In order to test the acceptability of hardwood bark chips as a surfacing material, 24 camping pads and four picnic pads were established at the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Carter-ville, Illinois. The picnic pads had originally been established with pea gravel on a level site. The tables were anchored in place to prevent their movement from the pads.

A questionnaire was used to measure user attitude toward hardwood bark chips on recreation areas, to determine the number of people in each group, and to estimate their intended length of stay. User opinions were recorded using a seven point scale ranging from a high of 'like very much' to a neutral, neither like or dislike, to a low of 'dislike very much.' The user was asked to indicate the choice of response that best matched his attitude toward the use of the bark chips. Immediately after recording the user's response, the user was asked to indicate why he liked or disliked the bark chips. The questionnaire also included space for data pertaining to the major use that the group was making of the pad and for other general comments. All questionnaires were completed by personal content.

The campers utilized the pads in many ways (Figure 2). Most campers used the pads for a place to pitch a tent or a place to put the picnic table. Other uses were as a place for lounge chairs, storage of boat trailers, parking area for the car, and as a place for the children to play. Obviously not everyone had the same concept as to the primary purpose of the bark chip pad.

Although a few users were reluctant to use the bark pad the first time they came in contact with it, most people readily accepted and made excellent use of the bark pads. The user with a camping trailer tended to use the bark pad less than those with other equipment. This was probably because most of their activities were either within the trailer or in an area away from the camping pad.

A total of 56 sample groups, representing 275 campers, were interviewed during the course of this study. The average group size was five people. This compares with 256 users that were sampled at the picnic area where the average group size was 13 people. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the sizes of groups at the camping and picnic areas.

Table 1. Size of user groups at the campground and picnic area.

Size of groups	Number of groups
	Campground	Picnic area
1 person	1	0
2 people	11	2
3-5 people	25	3
6-10 people	17	6
11 or more	2	10
total	56	20

Results of the opinion survey at the campground show that 63 percent of the people responded with the most favorable answer (Table 2). Twenty percent responded that they liked the bark chips 'moderately.' The remaining 17 percent responded that they liked bark chips to some extent or had no particular opinion to express. The significant fact presented by these figures was that 89 percent of the groups sampled liked hardwood bark chips for campground needs with only 11 percent expressing no opinion. There was not a single reply from a respondent camping group indicating a dislike of the bark medium. This indicates an overwhelming acceptance of hardwood bark chips as a new material for camping pads.

Results of the picnic area user survey showed that 79 percent of the users liked hardwood bark chips to some positive extent (Table 2).

Table 2. Frequency of responses received at the camp ground and picnic area for each of the seven opinion classes.

Opinion class	Frequency of responce
	Campground (percent)	Picnic area (percent)
1. Like very much	62.5	66.7
2. Like moderately	19.6	8.2
3. Like slightly	7.2	4.2
4. Neither like or dislike	10.7	12.5
5. Dislike slightly	0	4.2
6. Dislike moderately	0	4.2
7. Dislike very much	0	0

Illinios Parks and Recreation 5 November/December 1971

Only 8 percent of the users surveyed stated that they did not like the bark chips and 13 percent were neutral. These results generally parallel those determined at the campground, with a majority of the responses being favorable and a lesser percentage being either neutral or negative. This indicates that bark chips can be introduced into a picnic area with good acceptance by the user. The variation in responses between the two areas may be attributed to differences in the type of use the areas received. Personal interviewing results indicated that the longer the people used the area, the more they seemed to like the bark chips.

The opinions expressed by campers were mostly positive, although constructive criticism was requested. The most frequent response received was that the bark chips provide a soft, dry tent foundation. The second most frequent response received was that the bark chips were clean to use. These two responses indicate important factors affecting the users' selection of, or a preference for, a camping site. Another positive response was that the bark chips provide a designated tent site, which is important to the camper having limited experience in properly locating a tent on a site. Another frequent response was that the bark chips were aesthetically pleasing. Hardwood bark chips appeared to provide a pad that fulfilled some of the basic needs of campers. Very few negative responses were voiced by the users. Negative responses were: it sticks to their clothing, it is difficult to drive a tent stake into, it becomes lumpy, and it absorbs heat. None of these responses were received often enough to warrant any serious concern as to acceptability of this material for campground use. Table 3 lists the number of responses received for each opinion category.

Table 3. Reasons given for liking and disliking the use of bark chips at the campground.

Opinion category*	Number of responses
Like
1. Provides a soft, level, dry tent foundation	80
2. Clean	23
3. Provides a designated tent location	9
4. Aesthetically appealing	5
5. Others	7
Dislike
1. Sticks to clothing	3
2. Is difficult to drive stakes into	2
3. Becomes lumpy	1
4. Absorbs heat	1

*The opinion categories were developed to group the responses received from the users into categories of similar responses.

Most picnickers liked the bark material because they found this material to be clean. This is of special importance to a picnicker who has small children and spends only a short period of time at the picnic area. Other positive reasons given were that it reduced the insect problem, it provided a good foundation for the picnic table, and it was aesthetically pleasing.

The major reason given for not liking the bark chips was that it did not fit into the environment. This response is normal in that most people would prefer grass or some natural vegetation. Numerous users indicated that although they preferred natural vegetation, the hardwood bark chips were definitely an improvement over the stone previously being used. The number of responses received for each category are listed in Table 4.

Users' attitudes at the campground changed with the weather in that the acceptance of the bark pad was most obvious during or following rain. The bark kept the surface water and ground moisture away from the tent floor, an important factor to the tenting camper.

Table 4. Reasons given for liking and disliking the use of bark chips at the picnic area.

Opinion category*	Number of responses
Like
1. Clean	11
2. Reduces the insect problem	7
3. Provides a good foundation for the table	6
4. Aesthetically pleasing	3
5. Others	8
Dislike
1. Does not fit into environment	4
2. Grass is preferred	1
3. Increases insect problem	1

*The opinion categories were developed to group the responses received from the users into categories of similar responses.

The maintenance of a recreation area is important to the manager. Through observation and interviews with the maintenance personnel at both areas, it was found that there was no increase in the amount of maintenance that was required on the bark pad. This is important to the manager in that any increase in maintenance cost or manpower requirement would be a drawback in the material's use. The maintenance personnel at the campground reported that the bark created no problems in mowing or refuse removal. The bark remained in place better than had the gravel. They also noted that the campers had a tendency to refrain from throwing their refuse and beverage cans on these sites. This apparently resulted from the fact that their debris became more obvious when discarded on the bark pad and reflected directly upon the user.

Maintenance was discussed with the personnel in charge and it was concluded that the only immediate maintenance that would be required on these pads would be the removal of the leaf and twig litter each spring. This would entail using a broom rake to remove the litter to the side of each pad. The time required would be minimal.

From the information gathered in this pilot study, it appears that hardwood bark chips can be used in recreation areas with a high degree of user acceptance. It is believed that bark chips could also be applied to other types of recreational facilities not included in this study.

¹Clawson, Marion and Knetsch, Jack L. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. John Hopkins Press, pp. 117-141.

Paul L. Roth is Asst. Prof. of Forestry; Gerald D. Coorts is Assoc. Prof. in Plant Industries; and Roland L. Barkow is Research Asst. in Plant Industries, all at Southern Illinois University.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 6 November/December, 1971