons who had previously vis more) preferred more development The preponderance of this group was ited national parks were less inclined than did those who hike intermediate found among those preferring both to prefer developed parks. A similar distances (between 2 and 6 miles). facilities and activities. Among finding was observed for campers Indeed in Scenic Park, the long overnight and long term campers, who indicated a desire to visit the distance hikers were more inclined the predominant preference was for new Voyageurs Park. to prefer greater development than facilities and, to a significantly lesser In spite of the lack of statistical were nonhikers. In Woodenfrog, the degree, for activities. If we ignore significance, the consistency of the long distance hikers were found the curvilinear relationships. how relationship leads us to encourage predominantly in the next to the ever, there is a significant tendency further research on the influence of highest preference level-those for those staying longer to prefer camping on development preference. preferring both facilities and activi more development. In each of our three tests, the rela ties. Since all findings in this section As in many of our findings, the tionship held; it further held when were significant at the .05 level, the relationships did not form a clear individual subsamples were com relationship between hiking and pre pattern in the two intermediate pared within samples. ference for development is obviously parks. different from one park to another. Camping equipment Hiking In parks having extreme develop ment and where campers' prefer While camping equipment may Hiking is necessary in state and ences match the actual level of devel not be important in understanding national parks because, only through opment, nonhikers prefer more de development preferences, different hiking, do campers achieve proximi- velopment than do hikers, and the types of equipment rep resent differ-
7 ent orientations toward nature, toward development at the extremes There is a significant relationship travel, and vacationing. Also, the for many-but not for all. between occupational status and de tremendous range of costs, for velopment preference. The greatest example, between motor homes differences come at the intermediate compared to tents and great differ Characteristics of the camper levels of preference, where the pro ences in facilities and activities (e.g., In addition to factors directly relat fessionals were more inclined toward TV) associated with various camping ing to development, a disproportion facilities only and the managerial and equipment led us to expect a rela ate location of preferences may be skilled workers were more oriented tionship between camping equip found in certain positions in the toward both facilities and activities. ment and preferences. social structure and ecology of our The retired resemble the profession This was confirmed in the two society. For example, camping has als more in the intermediate levels, parks at the extremes, but not in the long been considered a primarily although the tendency is not nearly two intermediate parks. In St. Croix middle-class activity, also found fre so pronounced. and Banning combined, a significant quently among retired people. This Apparently to further the under relationship was obtained, although relationship has a bearing upon the standing of camping and park devel it was mostly due to Banning. The lifestyles of the families involved, as opment, more research is needed on preponderance of tent campers in in the case of persons "caught up" in how occupation and camping relate. the least developed camp preferred the materialistic or "high pressure" This might focus less on the status of no development (51 percent), and work world who use camping as an the occupation and more on: (a) the only 10 percent wanted both facili escape. This would be found, pos roles, pressures, and types of interac ties and activities. None of the 49 sibly, among upper middle-class pe tion within each occupation; and (b) tent campers in Banning wanted the ople preferring little or no park the family lifestyles of each occupa highest level of development. The development. tional grouping as the dimensions majority of those with trailers which produce the observed rela wanted facilities only. The general tionship. relationship in Banning was that, the Occupation of camper The general relationships ob more camping equipment the camp served here hold for all four areas er had, the more he wanted develop To test the idea of camping as an and for the Roseville sample, but the ment. This suggests the camper who escape, we asked each respondent to cells having the highest proportions wants a primitive experience will go indicate his occupation. Camping is differ by reflecting the self-sorting to a park having little development; related to occupation; this is evident process in the parks. For example, this camper has only