dec roadside camping final report

8/8/2019 DEC Roadside Camping Final Report

1/106

Adirondack Park Forest Preserve

Roadside Camping Study

David Graefe, Chad Dawson and Lisa Gerstenberger

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

320 Bray Hall

One Forestry Drive

Syracuse, NY 13210

July 20, 2010

i


2/106

i

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1RESEARCH METHODS........................................................................................1

Roadside camping inventory data collection: ............................................................................. 1Preliminary Interviews of campers: ............................................................................................ 2On-site survey of campers: ......................................................................................................... 3Mail survey of campers:.............................................................................................................. 4

INVENTORY OF ROADSIDE CAMPSITES......................................................6Inventory Results ........................................................................................................................ 7

PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS WITH ROADSIDE CAMPERS..................22Themes Related to Place Attachment ....................................................................................... 23Themes related to Place Dependence ....................................................................................... 24Visitor Comparisons of Roadside Sites and Campground Sites............................................... 25Factors Influencing Visitors Decisions to Choose Roadside Camping Areas......................... 27

ON-SITE FIELD SURVEY OF CAMPERS.......................................................30Visitor Site Choice.................................................................................................................... 41Visitor Residence Area ............................................................................................................. 43

FOLLOW-UP MAIL SURVEY ...........................................................................47Level of Attachment ................................................................................................................. 47Camper Motivations.................................................................................................................. 49Substitution for Other Camping Settings.................................................................................. 55Substitution for Other Camping Resources .............................................................................. 56Substitution Options.................................................................................................................. 61Reaction to Statements from Qualitative Interviews ................................................................ 62Demographic Variables ............................................................................................................ 65


3/106

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.........................................................................67

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................69

APPENDIX A: CONDITION CLASS PHOTOGRAPHIC EXAMPLES .......70

APPENDIX B: LOCATIONS OF ROADSIDE CAMPSITES..........................76

APPENDIX C: ON-SITE VISITOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT ......................81

APPENDIX D: FOLLOW-UP MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT ....................88

ii


4/106

List of Tables

Table 1. Data summarizing roadside campsite inventory............................................................... 8Table 2. Corresponding circumference and area measurements. ................................................. 10Table 3. Inventory variables for campsite amenities and condition class.................................... 11

Table 4. Content categories from preliminary camper interviews................................................ 22Table 5. Location of roadside campsites surveyed. ...................................................................... 30Table 6. Percentages of visitors using camping equipment. ......................................................... 30Table 7. Gender of on-site survey participants. ............................................................................ 31Table 8. Number of days spent overnight at roadside camping areas during trip. ....................... 31Table 9. Number of days spent overnight using other accommodations. ..................................... 32Table 10. Number of years using roadside camping area that was visited................................... 32Table 11. Usage of other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. .......................... 33Table 12. Number of years using other roadside camping areas within Adirondack Park........... 33Table 13. Usage of non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park. ........................ 33Table 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.................................... 35Table 16. Days per year using other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. ........ 35Table 17. Days per year using NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.................. 36Table 18. Days per year using privately owned campgrounds within the Adirondack Park........ 36Table 19. Days per year using primitive/backpacking campsites within the Adirondack Park. .. 37Table 20. Days per year using camping areas outside the Adirondack Park................................ 37Table 21. Group size for visitors surveyed. .................................................................................. 38Table 22. Presence of children within camping groups................................................................ 39Table 23. Compositions of roadside camping groups................................................................... 39Table 24. Rates and percentages of activity participation while roadside camping. .................... 40Table 25. Camping as a primary activity for current Adirondack Park trip. ................................ 40Table 26. Primary trip activities other than camping.................................................................... 40Table 27. Second most important activities for Adirondack Park trip. ........................................ 41Table 28. Roadside camping area as primary setting choice........................................................ 41Table 29. Alternative first choices for camping settings. ............................................................. 42Table 30. Alternatives if respondents couldnt use the roadside camping area they visited. ....... 42Table 31. Level of satisfaction with experience at roadside camping areas................................. 43Table 32. Distances between visitors permanent homes and roadside camping areas................ 43Table 33. Visitor permanent residence within Adirondack Park. ................................................. 44Table 34. Vacation homeownership and seasonal residence in the Adirondack Park.................. 44Table 35. Visitor permanent residence by country. ...................................................................... 44Table 36. Visitor permanent residence by state. ........................................................................... 44Table 37. Visitor permanent residence by New York County residents....................................... 45Table 38. Participation in mail survey. ......................................................................................... 46Table 39. Overall attachment to roadside camping areas visited when surveyed in field............ 47Table 40. Overall attachment to the activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park. ........ 47Table 41. Familiarity with other roadside camping areas in the Adirondack Park....................... 48Table 42. How roadside campsite visitors first learned about roadside camping areas. .............. 49Table 43. Importance and satisfaction ratings for roadside camping motivations (% and means).

............................................................................................................................................... 50

iii


5/106

Table 44. Satisfaction comparisons across camping settings in the Adirondack Park................. 56Table 45. Frequency of camping if particular roadside areas in the Adirondack Park are not

available. ............................................................................................................................... 57Table 46. Frequency of camping if no roadside areas available in the Adirondack Park............. 57Table 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. ......... 58Table 49. Substitutability of NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park..................... 59Table 50. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and NYSDEC

campgrounds within the Adirondack Park............................................................................ 60Table 51. Substitutability of primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park. .............. 60Table 52. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and

primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park (% of respondents indicating aproblem)................................................................................................................................ 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. .............................................................................. 65Table 56. Ages of respondents to the mail survey. ....................................................................... 65Table 57. Education levels of respondents to the mail survey...................................................... 66

iv


6/106

List of Figures

Figure 1. Diagram for estimated distances between campsites and roads...................................... 7Figure 2. Map showing Roadside Campsites within the Adirondack Park. ................................. 13Figure 3. Map showing roadside campsites within Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe Areas. .... 14

Figure 5. Map showing roadside campsites in Saranac Lake Wild Forest. .................................. 16Figure 6. Map showing designated and undesignated campsites within the Adirondack Park. ... 17Figure 7. Map showing designated and undesignated sites in Ferris Lake Wild Forest............... 18Figure 8. Map showing campsite condition classes near North Lake Road. ................................ 19Figure 9. Map showing campsite compliance with mile separation distance........................... 20Figure 10. Map showing mile separation distance compliance in Moose River Plains Wild

Forest..................................................................................................................................... 21Figure 12. Importance-Performance grid example. ...................................................................... 51Figure 13. IP grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations. ...................................... 53Figure 14. IP Grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations using overall means to

divide quadrants. ................................................................................................................... 54

v


7/106

1

INTRODUCTIONCamping within the Adirondack Park is a long-standing tradition and activity. Some visitorscamp in state or private developed campgrounds, other visitors backpack or canoe to remoteprimitive 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 roadsideundeveloped camping sites are designated by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC) employees and other sites are just used by visitors without an official designationbeing in place.

The Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP) (APA 2001) does notspecifically address the activity of roadside camping as a separate type of campsite or campingexperience 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 fromthe APSLMP is often not in alignment with the conditions found in the undeveloped roadsidecampsites 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 thatcharacterize the campers at these roadside sites and their uses, activities and reasons for choosingroadside 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 ForestPreserve Lands within the Adirondack Park; and (2) a summary of visitor experiences, tripcharacteristics, and dependence on or substitutability for camping at undesignated and designatedand undeveloped roadside campsites on Forest Preserve Lands within the Adirondack Park.

The intention of collecting this information is to support planning and management byNYSDEC under the APSLMP with the main goal of protecting and stewarding the ForestPreserve lands and resources while managing visitor use for public enjoyment.

RESEARCH METHODSField research was conducted across all Forest Preserve lands within the Adirondack Park duringthe summer of 2009. The methods used to gather data to meet the two products of a roadsidecamping inventory and a summary of visitor use and experiences were as follows:

Roadside camping inventory data collection: The inventory consisted of two main tasks. First, locating public roadside campsites

within the park. Second, data was collected to describe each campsite in relation to itslocation and characteristics. In addition to a numerical summary of inventory data,several maps were created in order to portray inventory data visually. All maps werecreated using GIS software. All maps included within this report could be reproducedusing the data included in the dataset or to create additional maps showing inventory datafor roadside camping areas that are not portrayed by the maps included in this report.The maps included in this report are meant to provide examples of the types of


8/106

information that can be visually portrayed using the data collected during the inventoryand 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 campingareas within the Adirondack Park. While this information was helpful for identifying thelocation of some camping areas, it was too limited to serve as a basis for the overallinventory of roadside camping areas. Consequently, researchers adopted a systematicexploratory technique for locating roadside campsites that involved driving public roadsthat crossed or bordered all Forest Preserve lands.

The exploratory phase of the inventory relied heavily on the use of previously existingmaps showing the locations of roads and other landmarks within the Adirondack Park.National Geographic Outdoor Recreation Maps were used for the inventory because theyadequately displayed roads, trails, management unit areas, and other public and privatelands within the Adirondack Park. Researchers conducted the inventory by locating

public roads that existed within or on the borders of Forest Preserve lands within theAdirondack Park. Once located on the National Geographic maps, researchers exploredthese 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. Inaddition to collecting GPS data for recording and displaying the locations of roadsidecampsites, researchers assessed each campsite for a number of other characteristics. Eachof these campsite characteristics was measured as follows: site type, presence of DECcampsite designation disk, screening from road, number of satellite campsites adjoiningthe designated site, amenities present at the site, access to water bodies, estimatedcircumference of campsite, estimated distance from the road, and the condition class of the campsite (Appendix A).

Preliminary Interviews of campers: 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 theiropinions regarding many topics of interest to this study. Consequently, SUNYresearchers conducted a brief qualitative research phase with roadside campsite visitors inorder to better understand their perspectives on several topics including place attachment,place dependence, resource substitutability, management concerns, and factorsinfluencing site choice. An additional purpose of the interviews was to help researcherscreate a comprehensive and meaningful quantitative field survey for measuring placeattachment and resource substitutability in the context of roadside camping in theAdirondack Park.

Structured interviews were conducted with visitors to roadside camping areas during themonths of May and June in 2009. The roadside campsite inventory also occurred duringthese months. In fact, the first two phases of this research project were conductedsimultaneously. That is, researchers conducted interviews with roadside campsite visitors

2


9/106

A total of 29 interviews were conducted within six different Adirondack Park Management Units: Black River Wild Forest, Ferris Lake Wild Forest, Jessup River WildForest, Moose River Plains Wild Forest, Horseshoe Lake Wild Forest, and Saranac Lake

Wild Forest. A roving intercept sampling technique was used and interviews wereconducted at the visitors campsites. Visitor participation was completely voluntary andinterview participants remained anonymous. Upon completion of each interview,participants were compensated with a small gift, not exceeding $5 in value, for their timeand effort in completing the interview.

Interviews typically lasted between 20-60 minutes and were recorded, with thepermission of each participant, using an audio tape recorder. A total of 19 questions wereincluded in the structured survey instrument. Interview recordings were then transcribedand data were coded using the Nudist N6 software package. A content analysis wasconducted in order to reduce response data into meaningful categories related to the studytopics described above.

On-site survey of campers: The preliminary interview research phase was useful for gaining rich open-ended data

regarding roadside campsite visitor perspectives. However, the methods employed forthat phase of research did not produce a representative sample of roadside campsitevisitors and, therefore, that qualitative data cannot be used to infer characteristics of theoverall population of roadside campers. In an effort to produce a larger, morerepresentative sample of the roadside campsite visitor population, a field survey wasconducted with roadside campsite visitors during the summer of 2009.

The main purpose of the on-site field survey was to gather information from roadsidecampsite visitors about their recreational trips and their roadside camping habits.Questions included on the on-site survey were related to visitor past experience withcamping settings, trip characteristics (e.g., group size and composition, length of stay,activities pursued), visitor characteristics (e.g., gender, permanent residence), and visitorperceptions of camping opportunities (see Appendix C)

On-site field surveys were conducted with roadside campsite visitors between the monthsof 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 roadsidecampsites within the Adirondack Park, they began conducting field surveys with visitorsthat they encountered. Upon completion of the campsite inventory, researchers employeda 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 tocreate 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 fiveroadside campsites. Once camping areas were selected, researchers sampled roadsidecampsite visitors within the Adirondack Park in a counterclockwise fashion. Oncefinished with an area, researchers would travel to the next camping area, in a

3


10/106

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 on-site 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 completionof 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 mail-administered survey about their camping experiences. Those who agreed to participate inthe follow-up survey were asked to provide their names and addresses. Also, visitors whoagreed 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.

Mail survey of campers: The on-site survey phase of this research project provided useful information about

roadside campsite visitors, their experiences, and their trip characteristics and campinghabits. While the on-site survey provided a method of collecting information fromvisitors 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 visitorswho were sampled during the on-site survey process.

