United States Department of Agriculture / Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Paper RMRS-RP-63

April 2007

Changes in the

Motivations, 

Perceptions, and

Behaviors of

Recreation Users:

Displacement 

and Coping in

Wilderness

Troy E. Hall and David N. Cole
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.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

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

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Hall, Troy E.; Cole, David N. 2007. Changes in the motivations, perceptions, and behaviors 

of recreation users: Displacement and coping in wilderness. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-63. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 37 p.

Abstract

We describe how wilderness visitors perceive changes in wilderness use, impacts, and 

management. We examine how visitors have responded to change, both behaviorally and 

cognitively. The study was based on a sample of visitors to 19 Forest Service wildernesses in 

Oregon and Washington. Many respondents said the types of wilderness trips they take have 

changed since their earlier wilderness trips. Most perceived adverse change. Use has increased 

(particularly day use), resulting in crowding and a widespread sense that these places seem 

less like wilderness than they did in the past. Most of these visitors learned to cope with these 

adverse changes by either adjusting the way they think about these places or by adjusting 

their behavior. Cognitive coping, particularly rationalization, is very common. Most visitors 

do not consider changing conditions to be very problematic, probably because their coping 

mechanisms are successful. This explains lack of support for management actions that restrict 

access. Very few visitors cannot cope with crowded conditions. Displacement of visitors away 

from crowded places does not seem prevalent enough for concern about increased crowding 

and biophysical impact in places in wilderness that are currently lightly used or the validity of 

on-site visitor surveys.

Keywords: crowding, recreation experiences, substitutability, visitor management, visitor 

surveys, wilderness management, wilderness recreation

Authors

Troy E. Hall is Associate Professor in the Department of Conservation Social Sciences at the 

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. She received a B.A. in anthropology from Pomona College, 

an M.A. in anthropology from Duke University and a Ph.D. in forestry from Oregon State 

University.

David N. Cole is Research Biologist with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, 

Missoula, MT. He received an A.B. in geography from the University of California, Berkeley, 

and a Ph.D. in geography from the University of Oregon.
Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................... 1

Previous Research................................................................................................ 2

Displacement................................................................................................ 2

Cognitive Coping .......................................................................................... 2

Study Design and Methods .................................................................................. 3

Survey Instruments........................................................................................ 4

Statistical Analysis......................................................................................... 4

Results.................................................................................................................. 5

Changing Use of Wilderness ......................................................................... 5

Decision-Making Factors for Wilderness Trips............................................... 8

Displacement................................................................................................ 8

Displacement and Coping in Six High Use Wildernesses ............................ 12

Discussion.......................................................................................................... 22

Adverse Changes in Condition .................................................................... 22

Cognitive Coping ........................................................................................ 22

Behavioral Coping....................................................................................... 23

Substitutability............................................................................................. 23

Management Implications.................................................................................. 24

Effect of Crowded Conditions on Experience Quality .................................. 24

Magnitude of Spatial Displacement ............................................................. 24

Methodological Implications ............................................................................. 25

Conclusion......................................................................................................... 26

References ......................................................................................................... 26

Appendix............................................................................................................ 29

USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 

Introduction

Wilderness areas should be managed to provide a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation, as well 

as outstanding opportunities to seek and find solitude. 

However, as the population grows, this becomes more 

difficult and recreation management in wilderness 

becomes increasingly controversial. If management 

does not respond to increasing use, at least some places 

in wilderness become crowded and opportunities for 

solitude decline. Visitors are forced to cope with less than 

ideal conditions (Johnson and Dawson 2004, Miller and 

McCool 2003). Some visitors rationalize the situation as 

being appropriate or acceptable under the circumstances; 

others respond behaviorally and are displaced (Hall and 

Shelby 2000). They choose to visit less crowded places 

(spatial displacement) or at less crowded times (temporal 

displacement). If managers respond by limiting use, 

visitors must cope with decreased access. Again, displacement occurs (Hall and Cole 2000), although in this 

case there are differences in who is displaced, why they 

are displaced, and where they go.

To make good decisions about how to manage 

heavily used wilderness and places where use is increasing, managers need to know more about how visitors 

are affected by increasing use. Displacement and other 

forms of coping are the inevitable result and primary 

mechanisms of visitor response to increasing wilderness 

use. Consequently, they need to be better understood, 

both as a means of describing visitor response and as 

a foundation for recreation management planning in 

heavily used wilderness.

The purpose of this study was to investigate displacement and coping in the Pacific Northwest by describing 

the perceptions of wilderness visitors regarding changes 

in wilderness use, impacts, and management and how 

they have behaviorally and cognitively responded to 

changes. The Pacific Northwest is an ideal place to study 

displacement and coping. The population of Oregon and 

Washington has grown significantly in recent decades, 

particularly near urban areas such as Seattle, Portland, 

and Bend. This growth is reflected in increasing recreational use of wilderness. In the Mt. Hood Wilderness 

near Portland, the use of many trails has increased 

dramatically over a 10 to 15 year period. In the Three 

Sisters Wilderness, some trails (like the South Sister 

Climb) have more than doubled in visitation, while the 

use of others has been relatively constant. Additionally, 

day use appears to have increased substantially, while 

the amount of overnight use has been more stable.

We had at least three reasons to examine displacement 

and coping. First, as mentioned previously, wilderness 

managers are mandated by the Wilderness Act to maintain 

opportunities for certain types of visitor experiences, namely “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” Many are 

concerned that visitor experiences are being degraded 

by increasing use. Evidence of the need to cope with undesirable conditions, regardless of whether the strategy 

involves temporal displacement, spatial displacement, 

or some type of rationalization, would suggest that 

there is reason for concern. Visitors are being forced to 

either change their behavior or to exert mental energy 

to deal with the conditions they find. Consequently, 

we attempted to quantify the proportion of wilderness 

visitors who were either displaced by undesirable conditions or forced to cope with those conditions in some 

other way. We explore the types of conditions that lead 

to displacement and coping, distinguishing between 

reactions to amount of use, biophysical impacts associated with use, and management restrictions.

A second reason to study displacement reflects 

concern that spatial displacement can result in increased 

crowding and biophysical impact in places in wilderness 

that are currently lightly used. The fact that relatively 

small increases in use can cause substantial impact in 

low-use places (Cole 1997) makes this a legitimate 

concern. Spatial displacement might occur either because 

people avoid high use places or because use limits are 

instituted there (Hall and Cole 2000). This is an issue 

we do not directly address in this study. However, the 

data we provide on frequency of spatial displacement, 

in response to current conditions, is suggestive of how 

likely visitors are to spatially alter their wilderness visitation in response to future management changes.

A third reason to investigate displacement has to do 

with concerns about the validity of conclusions that 

are drawn about visitor opinions on the basis of survey 

research. Clearly, the results of visitor surveys will only 

reflect the views of the current visitor population. A 

charge leveled against the use of such visitor surveys as 

a source of information on which to base policy, particularly in places that are heavily used, is that the opinions of 

a substantial number of legitimate stakeholders (people 

who have been displaced by crowding, conflict, or recreational impacts) are not captured in surveys (Dustin 

and McAvoy 1982, Vaske and others 1980). If so, stakeholder concern about the degree and type of impact to 

experiences caused by high levels of use might be underestimated by visitor surveys. Therefore, a goal of 

this study was to quantify the magnitude of the most 

extreme type of spatial displacement, which we refer to 

as “absolute displacement”—cases where people have 

completely stopped using particular places in wilderness. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

Estimates of both absolute displacement and partial displacement—in which people still visit but less frequently 

than they would if conditions had not changed—provide 

insight into how concerned we should be about displacement as a significant source of bias in survey research 

results. If a substantial proportion of visitors have been 

absolutely displaced or have greatly reduced their use 

of places (and the views of displaced people are quite 

different from the views of people who have not been 

displaced), then we should be concerned.

Previous Research

Several earlier investigations have explored how 

wilderness visitors react to adverse circumstances or 

conditions they perceive to be deteriorating. Most investigations have focused specifically on responses to 

crowding.

Displacement

Two early studies of responses to crowded conditions 

on rivers (Becker 1981, Shelby and others 1988) reported 

that sizeable numbers of boaters went to another river to 

avoid crowding. Other studies have since confirmed that 

this reaction (intra-site or macro-spatial displacement) is 

a common occurrence, both in wilderness (Johnson and 

Dawson 2004) and in other settings (Hall and Shelby 

2000, Manning and Valliere 2001). Visitors may also 

adjust where they go and what they do during a particular 

trip. Hoss and Brunson (2000) reported that 36 percent 

of wilderness visitors engaged in this type of microspatial displacement. Intra-site displacement assumes a 

person is aware of other opportunities, perceives them to 

be adequate substitutes, and has the ability to shift use 

to them.

Investigations of displacement have also found that 

temporal displacement—altering the timing of visits—

is a common way for people to deal with undesirable 

conditions (Hall and Shelby 2000, Johnson and Dawson 

2004). Conditions typically vary over time, in predictable ways, being more desirable at some times than 

others. Visitors learn these temporal patterns and build 

this knowledge into their trip planning behavior. For 

example, Manning and Valliere (2001) found that 65 

percent of residents living around Acadia National Park 

used its carriage roads in the off-season and 45 percent 

went on weekdays to avoid deteriorating conditions, 

but only 25 percent said they visited less often. In some 

cases, changing the timing of one’s visits may be less 

difficult than visiting another place altogether, but there 

has been insufficient research to make definitive statements about the relative prevalence of different forms of 

displacement.

Cognitive Coping

Besides behavioral strategies to cope with adverse 

conditions, wilderness visitors may also change the way 

they think about a site or experience in a process called 

cognitive coping (Hammitt and Patterson 1991, Hoss and 

Brunson 2000, Schuster and others 2003). In general, it 

is thought that people naturally adjust their thoughts to 

align with the circumstances they encounter and thereby 

maintain a positive affective state rather than becoming 

dissatisfied (Schuster and others 2006). This is especially likely where the behavior (for example, visiting 

a wilderness) is undertaken voluntarily. Various terms, 

such as rationalization, product shift, and psychological 

distancing, have been used to describe cognitive coping, 

but all involve either reassessment of expectations 

(sometimes the result of prior experience at the site) or 

reasoning away negative conditions (Manning 1999). 

For example, people may decide that their original 

goals were unrealistic or that nothing could have been 

done to alter the situation, so they might as well accept 

it (Miller and McCool 2003). Cognitive coping due to 

crowding has been documented as extensive (Johnson 

and Dawson 2004). Hoss and Brunson (2000) reported 

that 50 percent of wilderness visitors who encountered 

a negative situation on their trip rationalized it in some 

way.

While most research has focused on crowding or 

negative social encounters as the stimulus for coping, 

relatively few studies have explored displacement due 

to other factors, such as ecological impacts and management actions. Hall and Cole (2000) reported that the 

implementation of certain visitor regulations caused 

more people to be displaced than the crowded conditions 

the regulations were designed to correct. Clearly, if wilderness managers are to make informed decisions, they 

must understand what types of conditions have what 

types and levels of impacts on visitors. In the present 

study we explore the effect of recreational impacts, 

management restrictions, and crowding on wilderness 

visitors’ behavior.

In our review of the recreation literature on coping, 

it became clear that attention needs to be paid to the 

ways in which the magnitude of displacement or coping 

is measured. Two issues are particularly important. The 

first issue is the difference between assessments of displacement based on experiences during a single trip 

(for example, Johnson and Dawson 2004, Miller and 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

McCool 2003) and assessments based on multiple trips 

to different places (for example, Hall and Shelby 2000, 

Manning and Valliere 2001). Asking about adjustment 

on a specific trip is a good way to understand micro-adjustments people make and how they combine different 

coping mechanisms (Hoss and Brunson 2000, Johnson 

and Dawson 2004). However, it is less well-suited to 

capturing macro-scale spatial adjustments and understanding the effect of conditions on decisions about 

where to go in the first place.

The second issue concerns the response options 

available for people to describe their coping actions. 

Some studies have simply reported the presence/absence 

of coping—by asking people yes/no questions (for 

example, Hall and Shelby 2000, Manning and Valliere 

2001). Magnitude is expressed as the proportion of 

the population that has ever coped in a particular way. 

Other studies (for example, Schuster and others 2003) 

ask people to describe the frequency or intensity of their 

response. In this case, magnitude reflects both how many 

people respond in a particular way and how frequently 

those people respond in that way.

We were interested in assessing the magnitude of 

response to conditions, as well as the nature of that 

response. We reasoned that intensity of response 

increases with increases in the frequency and spatial 

scale of response. Always avoiding a particular place is 

a more intense response than occasionally avoiding it. 

Similarly, avoiding an entire wilderness is more extreme 

than avoiding a particular lake within a wilderness or 

setting up camp at the far end of a lake, away from the 

crowds. For our purposes, we designed our study to 

reveal macro-scale responses and to provide frequency 

measures for responses. We believe that these provide 

more meaningful information to wilderness managers 

about the intensity of coping, especially displacement.

