Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................................1
Roadside camping inventory data collection: ............................................................................. 1
Preliminary Interviews of campers: ............................................................................................ 2
On-site survey of campers: ......................................................................................................... 3
Mail survey of campers:.............................................................................................................. 4
ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Data summarizing roadside campsite inventory............................................................... 8
Table 2. Corresponding circumference and area measurements. ................................................. 10
Table 3. Inventory variables for campsite amenities and condition class.................................... 11
Table 4. Content categories from preliminary camper interviews................................................ 22
Table 5. Location of roadside campsites surveyed. ...................................................................... 30
Table 6. Percentages of visitors using camping equipment.......................................................... 30
Table 7. Gender of on-site survey participants. ............................................................................ 31
Table 8. Number of days spent overnight at roadside camping areas during trip. ....................... 31
Table 9. Number of days spent overnight using other accommodations...................................... 32
Table 10. Number of years using roadside camping area that was visited. .................................. 32
Table 11. Usage of other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. .......................... 33
Table 12. Number of years using other roadside camping areas within Adirondack Park........... 33
Table 13. Usage of non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park......................... 33
Table 14. Number of years using non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park... 34
Table 15. Days per year using the areas in which visitors were surveyed.................................... 35
Table 16. Days per year using other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. ........ 35
Table 17. Days per year using NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.................. 36
Table 18. Days per year using privately owned campgrounds within the Adirondack Park........ 36
Table 19. Days per year using primitive/backpacking campsites within the Adirondack Park. .. 37
Table 20. Days per year using camping areas outside the Adirondack Park................................ 37
Table 21. Group size for visitors surveyed. .................................................................................. 38
Table 22. Presence of children within camping groups................................................................ 39
Table 23. Compositions of roadside camping groups................................................................... 39
Table 24. Rates and percentages of activity participation while roadside camping. .................... 40
Table 25. Camping as a primary activity for current Adirondack Park trip. ................................ 40
Table 26. Primary trip activities other than camping.................................................................... 40
Table 27. Second most important activities for Adirondack Park trip. ........................................ 41
Table 28. Roadside camping area as primary setting choice. ....................................................... 41
Table 29. Alternative first choices for camping settings. ............................................................. 42
Table 30. Alternatives if respondents couldnt use the roadside camping area they visited. ....... 42
Table 31. Level of satisfaction with experience at roadside camping areas................................. 43
Table 32. Distances between visitors permanent homes and roadside camping areas................ 43
Table 33. Visitor permanent residence within Adirondack Park.................................................. 44
Table 34. Vacation homeownership and seasonal residence in the Adirondack Park.................. 44
Table 35. Visitor permanent residence by country. ...................................................................... 44
Table 36. Visitor permanent residence by state. ........................................................................... 44
Table 37. Visitor permanent residence by New York County residents....................................... 45
Table 38. Participation in mail survey. ......................................................................................... 46
Table 39. Overall attachment to roadside camping areas visited when surveyed in field. ........... 47
Table 40. Overall attachment to the activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park. ........ 47
Table 41. Familiarity with other roadside camping areas in the Adirondack Park....................... 48
Table 42. How roadside campsite visitors first learned about roadside camping areas. .............. 49
Table 43. Importance and satisfaction ratings for roadside camping motivations (% and means).
............................................................................................................................................... 50
iii
Table 44. Satisfaction comparisons across camping settings in the Adirondack Park. ................ 56
Table 45. Frequency of camping if particular roadside areas in the Adirondack Park are not
available. ............................................................................................................................... 57
Table 46. Frequency of camping if no roadside areas available in the Adirondack Park............. 57
Table 47. Substitutability of other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park............. 58
Table 48. Reasons for non-substitutability between area visited and other roadside areas.......... 58
Table 49. Substitutability of NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park..................... 59
Table 50. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and NYSDEC
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park............................................................................ 60
Table 51. Substitutability of primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park. .............. 60
Table 52. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and
primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park (% of respondents indicating a
problem)................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 53. Rankings of resource substitution options for roadside camping in the Adirondack
Park. ...................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 54. Agreement/Disagreement with statements originating from qualitative interviews. .. 64
Table 55. Employment status of respondents. .............................................................................. 65
Table 56. Ages of respondents to the mail survey. ....................................................................... 65
Table 57. Education levels of respondents to the mail survey...................................................... 66
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Diagram for estimated distances between campsites and roads...................................... 7
Figure 2. Map showing Roadside Campsites within the Adirondack Park. ................................. 13
Figure 3. Map showing roadside campsites within Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe Areas. .... 14
Figure 5. Map showing roadside campsites in Saranac Lake Wild Forest. .................................. 16
Figure 6. Map showing designated and undesignated campsites within the Adirondack Park. ... 17
Figure 7. Map showing designated and undesignated sites in Ferris Lake Wild Forest............... 18
Figure 8. Map showing campsite condition classes near North Lake Road. ................................ 19
Figure 9. Map showing campsite compliance with mile separation distance........................... 20
Figure 10. Map showing mile separation distance compliance in Moose River Plains Wild
Forest..................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 12. Importance-Performance grid example. ...................................................................... 51
Figure 13. IP grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations. ...................................... 53
Figure 14. IP Grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations using overall means to
divide quadrants. ................................................................................................................... 54
INTRODUCTION
Camping within the Adirondack Park is a long-standing tradition and activity. Some visitors
camp in state or private developed campgrounds, other visitors backpack or canoe to remote
primitive campsites, and other visitors camp along the roadside in tents and recreational vehicles
in undeveloped sites on New York State Forest Preserve lands. Some of these roadside
undeveloped camping sites are designated by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) employees and other sites are just used by visitors without an official designation
being in place.
The Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP) (APA 2001) does not
specifically address the activity of roadside camping as a separate type of campsite or camping
experience even though some of the NYSDEC Unit Management Plans list these sites as part of
the recreation facility inventory for a management unit. The definition of primitive tent site from
the APSLMP is often not in alignment with the conditions found in the undeveloped roadside
campsites whether designated or not.
No research studies exist that have inventoried the extent, location, or condition of the
roadside campsites on Forest Preserve lands. Additionally, no known studies are available that
characterize the campers at these roadside sites and their uses, activities and reasons for choosing
roadside camping over other available camping opportunities.
The information that was collected for this study was designed to produce two data sets:
(1) an inventory of undesignated and designated and undeveloped roadside campsites on Forest
Preserve Lands within the Adirondack Park; and (2) a summary of visitor experiences, trip
characteristics, and dependence on or substitutability for camping at undesignated and designated
and undeveloped roadside campsites on Forest Preserve Lands within the Adirondack Park.
The intention of collecting this information is to support planning and management by
NYSDEC under the APSLMP with the main goal of protecting and stewarding the Forest
Preserve lands and resources while managing visitor use for public enjoyment.
RESEARCH METHODS
Field research was conducted across all Forest Preserve lands within the Adirondack Park during
the summer of 2009. The methods used to gather data to meet the two products of a roadside
camping inventory and a summary of visitor use and experiences were as follows:
information that can be visually portrayed using the data collected during the inventory
and included in the dataset.
An inventory of public roadside campsites was conducted between May and July of 2009.
At the onset of this study, there was a lack of information regarding the locations of
roadside camping areas on Forest Preserve lands. Fortunately, NYSDEC personnel and
written materials were helpful in identifying a small number of popular roadside camping
areas within the Adirondack Park. While this information was helpful for identifying the
location of some camping areas, it was too limited to serve as a basis for the overall
inventory of roadside camping areas. Consequently, researchers adopted a systematic
exploratory technique for locating roadside campsites that involved driving public roads
that crossed or bordered all Forest Preserve lands.
The exploratory phase of the inventory relied heavily on the use of previously existing
maps showing the locations of roads and other landmarks within the Adirondack Park.
National Geographic Outdoor Recreation Maps were used for the inventory because they
adequately displayed roads, trails, management unit areas, and other public and private
lands within the Adirondack Park. Researchers conducted the inventory by locating
public roads that existed within or on the borders of Forest Preserve lands within the
Adirondack Park. Once located on the National Geographic maps, researchers explored
these public roads in order to find and inventory public roadside campsites (Appendix B).
Researchers collected GPS data for all campsites found during the inventory process. In
addition to collecting GPS data for recording and displaying the locations of roadside
campsites, researchers assessed each campsite for a number of other characteristics. Each
of these campsite characteristics was measured as follows: site type, presence of DEC
campsite designation disk, screening from road, number of satellite campsites adjoining
the designated site, amenities present at the site, access to water bodies, estimated
circumference of campsite, estimated distance from the road, and the condition class of
the campsite (Appendix A).
A main objective of this study was to characterize roadside campsite visitors. However,
at the onset of this study, little was known about roadside campsite visitors or their
opinions regarding many topics of interest to this study. Consequently, SUNY
researchers conducted a brief qualitative research phase with roadside campsite visitors in
order to better understand their perspectives on several topics including place attachment,
place dependence, resource substitutability, management concerns, and factors
influencing site choice. An additional purpose of the interviews was to help researchers
create a comprehensive and meaningful quantitative field survey for measuring place
attachment and resource substitutability in the context of roadside camping in the
Adirondack Park.
Structured interviews were conducted with visitors to roadside camping areas during the
months of May and June in 2009. The roadside campsite inventory also occurred during
these months. In fact, the first two phases of this research project were conducted
simultaneously. That is, researchers conducted interviews with roadside campsite visitors
The preliminary interview research phase was useful for gaining rich open-ended data
regarding roadside campsite visitor perspectives. However, the methods employed for
that phase of research did not produce a representative sample of roadside campsite
visitors and, therefore, that qualitative data cannot be used to infer characteristics of the
overall population of roadside campers. In an effort to produce a larger, more
representative sample of the roadside campsite visitor population, a field survey was
conducted with roadside campsite visitors during the summer of 2009.
The main purpose of the on-site field survey was to gather information from roadside
campsite visitors about their recreational trips and their roadside camping habits.
Questions included on the on-site survey were related to visitor past experience with
camping settings, trip characteristics (e.g., group size and composition, length of stay,
activities pursued), visitor characteristics (e.g., gender, permanent residence), and visitor
perceptions of camping opportunities (see Appendix C)
On-site field surveys were conducted with roadside campsite visitors between the months
of July and October in 2009. The on-site survey process began during the final weeks of
the inventory process; that is, as researchers were finishing the inventory of roadside
campsites within the Adirondack Park, they began conducting field surveys with visitors
that they encountered. Upon completion of the campsite inventory, researchers employed
a systematic roving intercept sampling technique for the continuation of the on-site field
survey.
Roadside campsites within the Park are widespread and diverse so it was not feasible to
create a sampling frame that would include all inventoried roadside camping areas.
Therefore, researchers carefully selected several areas throughout the park for sampling.
Specifically, researchers only sampled visitors on forest roads that provided at least five
roadside campsites. Once camping areas were selected, researchers sampled roadside
campsite visitors within the Adirondack Park in a counterclockwise fashion. Once
finished with an area, researchers would travel to the next camping area, in a
3
Researchers attempted to conduct one on-site survey per group of visitors encountered.
Researchers approached each group of campers and asked if any of the members would
be willing to complete a short survey about their roadside camping experiences. Then,
one person was randomly selected from all group members willing to complete the onsite survey. A total of 216 roadside campsite visitors participated in the on-site survey.
The on-site survey was designed to last between five and ten minutes. Upon completion
of the survey, all participants were thanked for their time and effort. Additionally,
respondents were asked if they would be willing to participate in a follow-up mailadministered survey about their camping experiences. Those who agreed to participate in
the follow-up survey were asked to provide their names and addresses. Also, visitors who
agreed to participate in the follow-up survey were given a gift, having a value of less than
$5, for their time and effort. All participants were assured confidentiality.
The on-site survey phase of this research project provided useful information about
roadside campsite visitors, their experiences, and their trip characteristics and camping
habits. While the on-site survey provided a method of collecting information from
visitors during their camping experiences, the survey was meant to be brief and,
therefore, not comprehensive enough to address all topics of interest to this study.
Consequently, researchers conducted a follow-up mail-administered survey with visitors
who were sampled during the on-site survey process.
