Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1982 The Alaska Public Survey : a Comprehensive Assessment of Recreational Values and Use Patterns and Natural Resource Management Roger N. Clark, Darryll R. Johnson, and Donald R. Field This item is a reproduction of an article with the cover, page [2] of cover, title page, foreword, and table of contents. It is an extract (p. 115-119) from: Forest and River Recreation : Research Update : Selected Papers Presented in the Forests and Rivers Content Area at the Symposium on Leisure Research, Sponsored by the National Recreation and Park Association, October 25-27, 1981, Minneapolis, Minnesota. -- St. Paul, Minn. : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, [1982]. -- (Miscellaneous publication ; 18-1982). This article was used as supporting documentation in research by the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, and was assigned APA Document no. 1982 in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Index; also assigned no. 1101 (duplicate entry) 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ' 11111111111111111111111111111111 II 111111111 II IIII1I111 6~&oo~&OJ ~[ID&@©@ Susitna Joint VenturerDocumentNumber U /98d r Please Return To . :)QCUMENT CONTROL L-, 111111111111111111111111"11111111111111111111111111111 0"11111111111111111111"11111111111111111111111111111 i ,\t'- FO ST &R RECREATION: Research Update ;.",, ...... N£~s ..l;;;i.~·,« U1iscellaneous Publication 18 -1982 0 The Agric!lltural Experiment Station 0 University of Minnesota r [ r~ I .. [ [, [, [ [ [ [ [ c c [: [ [ t l [ The University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station paid for the production of this publication.As a miscellaneous publication. it is intended for a very limited audience.Initial distribution was made by the University of Minnesota Department of Forest Resources. Copies of this publication are available from the Department of Forest Resources.110 Green Hall.University of Minnesota.1530 North Cleveland Avenue.St.Paul.Minnesota 55108.until the original printing is exhausted. [ r rL~ [ [ [ [ c [ c o o c u c c [ L c FOREST AND RIVER RECREATION: RESEARCH UPDATE Selected papers presented in the Forests and Rivers Content Area at the Symposium on Leisure Research, sponsored by the National Recreation and Park Association, October 25-27,1981,Minneapolis,Minnesota. Technical Coordinator David W.Lime Project Leader,Recreation Research USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station 1992 Folwell Avenue St.Paul,Minnesota 55108 [ I [ [ [ c E [ u u c u [ [ L L b FOREWORD The symposium on Leisure Research was held October 25-27,in conjunction with the 1981 National Recreation and Park Association Congress for Recreation and Parks in Minneapolis,Minnesota.More than 300 scientists,educators,planners,and managers attended representing a variety of local,state,and federal organizations. The symposium was represented by about a dozen research content areas,including over 125 papers dealing with a spectrum of recreation issues.The 31 papers in this volume were presented in four General Sessions and one Poster Session under the content area Forest and Rivers.Some papers presented in these sessions are not included. The papers presented herein are arranged under·four themes or issues:(1)visitor satisfaction,(2)choosing activities and places, (3)human dimensions in fish and witdlife management,and (4)visitor management.These four themes served as the focus for a General Session and papers were presented orally followed by discussion.The Poster Session included presentations from each of the four themes. Consequently,these papers appear under the theme most representative of their content.Further,the session coordinators for each of the four sections have an introductory paper about the theme. David W.Lime,Project Leader for the River Recreation Management Research Project of the North Central Forest Experiment Station was the coordinator for the content area Forests and Rivers.Dennis B.Probst, Shepardstown College,West Virginia and David W.Lime coordinated the session on Visitor Satisfaction;Timothy Knopp,University of Minnesota, St.Paul,Minnesota and Earl C.Leatherberry,North Central Forest Experiment Station,St.Paul,Minnesota coordinated the session on Choosing Activities and Places.Dorothy H.Anderson,North Central Forest Experiment Station,St.Paul,Minnesota and Michael Manfredo, Oregon State University,Corvallis,Oregon coordinated the session on Human Dimensions in Fish and Wildlife Management.The fourth session, Visitor Management,was coordinated the John H.Schomaker,North Central Forest Experiment Station,St.Paul,Minnesota and Joseph Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute,Blacksburg,Virginia. We wish to ttank the National Recreation and Park Association for supporting our participation in the Symposium on Leisure Research. Special appreciation is extended to Chrystos D.Siderelis,North Carolina Univerfity,Raleigh,North Carolina,the overall Symposium Coordinator. The papers are printed here essentially as submitted by the authors except for so~e minor copy editing to insure uniformity of style.It should bf,noted,however,that all papers herein were subjected to considerablr.technical review by peers after their initial submission to the For/lsts and Rivers coordinators. '[ [ r [, [ CONTENTS ~a.t;I', VISITOR MANAGEMENT 7 t.:. 