U.S. Department of AgricultureThe Recreation Opportunity

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Forestand Range Experiment Station

Spectrum: A Framework forGeneral Technical ReportPNW-98 December 1979 Planning, Management, and

ResearchRoger N. Clark and George H. Stankey

PREFACE

In 1890, two alpine lakes on theeast flank of the Cascade Range inWashington State--Little Kachess andBig Kachess--were accessible only bygame trails and were used infrequentlyby people. The lakes (about 2 milesapart) were connected by a trout-filledstream. The area was rich in wildlife.Groves of trees many hundreds of yearsold were interspersed through the area.Human impacts were virtually non-existent; only a few people enteredthe area for recreational activities.Hunters and a few trappers were knownto use the area on occasion. TheKachess area offered a true wildernessopportunity for those wishing to use it.

In the early 1900’s, as part ofits water program, the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation designated the Kachessdrainage as a potential impoundment,and a dam was soon constructed. Thewater in the newly created lake reachedits first high level in the spring of1912. The resulting lake, known asLake Kachess, was approximately 11miles long and became an attractionfor a variety of recreationalactivities. For the next severaldecades, the road system used forbuilding the dam and for logging wasexpanded, facilitating access torecreational opportunities. Evidenceof use became obvious as people campedand played along both the lakeshoreand several streams that emptied intothe recently completed lake. Theprimeval conditions that oncecharacterized Lake Kachess were nolonger present, but the people whocame looking for semiprimitive typesof recreation were apparently happywith what they found.

By the 1940’s, use at Lake Kachesshad increased markedly, and severalcamping areas had been established byusers. Firepits abounded in favoredspots, trails led to prime fishinglocations, and vegetation had beentrampled in frequently used areas. Inresponse to these impacts, the USDAForest Service, the agency responsiblefor managing the area adjacent to thelake, developed several sites that hadbeen heavily used for recreation alongthe west side of the lake. Roads wereimproved and rustic tables and outhousesinstalled. Agency presence became moreevident as fire prevention and direc-tional signs and a list of Federalregulations regarding recreational usewere posted. The area, now much moredeveloped, appealed to people lookingfor some of the conveniences of modernliving. Most were apparently happywith what they found.

In response to rapidly growingrecreational use and the increasingimpact on resources, the USDA ForestService further modified the area inthe early 1960’s. Paved roads weredeveloped within the campgrounds, anew camping area was constructed toaccommodate the increasing number oftravel trailers, and heavily used areaswere closed to overnight camping.Parking barriers were also added toprevent cars from driving off estab-lished road systems. The 100-acrerecreation complex included threeseparate camping areas with a totalcapacity for nearly 100 parties, anda mile-long nature trail. Mostresemblance to a primitive area haddisappeared by this time. Campers hadthe convenience of paved roads, moderntoilets, and running water. Campersseeking modern kinds of campingopportunities came in ever-increasingnumbers and were apparently happy withwhat they found.

As use increased, the USDA ForestService further developed the area.New campsites brought the total tonearly 200. More flush toilets,permanent fireplaces, and concrete andwood tables were built. The accessroad, extending some 5 miles fromInterstate 90, was widened and paved.By the late 1970’s, Lake Kachessrepresented a modern, highly developed,intensively used recreation complex,readily accessible to large numbers ofpeople. On a typical Summer weekend,hundreds of recreationists enjoy avariety of pastimes.

The level of recreationalactivities in the Lake Kachess areahas slowly evolved for more than three-quarters of a century from a primitiveenvironment to a highly developed,modern setting for recreation. Severalquestions can be asked about thisprocess of change: What opportunitiesfor recreation was Lake Kachess bestsuited to provide? What range or mixof opportunities might be developed inconjunction with the Lake Kachessdevelopment? What effects have pastmanagement decisions had on opportuni-ties for recreation in the area? Howhave the, changes in the nature of theopportunity affected the kinds ofexperiences the area provides?

The scenario of recreationaldevelopment at Lake Kachess is notuncommon. Many campground andrecreational areas throughout thecountry have followed a similar patternof development. Nor are the questionswe raise unusual. In the followingpages, we try to answer them.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

DIVERSITY AND QUALITY IN OUTDOOR RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

THE LINK BETWEEN RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND EXPERIENCES . . . . . . . . . 5

DEFINING OPPORTUNITY FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Opportunity Setting Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82. Nonrecreational resource uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93. Onsite management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Social interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115. Acceptability of visitor impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136. Acceptable regimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF FACTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Other Features of Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Inconsistencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

USING THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Allocating and Planning Recreational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Inventory of Recreational Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Identifying the Consequences of Management Actions . . . . . . . . . . . 24Matching Desired Experiences with Available Opportunities . . . . . . . . 24

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

RESEARCH NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Page

INTRODUCTION

Today, many agencies at Federal,State, and local levels are respondingto the burgeoning demand for outdoorrecreation. In addition, many privatefirms offer facilities and servicesfor recreation, such as campgrounds,computerized reservation systems, andequipment rentals. With this expansionin the demand for recreational serviceshas come a number of complex policyissues. What range and mix ofopportunities should be provided andwhat are the roles of the varioussuppliers? Who can most effectivelyand efficiently serve public needs atnational, regional, and local levels?

In this paper we describe aframework for outdoor recreationmanagers and policymakers who mustanswer questions concerning both theallocation and management of opportuni-ties for recreation. This frameworkrests on the concept of the RecreationOpportunity Spectrum (ROS) . It isdistinguished by varying conditions,ranging from modern and developed toprimitive and undeveloped, or as Nash(1973) succinctly phrased it, “fromthe paved to the primeval.” We willreview the background of the opportunityspectrum concept and how it has beenused in the past; describe six manage-able factors or setting attributes thatinfluence the opportunities forrecreation; and describe uses of thespectrum concept for identifying andmeasuring the consequences of alter-native allocations of and managementactions on opportunities for outdoorrecreation.

Figure 1. --A recreation opportunitysetting includes features provided bynature or management and associated

with recreational use

THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITYSPECTRUM

In this paper we focus on thesetting in which recreation occurs.When considering opportunities foroutdoor recreation, people must makechoices about activities in which toengage, settings in which to recreate,and kinds of recreation experiences toseek. We believe that, by describingthe factors that influence or definethe range of possible settings and bycommunicating this information to rec-reationists, they will be able to choosethe experiences they desire.

We define a recreation opportunitysettine as the combination of physical.biological, social, and managerial con:ditions that give value to a place.Thus, an opportunity includes qualitiesprovided by nature (vegetation, land-scape , topography, scenery), qualitiesassociated with recreational use (levelsand types of use), and conditionsprovided by management (developments,roads, regulations). By combiningvariations of these qualities andconditions, management can provide avariety of opportunities for recreation-ists (fig. 1).

Recreation opportunity settingsimply a choice for recreationists;people must be aware of the opportuni-ties, and the opportunities must becomprised of conditions desired byrecreationists. Thus, opportunitiesare a function of user preference anda product of management actions designedto provide desired settings and to makepeople aware of their existence.

We recognize that the recreationalvalue of an opportunity is a functionof the perceived ability of thatopportunity to provide certain activitiesand experiences. Our definition focuseson the social, physical, and managerialattributes of settings, not on thepsychological values that may be derived.The link between the setting andexperiences or “psychological outcomes”(Driver and Brown 1978) is an issue towhich we will turn shortly.

The basic concept underlying ROSis not new. Many authors have remarkedthat a range or continuum of opportuni-ties is needed to efficiently servediverse public tastes for recreation.Wagar (1966) called for campgroundsranging from highly developed sitessuitable for modern self-containedcampers to remote locations accessibleonly to backpackers. Similar continuahave been suggested for hunting (Potteret al. 1973) wildland areas (Marshall1933, Lloyd and Fischer 1972, Helburn1977, Driver and Brown 1978), and parks(Field 1976, McCool and Elmer 1975).All these continua are characterized bya range of conditions from modern toprimitive.

The spectrum concept is alsoreflected in a variety of land manage-ment descriptions. A basic recommenda-tion of the Outdoor Recreation ResourcesReview Commission (1962) was forclassification of recreational resourcesalong “a spectrum from areas suitablefor high-density use to sparsely usedextensive primitive areas ."

To implement terms of the NationalForest Management Act (NFMA) (U.S. Laws,Statutes, etc. 1976a), the USDA ForestService published draft regulationsthat note, “a broad spectrum ofdispersed and developed recreationopportunities . . . will be provided.”Through provision of this spectrum,land management planners will best beable to offer the diversity deemed soimportant by NFMA. To develop opera-tional guidelines for the implementa-tion of the ROS, the USDA ForestService has established a task force ofmanagers and researchers. 1/ This groupwill be responsible for development ofprocedures to apply the opportunityspectrum concept on the ground. TheBureau of Land Management, U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, is similarlyinvolved in developing such guidelines.

