Urban Interface Recreation

1
Urban Interface Recreation

• Christine Vogt, Ph.D.
• Michigan State University
• September 20, 2006
• Forest Service/Clemson Short Course

2
Topics for FS Managers.

• Growing population and more diverse
• Housing, land use, and WUI
• Recreation and tourism
• Midewin (IL) National Tallgrass Prairie (USDA FS)
• Shiawassee (MI) Wildlife Refuge (USFW)
• Hayward (WI) (Stewart et al.)
• Impact exercise
• Wildfire, Residents, and Recreation
• San Bernardino, GMUG, Apalachicola NFs
• Mark Twain NF
• Issues, opportunities and problem solving

3
Wildland Urban Interface

• Intermix Interface WUI
• Intermix WUI are areas where housing and
  vegetation intermingle
• Interface WUI are areas with housing in the
  vicinity of contiguous wildland vegetation.

4
Compelling Statistics on Human Effects
urbanization of rural areas (Stewart, Radeloff
and Hammer)

• Almost 80 of US population lives in urban areas
• Urban areas have tripled since 1950 - sprawl
• Housing growth has outpaced population growth for
  decades
• WUI is 9 of lower 48 states land resources
• WUI is 38 of homes
• 60 of all new housing units built in the US were
  in the WUI
• Attraction of natural resources and recreation
  amenities
• Between 1990 and 2000, housing density in the WUI
  has increased (more homes in existing WUI area)
• In the same 10 years, counties with national
  forests experienced significantly more population
  growth than those counties without.
• Bottom line---the Forest Service has more to
  manage
• Fire fighters have more people and property to
  protect
• Recreation staff has more uses and more types of
  recreation

5
Urban Areas with lots of WUI

• WUI is common on the edges of major metropolitan
  areas particularly those growing in population
  and land use
• Atlanta intermix
• San Diego and Los Angeles
• Las Vegas and Reno
• Phoenix and Tucson - interface
• Denver - interface
• Florida cities Tallahassee, Jacksonville
• WUI is also in rural areas with natural resources

6
Urban Connections Research by the Forest Service
Summer 2000

• Selected Boston, Detroit and Mpls.
• Goal Understand urban stakeholders values,
  viewpoints, and recreation activities
• Selected findings
• NFs are personally important (95)
• NFs should be protected and preserved (99)
• NFs should be used for recreation (96)
• Majority (54) didnt know which agency is
  responsible for managing national forests
• Selected FS strategies
• Further emphasize the environmental message, the
  FSs good stewardship, and forest/nature images
• Promote the use of forests for families and
  people to recreate and relax

7
MidewinMarket Analysis Study- 2001Prepared by
C. Vogt, D. Klenosky, and K. Andereck
8
MidewinMarket Analysis Study- 2001Prepared by
C. Vogt, D. Klenosky, and K. Andereck
9
Market DefinitionDemographic Segmentation
10
Market Definition - Other nearby nature/outdoor
attractions in the Chicagoland area
11
Transportation and Access to Midewin

• What will be the primary modes of transportation
  used to arrive to MNTP?
• Own vehicle (98 GP, 98 OI)
• Organized group (13 GP, 20 OI)
• Bike (1 GP, 5 OI)
• Likelihood of using METRA if available? (
  Definitely/Probably would use)
• Moderate interest (40 GP, 30 OI)

12
Transportation Planning On-site

• Likely use of internal transportation system (
  Definitely/Probably would use)
• On-site tram to gain access to different sites
  within MNTP (81 GP, 80 OI)
• Other related info. ( Rating as Very or
  Extremely Important)
• Attractions/facilities located within an hours
  drive from home (40 GP 60 OI)
• Attractions/facilities that are accessible via
  interstate highways (34 GP 42 OI)
• Attractions/facilities that are accessible via
  public transportation (22 GP 19 OI)

13
Estimating Midewin Visitation Levels
14
Draw visitors back
15
Length of visit for those who would visit
16
Recreation Sites and Activities ( Probably or
Definitely would use)

