land
Article
Identifying Primary Drivers of Participants from Various
Socioeconomic Backgrounds to Choose National Forest Lands
in the Southeastern Region of the US as a Travel Destination
for Recreation
Rosny Jean 1 , Kozma Naka 2 , Colmore S. Christian 2, *, Buddhi Raj Gyawali 3 , Troy Bowman 2
and Sampson Hopkinson 2
1
2
3
*
Citation: Jean, R.; Naka, K.; Christian,
C.S.; Gyawali, B.R.; Bowman, T.;
Hopkinson, S. Identifying Primary
Drivers of Participants from Various
Socioeconomic Backgrounds to
Choose National Forest Lands in the
School of the Environment, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL 32307, USA
Biological and Environmental Sciences Department, Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL 35762, USA
School of Agriculture, Community, and the Sciences, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601, USA
Correspondence: colmore.christian@aamu.edu
Abstract: Growing demand for National Forests (NFs) recreational activities makes it crucial to
understand the attitudes towards valuing public recreational resources and the potential conflicts with
other functions of the forests. The study was conducted to identify the primary drivers influencing
individual participation in outdoor recreation on NF lands in the southeastern region of the US among
participants of various socioeconomic backgrounds. The study was based on the 2010–2014 dataset
of fourteen NFs across thirteen states in the Southeastern USA—retrieved from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Different statistical models and statistical analyses were utilized
for the study. The statistical results revealed that individual needs for relaxation were the main driver
for participation in forest recreation for the whole sample and pulled data (approximately 52% of the
participants). It has been noted that the drivers varied depending on the forest. The personal need
for mental development was the least valued driver with only 2%. Some significant differences were
observed by gender, age category, and income level. The study results have practical importance for
different stakeholders such as tourism operators, the USDA Forest Service, and local authorities.
Southeastern Region of the US as a
Travel Destination for Recreation.
Land 2022, 11, 1301. https://doi.org/
Keywords: national forests; recreation; forests; outdoor activities; tourists; Southeastern United
States; model; surveys
10.3390/land11081301
Academic Editors: Yupeng Fan and
Kai Fang
1. Introduction
Received: 13 July 2022
Accepted: 4 August 2022
Published: 12 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
In recent centuries, human societies have increased the value they place on leisure
time, increasing the demand for open areas for outdoor recreation on National Forest (NF)
lands [1]. NFs provide a combination of interrelated beneficial outcomes to an individual or community, including creating a new appreciation of the environment, fostering
an environment for family togetherness, and providing an escape from everyday stress.
According to the USDA Forest Service, the overall annual number of NF visits in 2016 was
148.1 million [2]. Approximately 84% of the visitors indicated recreation opportunities
provided by NF as the primary reasons for their trip to an NF [2]. Therefore, outdoor
recreation is one of the most widely recognized ecosystem services (ES) provided by forests
and grasslands.
It is estimated that the surplus demand for NFs recreation negatively impacts the quantity and the quality of forest recreation values and puts pressure on many other ecosystem
services these forests provide. Studies have found that high levels of recreational use are
endangering the ecological status of these forests [3]. A growing body of literature [4,5] has
recognized that even low levels of recreational use in national forest lands have resulted in
resource degradation. Intensive forest visitation can cause severe ecological impacts, such
as soil compaction and erosion, water pollution, and wildlife disturbances. It can produce
Land 2022, 11, 1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081301
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land
Land 2022, 11, 1301
2 of 25
social impacts such as overcrowding, conflict, aesthetic degradation, and changes to the
managerial environment [6].
Within this context, there is a need to understand attitudes towards valuing public
recreational resources and potential conflicts with other functions of the forests, such as
biodiversity and consumption goods. It is important to understand that to satisfy their
primary needs, each person perceives different tangible and non-tangible benefits provided
by the environment that can be formalized as “values” of the landscapes’ functions for
people [7]. Previous studies indicate that various landscape values have different degrees
of importance for people [8,9]. The held values are defined as the most stable and basic elements of cognizance that a particular mode of activity is preferable for a specific person [10].
Researchers often conceptualize such perceptions as values of the landscape functions [11].
Some results indicate that the most important motives to visit a specific area in the case of
nature-based tourism are clean surroundings and the landscape environment in general [8].
Similarly, a study across six sites in different European countries also identified these values
related to outdoor recreation and aesthetics to have a high importance for visitors [9].
However, there is another critical marginal benefit to visitors that should be considered and
depends on several factors, including social value, socioeconomic and demographic factors,
quality of the site, and the cost involved in visiting other competing locations. According to
Valles-Planells [12], landscapes have self– and social–cultural aspects of their contribution
to people’s well-being.
Some studies have considered four dimensions of human well-being related to landscapes: enjoyment, personal fulfillment, health, and social fulfillment [13]. Landscape
services related to humans’ health are divided into services related to mental health and services related to physical health [12]. Also, within personal self-fulfillment, the researchers
distinguished educational and scientific resources and a spiritual experience provided
by forest landscapes [14]. Marcus [15] discussed the advantages of healing landscapes in
healthcare facilities by providing examples related to patient-particular gardens, green
spaces, parks, etc. In their report, they concluded that National Forests have historical,
aesthetic, and cultural values for recreational activities and visitors with different forest
value priorities who have different recreation service demands.
In the United States, the demographic structure of the US population is constantly
changing. Increased ethnic diversity and an aging population present unique challenges [16].
The ‘new’ elderly are likely to have more time and money but will likely be less physically
fit and have special requirements. Likewise, the ‘new’ ethnically diverse participants are
likely to have differing perceptions, attitudes, values, and interpretations regarding natural
resources, but little is often known about their demand for outdoor recreation [17]. In
general, improved socioeconomic prosperity among recreationists offers multiple opportunities to travel to NF areas [18]. However, the requirements of lower-socioeconomic-class
individuals may differ from those of their wealthier counterparts.
The need to develop knowledge of the intensity and forms of recreational usage and
users’ perceived values and behavior in NF areas is now more important than ever. Indeed,
several studies have examined the actual usage of NF areas and NF recreation. However, to
date, limited research studies have been carried out in reference to NFs in the Southeastern
United States. Similarly, studies that consider ethnicity-based differences or those that
explored socioeconomic class to explain trip-taking behavior in recreation demands on
NF lands are also limited. Therefore, there has been an increased demand for information
from researchers and NF managers on the actual usage of NF areas (by different population
groups), followed by the growing awareness of the importance and complexity of the
services NFs provide. Understandably, an investigation of the main drivers for individuals
to participate in NFs recreation is relevant to developing tourism on NFs lands.
The main objective of this research was to assess the outdoor recreational value of
NFs in the Southeastern United States and evaluate the choices and behavior of visitors
to these forests based on demographic and social characteristics. Moreover, this research
evaluated recreationists’ ethnicity-based differences and explored socioeconomic class
Land 2022, 11, 1301
3 of 25
in demand models to explain trip-taking behavior for recreation in these forests. It was
accomplished by identifying the main drivers for individuals to participate in recreational
activities on NF lands in the Southeastern United States, estimating the most important
drivers and quantifying and qualifying the recreational values on NF lands. The main
drivers and barriers for individuals to participate in NF recreation were investigated using
the Ecosystem Services (ES) framework [19,20].
Based on the literature presented above, the hypothesis for the study was proposed
as follows:
What are the primary drivers influencing individual participation in outdoor recreation on National Forest lands in the southeastern region of the US among participants of
various socioeconomic backgrounds? (H1)
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
This study selected fourteen National Forests (NFs) in the Southeastern USA with
different characteristics. These NFs are distributed across 13 states in Region 8 (Figure 1).
They represent recreational sites with different landscapes and various recreational demands (Table 1), such as bicycling, hiking, swimming, and canoeing for visitors. The
study also included the “Land Between the Lakes” NF, a designated UNESCO Biosphere
reserve in Kentucky and Tennessee between Lake Barkley and Kentucky Lake [2]. Five
wildlife areas are also located in these NFs. These wildlife areas provide additional fishing,
boating, camping, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, picnicking, and wildlife viewing as
recreational activities. Numerous species of birds, fish, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles
inhabit these NFs. People can view rare and endangered species in these wildlife areas,
such as the flattened musk turtle, the gopher tortoise, and the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Elevations and landscapes in these NFs differ widely, ranging from 100 feet in the Coastal
Plain to over 2100 feet in the Appalachian areas [2].
