ORRRC at 40! Hindsight perspective expands capacity.

A central theme of ORRRC at 40 is that history is a tool that helps to string together past experience, present understanding and future thinking. Having recently breached the tender age of 50, and having watched students and academic curricula evolve for almost half that time, I am convinced that we need to train ourselves to respect and reflect upon the wisdom of our past. OK, you might say, nice message, but show me! That is my charge.

I recently spent a sabbatical with the Department of the Interior as the Chair of the Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands. In hindsight, I realize that I started this project stuck in a particular mind-set. Re-reading ORRRC stretched my thinking and allowed the Task Force to see capacity from a different perspective and purpose.

In the Spring 2001, a senior recreation planner in a federal land agency was contacted and asked if he was interested in being involved in an interagency demonstration project. The purpose of the project was to test some of the new thinking and tools coming forth from the Task Force on how to make better visitor capacity decisions. He declined the opportunity by saying, "We don't have a capacity problem; we don't want to limit use." This is a dominant perspective among managers of our nation's parks, forests, refuges, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wildernesses, national monuments and other specially designated areas. That is, we don't need to deal with recreation capacity until we have a problem and want to reduce recreation demand.

Ironically, about the same time, the Department was engaged in highly controversial and litigious visitor capacity battles dealing with snowmobiles in Yellowstone, off-highway vehicles in the Big Cyprus and the Southern California desert, cruise ships in Alaska waters and personal watercraft in many National Parks. These debates and conflicts certainly gave the Task Force pause. Why wait until one has a problem to address visitor capacity when, for all practical purposes, professional decision-making has been transferred to the judicial and political system? Might there be more compelling and fundamental reasons to address visitor capacity than simply for the purpose of reducing public access?

This line of questioning took us back to ORRRC. It was very revealing, almost refreshing, to see capacity viewed in another light. ORRRC viewed a capacity as a:

* measure of the supply of available opportunities

* proactive trigger

* tool to justify more money, parks, facilities and programs

* tool to increase supply.

Juxtaposed to the dominant perspective of capacity today, ORRRC views capacity as a measure of the effective supply of available opportunities. Perhaps most revealing is the perspective that capacity can be a tool to help justify an increase in the supply of available opportunities (e.g., parks, campgrounds, picnic areas and beaches), in addition to today's perspective that capacity is a tool to reduce demand or limit public access. Indeed, in the 1960s and 1970s, considerable growth was witnessed between local and state park and recreation agencies based upon the justification that current recreation demand was approaching the capacity for an area, and thus the need for more parklands and facilities.

These new perspectives from ORRRC prompted the Task Force to go even further to examine capacity from other vantage points. What might be the purpose and value of visitor capacity from the perspective of urban and regional planners; the private sector such as KOA Campgrounds and Vail Ski Area, outfitter and guide businesses, marina and hotel concessionaires; local gateway communities; state wildlife agencies and their management of sport hunting over the last century; or from a tourist planning a vacation six months in advance? This effort was very enlightening. It expanded the Task Force's appreciation for the different purposes of visitor capacity.

CHAPTER 3

THE SUPPLY

The most striking aspect of the supply of outdoor recreation resources in America is one of paradox. Public areas designated for outdoor recreation include one-eighth of the total land of the country. Millions of other acres, private as well as public, are also used for recreation. But this apparent abundance in many ways fails to provide an adequate supply of outdoor recreation opportunities for the public.

The problem is not one of number of acres but of effective acres--acres of land and water available to the public and usable for specific types of recreation. For reasons of location or management, much of the vast acreage nominally designated for recreation is now not available for general public recreation use. Most of this land is in the mountains of the West and Alaska, while a large percentage of the people are in the East. This kind of imbalance often is duplicated within States. Michigan has a vast recreation resource in public ownership, but most of it is located just beyond the range of mass recreation use for the people of Detroit. The pattern is repeated elsewhere.

There are very real limitations on what can be done to adjust this imbalance. In some respects, the location of outdoor recreation resources is a constant factor that cannot be changed. The most promising means of bringing about a balance is management policy, which in many cases may be as much a determinant of supply as acres. This means management in the very broad sense. It includes legislative and administrative decisions as to how public resources should be used and decisions on private investment.