1/ Members of the task force include ThomasHoots (Task Force Leader, Washington Office),John Asterford (San Bernadino National Forest),Wendell Beardsley (Northern Region, USDA ForestService), Perry Brown (Colorado State University),Leon Buist (University of Nevada), Roger Clark(Pacific Northwest Forest and Range ExperimentStation, USDA Forest Service), Charles McConnellRocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service),Gary Morrison (Mount Baker-Snoqualmie NationalForest), George Olson (North Carolina NationalForest), Doug smith (Southwestern Region, USDAForest Service), George Stankey (IntermountainForest and Range Experiment Station, USDA ForestService), Lance Tyler (Arapaho-Roosevelt NationalForest), Donald Warman (Pacific Northwest Region,USDA Forest Service), Bev Driver (Rocky MountainForest and Range Experiment Station, USDA ForestService).

The tabulation below furtherillustrates the spectrum concept asused in legislation, in land managementplanning’ procedures, and in user-oriented classifications of recreation-al opportunities, such as river running

and mountain climbing. These examplesare evidence of growing recognition byboth managers and recreationists of theimportance of diversity in settings forrecreational opportunities.

Federal legislation:

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act(U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.1976c)

Recognizes three classes of riversvarying in level of modification,development, and permitted activities

National Trails Act Recognizes three classes of trails(U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. varying in purpose, permitted uses,1976b) and adjacent development

National Forest ManagementAct (U.S. Laws, Statutes,etc. 1976a)

Federal agency planning:

USDA Forest Service

Heritage Conservation andRecreation Services(formerly Bureau ofOutdoor Recreation)

Opportunity for recreation:

River running (e.g. Arighiand Arighi 1974)

Mountain climbing(e.g., Robbins 1971)

Calls for providing a broad spectrumof dispersed and developed recreationalopportunities

Recognizes five recreation experiencelevels, ranging from those offeringchallenge, solitude, and demandinghigh skills to those involving extensivefacilities and few skills.

Recognizes six types of outdoorrecreation settings ranging from classI (high density recreation areas) toclass VI (historic and cultural sites)

International scale of river difficultyrecognizes six classes of conditions,ranging from class I (moving waterwith a few riffles and small waves,and no obstructions to class VI (nearlyimpossible, very dangerous)

International Decimal System describesclimbing skills ranging from class 1.0(hiking) to class 5.0 to 5.11 (increasinglydifficult piton-protected climbing)

DIVERSITY AND QUALITYIN OUTDOOR RECREATION

The basic assumption underlyingthe ROS is that quality in outdoorrecreation is best assured through pro-vision of a diverse set of opportunities.A wide range of tastes and preferencesfor recreational opportunities existsamong the public and, as Wagar (1966)points out, “Quality seems to be ahighly personalized matter.” Providinga wide range of settings varying inlevel of development, access,’ and soforth insures that the broadest segmentof the public will find quality rec-reational experiences, both now and inthe future (fig. 2).

The importance of supplying diverseopportunities for camping has beenillustrated by Wagar (1966). As heindicates, even a few different kindsof camping facilities greatly increasethe probability of meeting more people’sdesires. If any generalization can bemade from the body of knowledge aboutrecreationists, it is that people varyenormously in what they desire fromtheir recreational pursuits. Thisgeneralization is true, even forspecific categories of recreationists;not all campers, hikers, or wildernessusers are alike. Building managementprograms around average tastes cangreatly miss the mark, because oftensuch averages are statistical phenomenathat do not adequately account for thewide variation in tastes (Shafer 1969).

Figure 2. --The basic rationale under-lying the outdoor recreation oppor-tunity spectrum is that providingdiversity is the best way to assurequality outdoor recreation.

4

Diversity represents an importantcharacteristic of any recreation system.Managing opportunities for recreationto promote a diversity of experiencesis crucial for social equity (Watt 1972).Failing to provide diversity of oppor-tunity invites charges of favoritism,elitism, and discrimination. Further,diversity insures the flexibilitynecessary to mitigate changes or dis-turbances in the recreation systemstemming from such factors as socialchange (changing age structure of U.S.population) or technological change(outdoor recreation vehicles, etc.).

But diversity is only a means toan end. Quality recreation, producingdesired satisfactions and benefits forparticipants, is the objective andconcern of both managers and recreation-ists. But what is quality,? From anindividual perspective, it is fairlyeasy to describe a quality recreationalexperience. For one person, it mightbe an extended backpacking trip in avery primitive area. For another, itmight mean a camping trip in a motorhome along a lightly used logging road.For yet another, a quality recreationalexperience may be camping in a 500-unitintensively developed campgroundwhere it is easy to visit with otherpeople. Furthermore, the same personmay find all these experiences enjoy-able and of high quality at one timeor another. Recreation is indeed aphenomenon in which quality is in theeye of the beholder.

The existence of different con-ceptions of quality does not mean thatit is a meaningless concept; the pro-vision of opportunities for qualityoutdoor recreation is a legitimategoal of recreation management. Qualityis a relevant notion along the entirespectrum. Quality, then, is notjudged by the presence or absence ofsome factor (facilities, naturalness,or other visitors), but as the extentto which a given setting satisfies the

desires of a particular recreationist.The recreation opportunity spectrumhelps clarify the quality issue byproviding a framework that calls forthe systematic provision of diversesettings for recreation (fig. 3).

Figure 3. --The opportunity spectrum isnot a quality continuum. Qualityreflects the extent to which asetting meets the recreationists'desires and needs. Camping in aclearcut area is as satisfying tosome people as camping in a wilder-ness is to others.

THE LINK BETWEENRECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

AND EXPERIENCES

Development of opportunities forrecreation is not an end in itself.By providing different kinds of rec-reational settings and accommodatingdifferent types and styles of recrea-tional use, managers can best givepeople the opportunity for variouskinds of experiences.

5

Driver and Brown (1978) proposeda hierarchical framework that specifiesfour distinct levels of recreationaldemands: (1) for activities, (2) forcertain situational attributes (set-tings), (3) for specific psychologicaloutcomes--experiences and satisfactionsand (4) for benefits.. Our focus isprimarily on level 2, the situationalattributes that comprise a recreationalopportunity. We concur with theseauthors that level 2 demands do not

Users with diverse motives,

seeking a variety of recreational

experiences consistent with their

preferences,

use opportunities

provided by

exist’ in and of themselves, but for thesatisfact ions and benefi ts derived atlevels 3 and 4. Figure 4 shows thelink between these levels of demand andthe opportunities provided by managers.

Some gains have been made in theab i l i t y to de f ine l inks be tween ac t iv i -ties and outcomes (Driver and Tocher1970, Brown et al. 1977, Potter et al.1973). And i t i s c lear ly poss ib le tofac i l i ta te the ach ievement -o f cer ta in

Managers use visitor information,

research, and experience to

develop programs consistent

with lows and policies; they

have a variety of tools

which they use

to change or maintain features

days spent in

variety of

activities

( in many

styles) ;

they obtain

various

satisfactions

experiences,

leading ult imately to benefits

which, combined

appropriately,

result in a

spectrum of diverse

opportunities in a

variety of areas,

to individuals and society.

Figure 4. --Link between recreationists' desires and the opportunitiesprovided by managers.

6

experiences by the way situationalattributes are manipulated. Further-more, by altering the setting, thesame activity can be participated in ina variety of styles, thereby producingdifferent satisfactions (fig. 5). AsKnopp (1972) indicates, characteristicsof a place will influence whether ornot a given individual will recreatethere, because the place is closelytied to the function of specific activi-ties. As our knowledge of the linkageamong settings, activities, experiences,and satisfactions improves, our abilityto fine-tune the supply sector to mostefficiently meet demands of visitorswill grow.

Opportunities for recreation oughtto differ in terms of producing dis-tinctive experiences or “psychologicaloutcomes” (Driver and Brown 1978).Work by a number of investigators in-creasingly improves the ability to dothis (Lime 1971, Clark et al. 1971,Knopf et al. 1973, LaPage and Ragain1974, Brown et al. 1977). Applicationof the opportunity spectrum frameworkoutlined in the following pages, however,is not contingent on understanding thelink between experiences (a psychologicaloutcome) and opportunity settings.Simply put, the ROS can be used by

managers to provide specific informa-tion to potential visitors about whata place is like, not about experiencesthey will derive.

The individual’s choice ofopportunity (or their expressed pre-ference) provides feedback on thedegree to which the opportunities mightfulfill the desired outcomes. Thespecific experiences derived are afunction of the individual’s pastexperience, expectations, present stateof mind, and so forth, not a functionof an explicit management decision toproduce a given outcome or set ofoutcomes.

ROS offers a framework withinwhich to explicitly vary situationalattributes (access, density, etc.) toproduce different recreation opportunitysettings. From these opportunitysettings, recreationists participatingin different kinds and styles ofactivities derive different satisfac-tions and experiences and, ultimately,benefits. Our intent here is tosystematically and explicitly describea framework that permits managers toprovide diversity in the range ofopportunity settings available toindividuals.

Figure 5. --Different activities can produce different experiences. But different

styles of the same activity, carried out in various settings, can also producedifferent experiences.