a tent and from the fact that retired people and retired campers in Banning were minimum cooking facilities. This is occupations such as professional, more oriented toward facilities only, important only because nearly as managerial, and skilled workers were as is the case in the other parks, but high a percentage of campers in the overrepresented compared to the the next highest proportion pre most developed park owned only total labor force (table 2). ferred no development at all. tents, yet they had much higher pref erences for development. In other words, tents become part of a com plex of wilderness orientation for certain people, but a tent is not always associated with this complex. Perhaps tent cost is a factor? Table 2. Relationship between occupation and development preference Again in Banning, nearly one Occupation third of those who owned self-con tained camping units (pickup camp Development Profes- Manager- Skilled & Retired & Total ers and motor homes) wanted no preference sional & ial, cleri-, semi- house- number development. This may appear to semi- cal, sales, skilled wives contradict our point that the pur profes- service, chase of such a unit represents a sionals farm & complex of high development camp unskilled ing. However as one such camper No development 12.6% 11.2% 14.2% 11.0% 67 put it, "I want those (facilities and Facilities only 48.2 28.8 27.5 39.6 206 activities), but I carry them around Facilities & with me in my unit. I don't want the activities 33.6 45.6 43.3 31.4 212 park to have them." Facilities, We conclude equipment is not activities, generally related to preferences for & clearing 5.6 14.4 15.0 18.0 75 development, since a significant rela 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% tionship was found in only one park. However, this equipment may be Total number 143 125 120 172 560 part of a syndrome of orientation P<.05
8 Table 3. Relationship between residence and development preference begin at the more highly developed parks and, with the relationship Residence between camping experience and Development Urban Rural Total number preference in mind, the later camp preference choices would be made in the self No development 14.0% 6.9% 67 sorting process. Indeed, in many parks, this diversity might be pro Facilities only 40.0 30.0 219 vided within one park. The scale Facilities & developed here could be used with activities 35.0 43.8 214 good background information in as Facilities, signing persons to one campground activities, or another, depending upon their & clearing 11.0 19.3 75 preferences. 100.0% 100.0% Another conclusion is the exist Total number 405 160 565 ence of park orientation syndromes; P<.05 when a match between preferences and campsite is achieved, these syn dromes are the bases for public sup port for both environmental protec planned for facilities only. Parks Residence tion and park development. Clearly more distant from urban centers, or not all or even most campers can be for some other reason attracting Another general factor-resi classified into these syndromes, but dence-is less directly related to greater number of rural than urban those who can be are the zealots so park use than are styles of camping, residence visitors, should well be the influential in public policymaking. most developed of all parks in the but it is still important for camp Other research has shown that, as the state. ground development policymaking. Apparently for the more distant public becomes more involved in Especially important is the location parks not specializing in camping for decisionmaking about the environ of parks of different types of devel those within easy access, develop ment and other related issues, opment within easy access for the ment policy is open to other fac knowledge is not only important, but tors-such as the nature of the at weekend camper. a moderating influence. However, traction and the provision of diversi As might be guessed from the early in the stages of social move ty from nearby parks. Roseville findings, residence is re ments, the zealot is the one who will lated to development preference. write letters to legislators, organize Conclusions Compared to campers from urban voluntary associations so influential areas, rural residents are consider Several conclusions of this study to public pressure, and involve ably more oriented to the highest deserve not only more research, but himself in a myriad of ways in two levels of development and con more discussion in policymaking achieving the goals of the social siderably less oriented to parks hav circles. movement. Parks at the extremes of ing facilities only or no development The range of preferences for park development represent one way the at all. Indeed, twice the proportion development is sufficient to warrant public can be involved-highly de of urban compared to rural campers a diversity of parks within a given veloped parks to increase the num preferred no development. The per