HomeMy WebLinkAboutForest at Ashland Doorstep
The Forest at
Ashland's Doorstep
A Study of Visitation to the Ashland Creek Watershed
Jurgen A. Hess
Clemson Class of 1985
Clemson University
Department of Parks, Recreation
and Tourism Management
Clemson, S.C. 29631
This paper was prepared as a
student project in partial
fulfillment of the requirement
of the Professional Development
for Outdoor Recreation Management
Program at Clemson University.
It in no way reflects USDA Forest
Service policy nor are the
opinions expressed those of
anyone other than the author.
April 1986
iH --.
The Author
Jurgen A. Hess is the Forest
Landscape Architect at the
Rogue River National Forest
P. O. Box 520, Medford, OR,
97501.
Cover Sketch
Aerial view of City of Ashland
with Ashland Creek Watershed
by Gary L. Bartlett
ii
Abstract
Although municipal watersheds tend to be used primarily for water production, they
also frequently serve as a recreation resource to nearby cities. This study
collected and analyzed data to determine current and future visitation to the
Ashland Creek Watershed, immediately south of Ashland, Oregon. Ashland residents
were the subjects for the survey. The Watershed was visited by a significant
portion of Ashland residents. Visitation frequency was related to age, sex,
retirement status and length of residence in Ashland. Lack of information was the
primary deterrent to usage. Based on survey responses, a small to moderate increase
in visitation was predicted to occur. Significant increases in use would occur if
recreation opportunities were to be increased. Residents were found to have a high
level of concern for management of the area. Implications for management of the
Watershed are presented. Strategies are recommended for developing understanding
and cooperation between different users.
iii
r --
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, Oregon, and especially
Claude W. Curran, Ph. D., Director of the School of Social Science. Without the
counsel, assistance, and diligent work of Professor Curran and the Geography
Department students, this project would not have been possible.
Many Rogue River National Forest personnel provided critical reviews that were
useful in refining this paper. Stylistic improvements were made through the
editorial assistance of Jeff LaLande. Jon Skeels was invaluable for his assistance
in running the statistical-analysis computer program. Maps and aerial view sketches
are by Gary L. Bartlett. Production typing was done by Janet Brockbank. Bar chart
illustrations are by Laurel Communications, Medford, OR.
To all of these I give my sincere appreciation.
iv
...~.*..,~
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1 Chapter 5 Analysis of Data 19
Chapter 1 Introduction 5 Survey Sample Characteristics 19
Are People Aware of the Area? 20
Purposes of the Study 5 Visitation Level 20
Study Boundaries 5 Who Visits and Doesn't Visit
Definitions 5 the Area? 20
Basic Assumptions 6 How is the Area Used? 23
Limitations 6 Rating of Recreation Opportunities 25
Why Don't People Visit the Area? 25
Chapter 2 Literature Review 7 Future Visitation 26
Future Visitation with Supply
Importance of Nearby Characteristics Changes 26
Recreation Areas 7 Unsolicited Comments zr
Assessment of Recreation
Participation and Demand 7 Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions 29
Summary of Procedures 29
Chapter 3 The Study Area 9 Highlights of the Findings 29
Conclusions 31
Implications and Recommendations 32
Chapter 4 Procedures 15
Bibliography 37
The Subjects 15
Questionnaire Development 15 Appendices 39
Collection of Data 16
Treatment of Data 16 Appendix A. Questionnaire 41
Appendix B. Questionnaire
Answers Tabulation 45
Appendix C. Selected
Cross tabulations 47
v
iH--
List of Figures
1- Project Location 8. Percent of Visitors
and Study Area 10 and Nonvisitors by
2. Aerial View 11 Tenure in Ashland 22
3. Percent of Residents 9. Percent of Visitors by
With 4 or More Years Visitation Frequency 23
of College 19 10. Rating of Availability
4. Respondents' Tenure of Recreation Opportunities
in Ashland 20 11. Future Use of the Area
5. Awareness of Ashland by Visitors 26
Watershed by Tenure 12. Future Use of the Area
in Ashland 20 by Nonvisitors 26
6. Visitors and Nonvisitors 13. . Future Use With Changes
by Age Group 21 in Supply Characteristics 27
7. Percent of Visitors
and Nonvisitors that
are Retired 21
List of Tables
1- Recreation Setting 4. Reasons for Not
Visitation per Last Visiting the Area 25
12 Months 23 5. Survey Respondent
2. Participation in Demographic Profile 28
Recreation Activities 24
3. Visitation by Social
Group 25
vi
.,~_.-...,,"'''.._--
Study Purposes
iU thoveh n!lmicipal watersheds
tend to be used primarily for
water production, they also
frequently serve as a recreation
resource. Forest land managers
are challenged to make decisions
on the appropriate mix of land
uses for these areas. Surveys of
visitation to these areas can
provide specific and relevant
information for managers.
The primary purpose of this study
was to determine the current and
predicted future level of visita-
tion to the Ashland Watershed.
The study also describes socio-
economic and recreation partici-
pation characteristics of visitors
and nonv isitors.
Study Area and the Subjects
The study area was the 14,000-
acre Ashland Creek Watershed
(in the Rogue River National
Forest), which serves as the
source of domestic water for
the city of Ashland, Oregon.
Ashland residents were used ~s
the subjects for the study.
Prccedures
A representative survey was
conducted by the Southern Oregon
State College (sase) Geography
Department. A demographic
profile was developed for
visitors and nonvisitors.
Highlights of the Findings
Almost three-fourths of the survey
respondents indicated they knew
where the Ashland Watershed is
located. Forty-one percent of
those interviewed visit the area.
Executive Summary
Most visitors to the Watershed were
male, between ages 24 to 44, and
had lived in Ashland more than two
years. They also were frequent
visitors to other types of recreation
settings, but were similar to non-
visitors in levels of education,
income, occupation and student status.
A significant number of nonvisitors
were retired, 65 years of age or
older, and had lived in Ashland less
than two years.
Activities most frequently partici-
pated in included hiking/walking
viewing scenery, and driving for
pleasure. A total of 68 percent
of the visitors rated the avail-
ability of recreation opportunities
in the area as "excellent" or
"good". "Lack of information"
was cited as the primary deterrent
to visitation.
Sixteen percent of visitors plan to
visit the area more frequently in the
future, while 28 percent of current
nonvisitors plan to visit the area
in the future. Nearly half of the
respondents predicted they would
visit the area more frequently
in the future if there were
better access, more trails and
more information on the area.
Host of the 36 unsolicited comments
centered around two areas; (1)
concern for water quality 9nd the
environment and (2) keeping the
area open for some type of
limited use.
Conclusions
Long-time Ashland residents seem
to have a higher level of awareness
of the location of the Watershed.
The Watershed is visited by a
significant portion of Ashland's
residents. Visitation to the
r.--
Watershed is related to age,
sex, retirement status, and
the length of time people
have lived in Ashland.
Visitation patterns indicate the
area fills a need for recreating
in a natural forest setting close
to the city. Activities with the
highest participation are oriented
to appreciation of the natural
environment.
Despite the fact that most of the
respondents indicated they knew
the location of the Watershed, the
primary reason for not visiting the
area was lack of information.
Evidently knowledge of the area's
location does not necessarily
equate with having sufficient
information to visit the area.
It is predicted that there will be
a small to moderate increase in
visitation to tte area due to (a)
current visitors using the area
more frequently, (b) current non-
visitors using the area, and (c)
Ashland's population growth.
Fairly significant increases in
visitation are predicted if the
area has better access, more trails,
and if more information on the
area is provided.
Based on the high number of
unsolicited comments, there is wide-
spread concern for management of the
area. A common theme ran through
most of the comments; people
recognize the area is a fragile place
deserving of care and proper
stewardship.
Implications and Reccmnendations
Implications and recommendations for'
for managing the Ashland Watershed
include the following:
Recognition of the Recreation Role.
The primary objective for managing
the area is protecting Ashland's
water supply. However, the area
also plays an important role in
providing for Ashland residents'
recreation needs.
Recommendation: The Rogue River
National Forest Land Management
Plan should recognize and address
the Watershed's role of providing
close-in recreation for Ashland
residents.
Awareness and Information. There
is little readily-available
information on the area's
environmental sensitivity.
Information could guide new
visitors in the proper use
of the area.
Reccamendation: Develop an
education program with the
,objective of increasing
visitors' awareness to the
environmental sensitivity
of the area.
Future Recreation Use. The
results of the survey predicted
visitation will increase even
if nothing is done to change
the area. Unmanageg use of
the area could result in
overuse and increased fire risk.
Recommendation: Upon
completion of the
Forest Land Management
Plan, develop a new
detailed management
plan for the Watershed
to include direction
for recreation.
2
"""""""",,,.~..."~_..----.,.
Future Use With Supply Changes.
Increases in recreation supply
characteristics (trails, etc.)
could stimulate significant
increases in visitation. It
is likely that many residents
would react negatively to any
management changes to the area
without having had an opportunity
to be involved in those changes.
