DEC Roadside Camping Final Report

Adirondack Park Forest Preserve
Roadside Camping Study
David Graefe, Chad Dawson and Lisa Gerstenberger

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
320 Bray Hall
One Forestry Drive
Syracuse, NY 13210
July 20, 2010
i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................................1

Roadside camping inventory data collection: ............................................................................. 1
Preliminary Interviews of campers: ............................................................................................ 2
On-site survey of campers: ......................................................................................................... 3
Mail survey of campers:.............................................................................................................. 4
INVENTORY OF ROADSIDE CAMPSITES ......................................................6

Inventory Results ........................................................................................................................ 7
PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS WITH ROADSIDE CAMPERS..................22

Themes Related to Place Attachment ....................................................................................... 23
Themes related to Place Dependence ....................................................................................... 24
Visitor Comparisons of Roadside Sites and Campground Sites............................................... 25
Factors Influencing Visitors’ Decisions to Choose Roadside Camping Areas......................... 27
ON-SITE FIELD SURVEY OF CAMPERS .......................................................30

Visitor Site Choice.................................................................................................................... 41
Visitor Residence Area ............................................................................................................. 43
FOLLOW-UP MAIL SURVEY ...........................................................................47

Level of Attachment ................................................................................................................. 47
Camper Motivations.................................................................................................................. 49
Substitution for Other Camping Settings.................................................................................. 55
Substitution for Other Camping Resources .............................................................................. 56
Substitution Options.................................................................................................................. 61
Reaction to Statements from Qualitative Interviews ................................................................ 62
Demographic Variables ............................................................................................................ 65
i
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .........................................................................67
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................69
APPENDIX A: CONDITION CLASS PHOTOGRAPHIC EXAMPLES .......70
APPENDIX B: LOCATIONS OF ROADSIDE CAMPSITES..........................76
APPENDIX C: ON-SITE VISITOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT ......................81
APPENDIX D: FOLLOW-UP MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT ....................88
ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Data summarizing roadside campsite inventory............................................................... 8

Table 2. Corresponding circumference and area measurements. ................................................. 10
Table 3. Inventory variables for campsite amenities and condition class.................................... 11
Table 4. Content categories from preliminary camper interviews................................................ 22
Table 5. Location of roadside campsites surveyed. ...................................................................... 30
Table 6. Percentages of visitors using camping equipment.......................................................... 30
Table 7. Gender of on-site survey participants. ............................................................................ 31
Table 8. Number of days spent overnight at roadside camping areas during trip. ....................... 31
Table 9. Number of days spent overnight using other accommodations...................................... 32
Table 10. Number of years using roadside camping area that was visited. .................................. 32
Table 11. Usage of other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. .......................... 33
Table 12. Number of years using other roadside camping areas within Adirondack Park........... 33
Table 13. Usage of non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park......................... 33
Table 14. Number of years using non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park... 34
Table 15. Days per year using the areas in which visitors were surveyed.................................... 35
Table 16. Days per year using other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. ........ 35
Table 17. Days per year using NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.................. 36
Table 18. Days per year using privately owned campgrounds within the Adirondack Park........ 36
Table 19. Days per year using primitive/backpacking campsites within the Adirondack Park. .. 37
Table 20. Days per year using camping areas outside the Adirondack Park................................ 37
Table 21. Group size for visitors surveyed. .................................................................................. 38
Table 22. Presence of children within camping groups................................................................ 39
Table 23. Compositions of roadside camping groups................................................................... 39
Table 24. Rates and percentages of activity participation while roadside camping. .................... 40
Table 25. Camping as a primary activity for current Adirondack Park trip. ................................ 40
Table 26. Primary trip activities other than camping.................................................................... 40
Table 27. Second most important activities for Adirondack Park trip. ........................................ 41
Table 28. Roadside camping area as primary setting choice. ....................................................... 41
Table 29. Alternative first choices for camping settings. ............................................................. 42
Table 30. Alternatives if respondents couldn’t use the roadside camping area they visited. ....... 42
Table 31. Level of satisfaction with experience at roadside camping areas................................. 43
Table 32. Distances between visitors’ permanent homes and roadside camping areas................ 43
Table 33. Visitor permanent residence within Adirondack Park.................................................. 44
Table 34. Vacation homeownership and seasonal residence in the Adirondack Park.................. 44
Table 35. Visitor permanent residence by country. ...................................................................... 44
Table 36. Visitor permanent residence by state. ........................................................................... 44
Table 37. Visitor permanent residence by New York County residents....................................... 45
Table 38. Participation in mail survey. ......................................................................................... 46
Table 39. Overall attachment to roadside camping areas visited when surveyed in field. ........... 47
Table 40. Overall attachment to the activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park. ........ 47
Table 41. Familiarity with other roadside camping areas in the Adirondack Park....................... 48
Table 42. How roadside campsite visitors first learned about roadside camping areas. .............. 49
Table 43. Importance and satisfaction ratings for roadside camping motivations (% and means).
............................................................................................................................................... 50
iii
Table 44. Satisfaction comparisons across camping settings in the Adirondack Park. ................ 56
Table 45. Frequency of camping if particular roadside areas in the Adirondack Park are not
available. ............................................................................................................................... 57
Table 46. Frequency of camping if no roadside areas available in the Adirondack Park............. 57
Table 47. Substitutability of other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park............. 58
Table 48. Reasons for non-substitutability between area visited and other roadside areas.......... 58
Table 49. Substitutability of NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park..................... 59
Table 50. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and NYSDEC
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park............................................................................ 60
Table 51. Substitutability of primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park. .............. 60
Table 52. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and
primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park (% of respondents indicating a
problem)................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 53. Rankings of resource substitution options for roadside camping in the Adirondack
Park. ...................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 54. Agreement/Disagreement with statements originating from qualitative interviews. .. 64
Table 55. Employment status of respondents. .............................................................................. 65
Table 56. Ages of respondents to the mail survey. ....................................................................... 65
Table 57. Education levels of respondents to the mail survey...................................................... 66
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Diagram for estimated distances between campsites and roads...................................... 7

Figure 2. Map showing Roadside Campsites within the Adirondack Park. ................................. 13
Figure 3. Map showing roadside campsites within Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe Areas. .... 14
Figure 5. Map showing roadside campsites in Saranac Lake Wild Forest. .................................. 16
Figure 6. Map showing designated and undesignated campsites within the Adirondack Park. ... 17
Figure 7. Map showing designated and undesignated sites in Ferris Lake Wild Forest............... 18
Figure 8. Map showing campsite condition classes near North Lake Road. ................................ 19
Figure 9. Map showing campsite compliance with ¼ mile separation distance........................... 20
Figure 10. Map showing ¼ mile separation distance compliance in Moose River Plains Wild
Forest..................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 12. Importance-Performance grid example. ...................................................................... 51
Figure 13. IP grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations. ...................................... 53
Figure 14. IP Grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations using overall means to
divide quadrants. ................................................................................................................... 54
v
INTRODUCTION
Camping within the Adirondack Park is a long-standing tradition and activity. Some visitors
camp in state or private developed campgrounds, other visitors backpack or canoe to remote
primitive campsites, and other visitors camp along the roadside in tents and recreational vehicles
in undeveloped sites on New York State Forest Preserve lands. Some of these roadside
undeveloped camping sites are designated by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) employees and other sites are just used by visitors without an official designation
being in place.
The Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP) (APA 2001) does not
specifically address the activity of roadside camping as a separate type of campsite or camping
experience even though some of the NYSDEC Unit Management Plans list these sites as part of
the recreation facility inventory for a management unit. The definition of primitive tent site from
the APSLMP is often not in alignment with the conditions found in the undeveloped roadside
campsites whether designated or not.
No research studies exist that have inventoried the extent, location, or condition of the
roadside campsites on Forest Preserve lands. Additionally, no known studies are available that
characterize the campers at these roadside sites and their uses, activities and reasons for choosing
roadside camping over other available camping opportunities.
The information that was collected for this study was designed to produce two data sets:
(1) an inventory of undesignated and designated and undeveloped roadside campsites on Forest
Preserve Lands within the Adirondack Park; and (2) a summary of visitor experiences, trip
characteristics, and dependence on or substitutability for camping at undesignated and designated
and undeveloped roadside campsites on Forest Preserve Lands within the Adirondack Park.
The intention of collecting this information is to support planning and management by
NYSDEC under the APSLMP with the main goal of protecting and stewarding the Forest
Preserve lands and resources while managing visitor use for public enjoyment.
RESEARCH METHODS
Field research was conducted across all Forest Preserve lands within the Adirondack Park during
the summer of 2009. The methods used to gather data to meet the two products of a roadside
camping inventory and a summary of visitor use and experiences were as follows:
Roadside camping inventory data collection:

 The inventory consisted of two main tasks. First, locating public roadside campsites
within the park. Second, data was collected to describe each campsite in relation to its
location and characteristics. In addition to a numerical summary of inventory data,
several maps were created in order to portray inventory data visually. All maps were
created using GIS software. All maps included within this report could be reproduced
using the data included in the dataset or to create additional maps showing inventory data
for roadside camping areas that are not portrayed by the maps included in this report.
The maps included in this report are meant to provide examples of the types of
1
information that can be visually portrayed using the data collected during the inventory
and included in the dataset.
 An inventory of public roadside campsites was conducted between May and July of 2009.
At the onset of this study, there was a lack of information regarding the locations of
roadside camping areas on Forest Preserve lands. Fortunately, NYSDEC personnel and
written materials were helpful in identifying a small number of popular roadside camping
areas within the Adirondack Park. While this information was helpful for identifying the
location of some camping areas, it was too limited to serve as a basis for the overall
inventory of roadside camping areas. Consequently, researchers adopted a systematic
exploratory technique for locating roadside campsites that involved driving public roads
that crossed or bordered all Forest Preserve lands.
 The exploratory phase of the inventory relied heavily on the use of previously existing
maps showing the locations of roads and other landmarks within the Adirondack Park.
National Geographic Outdoor Recreation Maps were used for the inventory because they
adequately displayed roads, trails, management unit areas, and other public and private
lands within the Adirondack Park. Researchers conducted the inventory by locating
public roads that existed within or on the borders of Forest Preserve lands within the
Adirondack Park. Once located on the National Geographic maps, researchers explored
these public roads in order to find and inventory public roadside campsites (Appendix B).
 Researchers collected GPS data for all campsites found during the inventory process. In
addition to collecting GPS data for recording and displaying the locations of roadside
campsites, researchers assessed each campsite for a number of other characteristics. Each
of these campsite characteristics was measured as follows: site type, presence of DEC
campsite designation disk, screening from road, number of satellite campsites adjoining
the designated site, amenities present at the site, access to water bodies, estimated
circumference of campsite, estimated distance from the road, and the condition class of
the campsite (Appendix A).
Preliminary Interviews of campers:

 A main objective of this study was to characterize roadside campsite visitors. However,
at the onset of this study, little was known about roadside campsite visitors or their
opinions regarding many topics of interest to this study. Consequently, SUNY
researchers conducted a brief qualitative research phase with roadside campsite visitors in
order to better understand their perspectives on several topics including place attachment,
place dependence, resource substitutability, management concerns, and factors
influencing site choice. An additional purpose of the interviews was to help researchers
create a comprehensive and meaningful quantitative field survey for measuring place
attachment and resource substitutability in the context of roadside camping in the
Adirondack Park.
 Structured interviews were conducted with visitors to roadside camping areas during the
months of May and June in 2009. The roadside campsite inventory also occurred during
these months. In fact, the first two phases of this research project were conducted
simultaneously. That is, researchers conducted interviews with roadside campsite visitors
2
 A total of 29 interviews were conducted within six different Adirondack Park
Management Units: Black River Wild Forest, Ferris Lake Wild Forest, Jessup River Wild
Forest, Moose River Plains Wild Forest, Horseshoe Lake Wild Forest, and Saranac Lake
Wild Forest. A roving intercept sampling technique was used and interviews were
conducted at the visitors’ campsites. Visitor participation was completely voluntary and
interview participants remained anonymous. Upon completion of each interview,
participants were compensated with a small gift, not exceeding $5 in value, for their time
and effort in completing the interview.
 Interviews typically lasted between 20-60 minutes and were recorded, with the
permission of each participant, using an audio tape recorder. A total of 19 questions were
included in the structured survey instrument. Interview recordings were then transcribed
and data were coded using the Nudist N6 software package. A content analysis was
conducted in order to reduce response data into meaningful categories related to the study
topics described above.
On-site survey of campers:

 The preliminary interview research phase was useful for gaining rich open-ended data
regarding roadside campsite visitor perspectives. However, the methods employed for
that phase of research did not produce a representative sample of roadside campsite
visitors and, therefore, that qualitative data cannot be used to infer characteristics of the
overall population of roadside campers. In an effort to produce a larger, more
representative sample of the roadside campsite visitor population, a field survey was
conducted with roadside campsite visitors during the summer of 2009.
 The main purpose of the on-site field survey was to gather information from roadside
campsite visitors about their recreational trips and their roadside camping habits.
Questions included on the on-site survey were related to visitor past experience with
camping settings, trip characteristics (e.g., group size and composition, length of stay,
activities pursued), visitor characteristics (e.g., gender, permanent residence), and visitor
perceptions of camping opportunities (see Appendix C)
 On-site field surveys were conducted with roadside campsite visitors between the months
of July and October in 2009. The on-site survey process began during the final weeks of
the inventory process; that is, as researchers were finishing the inventory of roadside
campsites within the Adirondack Park, they began conducting field surveys with visitors
that they encountered. Upon completion of the campsite inventory, researchers employed
a systematic roving intercept sampling technique for the continuation of the on-site field
survey.
 Roadside campsites within the Park are widespread and diverse so it was not feasible to
create a sampling frame that would include all inventoried roadside camping areas.
Therefore, researchers carefully selected several areas throughout the park for sampling.
Specifically, researchers only sampled visitors on forest roads that provided at least five
roadside campsites. Once camping areas were selected, researchers sampled roadside
campsite visitors within the Adirondack Park in a counterclockwise fashion. Once
finished with an area, researchers would travel to the next camping area, in a
3
 Researchers attempted to conduct one on-site survey per group of visitors encountered.
Researchers approached each group of campers and asked if any of the members would
be willing to complete a short survey about their roadside camping experiences. Then,
one person was randomly selected from all group members willing to complete the on-
site survey. A total of 216 roadside campsite visitors participated in the on-site survey.
 The on-site survey was designed to last between five and ten minutes. Upon completion
of the survey, all participants were thanked for their time and effort. Additionally,
respondents were asked if they would be willing to participate in a follow-up mail-
administered survey about their camping experiences. Those who agreed to participate in
the follow-up survey were asked to provide their names and addresses. Also, visitors who
agreed to participate in the follow-up survey were given a gift, having a value of less than
$5, for their time and effort. All participants were assured confidentiality.
Mail survey of campers:

