United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-79-

volume 2

September 2001

Linking Wilderness Research and Management

Volume 2— Defining, Managing,

and Monitoring Wilderness

Visitor Experiences:

An Annotated Reading List
Abstract

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your

mailing information in label form through one of the following media.

Please specify the publication title and series number.

 Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-13396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Your comments needed...This is the second volume in the Linking Wilderness Research and

Management series, designed to help readers access scientific information relevant to protecting and

restoring wilderness and wilderness values. If you have feedback about what you found useful or what

could be improved in this volume's contect, organization or layout, please email your comments to

RMRS_Leopold_Institute@fs.fed.us and write "series comments" in the subject line. Or send your

comments via mail to Research Application Program, Leopold Institute, PO Box 8089, Missoula, MT

59807. I am also interested in who you are as a reader, including your job title, and the purposes for which

you found this volume useful. Thank you for your time.

–Vita Wright, Series Editor

Cover photo—Denali Wilderness, Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Photo by David Schirokauer.

Series logo by Suzanne Lingle.

The following volumes in Linking Wilderness Research and Management series will be published in 2001. To order, check the box below, fill in

the adress form, and send to the mailing address listed below. Or send your order and your address in mailing label form to one of the other

listed media. Your order(s) will be filled as the volumes are published.

❏ RMRS-GTR-79-vol. 1. Wilderness Fire Restoration and Management: An Annotated Reading List.

❏ RMRS-GTR-79-vol. 2. Defining, Managing, and Monitoring Wilderness Visitor Experiences: An Annotated Reading List.

❏ RMRS-GTR-79-vol. 3. Recreation Fees in Wilderness and Other Public Lands: An Annotated Reading List.

❏ RMRS-GTR-79-vol. 4. Understanding and Managing Invasive Plants in Wilderness: An Annotated Reading List.

Send to: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Name and Address

Glaspell, Brian; Puttkammer, Annette. 2001. Linking wilderness research and management—volume 2. Defining, managing, and monitoring

wilderness visitor experiences: an annotated reading list. (Wright, Vita, series ed.) Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-79-VOL 2. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 29 p.

Opportunities for unique visitor experiences are among the defining attributes of wilderness. In order to understand and protect these

experiences, natural and social scientists have pursued an ever-expanding program of wildland recreation research. While much of the early

research sought to identify simple relationships between setting attributes and visitor experiences, recent research efforts have expanded to

address the values people hold for wilderness (including nonrecreation values), a variety of types and dimensions of wilderness experiences, and

factors that influence those experiences. Whereas early wilderness stewards had few resources other than instinct and personal experience to

guide them, managers today have access to a significant body of literature related to defining, managing, and monitoring wilderness experiences.

This reading list represents a sample of this information that is organized in a way that is intended to be useful to both managers and researchers.

Section I contains both philosophical and empirical papers that address values related to wilderness and wilderness experiences. Section II contains

papers that describe wilderness experiences and specific dimensions of those experiences. Section III has references that describe influences on

wilderness experiences and approaches to managing them. Section IV addresses long-term wilderness planning and monitoring.

Keywords: wilderness, wilderness experience, recreation, visitor management
Linking Wilderness Research and Management

Volume 2—Defining, Managing, and

Monitoring Wilderness Visitor

Experiences:

An Annotated Reading List

Series Editor

Vita Wright

Research Application Program Director

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

Rocky Mountain Research Station

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Missoula, MT 59801

Authors

Brian Glaspell

Social Science Research Assistant

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Missoula, MT 59801

Annette Puttkammer

Research Associate

University of Montana Foundation

Missoula, MT 59807

(formerly with the Aldo Leopold

Wilderness Research Institute)

USDA Forest Service

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-79-vol. 2. September 2001

Preface

Federal land management agencies have recognized the importance of incorporating

the best available scientific knowledge into management decisions. However, both

managers and researchers have struggled to identify effective processes for accomplishing

this objective. The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute’s Research Application

Program works toward understanding barriers to the use of science in management and

toward developing ways to make relevant scientific information more accessible. Managers

can base their decisions on the best available scientific knowledge only if they are aware

of current and relevant science as well as how it fits into their management goals.

The Linking Wilderness Research and Management series of annotated reading

lists was developed to help land managers and others access scientific information

relevant to protecting and restoring wilderness and similarly managed lands, as well as

the myriad of values associated with such lands. References in these reading lists have

been categorized to draw attention to the relevance of each publication, and then

organized to provide a logical framework for addressing the issue. Each volume begins

with references necessary to understand the overall issue, and then provides references

useful for identifying management goals, understanding influences on those goals, and

finally, for selecting and implementing management approaches. For example, the

Wilderness Visitor Experiences volume begins with sections on wilderness values and

how to measure/describe wilderness visitor experiences, then includes sections on

influences to experiences, visitor satisfaction, and management techniques, and finishes

by addressing planning, planning frameworks, indicators and standards, and monitoring.

Within each section, articles have been annotated to clarify their relevance to that section

and to highlight their importance for wilderness management.

These reading lists were designed to serve a wide audience. First, each list

introduces generalists to the breadth of factors that should be considered when

addressing a management issue. These volumes also enable specialists to maintain

familiarity with research relevant to their discipline but outside their area of expertise. For

instance, the Invasive Plants volume may be useful to a botanist who specializes in

protecting rare species but is not familiar with the invasive plant literature. For those

generally familiar with the concepts, this series facilitates access to literature that can add

depth to their conceptual knowledge. Rather than produce comprehensive bibliographies,

which may be unwieldy for those with limited time, the authors included overviews, the

most current examples of literature addressing pertinent concepts, and frequently cited

classic publications. These lists can provide a starting point for readers interested in more

detail on specific subjects to conduct their own literature reviews.

To facilitate access to these lists and enable us to update them, the lists are also

available through the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute’s Web site (http://

www.wilderness.net/leopold). The Leopold Institute is a Federal interagency research

institute that focuses on ecological and social science research needed to sustain

wilderness ecosystems and wilderness values. I hope this series will help sustain

wilderness, similarly managed lands, and associated values by enabling managers,

policymakers, educators, user groups, and others to access the best available science

on the topics covered.

 —Vita Wright, Series Editor

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Alan Watson, David Cole, Dan Williams, and Linda Merigliano for

their review comments on this reading list. We appreciate Dave Ausband’s and Alison

Perkins’ help with proofreading, and thank the interagency Aldo Leopold Wilderness

Research Institute, the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station’s

Identification and Valuation of Wildland Resource Benefits Unit, and the interagency

Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center for their sponsorship of this project.

iii

Contents

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

SCOPE................................................................................................................................................1

ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................................................1

ANNOTATED READING LIST ............................................................................................. 3

I. WILDERNESS VALUES ................................................................................................... 5

II. MEASURING AND DESCRIBING WILDERNESS EXPERIENCES ................................ 9

 A. The Nature of Wilderness Recreation Experiences .....................................................................9

 B. Solitude and Privacy ...................................................................................................................10

 C. Spiritual Experience Dimensions................................................................................................12

 D. Wilderness for Personal Growth, Therapy, and Education .........................................................13

III. MANAGING WILDLERNESS VISITOR EXPERIENCES .............................................. 15

 A. Influences on Visitor Experiences ..............................................................................................15

 1. Biophysical Resource Impacts ................................................................................................15

 2. Density and Crowding .............................................................................................................17

 3. Technology ..............................................................................................................................19

 B. Visitor Satisfaction ......................................................................................................................19

 C. Visitor Management Techniques.................................................................................................20

IV. WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLANNING ................................................................ 23

 A. Overview.....................................................................................................................................23

 B. Planning Frameworks .................................................................................................................23

 1. Carrying Capacity ...................................................................................................................24

 2. Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) ........................................................................................24

 3. Visitor Impact Management (VIM) ..........................................................................................24

 4. Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) .............................................................25

 C. Identifying Indicators and Setting Standards..............................................................................25

 D. Monitoring Visitor Experiences ...................................................................................................27

AUTHOR INDEX ................................................................................................................ 29

v

USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 1

The 1964 Wilderness Act calls for “...an enduring resource

of wilderness...for the use and enjoyment of the American

people” and lists among the attributes of wilderness “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined

type of recreation.” These statements confirm experiential

opportunities as one of the primary purposes of wilderness.

Furthermore, by signing the act into law, Congress declared

that wilderness experiences are so important they are worthy

of protection by national legislation. Wilderness experiences

have been credited with everything from personal psychological benefits to formation of the national character. Heavy or

growing use levels at many wilderness areas are proof that the

public increasingly values the opportunity to experience wilderness firsthand.

In response to the fear that increasing use would threaten

the experiential qualities of wilderness and wildlands, researchers with training in sociology, psychology, and anthropology

began a focused program of outdoor recreation research in

the 1960s. Although the initial focus was on determining objective visitor “carrying capacities” for protected areas, scientists soon found that the relationship between use numbers

and wilderness visitor experiences is extremely complex. This

research expanded to address the values that people hold for

wilderness (including nonrecreation values), the types and

dimensions of wilderness experiences, and factors that influence those experiences. Simultaneously, managers and scientists worked together to develop techniques and long-term

planning frameworks to ensure that quality wilderness experiences continue to be available.

Whereas early wilderness stewards had few resources other

than instinct and personal experience to guide them, managers today have access to a significant body of literature related to defining, managing, and monitoring wilderness

experiences. In fact, the volume of available information can

be confusing or even overwhelming. This reading list gathers

together and organizes a representative sample of this information in a way that we hope will be useful to both managers

and researchers.

SCOPE

This reading list provides an overview of the literature related to defining, managing, and monitoring wilderness visitor experiences. The list should be helpful to managers or

researchers new to the topic, and also those seeking knowledge about specific aspects of wilderness experiences and management. Rather than developing an exhaustive bibliography

of all of information available on this topic, we chose to focus

on the scientific literature that we determined to be most useful for managers. We cited publications that provide an introduction to important topics, with the idea that those interested

in pursuing a topic further will find the referenced works helpful for directing them toward additional resources.

The reading list emphasizes recent literature because Federal land management agencies require the “best available

science” to meet legislative and policy mandates, and the best

available science is often synthesized in recent papers. We attempted to include only works that were subject to some form

of scientific review, and we generally omitted papers that were

highly technical or jargon-filled in favor of others that seemed

more accessible to a general audience.

Although not comprehensive, the sources cited here represent a significant portion of the topics addressed by the wilderness experience literature. Wilderness user conflict is one

exception. Although conflict is a significant issue in wilderness use management and planning, the breadth and volume

of information on conflict warrants more space than is available here. Readers interested in conflict can watch for a future

volume devoted entirely to this topic.

ORGANIZATION

This reading list is divided into four major, numbered sections. For the reader with a limited wilderness background,

the numbered sections represent a progression from broad

values associated with wilderness to specific management and

planning approaches. Readers with more experience might go

directly to the section in which they are interested. Section I

contains both philosophical and empirical papers that address

values related to wilderness and wilderness experiences. Section II contains papers that describe wilderness experiences

and specific dimensions of those experiences. Section III has

references that describe various influences on wilderness experiences, and approaches to managing them. Section IV addresses long-term wilderness planning and monitoring.

Each major section is further divided into minor sections,

and in some cases, subsections, within which the articles are

alphabetized by author’s last name. Each of these minor sections is prefaced by a paragraph introducing and summarizing the literature included within the section and highlighting

key papers. Articles have been annotated to highlight their

relevance to the section in which they occur, as well as their

overall importance to wilderness management. To avoid duplication, annotations for papers relating to multiple topics

are included in the section we judged most relevant. However

such papers are cross-referenced in the other relevant sections

as well.

INTRODUCTION
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 3

ANNOTATED READING LIST
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 5

Wilderness management is both influenced by, and influential on, the range of values associated with wilderness. The

authors in this section discuss the significance of wilderness

values (McCloskey 1990; Myers and Close 1998; Williams

2000;Williams and others 1992a), measure their importance

for various user and non-user groups (Haas and others 1986;

Loomis and Walsh 1992; Manning and Valliere 1996; Parker

and Koesler 1998; Trainor and Norgaard 1999), and consider

value changes and forces of change amongst wilderness visitors and society in general (Roggenbuck 1990; Watson and

Landres 1999; Watson and others 1996; Williams 2000).

Haas, Glenn E.; Hermann, Eric; Walsh, Richard. 1986. Wilderness values. Natural Areas Journal. 6(2): 37-43.

Annotation: This paper investigated the degree to which

people value wilderness for reasons other than the recreational

opportunities it provides. A sample of 529 wilderness visitors

and nonvisitors, drawn from 1980 Colorado telephone directories, received a mailed questionnaire in which they were

asked to rate the importance of 13 different wilderness values

derived from the 1964 Wilderness Act. A total of two-hundred

eighteen respondents ranked the 13 values of wilderness listed

in the questionnaire as follows: (1) protecting water quality,

(2) protecting wildlife habitat, (3) protecting air quality, (4)

knowing that future generations will have wilderness areas,

(5) knowing that in the future you have the option to go there

if you choose, (6) providing recreation opportunities, (7) protecting rare and endangered species, (8) providing scenic

beauty, (9) preserving unique plant and animal ecosystems,

(10) conserving natural areas for educational and scientific

study, (11) knowing wilderness areas exist, (12) providing

spiritual inspiration, (13) providing income for tourist industry. The top three most important values were the same for

both wilderness visitors and nonvisitors. The authors concluded

that wilderness is valued for many reasons other than recreation, and that a singular focus on recreational values leads to

underestimation of overall wilderness value.

Loomis, John; Walsh, Richard. 1992. Future economic values of wilderness. In: Payne, Claire; Bowker, J. M.; Reed,

Patrick C., comps. The economic values of wilderness: proceedings of the conference; 1991 May 8–11; Jackson, WY.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-78. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station: 81–90.

Annotation: Onsite recreation use of wilderness accounts for

less than 50 percent of the total economic value of wilderness. This paper discusses three kinds of value that wilderness

preservation holds for offsite or future visitors: option value,

existence value, and bequest value. These three values are pure

public goods; everyone can consume them without diminishing the resource. In addition, these values of wilderness are

expected to increase over time as the supply of natural areas

decreases.

Manning, Robert; Valliere, William A. 1996. Environmental values, environmental ethics, and wilderness management—an empirical study. International Journal of Wilderness.

2(2): 27–32.

Annotation: This study described in this paper was designed

to explore the environmental values and ethics of wilderness

visitors in Vermont. A mailed questionnaire asked respondents

to rank 11 values of wilderness and also asked questions to

assess their underlying environmental ethics and specific attitudes toward wilderness management actions. The top three

most important wilderness values among respondents were:

(1) aesthetic (wilderness as a place to enjoy the beauty of nature); (2) education (wilderness as a place to learn how things

are connected ecologically); and (3) recreation (wilderness as

a place to enjoy outdoor recreation activities). Respondents

tended to subscribe to environmental ethics based on stewardship, utilitarian conservation, and radical environmentalism.