The purpose of the follow-up mail survey was to gather additional information from
roadside campsite visitors about a variety of topics such as their knowledge of roadside
camping areas, their attachment to roadside camping areas, and their motivations for
camping in roadside areas. Additionally, several questions were included on the followup survey in order to gain a better understanding of visitor perceptions regarding the
substitutability of camping settings within the Adirondack Park (i.e., the extent to which
camping settings within the Adirondack Park can be substituted for one another).
The final question of the on-site survey asked respondents if they would be willing to
participate in a follow-up, mail-administered survey about their camping experiences and
the majority (n=179, 82.9%) agreed to participate. All participants were ensured
confidentiality and were provided with a small gift, not exceeding $5 in value, for their
time and effort.
Researchers employed a modified Dillman Total Design (1978) method for administering
the mail survey. Approximately two weeks after each on-site survey, participants were
mailed a ten-page questionnaire and letter requesting their responses. After
approximately two more weeks, those participants whose responses had not been
received were mailed a post card reminding them to complete and return the
questionnaire. After an additional two more weeks, participants whose responses had
still not been received were mailed a second copy of the questionnaire and a letter
requesting their responses.
4
long) that led from the site to a body of water, or (3) if a body of water was directly visible from
the site interior.
Estimated Circumference of Site (feet): This variable provided a quick estimate of the size of
each campsite that was inventoried. The circumference of each site was estimated by pacing the
perimeter of the site and recording the number of feet. As this measure was meant to be quick
and approximate, sites were treated as circular in shape, although many sites are actually shaped
irregularly.
Estimated Distance from Road (feet): This variable was used to determine the distances from
roadside campsites to their corresponding roads. Researchers attempted to record the shortest
distance between each campsite and road. That is, researchers tried to measure the distance from
the site to the road, and not the length of the site driveway (see figure 1). Researchers estimated
the distance for each site by pacing from the site perimeter to the closest edge of the road.
Driveway
to site
Site
Shortest Distance
from road
Road
Figure 1. Diagram for estimated distances between campsites and roads.
Condition Class: The campsite condition class provided a brief description of the sites overall
condition in relation to soil erosion and tree health. Upon reviewing each site, researchers
categorized roadside campsites into one of six condition classes. The first condition class
represents the least amount of human impact on the natural features of the site, while the fifth
condition class represents the highest amount of human impact. A sixth condition class was
created to describe sites that had been designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. Such
sites provided gravel camping areas upon which wheelchairs could travel. Appendix A provides
a photographic example of each of the first five condition classes.
Inventory Results
The results of the roadside campsite inventory are displayed in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, a
total of 531 roadside campsites were found and assessed during the inventory. Of those, 23
(4.3%) were found in resource management areas (e.g., conservation easements), 49 (9.2%) were
found in wilderness, primitive, or canoe areas, and 459 (86.4%) were found in wild forest areas.
Field
Total # of Sites:
Site Type:
Vehicle single
Vehicle cluster
Walk-in single
Walk-in cluster
Missing data
Total
DEC Camping Disk:
No
Yes
Missing data
Total
Screening from
Road:
None
Partial
Complete
Missing
Total
Estimated Distance
from Road:
0 150 ft.
151 300 ft.
Over 300 ft.
Missing data
Total
Estimated
Circumference of
Site:
0 150 ft.
151 300 ft.
Over 300 ft.
Missing data
Total
Satellite Sites:
0 Satellites
1 Satellite
2 Satellites
3 Satellites
Total
Total
531
(100)
20
0
3
0
0
23
(87.0)
--(13.0)
----(100)
39
1
8
0
1
49
(81.2)
(2.1)
(16.7)
----(100)
398
9
42
3
7
459
(88.1)
(2.0)
(9.3)
(0.7)
--(100)
457
10
53
3
8
531
(87.4)
(1.9)
(10.1)
(0.6)
--(100)
15
8
0
23
(65.2)
(34.8)
--(100)
14
32
3
49
(30.4)
(69.6)
--(100)
135
318
6
459
(29.8)
(70.2)
--(100)
164
358
9
531
(31.4)
(68.6)
--(100)
12
8
3
0
23
(52.2)
(34.8)
(13.0)
--(100)
14
14
19
2
49
(29.8)
(29.8)
(40.4)
--(100)
207
130
103
19
459
(47.0)
(29.5)
(23.4)
--(100)
233
152
125
21
531
(45.7)
(29.8)
(24.5)
--(100)
17
5
0
1
23
(77.3)
(22.7)
----(100)
33
5
7
4
49
(73.3)
(11.1)
(15.6)
--(100)
359
43
36
21
459
(82.0)
(9.8)
(8.2)
--(100)
409
53
43
26
531
(81.0)
(10.5)
(8.5)
--(100)
15
7
0
1
23
(68.2)
(31.8)
----(100)
38
11
0
0
49
(77.6)
(22.4)
----(100)
303
149
1
6
459
(66.9)
(32.9)
(0.2)
--(100)
356
167
1
7
531
(67.9)
(31.9)
(0.2)
--(100)
18
1
2
2
23
(78.3)
(4.3)
(8.7)
(8.7)
(100)
40
8
1
0
49
(81.6)
(16.3)
(2.0)
--(100)
410
39
9
1
459
(89.3)
(8.5)
(2.0)
(0.2)
(100)
468
48
12
3
531
(88.1)
(9.0)
(2.3)
(0.6)
(100)
The vast majority of roadside campsites were categorized as single-vehicle sites (87.4%).
The second most common site types were walk-in-single sites (10.1%), followed by vehiclecluster sites (1.9%) and walk-in cluster sites (0.6%).
Overall, 68.6% of the roadside campsites were designated as legal campsites with a
NYSDEC disk. This proportion was similar for the sites found within wilderness, primitive and
canoe areas (69.9%) and found within wild forest areas (70.2%). Conversely, the majority of
sites found within resource management areas did not have NYSDEC disks (65.2%).
The amount of screening from the road varied from site to site. Of the 531 campsites
inventoried, 45.7% of sites had no screening from the road, while 29.8 % and 24.5% had partial
screening and complete screening, respectively.
The majority of campsites (81%) were located between 0 and 150 feet from the road.
About 10.5% were located between 151 and 300 feet from the road, while about 8.5% were
located more than 300 feet away from a road. This percentage pattern remained fairly constant
across the three subareas summarized in Table 1 (resource management areas, wilderness,
primitive and canoe areas, and wild forest areas).
In addition to estimating the distance from the road, researchers estimated the
circumference of each site by pacing around its perimeter. As this measure was meant to provide
a quick estimate, researchers accepted the assumption that roadside campsites were circular in
shape. However, in actuality many of the sites were not circular. Thus, the estimated
circumference of each site should not be treated as a substitute for exact or precise
measurements. Rather, these data were meant to provide a general reference to the size of each
site. Using the estimated circumference of each site, researchers were able to obtain estimates
for site radii, which could be subsequently used to estimate total site area measurements using
the following formulas:
Estimated Radius = Estimated Circumference / 2(pi)
Estimated Area = pi (Estimated Radius squared)
Dawson, Schuster, Propst, and Black (2008) explained that a reasonable amount of space
necessary to accommodate three tents capable of sleeping nine or less people, and providing an
area for cooking and a fire is approximately 2,000 square feet (p. 3). A campsite with an area of
2,000 square feet would have a corresponding circumference of about 158 feet. Table 3 provides
some additional examples of how circumference measurements correspond with area
measurements for circular campsites.
The majority of campsites that were inventoried (67.9%) were categorized as having a
circumference between one and 150 feet. About 31.9% were categorized as having a
circumference between 151 and 300 feet, while only 0.2% was categorized as having a
circumference of over 300 feet. While these measurements are not exact, it appears that about
67.9% of the campsites inventoried had associated area measurements of less than 2,000 square
feet. and, therefore, fall into the size range described as reasonable by Dawson et al (2008).
The last variable summarized in Table 1 is the number of satellite sites accompanying
roadside campsites. As shown, the vast majority of sites did not have any associated satellite
sites (88.1%). About 9% of sites had one other satellite site associated with them, while 2.3%
and 0.6% had two and three satellite sites associated with them, respectively.
Table 3 displays additional inventory data such as amenities provided, water access, and
condition classes. Overall, 71.4% of sites provided a fire pit, while 25.4% provided a cement
fireplace. Only 21.5 % of sites provided picnic tables, while only a few sites (0.9%) provided
benches for seating. As shown, the proportion of sites that provided picnic tables was highest in
wild forest areas (22.4%), followed by wilderness, primitive and canoe areas (18.4%) and
resource management areas (8.7%). Finally, about 28.2% of all sites provided users with an
outhouse. The proportion of sites having outhouses was much higher within wild forest areas
(31.2%) than the proportions having outhouses within wilderness, primitive and canoe areas
(8.2%) or resource management areas (13%).
About 42.7 % of sites were either located adjacent to water, had social trails less than 200
ft. leading to water, or provided users with a view of water resources from the interior of the site.
Finally, the condition class variable is summarized in Table 3. As shown, 18.7% of sites
were categorized under the first condition class (i.e., least amount of human impact). About
22.9% of sites were categorized under the second condition class, while 33.9%, 19.5%, and 2.1%
were categorized under the third, fourth, and fifth conditions classes, respectively. About 2.9%
of sites were categorized under the sixth condition class (gravel camping pad for persons with
disabilities). As shown, wild forest areas were the only unit management areas that provided
sites that were categorized within the sixth condition class.
10
11
Figure 2 displays the location of all 531 roadside campsites found within the Adirondack
Park. Figure 3 displays only those campsites that were found within wilderness, primitive, or
canoe areas, while figure 4 displays only those sites that were found within wild forest areas.
Figure 5 provides a map at a smaller scale, which shows all campsites inventoried along
Floodwood Road within the Saranac Lake Wild Forest. Additionally, a complete list of roadside
campsite locations (i.e., management units and road names) can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 6 shows designated and undesignated sites within the Adirondack Park. Figure 7
displays a map at a smaller scale showing sites that are designated and undesignated along
Powley/Piseco Road in Ferris Lake Wild Forest. These maps provide examples of how
inventory data can be visually portrayed using the GIS files that are included in the dataset.
In addition to summarizing condition class data numerically, Figure 8 provides an
example of how this data can be represented visually. This map shows the condition class of
each site located near North Lake Road, within the Black River Wild Forest. Other maps of this
type can be created for additional areas using the data included in the dataset.
The maps described above provide examples of how inventory data can be displayed
visually using GIS software. In addition to creating maps for this purpose, GIS software was
useful for performing separate roadside campsite analyses. For example, the APSLMP stipulates
that primitive tent sites should be located at a minimum of a mile from each other. Using GIS
software, researchers were able to create additional maps that display whether or not each site
was in compliance with this guideline. Figure 9 provides a map showing compliance with the
mile separation distance for all roadside campsites found within the Adirondack Park. Also,
Figure 10 provides a map at a smaller scale showing this information for roadside campsites
located within the Moose River Plains Wild Forest.
12
13
Figure 3. Map showing roadside campsites within Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe Areas.
14
Figure 4. Map showing roadside camping areas within Wild Forest Areas.
15
Figure 6. Map showing designated and undesignated campsites within the Adirondack Park.
17
Figure 7. Map showing designated and undesignated sites in Ferris Lake Wild Forest.
18
Figure 8. Map showing campsite condition classes near North Lake Road.
19
20
Figure 10. Map showing mile separation distance compliance in Moose River Plains Wild Forest.
21
23
to the roadside camping they were visiting as a result of the interactions with nature and wildlife
that they experienced within the setting. One visitor said,
I just enjoy Gods creation. No matter where you look its just so beautiful. In a couple
more months Ill be eating raspberries, strawberries, blueberriesall the streams and just
everything about it, its just so awesome. (Interview #15, 2009)
The sixth theme that emerged from the participants descriptions of their emotional
attachments was related to visitors being concerned about the potential loss of access to roadside
camping areas. Fourteen participants mentioned feeling concerned or worried about losing
access to the camping area that they were visiting. One person said, If they got rid of this I
would be totally bummed. (Interview #17, 2009). Another participant commented,
I would hate the government that passed that legislation. Any politicians involved with
that process that voted for that, I would vote against those guys . . . I would definitely
challenge them. Its that important to me that they not put a restriction on that kind
[roadside] of camping. (Interview #9, 2009)
The final theme emerging out of the participants descriptions of attachment was related
to visitor willingness to pay for the continued provision of the roadside camping areas in the
Adirondacks. Two people explained that they would be willing to pay a fee in order to use the
roadside camping area that they were visiting. One of them reported, I wouldnt care if they put
a gate up there and charged us $5 to come through that gate. Thats how much we like it here.