42 45 1('-, 26 13 49 Research Needs for Improved Recreation Visitor Management Joseph W.Roggenbuck and John H.Schomaker.• • • • • • • • ••.•••• Do River Floaters Perceive River Segments Differently?Should Managers? William J.McLaughlin,Edwin E.Krumpe,and W.E.J.Paradice ••••'. Management Preferences of Boaters and Landowners along the Upper De:lal13re Scenic and Recreational River Chad P.Dawson,Daniel J.Decker,and Robert A.Smolka ••• Management Techniques Preferred by Users and Landowners along a State River Leo McAvoy.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Temporal·Distribution of Forest Recreation:Problems and Potential Robert E.Manning.,Lawrence A.Powers,and Carl E.Hock ••••• Evaluation of an Off-road Vehicle Information and Education Program Phyllis Dorman and Joseph Fridgen • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Management Preferences of Recreationists in a Scenic Corridor: Oak Creek Canyon,Arizona Deborah J.Allen,B.L.Driver,and Richard Shikiar •••••••••••••••••1P, A New Recreation Inventory System to Aid Land l1anagement Decision-making: An Application at Lake Tahoe Kenneth C.Chilman and Glenn Hampton.• •.'.• • • • • • • • Conflict Perception and Visitor Support for Management Controls William E.Hammitt,Cary D.McDonald,and H.Ken Cordell •• Visitor Knowledge Affects Visitor Behavior Rachel D.Robertson • • • • • • • • • • • Prevention and Control of Depreciative Behavior in Recreation Areas: Managerial Concerns and Research Needs Diane M.Samdahl,Harriet H.Christensen,and Roger N.Clark ••••••••••••.52 HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT o c [ [ c [ [ [ c [ [ L Social Research in Fish and Wildlife Management Dorothy H.Anderson,Michael J.Manfredo,and Daniel J.Witter •••••• Assessing the Benefits of Special Fisheries Management Thomas Buchanan,Donald S.Warder,Mark A.Collins,and Glynn Phillips. Recreation Preferences of Oregon Trout Fishermen Michael J.Manfredo and Dorothy H.Anderson ••••••••••••••• Missouri Trout Park Anglers:Their Motives and Opinions of Management Daniel J.Witter,Pamela S.Haverland,LRwrence C.Belusz,and Charles E. Elk Hunter Consumer Satisfaction Patterns Jacob E.Hautaluoma,Perry J.Brown,and Nancy L.Battle. An.Economic Measure of Nonconsumptive Wildlife Values Merton T.Richards and David A.King ••••••••••• Predicting Alternative Resource Choices Jerry J.Vaske and Maureen P.Donnelly. Hicks 55 5Fl 64 69 7:.. 81 • •85 L [ [ [ [ rl-! [ •.120 •.100 •.115 CHOOSING ACTIVITIES AND PLACES 94 89 .105 .111 Choosing and Allocating Outdoor Recreation Opportunities:The Decision Process Timothy B.Knopp and Earl C.Leatherberry • • • • • • • • • • • A Model of Recreationists'Decisionmaking Process Edwin E.Krumpe and William J.McLaughlin ••• The Role of Information in Recreation Site Selection Daniel J.Stynes.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •,;• • Using Desired Recreation Experiences to Predict Setting Preferences Perry J.Brown and David M.Ross •••••••••••••••••••••••• Energy Conservation,Recreation Participation,and Ecologically Responsible Behavior Stewart Allen and Stephen F.McCool ••••-•••••••••••••••••••• The Alaska Public Survey--A Comprehensive Assessment of Recreational Values and Use Patterns and Natural Resource Management Roger N.Clark,Darryll R.Johnson,and Donald R.Field ••••••••_. The Influence of Place on Recreation Behavior:An Ecological Perspective Maureen H.McDonough.• • • •••ID • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • CONCEPTS OF SATISFACTION AND EXPECTATIONS [ [ [ [ [ .140 •.134 •.124 •.154 •.146 How Satisfying is Satisfaction Research?A Look at Where We Are Going Dennis B.Probs t and David W.Lime.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Assessing Recreational Satisfaction Among Divserse Participant Groups Robert B.Ditton,Anthony J.Fedler,and Alan R.Graefe Social Influences on Wild River Recreationists David Cockrell and William J.McLaughlin ••••••••• Effect of Encounters on Perceived Crowding and Satisfaction John Titre and Allan S.Mills • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Experience Level Affects Expectations for Recreation Participation Richard Schreyer.•••••••••••••••••••••••• Recreation Satisfaction:Visitor Evaluation of Forest Recreation Experiences as a Decisionmaking Process Char les C.lLarris • • • • • . • • • . • . • • • • • • • . . .0 • • • • • • • • •...160 ( c c [ u [ [ [ L c r [ r L~ [ [ THE ALASKA PUBLIC SURVEY--A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF RECREATIONAL VALUES AND USE PATTERNS AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Roger N.Clark.Research Social Scientist. Wildland Recreation Research. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Seattle.Washington. Darryll R.Johnson.Regional Sociologist. and Donald R.Field.Associate Director. Science and Technology. USDI National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle,Washington Background L.The extensiveness of ongoing decision -Qaking in Alaska and the need for information planning (outlined above)resulted in several ~Resource managers in all parts of the l~United States are facing mandates that often ~conflict.On the one hand.they must develop programs that insure a sustained flow of com- [ mOdities from a variety of increasingly scarce resources.On the other,they must insure that 'the programs they develop protect and enhance recreational.aesthetic,and lifestyle values. C,comprehensive information on recreational use ',patterns and aesthetic and lifestyle values is necessary to formulate and evaluate the con- sequences of alternative management programs. fj Information needs on social issues in Alaska are apparent to an even greater degree. Land exhanges under the Alaska Native Claims flSettlement Act (Public Law Number 92-203.1971) Land the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (Public Law Number 96-487. 0....".,...1980).have resu~ted in reallocation ~f millions jof acres of publl.c lands.Much of thl.s land (as [well as the rest of Alaska)is in a relatively . natural condition compared with other places in B,the United States.As this land changes JownershiP.new or modified resource management programs follow.resulting in a changing rela- tionship between people.social institutions. U·.fnd the environment.Perhaps long-range planning ~n Alaska more than elsewhere.can benefit from -comprehensive.coordinated,and standard information base for forecasting and monitoring lJJutcomes of alternative land use programs. The current changeable situation in Alaska makes the need for such baseline information a [~ligh priority.In this paper.we describe a recent response by agency and uni versi ty research personnel -to fulfill some of these needs. [THE ALASKA PUBLIC SURVEY independent research efforts.These were ini- tiated concurrently by the USDA Forest Service. USDI National Park Service,USDI Bureau of Land Management.and State of Alaska.A great deal of overlap was evident in the independent research interests.and these commonalities pointed to numerous possible benefits of cooperation. The first benefit was cost:Survey research extensive enough to provide reliable information is expensive,and recreation research funding was limited.Second.a combined approach results in a standard data base badly needed for the comprehensive planning efforts underway in Alaska.Third.a cooperative study could result in baseline data extensive enough to guide future interagency research,planning,and mana- gement (unique by national standards).Fourth, the joint study greatly reduced the potential impact on Alaska residents,because they were sampled once (with smaller total sample)rather than four or more times.Finally.the coopera- tive ef!ort examined the complete social system, cutting across artificial agency boundaries that. would have confined independent research efforts. To realize these benefits and accomplish a holistic understanding of relations between resources.recreation.and livelihood in Alaska, a comprehensive design was created that focused on two major users of these resource systems. The first component,the "Alaska Public Survey" (APS).provides a broad view of residents' interactions with resources in both work and leisure.The second component,the "Alaska Cruiseship Passenger Study."focused on recreational use by major non-resident clientele in southeast Alaska.Both components,though contrasting in methodology and content.provide complementary information that makes up a major overview of use of important resources in Alaska.The studies of Alaska residents and cruiseship passengers provide the basis for extensive analysis of recreation and related human values and natural resource management.c [ 115 [ [ rLJ [ [ L [' [ [ c c c c l [ c L L [ In the following description of methods and selected potential uses of the APS,we emphasize the sections of the survey relating to marine recreation. Objectives The objectives reflected the information needs of the participating agencies and guided the development of the survey: 1.Assess the extent and nature of recreational activity and travel patterns in the coastal marine recreation system in southeast and southcentral Alaska. 2.Determine how characteristics of different locations affect the nature and extent of use of sites,shown by the types of activi- ties and perceived attractions at each area. 3.Determine the availability of alternative locations for marine recreation and how clo- sely substitute sites provide the attractions of recreationists'favorite places. 4.Determine the extent of participation by regional residents in a variety of outdoor recreation activities--travel patterns, general'location or participation,use of locations administered by different agen- cies,unfulfilled desires of participants, and constraints on participation. 5.Determine the extent of subsistence hunting and fishing as it contributes to both live- lihood and recreational enjoyment. 6.Assess residents'motives for and satisfac- tions from living in Alaska. 7.Assess responses to National Forest policy issues and attitudes about various forest outputs. 