lable at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e97

Contents lists avai

Applied Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/apgeog

Integrating social and natural resource information to improve planning formotorized recreation

Rachel Albritton*, Taylor V. SteinUniversity of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, 345 Newins-Zielger Hall, P.O. Box 110410, Gainesville, FL, USA

Keywords:Unmanaged recreationOff-highway vehicle recreationRecreation planningRecreation conflictConflict resolution

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 352 246 7944.E-mail address: rachelalbritton@yahoo.com (R. Alb

0143-6228/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.02.005

a b s t r a c t

Throughout the United States and other countries, motorized recreation has become a dominantrecreation use of the landscape. In response, social scientists worked to understand who off-highwayvehicle (OHV) riders were, while natural resource scientists worked to document and mitigate naturalresource impacts that were resulting from unmanaged OHV recreation. The purpose of this study was toexamine both social and natural resource aspects of landscape planning as it relates to OHV manage-ment. Specifically, this study sought to expand the current knowledge base of who OHV riders were byexamining the potential for conflict between all-terrain vehicle riders, off-highway motorcycle riders,and four-wheel drive operators. In addition, the potential for conflict between rider groups was exam-ined spatially based on riders stated resource preferences. The outcome of this process providesmanagers with a set of maps that can be used within the planning process to help reduce potentialconflict between riders, increase rider enjoyment, and meet conservation goals of an agency.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Throughout the United States and other countries, off-highwayvehicle (OHV) recreation has become a dominant recreation use ofthe landscape (Cordell, Betz, Green, & Owens, 2005; Havlick, 2002).In response to this growing demand, recreation and land managershave acknowledged an immediate need to better manage for OHVriding opportunities in a manner that ensures sustainable ridingenvironments, ensures safe riding conditions, and ensures thecreation of opportunities that may result in quality riding experi-ences (Bosworth, 2004). Most research has focused on identifyingways to manage OHV recreation in a manner that reduces envi-ronmental impacts (Buckley, 2004; Chavez & Knap, 2006; Havlick,2002; Snyder, Whitmore, Schneider, & Becker, 2008), however,very little research has focused on ways to ensure the creation ofquality riding opportunities. Understanding what will contribute toand detract from a quality riding experience will be a key elementin improving the management of OHV recreation. One element ofproviding quality recreation experiences is to manage conflictinherent with many nature-based recreation activities, but partic-ularly apparent in motorized recreation (Graefe & Thapa, 2004).Although recreation conflict between motorized and non-motor-ized recreation has been extensively examined, little research has

ritton).

All rights reserved.

focused on the potential for conflict between motorized recreationgroups.

In addition to the lack of research focusing on conflict betweenmotorized activity groups, little research has taken a spatialapproach in understanding where conflict is most likely to occur.Understanding conflict potential within a spatial context canfurther assist both managers and the affected activity groups tolook beyond perceived differences that result in conflict and bringfocus to developing effective solutions that are aimed at providingdesired recreation opportunities (Gimblett & Guisse, 1997). Thisspatial context is even more important when examining OHVrecreation, which often occurs across large landscapes in diverseterrain.

The purpose of this study was to extend the theoretical appli-cation of goal interference by examining the potential for conflictdue to low tolerance between OHV riders and examine where thispotential conflict due to low tolerance (if low tolerance existed atall) was most likely to occur based on riders stated resourcepreferences. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to (1)examine the degree of tolerance between all-terrain vehicle (ATV),off-highway motorcycle (OHM), and four-wheel drive (FWD)operators, (2) examine riders preferred resources when operatingan OHV, and (3) examine where conflict related to intolerance wasmost likely to occur based on shared resource preferences.Although tolerance itself cannot be directly linked to landscapeattributes, resources that are highly favored when engaged ina specific recreation activity can be identified. These preferred

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e9786

resources can be mapped for each activity group and thencompared across activity groups allowing for the identification ofwhere conflict is most likely to occur based on the assumption thatriders will choose areas that are best suited to meet their recrea-tion needs (Kliskey, 2000). The outcome of the process providesmanagers with a set of maps that can be incorporated into therecreation planning process and aid managers in developing a setof alternative solutions to reduce potential conflict, increaseopportunities for rider enjoyment, and reduce environmentalimpacts.

Background

Following the recognition of the need to better manage for OHVriding opportunities, research was conducted that focused ongathering descriptive information on who OHV riders were andwhat their motivations were for engaging in OHV activities. Theseinitial studies revealed that OHV riders were most likely to bemale, between 30 and 40 years of age, and married with childrenliving at home (Fisher, Blahna, & Bahr, 2001; Fly, Stephens, Askins,& Hodges, 2002; Parent, Alavalapati, Stein, & Hodges, 2007). Inaddition, initial research efforts found that riders were most likelyto be motivated to enjoy nature and spend time with family andfriends (Sanyal, 2007). Other information sources investigated anddescribed the activity styles of OHV riders. Specifically, ATVs andOHM riders have been described as being focused on trail ridingenjoyment (Wernex, 1994) while FWD recreation tends to befocused on challenging one’s vehicle and overcoming obstacles(Kawaja, 2006; Neal, 1999).

Although this research has been helpful in extending ourcurrent knowledge base in whom OHV riders are and what theydesire from an OHV riding experience, little empirical research hasinvestigated possible differences between ATV riders, OHM riders,and FWD operators. Understanding possible differences betweenthese rider groups would further assist manager’s ability to createsafe, quality riding opportunities by reducing the potential forrecreation conflict which may hinder a recreation experience.Furthermore, understanding the potential for recreation conflictbetween OHV riders would assist managers in creating moreenvironmental sustainable riding opportunities (Dolesh, 2004;Snyder et al., 2008).

The study of recreation conflict has also evolved over time,shifting from a descriptive nature of addressing incompatibleactivity groups to providing more meaningful explanations as tothe causes of recreation conflict. The advance of Jacob andSchreyer’s theoretical framework of goal interference has providedthe clearest definition of conflict (Hammitt & Schneider, 2000), andhas been the standard framework in examining conflict over thepast three decades (Graefe & Thapa, 2004). Conflict is defined asgoal interference attributed to another’s behavior, suggesting thatin order for conflict to occur, either direct or indirect contact mustbe made. Direct contact refers to face-to-face contact or encounterswith another individual. Indirect contact refers to seeing thepresence of an individual in the form of vehicle tracks, litter, orother impacts. One must then internalize this contact and evaluateits affect on the recreation experience, which is typically based onprevious social or physical contact (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Themodel of goal interference further suggests four fundamentalcauses of conflict, one of which is tolerance for lifestyle diversity.