 The on-site survey phase of this research project provided useful information about
roadside campsite visitors, their experiences, and their trip characteristics and camping
habits. While the on-site survey provided a method of collecting information from
visitors during their camping experiences, the survey was meant to be brief and,
therefore, not comprehensive enough to address all topics of interest to this study.
Consequently, researchers conducted a follow-up mail-administered survey with visitors
who were sampled during the on-site survey process.
 The purpose of the follow-up mail survey was to gather additional information from
roadside campsite visitors about a variety of topics such as their knowledge of roadside
camping areas, their attachment to roadside camping areas, and their motivations for
camping in roadside areas. Additionally, several questions were included on the follow-
up survey in order to gain a better understanding of visitor perceptions regarding the
substitutability of camping settings within the Adirondack Park (i.e., the extent to which
camping settings within the Adirondack Park can be substituted for one another).
 The final question of the on-site survey asked respondents if they would be willing to
participate in a follow-up, mail-administered survey about their camping experiences and
the majority (n=179, 82.9%) agreed to participate. All participants were ensured
confidentiality and were provided with a small gift, not exceeding $5 in value, for their
time and effort.
 Researchers employed a modified Dillman Total Design (1978) method for administering
the mail survey. Approximately two weeks after each on-site survey, participants were
mailed a ten-page questionnaire and letter requesting their responses. After
approximately two more weeks, those participants whose responses had not been
received were mailed a post card reminding them to complete and return the
questionnaire. After an additional two more weeks, participants whose responses had
still not been received were mailed a second copy of the questionnaire and a letter
requesting their responses.
4
 The ten-page questionnaire instrument can be found in Appendix D. The instrument
contains some questions that are not described within the following sections of this
report. Instrument questions that are not described in the following section were of
theoretical interest to the researchers and will be described in detail in a separate
academic document.
5
INVENTORY OF ROADSIDE CAMPSITES
Nine campsite characteristics were measured at each site as follows:
Site Type: This variable was used to describe site accessibility. Sites were categorized based on
two conditions.
 First, sites were determined to be either single sites or cluster sites. Sites were marked as
single sites if they were not connected to any other campsites within the same immediate
vicinity. In areas where more than one site existed within immediate sight and sound of
each other, the sites were marked as a cluster site. Note, in order to qualify as a cluster
site, several sites had to exist immediately adjacent to each other in such a manner that a
person using one of the sites would have almost no privacy from persons using the
adjacent sites.
 Second, sites were labeled as vehicle sites or walk-in sites depending on whether or not
there was space to park a vehicle within the interior of the site. Thus, all sites were
placed into one of four categories: vehicle-single, vehicle-cluster, walk-in-single, and
walk-in-cluster.
DEC Campsite Disk: This variable was used to determine whether an undeveloped but used
campsite was officially designated by NYSDEC as a campsite or not. Those sites that were
marked with an official NYSDEC disk indicating that camping was permitted were marked as
having a disk, while those campsites along the road on Forest Preserve lands without a disk were
marked accordingly.
Screening from Road: This variable was used to describe the amount of visual screening each
site had from the road. Those sites that could be easily viewed from the road were labeled as
having no screening. Those that could be partially seen from the road were labeled as having
partial screening, while those that could not be seen at all from the road were labeled as having
complete screening. We were concerned with the site itself for this measure, and not the site
driveway.
Satellite Sites: Satellite campsites can be defined as a recreationist created improvement to the
land for the purposes of overnight camping. Overnight campers have been known to clear
additional spaces of land for the purposes of placing a tent in areas nearby, but not within, the
original campsite interior (these are in contrast to cluster sites which were designed to be
campsites close together). Researchers recorded the number of satellite sites associated with
each roadside campsite that was inventoried.
Amenities: Roadside campsites were checked for the presence of several amenities such as fire
pits, fireplaces (cement), picnic tables, benches, and outhouses. Each site was labeled according
to whether or not each of these amenities was present.
Water Body Access: This variable was used to describe whether or not campsites had
immediate access to a water body. Campsites were marked as having water body access if (1)
the campsite perimeter bordered a body of water, (2) if there was a social trail (less than 200 feet
6
long) that led from the site to a body of water, or (3) if a body of water was directly visible from
the site interior.
Estimated Circumference of Site (feet): This variable provided a quick estimate of the size of
each campsite that was inventoried. The circumference of each site was estimated by pacing the
perimeter of the site and recording the number of feet. As this measure was meant to be quick
and approximate, sites were treated as circular in shape, although many sites are actually shaped
irregularly.
Estimated Distance from Road (feet): This variable was used to determine the distances from
roadside campsites to their corresponding roads. Researchers attempted to record the shortest
distance between each campsite and road. That is, researchers tried to measure the distance from
the site to the road, and not the length of the site driveway (see figure 1). Researchers estimated
the distance for each site by pacing from the site perimeter to the closest edge of the road.
Driveway
to site
Site
Shortest Distance
from road
Road
Figure 1. Diagram for estimated distances between campsites and roads.
Condition Class: The campsite condition class provided a brief description of the sites’ overall
condition in relation to soil erosion and tree health. Upon reviewing each site, researchers
categorized roadside campsites into one of six condition classes. The first condition class
represents the least amount of human impact on the natural features of the site, while the fifth
condition class represents the highest amount of human impact. A sixth condition class was
created to describe sites that had been designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. Such
sites provided gravel camping areas upon which wheelchairs could travel. Appendix A provides
a photographic example of each of the first five condition classes.
Inventory Results
The results of the roadside campsite inventory are displayed in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, a
total of 531 roadside campsites were found and assessed during the inventory. Of those, 23
(4.3%) were found in resource management areas (e.g., conservation easements), 49 (9.2%) were
found in wilderness, primitive, or canoe areas, and 459 (86.4%) were found in wild forest areas.
7
Table 1. Data summarizing roadside campsite inventory.
Resource Wilderness,
Wild Forest
Field Management Primitive, and Total
Areas
Areas Canoe Areas
Total # of Sites: 23 (4.3) 49 (9.2) 459 (86.4) 531 (100)
Site Type:
Vehicle single 20 (87.0) 39 (81.2) 398 (88.1) 457 (87.4)
Vehicle cluster 0 --- 1 (2.1) 9 (2.0) 10 (1.9)
Walk-in single 3 (13.0) 8 (16.7) 42 (9.3) 53 (10.1)
Walk-in cluster 0 --- 0 --- 3 (0.7) 3 (0.6)
Missing data 0 --- 1 --- 7 --- 8 ---
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
DEC Camping Disk:
No 15 (65.2) 14 (30.4) 135 (29.8) 164 (31.4)
Yes 8 (34.8) 32 (69.6) 318 (70.2) 358 (68.6)
Missing data 0 --- 3 --- 6 --- 9 ---
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Screening from
Road:
None 12 (52.2) 14 (29.8) 207 (47.0) 233 (45.7)
Partial 8 (34.8) 14 (29.8) 130 (29.5) 152 (29.8)
Complete 3 (13.0) 19 (40.4) 103 (23.4) 125 (24.5)
Missing 0 --- 2 --- 19 --- 21 ---
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Estimated Distance
from Road:
0 – 150 ft. 17 (77.3) 33 (73.3) 359 (82.0) 409 (81.0)
151 – 300 ft. 5 (22.7) 5 (11.1) 43 (9.8) 53 (10.5)
Over 300 ft. 0 --- 7 (15.6) 36 (8.2) 43 (8.5)
Missing data 1 --- 4 --- 21 --- 26 ---
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Estimated
Circumference of
Site:
0 – 150 ft. 15 (68.2) 38 (77.6) 303 (66.9) 356 (67.9)
151 – 300 ft. 7 (31.8) 11 (22.4) 149 (32.9) 167 (31.9)
Over 300 ft. 0 --- 0 --- 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2)
Missing data 1 --- 0 --- 6 --- 7 ---
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Satellite Sites:
0 Satellites 18 (78.3) 40 (81.6) 410 (89.3) 468 (88.1)
1 Satellite 1 (4.3) 8 (16.3) 39 (8.5) 48 (9.0)
2 Satellites 2 (8.7) 1 (2.0) 9 (2.0) 12 (2.3)
3 Satellites 2 (8.7) 0 --- 1 (0.2) 3 (0.6)
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
8
The vast majority of roadside campsites were categorized as single-vehicle sites (87.4%).
The second most common site types were walk-in-single sites (10.1%), followed by vehicle-
cluster sites (1.9%) and walk-in cluster sites (0.6%).
Overall, 68.6% of the roadside campsites were designated as legal campsites with a
NYSDEC disk. This proportion was similar for the sites found within wilderness, primitive and
canoe areas (69.9%) and found within wild forest areas (70.2%). Conversely, the majority of
sites found within resource management areas did not have NYSDEC disks (65.2%).
The amount of screening from the road varied from site to site. Of the 531 campsites
inventoried, 45.7% of sites had no screening from the road, while 29.8 % and 24.5% had partial
screening and complete screening, respectively.
The majority of campsites (81%) were located between 0 and 150 feet from the road.
About 10.5% were located between 151 and 300 feet from the road, while about 8.5% were
located more than 300 feet away from a road. This percentage pattern remained fairly constant
across the three subareas summarized in Table 1 (resource management areas, wilderness,
primitive and canoe areas, and wild forest areas).
In addition to estimating the distance from the road, researchers estimated the
circumference of each site by pacing around its perimeter. As this measure was meant to provide
a quick estimate, researchers accepted the assumption that roadside campsites were circular in
shape. However, in actuality many of the sites were not circular. Thus, the estimated
circumference of each site should not be treated as a substitute for exact or precise
measurements. Rather, these data were meant to provide a general reference to the size of each
site. Using the estimated circumference of each site, researchers were able to obtain estimates
for site radii, which could be subsequently used to estimate total site area measurements using
the following formulas:
Estimated Radius = Estimated Circumference / 2(pi)

Estimated Area = pi (Estimated Radius squared)
Dawson, Schuster, Propst, and Black (2008) explained that “a reasonable amount of space
necessary to accommodate three tents capable of sleeping nine or less people, and providing an
area for cooking and a fire is approximately 2,000 square feet” (p. 3). A campsite with an area of
2,000 square feet would have a corresponding circumference of about 158 feet. Table 3 provides
some additional examples of how circumference measurements correspond with area
measurements for circular campsites.
The majority of campsites that were inventoried (67.9%) were categorized as having a
circumference between one and 150 feet. About 31.9% were categorized as having a
circumference between 151 and 300 feet, while only 0.2% was categorized as having a
circumference of over 300 feet. While these measurements are not exact, it appears that about
67.9% of the campsites inventoried had associated area measurements of less than 2,000 square
feet. and, therefore, fall into the size range described as reasonable by Dawson et al (2008).
9
Table 2. Corresponding circumference and area measurements.
Circumference (feet) Area (sq. feet)
50 198.94
100 795.77
150 1790.49
200 3183.09
250 4973.59
300 7161.97
The last variable summarized in Table 1 is the number of satellite sites accompanying
roadside campsites. As shown, the vast majority of sites did not have any associated satellite
sites (88.1%). About 9% of sites had one other satellite site associated with them, while 2.3%
and 0.6% had two and three satellite sites associated with them, respectively.
Table 3 displays additional inventory data such as amenities provided, water access, and
condition classes. Overall, 71.4% of sites provided a fire pit, while 25.4% provided a cement
fireplace. Only 21.5 % of sites provided picnic tables, while only a few sites (0.9%) provided
benches for seating. As shown, the proportion of sites that provided picnic tables was highest in
wild forest areas (22.4%), followed by wilderness, primitive and canoe areas (18.4%) and
resource management areas (8.7%). Finally, about 28.2% of all sites provided users with an
outhouse. The proportion of sites having outhouses was much higher within wild forest areas
(31.2%) than the proportions having outhouses within wilderness, primitive and canoe areas
(8.2%) or resource management areas (13%).
About 42.7 % of sites were either located adjacent to water, had social trails less than 200
ft. leading to water, or provided users with a view of water resources from the interior of the site.
Finally, the condition class variable is summarized in Table 3. As shown, 18.7% of sites
were categorized under the first condition class (i.e., least amount of human impact). About
22.9% of sites were categorized under the second condition class, while 33.9%, 19.5%, and 2.1%
were categorized under the third, fourth, and fifth conditions classes, respectively. About 2.9%
of sites were categorized under the sixth condition class (gravel camping pad for persons with
disabilities). As shown, wild forest areas were the only unit management areas that provided
sites that were categorized within the sixth condition class.
10
Table 3. Inventory variables for campsite amenities and condition class.
Resource Wilderness,
Wild Forest
Field Management Primitive, and Total
Areas
Areas Canoe Areas
Fire Pit:
No 1 (4.3) 10 (20.4) 141 (30.7) 152 (28.6)
Yes 22 (95.7) 39 (79.6) 318 (69.3) 379 (71.4)
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Fireplace (cement):
No 23 (100) 40 (81.6) 333 (72.5) 396 (74.6)
Yes 0 --- 9 (18.4) 126 (27.5) 135 (25.4)
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Picnic Table:
No 21 (91.3) 40 (81.6) 356 (77.6) 417 (78.5)
Yes 2 (8.7) 9 (18.4) 103 (22.4) 114 (21.5)
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Bench:
No 23 (100) 49 (100) 454 (98.9) 526 (99.1)
Yes 0 --- 0 --- 5 (1.1) 5 (0.9)
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Outhouse:
No 20 (87.0) 45 (91.8) 316 (68.8) 381 (71.8)
Yes 3 (13.0) 4 (8.2) 143 (31.2) 150 (28.2)
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Water Access:
No 10 (45.5) 26 (54.2) 256 (58.2) 292 (57.3)
Yes 12 (54.5) 22 (45.8) 184 (41.8) 218 (42.7)
Missing 1 --- 1 --- 19 --- 21 ---
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
Condition Class:
CC-1 2 (9.5) 11 (22.4) 84 (18.7) 97 (18.7)
CC-2 10 (47.6) 12 (24.5) 97 (21.6) 119 (22.9)
CC-3 6 (28.6) 16 (32.7) 154 (34.3) 176 (33.9)
CC-4 2 (9.5) 10 (20.4) 89 (19.8) 101 (19.5)
CC-5 1 (4.8) 0 --- 10 (2.2) 11 (2.1)
CC-6 0 --- 0 --- 15 (3.3) 15 (2.9)
Missing 2 --- 0 --- 10 --- 12 ---
Total 23 (100) 49 (100) 459 (100) 531 (100)
11
Figure 2 displays the location of all 531 roadside campsites found within the Adirondack
Park. Figure 3 displays only those campsites that were found within wilderness, primitive, or
canoe areas, while figure 4 displays only those sites that were found within wild forest areas.
Figure 5 provides a map at a smaller scale, which shows all campsites inventoried along
Floodwood Road within the Saranac Lake Wild Forest. Additionally, a complete list of roadside
campsite locations (i.e., management units and road names) can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 6 shows designated and undesignated sites within the Adirondack Park. Figure 7
displays a map at a smaller scale showing sites that are designated and undesignated along
Powley/Piseco Road in Ferris Lake Wild Forest. These maps provide examples of how
inventory data can be visually portrayed using the GIS files that are included in the dataset.
In addition to summarizing condition class data numerically, Figure 8 provides an
example of how this data can be represented visually. This map shows the condition class of
each site located near North Lake Road, within the Black River Wild Forest. Other maps of this
type can be created for additional areas using the data included in the dataset.
The maps described above provide examples of how inventory data can be displayed
visually using GIS software. In addition to creating maps for this purpose, GIS software was
useful for performing separate roadside campsite analyses. For example, the APSLMP stipulates
that primitive tent sites should be located at a minimum of a ¼ mile from each other. Using GIS
software, researchers were able to create additional maps that display whether or not each site
was in compliance with this guideline. Figure 9 provides a map showing compliance with the ¼
mile separation distance for all roadside campsites found within the Adirondack Park. Also,
Figure 10 provides a map at a smaller scale showing this information for roadside campsites
located within the Moose River Plains Wild Forest.
12
Figure 2. Map showing Roadside Campsites within the Adirondack Park.
13
Figure 3. Map showing roadside campsites within Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe Areas.
14
Figure 4. Map showing roadside camping areas within Wild Forest Areas.
15
Figure 5. Map showing roadside campsites in Saranac Lake Wild Forest.
16
Figure 6. Map showing designated and undesignated campsites within the Adirondack Park.
17
Figure 7. Map showing designated and undesignated sites in Ferris Lake Wild Forest.
18
Figure 8. Map showing campsite condition classes near North Lake Road.
19
Figure 9. Map showing campsite compliance with ¼ mile separation distance.
20
Figure 10. Map showing ¼ mile separation distance compliance in Moose River Plains Wild Forest.
21
PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS WITH ROADSIDE CAMPERS
The following subsections describe six content categories that emerged from participant
responses: place attachment, place dependence, comparisons between roadside camping and
campground camping, comparisons between roadside camping and primitive camping,
management concerns, and factors influencing site choice. The data categorized were far too
numerous to provide a complete description of the results within this report. Consequently, the
following sections outline the major themes that emerged in relation to these six content
categories and provide examples of data coded within them (see table 4).
Table 4. Content categories from preliminary camper interviews.

Content Category Themes
Place Attachment Nostalgia/History
Concern about Losing Access
Fondness/Love for Area
Home Away from Home
Identity/Central Life Interest
Natural Beauty and Wildlife
Willingness to Pay
Place Dependence Unique Experience
Cost
Limited Physical Ability
Roadside vs. Campground Settings Social Atmosphere and Crowding
Amenities and Group Composition
Cost Issues
Freedom from Restrictions and/or Regulations
Level of Primitiveness
Roadside vs. Primitive Tent Sites General Similarity
Effort Required
Vehicle Use
Solitude and Noise
Secondary Activities / Experience Intentions
Factors Influencing Decision to Proximity to Water Resources
Choose Camping Area Proximity to Home
Past Experience and Familiarity
Cost
Management Concerns Accessibility
Continued Public Access
Appreciation for wheelchair-accessible sites
Appreciation for First Come, First Serve
Problem of People Claiming Sites with Equipment
Maintenance Issues
Respect for Environment and Cleanliness
Need for Information and Education
Number of People per Site
Insect Control
22
Themes Related to Place Attachment
Visitors were asked to describe any emotional attachment that they felt towards the roadside
camping area that they were visiting or towards the Adirondack Park in general. The vast
majority of campers indicated that they were emotionally attached to the camping area they were
visiting (only two participants reported having no emotional attachment). Seven themes
emerged out of the participants’ descriptions of their attachment to the setting.
The most widely mentioned source of attachment was related to a person’s personal
and/or family history with the area. Thus, the first theme that emerged from the data was related
to nostalgia, or peoples’ cherished memories of previous experiences with the area. Nineteen
respondents discussed the importance of family memories and nostalgia associated with the
roadside camping area they were visiting. The following quote provides an example of response
data coded within this theme:
“Absolutely, ever since I was a little guy, there’s camping stories that have been around
since before this road was actually drivable back in the 50s and 60s. My parents were up
here camping, they had jeeps, you were able to access whatever you could drive to at that
point, so there’s pictures and stuff floating around like that…nostalgia from the 60s,
years ago now, so definitely an emotional attachment.” (Interview #4, 2009)
The second theme that emerged from the responses to this question was related to the
setting being perceived as a central part of visitors’ lives of identities. While experience and
history with the area was mentioned by many campers as a source of attachment, three campers
indicated that they had such a rich history with the camping area that it had become a central part
of their lives. One visitor commented,
“I think if I hadn’t been coming here for as many years as I have my life would have a
big chunk missing from it. This is a piece of my life that I rely on that makes my year.
Everybody has markers throughout the year, and the June camp out here in the past, it’s
gelled at this point, and I could see me camping for the rest of my life, and if I didn’t,
there’d be a hole.” (Interview #21, 2009)
The third theme that emerged from the responses to the emotional attachment question
was related to participants feeling at home while visiting roadside camping areas. Four
participants gave a description of feeling at home while visiting roadside camping areas or the
surrounding natural resource areas. One visitor said,
“Emotional attachment? Oh yes…Now, if you come up here during hunting season,
you’ll see the same tents year after year. It’s first come first serve, but out of respect I
don’t set up on your site if you don’t setup on mine. We know it’s not ours, but if you go
to the same place every year so many times, it’s like your home.” (Interview #9, 2009)
A fourth theme that emerged was related to a general fondness or love that visitors
associated with the roadside camping area that they visited. Six participants discussed a fondness
or love that they felt towards the camping area that they were visiting. For example, one visitor
commented, “Just we really enjoy it, love it. Glad she talked me into doing it.” (Interview #19,
2009)
A fifth theme that emerged was related to roadside camping areas’ ability to provide
opportunities to interact with natural beauty and wildlife. Three people discussed being attached
23
to the roadside camping they were visiting as a result of the interactions with nature and wildlife
that they experienced within the setting. One visitor said,
“I just enjoy God’s creation. No matter where you look it’s just so beautiful. In a couple
more months I’ll be eating raspberries, strawberries, blueberries…all the streams and just
everything about it, it’s just so awesome.” (Interview #15, 2009)
The sixth theme that emerged from the participants’ descriptions of their emotional
attachments was related to visitors being concerned about the potential loss of access to roadside
camping areas. Fourteen participants mentioned feeling concerned or worried about losing
access to the camping area that they were visiting. One person said, “If they got rid of this I
would be totally bummed.” (Interview #17, 2009). Another participant commented,
“I would hate the government that passed that legislation. Any politicians involved with
that process that voted for that, I would vote against those guys . . . I would definitely
challenge them. It’s that important to me that they not put a restriction on that kind
[roadside] of camping.” (Interview #9, 2009)
The final theme emerging out of the participants’ descriptions of attachment was related
to visitor willingness to pay for the continued provision of the roadside camping areas in the
Adirondacks. Two people explained that they would be willing to pay a fee in order to use the
roadside camping area that they were visiting. One of them reported, “I wouldn’t care if they put
a gate up there and charged us $5 to come through that gate. That’s how much we like it here.”
(Interview #25).
Themes related to Place Dependence

