Table 1.— Change in relative use among trailheads, 1973-75 



Percentage of total groups for each year 



Trailhead Use leveM 1973 1974 Change2 1975 Change2 



Carlton Creek 



L 



0.7 



0.1 



U*3 



0.3 



U*3 



Sweeney Creek 



L 



6.8 



5.6 



U 



5.0 



U* 



Bass Creek 



H 



16.7 



21.5 



U* 



27.2 



U* 



Kootenai Creek 



H 



21.2 



16.2 



D* 



23.9 



U 



St. Mary's Peak 



L 



10.2 



12.0 



D 



4.5 



U* 



Big Creek 



H 



16.1 



13.7 



D 



12.4 



D* 



Glen Lake 



L 



3.0 



4.1 



D* 



3.5 



D 



Svi/eathouse Creek 



L 



1.4 



2.7 



D* 



1.1 



U* 



Bear Creek 



L 



8.1 



7.8 



U 



7.9 



U 



Mill Creek 



L 



7.8 



5.1 



U* 



3.4 



U* 



Blodgett Creek 



L 



8.3 



11.1 



D* 



10.7 



D* 



'^L = lightly used, H = heavily used. 



2d = change in desired direction; U = change in undesired direction relative to 1973. 

 3* = change from 1 973 exceeded 20 percent of 1 973 value. 



Table 2.— Change in relative aggregate use, for trailheads classified by level of use 



Percent of total groups for each year 



Trailhead class N 1973 1974 Change 1975 Change"" 



Lightly used 



8 



46.1 



48.5 



D 



36.5*2 



U 



Heavily used 



3 



53.9 



51.5 



D 



63.5 



U 



Lightly used 



4 



11.8 



12.5 



D 



10.0 



U 



Moderately used 



4 



34.3 



36.0 





26.5* 





Heavily used 



3 



53.9 



51.5 



D 



63.5 



U 



''D = change in desired direction; U = change in undesired direction. 

 2* = change from 1973 exceeded 20 percent of 1973 value. 



If a three-way grouping is used, the conclusions 

 remain unchanged (table 2). It is apparent that the 1 975 

 change towards increased relative use of the heavily 

 used trails came more at the expense of the 4 moder- 

 ately used trails (with a 23 percent decline from 1 973), 

 rather than the lightly used trails. 



Based solely on the use patterns as reflected by trail 

 register data, the brochure was not effective. The pat- 

 tern of concentrated use apparently was intensifying in 

 the second year of the evaluation, which is the opposite 

 of the expected growing effect of the brochure over 

 time. We thought that by the second year more people 

 would have obtained the brochure and more would have 

 it during the decision phase. 



This does not necessarily mean information is a 

 useless tool for redistributing use. First, there was no 

 experimental control so we don't know how use pat- 

 terns might have shifted over the 2 years without the 

 brochure. The changes could have been even worse. 



Second, the crudeness of the use index must be 

 taken into account. It is unlikely the brochure was intact 

 highly effective, given the pattern of trail register data 

 forthe 3 years. But there is at least some chance that the 



marked deterioration suggested in 1 975 was the result 

 of changes in registration rates, not actual shifts in use. 



Finally, visitor awareness, use, and evaluation of the 

 brochure must also be considered before dismissing 

 this information campaign as ineffective. These topics 

 are covered next. 



Visitor Responses to tlie Brochure 



Visitors' responses to the brochure were probed with 

 a mail questionnaire. With one followup mailing, we 

 received an 82 percent return, or 503 of 61 1 mailed. 

 Excluding questionnaires returned by the Postal Ser- 

 vice as undeliverable raises the response rate to 86 

 percent, or 503 of 582. This high response creates 

 considerable confidence in the representativeness of 

 the results, at least for visitors who registered. Non- 

 respondents were not contacted. 



Reaching Visitors 



Hypothesis: The proportion of visitors with a copy of 

 the brochure v/ill increase over time. 



In order to have any possible effect, people first must 

 be exposed to the brochure or other information device. 



7 