Study Design and Methods

Understanding the extent of displacement, especially 

spatial displacement, is difficult because it requires researchers to locate and contact people not present at the 

research site. Perhaps the ideal way to study displacement 

would be to survey a representative sample of the population of residents. Such surveys, which are commonly 

conducted to understand environmental attitudes and 

values, usually seek a representative sample using techniques such as random digit dialing. We decided this 

approach would be impractical due to the low awareness 

and use of wilderness among the general population.

Instead, we surveyed a representative sample of the 

general population of wilderness visitors in Oregon 

and Washington. In many wildernesses, visitors must 

complete a self-issued wilderness permit at the trailhead 

at the beginning of their trip. Usually, visitors record 

their names and addresses on these permits. We obtained 

the 2002 permits for the 19 wildernesses (out of 59 wildernesses in the two states) that require permits and that 

record names and addresses. Compliance rates varied 

among trailheads and permits were sometimes unavailable at trailheads for short periods of time. Additionally, 

group leaders are more likely to fill out the permit and 

may be more experienced (among other things) than 

other group members (Cole and others 1995). Therefore, 

the sampling frame represents only people who filled out 

permits, not other group members.

We sampled permits from the following wildernesses: 

Diamond Peak, Eagle Cap, Glacier View, Goat Rocks, 

Indian Heaven, Mark O. Hatfield, Mt. Adams, Mt. Hood, 

Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Norse Peak, Opal Creek, 

Pasayten, Salmon-Huckleberry, Tatoosh, Three Sisters, 

Trapper Creek, Waldo Lake, and William O. Douglas. 

These wildernesses represent a wide range of environments and use levels, although the most heavily used 

wilderness in the region, Alpine Lakes, was excluded 

because visitors are not asked for their addresses.

A 1-in-30 systematic random sample generated a 

database of 1,880 names for the survey mailing list. 

The sample included day and overnight visitors, hikers, 

climbers, and stock users in proportion to their representation in the population. Approximately 75 percent of 

permits had names and addresses. If a sampled permit did 

not have an address, we chose the next complete permit. 

The first round of surveys was sent in September 2003. 

Following Dillman’s method (Salant and Dillman 1994), 

a reminder postcard was sent out 10 days following the 

initial mailing. Approximately 10 days after the reminder 

postcard, a second survey was sent to the remaining nonrespondents. Of the 1,735 valid addresses, respondents 

completed and returned 1,038 questionnaires for a 60 

percent response rate. We did not attempt to assess nonresponse bias by contacting and collecting information 

from visitors who did not return our questionnaire.

Because of the small number of stock users relative 

to hikers, we only obtained 66 completed questionnaires 

from stock users. To gather a better representation of 

stock users, we conducted a systematic (1-in-17) sample 

of the same 2002 Oregon and Washington wilderness 

permits, using only those that self-identified as traveling 

with livestock. Surveys were sent to 207 legitimate 

addresses in November 2003. One hundred forty-one 
 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

surveys were completed and returned, resulting in a 68 

percent response rate. These surveys were combined 

with the 66 stock user surveys returned from the first 

round of mailings.

Ultimately, 1,173 completed surveys were obtained. 

Of these, 959 (82 percent) were from hiker permits, 207 

(18 percent) were from stock user permits, and 7 were 

from permits where it was not possible to identify mode 

of travel. Respondents from three Oregon wildernesses 

(Three Sisters, Mt. Hood, and Mt. Jefferson) dominated 

the sample, reflecting the disproportionately high amount 

of use these areas receive.

Survey Instruments

Our goal was to understand displacement at a scale 

larger than a single wilderness. We asked people general 

questions about behavioral tendencies, for instance, 

whether there were any wildernesses avoided due to 

crowding. At the same time, we wanted to gain a deeper 

understanding about the ways people cope cognitively 

with changes they perceive at some of the most heavily 

used individual wildernesses. To assess both regional and 

wilderness-specific responses, we developed two versions 

of a survey instrument that contained both general and 

wilderness-specific questions (see Appendix). Both 

versions of the 14-page survey contained questions that 

asked about use, attitudes, and perceptions of Oregon and 

Washington wilderness areas in general. These included 

questions about how motives for visiting wilderness had 

changed over time and several questions about temporal 

and spatial displacement (similar to items asked by 

Manning and Valliere 2001, Miller and McCool 2003). 

Three broad questions targeted absolute displacement 

(Miller and McCool 2003) by asking whether there were 

any wildernesses avoided because of social conditions, 

management restrictions, or recreational impacts.

The two survey versions differed in specific sections 

that focused on experiences in selected wildernesses. 

Based on a 2003 pilot study, we identified six wildernesses that received enough visitation to ensure an adequate 

number of respondents who had been to each of them 

(obtained from the regional sample). One version asked 

about the Mt. Adams, Eagle Cap, and Mt. Jefferson 

Wildernesses, while the other asked about the Mt. Hood, 

Alpine Lakes, and Three Sisters Wildernesses. The 

questions asked about each wilderness were identical, 

and respondents were instructed to skip sections about 

wildernesses they had never visited.

The sections specific to a particular wilderness 

contained questions about cognitive coping in addition to 

displacement. Coping, whether behavioral or cognitive, 

is a reaction to conditions perceived as undesirable. 

To document the extent to which wilderness visitors 

perceived conditions to have deteriorated in these high 

use wildernesses, we asked questions about perception 

of change in the number of visitors, solitude opportunities, ecological impacts, freedom, and regulations. 

Additionally, we asked respondents whether they agreed 

or disagreed with the statement that the place presently 

“feels less like wilderness” compared to the past, and 

whether it felt crowded. Cognitive coping encompasses 

rationalizing an existing situation or changing the way 

one perceives it. We asked people if they thought the experiences at the six wildernesses had changed, whether 

they visit now for different reasons than in the past, and 

whether they had become accustomed to changes. We 

also included a limited number of agree/disagree statements about rationalization developed from Hoss and 

Brunson’s (2000) findings: “the area is so beautiful I 

visit in spite of the number of people,” “everyone should 

have a right to visit,” and “impacts could be worse considering the amount of use.”

To assess displacement from the six wildernesses, respondents were asked whether they visit more, less, or 

the same as in the past and why (Hall and Cole 2000). To 

understand how people might balance a desire to avoid 

undesirable conditions with their attraction to these 

wildernesses, we included items to measure place attachment and substitutability: “I don’t know of another 

area that offers the same opportunities,” “other places 

are just as good,” “there are so few places like this, I 

go in spite of the use,” “I have special memories of this 

place,” and “visiting is a tradition for me.” Finally, we 

included items measuring satisfaction, because previous 

studies have found that satisfaction remains high, 

possibly because people effectively cope with problems 

via the cognitive and behavioral mechanisms described 

above (Hoss and Brunson 2000, Manning and Valliere 

2001). Satisfaction items included “I enjoy my visits 

here as much as I used to” and “I’m not as satisfied with 

my experiences as I used to be.”

Statistical Analysis

Although most of the results that we report are descriptive statistics, we used inferential statistics some. 

We used Somer’s D to assess whether the proportion of visitors reporting displacement was related to 

how many years they had been visiting wilderness. We 

used two-factor analyses of variance to assess whether 

visitor perceptions of change in specific wildernesses 

and response to those changes varied between hikers 

and stock users or between different wildernesses. For 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 

general questions, hikers are described separately from 

stock users. For the sections on specific wildernesses, 

sample sizes are so small that we do not make this differentiation. We pooled data from the general population 

and stock user samples, using stratified sampling estimators to account for the fact that we oversampled stock 

users. Due to our inclusion of the separate sample of 

stock users, stock users were 17.6 percent of our total 

sample, despite being only 6.4 percent of the initial representative sample of all users.

Results

Men dominated the sample (70 percent), even though 

observations of on-site use in a related study suggest that 

men only account for about 58 percent of wilderness 

visitors (Cole and Hall 2005). The median age of hikers 

was 46 years, while the median age of stock users was 

53 years (table 1). Compared to trailhead surveys of all 

users to 36 trails in Oregon and Washington (Cole and 

Hall 2005), where the median age was about 38 years, 

the sample for this study was older. These results are 

suggestive of some of the differences between the population we sampled (those who filled out permits) and the 

larger population of wilderness users. While almost all 

hikers said that hiking was their only mode of travel, 18 

percent of stock users said they hike and use stock about 

equally.

At least someone in each of our samples (hikers and 

stock users) had been to each of the 59 wildernesses 

in Oregon and Washington. At least 10 percent of our 

sample had been to 38 of these wildernesses. At least 30 

percent of the sample had been to each of the six specific 

wildernesses we studied: Alpine Lakes, Eagle Cap, Mt. 

Adams, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, and Three Sisters.

In general, stock users have been visiting these wildernesses for a longer period of time than hikers. About 

two-thirds of hikers and 80 percent of stock users have 

been visiting Oregon and Washington wilderness for 

more than 10 years. Eighteen percent of hikers and 34 

percent of stock users first visited in the 1960s or before. 

The median stock user first visited in 1975, while the 

median hiker first visited in 1982.

To investigate displacement due to change, we felt 

it was most valid to consider only the responses of 

long-term visitors, those with the most appropriate context for evaluating change. Therefore, we only 

included respondents who had made at least five visits 

to an Oregon or Washington wilderness, with at least 

one of those visits having occurred at least five years 

ago (in 1998 or before). Most respondents, 86 percent of 

hikers and 72 percent of stock users, met these criteria 

and were considered long-term visitors.

Changing Use of Wilderness

Long-time wilderness users were asked how their wilderness trips have changed over time in terms of length 

and frequency of trips, visitation to places closer to or 

farther from home, and reactions to rules or site developments. The question asked, “compared to your earlier 

wilderness trips in Oregon and/or Washington, how have 

the following aspects changed? Please indicate how 

strongly you agree or disagree with each statement” (+3 

= strongly agree; -3 = strongly disagree). The average 

score for most items was close to zero, suggesting either 

little change, or that the proportion changing in one 

direction was equivalent to the proportion changing in 

the opposing direction.

Regarding trip length, most hikers reported that they 

take more day trips than in the past, while relatively few 

hikers reported taking more overnight trips than in the 

Table 1. Age distribution (percent) of respondents.

Age in years

Mode of

travel 20 or less 21-30 31-40 41-50 More than 50

Hikers 0 14 19 29 38

Stock users 0 2 7 32 58

Figure 1. Percent of long-term hikers and stock users agreeing and disagreeing that they take (a) more overnight trips 

and (b) more day trips than in the past.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

Figure 2. Percent of long-term hikers and stock users agreeing and disagreeing that they take (a) shorter trips and (b) 

longer trips than in the past.

Figure 3. Percent of long-term hikers and stock users agreeing and disagreeing that they visit wilderness (a) more often 

and (b) less often than in the past.

Figure 4. Percent of long-term hikers and stock users agreeing and disagreeing that they visit wildernesses that are (a) 

closer to home and (b) further from home than in the past.

Figure 5. Percent of long-term hikers and stock users agreeing and disagreeing that they visit places in wilderness that 

are (a) more remote and (b) less remote than in the past.

Figure 6. Percent of long-term hikers and stock users agreeing and disagreeing that they are (a) more likely and (b) 

less likely to use a popular trail than in the past.

Figure 7. Percent of long-term hikers and stock users agreeing and disagreeing that they are more likely than in the 

past to visit places (a) with well-developed trails and established campsites and (b) without such facilities.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

past (fig. 1). In contrast, a slight majority of stock users 

reported that they take more overnight trips than in the 

past. For hikers, there appears to be a slight shift toward 

taking shorter trips, while stock users reported being 

more likely to take longer trips (fig. 2). Both hikers and 

stock users reported visiting wilderness more often than 

they did in the past (fig. 3). The ability to visit more 

often might be partially explained by the fact that both 

hikers and stock users stated that they are much more 

likely to visit wilderness areas closer to home than they 

were in the past (fig. 4).

Regarding where they go in wilderness, both hikers 

and stock users reported that they are more likely to visit 

remote locations (fig. 5) and less likely to use a popular 

trail (fig. 6). Majorities stated that they are more likely to 

visit places without developments (fig. 7), although this 

tendency was less pronounced when people were asked 

about visits to well-developed sites. Rules and regulations appeared to have little influence on choices (fig. 

8), perhaps because there are so few in these wildernesses. Hikers do not tend consciously to avoid places with 

permits, rules, and regulations, and few hikers do not 

accept rules and regulations. Stock users are somewhat 

more likely to visit places with fewer rules and regulations, but most state that they have become more 

accepting of regulations than in the past.

Collectively, these results suggest there may be cause 

for concern about displacement. Hikers are visiting wilderness more frequently, for day trips particularly, in 

places close to their homes. While these trends contribute to concentration of use, most hikers also reported 

trying to visit more remote places in wilderness, less 

popular trails, and places without development. Stock 

users differed only in that they were also taking more 

overnight trips and that the length of their trips was not 

declining. So far, neither group generally felt that rules 

and regulations were prevalent enough to have much 

effect on their patterns of use.