Recoumendation: Provide the
opportunity for local citize~s
and agencies tc be involved
in any decisions dealing with
new development or management
changes in the area.
Developing Understanding and
Communication. This study should
contribute to an understanding of how
the Watershed is used for recreation
by the people of Ashland. With an
awareness of the study conclusions,
managers should be better able to
resolve conflicts between different
interests.
Recommendation: Forest Service
managers should discuss the findings
and recommendations from this paper
with city of Ashland officials.
Recarmendation: Develop a
consensus group representing all
interests to provide input to
the Forest Service for managing
the Watershed.
Ashland has a special resource at its
back doorstep. The Watershed is a
valuable area that has the potential
to fill diverse needs. To realize
this potential, managers must develop
understanding and cooperation between
all users.
3
,-
4
Chapter I
As cities become larger and more
densely populated, there is an
increasing need for providing
close-in undeveloped forest-type
natural areas. Forest areas close
to cities provide accessible natural
settings. These settings offer
contrast to the urban environment.
While forests located close to
cities have the potential to provide
recreation opportunities, they are
also frequently used for municipal
watershed purposes. Recreational
use of municipal watersheds tends
to be controversial because of
4he concern for potential conflicts
with production of high quality
water. Forest land managers are
challenged to make decisions on the
appropriate mix of land uses.
Good information on public behavior
and attitudes is essential for dealing
with these issues.. Surveys of
recreation participation for current
and potential users can give .
relevant and specific information to
managers.
Purposes of the Study
The primary purpose of this study
was to determine the current and
predicted future level of visitation
to the city of Ashland, Oregon, Water-
shed. Characteristics of both
visitors and nonvisitors to the area
were to be determined. An analysis
was to be done of correlations
between (a) current recreation use
patterns of visitors and nonvisitors,
(b) their length of residency (tenure)
in the City of Ashland, (c) knowledge
of the Watershed and (d) certain social-
economic characteristics.
Study Boundaries
The study area was basically defined
as the Ashland Creek Watershed,
Introduction
immediately south of Ashland, Oregon.
The area is on the Ashland Ranger
District, Rogue River National Forest.
A more detailed description of the
area is in Chapter 3. City of Ashland
residents were used for the survey.
Definitions
Bias. "The tendency for some
extraneous factor to affect
answers to survey questions or
the survey results in general,
in a systematic way, so that
results are 'pushed' or 'pulled'
in some specific direction."
(Alrecl< 1985).
Chi-square. A test of statistical
significance of the relationship
between variables in a cross-
tabulation.
Cramers V. A statistical test used
for determining the magnitude of
crosstabulation relationship. It
adjusts Chi-square for the size of
the table and sample.
Crosstabulation. Plotting two
variables in a matrix format
consisting of columns and rows.
Demographic factors. Social-economic
characteristics of a population
generally including, but not
limited to: sex, age, education,
income and occupation.
Forced response question. A type of
question that forces the respondent
to chose from several alternative
answers.
Latent demand. "Recreation demand
inherent in a population but not
reflected in the current use of
areas". (Gold 1980).
Nonrespondent. Member of household
not agreeing to be interviewed.
Respondent. Me~ber of household
agreeing to be interviewed.
5
.,..... --
Significance level. "The probability
that the magnitude of the relation-
ship might result in a sample of
that size purely from sampling
error if, in fact, it did not
exist in the population." (Alreck
1985)
Supply characteristics. Outdoor
recreation factors that deal with
attributes of the physical resource
base, such as land, water,
facilities, wildlife and vegetation.
Basic Assumptions
Several assumptions were made. It
was assumed that visitors to the
study area were primarily residents
of the city of Ashland. Respondents
were assumed to be a knowledgeable
source of information of household
characteristics and current recreation
patterns. It was further assumed that
respondents were capable of both
recalling specific information and
predicting their future recreation
behavior. To the extent these
assumptions are true, the information
supplied by the respondents was valid.
LiDmoi.tations
Limitations of this study are of
several types (1) definition of
subjects, (2) sample determination
and (3) data collection. The first
limitation, definition of subjects,
involves the geographic boundary
of the subjects. As stated
previously, it was assumed that
most of the use in the study area
was by Ashland residents. This
assumption was based on dis-
cussions with Ashland Ranger
District personnel. However, on-
site testing to determine users'
origin has not been done.
The second type of limitation
involves determination of the
sample population. Directory
telephone number listings were
used as a means to obtain
household addresses.
People excluded from consideration
as potential respondents in the
survey include those without phones,
with unlisted or unpublished phone
numbers and those who changed phone
numbers in the last year. In a 1973
study (Field) it was estimated that
7 percent of residents in San Francisco
and Seattle were without phones.
According to Pacific Northwest Bell
telephone company (Nelson), non-
published and nonlisted phone
numbers account for a total of 17
percent of Oregon customers. Bias
could result if people not included
in the phone directory have potential
response characteristic that are
different from people listed in the
directory.
Data collection limitations involve
several factors that could produce
bias in the study. Ashland has a high
population of retired elderly resi-
dents. Because they potentially have
more leisure time, elderly people may
respond in greater numbers than younger
people (Alreck 1985). The survey was
conducted during daytime hours.
Households with all residents working
outside of the home during the day would
be under-represented in the study.
When asked by interviewers, not all
of the selected respondents desired
to participate in the study. Non-
respondents mayor may not have
the same characteristics as
respondents. The study outcomes
have the potential to be biased to
the degree that there are differences
in characteristics between respond-
ents and nonrespondents.
For the purpose of this study,
respondents were asked to predict
their future behavior. Actual
future behavior mayor may not
be the same as these predictions.
Labaw (1980) feels there is little
evidence that people will radically
change their present behavior without
a major change in influencing
factors. According to Stankey (1974)
actual behavior is "the ultimate
test of preferences."
6
.,,~..,-,,",.._-,,-,",,-,
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Importance of Nearby
Recreation Areas
Having recreation opportunites close
to home is important for people.
The 1977 Nationwide Outdoor
Recreation Survey (U.S.D.I. 1979)
found that frequency of park use
was greater for nearby than for
distant parks. Thirty-seven
percent of respondents in that
study used regional park areas
(within 1 hour travel time) more
than 10 times annually. Fifty-
two percent said regional parks
were very important to them.
The importance of having park
areas close to home was greater
for urban residents than for
rural residents.
Clark et al. (1982) found that
most recreation trips by
residents were taken in areas
near their communities. They
found that there was a "home
range 11 based on type of access
and travel time. In another
study, Clark et al. (1984)
found that users of dispersed
recreation settings relatively
close to home (within 2 hours)
planned to increase their use of
these areas.
Assessment of Recreation
Participation and Demand
The U.S. Department of Interior
(1979) points out that
recreation participation rates
are related to demographic
components such as income, age,
education and sex. Demographic
factors help to explain and
predict recreation behavior.
However, Driver (1976) explains that
recreation behavior is also related
to past recreation experience. Given
no changes in other factors, people
tend to continue current recreation
patterns.
Shafer and Moeller (1971) and Knetsch
(1975) emphasize the importance of
recreation supply variables when
assessing recreation demand. Knetsch
states that data should be collected
in such a way that predictions can be
made of use pattern changes given
changes in the availability of
recreation opportunities. Shafer and
Moeller report that use should be
related to supply variables such as
the distance from the recreation area
to the population center and the
attractiveness of the environment.
According to Gold (1980), all of the
previously discussed factors should
be analyzed when determining the
demand for site specific recreation.
However, Gold also recommends the use
of both on-site and home surveys
to collect information about social
use. He recommends that surveys
include both users and nonusers of the
area to determine "levels of preference
and satisfaction". Surveys can
describe both latent demand and actual
participation rates. If adequate
facilities, access and information
are provided, participation can be
expected (Knopf, Schreyer 1985).
Gold also notes that participation
is influenced by potential users'
awareness of recreation opportunities.
Information about an area, or
lack thereof, can directly affect the
amount of use an area receives.
Market research efforts have provided
much experience in the design and inter-
pretation of personal interview surveys.
According to McCarthy and Perreault
(1984), market research provides
answers to questions of who are
the buyers and who are the non-buyers.
Buyers can be considered analogous to
'users of recreation services. It is
just as important to know why people
are not interested in a product or
service as to why they are.
7
~.
8
-.'
Chapter 3 The Study Area
"All the forest's a stage": the Watershed,
a scenic backdrop for Ashland, home
of renowned Shakespearean Theatre.
The study area is in Jackson County
in southwestern Oregon. It comprises
most of the upper watershed of
Ashland Creek. The area lies
adjacent to the south city limits
of Ashland (Figures 1 and 2). It
includes approximately 14,000 acres,
all of which are within the Rogue
River National Forest except 406
acres which are owned by the City
of Ashland. The area is administered
by the Ashland Ranger District.
Elevations range from 2,400 feet
to 7,533 feet at the summit of
Mt. Ashland. 1/ The area
is characterized by steep
mountainous topography. The sandy
soils derived from granitic bed-
rock are unstable and easily erodable
and cause ~ignificant problems to
road maintenance and water quality.