The purpose of the follow-up mail survey was to gather additional information fromroadside campsite visitors about a variety of topics such as their knowledge of roadsidecamping areas, their attachment to roadside camping areas, and their motivations forcamping in roadside areas. Additionally, several questions were included on the follow-up survey in order to gain a better understanding of visitor perceptions regarding thesubstitutability of camping settings within the Adirondack Park (i.e., the extent to whichcamping 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 toparticipate in a follow-up, mail-administered survey about their camping experiences andthe majority (n=179, 82.9%) agreed to participate. All participants were ensuredconfidentiality and were provided with a small gift, not exceeding $5 in value, for theirtime and effort.

Researchers employed a modified Dillman Total Design (1978) method for administeringthe mail survey. Approximately two weeks after each on-site survey, participants weremailed a ten-page questionnaire and letter requesting their responses. Afterapproximately two more weeks, those participants whose responses had not beenreceived were mailed a post card reminding them to complete and return thequestionnaire. After an additional two more weeks, participants whose responses hadstill not been received were mailed a second copy of the questionnaire and a letterrequesting their responses.

4


11/106

The ten-page questionnaire instrument can be found in Appendix D. The instrumentcontains some questions that are not described within the following sections of thisreport. Instrument questions that are not described in the following section were of theoretical interest to the researchers and will be described in detail in a separateacademic document.

5


12/106

INVENTORY OF ROADSIDE CAMPSITESNine campsite characteristics were measured at each site as follows:

Site Type: This variable was used to describe site accessibility. Sites were categorized based ontwo conditions.

First, sites were determined to be either single sites or cluster sites. Sites were marked assingle sites if they were not connected to any other campsites within the same immediatevicinity. In areas where more than one site existed within immediate sight and sound of each other, the sites were marked as a cluster site. Note, in order to qualify as a clustersite, several sites had to exist immediately adjacent to each other in such a manner that aperson using one of the sites would have almost no privacy from persons using theadjacent sites.

Second, sites were labeled as vehicle sites or walk-in sites depending on whether or notthere was space to park a vehicle within the interior of the site. Thus, all sites wereplaced into one of four categories: vehicle-single, vehicle-cluster, walk-in-single, andwalk-in-cluster.

DEC Campsite Disk: This variable was used to determine whether an undeveloped but usedcampsite was officially designated by NYSDEC as a campsite or not. Those sites that weremarked with an official NYSDEC disk indicating that camping was permitted were marked ashaving a disk, while those campsites along the road on Forest Preserve lands without a disk weremarked accordingly.

Screening from Road: This variable was used to describe the amount of visual screening eachsite had from the road. Those sites that could be easily viewed from the road were labeled ashaving no screening. Those that could be partially seen from the road were labeled as havingpartial screening, while those that could not be seen at all from the road were labeled as havingcomplete screening. We were concerned with the site itself for this measure, and not the sitedriveway.

Satellite Sites: Satellite campsites can be defined as a recreationist created improvement to theland for the purposes of overnight camping. Overnight campers have been known to clearadditional spaces of land for the purposes of placing a tent in areas nearby, but not within, theoriginal campsite interior (these are in contrast to cluster sites which were designed to becampsites close together). Researchers recorded the number of satellite sites associated witheach roadside campsite that was inventoried.

Amenities: Roadside campsites were checked for the presence of several amenities such as firepits, fireplaces (cement), picnic tables, benches, and outhouses. Each site was labeled accordingto whether or not each of these amenities was present.

Water Body Access: This variable was used to describe whether or not campsites hadimmediate access to a water body. Campsites were marked as having water body access if (1)the campsite perimeter bordered a body of water, (2) if there was a social trail (less than 200 feet

6


13/106

long) that led from the site to a body of water, or (3) if a body of water was directly visible fromthe 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 shapedirregularly.

Estimated Distance from Road (feet): This variable was used to determine the distances fromroadside campsites to their corresponding roads. Researchers attempted to record the shortestdistance between each campsite and road. That is, researchers tried to measure the distance fromthe site to the road, and not the length of the site driveway (see figure 1). Researchers estimatedthe distance for each site by pacing from the site perimeter to the closest edge of the road.

Road

SiteDrivewayto site

Shortest Distancefrom road

Figure 1. Diagram for estimated distances between campsites and roads.

Condition Class: The campsite condition class provided a brief description of the sites overallcondition in relation to soil erosion and tree health. Upon reviewing each site, researcherscategorized roadside campsites into one of six condition classes. The first condition classrepresents the least amount of human impact on the natural features of the site, while the fifthcondition class represents the highest amount of human impact. A sixth condition class wascreated to describe sites that had been designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. Suchsites provided gravel camping areas upon which wheelchairs could travel. Appendix A providesa 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, atotal 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%) werefound in wilderness, primitive, or canoe areas, and 459 (86.4%) were found in wild forest areas.

7


14/106

Table 1. Data summarizing roadside campsite inventory.

FieldResource

ManagementAreas

Wilderness,Primitive, andCanoe Areas

Wild ForestAreas Total

Total # of Sites: 23 (4.3) 49 (9.2) 459 (86.4) 531 (100)

Site Type:Vehicle single 20 (87.0) 39 (81.2) 398 (88.1) 457 (87.4)Vehicle cluster 0 --- 1 (2.1) 9 (2.0) 10 (1.9)Walk-in single 3 (13.0) 8 (16.7) 42 (9.3) 53 (10.1)Walk-in cluster 0 --- 0 --- 3 (0.7) 3 (0.6)

Missing data 0 --- 1 --- 7 --- 8 ---Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

DEC Camping Disk:No 15 (65.2) 14 (30.4) 135 (29.8) 164 (31.4)Yes 8 (34.8) 32 (69.6) 318 (70.2) 358 (68.6)Missing data 0 --- 3 --- 6 --- 9 ---

Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)Screening fromRoad:

None 12 (52.2) 14 (29.8) 207 (47.0) 233 (45.7)Partial 8 (34.8) 14 (29.8) 130 (29.5) 152 (29.8)Complete 3 (13.0) 19 (40.4) 103 (23.4) 125 (24.5)Missing 0 --- 2 --- 19 --- 21 ---Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

Estimated Distancefrom Road:

0 150 ft. 17 (77.3) 33 (73.3) 359 (82.0) 409 (81.0)

151 300 ft. 5 (22.7) 5 (11.1) 43 (9.8) 53 (10.5)Over 300 ft. 0 --- 7 (15.6) 36 (8.2) 43 (8.5)Missing data 1 --- 4 --- 21 --- 26 ---Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

EstimatedCircumference of Site:

0 150 ft. 15 (68.2) 38 (77.6) 303 (66.9) 356 (67.9)151 300 ft. 7 (31.8) 11 (22.4) 149 (32.9) 167 (31.9)Over 300 ft. 0 --- 0 --- 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2)Missing data 1 --- 0 --- 6 --- 7 ---

Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)Satellite Sites:0 Satellites 18 (78.3) 40 (81.6) 410 (89.3) 468 (88.1)1 Satellite 1 (4.3) 8 (16.3) 39 (8.5) 48 (9.0)2 Satellites 2 (8.7) 1 (2.0) 9 (2.0) 12 (2.3)3 Satellites 2 (8.7) 0 --- 1 (0.2) 3 (0.6)Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

8


15/106

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 vehicle-cluster sites (1.9%) and walk-in cluster sites (0.6%).