We asked long-time visitors how their motivations for 

wilderness trips have changed compared to their earlier 

trips. For each of 15 common reasons for taking wilderness trips, respondents could give scores between +3 

(more of a motive now) and -3 (less of a motive now). For 

both stock users and hikers, most motivations we asked 

about were reported to be more of a motive for visiting 

wilderness now than in the past; no motivations were 

less of a motive now (table 2). Patterns of response were 

generally similar across the two user groups. Certain motivations increased in importance more than others, 

however. Enjoying scenery, finding peace and 

quiet, escaping routine/relax, getting away from 

people, clearing the mind, getting close to nature, 

and solitude were motivations that most hikers and 

stock users felt were much more important to them 

now than in the past. Exercise was much more 

important now than in the past for hikers, but less 

so for stock users. The only motives that were less 

important today for as much as 10 percent of the 

sample were easy access, develop skills, challenge 

and excitement. Again, this shift toward more contemplative motives for visiting wilderness suggests 

a potential for problems resulting from increased 

wilderness use, particularly if it is concentrated in 

day use zones in wildernesses close to large urban 

areas. Contemplative activities are more likely to 

be disrupted by heavy concentrated use.

Figure 8. Percent of long-term hikers and stock users agreeing 

and disagreeing that they (a) avoid places with permits, (b) 

are more likely to visit places with fewer rules, and (c) are 

more accepting of rules and regulations than in the past.

Table 2. Change in motivations of long-term visitors.a

Hikers Stock users

n = 780 n = 173

Mean SE Mean SE

Enjoy scenery 1.45 0.05 1.80 0.10

Exercise 1.49 0.04 0.91 0.11

Peace and quiet 1.41 0.04 1.59 0.10

Escape routine/relax 1.27 0.04 1.63 0.10

Clear the mind 1.26 0.04 1.37 0.10

Get away from people 1.20 0.05 1.52 0.10

Close to nature 1.19 0.05 1.53 0.10

Solitude 1.14 0.05 1.35 0.10

See wildlife 1.04 0.04 1.59 0.10

Sense of accomplishment 0.87 0.05 0.75 0.10

Friends/family 0.84 0.05 1.22 0.11

Excitement 0.74 0.05 0.80 0.11

Challenge 0.38 0.05 0.20 0.11

Develop skill 0.23 0.05 0.58 0.11

Easy access 0.19 0.05 0.13 0.11

a

 Scale: -3 (less of a motive now) to +3 (more of a motive now)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

Decision-Making Factors for 

Wilderness Trips

In order to understand how crowding compares to 

other factors that might influence wilderness visitation, 

we asked long-time visitors how much they consider 

each of eight factors in deciding “which places to go 

for wilderness trips in Oregon and/or Washington.” This 

general question forced respondents to consider all their 

trips as a whole, with responses ranging from zero (not 

at all a consideration) to 6 (a major consideration).

Of the short list of factors asked about, both hikers and 

stock users considered crowding to be most important 

when deciding where to go in wilderness (table 3). Trail 

conditions were somewhat important, particularly to 

stock users. Campsite conditions were less important to 

both groups. Rules and regulations were of little concern 

to hikers, but more of a concern for stock users. Most 

of these items had means below 3.0 (“a minor consideration”), suggesting they are not very important. Rules 

and regulations might have been more of a concern if 

they were more prevalent. In Forest Service wilderness in 

Oregon and Washington, amount of use is only limited in 

small portions of three wildernesses. Behavioral restrictions are also uncommon. The reader should remember 

that there are many other factors we did not ask about, 

such as scenery or distance to the trailhead. These may 

be equally or even more important in people’s decisions 

about where to go.

Displacement

Amount and causes of displacement

Displacement can range from absolute displacement, 

a decision to never visit a place again, to partial displacement, which might involve continuing to frequently visit 

a place but trying to avoid it on major holidays. Absolute 

displacement is most germane to two of the reasons 

why we were interested in assessing displacement: (1) 

whether or not on-site survey results are substantially 

biased as a result of displacement and (2) the likelihood 

of pronounced spatial shifts in use levels as a result of 

displacement.

Our most direct attempt to quantify absolute displacement involved asking the question, “have you ever had 

an experience so unpleasant that it made you decide not 

to return to an area?” In reference to the Forest Service 

wildernesses in Oregon and Washington, almost 13 

percent responded affirmatively by listing at least one 

such place (there was space on the questionnaire to list 

up to three places). For each place that they no longer 

visit, respondents were asked why they would not 

return. These open-ended responses were categorized 

into reasons related to use (such as crowding, visitor 

behavior, vandalism, or the type of users), management 

(such as trail maintenance or fees), and environmental 

impacts or conditions (such as campsite impacts, trash, 

bugs, or aesthetics).

Fifty-seven percent of the people who were absolutely 

displaced provided a use-related reason for displacement. 

Fewer people listed management (25 percent) or environmental impacts/conditions (29 percent) as reasons for 

absolute displacement. Personal reasons for no longer 

visiting (such as aging or injury) were only mentioned 

by 3 percent of those who were displaced, although we 

know from other research that such factors are important 

reasons for people to cease visitation (Shindler 1993). 

More than one-third of the people giving a use-related 

reason cited crowding. Other common use-related issues 

were stock use, vandalism, and rude or inconsiderate 

behavior. The most common management-related issue 

was trail maintenance, while site impacts and litter were 

the most commonly mentioned impact-related reasons 

for absolute displacement. Some people mentioned that 

they simply felt the environment was not appealing 

to them, for reasons such as a recent wildfire or 

steep trails. The large number of factors people 

cited suggests that, with the exception of crowding, 

the types of negative experiences that cause people 

not to return to a place vary considerably.

Based on these findings, we can conclude that 

absolute displacement occurs for a variety of 

reasons. In our survey, about 13 percent of the 

population could identify at least one place in a wilderness to which they would not return. Crowding 

was the most common reason for absolute displacement. About 3 percent of the sample (39 

people out of a sample of 1,173) reported being 

Table 3. Importance of factors long-term visitors use to decide the 

location of wilderness visitsa.

Hikers Stock users 

n = 808 n = 186

Mean SE Mean SE

Crowding 4.18 0.06 3.89 0.14

Trail conditions 2.90 0.06 3.31 0.14

Amount of day use 2.85 0.07 2.45 0.15

Presence of stock use 2.71 0.08 0.74 0.12

Amount of overnight use 2.54 0.07 2.56 0.15

Presence of hikers 2.50 0.06 2.43 0.14

Campsite conditions 2.40 0.06 2.17 0.14

Rules and regulations 1.76 0.06 2.67 0.14

a

 Scale: 0 = not at all a consideration to 6 = a major consideration
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

absolutely displaced from at least one place in an Oregon 

or Washington wilderness as a result of crowding. About 

7 percent of the sample listed some use-related factor 

(including crowding) as a reason for being absolutely 

displaced.

To explore the amount of partial displacement, longtime visitors were asked whether they had reduced 

their use of any Oregon or Washington wildernesses 

for social, managerial, or impact-related reasons. About 

one-quarter of both hikers and stock users reported that 

they have reduced their use of at least one wilderness 

because “the natural environment has been too highly 

impacted by recreational use” (table 4). Fifteen percent 

of hikers and 24 percent of stock users said they visited 

a place less often because “regulations on recreation use 

are too restrictive.” Finally, more than 50 percent of both 

user types said they had altered the timing of their use 

or reduced visitation to at least one wilderness “because 

there are too many people there.”

These results suggest that use density is currently a 

more substantial source of displacement than regulations or recreational impacts. However, the question we 

asked regarding “too many people” differed from the 

questions we asked regarding regulations and impacts, 

as it included the option of changing the timing of use. 

Visitors can respond to use density by changing when 

they visit as well as changing the frequency of use. 

Consequently, the larger proportion of people displaced 

because of “too many people” include those who have 

been temporally displaced, as well as those who have 

been spatially displaced. It is quite possible that the proportion of people that visit less often (as opposed to at 

different times) because there are too many people is no 

greater than the proportion that visit less often for other 

reasons. Nevertheless, these results suggest that substantial displacement is occurring, with one-half of all 

long-term visitors reporting that they have at least occasionally altered the timing of their visits due to concerns 

about crowding.

The effects of management actions on frequency of 

visitation should be interpreted in light of the relatively 

low level of regulation imposed in most wildernesses in 

the region. Few Forest Service wildernesses in Oregon 

and Washington have regulations that significantly impact 

visitor behaviors, such as use limits, camping closures, 

or campfire bans. Visitors respect and endorse most of 

the regulations in place, such as the requirement to pack 

out trash. Therefore it is difficult to directly compare 

the magnitude of displacement caused by regulations 

to that caused by environmental or social conditions. 

Other studies (Hall and Cole 2000, Shelby and others 

1988) have demonstrated that use limit policies lead to 

as much or more displacement than crowding.

Some have argued that long-time visitors are more 

likely to be displaced than newcomers because they are 

more sensitive to changes in conditions and are able 

to compare current conditions to those they first experienced (Kuentzel and Heberlein 1992). We found that 

displacement due to restrictive regulations was higher 

among long-time visitors (fig. 9). The proportion of 

displaced visitors decreased significantly as year of first 

visit increased (Somers’ d = -0.38, p = 0.01). However, 

displacement due to environmental impacts or too many 

people was not higher among long-term visitors (Somers’ 

d = -0.20 and 0.01, p = 0.25 and 0.80. respectively).

Displacement behavior

In addition to assessing how many visitors had ever 

been displaced, we were also interested in how frequently they used specific behavioral responses. For this 

purpose, visitors were asked how often they engaged in 

a particular behavior, responding on a 7-point scale from 

never (0) to always (6). The most common behavior, to 

avoid holidays and peak weekends, had a mean rating of 

3.5, suggesting frequency of use is typically somewhere 

between occasional and often (table 5). Other temporal 

displacement behaviors, such as visiting on weekdays 

and earlier or later in the season, were also fairly 

common. Spatial displacement was less common than 

temporal displacement. Avoidance of crowded trails and 

highly impacted places within a wilderness was more 

common than going to an entirely different wilderness. 

Hikers were more likely to say they avoid places with 

stock use, while stock users were more likely to say 

they avoided places with regulations on stock use. Stock 

users were also more likely to avoid places with regulations of any kind. Otherwise, responses were similar 

between the two types of visitors.

Table 4. Percent of long-term visitors reporting displacement due to amount of use, regulations, and ecological impacts.

Hikers Stock users

n = 786 n = 174

Visit less often or at different times because there are too many people 52 54

Visit less often because regulations on recreation are too restrictive 15 24

Visit less often because natural environment has been too highly impacted by recreation 26 25
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the large percentage of 

people who said they “never” had taken one of these 

actions, as well as the percentage who indicated that they 

“usually” or “always” did. The figures suggest that these 

behaviors fall into four different frequency classes;

Avoiding holidays or peak weekends, very common. 

Almost one-half of hikers and stock users reported 

that they usually or always engage in this behavior.

Other temporal and micro-scale spatial displacement 

behaviors, less common: (1) going to less crowded 

trails, (2) going earlier or later in the season, (3) going 

on weekdays, and (4) avoiding impacted places. 

•

•

Less than one-third of respondents reported usually 

or always engaging in these behaviors, but less than 

one-quarter reported that they have never engaged in 

these behaviors.

Macro-scale spatial displacement, uncommon. Twelve 

percent of hikers and 18 percent of stock users usually 

or always go to a less crowded wilderness, while about 

one-third of hikers and stock users never do.

Avoidance of some specific conditions, very rare. 

Half or more of respondents reported never doing the 

following: (1) avoiding places with stock regulations, 

(2) avoiding places with group size limits, (3) avoiding 

•

•

Table 5. Frequency of usea for varied displacement behaviors—long-term users.

Hikers Stock users

n = 784 n = 172

Mean SE Mean SE

Avoid holiday or peak weekends 3.47 0.07 3.49 0.17

Go to trails that are less crowded 3.13 0.06 3.24 0.15

Visit on weekdays 2.83 0.07 3.06 0.16

Visit earlier or later in season 2.79 0.06 2.63 0.15

Avoid highly impacted places 2.71 0.07 3.04 0.16

Go to other Wildernesses that are less crowded 2.21 0.06 2.22 0.16

Avoid places with pack stock use 1.68 0.07 0.30 0.07

Avoid places that charge fees 1.35 0.07 1.77 0.17

Still go for day trips; go other places for overnight 1.34 0.06 1.21 0.13

Visit less often to avoid rude/disruptive people 1.01 0.06 0.90 0.12

Avoid rules about where people can camp 0.89 0.05 1.63 0.15

Avoid places with limits on amount of use 0.80 0.05 1.44 0.15

Avoid places with regulation on pack stock 0.45 0.04 2.02 0.19

Avoid limits on group size 0.43 0.04 0.98 0.13

a

 Scale: 0 = Never, 2 = Occasionally, 4 = Often, 6 = Always

Figure 9. Relationship between 

how long people have been 

visiting wilderness and frequency of displacement due 

to too many people, too much 

impact, or too much restriction.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 11

places with limits on use, (4) avoiding places with rules 

on camping, (5) going less often to avoid rude people, 

(6) continuing to go for day trips but going elsewhere 

for overnight trips, (7) avoiding places with fees, and 

(8) avoiding places with stock use.