(Interview #25).
24
travel to primitive tent sites, which are often located at a significant distance within the interior
of the forest. For example, one of them explained,
Yeah I do. Its so great for me, theres no way I could hike back into a place like that
[primitive site]. Theres just no way I could do it, and here I just pull up and Im here.
(Interview #15, 2009)
The third theme that emerged from the responses to the dependence question was related
to the costs associated with different types of camping. Three participants indicated they were
dependent on roadside camping areas because they could not afford, or did not wish to pay for,
camping in other areas. One participant stated,
Yeah, for camping. Yeah because it really is a convenience, one of the cheapest
vacations you can take. The state campgrounds, theyre not cheap. (Interview #29,
2009)
25
mentioned the differences in cost when comparing the two types of areas. One participant
commented,
Well, to me roadside campsites are more for your average person who doesnt have a lot
of extra money to throw around. We can come up here a whole lot cheaper than we could
go to a state campground for. (Interview #1, 2009)
The fourth theme that emerged was related to the amount of freedom experienced by
visitors, or the restrictions imposed on visitors at each area. Six participants described feeling a
greater amount of freedom from restrictions when visiting roadside camping areas. One person
commented,
Last night my daughter was raising a ruckus, screaming and such. If we were in a
campground and she was doing that the ranger would be like hey keep it down. Here you
dont have to. You can sit out here and howl at the coyotes and stuff at night and let them
howl back. You have a good time. We wouldnt get totally out of control, but you dont
have to worry about the neighbors. (Interview #24, 2009)
The fifth and final theme that emerged from this line of questioning was related to the
level of primitiveness associated with each type of camping area. Five participants explained
that they felt roadside camping was a more primitive type of camping experience than camping
in a campground. One of them said,
I dont want to degrade state campgrounds and regular campgrounds, because theyre
really nice, but its just not for me. I just want to be in the wilderness. (Interview #15,
2009)
26
some chairs and stuff, and also kids. I cant fold my son up and put him in a backpack
and go in too deep with him because I end up carrying everything. Its just an easier type
of camping. (Interview #13, 2009)
The third theme that emerged was focused on the vehicle aspect of roadside camping in
comparison to camping in primitive tent sites. Three participants commented on the importance
of using vehicles while roadside camping. One participant said,
I know that roadside camping is a beautiful thing. There are a lot of people who just
leave a lot of their stuff in their vehicle, work out of the back of their vehicle. Its safer,
cleaner. (Interview #17, 2009)
Another participant commented,
One of the biggest reasons we come up here is because you can drive right to them
[roadside campsites]. (Interview #25, 2009)
The fourth theme that emerged out of the participants comparisons was related to
secondary activities and experience intentions of the visitor. One participant indicated that his
reasons for using primitive sites differed from his reasons for using roadside camping areas:
I go there [primitive sites] with different intentionsrock climbing or hikingthats
just a base camp. This is more of a sit and hang out. (Interview #28, 2009)
The final theme that emerged from this line of questioning was related to the level of
primitiveness and privacy experienced at the two types of sites. Two participants mentioned that
they felt primitive tent sites provided a better opportunity to experience privacy, solitude, or
quietness. One of the participants noted the differences between roadside and primitive lean-tos,
Theyre both great. Thats actually quieter; you dont have people going by all the time
and all that stuff. (Interview #1)
27
Its pretty, we like the water, being able to fish, familiarity. We knew how to get here.
We didnt feel like doing a lot of exploring. Like we said, its familiar to us. (Interview
#5, 2009)
The third theme related to factors influencing visitors decisions to choose their camping
area was concerned with the cost of the camping trip. Two participants mentioned cost in
response to this question. One said,
The sheer beauty of the area, easy access to water, its a nice camping site, and the fact
that its free. Were a family, but everybody has expenses. We know for a fact that we
can camp for about 75 bucks for a weekend, for a family, and thats fairly cheap.
(Interview #4, 2009)
The final theme that emerged from the responses to this question was related to the
proximity of roadside camping areas to peoples homes. Five participants mentioned that a
major reason for choosing their camping area was that it was close to their homes. One
participant stated, its a place we can go to get away and still be close to home if need be
(Interview # 4, 2009)
Management Concerns
Researchers were interested in gaining visitor perspectives regarding the management of
roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. Visitors were asked to explain what they
thought the most important management concern was for roadside camping areas in the
Adirondack Park. Several themes emerged out of the responses to this question. First and
foremost, several people discussed issues related to the accessibility of roadside camping areas.
In fact, four subthemes emerged that were related to roadside camping area accessibility. Nine
participants expressed that continued public access to roadside camping areas in the Adirondack
Park was of paramount importance to them. Two participants indicated that they preferred
roadside camping areas because they were available on a first come, first serve basis, whereas
the reservation system used within campgrounds was less desirable. Also related to accessibility,
four people discussed their appreciation for the wheelchair-accessible roadside campsites that are
provided within some camping areas. One participant commented,
I dont feel they should take this away from us eitherand I see now they got that
handicapped site up there. That is a great thingI went by there and thought how great
is that? (Interview #20)
The final subtheme related to accessibility was focused on the issue of people saving
roadside campsites with equipment but not using them. Two participants mentioned that they
had experienced difficulty finding a campsite as a result of people leaving equipment in sites and
claiming them for future use. One person commented,
Its kind of a shame to see the way people are using it. People just come in and drop
their things and you dont see them. The trailer over there has been then since Ive been
here and theres been people there one night so farits kind of a shame because people
who do want to come up and use it cant really because people like that do things like
that. (Interview #18, 2009)
28
The second main theme related to management concerns that emerged from the
participants responses was related the importance of visitors respecting and caring for the
roadside campsites that they use. Ten respondents explained that they felt the most important
management concern for roadside camping areas was ensuring that people are behaving properly
and cleaning up after themselves. One participant commented,
Keep them free, clean, open. If the public doesnt keep it clean then maybe have
volunteers to come in and keep it from being closed. Ive seen a few places that have
been closed, that I went to when I was his age and cant get into them anymore, because
other people put garbage and stuff in there. That irritates me. (Interview #7, 2009)
The third main theme that emerged from the responses to this question is related to
maintenance of roadside camping settings. Thirteen participants mentioned that there was a need
to continue proper maintenance of the campsites, amenities, and roads. One participant said,
youve got to keep the roads up, keeping up with the sitesI wouldnt like to see it all
deteriorate (Interview #16, 2009). In addition to discussing the need for continued maintenance
of the resources, two participants mentioned that they felt that sites and/or trails needed to be
marked more adequately. One person commented,
Maybe campsites marked, like this one doesnt have the camping symbol, but its got
the two rings, so I guess were alloweda lot of sites dont have them [signs
designating campsites]. (Interview 10, 2009)
While maintenance and ensuring proper use of campsites were common topics discussed
by participants, one person discussed an issue related to the number of people who use particular
roadside campsites. She explained that there should be a limit on the number of people who are
allowed to occupy a roadside campsite.
A fourth theme that emerged was related to insect control. One participant in the study
said,
Just overall cleanliness and pollution, as well as BTI control, I really am a proponent of
BTI because black flies are horrible, I guess mosquitoes and black flies are a hazard to
anybodyand it does affect people on how they feel and act for a day. (Interview #4,
2009)
Finally, the last theme that emerged from the responses to this question was related to the
provision of information and education regarding roadside camping areas in the Adirondack
Park. Three participants mentioned that they would like to see more information regarding
roadside camping area locations and rules and regulations. One participant commented,
What would be nice is if the state had a general guide as to where these are so wed try
them, but were not aware of all of them, just dont know where they areyouve got to
be part of the culture to know where these are. (interview #21, 2009)
29
%
68.4
18.4
10.8
6.1
Table 7 displays the gender characteristics of the on-site survey sample; the majority of
respondents were male.
Table 7. Gender of on-site survey participants.
Gender
#
Male
148
Female
66
Missing data
2
Total
216
%
69.2
30.8
--100
Participants were asked to indicate the number of days that they had planned to stay
overnight within roadside camping areas during their recreational trip. The results of this
question are displayed in Table 8. Eight percent of respondents indicated that they were staying
in their roadside campsite for only one night. About 20.2% of respondents indicated that they
were using roadside camping areas for two nights during their trip, while 31%, 11.3%, and 8.9%
indicated that they were staying in roadside camping areas for three, four, and five days,
respectively. About 17% of respondents indicated that they would be using roadside camping
areas between 6 and 14 days. Only 3.3% of respondents indicated that they would be staying in
roadside camping areas for more than 14 days during their recreational trips. The mean number
of days that visitors planned to spend roadside camping was 5.72, while the median was 3.
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of days that they had planned to stay
overnight in other, non-roadside campsite accommodations during their current trip. The vast
majority of respondents (95.8%) indicated that they were not using other overnight
accommodations during their trips (Table 9).
Table 8. Number of days spent overnight at roadside camping areas during trip.
Number of Days using Roadside Camping Areas during Trip
#
%
1 Day
17
8.0
2 Days
43
20.2
3 Days
66
31.0
4 Days
24
11.3
5 Days
19
8.9
6-10 Days
22
10.3
11-14 Days
15
7.0
More than 14 Days
7
3.3
Missing / Not Sure
3
--Total
213
100
Mean
5.72
Median
3.0
Standard Deviation
9.57
Range (min and max)
1 - 90
31
%
95.8
1.4
2.8
--100
32
other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park, while 48% indicated that they had
used other roadside camping areas (Table 11). Those visitors who reported using other roadside
camping areas were then asked to indicate the number of years of experience that they had with
other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park (Table 12).
Table 11. Usage of other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park.
Visitor use of Other Roadside Camping Areas
#
%
No
112
51.9
Yes
104
48.1
Total
216
100
Of the 104 respondents who reported having past experience with other roadside camping
areas within the Adirondack Park, 5.8% indicated that it was their first year using such areas
(table 12). Another 21.2% indicated having between two and five years of experience with other
roadside areas, while 23.1% indicated having between six and ten years of past experience. A
substantial proportion of visitors (50%) indicated having more than ten years of experience with
other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. Only 14.4% of respondents indicated
having more than 30 years of experience with other roadside camping areas within the
Adirondack Park. The mean number of years of past experience with other roadside camping
areas was 16.55 years, while the median was 11 years.
Table 12. Number of years using other roadside camping areas within Adirondack Park.
Years using Other Roadside Camping Areas
#
%
First-year visitors
6
5.8
2 to 5 years
22
21.2
6 to 10 years
24
23.1
11 to 15 years
8
7.7
16-20 years
8
7.7
21 to 30 years
21
20.2
Over 30 years
15
14.4
Total
104
100
Mean
16.55
Median
11
Standard Deviation
13.15
Range (min and max)
1-60
In addition to understanding visitors past experience with roadside camping areas within
the Adirondack Park, researchers were interested in understanding visitors past experiences with
other types of camping settings within the Adirondack Park. Therefore, visitors were asked to
indicate whether or not they had previously used non-roadside camping settings within the
Adirondack Park. These settings included NYSDEC campgrounds and primitive/backpacking
sites. Table 13 displays the results of this question. As shown, the majority of respondents
(79.1%) indicated that they had previously used non-roadside camping settings within the
Adirondack Park.
Table 13. Usage of non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park.
33
#
45
170
1
216
%
20.9
79.1
--100
Those respondents who indicated having past experience with non-roadside camping
settings within the park were asked to report the number of years of experience that they had
with such settings (Table 14). Of the 170 respondents who indicated having past experiences
with non-roadside settings, about 7.3% reported that it was their first year using such settings.
Another 16.5% indicated that they had between two and five years of experience with nonroadside settings, while 15.9% indicated having between six and ten years of past experience.
