urban interface recreation l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Urban Interface Recreation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Urban Interface Recreation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 66

Urban Interface Recreation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 241 Views
  • Uploaded on

Urban Interface Recreation Christine Vogt, Ph.D. Michigan State University September 20, 2006 Forest Service/Clemson Short Course Topics for FS Managers………. Growing population and more diverse Housing, land use, and WUI Recreation and tourism

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Urban Interface Recreation' - Audrey


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
urban interface recreation

Urban Interface Recreation

Christine Vogt, Ph.D.

Michigan State University

September 20, 2006

Forest Service/Clemson Short Course

topics for fs managers
Topics for FS Managers……….
  • Growing population and more diverse
    • Housing, land use, and WUI
    • Recreation and tourism
      • Midewin (IL) National Tallgrass Prairie (USDA FS)
      • Shiawassee (MI) Wildlife Refuge (USFW)
      • Hayward (WI) (Stewart et al.)
  • Impact exercise
  • Wildfire, Residents, and Recreation
    • San Bernardino, GMUG, Apalachicola NFs
    • Mark Twain NF
  • Issues, opportunities and problem solving
wildland urban interface
Wildland Urban Interface
  • Intermix + Interface = WUI
  • Intermix WUI are areas where housing and vegetation intermingle
  • Interface WUI are areas with housing in the vicinity of contiguous wildland vegetation.
compelling statistics on human effects urbanization of rural areas stewart radeloff and hammer
Compelling Statistics on Human Effects – urbanization of rural areas (Stewart, Radeloff and Hammer)
  • Almost 80% of US population lives in urban areas
  • Urban areas have tripled since 1950 - sprawl
  • Housing growth has outpaced population growth for decades
  • WUI is 9% of lower 48 states land resources
  • WUI is 38% of homes
  • 60% of all new housing units built in the US were in the WUI
    • Attraction of natural resources and recreation amenities
  • Between 1990 and 2000, housing density in the WUI has increased (more homes in existing WUI area)
  • In the same 10 years, counties with national forests experienced significantly more population growth than those counties without.
  • Bottom line---the Forest Service has more to manage
    • Fire fighters have more people and property to protect
    • Recreation staff has more uses and more types of recreation
urban areas with lots of wui
Urban Areas with lots of WUI
  • WUI is common on the edges of major metropolitan areas – particularly those growing in population and land use
    • Atlanta – intermix
    • San Diego and Los Angeles
    • Las Vegas and Reno
    • Phoenix and Tucson - interface
    • Denver - interface
    • Florida cities – Tallahassee, Jacksonville
  • WUI is also in rural areas with natural resources
urban connections research by the forest service summer 2000
Urban Connections Research by the Forest Service – Summer 2000
  • Selected Boston, Detroit and Mpls.
  • Goal: Understand urban stakeholder’s values, viewpoints, and recreation activities
  • Selected findings:
    • NFs are personally important (95%)
    • NFs should be protected and preserved (99%)
    • NFs should be used for recreation (96%)
    • Majority (54%) didn’t know which agency is responsible for managing national forests
  • Selected FS strategies:
    • Further emphasize the environmental message, the FS’s good stewardship, and forest/nature images
    • Promote the use of forests for families and people to recreate and relax
transportation and access to midewin
Transportation and Access to Midewin
  • What will be the primary modes of transportation used to arrive to MNTP?
    • Own vehicle (98% GP, 98% OI)
    • Organized group (13% GP, 20% OI)
    • Bike (1% GP, 5% OI)
  • Likelihood of using METRA if available? (% Definitely/Probably would use)
    • Moderate interest (40% GP, 30% OI)
transportation planning on site
Transportation Planning On-site
  • Likely use of internal transportation system (% Definitely/Probably would use)
    • On-site tram to gain access to different sites within MNTP (81% GP, 80% OI)
  • Other related info. (% Rating as Very or Extremely Important)
    • Attractions/facilities located within an hour’s drive from home (40% GP; 60% OI)
    • Attractions/facilities that are accessible via interstate highways (34% GP; 42% OI)
    • Attractions/facilities that are accessible via public transportation (22% GP; 19% OI)
recreation sites and activities probably or definitely would use
General Pop.