A broad question related to emotional attachment was useful for gaining an unbiased
understanding of some of the types, or dimensions, of attachment that are important to roadside
camping area visitors. While a number of meaningful themes emerged that were related to
emotional attachment, researchers were also interested in understanding potential functional
attachments to roadside camping areas, or place dependence. Therefore, interview participants
were asked whether or not they felt like they depended on roadside camping areas for their
outdoor recreational pursuits, and why?
A total of 12 respondents indicated that they did depend on roadside camping areas,
while 10 respondents indicated they did not. Seven responses were undeterminable. Responses
of those participants who did depend on roadside camping areas were categorized into three
themes. First, four people indicated that they depended on roadside camping areas because they
provide opportunities for a unique type of camping experience that could not be found
elsewhere. One person said,
“Yeah I’d say so. I mean we could probably stay at a motel or something, but it wouldn’t
be the same experience. It’s not what we’re looking for. We could stay in Indian Lake
[campground] somewhere, rent a cabin or whatever for the week or 2, but it’s definitely
not what we’re trying to do. This is what we’re trying to do.” (Interview #27, 2009)
A second theme that emerged out of the responses to this question had to do with the
physical abilities of some respondents. Two participants indicated that they depended on
roadside camping areas because they were limited in their physical abilities and could no longer
24
travel to primitive tent sites, which are often located at a significant distance within the interior
of the forest. For example, one of them explained,
“Yeah I do. It’s so great for me, there’s no way I could hike back into a place like that
[primitive site]. There’s just no way I could do it, and here I just pull up and I’m here.”
(Interview #15, 2009)
The third theme that emerged from the responses to the dependence question was related
to the costs associated with different types of camping. Three participants indicated they were
dependent on roadside camping areas because they could not afford, or did not wish to pay for,
camping in other areas. One participant stated,
“Yeah, for camping. Yeah because it really is a convenience, one of the cheapest
vacations you can take. The state campgrounds, they’re not cheap.” (Interview #29,
2009)
Visitor Comparisons of Roadside Sites and Campground Sites

Roadside camping visitors were asked whether or not they had previously stayed in state
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park. Those who reported having previous experiences
with this type of setting were then asked to compare their camping experiences between roadside
camping settings and campground settings. Several differences between camping in roadside
areas and camping in campgrounds were discussed by the participants. Responses to this line of
questioning were coded into five themes. The most widely cited difference between roadside
areas and campgrounds was related to the social atmosphere of the areas. Nineteen participants
indicated that they felt the state campgrounds were too crowded and/or noisy and that roadside
areas allowed for more personal privacy. One individual stated,
“It’s just different, because right here there’s nobody camping near us. It’s like being in
the wilderness. We’re not packed into a campground.” (Interview #17, 2009)
Another participant commented,

“I like coming in here because there’re not a lot of people. You can go hiking up to the
ponds. It’s just a nice outdoor experience versus going to [a state campground] where
everybody’s on top of each other.” (Interview 16, 2009)
The second theme that emerged out of the respondent’s comparisons was related to the
different amenities that each setting provides and the types of groups who enjoy them. Seventeen
respondents indicated that campgrounds and the amenities provided within them are nice for
certain types of groups, while roadside areas and their more-limited set of amenities are better for
other types of groups. One person stated,
“There are a couple [campgrounds] around here but we don’t stay in them because we
don’t have family and kids. If we had family and kids we’d stay at a park where there are
showers and all. We just come out and camp like this, we’ve got our own water, our own
food. I would much rather do this.” (Interview #17, 2009)
A third theme that emerged from this line of questioning was related to the cost
differences between camping in roadside areas and campgrounds. Twelve participants
25
mentioned the differences in cost when comparing the two types of areas. One participant
commented,
“Well, to me roadside campsites are more for your average person who doesn’t have a lot
of extra money to throw around. We can come up here a whole lot cheaper than we could
go to a state campground for.” (Interview #1, 2009)
The fourth theme that emerged was related to the amount of freedom experienced by
visitors, or the restrictions imposed on visitors at each area. Six participants described feeling a
greater amount of freedom from restrictions when visiting roadside camping areas. One person
commented,
“Last night my daughter was raising a ruckus, screaming and such. If we were in a
campground and she was doing that the ranger would be like hey keep it down. Here you
don’t have to. You can sit out here and howl at the coyotes and stuff at night and let them
howl back. You have a good time. We wouldn’t get totally out of control, but you don’t
have to worry about the neighbors.” (Interview #24, 2009)
The fifth and final theme that emerged from this line of questioning was related to the
level of primitiveness associated with each type of camping area. Five participants explained
that they felt roadside camping was a more primitive type of camping experience than camping
in a campground. One of them said,
“I don’t want to degrade state campgrounds and regular campgrounds, because they’re
really nice, but it’s just not for me. I just want to be in the wilderness.” (Interview #15,
2009)
Visitor Comparisons of Roadside Sites and Primitive Sites

In addition to comparing roadside and campground camping, respondents were asked to compare
their roadside camping experiences with their experiences camping in primitive tent sites or lean-
tos. Five themes emerged out of the responses to this question: one related to similarities and
four related to differences. While most of the responses were focused on identifying differences
between camping at the two settings, the first theme that emerged was related to the similarity
between camping in each setting. Four participants commented on a general similarity between
roadside camping and primitive camping. One participant said,
“I don’t know if there’s such a difference. It’s different in that you’re restricted in what
you take, what you need to take, but then make do with what you’ve got on your back.
Same experience, different amount of equipment I guess.” (Interview #27, 2009)
While a few respondents felt that the two camping settings produced similar types of
experiences, many respondents were able to articulate differences between the settings as well.
The following four themes that emerged out of the participants’ comparisons between roadside
and primitive sites are focused on the differences between them. For example, the second
overall theme that emerged was related to differences in the amount of effort required to camp at
each setting. Ten participants commented on the different amounts of effort required to camp in
roadside and primitive tent sites.
“I like to come just because there are certain times when I like to do the lazy kind of
camping instead of backpacking and stuff like that. I can bring the creature comforts,
26
some chairs and stuff, and also kids. I can’t fold my son up and put him in a backpack
and go in too deep with him because I end up carrying everything. It’s just an easier type
of camping.” (Interview #13, 2009)
The third theme that emerged was focused on the vehicle aspect of roadside camping in
comparison to camping in primitive tent sites. Three participants commented on the importance
of using vehicles while roadside camping. One participant said,
“I know that roadside camping is a beautiful thing. There are a lot of people who just
leave a lot of their stuff in their vehicle, work out of the back of their vehicle. It’s safer,
cleaner.” (Interview #17, 2009)
Another participant commented,

“One of the biggest reasons we come up here is because you can drive right to them
[roadside campsites]”. (Interview #25, 2009)
The fourth theme that emerged out of the participants’ comparisons was related to
secondary activities and experience intentions of the visitor. One participant indicated that his
reasons for using primitive sites differed from his reasons for using roadside camping areas:
“I go there [primitive sites] with different intentions…rock climbing or hiking…that’s
just a base camp. This is more of a sit and hang out.” (Interview #28, 2009)
The final theme that emerged from this line of questioning was related to the level of
primitiveness and privacy experienced at the two types of sites. Two participants mentioned that
they felt primitive tent sites provided a better opportunity to experience privacy, solitude, or
quietness. One of the participants noted the differences between roadside and primitive lean-tos,
“They’re both great. That’s actually quieter; you don’t have people going by all the time
and all that stuff.” (Interview #1)
Factors Influencing Visitors’ Decisions to Choose Roadside Camping

Areas
Interview participants were asked to discuss the factors that influenced their decisions to choose
the roadside camping areas that they were visiting. Four themes emerged out of the responses to
this question. The first theme was related to the proximity of roadside camping sites to water
resources. Five participants explained that the site’s proximity to water was a major factor
influencing their choice for a camping setting. One participant said,
“I actually, usually try to leave it up to my wife, because obviously most men try to make
their wives comfortable. She’s an outdoors woman, shares a lot of the same beliefs I do,
and she loves to be near water, absolutely loves it. I’m at ease having water nearby.”
The second theme that emerged from the responses to this question was related to past
experiences with the area and/or familiarity. Three participants indicated that they chose their
camping area because they had visited it previously and were familiar with the area. One
participant commented,
27
“It’s pretty, we like the water, being able to fish, familiarity. We knew how to get here.
We didn’t feel like doing a lot of exploring. Like we said, it’s familiar to us.” (Interview
#5, 2009)
The third theme related to factors influencing visitors’ decisions to choose their camping
area was concerned with the cost of the camping trip. Two participants mentioned cost in
response to this question. One said,
“The sheer beauty of the area, easy access to water, it’s a nice camping site, and the fact
that it’s free. We’re a family, but everybody has expenses. We know for a fact that we
can camp for about 75 bucks for a weekend, for a family, and that’s fairly cheap.”
The final theme that emerged from the responses to this question was related to the
proximity of roadside camping areas to peoples’ homes. Five participants mentioned that a
major reason for choosing their camping area was that it was close to their homes. One
participant stated, “it’s a place we can go to get away and still be close to home if need be”
(Interview # 4, 2009)
Management Concerns
Researchers were interested in gaining visitor perspectives regarding the management of
roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. Visitors were asked to explain what they
thought the most important management concern was for roadside camping areas in the
Adirondack Park. Several themes emerged out of the responses to this question. First and
foremost, several people discussed issues related to the accessibility of roadside camping areas.
In fact, four subthemes emerged that were related to roadside camping area accessibility. Nine
participants expressed that continued public access to roadside camping areas in the Adirondack
Park was of paramount importance to them. Two participants indicated that they preferred
roadside camping areas because they were available on a first come, first serve basis, whereas
the reservation system used within campgrounds was less desirable. Also related to accessibility,
four people discussed their appreciation for the wheelchair-accessible roadside campsites that are
provided within some camping areas. One participant commented,
“I don’t feel they should take this away from us either…and I see now they got that
handicapped site up there. That is a great thing…I went by there and thought how great
is that?” (Interview #20)
The final subtheme related to accessibility was focused on the issue of people saving
roadside campsites with equipment but not using them. Two participants mentioned that they
had experienced difficulty finding a campsite as a result of people leaving equipment in sites and
claiming them for future use. One person commented,
“It’s kind of a shame to see the way people are using it. People just come in and drop
their things and you don’t see them. The trailer over there has been then since I’ve been
here and there’s been people there one night so far…it’s kind of a shame because people
who do want to come up and use it can’t really because people like that do things like
that.” (Interview #18, 2009)
28
The second main theme related to management concerns that emerged from the
participants’ responses was related the importance of visitors respecting and caring for the
roadside campsites that they use. Ten respondents explained that they felt the most important
management concern for roadside camping areas was ensuring that people are behaving properly
and cleaning up after themselves. One participant commented,
“Keep them free, clean, open. If the public doesn’t keep it clean then maybe have
volunteers to come in and keep it from being closed. I’ve seen a few places that have
been closed, that I went to when I was his age and can’t get into them anymore, because
other people put garbage and stuff in there. That irritates me.” (Interview #7, 2009)
The third main theme that emerged from the responses to this question is related to
maintenance of roadside camping settings. Thirteen participants mentioned that there was a need
to continue proper maintenance of the campsites, amenities, and roads. One participant said,
“you’ve got to keep the roads up, keeping up with the sites…I wouldn’t like to see it all
deteriorate” (Interview #16, 2009). In addition to discussing the need for continued maintenance
of the resources, two participants mentioned that they felt that sites and/or trails needed to be
marked more adequately. One person commented,
“Maybe campsites marked, like this one doesn’t have the camping symbol, but it’s got
the two rings, so I guess we’re allowed…a lot of sites don’t’ have them [signs
designating campsites].” (Interview 10, 2009)
While maintenance and ensuring proper use of campsites were common topics discussed
by participants, one person discussed an issue related to the number of people who use particular
roadside campsites. She explained that there should be a limit on the number of people who are
allowed to occupy a roadside campsite.
A fourth theme that emerged was related to insect control. One participant in the study
said,
“Just overall cleanliness and pollution, as well as BTI control, I really am a proponent of
BTI because black flies are horrible, I guess mosquitoes and black flies are a hazard to
anybody…and it does affect people on how they feel and act for a day.” (Interview #4,
2009)
Finally, the last theme that emerged from the responses to this question was related to the
provision of information and education regarding roadside camping areas in the Adirondack
Park. Three participants mentioned that they would like to see more information regarding
roadside camping area locations and rules and regulations. One participant commented,
“What would be nice is if the state had a general guide as to where these are so we’d try
them, but we’re not aware of all of them, just don’t know where they are…you’ve got to
be part of the culture to know where these are.” (interview #21, 2009)
29
ON-SITE FIELD SURVEY OF CAMPERS
For interpreting the following results, the reader is reminded that the term roadside camping
area does not refer to a single roadside campsite for the purposes of this study, rather a collection
of several roadside campsites that are located along a common Forest Preserve road.
A total of 216 roadside campsite visitors participated in the on-site survey. At the onset
of each survey, researchers observed and recorded the location of the campsite being visited (i.e.
management unit), the equipment being used by the participant, and the gender of the participant.
As shown in Table 5, researchers conducted on-site surveys within 13 different
management units (11 Wild Forest Areas and 2 Wilderness Areas). A substantial percentage
(45.4%) of surveys took place within the Moose River Plains Wild Forest, which is an area that
provides over 160 roadside campsites to the public. Other unit management areas that produced
high proportions of surveys include Saranac Lake Wild Forest (11.6%), Black River Wild Forest
(10.2%), Lake George Wild Forest (9.7%), Jessup River Wild Forest (7.4), Horseshoe Lake Wild
Forest (5.6%), Independence River Wild Forest (4.2%), and Ferris Lake Wild Forest (2.3%).
Table 5. Location of roadside campsites surveyed.

Management Unit Areas # of Surveys % of Surveys
Moose River Plains Wild Forest 98 45.4
Saranac Lake Wild Forest 25 11.6
Black River Wild Forest 22 10.2
Lake George Wild Forest 21 9.7
Jessup River Wild Forest 16 7.4
Horseshoe Lake Wild Forest 12 5.6
Independence River Wild Forest 9 4.2
Ferris Lake Wild Forest 5 2.3
Silver Lake Wilderness 2 0.9
Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest 2 0.9
Wilcox Lake Wild Forest 2 0.9
Cranberry Lake Wild Forest 1 0.5
Dix Mountain Wilderness 1 0.5
Total 216 100
Trip and Visitor Characteristics

Table 6 displays the types of equipment that were used by study participants. As shown, 68.4%
of participants used tents for camping, while others used trailers, pop-ups, and recreational
vehicles. It should be noted that many visitors made use of more than one of these types of
equipment (e.g., tents and a trailer within a single site or group).
Table 6. Percentages of visitors using camping equipment.

Equipment # %
Tents 145 68.4
Trailers 39 18.4
Pop-ups 23 10.8
Recreational vehicles 13 6.1
30
Table 7 displays the gender characteristics of the on-site survey sample; the majority of
respondents were male.
Table 7. Gender of on-site survey participants.

Gender # %
Male 148 69.2
Female 66 30.8
Missing data 2 ---
Total 216 100
Participants were asked to indicate the number of days that they had planned to stay
overnight within roadside camping areas during their recreational trip. The results of this
question are displayed in Table 8. Eight percent of respondents indicated that they were staying
in their roadside campsite for only one night. About 20.2% of respondents indicated that they
were using roadside camping areas for two nights during their trip, while 31%, 11.3%, and 8.9%
indicated that they were staying in roadside camping areas for three, four, and five days,
respectively. About 17% of respondents indicated that they would be using roadside camping
areas between 6 and 14 days. Only 3.3% of respondents indicated that they would be staying in
roadside camping areas for more than 14 days during their recreational trips. The mean number
of days that visitors planned to spend roadside camping was 5.72, while the median was 3.
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of days that they had planned to stay
overnight in other, non-roadside campsite accommodations during their current trip. The vast
majority of respondents (95.8%) indicated that they were not using other overnight
accommodations during their trips (Table 9).
Table 8. Number of days spent overnight at roadside camping areas during trip.
Number of Days using Roadside Camping Areas during Trip # %
1 Day 17 8.0
2 Days 43 20.2
3 Days 66 31.0
4 Days 24 11.3
5 Days 19 8.9
6-10 Days 22 10.3
11-14 Days 15 7.0
More than 14 Days 7 3.3
Missing / Not Sure 3 ---
Total 213 100
Mean 5.72
Median 3.0
Standard Deviation 9.57
Range (min and max) 1 - 90
31
Table 9. Number of days spent overnight using other accommodations.
Number of Days using other Accommodations during Trip # %
Did not use other accommodations 204 95.8
1 Day 3 1.4
More than 1 Day 6 2.8
Missing / not sure 3 ---
Total 213 100
Mean 0.20
Median 0
Range (min and max) 0-15
Respondents were asked a series of questions in order to gain an understanding of their