7

DEFINING OPPORTUNITY FACTORS

Four criteria were used to selectfactors that define the opportunityspectrum:

1. The factor is observable andmeasurable,

2. The factor is directly undermanagement control,

3. The factor is related torecreationists’ preferencesand affects their decisionsabout areas to use, and

4. The factor is characterizedby a range of conditions.

When these criteria were appliedto existing conceptions of the ROS,previous research on recreationists’preferences, management experience,and state-of-the-art judgment, sixfactors emerged:

1. Access,2. Other nonrecreational resource

uses,3. Onsite management,4. Social interaction,5. Acceptability of visitor

impacts, and6. Acceptable level of regimenta-

tion.Each factor is described below. Naturalfeatures (topography, scenery, water,wildlife, etc.), which are importantacross the spectrum are discussed in alater section.

In this paper we describe the endpoints of the opportunity spectrum asmodern to primitive. Other authorshave used urban, developed, wild,natural, remote, etc. The labels arereally unimportant and reflect authors’preferences rather than any conceptualdifference between what we are proposinghere and what is described in papers byothers.

Opportunity Setting Factors

1. Access

Several elements can be used todescribe access. Managers can controlthe ease of access by the types ofaccess (e.g., roads, trails, cross-country travel) and by the means ofconveyance allowed (e.g., cars, all-terrain vehicles, horses, feet). Bothaccess elements can vary across thespectrum from easy to difficult. Designand management standards are importantin defining the range of access systems.For example, roads and trails can bedesigned as high standard systems,requiring intensive maintenance, to lowstandard roads and trails needing littleor no maintenance. In many cases, thetopography and type of vegetation willhelp define the conveyances that can beused. Thus, managers are able to usea combination of natural features,design and maintenance standards, andregulations for determining and enforc-ing ease of access.-

Research indicates that recrea-tionists’ preferences for alternativetypes of access cut across the rangeof access conditions (fig. 6). Forexample, among wilderness users, thereis a spectrum of preferences for trailsranging from highly developed to notrails at all (Stankey 1973, Lucas1973). Although users of forest landswith roads are there because theyprefer a more primitive recreationalsetting than is typically found indeveloped campgrounds, they, too, varyin their preferences for paved orunpaved roads. 2/

2/ Clark, Roger N. Russell W. Koch,Mack L. Hogans, and Harriet H. Christensen.Dispersed recreationists along forest roads inthree areas of the Pacific Northwest: Theirrecreation patterns, opinions, and attitudes.Unpublished data on file at Pacific NorthwestForest and Range Experiment Station, Seattle,Washington.

Figure 6.-- Visitor preferences for access within recreation areas range from well-developed, paved roads, to gravel roads, to trails, to cross-country travel.Access also controls the type of conveyance recreationists may use.

2. Non recreational resource uses

This factor considers the extentto which nonrecreational resource uses(grazing, mining, logging) arecompatible with various opportunitiesfor outdoor recreation. Other usescan severely conflict with opportunitiesfor primitive experiences. For example,Stankey (1973) found that grazing inthe Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming wasthe most serious source of conflictreported by visitors. In other cases,a variety of resource managementactivities that might even contributeto visitor enjoyment can be found inconjunction with outdoor recreation.

For example, recreationists in semi-primitive areas with roads often findgrazing and logging acceptable (seefootnote 2). But these users do expressconcern about large clearcuts, so thescale at which the activity isconducted, as well as the activityitself, influences perceived compat-ibility (fig. 7). Planners and managersmust consider the lasting effects of aresource activity (mines, clearcuts),as well as short-term effects (loggingtrucks, noise from a mine) to determinethe impacts on the recreational oppor-tunity.

Figure 7. --Generally opportunities forprimitive experiences are incompati-ble with nonrecreation resource uses.For example, timber harvests conflictwith the kinds of experiences wilder-ness visitors seek. But in semi-primitive or semimodern areas withroads, clearcuts may be acceptableto some recreationists.

3. Onsite management

The onsite management factorincludes site modifications, such asfacilities, exotic species of vegetationvegetation management, landscaping,traffic barriers, etc. The appropriate-ness of site management should beconsidered in light of four elements:

a. Extent of the modification.Is it limited to a few isolated location'sor distributed throughout the area?

b. Apparentness of the modifica-tion. Has the use of native materialshelped blend the modification into thenatural setting or do artificialmaterials make the modification readilyapparent?

C. Complexity of the modification.A bridge could be a simple log foot-path (fig. 8) or a complicated engineer-ing effort.

Figure 8. --Onsite management includesmodifications, such as bridges, whichcan vary from simple logs for foottravel to complex developments capableof supporting automobiles.

, Figure 9. --In modern settings, well-developed toilet facilities may beprovided for convenience of visitors;in more rustic settings, they may befor safety of visitors or for protec-tion of resources.

d. Facilities. Facilities can belargely for convenience and enjoymentor safety of users, or only for protec-tion of the resources. In some areas,no facilities whatsoever are appropriate;in others, all possible convenienceswould be appropriate. Toilet facilitiescan range from heated buildings withflush toilets and showers, to pittoilets, or, in some settings, to notoilet facilities at all (fig. 9).

10

4. Social interaction

The appropriate amount of socialinteraction is an important character-istic of different recreational oppor-tunities. Generally, in more primitivesettings, low levels of interaction areappropriate and expected. In moremodern settings, interaction can riseto very high levels. The level of usebeyond which crowding occurs, then, isnot absolute but varies by expectationsof visitors and the extent to whichinteraction levels are perceived asappropriate (fig . 10) . Insufficientlevels of interaction in some modernsettings can be just as unacceptable tosome people as excessive levels inprimitive settings (Heberlein 1977).

Both natural variations (topographyand vegetation patterns) or managementactions (access) can greatly influencethe actual level of contact amongpeople. Consequently, standard measuresof density (number of people or partiesper unit area) are inappropriatebecause they fail to consider thepotential for contact between people.The number of people in an area, howthey are distributed in space and time,and the probability of interactionbetween parties are important elementsin determining the appropriate socialcarrying capacities at different pointsalong the opportunity spectrum.Although the recreation opportunityspectrum will not give a specificnumber for the carrying capacity of aspecific opportunity type, the basicconcepts underlying the framework helpin resolving the carrying capacityissue. Managers and planners mustapply these concepts on an area-by-areabasis.

Appropriate levels of interactionvary along the spectrum; they can alsovary for the same physical settingdefined as a different kind of rec-.reational opportunity. For example,for travelers on the Rogue River inOregon who defined the area as

wilderness, appropriate daily levelsof contact averaged 2.6; for those whoperceived the river as a semiwildemesssetting, 4.4; and for those who definedthe river as an undeveloped recreationarea, 7.0.3/

In addition to the level of inter-action, managers must also give atten-tion to the type of use appropriatefor each setting. Generally speaking,there is greater diversity of activitiespossible in modern settings than inprimitive. Such factors as access mayaccount for some of this difference;for example, in the most primitivesetting, travel is by foot, but fartheralong the spectrum, travel by horses,outdoor recreational vehicles, andautomobiles becomes appropriate. Inthe most modern setting, all types ofgroups and activities might beacceptable.

It is necessary to consider theacceptable diversity of use becauseinteraction alone is not a sufficientmeasure of an area’s social carryingcapacity; the types of use found at aparticular setting may be moreimportant in defining capacity thanthe amount of use. Lucas (1964) foundthat canoeists in the Boundary WaterCanoe Area thought that up to fiveencounters per day with other canoeistswas acceptable, but even one contactwith a motorboat was not acceptable.There are probably many reasons whythis variable pattern of acceptabilityoccurs (perceived inappropriateness ofuse, experience, or values), but thecentral implication for management isthat a greater diversity of uses canbe accommodated in modern settings thanin primitive.

3/ Presentation made by Dr. Bo Shelby,Oregon State University, Corvallis, at the RuralSociology Society Annual Meeting in San Franciscoin 1978.

11

Figure 10. --In primitive settings, any other people might represent crowding; inmodern settings, large numbers are acceptable. Crowding is a relative measure;there are no absolute standards.

12

5. Acceptability of visitor impacts 4 /

Human use of resources inevitablyresults in impacts, and recreation isno exception. These impacts might beon resources (trampling of vegetationor polluting of water) or on otherpeople (noise, depreciative behaviors,inappropriate activities). Any usecreates some impact; thus, the relevantquestion for managers is not “how canimpacts be prevented” but “what levelof impact is consistent with the typeof opportunity being supplied.”

The acceptable level of impactson recreation is a concern to bothusers and managers. Managers must beconcerned about maintaining opportun-ities for quality recreation, as wellas protecting other resource values.Research indicates that managers’perception of what constitutes impactsmay be very different (generally moreconservative) from users’ perceptions(Clark et al. 1971, Bultena and Hendee1972, Downing and Clark 1979, Lucas1970). When users’ perceptions areconsidered, acceptable impacts take ona range of conditions across the ROS.