Vegetation consists principally of
coniferous forests. The overall
visual character is a natural
appearing forest landscape providing
contrast to the adjacent urban area
of Ashland. The area provides a
scenic forested backdrop for the
City (above photo). Summers tend
to be very hot and dry with winters
being cool and moist. Upper
elevation areas receive a consider-
able amount of snow.
1/ Mt. Ashland Ski Area was excluded from
the study area for the following reasons:
The ski area generates a very high number
of users who have a "developed site"
orientation as opposed to having a dis-
persed recreation orientation. The ski
area serves a much larger area than City
of Ashland and has an access route
external to the Watershed. It was felt
that inclusion of the ski area would
significantly skew the study results.
9
~
Project
San Francisco
Feint
vHn.
'l)
E
'"
,~\< / ~~ >' ~
titruaPark
y- ~.-- I 1/;1
~: t
-', ",' . ,/"".., '=>M;j!54~
~ ., 1~" '.
]\:;<-;/\'-7(>'/' ' I
_ j \!ru.~ --~,./ : : J ..~ \-. f
Reedel'( Reservorru-~
: ", '/ ~ ._\ ".- ',-- [
/ ~ \ I
~"') 5; \ ..-S-
-4 .~. '~~"
~ "
~.,.~,
;;...':J '-.,.
Portland
WA
PROJECT
LOCATION
- ,,-,:---.....
--'(,'lQ~~~>'Re"de' ,"'4f~t~~.j(
,! !~~o/-,n"'. <- ,.,..... f - ,..........~ .
v' ." -~Gladek}-""< ";-"'--", ~'~,
'!G0;0ii6, ", ,'\ \o-SH":'NO' \
-~~~- ,~--: ,'\" \ ,.."-. \
~~i -"~<:~" ,/' \--RESE~CH,), ,,~'
1',-"" ~~~;~ \ r ,1 c ,,~~~~-"
I >' ~--t. " "'': '\, \. -.--"1' ,
7;"~ .- ~.~tanda"k N':""A'" ,,~
< AS,-,' 'ANot\,\R!~E, \,
-.J;": AIlf;AJ
,\..,. v
" ""~ "
..~~,~. I -- D './
,~~ ,
~, , ~,
WfflR~\1ED, " ~
1- j ..;' 'It,,^:;;~tlt~t
#:,
Jack
r lat
\J..,-;".....",,.,..
:g~l:f.; 1.
Project ~oc3~ion
..~ ,-~~o<j
_J ~ ..:...'
,'tudy
~p~
~-. .L ___ c.....
ASHLAND WATERSHED STUDY AREA
10
.,~.-"--"_..,-.....
I
!
I
~:ir.~q:f
<::,~{i;
\
\
//
////
?igure 2
. 'e .
,~, rlal View
E
.".....
I
, /
C<(
ww
:I: a:
(J)<t
a:
~~
~:J
:>~
C
Z
<t
-oJ
:I:
~
~.J\.\
'1,: .'
'" --, i\
\"\
:..\ r
\, ,;1
\....:<--....'\
';~/
L: -:;.,
"\'-.... "'.'.
" .-,"
~'--'
,
\;
if
.,,7/ I
J
!j
.sJ
~
~
I
I
/
/
/
//
_J
Reeder Reservoir; closed to public use.
Tbe city of Ashland uses the Water-
shed as the source of domestic water
for its residents. In 1929 a
cooperative agreement between the
city and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture established management
priority "for the purpose of
conserving and protecting the water
supply of the said City" (U.S.D.A.
1929 ) .
A 1979 plan, Interim Plan-Ashland
Creek Watershed (U.S.D.A. 1979),
provides current direction. This
plan states that, "Water production
is the key use for Ashland Creek
Watershed." The city's water supply
is stored in Reeder Reservoir, a 22-
acre impoundment within the study
area. Public use of Reeder Reservoir
is not permitted by the City.
Logging in the study area during the
1950's-1960's developed most of the
road system, however, since the late
1960'S no scheduled timber harvest has
taken place in the area. Some minor
logging has been done to develop fuel
breaks. Livestock grazing is not per-
mitted in the Watershed. The 1,408-
acre Ashland Research Natural Area is
in the study area. This tract was
established in 1970 for purposes of
research and education.
Recreation access to the area is primar-
ily on narrow and winding roads. There
are a total of 43.5 miles of road in
the study area suitable for vehicul~r
travel. However, only 13.6 miles are
maintained for use by automobiles.
There are several road access points to
the area from the city. The principal
access is Road 2060, an extension of the
street running through Lithia Park
(Figure 1). Another access route i~,
from the Tolman Creek area, on Roads
2080 and 2080600. This route connects
to Road 2060 at "Four-Corners" junction
to make a popular loop system. This
loop system is generally kept open,
except when impassable due to snow.
Narrow, winding Road 2060.
12
--
Vehicle access is controlled by
a system of gates.
Access is strictly controlled by the
City and the Forest Service. Most
roads are closed during winter and
during high fire risk periods.
There are no developed recreation
sites and very few trails within the
study area. However, numerous informal
trails provide access to the Watershed
from adjacent subdivisions, especially
in the Tolman Creek area. The only
maintained Forest Service trail is a
one mile self guided nature trail.
A well used trail connects the
nature trail parking area to
Reeder Reservoir. This trail was
created by users. A jogging and
hiker's path locally known as the
liT oothpick Tra il", is on an old
mining ditch berm.
"Toothpick Trail".
13
..,....
Discussions with Ashland District
field personnel, (daLuz), indicate
that overall recreation use in the
area is relatively light to moderate.
The Watershed is closed to camping,
consequently recreationists are
generally day-users. Recreation
use tends to concentrate along
Road 2060. The nature trail
parking area averages 6 to 8 cars
on a summer weekend with an
occasionai peak of 10 to 12 cars.
Eesides using the developed nature
trail, people tend to disperse on
several primitive trails from this
parking lot.
Sign~ give information on
travel restrictions.
The roads in the area have
historically been a popular place
for motorcycling. More recently,
running or jogging on roads and
trails in the area has become
very popular. A new type of
recreation pursuit in the area
has been the use of mountain
bikes on roads and trails.
Seasonally closed roads
provide temporary trailheads.
Southern Oregon State College (S.O.S.C.)
utilizes the area for educational field
trips. The Biology and Geography
Departments make regular visits to the
area with students.
As visitation to the Watershed has
increased, concern for fire prevention
has also risen. Other management con-
cerns related to use of the area
include: (a) soil erosion caused by
motorcycles, (b) vandalism to signs
and (c) water pollution.
14
~..'.....--.--""'~",.-
Chapter 4 Procedures
The procedures used for the study are
presented in this Chapter. Four aspects
are described: (1) the subjects, (2)
questionnaire development, (3) data
collection and (4) data treatment.
The procedures were developed to assess
the level of current and future
recreation use in the Ashland Watershed.
Methods were also designed to gather
certain information on visitors and
nonvisitors of the area~
The Subjects
As described in Chapter 1, this study
focused on residents of the City of
Ashland because it was assumed that
recreationists in the Watershed were
primarily local residents. Information
was desired from both visitors and
nonvisitors to the Watershed. Therefore,
the target population for the study
included all residents because they
were all potential visitors.
Households were used as a population
for the study. In 1980, the city of
Ashland had 14,943 people residing
in 5,995 households (Bureau of
the Census 1983).
A sample population of 228 house-
holds was selected through a random
sampling process. Phone numbers
were used to get household addresses.
Phone numbers were selected at random
Irom Cole's Directory (Cole 1985).
Both 482 and 488 Ashland exchange
numbers were used. Phone numbers
are listed in numerical order in
the directory. Every 22nd listing
was selected to obtain the required
sample size total. Obvious non-
residential listings were passed
over. Cole's Directory also listed
addresses corresponding to the phone
numbers. Selected household
addresses were plotted according
to six sectors of the city.
Geographic stratification was
checked to ensure equal repre-
sentation by all areas of the city.
Questionnaire Developaent
A four page questionnaire was
designed to collect information
on current recreation patterns,
demographic characteristics and
future recreation behavior. Response
was requested to 20 questions.
The questionnaire was developed to
be used with a personal interview.
Personal interviews offer the advant-
ages of credibility, high return rate
and the ability to use graphic material
(Gold 1980). The questionnaire was
designed to be administered within a
12 to 15 minute period. Two maps showing
the Ashland Watershed and its location
were used by the interviewer to orient
the respondent. These maps are shown in
this paper as Figures 1 and 2.
"Forced response" (as opposed to open-
ended) questions were used. Forced
response questions use predetermined
response categories and offer the
advantage of ease of coding and
tabulation of results (Orlich 1978).
Determining possible answers required
consultation with field people
familiar with the study area.
The questionnaire was reviewed by
Claude Curran, Professor of Geography-
Southern Oregon State College; Jim Hays,
Rogue River National Forest Operations
Research Analyst and Ronald Waitt,
Ashland District Ranger. A pilot survey
was done which pointed out changes to be
made in the questionnaire. The activity
list for Question (Q.) 7 was expanded,
the definition for Q.3 "Recreation
Areas" was shortened, Q.18 (occupation)
was defined as the "type" of work, and
interviewer instructions were clarified.