Respondents who attached more importance to educational,

therapeutic, and moral/ethical values of wilderness tended to

have more purist attitudes toward wilderness management. (In

this study, purism was defined as the degree to which respondents supported management actions in line with the spirit of

the 1964 Wilderness Act). The authors concluded that the diversity of wilderness values held by visitors may make future

wilderness management conflict inevitable. However, they also

noted that, since many ethics and values are biocentric and

dependent on maintaining ecological integrity, managers

I. WILDERNESS VALUES
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

should give more attention to nonrecreation values and ecological protection.

McCloskey, Michael. 1990. Evolving perspectives on wilderness values: putting wilderness values in order. In: Reed,

Patrick C., comp. Preparing to manage wilderness in the 21st

century: proceedings of the conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE66. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 13–18.

Annotation: This paper addresses the basic questions: Why

do people want wilderness? And, what are they seeking to

find there? The author describes a taxonomy of wilderness

values along a continuum from concrete to abstract. A use is

described as the most concrete kind of value; it is a way that

individuals or groups utilize wilderness to gain satisfactions.

A benefit is slightly more abstract; it is described as an advantage enjoyed by society collectively. A value is the most abstract concept; it is a reason, rooted in philosophy and culture,

for wanting wilderness. Values, or reasons for wanting wilderness, are grouped into two broad categories: biocentric and

anthropocentric. Benefits are described as tangible or intangible. Uses are the most well-developed classification. Categories of uses include: introspective experiences, science and

research, wildlife habitat, education and outdoor learning,

personal development, enjoyment, subsistence, and economic.

Myers, Connie G.; Close, Liz. 1998. Wilderness values and

ethics. In: Kulhavy, David L.; Legg, Michael H., eds. Wilderness and natural areas in eastern North America: research,

management and planning. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F.

Austin State University, Arthur Temple College of Forestry,

Center for Applied Studies: 291–295.

Annotation: Understanding the range of wilderness values is

critical for effective wilderness management. This paper was

developed by staff at the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness

Training Center to help managers understand the values underlying wilderness legislation, modern support for wilderness preservation, and wilderness management decisions. The

authors’discussion of values is broken down by value type:

personal and organizational. A series of questions relating to

various wilderness management issues is presented for managers to evaluate their personal values. Organizational values

present in the mission statements of the various wilderness

management agencies and in public laws such as the 1964

Wilderness Act are discussed. The authors describe a value

triangle based on the resource, law and policy (organizational

values), and the need to serve people (personal/social values).

They suggest that wilderness managers try to locate their decisions within the triangle.

Parker, Julia Dawn; Koesler, Rena. 1998. Urban populations as an impact on wilderness: a study of values in the

Los Angeles Basin. In: Kulhavy, David L.; Legg, Michael H.,

eds. Wilderness and natural areas in Eastern North America:

research, management and planning. Nacogdoches, TX:

Stephen F. Austin State University, Arthur Temple College of

Forestry, Center for Applied Studies: 245–249.

Annotation: This research was designed to assess the wilderness values of urban residents in Los Angeles, CA. Analysis

of preliminary data from a mail survey revealed a great deal

of support for wilderness from an ethnically and economically diverse respondent population. Among other items,

respondents strongly agreed that wilderness contributes to the

quality of the United States and that some areas of the United

States should be set aside to prevent development by people.

Respondents strongly disagreed with the statement, “There is

very little value in undeveloped land.”

Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1990. American wilderness: a resource of multiple and evolving values. Proceedings: 18th

annual hardwood symposium of the Hardwood Research

Council; 1990 May 6–9; Cashiers, NC. Memphis, TN: Hardwood Research Council: 77–85.

Annotation: Wilderness values as articulated by American

philosophers, writers, poets, and statesman have evolved over

time. This paper traces the evolution of those values against

the backdrop of changing American culture. Early American

wilderness values were based on the existence of a frontier.

They included independent thought, freedom, primitivism, and

simplicity. Later, transcendental philosophers emphasized inspiration and spiritualism, then others emphasized nationalism, utilitarian values, virile sport, humility, and mental health.

The values evident in the 1964 Wilderness Act represent a

political compromise and a snapshot in time. Values have continued to develop and evolve through passage of the act and

into the present. The author suggests that in the future important wilderness values will include spiritual values, preservation of natural ecosystems, land stewardship, and connections

with the world wilderness community.

Trainor, Sarah Fleisher; Norgaard, Richard B. 1999. Recreation fees in the context of wilderness values. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration. 17(3): 100–115.

Annotation: This study investigated the relationship between

statements of willingness to pay fees for wilderness use and

descriptions of spiritual and intrinsic wilderness values. Data

were collected via standardized, semistructured interviews with

100 day or overnight Desolation Wilderness users in July 1997.

Sixty-nine percent of respondents acknowledged spiritual and

intrinsic values of wilderness. Some visitors described going

to wilderness as similar to going to church. They also described

the intrinsic value of wilderness as a place not controlled or

built by people. While respondents generally supported wilderness use fees, they did not feel that their willingness to pay

was an adequate expression of the values they held for wilderness. The results suggest that economic and noneconomic

values of wilderness may be incommensurable.

Watson, Alan; Landres, Peter. 1999. Changing wilderness

values. In: Cordell, H. Ken, principal investigator. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and

supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 384–388.

Annotation: Current research suggests that wilderness values are constantly changing along with general social trends.

The major values emphasized by the early wilderness advocates were: experiential values; mental and moral restoration

values; and scientific values. Since passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, changing culture, technological advances, environmental changes, and diversification of the national economy

have altered attitudes toward wilderness. Specific influences

on wilderness values since 1964 have included awareness of

wilderness impacts caused by recreation, media coverage of

the beneficial role of ecological processes, scientific understanding, and development of natural areas. The authors of
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 7

this paper present a model for understanding the role of values and value changes in wilderness management. General

social trends lead to specific values and beliefs that are ultimately realized in the form of wilderness legislation, policy,

and management actions. The benefits derived from wilderness protection are values in their own right, and these influence general social trends to create a constantly changing circle

of values.

Watson, Alan E.; Hendee, John C.; Zaglauer, Hans P. 1996.

Human values and codes of behavior: changes in Oregon’s

Eagle Cap Wilderness visitors and their attitudes. Natural

Areas Journal. 16(2): 89–93.

Annotation: This study compared characteristics of visitors

to Oregon’s Eagle Cap Wilderness in 1965 and 1993. Some

visitor characteristics changed in ways that suggest the values

visitors held for wilderness had also changed. Specifically,

visitors in 1993 were better educated, more likely to belong to

conservation or outdoor organizations, and more supportive

of efforts to protect the wilderness character of the area. In

addition, they were more restrictive in the behaviors they considered appropriate in wilderness. Among other items, visitors in 1993 were more supportive of letting fires and insect

outbreaks run their course and more likely to disagree that

campfires and burying trash were acceptable behaviors. These

responses are evidence of a deep commitment to the wilderness resource and a purist attitude toward wilderness behaviors. The authors suggest that social change in the region including

in-migration, national focus on the region’s natural resources,

and a growing urban population, as well as educational efforts

contributed to the changes between 1965 and 1993.

Williams, Daniel R. 2000. Personal and social meanings of

wilderness: constructing and contesting places in a global

village. In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C.,

comps. 2000. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: sixth world wilderness congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II; 1998 October

24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station: 77–82.

Annotation: This paper examines the process of socially constructing meanings and values for wilderness. Social construction refers to social, cultural, and political processes by which

groups of people create shared meanings and understandings

of a place. The notion that wilderness meanings and values

are socially produced suggests that they are anchored in history and culture, rather than objective, visible properties of

nature. Meanings and values for wilderness are cultural expressions used to define who we are. Wilderness values are

linked to personal, cultural, national, and even biological identities. The author argues that globalization and modernization

are problematic for wilderness because they destabilize meanings and values. Globalization brings different cultures and

their values into contact, and modernization makes rapid

change possible. Values are increasingly subject to contest and

power relations. Therefore, it is important to examine not only

the values that people hold, but where the values come from,

how they vary from place to place, how they are negotiated in

society, how they are used in conflict situations, and how they

influence policy decisions. The author reminds environmental scientists, managers, and planners that their work is itself

an effort that seeks, creates, contests, and negotiates the meaning of nature and wilderness.

Williams, Daniel R.; Patterson, Michael E.; Roggenbuck,

Joseph W.; Watson, Alan E. 1992a. Beyond the commodity

metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment

to place. Leisure Sciences. 14: 29–46.

Annotation: This paper addresses the importance of understanding emotional and symbolic values and ties to settings in

relation to managing user conflicts and public involvement in

planning. The authors describe the dominant approach to

managing wilderness and other recreation settings in terms of

a commodity metaphor—an engineering-like emphasis on

manipulation of tangible natural resource properties to meet

the needs of recreational users. This approach treats wilderness settings as means rather than ends and fails to capture the

emotional and symbolic values that visitors often hold for

wilderness places. A study was conducted to evaluate the degrees of place attachment (ties to a specific geographical location) and wilderness attachment (ties to places identified as

wilderness or to the concept of wilderness itself) among visitors at three wilderness areas in the Southeastern United States

and one wilderness in Montana. Results indicated that many

visitors did indeed have strong feelings of place and/or wilderness attachment. The authors argue that place attachment

is an important concept for managers and planners. The place

perspective reminds them that visitors associate a range of

intangible values with specific wilderness places, which helps

explain why people often care so passionately about the management of a particular resource.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 9

A. The Nature of Wilderness Recreation

Experiences

A major goal of wilderness experience research has been

to describe the dimensions and dynamics that make wilderness experiences unique. The authors in this section employ a

variety of different methods in their attempts to better understand visitor experiences. Borrie and Roggenbuck (1996) and

Scherl (1990) asked visitors to record elements of their experiences as they happened. Patterson and others (1998) conducted interviews with visitors immediately following their

experiences, and Dawson and others (1998a) conducted interviews with wilderness user focus groups. Shafer and Hammitt

(1995) used mail-back questionnaires to test their conceptual

model of visitor experiences. Each of these approaches to investigating wilderness experiences provides useful insights for

managers.

Borrie, William T.; Birzell, Robert M. 2001. Approaches

to measuring quality of the wilderness experience. In:

Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N., comps. 2001. Visitor use

density experience: proceedings; 2000 June 1–3; Missoula, MT:

Proc. RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 29–38.

Annotation: This is a synthesis paper that summarizes the

various methods used to describe and measure the nature and

quality of wilderness visitor experiences. The authors identify four general approaches to measuring recreation experiences including satisfaction-based, benefits-based,

experience-based, and meaning-based approaches. Satisfaction- and benefits-based approaches have traditionally dominated in the research literature. However, the authors argue

that while these approaches are useful for evaluating management performance, they offer little insight into the nature of

the wilderness experience itself. Experience-based approaches,

on the other hand, focus on individual psychological processes

during recreation participation. Meaning-based approaches

attempt to understand the nature of wilderness experiences

within the broad context of participants’ lives. The authors

conclude that meanings-based approaches are particularly well

suited to capturing the unique elements of wilderness

experiences, but they emphasize that meanings-based research

cannot provide prescriptive directions for managers.

Borrie, William T.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1996. Describing the wilderness experience at Juniper Prairie Wilderness using experience sampling methods. In: Kulhavy, David

L.; Legg, Michael H., eds. Wilderness and natural areas in

Eastern North America: research, management and planning.

Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, Arthur

Temple College of Forestry, Center for Applied Studies: 165–

172.

Annotation: This paper describes the use of a unique research

method—the Experience Sampling Method (ESM)—to investigate wilderness visitor experiences as they happened in the

Juniper Prairie Wilderness in Florida. The ESM involves asking visitors to carry electronic beepers that signal

preprogrammed random points of time at which subjects fill

out brief questionnaires. A total of 137 individuals completed

280 questionnaires during the study period in July 1994. Questionnaires were designed to reveal respondents’ focus of attention, activity participation, and general preferences, and

how these items changed over the course of respondents’ trips.

This approach allowed visitors to rate elements of their experiences as they happened, rather than asking them for a single

judgment of the entire trip in a post-hoc questionnaire. Results revealed differences between visitors’ experiences and

evaluations of conditions during high- and low-use periods.

The authors conclude that the ESM is a useful tool for understanding visitor experiences and eventually developing indicators of wilderness conditions. However, they express some

concern over the use of electronic beepers in wilderness.

Dawson, Chad P.; Newman, Peter; Watson, Alan. 1998a.

Cognitive dimensions of recreational user experiences in

wilderness: an exploratory study in Adirondack Wilderness areas. In: Vogelson, Hans G., comp./ed. Proceedings of

the 1997 Northeastern recreation research symposium; 1997

April 6–9; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-241.

Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 257–260.

Annotation: Solitude or privacy have often been treated as

the most important dimensions of wilderness experiences. The

II. MEASURING AND DESCRIBING

WILDERNESS EXPERIENCES
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

most common indicators used to measure solitude have been

based on number of users or user encounters in a given wilderness. This approach has been attractive to managers because it suggests straightforward measurement (just count the

number of users) and straightforward management techniques

(regulate user numbers to limit encounters). However, there is

increasing evidence that solitude is only one of many important dimensions of the wilderness experience. This paper describes an exploratory study to identify the multiple dimensions

of wilderness visitor experiences. Four focus group interviews

were conducted with wilderness user groups in the Adirondack

area. A list of positive and potentially negative experience dimensions was compiled from the interviews. Positive dimensions included solitude, but also psychological, social, spiritual,

exploration, inspirational, physiological, skills, and natural environment dimensions. Potentially negative dimensions included user and management impacts and user encounters.

Patterson, Michael E.; Watson, Alan E.; Williams, Daniel

R.; Roggenbuck, Joseph R. 1998. An hermeneutic approach

to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal

of Leisure Research. 30(4): 423–452.

Annotation: This paper is an example of the meanings-based

approach to studying wilderness experiences. The authors

describe their philosophical research framework as an “hermeneutic approach” that begins with the premise that wilderness

recreation is an emergent experience motivated by the broad

goal of acquiring stories that enrich one’s life (this differs from

the traditional research approach that assumes wilderness visitors are motivated to achieve specific, well-defined goals).

Also, it assumes that “the nature of human experience is best

characterized by situated freedom in which the environment

sets boundaries that constrain the nature of the experience,

but within those boundaries recreationists are free to experience the world in unique and variable ways.” This research

differed from many other studies because, rather than testing

a model of experience or measuring predetermined wilderness experience dimensions, it asked visitors to describe their

experiences in open-ended interviews. A total of 30 posttrip

interviews were conducted with visitors to the Juniper Prairie

Wilderness in Florida. Four coherent dimensions of the visitors’ experiences were identified: challenge, closeness to nature, decisions not faced in everyday life, and stories of nature.

The authors found that some visitors’ experiences fit traditional goal-oriented models but others clearly did not. Also,

they found that time spent reflecting on the just-completed

trip was an important phase of the experience for many study

participants. Thus, conditions at the nonwilderness canoe landing where Juniper Prairie visitors completed their trips had a

greater impact on the nature and quality of their experiences

than use levels inside the wilderness.

