ledge. They are not aware of all alternative locations nor 

 of all the characteristics of each, and some of the 

 information they possess is erroneous. 



5. Visitors evaluate and compare locations basea on 

 their perceptions of the characteristics of known alter- 

 natives. 



Postulates: 



6. The effort visitors make to obtain information 

 about alternative recreational locations: 



a. I ncreases as the i mportance of the recreational 

 experience increases (how much is at stake), which in 

 part is a function of length of stay and of personal 

 commitment to the type of recreational experience. 



b. Decreases as the amount of information visi- 

 tors perceive they already have increases, particularly 

 personal familiarity from previous trips. 



c. Increases as individual preference for novelty 

 (or risk) increases in comparison to preference for 

 familiarity (or security). 



7. Visitor evaluations are based primarily on a few 

 key characteristics that may vary among visitors. 



8. The key characteristics are evaluated on a low- 

 resolution scale, essentially as either "satisfactory'' or 

 "not satisfactory." The thresholds for "satisfactory" 

 judgments vary among visitors. More detailed informa- 

 tion helps people make these threshold decisions. 



9. To choose a new alternative location, information 

 must convince a person that it is highly probablea new 

 place is at least as satisfactory (and possibly better) in 

 terms of key characteristics as a familiar place (less so 

 for high-novelty seekers or "explorers"). 



1 0. Visitors discount information about new alterna- 

 tives based on their perception of the credibility of the 

 sources and the information. Increased detail generally 

 results in increased credibility. Information from an 

 agency usually tends to be viewed as less credible than 

 that from friends and acquaintances. 



1 1. Information is most likely to influence decisions 

 if it becomes available during the trip-planning phase, 

 which is usually at home, but sometimes at a Ranger 

 Station or other place. Information received later is less 

 likely to influence decisions because: 



a. Changing a decision requires more effort than 

 making the original decision. 



b. Additional information after a decision tends to 

 be unwanted because it creates dissonance; most 

 people would rather not know they may not have made 

 the best possible choice. 



1 2. Information is most likely to influence decisions 

 if it is received at locations closer to home or farther 

 from the alternative locations. This is because the closer 

 persons are located to one alternative when new infor- 

 mation is obtained, the less likely they are to consider 

 other alternatives because the differences in relative 

 travel costs become greater. 



In other words, we view recreationists as having a 

 general idea of what they are seeking, as using a crude 

 benefit-cost analysis to determine how much effort they 

 will put into gathering information to pick a location, as 

 being only fairly good information processors with a 

 streak of mental laziness, and as somewhat stubborn 

 about changing their minds after they have chosen a 

 place. 



FINDINGS 

 Changes in Use Patterns 



Hypothesis: Lightly used trails will account for a 

 larger proportion of total use, and heavily used trails 

 a smaller proportion, after introduction of the bro- 

 chure. 



Trail register data were the only available index of 

 shifts in use patterns, but these leave much to be 

 desired and require caution in interpretation. Field 

 checking in 1974 showed only 28 percent of the visitors 

 to 5 trailheads registered (Lucas 1975). This was less 

 than half the rate reported in other studies and was not 

 expected. With such low registration rate, moderate 

 fluctuations in registration rates among trailheads from 

 year to year, which could easily occur, would substan- 

 tially distort the pattern of relative use. Therefore, only 

 large shifts should be viewed as meaningful. Although 

 data on actual visitor behavior are ordinarily the most 

 convincing evidence, in this case the trail register data, 

 unfortunately, cannot be viewed as accurately reflec- 

 ting real behavior. The data from sampled visitors 

 concerning their response to the brochure may tell us 

 more about its effectiveness. 



With these cautions in mind, the trail register data 

 show that in 1 974 change was in the desired direction 

 and consistent with the hypothesis, but only weakly so. 

 Use of 6 of the 1 1 trails'! shifted in the desired direction; 

 2 of 3 heavily used trails had less relative use, but only 4 

 of 8 lightly used trails had more (table 1). 



If because of the low trail register compliance, only 

 changes of over 20 percent from 1 973 are considered, 

 use of 4 trailheads apparently changed in the desired 

 direction, 3 in the undesired direction, and 4 could be 

 considered not changed significantly, again weakly 

 consistent with the hypothesis. 



In terms of use redistribution, 1975 appears to be a 

 disaster. Only 3 of 1 1 trailheads changed in the desired 

 direction, 1 heavily and 2 lightly used trailheads (table 

 1 ). Considering only changes of more than 20 percent, 2 

 were in the desired direction, 6 were not, and 3 were 

 unchanged. Results are sharply inconsistent with the 

 hypothesis. 



Under the three-way classification of use levels, St. 

 Mary's Peak, BearCreek, MillCreek,and BlodgettCreek 

 are classified as moderately used, without a clearly 

 desired direction of change. In this analysis, 4 of 7 

 trailheads changed in the desired direction in 1 974, but 

 only 2 of 7 in 1 975— essentially the same situation 

 described above. 



If trailheads are grouped by level of use, and aggre- 

 gate use compared, the conclusions are the same. In 

 1 974, there was a small change in the desired direction 

 (table 2). The magnitude of change (about 5 percent) is 

 small, however. In 1 975, the change is in the undesired 

 direction and, at about 1 8 percent, is of greater magni- 

 tude. 



■"The trailhead on Fred Burr Creek is blocked by private land; although 

 it had a trail register, it had very little public use (9 parties in 3 years). 

 Sheafman Creek also has no public access and was not mentioned in 

 the brochure. In 3 years, 1 2 parties signed in at the trail register. Both of 

 these trailheads were omitted from the analysis. 



6 