The questionnaire is included in the
Appendix.
15
r."c'.
"Are you retired? Yes _ No V", a
respondent answers.
Collection of Data
Data collection was done by Southern
Oregon State College (saSC)
Geography Department students with
interview training and on-going
direction provided by Claude Curran,
Professor of Geography. An
introductory credential letter, maps
of the city, and the household address
list were provided to each interviewer.
Of the total sample of 228 house-
holds, 194 (85 percent) had people
that agreed to become respondents
for the survey. No attempt was made
to do a follow-up survey of people
declining to participate. If the
respondent was not home, students
were instructed to go next door,
alternatively selecting the
house to the left or right.
Interviewing was done during morning,
afternoon, and early evening hours on
weekdays from December 13, 1985, to
January 18, 1986, and February 3,
1986, to February 12, 1986.
The interview generally lasted
15 minutes. However, some
respondents were very interested
in the study and talked with the
interviewer for up to 45 minutes.
Several respondents asked for a
copy of the report to be mailed to
them.
Treatment of Data
Completed questionnaires were
numbered and checked for errors.
Responses to Q.18 regarding
occupation were categorized
according to the Dictionary
of Occupational Titles (U.S.
Department of Labor 1977). This
resulted in nine categories.
16
-'~--""-"~""-"-
These categories were clustered to
fit the six standard occupational
groups used by the Bureau of the
Census (19B 3),
Since Q.B involved multiple
responses, answers were recoded
to fit all possible combinations.
Categorization of answers resulted
in the following' codes:
a. Friends
b. Family
c. Alone
d. Friends and famHy
e. Friends and alone
f. Family and alone
g. Friends, family and alone
The data were analyzed through the
use of the SPSS-Version H computer
program (SPSS Statistical Package
For The Social Sciences; Nie et ale
1975). All letter response codes
were electronically recoded to become
integers. A "Don't know" response
for questions listing that answer
was coded separately from "No
response." Frequency tables, listing
number of respondents and percentages
were developed for each question.
Crosstabulations were calculated
with the SPSS program to analyze
relationsips between responses from
various questions. A statistical
analysis was computed to determine
the significance and strength of the
relationship between the independent
and dependent variables. The
analysis included chi-square and
Cramers V statistics.
Computer assisted analysis.
17
1"'"
18
'.......
Chapter 5 Analysis of Data
This chapter presents the results
of the survey. The findings
include respondents' demographic
characteristics, description
of visitors, nonvisitors, use
of the area and deterrents to
usage. Predictions of future
visitation behavior are also
reported. A complete tabulation
of all answers to the questionnaire
is in the Appendix.
Since Southern Oregon State College
is in Ashland, these high levels of
educational attainment were not
unexpected. College education levels
for Oregon and Ashland residents are
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Percent of Residents
With 4 or More Years of College
40
The survey procedure was
designed to obtain a sample that
was representative of residents
of Ashland. Bureau of the
Census (1983) statistics
were used to check represen-
tativeness of respondents'
demographic data. Overall,
respondent's characteristics
in terms of sex, income,
occupation, education and
student status were similar
to Census findings for
Ashland residents in general.
A detailed demographic profile
is presented in Table 5, p. 28.
c
Q)
u 20
&
36%
Survey Sample Characteristics
o
Oregon Ashland Survey
Residents.!J Residents.!J Respondents
.!J Bureau of the Census (1983)
Findings for age represent survey
respondents only. Interviewers
were instructed to talk to
either the head of the house-
hold or someone knowledgeable
of household recreation
behavior. Consequently the
survey findings for age
characteristics are not
directly comparable to Census
data for the population at large.
Respondents' occupations fit the
profile of Ashland residents
reported by Hays (1982). Forty-
eight percent of the respondents had
occupations in the "Professional
Managerial Technical" category. Of
the people in the survey, 18 percent
were students and 22 percent were
retirees.
Survey respondents had a high
level of education with 36 percent
having completed four or more years
of college. The 1980 Census found
that 34 percent of Ashland residents
had four or more years of college
compared to 18 percent for State of
Oregon residents.
Tenure in Ashland also corresponded
with findings by Hays (1982). While
15 percent of those interviewed had
only lived in Ashland for less than
two years, 26 percent had lived there
for 16 years or longer. Figure 4
displays tenure of respondents in
Ashland.
19
"T"'"" --
Figure 4. Respondents'
Tenure in Ashland
Years In
Ashland
0-1
2-4
26%
5-9
10-15
16 or
more
o
20
40
percent
n = 193
(n = total number of respondents)
Are People Aware of the Area?
In response to the question,
"Do you know where the
Ashland Watershed area is?",
almost three-fourths (74 per-
cent) of the persons inter-
viewed answered "yes".
Awareness of the area's
location was directly
related to the length of time
people had lived in Ashland.
Of the people who knew where
the Ashland Watershed was located,
only 6 percent had lived in Ashland
less than two years. However,
40 percent of the people who
did not know where the Watershed
was located had lived in Ashland
less than two years. The relationship
of awareness of the Watershed to
tenure in Ashland is displayed in
Figure 5.
Visitation Level
To what degree do people visit the
study area? According to results
of the interviews, 41 percent of
the respondents had visited the
Ashland Watershed.
Who Visits and Doesn't Visit the Area?
Visitors and nonvisitors had similar
characteristics in terms of education
levels and occupation. However,
there were significant differences
between the two groups in sex, age
and retirement status.
Figure 5. Awareness of Ashland Watershed by Tenure in Ashland
Years in
Ashland
0-1
2-4
5-9
10-15
16 or
more
o
20
Respondents Aware
of Location
n = 141
40
percent
40%
o
20
Respondents Not Aware
of Location
n = 50
40
percent
20
" "..........,"
Figure 6. Visitors and Nonvisitors by Age Group
Age
Group
Under
18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and
over
0
36%
20
Visitors
n = 77
40
percent
A higher proportion of visitors
were male (61 percent) compared
to nonvisitors, who were
equally divided between males
and females. There was little
correlation between respondents'
student/nonstudent status and
their visitation patterns.
Table 5 p. 28 presents
demographic information for
visitors and nonvisitors.
A total of 61 percent of visitors
were in the 25 to 44 year age
group while 24 percent of non-
visitors were 65 years of age or
older (Figure 6). Retirees were
over-represented in the group
that did not visit the area.
Thirty percent of nonvisitors
were retired compared to 12
percent of visitors (Figure 7).
The results of this survey are
consistent with the 1977
Nationwide Outdoor Recreation
Plan (D.S.D.I. 1979) that
found outdoor recreation
participation is negatively
correlated with age.
25%
o
20
40
percent
Nonvisitors
n = 101
Figure 7.. Percent of Visitors
and Honvisitors that are Retired
40
"0
~
~
C 20
CIl
u
~
o
Visitors
n=9
21
.,..." --
30%
Nonvisitors
n = 31
"
~ ;
As with the "awareness" factor,
visitation patterns were related
to the length of time respondents
had lived in Ashland. Ninety-
seven percent of visitors to the
area lived in Ashland more than
two years. Conversely, only 3
percent of visitors were newcomers
to Ashland who had lived there
less than two years.
Nonvisitors were heavily
weighted to both extremes of
the tenure scale. While
20 percent of the nonvisitors
lived in Ashland less than two
years, 32 percent had lived there
for 16 or more years. Figure 8
displays tenure in Ashland
for visitors and nonvisitors.
Results from the survey showed a
significant relationship between
visitation to the study area and
visitation to other recreation
settings. Persons interviewed were
asked how often they visited the
following types of areas:
- Urban Areas: park, playground,
sports field, private facility
- RoadedNonurban Areas: forest,
mountains, lakes, rivers, rural
- Wilderness Roadless: backcountry
areas
Visitors to the study area also
frequented the three different
types of areas more often than
nonstudy area visitors. Recreation
setting visition is displayed in
Table 1.
Figure 8. Percent of Visitors and Nonvisitors by Tenure in Ashland.
Years in
Ash I and
0-1
29%
2-4
5-9
10-15
16 or
more
o
40
percent
20
Visitors
n = 78
o
20
40
percent
Nonvisitors
n = 103
22
...,...
Table 1.. Recreation Setting Visitation per Last 12 Months
Wilderness .
None
1-2
3-10
11 or more
Roadless
43
29
20
8
n=79
70
13
10
7
n=101
en = number of responses)
How is the Area Used?
Figure 9. Percent of Visitors by
Visitation Frequency
While 40 percent of the respondents
visited the area one to two times
in the last 12 months, 19 percent
went there 11 or more times (Figure
9). From field observations and
discussions with Ashland Ranger
District personnel, it was noted
that the area is used more
heavily on weekends than weekdays.
40
40%
rJl
.9
.en
.::;
1-2
3-4
5-10 110r
more
"6 20
Respondents who visited the area
participated in a wide range
of activities. Hiking, walking,
viewing scenery, and driving for
pleasure were the most popular
activities. Activities with the
highest percentage of participation
tended to be oriented to appre-
ciation of the natural environment.
c
(!)
u
....