Scherl, Lea M. 1990. The wilderness experience: a psychological evaluation of its components and dynamics. In:

Easley, A. T.; Passineau, Joseph F.; Driver, B. L., comps. The

use of wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and education. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-193. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station: 11–22.

Annotation: This paper presents a proposed taxonomy of wilderness experience dimensions based on research conducted

in the context of an Australian Outward Bound program. Data

were collected from logbooks in which program participants

recorded their impressions and feelings over the course of their

wilderness trips. The contents of the logbooks were summarized and analyzed to develop a list of wilderness experience

domains and domain attributes. The eight domains were identified as: emotional state, self, social setting, physical environment, physical state, effort, descriptive, and general

thoughts. The two experience domains that dominated study

participants’ writings were self and social settings. Contents

of the logbooks were also summarized for each day of the trip

in order to describe the dynamic process of a wilderness experience. Self and social setting were dominant domains

throughout the experience, and physical environment only

became important as participants prepared for their solo days.

The author points out that the wilderness program was effective at providing opportunities for self-evaluation, understanding, and reflection. However, group size and interaction

hindered participants’ awareness of the physical environment.

Shafer, C. Scott; Hammitt, William E. 1995. Congruency

among experience dimensions, condition indicators, and coping behaviors in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 17: 263–279.

Annotation: This paper explores the wilderness experience

in terms of five descriptors provided in the 1964 Wilderness

Act: natural, solitude, primitive, unconfined, and remote. The

authors propose that these descriptors exist as broad experience dimensions, specific resource conditions, and behaviors

that visitors use to cope with or control resource conditions.

The authors propose a conceptual model in which the experiential dimensions are treated as goals that relate to visitor perceptions of wilderness conditions and lead to behaviors. The

basic question addressed in this study is, to what extent do the

five wilderness descriptors, in the form of visitor’s experiential goals, extend to perceptions of conditions and ultimately

to coping behaviors? For instance, to what extent does a

visitor’s focus on solitude influence that visitor’s perceptions

and behaviors? The authors conducted a survey of visitors to

the Cohutta and Okefenokee Wilderness areas in the Southeastern United States to test their hypotheses. They found general support for their conceptual model. Surveyed wilderness

visitors did appear to seek experiences that incorporate the

conditions described in the Wilderness Act. In addition, they

held different levels of importance for conditions based on

their experiential goals, and they used coping behaviors to

manage their own experiences in wilderness.

B. Solitude and Privacy

The 1964 Wilderness Act describes wilderness as a setting

with “...outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive

and unconfined type of recreation.” For this reason, solitude

has often been identified as an important dimension of wilderness experiences. The authors in this section explore opportunities for solitude in various settings (Stewart and Cole

1997; Watson 1995) and describe the nature of solitude

(Hammitt 1994; Hollenhorst and others 1994) and the related

concept of privacy (Dawson and Hammitt 1996; Hammitt and

Madden 1989).
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 11

Dawson, Chad P.; Hammitt, William E. 1996. Dimensions

of wilderness privacy for Adirondack Forest Preserve hikers. International Journal of Wilderness. 2(1): 37–41.

Annotation: Attempts to measure wilderness solitude have

often been based on the number and distribution of users in a

given wilderness area. However, past research has not shown

a strong statistical relationship between wilderness user numbers and user experiences. While solitude is often defined as

being alone or apart from usual associates, privacy is a multidimensional concept that implies a state of mind as well as a

state of being. This paper describes a field test of a previously

developed psychological scale to measure dimensions of privacy in wilderness. Mail surveys were sent to 298 Adirondack

Forest Preserve hikers in 1994. Respondents were asked to

rate the importance of 16 items on the Dimensions of Wilderness Privacy Scale. A factor analysis of the 16 items produced

four factors: natural environment, cognitive freedom, intimacy,

and individualism. The authors discuss each of the privacy

scale factors, and conclude that their results were similar to

those from other studies that applied the Dimensions of Wilderness Privacy Scale in different wilderness settings. The utility of the privacy scale for wilderness planning and

management is briefly discussed.

Hammitt, William. 1994. The psychology and functions of

wilderness solitude. In: Hendee, John C.; Martin, Vance G.,

eds. International wilderness allocation, management, and research. Fort Collins, CO: International Wilderness Leadership

(WILD) Foundation: 227–233.

Annotation: This paper describes the development and testing of psychological scales designed to measure dimensions

of wilderness privacy. The authors build on the theoretical work

of others to define the related concepts of wilderness solitude

and wilderness privacy. Privacy is described as a physical and

psychological state of being that contains solitude as one of

its dimensions. The other dimensions of privacy include intimacy, anonymity, and reserve. These four psychological dimensions perform four functions: personal autonomy, emotion

release, self-evaluation, and limited and protected communication. Based on this theoretical model, two scales (Dimensions of Privacy and Functions of Privacy) were developed to

measure how privacy operates among wilderness users. Each

scale consisted of a number of items that wilderness users were

asked to rate on a seven-point importance scale. The Dimensions of Privacy Scale was administered to Appalachian Trail

hikers in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The Functions of Privacy Scale was field tested in the Ellicott Rock

Wilderness, located primarily in South Carolina. The items in

each scale were analyzed to determine the underlying psychological dimensions and functions of wilderness privacy.

The analysis identified five psychological dimensions and five

functions of wilderness privacy that were related to, but slightly

different from those described in the theoretical model.

Hammit, William E.; Madden, Mark A. 1989. Cognitive

dimensions of wilderness privacy: a field test and further

explanation. Leisure Sciences. 11(4): 293–301.

Annotation: This paper describes a field test of the Dimensions of Privacy Scale conducted in Great Smoky Mountains

National Park. Backpackers who visited shelters along the

Appalachian Trail were contacted and later mailed a questionnaire that contained, among other variables, the 20-item

Dimensions of Privacy Scale. Respondents were asked to rate

the importance of each of the items on a seven-point scale.

Results of the field test were compared to results from a 1981

laboratory test of the privacy scale. Both the 1981 laboratory

and 1987 field tests produced similar results. Factor analysis

of results from the field test identified five psychological dimensions of wilderness privacy: natural environment, individual cognitive freedom, social cognitive freedom, intimacy,

and individualism. Each of the dimensions is discussed in detail. The authors conclude that wilderness privacy provides a

better and more useful concept of solitude than simply “being

alone.”

Hollenhorst, Steve; Frank, Ernest, III; Watson, Alan. 1994.

The capacity to be alone: wilderness solitude and growth

of the self. In: Hendee, John C.; Martin, Vance G., eds. International wilderness allocation, management, and research. Fort

Collins, CO: International Wilderness Leadership (WILD)

Foundation: 234–239.

Annotation: The authors of this paper explore the meaning

of solitude as a beneficial component of the wilderness experience. They suggest that past research efforts have been limited by a frame of reference in which solitude is investigated

in terms of its relevance to a community of others. For instance, much of the research motivated by questions about

solitude has actually investigated privacy. According to the

authors’ review of past literature, privacy is essentially about

control of transactions with others. In contrast, the authors

propose that solitude is essentially about control of the self.

The true determinant of solitude is the capacity to utilize time

spent alone to achieve self-related benefits. Solitude is a state

of mind as well as a state of being. The authors conducted a

survey to test their conceptual hypothesis at five National Forest

wilderness areas in the Eastern United States. The majority of

respondents were visitors to the Dolly Sods Wilderness area

in West Virginia. Based on initial analysis of the survey results, the authors present several points: solitude conceptually

differs from privacy, aloneness is a necessary condition of

solitude, there are hierarchical levels of solitude achievement,

crowding perceptions and encounter numbers are weak predictors of solitude achievement, and the most effective predictors of solitude achievement are predispositional factors

that visitors bring with them. The authors conclude that wilderness managers should address solitude not only by providing opportunities for aloneness, but also by educating,

nurturing, and promoting the capacity for solitude in wilderness users.

Stewart, William P.; Cole, David N. 1997. Truths about solitude at Grand Canyon. In: Harmon, David, ed. Making protection work: proceedings of the 9th conference on research

and resource management in parks and on public lands; 1997

March 17–21; Albuquerque, NM. Hancock, MI: George

Wright Society: 21–24.

Annotation: The authors’ stated purpose for this paper is to

expose some myths associated with management of solitude

and crowding in backcountry areas. In order to counter the

identified myths, they present some general statements supported by empirical evidence from several studies conducted

at Grand Canyon National Park. The authors begin by addressing the practice of dividing backcountry areas into zones based

on level of development. A common assumption has been that
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

undeveloped areas attract visitors seeking solitude while more

developed zones are “sacrifice areas” where visitors have no

hope or expectation of achieving solitude. However, a 1984 to

1985 Grand Canyon study revealed that all zones attract visitors seeking solitude. Another common practice in solitude

research has been the use of one-time, mail-back questionnaires as measurement instruments. The authors explain how

different situational and respondent attributes can confound

the interpretation of results from these studies. Lastly, although

research has alternately focused on managerial and nonmanagerial factors as the primary influences on solitude, the authors suggest that both types of factors have consistent

influence. The authors conclude by stating that recognition of

the diversity of environments that provide solitude is the first

step in improving its management.

Watson, Alan E. 1995. Opportunities for solitude in the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 12(1): 12–18.

Annotation: This paper presents the results of an applied study

aimed at improving opportunities for solitude in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota. The study

was designed to examine the relationship between visitor reports of use densities, density preferences, density tolerances,

and density expectations in reference to opportunities for solitude. Results from a 1991 survey mailed to 398 Boundary

Waters visitors led to three suggested indicators for evaluating solitude opportunities: the proportion of visitors who have

difficulty finding an unoccupied campsite, the number of user

encounters deemed acceptable by visitors versus the actual

number of encounters, and the proportion of visitors for whom

the number of user encounters was unacceptable even on the

lowest encounter day. The author concludes that, given existing use levels, a Forest Service proposal to restrict visitation

could offer benefits to visitors. However, management objectives based on visitors’ preference levels may change as visitors become more (or less) tolerant of encounters. The author

suggests further examination of the potential problems caused

by changing societal or individual definitions of solitude.

C. Spiritual Experience Dimensions

Spiritual experience in wilderness is often described as a

feeling of oneness with nature. Spiritual experiences are a

common theme in wilderness literature, but they are rarely

incorporated into management goals or decisionmaking. The

authors in this section discuss various uses of wilderness for

spiritual purposes and describe setting features and trip characteristics that facilitate spiritual experiences.

Fredrickson, Laura M.; Anderson, Dorothy H. 1999. A

qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a

source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 19: 21–39.

Annotation: This paper describes characteristics of physical

and social settings that were important influences on the spiritually inspirational qualities of two separate wilderness group

trips. Data were collected from trip journals and indepth interviews with participants from all-women wilderness trips in

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the inner

plateau of the Grand Canyon. Two dominant themes that

emerged from the data were the importance of being in an allwomen’s group and the resulting social interaction, and the

importance of being in a genuine or bona fide wilderness environment. Being in an all-women’s group facilitated group

trust and emotional safety, sharing of common life changes,

and a noncompetitive atmosphere. Being in a wilderness environment facilitated direct contact with nature, periods of

solitude, and physical challenge. In combination, these attributes contributed to an experience that most participants

described as spiritually inspirational. Feelings that participants

associated with spirituality included: empowered, hopeful,

grounded and secure, wonder and awe, and humility. Participants in the Grand Canyon trip more frequently spoke about

individual features of the environment in relation to their feelings than did participants who traveled in the Boundary Waters. The authors speculate that the lush vegetation and lack of

topographical relief in the Boundary Waters led participants

there to perceive the landscape as more of an “organistic

whole.” In contrast, the stark landscape and panoramic views

in Grand Canyon influenced participants to focus on dominant, individual features of the physical environment. The

authors conclude that the expansive landscape and unmodified, untamed nature of the wilderness areas visited were the fundamental aspects of the trips that provoked spiritual feelings.

McDonald, Barbara; Guldin, Richard; Wetherhill, Richard. 1989. The spirit in the wilderness: the use and opportunity of wilderness experience for spiritual growth. In:

Freilich, Helen R., comp. Wilderness benchmark 1988: proceedings of the national wilderness colloquium; 1988 January 13–14; Tampa, FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-51. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station: 193–207.

Annotation: This paper discusses spiritual values and opportunities for spiritual experiences and growth in wilderness.

The authors suggest that spiritual dimensions of wilderness

value and wilderness experiences have been relatively unexplored by researchers because a concise operational definition of spiritual experience or growth has not been developed.

In response to this problem, they offer this definition of spirituality: Wilderness spirituality refers generally to the development of an emotional or mental awareness of fundamental

interrelationships among all naturally occurring things. When

this awareness occurs suddenly it is spiritual experience. When

it happens gradually over time it is called spiritual growth. As

a general management guideline, the authors suggest that the

more natural, unconfused, and peaceful a wilderness setting,

the more likely it is that an individual may reflect on interrelationships and subsequently have a spiritual experience. Although spiritual opportunities exist in virtually any setting,

the authors suggest that wilderness managers consider enhancing or maintaining spiritual opportunities by evaluating attributes such as proximity to wildlife, auditory protection from

human-made sounds, outstanding aesthetic opportunities, open

and expansive or closed-in and protective areas, high places,

water resources, and environmental quality and integrity.

Riley, Marilyn Foster; Hendee, John C. 2000. Wilderness

vision quest clients: motivations and reported benefits from

an urban-based program 1988 to 1997. In: Watson, Alan E.;

Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. Personal, societal,
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 13

and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness

Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II; 1998 October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc.

RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 128–135.

Annotation: This article describes a study of the experiences

and benefits received by participants in a wilderness vision

quest program. Wilderness vision quests are three-stage processes modeled after traditional rites of passage from indigenous cultures. They involve a preparation stage, completion

of a fasting time alone in nature, and entry back into daily life.

The authors estimate that there are about 50 active vision quest

programs worldwide. Data for this study were collected by

mailing a questionnaire to persons who were clients of a vision quest program, Wilderness Transitions, Inc., during the

period 1988 through 1997. Results indicated that the most

important reasons for going on vision quests were “spiritual

journey” and “self discovery.” Respondents also listed benefits they received as a result of their experiences. Based on

an analysis of the survey data, the authors suggest a process

by which self-discovery leads to spiritual experience. Survey

respondents indicated that their experiences were strongly

wilderness dependent, citing naturalness and solitude as essential conditions for personal benefits they received.

Stringer, L. Allison; McAvoy, Leo H. 1992. The need for

something different: spirituality and wilderness adventure.

Journal of Experiential Education. 15(1): 13–20.