Two concepts are useful in resolv-ing how much impact is appropriate. Inassessing environmental impacts, oneshould consider both magnitude andimportance. The magnitude of impactsis based on an objective assessment--there should be no substantive disagree-ment on the magnitude of the impact.The importance of environmental impactsis based on a value judgment which canresult, however, in considerable dis-agreement between managers. and recrea-tionists, depending on expectations,knowledge, and points of view of eachgroup. It is the professional’sresponsibility to insure that objectivemeasurement procedures are used to

4/ See Clark and Stankey (1979) fordiscussion of the acceptability of recreationimpacts, noise in particular.

determine the magnitude of environmentalimpacts resulting from recreationaluse. It is also a professional respons-ibility to provide accurate assessmentsof the kinds of impacts stemming fromrecreational use, their implicationsfor the environment and solutions totheir management . But the importanceof impacts must be considered in lightof the desired opportunity andsubsequent impacts on people’sexperiences. As noted above, totalprevention of impacts is impossible,short of complete prohibition of rec-reational use.

Thus, damage or a level of impactnecessitating correction by managementoccurs only when the impact exceedsthe magnitude defined in area manage-ment plans as appropriate for anopportunity level. The level of impactdefined as damage in an area managedfor modern opportunities will be quitedifferent from that in the same areamanaged for primitive opportunities.Definitions of impact as “damage,”then, depend on the type of opportunityor context in which they occur, ratherthan on any absolute measure. Generally,recreationists’ tolerances for impacts(ecological, social, or managerial) aregreater among modern styles of recrea-tion than among primitive styles inboth degree and prevalence.

6. Acceptable regimentation

The nature, extent, and level ofcontrol over recreational use is animportant factor characterizing differ-ent opportunities. A continuum ofcontrols can be described, rangingfrom subtle techniques--such as sitedesign and providing visitors withinformation to fairly heavy-handedmeasures that are authoritarian andperhaps accompanied by legal sanctions(Lime 1976). Specific techniques forregimenting recreationists’ activitiesinclude regulations, rules, site design,and laws.

13

Modern opportunities are generallycharacterized as more highly organizedand regulated than are primitive types.But the “principle of minimum regimen-tation” should apply across the spectrum;we should regiment only as much asnecessary to protect the qualities ofthe opportunity in question (Stankeyand Baden 1977).

Ideally, the most primitive oppor-tunities should have few regimentinginfluences . With the reality of in-creasing pressures from use of primitivesettings, regimentation may be necessaryto protect the integrity of the oppor-tunity and to insure its use into thefuture. This is particularly truewhere management objectives call forthe preservation of naturalness. Thus,management actions that might otherwisebe appropriate for protecting an area(facilities, onsite management) wouldnot be satisfactory if they themselveswould alter natural integrity. Controlof visitation would be necessary, andsuch measures have been instituted inseveral Wilderness Areas and in NationalPark back country (Stankey 1979, Fazioand Gilbert 1974).

POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS

OF FACTORS

In figure 11, each factor isdisplayed graphically. The range ofconditions that a factor can have (forexample, from very easy to very diffi-cult access), represents relativerather than absolute limits of what isacceptable and appropriate along theROS. Certainly, when the framework isapplied, specific criteria must bedeveloped. Our objective, however, isto focus on the process by which theROS factors can be managed to achievedesired objectives in a conceptualfashion. After the reader understandsthe approach, then more specific values

for each factor can be estimated.Readers are encouraged to review Driverand Brown (1978) and Brown et al. (1978)for examples of proposed criteriadeveloped for recreation inventorypurposes. Information for selectingmanagement objectives is found in Brown(1977).

A recreation opportunity setting isthe result of a specific combination ofthe six factors in a particular location.Alternative combinations of the factors(and other natural features discussedlater) create different opportunitysettings that give recreationists manyoptions from which to choose. Consider-ations about appropriate criteria forany one of the factors are largelyjudgmental; there are seldom absolutestandards.

There are no obvious points atwhich boundaries for the differentopportunities can be established. Forpurely illustrative reasons, we usefour generic opportunity types in thediscussion below. But any number ofcategories could be substituted acrossthe top of figure 11. For example,modern-urban, semirural, rural, semi-primitive motorized, semiprimitive non-motorized, and primitive as used byDriver and Brown (1978). The key isthat the type of setting is determinedby the combination of factors, ratherthan the name or number of categories.

Existing knowledge about visitors’preferences, managers’ judgments, andpublic involvement can help guide devel-opment of appropriate opportunity set-ting categories. By packaging recrea-tional settings in terms of the sixfactors we have described, we can beginto explicitly develop a range of oppor-tunities to better meet public desires.

14

Range of opportunity setting dosses:

Management factors1. Access

a. Difficulty

b. Access system(1) roads

(2) trails

c. Means of conveyonce

2. Nonrecreational resource uses

3. Onsite management (modification):0. Extent

b. Apparentness

c. Complexity

d. Facilities

4. Social interaction

5. Acceptability of visitor impactsa Degree of impact

b. Prevalence of impacts

6. Acceptable regimentation

Figure 11. --Factors defining outdoor recreation opportunity settings.

In this discussion, we assume thatall the factors have coequal weight;they all influence recreational behaviorin the same way. In reality, we aresure that this is not the case. Forsome people, type of access might be themost important influence. For others,it might be the type of facilities, orthe nature of previous visitor impacts,etc. When choices of recreation ingeneral, are considered however, suchindividual differences may balance out.Further research will be required todetermine under what conditions thisassumption is appropriate.

An approach for combining thefactors is shown in figure 11. All theconditions represented by the sixfactors are arrayed along the modern toprimitive opportunity continuum. Forany generic type of opportunity--modern,semimodern, etc. --a band of acceptablecombinations can be described in areamanagement plans through the use ofobjectives and standards.

In figure 11, for example, we showa band of acceptable combinations forthe semimodern types of opportunities.This band simply means that any of theconditions within the range indicatedfor the six factors are acceptable inan area managed as semimodern. Anythingoutside the band would be unacceptable.We will talk more about conditionsoutside the band of acceptability inthe section, “Inconsistencies.”

It should be clear that, althoughwe describe only four generic opportunitytypes here, each represents many possiblecombinations of the six factors. It isimportant that we provide diversity,not only between opportunity types butalso within individual types. Forexample, semimodern opportunity settingsmight include sites where access,facilities, and so forth are relativelyhighly developed; other settings mighthave developed facilities but be access-ible only by foot or bicycle; still

others might feature a rustic settingreached by gravel roads, but with exten-sive site modification to minimizeimpacts on the resources. The point is,designation of an opportunity as “semi-modern”, “primitive”, etc., does notimply a single standard of developmentfor areas within that category. Varia-tions in settings within and amongopportunity types within a band ofacceptability further increases the rangeof options for recreationists pursuingdifferent types and styles of activities.

Other Features of Settings

We have mentioned several timesthat a recreation opportunity settingis composed of other natural featuresin addition to the six factors. Land-form types, vegetation, scenery, water,wildlife, etc., are all importantelements of recreation environments;they influence where people go and thekinds of activities possible. Consider-able work has gone into developingprocedures for measuring and managingvisual resources (USDA Forest Service1974). Planners and managers shouldalso consider these features whendetermining for which types of oppor-tunity to manage an area.

But it is important to recognizethat there is no intrinsic quality ofthese other natural features thatsuggests the appropriate type ofrecreation opportunity setting. Anyof the opportunity types are aspossible and appropriate in mountain-ous areas as they are in desertsettings. Indeed, greatest diversitywould be assured if the full spectrumof opportunity types (modern toprimitive) could be found across therange of environmental settings(fig. 12).

16

Environmentalsettings:

All possible

combinations

are appropriate

Figure 12.--Appropriate combinationsof opportunity types and environ-mental settings.

And it is the combination of theseenvironmental settings and opportunitytypes that determines the range ofallowable recreational activities ina specific area. The nature ofparticipation in recreational activitiesdepends on the place in which it occurs(Cheek et al. 1976). Thus, naturalfeatures (terrain, rivers, lakes) willinfluence the activities that arepossible; for example, you cannotwaterski without a relatively largebody of water. The type of opportunityfor which the area is managed, however,will help determine the appropriatenessand styles of activities. It isinappropriate to expect to be able towaterski in primitive areas, even ifthere is a large body of water and onecould get a powerboat there. Conversely,it would be inappropriate for a back-packer to expect to find a low level ofsocial interaction in a highlydeveloped, modern campground (fig. 13).

Inconsistencies

One important issue that must beconsidered when specific opportunitysettings are being developed is theavoidance of inconsistencies. Aninconsistency occurs when the statusof a factor (or factors) exceeds theparameters specified in the areamanagement plan; for example, Brown etal. (1978) propose a series of standards

Figure 13.-- There is nothing intrinsicin the landscape to dictate the besttype of opportunity. Modern oppor-tunities in an alpine setting areneeded as much as primitive oppor-tunities in deserts or plains.

for selected criteria that defineappropriate conditions for differentopportunity types. Although theircriteria differ somewhat from ours,their process is identical. Byspecifying standards for the range ofappropriate conditions for a given typeof opportunity, managers have arational basis for determining incon-sistencies. Formulation of appropriatestandards combines information fromresearch, public input, administrativepolicies, legislative guidelines, andmanagers’ judgments. Examples ofstandards would include such things asstandards for constructing highwaysand trails, frequency and type of userinteraction, types and amounts offacilities, and other specific onsitemanagement actions.