Figure 1. Map reflecting the spatial distribution of the National Forests in the Southeastern region
(source: https://www.fs.usda.gov/alabama/ forest, accessed on 28 March 2017).
Land 2022, 11, 1301
4 of 25
Table 1. Matrix of National Forests in the Southeast United States of America.
State
Alabama
Tennessee
Area in Acres
Selected Recreational
Opportunities/Features
William B. Bankhead
181.23
Hiking, Bicycling, Water Activates,
bird Watching, Picnicking, Scenic
Driving, Shooting Range
Talladega
392,567
Hiking, Fishing, Camping,
Water activities
Tuskegee
11,252
Conecuh
Cherokee
National Forest
Area in
Acres
Selected Recreational
Opportunities/Features
Nanatahala
531.2
Camping, Off-Highway Vehicle
riding, Scenic Driving, Outdoor
Learning, Nature Viewing, Climbing,
Horse Riding, Fishing, Hiking
Pisgah
500
Outdoor Learning, Nature viewing,
Hunting, Picnicking, Bicycling, Scenic
Driving, Fishing
Shooting Range, Bicycling,
Horse Trail
Uwharrie
50,645
Nature Viewing, Water
Activities, Bicycling
83,861
Hiking Trails, Shooting Range,
Water Activities
Croatan
159,872
Off-Highway Vehicle Riding, Nature
Viewing, Hiking
655,598
Bicycling, Camping, Fishing,
Outdoor learning, Scenic Driving,
Horse Riding, Winter Sports
Francis Marion
258.56
Scenic Driving, Fishing, Nature
viewing, Hunting
Sumter
370,442
Hunting, Off-Highway Vehicle riding,
Nature Viewing, Water activities,
picnicking, camping
State
North
Carolina
National Forest
South
Carolina
Georgia
ChattahoocheeOconee
867
Nature Viewing, Bicycling,
Camping, Fishing, Outdoor
learning, Scenic Driving,
Horse Riding
Kentucky
Daniel Boone
2,100,000
Hiking, Camping, Picnicking,
Rock climbing, boating, Hunting,
Fishing, Target Shooting
Davy Crockett
160.64
Camping & Cabins, Climbing,
Bicycling, Off-Highway Vehicle
riding, Nature Viewing
Apalachicola
632.89
Scenic Driving, Picnicking, Nature
Viewing, Fishing, Hunting, Horse
Riding, Camping
Angelina
153.18
Picnicking, Hiking, Horse Riding,
Fishing, Bicycling
Osceola
200
Water Activities, Bicycling,
Fishing, Nature Viewing, Outdoor
Learning, Camping
Sabine
160,896
Nature Viewing, Water Activities,
Picnicking, fishing
Ocala
387
Scenic Driving, Outdoor Learning,
Off-Highway Vehicle riding,
Nature viewing, Boating
Sam Houston
163,072
Scenic Driving, Fishing, Off-Highway
Vehicle riding, Water activities,
picnicking, camping
Florida
Texas
Land 2022, 11, 1301
5 of 25
Table 1. Cont.
State
National Forest
Area in Acres
Selected Recreational
Opportunities/Features
Louisiana
Kisatchie
604
De Soto
Mississippi
National Forest
Area in
Acres
Selected Recreational
Opportunities/Features
Fishing, Off-Highway Vehicle
riding, Nature Viewing, Water
activities, picnicking, camping
Caddo Lyndon B.
17,784
Picnicking, Hiking, Bicycling,
Hiking, Fishing
518,587
Scenic Driving, Picnicking,
Hiking, Target Shooting, Nature
viewing, fishing, Horse Riding
Johnson
Grasslands
20,309
Horse Riding, Bicycling, Camping &
Cabins, Hiking
Homochito
191,839
Hunting, Off-Highway Vehicle
riding, Nature Viewing, Water
activities, picnicking, camping
Virginia
George
WashingtonJefferson
1,803,869
Beaches & Dunes, Winter Sports,
Water Activities, Hunting, Rocks &
Minerals, Fishing
Bienville
178,541
Fishing, Boating, Hunting, Hiking,
Picnicking
Arkansas/
Oklahoma
Ouachita
1,784,457
Mineral Prospecting, Hiking, Horse
Riding, Fishing, Hunting, Bicycling,
Water Activities.
Ozark
1,200,000
Winter Sports, Water Activities, Horse
Riding, Camping & Cabins,
Climbing, Bicycling
St. Francis
22.6
Scenic Driving, Picnicking, Nature
Viewing, Fishing, Hunting,
Climbing, Camping
El Yunque
28
Nature viewing, Hiking, Water
Activities, Camping, Picnicking,
Outdoor Learning
Delta
60,898
Target Shooting, Scenic Driving,
Hiking, Bicycling
Tombigbee
67,005
Water activities, Nature viewing,
Picnicking, Hiking
State
Arkansas
Kentucky/
Tennessee
Holly Springs
155,661
Horse Riding, Camping, Bicycling,
Fishing, Hiking
Land Between the
Lakes
170
hiking, biking, riding. Kayaking,
boating, camping, wildlife
viewing opportunities
Puerto Rico
Land 2022, 11, 1301
6 of 25
2.2. Data Collection
The 2010–2014 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) dataset for this research was
provided by the USDA Forest Service in 2018. The objectives of the NVUM program were:
First, to estimate the number of recreation visits to national forests and, second, to produce
descriptive information about visitation, including activity participation, demographics,
visit duration, measures of satisfaction, and trip spending connected to the visit. This
dataset was based on a survey of over 155,000 visitors at 7532 different sites across 120 national forests during 1368 days of sampling between January 2000 and September 2003 [21].
Among the recorded visitors, 136,584 agreed to be interviewed (an 88% participation rate).
Interviewers (typically Forest Service employees), trained by the national training
and certification program attendees, conducted face-to-face, on-site interviews using a
4-page National Visitor Use Survey forms. The survey form had questions relating to
demographics and visit descriptions and six socioeconomic-related questions. Moreover,
one-third of the forms had 16 satisfaction and 14 satisfaction question elements. The
duration of the interviews varied between 8 and 12 min [2].
The surveys used a double sampling method with a two-step approach. In the first
step, the survey days and sites were randomly selected from a stratified set of days and
recreational sites, with strata defined by site type and daily exit volume. The exact survey
location was determined by road/weather conditions, type of road, and stopping distance.
Interviews were given to randomly selected vehicles or groups that stopped at the randomly
selected sites. In the second step, an interview was conducted with the individual who had
the most recent birthday among the individuals in the randomly selected vehicle exiting
the selected recreational site. For each chosen site day, six hours of exit interviews were
conducted. Site-visit estimates were acquired for each sample day, averaged by strata,
and then expanded by a stratified-sampling weight. The results from the NVUM program
were used to construct NVUM data. The NVUM quality-assurance-check procedure was
implemented to ensure the quality of the survey data [2].
2.3. Statistical Analysis
The main objective of this study was to investigate the primary drivers for individuals
participating in forest recreational activities at the NFs. First, the proportions of the respondents that indicated each driver were compared using pairwise techniques. The primary
drivers are defined according to the main landscape values adapted to NFs recreation [14].
According to Garcia-Martin et al. [14], the values describe the sociocultural perception of
landscape functions. National Forest recreation values can be defined as the sociocultural
perception of National Forest recreation functions. The relationships between the main
drivers for individuals to participate in Alabama’s National Forest Recreation, the main values for National Forest Recreation, and the corresponding questionnaire items are reported
in Table 2.
Table 2. Relationships between main drivers for individuals to participate in Alabama’s National
Forest Recreation and corresponding questionnaire items.
Main Drivers for Individuals to Participate
in Alabama’s National Forest Recreation
Individual needs in relaxation and resting
Corresponding Questionnaire Items
MAIN_RELAX
MAIN_HIKING
MAIN_DRIVING
MAIN_FISHING
MAIN_HUNTING
MAIN_GATHERING
MAIN_BACKPACK
Land 2022, 11, 1301
7 of 25
Table 2. Cont.