Management decisions can increase the supply of outdoor recreation resources without an increase in acreage. If a given area is transferred from low-density use emphasizing natural environment to high-density use emphasizing facilities, more recreation opportunities are made available. At the same time, intelligent concentration of use in this way can protect other natural environments by diverting mass pressures from them.

This factor is illustrated by the trend of visits to State parks during the period 1950-59. Visits increased by 123 percent, but acreage increased by only 22 percent. The contrast in density of use is highlighted by the fact that the national parks in 1960 had nearly five times as many acres as the State parks but less than one-third as many visits. Thus, in a sense, the density of use in the State parks is 14 times that of the national parks. Much of this intensive use is not by plan but stems from public pressure. However, there is implicit here a management decision to tolerate, if not actively to promote, high-density use.

This is not to imply that high-density use is necessarily desirable, but only to point out that it can serve more people. In this process, however, the nature of the recreation experience is affected. A balance of all types of opportunities should be offered, and administrative decisions can manage this balance to meet changing needs. The classification system proposed in Chapter six is designed to help guide policy to this end.

The seeming abundance of acres and the ability of management to increase their capacity should not overshadow the need for orderly public acquisition in some places. Where the present combination of public and private ownership makes inadequate provision for outdoor recreation, as is the case in some parts of the country and with certain types of resources, such acquisition is the only answer. Shoreline is an outstanding example.

Approximately three-fifths of the country's land is in private ownership. Most of this is in farms, forests and range lands, which provide many different kinds of recreation opportunities, notably hunting, fishing, hiking, picnicking, camping, and sightseeing.

Over one-third of the Nation's land is in Federal ownership. The Bureau of Land Management in the Department of the interior controls about two-thirds of all Federal land. Two-thirds of this is in Alaska. Federal land is used primarily for recreation (including hunting and fishing), timber production, watershed protection, and grazing.

About four percent of the land is owned by State and local governments. About half of the State-owned land is used for grazing. Most of the remainder is in highway rights-of-way, forests, parks, and fish and game areas.

The outdoor recreation supply may be considered in three general categories: (1) the resources now publicly designated for outdoor recreation use--traditional park, forest, and recreation areas, (2) the undesignated resources--both public and private--which either are or could be used for outdoor recreation, and (3) special situations that require particular treatment--such as shoreline and primitive areas.

PUBLIC OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS (1)

The term "recreation areas" as used in this section includes all publicly owned, nonurban areas designated by the agency in charge of their administration as available for recreation use, whether or not they are now so used. It refers to the total land and water acreage, exclusive of inholdings, contained within the exterior boundaries. There are over 24.000 such areas encompassing 283 million acres. This large number of areas includes some 15,000 small areas such as roadside picnic grounds. The large acreage includes the extensive national forests, each of which is classed as a single area.

Acreage (2)

Nationally, these recreation acres are located where the people are not. One-sixth is in sparsely populated Alaska. Seventy-two percent of the remainder is in the West where only 15 percent of the people live. The Northeast, where one-quarter of the people live, has only 4 percent of the recreation acreage of the 48 contiguous States. The South and North Central regions each have about 30 percent of the population but have roughly 12 percent of the recreation acreage in the 48 contiguous States.

This inverse relation to population is particularly well illustrated for the 48 contiguous States by the Federal lands which provide six-sevenths of the total acreage. Eighty-four percent of the national forest acreage and 78 percent of the national park acreage are in the relatively lightly populated West.

The Federal Government manages the vast majority of the recreation acres-- 84 percent as compared with 14 percent managed by the States, and 2 percent managed by local governments. In terms of number of areas, the picture is quite different. States manage about 85 percent of the total number. Of the rest, the local governments manage more than the Federal Government. Among the various types of management agencies, the forest agencies manage the largest number of acres at both the State and Federal levels, again as a result of the generally large size of the forest units. However, in number of units, the Fish and Wildlife Service leads at the Federal level, and the highway and fish and game agencies lead among the States.

The inadequacy of acres alone as a measure of recreation supply is highlighted by the size relationships. Most of the seeming abundance of recreation acreage is in large units. Only 1 percent of the areas are over 100,000 acres in size, but they make up 88 percent of the total recreation acreage. Conversely, over two-thirds of the areas are under 40 acres in size, but they contain less than 0.1 percent of the total acreage.