Annotation: This paper describes a study to investigate spiritual development and the nature of spiritual experiences in

the context of wilderness adventure programs. The subjects

of the study were participants in two wilderness adventure

programs in 1987. The first group consisted of 13 persons

with and without physical disabilities on an 8-day canoe trip

in Northern Ontario. The second group consisted of 18 wilderness leadership students (13 of whom participated in the

study) on a 10-day backpacking trip in Wyoming and Montana. Data were collected from four sources: pretrip questionnaires, onsite observations, posttrip interviews, and analyses

of trip journals. Although very few participants listed spiritual goals in their pretrip questionnaires, common themes related to spirituality emerged from both groups. These themes

included: the shared spirit between people; a power greater

than self; clarity of self-knowledge; inner feelings; awareness

of the world and one’s place in it; and others. Most participants noted that their opportunities to experience spirituality

were greatly increased by being in the wilderness. The authors provide detailed lists of factors that contributed to or

inhibited spiritual experiences. Increased opportunities for

spiritual experiences were generally attributed to the absence

of constraints that people usually have in their everyday lives.

A list of conclusions and recommendations for enhancing spiritual experience opportunities is given.

Trainor, Sarah Fleisher; Norgaard, Richard B. 1999. Recreation fees in the context of wilderness values. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration. 17(3): 100–115.

Annotation: See section I, page 6.

D. Wilderness for Personal Growth,

Therapy, and Education

Wilderness is increasingly being used as a tool for developmental, therapeutic, and educational purposes. The authors

in this section investigate how wilderness facilitates these purposes (Easley and others 1990; Scherl 1989; White and Hendee

2000; Williams and others 1989) and describe the nature and

function of Wilderness Experience Programs (WEPs), which

are designed to provide visitors with developmental wilderness benefits (Dawson and others 1998b; Gager and others

1998; Russell and others 1998).

Dawson, Chad P.; Tangen-Foster, Jim; Friese, Gregory T.;

Carpenter, Josh. 1998b. Defining characteristics of U.S.A.

wilderness experience programs. International Journal of

Wilderness. 4(3): 22–27.

Annotation: One of the most popular ways that people use

wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and education is

through participation in Wilderness Experience Programs. The

purpose of this article is to classify Wilderness Experience

Programs (WEPs) and characterize their program aims, methods, and time spent in wilderness. WEPs are defined by three

criteria: they provide experiences and activities that are dependent on wilderness conditions; they provide experiences

and activities that are consistent with wilderness use; and they

include interpersonal and intrapersonal activities that enhance

personal development. The single defining characteristic of

WEPs is the central role of wilderness to program experience

and delivery. A 1996 study by coauthor Friese proposed classifying WEPs by their primary aims—either personal growth,

education, or therapy and healing. Building on that study, this

paper describes a survey of 330 WEP organizations to test the

classification system proposed by Friese and determine other

WEP characteristics. Results from the survey generally supported Friese’s classification system. In addition, 67 percent

of WEPs reported that wilderness is necessary for delivery of

their programs, although most WEPs spent 50 percent or less

of their total time in wilderness areas. The authors conclude

that managers’ abilities to promote wilderness stewardship to

WEPs may be dependent on the type of WEP. An additional

important conclusion for managers is that some WEPs may

be delivered successfully in areas with wilderness characteristics that are not Federally designated as wilderness.

Easley, A. T.; Passineau, Joseph F.; Driver, B. L., comps.

1990. The use of wilderness for personal growth, therapy,

and education. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-193. Fort Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 197 p.

Annotation: This conference proceedings contains 32 articles

pertaining to the use of wilderness for human development.

Beginning with an introductory article on the benefits of wilderness, topics covered include: psychological components

of wilderness experience, Outward Bound and NOLS wilderness experience programs, wilderness therapy, and wilderness

education. Although most of the articles pertain directly to

the use of wilderness for personal growth, therapy, or education, there are also a few articles related to peripheral subjects

such as wilderness as a focus for culture and art.
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

Gager, Dan; Hendee, John C.; Kinziger, Mike; Krumpe,

Ed. 1998. What managers are saying—and doing—about

wilderness experience programs. Journal of Forestry. August: 33–37.

Annotation: Wilderness experience programs, designed to

provide personal growth, therapy, education, or group development, are perceived to be a rapidly increasing form of wilderness use. This paper describes a nationwide survey of

Federal wilderness managers designed to explore four topics:

agency policies and regulations for managing wilderness experience programs; wilderness managers’ attitudes toward and

concerns about them, and managers’ suggestions for addressing those concerns. Results from the survey indicate that managers want to see higher standards and more regulation of

wilderness experience programs. In addition, most managers

do not feel that wilderness experience programs are wilderness dependent. The authors suggest that wilderness experience program leaders need to recognize how managers feel

about their programs and work to improve cooperation and

communication with them.

Russell, Keith; Hendee, John C.; Cooke, Steve. 1998. Social and economic benefits of a U.S. wilderness experience

program for youth-at-risk in the Federal Job Corps. International Journal of Wilderness. 4(3): 32–38.

Annotation: Based on the theory that wilderness experience

can increase self-esteem and sense of personal control, this

article describes the benefits of a wilderness experience program for individuals in the Federal Job Corps. Participants in

the wilderness program reported positive feelings such as

empowerment and clarity. They also demonstrated an average

23.2 percent reduction in termination rate from the Job Corps,

when compared to controls. A cost-benefit analysis was used

to determine the net social benefits of implementing a wilderness experience program as an adjunct to the Job Corps program. Results of the analysis showed that for every dollar

invested in the wilderness program, $1.52 would be returned.

Scherl, Lea M. 1989. Self in wilderness: understanding the

psychological benefits of individual-wilderness interaction

through self-control. Leisure Sciences. 11: 123–135.

Annotation: This paper addresses the need to understand how

wilderness settings and wilderness experiences can promote

both personal change and psychological well being. Using the

multidimensional concept of control, the author explores possible human-wilderness relationships and interactions. The

opportunity to exert self-control is proposed as the primary

psychologically rewarding component of wilderness experiences. The author suggests that the nonresponsiveness of the

wilderness environment to individual behavior and the need

to use self-control to mediate environmental transactions are

important and unique elements of wilderness experiences. In

combination, these factors provide significant opportunities

for personal growth.

White, Dave D.; Hendee, John C. 2000. Primal hypotheses:

the relationship between naturalness, solitude and the wilderness experience benefits of development of self (DOS),

development of community (DOC) and spiritual development (SD). In: McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N.; Borrie,

William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Proceedings: wilderness science in a time of change conference—volume 3:

wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry; 1999 May 23–27;

Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station: 223–227.

Annotation: This paper describes and tests the relationship

between wilderness attributes of naturalness and solitude and

three categories of human benefits—development of self

(DOS), development of community (DOC), and spiritual development (SD). The authors describe the assertion that naturalness and solitude can generate each of these human benefits

as the “primal hypotheses.” The DOS category includes a variety of previously reported, self-related benefits of wilderness experience including personal growth, restored

functioning, self-actualization, self-control, self-efficacy, reduced anxiety, and others. DOC refers to benefits accrued as

group qualities such as cooperation, open communication, and

problem-solving ability develop during wilderness experiences. SD refers to feelings of connection to the larger universe, a higher power, nature, or a general feeling of “oneness.”

In a study of 44 wilderness users in Montana, Idaho, and Oregon, the authors found positive relationships between naturalness and solitude and the benefit categories DOS, DOC,

and SD. These results provide support for the notion that wilderness management should focus on maintaining naturalness,

and that solitude attributes will produce benefits for visitors.

Williams, Daniel R.; Haggard, Lois M.; Schreyer, Richard. 1989. The role of wilderness in human development.

In: Freilich, Helen R., comp. Wilderness benchmark 1988: proceedings of the National Wilderness Colloquium; 1988 January 13–14; Tampa, FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-51. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station: 169–180.

Annotation: The authors of this article discuss the idea that

opportunities to express and affirm self-identity through wilderness can facilitate human growth and development. Wilderness can provide people with a sense of who they are

through its use as a symbol. It acts as an object or environment that represents abstract human values, beliefs, and characteristics. The authors present and discuss three levels of

self-definition or identity: personal self, cultural self, and biological self. Cultural and biological identities are benefits that

accrue to a larger population than the community of wilderness recreation users. The authors conclude with suggestions

for future research and a plea for incorporating the human

development benefits of wilderness into management and

policy decisions.
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 15

A. Influences on Visitor Experiences

Managers charged with providing opportunities for quality wilderness experiences may benefit from an improved understanding of the various factors that influence those

experiences. While visitor use may impact both physical and

social setting elements in wilderness, visitors and managers

alike may perceive these impacts differently. The authors in

the first two subsections below investigate perceptions of visitor-use impacts and describe methods for incorporating those

perceptions into management policy and practices. The papers in the third subsection focus on an emerging threat to

wilderness experiences—technology. The authors in this section identify technological trends, describe how technological advances might influence the nature and meaning of

wilderness experiences, and offer suggestions for evaluating

the appropriateness of technology in wilderness.

1. Biophysical Resource Impacts

Cole, David N. 1996. Wilderness recreation in the United

States: trends in use, users, and impacts. International Journal of Wilderness. 2(3): 14–18.

Annotation: This article reviews the results of several studies

designed to increase understanding of trends in wilderness

recreation. Use data, campsite and trail conditions, and visitor

characteristics during various periods between 1965 and 1994

were analyzed. The author estimates that wilderness recreation use increased sixfold between 1964 and 1994. Despite

this increase, visitor evaluations of campsite conditions have

been relatively stable over time. The overall condition of trail

systems in the Bitterroot-Selway Wilderness in Montana did

not change significantly between 1978 and 1989. However,

campsite impacts at three wilderness areas in Montana and

Oregon increased dramatically, primarily as a result of new

campsite establishment. The author warns that continued increases in recreation use will likely lead to greater wilderness

impacts and crowding problems. He calls for direct action by

management, including implementing use limits, when unacceptable conditions are identified.

Cole, David N.; Watson, Alan E.; Hall, Troy; Spildie, David.

1997. High-use destinations in wilderness: social and biophysical impacts, visitor responses, and management options. Res. Pap. INT-RP-496. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

30 p.

Annotation: See section III.A.2, page 17.

Martin, Steven, R.; McCool, Stephen F.; Lucas, Robert C.

1989. Wilderness campsite impacts: do managers and visitors see them the same? Environmental Management. 13(5):

623–629.

Annotation: Ecological impacts caused by recreation use in

wilderness tend to be limited to a small percentage of land

area within most wilderness areas. However, they can cause

serious localized damages that affect visual qualities and thus

visitor experiences. This article describes a study designed to

explore visitor and manager perceptions of the amount and

acceptability of wilderness campsite impacts. The study used

artistic representations of campsites with overlays depicting

various levels of bare ground, tree damage, and fire-ring impacts. Wilderness visitors were more likely than managers to

find the represented conditions unacceptable. Although visitors and managers differed in their evaluations of the level of

impacts, they agreed on the relative acceptability of different

types of impacts. Bare ground was least acceptable, followed

by tree damage, and then fire rings. The results indicate that

amount of bare ground may serve as a good indicator for

monitoring wilderness campsite conditions.

Roggenbuck, J. W.; Williams, D. R.; Watson, A. E. 1993.

Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management. 17(2): 187–197.

Annotation: This article describes an effort to compare visitor perceptions of acceptable conditions across four different

wilderness areas: Cohutta, GA; Caney Creek, AR; Upland Island, TX; and Rattlesnake, MT. A mail-back questionnaire was

sent to study participants to determine how important each of

19 potential indicators of social and physical conditions were

to defining the quality of their wilderness experience. There

was generally high agreement in mean visitor ratings across

the four wilderness areas, but visitor opinions within a given

III. MANAGING WILDERNESS VISITOR

EXPERIENCES
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

wilderness varied widely. Among the most important indicators of wilderness quality were the amount of litter and the

number of damaged trees around a campsite. The authors discuss these results and explain why using visitor rankings is

necessary but not sufficient for selecting management plan

indicators and standards. For instance, although they were

ranked 1st through 19th, there was no statistical difference in

influence between some of the top indicators. In other words,

the influence of the fifth most important indicator could not

be distinguished from that of the eighth. The authors suggest

selecting indicators that cover the range of variation in visitor

ratings and are highly influential. For managers, the results of

this study indicate that site impacts do indeed play an important role in visitor experiences, clearly more so than overall

amount of wilderness use.

Shelby, Bo; Harris, Richard. 1985. Comparing methods

for determining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts:

site visits, photographs, and written descriptions. Journal

of Leisure Research. 17(1): 57–67.

Annotation: This article describes and contrasts methods for

capturing user evaluations of ecological impacts caused by

recreation use in wilderness. The ideal method might be to

have people actually visit and evaluate campsites with different degrees of impact. Because this approach is not practical

in many cases, alternative methods are necessary. For this

study, the authors compared visitor impact evaluations based

on site visits with evaluations based on site photographs, and

written site descriptions. Visitors to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness in Oregon were randomly selected to evaluate the same

sites using one of the three methods. Evaluations based on

photographs agreed with those from site visits 90 percent of

the time. Evaluations based on written descriptions agreed with

onsite evaluations 80 percent of the time. Where there was

disagreement, the authors generally found that site representations did not accurately represent what would be the field of

view for a site visitor. In addition, the authors suggest that

photos and written descriptions may actually be better than

site visits when the goal is to focus evaluation on a specific

condition (such as bare ground). For these reasons, the authors conclude that photographs and written descriptions have

encouraging potential for the development of standards for

acceptable impacts.

Shelby, Bo; Shindler, Bruce. 1992. Interest group standards

for ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. Leisure Sciences. 14: 17–27.

Annotation: The task of setting management standards for

resource impacts in wilderness can be difficult if different user

groups all have different standards. This article explores the

issue of whether different groups have different standards for

resource conditions. Interest groups—defined as organized

bodies representing the shared attitudes or interests of a

group—were surveyed to evaluate their standards for wilderness resource impacts. Interest group members were selected

from hunting associations, backcountry horse clubs, an environmental organization, Explorer Scouts, hiking clubs, and

Forest Service resource managers. Group standards were obtained by computing each group’s mean acceptability rating

for various campsites. Overall, fewer differences between the

groups were found than past reports would suggest. However,

there were some notable differences between managers, the

environmental group, and activity-oriented users. Managers

tended to be the least tolerant of impacts, especially bare

ground, and activity-oriented users were the most tolerant.

Visitors in general were highly tolerant of campsite impacts,

although the authors suggest that factors such as screening

from other parties or the presence of a scenic view may increase visitors’ tolerance for site damage.

Shelby, Bo; Vaske, Jerry J.; Harris, Rick. 1988. User standards for ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. Journal of Leisure Research. 20(3): 245–256.

