CAMPERS ACROSS THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM: A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION Drew A. Cavin7 resources. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism provides managers with a tool to manage for this diversity. Management The ROS outlines different recreation settings from Clemson University which managers can allocate and plan resources (Manning Clemson, SC 29634 1999). Each setting is characterized by managerial, social, Jenny K. Cavin7 and environmental factors (Clark & Stankey 1979). Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Understanding the visitors who prefer each setting is of Management critical importance to managing their enjoyment. Yuan Clemson University and McEwen (1989) conducted a study similar to the current one across three different campsite settings. Their Gerard Kyle campsites, however, were situated towards the middle William E. Hammitt of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). They Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management suggested that studies should examine camp settings on Clemson University the extremes of the spectrum. The current study does that in examining wilderness campers, to walk-in campers, to James Absher car campers. USDA Forest Service, Pacifi c Southwest Research Station Driver et al. (1987) outlined some principles regarding Abstract use of the ROS for managers. This article identifi es three The purpose of this study was to compare the components that make up a recreational opportunity: demographic and behavioral profi les of campers across activity opportunities, setting opportunities, and three distinct types of camping opportunities. Comparing experience opportunities. The purpose of this study was these three campsites will help identify the types of users to examine similarities and differences of campers at three at each and to assist managers’ efforts to better serve the users of these sites. Questionnaires were distributed to different sites within the Sumter National Forest in South 507 persons camping in three different campsites in the Carolina. Sumter National Forest, in South Carolina. A total of 419 were returned for a response rate of 82.6%. Analysis 2.0 Methods indicated that there was variation across campsites for all 2.1 Study Area and Study Sites attributes that were examined. These fi ndings illustrate The study area was near Burrell’s Ford on the Chattooga that even though the sites are within close proximity to River, which creates the northernmost border between one another, they offer a diverse range of opportunities South Carolina and Georgia. Three separate sites were and attract an equally diverse group of recreationists. sampled in the study; the Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area These fi ndings have important implications for natural (ER), Burrell’s Ford (BF) walk-in campground, and resource recreation management frameworks such as the Cherry Hill (CH) developed campground. The three Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. study sites are all located within a three-mile radius of each other and are on the Andrew Pickens Ranger 1.0 Introduction and Literature Review District of the Sumter National Forest. Cherry Hill has Diversity among recreationists has been recognized as 27 drive-in campsites with picnic tables, tent pads and early as the 1960’s (Wagar 1963; King 1966; Shafer has a centrally located bathhouse with running water and 1969). Understanding the different types of recreationists electricity. Burrell’s Ford is a walk-in area located 350 and their preferences is critical to managing recreation yards from a parking lot and at the end of a smooth gravel roadbed. Most of the campsites have picnic tables and 7Research and paper completed while graduate students lantern hangers and there is a centrally located vault toilet at Clemson University. Future address is: Department with no running water. The campsites are adjacent to the of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M Chattooga River. Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area, part of University, TAMU 2261, College Station, TX 77840. Email: [email protected] the National Wilderness Preservation System, is an 8,274- Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326 39 acre area that encompasses the tri-state border between respondents chose to complete the survey later and return Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The fi rst it in the postage paid envelope. Of the 196 respondents campsites are just over ¼ mile from a parking lot. who took the questionnaire home, 117 (59.7%) returned them. The total number of surveys returned was 424 2.2 Study Sample with a response rate of 83.7%. The breakdown for each The study population was all overnight campers who site was as follows: 44.3% (188) of the total sample was visited Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area (ER), Burrell’s Ford from CH, 29.3% (124) were from BF, and 26.4% (112) walk-in campground (BF), and Cherry Hill campground were from ER. (CH) during the months of May-October, 2003. The study sample was a convenience sample of campers the 2.5 Analysis researchers came into contact with during visits to the The analysis was performed in two separate phases. The sites. Because many campers do not stray too far from the fi rst phase consisted of calculating frequencies for all campsite during certain periods (i.e., meals) of their stay, variables, then cleaning the data for entry error. Once the researchers were able to make contact with most campers initial frequencies were checked for data entry errors and at CH and BF on any given weekend. Researchers were were rectifi ed, the frequencies were re-run, and examined. able to contact a large majority of the total population Specifi cally, the characteristics of the visit and personal during the sampling frame. There were a higher information variables were examined. These descriptive proportion of uncontacted campers at ER due to the large statistics gave researchers insight into the characteristics area over which campers were distributed. of visitors in the study and of the characteristics of their camping trip. Visitor and visit characteristics were then 2.3 Sampling Frame subjected to either a one way ANOVA procedure using The sampling frame for surveying was late May 2003 location (ER, BF, CH) as the independent variable or a through October 2003. The sites were surveyed on Chi-square statistics was computed, depending on the weekends (Friday - Saturday) May 24 through August type of data (categorical or continuous). The Scheffe’s 30 and October 3 through 25. This sampling frame post hoc test was chosen because of its strict criteria for allowed data collection to capture the most frequently signifi cance (Tibachnick & Fidell 1996). This procedure used times of the year. The Friday-Saturday site visits was utilized throughout the fi rst and second phases of the allowed researchers to contact almost all visitors for a analysis to determine signifi cant differences among and given weekend. The rationale behind sampling on these between the three campsites. days was that any camper coming in on Friday would, by the nature of camping, be present on Saturday and The second phase of the analysis consisted of descriptive any camper coming in on Saturday would be present on and comparative examinations of the theoretical Sunday. Over the course of the sampling frame, visits constructs. Items representing a range of services/ were made on selected Sundays to check if any new amenities provided by the campsites were grouped into campers were arriving. During these visits, the researchers conceptual categories based on face validity. Internal observed an insignifi cant number of campers who had consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha come on Sunday and were not there on Saturday. The correlations. The service offering item domains were researchers also observed that many campers who were then analyzed by campsite using the one way ANOVA present during the week were also present on a weekend. procedure described above. Cronbach’s alpha values Use patterns in ER were identifi ed by Rutlin (1995). The were calculated for the a priori domains for camper entry points and trails identifi ed as most heavily used motivations, which were measured using Driver’s (1977) were sampled more often, while the less popular entry REP scales. No factor analysis was undertaken due to points were sampled less often. the proven reliability of the REP domains (Mandfredo et al. 1996). For each domain of camper motivations, a 2.4 Sample Size and Response Rate grand mean score was computed. These domain means A non-probability convenience sample was conducted were examined for face validity and then compared and 506 campers were contacted. Three refused to across the three sites using the one way ANOVA accept the questionnaire. Three hundred and seven procedure. Experience Use History was measured using (307) questionnaires were completed on-site, while 196 the procedure outlined by Hammitt, Backlund, & Bixler 40 Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326 (in press), and compared across the sites using ANOVA In total, many variables indicated that different types procedures. of people were using each of the different campsites in the study. Campers at CH were signifi cantly older 3.0 Results that campers at the other two sites. Burrell’s Ford and The respondents were 70.9% male and 29.1% female. ER require at least a ¼ mile hike to get to the camping The median age was 40, with the youngest person sites. When forced to carry camping equipment down, 16 years and the oldest person 79 years. The highest and then back up the trail, many older people seem to percentages of visitors were from the 20-29 year age range stay away. The percentage of men and women at each (24.50%). Over 49% of the sample had at least a college site was also different. Females had a slightly stronger degree.