• Outdoor Interest Group
• Visitor center (99)
• Paved trails (88)
• Unpaved trails (97)
• Picnic areas (78)
• Wildlife Viewing stations
• Buffalo (99)
• Elk (99)
• Birds (97)
• Prairie plants (99)
• Butterflies (95)

• General Pop.
• Visitor center (96)
• Paved trails (90)
• Unpaved trails (85)
• Picnic areas (85)
• Wildlife Viewing stations
• Buffalo (94)
• Elk (93)
• Birds (84)
• Prairie plants (84)
• Butterflies (81)

17
Program content options ( Very or Extremely
Interested)

• Outdoor Interest Group
• Wildlife (82)
• Ornithology (64)
• Prairie ecology (63)
• Prairie restoration (62)
• Overview of Nations forests/grasslands (56)
• Native American history (53)
• Home gardening (51)
• Farmstead/agricultural history (25)
• Military history (19)

• General Pop.
• Wildlife (35)
• Home gardening (29)
• Native American history (28)
• Overview of Nations forests/grasslands (27)
• Ornithology (17)
• Prairie restoration (17)
• Prairie ecology (16)
• Military history (15)
• Farmstead/agricultural history (14)

18
Trail use ( Probably or Definitely would use)
19
Recreation facilities camping
20
Fishing

• Over half the general population (55) showed
  interest in fishing areas
• About one-third of the outdoor interest group
  (35) showed interest in fishing areas

21
Guided interpretative tours ( Very or Extremely
Interested)

• General Population
• Self-guided tours (40)
• Roving naturalist/ranger (35)
• Nature walks/tours (34)
• Evening programs (24)
• Programs at visitor center (24)
• AV programs in Visitor Center (20)
• Audio-cassette guided tours (17)

• Outdoor Interest Group
• Self-guided tours (77)
• Nature walks/tours (72)
• Roving naturalist/ranger (60)
• Programs at visitor center (52)
• AV programs in Visitor Center (39)
• Evening programs (36)
• Audio-cassette guided tours (33)

22
Great Lakes Discovery CenterC. Vogt, S. Hun Jun
and P. Schneider
23
Great Lakes Discovery Center concept

• Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge expansion
• Friends of the refuge
• Great Lakes Fisheries Trust
• Bridgeport DDA and local township government
• Planning groups comprised of
• Engineer/architects
• Business planning
• Marketing research

24
Purpose of the Study

• The studys purpose was to assist in shaping the
  facilities and offer market research for the
  proposed Great Lakes Discovery Center allowing
  for the design of an attraction that meets the
  travel interests of various household types.

25
Great Lakes Discovery Center

• Location along the route I-75 and Dixie Highway
• Proximity to Frankenmuth and Outlet at Birch Run
  
• (Within 8 mile radius of tourist destinations
  attracting between 2.0 2.5 million visitors)

26
A concept of the nature edutainment center
Sports
Culture
Nature
Technology
27
Top Activities Participated in the Great Lakes
region

• Driving for pleasure or sightseeing 81
• Walking or hiking for pleasure 78
• Going to a museum or heritage site 59
• Going to a zoo 56
• Picnicking 55

28
Most important outdoor recreation
experiences/features

• Enjoying fresh air 89
• Attractions/facilities that are in safe, secure
  environments 87
• Attractions/facilities that have comfort
  facilities such as clean restrooms and water
  fountains 85
• Attractions/facilities that are clean and
  well-maintained 85
• Attractions/facilities available at reasonable
  fees and prices 84