Overall, 68.6% of the roadside campsites were designated as legal campsites with aNYSDEC 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 partialscreening 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% werelocated more than 300 feet away from a road. This percentage pattern remained fairly constantacross 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 providea quick estimate, researchers accepted the assumption that roadside campsites were circular inshape. However, in actuality many of the sites were not circular. Thus, the estimatedcircumference of each site should not be treated as a substitute for exact or precisemeasurements. Rather, these data were meant to provide a general reference to the size of eachsite. Using the estimated circumference of each site, researchers were able to obtain estimatesfor site radii, which could be subsequently used to estimate total site area measurements usingthe 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 spacenecessary to accommodate three tents capable of sleeping nine or less people, and providing anarea 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 providessome additional examples of how circumference measurements correspond with areameasurements for circular campsites.

The majority of campsites that were inventoried (67.9%) were categorized as having acircumference between one and 150 feet. About 31.9% were categorized as having acircumference between 151 and 300 feet, while only 0.2% was categorized as having acircumference of over 300 feet. While these measurements are not exact, it appears that about67.9% of the campsites inventoried had associated area measurements of less than 2,000 squarefeet. and, therefore, fall into the size range described as reasonable by Dawson et al (2008).

9


16/106

Table 2. Corresponding circumference and area measurements.Circumference (feet) Area (sq. feet)

50 198.94100 795.77150 1790.49

200 3183.09250 4973.59300 7161.97

The last variable summarized in Table 1 is the number of satellite sites accompanyingroadside campsites. As shown, the vast majority of sites did not have any associated satellitesites (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 cementfireplace. Only 21.5 % of sites provided picnic tables, while only a few sites (0.9%) providedbenches for seating. As shown, the proportion of sites that provided picnic tables was highest inwild forest areas (22.4%), followed by wilderness, primitive and canoe areas (18.4%) andresource management areas (8.7%). Finally, about 28.2% of all sites provided users with anouthouse. 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 200ft. 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). About22.9% 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 withdisabilities). As shown, wild forest areas were the only unit management areas that providedsites that were categorized within the sixth condition class.

10


17/106

Table 3. Inventory variables for campsite amenities and condition class.

FieldResource

ManagementAreas

Wilderness,Primitive, andCanoe Areas

Wild ForestAreas Total

Fire Pit:

No 1 (4.3) 10 (20.4) 141 (30.7) 152 (28.6)Yes 22 (95.7) 39 (79.6) 318 (69.3) 379 (71.4)Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

Fireplace (cement):No 23 (100) 40 (81.6) 333 (72.5) 396 (74.6)Yes 0 --- 9 (18.4) 126 (27.5) 135 (25.4)Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

Picnic Table:No 21 (91.3) 40 (81.6) 356 (77.6) 417 (78.5)Yes 2 (8.7) 9 (18.4) 103 (22.4) 114 (21.5)Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

Bench: No 23 (100) 49 (100) 454 (98.9) 526 (99.1)Yes 0 --- 0 --- 5 (1.1) 5 (0.9)Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

Outhouse:No 20 (87.0) 45 (91.8) 316 (68.8) 381 (71.8)Yes 3 (13.0) 4 (8.2) 143 (31.2) 150 (28.2)Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

Water Access:No 10 (45.5) 26 (54.2) 256 (58.2) 292 (57.3)Yes 12 (54.5) 22 (45.8) 184 (41.8) 218 (42.7)

Missing 1 --- 1 --- 19 --- 21 ---Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)Condition Class:

CC-1 2 (9.5) 11 (22.4) 84 (18.7) 97 (18.7)CC-2 10 (47.6) 12 (24.5) 97 (21.6) 119 (22.9)CC-3 6 (28.6) 16 (32.7) 154 (34.3) 176 (33.9)CC-4 2 (9.5) 10 (20.4) 89 (19.8) 101 (19.5)CC-5 1 (4.8) 0 --- 10 (2.2) 11 (2.1)CC-6 0 --- 0 --- 15 (3.3) 15 (2.9)Missing 2 --- 0 --- 10 --- 12 ---Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)

11


18/106

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, orcanoe 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 roadsidecampsite 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 alongPowley/Piseco Road in Ferris Lake Wild Forest. These maps provide examples of howinventory 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 anexample 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 thistype 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 wasuseful for performing separate roadside campsite analyses. For example, the APSLMP stipulatesthat primitive tent sites should be located at a minimum of a mile from each other. Using GISsoftware, researchers were able to create additional maps that display whether or not each sitewas 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 campsiteslocated within the Moose River Plains Wild Forest.

12


19/106

Figure 2. Map showing Roadside Campsites within the Adirondack Park.

13


20/106

Figure 3. Map showing roadside campsites within Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe Areas.

14


21/106

Figure 4. Map showing roadside camping areas within Wild Forest Areas.

15


22/106

Figure 5. Map showing roadside campsites in Saranac Lake Wild Forest.

16


23/106

Figure 6. Map showing designated and undesignated campsites within the Adirondack Park.

17


24/106

Figure 7. Map showing designated and undesignated sites in Ferris Lake Wild Forest.

18


25/106

Figure 8. Map showing campsite condition classes near North Lake Road.

19


26/106

Figure 9. Map showing campsite compliance with mile separation distance.

20


27/106

Figure 10. Map showing mile separation distance compliance in Moose River Plains Wild

21


28/106

22

PRELIM

rcammnumf c

INARY INTERVIEWS WITH ROADSIDE CAMPERSThe following subsections describe six content categories that emerged from participant

esponses: place attachment, place dependence, comparisons between roadside camping andpground camping, comparisons between roadside camping and primitive camping,

anagement concerns, and factors influencing site choice. The data categorized were far tooerous to provide a complete description of the results within this report. Consequently, the

ollowing sections outline the major themes that emerged in relation to these six contentategories and provide examples of data coded within them (see table 4).