(!)
a..
o
None
Visits per last 12 months
n = 79
23
r -
Mountain biking; climbing in popularity.
Pat-tiel pation in activities was
similar to findings for day users
of roaded forest areas in a study
by Clark et al.(1984). Responses
to Question 7, which deals with
participation in activities, are
reported in Table 2. While the
question provided no information
as to restrictions for the area,
activities such as camping and
Christmas tree cutting are
prohibited.
Table 2. Participation in
Recreation Activities
Activitv %
Information was collected as to
the type of social group respondents
associated themselves with when
visiting the area. The most common
social group was the family (32 per-
cent), followed by friends (25 per-
cent) and a combination of friends
and family (15 percent). Together
these groups made up almost three-
quarters (72 percent) of the types
of use in the area. People who only
visited the area alone accounted for
13 percent of the visitors. The
predominance of the social groups,
especially families, correlates with
rindings by Field (1973). Visitation
by social group is illustrated in
Table 3.
Hiking, walking 62
View scenery 52
Driving for pleasure 51
Picnic 32
Nature study 30
Play in snow 27
Cross-country skiing
or snowshoe 19
Jogging 18
Christmas-tree cutting 18
Show area to visitors 18
Pick mushrooms or berries 13
Collect firewood 8
Mountain biking 6
Four-wheel driving off-road 6
Camp 6
Target shoot 5
Motorcycling 5
Fishing 4
Horseback riding 3
Drink alcoholic beverage 1
Sex 1
n=79
24
.......
Table 3. Visitation by Social
Group
Social Group
% of Visitors
Famil y
Friends
Friends and Family
Alone
Friends, Family
and Alone
Friends and Alone
Family and Alone
32~
25
15
72
13
9
5
1
n=78
Rating of Recreation Opportunities
Respondents who had visited the
area were asked to "rate the
availability of outdoor
recreation opportunities in the
Ashland Watershed". Results
indicated that the majority of
the visitors rated the area's
availability of opportunities
very high. Twenty-five percent
gave a rating of "excellent"
and 43 percent gave a rating of
"good". A crosstabulation
analysis of frequency of
visit ion to rating of recreation
opportunities indicated no
significant relationship existed.
Figure 10 shows the ratings.
Figure 10. Rating of Availability
of Recreation Opportunities
Rating
Excellent
Good
43%
Fair
Poor
Don!
Know
o
20
40
Percent of Visitors
n = 77
Why Don It People Visit the Area?
Deterrents to visitation covered a
wide range of reasons. The most
frequently cited reason was lack of
information (40 percent). Other
principal reasons were lack of time
(17 percent) and preferences for
other areas (17 percent).
Several reasons cited for non-
visitation dealt with restrictions
on use of the area. Sixteen percent
of the nonvisitors felt the public
was not permitted in the area and
7 percent cited the area as being
closed. "Too many people in the area"
was cited by only 1 percent of the
nonvisitors. Table 4 lists reasons
why people have not visited the area.
Crosstabulation analysis illustrated
a strong relationship between non-
visitors to the area and awareness of
the location of the area (Table C8,
App. C). The results of that analysis
correlated with the finding that
lack of information was the principal
reason cited for not visit~ng the
area.
Table 4.
the Area
Reasons For Not Visiting
1/
Reasons
%
40
17
17
16
11
9
7
4
3
2
1
1
Lack of information
Lack of time
Rather go to other areas
Thought public wasn't
permitted in the area
Personal health reasons
Don't know
The area is closed
Lack of transportation
Concern for water quality
Don't like the outdoors
The area is too far away
Too many people
n=103
11 Cited by nonvisitors
25
..,... --
Future Visitation
Visitors and nonvisitors were asked
to state their future plans for
visiting the area. Seventy-five
percent of the visitors indicated
they would visit the area "about
the same as presently". Sixteen
percent plan on visiting the area
more in the future than in the
past. Nine percent plan to visit
the area less in the future
(Figure 11). Twenty-eight
percent of non-visitors indicated
they plan on visiting the area
in the future, while 45 percent
did not plan on visiting the
area (Figure 12).
Figure 11. Future Use of the
Area by Visitors
Use
Frequency
More
75%
Same
Less
o
25 50
n = 77
75
percent
Figure 12. Future Use of
the Area by Nonvisitors 11
"Plan to Visit~ Study Area?" CO.12)
Yes
45%
No
Don't
Know
o
25
n = 110
50 percent
11 Includes respondents answering
"don't know" to Q.5 regarding
visitation to ,the study area.
Future Visition With Changes in
Supply Characteristics
Would increases in "recreational supply
characteristics" result in more people
visiting the area? Respondents were
asked to indicate their future visitation
plans if the area had better access, more
trails and there was more information on
the area available to users. Results
were categorized by current visitors
and nonvisitors. Forty-six percent
of visitors and 43 percent of nonvisitors
indicated they would use the area more
frequently. Fourteen percent of the non-
visitors stated they still would not use
the area. Seven percent of the current
visitors would use the area less
frequently if the changes were to
occur. Figure 13 illustrates future
visition with changes in supply
characteristics.
26
'.......
Figure 13. Future Use With Changes in Supply Characteristics
11
Use
Frequency
Same
More
Less
Would
Not Use '
Don't
Know
o
20
Visitors
n = 76
40
percent
46%
43%
o
20
Nonvisitors
n = 101
40
percent
11 Changes included "better access and more trails, and there was more
information on the area" (Q.13)
Unsolicited Cooments
Thirty-six respondents, 19 per-
cent of the total, offered unsol.ic-
ited comments to the interviewers.
Most of the comments dealt with
feelings about management practices
in the studyuarea. Sixteen people
recommended some form of closure or
restrictions for the area. Respondents
most often cited concern for water
quality and the environment as reasons
for the proposed restrictions.
Fourteen people recommended the area
be kept open for some type of recrea-
tion or education use. Most of the
uses people suggested were low inten-
sity-type activities such as hiking
and nature education. Several people
had mixed feelings; they wanted some
type of recreation to be permitted,
yet they were very concerned that some
people might abuse the area.
27
..,... --
Table 5. Survey Respondent DeIoographic Profile
Total Study Area Study Area
Respondents Visitors Nonvisitors
Sex ~ % ~
Male 53 61 50
Female 47 39 50
n=194 n=75 n=98
Age
Under 18 years 3 5 1
18-24 8 8 9
25-34 26 25 23
35-44 29 36 25
45-54 10 10 9
55-64 8 8 9
65 and over 16 8 24
n=189 n=77 n=101
Income ($)
Under 9,999 27 24 26
10,000-14,999 14 9 17
15,000-24,999 28 32 26
25,000-49,999 25 30 23
50,000 or more 6 5 8
n=147 n=63 n=74
Education (completed)
Junior High 6 2 8
High School 16 14 15
Tech/Voca. 5 5 6
Some College 37 41 34
College 36 38 37
n=190 n=79 n=100
Occuoation
Profess./Mgr. 48 48 50
Sales/Clerical 19 20 18
Service 16 16 15
Other 17 16 17
n=128 n=64 n=60
College Students
18 20 16
n=35 n=16 n=16
Retirees
22 12 30
n=41 n=9 n=31
28
~'-<.,-~...,,-
Chapter 6
The purpose of this study was to
determine the current and future
level of recreation use in the
Ashland Watershed. The study
examined the characteristics of
both visitors and nonvisitors
to the area. This final chapter
presents the following items:
- Summary of Procedures
- HIghlights of the Findings
- Conclusions
- Implications and Recommendations
SUIllIlIary of" Procedures
The study area was defined as the
Ashland Creek Watershed, exclusive
of the Mt. Ashland ski area. City
of Ashland residents were the
stAbjects for the study. A represent-
ative sample survey utilizing
personal interviews with
questionnaires was conducted. The
survey data were analyzed through
the use of the SPSS computer
program. Statistical results were
analyzed to describe characteristics
and relationships of study area
visitors and nonvisitors.
Highlights of the Findings
Awareness of the Area. Almost
three-fourths (74 percent) of the
respondents indicated they knew where
the Ashland Watershed was located.
Level of Current Use. Forty-one
percent of those interviewed visit
the area.
Visitors. Visitors had the following
characteristics:
- 61 percent male
61 percent were 24 to 44 years old
- 97 per'cent had 1 i ved in Ashland
more than two years
- high visitation frequencies to
urban r'oaded forest and wilder-
ness recreation settings
Summary and Conclusions
- similar to nonvisitors in levels
of education, income,
occupation and student status.
Nonvisitors. Characteristics unique
to nonvisitors included:
- 30 percent were retired
- 24 percent were 65 years of age or
older
- 20 percent lived in Ashland less
than two years
- 32 percent lived for 16 years or
more in Ashland
Patterns of Visitation. While 40 per-
cent of the visitors frequented the
area one to two times in the last 12
months, 19 percent went there 11 or
more times. Most of the recreation
use occurs on weekends. Activities
participated in most frequently
include:
- hiking, walking (62%)
- view scenery (52%)
- driving for pleasure (51%)
- picnicking (32~)
- nature study (30%)
Roadside view: Mt. Ashland
from Road 2060.