Visitor center (96%)

Paved trails (90%)

Unpaved trails (85%)

Picnic areas (85%)

Wildlife Viewing stations

Buffalo (94%)

Elk (93%)

Birds (84%)

Prairie plants (84%)

Butterflies (81%)

Outdoor Interest Group

Visitor center (99%)

Paved trails (88%)

Unpaved trails (97%)

Picnic areas (78%)

Wildlife Viewing stations

Buffalo (99%)

Elk (99%)

Birds (97%)

Prairie plants (99%)

Butterflies (95%)

Recreation Sites and Activities(% Probably or Definitely would use)
program content options very or extremely interested
General Pop.

Wildlife (35%)

Home gardening (29%)

Native American history (28%)

Overview of Nation’s forests/grasslands (27%)

Ornithology (17%)

Prairie restoration (17%)

Prairie ecology (16%)

Military history (15%)

Farmstead/agricultural history (14%)

Outdoor Interest Group

Wildlife (82%)

Ornithology (64%)

Prairie ecology (63%)

Prairie restoration (62%)

Overview of Nation’s forests/grasslands (56%)

Native American history (53%)

Home gardening (51%)

Farmstead/agricultural history (25%)

Military history (19%)

Program content options (% Very or Extremely Interested)
fishing
Fishing
  • Over half the general population (55%) showed interest in fishing areas
  • About one-third of the outdoor interest group (35%) showed interest in fishing areas
guided interpretative tours very or extremely interested
General Population

Self-guided tours (40%)

Roving naturalist/ranger (35%)

Nature walks/tours (34%)

Evening programs (24%)

Programs at visitor center (24%)

AV programs in Visitor Center (20%)

Audio-cassette guided tours (17%)

Outdoor Interest Group

Self-guided tours (77%)

Nature walks/tours (72%)

Roving naturalist/ranger (60%)

Programs at visitor center (52%)

AV programs in Visitor Center (39%)

Evening programs (36%)

Audio-cassette guided tours (33%)

Guided interpretative tours (% Very or Extremely Interested)
great lakes discovery center concept
“Great Lakes Discovery Center” concept
  • Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge – expansion
  • Friends of the refuge
  • Great Lakes Fisheries Trust
  • Bridgeport DDA and local township government
  • Planning groups comprised of:
    • Engineer/architects
    • Business planning
    • Marketing research
purpose of the study
Purpose of the Study
  • The study’s purpose was to assist in shaping the facilities and offer market research for the proposed Great Lakes Discovery Center allowing for the design of an attraction that meets the travel interests of various household types.
slide24

Great Lakes Discovery Center

  • Location along the route I-75 and Dixie Highway
  • Proximity to Frankenmuth and Outlet at Birch Run
  • (Within 8 mile radius of tourist destinations attracting between 2.0 – 2.5 million visitors)
slide25

Detroit Zoo:

Wild Adventure Simulator

A concept of the nature edutainment center

Sports

Culture

Nature

Technology

top activities participated in the great lakes region
Top Activities Participated in the Great Lakes region
  • Driving for pleasure or sightseeing 81%
  • Walking or hiking for pleasure 78%
  • Going to a museum or heritage site 59%
  • Going to a zoo 56%
  • Picnicking 55%
most important outdoor recreation experiences features
Most important outdoor recreation experiences/features
  • Enjoying fresh air 89%
  • Attractions/facilities that are in safe, secure environments 87%
  • Attractions/facilities that have comfort facilities such as clean restrooms and water fountains 85%
  • Attractions/facilities that are clean and well-maintained 85%
  • Attractions/facilities available at reasonable fees and prices 84%
slide28

Family Lifecycle Segments

Existence of

a child/

Age of the

youngest child

Age of

respondents

Group size

(N=520)