Annotation: Traditionally, standards for ecological impacts

have been based on expert judgments by managers. These standards are not useful for understanding the influence of impacts on visitor experiences, because managers and visitors

may see impacts differently. This paper describes a model for

conceptualizing and investigating user evaluations of ecological impacts in wilderness, then applies the model to a study of

user standards for bare ground and fire rings in the Mount

Jefferson Wilderness in Oregon. The authors explain the use

of impact acceptability curves, and define three characteristics of evaluative standards: range, intensity, and crystallization. Range refers to the scope of acceptable conditions,

intensity refers to the strength of feelings about impacts, and

crystallization is a measure of group agreement. Results from

structured interviews conducted with Mt. Jefferson Wilderness visitors indicate that users are willing and able to evaluate acceptable impact conditions (respondents avoided the

neutral response category). Also, standards appeared to be

different for different locations, although there was considerable agreement about overall impact standards.

Watson, Alan E.; Cronn, Richard. 1994. How previous experience relates to visitors’ perceptions of wilderness conditions. Trends. 31(3): 43–46.

Annotation: This paper describes studies undertaken in Minnesota and California to investigate how past experience in a

wilderness area influences visitor evaluations of social and

resource conditions in that wilderness. The authors hypothesize that visitors with little or no experience cannot compare

current to past conditions and will likely give less negative

evaluations. Visitors at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the Desolation Wilderness were asked to evaluate

social and resource conditions then divided into three categories of past experience for analysis of the results. The categories were: (1) those who were on their first visit to that

wilderness or had made their first visit inside the last 2 years;

(2) those who made their first visit more than 2 years but less

than 10 years ago; and (3) those who made their first visit

more than 10 years ago. Results indicated that day users whose

first visit was more than 10 years ago reported significantly

more resource impact problems than the other less experienced

groups. However, there were no significant differences between the overnight user groups. Overnight users of all experience levels were more likely to report impact problems than

day users. The authors conclude that these results have important implications for managers. General visitor surveys in areas with a high proportion of first-time users may indicate

that users are content with conditions when in fact conditions

are deteriorating. In contrast, surveys in areas with many repeat visitors may provide more meaningful information.
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 17

Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J. 1995. Conflicting

goals of wilderness management: natural conditions vs.

natural experiences. In: Chavez, Deborah J., tech. coord. Proceedings of the second symposium on social aspects and recreation research; 1994 February 23–25; San Diego, CA.

PSW-GTR-156. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 11–15.

Annotation: See section III.C, page 22.

2. Density and Crowding

Cole, David N. 2001. Use density and wilderness experiences: a historical review of relevant research. In: Freimund,

Wayne A.; Cole, David N., comps. 2001. Density use and wilderness experience: proceedings; 2000 June 1–3; Missoula,

MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 11–20.

Annotation: This paper provides an historical review and synthesis of research that explores the relationship between use

density and wilderness visitor experiences. Beginning with

the carrying capacity concept, the author describes numerous

past attempts to define and apply carrying capacity for wilderness management. Several summary points from the carrying capacity literature are presented: First, carrying capacity

is not an inherent value; it is an evaluative judgment; second,

carrying capacity judgments must necessarily favor certain

uses and types of users; and third, use limits decisions should

be made in the context of a large system. After reviewing the

theoretical literature, the author proceeds with a review of

empirical studies that attempted to determine carrying capacities or link experience quality with use density. Most studies

of this kind used survey techniques, were conducted after wilderness trips, and required visitors to generalize about their

entire experiences. The author suggests that these commonalities have limited research progress. Next the author reviews

past studies of visitor assessments of appropriate wilderness

use levels and visitor responses to use limits. A common finding from these studies is that visitors support use limits if overuse occurs, but they generally do not feel that overuse has

occurred. At the end of the paper research needs are provided.

Cole, David N.; Watson, Alan E.; Hall, Troy; Spildie, David.

1997. High-use destinations in wilderness: social and biophysical impacts, visitor responses, and management options. Res. Pap. INT-RP-496. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

30 p.

Annotation: This paper describes a study conducted at three

high-use wildernesses—Alpine Lakes, Mt. Jefferson, and

Three Sisters in Oregon and Washington. The study quantified both visitor encounter rates and resource impacts caused

by recreation use. In addition, exit interviews were conducted

with visitors to understand their opinions of wilderness conditions. In all three wildernesses, encounter rates were high

and resource impacts were substantial. Most visitors reported

that resource impacts detracted from their experience, and they

were supportive of intensive site management to mitigate

campsite impacts. Despite encountering more people than they

would have preferred, most visitors were not bothered by high

user densities. Only 10 to 23 percent supported reducing use

levels. The authors suggest that visitor education and intensive site management are preferable to use limitation as methods for mitigating the social and physical impacts caused by

high use levels.

Hammitt, William E.; Patterson, Michael E. 1991. Coping

behavior to avoid visitor encounters: its relationship to wildland privacy. Journal of Leisure Research. 23(3): 225–237.

Annotation: This paper investigates coping strategies that wilderness visitors employ to achieve desired experiences. Coping behaviors are used to make an environment more suitable

for an individual or a group. They may involve physical actions or psychological adjustments. In wilderness, coping strategies may be employed when people are dissatisfied with the

number of other users they encounter. For this study,

backcountry campers at Great Smoky Mountain National Park

were surveyed using a mail-back questionnaire. The campers

were asked, among other items, how important solitude was

to their experience and how often they used each of 12 different coping behaviors. Results of the survey showed that the

most common coping strategy was camping out of sight of

other groups. In general, physical coping behaviors were used

more often than social or psychological behaviors. The authors speculate that visitors use physical strategies to avoid

encounters, but when encounters occur, they seem willing to

accept and comply with established norms for behavior and

social interaction.

Hammitt, William E.; Rutlin, William M. 1995. Use encounter standards and curves for achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 17: 245–262.

Annotation: A tremendous amount of effort has been devoted

to understanding the relationship between use levels and wilderness experiences. The purpose of this paper is to present

an alternative approach to understanding the use level-experience relationship. Whereas many past studies focused on the

effect of encounter rates on perceived crowding, this study

focused on the relationship between encounters and privacy.

The authors hypothesize that privacy may be more closely

related to encounters than crowding. After a review of past

work related to crowding, the authors give a thorough explanation of the privacy concept. Privacy is defined as a state or

level of social interaction that individuals seek to maintain. It

is not the opposite of crowding, but rather a zone of acceptability along a continuum with crowding at one end. Crowding is defined as the outcome when people cannot regulate

their encounters to achieve privacy. The authors conducted a

study of visitors at Ellicott Rock Wilderness in the Carolinas

and Georgia to explore the relationship between encounter

rates and privacy. Responses to a mail questionnaire were used

to construct privacy-encounter curves—visitor reported levels of desired privacy achieved, plotted against numbers of

encounters. The curves indicated that privacy increased as encounters decreased until a certain point, after which encounters had little influence. The authors conclude that privacy

served as a better dependent variable for investigating the encounter-experience relationship than crowding or satisfaction

variables did in past studies. However, they caution that privacy is a complex concept that includes more than number of

encounters. Also, the privacy-encounter relationship may not
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

be meaningful for visitors with little desire or motivation for

privacy.

Manning, Robert E. 1985. Crowding norms in backcountry

settings: a review and synthesis. Journal of Leisure Research.

17(2): 75–89.

Annotation: This paper synthesizes the results of past studies

that investigated the relationship between perceived crowding and backcountry recreation experiences. Many studies have

treated crowding as a normative concept. That is, increasing

use density is viewed as crowding only when it is perceived to

interfere with a person’s objectives or values. Thus, crowding

studies have often sought to identify the specific factors that

influence users’ perceptions of crowding. The author of this

paper reviews several of these factors in detail, including:

motivations, preferences, and expectations of visitors; past

experience of visitors; visitor attitudes; visitor demographics;

type and size of groups encountered; behavior of those encountered; perceptions of alikeness; and situational variables

such as type of area, location of encounters within an area,

and environmental factors. Results of these studies indicate

that there are a variety of crowding norms. Although selected

groups appear to share common perceptions of crowding, there

are different preferences and perceptions among the population as a whole. According to the author, these findings underscore the need for diversity in outdoor recreation opportunities.

Also, the variety of factors that influence crowding perceptions offer managers opportunities to relieve crowding by adjusting use patterns and visitor behaviors, rather than setting

use limits.

Patterson, Michael E.; Hammitt, William E. 1990.

Backcountry encounter norms, actual reported encounters,

and their relationship to wilderness solitude. Journal of

Leisure Research. 22(3): 259–275.

Annotation: This paper describes a study to investigate congruency between stated encounter norms and reactions to actual conditions encountered in a backcountry setting. The

authors describe normative theory as the idea that segments

of society share standards or rules that prescribe what is acceptable in specific settings. A norm, therefore, is simply a

shared standard. For this study, the authors identified norms

for the acceptable number of encounters for backpackers seeking solitude in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, examined the backpackers reactions to encounters during an outing,

and determined whether or not those reactions matched stated

encounter norms. Based on results from a mailed questionnaire, the authors found that solitude was important to the

experience of most backpackers. Most backpackers reported

encounter levels that exceeded their norms both on the trail

and at campsites. However, only 34 percent indicated that

encounters detracted from their solitude experience. The authors provide a lengthy discussion and interpretation of these

results. Among other things, they suggest that backpackers

may not have salient encounter norms because solitude includes more than encounters; that their study may have measured beliefs rather than norms; and that the influence of

encounters may be so dependent on factors such as behavior

of those encountered that backpackers cannot predict the influence of encounters based only on encounter numbers.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Williams, Daniel R.; Bange,

Steven P.; Dean, Dennis J. 1991. River float trip encounter

norms: questioning the use of the social norms concept.

Journal of Leisure Research. 23(3): 133–153.

Annotation: Visitor perceptions and evaluations of crowding

and other types of experiential and biophysical resource impacts are often assumed to be guided by social norms. As shared

standards of acceptability, norms may provide planners and

managers with a defensible basis for decisionmaking. Following a review and critique of past approaches to defining and

measuring norms, this paper describes a study designed to

expand and improve the utility of the social norms concept. A

mail-back questionnaire was administered to whitewater rafters

on the New River Gorge National River in West Virginia in

order to assess the existence and consensus of norms for encountering other users on the river. A response rate of 67 percent yielded 616 useable questionnaires. Analysis of the

questionnaires showed that a sizeable proportion of the rafters

who indicated that encounters with others made a difference

were unable to identify an acceptable number of encounters.

In addition, there was generally low consensus among the

norms that were reported, even for user subgroups that might

have been more likely to have shared standards. The authors

suggest that methodological differences and developments in

the theoretical meaning of norms may account for the significant differences between their results and the results of past

studies on recreation encounter norms. They also suggest that

researchers and managers should proceed with caution when

assuming the existence of social norms.

Shelby, Bo; Vaske, Jerry J.; Heberlein, Thomas A. 1989.

Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations:

results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences. 11:

269–291.

Annotation: Most studies of crowding have focused on single

populations or settings and individual-level analysis. This paper compares aggregate data from 35 studies to answer questions about how perceived crowding varies across settings,

activities, research methods, and time. The authors found that

perceived crowding has changed over time, and that resource

availability, accessibility and convenience, and management

strategies also influence crowding. Geographic region, participant activity, and research methodology did not appear to

influence perceived crowding. The authors applied their results and experience to develop carrying capacity judgments

and classify locations into one of five crowding categories.

Locations where more than 80 percent of visitors feel crowded

were judged to be operating over capacity. Locations where

65 to 80 percent of visitors feel crowded were judged likely to

be operating over capacity. Locations where 35 to 65 percent

of visitors feel crowded were judged normal, with those in the

35 to 50 percent range classified as low-normal and those in

the 50 to 65 percent range classified high-normal. Locations

where less than 35 percent of visitors feel crowded were unique

and often had some management or natural factor that limited

use.

Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J. 1995. Conflicting

goals of wilderness management: natural conditions vs.

natural experiences. In: Chavez, Deborah J., tech. coord. Proceedings of the second symposium on social aspects and recreation research; 1994 February 23–25; San Diego, CA.
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 19

PSW-GTR-156. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 11–15.

Annotation: See section III.C, page 22.

Williams, Daniel R.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Patterson,

Michael E.; Watson, Alan E. 1992b. The variability of userbased social impact standards for wilderness management.

Forest Science. 38(4): 738–756.

Annotation: See section IV.C, page 27.

3. Technology

Borrie, William T. 2000. Impacts of technology on the

meaning of wilderness. In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.;

Hendee, John C., comps. Personal, societal, and ecological

values of wilderness: sixth world wilderness congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II; 1998

October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station: 87–88.

Annotation: This short paper explores some of the possible

impacts of technology on wilderness experiences and meanings. The author quotes from past works by a variety of philosophers. He warns that technologically mediated experiences

and images of wilderness may alter what people expect from

wilderness. Advances such as lightweight clothing and global

positioning systems can make wilderness more comfortable

and accessible, but there are costs in terms of the significance

and value of wilderness. The author suggests that managers

and policymakers carefully evaluate the benefits and costs of

technology, and adopt a cautious policy to avoid unintentional

incremental changes.

Freimund, Wayne; Borrie, Bill. 1997. Wilderness@internet:

wilderness in the 21st century—are there technical solutions to our technical problems? International Journal of Wilderness. 3(4): 21–23.

Annotation: This paper attempts to organize the discussions

about the role of information and communication technology

in relation to wilderness. The authors question the adequacy

of the 1964 Wilderness Act to provide guidance when dealing

with technology issues in wilderness. For instance, should genetically enhanced or cloned packstock be allowed in wilderness? Two basic questions are offered as ways to evaluate the

appropriateness of new technologies: (1) Who is benefiting

from new technology? (2) How will the wilderness experience change as a result of new technology? The authors speculate on the ways that wilderness and experiences might change

and suggest in conclusion that it is the concept of wilderness

that is most vulnerable to foreseeable changes. Moreover, they

suggest that the discussion about technology is one of values

rather than of technical solutions.

International Journal of Wilderness. 2000. Special section:

wilderness in the 21st century. 6(2): 9–26.

Annotation: This special section of the International Journal

of Wilderness addresses issues of change and continuity for

wilderness management in the next century. It is divided into

three parts: visitors; activities and technology; and future roles.

The second section contains four short articles from university

faculty members and a wilderness program manager with the

USDA Forest Service. These authors address potential impacts

of technology on wilderness experiences and wilderness management practices. Author John Shultis recalls that automobiles were briefly opposed in National Parks but eventually

won the day because they facilitated park use and public support for parks. He suggests that a similar debate is at hand

concerning technology in wilderness. In the second article,

Les Wadzinski hopes that wilderness laws will prevent change

resulting from new recreation activities. In the third article,

Doug Knapp calls for an approach to wilderness recreation

that sheds technology at the trailhead. In the fourth article,

Glenn Haas and Marcella Wells suggest that social and technological change will lead to a more pristine and highly prized

wilderness system by 2050.

Strong, David. 1995. Crazy Mountains: learning from wilderness to weigh technology. Albany: State University of New

York Press. 253 p.