Main Drivers for Individuals to Participate
in Alabama’s National Forest Recreation
Corresponding Questionnaire Items
Needs for communication and spending time
with other people outdoors
MAIN_DEV_CAMPING
MAIN_PICNIC
MAIN_PRIM_CAMPING
MAIN_RESORTS
MAIN_VIEW_WILDLIFE
MAIN_VIEW_NATURE
MAIN_HISTORY
MAIN_NATURE_CENTER
MAIN_NATURE_STUDY
MAIN_BIKING
MAIN_DOWNHILL_SKI
MAIN_HORSE
MAIN_MOT_WATER
MAIN_NONMOT_WATER
MAIN_OHV_USE
MAIN_OTHER_MOT
MAIN_OTHER_NONMOT
MAIN_SNOWMOBILE
MAIN_XC_SKI
MAIN_MOTOR_TRAIL
MAIN_OTH_ACTIV
Individual aesthetic needs and development
Personal mental development
Personal physical development
Respondents had the opportunity to indicate more than one reason for participation in
forest recreation. Therefore, groups of respondents that reported two different reasons could
overlap. In general, ten possible pairs were compared, considering partial overlapping.
Statistics for the given test were calculated according to Derrick, Toher, and White [22]:
z= s
p (1− p )
n12 +n1
+
p (1− p )
n12 +n2
p1 − p2
√
√
p (1− p) p (1− p)n12
− 2r1
(n +n )(n +n )
12
1
12
(1)
2
(n +n ) p +(n +n ) p
2
12 2
12 1
With p = 1 2n
, p1 and p2 are compared proportions;
12 + n1+ n2
n1 and n2 represent non-overlapping samples; and
n12 is the length of the overlapping part.
The calculated z-value is often compared to the p-value for making decisions. The
significance level in this study was set at 0.05. Thus, if the p-value was less than α = 0.05,
the null hypothesis was rejected. To estimate the significance of the main barriers, a paired
t-test was used, given that that respondents estimated the significance of all barriers. The
corresponding t-statistics were calculated using the formula below:
t=
d
√
sd/ n
(2)
where:
d is a mean of differences in scores for two barriers;
sd is the standard deviation of the differences; and
n is the sample size.
Afterwards, the main clusters of the respondents related to drivers for forest recreation
were identified using K-mean methods. Considering the social descriptive characteristics of
the respondents, the social-demographic portrait of each cluster was determined. Multiple
discriminant analyses were conducted to test the accuracy of the cluster solution using
discriminate functions, the significance of which was tested by Wilks’s Lambda test, Chisquare test, canonical correlation statistic, and univariate F-test.
Land 2022, 11, 1301
8 of 25
To estimate the significance between the main sociodemographic groups of the visitors,
the t-test with a level of significance of 0.05 was used:
t=
( x 1 − x 2 ) − ( µ1 − µ2 )
r
s21
n1
+
s22
n2
(3)
where:
(x1 − x2 ) is the difference between the observed means of the two groups;
(µ1 − µ2 ) is the difference of the hypothesized means; and
s21 and s22 are the variances of the two groups.
One-way ANOVA was used when there were more than two groups to compare. It is
a generalization of the independent sample t-test, but the test statistic of ANOVA is based
on the variances between and within groups:
2
n ∑ik=1 yi − Y /k − 1
MSB
SSB/d f b
=
=
F=
2
k
n
SSW/d f w
MSW
∑i=1 ∑ j=1 yij − yi /n − k
(4)
where SSB, MSB, SSW, and MSW are between the sum of squares, between mean square,
within the sum of squares, and within the mean square. K represents the number of groups
and n represents the sample size. As usual, the p-value was used for final decisions.
Also, to explore the association between respondents’ social-demographic characteristics and forest recreation values, the corresponding contingency tables were used. Then, χ2
was applied to identify statistically significant associations. The χ2 value was calculated
using Equation (5):
(Oi − Ei )
(5)
χ2 = ∑
Ei
where:
Oi and Ei are the observed and expected values in ith position in the contingency table.
The p-value of χ2 was calculated considering that it was distributed as a Chi-square
distribution with degrees of freedom d f = (c − 1)(r − 1), where c represents the number
of columns in the contingency table and r is the number of rows. If the p-value was larger
than the significance level, that indicated no statistically significant difference across the
investigated groups.
3. Results
The main driving factors influencing individual engagement in recreational activities
at National Forests varied considerably with different sociocultural characteristics of the
respondents, such as gender, age, race, and income in the southeastern region of the US.
3.1. Primary Drivers
The primary drivers were defined according to the main landscape values, which
were adapted to NFs recreation values [14]. According to Garcia-Martin [14], these values
describe the sociocultural perception of landscape functions. NF recreation values can
be defined as the sociocultural perception of NF recreation functions. The relationships
between the main drivers for individuals to participate in NF recreation in the southeastern
region of the US, the main values of National Forest Recreation, and the questionnaire
items are reported in Table 3.
Land 2022, 11, 1301
9 of 25
Table 3. Relationships between main drivers for individuals to participate in Southeastern National
Forest Recreation, main values of National Forest Recreation, and questionnaire items.
Main Drivers for Individuals
to Participate in Southeastern
National Forest Recreation
National Forest Recreation
Values [14]
Main Forest Recreation
Activities [23]
Corresponding
Questionnaire Variables
Individual needs in relaxation
and resting
Outdoor recreation
Hiking or walking
Relaxing, hanging out,
escaping heat, noise
MAIN_RELAX
MAIN_HIKING
MAIN_DRIVING
MAIN_FISHING
MAIN_HUNTING
MAIN_GATHERING
MAIN_BACKPACK
Needs for communication and
spending time with other
people outdoors
Social well-being,
social fulfilment
Picnicking and family day
gathering in developed sites
(family or group)
MAIN_DEV_CAMPING
MAIN_PICNIC
MAIN_PRIM_CAMPING
MAIN_RESORTS
Individual aesthetic needs and
development
Aesthetic
All items related to Viewing
Nature& Culture
MAIN_VIEW_WILDLIFE
MAIN_VIEW_NATURE
Personal mental development
Existence
Nature study
MAIN_HISTORY
MAIN_NATURE_CENTER
MAIN_NATURE_STUDY
All motorized Activities
MAIN_BIKING
MAIN_DOWNHILL_SKI
MAIN_HORSE
MAIN_MOT_WATER
MAIN_NONMOT_WATER
MAIN_OHV_USE
MAIN_OTHER_MOT
MAIN_OTHER_NONMOT
MAIN_SNOWMOBILE
MAIN_XC_SKI
MAIN_MOTOR_TRAIL
MAIN_OTH_ACTIV
Personal physical development
Outdoor sports
First, the main drivers for all respondents were investigated for pulled data and
among forests (Table 4). As reported in Table 4, Individual needs in relaxation and resting was
identified as the main driver for participation in forest recreation for the whole sample
and pulled data, as reported by 52% of the respondents (Figure 2). Personal needs in
relaxation and rest were identified as the main driver to visit forests across 13 of 15 NFs
investigated. Personal needs in physical development was also reported to be the main driver
in the following forests (William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee, Conecuh), (Ozark), and
(Francis Marion, Sumter); while it was the second most important driver at eight forests,
including (Daniel Boone), (Cherokee), (Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala), (Kisatchie), (George
Washington-Jefferson), (Nantahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan), (Davy Crockett, Angelina,
Sabine, Sam Houston, Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands), and (Land Between the
Lakes); the third most important driver for (Chattahoochee-Oconee), (De Soto, Homochito,
Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee, Holly Springs), and (St. Francis, Ouachita) forests; and the
fourth most important driver at (El Yunque) forest. Other drivers were found to be relatively
less significant, e.g., Personal needs in mental development was ranked fifth in importance
for all forests—excluding (El Yunque) where it was ranked third. The Personal needs
for communication and Aesthetic needs ranked third and fourth, respectively, across all
NFs investigated.
Land 2022, 11, 1301
10 of 25
Table 4. Main drivers for recreation activities across forests (all visitors).