Variation in displacement among wildernesses

When we asked long-time visitors about whether they 

had been displaced due to social, environmental, or regulatory conditions (table 4), we asked them to note which 

wildernesses they visit less often. For 32 of 59 wildernesses in Oregon and Washington, at least one person 

from our sample reported having been displaced. This 

suggests that displacement is a widespread phenomenon, although it is most prevalent in the more popular 

wildernesses. More than 10 percent of long-term visitors 

to the Alpine Lakes, Mark O. Hatfield, Mt. Hood, Mt. 

Jefferson, and Three Sisters Wildernesses reported that 

they are careful about when they visit or that they visit 

less often due to use-related issues. These estimates of 

amount of displacement include all types of responses, 

regardless of frequency and severity. This displacement 

might have occurred frequently or it might only have 

occurred once. It might have involved a decision to 

never visit again or a less extreme response, such as attempting to avoid visiting on holidays if possible.

Figure 10. Percent of long-term 

hikers who usually or always 

use various coping behaviors 

and the percent who never 

use them.

Figure 11. Percent of long-term 

stock users who usually or 

always use various coping behaviors and the percent who 

never use them.
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

For stock users, use-related displacement was most 

common at Three Sisters Wilderness, followed by Mt. 

Jefferson, Mt. Adams, and Eagle Cap. One-third of 

long-term stock users at Three Sisters and one-quarter of 

long-term stock users at Mt. Jefferson reported altering 

the timing of their visits or reducing their use due to the 

amount of use. Three wildernesses accounted for the 

greatest displacement due to regulations for both hikers 

and stock users: Mt. Jefferson, Alpine Lakes, and Three 

Sisters. These three wildernesses are the only areas in the 

region with use limits. Mt. Hood Wilderness, where substantial displacement was reported due to high levels of 

use, was infrequently cited for displacement caused by 

regulations. Recreational impact was cause for displacement in very few wildernesses. Again, Three Sisters was 

mentioned most often, followed by Mt. Jefferson, Eagle 

Cap, Alpine Lakes, and Mt. Hood.

When we assessed absolute displacement by asking 

the question, “have you ever had an experience so unpleasant that it made you decide not to return to that 

area?”, 147 people responded affirmatively by listing at 

least one such place. Thirty-four different wildernesses 

were listed, though most were cited by only a few people. 

Table 6 shows the magnitude of absolute displacement 

for each wilderness, expressed as a percentage of all 

respondents who had ever been to that wilderness. Of 

the wildernesses with a substantial sample size, Three 

Sisters, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Hood, Alpine Lakes, Goat 

Rocks, and Bull of the Woods appear to experience the 

most absolute displacement. However, no more than 

3 or 4 percent of the sample reported being absolutely 

displaced. Moreover, while visitors report that there is 

some place in these wildernesses they no longer visit, 

there may be other places in these same wildernesses 

that they continue to visit.

Displacement and Coping in Six High 

Use Wildernesses

The results to this point have been based on questions 

that asked respondents to consider all Forest Service 

wildernesses they had visited in the Pacific Northwest. 

While this provides a good overall sense of the 

magnitude and types of displacement and coping, it has 

the drawback of asking people to respond for all wildernesses together. For instance, people who had visited 

many high and low use wildernesses would have to 

decide how to integrate all these trips when responding to a question about how often they avoid weekends 

or holidays. They might always avoid a popular wilderness on holidays and specifically seek out a low use 

wilderness at those times. If this leads them to say they 

“occasionally” avoid holidays, this would not be a highly 

meaningful response for managers of either wilderness. 

In order to learn more about displacement and coping 

at high use wildernesses, we asked questions specific to 

the Mt. Hood, Alpine Lakes, Eagle Cap, Mt. Jefferson, 

Mt. Adams, and Three Sisters Wildernesses. Half of the 

respondents were asked about Mt. Hood, Alpine Lakes, 

and Three Sisters; the other half were asked about Eagle 

Cap, Mt. Jefferson, and Mt. Adams.

The percentage of hikers in our sample who had been 

to each of these wildernesses varied from more than 70 

percent for the Mt. Hood and Three Sisters Wildernesses 

to 28 percent for Alpine Lakes (table 7). The percentage of stock users who had been to each wilderness was 

less variable. It is important to note that Alpine Lakes 

Wilderness is unique; we did not draw our sample from 

this wilderness. Those commenting on Alpine Lakes 

Table 6. Percent of long-term wilderness visitors who have 

been absolutely displaced from some place in each 

wilderness.

Displaced (percent)a n

Mt. Jefferson 3.4 642

Three Sisters 3.1 799

Bull of the Woods 2.9 315

Alpine Lakes 2.7 329

Mt. Hood 2.5 747

Rogue 2.5 162

Goat Rocks 2.3 394

Indian Heaven 2.1 327

Pasayten 1.9 209

Badger Creek 1.8 218

Cummins Creek 1.7 118

Mill Creek 1.6 129

Diamond Peak 1.2 328

Strawberry 1.2 252

Eagle Cap 1.1 527

Mt. Washington 1.1 380

William O. Douglas 1.1 285

N. Fk. John Day 0.9 232

The Brothers 0.9 109

Glacier Peak 0.8 258

Middle Santiam 0.7 290

Opal Creek 0.7 289

Kalmiopsis 0.7 136

Mt. Adams 0.6 525

Trapper Creek 0.6 159

Mt. Thielsen 0.4 247

Lake Chelan 0.4 265

Mt. Baker 0.3 293

Salmon-Huckleberry 0.3 298

Mark O. Hatfield 0.3 322

Wonder Mountain 3.6 28

Rock Creek 2.2 90

Colonel Bob 1.5 65

Buckhorn 1.0 97

a

 Percent of all study respondents who had been to this wilderness 

(n)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 13

Wilderness were contacted after visiting a different 

wilderness. It is quite likely that the population responding to questions about Alpine Lakes Wilderness differs 

from the population responding to questions about the 

other five wildernesses. In particular, our Alpine Lakes 

sample should underrepresent people who take most of 

their wilderness trips in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. 

Consequently, it may underrepresent day users and those 

seeking easy access to wilderness and a quick respite 

from the Seattle metropolitan area.

In all of these wilderness areas, about one-half of the 

population had less than 15 years of experience visiting 

the wilderness, while 10 to 20 percent had more than 30 

years of experience (table 8). Stock users typically have 

been visiting the wilderness longer than hikers. The proportion of recent visitors was slightly higher in the two 

wildernesses east of the Cascade crest—Mt. Adams and 

Eagle Cap.

Perceptions of all respondents

We were interested in understanding if respondents 

considered these wildernesses to be crowded and how 

they rationalized high levels of use. For this purpose, we 

asked them the extent to which they agreed or disagreed—

on a 7-point scale from strongly agree (+3) to strongly 

disagree (-3)—with eight statements. We asked if they 

thought the wilderness was crowded and if it was hard to 

find a campsite. We asked if high use could be rationalized because (1) everyone should have the right to visit, 

(2) impacts could be worse, (3) the area is so beautiful, 

and (4) there are so few places like this. The theme of 

uniqueness and substitutability was explored further by 

asking if other places are just as good or offer the same 

opportunities.

In each of these wildernesses, about one-half or more 

of the hikers agreed that the area seemed crowded (table 

9). In contrast, there was little concern about the difficulty of finding a campsite. There also was substantial 

agreement with the following rationalizations: (1) “the 

area is so beautiful that I want to come in spite of high 

numbers of people,” (2) “impacts could be worse considering the amount of use,” and (3) “everyone should 

have a right to visit this area, even if it means use is 

high” (table 9). Although most hikers agreed that these 

places were crowded and that there were good reasons 

to continue visiting despite crowds, the strength of these 

sentiments was not high. Mean levels of agreement were 

less than 1.0 (table 10).

Fewer hikers agreed with the rationalization, “there 

are so few places like this that I go in spite of amount of 

use,” although more people agreed with the statement 

than disagreed (table 9). This sentiment that uniqueness 

is not such a compelling rationalization for use is reinforced by general agreement that “other places are just 

as good for what I like to do” and disagreement that “I 

don’t know of another area that offers the same opportunities as this place” (table 10).

Table 8. Period of first visit to each wilderness.

Hikers Stock users

Before 1970 1970 to 1990 Since 1990 Before 1970 1970 to 1990 Since 1990

Alpine Lakes 6 46 54 10 50 40

Eagle Cap 7 32 61 19 34 47

Mt. Adams 7 32 61 12 31 57

Mt. Hood 15 36 49 4 57 43

Mt. Jefferson 11 35 54 9 52 39

Three Sisters 12 35 53 7 55 38

Table 7. Percent and number of hikers and stock users in sample who 

had been to each wilderness.

Hikers Stock users

Wilderness Percent Number Percent Number

Alpine Lakes 28 127 32 35

Eagle Cap 45 212 44 38

Mt. Adams 46 220 48 46

Mt. Hood 71 339 34 38

Mt. Jefferson 59 277 43 37

Three Sisters 74 351 52 57
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

Stock users also felt these wildernesses were crowded, 

although only 43 percent of Eagle Cap stock users thought 

so (table 11). They also generally agreed with the entire 

suite of rationalizations for why high use in these wildernesses is appropriate, particularly the rationalization, 

“everyone should have the right to visit, even if it means 

high use” (table 12). Stock users were less likely than 

hikers to consider these wildernesses crowded (ANOVA, 

F = 1.4, p = 0.03). Moreover, they were more supportive of two of the rationalizations of high use. Stock users 

agreed more than hikers that “everyone should have 

the right to visit, even if it means high use” (F = 43.9, 

p < 0.01) and that “impacts could be worse considering the amount of use” (F = 6.6, p = 0.01). Stock users 

were also more likely than hikers to consider there to be 

reasonable substitutes for these high use wildernesses, 

agreeing more than hikers that “other places are just as 

good for what I like to do” (F = 19.1, p < 0.01).

Differences among wildernesses in perceptions of 

crowding and the prevalence of rationalizations (tables 

10 and 12) were not statistically significant. For stock 

users, the ability to find a campsite varied significantly among wildernesses (ANOVA, F = 3.7, p < 0.01). 

Campsites were significantly more difficult to find at 

Mt. Adams and Mt. Hood than at Eagle Cap. For all 

users, there were significant differences among wildernesses in agreement with the statements “other places 

are just as good for what I like to do” (F = 2.6, p = 0.03) 

and “I don’t know of another area that offers the same 

opportunities as this place” (F = 3.1, p < 0.01). Responses 

Table 9. Percent of hikers agreeing with statements about use levels.

Alpine Three

Lakes Eagle Cap Mt. Adams Mt. Hood Mt. Jeff Sisters

The area is so beautiful, I come in

spite of high numbers of people 62 57 51 64 63 75

The area seems crowded 60 51 48 65 52 60

Impacts could be worse considering

the amount of use 52 50 54 60 52 63

Everyone should have right to visit,

even if it means high use 48 43 48 56 52 55

There are so few places like this; I

go in spite of the amount of use 44 47 41 41 43 57

Other places are just as good for

what I like to do 46 36 44 52 46 34

I don’t know of any other area that

offers the same opportunities 25 32 16 20 21 40

It’s hard to find a good campsite 29 22 29 29 28 29

Table 10. Agreementa

 (mean and standard error) with statements about use levels—hikers.

Alpine Eagle Mt. Mt. Mt. Three

Lakes Cap Adams Hood Jefferson Sisters

n = 118 n = 190 n = 198 n = 324 n = 261 n = 336

M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE

The area is so beautiful, I come in

spite of high numbers of people 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.1

Impacts could be worse considering

the amount of use 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.1

The area seems crowded 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.1

Everyone should have right to visit,

even if it means high use 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.1

Other places are just as good for

what I like to do 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1

There are so few places like this; I go

in spite of the amount of use 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1

It’s hard to find a good campsite -0.0 0.1 -0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.1

I don’t know of any other area that

offers the same opportunities -0.7 0.2 -0.1 0.1 -0.7 0.1 -0.8 0.1 -0.5 0.1 -0.1 0.1

a

 Scale: +3 (strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 15

to these statements suggest that visitors to Mt. Hood do 

not consider that wilderness as unique as do visitors to 

Eagle Cap, Mt. Jefferson, and Three Sisters. Mt Hood 

visitors agreed more that “other places are just as good” 

and disagreed more that they don’t know of other places 

with similar opportunities.

Responses of experienced visitors

For the remaining questions, we only recorded the 

responses of experienced visitors, those who had visited 

the focal wilderness at least five times. Table 13 shows 

experienced hikers and stock users as a percentage of 

all hikers and stock users who had visited each wilderness at least once. Three Sisters is notable in the large 

proportion of experienced hikers and stock users, while 

Mt. Hood has a high proportion of hikers with extensive 

experience. The wildernesses with the smallest proportion of hikers with extensive local experience were 

Eagle Cap and Mt. Adams. Given the smaller sample 

sizes for experienced users, the responses of hikers and 

stock users are pooled.

Table 11. Percent of stock users agreeing with statements about use levels.