29
Family Lifecycle Segments
Existence of a child/ Age of the youngest child
Age of respondents
Group size (N520)
G1
Adolescence
16 - 22
No Child
6
1
G2
Early Adulthood
23 - 39
No Child
39
8
G3
Middle Adulthood
40 - 59
No Child
125
24
G4
Full Nest I
19 - 49
1 - 4
39
8
G5
Full Nest II
23 - 59
5 - 13
89
17
G6
Full Nest III
29 - 59
14 and older
75
14
G7
Late Adulthood
60 and older
No Child
147
28
30
Virtual Reality and Outdoor Recreation
Preferences Overall Mean Scores
3.62
Trails for hiking
3.30
Simulated hang-gliding tours
3.60
Paved trails
3.28
3D movie with glasses
3.51
Nature or interpretive trails
3.26
Demonstration habitat trails
3.46
Unpaved wood-chipped trails
3.21
3D animated narrator with movie
3.40
Unpaved dirt-surface trails
3.21
Interactive 3D
3.38
4D presentation, moving entertainment
3.20
Canoe trail on the Cass River
3.38
Simulated SCUBA diving tours
3.18
Trails for biking
3.31
Interactive educational exhibits/kiosks
3.05
3D movie without glasses
Mean scale equals 1 definitely would not use,
and 5 definitely would use.
31
Outdoor Recreation Facility Preferences by Family
Lifecycle
G1 A.
G2 E.A.
G3 M.A.
G5 F.N.II
G6 F.N.III
G7 L.A.
G4 F.N.I
Trails for hiking (F5.8, p.000)
3.5
4.3
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.2
3.9
Significant group difference G2 gt G3 G2, 4, 5
gt G7
Paved trails (F3.6, p.002)
3.5
4.1
3.5
3.7
3.8
3.3
3.9
Significant group difference G2 gt G7
Nature or interpretive trails (F4.3, p.000)
3.7
4.0
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.1
3.7
Significant group difference G2, 5 gt G7
Unpaved wood-chipped trails (F4.4, p.000)
3.8
4.2
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.5
Significant group difference G2 gt G3, 7
p lt .05 p lt .01 and p lt .001. Red
color indicates the highest mean score on the
five-point scale with 5 equaling definitely
would use.
32
Outdoor Recreation Facility Preferences by Family
Lifecycle
G1 A.
G2 E.A.
G3 M.A.
G5 F.N.II
G6 F.N.III
G7 L.A.
G4 F.N.I
Unpaved dirt-surface trails (F7.3, p.000)
3.7
4.2
3.3
3.6
3.4
3.0
3.7
Significant group difference G2 gt G3, 5, 6, 7
G2, 4, 5 gt G7
Demonstration habitat trails (F4.1, p.001)
3.0
3.8
3.3
3.4
3.4
2.9
3.2
Significant group difference G2, 5 gt G7
Canoe trail on the Cass River (F7.9, p.000)
3.5
4.1
3.1
3.5
3.4
2.7
3.3
Significant group difference G2 gt G3, 7 G2, 5,
6 gt G7
Trails for biking (F7.7, p.000)
3.3
3.9
3.1
3.5
3.3
2.6
3.5
Significant group difference G2 gt G3 G2, 3, 4,
5, 6 gt G7
p lt .05 p lt .01 and p lt .001. Red
color indicates the highest mean score on the
five-point scale with 5 equaling definitely
would use.
33
Virtual Reality Preferences by Family Lifecycle
G1 A.
G2 E.A.
G3 M.A.
G5 F.N.II
G6 F.N.III
G7 L.A.
G4 F.N.I
4D presentation, moving Entertainment (F4.3,
p.000)
2.7
3.7
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.0
3.7
Significant group difference G2, 5, 6 gt G7
Simulated SCUBA diving tours (F6.2, p.000)
3.0
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.6
2.9
3.7
Significant group difference G2, 4, 5, 6 gt G7
Interactive educational exhibits/kiosks (F3.4,
p.003)
2.7
3.5
3.3
3.6
3.4
3.0
3.4
Significant group difference G5 gt G7
Simulated hang-gliding tours (F7.0, p.000)
2.7
3.8
3.2
3.7
3.6
2.8
3.5
Significant group difference G2, 5, 6 gt G7
p lt .05 p lt .01 and p lt .001. Red
color indicates the highest mean score on the
five-point scale with 5 equaling definitely
would use.
34
Virtual Reality Preferences by Family Lifecycle
G1 A.
G2 E.A.
G3 M.A.
G5 F.N.II
G6 F.N.III
G7 L.A.
G4 F.N.I
3D movie with glasses (F3.1, p.006)
2.8
3.5
3.2
3.5
3.4
3.0
3.5
Significant group difference G5 gt G7
3D animated narrator with movie (F3.5,
p.002)
2.3
3.4
3.1
3.5
3.3
2.9
3.5
Significant group difference G5 gt G7
Interactive 3D (F4.0, p.001)
2.5
3.4
3.1
3.5
3.4
2.9
3.3
Significant group difference G5 gt G7
3D Movie without glasses (F2.7, p.013)
2.5
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.1
2.8
3.2
Significant group difference G5 gt G7
p lt .05 p lt .01 and p lt .001. Red
color indicates the highest mean score on the
five-point scale with 5 equaling definitely
would use.
35
Study of WUI in Hayward, WIChequamegon-Nicolet NF