Of the Federal acreage, 95 percent is in areas over 100,000 acres, but these comprise only one-fifth of the total number. The large areas tend to mislead even on the local level, where 44 percent of the acreage is in areas of 100,000 or more. But there are only 10 areas of this size in the total of 1,580 local areas.

Capacity

The capacity of a resource to serve recreation needs is a more accurate measure of supply than acreage. For some activities large numbers of acres are essential, but for most it is not the number of acres but how they are used that is most important. Facilities and improvements are thus in many cases the key to effective supply.

Management decisions can most easily affect day-use facilities. It is relatively easier to add a picnic table or to improve swimming or parking facilities than to change the use of an entire area. Total picnicking acreage, for instance, was doubled between 1950 and 1960. Now there is room for three million Americans to go picnicking at any one time.

The more heavily populated regions tend to use fewer acres to do a bigger job. The Northeast has less than half the number of picnic developments, with smaller total acreage, than the West, but it has almost twice the capacity. This situation reflects management decisions in response to the greater demand from the heavily populated Northeast. The same pattern exists in swimming facilities. The Northeast devoted about two-thirds more acreage to these facilities but provided three times the capacity of that in the West.

The distribution of overnight facility capacity generally follows the acreage distribution pattern rather than that of the population.

The Commission inventory indicates that almost a million people can be accommodated overnight "under canvas" in campgrounds, with about 60 percent of the capacity in the West. The remainder is about evenly divided among the other three regions.

This is also true of overnight cabin accommodations. There are over 19,000 cabins with a total capacity of 125,000 people. But the West has about 53 percent of the capacity and the Northeast only eight percent. The South and North Central Regions have 18 and 21 percent, respectively.

There are nearly 1,000 lodge, motel, and hotel developments on the public areas across the country able to accommodate over 60,000 people. The West again has the lion's share--about half the total capacity. The South is next with 31 percent, and the remainder is divided between the North Central and the Northeast, with the latter a poor fourth.

Use Pressures

The best indicator of the need for additional development or acquisition is the present use pressure on existing resources. That pressure is great--a total of over 500 million visits to the public areas in 1960--but it is uneven. The pressure may reach unmanageable proportions in some areas, while in others it remains light. At times, nearly all areas may be almost deserted.

The seasons are a major factor. Except for those activities that have some other special season, such as skiing and hunting, visits are concentrated in the summer. Furthermore, even within the summer they are concentrated on weekends. Two and a half times as many people come on an average weekend day as on an average weekday. And the visits are concentrated during the daylight hours, as only 10 percent of the visitors stay overnight. Thus, in mid afternoon of a summer weekend day, peak use occurs, and this pressure is not approximated at most other times.

The pressure is also unevenly divided among areas administered by different levels of government. Almost half of the visits to all public areas are to those managed by the States, about a third to Federal lands, and the rest to local.

The pattern of demand on facilities is also uneven among regions and upon different areas in the same region. On an average weekend day during the period of heaviest use, from 16 to 29 percent of the public areas could not accommodate all who wanted to picnic. Yet, on the other side of the picture, 43 percent of the picnic areas could handle more visitors, and 14 percent could accommodate an increase of over 25 percent. So, while some areas were experiencing overuse, others were underused.

The pattern was much the same with parking facilities. The Northeast reported the highest percentage overcrowded with the West, South, and North Central regions following in that order. Still, nationally, 67 percent could accommodate more cars.

The uneven pressures prevail for overnight facilities, of both the camping and lodge types. The Northeast again reports the most crowding, with the West, South, and North Central following. Yet each region reports some facilities that can accommodate as much as 25 percent more people and quite a few that can accommodate some more than they now do.

Expansion Plans

Current pressures on resources have brought about extensive plans for the expansion of existing facilities. Definite plans for the next five years call for swimming capacity to be increased by 70 percent, campgrounds by 55 percent, picnic areas by 37 percent, and winter sports areas by 36 percent. Long-range plans call for increasing camping capacities about nine fold, winter sports sevenfold, swimming facilities about fourfold, and picnicking close to three-fold. Some of these long-range developments are dependent upon the solving of major problems such as pollution, erosion control, and termination of other uses.

In terms of long-range potential development, the West reports a higher possible percentage increase in capacity for picnicking, swimming, and winter sports than do the other regions. This may reflect the greater number of acres upon which to base plans. The South's planned increase in campground capacity is the highest of the four regions.