past experiences with various types of camping settings. First, respondents were asked to
indicate the number of years that they had been using the roadside camping area in which they
were surveyed. Table 10 displays the results of this question. As shown, 20.8% of respondents
indicated that it was their first year using the roadside camping area that they were visiting.
About 20% of respondents reported using the roadside camping area between two and five years,
while 12% of indicated using the area between six and ten years. The results suggest that a
substantial proportion of roadside campsite visitors have considerable past experiences with
these settings (47.2% of visitors reported having over 10 years of experience with the setting in
which they were surveyed). The mean number of years that respondents had used the roadside
camping area in which they were surveyed was 14.3 years, while the median was 10 years.
These results suggest that there is considerable variation in the number of years of experience
that roadside campsite visitors have with roadside camping settings.
Table 10. Number of years using roadside camping area that was visited.
Years using Particular Roadside Camping Area # %
First-year visitors 45 20.8
2 to 5 years 43 19.9
6 to 10 years 26 12.0
11 to 15 years 19 8.8
16-20 years 25 11.6
21 to 30 years 32 14.8
Over 30 years 26 12.0
Total 213 100
Mean 14.30
Median 10
Respondents were asked about their previous experience with other roadside camping
areas within the Adirondack Park (aside from the area in which they were surveyed). First,
respondents were asked whether or not they had previously used any other roadside camping
areas within the Adirondack Park. About 52% of respondents indicated that they had not used
32
other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park, while 48% indicated that they had
used other roadside camping areas (Table 11). Those visitors who reported using other roadside
camping areas were then asked to indicate the number of years of experience that they had with
other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park (Table 12).
Table 11. Usage of other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park.
Visitor use of Other Roadside Camping Areas # %
No 112 51.9
Yes 104 48.1
Total 216 100
Of the 104 respondents who reported having past experience with other roadside camping
areas within the Adirondack Park, 5.8% indicated that it was their first year using such areas
(table 12). Another 21.2% indicated having between two and five years of experience with other
roadside areas, while 23.1% indicated having between six and ten years of past experience. A
substantial proportion of visitors (50%) indicated having more than ten years of experience with
other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park. Only 14.4% of respondents indicated
having more than 30 years of experience with other roadside camping areas within the
Adirondack Park. The mean number of years of past experience with other roadside camping
areas was 16.55 years, while the median was 11 years.
Table 12. Number of years using other roadside camping areas within Adirondack Park.
Years using Other Roadside Camping Areas # %
2 to 5 years 22 21.2
6 to 10 years 24 23.1
11 to 15 years 8 7.7
16-20 years 8 7.7
21 to 30 years 21 20.2
Total 104 100
Mean 16.55
Median 11
In addition to understanding visitors’ past experience with roadside camping areas within
the Adirondack Park, researchers were interested in understanding visitors’ past experiences with
other types of camping settings within the Adirondack Park. Therefore, visitors were asked to
indicate whether or not they had previously used non-roadside camping settings within the
Adirondack Park. These settings included NYSDEC campgrounds and primitive/backpacking
sites. Table 13 displays the results of this question. As shown, the majority of respondents
(79.1%) indicated that they had previously used non-roadside camping settings within the
Adirondack Park.
Table 13. Usage of non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park.
33
Visitor use of Non-Roadside Camping Settings within the Park # %
No 45 20.9
Yes 170 79.1
Missing Data 1 ---
Total 216 100
Those respondents who indicated having past experience with non-roadside camping
settings within the park were asked to report the number of years of experience that they had
with such settings (Table 14). Of the 170 respondents who indicated having past experiences
with non-roadside settings, about 7.3% reported that it was their first year using such settings.
Another 16.5% indicated that they had between two and five years of experience with non-
roadside settings, while 15.9% indicated having between six and ten years of past experience.
Over 60% reported having more than ten years of experience. Only 15.2% reported having over
30 years of past experience with non-roadside settings. The mean number of years of past
experience with these settings was 18.15, while the median was 20. These results suggest that
the majority of roadside campsite visitors within the Adirondack Park have previous experience
with non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park as well.
Table 14. Number of years using non-roadside camping settings within the Adirondack Park.
Years using Other Types of Camping Areas in the Park # %
2 to 5 years 27 16.5
6 to 10 years 26 15.9
11 to 15 years 11 6.7
16-20 years 34 20.7
21 to 30 years 29 17.7
Missing Data / Not Sure 6 ---
Total 170 100
Mean 18.15
Median 20
While the previously summarized variables provide descriptions of the number of years
that visitors had used various types of camping settings within the Adirondack Park, researchers
were also interested in understanding the frequency with which visitors use various camping
settings. Therefore, participants were asked a series of questions in order to understand the
number of days per year, in a typical year, that roadside campsite visitors use various camping
settings.
First, respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used the
roadside camping areas in which they were surveyed. As shown in Table 15, 33.6% of
respondents reported using the roadside camping areas in which they were surveyed between one
and five days per year, while 31.3% reported using the areas between six and ten days per year.
34
Only 9.3% of respondents indicated that they used the roadside camping areas in which they
were surveyed more than 30 days per year. The mean number of days per year that visitors used
the roadside camping areas in which they were surveyed was 13.95 days, while the median was
7.5 days.
Table 15. Days per year using the areas in which visitors were surveyed.
Days per Year Using Site of Interview # %
1 to 5 days 72 33.6
6 to 10 days 67 31.3
11 to 15 days 29 13.6
16 to 20 days 10 4.7
21 -30 days 16 7.5
Over 30 days 20 9.3
Missing data / Not sure 2 ---
Total 216 100
Mean 13.95
Median 7.5
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used other
roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park (aside from the areas in which they were
surveyed). The majority of respondents (59.5%) indicated that they did not use other roadside
camping areas in a typical year (Table 16). About 14% indicated that they used other roadside
camping areas within the Park between one and five days per year, while 15.8% indicated that
they used other roadside areas between six and ten days per year. Only 2.3% indicated that they
used other roadside camping areas more than 30 days per year. The mean number of days per
year using other roadside camping areas within the Park was 5.22 days, while the median was
zero days.
Table 16. Days per year using other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using Other Roadside Areas within the Park # %
0 Days 128 59.5
1 to 5 days 30 14.0
6 to 10 days 34 15.8
11 to 15 days 5 2.3
16 to 20 days 7 3.3
21 -30 days 6 2.8
Over 30 days 5 2.3
Total 216 100
Mean 5.22
Median 0
35
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used NYSDEC
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park. A slight majority (50.2%) reported that they did not
use NYSDEC campgrounds during a typical year (Table 17). About 26.5% indicated that they
used campgrounds between one and five days per year, while 14.4% indicated that they used
campgrounds between six and ten days per year. Less than 10% of respondents indicated that
they used NYSDEC campgrounds within the Park more than ten days per year. The mean
number of days per year that respondents used NYSDEC campgrounds within the Park was 3.59
days, while the median was zero days.
Table 17. Days per year using NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using NYSDEC Campgrounds within the Park # %
0 Days 108 50.2
1 to 5 days 57 26.5
6 to 10 days 31 14.4
11 to 15 days 10 4.7
16 to 20 days 4 1.9
21 -30 days 4 1.9
Over 30 days 1 0.5
Total 216 100
Mean 3.59
Median 0
Next, respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used
privately owned and operated campgrounds within the Adirondack Park (Table 18). The
majority of respondents (87.9%) indicated that they did not use privately owned and operated
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park during a typical year. The mean number of days per
year that respondents used private campgrounds within the Park was 0.83 days.
Table 18. Days per year using privately owned campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using Private Campgrounds within the Park # %
0 Days 189 87.9
1 to 5 days 15 7.0
6 to 10 days 6 2.8
11 to 15 days 3 1.4
16 to 20 days 0 0.0
21 -30 days 2 0.9
Over 30 days 0 0.0
Total 216 100
Mean 0.83
Median 0
36
Respondents were also asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used
primitive/backpacking campsites within the Adirondack Park. The majority of respondents
(64.5%) indicated that they did not use primitive/backpacking campsites during a typical year
(Table 19). Less than 7% of respondents indicated that they used primitive/backpacking
campsites within the Adirondack Park more than ten days per year. The mean number of days
per year using primitive tent sites within the Park was 2.64 days, while the median was 0 days.
Table 19. Days per year using primitive/backpacking campsites within the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using Primitive Campsites within the Park # %
0 Days 138 64.5
1 to 5 days 50 23.4
6 to 10 days 13 6.1
11 to 15 days 6 2.8
16 to 20 days 3 1.4
21 -30 days 1 0.5
Over 30 days 3 1.4
Total 216 100
Mean 2.64
Median 0
Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per year that they used
camping settings outside of the Adirondack Park. A majority of respondents (51.9%) indicated
that they did not use camping settings outside of the Adirondack Park during a typical year
(Table 20). About 24% indicated that they used camping settings outside the Adirondack Park
between one and five days per year, while 13.2% reported using these settings between six and
ten days per year. The mean number of days per year using camping settings outside of the
Adirondack Park was 5.08 days, while the median was zero days.
Table 20. Days per year using camping areas outside the Adirondack Park.
Days per Year using Camping Areas outside the Park # %
0 Days 110 51.9
1 to 5 days 51 24.1
6 to 10 days 28 13.2
11 to 15 days 9 4.2
16 to 20 days 5 2.4
21 -30 days 7 3.3
Over 30 days 2 0.9
Total 216 100
Mean 5.08
Median 0
37
In summary, the results suggest that some roadside campsite visitors use other types of
camping settings both within and outside of the Adirondack Park. However, the extent of use
seems much lower within non-roadside settings than within roadside settings. Also, high
proportions of respondents indicated that they did not use NYSDEC campgrounds (50.2%) or
primitive/backpacking sites (64.5%) within the Park during a typical year, despite the very high
percentage of visitors who reported having past experiences (79.1%) with non-roadside camping
areas within the Adirondack Park. These results may indicate that although some visitors have
previous experiences with these areas, they no longer visit them during typical years. For
example, a few respondents indicated that they used NYSDEC campgrounds during their
childhoods, but no longer used them as adults. Other respondents mentioned that although they
used primitive/backpacking sites during their younger years, they no longer visited these areas.
In addition to understanding previous camping experiences of roadside campsite visitors,
researchers were interested in understanding both the size and composition of roadside camping
groups. Therefore, respondents were asked to indicate the number of people making up their
camping groups. Group sizes ranged from one to 25 people (Table 21). About 9.3% of
respondents indicated that they were the only person in their camping group. The mean number
of people per camping group was 4.06 people, while the median was three people.
Table 21. Group size for visitors surveyed.

Group Size # %
1 20 9.3
2 77 35.6
3 24 11.1
4 23 10.6
5 27 12.5
6 17 7.9
7 8 3.7
8 5 2.3
9 2 0.9
10 3 1.4
Over 10 10 4.6
Total 216 100
Mean 4.06
Median 3
Range 1-25
Researchers were also interested in understanding whether or not children (persons less
than 18 years of age) were present in each group of roadside campers. The majority of camping
groups (65.7%) were made up of adults only, while 34.3% of groups included children (Table
22).
38
Table 22. Presence of children within camping groups.
Children Present in Group # %
No 142 65.7
Yes 74 34.3
Total 216 100
Finally, researchers were interested in understanding the nature of the relationships

between people making up each camping group. Respondents were provided with a list of five
alternatives and asked to indicate which best represented the composition of their camping
group. About 9.4% of respondents indicated that they were camping alone on their trip (Table
23). The majority of respondents (53.8%) indicated that they were camping with members of
their family, while about 20.3% indicated that they were camping with friends. In combination,
the vast majority (73.8%) of roadside campsite visitors tend to camp with members of their
families and/or friends.
Table 23. Compositions of roadside camping groups.

Compositions of Camping Groups # %
Alone 20 9.4
Family 114 53.8
Friends 43 20.3
Family and Friends 34 16.0
Organization 1 0.5
Missing Data 4 ---
Total 216 100
Questions about the types of activities that roadside campsite visitors pursue during their
camping trips were included on the survey. First, respondents were provided with a list of 15
outdoor recreation activities and were asked to indicate whether or not they had pursued or
planned to pursue each activity during their roadside camping trips. All 15 activities that were
provided on the survey were pursued by roadside campers (Table 24). The most popular
activities that roadside campers pursued were viewing natural features and scenery (91.6%),
hiking (91.6%), viewing wildlife (85.1%), picnicking (75.8%), swimming (66.5%), photography
(65.6%), fishing (58.1%) and driving for pleasure on roads (57.7%). It should be noted that
hunting seasons did not correspond well with the timing of this study, which likely explains the
low rate of participation in this activity. In addition to the 15 activities that were provided on the
survey instrument, respondents were given the opportunity to report additional activities that
they pursued or were planning to pursue during their trips. Other activities mentioned by
participants include berry picking, biking, drawing, gathering with family and/or friends, tubing,
playing Frisbee, visiting a museum, orienteering, sports, reading, relaxing, rock climbing,
sailing, shooting, drinking, writing music, darts, and exploring.
39
Table 24. Rates and percentages of activity participation while roadside camping.
Activity Participation # %
Viewing natural feature and scenery 197 91.6
Hiking 197 91.6
Viewing wildlife 183 85.1
Picnicking 163 75.8
Swimming 143 66.5
Photography 141 65.6
Fishing 125 58.1
Driving for pleasure on roads 124 57.7
Canoeing or kayaking 103 47.9
Nature study 76 35.3
Backpacking and camping in primitive sites 35 16.3
Motorized water travel (boat, PWC) 17 7.9
Using an ATV or off-road vehicle 8 3.7
Hunting 5 2.3
Horseback riding 2 0.9
Researchers were interested in knowing whether or not roadside campsite visitors

perceived the activity of camping as the primary activity for their recreational trips. Therefore,
respondents were asked whether or not camping was their primary activity. The vast majority of
roadside campers (94.4%) reported that the activity of camping was the most primary activity for
their recreational trips (Table 25).
Table 25. Camping as a primary activity for current Adirondack Park trip.
Camping as a Primary Activity # %
No 12 5.6
Yes 204 94.4
Total 216 100
The 12 respondents who indicated that roadside camping was not the primary activity for their
trips were each asked to indicate which activity they considered to be most primary; other
activities that were mentioned as the most primary included fishing, canoeing, picnicking,
swimming, hiking, and relaxing (Table 26).
Table 26. Primary trip activities other than camping.

Other Primary Activities # %
Fishing 5 41.7
Canoeing 3 25.0
Picnicking 1 8.3
Swimming 1 8.3
Hiking 1 8.3
Relaxing 1 8.3
Total 12 100
40
The 204 respondents who indicated that camping was the primary activity for their trip
were asked to indicate which activity was the second most important for their trip. The activity
mentioned most often as the second most important for the trip was fishing, followed by hiking,
canoeing, being outdoors, relaxing, and swimming (Table 27).
Table 27. Second most important activities for Adirondack Park trip.
Second Most Important Activity # %
Fishing 35 22.2
Hiking 32 20.3
Canoeing 16 10.1
Being outdoors 15 9.5
Relaxing 15 9.5
Swimming 11 7.0
Spending time with family 8 5.1
Viewing natural features and scenery 6 3.8
Bicycling 5 3.2
Hunting 3 1.9
Viewing wildlife 3 1.9
Picnicking 2 1.3
Tubing 2 1.3
Photography 1 0.6
Reading 1 0.6
Rock climbing 1 0.6
Cooking 1 0.6
Shopping 1 0.6
Missing data / not sure 58 ---
Total 216 100
Visitor Site Choice

A series of questions was asked in order to gain a better understanding of visitor site
choice and opinions regarding alternatives for the roadside camping areas. Each respondent was
asked to indicate whether or not the roadside camping area that they were using was their first
choice for a camping setting for their trip. The vast majority of respondents (94.4%) indicated
that the roadside camping area that they were using was their first choice for a camping setting
for their trip (Table 28).
Table 28. Roadside camping area as primary setting choice.

Was this camping area your first choice for a setting? # %
No 12 5.6
Yes 203 94.4
Total 216 100
Only 12 respondents indicated that the roadside camping area that they were using was not their
first choice for a camping setting. Those 12 respondents were provided with a list of alternatives
and asked to indicate which best represented their first choice for a camping setting. Five
participants indicated that a different roadside camping area was their first choice (Table 29).
41
Two participants indicated that a NYSDEC campground was their first choice for a camping
setting, while three participants indicated that a primitive/backpacking campsite was their first
choice.
Table 29. Alternative first choices for camping settings.

If not, what was your first choice? # %
A different roadside area within the Park 5 50
A NYSDEC campground within the Park 2 20
A primitive/backpacking site within the Park 3 30
A camping area outside the Park 0 0
Other 0 0
Total 12 100
Respondents were provided with a list of alternatives and asked to indicate which best
represented what they would have done if, for some reason, they were not able to camp at the
roadside camping area that they were using during the time of the survey. The majority of
respondents (52.8%) reported that they would have gone to a different roadside camping area
within the Adirondack Park if they could not have used the roadside camping area that they were
visiting (Table 30). Only 18.4% indicated that they would have gone to a NYSDEC campground
within the Adirondack Park if they could not have stayed in the roadside camping area that they
were visiting. Another 5.7% indicated that they would have used a primitive/backpacking site
within the Adirondack Park if they could not have used the roadside area, while only 1.4%
indicated that they would have gone to a camping setting outside of the Adirondack Park.
Interestingly, 18.9% of respondents indicated that they would have stayed home and/or come
back at another time if they were not able to use the roadside camping area that they were
visiting. Only one participant (0.5%) indicated that he/she would have gone to a motel, hotel or
rental property, while five respondents (2.4%) indicated that they would have done something
else that was not included as a response alternative. Actions mentioned by these five participants
included going to an amusement park, visiting relatives or friends on private land, working, and
pursuing other activities not related to camping. In total, only 25.5% of respondents indicated
that they would have gone to a non-roadside camping setting (NYSDEC campground,
primitive/backpacking site, camping area outside the park) if they were not able to use the
roadside camping area that they were visiting during the time that they were surveyed.
Table 30. Alternatives if respondents couldn’t use the roadside camping area they visited.
What would you have done if couldn’t camp at roadside area? # %
Gone to another roadside camping area within the Park 112 52.8
Gone to a NYSDEC campground within the Park 39 18.4
Gone to a backpacking site within the Park 12 5.7
Gone to a camping area outside the Park 3 1.4
Stayed home and/or come back another time 40 18.9
Gone to a hotel, motel, or rental property 1 0.5
Other 5 2.4
Total 216 100
42
Respondents were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with their recreational
experience at the roadside camping areas they were visiting using a five-point scale ranging from
very dissatisfied to neutral to very satisfied. Only four participants (1.9%) indicated that they
were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied on their trip and only four participants (1.9%)
reported a neutral rating of satisfaction (Table 31). The vast majority of respondents reported
being either satisfied (19.9%) or very satisfied (76.4%) with their recreational experiences at the
roadside camping areas that they visited during the time of the survey.
Table 31. Level of satisfaction with experience at roadside camping areas.