Over 60% reported having more than ten years of experience. Only 15.2% reported having over
30 years of past experience with non-roadside settings. The mean number of years of past
experience with these settings was 18.15, while the median was 20. These results suggest that
the majority of roadside campsite visitors within the Adirondack Park have previous experience
with non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park as well.
Table 14. Number of years using non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park.
Years using Other Types of Camping Areas in the Park
#
%
First-year visitors
12
7.3
2 to 5 years
27
16.5
6 to 10 years
26
15.9
11 to 15 years
11
6.7
16-20 years
34
20.7
21 to 30 years
29
17.7
Over 30 years
25
15.2
Missing Data / Not Sure
6
--Total
170
100
Mean
18.15
Median
20
Standard Deviation
13.45
Range (min and max)
1-60
While the previously summarized variables provide descriptions of the number of years
that visitors had used various types of camping settings within the Adirondack Park, researchers
were also interested in understanding the frequency with which visitors use various camping
settings. Therefore, participants were asked a series of questions in order to understand the
number of days per year, in a typical year, that roadside campsite visitors use various camping
settings.
First, respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used the
roadside camping areas in which they were surveyed. As shown in Table 15, 33.6% of
respondents reported using the roadside camping areas in which they were surveyed between one
and five days per year, while 31.3% reported using the areas between six and ten days per year.
34
Only 9.3% of respondents indicated that they used the roadside camping areas in which they
were surveyed more than 30 days per year. The mean number of days per year that visitors used
the roadside camping areas in which they were surveyed was 13.95 days, while the median was
7.5 days.
Table 15. Days per year using the areas in which visitors were surveyed.
Days per Year Using Site of Interview
#
%
1 to 5 days
72
33.6
6 to 10 days
67
31.3
11 to 15 days
29
13.6
16 to 20 days
10
4.7
21 -30 days
16
7.5
Over 30 days
20
9.3
Missing data / Not sure
2
--Total
216
100
Mean
13.95
Median
7.5
Standard Deviation
17.22
Range (min and max)
1-104
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used other
roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park (aside from the areas in which they were
surveyed). The majority of respondents (59.5%) indicated that they did not use other roadside
camping areas in a typical year (Table 16). About 14% indicated that they used other roadside
camping areas within the Park between one and five days per year, while 15.8% indicated that
they used other roadside areas between six and ten days per year. Only 2.3% indicated that they
used other roadside camping areas more than 30 days per year. The mean number of days per
year using other roadside camping areas within the Park was 5.22 days, while the median was
zero days.
Table 16. Days per year using other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using Other Roadside Areas within the Park
#
%
0 Days
128
59.5
1 to 5 days
30
14.0
6 to 10 days
34
15.8
11 to 15 days
5
2.3
16 to 20 days
7
3.3
21 -30 days
6
2.8
Over 30 days
5
2.3
Missing data / Not sure
1
--Total
216
100
Mean
5.22
Median
0
Standard Deviation
15.85
Range (min and max)
0-200
35
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used NYSDEC
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park. A slight majority (50.2%) reported that they did not
use NYSDEC campgrounds during a typical year (Table 17). About 26.5% indicated that they
used campgrounds between one and five days per year, while 14.4% indicated that they used
campgrounds between six and ten days per year. Less than 10% of respondents indicated that
they used NYSDEC campgrounds within the Park more than ten days per year. The mean
number of days per year that respondents used NYSDEC campgrounds within the Park was 3.59
days, while the median was zero days.
Table 17. Days per year using NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using NYSDEC Campgrounds within the Park
#
%
0 Days
108
50.2
1 to 5 days
57
26.5
6 to 10 days
31
14.4
11 to 15 days
10
4.7
16 to 20 days
4
1.9
21 -30 days
4
1.9
Over 30 days
1
0.5
Missing data / Not sure
1
--Total
216
100
Mean
3.59
Median
0
Standard Deviation
6.56
Range (min and max)
0-60
Next, respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used
privately owned and operated campgrounds within the Adirondack Park (Table 18). The
majority of respondents (87.9%) indicated that they did not use privately owned and operated
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park during a typical year. The mean number of days per
year that respondents used private campgrounds within the Park was 0.83 days.
Table 18. Days per year using privately owned campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using Private Campgrounds within the Park
#
%
0 Days
189
87.9
1 to 5 days
15
7.0
6 to 10 days
6
2.8
11 to 15 days
3
1.4
16 to 20 days
0
0.0
21 -30 days
2
0.9
Over 30 days
0
0.0
Missing data / Not sure
1
--Total
216
100
Mean
0.83
Median
0
Standard Deviation
3.31
Range (min and max)
0-30
36
Respondents were also asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used
primitive/backpacking campsites within the Adirondack Park. The majority of respondents
(64.5%) indicated that they did not use primitive/backpacking campsites during a typical year
(Table 19). Less than 7% of respondents indicated that they used primitive/backpacking
campsites within the Adirondack Park more than ten days per year. The mean number of days
per year using primitive tent sites within the Park was 2.64 days, while the median was 0 days.
Table 19. Days per year using primitive/backpacking campsites within the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using Primitive Campsites within the Park
#
%
0 Days
138
64.5
1 to 5 days
50
23.4
6 to 10 days
13
6.1
11 to 15 days
6
2.8
16 to 20 days
3
1.4
21 -30 days
1
0.5
Over 30 days
3
1.4
Missing data / Not sure
2
--Total
216
100
Mean
2.64
Median
0
Standard Deviation
7.24
Range (min and max)
0-60
Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used
camping settings outside of the Adirondack Park. A majority of respondents (51.9%) indicated
that they did not use camping settings outside of the Adirondack Park during a typical year
(Table 20). About 24% indicated that they used camping settings outside the Adirondack Park
between one and five days per year, while 13.2% reported using these settings between six and
ten days per year. The mean number of days per year using camping settings outside of the
Adirondack Park was 5.08 days, while the median was zero days.
Table 20. Days per year using camping areas outside the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using Camping Areas outside the Park
#
%
0 Days
110
51.9
1 to 5 days
51
24.1
6 to 10 days
28
13.2
11 to 15 days
9
4.2
16 to 20 days
5
2.4
21 -30 days
7
3.3
Over 30 days
2
0.9
Missing data / Not sure
4
--Total
216
100
Mean
5.08
Median
0
Standard Deviation
17.65
Range (min and max)
0-240
37
In summary, the results suggest that some roadside campsite visitors use other types of
camping settings both within and outside of the Adirondack Park. However, the extent of use
seems much lower within non-roadside settings than within roadside settings. Also, high
proportions of respondents indicated that they did not use NYSDEC campgrounds (50.2%) or
primitive/backpacking sites (64.5%) within the Park during a typical year, despite the very high
percentage of visitors who reported having past experiences (79.1%) with non-roadside camping
areas within the Adirondack Park. These results may indicate that although some visitors have
previous experiences with these areas, they no longer visit them during typical years. For
example, a few respondents indicated that they used NYSDEC campgrounds during their
childhoods, but no longer used them as adults. Other respondents mentioned that although they
used primitive/backpacking sites during their younger years, they no longer visited these areas.
In addition to understanding previous camping experiences of roadside campsite visitors,
researchers were interested in understanding both the size and composition of roadside camping
groups. Therefore, respondents were asked to indicate the number of people making up their
camping groups. Group sizes ranged from one to 25 people (Table 21). About 9.3% of
respondents indicated that they were the only person in their camping group. The mean number
of people per camping group was 4.06 people, while the median was three people.
Table 21. Group size for visitors surveyed.
Group Size
#
%
1
20
9.3
2
77
35.6
3
24
11.1
4
23
10.6
5
27
12.5
6
17
7.9
7
8
3.7
8
5
2.3
9
2
0.9
10
3
1.4
Over 10
10
4.6
Total
216
100
Mean
4.06
Median
3
Standard Deviation
3.43
Range
1-25
Researchers were also interested in understanding whether or not children (persons less
than 18 years of age) were present in each group of roadside campers. The majority of camping
groups (65.7%) were made up of adults only, while 34.3% of groups included children (Table
22).
38
%
9.4
53.8
20.3
16.0
0.5
--100
Questions about the types of activities that roadside campsite visitors pursue during their
camping trips were included on the survey. First, respondents were provided with a list of 15
outdoor recreation activities and were asked to indicate whether or not they had pursued or
planned to pursue each activity during their roadside camping trips. All 15 activities that were
provided on the survey were pursued by roadside campers (Table 24). The most popular
activities that roadside campers pursued were viewing natural features and scenery (91.6%),
hiking (91.6%), viewing wildlife (85.1%), picnicking (75.8%), swimming (66.5%), photography
(65.6%), fishing (58.1%) and driving for pleasure on roads (57.7%). It should be noted that
hunting seasons did not correspond well with the timing of this study, which likely explains the
low rate of participation in this activity. In addition to the 15 activities that were provided on the
survey instrument, respondents were given the opportunity to report additional activities that
they pursued or were planning to pursue during their trips. Other activities mentioned by
participants include berry picking, biking, drawing, gathering with family and/or friends, tubing,
playing Frisbee, visiting a museum, orienteering, sports, reading, relaxing, rock climbing,
sailing, shooting, drinking, writing music, darts, and exploring.
39
Table 24. Rates and percentages of activity participation while roadside camping.
Activity Participation
#
%
Viewing natural feature and scenery
197
91.6
Hiking
197
91.6
Viewing wildlife
183
85.1
Picnicking
163
75.8
Swimming
143
66.5
Photography
141
65.6
Fishing
125
58.1
Driving for pleasure on roads
124
57.7
Canoeing or kayaking
103
47.9
Nature study
76
35.3
Backpacking and camping in primitive sites
35
16.3
Motorized water travel (boat, PWC)
17
7.9
Using an ATV or off-road vehicle
8
3.7
Hunting
5
2.3
Horseback riding
2
0.9
Researchers were interested in knowing whether or not roadside campsite visitors
perceived the activity of camping as the primary activity for their recreational trips. Therefore,
respondents were asked whether or not camping was their primary activity. The vast majority of
roadside campers (94.4%) reported that the activity of camping was the most primary activity for
their recreational trips (Table 25).
Table 25. Camping as a primary activity for current Adirondack Park trip.
Camping as a Primary Activity
#
%
No
12
5.6
Yes
204
94.4
Total
216
100
The 12 respondents who indicated that roadside camping was not the primary activity for their
trips were each asked to indicate which activity they considered to be most primary; other
activities that were mentioned as the most primary included fishing, canoeing, picnicking,
swimming, hiking, and relaxing (Table 26).
Table 26. Primary trip activities other than camping.
Other Primary Activities
#
%
Fishing
5
41.7
Canoeing
3
25.0
Picnicking
1
8.3
Swimming
1
8.3
Hiking
1
8.3
Relaxing
1
8.3
Total
12
100
40
The 204 respondents who indicated that camping was the primary activity for their trip
were asked to indicate which activity was the second most important for their trip. The activity
mentioned most often as the second most important for the trip was fishing, followed by hiking,
canoeing, being outdoors, relaxing, and swimming (Table 27).
Table 27. Second most important activities for Adirondack Park trip.
Second Most Important Activity
#
%
Fishing
Hiking
Canoeing
Being outdoors
Relaxing
Swimming
Spending time with family
Viewing natural features and scenery
Bicycling
Hunting
Viewing wildlife
Picnicking
Tubing
Photography
Reading
Rock climbing
Cooking
Shopping
Missing data / not sure
Total
35
32
16
15
15
11
8
6
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
58
216
22.2
20.3
10.1
9.5
9.5
7.0
5.1
3.8
3.2
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
--100
%
5.6
94.4
--100
Only 12 respondents indicated that the roadside camping area that they were using was not their
first choice for a camping setting. Those 12 respondents were provided with a list of alternatives
and asked to indicate which best represented their first choice for a camping setting. Five
participants indicated that a different roadside camping area was their first choice (Table 29).
41
Two participants indicated that a NYSDEC campground was their first choice for a camping
setting, while three participants indicated that a primitive/backpacking campsite was their first
choice.
Table 29. Alternative first choices for camping settings.
If not, what was your first choice?
