Improving Voluntary 

 Registration Through Location 

 and Design of Trail Registration 

 Stations 



In the past, users have suppHed the requested infor- 

 mation at compliance rates believed to be fairly high. 

 Early experimental studies in northwestern wildernesses 

 examined visitor compliance with various trail register 

 systems, and generally showed high response rates 

 (Wenger 1964; Wenger and Gregersen 1964; James and 

 Schreuder 1971; Lucas and Kovalicky 1981). Later 

 studies, however, depict low and variable registration 

 rates (Lucas 1983). For example, at seven trailheads in 

 the Bob Marshall Wilderness, the overall compliance was 

 20 percent. This rate reflects low compliance by horse 

 users, hunters, and day users and is not unique to the 

 Bob Marshall. Because considerable variation in compli- 

 ance among wildernesses exists (table 1), data from un- 

 manned registers may be difficult to use. 



When data not representative of the population of 

 wilderness users are expanded, the resulting information 

 is unreliable. Separate projections for each user type 

 would improve reliability (Lime and Lorence 1974); how- 

 ever, very low compliance would not be useful for visitor 

 use estimates. 



Troxel (1981) suggested that voluntary registration be 

 dropped if compliance rates could not be raised. A reha- 

 ble information base is essential for good management 

 decisions. Other methods, such as automated cameras, 



Table 1.— Reported voluntary trail registration rates from 11 studies over 20 

 years (taken from: Lucas 1983) 



Registration 



Areas State Year rate 



Percent 



1. 



Three Sisters Wilderness and 











Mountain Lakes Wilderness 



Oregon 



1961-62 



74 



2. 



Mission Mountains Primitive 











Area 



Montana 



1968 



65 



3. 



San Gorgonio Wilderness ^ ' 



California 



1969 



77 



4. 



Rawafi Wilderness 



Colorado 



1970 



89 



5. 



Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness 



Montana 



1974 



28 



6. 



Idaho Primitive Area 



Idaho 



1974 



18 



7. 



Saw/tooth Wilderness 



Idaho 



1975 



78 



8. 



Waterton Lakes National Park 



Alberta 



1976 



78 



9. 



Spanish Peaks Primitive Area 



Montana 



1977 



50 



10. 



McCormick Forest 



Michigan 



1978-79 



67 



11. 



Bob Marshall Wilderness 



Montana 



1981 



20 



IVIargaret E. Petersen 



IMPORTANCE OF VISITOR 

 REGISTRATION 



Wilderness managers who understand visitors and 

 their use patterns can provide better opportunities for 

 wilderness experiences while protecting wilderness 

 resources. Over the past two decades managers have re- 

 lied extensively on voluntary registration to gain infor- 

 mation about wilderness use and users. Information 

 from registration stations can be used in workload plan- 

 ning and budgeting and has a variety of other uses. For 

 example, knowledge of the user's primary method of 

 travel is relevant to management decisions involving 

 trail layout, design, and maintenance. The amount and 

 distribution of use identifies trends that require in- 

 creased management effort. Similarly, party size in- 

 fluences campsite management techniques and such 

 knowledge may help in decisions about limits on party 

 size. Information such as the visitor's Postal Service 

 ZIP Code allows well-targeted informational campaigns. 

 Because managers have needed and used information 

 such as this, self-registration systems became a popular 

 and inexpensive way to obtain information that would 

 help in providing better wilderness experiences for 

 visitors. 



1 