Level of Camper Satisfaction # %
Very dissatisfied 3 1.4
Dissatisfied 1 0.5
Neutral 4 1.9
Satisfied 43 19.9
Very satisfied 165 76.4
Total 216 100
Visitor Residence Area

Finally, a series of questions was included on the survey in order to gather information
related to the location of visitors’ homes. Respondents were asked to report the approximate
number of miles between the roadside camping areas that they visited and their permanent
homes. The distance between visitors’ homes and the roadside camping areas that they were
using varied (Table 32); 13.7% of respondents reported a distance between 1 and 25 miles, while
about 16.5% reported a distance between 26 and 50 miles. Only 4.7% reported distances above
300 miles. The mean distance between visitors’ homes and the roadside camping areas they
were visiting was 120.53 miles, while the median was 90 miles.
Table 32. Distances between visitors’ permanent homes and roadside camping areas.
Distance between Roadside Camping Areas and Visitors Homes # %
1 to 25 miles 29 13.7
26 to 50 miles 35 16.5
51 to 100 miles 60 28.3
101 to 200 miles 63 29.7
201 to 300 miles 15 7.1
Over 300 miles 10 4.7
Missing data/ not sure 4 ---
Total 216 100
Mean 120.53
Median 90
SD 152.50
43
Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they were Adirondack Park
permanent residents. Only 19.4% of respondents indicated that their permanent residence was
located within the Adirondack Park (Table 33).
Table 33. Visitor permanent residence within Adirondack Park.

Visitor Permanent Residence within Park # %
No 174 80.6
Yes 42 19.4
Total 216 100
Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they were Adirondack Park vacation
homeowners or seasonal residents. Only 6.9% of respondents indicated that they owned a
vacation home within the Adirondack Park or that they were seasonal residents (Table 34).
Table 34. Vacation homeownership and seasonal residence in the Adirondack Park.
Visitor Vacation Homeownership/seasonal residence # %
No 201 93.1
Yes 15 6.9
Total 216 100
Respondents were asked to provide the name of the county, state, and country in which
their permanent homes resided. Table 35, Table 36, and Table 37 display the results of this line
of questioning. The vast majority of respondents (99.1%) indicated that their permanent
residence was within the U.S. (Table 35). The majority of respondents (95.8%) reported that
their residence was within the state of New York (Table 36); other states reported include New
Jersey, Vermont, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. Table 37 provides a summary of
respondent permanent residence by New York State county.
Table 35. Visitor permanent residence by country.

Visitor Permanent Residence by Country # %
U.S.A 213 99.1
Canada 2 0.9
Total 216 100
Table 36. Visitor permanent residence by state.

Visitor Permanent Residence by State # %
New York 206 95.8
New jersey 2 0.9
Vermont 2 0.9
Ontario, Canada 2 0.9
Colorado 1 0.5
Massachusetts 1 0.5
Pennsylvania 1 0.5
Total 216 100
44
Table 37. Visitor permanent residence by New York County residents.
Visitor Permanent Residence by County #
Albany 8
Broome 1
Cayuga 3
Chenango 1
Clinton 8
Cortland 1
Erie 4
Essex 4
Franklin 9
Fulton 11
Genesee 1
Greene 2
Hamilton 1
Herkimer 15
Jefferson 3
Kings 2
Lewis 3
Livingston 1
Madison 8
Monroe 3
Montgomery 5
Nassau 1
Niagara 3
Oneida 18
Onondaga 20
Oswego 11
Otsego 2
Queens 1
Rensselaer 4
Saratoga 13
Schenectady 12
Schoharie 1
Seneca 3
Steuben 1
Suffolk 1
Ulster 1
Warren 8
Washington 5
Wayne 5
Yates 1
Total 205
The final question that was included in the on-site survey was related to respondents’
willingness to participate in the follow-up mail survey. Respondents were asked if they would
45
be willing to participate in a follow-up mail survey about their camping experiences and provide
more details about their experiences and decision-making. The majority of respondents (82.9%)
agreed to participate in the follow-up mail survey. Those participants who agreed were asked to
provide their contact information for mailing purposes.
Table 38. Participation in mail survey.

Participation in Follow-up Mail Survey # %
No 37 17.1
Yes 179 82.9
Total 216 100
46
FOLLOW-UP MAIL SURVEY
A total of 114 questionnaires were completed and returned by respondents of the follow-
up survey, yielding a 64% response rate after up to two reminders.
Level of Attachment
One of the first topics addressed on the questionnaire was the overall level of attachment
that visitors felt towards roadside camping areas. Respondents were asked to rate their overall
level of attachment to the roadside camping area that they were visiting during the time that they
were surveyed in the field in the Adirondack Park. Respondents were provided with six response
alternatives and were asked to indicate which alternative best represented their feelings of
attachment. Only one respondent (0.9%) indicated that he/she felt no attachment to the area that
he/she visited (Table 39). Only one respondent indicated that he/she felt a very weak attachment
to the roadside camping area visited, while only four (3.6%) respondents indicated feeling weak
attachment. The vast majority of respondents felt a mild to a strong attachment or very strong
attachment to the roadside camping area in which they were interviewed (94.6%) (Table 39).
Table 39. Overall attachment to roadside camping areas visited when surveyed in field.
Attachment to Particular Roadside Camping Area Visited # %
No attachment 1 0.9
Very weak attachment 1 0.9
Weak attachment 4 3.6
Mild attachment 22 19.6
Strong attachment 39 34.8
Very strong attachment 45 40.2
Total 114 100
A similar question asked respondents to indicate the overall level of attachment that they
felt towards the overall activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park (as opposed to their
attachment to the particular roadside camping areas they were visiting when surveyed in the
field). The vast majority of respondents felt a mild attachment to a strong attachment or very
strong attachment to the activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park (98.2%) (Table 40)
Table 40. Overall attachment to the activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park.
Attachment to the Activity of Roadside Camping within the Park # %
No attachment 0 0.0
Very weak attachment 1 0.9
Weak attachment 1 0.9
Mild attachment 22 19.6
Strong attachment 46 41.1
Very strong attachment 42 37.5
Total 114 100
47
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of other roadside camping areas (besides
the one that they were surveyed at) that they knew about within the Adirondack Park. A
substantial proportion of respondents (34.8%) reported that they only had knowledge of the
roadside camping area that they were visiting when they were surveyed in the field (Table 41).
The mean number of other roadside camping areas known about was 4.19, while the median was
two.
Table 41. Familiarity with other roadside camping areas in the Adirondack Park.
Knowledge of Other Roadside Camping Areas # %
0 39 34.8
1 11 9.8
2 13 11.6
3 16 14.3
4 5 4.5
5 8 7.1
6 6 5.4
7 1 0.9
8 2 1.8
9 0 0.0
10 3 2.7
Over 10 8 7.1
Total 114 100
Mean 4.19
Median 2
St. Dev 8.5
Range 1-60
Respondents were asked to indicate the manner in which they first learned about roadside
camping areas within the Adirondack Park. Respondents were provided with a list of six
alternatives and were asked to indicate which alternative best represented how they first learned
about roadside camping areas. About one third (36.3%) of respondents indicated that they
learned about roadside camping areas from a family member, while 33.6% indicated that they
learned from a friend (Table 42). Another 23.9% indicated that they learned about roadside
camping areas within the Adirondack Park through personal exploration, while only 2.7%
indicated that they learned about these areas from NYSDEC staff or written materials. Four
participants (3.5%) indicated that they learned about roadside camping areas within the
Adirondack Park from some other source that was not included as a response alternative.
48
Table 42. How roadside campsite visitors first learned about roadside camping areas.
How visitors first learned about roadside # %
camping areas in the Adirondack Park
Family member 41 36.3
Friend 38 33.6
Personal exploration 27 23.9
NYSDEC staff or written materials 3 2.7
Chamber of commerce or visitor center 0 0.0
Other 4 3.5
Total 114 100
Camper Motivations
Another topic of interest to the researchers was related to the motivations that people
have for visiting roadside camping areas within the Park. Respondents were provided with a list
of 14 different motivations that are commonly experienced by visitors to natural resource
recreation areas. Respondents were asked to provide two ratings for each motivation item. First,
they were asked to indicate how important each motivation was in selecting the roadside
camping setting that they visited during the time of their on-site survey. A five-point scale,
ranging from very unimportant to very important was provided for this question. Second,
respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each motivation was satisfied during their
trip to that roadside camping area. A five-point scale, ranging from very dissatisfied to very
satisfied, was provided for this question. The results of these questions are displayed in Table
43.
The mean importance ratings for most of the 14 motivations were above 3, indicating that
these motivations are important to most visitors. The only motivation that had a mean value
lower than 3 was the motivation to be near my home (mean = 2.47). These results indicate that
this motivation, on average, was not highly important to roadside camping visitors. Mean
satisfaction ratings were also generally high. All satisfaction means were above 3.7, indicating
that, on average, respondents were highly satisfied with the extent to which each of the 14
motivations were fulfilled during their trips.
Further analyses were conducted in order to illustrate importance and satisfaction ratings
that respondents provided. Using mean importance and satisfaction ratings, researchers created
two Importance-Performance Grids (IP Grids) in order to illustrate the extent to which
importance and satisfaction ratings corresponded with one another for each motivation. IP Grids
were originally developed within the field of marketing for the purposes of easing data
interpretation. The application has been adopted by researchers in several other fields, including
recreation and leisure studies (Oh, 2001).
49
Table 43. Importance and satisfaction ratings for roadside camping motivations (% and means).
Very Unimportant
Very Dissatisfied
Very Important
Very Satisfied
Mean Rating
Mean Rating
Unimportant
Dissatisfied
Important
Satisfied
Neutral
Neutral
Motivation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(a) To experience natural
4.46 1.8 2.7 6.2 26.8 62.5 0.0 0.0 7.1 28.3 64.6 4.58
environment and scenic beauty.
(b) To feel a connection with
4.42 2.7 0.9 8.0 28.6 59.8 0.0 0.9 7.0 31.6 60.5 4.52
nature and a natural environment.
(c) To get away from daily
4.50 2.7 0.9 5.4 26.1 64.9 routines and have a chance to 0.9 0.0 5.3 28.3 65.5 4.58
reflect on life.
(d) To experience a remote area
4.59 3.5 0.0 4.4 17.7 74.3 away from sight and sound of 0.0 2.6 6.1 25.4 65.8 4.54
cities and people.
(e) To feel a connection with
4.42 2.7 0.0 9.9 27.0 60.4 wilderness and wild forests as 0.0 0.9 8.8 28.3 61.9 4.51
important places.
(f) To experience an environment
4.52 1.8 0.9 5.4 27.7 64.3 free of litter, human waste, and 1.8 10.5 8.8 42.1 36.8 4.02
impacts.
(g) To experience solitude and
being isolated from other groups
4.42 2.7 0.9 6.2 32.1 58.0 0.0 3.5 8.8 35.1 52.6 4.37
and having a personal experience
within my group.
(h) To practice travel skills
3.51 3.6 12.5 33.9 29.5 20.5 through a remote wild 0.0 0.0 41.6 31.9 26.5 3.85
environment.
(i) To enjoy physical activity,
4.01 1.8 0.9 24.3 40.5 32.4 0.0 0.0 21.2 38.1 40.7 4.19
challenge, and exercise.
(j) To experience well-managed
3.71 1.8 8.0 33.9 30.4 25.9 1.8 2.7 30.4 33.9 31.2 3.90
recreation trails and facilities.
(k) To experience recreation
4.39 1.8 2.7 7.1 31.2 57.1 trails, sites, and environments that 0.0 3.5 15.0 31.9 49.6 4.27
were not crowded.
(l) To spend time with family and
4.54 3.6 0.0 4.5 23.2 68.8 0.0 0.0 7.9 17.5 74.6 4.67
friends in natural environment.
(m) To spend time by myself in a
3.87 3.6 6.2 25.9 28.6 35.7 0.0 0.9 26.5 29.2 43.4 4.15
natural environment.
2.47 23.2 33.9 21.4 15.2 6.2 (n) To be near my home. 4.4 1.8 41.6 20.4 31.9 3.73
IP grids were created by plotting the mean importance and performance ratings for an
attribute (in this case motivations) using a two-dimensional grid. Importance scores are displayed
on the Y-axis, while performance scores are displayed on the X-axis. The location of each
attribute on the grid is the point at which performance values and importance values intersect.
Once all attributes are plotted within the grid, two lines are drawn across the grid at the neutral
points of each axis, thus creating four quadrants into which all points are plotted. Each quadrant
50
is associated with a different management application. For example, those attributes that are
plotted within quadrant 1 of the IP grid have high means scores for both importance and
performance and, therefore, little management action is needed for those attributes. Thus,
managers are encouraged to keep up the good work for attributes falling within the first quadrant.
Attributes plotted within quadrant 2 of the IP grid can be described as having high importance
ratings, but low performance ratings. Managers are encouraged to concentrate their efforts on
those attributes falling within the second quadrant of the IP grid. Attributes plotted within
quadrant 3 of the IP grid can be described as having low mean importance and performance
scores. Due to the low importance scores, managers are encouraged to place a low priority on
attributes falling within the third quadrant of the IP grid. Finally, attributes plotted within
quadrant 4 of the IP grid can be described as having low importance scores, but high
performance scores. Therefore, attributes falling within the fourth quadrant may be thought of as
representing management overkill (i.e., potentially too much management emphasis is placed on
these attributes, as the satisfaction ratings are high, but low importance is placed on them).
Figure 12 provides an example of a blank IP grid.
Quadrant 1:
4 Quadrant 2:
Keep up the good work
Concentrate Here
Importance
2
Quadrant 3: Quadrant 4:
Low Priority Possible Overkill
1
1 2 3 4 5
Performance
Figure 12. Importance-Performance grid example.
Figure 13 displays an IP grid summarizing the mean importance and performance scores
for the 14 motivations included on the follow-up questionnaire of roadside campers. The lines
separating the four IP grid quadrants were placed at the neutral point for each axis (value = 3).
Each motivation is labeled by a lowercase letter, corresponding with the motivations listed in
Table 43. That is, the motivation to experience the natural environment and scenic beauty is
labeled with the letter a within Figure 13, while the motivation to practice travel skills through a
51
remote environment is labeled with the letter h within Figure 13. All motivations except to be
near my home were plotted within the first quadrant of the IP grid, indicating that managers
should keep up the good work in relation to these motivations. The motivation to be near my
home was plotted within the fourth quadrant of the IP grid, indicating that managing for the
fulfillment of this motivation should not be highly prioritized (i.e., while visitors are highly
satisfied with this motivation, they place a relatively low importance on it).
The distributions of importance and performance ratings for all motivations were highly
skewed toward the positive ends of the ratings (Table 43). Due to the generally high mean
importance and performance scores for all motivations included on the questionnaire, the IP grid
shown in Figure 13 is limited in its ability to differentiate between motivations. That is, almost
all importance and performance means were above 3 (the neutral point), which resulted in almost
all motivations being plotted within the first quadrant of the IP grid. In an effort to better
differentiate between motivations, a separate IP grid was created. However, rather than creating
quadrants based on the neutral points of each axis, quadrants were created based on the overall
importance and performance mean scores for all motivations, collectively. That is, the 14
importance means were summed and averaged (overall importance mean = 4.13) to create the
line splitting the Y-axis, while the 14 performance means were summed and averaged (overall
performance mean = 4.28) to create the line splitting the X-axis. Figure 14 displays the second
IP grid created for this study.
As shown in Figure 14, the IP grid that was divided into quadrants based on means
resulted in a higher variation of motivations falling within the four quadrants. Each motivation is
labeled by a lowercase letter, corresponding with the motivations listed in Table 43. The
motivations to experience the natural environment and scenic beauty, to feel a connection with
nature and a natural environment, to get away from daily routines and have a chance to reflect
on life, to experience a remote area away from sight and sound of cities and people, to feel a
connection with wilderness and wild forest areas as important places, to experience solitude and
being isolated from other groups and having a personal experience within my group, and to
spend time with family and friends in a natural environment were all plotted within the first
quadrant of the IP grid. These results suggest that management should keep up the good work
with these motivations.
The motivations to experience an environment free of litter, human waste and impacts
and to experience recreation trails, sites, and environments that are not crowded were plotted
within the second quadrant of the IP grid (i.e., these two motivations were associated with higher
importance scores than performance scores). These results suggest that management should
focus their attention on improving visitor satisfaction with these two motivations.
The motivations to practice travel skills through a remote environment, to enjoy physical
activity, challenge, and exercise, to experience well-managed recreation trails and facilities, to
spend time alone in a natural environment, and to be near home were all plotted within the third
quadrant of the IP grid. These results suggest that managers should place a low priority on
improving visitor satisfaction with these motivations because visitors place low importance on
them. None of the motivations were plotted within the fourth quadrant of the IP grid.
52
5
d l
4.5 f c
k g eb a
4 i
m
j
3.5 h
Importance
2.5 n
1.5
1
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Performace
Figure 13. IP grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations.
53
5
d
4.5 f c l
g eb a
k
4 i
Mean = 4.13 m
Importance
3.5 h
2.5 n
Mean = 4.28
2
3.5 4 4.5 5
Performace
Figure 14. IP Grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations using overall means to divide quadrants.
54
Substitution for Other Camping Settings
A primary purpose of the follow-up survey was to gather information from visitors about their
opinions regarding the extent to which various types of camping settings can be substituted for
one another. Several questions were included on the questionnaire in order to gather this
information. Respondents were asked to review a list of camping settings and to compare the
satisfaction that they typically receive from visiting these settings with the satisfaction that they
typically receive from visiting the roadside camping areas that they were using during the time
that they surveyed in the field. Table 44 displays the results of these questions.
First, respondents were asked to indicate how the level of satisfaction they receive from
visiting other roadside camping areas in the Adirondack Park compared to the satisfaction they
receive from visiting the roadside area in which they were interviewed. A substantial proportion
of visitors (41.8%) indicated that they received an equal amount of satisfaction between the two
types of settings (Table 44). Only 5.5% indicated that they receive much less satisfaction from
visiting other roadside camping areas, while about 12.7% indicated that they receive slightly less
satisfaction from visiting other roadside areas. Another 7.3% and 4.5% indicated that they
receive slightly more satisfaction and much more satisfaction from visiting other roadside
camping areas within the Adirondack Park, respectively. Finally, 28.2% of respondents
indicated that they did not know how to compare satisfaction between these areas.
Second, respondents were asked to make comparisons between NYSDEC campgrounds
within the Adirondack Park and the roadside camping area that they were visiting when they
were surveyed in the field. As shown in Table 44, 32.4% of respondents indicated that they
received much less satisfaction from visiting NYSDEC campgrounds than from visiting the
roadside camping area they used when they were surveyed in the field. Another 21.6% indicated
that they receive slightly less satisfaction from visiting NYSDEC campgrounds within the Park,
while 15.3% indicated that they received an equal amount of satisfaction from the two camping
settings. Only 8.1% indicated that they receive slightly more satisfaction from visiting NYSDEC
campgrounds, while another 8.1% indicated that they receive much more satisfaction from
visiting NYSDEC campgrounds. Finally, 14.4% indicated that they did not know how to
compare satisfaction between these areas.
Third, respondents were asked to make comparisons between primitive/backpacking
campsites within the Adirondack Park and the roadside camping areas that respondents were
visiting when surveyed in the field. As shown in Table 44, 6.3% indicated that they receive
much less satisfaction from visiting primitive/backpacking sites, while 9.0% indicated that they
receive slightly less satisfaction. Another 36% indicated that they receive an equal amount of
satisfaction between the settings. Only 7.2% of respondents indicated that they receive slightly
more satisfaction from visiting primitive/backpacking campsites within the Park, while 12.6%
indicated that they receive much more satisfaction from visiting primitive/backpacking sites.
Finally, 28.8% of respondents indicated that they did not know how to compare satisfaction
between these settings.
Fourth, respondents were asked to make comparisons between camping areas located
outside of the Adirondack Park and the roadside camping areas that respondents were visiting
when they were surveyed in the field (Table 44). About one quarter (24.8%) of respondents
indicated that they receive much less satisfaction from visiting camping areas outside the
Adirondack Park, while 22.1% indicated that they receive slightly less satisfaction from these
areas. Another 26.5% indicated that they receive an equal amount of satisfaction between the
55
settings. Only 3.5% and 2.7% of respondents indicated that they receive slightly more
satisfaction and much more satisfaction from visiting camping areas outside of the Adirondack
Park, respectively. Finally, 20.4% of respondents indicated that they did not know how to
compare satisfaction between these areas.
In summary, over half of the respondents (54%) indicated that they receive less
satisfaction from visiting NYSDEC campgrounds than from visiting the roadside camping areas
that they were using when surveyed in the field. Also, nearly half of the respondents (46.9%)
indicated that they receive less satisfaction from visiting camping areas outside of the
Adirondack Park than from visiting the roadside areas that they were using when surveyed in the
field. Conversely, over half of the respondents (53.6%) indicated that they receive an equal or
higher amount of satisfaction from visiting other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack
Park in comparison to visiting the roadside camping area that they were using when surveyed in
the field. Similarly, over half of respondents (55.8%) indicated that they receive an equal or
higher amount of satisfaction from visiting primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack
Park in comparison to the satisfaction they receive from visiting the roadside areas that they were
using when surveyed in the field.
Table 44. Satisfaction comparisons across camping settings in the Adirondack Park.
Total Percent
Slightly more
(n=110 to 113)
Satisfaction
Slightly less
Don’t know
Much more
Much less
Satisfying
satisfying
satisfying
satisfying
satisfying
Equally
comparison between
roadside camping area
visited and other
camping areas
Other roadside camping 5.5% 12.7% 41.8% 7.3% 4.5% 28.2% 100
areas in the Park are…
NYSDEC campgrounds 32.4% 21.6% 15.3% 8.1% 8.1% 14.4% 100