Table 4. Content categories from preliminary camper interviews.Content Category ThemesPlace Attachment Nostalgia/History

Concern about Losing AccessFondness/Love for AreaHome Away from HomeIdentity/Central Life InterestNatural Beauty and WildlifeWillingness to Pay

Place Dependence Unique ExperienceCostLimited Physical Ability

Roadside vs. Campground Settings Social Atmosphere and CrowdingAmenities and Group CompositionCost IssuesFreedom from Restrictions and/or RegulationsLevel of Primitiveness

Roadside vs. Primitive Tent Sites General SimilarityEffort RequiredVehicle UseSolitude and NoiseSecondary Activities / Experience IntentionsProximity to Water ResourcesFactors Influencing Decision to

Choose Camping Area Proximity to HomePast Experience and FamiliarityCost

Management Concerns AccessibilityContinued Public AccessAppreciation for wheelchair-accessible sitesAppreciation for First Come, First ServeProblem of People Claiming Sites with Equipment

Maintenance IssuesRespect for Environment and CleanlinessNeed for Information and EducationNumber of People per SiteInsect Control


29/106

Themes Related to Place Attachment Visitors were asked to describe any emotional attachment that they felt towards the roadsidecamping area that they were visiting or towards the Adirondack Park in general. The vastmajority of campers indicated that they were emotionally attached to the camping area they werevisiting (only two participants reported having no emotional attachment). Seven themesemerged out of the participants descriptions of their attachment to the setting.

The most widely mentioned source of attachment was related to a persons personaland/or family history with the area. Thus, the first theme that emerged from the data was relatedto nostalgia, or peoples cherished memories of previous experiences with the area. Nineteenrespondents discussed the importance of family memories and nostalgia associated with theroadside camping area they were visiting. The following quote provides an example of responsedata coded within this theme:

Absolutely, ever since I was a little guy, theres camping stories that have been aroundsince before this road was actually drivable back in the 50s and 60s. My parents were uphere camping, they had jeeps, you were able to access whatever you could drive to at thatpoint, so theres pictures and stuff floating around like thatnostalgia from the 60s,

years ago now, so definitely an emotional attachment. (Interview #4, 2009)

The second theme that emerged from the responses to this question was related to thesetting being perceived as a central part of visitors lives of identities. While experience andhistory with the area was mentioned by many campers as a source of attachment, three campersindicated that they had such a rich history with the camping area that it had become a central partof their lives. One visitor commented,

I think if I hadnt been coming here for as many years as I have my life would have abig chunk missing from it. This is a piece of my life that I rely on that makes my year.Everybody has markers throughout the year, and the June camp out here in the past, itsgelled at this point, and I could see me camping for the rest of my life, and if I didnt,

thered be a hole. (Interview #21, 2009)

The third theme that emerged from the responses to the emotional attachment questionwas related to participants feeling at home while visiting roadside camping areas. Fourparticipants gave a description of feeling at home while visiting roadside camping areas or thesurrounding natural resource areas. One visitor said,

Emotional attachment? Oh yesNow, if you come up here during hunting season,youll see the same tents year after year. Its first come first serve, but out of respect Idont set up on your site if you dont setup on mine. We know its not ours, but if you goto the same place every year so many times, its like your home. (Interview #9, 2009)

A fourth theme that emerged was related to a general fondness or love that visitorsassociated with the roadside camping area that they visited. Six participants discussed a fondnessor love that they felt towards the camping area that they were visiting. For example, one visitorcommented, Just we really enjoy it, love it. Glad she talked me into doing it. (Interview #19,2009)

A fifth theme that emerged was related to roadside camping areas ability to provideopportunities to interact with natural beauty and wildlife. Three people discussed being attached

23


30/106

to the roadside camping they were visiting as a result of the interactions with nature and wildlifethat they experienced within the setting. One visitor said,

I just enjoy Gods creation. No matter where you look its just so beautiful. In a couplemore months Ill be eating raspberries, strawberries, blueberriesall the streams and justeverything about it, its just so awesome. (Interview #15, 2009)

The sixth theme that emerged from the participants descriptions of their emotionalattachments was related to visitors being concerned about the potential loss of access to roadsidecamping areas. Fourteen participants mentioned feeling concerned or worried about losingaccess to the camping area that they were visiting. One person said, If they got rid of this Iwould be totally bummed. (Interview #17, 2009). Another participant commented,

I would hate the government that passed that legislation. Any politicians involved withthat process that voted for that, I would vote against those guys . . . I would definitelychallenge 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 relatedto visitor willingness to pay for the continued provision of the roadside camping areas in theAdirondacks. Two people explained that they would be willing to pay a fee in order to use theroadside camping area that they were visiting. One of them reported, I wouldnt care if they puta gate up there and charged us $5 to come through that gate. Thats how much we like it here.(Interview #25).

Themes related to Place Dependence A broad question related to emotional attachment was useful for gaining an unbiasedunderstanding of some of the types, or dimensions, of attachment that are important to roadside

camping area visitors. While a number of meaningful themes emerged that were related toemotional attachment, researchers were also interested in understanding potential functionalattachments to roadside camping areas, or place dependence. Therefore, interview participantswere asked whether or not they felt like they depended on roadside camping areas for theiroutdoor recreational pursuits, and why?

A total of 12 respondents indicated that they did depend on roadside camping areas,while 10 respondents indicated they did not. Seven responses were undeterminable. Responsesof those participants who did depend on roadside camping areas were categorized into threethemes. First, four people indicated that they depended on roadside camping areas because theyprovide opportunities for a unique type of camping experience that could not be foundelsewhere. One person said,

Yeah Id say so. I mean we could probably stay at a motel or something, but it wouldntbe the same experience. Its not what were looking for. We could stay in Indian Lake[campground] somewhere, rent a cabin or whatever for the week or 2, but its definitelynot what were trying to do. This is what were trying to do. (Interview #27, 2009)

A second theme that emerged out of the responses to this question had to do with thephysical abilities of some respondents. Two participants indicated that they depended onroadside camping areas because they were limited in their physical abilities and could no longer

24


31/106

travel to primitive tent sites, which are often located at a significant distance within the interiorof 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 relatedto the costs associated with different types of camping. Three participants indicated they weredependent 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 cheapestvacations you can take. The state campgrounds, theyre not cheap. (Interview #29,2009)

Visitor Comparisons of Roadside Sites and Campground Sites

Roadside camping visitors were asked whether or not they had previously stayed in statecampgrounds within the Adirondack Park. Those who reported having previous experienceswith this type of setting were then asked to compare their camping experiences between roadsidecamping settings and campground settings. Several differences between camping in roadsideareas and camping in campgrounds were discussed by the participants. Responses to this line of questioning were coded into five themes. The most widely cited difference between roadsideareas and campgrounds was related to the social atmosphere of the areas. Nineteen participantsindicated that they felt the state campgrounds were too crowded and/or noisy and that roadsideareas allowed for more personal privacy. One individual stated,