In some cases, laws or policiesprovide guidelines for what isappropriate (no mechanized access ispermitted in Wilderness Areas). Morecommonly, managers must rely on otherguidelines. Studies of recreationists’preferences or other measures ofappropriateness can help identify thefactors that users define as consistentlyrelated. In other cases, managers willbe able to use the ROS framework toidentify potential undesirable con-sequences that would follow from aninconsistent combination of factors.

17

For example, when access roads alongthe southern edge of the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area were paved and straight-ened, levels of use rose rapidly (muchas they did at Lake Kachess). Followingthis change in the access factor,pressures developed for increasedfacilities and other measures to controluse--developments generally inconsistentwith primitive type opportunity and sorecognized by land managers, recreation-ists, and the Wilderness Act (fig. 14).

Figure 14. --A road used to reach thetimber near wilderness is now used byincreasing numbers of recreationists.This may lead to increased need forfacilities and more regimentation(picture deleted due to poor reproduction).

The opportunity spectrum does notoffer a prescribed formula for providingoutdoor recreation opportunities. Itdoes provide a systematic framework forlooking at the actual distribution ofopportunities and a logical procedurefor assessing possible management action.To demonstrate how one might use theframework to test for consistency, wepresent the following example:

For illustrative purposes, we haveshown within the band of acceptabilitythe relative range of conditions onemight describe as a “semimodern”opportunity (fig, 11). Such an

opportunity could be characterized ingeneral by relatively well-developedaccess roads, extensive development offacilities for both resource protectionand visitor convenience, relativelyhigh densities of users and socialinteraction, etc. Thus, the opportunitysetting has all six factors approximatelyequal in their position along a modernto primitive continuum; i.e., there isa “consistency” among the variousfactors within the band of accept-ability.

But what if one or more factors isoutside the band of acceptability? Infigure 15 the overall pattern suggeststhat the area has potential as asupplier of a primitive type opportun-ity; however, access to the area iswell developed along paved roads (inthe “modern” category). Thus, anapparent inconsistency exists. If anobjective of the opportunity spectrumconcept is to minimize the effects ofinconsistencies, a series of questionsconcerning the apparent inconsistencycan be asked.

Figure 15. --An example of aninconsistency.

How did the inconsistency occur? Avariety of causes could be responsiblefor the inconsistency. It might resultfrom an earlier management action(e.g., roadbuilding for timber harvest) ,for which the effects on recreationaluse were never identified or anticipated.Had these effects been recognized, theroad might not have been built, thetype of construction or the road’slocation might have been changed, orperhaps the road would have been closedafter the timber was removed.

Or, the impacts on recreation ofan earlier action might have beenidentified and considered but judgedto be unavoidable. Such a situationmight develop where the anticipatedbenefits seem to outweigh costs (thebenefit of a timber harvest exceedingthe costs incurred by changing thenature of the recreational opportunity).Perhaps different administrativejurisdictions were involved, onecontrolling the management action, theother the recreational opportunity.Even though the latter jurisdictionhad fully identified anticipatedimpacts, it did not control the manage-ment action and was thus unable toinfluence the other organization’sdecision.

Finally, the inconsistency couldbe the result of a purposeful courseof action. The apparently inconsistentfactor might, in fact, be more in linewith the kind of opportunity most neededin the area. For example, there mightbe plans to convert the generallyprimitive opportunity in figure 15 toa semimodern opportunity where relative-ly easy access is desirable. Thisconversion could be based on an assess-ment that the relative availabilityof primitive opportunities in theregion is high, whereas the supply ofsemimodern opportunities is low. Orit might be that an apparent incon-sistency is required to achieve certainobjectives; it may be desirable toprovide a primitive setting with some

form of modern access to allow easyentry for the handicapped or to providecabins for protection in primitiveareas with dangerous bears.

What are the Implications of theinconsistency ? Consistency as wedescribe it above is an ideal concept.In reality, one or more factors maybe inconsistent with the others. It isnot the inconsistency per se that shouldbe of concern; rather, the consequencesof the inconsistencies constitute theproblem, particularly when they arenot anticipated or recognized.

In the early 1900’s, the LakeKachess campground was a primitivesetting. Access was difficult anduse was light. But over the ensuingthree-quarters of a century, a numberof changes altered Lake Kachess.Improved access made it possible forgreater numbers of people to reach thearea. Management concerns with overuse(both resource impacts and crowding)led to development of various facilities(tent pads, vault toilets, parkingareas) and other onsite modifications.Each action at Lake Kachess changed thenature of the opportunity the areaprovided. Yet visitors still filledthe campground. Clearly there was nooptimum environment for recreation atthe lake; nor is it possible to saythat current conditions are eitherbetter or worse than they once were.But they certainly are different.

Our purpose in describing theevolution of events at Lake Kachess isnot to cite it as an unnatural situationnor to suggest that one particular setof conditions was better than another.Rather, it is to illustrate theconsequences stemming from the lack ofprecise management objectives and anexplicit monitoring and evaluationprocess. As problems arise and manage-ment responds to them in an effort tocorrect or offset impacts, inconsisten-cies may result and a chain reactionof secondary changes can occur,

19

ultimately altering the entire natureof the original opportunity. Theprincipal implication of the LakeKachess example is that the process ofchange was largely inadvertent andthat most of the changes were theresult of reactions to problems ratherthan a deliberate and conscious effortto alter the kind of opportunity thearea provided.

Serious problems can develop frominadvertent changes. As the nature ofa setting is altered, inconsistenciesmay occur, resulting in subsequentchanges in use. The “new” campgroundattracts a different type of user,camping in a different style andseeking different kinds of experiences.As the new type of user becomes increas-ingly established, original users moveto other locations more to their liking;that is, where the combination of allopportunity factors (including access,use density, and facilities) stillresembles the kind of opportunityformerly enjoyed. This process of“invasion and succession” (Clark et al.1971) can drastically change the natureof the available opportunities, theclientele served, and their recreationalexperiences. Particularly where theprocess is unnoticed, opportunities canbe lost and clientele disfranchised.

Given inconsistencies such as thosethat occured at Lake Kachess, managersmust answer the question, What are theimplications associated with the factorsfor both themselves and the users? Partof the answer to this question rests onhow far out of line the factor apparentlyis. It is obvious that a factor onlymoderately out of line (e.g., densityand regimentation in fig. 15) has lesssignificant implications than onesubstantially inconsistent with theremaining factors (e.g., access).Managers must make judgments about theimportance of these inconsistencies.

Implications for managers mightinvolve questions, such as: Will theinconsistency accelerate change in otherfactors that will, in turn, lead tofurther undesired changes in the kind ofopportunity provided (such as at LakeKachess)? For example, will the highlydeveloped access shown in figure 15lead to higher levels of resource impactbecause of increased use at the site andnecessitate development of morefacilities or further regulation of use?And, if these outcomes appear likely,are they desirable or undesirable?

It is important to remember that weare looking at recreation as a system,with an interdependence among the variouselements of that system. Thus, a changeor modification in one element mayaffect (perhaps slowly or very quickly)the other parts of the system. Remote-ness from humans and their impacts, forexample, is a major consideration inprimitive settings. But the level ofremoteness can be affected by changesin several management factors--access,social interaction, and nonrecreationalresource uses. Changes in any onefactor may lead to an inconsistencyresulting in a negative impact on otherfactors. Consequently, remoteness inan area managed for primitive valuesmay be reduced below acceptable limits.

The basic problem of an inconsis-tency is that it introduces thepotential for triggering a chain ofevents that might alter the entirenature of the intended opportunity.When such a situation develops, rapidchanges in the distribution and use ofopportunities can occur.

What should be done aboutinconsistencies? When inconsistenciesoccur, managers have three basicresponses available. First a “noaction” response can be adopted. Thismight be the case if no significanteffects are anticipated, at leastwithin the foreseeable future. Orjurisdictional problems betweenagencies or functional problems withinan agency may mean the inconsistencycannot be directly controlled byrecreation managers; for example,planned changes in the access to anarea by one government agency mightaffect adjacent recreation landsmanaged by another agency. Offsettingthe problems brought about by thesechanges might involve such measures assite modifications, development offacilities, and regimental controls--actions whose costs outweigh any benefitthey might have.

A second response is to restore theinconsistency to a status in line withthe parameters specified for it.Closures of certain types of roads,elimination of facilities, or otheronsite modifications might be institutedto restore consistency.