8.Determine how socio-demographic background characteristics are related to attitudes about resources,lifestyle,and recreational activity. Methodology The Alaska Public Survey consists of 2,888 interviews with householders in the southeast, south-central and interior regions of Alaska from June through December of 1979.The interviews (comprised of three versions designed to allow many questions)were completed in about 1 hour. A multi-stage cluster sampling design was const~cted for each region to select households from which individuals over 18 were randomly chosen to interview.Prior to analysis the data were weighted,based on community sampling frac- tions,to accurately profile the communities and regions included in the survey.The sampling design and data collection were the primary responsibility of personnel at the Institute o~ Social and Economic Research,University of . Alaska. 116 Coding of data for keypunching (involving more than 1,000 variables and 25 cards of data per case)was completed by the University of Washington under supervision of employees of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit,College of Forest Resources.A rigid process'of review,designed to minimize coding errors,was used.Intensive computer editing of the data was completed before data analysis. Types of Data Collected Reflecting the objectives of the survey,two types of information were obtained in the APS. First,data that are typically sought in surveys (preferences,attitudes,activity patterns)were the main focus of the interview.It was orga- nized in the following sections:food gathering activities;salt-water related recreation activities;general (non-marine)recreation activities;state recreation programs and issues;National Forest use,programs,and issues;employment-related concerns;community perceptions;and background characteristics of respondents. Second,for the marine recreation portion of the survey,specific data related to sites were obtained.Each respondent was asked to indicate on a map actual places visited during the 12 months before the interview.Up to 6 overnight sites and 8 day sites were allowed. Further,respondents were asked to identify the sites they visited most often,as well as their favorite site.The location of these sites has been digitized,allowing analysis of geographi- cal data in relation to other things known about these places (e.g.,physical and biological attributes).For each site that respondents identified as their most often visited or favorite place,information was obtained iden- tifying activities engaged in,travel mode,and seasons in which the sites were visited.For favorite sites,the potential consequences of various resource management activities on con- tinued use were also examined. There are undoubtedly many places used by Alaska residents that were not mentioned.This situation is a particular concern in trying to judge the tmportance of areas for recreation where sites were not indicated.The fact that an area was not indicated or visited does not mean that it 1s not used or that it does not have important recreation qualities.Through the analysis we are conducting,attributes asso- ciated with favorite recreation sites and various activities will be identified.Then the areas throughout coastal Alaska can be examined to ascertain if they have these qualities.We believe the information about actual sites will be valuable in helping to better understand the relationships between recreation activities, b n 2.Use of public lands by residents isLJextensive.About a third of all respondents visited one or more National Parks in Alaska during the year preceding the survey,with use(J much higher in locations close to areas managed6bytheNationalParkService.For example,in Sitka 92 percent had visited Sitka National _.Historical Park.Most respondents (95 percent [ :in southeast Alaska,73 percent in -south-central)have visited a National Forest in Alaska at some time.While in the National fl....Forests,many types of areas have been used bydresidents: 19 77 56 67 69 44 54 70 55 34 35 Southeast South-central Alaska Alaska (Percent indicating less attractive) 6.A variety of iuf luences would make residents favorite sites less attractive: Clearcuts 80 New houses or buildings 80 New logging 77 Mine tailings 77 New roads 77 Log storage 76 More recreationists 73 Offshore drilling 72 Airplanes and helicopters 45 Shipping traffic 43 Commercial fishing boats and gear 22 Possible influences at favori te site 4.Coastal recreation is a major activity. Slightly less than half the respondents went on an overnight trip to coastal areas the preceding year.Given the relatively more intimate asso- ciation of southeastern communities with marine environments,it is not surprising that a higher proportion of those residents reportedly engage in marine activities (particularly on day trips) compared with residents in south-central Alaska. 