Its just different, because right here theres nobody camping near us. Its like being inthe wilderness. Were not packed into a campground. (Interview #17, 2009)

Another participant commented,I like coming in here because therere not a lot of people. You can go hiking up to theponds. Its just a nice outdoor experience versus going to [a state campground] whereeverybodys on top of each other. (Interview 16, 2009)

The second theme that emerged out of the respondents comparisons was related to thedifferent amenities that each setting provides and the types of groups who enjoy them. Seventeenrespondents indicated that campgrounds and the amenities provided within them are nice forcertain types of groups, while roadside areas and their more-limited set of amenities are better forother types of groups. One person stated,

There are a couple [campgrounds] around here but we dont stay in them because wedont have family and kids. If we had family and kids wed stay at a park where there areshowers and all. We just come out and camp like this, weve got our own water, our ownfood. I would much rather do this. (Interview #17, 2009)

A third theme that emerged from this line of questioning was related to the costdifferences between camping in roadside areas and campgrounds. Twelve participants

25


32/106

mentioned the differences in cost when comparing the two types of areas. One participantcommented,

Well, to me roadside campsites are more for your average person who doesnt have a lotof extra money to throw around. We can come up here a whole lot cheaper than we couldgo to a state campground for. (Interview #1, 2009)

The fourth theme that emerged was related to the amount of freedom experienced byvisitors, or the restrictions imposed on visitors at each area. Six participants described feeling agreater amount of freedom from restrictions when visiting roadside camping areas. One personcommented,

Last night my daughter was raising a ruckus, screaming and such. If we were in acampground and she was doing that the ranger would be like hey keep it down. Here youdont have to. You can sit out here and howl at the coyotes and stuff at night and let themhowl back. You have a good time. We wouldnt get totally out of control, but you donthave to worry about the neighbors. (Interview #24, 2009)

The fifth and final theme that emerged from this line of questioning was related to thelevel of primitiveness associated with each type of camping area. Five participants explainedthat they felt roadside camping was a more primitive type of camping experience than campingin a campground. One of them said,

I dont want to degrade state campgrounds and regular campgrounds, because theyrereally nice, but its just not for me. I just want to be in the wilderness. (Interview #15,2009)

Visitor Comparisons of Roadside Sites and Primitive SitesIn addition to comparing roadside and campground camping, respondents were asked to compare

their roadside camping experiences with their experiences camping in primitive tent sites or lean-tos. Five themes emerged out of the responses to this question: one related to similarities andfour related to differences. While most of the responses were focused on identifying differencesbetween camping at the two settings, the first theme that emerged was related to the similaritybetween camping in each setting. Four participants commented on a general similarity betweenroadside camping and primitive camping. One participant said,

I dont know if theres such a difference. Its different in that youre restricted in whatyou take, what you need to take, but then make do with what youve got on your back.Same experience, different amount of equipment I guess. (Interview #27, 2009)

While a few respondents felt that the two camping settings produced similar types of

experiences, many respondents were able to articulate differences between the settings as well.The following four themes that emerged out of the participants comparisons between roadsideand primitive sites are focused on the differences between them. For example, the secondoverall theme that emerged was related to differences in the amount of effort required to camp ateach setting. Ten participants commented on the different amounts of effort required to camp inroadside and primitive tent sites.

I like to come just because there are certain times when I like to do the lazy kind of camping instead of backpacking and stuff like that. I can bring the creature comforts,

26


33/106

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 typeof 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 importanceof using vehicles while roadside camping. One participant said,I know that roadside camping is a beautiful thing. There are a lot of people who justleave 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 hisreasons 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 thatthey felt primitive tent sites provided a better opportunity to experience privacy, solitude, orquietness. 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 timeand all that stuff. (Interview #1)

Factors Influencing Visitors Decisions to Choose Roadside Camping Areas Interview participants were asked to discuss the factors that influenced their decisions to choosethe roadside camping areas that they were visiting. Four themes emerged out of the responses tothis question. The first theme was related to the proximity of roadside camping sites to waterresources. Five participants explained that the sites proximity to water was a major factorinfluencing their choice for a camping setting. One participant said,

I actually, usually try to leave it up to my wife, because obviously most men try to make

their wives comfortable. Shes an outdoors woman, shares a lot of the same beliefs I do,and she loves to be near water, absolutely loves it. Im at ease having water nearby.(Interview #4, 2009)

The second theme that emerged from the responses to this question was related to pastexperiences with the area and/or familiarity. Three participants indicated that they chose theircamping area because they had visited it previously and were familiar with the area. Oneparticipant commented,

27


34/106

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 inresponse to this question. One said,The sheer beauty of the area, easy access to water, its a nice camping site, and the factthat its free. Were a family, but everybody has expenses. We know for a fact that wecan 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 theproximity of roadside camping areas to peoples homes. Five participants mentioned that amajor reason for choosing their camping area was that it was close to their homes. Oneparticipant stated, its a place we can go to get away and still be close to home if need be

(Interview # 4, 2009)

Management ConcernsResearchers were interested in gaining visitor perspectives regarding the management of roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. Visitors were asked to explain what theythought the most important management concern was for roadside camping areas in theAdirondack Park. Several themes emerged out of the responses to this question. First andforemost, 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 preferredroadside camping areas because they were available on a first come, first serve basis, whereasthe reservation system used within campgrounds was less desirable. Also related to accessibility,four people discussed their appreciation for the wheelchair-accessible roadside campsites that areprovided within some camping areas. One participant commented,

I dont feel they should take this away from us eitherand I see now they got thathandicapped site up there. That is a great thingI went by there and thought how greatis 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 theyhad experienced difficulty finding a campsite as a result of people leaving equipment in sites andclaiming 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 droptheir things and you dont see them. The trailer over there has been then since Ive beenhere and theres been people there one night so farits kind of a shame because peoplewho do want to come up and use it cant really because people like that do things likethat. (Interview #18, 2009)

28


35/106

The second main theme related to management concerns that emerged from the

participants responses was related the importance of visitors respecting and caring for theroadside campsites that they use. Ten respondents explained that they felt the most importantmanagement 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 havevolunteers to come in and keep it from being closed. Ive seen a few places that havebeen closed, that I went to when I was his age and cant get into them anymore, becauseother 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 tomaintenance of roadside camping settings. Thirteen participants mentioned that there was a needto 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 alldeteriorate (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 bemarked more adequately. One person commented,Maybe campsites marked, like this one doesnt have the camping symbol, but its gotthe two rings, so I guess were alloweda lot of sites dont have them [signsdesignating campsites]. (Interview 10, 2009)

While maintenance and ensuring proper use of campsites were common topics discussedby participants, one person discussed an issue related to the number of people who use particularroadside campsites. She explained that there should be a limit on the number of people who areallowed to occupy a roadside campsite.