NF Code
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee, Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
All forests
Needs in
Relaxation
and Resting
Needs in
CommuNication
Aesthetic
Needs
Needs in
Mental
Development
Needs in
Physical
Development
158
−37.98
774
−57.85
430
−62.05
694
−45.99
285
−37.25
395
−44.94
294
−60.25
562
−46.83
159
−34.57
167
−34.15
1621
−68.86
183
−32.22
506
−60.53
235
−54.91
174
−46.52
6637
−51.86
73
−17.55
184
−13.75
33
−4.76
191
−12.66
189
−24.71
207
−23.55
68
−13.93
118
−9.83
73
−15.87
64
−13.09
138
−5.86
35
−6.16
119
−14.23
1
−0.23
39
−10.43
1532
−11.97
14
−3.37
126
−9.42
145
−20.92
214
−14.18
23
−3.01
39
−4.44
59
−12.09
83
−6.92
149
−32.39
63
−12.88
252
−10.71
76
−13.38
62
−7.42
151
−35.28
42
−11.23
1498
−11.71
0
0
10
−0.75
7
−1.01
6
−0.4
18
−2.35
14
−1.59
4
−0.82
11
−0.92
3
−0.65
2
−0.41
66
−2.8
31
−5.46
6
−0.72
28
−6.54
35
−9.36
241
−1.88
171
−41.11
244
−18.24
78
−11.26
404
−26.77
250
−32.68
224
−25.48
63
−12.91
426
−35.5
76
−16.52
193
−39.47
277
−11.77
243
−42.78
143
−17.11
13
−3.04
84
−22.46
2889
−22.58
Needs in mental
development
2%
Needs in
physical…
Needs in
relaxation
and rest
52%
Aestetic
needs
12%
Needs in
communication
12%
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of the respondents among the main drivers for forest recreation activities.
3.2. Primary Drivers by Age
Significant drivers for two main age groups, persons older than 60 years and persons
younger than 60 years, were also identified. The percentage distribution of visitors by these
age groups among the main drivers across the forests are reported in Table 5. According
to Figure 3, significant differences are observable between the two age groups in Personal
needs for relaxation and Needs in physical development drivers. The Chi-square test indicated
χ
Land 2022, 11, 1301
11 of 25
that Personal needs in relaxation and rest were the main driver for a larger proportion of the
older visitors to NFs compared to younger visitors (χ2 = 26.75, p < 0.001). Needs in physical
development was the main driver for a significantly larger proportion of younger visitors to
NFs compared to older visitors (χ2 = 116.43, p < 0.001). Personal needs in mental developments
and Aesthetic needs were also identified to be an essential driver for older visitors (χ2 = 68.05,
p < 0.001 and χ2 = 24.61, p < 0.001).
Table 5. The results of the Chi-squared test for between-group (age) comparisons across forests.
Forests
Needs in relaxation and rest
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee, Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in physical development
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee, Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in communication
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee, Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
Percentage
Difference
Chi 2 Statistics
p-Value
Females
Males
39.6
59.82
69.19
49.91
34.79
43.43
35.19
55.97
60.17
56.37
48.43
58.26
4.42
3.85
9.02
−6.46
−13.64
−14.83
0.38
0.86
3.56
2.9
9.94
8.86
0.536
0.355
0.059
0.089
0.002
0.003
66.06
67.89
−1.83
0.12
0.726
47.95
45.59
38.73
70.74
32.63
45.56
46.91
30.43
74.51
35.71
2.4
−1.32
8.29
−3.77
−3.08
0.35
0.04
1.71
3.3
0.38
0.553
0.835
0.191
0.069
0.538
60.4
74.51
−14.11
10.58
0.001
57.58
45.2
49.09
58.11
8.49
−12.91
1.4
3.91
0.237
0.048
42.45
19.21
12.21
31.43
35.8
27.62
38.89
15.72
12.71
19.61
23.27
13.91
3.56
3.48
−0.5
11.83
12.53
13.71
0.24
1.11
0.02
11.63
8.89
9.79
0.622
0.292
0.881
0.001
0.003
0.002
16.97
6.42
10.55
7.42
0.006
36.66
24.14
43.24
15.07
48.25
32.78
14.81
43.48
5.7
29.46
3.89
9.32
−0.24
9.37
18.79
1
3.14
0
38.25
12.7
0.318
0.076
0.97
0
0
19.88
9.15
10.73
9.72
0.002
3.37
28.47
1.82
5.41
1.55
23.06
0.37
17.25
0.54
0
16.52
14.27
4.84
13.64
25.55
24.17
25.93
13.21
6.78
14.71
23.27
21.74
−9.4
1.07
−1.93
−1.06
2.28
2.43
2.83
0.13
0.73
0.16
0.35
0.32
0.093
0.718
0.393
0.685
0.556
0.569
13.33
22.02
−8.69
4.72
0.03
Land 2022, 11, 1301
12 of 25
Table 5. Cont.
Forests
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Aesthetic needs
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee, Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in mental development
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee, Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Percentage
Difference
Chi 2 Statistics
p-Value
Females
Males
9.79
19.92
13.53
6.43
7.23
11.11
25.93
18.84
5.4
3.57
−1.32
−6
−5.31
1.03
3.65
0.3
1.33
1.34
0.87
1.96
0.586
0.249
0.247
0.35
0.161
15.72
10.46
5.26
2.73
0.099
0.28
11.39
0
8.11
0.28
3.28
0.15
0.66
0.694
0.417
1.42
6.34
12.79
4.75
1.68
3.32
0
11.32
18.64
7.84
1.89
3.48
1.42
−4.98
−5.85
−3.09
−0.21
−0.16
0.78
5.34
2.75
3.36
0.03
0.01
0.377
0.021
0.097
0.067
0.859
0.93
3.03
1.83
1.2
0.44
0.507
5.19
9.58
3.98
5.61
8.39
6.67
11.11
7.25
9.6
16.96
−1.47
−1.53
−3.27
−3.98
−8.57
0.64
0.16
1.45
11.77
7.15
0.422
0.687
0.228
0.001
0.008
3.24
5.23
−1.99
1.41
0.235
32.87
7.12
38.18
13.51
−5.32
−6.4
0.6
3.1
0.437
0.078
0
0.35
0.97
0.26
2.18
1.46
0
3.77
1.69
1.47
3.14
2.61
0
−3.42
−0.73
−1.21
−0.96
−1.15
NA
21.29
0.46
5.8
0.5
0.83
0
0.496
0.016
0.481
0.363
0.61
1.83
−1.23
1.37
0.242
0.4
0.77
0.53
2.14
3.5
3.89
1.23
0
4.8
14.29
−3.49
−0.47
0.53
−2.65
−10.79
20.13
0.16
0.37
11.63
19.14
0
0.693
0.544
0.001
0
0.77
0.65
0.12
0.02
0.88
5.9
7.83
10.91
14.86
−5.01
−7.04
1.95
3.44
0.163
0.064
−
−
Land 2022, 11, 1301
−
−
13 of 25
Figure 3. Percentage distribution of the main drivers for forest recreation activities among the
respondents from the different age groups.
Across all forests, four forests (William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee, Conecuh),
(Chattahoochee-Oconee), (Ozark), and (El Yunque) did not show statistical significance
at the level of <0.05 differences in the importance of main drivers between age groups
(Table 5).
χ2 = 9.95, p = 0.002),
The forests of (Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala) (48.42% vs. 34.79%, χ
χ
(Kisatchie) (58.26% vs. 43.43%, χ2 = 8.85, p = 0.003), (Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam
χ2 = 8.85, p = 0.001),
Houston, Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands) (74.51% vs. 60.40%, χ
2
and (Land Between the Lakes) (58.11% vs. 60.40%, χ = 3.91, p = 0.048) indicated the larger
importance of personal needs in relaxation and rest as the main driver to visit the forest for
the older age group (Section S2 in Supplementary Materials). No significant differences
between age groups were found for this driver for the rest of the NFs.
Personal needs in physical development was another important driver to visit the forests
for younger visitors in the case of NFs:
(Cherokee) (31.43% vs. 19.61%, χ2 = 11.63, p < 0.001);
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala) (38.80% vs. 23.27%, χ2 = 8.89, p = 0.003);
(Kisatchie) (27.62% vs. 13.91%, χ2 = 9.79, p = 0.002);
(Kisatchie) (19.97% vs. 6.42%, χ2 = 7.412, p = 0.006);
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan) (15.07% vs. 5.70%, χ2 = 38.25, p < 0.001);
(Francis Marion, Sumter) (48.25% vs. 29.46%, χ2 = 12.70, p < 0.001);
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston, Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands) (19.88% vs. 9.15%, χ2 = 9.72, p = 0.002); and
(Land Between the Lakes) (28.47% vs. 5.41%, χ2 = 17.25, p < 0.001).