are…
Primitive backpacking 6.3% 9.0% 36.0% 7.2% 12.6% 28.8% 100

sites or lean-tos within
the Park are…
Camping areas outside 24.8% 22.1% 26.5% 3.5% 2.7% 20.4% 100
the Park are…
Substitution for Other Camping Resources

In addition to understanding satisfaction comparisons between camping settings, researchers
were interested in understanding the extent to which visitors would substitute camping resources
if roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park became unavailable for public use. Two
questions were included on the survey in order to examine this issue.
First, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they would camp if
the roadside camping area that they were using when surveyed in the field became unavailable.
56
A five-point scale, ranging from much less often to much more often, was provided for answering
this question. About one third (36.3%) of respondents indicated that they would camp much less
often if the roadside camping area that they were using when surveyed in the field became
unavailable, while 15% indicated that they would camp slightly less often (Table 45). About
half (46.9%) indicated that they would camp about the same amount if the roadside camping area
that they were visiting when surveyed in the field became unavailable. Only two participants
(1.8%) indicated that they would camp more often or much more often if the area that they
visited became unavailable. These results indicate that about half (51.3%) of the respondents
would camp less often if the roadside areas that they were visiting when surveyed in the field
became unavailable, while the other half (46.9%) would continue to camp about the same
amount.
Table 45. Frequency of camping if particular roadside areas in the Adirondack Park are not
available.
How often would you camp if Roadside Area Used not available? # %
Much less often 41 36.3
Less often 17 15.0
About the same 53 46.9
More often 1 0.9
Much more often 1 0.9
Total 114 100
Second, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they would camp in
other Adirondack Park settings if no roadside camping areas were available for public use within
the Adirondack Park. Respondents were instructed to answer using the same five-point scale
that was provided for the previous question. About half (50.4%) of respondents indicated that
they would camp much less often in other settings within the Park, if no roadside camping areas
were available for public use (Table 46). Another 26.5% of respondents indicated that they
would camp slightly less often if no roadside camping areas were available, while 22.1%
indicated that they would camp about the same amount. In summary, the majority of
respondents (76.9%) indicated that they would camp less often or much less often at other
camping settings within the Adirondack Park if no roadside camping areas were available.
Table 46. Frequency of camping if no roadside areas available in the Adirondack Park.
How often would you camp if no roadside sites were available? # %
Much less often 57 50.4
Less often 30 26.5
About the same 25 22.1
More often 1 0.9
Much more often 0 0.0
Total 114 100
The variables described above provide useful information about visitor perceptions
regarding the extent to which camping settings can be substituted for one another within the
57
Adirondack Park. However, the previously described results provide information that is only
indirectly related to resource substitution. In order to gain a more direct understanding of
camping resource substitutability within the Adirondack Park, respondents were asked a series of
questions that directly addressed the concept of resource substitution.
First, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not other roadside camping areas
within the Adirondack Park are acceptable substitutes for the roadside camping areas that they
were visiting when surveyed in the field. About half of the respondents (49.1%) indicated that
other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park are acceptable substitutes for the
roadside camping areas that they were visiting when surveyed in the field (Table 47). Another
22.8% of respondents indicated that other roadside camping areas were not acceptable
substitutes, while 28.1% reported that they did not know if other roadside camping areas were
acceptable substitutes.
Table 47. Substitutability of other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park.
Are other roadside camping areas within the Park acceptable substitutes? # %
Yes 56 49.1
No 26 22.8
Don’t know 32 28.1
Total 114 100
A follow-up question was included on the questionnaire in order to gain an understanding

of the reasons why other roadside camping areas might not be acceptable substitutes for the
roadside camping areas that respondents were visiting when they were surveyed in the field.
Respondents who indicated that other roadside camping areas in the Adirondack Park were not
acceptable substitutes for the roadside camping areas that they were using when surveyed in the
field were provided with a list of several potential reasons and asked to mark any that applied.
Table 48 displays the potential reasons for non-substitutability that were included on the
questionnaire and the percentages of people who indicated that each was an applicable reason
why other roadside camping areas were not acceptable substitutes. It should be noted that the
reasons included on the questionnaire were adopted from previous literature and/or developed
based on the results of the qualitative phase of this research project (described previously).
Table 48. Reasons for non-substitutability between area visited and other roadside areas.
Reasons why other roadside camping areas are not acceptable substitutes (n = 26) %
Sites too close together 57.7
Too much noise from other people 53.8
Too crowded 50.0
Scenery not as good 46.2
Too hard to find an available campsite 46.2
Other 46.2
Drive from home is too far or takes too long 30.8
Too much development / amenities 30.8
Too difficult to travel to campsites 23.1
Undesirable rules or regulations 19.2
Too expensive 15.4
Not enough development / amenities 11.5
58
Respondents indicated that several reasons contributed to the non-substitutability
between other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park and the roadside camping
areas that they were visiting when surveyed in the field (Table 48). The five most commonly
indicated reasons for non-substitutability were that, within other roadside camping areas, sites
are too close together (57.7%), there is too much noise from other people (53.8%), it is too
crowded (50.0%), the scenery is not as good (46.2%), and it is too hard to find an available
campsite (46.25). Respondents were also given the opportunity to provide additional reasons
why other roadside campsites were not acceptable substitutes for the roadside areas that they
were using when they were surveyed in the field. Responses included a lack of knowledge of
other roadside campsite locations, personal attachment to the site they were visiting, too much
road traffic at other areas, worse secondary activities at other areas (e.g. swimming), roads to
other areas were impassable, too many dogs and kids at other roadside areas, less proximity to
water, and less opportunities to view wildlife.
Second, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they perceived NYSDEC
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park to be acceptable substitutes for the roadside camping
areas that they were visiting when surveyed in the field. About one quarter (23.4%) of
respondents indicated that NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park are acceptable
substitutes for the roadside area that they were visiting (Table 49). The majority of respondents
(64.9%) indicated that NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park were not acceptable
substitutes, while 11.7% indicated that they did not know if NYSDEC campgrounds were
acceptable substitutes.
Table 49. Substitutability of NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.

Are NYSDEC campgrounds within the Park acceptable substitutes? # %
Yes 26 23.4
No 72 64.9
Total 114 100
Respondents who indicated that NYSDEC campgrounds were not acceptable substitutes
were provided with a list of potential reasons and were asked to indicate which reasons
contributed to the non-substitutability between NYSDEC campgrounds and the roadside areas
that they were visiting when surveyed in the field. The five most commonly indicated reasons
for non-substitutability between roadside areas and NYSDEC campgrounds were: sites are too
close together (95.8%), it is too crowded (88.9%), there is too much noise from other people
(77.8%), there is too much development (52.8%) and it is too expensive (48.6%) (Table 50).
Also, a high percentage of respondents (47.2%) indicated that the sites were non-substitutable
because NYSDEC campgrounds employ undesirable rules and regulations. These results suggest
that the primary reasons for perceived non-substitutability between these setting are related to the
social atmospheres of the settings.
Respondents were also given the opportunity to indicate other reasons why campgrounds
are not acceptable substitutes for the roadside camping areas that they were visiting when
surveyed in the field. Responses included disapproval of the campsite reservation system used
within campgrounds, the presence of kids, lack of trail systems and opportunities for exploration,
59
lack of privacy, pet restrictions, attachment to the roadside camping area they visited, and high
enforcement presence at campgrounds.
Table 50. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and NYSDEC
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.
Reasons why campgrounds are not acceptable substitutes (n = 72) %
Too crowded 88.9
Too much development 52.8
Too expensive 48.6
Undesirable rules and regulations 47.2
Other 13.9
Drive too far from home 1.4
Not enough development 1.4
Third, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they perceived

primitive/backpacking campsites within the Adirondack Park as acceptable substitutes for the
roadside camping areas that they were visiting when surveyed in the field. About one half
(47.7%) of respondents indicated that they did perceive primitive/backpacking sites as acceptable
substitutes, while 32.1% indicated that they did not perceive them as acceptable substitutes
(Table 51). Another 20.2% indicated that they did not know whether or not
primitive/backpacking sites are acceptable substitutes.
Table 51. Substitutability of primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park.

Are primitive campsites within the Park acceptable substitutes? # %
Yes 52 47.7
No 35 32.1
Total 114 100
Respondents who did not perceive primitive/backpacking sites as acceptable substitutes

were provided with a list of potential reasons and were asked to indicate which of those reasons
contributed to the non-substitutability between these settings. The five most commonly
indicated reasons for non-substitutability between the settings were that primitive/backpacking
sites are too difficult to travel to (57.1%), it is too difficult to find an available campsite (20.0%),
they have too little development (17.1), the scenery is not as good (11.4%), and other reasons not
included as a response category (57.1%) (Table 52). Several participants mentioned that they
could not hike as much as they used to because of health-related issues or physical disabilities.
In addition to persons indicating that they could no longer hike to primitive sites, a few
respondents indicated that primitive sites were not acceptable because members of their families
were not able to travel to such sites. Other reasons included not knowing the locations of
60
primitive sites and the fact that certain types of camping equipment cannot be used at
primitive/backpacking sites (e.g., trailers, pop-ups, and RVs).
Table 52. Reasons for non-substitutability between roadside areas visited and
primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park (% of respondents indicating a problem).
Reasons why campgrounds are not acceptable substitutes (n = 35) %
Other 57.1
Not enough development 17.1
Undesirable rules and regulations 5.7
Drive too far from home 2.9
Too much development 2.9
Too expensive 0.0
Too crowded 0.0
In summary, these variables provide information about the extent to which various types
of camping settings within the Adirondack Park can be substituted for the roadside camping
areas that respondents were visiting at the time that they were surveyed in the field.
Substitution Options
Researchers were also interested in understanding the substitutability of these settings for
roadside camping settings in general (i.e., all roadside camping areas within the park as opposed
to the particular areas that respondents were visiting when surveyed in the field). Consequently,
a question was included on the survey that asked respondents to rank four different substitution
options for roadside camping in the Adirondack Park, in order of their preferences. That is,
respondents were provided with a list of four substitution options and were asked to place a 1
next to their most preferred choice, a 2 next to their second most preferred choice, and so on until
all four options were ranked. The four substitution options for roadside camping in the
Adirondack Park that respondents were asked to rank include: (1) camping in developed
campgrounds within the Adirondack Park, (2) camping in primitive/backpacking campsites or
lean-tos within the Adirondack Park, (3) camping in a setting outside the Adirondack Park, and
(4) pursuing an activity other than camping.
Camping in primitive/backpacking tent sites or lean-tos was most commonly ranked as
the best substitution option for roadside camping within the Adirondack Park (51.9%) (Table
53). Another 20.4% ranked this option as the second most preferred, while 14.8% and 13.0%
ranked this option the third and fourth most preferred, respectively.
Camping in developed campgrounds within the Adirondack Park was most commonly
ranked as the second most preferred substitution option for roadside camping within the
Adirondack Park (31.5%). About one quarter (23.1%) of respondents ranked this option as the
most preferred substitution option for roadside camping within the Adirondack Park.
61
Camping in settings outside the Adirondack Park was most commonly ranked as the third
most preferred substitution option. About 16.7% of respondents ranked camping in areas outside
the Adirondack Park as the most preferred option.
Finally, the option of pursuing an activity other than camping was most commonly
ranked as the fourth most preferred substitution option for roadside camping within the
Adirondack Park (Table 53).
Table 53. Rankings of resource substitution options for roadside camping in the Adirondack
Park.
Rankings (%) Total
Substitution Options (n = 108)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Camping in primitive backpacking tent sites or lean-tos 51.9 20.4 14.8 13.0 100
within the park.
Camping in developed campgrounds within the park (for 23.1 31.5 20.4 25.0 100
example, NYSDEC pay sites or commercial campgrounds).
Camping in a setting outside of the Adirondack Park. 16.7 35.2 39.8 8.3 100
Pursuing an activity other than camping. 6.5 12.0 23.1 58.3 100
In summary, the results of these variables that were related to resource substitution
suggest that roadside campsite visitors tend to perceive primitive/backpacking sites within the
Adirondack Park as better resource substitutes for roadside camping areas than NYSDEC or
private campgrounds. However, as shown in Table 49 and Table 51, this is somewhat in contrast
to the individual questions when substantial proportions of visitors previously indicated that
these types of settings were not acceptable substitutes for roadside camping areas within the
Adirondack Park. Probably when the respondents were forced to compare these four alternative
options they were more willing to compromise.
Reaction to Statements from Qualitative Interviews