#
%
A different roadside area within the Park
5
50
A NYSDEC campground within the Park
2
20
A primitive/backpacking site within the Park
3
30
A camping area outside the Park
0
0
Other
0
0
Missing data / not sure
2
--Total
12
100
Respondents were provided with a list of alternatives and asked to indicate which best
represented what they would have done if, for some reason, they were not able to camp at the
roadside camping area that they were using during the time of the survey. The majority of
respondents (52.8%) reported that they would have gone to a different roadside camping area
within the Adirondack Park if they could not have used the roadside camping area that they were
visiting (Table 30). Only 18.4% indicated that they would have gone to a NYSDEC campground
within the Adirondack Park if they could not have stayed in the roadside camping area that they
were visiting. Another 5.7% indicated that they would have used a primitive/backpacking site
within the Adirondack Park if they could not have used the roadside area, while only 1.4%
indicated that they would have gone to a camping setting outside of the Adirondack Park.
Interestingly, 18.9% of respondents indicated that they would have stayed home and/or come
back at another time if they were not able to use the roadside camping area that they were
visiting. Only one participant (0.5%) indicated that he/she would have gone to a motel, hotel or
rental property, while five respondents (2.4%) indicated that they would have done something
else that was not included as a response alternative. Actions mentioned by these five participants
included going to an amusement park, visiting relatives or friends on private land, working, and
pursuing other activities not related to camping. In total, only 25.5% of respondents indicated
that they would have gone to a non-roadside camping setting (NYSDEC campground,
primitive/backpacking site, camping area outside the park) if they were not able to use the
roadside camping area that they were visiting during the time that they were surveyed.
Table 30. Alternatives if respondents couldnt use the roadside camping area they visited.
What would you have done if couldnt camp at roadside area?
#
%
Gone to another roadside camping area within the Park
112
52.8
Gone to a NYSDEC campground within the Park
39
18.4
Gone to a backpacking site within the Park
12
5.7
Gone to a camping area outside the Park
3
1.4
Stayed home and/or come back another time
40
18.9
Gone to a hotel, motel, or rental property
1
0.5
Other
5
2.4
Missing data / not sure
4
--Total
216
100
42
Respondents were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with their recreational
experience at the roadside camping areas they were visiting using a five-point scale ranging from
very dissatisfied to neutral to very satisfied. Only four participants (1.9%) indicated that they
were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied on their trip and only four participants (1.9%)
reported a neutral rating of satisfaction (Table 31). The vast majority of respondents reported
being either satisfied (19.9%) or very satisfied (76.4%) with their recreational experiences at the
roadside camping areas that they visited during the time of the survey.
Table 31. Level of satisfaction with experience at roadside camping areas.
Level of Camper Satisfaction
#
%
Very dissatisfied
3
1.4
Dissatisfied
1
0.5
Neutral
4
1.9
Satisfied
43
19.9
Very satisfied
165
76.4
Total
216
100
43
Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they were Adirondack Park
permanent residents. Only 19.4% of respondents indicated that their permanent residence was
located within the Adirondack Park (Table 33).
Table 33. Visitor permanent residence within Adirondack Park.
Visitor Permanent Residence within Park
#
%
No
174
80.6
Yes
42
19.4
Total
216
100
Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they were Adirondack Park vacation
homeowners or seasonal residents. Only 6.9% of respondents indicated that they owned a
vacation home within the Adirondack Park or that they were seasonal residents (Table 34).
Table 34. Vacation homeownership and seasonal residence in the Adirondack Park.
Visitor Vacation Homeownership/seasonal residence
#
%
No
201
93.1
Yes
15
6.9
Total
216
100
Respondents were asked to provide the name of the county, state, and country in which
their permanent homes resided. Table 35, Table 36, and Table 37 display the results of this line
of questioning. The vast majority of respondents (99.1%) indicated that their permanent
residence was within the U.S. (Table 35). The majority of respondents (95.8%) reported that
their residence was within the state of New York (Table 36); other states reported include New
Jersey, Vermont, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. Table 37 provides a summary of
respondent permanent residence by New York State county.
Table 35. Visitor permanent residence by country.
Visitor Permanent Residence by Country
U.S.A
Canada
Missing data / not sure
Total
Table 36. Visitor permanent residence by state.
Visitor Permanent Residence by State
#
%
New York
206
95.8
New jersey
2
0.9
Vermont
2
0.9
Ontario, Canada
2
0.9
Colorado
1
0.5
Massachusetts
1
0.5
Pennsylvania
1
0.5
Missing data / not sure
1
--Total
216
100
44
#
213
2
1
216
%
99.1
0.9
--100
45
be willing to participate in a follow-up mail survey about their camping experiences and provide
more details about their experiences and decision-making. The majority of respondents (82.9%)
agreed to participate in the follow-up mail survey. Those participants who agreed were asked to
provide their contact information for mailing purposes.
Table 38. Participation in mail survey.
Participation in Follow-up Mail Survey
#
No
37
Yes
179
Total
216
46
%
17.1
82.9
100
Level of Attachment
One of the first topics addressed on the questionnaire was the overall level of attachment
that visitors felt towards roadside camping areas. Respondents were asked to rate their overall
level of attachment to the roadside camping area that they were visiting during the time that they
were surveyed in the field in the Adirondack Park. Respondents were provided with six response
alternatives and were asked to indicate which alternative best represented their feelings of
attachment. Only one respondent (0.9%) indicated that he/she felt no attachment to the area that
he/she visited (Table 39). Only one respondent indicated that he/she felt a very weak attachment
to the roadside camping area visited, while only four (3.6%) respondents indicated feeling weak
attachment. The vast majority of respondents felt a mild to a strong attachment or very strong
attachment to the roadside camping area in which they were interviewed (94.6%) (Table 39).
Table 39. Overall attachment to roadside camping areas visited when surveyed in field.
Attachment to Particular Roadside Camping Area Visited
#
%
No attachment
1
0.9
Very weak attachment
1
0.9
Weak attachment
4
3.6
Mild attachment
22
19.6
Strong attachment
39
34.8
Very strong attachment
45
40.2
Missing data / not sure
2
--Total
114
100
A similar question asked respondents to indicate the overall level of attachment that they
felt towards the overall activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park (as opposed to their
attachment to the particular roadside camping areas they were visiting when surveyed in the
field). The vast majority of respondents felt a mild attachment to a strong attachment or very
strong attachment to the activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park (98.2%) (Table 40)
Table 40. Overall attachment to the activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park.
Attachment to the Activity of Roadside Camping within the Park
#
%
No attachment
0
0.0
Very weak attachment
1
0.9
Weak attachment
1
0.9
Mild attachment
22
19.6
Strong attachment
46
41.1
Very strong attachment
42
37.5
Missing data / not sure
2
--Total
114
100
47
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of other roadside camping areas (besides
the one that they were surveyed at) that they knew about within the Adirondack Park. A
substantial proportion of respondents (34.8%) reported that they only had knowledge of the
roadside camping area that they were visiting when they were surveyed in the field (Table 41).
The mean number of other roadside camping areas known about was 4.19, while the median was
two.
Table 41. Familiarity with other roadside camping areas in the Adirondack Park.
Knowledge of Other Roadside Camping Areas
#
%
0
39
34.8
1
11
9.8
2
13
11.6
3
16
14.3
4
5
4.5
5
8
7.1
6
6
5.4
7
1
0.9
8
2
1.8
9
0
0.0
10
3
2.7
Over 10
8
7.1
Missing data / not sure
2
--Total
114
100
Mean
4.19
Median
2
St. Dev
8.5
Range
1-60
Respondents were asked to indicate the manner in which they first learned about roadside
camping areas within the Adirondack Park. Respondents were provided with a list of six
alternatives and were asked to indicate which alternative best represented how they first learned
about roadside camping areas. About one third (36.3%) of respondents indicated that they
learned about roadside camping areas from a family member, while 33.6% indicated that they
learned from a friend (Table 42). Another 23.9% indicated that they learned about roadside
camping areas within the Adirondack Park through personal exploration, while only 2.7%
indicated that they learned about these areas from NYSDEC staff or written materials. Four
participants (3.5%) indicated that they learned about roadside camping areas within the
Adirondack Park from some other source that was not included as a response alternative.
48
Table 42. How roadside campsite visitors first learned about roadside camping areas.
How visitors first learned about roadside
#
%
camping areas in the Adirondack Park
Family member
41
36.3
Friend
38
33.6
Personal exploration
27
23.9
NYSDEC staff or written materials
3
2.7
Chamber of commerce or visitor center
0
0.0
Other
4
3.5
Missing data / not sure
1
--Total
114
100
Camper Motivations
Another topic of interest to the researchers was related to the motivations that people
have for visiting roadside camping areas within the Park. Respondents were provided with a list
of 14 different motivations that are commonly experienced by visitors to natural resource
recreation areas. Respondents were asked to provide two ratings for each motivation item. First,
they were asked to indicate how important each motivation was in selecting the roadside
camping setting that they visited during the time of their on-site survey. A five-point scale,
ranging from very unimportant to very important was provided for this question. Second,
respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each motivation was satisfied during their
trip to that roadside camping area. A five-point scale, ranging from very dissatisfied to very
satisfied, was provided for this question. The results of these questions are displayed in Table
43.
The mean importance ratings for most of the 14 motivations were above 3, indicating that
these motivations are important to most visitors. The only motivation that had a mean value
lower than 3 was the motivation to be near my home (mean = 2.47). These results indicate that
this motivation, on average, was not highly important to roadside camping visitors. Mean
satisfaction ratings were also generally high. All satisfaction means were above 3.7, indicating
that, on average, respondents were highly satisfied with the extent to which each of the 14
motivations were fulfilled during their trips.
Further analyses were conducted in order to illustrate importance and satisfaction ratings
that respondents provided. Using mean importance and satisfaction ratings, researchers created
two Importance-Performance Grids (IP Grids) in order to illustrate the extent to which
importance and satisfaction ratings corresponded with one another for each motivation. IP Grids
were originally developed within the field of marketing for the purposes of easing data
interpretation. The application has been adopted by researchers in several other fields, including
recreation and leisure studies (Oh, 2001).
49
4.46
1.8
2.7
6.2
26.8
62.5
4.42
2.7
0.9
8.0
28.6
59.8
4.50
2.7
0.9
5.4
26.1
64.9
4.59
3.5
0.0
4.4
17.7
74.3
4.42
2.7
0.0
9.9
27.0
60.4
4.52
1.8
0.9
5.4
27.7
64.3
4.42
2.7
0.9
6.2
32.1
58.0
3.51
3.6
12.5
33.9
29.5
20.5
4.01
1.8
0.9
24.3
40.5
32.4
3.71
1.8
8.0
33.9
30.4
25.9
4.39
1.8
2.7
7.1
31.2
57.1
4.54
3.6
0.0
4.5
23.2
68.8
3.87
3.6
6.2
25.9
28.6
35.7
2.47
23.2
33.9
21.4
15.2
6.2
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
0.0
0.0
7.1
28.3
64.6
4.58
0.0
0.9
7.0
31.6
60.5
4.52
0.9
0.0
5.3
28.3
65.5
4.58
0.0
2.6
6.1
25.4
65.8
4.54
0.0
0.9
8.8
28.3
61.9
4.51
1.8
10.5
8.8
42.1
36.8
4.02
0.0
3.5
8.8
35.1
52.6
4.37
0.0
0.0
41.6
31.9
26.5
3.85
0.0
0.0
21.2
38.1
40.7
4.19
1.8
2.7
30.4
33.9
31.2
3.90
0.0
3.5
15.0
31.9
49.6
4.27
0.0
0.0
7.9
17.5
74.6
4.67
0.0
0.9
26.5
29.2
43.4
4.15
4.4
1.8
41.6
20.4
31.9
3.73
IP grids were created by plotting the mean importance and performance ratings for an
attribute (in this case motivations) using a two-dimensional grid. Importance scores are displayed
on the Y-axis, while performance scores are displayed on the X-axis. The location of each
attribute on the grid is the point at which performance values and importance values intersect.