29
r
Seventy-two percent of the visitors go
to the 2..ea with family and friends.
A total of 68 percent of the visitors
rated the availability of recreation
opportunities in the area as
"excellent" or "good".
Deterrents to Use. Reasons cited by
nonvisitors for not going to the area
included:
- "lack of information" (40%)
- "thought the public wasn't
permitted in the area" (16%)
- "the area is closed" (7%)
Future Visitation. Respondents
predicted their future visitation
to the area:
Visitors
- 75 percent planned to visit
the area with the same
frequency as currently
- 16 percent planned to visit
the area more often
- 9 percent planned to visit
the area less often
Nonvisitors
- 28 percent planned to visit
the area
Future Visitation With Supply Changes.
Changes to recreational supply
characteristics were defined as better
access, more trails, and more
information on the area. With these
changes, the survey results predicted:
- 46 percent of visitors and 43
percent of nonvisitors would
use the area more frequently
- 7 percent of current visitors would
use the area less frequently
Concern for Management. Thirty-six
respondents, 19 percent of the total,
gave unsolicited comments. Most
comments dealt with management
practices in the study area.
- 16 people recommended some form
of closure or restriction
for the area.
- 14 people recommended the area be
kept open for some type of
recreation or education use.
10
.-.-
Conclusions
There is a high level of awareness
of the location of the Watershed.
The longer people live in Ashland
the more likely they are to know
the location of the Watershed.
The area is visited by a significant
portion of Ashland's residents. While
visitors represent most socio-
economic groups, they tend to be
male, young to middle-aged, have
lived in Ashland more than two years
and also frequent a variety of
recreation settings. Nonvisitors
had a notably higher proportion of
retirees, elderly, newcomers, and
very long term Ashland residents.
Visitation patterns indicate the area
fills a need for recreating in a
natural forest setting close to the
city. Activities with the highest
participation are oriented to
appreciation of the natural environ-
ment. Social groups of friends or
families are the most common form of
visitation. The area's availability
of recreation opportunities received
a very high rating by visitors.
The primary reason cited by res-
pondents for not visiting the area
is lack of information. This
conclusion is interesting in that
three-fourths of all respondents
indicated they know where the
area was located. Evidently
knowledge of the area's location
does not necessarily equate with
having sufficient information to
visit the area. Perhaps because
of a lack of accurate information,
some people felt the area was
closed and that public use was
not permitted.
Based on the findings (and within
the limitations) of this study, it is
predicted that there will be a small
to moderate increase in visitation to
the area. Increases will be due to
(a) current visitors using the area
more frequently, (b) nonvisitors using
the area and (c) Ashland's population
growth bringing more potential visitors
into the locality.
Fairly significant increases in visit-
ation are predicted if the area had better
access, more trails, and if more infor-
mation on the area is provided. These
increases would be from both current and
new visitors. There would be more rec-
reation opportunities available and
latent demand would be stimulated. A
very small minority of current visitors
would discontinue using the area if these
changes were to occur.
Based on a relatively high percentage
of unsolicited comments, many people
have a concern for management of the
area. One group of comments centered
around protection of water quality
and the environment. The other
grouping of comments showed a desire
that the area be kept open for some
type of limited use. A common theme
ran through most of the comments;
people recognize the area is a
"fragile place" deserving of care
and proper stewardship.
31
r
Implications and Recoamendations
The findings and conclusions from
this study have important impli-
cations for managing the Watershed.
Implications and recommendations
are grouped by four topic areas:
- Recognition of the Recreation
Role
- Awareness and Information
- Future Recreation Use
- Developing Understanding
and Communication
Recognition of the Recreation Role.
t is important to restate that
the primary objective for managing
the Ashland Watershed is protecting
Ashland's water supply. Based on
the 1929 Cooperative Agreement,
this is as it should be. However,
this study has found that the
Watershed also plays an important
role in providing for Ashland
residents' recreation needs.
The area provides opportunities
for experiencing a natural
forest setting close to the city.
Besides the Watershed, there is
very little publicly owned un-
developed forest land close to
Ashland. Most other undeveloped
land in the area is in private
ownership and closed to public
use.
Because of its proximity to
the city, the Watershed has
the potential to be managed to
fill recreation needs as well
as for water supply protection.
Examples of this type of management
are found in the Federal Republic
of Germany. German forests are
managed to serve the recreation
needs of nearby population centers
as well as for watershed and other
purposes (Schabel 1985).
The need for providing outdoor
recreation areas near to population
centers has been recognized by
both the Oregon Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (Oregon
1978) and the Jackson County Compre-
hensive Plan (Jackson County 1982).
The city of Ashland's Comprehensive
Plan (City of Ashland 1981) notes
that the Watershed is a scenic
resource important to the liveability
of the city. However, the actual
recreation role of the Watershed
has n2t been recognized by current Forest
Service management plans for the area.
With the exception of the nature trail,
recreation has been merely allowed
to take place in the Watershed as
long as it did not interfere with
water quality protection.
Recommendation: The Rogue River
National Forest Land Management Plan
should recognize and address the
Watershed's role of providing close-
in recreation for Ashland residents.
The recreation role should be con-
sistent with water supply protection
the primary use of the area.
Awareness and Information. According
to the results of this study, a high
proportion of Ashland residents are
aware of the location of the Water-
shed. However, "lack of information"
was the principal reason cited for not
visiting the area. This finding
implies that there is a lack of
specific information regarding what
opportunities the area has to offer.
The study also indicated that some
people did not visit the area because
they thought the public was not per-
mitted or the area was closed. (As
mentioned previously, the only area
closed to the public is Reeder Reservoir
and its immediate vicinity.) These
findings imply that there is a lack of
awareness of the status of public
accessibility to the area.
The question of whether to provide more
specific information about the area
requires careful assessment of potential
benefits and risks involved. More infor-
mation for the elderly may not neces-
sarily result in increases in their
visitation. The elderly just may not
be able to or want to visit the area.
32
'-
More information would probably
be helpful to newcomers to Ashland.
There is a likelihood that pro-
vision of more information will
increase use of the area. However,
the study found that use of the
area increases with tenure in
Ashland, so newcomers will
eventually use the area anyway.
Unfortunately, new visitors may
or may not be aware of the
sensitivity of the area.
It is important to provide
information on the proper use
of the area to new visitors. To
do otherwise would risk environ-
mental damage resulting in
pressure for complete closure
of the area and exclusion
of recreationists.
Recoomendation: Develop an
education program with the
objective of increasing
visitors' awareness to the
sensitivity of the area.
Subject matter could include
fire hazards, water quality
protection, and soil fragility.
The program should be similar
to the "No Trace" program used
in Wilderness areas and could
be done cooperatively with the
City. Target current users
and newcomers to the city.
Emphasize on-site methods
such as patrols, field trips,
and signs.
Future Recreation Use. What
about future visitation to the
area? The results of the survey
predicted visitation will increase
even if nothing is done to change
the area. Visitation will also
increase naturally as Ashland's
population grows, creating a larger
number of potential recreationists.
The presence of more people may
discourage vandalism and other
illegal users (Waitt). More
visitation, if unmanaged, also
potentially increases the risk
of fire (Rose).
Recreation use must be planned and
managed to be compatible with other
uses of the area.
RecODJDendation: Upon completion of
the Rogue River National Forest Land
Management Plan, develop a new
detailed management plan for the
Watershed to include direction for
recreation. (This could be an update
of the 1979 Interim Plan.) The
plan should address management and
planning for the increased recreation
use that would occur naturally.
Future Use With Supply Changes.
Is there a desire for more recreation
opportunities in the area? The study
results indicated current visitors
gave the availability of recreation
opportunities a high rating. Only 7
percent of nonvisitors cited, "there is
nothing to do there" as a reason for
nonuse. These results imply that
there's really not a strong desire for
additional recreation opportunities.
However, these expressions are only a
reaction to the current situation.
wnat is more important to know is if
additional recreation opportunities
were available, would people take
advantage of them.
It is predicted that changes in supply
characteristics of the area will
stimulate latent demand. People would
be tempted to visit the area because
of new trails, better access or more
information. There would be more
opportunities to participate in
recreation activities.
Before embarking on the road to
providing more recreation opportu-
nities, managers should be aware of
a large flashing "caution" sign. The
study found a fairly high level of
concern for the potential impacts of
increased recreation use on water
quality. City of Ashland administrators
share this concern (Alsing).
33
r
City of Ashland residents have
a high stake in the management
of the Watershed; both from the
standpoint of water production
and filling recreation needs.
It is very likely that residents
would react negatively to any
management changes to the area
unless they have an
opportunity to be involved
in those changes.
people with different points
of view in order to develop
the common ground to which
all interests can agree.
Recommendation: Forest
Service managers should
discuss the findings and
recommendations from this
paper with City of Ashland
officials.
Recommendation: Provide
the opportunity for
local citizens and agencies
to be involved in any
decisions dealing with
new development or manage-
ment changes in the area.