Finally, managers can respond toan inconsistency by altering theremaining factors to bring them intoline with’ the original inconsistentone. This could occur where changingconditions of demand call for anopportunity not presently provided.Response to a situation where well-developed access is inconsistent witha primitive type opportunity mightinvolve altering the remaining factorsto make the area semimodern. Such achange would have its justificationoutlined in the area management plan.

USING THE RECREATION

OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM

At the broadest level, the ROSoffers a way of thinking about oppor-tunities for recreation, of consideringrecreation as something more thanactivities or areas. But beyond this,the opportunity spectrum has specificapplication for at least four majorconcerns : (1) allocating and planningrecreational resources, (2) inventory-ing recreational resources, (3)estimating the consequences of manage-ment decisions on recreational oppor-tunities, and (4) matching experiencesrecreationists desire with availableopportunities.

Allocating and PlanningRecreational Resources

The ROS is a helpful concept fordetermining the types of recreationalopportunities that should be provided.And after a basic decision has beenmade about the opportunity desirablein an area, the ROS provides guidanceabout appropriate planning approaches--standards by which each factor shouldbe managed.

Three concepts related to the ROSare useful in making such decision :(1) the relative availability ofdifferent opportunities, (2) theirreproducibility, and (3) their spatialdistribution.

Relative availability, although notdirectly manageable by any one recrea-tion supplier, is a fundamentalconsideration affecting decisions aboutthe opportunities that should beprovided. The concept addresses theissue of supply as well as theappropriate role of the recreationsupplier. Adequacy of supply is a function of, among other things. thespatial distribution of opportunities,

and it may be appropriate to estimaterelative availability within a regionalframework that extends beyond agencyboundaries. When one type of opportunityis in abundant supply, it may benecessary for an agency to providealternative opportunities even thoughthese are not normally a responsibilityof the agency. For example, the USDAForest Service recreation program em-phasizes the provision of opportunitiesfor dispersed recreation. In an arealike southeast Alaska, however, wheresuch opportunities are abundant and theUSDA Forest Service manages most of theland, the agency might find it necessaryto also provide modern and semimodernopportunities in the interests of offer-ing diversity (Clark and Lucas 1978)(fig. 16).

spectrum are generally more reproduc-ible (capable of creation through useof technology, infusion of capital,etc.) than those at the primitive end.There is a test of reasonableness here,because it is at least possible toreproduce any opportunity, givensufficient time and money. The spectrumis characterized by asymmetry in thereversibility of management actionsbecause changes from modern to primitivecan be more easily reversed thanchanges in the other direction (fig. 17).The obvious implication here is thatdecisions transforming an area from aprimitive condition to something moredeveloped needs to be carefully weighedbecause of the relative inability toreverse that decision.

Figure 16. --The role of the privatesector will be especially important inareas where the public sector is not amajor supplier of certain opportunities.

Figure 17. --Through use of capital,design, and engineering, modern oppor-tunities can be more readily createdthan can primitive settings which area product of natural processes.

Reproducibility and reversibilityare also fundamental considerations.They address the question of the extentto which an opportunity can betechnologically reproduced, as well asthe ability of management to reversethe outcome of decisions. Opportunitiesat the modern (developed) end of the

In planning and managing largeareas for recreational purposes,managers must consider the s atialdistribution of opportunities (fig. 18)generally should be kept apart so thatconflicts are minimized (Hart 1966,Gould 1961, Stankey 1974, Clawson 1975).

.

Figure 18. - - Sharply dissimilar oppor-tunities should be separated. Conflictsbetween mechanized and nonmechanized use,for example, can seriously interferewith the experiences of both users.Spatial zoning can help reduce suchconflicts.

For example, opportunities featuringhigh standard road systems and highlydeveloped campgrounds should not beconstructed adjacent to primitiveopportunities. Keeping dissimilaropportunities apart also reduces thelikelihood that impacts from oneopportunity will “spill over” onto anadjacent opportunity (e.g., noise froman area catering to outdoor recreationalvehicle users reaching an adjacent areamanaged for primitive opportunities).Some recent planning efforts haveattempted to incorporate this concept;the recently dedicated Alpine LakesWilderness in Washington’s CascadeRange will be bordered by a managementarea featuring primarily semiprimitiverecreational opportunities.

Unfortunately, planners and managersoften do not have the necessary flex-ibility to organize opportunitiesaccording to this ideal spatial arrange-ment . They are constrained by previousmanagement decisions, other resourceuses, established recreational use, ora variety of other factors that compli-cate the job. But even within theselimitations, mapping recreationalopportunities--existing and proposed--,can help identify potential conflicts.

inventory of RecreationalOpportunities

The ROS provides a useful frame-work for the review and evaluation ofinventory data (for a good review ofvarious recreation inventory systems,see Brown et al. 1978). Because theROS focuses on specific situationalattributes (access, facilities, etc.)that comprise recreation opportunitysettings, managers easily can relateinventory data to the spectrum. Fromthis, the relative availability ofdifferent settings can be determined.Moreover, because of the focus onsituational attributes, managers willbe able to tell how they could changethe relative availability of differentsettings. For example, if semimodernsettings were in short supply, theinventory could indicate areas wheresuch settings could be most easilycreated.

Inventories should encompass atleast regional levels and transcendadministrative boundaries. Ideally, thegoal should be to insure that recreationopportunity suppliers--public andprivate--collectively provide a range ofdiverse opportunities. This clearlycalls for interorganizational coordina-tion in inventory of planning forrecreational opportunities.

A comprehensive inventory conductedat a regional scale and involving allpublic and private suppliers wouldprovide several critical pieces ofinformation: (1) a profile of existingand potential opportunities; (2) acatalog of administrative responsibili-ties (i.e., who has which opportuni-ties) ; and (3) an indication of thespatial relationships between variousopportunities for recreation (therebysuggesting the potential for conflictsor complementary relationships).Additionally, when such inventory dataare combined with studies of recreationdemand and preference, it may be

23

possible to determine gaps in thedistribution of opportunities thatought to be filled. Conversely, suchinformation could reveal which oppor-tunities are in excess supply.

Inventory data compiled over aregional setting is critical data inthe formulation of appropriate rolesfor the various suppliers. Seldom willany one supplier be capable of meetingthe entire range of recreation oppor-tunity demands. Data about existingand potential opportunities, who managesthem, and their location would beimportant input to decisions about whois best equipped to fulfill which roles.The USDA Forest Service recentlycompleted an analysis of its appropriaterole in the provision of opportunitiesfor outdoor recreation (USDA ForestService 1977). This study is based onassessment of the kinds of opportunitiesthe agency has under its jurisdiction,as well as on such things as expertise,legislative direction, and so forth.

Identifying the Consequencesof Management Actions

Because the recreation opportunityspectrum focuses on specific featuresof the physical, social, and managerialsetting, it facilitates analysis ofhow proposed management actions willalter the nature of a specific oppor-tunity.

For example, the decision todevelop an area for timber harvest hasthe obvious consequence of changing thelevel and obtrusiveness of nonrecreation-al resource uses. But logging alsooften alters the amount and type ofaccess into an area. This improvedaccess, in turn, can lead to higher useand greater demand for facilities.Many of these changes can be anticipated,however, and the ROS provides a simple,graphic way of portraying these antici-

Such an approach means thatexplicit recognition of changes affect-ing the opportunity spectrum is assured.By providing a framework in which theconsequences of different decisions canbe considered in relation to how theyaffect opportunities for recreation andtheir use, many undesirable problemsrelated to functional decisionmaking(about logging, road development, etc.)can be anticipated and possibly avoided.

The key to using the ROS effectivelyis the area’s management plan. Onlywith clearly specified managementobjectives is it possible to say whetherthe consequences of an action areacceptable and appropriate or not.Management without such objectives canonly be reactive.

Matching Desired ExperiencesWith Available Opportunities

Matching the experiences visitorsseek with opportunity settings bestsuited to providing those experiencesis one of the major challenges to theoutdoor recreation manager. We oftenassume this requires direct managementactions, whereby managers know whowants what and direct recreationists

mation about the various types ofexperiences recreationists seek, thisis a hopeless task. To further comp-licate matters, there is no simple linkbetween experiences sought, recreationalactivities, and opportunity settings.

One approach that does not rely ona prior knowledge of desired experiencesis to upgrade the flow of informationto people about the nature and locationof existing opportunity settings. Atpresent, recreationists’ lack of know-ledge about existing opportunities issometimes as great a deterrent toparticipation as is the actual un-availability of opportunities (fig. 19).pated outcomes and evaluating whether

or not they are appropriate or desir-able.

Figure. 19. - - Providing visitors withinformation about available alternativesmay be one of the most effective actionsopen to recreation managers. From de-scriptions of opportunities, visitorscan choose the setting that seems tobest meet their particular desires.

If the recreationists are giveninformation about the various oppor-tunities, they can then choose themost appropriate locations for theirparticular types and styles of activity.For example, recreationists’ interestsin driving for pleasure (a type ofactivity) might range from looking atfall leaf colors along a modern pavedhighway to four-wheel driving off roads.