No significant differences in Personal needs in physical development between two age
groups were found in the case of other forests. According to Section S2 in Supplementary
Materials, Needs in communication exhibited a significant difference in the importance between younger (13.33%) and older (22.02%) visitors in only the NF of (De Soto, Homochito,
Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee, Holly Springs) (13.33% vs. 22.02%, χ2 = 4.72, p = 0.03). Personal
needs in aesthetic development were an essential driver to visit NFs for older visitors in the
case of three forests: (Daniel Boone) (11.32% vs. 6.34%, χ2 = 5.34, p = 0.02), (Nantahala,
Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan) (9.60% vs. 3.98%, χ2 = 11.77, p < 0.001), and (Francis Marion,
Sumter) (16.94% vs. 8.39%, χ2 = 7.15, p = 0.008). Finally, Personal needs in mental development
Land 2022, 11, 1301
14 of 25
were a more essential driver to visit NFs for older visitors in the case of five forests: (Daniel
Boone) (3.77% vs. 0.35%, χ2 = 21.29, p < 0.001), (Cherokee) (1.47% vs. 0.26%, χ2 = 5.80,
p = 0.02), (George Washington-Jefferson) (3.88% vs. 0.40%, χ2 = 20.13, p < 0.001), (Nantahala,
Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan) (4.80% vs. 2.14%, χ2 = 11.63, p < 0.001), and (Francis Marion,
Sumter) (14.30% vs. 3.50%, χ2 = 19.14, p < 0.001). The differences in the importance of both
the above-mentioned drivers to visit NFs were insignificant at the level of 0.05 in the case
of other forests (Table 5).
3.3. Recreation Drivers by Gender
As shown in Figure 4, the largest difference between males and females was observed
for Needs in relaxation and rest. This driver had significantly larger importance for males
in comparison with females (56.18% vs. 51.50%, χ2 = 23.31, p < 0.001). There were no
significant differences between gender groups for Needs in physical development (males
24.13% vs. females 23.26%, χ2 = 1.09, p < 0.256). The other three drivers had larger
importance for females in comparison with males. Personal needs in communication was
reported as the main driver by 13.99% of females compared to 11.99% of males (χ2 = 9.60,
p = 0.002). Aesthetic needs was reported as the main driver by 8.53% of females and 6.11% of
males (χ2 = 24.21, p < 0.001). Finally, Mental development was reported as the main driver to
visit NFs by 2.71% of females and 1.59% of males (χ2 = 17.10, p < 0.001).
Figure 4. Percentage distribution of the main drivers for forest recreation activities among the
respondents from the different gender groups.
Table 6 presents gender differences in the importance of main drivers for visits to NFs
across all forests selected for this study. According to Table 6, gender differences were more
clearly observed for Needs in relaxation and rest and Aesthetic needs. The first driver had a
higher importance for males in comparison with females in seven forests, while the second
had higher importance for females in six forests (Section S2 in Supplementary Materials).
A contradictory result was observed for the driver, Needs in physical development; this driver
had higher importance for females in six forests (Daniel Boone), (Kisatchie), (De Soto,
Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee, Holly Springs), (William B. Bankhead, Talladega,
Tuskegee, Conecuh), (Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston, Caddo Lyndon B.,
Land 2022, 11, 1301
15 of 25
Johnson Grasslands), and (El Yunque), while it had higher importance for males at (George
Washington-Jefferson), (Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan), and (Francis Marion,
Sumter) NFs. Needs in physical development exhibited insignificant differences between
gender groups for pulled data. Needs in communication were the most important driver to
visit NFs for females in comparison with males (Section S2 in Supplementary Materials)
for five forests: (Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala), (Kisatchie), (De Soto, Homochito, Bienville,
Delta, Tombigbee, Holly Springs), (Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston, Caddo
Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands), and (Land Between the Lakes).
Table 6. (a)The results of the Chi-squared test for between-group (gender) comparisons across forests.
(b) The results of the Chi-squared test for between-group (ethnicity) comparisons across forests.
(a)
Forests
Needs in relaxation and rest
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in physical development
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in communication
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
Percentage
Difference
Chi 2 Statistics
p-Value
Females
Males
47.19
36.28
10.91
3.49
0.062
55.33
63.84
50.77
27.05
31.14
61.93
68.93
50.95
41.58
52.02
−6.6
−5.09
−0.18
−14.52
−20.88
5.5
1.5
0
13.49
32.91
0.019
0.22
0.949
0
0
45.05
72.67
−27.62
24.79
0
52.21
35.71
29.75
72.9
29.58
45.35
47.35
41.46
71.27
34.58
6.86
−11.64
−11.72
1.63
−5
4.89
2.01
5.98
0.68
1.18
0.027
0.156
0.014
0.411
0.277
43.26
70.43
−27.17
49.87
0
54.77
41.13
57.62
51.52
−2.85
−10.39
0.34
3.49
0.562
0.062
35.96
43.85
−7.89
1.78
0.183
21.52
14.12
27.8
36.23
34.07
17.06
11.6
30.64
32.05
21.89
4.46
2.53
−2.84
4.18
12.18
3.97
0.76
1.24
1.18
14.52
0.046
0.385
0.265
0.277
0
23.08
11.92
11.16
7.33
0.007
29.09
26.19
53.8
8.91
27.46
39.45
21.52
37.63
14.16
50.25
−10.36
4.67
16.17
−5.25
−22.78
12.07
0.47
10.84
13.21
22.08
0.001
0.495
0.001
0
0
28.84
13.68
15.16
24.76
0
5.03
20.16
1.43
25.54
3.6
−5.38
4.29
1.29
0.038
0.256
13.48
19.24
−5.76
1.56
0.211
Land 2022, 11, 1301
16 of 25
Table 6. Cont.
(a)
Forests
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Aesthetic needs
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in mental development
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Percentage
Difference
Chi 2 Statistics
p-Value
Females
Males
15.78
4.52
15.06
31.4
30.77
13.1
5.47
13.18
22.71
20.71
2.68
−0.95
1.88
8.69
10.06
1.8
0.23
0.94
6.03
10.42
0.18
0.629
0.332
0.014
0.001
24.18
12.79
11.39
7.25
0.007
9.61
19.05
13.92
6.19
9.15
10.18
21.52
14.63
6.14
5.47
−0.57
−2.48
−0.71
0.05
3.68
0.09
0.14
0.04
0
2.36
0.761
0.713
0.838
0.961
0.124
23.72
11.62
12.1
18.17
0
0
16.94
0.48
7.36
−0.48
9.58
0.95
7.74
0.33
0.005
3.37
0.63
2.74
4.29
0.038
6.56
15.82
5.79
2.42
3.3
7.17
13.13
4.87
1.47
3.37
−0.61
2.69
0.92
0.95
−0.07
0.18
0.77
0.55
0.8
0
0.674
0.379
0.458
0.371
0.957
6.59
1.74
4.85
6.31
0.012
8.05
19.05
1.9
7.43
22.54
4.15
8.61
5.92
6.49
5.97
3.91
10.44
−4.02
0.94
16.57
7.73
4.51
3.85
0.72
31.18
0.005
0.034
0.05
0.397
0
3.26
3.76
−0.5
0.11
0.735
34.67
8.87
32.86
8.23
1.82
0.65
0.15
0.04
0.698
0.835
0
0
0
NA
0.82
1.69
0.58
2.9
0.73
0.74
0.88
0.36
2.2
2.02
0.08
0.82
0.22
0.7
−1.29
0.02
0.78
0.36
0.32
1.95
0.876
0.376
0.547
0.574
0.162
1.1
0.87
0.23
0.04
0.84
1.04
0
0.63
4.58
11.27
0.88
0.99
0.35
1.95
3.73
0.16
−0.99
0.28
2.63
7.54
0.07
0.42
0.18
12.67
11.09
0.789
0.516
0.668
0
0.001
0.93
0.51
0.42
0.44
0.507
5.53
12.9
7.62
7.36
−2.09
5.54
0.72
2.94
0.395
0.086
Land 2022, 11, 1301
17 of 25
Table 6. Cont.