region of the state. The exception bers involved in camping, and parks centage differences in table 3 are may be those parks near urban cen providing a near wilderness experi striking and significant at the .05 ters where the old stereotype of the ence for experienced campers who Ieve!. urban camper who "wants all of the can, and probably will, provide the This suggests that, if camper pref comforts of home" is dispelled by activist support for the preservation erences are taken into account for this study. The camping experience of nature. the weekend camper, less develop promotes appreciation for our en ment is called for when the park is vironment, provided that experience Literature cited closer to large population centers. Of is not unpleasant. If, indeed, a self course, for the camper who intends sorting process does occur at the Burch, W.R., Jr. 1964. "Nature as to travel long distances, other factors extremes of development prefer Symbol and Expression in Ameri are important. For example, those ence, then the provision of camping can Social Life: A Sociological staying for longer times did not ap for those with different preferences Exploration." Unpublished Ph.D. pear to prefer high levels of develop will foster this nature orientation. Dissertation, 462 p. University of ment, nor did overnight campers. If This assumes no displacement by Minnesota, Minneapolis. these two factors-residence and other groups in a particular area. ____ 1964. "Two Concepts for length of stay-are combined, we We would suggest, especially, that Guiding Recreation Management might suggest that a large proportion parks be provided within easy access Decisions." Journal of Forestrv of parks located near urban centers that range from near primitive to (62:10), 707-712. . . and oriented toward short term as highly developed. The first-time ____ 1969. "The Social Circles well as long term campers be camper should be encouraged to of Leisure: Competing Explana-
9 tions." Journal of Leisure Re Pacific Northwest-Their Char Merriam, L. C., Jr., K. D. Wald, C. search (1:2), 125-147. acteristics, Values, and Manage E. Ramsey. 1972. Public and Pro ment Preferences." U.S.D.A. For- fessional Definitions of the State Burdge, R. J., and J. C. Hendee. Park: A Minnesota Case. Journal 1972. "The Demand Survey Di est Service Research Paper PNW- of Leisure Research 4:4, p. lemma: Assessing the Credibility 61, 92 p. Pacific Northwest For 259-274. of State Outdoor Recreation est and Range Experiment Sta Plans." Guideline (2:6), 65-68. Merriam, L. C., Jr., A. S. Mills, C. tion. Portland, Ore. E. Ramsey, P. C. West, T. L. Cordell, H. K., and G. A. James. Lime, D. W. I 974. "Locating and Brown, and K. D. Wald. I 973. 1972. "Visitors' Preferences for Designing Campgrounds to Pro "The Camper in Minnesota State Certain Physical Characteristics vide a Full Range of Camping Parks and Forests: Some Insights of Developed Campsites." U.S. Opportunities." U.S.D.A. Forest on Use and Management from a D.A. Forest Service Research Pa Service Technical Report NC-9, Five Year Study." University of per SE-100, 21 p. Southeastern Outdoor Recreation Research: Minnesota Agricultural Experi Forest Experiment Station. Ash Applying the Results, 55-56. ment Station Bulletin, 20 p. St. ville, N.C. North Central Forest Experiment Paul, Minn. Station. St. Paul Minn. Gould, E. M., Jr. 1961. "Planning a Mills, A. S. 1972. "I 971 Minnesota Lucas, R. C. I 964. "The Recreation State Park Camper Study: Final Recreation Complex." American Capacity of the Quetico-Superior Forests (67:8) 30-35. Phase in a Five Year Study Se Area." U.S.D.A. Forest Service quence." Unpublished Masters Hendee, J. C. and R. J. Burdge. Research Paper LS-15, 34 p. Report, 74 p. College of Forestry, 1974. "The Substitutability Con North Central Forest Experiment University of Minnesota, St. Paul. cept: Implications for Recreation Station, St. Paul, Minn. Research and Management." Malmberg, J. P. and A. J. Schultz. Schafer, E. L., Jr. 1969. "The Aver Journal of Leisure Research (6:2), I 972. "Investigating Visitor age Camper Who Doesn't Exist." 157-I62. Characteristics and Design Pref U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research erences." Arizona Forestry Note Paper NE-142, 27 p. North Cen ____, R. P. Gale, and W. R. No. 8, 4 p. School of Forestry, tral Forest Experiment Station. St. Catton, Jr. I 971. "A Typology of Northern Arizona University, Paul, Minn. Outdoor Recreation Activity Pre Flagstaff, Ariz. State of Minnesota Department of ferences." Journal of Environ McKechnie, G. E. I 974. "Psycholo Natural Resources 1971. "Minne mental Education (3: I), 28-34. gical Foundations of Leisure sota Resource Potentials in State ____, W. L. Catton, Jr., L. D. Counseling: An Empirical Stra Outdoor Recreation." Project 80, Marlow, and C. F. Brockman. tegy." Therapeutic Recreation Staff Report No. 1. Bureau of 1968. "Wilderness Users in the Journal (VIII: I), 4- I 6. Planning, St. Paul, Minn., 178 p.