Tolerance for lifestyle diversity refers to the ability to accept orreject a lifestyle that is perceived as different from one’s own (Jacob& Schreyer, 1980). Within the Theory of Goal Interference Jacob andSchreyer (1980) state that the degree of tolerance held by anindividual consists of two main components. First, individualsperceive themselves as part of a group, and those who are not

within that group are different. Second, group differences areevaluated. In instances where these differences are evaluatednegatively, there may be an inability to share resources. Further-more, Jacob and Schreyer (1980) hypothesize that when “groupdifferences are evaluated as undesirable or a threat to one’srecreation goals, conflict results when members of the two groupsconfront each other” (p. 377).

It has long been noted that conflict due to tolerance cannot beeliminated. Rather, managers must seek to understand intoleranceas it relates to providing recreation opportunities and try to mini-mize conflict occurrences (Jacob, 1977). More recent studies havealso echoed this notion, suggesting that managers seek to separateactivity groups, which are intolerant of each other (Thapa & Graefe,2003; Vaske, Carothers, Donnelly, & Baird, 2000). Recreationmanagement frameworks such as the Recreation OpportunitySpectrum (ROS) can aid managers in minimizing recreation conflictthrough the implementation of zoning strategies, and assist inpromoting quality visitor experiences through offering diversity(Clark & Stankey, 1979; Daniels & Krannich, 1990).

Although the concept of zoning may work to help minimizemotorized vs. non-motorized conflicts, it is not a universal remedyfor resolving all recreation conflict issues (Daniels & Krannich,1990). Often, recreation conflict occurs within similar activitygroups which may occur within the same zone (Todd & Graefe,1989; Vaske et al., 2000; Watson, Niccolucci, & Williams, 1994). Insuch cases, zoning may be ineffective and other tactics must beimplemented in order to help minimize conflict. Planning and traildesign strategies such as single and multiple use trail designs andvarying trail difficulty can also be implemented to help disperserecreation visitors and help create quality recreation opportunitieswhile reducing conflict (Moore, 1994). Although these tactics havebeen extensively discussed within the current body of literature,few have looked at conflict spatially in order to help identify how tobest separate users who are sensitive to conflict in a manner thatbest utilized available resources.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a tool that can helpmanagers begin to evaluate potential recreation conflict withina spatial context. Representation of various recreation opportu-nities for various user groups within a single managed area allowsfor a range of potential opportunities to be compared andassessed simultaneously which may lead to the development ofmanagement solutions for otherwise contentious activities(Kliskey, 2000). This often involves the need to assess largeamounts of information related to user preferences, user percep-tions of conflict, and biological and physical constraints foundwithin the landscape. GIS provides managers with the appropriatetools to evaluate this large amount of information as well as theability to ask geographic questions about possible managementactions (Falbo, Queen, & Blinn, 1991). By doing so, managers canbegin to evaluate how potential actions could help enhance userexperiences, minimize user conflicts, and preserve environmentalintegrity before any actual decisions are implemented on theground. As a result, accuracy and long-term cost efficiency ofmanaging an area are increased (Naber & Leung, 2006). Recentadvances within GIS and recreation research have began to linkvisitor preferences (Kliskey, 2000) and values (Brown, 2005; Reed& Brown, 2003) to resource attributes, allowing managers toidentify areas of potential conflict as well as potential use. Otherstudies have examined visitor use and travel patterns in order toidentify areas of heavy use, and discuss management strategies tohelp reduce resource impacts and minimize potential userconflicts (Wing & Shelby, 1999). More recently, GIS-basedmethods that incorporated ATV rider stated preferences for trailattributes within sustainable riding areas were also shown to bean effective planning tool (Snyder et al., 2008).

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e97 87

Materials and methods

Study area

Ocala National Forest (ONF) is located in north central Florida,and is within a day’s drive of most Florida residents. Of the threenational forests within Florida, ONF receives the highest number ofOHV visitors annually. Similar too many other national forestswithin the U.S., OHV recreation went unmanaged, allowing crosscountry travel uncontained to a trail system until 1999. Recognizingthe environmental and social impacts that were resulting froma lack of OHV management, the ONF’s Land and ResourceManagement Planwas revised to state that all OHV recreation mustoccur on existing user made trails within unrestricted areas(U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1999) until an actual trail system could bedesigned and constructed. Although this action was a step towardgaining control of OHV recreation within a currently unmanagedsystem, it still was insufficient in reducing environmental andsocial impacts throughout the forest. At the initiation of thisresearch effort in 2005 managers were still in the trail designationand planning phase. As a result research efforts and analysis werefocused identifying if conflict was a possible key issue of concern,and if so, developing a method to examine possible managementsolutions.

Ocala National Forest is composed of approximately 157,422hectares and is mostly known for its pine scrub habitat, whichcomposes over 50% of the forest (U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 2005).The sand pine scrub is a fire dependent community, characterizedby a closed canopy of sand pines (Pinus clausa) and a thick under-

Fig. 1. Ocala nat

story of scrub live oak (Quercus geminate), myrtle oak (Quercusmyrtifolia), chapman oak (Quercus chapmanii) and saw palmetto’s(Serenoa repens) (FNAI & FDNR, 1990). Due to the ecosystem’sisolation, many endemic and endangered species live within thehabitat including the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens),scrub buckwheat (Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium), andLewton’s milkwort (Polygala lewtonii) (Wildlaw, 2006). Long leafpine ecosystems, characterized by open over-story, widely spacestrees and a dense ground cover of wiregrass and forbs are alsoprevalent throughout the forest (FNAI & FDNR, 1990). Smallpockets of hardwood hammocks can be found near the forestboundaries. In addition, ONF contains several smaller parcels ofland located on the southeast of the forest’s larger boundary. Dueto the small size of these parcels as well as their distance from themain forest, these parcels were not considered in this study(Fig. 1).