A fourth theme that emerged was related to insect control. One participant in the studysaid,

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 toanybodyand 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 theprovision of information and education regarding roadside camping areas in the Adirondack Park. Three participants mentioned that they would like to see more information regardingroadside 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 trythem, but were not aware of all of them, just dont know where they areyouve got tobe part of the culture to know where these are. (interview #21, 2009)

29


36/106

ON-SITE FIELD SURVEY OF CAMPERSFor interpreting the following results, the reader is reminded that the term roadside campingarea does not refer to a single roadside campsite for the purposes of this study, rather a collectionof several roadside campsites that are located along a common Forest Preserve road.

A total of 216 roadside campsite visitors participated in the on-site survey. At the onsetof each survey, researchers observed and recorded the location of the campsite being visited (i.e.management unit), the equipment being used by the participant, and the gender of the participant.

As shown in Table 5, researchers conducted on-site surveys within 13 differentmanagement units (11 Wild Forest Areas and 2 Wilderness Areas). A substantial percentage(45.4%) of surveys took place within the Moose River Plains Wild Forest, which is an area thatprovides over 160 roadside campsites to the public. Other unit management areas that producedhigh proportions of surveys include Saranac Lake Wild Forest (11.6%), Black River Wild Forest(10.2%), Lake George Wild Forest (9.7%), Jessup River Wild Forest (7.4), Horseshoe Lake WildForest (5.6%), Independence River Wild Forest (4.2%), and Ferris Lake Wild Forest (2.3%).

Table 5. Location of roadside campsites surveyed.Management Unit Areas # of Surveys % of SurveysMoose River Plains Wild Forest 98 45.4Saranac Lake Wild Forest 25 11.6Black River Wild Forest 22 10.2Lake George Wild Forest 21 9.7Jessup River Wild Forest 16 7.4Horseshoe Lake Wild Forest 12 5.6Independence River Wild Forest 9 4.2Ferris Lake Wild Forest 5 2.3Silver Lake Wilderness 2 0.9

Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest 2 0.9Wilcox Lake Wild Forest 2 0.9Cranberry Lake Wild Forest 1 0.5Dix Mountain Wilderness 1 0.5Total 216 100

Trip and Visitor CharacteristicsTable 6 displays the types of equipment that were used by study participants. As shown, 68.4%of participants used tents for camping, while others used trailers, pop-ups, and recreationalvehicles. It should be noted that many visitors made use of more than one of these types of equipment (e.g., tents and a trailer within a single site or group).

Table 6. Percentages of visitors using camping equipment.Equipment # %Tents 145 68.4Trailers 39 18.4Pop-ups 23 10.8Recreational vehicles 13 6.1

30


37/106

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 69.2Female 66 30.8Missing data 2 ---Total 216 100

Participants were asked to indicate the number of days that they had planned to stayovernight within roadside camping areas during their recreational trip. The results of thisquestion are displayed in Table 8. Eight percent of respondents indicated that they were stayingin their roadside campsite for only one night. About 20.2% of respondents indicated that theywere 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 campingareas between 6 and 14 days. Only 3.3% of respondents indicated that they would be staying inroadside camping areas for more than 14 days during their recreational trips. The mean numberof 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 stayovernight in other, non-roadside campsite accommodations during their current trip. The vastmajority of respondents (95.8%) indicated that they were not using other overnightaccommodations 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 8.02 Days 43 20.23 Days 66 31.04 Days 24 11.35 Days 19 8.96-10 Days 22 10.311-14 Days 15 7.0More than 14 Days 7 3.3Missing / Not Sure 3 ---Total 213 100

Mean 5.72Median 3.0Standard Deviation 9.57Range (min and max) 1 - 90

31


38/106

Table 9. Number of days spent overnight using other accommodations.Number of Days using other Accommodations during Trip # %Did not use other accommodations 204 95.81 Day 3 1.4More than 1 Day 6 2.8

Missing / not sure 3 ---Total 213 100Mean 0.20Median 0Standard Deviation 1.27Range (min and max) 0-15

Respondents were asked a series of questions in order to gain an understanding of theirpast experiences with various types of camping settings. First, respondents were asked toindicate the number of years that they had been using the roadside camping area in which they

were surveyed. Table 10 displays the results of this question. As shown, 20.8% of respondentsindicated that it was their first year using the roadside camping area that they were visiting.About 20% of respondents reported using the roadside camping area between two and five years,while 12% of indicated using the area between six and ten years. The results suggest that asubstantial proportion of roadside campsite visitors have considerable past experiences withthese settings (47.2% of visitors reported having over 10 years of experience with the setting inwhich they were surveyed). The mean number of years that respondents had used the roadsidecamping area in which they were surveyed was 14.3 years, while the median was 10 years.These results suggest that there is considerable variation in the number of years of experiencethat roadside campsite visitors have with roadside camping settings.

Table 10. Number of years using roadside camping area that was visited.Years using Particular Roadside Camping Area # %First-year visitors 45 20.82 to 5 years 43 19.96 to 10 years 26 12.011 to 15 years 19 8.816-20 years 25 11.621 to 30 years 32 14.8Over 30 years 26 12.0Total 213 100Mean 14.30

Median 10Standard Deviation 13.61Range (min and max) 1-60

Respondents were asked about their previous experience with other roadside campingareas within the Adirondack Park (aside from the area in which they were surveyed). First,respondents were asked whether or not they had previously used any other roadside campingareas within the Adirondack Park. About 52% of respondents indicated that they had not used

32


39/106

other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park, while 48% indicated that they hadused other roadside camping areas (Table 11). Those visitors who reported using other roadsidecamping areas were then asked to indicate the number of years of experience that they had withother 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 51.9Yes 104 48.1Total 216 100

Of the 104 respondents who reported having past experience with other roadside campingareas 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 otherroadside areas, while 23.1% indicated having between six and ten years of past experience. Asubstantial 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 indicatedhaving more than 30 years of experience with other roadside camping areas within theAdirondack Park. The mean number of years of past experience with other roadside campingareas 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 5.82 to 5 years 22 21.26 to 10 years 24 23.111 to 15 years 8 7.7

16-20 years 8 7.721 to 30 years 21 20.2Over 30 years 15 14.4Total 104 100Mean 16.55Median 11Standard Deviation 13.15Range (min and max) 1-60

In addition to understanding visitors past experience with roadside camping areas withinthe Adirondack Park, researchers were interested in understanding visitors past experiences with

other types of camping settings within the Adirondack Park. Therefore, visitors were asked toindicate whether or not they had previously used non-roadside camping settings within theAdirondack Park. These settings included NYSDEC campgrounds and primitive/backpackingsites. 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 theAdirondack Park.