G1

Adolescence

16 - 22

No Child

6

1%

G2

Early Adulthood

23 - 39

No Child

39

8%

G3

Middle Adulthood

40 - 59

No Child

125

24%

G4

Full Nest I

19 - 49

1 - 4

39

8%

G5

Full Nest II

23 - 59

5 - 13

89

17%

G6

Full Nest III

29 - 59

14 and older

75

14%

G7

Late Adulthood

60 and older

No Child

147

28%

slide29

Virtual Reality and Outdoor Recreation Preferences: Overall Mean Scores

3.62

Trails for hiking

3.30

Simulated hang-gliding tours

3.60

Paved trails

3.28

3D movie with glasses

3.51

Nature or interpretive trails

3.26

Demonstration habitat trails

3.46

Unpaved wood-chipped trails

3.21

3D animated narrator

with movie

3.40

Unpaved dirt-surface trails

3.21

Interactive 3D

3.38

4D presentation,

moving entertainment

3.20

Canoe trail on the Cass River

3.38

Simulated SCUBA diving tours

3.18

Trails for biking

3.31

Interactive educational

exhibits/kiosks

3.05

3D movie without glasses

Mean scale equals 1 = definitely would not use, and 5 = definitely would use.

slide30

Outdoor Recreation Facility Preferences by Family Lifecycle

G1

A.

G2

E.A.

G3

M.A.

G4

F.N.I

G5

F.N.II

G6

F.N.III

G7

L.A.

Trails for hiking

(F=5.8, p=.000***)

3.5

4.3

3.6

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.2

Significant group difference: G2 > G3; G2, 4, 5 > G7

Paved trails

(F=3.6, p=.002**)

3.5

4.1

3.5

3.9

3.7

3.8

3.3

Significant group difference: G2 > G7

Nature or

interpretive trails

(F=4.3, p=.000***)

3.7

4.0

3.5

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.1

Significant group difference: G2, 5 > G7

Unpaved

wood-chipped trails

(F=4.4, p=.000***)

3.8

4.2

3.3

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.2

Significant group difference: G2 > G3, 7

* p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001.

Red color indicates the highest mean score on the five-point scale with “5” equaling definitely would use.

slide31

Outdoor Recreation Facility Preferences by Family Lifecycle

G1

A.

G2

E.A.

G3

M.A.

G4

F.N.I

G5

F.N.II

G6

F.N.III

G7

L.A.

Unpaved

dirt-surface trails

(F=7.3, p=.000***)

3.7

4.2

3.3

3.7

3.6

3.4

3.0

Significant group difference: G2 > G3, 5, 6, 7; G2, 4, 5 > G7

Demonstration

habitat trails

(F=4.1, p=.001**)

3.0

3.8

3.3

3.2

3.4

3.4

2.9

Significant group difference: G2, 5 > G7

Canoe trail

on the Cass River

(F=7.9, p=.000***)

3.5

4.1

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.4

2.7

Significant group difference: G2 > G3, 7; G2, 5, 6 > G7

Trails for biking

(F=7.7, p=.000***)

3.3

3.9

3.1

3.5

3.5

3.3

2.6

Significant group difference: G2 > G3; G2, 3, 4, 5, 6 > G7

* p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001.

Red color indicates the highest mean score on the five-point scale with “5” equaling definitely would use.

slide32

Virtual Reality Preferences by Family Lifecycle

G1

A.

G2

E.A.

G3

M.A.

G4

F.N.I

G5

F.N.II

G6

F.N.III

G7

L.A.

4D presentation,

moving

Entertainment

(F=4.3, p=.000***)

2.7

3.7

3.3

3.7

3.6

3.6

3.0

Significant group difference: G2, 5, 6 > G7

Simulated SCUBA

diving tours

(F=6.2, p=.000***)

3.0

3.9

3.3

3.7

3.7

3.6

2.9

Significant group difference: G2, 4, 5, 6 > G7

Interactive educational

exhibits/kiosks

(F=3.4, p=.003**)

2.7

3.5

3.3

3.4

3.6

3.4

3.0

Significant group difference: G5 > G7

Simulated

hang-gliding tours

(F=7.0, p=.000***)

2.7

3.8

3.2

3.5

3.7

3.6

2.8

Significant group difference: G2, 5, 6 > G7

* p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001.