Input should be requested at
initial planning stages.
Methods could include open
houses, field trips, and
newsmedia articles.
Recoomendation: Develop a
consensus group representing
all interests to provide
input to the Forest Service
for managing the Watershed.
The purpose of the group
would be to discuss issues,
serve as a sounding board
for new ideas, and provide
volunteer work.
Developing UnderstaDding and
Coolllmication. This study
should contribute to an
understanding of how the
Watershed is used for
recreation by the people of
Ashland. With an awareness
of the study conclusions,
managers should be better
able to resolve conflicts
between different interests.
Managers should initiate
communication between
The group could be similar to
the "Friends of Prescott Park"
organization established to
assist with management of the
City of Medford, Oregon's
Prescott Park (Medford 1985).
Ashland has a special resource
at its back doorstep. The
Watershed is a valuable area
that has the potential to fill
diverse needs. The key to
fulfillment of these needs will
be how successful managers are
in developing understanding and
cooperation between all interests.
34
~. ........,.-....."'-...-.".,.
Armin Welti, 80, "I love the serenity of this area.
I like to get away from the hubbub of the city."
35
36
Bibliography
Alreck, Pamela L. and Robert B.
Settle. 1985. The Survey
Research Handbook. Richard
D. Irwin, Inc. Homewood,
IL. 429 p.
Cole Publications. 1985. City of
Medford-Ashland and Vicinity
Cross Reference Directory.
Metromail Corp. Lincoln~
NE p. 482-535.
Alsing, Allen A. Public Works
Director, City of Ashland.
Personal Communication
November, 1985.
Bureau of the Census. 1983.
1980 Census of Population,
General Social and Economic
Characteristics, Oregon.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
daLuz, Michael. Resource Assistant,
Ashland Ranger District. Rogue
River National Forest. Ashland,
OR. Personal Communication
November, 1985.
City of Ashland. 1981. Ashland
Comprehensive Plan. Ashland, OR.
Driver B.L. 1975. Quantification of
Outdoor Recreationists
Preferences. Research Camping
and Environmental Education.
Penn State HPER Sere ll,
p. 165-187.
Clark, Roger N.; Johnson, D.R.;
Field, D.R. 1982. The
Alaska Public Survey -- A
Comprehensive Assessment
of Recreational Values and
Use Patterns and Natural
Resource Management.
Proceedings, Forest and River
Recreation: Research Update.
1981 Minneapolis, MN. Misc.
Publ.18. Agricultural
Experiment Station,
University of Minnesota.
St. Paul, MN. p. 115-119.
Field, Donald R. 1973. Sociological
Dimensions of Leisure Involve-
ment in Water-Based Recreation.
College of Forest Resources.
University of Washington,
Seattle, WA. 43 p.
Gold, Seymour M~ 1980. Recreation
Planning and Design. McGraw-
Hill, Inc. New York, NY.
322 p.
Clark, Roger N.; Koch, R.W.;
Hogans M.L.; Christensen
H.H.; Hendee J. C. 1984.
The Value of Roaded, Multiple
Use Areas as Recreation Sites
in Three National Forests
of the Pacific Northwest.
Res. Paper PNW-319.
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station.
Portland, OR. 40 p.
Hays, James F. 1982. Ashland Labor
Force Survey. Southern Oregon
Regional Services Institute.
Ashland, OR. 18 p.
Jackson County. 1978. Jackson
County Comprehensive Plan.
Jackson County, OR.
Jackson County. 1982. Jackson
County Comprehensive Plan.
Jackson County, OR. p. 500.
Knetsch, Jack L. 1975. Assessing
the Demand for Outdoor
Recreation. In: Elements of
Outdoor Recreation Planning,
edited by B.L. Driver.
University of Michigan Press.
Ann Arbor, MI. p. 131-136.
37
T"'
Knopf, Richard C. and Schreyer,
Richard. 1985. The Problem of
Bias in Recreation Resource
Decision Making. In: The
Management of Human Behavior in
Outdoor Recreation Sett~ngs. Dr.
Daniel L. Dustin, Editor.
Institute for Leisure Behavior.
San Diego State University.
San Diego, CA. p. 23-38.
Labaw, Patricia J. 1980. Advanced
Questionnaire Design. Abt. Books.
Cambridge, MA. p. 103-105.
McCarthy, E. Jerome and Perreault,
Williams D. 1984. Basic
Marketing, Richard D. Irwin,
Inc. Homewood, IL. 841 p.
Medford Parks Commission. 1985.
Prescott Park Management Plan.
City of Medford, OR.
Nie, Norman H.; Hul, C.H., Jerkins,
J.G.; Steinbrenner, K; Bent
D.H. 1975. SPSS Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences,
Second Edition. McGraw Hill
Book Co., New York, N.Y. 675 p.
Nelson, Esther. Pacific Northwest
Bell Community Affairs Specialist
Portland, OR. Personal
Communication, February 1986.
Oregon. 1978. Oregon Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan.
Oregon State Park and Recreation
Branch. Department of Trans-
portation. Salem, OR. p. 5.52.
Orlich. Donald C. 1978, Designing
Sensible Surveys. Redgrave
Publishing. Pleasantville,
NY. 191 p.
Rose, William W. Fire
Management Technician.
Ashland Ranger District.
Rogue River National
Forest. Personal
Communication, November
1985.
Schabel, Hans G. and John F. Dwyer.
1985. Institutional Aspects of
Forest Recreation Resource Manage-
ment in West Germany. Landscape
Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1 1985. The
The University of Wisconsin Press
Madison, WI. p. 1-6.
Shaefer, Elwood L. and Moeller,
G.H. 1971., Predicting Quanti-
tiative and Qualitiatine Values
of Recreation Participation.
Forest Recreation Symposium
Proceeding. Northeastern
Forest Experiment Station. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. Upper Darby, PA. p.5-22.
Stankey, George H. 1977. Some Social
Concepts for Outdoor Recreation
Planning. Symposium Proceedings
Outdoor Recreation, Advances in
Application of Economics. U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep.
WO-2. p.154-161.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Forest Service. 1979. Interim
Plan Ashland Creek Watershed.
u.S. Department of Agriculture.
1929. Cooperative Agreement
for the Purpose of Conserving
and Protecting the Water Supply
of the City of Ashland, Oregon.
U.S. Department of Interior.
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service. 1979.
The Third Nationwide Outdoor
Recreation Plan.
u.s. Department of Labor. 1977.
Dictionary of Occupational
Titles, Fourth Edition.
U. S. Employment Service.
Waitt, Ronald E. District Ranger.
Ashland Ranger District. Rogue
River National Forest. Personal
Communication, March 1986.
38
~~......,....~,._>
Appendices
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Questionnaire
Questionnaire Answers Tabulation
Selected Cross tabulations
39
r --
40
.-..,...
Appendix A
Questionnaire
DATE
TIME
ADDRESS
INTERVIEWER
1 . Sex of respondent
a. male
b. female
2. How long have you lived in Ashland?
a. 0-1 year
b. 2-4 years
c. 5-9 years
d. 10-15 years
e. 16 years or more
3. How many times in the last 12 months have you or members of your household
visited the following 3 different types of recreation areas?
RECREATION AREA
NUMBER OF VISITS
None 1-2 ~-10
11 or more
1. Urban Areas: park,
playground, sports
field, private facility
a
b
c
d
2. Roaded Non-Urban Areas:
forests, mountains, lakes,
rivers, rural 1/
a
b
c
d
3. Wilderness Roadless
backcountry areas
a
b
c
d
1/ Includes: Camping, picnicking, hunting, fishing, sightseeing areas
4. Do you know where the Ashland Watershed area is?
a. yes
b. no
For both "yes" or "no" to preceding question:
Interviewer explain where the Ashland Watershed is. 'Show maps. "For purposes of
this study Mt. Ashland Ski Area is not included in the area. The next group of
questions deal with the Ashland Watershed."
41
~.'" .._.-
5. Do you or members of your household ever visit the Ashland Watershed?
a. yes (go to #6)
b. no (go to #11)
c. don't know (go to #12)
6. (Yes to #5). How many times in the last 12 months have you or members of
your household visited the Ashland Watershed?
a . 1-2 times
b. 3-4 times
c. 5-10 times
d. 11 or more times
7. Which activities from this list have you or members of your household
participated in when visiting the area? (Read list and have respondent
say yes if they have done the activity.)
a. Christmas tree cutting
b. horseback riding
c. jogging
d. hiking, walking
e. driving for pleasure
f. nature study
g. hunting
h. motorcycling
i. pick mushrooms or berries
j. mountain biking
k. collect fire wood
1. cross-country skiing or snowshoe
m. collect rocks
n. drink alcoholic beverage
o. four-wheel driving off-road
p. . play in snow
q. target shoot
r. view scenery
s. picnic
t. camp
u. show area to visitors
v. other, please specify:
w. don't know
8. When you visit the Ashland Watershed do you generally go:
a. with friends?
b. with family?
c. alone?