Alpine Eagle Three

Lakes Cap Mt. Adams Mt. Hood Mt. Jeff Sisters

The area is so beautiful, I come in

spite of high numbers of people 50 69 62 52 64 81

The area seems crowded 47 43 55 66 53 70

Impacts could be worse

considering the amount of use 50 54 69 46 69 75

Everyone should have right to

visit, even if it means high use 72 69 82 68 62 67

There are so few places like this; I

go in spite of the amount of use 41 53 53 37 43 63

Other places are just as good for

what I like to do 50 46 43 67 61 37

I don’t know of any other area that

offers the same opportunities 19 37 26 15 22 29

It’s hard to find a good campsite 50 18 39 46 29 29

Table 12. Agreementa (mean and standard error) with statements about use levels—stock users.

Alpine Eagle Mt. Mt. Mt. Three

Lakes Cap Adams Hood Jefferson Sisters

n = 33 n = 41 n = 41 n = 35 n = 38 n = 56

M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE

The area is so beautiful, 0.4 0.3 1.2 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.2 1.1 0.2

I come in spite of high

numbers of people

Impacts could be worse 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 1.1 0.2 1.3 0.2

considering the amount

of use

The area seems 0.5 0.3 -0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.2

crowded

Everyone should have 1.6 0.3 1.4 0.3 1.8 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.2

right to visit, even if it

means high use

Other places are just as 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.2

good for what I like to do

There are so few places 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2

like this; I go in spite of

the amount of use

It’s hard to find a good 0.5 0.3 -0.8 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.2 -0.1 0.2 -0.2 0.2

campsite

I don’t know of any -0.7 0.3 -0.3 0.3 -0.5 0.3 -1.0 0.3 -0.4 0.3 -0.5 0.2

other area that offers

the same opportunities

a

 Scale: +3 (strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree)
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

These wildernesses vary substantially in the proportion of visitors who typically take day and overnight 

trips. At Mt. Hood, and to a lesser degree Three Sisters, 

the dominant users are those who almost always take 

day trips in wilderness (table 14). At the other extreme, 

the predominant users at Eagle Cap and Mt. Adams are 

people who usually take overnight trips in wilderness. 

As noted earlier, the extent of day use in Alpine Lakes 

may be underestimated as a result of our sampling procedures.

As one avenue to explore displacement, we asked 

people if they visit more or less than in the past and why. 

For five of the six wildernesses, the number of people 

reporting that they visit the wilderness less often than in 

the past was greater—sometimes much greater—than the 

number who reported that they visit more often (fig. 12). 

This contrasts dramatically with our earlier finding (fig. 

3) that the majority of these same people visit wilderness 

more often than in the past. If people visit wilderness 

more often, but choose less often to visit these particular 

wildernesses, displacement may be significant. The proportion of people reporting that they visit less often was 

highest for Alpine Lakes, perhaps reflecting its unique 

sample (which underrepresents frequent visitors).

When asked why they visit less often, the most 

common open-ended response in five of the six wildernesses was crowding (table 15). Other common 

reasons included having moved further away and 

wanting to explore new areas. Regulations and fees 

were not commonly mentioned as reasons for reduced 

use. Although crowding was the most common reason 

for decreased use, the percent visiting less often due to 

crowding never exceeded about one-third of the approximately 40 percent of people reporting reduced use. The 

percent of all experienced users who said that crowding 

has caused them to visit less often varied from 21 percent 

at Alpine Lakes (35 percent of the 61 percent reporting 

Table 14. Typical length of wilderness trips by experienced 

visitors—percent of trips that are day trips.

0 to 49 50 to 89 90 to 99 100

Alpine Lakes 27 44 18 11

Eagle Cap 58 20 15 7

Mt. Adams 54 23 6 17

Mt. Hood 11 33 31 25

Mt. Jefferson 44 30 11 15

Three Sisters 29 27 26 18

Table 15. Reasons why experienced visitors visit less often than in the past—percent of those reporting they visit less.

Alpine Eagle Three

Lakes Cap Mt. Adams Mt. Hood Mt. Jefferson Sisters

Crowding 35 0 32 31 30 35

Distance; moved away 32 43 13 28 23 24

Explore new areas 14 10 22 20 11 14

No time 5 24 8 11 7 14

Change in activity preference 5 0 11 5 9 5

Family situation 3 14 3 4 2 11

Regulations/fees 5 0 5 3 9 12

Aging 0 14 3 1 5 5

Table 13. Number of hikers and stock users who had been 

to each wilderness at least five times, also expressed as 

a percent of users who had visited that wilderness at least 

once.

Hikers Stock users

Wilderness n % n %

Alpine Lakes 51 40 14 40

Eagle Cap 42 20 15 40

Mt. Adams 70 31 24 50

Mt. Hood 215 64 17 45

Mt. Jefferson 116 43 17 46

Three Sisters 219 63 41 71

Figure 12. Percent of experienced visitors to six different wildernesses reporting they visit less often and more often 

than in the past. Those who visit the same as in the past 

not shown.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 17

that they visit less often than in the past) to 0 percent at 

Eagle Cap.

Perception of changes in conditions and 

experiences

To better understand how changes in management 

and conditions relate to the prevalence of displacement, 

we asked experienced users about their perceptions 

of change in management and conditions. For each of 

nine parameters, respondents were asked to assess the 

direction and magnitude of change, using a scale of +3 

(increased a lot) to -3 (decreased a lot). In all of these 

wildernesses, a majority of experienced users perceived 

that the number of day and overnight users, campsite 

impacts, and rules and regulations had increased (table 

16). Increases in the number of day users were perceived 

to be greater than increases in the number of overnight 

users (table 17).

At Alpine Lakes and Mt. Hood, majorities also 

perceived that opportunities for solitude had decreased 

(table 16). However, at Eagle Cap and Mt. Adams, the 

number of people who perceived no change in solitude 

opportunities exceeded the number that perceived a 

decrease. Depending on the area, between eight and 17 

percent felt that opportunities for solitude have increased. 

Perceived loss of freedom was less prevalent. In all of 

these wildernesses, the number of people that perceived 

no change in sense of freedom exceeded the number that 

perceived a decrease. Depending on the area, between 

four and 15 percent felt that freedom had increased.

For unofficial side trails and litter/trash, the perception that these impacts had increased was generally 

more prevalent than the perception of no change. Few 

people perceived that side trails and trash had decreased. 

Majorities felt that side trailing had increased at Alpine 

Lakes and Mt. Hood, while majorities felt that trash had 

increased at Mt. Hood and Three Sisters. Majorities 

reported no change in amount of firewood, except at 

Alpine Lakes where a majority perceived that firewood 

had decreased (table 16).

Although the number of stock users in our sample of 

experienced users at each wilderness was small, analyses 

of variance suggest that stock users were more likely 

than hikers to perceive increases in day use (F = 7.9, 

p < 0.01), overnight use (F = 4.9, p = 0.03), and rules 

Table 16. Percent of experienced visitors who perceive the following changes in each wilderness.

Alpine Eagle Three

Lakes Cap Mt. Adams Mt. Hood Mt. Jefferson Sisters

More day users 67 77 67 83 70 76

More impacts at campsites 69 79 65 63 71 72

More rules/regulations 64 62 64 67 67 74

More overnight users 67 60 59 60 60 66

Less opportunity for solitude 60 41 40 59 44 47

More litter/trash 44 37 46 57 43 53

More unofficial side trails 53 43 44 51 41 41

Less available firewood 54 38 24 38 35 35

Less sense of freedom 44 41 39 36 18 37

Table 17. Mean and standard error for perceived change in conditions (increase or decrease)a—experienced users.

Alpine Eagle Three

Lakes Cap Mt. Adams Mt. Hood Mt. Jefferson Sisters

n = 43 n = 56 n = 92 n = 220 n = 128 n = 248

M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE

Number of day users 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.3 0.1

Number of rules/regulations 1.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.2 0.1

Human impacts at campsites 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.0 0.1

Number of overnight users 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.1

Number of unofficial side trails 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.2

Amount of litter/trash 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1

Sense of freedom -0.6 0.2 -0.5 0.1 -0.5 0.1 -0.5 0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.4 0.1

Amount of available firewood -0.9 0.2 -0.5 0.2 -0.3 0.1 -0.5 0.1 -0.4 0.1 -0.4 0.1

Opportunities to experience solitude -0.8 0.2 -0.3 0.2 -0.5 0.1 -0.7 0.1 -0.4 0.1 -0.5 0.1

a

 Scale: +3 (increased a lot) to -3 (decreased a lot)
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

and regulations (F = 9.9, p < 0.01). For many of these 

change parameters, differences among wildernesses 

were also statistically significant. Wildernesses differed 

significantly in the magnitude of perceived increase in 

rules and regulations (F = 2.9, p = 0.01), side trailing 

(F = 4.6, p < 0.01) and litter/trash (F = 2.4, 0.04), as 

well as in perceived decrease in solitude (F = 2.4, p = 

0.04) and firewood (F = 2.9, p = 0.01). The wildernesses 

with the most perceived change were typically Mt. Hood 

and Alpine Lakes, while the wilderness with the least 

perceived change was usually Eagle Cap (table 17).

A final set of questions asked experienced visitors to 

reflect on how their personal use and evaluation of experiences available in these wildernesses had changed 

(table 18). These items were developed from research on 

how people cope with, and change, their expectations as 

a result of crowding. For each of these six wildernesses, many more people agreed than disagreed with the 

statement, “the area feels less like wilderness than when 

I first started visiting” (fig. 13). However, more people 

disagreed than agreed with the statement “I am not as 

satisfied with my experiences in this area as I used to be” 

(fig. 14). Moreover, majorities agreed with the statement 

“I enjoy my visits here as much as I used to” (fig. 15). 

One reason people keep returning is that so many of 

them have “special memories” of places in these wildernesses and, for many, “visiting is a tradition” (table 18).

We explored the cognitive response mechanism, 

referred to in the recreation literature as “product shift,” 

whereby people recognize that the type of experience a 

place offers has changed and then either accept or reject 

the appropriateness of that change. We did not find this 

type of response to be prevalent. Respondents were 

ambivalent about whether or not the experience has 

changed. Slightly more people agreed than disagreed 

with the statement, “the type of experience provided by 

this area has changed” (fig. 16), but mean scaled scores 

for agreement were near neutral (0.0 to 0.1) in all these 

wildernesses (table 18).

Table 18. Agreement (mean and standard error) about perceived change in experiencea—experienced users.

Alpine Eagle Three

Lakes Cap Mt. Adams Mt. Hood Mt. Jefferson Sisters

n = 59 n = 60 n = 98 n = 220 n = 127 n = 250

M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE

I have special memories of this place 1.7 0.2 2.3 0.1 1.7 0.2 1.8 0.1 2.0 0.1 2.1 0.1

I enjoy my visits here as much as I

used to 0.5 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.9 0.1 1.2 0.1 1.2 0.1

Visiting this place is a tradition for me 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.9 0.1

The area feels less like wilderness

than when I first started visiting 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.1

The area has changed, but I’ve gotten

used to it 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

I seek different experiences here than

I used to -0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1

It’s nice for spontaneous day trips;

I go elsewhere for longer wilderness trips 0.6 0.3 -1.4 0.2 -0.1 0.2 1.0 0.1 -0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.1

I still visit this area, but for different

reasons than in the past -0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1

The type of experience provided by

this area has changed 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.0 0.1

I’m not as satisfied with my experiences

in this area as I used to be -0.1 0.2 -0.6 0.2 -0.4 0.2 -0.4 0.1 -0.5 0.1 -0.6 0.1

a

 Scale: +3 (strongly agree with statement) to -3 (strongly disagree with statement)

Figure 13. Percent of experienced visitors to six different wildernesses reporting they agree or disagree that “the area 

feels less like wilderness than when I first visited.” Neutral 

not shown.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 19

It is instructive to compare responses to the statements 

“the area feels less like wilderness than when I first 

started visiting” and “the type of experience provided 

by this area has changed.” Depending on the wilderness, 

32 to 43 percent of respondents did not perceive that the 

area felt less like wilderness than in the past and they 

did not think the experience had changed. This is the 

group least likely to be displaced. A substantial minority 

(23 to 36 percent) did perceive that the area felt less like 

wilderness and, consistent with this, they felt that the 

experience had changed. This is the group most likely 

to be displaced. A few people (3 to 17 percent) thought 

that the experience had changed, even though they did 

not perceive that the area felt less like wilderness than 

in the past. This is a reminder that experiences change 

for many reasons, personal as well as situational. Most 

surprising, 14 to 29 percent of respondents felt that the 

experience had not changed despite their perception that 

the place feels less like wilderness. These people must 

consider a sense of wilderness to be only a small part of 

their experience in wilderness.

Two questions explored how people responded to 

changed conditions and experiences. In each of the wildernesses, more people agreed than disagreed with the 

statement “the area has changed but I’ve gotten used to it” 

(fig. 17). However, large portions were neutral and sentiments were typically weak. Consequently, mean scores 

for agreement were low (0.1 to 0.2) (table 18). Finally, 

in our most direct assessment of the most common interpretation of “product shift” (requiring both recognition 

and acceptance of change), we asked people if they seek 

different experiences or come for different reasons than 

in the past. Regarding the statement, “I seek different 

experiences here than I used to,” more people agreed 

Figure 14. Percent of experienced visitors to six different 

wildernesses reporting they agree or disagree that they 

are “not as satisfied with my experience as I used to be.” 