Several examples of efforts toimprove information to users can becited. On the Suislaw National Forestin Oregon, managers have described fivetypes of camping experiences available,ranging from remote wilderness tohighly developed settings. They havenot only identified what is availableon National Forest lands but alsoincluded opportunities provided by otheragencies, such as highly developedcampgrounds in State parks. Afterselecting experiences desired, visitorscan examine a listing of availablecampgrounds in the area, categorizedby the type of opportunity provided.This approach also gives managers achance to measure demand for thevarious opportunities and, if necessary,to make adjustments in their supply(relative availability) to moreaccurately reflect the-actual demand.Using this approach effectively

requires, at a minimum, that managershave a complete and regularly updatedinventory of various opportunities intheir areas (including those suppliedby other agencies).

This approach assumes that peopledo know, in general, the characteristicsof the recreation opportunity settingthey prefer or dislike. Thus,management ought to strive to providerecreationists with information aboutsuch things as the level of interpartycontact, access, or facilities theymay find at any given site. Througha trial-and-error process, recreation-ists can find what suits them best.

Managers can also use predictable,seasonal changes at specific locationsto provide diverse opportunities forrecreationists . For example, manycampgrounds have been developed toprovide modern experiences during thesummer season of peak use (June throughAugust). These campgrounds are oftenin spectacular locations that haveyear-round appeal. Frequently, however,they are closed from August to June(and even on weekdays during thesummer season, in some instances). Suchclosures concentrate use into arelatively short season and eliminatethe potential for off-season use.

Natural processes can also alter theopportunities available even in openareas--snowfall may preclude access byconventional, wheeled vehicles, therebyconverting a modern opportunity to amore primitive one for part of the year.Such changes, whether by management ornatural processes, affect one or moreof’the opportunity factors and therebychange the opportunity available.Utilizing these seasonal changes,management can provide variety atindividual sites, thereby extending usethroughout the year, gaining greateruse of expensive recreational develop-ments, and broadening the range ofoptions from which visitors can choose(fig. 20).

Figure 20 .-- One way to provide addition-al opportunities for recreationists isto encourage off-season use of settings.For example, summer use of developedski areas for picnicking, sightseeing,etc., provides a different opportunityfor visitors, even though the same areais involved.

We believe that the key to matchingthe experiences users desire withavailable opportunities is to let usersmake their own choices based on reliableinformation about the opportunitiesavailable. Such information, aimed atcreating realistic expectations, shouldbe about the nature of the opportunities,where they are, and how conditions mightchange throughout the year.

CONCLUSIONS

The recreation opportunity spectrumprovides a framework for integratingrecreational opportunities and nonrec-reational activities. The centralnotion of the spectrum is to offerrecreationists alternative settings inwhich they can derive a variety ofexperiences. Because the managementfactors that give recreational valueto a site are interdependent, manage-ment must strive to maintain consistencyamong these factors so that unplannedor undesired changes in the opportun-ities do not occur.

In this paper we focused primarilyon existing social conditions andtechnology. But, technology andsocioeconomic changes often produceimpacts beyond the ability of managersto fully anticipate or control. Forexample, few people anticipated theenormous growth in outdoor recreationalvehicles that has occurred in the pastdecade. Similarly, the consequencesof scarce energy resources were notforeseen until the scarcity was alreadya fact (Shafer et al. 1974). Theimpact of the changing age structure ofthe U.S. population has yet to be fullyrecognized (Marcin and Lime 1977).Such changes can produce dramaticshifts in the type and intensity ofdemand for opportunities for outdoorrecreation. Although the future canbe only imperfectly predicted, the ROSdoes provide a framework for accom-modating these shifting demands, aswell as estimating the kinds of impactsassociated with these changes.

If a full range of opportunitysettings is provided, changes in demandcan be more easily accommodatedbecause the kinds of features anactivity requires are more likely tobe available. Although the supply tomeet the increased demand might beinsufficient, nonetheless some areaswith the necessary features should beavailable. Management of the fullopportunity spectrum should permitaccommodation of these changes withminimum disruption. Providingopportunities for quality recreationalexperiences means providing sufficientopportunities across the spectrum.Diversity is the key to meeting thischallenge.

There may be an insufficient supplyof the opportunities needed to meetchanging demands, however, and managersmay wish to consider increasing thesupply. Such an increase will probablytake place at the expense of some other

opportunity setting. The outdoorrecreation opportunity spectrum providesa framework for identifying some ofthe consequences (social impacts) ofsuch a decision. By identifying whichspecific opportunity factors will bealtered and how, we gain knowledgeregarding the changing distribution ofopportunities, which clientele groupsmay be affected, the relative avail-ability of alternative settings to meetthese people’s needs, and the extent towhich a proposed alteration may resultin a loss of settings formerly available.To allow such an assessment of changerequires the routine collection ofsufficient baseline information todocument the types and amounts ofrecreational use occurring. Only afterthe change has been documented canmanagers rationally determine the mostappropriate course of action.

RESEARCH NEEDS

The ROS framework described in thispaper is based on state-of-the-artjudgments. As such, the relationshipswe describe are tentative and needfurther verification; however, webelieve that the framework offers auseful approach founded in managementreality as well as research on visitors’attitudes and actual behavior. Newinformation from research will aid fulldevelopment of the outdoor recreationopportunity spectrum. This researchshould take several directions.

First, further investigations ofthe relationship between activities,settings, and experiences are needed.Specific efforts to define thepsychological outcomes associated withdifferent activity-setting combinationswould help reveal how management canbetter help visitors achieve a diversityof experiences (e.g., see Brown et al(1977) for an example of this inhunting. Such data would also beuseful in defining boundaries between

Second, how are people’ s taste forrecreational settings and activitiesshaped by the available supply? Arepreferences merely a reflection ofopportunity? If not, how can latentdemand be identified to better fill outthe opportunity spectrum?

Third, to what extent does substi-tutability exist among the variousexperiences recreationists seek? Areexperiences uniquely linked to certainsettings or activities? If not, whatis the nature of the interchangeability(Field 1976, Hendee and Burdge 1974,Christensen and Yoesting 1979)? Howdo differences in style account fordifferences in the satisfactionsreceived (e.g. , what differences, ifany, exist between hunting big game,upland-birds, or waterfowl in terms ofthe satisfactions participants seek )?

Fourth, and related to the earlierconcerns with estimating demand, weneed a better understanding of howtastes in recreation evolve over time.Are there orderly and predictableevolutions in tastes along the spectrumof settings? If so, how do persons atdifferent stages in this evolutiondiffer in terms of the experiences,activities, and settings they seek(Bryan 1977, 1979) ? Does early exposureto modern opportunities lead to a demandfor increasingly more primitive styles--do people learn as they recreate andseek more demanding settings andactivities to refine their skills(Davidson et al. 1966)?

Finally, there is a need forresearch on the analysis of policy onsuch questions as: What are theappropriate roles for the varioussuppliers to adopt? What role shouldthe private sector undertake and howmight this vary across the country?What incentives might promote privatedevelopment?

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We acknowledge the help of manymanagerial and research colleagues whoprovided critical reviews of earlierversions of this paper in the pastseveral years.

LITERATURE CITED

Arighi, Scott, and Margaret S. Arighi.1974. Wildwater touring. MacMillanPubl. Co., Inc., New York.

Brown, P. J., B. L. Driver, and C.McConnell.

1978. The opportunity spectrumconcept and behavioral informationin outdoor recreation resourcesupply inventories : Background andapplication. In Integrated inven-tories of renewable natural resources:Proceedings of the workshop. Gyde H.Lund, Vernon J. LaBau, Peter F.Ffolliott, and David W. Robinson,tech. coords. USDA For. Serv. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-55, p. 73-84. RockyMt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., FortCollins, Cola.

Brown, Perry J.1977. Information needs for riverrecreation planning and management.In Proceedings : River recreationmanagement and research symposium.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.NC-28, p. 193-201. North Cent. For.Exp. Stn., Minneapolis, Minn.

Brown, Perry J. , Jacob E. Hautaluoma,and S. Morton McPhail.

1977. Colorado deer huntingexperiences. 42d North Am. Wildl.and Nat. Resour. Conf. Trans.,p. 216-225. Atlanta, Ga.

Bryan, Hobson.1977. Leisure value systems andrecreational specialization: Thecase of trout fishermen. J. LeisureRes. 9(3) :174-187.

Bryan, Hobson.1979. Conflict in the great outdoors:Toward understanding and managingfor diverse sportsmen preferences.Social. Stud. 4, 98 p. Bur. PublicAdm. Univ. Ala. Ala.

Bultena, Gordon L., and John C. Hendee.1972. Foresters views of interestgroup positions on forest policy.J. For. 70(6) :337-342.

Cheek, Neil H., Jr., Donald R. Field,and Rabel J. Burdge.

1976. Leisure and recreation places.172 p. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ:, Inc.,Ann, Arbor , Mich.

Davidson, Paul, F. Gerard Adams, andJoseph Seneca.