9. In the future do you plan to visit the Ashland Watershed:
a. more than in the past?
b. about the same as presently?
c. less than in the past
42
............. 0....___
10. How would you rate the availability of outdoor recreation opportunities
in the Ashland Watershed?
a. excellent
b. good
c. fair
d. poor
e. don't know
Go to I/n!
11. (No to #5) What are reasons you haven't visited the area? (Read list
and have respondent say yes if item applies)
a. lack of time
b. don't like the outdoors
c. the area is too far away
d. lack of information
e. rather go to other areas
f. lack of transportation
g. there is nothing to do there
h. thought the public wasn't permitted in the area
i. concern for water quality
j. the area is closed
k. personal health reasons
1. other, please specify:
m. don't know
i~
12 (No to #5) In the future do you plan to visit the Ashland Watershed?
a. yes
b. no
c. don't know
13. If the Ashland Watershed had better access and more trails, and there
was more information on the area, would you use the area:
a. same as now
b. more frequently
c. less frequently
d. still wouldn't use the area
e. don't know
"Would you please tell me a little bit about yourself? Please keep in mind
that vour answers are vOluntary and confidential."
14. What age category are you in?
a. under 18
b. 18-24
c. 25-34
d. 35-44
e. 45-54
f. 55-64
g. 65 and over
43
-..",. ---
15. What is the highest level of education you have completed.
a. junior high school or less
b. completed high school
c. some college
d. vocational/technical
e. college graduate
f. post graduate
16. Are you a student?
a. yes
b. no
17. Which category comes closest to your' total annual household income
before taxes?
a. under 5,999
b. 6,000 - 9,999
c. 10,000 - 14,999
d. 15,000 - 24,999
e. 25,000 - 49,999
f. 50,000 or more
18. What is your occupation; the ~ of work you do?
19. Are you now retired:
a. yes
b. no
20. How many household members are.....
a. under 18 years
b. 19 - 34 years
c. 35 - 64 years
d. 65 and over
Other Comments: (don't solicit, but write down if offered)
44
..........."."..w..__
Appendix B
Questionnaire Answers Tabulation
Question Number of Question Number of
No. Respondents --.L No. Respondents %
1 . a. 99 53.5 7. m. 7 8.9
b. 86 46.5 n. 1 1.3
both 9 o. 5 6.3
p. 21 26.6
2. a. 28 14.5 q. 4 5.1
b. 38 19.7 r. 41 51.9
c. 41 21.2 s. 25 31.6
d. 35 18.1 t. 5 6.3
e. 51 26.4 u. 14 17.7
v. 9 11.4
3.1 a. 23 11.9 w. 0 0.0
b. 20 10.3 8. a. 19 24.4
c. 49 25.3 b. 25 32.1
d. 102 52.6 c. 10 12.8
d. 12 15.4
3.2 a. 42 21.8 e. 4 5.1
b. 22 11.4 f. 1 1.3
c. 65 33.7 g. 7 9.0
d. 64 33.2 9. a. 12 15.6
b. 58 75.3
3.3 a. 114 59.4 c. 7 9.1
b. 39 20.3 10. a. 19 24.7
c. 26 13.5 b. 33 42.9
d. 13 6.8 c. 12 15.6
d. 6 7.8
4. a. 142 74.0 e. 7 9.1
b. 50 26.0 11 . a. 17 16.5
b. 2 1.9
5. a. 79 41.1 c. 1 1.0
b. 103 53.6 d. 41 39.8
c. 10 5.2 e. 17 16.5
f. 4 3.9
6. a. 32 40.5 g. 7 6.8
b. 14 17.7 h. 16 15.5
c. 12 15.2 i. 3 2.9
d. 15 19.0 j. 7 6.8
e. (none) 6 7.6 k. 11 10.7
l. 11 10.7
7. a. 14 17.7 m. 9 8.7
b. 2 2.5 12 a. 31 28.2
c. 14 17.7 b. 49 44.5
d. 49 62.0 c. 30 27.3
e. 40 50.6 13 a. 57 30.3
f. 24 30.4 b. 81 43.1
g. 8 10.1 c. 7 3.7
ho 4 5.1 d. 16 8.5
i. 10 12.7 e. 27 14.4
j. 5 6.3 14 a. 5 2.6
k. 6 7.6 b. 16 8.5
l. 15 19.0 c. 49 25.9
45
......'
Questionnaire Answers Tabulation (continued)
Question Number of
No. Respondents -L
14 d. 55 29.1
e. 19 10.1
f. 15 7.9
g 30 15.9
15 a. 11 5.8
b. 30 15.8
c. 70 36.8
d. 10 5.3
e. 39 20.5
f. 30 15.8
16 a. 35 18.4
b. 155 81.6
17 a. 20 13.6
b. 20 13.6
c. 21 14.3
d. 41 27.9
e. 36 24.5
f. 9 6.1
18 a. 62 34.6
b. 25 14.0
c. 20 11.2
d. 5 2.8
e. 8 4.5
f. 8 4.5
g. 11 51 28.5
19 a. 41 21.5
b. 150 78.5
20 a. 141 2./
b. 135
c. 149
d. 60
11 g = Total of retired, unemployed, student, housewife
2./ percentages not calculated due to format of question
46
.........'~..~..._--
Appendix C
Selected Crosstabulations
Table C1. Awareness of Ashland Watershed by Tenure in Ashland
(row percentages)
Years Lived in Ashland
11
Know Where Ashland
Watershed Is
0-1
2-4
5-9
10-15 16 or more
Yes
No
2
X = 45.87 d.f. = 4
Cramers V = .49
5.7
40.0
16.3 22.7
28 . 0 16 . 0
22.0
8.0
33.3 n=141
8.0 n=50
p ~ .0001
11 Crosstabulation Q.4 x Q.2
Table C2. Visitors and Nonvisitors by Sex
11
(row percentages)
Visit the Watershed? Male Female
Yes 61.3 38.7 n=75
No 50.0 50.0 n=98
Don't know 30.0 70.0 n=10
2
X = 4.55 d.f. = 2 P ~ .1027
Cramers V = .16
1/ Crosstabulation of Q.5 X Q.1
Table C3. Visitors and Nonvisitors by Tenure in Ashland
(row percentages)
11
Years Lived in Ashland
Visit the Watershed?
Yes
No
Don't Know
0-1
2.6
20.4
50.0
2-4
23.1
16.5
20.0
29.5
15.5
20.0
23.1
15.5
.0
21.8
32.0
10.0
n=78
n=103
n=10
S-q
10-15 16 or more
2
X = 29.78 d.f. = 8 p ~ .0002
Cramers V = .28
1/ Crosstabulation of Q.5 x Q.2
47
r. --
Table C4. Future Use of the Study Area with Changes in Supply
Characteristics
11
Use Frequencv
Same as now
More frequently
Less frequently
Still wouldn't use the area
Don't know
Study Area
Visitors
44.7
46.1
6.6
1.3
1.3
n=76
Study Area
Nonvisitors
21.8
43.6
2.0
13.9
18.8
n=101
Don't Know
If Use Area
10.0
20.0
0.0
10.0
60.0
n=10
2
X = 46.88 d.f. = 8
Cramers V = .35
p s. . 0001
11 Changes would include "better access and more trails, and there
was more information on the area"; crosstabulation Q.5 x Q.13
Table C5. Visitors and Nonvisitors by Age
11
(row percentages)
Visit the Watershed? Under 18 18-24 25-"14 "15-44 45-54 55-64 65 & over
Yes 5.2 7.8 24.7 36.4 10.4 7.8 7.8 n=77
No 1.0 8.9 23.8 24.8 8.9 8.9 23.8 n=101
Don't Know .0 .0 60.0 20.0 20.0 .0 .0 n=10
2 d.l. = 12 P S. .0399
X = 21.80
Cramers V = .24
11 Crosstabulation of Q.5 x Q.14
48
.._~-".._.,-~
Table C6. Visitors and Nonvisitors by Student Status
11
(row percentages)
Are vou a student?
Visit the Watershed? Yes No
Yes 20.3 79.7 n=79
No 16.0 84.0 n=100
Don't Know 30.0 70.0 n=10
2
X = 1.45
Cramers V =
d.L = 2
.09
p ~ .4840
11 Crosstabulation of Q.5 x Q.16
Table C7. Visitors and Nonvisitors by Retired Status
1/
(row percentages)
Are YOU retired?
Visit the Watershed? Yes No
Yes 11.5 88.8 n=78
No 30.4 69.6 n=102
Don't Know 10.0 90.0 n=10
2
X = 10.12 d.f = 2
Cramer's V = .23
p ~ .0063
1/ Crosstabulation of Q.5 x Q.19
Table C8. Visitors and Nonvisitors by Awareness of Watershed Location
(row percentages)
Visit the Watershed?
Know Where Watershed Is?
Yes No
Yes
No
Don't Know
96.2
63. ,
11.1
3.8
36.9
88.9
n=78
n=103
n=9
2
X = 44.96 d.f = 2
Cramer's V = .49
p ~ .0001
1/ Crosstabulation of Q.5 x Q.4
49
11
50