Most visitor groups had not seen the brochure when 

 they entered the area: 54 percent said theydid not have 

 a copy, 46 percent did. The proportion exposed to the 

 brochure increased from 44 percent in 1974 to 47 

 percent in 1975, which supports the hypothesis, al- 

 though the difference is not statistically significant. The 

 figures are reasonably consistent with observations in 

 conjunction with checking trail register compliance. 

 About 37 percent of the parties observed took a bro- 

 chure from the dispenser on the trail register, which was 

 where most visitors obtained the brochure. Some of 

 these people observed may have already had another 

 brochure. Others may not have noticed the brochure 

 dispenser or simply not have chosen to take one. 



Some visitors (13 percent) said they obtained bro- 

 chures later, after the sampled trip. This proportion 

 declined from 1 7 percent in 1 974 to 1 percent in 1 975 

 as more visitors already had the brochure before their 

 visit. 



The trailhead was by far the dominant source of the 

 brochure when datafrom 1 974 and 1 975 are combined, 

 as shown in the following tabulation: 



Brochure obtained from: Percentage 

 Trailhead, this trip 45 

 Trailhead, previous trip 32 

 Ranger Station 5 

 National Forest office 3 

 Regional office 4 

 By mail 1 

 From friends 6 

 Don't remember 4 

 Almost half of all visitors with brochures obtained them 

 at the trailhead as their trip started. About one-third of 

 visitors with brochures had obtained brochures at a 

 trailhead on a previous trip. The next most important 

 source was "from friends," but accounted for only 6 

 percent. The other sources, all of which involved contact 

 with the managing agency, were low and were an even 

 smaller proportion of all visitors. For example, only 

 about 2 percent of all visitors obtained a brochure at the 

 Stevensville Ranger Station, although it is less than 1 

 miles from several of the trailheads. 



Hypothesis: The proportion of visitors who obtained 

 brochures before reaching the trailhead will be 

 higher at the lightly used trailheads than at the 

 heavily used trailheads. (The brochures obtained 

 early enough to influence choice of trailhead should 

 result in more people choosing lightly used trails.) 



The proportion of visitors with the brochure varied 

 among the trailheads; the proportion who obtained the 

 brochure before they reached the trailhead (about half 

 of those with the brochure) was higher at the lightly 

 used trailheads than at the heavily used trailheads. At 

 lightly used trailheads, 35 percent of the visitor groups 

 had a brochure before they reached the trail, compared 

 to only 20 percent at the heavily used trails, a statisti- 

 cally significant difference. 2 This is consistent with the 

 hypothesis. 



Hypothesis: The proportion of visitors who obtained 

 brochures only at the trailhead will not differ be- 

 tween lightly and heavily used trailheads. (These 

 brochures were obtained too late to be effective.) 



The proportion of visitors who obtained brochures at 

 the trailhead on the sampled trip was the same for 

 heavily and lightly used trails, 21 percent in both cases. 

 This supports the hypothesis. 



This means that visitors exposed to the brochure 

 early in the decision process, probably before they had 

 committed themselves to a trailhead, were more likely 

 to choose a lightly used trailhead than visitors in 

 general, but that brochures obtained after arriving at the 

 trailhead had no effect on that trip. 



Certain types of visitors were more likely to have the 

 brochure than others, but some hypothesized, ex- 

 pected differences were not found, and some unex- 

 pected differences were found (table 3). 



Hypothesis: A smaller proportion of day users will 

 have obtained brochures than will have campers. 



(Day users are less likely to register, and brochures 

 were avilable at trail registers. Day users probably plan 

 trips less carefully, with less information seeking and 

 less contact with managers.) 



As expected, campers were more likely to have the 

 brochure than were day users, 48 percent compared to 

 43 percent (table 4). This difference is not significant at 

 the 0.05 level, although it is at 0.1 0. Much day use is very 

 brief and may not involve much effort in choosing a 

 location with particular attributes. The field observa- 

 tions in 1 974 showed that only 1 7 percent of weekend 

 visitors, a very large proportion of whom were day users, 

 took a brochure at trailheads, compared to 51 percent 

 on weekdays, when campers were more common. 



Hypothesis: A smaller proportion of horsemen will 

 have obtained brochures than hikers. (Horsemen 

 register less often, may be more often local people 

 already familiar with the area, and may be more limited 

 in choice of areas because some are not well suited to 

 horse travel.) 



As expected, a smaller proportion of horse users had 

 brochures, but the difference was small and not signi- 

 ficant (table 3). The sample of horse users was also 

 small. 



Hypothesis: A smaller proportion of local people 

 will have brochures than nonlocal people. (Local 

 people are more likely to be familiar with the area and 

 have established trail preferences, and they may not 

 seek additional information or contact the managers as 

 often as other visitors. Some live close to particular 

 trailheads.) 



Contrary to expectations, local people from the lower 

 Bitterroot Valley were more likely to have brochures 

 than other visitors. For Montana visitors (over 80 per- 

 cent of the total), exposure to the brochure dropped the 

 farther from the study area the visitors lived. 



2Chi-square equaled 18.08 with one degree of freedom, which is 

 significant beyond the 0.001 level. 



8 