(b)
Forests
Needs in relaxation and rest
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in physical development
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in communication
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
Percentage
NonWhite
White
Difference
Chi 2 Statistics
p-Value
27.03
39.05
−12.02
2.07
0.15
49.12
30.61
18.52
39.19
40.43
58.66
67.23
50.58
37.05
45.19
−9.54
−36.61
−32.06
2.14
−4.77
3.89
47.9
76.59
0.13
0.41
0.049
0
0
0.717
0.523
40.45
64.66
−24.21
17.81
0
37.63
1.61
14.46
34.43
17.31
47.61
46.73
38.18
71.76
33.72
−9.97
−45.11
−23.72
−37.34
−16.41
3.43
81.5
17.24
109.73
5.83
0.064
0
0
0
0.016
25.42
63.19
−37.77
32.74
0
42.42
47.06
58.66
46.47
−16.24
0.59
8.1
0
0.004
0.948
37.84
41.42
−3.59
0.18
0.672
7.02
3.06
10.19
25.68
19.15
19.28
12.61
29.54
33.43
25.84
−12.26
−9.54
−19.36
−7.75
−6.69
10.52
7.67
35.38
1.83
1.05
0.001
0.006
0
0.177
0.306
0
15.79
−15.79
16.14
0
24.73
1.61
20.48
2.19
23.08
36.4
22.02
43.35
12.57
44.77
−11.67
−20.41
−22.87
−10.39
−21.69
5.11
27.36
15.08
17.55
9.08
0.024
0
0
0
0.003
3.39
18.15
−14.76
8.42
0.004
4.04
8.82
2.74
23.82
1.3
−15
0.44
3.99
0.507
0.046
10.81
18.21
−7.39
1.27
0.259
6.14
1.02
2.78
18.92
17.02
14.46
5.38
14.31
25.33
23.92
−8.32
−4.36
−11.53
−6.41
−6.9
6.09
3.52
22.26
1.47
1.18
0.014
0.061
0
0.225
0.278
6.74
15.54
−8.8
4.7
0.03
10.75
4.03
13.25
2.19
9.76
20.24
13.05
6.17
1
−16.21
0.2
−3.99
0.1
17.82
0
4.86
0.757
0
0.961
0.027
Land 2022, 11, 1301
18 of 25
Table 6. Cont.
(b)
Percentage
NonWhite
White
Forests
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Aesthetic needs
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in mental development
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta, Tombigbee,
Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston,
Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Difference
Chi 2 Statistics
p-Value
1.92
6.59
−4.67
1.78
0.182
11.86
14.41
−2.55
0.29
0.589
0
2.94
0.3
11.18
−0.3
−8.24
0.3
2.24
0.583
0.134
24.32
1.32
23.01
54.86
0
35.96
65.31
68.06
14.86
21.28
6.94
13.61
5.18
1.74
3.49
29.02
51.69
62.87
13.13
17.79
102.96
135.89
601.17
39.51
33.21
0
0
0
0
0
52.81
3.01
49.8
169.81
0
26.88
92.74
51.81
59.02
48.08
5.24
10.12
4.93
6.63
9.88
21.64
82.62
46.88
52.38
38.19
62.41
282.34
134.95
484.48
59.46
0
0
0
0
0
57.63
3.6
54.02
233.08
0
44.44
35.29
32.52
8.82
11.92
26.47
4.74
21.73
0.03
0
0
0
0
NA
1.75
0
0.46
1.35
2.13
0.65
1.18
0.39
2.46
1.56
1.1
−1.18
0.08
−1.11
0.57
1.7
1.16
0.03
0.36
0.09
0.192
0.28
0.869
0.55
0.763
0
1
−1
0.9
0.343
0
0
0
2.19
9.62
0.99
0.89
0.49
2.86
5.04
−0.99
−0.89
−0.49
−0.67
4.58
0.93
1.11
0.41
0.28
1.92
0.334
0.291
0.522
0.598
0.166
1.69
0.64
1.05
0.85
0.356
9.09
5.88
5.78
9.71
3.32
−3.82
1.37
0.53
0.242
0.465
3.4. Recreation Drivers by Ethnicity
Considering that most of the visitors were white (more than 96%), all visitors were
divided into two ethnicity groups: “white” and “non-white” (which included reported
races of Asian, Black, Native American, and Pacific Islander). The importance of the main
drivers to visit NFs for recreation by ethnic groups across forests is reported in Table 6 and
shown in Figure 5.
Land 2022, 11, 1301
19 of 25
Figure 5. Percentage distribution of the main drivers for forest recreation activities among the
Figure 5. Percentage distribution of the main drivers for forest recreation activities among the
respondents from the different ethnic groups.
According to Figure 5, ethnicity significantly affects the importance of the main
drivers. The ranks of the main driver for “white” corresponds to the ranks for all samples.
The primary driver for white users is Personal needs in relaxation and rest, followed by
Needs in physical development, Needs in communication, Aesthetic needs, and Needs in mental
development. However, for non-white users, Aesthetic needs is the primary driver to visit
NFs. Personal needs in relaxation and rest was ranked second, followed by Personal needs in
physical developments, Needs in communication, and Needs in mental development. As shown
in Figure 5, Personal aesthetic needs had a much larger importance for non-whites (52.43%)
χ2 = 2525.83, p < 0.001). The importance of Personal
in comparison with whites (6.70%), (χ
needs in relaxation and rest was essentially higher for whites (54.61%) in comparison with
χ2 = 314.60, p < 0.001). Large differences between ethnic groups were
non-whites (29.53%), (χ
observed in Needs in physical development (whites—24.11, non-whites—10.13) and Personal
needs in communication (whites—12.70%, non-whites—6.06%), which were smaller than
χ χ2 = 52.16,
the first above-noted and were highly significant χ(χ2 = 139.56, p < 0.001 and
p < 0.001, accordingly). The differences in Needs in mental development were statistically
insignificant. While the differences in the importance of Aesthetic need between the two
ethnic groups were highly significant in the case of all forests (Table 6).
Personal needs in relaxation and rest had a lower importance for non-whites in comparison with whites for visits to NFs for a majority of the forests (10 forests). Also, Personal
needs in physical development were a less important driver to visit NFs for non-whites in
comparison with whites in the case of 11 forests (Table 6). The lower importance of Personal
needs in communication for non-whites compared with whites was found in the case of five
forests. No statistically significant differences in the importance of the Personal needs in
mental development between ethnic groups were found for all forests (Table 6).
3.5. Recreation Drivers by Income
The visitors were asked about their income within six categories, which were defined
as: “under 25 k”, “25–49 k”, “50–74 k” “75–99 k” “100–149 k”, “150 k+”. However, most
of the visitors didn’t report their income (more than 70% of the missing data). Considering the range of 0–150 and relatively small sample size, all respondents were combined
Land 2022, 11, 1301
20 of 25
into two groups: lower-income group (income < 75,000 USD) and higher-income group
≥
(income ≥ 75,000 USD).
As presented in Figure 6, the ranks by the importance of the main drivers for different
income groups are the same. The main driver for both income groups was Personal need in
relaxation and rest, followed by Personal needs in physical development, Needs in communication,
Aesthetic needs, and Needs in mental development.
Figure 6. Percentage distribution of the main drivers for forest recreation activities among the
respondents from the different income groups.
As shown in Figure 6, Personal needs in communication had a larger importance for the
χ
lower-income group (χ2 = 6.62, p = 0.01). The between-group differences for the importance
χ
of other drivers were statistically insignificant (χ2 = 0.07, p = 0.795 for needs in relaxation
χ
and rest; χ2 = 3.71, p = 0.054 for aesthetic needs; χχ2 = 0.18, p = 0.673 for needs in mental
development; and χχ2 = 0.52, p = 0.470 for needs in physical development).
According to Table 7, the Personal needs in relaxation and rest had a higher importance
for the lower-income group in the case of several forests, including (Apalachicola, Osceola,
Ocala) and (Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam Houston, Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson
Grasslands). Personal needs in physical development had a larger importance for the higherincome group in the case of the (St. Francis, Ouachita) NF, and Aesthetic needs was important
in the case of the (Ozark) NF. Personal needs in mental development were higher for the lowerincome group in the case of the (El Yunque) NF. All other between-group differences across
forests were not statistically significant.