• Susan I. Stewart, Daniel R. Williams,
• Alan M. Watson, and Susan R. Van Patten

Funding for this research was provided by USDA
Forest Service North Central Research Station and
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, and
by University of Illinois.
36
Life Experience
Rural
Mixed
Urban

• Current residence
• Previous residences
• Childhood home
• Leisure and vacation experiences

37
A Life Course Framework of Multiple Residence
Child Young Adult Adult
Young-Old Older-Old
Attend University
Second home
Visiting relatives
Return migration
Commuter marriage
RV full-timers
Telework
Family second home
Snowbirds, sunbirds
Temporary job
Visiting kids, grandkids
Divorced, geographically separated parents
Itinerant work
Distance commuting
Favorite vacation destination
Knowing places over the life course through
family, work, and leisure
Adapted by S. Stewart from McHugh, Hogan, and
Happel, 1995
38
Residence in the Hayward Lakes Study

• Current residence (status)
• Permanent or seasonal resident of Hayward Lakes
  area?
• Previous/childhood residences (history)
• Where have you lived most of your life?

39
Residential History and Status
Hayward Lakes Area Study Sample
40
Residence Group Characteristics
41
Attitudes Toward Land Management by Residence
(means)
Shading indicates ANOVA found significant
differences. Scaled 1 strongly disagree to 5
strongly agree
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
Permanent residents reasons for moving to
Hayward Lakes, by residence history
Reasons were rated on 5-pt scale where 1Not
important to 5Extremely important.
45
Place Attachment by Residence Group
Means represent the number out of 8 possible
attachment statements respondents marked true.
46
A Changing Landscape in the Wildland-Urban
Interface Seasonal and Permanent Residents,
Recreation, and Fuel Management

• Stan Cindrity and Dr. Christine A. Vogt
• Department of Park, Recreation, Tourism
  Resources
• Michigan State University

47
Study Purpose

• Understanding human dimension of fire and fuels
  reduction
• Understanding the demographic shift to forested
  areas
• Increased forest populations/residents, more
  recreation usage of natural resources
• Retirees looking for places to live, recreate and
  be close to nature

48
Statement of Problem

• Understand differences and similarities between
  seasonal and permanent residents on topics
  related to forest use and fire management in
  several geographic areas
• Understanding the home buying decision process
• Recreation usage and activities
• Attitudes toward fuel treatment programs

49
Study Overview

• Funded
• -USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research
  Station, Riverside, CA
• Study sites
• -San Bernardino National Forest, CA
• -Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National
  Forests (GMUG), CO
• -Apalachicola National Forest, FL
• National list of communities at risk

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources
50
Process of Acquiring Home in WUI
51
Retirement and Residency Plans for WUI Homeowners
52
Consideration of Wildland Fire During Home Search
Process
53
Level of Concern About Wildfire(percent very
concerned)
54
Analysis of Residency Type
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources
55
Analysis of Residency Type
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources
56
Analysis of Residency Type
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources
57
Recreation Frequency
94
74
67
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources
58
Recreation Frequency
92
81
83
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources
59
Primary Recreation Activities

• California Interface Sites
• Snow Activities
• Hiking/Walking
• ATV
• Colorado Interface Areas
• ATV
• Snow Activities
• Hiking/Walking
• Florida Interface Areas
• ATV, Pleasure Riding/Touring
• Hiking/Walking
• Hunting

