A Comparison of On-site Hunters, Sportsmen and the General Public about Recreational Rates and Future Land Use Preferences for the Savannah River Site

Management of ecosystems has been improved both by our understanding of how ecosystems function, as well as by what people consider to be suitable future land uses. This is particularly true with contaminated lands where decisions must be made about clean-up and future land use. In this paper I synthesize several surveys of public recreational rates and preferences for future land use of the Savannah River Site (SRS), a Department of Energy (DoE) facility located in South Carolina. Four groups of people were interviewed: on-site hunters; sportsmen; local residents attending an event near Aiken, South Carolina; and the general public attending a festival in Columbia, South Carolina. The general public that engaged in recreational activities averaged 20 days/ year or more for hunting and fishing, while sportsmen averaged over 50 days/year. All four groups rated maintaining SRS as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP) and using it for recreation as the highest preferred land uses. The general public rated hiking and camping higher than hunting and fishing, while sportsmen rated hunting higher than hiking and camping. All groups rated using SRS for homes as the lowest, or second lowest, preferred land use. There was disagreement on the ratings for industrial development, with people living closer to the site rating it higher than the general South Carolina population. These data can be used by local planners and managers in decision making regarding clean-up levels and future land use. The relative unanimity of views for cleaning up DoE sites, continued use of the site as a NERP and increased recreational use suggests that different groups of people share similar preferences for future use of SRS, and provides a useful paradigm for considering future land use decisions at other DoE sites nationwide. The relatively low ranking for housing and factories suggests that clean-up levels could be geared to future land use, such as recreation, which are less stringent than residential levels.