Appendix A-Methodology, scaling camper preferences This study tested the reliability and predictive validity of a scaling technique (the Minnesota scale) I. Do you prefer campgrounds with: when used to assign discrete devel a. __showers, or . _no showers opment preference scores to campers b. __flush toilets, or . __pit toilets for public park campground areas of c. __paved roads, or . __gravel roads northern Minnesota. Also, back ground variables were isolated that d. __ a community center, or . __no community center were significantly associated with e. __ a grocery store, or . __no store camper scale score types, and sug 2. Which state park would your prefer: gestions were made for practical ap __a park with swimming, fishing, ball field, volleyball court, bicycling, plication of this scaling technique by horseshoe courts, hiking, motor boating, water skiing management agencies. Figure I illustrates the Guttman or __ a park with hiking, and no other activities scale as originally developed in 3. If you had two choices concerning the area surrounding the campground, I 97 I. Data for the entire summer which would you prefer? camping season at Banning and St. __ area left undeveloped Croix State Parks were used to de __ cleared out so it could be used for activities velop the Minnesota scale. These three questionnaire items were used to build it:
10 Figure 1. Guttman (Preference) Scale As originally developed using data from St. Croix and Banning State P a rks 1971 ' Scale Items Scale Yes Yes Yes No No No response Type clearing activities Facilities clearing activities facilities totals
3 134 134 134 0 0 0 134
2 18 326 344 326 18 0 344
1 2 25 329 354 331 27 356
141 0 0 0 0 1'----.. 141 141 141
Totals 154 485 807 821 490 168 975
Error 20 25 0 0 18 27 X3=
Nonerror 134 460 807. 821 472 141 2,925 responses
Coefficient of Reproducibility= .97 Coefficient of Scalability= .89
The best scale results for these five categories, the scale is somewhat veloped-Banning and St. Croix three items were obtained by setting stronger than it would appear. How represent extremes of development two or more checked facility prefer ever, the basic weakness of having found among Northern Minnesota's ences for the first item ( a multica less than 10 items remains and is state auto campgrounds. Just as St. tegory item) equal to an affirmative freely acknowledged. Croix State Park, the Scenic and response and using the category op All five camper samples proved Woodenfrog sample areas display a tions of many activities and clearing scalable on the Minnesota scale. This large amount of development com for activities as affirmative responses was true in terms of both the coeffi pared to Banning State Park. How for the second and third items. The cient of reproducibility and the coef ever, differences other than develop yes-no captions in figure I are one ficient of scalability. The coefficient ment attributes were apparent be word abbreviations of the three scale of reproducibility determined for tween these campground areas. In items. each sample ranged from .95 to .99, contrast to the situation at Banning The "Minnesota scale" classifies while the coefficient of scalability and St. Croix, the Scenic and Wood campers into four categories, based ranged from .77 to .95. enfrog campgrounds are located on on their response pattern to the three lakes noted for good fishing and are items used in the questionnaire. surrounded by old growth pines. The study design Four scale types result. Type "0" They are also much further away campers respond negatively to all A modified cross sectional re from the Minneapolis-St. Paul met three i terns. Type "1" campers re search design was used. A precondi ropolitan area, where over half of spond positively to the facilities tion to implementing this design was Minnesota's population resides. item, but negatively to the activities that all population groups included This metropolitan area was the and camp clearing item; type "2" in the sampling frame be scalable source of the Roseville sample. campers re-spond positively to the using the Minnesota development There is an obvious situational dif facilities and activities items, but preference scale. The camper sam ference between this sample group negatively to the camp clearing item; ples were selected to include differ and campers sampled in camp type "3" campers respond positively ences other than those of develop grounds. This difference and the non to all three items: facilities, activi ments to make sure the scale developmental differences between ties, and campground clearing. "wo~ked" equally well despite varia campgrounds sampled could con The Minnesota scale is vulnerable tion in conditions where campers ceivably have been the cause for because it is composed of only three were interviewed. some campers in each sample being items. However, since our first item The two campground sample areas unscalable using our preference -facilities preferences-really has where the Minnesota scale was de- scale.
11 ...... ~_ r... - ...... _... _ .... - "_:"' ;.. ~ -
ABOVE: The ultimate in development, facilities, and clearing is at St. Croix State Park. This study shows that such development is preferred more by those from rural rather than urban homes. LEFT: In contrast, Banning State Park is the least developed of the study areas, as evidenced by this hand pump and well. Such a park is attractive to the tent camper seeking primitive or limited development.
Station Bulletin 516 Forestry Series 22 July 1976