Red color indicates the highest mean score on the five-point scale with “5” equaling definitely would use.

slide33

Virtual Reality Preferences by Family Lifecycle

G1

A.

G2

E.A.

G3

M.A.

G4

F.N.I

G5

F.N.II

G6

F.N.III

G7

L.A.

3D movie with glasses

(F=3.1, p=.006**)

2.8

3.5

3.2

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.0

Significant group difference: G5 > G7

3D animated narrator

with movie

(F=3.5, p=.002**)

2.3

3.4

3.1

3.5

3.5

3.3

2.9

Significant group difference: G5 > G7

Interactive 3D

(F=4.0, p=.001**)

2.5

3.4

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.4

2.9

Significant group difference: G5 > G7

3D Movie

without glasses

(F=2.7, p=.013*)

2.5

3.2

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.1

2.8

Significant group difference: G5 > G7

* p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001.

Red color indicates the highest mean score on the five-point scale with “5” equaling definitely would use.

study of wui in hayward wi chequamegon nicolet nf

Study of WUI in Hayward, WIChequamegon-Nicolet NF

Susan I. Stewart, Daniel R. Williams,

Alan M. Watson, and Susan R. Van Patten

Funding for this research was provided by USDA Forest Service North Central Research Station and Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, and by University of Illinois.

slide35

Life Experience

Rural

Mixed

Urban

  • Current residence
  • Previous residences
  • Childhood home
  • Leisure and vacation experiences
slide36

A Life Course Framework of Multiple Residence

Child Young Adult Adult Young-Old Older-Old

Attend University

Second home

Visiting relatives

Return migration

Commuter marriage

RV full-timers

Telework

Family second home

Snowbirds, sunbirds

Temporary job

Visiting kids, grandkids

Divorced, geographically separated parents

Itinerant work

Distance commuting

Favorite vacation destination

Knowing places over the life course through family, work, and leisure

Adapted by S. Stewart from McHugh, Hogan, and Happel, 1995

slide37

Residence in the Hayward Lakes Study

  • Current residence (status)
    • Permanent or seasonal resident of Hayward Lakes area?
  • Previous/childhood residences (history)
    • Where have you lived most of your life?
residential history and status

Residential History

Residential Status

Permanent

Seasonal

Rural

151

47

Urban

102

152

Residential History and Status

Hayward Lakes Area Study Sample

residence group characteristics

Permanent

Rural

Permanent

Urban

Seasonal

Rural

Seasonal

Urban

Age

53

60

54

57

Community

Tenure (yrs)

30

12

13

14

Pct. Female

46%

35%

40%

31%

Residence Group Characteristics
slide40

Attitude Measures

Permanent Rural

Permanent Urban

Seasonal Rural

Seasonal Urban

Less timber harvest on private forests

4.12

4.14

3.85

4.06

Protect endangered species

4.15

4.26

4.20

4.30

Stock more fish for sportfishing

3.79

4.02

4.20

3.76

More controls on tourism development

3.70

3.68

3.80

3.68

Protect critical plant & animal habitat

3.84

3.99

4.09

4.03

More NF trails

2.64

2.73

2.65

2.82

There should be a user fee on NF’s

2.87

2.82

2.89

2.95

Restrict second home development

3.48

3.34

2.70

3.02

Game fish should be protected

3.03

2.88

2.85

2.84

Regulate water quality

4.20

4.28

4.15

4.27

Polluters should pay for clean-up

4.09

4.29

3.89

4.14

Less timber harvest on national forests

4.05

3.93

4.05

4.08

More public land for wilderness

3.21

3.90

3.22

3.72

Fewer roads into national forests

3.87

3.75

3.85

3.68

Less timber harvest on county forest

3.96

3.93

3.83

3.92

Attitudes Toward Land Management by Residence (means)

