Rapid Appraisal of User Stakeholders for Forest Recreation Area Planning: The Little Molas Case


Public forest recreation area planning is often confronted by conflicting stakeholder views of what actions are most appropriate for improving outdoor recreation areas. Contemporary users of an outdoor recreation area are often inadequately represented in these planning decisions, due to the high cost and time required for user surveys that have traditionally been used to represent these stakeholders. A case example of the application of an alternative research method termed rapid appraisal (RA) is described. Data collected using rapid appraisal was used to help resolve disagreements on future planning and development options for the Little Molas Recreation Area (LMRA). The entire RA process was completed in one month’s time, with results which provided a reliable stakeholder supplement to working group recommendations to the Forest Service for their proposed LMRA redevelopment plan.

Share and Cite:

Titre, J. , Mills CF, A. & Mallaney, M. (2012). Rapid Appraisal of User Stakeholders for Forest Recreation Area Planning: The Little Molas Case. Open Journal of Forestry, 2, 167-173. doi: 10.4236/ojf.2012.23020.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Beebe, J. (1995). Basic concepts and techniques of rapid appraisal. Human Organization, 54, 42-51.
[2] Belshaw, D. (1981). A theoretical framework for data-economizing appraisal procedures, with applications to rural development planning. Bulletin, 2, 12-22.
[3] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1989). Community forestry: Rapid appraisal of tree and land tenure. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[4] Carruthers, I., & R. Chambers (1981). Rapid appraisal for rural development. Agricultural Administration, 8, 407-422. doi:10.1016/0309-586X(81)90036-4
[5] Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22, 953-969. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4
[6] Costello, P. J. M. (2003). Action research. London: Continuum.
[7] Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[8] Jason, L. (2004). Participatory community research: Theories and methods in action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10726-000
[9] Kumar, K. (1993). Rapid appraisal methods. Washington DC: World Bank.
[10] National Research Counsel (NRC) (1986). The special problem of cumulative effects. Ecological knowledge and problem solving: Concepts are case studies. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
[11] Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2004). An Interpretive paradigm for collecting and analyzing data: Principles, methods, and case examples. Unpublished Report, 12-49.
[12] Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[13] USDA Forest Service (2003). Model of a forest plan. Volume 1, November 2003. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA.
[14] USDA Forest Service (2003). Building a forest plan. Volume 2, November 2003. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA.
[15] USDA Forest Service (2003). The adaptive planning process. Volume 3, March 2003. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA.
[16] Utarini, A. et al. (2001). Appraising studies in health using Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP): Eleven critical criteria. Human Organization, 60, 390-400.
[17] van Willigen, J. (2002). Applied anthropology an introduction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
[18] van Willigen, J., & Finan, T. L. (Eds.) (1991). Soundings: Rapid and reliable research methods for practicing anthropologists. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
[19] Wilkins, L., Swatman, P., & Castelman, T. (2004). Faster, Richer, better: Rapid appraisal techniques for the study of IS implementation in virtual communities. The Qualitative Report, 9, 161-175.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.