Neutral not shown.

Figure 15. Percent of experienced visitors to six different wildernesses reporting they agree or disagree that “I enjoy my 

visits here as much as I used to.” Neutral not shown.

Figure 16. Percent of experienced visitors to six different wildernesses reporting they agree or disagree that “the type 

of experience provided by this area has changed.” Neutral 

not shown.

Figure 17. Percent of experienced visitors to six different wildernesses reporting they agree or disagree that “the area 

has changed but I’ve gotten used to it.” Neutral not shown.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

than disagreed (fig. 18); the number of neutral responses 

was high; strength of sentiment was low; and mean level 

of agreement was near neutral (-0.1 to 0.2) (table 18). 

People were generally even less in agreement with the 

statement, “I still visit this area, but for different reasons 

than in the past” (table 18).

Finally, we asked people whether “this place is nice 

for spontaneous day trips, but I go elsewhere for longer 

wilderness trips.” We asked this question because we 

thought people might be content to visit a crowded wilderness for a day trip because it is convenient and close 

to home, while selecting a less crowded more distant 

wilderness for an overnight trip. Only at Mt. Hood did 

a majority of respondents agree with this statement 

(fig. 19). At Alpine Lakes there was more agreement 

than disagreement, but elsewhere there was more disagreement than agreement, particularly at Eagle Cap.

Responses did not vary much between hikers and 

stock users. Analyses of variance suggest that stock users 

were significantly more likely than hikers to disagree 

that they visit for different reasons than in the past (F = 

11.7, p < 0.01). For a few of these parameters, differences among wildernesses were also statistically significant. 

Wildernesses differed significantly in the magnitude of 

agreement with statements that “I have special memories 

of this place” (F = 3.5, p < 0.01), and “I enjoy my visits 

here as much as I used to” (F = 3.0, p = 0.01). Agreement 

with these statements was particularly high at Eagle Cap 

and substantially lower at Alpine Lakes and Mt. Hood. 

Alpine Lakes Wilderness differed significantly from 

all other wildernesses in response to the statement that 

“visiting this place is a tradition for me” (F = 3.2, p < 

0.01), but the low level of agreement for Alpine Lakes 

respondents may reflect its unique sample (under representing frequent visitors). Finally, wildernesses differed 

significantly in response to the statement that “it’s nice 

for spontaneous day trips; I go elsewhere for longer wilderness trips” (F = 6.9, p < 0.01). Agreement with this 

statement was particularly high at Alpine Lakes and Mt. 

Hood, while disagreement was particularly high at Eagle 

Cap.

In sum, although most of the people who have visited 

these wildernesses many times reported that they feel 

less like wilderness than in the past, not many of these 

people thought that the overall experience was fundamentally different. They did not rely heavily on 

cognitive coping behaviors (or did not perceive that they 

do) despite the prevalence of perceptions that crowding 

and environmental impacts had increased and solitude 

and freedom had decreased. In particular, few people 

engaged in pronounced “product shift,” whereby satisfaction is maintained (despite a change in experience) 

by altering their definition of the type of experience 

these wildernesses ought to offer. The lack of substantial 

differences between the six different wildernesses we 

studied suggests that these findings can be generalized 

to other high use wildernesses in the region.

Perceptions of those less satisfied with their 

experience

Some people had more adverse reactions to changes 

that have taken place. Generalizing across the six wildernesses, 22 percent of respondents were less satisfied 

with their experience than in the past. When less satisfied 

visitors are contrasted with those that were not less 

satisfied, less satisfied respondents were significantly 

more likely to perceive the area to be crowded (t = 10.2, 

Figure 19. Percent of experienced visitors to six different wildernesses reporting they agree or disagree that “it’s nice 

for spontaneous day trips; I go elsewhere for longer trips.” 

Neutral not shown.

Figure 18. Percent of experienced visitors to six different wildernesses reporting they agree or disagree that “I seek 

different experiences here than I used to.” Neutral not 

shown.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 21

p < 0.01). Visitors who were less satisfied than in the 

past agreed moderately that the area was crowded (mean 

of 1.63 on a scale from -3 to +3), while visitors who 

were not less satisfied than in the past were neutral about 

whether the area was crowded (mean of 0.28).

Visitors who were less satisfied than in the past were 

significantly more likely to report that impacts and the 

numbers of users had increased and opportunities for 

solitude and sense of freedom had decreased (table 19). 

They were also significantly less likely to agree with rationalizations for high use (that “the area is so beautiful,” 

“everyone should have a right to visit,” “impacts could 

be worse,” and “there are so few places like this”) (table 

20). They were more likely to agree that “other places 

are just as good for what I like to do” and to disagree 

with “I don’t know of another area that offers the same 

opportunities” (table 20). They were significantly more 

likely to report that “the area feels less like wilderness” 

and “the type of experience provided by the area has 

changed” (table 21). They were more likely to report 

that they “seek different experiences” now and they visit 

“for different reasons.” They were less likely to have 

“gotten used to” the change in the area and less likely 

to say that they “enjoy their visits as much as in the 

Table 21. Differences in perceived change in experiencea between experienced visitors who are and are not less satisfied with 

trips now than in the past.

Less satisfied	 Not less satisfied	 t	 p

I have special memories of this place 1.97 2.19 -1.9 0.053

The area feels less like wilderness than when I first started visiting 1.60 -0.11 12.8 <0.001

The type of experience provided by this area has changed 1.13 -0.73 16.6 <0.001

Visiting this place is a tradition for me 1.04 1.02 0.1 0.896

It’s nice for spontaneous day trips; I go elsewhere for longer

wilderness trips 0.98 -0.40 8.3 <0.001

I seek different experiences here than I used to 0.52 -0.24 5.5 <0.001

I still visit this area, but for different reasons than in the past 0.42 -0.42 6.3 <0.001

The area has changed, but I’ve gotten used to it -0.13 0.12 -2.1 0.039

I enjoy my visits here as much as I used to -0.29 1.88 -15.7 <0.001

a

 Scale: +3 (strongly agree with statement) to -3 (strongly disagree with statement)

Table 19. Differences in perceptions of changea between experienced visitors who are and are not less 

satisfied with trips now than in the past.

Less satisfied	 Not less satisfied	 t	 p

Number of day users 1.82 1.10 7.8 <0.001

Human impacts at campsites 1.65 0.72 10.0 <0.001

Number of overnight users 1.49 0.76 7.6 <0.001

Number of rules/regulations 1.44 1.05 4.1 <0.001

Amount of litter/trash 1.05 0.40 6.1 <0.001

Number of unofficial side trails 0.90 0.45 4.6 <0.001

Amount of available firewood -0.76 -0.36 -3.5 <0.001

Sense of freedom -1.16 -0.11 -9.2 <0.001

Opportunities to experience solitude -1.19 -0.32 -7.3 <0.001

a

 Scale: +3 (increased a lot) to -3 (decreased a lot)

Table 20. Differences in rationalizations about changea between experienced visitors who are and are not less satisfied with trips 

now than in the past.

Less satisfied	 Not less satisfied	 t	 p

Other places are just as good for what I like to do 0.73 -0.16 5.6 <0.001

Impacts could be worse considering the amount of use 0.61 1.11 -3.6 <0.001

The area is so beautiful, I come in spite of high numbers of people 0.26 1.47 -8.6 <0.001

Everyone should have right to visit, even if it means high use 0.04 0.97 -5.1 <0.001

There are so few places like this; I go in spite of the amount of use 0.01 0.65 -4.3 <0.001

I don’t know of any other area that offers the same opportunities -0.74 -0.05 -4.0 <0.001

a

 Scale: +3 (strongly agree with statement) to -3 (strongly disagree with statement)
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

past.” They were much more likely to view these high 

use areas as places to take day trips but not for longer 

trips. This suggests that the experience of these users has 

declined as a result of increasing use and that they have 

not successfully coped with those changes. They meet 

one of the criteria for product shift, having recognized 

that the experience has changed. However, they have not 

endorsed that change and, therefore, are unsatisfied.

Discussion

Our study was unique in its examination of displacement and coping within a regional population of 

wilderness visitors rather than at specific areas. Within 

this population, most people reported that they are taking 

more trips closer to their home than in the past. Hikers 

reported that their trips are shorter, while stock users 

reported that their trips are longer. Despite more visits 

to wildernesses that are close to home, most people said 

they increasingly seek out places that are remote, less 

popular, and without well-developed trails and established campsites. Since most people live in urban areas 

that are increasing in population, these trends are likely 

to result in ever increasing crowding in wildernesses 

close to metropolitan areas. At the same time, visitors 

are seeking more remoteness and an ability to get away 

from popular trails and more developed places. Motives 

for visiting wilderness have shifted toward more contemplative motives. This suggests substantial potential 

for displacement in response to increasing wilderness 

use.

Adverse Changes in Condition

Our results suggest that use-related conditions in wilderness have changed markedly and that substantial 

displacement has already occurred. Substantial majorities reported that they consider levels of crowding when 

they make decisions about where and when to take a 

wilderness trip. Of the factors we asked about, crowding 

was by far the most important consideration. When we 

asked people if there are any wildernesses that they 

visit less often or at different times because of too many 

people, about one-half said there were. For five of the 59 

wildernesses in Oregon and Washington, more than 10 

percent of visitors reported that they had altered either 

when they used these wildernesses or how frequently 

they visit.

Most of the wilderness visitors we questioned 

perceived that there have been changes in use and 

impacts, at least at the six high use wildernesses we 

studied in detail. Use has increased (particularly day 

use), resulting in moderate crowding and a sense that 

these places seem less like wilderness than they did in 

the past. Most of these visitors have learned to cope with 

these changes by either adjusting the way they think 

about these places or by adjusting their behavior.

Cognitive Coping

As has been found elsewhere (Manning and Valliere 

2001, Miller and McCool 2003), rationalization was a 

particularly widespread cognitive coping mechanism. 

For the six high use wildernesses we studied, majorities 

agreed with a number of reasons for continuing to visit 

and for considering high use to be appropriate or at least 

acceptable. They agreed with statements that “the area is 

so beautiful that I want to come in spite of high numbers 

of people,” “everyone should have a right to visit this 

area, even if it means use is high,” and “impacts could 

be worse considering the amount of use.” Interestingly, 

stock users were particularly likely to agree with the 

statement about everyone having a right to visit. These 

rationalizations appear to be effective coping mechanisms because a majority of visitors reported that they 

enjoy their visits as much as ever and relatively few 

people reported being less satisfied with their experience 

than in the past.

Having to conjure up a rationalization for adverse 

conditions can be considered a “cost” of high use for 

most visitors. The need to rationalize being around many 

other people is antithetical to the ideal of wilderness as 

a place free from the stress and crowding that characterizes modern life for many. While it is clear that most 

visitors pay these “costs,” the severity of these costs is 

unclear. The general tenor of responses to some of our 

questions suggests that most visitors did not consider 

these costs to be severe. Despite the widespread perception that use and crowding have increased, opportunities 

for solitude have decreased, and these places feel less 

like wilderness than in the past, few people reported that 

their experiences have changed. Most people reported 

that they enjoy their wilderness visits as much as ever 

and few reported being less satisfied with their experiences than in the past. Apparently crowding, solitude, 

and “feeling like wilderness” are not critical enough 

to the overall experience of most of these people for 

them to perceive that changes in these characteristics 

have resulted in a changed experience. This might also 

explain why their enjoyment and satisfaction is so unresponsive to seemingly important changes.

Our results are consistent with the numerous studies 

that have found that most visitors are highly satisfied with 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 23

their recreation experiences, despite suboptimal conditions (Manning 1999). Our study showed that enjoyment 

and satisfaction remain high, even as adverse change 

occurs. As Manning and Valliere (2001) concluded from 

their study of coping at Acadia National Park, managers 

need to be attentive to undesirable change regardless 

of how satisfied visitors are. However, if most visitors 

do not perceive that adverse changes in conditions are 

affecting their experiences in any meaningful way, management responses to change that restrict recreational 

opportunities (such as use limits) are not likely to be 

viewed favorably. Indeed, in our related study of wilderness visitors (Cole and Hall 2005), even on the most 

heavily used wilderness trails in Oregon and Washington, 

only 5 percent of users support reductions in use levels.

We found relatively little evidence of the cognitive 

coping mechanism that is referred to as “product shift” 

in the recreation literature (Heberlein and Shelby 1977). 

Traditionally, product shift has been conceived as 

changing one’s notion of appropriate conditions to match 

current conditions. For example, a long-time visitor to a 

wilderness is employing product shift when experiencing 

increasing use and decreasing opportunities for solitude, 

and coping with these changes by concluding that, given 

existing circumstances, it is appropriate for the experience to have changed (become more crowded). This 

involves both a change in beliefs (that the experience 

has changed) and an endorsement of those changes. Our 

items focused more on whether or not the experience 

had changed than on whether this change was deemed 

acceptable. Mean responses to questions such as “the 

type of experience provided by this area has changed,” “I 

seek different experiences here than I used to,” “the area 

has changed but I’ve gotten used to it,” and “I still visit 

this area but for different reasons” were generally close 

to the neutral point (between -0.3 and 0.3 on a scale from 

-3.0 to 3.0). What is unclear is whether product shift is 

uncommon, or whether it is prevalent but most people 

are not consciously aware that it has occurred.