Collecting social data

Data were collected from OHV riders through the implementa-tion of on-site interviews and mail-back surveys. With assistancefrom Ocala National Forest recreation managers, temporary desig-nated access points were identified as good survey locations (i.e.temporary campgrounds and temporary designated parking areas).Using these locations as a starting point, a stratified randomsampling procedure based on day of the week (weekend andweekday) and volume of use (low and high) was used to sampleparticipants. Trained interviewers randomly selected individuals(at least 18 years of age) from each visitor group and asked them to

ional forest.

Table 1Tolerance index items and reliability.

Tolerance index items Meana Standarddeviation

Correcteditem totalcorrelation

If itemdeleted

ATVs:I find it undesirable to

meet people on ATVs1.71 1.00 .77 e

People on ATVs bother me 1.69 1.88 .77 e

ATV tolerance index (a¼ .87) 1.70 1.44

OHMs:I find it undesirable to

meet people on OHMs1.80 1.08 .75 e

People on OHMs bother me 1.85 1.27 .75 e

OHM tolerance index (a¼ .86) 2.83 1.18

FWDs:I find it undesirable to meet

people on FWDs1.77 1.00 .67 e

People on FWDs bother me 1.71 1.00 .67 e

FWD tolerance index (a¼ .80) 1.74 1.00

a 1¼ strongly disagree; 3¼ neutral; 5¼ strongly agree.

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e9788

complete a short on-site interview. The on-site interview wasmeant to gather basic information on the respondent’s trip char-acteristics and provide them information about the overall study. Atthe end of the interview the researcher provided the participantwith a nine-page mail-back questionnaire that contained a postagepaid envelope. Using Dillman’s (2000) Tailored Method Approach,a follow-up postcard was mailed one week after the original mail-back was distributed. If the mail-back was not returned afteranother two weeks, a new mail-back survey was sent to theparticipant. From September 30, 2006 to March 31, 2007 a total of703 on-site interviews were completed. Forty-three participantsrefused to take a mail-back survey resulting in the distribution of660 mail-back questionnaires. Of the mail-back surveys distributed295 were returned for a 44.7% response rate (ATV¼ 219, OHM¼ 37,FWD¼ 39).

Evaluating tolerance for lifestyle diversity

Researchers have measured tolerance for lifestyle diversity witha variety of techniques within the literature. Based on Jacob andSchreyer’s proposition of tolerance, some studies have takena more direct or norms approach and evaluated tolerance based ondesirable and undesirable contact within and between activitygroups (Thapa & Graefe, 2004; Vaske et al., 2000) or perceivedcompatibility between two activities (Ivy, Stewart, & Lue, 1992).Other studies have assessed tolerance with a social valuesapproach, examining beliefs and attitudes between activity groups(Blahna, Smith, & Anderson, 1995; Carothers, Vaske, & Donnelly,2001; Watson, Williams, & Daigle, 1991). Also, the internal reli-ability of some of the scales used to measure tolerance has beeninconsistent. In measuring tolerance levels between those oper-ating canoes and those operating motorboats, the reliability foreach activity group’s tolerance index varied and overall was atlower then usually acceptable values (Ivy et al., 1992). Whenassessing the degree of tolerance between skiers and snow-boarders Vaske et al. (2000) was more successful and achievingacceptable levels of internal validity and reliability then previoustolerance studies which focused on the same activity groups(Thapa & Graefe, 1999).

Jacob and Schreyer (1980) proposed that when group differ-ences were evaluated as undesirable or a potential threat torecreation goals, then conflict is likely to occur. In order to beconsistent with this statement as well as maintain the ability tocompare tolerance results within this study to previous studies, thisstudy utilized a two item index measuring the extent of agreementto which the presence of other OHV activity groups were bother-some and undesirable. The statements used to compose the toler-ance index were repeated for each user group resulting in a total ofthree tolerance indices. The final Cronbach’s alpha for each indexindicated all three were reliable (ATV a¼ .87; OHM a¼ .86; FWDa¼ .80). (Table 1). The authors acknowledge that ATV riderscompose the majority of mail-back respondents, however, ATVriders generally make up the majority of OHV riding populationwithin the study area.

Evaluating resource preferences

In order to define which areas of the forest riders found to bethe most desirable for OHV recreation, as well as to examine thepotential inability to share the same resources, riders werepresented with a list of 13 spatial descriptions of physicalsettings (8 vegetation, 2 soil, and 3 water) that were foundwithin the study area (please refer to Tables 4 and 5 for attri-bute descriptions). These spatial descriptions were developedfrom conversations with local area managers about potential

riding habitat characteristics that existed within the study areaas well as examinations of a GIS land use land cover shapefile ofthe study area. Respondents were asked to rate the extent towhich they liked or disliked each of the described physicalsettings when operating an OHV specifically within OcalaNational Forest.

Analysis of social data

A series of Welch t-tests were used to assess perceived differ-ences relating to tolerance for lifestyle diversity where the inde-pendent variable was the individual’s activity group (ATV, OHM, orFWD), and the dependent variable was the tolerance index. Theindividual’s activity group was based on the participant’s primaryactivity of the day. To compensate for unequal sample sizesbetween rider groups, the Welch t-test statistic was used to eval-uate mean differences (Algina, Olejnik, & Ocanto, 1989; Turner &Thayer, 2001).

A principle component analysis (PCA)with varimax rotationwasused to further examine the eight vegetation physical settingvariables in order to see if there were any underlying dimensionsfor desired vegetation attributes, and to examine the potential ofreducing the number of variables being mapped. Due to the smallnumber of soil and water variables as well as the desire to incor-porate different spatial layers within the GIS spatial analysis theother variables were left as is. All social data analysis was con-ducted using SPSS v 11.5.

Spatial analysis

Once the social data were analyzed, a four-step spatial analysisprocess was carried out. First, a desktop analysis was completed tohelp assess where OHV recreation could potentially take placewithin the study area. This entailed gathering all available spatialinformation on threatened and endangered species, sensitivehabitats (i.e. wetlands), cultural resources, existing recreationopportunities (i.e. facilities and trails), and roads. Federal and stateguidelines were consulted in creating buffers for each attribute(FDOF, 2005; U.S.D.A., 1999, 2005). The final desktop analysis wasdeveloped into a single map through an overlay process, andutilized as an analysis mask later in the spatial analysis procedure.