Once all attributes are plotted within the grid, two lines are drawn across the grid at the neutral
points of each axis, thus creating four quadrants into which all points are plotted. Each quadrant
50
Mean Rating
(5)
Very Satisfied
Very Important
(4)
Satisfied
Important
(3)
Neutral
Neutral
(2)
Dissatisfied
Unimportant
(1)
Motivation
Very Dissatisfied
Very Unimportant
Mean Rating
Table 43. Importance and satisfaction ratings for roadside camping motivations (% and means).
is associated with a different management application. For example, those attributes that are
plotted within quadrant 1 of the IP grid have high means scores for both importance and
performance and, therefore, little management action is needed for those attributes. Thus,
managers are encouraged to keep up the good work for attributes falling within the first quadrant.
Attributes plotted within quadrant 2 of the IP grid can be described as having high importance
ratings, but low performance ratings. Managers are encouraged to concentrate their efforts on
those attributes falling within the second quadrant of the IP grid. Attributes plotted within
quadrant 3 of the IP grid can be described as having low mean importance and performance
scores. Due to the low importance scores, managers are encouraged to place a low priority on
attributes falling within the third quadrant of the IP grid. Finally, attributes plotted within
quadrant 4 of the IP grid can be described as having low importance scores, but high
performance scores. Therefore, attributes falling within the fourth quadrant may be thought of as
representing management overkill (i.e., potentially too much management emphasis is placed on
these attributes, as the satisfaction ratings are high, but low importance is placed on them).
Figure 12 provides an example of a blank IP grid.
Quadrant 1:
Keep up the good work
Quadrant 2:
Concentrate Here
Importance
Quadrant 3:
Low Priority
Quadrant 4:
Possible Overkill
1
1
Performance
Figure 13 displays an IP grid summarizing the mean importance and performance scores
for the 14 motivations included on the follow-up questionnaire of roadside campers. The lines
separating the four IP grid quadrants were placed at the neutral point for each axis (value = 3).
Each motivation is labeled by a lowercase letter, corresponding with the motivations listed in
Table 43. That is, the motivation to experience the natural environment and scenic beauty is
labeled with the letter a within Figure 13, while the motivation to practice travel skills through a
51
remote environment is labeled with the letter h within Figure 13. All motivations except to be
near my home were plotted within the first quadrant of the IP grid, indicating that managers
should keep up the good work in relation to these motivations. The motivation to be near my
home was plotted within the fourth quadrant of the IP grid, indicating that managing for the
fulfillment of this motivation should not be highly prioritized (i.e., while visitors are highly
satisfied with this motivation, they place a relatively low importance on it).
The distributions of importance and performance ratings for all motivations were highly
skewed toward the positive ends of the ratings (Table 43). Due to the generally high mean
importance and performance scores for all motivations included on the questionnaire, the IP grid
shown in Figure 13 is limited in its ability to differentiate between motivations. That is, almost
all importance and performance means were above 3 (the neutral point), which resulted in almost
all motivations being plotted within the first quadrant of the IP grid. In an effort to better
differentiate between motivations, a separate IP grid was created. However, rather than creating
quadrants based on the neutral points of each axis, quadrants were created based on the overall
importance and performance mean scores for all motivations, collectively. That is, the 14
importance means were summed and averaged (overall importance mean = 4.13) to create the
line splitting the Y-axis, while the 14 performance means were summed and averaged (overall
performance mean = 4.28) to create the line splitting the X-axis. Figure 14 displays the second
IP grid created for this study.
As shown in Figure 14, the IP grid that was divided into quadrants based on means
resulted in a higher variation of motivations falling within the four quadrants. Each motivation is
labeled by a lowercase letter, corresponding with the motivations listed in Table 43. The
motivations to experience the natural environment and scenic beauty, to feel a connection with
nature and a natural environment, to get away from daily routines and have a chance to reflect
on life, to experience a remote area away from sight and sound of cities and people, to feel a
connection with wilderness and wild forest areas as important places, to experience solitude and
being isolated from other groups and having a personal experience within my group, and to
spend time with family and friends in a natural environment were all plotted within the first
quadrant of the IP grid. These results suggest that management should keep up the good work
with these motivations.
The motivations to experience an environment free of litter, human waste and impacts
and to experience recreation trails, sites, and environments that are not crowded were plotted
within the second quadrant of the IP grid (i.e., these two motivations were associated with higher
importance scores than performance scores). These results suggest that management should
focus their attention on improving visitor satisfaction with these two motivations.
The motivations to practice travel skills through a remote environment, to enjoy physical
activity, challenge, and exercise, to experience well-managed recreation trails and facilities, to
spend time alone in a natural environment, and to be near home were all plotted within the third
quadrant of the IP grid. These results suggest that managers should place a low priority on
improving visitor satisfaction with these motivations because visitors place low importance on
them. None of the motivations were plotted within the fourth quadrant of the IP grid.
52
4.5
d l
c
eb a
i
m
4
j
h
Importance
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
1
1.5
2.5
3.5
Performace
53
4.5
4.5
eb
c
a
4
m
Mean = 4.13
Importance
j
h
3.5
2.5
n
Mean = 4.28
2
3.5
4.5
Performace
Figure 14. IP Grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations using overall means to divide quadrants.
54
55
settings. Only 3.5% and 2.7% of respondents indicated that they receive slightly more
satisfaction and much more satisfaction from visiting camping areas outside of the Adirondack
Park, respectively. Finally, 20.4% of respondents indicated that they did not know how to
compare satisfaction between these areas.
In summary, over half of the respondents (54%) indicated that they receive less
satisfaction from visiting NYSDEC campgrounds than from visiting the roadside camping areas
that they were using when surveyed in the field. Also, nearly half of the respondents (46.9%)
indicated that they receive less satisfaction from visiting camping areas outside of the
Adirondack Park than from visiting the roadside areas that they were using when surveyed in the
field. Conversely, over half of the respondents (53.6%) indicated that they receive an equal or
higher amount of satisfaction from visiting other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack
Park in comparison to visiting the roadside camping area that they were using when surveyed in
the field. Similarly, over half of respondents (55.8%) indicated that they receive an equal or
higher amount of satisfaction from visiting primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack
Park in comparison to the satisfaction they receive from visiting the roadside areas that they were
using when surveyed in the field.
Slightly less
satisfying
Equally
Satisfying
Slightly more
satisfying
Much more
satisfying
Dont know
Total Percent
5.5%
12.7%
41.8%
7.3%
4.5%
28.2%
100
NYSDEC campgrounds
are
32.4%
21.6%
15.3%
8.1%
8.1%
14.4%
100
Primitive backpacking
sites or lean-tos within
the Park are
6.3%
9.0%
36.0%
7.2%
12.6%
28.8%
100
24.8%
22.1%
26.5%
3.5%
2.7%
20.4%
100
(n=110 to 113)
Satisfaction
comparison between
roadside camping area
visited and other
camping areas
Much less
satisfying
Table 44. Satisfaction comparisons across camping settings in the Adirondack Park.
56
A five-point scale, ranging from much less often to much more often, was provided for answering
this question. About one third (36.3%) of respondents indicated that they would camp much less
often if the roadside camping area that they were using when surveyed in the field became
unavailable, while 15% indicated that they would camp slightly less often (Table 45). About
half (46.9%) indicated that they would camp about the same amount if the roadside camping area
that they were visiting when surveyed in the field became unavailable. Only two participants
(1.8%) indicated that they would camp more often or much more often if the area that they
visited became unavailable. These results indicate that about half (51.3%) of the respondents
would camp less often if the roadside areas that they were visiting when surveyed in the field
became unavailable, while the other half (46.9%) would continue to camp about the same
amount.
Table 45. Frequency of camping if particular roadside areas in the Adirondack Park are not
available.
How often would you camp if Roadside Area Used not available?
#
%
Much less often
41
36.3
Less often
17
15.0
About the same
53
46.9
More often
1
0.9
Much more often
1
0.9
Missing data / not sure
1
--Total
114
100
Second, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they would camp in
other Adirondack Park settings if no roadside camping areas were available for public use within
the Adirondack Park. Respondents were instructed to answer using the same five-point scale
that was provided for the previous question. About half (50.4%) of respondents indicated that
they would camp much less often in other settings within the Park, if no roadside camping areas
were available for public use (Table 46). Another 26.5% of respondents indicated that they
would camp slightly less often if no roadside camping areas were available, while 22.1%
indicated that they would camp about the same amount. In summary, the majority of
respondents (76.9%) indicated that they would camp less often or much less often at other
camping settings within the Adirondack Park if no roadside camping areas were available.
Table 46. Frequency of camping if no roadside areas available in the Adirondack Park.
How often would you camp if no roadside sites were available?
#
%
Much less often
57
50.4
Less often
30
26.5
About the same
25
22.1
More often
1
0.9
Much more often
0
0.0
Missing data / not sure
1
--Total
114
100
The variables described above provide useful information about visitor perceptions
regarding the extent to which camping settings can be substituted for one another within the
57
Adirondack Park. However, the previously described results provide information that is only
indirectly related to resource substitution. In order to gain a more direct understanding of
camping resource substitutability within the Adirondack Park, respondents were asked a series of
questions that directly addressed the concept of resource substitution.
First, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not other roadside camping areas
within the Adirondack Park are acceptable substitutes for the roadside camping areas that they
were visiting when surveyed in the field. About half of the respondents (49.1%) indicated that
other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park are acceptable substitutes for the
roadside camping areas that they were visiting when surveyed in the field (Table 47). Another
22.8% of respondents indicated that other roadside camping areas were not acceptable
substitutes, while 28.1% reported that they did not know if other roadside camping areas were
acceptable substitutes.
Table 47. Substitutability of other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park.
Are other roadside camping areas within the Park acceptable substitutes?
#
%
Yes
56
49.1
No
26
22.8
Dont know
32
28.1
Total
114
100
A follow-up question was included on the questionnaire in order to gain an understanding
of the reasons why other roadside camping areas might not be acceptable substitutes for the
roadside camping areas that respondents were visiting when they were surveyed in the field.
Respondents who indicated that other roadside camping areas in the Adirondack Park were not
acceptable substitutes for the roadside camping areas that they were using when surveyed in the
field were provided with a list of several potential reasons and asked to mark any that applied.
Table 48 displays the potential reasons for non-substitutability that were included on the
questionnaire and the percentages of people who indicated that each was an applicable reason
why other roadside camping areas were not acceptable substitutes. It should be noted that the
reasons included on the questionnaire were adopted from previous literature and/or developed
based on the results of the qualitative phase of this research project (described previously).
Table 48. Reasons for non-substitutability between area visited and other roadside areas.
Reasons why other roadside camping areas are not acceptable substitutes (n = 26)
%
Sites too close together
57.7
Too much noise from other people
53.8
Too crowded
50.0
Scenery not as good
46.2
Too hard to find an available campsite
46.2
Other
46.2
Drive from home is too far or takes too long
30.8
Too much development / amenities
30.8
Too difficult to travel to campsites
23.1
Undesirable rules or regulations
19.2
Too expensive
15.4
Not enough development / amenities
11.5
58
%
23.4
64.9
11.7
--100
Respondents who indicated that NYSDEC campgrounds were not acceptable substitutes
were provided with a list of potential reasons and were asked to indicate which reasons
contributed to the non-substitutability between NYSDEC campgrounds and the roadside areas
that they were visiting when surveyed in the field. The five most commonly indicated reasons
for non-substitutability between roadside areas and NYSDEC campgrounds were: sites are too
close together (95.8%), it is too crowded (88.9%), there is too much noise from other people
(77.8%), there is too much development (52.8%) and it is too expensive (48.6%) (Table 50).
Also, a high percentage of respondents (47.2%) indicated that the sites were non-substitutable
because NYSDEC campgrounds employ undesirable rules and regulations. These results suggest
that the primary reasons for perceived non-substitutability between these setting are related to the
social atmospheres of the settings.
Respondents were also given the opportunity to indicate other reasons why campgrounds
are not acceptable substitutes for the roadside camping areas that they were visiting when
surveyed in the field. Responses included disapproval of the campsite reservation system used
within campgrounds, the presence of kids, lack of trail systems and opportunities for exploration,
59
lack of privacy, pet restrictions, attachment to the roadside camping area they visited, and high
enforcement presence at campgrounds.