Behavioral Coping

Although not as prevalent as cognitive coping, behavioral coping was also widespread. Adjusting trip timing 

(temporal displacement) was particularly common. Hall 

and Shelby (2000) and Manning and Valliere (2001) also 

found temporal displacement to be more common than 

spatial displacement. Most visitors try to avoid holidays 

and peak weekends at high use places. Less than 20 

percent of visitors reported never doing this and more 

than 40 percent reported usually or always doing this. 

Many visitors (but not the majority) also try to go earlier 

or later in the season, or on weekdays, to avoid crowds. 

About 20 percent of visitors reported usually or always 

doing this. Again, the need to adjust trip timing can be 

considered a “cost” of crowded conditions. However, 

these costs occur off-site and before the wilderness visit. 

Consequently, temporal displacement probably has less 

effect on wilderness experience quality than the use of 

coping mechanisms that are employed during the wilderness visit, such as rationalization.

Adjusting where one chooses to go in wilderness 

(spatial displacement) was less common but not rare. 

We asked visitors how much they consider a number of 

factors when making decisions about where to go in wilderness. For most people, the number of day users and 

overnight users and the presence of stock were minor 

considerations, as were impacts on trails and campsites. 

Rules and regulations were even less of a consideration. 

Crowding, however, was given a mean value of 4.2 on a 

scale from 0 to 6, suggesting that, on average, it is between 

a minor and a major consideration. Majorities reported 

that they have at least occasionally gone to trails that are 

less crowded, gone to other wilderness areas that are less 

crowded, and avoided impacted places. However, only 

about 20 percent of visitors reported that they usually or 

always employ these coping mechanisms. A similar proportion avoids impacted places, while very few people 

(<10 percent) are frequently displaced by rules and regulations.

Absolute displacement was rare. Thirteen percent of 

visitors to the wilderness areas of Oregon and Washington 

reported that there is a place in wilderness that they will 

not visit again because of an unpleasant experience they 

had there. This value is higher than the 7.4 percent of respondents who no longer use the carriage roads at Acadia 

National Park due to changes there (Manning and Valliere 

2001). In our study, however, only 3 percent of visitors 

have been absolutely displaced from someplace in wilderness because it was too crowded. Another 4 percent of 

visitors have been absolutely displaced due to some other 

use-related condition or experience (usually stock use, 

vandalism, or rude, inconsiderate behavior). The wildernesses with the most absolute displacement resulting 

from use-related factors were Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, 

Three Sisters, and Bull of the Woods in Oregon, and 

Alpine Lakes and Goat Rocks in Washington.

Substitutability

A subject of secondary interest was the substitutability of different wildernesses. Substitutability refers to the 

extent to which a different place (wilderness or non-wilderness) might be a satisfactory substitute for a high use 
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

wilderness. If substitutability is high, spatial displacement is more likely to occur than if it is low, in response 

to either adverse changes in conditions (such as increased 

crowding) or restricted access (such as use limits). Our 

results present a mixed message. On the one hand, most 

of the people in our regional sample who had been to the 

most heavily used wildernesses in the region reported 

that they “have special memories” of the place and that 

“visiting is a tradition for me.” These responses suggest 

that other places would not be very substitutable and 

that most visitors would continue to keep visiting even 

as use increased because of the tradition and memories 

attached to the place. In contrast, when we asked people 

if they agreed that “other places are just as good for what 

I like to do,” 37 to 67 percent agreed. In a similar vein, 

only 16 to 40 percent agreed with the statement, “I don’t 

know of another place that offers the same opportunities 

as this place.”

Management Implications

Effect of Crowded Conditions on 

Experience Quality

A primary objective of this research was to assess the 

magnitude of displacement and coping as an indicator 

of the “cost” of crowded conditions in wilderness. 

This reflects our belief that wilderness conditions are 

suboptimal if it is necessary to adjust one’s behaviors 

or to use mental resources to cognitively cope with 

crowding. While the acceptability of such situations is 

subject to debate, we believe such situations are clearly 

undesirable. Therefore, we quantified the proportion 

of wilderness visitors who were either displaced by 

undesirable conditions or forced to cope with those conditions in some other way. We found that most visitors to 

high use places “pay” these costs—at least with respect 

to crowding—deciding to cope with what they perceive 

to be increasing use and crowded conditions. However, 

most of these people do not appear to consider these 

costs severe. Few people reported that their experiences 

have changed or that they are less satisfied with their experiences than in the past.

Our results provide a mixed message for wilderness 

recreation managers. They suggest that experiences could 

be improved—and certainly be made more consistent 

with idealized notions of wilderness experiences—by 

developing management strategies to limit crowding 

and resource impacts. However, to be effective, this 

will require the imposition of use limits, at least in some 

places. The perspective of most visitors, that the “costs” 

associated with increasing use and crowded conditions 

are not severe, suggests they are not likely to consider 

the benefits of reduced use and crowding to be worth 

the loss of free access that would result from use limitation. Indeed, less than 20 percent of visitors to the most 

popular trails in Oregon and Washington wilderness 

support limiting use (Cole and Hall 2005).

Managers will need to decide who they are managing 

for and what types of experience are appropriate in 

popular wildernesses. Certainly they need to understand and be attentive to the perspectives of the majority 

of visitors. However, managing to meet the needs and 

desires of the majority may not lead to protection of experiences that are unique to wilderness. We found that 

many people who report that these places feel less like 

wilderness than in the past do not think that their experience has changed. This suggests that they do not view 

a sense of wilderness as being central to their experience. Moreover, we found that a substantial minority (22 

percent of experienced visitors at six high use wildernesses) were less satisfied with their experience than in 

the past. They report increased crowding and impact and 

loss of solitude. They were less able than other visitors 

to cope with these changes through rationalization and 

acceptance of different types of experiences.

Very few visitors report strong adverse reactions to 

increased use, however. Depending on the wilderness, 0 

to 5 percent of people strongly agreed that they were not 

as satisfied with their experience as in the past, while 0 

to 4 percent strongly disagreed that they enjoyed their 

visits as much as they used to. Similarly, 0 to 5 percent 

strongly agreed that the experience provided by this 

wilderness has changed and that they seek different experiences than in the past.

Magnitude of Spatial Displacement

We were also interested in estimating the magnitude 

of displacement due to concern that spatial displacement 

can result in increased crowding and biophysical impact 

in places in wilderness that are currently lightly used. 

Results related to this study objective are more ambivalent. Majorities reported that, compared to the past, they 

are more likely to visit more remote places in wilderness 

and places without well-developed trails and established 

campsites and that they are less likely to use a popular 

trail. Moreover, only about 15 to 25 percent of respondents reported that they never go to less crowded trails or 

avoid impacted places. This suggests that many visitors 

respond to increasing crowding by selecting trails 

and destinations that are less crowded and impacted. 

However, relatively few (about 20 percent) wilderness 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 25

visitors reported that they usually or always behave this 

way.

The magnitude of shift in use to places that are 

currently lightly used may not be as dramatic as might 

be suggested by the large proportion of people who 

report occasionally adjusting where they visit. In fact, 

it is possible that the imposition of use limits—to 

avoid crowding—would cause more displacement than 

crowding itself. Hall and Cole (2000) found this to be 

the case in heavily used portions of the Mt. Jefferson and 

Three Sisters Wildernesses. The imposition of use limits 

at Obsidian Falls caused much more displacement than 

not limiting use (allowing increased use and impact) at 

Green Lakes and Marion Lake.

Methodological Implications

Our third reason for investigating displacement was 

to assess how much concern is appropriate about the 

validity of conclusions drawn about visitor opinions 

on the basis of survey research conducted in high use 

places, given that the opinions of displaced users will 

not be reflected in results. For this purpose, we quantified the magnitude of “absolute displacement”—cases 

where people have completely stopped using particular 

places in wilderness. We found that 13 percent of respondents reported absolute displacement from some 

place in wilderness due to a bad experience. However, 

the reasons for not returning to this place were diverse. 

Sometimes the problems were too many bugs, unappealing scenery, or being injured. Only 3 percent of people 

reported being absolutely displaced due to crowding, 

with another 4 percent of visitors being displaced due to 

some other use-related condition or experience (usually 

stock use, vandalism, or rude, inconsiderate behavior). 

This result is in line with the 7 percent of carriage road 

users in Acadia National Park that stopped using those 

roads due to changes in use (Manning and Valliere 

2001).

Although absolute displacement was minimal, partial 

displacement was more common. Unfortunately, the 

degree to which partially displaced visitors are underrepresented in surveys is hard to quantify precisely. We 

found that 12 percent of hikers (18 percent of stock users) 

reported that they usually “go to other wildernesses that 

are less crowded” and 23 percent of hikers (32 percent of 

stock users) usually “go to trails that are less crowded.” 

If we assume that visitors who are usually displaced 

are 50 percent as likely to be included in a survey as 

visitors who are never displaced, it is possible that the 

views of displaced visitors might be underrepresented 

by as much as 15 percent in studies of specific wilderness trailheads. The rationale behind this estimate is that 

surveys would miss the 3 percent of the population who 

never visit crowded trailheads anymore. They would also 

miss another 12 percent of the population—half of the 23 

percent of hikers who have been partially displaced. For 

wilderness-wide studies, under representation would be 

much less because there is less absolute and partial displacement from entire wildernesses.

Clearly, many wilderness visitors have been displaced 

by wilderness conditions (particularly crowding) and, 

by definition, visitors who are frequently displaced 

are substantially underrepresented in survey research 

conducted in high use places. It is quite likely that frequently displaced visitors have particularly “purist” 

views about wilderness management. “Purist” views are 

views that are highly consistent with the language of the 

Wilderness Act, including strong attitudes about the importance of solitude opportunities in wilderness and the 

importance of managing wilderness to preserve solitude. 

If “purist” views are more prevalent among frequently 

displaced visitors, then “purist” views will be underrepresented in visitor surveys conducted in heavily used 

places. However, the question we are trying to address 

is whether or not this under representation substantially 

biases survey results. Our results suggest that frequently 

displaced visitors and visitors with highly “purist” views 

are such a small proportion of the entire population of 

wilderness visitors that their under representation is not 

likely to invalidate the overall findings from most survey 

research regarding visitor opinions about crowdingrelated issues. For example, in a question about the need 

for use limits asked in a trailhead survey, about 5 percent 

of visitors thought “a limit is needed now to lower use” 

(Cole and Hall 2005). Even if we double this number 

to account for the opinions of displaced purists, we still 

must conclude that there is minimal public support for 

reducing use to deal with crowded conditions.

For purposes of understanding majority opinions 

about wilderness management, it seems unlikely that 

displacement would invalidate the findings of survey 

research conducted at high use places. It is unlikely 

that absolute displacement of such a small number of 

users could explain the reason for lack of a relationship 

between amount of use and satisfaction, as some have 

suggested (Manning and Valliere 2001). However, survey 

research conducted in a particular place inevitably under 

represents users that have been displaced. If these users 

have opinions that differ from the majority, the prevalence of those opinions will also be underestimated. 

Managers should not lose sight of the fact that the prevalence of displacement is indicative of the existence of 
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

suboptimal conditions. The population of severely 

displaced visitors—although small—will be poorly 

served if wilderness managers do not attempt to keep 

wildernesses from becoming increasingly crowded. 

Moreover, the views of these visitors are, by definition, 

more in line with the mandate in the Wilderness Act to 

protect the unique experiences that are possible in wilderness. The challenge to managers is to find strategies 

that balance, in an appropriate manner, the views of the 

majority of wilderness visitors, minority views, and the 

mandate of the Wilderness Act.

Conclusion

In the popular wildernesses we studied, we found that 

most visitors perceive adverse changes, such as increased 

crowding and impact. Majorities reported that these 

places feel less like wilderness than they did in the past. 

Most visitors have learned to cope with these adverse 

changes either by making simple adjustments in their 

behavior or the way that they think about these places. 

Consequently, most visitors report that their experiences 

are largely unchanged and that they are as satisfied with 

their experiences as ever. Some people are less satisfied 

with the changes in experience that result from increased 

use. However, few people are absolutely displaced. The 

tendency for most visitors to view changing conditions 

as not very problematic may explain their lack of support 

for management actions that restrict access.

References

Becker, Robert. 1981. Displacement of recreational users 

between the lower St. Croix and upper Mississippi Rivers. 

Journal of Environmental Management 13: 259-267.

Cole, David N. 1997. Recreation management priorities are 

misplaced—allocate more resources to low-use wilderness. 

International Journal of Wilderness 3(4): 4-8.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2005. Wilderness visitors and 

experiences in Oregon and Washington: Trailhead surveys 

in thirteen Forest Service wildernesses. Unpublished paper 

available online at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/

fprojects/docs7/TrailheadSurvey.pdf.

Cole, David N.; Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1995. 

Trends in wilderness visitors and visits: Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area, Shining Rock, and Desolation Wildernesses. 

Research Paper INT-RP-483. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

Dustin, Daniel L.; McAvoy, Leo H. 1982. The decline and 

fall of quality recreation opportunities and environments. 