Several themes emerged out the qualitative phase of research conducted for this study. In an
effort to incorporate these findings within the quantitative phases of this study, several questions
were designed based on the interviews. Questions were included on the mail survey instrument
in order to gain information related to four main topics: comparing roadside camping areas to
other camping settings, place attachment and dependence, management issues related to roadside
camping, and issues related to public access of roadside camping areas. Respondents were
provided with a list of several statements related to these topics and were asked to indicate their
level of agreement/disagreement with each statement using a five-point scale ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. The results of this line of questioning are displayed in Table
54.
62
Six statements were provided that compared roadside camping with camping in other
types of settings (Table 54). For example, respondents were asked to indicate their level of
agreement/disagreement with the statement Roadside camping areas are more primitive than
NYSDEC campgrounds. The vast majority of respondents either agreed with this statement
(41.6%) or strongly agreed (46.9%). Only 3.5% of respondents disagreed with this statement,
while 8.0% reported a neutral level of agreement.
A total of five statements were included on the questionnaire, which were related to place
attachment and dependence (Table 54). For example, respondents were asked to indicate their
level of agreement/disagreement with the statement Visiting roadside camping areas is a
personal family tradition. The majority of respondents either agreed (41.1%) or strongly agreed
(33.0%) with this statement. About 14.3% reported a neutral level of agreement, while about
10.7% and 0.9% indicated that they disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement,
respectively.
A total of five questions were included on the questionnaire, which were related to
management issues for roadside camping areas (Table 54). For example, respondents were
asked to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with Behavior of roadside campers
should be monitored more closely. A slight majority of respondents either disagreed (30.7%) or
strongly disagreed (20.2%) with this statement. About 28.1% reported a neutral level of
agreement, while 13.2% and 7.9% reported that they agreed and strongly agreed with this
statement, respectively.
A total of eight statements were included on the questionnaire, which were related to the
accessibility of roadside camping areas (Table 54). For example, respondents were asked to
indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with I wish there were more roadside camping
areas within the Park. The vast majority of respondents either agreed (38.6%) or strongly
agreed (46.5%) with this statement. About 11.4% reported a neutral rating, while only 3.5%
indicated that they disagreed with the statement.
63
Table 54. Agreement/Disagreement with statements originating from qualitative interviews.
Disagree
Disagree
Rating
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Mean
Agree
Agree
Themes and Statements
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Comparing roadside camping areas to other camping settings
Roadside camping areas are more primitive than NYSDEC campgrounds. 0.0 3.5 8.0 41.6 46.9 4.32
Roadside campsites do not have enough amenities, like running water, showers
and electricity.
37.5 26.8 19.6 13.4 2.7 2.17
Roadside camping areas provide the same types of experiences as NYSDEC
campgrounds.
30.4 42.0 17.9 6.2 3.6 2.11
NYSDEC campgrounds are better than roadside camping areas for family
groups with small children.
13.4 18.8 32.1 25.9 9.8 3.00
I feel a greater sense of freedom when visiting roadside camping areas than I do
when visiting NYSDEC campgrounds.
0.9 0.9 9.9 36.0 52.3 4.38
Roadside camping is more similar to backpacking and using primitive campsites
than to using campgrounds.
0.0 5.4 10.7 50.0 33.9 4.12
Attachment and dependence related questions
Visiting roadside camping areas is a personal family tradition. 0.9 10.7 14.3 41.1 33.0 3.95
I depend on roadside camping areas for enjoying natural environments and
wildlife because I am limited in my physical ability.
28.3 32.7 13.3 13.3 12.4 2.49
I depend on roadside camping areas for my recreation in the Park because they
are provided free-of-charge.
4.4 12.4 23.0 32.7 27.4 3.66
If roadside camping areas were not available within the Adirondack Park, I
would no longer visit the park for the activity of camping.
20.4 38.1 17.7 16.8 7.1 2.52
I value the undeveloped character of roadside camping areas. 0.0 0.0 4.5 35.1 60.4 4.56
Management Issues
Behavior of roadside campers should be monitored more closely. 20.2 30.7 28.1 13.2 7.9 2.58
Most roadside campers practice leave-no-trace camping methods. 2.7 12.4 8.8 57.5 18.6 3.77
Roadside campers need to take better care of the natural environments within
their sites.
2.6 13.2 25.4 39.5 19.3 3.60
Rangers should enforce littering laws more strictly within roadside camping
areas.
2.7 8.8 34.5 31.9 22.1 3.62
I would support temporary closures of some campsites in order to protect the
17.5 15.8 21.9 30.7 14.0 3.08
Access to Roadside Camping Areas
I wish there were more roadside camping areas within the Park. 0.0 3.5 11.4 38.6 46.5 4.28
I wish it were easier to find information on roadside camping areas within the
Park.
0.9 8.8 18.4 33.3 38.6 4.00
I feel like I have a right to use roadside camping areas because I pay taxes. 0.0 7.1 17.7 42.5 32.7 4.01
I feel like I have a right to use roadside camping areas because I pay fees for
hunting and/or fishing licenses.
6.1 10.5 30.7 25.4 27.2 3.57
There should be more handicap accessible roadside camping sites. 2.6 8.8 50.0 27.2 11.4 3.36
It is important to me that there are undeveloped car-camping areas to visit
within the Park.
0.9 0.9 15.0 37.2 46.0 4.27
I would be upset if roadside camping areas were not available for public use in
the Park.
0.9 0.0 1.8 18.4 78.9 4.75
I would support the introduction of low user fees (up to $5 per night) in order to
ensure the continued provision of roadside camping areas within the Adirondack 23.0 11.5 10.6 30.1 24.8 3.22
Park.
64
Demographic Variables
The final variables on the follow-up mail questionnaire were included in order to gather
demographic information from respondents. Respondents were provided with a list of seven
alternatives and were asked to indicate which alternative best represented their employment
status. The majority of respondents were employed (69.3%), 19.3% reported being retired, while
1.8% were students (Table 55). Only 3.5%, 2.6% and 1.8% reported being unemployed, a
homemaker or homecare provider, or enrolled in military services, respectively. Finally, 1.8% of
respondents indicated that they preferred not to answer this question.
Table 55. Employment status of respondents.

Employment Status # %
Retired 22 19.3
Employed 79 69.3
Student 2 1.8
Unemployed 4 3.5
Homemaker / homecare provider 3 2.6
Military service 2 1.8
Prefer not to answer 2 1.8
Total 114 100
Respondents were also asked to provide their ages. There is considerable variation in the
ages of respondents (table 56). The mean age was 48.1 years, while the median was 50.5 years.
Table 56. Ages of respondents to the mail survey.

Ages of Respondents # %
15-19 1 0.9
20-24 1 0.9
25-29 10 8.8
30-34 12 10.5
35-39 7 6.1
40-44 8 7.0
45-49 15 13.2
50-54 21 18.4
55-59 22 19.3
60-64 9 7.9
65-69 3 2.6
70-74 2 1.8
75-79 1 0.9
80-84 1 0.9
85-89 1 0.9
Total 114 100
Mean 48.10
Median 50.50
St. Dev 12.92
Range 19 - 85
65
Finally, respondents were provided with a list of eight alternatives and were asked to
indicate which alternative best represented their highest level of education completed. Only
2.6% of respondents indicated that their highest level of completed education was between 9th
and 11th grade (Table 57). About one third (35.1%) indicated that they had graduated from high
school or completed their GED and 17.5% indicated that they had completed some college or
technical school, but had not yet graduated. Another 17.5% indicated that they had completed an
Associates or technical/trade school degree and 15.8% indicated that they had completed a
Bachelor’s degree. Only 7.9% indicated that they had completed a Master’s, Professional, or
Doctoral degree. Finally, 3.5% of respondents indicated that they preferred not to answer this
question.
Table 57. Education levels of respondents to the mail survey.

Level of Education # %
th
8 grade or less 0 0.0
9th to 11th grade 3 2.6
High school graduate or GED 40 35.1
Some college or technical/trade school but have not yet graduated 20 17.5
Associates or technical/trade school degree (AA or AS) 20 17.5
Bachelor’s degree (BA or BS) 18 15.8
Master’s, Professional, or Doctoral degree 9 7.9
Prefer not to answer 4 3.5
Total 114 100
66
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
A total of 531 roadside campsites were located on Forest Preserve lands within the Adirondack
Park and assessed during the inventory. Of those, 23 (4.3%) were found in resource
management areas (e.g., conservation easements), 49 (9.2%) were found in wilderness, primitive,
or canoe areas, and 459 (86.4%) were found in wild forest areas. Overall, 68.6% of the roadside
campsites were designated as legal campsites with a NYSDEC disk.
A total of 216 roadside campsite visitors participated in an on-site camper survey within
13 different management units (11 Wild Forest Areas and 2 Wilderness Areas). A substantial
percentage (45.4%) of surveys took place within the Moose River Plains Wild Forest, which is
an area that provides over 160 designated and undesignated roadside campsites to the public.
Other unit management areas and percentage of surveys completed included: Saranac Lake Wild
Forest (11.6%), Black River Wild Forest (10.2%), Lake George Wild Forest (9.7%), Jessup
River Wild Forest (7.4), Horseshoe Lake Wild Forest (5.6%), Independence River Wild Forest
(4.2%), and Ferris Lake Wild Forest (2.3%).
The results of the on-site survey of roadside campers characterize campers as repeat users
at the site surveyed and elsewhere in the Adirondack Park:
 Respondents were asked to indicate the number of years that they had been using the
roadside camping area in which they were surveyed: 20.8% indicated that it was their
first year; 20% of respondents reported two and five years; 12% indicated using the
area between six and ten years; and 47.2% of visitors reported having more than 10
years of experience with the roadside area in which they were surveyed.
 About 48% indicated that they had used other roadside camping areas in the
Adirondack Park. Of the 104 respondents who reported having past experience with
other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park, 5.8% indicated that it was
their first year; 21.2% indicated two and five years of experience; 23.1% indicated
having between six and ten years of experience; and 50% indicated having more than
ten years of experience with other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack
Park.
 The majority of respondents (79.1%) indicated that they also had previously used
non-roadside camping settings (i.e., primitive tent sites or lean-tos, NYSDEC or
private campgrounds) within the Adirondack Park.
The results of the on-site survey of roadside campers characterize the campers as intensely
focused on the roadside camping experience:
 The majority of roadside campers (94.4%) reported that the activity of camping was
their primary activity for their recreational trips.
 The majority of respondents (94.4%) indicated that the roadside camping area that
they were using when interviewed was their first choice for a camping setting for
their trip.
 The majority of respondents (52.8%) reported that they would have gone to a
different roadside camping area within the Adirondack Park if they could not have
used the roadside camping area that they were visiting; 25.5% indicated that they
would have gone to a non-roadside camping setting (e.g., NYSDEC campground,
primitive/backpacking site, camping area outside the park); and 18.9% of respondents
indicated that they would have stayed home and/or come back at another time.
67
 The majority of respondents reported being either satisfied (19.9%) or very satisfied
(76.4%) with their recreational experiences at the roadside camping areas that they
visited during the time of the field survey.
Respondents were asked to rate their overall level of attachment to the roadside camping
area that they were visiting during the time that they were surveyed and roadside camping in
general in the Adirondack Park.
 The majority of respondents felt a mild to a very strong attachment to the roadside
camping area in which they were interviewed (94.6%).
 The vast majority of respondents felt a mild attachment to a very strong attachment to
the activity of roadside camping in the Adirondack Park (98.2%).
A follow-up mail survey was used to gather information from visitors after their trip
about their opinions regarding the extent to which various types of camping settings could be
substituted for one another.
 About half (51.3%) of the respondents would camp less often if the roadside areas
that they were visiting when surveyed in the field became unavailable, while the other
half (46.9%) would continue to camp about the same amount in other locations.
 The majority of respondents (64.9%) indicated that NYSDEC campgrounds within
the Adirondack Park were not acceptable substitutes, while 11.7% indicated that they
did not know if NYSDEC campgrounds were acceptable substitutes.
 The five most commonly indicated reasons for non-substitutability between roadside
areas and NYSDEC campgrounds were: sites are too close together (95.8%), it is too
crowded (88.9%), there is too much noise from other people (77.8%), there is too
much development (52.8%) and it is too expensive (48.6%).
 When asked to comparatively rank four substitution options for roadside camping in
the Adirondack Park, respondents ranked their first option as follows: (1) camping in
primitive/backpacking campsites or lean-tos within the Adirondack Park (51.9%); (2)
camping in developed campgrounds within the Adirondack Park (23.1%); (3)
camping in a setting outside the Adirondack Park (16.7%), and (4) pursuing an
activity other than camping (6.5%).
Roadside camping experiences on Forest Preserve lands are a long standing tradition in
the Adirondack Park and one that roadside campers are attracted to, attached to, and for which
they are very satisfied about their experiences. Additionally, they will substitute their preferred
roadside camping area for another roadside camping area, but are reluctant to use or not
interested in other camping area experiences. The most often accepted substitute for roadside
area camping is camping in primitive/backpacking campsites or lean-tos within the Adirondack
Park and followed by camping in developed campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.
68
REFERENCES
Adirondack Park Agency; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2001).
Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. Raybrook, NY.
Dawson, Chad P., Rudy Schuster, Blake Propst and Corenne Black. (2008). St. Regis Canoe
Area Visitor and Campsite Study. Research report to the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation. Syracuse, NY: SUNY-ESF. 69 pages.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Oh, H. (2001). Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management, 22, 617-627.
69
APPENDIX A: CONDITION CLASS PHOTOGRAPHIC
EXAMPLES
70
Condition Class 1: Ground vegetation flattened but not permanently injured. Minimal physical change except for possibly a simple rock fireplace
71
Condition Class 2: Ground vegetation worn away around fireplace or center of activity
72
Condition Class 3: Ground vegetation lost on most of the site, but humus and litter still present in all but a few areas
73
Condition Class 4: Bare mineral soil obvious. Tree roots exposed on the surface
74
Condition Class 5: Soil erosion obvious. Trees reduced in vigor and dead
75
APPENDIX B: LOCATIONS OF ROADSIDE CAMPSITES
Locations of Campsites in Resource Management Areas
Unit Management Areas and Road Names # of Sites
Black River Wild Forest Easement

Moose River Rd. 4
North Lake Rd. 10
Total 14
Oswegatchie Resource Management Area:

Inlet Rd. 1
Total 1
Perkins Clearing Easement;

Old Military Rd. 1
Perkins Clearing Rd. 7
Total 8
Overall Total # of Sites 23
76
Location of Campsites in Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe Areas
Blue Ridge Wilderness
Cedar River Rd. 3
Sagamore Rd. 1
Total 4
Dix Mountain Wilderness
Rt. 73 3
Rt. 9 1
Total 4
Eastern Five Ponds Access Primitive Area
Rt. 421 1
Total 1
High Peaks Wilderness:
Corey’s Rd. 8
Total 8
Hudson Gorge Primitive Area:
North Woods Club Rd. 3
Total 3
Saint Regis Canoe Area:
Floodwood Rd. 2
Keese Mills Rd. 2
Total 4
Sentinal Range Wilderness:
Bartlet Rd. 1
Total 1
Siamese Ponds Wilderness:
Auger Falls Rd. 4
Total 4
Silver Lake Wilderness:
West River Rd. 13
Total 13
West Canada Lakes Wilderness:
Cedar River Rd. 1
Indian River Rd. 6
Total 7
77
Locations of Campsites in Wild Forest Areas
Aldrich Pond Wild Forest:
Streeter Lake Rd. 13
Total 13
Black River Wild Forest:
Farr Rd. 1
Haskell Rd. 3
Honnedaga Rd. 4
North Lake Rd. 15
Nelson Lake Rd. 1
Total 24
Cranberry Lake Wild Forest
Tooley Pond Rd. 1
Total 1
Debar Mountain Wild Forest:
Kushaqua-mud Pond Rd. 3
Mountain Pond Rd. 6
Slush Pond Rd. 6
Total 15
Ferris Lake Wild Forest:
Farm Rd. 1
G Lake Rd. 3
Jones Rd. 2
Piseco Rd. 27
Total 33
Hammond Pond Wild Forest:
Ensign Pond Rd. (Rt. 4) 1
Johnson Rd. 1
Lincoln Pond Rd. 1
River Rd. 1
Rt. 9 1
Total 5
Horseshoe Lake Wild Forest:
Rt. 421 12
Lows Lower Dam Rd. 1
Total 13
Independence River Wild Forest:
Bailey Rd. 4
Basket Factory Rd. 10
Big Moose Rd. 3
Florence Pond Rd. 1
McCarthy Rd. 3
Necessary Dam Rd. 2
Partridgeville Rd. 3
Smith Rd. 8
78
Total 34
Jessup River Wild Forest:
Perkins Clearing Rd. 19
Total 19
Lake George Wild Forest:
River Rd. 14
Shelving Rock Rd. 12
Rt. 9N 1
Total 27
Moose River Plains Wild Forest:
Cedar River Rd. 9
Helldiver Pond Trail 3
Indian River Rd. 4
Lost Ponds Trail 2
Mitchell Pond Loop 1
Moose River Rd. 77
Otter Brook Rd. 34
Rock Dam Rd. 29
Sagamore Rd. 4
Total 163
Raquette Boreal Wild Forest:
Rt. 56 Extension 2
Total 2
Saranac Lake Wild Forest:
Corey’s Rd. 1
Fish Hatchery Rd 9
Floodwood Rd. 16
Hoel Pond Rd. 3
Total 29
Sergeant Ponds Wild Forest:
Chain Lakes Rd. 3
Forked Lake Rd. 1
North Point Rd. 10
Road bordering North side of lake 3
Total 17
Shaker Mountain Wild Forest:
Holmes Rd. 2
Total 2
Taylor Pond Wild Forest:
Gold Smith Dr. 1
Moose Pond Rd. 1
River Rd. (Rt. 18) 4
Union Falls Rd. 5
Total 11
Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest:
14th Rd. 3
79
Boreas Rd. (Rt. 2) 1
Cheney Pond Tr. 3
Hoffman Rd. 1
Horseshoe Pond Rd. 1
Moose Pond Club Rd. 8
North Woods Club Rd. 7
Rt. 28N (Boreas River) 2
Total 26
White Hill Wild Forest:
Clear Pond Rd. 3
Total 3
Wilcox Lake Wild Forest:
Creek Rd. 1
Griffin Rd. 1
Hope Falls Rd. 6
Pumpkin Hollow Rd. 2
Rt. 8 12
Total 22
80
APPENDIX C: ON-SITE VISITOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT
81
Adirondack Roadside Camping Visitor
Survey

in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Introduction
Several terms will be used throughout this survey:
Adirondack Park (or the Park) is the six million acre area of public and private land
encompassing the Adirondack region of New York State.
NYSDEC stands for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Roadside camping area refers to a collection of campsites located on or immediately near a road
on NYS lands. Roadside campsites are free to the public, are accessed on a first come first
serve basis, and typically provide a very limited number of amenities (e.g. picnic table, fire
pit, outhouse).
NYSDEC Campground refers to a camping setting that is maintained and managed by the
NYSDEC and typically requires campers to pay a camping fee per night of stay. Typical
amenities offered at NYSDEC campgrounds include running water and showers,
electricity hook-ups, frequent security patrols, playgrounds, gravel camping areas (pads),
and others.
Primitive backpacking campsites and lean-tos typically require the user to hike a significant
distance from a road or parking area in order to camp. These sites are typically not
connected to roads, are free to use by the public, and provide very few amenities (e.g. fire
pit, outhouse).
A personal camping group consists of the people you are with during your trip to this roadside
camping area.
The survey questions ask about the trip you are on today in the Adirondack Park and in this
roadside camping area.
82
1) How many days will you stay overnight in the Park on this recreation trip?
_____# of days using roadside camping areas

_____# of days using other accommodations
_____Not sure
2) Please provide us with some information regarding your past experience with camping in
the Adirondack Park.
How many years have you been using this roadside camping area?
(Please enter # of years or indicate first year)
_______Enter # of years
_______This is my first year
Have you ever used other roadside camping areas within the Adirondack Park?
(If yes, please enter the # of years)
 Yes
_______Enter # of years using other roadside camping areas
 No
Have you every used non-roadside settings for camping in the Adirondack Park?
(For example, NYSDEC campgrounds or primitive backpacking sites)
 Yes
_______Enter # of years using non-roadside camping facilities
 No
3) Approximately how many days per year do you camp using…..