5.The same types of activity patterns occur at place~people identify as their "favorite"and "most often visited"places. However,the reasons they give for .why a si te is favorite differ in subtle but important ways from reasons given for places visited most often.Although the whole range of possible reasons show up for both types of sites,reasons for favorite place are remoteness,and various land characteristics,such as beaches.Reasons given for most often visited place are distinguished by qualities of access,con- venience,facilities,and particular activities. Alaska,19 percent in south-central).To what extent subsistence activities are a part of resident recreation and vice versa is an issue for further analysis. Southeast South-cental Alaska Alaska (Percent) 76 42 74 49 63 27 43 12 41 12 S~LECTED RESULTS RELATED TO RECREATION site qualities,and other resource uses.Some of these data are briefly summarized in the next section. 1]Recreation areas used TrailsnPicnic sitesWHuntingand fishing areas Logging roads fornrecreation L~Public recreation ,J/cabins r L~Preliminary analysis of the data allows us to make _the following generalizations about some [ recreation activities and issues in southeast "and soutb-central Alaska.The conclusions we -,draw here are tentative and subject to revision. More intensive analysis is currently underway. ~1.Alaska is noted for its wilderness,-~abundant coastline (particularly in southeastern Alaska),and array of recreational attractions [. .and opportunities.It is not surprising that most people list these reasons for coming to -~Alaska.Living near water,being close to a wilderness environment,good hunting and [. fishing,and recreation opportunities were iden- tified by most residents as important reasons .,for their decision to live in Alaska. [ [ .•Differences between the two regions reflect,in -part,unequal access to the types of oppor- tunities~ntioned. But there are also people who do not perceive negative effects,and even some who believe that such changes would make their favorite sites more attractive. ~3.Use of flora and fauna for food is a LJmajor activity.About three-quarters of all respondents indicated they engaged in food- gathering activities of some kind,with fishing r'and berry picking the most popular.In light of ~subsistence versus recreation concerns,the results show that many people classified their ~favorite foodgathering activity as subsistence [j0r mostly subsistence (30 percent in southeast 6 7.Although many people indicate that their favorite sites would be less attractive with certain changes,a smaller percentage indicated they would stop going there if those things occurred.Just what the "threshold of disruption"has to be before people choose not to use a site cannot readily be determined.But for many people it seems that although they may lose the "icing on the cake"if changes occur, 117 [ [ r L~ [ [ [ [ L [ c c c c [ [ [ L [ [ they still will have the cake.Others would find the "cake without the icing"unpalatable. It is the latter group that will be lIDst . disenfranchised if appropriate substitutes are not readily available.Further analysis should provide guidance for managers about how to recognize such problems and plan for an equitable resolution in light of the diversity inherent in the use patterns and preferences of residents. These data and other data not mentioned here point out that planning for and choosing between various types of recreation oppor- tunities in Alaska is not an either/or situation.Although at the political level there has been a polarization of views about use of Alaska's resources (that is,preservation versus development),results from the APS indi- cate a desire for recreational diversity across a wide range of opportunities and settings,a situation little different from that found in the "lower 48"States (Clark and Stankey 1979). RELEVANCE OF FINDINGS FOR RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT Most of the information the APS provides is useful to federal and state agencies and to pri- vate land owners in Alaska Whose programs may affect recreation opportunities or other values related to lifestyle.The survey data allow comparison of different segments of the popula- tion and different geographic regions.As a baseline,assuming proper monitoring,these data will allow the determination of trends and the projection of possible shifts in recreation pat- terns,jobs,etc.,as the population in Alaska changes and as resource management programs are implemented.Some of the specific uses of the APS findings related to recreation are briefly described below. 1.The baseline data will allow resource managers to better determine possible consequen- ces of alternative management strategies and will allow researchers to link results of future studies to a comprehensive data base. Furthermore,because the APS was conducted near the 1980 census,future adjustment can be made to key variables in the survey in conjunction with census updates. 2.The APS data base allows resource mana- gers the opportunity to evaluate the possible effects of resource management and ownership changes on existing recreation sites and activi- ties.Planners and managers will be able to ascertain the consequences of changes on recreationists early in the planning process. 