Thus, despite the importance of the internal group differences, a common pattern was
observed for almost all social-demographic groups of the visitors. The primary driver for
visits to NFs was reported to be Personal needs in relaxation and rest, followed by Personal
needs in physical development and Personal needs in communication, which were ranked second
and third by importance. Personal aesthetic needs and Personal needs in mental development
were the last ones ranked by importance. However, for the non-white group, Personal
−
aesthetic needs were the primary driver to visit NFs, followed by Personal needs in relaxation
−
and rest, Personal needs in physical developments, Needs in communication, and Needs in mental
−
development. This pattern was observed for most of the forests.
Thus, Hypothesis 1 was
−
supported only in the case of ethnicity.
Land 2022, 11, 1301
21 of 25
Table 7. The results of the Chi-square test for between-group (income) comparisons across forests.
Forests
Needs in relaxation and rest
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta,
Tombigbee, Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam
Houston, Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson
Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in physical development
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta,
Tombigbee, Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam
Houston, Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson
Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in communication
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta,
Tombigbee, Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
Percentage
Difference
Chi 2 Statistics
p-Value
40
−6.15
0.3
0.585
51.63
66.33
51.18
40.77
46.04
62.5
69.7
55.1
25.45
50.82
−10.87
−3.37
−3.92
15.31
−4.78
3.17
0.2
0.44
3.92
0.43
0.075
0.651
0.509
0.048
0.512
75
62.5
12.5
0.48
0.486
48.97
46.67
38.64
71.24
31.76
38.28
33.33
32
70.8
30.77
10.69
13.33
6.64
0.44
1
3.56
1.04
0.37
0.01
0.01
0.059
0.307
0.545
0.905
0.912
66.67
52.5
14.17
4.21
0.04
51.92
50
61.9
42.11
−9.98
7.89
1.16
0.55
0.281
0.458
46.15
36
10.15
0.76
0.384
21.4
12.24
27.17
28.46
25.25
21.88
12.12
26.53
36.36
22.95
−0.48
0.12
0.63
−7.9
2.3
0.01
0
0.01
1.13
0.13
0.924
0.981
0.904
0.287
0.716
10.71
37.5
−26.79
3.21
0.073
32.99
24.44
43.18
11.61
48.24
43.75
52.38
48
12.8
35.9
−10.76
−27.94
−4.82
−1.19
12.34
3.82
5.03
0.18
0.2
1.65
0.051
0.025
0.669
0.654
0.199
13.64
23.75
−10.11
3.54
0.06
0
17.31
3.17
31.58
−3.17
−14.27
1.68
2.5
0.195
0.114
18.46
20
−1.54
0.03
0.867
17.21
7.14
17.32
26.15
22.28
10.42
4.55
12.24
32.73
26.23
6.79
2.6
5.08
−6.57
−3.95
2.39
0.46
1.36
0.83
0.41
0.122
0.495
0.243
0.363
0.522
14.29
0
14.29
1.29
0.257
11.86
22.22
15.91
7.81
4.76
8
4.04
17.46
7.91
1.37
3.14
1
0.242
0.076
0.317
Low Income
High Income
33.85
Land 2022, 11, 1301
22 of 25
Table 7. Cont.
Percentage
Forests
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam
Houston, Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson
Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Aesthetic needs
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta,
Tombigbee, Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam
Houston, Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson
Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Needs in mental development
(William B. Bankhead, Talladega, Tuskegee,
Conecuh)
(Daniel Boone)
(Chattahoochee-Oconee)
(Cherokee)
(Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala)
(Kisatchie)
(De Soto, Homochito, Bienville, Delta,
Tombigbee, Holly Springs)
(George Washington-Jefferson)
(St. Francis, Ouachita)
(Ozark)
(Nanatahala, Pisgah, Uwharrie, Croatan)
(Francis Marion, Sumter)
(Davy Crockett, Angelina, Sabine, Sam
Houston, Caddo Lyndon B., Johnson
Grasslands)
(El Yunque)
(Land Between the Lakes)
Difference
Chi 2 Statistics
p-Value
6.4
12.82
0.2
−9.29
0.01
3.82
0.922
0.051
15.91
16.25
−0.34
0
0.948
0
11.54
0
7.89
0
3.64
NA
0.32
NA
0.569
1.54
4
−2.46
0.5
0.478
9.3
13.27
4.33
1.54
3.96
5.21
12.12
6.12
3.64
0
4.09
1.14
−1.79
−2.1
3.96
1.5
0.05
0.49
0.8
2.49
0.22
0.83
0.482
0.37
0.114
0
0
0
NA
NA
4.64
6.67
2.27
7.12
11.76
9.38
9.52
12
8.4
7.69
−4.74
−2.86
−9.73
−1.28
4.07
2.84
0.17
4.36
0.35
0.47
0.092
0.683
0.037
0.555
0.492
3.03
6.25
−3.22
1.27
0.26
28.85
7.69
28.57
2.63
0.27
5.06
0
1.07
0.974
0.301
0
0
0
NA
0.47
1.02
0
3.08
2.48
0
1.52
0
1.82
0
0.47
−0.49
0
1.26
2.48
0.45
0.08
NA
0.23
1.54
0.503
0.777
NA
0.629
0.215
0
0
0
NA
NA
1.55
0
0
3.43
4.71
0.78
0
0
1.6
12.82
0.77
0
0
1.83
−8.11
0.37
NA
NA
1.92
2.62
0.544
NA
NA
0.166
0.106
0.76
1.25
−0.49
0.13
0.719
19.23
13.46
6.35
15.79
12.88
−2.33
4.42
0.1
0.035
0.756
Low Income
High Income
6.6
3.53
4. Discussion
The growing demand for NFs recreational activities fuels the need to understand
attitudes towards valuing public recreational resources as well as the potential conflicts
with other crucial functions of the forests. This study mainly evaluated the outdoor recreational value of NFs in the Southeastern United States and assessed the visitors’ behaviors
and choices for evaluating recreationists’ ethnicity-based differences and exploring socioeconomic class in demand models. Our objective was to identify the primary drivers for
Land 2022, 11, 1301
23 of 25
visitors to NF lands in the southeastern region of the US. Although the drivers varied
with the forests, examining the main drivers for all respondents for pulled data and all
forests considered in this study revealed, based on the statistical results, that Individual
needs in relaxation was the main driver for participation in forest recreation (approximately
52% of the participants). The Personal needs in mental development were observed to be
the least important driver, with only 2% of respondents. Our findings are persistent with
other studies [12,24] that considered landscape services that satisfy humans’ fundamental needs, which are related to health, social well-being, personal self-perception, and
personal realization.
Our study also identified that the most significant difference between males and females is Personal needs in relaxation and rest. This driver had a significantly larger importance
for males in comparison with females. However, no significant differences between gender
groups for the second important driver, Personal needs in physical development, was observed
in this study. Similarly, the results obtained by Mäntymaa et al. [25] indicate that there is
enough evidence to consider that landscape values have a different importance for different
gender groups.
In a study, Brown [26] reported that the importance of landscape values in Kangaroo
Island, South Australia, differs between tourists and residents. Additionally, a significant
association has been found between respondents’ age and landscape values [14]. Our
study found that Personal needs in mental developments and Aesthetic needs were an important
driver for older visitors to visit NFs, while Personal needs in physical development were a
more important driver for younger visitors. On the contrary, some research indicated no
differences in the perception of values related to ecosystem services across age, gender,
and different professions [27]. Several studies also showed that recreational satisfaction
might positively impact future behavioral intentions, behaviors, and post-behaviors [28–30].
Lee [31] examined the ecotourism behavioral model of NFs recreation areas in Taiwan.
Garcia-Martin et al. [14] investigated landscape values across six sites in different European
countries and found that values related to outdoor recreation and aesthetics had a high
importance for visitors. Some results indicate that the most important motives to visit a
specific area in the case of nature-based tourism are clean surroundings and the landscape
environment in general. Our study also found that Personal needs in relaxation and rest were
the main driver to visit forests across 13 of the 15 investigated National Forests.