Table 13. Usage of non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park.

33


40/106

Visitor use of Non-Roadside Camping Settings within the Park # %No 45 20.9Yes 170 79.1Missing Data 1 ---Total 216 100

Those respondents who indicated having past experience with non-roadside campingsettings within the park were asked to report the number of years of experience that they hadwith such settings (Table 14). Of the 170 respondents who indicated having past experienceswith 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 non-roadside 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 over30 years of past experience with non-roadside settings. The mean number of years of pastexperience with these settings was 18.15, while the median was 20. These results suggest thatthe 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 7.32 to 5 years 27 16.56 to 10 years 26 15.911 to 15 years 11 6.716-20 years 34 20.721 to 30 years 29 17.7

Over 30 years 25 15.2Missing Data / Not Sure 6 ---Total 170 100Mean 18.15Median 20Standard Deviation 13.45Range (min and max) 1-60

While the previously summarized variables provide descriptions of the number of yearsthat 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 campingsettings. Therefore, participants were asked a series of questions in order to understand thenumber of days per year, in a typical year, that roadside campsite visitors use various campingsettings.

First, respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used theroadside 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 oneand five days per year, while 31.3% reported using the areas between six and ten days per year.

34


41/106

Only 9.3% of respondents indicated that they used the roadside camping areas in which theywere surveyed more than 30 days per year. The mean number of days per year that visitors usedthe roadside camping areas in which they were surveyed was 13.95 days, while the median was7.5 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 33.66 to 10 days 67 31.311 to 15 days 29 13.616 to 20 days 10 4.721 -30 days 16 7.5Over 30 days 20 9.3Missing data / Not sure 2 ---Total 216 100Mean 13.95

Median 7.5Standard Deviation 17.22Range (min and max) 1-104

Respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used otherroadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park (aside from the areas in which they weresurveyed). The majority of respondents (59.5%) indicated that they did not use other roadsidecamping areas in a typical year (Table 16). About 14% indicated that they used other roadsidecamping areas within the Park between one and five days per year, while 15.8% indicated thatthey used other roadside areas between six and ten days per year. Only 2.3% indicated that theyused 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 waszero 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 59.51 to 5 days 30 14.06 to 10 days 34 15.811 to 15 days 5 2.316 to 20 days 7 3.321 -30 days 6 2.8

Over 30 days 5 2.3Missing data / Not sure 1 ---Total 216 100Mean 5.22Median 0Standard Deviation 15.85Range (min and max) 0-200

35


42/106

Respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used NYSDECcampgrounds within the Adirondack Park. A slight majority (50.2%) reported that they did notuse NYSDEC campgrounds during a typical year (Table 17). About 26.5% indicated that theyused campgrounds between one and five days per year, while 14.4% indicated that they usedcampgrounds 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 meannumber of days per year that respondents used NYSDEC campgrounds within the Park was 3.59days, 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 50.21 to 5 days 57 26.56 to 10 days 31 14.411 to 15 days 10 4.716 to 20 days 4 1.9

21 -30 days 4 1.9Over 30 days 1 0.5Missing data / Not sure 1 ---Total 216 100Mean 3.59Median 0Standard Deviation 6.56Range (min and max) 0-60

Next, respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they usedprivately 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 operatedcampgrounds within the Adirondack Park during a typical year. The mean number of days peryear 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 87.91 to 5 days 15 7.06 to 10 days 6 2.811 to 15 days 3 1.416 to 20 days 0 0.0


36


43/106

Respondents were also asked to indicate the number of days per year that they usedprimitive/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/backpackingcampsites 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 64.51 to 5 days 50 23.46 to 10 days 13 6.111 to 15 days 6 2.816 to 20 days 3 1.421 -30 days 1 0.5Over 30 days 3 1.4

Missing data / Not sure 2 ---Total 216 100Mean 2.64Median 0Standard Deviation 7.24Range (min and max) 0-60

Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they usedcamping settings outside of the Adirondack Park. A majority of respondents (51.9%) indicatedthat 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 andten days per year. The mean number of days per year using camping settings outside of theAdirondack 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 51.91 to 5 days 51 24.16 to 10 days 28 13.211 to 15 days 9 4.216 to 20 days 5 2.4


37


44/106

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 useseems much lower within non-roadside settings than within roadside settings. Also, highproportions 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 highpercentage of visitors who reported having past experiences (79.1%) with non-roadside campingareas within the Adirondack Park. These results may indicate that although some visitors haveprevious experiences with these areas, they no longer visit them during typical years. Forexample, a few respondents indicated that they used NYSDEC campgrounds during theirchildhoods, but no longer used them as adults. Other respondents mentioned that although theyused 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 campinggroups. Therefore, respondents were asked to indicate the number of people making up theircamping 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 numberof 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 9.32 77 35.63 24 11.14 23 10.65 27 12.56 17 7.9

7 8 3.78 5 2.39 2 0.910 3 1.4Over 10 10 4.6Total 216 100Mean 4.06Median 3Standard Deviation 3.43Range 1-25

Researchers were also interested in understanding whether or not children (persons lessthan 18 years of age) were present in each group of roadside campers. The majority of campinggroups (65.7%) were made up of adults only, while 34.3% of groups included children (Table22).

38


45/106

Table 22. Presence of children within camping groups.

Children Present in Group # %No 142 65.7Yes 74 34.3

Total 216 100

Finally, researchers were interested in understanding the nature of the relationshipsbetween people making up each camping group. Respondents were provided with a list of fivealternatives and asked to indicate which best represented the composition of their campinggroup. About 9.4% of respondents indicated that they were camping alone on their trip (Table23). The majority of respondents (53.8%) indicated that they were camping with members of their family, while about 20.3% indicated that they were camping with friends. In combination,the vast majority (73.8%) of roadside campsite visitors tend to camp with members of theirfamilies and/or friends.

Table 23. Compositions of roadside camping groups.Compositions of Camping Groups # %Alone 20 9.4Family 114 53.8Friends 43 20.3Family and Friends 34 16.0Organization 1 0.5Missing Data 4 ---Total 216 100

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 15outdoor recreation activities and were asked to indicate whether or not they had pursued orplanned to pursue each activity during their

dec roadside camping final report

Documents