Table 50. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and NYSDEC
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.
%
Reasons why campgrounds are not acceptable substitutes (n = 72)
Sites too close together
95.8
Too crowded
88.9
Too much noise from other people
77.8
Too much development
52.8
Too expensive
48.6
Undesirable rules and regulations
47.2
Scenery not as good
38.9
Too hard to find an available campsite
26.4
Other
13.9
Too difficult to travel to campsites
2.8
Drive too far from home
1.4
Not enough development
1.4
Third, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they perceived
primitive/backpacking campsites within the Adirondack Park as acceptable substitutes for the
roadside camping areas that they were visiting when surveyed in the field. About one half
(47.7%) of respondents indicated that they did perceive primitive/backpacking sites as acceptable
substitutes, while 32.1% indicated that they did not perceive them as acceptable substitutes
(Table 51). Another 20.2% indicated that they did not know whether or not
primitive/backpacking sites are acceptable substitutes.
Table 51. Substitutability of primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park.
Are primitive campsites within the Park acceptable substitutes?
#
Yes
52
No
35
Dont know
22
Missing data / not sure
5
Total
114
%
47.7
32.1
20.2
--100
60
primitive sites and the fact that certain types of camping equipment cannot be used at
primitive/backpacking sites (e.g., trailers, pop-ups, and RVs).
Table 52. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and
primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park (% of respondents indicating a problem).
Reasons why campgrounds are not acceptable substitutes (n = 35)
%
Too difficult to travel to campsites
57.1
Other
57.1
Too hard to find an available campsite
20.0
Not enough development
17.1
Scenery not as good
11.4
Undesirable rules and regulations
5.7
Drive too far from home
2.9
Sites too close together
2.9
Too much noise from other people
2.9
Too much development
2.9
Too expensive
0.0
Too crowded
0.0
In summary, these variables provide information about the extent to which various types
of camping settings within the Adirondack Park can be substituted for the roadside camping
areas that respondents were visiting at the time that they were surveyed in the field.
Substitution Options
Researchers were also interested in understanding the substitutability of these settings for
roadside camping settings in general (i.e., all roadside camping areas within the park as opposed
to the particular areas that respondents were visiting when surveyed in the field). Consequently,
a question was included on the survey that asked respondents to rank four different substitution
options for roadside camping in the Adirondack Park, in order of their preferences. That is,
respondents were provided with a list of four substitution options and were asked to place a 1
next to their most preferred choice, a 2 next to their second most preferred choice, and so on until
all four options were ranked. The four substitution options for roadside camping in the
Adirondack Park that respondents were asked to rank include: (1) camping in developed
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park, (2) camping in primitive/backpacking campsites or
lean-tos within the Adirondack Park, (3) camping in a setting outside the Adirondack Park, and
(4) pursuing an activity other than camping.
Camping in primitive/backpacking tent sites or lean-tos was most commonly ranked as
the best substitution option for roadside camping within the Adirondack Park (51.9%) (Table
53). Another 20.4% ranked this option as the second most preferred, while 14.8% and 13.0%
ranked this option the third and fourth most preferred, respectively.
Camping in developed campgrounds within the Adirondack Park was most commonly
ranked as the second most preferred substitution option for roadside camping within the
Adirondack Park (31.5%). About one quarter (23.1%) of respondents ranked this option as the
most preferred substitution option for roadside camping within the Adirondack Park.
61
Camping in settings outside the Adirondack Park was most commonly ranked as the third
most preferred substitution option. About 16.7% of respondents ranked camping in areas outside
the Adirondack Park as the most preferred option.
Finally, the option of pursuing an activity other than camping was most commonly
ranked as the fourth most preferred substitution option for roadside camping within the
Adirondack Park (Table 53).
Table 53. Rankings of resource substitution options for roadside camping in the Adirondack
Park.
Rankings (%)
Total
Substitution Options (n = 108)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Camping in primitive backpacking tent sites or lean-tos
51.9 20.4 14.8 13.0
100
within the park.
Camping in developed campgrounds within the park (for
example, NYSDEC pay sites or commercial campgrounds).
23.1 31.5
20.4
25.0
100
16.7 35.2
39.8
8.3
100
6.5
23.1
58.3
100
12.0
In summary, the results of these variables that were related to resource substitution
suggest that roadside campsite visitors tend to perceive primitive/backpacking sites within the
Adirondack Park as better resource substitutes for roadside camping areas than NYSDEC or
private campgrounds. However, as shown in Table 49 and Table 51, this is somewhat in contrast
to the individual questions when substantial proportions of visitors previously indicated that
these types of settings were not acceptable substitutes for roadside camping areas within the
Adirondack Park. Probably when the respondents were forced to compare these four alternative
options they were more willing to compromise.
62
Six statements were provided that compared roadside camping with camping in other
types of settings (Table 54). For example, respondents were asked to indicate their level of
agreement/disagreement with the statement Roadside camping areas are more primitive than
NYSDEC campgrounds. The vast majority of respondents either agreed with this statement
(41.6%) or strongly agreed (46.9%). Only 3.5% of respondents disagreed with this statement,
while 8.0% reported a neutral level of agreement.
A total of five statements were included on the questionnaire, which were related to place
attachment and dependence (Table 54). For example, respondents were asked to indicate their
level of agreement/disagreement with the statement Visiting roadside camping areas is a
personal family tradition. The majority of respondents either agreed (41.1%) or strongly agreed
(33.0%) with this statement. About 14.3% reported a neutral level of agreement, while about
10.7% and 0.9% indicated that they disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement,
respectively.
A total of five questions were included on the questionnaire, which were related to
management issues for roadside camping areas (Table 54). For example, respondents were
asked to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with Behavior of roadside campers
should be monitored more closely. A slight majority of respondents either disagreed (30.7%) or
strongly disagreed (20.2%) with this statement. About 28.1% reported a neutral level of
agreement, while 13.2% and 7.9% reported that they agreed and strongly agreed with this
statement, respectively.
A total of eight statements were included on the questionnaire, which were related to the
accessibility of roadside camping areas (Table 54). For example, respondents were asked to
indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with I wish there were more roadside camping
areas within the Park. The vast majority of respondents either agreed (38.6%) or strongly
agreed (46.5%) with this statement. About 11.4% reported a neutral rating, while only 3.5%
indicated that they disagreed with the statement.
63
64
(3)
(4)
(5)
0.0
3.5
8.0
41.6
46.9
4.32
37.5
26.8
19.6
13.4
2.7
2.17
30.4
42.0
17.9
6.2
3.6
2.11
13.4
18.8
32.1
25.9
9.8
3.00
0.9
0.9
9.9
36.0
52.3
4.38
0.0
5.4
10.7
50.0
33.9
4.12
0.9
10.7
14.3
41.1
33.0
3.95
28.3
32.7
13.3
13.3
12.4
2.49
4.4
12.4
23.0
32.7
27.4
3.66
20.4
38.1
17.7
16.8
7.1
2.52
0.0
0.0
4.5
35.1
60.4
4.56
20.2
2.7
30.7
12.4
28.1
8.8
13.2
57.5
7.9
18.6
2.58
3.77
2.6
13.2
25.4
39.5
19.3
3.60
2.7
8.8
34.5
31.9
22.1
3.62
17.5
15.8
21.9
30.7
14.0
3.08
0.0
3.5
11.4
38.6
46.5
4.28
0.9
8.8
18.4
33.3
38.6
4.00
0.0
7.1
17.7
42.5
32.7
4.01
6.1
10.5
30.7
25.4
27.2
3.57
2.6
8.8
50.0
27.2
11.4
3.36
0.9
0.9
15.0
37.2
46.0
4.27
0.9
0.0
1.8
18.4
78.9
4.75
23.0
11.5
10.6
30.1
24.8
3.22
Mean
Rating
(2)
Strongly
Agree
(1)
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Demographic Variables
The final variables on the follow-up mail questionnaire were included in order to gather
demographic information from respondents. Respondents were provided with a list of seven
alternatives and were asked to indicate which alternative best represented their employment
status. The majority of respondents were employed (69.3%), 19.3% reported being retired, while
1.8% were students (Table 55). Only 3.5%, 2.6% and 1.8% reported being unemployed, a
homemaker or homecare provider, or enrolled in military services, respectively. Finally, 1.8% of
respondents indicated that they preferred not to answer this question.
Table 55. Employment status of respondents.
#
%
Employment Status
Retired
22
19.3
Employed
79
69.3
Student
2
1.8
Unemployed
4
3.5
Homemaker / homecare provider
3
2.6
Military service
2
1.8
Prefer not to answer
2
1.8
Total
114
100
Respondents were also asked to provide their ages. There is considerable variation in the
ages of respondents (table 56). The mean age was 48.1 years, while the median was 50.5 years.
Table 56. Ages of respondents to the mail survey.
Ages of Respondents
#
%
15-19
1
0.9
20-24
1
0.9
25-29
10
8.8
30-34
12
10.5
35-39
7
6.1
40-44
8
7.0
45-49
15
13.2
50-54
21
18.4
55-59
22
19.3
60-64
9
7.9
65-69
3
2.6
70-74
2
1.8
75-79
1
0.9
80-84
1
0.9
85-89
1
0.9
Total
114
100
Mean
48.10
Median
50.50
St. Dev
12.92
Range
19 - 85
65
Finally, respondents were provided with a list of eight alternatives and were asked to
indicate which alternative best represented their highest level of education completed. Only
2.6% of respondents indicated that their highest level of completed education was between 9th
and 11th grade (Table 57). About one third (35.1%) indicated that they had graduated from high
school or completed their GED and 17.5% indicated that they had completed some college or
technical school, but had not yet graduated. Another 17.5% indicated that they had completed an
Associates or technical/trade school degree and 15.8% indicated that they had completed a
Bachelors degree. Only 7.9% indicated that they had completed a Masters, Professional, or
Doctoral degree. Finally, 3.5% of respondents indicated that they preferred not to answer this
question.
Table 57. Education levels of respondents to the mail survey.
Level of Education
#
th
8 grade or less
0
9th to 11th grade
3
High school graduate or GED
40
Some college or technical/trade school but have not yet graduated
20
Associates or technical/trade school degree (AA or AS)
20
Bachelors degree (BA or BS)
18
Masters, Professional, or Doctoral degree
9
Prefer not to answer
4
Total
114
66
%
0.0
2.6
35.1
17.5
17.5
15.8
7.9
3.5
100
67
The majority of respondents reported being either satisfied (19.9%) or very satisfied
(76.4%) with their recreational experiences at the roadside camping areas that they
visited during the time of the field survey.
Respondents were asked to rate their overall level of attachment to the roadside camping
area that they were visiting during the time that they were surveyed and roadside camping in
general in the Adirondack Park.
The majority of respondents felt a mild to a very strong attachment to the roadside
camping area in which they were interviewed (94.6%).
The vast majority of respondents felt a mild attachment to a very strong attachment to
the activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park (98.2%).
A follow-up mail survey was used to gather information from visitors after their trip
about their opinions regarding the extent to which various types of camping settings could be
substituted for one another.
About half (51.3%) of the respondents would camp less often if the roadside areas
that they were visiting when surveyed in the field became unavailable, while the other
half (46.9%) would continue to camp about the same amount in other locations.
The majority of respondents (64.9%) indicated that NYSDEC campgrounds within
the Adirondack Park were not acceptable substitutes, while 11.7% indicated that they
did not know if NYSDEC campgrounds were acceptable substitutes.
The five most commonly indicated reasons for non-substitutability between roadside
areas and NYSDEC campgrounds were: sites are too close together (95.8%), it is too
crowded (88.9%), there is too much noise from other people (77.8%), there is too
much development (52.8%) and it is too expensive (48.6%).
When asked to comparatively rank four substitution options for roadside camping in
the Adirondack Park, respondents ranked their first option as follows: (1) camping in
primitive/backpacking campsites or lean-tos within the Adirondack Park (51.9%); (2)
camping in developed campgrounds within the Adirondack Park (23.1%); (3)
camping in a setting outside the Adirondack Park (16.7%), and (4) pursuing an
activity other than camping (6.5%).
