Hypothesis: A smaller proportion of visitors who 

 have previously visited the Selway-Bitterroot, and 

 especially the trailhead they visited, will have the 

 brochure. (People familiar with an area may seek 

 information less and already have established prefer- 

 ences for certain trails.) 



Visitors making their first trip into the Selway- 

 Bitterroot Wilderness had the brochure less often than 

 people who had made previous visits (table 3), but the 

 difference was not statistically significant. This does not 

 support the hypothesis. We thought experienced visi- 

 tors would be less motivated to obtain additional infor- 

 mation, but apparently this is not the case. Experienced 

 visitors may also have had more opportunities on 

 earlier, recent trips to obtain the brochure. 



There also was no difference in brochure exposure 

 between persons making their first visit to the specific 

 trailhead and visitors who were alreadyfamiliar with the 

 trailhead (table 3.) This is also contrary to the hypothe- 

 sis, which was based on the belief that visitors going to a 

 new trailhaed would be more eager for information. 



Influencing Visitors 



Although reaching a large proportion of the visitors 

 with the brochure was a necessary first step, it was not 

 enough. Were visitors' choices influenced by that ex- 

 posure to the brochure? 



About one-fourth of the visitors who had the brochure 

 reported that their choice of trailhead on the trip was 

 influenced by it. However, this constituted only 1 1 

 percent of all sampled visitors. This percentage in- 

 creased only slightly (from 1 1 to 1 2) from 1 974 to 1 975 

 even though there was a somewhat wider exposure to 

 the brochure the second year. The proportion of visitors 

 with the brochure who said it influenced their choice of 

 trailhead did not change between the years. 



Hypothesis: The proportion of visitors who report 

 the brochure influenced their choice of trailhead 

 will be higher among those who obtained the bro- 

 chure before the trip than those who obtained it at 

 the trailhead. (The assumption is that by the time 

 visitors reach a trailhead, it is too late in the decision 

 process to influence that trip.) 



Visitors who obtained the brochure before they 

 reached the trailhead were much more likely to report 

 that the brochure influenced their choice than were 

 those who did not get the brochure until they arrived at 

 the trailhead— 41 percent compared to only 4 percent 

 (table 4). This difference is statistically significant at the 

 0.001 level and supports the hypothesis. 



For those who reported that their choice of trailhead 

 was influenced, the most commonly reported type of 

 influence was "general information about the area," 

 such as on the existence of trails, opportunities for loop 

 trips, presence of lakes, and approximate distances 

 (table 5). The next most common answer was "chose a 

 less-used trailhead," given by 30 percent of the visitors 

 who said they were influenced. This is 1 3 percent of all 

 visitors who had the brochure before reaching the 

 trailhead, but only about 3 percent of all visiters. 



Hypothesis: The proportion of visitors who report 

 that their behavior was influenced by the brochure 

 will be higher on the lightly used trailheads than on 

 heavily used trailheads. 



The proportion of visitors to the lightly used trails who 

 said their choice of trailhead was influenced by the 

 brochure was higher than for visitors to heavily used 

 trails (table 4). The difference between the two figures— 

 30 and 19 percent— is statistically significant beyond 

 the 0.05 level and supports the hypothesis. 



Hypothesis: A smaller proportion of horsemen will 

 report choices influenced by the brochure than will 

 hikers. 



The sample of horse users was small, but the propor- 

 tion reporting that their choice of trailhead was influ- 

 enced was higher than for hikers. This is the opposite of 

 the hypothesis, although the differences fall short of 

 statistical significance (table 5). 



Hypothesis: A smaller proportion of local people 

 will report choices influenced by the brochure than 

 will nonlocal people. 



The association of place of residence with strength of 

 the brochure's influence was not particularly strong 

 (table 5). The pattern repeats that for brochure ex- 

 posure: high for local people, declining within Montana 



Table 5.— Responses to open-ended questions— "Please explain how"— by visitors 

 who reported their choice of trailhead was affected by the brochurel 



Type of influence on choice 



Number^ Percent of respondents2 



General information 24 



Chose less-used area 17 



Used "How-to-find trailhead" information 7 



Information on attractions 5 



Photographs of area 2 



Other 8 



No answer 3 



48 

 30 

 15 

 9 

 3 

 14 

 5 



Mil answers by each respondent were classified and tabulated (no one gave more than two answers). 

 Ttius, the number of responses (66) totals more than the number of respondents (57). 



^The actual number of responses before weighting is shown, but percentages are based on weighted 

 sample. 



10 