1966. The social value of waterrecreational facilities resultingfrom an improvement in water quality:The Delaware estuary. In Waterresearch, p. 175-211. Allen V. Knesseand Stephen C. Smith, eds. JohnsHopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.

Downing, Kent, and Roger N. Clark.

1979. The substitutability concept:A need for further development. J.Leisure Res. 9(3):188-207. .

Christensen, James E., and Dean R. Yoesting.

Clark, Roger N., John C. Hendee, andFrederick L. Campbell.

1971. Values, behaviors, and conflictin modern camping culture. J. Leisure

Res. 3(3) : 143-159.

perceptions of dispersed recreationimpacts : A focus on roaded forest

lands. In Proceedings of theWildland Recreation Impacts Confer-ence, October 27-29, 1978, Seattle,Wash. Ruth Ittner, Dale R. Potter,and James K. Agee, eds. USDA For.Serv. and Natl. Park Serv., Pac.Northwest Reg.

1979. User’s and manager’s

Clark, Roger N. , and Robert C. Lucas.1978. The forest ecosystem ofsoutheast Alaska: No. 10, Outdoorrecreation and scenic resources.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-66,116 p. Pac. Northwest For. andRange Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Clark, Roger N., and George H. Stankey1979. Determining the acceptabilityof recreation impacts: An applica-tion of the Outdoor RecreationOpportunity Spectrum. In Proceedingsof the Wildland Recreation ImpactsConference, October 27-29, 1978,Seattle, Wash. Ruth Ittner, Dale R.Potter, and James K. Agee, eds.USDA For. Serv. and Natl. Park Serv.,Pac. Northwest Reg.

Clawson, Marion.1975. Conflicts and strategies inforest land management. J. Soil andWater Conserv. 30(2) :63-67.

Driver, B. L. , and Perry J. Brown.1978. The opportunity spectrumconcept and behavior information inoutdoor recreation resource supplyinventories: A rationale. InIntegrated inventories of renewablenatural resources: Proceedings ofthe workshop. Gyde H. Lund, VernonJ. LaBau, Peter F. Ffolliott, andDavid W. Robinson, tech. courds.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.RM-55, p. 24-31. Rocky Mt. For.and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins,co10 .

Driver, B. L., and Ross Tocher.1970. Toward a behavioral interpreta-tion of recreational engagements,with implications for planning. InElements of outdoor recreationplanning, p. 9-31. B. L. Driver,ed. Ann Arbor, Mich.

Fazio, James R. , and Douglas L. Gilbert.1974. Mandatory wilderness permits:Some indications of success. J.For. 72 (12) : 753-756.

Field, Donald R.1976. Interchangeability of parkswith other leisure settings. InResearch in the parks transaction ofthe National Park centennialsymposium. Annu. Meet. Am. Assoc.Adv. Sci. , December 28-29, 1971,p. 159-168. Natl. Park Serv.Symp. Ser. 1.

Gould, Ernest M., Jr.1961. Planning a recreational complex.Am. For. 67(8) :30-35.

Hart, William J.1966. A systems approach to parkplanning. Int. Union Conserv. Nat.and Natl. Resour. Suppl. Pap. 4,118 p. Morges, Switzerland.

Heberlein, Thomas A.1977. Density, crowding, andsatisfaction: Sociological studiesfor determining carrying capacities.In Proceedings: River recreationmanagement and research symposium.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.NC-28, p. 67-76. North Cent. For.Exp. Stn., Minneapolis, Minn.

Helbum, Nick.1977. The wilderness continuum.Prof. Geogr. 29(4) : 333-337.

Hendee, John C. , and Rable J. Burdge.1974. The substitutability concept:Implications for recreation researchand management. J. Leisure Res.6(2):155-162,

Knopf, Richard C. , B. L. Driver, andJohn R. Bassatt.

1973. Motivations for fishing. InHuman dimensions in wildlifeprograms, p. 28-41. J. Hendee andC. Schoenfeld, eds. Wildl. Manage.Inst., Washington, D.C.

Knopp , Timothy B.1972. Environmental determinants ofrecreation behavior. J. LeisureRes. 4(2):129-138.

LaPage, Wilbur F. , and Dale P. Ragain.1974. Family camping trends--aneight-year panel study. J. LeisureRes. 6(2) :l0l-112.

Lime, David W.1971. Factors influencing campgrounduse in the Superior National Forestin Minnesota. USDA For. Serv. Res.Paper NC-60, p. 18, illus. NorthCent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul,Minn.

Lime, David W.1976. Principles of recreationalcarrying capacity. In Proceedingsof Southern States recreationresearch applications. USDA For.Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-9, p. 122-134. Southeast For. Exp. Stn.,Asheville, N. C.

Lloyd, R. Duane, and Virlis L. Fischer.1972. Dispersed versus concentratedrecreation as forest policy. 16 p.Proc. 17th World For. Congr., BuenosAires, Argentina.

Lucas, Robert C.1964. Wilderness perception and use:The example of the Boundary WatersCanoe Area. Nat. Res. J. 3(3):384-411.

Lucas, Robert C.1970. User evaluation of campgroundson two Michigan National Forests.USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-44,15 p., illus. North Cent. For. Exp.Stn. , St. Paul, Minn.

Lucas, Robert C.1973. Wilderness: A management

framework. J. Soil and Water Conserv.28(4):150-154.

McCool, Stephen F., and J. Stanley Elmer.1975. Providing recreational oppor-tunities through state park systems.Utah Tourism and Recreation Rev.4(3) :1-5.

30

Marcin, Thomas C., and David W. Lime.1977. Our changing populationstructure : What will it mean forfuture outdoor recreation use? InOutdoor recreation: Advances inapplication of economics. Jay M.Hughes and R. Duane Lloyd, compilers.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.WO-2, p. 42-53. Washington, D. C.

Marshall, Robert.1933. The forest for recreation. InA national plan for American forestry.A report prepared by the ForestService in response to S. Res. 175(72d Congress) Senate Document 12,Separate 6, p. 463-487. U.S. Gov.Print. Off.

Nash, Roderick.1973. Wilderness and the Americanmind. 300 p. Yale Univ. Press,New Haven.

Outdoor Recreation Resources ReviewCommission.

1962. Outdoor recreation for America.246 p. Washington, D. c.

Potter, Dale R., John C. Hendee, andRoger N. Clark.

1973. Hunting satisfaction: Game,guns, or nature? Proceeding 39th

North Am. Wildl. Conf. Proc. p. 220-229. Washington, D.C.

Robbins, Royal.1971. Basic rockcraft. 71 p. LaSiesta Press, Glendale, Calif.

Shafer, Elwood L.1969. The average camper who doesn’texist. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.NE-142, 27 p., illus. Northeast.For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby , Pa.

Shafer, Elwood L. , George Moeller, andRussell E, Getty.

1974. Future leisure environments.USDA For Serv. Res. Pap. NE-301, 14p., illus. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,Upper Darby, Pa.

Stankey, George H.1973. Visitor perception of wildernessrecreation carrying capacity. USDAFor. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-142, 61 p.,illus. Intermt . For. and Range Exp.Stn. , Ogden, Utah.

Stankey, George H.1974. Criteria for the determinationof recreational carrying capacity inColorado River Basin. In Environmentalmanagement in the Colorado River Basin,p. 82-89. A. Berry Crawford and DeanF. Peterson, eds. Utah State Univ.Press, Logan.

Stankey, George H.1979. Use rationing in two southernCalifornia wildernesses. J. For.77(6) : 347-349.

Stankey, George H., and John Baden.1977. Rationing wilderness use:Methods, problems, and guidelines.USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-192,20 p. , illus. Intermt. For. andRange Exp. Stn. , Ogden, Utah.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService.

1974. The visual management system.In National Forest landscape manage-ment. Agric. Handb. 2(462) :l-47.U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington,D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService.

1977. The Forest Service roles inoutdoor recreation. U.S. Dep.Agric. Program Aid 1205, 13 p.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.1976a. National Forest ManagementAct of 1976. This Act calls fordevelopment of guidelines for landmanagement that will provide for adiversity of plant and animalcommunities. Public Law 94-588.In its United States statutes atlarge. 1976. 90 Stat.:2949.(16USC 1600.) U.S. Gov. Print.Off., Washington, D.C.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.1976b. National Trails Act of 1968.An Act that recognizes three classesof trails varying in purpose,permitted uses and adjacent develop-ment . Public Law 90-543. In itsUnited States statutes at large.1968. 82 Stat. :919. (16 USC 1241.)U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington,D.C.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.1976c. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of1968. An Act that recognizes threeclasses of rivers varying in levelof modification, development and

permitted activities. Public Law90-542. In its United Statesstatutes at large. 1968. 82 Stat.:906. (16 USC 1271.). U.S. Gov.Print. Off., Washington, D.C.

Wagar, J. Alan.1966. Campgrounds for many tastes.USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-6,10 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp.Sm., Ogden, Utah.

Watt, Kenneth E. F.1972. Man’s efficient rush towarddeadly dullness. Nat. His. 81(2) :74-77, 80, 82.