Based on these results, it is crucial to maintain, adjust, and expand existing or design
new opportunities for nature and forest recreation, especially in areas where such opportunities have been missing to date. Emphasis needs to be placed on protecting, enhancing,
and building new nature areas and forests with the potential to provide restorative effects,
thereby considering and building on central pathways that mediate the effects of nature
and forests on human health.
At the same time, the increase in NF visits as a coping tool to handle health and wellbeing issues would not incur substantial public healthcare costs, but it could contribute
significantly to enhanced public health. The findings from this paper imply that forest visits
may be used as an effective tool to alleviate well-being issues in the face of perceived health
risks. Therefore, a dialogue among forest owners, regulators, public health administrators,
policy-makers, health officials, and all stakeholders should be facilitated to ensure the
pursuit of a closer-to-nature, multiple-use-oriented land and forest management approach.
5. Conclusions
The growing demand for NFs recreational activities makes understanding the attitudes
towards valuing public recreational resources as well as the potential conflicts with other
functions of the forests crucial. Indeed, several studies have examined the actual usage
of NF areas and NF recreation. These studies consisted mainly of evaluating the outdoor
recreational value of NFs in the Southeastern United States and assessing the visitors’
behaviors and choices by evaluating recreationists’ ethnicity-based differences and exploring socioeconomic class in demand models. The research model scrutinized the possible
Land 2022, 11, 1301
24 of 25
associations of five drivers (Needs in relaxation and resting, Needs for communication, Individual
aesthetic needs, Personal mental development, and Needs in personal physical development) to
participate in outdoor activities and NF recreation. The statistical results revealed that
Individual needs in relaxation and rest is the main driver for participation in forest recreation
for the whole sample and pulled data (approximately 52% of the participants). It has also
been noted that the drivers vary with the forests. The Personal needs in mental development
was found to be the least important driver, reported by only 2% of respondents.
Some study limitations are required to be acknowledged. First, the study period
was limited to 2010–2014. A larger study period may make the results and findings more
accurate. By considering a larger study period, it may allow us to fix a reference event to
compare the results. The majority of the participants’ ethnicity was white, and this may
bias the analysis based on this criterion; including more ethnicity groups may impact the
results significantly. Also, missing data is problematic. Applying an imputation method
rather than excluding missing data may make the results more accurate. Another future
recommendation is to include season as a criterion to investigate its impact on the main
drivers of NFs visits and on outdoor activities. Indeed, analyzing the similarities and
differences across and within seasons can also provide interesting findings.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/land11081301/s1.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.R.G. and S.H.; Formal analysis, R.J.; Investigation, R.J.;
Resources, T.B.; Supervision, K.N. and C.S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: The study was funded, in part by the USDA-McIntire Stennis (ALAX-011-M3914) and the
Biological and Environmental Sciences Department, Alabama A&M University.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Knetsch, J. Outdoor Recreation Demands and Benefits. Land Econ. 1963, 39, 387–396. [CrossRef]
U.S. Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results National Summary Report. 2016. Available online: https:
//www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/pdf/5082016NationalSummaryReport062217.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2021).
Brabyn, L.; Brown, G. SIRC NZ 2013—GIS and Remote Sensing Research Conference University of Otago. In Proceedings of the
Using GIS to Survey Landscape Values, Dunedin, New Zealand, 29–30 August 2013.
Hammitt, W.E.; Cole, D.N.; Monz, C.A. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management; John and Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2015.
Leung, Y.F.; Marion, J.L. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: A state-of-knowledge review. In Proceedings of the
Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management, Missoula, MT,
USA, 23–27 May 1999.
Alberini, A.; Longo, A. Combining the travel cost and contingent behavior methods to value cultural heritage sites: Evidence
from Armenia. J. Cult. Econ. 2006, 30, 287–304. [CrossRef]
Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G. Capturing multiple values of ecosystem services shaped by environmental worldviews: A spatial analysis.
J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 374–384. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tyrväinen, L.; Mäntymaa, E.; Ovaskainen, V. Demand for Enhanced Forest Amenities in Private Lands: The Case of the
Ruka-Kuusamo Tourism Area, Finland. For. Policy Econom. 2014, 47, 4–13. [CrossRef]
García-Martín, M.; Bieling, C.; Fagerholm, N.; Gounaridis, D. The Landscape Values: Place and Praxis; Centre for Landscape Studies,
NUI Galway: Galway, Ireland, 2016; pp. 127–134.
Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; Freedom of the Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
Pirikiya, M.; Amirnejad, H.; Oladi, J.; Solout, K.A. Determining the recreational value of forest park by travel cost method and
defining its effective factors. J. For. Sci. 2016, 62, 399–406. [CrossRef]
Valles-Planells, M.; Galiana, F.; Van Eetvelde, V. A classification of landscape services to support local landscape planning. Ecol.
Soc. 2014, 19, 44. [CrossRef]
Land 2022, 11, 1301
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
25 of 25
Hoyos, D.; Mariel, P. Contingent Valuation: Past, Present and Future. Prague Econ. Pap. 2010, 4, 329–343. [CrossRef]
Garcia-Martin, M.; Fagerholm, N.; Bieling, C.; Gounaridis, D.; Kizos, T.; Printsmann, A.; Müller, M.; Lieskovský, J.; Plieninger, T.
Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European perspective. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 2133–2150. [CrossRef]
Marcus, C.C. Environmental Psychology and Human Well-Being; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [CrossRef]
Church, A.; Coles, T.; Fish, R. Tourism in sub-global assessments of ecosystem services. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 1529–1546.
[CrossRef]
Sniehotta, F.F.; Presseau, J.; Araújo-Soares, V. Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychol. Rev. 2014, 8, 1–7.
[CrossRef]
Clough, P. The Value of Ecosystem Services for Recreation. Ecosystem Services in New Zealand-Conditions and Trends; Manaaki Whenua
Press: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2013; pp. 330–342.
Schröter, M.; Van der Zanden, E.H.; Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E.; Remme, R.P.; Serna-Chavez, H.M.; de Groot, R.S.; Opdam, P.
Ecosystem services as a contested concept—A synthesis of critique and counterarguments. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 514–523.
[CrossRef]
Stålhammar, S.; Pedersen, E. Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26,
1–9. [CrossRef]
Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; Donovan, J.A. Toward a Value for Guided Rafting on Southern Rivers. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 1996, 28,
423–432. [CrossRef]
Derrick, B.; Toher, D.; White, P. Test statistics for comparing two proportions with partially overlapping samples. J. Appl. Quant.
Methods 2015, 10, 1–14.
Cho, S.-H.; Bowker, J.; English, D.B.; Roberts, R.K.; Kim, T. Effects of travel cost and participation in recreational activities on
national forest visits. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 40, 21–30. [CrossRef]
Ferguson, B.K. The Concept of Landscape Health. J. Environ. Manag. 1994, 40, 129–137. [CrossRef]
Mäntymaa, E.; Ovaskainen, V.; Juutinen, A.; Tyrväinen, L. Integrating nature-based tourism and forestry in private lands under
heterogeneous visitor preferences for forest attributes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018, 61, 724–746. [CrossRef]
Brown, G. Mapping Landscape Values and Development Preferences: A Method for Tourism and Residential Development
Planning. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2006, 8, 101–113. [CrossRef]
Fagerholm, N.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Raymond, C.M.; Torralba, M.; Moreno, G.; Plieninger, T. Assessing linkages between ecosystem
services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 74, 30–46.
[CrossRef]
Heung, V.C.S.; Qu, H. Hong Kong as a travel destination: An analysis of Japanese tourists’ satisfaction levels, and the likelihood
of them recommending Hong Kong to others. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2000, 9, 57–80. [CrossRef]
Lee, J.; Graefe, A.R.; Burns, R.C. Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioural intention among forest visitors. J. Travel Tour. Mark.
2004, 17, 73–83. [CrossRef]
Lin, J.H.; Chen, T.Y.; Liu, C.R. The influence of tourism image on tourist’s behavioural intention on Taiwan’s coastal scenic area:
Testing the mediating variable of tourists’ satisfaction. J. Outdoor Recreat. Study 2003, 16, 1–22.
Lee, T.H. An ecotourism behavioural model of national forest recreation areas in Taiwan. Int. For. Rev. 2007, 9, 771–785. [CrossRef]