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources
60
Community views of fuels management Are
national forest local recreation users more
supportive?
Christine Vogt, Michigan State Univ. Greg Winter,
Cornerstone Strategies Sarah McCaffrey, USDA FS,
NC Research Station
61
MO study site Mark Twain National Forest

• Hardwood forests
• Many permanent homes
• Federal forest, private lands
• Moderately frequent Rx fireand wildfire
• Mechanical thinning in response to 2002 blowdown

62
MO study site Mark Twain National Forest

• Focus group
• 3 sessions in different communities in WUI
• Total of 21 participants
• Mix of residents and community leaders
• What do you like about living in the forest?
• Access to recreation hiking, hunting, fishing,
  ATV. Mostly
• for free.
• Recreation, seclusion and natural aspects of
  forest
• Fuel management summary points from focus groups
• Prescribed burning and mechanical fuel reduction
  have a
• place in forest management. Unmanaged areas
  pose a threat to private landowners and their
  homes.
• Participants supported timber sales and revenue
  that is
• returned to local area. Wasting good wood
  products is a bad idea. Prescribed burns ok,
  too, best in the winter for forest to recover.

63
Do you or others in your household use the Mark
Twain National Forest for recreation?
Reasons for not recreating included lacked
time, too old/retired, health reasons, areas
closed for recreation/roads, use private lands,
too many rules/restrictions, uninterested in
forest-based recreation
64
Acceptability model, prescribed burning with
economic dependency and recreation
Personal importance of prescribed burning
B .32, .34, .41, .27
Agency trust prescribed burning
B .45, .23, .11, .28
Impacts scenery
B -.02, -.08, .02, -.02
More smoke now, less later
B .10, .07, .01, .02
Prescribed burning attitude
Reduces cost of fire fighting
B .08, .17, .20, .25
B .45, .67, .70, .63
Restores wildlands
B .27, .05, .09, .09
Prescribed burning approval
R2 .57, .51, .37, .47
Improves wildlife conditions
B .06, .14, .00, .13
R2 .59, .64, .53, .65
Econ dep. B-.03, ns Recreation use B.00, ns
Allows uncontrolled fires
B -.09, -.21,-.17,-.26
Wastes timber
B -.06
Note Beta coefficient (B) in the order MO, CA,
FL, MI Boldface type statistically significant
p.05
Harms wildlife
B -.05
Severe smoke
B -.07
65
Acceptability model, mechanical fuel reduction
with economic dependency and recreation
Personal importance of mechanical trtmt.
B .48, .49, .48, .42
Agency trust Mechanical trtmt.
B .48, .17, .28, .32
Impacts scenery
B -.06, -.12, .-.09, -.11
Extracts wood products
B .17, .07, .01, .01
Mechanical Trtmt. attitude
Reduces cost of fire fighting
B .02, .16, .23, .21
B .39, .58, .57, .51
R2 .50, .41, .37, .33
Restores wildlands
B - .02, .03, .00, .09
Mechanical trtmt. approval
Improves wildlife conditions
B .21, .02, .00, .00
R2 .51, .42, .48, .46
Econ dep. B-.04, ns Recreation use B.10, plt.01
Creates jobs
B -.02
Wastes tax dollars
B -.04
Harms forests
B -.13
Note Beta coefficient (B) in the order MO, CA,
FL, MI Boldface type statistically significant
p.05
66
Issues, opportunities and problem solving

• Issues/Threats
• Unmanaged recreation use on the forests
• Pressure to maintain existing managed areas with
  opening unmanaged areas or new acquisitions
• Budgets (pressure from wildfire) and fees
• Development conflict between homeowners and
  users
• Next generation---how will they use and support
  NFs
• Opportunities
• Collaborations with local, nonprofit, state and
  federal
• User groups/Friends groups
• Volunteers and stewardship programs
• Programs and other public involvement which build
  trust

67

• Christine Vogt, Michigan State University
• Post this presentation to
• www.fire-saft.net