Roadside camping experiences on Forest Preserve lands are a long standing tradition in
the Adirondack Park and one that roadside campers are attracted to, attached to, and for which
they are very satisfied about their experiences. Additionally, they will substitute their preferred
roadside camping area for another roadside camping area, but are reluctant to use or not
interested in other camping area experiences. The most often accepted substitute for roadside
area camping is camping in primitive/backpacking campsites or lean-tos within the Adirondack
Park and followed by camping in developed campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.
68
REFERENCES
Adirondack Park Agency; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2001).
Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. Raybrook, NY.
Dawson, Chad P., Rudy Schuster, Blake Propst and Corenne Black. (2008). St. Regis Canoe
Area Visitor and Campsite Study. Research report to the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation. Syracuse, NY: SUNY-ESF. 69 pages.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Oh, H. (2001). Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management, 22, 617-627.
69
70
Condition Class 1: Ground vegetation flattened but not permanently injured. Minimal physical change except for possibly a simple rock fireplace
71
Condition Class 2: Ground vegetation worn away around fireplace or center of activity
72
Condition Class 3: Ground vegetation lost on most of the site, but humus and litter still present in all but a few areas
73
Condition Class 4: Bare mineral soil obvious. Tree roots exposed on the surface
74
Condition Class 5: Soil erosion obvious. Trees reduced in vigor and dead
75
4
10
14
1
1
1
7
8
23
76
77
78
Total
Jessup River Wild Forest:
Perkins Clearing Rd.
Total
Lake George Wild Forest:
River Rd.
Shelving Rock Rd.
Rt. 9N
Total
Moose River Plains Wild Forest:
Cedar River Rd.
Helldiver Pond Trail
Indian River Rd.
Lost Ponds Trail
Mitchell Pond Loop
Moose River Rd.
Otter Brook Rd.
Rock Dam Rd.
Sagamore Rd.
Total
Raquette Boreal Wild Forest:
Rt. 56 Extension
Total
Saranac Lake Wild Forest:
Coreys Rd.
Fish Hatchery Rd
Floodwood Rd.
Hoel Pond Rd.
Total
Sergeant Ponds Wild Forest:
Chain Lakes Rd.
Forked Lake Rd.
North Point Rd.
Road bordering North side of lake
Total
Shaker Mountain Wild Forest:
Holmes Rd.
Total
Taylor Pond Wild Forest:
Gold Smith Dr.
Moose Pond Rd.
River Rd. (Rt. 18)
Union Falls Rd.
Total
Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest:
14th Rd.
79
34
19
19
14
12
1
27
9
3
4
2
1
77
34
29
4
163
2
2
1
9
16
3
29
3
1
10
3
17
2
2
1
1
4
5
11
3
1
3
1
1
8
7
2
26
3
3
1
1
6
2
12
22
459
80
81
Introduction
Several terms will be used throughout this survey:
Adirondack Park (or the Park) is the six million acre area of public and private land
encompassing the Adirondack region of New York State.
NYSDEC stands for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Roadside camping area refers to a collection of campsites located on or immediately near a road
on NYS lands. Roadside campsites are free to the public, are accessed on a first come first
serve basis, and typically provide a very limited number of amenities (e.g. picnic table, fire
pit, outhouse).
NYSDEC Campground refers to a camping setting that is maintained and managed by the
NYSDEC and typically requires campers to pay a camping fee per night of stay. Typical
amenities offered at NYSDEC campgrounds include running water and showers,
electricity hook-ups, frequent security patrols, playgrounds, gravel camping areas (pads),
and others.
Primitive backpacking campsites and lean-tos typically require the user to hike a significant
distance from a road or parking area in order to camp. These sites are typically not
connected to roads, are free to use by the public, and provide very few amenities (e.g. fire
pit, outhouse).
A personal camping group consists of the people you are with during your trip to this roadside
camping area.
The survey questions ask about the trip you are on today in the Adirondack Park and in this
roadside camping area.
82
1)
How many days will you stay overnight in the Park on this recreation trip?
_____# of days using roadside camping areas
_____# of days using other accommodations
_____Not sure
2)
Please provide us with some information regarding your past experience with camping in
the Adirondack Park.
How many years have you been using this roadside camping area?
(Please enter # of years or indicate first year)
_______Enter # of years
_______This is my first year
Have you ever used other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park?
(If yes, please enter the # of years)
Yes
_______Enter # of years using other roadside camping areas
_______This is my first year
No
Have you every used non-roadside settings for camping in the Adirondack Park?
(For example, NYSDEC campgrounds or primitive backpacking sites)
Yes
_______Enter # of years using non-roadside camping facilities
_______This is my first year
No
3)
83
4)
5)
box)
Which of the following best describes the composition of your group? (please check one
6)
Im camping by myself
Family
Friends
Family and friends
Organization, such as a club or camp
Other, please describe
___________________________________________________________
Which of the following activities have you participated in or will you participate in
during this recreational trip? (Please check all that apply)
84
7)
8)
Was this roadside camping area your first choice for a camping setting on this trip?
Yes
No
If no, please indicate which of the following best describes your first
choice:
9)
If for some reason you were not able to camp at this roadside camping area today, which
of the following best describes what you would have done instead? (Please check only
one)
85
10)
Please rate your level of overall satisfaction with your recreational experience at this
roadside camping area.
11)
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Approximately how many miles is your permanent home away from this camping area?
_______Enter # of miles
12)
_______Not sure
13)
14)
86
--
---------------------------
--------------------------
------------------------------
--------
Are you willing to participate in a short mail survey about your camping experiences in the
Adirondack Park? (All information will be kept confidential to ensure your personal privacy).
Yes
No
Thank you for participating today! Your input will help the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation improve its management of state lands.
If you have any questions or comments about this survey, please contact:
David Graefe or Dr. Chad Dawson
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
320 Bray Hall
One Forestry Drive
Syracuse, NY 13210
87
88
Introduction
Several terms will be used throughout this survey:
Adirondack Park (or the Park) is the six million acre area of public and private land
encompassing the Adirondack region of New York State.
NYSDEC stands for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Roadside camping area refers to a collection of campsites located on or immediately near a road
on NYS lands. Roadside campsites are free to the public, are accessed on a first come first
serve basis, and provide a limited number of amenities (e.g. picnic table, fire pit,
outhouse). Roadside camping areas do not include NYSDEC campgrounds.
NYSDEC campground refers to a camping setting that is maintained and managed by the
NYSDEC and typically requires campers to pay a camping fee per night of stay.
Amenities offered at NYSDEC campgrounds include running water and showers,
electricity hook-ups, frequent security patrols, playgrounds, gravel camping areas (pads),
and others.
Primitive backpacking campsites and lean-tos require the user to hike from a road or parking
area in order to camp. These sites are typically not connected to roads, are free to use by
the public, and provide very few amenities (e.g. fire pit, outhouse).
Several questions within this survey ask you to indicate the number of times that you have visited
an area. For this type of question, please enter a zero if you have not visited the area, rather than
leaving the question blank. Your cooperation will ensure our ability to use this survey for our
analyses. Thank you very much.
89
2)
Strongly
Agree
Overall, how would you characterize your feelings of attachment to the roadside
camping area that you visited during the time of your interview? (please check one
box only))
3)
Agree
Neutral
Statement
Disagree
Please review the following list of statements regarding the activity of camping and
indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using the numbers
to the right. Please consider all types of camping for this first question.
(Please check one box for each statement)
Strongly
Disagree
1)
No attachment
Very weak attachment
Weak attachment
Mild attachment
Strong attachment
Very strong attachment
Not including the roadside camping area you visited during the time of your interview,
how many other roadside camping areas do you know of within the Adirondack Park?
(Roadside camping areas do not include NYSDEC campgrounds)
(Please enter zero if you dont know of any others)
______Enter # of roadside camping areas
90
4)
Overall, how would you characterize your feelings of attachment towards the activity of
roadside camping within the Adirondack Park? (Please consider all roadside camping
areas that you know of)
5)
No attachment
Very weak attachment
Weak attachment
Mild attachment
Strong attachment
Very strong attachment
During a typical year, about how many days do you spend camping at roadside camping
areas during each of the following seasons? (Please enter # of days per season or
indicate first trip)
(Enter zero if you do not visit during a season)
_________Winter _________Spring _________Summer _________Fall
_____This was my first trip to a roadside camping area
6)
Which of the following best describes how you first learned about roadside
Family member
Friend
Personal exploration
NYSDEC staff or written materials
Chamber of commerce or visitor center
Other, please
describe_________________________________________________________
91
92
Dont know
Much more
satisfying
Slightly more
satisfying
Equally
satisfying
Slightly less
satisfying
Please rate the level of satisfaction that you receive from visiting the following four
settings in comparison to the satisfaction that you receive from visiting the roadside
camping area that you were at during the time of your interview.
(See front page for a description of these camping settings) (Please check one box for
each setting)
Much less
satisfying
7)
Please consider the roadside camping trip you were on during the time of your interview.
For each motivation, please first indicate its importance in selecting your camping
setting. Then indicate how satisfied you were with each motivation during your roadside
camping trip.
To experience natural
environment and scenic beauty.
To feel a connection with nature
and a natural environment.
To get away from daily routines
and have a chance to reflect on
life.
To experience a remote area away
from sight and sound of cities and
people.
To feel a connection with
wilderness and wild forests as
important places.
To experience an environment
free of litter, human waste, and
impacts.
To experience solitude and being
isolated from other groups and
having a personal experience
within my group.
To practice travel skills through a
remote wild environment.
To enjoy physical activity,
challenge, and exercise.
To experience well-managed
recreation trails and facilities.
To experience recreation trails,
sites, and environments that were
not crowded.
To spend time with family and
friends in natural environment.
To spend time by myself in a
natural environment.
To be near my home.
93
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Very Important
Neutral
Important
Motivation
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Very Dissatisfied
Unimportant
8)
9)
Please indicate how often you would go camping in other settings if the roadside
camping area that you visited during the time of your interview was no longer
available.
(Please check one box only)
10)
Please indicate how often you would go camping in other park settings if no roadside
camping areas were available within the Adirondack Park. (Please check one box only)
11)
Please indicate whether or not the following camping settings are acceptable substitutes
for the roadside camping area you visited during the time of your interview. If a
setting is not an acceptable substitute, please indicate why.
A) Are other roadside camping areas within the Park acceptable substitutes?
Yes
No
Dont know
If not an acceptable substitute, please indicate why. (Please check all that
apply)
94
95
96
12)
Please imagine that no roadside camping opportunities were available within the
Adirondack Park. Rank the following possible substitutes for roadside camping in the
Adirondack Park based on your preferences. Place a 1 next to your most preferred option, place
a 2 next to your second most preferred option, and continue in this fashion until placing a 4 next
to your least preferred option.
(Note: this question is purely hypothetical and there are currently no plans to close any roadside
camping areas within the park)
Rank
Substitution Options
Camping in developed campgrounds within the park (for example, NYSDEC pay
sites or commercial campgrounds).
Camping in primitive backpacking sites or lean-tos within the park.
Camping in a setting outside of the Adirondack Park.
Pursuing an activity other than camping.
97
98
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Statement
Disagree
Please review the following table of statements regarding the roadside camping area
that you visited during the time of your interview. Indicate your level of agreement or
disagreement with each statement using the boxes on the right side of the table.
(Please check only one box for each statement)
Strongly
Disagree
13)
99
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Statement
Strongly
Disagree
14)
Please review the following table of statements regarding roadside camping areas in
general and indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using the
boxes on the right side of the table. (Please check only one box for each statement)
15)
16)
Which of the following best describes your occupation? (Please check one box)
______ years
Retired
Employed
Student
Unemployed
Homemaker / homecare provider
Military service
I prefer not to answer this question
17)
What is the highest degree or level of education that you have completed? (Please check
one box)
18)
If you have additional comments on your personal experiences with roadside camping
areas in the Adirondack Park, please write them in the space provided below or on the
back if more space is needed.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thank you very much for your time and effort in completing this
survey. We appreciate it greatly.
Please return this completed survey in the self-addressed, stamped envelope to:
Adirondack Roadside Camping Visitor Study
David Graefe or Dr. Chad Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry,
320 Bray Hall, One Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210
100