Shading indicates ANOVA found significant differences. Scaled 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree

slide41

Recreation Participation by Residence Status and History

Activities with similar participation levels

Permanent Rural

Seasonal

Rural

Permanent

Urban

Seasonal

Urban

Chi-

Square

percent

significance

Driving for pleasure

71

60

69

68

.594

Birding

57

71

57

69

.061

Golfing

36

47

41

49

.123

Canoeing/ kayaking

29

29

43

31

.070

Picnicking

52

51

41

38

.055

Snowmobiling

22

31

28

21

.451

Mountain biking

19

11

16

25

.121

Downhill skiing

9

9

10

12

.837

Jet skiing

5

11

2

6

.125

Tennis

7

11

8

7

.809

Backpacking

3

0

1

5

.136

slide42

Recreation Participation by Residence Status and History

Activities with different participation levels

Permanent Rural

Seasonal

Rural

Permanent

Urban

Seasonal

Urban

Chi-

Square

percent

significance

Fishing

68

93

65

62

.001

Gardening

73

31

79

48

.000

Camping

31

20

16

9

.000

ATV

16

22

7

8

.009

Cross-country skiing

23

16

27

34

.044

Hiking

35

31

31

47

.046

Hunting

50

38

40

22

.000

Ice fishing

47

18

22

12

.000

Motor boating

59

82

71

85

.000

Photography

50

53

40

62

.007

Water skiing

17

31

11

28

.002

Sailing

5

7

6

19

.000

slide43

Reasons for Moving

Urban

Rural

F –stat.

Signif.

means

Inexpensive property

2.42

1.81

11.35

.001

Retirement

3.56

2.24

31.321

.000

Outdoor recreation

3.83

3.22

8.534

.004

Cleaner environment

4.16

3.26

20.760

.000

Job opportunities

2.22

2.95

9.184

.003

Avoid problems of city

3.86

2.82

23.944

.000

More relaxed lifestyle

4.11

3.16

21.142

.000

Closer to nature

4.0

3.06

20.810

.000

Closer to family, friends

2.25

2.53

1.384

.241

Permanent residents’ reasons for moving to Hayward Lakes, by residence history

Reasons were rated on 5-pt scale where 1=Not important to 5=Extremely important.

slide44

Permanent Rural

Seasonal Rural

Permanent Urban

Seasonal Urban

means

Neighborhood

7.08

7.33

6.85

7.34

Hayward Lakes

6.50

6.89

6.55

6.70

Northwoods

7.04

6.84

6.93

6.94

Place Attachment by Residence Group

Means represent the number out of 8 possible attachment statements respondents marked “true”.

slide45

A Changing Landscape in the Wildland-Urban Interface: Seasonal and Permanent Residents, Recreation, and Fuel Management

Stan Cindrity and Dr. Christine A. Vogt

Department of Park, Recreation, & Tourism Resources

Michigan State University

study purpose
Study Purpose
  • Understanding human dimension of fire and fuels reduction
  • Understanding the demographic shift to forested areas
  • Increased forest populations/residents, more recreation usage of natural resources
  • Retirees looking for places to live, recreate and be close to nature

adsfa

statement of problem
Statement of Problem
  • Understand differences and similarities between seasonal and permanent residents on topics related to forest use and fire management in several geographic areas
    • Understanding the home buying decision process
    • Recreation usage and activities
    • Attitudes toward fuel treatment programs
study overview
Study Overview
  • Funded

-USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA

  • Study sites

-San Bernardino National Forest, CA

-Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG), CO

-Apalachicola National Forest, FL

  • National list of communities at risk

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

analysis of residency type
Analysis of Residency Type

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

analysis of residency type54
Analysis of Residency Type

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

analysis of residency type55
Analysis of Residency Type

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

recreation frequency
Recreation Frequency

94%

74%

67%

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

recreation frequency57
Recreation Frequency

92%

81%

83%

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

primary recreation activities
Primary Recreation Activities
  • California Interface Sites
    • Snow Activities
    • Hiking/Walking
    • ATV
  • Colorado Interface Areas
    • ATV
    • Snow Activities
    • Hiking/Walking
  • Florida Interface Areas
    • ATV, Pleasure Riding/Touring
    • Hiking/Walking
    • Hunting

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

community views of fuels management are national forest local recreation users more supportive

Community views of fuels management: Are national forest local recreation users more supportive?