(Please enter “0” if you do not visit these areas)
This roadside camping area ______Days per year

Other roadside camping areas within the Park ______Days per year
NYSDEC State Campgrounds (pay sites) ______Days per year
Privately owned campgrounds within the Park ______Days per year
Primitive backpacking sites within the Park ______Days per year
Camping areas outside the Adirondack Park ______Days per year
83
4) How many people are in your personal camping group today?
______Enter # of adults (18 years old or older)

______Enter # of children (under 18 years old)
5) Which of the following best describes the composition of your group? (please check one
box)
 I’m camping by myself

 Family
 Friends
 Family and friends
 Organization, such as a club or camp
 Other, please describe
___________________________________________________________
6) Which of the following activities have you participated in or will you participate in
during this recreational trip? (Please check all that apply)
 Fishing – all types

 Hunting – all types
 Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc.
 Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc.
 Nature study (identification of birds, plants, etc.)
 Hiking or walking
 Horseback riding
 Backpacking and camping in primitive campsites
 Motorized water travel (boat, jet ski, etc.)
 Driving for pleasure on roads (paved, gravel, or dirt)
 Riding an all-terrain vehicle or off-road vehicle
 Photography
 Canoeing, kayaking, or rowing
 Picnicking
 Swimming
 Other 1, (fill in
activity)__________________________________________________________
 Other 2, (fill in
activity)__________________________________________________________
84
7) Is roadside camping your primary activity for this recreational trip?
 Yes
If Yes, please indicate which one of the activities above is the second most
important for this trip
(Indicate one
activity)___________________________________________________________
 No
If no, please indicate which one of the activities above is your primary activity for
this trip
(Indicate one
activity)___________________________________________________________
8) Was this roadside camping area your first choice for a camping setting on this trip?
 Yes
 No
If no, please indicate which of the following best describes your first
choice:
 A different roadside camping area within the Park

 A NY State Campground (pay site)
 A backpacking site within the Park
 A camping area outside of the Adirondack Park
 Other, please
describe__________________________________________________
_
9) If for some reason you were not able to camp at this roadside camping area today, which
of the following best describes what you would have done instead? (Please check only
one)
 Gone to another roadside camping area within the park

 Gone to a NYSDEC campground within the Park (pay site)
 Gone to a backpacking site within the Park
 Gone to a camping area outside of the Adirondack Park
 Stayed home and/or come back another time
 Gone to a hotel, motel, or rental property
 Other, please describe___________________________-
_________________________
85
10) Please rate your level of overall satisfaction with your recreational experience at this
roadside camping area.
 Very dissatisfied
 Dissatisfied
 Neutral
 Satisfied
 Very satisfied
11) Approximately how many miles is your permanent home away from this camping area?
_______Enter # of miles _______Not sure
12) Where is your primary residence?
______________County ______________State
________________Country, if not U.S.
13) Are you an Adirondack Park permanent resident?
 Yes
 No
14) Are you an Adirondack Park vacation homeowner or seasonal resident?
 Yes
 No
Please write any additional comments here:

___________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
86
-- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------ --------
Are you willing to participate in a short mail survey about your camping experiences in the
Adirondack Park? (All information will be kept confidential to ensure your personal privacy).
 Yes
 No
If yes, please provide your contact information:
Name__________________________________________________________________
Address_________________________________________________________________
City, State, Zip__________________________________________________________
Thank you for participating today! Your input will help the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation improve its management of state lands.
If you have any questions or comments about this survey, please contact:
David Graefe or Dr. Chad Dawson
320 Bray Hall
One Forestry Drive
Syracuse, NY 13210
87
APPENDIX D: FOLLOW-UP MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT
88
Adirondack Roadside Camping Visitor
Survey

in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Introduction
Several terms will be used throughout this survey:
Adirondack Park (or the Park) is the six million acre area of public and private land
encompassing the Adirondack region of New York State.
NYSDEC stands for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Roadside camping area refers to a collection of campsites located on or immediately near a road
on NYS lands. Roadside campsites are free to the public, are accessed on a first come first
serve basis, and provide a limited number of amenities (e.g. picnic table, fire pit,
outhouse). Roadside camping areas do not include NYSDEC campgrounds.
NYSDEC campground refers to a camping setting that is maintained and managed by the
NYSDEC and typically requires campers to pay a camping fee per night of stay.
Amenities offered at NYSDEC campgrounds include running water and showers,
electricity hook-ups, frequent security patrols, playgrounds, gravel camping areas (pads),
and others.
Primitive backpacking campsites and lean-tos require the user to hike from a road or parking
area in order to camp. These sites are typically not connected to roads, are free to use by
the public, and provide very few amenities (e.g. fire pit, outhouse).
Several questions within this survey ask you to indicate the number of times that you have visited
an area. For this type of question, please enter a zero if you have not visited the area, rather than
leaving the question blank. Your cooperation will ensure our ability to use this survey for our
analyses. Thank you very much.
89
1) Please review the following list of statements regarding the activity of camping and
indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using the numbers
to the right. Please consider all types of camping for this first question.
(Please check one box for each statement)
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Agree
Agree
Statement
Camping is one of the most enjoyable things that I do.     

When I am camping I can really be myself.     
A lot of my life is organized around the activities that I do
    
when I am camping.
You can tell a lot about a person by seeing them camp.     
When I camp others see me the way I want them to see me.     
Camping is pleasurable.     
I really enjoy camping.     
Camping interests me.     
A lot of my life is organized around the activity of camping.     
Camping has a central role in my life.     
Camping is important to me.     
2) Overall, how would you characterize your feelings of attachment to the roadside
camping area that you visited during the time of your interview? (please check one
box only))
 No attachment
 Very weak attachment
 Weak attachment
 Mild attachment
 Strong attachment
 Very strong attachment
3) Not including the roadside camping area you visited during the time of your interview,
how many other roadside camping areas do you know of within the Adirondack Park?
(Roadside camping areas do not include NYSDEC campgrounds)
(Please enter zero if you don’t know of any others)
______Enter # of roadside camping areas
90
4) Overall, how would you characterize your feelings of attachment towards the activity of
roadside camping within the Adirondack Park? (Please consider all roadside camping
areas that you know of)
 No attachment
 Very weak attachment
 Weak attachment
 Mild attachment
 Strong attachment
 Very strong attachment
5) During a typical year, about how many days do you spend camping at roadside camping
areas during each of the following seasons? (Please enter # of days per season or
indicate first trip)
(Enter zero if you do not visit during a season)
_________Winter _________Spring _________Summer _________Fall
_____This was my first trip to a roadside camping area
6) Which of the following best describes how you first learned about roadside
camping areas within the Adirondack Park?
 Family member
 Friend
 Personal exploration
 NYSDEC staff or written materials
 Chamber of commerce or visitor center
 Other, please
describe_________________________________________________________
91
7) Please rate the level of satisfaction that you receive from visiting the following four
settings in comparison to the satisfaction that you receive from visiting the roadside
camping area that you were at during the time of your interview.
(See front page for a description of these camping settings) (Please check one box for
each setting)
Slightly more
Don’t know
Slightly less
Much more
Please rate if these settings are as satisfying as
Much less
satisfying
satisfying
satisfying
satisfying
satisfying
the roadside area that you visited during your
Equally
interview.
Other roadside camping areas within the park

     
are…
NYSDEC campgrounds are…      
Primitive backpacking sites or lean-tos within the
     
Adirondack Park are…
Camping areas outside the Adirondack Park
     
are…
92
8) Please consider the roadside camping trip you were on during the time of your interview.
For each motivation, please first indicate its importance in selecting your camping
setting. Then indicate how satisfied you were with each motivation during your roadside
camping trip.
How important was this To what extent were your

motivation in selecting motivations satisfied
your camping setting? during your camping trip?
Very Unimportant
Very Dissatisfied
Very Important
Very Satisfied
Unimportant
Dissatisfied
Motivation
Important
Satisfied
Neutral
Neutral
To experience natural
         
environment and scenic beauty.
To feel a connection with nature
         
and a natural environment.
To get away from daily routines
     and have a chance to reflect on     
life.
To experience a remote area away
     from sight and sound of cities and     
people.
To feel a connection with
     wilderness and wild forests as     
important places.
To experience an environment
     free of litter, human waste, and     
impacts.
To experience solitude and being
isolated from other groups and
         
having a personal experience
within my group.
To practice travel skills through a
         
remote wild environment.
To enjoy physical activity,
         
challenge, and exercise.
To experience well-managed
         
recreation trails and facilities.
To experience recreation trails,
     sites, and environments that were     
not crowded.
To spend time with family and
         
friends in natural environment.
To spend time by myself in a
         
     To be near my home.     
93
9) Please indicate how often you would go camping in other settings if the roadside
camping area that you visited during the time of your interview was no longer
available.
(Please check one box only)
 I would camp much less often

 I would camp slightly less often
 I would camp about the same amount
 I would camp slightly more often
 I would camp much more often
10) Please indicate how often you would go camping in other park settings if no roadside
camping areas were available within the Adirondack Park. (Please check one box only)
 I would camp much less often

 I would camp slightly less often
 I would camp about the same amount
 I would camp slightly more often
 I would camp much more often
11) Please indicate whether or not the following camping settings are acceptable substitutes
for the roadside camping area you visited during the time of your interview. If a
setting is not an acceptable substitute, please indicate why.
A) Are other roadside camping areas within the Park acceptable substitutes?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t know
If not an acceptable substitute, please indicate why. (Please check all that
apply)
 Drive from home is too far or takes too long

 Too expensive
 Too crowded
 Sites too close together
 Too much noise from other people
 Scenery not as good
94
 Too hard to find an available campsite
 Too much development
 Not enough development
 Undesirable rules or regulations
 Too difficult to travel to campsites
______________________________________________
B) Are NYSDEC campgrounds within the Park acceptable substitutes?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t know
apply)

 Too expensive
 Too crowded
 Too much development
 Not enough development
______________________________________________
95
C) Are backpacking or lean-to campsites within the Park acceptable substitutes?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t know
apply)

 Too expensive
 Too crowded
 Too much development / amenities
 Not enough development / amenities
______________________________________________
96
12) Please imagine that no roadside camping opportunities were available within the
Adirondack Park. Rank the following possible substitutes for roadside camping in the
Adirondack Park based on your preferences. Place a 1 next to your most preferred option, place
a 2 next to your second most preferred option, and continue in this fashion until placing a 4 next
to your least preferred option.
(Note: this question is purely hypothetical and there are currently no plans to close any roadside
camping areas within the park)
Rank Substitution Options

Camping in developed campgrounds within the park (for example, NYSDEC pay
sites or commercial campgrounds).
Camping in primitive backpacking sites or lean-tos within the park.
Camping in a setting outside of the Adirondack Park.
Pursuing an activity other than camping.
97
13) Please review the following table of statements regarding the roadside camping area
that you visited during the time of your interview. Indicate your level of agreement or
disagreement with each statement using the boxes on the right side of the table.
(Please check only one box for each statement)
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Agree
Agree
Statement
I could draw a rough map of this roadside camping area.     

I am very attached to this roadside camping area.     
I enjoy camping at this roadside camping area more than any
    
other setting.
If I could not camp at this roadside camping area, I would
    
stop camping.
I have camped at this roadside camping area many times and I
    
am quite familiar with it.
I am fond of this roadside camping area.     
I consider only this roadside camping area when I go
    
camping.
This roadside camping area means a great deal to me.     
Camping at this roadside camping area is more important to
    
me than camping at any other setting.
This roadside camping area is the best place for the type of
    
camping I like to do.
I feel like this roadside camping area is part of me.     
I identify strongly with this roadside camping area.     
I wouldn’t substitute any other area for the camping I do at
    
this roadside camping area.
I rarely, if ever, camp at any other setting than this roadside
    
camping area.
No other place can compare to this roadside camping area for
    
the activity of camping.
I know this roadside camping area like the back of my hand.     
Visiting this roadside camping area says a great deal about
    
who I am.
I feel connected to this roadside camping area.     
This roadside camping area is like a home to me.     
I get more satisfaction out of camping at this roadside
    
camping area than from camping at any other setting.
This roadside camping area makes me feel like no other place
    
can.
I have many memories of camping in this roadside camping
    
area.
This roadside camping area is the only place I desire to camp.     
I feel like I belong at this roadside camping area.     
This roadside camping area is very special to me.     
When I am at this roadside camping area, I feel as though I
    
am part of it.
98
14) Please review the following table of statements regarding roadside camping areas in
general and indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using the
boxes on the right side of the table. (Please check only one box for each statement)
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Agree
Agree
Statement
Comparing roadside camping areas to other camping settings

Roadside camping areas are more primitive than NYSDEC campgrounds.     
Roadside campsites do not have enough amenities, like running water, showers and
    
electricity.
Roadside camping areas provide the same types of experiences as NYSDEC
    
campgrounds.
NYSDEC campgrounds are better than roadside camping areas for family groups
    
with small children.
I feel a greater sense of freedom when visiting roadside camping areas than I do
    
when visiting NYSDEC campgrounds.
Roadside camping is more similar to backpacking and using primitive campsites
    
than to using campgrounds.
Attachment and dependence related questions
Visiting roadside camping areas is a personal family tradition.     
I depend on roadside camping areas for enjoying natural environments and wildlife
    
because I am limited in my physical ability.
I depend on roadside camping areas for my recreation in the Park because they are
    
provided free-of-charge.
If roadside camping areas were not available within the Adirondack Park, I would
    
no longer visit the park for the activity of camping.
I value the undeveloped character of roadside camping areas.     
Management Issues
Behavior of roadside campers should be monitored more closely.     
Most roadside campers practice leave-no-trace camping methods.     
Roadside campers need to take better care of the natural environments within their
    
sites.
Rangers should enforce littering laws more strictly within roadside camping areas.     
I would support temporary closures of some campsites in order to protect the
    
Access to Roadside Camping Areas
I wish there were more roadside camping areas within the Park.     
I wish it were easier to find information on roadside camping areas within the Park.     
I feel like I have a right to use roadside camping areas because I pay taxes.     
I feel like I have a right to use roadside camping areas because I pay fees for
    
hunting and/or fishing licenses.
There should be more handicap accessible roadside camping sites.     
It is important to me that there are undeveloped car-camping areas to visit within
    
the Park.
I would be upset if roadside camping areas were not available for public use in the
    
Park.
I would support the introduction of low user fees (up to $5 per night) in order to
ensure the continued provision of roadside camping areas within the Adirondack     
Park.
99
15) What is your age? ______ years
16) Which of the following best describes your occupation? (Please check one box)
 Retired
 Employed
 Student
 Unemployed
 Homemaker / homecare provider
 Military service
 I prefer not to answer this question
17) What is the highest degree or level of education that you have completed? (Please check
one box)
 8th grade or less

 9th to 11th grade
 High school graduate or GED
 Some college or technical/trade school, but have not yet graduated
 Associate’s or technical/trade school degree (AA or AS)
 Bachelor’s degree (BA or BS)
 Master’s, Professional, or Doctoral degree
 I prefer not to answer this question
18) If you have additional comments on your personal experiences with roadside camping
areas in the Adirondack Park, please write them in the space provided below or on the
back if more space is needed.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thank you very much for your time and effort in completing this
survey. We appreciate it greatly.
Please return this completed survey in the self-addressed, stamped envelope to:
Adirondack Roadside Camping Visitor Study
David Graefe or Dr. Chad Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry,
320 Bray Hall, One Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210
100

DEC Roadside Camping Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DEC Roadside Camping Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Adirondack Park Forest Preserve

Roadside Camping Study

David Graefe, Chad Dawson and Lisa Gerstenberger

July 20, 2010

RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................................1

INVENTORY OF ROADSIDE CAMPSITES ......................................................6

PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS WITH ROADSIDE CAMPERS..................22

ON-SITE FIELD SURVEY OF CAMPERS .......................................................30

FOLLOW-UP MAIL SURVEY ...........................................................................47

APPENDIX A: CONDITION CLASS PHOTOGRAPHIC EXAMPLES .......70

APPENDIX B: LOCATIONS OF ROADSIDE CAMPSITES..........................76

APPENDIX C: ON-SITE VISITOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT ......................81

APPENDIX D: FOLLOW-UP MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT ....................88

Table 1. Data summarizing roadside campsite inventory............................................................... 8

Figure 1. Diagram for estimated distances between campsites and roads...................................... 7

Roadside camping inventory data collection:

Preliminary Interviews of campers:

On-site survey of campers:

Mail survey of campers:

Figure 1. Diagram for estimated distances between campsites and roads.

Estimated Radius = Estimated Circumference / 2(pi)

Table 4. Content categories from preliminary camper interviews.

Themes related to Place Dependence

Visitor Comparisons of Roadside Sites and Campground Sites

Another participant commented,

Visitor Comparisons of Roadside Sites and Primitive Sites

Another participant commented,

Factors Influencing Visitors’ Decisions to Choose Roadside Camping

Table 5. Location of roadside campsites surveyed.

Trip and Visitor Characteristics

Table 6. Percentages of visitors using camping equipment.

Table 7. Gender of on-site survey participants.

Respondents were asked a series of questions in order to gain an understanding of their

Table 21. Group size for visitors surveyed.

Finally, researchers were interested in understanding the nature of the relationships

Table 23. Compositions of roadside camping groups.

Researchers were interested in knowing whether or not roadside campsite visitors

Table 26. Primary trip activities other than camping.

Visitor Site Choice

Table 28. Roadside camping area as primary setting choice.

Table 29. Alternative first choices for camping settings.

Table 31. Level of satisfaction with experience at roadside camping areas.

Visitor Residence Area

Table 33. Visitor permanent residence within Adirondack Park.

Table 35. Visitor permanent residence by country.

Table 36. Visitor permanent residence by state.

Table 38. Participation in mail survey.

Figure 12. Importance-Performance grid example.

Figure 13. IP grid summarizing roadside campsite visitor motivations.

NYSDEC campgrounds 32.4% 21.6% 15.3% 8.1% 8.1% 14.4% 100

Primitive backpacking 6.3% 9.0% 36.0% 7.2% 12.6% 28.8% 100

Substitution for Other Camping Resources

A follow-up question was included on the questionnaire in order to gain an understanding

Table 49. Substitutability of NYSDEC campgrounds within the Adirondack Park.

Third, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they perceived

Table 51. Substitutability of primitive/backpacking sites within the Adirondack Park.

Respondents who did not perceive primitive/backpacking sites as acceptable substitutes

Reaction to Statements from Qualitative Interviews

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Table 55. Employment status of respondents.

Table 56. Ages of respondents to the mail survey.

Table 57. Education levels of respondents to the mail survey.

Black River Wild Forest Easement

_Enter # of miles _Not sure

_____Winter _Spring _Summer _____Fall