Annotation: Rather than empirical research, this book contains a philosophical discussion of technology and the role of

wilderness. The author critically examines the idea that technological devices and commodities make lives good. Using a

planned development in the Crazy Mountains of Montana, the

author discusses how wilderness can provide an alternative

model for living to that offered by consumer culture. The first

four chapters describe the wilderness setting and the looming

conflict in the Crazy Mountains. In chapter 5, “The technological subversion of environmental ethics,” the author explores

the appeal of technology and the ways in which it can shape

perception and experience. In the second half of the book,

titled “Learning from wilderness,” the author describes how

nontechnological wilderness can provide an opportunity for

people to learn to listen, consider, experience, speak, and ultimately to build, in better ways.

B. Visitor Satisfaction

Visitor satisfaction has long been a popular measure of the

“quality” of wilderness experiences. However, research has

revealed a number of limitations to the use of visitor satisfaction as a primary measure of wilderness experiences or as a

guide for wilderness management. The papers in this section

review the various applications of satisfaction concepts to

outdoor recreation research and management, and identify

factors that limit or complicate the use of satisfaction to guide

management practices.

Manning, Robert E. 1999. Search for satisfaction. In: Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction (second edition). Corvallis: Oregon State University

Press: 1–15.

Annotation: This book chapter serves as the introduction to a

classic text on outdoor recreation research. The author begins

the chapter by laying out the objectives for the book and tracing the development of outdoor recreation research. Next, he

explains how visitor satisfaction has traditionally been used

as a surrogate measure of quality by both managers and researchers. Satisfaction has most often been defined as the degree of congruence between expectations and perceived
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

experiences. However, measures of overall satisfaction may

be inadequate for several reasons: (1) satisfaction is a multidimensional concept and broad measures may not provide useful information about influential factors; (2) satisfaction is

relative; (3) reliance on satisfaction as the measure of quality

may lead to quality as defined by a low common denominator; (4) most studies have found uniformly high levels of satisfaction and may therefore have limited meaning for

managers; and (5) satisfaction changes during and after experiences, and it is unclear what is the most appropriate time to

measure it. The author concludes by emphasizing that, despite the limitations of overall satisfaction measures, satisfaction research has helped to reveal a variety of variables that

influence recreational experiences.

Stewart, William P.; Hull, Bruce R., IV. 1992. Satisfaction

of what? Post hoc versus real-time construct validity. Leisure Sciences. 14: 195–209.

Annotation: This article describes two different ways to conceptualize and measure recreation visitor satisfaction: post hoc

satisfaction (PHS) and real-time satisfaction (RTS). PHS appraisal occurs sometime following a recreation experience. It

is shaped by the combined influence of introspection, recall,

and context. RTS is an appraisal of a recreationist’s current

state while engaged, onsite, in an activity. After a conceptual

analysis that further differentiates between PHS and RTS, the

authors discuss the appropriate uses of each measure. Next,

they describe a research project conducted to investigate the

relationship between PHS and RTS. Day hikers in the White

River National Forest in Colorado were asked to rate their

satisfaction with their experiences at various points during a

hike and then immediately following the hike, and again 3

months and 9 months later. Statistical analysis of the results

revealed that offsite evaluations were significantly different

than those made during or immediately following the hike.

Satisfaction at 9 months was unrelated to satisfaction during

the hike. The authors conclude that PHS and RTS are distinct,

and that the utility of either construct is dependent on the intent of the study. RTS may be more useful for evaluating the

nature and quality of actual experiences, while PHS may be

more useful for studies of long-term recreation benefits and

future choice behavior.

Williams, Daniel R. 1988. Great expectations and the limits to satisfaction: a review of recreation and consumer satisfaction research. In: Watson, Alan, comp. Outdoor recreation

benchmark 1988: proceedings of the national outdoor recreation forum. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station: 422–438.

Annotation: This article reviews and critiques the various

ways that satisfaction has been approached in outdoor recreation research. The author’s primary purpose is to examine

the concept of satisfaction as a basis for evaluating recreation

quality. The paper is divided into three main parts. The first

section summarizes what outdoor recreation research has revealed about factors that influence satisfaction including

crowding, goal attainment, and resource impacts. The second

section covers conceptual issues underlying satisfaction measurement. In this section, the author reviews literature from

the outdoor recreation and consumer behavior fields of study.

In the final section, the author identifies limits to the use of

satisfaction for understanding outdoor recreation experiences

and behaviors. Satisfaction treats recreation as a commodity

among other consumer goods. However, since recreation is

mostly self-produced, it is unclear what participants are evaluating when they respond to satisfaction questions—the resource, the managing agency, or their own performance.

Satisfaction may not be an appropriate measure of quality,

and it may not be a desirable goal of public policy. The author

suggests that there is a larger context of quality that includes

lifestyle, and it cannot necessarily be captured with a satisfaction measure.

C. Visitor Management Techniques

Techniques for managing visitor use may act directly on

visitor behavior or rely on education and information to influence decisions that visitors make about appropriate behaviors. While some authors describe these different approaches

as direct and indirect management techniques, others suggest

that this classification is neither meaningful nor useful. For

visitors, the relative subtlety or obtrusiveness of a management technique may be more important than whether it is classified as direct or indirect. In this section, the authors review

the pros and cons of different management techniques (Lucas

1990; McCool and Christensen 1996; Watson and Niccolucci

1995), discuss specific techniques for addressing specific

management problems (Cole 1989; Cole and others 1987;

Doucette and Cole 1993), and describe the theory and application of persuasion and visitor education techniques for reducing impacts from visitor use.

Cole, David N. 1989. Low-impact recreational practices for

wilderness and backcountry. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-265.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station. 131 p.

Annotation: This report is intended to be used in combination with a second report entitled “Wilderness visitor education: information about alternative techniques.” The annotation

for both reports is given under Doucette and Cole (1993) below.

Cole, David N.; Petersen, Margaret E.; Lucas, Robert C.

1987. Managing wilderness recreation use: common problems and potential solutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-230.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station. 60 p.

Annotation: This report is designed to be a troubleshooting

guide for managers faced with specific wilderness recreation

problems. The first section describes eight general strategies

for dealing with problems: reduce use of entire wilderness,

reduce use of problem areas, modify location of use, modify

timing of use, modify type of use and visitor behavior, modify

visitor expectations, increase resistance of the resource, and

maintain or rehabilitate the resource. The authors differentiate among strategies, which are general approaches to mitigating problems, and tactics, which are specific approaches to

implementing a strategy. Thirty-seven tactics are given and

grouped according to common wilderness recreation problems.

The bulk of the report describes each tactic in terms of its

purpose, application, the extent of its current usage, estimated
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 21

cost of implementation, likely effectiveness, and probable side

effects. This report is organized as a sourcebook. Managers

faced with a particular problem can go directly to a list of

tactics for dealing with that problem, rather than reading the

entire document from beginning to end.

Doucette, Joseph E.; Cole, David N. 1993. Wilderness visitor education: information about alternative techniques.

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-295. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

37 p.

Annotation: This report and Cole (1989) (see above) are designed to complement each. Together, they summarize information on low-impact wilderness recreational practices and

management techniques for encouraging or enhancing these

practices. Low-impact practices can reduce many common

resource and visitor impact problems. The first report (Cole

1989) gives detailed descriptions of low-impact practices capable of mitigating common wilderness recreation problems.

The author also provides a discussion and examples of messages designed to increase visitors’ understanding of low-impact practices. The second report (Doucette and Cole 1993)

provides a more indepth discussion of techniques for educating wilderness visitors about low-impact practices. The first

portion of the report describes the results of a wilderness manager survey aimed at identifying existing educational programs

in wilderness, their costs and effectiveness, and differences in

programs between managing agencies. Two types of low-impact educational techniques were identified: media-based techniques that rely on brochures, maps, signs, interpretive

displays, and the like; and personnel-based techniques that

rely on direct visitor contact by agency employees. Results of

the survey were compared to a similar study conducted 10

years previously, in 1980. Most educational techniques used

in 1980 remained popular in 1990. However, use of personnel

in the backcountry and in school programs increased during

the decade. Managers did not consider any educational techniques they used to be highly effective, and they felt hindered

by lack of funding for education. In the main section of the

report, the authors describe a variety of educational techniques

in detail, including some emerging and innovative new techniques. In the final section, some principles for effective wilderness education are given, and a list of references for further

information is provided.

Lucas, Robert C. 1990. The wilderness experience and managing the factors that influence it. In: Hendee, John C.;

Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Robert C. Wilderness management. Golden, CO: North American Press: 469–496.

Annotation: This book chapter begins with a summary of the

factors that may influence wilderness experiences, then describes several indirect and direct management techniques

aimed at protecting or enhancing those experiences. Indirect

techniques are defined as those that influence visitors rather

than directly controlling them. They include physical setting

design, information and education, eligibility requirements,

and fees. Setting design and visitor education are relatively

common techniques, but eligibility requirements—such as a

wilderness skills test—and fees have generally not been used

to manage visitors. Direct management techniques restrict

individual choices. They allow a high degree of control but

may be costly for both managers and visitors. Examples of

direct management include party-size limits, length-of-stay

limits, general-use rationing, and prohibition of certain types

of use or practices (such as campfires). The authors provide

examples and descriptions of actual use-rationing systems that

have been applied in wilderness areas. Next, a brief discussion of experience quality monitoring is given, followed by a

more lengthy description of use simulation models. Simulation models may allow managers to design plans without costly

trial and error procedures. In the final section, the authors

speculate on visitor management in the future, emphasizing

the continued need for visitor education, and summarize the

contents of the chapter.

McCool, Stephen F.; Christensen, Neal A. 1996. Alleviating congestion in parks and recreation areas through direct management of visitor behavior. In: Lime, David W.,

ed. Congestion and crowding in the National Park System:

guidelines for management and research. Misc. Publ. 86-1996.

St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Agricultural

Experiment Station: 67–83.

Annotation: The authors of this article give three objectives

for their paper: first, to discuss conceptual issues associated

with direct and indirect management; second, to summarize

the results of past research on these techniques; and third, to

suggest a research agenda to address identified knowledge

gaps. Most literature advocates for indirect management techniques, especially in backcountry or wilderness settings where

freedom and unconfined experiences are perceived to be highly

valuable. However, some research has shown that managers

feel direct controls are more effective than indirect techniques,

and there may be other advantages to direct controls as well.

For instance, regulations may preserve freedoms that visitors

might not otherwise enjoy. The authors review research on

the use of direct management techniques and present a summary of general research findings. Among other items they

note that visitor support for direct management is lowest in

wilderness settings, and highest in settings with a tradition of

direct management. The authors present a two-dimensional

model of management techniques, bounded by direct and indirect on the horizontal axis, and visible and subtle on the

vertical axis. They suggest that direct and indirect techniques

be viewed and applied in combination. The final portion of

the article presents questions for future research to address.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1992. The use of persuasion to reduce resource impacts and visitor conflicts. In: Manfredo,

Michael J., ed. Influencing human behavior: theory and applications in recreation, tourism, and natural resources management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Annotation: This book chapter discusses the use of persuasive communication as a management tool to reduce resource

impacts, visitor conflicts, and vandalism or depreciative behavior in recreation settings. Beginning with a review of the

nature and causes of resource and visitor impacts, the author

then moves on to a discussion of the likely effectiveness of

persuasion for reducing certain types of impacts. He suggests

that effectiveness is dependent on type of impact, the behavior involved, and motives for the behavior. Next, the author

discusses three conceptual routes to persuasion: applied behavior analysis, the central route to persuasion, and the peripheral route to persuasion. Applied behavioral analysis seeks

to increase or decrease certain behaviors through prompts,
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

manipulation of the environment, and rewards or punishments.

The central route to persuasion is most common. The premise

behind this approach is that recipients pay careful attention to

persuasive message content and integrate message content into

their existing belief systems. Managers know their audience

and tailor their messages specifically for them. The peripheral

route to persuasion is characterized by low attention by the

recipient to the message content. Peripheral messages may

influence behavior based on the authority or attractiveness of

their source, rather than their content, and they are appropriate for busy or distracting environments. Following this section, the author uses reported findings from numerous past

studies to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of persuasive approaches for causing certain types of behavioral change.

A numbered list of general findings is given for each of the

following categories: knowledge-attitude-behavior intention

change; selection of different recreation places; and reducing

resource impacts.

Vander Stoep, Gail A.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1996. Is

your park being “loved to death?”: using communications

and other indirect techniques to battle the park “love bug.”

In: Lime, David W., ed. Congestion and crowding in the National Park System: guidelines for management and research.

Misc. Publ. 86-1996. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station: 85–132.

Annotation: This article begins with a discussion of the promise and limits of social science for solving visitor and resource

management problems. The bulk of the paper is then focused

on understanding the use of communications (indirect management) to reduce depreciative behavior, distribute use, reduce conflicts, and encourage resource protective behavior.

The authors note that there has been a major movement toward use of communication as a management tool, and suggest two major questions resulting from this movement: (1)

How can communication strategies be shown to be truly effective at addressing management problems? (2) How can these

strategies be most effectively implemented and integrated with

other management strategies? Next, a detailed review of conceptual approaches to understanding behaviors is given, followed by a detailed review of research literature related to

indirect management techniques. At the end of the paper, following the References Cited section, a list of additional relevant readings is provided.

Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J. 1995. Conflicting

goals of wilderness management: natural conditions vs.

natural experiences. In: Chavez, Deborah J., tech. coord. Proceedings of the second symposium on social aspects and recreation research; 1994 February 23–25; San Diego, CA.

PSW-GTR-156 Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 11–15.

Annotation: This article describes a study designed to measure beliefs and attitudes underlying visitors’ support for wilderness use restrictions. The study was conducted at the Three

Sisters, Mt. Washington, and Mt. Jefferson wildernesses in

Oregon. A mail survey was used to assess users’ reactions to a

new permit requirement and their attitudes toward potential

use limits. A statistical technique was used to classify respondents into two categories: those who believed overuse had

occurred and those who believed use limits were unacceptable. Sixty-three percent of day users and 44 percent of

overnight users did not consider the permit requirement to be

inconvenient. A large majority of visitors indicated that they

supported use limits to protect wilderness qualities. However,

only 20 percent of overnight users and 11 percent of day users

felt use restrictions should be initiated immediately, indicating that most visitors believed overuse had not yet occurred.

The best predictors of campers’ attitudes toward use limits

were a combination of crowded feelings and perceptions of

trail and campsite impacts. Physical impacts were the most

important factor for overnight users, while day users were more

influenced by numbers of people.
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 23

A. Overview

The need to balance visitor experience opportunities and

biophysical resource protection is a fundamental challenge

faced by wilderness stewards. The basic purpose of wilderness management planning is to develop guidelines for addressing this challenge. The two articles in this overview

section introduce the tenants of wilderness planning and review the various ways that planning has been approached.

Hendee, John C.; von Koch, Russell. 1990. Wilderness management planning. In: Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.;

Lucas, Robert C. Wilderness management. Golden, CO: North

American Press: 195–212.