ACREAGE (1000's)

                   1950       1955       1960

STATE PARKS        4,657      5,086      5,671
NATIONAL PARK     23,882     23,899     25,705
SERVICE
U.S. FOREST      181,205    188,120    185,772
SERVICE
TOTALS           209,744    217,105    217,148

The Multiple Purposes for Looking at Visitor Capacity

Here is evidence of how hindsight perspective, and specifically ORRRC, helps to expand capacity for the Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands.

Supply Measurement: A numeric capacity is a measurement of the supply of available recreation opportunities that will be accommodated in an area.

Trigger for Actions and Resources: A capacity can be used as a trigger point (i.e., a number or numeric range), whereby as current use approaches or exceeds the available supply, predetermined management responses can be activated or resources allocated. A numeric capacity is, in effect, a signal to justify and activate a suite of management responses. In some instances, use-exceeding capacity may justify the expansion of the supply of appropriate recreation opportunities, and in other instances, it may justify the alteration or limitation of use or demand.

Risk management: A numeric capacity is a reasonable and responsible risk management tool for situations where nature or human activity creates a high-risk environment for the public, or where human behavior might put the natural or cultural resources at risk.

Private Sector and Community Predictability: A numeric capacity provides clarity for business people to act and plan accordingly. By comparing current demand with available supply, the private sector and communities can anticipate growth trends and potential, plan appropriate investment opportunities or divestiture steps, or take collaborative actions with land managers to mitigate negative consequences of demand approaching or exceeding capacity.

Planning Trips: A numeric capacity, particularly when compared to real-time use levels, can be very helpful information to a discerning traveler. For example, visitors might find it useful to be informed that a beach, backcountry lake area or battlefield is at 30%, 90%, or 120% of visitor capacity. This information may result in a "voluntary redistribution" of people while still allowing freedom of choice, and may improve the quality of the experience.

Administrative and Historic Record: Complex decisions need to have supporting documentation detailing how and why decisions are made, and the process that is used. This record becomes the historic anchor from which to learn by experience and to compare yesterday with today's new information, data and circumstances. It also is vital in responding to judicial inquiries for demonstrable evidence of sound professional judgment.

Regional Recreation Planning: Numeric capacities are fundamental for regional recreation planning, recreation demand and supply analysis, multi-jurisdictional allocation decisions, coordinated visitor trip-planning information systems, identification of recreation facility needs and investment opportunities, and identification of alternative or substitute opportunities reasonably nearby when access is limited at a particular site.

Allocation Decisions: A numeric capacity is fundamental for making allocation decisions involving where, when or how many of a particular recreation opportunity can be accommodated (e.g., outfitter and guide permits, birders, concessionaires, mountain bikes, personal water craft, and youth groups). Similarly, a numeric capacity metric is fundamental for making multiple-use allocations decisions (e.g., timber harvesting, research closures, and reservoir draw-down).

Limiting Public Use: A numeric capacity can serve as the measurement of allowable use or access that is permissible for a certain time or place.

Publishing the Report

Discussions are underway for the National Recreation and Park Association to take a leadership role in the publishing and distribution of the report from the Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands entitled The Supply of Visitor Opportunities on Public Lands and Waters: Making Better Decisions. The intent is to provide copies to local and state park agencies, field units of the federal land agencies, accredited universities, national special interest groups, and other interested stakeholders. The publication is targeted for the 2002 National NRPA Congress in Tampa. Advanced electronic text-only copies may be obtained directly from Dr. Glenn Haas at [e-mail].

Facilities determine use.

NUMBER AND CAPACITY OF DEVELOPED PICNIC GROUND FACILITIES

48 CONTIGUOUS STATES, 1960

BY REGION

                                 NUMBER     CAPACITY

               TOTAL U.S.         9,890    3,063,200
                NORTHEAST         1,456      971,300
            NORTH CENTRAL         2,795      921,400
                    SOUTH         2,593      637,700
                     WEST         3,046      532,800

BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT AND TYPE OF AGENCY

  TOTAL, FEDERAL AGENCIES         2,448      527,900

    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE           408       31,100
      U.S. FOREST SERVICE         1,230      133,100
BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES           239       44,330
    BUREAU OF RECLAMATION            11        2,500
       CORPS OF ENGINEERS           560      316,900