3.Managers of coastal recreation resour- ces can benefit from knowing Which types of locations receive greater or less recreational 118 use,which receive differing types of recreation activities,and which are particularly sensitive to various human-caused impacts.Important characteristics of sites an activities that are related to choices people make-about Where to recreate will be identified Geographical areas not included in the survey can then be examined to determine if they have any of these attribu- tes.Managers will then·be in a better position to determine locations tha might require special management consideration to protect important phys~cal,biological,or social qualities of concern to users. 4.The ability to ascertain place-specifi changes caused by resource management actions will allow managers to:predict changes in use patterns and user satisfaction as a result of management;identify reasonable substitutes if and when important sites and destroyed;plan fo a range of recreation opportunities (Clark and ~tankey 1979)to facilitate residents' recreati'on choices within reasonable distances from communities;and locate,schedule,and design timber harvest activities (as well as mining,oil development,etc.)with better knowledge of the consequences on recreation set- tings,activities,and users.The important "favorite"and "most often visited"sites may require special attention,and although effects of resource management on such places are not necessarily bad,having information available makes it possible to mitigate negative and maxi- mize positive effects of multiple use management programs. 5.Much of the information in the APS wil be useful in sensitiZing managers about recreation issues and areas of concern:facili- tating users'choices about Where to recreate to fulfill their needs;designing public involve- ment and information programs tha are sensitive to certain uses or issues of loca or regional populations;developing visitor profiles (Who are the clientele for specific areas?where do they come from and Why do they choose one place instead of another?);assessing the relative importance respondents place on foodgathering activities and Whether they perceive such use as recreation,subsistence,or a combination of both. 6.The survey results will be useful in planning and management of wilderness (or other special areas).Specifically,the place-specific nature of the study will allow managers to:assess eXisting uses and users just prior to designation of areas under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; ascertain attitudes toward various management issues from area users;determine likely consequences of.area designation and proposed actions both within and outside the area,and Whatever internal or external influences may [ We would like to encourage our research and C;management colleagues to contact us about areas ·of interest related to the survey.This data .exist or emerge that may affect use of an area. [. .For example,will plans result in displacing ~certain uses from one location to another? Clark,R.N.,and R.C.Lucas.1978.The forest ecosystem of sout~east Alaska.USDA For. Servo Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-66 ,116 p.Pacific Northwest For.and Range Exp.Stn.,Portland OR. Clark,R.N.,and G.H.Stankey.1979.The recreation opportunity spectrum:A framework for planning,management,and research.USDA For.Servo Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-98 ,32 p. Pacific Northwest For.·and Range Exp.Stn., Portland,OR. LITERATURE CITED base presents an opportunity to conduct com- parative analyses where other similar data sets are available.We will be happy to discuss possible studies. This report is based on:the study of resi- dents and resources in southeast,southcentral, and interior Alaska,A comprehensive interagency analysis of recreation quality of life,and related issues.Cooperating agencies are:USDA Forest Service,Alaska Region and Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; USDI Bureau of Land Management,Outer Continental Shelf Office:USDA National Park Service,Pacific Northwest Region and Cooperative Park Studies Unit,University of Washington;State of Alaska,Division of Parks; University of Alaska,Institute of Social and Economic Research;and University of Washington College of Forest Resources. REPORTS IN PROGRESSrL.Efforts continue to prepare a variety of reports on specific recreation issues and data [ from the-Alaska Public Survey--an examination of .the inte~relationship between outer continental .-shelf oil development and marine recreation;a detailed analysis of the relationship between [ 'marine recreation activities and timber manage- ment activities;an analysis of the variability "of marine recreation activities within com- munities,agency management areas,and specific [ '..geographic regions;a description of recreation activities along the Inside Passage,with spe- .~cial emphasis on how existing recreational uses may be affected by resource extraction activi- [ 'ties such as logging and mining;an analysis of .recreational use patterns in specific National .Uonuments or wilderness areas in southeast Alaska;a description of attributes of favoriterJrecreationsitesincoastalforestsofAlaskaUincludingavailabilityofsuitablesubstitutes; _and an assessment of site-specific upland and marine recreation activities for the ChugachnNationalForestandtheKenaiNationalMoosebRange. h.•.•~U c c [ [ [ [ L: c 119