Environmental Ethics 4: 49-57.

Hall, Troy E.; Cole, David N. 2000. An expanded perspective 

on displacement: A longitudinal study of visitors to two 

wildernesses in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon. In: 

McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N.; Borrie, William 

T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in 

a time of change conference: Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, 

experiences, and wilderness management. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. 

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

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 113-121.

Hall, Troy E.; Shelby, Bo. 2000. Temporal and spatial 

displacement: Evidence from a high-use reservoir and 

alternate sites. Journal of Leisure Research 32: 435-456.

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

behavior to avoid visitor encounters: its relationship 

to wildland privacy. Journal of Leisure Research 23: 

225-237.

Heberlein, Thomas A.; Shelby, Bo. 1977. Carrying capacity, 

values, and the satisfaction model: a reply to Greist. Journal 

of Leisure Research 9: 142-148.

Hoss, Amy F.; Brunson, Mark W. 2000. Meanings and 

implications of acceptability judgments for wilderness use 

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

William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness 

science in a time of change conference: Vol. 4: Wilderness 

visitors, experiences, and wilderness management. 

Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. 1999 May 23-27; 

Missoula, MT. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 

128-133.

Johnson, Andrew K.; Dawson, Chad P. 2004. An exploratory 

study of the complexities of coping behavior in Adirondack 

Wilderness. Leisure Sciences 26: 1-13.

Kuentzel, Walter F.; Heberlein, Thomas A. 1992. Cognitive 

and behavioral adaptations to perceived crowding: A panel 

study of coping and displacement. Journal of Leisure 

Research 24: 377-393.

Manning, Robert E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: 

search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis, OR: Oregon 

State University Press. 374 p.

Manning, Robert E.; Valliere, William A. 2001. Coping in 

outdoor recreation: causes and consequences of crowding 

and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure 

Research 33: 410-426.

Miller, Theron A.; McCool, Stephen F. 2003. Coping with 

stress in outdoor recreational settings: An application of 

transactional stress theory. Leisure Sciences 25: 257-275.

Salant, Priscilla; Dillman, Don A. 1994. How to conduct 

your own survey. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

256 p.

Schuster, Rudolph M.; Hammitt, William E.; Moore, DeWayne. 

2003. A theoretical model to measure the appraisal and 

coping response to hassles in outdoor recreation settings. 

Leisure Sciences 25: 277-299.

Schuster, Rudolph M.; Hammitt, William E.; Moore, 

DeWayne. 2006. Stress appraisal and coping response to 

hassles experienced in outdoor recreation settings. Leisure 

Sciences 28: 97-113.

Shelby, Bo; Bregenzer, N. Stewart; Johnson, Rebecca. 1988. 

Displacement and product shift: Empirical evidence from 

Oregon rivers. Journal of Leisure Research 20: 274-288.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 27

Shindler, Bruce A. 1993. Management implications of 

displacement and product shift: Longitudinal research on 

the Rogue River. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Oregon 

State University. 162 p.

Vaske, Jerry J.; Donnelly, Maureen P.; Heberlein, Thomas 

A. 1980. Perceptions of crowding and resource quality by 

early and more recent visitors. Leisure Sciences 3: 367-

381.
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 29

Appendix

Survey Instrument

Each of the two versions of the survey instrument that were distributed had three sections equivalent to 

Section Four, one for each of three specific wildernesses.

SECTION ONE:

These questions ask about your use of designated Forest Service Wildernesses in Oregon and 

Washington. Please refer to the map on the cover for the location of each of the areas.

1.1 For each Wilderness listed below, please indicate whether you have visited any trail or destination 

within that area. If you have visited, please indicate how many times.

Forest Service Wildernesses in Washington

Visited? Number of Times

1 Alpine Lakes No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

2 Boulder River No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

3 Buckhorn No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

4 Clearwater No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

5 Colonel Bob No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

6 Glacier Peak No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

7 Glacier View No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

8 Goat Rocks No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

9 Henry M. Jackson No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

10 Indian Heaven No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

11 Lake Chelan-Sawtooth No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

12 Mount Adams No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

13 Mount Baker No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

14 Mount Skokomish No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

15 Noisy-Diobsud No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

16 Norse Peak No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

17 Pasayten No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

18 Salmo-Priest No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

19 Tatoosh No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

20 The Brothers No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

21 Trapper Creek No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

22 Wenaha-Tucannon No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

23 William O. Douglas No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

24 Wonder Mountain No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

Forest Service Wildernesses in Oregon

Visited? Number of Times

1 Badger Creek No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

2 Black Canyon No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

3 Boulder Creek No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

4 Bridge Creek No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

5 Bull of the Woods No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

6 Cummins Creek No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

7 Diamond Peak No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

8 Drift Creek No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

9 Eagle Cap No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

10 Gearhart Mountain No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

11 Grassy Knob No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

12 Hells Canyon No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

13 Kalmiopsis No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

14 Mark O. Hatfield (Columbia) No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

15 Menagerie No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

16 Middle Santiam No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

17 Mill Creek No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

18 Monument Rock No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

20 Mount Hood No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

21 Mount Jefferson No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

22 Mount Thielsen No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

23 Mount Washington No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

24 Mountain Lakes No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

25 North Fork John Day No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

26 North Fork Umatilla No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

27 Opal Creek No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

28 Red Buttes No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

29 Rock Creek No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

30 Rogue-Umpqua Divide No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

31 Salmon-Huckleberry No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

32 Sky Lakes No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

33 Strawberry Mountain No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

34 Three Sisters No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

35 Waldo Lake No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

36 Wenaha-Tucannon No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+

37 Wild Rogue No Yes→ 1 2-3 4-5 6-8 9+
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 31

1.2 Which one of the areas listed in Question 1.1 was the first Wilderness you ever visited in Oregon 

or Washington?

____________________________ In what year was your first visit? ________

1.3 Thinking about the areas listed in Question 1.1, have you ever had an experience so unpleasant 

that it made you decide not to return to that area? If yes, please write in the name of the wilderness 

and what caused you to stop going there.

Place you no longer visit

Year of most 

recent visit to 

the area Reasons for no longer visiting

1.4 How many wildernesses have you visited outside of Oregon and/or Washington?

○ None ○ 1-5 ○ 6-10 ○ 11-20 ○ More than 20

1.5 Was your first Oregon or Washington wilderness visit in 1998 or before?

○ No. Please SKIP TO SECTION THREE

○ Yes. 

Have you made at least 5 Wilderness trips in Oregon and/or Washington?

○ No. Please SKIP TO SECTION THREE 

○ Yes. Please CONTINUE WITH SECTION TWO
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

SECTION TWO:

These questions ask about how your use of Oregon and/or Washington Wildernesses has changed over 

time. Please consider only those areas listed in Question 1.1

2.1 Compared to your earlier Wilderness trips in Oregon and/or Washington, how have the following 

aspects changed? Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement.

Strongly Strongly

Compared to my early Wilderness trips... Agree Disagree

I take more overnight trips these days +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I am more likely to avoid places with permits +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I take shorter trips these days +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I go more with my family these days +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I visit wilderness closer to home +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I go more with my friends these days +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I visit wilderness more often these days +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I visit places with fewer rules and regulations +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I visit wildernesses further from home +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I visit more remote places in wilderness +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I take longer trips these days +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I visit wilderness less often these days +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I am less likely to use a popular trail +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I take more day trips these days +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I visit places with well-developed trails and 

established campsites +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I am more likely to use a popular trail +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I take more trips by myself these days +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I am more accepting of rules and regulations +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I visit less remote places in wilderness +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I visit places without well-developed trails and 

established campsites +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 33

2.2 Compared to your earlier Wilderness trips, how have your motivations for Wilderness trips in 

Oregon and/or Washington changed, if at all?

More of No Less of 

a motive now Change a motive now

Challenge +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Solitude +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Develop skills +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Escape routine/relax +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Feel a sense of accomplishment +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Spend time with friends or family +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Excitement or exhilaration +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Get away from people +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Clear my mind +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Find peace and quiet +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

See wildlife +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Enjoy the scenery +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Feel close to nature +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Exercise +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Easy access +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

2.3 Thinking about the Wildernesses listed in Question 1.1, are there any areas that you visit less often 

or at different times because there are too many people there?

○ No. Go to Question 2.4 

○ Yes. Which wilderness areas? ___________________________________________

 ________________________________________________

 (List specific destinations within Wilderness areas as well, if appropriate)

2.4 Thinking about the Wildernesses listed in Question 1.1, are there any areas that you visit less often 

because regulations on recreation use are too restrictive?

○ No. Go to Question 2.5

○ Yes. Which wilderness areas? ___________________________________________

 ________________________________________________

 (List specific destinations within Wilderness areas as well, if appropriate)
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

2.5 Thinking about the Wildernesses listed in Question 1.1, are there any areas that you visit less often 

because the natural environment has been too highly impacted by recreational use?

○ No. 

○ Yes. Which wilderness areas? ___________________________________________

 ________________________________________________

 (List specific destinations within Wilderness areas as well, if appropriate)

2.6 Please indicate whether (and, if so, how often) you have done each of the following in any of the 

Oregon or Washington Wildernesses listed in Question 1.1:

Ever Done? If yes, how often?

No Yes Rarely Occasionally Often Usually Always

Visit earlier or later in the season to 

avoid crowds No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Avoid places that have limits on group 

size No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Visit on weekdays to avoid weekend 

crowds No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Avoid places with rules about where you 

can camp

No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Go to trails that are less crowded No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Avoid highly impacted places No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Avoid holiday or peak weekends No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Visit less often to avoid rude or 

disruptive people No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Avoid places with pack stock use No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Still go for day trips, but go other places 

for overnight trips No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Avoid places that charge fees No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Avoid places that have limits on the 

amount of use No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Go to other Wilderness areas that are less 

crowded No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6

Avoid places that regulate the use of 

recreational packstock No Yes→ 1 2 3 4 5 6
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 35

2.7 How much, if at all, do you consider the following factors when you make decisions about which 

places to go for Wilderness trips in Oregon and/or Washington? (Circle a number for each item.)

Not at all A minor A major 

a consideration consideration consideration

Rules and regulations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

The number of overnight users 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Trail conditions 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

The number of day users 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Campsite conditions 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

The presence of hikers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

The presence of recreational pack stock 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Crowding 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECTION THREE:

Some information about you

3.1 What is your age? _________ years

3.2 Are you male _____ or female _____?

3.3 What is your zip code? ____________

3.4 Which mode(s) of travel do you most often use when you take wilderness trips in Oregon and/or 

Washington? (Mark one.)

○ I always, or almost always, use pack stock (horses, mules, llamas)

○ I always, or almost always, hike 

○ I hike and use stock about equally 
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007

SECTION FOUR:

Your perceptions of MOUNT HOOD WILDERNESS

4.1 Have you ever been to MOUNT HOOD WILDERNESS?

○ No. Go to Section 5. ⇧

○ Yes. In what year was your first visit? _______

What trails or area(s) have you visited in Mount Hood? _________________________

4.2 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the place(s) in Mount Hood that 

you listed in Question 4.1?

Strongly Neither agree Strongly

Agree nor disagree Disagree

The area seems crowded +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

It is hard to find a good campsite +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Other places are just as good for what I like to do +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Everyone should have a right to visit this area, even 

if it means use is high +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The area is so beautiful that I want to come in spite 

of high numbers of people +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

There are so few places like this that I go in spite of 

the amount of use +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Impacts could be worse considering the amount of use +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I don’t know of another area that offers the same 

opportunities as this place +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

4.3 Have you been to Mount Hood Wilderness 5 or more times?

○ No. Go to Section 5 ⇧

○ Yes

4.4 Overall, would you say you visit Mt. Hood Wilderness the same, more, or less than in the past?

○ Same.

○ More. Why?_________________________________________________________

○ Less. Why?_________________________________________________________
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-63. 2007 37

4.5 What percentage of your Mount Hood Wilderness trips are overnight trips, where you camp in the 

wilderness? (Make a mark on the line below)

0-----10-----20-----30-----40-----50-----60-----70-----80-----90-----100%

4.6 Please indicate whether you feel that Mt. Hood Wilderness has changed in any of the following 

ways: No

Increased a lot change Decreased a lot

Evidence of human impact at campsites +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Number of rules and regulations +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The number of unofficial side trails +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Opportunities to experience solitude +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The amount of available firewood +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Number of day users +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Number of overnight users +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The amount of litter or trash +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The sense of freedom +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

4.7 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the place(s) in Mount 

Hood Wilderness you listed in Question 4.1?

Strongly Strongly

Agree Disagree

The area has changed, but I’ve gotten used to it +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The area feels less like Wilderness than when I first 

started visiting +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I still visit this area, but for different reasons than in 

the past +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I am not as satisfied with my experiences in this area 

as I used to be +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Visiting this place is a tradition for me +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I seek different experiences here than I used to +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The type of experience provided by this area has 

changed +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

This place is nice for spontaneous day trips, but I like 

to go elsewhere for longer Wilderness trips +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I enjoy my visits here just as much as I used to +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I have special memories of this place +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
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 the 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

*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, 

age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is 

derived from any public assistance program. (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 to USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 

720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION