as people live more distantly, and rising again for out-of- 

 State visitors. The differences are not statistically signi- 

 ficant, but in any case, the hypothesis is not supported. 



Hypothesis: A smaller proportion of visitors who are 

 experienced with the Selway-Bitterroot, and es- 

 pecially with the trailhead they visited, will report 

 choices influenced by the brochure. 



More visitors who had made previous visits were 

 influenced than first-timers (table 5). The difference 

 was not quite great enough for statistical significance, 

 however. The hypothesis was not supported for general 

 experience with the area. 



The hypothesis was supported, however, for experi- 

 ence with the trailhead chosen (table 5). Over a third of 

 the visitors who had the brochure and had visited a 

 trailhead new to them said they were influenced by the 

 brochure. This was more than twice as great as the 

 proportion of people who had been to the trailhead 

 before who said they were influenced, and the differ- 

 ence is statistically significant. The pattern of answers 

 for the two types of experience— general and specific 

 trailhead— suggests that the more generally experi- 

 enced visitors seek and use information more and often 

 use it to go to new trailheads. 



Hypothesis: The proportion of visitors who report 

 that later trips were influenced will be higher than 

 the proportion reporting that the original, sampled 

 trip was influenced. (This assumes that information 

 must be received by visitors before reaching the trail- 

 head to be effective.) 



There is a "delayed action" effect. About 13 percent 

 of the respondents who did not have the brochure at the 

 time of the trip said they got the brochure later, and over 

 half of these people took trips again before they got a 

 questionnaire. Over half (57 percent) of these said their 

 later trips were influenced by the brochure. The sample 

 size was too small to analyze the effect of where the 

 brochure was obtained. The proportion of later trips 

 influenced was higher than for the original, sampled 

 trips (57 percent compared to 24), statistically signifi- 

 cant at the 0.001 level. This supports the hypothesis. 



Visitors who obtained the brochure at the trailhead 

 on the sampled trip may also have been influenced on 

 later trips, but this was not investigated. 



Visitor Opinion of tlie Brochure 



Visitors were asked to evaluate the two main types of 

 information in the brochure: on how to find trailheads 

 and on relative use levels. The perceived level of use- 

 fulness was very similar for both (table 6). Few visitors 

 felt the information was of no use, and a majority found it 

 "useful" or "very useful." Over one-fourth had no answer, 

 probably because many of them had not read the 

 brochure, although they said they had seen it. 



Visitors were also asked why they rated the brochure 

 as they did. The trailhead location information was 

 described as "generally useful" by 45 percent; 16 

 percent said it was useful because signs were poor. 

 About 1 9 percent said it was not useful to them because 

 they already knew the way, and 1 2 percent said it was 



Table 6.— Evaluation of usefulness of the brochure by 

 visitors exposed to it 



Percent of total response 



Information about 

 trailhead location 



Information about 

 relative use 



Useless 

 Some use 

 Useful 

 Very useful 

 No answer 



6 

 18 

 24 

 26 

 26 



7 



15 

 26 

 25 

 29 



Table 7.— Reasons given for choice of trailhead by visitors 



Reasons 



Number Percentage^ 



Scenery 



137 



23 



Convenience 



123 



22 



Friend's advice 



87 



16 



Good place to fish 



81 



14 



Novelty, variety 



73 



14 



Easy trail 



68 



12 



Familiarity 



57 



10 



"Right type of trail" 



56 



9 



Less crowded 



27 



4 



Good place to hike 



17 



3 



Good place for nature study 



21 



3 



Trail on ridge or to peak 



20 



3 



Good place to hunt 



11 



3 



Forest Service brochure 



4 



1 



Other 



88 



16 



No reason 



3 



1 



Some visitors gave more than one reason; thus percentages add to 

 more than 100. 



not detailed enough. 



The information on use levels was viewed as useful 

 by 5 1 percent because it showed crowded areas, and by 

 3 percent because it had some horse use information. 

 On the negative side, 12 percent said the use infor- 

 mation was inaccurate, 7 percent said information on 

 use levels was not important to them, and 3 percent said 

 they had already made a choice of place to visit. 



We also solicited open-ended comments about the 

 brochure in general. About one-third of those who had 

 seen the brochure commented, and almost all com- 

 ments were positive or constructive. About 1 1 percent 

 of those who had seen the brochure volunteered that it 

 was good or helpful. About 13 percent wanted more 

 detailed information, including distances, travel times, 

 trail steepness, and other conditions. A few (2 percent) 

 suggested the map cover a larger area. About 10 

 percent made other suggestions, such as to include 

 information on fishing, cross-country skiing, and other 

 activities. 



Only 1 percent made negative comments such as 



11 