Christine Vogt, Michigan State Univ.

Greg Winter, Cornerstone Strategies

Sarah McCaffrey, USDA FS, NC Research Station

slide60

MO study site – Mark Twain National Forest

  • Hardwood forests
  • Many permanent homes
  • Federal forest, private lands
  • Moderately frequent Rx fireand wildfire
  • Mechanical thinning in response to 2002 blowdown
slide61

MO study site – Mark Twain National Forest

  • Focus group
    • 3 sessions in different communities in WUI
    • Total of 21 participants
    • Mix of residents and community leaders
  • “What do you like about living in the forest?”
    • Access to recreation – hiking, hunting, fishing, ATV. Mostly

for free.

    • Recreation, seclusion and natural aspects of forest
  • Fuel management summary points from focus groups
    • Prescribed burning and mechanical fuel reduction have a

place in forest management. Unmanaged areas pose a threat to private landowners and their homes.

    • Participants supported timber sales and revenue that is

returned to local area. Wasting good wood products is a bad idea. Prescribed burns ok, too, best in the winter for forest to recover.

slide62

Do you or others in your household use the Mark Twain National Forest for recreation?

Reasons for not recreating included: lacked time, too old/retired, health reasons, areas closed for recreation/roads, use private lands, too many rules/restrictions, uninterested in forest-based recreation

acceptability model prescribed burning with economic dependency and recreation
Acceptability model, prescribed burning – with economic dependency and recreation

Personal importance of prescribed burning

B = .32, .34, .41,.27

Agency trust:

prescribed

burning

B = .45, .23, .11, .28

Impacts scenery

B = -.02, -.08, .02, -.02

More smoke now, less later

B = .10, .07, .01, .02

Prescribed

burning

attitude

Reduces cost of fire fighting

B = .08, .17, .20,.25

B = .45,.67, .70, .63

Restores wildlands

B = .27, .05, .09, .09

Prescribed burning

approval

R2 = .57, .51, .37, .47

Improves wildlife conditions

B =.06, .14, .00, .13

R2 = .59, .64, .53, .65

Econ dep. B=-.03, ns

Recreation use B=.00, ns

Allows uncontrolled fires

B = -.09,-.21,-.17,-.26

Wastes timber

B =-.06

Note:

Beta coefficient (B) in the order MO, CA, FL, MI

Boldface type = statistically significant p≤.05

Harms wildlife

B = -.05

Severe smoke

B = -.07

slide64

Acceptability model, mechanical fuel reduction– with economic

dependency and recreation

Personal importance of mechanical trtmt.

B = .48, .49, .48,.42

Agency trust:

Mechanical

trtmt.

B = .48, .17, .28, .32

Impacts scenery

B = -.06, -.12, .-.09, -.11

Extracts wood products

B = .17, .07, .01, .01

Mechanical

Trtmt. attitude

Reduces cost of fire fighting

B = .02, .16, .23,.21

B = .39,.58, .57, .51

R2 = .50, .41, .37, .33

Restores wildlands

B =- .02, .03, .00, .09

Mechanical trtmt.

approval

Improves wildlife conditions

B =.21, .02, .00, .00

R2 = .51, .42, .48, .46

Econ dep. B=-.04, ns

Recreation use B=.10, p<.01

Creates jobs

B =-.02

Wastes tax dollars

B = -.04

Harms forests

B = -.13

Note:

Beta coefficient (B) in the order MO, CA, FL, MI

Boldface type= statistically significant p≤.05

issues opportunities and problem solving
Issues, opportunities and problem solving
  • Issues/Threats
    • Unmanaged recreation use on the forests
    • Pressure to maintain existing managed areas with opening unmanaged areas or new acquisitions
    • Budgets (pressure from wildfire) and fees
    • Development – conflict between homeowners and users
    • Next generation---how will they use and support NFs
  • Opportunities
    • Collaborations with local, nonprofit, state and federal
    • User groups/Friends groups
    • Volunteers and stewardship programs
    • Programs and other public involvement which build trust
slide66
Christine Vogt, Michigan State University
  • Post this presentation to
    • www.fire-saft.net