Introduction
Esthetic Preferences for Forests and Forest Management
Preferences for Social Settings Relating to Forest Recreation
Stated Preference and DCEs
Research Questions
Methodology
Study Sites
Site characteristics | Colorado State Forest State Park (COSP) | Lake Bemidji State Park (LBSP) | Harz National Park (HNP) |
---|---|---|---|
Country, federal state | USA, Colorado | USA, Minnesota | Germany, Lower Saxony |
Area size | 290 km2
| 7 km2
| 247 km2
|
Elevation | 2500–4000 m | 416 m avg. | 230–1141 m |
Main conifer tree species |
Pinus contorta
|
Pinus resinosa, P. strobus, P. banksiana
|
Picea abies
|
Bark beetle species | Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) | Pine engraver beetle (Ips pini) | Spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) |
Infected trees | Many and very obvious | Few and not obvious | Many and obvious |
Bark beetle management | Clear cuts near roads, utilities, and campgrounds | Selective thinning and reforestation | Clears cuts in buffer zones |
Number of visitors, annually (estimated) | 0.43 m | 0.14 m | 1.75 m |
Main recreational activities | Hiking, camping, biking, wildlife viewing, OHV riding, fishing, skiing/snowboarding | Hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing; swimming, boating, fishing, bog walks | Hiking, mountain biking, Nordic skiing; visiting national park information center |
Open for recreation use | Year round | Year round | Year round |
Questionnaire
Data Collection
Data Analyses
Results
Sample Characteristics
Variables | COSP (n = 200) | LBSP (n = 228) | HNP (n = 208) | Differences ANOVA/χ
2
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (years, mean) | 45.9 | 44.8 | 48.2 |
F = 3.042* |
Gender (females) | 41% | 49% | 48% |
χ
2 = 3.676 |
Main purpose of visit | ||||
Hiking/walking | 23% | 14% | 69% |
χ
2 = 301.313*** |
Camping | 35% | 30% | 0% | |
Relaxing | 15% | 19% | 6% | |
Landscape/nature observation/photography | 1% | 2% | 16% | |
Bicycling | 1% | 14% | 2% | |
Fishing | 15% | 3% | 0% | |
Others (swimming, running, hunting, OHV-riding …) | 11% | 18% | 7% | |
First area visit ever (year, mean) | 2005 | 2000 | 1986 |
F = 76.077*** |
Awareness of infestation of the visited area | ||||
Yes | 94% | 21% | 69% |
χ
2 = 254.784*** |
No | 1% | 5% | 6% | |
Do not know | 6% | 74% | 25% | |
Crowding perceptions (mean)a
| 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.1 |
F = 4.771** |
Dog ownership |
χ
2 = 92.518*** | |||
Yes | 62% | 47% | 18% | |
No | 32% | 45% | 59% | |
Used to have a dog | 6% | 8% | 23% | |
Number of times ridden a bike within the last 12 months (mean) | 41.7 | 32.2 | 121.2 |
F = 32.687*** |
Preferences for Physical Forest Factors
COSP | LBSP | HNP | Differences among samples | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attributes and attribute levels | Parameter estimates | Parameter estimates | Parameter estimates | Wald statistic | |
Forest landscape—foreground | |||||
Spruce monoculture | ***1.571 | ***1.738 | ***1.199 | ***101.85 | COSP≠LBSP≠ |
Bark beetle impact on spruce only | ***0.938 | ***1.109 | ***0.506 | HNP ≠ COSP | |
Bark beetle impact spruce/pine mixed | ***−0.503 | −0.027 | ***0.488 | ||
Collapse—only dead wood | ***−2.632 | ***−2.670 | ***−2.504 | ||
Clear cut with logging traces | ***−1.108 | ***−1.054 | ***−0.740 | ||
Natural rejuvenation mixed | **−0.256 | ***−0.680 | ***−0.384 | ||
Artificial rejuvenation spruce | ***0.396 | **−0.184 | −0.055 | ||
Multi-layered mixed forest | ***1.594 | ***1.767 | ***1.490 | ||
Forest landscape—midground | |||||
Non-impacted, closed forest | ***0.418 | ***0.578 | ***0.630 | *14.10 | COSP≠HNP |
Bark beetle impact on spruce | −0.084 | **−0.177 | ***−0.371 | ||
Bark beetle impact spruce/pine mixed | ***−0.290 | ***−0.347 | ***−0.279 | ||
Natural rejuvenation mixed | −0.044 | −0.055 | 0.019 | ||
Forest landscape—background | |||||
Non-impacted, closed forest | 0.000 | ***0.239 | **0.155 | *13.60 | COSP≠LBSP |
Bark beetle impact on spruce only | 0.106 | −0.083 | 0.071 | ||
Bark beetle impact spruce/pine mixed | *−0.125 | −0.058 | **−0.173 | ||
Collapse—only dead wood | 0.019 | −0.098 | −0.052 | ||
Dog walker behavior | |||||
No dog | 0.077 | −0.015 | *0.157 | 3.83 | |
1 dog leashed | −0.039 | 0.003 | −0.056 | ||
2 dogs leashed | −0.089 | −0.043 | *−0.129 | ||
2 dogs unleashed | 0.015 | 0.061 | 0.027 | ||
User composition | |||||
100% walkers, no cyclists—prohibition sign | −0.042 | ***−0.270 | *−0.129 | 8.95 | |
75% walkers, 25% cyclist—cycling allowed | 0.048 | **0.144 | 0.036 | ||
25% walkers, 75% cyclists—cycling allowed | *−0.123 | −0.054 | −0.019 | ||
100% walkers, no cyclists—cycling allowed | 0.118 | **0.179 | 0.111 | ||
Number of visitors | |||||
1 Person | ***0.346 | *0.128 | **0.159 | ***48.02 | COSP≠LBSP≠ |
4 Persons | ***0.534 | ***0.230 | ***0.544 | HNP≠COSP | |
8 Persons | **−0.228 | ***−0.230 | ***−0.308 | ||
12 Persons | ***−0.652 | *−0.126 | ***−0.396 | ||
ρ
2
| 0.313 | 0.302 | 0.256 |
Preferences for Social Factors
Relative Importance of the Attributes
Attributes | COSP | LBSP | HNP |
---|---|---|---|
Forest landscape—foreground | 62.5% | 66.1% | 58.8% |
Forest landscape—midground | 10.5% | 13.8% | 14.7% |
Forest landscape—background | 3.4% | 5.0% | 4.8% |
Dog walker behavior | 2.5% | 1.6% | 4.2% |
User composition | 3.6% | 6.7% | 3.5% |
Number of visitors | 17.6% | 6.9% | 13.8% |