Annotation: This book chapter is from a widely used text on

wilderness management. It begins with an explanation of the

need for planning and the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), then describes basic processes

for planning within each of the Federal wilderness management agencies. The bulk of the chapter describes a framework

for preparing, writing, and evaluating wilderness management

plans. The authors emphasize that planning is a decisionmaking

process that seeks to attain clearly stated management goals

and objectives. Example sections of plans from the Lee

Metcalf, Alpine Lakes, and Frank Church-River of No Return

Wilderness areas are provided. The authors also discuss public involvement and plan review processes, and present a list

of 10 criteria for evaluating plans.

Manning, Robert E.; Lime, David W. 2000. Defining and

managing the quality of wilderness recreation experiences.

In: McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N.; Borrie, William T.;

O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Proceedings: wilderness

science in a time of change conference—volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May

23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 13–52.

Annotation: This substantial paper uses the frameworks of carrying capacity and the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

to organize and synthesize the sizeable body of literature on

managing wilderness and wilderness experiences. The carrying

capacity concept is at the heart of most popular planning frameworks including Limits of Acceptable Change, Visitor Impact

Management, and Visitor Experience and Resource Protection.

ROS is the basic conceptual framework for encouraging diversity in outdoor recreation opportunities. A fundamental feature

of popular planning frameworks is the need for selection of indicators and standards of quality. The authors describe the basic

theory behind indicators and standards, then provide lists of criteria for choosing them. In addition, they provide an analysis of

theoretical and methodological issues related to normative standards for wilderness and outdoor recreation. The next section

focuses on wilderness management practices. The authors provide a detailed review of theories and empirical studies related to

the use of information and education for visitor management,

and use rationing and allocation. The final section of the paper

identifies the current status and trends in wilderness management,

and suggests directions for future wilderness research and

management.

B. Planning Frameworks

The planning frameworks described in this section are related in that they specify step-by-step methods for identifying

area concerns and establishing limits or standards for significant impacts or indicators of change. The four frameworks

are presented in approximate chronological order of development. However, the frameworks have evolved and continue to

evolve as they are adapted for new applications. The Limits of

Acceptable change framework has been widely used for planning in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management wilderness areas, while the Visitor Experience and Resource

Protection framework was developed specifically for National

Park Service lands.

IV. WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT

PLANNING
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

1. Carrying Capacity

Schreyer, Richard, guest ed. 1984. Theme issue: social carrying capacity. Leisure Sciences. 6(4): 387–507.

Annotation: This special journal issue contains seven articles

focused on the issue of social carrying capacity in outdoor

recreation settings. Although nearly 20 years old, these articles are important because they synthesize findings from the

first 20 years of vigorous carrying capacity research and highlight issues that continue to trouble researchers and managers

today. The first two articles provide an overview of the carrying capacity idea and briefly review ideas and themes developed since 1964, when carrying capacity was widely

introduced to the outdoor recreation research community in a

popular monograph. The third article describes the conceptual basis for carrying capacity determination. It was the basis

for a later book on carrying capacity (annotated below). The

fourth article reviews the evolution of the carrying capacity

concept. The authors suggest that research should focus on

the question of what kinds of resource and social conditions

are appropriate and acceptable in different settings. This concept—the Limits of Acceptable Change—became the basis

for the LAC planning process, which has become the most

widely used wilderness-management planning framework. The

fifth article calls for managers to draw a clear distinction between facts and judgments in decisionmaking, and advocates

for “biosocial systems analysis” as a clear and more equitable

method for allocating resources. The sixth article levels some

severe criticisms against past approaches to understanding

carrying capacity. The author emphasizes that science can aid

managers in making resource allocation decisions, but it cannot be the sole basis for them. The seventh and final article

summarizes what is known and what remains to be determined

about social carrying capacity.

Shelby, Bo; Heberlein, Thomas A. 1986. Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 164 p.

Annotation: This book develops a model for carrying capacity research and management based on a literature review and

indepth case studies from six locations. The authors suggest

that readers study the first chapter, which describes the carrying capacity model, then decide which of the remaining six

chapters to pursue. Chapter 2 describes the case studies that

the authors make reference to in the rest of the book. Chapters

3 through 5 consider different approaches for developing evaluative capacity standards. These chapters focus on visitor satisfaction, perceived crowding, and encounter preferences,

respectively. Chapter 6 describes how to apply the carrying

capacity model in different settings, including a wilderness

backpacking area. The authors describe the Carrying Capacity Assessment Process (C-CAP), which is a step-by-step process for determining capacities, similar to the Limits of

Acceptable Change (LAC) and Visitor Impact Management

(VIM) processes. In addition, they detail steps for conducting

carrying capacity studies, discuss approaches to incorporating capacity research into policy and management decisions,

and present important considerations and methods for allocating resources. In three appendices, the authors present technical information for setting up and conducting carrying

capacity studies and for setting up permit systems to allocate

and evaluate use.

2. Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)

McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N., comps. 1997. Proceedings—Limits of Acceptable Change and related planning

processes: progress and future directions; 1997 May 20–

22; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-371. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 84 p.

Annotation: This workshop proceedings contains eight invited papers, three synthesis papers, and a short annotated bibliography. The purpose of the workshop was to evaluate and

learn from experience in applying Limits of Acceptable Change

(LAC) processes. LAC processes have different titles but share

major features. They include Visitor Impact Management

(VIM) and Visitor Experience and Resource Protection

(VERP), as well as Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC). Invited papers comprise the bulk of this publication. Among other

items, the authors of these papers discuss the original intent

of LAC, evaluate their experiences with applying LAC, and

compare differences between LAC processes. The synthesis

papers discuss suggested modifications of LAC processes,

extensions of LAC beyond recreation in protected areas, and

lessons learned from 15 years of applying LAC. The annotated bibliography contains references that may be useful for

someone interested in using an LAC process—most of which

are included in this reading list.

Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C.;

Petersen, Margaret E.; Frissell, Sidney S. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 37 p.

Annotation: This document describes the LAC system for

establishing appropriate resource and social conditions in recreation settings. LAC differs from carrying capacity in that

the focus is on desirable conditions rather than how much use

an area can tolerate. The LAC process involves nine steps: (1)

identification of area concerns; (2) description of opportunity

classes; (3) identification of indicators; (4) inventory of existing conditions; (5) definition of standards for each indicator;

(6) identification of alternative area allocations; (7) analysis

of costs and benefits of alternatives; (8) selection of a final

alternative; and (9) implementation of selected alternative and

establishment of a monitoring program. Following a description of each of these steps, a hypothetical example of implementing the LAC process in a wilderness area is provided.

3. Visitor Impact Management (VIM)

Graefe, Alan R.; Kuss, Fred R.; Vaske, Jerry J. 1990. Visitor impact management: the planning framework: volume

2. Washington DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. 105 p.

Annotation: This volume and volume 1 (see below) are designed to be used together to provide a comprehensive
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 25

synthesis of empirical and theoretical work related to carrying capacity, and to provide a framework for visitor impact

management in various National Park settings. In volume 1,

the authors briefly describe the difference between carrying

capacity, which is focused on visitor use levels, and the broader

concept of visitor impact management, which recognizes that

manipulating use levels is but one way of reducing recreation

impacts. The remainder of the volume is dedicated to a review

and synthesis of past work. Chapters are divided according to

impacts on vegetation and soils, water resources, wildlife, and

visitor experiences. In the concluding chapter, the authors identify five issues that should be included within any visitor impact management program: impact interrelationships,

use-impact relationships, varying tolerance to impacts, activity-specific influences, and site-specific influences. Volume 2

describes the Visitor Impact Management (VIM) planning

framework. The authors begin by reviewing the five issues

identified in volume 1. In following chapters, they present eight

principles for visitor impact management, eight steps for assessing and managing visitor impacts, and six case studies of

VIM implementation. Five appendices at the end of the document ar: (A) checklist of questions for identification of impact problems and potential solutions; (B) sample impact

assessment tools; (C) sample systems for classification of areas by level of impact; (D) review of existing management

and planning frameworks; and (E) summary of scientific

research considerations.

Kuss, Fred R.; Graefe, Alan R.; Vaske, Jerry J. 1990. Visitor impact management: a review of research: volume 1.

Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association: 187–217.

Annotation: This report is volume 1 of a two-volume set. The

annotation for both volumes is given under Graefe and others

(1990) above.

4. Visitor Experience and Resource Protection

(VERP)

Hof, Marilyn; Lime, David W. 1997. Visitor experience and

resource protection framework in the National Park system: rational, current status, and future direction. Proceedings—Limits of Acceptable Change and related planning

processes: progress and future directions; 1997 May 20–22;

Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-371. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station: 29–36.

Annotation: In response to the perception that the National

Park Service was failing to systematically address visitor use

and impacts, an interdisciplinary team of Park Service personnel and researchers began developing the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) planning framework in

the early 1990s. This paper compares VERP to other planning

frameworks, assesses past experience in applying VERP, and

considers changes that may be needed in the future. Conceptually, VERP does not differ from LAC or other related planning processes. The primary difference in VERP is that it is

driven by goals defined by park purpose, while LAC tends to

be more issue driven. VERP is also designed to address

frontcountry issues common in many National Parks. The

authors suggest that VERP has been a success so far, although

they caution that it remains relatively new and has only been

applied at a few places so far. The future changes they suggest

are related to creating institutional settings in which all levels

of management are committed, financially and otherwise, to

full implementation of the VERP framework.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

1997. The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection

(VERP) framework: a handbook for planners and managers. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center. 103 p.

Annotation: This handbook is primarily intended for National

Park Service planners and managers to use as a general guide

for the application of VERP planning in units of the National

Park System. However, it may be useful for personnel from

other agencies and organizations as well. The first portion of

the handbook gives an overview of the carrying capacity concept and the VERP framework. The next section, which comprises the bulk of the document, describes the nine VERP

framework elements: (1) assemble an interdisciplinary project

team; (2) develop a public involvement strategy; (3) develop

statements of park purpose; identify planning constraints; (4)

analyze park resources an existing use; (5) describe a potential range of visitor experiences and resource conditions; (6)

allocate potential zones; (7) select indicators and standards

for each zone; develop a monitoring plan; (8) monitor indicators; and (9) take management action. The final portion of the

handbook provides examples of the first application of VERP

at Arches National Park. A glossary of terms and a bibliography of useful references are also provided.

C. Identifying Indicators and Setting

Standards

Indicators are defined broadly here as elements of wilderness

settings or visitor experiences that may change in response to

human activities. Standards are defined as predetermined levels

of indicators that guide management actions. Selecting indicators and standards of wilderness experience quality has proven to

be a challenging task for researchers and managers alike. With

regard to indicators, the primary challenge has been identifying

the most important ones from the myriad possibilities. Setting

standards is made difficult because there are no absolute criteria

for determining appropriate indicator levels. The authors in this

section describe ways to measure, evaluate, and select indicators,

and present several different approaches to determining and prescribing appropriate standards.

Cole, David N. 1994. The wilderness threats matrix: a

framework for assessing impacts. Res. Pap. INT-475. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 14 p.

Annotation: This research paper describes the development

and application of a framework for assessing wilderness

threats. The framework is depicted as a matrix with potential

threats to wilderness as columns and wilderness attributes as

rows. Cells in the matrix represent the impacts of each threat

on each attribute. Threats are defined as human activities or

consequences of human activities that have potential to change
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

wilderness conditions. Although interactive or cumulative effects of some threats may be important, they are not depicted

in the matrix. A wilderness research team identified the eight

most significant threats to wilderness attributes in the Forest

Service Northern Region: (1) recreation, (2) livestock, (3)

mining, (4) fire, (5) exotic species, (6) water projects, (7) atmospheric pollutants, and (8) adjacent lands. An “other” category was also included as a threat column in the matrix.

General attributes that apply in all wilderness areas were identified as air, aquatic systems, landforms, soils, vegetation, animals, ecosystems/landscapes, cultural resources, and

wilderness experiences. Although this matrix was specifically

designed for Forest Service wilderness in Montana and Idaho,

similar matrices could be developed for other regions. The

threats matrix may help managers think more comprehensively

about monitoring in wilderness, and it can be used by planners at all stages of planning.

Hollenhorst, Steven; Gardner, Lisa. 1994. The indicator

performance estimate approach to determining acceptable

wilderness conditions. Environmental Management. 18(6):

901–906.

Annotation: With regard to choosing indicators of experience

quality for wilderness management planning, two major limitations have arisen: (1) lack of knowledge about the importance of indicators relative to quality wilderness experiences;

and (2) difficulties in comparing conditions or performance

of indicators. Indicator performance is defined as the difference between visitor standards and actual conditions. This

paper describes the use of an importance-performance approach to prioritize wilderness indicators. A procedure for

calculating Indicator Performance Estimates (IPEs) and locating them within a four-quadrant matrix is described. Labels describe the suggested management strategy for

addressing items that fall within each quadrant. For instance,

indicators with high indicator performance scores and high

importance scores fall into the upper right quadrant of the

matrix labeled “keep up the good work.” Indicators with low

IPEs and high importance scores fall into the upper left quadrant of the matrix labeled “concentrate here.” The authors applied their IPE approach in a study conducted during summer

1991 at the Cranberry Wilderness Area in West Virginia. They

identified, among other items, four indicators related to feelings of crowding that fell into the “concentrate here” category.

A significant advantage of the IPE approach is that managers

may directly compare the importance of indicators relative to

visitor standards.

Merigliano, Linda L. 1989. Indicators to monitor the wilderness recreation experience. In: Lime, David W., ed. Managing America’s enduring wilderness resource; 1989

September 11–17; Minneapolis, MN. St. Paul: University of

Minnesota Extension Service: 156–162.

Annotation: In this paper, indicators are defined as specific

elements of the wilderness setting that change in response to

human activities. The author lists and discusses nine descriptive criteria for selecting indicators, including: quantitative,

correlation, feasible, reliable, responsive, sensitive, integration, early warning, and significance. Good indicators to monitor the wilderness experience reflect the ability of an area to

provide visitors with the opportunity to receive beneficial physical and psychological outcomes. Six categories of benefits of

wilderness experience have been identified in past studies:

solitude, closeness to nature, freedom of choice, challenge,

intragroup intimacy, and health. In the final portion of this

paper, potential indicators that reflect the ability of an area to

provide opportunities for each of these benefits are listed.

Roggenbuck, J. W.; Williams, D. R.; Watson, A. E. 1993.

Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management. 17(2): 187–197.

Annotation: This article describes an effort to compare visitor perceptions of appropriate conditions across four different

wilderness areas. See complete annotation in section III.A.1,

page 15.

Shelby, Bo; Shindler, Bruce. 1992. Interest group standards

for ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. Leisure Sciences. 14: 17–27.

Annotation: See section III.A.1, page 16.

Shelby, Bo; Stankey, George; Shindler, Bruce, tech. eds.

1992. Defining wilderness quality: the role of standards in

wilderness management—a workshop proceedings; 1990

April 10-11; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-305.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 114 p.