    TOTAL, STATE AGENCIES         5,714    1,807,500

            PARK AGENCIES         3,692    1,471,900
          FOREST AGENCIES           836      161,300
   FISH AND GAME AGENCIES           720       71,600
           WATER AGENCIES            74        3,100
         HIGHWAY AGENCIES            11       25,600
    CONSERVANCY DISTRICTS           235       67,800
                    OTHER           146        6,200

   TOTAL, COUNTY, MUNICI-         1,728      727,800
            PAL AND LOCAL

            PARK AGENCIES           783      343,000
          FOREST AGENCIES           199      108,200
   FISH AND GAME AGENCIES             4          700
           WATER AGENCIES                      9,000
    CONSERVANCY DISTRICTS           195       59,100
                    OTHER           547      207,800

* Number of picnic grounds not
reported for county, municipal,
and local water agencies.

ORRRC inventory data

Note: Table made from bar graph.
TABLE 35.--Number of areas reporting specified use pressure on
campground facilities, average weekend day, by census region, 48
contiguous States, 1960

                                             Census region

         Use pressure                 Northeast      North Central

                                    Num-     Per-    Num-     Per-
                                    ber      cent    ber      cent
Could accommodate more than
  25 percent additional use           28       13     116       21
Could accommodate up to 25 per-
  cent additional use                 41       20     134       25
All users accommodated                66       32     174       32
Could not accommodate all             73       35     120       22
  Total                              208      100     544      100

                                            Census region

         Use pressure                   South            West

                                    Num-     Per-    Num-     Per-
                                    ber      cent    ber      cent
Could accommodate more than
  25 percent additional use           57       16      60       13
Could accommodate up to 25 per-
  cent additional use                111       32     105       23
All users accommodated               106       31     136       29
Could not accommodate all             75       21     163       35
  Total                              349      100     464      100

                                    Census region

         Use pressure               United States

                                    Num-     Per-
                                    ber     cent
Could accommodate more than
  25 percent additional use          261       17
Could accommodate up to 25 per-
  cent additional use                391       25
All users accommodated               482       30
Could not accommodate all            431       28

  Total                            1,565      100
TABLE 36.--Estimated acreage and capacity of facilities planned for
development within 5 years, 48 contiguous States, 1960

Type of facility               Acres         Capacity

                              1,000's     People--1,000's

Picnic grounds                   48           1,140
Swimming beaches or pools         4             535
Winter sports sites              30             105
Campgrounds                      57             547
  Total                         139           2,327
TABLE 37.--Estimated acreage and capacity of potential long-range
developments on existing public designated recreation areas, 48
contiguous States, 1960

                            Potential long-range development

Type of facility               Acres         Capacity

                              1,000's     People--1,000's

Picnic grounds                  662           7,918
Swimming beaches or pools        31           2,914
Winter sports sites             199           2,148
Campgrounds                   1,089           8,716
 Total                        1,981          21,696

(1.) This section is based upon the ORRRC inventory of nonurban public designated recreation areas. The information was obtained by questionnaires completed by the State and Federal officials responsible for administering the areas involved. From a list of over 6,000 areas of 40 acres or more, completed forms were received for 4,888 located in the 48 contiguous States. Information on areas under 40 acres was aggregated so that only more general information--in some cases estimates--was received. Thus, the data are a sample, but a very large sample, which approximates the entire public recreation picture. Tables appear in appendix F.

A full report of the inventory is presented in Public Outdoor Recreation Areas--Acreage, Use, Potential, ORRRC Study Report 1: and List of Public Outdoor Recreation Areas--1960, ORRRC Study Report 2.

(2.) Data for Alaska and Hawaii are not included in the sections dealing with acreage, capacity, use pressures, and expansion plans.

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: Throughout the year Parks & Recreation is highlighting sections of Outdoor Recreation For America in an effort to bring a valuable spotlight to the history of our profession and our community. We hope you will take to heart what our own history provides us and use its offerings to better yourself, your community, and our parks.

Dr. Glenn E. Haas has particular interests in regional recreation planning, natural resource history and policy, visitor management, and visitor capacity decision-making. He has served on the national boards of the NRPA National Society for Park Resources and the National Parks and Conservation Association. He has chaired the Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands and Water. His ORRRC at 40 article this month is titled, "Hindsight Perspective Expands Capacity," and begins on page 70.