Table 2Rider profiles by activity group.

Demographic variables ATV (%)(n¼ 218)

OHM (%)(n¼ 38)

FWD(%) (n¼ 39)

TOTAL (%)(n¼ 295)

GenderMale 78.2 94.1 64.9 78.3Female 21.8 5.9 35.1 21.7X2¼ 8.951; p< .01 df¼ 2

Age18e29 years old 14.9 17.1 32.4 17.530e39 years old 38.5 25.7 21.6 34.640e49 years old 32.7 45.7 16.2 32.150e59 years old 11.5 11.4 16.2 12.160 years or over 2.4 0.0 13.5 3.6X2¼ 26.844; p< .001 df¼ 8

Income$19,999 or less 1.0 3.7 3.0 1.6$20,000e$39,999 14.1 7.4 21.2 14.3$40,000e$59,999 17.7 3.7 24.2 17.1$60,000e$79,999 21.4 33.3 15.2 21.8$80,000e$99,999 15.1 11.1 12.1 14.3$100,000 or more 30.7 40.7 24.2 31.0X2¼ 11.47; p¼ ns df¼ 10

Education>Some high school 6.0 8.1 5.4 6.1High school diploma 31.0 27.0 27.0 30.0Some college 32.0 32.4 32.4 21.1College graduate 20.7 24.3 24.3 21.7Some graduate school 3.0 5.4 0.0 2.9Graduate degree 7.4 2.7 10.8 7.2X2¼ 7.708; p¼ ns df¼ 10

EthnicityWhite 94.2 97.1 100.0 95.3Hispanic or Latino 3.9 2.9 0.0 3.3African American 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4Asian American 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.7X2¼ 2.884; p¼ ns df¼ 6

Table 3Tolerance for lifestyle diversity between OHV rider groups.

Tolerance measuresa Activity style Welch stat

ATV OHM FWD

Tolerance between ATV and OHM 1.62 1.96 e 5.07Tolerance between ATV and FWD 1.66 e 3.24 73.75*Tolerance between OHM and FWD e 2.08 3.34 26.61*

*p< .01.a 1¼ strongly disagree; 3¼ neutral; 5¼ strongly agree.

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e97 89

Second, the physical resource variables were grouped into 3main categories; vegetation, soil, and water. Each of these threephysical setting categories were then paired with a correspondingGIS layer. Each attribute within each GIS layer was then reclassifiedinto attributes that matched the groupings of each environmentalcharacteristic presented to respondents. Specifics on how eachlayer was reclassified are provided within the results section. Lastly,these newly reclassified categories were assigned new valuesaccording to the mean of each rider group within each GIS layer.

Third, each GIS layer for each activity group was combinedthrough an overlay process in order to create a recreation terrainpreference map for each rider group (Kliskey, 2000). The analysismask created in step one was also combined with the other threeexisting layers (vegetation, soil, and water) within this step so onlyareas that could actually be used to create OHV riding opportunitieswere considered in the final analysis. Once the four layers werecombined, each activity group’s recreation terrain preference mapwas collapsed into three ranges of high, medium, and low prefer-ence (Carr & Zwick, 2005) according to the maps standard devia-tion. Standard deviation reclassification usually results in fairlyequal intervals, allowing for a fair comparison between layers (Carr& Zwick, 2007). The final recreation terrain preference maps weremeant to model preference only, and were not necessarily repre-sentative of actual use. The individual models assume that riderswill choose terrain with physical landscape resources that are bestsuited to meet their riding needs, and that the higher the prefer-ence for an area the more likely they are to want to ride within thatarea to achieve some desired goal(s) (Kliskey, 2000).

Fourth, the three recreation terrain preference models werecombined in an overlay process creating a single potential conflictmap that could represent all possible combinations of conflict dueto low tolerance between the three activity groups (Carr & Zwick,2005). Conflict potential was noted to occur anytime when atleast two user groups were shown to have significant differenttolerance levels toward one another and shared the highest pref-erence for a given resource. When only one activity group had thehighest preference for a resource the area was given lead prefer-ence to that activity group.

All GIS layers with the exception of one were initially in vectorformat, however all final spatial results were converted to raster,with a grid size of 50 m during spatial analysis. All spatial analysiswas conducted within ArcGIS 9.0.

Results

Socio-demographics

Results mirror previous OHV studies showing that respondentstended to be white, educated (beyond high school), and earn anannual household income of $60,000 or more (Cordell et al., 2005;Fly et al., 2002; Parent et al., 2007). Overall, respondents tended tobe white (95.3%), male (78.3%), and between the ages of 30 and 39years old (34.6%). Individuals operatingOHMsweremore likely tobemale (94.1%) compared to those operating FWD vehicles (64.9%)(X2¼ 8.951, p< .01). Individuals operating FWD vehicles were alsosignificantly more likely to be younger (32.4%) compared to otherrider groups (X2¼ 26.844, p< .01). All respondents were educatedreceiving at least some college education or beyond (52.9%), with nosignificant differences existed between riding groups (X2¼ 7.708,p¼ ns). Household annual income was variable ranging mostlybetween $60,000 or more annually (67.1%), with the largestpercentageof respondents reporting anannual household incomeof$100,000 or more annually (31.0%) followed by $60,000e$79,999(21.8%). No significant differences were found between rider groupsand reported annual household income (X2¼11.47, p¼ ns) (Table 2).

Tolerance for lifestyle diversity

Riders operating FWD vehicles were the least tolerant of bothATV and OHM riders. Specifically, individuals operating FWDvehicles were significantly less tolerant of ATV riders (mean¼ 3.24)than ATV riders were of FWD operators (mean¼ 1.66). Four-wheeldrive operators were also significantly less tolerant of those oper-ating OHMs (mean¼ 3.34) compared to OHM operators tolerancetoward FWD operators (mean¼ 2.08). Lastly, there were statisti-cally significant differences between ATV and OHM tolerance levelstoward each other. However, a review of the rider groups meanscores reveal that both rider groups disagree with the indexstatements. Therefore, it can be concluded that although significantdifferences exist between ATV and OHM rider groups, the differ-ences hold little practical meaning for managers, and more focusshould be placed on the intolerance of FWD operators toward ATVand OHM rider groups (Table 3).

Table 4Principle component analysis results.

Variable Component 1 Component 2

VegetationDominated by pine trees and wiregrass .837Dominated by hardwoods and shrubs .913Dominated by a mix of pine trees and

hardwoods.900

Scrub .418A mix of pine trees and open spaces .860A mix of hardwood trees and open spaces .835A mix of pine trees and hardwoods and

open spaces.796

Open with no presence of vegetation .575Percent of variance explained 36.1% 32.7%Cronbach Alpha .82 .73

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e9790

Preferences for environmental resources

Stated resource preferencesThe principle component analysis of the eight vegetation vari-

ables revealed two components explaining 68.8% of the variance,and each component was reliable (Table 4). The first componentrepresented those who have a desire to ride in areas with densevegetation (a¼ .82), and the second component represented thosewho have a desire to ride in more open settings (a¼ .73). Neithercomponent showed a preference for any particular ecosystem type,rather the overall preference was focused on vegetation density.

Overall, all rider groups shared the same preferences for openhabitats. Those who operated ATVs and OHMs shared similarpreference for dense habitats (mean¼ 3.70 and 3.62 respectively),while those who operated FWD vehicles held a slightly lowerpreference (mean¼ 3.30). Those who operated FWD vehicles werealso more likely to place a higher preference on sandy soilscompared to other rider groups (mean¼ 3.62) who placed higherpreferences on compact soils, particularly for those operatingOHMs (mean¼ 4.59). The ability to see water at least some of thetime was the most preferred scenic attribute for all three groups incomparison to the desire to not see water at all (Table 5).

Mapped resource preferencesEach of the resource variables were paired with an appropriate

GIS layer. The final two vegetation components derived form thePCA analysis were paired with a forest density layer. The forestdensity layer was reclassified to match the National VegetationClassification System (NVCS) standards for forest density. UnderNVCS areas of dense forest were classified as having 60% closedcanopy cover within each cell, and area 0e59% were classified as

Table 5OHV rider’s resource preferences.

Variable Mean scoresa

ATV OHM FWD

VegetationOpen habitats 3.63 3.79 3.64Dense habitats 3.70 3.62 3.30

SoilsCompact soils 4.00 4.59 3.11Dry/sandy soils 3.34 2.89 3.62

Scenic attributesWhere water cannot be seen 2.37 2.51 2.75Where water can be seen some of the time 3.95 3.81 3.76Where water can be seen all of the time 3.51 3.38 3.19

a 1¼ strongly dislike; 3¼ neutral; 5¼ strongly like.

open areas (Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1997; NatureConservancy, 1994).

Soils were paired with a soils layer and were reclassified intocompact and sandy soils according to soil drainage. Soils that wereclassified as excessively well to moderately well drained wereconsidered to be sandy soils. Soils that were classified as somewhatpoorly drained to very poorly drained were classified as compactsoils (Whiting, Card, & Wilson, 2006).

The end result of a viewshed analysis which incorporateda digital elevation model (50 m) as an input layer and a watersurface (i.e. lakes, ponds, rivers) as the observer points was used toassess where water could and could not be seen within the forest.The model did not incorporate the effect of the density or height ofthe trees within the area. To assess areas where water “could beseen at least some of the time” a straight line distance analysis fromall surface water was conducted and zonal statistics were consultedto obtain the average distance within the forest where water couldalways be seen. Areas falling equal to or less then this averagedistancewere classified as areas where a rider would bemore likelyto see water at least some of the time. Areas greater than theaverage distance were classified as areas where riders were lesslikely to see water some of the time.

Areas where ATV riders have the highest preference forresources tended to occur around the western and easternboundaries of the forest (Fig. 2), and made up 6.57% of the studyarea. These areas were mostly composed of compact soils, andtended to be where water could be seen at least some of the time.Vegetation is more likely to be dense, being composed mostly ofhardwoods and are in close proximity to wetlands. Areas ofmedium preference were found in close proximity to highlypreferred areas and made up 36.75% of the study area. Lastly, areasof the lowest preference made up the majority of the study area(56.59%) and are located throughout the central portions of theforest where soils tend to be dry, sandy, andwater is less likely to bevisible. Vegetation within the low preference areas is mixedbetween open and dense habitats, but is mostly composed of pinescrub habitat (Table 6).

Similar to ATV riders, OHM riders had the highest preference forresources that occurred on the eastern border and some highpreference areas on the western border composing 9.15% of thetotal area (Fig. 3). Likewise, areas of medium preference occur inclose proximity to high preference areas and accounted for 30.83%of the area. Low preference areas accounted for 60.01% of the totalarea, and are mostly located within the central region of the forest(Table 6).

Four-wheel drive operators have more high preference areas incomparison to the other rider groups (31.69%), and can be found inthe northeast, southeast, and southwestern areas of the forest(Table 6). These areas tend to occur in close proximity to water, ondrier soils, and in dense vegetation. Medium preference areas werealso more scattered about, but could be found mostly within thesouth central region of the forest. These areas were more likely tobe composed of drier soils and within more open habitats. Theability to see water is also more limited. Similar to the other ridergroups, areas of low preference are mostly located within thecentral region of the forest (Fig. 4).

Mapping potential conflict

Since the results of potential conflict related to tolerance amongthe three rider groups revealed that individuals operating FWDvehicles were more likely to experience conflict as a result of lowtolerance compared to those operating OHMs and ATVs, conflictwas noted to occur when those operating FWD vehicles and at leastone other rider group shared the highest preference for an area. An

Fig. 2. ATV recreation terrain preference model.

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e97 91

areawas given lead preference to a rider group when theywere theonly group to have the highest preference for the area. Conflict asa result of low tolerance could potentially occur between FWDoperators and other rider groups on approximately 39% of theforest (Fig. 5); however, a large portion (36.94%) of that potentialwould occur in areas of shared low preference. Conflict betweenFWDs and ATVs was likely to occur in just over 9% (9.47%) of thearea, 4.07% of which both groups share high resource preferences(Table 7).

Not all areas showed the potential for conflict to occur (Fig. 6).For those who operated FWD vehicles, just over 25% (25.03%) of

Table 6Composition of preferred areas for OHV riders.

Rider group Composition of preferred areas (%)

High Medium Low

ATV 6.57 36.75 56.59OHM 9.15 30.83 60.01FWD 31.69 29.38 38.92

high preference areas showed lower levels of potential conflictsince these are areas that FWD operators preferred more than anyother rider group. Similar to the FWD recreation terrain preferencemaps, these areas occur in the northeast, southeast, and south-western portions of the area. Likewise, 17.67% of areas givenmedium preference by FWD operators are also less likely to expe-rience conflict since these are areas of low preference for otherrider groups (Table 7). Medium preference areas tend to mostlyoccur in the south central region of the forest, with a few scatteredareas in the north central region.

In addition, OHM operators had some areas where conflictpotential was less likely since this group held higher preferences forresources than other rider groups within these areas. These areastended to be more spread out along the eastern and westernborders of the forest accounting for 6.56% of the area (Table 7), andtended to occur in the northeast, southeast, and west centralportions of the forest (Fig. 6). Areas where medium preference wasgiven were most likely to exist within the southeastern portion ofthe forest, and accounted for 1.51% of the area.

There were no areas where ATV riders has lead preference.

Fig. 3. OHM recreation terrain preference model.

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e9792

Discussion & management recommendations

The social data collected allowed for the identification ofpotential conflict as a result of low tolerance, and the spatialanalysis provided further insight that conflict related to low toler-ance is most likely to occur based on OHV rider’s shared resourcepreferences. Survey results were reflective of similar conflictstudies and further supports that conflict tends to be asymmetrical.Significant differences in the degree of tolerance occurred betweenall rider groups. As stated previously, the statistically significantdifferences between ATVs and OHMs hold little practical value formanagers. A review of the mean scores indicates that those oper-ating ATVs “strongly disagree” with items stating they are nottolerant of OHMs while those operating OHMs only “disagree”withsimilar statements referring to ATV operators. Therefore, it could beconcluded that while some differences exist, overall tolerancelevels between ATVs and OHMs are fairly high. However, managersshould continue to monitor for conflict between these rider groupsin order to evaluate changing or evolving perceptions of conflictover time.

Four-wheel drive operators tolerance toward out-groupmembers was significant and comparatively lower toward ATV and

OHM rider groups, suggesting that those who operate four-wheeldrive vehicles are more likely to perceive themselves differentlyand more likely to find it undesirable to encounter those operatingATV and OHMs. The differences in tolerance levels betweenFWD operators and other rider groups may also result in aninability to share resources (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Implicationsand solutions for this are discussed further under managementrecommendations.

According to the Theory of Goal Interference, tolerance forlifestyle diversity is generally affected by an individual’s view oftechnology and resource consumption as well as prejudice (Jacob &Schreyer, 1980). Previous research on OHV visitors and commentsfrom members of the OHV community has shown that ATV andOHM riders typically desire trail riding opportunities (Crimmins &NOHVCC, 2006; Wernex, 1994) while FWD operators tend to desiremore technical challenges for their vehicle (Kawaja, 2006; Neal,1999). As a result, the way in which the various groups of OHVsmanipulate the environment may be viewed differently by thosewho operate FWD vehicles. This could then contribute to differentlevels of tolerance toward other riding groups. Prejudice andstereotypical views can be influenced by ethnicity, gender, age, andsocial class (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). A review of socio-demographics

Fig. 4. FWD recreation terrain preference model.

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e97 93

between rider groups shows that individuals operating FWDvehicles tended to be younger and were a more even mix of malesand females compared to other rider groups suggesting that thedifferences in tolerance may be a function of age and/or gender.

Management recommendations

For this study, analysis focused on planning efforts, specificallyinvestigating the potential for conflict between rider groups asa possible key issue of concern. By understanding and acknowl-edging that OHV rider groups, particularly those operating FWDvehicles, perceive themselves as different from one another,managers can incorporate this knowledge into the planningprocess in order to help minimize conflict that may later result inunsafe trail conditions due to unacceptable behavior (Dolesh,

2004). As mentioned earlier, many studies that have takena more direct approach to examining conflict related to tolerance,have found tolerance to exist between activity groups, and havesuggested these activities should be spatially separated. Thisrecommendation is also suggested here; however, not all riders willhave the desire to be separated from other rider groups. Althoughthe potential for conflict exists, conflict itself is never rampant(Graefe & Thapa, 2004). Rather, it tends to affect a small percentageof the population and the majority of visitors are generally satisfied(Manning, 1999). Therefore, it may be possible that a greatermajority of users can be managed within a multiple use setting,while still providing some single use trail opportunities for thosewho are more likely to experience conflict. The results from thespatial analysis can aid managers in developing alternativemanagement and trail development solutions of how to best

Fig. 5. Potential conflict map.

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e9794

achieve the single and multiple use separation between activitygroups while still providing opportunities within areas riders mayfind desirable.

For example, looking at the potential conflict map, areas notedas “potential conflict” may be better suited for multiple use areas

Table 7Composition of potential conflict areas and lead preference areas.

Potential conflict Percentageof area (%)

All in potential conflict, all low preference 36.94All in potential conflict, all medium preference 0.21All in potential conflict, all high preference 2.58Potential conflict between ATV and FWDs (both share

medium preference)5.40

Potential conflict between ATV and FWDs (both sharehigh preference)

4.07

OHM riders have lead preference (medium preference) 1.51OHM riders have lead preference (high preference) 6.56FWD riders have lead preference (medium preference) 17.67FWD riders have lead preference (high preference) 25.03

since these are areas that all rider groups prefer. Areas that had“lead preference” for a specific rider group may be best suited forsingle use areas. Given that the recreation terrain preferencemodels assumed that riders would chose areas that best suitedtheir needs, then opportunities could be planned in areas of highpreference. However, the majority of areas that were all in potentialconflict were areas of low preferences and found within the centralregion of the forest while areas of higher preference were aroundthe forest boundaries. In addition, areas of high preference for bothATV and OHM riders also tended to occur around the forest outerboundaries. This proximity to residential and/or commercial areasmay pose an additional challenge to managers seeking tomaximizeopportunities within preferred settings that also help minimizeconflict, indicating that what may be desired is not always possible.Both visitors and managers must be flexible and willing tocompromise if quality opportunities are to be created within theresources available (Moore, 1994).

Also, OHV recreation is a dispersed activity requiring largeareas for trail riding opportunities. Creating trails within appro-priate riding areas that consider riders physical setting prefer-ences and allows for dispersed use will help minimize conflict as

Fig. 6. Areas of lead preference for rider groups.

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e97 95

a result of less social contact. Dispersing use may also result inmore sustainable trails in the long run, allowing for continuedquality recreation opportunities (Crimmins & NOHVCC, 2006). Itis often thought that dispersing use over large areas will createlarger and more frequent resource impacts (both ecological andbiological). However, dispersing use so that riders are morespread out along a trail system will have neither a positive ornegative effect on the environment assuming that the number ofplaces through which the trail traverses is the same as if use

were concentrated (Hammitt & Cole, 1998). Results from thespatial analysis can help define specific areas in which a diversetrail system could be created. Referring back to the potentialconflict map and considering the need to provide diversity, areascontaining the greatest, continuous mix of opportunities wouldbe the most suitable areas to disperse use over a large area.

Lastly, managers can provide education in order to promotetolerance between rider groups. Often, visitors are more similarthan they perceive themselves to be, and it has been suggested that

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e9796

promoting an understanding of other activity groups’ motivations,attire, and techniques specific to the activity may help raise toler-ance toward out-groups (Ramthun, 1995). Education may also helppromote an awareness of responsible and sustainable behavior byall recreation activity groups, thereby reducing the overall impactto the resource (Manning, 1999). Using a combination of spatialseparation and education can help create opportunities for thosewho are more sensitive to experiencing conflict while providinginformation to users who may help build tolerance between ridergroups over time.

Conclusions

This study adds to the existing body of knowledge in severalways. First, it examines perceived differences related to tolerancewithin the OHV visitor community, a group not yet previouslystudied within this context. Results indicate that not all OHV ridersperceive themselves the same, and managers should take that intoconsideration when creating riding opportunities. If these differ-ences are ignored, negative consequences that affect visitor safety,visitor experiences, and resource protection may occur (Moore,1994). Authors acknowledge that the majority of participantswithin this study were ATV riders. Although this was reflective ofthe use and balance of OHV visitors within the study area, futureresearch should examine conflict and tolerance within andbetween ATV, OHM, and FWD user groups of equal size to deter-mine if similar conclusions are derived.

This study also took a new approach to examining the spatialcontext of conflict related to tolerance in order to help identifywhere conflict related to low tolerancewasmost likely to occur. Thespatial identification of conflict may be used as a possible tool toassist managers in identifying where to concentrate managementefforts as it relates to minimizing recreation conflict. Also, thespatial identification of conflict and terrain preference maps mayalso be used to assist managers in creating alternative solutionswhen planning for new recreation opportunities that consider ridergroup preferences as well as rider group differences. Although thisstudy took a planning approach in the Ocala National Forest, themethods could be adapted to assess conflict potential related totolerance on existing trail systems in a variety of areas. Specifically,this study used a management mask so that only areas suitable forriding were evaluated. For an existing trail system, a trails layerwould be used instead of a mask, thereby containing all evaluationsto the trail system.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by the T. Mark SchmidtOff-Highway Vehicle Recreation and Safety Act through the FloridaDivision of Forestry Grant Program.

References

Algina, J., Olejnik, S., & Ocanto, R. (1989). Type I error and power estimations forselected two-sample tests of scale. Journal of Educational Statistics, 14, 373e384.

Blahna, D., Smith, K., & Anderson, J. (1995). Backcountry llama packing: visitorperceptions of acceptability and conflict. Leisure Sciences, 17, 185e204.

Bosworth, D. (2004). Four threats to the national forests and grasslands. Idahoenvironmental forum. Boise, ID: U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

Brown, G. (2005). Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resourcemanagement. Society Natural Resources, 18, 17e39.

Buckley, R. (2004). Environmental impacts of ecotourism. Oxford: CABI Publishing.Carothers, P., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2001). Social values vs. interpersonal

conflict among hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 23, 47e61.Carr, M. H., & Zwick, P. (2005). Using GIS suitability analysis to identify potential

future land use conflicts in North Central Florida. Journal of Conservation Plan-ning, 1, 89e105.

Carr, M. H., & Zwick, P. (2007). Smart land-use analysis: The LUCIS model. Redlands, CA.

Chavez, D. J., & Knap, N. E. (2006). Manager perceptions of issues and actions for off-highway vehicle management on national forests in California. Res. Paper PSW-RP-250. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture.

Clark, R. N., & Stankey, G. H. (1979). The recreation opportunity spectrum: A frame-work for planning, management, and research (Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-98). U.S.D.A.Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Research Station.

Cordell, H., Betz, K., Green, G., & Owens, M. (2005). Off-highway vehicle recreation inthe United States: Regions and states: A national report from the national survey ofrecreation and environment (NSRE). Asheville, NC: U.S.D.A. Forest Service,Southern Research Station. January 19, 2006.

Crimmins, T. M., & the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council. (2006).Management guidelines for OHV recreation. Great Falls, MT.

Daniels, S. E., & Krannich, R. S. (1990). The recreational opportunity spectrum asa conflict management tool. In J. Vining (Ed.), Social science and natural resourcemanagement (pp. 165e179). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. NewYork: J. Wiley.

Dolesh, R. J. (2004). Tough terrain: the conflicts associated with multiple-use trails.Parks and Recreation, 39, 56e63.

Falbo, D., Queen, L., & Blinn, C. (1991). Introduction to data analysis usinga geographic information system. Minnesota Extension Service Publication, NR-FO-5740-E.

Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee. (1997). Vegetationclassification standard. Retrieved on April 30, 2006 from. http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/vegetation/index_html.

Fisher, A. L., Blahna, D. J., & Bahr, R. (2001). Off highway vehicle used and ownerpreference in Utah. Prepared for Utah Department of Natural Resources, Divisionof Parks and Recreation. Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, UtahState University.

Florida Department of Forestry (FDOF). (2005). Silviculture best managementpractices: appendix 2 soils. Retrieved on April 25, 2006 from. http://www.fl-dof.com/forest_management/bmp/page_58.html.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), & Florida Department of Natural Resources(FDNR). (1990). Guide to the natural communities of Florida. Tallahassee, FL.

Fly, J. M., Stephens, B., Askins, L., & Hodges, D. (2002). Tennessee OHV user survey.Knoxville, TN: Human Dimensions Lab; Division of Forestry, Wildlife, andFisheries. University of Tennessee.

Gimblett, H. R., & Guisse, A. W. (1997). Assessing and mapping conflictingrecreation values in state park settings using neural networks. AI Applications,11, 79e89.

Graefe, A. R., & Thapa, B. (2004). Conflict in natural resource recreation. InM. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, & P. J. Brown (Eds.), Societynatural resources a summary of knowledge (pp. 209e224). PA: University Park.

Hammitt, W. E., & Cole, D. N. (1998). Wildland recreation: Ecology and management(2nd ed.).. New York, NY.

Hammitt, W. E., & Schneider, I. E. (2000). Recreation conflict management. InW. C. Gartner, & D. W. Lime (Eds.), Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure, andtourism (pp. 347e356). CAB International Publishing.

Havlick, D. (2002). No place distant: Roads and motorized recreation on Americaspublic lands. Washington, D.C: Island Press.

Ivy, M. I., Stewart, W. P., & Lue, C. (1992). Exploring the role of tolerance in recre-ation conflict. Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 348e360.

Jacob, G. R. (1977). Conflict in outdoor recreation e the search for understanding.Utah Tourism and Recreation Review, 6, 1e5.

Jacob, G. R., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflicts in outdoor recreation: a theoreticalperspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 368e380.

Kawaja, J. (2006). Comments of the route designation in the sand pine scrubecosystem. Retrieved on January 2, 2007 from. http://www.fl4wda.com/pdf/phase2_comments.pdf.

Kliskey, A. D. (2000). Recreation terrain suitability mapping: a spatially explicitlymethodology for determining recreation potential for resource use assessment.Landscape and Urban Planning, 52, 33e43.

Manning, R. E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satis-faction (2nd ed.).. Corvallis, OR.

Moore, R. L. (1994). Conflict on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and stateof practice. Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Federal Highway Administration.

Naber, M. D., & Leung, Y. (2006). Technology lends a helping hand: recreationmanagers are learning the benefits of using geospatial technologies in resourcemanagement. Parks and Recreation, 41, 24e29.

Neal, D. (1999). Life on the rocks: environmental perceptions of the rock crawlers,a western American recreational community. PhD dissertation, MemorialUniversity of Newfoundland.

Parent, G. D., Alavalapati, J. R. R., Stein, T. V., & Hodges, A. W. (2007). CMA economicimpact and visitor assessment survey final report. Submitted to the FloridaDivision of Forestry. Gainesville, FL: School of Forest Resources andConservation.

Ramthun, R. (1995). Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountainbikers. Leisure Sciences, 17, 159e169.

Reed, P., & Brown, G. (2003). Values suitability analysis: a methodology for iden-tifying and integrating public perceptions of ecosystem values in forest plan-ning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 643e658.

Sanyal, N. (2007). Using segmentation to develop an off-highway vehicle routesystem in the Colville national forest. Abstract Proceedings for the 13th inter-national symposium on society and resource management: Landscape continuity

R. Albritton, T.V. Stein / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 85e97 97

and change social science perspectives and interdisciplinary contributions. ParkCity, UT.

Snyder, S. A., Whitmore, J. H., Schneider, I. E., & Becker, D. R. (2008). Ecologicalcriteria, participant preferences and location models: a GIS approach towardATV trail planning. Applied Geography, 28(4), 248e258.

Thapa, B., & Graefe, A. R. (1999). Gender and age group differences in recreationconflict and tolerance among adult skiers and snowboarders (Gen. Tech. Rep.NE-255, 219-226) Proceedings of the 1998 northeastern recreation researchsymposium 1998. Radnor, PA: U.S.D.A., Forest Service.

Thapa, B., &Graefe, A. R. (2003). Level of skill and its relationship to recreation conflictand tolerance among adult skiers and snowboarders. World Leisure, 1, 13e25.

Thapa, B., & Graefe, A. R. (2004). Recreation conflict and tolerance amongskiers and snowboarders. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22,37e52.

The Nature Conservancy. (1994). Standardized national vegetation classificationsystem. Retrieved online on April 16 from. http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/classification/index.html.

Todd, S. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1989). Level of experience and perception of conflictamong canoeists on the Delaware River. In Northeast proceedings of the 1989northeastern recreation research symposium (pp. 147e156). Burlington, VT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-132.

Turner, J. Rick, & Thayer, J. (2001). Introduction to analysis of variance. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications. Focus on explaining different types of designs.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. (1999). Revised land and resource management plan fornational forests in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: U.S.D.A.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. (2005). FEIS and appendices. In Final environmental impactstatement for the access designation on the Ocala national forest, Vol. 1. Talla-hassee, FL: U.S.D.A.

Vaske, J. J., Carothers, P., Donnelly, M. P., & Baird, B. (2000). Recreation conflictamong skiers and snowboarders. Leisure Sciences, 22, 297e313.

Watson, A., Niccolucci, M., & Williams, D. (1994). The nature of conflict betweenhikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal ofLeisure Research, 26, 372e385.

Watson, A., Williams, D., & Daigle, J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers andmountain bikers in Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Adminis-tration, 9, 59e71.

Wernex, J. (1994). Off-highway motorcycle and ATV trails guidelines for design,construction, maintenance and user satisfaction (2nd ed.). Pickerington, OH:American Motorcycle Association.

Whiting, D., Card, A., & Wilson, C. (2006). Soil drainage. Document 217. ColoradoState University Extension. Retrieved online on April 15. 2007 from. http://cmg.colostate.edu/gardennotes/217.pdf.

Wildlaw. (2006). Undesignated OHV routes in the Apalachicola and Ocala nationalforests: Inventory, maps, and recommendations. Tallahassee, FL.

Wing, M., & Shelby, B. (1999). Using GIS to integrate information on forest recrea-tion. Journal of Forestry, 97(1), 12e16.