Annotation: This document contains 14 papers that were developed from a 1990 workshop to discuss the role of standards in wilderness management. The first six papers are listed

under the section heading “Research.” These papers address

criteria for selecting standards, provide examples and discussion of the normative approach to standard selection, and discuss standards for nonwilderness areas and nonrecreational

values. Next are two papers that make cases for and against

uniform national standards for wilderness. The five remaining papers cover specific examples and case studies of the use

of standards for wilderness management by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park

Service.

Shelby, Bo; Vaske, Jerry J.; Harris, Rick. 1988. User standards for ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. Journal of Leisure Research. 20(3): 245–256.

Annotation: See section III.A.1, page 16.

Tarrant, Michael A.; Shafer, C. Scott. 1997. Condition indicators for distinct wilderness: is there uniformity? International Journal of Wilderness. 3(4): 29–33.

Annotation: The argument for uniform national wilderness standards recognizes that all wilderness areas are part of a nationwide system and therefore should be maintained to minimum

standards in order to provide similar quality recreation experiences. The argument against uniformity is that conditions across

wilderness areas are so diverse that standards would not be comparable. To address this issue, this paper explores the extent to

which visitor concerns and perceptions of conditions are similar

across three distinct wilderness areas: Cohutta in Tennessee and

Georgia, Comanche Peak in Colorado, and Okeefenokee in southern Georgia. Litter, vegetation damage, and noise were among

the top concerns in all three user groups. However, visitors to the

Eastern wilderness areas were significantly less concerned with

amount of noise heard from outside the wilderness, and number

of groups that pass within sight of camp, than Comanche Peak
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 27

visitors. Overall, there were significant differences between the

user groups in level of concern for wilderness conditions and in

perceptions of existing conditions within the respective wilderness areas. The authors suggest that there may be support for a

limited number of uniform standards, including litter, vegetation

damage, and opportunities to view wildlife. Other conditions

varied by area in terms of their importance and influence on visitors. Therefore, the question of uniformity versus variety in standards may depend on the type of condition being considered.

Watson, Alan; Cole, David. 1992. LAC indicators: an evaluation of progress and list of proposed indicators. In:

Merigliano, Linda, ed. Ideas for Limits of Acceptable Change

process: book two. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Recreation Staff: 65–84.

Annotation: This paper compares desirable characteristics of

indicators with a list of indicators that have been proposed or

adopted in management plans in order to evaluate progress

and problems related to selecting Limits of Acceptable Change

indicators. Based on an evaluation of 24 different LAC plans,

the authors provide a list of general conditions or areas of

concern—termed factors—and their corresponding indicators.

Three types of problems related to selecting indicators are identified: (1) difficulty in defining indicators in specific quantitative terms; (2) difficulty in selecting among indicators because

of lack of understanding about which are most significant;

and (3) lack of reliable monitoring methods.

Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1996. Selecting

human experience indicators for wilderness: different approaches provide different results. In: Kulhavy, David L.;

Legg, Michael H., eds. Wilderness and natural areas in Eastern North America: research, management and planning.

Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, Arthur

Temple College of Forestry, Center for Applied Studies: 264–

269.

Annotation: This book chapter focuses on alternative methods

for selecting and determining the significance of wilderness experience indicators. Three primary ways that decisions about indicator significance have traditionally been made are working

groups, public response to agency proposals, and visitor surveys.

The bulk of this chapter addresses methods aimed at improving

the third approach—visitor surveys. Most surveys include a pool

of indicators developed in advance by researchers. This approach

may strongly influence the set of items determined to be significant. At the Juniper Prairie Wilderness in Florida, two alternative

approaches were used to understand the dimensions of visitor

experiences so that a list of specific local indicators could be developed. In the first approach, visitors were asked to record their

focus of attention and feelings about various items at multiple,

randomly selected points during their experiences. In the second

study, open-ended interviews were conducted with groups of visitors immediately following their trips. Both studies provided new

insight into the nature of visitor experiences and were useful in

identifying meaningful indicators for management planning.

Williams, Daniel R.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Patterson,

Michael E.; Watson, Alan E. 1992b. The variability of userbased social impact standards for wilderness management.

Forest Science. 38(4): 738–756.

Annotation: The social norm concept has been widely used to

develop standards for social impact indicators in outdoor

recreation settings. An issue of increasing concern is the variability within impact norm judgments. The purpose of this paper is

to identify the magnitude of four sources of variance (subject,

occasion, area, and indicator) and to make recommendations regarding the number and types of indicators to monitor, the number of respondents necessary to achieve reliable estimates of

impact standards, and the applicability of social impact standards

across wilderness areas. Using a model known as Generalizability

Theory to analyze data from surveys conducted at three Eastern

and one Western wilderness area, the authors found: (1) subject

variability (differences between respondents) may be controlled

by obtaining a large sample; (2) variance due to occasion (time

and place of survey) was modest, suggesting that standards are

generalizable from one occasion to another; and (3) social condition standards are generalizable across areas. Finally, the authors

report that high subject variability puts into question the degree

to which normative standards exist. They suggest future research

to further investigate the nature of between-subject variability.

D. Monitoring Visitor Experiences

Monitoring visitor experiences is a fundamental component of wilderness management planning. The authors in this

section describe specific reasons for monitoring social conditions (Watson 1990), and present strategies for monitoring at

the local wilderness level (Martin 1989; Watson and others

1998) as well as at the National Wilderness System level

(Landres and others 1994). In addition, Ashor (2000) presents

results from 10 years of monitoring at a small Montana wilderness area.

Ashor, Joe L. 2000. Monitoring social indicators in the Bear

Trap Canyon Wilderness 1988–1998. In: Cole, David N.;

McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor

management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRSP-0-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 229–231.

Annotation: This paper presents a case study of monitoring over

10-years in a small wilderness in Montana. Analysis of monitoring data shows that there is only a weak relationship between use

levels and the ability to meet Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)

social standards. That is, increases in numbers of users do not

necessarily increase the likelihood of encountering other users in

the wilderness. Similarly, decreases in use do not necessarily reduce the likelihood of encounters. The author suggests that visitors adjust the timing of their trips to weekdays and evening hours

to avoid crowding when use levels increase. Although many factors other than management action may influence social conditions in the wilderness, the author emphasizes that managers need

to act consistently to maintain the condition of indicators within

determined standards.

Landres, Peter; Cole, David; Watson, Alan. 1994. A monitoring strategy for the National Wilderness Preservation

System. In: Hendee, John C.; Martin, Vance G., eds. International wilderness allocation, management, and research. Fort
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001

Collins, CO: International Wilderness Leadership (WILD)

Foundation: 192–197.

Annotation: The diversity of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) renders any single monitoring program developed for one area inadequate to meet issues of

concern for the whole system. The authors of this paper propose a comprehensive monitoring strategy as an umbrella under which individual units of the NWPS can develop specific

programs to fit their needs. Three primary purposes for all

wilderness monitoring are to improve wilderness management,

to improve the acquisition and use of knowledge from wilderness, and to improve assessment of the status and trends of

the NWPS. These purposes form the basis of a conceptual

model for a national monitoring strategy. Each broad purpose

suggests several subcategories of information that needs to be

collected and monitored. The authors propose a method for

implementing a national monitoring program whereby managers develop initial recommendations, scientists summarize

existing knowledge and identify gaps, and each group revises

their input in an iterative process. Each iteration provides the

opportunity to review successes and failures and incorporate

the newest information.

Martin, Steven R. 1989. A framework for monitoring experiential conditions in wilderness. In: Lime, David W., ed.

Managing America’s enduring wilderness resource; 1989 September 11–17; Minneapolis, MN. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Extension Service: 170–175.

Annotation: This paper outlines a seven-step process to help

managers develop an experiential monitoring program: (1) understand the rationale for monitoring; (2) review what has been

done by others; (3) decide what to monitor; (4) determine how to

monitor; (5) know what to do with the data before they are collected (6) implement monitoring; and (7) use the information.

Each step is explained in detail and a summary list emphasizing

important points is presented at the end of the paper.

Merigliano, Linda L. 1989. Indicators to monitor wilderness conditions. In: Lime, David W., ed. Managing America’s

enduring wilderness resource; 1989 September 11–17; Minneapolis, MN. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Extension

Service: 205–209.

Annotation: See section IV.C, page 26.

Watson, Alan E. 1990. Why is it important to monitor social conditions in wilderness? In: Lime, David W., ed. Managing America’s enduring wilderness resource; 1989

September 11–17; Minneapolis, MN. St. Paul: University of

Minnesota Extension Service: 150–155.

Annotation: This paper discusses reasons for monitoring use

levels, use trends, and the quality of recreation experiences.

General reasons for monitoring use levels and use trends include: (1) increase accuracy of legislatively mandated demand

projections and meet National Forest Management Act regulations; (2) facilitate specification of feasible objectives and

selection of management objectives to achieve them; and (3)

give more credibility to requests for funding of management

programs. The goal of providing quality recreation experiences

is widely accepted by wilderness managers and researchers.

Specific reasons for monitoring the quality of experiences include the requirements of various national legislation such as

the Wilderness Act, National Forest Management Act,

Resource Planning Act, and National Environmental Policy

Act. In addition, most planning systems—such as Limits of

Acceptable Change—require monitoring of social conditions.

Watson, Alan E.; Cronn, Rich; Christensen, Neal A. 1998.

Monitoring inter-group encounters in wilderness. Res. Pap.

RMRS-RP-14. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 20 p.

Annotation: Although measures of intergroup visitor encounters are popular indicators in many LAC-type management

plans, monitoring these indicators can be challenging. The

purpose of this paper is to improve understanding of encounter monitoring methods. The authors describe a study conducted to accomplish three objectives: (1) provide estimates

of encounter rates by various methods; (2) determine the relationship between the various measures of encounter rates; and

(3) determine the relationship between various indirect predictors of encounter rates and actual encounter rates. Six systems were used to measure encounter rates at the Alpine Lakes

Wilderness in Washington in 1991. These systems included

exit surveys, trip diaries, trained observers, wilderness ranger

observations, mechanical counters, trailhead counts, and parking lot vehicle counts. Estimates of encounter rates varied substantially across methods used. On high-use trails, visitor

perceptions of group encounter frequencies were lower than

those of trained observers. On lightly used trails, visitor reports were higher than those of trained observers. The authors

emphasize that differences in estimates cannot necessarily be

used to determine which method is best, because different

methods may measure slightly different things. For instance,

exit surveys and trip diaries measure encounters as perceived

by the visitor. Observer methods measure encounters witnessed

by the trained observer. Good indicators must be specific

enough to guide selection of the appropriate method. Results

from this study can help managers decide which method is

most appropriate for a given area. In addition, they may also

encourage more precise definition of indicators.

Watson, Alan E; Cole, David N.; Turner, David L; Reynolds,

Penny S. 2000. Wilderness recreation use estimation: a

handbook of methods and systems. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-56. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 198 p.

Annotation: Although there is a clear need for accurate information about the amount, types, and distribution of wilderness recreation use, research shows that most wilderness

managers do not employ reliable, systematic procedures for

gathering this information. This report is designed to be a comprehensive source that managers can use to guide themselves

through the process of designing and conducting use estimation plans. The authors describe use estimation as a conceptual system that includes five component parts: setting

objectives, identifying which use characteristics to measure,

developing a sampling plan, collecting data, and calculating

and reporting basic statistics. The report is divided into three

main sections. The first section describes the basic steps for

choosing and implementing a use-estimation system. The second section describes 10 different use-estimation systems in

detail. The final section contains formulas and procedures for

calculating and reporting basic statistics.
USDA Forest Service RMRS GTR-79-vol. 2. 2001 29

AUTHOR INDEX

Ashor 2000. page 27

Borrie 2000. page 19

Borrie and Birzell 2001. page 9

Borrie and Roggenbuck 1996. page 9

Cole 1989. page 20

Cole 1994. page 25

Cole 1996. page 15

Cole 2001. page 17

Cole and others 1987. page 20

Cole and others 1997. pages 15, 17*

Dawson and Hammitt 1996. page 11

Dawson and others 1998a. page 9

Dawson and others 1998b. page 13

Doucette and Cole 1993. page 21

Easley and others 1990. page 13

Fredrickson and Anderson 1999. page 12

Freimund and Borrie 1997. page 19

Gager and others 1998. page 14

Graefe and others 1990. page 24

Haas and others 1986. page 5

Hammitt 1994. page 11

Hammit and Madden 1989. page 11

Hammitt and Patterson 1991. page 17

Hammitt and Rutlin 1995. page 17

Hendee and von Koch 1990. page 23

Hof and Lime 1997. page 25

Hollenhorst and Gardner 1994. page 26

Hollenhorst and others 1994. page 11

International Journal of Wilderness 2000. page 19

Kuss and others 1990. page 25

Landres and others 1994. page 27

Loomis and Walsh 1992. page 5

Lucas 1990. page 21

Manning 1985. page 18

Manning 1999. page 19

Manning and Valliere 1996. page 5

Manning and Lime 2000. page 23

Martin 1989. page 28

Martin and others 1989. page 15

McCloskey 1990. page 6

McCool and Christensen 1996. page 21

McCool and Cole 1997. page 24

McDonald and others 1989. page 12

Merigliano 1989. page 26*, 28

Myers and Close 1998. page 6

Parker and Koesler 1998. page 6

Patterson and Hammitt 1990. page 18

Patterson and others 1998. page 10

Riley and Hendee 2000. page 13

Roggenbuck 1990. page 6

Roggenbuck 1992. page 21

Roggenbuck and others 1991. page 18

Roggenbuck and others 1993. pages 15*, 26

Russell and others 1998. page 14

Scherl 1989. page 14

Scherl 1990. page 10

Schreyer 1984. page 24

Shafer and Hammitt 1995. page 10

Shelby and Harris 1985. page 16

Shelby and Heberlein 1986. page 24

Shelby and Shindler 1992. pages 16*, 26

Shelby and others 1988. pages 16*, 26

Shelby and others 1989. page 18

Shelby and others 1992. page 26

Stankey and others 1985. page 24

Stewart and Cole 1997. page 11

Stewart and Hull 1992. page 20

Stringer and McAvoy 1992. page 13

Strong 1995. page 19

Tarrant and Shafer 1997. page 26

Trainor and Norgaard 1999. pages 6*, 13

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1997.

page 25

Vander Stoep and Roggenbuck 1996. page 22

Watson 1990. page 28

Watson 1995. page 12

Watson and Cole 1992. page 27

Watson and Cronn 1994. page 16

Watson and Landres 1999. page 6

Watson and Niccolucci 1995. pages 17, 18, 22*

Watson and Roggenbuck 1996. page 27

Watson and others 1996. page 7

Watson and others 1998. page 28

Watson and others. 2000. page 28

White and Hendee 2000. page 14

Williams 1988. page 20

Williams 2000. page 7

Williams and others 1989. page 14

Williams and others 1992a. page 7

Williams and others 1992b. pages 19, 27*

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific

information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is

designed to meet the needs of National Forest managers,

Federal and State agencies, public and private organizations,

academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fish

habitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination

in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,

sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital

or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of

Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

RMRS