United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Proceedings

RMRS-P-66

July 2012

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: 

Progress in Research and Management

2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT
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 number.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

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

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Abstract

The workshop was convened to celebrate and review 50 years of research on wilderness visitor experience and its influence on wilderness stewardship. These proceedings 

are organized in three sections. The first section contains 12 papers that review literature 

or describe empirical research about wilderness visitor experiences. The second section 

provides three papers on management frameworks and the perspectives of planners and 

managers. The third section consists of five papers on wilderness experiences and the 

future.

Keywords: management frameworks, recreation management, research methods, solitude, 

technology, visitor density, wilderness experience

The Compiler

David N. Cole is Research Geographer with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research 

Institute Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, Missoula, Montana. He holds 

a Ph.D. in geography from the University of Oregon and an A.B. in geography from the 

University of California, Berkeley. His research interests are in wilderness restoration, 

the management of visitor use, and the integration of the social and ecological sciences 

in wilderness and park planning and management.

Cover photo by David N. Cole.
Preface

The Wilderness Visitor Experience Workshop was held at 

the Lubrecht Experimental Forest near Missoula, MT, April 4-7, 

2011. The science and management of wilderness visitors is 

now more than half a century old. Much has been learned over 

this period. And yet it seems that enthusiasm for recreation 

research generally and for wilderness visitor science specifically has been waning recently. With the 50th Anniversary of 

The Wilderness Act approaching in 2014, it seemed timely to 

celebrate and capture what has been learned over the past 50 

years. We also wanted to revitalize this research tradition and 

prepare for the next half century of visitor experience research 

and stewardship.

For three days, twenty-one scientists and managers gave 

presentations and discussed important topics. The original idea 

for the workshop was to comprehensively survey the breadth 

of research on wilderness visitor experience, such that these 

proceedings would provide a state-of-knowledge on this topic. 

Indeed, a number of the papers produced are comprehensive 

reviews. Some participants, however, chose to present empirical 

papers, without comprehensive reviews, and others presented 

original essays suggesting important avenues for wilderness 

research. The result is a collection of reviews, empirical research 

and personal essays that provide a rich (if not comprehensive) 

overview of the past, present and future of wilderness visitor 

experience research.

Prior to the workshop, a number of driving issues and questions emerged. A number revolved around the issue of the 

nature of wilderness experiences and their stewardship. Specific 

questions under this topic included:

• Are wilderness experiences unique?

• How are high quality wilderness experiences best described?

• What are we managing for?

• Do we manage wilderness conditions regardless of the 

experiences people seek?

• What attributes most influence experience quality and 

how should we define thresholds for these attributes?

• How can management protect against threats and/or 

enhance experiences?

• How much should managers intervene to manage for 

“ideal” experiences?

A second set of issues concerned whether or not The Wilderness Act should be consider a living document that evolves 

over time. Specific questions included:

• How should we resolve differences between legal mandates and public preferences?

• How are socio-cultural meanings of wilderness and experience preferences changing?

• Is “solitude” still relevant?

• How much discretion do wilderness managers have to 

follow public opinion?

• How should management respond to constantly evolving 

technology?

A third topic involved a concern that experiences were not 

being effectively stewarded and that one barrier in this regard 

was ineffective interaction between scientists and managers. 

Specific questions included:

• What are the barriers to more effective stewardship of 

visitor experiences?

• Why don’t managers more explicitly manage visitor 

experiences?

• How can managers and scientists work better to improve 

wilderness stewardship?

• How can research be better integrated across disciplines?

At the opening session of the workshop, Dr. Robert Lucas 

was honored for his pioneering work and leadership in wilderness visitor research. As a Forest Service scientist, Bob either 

conducted or commissioned most of the early wilderness visitor 

research conducted. He was Project Leader at the Lake States 

Experiment Station from 1960 to 1967, where he worked primarily on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Then he moved 

to Missoula, where he was Project Leader of the Wilderness 

Management Research Unit until his retirement in 1988. To 

celebrate Bob’s work, he was presented with a plaque that read 

“Presented to Bob Lucas, Pioneering Wilderness Scientist. 

Your work on wilderness visitors serves as a foundation and 

inspiration for generations to come. April 2011. Participants in 

the Wilderness Visitor Experience Workshop.”

These proceedings are organized into three sections. The first 

section contains a collection of research reviews and empirical 

research. A number of these papers are devoted to understanding the nature of the visitor experience in wilderness, either for a 

representative sample of visitors or for subsets of visitors, such 

as those who participate in wilderness experience programs. 

Several papers are concerned with traditional subjects such 

as privacy/solitude in wilderness. Several others deal with 

technology in wilderness. The second set of papers includes 

two papers by the planners/managers who participated in the 

workshop and an overview of frameworks useful in managing 

the wilderness experience. The final section consists of papers 

concerned with the future of wilderness management. 

Financial support for the workshop was provided by the 

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, USDA Forest Service and The Wilderness 

Institute, School of Forestry, University of Montana. In addition 

to workshop participants, I acknowledge the contributions of 

Sarah Potenza and Laurie Yung.

i
ii
Contents

I. Reviews and empirical research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: Lessons from 50 Years of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

David N. Cole, Daniel R. Williams 

Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational 

Phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Jeffrey J. Brooks, Daniel R. Williams

Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Troy E. Hall, David N. Cole

Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Erin Seekamp, Troy Hall, David Cole

Wilderness Naturalness, Privacy, and Restorative Experiences: An Integrative Model . . . . . . . . . . 62

William E. Hammitt

Wilderness Experiences as Sanctuary and Refuge from Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

William T. Borrie, Angela M. Meyer, Ian M. Foster

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

David N. Cole, Troy E. Hall

Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on How Experience is 

Conceived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

David N. Cole, Troy E. Hall

The Impact of Technology on the Wilderness Experience: A Review of Common Themes 

and Approaches in Three Bodies of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

John Shultis

The Influence of Hand-Held Information and Communication Technology on 

Visitor Perceptions of Risk and Risk-Related Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Steven R. Martin, Kristen Pope

Wilderness Experience Programs: A State-of-the-Knowledge Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Chad P. Dawson; Keith C. Russell

Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness . . . 134

Alan E. Watson

iii
II. Management Perspectives and Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Planning for Wilderness Experiences: Challenges and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Kerri Cahill

Humans Apart From Nature? Wilderness Experience and the Wilderness Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Mark Fincher

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Robert E. Manning

III. Wilderness Futures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing the Performance of Management in 

Securing and Maintaining High Quality Visitor Experiences in Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Stephen F. McCool

Research Needs for a Better Understanding of Wilderness Visitor Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Stephen F. McCool, Chad P. Dawson

Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the 

Recent Wilderness Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Joseph W. Roggenbuck

Creating Public Memory of Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

William Stewart

Imagining Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Daniel Dustin, Jeff Rose, Adrienne Cachelin, Wynn Shooter, Scott Schumann

iv
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 1

I. Reviews and Empirical Research
2 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 3

Authors: David N. Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. USDA Forest 

Service, Missoula, MT. Daniel R. Williams, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, CO.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Abstract—This paper reviews 50 years of research on the experiences 

of wilderness visitors. Research on the nature of experiences began 

with an emphasis on motivations for taking wilderness trips and a focus 

on the experiential outcomes of wilderness visits. This perspective 

has been complemented by recent work that more deeply explores 

the lived experience in wilderness, its ebb and flow, and the process 

by which experience is constructed and developed into long-lasting 

relationships. In attempting to understand how wilderness settings 

might best be managed to protect high quality experiences, considerable work has been conducted on the effects of setting attributes on 

experience. In particular, the effect of use density on experience has 

been a prominent research theme. Among the insights of this body 

of research, is the realization that experiences are highly diverse 

and idiosyncratic and that visitors are highly adaptable and adept 

at negotiating the situations they experience. This suggests that it 

is impossible to know how to most effectively steward wilderness 

experiences without first deciding who and what to manage for. 

Moreover, given the idiosyncratic personal construction of experience, management action or inaction cannot guarantee high quality 

experiences for everyone.

Introduction ______________________

Wilderness preservation is a relatively recent idea, the first 

wilderness being designated in the United States in 1924 and 

wilderness legislation not passed until 1964. Part of the wilderness idea was to promote a new relationship between people 

and land, both in how wilderness lands were to be managed 

and in the experiences people might receive from wilderness 

visits. These experiences, the immediate thoughts, emotions 

and feelings associated with being in wilderness and the more 

enduring changes in attitudes, perceptions, and sense of self 

that arise from these encounters with wilderness, were considered likely to be unique and different from experiences in 

other recreational settings. Since they were poorly-understood, 

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review 

of 50 Years of Research

David N. Cole

Daniel R. Williams

research on wilderness visitors and experiences began shortly 

before passage of The Wilderness Act in 1964.

The first study of wilderness visitors was conducted in 

1956 and 1958 (Stone and Taves 1956; Taves and Morgan 

1960; Taves and others 1960; Bultena and Taves 1961) in 

the Quetico-Superior (now the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

and Quetico Park in Canada). Visitors to the same area were 

more comprehensively studied by Lucas (1964a,b), starting 

in 1960. Also in 1960, visitor surveys were conducted, under 

the auspices of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review 

Commission, in seven “wildernesses”: Mount Marcy in the 

Adirondacks, Great Smoky Mountains, Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area, Yellowstone-Teton, Bob Marshall, Gila and High 

Sierra (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 

1962). The other studies conducted in the early 1960s were a 

1962 study of social characteristics of camping groups in the 

Three Sisters (Burch 1966; Burch and Wenger 1967), a 1964 

study of visitors to the Bob Marshall, Mission Mountains and 

Glacier Park (Merriam and Ammons 1967) and a 1965 study 

of visitors to the Three Sisters, Eagle Cap and Glacier Peak 

wildernesses (Hendee and others 1968).

Reviewing these pioneering studies helps us understand the 

original motivations for studying wilderness visitors and provides initial glimpses of themes, perspectives and methods that 

are still playing out in visitor experience studies today. Some 

of the questions originally asked have been quite thoroughly 

addressed. For example, much is known about who visitors 

are, what they do on their trips, and their perceptions, attitudes 

and preferences (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987; Dawson and 

Hendee 2009) although some of the specifics have and are 

likely to evolve over time (for example, age and gender). 

Other questions—particularly those related to the character of 

wilderness experiences—have been less adequately answered 

and/or less effectively translated into practice.

The pioneering wilderness researchers clearly believed there 

was something unique to a wilderness experience and they 

were concerned that this experience was rare and at risk—that 

management was necessary in order to maintain high quality 

wilderness experiences and that appropriate management 

required good research. Consequently, they and succeeding 

generations have built a rich body of research, most of it fundamentally aimed at addressing the following questions: (1) 

what do visitors experience in wilderness? (2) what factors 

influence the nature or quality of the experiences visitors 

have in wilderness? and (3) how can managers protect 
4 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Cole and Williams Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research

and/or enhance visitor experiences? Embedded in the first 

two questions are three additional questions. How stable are 

the answers over time? How much variation is there among 

visitors? What factors might explain these temporal or social 

differences?

The intent of this paper is to review the approaches taken 

to answering the first two of these questions. Two major sections review research on the nature of wilderness experience 

and attributes that influence visitor experiences in wilderness. 

Then we discuss what this knowledge suggests in a concluding section on the stewardship of wilderness experiences. We 

must keep in mind that any contemporary assessment of these 

questions reflects current views and experiences of visitors. 

Looking back at the research we may be able to identify some 

patterns that have remained stable. Indeed most studies of 

trend suggest relative stability (Lucas 1985; Cole and others 

1995); but there remains the possibility that visitors and their 

behavior may change in the future.

The Nature of Wilderness 

Experiences ______________________

Several papers in these proceedings address the nature of 

the wilderness experience from one perspective or another. 

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the 

various approaches to the topic. Underlying these different 

ways of approaching the nature of experience are two broad, 

contrasting perspectives on the nature of well-being or quality 

of experience. An important distinction in the psychological 

literature on subjective well-being is whether well-being is 

understood to be the outcome of satisfying needs and attaining goals (telic model) or the pleasure that comes from being 

involved in the pursuit of these goals, even when they are not 

met (autotelic model) (Omodei and Wearing 1990). Each of 

these two perspectives can contribute to our understanding of 

the situational (onsite) factors that influence the character and 

quality of a given experience. As described below, motives 

for wilderness generally follow a telic model focused on goal 

attainment. In contrast, wilderness as lived experience and 

wilderness as a long-term relationship tend to incorporate 

autotelic approaches to well-being.

Another important feature of the differing approaches 

involves how researchers address the temporal scope and 

dynamics of experience. Researchers have most often treated 

wilderness experiences as discrete events, conceived them as the 

psychological outcomes desired or attained from a wilderness 

visit (as if people knew exactly what was expected and desired 

from their visit), and studied them using quantitative techniques. 

Other researchers, often employing qualitative techniques, have 

attempted to understand experience as a long-term phenomenon 

(as relationship for example), have conceived of experience 

as emergent (as if people had little idea of what was expected 

or desired) and multiphasic, and have attempted to learn as 

much about the process of experience as the outcome. Although 

these latter approaches have become more prevalent recently, 

some elements of these perspectives were present in the very 

earliest studies of wilderness visitors. Clawson and Knetsch 

(1966), for example, made the early suggestion that recreation 

experiences were not limited to that which occurred at the 

recreation site, but also involved anticipation, travel to, travel 

home, and recollection. Likewise, early studies of wilderness 

use sought to identify the long-term therapeutic or educational 

value of nature/wilderness experiences (Kaplan 1974). Below 

we characterize and contrast the various approaches organized 

into three types: motivation-based, experience-based, and 

relationship-based.

Motives for Wilderness Visits

The motivation approach carries various descriptors including 

goal-directed, expectancy, outcome, benefits, and satisfactions. 

Often associated with the approach is some implied or explicit 

comparison between expectations and outcomes (Brooks and 

others 2006). Motivations, goals, and expectations usually connote what people seek or expect from the experience, whereas 

outcomes, satisfactions, and benefits refer to what people receive 

from the experience. Presumably a quality experience is one in 

which the participant receives an experience at least as good 

as the experience sought or expected. Also associated with 

the motivation approach is the idea that people seek multiple 

satisfactions or specific “bundles” of outcomes. Thus overall 

benefit or well-being is often understood in a telic model as 

some form of multi-attribute utility.

The earliest insights into wilderness experience came from 

attempts to understand the basic motivations for why people 

visited wilderness. In the area that now is the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Bultena and Taves (1961) 

reported that the most prevalent motives involved adventure 

and exploration, struggling with the elements, experiencing 

a less artificial setting, away from the cares of the workaday 

world, while Lucas (1964b) found that people visited to find 

solitude, be with members of one’s group, learn about the area 

and commune with nature. Over subsequent decades, motives 

have been studied more systematically, most notably in the work 

of Driver and associates (for example, Brown and Haas 1980; 

Manfredo and others 1983). This work suggests that there are 

common motives for visiting wilderness, such as solitude and 

experiencing nature, but not all motives are shared. People vary 

in the experiences they seek (Hall and others 2010) and none 

of the experiences sought appear to be exclusively dependent 

on a wilderness to be realized (Stankey and Schreyer 1987).

Driver and associates (1987) summarized data collected in 

1977-1978 for responses to 16 wilderness motivations across 

five Colorado wilderness areas, three North Carolina wilderness areas and four other “undesignated” wilderness areas (two 

from Colorado, one from Wyoming and one from Vermont). 

Each motivation was rated as to how much it either “adds to” 

or “detracts from” the respondents level of satisfaction with 

their visit to the particular area. These data suggest relatively 

little difference across areas in the most important motives, 

which in overall rank order were: enjoy nature, physical fitness, 

reduce tensions, escape noise/crowds, outdoor learning, sharing 

similar values, independence, family kinship, introspection/

spiritual, considerate people, achievement/stimulation, physi-
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 5

cal rest, teach/lead others, risk taking, risk reduction and meet 

new people. They also compared these results to satisfactions 

associated with three “nonwilderness” areas: a sand dune area 

in Utah, a reservoir in Illinois, and a floatable section of the 

Arkansas River in Colorado. Enjoying nature, physical fitness, 

and reducing tensions were among the top five for all three 

areas as was escaping noise/crowding for all but the sand dune 

area. These data suggest few differences between wilderness 

experiences and other outdoor recreation experiences.

In a more contemporary study, Cole and Hall (2008a) 

summarized motivation data collected across 13 wilderness 

areas in Oregon and Washington in 2003. They examined 

14 motivations in terms of both what was sought and what 

was experienced. Among the most highly sought experiences 

were: closeness to nature, away from crowds, sense of being 

away from the modern world, sense of freedom, wilderness 

opportunities, sense of remoteness, solitude, sense of challenge, sense of surroundings not impacted by people (average 

ratings > 5.0 on a 7 point scale). Lowest rated motives were: 

be near others who could help if needed, be my own boss, 

think about who I am, develop personal spiritual values, and 

learn about this place. Generally speaking, when asked about 

experiences achieved, results were similar to the results for 

experiences sought. However, Cole and Hall also calculated 

differences between experiences achieved and experiences 

sought by subtracting ratings on the latter from ratings on the 

former. The experiences that were least achieved were those 

for being away from crowds, solitude, sense of remoteness and 

sense of surroundings not impacted by people, the experiences 

most strongly associated with wilderness.

In part to understand whether wilderness provides unique 

experiences, an important question behind the motivation approach is how participants acquire their motives? Do motives 

reflect differences in individual personality, the amount or 

character of past experience, or are they dependent on cultural 

background and/or socialization (upbringing)? As Brooks and 

Williams (in press) suggest, motives for wilderness experience are at least partly learned in the process of engaging in 

wilderness experiences. This learning involves both direct 

experience of wilderness (that is, past experience in wilderness) and social interactions with others who transmit values 

and preferences to participants. Other researchers have shown 

that to some extent motives are personality-dependent; they 

reflect differences in one’s basic orientation to nature (Knopf 

1983; Driver and Knopf 1977).

A related question is how much wilderness motives vary 

across wilderness areas and what factors might explain this 

variation. Driver and others (1987) report more similarity in 

average motivation ratings across several wilderness areas 

than between wilderness and other outdoor settings. Several 

studies have employed “segmentation” techniques from market 

research to identify groups of participants who exhibit different profiles or bundles of motivations (Brown and Haas 1980; 

Hall and others 2010; Legare and Haider 2008). Studies have 

also segmented visitors based on experiential factors (such 

as involvement or place attachment) and described these differences in terms of motivations or benefits (Hall and others 

2010; Kyle and others 2004b; Schreyer and others 1984; 

Warzecha and Lime 2001). These and other studies have had 

some success explaining these different segments in terms of 

such variables as demographic and trip characteristics (Brown 

and Haas 1980; Hall and others 2010) and experiential factors 

such as use history, activity specialization and place attachment 

(Williams and others 1990; Graefe and others 2000).

The key finding here is that different segments of visitors 

focus on particular motives or experiences and thus place 

different levels of importance on wilderness conditions such 

as solitude, primitiveness, social interaction, and so on. This 

variation in motivations helps explain why the influence on 

experience of attributes such as use density, discussed in the 

next section, are not as substantial or consistent as might be 

expected. The key management implication here is that stewardship actions that protect experience qualities important to 

one segment might have adverse consequences for a different 

segment. Using these “benefit segmentation” techniques it 

becomes possible, at least theoretically, to identify some subset 

of wilderness visitors who seek experiences that closely align 

with the qualities specified in the Wilderness Act.

Taken together motivation studies provide some insights 

regarding the issue of the uniqueness of wilderness experiences 

versus other outdoor/natural settings. There is ample evidence 

that motivations for visiting wilderness vary from person to 

person and are to varying degrees similar to other nature based 

activities (particularly human powered ones). Still, results 

suggest that for at least some segments of wilderness visitors 

wilderness provides some “bundle” of experience attributes 

that are more typically found in wilderness settings (Roggenbuck and Driver 2000). In an open-ended question about what 

makes wilderness experiences different, visitors to wildernesses 

in Washington and Oregon most frequently mentioned a 

combination of experiential and setting attributes—solitude, 

scenery, no impact, quiet, and challenge (Cole and Hall 2009).

Wilderness Experience as Lived Experience

Within the past few decades there have been a number of 

studies of discrete wilderness visits that more deeply explore 

visitor experience as the thoughts, moods, emotions, and 

physical responses that arise from visitors’ activities, their 

physical and social context and focus of attention, in other 

words “experiences as they are lived, felt or made sense of by 

the people being studied” (Stewart and Floyd 2004, p. 450). 

What Borrie and Birzell (2001) describe as the experiencebased approach: (1) more directly asks the visitor to describe 

their experience instead of asking them to evaluate various 

experiential or motivational components of it, (2) does not 

explicitly ask respondents to link these descriptions to setting 

attributes or satisfactions, (3) attempts to capture immediate 

conscious experience by seeking these descriptions closer in 

time to the event, and (4) often examines the ebb and flow of 

experience as it unfolds across the course of the visit instead 

of summarizing the entire experience into a single evaluation.

Research examining lived experience has employed two distinct 

methodological approaches, immediate conscious experience 

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research Cole and Williams
6 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

monitoring and retrospective accounts of experience. One 

way to get at the lived experience has been to “sample” the 

immediate conscious experience of respondents by obtaining 

repeated measures of their thoughts, feelings, and focus of 

attention at various (often random) intervals throughout their 

visit to wilderness. In one study on trails adjacent to the Maroon Bells Wilderness Area (CO), hikers were asked to rate 

items measuring mood, satisfaction, and scenic quality at 12 

predetermined points along a trail (Hull and others 1992; Hull 

and Stewart 1995). Researchers found that much of the variation in mood and satisfaction were correlated with perceptions 

of scenic quality.

Other studies examined visitors’ “focus of attention” at 

multiple points during a wilderness visit noting differences 

in attention to the influences of other people, the activity being undertaken, and the environmental setting. McIntyre and 

Roggenbuck (1998) observed how particular environmental 

settings influenced experience, but they also noted some general 

temporal dynamics that reflected the way familiarization with 

the setting tended to overcome initial apprehension. Borrie and 

Roggenbuck (2001) noted greater focus on the environment 

and on introspection at the conclusion of the visit compared to 

the entry phase and less focus on group members during the 

immersion phase. They also noted higher scores on humility 

and primitiveness during the immersion phase.

Whereas the above studies have often employed quantitative 

assessments of experiential features, other studies have used 

daily journals and/or interviews to examine the ebb and flow 

of wilderness experiences. Mirroring the findings of McIntyre 

and Roggenbuck (1998), Kaplan and Talbot (1983) noted how 

adolescents’ diaries showed increasing comfort and familiarity 

with the experience over time but also became more detailed 

and more intensely emotional. Some of these studies focus less 

on the ebb and flow of experience and more on gaining deeper 

insight into what is being experienced. In an example drawing on content analysis of personal journals and retrospective 

interviews obtained from two groups of women in different 

wilderness settings (Boundary Waters and the Grand Canyon), 

Frederickson and Anderson (1999) discussed how a sense of 

the expansiveness of the landscape and the power of nature 

provided spiritual inspiration for most of the women. They also 

found that positive interpersonal interactions combined with 

immersion in a wilderness setting contributed to the perception 

of elements of the landscape as possible sources of spiritual 

inspiration. Hall and Cole (in press) studied the immediate 

conscious experience of visitors to three popular wilderness 

destinations. Interviews revealed much about wilderness 

experience in terms of an enriched sense of awareness and 

appreciation of the natural environment, self discovery and 

personal growth, and how people connect with others in their 

group.

These experience-based studies reveal much about the rich, 

varied and fulfilling experiences that almost everyone has 

in wilderness. Although people’s experience appears highly 

varied—involving different activities and types of places—the 

focus of attention is most commonly on the natural environment, as shared with other people in one’s group. Focus on self 

has been found to be less prevalent in studies of immediate 

conscious experience (Hall and others 2007); however, other 

studies, particularly those using self reports from organized 

wilderness outings, show that for some people there is a significant focus on self discovery. Studies have explored experience 

as a source of spiritual inspiration (Fredrickson and Anderson 

1999), as transcendent (Williams and Harvey 2001), and in 

terms of emotional outcomes (Farber and Hall 2007).

Despite some commonalities, experiences are often idiosyncratic, “influenced by individuals’ unique identities, their current personal projects, recent past experiences, and situational 

influences” (Patterson and others 1994, p. 244; Arnould & Price 

1993; Patterson and others 1998). Experiences are emergent 

to a substantial degree, as well as dynamic, varying across the 

wilderness visit (McIntyre and Roggenbuck 1998; Borrie and 

Roggenbuck 2001). These findings suggest the limitations of 

characterizing experience quality in a single discrete rating or 

as the degree to which preconceived expectations for desired 

experiences are met. They also demonstrate the challenge of 

stewarding wilderness experiences, when experiences are 

highly idiosyncratic and personally constructed and given 

meaning. Providing or protecting certain setting attributes will 

not necessarily result in desirable experiences. The linkage 

between settings and experiences is probabilistic rather than 

deterministic. Patterson and others (1998) evoke the concept 

of “situated freedom” to make this point. Managers help 

structure the environment, thereby setting boundaries around 

what can be perceived or experienced. However, “within those 

boundaries recreationists are free to experience the world in 

highly individual, unique, and variable ways” (p. 426).

Wilderness Experience as Long-Term 

Relationship

A third perspective on experience focuses on the meaning 

or significance of the experience in terms of the role it plays 

in the larger context of one’s life. This approach to experience 

emphasizes its emergent, transactional, and long-term character. 

Though a long term perspective is, to some degree, implicit 

in the conceptual work of Driver and associates regarding 

the benefits that accrue from experiences (Roggenbuck and 

Driver 2000), the focus of relationship-based studies is on the 

process of meaning making and identity affirmation rather 

than the attainment of specific benefits. It is emergent and 

transactional in the sense that the experience evolves across 

time and the individual is seen as an active participant in creating the experience. While sharing much in common with the 

notion of a lived experience, the relationship-based approach 

focuses on experience as an unfolding story or narrative that 

organizes meaning and identity for the individual (Borrie and 

Birzell 2000; Brooks and Williams in press).

Following from the view that wilderness experience is often 

“motivated by the not very well-defined goal of acquiring stories 

that ultimately enrich one’s life” (Patterson and others 1998 

p. 423), Patterson and associates (Patterson and others 1994, 

1998) showed how experience is organized as an emergent 

narrative rather than an evaluation of outcomes relative to 

Cole and Williams Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 7

expectations. In a series of interview based studies they found 

that experience is contextual, influenced by individuals’ unique 

identities, their current personal project, recent past experiences, and situational influences. This contextual quality was 

particularly evident in the various ways visitors experienced 

and interpreted the challenges of negotiating a river in Juniper 

Prairie Wilderness (FL), which was the dominant feature of the 

setting. Building on the concept of “situated freedom,” which 

recognizes that within the boundaries set by the environment 

participants are free to experience the setting in variable ways, 

the research showed how participants dealt with widely varying 

interpretations of the challenge they experienced in floating 

the river. Among those who initially interpreted challenge as 

mildly negatively, upon greater reflection, they often came to 

realize that overcoming challenges was precisely what made 

the experience an enjoyable story to relive. For others, challenge was so dominant and intense in defining their experience 

that they had little capacity to reflect on other aspects of the 

experience. In the end it was less a matter of whether they 

experienced more or less challenge than they expected, but 

how they made sense of those challenges.

Others have employed the relationship perspective on 

experience, building on the premise that some visitors may 

value their long-term relationships to places or to wilderness 

experiences generally more than the specific attributes or 

conditions of a particular place or wilderness visit in isolation (Brooks and others 2006; Dvorak and Borrie 2007). The 

relationship perspective in wilderness experience research is 

closely associated with the place literature (Williams 2008), 

particularly as it was used to describe resource specificity or 

dependence as a factor in conflict (Jacob and Schreyer 1980; 

Schreyer and others 1981). Initially much of the work focused 

on measuring the strength of attachments visitors held toward 

specific wilderness areas (Williams and others 1992b; Watson 

and others 1994; Kyle and others 2004a,b). Increasingly this 

work has focused on the social and psychological processes

involved in developing and maintaining relationships with 

wilderness areas and what those processes may mean for 

managing the quality of visitor experience.

As discussed in Brooks and Williams (in press), applying a 

relationship metaphor to the study of wilderness experience 

focuses on the way ongoing experiences people have in a 

wilderness area allow them to negotiate and establish meanings not only for that place but also for themselves and their 

relationships with other people. Place meanings are thought 

to build up through continued participation with the place to 

the point that a relationship exists between person and place. 

The relationship can be used to affirm aspects of one’s identity 

and substantially affect one’s broader quality of life (Brooks 

and others 2006, 2007; Smaldone and others 2005).

A key idea here is that individuals play a large role in shaping the character and quality of the experience as a transaction between the person and the setting. The setting may set 

broad boundaries of possibilities, but situated within those 

boundaries individuals are free to create their own experience 

and meaning. They do this continuously—before, during, 

and after the experience—to form the elements of an identity 

narrative or story. Framed from within this relationship model, 

experience quality can be understood “as the extent to which 

a recreation engagement succeeds as an expression of one’s 

self” (Williams 1989, p. 433). This assessment is not so much 

a summary judgment at any particular time. Instead it involves 

the ongoing process of identity affirmation in which our wilderness activities, both on site and off site, become symbolic 

expressions of our identities (Haggard and Williams 1992).

Solitude, Primitive, and Unconfined: Key 

Features of Wilderness Experiences?

Having briefly reviewed some of the different ways wilderness experience has been studied, one of the key unresolved 

issues is what if anything differentiates wilderness experiences 

from other outdoor recreation experiences. Given its centrality in the Wilderness Act, much attention has been devoted 

to the concept of solitude. Solitude is the one word, beyond 

the mandate to provide for primitive and unconfined types of 

recreation, used to describe the type of experience wilderness 

should provide. To psychologists, solitude means being alone, 

without intrusions, where others cannot observe you (Westin 

1967). Since few wilderness visitors choose to be alone, Hammitt (1982) has argued that the broader psychological concept 

of privacy is more aligned with the intent of the Wilderness 

Act. If there is a high degree of privacy, wilderness visitors 

can freely choose how much and what type of interaction 

with others they want. In recent work, Cole and Hall (2008a) 

report results suggesting that solitude is valued but is often not 

viewed as critical to having a “real wilderness experience.” 

Notably, solitude is not an “all-or-nothing” phenomenon; it can 

be intermittently experienced even in the most heavily-used 

places in wilderness (Hall and others 2007). Hammitt (in press) 

reviews our current understanding of wilderness privacy and 

solitude.

The other two experiential descriptors in The Wilderness Act, 

primitive and unconfined, have received far less attention in the 

literature. Primitiveness is often considered to be the ability to 

connect with raw nature absent the clutter of modern conveniences (Borrie 2004; Roggenbuck 2004). Thus, with recent 

advances in lightweight electronic equipment such as phones, 

GPS units and emergency beacons, questions about their impact 

in managing for primitiveness are growing (Martin and Pope 

in press; Shultis in press). Similarly, although an unconfined 

experience is one in which the visitor retains the internal locus 

of control over such decisions as where to go, what to do and 

how to behave (McCool 2004), it is also clear that wilderness 

management will sometimes, of necessity, restrict access and 

behavior.

Johnson and others (2005) explore how primitiveness, naturalness, remoteness and wilderness were defined by visitors to 

three wildernesses. Primitiveness was largely defined in terms 

of level of development and recreational impact on the environment. When experienced wilderness users were asked about 

primitiveness and unconfinement, primitiveness was defined 

in terms of a need to rely on one’s personal skills and on the 

absence of obtrusive development and management. The most 

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research Cole and Williams
8 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

prominent themes for unconfinement were freedom of access 

and lack of regulation (Seekamp and Cole 2009). While none 

of these attributes are unique to wilderness, in wilderness these 

attributes, in combination, take on unique importance.

Summary

One way to look at these differing approaches is to suggest 

that our understanding has shifted from telic to autotelic, from 

achieving desired and expected outcomes to emergent lived 

experiences and the formation of long-term relationships 

with settings and activities that lend meaning to life. While 

this may be the historic trend in research emphasis, moving 

from description to explanation, another way to look at this is 

to appreciate the ways in which our understanding of experience has grown from the seeds of relatively simple consumer 

satisfaction perspectives into a more mature set of branching 

models that support one another. Thus from the telic perspective, people generally have goals that motivate an experience, 

but they are rarely locked into those goals and in fact are often 

flexible and renegotiate their motives to suit the situation at 

hand (Cole and Hall 2008b). From an autotelic perspective, 

goals give the experience shape and purpose, but often the joy 

and pleasure comes as much from the creative, flexible, and 

ongoing pursuit of those goals as their eventual attainment 

(Omodei and Wearing 1990). Moreover, because the moment 

by moment quality of experience is short lived, as social and 

psychological beings we are compelled to organize our fleeting experiences into a coherent story or narrative that gives 

us meaning and helps us make sense of our lives as a whole.

Thus each model captures something essential about experience and each offers wilderness mangers potential insights as 

stewards of those experiences. Visitors care about the basic 

experiential ideals of wilderness (such as, solitude, primitive, 

and unconfined recreation) and these surely motivate participation even if they mean different things to different people. 

However, these ideas do not readily translate into precise 

standards because people creatively negotiate their experience 

as it unfolds. And beyond the immediacy of wilderness visits, 

visitors often form relationships with wilderness places and 

activities that become important aspects of their identities. This 

suggests that managers need to be good stewards (partners) in 

those relationships and not just focus on onsite experiences. 

Management actions, however well intended for protecting 

the wilderness resource and visitor experiences (such as use 

limits), need to consider the long term effects on these broader 

relationships. In addition, relationships are not only personal 

but are embedded in the larger cultural, technological, and 

environmental context that can affect the character and value 

of wilderness and the ways visitors interact with these places 

in the future (Dvorak and Borrie 2007).

In sum, studies of the nature of the experiences people have 

in wilderness illustrate how rich and diverse such experiences 

are, in terms of what people seek, perceive, and ultimately 

attain. In addition to being diverse and idiosyncratic, experience outcomes are to some degree adapted to suit the situation, and do not seem to be uniquely dependent on wilderness 

settings, making it difficult to conclude what is unique about a 

wilderness experience. For some visitors, wilderness may be 

just a particularly good place to have certain types of outdoor 

experience. For others however, wilderness is, in fact, seen 

as a unique setting in which to have the kinds of experience 

envisioned in the Wilderness Act. The next section provides an 

overview of what research shows about how various attributes 

of the wilderness setting shape those experiences.

Effects of Attributes on Visitor 

Experience _______________________

Most of the wilderness research on attributes that influence 

experience quality has been devoted to the effects of amount of 

use, as it was assumed that increasing use was the primary threat 

to quality wilderness experiences. Consequently, this section 

begins with a lengthy review of what has been learned about 

the effects of amount of use on the nature of the experience and 

experience quality. This provides an opportunity to illustrate 

the diverse approaches that have been employed regarding 

this issue. Research that has explored the influence of other 

attributes will also be reviewed, as will our understanding of 

variables that mediate the effects of attributes on experience.

Effect of Amount of Use on Experience 

Quality

The literature on the relationship between amount of use and 

experience quality is voluminous. Much of the early wilderness visitor research either emphasized or included this topic. 

Most studies have (1) used quantitative survey techniques, (2) 

been conducted after the trip—often as much as two weeks or 

more, and (3) required visitors to generalize about their entire 

trip—as opposed to individual events. In addition, the dependent 

variable of experience quality has usually been assessed on an 

ordinal evaluative scale, from good to bad, big problem to no 

problem, acceptable condition or not, without providing much 

insight into how experiences are affected. Despite this reliance 

on evaluations from post-trip questionnaires, some studies have 

used qualitative techniques; some have explored influences as 

they occur; and some have gone beyond scaled evaluations of 

quality to understanding how particular attributes affect the 

nature of the experience. Differences in approach also reflect 

the dependent variable selected, whether relationships are assessed under hypothetical or actual conditions and whether the 

ultimate independent variable is use density or some measure 

of interaction among groups (such as encounters).

Assessments of conditions encountered—Some studies 

have assessed, under actual conditions, the extent to which the 

quality of the entire wilderness visit (often referred to as total 

satisfaction) declines as use density or encounters increase. 

Between 1970 and 1972, Lucas (1980) conducted the first of 

a number of studies of the density-satisfaction relationship 

based on actual experiences in wilderness environments. In 

the eight wildernesses he studied, the relationship between use 

density and satisfaction with the total experience was either 

Cole and Williams Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 9

weak or non-existent. Subsequent studies in other places have 

generally come to the same conclusion (see reviews by Kuss 

and others 1990; Manning 2011). In a few cases there is a 

statistically significant inverse relationship, but the magnitude 

of effect is never pronounced. Where r2 has been used, density 

and encounter measures have never explained more than 10% 

of the variation in total satisfaction.

A second approach, also based on evaluations of actual 

conditions experienced on each visitor’s trip, involves asking 

visitors to focus their attention only on use density and then 

evaluate this single attribute, rather than the entire experience. 

A number of studies have asked visitors how crowded they felt. 

Crowding is assumed to be a personal negative evaluation of 

use density. Theoretically, if solitude is important to wilderness 

visitors, higher use densities should result in increased levels 

of crowding which, in turn, should be associated with reduced 

experience quality or satisfaction. Numerous studies have 

found substantial levels of perceived crowding, but density or 

encounters typically explain less than 10% of the variation in 

crowding (Kuss and others 1990; Manning 2011). Moreover, 

most studies report little or no relationship between crowding 

and evaluations of overall experience quality (Dawson and 

Watson 2000; Manning 2011). Vaske and Shelby (2008) provide 

a thorough review of 30 years of research on the crowding 

construct.

Much work has been based on the commonsense conclusion 

that increasing use should result in increased crowding, which 

if it violates norms for encounter preferences should lead to 

support for limiting use. A good example of results that are 

inconsistent with these premises is provided by a longitudinal 

study conducted in the Apostle Islands (WI)—since designated 

as wilderness. This study used a panel approach, contacting 

the same visitors each measurement period, so changes should 

not reflect displacement of dissatisfied users. Between 1975 

and 1985, perceived crowding actually declined as use level 

doubled (Kuentzel and Heberlein 2003). Visitors became more 

tolerant of encounters; their norms for preferred encounters 

more than doubled. Between 1985 and 1997, however, perceived crowding increased despite relatively stable use and 

stable norms for encounter preferences.

In other studies, visitors have been asked to evaluate the 

severity of problems with seeing other people. Without exception, such studies report that problems with the number of 

people encountered in wilderness are not substantial—even in 

the most heavily-used destinations in wilderness. For example, 

in a recent study conducted in 13 wildernesses in Oregon and 

Washington, when asked about large numbers of day users, the 

mean problem severity, on a scale from 1 (not at all a problem) 

to 7 (big problem) was 2.2 on moderate use trails and only 

2.6 on the most heavily-used wilderness trails in those states 

(Cole and Hall 2008a). Clearly, encountering large numbers 

of people does not have a substantial adverse affect on most 

wilderness visitors and the magnitude of adverse effect is not 

highly sensitive to use density. In that same study, Cole and 

Hall (2008a) found that one’s “sense of enjoyment” declined as 

number of groups encountered increased, but r2 was 0.007 (less 

than 1% of variance explained) and an increase in encounter 

levels of 75 groups per day would cause just a 1 unit decrease 

in reported enjoyment on the 7-unit scale.

Numerous reasons for the apparent lack of relationship between amount of use and experience quality have been advanced. 

Some of these explanations have been methodological criticisms—particularly about lack of variation in total satisfaction 

measures, the need to remember how one felt several weeks 

ago, the need to condense an evaluation of an entire trip into a 

single rating, and, particularly, the limitations of generalizing 

across different individuals, many of whom may not be highly 

motivated to experience solitude. Wilderness visitors vary 

greatly in motivations, expectations and other characteristics 

likely to influence their response to any setting attribute such 

as use density (a subject reviewed in more detail below). The 

cross-sectional research designs used to address this issue have 

been unable to “factor out” all this variation. In essence, all the 

variation between individuals becomes “error”, making it very 

difficult to detect relationships, within individuals, between 

density and experience quality.

In a study at Grand Canyon National Park (AZ), Stewart 

and Cole (2001) mitigated many of these methodological 

shortcomings by using on-site, daily diaries to study how the 

evaluations of individual visitors varied from day to day with 

use density. Analysis of resultant data showed highly consistent 

relationships between density and crowding, crowding and experience quality, and density and quality. Although consistent, 

the magnitude of influence was small. For example, for 60% 

of respondents there was a significant negative relationship 

between the number of groups encountered and experience 

quality—assessed using a five item measure modified from 

Ditton and others (1981). For 20% of respondents, there was 

a positive relationship between encounters and experience 

quality. For the average person with a negative relationship, 

encounters per day would have to increase from 1 to 80 per day 

to reduce quality 50%. Only five percent of respondents had 

strong negative relationships (defined as a slope greater than 

–1.0, equivalent to a 50% reduction in quality if encounters 

increased from 1 to 16 per day).

This study provides increased insight into the relationship 

between density and experience quality but does not alter earlier 

conclusions. For a very few people, use density has a strong 

adverse effect on experience quality. Some people respond 

positively as use density increases. Most wilderness visitors 

are adversely affected by meeting many other people but the 

effect of meeting many people on the overall quality of their 

experience is minor. Most people prefer to see few people—as 

the results of hypothetical studies indicate—but are not highly 

bothered when they cannot have their preferred experience.

Assessments of hypothetical conditions—Another approach is to ask visitors directly, but in a hypothetical manner, 

how they think different levels of interaction would affect their 

experience. Lucas (1964b) was the first to do this in wilderness—asking visitors to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (MN) 

“how many canoeing and motorboating groups could you meet 

in a day before you would feel there was too much use?” As has 

often been found, results varied with who was asked as well as 

with the type of user encountered. Canoeists usually wanted to 

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research Cole and Williams
10 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

see no motorboats and 0-5 canoes. Motorboaters usually said 

“no limit” for canoeists and 25-100 motorboats. This approach 

has since been operationalized in several different ways. Visitors have been asked about preferred numbers of encounters 

and maximum acceptable numbers of encounters. They have 

been asked to assess their likely response to different numbers 

of encounters, presented either verbally (Stankey 1973) or 

visually (Manning and others 1996). They have been asked 

to give their highest tolerable contact level (Shelby 1981).

In describing his results, Stankey (1973) casually described 

them as “norms regarding use encounters.” It was Heberlein 

(1977), however, who proposed that the normative approach 

might be a worthwhile perspective for carrying capacity research. He promoted Jackson’s (1965) return potential curve 

as a model for portraying visitor opinions about appropriate 

use levels as norms. Heberlein and Vaske (1977) subsequently 

developed return potential curves (later called impact acceptability curves) from visitor assessments of the “pleasantness” 

of encountering different numbers of groups. The point at 

which these curves crossed the neutral line—where the mean 

response to that number of encounters was neither pleasant 

nor unpleasant—was interpreted as a widely-shared encounter 

norm. This metric was proposed to represent the upper limit of 

what people will tolerate or accept (Vaske and others 1986), 

an interpretation that has been adopted in many subsequent 

research projects. Manning (2007, 2011) provides thorough 

reviews of results from research into norms related to amount 

of use.

Analysis of such data, referred to variously as satisfaction 

curves, preference curves, acceptability curves, or encounter 

norms, shows that most visitors prefer relatively low use densities and encounter levels. They perceive that their experience 

quality would be negatively influenced by large numbers 

of encounters and most are willing to identify a number of 

encounters beyond which conditions are unacceptable and 

managers ought to do something. These are the sorts of results 

originally anticipated by managers and many researchers, 

given that many people complain about encountering too many 

other people. However, it is important to note that (1) these 

are hypothetical self-reports, the validity of which has been 

questioned (Lee 1977; Williams and others 1992a) and (2) 

the dependent variable in this approach is “satisfaction with 

the number of people seen rather than satisfaction with the 

entire experience” (Shelby 1980). There is still little empirical evidence that encountering more people than one prefers 

(or considers acceptable) has a substantial adverse effect on 

the quality of most visitors’ experiences. For example, among 

backcountry hikers in Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

(TN-NC), 61% of the respondents whose encounter norms were 

exceeded indicated that number of encounters did not detract 

from the quality of their experience (Patterson and Hammitt 

1990).

Effects on what people experience—Relatively few studies have assessed the effect of any attribute on what people 

actually experience in wilderness. Lucas (1964b) found that 

visitors’ sense that they were in wilderness declined as use 

density increased and, as noted above, studies have reported 

that people feel more crowded when use density is high. In a 

variation on this approach, Hammitt and Rutlin (1995) explored 

the relationship between encounters and “privacy achieved” 

among visitors to Ellicott Rock Wilderness (SC) and found 

that there was an inverse relationship between number of encounters and privacy achieved. They did not attempt to assess 

the extent to which visitors considered privacy achieved to be 

an important aspect of their experience. In Aravaipa Canyon 

Wilderness (AZ), Moore and others (1989) found that four of 

eight types of wilderness experience declined as social contacts 

increased: feelings of solitude, freedom and unspoiled wilderness, as well as the sense that no one had been there before. 

One’s sense of discovery, security, untamed wilderness and 

danger were not affected by use density.

In a study of visitors to Auyuittuq National Park in Canada, 

Watson and others (2007) identified five prominent dimensions 

of wilderness experience. For two of these dimensions—taste 

of the Arctic and challenge and accomplishment, the degree 

to which these dimensions were experienced increased as 

encounters with others decreased. The paper did not report 

how substantial these effects were, however. Connection with 

nature, isolation in nature, and learning and appreciation did 

not vary with use density.

The most thorough study of use density effects on dimensions 

of experience was conducted in the Alpine Lakes (WA) and 

Three Sisters (OR) Wildernesses. The experiences of visitors 

to very high use trails (typically > 100 people/day) were compared with those of visitors to moderate use trails (typically 

15-20 people/day) by asking about the degree to which each of 

71 different experiences was attained (Cole and Hall in press 

a). Only nine of the 71 items were experienced more in less 

densely used places: a sense of being away from the modern 

world, a feeling of remoteness, a sense that surroundings were 

not impacted by people, solitude, not having solitude interrupted, peace and tranquility, quiet, getting away from crowds 

for awhile and feeling isolated. Most of these items are more 

descriptors of the setting and conditions that were encountered 

than of the psychological outcomes of encountering those 

conditions. For example, although visitors to very high use 

trails experienced less privacy than visitors to moderate use 

trails, there was no difference related to use level in ability 

to achieve the beneficial functions of privacy—release and 

personal growth (Cole and Hall 2010a). Nor were visitors to 

very high use trails any less able to experience the restorative 

benefits of a wilderness visit (Cole and Hall 2010b).

In a related study at Snow Lake in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (WA), Cole and Hall (in press b) compared experiences 

of visitors on weekends (typically 200 people/day) to those of 

visitors on weekdays (typically 50 people/day). As they found 

elsewhere, use density had a much stronger effect on the setting attributes that people encounter than on on-site behavior, 

affective or psychological experiential outcomes or appraisals 

of the entire visit. Despite a four-fold difference in use density, perceived crowding was only 20% higher on weekends 

and the degree to which people were “annoyed” with other 

people was only 7% higher. Four of five experiential dimensions, absorption-connection to nature, rejuvenation, personal 

Cole and Williams Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 11

accomplishment and personal reflection, were experienced to 

the same degree on weekends and weekdays. Only wildnessremoteness was experienced significantly more by weekday 

visitors than by weekend visitors and even for this factor the 

difference between weekdays and weekends was only 0.4 units 

on a 6.0 unit scale. Differences between high and low use times 

almost completely disappeared when visitors integrated their 

perceptions and concerns about other people with all the other 

aspects of their trip—most of which were positive, persistent 

and did not vary with use density. Interviews suggest that such 

positive attributes as Snow Lake’s scenic beauty were both 

more important to the quality of the visitor experience and 

more enduring than the number of other visitors (Cole and 

Hall in press b).

Effects of the situational context and characteristics of 

those encountered—A number of studies, conducted both 

inside and outside wilderness, make it clear that the effect of 

use density on experience is influenced by both characteristics 

of those encountered and where encounters occur (Manning 

2011). One common finding is that the adverse effects of encountering others is less when those encountered are perceived 

to be much like oneself (Lee 1977). Hence, people traveling 

in small backpacking groups are typically affected more when 

they encounter groups with horses than other backpackers and 

when they encounter large groups as opposed to small groups 

(Stankey 1973). Encounters also have a more adverse effect 

on experience when they occur in campsites rather than on the 

trail (Lucas 1980) and when they occur in remote parts of a 

wilderness (Stankey 1973), presumably where fewer people 

are expected or considered appropriate.

Effects of Other Attributes on Experience 

Quality

As the preceding paragraph suggests, use and user characteristics other than amount of use can influence experiences. 

Beyond attributes of the social setting, experiences can be 

affected by the biophysical setting and the managerial setting. Experiences can be influenced by personal attributes of 

wilderness visitors and by the events that happen on a trip. 

Although many of these influential attributes have received 

little empirical attention, some information can be gleaned 

from a handful of studies that have employed both quantitative and qualitative techniques, exploring both actual field 

conditions and hypothetical situations. Much more attention 

has been devoted to “problems”—attributes that detract from 

the experience—than to attributes that enhance experiences.

Assessments of conditions encountered—In a number of 

visitor surveys, visitors have been asked how they felt about 

the conditions they encountered, often on scales of “like” to 

“dislike” or “added to my experience” rather than “detracted 

from my experience.” Often these questions focus exclusively 

on detractors and ask visitors to evaluate the severity of problems created by particular attributes. This approach has the 

advantage of asking visitors to judge situations they actually 

experienced on their trip but it can conflate attribute importance 

with the frequency with which an attribute is encountered. A 

potentially influential attribute might be overlooked simply 

because it was not encountered.

Studies have consistently found that the greatest source of 

dissatisfaction is litter (Stankey and Schreyer 1987; Moore and 

others 1989; Cole and others 1995; Hockett and Hall 1998). 

Most other “problems” are of slight importance and vary from 

area to area. Trail wear and tear, trampled areas from camping 

and walking, and impacts from recreational packstock were at 

least as problematic as large numbers of users in wilderness 

areas in Oregon and Washington (Cole and Hall (2008a). 

Noisy and inconsiderate groups were more of a detractant in 

the Shenandoah Wilderness (VA) than the number of people 

encountered (Hockett and Hall 1998), while close by in Shining Rock Wilderness (VA) large numbers of people were more 

problematic than rowdy, noisy or large groups (Cole and others 

1995). Rules, regulations and other management actions are 

seldom considered to be much of a problem (Cole and Hall 

2008a), but restrictions on access have been shown to displace 

wilderness visitors (Hall and Cole 2000). The most important 

positive effects on experience in the Shenandoah Wilderness—of those items asked about—were solitude, waterfalls 

and wildlife (Hockett and Hall 1998).

A richer understanding of influences, particularly positive 

ones, can be obtained through interviews. Hall and others 

(2007) conducted interviews at three popular destinations in 

the Mt. Jefferson (OR), Eagle Cap (OR) and Alpine Lakes 

(WA) Wildernesses. When asked “what has been key to your 

experience out here,” positive influences were mentioned much 

more frequently than negative influences. The most prevalent 

positive influences—mentioned by two-thirds of visitors—were 

aspects of the natural environment, the fact that it was scenic, 

undisturbed, with natural smells and sounds. Other commonly 

mentioned positive influences were peace and quiet, relatively 

few other people, good weather, engaging in activities one 

enjoys, and positive interactions within one’s own social group.

Although about 60% of participants mentioned at least one 

negative influence on their experience, only a few attributes 

were mentioned by more than a few people. Bad weather, 

bugs and fatigue or sore feet—attributes managers cannot 

control—were mentioned by about 20 percent of participants. 

The one common negative influence subject to managerial 

control—crowding and rude or inappropriate behavior—was 

mentioned by 26% of participants. Other negative attributes 

mentioned by a few people were airplanes, horses, regulations, 

litter, campsite impacts and illegal behaviors, such as having 

campfires where they are not allowed.

In addition to negative attributes being less-frequently 

mentioned, interviewees often downplayed negatives, noting 

that “they weren’t that big a deal.” As some research suggests, 

experience quality can be enhanced by the overcoming of 

conditions that are unexpected or even undesirable (Patterson 

and others 1998). Another insight from the interviews—suggesting why negative attributes seldom are judged to be much 

problem—regards the temporal distribution of positive and 

negative influences. Typically, wilderness visitors are perpetually surrounded by substantial positive influences, the natural 

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research Cole and Williams
12 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

environment, peace and quiet, engaging in enjoyable activities 

and interacting with other group members, while negative 

influences are generally confined to isolated instances.

Assessments of hypothetical conditions—Visitors have also 

been asked to evaluate the importance of different attributes 

regardless of whether they were problematic on their recent 

wilderness visit. Evaluations are hypothetical (relevant to how 

respondents might be affected) rather than actual (relevant to 

how respondents were affected). Roggenbuck and others (1993) 

asked visitors to the Caney Creek (AR), Cohutta (GA) and 

Rattlesnake (MT) Wildernesses how much they “care about” 

such attributes as “the amount of litter I see” and “the number 

of hikers who walk past my campsite.” With the exception 

of “number of wild animals” seen, they focused on negative 

attributes. The most important attributes were site impacts, 

particularly litter and tree damage at campsites, and humancaused noise. Wild animal sightings were also important, and 

encounters with other groups were less important. At Aravaipa 

Canyon Wilderness (AZ), Moore and others (1989) also found 

that litter was a major experience detractor, along with graffiti, 

feces and low-flying aircraft. Seeing animals, along with opportunities for recreational activities, was a major experience 

enhancer.

One criticism of this approach is that respondents have 

little guidance regarding what conditions they are evaluating. 

When asked about tree damage, are they imagining a clearcut 

or a few nails in trees? To overcome this limitation, Cole and 

Hall (2009), in the Alpine Lakes (WA) and Three Sisters (OR) 

Wildernesses, provided three levels for each attribute (for example, “no litter,” “a few pieces of litter,” and “lots of litter in 

many places”), asking for ratings on a scale from “adds a lot 

to the experience” to “detracts a lot.” Moreover, they reasoned 

that the most important attributes were those with the largest 

variation in evaluations among levels. Again, litter was rated 

the most important attribute. Human sounds were considered 

a major detractant and wildlife sightings added substantially 

to the experience. In these places, the level of interaction with 

people outside one’s own group at campsites was considered 

to have a substantial adverse effect on experience quality.

Effects on what people experience—Less is known about 

how many of these attributes influence what visitors actually 

experience. At Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness (AZ), Moore and 

others (1989) report that the presence of human feces or toilet 

paper substantially reduced one’s experience of both untamed 

wilderness and unspoiled wilderness. This ability to experience 

untamed and unspoiled wilderness was reportedly not affected 

by evidence of campfires, damaged trees and vegetation, 

livestock manure, wildlife, low flying aircraft and firerings. 

The presence of litter, livestock manure and damaged trees 

and vegetation affected one’s “feeling that no one had been 

here before,” while feces, campfires, fire rings and wildlife 

did not. None of these attributes influenced feelings related 

to discovery, danger or security.

Although not working in wilderness, Lynn and Brown (2003) 

asked respondents to assess the effect of six recreation impacts 

(trail erosion, trail widening, trail muddiness, tree and plant 

damage, fire rings and litter) on each of four dimensions of 

experience: solitude, remoteness, naturalness and artifactualism 

(absence of human impact). Litter was reported to have the 

greatest adverse effect on all experience dimensions, while trail 

muddiness detracted least. Effects on artifactualism were most 

pronounced, while effects on solitude were least pronounced. 

From interviews with canoeists at Juniper Prairie Wilderness 

(FL), Watson and Roggenbuck (1997) identified four important dimensions of the wilderness experience: interaction 

with nature, challenge/primitive way finding, interaction with 

people and timelessness. Details from the interviews suggested attributes that influence these experience dimensions. 

For example, dealing with overhanging trees along the canoe 

route and wildlife sightings were often mentioned as major 

influences on interaction with nature.

On-site wilderness experiences can also be affected by offsite attributes. For example, at Auyuittuq National Park in 

Canada, Watson and others (2007) report that visitors’ ability 

to experience two important dimensions of experience—taste 

of the Arctic and connection with nature—was dependent on 

the quality of pre-trip planning information.

Effects of visit and visitor characteristics—Although 

mostly anecdotal in nature, peoples’ experience will clearly be 

affected by visitor characteristics (such as individuals’ motivations and expectations), visit characteristics and even events 

that happen on the trip that are unrelated to setting attributes. 

Whether weather is good, bad or even life-threatening will have 

a profound effect on experience. Or consider the difference in 

experience of a group that is constantly bickering and fighting, 

in contrast to a group that builds life-long bonds of intimacy 

on the trip. Events not within the control of management are 

among the most profound shapers of the nature of experience 

and its quality, reinforcing the conclusion that managers cannot 

ensure that certain experiences will be attained or that visitors 

will be satisfied with their experience. They can only provide 

setting attributes that will protect opportunities for the types of 

experiences most enhanced by those particular setting attributes 

and information likely to prepare visitors for what they will 

experience.

Mode of travel also has a profound effect on experience. The 

experience of someone traveling on horseback must be different, at least in some ways, from someone who is backpacking. 

Experience will also be affected by whether one is visiting 

alone or in a group and whether the group consists of friends, 

family or other members of some educational or therapeutic 

group. Although experiences of different types of group have 

been studied (Ewert and McAvoy 2000; Dawson and Russell 

in press), comparative studies of experience are lacking.

One visit variable that has received some empirical attention is length of stay. Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001) explored 

how experience varies among phases of a wilderness trip, a 

diversity and richness of experience that is only possible on 

longer wilderness trips. Cole and Hall (2008a, in press a) asked 

both day and overnight visitors to wildernesses in Oregon and 

Washington the degree to which they attained certain experiences. There were more significant differences in experience 

related to length of stay than to amount of use. Overnight visitor 

Cole and Williams Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 13

assessments of experience attainment were higher than day 

user assessments for all attributes that differed significantly, 

with the exception of relaxing physically and getting exercise. 

This suggests that length of stay may influence the intensity 

of experience more than the types of experience that are attained. Nevertheless, there are clearly certain experiences, such 

as setting up a tent or watching the night sky, that are largely 

restricted to overnight visitors.

Mediating Effects of Visitor Characteristics

Studies conducted both inside and outside wilderness show 

that the effect of use density and other attributes on experience 

varies greatly among individuals. That is, attribute effects on 

experience are mediated by the personal characteristics of 

visitors (Manning 2011). Indeed, it is important to remember 

that “experience is not merely a psychological reaction to the 

setting (in a stimulus-response sense), but something created 

by the individual or group through active engagement with 

the setting (Williams 2007, p. 30). As was discussed earlier, 

particularly important are visitors’ motivations and expectations, prior wilderness experience, and place attachment.

It stands to reason that use density, for example, would be 

a more salient attribute for someone motivated to experience 

solitude and tranquility than for someone whose primary 

motivation for visiting wilderness is to get exercise. Indeed, a 

number of studies have shown that the effect of use density on 

experience is mediated by people’s motivations. For example, 

in Yosemite National Park (CA), although use density explained 

only 7% of the variation in perceived crowding, the addition 

of experiential motives increased the explained variance to 

23% (Absher and Lee 1981). In Oregon and Washington wildernesses, Hall and others (2010) clustered visitors into three 

groups based on motivations and wilderness involvement. 

For visitors with low levels of involvement and wildernessoriented motives, the number of groups encountered had no 

effect on experiencing enjoyment, a sense of being in wilderness, solitude or freedom. For highly wilderness-involved 

and motivated visitors, all four of these experiential qualities 

diminished as number of encounters increased. An intermediate 

cluster experienced decreased solitude and sense of being in 

wilderness, but no difference in enjoyment or freedom. 

One’s attitudes toward wilderness and the extent to which 

they are congruent with the values espoused in the Wilderness 

Act—sometimes referred to as wilderness purism—are also 

important mediators. In the Cohutta Wilderness (GA), wilderness purists were particularly concerned about—and therefore 

more likely to have their experience affected by—a range of 

attributes reflective of human impact, natural features and 

processes, solitude, management confinement, primitive travel 

and management-aided travel (Shafer and Hammitt 1995).

The mediating effects of prior wilderness experience are 

more complex. It has been postulated that more experienced 

users should be more sensitive to attributes such as use density 

and low levels of impact, because more experienced users have 

more refined tastes and were able to experience places before 

they became crowded or impacted (Manning 2011). However, 

with experience comes more realistic expectations and one’s 

expectations strongly mediate the influence of attributes. In the 

backcountry of Denali National Park, for example, the variation 

in perceived crowding explained by expected encounters was 

substantially greater than that explained by actual encounters 

(Bultena and others 1981b).

Indeed, results regarding the mediating effects of experience 

have been inconsistent. Manning (2011) suggests that most 

studies have found that sensitivity to use density increases 

with experience. However, prior experience had no effect on 

sensitivity to use density in studies conducted in Yosemite 

National Park (Absher and Lee 1981), or the Lee Metcalf 

(MT) and Desolation (CA) Wildernesses (Stankey 1980). In 

the Alpine Lakes (WA) and Three Sisters (OR) Wildernesses, 

more experienced visitors were much more sensitive than less 

experienced visitors to the influence of many different attributes 

on their experience, from litter to human sounds and campsite 

proliferation (Cole and Hall 2009). However, prior experience 

had no effect on perceptions of wilderness conditions in the 

High Peaks (NY) and Pemigewasset (NH) Wildernesses (Peden 

and Schuster 2008).

One’s symbolic and emotional relationship to place can also 

mediate influential effects on experience. As with the effects 

of prior experience, effects of place attachment are complex, 

involving increased sensitivity, more realistic expectations 

and a lack of options for substitution. In the Caney Creek 

(AR), Cohutta (GA), Upland Island (TX) and Rattlesnake 

(MT) Wildernesses, Williams and others (1992b) found that 

visitors who were more sensitive to ecological impacts and 

horse encounters were more place attached than less sensitive 

visitors; however there was no relationship between place attachment and sensitivity to sight and sound intrusions or hiker 

encounters. Sensitivity to all four types of impact was more 

strongly related to attachment to wilderness generally than to 

place attachment.

Place identity, one’s symbolic and emotional attachment to 

place, differs from place dependence, the functional values of 

a place to an individual (Manning 2011). In a study conducted 

on the Appalachian Trail, hikers with high place identity scores 

were more sensitive to a wide range of adverse effects on experience: trail development, user impact, depreciative behavior, 

perceived crowding, user conflict and human encroachment 

(Kyle and others 2004 a, b). However, those with high place 

dependence scores evaluated these conditions less negatively, 

Conceivably, those with high place dependence acquiesce to 

conditions, since they perceive there are no other places they 

can go. At Table Rock Wilderness (OR), White and others 

(2008) found no relationship between either place identity or 

place dependence and perceptions of recreation impacts.

Coping Behaviors and Human Adaptability

Humans are highly adaptable and they learn to cope with 

adverse conditions in wilderness, as they learn to cope elsewhere. This adaptability can explain why the same people 

who complain about crowding and who encounter conditions 

that differ substantially from what they prefer or consider 

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research Cole and Williams
14 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

acceptable, still consider such conditions to be only a minor 

problem and do not support use restrictions intended to improve conditions. Reviewing a series of studies in Oregon 

and Washington wilderness, Cole and Hall (2008b) estimate 

that 25-30% of wilderness visitors do not care much about 

the use levels they encounter in wilderness, probably because 

they are not looking for solitude. Another 5-15% are highly 

bothered—enough to potentially be displaced at certain times 

from crowded places. Most visitors are adaptable, however. 

They would rather not encounter high use densities, but they 

do and in response “they learn; they plan; they adjust their 

expectations; they cope; they rationalize; they view things in 

relative terms—rather than absolutes—they say “this place offers more solitude than Seattle” rather than “this place provides 

no solitude;” they make trade-offs” (p. 129).

Empirical studies in wilderness show that visitors frequently 

use coping strategies. In the Desolation Wilderness (CA), 

44% of visitors were either temporally or spatially displaced. 

They changed the length or route of their trip to avoid overuse 

(Stankey 1980). Subsequent studies suggest that many visitors 

make minor adjustments to their temporal and spatial use of 

wilderness—avoiding crowded places on weekends if they 

can, moving a little further down the lakeshore to get away 

from crowds, or selecting a trail other than the most crowded 

one (Hammitt and Patterson 1991; Johnson and Dawson 2004; 

Hall and Cole 2007). However, intersite displacement is rare 

(Kuentzel and Heberlein 1992). In Oregon and Washington 

wildernesses, only 3% of visitors reported they had completely 

stopped using any place in wilderness because it was too 

crowded, with another 4% being displaced by some other userelated condition or experience, usually stock use, vandalism 

or rude, inconsiderate behavior (Hall and Cole 2007).

Visitors also use a variety of cognitive coping strategies 

when they encounter conditions that are incongruent with their 

desires. They can alter their expectations, a process referred to 

as “product shift” (Heberlein and Shelby 1977). Or they can 

employ a wide array of rationalizations for suboptimal conditions, including avoiding the problem, minimizing its severity, 

making positive comparisons or trying to turn a negative into a 

positive, and acquiescing to the situation (Schuster and others 

2006; Cole and Hall in press b). Visitors who are more sensitive 

to crowding and have lower encounter norms were more likely 

to use coping behaviors in Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park (TN-NC) (Hammitt and Patterson 1991). This might 

explain the surprising finding that those employing coping 

strategies were less satisfied with their experience (Johnson 

and Dawson 2004; Schuster and others 2006).

Summary

Although much remains to be learned about the processes 

by which visitors experience wilderness, there can be no doubt 

that many attributes encountered on the visit profoundly affect the nature and quality of wilderness experiences. This is 

true whether one views experience more as a reaction to the 

setting or something created through engagement with the setting. However, the idiosyncratic nature of experience makes 

generalization potentially misleading. For one visitor, encounters with others may destroy the experience, while someone 

else may find encounters enjoyable. The same person might 

find one encounter positive and another negative. An expanse 

of alpine tundra might be beautiful to one person and distasteful 

to another, a source of inspiration for one person and a source 

of fear for another. Nevertheless some broad generalizations 

seem warranted.

First, wilderness managers have relatively little ability to 

control most of the things that most profoundly affect wilderness 

experiences. Through the provision of pre-trip information they 

can perhaps have some influence on the motivations, expectations and attitudes that each person brings to the wilderness 

engagement, but they cannot control many of the things that 

transpire on the trip—weather, within-group social interactions, and so on. Even among setting attributes, many of the 

most important attributes—the flora and fauna, free-flowing 

waters, natural sights, and smells and sounds—are not subject 

to managerial control. Given this, one important insight is that 

managers can only protect settings and, by doing so, provide 

opportunities for particular kinds of experiences. They cannot 

provide, protect or guarantee that everyone will have certain 

experiences. In the language of the Wilderness Act, they can 

provide outstanding opportunities for solitude but they cannot 

guarantee that everyone will experience solitude.

Second, although high use density and use-related impacts, 

particularly litter, are probably the most serious threats to 

experiences that are subject to managerial control, positive 

influences on experience are much more prevalent than negative influences. Moreover, the attributes that positively influence experience—changing views, connecting with nature, 

interacting with one’s social group, and many more—tend to 

be persistently present throughout much of the trip, whereas 

most negative influences occur infrequently and for short duration. This difference in the temporal distribution of positive 

and negative influences may have much to do with the fact 

that even attributes visitors complain about, such as crowding, 

are seldom considered substantial problems and have little effect on the overall quality of visitors’ experience. As long as 

management does not do things to disrupt the ability of people 

to experience the natural environment in a primitive setting, 

in the company of others in their social group, virtually all 

visitors will have what they consider to be positive and high 

quality wilderness experiences.

Third, most wilderness visitors are highly adaptable and able 

to cope effectively with suboptimal conditions. They learn 

about the conditions they are likely to encounter and either 

adjust their expectations or they choose less crowded times or 

places, if this is convenient and better meets their needs. Once 

on-site, they adapt behaviorally and cognitively to what they 

encounter, minimizing the degree to which negative influences 

detract from the overall quality of the experience. As was explored in the section on the nature of wilderness experiences, 

experience quality is more than the degree to which a visitor’s 

expectations are met. “People make their own experiences, 

they shape and adapt the situation, and they employ skills and 

knowledge to create their own satisfaction” (Williams 2007, p. 38).

Cole and Williams Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 15

Stewardship of Visitor Experiences __

The primary contributions of wilderness researchers regarding actions managers should take to protect wilderness 

experiences have involved development of decision-making 

frameworks, typologies of management strategies and the 

organization of experiential knowledge about these strategies 

(Manning and Lime 2000; Dawson and Hendee 2009). Little 

empirical research has been conducted on the efficacy of particular protective strategies, to a substantial degree because 

there is little consensus on what protection of experience quality 

means. There have been studies of the efficacy of actions with 

more narrowly-defined goals. For example, if it is assumed 

that visitor experiences are better protected when use is widely 

distributed rather than concentrated, there has been work on 

the efficacy of actions designed to disperse use (Roggenbuck 

and Berrier 1981; Krumpe and Brown 1982).

Visitor attitudes toward management actions have been wellstudied. Although attitudes vary some from place to place and 

substantially among individuals, several generalizations seem 

warranted. First, not surprisingly, there is much more support 

for actions that are not restrictive (such as education) or that 

only restrict certain groups (such as limits on large groups 

or on stock) than there is for restrictions that affect everyone 

(such as use limits). There is also more support for restrictions 

on behavior than restrictions on access (Cole and Hall 2008a). 

Second, restrictions are supported more in concept than in 

reality. For example, in a question asked in many different 

wildernesses, majorities always agree that “limits on use should 

be imposed in the future when overuse occurs.” However, 

even in some of the most heavily-used wildernesses in the 

system, there is little support for limiting use now (Cole and 

Hall 2008a). Visitors are also more likely to support restrictions for the purpose of limiting environmental impacts than 

to protect visitor experiences (Cole and Hall 2008a). Third, 

most visitors are highly supportive of the current management 

regime, regardless of what it is. For example, despite general 

lack of support for implementing use limits where access is 

currently not restricted, most visitors to places that have use 

limits support those limits (Bultena and others 1981a). This 

reflects, in part, the fact that those people least tolerant of or 

capable of dealing with restrictions have been displaced (Hall 

and Cole 2000).

Science and Management

Despite the 50 years of research on wilderness experience 

reviewed in this paper and other papers in these proceedings, 

wilderness managers still struggle to decide how to protect the 

quality of visitor experiences and keep asking for new research 

to help them with such decisions. This may be asking too much 

of research, however (Williams 2007). Managers often make 

the mistake of assuming too much responsibility for experience 

quality by failing to recognize the degree to which visitors 

create their own experiences. To return to the notion of situated freedom introduced earlier, managers can try to maintain 

some basic setting conditions for the kinds of experiences that 

wilderness should provide (such as solitude and primitiveness) 

without prescribing precise limits on conditions and visitor 

behaviors. Part of the manager’s task is to find ways to enhance 

the capacity of visitors to create their desired experiences and 

adapt to the varied conditions they encounter. In this sense, a 

quality experience is not a preformed deterministic result of 

setting conditions; it can only be understood in the context of 

the skilled improvisational performance by which the visitor 

responds to the conditions encountered.

Reframing experience as being reflective of performance 

suggests different strategies for enhancing wilderness experiences. Rather than having management focused almost exclusively on managing setting conditions, managers can devote 

greater attention to visitor preparation and skill development 

that allows them to optimize their performance in a wide 

range of conditions—through the provision and management 

of information. Although providing information is a wellestablished management technique, most of the information 

provided is designed to persuade visitors to behave in the way 

managers want them to behave (such as practicing Leave No 

Trace)(Manning 2003). More attention should be given to 

providing information designed to enhance experiences in 

wilderness, information that can positively influence motivations, expectations and attitudes, and possibly even shaping 

the information that visitors receive. Too much information, of 

particular kinds, can decrease opportunities for self-discovery 

and self-sufficiency, for example.

We also should recognize that managers are effectively 

stewarding wilderness experiences by not doing many of the 

things managers do elsewhere. Connecting with nature in scenic 

and undeveloped landscapes, in the company of one’s own 

group, are the central components of a quality experience in 

wilderness (Hall and others 2007). All managers have to do to 

facilitate this is to not allow uses that are generally prohibited 

in wilderness (such as logging and motorized use), not build 

developments or facilities and provide access for recreation. 

We say this not to suggest that managers do nothing active to 

steward experiences but to recognize that much that is valued 

about experiences follows from simply not permitting many 

of the things that are generally not allowed in wilderness.

Williams (2007) points out that managers often seek technical 

solutions to what really are social and political conflicts over 

meanings, values, and uses, conflicts more likely to be resolved 

by bringing citizens together to work out their differences 

than through research on wilderness experience. “A greater 

appreciation is needed of the limits of a research approach to 

solving specific management problems in specific situations” 

(p. 38).

Who and What to Manage For

Two of the primary conclusions of the research reviewed 

in this paper illustrate the limitations of science in answering 

questions about how to protect visitor experiences in wilderness. Studies of the nature of the experiences people have in 

wilderness illustrate how diverse, situational, and idiosyncratic 

they are. Experience varies greatly in terms of what people 

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research Cole and Williams
16 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

seek, attain and create, as well as what it means to them. One 

person’s definition of quality differs from another person’s 

definition. Appreciation of this variety has only increased as 

researchers explore the process by which experience is created, 

apply a relationship metaphor to understanding experience 

and delve more deeply, through in-depth interviews, into the 

meanings people attach to experience. But given this diversity 

of experience and opinions about what constitutes quality, how 

do managers decide who they are managing for?

Another important conclusion of this review is that wilderness visitors—like all humans—are highly adaptable. Although 

adaptability does contribute to human well-being, given the 

inevitability of change in the world, it does complicate questions 

about how to protect high quality wilderness experiences. As 

Dustin and McAvoy (1982) point out, the adaptable nature of 

humans guarantees that “regardless of the types of opportunities provided, a majority of recreationists will be satisfied with 

them” (p. 53). If wilderness visitors will be satisfied almost 

regardless of what management does, how do managers decide 

what they should be managing for?

Managers have several options regarding decisions about 

who and what to manage for in terms of visitor experiences. 

They can base management on tenets of the Wilderness Act 

and protect setting attributes that should ensure outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. This might mean, among other things, maintaining low 

use densities and minimal levels of development, regardless 

of what visitors want. Another option is to identify wilderness 

purists and then, through visitor surveys, identify the experiences and setting attributes purists think are appropriate and 

manage for these. The outcome of this option is not likely to 

differ practically from simply managing according to the tenets of The Wilderness Act, without relying on visitor studies. 

This approach seems vulnerable to the criticism Burch (1981) 

levied against carrying capacity research as one of “organized 

irresponsibility where managers point to the ‘scientific’ data as 

reason enough for their preferred decisions, and the scientists 

have the pleasure of both defining and ‘proving’ the value of 

certain wildland policies held by personally compatible social 

strata” (p. 224).

Managers could give preference to the average visitor, for 

example by using the results of normative research and defining standards on the basis of averages. This approach seems 

vulnerable to the criticism that the average visitor does not exist 

and, if values are widely divergent, managing for the central 

tendency may not protect anyone’s values (Shafer 1969). Another option is to manage for any of many segments of visitors 

that might be identified through some sort of cluster analysis. 

But which visitor type should managers give preference to? 

Science can help managers approach this question, frame it and 

think through options, but science cannot provide a definitive 

answer.

Given their mandate to serve all people, it may seem 

undemocratic to decide who and what to manage for. This 

dilemma can be alleviated by embracing public engagement 

and providing more options for constituency collaboration in 

decision-making. Research can contribute by improving our 

understanding of different constituencies, with varied relationships to settings and divergent ideas about quality experiences 

and by developing and evaluating more participatory approaches 

to management (Williams 2007). Equally important is managing 

for diversity—with the goal of providing as diverse a system 

of appropriate environmental settings as possible (Dustin and 

McAvoy 1982) or a system of diverse settings that meets the 

needs and desires of a diverse population. This does not alleviate the need to decide, for specific places, which visitor 

group to give preference to and what conditions to manage 

for. But if different decisions are made in different places, 

in a coordinated manner that meets the needs and desires in 

the population, protection of quality should be ensured (Cole 

2011).

Once managers and policymakers get beyond the hope that 

science can help them make political decisions about who and 

what to manage for—and they find some other means of making 

such decisions—the insights from wilderness visitor studies 

can better contribute to decision-making. Although much more 

remains to be learned, 50 years of research has enriched our 

understanding of the variety of visitors out there, the diverse 

ways they experience wilderness, and the wide-ranging ways 

such experiences enrich their lives and well-being. It provides 

insight into the types of settings that protect and enhance 

certain types of experiences and the likely efficacy of actions 

that might be taken to steward settings and experiences.

Managing for Solitude

Much of the controversy regarding stewardship of wilderness experience revolves around the issue of managing for 

solitude. Should managers restrict and limit use in order to 

protect against the erosion of opportunities to experience solitude? Since no other topic or question has received as much 

attention in the visitor experience literature, we conclude this 

review with our view of what research on this topic implies 

regarding management. This topic provides an example of 

the limitations of science and the confusion between technical solutions and socio-political decisions. The results of 

visitor studies can and have been used to bolster arguments 

for restricting and limiting use. Many of the studies reviewed 

earlier indicate that where use density is high, many wilderness visitors feel at least somewhat crowded, report that their 

solitude is periodically interrupted and that conditions are less 

than ideal. Their preferences and norms for encountering other 

people are often violated. Other results—sometimes from the 

same studies--bolster arguments against restriction, however. 

Problems with too many other people are seldom considered 

even moderately severe. Use density has little effect on evaluations of experience quality. And relatively few visitors support 

limiting use to protect solitude, if they are informed that their 

ability to gain access will be affected. Interviews suggest that 

when visitors consider the costs and benefits of use limitation, 

most conclude that costs (restricted access) exceed the benefits 

(a low use density experience).

The results of visitor studies also suggest likely explanations 

for these seemingly divergent conclusions. Despite its centrality 

Cole and Williams Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 17

in the language of the Wilderness Act, most people consider 

a high degree of solitude to be less critical than experiencing 

scenic, natural-appearing, undeveloped landscapes and having meaningful interactions within one’s own group. These 

latter experiences are pervasive and ever-present, in contrast 

to the episodic nature of having one’s solitude interrupted. 

Moreover, they can be attained as long as access is provided, 

essentially regardless of use density. Most people learn to adjust their motivations and their expectations for what they will 

encounter and to cope with what occurs. A detailed reporting 

of results—going beyond measures of central tendency—show 

that these conclusions do not apply to everybody. Although 

the majority of visitors who encounter high use densities in 

wilderness oppose use limits to reduce densities and increase 

opportunities for solitude, some visitors support limits. Some 

visitors are highly motivated to experience uninterrupted 

solitude and report that their wilderness experience is severely 

degraded by having to cope with crowded conditions.

To generalize across visitor studies, a high degree of solitude 

and the very low use densities that facilitate solitude are desired 

but not critically important to most wilderness visitors. Most 

visitors prefer the freedom to choose where and when they can 

visit wilderness to having managers ensure opportunities for a 

high degree of solitude by limiting use. This leaves managers 

of places where use pressure is high with a difficult decision. 

Should they manage for the wishes of the majority of visitors 

and not limit use or should they maintain very low use densities, by limiting use, even if only a minority of users supports 

this approach? The rationale for the latter choice would be 

that the Wilderness Act mandates a setting characterized by 

a very low use density, regardless of the opinions of most 

users. Of course, this does not have to be an all-or-nothing 

decision. Perhaps use limitation could be implemented only 

in the places with the very highest use densities. Few would 

argue with the need for use limits on Mt. Whitney (John Muir 

Wilderness), on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River (Frank 

Church-River of No Return Wilderness) or popular entry points 

in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. In addition, 

different choices can be made in different places. Most of the 

wilderness system is likely to remain lightly used without 

use limitation. But perhaps use limits should be implemented 

even in some lightly used wilderness to provide extremely low 

use density opportunities. Conversely, perhaps use should be 

limited in some popular wilderness areas and avoided in other 

popular areas, to provide ready access to the benefits wilderness recreation provides.

Fifty years of visitor experience research has clarified these 

choices and improved our understanding of the likely consequences of management choices—what is likely to happen, 

who will benefit, and whose interests will be harmed. However, 

the ultimate decision is political rather than technical, reflecting a choice among values. Finally, we should note that these 

decisions are not trivial; they will determine the types and 

magnitude of benefits that flow from wilderness. We lament 

the fact that almost 50 years after passage of the Wilderness 

Act, there is still little meaningful policy to help wilderness 

managers make these decisions (Forest Service 2010). Rather 

than being made on the national stage, decisions are left to the 

discretion of low- to mid-level managers, who struggle with 

personal biases and political pressures to make wise decisions. 

In our opinion, this policy vacuum is a much greater barrier to 

progress in visitor experience stewardship than the need for 

more science to assist in policy development.

References _______________________

Absher, James D.; Lee, Robert G. 1981. Density as an incomplete cause of 

crowding in backcountry settings. Leisure Sciences. 4: 231-247.

Arnould, Eric J.; Price, Linda L. 1993. River magic: Extraordinary experience 

and the extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research. 20: 24-45.

Borrie, William T.; Birzell, Robert M. 2001. Approaches to measuring quality of 

the wilderness experience. In: Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N., comps. 

Visitor use density and wilderness experience: proceedings. 2000 June 1-3; 

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

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 29-38.

Borrie, Willam T.; Roggenbuck, Joseph. R. 2001. The dynamic, emergent, and 

multi-phasic nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 33:202-228.

Borrie, William T. 2004. Why primitive experiences in wilderness? International Journal of Wilderness. 10 (3): 18-20.

Brooks, Jeffrey J.; Wallace, George N.; Williams, Daniel R. 2006. Place as 

relationship partner: An alternative metaphor for understanding the quality of 

visitor experience in a backcountry setting. Leisure Sciences. 28: 331-349.

Brooks, Jeffrey J.; Wallace, George. N.; Williams, Daniel R. 2007. Is this a onenight stand or the start of something meaningful? Developing relationships 

to place in national park backcountry. In Watson, A. E.; Sproull; J.; Dean, 

L. Eds., Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: 

Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium. September 30-October 

6, Anchorage, AK. RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 451-459.

Brooks, Jeffrey J.; Williams, Daniel R. In press. Continued wilderness participation: experience and identity as long-term and relational phenomena. 

In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in 

research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRSP-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Brown, Perry J,; Haas, Glenn. 1980. Wilderness recreation experiences; The 

Rawah case. Journal of Leisure Research. 12: 229-241.

Bultena, Gordon; Albrecht, Don; Womble, Peter. 1981a. Freedom versus 

control: A study of backpackers’ preferences for wilderness management/ 

Leisure Sciences. 4: 297-310.

Bultena, Gordon; Field, Donald; Womble, Peter; Albrecht, Don. 1981b. Closing the gates: A study of backcountry use-limitation at Mount McKinley 

National Park. Leisure Sciences. 4: 249-267.

Bultena, Gordon L.; Taves, Marvin J. 1961. Changing wilderness images and 

forestry policy. Journal of Forestry. 59: 167-171.

Burch, William R., Jr. 1966. Wilderness—the life cycle and forest recreational 

choice. Journal of Forestry. 64: 606-610.

Burch, William R., Jr. 1981. The ecology of metaphor—spacing regularities 

for humans and other primates in urban and wildland habitats. Leisure 

Sciences. 4: 213-230.

Burch, William R. Jr.; Wenger, Wiley D. 1967. The social characteristics of 

participants in three styles of family camping. Research Paper PNW-48. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 30 p.

Clawson, Marion; Knetsch, Jack L. 1966. Economics of outdoor recreation. 

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.

Cole, David. N. 2011. Planned diversity: the case for a system with several 

types of wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 17(2): 9-14.

Cole, David N; Hall, Troy E. 2008a. Wilderness visitors, experiences, and 

management preferences: How they vary with use level and length of 

stay. Research Paper RMRS-RP-71. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 61 p.

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research Cole and Williams
18 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Cole, David N.: Hall, Troy E. 2008b. The “adaptable human” phenomenon: 

implications for recreation management in high-use wilderness. In: Harmon, 

D., ed. People, places, and parks: Proceedings of the 2007 George Wright 

Society conference on parks, protected areas, and cultural sites. George 

Wright Society, Hancock, MI: 126-131.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2009. Perceived effects of setting attributes on 

visitor experiences in wilderness: Variation with situational context and 

visitor characteristics. Environmental Management. 44: 24-36.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2010a. Privacy functions and wilderness 

recreation: Use density and length of stay effects on experience. Ecopsychology. 2: 67-75.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2010b. Experiencing the restorative components 

of wilderness environments: Does congestion interfere and does length of 

exposure matter? Environment and Behavior. 42: 806-823.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. In press a. The effect of use density and length of 

stay on visitor experience in wilderness. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 

4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. In press b. Wilderness experience quality: 

Effects of use density depend on how experience is conceived. In: Cole, 

David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

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 Intermountain Research 

Station: 38 p.

Dawson, Chad P.; Hendee, John C. 2009. Wilderness management: Stewardship and protection of resources and values, 4th ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum 

Publishing. 525 p.

Dawson, Chad P.; Russell, Keith C. In press. Wilderness experience programs: 

A state-of-the-knowledge summary. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness 

visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; 

Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Dawson, Chad P.; Watson, Alan E. 2000. Measures of wilderness trip satisfaction and user perceptions of crowding. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen 

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

a time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, 

and visitor management; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 93-98.

Ditton, Robert B.; Graefe, Alan R.; Fedler, Anthony J. 1981. Recreational 

satisfaction at Buffalo National River: some measurement concerns. In: 

Lime, D., Field, D., tech. Coord. Some recent products of river recreation 

research. General Technical Report NC-63. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northcentral Forest Experiment Station: 9-17.

Driver, B. L.; Knopf, Richard C. 1977. Personality, outdoor recreation and 

expected consequences. Environment and Behavior. 9: 169-193.

Driver, B. L.; Nash Rodrick; Haas, Glenn 1987. Wilderness benefits: A stateof-knowledge review. In: Lucas, R. C., comp. Proceedings – National wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. 

1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: 

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

Station: 294-319.

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

recreation opportunities and environments? Environmental Ethics. 4: 49-57.

Dvorak, Robert G,; Borrie, William T. 2007. Changing relationships with 

wilderness: A new focus for research and stewardship. International Journal 

of Wilderness. 13(3): 12-15.

Ewert, Alan; McAvoy, Leo. 2000. The effects of wilderness settings on 

organized groups: a state-of-knowledge paper. In: McCool, Stephen F.; 

Cole, David N.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 3: Wilderness as a 

place for scientific inquiry; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 13-26.

Farber, Mary E.; Hall, Troy E. 2007. Emotion and environment: Visitors’ 

extraordinary experiences along the Dalton Highway in Alaska. Journal 

of Leisure Research. 39: 248-270.

Forest Service, Wilderness Advisory Group. 2010. Ensuring outstanding 

opportunities for quality wilderness visitor experiences: Problems and 

recommendations. Unpublished report. Available online at: http://www.

wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/FS/Outstanding%20Opportunities%20

for%20Visitor%20Experiences_WAG_Report.pdf

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

of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 19: 21-39.

Graefe, Alan R.; Thapa, Brijesh; Confer, John J.; Absher, James D. 2000. 

Relationships between trip motivations and selected variables among Allegheny National Forest visitors. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; 

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

time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, 

and visitor management; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 107-112.

Haggard, Lois M.; Williams, Daniel R. 1992. Identity affirmation through leisure 

activities: Leisure symbols of the self. Journal of Leisure Research. 24: 1-18.

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: Cole, David N., Stephen F. McCool, William T. 

Borrie, and Jennifer O’Loughlin, comps. Wilderness science in a time of 

change conference--Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor 

management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4:113-121. 

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

and behaviors of recreation users. Research Paper RMRS-RP-63. Fort Collins, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 36 p.

Hall, Troy E.; Cole, David N. In press. Immediate conscious experience in 

wilderness: A phenomenological investigation. In: Cole, David N., comp. 

Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 

April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Hall, Troy E.; Johnson, Bradley J.; Cole, David N. 2007. Dimensions of wilderness experience: A qualitative investigation. Unpublished report, Aldo 

Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Available online at: http://leopold.

wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs7/qual_interview_rept_final.pdf.

Hall, Troy E.; Seekamp, Erin; Cole, David. 2010. Do recreation motivations 

and wilderness involvement relate to support for wilderness management? 

A segmentation analysis. Leisure Sciences. 32: 109-124.

Hammitt, William E. 1982. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude. 

Environment and Behavior. 14: 478-493.

Hammitt, William E. In press. Wilderness naturalness, privacy, and restorative 

experiences: An integrative model. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness 

visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; 

Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Hammitt, William E.; Patterson, Michael E. 1991. Coping behavior to avoid 

visitor encounters: Its elationship to wildland privacy. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 23: 225-237.

Hammitt, William E.; Rutlin, William M. 1995. Use encounter standards and 

curves for achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 17: 245-262.

Heberlein, Thomas. 1977. Density, crowding, and satisfaction: sociological 

studies for determining carrying capacities. In: Proceedings, river recreation 

management and research symposium. General Technical Report NC-28. 

St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northcentral 

Forest Experiment Station: 67-76.

Heberlein, Thomas; Shelby, Bo. 1977. Carrying capacity, values, and the satisfaction model: A reply to Greist. Journal of Leisure Research. 9: 142-148.

Heberlein, Thomas, Vaske, Jerry J. 1977. Crowding and visitor conflict on the 

Bois Brule River. Report WISC WRC 77-04. Madison, WI: University of 

Wisconsin, Water Resources Center.

Hendee, John C.; Catton, William R., Jr.; Marlow, Larry D.; Brockman, C. 

Frank. 1968. Wilderness users in the Pacific Northwest, their characteristics, 

values and management preferences. Research Paper PNW-61. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 92 p.

Cole and Williams Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 19

Hockett, Karen; Hall Troy. 1998. Shenandoah National Park 1998 backcountry 

and wilderness visitor study. Unpublished report. Shenandoah National 

Park. 185 p.

Hull, R. Bruce, IV: Stewart, William P. 1995. The landscape encountered 

and experienced while hiking. Environment and Behavior. 27:404-426.

Hull, R. Bruce. IV; Stewart, William P.; Young K. Yi. 1992. Experience patterns: Capturing the dynamic nature of recreation experience. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 24: 240-252.

Jackson, J. 1965. Structural characteristics of norms. In: Steiner, I., Fishbein, 

M., eds. Current studies in social psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Jacob, Gerald R.; Schreyer, Richard. 1980. Conflict in outdoor recreation: A 

theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research. 12: 368-380.

Johnson, Andrew K.; Dawson, Chad P. An exploratory study of the complexities 

of coping behavior in Adirondack Wilderness Leisure Sciences. 26: 1-13.

Johnson, Bradley J.; Hall, Troy E., Cole, David N. 2005. Naturalness, primitiveness, remoteness and wilderness: Wilderness visitors’ understanding 

and experience of wilderness qualities. Unpublished report, Aldo Leopold 

Wilderness Research Institute, Available online at: http://leopold.wilderness.

net/research/fprojects/docs7/4_qualities_report.pdf.

Kaplan, Rachael. 1974. Some psychological benefits of an outdoor challenge 

program. Environment and Behavior. 6: 101-119.

Kaplan, Steven; Talbot, Janet F. 1983. Psychological benefits of wilderness 

experience. In Altman, I.; Wohlwill, J. F. eds. Behavior and the natural 

Environment. Plenum Press: 163-203.

Knopf, Richard C. 1983. Recreational needs and behavior in natural settings. 

In Altman, I.; Wohlwill, J. F. eds. Behavior and the natural Environment. 

Plenum Press: 205-240.

Krumpe, Edwin E.; Brown, Perry J. 1982. Redistributing backcountry use 

through information related to recreational experiences. Journal of Forestry. 80: 360-362.

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.

Kuentzel, Walter F.; Heberlein, Thomas A. 2003. More visitors, less crowding: 

Change and stability of norms over time at the Apostle Islands. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 35: 349-371.

Kuss, Fred R.; Graefe, Alan R., Vaske, Jerry J. 1990. Visitor impact management: a review of research. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Kyle, Gerard; Graefe, Alan; Manning, Robert; Bacon, James. 2004a. Effect 

of activity involvement and place attachment on recreationists’ perceptions 

of setting density. Journal of Leisure Research. 36: 209-231.

Kyle, Gerard; Graefe, Alan; Manning, Robert; Bacon, James. 2004b. Effect of 

place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions 

in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24: 213-225..

Lee, Robert G. 1977. Alone with others: the paradox of privacy in wilderness. 

Lesiure Sciences. 1: 3-19.

Legare, Anne-Marie; Haider, Wolfgang. 2008. Trend analysis of motivationbased clusters at the Chilkoot Trail National Historic site of Canada. Leisure 

Sciences. 30: 158-176.

Lucas, Robert C. 1964 a. The recreational use of the Quetico-Superior area. 

Research Paper LS-8. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station. 50 p. 

Lucas, Robert C. 1964b. The recreational capacity of the Quetico-Superior 

area. Research Paper LS-15. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station. 34 p. 

Lucas, Robert C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor characteristics, attitudes and 

preferences in nine wilderness and other roadless areas. Research Paper 

INT-253. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station.

Lucas, Robert C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in 

the Bob Marshall wilderness complex, 1970-82. Research Paper INT-345. 

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

Research Station. 32 p.

Lynn, Natasha A.; Brown, Robert D. 2003. Effects of recreational use impacts 

on hiking experiences in natural areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. 

64: 77-87.

Manfredo, Michael J.; Driver, B. L.; Brown, Perry J. 1983. A test of concepts 

inherent in experience-based setting management for outdoor recreation 

areas. Journal of Leisure Research. 15: 263-283.

Manning, Robert E. 2003. Emerging principles for using information/education 

in wilderness management. International Journal of Wilderness. 9(1): 20-27.

Manning, Robert E. 2007. Parks and carrying capacity: Commons without 

tragedy. Washington, DC: Island Press. 313 p.

Manning, Robert E. 2011. Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for 

satisfaction, 3rd edition. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 468 p.

Manning, Robert E., Lime, David W., Freimund, W., Pitt, David. 1996. Crowding norms at frontcountry sites: a visual approach to setting standards of 

quality. Leisure Sciences. 18: 39-59.

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

of wilderness recreation experiences. In: Cole, David N., Stephen F. McCool, 

William T. Borrie, and Jennifer O’Loughlin, comps. Wilderness science in 

a time of change conference--Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, 

and visitor management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4:13-52. 

Martin, Steven R.; Pope, Kristen, In press. The impact of hand-held information and communication technology on visitor perceptions of risk and 

risk-related behavior. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, 

MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

McCool, Stephen F. 2004. Wilderness character and the notion of an “unconfined” experience. International Journal of Wilderness. 10 (3): 15-17.

McIntyre, Norman; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1998. Nature/person transactions 

during an outdoor adventure experience: a multiphasic analysis. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 30: 401-422.

Merriam, L. C., Jr.; Ammons, R. B. 1967. The wilderness user in three Montana 

areas. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, School of Forestry. 54 p.

Moore, Steven D.; Brickler, Stanley K.; Shockey, James W.; King, David A. 

1989. Sociological aspects of recreation at Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness, 

Arizona. Unpublished report. Bureau of Land management, Safford, AZ. 

141 p.

Omodei, Mary M; Wearing, Alexander J. 1990. Need satisfaction and involvement in personal projects: Toward an integrative model of subjective 

well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59: 762-769.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Wilderness and 

recreation—a report on resources, values, and problems. ORRRC Study 

Report 3. Washington, DC. 352 p.

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

norms, actual reported encounters, and their relationship to wilderness 

solitude. Journal of Leisure Research. 22: 259-275.

Patterson, Michael E.; Watson, Alan E.; William, Daniel R.; Roggenbuck, 

Joseph R. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 30: 423-452.

Patterson, Michael E.; Williams, Daniel R.; Schrel, Lea. 1994. Identity and the 

experience of wilderness: Analysis of experience narratives from Australia 

and the United States. In: Hendee, John C.; Martin Vance G. eds. International wilderness allocation, management, and research. Proceedings of a 

symposium during the 5th World Wilderness Congress. Sept. 1993, Tromsø, 

Norway. Fort Collins, CO: The WILD Foundation: 240-246.

Peden, John G.; Schuster, Rudy M. 2008. Assessing the transactional nature 

of wilderness experiences: Construct validation of the wilderness-hassles 

appraisal scale. Environmental Management. 42: 497-510.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 2004. Managing for primitive recreation in wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 10 (3): 21-24.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Berrier, Deborah L. 1981. Communications to disperse 

wilderness campers. Journal of Forestry. 75: 295-297.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Driver B. L. 2000. Benefits of non-facilitated uses 

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

T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of change 

conference—Volume 3: Wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry; 1999 

May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, UT: 

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

Station: 33-49.

Roggenbuck , Joseph W.; Lucas, Robert C. 1987. Wilderness use and user 

characteristics: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. 

Proceedings—national wilderness research conference; issues, state-ofknowledge, future directions; 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. General 

Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service Intermountain Research Station: 204-245.

Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research Cole and Williams
20 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Williams, Daniel R.; Watson, Alan E. 1993. Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management. 17: 

187-197.

Schuster, Rudy; Hammitt, William E.; Moore, Dewayne. 2006. Stress appraisal 

and coping response to hassles experienced in outdoor recreation settings. 

Leisure Sciences. 28: 97-113.

Schreyer, Richard; Jacob, Gerald; White, Robert. 1981. Environmental meanings as a determinant of spatial behavior. Proceedings of Applied Geography 

Conferences. 4: 294-300.

Schreyer, Richard; Lime, David W.; Williams, Daniel R. 1984. Characterizing 

the influence of past experience on recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 16: 34-50.

Seekamp, Erin; Cole, David N. 2009. Deliberating the experiential qualities 

of wilderness: Similar meanings, but divergent standards. International 

Journal of Wilderness. 15 (3): 23-28.

Shafer, C. Scott; Hammitt, William E. 1995. Purism revisited: Specifying 

recreational conditions of concern according to resource intent. Leisure 

Sciences. 17: 15-30.

Shafer, Elwood L., Jr. 1969. The average camper who doesn’t exist. Research 

Paper NE-142. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 27 p.

Shelby, Bo. 1980. Crowding models for backcountry recreation. Land Economics. 56: 43-55.

Shelby, Bo. 1981. Encounter norms in backcountry settings: studies of three 

rivers. Journal of Leisure Research. 13: 129-138.

Shultis, John. In press. The impact of technology on the wilderness experience: 

A review of common themes and approaches in three bodies of literature. 

In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in 

research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRSP-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Smaldone, David; Harris, Charles; Sanyal, Nick. 2005. An exploration of 

place as process: The case of Jackson Hole, WY. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 25: 397-414.

Stankey, George H. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. Research Paper INT-142. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment 

Station. 62 p.

Stankey, George H. 1980. A comparison of carrying capacity perceptions 

among visitors to two wildernesses. Research Paper INT-242. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest & 

Range Experiment Station. 34 p.

Stankey, George H.; Schreyer, Richard. 1987. Attitudes toward wilderness 

and factors affecting visitor behavior. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. Proceedings—national wilderness research conference; issues, state-of-knowledge, 

future directions; 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. General Technical 

Report INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

Intermountain Research Station: 246-293.

Stewart, William P., Cole, David N. 2001. Number of encounters and experience quality in the Grand Canyon backcountry: a consistently negative but 

weak relationship. Journal of Leisure Research. 33: 106-120.

Stewart, William P.; Floyd, Myron F. 2004. Visualizing leisure. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 36: 445-460.

Stone, Gregory P.; Taves, Marvin J. 1956. Research into the human element 

in wilderness use. In: Proceedings Society of American Foresters Meeting; 

1956 October 15-17; Memphis, TN: 26-32.

Taves, Marvin; Hathaway, William; Bultena, Gordon. 1960. Canoe country 

vacationers. Miscellaneous Report 39. St. Paul, MN: Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota. 28 p.

Taves, Marvin; Morgan, James T. 1960. Canoe country camping—who? where? 

why? Minnesota Farm and Home Science. 17(3): 3, 20.

Vaske, Jerry; Shelby, Bo; Graefe, Alan; Heberlein, Thomas. 1986. Backcountry encounter norms: Theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 18: 137-153.

Vaske, Jerry J.; Shelby, Lori B. 2008. Crowding as a descriptive indicator and 

an evaluative standard. Leisure Sciences. 30: 111-126. 

Warzecha, Cynthia A.; Lime, David W.2001. Place attachment in Canyonlands 

National Park: Visitors’ assessments of setting attributes on the Colorado 

and Green Rivers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 19:59-78.

Watson, Alan; Glaspell, Brian; Christensen, Neal; Lachapelle, Paul; Sahanatien, 

Vicki; Gertsch, Frances. 2007. Giving voice to wildlands visitors: Selecting indicators to protect and sustain experiences in the eastern arctic of 

Nunavut. Environmental Management. 40: 880-888.

Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J.; Williams, Daniel R. 1994. The nature 

of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir 

Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research. 26: 372-385.

Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph R. 1997. Selecting human experience 

indicators for wilderness: Different approaches provide difference results. 

In: Kulhavy, D., Legg, M., eds. Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern 

United States: research, management and planning. Nacadoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, Arthur Temple College of Forestry, Center 

for Applied Studies: 264-269.

Westin, Alan F. 1967. Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneium. 487 p.

White, Dave D.; Virden, Randy J.; Van Riper, Carena J. 2008. Effects of place 

identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of 

recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environmental Management. 42: 

647-657.

Williams, Daniel. R. 1989. Great expectations and the limits to satisfaction: A 

review of recreation and consumer satisfaction research. In: A. E. Watson 

(Compiler), Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the National 

Outdoor Recreation Forum. General Technical Report SE-52. Asheville, 

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

Experiment Station: 422-438.

Williams, Daniel R. 2007. Recreation settings, scenery, and visitor experiences: A research assessment. In: L.E. Kruger, R. Mazza and K. Lawrence, 

eds. Proceedings: national workshop on recreation research and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-698. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 29-41. 

Williams, Daniel R. 2008. Pluralities of place: A user’s guide to place concepts, theories, and philosophies in natural resource management. In L. 

Kruger; T. Hall; and M. Stiefel (Tech. Eds.), Understanding concepts of 

place in recreation research and management. PNW-GTR-744. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: 7-30.

Williams, Daniel R.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Patterson, Michael E.; Watson, 

Alan E. 1992a. The variability of user-based social impact standards for 

wilderness management. Forest Science. 23: 154-172. 

Williams, Daniel R.; Patterson, Michael E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Watson, 

Alan E. 1992b. Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional 

and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences. 14: 29-46.

Williams, Daniel R.; Schreyer, Richard; Knopf, Richard C. 1990. The effect 

of experience use history on the dimensional structure of motivations to 

participate in leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research. 22: 36-54.

Williams, Kathryn; Harvey, David. 2001. Transcendent experience in forest 

environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21: 249-260.

Cole and Williams Wilderness Visitor Experiences: A Review of 50 Years of Research
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 21

Abstract—Understanding the relationship between wilderness outings 

and the resulting experience has been a central theme in resource-based, 

outdoor recreation research for nearly 50 years. The authors provide 

a review and synthesis of literature that examines how people, over 

time, build relationships with wilderness places and express their 

identities as consequences of multiple, ongoing wilderness engagements (that is, continued participation). The paper reviews studies 

of everyday places and those specifically protected for wilderness 

and backcountry qualities. Beginning with early origins and working 

through contemporary research the authors synthesize what diverse 

social scientists have learned about the long-term and continual nature 

of wilderness participation and its impact on the formation of identity. 

The thrust of the paper points researchers, planners, and managers in 

non-traditional directions and reframes goals and objectives for visitor 

planning and management in wilderness and other protected areas.

Introduction ______________________

This synthesis highlights temporal aspects of experience. 

Time is an inescapable dimension of all human experience and 

activity (Heidegger 1962; Munn 1992: 93). It allows people to 

visit places such as wilderness on a regular and ongoing basis 

if desired, and in the process, meaningful place relationships 

may be built and nurtured. We examine experience and identity 

in terms of ongoing interactions with places and other people 

throughout one’s life, and in all one’s activities (Codina 2003: 

239). Similar to home, religion, career, family, or hobby we 

suggest that wilderness experience comprises a long-term 

source of identity for people who participate on a continuing 

basis. We offer an interview excerpt taken from Brooks and 

others (2004) to illustrate continued participation and ongoing 

experience, setting the stage for the discussions that follow.

Researcher: Would you say... that wilderness is important to you? Participant: Yes, I would in a lot of 

ways... Gosh one of the things we were just talking 

about the other day that comes to mind in wilderness 

Continued Wilderness Participation: 

Experience and Identity as Long-term 

Relational Phenomena

Jeffrey J. Brooks

Daniel R. Williams

Authors: Jeffrey J. Brooks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. Daniel R. 

Williams, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

is the sense of slowing down... I live in Denver; it is a 

necessity to get away from all that and slow down and 

remember the speed at which things really happen... 

is geologically slow. I think that it’s hard to get that 

experience in the city... the sense of really slowing 

down and just going where you go. [It] tends to help 

me bring that back to the city... the reminder of what 

is important, the scale of things, and the importance of 

preserving what we have. I mean it tends to carry all 

my conservationism back. It sort of comes back again 

for me, and I definitely get that as a result of being in 

the wilderness.... There really is a spiritual component 

that is really hard to define. I’ve been working on that 

one for years. I couldn’t find a way to put it into words 

on any given day. But, my husband and I got married 

on an overlook, overlooking Rocky Mountain National 

Park—way outside sort of the traditional organized 

religion paradigm; there is something both humbling 

and expansive about being out in wilderness. I also 

think that it is important to take that back to my daily 

life.... Researcher: Is your spirituality related to these 

types of settings? Participant: Yes, definitely... it links 

into a lot of aspects of my life. It’s got this trickle 

down effect where I find things like my commitment 

to recycling feels like a spiritual act... a mitzvah or 

something like a religious commandment. It’s the 

determination to conserve water—all these things, I 

really pick them up when I am out here... getting out 

in the wilderness reminds me of how important it is ... 

it permeates a lot of aspects of my life. I’m a quilter; 

it gets into my quilting, the relationships that I have 

with people. I think that it gets into an awful lot of 

things.... Researcher: Are there any particular places 

that have special importance for you? Participant:... 

Glacier Gorge is part of the park that I know best. I’ve 

traveled it the most.... It’s fairly accessible. So it’s 

always kind of miraculous when you get up there on 

a quiet day. I’ve been up there in the winter. I’ve been 

up there in the summer and the fall... it’s easy to get 

there and do a quick day trip. Researcher: Do you associate Glacier Gorge with family, friends, memories, 

or beliefs? Participant: Yes, some specific memories, I 

mean my husband and I have spent a lot of time there, 

so it is very much wrapped around my little nuclear 

family now, not so much my family of origin. Although, 

the day after our wedding—the biggest hike I’ve ever 

been on—probably 16 or 17 people from our wedding 

party went up as far as Mills Lake, and lunched by the 

lake. It was pretty neat. Both of our Dads were there, 

some of our cousins, a lot of our friends... are also big 

hikers, so it was a very comfortable space for them. It 

was great to bring some people who hadn’t really been 

up here before. A big part of the sort of spiritual aspect 
22 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Brooks and Williams Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena

of the ceremony itself was for us to commit ourselves 

to the state of marriedness and to the rootedness of 

being married in this particular place on the land.... 

then actually to bring those people with us, and show 

them: This is what we are talking about... not just get 

the post card view, which we got at the wedding site, 

but to say now we’re going to walk in it and run into the 

possibility of rain and get sore feet, and we are going 

to get tired and just the whole experience... of being 

up there... and also just great conversations that have 

happened over the years [on] different hikes...

For this person, the experience of the park, which is partially managed as wilderness, is a progression or continuing 

process that both contributes to and is interwoven with her 

sense of identity, well being, and relationships with others in 

her life. Being there clearly affects her everyday life outside of 

wilderness in meaningful ways, an observation supported by 

previous research in both wilderness (Pohl and others 2000) 

and long-term adventure recreation (Boniface 2006). She does 

not talk about being in wilderness as a discrete experience or 

encounter, but as an organizing narrative in the story of her 

family life. We conceive of continued wilderness participation, 

and the accumulated experiences tied to it, as a process of 

building and maintaining (affirming and adjusting) a coherent identity narrative—a story about oneself—that structures 

and infuses one’s everyday life with meaning. This viewpoint 

contrasts with much prior research on wilderness experience, 

which has tended to focus on discrete recreational uses or trips 

in wilderness and related outcomes such as satisfaction and 

a myriad of other personal benefits (Borrie and Birzell 2001; 

Roggenbuck and Driver 2000).

The central question that we examine in this paper is how 

people, over time, build relationships and express their identities through experiences in places such as wilderness or other 

protected areas and what this means for those who study and 

manage these places. Beginning with early origins and working through contemporary research in a number of areas, we 

review what social scientists have learned during the last 50 

years about the long-term nature of wilderness experience and 

its relationship to identity. We conclude with a discussion of 

implications in which we reframe goals and objectives for 

research, planning, and management to better account for 

continued wilderness participation.

Early Origins _____________________

Understanding the relationship between wilderness outings and the resulting experience has been a central theme 

in resource-based, outdoor recreation research for nearly 50 

years. A number of temporal perspectives (that is, those accounting for variation over time) emerged out of the research 

conducted to support the Outdoor Recreation Resources 

Review Commission (ORRRC) reports in 1962. Perhaps the 

best known is the Clawson and Knetsch (1966) suggestion that 

recreation experiences were not limited to that which occurred 

at the recreation site, but also involved anticipation, travel to, 

travel home, and recollection. Despite its conceptual appeal, 

it received relatively little systematic attention in the research 

literature until much later (see Hammitt 1980; Stewart 

1998). This idea has been broadened to investigate the multiphased (for example, entry, through immersion, to the exit 

phase) and dynamic nature of onsite recreation or wilderness 

experiences (Borrie and Birzell 2001; Borrie and Roggenbuck 

2001; Hull and others 1992; Hull and others 1996; McIntyre 

and Roggenbuck 1998). Hall and Cole (in press) addressed 

the topic of immediate conscious experience of wilderness. 

Another important temporal perspective involves research on 

the effects of multi-day educational and therapeutic uses of 

wilderness (Gibson 1979; Kaplan 1974). This topic is examined 

by Dawson and Russell (in press). Our focus on wilderness 

as a continuing pattern of recreation experience has its roots 

in three other lines of research that have examined patterns 

of leisure participation across the life course: socialization 

models, specialization models, and Experience Use History. 

All three perspectives emphasize how participants learn and 

refine wilderness behaviors and experiences and how, over 

time, such learning influences identities and attitudes.

Socialization into outdoor recreation patterns was a major 

focus of the ORRRC reports as it was seen as an essential tool 

to forecasting recreation demand into the future. In this context, socialization refers to the acquisition of the knowledge, 

attitudes, skills, norms, and communication and interpretive 

repertories that shape recreation preferences, participation, and 

identity (Kelly 1974). Initial attempts to examine socialization 

looked at demographic patterns of participation. The presumption was that demographic characteristics were indicators of 

living in different social worlds that would transmit different 

values and interests to its members. While early studies were 

often disappointing for both conceptual and methodological 

reasons (Burch 1969; Burdge and Field 1972; Meyersohn 

1969), early evidence suggested that use of wilderness was 

related to socioeconomic status, particularly education, and 

gender (ORRRC 1962). Moreover, these relationships have 

been repeatedly observed over the years (Bowker and others 

2006; Manning 2011; Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987; Roggenbuck 

and Watson 1989).

To move beyond the limited explanatory power of demographic aggregates, sociological studies began to examine the 

ways in which preferences for outdoor recreation activities are 

formed within small circles of family, friends, or colleagues 

(Burch 1969). For example, a number of studies looked at 

the influence of early childhood socialization to explain adult 

preferences for a variety of outdoor recreation activities including primitive camping (Burch and Wenger 1967) and hunting 

and fishing (Sofranko and Nolan 1972). Other studies have 

focused on one’s membership in leisure reference groups, for 

example, socialization into the surfing (Devall 1973), drug 

counter culture (Becker 1953), or sport fishing communities 

(Ditton and others 1992). Leisure social worlds refer to an 

“internally recognizable constellation of actors, organizations, 

events and practices which have coalesced into a perceived 

sphere of interest and involvement for participants” (Unruh 

1980: 115). Participants in leisure social worlds form shared 

understandings of the meaning of a certain leisure pursuit, 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 23

develop common attitudes towards participation, and acquire 

specialized skills.

Some socialization models focused less on agents of influence (parents, teachers, peers, and so on) and more on patterns 

of social roles and personal identities across the life course. 

Social developmental theory is based on the inevitability of 

these changing of roles with aging and their impact on identities 

(Kelly 1974, 1977, 1985; Kleiber and Kelly 1980). Accordingly, 

life is seen as a journey where the individual passes through 

a series of developmental stages where the individual seeks 

to have some continuity of meaning and identity rather than a 

haphazard sequence of disconnected experiences. Decisions 

to participate in particular outings are driven by an ongoing 

effort to become a person with a satisfying life of persistent and 

coherent meaning. But, as Kelly (1987: 89) argues, development 

is not simply a matter of passing through a sequence of roles. 

Rather “we actively engage others on our life journey in ways 

that have consequences for the kind of persons we become”. 

How much continuity in recreation patterns exists across the 

life course has been a critical question. On the one hand, early 

studies by Kelly (1974, 1977) suggested that up to 40 percent 

of adult leisure activities were initiated in childhood. On the 

other hand, recreation is a domain in life characterized by 

situated role freedom within which exploration and change is 

more common. Thus more recent studies have begun to look 

at “emerging adulthood” as a critical phase in the development 

of leisure identities (Sharp and others 2007).

In describing a process of recreation specialization, Bryan 

(1977, 1979) took the idea of socialization and leisure social 

worlds further to suggest that one’s form or style, attitudes, 

and preferences for an activity become more specialized as one 

learns and interacts with other advanced participants. Bryan 

focused on the idea of a leisure career to account for within 

activity variation. At the early stages in an activity career, there 

are the occasional participants who have not established the 

activity as a regular part of their leisure repertoire. At higher 

levels of specialization, participants develop technique and 

setting specializations, become highly committed and invested in the activity, and form distinct setting preferences. 

Bryan’s work was largely qualitative, but the concept led to 

a number of investigators developing quantitative techniques 

for measuring specialization levels based on indicators such 

as equipment owned, monetary investment, level of participation, and technique and setting preferences (Scott and Shafer 

2001; Virden and Schreyer 1988; Wellman and others 1982; 

Williams 1985).

Closely related to specialization studies has been a set of 

studies focused on specialization related variables including 

past experience or Experience Use History (Schreyer and 

others 1984; Watson and others 1991; Williams and others 

1990), activity involvement or lifestyle centrality (McIntyre 

1989; McIntyre and Pigram 1992; Selin and Howard 1988), 

and place attachment (Williams and others 1989; Williams 

and others 1992). Early on, wilderness researchers identified 

past experience as a simple but relatively powerful variable 

in explaining wilderness related attitudes and preferences 

(Hendee and others 1968; Lucas 1964; Nielson and others 

1977; Schreyer 1982; Vaske and others 1980). Over time, more 

complex approaches began to look at various combinations 

of experience measures such as number of visits to the 

study area, number of areas visited, and total number of trips 

(Schreyer and others 1984). These studies showed that past 

experience influenced a number of important wilderness related 

attitudes and preferences including those related to crowding, 

conflict, impacts, management practices, and facilities and 

services (see Manning 2011: 237-255). Past experience also 

was an important predictor of more subjective measures of 

activity involvement (McIntyre 1989) and place attachment 

(Williams and others 1992). This work has demonstrated that 

more experienced, involved, and attached participants in outdoor activities develop higher standards of quality, are more 

likely to evaluate resource conditions as negative, but also are 

more adept at responding to negative resource conditions to 

create desired experiences (Williams 1988). In addition, this 

work shows that as participants gain greater experience over 

time they develop more complex motivational structures, as 

motivations for outdoor recreation participation tend to shift 

from an emphasis on escaping the pressures of modern life 

toward an emphasis on introspection, self-awareness, and skill 

development (Williams and others 1990).

Drawing broadly from these early studies examining leisure 

across the life course suggests that the sense of what constitutes a quality wilderness experience is largely built up in the 

course of learning how to engage in wilderness experiences 

as an ongoing process. According to this view, people must 

learn to experience and appreciate nature and wildness. It is 

not something inborn (though see Knopf 1983 for a review 

of research arguing that humans have an innate experience 

of nature). This learning involves both direct experience of 

wilderness (physically being in wilderness) as well as social 

interactions with other participants (often in wilderness but 

also outside wilderness). As an example of the former, Lee 

(1972: 70) suggested “children and adults whose experiences 

have seldom penetrated the invisible walls of the ghetto... 

have no place in their universe of discourse for assigning 

positive meanings to the natural features of outdoor recreation 

settings”. As an example of the latter and following Becker’s 

(1953) model of experiential learning, participants often learn 

the techniques for how to produce the wilderness experience 

from other more experienced participants. In other words, 

they learn how to see, do, hear, and smell in the wilderness 

environment, learn how to recognize the effect wilderness is 

having, and most importantly, learn how to enjoy the sensations it produces. One must learn to appreciate wilderness 

experiences just as one learns to appreciate art or fine wine. 

A key point underlying the life course perspective is that one 

learns from past experience as well as from other participants 

who inhabit one’s leisure social world.

A Meaning-Based Model ____________

As noted earlier, looking at wilderness experience across 

the life course is often contrasted with discrete event-based 

approaches. Aligned with these temporal differences, are 

Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena Brooks and Williams
24 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

a number of conceptual or philosophical differences. The 

prevailing approach associated with experience as a discrete 

event draws on what Patterson and others (1994) refer to as 

an information processing model of human decision making 

and well being. Accordingly, well being occurs when specific 

needs or goals are met. Wilderness visitors are depicted as 

choosing settings and conditions in a deterministic fashion 

in which the relationships between environmental attributes 

and goal attainment are stable and predictable. In contrast, 

the view of experience as a continuing phenomenon often 

follows a meaning-based model (Fournier 1991; Malm 1993; 

McCracken 1987; Mick and Buhl 1992) in which well being 

arises directly from the nature of engagement in the activity 

and transactions with environmental features rather than from 

attaining desired goals (Omodei and Wearing 1990). Rather 

than seeking a package of benefits through participation in a 

specific activity within a definitive time frame (that is, with a 

beginning and end), experiences are viewed as the result of an 

ongoing project of constructing meaning and identity (Patterson and others 1994). People are seen as actively constructing 

meaning to shape a coherent biographical narrative (Williams 

and McIntyre 2001). In other words, people bring with them to 

wilderness a great “capacity for finding and making patterns” 

(Stewart 1986: 109) in their personal and social experiences 

with wilderness or other environments. When visitors find 

connections or see relationships between these patterns in 

their ongoing experiences (of self) in wilderness, they make 

meaning and shape identity.

One of the first efforts to expand the temporal scope of wilderness experience along these lines was proposed by Schreyer 

and colleagues (1985). They described recreation motives as 

“learned modes of expression” for describing “standard patterns 

of behavior”. These patterns of behavior, such as wilderness 

visits, were motivated not as a discrete choice to satisfy a specific bundle of experience outcomes on a given occasion, but 

through their association with a particular cognitive-emotional 

state (that is, experience) that an individual has learned to create for himself in wilderness settings. Later, Schreyer and his 

colleagues refined this view further by characterizing these 

patterns of behavior as reinforcing the individual’s self concept 

(Schreyer and others 1990; Haggard and Williams 1992; Williams and others 1989). They saw self concept as a relatively 

stable construct, but one that evolves over time. Drawing on 

self affirmation theory (Schlenker 1984), they characterized 

recreational patterns as vehicles for affirming identity in five 

ways: displays of signs and symbols of identity (for example, 

styles of dress, equipment); selection of careers and hobbies 

that permit identities to be built and maintained; selective affiliation with others whose identity appraisals are supportive; 

interpersonal behaviors designed to elicit identity affirming 

responses; and cognitive processes such as selective attention, 

recall, and interpretation of self-relevant information.

To examine the role of leisure activities in the self-affirmation 

process described above, Haggard and Williams (1992: 15) 

reported on two experimental studies. One examined the 

salience of various leisure identity images for eight activity 

groups (backpackers, kayakers, guitarists, chess players, weight 

trainers, racquetball and volleyball players, and outdoor cooking enthusiasts). The other assessed the desirability of these 

images. They found that a person’s preferred activity could 

be predicted by their desire for certain identity images, noting “not only do we wear hiking boots to symbolize that we 

are a backpacker... but we also may become a backpacker to 

symbolize to ourselves and others that we are adventurous, fun 

loving and a nature lover”. Affirming certain identity images 

was likely an important source of motivation for participation 

and, moreover, such affirmation can occur in a host of situations outside of specific engagements in the activity.

In another series of studies, Patterson and colleagues (1994, 

1998: 449) explored wilderness meaning and identity arguing 

“that what people are actually seeking from their recreation 

experiences are stories which ultimately enrich their lives”. 

Drawing on the philosophy of Gadamer (1989), these studies 

followed a hermeneutic approach to analyzing interview data 

collected from wilderness visitors (see Patterson and Williams 2002). Hermeneutics is an interpretive paradigm that 

involves a specific set of assumptions about the phenomenon 

being studied. First, the meaning underlying human action is 

understood as more like interpreting texts than like gaining 

knowledge of objects in nature. The interpretive meanings 

that we imply here are considered metaphoric, allusive, and 

highly dependent on context (Bruner 1990: 61). Second, human experience is understood as an emergent narrative rather 

than as the predictable outcome of persons in situations. Third, 

storytelling is understood as a fundamental way people construct 

and communicate meaning. Finally, hermeneutics allows the 

researcher to understand the phenomenon in context rather than 

inferring it from de-contextualized observations generated by 

more standardized psychometric methods (Brooks and others 

2004; Patterson and others 1994). Drawing from interviews 

of primitive campers on the Great Barrier Reef off the coast 

of Australia and visitors to Delaware Water Gap in the USA 

(Patterson and others 1994) and day visitors and overnight 

backpackers at Rocky Mountain National Park in the USA 

(Brooks and others 2004), they demonstrated that experience 

is contextual, influenced by individuals’ unique identities, their 

current personal project, past experiences, and other aspects 

of the situation. For example, Patterson and his colleagues 

(1994) described how a primitive camper on the Great Barrier Reef reconciled his desire for escaping civilization in the 

presence of commercial fishing vessels and other potentially 

intrusive conditions by also emphasizing issues of safety and 

convenience.

In a later study, Patterson and colleagues (1998) used this 

hermeneutic approach to study the wilderness experiences of 

respondents canoeing a slow moving, spring fed creek in a 

Florida wilderness area. They argued that experience is best 

understood as an emergent narrative rather than an evaluation 

of outcomes relative to expectations. This emergent or dynamic 

quality was particularly evident in how participants interpreted 

the challenge of navigating the river. In some cases, those who 

experienced an intense challenge that had unpleasant aspects 

debated in their own narrative whether or not the experience 

was positive. Several participants ultimately came to see it in 

Brooks and Williams Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 25

a positive light with a sense of achievement even though they 

would have liked to quit half way through. As another example, 

some participants who experienced the challenge less intensely 

initially complained about aspects of the setting that contributed to the degree of challenge (snags and blown down trees) 

but upon reflection and discussion came to realize that these 

were precisely what made the experience an enjoyable story 

to relive. Finally, for yet another kind of participant, challenge 

was more appropriately described as a defining characteristic 

of the experience which served as a key aspect in building an 

enduring relationship to the place that was important both to 

their identity and quality of life.

Parallels in Consumer Research _____

Mirroring the developments in recreation research, some 

consumer researchers have looked beyond choice and satisfaction models. Working from a meaning-based model, their 

work has influenced how some recreation researchers have 

thought about visitor experience and satisfaction. For example, 

Tse and his colleagues (1990) and Fournier and Mick (1999) 

demonstrated how the concept of consumer satisfaction is a 

subjective process emerging through time. Another stream 

of research focused on explaining “hedonic consumption” 

activities that involve intense, positive, intrinsically enjoyable 

experiences (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982). Among the varieties of hedonic consumption, Arnould and Price (1993) focused 

on “extraordinary experiences” which they characterized as 

involving high levels of emotional intensity and experience, 

but not necessarily the high levels of effort and independence 

often associated with flow or peak experiences. Their case study 

involved multiday whitewater rafting trips in the Colorado 

River basin. They noted that most participants had only vague 

pre-trip expectations for the experience and argued that the 

“disconfirmation” of expectations was not particularly useful 

for interpreting satisfaction with the experience. Satisfaction 

with river rafting “does not seem to be embodied in attributes 

of the experience... or any summary index of specific attributes of the trip” (Arnould and Price 1993: 25, 42). Rather the 

“narrative of the experience is central to overall evaluation”. 

They highlighted certain themes to these narratives including, 

personal growth, self-renewal, communion with others, and 

harmony with nature. Extraordinary experiences involve an 

emotionally intense experience in which meaning emerges 

during the process of interaction. Satisfactory experiences are 

ones that build a compelling narrative of self, and satisfaction 

is interpreted within the broader context of the participant’s 

life.

Similar research on interactions between consumers and 

product brands has influenced how some recreation researchers have thought about people’s relationships with wilderness 

and backcountry places (e.g., Ji 2002). Drawing on tenets of 

Hinde’s (1995) theory of interpersonal relationships, Fournier 

(1998: 367) demonstrated how consumers interact with product 

brands as partners in relationships and what they “do with 

brands to add meaning in their lives”. She analyzed three life 

history cases within a framework that consists of four tenets 

or conditions of relationships (see Hinde 1995): relationships 

involve reciprocal exchange between interdependent partners; 

the purpose of relationships is to provide the partners with 

meaning; relationships have multiple dimensions and exist in 

a variety of forms; and relationships evolve and change over 

time as partners interact and environments fluctuate. Fournier 

(1998: 361) summarized her main conclusions from the analysis 

of life history interviews:

... brand relationships are valid at the level of consumers’ lived experiences. The consumers in this study 

are not just buying brands because they like them or 

because they work well. They are involved in relationships with a collectivity of brands so as to benefit from 

the meanings they add into their lives.... these meanings are functional and utilitarian... psychosocial and 

emotional... purposive and ego centered and therefore 

of great significance to the persons engaging them.... 

The processes of meaning provision... authenticate 

the relationship notion in the consumer-brand domain.

Fournier’s relational analysis moved beyond consumer satisfaction to provide insights into the quality of brand relationships. 

She described relationship quality in terms of multiple facets 

or indicators evident in her interviews: emotional grounding in 

love and passion, strong expressions of self-connection, high 

interdependence between person and brand, commitment and 

intention to act in support of the relationship, and intimate 

knowledge of brands. She also discovered 15 distinct relationship forms or types in the case histories, including long-term 

committed partnerships. This suggests that recreation researchers and public lands managers need to consider similar diversity 

in the kinds of relationships that may develop between visitors 

and recreation places such as wilderness or other backcountry 

settings.

A Relationship Metaphor ___________

In addition to highlighting important temporal aspects of 

experience and identity, the works reviewed thus far largely 

focused on psychological and socio-cultural sources of meaning learned or derived from experiences. A closely related and 

overlapping line of work has focused on how relational sources 

of meaning contribute to the ongoing relationships that people 

have with specific settings. Researchers often employ language 

in the form of metaphors to help think about and describe phenomena (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Scholars in a variety of 

social science disciplines have applied a relationship metaphor

as a useful framework for understanding human experiences 

in everyday life. Researchers must “consider the networked 

nature of the phenomenon” (Fournier 1998: 346) when they 

study the importance of one’s relationship with a special place 

or wilderness setting. Relationships exist within networks and 

“both affect, and are affected by, the contexts in which they are 

embedded”. Stewart (1986: 114) argued that “our relationships 

with the rest of the world can only be understood in the light 

of our relationships with each other”. A person’s relationship 

with a wilderness setting, community, residence, or other entity 

is interconnected with that person’s whole set of relationships 

Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena Brooks and Williams
26 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

with other people, places, and things. In the context of place 

relationships, Manzo (2005: 83) called this “a larger web of 

meaning in one’s life”. Recall the illustration at the beginning 

of the paper in which the participant described the importance 

of going to a backcountry place in relation to her home town, 

conservation ethic, hobby, and family.

Couched within a relationship metaphor, we examine two 

more areas of study to help illustrate the relational connections 

between continued participation with places and identity: research on the experience of everyday places and research on 

wilderness or backcountry experience, primarily in the context 

of outdoor recreation for the latter.

Ongoing Experience in Everyday Places

Process-oriented scholars of place have been influential in 

advancing the use of a relationship metaphor and its temporal 

qualities to study how people experience their everyday environments. For example, in a study focused on the interactions 

between people and places, Milligan (1998) demonstrated 

how place attachments are constructed in people’s memories 

of past interactions at places and in potential experiences they 

imagine having there in the future. She also found that people 

became keenly aware of their connections to place, both past 

and potential (what might have been), when they experienced 

a loss of a popular and personally significant café at a university campus. This stream of place research demonstrates that 

relationships with places can be found across a broad range of 

contextual situations, settings, and emotions and may take a 

diversity of forms or types (Hay 1998; Manzo 2005). Meanings 

of place and relationships to place develop incrementally over 

time, sequentially over the life course (Hay 1998; Smaldone 

and other 2005), and in a process characterized by continuity, but also dynamic change (Gustafson 2001; Manzo 2003, 

2005, 2008; Smaldone and others 2005). Places become much 

more than backdrops for activities and experiences; people use 

everyday places to actively construct various aspects of their 

identities (Korpela 1989; Manzo 2003, 2005; Twigger-Ross 

and Uzzell 1996), and they do this to create and maintain a 

coherent narrative of self that is acceptable to them as a person 

living and interacting in a particular place (Sarbin 1983).

Hay (1998: 5) explained that “the development of a sense 

of place over a person’s lifetime is... part of wider human 

developmental processes” subject to regional and societal 

influences. In a case study of residents of Banks Peninsula in 

New Zealand, Hay (1998) demonstrated how people’s relationships with place had developed across contexts and through 

time by examining residential status, life cycle (age stage), 

and development of adult pair bonds (the marriage cycle). Hay 

(1998: 25) demonstrated parallels between the development 

of relationships with place and the development of personal 

maturity that comes with age. This study also showed how 

sense of place can parallel the intimacy, attachment, and commitment that develop during the adult marriage cycle. “A sense 

of place, if allowed to fully develop, can provide feelings of 

security, belonging and stability, similar to the feelings that 

arise from a fully developed pair bond”. In addition, he showed 

different kinds of place relationships. For transients and 

tourists, he demonstrated a “superficial connection” to place; 

“partial connection” to place for long-term campers, cottagers, 

and resident children; “personal connection” for new residents 

without roots in the place; “ancestral connection” for residents 

with roots; and “cultural connection” for indigenous residents 

with both roots and spiritual ties. For the last three groups, 

sense of place was shown to become stronger in intensity and 

more sophisticated as age and length of residence increased. 

This highlights not only the importance of temporality, but 

also supports the notion that place relationships develop as 

experiences and memories, and thus socially constructed 

place meanings, accumulate and expand through continued 

participation (Brooks and others 2006, 2007; Manzo 2005; 

Smaldone and others 2008).

Gustafson (2001) asked respondents to list the places they 

had lived and visited. In interviews, respondents discussed 

which of the places were most important, attributing a range 

of meanings to the important places in their lives. These place 

meanings were mapped within a three-pole, analytical model 

of self-others-environment. Gustafson’s (2001: 9) analysis 

showed evidence of a network of relational place meanings 

in that “the meanings of place expressed by the respondents 

were often situated in the relationship between self, others 

and/or environment, rather than unambiguously belonging 

to just one of these categories”. In other words, some place 

meanings were concerned with the relationships between the 

self and other people, other people and the environment, self 

and the environment, or all three—self-others-environment. 

An example of the latter would be a person’s membership in 

an organization, working to preserve and protect a particular 

place (such as, Friends of Yosemite Valley). In this case, the 

overall meaning of the Yosemite Valley for an individual 

member cannot easily be separated (if at all) from his or her 

membership in the larger friends group. In a second stage of 

analysis, Gustafson (2001: 14) discovered underlying dimensions of place meaning in the data, including continuity and

change that “introduce a temporal dimension, in which places 

may be regarded as processes”. Gustafson did not explain these 

temporal dimensions in great detail, but he concluded that the 

meanings of places change as individual desires and group 

aspirations (that is, personal and collective projects) create 

new place meanings. Continuity in place meanings happens 

when individuals and groups continually reproduce and attribute current meanings of places (that is, those that exist for 

people’s valued places at any given time in history).

Manzo (2005, 2008) analyzed interviews collected from 

residents of New York City in her study of place meaning. 

Residents told stories about their experiences, both positive and 

negative, in a variety of urban locales that they considered to 

be personally significant. Interviewees described their experiences of place at a broad range of scale (nations, cities, parks, 

beaches, woods, waterfalls, airports, homes, churches, bars, 

a photographic dark room, and a hallway closet). Significant 

places were found to reflect residents’ evolving identities in 

that they allowed them to “be themselves and explore who they 

are” through privacy, introspection, and self-reflection—aspects 

Brooks and Williams Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 27

of experience that help foster personal growth (Manzo 2005: 

75, 2008). For some interviewees, places where important life 

experiences had occurred emerged as milestones or transitional 

markers in the “journey of life” or “bridges to the past”. Place 

relationships were characterized as processes in which people 

“collected experiences”, which allowed place meanings to 

accrue incrementally. Interview data demonstrated how some 

urban residents repeatedly used a variety of places, had a 

diversity of experiences at those places, and thereby added 

layers of place meaning through continued participation:

... one participant focused her discussions on a local 

park about which she told some of her most detailed 

stories. She met her husband there, and years later, they 

decided to separate there. This was also the same park 

where she played as a child, and where she took her 

children to play. This park was a significant place whose 

meaning developed from both positive and negative 

experiences (Manzo 2005: 81).

Manzo’s work highlights a number of insights that are 

important for understanding continued participation or ongoing experience in place. First, one’s “experience-in-place” 

is more significant than the place itself (Manzo 2008: 147), 

which implies an important link between experience and the 

creation or construction of place meanings. Meanings of place 

are constructed from experiences, and it is the meanings that 

make the place significant. Second, in her earlier review of the 

place literature, Manzo (2003: 57) documented how people’s 

emotional relationships to places are part of “a conscious 

process where people interact with the physical environment 

to meet their needs, express themselves, and develop their selfconcept”. Experience of a place plays a role in developing and 

maintaining aspects of one’s identity. Third, Manzo’s (2005) 

analysis defined place relationships as life-long phenomena 

that develop and change over time and with experience, which 

makes them an appropriate unit of analysis for studying continued participation and the long-term nature of experience 

and identity.

Process-oriented research in the area of place identity has 

been influential in understanding place relationships. Korpela (1989: 245) defined place identity as “consisting of 

cognitions of those physical settings and parts of the physical 

environment, in or with which an individual—consciously or 

unconsciously—regulates his experience of maintaining... 

sense of self”. The set of thoughts and beliefs that comprise 

one’s place identity does not come pre-fashioned; rather, these 

evolve through experiences in place. Creating place meanings 

by interacting with the setting (and one’s companions there) 

implies that actual behaviors are directed toward knowing 

the self in relation to place in order to develop and maintain 

one’s story of self (Sarbin 1983). People define themselves 

(and become known to others) in the context of their relationships with people, places, and things; and people spend time 

thinking about their roles within these relationships and act 

accordingly. During the course of one’s relationship with a 

place, that individual experiences opportunities to adjust or 

reshape his or her view of “self-in-place” through introspection, desire for personal growth, or by other means; and well 

being or distress may result as one works out one’s identity 

relative to the relationship partner, in this case, place.

These identity processes have been shown to be meaningful 

in people’s lives and communities by shaping and reshaping 

their relationships to place (Hay 1998; Hull and others 1994; 

Korpela 1989; Manzo 2005; Sarbin 1983; Smaldone and 

others 2005; Stokols and Shumaker 1981; Twigger-Ross and 

Uzzell 1996). An underlying theme in this literature portrays 

the concept of place identity as evolving alongside place relationships. Relationships are reciprocal, so places can play 

important roles in the psychological development of the self as 

one’s place identity develops as a part of overall self identity 

(Proshansky and others 1983; Twigger-Ross and Uzzell 1996). 

Korpela (1989: 245-246) clarified his definition by explaining that emotional attachment (or aversion) to places is at the 

core of place identity and serves as a necessary foundation for 

it. Twigger-Ross and Uzzell (1996) later demonstrated that 

residents of an urban area in London, who were emotionally 

attached to the place, identified more strongly with it than 

those who were not attached. Drawing on Breakwell’s (1986) 

identity process theory, they analyzed interviews with residents 

living in the London Docklands and demonstrated evidence 

that residents used place to maintain positive self esteem, 

continuity of self, and “to create, symbolize and establish new 

selves” (Twigger-Ross and Uzzell 1996: 217). Both attached 

and nonattached residents discussed the area in positive and 

negative terms at times, and they reported evidence that positive self esteem was provided and enhanced by both physical 

qualities of the place and feedback received from visitors to the 

area. The key theoretical implication of this work is that places 

can serve as relationship partners in the active construction of 

identity:

... identity processes have a dynamic relationship 

with the residential environment. The development 

and maintenance of these processes occurs in transactions with the environment. In acknowledging this, 

the environment becomes a salient part of identity as 

opposed to merely setting a context in which identity 

can be established and developed (Twigger-Ross and 

Uzzell 1996: 218).

Other people form the basis of social ties, social interactions, family history, or family identity in place and play a 

substantial role in the creation and development of place meanings, identities, and relationships (Boniface 2006; Brooks and 

others 2006, 2007; Eisenhauer and others 2000; Fredrickson 

and Anderson 1999; Gustafson 2001; Korpela 1989; Kyle and 

Chick 2004, 2007; Low and Altman 1992; Patterson and others 

2002; Schroeder 1996a; Schroeder 2002; Smaldone and others 

2005, 2008). For example, simply visiting a place or taking 

part in an annual recreational trip to a place (just being there) 

is only part of a person’s evolving place identity. Seeing what 

his or her parents, siblings, or friends do there; hearing how 

they discuss the place or the trip together; interacting with 

those people through stories or recreation activities; reliving 

memories of people and events from previous years; and learning 

how others react to their experiences of place each contribute 

to how that person constructs and attributes meaning to the 

Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena Brooks and Williams
28 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

place. Developing (and maintaining) a relationship with a place 

often involves socialization processes in which learning and 

self adjustment occur through continued participation (that is, 

ongoing experience).

Place researchers have applied a relationship metaphor to 

better understand the complexities inherent in environmental 

studies of experience, meaning, and identity. This body of research has demonstrated that people do develop and maintain 

relationships with places and that there are at least two key 

processes involved: the active creation of place meanings and 

evolving place identities. Place relationships are created by 

continuous, recurring reciprocal interactions between people 

and the environments in which they live and visit (Brandenburg 

and Carroll 1995). In other words, people participate with 

places and places participate with people during the building 

and maintenance of people’s relationships to place in ways 

similar to those involved in the development of interpersonal 

relationships. The broad purpose of place relationships is 

twofold: the provision of socially constructed meaning, both 

for the person and the place, and creation, maintenance, and 

adjustment of the self.

Ongoing Experience in Wilderness or other 

Backcountry Areas

A relatively small number of early researchers either directly 

or indirectly addressed some temporal aspects of recreation 

experience in their work (for example, research on specialization described earlier). At various times in the research record 

and across a number of contexts, recreation researchers have 

used language and concepts that hinted that a relationship 

metaphor may have been implied in their understanding of 

experience. In his classic paper on angling specialization, Bryan 

(1977: 185-186) wrote of “resource orientation”, “resource 

dependency”, “commitment to a variety of angling pursuits”, 

“center lives around sport”, and “relationship of the sport to 

occupation and lifestyle”. Use of this language indicated that 

Bryan had observed that highly specialized and experienced 

anglers had developed a relationship to resource and a loyal 

commitment to a specific recreational pursuit, and that these 

had developed over time through a process of specialization.

In the context of recreation conflict theory, Jacob and Schreyer 

(1980: 373), drawing from Lee (1972), accounted for conflicts 

that involved “varying definitions of place” by defining a 

concept they called “resource specificity—the importance 

an individual attaches to the use of a particular recreation 

resource”. They went on to define the conditions of resource 

specificity, including “feelings of possession and the role of a 

place as a central life interest”. The language used to describe 

these concepts echoes, or perhaps foreshadowed, how we 

have thus far described continued participation and ongoing 

experience, using a relationship metaphor:

A second aspect of resource specificity, possession by 

knowledge (Lee 1972), also affects the visitor-place 

relationship. A person well acquainted with a recreation 

place has well-defined expectations about the variety 

and type of experiences to be found there. Standards of 

behavior appropriate for users of the place are known. 

Cases of recurring use could be motivated by simple 

convenience but it is also possible that an affective attachment for the place has developed over time. While 

its physical qualities may not be evaluated as unique, 

the place comes to embody memories and traditions. 

In this way it becomes a central life interest, a focal 

point of recreation participation. A sense of possession 

becomes manifest... (Jacob and Schreyer 1980: 374).

In a paper entitled Forest Places of the Heart, Mitchell and 

others (1993: 34) described a diversity of “use orientations” 

related to their interviewees’ levels of attachment to recreation 

sites and forest resources in the Chiwawa River drainage in 

Washington. The objective of the study was to develop a typology that would differentiate between “visitors’ relationships 

with their environment”. For example, “dependent visitors” 

made repeat trips to particular places to do specific activities 

in “ritualized” ways. For “generalized visitors”, the places and 

activities changed over time, and those in this group expressed 

“a need to return”. “Periodic” and “exploratory” visitors had 

not yet developed clear emotional attachments to their recreational sites. Visitors categorized as “intimately associated” 

with a recreation site described the place as “an entity” or “as 

having a personality”:

Intimately associated visitors had a special relationship 

with the places of their affection and often personified 

the locations: “People are only here three months of the 

year and it keeps to itself the rest of the time. That’s 

when I like to come... when it’s quiet and it talks to 

you.” One woman described returning to the area as 

“visiting an old friend” (Mitchell and others 1993: 33).

Adopting a relationship metaphor, we would argue that what 

Mitchell and her colleagues (1993) discovered were different 

types of place relationships at different stages of development. 

The language used in their study clearly reflects the relationship idea and its utility for studying wilderness or recreational 

experiences. Other researchers have employed language such 

as “human relationships with wilderness” (Watson 2004), 

“changing relationships with wilderness” (Dvorak and Borrie 

2007), and “relationships between the public and public lands/

agencies” (Borrie and others 2002; Christensen and others 2007; 

Watson and Borrie 2003). In his study of special places in the 

upper Midwest, USA, Schroeder (2002: 8) wrote, “People 

become attached to special places in much the same way that 

they become attached to a good friend or a family member”. 

The use of this language by these authors serves the purpose 

of communicating an implied (or explicit) type of ongoing 

connection between one’s experience of a place or wilderness 

setting and what that place means for one’s life and identity.

Another study explicitly applied a relationship metaphor to 

research on backcountry recreation experience at Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. Drawing on the hermeneutic 

work of Patterson and colleagues (1994, 1998) and Patterson 

and Williams (2002), Brooks and his associates (2006) interpreted experience narratives from interviews to address the 

question of how visitors build relationships with the national 

park over time. They demonstrated interrelated dimensions of 

place relationships that were also evident in previous research, 

Brooks and Williams Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 29

and which begin to describe how relationships to backcountry 

or wilderness places develop. First, visitors described that 

time spent at the park or extent of contact with the place allowed for ongoing visitor experiences. This was comprised 

of purposively making return trips; gaining knowledge of the 

park, becoming familiar with it, and learning lessons from 

both positive and negative experiences; and benchmarks that 

served as symbols of important life stages (such as, the wedding described in the opening excerpt). Second, developing a 

relationship with the park involved both physical interactions 

with the park and social interactions with other visitors at the 

park. The interactions were comprised of sub-dimensions: 

being in and engaging with features of the setting and one’s 

companions, staying in the park for multiple days, ritualized 

behaviors, family history or identity associated with the park 

or the outdoors in general, and socialization of children or 

other less experienced companions via informal training or 

social learning. Third, the interviews demonstrated that visitors were engaged in identity processes interpreted by Brooks 

and his colleagues (2006), in light of previous research, as the 

definition and affirmation of one’s concept of self (Haggard 

and Williams 1992; Scherl 1989). Sub-dimensions of this 

theme included introspection or self-reflection, comparing 

self to other visitors, and recognition of how one’s patterns of 

thinking and behaving had changed over time. For some, this 

self-awareness and introspection was portrayed as a sense of 

knowing or recognizing how their stewardship behaviors and 

desires to protect the park and other places had evolved or 

changed through time.

Visitors’ relationships with the national park included “nurturing love and respect similar to how committed relationships 

are built between people” (Brooks and others 2006: 344). They 

concluded that some visitors value their committed and often 

long-term relationships with the park more than the attributes 

of the place outside of this relationship (also see Smaldone 

and others 2005). Visitors in this study defined their relationship as the meanings they had created for themselves and the 

park over the years through continued participation. To more 

closely examine how visitors created the place meanings that 

anchored their relationships with the park, Brooks and others 

(2007) expanded the earlier interview study by conducting a 

triangulation analysis that integrated findings from the interviews with findings from survey questions and observations of 

visitor behavior recorded in the national park with independent 

samples. Evidence from the observational study integrated with 

interview narratives showed that visitors frequently explored 

off designated trails as a way to personalize their interactions 

with both the “particularities of place” (Lane 2001: 60) and 

their companions. Field researchers observed visitors interacting with wildlife, trees, lakes, streams, and other physical 

attributes of the setting (Brooks and Titre 2003). Questionnaire 

data and analysis of variance showed that visitors who had 

spent the most time at the park were more attached and familiar 

with the place than those who had made fewer visits or stays. 

Those reporting more previous visits also reported that being 

in the park sparked memories of being there with friends more 

so than for those with less previous experience. Drawing on 

Gustafson’s (2001) model of place meanings, Brooks and his 

colleagues (2007) synthesized findings from the three samples 

to provide a basic and preliminary description of the concept 

of relationship to place. Using a three-sphere Venn diagram 

as a schematic to organize these data, they demonstrated how 

visitors created place meanings and relationships through 

ongoing interactions between self, other people, and the place.

In a similar set of research studies, Smaldone and his associates (2005: 403, 2008) investigated and documented processes 

involved with the creation of place meanings and the development of place relationships for residents of Jackson Hole, 

Wyoming and visitors to Grand Teton National Park, USA. In 

an in-depth analysis of interview data, they demonstrated three 

primary themes that represent dimensions involved with the 

construction of place meanings. First, a temporal dimension 

labeled life stage/course was described as “how a place can 

come to embody a particular time period in one’s life, and how 

place meanings change as one ages and passes through critical 

life stages”. One interviewee described her relationship with 

the Jackson Hole area as an “ever-shifting process: sometimes 

the feelings and changes are subtle, and sometimes they can 

be more dramatic” (Smaldone and others 2005: 405). They 

found that changing meanings of the place were linked to important people in one’s life and development and maintenance 

of identity for some residents and visitors. Second, searching 

for a feeling represented “how emotional needs and feelings 

play a role in forming and maintaining place connections and 

subsequently place identity”. Many interviewees described 

how protected areas or their homes in the Jackson Hole area 

allowed them to regulate their emotions and conceptions of self 

through continued experience. Interviewees described a range 

of feelings they had for the area that are “built upon over time, 

layer by layer... what remains is the feeling instilled by those 

experiences at the place”, and this feeling that comes from ongoing experience “actually can become the focus of meaning” 

for residents and visitors (Smaldone and others 2005: 408). 

That is, the mood or umbrella emotion created by continued 

participation with the place has lasting importance, more so 

than any one episode or event. Third, commitment represented 

“the extent to which people are committed to a place and are 

willing to take action to preserve it”. This dimension involved 

both positive and negative emotions and a sense of personal 

sacrifice involved with one’s connection to the area. Smaldone 

and his colleagues (2005: 412) concluded that the processes 

of connection to the place are as important as the attributes of 

the place themselves.

Dvorak (2008) and Dvorak and Borrie (2008) explored 

wilderness relationships that visitors had developed with the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, USA. 

Drawing on Berscheid and Peplau (1983), Fournier (1998), and 

several other scholars, they explored a relationship metaphor 

by using survey items and statistical analyses to measure 

multiple dimensions and test various psychometric models of 

a wilderness relationship. They adapted previously published 

scales to measure and develop a three-dimensional framework 

Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena Brooks and Williams
30 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

that consisted of relationship to self, relationship to place, and 

relationship to resource managers (forest service employees). 

Five factors were found to comprise the underlying structure 

of a broader relationship factor including, place identity to 

account for self, place meanings and place dependence to account for the place, and trust and commitment to account for 

relationship with the management agency. Looking beyond 

the place factors in the model, Dvorak (2008) concluded that 

trust of and commitment to managers of the wilderness area 

were significant components of wilderness relationships at the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area. The interactions that individual 

visitors have with the U.S. Forest Service play an important role 

in the relationships that they develop with the place (Dvorak 

2008). He argued that the interactions between visitors and the 

managers they encountered at the site represented the “human 

element” of wilderness relationships. One’s relationship with 

wilderness represents something greater than the attributes 

of the setting and external forces that affect the experience 

(Dvorak 2008: 161-162). Speaking to researchers and managers, he clarified that “relationships provide a holistic view that 

attempts to incorporate much more about the visitor and their 

human experiences in wilderness” than determining how setting attributes and social conditions affect visitors’ satisfaction 

with discrete trips.

Most readers would probably agree that the everyday 

experiences that they have with other people, or even organizations, influence their broader relationships with those 

people or organizations across time. Likewise, researchers 

who apply a relationship metaphor to the study of wilderness 

experience propose that the ongoing experiences people have 

in and with a wilderness area, backcountry setting, or other 

protected area allow them to socially construct, attribute, and 

maintain long-term meanings (both positive and negative) not 

only for the place but also for themselves and others. From 

this perspective, place meanings are thought to accumulate or 

build up through continued participation with the place to the 

point that an ongoing relationship is forged or built between 

person and place (Brooks and others 2006; Dvorak and Borrie 

2007: 13). The place relationship can affirm aspects of one’s 

identity and substantially affect one’s broader life in meaningful ways (Brooks and others 2004, 2006, 2007; Smaldone and 

others 2005). Place meanings and place relationships are not 

static but change or evolve over time (Smaldone and others 

2008; Davenport and Anderson 2005). This relatively new and 

growing line of research is concerned with understanding the 

nature and composition of the processes involved in developing and maintaining relationships with wilderness areas and 

similar places, and what those insights mean for managing the 

quality of visitors’ engagements with both the place and the 

management agency through time. Studying how wilderness 

identities and relationships develop and change over time has 

been established as a valid topic for research on wilderness 

and recreation experience (Brooks and others 2006), but framing the quality of wilderness experience in the context of an 

ongoing relationship is a new direction for wilderness research 

and management (Dvorak and Borrie 2007; 2008).

Implications for Research___________

Researchers are only just beginning to focus on the long-term 

relationships visitors form with wilderness places. The key 

to understanding these relationships is to focus on narrativeoriented methods because talking, writing, and thinking about 

relationships is a primary means by which people come to 

understand who they are and make sense of their lives. Recall 

how the interviewee at the beginning of the paper described the 

personal importance of wilderness: she referenced her marriage, 

family, and other aspects of her life outside wilderness. For 

researchers, regardless of their intentions, using the language 

of a relationship metaphor to conceptualize one’s study or describe one’s results implies that people’s connections to place 

are temporal in nature (Low and Altman 1992), and narrative 

processes play important roles in establishing the meanings 

of places and the bonding of people with places (Brooks and 

others 2006; Smaldone and others 2005, 2008). To describe the 

properties and structures of interpersonal relationships, Hinde 

(1995: 2) theorized that “every relationship exists over time 

and must be seen not as a fixed entity, but as a dynamic flux”. 

The assumptions underpinning the theories, methods, and goals 

used to study ongoing experience, identity, and relationships in 

a wilderness context must match the nature of these phenomena 

(Patterson and Williams 1998). A narrative approach to social 

science accounts for the temporal aspects of experience and 

identity and allows researchers to understand and demonstrate 

situational context and social processes (Maines and Bridger 

1992). Viewing wilderness experience and identity as long-term 

phenomena points researchers toward a goal of understanding 

rather than a goal of prediction.

For wilderness management, research questions should 

aim for a better understanding of the situational, cultural, 

and personal factors that shape experience narratives and, 

in particular, the role that managers may have in influencing 

these relationships. Temporal processes are best studied using longitudinal methods that payoff in comparative results 

over the long-term. This essentially means asking people 

to tell their story about wilderness use and what it means in 

their lives for the past, present, and future. There are a range 

of methods to generate and capture these stories, which can 

be broken down into structured narratives initiated by the 

researcher and self-initiated forms of narration. Examples of 

the latter are studies that ask wilderness users to keep journals 

and do other structured writing during a trip (Fredrickson and 

Anderson 1999) or recruiting visitors to write essays about the 

place and their visit (Schroeder 1996b). Interviews conducted 

by a researcher during (Arnould and Price 1993; Brooks and 

others 2006) or immediately following a visit (Patterson and 

others 1998) serve as examples of narratives initiated by researchers. Another promising approach is to elicit oral histories 

of long-time visitors. Steiner and Williams (2011) recently 

reported results from long-serving backcountry rangers and 

key stakeholders with long histories of participation. Some 

respondents reported on how their ideals about visiting and 

Brooks and Williams Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 31

being in wilderness had evolved. In addition, some described 

how certain management practices shifted their visitation 

patterns, often producing unintended consequences.

In natural resource social science, it is less common to 

use self-initiated forms of narration as research data, but we 

encourage researchers to use this approach. Insights on wilderness management can also be gleaned from historical sources 

such as early guidebooks and journals. A much more modern 

form of self-initiated narrative involves the trip reports being 

posted on websites. Williams and others (2010) reported on an 

effort to extract information about the perceptions of visitors 

to several Colorado wilderness areas from Internet postings. 

There are some advantages to culling through these reports as 

unfiltered by the pre-conceptions of the researchers, but it also 

means wading through large volumes of material only some 

of which are relevant to the needs of wilderness managers. 

Considerable promise exists however, in using the Internet 

as a means to solicit narratives about wilderness trips and 

relationships. These can be used as both immediate monitoring tools for managers to keep on top of conditions and place 

meanings that may be in conflict as these arise in the course 

of a season and as source material for analysis by researchers 

of longer-term relationships with wilderness. What is needed 

at this point is research aimed at developing cost-effective and 

informative ways to monitor and extract information about 

visitors’ relationships with various wilderness areas.

Implications for Planning and 

Management______________________

The research history reviewed in this paper has shown that 

place relationships are not the same thing as values, beliefs, 

norms, attitudes, and behaviors. Managers cannot predict specific visitor expectations or behaviors based on a typology or 

hierarchy of place relationships. Relationships with wilderness 

settings are not single experiences, encounters, evaluations 

of conditions, or satisfactions; they are not the same thing as 

motivations, expectations, or benefits and cannot be properly 

understood as such. Relationships with wilderness or other 

places are holistic and long-term phenomena that are related 

to human identity and nurtured through continued physical and 

social interactions both in and outside wilderness areas. And as 

such, relationships to wilderness places that develop through 

continued participation cannot be studied and managed in the 

same ways that have been applied to more reductionist conceptions of experience. That is not to say that people do not care 

about continuity in conditions; positive and negative sources 

of continuity can be one of many aspects of both interpersonal 

and place relationships. Controlling and manipulating setting 

attributes and social conditions will continue to be useful 

strategies in certain management situations at specific sites or 

times, and creating zones in which opportunities for different 

types of experiences may unfold should account for some 

diversity in experience. However, area managers should not 

expect that using these standard tools will completely ensure 

the quality of long-term relationships or necessarily enhance 

ongoing wilderness experience for visitors. Something more 

is needed to account for wilderness relationships.

We agree with Roggenbuck and Driver (2000: 46) that the linkages between wilderness settings, experiences, and outcomes 

are extremely complex, more so than previously thought by 

recreation researchers. We suggest that this realization indicates 

a substantial need for different approaches to research, planning, 

and management across the arena of wilderness and outdoor 

recreation and tourism experience. Leisure or environmental 

experiences encompass certain amounts of freedom but not 

complete freedom (Brooks 2003: 17; Valle and others 1989: 8). 

Patterson and others (1998: 425-426) applied the concept of 

situated freedom to characterize the nature of experience in 

outdoor recreation and leisure environments. They argued that 

there is structure in wilderness recreation environments that 

sets boundaries on what can be experienced, but within those 

boundaries visitors or residents are essentially free to experience 

the place in “highly individual, unique, and variable ways”, 

and “experience is seen as emergent rather than predictable”. 

This freedom is one of the many things that allow people to 

construct place meanings, develop wilderness relationships, 

and affirm or adjust their identities as their ongoing experiences 

emerge. These processes happen regardless of how an area is 

being managed as long as people continue to participate in and 

with that place. Societal norms, cultural mores, laws, agency 

regulations, and physical topography serve as some of the many 

social and environmental boundaries that loosely contain how 

an individual’s experiences emerge. People create and manage their own experiences in wilderness, and their evolving 

identities and relationships do not necessarily need to be (or 

perhaps cannot be) managed, manipulated, or controlled in the 

traditional sense of recreation management. Instead they must 

be encouraged, fostered, and nurtured by agency staff in the 

role of facilitator (see also Stewart in press). Using the language 

of a relationship metaphor, wilderness managers can serve as 

match makers, progressing to marriage counselors who first 

come to understand relationships then work with people to 

preserve and nurture them. The role of planners and managers, 

then, is to become stewards, and perhaps even shepherds, of 

human relationships with wilderness (Borrie and others 2002; 

Dvorak 2008; Watson and Borrie 2003; Watson 2004).

Natural resources management, including wilderness recreation 

and experience, cannot succeed if environmental meanings are not 

fully integrated (Williams and Patterson 1996). Manzo (2008: 164) 

recommended, “If we are to develop effective policies to foster 

stewardship, we must begin with a better understanding of place 

meaning and people’s relationships to place”. Fournier (1998: 

367) concluded that the relationships that consumers develop 

with their brands may often be distinct from those assumed by 

product managers, requiring “a new conception of brand at 

the level of lived experience”. Stewart (2008) argued for a 

parallel conception of protected areas as being derived from 

“stories of lived experience”. He argued that this alternative 

concept would help planners address what he described as a 

“crisis in representation of place meanings” in the practice 

of environmental planning and management. Relationships 

are played out in immediate conscious experience during 

Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena Brooks and Williams
32 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

the course of everyday life; this lived experience is understood 

and communicated in meaningful ways in stories or personal 

narratives told (and heard) about valued brands (Fournier 1998) 

or places (Stewart 2008). Planners and managers will not hear 

the stories that make a difference in wilderness management 

unless they talk with and listen to their visitors on a regular 

basis. Agencies need to direct more resources at developing 

and maintaining a manager-visitor relationship through time.

Area managers can enter into visitors’ place relationships 

through social interactions on site or in their communities 

and through open communication in collaborative planning 

processes (that is, telling and hearing stories). As people talk 

about their relationships with wilderness or other places, their 

relationships are further realized and may evolve in terms of 

personal growth and identity affirmation or adjustment (Brooks 

and other 2006: 364). Rangers and other agency staff who guide 

hikes and those who guide commercial visitors, for example, 

should purposively allow time for visitors and groups to relive 

their experiences on or near the site through storytelling and 

other types of social interaction. Another concrete action is 

listening to and discussing with visitors the conversations or 

stories that unfold at trailheads, campgrounds, and visitor centers 

“to learn more about how the experience relates to visitors’ 

lives and to better understand visitors’ place relationships”. 

Brooks and his colleagues (2006) recommended that agency 

professionals directly and explicitly use experience narratives 

of long-term visitors in education and stewardship programs. 

People who have developed a long-term committed partnership with a wilderness area or other place should be asked to 

participate in the management decisions affecting that place; 

two concrete examples include focus groups and participation 

in public planning discussions.

Planners and managers should strive to become the human 

face of people’s special places. Drawing on the principles of 

relational marketing, some research has indicated that building trust for and commitment to the management agency for 

various segments of the public is an important part of fostering 

relationships between members of the public and public lands 

(Borrie and others 2002; Dvorak 2008; Watson and Borrie 

2003). Managers will need to go well beyond managing users to 

building wilderness partnerships and fellow wilderness stewards 

(Dvorak and others 2011). Knowing visitors better will help 

managers learn how (or if) segments of the public identify with 

their agency and its approaches to wilderness stewardship. In 

other words, do they share some place meanings to the extent 

that would allow mangers to adjust some environmental or 

social boundaries to promote resource stewardship while at 

the same time fostering wilderness relationships and perhaps 

enhancing the quality of some relationships? Managers will 

not be able to answer that question until they have a closer 

relationship with all of their publics.

Reframing the Goal ________________

Planning and managing for visitor experience must match 

the nature of this phenomenon. Based on the perspective of 

continued wilderness participation described in this paper, we 

suggest a need to expand the basic goal of visitor experience 

management beyond providing customer services and satisfaction. Researchers intentionally reframe the goal when they apply 

this conceptualization of experience. The traditional goal of 

developing and applying universal principles of onsite visitor 

management should be converted into a practice characterized 

by learning as a community through social engagements (see 

for example, Barab and Duffy 2000; Meier 2007; Schusler and 

others 2003; Stewart 2008; Wenger 1998). A practice of this 

nature will essentially be ongoing, place-based, and built on a 

history of case examples. It will be highly context dependent 

and knowledge (meaning) will be created and shared among 

managers, social scientists, area residents, visitors, and other 

stakeholders as necessary. We formulate some broad and preliminary objectives for such a practice:

• Recognize that the place relationships that visitors develop and maintain provide them with both personal and 

social meanings, and relationships allow them to attribute 

meanings to places; it is not, however, easy nor do we 

recommend separating these types of meaning in practice.

• Recognize that place relationships are used to create, 

maintain, define, and adjust one’s sense of self.

• Understand or come to know about a diversity of relationships and their underlying place meanings.

• Understand if, when, for whom, and how place meanings have changed over time by tracking or monitoring 

meanings and relationships for individuals and groups on 

a regular basis (Dvorak and others 2011). This objective 

needs substantial refinement through research approaches 

that account for time and has no history of application in 

recreation management.

• Better understand the linkages between continued wilderness participation, place relationships, and people’s broader 

life stories outside wilderness, including their well being 

and identity.

• Nurture relationships between managers and visitors that 

foster trust, commitment, and shared responsibility for area 

stewardship (Borrie and others 2002). That is, reframe 

management to focus more on building relationships and 

less on providing customer services and satisfaction.

• In addition to maintaining relationships with visitors, 

we believe that managers will increasingly benefit from 

reaching out to residents who live near wilderness areas 

to learn about their place relationships (see Smaldone and 

others 2005, 2008).

• Position place meanings, place relationships, and everyday lived experience at the forefront of decisions about 

land use change (Cheng and others 2003; Davenport and 

Anderson 2005; Stewart 2008). Reframe wilderness and 

recreation planning to focus more on meanings and less 

on contentious issues. Place-based planning should be 

used to complement, supplement, and defuse planning 

processes that are dominated by contentious issues (Cheng 

and Mattor 2010).

• Reinvent planning as a series of dialog forums that “encourage scientists, professionals, and citizens to share, argue, 

and negotiate place meanings” (Stewart 2008: 100).

Brooks and Williams Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 33

• Structure and manage dialog forums to build community, 

not to reach consensus or resolve conflicts over place 

meanings (Stewart 2008: 100).

• Explicitly show that decisions had transparent links to the 

planning process and dialog forums (Stewart 2008: 100). 

The dialog forums contain the stories of wilderness that 

managers must hear and engage with to understand the 

personal meanings and shared experience narratives of 

place that matter most for decision making.

The ultimate goal from this perspective is that managers, 

working with their partners in a community of practice, elevate 

wilderness experience to the larger realm of human life and 

well being as reflected in place relationships and identities. 

Work has been done toward meeting this goal, but more will 

be required to build a practice that allows scientists, professionals, and citizens to connect the significance of ongoing 

wilderness experience and relationships with changing societal 

and environmental conditions (Cole and Yung 2010; Dvorak 

and others 2011). We recommend that researchers and managers carefully think about experience in terms of long-term 

process, relationships, and identity. This is an important first 

step in meeting a continuing need for citizen engagement that 

accomplishes stewardship of wilderness areas in light of these 

inevitable changes and in terms of both subjective meanings 

of place and tangible natural resources.

Acknowledgments_________________

The authors wish to thank the workshop participants who 

thoughtfully reviewed this paper and provided helpful revisions 

and Ms. Minerva Dorantes, Student Conservation Association, 

for her assistance in typing the lion’s share of the list of references.

Disclaimer _______________________

The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

References _______________________

Arnold, Eric J.; Price, Linda L. 1993. River magic: extraordinary experience and 

the extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research. 20: 24-45.

Barab, Sasha A.; Duffy, Thomas M. 2000. From practice fields to communities of practice. In: Jonassen, David H.; Land, Susan M. eds. Theoretical 

foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence 

Erlbaum: 25-55. 

Becker, Howard S. 1953. Becoming a marijuana user. American Journal of 

Sociology. 59: 235-242.

Berscheid, Ellen; Peplau, Letitia Anne. 1983. The emerging science of relationships. In: Kelley, Harold, H.; Berscheid, Ellen; Christensen, Andrew; 

Harvey, John H.; Huston, Ted L.; Levinger, George; McClintock, Evie; 

Peplau, Letitia Anne; Peterson, Donald, R. eds. Close relationships. New 

York: W. H. Freeman: 1-19.

Boniface, Maggie. 2006. The meaning of adventurous activities for ‘women in 

the outdoors.’ Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 6: 9-24.

Borrie, William T.; Birzell, Robert M. 2001. Approaches to measuring quality of 

the wilderness experience. In: Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N., comps. 

Visitor use density and wilderness experience: proceedings; 2000 June 1-3; 

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

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 29-38.

Borrie, Willam T.; Roggenbuck, Joseph. R. 2001. The dynamic, emergent, and 

multi-phasic nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 33: 202-228.

Borrie, William T.; Christensen, Neal; Watson, Alan E.; Miller, Theron A.; 

McCollum, Daniel W. 2002. Public purpose recreation marketing: a focus 

on the relationships between the public and public lands. Journal of Park 

and Recreation Administration. 20(2): 49-68.

Bowker, J. M.; Murphy, D.; Cordell, H. Ken.; English, Donald B. K.; Bergstrom, John C.; Starbuck, C. Meghan; Betz, Carter J.; Green, Gary T. 2006. 

Wilderness and primitive area recreation participation and consumption: 

an examination of demographic and spatial factors. Journal of Agricultural 

and Applied Economics. 38: 317-326.

Brandenburg, Andrea M.; Carroll, Matthew S. 1995. Your place or mine? The 

effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. 

Society and Natural Resources. 8: 381-398.

Breakwell, Glynis M. 1986. Coping with threatened identities. London: 

Methuen. 222 p.

Brooks, Jeffrey J. 2003. Claimed identities, personal projects, and relationship to place: a hermeneutic interpretation of the backcountry/wilderness 

experience at Rocky Mountain National Park. Dissertation. Fort Collins, 

CO: Colorado State University, Department of Natural Resource Recreation 

and Tourism. 259 p. 

Brooks, Jeffrey J.; Titre, John P. 2003. A multi-method assessment of recreation impacts at Rocky Mountain National Park. Final Report. Fort Collins: 

Colorado State University, Department of Natural Resource Recreation 

and Tourism. 49 p. 

Brooks, Jeffrey J.; Titre, John P.; Wallace, George N. 2004. What does it 

mean to visit a place like Rocky Mountain National Park? Visitors tell their 

stories in Colorado. In: Camarda, Ignazio; Manfredo, Michael J.; Mulas, 

Franco; Teel, Tara L. eds. Global challenges of parks and protected area 

management: proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Society 

and Resource Management; 2002 October 10-13; La Maddalena, Sardinia, 

Italy. Sassari, Italy: Carlo Delfino: 87-109.

Brooks, Jeffrey J.; Wallace, George N.; Williams, Daniel R. 2006. Place as 

relationship partner: an alternative metaphor for understanding the quality of 

visitor experience in a backcountry setting. Leisure Sciences. 28: 331-349.

Brooks, Jeffrey J.; Wallace, George. N.; Williams, Daniel R. 2007. Is this a 

one-night stand or the start of something meaningful? Developing relationships to place in national park backcountry. In: Watson, Alan E.; Sproull, 

Janet; Dean, Liese, comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain 

wilderness values: eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2005 

September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK. Proceedings RMRS-P-49. 

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

Mountain Research Station: 451-459.

Bruner, Jerome. 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press. 181 p.

Bryan, Hobson. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreation specialization: the 

case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research. 9: 174-187.

Bryan, Hobson. 1979 (reprinted 2008). Conflict in the great outdoors: toward 

understanding and managing for diverse sportsmen preferences. Birmingham, AL: Bureau of Public Administration, University of Alabama. 98 p.

Burch, William R., Jr. 1969. The social circles of leisure: competing explanations. Journal of Leisure Research. 1: 125-147.

Burch, William R. Jr.; Wenger, Wiley D. 1967. The social characteristics of 

participants in three styles of family camping. Research Paper PNW-48. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 30 p.

Burdge, Rabel; Field Donald R. 1972. Methodological perspectives for the 

study of outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research. 4: 63-72.

Cheng, Antony S.; Kruger, Linda E.; Daniels, Steven E. 2003. “Place” as an 

integrating concept in natural resource politics: propositions for a social 

science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources. 16: 87-104. 

Cheng, Antony S.; Mattor, Katherine M. 2010. Place-based planning as a platform for social learning: insights from a national forest landscape assessment 

process in Western Colorado. Society and Natural Resources. 23: 385-400. 

Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena Brooks and Williams
34 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Christensen, Neal; Watson, Alan E.; Burchfield, James. 2007. Relationships to 

place in wildland resources management: developing an effective research 

approach. In: Watson, Alan E.; Sproull, Janet; Dean, Liese, comps. Science 

and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, 

AK; Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 470-478. 

Clawson, Marion; Knetsch, Jack L. 1966. Economics of outdoor recreation. 

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. 328 p.

Codina, Nuria. 2003. Identity. In: Jenkins, John M.; Pigram, John J. eds. Encyclopedia of leisure and outdoor recreation. New York: Routledge: 237-239.

Cole, David N; Yung, Laurie. eds. 2010. Beyond naturalness: rethinking 

park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington: 

Island Press. 287 p.

Davenport, Mae A.; Anderson, Dorothy H. 2005. Getting from sense of place 

to place-based management: an interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Society and Natural Resources. 

18: 625-641.

Dawson, Chad P; Russell, Keith C. In press. Wilderness experience groups: 

s state-of-the-knowledge summary. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness 

visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; 

Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Devall, William. 1973. The development of leisure social worlds. Humboldt 

Journal of Social Relations. 1: 53-59.

Ditton, Robert; Loomis, Dave; Choi, S. 1992. Recreation specialization: 

re-conceptualization from a social worlds perspective. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 24: 33-51.

Dvorak, Robert G. 2008. Dynamic human relationships with wilderness: 

developing a relationship model. Dissertation. Missoula, MT: University 

of Montana, Department of Society and Conservation. 194 p.

Dvorak, Robert G.; Borrie, William T. 2007. Changing relationships with 

wilderness: a new focus for research and stewardship. International Journal 

of Wilderness. 13(3): 12-15.

Dvorak, Robert G.; Borrie, William T. 2008. Multiple dimensions of a wilderness relationship. In: McCormick, Bryan, P.; Kivel, Beth, D., comps. 

Abstracts from the Leisure Research Symposium, National Recreation and 

Park Association Congress. 2008 October 14-18; Baltimore, MD. Ashburn, 

VA: NRPA: 259-262.

Dvorak, Robert G.; Borrie, William T.; Watson, Alan E. 2011. Threats and 

changes affecting human relationships with wilderness: implications for 

management. In: Watson, Alan; Murrieta-Saldivar, Joaquin; McBride, 

Brooke comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness 

values: Ninth World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2009 November 

6-13, 2009; Meridá, Yucatán, Mexico. Proceedings RMRS-P-64. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station: 130-133.

Eisenhauer, Brian W.; Krannich, Richard S.; Blahna, Dale J. 2000. Attachments to special places on public lands: an analysis of activities, reason for 

attachments, and community connections. Society and Natural Resources. 

13: 421-441.

Fournier, Susan. 1991. A meaning-based framework for the study of consumerobject relations. Advances in Consumer Research. 24: 736-742.

Fournier, Susan. 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship 

theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research. 24: 343-373.

Fournier, Susan; Mick, David G. 1999. Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal 

of Marketing. 63: 5-23.

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

of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 19: 21-39.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1989. Truth and method. 2nd ed. New York: Crossroad. 594 p.

Gibson, P. M. 1979. Therapeutic aspects of wilderness programs: a comprehensive review. Therapeutic Recreation Journal. 13(2): 21-33.

Gustafson, Per. 2001. Meanings of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21: 5-16.

Haggard, Lois M.; Williams, Daniel R. 1992. Identity affirmation through leisure 

activities: leisure symbols of the self. Journal of Leisure Research. 24: 1-18.

Hall, Troy E; Cole, David N. In press. Immediate conscious experience in 

wilderness: a phenomenological investigation. In: Cole, David N., comp. 

Wilderness visitor experience: the first 50 years of research and management: workshop; 2011 April 4-7; Lubrecht Forest, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. 

University of Montana and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Hammitt, William, E. 1980. Outdoor recreation: is it a multi-phase experience? 

Journal of Leisure Research. 12: 107-115.

Hay, Robert. 1998. Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 18: 5-29.

Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and time. New York: Harper and Row. 589 p.

Hendee, John C.; Catton, William R., Jr.; Marlow, Larry D.; Brockman, C. 

Frank. 1968. Wilderness users in the Pacific Northwest, their characteristics, 

values and management preferences. Research Paper PNW-61. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 92 p.

Hinde, Robert, A. 1995. A suggested structure for a science of relationships. 

Personal Relationships. 2: 1-15.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C.; Holbrook, Morris B. 1982. Hedonic consumption: 

emerging concepts, methods, and propositions. Journal of Marketing. 46: 

92-101.

Hull, R. Bruce IV; Stewart, William P.; Young K. Yi. 1992. Experience patterns: capturing the dynamic nature of recreation experience. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 24: 240-252.

Hull, R. Bruce IV; Lam, Mark; Vigo, Gabriela. 1994. Place identity: symbols 

of self in the urban fabric. Landscape and Urban Planning. 28: 109-120.

Hull, R. Bruce; Michael, Sean E.; Walker, Gordon J.; Roggenbuck Joseph 

W. 1996. Ebb and flow of brief leisure experiences. Leisure Sciences. 

18: 299-314.

Jacob, Gerald R.; Schreyer, Richard. 1980. Conflict in outdoor recreation: a 

theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research. 12: 368-380.

Ji, Mindy F. 2002. Children's relationships with brands: "true love" or "onenight" stand? Psychology and Marketing. 19(4): 369-387.

Kaplan, Rachael. 1974. Some psychological benefits of an outdoor challenge 

program. Environment and Behavior. 6: 101-119.

Kelly, John R. 1974. Socialization toward leisure: a developmental approach. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 6: 181-193.

Kelly, John R. 1977. Leisure socialization: replication and extension. Journal 

of Leisure Research. 9: 121-132.

Kelly, John R. 1985. Sources of styles. In: Goodale, Thomas L.; Witt, Peter 

A. eds. Recreation and leisure in an era of change. State College, PA: 

Venture Press: 208-220.

Kelly, John R. 1987. Freedom to be: a new sociology of leisure. New York: 

Macmillan. 248 p. 

Kleiber, Douglas A.; Kelly, John R. 1980. Leisure socialization and the life 

cycle. In: Iso-Ahola, Seppo E. ed. Social psychological perspectives on 

leisure and recreation. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas: 91-137.

Knopf, Richard C. 1983. Recreational needs and behavior in natural settings. 

In: Altman, Irwin; Wohlwill, Joachim F. eds. Behavior and the natural 

environment. Plenum Press: 205-240.

Korpela, Kalevi M. 1989. Place-identity as a product of environmental selfregulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 9: 241-256.

Kyle, Gerard; Chick, Garry. 2004. Enduring leisure involvement: the importance 

of personal relationships. Leisure Studies. 23: 243-266.

Kyle, Gerard; Chick, Garry. 2007. The social construction of a sense of place. 

Leisure Sciences. 29: 209-225.

Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 241 p.

Lane, Belden C. 2001. Giving voice to place: three models for understanding American sacred space. Religion and American Culture: A Journal of 

Interpretation. 11: 53-81.

Lee, Robert G. 1972. The social definition of outdoor recreation places. In: 

Burch, William R. Jr.; Cheek, Neil H. Jr.; Taylor, Lee, eds. Social behavior, 

natural resources and the environment. New York: Harper and Row: 68-84.

Low, Setha M.; Altman, Irwin. 1992. Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry. 

In: Altman, Irwin; Low, Setha M., eds. Place attachment. New York: 

Plenum: 1-12.

Lucas, Robert C. 1964. The recreational use of the Quetico-Superior area. 

Research Paper LS-8. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station. 50 p.

Maines, David R.; Bridger, Jeffrey C. 1992. Narratives, community and land 

use decisions. The Social Science Journal. 29: 363-380. 

Malm, Lynda. 1993. The eclipse of meaning in cognitive psychology: implications for humanistic psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 

33: 67-87.

Brooks and Williams Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 35

Manning, Robert E. 2011. Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research 

for satisfaction. 3rd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 468 p.

Manzo, Lynne C. 2003. Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of 

emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23: 47-61.

Manzo, Lynne C. 2005. For better or worse: exploring multiple dimensions of 

place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 25: 67-86.

Manzo, Lynne C. 2008. Understanding human relationships to place and their 

significance for outdoor recreation and tourism. In: Kruger, Linda E.; Hall, 

Troy E.; Stiefel, Maria C. eds. Understanding concepts of place in recreation 

research and management. General Technical Report PNW-744. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: 135-173.

McCracken, G. 1987. Advertising: meaning or information? Advances in 

Consumer Research. 14: 121-124.

McIntyre, Norman; Pigram, John. J. 1992. Recreation specialization reexamined: the case of vehicle-based campers. Leisure Sciences. 14: 3-15.

McIntyre, Norman; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1998. Nature/person transactions 

during an outdoor adventure experience: a multiphasic analysis. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 30: 401-422.

McIntyre, Norman. 1989. The personal meaning of participation: Enduring 

involvement. Journal of Leisure Research. 21: 167-179.

Meier, Noelle L. 2007. Building a community of practice, In: Kruger, 

Linda E.; Mazza, Rhonda; Lawrence, Kelly, eds. Proceedings: national 

workshop on recreation research and management. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-698. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 212-220.

Meyersohn, Rolf. 1969. The sociology of leisure in the United States: introduction and bibliography, 1945-1965. Journal of Leisure Research. 1: 53-68.

Mick, David G.; Buhl, Claus. 1992. A meaning–based model of advertising 

experiences. Journal of Consumer Research. 19(3): 317-338.

Milligan, Melinda J. 1998. Interactional past and potential: the social construction of place attachment. Symbolic Interaction. 21(1): 1-33.

Mitchell, Margaret, Y.; Force, Jo Ellen; Carroll, Matthew S.; McLaughlin, 

William J. 1993. Forest places of the heart: incorporating special spaces 

into public management. Journal of Forestry. 91(4): 32-37.

Munn, Nancy D. 1992. The cultural anthropology of time: a critical essay. 

Annual Review of Anthropology. 21: 93-123.

Nielson, Joyce M.; Shelby, Bo; Haas, J. Eugene. 1977. Sociological carrying 

capacity and the last settler syndrome. Pacific Sociological Review. 20: 

568-581.

Omodei, Mary M; Wearing, Alexander J. 1990. Need satisfaction and involvement in personal projects: toward an integrative model of subjective 

well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59: 762-769.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Wilderness and 

recreation—a report on resources, values, and problems. ORRRC Study 

Report 3. Washington, DC. 352 p.

Patterson, Michael E.; Williams, Daniel R.; Schrel, Lea. 1994. Identity and the 

experience of wilderness: analysis of experience narratives from Australia 

and the United States. In: Hendee, John C.; Martin, Vance G. eds. International wilderness allocation, management, and research. Proceedings of a 

symposium during the Fifth World Wilderness Congress. 1993 September, 

Tromsø, Norway. Fort Collins, CO: The WILD Foundation: 240-246.

Patterson, Michael E.; Williams, Daniel R. 1998. Paradigms and problems: 

the practice of social science in natural resource management. Society and 

Natural Resources. 11: 279-295.

Patterson, M. E.; Williams, D. R. 2002. Collecting and analyzing qualitative 

data: hermeneutic principles, methods and case examples. Advances in 

Tourism Applications Series. Champaign, IL: Sagamore. 127 p.

Patterson, Michael E.; Watson, Alan E.; Williams, Daniel R. 2002. Relationship to place and the nature of science in collaborative forest planning. 

Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 41 p.

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

Joseph R. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 30(4): 423-452.

Pohl, Sarah L.; Borrie, William T.; Patterson, Michael E. 2000. Women, 

wilderness, and everyday life: a documentation of the connection between 

wilderness recreation and women’s everyday lives. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 32(4): 415-434.

Proshansky, Harold M.; Fabian, Abbe K.; Kaminoff, Robert. 1983. Placeidentity: physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 3: 57-83.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Lucas, Robert C. 1987. Wilderness use and user 

characteristics: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. 

Proceedings—national wilderness research conference; issues, state-ofknowledge, future directions; 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. General 

Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 204-245.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Watson, Alan E. 1989. Wilderness recreation use: 

current situation. In: Watson, Alan E., comp. Outdoor recreation benchmark 

1988: proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum. General 

Technical Report SE-52. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 346-356.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Driver, B. L. 2000. Benefits of nonfacilitated uses 

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

T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of change 

conference—volume 3: wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry; 1999 

May 23 - 27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, 

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

Research Station: 33-49.

Sarbin, Theodore R. 1983. Place identity as a component of self: an addendum. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 3: 337-342.

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

benefits of individual-wilderness interaction through self-control. Leisure 

Sciences. 11(2): 123-135.

Schlenker, Barry R. 1984. Identities, identifications, and relationships. In: 

Derlaga, Valerian J., ed. Communication, intimacy, and close relationships. 

New York: Academic Press: 71-104.

Schreyer, Richard. 1982. Experience level affects expectations for recreation 

participation. In: Lime, David W. ed. Forest and river recreation: research 

update. Selected papers presented at the Symposium on Leisure Research, 

National Recreation and Park Association; 1981 October 25-27; Minneapolis, 

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station: 154-159.

Schreyer, Richard; Lime, David W.; Williams, Daniel R. 1984. The influence 

of past experience on recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research 

16: 34-50.

Schreyer, Richard; Knopf, Richard C.; Williams, Daniel R. 1985. Restructuring the motive/environment link in recreation choice behavior. In: Stankey, 

George; McCool, Stephen F., comps. Proceedings: symposium on recreation 

choice behavior. General Technical Report INT-184. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 9-18.

Schreyer, Richard; Williams, Daniel R.; Haggard, Lois M. 1990. Episodic versus 

continued wilderness participation—implications for self concept enhancement. In: Easley, A. T.; Passineau, Joseph F.; Driver, B. L., comps. The use 

of wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and education. General Technical 

Report RM-193. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 23-26.

Schroeder, Herbert W. 1996a. Ecology of the heart: understanding how people 

experience natural environments. In: Ewert, Alan W. ed. Natural resource 

management: the human dimension. Boulder, CO: Westview: 13-27.

Schroeder, Herbert W. 1996b. Voices from Michigan’s Black River: obtaining information on “special places” for natural resource planning. General 

Technical Report NC-184. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 25 p.

Schroeder, Herbert W. 2002. Experiencing nature in special places: surveys 

in the North-Central region. Journal of Forestry. 100(5): 8-14.

Schusler, Tania M.; Decker, Daniel J.; Pfeffer, Max J. 2003. Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural 

Resources. 15: 309-326.

Scott, David; Shafer, C. Scott. 2001. Recreation specialization: a critical look 

at the construct. Journal of Leisure Research. 33: 319-43.

Selin, Steve; Howard, D. 1988. Ego involvement and leisure behavior: a 

conceptual specification. Journal of Leisure Research. 20: 237-244.

Sharp, Erin H.; Coatsworth, J. Douglas; Darling, Nancy; Cumsille, Patricio; 

Ranieri, Sonia. 2007. Gender differences in the self-defining activities 

and identity experiences of adolescents and emerging adults. Journal of 

Adolescence. 20: 251-269.

Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena Brooks and Williams
36 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Smaldone, David; Harris, Charles; Sanyal, Nick. 2005. An exploration of 

place as a process: the case of Jackson Hole, WY. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 25: 397-414.

Smaldone, David; Harris, Charles; Sanyal, Nick. 2008. The role of time in 

developing place meanings. Journal of Leisure Research. 40: 479-504.

Sofranko, Andrew J.; Nolan, Michael F. 1972. Early life experiences and adult 

sports participation. Journal of Leisure Research. 4(1): 6-18.

Steiner, Alison; Williams, Daniel R. 2011. Learning from locals: using oral 

history in the wilderness management planning process. Paper presented at 

the George Wright Society Conference, 2011 March 14-18, New Orleans, LA.

Stewart, Philip J. 1986. Meaning in human ecology. In: Borden, Richard R.; 

Jacobs, Jamien; Young, Gerald L., eds. Human ecology: a gathering of 

perspectives. Selected papers from the first international conference of The 

Society for Human Ecology; 1985 April 26-28; College Park, MD: 109-116.

Stewart, William P. 1998. Leisure as multiphasic experiences: challenging 

traditions. Journal of Leisure Research. 30: 391-400.

Stewart, William P. 2008. Place meanings in stories of lived experience. In: 

Kruger, Linda E.; Hall, Troy E.; Stiefel, Maria C., eds. Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management. General Technical 

Report PNW-744. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 83-108.

Stewart, William P. In press. Creating public memory of wilderness. In: Cole, 

David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. 2011 April 4-7; Lubrecht Forest, 

MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Stokols, Daniel; Shumaker, Sally A. 1981. People in places: a transactional 

view of settings. In: Harvey, John H. ed. Cognition, social behavior, and 

the environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum: 441-448.

Tse, David K.; Nicosia, Franco M.; Wilton, Peter C. 1990. Consumer satisfaction as a process. Psychology and Marketing. 7: 177-193.

Twigger-Ross, Clare L.; Uzzell, David L. 1996. Place and identity processes. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 16: 205-220.

Unruh, David R. 1980. The nature of social worlds. Pacific Sociological 

Review. 23:271-296.

Valle, Ronald S.; King, Mark; Halling, Steen. 1989. An introduction to 

existential-phenomenological thought in psychology. In: Valle, Ronald S.; 

Halling, Steen, eds. Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: exploring the breadth of human experience. New York: Plenum: 3-16.

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.

Virden, Randy; Schreyer, Richard. 1988. Recreation specialization as an indicator of environmental preference. Environment and Behavior. 20: 721-739.

Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Williams, Daniel R. 1991. The 

influence of past experience on wilderness choice. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 23: 21-36.

Watson, Alan E.; Borrie, William T. 2003. Applying public-purpose marketing in the USA to protect relationships with public lands. In: Buckley, 

Ralf; Pickering, Catherine; Weaver, David Bruce. eds. 2003. Nature-based 

tourism, environment and land management. CAB International: 25-33.

Watson, Alan E. 2004. Human relationships with wilderness: the fundamental 

definition of wilderness character. International Journal of Wilderness. 

10(3): 4-7.

Wellman J. Douglas; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Smith, A. 1982. Recreation 

specialization and norms of depreciative behavior among canoeists. Journal 

of Leisure Research. 14: 323-340.

Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and 

identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 318 p.

Williams, Daniel R. 1988. Recreation specialization: a complex issue for 

wilderness management. Western Wildlands. 14: 21-26.

Williams, Daniel R. 1985. A developmental model of recreation choice behavior. 

In: Stankey, George; McCool, Stephen, comps. Proceedings: symposium on 

recreation choice behavior. General Technical Report INT-184. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station: 31-37.

Williams, Daniel R. 1989. Great expectations and the limits to satisfaction: a 

review of recreation and consumer satisfaction research. In: Watson, Alan 

E., comp. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: proceedings of the National 

Outdoor Recreation Forum. General Technical Report SE-52. Asheville, 

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

Experiment Station: 422-438.

Williams, Daniel. R.; Haggard, Lois M.; Schreyer, Richard. 1989. The role of 

wilderness in human development. In: Freilich, Helen, comp. Wilderness 

benchmark 1988: proceedings of the National Wilderness Colloquium 

General Technical Report SE-51. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 169-180.

Williams, Daniel R.; Schreyer, Richard; Knopf, Richard C. 1990. The effect 

of experience use history on the dimensional structure of motivations to 

participate in leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research. 22: 36-54.

Williams, Daniel R.; Patterson, Michael E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Watson, 

Alan E. 1992. Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and 

symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences. 14: 29-46.

Williams, Daniel R.; Patterson, Michael E. 1996. Environmental meaning and 

ecosystem management: perspectives from environmental psychology and 

human geography. Society and Natural Resources. 9: 507-521.

Williams, Daniel R.; McIntyre, Norman. 2001. Where heart and home reside: 

changing constructions of home and identity. In: Trends 2000: shaping the 

future. 2000 Sept. 17-20; Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources: 392-403.

Williams, Daniel R.; Champ, Joseph G.; Lundy, Catherine; Cole, David N. 

2010. Using visitor generated Internet content as a recreation monitoring 

tool. Paper presented at the fifth International Conference on Monitoring 

and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreation and Protected Areas; 2010 

May 30-June 2, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Brooks and Williams Continued Wilderness Participation: Experience and Identity as Long-term Relational Phenomena
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 37

Authors: Troy E. Hall, Department of Conservation Social Sciences, University of 

Idaho, Moscow, ID; and David N. Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, 

USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Abstract—The nature of the immediate conscious experience (ICE) 

in outdoor recreation has been the focus of recent research. This paper 

reports a study of the ICE in three different wilderness settings in 

the Pacific Northwest. In-depth qualitative interviews (n = 126) and 

structured questionnaires (n = 252) with visitors contacted along 

trails, in camp, and at destinations explored the focus of people’s 

attention, as well as their thoughts and feelings. Most participants 

engaged cognitively with the natural environment, appreciating the 

scenery, comparing the experience to other trips, or analyzing the 

setting around them. Most also reported engaging actively with the 

environment physically, through travel, weather, and using their 

senses. Social aspects were important for two-thirds of participants, 

most of whom were involved in group interaction or the collective 

construction of their experiences. Only one-third were engaged 

in personal reflection, which typically involved things outside the 

wilderness such as work or family. The findings demonstrate the 

multidimensionality and individuality of wilderness experiences, as 

well as the somewhat limited ability of managers to affect the visitor experience. However, they also demonstrate that—even in high 

use locations—at any given time visitors generally have thoughts 

and feelings that are quite consistent with the types of experiences 

wilderness managers seek to provide.

Introduction ______________________

The notion of “experience” has been described in many ways 

in wilderness research. For instance, researchers recognize 

that the experience is multi-faceted, involving contemplation 

before the trip; dynamic and complex thoughts, feelings, and 

sensations during a trip; and post-trip evaluation and integration into one’s long-term identity and attachment to places 

(see Brooks and Williams in press). From the beginning of 

wilderness research, studies have focused on people’s desired 

experiences (motivations) and their global assessments or 

Immediate Conscious Experience 

in Wilderness: A Phenomenological 

Investigation

Troy E. Hall

David N. Cole

evaluations of experiences after a trip. For instance, many 

studies have examined whether visitors seek and attain benefits 

such as solitude or personal growth.

A more recent approach examines the “immediate conscious 

experience” (ICE), also known as “lived experience.” Such 

work seeks to describe what it is that wilderness visitors are 

doing, feeling, and sensing while immersed in the wilderness 

visit. While not denying that pre-trip goals are important, ICE 

studies recognize that actual experiences are complex personenvironment transactions that cannot be fully explained in terms 

of goal fulfillment (Lee and Shafer 2002; McIntyre and Roggenbuck 1998; Stewart 1998; Williams 1989). Instead, recreation 

experiences are shaped in complex ways by characteristics of 

social, physical, and managerial settings, some of which may 

be unanticipated (Patterson and others 1998), dynamic over 

the course of an excursion (Waitt and Lane 2007), or interact 

in complex ways. Such findings help explain why—even if 

specific goals are not met—people may have highly satisfying 

experiences.

This paper describes results from a study of the immediate 

conscious experience of visitors (primarily hikers in small 

groups) to three different wilderness settings, based on in-depth 

interviews and self-administered questionnaires from visitors 

contacted along trails, in camp, and at wilderness destinations. 

This study will help wilderness managers understand the nature 

of wilderness experiences, as well as the factors that affect the 

quality of those experiences. In the next section, we review the 

literature to explore contemporary themes related to wilderness experiences and discuss ways in which our study extends 

previous research approaches.

Wilderness Experiences

Lee and Shafer (2002, p. 291) define “experience” as an 

“emerging state of mind resulting from interactions between 

a leisure participant and his/her surroundings.” It is “meaning 

created through embodied perception” (Stark and Trinidad 

2007, p. 1373). The immediate conscious experience itself is 

different from post-leisure evaluations of experience quality 

(Cole 2004; Reis and Gable 2000). For instance, at any point 

in time, a person may see campsites and flowers, may feel 

anxiety or exhilaration, and may engage in various activities. 

However, after the trip, some of these may be more memorable 
38 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

or influential in shaping an overall evaluation of the trip as a 

whole, as when the relatively brief experience of views from 

the top of a peak override other episodes of boredom, mosquitoes, or bad food. Salient aspects relevant to one’s personal 

life project may also become integrated into the narrative of 

self-identity (Brooks and Williams in press).

The literature identifies several dimensions of the ICE, 

including a person’s conscious thoughts, the focus of directed 

attention, somatic (bodily) sensations, and affective feelings 

(Hull and others 1996; McIntyre 1998). People continuously 

perceive the social and physical environment around them, 

making sense of these perceptions through cognitive processes 

that include the filters of cultural symbolic meanings (Waitt 

and Lane 2007) and linkages to personal history, as well as 

more basic physiological and emotional responses. Thus, 

lived experiences entail both inward-focused thought and 

externally-oriented attention (McIntyre 1998; Richardson 

1999). For example, in a study of ICEs among Okefenokee 

canoeists, Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001) found that, at any 

given moment, people’s focus on others within their group and 

on nature was much higher than their focus on self, and the 

same was found among canoeists in an Australian National 

Park’s backcountry (McIntyre 1998). McIntyre and Roggenbuck (1998) also found that, during an underground river float, 

people’s attention was focused more strongly and consistently 

on nature than on self or others in the group, though the focus 

of attention seems highly dependent on landscape attributes 

and activities (Hull and Stewart 1995). One goal of our study 

was to deepen understanding of the allocation of attentional 

resources during wilderness experiences, to understand the 

extent to which people are focusing on the elements managers 

care about and have the ability to manipulate in a wilderness 

setting.

The few studies to explore person-environment transactions during wilderness trips offer initial suggestions about 

what themes are likely to characterize ICEs in wilderness or 

similar undeveloped natural settings. Not surprisingly, a central theme revolves around awareness and appreciation of the 

natural environment (McIntyre 1998), particularly its scenic 

aspects (Hull and Stewart 1995; Nickerson and Cook 2002; 

Talbot and Kaplan 1986). People do not simply perceive the 

environment in a passive way; instead, they interpret what 

they perceive through culturally supplied schemas, generally 

reacting positively to pristine and undeveloped wilderness settings, consistent with an American romantic ideal of wilderness 

(Arnould and Price 1993; Glaspell and others 2003; McIntyre 

and Roggenbuck 1998). Certain types of settings capture attention effortlessly and are positively evaluated (Schroeder 

2007). Specifically, water, mountains, or open vistas with low 

groundcover and scattered trees are nearly universally favored 

(Hill and Daniel 2008; Ulrich 1983), and exposure to them 

results in positive impacts on mood and cognitive capacity 

(Kaplan 1995). Therefore, we expect attention to nature to be 

dominant in the wilderness ICE.

Another theme evident from wilderness experience research 

is that people use wilderness experiences for self-discovery 

and personal growth (Brooks and Williams in press; Dawson 

and Russell in press; Fredrickson and Anderson 1999; Lee 

and Shafer 2002; Nickerson and Cook 2002). The absence of 

communication and modern distractions creates cognitive space 

for people to reflect on themselves, their concerns, and their 

futures (Angell 1994; Caulkins and others 2006). Additionally, being away from the conveniences of daily life, forced 

to rely on oneself for basic survival and facing challenges not 

present in everyday life, generates opportunities to test one’s 

limits (Talbot and Kaplan 1986). For example, students on an 

underground float reported heightened feelings of risk when 

faced with the need to jump down a low waterfall (McIntyre 

and Roggenbuck 1998). Similarly, backpackers in Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge described feeling a sense of risk 

and challenge in having to navigate through wild terrain far 

from help (Glaspell and others 2003). Even on a short canoe 

trip along a warm, clear stream, people described challenges 

of route finding and physically negotiating their way among 

fallen trees through a wilderness swamp (Patterson and others 

1998). The literature led us to expect to identify wilderness 

visitors’ focus on self-discovery and related aspects of personal 

growth as part of the ICE.

Although wilderness experiences are often associated with 

solitude, another finding is that connection with others—both 

cognitive and affective—can often be important (Arnould and 

Price 1993; Fredrickson and Anderson 1999; Loeffler 2004; 

McIntyre and Roggenbuck 1998). Sometimes this is manifest 

in feelings of group bonding that are intensified by virtue of 

sharing challenging experiences in remote settings (Arnould 

and Price 1993; McIntyre and Roggenbuck 1998). Other 

times, it is a matter of being able to spend time privately with 

significant others (Hammitt 1982) or sharing experiences with 

family (Nickerson and Cook 2002). Research in non-wilderness 

settings has found that companions affect recreationists’ level 

of happiness (Csikzentmihalyi and Hunter 2003) and moods 

(Morita and others 2007). Nevertheless, quantitative ICE 

research in wilderness has found that focus on one’s group 

is substantially lower than the focus on nature and on tasks 

(McIntyre 1998; McIntyre and Roggebuck 1998). Given the 

relative lack of research on the social aspects of the ICE, and 

because most previous research has been done with group 

adventure excursions, we did not have expectations about how 

prevalent attention to the social environment would be in the 

wilderness ICE.

Affective states—both emotions (a particular feeling elicited by specific events) and moods (more general, diffuse 

feelings)—are of interest to researchers who study leisure 

and recreation experiences. Research has shown that moods 

are generally positive in outdoor recreation, partly because 

the decision to participate is voluntary, sought because it is 

expected and intended to produce positive affect. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that many types of natural settings have characteristics that tend to generate positive affect 

(Hull 1990). However, ICE studies in wilderness have only 

begun to explore emotion and mood. For instance, McIntyre 

and Roggenbuck (1998) limited their “mood” measures to 

arousal, sociability, and relaxation, while Hull and colleagues 

(1992) included only relaxation, satisfaction, excitement, and 

Hall and Cole Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 39

boredom. The other key wilderness ICE studies (Borrie and 

Roggenbuck 2001; McIntyre 1998) did not include emotion 

measures. Thus, we expanded the list of emotions covered in 

our study, and we expected the ICE to be characterized by 

strong positive emotions.

The studies discussed above suggest that—at any moment 

in time—a person’s focus or thoughts may be on the environment, social interaction, tasks, or internal feelings. However, 

these studies are very limited, and some aspects such as focus 

on task or affect have not been widely studied. Additionally, 

while studies have begun to explore the content of thoughts 

about nature during the ICE (Patterson and others 1998; Waitt 

and Lane 2007), there has been relatively little qualitative work 

on people’s subjective thoughts about self, tasks, and others.

Extending Previous Research

Most ICE research has been conducted with populations that 

are not representative of the “typical” wilderness visitor; they 

have studied unique audiences like students (Hammitt 1982; 

Hull and Stewart 1995; Hull and others 1996; McIntyre and 

Roggenbuck 1998), novices on guided multi-day immersion 

programs designed to foster personal growth (Fredrickson 

and Anderson 1999; Talbot and Kaplan 1986), or commercial 

clients (Arnould and Price 1993; Nickerson and Cook 2002). 

While useful, these studies need to be supplemented by studies 

of people engaged in more typical wilderness activities like 

hiking and backpacking. It is possible that conclusions from 

previous research may be unique to the study populations or 

their specific activities.

Previous research on ICE, in and outside wilderness, has 

used quantitative measures to understand focus of attention and 

other aspects of experiences (Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001; 

Hull and Stewart 1995; Hull and others 1996; McIntyre 1998). 

While providing clarity about the relative prevalence of different 

themes, quantitative approaches have limited ability to describe 

how people interpret and integrate different factors, such as 

the characteristics of the environment and personal history, 

to generate personally meaningful experiences (Fredrickson 

and Anderson 1999; Waitt and Lane 2007). Therefore, in this 

study, we supplemented quantitative measures with in-depth 

interviews.

Most ICE researchers have been interested in the ways the 

components of experiences vary over time. Therefore, they 

have employed within-subjects designs and prompted participants (often through beepers) to record measures multiple 

times (Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001; Hull and Stewart 1995; 

McIntyre 1998). Such designs have some clear advantages; 

however, they may suffer from high attrition (Gershuny 2004), 

are subject to low compliance with instructions (Reis and 

Gable 2000) or may sensitize participants to the topics and 

variables of interest to the researchers (Visser, Krosnick, and 

Lavrakas 2000). Thus, we chose to ask people to respond only 

once during their trip. While our approach has its own limitations (discussed later), it supplements other approaches and 

collectively helps researchers ‘triangulate’ on the dimensions 

and content of ICEs.

To extend prior research, our goal was to use quantitative 

measures to characterize the magnitude of different facets 

of the ICE and a qualitative approach to understand, more 

holistically, the nature of ICE in wilderness, with a focus on 

what people “actually do or feel” (Lee and Shafer 2002). In 

the phenomenological tradition, we focused on the experience as it occurred, rather than people’s interpretations of or 

opinions about the experience (Starks and Trinidad 2007). We 

did this in the wilderness, as opposed to after the conclusion 

of the trip, to avoid problems of recall (Reis and Gable 2000; 

Schroeder 2007) and to ensure that appropriate context was 

provided (Gershuny 2004). We studied a representative sample 

of visitors instead of self-selected volunteers, and we used a 

less reactive technique than beepers. Thus, we answer Stewart’s 

(1998) call for innovative methods to study the nature of the 

leisure experience.

Methods _________________________

Study Areas and Sampling

We studied wilderness experiences at three high-use wilderness sites in Oregon and Washington. The locations were 

chosen to capture a range of physical settings and a diversity 

of visitors. The first site, Marion Lake (ML), in Mt. Jefferson 

Wilderness, is located in an old-growth forest in the Cascade 

Mountains of Oregon. The 300-acre lake is renowned for its 

fishing opportunities and is highly accessible, being only two 

miles from the trailhead. Data collection took place in late May 

and early June, 2002, when snow was present and weather 

conditions were often poor. The second site, Pete Lake (PL), 

is located in mid-elevation mixed conifer forests of the east 

slopes of the Cascade Mountains in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in Washington. The lake is four miles from parking and 

attracts a mix of day and overnight visitors. At the time of our 

data collection, in June and July, crossing flooded streams 

was challenging and mosquitoes were notable. The third site, 

the Lakes Basin (LB) in Oregon’s Eagle Cap Wilderness, 

was studied in August and September, when the weather was 

excellent and insects were gone. The Lakes Basin is a subalpine area with meadows, lakes, and pockets of trees located 

in glaciated granite outcrops amid high peaks. It is reached by 

a relatively challenging 8-mile hike from the nearest access 

point. Overnight trips to this site are much more common here 

than at the other two sites.

Each study site was sampled on at least 15 days. Research 

was conducted within the wilderness, to capture the immediate 

experience and avoid memory problems, such as rosy recall or 

schematic bias (Koriat, Goldsmith, and Pansky 2000; Levine 

and Safer 2002; Reis and Gable 2000). Researchers traveled 

through the study location, intercepting all groups they encountered. On high use days, when more groups were present 

than could be sampled, researchers sampled for maximum 

variability—that is, they sought out groups that enhanced the 

variation in group size, presence of children, length of stay, 

and gender. When a group was contacted, one individual was 

asked to participate in a taped interview (selected to enhance 

Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation Hall and Cole
40 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

diversity in age, gender, and other characteristics), while the 

other group members were asked to complete the written 

questionnaire. People were quite willing to assist with the 

research: the response rate was approximately 80% across all 

three locations.

Data Collection Instruments and Analysis

The questionnaires presented 74 items drawn primarily from 

previous research. Several items used semantic-differential 

format (such as, “happy-sad,” “alert-drowsy”) to explore 

people’s emotional states. Several items measured the focus 

of attention (such as, “how much were you focusing on the 

natural environment around you?” or “How much were you 

concentrating on the task you were carrying out?”) and content of thought (such as, “I felt connected to times long ago,” 

“how much were you thinking about things you need to do 

back home?”). Other items assessed physical condition (such 

as, “my body aches,” “I feel great”). We specifically included 

several wilderness-specific items developed by Borrie and 

Roggenbuck (2001), such as, “I felt a part of wild nature,” “I 

felt I was living like a pioneer.” All items were measured with 

9-point scales and asked the respondents to report about the 

time immediately prior to being contacted. Participants rated 

each on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 8 (very much). Questionnaire 

items intended to measure each construct (focus of thought 

and attention, behavioral engagement, affect, focus on task, 

social focus, and personal reflection) were factor analyzed 

(principal components extraction with oblique rotation) in 

groups to reduce them to meaningful latent constructs with 

adequately high reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha). This resulted 

in 17 specific factors.

With a goal of rich description and understanding (Schroeder 

2007), interview questions explored the focus of people’s attention, their thoughts, and their feelings in the time immediately 

before they were contacted (Reis and Gable 2000). We did not 

cue them with concepts such as “wilderness” or “solitude,” so 

that they would instead express themselves in their own terms 

(Groenewald 2004). Following general guidelines for qualitative research, the wording and aims of the interview questions 

evolved over time as we discovered that some forms of questions 

were challenging or strange for respondents. Ultimately we 

asked questions such as these: “What have you been thinking 

about? What were you doing? What were you focusing on? 

How were you feeling?” Interviews were transcribed verbatim 

and imported into QSR N6 for analysis. This paper makes use 

only of text specifically related to the ICE from 126 interviews. 

Additional results from these studies are reported in Johnson 

and others (2005) and Hall and others (2007).

The approach to coding this material can best be considered interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA). This is an 

inductive effort to make sense of others’ attempts to create 

meanings (Brocki and Wearden 2006; Reid and others 2005), 

while searching for shared patterns (Darker and others 2007). 

IPA is especially well suited for studying complex cognitive 

phenomena (Brocki and Wearden 2006). We read transcripts 

multiple times, developed initial highly specific themes based 

on participants’ words; organized those themes into broader 

categories (guided by theoretical constructs from the literature, 

while remaining sensitive to emergent themes); and ultimately 

produced a hierarchical structure (Groenewald 2004; Reid and 

others 2005). In presenting results, we recognize the importance of the subjective report, and therefore we use excerpts 

from the interviews extensively (Graumann 2002; Brocki and 

Wearden 2006). Excerpts are identified with the interview 

number, location, gender (M=male, F=female), and length of 

trip (OV = overnight, D = day).

Findings _________________________

Interviews were conducted with 45 women and 81 men. 

Eighty interviews were with overnight visitors, while 46 were 

with day users. The distribution of interviews across locations 

was roughly equal: 34 at Marion Lake, 50 at Pete Lake, and 42 

in the Lakes Basin. While 16% of people were contacted at lake 

destinations and 2% were at scenic vistas, 38% of interviews 

were done in people’s campsites and 44% were done when 

we intercepted people along the trail. Questionnaires were 

collected from 70 Marion Lake visitors (26 day, 44 overnight), 

72 Pete Lake visitors (45 day, 27 overnight), and 109 Lakes 

Basin visitors (29 day, 80 overnight).

Five general themes emerged from the interviews (Table 1). 

The themes are not mutually exclusive, and they could potentially be organized in different ways, but this typology generally conforms to the major themes identified in ICE research. 

Factor analyses of the questionnaire items resulted in 17 factors 

(Table 2), which we grouped within the five themes from the 

interviews. In discussing these findings, we integrate both types 

of data and though we present all the themes—we emphasize 

those that are novel contributions of our research.

Engagement with the Environment

The most common interview theme was engagement with the 

natural environment, which was both cognitive—interpreting 

and thinking about the setting—and behavioral. The cognitive 

aspects were similarly prominent in the questionnaire data, 

where focus on nature, remoteness, wildness, and humility 

were all generally high. As expressed in the interviews, cognitive engagement frequently took the form of “appreciating 

the beauty,” “enjoying the view,” or thinking about “what a 

wonderful place it is.” Often these sentiments were expressed 

when people were contacted at particularly scenic spots, such 

as “the first big view,” where they were focusing on “the snow 

capped mountains and the waterfalls along the trail” (#27, 

PL, M, D) or thinking about how “the view down the Lostine 

canyon is just so great” (#79, LB, M, OV).

Beyond appreciation, cognitive engagement often went 

deeper to include focused attention to the small, varied details 

of the environment, such as “the different colors of the rocks 

along the way...the different tones of grays and tones of colors 

in the trees” (#14, PL, M, D) or “the ways the light plays on the 

rocks at all different times of the day, in the shade that is cast 

in the meadows” (#122, LB, M, OV). One camper captured 

Hall and Cole Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 41

Table 1—Prevalencea of themes relating to the immediate conscious experience.

Primary Theme Sub-theme Percent

Engagement with the Scenery, beauty 34.9

Environment: Cognitive

(n=95; 75.4%)a

Comparison to other place or trip 30.2

Analysis or imagination 28.6

Micro or variety 23.8

Wildlife 15.1

Deliberate disengagement 11.1

Engagement with the Trail/travel 24.6

Environment: Behavioral & Weather 22.2

Bodily (n=77; 61.1%) Somatic 16.7

Bugs 10.3

Active construction of experience 10.3

Senses 10.3

Affect (n = 71; 56.3%) Relaxed, peaceful, nice 41.2

Strong positive (e.g., awe, love) 10.3

Negative 4.8

Task (n=59; 46.8%) Camp chores or food related 25.4

Activity 20.6

Making decisions 10.3

Social (84 own group; 66.7%) Group interaction & talking 38.1

Collective construction of experience 34.1

Other group members’ experiences 12.7

Other groups 19.0

Personal reflection (n = 43; Home or family 19.8

34.1%) Work 8.7

Other 10.3

a Numbers are number and percent of interviews containing each theme.

the sense of fascination with the setting this way: “We’ve got 

a camp that has a just picture perfect window between the 

trees of the mountain and it’s just glorious. Like I was telling 

Kelly, it’s like a big screen TV. You got this huge picture that 

is beautiful, it keeps changing, and you can’t stop looking at 

it” (#73, LB, M, OV).

Others had been engaged in an analytic process of developing 

explanations for what they were observing. For example, when 

asked what he had been thinking, a day hiker said, “one of the 

things I was thinking about is, I asked my friend Brian if this 

place had ever been logged. And he said there’s absolutely no 

way. There’s never been any roads built in here. Nothing. And 

I was imagining what it would be like when the Indians were 

here. And I wonder if they went out on this lake and fished 

this lake and I’m sure they probably did” (#100, ML, M, D). 

A camper in the Lakes Basin said, “I was actually looking at 

the U-shaped valleys, and thinking about how long it took to 

get this way, how the Lostine River did all of this work and 

made it like it is. Just kind of appreciating it, because I don’t 

see this in the valley where I’m from” (#74, LB, M, OV).

Another form of cognitive engagement involved comparing the place—its smells, trails, scenery, or other aspects—to 

other places. Most participants had been to the study location 

previously, and comparisons were often to previous trips. Or 

the environment conjured up memories of other places, as 

for the day hiker who said she was “just thinking about how 

I miss Colorado and I miss all the outdoor stuff that I used to 

do there” (#20, PL, F, D).

Although wildlife was not always evident, especially during 

day trips, a sizeable number of people described thinking about 

or searching for wildlife. When observed, wildlife captured 

extended attention, exemplified by a camper’s description 

of watching osprey: “I was looking at the osprey, thinking 

that they might have a nest with babies because they seemed 

to come over here and say, ‘what are you doing here?’ They 

seemed to fly kind of low over here. And I didn’t think they 

were just fishing. They were like, ‘get out of here.’ So, I was 

really pleased to see that” (#90, ML, F, OV). This example 

illustrates the way participants supplied interpretations and 

analyzed the conditions and events they observed.

Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation Hall and Cole
42 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Table 2—Mean ratingsa

 and factor structure of wilderness experience items.

Factor 

(Cronbach’s 

alpha) Item

Item mean 

(SD) Loadingb

Scale 

Mean

Cognitive Engagement 

Nature 

(a = .68) Focus on the natural environment around you 6.67 (1.52) 0.83 5.64

The feelings I was experiencing were more intense 

than usual 3.75 (2.38) 0.57

I noticed the little things of nature more than before 5.17 (2.01) 0.70

Focus on the scenery 6.80 (1.66) 0.81

Remote

(a = .75) I felt like I was in a remote place 5.55 (2.01) 0.85 5.71

I felt away from the modern world 6.16 (1.96) 0.78

The environment was free of human-made noise 4.92 (2.44) 0.65

I would call this place wilderness 6.16 (1.82) 0.75

Pioneer

(a = .62) I felt I was living like a pioneer 2.77 (2.48) 0.74 4.18

I felt that life is simple 4.89 (2.12) 0.78

I felt that time had flown by 4.89 (2.07) 0.74

Wild

(a = .89) I felt a part of wild nature 5.02 (2.14) 0.79 5.89

I felt a sense of freedom 6.25 (1.61) 0.73

I was in awe of nature’s creation 6.24 (1.95) 0.76

I felt the tranquility and peacefulness of this place 6.58 (1.59) 0.82

I was feeling a special closeness with nature 6.00 (1.86) 0.84

I felt the simplicity of life on this trip 5.61 (1.96) 0.75

I was feeling totally immersed in nature 5.38 (1.97) 0.80

Humility

(a = .80) I was feeling insignificant in the glory of nature 4.08 (2.56) 0.79 4.52

I felt the silence of the environment 5.29 (2.16) 0.76

I felt connected to times long ago 3.53 (2.49) 0.78

I felt humbled by all of nature around me 5.15 (2.36) 0.81

Behavioral engagement

Physical 

challenge

(a = .78)

The physical environment provided too much 

challenge 1.32 (1.58) 0.73 1.14

I couldn’t seem to catch my breath 1.13 (1.54) 0.69

This trip has been more difficult that I imagined 1.09 (1.74) 0.71

I have carried too much gear 1.29 (2.01) 0.53

My heart is racing too much 0.71 (1.27) 0.70

If I had to do it over, I would choose an easier trip 0.60 (1.35) 0.68

My body aches 1.74 (2.08) 0.70

In shape

(a = .73) My body was up to the challenge 6.35 (1.67) 0.72 4.39

I wish I had better physical endurancec 3.27 (2.80) -0.77

I am in the best shape of my life 3.17 (2.38) 0.72

I am physically prepared for this trip 5.62 (2.18) 0.78

Affect

Vigor

(r = .37) I feel great 6.43 (1.68) 0.68 6.20

I feel invigorated 5.96 (2.00) 0.83

Cheerful

(a = .82) Sad - Happy 7.08 (1.22) 0.72 6.79

Irritable - Cheerful 6.60 (1.72) 0.77

(continued)

Hall and Cole Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 43

Constrained - Free 6.77 (1.44) 0.67

Confused - Clear 6.73 (1.41) 0.66

Worried - Calm 6.91 (1.40) 0.78

Uncomfortable - Comfortable 6.60 (1.60) 0.76

Satisfied

(a = .66) Resentful - Satisfied 6.65 (1.99) 0.81 6.68

Relaxed – Tensec 6.75 (1.80) -0.75

Hostile - Friendly 6.67 (1.94) 0.73

At ease

(a = .77) I would call what I was doing leisure 6.30 (2.13) 0.56 6.65

I was satisfied with how I was performing 5.94 (1.90) 0.55

I was able to be myself 6.88 (1.49) 0.72

I felt completely at ease here 6.70 (1.63) 0.85

I felt tranquil or at peace here 6.79 (1.55) 0.86

I wish I had been doing something elsec 0.74 (1.63) 0.54

Alert

(a = .80) Drowsy - Alert 5.92 (2.08) 0.75 5.91

Passive - Active 5.98 (2.23) 0.74

Tired - Energetic 5.47 (2.13) 0.78

Weak - Strong 6.11 (1.67) 0.75

Excited -- Bored 6.05 (1.51) -0.71

Task

Task

(a = .68) Focus on the task you were carrying out 4.69 (2.56) 0.69 3.85

I was focusing on achieving the next goal of my trip 3.54 (2.58) 0.62

I was concentrating on doing my activity right 3.72 (2.61) 0.81

I was fulfilling some of my responsibilitiesc 3.48 (2.70) 0.70

Social Group

(r = .52) Focus on other people in your group 4.67 (2.05) 0.83 4.84

I felt a special closeness with others in my group 4.04 (2.01) 0.51

Solitude

(r = .27) I experienced solitude 5.02 (2.36) 0.76 5.02

Crowded Alone 4.67 (1.61) 0.77

Personal reflection

Self

(a = .75) Focus on your own thoughts 5.05 (2.14) 0.70 3.73

Focus on your feelings and emotions 3.76 (2.19) 0.77

I was reflecting about myself a lot 3.41 (2.24) 0.79

I was very aware of my feelings 3.84 (2.32) 0.71

I was thinking about my place in the world 2.54 (2.49) 0.52

Home

(a = .80) Thinking about things you need to do back home 1.66 (2.20) 0.85 1.57

Thinking about work or school things to be done 1.16 (1.84) 0.85

Thinking about “real life” outside of the wilderness 1.86 (2.27) 0.83

a

 Scale endpoints (0 = not at all; 8 = a great deal)

b

 loading on primary factor, structure matrix, oblimin rotation

c

Item reverse coded in computing factor score.

Factor 

(Cronbach’s 

alpha) Item

Item mean 

(SD) Loadingb

Scale 

Mean

Table 2 (Continued).

Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation Hall and Cole
44 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Interestingly, several people—when asked about their 

thoughts—explained that they were trying “not to do a whole 

lot of thinking” (#63, LB, M, OV), but instead preferred to 

“walk with a clear mind and not think about too many things” 

(#18, PL, M, D). One described this as trying to “just take in 

what’s around me” (#45, PL, F, D). Another explained that 

“hiking is kind of a transcendental mood—you don’t really 

know what you’re thinking about” (#94, ML, M, OV).

Physical engagement with the natural environment, as 

described in the interviews, involved both activities, such as 

hiking, and bodily sensations, such as fatigue. However, the 

questionnaires revealed that concerns about strenuous physical 

challenge were quite minor. Some people reported heightened 

senses as a part of their ICE, with some discussing the central 

role of smell: “I love the way it smells... The pines have a real 

distinctive dry smell” (#7, ML, F, D); “I was thinking about how 

great it smells, because it only smells like this in the woods” 

(#17, PL, F, D). Other people were paying attention to what 

they heard, such as “the sound of the wind in the trees” (#44; 

PL, F, D). One day hiker described both sound and smell: “I 

love the way it smells... the sound of the river—the whitewater 

sound is so beautiful” (#7, LB, F, D).

Some people described ways in which they actively constructed their experiences through their activities, rather than 

passively “absorbing” their surroundings. For instance, one 

hiker mentioned how she and her partner “always pick up 

rocks and look at them and then put them back. We talked 

about what the water looked like. I took pictures of it with real 

fast shutter speed and slow speed, so we could see the drops” 

(#7, LB, F, D). Another camper described how her group was 

deliberately quiet so they could “hear wild critters” (#57, LB, 

F, OV).

Many people described how aspects of the physical environment forced them to narrow their focus of attention. Some of 

these were described in ways that suggested people’s attention 

was diverted from things they might rather be attending to. 

Often this occurred when they had to pay attention to hiking 

(“trail/travel” in Table 1). At Marion Lake, early in the study, 

snow drifts were deep and participants contacted along the 

trail were focusing on “staying on [their] feet” (#1, ML, M, 

OV). At Pete Lake, it was challenging to find the trail due to 

blowdown and flooded streams. One participant described it 

this way: “I was just sort of thinking, trying to remember our 

route back. It’s been so broken up because of the blow downs 

and everything. Trying to remember which river crossings, 

or which creek crossing do we have on the logs” (#21, PL, 

M, D). While finding routes was not a problem in the Lakes 

Basin, some of the trails were rocky and steep, causing people 

to focus on “where I put my feet. Coming down hill... I don’t 

want to hurt myself, so I’m awful careful” (#79, LB, M, OV). 

One hiker said she “would like to feel a little more spiritual,” 

but wasn’t able to, “because of the challenge. This is a big 

challenge because of the terrain and the rocky path. I look at 

the path and think about my footing” (#66, LB, F, OV). While 

challenging travel narrowed people’s focus of attention to their 

immediate surroundings, some people also described focusing 

on or thinking about their physical condition, because they were 

“getting kind of tired” (#113, PL, F, D), “just paying attention 

to my feet” (#78, LB, F, D), or thinking about “how my pack 

sits on my back” (#95, ML, M, OV).

We included weather under physical engagement with the 

environment, because it generally caused people to focus on 

their physical comfort and affected their activities. For instance, 

one camper mentioned that he had been “getting all my gear 

dry” (#31, LB, M, OV), while another had been “thinking 

about whether I should get ready for rain” (#105, PL, M, OV). 

Although adverse weather was commonly mentioned, other 

people talked about how they were “really enjoying the temperature of the day” (#97, ML, F, OV) or feeling grateful that 

“it was nice to have a rain free evening and a sunny morning” 

(#63, LB, M, OV).

When mosquitoes were present, people reported having their 

attention inescapably drawn to them. One respondent captured 

both the affective and attentional effect of mosquitoes: “I’ve 

been preoccupied with all these bugs... slapping and walking, 

which seems to be a challenge for my coordination... If it wasn’t 

for these bugs I would pay attention to more but mostly I’ve 

been paying attention to these mosquitoes” (#41, PL, M, D).

Tasks

Nearly half of the participants reported that they had been 

thinking or focusing on a specific task. This is consistent with 

the mid-scale rating for focus on tasks in the questionnaires. 

Often this was because we contacted people in their camps or 

at rest stops along trails, where they were preparing food or 

taking care of camp chores. Such tasks drew attention away 

from the natural environment: “Getting the tent set up, eating 

lunch... Just the little details of setting up a camp. Finding 

where everybody’s stuff is and where it needs to go” (#52, 

PL, F, OV). A camper in the Lakes Basin said he “hadn’t been 

thinking about too much, just the chores around the camp” 

(#65, LB, M, OV).

Many participants were focused on their specific recreational 

engagement. At Marion Lake, anglers reported things like 

“watching the lake to see if there were any fish rising” (#103, 

ML, M, D) or “focusing on fishing and just enjoying the view” 

(#92, ML, M, OV). Photography was another common activity 

that consumed people’s attention: “just thinking about what 

would be a really cool picture and what angle could I get at 

it” (#120, PL, F, D); “I’ve been thinking a lot about the sunset 

and if I can get a picture of it or not” (#118, PL, M, OV).

Affect

Only 39 people were asked explicitly about their mood or 

emotions in the interviews, although 71 people provided such 

information, typically in response to questions about their 

thoughts. In the questionnaires, positive emotions were the most 

strongly rated of all the factors. Only six people expressed any 

negative affect in the interviews, while the majority of the rest 

(52 people) gave rather simple responses about mildly positive states, such as relaxation (“just sitting and enjoying the 

quietness” #14, PL, M, D), enjoyment (“pretty happy, content, 

Hall and Cole Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 45

fulfilled” #16, PL, M, OV), or peacefulness (“it’s soothing, 

it’s hypnotic” #7, LB, F, D). Many people simply responded 

that they were in “a good mood,” without elaborating further. 

Stronger emotions, such as awe or excitement, were expressed 

by only a handful of people. As one person put it, “I guess you 

might say [it is] catharsis to my spirit to be in these kind of 

places” (#117, PL, M, D). Another hiker discussed how much 

he had been missing his wife back home, but had decided to 

finish out his trip: “I love this place so much and I have a 

favorite campsite, so I’m going to stay anyhow” (#79, LB, 

M, OV). Overall, it was clear that moods and emotions were 

much more positive than negative, but that their intensity was 

mild.

Social Factors

Approximately 40% of interview participants said they 

had been talking with and interacting with group members 

immediately prior to being interviewed. Nearly half of these 

(22 people) were talking about issues “back home,” ranging 

from film festivals, to cars, to computers, to food. Others 

were discussing their trip, and a common type of response 

was, “We were talking about just how good it was to be out 

here... Sitting around and enjoying each other” (#84, LB, M, 

OV). The prominent role of social interaction in the ICE was 

confirmed by the relatively high rating for focus on the group 

in the questionnaires.

An important aspect that emerged from the interviews was 

how participants co-constructed their experience with other 

group members. Although we asked people specifically about 

their own experience, many respondents used “we” language 

to talk about how they had been discussing things, drawing 

each other’s attention to features of the environment or making decisions with their group: “We had originally thought 

we’d hike into Spectacle Lake, but we didn’t realize it was 

so far. And we thought with the weather, the way it is, we 

probably won’t do that today. So, we were talking about how 

we wanted to enjoy today” (#116, PL, F, OV). An example of 

collectively developing meanings can be found in the narrative 

of a camper who had been looking at historic mining equipment in the Lakes Basin: “My son and me were talking about 

the mining operations up here. Just guessing because we don’t 

know anything about them, but we see some mining equipment 

around camp. Looks like there might have been some kind of 

a something going in. We don’t know what they were mining. 

That’s what we were talking about” (#85, LB, M, OV). When 

asked about her thoughts, a day hiker at Pete Lake responded, 

“We were thinking about how awesome, even when the trees 

are dead, how beautiful they still are. And we were thinking 

about how incredible the variety of flowers were” (#17, PL, 

F, D). Thus, respondents tended to expand our question about 

“their” thoughts to encompass the group as a whole.

A less common aspect of the social dimension of the ICE 

was participants’ attention to the quality of their own group 

members’ experiences, particularly when traveling with children or inexperienced group members. As one parent put it, 

he had been occupied around camp, thinking about “how did 

everybody sleep, do you want more hot chocolate?” (#65, 

LB, M, OV). Another discussed how he had been attending 

to his wife: “We had a really nice breakfast that I cooked for 

my wife—this is her first trip, and I wanted to make it really 

nice... She wants to go fishing. She hasn’t been able to go 

fishing for a long time and so I say, okay. So, I’ve been taking 

care of the chores while she’s been fishing. Making it good for 

her” (#111, PL, M, OV).

Much of the research on wilderness experiences, and managers’ efforts to shape those experiences, has centered on the role 

of encounters among groups. It has commonly been assumed 

that having many encounters in wilderness detracts from 

experience quality. In our study, the percentage of interview 

participants who reported that they had been attending to or 

thinking about other groups was surprisingly small, given the 

high levels of use in the area; 55% of the interviews took place 

within sight or sound of other parties, and 16% were in sight 

of three or more other parties, yet many participants did not 

seem to be highly aware of others. When other people were 

mentioned, evaluations of the situation were typically neutral, 

as for the day hiker who said, “I guess there’s people around us 

too. There was a couple that went by us, behind us, and... and 

we were just kind of chatting with them” (#99, ML, M, D). A 

camper at Pete Lake said, “it’s been very restful up here and 

very pleasant...Even though there are other people here, I’m 

not really aware of them” (#38, PL, F, OV). In the questionnaires, solitude was rated relatively high as part of the ICE, 

supporting the interview findings. A small number of people 

expressed negative reactions to the level of use: “there are a 

lot of people here... It’s not a huge concern to me, but this is 

like overkill. I’ve just never seen so many people on one trail 

at one time” (#76, LB, M, OV). Seekamp and others (in press) 

note that, when asked to define a “wilderness experience,” 

many people referred to the absence of other people and a high 

degree of solitude. It is interesting, then, that the presence of 

other visitors did not seem highly salient as a specific focus 

of thought or attention for the same people, when asked about 

their immediate experience.

Personal Reflection

Approximately one third of interview participants said they 

had been thinking about affairs at home, whether that be family, 

friends, work, or other things, and the questionnaires showed 

focus on such thoughts to be quite low. Although few people 

mentioned thinking about things related to personal growth 

or spirituality, among those who were using the trip to work 

through issues, being away was an important factor. As one said, 

“that’s part of coming out here, is to reflect on relationships 

and people... things in my personal life” (#117, PL, M, D). 

More commonly, people were thinking about typical aspects 

of their daily lives. As one hiker put it, thoughts encompassed 

“a range of things, anywhere from family matters to our kids 

to the potential of moving in a year out of this area” (#27, PL, 

M, D). Another said, “I’m getting ready to go back to work 

pretty soon and I’ve been thinking about that. What I need to 

do before I go” (#29, PL, M, OV). One day hiker captured the 

Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation Hall and Cole
46 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

individualistic nature of such thoughts when she said, “you 

want to hear everything? ...Let’s see, old boyfriends, traveling, 

building a house, heels, shoes, Italy, traveling, my old dog” 

(#78, LB, F, D).

Thinking about home often involved group discussions: “We 

sat around and talked about some of our friends from home.... 

That’s about all we have thought about this morning” (#63, 

LB, F, OV). “We were actually talking about her husband and 

my fiancé, who were both in different places, and just talking 

about what they were doing. My fiancé is at the family beach 

house at the coast and I’m up here, and we’re just talking about 

how it’s nice and rainy here and they’re probably nice and dry 

indoors” (#32, ML, M, OV). These examples further illustrate 

how people in groups co-construct their experiences.

Multi-dimensionality and Individuality of 

Experiences

The analysis above, organized by dominant themes, masks 

an important feature of experiences—their multidimensional 

and highly individualized nature. That is, although the general 

themes we identified occurred frequently, their specific manifestations and combinations were quite distinct. For instance, in 

the interviews, all but one of the people who described thinking 

about home or work also described cognitive or behavioral 

engagement with the environment. Similarly, 85% of those who 

were focusing on a task or activity were also attending to the 

natural environment. Almost 90% of those who were focusing 

on other people were also focused on the natural environment. 

In fact, 60% of interview participants described at least three 

of the five primary themes. The following examples illustrate 

the types of combinations and individual manifestations of experiences that emerged in response to questions about people’s 

focus of thought and attention:

“About nature, about the lake, about mosquitoes, 

about my dog, about my mother, and about work... 

The mosquitoes and other flies, my dog, and the water 

and the wind and the birds. Those flowers, they’re just 

so amazing. The wind and the sound of the wind in the 

trees” (#44, PL, F, D).

“My blisters. I think I have been thinking about 

how many other people we’re seeing. Of course how 

beautiful it is. Thinking about my last trip here, last 

summer. Thinking about the other people in my group. 

Thinking about friends back home. That probably sums 

it up” (#67, LB, F, OV).

“The mountains and the snow. Kind of the stillness of 

the water, at the lake. And how the trees above it reflect 

down onto the lake because it was so still. Because I 

was taking some photographs of that. But it was nice. 

It wasn’t raining or anything, which is always good. 

And, I was noticing other people that were up there 

and seemed to be enjoying themselves too, they were 

relaxing and kind of lounging around and eating and 

stuff like that. You know, watching my husband fix his 

foot since he has blisters (#113, PL, F, D).

Discussion _______________________

In this section, we discuss how our findings relate to previous wilderness ICE research. Many of the themes that emerged 

from our interviews were similar to those previously reported, 

but there were some interesting differences.

Both Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001) and McIntyre and 

Roggenbuck (1998) found that attention to “nature” was more 

prevalent than attention to self, task, or social group. Not surprisingly, the natural environment was a nearly universal and 

primary focus of attention and thought for participants in our 

study as well, and engagement was both cognitive and behavioral. Also similar to previous research (Hill and Daniel 2008; 

McIntyre and Roggenbuck 1998; Schroeder 2007), people’s 

attention was focused on particularly scenic characteristics, 

like mountains and flowers, as well as “pristine” wilderness 

features. Both the interviews and questionnaires demonstrated 

the extent to which people focused their attention on variety 

and “micro” aspects of the environment, as well as how they 

supplied interpretations and explanations through personal 

imagination or group discussions. Questionnaires revealed that 

people were especially likely to feel away from the modern 

world, experience tranquility, and feel a sense of freedom.

Beyond a general awareness and appreciation of wilderness, 

interviews revealed the way aspects of the environment affected 

the scope of attentional focus. Consistent with observations 

by Patterson and others (1998) and Fredrickson and Anderson 

(1999), there were specific things—difficult trail conditions, adverse weather, or mosquitoes—that study participants reported 

as restricting their focus of attention, and such environmental 

conditions varied across sites.

As in other studies (such as, Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001; 

McIntyre 1998; McIntyre and Roggenbuck 1998), it was somewhat less common for people to have been focusing on tasks 

or activities than on nature. In our case, this may have been 

because many interviews and questionnaires were administered 

in people’s camps or along lakeshores, where people may have 

been relaxing and not really doing very much. Nevertheless, 

when people were engaged in active tasks, such as cooking, 

setting up or breaking down camp, or fishing, their attention 

tended to be highly focused on the immediate surroundings 

and a limited set of behaviors.

Previous ICE research has obtained varied results regarding 

focus on one’s own group. For instance, participants in Borrie and Roggenbuck’s (1998) study reported relatively high 

scores on feeling “special closeness” with their groups, while 

McIntyre’s (1998) participants had relatively low scores for 

focus on their own group. As Borrie and Roggenbuck surveyed 

canoeists who were physically always together, and McIntyre 

surveyed students on an organized trip, such differences may 

be logical. Two-thirds of our interview participants had been 

thinking about, focusing on, or interacting with other people, 

nearly always their own group members, and questionnaires 

revealed that attention to one’s own group members was quite 

common. It was quite evident from the interviews that wilderness visitors co-construct their experiences, drawing each 

other’s attention to things they see, discussing how features 

Hall and Cole Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 47

of the environment came to be, or imagining what it might 

have been like in times past. However, the ICE results also 

illustrate how often social interaction has little to do with the 

wilderness setting. Conversation was plentiful, and ranged 

widely from weather and wildlife, to events back home, plans 

for the future, and issues related to work or family.

These findings are consistent with other research in outdoor 

recreation, including in wilderness settings, showing that 

people often engage in recreation for social motivations and 

to forge connections with others. The high degree of sociality 

contrasts with the common notion that wilderness experiences 

are primarily individual, reflective experiences and reinforces 

the need to recognize important social motivations and processes. It is important to note that, despite their extensive 

social interactions, survey participants also reported feeling a 

relatively strong sense of solitude at the same time.

Emotion has not been extensively studied in qualitative 

research on immediate conscious experiences in outdoor settings, particularly not in wilderness. Research by Hull (1990) 

and Kaplan (1995) led us to expect that emotions were likely 

to be positive, and indeed this proved to be the case, as evident 

from both the interviews and questionnaires. People seemed 

to be in mildly pleasant moods, relaxed, at ease, and satisfied. 

This finding contrasts with the expectation that people on 

wilderness trips are likely to experience intensely powerful 

emotions such as awe or humility. Indeed, it suggests that the 

common emotional experiences in wilderness are quite similar 

to those that occur in other types of natural environments. It 

is interesting to note that these reports of the ICE appear to 

differ from the more intensely emotional narratives that have 

been reported among highly place-attached wilderness visitors 

(Brooks and Williams in press).

Wilderness experiences are often thought of as opportunities to focus on oneself. For instance, Borrie and Roggenbuck 

(2001) asked people how much they had been focusing on 

their own thoughts, reflecting on themselves, or considering 

their place in the world. In our quantitative data, scores for 

these items were much lower than for focus on nature, tasks, 

or social group. In our qualitative interviews, we found it 

difficult to extract focus on “self” from other points of focus. 

For example, some people who were thinking about or talking 

with their own group were thinking about their relationships 

with group members, while others were cognitively engaged 

in comparing the present trip to a previous trip, both of which 

could be classified as focusing on “self.” Apart from these 

types of introspection, it was clear from both interviews and 

questionnaires that people were not thinking much about work 

and their daily lives, supporting the contention that wilderness 

experiences are largely about cognitive and emotional escape.

Several contrasts were evident with other wilderness experience research in relation to themes that did not emerge from our 

data. Specifically, other studies have discussed the importance 

of wilderness trips for personal growth and the role of risk or 

challenge (Glaspell and others 2003; Loeffler 2004; McIntyre 

and Roggenbuck 1998; Schmidt and Little 2007). Brooks and 

Williams (in press) point out that wilderness experiences are 

part of the overall process of forging personal identity for many 

people, but our interviews did not reveal that such processes 

were necessarily central at any given point in time during wilderness trips. In fact, while people appreciated the opportunity 

to relax and not think about work, few engaged in deep spiritual 

exploration or contemplation. It may be that connections to 

self-identity and life projects become more central to people 

after they return home. Risk and challenge only appeared in 

a few interviews, primarily from early in the summer, when 

some people found that snow or flooded streams stretched their 

comfort level, and the questionnaires revealed low levels of 

physical challenge. It is possible that the absence of risk and 

challenge is related to the characteristics of our study sites, 

which were relatively accessible by high quality trails. Other 

research has explored experiences in remote locations such 

as Denali (Glaspell and others 2003) or on challenging trips 

(McIntyre and Roggenbuck 1998; Fredrickson and Anderson 

1999).

Another surprising finding was how few people were attending to other visitors outside their own group. Despite being in 

very high use areas, few people mentioned thinking about or 

focusing on other visitors. Although a small handful of visitors 

expressed dismay over crowded conditions, particularly in the 

Lakes Basin, most either paid little attention to others or had 

positive encounters.

Conclusions______________________

This research reveals the multi-dimensionality of the immediate conscious wilderness experience, as well as the ways that 

common themes play out in uniquely individual ways. We had 

a very high level of participation in the study and were able to 

capture the ICE in context, thereby overcoming some limitations of previous approaches. However, our study has some 

limitations that should be noted. First, some people found the 

questions about what they had been thinking and feeling to be 

strange, and in many of the interviews, this material was quite 

brief. Richardson (1999) pointed out that respondents in studies 

of experiences must have high levels of verbal competence, 

be forthcoming and complete. Some of our participants were 

willing and able to communicate personal insights, but others 

were not. Additionally, people had difficulty separating their 

immediate experiences (just before being approached) from the 

rest of experience. As Patterson and others (1998) noted so well, 

people like to engage in story-telling, and many participants 

wanted to relate what they thought were the more interesting 

aspects of their entire trip, rather than the mundane details of 

the past hour.

Despite these limitations, our research revealed that the 

ICE in wilderness tends to be highly positive. Beyond this, it 

is complex, involving considerable attention to things outside 

wilderness, in addition to a person’s immediate natural and social 

surroundings. Experiences are temporally dynamic, with the 

focus of attention sometimes being expansive and sometimes 

quite narrow, depending on one’s activity, physical conditions, 

and companions. Overall, feelings are positive, though occasionally punctuated by negative events. Together with other 

research on the ICE, post-trip evaluations of experiences, and 

Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation Hall and Cole
48 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

narrative approaches, our research helps show how specific 

situations and conditions encountered during a wilderness trip 

influence people’s immediate thoughts and feelings, and which 

aspects of those experiences later become incorporated into 

personal identity.

This study of the ICE in wilderness illustrates the challenges 

managers face in providing opportunities for specific types of 

experiences. First, these experiences—at least in the “typical” 

wilderness settings we studied—do not seem fundamentally 

different from what might occur outside wilderness in seminatural environments. This is consistent with what visitors 

reported when directly asked about where they can find “wilderness experiences” (Seekamp and others, in press). Second, 

many things that people think about or attend to are outside of 

managerial influence, such as a person’s individual life history, 

the social group, the weather, or insects. Nevertheless, our findings clearly reinforce the conclusion that wilderness visitors 

attend to (and appreciate) “pristine” nature and scenery, and that 

these factors contribute to feelings of “wildness.” On the other 

hand, they illustrate the limited effect of other visitors, even in 

places where one might encounter dozens of other people on 

any given day. Thus, the data show that—even in these high 

use locations—at any given time people are having thoughts 

and feelings largely consistent with the types of experiences 

wilderness managers hope to provide.

References _______________________

Angell, J. 1994. The wilderness solo: an empowering growth experience for 

women. Women & Therapy. 15: 85-99.

Arnould, E. J.; Price, L. L. 1993. River magic: extraordinary experience and the 

extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research. 20(June): 24-45.

Borrie, W. T.; Roggenbuck, J. W. 2001. The dynamic, emergent, and multiphasic nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 

33: 202-228.

Brocki, J. M.; Wearden, A. J. 2006. A critical evaluation of the use of interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology. Psychology 

& Health: 21: 87-108.

Brooks, J. J.; Williams, D. R. In press. Continued wilderness participation: 

experience and identity as long-term and relational phenomena. In: Cole, D. 

N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Caulkins, M. C.; White, D. D.; Russell, K. C. 2006. The role of physical 

exercise in wilderness therapy for troubled adolescent women. Journal of 

Experiential Education. 29: 18-37.

Cole, D. N. 2004. Wilderness experiences: what should we be managing for? 

International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 25-27.

Csikszentmihalyi, M.; Hunter, J. 2003. Happiness in everyday life: the uses of 

experience sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies. 4: 185-199.

Darker, C. D.; Larkin, M.; French, D. P. 2007. An exploration of walking 

behaviour—an interpretive phenomenological approach. Social Science 

& Medicine. 65: 2172-2183.

Dawson, C. P.; Russell, K. C. In press. Wilderness experience programs: A 

state-of-the-knowledge summary. In: Cole, D. N., comp. Wilderness visitor 

experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Fredrickson, L. M.; Anderson, D. H. 1999. A qualitative exploration of the 

wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 19: 21-39.

Gershuny, J. 2004. Costs and benefits of time sampling methodologies. Social 

Indicators Research. 67: 247-252.

Glaspell, B.; Watson, A.; Kneeshaw, K.; Pendergrast, D. 2003. Selecting 

indicators and understanding their role in wilderness experience stewardship at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. George Wright 

Forum. 20(3): 59-71.

Graumann, C. F. 2002. The phenomenological approach to people-environment 

studies. In: Bechtel, R. B.; Churchman, A., eds. Handbook of environmental 

psychology. New York: John Wiley: 95-113.

Groenewald, T. 2004. A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 3: 42-55.

Hall, T. E.; Johnson, B. J.; Cole, D. N. 2007. Dimensions of wilderness experience: A qualitative investigation. Unpublished report, Aldo Leopold 

Wilderness Research Institute, Available online at: http://leopold.wilderness.

net/research/fprojects/docs7/qual_interview_rept_final.pdf.

Hammitt, W. E. 1982. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness privacy. Environment and Behavior. 14: 478-493.

Hill, D.; Daniel, T. C. 2008. Foundations for a ecological aesthetic: can information alter landscape preferences? Society & Natural Resources. 21: 34-49.

Hull, R. B. 1990. Mood as a product of leisure: causes and consequences. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 22: 99-111.

Hull, R. B.; Michael, S. E.; Walker, G. J.; Roggenbuck, J. W. 1996. Ebb and 

flow of brief leisure experiences. Leisure Sciences. 18: 299-314.

Hull, R. B., IV; Stewart, W. P. 1995. The landscape encountered and experienced 

while hiking. Environment and Behavior. 27: 404-426.

Hull, R. B., IV; Stewart, W. P.; Yi, Y. K. 1992. Experience patterns: capturing 

the dynamic nature of a recreation experience. Journal of Leisure Research. 

24: 240-252.

Johnson, B. J.; Hall, T. E., Cole, D. N. 2005. Naturalness, primitiveness, 

remoteness and wilderness: Wilderness visitors’ understanding and experience of wilderness qualities. Unpublished report, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Available online at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/

research/fprojects/docs7/4_qualities_report.pdf.

Kaplan, S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative 

framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15: 169-182.

Koriat, A.; Goldsmith, M.; Pansky, A. 2000. Toward a psychology of memory 

accuracy. Annual Review of Psychology. 51: 481-537.

Lee, B.; Shafer, C. S. 2002. The dynamic nature of leisure experience: An application of affect control theory. Journal of Leisure Research. 34: 290-310.

Levine, L. J.; Safer, M. A. 2002. Sources of bias in memory for emotions. 

Current Directions in Psychological Science. 11: 169-173.

Loeffler, T. A. 2004. A photo elicitation study of the meanings of outdoor 

adventure experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 36: 536-556.

McIntyre, N. 1998. Person and environment transactions during brief wilderness trips: an exploration. In: Watson, A. E.; Aplet, G.; Hendee, J. C., 

eds. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World 

Wilderness Congress, Proceedings on Research, Management, and Allocation. Volume 1. Bangalore, India, October, 1997. Proceedings RMRSP-4. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 79-84.

McIntyre, N.; Roggenbuck, J. W. 1998. Nature/person transactions during an 

outdoor adventure experience: a multi-phasic analysis. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 30: 401-422.

Morita, E.; Fukuda, S.; Nagano, J.; Hamajima, N.; Yamamoto, H.; Iwai, Y.; 

and others. 2007. Psychological effects of forest environments on healthy 

adults: Shinrin-yoku (forest-air bathing, walking) as a possible method of 

stress reduction. Public Health. 121: 54-63.

Nickerson, N.; Cook, C. 2002. Analysis of the wilderness experience on commercially guided trips: a study in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, 

Montana. Unpublished report. Missoula: The University of Montana.

Patterson, M. E.; Watson, A. E.; Williams, D. R.; Roggenbuck, J. W. 1998. 

An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 30: 423-452.

Reid, K.; Flowers, P.; Larkin, M. 2005. Exploring the lived experience. The 

Psychologist. 18: 20-23.

Reis, H. T.; Gable, S. L. 2000. Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In: Reis, H. T.; Judd, C. M., eds. Handbook of 

research methods in social and personality psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press: 190-222.

Hall and Cole Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 49

Richardson, A. 1999. Subjective experience: Its conceptual status, method of 

investigation, and psychological significance. The Journal of Psychology. 

133: 469-485.

Schmidt, C.; Little, D. E. 2007. Qualitative insights into leisure as a spiritual 

experience. Journal of Leisure Research. 39: 222-247.

Schroeder, H. 2007. Place experience, gestalt, and the human-nature relationship. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 27: 293-309.

Seekamp, E.; Hall, T.; Cole, D. In press. Visitors’ conceptualizations of 

wilderness experiences. In: Cole, D. N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, 

MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Starks, H.; Trinidad, S. B. 2007. Choose your method: a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health 

Research. 17: 1372-1380.

Stewart, W. P. 1998. Leisure as multiphase experiences: challenging traditions. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 30: 391-400.

Talbot, J. F.; Kaplan, S. 1986. Perspectives on wilderness: re-examining 

the value of extended wilderness experiences. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 6: 177-188.

Ulrich, R. S. 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: 

Altman, I.; Wohlwill, J. F., eds. Human behavior and environment: behavior 

and the natural environment. New York: Plenum: 85-125.

Visser, P. S.; Krosnick, J. A.; Lavrakas, P. J. 2000. Survey research. In: Reis, H. 

T.; Judd, C. M., eds. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 223-252.

Waitt, G.; Lane, R. 2007. Four-wheel drivescapes: embodied understandings 

of the Kimberley. Journal of Rural Studies. 23: 156-169.

Williams, D. R. 1989. Great expectations and the limits to satisfaction: A 

review of recreation and consumer satisfaction research. In: A. E. Watson 

(Compiler), Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the National 

Outdoor Recreation Forum. General Technical Report SE-52. Asheville, NC: 

USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 422-438.

Immediate Conscious Experience in Wilderness: A Phenomenological Investigation Hall and Cole
50 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Abstract—Despite 50 years of wilderness visitor experience research, 

it is not well understood how visitors conceptualize a wilderness 

experience. Diverging from etic approaches to wilderness visitor 

experience research, the research presented in this paper applied an 

emic approach to identify wilderness experience attributes. Specifically, qualitative data from 173 on-site semi-structured interviews 

illustrate that wilderness visitors’ conceptualizations of wilderness 

experiences strongly resemble characteristics described in the Wilderness Act. Furthermore, descriptions reveal that experiences are both 

complex and dynamic, and an assortment of personal, social and 

environmental factors determine experience quality. Although most 

participants reported experiencing wilderness, they also frequently 

mentioned factors that diminished the quality of the experience. 

Their conception of a prototypical experience was one occurring 

in a remote destination with few (or no) encounters where they can 

escape civilization. Some participants explained that such premier 

experiences are readily found even within high-use wilderness areas 

by hiking off-trail or by hiking further from trailheads, and most 

participants asserted that these experiences can also be found outside 

of designated wilderness. These data illustrate that naturalness, lack 

of development, and solitude remain relevant wilderness experience 

concepts, particularly for visitors seeking “outstanding” wilderness 

experiences.

Introduction ______________________

Defining a wilderness experience is important for managers 

to adequately protect those experiences. The Wilderness Act of 

1964 mandates that managers provide visitors with “outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation.” However, Hendee and Dawson (2002) point out that 

the testimony accompanying the writing of the Act indicated 

that managers should provide “a complex set of experiences” 

(p. 22). The types of experiences typically addressed by researchers and provided by federal agencies include freedom, 

Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness 

Experiences

Erin Seekamp

Troy Hall

David Cole

Authors: Erin Seekamp, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; Troy Hall, 

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID; and David Cole, Forest Service, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

remoteness, privacy, solitude, challenge, self-reliance, humility, 

and a sense of timelessness, all of which are complex constructs 

that do not yet have standardized measures. For example, most 

researchers explore the solitude construct through measures of 

encounters (for example, Hammitt and others 1984; Manning 

1985; Vaske and others 1986) in which solitude is conceptualized as an outcome of acceptable use density. However, other 

researchers conceptualize solitude as a dimension of privacy 

(for example, Hammitt 1982; Hammitt and Madden 1989; 

Hammitt and Rutlin 1995; Hammitt in press), a more complex 

concept than being alone or isolation. Wilderness privacy is 

a product of intimacy, cognitive freedom, individualism, and 

remote, natural settings. Other wilderness experience attributes 

have varied definitions. Using the writings of Aldo Leopold, 

Bob Marshall, and Sigurd Olson, researchers have developed 

measures of primitive recreation that include connecting with 

the past, facing the challenges of living simply, and relying 

on personal skills (Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001; Shafer and 

Hammitt 1995). Definitions of unconfined recreation include 

feelings of freedom in actions (Hall and others 2010; Shafer 

and Hammitt 1995) and an immersion within nature that allows the human-nature transaction to unfold freely (Borrie and 

Roggenbuck 2001).

Guided by these notions, researchers have attempted to 

measure the achievement of specific experience attributes to 

help inform management decisions. Borrie and Birzell (2001) 

outline the four dominant approaches to this research: satisfaction (evaluations of on-site conditions, such as comparisons of 

the desired versus actual number of encounters); benefits-based 

(achievement of psychological outcomes, such as the ability 

to reduce stress or tensions); experience-based (explorations 

of feelings and cognitive states during multiphasic, on-site 

experiences, such as experiencing a sense of humility during 

a wilderness experience); and, meanings-based (examination 

of the meanings ascribed to the experience that relate to a 

visitor’s sense of self or self-identify, such as feeling a high 

degree of wilderness involvement). Most research has used the 

satisfaction approach—particularly to measure solitude (see 

Dawson and Watson 2000)—that breaks down the complex 

and multifaceted nature of wilderness experience into smaller 

components (Borrie and Birzell 2001). However, it is difficult 

to assess the quality of dynamic and multi-phasic experiences 

using quantitative visitor surveys, which often require complex 

methodologies, such as the Experience Sampling Method 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 51

(Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001). Despite such challenges, a 

few studies have used an emic approach to understanding 

wilderness experiences (for example, Borrie and others in 

press; Seekamp and Cole 2009).

An emic approach to researching wilderness experiences is 

based on gaining an insider (visitor) perspective on the important attributes of experience. Rooted in anthropology, this 

research approach has most commonly involved ethnographers striving to understand cultural beliefs from “the native’s 

point of view” (Malinowski 1922, p. 25) by documenting the 

ideas and categories of meaning of members of a cultural 

group. In contrast, an etic approach to researching wilderness 

experiences focuses on isolating particular components (for 

example, solitude) to explore antecedents (for example, lack 

of crowding) and consequences (for example, satisfaction with 

wilderness experience quality). An etic approach, with roots 

in behaviorist psychology (Skinner 1933), assumes that factors affecting cultural beliefs “may not be salient to cultural 

insiders (Harris 1979)” (as cited in Morris and others 1999, 

p. 781) and, thus, focuses on the ideas and categories meaningful for researchers. Although there is much debate regarding 

the appropriateness, contributions, and integration of the two 

approaches (see Harris 1976; Headland and others 1990; Lett 

1987), the purpose of this paper is not to judge the merit of one 

approach over the other. Rather, applying an emic approach 

in this research is complementary to past research efforts that 

aim to enhance management decisions (an etic approach). An 

emic approach offers the ability to (dis)confirm and expand 

researcher-derived concepts by asking visitors to define a wilderness experience and examining the factors visitors identify 

as specifically impacting wilderness experiences in their own 

words.

In this paper, we present qualitative data on how visitors 

conceptualize the wilderness experience from on-site semistructured interviews with visitors to three high-use Forest 

Service wilderness destinations in Oregon and Washington. 

Our purpose is to discuss what people consider to be a “true” 

wilderness experience and the factors that contribute to or 

detract from that experience. The study was motivated in part 

by a desire to understand, from the visitor’s point of view, 

whether and how use density affects wilderness experiences 

in high use locations, especially with respect to solitude. We 

also wondered whether visitors to these popular locations had 

notions of wilderness experiences that are consistent with 

what managers seek to provide. Thus, we sought to answer 

the following questions: What does the concept of a “wilderness experience” mean to wilderness visitors? Are visitors’ 

conceptualizations of wilderness experiences different from 

the experiences managers seek to provide? What factors are 

most important in determining a prototypical, or ideal, wilderness experience? Does visitation density affect whether or not 

visitors have a wilderness experience?

Two other aspects to this study pertain to practical management considerations. The first relates to whether wilderness 

experiences are dependent upon being in designated wilderness areas, a topic that has arisen many times over the years 

(for example, Williams and others 1992). Hence, we ask, are 

wilderness experiences uniquely found in designated wilderness areas? Second, we were interested in the relationship 

between the experience of solitude and wilderness experiences. 

Research demonstrates that even in crowded conditions, visitors 

continue to report high quality experiences (Cole 2001; Stewart 

and Cole 2001) and visitors are not typically supportive of 

restrictions on use in order to improve solitude (Cole and Hall 

2008b; Cole and others 1997; Hall and Others 2010). Perhaps, 

in modern society, visitors have become so accustomed to high 

levels of use that solitude is no longer considered a necessary 

part of wilderness experiences. Accordingly, we ask, is solitude 

still a relevant component of the wilderness experience?

Methods _________________________

We used an emic research approach to explore how visitors 

conceptualize a wilderness experience. An emic approach focuses on intrinsic meanings defined by members of a culture 

or subculture (Harris 2001). In our study, we focused on the 

experiences that are meaningful to wilderness visitors. This 

qualitative strategy reduces researcher-imposed bias by allowing the factors that define a wilderness experience to emerge 

from participants’ responses to general, open-ended questions 

and clarifying follow-up questions rather than their responses 

to researcher-defined aspects of a wilderness experience (an 

etic research approach). Specifically, our semi-structured interview guide asked participants if they were having a wilderness 

experience and what made it a wilderness experience. When 

participants indicated that they were not having a wilderness 

experience or noted that their wilderness experience was not 

ideal, we asked them to describe an ideal wilderness experience 

and the reasons they were not having a wilderness experience. 

Additionally, we asked participants if they could achieve a 

wilderness experience outside of a designated wilderness area.

Interviews were conducted in 2002 between May and August. Researchers spent 15 days at each of three destinations: 

Marion Lake in the Mt Jefferson Wilderness (Oregon); Pete 

Lake in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (Washington); and the 

Lakes Basin Management Area in the Eagle Cap Wilderness 

(Oregon). Marion Lake (360 acres) is located in a dense old 

growth forest setting, an easy two-mile hike from a trailhead 

that is approximately 90 minutes southeast of Portland, Oregon. 

Situated in a montane forest setting, Pete Lake (100 acres) is a 

moderate 4.5-mile hike from a trailhead that is approximately 

90 minutes east of Seattle, Washington. Located seven hours 

from Portland, Oregon, nine hours from Seattle, Washington, 

and five hours from Boise, Idaho, the Lakes Basin Management Area provides a more remote experience that involves a 

moderately strenuous 8-mile hike to a basin with a number of 

subalpine lakes.

Interviews were conducted with visitors when and where 

contacted (n=173), and researchers recorded daily use level, 

with a range from 3 to 114 visitor encounters per day. All 

interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We 

inductively analyzed the transcripts using open coding (Corbin 

and Strauss 2008). For the text pertaining to questions regarding 

wilderness experiences, 14 primary themes and 154 subthemes 

Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences Seekamp, Hall, and Cole
52 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

emerged. We used insider peer-debriefing (Spillett 2003) to 

enhance the interpretive quality of the coding process, by having multiple project researchers read through the transcripts, 

develop separate lists of codes, negotiate on a final codebook, 

and code a subset of interviews until interpretive patterns were 

consistent.

It is important to note that the data presented here represent 

a subset of the questions in the interview guide and, due to 

the dynamic nature of on-site interviews, not all participants 

were asked all questions. Therefore, although we present the 

data descriptively through the words of our participants and 

based on coding frequencies, these data are not intended to 

be generalized to all wilderness visitors. However, strong patterns emerged, and it is our intent to present the ‘essence’ of 

wilderness experiences as conceptualized by the 173 visitors 

we interviewed. Other reports derived from these interviews 

include Johnson and others (2005), Hall and others (2007) and 

Hall and Cole (in press).

Results __________________________

Participant Profile

The majority of participants were male (62 percent) and 

nearly equal proportions were day (46 percent) and overnight 

(54 percent) visitors. One-half of the interviews were conducted 

on high use days (>40 encounters), 28 percent on moderate 

use days (20-40 encounters), and 22 percent on low use days 

(<20 encounters). Sixty-one interviews were conducted at 

Marion Lake, 58 at Pete Lake, and 53 in the Lakes Basin 

Management Area. Similarities were found in the proportion 

of day and overnight visitors reporting that they either had 

or did not have a wilderness experience, as well as between 

study locations and between interviews conducted at different visitation levels. We also explored the extent to which 

differences in descriptive experiential codes (that is, codes 

representing specific characteristics of wilderness experiences) were related to user type, location, and use levels. No 

distinct patterns emerged. Therefore, we aggregated the data 

for the purposes of this paper and do not distinguish between 

day and overnight participants, visitors to the three areas, or 

participants interviewed at different visitation levels.

Having a Wilderness Experience

One hundred fifty participants were specifically asked if they 

were having a wilderness experience. Twenty percent of these 

participants indicated that they were not having a wilderness 

experience, responding with phrases such as “no,” “probably 

not,” “not especially,” and “not ‘wilderness’ wilderness.” One 

participant stated, “I’m having a forest experience, not really 

a wilderness experience.” Another six percent of these 150 

participants were unsure of whether or not they were having 

a wilderness experience, answering with responses such as “I 

am not sure” or “I don’t know.” For example, one participant 

had trouble determining whether or not she was having a 

wilderness experience:

I guess not. Well. I don’t know. A lot of times, I’ll base 

it sort of on if I see a bear or something that you don’t 

see necessarily all the time or find some tracks... I 

guess when you walk in you really are walking for an 

entire day and you don’t see hide nor hair of anybody. 

I guess, maybe, those are the sorts of the kind of things 

that classify. So, I guess that just being out here, I’d say 

that this is more of a ... sort of a wilderness experience, 

but sort of not, kind of.

Five percent of these 150 participants indicated that they 

experienced wilderness “at times” during their trip. For example, one participant stated:

Uh, not so much today on this hike. I haven’t felt as 

remote. I’ve seen a few more people but yesterday, 

or the day before yesterday, and we were up towards 

Rachel Lake, I really felt out and away from everything.

The remaining two-thirds (106) of the 150 participants 

specifically asked if they were having a wilderness experience answered affirmatively with statements such as “yes,” 

“definitely,” and “absolutely.” However, 35 of these 106 participants qualified their response based on personal, social, or 

environmental factors that compromised the quality of their 

experience. Such qualifying descriptions illustrate that wilderness experiences are complex and, for some participants, there 

are varying degrees of wilderness (for example, “I would say 

it is pretty moderately a wilderness experience”). Participants 

explained that wilderness experiences may be obtained at 

certain times during the trip and not others. They observed 

that experience quality fluctuates depending on the social 

conditions (for example, the presence and/or number of other 

visitors), the biophysical impacts (for example, evidence of 

other visitors, such as litter or worn trails and campsites), and 

on management actions, such as signs and toilets. For example, one participant, who was asked to rate the experience 

on a 10-point scale, explained that the amount of impact and 

the presence of others influence the quality of a wilderness 

experience:

I don’t know, a 9 or a 10. I guess being out in the wilderness and not seeing a soul, and not seeing any impact, 

and finding your special spot, that’s a 10. Running into 

people like yourselves, or the couple last night, who 

seemed to really appreciate where they were, it doesn’t 

diminish it any. It’s, and the trash, maybe that’s what 

drops it to a 9.

Similarly, another participant stated that the presence of 

management structures degraded the wilderness experience:

I would have to rate it about a 6. I don’t want to say 

it’s not a wilderness experience but at the same time 

I mean you have pit toilets over there and you have a 

pretty well established trail.

Offsetting those detractors were the derived psychological (cognitive and affective) or physiological benefits of the 

experience, as well as opportunities for wildlife viewing and 

the aesthetic quality of the natural environment. For example, 

one participant reflected, “Well, I guess when I think about 

Seekamp, Hall, and Cole Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 53

wilderness I think about more isolation, but in terms of the 

type of country and the scenery it doesn’t get better than this.” 

Another participant explained that wilderness experiences occur in “the parts where we don’t see anybody else... definitely 

yesterday, when we were having to find our own way through 

the snow and nobody had been up that trail yet. And that was 

great. I really enjoyed that and getting up to where you had 

views of Mount Jefferson.”

Participants also used spatial and temporal qualifiers to describe the varying degrees of wilderness experiences (table 1). 

Attributes associated with the quality of wilderness experiences 

included (1) the amount of time spent in wilderness (for example, “I think I have to be out a couple more days to make it 

a wilderness experience”), (2) the ability to stay in wilderness 

overnight (“Well I guess, it’s camping at least several nights in 

a couple of different places along the way”), (3) the remoteness 

of the area (“I’m so close to civilization here. I don’t feel like 

I’m in a wilderness per se”), (4) the distance from the trailhead 

(“It requires more hiking and having to plan it more, a longer 

duration”), and (5) opportunities for off-trail hiking (“If you 

hiked a little off the trail you would find those thoughts”).

Factors Contributing to a Wilderness Experience

The 87 participants who were not experiencing wilderness 

or who indicated that their experience was compromised were 

asked to describe a “true” or “ideal” wilderness experience 

(what we refer to hereafter as a “prototypical” wilderness experience) to elicit key experience factors. In addition, we asked 

all participants to describe the factors that contributed to their 

current wilderness experience. Finally, descriptions of such 

factors also emerged in responses to other questions during 

the interview. In tables 2-6 we differentiate between these 

three sources of information about factors that contribute to a 

wilderness experience as follows: (1) information obtained 

at any time during the interview is reported in the “Percent Total” 

column as the percentage of all respondents; (2)responses regarding 

one’s current wilderness experience is in the “Percent Current 

Experience” column; and, (3) responses regarding a prototypical 

experience, for those who were not experiencing wilderness or 

who indicated that their experience was compromised, is reported in 

the “Percent Prototypical Experience” column. Some participants 

provided responses included in all three categories, while others provided responses that fit into fewer categories.

Table 1—Coding frequency of spatial and 

temporal qualifiers of wilderness 

experiences mentioned at anytime 

during interview

Qualifier Percent

Spatial (n=55)

Remoteness 66

Distance traveled 44

Room to roam 11

Size of wilderness 7

Temporal (n=30)

Trip duration 90

Overnight visit 30

Time of year visited 7

Day of week visited 5

Table 2—Coding frequency for general factors affiliated with wilderness experiences

 Percent Totala Percent Current Percent Prototypical

Factor (n=173) Experienceb (n=150) Experiencec (n=87)

Environmental attributes 74 26 52

Social attributes 60 15 53

Psychological benefits 51 9 43

Personal skills 41 9 37

Activity engagement 21 7 11

Physiological benefits 16 3 8

Ancestral connections 7 1 7 

a Frequencies for all interviews in which wilderness experiences were discussed.

b Frequencies for interviews in which specific experience factors were discussed in relation to participants’ current 

wilderness trip. c Frequencies for interviews during which participants who were not having a wilderness experience or who reported 

having a diminished wilderness experience were asked what factors would define a prototypical, or ideal, type of 

wildernes experience.

Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences Seekamp, Hall, and Cole
54 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Table 3—Coding frequency for specific environmental attributes that contribute to having a wilderness 

experience

Percent Totala Percent Current Percent Prototypical

Environmental Attribute (n=173) Experienceb (n=39) Experiencec (n=45)

Natural features 53 79 56

Wildlife 23 36 29

Aesthetics 22 28 18

Vegetation 12 18 13

Mountains/elevation 10 21 7

Air quality 6 5 4

Sounds of nature 3 5 2

Water 2 10 0

Biophysical conditions 54 44 89

Natural 25 13 20

Undeveloped 17 13 27

Noise pollution 13 8 16

No trails 7 0 18

Limited human impact 6 3 11

Wild 2 0 7

Not overly maintained 3 3 2

No litter 5 10 2

a Frequencies for all interviews in which wilderness experiences were discussed.

b

 Frequencies for interviews in which specific experience factors were discussed in relation to participants’ current wilderness trip.

c

 Frequencies for interviews during which participants who were not having a wilderness experience or who reported having a 

diminished wilderness experience were asked what factors would define a prototypical, or ideal, type of wilderness experience.

Table 4—Coding frequency for specific social attributes that contribute to having a wilderness experience

Percent Totala Percent Current Percent Prototypical

Social Attribute (n=173) Experienceb (n=22) Experiencec (n=46)

Other visitors’ behaviors 3 9 4

Seeing other visitors 55 91 100

Absence of lots of other visitors 31 32 37

Seeing no one 29 59 59

Isolation 18 18 9

Alone preferred 3 9 2

Number of people not important 2 5 2

‘Right kind’ of people okay 1 5 0

a Frequencies for all interviews in which wilderness experiences were discussed.

b Frequencies for interviews in which specific experience factors were discussed in relation to participants’ current wilderness trip.

c Frequencies for interviews during which participants who were not having a wilderness experience or who reported having a 

diminished wilderness experience were asked what factors would define a prototypical, or ideal, type of wilderness experience.

Rarely did participants identify a single factor that defined 

their wilderness experience; instead, they recognized a wide 

mix of internal and external factors that made a trip a wilderness experience (table 2). Participants most often identified 

environmental attributes (74 percent), social attributes (60 

percent), psychological benefits (51 percent), and/or the use of 

personal skills (41 percent) as contributors to having a wilderness experience. Other attributes noted included engagement 

in specific recreational activities (21 percent), physiological 

benefits (16 percent), and ancestral connections (7 percent). 

The following sections cover each of these categories in depth.

Environmental attributes—In terms of environmental attributes, participants described factors related to either specific 

natural features or to more general biophysical conditions 

(table 3). Viewing wildlife and being in a beautiful environment were the most frequently mentioned natural features 

that contributed to a wilderness experience. For example, one 

participant explained:

Well, I would say it’s just a, it’s a wonderful wilderness 

experience. This, it’s a great setting, the mountains all 

around and ospreys, eagles, and typically a lot of fish.

Another participant noted that the potential for viewing 

wildlife contributes to the “wildness” of an area:

Just the wildness of it, the thought that there could be 

a bear or a cougar or a bobcat and the fact that there 

are elk nearby... Even if the chance of seeing any of 

these things is very remote there are these things that 

you don’t know when they are going to happen, that’s 

part of wilderness.

Seekamp, Hall, and Cole Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 55

Table 6—Coding frequency for personal skills that contribute to having a wilderness 

experience

 Percent Totala Percent Current Percent Prototypical

Personal Skill (n=173) Experienceb (n=13) Experiencec (n=32)

Self-reliance 27 54 66

Navigation 10 15 22

Danger/risk 8 23 25

Challenge 8 15 13

Uncertainty/surprise 3 0 13

Exploration/adventure 3 8 3

Exposure to elements 3 23 3

a Frequencies for all interviews in which wilderness experiences were discussed.

b Frequencies for interviews in which specific experience factors were discussed in relation to participants’ 

current wilderness trip.

c Frequencies for interviews during which participants who were not having a wilderness experience or who 

reported having a diminished wilderness experience were asked what factors would define a prototypical, 

or ideal, type of wilderness experience.

Table 5—Coding frequency for psychological benefits that contribute to having a wilderness 

experience

Percent Totala Percent Current Percent Prototypical

Psychological Benefit (n=173) Experienceb (n=14) Experiencec (n=37)

Cognitive 46 64 89

Escape 42 57 76

Introspection 8 7 16

Perspective 3 0 8

Mental clarity 3 0 8

Timelessness 1 0 3

Change of pace 1 7 3

Affective 24 29 32

Enjoyment 12 14 8

Peacefulness 10 7 16

Nature connection 3 0 3

Freedom 2 0 5

Spiritual connection 2 7 3

Sense of awe 2 0 3

Inspiration 1 0 3

Humbling 1 0 3

a Frequencies for all interviews in which wilderness experiences were discussed.

b Frequencies for interviews in which specific experience factors were discussed in relation to participants’ current 

wilderness trip.

c Frequencies for interviews during which participants who were not having a wilderness experience or who reported 

having a diminished wilderness experience were asked what factors would define a prototypical, or ideal, type of 

wilderness experience.

We found that, although natural features can enhance a 

wilderness experience, the experience may be compromised 

by other factors, such as use level:

When you have people around you, when you’re out 

on the lake and you hear conversations and so forth, I 

mean, it’s not a true wilderness I guess. But then, you 

can look overhead, like we did today, we saw a pair 

of eagles coming by. Osprey. We saw a deer along the 

bank. Especially early in the morning, when there wasn’t 

a lot of people moving yet. So, yeah, it’s, it’s a certain 

amount of [wilderness] experience.

Other natural features that contribute to a wilderness experience included vegetation (for example, “being in the woods” 

and “old growth forests”), mountains or topography (“rugged 

looking” and “in areas with rockfalls”), air quality (“fresh air” 

and “you don’t smell any cars”), specific sounds of nature (“the 

sounds of toads” and “hearing that river flowing down there”), 

and water (“cleanliness of the water” and “having the lake”). 

The relative lack of noise pollution was fairly frequently described as a biophysical condition that enhances a wilderness 

experience. Some participants described this condition generally 

(“Just being away from the noise, cars and everything else that 

has to do with civilization”), while others were more specific 

(“no airplanes flying overhead” and “not hearing people”).

Participants also used more general adjectives when describing a wilderness experience. Naturalness, a lack of development 

(“untouched by the industrial age”), and wild (“how nature just 

does its own thing whether we want it to or not”) were identified frequently as conditions that contribute to a wilderness 

experience. These were typically coupled with other factors, 

as by one participant who stated:

Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences Seekamp, Hall, and Cole
56 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Well, it partly means getting away, and having the 

sunset...I mean part of it means that you’re not going 

to have any machines or cars, no motorized vehicles... 

you’re far enough from a population center that you feel 

like you’re away, can’t see anything that isn’t natural 

if you look, lots of wildlife.

Similarly, other participants described conditions with limited 

human impact (“a place that is more or less devoid of signs of 

human activity or has minimal amounts of human activity”).

Trail quality played a role in wilderness experiences for 

some participants. For example, one participant explained:

The trail here in front of us is twenty feet wide with 

no plant growth, it’s all dirt, it’s well packed. To me 

that’s a well-used area. To me a wilderness experience 

is a more primitive trail, if any trail, and fewer people. 

A wilderness experience would be different from this.

For a wilderness experience, trails should not be overly 

maintained (“the trails are maintained just adequately to get 

through”), and there should be no litter (“if people pick up 

after themselves, it would be a lot better”).

Social attributes—We categorized descriptions of the social 

attributes that influence a wilderness experience (table 4) as 

references to the behavior of others (3 percent) versus simply 

seeing other visitors (55 percent). When describing the behavior of other visitors, most participants explained that hearing 

others and unethical actions (for example, littering) detracted 

from or could ruin a wilderness experience. One participant 

said:

I think if everybody, even if it’s a lot of people, that they 

know what they are doing, being respectful of others, 

and keep a low profile – it doesn’t hurt that much to 

have a bunch of people. It’s when people come up that 

seem kind of like novices and are loud and obnoxious, 

or they don’t seem very appreciative of the place they’re 

in. That is the only time it seems not so good.

Participants frequently stated that seeing no other visitors 

was a defining aspect of a wilderness experience. For example, 

when describing a prototypical experience, one participant 

asserted:

A complete wilderness experience would be... in the 

complete wilderness where you’re using a compass and 

getting there and nothing, there’s no people around. 

I’d say that’s a complete wilderness experience to me.

Yet, many participants mentioned that they expected to see 

other visitors during a wilderness trip and that, as long as there 

were not many other visitors, they could have a wilderness 

experience. For example, one participant explained why she 

felt she was having a wilderness experience:

I guess just the fact that there’s not a mass populace 

here ...I mean, you don’t have to be in the woods to be 

in the wilderness, so to speak. Just the mass of people 

sort of tends to destroy a wilderness.

Another participant mentioned that seeing other people in a 

wilderness wasn’t usually an issue for her, but that the number 

encountered surpassed her threshold on this trip, ultimately 

keeping her from having a wilderness experience. When asked 

to described a wilderness experience, she said:

Not as many people. I’ve never been in a wilderness 

area that’s been abused. This was the first time. I’ve just 

never seen anything as crazy before. I totally get it; it’s 

an amazing place. Everybody was very nice and doing 

their own thing but somehow it’s disconcerting to me.

Some participants used the terms isolation and solitude to 

describe a wilderness experience. For example, one participant 

stated that a wilderness experience:

Would be totally isolated from people. It would be doing 

something very few people do, where your amenities 

are very low. I think of really roughing it, going out 

on your own with the real minimal. You might be off 

trail, using topo maps.

Another participant made a similar observation:

It’s not seeing people, not hearing people, or civilization. 

It’s when you hear water running; animals, birds are 

part of it. There aren’t very many places in this part of 

the country where you can find real solitude.

As is evident in these excerpts, participants typically described 

a complex set of factors when explaining their conception of 

a wilderness experience.

Psychological benefits—Participants frequently mentioned cognitive (46 percent) and affective (24 percent) benefits 

when describing what makes up a wilderness experience (table 

5). For many participants, the opportunities to escape civilization or the demands of daily life and to enjoy themselves were 

described as key wilderness experience factors. For example, 

one participant stated:

Key, basically we came to fish and enjoy the wildlife 

and get away from the routine, work and phones and 

computers and all that and that’s what we accomplished.

Although escaping the crowds and noise of civilization was 

described by some participants (“I guess just the quietness, 

less people around makes it more wilderness. It’s wilderness 

anytime you get away from all the people”), other participants 

claimed that escaping civilization doesn’t necessarily have 

to mean that you don’t see other people. For example, one 

participant said:

Just getting outside and getting away from work or 

whatever. It doesn’t necessarily mean like getting 

away from everybody else to me, it’s just more being 

outside and going and doing stuff that doesn’t have 

to do with anything other than walking around and 

enjoying yourself.

Another participant described a wilderness experience as an 

opportunity for introspection and mental clarity, as well as an 

opportunity to escape social pressures:

My mind jumps back and forth all over the place, but 

it’s definitely good no matter what I’m thinking about. 

It’s just good to get those thoughts cleared out, and 

the wilderness area definitely allows you to do that. 

You get away from the city and you’re not involved 

in drinking or the social problems or anything, so you 

Seekamp, Hall, and Cole Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 57

can concentrate on your own thoughts, even if you’re 

with a big group of people.

Other participants pointed out that a wilderness experience 

provides a sense of peace and a time for relaxation. For example, one participant said:

I love the calm peaceful feeling, it’s a great family 

place. Something you want to bring family to, which 

is good. Just getting outdoors, getting away from it all, 

just a calming, relaxing feeling.

 More unique psychological benefits included a sense of 

timelessness (for example, “time stands still”), a change of pace 

(“I’m not really a high-energy person anyway, and this slows 

you down”), a sense of freedom (“where you just kind of go 

and stop and look at all the flora and fauna, and the wildlife”), 

a spiritual connection or sense of awe (“to be refreshed and, 

obviously, as a Christian, I know that God created all of this. 

And so, for me, that creates a sense of awe and wonder at what 

he made”), a humbling feeling (“the wilderness is bigger than 

me and more powerful”), and a connection to nature (“now that 

I’m older I want to get re-in touch with that kind of outdoor 

feel that I have in my bones”).

Personal skills—Participants described the ability to use 

specific personal skills as a defining factor of a wilderness 

experience (table 6), particularly the need for self-reliance. 

When discussing self-reliance, participants mentioned the need 

to exert physical effort and fend for oneself without luxuries 

or excessive amounts of “stuff.” For example, one participant 

explained that his own decisions and knowledge affected the 

quality of his wilderness experience:

To be more self-sufficient, like knowing what plants in 

the forest are edible. And not bringing quite so much 

food. Not bringing so much stuff with us, would feel 

more like a wilderness experience to me.

Another participant stated that perceptions of remoteness 

enhance the need for self-reliance:

Well, this is a ways back and it’s a long ways in on the 

road, so you really know you’re not close to towns or 

anything and so I think his trail, as opposed to some 

other day hikes where you’re just off a road or something, you really feel like you worked to get in here and 

there’s not many people back here. And further back 

in your mind, if you were to hurt yourself, you’re not, 

you couldn’t easily get out.

Similarly, another participant explained how a wilderness 

experience involves challenging oneself:

You have to try everything, you have to be self-motivated, you have to push it, you have to be able to handle 

it. Basically, there are no frills here—everything is as 

it is. You have to adapt to it, work with it, and make it 

work for you. Sometimes you can’t have things go the 

way you want and you just have to accept that. That 

goes with the territory.

Thus, wilderness experiences include aspects of danger, risk, 

uncertainty, exploration and adventure.

To be someplace where nobody else had been, no trails. 

If you got in trouble, you would be in trouble because 

there would be no way to get out of it.

Participants also described the ability to get lost and the 

need to have navigational skills to find one’s way back. For 

example, one participant explained:

Yea, I still feel like I’m not completely out in the woods. 

The trails are so used. There are not that many signs, but 

people have been here, like you’re not the first person 

to camp here... I’ve been hiking in the Brooks Range 

and I’ve climbed Denali and those to me that was true 

wilderness. There were no trails; it was all maps and 

compass readings. We have the maps, but we know we 

don’t really need them.

A handful of participants actually used the word “primitive” 

to describe such personal skills. For example, when discussing 

the area in terms of remoteness, one participant explained:

Oh, it’s somewhat remote. But, still you get in here, 

you see people, you can see out for long distances, 

you don’t have that place, a primitive feeling, where 

you don’t know what is behind the next bluff, because 

you know there’s no other people up here, and maybe a 

cougar there. And that’s what I consider real primitive 

wilderness experience. So I think it’s a little bit different than that up here.

Other wilderness experience attributes—Some participants described a wilderness experience in relation to specific 

activities, physiological benefits, and having an ancestral connection. Camping and fishing were often mentioned as part of a 

wilderness experience, though often in conjunction with other 

wilderness experience factors. For example, one participant 

explained how camping and cooking combined with scenery 

and exercise to make a wilderness experience:

Just the beauty of it. Just seeing a new place. I like 

sleeping in a tent, cooking outside. It’s just so nice to 

go to bed and curl up in your sleeping bag. After a hard 

day it always feels so good to take off your pack and 

once your boots are off it is so nice. It’s strenuous but 

you always have a reward at the end of a day.

In terms of physiological benefits, one participant described 

rejuvenation and physical exertion by saying that a wilderness 

experience involves “being out away, quiet, solitude, time for 

introspection ...it’s a time to work with my body and rejuvenate my spirit.” Another participant explained: “I’m telling 

you, you can just completely unwind up here. Your stomach 

pains go away, your head clears up. It’s great.” Illustrating the 

multifaceted nature of a wilderness experience, one participant 

explained what a wilderness experience means to her:

To re-energize. To reduce stress. To breathe clean air. 

To maybe see wildlife. Hopefully. And I think it kind 

of puts us in our place when we come out here. When 

you’re in your working environment and in a big city, 

humans tend to be so prevalent and about everything 

we do is so invasive. And when you come out here with 

just whatever you have on your back, I think it just 

humbles you and it makes you realize we’re just kind of 

parasites on this earth and whatever we do is affecting 

Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences Seekamp, Hall, and Cole
58 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

the beauty of it and the natural rhythms of it and so I 

think we just like to come out to remind ourselves and 

put our lives in perspective.

A few participants also mentioned that an awakening of the 

senses is another part of a wilderness experience:

Just being able to step onto the trail and smell the fresh 

air, and smell the pine needles and look at the big trees 

and try to wrap your arms around a big, thick-barked, 

Douglas fir.

Some participants said that a wilderness experience enables 

ancestral connections, such as to Native Americans, the ability 

to experience pre-colonization conditions, or being the first 

person to explore an area. One participant explained:

When I think of a wilderness I think of an untouched 

area. I think of something like this. Even though you 

can tell people have been here, sometimes you feel like 

the first person to walk into an area or you’re the first 

person to notice that new stuff is growing.

Another participant asserted that a wilderness experience “is 

like going back in time.” After collecting water, one participant 

explained: “So I had three water bottles, and I felt like some 

Native American or something bringing back all the water 

back to the tribe.”

Uniqueness of Wilderness Experiences

During the interviews, some conversations about wilderness 

experiences (n=91) also included a question about whether or 

not a wilderness experience is unique to federally designated 

wilderness areas. Two-thirds of these participants indicated 

that the experience was not unique to federally designated 

areas, while one-fifth found it to be unique. Other participants 

(11 percent) felt that, although the experience could be found 

outside of designated wilderness, the quality of the experience 

would be lower (for example, “Yes, but I don’t think it would 

be as peaceful”). Ten percent of participants were unsure of 

the uniqueness of wilderness experiences, while another four 

percent admitted to being unsure of the federal designation of 

wilderness.

Among those who provided a rationale as to why other areas provided the opportunity to have a wilderness experience 

(n=30), most stated that other areas can be equally or even 

more “remote” than designated wilderness, have “limited impact on it by humans,” are places where “there’s nobody else 

around except for you,” and have enough space where “you 

could get lost.” For example, one participant mentioned being 

aware of “some places that are not technically wilderness, that 

are remote, that people just don’t go into, so I can have some 

wilderness experience... so it doesn’t necessarily have to be 

a designated wilderness area.” Another participant stated, “if 

you try hard enough, you probably can” have a wilderness 

experience outside of designated wilderness. He explained:

I think that it’s more a state of mind a lot of times more 

than it is an area. There are places near where I live at 

where I can go hiking in and you’ll pass quite a number 

of people during the hike but you can still find solitude. 

Just for the day you can step off the trail, find a rock 

or a group of trees or something like that and get away 

from the main flow of people. You can find solitude.

For these participants, wilderness is a state of mind that isn’t 

only found in designated wilderness areas.

Some participants (n=13) who perceived wilderness experiences to be unique to federally designated wilderness areas 

also provided a specific rationale for their perspective. Most 

explained that the undeveloped nature of designated wilderness 

and the regulations that restrict “roads,” “cars,” “motors,” “logging,” and “buildings” made the experience unique, as well as 

“the lack of people.” For example, one participant explained:

Some of the hikes I’ve been on where I started to feel 

like I was having a great experience and you go over 

a ridge and see a clear cut, it’s something that’s disappointing. I thing that designated wilderness areas are 

better places for wilderness experiences than places 

maybe in a national forest that are open to development.

Discussion _______________________

We set out to understand what wilderness visitors think a 

“wilderness experience” is and whether visitors considered 

their wilderness visits to be wilderness experiences. Prompted 

by discussions about the changing demographics of wilderness 

users and increases in use—especially in day use—we wanted 

to know if visitors to these high use places, where solitude may 

be compromised, shared a conceptualization of wilderness 

experience similar to that set forth in the Wilderness Act, and 

whether they felt that use density affected the realization of a 

wilderness experience.

Our data show that natural features (for example, wildlife 

and scenic mountain vistas), natural and undeveloped conditions, and limited to no encounters with other visitors provide 

people with the opportunity to escape civilization, find isolation, and be self-reliant. As such, we found that wilderness 

experiences are multifaceted (Borrie and Birzell 2001), and 

the key attributes of ideal wilderness experiences identified 

by visitors are highly consistent with those outlined in the 

writing of the Wilderness Act (Hendee and Dawson 2002). 

We also found that most (67 percent) visitors interviewed at 

the three high use destinations reported having a wilderness 

experience. However, these participants often qualified their 

response by explaining how hiking off-trail, spending multiple 

days in wilderness, and hiking further from the trailhead makes 

an excursion into a truer wilderness experience. That is, we 

found that visitors conceptualize a wilderness experience on a 

sliding scale, with the most outstanding opportunities being in 

remote, undeveloped areas where they can be alone and find 

psychological relief from the modern world. Additionally, we 

found that these attributes can also be found—and are sometimes purposefully sought—outside of designated wilderness 

areas.

It seems then that use density affects the realization of wilderness experiences—especially in relation to solitude—as 

participants claimed that low use levels contribute to the feeling 

of a wilderness experience. Therefore, we were surprised by the 

Seekamp, Hall, and Cole Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 59

consistency with which participants reported having a wilderness experience regardless of type of user (day or overnight), 

place of contact (three rather different high use destinations), 

and use density at the time of our interviews (low, moderate, 

and high). We anticipated that day and overnight visitors would 

have different experience ‘thresholds’—particularly during periods of different use density—with overnight visitors holding 

more stringent experience requirements. The lack of difference 

between day and overnight users supports recent research that 

has revealed few differences based on length of stay (Cole and 

Hall 2010a, 2010b). Indeed, as many wilderness visitors are 

quite experienced, having taken many day and overnight trips, 

it is perhaps reasonable to expect them to identify the same set 

of factors that leads to a wilderness experience.

Given that use density varied so markedly day-to-day in each 

of the three study areas, we expected visitors to differ in the 

extent to which they felt they were actually having a wilderness 

experience at the time we contacted them. However, the lack 

of difference expressed in qualitative interviews is consistent 

with the weak relationship between use density and perceived 

crowding (Cole 2001) reported in quantitative studies, such 

as those that use satisfaction as a means of assessing effects 

on solitude (for example, Dawson and Watson 2000). The 

effect of use density on wilderness experience achievement 

may be masked by the variation in experience quality over 

the course of an entire trip. This effect would be consistent 

with the finding that some visitors were having a wilderness 

experience at certain times of their trip, substantiating Borrie 

and Roggenbuck’s (2001) notion of dynamic, emergent and 

multi-phasic wilderness experiences.

We also expected different degrees of wilderness experience 

achievement to emerge between the three destinations—particularly given the remoteness of the Lakes Basin Management 

Area—as each differed in distance from metropolitan areas to 

trailheads and distance from trailheads to specific attractors 

(lakes). In regards to the similarities found between the three 

destinations, it may be that just knowing that more outstanding 

opportunities exist further down the trail or in cross-country 

zones (off the trail) may wash out the influence of the area’s 

remoteness. That is, if high quality wilderness experiences are 

desired, visitors can find the escape and isolation desired near 

high use destinations by putting forth extra effort, spending 

more time or using advanced navigational skills. This may relate 

to the adaptable human phenomenon (Cole and Hall 2008a) 

in which people report high levels of satisfaction by altering 

their desired experiences to meet the conditions encountered 

during a wilderness visit.

Implications ______________________

These findings have several interesting implications. First, 

our findings verify that, to visitors, wilderness experiences 

are complex and dynamic. That is, wilderness experiences 

encompass assorted combinations of personal, social and environmental factors. These factors make having a wilderness 

experience not an “all or nothing” thing. Experience quality 

varies between trips and during trips because the experience 

is not just one thing. Additionally, there does not appear to be 

an obvious threshold beyond which an experience is not “a 

wilderness experience,” as the degree to which an experience 

is a wilderness experience is subjective and complex. As found 

in previous research (for example, Seekamp and Cole 2009), 

there do not appear to be any “clear-cut” distinctive elements 

of a wilderness experience due to its multifaceted nature. From 

a management standpoint this means that a specific adverse 

condition (such as use density) is not likely to destroy the 

experience, because there are likely to be many other positive conditions at the same time. Such diverse and adaptable 

experience factors may explain why high satisfaction levels are 

reported in quantitative assessments of wilderness experiences 

(for example, Dawson and Watson 2000).

Second, managers and researchers often argue that visitors 

are often naïve and do not know what a “wilderness experience” 

(as per the Wilderness Act) is. Our data do not support this assertion; most visitors articulated characteristics quite consistent 

with the language of the Wilderness Act. Many descriptions 

included the same words used by managers and researchers 

(remoteness, escape, solitude, natural, undeveloped, and selfreliance), while other words were less frequently included 

(freedom, primitive, isolation, privacy, challenge, humility, 

and a sense of timeless). Although some visitors have these 

“ideal” types of wilderness experiences in the high use places 

we studied, most are experienced enough to recognize that 

their experiences deviate in some ways and to some degree 

from this ideal due to the signs of use or management, or to 

the presence of other visitors.

Third, the characteristics and qualities of ideal or prototypical 

wilderness experiences amplify the need for quiet, undeveloped, 

natural areas to escape civilization, be away from other visitors, 

and be introspective. What, then, do these findings mean for 

management of wilderness destinations that receive high use? 

Do such areas provide wilderness experiences of high quality? 

While 67 percent of visitors reported that they were having a 

wilderness experience, one third of these people said that the 

experience was compromised in some way, and another 20 

percent of all participants said they were not having a wilderness experience at all. Many of the conditions that led to these 

negative responses are conditions that managers can address, 

such as campsite impacts or the number of other visitors present. Thus, one might conclude that wilderness experiences are 

in jeopardy at these locations, and managers should take action 

to bring experiences more in line with what visitors recognize 

as “true” wilderness experiences. Yet, visitation density at 

the time of the interview did not appear to play a substantial 

role in whether or not visitors reported having a wilderness 

experience. Some visitors noted that although high use, high 

impact places do not provide the most “outstanding” wilderness 

experiences, a more outstanding wilderness experience could 

be had by visiting more remote locations of the wilderness 

(i.e., increasing the distance they traveled or hiking off-trail). 

Thus, they recognize that, across each wilderness as a whole, 

outstanding opportunities for wilderness experiences are not 

presently in jeopardy, even if some high use destinations are 

quite heavily used.

Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences Seekamp, Hall, and Cole
60 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Fourth, the majority of visitors do not think that wilderness 

experiences are unique to designated wilderness areas; most 

believe that similar experiences can be had outside of designated wilderness. Similar to seeking “outstanding” wilderness 

experiences beyond or adjacent to high use destinations, visitors often explained that other remote areas exist outside of 

legally designated wilderness that provide similar experiential 

opportunities. However, other visitors recognized that experience quality may be lower or could easily become degraded 

in areas outside of wilderness, as certain activities are not 

restricted (for example, motorized recreation) or management 

controls are not present (for example, designated campsites). 

Given the potential for degraded or compromised experiences 

in areas outside of designated wilderness, managers should 

continue to foster outstanding wilderness experiences inside 

designated wilderness. This will help ensure that high quality 

wilderness experiences can be enjoyed by current and future 

generations, as envisioned by The Wilderness Act.

Finally, solitude continues to be a relevant part of a wilderness 

experience, especially where managers want to provide the most 

outstanding opportunities for wilderness experiences. Most of 

the people we interviewed mentioned the social environment as 

affecting wilderness experiences, even without prompting by 

us. However, other research suggests that people are generally 

unwilling to accept the tradeoffs (more restrictions) necessary 

to maximize solitude in order to achieve those true “wilderness” experiences (Hall and others 2010). It seems that many 

visitors to high use destinations have expectations that align 

with the actual use levels and elect to visit these destinations for 

other reasons (for example, high aesthetic value). Some of our 

participants even articulated knowing how to achieve solitude, 

if desired, during their trip (for example, hiking beyond the 

destination). Thus, managers face a quandary. Our interviews 

suggest that actions such as limiting use would improve the 

wilderness experience; yet most visitors prefer not having their 

access restricted and are generally quite satisfied with the “not 

quite ideal” wilderness types of experiences they can attain, 

even in these high use locations.

Conclusions______________________

Most studies of the wilderness experience have asked 

visitors how satisfied they were with their experience or the 

extent to which they experienced phenomena researchers 

consider important. In this emic study, visitors were allowed 

to describe the wilderness experience in their own words. The 

words most visitors use to describe a wilderness experience 

are highly consistent with the language of the Wilderness Act, 

researcher-derived attributes of wilderness experiences, and 

the types of experience wilderness managers seek to protect. 

They recognize the experience as being complex and dynamic, 

understand that there are many factors working to detract from 

an ideal experience, and have learned to cope with such factors. 

This suggests that visitors have a highly nuanced understanding 

of the wilderness experience and are much less naïve than is 

often assumed.

References _______________________

Borrie, William T.; Birzell, Robert M. 2001. Approaches to measuring quality of 

the wilderness experience. In: Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N., comps. 

Visitor use density and wilderness experience: proceedings; 2000 June 1-3; 

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

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 29-38.

Borrie, William T.; Meyer, Angela M.; Foster, Ian M. In press. Wilderness 

experiences as sanctuary and refuge from society. In: Cole, David N., comp. 

Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 

2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Borrie, William T.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 2001. The dynamic, emergent, and 

multi-phasic nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 33: 202-228.

Cole, David N. 2001. Visitor use density and wilderness experiences: A historical review of research. In Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N., comps. 

Visitor use density and wilderness experience: proceedings. 2000 June 1-3, 

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

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

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2008a. The “adaptable human” phenomenon: 

Implications for recreation management in high-use wilderness. In Weber, 

Samantha; Harmon, David, eds. Rethinking protected areas in a changing 

world. Proceedings of the 2007 George Wright Society Conference: 126-131.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2008b. Wilderness visitors, experiences, and 

management preferences: How they vary with use level and length of 

stay. Research Paper RMRS-RP-71. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 61 p.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2010a. Experiencing the restorative components 

of wilderness environments: Does congestion interfere and does length of 

exposure Matter? Environment & Behavior. 42: 806-823.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2010b. Privacy functions and wilderness 

recreation: Use density and length of stay effects on experience. Ecopsychology. 2: 67-75.

Cole, David N., Watson, Alan E., Hall, Troy E.; Spildie, David R. 1997. 

High-use destinations in wilderness. Social and biophysical impacts, 

visitor responses, and management options. Research Paper INT-RP-496. 

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

Research Station. 30 p.

Corbin, Juliet; Strauss, Anslem. 2008. Basics of qualitative research, 3rd ed. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. 379 p.

Dawson, Chad P; Watson, Alan E. 2000. Measures of wilderness trip satisfaction and user perceptions of crowding. In Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen 

F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Laughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in 

a time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, 

and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27. Missoula, MT. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 93-99.

Hall, Troy E.; Cole, David N. In press. Immediate conscious experience in 

wilderness: A phenomenological investigation. In: Cole, David N., comp. 

Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 

April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Hall, Troy E.; Johnson, Bradley J.; Cole, David N. 2007. Dimensions of wilderness experience: A qualitative investigation. Unpublished report, Aldo 

Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Available online at: http://leopold.

wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs7/qual_interview_rept_final.

pdf.

Hall, Troy E.; Seekamp, Erin; Cole, David N. 2010. Do recreation motivations 

and wilderness involvement relate to support for wilderness management? 

A segmentation analysis. Leisure Sciences. 32: 109-124.

Hammitt, William E. 1982. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude. 

Environment and Behavior. 14: 478-493.

Hammitt, William E. In press. Wilderness naturalness, privacy, and restorative 

experiences: An integrative model. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness 

visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; 

Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Hammitt, William. E.; Madden, Mark A. 1989. Cognitive dimensions of 

wilderness privacy: A field test and further explanation. Leisure Sciences. 

11: 293-301.

Seekamp, Hall, and Cole Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 61

Hammitt, William E., McDonald, Cary D.;Noe, Francis. 1984. Use level 

and encounters: Important variables of perceived crowding among nonspecialized recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research. 16: 1-9.

Hammitt, William E.; Rutlin, William M. 1995. Use encounter standards and 

curves for achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 17: 245-262.

Harris, Marvin. 1976. History and significance of the emic/etic distinction. 

Annual Review of Anthropology. 5: 329-350.

Harris, Marvin. 1979. Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of 

culture. New York: Vintage. 381 p.

Harris, Marvin. 2001. The rise of anthropological theory: A History of theories 

of culture. London: AltaMira Press. 806 p.

Headland, Thomas N.; Pike, Kenneth L.; Harris, Marvin. 1990. Emics and 

etics: The insider/outsider debate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 226 p.

Hendee, John C.; Dawson, Chad P. 2002. Wilderness management: Stewardship 

and protection of resources and values, 4th ed. Golden, CO: International 

Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation and Fulcrum Publishing. 525 p.

Johnson, Bradley J.; Hall, Troy E., Cole, David N. 2005. Naturalness, primitiveness, remoteness and wilderness: Wilderness visitors’ understanding 

and experience of wilderness qualities. Unpublished report, Aldo Leopold 

Wilderness Research Institute, Available online at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs7/4_qualities_report.pdf.

Lett, James W. 1987. The human enterprise: A critical introduction to anthropological theory. Boulder, CO: Westview. 178 p.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account 

of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New 

Guinea. London: Routledge. 527 p.

Manning, Robert, E. 1985. Crowding norms in backcountry settings: A review 

and synthesis. Journal of Leisure Research. 17: 75-89.

Morris, Michael. W.; Leung, Kwok.; Ames, Daniel; Lickel, Brian. 1999. Views 

from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture 

and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review. 24: 781-796. 

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

dimensions, condition indicators, and coping behaviors in wilderness. 

Leisure Sciences. 17: 263-279.

Seekamp, Erin; Cole, David N. 2009. Deliberating the experiential qualities 

of wilderness: Similar meanings, but divergent standards. International 

Journal of Wilderness. 15(3): 23-28.

Skinner, Burrhus F. 1938. The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 473 p.

Spillett, Marydee A. 2003. Peer debriefing: Who, what, when, why, how. 

Academic Exchange Quarterly. 7: 2529-2532.

Stewart, William P.; Cole, David N. 2001. Number of encounters and experience quality in Grand Canyon backcountry: Consistently negative and weak 

relationships. Journal of Leisure Research. 33: 106-120.

Vaske, Jerry J.; Graefe, Alan R.; Shelby, Bo; Heberlien, Thomas, A. 1986. 

Backcountry norms: Theory, method, and empirical evidence. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 18: 137-153.

Williams, Daniel R.; Patterson, Michael E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Watson, 

Alan E. 1992. Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and 

symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences14: 29-46.

Visitors’ Conceptualizations of Wilderness Experiences Seekamp, Hall, and Cole
62 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Abstract—It is suggested that the wilderness experience is a restorative 

experience that results from the interconnectivity between naturalness/remoteness and privacy/unconfinement and the four components 

essential for an environment to be restorative. A model-framework 

is offered to illustrate the linkages among the environmental, social, 

and restoration components of wilderness experiences, and the consequences/threats to the wilderness experience. It is concluded that 

the wilderness manager of the future will be a “human dimensions 

restoration manager,” with a role not much different from that of restoration ecologists, restoration architects, and restoration psychologists.

Introduction ______________________

Henry David Thoreau, during his two-year “being away 

to” Walden Pond experience, said he had three chairs at his 

cabin—one for solitude, two for company, and three for crowds. 

Solitude, in its truest sense, is a one-chair, one-person, alone, 

solitary, absent from the presence of others, phenomenon. 

Yet, the authors of the National Wilderness Preservation Act 

of 1964, and most recreation users of wilderness areas today 

mean something different when they speak of solitude.

Thoreau, for his two-year experiment in civil disobedience, 

chose the natural, remote, and unconfined character of Walden 

Pond as his laboratory. Though only a mere two mile distance 

from the developing village of Concord, it was far enough for 

Thoreau to be self-reliant, to self-regulate concerning thought 

and behavior, and to be in an environment free from the everyday restraint and command of others. While the Wilderness Act 

does speak of preserving the natural, remote, and unconfined, 

it does not speak of civil disobedience. Yet, each wilderness 

area designation and visit can be seen as an act of disobedience 

against the restraint and authority of an increasing population, 

expanding settlement, and the growing mechanization and 

technological burden that accompanies urbanization.

Thoreau found the two years he spent at Walden Pond to 

be rewarding and restorative and it spurred him to say, “In 

Wilderness is the Preservation of the World.” Nevertheless, he 

did return to the everyday hassles of a developing Concord. 

Wilderness users today also choose but to visit wilderness 

for a short while. While Thoreau considered the experience 

at Walden Pond a success in terms of civil disobedience, the 

real success of the experiment may have been his discovery 

and recognition of an “ecological intelligence” (McCallum 

2008) and “psychological restoration” (Kaplan 1995) that 

accompanies natural, remote, and unconfined places, where 

recovery from everyday mental fatigue can occur.

This paper postulates that many people, like Thoreau, need 

natural, remote, and unconfined places where mental restoration can occur. Furthermore, it is suggested that wilderness 

recreation experiences are similar to Thoreau’s experience at 

Walden Pond, and that the National Wilderness Preservation 

System is our laboratory. The aim of this paper is to connect 

the naturalness/remoteness of wilderness places with the solitude/unconfinement of wilderness experiences and to suggest 

how these elements of wilderness are connected to ecological 

intelligence and restorative experiences. The ultimate goal is 

to integrate the connectivity among these wilderness elements 

into a human restoration model for understanding wilderness 

recreation experiences of the future. It will be argued that the 

wilderness recreation manager of tomorrow will be a “human 

dimensions restoration manager,” with a role not much different from that of restoration ecologists, restoration architects, 

and restoration psychologists (Hammitt 2005).

Natural/Remote and Ecological 

Intelligence_______________________

The Wilderness Act begins by stating, “In order to assure 

that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding 

settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and 

modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, 

leaving no lands designated for presentation and protection 

in their natural condition...” (Section 2.(a), Public Law 88-

577). The Act goes on to say in Section 2.(c) that “An area 

of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of 

undeveloped Federal land...”

What is meant by preserving (and perhaps managing) the 

natural and remote conditions of wilderness is not explicitly 

defined by the Wilderness Act. This has led to an interesting 

Author: William E. Hammitt, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Naturalness, Privacy, and Restorative 

Experiences in Wilderness: An Integrative 

Model

William E. Hammitt
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 63

dilemma as to what natural conditions and management for 

naturalness should exist. For example, should naturalness be 

conceptualized and managed as: (1) the primeval conditions that 

existed before white-man dominance, (2) conditions where the 

wild forces of nature are more dominant than those of humans 

and the community of life is untrammeled by humans, or as 

(3) conditions of great biodiversity and dynamic ecosystem 

structures that demonstrate unaccelerated rates of alteration 

over time. Refer to Cole and Yung (2010) for a more complete 

discussion of these different concepts.

While the naturalness dilemma is complex, interesting, and 

of great significance to the understanding of how we preserve/

manage naturalness in wilderness, it does not address the 

question of why humans have felt a connection with nature, 

value its influence on human well-being and have fought so 

hard to preserve it. Of particular importance to this paper is 

the question: why do humans consider nature and naturalness 

a significant aspect of wilderness recreation experiences?

Perhaps the answer is in what Ian McCallum (2008) terms 

“ecological intelligence.” Many authors have written about 

the human-nature relationship, stressing the deep visceral and 

emotional importance of this relationship in dealing with the 

everyday world we live in, and the healing/recovery aspects of 

natural/remote areas (for example, Abbey 1968; Wilson 1984; 

Winston 2002). McCallum uses the term ecological intelligence 

to refer to the fact that humans are a part of the web of life in 

which everything is genetically and molecularly linked and that 

human perception and cognition have deep evolutionary roots. 

We may be culturally resistant to accepting our evolutionary 

basis but we have to recognize its significance when interacting 

with the natural world (McCallum 2008, p.3). McCallum states 

that the evidence is there: the unraveling and mapping of the 

human genome and subsequent discovery that more than 90 

percent of it is shared with every other mammal is proof that 

humans are perhaps more a product of evolution and ecological intelligence than cultural intelligence. However, there is 

no denying that both are at play in human relationships and 

meanings associated with natural and remote places.

As related to wilderness experiences, McCallum argues:

“I believe that our identity is intimately associated 

with a deep historical sense of continuity with wild 

places and the animals that live there—that we have an 

ancient, genetic memory of where we have come from. 

These are the places that permit us to say, sometimes 

unreservedly, it is as if this place is in my blood...it is 

as if I have come home.” (p. 3)

A medical doctor and psychiatrist, McCallum also believes 

that wild places help humans heal from what he terms a restless depression or “homesickness.” More will be said about the 

relevance of the healing/recovery effects of wild places later 

when restorative environments and experiences are considered.

In summary, natural and remote conditions matter to humans 

and an affinity exists for wild and natural/remote places. We are 

human-animals, as defined by our DNA and past evolutionary 

roots, and perhaps, possess an innate ability and intelligence to 

perceive, understand, function, and feel “at home” in natural 

environments. Perhaps the Wilderness Act of 1964 was but 

one small result of our ecological intelligence...an instinctive 

act to preserve natural places to come home to, now and in the 

future.

Solitude and Privacy _______________

The Wilderness Act did not stop with the preservation of 

“natural areas without permanent improvements or human 

inhabitation.” It went on to state that these natural areas should 

have “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation” (Section 2.(c).)

Outstanding opportunities for solitude could infer the ultimate condition of being completely alone, absent of others 

when experiencing wilderness. Obviously, the authors of the 

Act meant something different than solitary recreation, for 

people are seldom alone in wilderness, particularly when on 

overnight trips. More importantly, being alone is not what 

most wilderness visitors want; nor is it necessary for most 

wilderness recreation users to experience outstanding opportunities for solitude. Less than two percent of wilderness users 

stay overnight alone (Dawson and Hendee 2009). So, if the 

wilderness recreation experience does not mean outstanding 

opportunities to be alone, what does it mean?

The concept of privacy and its various dimensions is a more 

meaningful psychological descriptor of the solitude most users 

want to experience in wilderness. Most wilderness users want 

to be alone with others (Lee 1977) —not truly alone. They 

want to have selective control of access to the self and one’s 

group (Altman 1975) and to determine for themselves or their 

group when, how, and to what extent information about them 

is communicated to others, and from others to them (Westin 

1967). Privacy is a vital basic need of humans, and its presence can be found in most environments. It serves as a coping 

mechanism for controlling the socio-environmental situation in 

which one must function. It is a boundary control and regulating 

mechanism, similar to an osmotic membrane, which basically 

serves as an instrument for achieving a desired environmental 

state and individual freedom of choice (Proshansky and others 

1976). Too little privacy means too much access and interaction 

with others, whereas too much privacy can lead to loneliness 

(Pedersen 1997).

Privacy is not a permanent state of being, but a voluntary 

withdrawal of a person from everyday society through physical and/or psychological means, either in a state of solitude 

or small-group intimacy or, when among larger groups, in a 

condition of anonymity or reserve (Westin 1976). Wilderness 

solitude is generally recognized to include other realms of 

privacy than being alone, particularly small group intimacy 

(Hammitt 1982). Acknowledging that privacy is a meaningful, 

basic underlying component of wilderness experiences, it may 

serve well to summarize Westin’s four dimensions of privacy 

and the four functions it serves (Table 1), and to summarize 

research supporting the dimensions and functions of privacy 

in wilderness.

Research investigating Westin’s states and functions of privacy in wilderness indicate that Intimacy and the function of 

Emotional Release are key elements of wilderness experiences. 

Naturalness, Privacy, and Restorative Experiences in Wilderness: An Integrative Model Hammitt
64 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Table 1—Definitions of Westin’s (1967) dimensions and functions of privacy.

Dimensions of Privacy

Solitude—complete isolation The individual is separated from the group and freed from the 

observations of others.

Intimacy The individual is acting as part of a small unit, seeking to 

achieve a close, personal relationship between two or more 

select members.

Anonymity The individual is in a public setting, but still seeks and achieves 

freedom from identification, surveillance, and social roles.

Reserve The individual keeps a “mental distance,” creates a 

psychological barrier against unwanted intrusion, and 

reserves the right not to reveal certain aspects about oneself.

Functions of Privacy

Emotional release It provides for respite from the psychological tensions and 

stresses of social roles in everyday society.

Self-evaluation It integrates one’s experiences into a meaningful pattern and 

allows one to be in control of events.

Limited communication It provides opportunities needed for sharing confidence and 

intimacies with those trusted.

Protected communication It serves to set necessary boundaries of mental distance in 

interpersonal situations

For example, only 10 percent or less of visitors agree that they 

“cannot have a profound sense of solitude unless completely 

alone” (Cole and Hall 2010a). Other research on achieved 

level of desired privacy in wilderness found that intimacy, 

going into wilderness in small groups of intimate friends, is 

the major form of wilderness privacy (Hammitt 1982; Hammitt and Madden 1989; Priest and Bugg 1991; Hammitt and 

Rutlin 1997). Furthermore, these studies suggest that privacy, 

primarily in the form of intimacy of small groups is what the 

wilderness user may really be seeking regarding solitude, and 

may be the meaning behind the language of the Wilderness 

Act (Hammitt 1982; Cole and Hall 2010a).

Limited research on the functions of privacy in wilderness 

(Hammitt and Brown 1984; Priest and Bugg 1991; Cole and 

Hall 2010a) reveals that emotional release, recovery from everyday stress and tension, is the major function of wilderness 

privacy. Studies have consistently indicated that “resting the 

mind from anxiety and mental fatigue” and “mental rejuvenation” are major components of wilderness privacy. Privacy 

frees the mind of routine events and allows for an attentional 

state where reflective thought, self-evaluation, and the integration of events take on importance. Also of importance is the 

privacy benefit of devoting less attention to the behavior of 

other individuals when operating in wilderness environments. 

“Other individuals” are an important and salient component 

of environmental perception, attracting and occupying our 

attention when they are present. Privacy offers relief from the 

need to devote direct attention to others, eliminating the need 

to monitor and cope with the behavior of others. Even during 

the privacy state of intimacy, one is associated with “familiar 

others,” individuals whose behavior is quite predictable and, 

therefore, requires less monitoring. It is argued in the next 

section that simply freeing the mind from monitoring the presence of others allows for devoting more voluntary attention and 

mental capacity to personal autonomy, reflective thought, and 

associated restorative aspects of wilderness privacy in natural 

environments.

Wilderness Restoration and 

Restorative Experiences____________

A major premise of this paper is that the natural and remote 

elements of wilderness places allow for the solitude/privacy 

and unconfined type of recreation that promotes the recovery, 

healing and restorative aspects of wilderness experiences. 

Although not stated specifically in the Wilderness Act, early 

writings on the need for wilderness note the human need for 

natural and remote places conducive to mental recovery and 

human restoration. Marshall (1930) asserted that “convalescing 

in the wilderness was a psychic necessity,” given the “terrible 

neural tension of modern existence” and Zahniser in 1949 

wrote that wilderness visits can assist in “healing the mental 

disorders resulting from too much continuous crowding with 

other people and from the tensions in abstracting mental activity 

from physical exertion, which is so characteristic of modern 

living” (as cited in Harvey 2005; Cole and Hall 2010b).

These early statements about wilderness have been buttressed 

by the considerable research that has been conducted on restorative environments and restoration (Kaplan 1995; Korpela and 

Hartig 1996; Kaplan and others 1998; Hartig 2001; Hartig and 

Staats 2003; Herzog and others 2003; Hammitt 2005; Berto 

2005; Chang and others 2008; Cole and Hall 2010b). Guiding most of this work has been the theoretical framework of 

Hammitt Naturalness, Privacy, and Restorative Experiences in Wilderness: An Integrative Model
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 65

Attention Restorative Theory (Kaplan 1995), which provides 

an explanation for both the mental fatigue that occurs in everyday life and recovery aspects of restorative environments 

and restoration experiences. Because I believe psychological 

restoration is a critical function of wilderness recreation, the 

wilderness experience, and human well-being in general, the 

restoration process will be summarized in some detail.

Wilderness Recreation and Restoration

For most people, the wilderness experience is about recreation. Kelly (1996) states that:

“recreation stems from the Latin recreatio, which refers 

to restoration or recovery. The term implies the restoration of ability to function. Recreation contains the 

concept of restoration of wholeness of mind, spirit, and 

body. It presupposes some other activity that depletes, 

tires, or deteriorates that wholeness” (p.25).

It is the wholeness of mind in terms of recovery from mental 

fatigue that is the outcome of restorative recreation and wilderness experiences. Kelly’s restoration definition of recreation 

serves well as an introduction to the components and role of 

Attention Restoration Theory (ART) in wilderness experiences.

Attention component—The Attention component of ART 

concerns two types of mental focus or attention states utilized 

by humans while processing information and functioning in 

various environmental settings (Kaplan 1995). The first type of 

attention, Involuntary Attention, requires little effort on the part 

of humans in terms of keeping focused on the environmental 

information to be processed. It is employed when stimuli, 

both content and process, are interesting, involving, and automatically hold our mental alertness and focus. Involuntary 

attention is a pleasure mode of environmental information 

processing and functioning, and comes at no cost to humans. 

Unfortunately, not all environmental stimuli are interesting and 

involving in terms of information processing and functioning. 

In fact, the majority of our everyday existence may find us in 

environmental settings where the stimuli we must deal with are 

not the most interesting and involving, yet must be processed 

and acted upon. Driving to work each morning in busy traffic 

or dealing with complex tasks at work are examples. In these 

situations, humans must call upon Directed Attention, which 

involves a forced and burdensome form of focused attention 

that requires great effort. The stimuli that must be dealt with 

may be mentally demanding, and of little interest in terms of 

desired mental involvement.

While humans seem to be quite efficient at using directed 

attention, it comes at a mental fatiguing cost and can be employed efficiently for only so long. As the mind (and perhaps 

body) fatigues from the forced attention required, the mind 

often wanders to more appealing stimuli, thereby decreasing the 

efficiency of directed attention. When this occurs, a recovery 

period is necessary, where humans can recover from mental 

fatigue and restore the ability to once again use directed attention when called upon.

Restoration process—The restoration process involves 

recovery from the cost and pain of directed attention and 

mental fatigue. Kaplan (1995) has theorized that the restoration 

process involves the recovery of a worn-out inhibitor control 

mechanism that is employed by humans during directed attention to ward-off or inhibit more appealing stimuli from 

dominating our attention. The means by which the inhibitor 

control mechanism is restored is to not use it; to use no-cost 

involuntary attention (such as natural areas, the TV room, and 

so on) instead of directed attention. This is done by seeking 

environmental settings where the dominant form of information 

processing and functioning is involuntary attention. Kaplan 

identifies such environments and experiences as restorative.

Restorative environments and experiences provide for states of 

involuntary attention, where the inhibitor control can recover. 

This restores the ability to again use directed attention when 

needed. Thus, restorative environments are key to the restoration process that occurs in natural areas such as wilderness.

The restorative environment—Recovery and the restoration process during wilderness recreation depend entirely upon 

the availability of restorative environments. Most outdoor 

recreation environments qualify as restorative environments 

because natural areas contain stimuli and informational content 

that rank high in the psychological components and attention states necessary for an environment to have restorative 

qualities. Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan (1998) postulate that four 

psychological components must all be present for an environment to be restorative: Being Away, Extent, Fascination, and 

Compatibility.

Being away—Restorative environments must offer the opportunity and qualities to be in a different geographical and/or 

physical location that is removed from the everyday routines 

of one’s life. However, it is not restorative to just be away to 

a different environment if everyday routines and tasks accompany you. As Kaplan (1995) stresses, where one is being 

away to is every bit as important as to where one is being away 

from. The Being Away component is not the same as escape, 

because the environment one is going to and its qualities are 

of utmost importance to the restoration process. In the words 

of McCallum (2008), “coming home” to nature is important.

Extent—Being away to another environment is not sufficient for restoration, for the scope of the other environment 

must be considered. Restorative environments must offer new 

worlds of mental exploration which provide new environmental 

information to process and function within. The everyday environment we commonly function within can become familiar 

and limited in the scope of new information to process. It can 

become demanding in terms of uninteresting information that 

must be processed. Outdoor environments provide “other” 

settings and worlds of information that are extensive in scope 

yet fascinating to explore.

Fascination—Environmental stimuli and information that 

is fascinating calls forth involuntary attention and holds it, 

making this attribute important to the restorativeness of the 

environment. Fascination refers to not just novel, exciting, 

Naturalness, Privacy, and Restorative Experiences in Wilderness: An Integrative Model Hammitt
66 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

and active content and processes within the environments 

(such as animal sightings), but also to more passive elements, 

such as water flow, sunsets, snow fall, and the whistling wind. 

Movement is also not necessary, for the structure and form of 

mountain ranges, for example, can occupy our attention for 

long periods of time.

Compatibility—Compatibility concerns the element of 

agreement or fit between how one wants to function, socially, 

mentally, and physically, within an environment and how that 

environment affords the opportunity to function as desired. It 

refers to the environmental fit between human intentions and 

environmental affordances. Environments that demonstrate a 

great deal of congruity between individual inclinations, environmental patterns, and the actions required by the environment 

have restorative properties.

Restorative Process and Experiences

Environments then, of which wilderness environments are 

one example, are restorative if they contain all four of the 

psychological components: being away, extent, fascination, 

and compatibility. They are restorative in the sense that the 

four components facilitate the use of involuntary attention, 

which in turn promotes the recovery from directed attention 

and mental fatigue, resulting in restorative experiences for 

humans.

A Wilderness Experience Restoration 

Model ___________________________

The ultimate purpose of this paper is to connect the natural/

remoteness of wilderness places, the solitude/privacy of wilderness settings, and the restorative qualities of wilderness 

environments into an integrative model to better understand and 

manage opportunities for wilderness experiences (Figure 1). 

The model is based on the premise that there are interconnected 

environmental, social, and mental conditions associated with 

wilderness that are conducive to human restoration during 

wilderness recreation experiences. There are also threats to 

these preferred conditions. Knowledge about these preferred 

conditions and threats can be used by wilderness managers 

to enhance or correct, respectively, conditions that further 

restoration experience opportunities. For example, preferred 

environmental conditions include the natural, undeveloped, 

and remote aspects of wilderness that facilitate the being away, 

extent, fascination, and compatibility qualities of restorative 

environments. Remoteness allows for being away to a different geographic place with different routine and task functions. 

The size of wilderness is related to the scope of information 

available. Naturalness allows for the diversity of organisms, 

structure, and ecological processes that provide fascination. And 

natural and undeveloped conditions rank high in compatibility 

Figure 1—An integrative model of environmental, social, and restorative components during wilderness 

recreation experiences.

Hammitt Naturalness, Privacy, and Restorative Experiences in Wilderness: An Integrative Model
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 67

qualities, particularly from the perspective of ecological intelligence and functioning in wilderness. The social conditions 

of privacy and intimacy are also closely connected with the 

natural and restorative components of wilderness. Wilderness 

privacy implies being away to natural and remote conditions 

where the potential for intimacy and restoration are substantial. Privacy is a process involving a continuous interplay of 

opposing forces—shutting oneself off from others at one moment (to self-regulate) and opening oneself up to interpersonal 

(intimacy) contacts at another time. Wilderness allows for this 

optimizing process (Hammitt and Rutlin 1995). Adapting Altman’s (1975, 1977) ecological analysis of privacy, wilderness 

privacy can be defined as “a geographic, social, and mental 

boundary control process that regulates, paces, and control’s 

accessibility at various information processing levels to give 

coherence and restoration to people’s being.”

As this modification of Altman’s definition infers, the 

geographic and social boundaries of privacy in wilderness 

are closely integrated with the mental conditions, boundaries 

and restorative elements of wilderness. For example, just as 

one can have incompatibility between what one wants to do 

and what the physical environment demands, so can one have 

incompatibility in the degree of social information one desires 

to process and what one is required to process. Central to the 

functions served by wilderness privacy, particularly emotional release, tranquility and peacefulness, is the avoidance 

of distractions. Distractions are incompatible elements of the 

wilderness experience that require directed attention. Distractions cause extra effort on the part of individuals to stay with 

the task at hand, and lead to a state of mental incompatibility 

between what needs to be attended to and what one wants to 

attend to. User conflicts, management rules and regulations, 

and environmental hassles are but a few examples.

It is this connectivity between the natural/restorative properties and the desired privacy dimensions of wilderness that 

should allow involuntary attention to operate. This is the mental 

component of the model in Figure 1. When the mind is free of 

distractions in a restorative environment, involuntary attention 

can take over, mental capacity recovers, and restoration can 

occur. The model suggests that wilderness should provide opportunities for restoration. Research in natural environments 

(Ulrich and others 1991; Percell and others 2001; Herzog and 

others 2003) and wilderness areas (Cole and Hall 2010b) indicate that most visitors do report “substantial stress reduction 

and mental rejuvenation, and most experience the environment 

in ways considered conducive to restoration” (p.806).

The threats in the model pertain to distractions and conflicts—both environment and privacy related—that often result 

from undesirable interactions, behavioral interference that 

requires directed attention. The need to employ directed attention threatens recovery, leading to an inability to self-regulate 

information processing and eventually, to mental fatigue and 

stress.

Implications ______________________

Several implications can be drawn from this discussion of 

naturalness, privacy and restorative experiences in wilderness 

that might serve managers and researchers in the future.

1. The wilderness experience is as much about enjoying 

“outstanding opportunities for natural conditions” as 

it is about “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” Humans 

have had a long, genetics-based history with nature and 

have developed an ecological intelligence for understanding and functioning with nature. They value nature as 

an important component of the wilderness recreation 

experience. It is naïve to consider the natural component 

of wilderness to be the domain of the ecologist, and the 

solitude, primitive and unconfined recreation component 

the domain of the social scientist. As the model in Figure 

1 illustrates, the natural/remote elements of wilderness 

are interconnected with the elements of wilderness privacy. Together they facilitate the restorative benefits of 

the wilderness experience. Wilderness managers must 

be cognizant of restorative opportunities in wilderness 

environments. This perspective will require a new understanding and training for wilderness managers regarding 

psychological perspectives on the restoration process in 

restorative environments.

2. While ecologists may currently define naturalness in 

terms of diversity, it is this same diversity (in term of type 

and number of species) that provides for the fascination, 

compatibility, and involuntary attention that humans find 

so restorative. Thus, it is the same diversity of natural 

environments that also accounts for much of the wellbeing and restorativeness of wilderness experiences.

3. Wilderness experiences are more about privacy than 

about solitude. Wilderness privacy and the many realms 

of being away with others and freedom of choice that 

humans seek in remote natural environments provide 

a more complete understanding of wilderness solitude 

than “being alone.” Wilderness privacy is not so much 

individual isolation as it is a form of privacy in a specific 

environmental setting in which intimate individuals experience an acceptable and preferred degree of control 

and choice over the type and amount of information they 

must process. The seeking of wilderness privacy may be 

a coping strategy by which humans optimize freedom 

to experience tranquility, peace of mind, and mental 

recovery from everyday environments and the fatigue 

associated with focused attention. Wilderness managers 

and researchers must consider the essential question: 

Is wilderness (and the associated experience) a natural, 

primitive place of unconfined conditions where mental 

freedom is promoted and metal states of tranquility and 

peacefulness are restored (Hammitt and Madden 1989)?

Naturalness, Privacy, and Restorative Experiences in Wilderness: An Integrative Model Hammitt
68 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

4. Many managers are concerned with use density and 

number of user encounters in their wilderness. However, 

density and number of encounters are only surrogate 

measures of wilderness congestion, solitude/privacy 

and the wilderness experience. Moreover, they may be 

poor surrogate measures. Just as use density and number of encounters have not been adequate predictors 

of wilderness experience satisfaction (Manning 2011), 

of wilderness crowding (Shelby 1980), and wilderness 

solitude/privacy (Cole and Hall 2010a; Hammitt and 

Rutlin 1997), they are not expected to be good predictors 

of the wilderness experience. This is because perceived 

crowding and solitude/privacy are not a direct function 

of number of people per unit area. Rather, they are an 

environmental assessment that results from perceptual 

and evaluative processes (Hammitt 1983). They involve a 

negative appraisal of an environmental situation (Schmidt 

and Keating 1979). In interacting and functioning within 

any environmental setting, humans must perceive the 

information present in that environment, appraise that 

information, and decide to what degree the immediate 

environmental situation is appropriate for the human 

action desired.

 Stokols and others (1973) suggest that certain physical, 

personal, and social factors sensitize people to actual or 

potential spatial constraints in an environmental setting. 

People may be predisposed to attend to the various environmental cues that serve to forewarn them of possible 

restrictions created by social density. In appraising a 

crowded and/or non-private wilderness setting, users 

often perceive an inability to deal with conditions created by spatial/functional density and hence anticipate or 

experience goal blockage, spatial restrictions, or mental 

overload (Stokols 1976). Thus, use density for an entire 

wilderness or for an entire trail is likely to be a poor 

indicator of “outstanding opportunities for solitude” 

and the wilderness experience.

5. The consequences of “going home” (McCallum 2008) to 

natural/remote places where privacy can be experienced, 

and the elements of restorative environments prevail, 

is a restorative experience. Threats to the restorative 

experience in wilderness are impacts, distractions, and 

conflicts that interfere with the connectivity and stability 

of wilderness ecosystems and wilderness experiences. 

Negative impacts to the naturalness/remoteness of 

wilderness environments, and to the privacy/unconfinement of wilderness environments and privacy experiences, are threats to the recovery potential of restorative 

experiences. As stated earlier in this paper, a threat to 

the diversity of wilderness ecosystems is also a threat 

to one or more of the four restoration components of 

a restorative environment. Just as greater diversity in 

number and richness of species adds stability to wilderness ecosystems, privacy opportunities and greater 

freedom of choice add stability to wilderness experiences. 

Wilderness managers must work toward the protection 

and/or management of the consequences and/or threats 

associated with restoration processes in wilderness.

Conclusion_______________________

Based on the literature reviewed in this paper, the interconnectivity of the topics discussed, the model linkages presented, 

and the fact that a standard definition of the wilderness experience does not exist, it is argued and concluded that:

• Outstanding opportunities for naturalness and remoteness 

are as important as outstanding opportunities for solitude 

and a type of unconfined recreation to providing restorative 

wilderness experiences.

• Wilderness privacy, particularly the intimacy dimension 

and emotional release function, provide a more meaningful understanding of the wilderness experience than does 

wilderness solitude.

• The wilderness environment is a restorative environment 

and the wilderness experience is a restoration/recovery 

experience. While the wilderness experience can be argued 

to be many things, it is ultimately about an experience 

where the human mind, body, and spirit are restored (Kelly 

1996).

Current wilderness managers may not be aware of and have 

an inadequate understanding of the integration model presented, 

and the appreciation of wilderness experiences as restorative 

experiences. If so, education and training may be necessary. 

As argued elsewhere (Hammitt 2005), wilderness managers 

are ultimately in the business of restoration. They are “human 

dimension restoration managers.” As such, their role is similar 

to that of (1) restoration ecologists, whose mission is to restore 

worn-out environments to some accepted natural condition; 

(2) restoration architects, who refurbish run-down buildings 

to some original state; and (3) restoration psychologists, who 

help mentally fatigued and dysfunctional individuals to again 

function as they once did. This will be the role of the wilderness manager for the next 50 years, and beyond.

References _______________________

Abbey, E. 1968. Desert solitaire. New York: Random House. 269 p.

Altman, I. 1975. The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, 

and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole Publishing. 256 p.

Altman, I. 1977. Privacy regulation: Culturally universal or culturally specific. 

Journal of Social Issues. 33: 66-84.

Berto, R. 2005. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional 

capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 25: 249-259.

Chang, C.; Hammitt, W. E.; Chen, P.; Machnik, L.; Su, W. 2008. Psychophysiological responses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. 

Landscape and Urban Planning. 85: 79-84.

Cole, D. N.; Hall, T. E. 2010a. Privacy functions and wilderness recreation: Use 

density and length of stay effects on experience. Ecopsychology. 2: 67-75. 

Cole, D. N.; Hall, T. E. 2010b. Experiencing the restorative components of 

wilderness environments: Does congestion interfere and does length of 

exposure matter? Environment and Behavior. 42: 806-823.

Hammitt Naturalness, Privacy, and Restorative Experiences in Wilderness: An Integrative Model
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 69

Cole, D. N.; Yung, L, eds. 2010. Beyond naturalness: Rethinking park and 

wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 287 p.

Dawson, C. P.; Hendee, J. C. 2009. Wilderness management: Stewardship 

and protection of resources and values, 4th ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum 

Publishing. 525 p.

Hammitt, W. E. 1982. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude. Environment and Behavior. 14: 478-493.

Hammitt, W. E. 1983. Toward an ecological approach to perceived crowding 

in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences. 5: 309-320.

Hammitt, W. E. 2005. A restorative definition for outdoor recreation. In: 

Bricker, K., comp., Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation 

Research Symposium. General Technical Report NE-326. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Experiment Station: 1-5.

Hammitt, W. E.; Brown, G. F. 1984. Functions of privacy in wilderness 

environments. Leisure Sciences. 6: 151-166.

Hammitt, W. E.; Madden, M. A. 1989. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness 

privacy: A field test and further explanation. Leisure Sciences. 11: 293-301.

Hammitt, W. E.; Rutlin, W. M. 1997. Achieved privacy in wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 3(1): 19-24.

Hartig, T. 2001. Restorative environments. Environment and Behavior. 33: 4.

Hartig, T.; Staats, H. 2003. Restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23: 2

Harvey, M. 2005. Wilderness forever: Howard Zahniser and the path to the 

Wilderness Act. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 325 p.

Herzog, T. R.; Maguire, C.; Nebel, M. B. 2003. Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23: 159-170.

Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S.; Ryan, R. L. 1998. With people in mind: Design and 

management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press. 225 p.

Kaplan, S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative 

framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15: 169-182.

Kelly, J. R. 1996. Leisure, 3rd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 436 p.

Korpela, K.; Hartig, T. 1996. Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal 

of Environmental Psychology. 16: 221-233.

Lee, R. G. 1977. Alone with others: The paradox of privacy in the wilderness. 

Leisure Sciences. 1: 3-19.

Manning, R. E. 2011. Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for 

satisfaction, 3rd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 468 p.

Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the wilderness. Scientific Monthly. 28: 

141-148.

McCallum, I. 2008. Ecological intelligence. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. 239 p.

Pedersen, D. M. 1997. Psychological functions of privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 17: 147-156.

Percell, A. T.; Peron, E.; Berto, R. 2001. Why do preferences differ between 

scene types? Environment and Behavior. 33: 93-106.

Priest, S.; Bugg, R. 1991. Functions of privacy in Australian wilderness 

environments. Leisure Sciences. 13: 247-255.

Proshansky, H. M.; Ittleson, W. H.; Rivlin, L. G. 1976. Freedom of choice 

and behavior in a physical setting. In: Proshansky, H. M.; Ittleson, W. H.; 

Rivlin, L. G., eds. Environmental psychology: People and their physical 

setting, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston: 170-181.

Schmidt, D. E.; Keating, J. P. 1979. Human crowding and personal control: 

An integration of the research. Psychological Bulletin. 86: 680-700.

Shelby, B. 1980. Crowding models for backcountry recreation. Land Economics. 56: 43-55.

Stokols, D. 1976. The experience of crowding and privacy and secondary 

environments. Environment and Behavior. 8: 49-86.

Stokols, D.; Rall, M.; Pinner, B.; Schoper, J. 1973. Physical, social, and 

personal determinants of the perception of crowding. Environment and 

Behavior. 5: 87-115.

Westin, A. F. 1967. Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum. 487 p.

Wilson, E. D. 1984. Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press. 157 p.

Winston, R. 2002. Human instinct: How our primeval impulses shape our 

modern lives. London: Random House. 416 p.

Ulrich, R. S.; Simons, R.; Losito, B. D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M. A.; Zelson, M. 

1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 11: 201-230.

Naturalness, Privacy, and Restorative Experiences in Wilderness: An Integrative Model Hammitt
70 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Authors: William T. Borrie, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of 

Montana, Missoula, MT; Angela M. Meyer, Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB; and Ian M. Foster, College of Forestry and 

Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Abstract—Wilderness areas provide a sanctuary from human 

domination, for the plants and animals that exist there and also for 

the visitors who come there to escape the demands and pressures of 

modern society. As a place of refuge and sanctuary, we have found 

wilderness to allow experiences of connection, engagement and belonging. Two studies help illustrate the role of wildness (freedom from 

intentional human control) in wilderness, one focusing on gendered 

experiences of wilderness and another considering spiritual experiences in wilderness. Following the intent of Howard Zahniser, architect 

of the Wilderness Act of 1964, we call on managers to maintain the 

freedom and wildness of wilderness, lightening the burden on nature 

and on the experience of nature.

Introduction ______________________

The definition of wilderness used to establish the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. 

C. 1131-1136)) clearly places wilderness in contrast to a human 

dominated location:

Sec. 2. (a) “In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing 

mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas 

within the United States and its possessions, leaving 

no lands designated for preservation and protection 

in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be 

the policy of the Congress to secure for the American 

people of present and future generations the benefits 

of an enduring resource of wilderness.”

Wilderness provides a counter to modern, technological 

society; a society in which we continue to grow, expand and 

occupy. Protected areas such as wilderness provide a space for 

freedom of movement, unrestrained by outside human intention, 

not only for animals but also for visitors. As such, wilderness 

Wilderness Experiences as Sanctuary and 

Refuge from Society

William T. Borrie

Angela M. Meyer

Ian M. Foster

areas provide a sanctuary or refuge in which plants, animals 

and visitors can freely engage with each other and potentially 

with spiritual beings or gods. In wild places, the demands and 

impositions of human society are distant and less intrusive. This 

autonomy, or wildness, was a central purpose of the Wilderness 

Act according to its primary author (Zahniser 1992a). Likewise, in 1946 influential conservationist Sigurd Olson (2001) 

suggested that the “real function [of wilderness] will always 

be as a spiritual backlog in the high-speed mechanical world 

in which we live” (p. 65).

This paper explores the role of wilderness as a contrast to the 

highly human-modified world in which most of us live. Jack 

Turner (1991) suggests that while wilderness is both a concept 

and a place it is wildness that is the important quality. In discussing wildness, it will be apparent this quality applies both 

to ecological as well as experiential conditions in wilderness. 

Indeed, in contrast to a dualistic separation of humans from 

nature, we suggest wilderness offers outstanding opportunities 

for healing that separation. As a place of refuge and sanctuary, 

we have found wilderness to allow feelings of connection, 

engagement, and belonging. Two studies are described here 

that examine these experiences of wilderness, one focusing 

on gendered experiences of wilderness and another examining 

the phenomenology of spiritual experiences in wilderness. We 

begin first with a discussion of wildness, noting however that 

to distill down the many facets and meanings of wilderness 

into any one quality, such as wildness, is problematic; there are 

other qualities, such as naturalness, that are deeply intertwined.

Wildness_________________________

Trying to define wildness is tricky at best. While it is quite 

common to view it as freedom from intentional human control, 

the process of explaining and diagramming the concept is itself 

a human practice of containment. Henry Bugbee (1958) has 

argued that,

“The world does not become less ‘unknown’ ... in proportion to the increase of our knowledge about it. We 

might be nearer the mark in saying that the understanding of our position is not fundamentally consummated 

merely as knowledge about the world. The world is 

not unknown, for example, as a secret withheld from 

us is unknown to us. As Marcel would put it, our experience of the world involves us in a mystery which 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 71

can be intelligible to us only as mystery. The more we 

experience things in depth, the more we participate in 

a mystery intelligible to us only as such; and the more 

we understand our world to be an unknown world. 

Our true home is wilderness, even the world of every 

day” (p. 76).

Just because wildness is by definition less knowable, however, does not make it any less valuable. Perhaps to understand 

wildness is to first acknowledge what science does not, and 

may not be able to, know. There are some excellent discussions (such as, Landres 2010) and source writings (such as, 

Griffiths 2006; Snyder 1990; Turner 1996) that can help us 

identify the aspects of wildness worth thought and protection. 

That is, instead of a predictive goal, a descriptive role may suffice. Our actions may need to be less grounded in predictable 

circumstances and more in the context of unknowable and 

presumably chaotic occurrences and consequences. A certain 

humility of unknowing and an openness to experience may be 

important. As one of us has written elsewhere (Borrie 2004, 

p. 18), there is a,

“deliberate setting apart of wilderness from the forces 

of change that are associated with modern, technological society. ... Wilderness is symbolic of restraint and 

reserve, suggesting the importance of lightening the 

burden of humanity on nature and upon the experience 

of nature.”

The Wilderness Act of 1964 makes particular use of the word 

“untrammeled” in its prescription that:

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man 

and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby 

recognized as an area where the earth and its community 

of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is 

a visitor who does not remain. “(Sec. 2. (c))

While some scholars (such as, Callicott 1991; Cronon 1995) 

have interpreted this as a separation of humans from nature, 

Zahniser (1992b) saw it differently, noting in 1955 that:

“We are a part of the wildness of the universe. That is 

our nature. Our noblest, happiest character develops with 

the influence of wildness. Away from it we degenerate 

into the squalor of slums or the frustration of clinical 

couches. With the wilderness we are at home” (p. 65).

A trammel is a hobble or shackle used to teach a horse to 

amble. It restricts and restrains free movement. Additionally, 

a trammel net is a gill net in which fish are entangled and 

caught in mesh. Cole (2000) in similar fashion suggests that 

untrammeled is, “synonymous with unconfined, unfettered 

and unrestrained, however, “untrammeled” actually suggests 

freedom from human control rather than lack of human influence” (p. 78). This parallels how Ridder (2007) suggests “an 

area is wild if the behavior of the nonhuman inhabitants is 

wild” (p. 10), by which he means a minimal degree of rationally 

planned human intervention or agency. As Whitesell (2001) 

notes, “Wild is the quality of freedom from human control. 

Its geographic expression is wilderness” (p. 187). Wildness 

is uncaged, self-willed, self-governing, and not subject to the 

impositions of another. While wildness is conceptually different 

from naturalness (Aplet & Cole 2010), it is a mandate for 

natural process to operate freely.

Wildness is also a characteristic of human action. That is, 

visitors seek a place to escape the worries of human society, 

a place free from external constraints and full of freedom of 

movement. As Driver and others (Driver & Knopf 1977; Driver 

1983; Manfredo and others 2000) have found, wild places are 

often sought, or preferred, for escape from the personal and 

social expectations, pressures, and demands of everyday life. 

Patterson and others (1998) described one wilderness area in 

which seeking challenges and decisions not faced in everyday 

life is a dominant theme of the experiences there.

This suggests that the idea and reality of wilderness is more 

than spectacular scenery, more than charismatic megafauna and 

more than outstanding challenges for one to dominate and win. 

Instead, it is a place for the full expression of what it means to 

be human in a wild place. As Zahniser (1992b) suggested in 

1955, “the true wilderness experience is one, not of escaping, 

but of finding one’s self” (p. 66). In passing through wilderness, as compared to conquering and claiming it, we can find 

ourselves clearly reflected back. With a humility of action that 

matches the place we may experience previously unexpressed 

aspects of who we are. Pohl (2006) suggests that “experiencing 

wilderness calls upon us to develop skills, patience, openness, 

humility, reverence and perceptiveness to the things around 

us” (p. 161-2). Freedom of being can allow greater fullness 

of life. Nelson (2001), for example, says, “I never feel more 

fortunate, more free, and more alive than when I am afoot in 

the wild country of home” (p. 191).

Wildness calls for a humility of action by humans. While it is 

a place of freedom and feelings of being fully alive, we should 

seek a relationship with other beings that does not impose on 

their freedom and ability to live according to their own path. 

Gary Snyder (in Ebenkamp 2010), for instance, posits that “the 

wild requires that we learn the terrain, nod to all the plants and 

animals and birds, ford the streams and cross the ridges and 

tell a good story when we get back home” (p. 26). Wilderness 

is not so much an enemy as it is a chance for kinship—to 

wildness, both within and outside of ourselves.

Whereas wilderness was once commonly viewed negatively, 

as a threat to civilization (Nash 2001), given the dominance of 

modern, technological society today it is less so. Light (1995) 

points out that if, “Wilderness is bad, evil and cruel, it must 

be separated from humans —it must be marked off as distinct 

and kept out of civilized spaces” (p. 197). But, if wilderness is 

considered a home, a place we feel comfort, connection, and 

an ease returning to, then it is part of us and we no longer need 

separation from it. Instead of thinking of wilderness contributing to a separation between humans and nature, it provides a 

space in which to freely explore society’s relationship to nature 

and how we should act ethically and wisely within it (Havlick 

2006). As Vandana Shiva is quoted as saying, “the wild is not 

the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” 

(Griffith 2006, p. 37).

Wilderness Experiences as Sanctuary and Refuge from Society Borrie, Meyer, and Foster
72 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Wildness thus presents a challenge for managers (Turner 

1996). That challenge is to be guardians, not gardeners. Managers should not feel the necessity to always ‘play God’ and 

determine the conditions under which particular species can 

flourish. Rather than modifying wilderness and other protected 

areas in compensation for outside sources of anthropocentric 

change such as habitat destruction, global climate change and 

ubiquitous air pollution, it is a call for the reduction of those 

human actions. In addition, wildness is a call for managers to 

cautiously reject the manipulation of wilderness for human 

preference. For instance, management should question such 

practices as the stocking of fish species in wilderness for recreation benefit, the impoundment of wilderness watersheds 

for downstream irrigation benefit, and the use of fire suppression and fuel reduction burns in wilderness to protect life and 

property outside the boundary. While each of these practices 

has been extensively studied, wildness fundamentally questions our ability to fully understand the processes of nature 

as well as our ability to know the full range of consequences 

of our actions. Having good intentions does not excuse failed 

experimentation or unanticipated outcomes (Landres 2010). To 

be clear, the presence of humans does not negate wilderness, 

but our actions there may. Snyder (in Ebenkamp 2010) says, 

“it is a matter of how much wildness as process is left intact” 

(p. 12).

Two recent studies, while not specifically designed to investigate wilderness as a contrast and sanctuary from human 

society, have provided illumination along the lines discussed 

above. Each was conducted in the generalized context of opportunities for experiences in wilderness. The first considered 

how people with non-heteronormative genders and sexualities 

experience their bodies and their genders in wilderness. What 

we found were stories of freedom, refuge, safety, relationship 

and a sense of ecological belonging. The second documented 

a phenomenology of spiritual experiences in wilderness. 

Building, reinforcing and extending previous studies, we 

found study participants to be talking about the importance of 

immersion in primitive and simple ways of being, escaping 

information technology and their digital selves, reconnecting 

with themselves, their gods, and their story of the land. Across 

both studies we find the importance of wilderness as a place to 

fully be, a place to re-orient identities and self within relation 

to one’s environment. The essential wildness of wilderness, as 

described above, thus allows a necessary refuge and sanctuary.

Gendered Experiences in 

Wilderness _______________________

A significant body of research explores how outdoor experiences can foster empowerment for women (for example, Beale 

1988; Brace-Govan 1997; Burden and Kiewa 1992; Mason-Cox 

1992; McDermott 2000; Miranda and Yerkes 1985; Scherl 

1990). Similarly, most of the literature that looks at gender and 

wilderness also focuses on women and empowerment (Angell 

1994; Bialeschki and Henderson 1993; Hart and Silka 1994; 

Kohn 1991; Mitten 1994; Pohl and others 2000; Powch 1994; 

Stopha 1994). While these studies have been insightful and 

important, we believe the focus of much of this work on selfimprovement and empowerment only captures a part of the 

many ways that women experience the outdoors, nature and 

wilderness. The study described here aims to document how 

women, in particular gbtlq (gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, 

lesbian and queer), experience their gender and body in 

wilderness.

Twenty self-identified gbtlq women volunteered to participate in semi-structured, in-depth interviews which were held 

either in private residences, quiet study rooms on campus, or 

over the telephone. All participants had recreated or worked in 

wilderness. With permission, all interviews were audio-taped 

with lengths ranging from thirty-nine to ninety-four minutes. 

After transcription and coding, the qualitative data analysis 

software MAXQDA was used to follow a grounded theory 

approach (Corbin and Strauss 2008) to identify overarching 

themes and analytical stories present in the data. We provide 

here only a portion of the full analytical story. Complete details 

can be found in Meyer (2010).

A sense of ecological belonging represented the overarching 

wilderness experience for most study participants. We heard 

stories of a profound sense of connection and of how wilderness was a safe place to escape the structures, judgments and 

technologies of society and re-connect to the body and to the 

natural world. Bodily experiences of wildness were commonly 

described, mirroring the suggestions of Abram (1996) that, 

“ultimately, to acknowledge the life of the body, and to affirm 

our solidarity with this physical form, is to acknowledge our 

existence as one of the earth’s animals, and so to remember 

and rejuvenate the organic basis of our thoughts and our intelligence” (p. 43).

As study participant Sage explained,

“And when we got there—we were hot and tired and 

dirty and we hadn’t seen water like this in a while. And 

so we all just stripped off our clothes and you know 

threw down our packs and stripped off our clothes and 

frolicked in the water. And we felt—to me—it was like 

such perfect embodiment of—we were so animal in our 

bodies at that point. They were our tools, they were 

our engines, they were the things that were sustaining 

us, they were us. And we were a community of that 

together. And ah—in a way that felt like wow—I’m not 

gonna get to glimpse this kind of connection to myself 

and connection to others and connection to a landscape 

simultaneously.”

Note that wilderness does not so much offer space for 

women and gbtlq to resist hetero-patriarchy as it offers space 

for creative expression and to experience engagement with 

other, non-judgmental things. In saying this, we recognize 

wilderness not as a separation from nature but a reclaiming of 

the ‘ground of continuity’ (Plumwood 1998). This reflects what 

Gaard (1997) would describe as a different kind of “perceptual 

orienteering, a different way of locating oneself in relation to 

one’s environment” (p. 17).

In contrast to feelings of alienation, separateness and otherness that participants described in society, in wilderness they 

described feelings of wholeness, integration and connection. 

In wilderness, our study participants described feelings of 

Borrie, Meyer, and Foster Wilderness Experiences as Sanctuary and Refuge from Society
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 73

Wilderness Experiences as Sanctuary and Refuge from Society Borrie, Meyer, and Foster

kinship, neutrality (in that nature does not seem to care about 

gender or perceived sexuality) and comfort. For instance, study 

participant Beatrice said,

“Wilderness is a place away from society... kind of 

at times away from reality. It’s a place for me where 

I can be comfortable being myself and not fitting into 

anything and really a way just to get away from life, 

get away from everything—just relax... And early on 

I didn’t know what it was. I didn’t know what I was 

feeling. I didn’t know why I felt comfortable. And really 

I think a big part of it was I was just really comfortable 

in not having to look at myself as male or female or 

straight or gay or lesbian or bisexual. It didn’t matter. 

It really didn’t matter. I was just another creature out 

in the woods.”

In wilderness, notions of being watched or monitored are 

replaced largely by positive feelings of vulnerability (predatorprey relationships, heightened senses and awareness of surroundings, connection as animals in an ecosystem) in contrast 

to a gendered vulnerability (fear of rape, violence, judgment, 

discrimination or shame). At the heart of this vulnerability is 

control, and in wild places humans are no longer in control. 

As an example, when asked what it feels like to be physically 

immersed in wilderness, Zara expressed,

“The places I go are usually pretty high risk. You know 

god forbid I’d ever have to shoot or spray at anything. 

But you know if I was without protection then that 

puts a whole different aspect on it. ‘Cause then all 

of a sudden it’s the hunter-prey and you’re prey and 

you’d better watch your butt.... So—for me going by 

myself in the backcountry and like say an area of high 

concentration of grizzlies. To me—that’s exciting. You 

know and it’s scary ‘cause you could die and I think 

that’s the allure of it to me. It’s because you’re not in 

control of everything as we are in this society. The rules 

change. The games change.”

Across our sample, people distinguished between society 

and wilderness not solely on legal designation, but also on 

features of wildness such as unpredictability, boundlessness, 

potentiality, exploration, lawlessness, and unpatrollability. 

Being immersed in such wildness was described as providing 

opportunities to touch what is wild within us. As study participant Sophia-Margeaux describes, “It supports the wildness 

that’s beyond human culture within me”.

In wildness, we can find a freeing of social systems, structures, and rules. As Margret says,

“It’s in part an escape from society and from you know 

social definitions or interactions... It’s this kind of 

escape... I guess I go into wilderness because for me 

it’s like a more pure existence and it makes me feel 

more alive.”

In wilderness, participants also described finding unpredictability, challenge, and a way to live in the moment. Sasha, for 

example, explains,

“I think it feels very freeing. I think there’s a contentment or satisfaction that comes from you know being 

present or just feeling like you know today I have to 

chop wood or today I have to build a fire. Now I have 

to eat... or go do whatever I’m doing. Go climb to the 

top of this summit. So it’s very day to day—moment 

by moment—which is very different from how our 

society is structured.”

In some ways, our findings mirror the ecotheology scholarship of Susan Bratton (1993; 1998) in which she describes a 

thousand year monastic tradition of reciprocity in wilderness. 

Early Christian experiences in wild areas are shown to be 

providing freedom from secular and worldly concerns and the 

opportunity to practice Christian virtues such as simplicity, 

fellowship, love, contemplation, faithfulness and harmony. 

The second study described below further explores spiritual 

experiences in wilderness.

Phenomenology of Spiritual 

Experiences in Wilderness__________

In this study, thirty-two semi-structured interviews were 

conducted in-situ with overnight visitors to a U.S. water-based 

wilderness to update and add to our understanding of the spiritual 

aspects of experiences in wilderness. Previous work (Young 

and Crandall 1984; Stringer and McAvoy 1992; Fredrickson 

and Anderson 1999) was also set in such a wilderness. Along 

with other work (Ashley 2009; Ellard and others 2009; Fox 

1997; Heintzman 2000, 2010; Marsh 2007; Schmidt and Little 

2007), this provides a basis for saying that natural settings have 

important characteristics that support spiritual experiences.

Within the peak visitation season of July and August 2010, 

respondents were approached late afternoon/early evening in 

their campsite. These campsites were randomly selected on 

each of six wilderness lakes (three lakes being closer to the 

periphery of the wilderness area and three more internal). 

At each campsite, after reading the recruitment script, the 

person with the most recent birth date was specifically asked 

to participate. In two exceptional cases, two respondents were 

interviewed at once but each was asked to tackle each interview question. All interviews were conducted in-situ a short 

distance away from the center of the campsite, either lakeside 

or just above the camp.

As in the first study described above, these interviews were 

voluntary and were tape-recorded for later transcription. Both 

idiographic (individual-level) analyses along with nomethetic 

(overall pattern) analyses were conducted using the techniques 

of grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss 2008). A phenomenological study such as this aims to situate comments made 

in the moment (lakeside, inside the wilderness, in this case) 

within the life-world of the respondents. Thus, we were able 

to identify important characteristics of the wilderness setting, 

as well as a comparison of wilderness settings with other 

locations of spiritual practices and processes. Themes of the 

role of spiritual experiences in wilderness within a person’s 

life surfaced in the data, with a particular contrast to the heavy 

imposition of information technology outside of wilderness. 

The themes presented here are a selection and summary of the 

full study. More details can be found in Foster (2011) and in 

Foster & Borrie (2011).
74 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

For the respondents, wilderness means different things to 

different people. For some, wilderness was just another place, 

just slightly different from their regular fishing location; for 

others, it is a wholly different world; and for yet others the area 

is not even true wilderness, given that it is possible to paddle 

the tracts of wild country immediately north without seeing 

people for weeks.

However, a majority of respondents explained their attachment to wilderness as comparable to no other place. The 

wilderness context provides unique opportunities and potential 

for spiritual experiences because of its naturalness, its pristineness and its remoteness. Sometimes on their own, but often in 

combination, the solitude, roughness, beauty, intricacy, and/or 

the calmness or fierceness of the weather offered conditions very 

different from the ordinary. The activities of paddling, carrying 

canoes, and daily routines of gathering firewood, filtering and 

carrying water, and cooking in the open all provide or provoke 

the opportunity for contemplation and acknowledgement of 

different ways of being. Fewer distractions, more immediate 

concerns, direct and unambiguous feedback for actions, and 

the general sense that larger forces are at play, all contribute to 

a lessened sense of individual power and control. Wilderness 

provides a window into a powerful, mysterious unknown. As 

one participant explained, “This environment is ... you are right 

there—God has total control over you, the wind, the waves, 

the weather, all of that. That isn’t bad, it is pristine. When you 

leave God alone, it is pristine.”

Spiritual experiences are understood as complex and multidimensional, but our interviews particularly revealed the 

importance of rituals in facilitating spiritual experiences and 

development. Many of these rituals, such as rising early in the 

morning and seeking solitude and silence a little ways from 

camp, are learned from mentors and become quite habitual. 

Several study participants mentioned a relative or family member taught them the beauty of doing things the ‘right way’.

Visitors also remember and draw upon spiritual practices 

from prior memories and experiences. It is mentioned that they 

revisit and search out the feelings and emotions that they had 

experienced. The meaning of those experiences is then explored, 

discussed and shared and then folded into their personal and 

social worlds. One participant, for example, described her 

perspective saying,

“I definitely feel more connected to my girls and feel 

more connected to—I feel more stationed in my life. I feel 

like being out here gives you more time to think about 

your goals and what is actually important to you. So I 

guess I feel more sturdy and planted in what I believe.”

Participants underscored that through immersion in the 

primitive and simple we remember basic needs, life supporting practices and remember the core of our being. While the 

notion of primitivism may be problematic (Borrie 2004; Potter 

2010), our participants described the clarity and simplicity that 

wilderness practices allow. One noted that,

“Whatever sorts of problems you may have in your 

everyday life, you can come out here or reflect on 

here, and realize how unimportant they really are; this 

is definitely a place for me to let go and be myself.”

The idea is that visitors go to wilderness to gain perspective 

on their lives. A common phrase was “recharging their batteries”. Wilderness was a means towards being more grounded. 

Words with a re- prefix were common (re-center, re-focus, 

re-discover, re-consider, re-define, and re-develop). Wilderness allows a remembering and a reinvestment in identity and 

relationship.

The data contain numerous mentions of a desire to disconnect 

from the information society, feeling free from technology’s 

grasp and stressing the growing importance of escaping routines that are choreographed by information technology. Many 

participants highlighted the freedom that exists in wilderness, 

particularly the freedom to choose what to pay attention to and 

when. As one explained,

“I feel that I can be myself more; you know, with friends 

and stuff. I just kind of have to—I don’t know—pay 

attention all the time, I have to be involved in everything 

that is going on. Up here, I can be involved as much as 

I want. I can just sort of wander off and be on a rock 

alone. And I like that.”

In wilderness, visitors can leave behind their ‘digital selves’ 

and not feel the necessity to maintain their online presence and 

image, as well as leave behind the stresses and expectations of 

the digital world. Nearly three-quarters of study participants 

mentioned the joy of disconnecting from communication 

technology (phones, emails, texts, tweets, and status updates). 

For example, one of the participants said,

“I guess I just turn off everything else and just soak in 

what is around me and take time to be thankful for it. 

(pauses) Hmm, I guess I don’t think about these things 

much unless I am here and have the time—I am just able 

to be thankful that I am here and it is here.”

These results highlight the importance of wilderness in allowing for unplugging and leaving behind the intrusions of 

modern, technological society. The isolation, freedom, and 

simplicity of being in wilderness allow a different pace and a 

different focus, which in turn allows space for renewing and 

reinforcing relationships. We found frequent mention of the 

intimacy and privacy that wilderness provides, which in turn 

strengthens communication and attention whether they be 

to self, to other species, or with higher beings. Wild places 

teach and remind what it means to be human in relation to 

the natural world. Escaping daily routines, demands, interruptions and expectations into a time and space of refuge and 

sanctuary allows exploration of our place in the wider world. 

In wilderness, we found that social constraints are lessened. 

The cultural information to be processed is limited, immediate 

practices are common, and unfiltered or raw encounters with 

the natural world more frequent. In these conditions, the human relationship with the larger wild can be kindled, stoked, 

and sustained.

Discussion _______________________

While wilderness managers may feel challenged in their 

ability to provide opportunities for spiritual experiences in 

Borrie, Meyer, and Foster Wilderness Experiences as Sanctuary and Refuge from Society
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 75

wilderness, our respondents reinforced the importance and 

significance of those experiences. Furthermore, while managers 

frequently limit their intrusions into wilderness, they are still 

potential conduits or facilitators for such intrusions. Interactions with rangers (and researchers!) inside the wilderness can 

interrupt the tone and rhythm of visitor experiences, setting up 

potential concerns of surveillance, monitoring, and policing. 

Managers and management facilities such as huts, airstrips, and 

ranger stations may have communication and other technologies such as satellite phones, internet links and entertainments 

like CD and mp3 players. Rangers and scientists may carry 

radio-like walkie-talkies that can announce their presence well 

before visitors see or otherwise know those people are there. 

These remind and propel the outside world into the context 

of wilderness. While it may be relatively easy for visitors to 

deny or avoid these elements of the outside world, the burden 

to do so has been imposed upon visitors, a form of subjugation in itself. An untamed state may be unsettling or somewhat 

threatening to an ethos of management. But such wildness and 

freedom should be considered the norm and part of the purpose 

of wilderness areas.

The challenge for researchers remains the hesitancy to 

document and elucidate the very personal, intimate and core 

concerns of wildness, identity, security, relation and freedom. 

The line between description and understanding on the one hand 

and measurement and monitoring on the other is a fine line, 

indeed. To document and judge the achievement of particular 

experiential outcomes is an act of taming in that things shift 

into the realm of knowing and known. Wilderness is in this 

way being thought of through a machine metaphor—capable of 

efficiently producing predictable outcomes given the input of 

preferred conditions. All of which diminishes “discovery and 

surprise and independence and the unknown, the very qualities 

that make a place wild” (Turner 1991, p. 22). The hazard, then, 

is a spiral of greater and greater intrusion rendering increasing 

evaluation, accountability, regulation and control. This would 

be a taming, an objectifying and a profaning of the experience 

of wilderness. It is our intent here to help elucidate the very 

nature of wilderness as a place of wildness, self-determination, 

and refuge such that it is a call for restraint, humility and acceptance of unpredictable fallibility.

Both the studies mentioned here demonstrate the role 

wilderness can play as a haven or sanctuary from modern 

society. Much as the notion of wildness can mean freedom 

from human domination for the plants and animals there, so 

too should wilderness provide a respite for humans from the 

demands and pressures of modern society. In that space, away 

from the expectations and watchfulness of secular and societal 

concerns, we have room for personal expression, identity and 

relationship. In wilderness, there is time for the unknown, the 

new, and the profound. It is a place to belong, connect and 

fully, freely be.

References _______________________

Abram, David. 1996. The spell of the sensuous. New York: Vintage Books. 352p.

Angell, Jean. 1994. The wilderness solo: An empowering growth experience for women. In: Cole, Ellen: Erdman, Eve; Rothblum, Esther D., eds. 

Wilderness therapy for women: the power of adventure. New York, NY: 

Haworth Press: 85-100.

Aplet, Greg; Cole, David N. 2010. The trouble with naturalness: Rethinking 

park and wilderness Goals. In: Cole, David N.; Yung, Laurie, eds. Beyond 

naturalness: Rethinking parks and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid 

change. Washington, DC: Island Press: 12-29.

Ashley, Peter. 2009. The spiritual values of the Tasmanian wilderness world 

heritage area and implications for wilderness management. Dissertation. 

University of Tasmania, Australia.

Beale, Vern. 1988. Men’s journey, women’s journeys—a different story? Journal of Colorado Outward Bound Wilderness School Education. 3: 66-82. 

Bialeschki, M. Deborah; Henderson, Karla A. 1993. Expanding outdoor opportunities for women. Parks and Recreation. 28(8): 36-40.

Borrie, William T. (2004). Why primitive experiences in wilderness? International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3):18-20.

Brace-Govan, Jan V.F. 1997. Women working on their bodies: a feminist 

sociological exploration of three active physicalities. Dissertation. Monash 

University, Melbourne.

Bratton, Susan P. 1993. Christianity, wilderness, and wildlife: The original 

desert solitaire. Scranton, PA: The University of Scranton Press. 352 p.

Bratton, Susan P. 1988. The original desert solitaire: early Christian monasticism and wilderness. Environmental Ethics. 10: 31-53. 

Burden, Josephine E.; Kiewa, Jackie. 1992. Adventurous women. Refractory 

Girl. 43: 29-33. 

Bugbee, Henry G. 1958. The inward morning: A philosophical exploration in 

journal form. New York: Harper Colophon Books. 248 p.

Callicott, J. Baird. 1991. The wilderness idea revisited: the sustainable 

development alternative. The Environmental Professional. 13: 235-247.

Cole, David. N. 2000. Paradox of the primeval: Ecological restoration in 

wilderness. Ecological Restoration. 18 (2): 77-86.

Corbin, Jean; Strauss, Anselm. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: techniques 

and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage 

Publications. 400 p.

Cronon, William. 1995. The trouble with Wilderness, or, getting back to 

the wrong nature. In: Cronon, William, ed. Uncommon Ground: toward 

reinventing nature. New York: Norton & Co: 69-90.

Driver, Beverly L.; Knopf, Richard C. 1977. Personality, outdoor recreation, 

and expected consequences. Environment and Behavior. 9(2): 169-193.

Driver, Beverly L. 1983. Master list of items for Recreation Experience Preference scales and domains. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, 

Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Ebenkamp, Paul, ed. 2010. The etiquette of freedom: Gary Snyder, Jim 

Harrison and the practice of the wild. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint. 160 p.

Ellard, Al; Nickerson, Norma P.; & Dvorak, Robert. 2009. The spiritual dimension of the Montana vacation experience. Leisure/Loisir. 33(1): 269-289.

Foster, Ian. 2012. Wilderness, a spiritual antidote to the everyday: A phenomenology of spiritual experiences in wilderness: relating self, culture, and 

wilderness. Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula.

Foster, Ian.; Borrie William T. 2011. A phenomenology of spiritual experiences in wilderness: relating self, culture, and wilderness. In: Wickham, 

T. D., ed. Proceedings of the 2011 northeastern recreation research symposium. General Technical Report NRS-P-XX. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

[Online only].

Fox, Rebecca J. 1997. Women, nature and spirituality: A qualitative study 

exploring women’s wilderness experience. In: Rowe, David; Brown, Peter, 

eds. Proceedings, ANZALS conference 1997 Australian and New Zealand 

Association for Leisure Studies, and Department of Leisure and Tourism 

Studies. The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia: 59-64.

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

of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 19: 21-39.

Wilderness Experiences as Sanctuary and Refuge from Society Borrie, Meyer, and Foster
76 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Borrie, Meyer, and Foster Wilderness Experiences as Sanctuary and Refuge from Society

Gaard, Greta. 1997. Ecofeminism and wilderness. Environmental Ethics. 

19: 5-24.

Griffiths, Jay. 2006. Wild: An elemental journey. New York: Penguin. 384p.

Hart, L.; Silka, L. 1994. Building self-efficacy through women-centered ropes 

course experiences. Women and Therapy. 15(3/4): 111-127.

Havlick, David. 2006. Reconsidering wilderness: Prospective ethics for 

nature, technology, and society. Ethics, Place & Environment. 9(1): 47-62.

Heintzman, Paul. 2000. Leisure and spiritual well-being relationships: A 

qualitative study. Society and Leisure. 23(1): 41-69. 

Heintzman, Paul. 2010. Nature-based recreation and spirituality: A complex 

relationship. Leisure Sciences. 32(1): 72-89.

Kohn, Sandy. 1991. Specific programmatic strategies to increase empowerment. The Journal of Experiential Education. 14(1): 6-12.

Landres, Peter . 2010. Letting it be: A hands-off approach to preserving wildness in protected areas. In: Cole, David N.; Yung, Laurie, eds. Beyond 

naturalness: Rethinking parks and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid 

change. Washington, DC: Island Press: 88-105.

Light, Andrew. 1995. Urban wilderness. In: Rothenberg, David, ed. Wild ideas. 

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 195-212.

Manfredo, Michael J.; Driver, Beverly L.; Tarrant, Michael A. 1996. Measuring 

leisure motivation: A meta-analysis of the Recreation Experience Preference 

scales. Journal of Leisure Research. 28: 188-213. 

Marsh, Paul E. 2007. Backcountry adventure as spiritual experience: A meansend study. Dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.

Mason-Cox, Susan. 1992. Challenging gender mythologies through an 

Outward Bound standard programme. Thesis. University of Technology, 

Sydney, Australia. 

McDermott, Lisa. 2000. A qualitative assessment of the significance of body 

perception to women’s physical activity experiences: revisiting discussions 

of physicalities. Sociology of Sport Journal. 17: 331-363. 

Meyer, Angela M. 2010. Gender, body, and wilderness: Searching for refuge, 

connection, and ecological belonging. Thesis. University of Montana, 

Missoula.

Miranda, Wilma; Yerkes, Rita. 1985. Women outdoors—who are they? Parks 

and Recreation. 20(3): 48-51. 

Mitten, Denise. 1992. Empowering girls and women in the outdoors. Journal 

of Physical Education, Recreation &- Dance. 63: 56-60.

Nash, R. 2001. Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press. 413 p.

Nelson, Richard. 2001. Joined Souls. In: Kerasote, Ted., ed. Return of the wild: 

The future of our natural lands. Washington, DC: Island Press: 183-197.

Olson, Sigurd. 2001. We need wilderness. In: Backes, D., comp. Meaning 

of wilderness: Essential articles and speeches. Minneapolis: University of 

Minnesota Press: 58-68.

Patterson, Micheal E.; Watson, Alan E.; Williams, Daniel R.; Roggenbuck, 

Joseph R. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 30(4): 423-452.

Plumwood, Val. 1998. Wilderness skepticism and wilderness dualism. In: 

Callicott, J. B.; Nelson, M. P., eds.The great new wilderness debate.Athens: 

The University of Georgia Press: 652-690p.

Pohl, Sarah L.; 2006. Technology and the wilderness experience. Environmental 

Ethics. 28(2): 147-163.

Pohl, Sarah L.; Borrie, William T.; Patterson, Michael E. 2000. Women, 

wilderness, and everyday life: A documentation of the connection between 

wilderness recreation and women’s everyday lives. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 32(4): 415-434.

Potter, Andrew. 2010. The authenticity hoax: How we get lost finding ourselves.

New York, NY: Harper. 304p.

Powch, Irene G. 1994. Wilderness therapy: what makes it empowering for 

women? In: Cole, Ellen: Erdman, Eve; Rothblum, Esther D., eds. Wilderness therapy for women: the power of adventure. New York, NY: Haworth 

Press: 11-28.

Ridder, Ben. 2007. The naturalness versus wildness debate: Ambiguity, inconsistency, and unattainable objectivity. Restoration Ecology. 15(1): 8-12.

Scherl, Lea .M. 1990. Wilderness benefits from an interactionist perspective. 

Papers on recreation benefit measurement presented at a workshop convened by the Department of Leisure Studies. Philip Institute of Technology, 

Bundoora, Victoria, April 18-20. 

Schmidt, Christopher; Little, Donna E. 2007. Qualitative insights into leisure 

as a spiritual experience. Journal of Leisure Research. 39 (2): 222-247. 

Snyder, Gary. 1990. The etiquette of freedom. In: Snyder, Gary. The practice 

of the wild. New York: North Point Press: 1-30.

Stopha, Ba. 1994. Women on the ropes: Change through challenge. Women 

and Therapy. 15(3/4): 101-109.

Stringer, Alison L.;McAvoy, Leo E. 1992. The need for something different: 

Spirituality and wilderness adventure. Journal of Experiential Education. 

15(1): 13-20.

Turner, Jack. 1991. In wildness is the preservation of the world. Northern 

Lights. 6 (4): 22-25.

Turner, Jack 1996. The abstract wild. Tucson: The University of Arizona 

Press. 136p.

Wearing, Betsy. 1998. Leisure and feminist theory. London: Sage Publications. 207p.

Whitesell, Edward. A. 2001. Mapping the wild. In: Rothenburg, David; Ulvaeus, 

Marta, eds. The world and the wild: Expanding wilderness conservation beyond its American roots.Tucson: The University of Arizona Press: 185-197.

Young, Robert A.; Crandall, Rick. 1984. Wilderness use and self-actualization. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 16(2): 149-160.

Zahniser, Howard. 1992a. New York’s Forest Preserve and our American 

program for wilderness preservation. In: Zahniser, Ed, ed. Where wilderness preservation began: Adirondack writings of Howard Zahniser. Utica, 

NY: North Country Books: 43-57.

Zahniser, Howard. 1992b. The Need for wilderness areas. In: Zahniser, Ed, 

ed. Where wilderness preservation began: Adirondack writings of Howard 

Zahniser. Utica, NY: North Country Books: 59-66.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 77

Abstract—We assessed the degree to which visitor experiences vary 

between (1) very high use and moderate use places and (2) day users 

and overnight users. The study was conducted at 10 trailheads in the 

Alpine Lakes Wilderness, WA, and the Three Sisters Wilderness, 

OR. Some visitors were asked about trip motivations as they started 

their trip; others were asked what they experienced after their trip. 

Questionnaire items were drawn from Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales, experiences consistent with wilderness, including 

a number of items regarding the privacy functions of solitude and 

Attention Restoration Theory (ART). We hypothesized that visitors 

to very high use trailheads would have lower experience achievement 

for many of these experiences (for example, solitude and privacy). 

We also hypothesized that very high use visitors would have a harder 

time having the experiences they wanted--that the difference between 

pre-trip motives and post-trip experience achievement would be greater 

than for moderate use visitors. Our hypotheses were both correct for 

only seven of the 72 experiences we asked about. All seven of the 

items experienced less by visitors to very high use places are more 

descriptors of the setting and conditions that are experienced than 

of the psychological outcomes that result from what is experienced. 

None of the experiences that are clearly psychological outcomes 

were affected by amount of use. More wilderness experiences were 

influenced by whether one had stayed overnight in the wilderness 

than by use levels.

Introduction ______________________

Wilderness areas are to be managed such that they provide 

opportunities for high quality visitor experiences, of a type 

appropriate for wilderness. There is widespread concern that 

the quality of wilderness experiences is diminished in places 

where high use levels lead to congested conditions. This raises 

the question, how do wilderness experiences differ between 

high-use places in wilderness and places that are less popular? 

Moreover, day use makes up an increasing proportion of total 

wilderness visitation. Much of the concern about the “high-use 

problem” is a concern about day use in these places. Thus there 

is considerable interest in how the experience of day visitors 

The Effect of Use Density and Length of 

Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness

David N. Cole

Troy E. Hall

differs from that of overnight visitors. Which accounts for more 

of the variation in experience, use density or length of stay?

The primary objective of the research reported here was to 

explore certain types of experience that people have on trips 

in wilderness—the experiences they were seeking, the experiences they attained, and the degree to which they were able 

to have the experiences they were looking for. In particular, 

we were interested in the extent to which experiences sought 

and attained varied between (1) very high and moderate use 

wilderness and (2) people on day and overnight trips.

The Nature of Wilderness Experiences

For this study, we drew on four different sources to explore 

the nature of experience. One source of experiential descriptors was the words of the Wilderness Act and concepts common to those writing about wilderness experiences and their 

values and benefits (Stankey and Schreyer 1987; Shafer and 

Hammitt 1995; Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001). The language 

of the Wilderness Act suggests that visitors should experience a setting characterized by: solitude; lack of confinement 

(sense of freedom); primitiveness (away from modern world); 

naturalness (including lack of human impact); and remoteness (because wildernesses are large). Moreover, visitors to 

wilderness should also have the opportunity to experience 

varied physical responses and cognitive states. In articulating 

the values and purposes of wilderness, early advocates such 

as Bob Marshall and Howard Zahniser spoke of such experiences as: challenge; physical revitalization; growth (personal, 

spiritual); connection to the natural world; absorption (in present moment, timelessness); and serenity (peace, tranquility). 

Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001) studied the experiences visitors 

had on a trip to the Okefenokee Wilderness, Georgia. They 

demonstrated that the experiences visitors had varied over 

time during their trip. Certainly, some of this variation must 

be a result of changing settings, but more work is needed on 

the influence of setting attributes on experience.

Our second source of descriptors was the positive psychological outcomes or benefits that visitors obtain as a result of 

their wilderness trip. To explore these, we drew on the work 

of Bev Driver and colleagues on psychometric scales that 

measure the dimensions of people’s recreation experience. 

These scales, known as the Recreation Experience Preference 

(REP) scales, have been used for varied purposes in numerous studies (Manfredo and others 1996). They can be used to 

assess motivations for or the psychological outcomes desired 

Authors: David N. Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute USDA Forest 

Service, Missoula, MT; and Troy E. Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.
78 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

from a specific trip, as well as the extent to which outcomes 

were obtained. Motivations are best assessed pre-trip, while 

experiences attained can only be assessed post-trip. The REP 

scales are specific to recreational experiences, but not to wilderness. Some of these items are similar to the wilderness-related 

experiences just described.

Of 19 experience domains, we explored 16 that seemed 

most relevant to typical wilderness experiences: achievement/

stimulation; autonomy/leadership; risk-taking; family togetherness; similar people; new people; learning; enjoy nature; 

introspection; creativity; nostalgia; physical fitness; physical 

rest; escape personal-social pressures; escape physical pressure; 

and risk reduction. The domains we excluded were equipment, 

social security and teaching-leading others. Studies of wilderness visitors, using REP scales, have been used to describe the 

relative importance of various motivations for taking wilderness trips (Brown and Haas 1980; Manfredo and others 1983; 

Driver and others 1987). Less information is available about 

experience attainment in wilderness and we are not aware of 

any work on the effects of use density and length of stay on 

experience attainment.

The third source of descriptors came from an intensive exploration of the concept of solitude, the descriptor most often 

associated with the wilderness experience and explicit in the 

Wilderness Act. To psychologists, solitude means being alone, 

without intrusions, where others cannot observe you (Westin 

1967; Marshall 1974; Pedersen 1999), but few wilderness visitors choose to be alone. Hammitt (1982, in press) has argued 

that this is too strict a definition of the experience opportunity 

mandated in the Wilderness Act. He suggests that the broader 

psychological concept of privacy is more aligned with the 

likely intent of the Act’s authors. Privacy refers to the ability 

to control the amount and type of access one has with others 

(Altman 1975; Pedersen 1999). If there is a high degree of 

privacy, wilderness visitors can freely choose how much and 

what type of interaction with others they want. Freedom of 

choice and spontaneity of action are often considered important 

to the wilderness experience (Stankey and Baden 1977). The 

unit of privacy can be one’s self (being alone) or one’s group 

(alone together) (Altman 1975), so solitude (being alone) is 

just one type of privacy.

There have been several attempts to identify different types 

of privacy, as well as the different functions of privacy in society. Westin’s (1967) initial typologies have been most widely 

adapted and explored in the wilderness recreation literature 

(Hammitt 1982; Priest and Bugg 1991; Dawson and Hammitt 

1996). However, factor analytic studies have led to modifications of Westin’s dimensions by Marshall (1974) and Pedersen 

(1999). Pedersen (1999) has identified six different types of 

privacy: intimacy with family (being alone with family); intimacy with friends (being alone with friends); solitude (freedom 

from observation by others); isolation (being geographically 

removed from and free from observation by others); anonymity (being seen but not identified or identifiable by others; and 

reserve (not revealing personal aspects of one’s self to others).

In our work on experience, we were most interested in exploring the functions of these varied types of privacy. These 

are more enduring psychological outcomes of experiencing 

different types of privacy during a wilderness visit. Pedersen 

(1997) has identified five functions of privacy: contemplation 

(reflecting on one’s self); autonomy (freedom of choice and 

behavior); rejuvenation (recovery and refuge from others and 

outside world); confiding (intimacy with trusted others); and 

creativity (develop ideas, work on solutions). Most of these 

potential outcomes of privacy resonate with the types of 

benefits articulated by early advocates arguing for wilderness 

preservation (see, for example, discussions in Graber 1976; 

Stankey and Schreyer 1987).

The scales Hammitt developed to assess dimensions of 

wilderness privacy (based on Westin’s work) have been field 

tested in several wilderness settings (Hammitt and Madden 

1989; Dawson and Hammitt 1996). Hammitt and Rutlin (1995) 

also showed that wilderness visitors’ ratings of achieved 

privacy (on a simple 10-point scale) decreased as number of 

encounters increased and as encounters exceeded individual 

normative standards for encounters. But the multi-dimensional 

privacy scales have never been employed to explore how various dimensions of achieved privacy vary with use conditions.

The final conceptual basis for thinking about wilderness 

experience that we used is the Attention Restoration Theory 

(ART) developed by Stephen and Rachael Kaplan and colleagues (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Kaplan 1995). This theory 

posits that in their day-to-day lives, people experience mental 

fatigue as a result of a fatigue of directed attention. Directed 

attention is attention to something that is not particularly interesting but required (such as doing our work, driving in traffic, 

and so on). Maintaining focus, under these circumstances, 

requires considerable energy and one’s capacity to exert this 

type of attention is limited. Involuntary attention, in contrast, 

requires little effort because stimuli are inherently interesting 

and involving (such as listening to music or watching wildlife).

ART suggests that restoration of fatigued directed attention 

can occur by spending time in restorative environments, 

environments that are conducive to involuntary attention and 

characterized by four properties: being away (being distinctly 

different, either physically or conceptually, from the everyday 

environment); fascination (containing patterns that hold one’s 

attention effortlessly); extent (having scope and coherence that 

captures the mind, fosters exploration and allows one to remain 

engaged); and compatibility (fitting with and supporting what 

one wants or is inclined to do) (Kaplan 2001).

Restorative experiences are not exclusive to recreation; nor 

are they exclusive to wilderness. However, they have much in 

common with some of the important benefits of recreation and, 

in particular, of recreation in wilderness. It is not coincidental 

that one of the Kaplans’ long-term research interests has been 

about experiences in wilderness (Kaplan 1984). In addition, 

wilderness has often been described as a place to “be away” 

from the hustle and bustle of everyday existence. Although a 

number of studies have used rating scales based on ART to assess the restorative qualities of various environments, no such 

studies have been conducted in wilderness. Previous studies 

have found that natural environments are more restorative than 

urban ones (for example, Herzog and others 2003), suggesting 

Cole and Hall The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 79

that wilderness might generally possess substantial restorative 

qualities. The restorative qualities of wilderness have yet to 

be empirically assessed, although Talbot and Kaplan (1995) 

interpret observed psychological outcomes of wilderness trips 

in the terminology of ART. Nor has there been any work on 

how setting attributes, such as use density, might influence 

those qualities.

Methods _________________________

We administered three different questionnaires. Two focused 

on trip motivations and were given to visitors at trailheads as 

they started their trip. One used Recreation Experience Preference (REP) items; the other asked about privacy and various 

experiences consistent with wilderness. The third questionnaire 

was given to visitors at trailheads as they exited. It focused on 

the experiences people attained, using REP scales and items 

related to privacy, Attention Restoration Theory (ART), and 

other wilderness-relevant experiences.

The Sample

The survey was conducted at 10 trailheads in the Alpine 

Lakes Wilderness, WA, and the Three Sisters Wilderness, OR. 

At Alpine Lakes, we worked at two very high use trailheads 

(Snow Lake and Pratt Lake), as well as three moderate use 

trailheads (Cathedral Pass, Gold Creek and Waptus River). 

At Three Sisters, we also worked at two very high use trailheads (Devils Lake and Green Lakes) and three moderate use 

trailheads (Sisters Mirror Lake, Elk Lake and Six Lakes). 

Visitation at the very high use trailheads, which are probably 

among the 10 most popular trails in Forest Service wilderness 

in Oregon and Washington, was typically at least 100 people 

per day. Use on sunny weekend days sometimes exceeded 300 

people. This contrasts with typical use levels of 15-20 people 

per day at moderate use trailheads. At these trailheads, there 

were summer weekdays when nobody visited. Even on peak 

weekend days, use levels seldom exceeded 50 people.

Typically, each group of trailheads was sampled twice during the July-August summer season, each time over a 9-day 

block of time. Researchers were present for at least six hours 

per day (usually eight hours), with sampling times adjusted to 

match the times of day that people were likely to be present. 

Researchers attempted to contact all adult (16 years and older) 

members of all groups, either as they entered or exited the 

wilderness and asked them to participate. Nobody was given 

both an entry and exit survey. Approximately 72% agreed. 

We obtained 1531 completed questionnaires, 1010 at the very 

high use trailheads and 521 at the moderate use trailheads. We 

obtained 380 completed questionnaires from overnight visitors 

and 1151 from day users.

Data Analysis

We separately analyzed data from the four sources of experiential descriptors: the wilderness-related experience descriptors, 

the Recreation Experience Preference domains, the privacy 

functions and experiences related to Attention Restoration 

Theory (ART). For each of these other than ART, we used 

factor analysis of pre-trip motivations (principal components 

factor analysis with promax rotation) to identify clusters of 

related individual experience items. Our purpose was more 

data organization than data reduction. Then we used two-factor 

analysis of variance to assess the influence of trail use level 

and length of stay on experience achievement (assessed posttrip). Specifically we hypothesized that visitors to moderate 

use trails would have higher experience achievement scores 

than visitors to very high use trails. We also hypothesized in 

most (but not all) cases that overnight users would have higher 

experience achievement scores than day use visitors. We present tables for each of the main factors (use level and length of 

stay), including values for F and p based on two-tailed results. 

Differences were generally considered significant at α = 0.10 

if scores were higher for moderate use visitors or overnight 

visitors. For the few items (such as getting exercise), where it 

was not logical to hypothesize higher experience achievement 

for moderate use visitors, differences were considered significant at α = 0.05. In the few cases where there was a significant 

interaction between use level and length of stay, we assessed 

the effect of each factor at both levels of the other factor.

We also used multiple regression to explore the effect of more 

precise estimates of amount of use on experience achievement. 

Independent variables were four different measures related to 

amount of use, as well as a dummy variable for length of stay. 

Two measures were objective counts of the number of groups 

who entered the wilderness and who exited from the wilderness during the period of time (usually 8 hours) that we were 

handing out questionnaires. Although these measures should 

provide highly accurate estimates of use density in the area 

during the sample day, they are not accurate estimates of what 

visitors encountered. Depending on where and when they came 

and went, some visitors might see most of the other groups in 

the area while others might see none. The two other measures 

were judgments we asked the visitors to make. We asked them 

how many other groups they encountered and we asked them 

the percent of time they were in sight of other groups. Such 

judgments, if accurate, should be more meaningful estimates 

of use density, from the perspective of influence on the visitor 

experience. However, such estimates might not be very accurate, 

because they require remembering the number of other groups 

encountered and, in the case of the time estimate, the ability to 

factor in time. Such estimates are likely to vary with attitudes, 

preferences and expectations. For example, of two individuals 

encountering the same number of people, a person who felt 

crowded or expected to see few people is likely to report more 

encounters than someone who did not feel crowded or who 

expected to see lots of people.

The two objective counts were highly correlated (r = 0.84). 

The two judgments were less highly correlated (r = 0.55). 

Estimates of the number of groups encountered were more 

highly correlated than time estimates with trailhead counts. For 

number of groups entering, correlations were 0.62 for encounter 

estimates and 0.41 for time estimates. For groups exiting, correlations were 0.65 for encounters and 0.50 for time estimates.

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness Cole and Hall
80 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

We conducted two-factor analyses of variance using data 

on pre-trip motivations—the experiences visitors desired-

-collected as people entered the wilderness (similar to our 

analyses of post-trip experience achievement). These data 

are not shown but can be found in Cole and Hall (2008a). We 

used t-tests to assess the significance of differences between 

pre-trip motivations and post-trip experience achievement 

scores. Where post-trip scores are significantly lower than 

pre-trip scores, we conclude that visitors were unable to have 

the experiences they desired. Finally, we tested for significant 

interaction between use level and pre- and post-trip differences 

(that is, whether the degree to which desired experiences were 

achieved differed between visitors to very high use and moderate use trails). We also tested interaction between length of 

stay and pre- and post-trip differences. For this purpose we 

used analyses of variance with the factors, pre-post trip, use 

level and length of stay.

Results __________________________

All participants were hikers and most came in small groups 

(Table 1). Day users made up 77% of our sample. Most of the 

sample had quite a bit of wilderness experience. Wilderness 

is important to most participants and most participants (70%) 

reported knowing at least “a little bit about what legally classified Wilderness is”; 24% thought they knew “a lot.” Some 

of these attributes varied with trail use level and between day 

and overnight visitors (Table 1). The time spent on day trips 

was significantly longer (t = 8.3, p < 0.01) on very high use 

trails (mean of 4.7 hours) than moderate use trails (mean of 3.8 

hours), while the mean number of nights spent on overnight 

trips was 2.0 regardless of use level. Mean age was greater 

for day users (F = 92.3, p < 0.01) and on moderate use trails 

(F = 7.5, p < 0.01). Gender did not differ significantly with 

trail use level (χ2 = 0.1, p = 0.75), but males were significantly 

more prevalent (χ2 = 16.8, p < 0.001) among overnight users 

(63%) than day users (52%). Groups were significantly larger 

on very high use trails, but this was only true for overnight 

users (t = 4.11, p < 0.001). Similarly, overnight groups were 

significantly larger than day use groups, but only on the very 

high use trails (t = 4.95, p < 0.001).

Day users generally had greater levels of wilderness experience. They were less likely to be on their first trip (χ2 = 5.2, 

p = 0.02) and had been to more other wilderness areas 

(gamma = 0.17, p < 0.001). They visited wilderness more 

frequently (gamma = 0.33, p < 0.001) and had visited the place 

we contacted them more often (gamma = 0.20, p < 0.001). 

Experience did not vary with trail use level except that visitors 

to the very high use trails had been to more other wildernesses 

(gamma = -0.11, p = 0.01) than visitors to the moderate use 

trails. In contrast, overnight users (gamma = -0.14, p = 0.001) 

and visitors to moderate use trails (gamma = 0.20, p < 0.001) 

reported a higher level of knowledge about wilderness. Wilderness attachment scores did not vary significantly with use 

level or length of stay. With just one exception, these findings 

about how sample attributes varied with trail use level and 

length of stay were consistent with what we found in a study 

of visitors to 36 trailheads with a wide range of use levels in 

13 wildernesses distributed across Oregon and Washington 

(Cole and Hall 2008b). In that study, group size did not vary 

significantly with use level or length of stay.

Wilderness Related Experiences

A factor analysis of pre-trip motivations, using experiential descriptors from the language of the Wilderness Act and 

wilderness writers, suggested that the 23 individual items 

could be clustered into five factors (Table 2). The cluster of 

items most important to visitors was labeled Wilderness Setting Attributes because the items within this factor are more 

descriptors of the setting that is experienced than of physical 

or psychological outcomes of the experience. The factor contains six items that reflect the language of the Wilderness Act 

(solitude, primitiveness, unconfinedness, naturalness, remoteness and wilderness). The second most important factor was 

labeled Physical Response because it consists of two items that 

Table 1—Variation in visitor attributes with trail use level and length of staya.

High Moderate Day Overnight

Age (mean of those over 16 years) 38c 40 d 42c 35d

Male (%) 54 55 52 c 63 d

Group size (mean number of people) 3.5 c 3.0 d 3.2 c 3.8 d

On first wilderness trip (%) 3 2 2c 4d

Other wildernesses visited (median number) 11-15 c 6-10 d 11-15 c 6-10 d

Visit wilderness more than 5 times/yr (%) 49 48 54 c 33 d

Visited “this place” more than 5 times (%) 21 19 23 c 12 d

Know “a little” or “a lot” about classified wilderness (%) 67 c 77 d 69 c 76 d

Wilderness attachment score (mean)b 1.46 1.53 1.47 1.52

a Values with different superscripts within a row are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05).

b Mean agreement with 3 items (“I find that a lot of my life is organized around wilderness use,” “I feel like wilderness is a part 

of me” and “I get greater satisfaction out of visiting wilderness than other areas”, on 7-point scale from strongly agree (+3) to 

strongly disagree (-3).

Cole and Hall The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 81

describe a physical response to the wilderness setting—being 

physically revitalized and experiencing challenge. The three 

remaining factors consist of psychological outcomes or states 

of mind resulting from experiencing the wilderness setting. The 

most important of these to visitors is Connection to the Natural 

World, six items about being fascinated with, connected to, at 

home in or feeling the dominance of the natural world, freedom 

from modern technology and sensing the simplicity of life. A 

fourth factor, Serenity and Absorption, contains five items: 

peace and uninterrupted solitude, living in and being absorbed 

in the present and feeling an insignificant part of the world. 

The least important factor—still with a mean importance of 

almost 4.5 on the scale from 1 to 7—is Personal Growth. This 

factor consists of four items, personal and spiritual growth, 

awe and an ability to focus on important matters.

The ability to achieve some of these experiences varied with 

use level (Table 2). Each of the five factors contained items that 

differed significantly between very high use and moderate use 

trails; 10 of the 23 individual items differed significantly. Visitors to very high use trails had significantly lower experience 

achievement scores for four of the individual items under the 

Wilderness Setting Attributes factor. Visitors to very high use 

trails, whether on day or overnight trips, were less able than 

moderate use trail visitors to experience “a sense of being away 

from the modern world” and “a sense that the surroundings 

haven’t been impacted by people.” For the items “a feeling of 

remoteness” and “solitude,” there was a significant interaction 

between use level and length of stay. Day users were more 

able to experience remoteness and solitude on moderate use 

trails than on very high use trails; but overnight users were 

equally able to find remoteness and solitude on very high and 

moderate use trails.

This suggests that visitors to very high use trails had a harder 

time than visitors to less popular places experiencing the setting 

attributes that wilderness is supposed to provide. However, 

differences were not particularly large. The largest difference 

between means, for the item “solitude,” was 1.13 units (16%) 

on the 7-point scale. Even on the very high use trails, experience achievement scores for these items were above the scale 

mid-point of 4.

Table 2—Use level effects on wilderness-related experiences achieveda.

High Use Mod. Use ANOVA

Factors and Individual Items Mean S.E. Mean S.E. F pb

Wilderness Setting Attributes

Being away from the modern world 5.11 0.08 5.54 0.11 5.3 0.02

A sense of freedom 5.21 0.07 5.51 0.12 2.1 0.15

A feeling of remoteness 4.34 0.09 5.28 0.14 13.1 <0.01c

Surroundings not impacted by people 4.09 0.09 4.89 0.14 13.6 <0.01

Solitude 4.19 0.09 5.32 0.14 12.9 <0.01c

Wilderness opportunities 4.80 0.10 5.13 0.15 0.1 0.71

Physical Response

Physical revitalization 4.99 0.08 4.83 0.14 1.6 0.20

Challenge 4.87 0.09 4.53 0.14 10.2 <0.01

Connection to the Natural World

Fascination with the natural environment 5.56 0.08 5.26 0.13 7.9 <0.01

Connection with or part of wild nature 5.34 0.07 5.40 0.11 0.1 0.74

Being at home in the natural world 5.31 0.07 5.42 0.12 0.5 0.49

The simplicity of life 5.06 0.09 5.20 0.15 0.4 0.54

Free from reliance on modern technology 4.87 0.10 5.25 0.14 0.8 0.37

The dominance of the natural world 4.70 0.09 4.50 0.16 2.9 0.09

Serenity and Absorption

Peace and tranquility 5.28 0.07 5.73 0.11 3.0 0.09

Living in present rather than past or future 5.20 0.09 5.25 0.15 0.3 0.58

Being totally absorbed in what I am doing 4.66 0.08 4.72 0.14 0.4 0.53

Having solitude interrupted by others 3.61 0.09 2.75 0.13 20.5 <0.01

Feel insignificant part of world around me 3.97 0.11 3.72 0.17 5.3 0.02

Personal Growth

Awe and humility 4.72 0.10 4.11 0.17 13.6 <0.01

Sense of personal growth 4.16 0.10 4.07 0.16 2.1 0.15

To focus on matters of importance to me 3.56 0.11 3.71 0.17 0.6 0.46

Sense of spiritual growth 3.74 0.10 4.06 0.17 2.0 0.16 

a Means for individual items are responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 

1 (not at all) to 7 (very much, most of the time). Items are clustered by pre-trip motivation factor. b p based on two-tailed tests. For items such as “peace and tranquility,” where we hypothesized higher scores for visitors 

to moderate use trails, differences are considered significant when p ≤ 0.10. c Interaction between use level and length of stay is significant for these items. For solitude and remoteness, use level is 

significant for day users only.

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness Cole and Hall
82 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Surprisingly few of the physical and psychological outcomes 

were experienced to a greater degree by visitors to moderate 

use trails. Peace and tranquility, one of the items under the 

Serenity and Absorption factor, was experienced more on 

moderate use trails and moderate trail users were less likely 

to have had their solitude interrupted. However, visitors to 

very high use trails experienced challenge—one of the items 

under Physical Response—to a greater degree than visitors to 

moderate use trails. Visitors to very high use trails experienced 

more “fascination with the natural environment” (Connection 

to the Natural World), more feeling of “being an insignificant 

part of the world around me” (Serenity and Absorption) and 

more “awe and humility” (Personal Growth).

There were more significant differences between day and 

overnight visitors than there were between visitors to very high 

and moderate use trails. Overnight visitors had significantly 

higher experience achievement scores for items under each 

of the five factors and 13 of the 23 individual items (Table 3). 

Day users did not have higher scores for any items.

We explored these relationships in more detail with multiple 

regression analyses based on the four measures of amount of 

use we had collected. Use level and length of stay were each 

significant variables for 11 of the 23 experiences (Table 4). The 

negative values for the standardized beta coefficients indicate 

that overnight users had higher experience achievement scores 

than day users and that experience achievement declined as 

use increased. Although this suggests a more pronounced effect of amount of use than was suggested by the analyses of 

variance, the magnitude of effect was small. The change in R2 

approximates the additional amount of variation in experience 

achieved resulting from including that variable. The largest 

variance explained by all use level variables and length of stay 

combined was 17% for solitude.

The five experiences that were achieved more on moderate 

use trails (“being away from the modern world,” “a feeling 

of remoteness,” “a sense that the surroundings haven’t been 

impacted by people,” “solitude” and “peace and tranquility”) 

(Table 2), varied significantly with one or more of the four 

measures of amount of use (Table 4).

On average, then, experience achievement tends to decline as 

use increases, but there is substantial variation among people. 

For example, eight of the 53 individuals who reported seeing 

other groups more than 50% of the time assigned a score of 6 

or 7 to the item “solitude” (on the 7-point scale with 7 being 

Table 3—Length of stay effects on wilderness-related experiences achieveda.

Day Use Overn. Use ANOVA

Factors and Individual Items Mean S.E. Mean S.E. F pb

Wilderness Setting Attributes

Being away from the modern world 5.17 0.08 5.47 0.14 1.4 0.23

A sense of freedom 5.27 0.07 5.39 0.13 0.1 0.81

A feeling of remoteness 4.46 0.09 5.20 0.15 6.3 0.01

Surroundings not impacted by people 4.25 0.09 4.56 0.17 0.3 0.56

Solitude 4.33 0.09 5.24 0.15 7.9 <0.01

Wilderness opportunities 4.81 0.09 5.21 0.17 1.6 0.20

Physical Response

Physical revitalization 4.93 0.08 4.99 0.16 0.2 0.67

Challenge 4.58 0.09 5.50 0.14 26.8 <0.01

Connection to the Natural World

Fascination with the natural environment 5.40 0.08 5.73 0.15 4.3 0.04

Connection with or part of wild nature 5.31 0.07 5.57 0.13 2.4 0.13

Being at home in the natural world 5.30 0.07 5.54 0.13 2.1 0.14

The simplicity of life 5.01 0.09 5.46 0.15 5.2 0.02

Free from reliance on modern technology 4.84 0.09 5.56 0.15 9.6 <0.01

The dominance of the natural world 4.50 0.09 5.20 0.17 13.7 <0.01

Serenity and Absorption

Peace and tranquility 5.35 0.07 5.69 0.12 1.9 0.17

Living in present rather than past or future 5.16 0.09 5.42 0.17 1.2 0.28

Being totally absorbed in what I am doing 4.59 0.08 5.02 0.16 4.4 0.04

Having solitude interrupted by others 3.30 0.08 3.53 0.17 5.4 0.02

Feel insignificant part of world around me 3.71 0.10 4.65 0.21 17.5 <0.01

Personal Growth

Awe and humility 4.41 0.09 5.09 0.19 13.8 <0.01

Sense of personal growth 4.02 0.09 4.58 0.18 6.7 0.01

To focus on matters of importance to me 3.47 0.10 4.14 0.21 5.9 0.02

Sense of spiritual growth 3.76 0.10 4.12 0.20 2.0 0.16

a Means for individual items are responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 1 (not at 

all) to 7 (very much, most of the time). b p based on two-tailed tests. 

Cole and Hall The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 83

an extreme level of achievement). Conversely, four of the 69 

individuals who reported seeing other groups less than 1% of 

the time assigned a score of 1 or 2 to the item, suggesting little 

ability to get away from crowds even though they only saw a 

few others.

In addition to being highly variable, the relationship between 

use and experience was weak—that is, large differences in 

amount of use resulted in quite small differences in experience. To illustrate this graphically, we divided each measure 

of amount of use into ten categories, each with roughly 

equivalent numbers of observations (about 50 individuals 

in each category). For each use category (for example, 14 

to 16 groups entering, 6-10% of time in sight of others), we 

calculated means and standard deviations. These were plotted 

on graphs, using the midpoint of each use category, and fitted 

with straight lines. In effect this separated the variability associated with differences between respondents (illustrated by 

the standard deviations) from the effect of use on experience 

(how well the mean values can be fitted to a model—in our 

case a straight line).

Figures 1a-d show how the ability to have “solitude” varied 

with each of the four use measures. This is one of the two 

experiences most influenced by amount of use. For each 

measure, the high degree of variability is evident. However, 

there is clearly a tendency for solitude to be more difficult to 

experience as use levels increase. This suggests that low r2 values reflect variability among people in the amount of solitude 

they experience given a particular use density rather than the 

lack of a linear relationship between use and solitude for each 

respondent. This is consistent with the findings of Stewart and 

Cole (2001) at Grand Canyon National Park, where they were 

able to study how the same person responded to different use 

densities.

Figure 2 shows how the relationship between amount of use 

and solitude achievement varies between day and overnight 

users. Day users experience less solitude than overnight users 

at all but the lowest use densities. Moreover, solitude declines 

more with increasing number of encounters among day users. 

Consequently, differences between day and overnight users 

are greater at the higher use levels. This difference may reflect 

Table 4—Multiple regression resultsa relating four estimates of amount of use and length of stayb to the extent wilderness-related experiences 

were achievedc.

Entering Exiting Groups Time Day/

Groups Groups Seen Seen Overnight

Factors and Individual Items ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β

Wilderness Setting Attributes

Being away from the modern world - - .01 -.12 - - .04 -.13 - -

A sense of freedom - - - - - - .03 -.18 - -

A feeling of remoteness .02 -.14 - - - - .06 -.19 .02 -.13

Surroundings not impacted by people .01 -.13 - - - - .04 -.14 - -

Solitude .02 -.15 - - - - .11 -.27 .04 -.19

Wilderness opportunities - - .02 -.15 - - - - - -

Physical Response

Physical revitalization - - - - - - - - - -

Challenge - - - - - - - - .05 -.22

Connection to the Natural World

Fascination with the natural environment - - - - - - - - - -

Connection with or part of wild nature - - - - - - .01 -.11 - -

Being at home in the natural world - - - - - - - - - -

The simplicity of life - - - - .01 -.10 - - - -

Free from reliance on modern technology - - - - - - - - .03 -.16

The dominance of the natural world - - - - - - - - .02 -.15

Serenity and Absorption

Peace and tranquility - - - - .05 -.14 .01 -.13 - -

Living in present rather than past or future - - - - - - - - - -

Being totally absorbed in what I am doing - - - - - - - - .01 -.10

Having solitude interrupted by others .03 .20 - - - - .09 .22 .01 -.09

Feel insignificant part of world around me - - - - - - - - .03 -.18

Personal Growth

Awe and humility - - - - - - - - .02 -.15

Sense of personal growth - - - - - - - - .01 -.12

To focus on matters of importance to me - - - - - - - - .02 -.14

Sense of spiritual growth - - - - .01 -.10 - - - -

a Values are (1) the change in R2

 (variance explained) that results from adding significant variables to the stepwise model and (2) standardized beta coefficients of the 

full model (illustrating directionality and magnitude of effect). Negative beta indicates experience achievement declines as use increases or is higher for overnight 

than day users. b Independent variables are (1) number of groups entering during the day, (2) number of groups exiting during the day, (3) visitor estimates of number of groups seen, 

(4) visitor estimates of percent time in sight of other groups and (5) a dummy variable for day vs. overnight use. c Responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). 

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness Cole and Hall
84 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Figure 1—Relationship between four different measures of amount of use and the extent to which solitude was 

achieved on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Values are mean responses and standard deviations 

within each of 10 use level classes.

the ability of overnight users in popular places to have 

solitude at their camp, despite encountering many other 

groups during the day.

The six experiences, in addition to solitude, that were 

achieved to a significantly higher degree on moderate 

use trails (Table 2) are shown in Figure 3, using the 

measure of use density with the most explanatory power. 

Clearly, increasing use has adverse effects on experience 

achievement but the magnitude of effect is small. Even at 

the highest levels of use, mean experience achievement 

scores are above the scale midpoint, except in the case of 

surroundings that have not been impacted and remoteness.

For the experiences that vary most with amount of use, 

the subjective judgments of amount of use explain more 

variation than the objective counts. This may mean that 

the judgments are better approximations of what was 

actually experienced or it may reflect biased estimation 

in which those feeling less solitude or more crowding 

report higher encounter levels than those not feeling that 

way.

Figure 2—Difference between day and overnight visitors in the relationship 

between group encounters and the extent to which solitude was achieved 

on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Values are mean responses 

and standard deviations within each of 10 use level classes.

Cole and Hall The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 85

Figure 3—Relationship between the time other groups were in sight (%) and the experiences (in addition to solitude) 

that were most influenced by amount of use on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Values are mean responses 

and standard deviations within each of 10 use level classes.

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness Cole and Hall
86 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Satisfaction with one’s experience is a function of motivations and expectations (Manning 1999). Therefore, in addition 

to interest in the ability to achieve certain experiences, we 

were also interested in the relationship between desired experiences (motivations) and achieved experiences. A low level 

of experience achievement is less problematic if there is little 

desire for that experience. We examined differences between 

mean pre-trip and post-trip scores and tested for interaction 

between these differences and use level, as well as length of 

stay. A significant interaction suggests that the relationship 

between motivations and experiences differs with use level 

or length of stay. For example, visitors on moderate use trails 

both desired and achieved more solitude than visitors on very 

high use trails. Since the difference between use levels was 

greater for what was experienced than for what was desired, 

the interaction between pre-post trip differences and use level 

was significant, suggesting that very high use trail visitors were 

less able to have the solitude experience they wanted. This 

contrasts with similar data for “a sense of being away from 

the modern world.” Again, visitors on moderate use trails both 

desired and achieved more sense of being away. In this case, 

however, the interaction is not significant. Moderate use visitors were no more able than very high use visitors to achieve 

the level of feeling away that they desired. For solitude, very 

high use visitors both experienced less solitude and were less 

able to experience what they desire. For feeling away from 

the modern world, very high use visitors experienced less of a 

sense of being away but were no less able to experience what 

they desire.

For nine of the 22 experiences, pre-trip motivations differed 

significantly from experiences achieved (Table 5). The item 

about interrupted solitude is not included because the fact that 

it was asked differently makes pre-post differences difficult 

to interpret. Eight experiences were achieved less than they 

were desired. These included items from each factor other than 

Serenity and Absorption. One experience was achieved more 

than it was desired--feeling “free from reliance on modern 

technology.”

For three of the six items under the Wilderness Setting Attribute factor and the individual experiences “not having my 

solitude interrupted by other people,” “feel an insignificant 

part of the world,” and “feel awe and humility,” there was a 

significant interaction between pre-post trip differences and use 

level (Table 8). For the Wilderness Setting Attribute items and 

for “not having my solitude interrupted,” very high use visitors 

were less able to experience what they desire than moderate 

Table 5—Difference in wilderness-related experiences between pre-trip and post-trip evaluations; interaction between this 

difference and use level and length of staya.

Pre- Post- Use Interaction Length Interaction

Factors and Individual Items Trip Trip F p F p

Wilderness Setting Attributes

Sense being away from the modern world 5.62 5.24 0.1 0.71 0.7 0.40

A sense of freedom 5.51 5.29 0.0 0.88 0.0 0.95

A feeling of remoteness 5.36c 4.58d 2.7 0.10 1.9 0.17

Sense surroundings not impacted by people 5.34 c 4.34d 3.5 0.06 0.5 0.49

Solitude 5.26 c 4.52d 5.2 0.02 5.1 0.02

Wilderness opportunities 5.11 4.87 0.2 0.64 1.0 0.32

Physical Response

To be physically revitalized 5.64c 4.94d 1.4 0.24 0.1 0.82

To be challenged 4.86 4.76 0.5 0.49 7.4 <0.01

Connection to the Natural World

Be fascinated with the natural environment 5.64 5.46 2.3 0.13 2.0 0.16

Feel connected with or part of wild nature 5.56c 5.32d 1.7 0.19 0.3 0.58

To feel at home in the natural world 5.41 5.32 0.2 0.64 0.8 0.36

To sense the simplicity of life 5.28 5.09 1.1 0.29 3.7 0.05

Free from reliance on modern technology 4.70c 4.96d 0.0 0.92 7.8 <0.01

Sense the dominance of the natural world 4.54 4.62 2.3 0.13 6.6 0.01

Serenity and Absorption

To feel peace and tranquility 5.59 5.40 0.5 0.50 0.7 0.39

Living in present rather than past or future 5.26 5.24 1.8 0.18 0.3 0.60

To be totally absorbed in what I am doing 5.00 4.68 0.7 0.40 3.0 0.08

Feel solitude not interrupted by othersb 4.83c 3.31d 54.8 <0.01 1.7 0.20

Feel an insignificant part of world 4.13 3.91 7.3 <0.01 9.2 <0.01

Personal Growth

To feel awe and humility 4.87c 4.52d 7.0 <0.01 4.3 0.04

To feel a sense of personal growth 4.45c 4.09d 0.8 0.36 0.4 0.55

To focus on matters of importance to me 4.43c 3.61d 0.6 0.42 2.4 0.12

To feel a sense of spiritual growth 4.13 3.81 0.1 0.74 0.3 0.56

a Pre- and post-trip values are means for responses to questions about how much visitors desired or experienced each item, on a scale from 

1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Items with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). We hypothesized greater ability to have 

desired experiences for overnight visitors and visitors to moderate use trails, so differences are considered significant when p ≤ 0.10. b Before the trip, we asked about the desire to not have solitude interrupted; after the trip we asked about experiencing interruptions of 

solitude. For this item, the larger the difference between pre-and post-trip, the less solitude was interrupted.

Cole and Hall The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 87

use visitors. For the experiences “feel an insignificant part of 

the world” and “feel awe and humility”, very high use visitors 

were more able to experience what they desire than moderate 

use visitors.

There were also eight experiences for which there was a significant interaction between pre-post trip differences and length 

of stay. In all cases, the difference between desires and experience achieved was greater for day users than overnight users. For 

“solitude,” neither type of visitor had their desires met, but day 

users were less able to experience what they desire. For “to be 

challenged, “sense the simplicity of life,” “sense the dominance 

of the natural world,” “to be totally absorbed in what I am doing,” 

“feel an insignificant part of the world” and “feel awe and humility,” overnight visitors achieved more than they desired while day 

visitors were not able to meet their desires. For feeling “free from 

reliance on modern technology,” experience achieved exceeded 

experience desired for both groups, but pre-post trip differences 

were smaller for day users.

Recreation Experience Preferences

We explored the psychological outcomes and benefits of 

wilderness experiences further by drawing on three different theoretical frameworks. One of these was the Recreation 

Experience Preference (REP) scales developed by Driver and 

others (1987). A number of the items in these scales (such as, 

having a sense of solitude) are similar to those described in 

the previous section. We explore them separately here because 

these scales were developed through a process not exclusive 

to examining wilderness experiences.

A factor analysis of pre-trip motivations suggested 

that the 27 individual items can be clustered within six 

factors (Table 6). The factor most important to visitors, 

Enjoy Nature and Learning, contained items from two 

of Driver’s experience domains: Enjoy Nature and Learning. Solitude and Autonomy contained items from two of 

Driver’s domains: Escape Physical Pressure and Autonomy. 

The third factor, Family and Friends, contained two items 

Table 6—Use level effects on experiences achieveda, using Recreation Experience Preference scale items.

High Use Mod. Use ANOVA

Factors and Individual Items Mean S.E. Mean S.E. F pb

Enjoy Nature and Learning

View the scenery 6.33 0.05 6.27 0.08 0.1 0.72

Be close to nature 5.77 0.07 5.93 0.06 0.1 0.70

Explore the area 5.28 0.09 5.71 0.11 0.2 0.64 

Gain a better appreciation of nature 5.33 0.08 5.33 0.14 0.9 0.35

Learn about this place 4.33 0.10 4.57 0.15 1.1 0.30

Solitude and Autonomy

Be where it’s quiet 5.36 0.08 5.97 0.11 6.7 0.01

Get away from crowded situations awhile 4.44 0.10 5.79 0.12 32.2 <0.01

Experience the open space 5.79 0.07 5.92 0.10 0.0 0.99

Have a sense of solitude 4.20 0.09 5.40 0.14 17.1 <0.01c

Be my own boss 3.46 0.11 3.31 0.17 2.9 0.09

Feel isolated 3.68 0.09 4.42 0.17 6.0 0.01

Family and Friends

Do something with my companions 5.36 0.11 5.78 0.14 3.1 0.06

Do something with my family 3.72 0.13 4.46 0.21 6.4 0.02

Introspection, Relaxation and Personal Growth

Give my mind a rest 4.92 0.09 5.28 0.13 1.0 0.31

Get away from the usual demands of life 5.03 0.10 5.28 0.14 1.4 0.25

Relax physically 4.84 0.10 4.78 0.16 0.0 0.99

Grow and develop spiritually 3.62 0.11 3.83 0.18 0.1 0.72

Think about who I am 3.39 0.10 3.44 0.17 0.5 0.47

Gain a new perspective on life 3.66 0.10 3.70 0.17 0.4 0.55

Reflect on past memories 4.13 0.10 3.96 0.16 3.9 0.05

Achievement and Physical Fitness

Get exercise 6.26 0.06 6.04 0.10 4.1 0.04

Gain a sense of accomplishment 5.15 0.09 4.72 0.15 9.8 <0.01

Show myself I could do it 4.24 0.11 3.79 0.17 8.8 <0.01

Develop my skills and abilities 3.75 0.10 3.54 0.16 3.9 0.05

People and Risk

Experience risky situations 3.10 0.10 2.76 0.14 14.6 <0.01c

Feel other people could help if I need them 3.20 0.11 2.85 0.16 0.9 0.35

Be with and observe others using the area 2.86 0.10 2.28 0.13 13.1 <0.01

a Means for individual items are responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 

1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). b p based on two-tailed tests. 

c

 Interaction between use and length of stay is significant for these items. For solitude, use level is significant for overnight 

users only; for risk, use level is significant only for day users.

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness Cole and Hall
88 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

from the domains Family Togetherness and Similar People. 

A fourth factor, Introspection, Relaxation and Personal 

Growth, contained seven items from the domains Driver 

called Introspection, Escape Personal-Social Pressures, 

Nostalgia, Physical Rest and Creativity. A fifth factor, 

Achievement and Physical Fitness, contained four items 

from the domains Driver called Achievement and Physical 

Fitness. The final factor, People and Risk, contains three 

items Driver called Risk-Taking, Risk-Reduction and New 

People.

The ability to achieve some of these experiences varied with 

use level (Table 6). Visitors to very high use trails had significantly lower experience achievement scores for four individual 

items related to Solitude and for the item “do something with 

my family.” For the item “have a sense of solitude”, there was 

a significant interaction between use level and length of stay. 

Overnight users were more able to find solitude on moderate 

use trails than on very high use trails; but day users were equally 

able to find solitude on very high and moderate use trails.

Visitors to very high use trails had significantly higher 

experience achievement scores for all four items in the factor 

Achievement and Fitness, as well as the individual items “reflect on past memories,” “experience risky situations,” and 

“be with and observe others using the area” (Table 6). For 

the item “experience risky situations,” there was a significant 

interaction between use level and length of stay. Day users on 

very high use trails felt more risk than day users on moderate 

use trails; but overnight users’ sense of risk did not vary with 

amount of use..

None of the items related to Enjoy Nature and Learning—

the most important motivation—varied significantly with use 

level. Neither did most of the items related to Introspection, 

Relaxation and Personal Growth.

More items differed significantly between day and overnight 

visitors. Overnight visitors had significantly higher experience 

achievement scores for items in five of the six factors: Enjoy 

Nature and Learning, Solitude and Autonomy, Introspection and 

Personal Growth, Achievement and Physical Fitness and New 

People and Risk (Table 7). Overnight visitors had significantly 

Table 7—Length of stay effects on experiences achieveda, using Recreation Experience Preference scale items.

Day Use Overn. Use ANOVA

Factors and Individual Items Mean S.E. Mean S.E. F pb

Enjoy Nature and Learning

View the scenery 6.31 0.05 6.34 0.10 0.6 0.43

Be close to nature 5.78 0.07 5.93 0.13 0.4 0.56

Explore the area 5.28 0.08 5.89 0.11 5.9 0.02c

Gain a better appreciation of nature 5.30 0.08 5.48 0.16 0.6 0.44

Learn about this place 4.22 0.10 5.10 0.18 11.0 <0.01c

Solitude and Autonomy

Be where it’s quiet 5.42 0.08 5.99 0.12 5.7 0.02

Get away from crowded situations awhile 4.68 0.09 5.40 0.16 3.4 0.07

Experience the open space 5.79 0.07 5.99 0.11 1.0 0.32

Have a sense of solitude 4.38 0.09 5.28 0.15 8.1 <0.01c

Be my own boss 3.26 0.10 4.03 0.21 10.8 <0.01

Feel isolated 3.65 0.09 4.88 0.17 25.1 <0.01

Family and Friends

Do something with my companions 5.43 0.10 5.71 0.19 0.8 0.36

Do something with my family 3.95 0.13 3.89 0.27 0.7 0.42

Introspection, Relaxation and Personal Growth

Give my mind a rest 4.95 0.08 5.29 0.17 1.1 0.29

Get away from the usual demands of life 5.01 0.10 5.67 0.16 7.5 <0.01

Relax physically 4.94 0.09 4.37 0.20 7.2 <0.01

Grow and develop spiritually 3.55 0.10 4.18 0.21 5.9 0.02

Think about who I am 3.33 0.09 3.70 0.21 2.1 0.15

Gain a new perspective on life 3.59 0.09 3.99 0.20 2.7 0.10

Reflect on past memories 3.96 0.10 4.55 0.18 6.7 0.01

Achievement and Physical Fitness

Get exercise 6.24 0.05 6.01 0.12 2.6 0.11

Gain a sense of accomplishment 4.91 0.09 5.52 0.15 11.9 <0.01

Show myself I could do it 3.95 0.10 4.77 0.20 13.8 <0.01

Develop my skills and abilities 3.53 0.09 4.36 0.19 16.7 <0.01

People and Risk

Experience risky situations 2.79 0.09 3.89 0.19 30.7 <0.01

Feel other people could help if I need them 3.05 0.10 3.32 0.20 3.5 0.09

Be with and observe others using the area 2.60 0.09 3.07 0.20 8.1 <0.01

a Means for individual items are responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 1 (not at 

all) to 7 (extremely). Items are clustered by pre-trip motivation factor. b p based on two-tailed tests. For items such as “get away from crowded situations for awhile” where we hypothesized higher scores 

for overnight users, differences are considered significant when p ≤, 0.10. c Interaction between use and length of stay is significant for these items. For each, length of stay is significant on high use trails only.

Cole and Hall The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 89

higher scores for 16 of the 27 individual items. Day users had 

significantly higher scores for only one item—“being able to 

relax physically”. The only factor that did not vary significantly 

with length of stay was Family and Friends.

Multiple regression analyses, using the four measures of 

amount of use we had collected and a dummy variable for 

length of stay, also suggest that whether one is on a day trip or 

an overnight trip affects more of these experiences than amount 

of use (Table 8). Length of stay was a significant variable for 

17 of the 27 experiences, while amount of use was significant 

for 13 of the experiences. The magnitude of effect was small, 

however. The largest variance explained by length of stay was 

6% for “experience risky situations.” For most experiences, 

variance explained was just 1-2%. The negative values for 

most standardized beta coefficients indicate that overnight users had higher experience achievement scores than day users. 

Day users had higher achievement for “relax physically” and 

“get exercise.”

The five experiences that were achieved more on moderate 

use trails (“be where it’s quiet,” “get away from crowded situations for awhile,” “have a sense of solitude,” “feel isolated” 

and “do something with my family”), varied significantly with 

one or more of the four measures of amount of use (Table 8). 

However, amount of use did not explain much of the variation 

in experience achieved for any of these experiences and the 

relationship between use and experience was weak; large differences in amount of use resulted in quite small differences 

in experience.

For 14 of the 27 experiences, pre-trip motivations differed 

significantly from experiences achieved (Table 9). Nine experiences were achieved less than they were desired. These 

included particularly items in the Solitude and Autonomy and 

the Introspection, Relaxation and Personal Growth factors. 

Five experiences were achieved more than they were desired. 

These were mostly items related to Achievement and Physical 

Fitness.

Table 8—Multiple regression resultsa relating four estimates of amount of use and length of stayb to experiences achievedc.

Entering Exiting Groups Time Day/

Groups Groups Seen Seen Overnight

Factors and Individual Items ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β

Enjoy Nature and Learning

View the scenery - - - - - - - - - -

Be close to nature - - .02 -.14 - - - - - -

Explore the area - - .03 -.16 - - - - .02 -.14

Gain a better appreciation of nature - - - - - - - - - -

Learn about this place - - .03 -.15 - - - - .02 -.14

Solitude and Autonomy

Be where it’s quiet - - - - .02 -.15 .07 -.18 .02 -.13

Get away from crowded situations awhile .01 -.13 - - .20 -.24 .04 -.22 .02 -.11

Experience the open space - - - - .02 -.13 - - - -

Have a sense of solitude .02 -.15 - - - - .11 -.27 .04 -.19

Be my own boss - - - - - - - - .02 -.16

Feel isolated - - .03 -.15 - - - - .02 -.14

Family and Friends

Do something with my companions .01 -.10 - - - - - - - -

Do something with my family - - .01 -.09 - - - - - -

Introspection, Relaxation and Personal Growth

Give my mind a rest - - - - - - - - - -

Get away from the usual demands of life - - - - .01 -.12 - - .02 -.12

Relax physically - - - - .01 -.12 - - .01 .13

Grow and develop spiritually - - - - - - - - .01 -.10

Think about who I am - - - - - - - - - -

Gain a new perspective on life - - - - - - - - - -

Reflect on past memories - - - - - - - - .02 -.12

Achievement and Physical Fitness

Get exercise - - - - - - - - .01 .09

Gain a sense of accomplishment - - - - - - - - .02 -.13

Show myself I could do it - - - - - - - - .03 -.17

Develop my skills and abilities - - - - - - - - .03 -.18

People and Risk

Experience risky situations - - - - - - - - .06 -.24

Feel other people could help if I need them - - - - - - - - - -

Be with and observe others using the area - - - - .01 .12 - - .01 -.13

a Values are (1) the change in R2

 (variance explained) that results from adding significant variables to the stepwise model and (2) standardized beta coefficients of 

the full model (illustrating directionality and magnitude of effect). Negative beta indicates that experience achievement declines as use increases and is higher for 

overnight users than day users. b Independent variables are (1) number of groups entering during the day, (2) number of groups exiting during the day, (3) visitor estimates of number of groups seen, 

(4) visitor estimates of percent time in sight of other groups and (5) a dummy variable for day vs. overnight use. c Responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely).

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness Cole and Hall
90 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

For three of six individual items within the Solitude and 

Autonomy factor and the individual item “to experience risky 

situations,” there was a significant interaction between pre-post 

trip differences and use level (Table 9). For “have a sense of 

solitude” and “get away from crowded situations awhile,” very 

high use visitors were less able to experience what they desire 

than moderate use visitors. For “be my own boss” (asked pre-trip 

as “be free to make my own choices”) and “experience risky 

situations,” very high use visitors were more able to experience 

what they desire than moderate use visitors. There were also 

four experiences for which there was a significant interaction 

between pre-post trip differences and length of stay. For “be my 

own boss,” overnight visitors achieved more than they desired 

while day visitors were not able to meet their expectations. 

For “feel isolated” and “experience risky situations,” neither 

type of visitor had their desires met, but day users were less 

able to have their desires met. For “get exercise,” experience 

achieved exceeded experience desired for both groups, but 

pre-post trip differences were smaller for overnight users.

Wilderness Privacy

 In addition to exploring the degree to which visitors experienced solitude in wilderness, we were also interested in the 

functional outcomes of such experiences. For this purpose, we 

explored the extent to which visitors desired and experienced 

various privacy functions. Factor analyses of motivations 

aligned closely with Pedersen’s (1997) five privacy functions 

(Table 10). The most important of the privacy functions was 

Rejuvenation. The mean score of the two items under this 

function was 5.5 on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 7 

(extremely important). Somewhat less important were the functions Autonomy and Confiding. The least important functions, 

Contemplation and Creativity, did not load on separate factors; 

their mean importance was slightly above the midpoint of 4.

 Although visitors to moderate use trails achieved a higher 

degree of solitude than visitors to very high use trails, they did 

not experience the functional outcomes of privacy to a higher 

degree. None of the privacy function factors and none of the 

Table 9—Difference between pre-trip and post-trip experience evaluations, using Recreation Experience Preference scale 

items, and interaction between this difference and use level and length of staya.

Pre- Post- Use Interaction Length Interaction

Factors and Individual Items Trip Trip F p F p

Enjoy Nature and Learning

View the scenery 6.27 6.28 0.1 0.74 0.1 0.76

Be close to nature 6.17c 5.78d 0.1 0.95 0.1 0.70

Explore the area 5.87c 5.32d 0.5 0.48 1.3 0.26

Gain a better appreciation of nature 5.19 5.22 0.7 0.40 2.2 0.14

Learn about this place 4.69 4.37 0.3 0.56 2.0 0.16

Solitude and Autonomy

Be where it’s quiet 5.70 5.48 2.9 0.09 0.6 0.46

Get away from crowded situations awhile 5.57c 4.79d 23.3 <0.01 0.3 0.60

Experience the open space 5.50c 5.78d 1.6 0.20 0.9 0.34

Have a sense of solitude 5.06c 4.52d 6.2 0.01 1.1 0.29

Be my own boss/free to make own choices 3.56 3.18 7.8 <0.01 7.0 <0.01

Feel isolated 4.03 3.83 0.0 0.87 3.9 0.05

Family and Friends

Do something with my companions 5.54 5.49 1.5 0.23 0.2 0.68

Do something with my family 4.55c 3.94d 0.0 0.93 0.1 0.72

Introspection, Relaxation and Personal Growth

Give my mind a rest 5.69c 5.03d 0.5 0.48 0.2 0.63

Get away from the usual demands of life 5.08 5.10 0.1 0.79 0.1 0.80

Relax physically 5.05c 4.81d 0.0 0.84 2.1 0.15

Grow and develop spiritually 4.35c 3.69d 0.2 0.68 0.0 0.87

Think about who I am 4.12c 3.41d 0.2 0.64 0.2 0.68

Gain a new perspective on life 3.93 3.65 0.3 0.61 0.0 0.88

Reflect on past memories 3.81c 4.09d 1.0 0.32 2.2 0.14

Achievement and Physical Fitness

Get exercise 5.76c 6.19d 0.4 0.53 3.8 0.05

Gain a sense of accomplishment 4.84c 5.04d 2.5 0.11 3.1 0.08

Show myself I could do it 3.92c 4.11d 1.1 0.30 2.0 0.16

Develop my skills and abilities 3.61 3.71 1.6 0.21 1.0 0.32

People and Risk

Experience risky situations 3.22 3.00 4.3 0.04 5.1 0.02

Feel other people could help if I need them 3.05 3.11 1.4 0.23 0.2 0.65

Be with and observe others using the area 2.81 2.68 3.2 0.07 2.7 0.10

a Pre- and post-trip values are means for responses to questions about how much visitors desired or experienced each item, on a scale 

from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Items with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). For items such as “be where 

it’s quiet,” where we hypothesized higher ability to experience what was desired for moderate trail users, differences are considered 

significant when p ≤ 0.10.

Cole and Hall The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 91

individual items differed significantly between visitors to very 

high and moderate use trails (Table 10). Whether one was on 

a day or an overnight trip, in contrast, did have a significant 

effect on the functional outcomes of privacy. For all of the 

items other than those related to Rejuvenation, overnight users had higher experience achievement scores than day users 

(Table 11). Day users were less able to have experiences for all 

functions other than Rejuvenation. A more detailed treatment 

of results is available in Cole and Hall (2008a, 2010a).

Attention Restoration Theory

 Visitors were asked how much they experienced the wilderness in ways theorized to allow for recovery from directed 

attention fatigue: fascination, being away, compatibility and 

coherence (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). Of the four domains, 

visitors were most able to achieve the experiences associated 

with Fascination (Table 12). Three items (“I felt bored by the 

environment,” “I was focused on things I had to get done after 

the trip” and “A feeling that there was too much going on”) 

were asked in a reverse format—where a high score indicates 

low achievement. For these items, values in tables have been 

recalculated to be consistent with other items (by subtracting 

scores from 7).

There was no evidence that visitors to very high use 

places in wilderness were less able to experience environments in ways that are conducive to the restoration of 

attention. None of the domains varied significantly with use 

level; only one individual item did and, for this item, experience achievement increased as use level increased (Table 12). 

Table 10—Use level effects on experiences achieveda for experiences related to privacy functions.

High Use Mod. Use ANOVA

Factors and Individual Items Mean S.E. Mean S.E. F pb

Rejuvenation

To release stress and tension 5.16 0.08 5.26 0.13 0.1 0.71

To feel mentally rejuvenated 4.81 0.09 4.89 0.14 0.1 0.75

Autonomy

Sense of personal freedom/independence 4.39 0.09 4.89 0.14 0.6 0.45

To feel free to behave as I want 4.31 0.09 4.74 0.15 0.7 0.42

Confiding

To feel close to my companions 4.31 0.11 4.67 0.17 0.5 0.50

To confide in others I trust 3.27 0.11 3.44 0.17 0.1 0.79

Contemplation and Creativity

To meditate and reflect 4.19 0.09 4.26 0.16 0.2 0.66

Develop/explore new thoughts and ideas 4.23 0.09 4.30 0.13 0.4 0.51

To discover who I am 3.39 0.09 3.35 0.15 1.8 0.18 

To work on solutions to personal problems 3.15 0.10 3.45 0.17 0.4 0.51

a Means for individual items are responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 

1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Items are clustered by pre-trip motivation factor. b

 p based on two-tailed tests.

Table 11—Length of stay effects on experiences achieveda for experiences related to privacy functions.

Day Use Overn. Use ANOVA

Factors and Individual Items Mean S.E. Mean S.E. F pb

Rejuvenation

To release stress and tension 5.19 0.08 5.21 0.17 0.0 0.97

To feel mentally rejuvenated 4.81 0.09 4.89 0.14 0.4 0.53

Autonomy

Sense of personal freedom/independence 4.35 0.09 4.96 0.17 7.8 <0.01

To feel free to behave as I want 4.31 0.09 4.95 0.17 5.5 0.02

Confiding

To feel close to my companions 4.30 0.10 4.89 0.19 5.3 0.02

To confide in others I trust 3.14 0.10 4.05 0.21 15.3 <0.01

Contemplation and Creativity

To meditate and reflect 4.07 0.09 4.77 0.17 11.8 <0.01

Develop/explore new thoughts and ideas 4.17 0.08 4.60 0.17 3.1 0.08

To discover who I am 3.28 0.08 3.76 0.17 4.8 0.03 

To work on solutions to personal problems 3.09 0.09 3.84 0.19 8.4 <0.01

a Means for individual items are responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 1 (not at 

all) to 7 (extremely). b p based on two-tailed tests. For items such as “develop and explore new thoughts and ideas,” where we hypothesized higher 

scores for overnight users, differences are considered significant when p ≤ 0.10.

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness Cole and Hall
92 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Whether one was on a day trip or an overnight trip affected 

more of these experiences, particularly those in the domains 

Being Away and Compatability. A more detailed treatment of 

results is available in Cole and Hall (2008a, 2010b).

Discussion _______________________

The objective of this study was to explore the nature of visitor 

experiences in wilderness and the degree to which experience 

varies with use levels and length of stay. The very high use 

places we studied are among the most popular, heavily-used 

places anywhere in wilderness. Crowds of people are common 

there and the impacts of use are conspicuous. The moderate 

use places are more like the conditions that might be provided 

if use of very popular places was limited. Despite these differences in setting, visitors’ assessments of the nature of their 

experiences were not very different in very high use places 

than in much more modestly used places.

We asked visitors about 72 different experiences and the 

degree to which they had each experience. We hypothesized 

that visitors to very high use trailheads would have lower experience achievement for many of these experiences. We also 

hypothesized that very high use visitors would have a harder 

time having the experiences they wanted--that the difference 

between pre-trip motives and post-trip experience achievement 

would be greater than for moderate use visitors. We assessed 

this latter hypothesis by examining the degree of interaction 

between pre-post trip assessments and use level in analyses 

of variance.

Our hypotheses were both correct only for the following 

seven of the 72 experiences: feeling of remoteness; sense that 

surroundings are not impacted by people; solitude (from the 

general wilderness experience questions); feeling that solitude 

is not interrupted by others; be where it’s quiet; get away from 

crowded situations awhile; and have a sense of solitude (from 

the Recreation Experience Preference scales).

More experiences and a more diverse array of experiences 

differed with length of stay. There were 15 experiences for which 

(1) achievement was lower for day users than overnight users 

and (2) it was more difficult for day users to have the experience to the degree desired. These were: solitude; challenge; to 

sense the simplicity of life; to feel free from reliance on modern 

technology; to sense the dominance of the natural world; to 

be totally absorbed in what I’m doing; to feel an insignificant 

part of the world around me; to feel awe and humility; to be 

my own boss; to feel isolated; to experience risky situations; 

to feel free to behave as I want; to feel close to companions; to 

confide in others I trust; and to work on solutions to personal 

problems.

Driver and Brown (1975) proposed the idea of a recreation 

demand hierarchy—that it is important to think about recreation 

demand in terms of activities, settings, experience (psychological) outcomes and enduring benefits. Visitor experience can also 

be usefully described in these same terms—activities, settings, 

experience (psychological) outcomes and enduring benefits. 

In wilderness (as elsewhere), visitors experience the activities they are doing; they also experience the setting (physical, 

social and managerial) they are doing these activities in. The 

hiking experience is different from the boating experience and 

hiking in an urban park is a different experience from hiking 

a wilderness trail. Engaging in a particular activity (such as 

hiking) in a particular setting (a remote wilderness without 

trails) results in psychological outcomes—both transitory (a 

momentary sense of awe) and enduring (spiritual growth). The 

more enduring outcomes are often thought of as benefits.

Table 12—Use level effects on achievement of experiences related to attention restoration theorya.

High Use Mod. Use ANOVA

Factors and Individual Items Mean S.E. Mean S.E. F pb

Fascination

There was much to attract and hold my attention 5.37 0.09 5.12 0.13 5.5 0.02

I was absorbed in my immediate surroundings 5.28 0.08 5.20 0.12 1.1 0.29

I felt bored by the environmentc 5.27 0.07 5.19 0.12 0.2 0.62

Being Away

I felt removed from my daily routines 5.05 0.10 5.39 0.14 0.8 0.36

Away from other people’s demands and expectations 4.57 0.11 5.01 0.15 0.4 0.55

I was focused on things I had to get done after the tripc 4.16 0.09 4.34 0.15 1.5 0.23

Compatibility

I felt I could easily handle the problems that arise here 4.69 0.10 5.08 0.14 0.5 0.47

I sensed that I belong here 4.84 0.10 4.70 0.15 3.3 0.07

What I wanted to do was what needed to be done here 4.18 0.11 4.18 0.17 1.0 0.31

Coherence

I sensed that the elements around me fit together 4.67 0.09 4.71 0.15 0.0 0.85

I felt immediate surroundings were part of larger whole 4.58 0.10 4.69 0.16 0.2 0.68

A feeling that there was too much going onc 4.50 0.09 4.65 0.14 0.9 0.35

a Means for individual items are responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 1 (not at all) 

to 7 (extremely). Items are clustered by theoretical restorative domain. b p based on two-tailed tests.

c For items asked inversely to other items, scores were subtracted from 7 (i.e. higher scores indicate less agreement with the item)

Cole and Hall The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 93

Of these four classes of experiential descriptors, our study 

focused primarily on experiences expressed in terms of the 

setting that was experienced (for example, surroundings not 

impacted by people) or of psychological outcomes for example, 

to meditate and reflect). All seven of the items experienced 

less by visitors to very high use places are more descriptors 

of the setting and conditions that are experienced than of the 

psychological outcomes of those experiences. Five items refer 

explicitly to setting attributes conducive to opportunities for 

solitude—having it, not having it interrupted, being away from 

crowds and, consequently, being where it’s quiet. Closely 

related are a sense of remoteness and being in a place that has 

not been impacted much by people.

Even where use level affected what people experience, the 

magnitude of effect was not large. The largest difference between very high use and moderate use trails, for any of these 

variables, is 1.3 units on a 7-unit scale. In multiple regression 

analyses, use never explained more than 25% of the variation 

in experience achievement and seldom explained more than 

a few percent. Even where use explained substantial variation, large decreases in amount of use were associated with 

quite modest increases in experience achievement. One of 

the common explanations for amount of use not having much 

effect on visitor satisfaction has been the multi-faceted nature 

of satisfaction (Manning 1999). In this study, we separated 

this multi-faceted concept into its individual components and 

experiences. Use level still had little effect.

None of the experiences that are clearly psychological outcomes were affected by amount of use. Although solitude was 

affected by use, privacy functions—the purposes served by 

solitude and privacy—were not affected. Nor were the types 

of experience that contribute to restoration of direct attention 

fatigue—the mental and physical rejuvenation that comes from 

getting away from the stress, demands and routines of modern 

life. In interviews with wilderness visitors about their experiences, most visitors characterized their experience as doing an 

activity in a natural environment with their companions (Hall 

and others 2007). These experiences—along with peace and 

quiet—were the most important pre-trip motivations. They 

were not affected substantially by use level. Nor did use affect 

the ability to grow personally or spiritually or to experience 

such attributes as timelessness, simplicity, awe, and humility. 

What was affected was the ability to experience the setting 

attributes that are most unique to wilderness—remoteness, 

lack of human impact, lack of crowds and solitude.

Wilderness experiences were determined more by whether 

one was staying overnight in the wilderness than by use levels. 

The experiential domains that varied significantly with length 

of stay were diverse, with most relating more to the psychological outcomes of experiences than the setting and conditions 

that were experienced. Magnitudes of difference were similar 

(typically small) to magnitudes of difference related to use 

level.

For decades, scientists and managers have been concerned 

that heavy use changes the nature of recreational experiences 

and diminishes their quality (Manning 1999). Our research 

suggests that visitors to very high use wilderness places have 

experiences that are very similar in nature to those of visitors 

to less popular wildernesses. Where there is any difference, it 

is one of degree of achievement.

In relation to Driver and Brown’s (1975) proposed 

hierarchy of experiences, our research suggests that the 

primary experiential effect of amount of use is on how the 

setting is experienced. Previous research suggests that the 

Table 13—Length of stay effects on achievement of experiences related to attention restoration theorya.

Day Use Overn. Use ANOVA

Factors and Individual Items Mean S.E. Mean S.E. F pb

Fascination

There was much to attract and hold my attention 5.26 0.08 5.45 0.14 1.4 0.23

I was absorbed in my immediate surroundings 5.18 0.08 5.53 0.14 4.1 0.04

I felt bored by the environmentc 5.30 0.07 5.02 0.15 3.3 0.07

Being Away

I felt removed from my daily routines 5.05 0.09 5.58 0.16 4.7 0.03

Away from other people’s demands and expectations 4.59 0.10 5.15 0.17 3.5 0.06

I was focused on things I had to get done after the tripc 4.29 0.09 3.92 0.19 4.2 0.04

Compatibility

I felt I could easily handle the problems that arise here 4.66 0.09 5.40 0.13 9.7 <0.01

I sensed that I belong here 4.75 0.09 4.97 0.18 0.7 0.40

What I wanted to do was what needed to be done here 4.07 0.11 4.60 0.19 4.2 0.04

Coherence

I sensed that the elements around me fit together 4.65 0.09 4.78 0.17 0.2 0.62

Felt immediate surroundings were part of larger whole 4.54 0.10 4.90 0.18 1.8 0.18

A feeling that there was too much going onc 4.62 0.08 4.25 0.1 8 4.9 0.03

a Means for individual items are responses to questions about how much visitors experienced each item, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 

(extremely). b p based on two-tailed tests, both for entire factor and individual items. For items such as “away from other people’s demands and expectations”, where we hypothesized higher scores for overnight visitors, differences are considered significant for p < 0.10. c For items asked inversely to other items, scores were subtracted from 7 (i.e. higher scores indicate less agreement with the item).

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness Cole and Hall
94 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

activities visitors participate in do not vary much with use 

level (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). We found surprisingly 

little effect on psychological outcomes—either transitory (for 

example, a sense of awe) or longer-lasting (for example, physical 

revitalization). Although we did not study enduring benefits, 

there is little reason to think they would differ given the lack 

of difference in psychological outcomes. Indeed, Patterson and 

others (1998) and Glaspell (2002) explored the meanings of 

wilderness experience (on the basis of in depth interviews) in 

highly divergent wilderness settings (the heavily-used, mostly 

day use Juniper Springs Wilderness in Florida and the remote 

Gates of the Arctic Wilderness in Alaska). Although the details 

of what was experienced obviously differed, the domains of 

meaning that visitors drew from those experiences (such as 

challenge and being close to nature) were remarkably similar 

between the two wildernesses.

Most previous studies of day and overnight visitors have 

concluded that the trip motivations of the two groups differ, with 

day users being less interested in a “true” wilderness experience. 

In Montana wilderness, Grossa (1979, p. 125) concluded that 

“day users...are visiting the wilderness for recreational activities 

and other pursuits which are not dependent exclusively on a 

truly wilderness environment.” In the Shenandoah Wilderness, 

in Virginia, Papenfuse et al. (2000, pp. 152 and 153) conclude 

that “few day visitors see the trip as primarily a wilderness 

one” and that “day visitors were seeking something other than 

a wilderness trip.” Cole (2001) speculated that expectations 

may differ more than motivations—that day users may want 

most of the same experiences as overnight visitors (including 

true wilderness experiences), but that they know from previous experience that they are less likely to achieve them. In 

our study, we did not assess expectations. However, we did 

find that day and overnight users differed more in experience 

achievement than in experience motivation. Motivations were 

significantly different for 20 items, while achievement was 

significantly different for 38 items. Clearly day users had less 

intense desires than overnight users for many of the experiences we asked about; they were also less able to have most 

of these experiences to the degree that overnight users did.

Management Implications___________

Very popular places in wilderness had a very different social 

setting from less popular places. For example, visitors to our 

very high use places reported a mean of 16 encounters with 

other groups per day and being in sight of other groups 30% 

of the time. In contrast, visitors to moderate use places had 

a mean of 5 encounters per day and were in sight of others 

8% of the time. Visitors to very high use places experienced 

conditions that were not entirely consistent with the wilderness 

ideal. They experienced crowds and surroundings that had been 

impacted by people. This caused them to feel somewhat less 

remote and to experience somewhat less solitude and quiet. 

However, these were the only experiences we studied that 

differed between very high use and moderate use wilderness. 

The psychological outcomes derived from wilderness visits 

were as substantial in very high use wilderness as they were 

in less heavily used places. This suggests that the enduring 

personal and social benefits of a wilderness trip may not be 

greatly diminished in very high use places. Experiences in very 

high use wilderness were different—because a few attributes 

of the setting differed—but it seems misleading to state, from 

the perspective of the visitor, that they were substantially 

lower in quality.

Much more important to experience quality than amount of 

use was length of stay. Many more experiences varied with 

length of stay than with use level. If the goal is to increase 

opportunities for desired psychological outcomes of a wilderness trip, convincing people to stay out overnight would 

be more effective and beneficial than reducing use levels. But, 

even for length of stay, the magnitude of difference in experience was small.

Use has already been limited in some wildernesses and there 

are many advocates for more widespread use limits. There are 

both biophysical and social reasons for such limits. Research 

we have reported elsewhere suggests that visitors are more 

supportive of biophysical reasons for limits (less impact on 

plants, soil and wildlife) than social reasons (Cole and Hall 

2008b). If the reason for limits is social, our research suggests 

that managers should provide a rationale other than to provide 

higher quality experiences. Even in very high use wilderness, 

visitors had high quality experiences, realizing many desired 

psychological outcomes that are likely to have substantial 

enduring personal and social benefits. What differed was 

primarily the setting that was experienced. In very high use 

wilderness, visitors experienced less of several attributes that 

lie close to the core of what wilderness is. They experienced 

less remoteness, solitude and quiet and they were confronted 

with more human impact.

Our research suggests that the primary experiential justification for use limits should be to maximize opportunities to 

experience wilderness as a unique setting that simultaneously 

provides a high degree of remoteness, primitiveness, solitude 

and perceived naturalness. To paraphrase the Wilderness Act, 

use limits can increase opportunities to experience wilderness 

“as wilderness.” This obviously is justifiable—even necessary—at least in some places. But there is little evidence that 

limits will consistently lead to substantially different or higher 

quality experiences. Moreover, managers should understand 

that most visitors do not consider the benefits of experiencing 

a wilderness with less people and more solitude to be equal to 

the cost associated with being denied access (Cole and Hall 

2008b). In part this is because, even in very high use wilderness, 

visitors find most of the attributes they are seeking and have 

most of the experiences they desire (Hall and others 2007). 

Moreover, they know that there are many other wilderness 

destinations that provide less crowded conditions, where they 

can go when those attributes are important to them (Cole and 

Hall in press).

Cole and Hall The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 95

References _______________________

Altman, Irwin. 1975. The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: 

Brooks/Cole. 256 p.

Borrie, William T.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 2001. The dynamic, emergent, and 

multi-phasic nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 33: 208-228.

Brown, Perry J.; Haas, Glenn E. 1980. Wilderness recreation experiences: the 

Rawah case. Journal of Leisure Research. 12: 229-241.

Cole, David N. 2001. Day users in wilderness: how different are they? Res. 

Pap. RMRS-RP-31. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 29 p.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2008a. Visitor experiences in wilderness: How 

they vary with amount of use and length of stay. Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute [Online] http://leopold.wilderness.net/unpublished/

UNP124.pdf.

Cole, David N; Hall, Troy E. 2008b. Wilderness visitors, experiences, and 

management preferences: How they vary with use level and length of stay. 

Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-71. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 61 p.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2010a. Privacy functions and wilderness 

recreation: Use density and length of stay effects on experience. Ecopsychology. 2: 67-75.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2010b. Experiencing the restorative components 

of wilderness environments: Does congestion interfere and does length of 

exposure matter? Environment and Behavior. 42: 806-823.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. In press. Wilderness experience quality: Effects 

of use density depend on how experience is conceived. In: Cole, David N., 

comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

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

privacy for Adirondack Forest Preserve hikers. International Journal of 

Wilderness. 2(1): 37-41.

Driver, B. L.; Brown, Perry J. 1975. A socio-psychological definition of 

recreation demand, with implications for recreation resource planning. In: 

Assessing demand for outdoor recreation, Appendix A. Washington, DC: 

National Academy of Sciences. 123 p.

Driver, B. L.; Nash, Roderick; Haas, Glenn. 1987. Wilderness benefits: a 

state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future 

directions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 294-319

Glaspell, Brian S. 2002. Minding the meaning of wilderness: investigating 

the tensions and complexities inherent in wilderness visitors’ experience 

narratives. Dissertation. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 248 p.

Graber, Linda H. 1976. Wilderness as sacred space. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers. 124 p.

Grossa, John, Jr. 1979. Recreation preferences and appterns among users of 

wilderness and backcountry areas in western Montana. Dissertation. East 

Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 162 p.

Hall, Troy E.; Johnson, Bradley J.; Cole, David N. 2007. Dimensions of wilderness experience: a qualitative investigation. Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute [Online] http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/

docs7/qual_interview_rept_final.pdf.

Hammitt, William E. 1982. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude. 

Environment and Behavior. 14: 478-493.

Hammitt, William E. In press. Wilderness naturalness, privacy, and restorative 

experiences: An integrative model. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness 

visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; 

Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Hammitt, William E.; Madden, Mark A. 1989. Cognitive dimensions of 

wilderness privacy: a field test and further explanation. Leisure Sciences. 

11: 293-301.

Hammitt, William E.; Rutlin, William M. 1995. Use encounter standards and 

curves for achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 17: 245-262.

Herzog, Thomas R.; Maguire, Colleen P.; Nebel, Mary B. 2003. Assessing 

the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 23: 159-170.

Kaplan, Rachel. 1984. Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: an 

analysis of a continuing program. Leisure Sciences. 6: 271-290.

Kaplan, Rachel; Kaplan, Stephen. 1989. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. 340 p.

Kaplan, Stephen. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrated 

framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15: 169-182.

Kaplan, Stephen. 2001. Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental 

fatigue. Environment and Behavior. 33: 480-506.

Manfredo, Michael J.; Driver, B. L.; Brown, Perry J. 1983. A test of concepts 

inherent in experiences based setting management for outdoor recreation 

areas. Journal of Leisure Research. 15: 263-283.

Manfredo, Michael J.; Driver, B.L.; Tarrant, Michael A. 1996. Measuring 

leisure motivation: a meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference 

scales. Journal of Leisure Research. 28: 188-213.

Manning, Robert E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research 

for satisfaction. 2nd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 374 p.

Marshall, Nancy J. 1974. Dimensions of privacy preferences. Multivariate 

Behavioral Research. 9: 255-271.

Papenfuse, Meghan K.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Hall, Troy E. 2000. The rise 

of the day visitor in wilderness: should managers be concerned? In: Cole, 

David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, 

comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: 

wilderness visitors, experiences and visitor management. Proc. RMRS-P15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 148-154.

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

Joseph R. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 30: 423-452.

Pedersen, Darhl M. 1997. Psychological functions of privacy. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 17: 147-156.

Pedersen, Darhl M. 1999. Model for types of privacy by privacy functions. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 19: 397-405.

Priest, Simon; Bugg, Richard. 1991. Functions of privacy in Australian wilderness environments. Leisure Sciences. 13: 247-255.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Lucas, Robert C. 1987. Wilderness use and user 

characteristics: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. 

Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: issues, state-ofknowledge, future directions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U. 

S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station: 204-245.

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

dimensions, conditions indicators, and coping behaviors in wilderness. 

Leisure Sciences. 17: 263-279.

Stankey, George H.; Baden, John. 1977. Rationing wilderness use: methods, 

problems, and guidelines. Res. Pap. INT-192. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 20 p.

Stankey, George H.; Schreyer, Richard. 1987. Attitudes toward wilderness and 

factors affecting visitor behavior: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, 

Robert C., comp. Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: 

issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. 

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

Research Station: 246-293.

Stewart, William P.; Cole, David N. 2001. Number of encounters and experience quality in Grand Canyon National Park: consistently negative and 

weak relationships. Journal of Leisure Research. 35: 106-120.

Talbot, Janet Frey; Kaplan, Stephen. 1995. Perspectives on wilderness: reexamining the value of extended wilderness experiences. In: Sinha, Amita, 

ed. Landscape perception. London: Academic Press: 137-148.

Westin, Alan F 1967. Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum. 487 p.

The Effect of Use Density and Length of Stay on Visitor Experience in Wilderness Cole and Hall
96 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Abstract—Different conceptions of experience and experience quality 

can explain ambiguous relationships among use density, crowding, 

experience and experience quality. We employed multiple methods 

to quantify experiential dimensions at a popular lake in the Alpine 

Lakes Wilderness, WA. Comparing weekdays to weekends, when 

use density is typically four times as high, we assessed the sensitivity 

of various experiential dimensions to variation in use density. Use 

density profoundly affected the setting attributes that people experienced. However, differences related to use density diminished when 

experience was conceived as on-site behavior, affective or cognitive 

experiential outcomes, or appraisals of the entire visit.

Introduction ______________________

High quality experiences are a primary goal of recreation 

management. In wilderness areas, and on other lands where 

facilities, development, interpretation and most management 

interventions are considered inappropriate or to be limited, 

managing the social setting, particularly use density, is one of the 

primary means of protecting the quality of experiences. Given 

its managerial relevance, numerous studies have attempted to 

assess the influence of use density on recreation experience 

quality (see the reviews in Manning 2011 and Cole and Williams 

in press). Conclusions regarding the nature of that relationship 

remain ambiguous, however. Many studies report substantial 

levels of crowding in recreation areas (for example Vaske & 

Shelby 2008) and positive correlations between use density and 

crowding (Tarrant and others 1997). These findings support 

the conclusion that high density adversely affects experience 

quality and the efforts of public land management agencies 

that have limited use, on rivers, in parks and in wilderness, to 

preserve high quality experiences. However, studies that have 

explored the effect of use density on visitor satisfaction with 

experiences typically report little relationship (Graefe and 

others 1984).

Authors: David N. Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, Missoula MT; and Troy E. Hall, Department 

of Conservation Social Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow ID.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of 

Use Density Depend on how Experience is 

Conceived

David N. Cole

Troy E. Hall

One common explanation for these apparently contradictory results is that they reflect methodological differences 

(Manning 2011). Studies using different methods come to 

different conclusions. In a study of river users in Vermont, for 

example, Manning and Ciali (1980) used two different methods 

to assess the relationship between use density and satisfaction. 

Under hypothetical conditions, when asked to focus exclusively 

on the effects of use level, satisfaction declined as use level 

increased. Under actual field conditions, where attributes other 

than use density are considered and other variables mediate, 

use level had no effect on satisfaction. Stewart and Cole (2001) 

used an ipsative within-person design to study the relationship 

between use density and satisfaction, increasing statistical 

power by eliminating the “noise” of between-person variability. They were able to conclude that density had a consistent 

adverse effect on satisfaction, but a small one. This suggests 

the importance of using multiple methods to assess experience 

quality, including behavioral approaches.

Another explanation for seemingly divergent results stems 

from varying conceptions of experience quality. Rather than 

develop a singular concept of how experience quality is best 

defined and then assess the influence of use density on that, 

attention has typically been devoted to finding a dependent variable, reflective of experience quality, which varies substantially 

with user density. Because use density is more consistently 

related to single-attribute measures of satisfaction than to 

global measures, some authors conclude that a single-attribute 

measure provides a more appropriate way to conceive of 

experience quality (Shelby and Heberlein 1986; Manning 

2011). Given this inconsistency, it seems worthwhile to take 

a new look at an old topic—to focus attention on the varied 

ways experience and experience quality have been and can be 

conceived and explore the influence of use density on those 

varied dependent variables.

The quality of experience might be conceived of as either 

(1) what is actually experienced or (2) as an appraisal or 

evaluation of that experience. In the first case, quality is high 

if recreationists have the kinds of experiences deemed appropriate, such as encountering few other people, experiencing 

mental rejuvenation or feeling happy. High and low quality 

experiences are qualitatively different; they differ in nature. 

To evaluate experience quality, managers, visitors, researchers or someone else must clearly articulate what the experience should be and then the degree to which recreationists 

have this experience must be assessed. In the second case, in 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 97

which quality is conceived of as an appraisal, quality is high if 

recreationists evaluate their experience positively, regardless 

of what is experienced. High and low quality experiences are 

quantitatively different, varying on some scale (from good to 

bad, more to less satisfied) but perhaps not in nature and, to 

assess quality, there is no need to articulate what the experience 

should be.

In addition to the issue of whether the concern should be the 

nature of the experience itself or how positively the experience is evaluated, studies have focused on varied dimensions 

of experience. What is experienced can be external to the self, 

such as characteristics of the physical, social or managerial 

setting (I experienced crowds of people). What is experienced 

can also be internal to the self—affective (I felt joy), cognitive (I worked through issues and problems) or somatic (I felt 

tired). Experiences can be short-lived psychological outcomes 

(I experienced tranquility) or provide long-lasting benefits (I 

experienced an increase in self-confidence). These experience 

dimensions vary in importance, in their sensitivity to external 

factors and degree of managerial control.

The Complexity of Wilderness Experience 

Quality

Drawing on models of recreation demand hierarchy 

(Manfredo and others 1983), crowding/satisfaction (Manning 

2011) and stress/coping (Schuster and others 2003), Figure 1 

presents a graphic that links varied ways experience quality 

might be conceived of and assessed. First, the graphic recognizes 

that each individual brings with them their own motivations, 

expectations, norms and other antecedent states that influence 

experience quality but are not relevant to understanding what 

quality is. Given this, as people engage in recreation activities 

in particular settings, they perceive, appraise and respond to 

attributes of that setting.

Although appraisals and responses to the setting can be 

positive or negative, most attention has been given to the latter. 

Recreationists can report feeling crowded (Vaske and Shelby 

2008) and they can perceive particular setting attributes to 

be problematic. If setting qualities are deemed to be adverse, 

coping mechanisms are adopted. These too are part of the 

experience. Traditionally classified in the psychological 

Figure 1—A conceptual model of linkages between different ways that experience 

can be conceived and experience quality can be evaluated.

Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived Cole and Hall
98 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

literature as either emotion or problem-focused coping behaviors (Lazarus and Folkman 1984), most recreation studies 

have explored one problem-focused strategy, displacement, 

and two emotion-focused mechanisms, rationalization 

and product shift (Manning and Valliere 2001). Although 

recent analyses suggest a richer typology of coping strategies (Miller and McCool 2003; Schuster and others 2003; 

Duhachek 2005), we classify them generally as behavioral 

(problem-focused) or cognitive (emotion-focused) here. If 

the response to other visitors is deemed to be positive, these 

responses can also be either behavioral (such as, enjoying 

conversation with others) or cognitive (such as, noting that 

it is beneficial for so many people to be visiting wilderness). 

To this point in the model, experience quality might be assessed in terms of appraisals of the situation (how crowded 

is the area? how do you feel about or how satisfied are you 

with the number of people encountered?) or the type and 

intensity of coping strategies and other responses to the setting that are employed. It might even be assessed in terms 

of the setting attributes that are experienced (how many 

people were encountered?), although this is more a measure 

of experience opportunities than experiences themselves.

Experience can also be conceived of as the affective and 

psychological outcomes resulting from the recreational engagement. While some experiential outcomes, like affect, 

are immediate, short-lived and vary during a wilderness visit 

(Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001), others are so long-lasting 

that they are often referred to as enduring personal and social 

benefits (Manfredo and others 1996). In recognition of the fact 

that enduring outcomes might be adverse, we refer to these as 

enduring experiential outcomes. Some sort of integration with 

the larger narrative of one’s life story must occur for ephemeral recreation experiences to become enduring outcomes, 

although little is known about this process. In this vein, we do 

not include in our model some recent concepts of experience 

as transaction and narrative (for example, Patterson and others 

1998; Farber and Hall 2007), because this research has focused 

on understanding experience more in an idiosyncratic than a 

generalizable manner. Experience quality might be assessed 

as the magnitude to which certain affective (emotional) or 

psychological outcomes are attained.

Integration also occurs in moving to a final means of 

assessing experience quality. Appraisals of the entire recreational experience require integrating appraisal of individual 

attributes (such as the number of people in the area) with all 

other attributes of the engagement (weather, scenery, bugs and 

so on). This is the concept sometimes referred to as a global 

measure of satisfaction (Manning 2011).

Our Study

Protection of experience quality depends on a clear understanding of what experience quality means (how it is conceived) 

and how it might be assessed (how it is operationalized). Our 

study sought to explore the diverse ways experience quality 

might be defined, using multiple research methods. We used 

Snow Lake, Washington, an extremely popular wilderness 

destination, as a case study. We employed observations, interviews and written surveys to assess the constructs portrayed 

in Figure 1. We compared what hikers encountered, what they 

experienced, and how they appraised those experiences at times 

when use density at the lake was very high with experiences 

at times when density was more modest. This provided insight 

into the sensitivity of various potential measures of experience 

quality. Although we could have explored the influence of many 

attributes on experience quality, we chose use density because 

it remains an important and controversial focus of attention.

Methods _________________________

Snow Lake, in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, WA, is among 

the most popular wilderness hiking destination in the Pacific 

Northwest. A spectacular mountain gem, the mile-long lake is 

an easy 3-mile hike from a trailhead that is a one hour drive for 

most of the 3.5 million people who live in the Seattle-Tacoma 

metropolitan area. Consequently it gets tens of thousands of 

visits each year. Most visitors come for only a few hours, 

although overnight camping is allowed. Data were collected 

over 27 days between July and September, distributed in blocks 

of time in order to provide adequate samples of both weekdays and weekends. For 17 days, we collected observational 

data, conducted on-site interviews at the lake, and distributed 

questionnaires to visitors as they left the lake. On 10 different 

days, we distributed questionnaires to hikers as they exited the 

trailhead.

Observational Data

Two types of observational data were collected within a 

quarter-mile long stretch of lakeshore where most use occurs. 

First, we observed the behavior of 120 systematically-selected 

target groups of people as they arrived at the lake and selected 

a place to stop and do whatever they wanted to do at the lake. 

We recorded attributes of the social setting that they encountered while selecting this “stopping place,” as well as during 

the first 30 minutes at the stopping place or until they left, 

whichever occurred first. Second, we conducted an audit of 

human-caused noise. Every ten minutes, for a period of one 

minute, we noted whether or not we heard yelling, barking 

dogs, children, airplanes or other human noises. Noise was 

audited for 603 time periods.

Observations were generally taken between 10:00 A.M. 

and 5:00 P.M. Two trained individuals took all observations, 

with the same individual both observing visitor behavior and 

auditing noise (the other person was conducting interviews). 

The observer was stationed in a location where it was possible 

to observe the entire focal area of the lake. Target groups were 

the first group to arrive at the lake after the observer was situated (or resituated) at the observation point. Although group 

members typically stayed together, an individual was selected 

for observation in case the group separated. For groups that 

went beyond the focal area, the only observation was that they 

chose not to use the focal area.

Cole and Hall Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 99

Interviews and Questionnaires

Hikers were interviewed and questionnaires were distributed 

about one-quarter mile from the lake, at the point where the trail 

exited the lake basin. By surveying visitors on-site, we hoped 

to better assess their immediate experience. When done with 

one group, the interviewer contacted the next group of people 

exiting the lake. One adult from each group (the one closest 

to the interviewer) was selected for an interview, while other 

group members were asked to fill out a written questionnaire. 

Interviews were semi-structured, lasted about five minutes 

and were taped. Interviewees were informed that we were 

studying popular wildernesses and that we were interested in 

the experiences people have in wilderness, the types of things 

that affect experiences and how visitors think such places 

should be managed. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, 

coded using QSR N*Vivo. The on-site questionnaire asked 

about the conditions experienced at Snow Lake, responses to 

other groups encountered and support for a use limit. As with 

the interview, the questionnaire could be completed in about 

five minutes. The interviewer also recorded the total number 

of people entering and exiting the lake basin, providing hourly 

estimates of use density in the basin.

On 10 days when interviewing was not being conducted, hikers were given written questionnaires as they ended their hike 

at the trailhead (3 miles and typically about 1.5 hours from the 

lake). Each member of the group was given a questionnaire. 

This questionnaire contained batteries of questions about what 

was experienced on the hike. We obtained 124 interviews (a 

79% response rate), 340 valid on-site questionnaires (91% 

response rate) and 157 valid trailhead questionnaires (78% 

response rate).

Measures

Using these varied methods, we developed measures of all the 

constructs in Figure 1 that might be used to assess experience 

quality (Table 1). By comparing weekdays to weekends, we 

were able to explore how the effect of use density on experience quality varied with these different conceptualizations and 

measures.

Attributes of the social setting—In addition to daily use 

density counts, we used observational data to quantify the 

following attributes: (1) lakeside use density—number of 

other groups along the lakeshore when target groups arrived; 

(2) trail encounters—number of other groups the target group 

encountered on trails around the lake; and (3) destination encounters—number of encounters with other groups while at 

the stopping place, classified as either proximate (within about 

100 feet) or distant, whether or not the other group could be 

heard by the target group and, if it was heard, whether or not 

the encounter involved verbal contact; (4) constrained site 

selection—whether target groups avoided already occupied 

stopping places (stopping places were easily recognizable 

clearings in the otherwise dense vegetation); (5) territorial 

intrusion—whether target groups stopped and stayed on an 

already occupied site; (6) displacement of others—whether 

groups located at or close to the target group’s selected stopping 

site left shortly after the target group arrived; and (7) displacement by others—whether target groups left their stopping spot 

shortly after another group intruded on their spot.

Appraisal of the social setting—In the on-site questionnaire, we asked respondents how crowded they felt at Snow 

Lake, on a scale from 1 (not at all crowded) to 9 (extremely 

crowded). We also asked respondents if they were bothered 

by five individual attributes of the social setting and, if so, to 

rate how bothered they were “at the worst moment”, on a scale 

from 0 (didn’t bother me at all) to 6 (bothered a great deal).

Responses to other visitors—In the on-site questionnaire 

we included a battery of 24 behavioral and cognitive coping 

items, most of them replicated or adapted from prior coping 

studies (such as, Manning and Valliere 2001; Miller and McCool 2003; Schuster and others 2003). Respondents were asked 

to rate how well each item described how they responded “to 

encountering other people at the lake”, on a scale from 0 (does 

not describe) to 6 (describes very well). Further insights into 

behavioral responses and coping were gleaned from interview 

questions about how people responded to other people at the 

lake.

Affective outcomes—Three important negative emotions 

are anger, anxiety and sadness (Lazarus 1991). In the on-site 

questionnaire, we presented respondents with two different 

items for each of these emotion categories, asking them how 

well the item (such as, “I felt uneasy”) described how they 

felt, on a scale from 0 (does not describe) to 6 (describes very 

well).

Psychological outcomes—Interviewees were asked to describe their experience at Snow Lake. Then they were asked, 

specifically, if they had experienced solitude. The trailhead 

questionnaire was devoted exclusively to assessing the degree 

Table 1—Measures that operationalize experience quality (refer to 

Fig. 1), using observations (o), questionnaires (q) and 

interviews (i).

Setting attributes experienced

• Use density (o)

• Interaction with other groups (encounters, site occupancy, 

displacement) (o)

• Noise (frequency and type) (o)

Appraisal of the setting

• Perceived crowding (q)

• Problem prevalence (q)

Responses to others

• Coping mechanisms (q, i)

Experiential outcomes

• Affect prevalence (anger, sadness, anxiety) (q)

• Descriptors of what was experienced (i)

• Psychological outcomes (recreation experience preference) (q)

Appraisal of overall experience quality

• Global satisfaction measures (q)

Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived Cole and Hall
100 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

to which respondents had experienced varied psychological 

outcomes, on 7-point scales. For 15 short-lived outcomes, we 

asked how often each was experienced, from never to most of 

the time. For 20 more enduring outcomes we asked how much 

each had been experienced, from not at all to very much. For 

19 recreation experience preference items, as recommended by 

Manfredo and others (1996), we asked how much each added 

to the trip, from not at all to very much.

Appraisal of overall experience quality—On the on-site 

questionnaire, to obtain an overall appraisal of the quality of 

their experience, respondents were asked the extent to which 

they agreed or disagreed, on a scale from 3 (strongly agree) 

to -3 (strongly disagree) with three statements: “I thoroughly 

enjoyed this trip,” “I was disappointed with some aspects of 

this visit to Snow Lake,” and “I cannot imagine a better place 

to be than here.” Presumably, in responding to this question, 

visitors integrate a variety of trip attributes in their appraisal—

not just their evaluations of the social setting.

Data Analysis

We hypothesized that, on weekends, visitors would have more 

encounters, experience more noise, appraise the social setting 

more adversely, employ coping strategies more, experience 

more negative emotions, experience beneficial psychological 

outcomes to a lesser degree, and appraise overall experience 

quality less positively. Depending on the level of measurement of the dependent variable, hypotheses were tested by 

assessing differences between weekends and weekdays, based 

on tests using the t-statistic (interval), Somers d (ordinal) or 

chi-square (nominal). Differences were considered significant 

if p was ≤0.05. Individual items for the coping strategies and 

the psychological outcomes were factor analyzed following 

the recommendations of Costello and Osbourne (2005). We 

used the maximum likelihood method of extraction and direct 

oblimin rotation method. The number of factors selected was 

based on examination of scree plots, with eigenvalues greater 

than 1.0. To be retained, factor items had to have loadings ≥ 

0.32 (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001) and minimal cross-loading. 

Internal consistency reliability of resultant scales (Cronbach’s 

alpha) was ≥ 0.70.

Results __________________________

Our sample consisted almost exclusively of day users (96% 

of interviews, 94% of on-site surveys, and 93% of trailhead 

surveys). A slight majority of those surveyed (55%) were male. 

Mean age (of those 16 and older) was 38 years. Most groups 

were small; group size median and mode were two people; 

only 10% of groups were larger than five. Slightly less than 

one-half were visiting Snow Lake for the first time and 20% 

had visited more than five times.

Attributes of the Social Setting

On the days we worked at Snow Lake, daily use levels varied between 30 and almost 400 people. The average number 

of people entering the lake basin per day was about 200 on 

weekend days and 50 on weekdays. Consequently, the social 

setting at the lake varied substantially between weekends and 

weekdays. Use densities and most types of encounters at the 

lake were typically two to three times higher on weekend days 

than on weekdays (Table 2). As weekend groups arrived at 

the lake and searched for a stopping place, they passed within 

speaking distance of an average of 1.9 other groups on the 

trail or along the lakeshore. The average number of enroute 

encounters on weekdays was 0.7. On weekends, groups had an 

average of 3.6 encounters (Table 2) with other groups at their 

stopping place in the time we observed them (usually about 20 

minutes, since we observed them for 30 minutes and groups 

typically spent 10 minutes enroute to their stopping place). 

This includes distant groups that could be seen but not heard. 

On weekdays, the mean number of encounters at stops was 

one-half this number. Differences were particularly large for 

verbal encounters. On weekends, about 50% of groups talked 

with another group during the short time we observed them 

at their stopping place.

Since there are only three separate desirable spots to spend 

time along the lakeshore, most weekend visitors found all 

of these places already occupied. So either their freedom to 

go where they wanted was inhibited or they were forced to 

intrude on another group’s space. On weekdays, there were 

typically about two other groups on the lakeshore, so at least 

one of the desirable spots was available for most arriving 

Table 2—User density and encounter levelsa: Weekends vs. weekdays.

Weekend Weekday t p

Groups along lakeshore 4.0 (0.4) 1.8 (0.2) 4.9 <0.01

Groups encountered enroute to stopping place 1.9 (0.2) 0.7 (0.1) 5.3 <0.01

Other groups seen or heard at stopping place 3.6 (0.3) 1.8 (0.2) 5.1 <0.01

Verbal encounters with other groups 0.5 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 3.6 <0.01 

a Values are means (standard errors). One-tailed t-test of difference between weekends and weekdays.

Cole and Hall Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 101

groups. This difference affected the site selection process. 

On weekend days, significantly more people passed over an 

already occupied desirable site, selected an already occupied 

site, displaced other groups by intruding on them and, in turn, 

were themselves displaced by new arrivals (Table 3).

In addition to their effect on the ability to choose where to 

spend time at the lake and the number and type of encounters 

with other groups, use levels also affected noise levels at the 

lake. The most common human noise was talking, which could 

be heard 45% of the time during the day when in the focal use 

area (during 45% of the minute-long observation periods). 

Planes were heard 14% of the time—more often than yelling 

(8%). Sounds from swimming were audible 6% of the time and 

dogs were heard barking 2% of the time. Talking and swimming 

were heard significantly more often on weekend days than on 

weekdays, but there were no differences between weekends 

and weekdays in the frequency of yelling, dogs barking, or 

sounds from airplane overflights (Fig. 2). On weekends, some 

sort of human noise was audible more often than not.

Table 3—Site searching behavior and displacement: Weekends vs. weekdaysa.

Percent of groups who: Weekend Weekday χ2 p

Passed over an occupied preferred site 49 30 4.3 0.02

Selected an already occupied site 38 7 14.6 <0.01

Displaced another group by intruding on site 13 4 2.6 0.05

Were displaced by new arrivals 7 0 3.5 0.02

a One-tailed Pearson’s chi-square test of difference between weekends and weekdays.

Figure 2—Frequency of various noise sources: weekend days vs. weekdays (* denotes 

significant difference, chi-square, p < 0.05).

Appraisal of the Social Setting

Negative appraisals of the social setting were more common among weekend visitors than weekday visitors. When 

asked how crowded they felt at Snow Lake, weekend visitors 

reported feeling significantly more crowded than weekday 

visitors did (Somers d test, p < 0.01). On weekends, median 

perceived crowding was five on the 9-point scale, compared 

with a median of three on weekdays. On weekends, 44% of 

visitors felt at least “moderately crowded” (rating of 6-9), 

compared to only 13% of visitors on weekdays (Fig. 3).

Although perceived crowding is intended to be a “subjective 

and negative evaluation of a use level” (Manning 2011, p. 105), 

survey respondents might be answering the question from a 

descriptive and value-neutral perspective. Seeking appraisals 

on a scale that more clearly ranges from good to bad, we asked 

visitors how much they were bothered—“at the worst moment” 

of their visit—by five people-related “problems”: noise from 

other people, inappropriate behavior, too many people on 

Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived Cole and Hall
102 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Figure 3—The extent to which weekday and weekend visitors felt crowded. Differences 

are significant, Somer’s d, p<0.01).

trails, too many people at the lake and visitors intruding on 

their space. For four of these “problems,” a majority of visitors 

reported they were not bothered at all; for “too many people 

on the trail, median response was 1 on a scale from 0 (“didn’t 

bother me at all”) to 6 (“bothered me a great deal”). Clearly, 

many people who report feeling crowded do not consider 

resultant social setting attributes to be very problematic. We 

also asked about problems resulting from attributes other than 

the social setting. More people were bothered by “bugs” than 

by any of the people-related problems. Weekend visitors were 

significantly more bothered by these “problems” than weekday 

visitors (Table 4). However, even on weekends, none of these 

attributes was more than a slight bother to more than a small 

proportion of respondents.

One possible explanation for our finding that many people 

report feeling somewhat crowded but do not consider this 

problematic, is that these people had realistic expectations 

for what they would experience. Indeed, for both weekend 

and weekday visitors, the number of groups encountered was 

close to what was expected (Fig. 4). Having more encounters than expected was more common than having fewer 

encounters than expected. This was more true on weekends 

than on weekdays, although differences were not statistically 

significant (Somers d test, p = 0.10). This finding (that weekend visitors were about as likely as weekday visitors to have 

their expectations met, despite large differences in number of 

encounters and perceptions of crowding) indicates how capable 

most visitors are of adjusting their expectations appropriately. 

From the interviews, it is clear that many people were aware 

that they adjust their expectations to cope with the situations 

they find themselves in, “I expected it because it was a nice 

day—we expected a lot of people, so we didn’t have a grand 

plan for being alone” (IA12).

Responses to Others

Factor analysis of the items asking about how people responded to others suggested one behavioral dimension and four cognitive dimensions: positive thinking, acquiescence-acceptance, 

avoidance-distancing and minimization-denial (Table 5). 

Other than the micro-scale behavioral adjustments in site selection mentioned above, behavioral responses were uncommon. 

Table 4—Evaluations of people problems: Weekends vs. weekdays.

Percent of visitors at least moderately bothered a by: Weekend Weekday T p

Too many people on trails 27 10 -6.1 <0.01

Noise from other people 19 11 -1.9 0.03

Too many people near the lake 14 5 -5.2 <0.01

Inappropriate behavior of other visitors 11 4 -1.7 0.04

Other visitors intruding on your space 9 4 -3.5 <0.01

a

Values are percent of responses at the midpoint (3) or higher on a scale from 0 (didn’t bother me at all) to 6 (bothered 

me a great deal). One-tailed Somers d test of difference between weekends and weekdays.

Cole and Hall Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 103

Figure 4—How the number of other groups encountered on weekday and weekend 

visits compared to what was expected. Differences were not significant (Somer’s d, 

p = 0.10).

Table 5—Use of coping strategies: Weekends vs. weekdaysa.

Factor

Factors and individual items Loading Weekend Weekday t p

Acquiescence-Acceptance (alpha = .81) 3.19 (0.12) 2.80 (0.17) 1.9 0.03

Decided the situation was OK for Snow Lake .93

Accepted the situation given Snow Lake’s proximity 

 to Seattle .75

Didn’t think much about the situation .49

Realized what bothered me was not that important .44

Minimization-Denial (alpha = .84) 2.90 (0.13) 2.82 (0.18) 0.3 0.36

Realized the situation didn’t bother me as much as

 I thought it would .76

Went on as if nothing happened .61

Refused to get too serious about it .61

Accepted the situation as part of the experience .60

Positive thinking (alpha = .83) 2.85 (0.13) 2.49 (0.16) 1.8 0.04

Admitted to myself that nothing could be done .77

Reminded myself things could be worse .65

Realized that lots of people means there are lots of

 wilderness supporters .55

Acknowledged that I am also part of the problem .47

Tried to view the situation in a positive way .42

Avoidance-Distancing (alpha = .71) 1.95 (0.11) 1.46 (0.13) 2.9 <0.01

Tried not to think about the other people .70

Tried to focus my attention on something other than

 the other people .66

Wished the situation would go away .61

Behavioral Coping (alpha = .78) 0.65 (0.06) 0.51 (0.09) 1.4 0.09

Didn’t do some of the things I planned to .77

Left Snow Lake earlier than planned .71

Expressed anger about encountering other people .70

Didn’t spend time in some of the places I wanted .65

Went out of the way to avoid people .48

Altered my intended hiking route .39

a Exploratory factor analysis; one-tailed t-test of difference between weekends and weekdays. Values in weekend/weekday columns are means 

(standard errors) for how well each coping strategy describes how the visitor responded to encountering other people at the lake on a scale 

of 0 (does not describe) to 7 (describes very well). 

Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived Cole and Hall
104 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

In interviews, we asked people if they had to hurry or change 

what they were doing because of other people. Consistent 

with our finding that on-site behavioral coping responses were 

uncommon, 84% of people reported that they had not altered 

their behavior because of other visitors. Twenty percent of 

weekend visitors reported that they altered their behavior due 

to other visitors, compared to 11% of weekday visitors, a difference that is not statistically significant (chi-square test, p = 

0.14).

Cognitive responses were more prevalent than behavioral 

ones, but even the most common coping response, acquiescence 

to or acceptance of the situation, was only moderately prevalent 

(Table 5). Acquiescence/acceptance was readily apparent in 

the interviews, as with the interviewee who stated, “I’d rather 

that nobody was there but I can’t have it by myself, so it was 

alright” (I21). Minimization or denial involves actively attempting to minimize the significance of an adverse situation. 

One interviewee stated, “I would have liked some solitude, 

but it’s not a real problem” (I9). Positive thinking involves 

actively attempting to reappraise the situation in a positive 

light. A number of people expressed sentiments similar to the 

following: “You know there are enough hikes that are hard to 

get to that if people want solitude they can get it, so I think it 

is great that people who normally don’t get out can use this 

place” (I26). Finally, avoidance or distancing involves actively 

attempting to avoid negative thoughts. These sentiments seldom 

described responses well (Table 5) and were not apparent in 

the interviews.

Acquiescence-acceptance, positive thinking and avoidancedistancing were all employed more by visitors on weekends 

than on weekdays (Table 5). Differences related to use density 

were most pronounced for avoidance-distancing coping strategies, the least prevalent coping strategy. However, even for 

this strategy the magnitude of difference was not substantial 

(mean difference of just 0.5 unit on a 7-point scale). Neither 

behavioral coping nor minimization-denial was significantly 

greater on weekends.

Affective Outcomes

When encountering other people, respondents reported experiencing emotions associated with anger (annoyed, frustrated) 

and sadness (disappointed, unhappy) more than emotions 

associated with anxiety (tense, uneasy) (Table 6). However, few 

visitors expressed strong negative emotional responses of any 

kind to the situation at Snow Lake. For all of these affective 

states, the median response was 0—“does not describe (how I 

felt) at all.” Anger and sadness were experienced significantly 

more strongly on weekends than on weekdays, by the small 

minority who were emotionally affected (Table 6). Even on 

weekends, however, less than 4% expressed a strong sense of 

disappointment or annoyance (5-6 on the scale) in response to 

their encounters with other people. In the questionnaire, we did 

not ask about positive affective outcomes. Our impression from 

interviews was that positive affect resulting from the overall 

experience at Snow Lake would have been very high. Even 

regarding encountering other people, positive affect might 

have exceeded negative affect for most people.

Psychological Outcomes

When asked in an open-ended question in interviews what 

their experience at Snow Lake had been like, 94% of interviewees used positive terms, while only 10% used negative terms. 

Twenty-eight percent mentioned scenic beauty. Seventy-six 

percent referred to the visit as good, pleasant, great or wonderful. 

Some interviewees elaborated further, mentioning their ability 

to relax, the peacefulness of the area, lack of litter and the nice 

condition of the trail. The most common negative comment was 

that the area was crowded, but only 8% mentioned crowding. 

Other negative attributes were the presence of bugs, annoying 

visitors and the presence of litter. The 96% of weekday visitors 

who described their experience as positive was not significantly 

different (chi-square test, p = 0.33) from the 94% of weekend 

visitors who reported positive experiences. Fourteen percent 

of weekend visitors responded that crowding was a negative 

aspect of their experience, compared to only 2% of weekday 

visitors, a difference that is statistically significant (chi-square 

test, p < 0.01).

Factor analysis of experiential outcomes suggested five 

experiential dimensions: absorption-connection to nature, 

personal reflection, personal accomplishment, sense of 

wildness-remoteness and rejuvenation (Table 7). Of these, 

visitors reported experiencing absorption-connection to nature and rejuvenation most and personal reflection least. For 

example, 90% of respondents reported experiencing at least 

Table 6—Affective responses to encountering other people at Snow Lakea: 

Weekends vs. weekdays.

Percent of visitors who felt: Weekend Weekday t p

annoyed 13 6 -3.6 <0.01

disappointed 11 6 -2.5 <0.01

frustrated 8 5 -3.2 <0.01

unhappy 6 4 -2.2 0.01

tense 8 4 -1.5 0.07

uneasy 7 4 -0.6 0.29

a Values are percent of responses at the midpoint (3) or higher on a scale from 0 (does 

not describe) to 6 (describes very well). One-tailed Somers d test of difference between 

weekends and weekdays.

Cole and Hall Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 105

a moderate degree (at or above the 7-point scale midpoint) of 

“connection with or being part of wild nature,” compared to 

50% who reported experiencing a similar “ability to focus on 

matters of importance to me.” Weekend visitors were as able 

as their weekday counterparts to experience four of these five 

experiential dimensions: absorption-connection to nature, 

rejuvenation, personal accomplishment and personal reflection (Table 7). Only wildness-remoteness was experienced 

significantly more by weekday visitors than by weekend 

visitors (Table 7). Even for this factor, the difference between 

weekdays and weekends was only 0.4 units on the 7-unit scale.

Appraisal of Overall Experience Quality

Visitors were asked several questions intended to provide 

an overall evaluation of the quality of their trip or what has 

often been referred to as global satisfaction. Once differences 

in use density are considered within the context of all the attributes that influence experience quality, differences largely 

disappear. For two of the three questions asked, differences 

between weekend and weekday visitors were not statistically 

significant (Table 8). Even on weekends, virtually everyone 

agreed that they thoroughly enjoyed the trip and more than 

Table 7—Attainment of experiential outcomesa: Weekends vs. weekdays.

Factor

Factors and individual items Loading Weekend Weekday t p

Absorption-Connection to Nature (alpha = .90) 3.89 (0.11) 4.15 (0.19) -1.3 0.11

Connection with or being part of wild nature .91

Being at home in the natural world .88

Fascination with the natural environment .69

Peace and tranquility .67

The dominance of the natural world .58

The simplicity of life .57

Living in the present moment, rather than past or future .55

Gaining a better appreciation of nature .50

Being totally absorbed in what I was doing .48

Freedom from reliance on modern technology .47

Rejuvenation (alpha = .77) 3.81 (0.14) 3.92 (0.22) -0.4 0.33

Physical revitalization .81

Release of stress and tension .68

Getting away from the usual demands of life .50

Relaxing physically .43

Personal Accomplishment (alpha = .84) 3.66 (0.13) 3.89 (0.18) -1.1 0.15

Showing myself I could do it .86

Gaining a sense of accomplishment .83

Challenge .71

Developing my skills and abilities .56

Getting exercise .39

Sense of Wildness-Remoteness (alpha = .79) 2.96 (0.13) 3.35 (0.18) -1.8 0.04

To be away from crowds of people .81

Solitude .70

A feeling of remoteness .69

Sense the surroundings haven’t been impacted by people .57

Sense of being away from the modern world .43 

Personal Reflection (alpha = .92) 2.50 (0.13) 2.45 (0.22) -0.2 0.43

Opportunity to work through problems .89

Ability to focus on matters of importance to me .85

Opportunity to confide in others I trust .78

Feeling free to behave as I wanted .55

Meditation and reflection .55

Gaining a new perspective on life .55

Sense of spiritual growth .55

Sense of self-discovery .54

To think about who I am .53

Intimacy with my companions .52

Reflecting on past memories .44

a Exploratory factor analysis; one-tailed t-test of difference between weekends and weekdays. Values in weekend/weekday columns are mean 

(standard errors) for how much/often each experience factor was experienced on a scale of 1 (not at all/never) to 7 (very much/most of the time).

Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived Cole and Hall
106 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

three-quarters disagreed that there were disappointing aspects 

of the trip. Weekday visitors were significantly more likely to 

agree with the statement “I cannot imagine a better place to be 

than here.” Notably, even on weekends, more visitors agreed 

with this statement than disagreed.

Visitor Opinions about Management

Although it is not a measure of experience quality, we were 

also interested in visitor opinions about the need to manage 

Snow Lake for a higher quality experience than it currently 

provides. When asked if the Forest Service “should take further 

action to improve solitude, given that the area is a designated 

wilderness,” most people (72%) said that management was 

fine the way it is. Support for current management was higher 

among repeat visitors (78%) than first-timers (70%), although 

this difference was not statistically significant (chi-square test, 

p = 0.19). Clearly there is no truth to the assertion that support for more restrictive management is greater among more 

experienced and place-attached visitors. Further management 

action was supported by more weekend visitors (31%) than 

weekday visitors (21%), but this difference was not statistically 

significant (chi-square test, p = 0.17).

Many different reasons were offered by those who felt that 

the Forest Service did not need to improve opportunities for 

solitude. Fifteen people (13% of those who responded to the 

question about need for further action) noted that if a person 

wanted solitude, he or she should go somewhere else or hike 

further. Twelve people specifically stated that access to Snow 

Lake should not be limited and eleven participants indicated 

that the current ease of access (for all types of people) is good. 

As one person noted, “There is too much limitation and restriction that has cropped up all over the wilderness to the point 

where people are denied the experience and to me having the 

experience is more important than seeing a few people” (I102).

Restricting access to Snow Lake was the most common 

suggestion among the minority of visitors who thought further 

action was needed. Fifteen interviewees (13% of those who 

responded to the question about need for further action) felt 

restrictions on access were or would be needed. Weekend and 

weekday visitors were equally likely to support use restrictions. 

Fewer repeat visitors supported use limits (8%) than first-timers 

(14%), a difference that was not statistically significant (chisquare test, p = 0.21). However, few people were unequivocal 

supporters of limits. Four felt limits were not needed now, but 

would be in the future. Three felt that only overnight use should 

be restricted (either limited or prohibited). Two thought that 

only weekend use needed to be limited. Three people thought 

that restricting access would improve opportunities for solitude, 

but were ambivalent about whether or not the Forest Service 

should restrict access at Snow Lake. They were concerned 

that their own ability to gain access might be diminished, the 

tradeoff might not be worth it (because other areas might become more impacted), and limits would unfairly restrict access 

for people who want to visit despite the crowded conditions. 

Internal conflict and consideration of trade-offs was obvious 

in the response of the person who said, “I am torn. I would 

say yes, just for my personal needs, but I think it is just a great 

location that I would not want to necessarily cut off from all 

the people that want to be here, yet” (I5S).

In the questionnaire, the only question we asked about 

management involved opinions about use limits. As was 

found in the interviews, there was little support for limits 

(Table 9). While a slight majority supported the concept of 

limiting use if limits were necessary, only about 15% thought 

that limits were necessary now. Moreover, given the tendency 

Table 9—Visitor opinions about the need to limit use, now or in the futurea.

Weekend Weekday

- - - - - - Percent- - - - - -

There should never be a limit on use 42 42

No limit is needed now, but should be imposed in the future 

when overuse occurs 42 44

A limit is needed now to hold use at the current level 11 11

a Percentages did not differ significantly between weekend and day visitors (chi-square test, 

p = 0.70).

Table 8—Positive evaluations of visits to Snow Lakea: Weekends vs. weekdays.

Percent who agreed that: Weekend Weekday t p

I thoroughly enjoyed this trip 99 98 1.6 0.11

I was disappointed with some aspects of this

 visit to Snow Lake (% who disagreed) 77 81 -1.3 0.10

I cannot imagine a better place to be than here 49 64 3.4 <0.01

a Values are percent of responses above the midpoint (0) on a scale from -3 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly 

agree). One-tailed Somers d test of difference between weekends and weekdays.

Cole and Hall Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 107

for differences between weekends and weekdays to disappear 

as visitors evaluate conditions (adjusting expectations and 

coping), it is not surprising that support for use limits was 

similarly low among weekend visitors and weekday visitors. 

Even on the busiest days (weekends) in this most heavily used 

wilderness location in the Pacific Northwest, only 6% thought 

use levels should be reduced from their current levels.

Discussion _______________________

Experience can be conceived and experience quality can 

be assessed in varied ways. Quality can be considered high if 

preferred experiential outcomes are attained to a substantial 

degree. Or quality can be considered high if whatever is experienced is appraised as being “good” or satisfying. Experiential 

quality can also be assessed by evaluating the desirability of 

the setting attributes that are encountered. Outcomes can be 

affective, cognitive or somatic and they can be short-lived or 

long-lived. Some conceptions of experience focus on one or 

a few specific attributes while others are more integrative, 

reflecting the gestalt of experience. Some conceptions privilege attributes that managers consider appropriate or that are 

mentioned in enabling legislation (The Wilderness Act of 1964) 

while others do not.

We employed multiple methods (observations, qualitative 

interviews, and a quantitative survey instrument) to describe 

and quantify the different experiential dimensions illustrated 

in Figure 1. Snow Lake visitors experienced unusually high 

densities of people by wilderness standards. Common user 

experiences included persistent noise, lack of unoccupied places 

to stop by the lake and intrusions on one’s personal space. Most 

visitors appraised this setting as being at least slightly crowded 

but few were bothered more than slightly by the situation. Most 

people coped with the social setting cognitively, in diverse 

ways. They accepted the situation by actively recasting it in 

a positive manner, by avoiding negative thoughts entirely, by 

accepting the situation or by downplaying the significance of 

negative thoughts. Previous work has typically referred to all 

these responses as rationalization (Heberlein and Shelby 1977; 

Manning and Valliere 2001). In contrast to cognitive coping, 

few people responded behaviorally on-site through large-scale 

spatial displacement, temporal or activity substitution (Miller 

and McCool 2003. However, quite a few interviewees did 

mention one off-site temporal displacement strategy, avoiding 

Snow Lake on the weekends. Self-selection bias provides an 

alternative explanation for some of the differences (or lack of 

difference) that we found, in that some of the users who were 

most sensitive to density might have avoided Snow Lake on 

weekends.

There was little evidence that the high use density and 

resultant social setting at Snow Lake had a profound effect 

on either the affective or psychological outcomes that are 

significant elements of most visitors’ immediate conscious 

experience. Very few people experienced the negative emotions of anger, anxiety or sadness because of their encounters 

with other people. Most people reported experiencing, at least 

to a moderate degree, many experiential outcomes deemed 

appropriate to wilderness and that provide enduring personal 

and social benefits (Manfredo and others 1996): absorptionconnection to nature, personal reflection, personal accomplishment, sense of wildness-remoteness, and rejuvenation. Most 

people evaluated overall experience quality as high. Given this, 

it is not surprising that most visitors were opposed to efforts 

to improve solitude, particularly if the means to increasing 

experience quality involved restricting access.

Effect of Use Density

Although there is little to suggest which dimension of 

experience is the “best” way to define a high quality experience, the effect of use density on experience quality depends 

on how experience is conceptualized. Apparently divergent 

conclusions about the relationship between use density and 

experience quality can be explained to a substantial degree 

by differences in how the dependent variable is defined. Use 

density had a much stronger effect on the setting attributes that 

people encounter than on the prevalence of coping behaviors, 

affective or psychological experiential outcomes, or appraisals 

of the entire visit.

Most weekend users experienced several times as many interactions with other groups as weekday users did, substantially 

more frequent noise, and much less freedom to choose where to 

go, when to stop, and how and to what extent to interact with 

others—important aspects of privacy (Hammitt and Madden 

1989). Although weekend visitation was typically four times as 

great as weekday visitation, topography, visitor behavior and 

other variables operated to attenuate this large difference, such 

that encounters at the lake were typically only twice as high 

on weekends. As people processed information and managed 

the situation, differences related to use density were further 

diminished. As Manning (2011) suggests, the tendency of 

most visitors to not evaluate or affectively respond to crowded 

conditions very negatively can be explained by such factors 

as the expectations people have (Shelby and others 1983) 

and the ways they cope cognitively and behaviorally with 

the conditions they expect and/or find (Heberlein and Shelby 

1977). We found that people adjusted their expectations more 

on weekends to reflect higher use densities on weekends. We 

also found more use of both cognitive and behavioral coping 

strategies on the weekend. From our interviews, we found that 

many of the people who expressed a desire for less crowded 

conditions had learned to time their trips to avoid particularly 

crowded times.

Differences between high and low use times almost completely disappeared when visitors integrated their perceptions 

and concerns about other people with all the other aspects of 

their trip—most of which were positive, persistent and did not 

vary with use density. Interviews suggest that such positive 

attributes as Snow Lake’s scenic beauty were both more important to the quality of the visitor experience than the number 

of other visitors and more enduring. While a bad encounter 

with another visitor might have lasted a minute or two, the 

experience of the lake’s beauty lasted much longer. Weekend 

visitors were as likely as weekday visitors to experience such 

Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived Cole and Hall
108 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

important psychological outcomes as absorption-connection 

to nature, personal reflection, personal accomplishment and 

rejuvenation. Consequently, it is not surprising that weekenders 

agreed as strongly as weekday visitors that they “thoroughly 

enjoyed this trip” and disagreed as strongly about being “disappointed with some aspects of this visit.”

The one psychological outcome that did vary significantly, 

although not substantially, between weekdays and weekends was sense of wildness-remoteness. This is the factor 

most closely related to the setting attributes most unique to 

wilderness and central to the intentions of many wilderness 

managers—providing opportunities to experience few people, 

an undisturbed environment and minimal modern technology.

Coping Behaviors

Our findings regarding coping behaviors were not so much 

new as more richly detailed, given our inclusion of observations and interviews. The interviews made it clear that advance 

planning is a frequently-employed behavioral response to the 

fact that Snow Lake is very crowded at times. Most people are 

aware that Snow Lake can be highly crowded on weekends. 

If and when people think that encountering crowds would be 

bothersome, many simply choose to go elsewhere or visit on 

a weekday. Once on-site, as has been found in earlier studies 

(Manning and Valliere 2001; Miller and McCool 2003; Schuster 

and others 2003), visitors cope behaviorally and, particularly, 

cognitively, but are not highly bothered by having to do so. 

Many people would walk a few tens of yards to avoid other 

people or to select a place to stop, but few people walked 

even several hundred yards to find a more solitary place. A 

surprising number of people mentioned that they could find 

more solitude if they wanted it, but few chose to do so. After 

watching people, listening to the meanings and explanations 

they offered in the interviews, and interpreting their responses 

to the questionnaire, we concluded that, with a few notable 

exceptions, visitors nearly eliminate cognitive dissonance and 

dissatisfaction by planning ahead and coping on-site.

Management Implications

We chose to work at Snow Lake because it provides a microcosm of wilderness crowding in the extreme. Conditions 

there were often highly crowded and far from the wilderness 

ideal. However, from the perspective of the vast majority of 

visitors, even conditions as crowded as they are at Snow Lake 

on a sunny summer Sunday are not a serious problem. For most 

visitors, they are considered appropriate, to be expected and 

even viewed positively by many in that they show that many 

people support and care about wilderness and want to get out, 

exercise and experience wilderness.

Dramatic reductions in use could have substantial effects on 

the social setting at the lake. A fourfold reduction in use, the 

equivalent of limiting weekend use to what it is on weekdays, 

would turn away close to one-half of the people who currently 

want to visit Snow Lake. Our results suggest that such a program 

would reduce weekend encounters at the lake by about 50% 

and the need to select an already occupied site would be nearly 

eliminated. Verbal encounters with other groups would drop 

about 80% and periods of time without human noise would 

double. These are all changes in setting attributes that most 

would view as highly positive, bringing conditions closer to 

most notions of a high quality wilderness experience.

Despite these large effects on the setting that people encounter, however, effects on experience appraisals, affective and 

psychological experiential outcomes would be much smaller. 

The largest effect would be a mean 20% reduction in how 

crowded people feel. For most visitors, there would be virtually no increase in how thoroughly they enjoyed their trip.

Our findings that use reductions will have little effect on most 

dimensions of visitor experience do not mean that wilderness 

managers should not limit use to protect experience quality. 

Managers have a legislative mandate to manage these places 

to perpetuate their wilderness character and qualities. Moreover, there is a small minority of users that was substantially 

more bothered by high weekend use and that was less able to 

attain desired experiential outcomes. Our findings do suggest, 

however, that use reductions are likely to be unpopular with 

most of the public.

If undertaken, the purpose of use limits should be carefully 

articulated. Reducing use to minimize ecological impacts is 

reportedly more acceptable to most visitors than reducing use 

to protect experiential quality (Cole and Hall 2008). Since 

what people encounter is more responsive to use density than 

experiential outcomes, it might also be more appropriate to 

state that limits are needed to protect desired setting attributes 

rather than to protect experience quality. Perhaps the focus 

should be more on protection of wilderness character than 

experience quality. This, in turn, implies a need to articulate 

more precisely which setting attributes are desirable, including 

who gets to decide. It also implies that monitoring of setting 

attributes is at least as critical to protecting experience quality 

as monitoring of experience and satisfaction with experiences.

References _______________________

Borrie, William. T.; Roggenbuck, Joseph. W. 2001. The dynamic, emergent, 

and multi-phasic nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 33: 202-228.

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2008. Wilderness visitors, experiences, and 

management preferences: How they vary with use level and length of 

stay. Research Paper RMRS-RP-71. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Cole, David N.; Williams, Daniel R. In press. This proceedings. Wilderness 

visitor experiences: A review of 50 years of research. In: Cole, David N., 

comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, 

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

Research Station.

Costello. Anna B.; Osbourne, Jason W. 2005. Best practices in exploratory 

factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your 

analysis. Practical Research & Evaluation. 10 (7): 1-9.

Duhachek, Adam. 2005. Coping: a multidimensional, hierarchical framework 

of responses to stressful consumption episodes. Journal of Consumer 

Research. 32: 41-53.

Cole and Hall Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 109

Farber, Mary E.; Hall, Troy E. 2007. Emotion and environment: Visitors’ 

special experiences along the Dalton Highway in Alaska. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 39: 248-270.

Graefe, Alan R.; Vaske, Jerry J.; Kuss, Fred R. 1984. Social carrying capacity: 

an integration and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences. 

6: 395-431.

Hammitt, William E.; Madden, M. A. 1989. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness 

privacy: A field test and further explanation. Leisure Sciences. 11: 293-301.

Heberlein, Thomas; Shelby, Bo. 1977. Carrying capacity, values, and the satisfaction model: A reply to Greist. Journal of Leisure Research. 9: 142-148.

Lazarus, Richard S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, UK: Oxford 

University Press.

Lazarus, Richard S.; Folkman, Susan. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. 

New York: Springer.

Manfredo, Michael J; Driver, Bev L.; Brown, Perry J. 1983. A test of concepts 

inherent in experiences based setting management for outdoor recreation 

areas. Journal of Leisure Research. 15: 263-283.

Manfredo, Michael J.; Driver, Bev L.; Tarrant, Michael A. 1996. Measuring 

leisure motivation: A meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference 

scales. Journal of Leisure Research. 28: 188-213.

Manning, Robert E. 2011. Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research 

for satisfaction, 3rd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Manning, Robert E.; Ciali, Charles P. 1980. Recreation density and user 

satisfaction: a further exploration of the satisfaction model. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 12: 329-345.

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: 257-276.

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

Joseph W. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 30: 423-452.

Schuster, Rudy M.; Hammitt, William E.; Moore, Dewayne. 2003. A theoretical 

model to measure the appraisal and coping responses to hassles in outdoor 

recreation settings. Leisure Sciences. 25: 277-300.

Shelby, Bo; Heberlein, Thomas. 1986. Carrying capacity in recreation settings. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Shelby, Bo; Heberlein, Thomas; Vaske, Jerry; Alfano, G. 1983. Expectations, preferences, and feeling crowded in recreational activities. Leisure 

Sciences. 6: 1-14.

Stewart, William P.; Cole, David N. 2001. Number of encounters and experience quality in Grand Canyon backcountry: consistently negative and weak 

relationships. Journal of Leisure Research. 33: 106-120.

Tabachnick, Barbara G.; Fidell. Linda S. 2001. Using multivariate statistics. 

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tarrant, Michael A.; Cordell, H. Ken; Kibler, Tamela. 1997. Measuring perceived crowding for high-density river recreation: the effects of situational 

conditions and personal factors. Leisure Sciences. 19: 97-112.

Vaske, Jerry J.; Shelby, Lori B. 2008. Crowding as a descriptive indicator 

and an evaluative standard: Results from 30 years of research. Leisure 

Sciences. 30: 111-126.

Wilderness Experience Quality: Effects of Use Density Depend on how Experience is Conceived Cole and Hall
110 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Author: John Shultis, Ecosystem Science and Management Program, University of 

Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Abstract—In the last decade, increasing concern has been expressed 

about the impact of new technologies—especially communication 

technologies—on the wilderness experience. Many authors have 

suggested a tipping point has been reached, with new technologies 

changing the very nature of the ‘traditional’ wilderness experience in 

various ways. The loss of direct experiences creating new perceptions 

of risk among wilderness users has been a common complaint. As very 

few wilderness researchers have conducted empirical studies on this 

issue, I review these anecdotal, deterministic concerns in this body 

of literature. Then I identify key debates and approaches in two other 

literatures that consider the complex relationship between technology 

and recreation: leisure studies and science and technology studies. 

Within the latter field, I concentrate on Albert Borgmann’s discussion 

of focal practices, which shows promise as a conceptual foundation 

for this issue. Common themes within each of these three distinct 

literatures are identified, providing some indications of the key issues 

and topics that might be assessed by much-needed future research.

Introduction ______________________

In the beginning of the twenty-first century, at least two 

different conceptualizations of wilderness exist. The traditional view of wilderness, reflecting a realist epistemological 

perspective, is of a primordial, relatively untouched natural 

area where natural forces dominate, and human presence is 

limited to visitation by outdoor recreationists and the limited 

infrastructure (such as, trails and campsites) they require. This 

hegemonic conceptualization is buttressed by the Western 

separation of nature and culture—in existence from at least 

the Enlightenment Era—and other Western appurtenances 

(science, religion and capitalism).

The second view of nature is much more recent, reflecting 

postmodern perspectives and a relativist epistemological perspective. A social constructionist approach—a critical theory 

The Impact of Technology on the 

Wilderness Experience: A Review of 

Common Themes and Approaches in 

Three Bodies of Literature

John Shultis

which sprung from a relatively small number of social scientists’ 

discontent with the realist views of nature and science—is often 

embedded within this second model. In this view, wilderness 

only exists as a result of the sociocultural meanings generated 

by the continual construction and re-construction of individuals 

within society. While most social constructionists do not question the existence of external reality (for example, relatively 

untouched nature can still be said to exist around the world), 

they suggest that the constellation of meanings we provide to 

concepts like wilderness generate the only ‘reality’ that humans 

can understand: we live only through the imperfect mental 

representations provided through our cognition and language.

The rise of this new conceptualization of wilderness in the 

1990s, beginning with Cronon’s (1995) classic book chapter, 

generated a storm of protest, with many wilderness researchers suggesting that it was a dangerous challenge to wilderness 

preservation. These protestations (see Callicott and Nelson 

1998; Nelson and Callicott 2008) should not have come as 

a surprise, as the ‘cultural turn’—the rise of interpretive perspectives and qualitative research methods within science in 

the 1970s—caused similar offense in broad scientific circles, 

leading to what became known as the ‘science wars’ (for example, Ashman and Baringer 2001), a now almost forgotten 

battle between the hegemonic realists and the upstart relativists who seemed ready to uproot traditional views of science 

and established truths. The dust created by the battle between 

wilderness realists and relativists has also settled, perhaps in 

part because of the recent decline in wilderness-related research 

and publications.

Nonetheless, the tension between these two opposing conceptualizations of wilderness still exists, and as I document in 

this paper, is reflected in the study of the impact of technology on wilderness. Most of the very limited analysis of the 

potential impact of recreation technology on the wilderness 

experience follows a realist perspective of wilderness, and 

outlines a deterministic lens towards the potential impact of 

technology such as cell and satellite phones, GPS units and 

web-based applications on wilderness recreation. Further, the 

vast majority of wilderness scientists’ consideration of the 

impact of technology of the wilderness experience typically 

ignores the considerable research on the broader social impacts 

of technology provided in other research areas.

The purpose of this paper is to review three distinct literatures 

assessing the impact of technology on society and wilderness 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 111

recreation as a means of highlighting basic epistemological 

approaches and research findings and identifying potential 

directions for future research. The first research area, primarily 

written by wilderness researchers, directly addresses the issue 

of the impact of technology on the wilderness experience. A 

second literature, from the broader realm of leisure studies, 

considers the impact of technology on leisure more generally, 

and potentially useful findings from this research for wilderness 

researchers are reviewed. The third body of literature comes 

from science and technology studies (STS), which includes the 

social construction of technology (SCOT) literature (Cutcliffe 

2000; Sismondo 2004), as some of this research relates to wilderness and the use of technology in wilderness recreation. In 

this third realm, Albert Borgmann’s work will be highlighted, 

as his work seems to provide a commonly cited and potentially 

useful approach to future research assessing technology and its 

impact on the wilderness experience. Finally, after synthesizing 

these bodies of literature, I will provide recommendations for 

future research on this topic. 

Wilderness Researcher Perspectives 

on the Impacts of Technology on 

Wilderness _______________________

Broad Findings from this Literature

As intimated above, the most immediate reflection on the 

limited literature attempting to assess the possible impacts of 

technology on the wilderness experience is the lack of empirical data on this subject. Martin and Pope (in press) provide 

an exploratory empirical examination of this topic. The vast 

majority of the literature summarized below reflects wilderness 

researchers’ anecdotes and personal insights into these potential 

impacts. While this provides a useful foundation for future 

research, it is normally atheoretical, reflects the hegemonic 

realist conceptualization of wilderness, and tends to view the 

impact of technology in a primarily deterministic manner. 

Technological determinism suggests that social change is primarily led by technological development; indeed, technology 

is the most important variable affecting Western society, “an 

encompassing and irresistible force” (Borgmann 2006, p. 353; 

see also Smith and Marx 1994; Winner 2001). For example, a 

topic which is closely related to the impact of technology on 

wilderness is the potential impact of the computer on children’s 

leisure and particularly outdoor recreation patterns. Richard 

Louv’s (2005) and Pergams and Zaradic’s (2006, 2008) very 

influential works reflect a negative deterministic perspective. 

The rise of the computer and various electronic media are 

seen to have directly led to social change, in this case altering 

children’s relationship with nature and thus decreasing outdoor 

recreation and park visitation. Determinism, either positive or 

negative, is balanced by instrumentalism, which Borgmann 

(2006) suggests is the dominant view in contemporary society. 

Technology is portrayed as neither inherently good nor evil; 

it is what we decide to do (or not do) with technology that really matters. This is normally the perspective taken in the two 

bodies of literature reviewed below.

With regards to the wilderness and technology literature, the 

strongly deterministic lens seems to suggest that technology 

will automatically lead to significant and negative changes in 

the wilderness user and wilderness itself, and these changes are 

unlikely to be altered after the relevant technology becomes 

part of the wilderness experience. Although minor positive 

impacts of technology on wilderness recreation are often noted 

(such as easier access, increased safety and comfort), most 

of the literature focuses on the potentially negative impacts 

of technology. These are seen to overwhelm any positive effects. The concern is that too much technology in wilderness 

will impact the traditional wilderness experience, which has 

been linked to escaping the evils of civilization (including 

its technology), being able to become emotionally engaged 

with untouched nature, and adopting the ‘simple’ ways of life 

associated with our idealized ancestral past (see Ray 2009). 

Much as the crowding/carrying capacity literature focuses on 

use limits, the main option for controlling technology in wilderness seems to be limiting the type and amount of technology 

allowed in the wilderness. However, calls for such restrictions 

are rare, perhaps tempered by the increasing social concern 

over liability and safety issues in the wilderness; researchers 

are much more likely to highlight potential impacts without 

identifying any particular limitation to the use of technology 

in wilderness use.

Another common perspective in these works relates to the 

focus on only electronic forms of modern technology (such 

as, cell phones and GPS units) on the wilderness experience. 

That is, it seems that certain forms of ‘traditional’ technology 

(for example, automobiles, jet travel, synthetic materials) are 

rendered almost invisible, while concerns over the more recent electronic innovations are amplified. This amplification 

of attention on certain forms of technology seems to mirror 

research on the social amplification of risk (for example, 

Pidgeon and others 2003), which uses a social constructionist 

perspective to suggest that risks “interact with psychological, 

social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways that may 

amplify or attenuate public responses to the risk or risk event” 

(Kasperson and others 1988, p, 177). That is, certain risks can 

either be focused on or ignored, depending on a wide variety 

of social and cultural processes (such as, social norms, media 

engagement and current political ideology).

Also, much of the literature by wilderness researchers renders 

invisible the historical, complex relationship between technology and wilderness use. For example, the rise of the national 

park movement seems to have been closely associated with 

the social impacts related to the technology which enabled the 

Industrial Revolution. The Romantic and Transcendentalist 

movements’ conceptualization of wild nature as a spiritual and 

moral force untainted by the negative aspects of civilization—

perhaps best articulated by John Muir’s body of work—was 

a necessary prerequisite for the preservation of wild nature. 

Also, the ability of well-heeled tourists to visit the monumental 

scenery in these areas via an expanding railway system (and the 

railroad companies’ impetus to designate these protected areas) 

were critical to the popular and political support for national 

parks. Other technological innovations that had significant 

The Impact of Technology on the Wilderness Experience: A Review of Common Themes and Approaches in Three Bodies of Literature Shultis
112 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

impacts on the recreational use and creation of wilderness 

areas include the automobile, which led to the backcountry 

boom after World War II (Havlick 2002), and the introduction 

of synthetic fabrics and other materials in outdoor recreation 

equipment (nylon, Gore Tex) often initially developed for the 

military or the space program (Shultis 2001).

The rise of mass recreation provided by the automobile was 

also critical to the development of the Wilderness Society and 

thus the Wilderness Act itself. Much of the rhetoric emanating 

from wilderness leaders in the mid-twentieth century voiced 

concerns over the impact of technology, especially the automobile, on wilderness use. The preamble in the Wilderness Act 

specifically noted the growing mechanization of society as a 

rationale for protecting wilderness in the Unites States (Sutter 2002). As Stankey (2000, p. 17) notes, “However ironic it 

may appear, technology was, and continues to be, what gives 

meaning to the concept of wilderness”; technology has become 

conceptualized as the ‘opposite’ of wilderness despite clearly 

being a sine qua non of wilderness use. This paradoxical relationship between technology and wilderness—as both enabler 

and destroyer—continues in contemporary debates. Just as the 

central question of the carrying capacity of wilderness became 

framed as the ‘limits of acceptable change’, perhaps the question of how much or what type of technology is appropriate 

for ‘proper’ wilderness use is the central issue to be debated 

in the relationship between technology and wilderness.

Specific Findings from Wilderness 

Researchers

What are the specific issues identified by wilderness researchers assessing the impacts of technology on the wilderness 

experience? While some researchers suggested that increasing 

technology in recreation equipment would increase wilderness 

use (Ewert and Hollenhorst 1997; Roggenbuck 2000), other 

social trends and issues, including increased costs of wilderness 

use and decreasing costs of international travel, have meant 

that use levels in wilderness and many protected area have 

decreased from the 1990s in the United States, Canada and 

several other countries (Shultis and More 2011). Ewert and 

Shultis (1999) identified five aspects of the wilderness experience that are influenced by technology: access/transportation, 

comfort, safety, information and communication. These aspects 

work both independently and in an integrated fashion; that is, 

increased information on weather conditions could increase 

comfort, safety and the use of communication devices in the 

backcountry.

Wiley (1995) has suggested that four integrated tensions 

between wilderness and technology exist: risk versus security, 

solitude versus connectivity, mediation versus direct experience, and knowledge versus the unknown. Perhaps the greatest focus has been on the first and third of these tensions, the 

impact of technology on risk perception and risk taking and its 

relation to a lack of direct experience (for example, Dickson 

2004). Borrie (2000, p. 88) suggests that “wilderness used 

to be its own certifier”; that is, direct experiences over time 

allowed wilderness recreationists to slowly and humbly gain 

increasing levels of expertise in decision-making. Technology 

fast-forwards our abilities and cocoons us from these experiences, creating what Ewert and Hollenhorst term the “illusion 

of safety” (1997, p. 21; see also Hendee and Dawson 2001; 

Attarian 2002). As a result, when technology fails or accidents 

occur, some wilderness users will not be able to draw upon 

previous experiences.

Again, there is little empirical evidence that supports this 

idea, although the existence of this relationship seems to be a 

common discourse in the wilderness recreationist and researcher 

populations. For example, in a rare empirical study, one author 

noted in an unpublished thesis that the amount of wilderness 

experience was “positively correlated with the belief that technology creates a false sense of safety, with more experienced 

visitors (measured by number of overnight trips in the last 12 

months) more likely to believe that technology makes visitors 

feel they have a safety net that in reality may or may not exist” 

(Pope 2010, p. 17, 19). Concern is also commonly expressed 

about the impact of communications technology (such as, 

cell and satellite phones and personal locator beacons). Many 

suggest that rescues of ill-prepared and inexperienced visitors 

have significantly increased (Hohlrieder and others 2005; 

Heggie and Heggie 2009; Heggie and Amundson 2009) due 

to the increasing use of these technologies in the wilderness.

The loss of solitude from technology is the second tension 

identified by Wiley (1995). If one can always be connected to 

the Internet, work, friends and family via electronic communication, can one ever truly be alone in wilderness? Finally, there 

is concern that technology will provide ‘too much’ knowledge 

and information about the wilderness. The wilderness experience has always contained a longing for primitive experiences 

and idealized the life of early explorers and settlers (Borrie 

and Freimund 1997; Borrie 2004). Technology may destroy 

this desire, even if we know it is an illusion. While Leopold 

complained, “Of what avail are forty freedoms without a black 

spot on the map?” (1949, p. 158), the use of GIS technology 

in wilderness ensures a lack of white areas on digital maps.

Ultimately, increased use of technology may change the 

very nature and meaning of the wilderness experience. Authors 

such as Rothenberg (1993) and Strong (1995) have eloquently 

written of the ability of technology to redefine wilderness. 

Rothenberg (1993, p. xiv) believes that “What we want to do 

is changed by what we can do—technology never simply does 

what we tell it to, but modifies our notions of what is possible 

and desirable”. This warning seems to mirror philosopher 

Winner’s suggestion that “technologies are not merely aids to 

human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that 

activity and its meaning” (1986, p. 6). Each generation will 

have its own baseline of appropriate or acceptable technology 

(Dawson 2007), and the current generation’s increasing use of 

technology in the wilderness could delineate a new relationship 

between humans, the natural world and protected areas, and 

change the meaning of the wilderness experience itself.

Watson optimistically suggests that, as technology becomes 

the dominant force in Western society, “the primitive end 

becomes more valuable to society as a point from which to 

compare and understand the benefits and threats technology 

Shultis The Impact of Technology on the Wilderness Experience: A Review of Common Themes and Approaches in Three Bodies of Literature
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 113

The Impact of Technology on the Wilderness Experience: A Review of Common Themes and Approaches in Three Bodies of Literature Shultis

offers to society” (2000, p. 57). More pessimistically, it may 

be that as technology surrounds us, our society will become 

increasingly distanced from naturalness, and the few wilderness 

areas left from an advancing population will become commodified images of an increasingly idealized past. Roggenbuck 

has highlighted the role of consumerism and self-identity in 

the wilderness-technology dichotomy, suggesting that future 

wilderness users will desire “quick, convenient, intense, scenic 

and sanitized experiences in wilderness” (2000, p. 16):

“At superstores, ‘gearheads’ purchase expensive outdoor paraphernalia to smooth the bumps, soothe the 

inches, and light the darkness of wilderness. All they 

ask is that these products be convenient, comfortable 

and exciting and that the goods enhance their identity 

as nature lovers” (p. 15).

These different possibilities exemplify the disconcerting 

vagueness and incomprehensibility of technology: while 

seemingly restructuring our very lives and society before our 

eyes, it does not illuminate a single path forward, providing a 

range of possible futures for humanity and wilderness.

To deal with this lack of clarity, many wilderness researchers have called for a public debate over the role of technology 

in wilderness use (Borrie and Freimund 1997; Roggenbuck 

2000; Stankey 2000; Van Horn 2007), but such a debate has 

not been forthcoming. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps 

most importantly, our society rarely seems inclined to question the impacts of technology (Shultis 2001); Winner called 

our seeming lack of concern about technology “technological 

somnambulism” (1986, p. 5), and believed that “the interesting 

puzzle in our times is that we so willingly sleepwalk through the 

process of reconstituting the conditions of human existence” (p. 

10). In addition, wilderness managers and agencies face many 

other issues, including potentially decreasing use levels. Also, 

economic and political systems at the local, regional, federal 

and international levels all conspire to deflect any meaningful 

questioning of the hegemonic acceptance of ‘progress’ and 

the technology associated with this process (Winner 1986). 

Philosophers such as Winner and Borgmann also recommend 

such a dialogue, and we will consider Borgmann’s philosophical 

orientations towards technology and wilderness after turning 

to the empirical evidence from leisure studies researchers who 

consider the impacts of technology on various leisure activities 

and experiences.

Leisure Studies Researcher Perspectives 

on the Impacts of Technology ________

The wilderness researchers noted above are based in the 

United States and assess the link between technology and wilderness using primarily anecdotal knowledge. A small number 

of leisure studies researchers, usually based outside the United 

States, have empirically assessed the impacts of technology on 

a wide variety of leisure pursuits. These researchers typically 

use a relativist epistemological stance and qualitative research 

methods, often with a social constructionist lens from which 

to view technology. This lens, which I believe is still viewed 

suspiciously by many wilderness researchers, may be one 

reason why most of the wilderness research does not access 

this literature (and vice versa).

This is unfortunate, as many of the themes identified in the 

previous section are also discussed in this body of literature. 

For example, I will focus on the role of consumption in technological use, as this is a key intersection between technology 

and society for many leisure researchers. For example, Ryan’s 

(2002) research suggests that the outdoor recreation media 

glamorizes the use of recreational technology, resulting in the 

emergence of three assumptions:

“(1) that technology is unconditionally good, (2) that 

its benefits are so great one would have to be a fool 

to venture outside without them, and (3) that cultures 

or people with different access to or attitudes about 

technology are somehow less civilized than EuroNorth American cultures that embrace technology (an 

ethnocentric bias)” (p. 271).

The attraction of technology, which has always seemed to 

enthrall Western society in a particularly spellbinding way, is 

enhanced by these discourses, with wilderness recreationists 

envisioning new technology as necessary to open up new recreational possibilities and experiences. As Haldrup and Larsen 

(2006) note, “Things and technologies can be understood as 

‘prostheses’ that enhance the physicality of the body ands enable it to do things and sense realities that would otherwise be 

beyond its capability” (p. 278). Michael’s (2000) discussion 

of the impact of boots on the mundane experience of walking 

is a particularly relevant one for wilderness researchers. He 

suggests walking boots “mediate the sublime relationship” 

between humans and the environment, intervening in four 

main ways:

“first, there is the role of boots as mechanical technologies that can cause pain, dissolving identity and the 

relation between humans and nature’; second, there is 

the role of boots as signifying style and identity; third, 

there is the role of boots as embodiments of procedures 

of standardization and objectification; and finally there 

is the role of boots as technological means of physical 

and ecological damage to nature” (p. 115).

The link between the consumption of recreation technology 

and self-identity is often noted. Consumers are seen to produce their identities through the processes embedded within 

consumption, including buying, using, and selling the product 

and through remembering and narrating their experiences with 

the product: “The ‘objects’ thus used and consumed construct, 

express and produce the personal identities and contribute 

to the life projects, themes and journeys of the participants 

involved” (Berger and Greenspan 2008 p. 91). Berger and 

Greenspan (2008) also link consumption of technology with 

Belk’s concept of the ‘extended self’. Belk (1988) suggested 

that technology can extend the self when it provides experiences or allows users to do activities and see places they could 

not normally access. Michael (2000) and Rossiter (2007, p. 

303) similarly highlight the ability of technology to “afford 

possibilities for the reinvention of selves and the spaces within 

which they act and dwell”. Berger and Greenspan’s fascinating 
114 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

study of a Mt. Everest expedition reveals “a kind of symbiotic 

bonding” between technology and climbers, where the tourists 

demonstrated emotional, psychological and physical relationships with the technology they brought to the mountain, and 

these relationships and bonding helped create and maintain 

their adventure tourist identities (2008). Unfortunately, the 

role of consumption in the wilderness experience has yet to be 

tackled, but the literature noted above suggests that wilderness 

recreation technology has the ability to shape (or re-shape) the 

meanings of wilderness activities and experiences, a concern 

also noted by wilderness researchers.

Finally, Foley and others (2007) add a gender analysis to 

the study of technology consumption and self-identity. Their 

research on women’s use of cell phones in Britain highlights 

both the constructive and destructive aspects of leisure and 

technology; they suggest that while young women are drawn 

to cell phones for conspicuous consumption, this technology 

also provides the “self-confidence, sexuality and autonomy 

which defies the male gaze in public spaces and may allow 

adolescent women to reject traditional images of femininity” 

(p. 189). As wilderness still remains a largely male dominated 

public space, it would be interesting to assess if gender differences in communication technology use exist. For example, 

might women use cell phones in the wilderness at least in part 

to avoid this ‘male gaze’ and provide a refuge from possible 

unwanted male attention or possible danger?

Science and Technology Studies 

Researcher Perspectives on the 

Impacts of Technology _____________

STS is a relatively new field of study, and like many recent 

interdisciplinary areas of research, was propelled into existence 

by a variety of social changes in the 1960s and 1970s. The 

‘cultural turn’ in science in this era, partly a result of Thomas 

Kuhn’s discussion of paradigm shifts within the philosophy of 

science, led social scientists to challenge the traditional realist 

epistemological stance used in social science research. The rise 

of the environmental movement and the increasing awareness 

of the impact of technology on ecological systems also influenced the birth of STS. But even more influential was the rise 

of interpretive perspectives in social research and the use of 

relativist perspectives in science. Of particular importance was 

the rise of social constructionism in the 1970s: this remains the 

primary stance taken by STS researchers (Sismondo 2004).

While earlier researchers espoused ideas that were eventually considered in STS (for example, Lewis Mumford), the key 

work that sparked researchers’ interest in STS was The Social 

Construction of Technical Systems by Bijker, Hughes and Pinch 

(1987). As the title suggests, this was also a key work in championing the social constructionist approach to the study of 

technology, an area of study that came to be known as SCOT, 

housed within the broader STS literature (Clayton 2002). 

Researchers from sociology, history and philosophy—often 

using a fascinating combination of each discipline—are most 

commonly associated with STS and SCOT (Cutcliffe 2000).

Cutcliffe (2000) suggests there are three main approaches 

to STS. A systems theory approach suggests that a system or 

web of networks, composed of technology and the people 

and social institutions which create this technology, create 

a momentum which is hard to stop or even visualize. Social 

constructionists stress the impact of the negotiations between 

special interest groups and other public and private actors 

to create a ‘technological frame’, a “system of thought and 

practice in which the device is embedded” (p. 31). Finally, 

network theorists focus on the ‘actor network’ concept, a 

blend of animate and inanimate entities (political institutions, 

nature, technology, policies) that support the success or failure 

of specific technologies. Each of these entities must be viewed 

to assess how and why certain technologies are adopted. As 

noted above, a social constructionist approach is common to 

each of these approaches. While technological objects obviously exist, the use, meaning and functions of technology 

are continuously constructed and de-constructed by various 

actors or systems within society, at both the individual and 

collective level. Only humans can give technology meaning, 

and the constructed meanings are not inevitable or static. As 

one researcher succinctly stated, “Technology is neither good, 

nor bad; nor it is neutral” (cited in Cutcliffe 2000, p. 16).

Of course, like any scientific approach, STS and SCOT are 

not without their weaknesses. Winner (1993) has provided 

the most provocative criticism of STS generally and SCOT 

specifically, noting that SCOT is too formulaic, focuses too 

strongly on the design stage of technology and disregards the 

social consequences of technology; other complaints focus on 

the lack of discussion in SCOT about the power relationships 

that shape the development and consumption of technology 

(Clayton, 2002). STS also generally tends to provide various 

researchers’ perspectives on one case study, but rarely provides 

any critical analysis of each of these studies, a characteristic 

that one philosopher termed the “paradox of continual beginning” (cited in Higgs, Light and Strong 2000a, p. 5).

Philosopher Albert Borgmann’s work in STS is very influential. He is one of the few STS researchers to have generated 

any critical exchange (Higgs, Light and Strong 2000b). His 

work is particularly relevant to the study of the connections 

between technology and wilderness, as Borgmann himself 

uses the example of wilderness use—although not in as 

detailed a manner as wilderness researchers might like—as 

an exemplar of what he termed ‘focal practices’. Borgmann 

begins by agreeing with many of the main points noted in the 

previous sections: he believes that technology has become 

“the decisive current in the stream of modern history” (1984, 

p. 35), providing a foundational but nearly invisible pattern in 

our lives. Borgmann also links consumerism with technology, 

suggesting that “Universal consumption of commodities is the 

fulfillment of the promise of technology” (1984, p. 52).

Borgmann’s most significant contribution deals with his 

conceptualization of focal things and practices. He compares 

the traditional hearth or fireplace (a thing) with modern central 

heating (a device) to illuminate how technology changes the 

very meaning of human lives and behavior. He suggests ‘things’ 

create their own worlds and generate a contextual engagement 

Shultis The Impact of Technology on the Wilderness Experience: A Review of Common Themes and Approaches in Three Bodies of Literature
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 115

with the world. For example, a hearth used to serve as a focal 

point in daily existence:

“a fireplace provides warmth, but inevitably provides 

those many other elements that compose the world 

of the fireplace [e.g., assigning various family members specific tasks]. We are inclined to think of these 

additional elements as burdensome, and they were 

undoubtedly often so experienced. A device such as a 

central heating plant procures mere warmth and disburdens us of all other elements. These are taken over 

by the machinery of the device. The machinery makes 

no demands on our skill, strength, or attention, and it 

is less demanding the less it makes its presence felt. In 

the progress of technology, the machinery of a device 

has therefore the tendency to become concealed or to 

shrink” (1984, p. 42; emphasis added).

Borgmann’s belief that technology makes no demands on 

us seems to reflect one of the central concerns of wilderness 

researchers, that our use of cell phones, personal locator beacons, GPS units, and so on in the wilderness will strip away 

the skills and experiences delivered through direct wilderness 

experience. Similar to maintaining the hearth, experiencing the 

discomforts and dangers in the wilderness can be a great burden, 

but Borgmann’s analysis supports the concern by wilderness 

researchers that recreation technology will erase the wisdom 

learned by mistakes in the wilderness. Borgmann also seems 

to echo wilderness researchers’ expressed concerns with the 

loss of direct experience:

“Physical engagement is not simply physical contact 

but the experience of the world through the manifold 

sensibility of the body. That sensibility is sharpened 

and strengthened in skill. Skill is intensive and refined 

world engagement. Skill, in turn, is bound up with social 

engagement. It molds the person and gives the person 

character” (1984, p. 42).

Moreover, Borgmann seems to speak to the mixture of guilty 

excitement many feel in adopting new forms of recreation 

technology, suggesting that despite the “persistent glamour 

of the promise of technology” (1984, p. 105), and our relief 

from lifting burdens from ourselves and others,

“these sentiments are tinged, especially in retrospect, 

with feelings of loss, sorrow, and of betrayal, both in 

the sense that one has betrayed a thing or a tradition to 

which one owes an essential debt, and in the sense that 

one has been betrayed in one’s aspirations. Implication 

in technology then receives an admixture of uneasiness 

which results in what may be called complicity” (p. 105).

The resulting complicit emptiness is often filled with even 

more consumption, creating a never ending cycle which tends 

to create leisure experiences based on “instantaneity, ubiquity, safety, and ease” (p. 130): we consume comfort. In our 

rush to commodify consumption of technology, “We have 

constructed a large and complex machine that delivers effortless experiences” (Borgmann 2010, p. 9). But this comfort 

and effortlessness also come with a price:

“it is an entirely parasitic feeling that feeds off the disappearance of toil; it is not animated by the full-bodied 

exercise of skill, gained through discipline and renewed 

through intimate commerce with the world. On the 

contrary, our contact with reality has been attenuated 

to the pushing of buttons and the turning of handles. 

The results are guaranteed by a machinery that is not of 

our design and often beyond our understanding. Hence 

the feelings of liberation and enrichment quickly fade; 

the new devices lose their glamour and lead into the 

inconspicuous periphery of normalcy; boredom replaces 

exhilaration” (2010, p. 140; see also Borgmann 2006).

Borgmann highlights the need to hang on to focal things 

and practices, as only ‘things’ (rather than devices) are embedded within the “rich, experiential context discovered through 

engagement” (Fandozzi 2000, 155). Indeed, it is only by (re)

discovering these focal things and practices that we can reform 

our technological fixation to move towards a ‘good life’. More 

specifically, focal reality

“is simply a placeholder for the encounters each of 

us has with things that of themselves have engaged 

body and mind and centered our lives. Commanding 

presence, continuity with the world, and centering 

power are signs of focal things. They are not warrants, 

however. Focal things warrant themselves” (Borgmann 

1992, p. 119-120).

Like the hearth, focal things interweave means and ends, 

require effort, concentration and skill, and both invigorate and 

center us (Strong and Higgs 2000).

For Borgmann (1992, p. 120), “the wilderness has the clearest 

voice among eloquent things”, allowing us to engage with the 

land in a meaningful way despite—and in part because of—the 

technological world that surrounds it. Indeed, “wildness attains 

new and positive significance within the technological setting” 

(1984, p. 182). It restores non-technological time and space 

to us. In the wilderness, “we let things be in the fullness of 

their dimensions, and so they are more profoundly alive and 

eloquent” (p. 192). We can, for a time, escape our consumptive 

and destructive selves and understand that wilderness stands 

apart from our technological society. Finally, wilderness can 

teach us respect, humility and the need to control our normally 

unquestioned adoption of technology:

“Technology kills the wilderness when it develops it 

with roads, lifts, motels and camping areas. It keeps the 

wilderness at bay when, without affecting untouched 

areas permanently, it insulates us from the engagement 

with the many dimensions and features of the land, as 

it does through rides in jet boats or helicopters. Here 

we can see that technology with its seemingly infinite 

resourcefulness in procuring anything and everything 

does have a clear limit. It can procure something that 

engages us fully and in its own right only at the price of 

gutting or removing it. Thus the wilderness teaches us not 

only to accept technology but also to limit it” (p. 195).

The above quote demonstrates some of the limitations of 

Borgmann’s discussion of how wilderness links to the technological society. The dangers of interdisciplinary work are 

perhaps also reflected in his somewhat Romantic and simplistic 

conceptualization of wilderness. To be fair, at the time his main 

work was published in 1984, the rise of recent communication 

technology was still far away, although more recent works 

The Impact of Technology on the Wilderness Experience: A Review of Common Themes and Approaches in Three Bodies of Literature Shultis
116 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

(Borgmann 1992; 1999; 2006; 2010) do not update these positions. If wilderness can teach us to limit technology, it certainly 

has not done so yet, as any limits to technology in protected 

areas—beyond the traditional restriction of mechanized recreation—are exceedingly rare. For example, on the contrary, 

the Parks Canada Agency, in a bid to attract more visitors, has 

recently introduced a new technology in national parks. “Using a program called Explora and handheld computers with 

Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities, Parks Canada 

plans to deliver location-specific content to hikers. As visitors 

hike with Explora, they are able to see their location on a map 

and interact with location-related text, images, sounds, video 

and quizzes” (Lunn 2011, unpaginated). Certainly, we have 

long hoped that protected areas can teach us humility and help 

forge a new relationship with nature, but this new respectful 

relationship has yet to appear outside of an individual level 

despite decades of wilderness use. Perhaps the forcefulness of 

the technological allure is an important barrier to these changes 

in social values and attitudes.

Yet these concerns do not completely bury the possible utility 

of many of Borgmann’s ideas. The example of wilderness use as 

a focal practice—one that binds wilderness visitors with things 

rather than devices, creating a rich, centering experience not yet 

mediated by the loss of meaning created by devices—still holds 

promise for future research opportunities. Unless, of course, 

the new forms and increasing use of technology exemplified 

by communication technologies have not put the focus of the 

wilderness experiences on the devices rather than the experience itself: this seems to be the concern of many wilderness 

researchers, but has yet to be directly assessed.

Discussion and Conclusion _________

What can we learn from this brief review and comparison of 

these three distinct literatures? Several patterns have emerged. 

The most self-evident pattern is the lack of empirical research 

on this topic. Wilderness recreation research is almost entirely 

anecdotal, primarily deterministic, and has not proven successful at engaging managers or administrators to meaningfully 

debate the issue. The dispersed leisure studies research contains 

the greatest amount of data, but relatively few studies are 

focused directly on the wilderness experience, although their 

discussion of the impact of technology in society provides 

many potentially useful insights. The limited STS and SCOT 

research relating to wilderness and outdoor recreation tends to 

be philosophical in approach, rarely critically examined in any 

detail and only occasionally used by wilderness researchers. 

While it is more than trite to simply call for more research on 

this (or any) topic—is there a more clichéd expression in academia?—the lack of any empirical results to support or reject 

the possible issues identified in previous sections of this paper 

restricts our ability to gain a deep understanding of this topic. 

While I hesitate to privilege empirical forms of knowledge, 

adding this dimension would help triangulate existing findings; 

empirical evidence also tends to have greater public and political influence. But the existing literature provides a valuable 

roadmap for future research, suggesting potential topics and 

conceptual frameworks which can serve as potential launching 

points for wilderness researchers.

Given the lack of direct observations, both realist (quantitative) and relativist (qualitative) perspectives and approaches 

are needed. Quantitative research—normally on or off site user 

surveys—can provide an indication of how many wilderness 

users use which technologies and their basic attitudes towards 

technology in wilderness and potential management strategies. 

Wilderness managers’ attitudes and approaches could also be 

assessed, and content analysis of media reports on technology 

in wilderness areas could be analyzed. Qualitative research 

would probably use interviews or focus groups of users and 

non-users of wilderness technology, and could provide a deeper 

analysis of the meanings and contexts that link wilderness users, 

technology and society. For example, these approaches could 

assess how users negotiate the complicities that Borgmann 

(1984) spoke of: do wilderness technology users experience 

this complicity and if so, how is it manifested? Wiley’s four 

tensions between technology and wilderness use could also 

be assessed: do users of technology describe these or other 

tensions in their narratives/discourses?

The second pattern relates to the common topics embedded 

within each of the literatures. While each literature is broader 

than that represented in this brief review, a key finding was the 

common concern with the link between technology, consumption and self-identity. In our consumer society, there seems to 

be a discord between the discourses which portray recreation 

technology as wholly positive, necessary accoutrements to the 

modern wilderness experience, enabling recreationists to pursue 

activities, settings and experiences beyond the current reach of 

visitors in greater safety, comfort and ease; at the same time, 

the love-hate relationship between society and technology is 

brought into the wilderness, and the wilderness becomes both 

a refuge from technology and an experience activated and 

maintained by increasing amounts of technology. The loss 

of direct experiences from the use of what Borgmann (1984) 

terms ‘devices’ and its potential impact on the perception and 

experience of risk is also a shared concern in each literature. 

The lack of direct experience, especially those not ‘tainted’ 

by new technology, is thought to have significant effects on 

perceived risk and decision-making. This potential link between 

risk, technology and the wilderness experience is a fascinating 

one, but has not received sustained examination.

The invisibility of technology—at least, some forms of 

technology—is another common theme. Why are only certain 

pieces of wilderness technology (such as GPS) imbued with 

the power to transform the ‘traditional’ wilderness experience 

(whatever that is), while others (such as boots) are not considered to be transformative? What is and isn’t ‘technology’ to 

wilderness users? Finally, Borgmann’s concept of focal things 

and practices, and his inclusion of wilderness use in this short 

list of focal realities, seemed to reflect the purity and centering 

power of the wilderness experience expressed (or at least implicitly assumed) by wilderness and leisure researchers. Could 

this concept be used, despite the somewhat frustrating lack of 

specificity of this concept in Borgmann’s work, to explain the 

significance of this experience for individuals and Western 

Shultis The Impact of Technology on the Wilderness Experience: A Review of Common Themes and Approaches in Three Bodies of Literature
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 117

society? Can focal practices like wilderness use—if not already 

too ‘uncentered’ by communication technologies—provide 

a way forward to the ‘good life’ highlighted by Borgmann? 

Could wilderness experiences provide us a means by which 

we could resist the siren call of technology?

A third pattern is the disconnect and tension between the 

three literatures’ epistemological stances and methodologies. 

The wilderness research almost exclusively follows a realist 

perspective, and thus uses quantitative methods and statistical 

analysis to describe reality. Researchers in the other two areas 

primarily use a relativist stance, and use qualitative methods 

and interpretive analysis (especially social constructionism) to 

describe contextual realities. As noted above, each approach 

has its own strengths and weaknesses, and both are needed 

equally, but the difference in approach is possibly a challenge for 

integrating the widespread research on the impacts of technology on wilderness recreation. Certainly, up to the present, few 

wilderness researchers studying technology issues incorporate 

findings from the other literatures in a significant way. Perhaps 

it also demonstrates the need for an increased emphasis on 

interdisciplinary and/or mixed method approaches to research 

the impact of technology on the wilderness experience.

Technology both enables and disables wilderness. For 

almost a century—from Model Ts to iPads—technology has 

simultaneously led to successful rallying cries to protect the 

wilderness (for example, the passing of the Wilderness Act) 

and concern that its use will diminish or even destroy the wilderness experience itself. At present, the debate over the role 

and impact of technology seems to be focused at the individual 

level: wilderness users have an internal debate over what they 

consider to be appropriate levels and types of technology on 

each wilderness trip. A wider debate seems limited at one level 

by the capacity and willingness of land management agencies: 

other concerns (declining visitation and climate change, for 

example) have taken center stage, and budget cuts in a strongly 

neoliberal political environment have diluted the agencies’ 

enthusiasm for wilderness and wilderness research in general. 

The unwillingness of Western society to question the use of 

new technology or consider its impacts, the commodification 

of leisure experiences in our consumer society, and the public 

desire for safety, comfort and ease also provide challenging 

roadblocks to such a public debate. A champion is needed to 

maintain the focal experiences provided by wilderness: research 

that addresses these and other issues may help us cut through 

these barriers to engage this debate.

References _______________________

Ashman, Keith M.; Baringer, Phillip S. 2001. After the science wars. New 

York: Routledge. 240 p.

Attarian, Aram. 2002. Rock climbers’ self-perceptions of first aid, safety, and 

rescue skills. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine. 13(4): 238-244.

Belk, Russell W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. The Journal of 

Consumer Research. 15(2): 139-168

Berger, Ida E; Greenspan, Itay. 2008. High (on) technology: producing tourist 

identities through technologized adventure. Journal of Sport and Tourism. 

13(2): 89-114.

Bijker, Wiebe; Pinch, Thomas P.; Hughes, Trevor P. 1987. The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 419 p.

Borgmann, Albert. 1984. Technology and the character of contemporary life: 

A philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 310 p.

Borgmann, Albert. 1992. Crossing the postmodern divide. Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press. 182 p.

Borgmann, Albert. 1999. Holding on to reality: the nature of information 

at the turn of the century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 282 p.

Borgmann, Albert. 2006. Technology as a cultural force. Canadian Journal of 

Sociology. 31(2): 351-360.

Borgmann, Albert. 2010. The here and now: Theory, technology, and actuality. 

Philosophy and Technology. 24(1): 5-17.

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

In: Watson, A. E,; Aplet, G. H.; Hendee, J. C., comps. Personal, societal, 

and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress 

proceedings on research, management and allocation – Volume II. Proc. 

RMRS-P-14. Odgen, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 87-88.

Borrie, William T. 2004. Why primitive experiences in wilderness? International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 18-20.

Borrie, William.T.; Freimund, Wayne A. 1997. Wilderness in the 21st century: 

Are there technical solutions to our technical solutions? International 

Journal of Wilderness. 3(4): 21-23.

Callicott, J. Baird; Nelson, Michael P. 1998. The great new wilderness debate. 

Athens: University of Georgia Press. 712 p.

Clayton, Nick. 2002. SCOT: Does it answer? Technology and Culture. 43(2): 

351-360.

Cronin, William. 1995. The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the 

wrong nature. In: Cronin, W., ed. Uncommon ground: Towards reinventing 

nature (pp. 69-90). New York: W.W. Norton: 69-90.

Cutcliffe, Stephen H. 2000. Ideas, machines and values: An introduction 

to science, technology and society studies. Lanham, MA: Rowman & 

Littlefield. 192 p.

Dawson, Chad P. 2007. New opportunities for educating future wilderness 

and wildland managers in a changing technological world. International 

Journal of Wilderness. 13(3): 36-39.

Dickson, Tracey J. 2004. If the outcome is predictable, is it an adventure? 

Being in, not barricaded from, the outdoors. World Leisure. 4: 48-54.

Ewert, Alan W.; Hollenhorst, Steven J. 1997. Adventure recreation and its 

implications for wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 3(2): 21-26.

Ewert, Alan E.; Shultis, John D. 1999. Technology and backcountry recreation: 

Boon to recreation or bust for management? Journal of Physical Education, 

Dance and Recreation. 70(8): 3- 8,11. Fandozzi, Phillip R. 2000. The moving image: between devices and things. 

In: Higgs, E.; Light, A.; Strong, D., eds. Technology and the good life? 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 153-165.

Foley, Carmel; Holzman, Caryn; Wearing, Stephen. 2007. Moving beyond 

conspicuous leisure consumption: adolescent women, mobile phones and 

public space. Leisure Studies. 26(2):179 – 192.

Haldrup, Micheal; Larsen, Jonas. 2006. Material cultures of tourism. Leisure 

Studies. 25(3): 275-289. 

Havlick, David G. 2002. No place distant: Roads and motorized recreation on 

America’s public lands. Washington, DC: Island Press. 253 p.

Heggie, Travis W.; Heggie, Tracey M. 2009. Search and rescue trends associated with recreational travel in U.S. national parks. Journal of Travel 

Medicine. 16(1): 23-27.

Heggie, Travis W.; Amundson, Michael E. 2009. Dead men walking: Search 

and rescue in U.S. national parks. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine. 

20: 244-249.

Hendee, John C.; Dawson, Chad P. 2001. Stewardship to address the threats 

to wilderness resources and values. International Journal of Wilderness. 

7(3): 4-9.

Higgs, Eric; Light, Andrew; Strong, David 2000a. Introduction. In: Higgs, 

E.; Light, A.; Strong, D., eds. Technology and the good life? Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press: 1-15.

Higgs, Eric; Light, Andrew; Strong, David. 2000b. Technology and the good 

life? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 384 p.

Hohlrieder, Matthias; Mair, Peter; Wuertl, Walter.; Brugger, Hermann. 2005. 

The impact of avalanche transceivers on mortality from avalanche accidents.

High Altitude Medicine and Biology. 6(1): 72-77.

Kasperson, Roger; Renn, Ortwin; Slovic, Paul; Brown, Halina; Emel, Jacques; 

Goble, Robert; Kasperson, Jeanne X.; Ratick, Samuel. 1988. Social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis. 8(2): 177-187.

The Impact of Technology on the Wilderness Experience: A Review of Common Themes and Approaches in Three Bodies of Literature Shultis
118 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Leopold, Aldo . 1949. A Sand County almanac: and sketches here and there. 

New York: Oxford University Press. 228 p.

Louv, Richard 2005. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from naturedeficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. 335 p.

Lunn, S. 2011. Parks Canada brings GPS to great outdoors. [Online] http://

www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/02/05/parks-canada-gps-susanlunn.html.

Martin, Steven R.; Pope, Kristen, In press. The impact of hand-held information and communication technology on visitor perceptions of risk and 

risk-related behavior. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, 

MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Michael, Mike. 2000. These boots are made for walking...: mundane technology, the body and human-environment relations. Body and Society. 

6(3/4): 107-126.

Nelson, Michael P.; Callicott, J. Baird. 2008. The wilderness debate rages 

on: continuing the great new wilderness debate. Athens: University of 

Georgia Press. 744p.

Pergams, Oliver R.W.; Zaradic, Patricia A. 2006. Is love of nature in the 

U.S. becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national 

park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet 

use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management. 80: 387-393.

Pergams, Oliver R.W.; Zaradic, PatriciaA. 2008. Evidence for a fundamental 

and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. PNAS. 105(7): 

2295-2300.

Pidgeon, Nick; Kasperson Roger E.; Slovic, Paul. 2003. The social amplification of risk. New York: Cambridge University Press. 464 p.

Pope, Kristen E. 2010. Visitor perceptions of technology and rescue in the 

wilderness. Thesis. Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University. [Online] 

http://humboldt-dspace.calstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2148/636/

Visitor%20Perceptions%20of%20Technology%20and%20Rescue%20

in%20the%20Wilderness.pdf?sequence=1. 

Ray, Sarah J. 2009. Risking bodies in the wild: The ‘corporeal unconscious’ 

of American adventure culture. Journal of Sport and Social Issues. 33(3): 

257-284. 

Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 2000. Meanings of the wilderness experiences in the 

21st century. International Journal of Wilderness, 6(2): 14-17.

Rossiter, Penelope. 2007. Rock climbing: on humans, nature, and other nonhumans. Space and Culture. 10(2): 292-305.

Rothenberg, David. 1993. Hand’s end: technology and the limits of nature. 

Berkeley: University of California Press. 256 p.

Ryan, Sean. 2002. Cyborgs in the woods. Leisure Studies. 21: 265-284.

Shultis, John D. 2001. Consuming nature: the uneasy relationship between 

technology, outdoor recreation and protected areas. The George Wright 

Forum. 18(1): 56-66.

Shultis, John D; More, T. 2011. American and Canadian national park agency 

responses to declining visitation. Journal of Leisure Research. 43(1): 110-132. 

Sismondo, Sergio. 2004. An introduction to science and technology studies. 

Malden, MA: Blackwell. 256 p.

Smith, Merritt R. and Marx, Leo. 1994. Does technology drive history? The 

dilemma of technological determinism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 298 p.

Stankey, George H. 2000. Future trends in society and technology: Implications for wilderness research and management. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, 

S.F.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a time of 

change conference – Volume 1: Changing perspectives and future directions. 

Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-1. Odgen, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 10-23.

Strong, David. 1995. Crazy mountains: learning from wilderness to weigh 

technology. Albany: State University of New York. 253 p.

Strong, David; Higgs, Eric. 2000. Borgmann’s philosophy of technology. 

In: Higgs, E.; Light, A.; Strong, D., eds. Technology and the good life? 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 19-37.

Sutter, Paul. 2002. Driven wild: how the fight against automobiles launched 

the modern wilderness movement. Seattle: University of Washington 

Press. 343 p.

Van Horn, Joe. 2007. GPS and the internet: Possible effects on the protection 

of remote areas and wilderness values. International Journal of Wilderness. 13(3): 7-11.

Watson, Alan E. 2000. Wilderness use in the year 2000: Societal changes 

that influence human relationships with nature. In Cole, D.N.; McCool, 

S.F.; Borrie, W.T. O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a time of 

change conference – Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Odgen, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 53-60.

Wiley, Steven B. 1995. Repositioning the wilderness: mobile communication technologies and the transformation of wild space. Paper presented 

at the Conference on Communication and the Environment, June 24-27, 

2005, Jekyll Island, Georgia. [Online}. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/wiley/

research/Wilderness.pdf [Nov. 15, 2011].

Winner, Langdon. 1986. The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in 

an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 200 p.

Winner, Langdon. 1993. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty. 

Science, Technology and Human Values. 18: 362–78.

Winner, Langdon. 2001. Where technological determinism went. In: Cutcliffe, Steven H.; Mitcham, Carl, eds. Visions of STS: Counterpoints in 

science, technology and society studies. New York: State University of 

New York: 1-18. 

Shultis The Impact of Technology on the Wilderness Experience: A Review of Common Themes and Approaches in Three Bodies of Literature
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 119

Abstract—As devices like personal locator beacons become more 

readily available, more visitors may bring them into wilderness and 

use them to request rescues and may develop unrealistic expectations 

of rescue. In an exploratory study in 2009, 235 overnight visitors to the 

King Range Wilderness in California completed a written survey. Of 

the respondents, 40 percent considered themselves to be risk-takers. 

Of those, 80 percent admitted to having done something in a wilderness that they knew at the time was unsafe, and 85 percent admitted 

to having done something that in retrospect they considered unsafe. 

These risk takers were also significantly more likely to take chances 

that could increase their exposure to risk if they had information/communication technology with them. They were also significantly more 

likely to believe that technology reduces many of the dangers people 

associate with being in the wilderness. Both more-experienced visitors 

and visitors with personal experience of a serious wilderness accident 

were more likely to believe that technology creates a false sense of 

safety for wilderness users than were less-experienced visitors and 

those who have not been involved in a serious wilderness accident.

Introduction ______________________

John and Rebecca are backpacking in the John Muir Wilderness, a part of the High Sierra they have not visited before. They 

have a trail map. They are not carrying a compass, but neither 

really knows how to navigate by map and compass anyway. 

They do, however, have a state-of-the-art GPS, and have been 

using it to follow a highly recommended route they downloaded 

in advance from the internet. They know their exact UTM 

coordinates at any given time and with those could find their 

location on their trail map if they so desired, thus removing 

much of the anxiety they had about getting lost. Neither was 

particularly confident in their navigational skills. John and 

The Influence of Hand-Held Information 

and Communication Technology on Visitor 

Perceptions of Risk and Risk-Related 

Behavior

Steven R. Martin

Kristen Pope

Authors: Steven R. Martin and Kristen Pope, Department of Environmental Science 

and Management, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Rebecca also have a smartphone with a SPOT Connect app, 

which not only allows their family and friends to track their 

progress via the internet, but also allows John and Rebecca to 

send custom messages of up to 41 characters to their social 

network contacts via Facebook and Twitter and to contact 

9-1-1 emergency responders with their GPS coordinates and 

a custom SOS message if they need to be rescued (although 

few 9-1-1 centers are yet equipped to handle text messages). 

During the course of their seven-day trek, John and Rebecca 

spend quite a bit of time updating their Facebook pages with 

messages about their trip, and sending tweets to their family 

and friends via Twitter.

Managers and researchers (or anyone else for that matter) 

may be in no position to tell John and Rebecca whether or not 

they had an “authentic wilderness experience.” However, their 

experience might have been lacking some of the fundamental 

elements that have traditionally defined a wilderness experience, elements such as a certain degree of separation from the 

technologically-advanced aspects of modern civilization and the 

heightened opportunity for contemplation and self-reflection 

that may come with it; self-reliance; exposure to uncertainty 

and risk; and the sense of accomplishment derived from relying 

on one’s own skills to overcome uncertainty and risk. These are 

elements that contemporary wilderness visitors say contribute 

to a wilderness experience (Seekamp and others in press).

It is the fourth day of their trip and John and Rebecca are faced 

with a decision. Although it is not on their pre-programmed 

GPS route, they see on their map that there is a high alpine 

lake in a steep basin perched above them. It promises to be 

very scenic, but also quite exposed to weather, and will require 

some steep, off-trail climbing to get to; the footing could be 

difficult. They also notice some clouds starting to build up 

in the early afternoon and are wondering if a storm might be 

moving in. They stop for a snack and to talk about their options. 

Should they climb up to the lake? They discuss the fact that 

they have their GPS and SPOT, so if they do get into trouble, 

they can always request help. Based on the confidence that 

those devices give them, they decide to proceed to the lake. 

Was it the right decision? Do they return safely and on their 

own, or did the (over)confidence that stemmed from having 

their technological devices create a false sense of safety and 
120 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

an unrealistic expectation of rescue, ultimately resulting in a 

rescue operation that could have been avoided?

Clearly, not all wilderness experiences are the same—they 

vary greatly across people, across places, and across time. 

Indeed, what would Bob Marshall have thought of today’s 

freeze-dried food, lightweight tents, tiny propane stoves, and 

Gore-Tex raingear? That said, do we risk losing something 

important if communication and information technology like 

that described above (and whatever else is coming next) removes much of what sets wilderness experiences apart from 

non-wilderness recreation? Today’s backpacking equipment 

that Bob Marshall might scoff at makes wilderness travel easier 

and more comfortable, but is a lighter tent and better raingear 

as fundamentally different from the tents and raingear of his 

day as is the ability to communicate with the outside world via 

cell or satellite phone, fix your exact spot on a map by way of 

GPS, or request a helicopter rescue at the push of a button? 

As Grann (2010, p. 234) recounts in The Lost City of Z, even 

the Royal Geographic Society “recognized, wistfully, that a 

Rubicon had been crossed” when in 1925, explorer Alexander 

Rice first communicated via wireless radio with the outside 

world while on an expedition deep into the Amazon, and the 

New York Times reported that “the Brazilian jungle has ceased 

to be lonely.”

Setting aside the issue of whether such technology changes 

the very nature of the wilderness experience, to what extent 

might a dependence on such technology change visitor behavior (consciously or unconsciously), encouraging visitors 

to make decisions they otherwise would not have made and to 

take risks they otherwise would not have taken? Technology 

that reduces actual risk may change the very nature of experience, by reducing the consequences of visitors’ decisions, and 

thereby may change visitors’ decisions and behaviors, since 

those decisions and behaviors may now carry less risk. Even 

if technology reduces only the perception of risk, that may still 

lead visitors to make unsafe decisions they otherwise might 

not have made, with potentially disastrous consequences.

Information and communication technology that reduces 

exposure to risk, or that is believed to reduce risk, may have 

the effect of opening up areas for travel that were previously 

thought by some people to be beyond their skill level. In effect, 

the technology expands the areas or lands into which some 

people are comfortable pursuing their desired activities and 

experiences. Whereas before such technology existed, travel 

into remote and rugged areas, or cross-country travel across a 

trailless landscape, might have been considered too dangerous 

by some, now people equipped with a GPS and a SPOT, or a 

Smartphone with a SPOT Connect app, might not be deterred. 

While there may be some advantages to this, there are some 

obvious disadvantages as well. In addition to the potential for 

spreading visitor impacts into formerly pristine or near-pristine 

areas, there is also the potential for underprepared or overly 

confident users to substitute technology for common sense, 

experience and skill and to make decisions based on unrealistic 

perceptions of both risk and the ease and availability of rescue. 

This could lead to an increased number of accidents, injuries 

and deaths, and an increased number of search and rescue 

events, which are expensive and potentially dangerous to the 

rescuers.

In this paper we will first review the literature on this topic. 

Then we will provide empirical results from a single exploratory study of wilderness visitors to a coastal wilderness in 

California, in which we examine beliefs and behaviors relative 

to information and communication technology in wilderness. 

The research questions that we asked were to what extent do 

information and communication technologies influence visitor perceptions of both risk and rescue in wilderness, and how 

might those perceptions in turn influence risk-related decisions 

that visitors make in wilderness?

Literature Review__________________

McCool and Braithwaite (1992) define hazards as “uncontrollable components and processes encountered in natural 

environments that may lead to the injury or death of recreationists.” They describe risk as the “exposure to hazards” or “the 

likelihood of being harmed by a hazard.” They differentiate 

between risk that is voluntary, sought out as part of the recreation experience and seen as a controllable factor (what some 

have called challenge risk) and risk that is uncontrolled and not 

sought (what some have called danger risk), acknowledging 

that what is challenge risk to one person may be danger risk 

to another. As Ewert and Hollenhorst (1997) point out, it is 

the inclusion of and proximity to risk that “adds consequence 

to individual decision making.”

How might the introduction of handheld information and 

communication technology reduce risk (or at least the perception 

of risk), reduce the consequences of decisions, and influence 

visitors’ decision-making? A number of authors have noted that 

such technology may serve to create the illusion of safety or 

a false sense of security (Borrie 2000; Ewert and Hollenhorst 

1997; Stevenson 2011; Wiley 2005). For example, Ewert and 

Hollenhorst (1997) explain that while a GPS can provide navigational information, it cannot provide the knowledge necessary 

to safely use that navigational information in difficult terrain. 

GPS devices can make it more difficult to get lost and easier to 

specify one’s location to rescuers (Wiley 2005), but can also, 

as Borrie (2000) points out, increase visitors’ confidence in 

their ability to go anywhere and decrease their willingness to 

turn back. Holden (2004) wonders if this false sense of security 

makes participants feel less vulnerable to threats.

Technology is not always reliable and functional in a wilderness environment (Attarian 2002). For example, a hiker in 

New Zealand fell off a cliff, broke several bones, and lost his 

personal locator beacon (PLB) in the fall, leaving him stranded 

(Chapman and Stokes 2009). Another New Zealand camper 

went missing and activated his PLB, but the signals were not 

received, possibly due to canopy cover (Pepperell 2011). In 

April 2011 SPOT, a leading manufacturer of personal locator beacons in the U.S., recalled over 15,000 devices due to 

reports of product failure in temperatures below 40 degrees 

Fahrenheit (dBune News 2011). Inexperienced visitors relying 

on sometimes unreliable equipment, without experience to 

Martin and Pope The Influence of Hand-Held Information and Communication Technology on Visitor Perceptions of Risk and Risk-Related Behavior
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 121

serve as a backup in case of faulty technology, is a potentially 

dangerous combination.

Even if the devices work properly, one cannot assume that 

the user knows how to use them correctly. Stevenson (2011) 

points out that carrying a GPS and knowing how to use it are 

two different things. Sandrik (2010) reports that, in Yosemite 

National Park, search and rescue rangers are seeing more cases 

of people putting themselves in precarious positions because 

they relied too heavily on one type of technology—GPS. Valley District Ranger Eric Gabriel said, [It’s] “more and more 

common, and what happens is that people rely solely on the 

GPS as opposed to having a map, a compass, and good judgment and skill to use those things.” Lack of knowledge about 

device capabilities can also create dangerous situations. The 

Rocky Mountain Rescue Group spent two months searching 

for the source of a personal locator beacon that was triggered 

in Colorado nine times between December 2009 and February 

2010. They finally solved the mystery, learning that a backcountry skier thought it was an avalanche beacon, activating 

it every time he went skiing. He had received it as a gift and 

never read the instructions (Willoughby 2010).

One of the major differences between devices (such as SPOT) 

and equipment (such as a topographical map and compass) is that 

equipment requires skill and practice as well as incorporating 

environmental knowledge; devices may provide instantaneous 

results, but they fail to involve or engage us with the surrounding environment (Pohl 2006). This lack of engagement with 

one’s environment can contribute to a lack of visitor autonomy, 

self-sufficiency, and sense of self-responsibility. In turn, these 

factors may contribute to changes in visitor behavior and use 

patterns, including increased risk-taking behavior, not understanding the dangers involved with particular behaviors, and 

overestimating the availability of rescue assistance. Technology 

may serve to insulate visitors from the consequences of their 

actions to the point where they fail to recognize the severity 

of a situation (Borrie 2000).

Anecdotally, many wilderness managers feel that the average level of experience, knowledge and skill among users is 

decreasing as more people venture into the wilderness with 

information and communication technology. The technology 

may be used as a substitute for skill, knowledge, experience 

and preparation (Stevenson 2011) and may allow people with 

less skill to access areas that were once available only to the 

highly skilled (Hollenhorst 1995). Dickson (2004), commenting 

on the increase in rescue requests via cell or satellite phone, 

asks:

“But why do they need rescuing? Did they venture that 

far, or into that area, because they thought they could 

make a call and be rescued? Are they depending upon 

the technology and the knowledge and skills of others 

to keep themselves safe rather than developing personal 

skills to navigate and explore the outdoors? Would they 

have gone there if they had to depend totally upon their 

own skills?”

Many visitors may come to rely on these devices in the 

wilderness instead of developing appropriate knowledge, 

abilities, experience, and skills. The now-infamous Royal 

Arches foursome (see Pope and Martin 2011) is an example of 

an inexperienced group that used their beacon as a substitute 

for appropriate knowledge, abilities, experience, and skills. 

When rescuers asked the men what they would have done had 

they not possessed a personal locator beacon, they said: “We 

would have never attempted this hike.” As a result of this type 

of incident, some rescuers refer to personal locator beacons as 

“Yuppie 911” (Cone 2009).

There is little (if any) disagreement that technology like personal locator beacons, cell phones, and satellite phones makes 

it easier to request a rescue, often leading to an increased, and 

sometimes unrealistic, expectation of rescue. One of many 

examples is of hikers in British Columbia who ignored trail 

closure signs, became stranded because they were unprepared 

for conditions, called 9-1-1 to request rescue, then became 

impatient that the rescue was taking too long (Sullivan and 

Cooper 2011). Stevenson (2011) says that too many unprepared 

visitors treat technology like a “get out of trouble free” gadget 

instead of as an emergency backup. The subsequent diminished 

capacity for self-rescue can lead to a “society of rescuers and 

rescuees,” where rescue (including self-rescue) is a specialized 

niche instead of an essential skill.

As the use of technology expands into wilderness areas, it 

is important to address people’s expectations of technology 

in a backcountry environment and the dangerous blending of 

expectations between frontcountry road-accessible areas and 

backcountry settings (Pohl 2006). Unrealistic expectations can 

occur when individuals bring technology into the wilderness, 

falsely believing they can rapidly summon help if needed. 

Likewise, bringing technology into the wilderness can create a false sense of security that may compromise a group’s 

self-reliance (Borrie 2000; Holden 2004). Even when used 

successfully, it can still take a considerable amount of time 

for rescue crews to respond. Without appropriate self-rescue 

abilities, even the most technologically-equipped wilderness 

visitor can be in considerable danger waiting for help to arrive. 

As technology improves with time, it remains to be seen if these 

improvements will simply create ever higher expectations of 

safety and more unrealistic views of rescue.

Now that many wilderness visitors bring technology on trips 

and rely on this technology in the event of an emergency situation, they are often no longer prepared to, as Bob Marshall 

(1930) once said, “satisfy all requirements of existence,” 

and may rely on professional rescuers to fill in the gaps. San 

Bernardino County Emergency Coordinator John Amrhein 

deals with the repercussions of this on a daily basis. “In the 

past, people who got in trouble self-rescued; they got on their 

hands and knees and crawled out,” Amrhein said. “We saw the 

increase in non-emergencies with cell phones: people called 

saying ‘I’m cold and damp. Come get me out.’ These [devices] 

take it to another level” (Cone 2009). Some visitors may call 

for rescue prematurely before even attempting to self-rescue 

(Holden 2004), while others place rescue calls upon becoming 

temporarily disoriented (Huffman 1999). Heggie and Heggie 

(2009) noted a “general feeling among many search and rescue 

unit managers in the United States that cell phones are being 

used to request search and rescue assistance in what turns out 

The Influence of Hand-Held Information and Communication Technology on Visitor Perceptions of Risk and Risk-Related Behavior Martin and Pope
122 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

to be minor situations.” Or as Lomax (2006) notes, “We’ve 

confused emergency with convenience.” Examples of this (too 

numerous to even list) abound not only in the United States, but 

are becoming increasingly common in England, New Zealand, 

and Australia (see Fea 2011; Martin 2011; Roberts 2011).

Very little empirical research exists to support the notion 

that possessing this type of technology influences visitors’ 

risk-related behavior. Two studies, however, have examined 

this notion. Holden (2004) studied Outward Bound outings 

in North Carolina. The group leaders carried a satellite phone 

on the multi-day trips. The student participants in some of 

the groups knew that their group leader had a satellite phone; 

participants in the other groups did not know that their group 

had a satellite phone. Holden looked at whether knowledge 

of the satellite phone increased students’ propensity for risktaking. In a written questionnaire administered after the trips, 

students answered questions about the extent to which they felt 

safe and the extent to which they felt comfortable taking risks. 

He found no significant difference between the two groups on 

either item. However the degree to which these findings are 

generalizable to other wilderness visitor populations is debatable, since most wilderness visitors are not students visiting 

in a structured, facilitated outing such as an Outward Bound 

trip.

Hohlreider and others (2005) studied the influence of avalanche transceivers (the equivalent of a personal locator beacon 

for skiers) on mortality rates from avalanches. They found 

that while the transceivers reduced the mortality rate during 

backcountry activities involving ski tourers in free alpine areas, it did not reduce mortality during off-piste activities near 

organized ski slopes. In searching for an explanation, they 

state that “our data suggest that those few off-piste skiers and 

snowboarders equipped with a transceiver tend to be involved 

in more [frequent] serious accidents. The perceived additional 

security offered by [the transceivers] may stimulate skiers 

and snowboarders to accept higher risks. As a consequence, 

mortality is unchanged or even increased in off-piste activities 

despite the use of [transceivers].” They conclude that a false 

sense of security created by transceivers may encourage skiers 

and snowboarders to enter more hazardous terrain.

One conclusion of this literature review is that information 

and communication technology is quickly changing the nature 

of the relationship between wilderness visitors and rescue organizations. Despite limited empirical evidence, there is much 

concern that this technology, and the new relationship it has 

forged between visitors and rescuers, could have the effect of 

encouraging more risk-taking on the part of visitors, a concern 

described very well by Stevenson (2011).

Methods _________________________

The Lost Coast Trail follows 25 miles (40 km) of remote 

Northern California coastline, nestled between the Pacific Ocean 

and the mountains of the King Range National Conservation 

Area. Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

42,585 out of the 68,000 acres in the King Range National 

Conservation Area are designated as wilderness. Visitation is 

steadily increasing, from 3,302 self-registered visitors in 2007 

to 4,646 in 2009, with an estimated registration compliance rate 

of 80 to 90 percent (Carr 2009, Pritchard-Peterson 2010). The 

topography is so rugged that engineers had to locate coastal 

roads farther inland. This rugged isolation makes the area an 

excellent place to study technology and rescue.

Lost Coast Wilderness dangers include high tides that leave 

miles of trail underwater, unexpectedly large “sneaker” waves, 

high winds, precarious cliffs, river crossings, slippery rocks, 

environmental hazards, and wildlife. Rescues often involve 

multiple agencies. No one agency keeps comprehensive records 

of Lost Coast Trail rescues.

From May through September 2009, 235 overnight visitors 

to the King Range Wilderness completed a survey along the 

Lost Coast Trail. Sampling occurred on a stratified sample of 

weekdays, weekends, and holidays at three points along the 

trail: the northern trailhead (Mattole Beach), southern trailhead 

(Black Sands Beach), and a popular resting spot three miles 

south of the northern trailhead (Punta Gorda Lighthouse). All 

adult visitors on an overnight backcountry trip were asked to 

complete the survey.

Respondents answered questions about their wilderness 

skills, experiences and beliefs regarding risk, rescue and 

technology in the wilderness. Questions consisted of logical 

items as suggested by the literature and personal experience, 

and were further refined by way of a focus group of experts. 

Respondents answered some questions on a 7-point scale (“not 

at all” to “a lot” or “not important” to “very important”). Other 

questions were answered by checking “yes” or “no” or one of 

several provided responses.

Results __________________________

The response rate was 92%. Respondents ranged in age from 

18 to 80 (median age was 28). Sixty-five percent of respondents 

were male. Subjects reported a median of 10 years of experience making overnight wilderness trips, with a median of 2.5 

trips (6 nights total) in the previous 12 months. Median group 

size was 4. Additionally, 32 visitors (14%) reported serving in 

a leadership or guide role on a wilderness trip in the previous 

12 months.

We asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they 

believed different factors were responsible for visitors making 

unsafe decisions in wilderness. Overestimating one’s abilities 

and not fully understanding or realizing the consequences of 

one’s decisions were seen as the top two factors responsible 

for unsafe decisions in wilderness (Table 1).

We also asked respondents to indicate the extent to which 

they believed different factors contributed to the need for visitor 

rescue in wilderness. Poor judgment, lack of preparation and 

inexperience, all factors firmly in the control of the recreationist, were perceived to be the primary factors contributing to 

the need for visitor rescue (Table 2).

We used two measures to assess the degree to which respondents were risk takers. The first was a single item measured 

on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (a lot), asking “Do you see 

yourself as a risk taker?” The second measure consisted of two 

Martin and Pope The Influence of Hand-Held Information and Communication Technology on Visitor Perceptions of Risk and Risk-Related Behavior
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 123

Table 1—Visitor perceptions of the factors responsible for unsafe 

decisions in wilderness.

Percentage of Percentage of

respondents respondents

rating 1-3 on a rating 5-7 on a

7-point scale a 7-point scale a

Overestimating abilities 5.4 76.3

Not realizing consequences 10.7 71.9

To prove themselves 13.6 60.5

Adrenalin/endorphin surge 25.1 49.3

Fear of looking weak 24.7 48.9

Feeling they can call for help 42.3 32.4

a Measured on a 7 point scale, 1 “not at all,” 7 “a lot” 

Table 2—Visitor perceptions of the factors contributing to the need for 

rescue in wilderness.

Percentage of Percentage of

respondents respondents

rating 1-3 on a rating 5-7 on a

7-point scale a 7-point scale a

Poor judgment 3.9 86.1

Inexperience 6.5 84.9

Lack of preparation 4.8 84.8

Bad weather 8.7 61.3

Equipment failure

 /wrong equipment 33.2 28.3

Bad luck 47.3 24.3

a Measured on a 7 point scale, 1 “not at all,” 7 “a lot” 

behavior-based questions: (1) “Have you ever done something 

in the wilderness that you felt at the time was unsafe?” and (2) 

“Have you ever done something in the wilderness that you felt 

in retrospect was unsafe?” Of the 69 respondents (31% of the 

sample) who considered themselves to be non or low risk takers 

(less than 4 on the 7-point scale), half still admitted to having 

done something in a wilderness that they knew at the time was 

unsafe, and half also admitted to having done something that 

in retrospect they considered unsafe. But of the 89 respondents 

(40% of the sample) who considered themselves to be risk 

takers (greater than 4 on the 7-point scale), 80% admitted to 

having done something in a wilderness that they knew at the 

time was unsafe and 85% admitted to having done something 

that in retrospect they considered unsafe. The self-identified 

risk takers were, in fact, much more likely to make decisions 

and take actions in wilderness that were admittedly unsafe, 

and they usually knew at the time that their action or decision 

was unsafe.

For the purposes of our survey and to make our questions 

clearer to our respondents, we defined technology as information and communication devices such as GPS, cell and satellite 

phones, and personal locator beacons. We then asked a series 

of questions about this type of technology and its place in 

the wilderness. Most respondents reported that this technology was not a successful substitute for skill, experience, and 

knowledge in the wilderness, nor would they be likely to take 

chances that could increase risks if they had technology with 

them. Nor did they believe that technology reduces many of the 

dangers people associate with being in the wilderness. Half of 

the respondents felt that technology creates a genuine increase 

in safety for wilderness users, while a little more than half felt 

that it creates a false sense of safety. Respondents were equally 

split on whether they would feel safer by having technology 

with them, and whether or not having technology makes people 

feel their safety is not their personal responsibility (Table 3).

Next, we used our two measures of risk (the self-assessment 

and the behavioral questions) to group respondents into one 

of three levels of risk takers—low, moderate, and high—and 

compared the responses of the three groups on each of the eight 

technology questions. We used a Kruskal-Wallis test to identify 

significant differences across the three levels of risk-takers and 

a Student-Newman-Keuls post-hoc comparison test to identify 

which specific groups differed from one another (Table 4).

The question on which the three groups differed the most 

was “Would you be more likely to take chances that could 

increase risk if you had technology with you in the wilderness?” Although the mean for all three groups was below the 

mid-point of the scale, all three groups differed significantly 

from one another. The higher the level of risk taking, the more 

likely they were to report that they would take chances that 

could increase their exposure to risk if they had information/

communication technology with them. Both moderate and 

high risk takers were significantly more likely to believe that 

technology reduces many of the dangers people associate with 

being in the wilderness, and both were significantly more 

likely to think that having technology makes people think 

that their safety is not their personal responsibility. Finally, 

moderate and high risk takers were more likely to believe that 

technology creates a genuine increase in safety for wilderness 

users.

We also used the questions in Table 3 to do a K-means cluster 

analysis and classify respondents based on their beliefs about 

technology in wilderness. A “pro-technology” group (55% 

of the sample) felt that technology increased one’s safety 

in wilderness. This group was more likely than the “antitechnology” group to use technology to request a rescue, take 

chances that could increase risk if they had technology with 

them, and believe that technology can successfully substitute 

for skill, experience, and knowledge. The “anti-technology” 

group felt quite strongly that technology cannot substitute 

for skill, experience, and knowledge. Members of this group 

were very unlikely to take chances that could increase risk just 

because they had technology with them, and did not agree that 

technology reduced dangers and made them feel safer in the 

wilderness. An analysis of these two technology clusters and 

the three levels of risk taking indicated that high risk takers 

are significantly overrepresented in the pro-technology cluster 

(23% of the sample), and significantly underrepresented in the 

anti-technology cluster (Chi-square, p = .013).

The Influence of Hand-Held Information and Communication Technology on Visitor Perceptions of Risk and Risk-Related Behavior Martin and Pope
124 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Table 4—Contrasting perceptions of information and communication technology in wilderness across 

levels of risk-takers. 

Low risk Mod. risk High risk

takers takers takers

To what extent... n=81 n=64 n=77

Do you think technology in the wilderness can successfully 2.1a 2.4a 2.2a

substitute for skill/experience/knowledge?

Would you be more likely to take chances that could 2.2a 2.7b 3.3c

increase risk if you had technology with you in the 

wilderness?d

Do you feel technology reduces many of the dangers 2.9a 3.4b 3.4b

people associate with being in the wilderness?

Would you be more likely to use technology to request 3.7a 3.9a 3.7a

rescue when you could make it out on your own but the 

process of self-rescue would be long and uncomfortable?

Do you think technology in the wilderness makes 3.5a 4.0b 4.1b

people feel that their safety is not their personal 

responsibility?

Do you/would you feel safer by having technology with 4.0a 3.9a 4.1a

you on a wilderness trip?

Do you think technology creates a genuine increase 4.2a 4.7b 4.9b

in safety for wilderness users?

Do you think technology creates a false sense of safety 4.6a 4.8a 5.0a

for wilderness users?

Values are mean scores on a 7 point scale, 1 “not at all,” 7 “a lot.” Scores with different superscripts are significantly 

different at p < 0.05, Student-Newman-Keuls post-hoc comparison test. 

Table 3—Visitor perceptions of technology use in wilderness (n from 218 to 224).

Percentage of Percentage of

respondents respondents

rating 1-3 on a rating 5-7 on a Overall

To what extent... 7-point scale a 7-point scale a mean score a

Do you think technology in the wilderness can successfully 82.0 6.8 2.2

substitute for skill/experience/knowledge?

Would you be more likely to take chances that could increase 68.9 16.3 2.7

risk if you had technology with you in the wilderness?

Do you feel technology reduces many of the dangers people 56.2 17.1 3.2

associate with being in the wilderness?

Would you be more likely to use technology to request 42.6 37.2 3.8

rescue when you could make it out on your own but the 

process of self-rescue would be long and uncomfortable?

Do you think technology in the wilderness makes people 39.0 38.6 3.9

feel that their safety is not their personal responsibility?

Do you / would you feel safer by having technology with 34.3 36.2 4.0

you on a wilderness trip?

Do you think technology creates a genuine increase in 18.7 50.9 4.6 

safety for wilderness users?

Do you think technology creates a false sense of safety 13.8 56.3 4.8

for wilderness users?

a Measured on a 7 point scale, 1 “not at all,” 7 “a lot.” 

Martin and Pope The Influence of Hand-Held Information and Communication Technology on Visitor Perceptions of Risk and Risk-Related Behavior
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 125

Amount of previous wilderness experience may also be a 

factor when assessing beliefs about these devices. Experience 

(measured by combining both number of overnight trips in the 

last 12 months and number of years making overnight wilderness trips) is positively correlated with the belief that technology creates a false sense of safety (r (211) = 0.194, p < .01). 

The more experience visitors had, the more likely they were 

to believe that technology makes wilderness visitors feel they 

have a safety net that in reality may not exist. Experience is 

also positively correlated with the belief that technology makes 

people feel that their safety is not their personal responsibility 

(r (205) = 0.159, p < .05).

About 11% of King Range Wilderness visitors reported having 

been personally involved in a serious wilderness accident and 

41% knew someone involved in a serious wilderness accident. 

Half (52%) of the respondents who reported personal involvement in a wilderness accident said they had used a technological device in a wilderness emergency. Tellingly, those with 

personal experience of a serious wilderness accident are more 

likely to believe that technology creates a false sense of safety 

for wilderness users than those who have not been involved 

in a serious wilderness accident (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 

.05), as do those who know someone who was involved in a 

serious wilderness accident (Mann-Whitney U test, p< .05).

Discussion _______________________

Our results are consistent with what many authors have 

previously speculated. In our sample of wilderness users, a 

majority of respondents (56%), particularly experienced visitors 

and visitors who have been involved in a serious wilderness 

accident, believe that possessing information/communication 

technology creates a false sense of safety (though some may 

also concurrently believe that it increases safety). A reliance on 

technology to summon rescue may create a false perception of 

a “safety net” when people’s expectations of technology and 

rescue do not correspond with the actual capabilities of the 

technology and the rescuers. It may also lead to people taking 

more risks than they otherwise would take, relying on technology to “take up the slack.” Our empirical findings suggest this 

as well, as self-identified risk takers were significantly more 

likely to take chances that could increase their exposure to risk 

if they had information/communication technology with them.

Our analysis found a substantial subset of visitors (high risk 

takers in the pro-technology cluster; 23% of the sample) with 

a combination of traits that managers have expressed concern 

over—high risk takers who (1) believe that technology reduces 

many of the dangers people associate with being in the wilderness, (2) think that having technology makes people think 

their safety is not their personal responsibility, (3) believe that 

technology creates a genuine increase in safety for wilderness 

users, and (4) are willing to take more risks and then use that 

technology to bail themselves out of trouble.

Other results may also give managers pause. Our sample 

of visitors admitted that not fully understanding or realizing 

the consequences of one’s decisions was one of the top two 

factors responsible for visitors making unsafe decisions in 

wilderness. They noted that poor judgment, lack of preparation, 

and inexperience were the primary factors contributing to the 

need for visitor rescue. All of these factors may be susceptible 

to, or exacerbated by, an inappropriate reliance on technology. 

While off-site access to information may help some visitors 

better prepare for a trip (sometimes to the extent of removing 

virtually all the uncertainty and mystery), Stevenson (2011) 

laments the potential influence of technology on creating 

unprepared visitors who head into the mountains without 

having done their homework, relying instead on their GPS for 

navigation and their cell phone and/or personal locator beacon 

if they happen to get into trouble.

We found that amount of previous wilderness experience 

may influence perceptions of technology and the safety net 

that it provides. This could prove dangerous given findings that 

individuals who lack experience often reach inaccurate conclusions and make bad choices. They often do not realize that 

their conclusions and choices are poor, falsely believing they 

are doing everything right. Novices have fewer metacognitive 

skills than experts, and are less likely to accurately judge the 

difficulty of the problem at hand (Kruger and Dunning 1999). 

Optimism bias also affects the perception of risk, leading people 

to believe they are less at risk than others would be in a similar 

situation. This is particularly prevalent when people believe 

they can control the risk, that it is unlikely to happen, or if they 

lack experience with the risk (Powell 2007). Optimism bias 

can “harness us to a wishful, thereby inaccurate, and therefore 

dangerous image of the world,” with misperceptions leading to 

accidents (Udall 1987). Coupling inexperience with a reliance 

on technology would thus seem a recipe for disaster.

Conclusion_______________________

As technological devices such as cell phones, satellite phones, 

and personal locator beacons become more readily available, 

greater numbers of recreation visitors will undoubtedly bring 

these devices into the wilderness and use them to request 

rescues. While these devices have sometimes alerted rescuers 

to emergencies early enough to save lives, some visitors, particularly those with limited wilderness experience and skills, 

appear to be developing unrealistic perceptions of the inherent 

risks of wilderness travel, as well as unrealistic expectations of 

the institutional capacity for rescue, based on their possession 

of and reliance on these devices.

The combination of our results and the findings of Hohlreider 

and others (2005) paints a cautionary tale for agencies and other 

organizations responsible for backcountry rescues—a decline 

in the ability and/or willingness of wilderness visitors to selfrescue, an increased expectation of the institutional capacity 

for rescue, and an increase in the number of rescue requests 

from visitors, particularly requests that turn out to be nonemergencies. Stevenson (2011) suggests that what is needed 

is to “create new guidelines and training for how satelliteenhanced communication devices should be used on the trail. 

For instance, no gadget should be considered a substitute for 

a detailed map and compass. . . . treat cell phones and satellite beacons just like the emergency kit in the trunk of your 

The Influence of Hand-Held Information and Communication Technology on Visitor Perceptions of Risk and Risk-Related Behavior Martin and Pope
126 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

car: You know the kit is there, but you should do everything 

possible not to use it.” In other words, if you take technology 

with you, whether for navigation (GPS) or communication 

(cell/sat phone, PLB), learn to use it as the last resort, not the 

first resort.

Limitations _______________________

In interpreting our results, we acknowledge several limitations. This was an exploratory study and the questions we 

used to assess beliefs about technology in wilderness are, to 

our knowledge, the first such survey questions formulated 

to examine this issue. They would undoubtedly benefit from 

further refinement. Some of those questions asked about “you,” 

while some asked about “others.” This difference in question 

phrasing style should be noted. It is less a concern in this study, 

since the scores from these items were never combined into a 

summative scale score. However, future research using summative scales should bear this in mind if adapting the items 

used here. Finally, although we used a bivariate measure of 

experience use history (number of trips in the last 12 months, 

and number of years participating in the activity), we did not 

use a common third measure—a self-assessment by respondents 

of how experienced they believe themselves to be. Further 

research into this topic would benefit from such a multivariate 

measure of experience use history.

References _______________________

Attarian, A. 2002. Rock climbers’ self-perceptions of first aid, safety, and rescue 

skills. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine. 13: 238-244.

Borrie, William. 2000. The impacts of technology on the meaning of wilderness. 

In: Watson, A., Aplet, G., and Hendee, J., comps. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress proceedings 

on research, management, and allocation, volume II; 1998 October 24-29; 

Bangalore, India. Proceedings RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 87-88.

Carr, D. 2009. [Personal communication]. March 12. Whitehorn, CA: Bureau of 

Land Management, King Range National Conservation Area Project Office.

Chapman, Paul; Stokes, Paul. 2009. Injured British hiker survives a week in 

New Zealand mountains. The Telegraph [Online]. London, England. [April 

1, 2009]. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5089653/

Injured-British-hiker-survives-a-week-in-New-Zealand-mountains.

html?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4da525ac0e406ee3%2C0

Cone, T. 2009. Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911. San 

Francisco Chronicle, October 25, 2009.

dBune News. 2011. Spot recalls satellite communicator due to loss of 

emergency communications capability. [Online]. www.dbune.com/news/

business/5631-spot-recalls-satellite-communicator-due-to-loss-of-emergency-communications-capability.html. [April 20, 2011].

Dickson, Tracey. 2004. If the outcome is predictable, is it an adventure? Being 

in, not barricaded from, the outdoors. World Leisure. 4: 48-54.

Ewert, Alan; Hollenhorst, Steve. 1997. Adventure recreation and its implications for wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 3(2): 21-26.

Fea, Sue. 2011. Rescue beacons misused. The Southland Times [Online]. Queenstown, New Zealand. www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/4870437/

Rescue-beacons-misused. [April 11, 2011].

Grann, David. 2010. The Lost City of Z. New York: Vintage. 400 p.

Heggie, T.W.; Heggie, T.M. 2009. Search and rescue trends associated with 

recreational travel in U.S. national parks. Journal of Travel Medicine. 

16: 23-27.

Hohlrieder, Matthias; Mair, Peter; Wuertl, Walter; Brugger, Hermann. 2005. 

The impact of avalanche transceivers on mortality from avalanche accidents. 

High Altitude Medicine & Biology. 6: 72-76.

Holden, George. 2004. The impacts of satellite phone technology on a North 

Carolina Outward Bound school experience. Dissertation. North Carolina 

State University, Raleigh, NC.

Hollenhorst, S.J. 1995. Risk, technology-driven, and other new activity trends. 

In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 

Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resources Planning 

Conference. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota: 97-101.

Huffman, Michael. 1999. Trouble in paradise—accident trends in the outdoors. 

In: ICORE ’98: Proceedings from the International Conference on Outdoor 

Recreation and Education. Fort Walton Beach, FL: 59-67.

Kruger, J; Dunning, D. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties 

in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77: 1121–34.

Lomax, B. 2006. Leave only footprints, and turn the darn phone off. High 

Country News. 38(18): 21. 

Marshall, Robert. 1930. The problem of the wilderness. Scientific Monthly. 

30: 141-148.

Martin, Hannah. 2011. Wasted police rescue flights. The Mercury 

[Online]. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/04/10/221261_tasmania-news.html. [April 10, 2011].

McCool, Stephen; Braithwaite, Amy. 1992. Persuasive messages and safety 

hazards in dispersed and natural recreation settings. In: Manfredo, M., ed. 

Influencing human behavior: Theory and applications in recreation, tourism, and natural resources management. Champaign: Sagamore: 293-326.

Pepperell, Susan. 2011. Missing police officer found near Otaki. The Dominion 

Post [Online]. Wellington, New Zealand. www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/

news/4975134/Missing-police-officer-found-near-Otaki. [May 7, 2011].

Pohl, S. 2006. Technology and the wilderness experience. Environmental 

Ethics. 28: 147-163.

Pope, Kristen; Martin, Steven. 2011. Visitor perceptions of technology, risk, and 

rescue in wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 17(2): 19-26, 48.

Powell, C. 2007. The perception of risk and risk taking behavior: Implications for incident prevention strategies. Wilderness and Environmental 

Medicine. 18: 10-15.

Pritchard-Peterson, G. 2010. [Personal communication]. February 12. Whitehorn, CA: Bureau of Land Management, King Range National Conservation 

Area Project Office.

 Roberts, Laura. 2011. Ramblers who rely on iPhones to navigate increase rescue 

call-outs by 50 percent. The Telegraph [Online]. London, England. www.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8435019/Ramblers-who-rely-on-iPhonesto-navigate-increase-rescue-call-outs-by-50-per-cent.html. [April 8, 2011]. 

Sandrik, Sara. 2010. GPS: What you need to know. KFSN-TV, Fresno, Ca. [Online]. http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7446896. 

[May 17, 2010].

Seekamp, Erin; Hall, Troy; Cole, David. In press. Visitors’ conceptualizations 

of wilderness experiences. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor 

experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; 

Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Stevenson, Jason. 2011. The end of off-the-grid. Backpacker Magazine [Online]. www.backpacker.com/prof-hike-beacons/skills/15170. [March 2011].

Sullivan, Sean; Cooper, Sam. 2011. Weary rescuer issues warning. The Province 

[Online]. Vancouver, BC, Canada. www.theprovince.com/Weary+rescuer

+issues+warning/4501583/story.html. [March 25, 2011].

Udall, J.R. 1987. Thinking About Safety: Let the “accident dynamic” help 

you take a look at safety awareness. In: High-Adventure in Outdoor Pursuits, Meier, J.; Morash, T.; Welton, G., eds. Columbus, OH: Publishing 

Horizons: 380-387.

Wiley, Stephen. 2005. Repositioning the wilderness: Mobile communication 

technologies and the transformation of wild space. Paper presented at the 

Conference on Communication and the Environment, June 24-27, 2005. 

Jekyll Island, GA.

Willoughby, Scott. 2010. Rescue group finds ignorant beacon owner who 

triggered false alarms. The Denver Post [Online]. Denver, CO. www.

denverpost.com/extremes/ci_14501974. [March 3, 2010].

Martin and Pope The Influence of Hand-Held Information and Communication Technology on Visitor Perceptions of Risk and Risk-Related Behavior
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 127

Abstract – One of the defining characteristics of Wilderness Experience Programs (WEPs) is the centrality of wilderness—settings, 

conditions, and characteristics—to the delivery of the program and 

the client or visitor experience. Wilderness Experience Programs have 

been classified into three types based on their primary program aim: 

education, personal growth, and therapy and healing. While WEPs are 

generally considered to provide many human and societal benefits, 

the research documentation is slowly growing to support the notion 

that nature and wilderness can and do provide restorative client and 

visitor experiences. However, additional research and information 

to help managers understand and manage WEP activities, programs, 

and appropriate use of wilderness is needed.

Introduction ______________________

The restorative benefits and effects of experiences in nature 

and natural environments have been widely discussed in the 

environmental psychology literature (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; 

Hartig and others 1991; Kaplan 1995). Some people come to 

wilderness to escape the stress and complications of everyday 

life or urban environments and discover many personal and 

societal benefits (Kellert and Derr 1998; Dawson and Hendee 

2009). Others come to experience wilderness through a growing number of adventure recreation programs and activities in 

wilderness and wild places (Ewert and Hollenhorst 1997; Kellert and Derr 1998; Miles and Priest 1999; Gass 1993). Others 

have come to wilderness experiences for personal growth and 

leadership since the start of experiential programs such as Outward Bound in 1962, the National Outdoor Leadership School 

in 1965, or the more recent WildLink program that started in 

Yosemite in 2000 through an innovative partnership between 

federal agencies and non-profit organizations (Bacon 1983; 

WildLink 2011). Additionally, some come to wilderness to 

address problem behaviors and to make changes in their lives 

in one of the hundreds of therapeutic and clinical programs for 

youth, young adults, cancer survivors, or returning veterans 

Wilderness Experience Programs: 

A State-of-the Knowledge Summary

Chad P. Dawson

Keith C. Russell

Authors: Chad P. Dawson, State University of New York, College of Environmental 

Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY; and Keith C. Russell, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

from conflicts over seas (Russell 2008). Finally, some segments 

of the U.S. population have been searching for inner personal 

understanding of their own human nature through connections 

and experiences with nature (for example, Foster and Little 

1998) and wilderness (Foster 2000; Frederickson and Anderson 

1999). 

The connection between wilderness areas and restorative 

effects is well documented and has become institutionalized 

with numerous public, private, and non-profit organizations 

providing access to wilderness areas through residential programs, travel services, educational workshops, wilderness 

overnight and day trips, and a variety of other mechanisms to 

help visitors gain experience (Easley and others 1990; Friese 

and others 1995; Friese and others 1998; Dawson and Hendee 

2009; Ewert and McAvoy 2000; Ewert and others 2010). Wilderness areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System 

(NWPS) are used, as allowable under the 1964 Wilderness 

Act (U.S. Public Law 88-577), by commercial and nonprofit 

organizations to deliver programs designed to provide education, personal growth, and therapy and healing for members, 

students, or paying clients. 

The approach to reviewing this topic included our past and 

ongoing research on this topic and a recent survey of the literature. The intention in this manuscript is not to discuss and list 

every published report or article. Rather we aim to reference 

representative publications that document and illustrate our 

summary observations after reviewing the literature. We found 

that while the amount of literature on some types of WEPs is 

growing (for example, therapy and healing), literature on other 

types of WEPs is sparse (for example, educational).

Wilderness Experience Programs ____

One diverse category of programs that consciously and 

directly seeks restorative and educational experiences in wilderness and is dependent on a wilderness setting to enhance 

program outcomes has been termed Wilderness Experience 

Programs (WEPs). Friese (1996) outlined three criteria to 

determine if a program was a WEP: (1) the program provides 

experiences and activities that are dependent on wilderness 

settings, conditions, and characteristics; (2) the program 

provides experiences and activities that are consistent with 

wilderness use and primitive recreation and travel, such as 

noted in the definition of wilderness in the 1964 Wilderness 

Act; and (3) the program provides experiences and activities 
128 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

that include interpersonal and intrapersonal approaches to 

enhance development, intervention, education, therapy, or 

leadership during the wilderness experience. The three types 

of WEPS that have been defined and are referred to herein 

are: educational use, personal growth, and therapy and healing 

(Easley and others 1990; Dawson and others 1998a).

A continuum of WEP themes and methods was proposed 

and measured in a national survey of WEPs (Friese 1996, 

Friese and others 1999; Dawson and others 1998a). The study 

results identified three major themes and each contained three 

methods to achieve the aim of that theme:

• Wilderness as teacher—mountains speak for themselves; 

rites of passage and initiations; and reflection by participants.

• Wilderness as teacher and wilderness as classroom—environmental education; expedition learning; and field 

classroom.

• Wilderness as classroom—challenge and adventure activities; conscious use of metaphor; and counseling. 

The continuum embraces all three types of WEPs and 

most programs were found to include more than one aim and 

multiple methods; however, the emphasis between these aims 

and methods varied across the three types. For example, while 

counseling was used in 63% of all therapy and healing WEPs, 

only 15% of personal growth and 2% of educational WEPs 

used that method. 

Most programs use more than one theme or include some 

degree of all three themes and they evolve over time as the 

program develops. A single program may be represented by 

one aspect of the continuum in the beginning phase of the 

program (wilderness as teacher) and shift toward another place 

on the continuum towards the latter phase of the program as 

more in-depth and focused learning is facilitated by leaders 

to help in transfer of learning of the experience to their daily 

lives (wilderness as classroom). 

Not all aspects of these programs require designated wilderness, as some activities are carried out pre-trip and post-trip off 

site and some programs use wildlands that are not designated 

wilderness but have wilderness qualities (such as large undeveloped, remote, natural vegetated lands with opportunities 

for solitude and primitive travel and recreation) (Dawson 

and others 1998b). In other words, not all activities in each 

program are dependent on wilderness as a designated place 

(such as the NWPS), but rather on wilderness conditions that 

may occur on publicly or privately-owned lands (that is, lands 

with wilderness characteristics).

Growth in these WEPs and their use of wilderness was 

documented in several studies in the 1980s and 90s. Reed and 

others (1989) surveyed managers in the NWPS about WEP 

programs being conducted in their wilderness units during 1987 

and a significant number of managers reported such programs: 

educational (38%), personal growth (17%), and therapy and 

healing (12%). Furthermore, 5% to 12% of managers said these 

types of WEP uses were increasing in their wilderness unit. 

By 1995, 67% of managers surveyed in the NWPS reported 

WEP use was increasing in their wilderness area, 32% said 

it remained the same, and 1% said it was decreasing (Gager 

1996; Gager and others 1998). Additionally, 36% of managers reported that WEP use was growing by 25% per year or 

more. Friese and others (1998) reported locating 700 potential 

WEPs and through surveys documented 366 of those WEPs 

as meeting the three criteria listed above. 

WEPs are of varied size and operate with small to large 

client groups. Friese and others (1998) reported from a 1994 

survey that 25% of WEPs offered 5 or fewer trips per year, 

14% offered 6 to 10 trips, 28% offered 11 to 30 trips, and 33% 

offered 31 or more trip per year. The number of clients that 

participated in WEP trips ranged from 17% of WEPs serving 

25 or fewer clients per year, 24% serving 26 to 100 clients, 

29% serving 101 to 500 clients, and 30% serving more than 

500 clients per year.

The clientele served by WEPs include a wide variety of 

segments from the general public to specialized programs for 

women (Cole and others 1994; Powch 1994), to adults (Day 

and Petrick 2006), to troubled adolescents and teens (Ferguson 

2009; Cooley 1998; Russell 2008), and to older, urban-based 

adults (Riley and Hendee 2000).

Educational Use

Educational use of wilderness is defined as use for wilderness and protection/conservation education program field trips, 

study areas for student research and projects, and as a source 

of examples for instruction. Educational WEPs are supported 

by colleges and universities that teach protected area or wilderness management and stewardship courses, conduct outdoor 

education programs or lead student orientation trips. Some 

programs, such as youth organizations, colleges and universities, and non-governmental organizations (for example, Boy 

Scouts, Girl Scouts, Teton Science School), have a component, 

or even an emphasis, on recreational activities (such as, teaching adventure, travel, and survival skills). 

Descriptive research studies in the mid-1990s reported 

more than 200 educational WEPs most often focused on 

youth and young adults (Friese and others 1998; Dawson 

and others 1998a). For example, colleges and universities 

took more than 1,500 students into wilderness as part of a 

course in 2002 (Dawson and Hendee 2004), a 30% decrease 

from previous studies in 1982-83 (Hendee and Roggenbuck 

1984). Most courses focused on wilderness appreciation and 

use, legislation and policy, protection and management, and 

history; some university programs focused on environmental 

education, natural ecosystems, and conservation biology. 

Given the decline in enrollment in natural resource and forest 

management programs and the loss of some programs over 

the last decade, it is expected that the number of courses in 

wilderness management has continued to decline.

Literature specifically reporting on the outcomes of educational WEPs is sparse, except as a part of more generalized 

studies on WEPs. The general working model is that exposure 

to wilderness and stewardship principles will influence WEP 

participants toward proactive and supportive wilderness and 

environmental attitudes. For example, one study suggested that 

Dawson and Russell Wilderness Experience Programs: A State-of-the Knowledge Summary
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 129

wilderness program participants may be more likely to have 

ecocentric attitudes (balance between protecting the environment and appropriate human visitation) toward wilderness 

areas and stewardship (Hanna 1995). Anecdotal evidence and 

public interest in such programs remains very positive on the 

outcomes and benefits of educational related WEPs; however, 

additional rigorous research is needed to better document and 

measure outcomes that can be attributed to educational WEPs.

Personal Growth

Personal growth WEPs include programs that focus on 

leadership, organizational development, and personal development by challenging participants to expand and extend 

their abilities, skills, and personal view to exceed what they 

previously thought possible (that is, reduce or eliminate self 

limiting imagery and thought processes) and take these new 

found capabilities back to their everyday life and work place 

(Hendee and Brown 1988; Friese and others 1999). 

Descriptive research studies in the mid-1990’s reported more 

than 230 personal growth WEP’s took students and clients 

into wilderness, including several very large programs such 

as Outward Bound with 30,000 clients annually. Many smaller 

programs serve only a hundred clients or fewer annually (Friese 

and others 1998; Dawson and others 1998a). Wilderness travel 

is often for a week to a month in duration and serves a wide 

range of clients in all age and social-economic classes. Different programs serve varied clientele from business executives seeking higher performance and confidence to women’s 

empowerment groups and from youth groups to elder hostel 

groups.

Enhanced self-esteem and other forms of personal empowerment are the most often mentioned outcomes for participants 

in personal growth WEPs (Friese and others 1995; Moore 

and Russell 2002; Ewert and McAvoy 2000). For example, a 

study of students taking a 7-day WEP designed to empower 

and strengthen the skill and motivations of youth-at-risk in 

four Federal Job Corps programs was tested during 46 trips. 

Reported results include improved communication with other 

students and authority figures, a more positive attitude toward 

their Job Corps program, and a sense of personal accomplishment (Russell and others 1998). 

Individual components of personal growth WEPs have been 

studied to measure their impact, such as the solo experience 

(Bobilya 2004), vision quest (Riley 1997), personal reflection 

time, group debriefing sessions, and recreational activities 

(Gassner and Russell 2008). The long-term impacts of personal growth WEPs have been studied through observation, 

self-reporting, journaling and other methods and found to have 

positive effects on self-esteem and personal empowerment 

(Moore and Russell 2002; Daniel 2003; Gassner and Russell 

2008). These effects are generally measured based on staff 

observation and participant self-reported measures following 

the program; however, more rigorous research is needed to 

determine which components of the program contribute to 

the positive outcomes. Programs evolve overtime in response 

to staff perceived contributions of program components to 

participant outcomes. Rigorous research is also needed to 

objectively measure the amount of effect over time following 

the WEP program. For example, do participants change to less 

self limiting behavior when returning to everyday life and work 

places?

Therapy and Healing

Therapy and healing WEPs seek to restore some level of 

balanced and normal functioning for clients with behavioral 

issues (such as, anger management, depreciative and vandalism activities or illegal actions) and substance abuse problems 

(such as, alcohol and drug use). Some programs also deal with 

mental health issues that can be managed in an out-patient 

setting. Programs involve use of the natural consequences of 

primitive living and travel to provide the stimulus for surfacing stress and behavioral patterns that can then be addressed 

through individual and group therapy sessions, as well as 

some solo activities in certain programs. Often these therapy 

and healing WEPs operate for long periods of time (21 to 60 

days) in wilderness or wildland areas and are supported by 

professionally trained mental, social, and medical staff that 

travel in the field near the group to provide programmatic and 

emergency services as required. 

Russell and others (Russell and others 2000; Russell and 

Hendee 2000) synthesized the delivery of wilderness therapy 

WEPs into three types of models: 

1. expedition programs remain in the wilderness for the 

duration of the program and treatment process and are 

further subdivided into (a) contained expedition programs that are typically shorter and up to three weeks 

in length with the clients and treatment team travelling 

together and (b) continuous flow expeditions that are 

longer and up to eight weeks in length with leaders and 

therapists and other staff rotating in and out of the field 

during the program and treatment period; 

2. base camp programs include structured facilities and 

activities in a base camp from which they take shorter 

expeditions and then return to base camp for follow up 

activities; and 

3. residential programs that use wilderness experiences as 

a trip away from their facilities for some of their clients 

in longer-term residence programs like the Job Corps 

Centers. 

A 1998 survey reported 38 therapy and healing WEPs 

operating. Five of these WEPs reported serving over 12,000 

clients annually during 350,000 wilderness field days (Friese 

and others 1998; Dawson and others 1998a). These WEPs tend 

to focus on youth-at-risk and to some extent a wider clientele, 

who are referred by social service agencies, medical insurance 

companies, judicial authorities, and school officials. Many of 

the therapy and healing WEPs are part of a self-developed 

Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare (OBH) industry council to 

develop and keep high standards for their operation and to 

ensure the health and safety of their clientele. More recent 

Wilderness Experience Programs: A State-of-the Knowledge Summary Dawson and Russell
130 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

research is available about the OBH programs than for other 

therapy and healing WEPs.

While therapy and healing WEPs are a small number of 

programs within the broader WEPs, they have a well developed 

theoretical basis for their counseling and therapy activities. 

They fit well within the restorative aspects of wilderness as a 

place in nature where individuals learn to face some of their 

stresses and behaviors to foster growth in personal and social 

responsibilities and emotional growth to return to society 

(Kimball 1983; Gass 1993; Davis-Berman and Berman 1994a, 

1994b, 2008; Russell and Hendee 2000; Russell 2001, 2006). 

Therapy and healing WEPs are part of an emerging Outdoor 

Behavioral Healthcare (OBH) movement that uses similar 

theoretical approaches, therapy practice, expected outcomes, 

and standards of care and practice; however, not all OBH programs operate in wilderness (Russell and Hendee 2000). OBH 

programs most often serve adolescent males with a variety of 

emotional and behavioral disorders who have been to traditional 

counseling services and were unsuccessful and are now in an 

OBH program as an alternative, either through adjudication 

or referrals. A study in 2006 of the OBH programs in North 

America (Russell and others 2008) reported that the industry 

was still relatively unknown to those outside the industry and 

that standards were improving for the OBH industry programs, 

but were not uniform. The study summary noted these 2006 

benchmarks that were improving for OBH programs:

• 84% were licensed in an operating state as an OBH program;

• 51% were nationally accredited by an OBH Council that 

requires monitoring of outcomes and the ratio of licensed 

staff to clients;

• 30% were nationally accredited by an outdoor education 

association that requires risk management and staff credentials;

• 88% had licensed mental health professional staff; and

• 95% evaluated treatment outcomes for clients & family.

One of the reasons that the OBH industry has worked at improving its accreditation standards is concern about several well 

publicized cases of abuse and death in programs for troubled 

youth (Kutz and O’Connell 2007). While cases of abuse and 

neglect are rare, they are of great concern to the public and 

the public agencies charged with oversight of the health care 

industry. Oversight includes reviewing whether programs 

were achieving desired outcomes or not (Winterdyk and 

Griffiths 1984). The OBH industry and some of its prominent 

spokespersons and program leaders have shown the necessary 

leadership and research evidence on the positive therapeutic 

outcomes and social benefits of their programs to maintain a 

positive and constructive force for therapy and healing WEPs.

Given the need for evaluation and assessment of the therapy 

and healing WEPs and the OBH and overall health care industry, 

more published literature exists for measuring the outcomes 

and results from these types of programs than any other type 

of WEP. The number of publications, especially peer-reviewed 

articles, and scholarly work has increased in the last decade and 

has focused on six subjects that relate to therapy and healing 

WEPs:

• WEP and OBH program delivery process, techniques, 

and activities used to achieve program goals and desired 

outcomes (Russell 1999; Russell and Hendee 2000; Russell 

and others 2000; Wilson and Lipsey 2000; Russell 2000; 

Russell and Phillips-Miller 2002; Russell 2008; Walsh 

and Russell 2010);

• Client self esteem issues (Harper and others 2007); 

• Client improved emotional and behavioral self control 

(Harper and others 2007; Gillis and others 2008);

• Maintenance of positive change, such as abstinence from 

drugs and alcohol (Harper and others 2007; Gillis and 

others 2008);

• Family involvement in the OBH and WEP process (Harper 

and others 2007; Harper and Russell 2008); and 

• OBH and WEP staff well-being and safety (Marchand and 

others 2009).

The publications shown as examples are part of a growing 

movement toward more rigorous evaluations of programs, their 

outcomes—both immediately and over time—and factors that 

foster success and maintenance of positive behaviors in personal 

life and in home environments. Generally, these publications 

report positive short-term and long-term changes in behavior 

toward overall health, mental and emotional balance, better 

personal decision-making, less self destructive behavior, and a 

variety of other outcomes related to client needs and program 

goals. The overall effect of these programs varies from little 

or no measurable immediate effect to more dramatic and immediate effects; however, more research is needed to document 

these positive therapeutic outcomes and social benefits over a 

longer time frame and to compare outcomes between therapy 

practices. 

Research Conducted_______________

The research conducted to date has been largely descriptive 

studies of the various types and number of WEPs, types of 

clientele, operational size and approaches, risk assessments, 

and WEP goals and objectives (Gibson 1979; Friese and others 

1995; Moore and Russell 2002). Some hypothesis and theory 

driven research has been conducted to assess the performance 

and outcomes from therapy and healing WEPs, but very little 

hypothesis and theory driven research on educational or personal 

growth WEPs (Friese and others 1995; Russell and Hendee 

2000; Moore and Russell 2002). Following a detailed review 

of 187 pieces of research-based literature regarding WEPs, the 

OBH industry, and visitor experiences in wilderness, Moore 

and Russell conclude with this summary observation:

“Findings tend to support the notion that participation 

in wilderness experience programs results in positive 

benefits, such as enhanced self esteem and sense of 

personal control, and negative results from participation 

are virtually non-existent. However, this compilation 

of research based literature suggests that much of the 

Dawson and Russell Wilderness Experience Programs: A State-of-the Knowledge Summary
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 131

research in the field is reported in non-peer reviewed 

outlets and ‘grey’ literature, with less than expected in 

scientific journals and serialized professional outlets. 

Consistent with this observation is a lack of rigor noted 

in the sources of data on which findings are based (heavy 

to surveys) and the principle research methods used (few 

experiments or comparative studies). Additionally, there 

are few long term studies.” (2002, p. 144)

Since that review, a growing body of research has been 

published in a wide variety of peer-reviewed journals that have 

given credibility to the OBH industry, in particular, and the 

WEPs, in turn, have used this research to improve programs, 

operations, and outcomes. Following the development of the 

WEP typology, research on WEPs has indicated six emerging 

trends: (1) the number of WEP programs and overall client 

numbers remain fairly stable even though the smaller programs 

come and go and the larger programs continue to survive and 

adapt to changing economic conditions; (2) access is the key 

issue for all programs as wilderness use permits become more 

difficult to obtain and use continues to increase; (3) all WEPs 

are developing very sophisticated risk management programs 

to deal with the perception that WEPs are risky, especially 

therapeutic programs; (4) as social issues arise, WEPs are 

becoming increasingly specialized, such as OBH programs for 

veterans dealing with Post Traumatic Stress (Ewert and others 

2010), cancer survivor programs and young adults struggling 

with substance use issues ages; (5) the increasing presence and 

communication within an international community that helps 

to improve and inform practice; and (6) the incorporation of 

cultural and place factors in the design and development of 

WEP programs. 

Management Concerns And Research 

Needed __________________________

Wilderness management concerns have been raised about 

managing WEPs related to social, ecological and managerial 

impacts, as well as how, where, and under what conditions to 

allow WEP use of wilderness (that is, where it is appropriate 

to have larger groups that spend long periods of time in wilderness). One example of a management concern that has been 

widely expressed is whether WEPs are partially or completely 

wilderness dependent or whether they can use wildlands that are 

not designated wilderness (Krumpe 1990; Dawson and others 

1998a; Ewert and others 2006). A survey of WEPs found that 

75% to 92% of WEPs reported that they were moderately to 

highly dependent on wilderness characteristics for delivery of 

their program, regardless of the type of WEP (Table 1). Only 

50% to 57% of WEPs reported that they were moderately to 

highly dependent on NWPS wilderness areas for delivery of 

their program, regardless of the type of WEP (Table 2). Only 

32% to 55% of WEPs reported that they spent 51% to 100% 

of their trip or program time in wilderness (Table 3). These 

findings are in contrast to a study of wilderness managers that 

overwhelmingly perceived WEPs as not being dependent on 

designated wilderness (Gager and others 1998). Krumpe (1990) 

has recommended that WEPs should be encouraged to use 

areas with wilderness characteristics but outside designated 

NWPS areas when possible, which is seemingly what some 

WEPs are already practicing. More recent research has not 

been published on this trend. 

Most of the seven other general types of management issues raised require additional research and have been raised as 

concerns by both managers and the WEPs. The priority order 

for those research projects is proposed to be as follows, based 

on the need to balance WEP use of wilderness with wilderness 

stewardship principles: 

• the policy issues of how to regulate and permit WEP use 

of wilderness and whether they should pay to use wilderness (Krumpe 1990; Dawson and others 1998a; Gager and 

others 1998; Ewert and others 1999; Ewert and others 

2006; Dawson and Hendee 2009); 

Table 3—Percent trip/program time in wilderness by percent of 

wilderness experience programs reporting (Dawson and others 

1998a).

Personal Healing/

 Time Education growth therapy

0 to 10% 26 10 25

11 to 30% 27 12 19

31 to 50% 15 23 19

51 to 75% 16 26 6

76 to 100% 16 29 31

 Total 100 100 100

Table 1—Dependence on wilderness characteristics by percent of 

wilderness experience programs reporting (Dawson and 

others 1998a).

Personal Healing/

Dependent Education growth therapy

High 61 76 50

Moderate 24 16 25

Somewhat 15 8 25

None 0 0 0

 Total 100 100 100

Table 2—Dependence on National Wilderness Preservation Systems 

areas by percent of wilderness experience programs 

reporting (Dawson and others 1998a).

Personal Healing/

Dependent Education growth therapy

High 24 27 31

Moderate 30 30 19

Somewhat 29 25 25

None 17 18 25

 Total 100 100 100

Wilderness Experience Programs: A State-of-the Knowledge Summary Dawson and Russell
132 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

• how to balance use by WEPs with other user groups like 

commercial and private recreational groups (Gager and 

others 1998; Dawson and Hendee 2009); 

• whether WEPs pose an activity and goal conflict with other 

users through sight, sound, or physical equipment used 

during counseling, recreational, or physical and adventure 

challenge activities (Dawson and others 1998a; Krumpe 

1990; Gager and others 1998; Ewert and others 2006);

• whether the longer time periods of occupancy and larger 

group travel in wilderness causes disproportionate environmental or social impacts compared to other users 

(Krumpe 1990; Gager and others 1998);

• whether risk assessments of WEP programs are conducted 

and any increased need for search and rescue operations 

(Dawson and others 1998a; Krumpe 1990; Ewert and 

Hollenhorst 1997; Gager and others 1998; Tangen-Foster 

and Dawson 1999; Cooley 2000);

• whether there is any need for increased law enforcement 

in areas where youth-at-risk WEPs operate (Ferguson 

2009); and 

• how the expected human and social benefits of restorative 

wilderness experiences can be better documented (reduced 

recidivism, reduced substance abuse, and so on) (Moore 

and Russell 2002).

Additional research and information to help managers to 

understand and manage WEP activities, programs, and appropriate use of wilderness is needed (Krumpe 1990; Gager 

and others 1998; Russell and Hendee 2000). Dawson and 

others (1998a) concluded that “wilderness managers need to 

better understand WEPs and work with them to foster a better appreciation of wilderness as a resource for a variety of 

users, appropriate wilderness use and user behavior, and the 

need for wilderness management” (p. 104). This conclusion 

still applies today. While some managers would like WEPs 

to operate outside of designated wilderness areas, as much 

as program delivery would still allow the program to achieve 

positive outcomes, this may reduce some support for wilderness and future designations.

WEPs are generally considered to provide many human and 

societal benefits and the research documentation is slowly 

growing to support the notion that nature and wilderness does 

provide restorative visitor experiences. Thus, WEPs may become increasingly important as a vehicle for some people to 

experience and appreciate wildness, wilderness, and nature, 

especially when their other life experiences may not have 

brought them in contact with wilderness.

References _______________________

Bacon, S. 1983. The conscious use of metaphor in Outward Bound. Denver, 

CO: Colorado Outward Bound School.

Bobilya, A. 2004. An investigation of the solo in a wilderness experience 

program. Dissertation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Cole, E.; Erdman, E.; Rothblum, E. D., eds. 1994. Wilderness therapy for 

women: The power of adventure. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Cooley, R. 1998. Wilderness therapy can help troubled adolescents. International Journal of Wilderness. 4(3): 18–21.

Cooley, R. 2000. How big is the risk in wilderness treatment of adolescents? 

International Journal of Wilderness. 6(1): 22–27.

Daniel, R. B. 2003. The life significance of a spiritually oriented Outward Boundtype wilderness expedition. Dissertation. Keene, NH: Antioch University.

Davis-Berman, J. S.; Berman, D. S. 1994a. Therapeutic wilderness programs: 

A national survey. Journal of Experiential Education. 17(2): 49

Davis-Berman, J. S.; Berman, D. S. 1994b. Wilderness therapy: Foundations, 

theories and research. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Davis-Berman, J. S.; Berman, D. S. 2008. The promise of wilderness therapy. 

Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential Education.

Dawson, C. P.; Tangen-Foster, J.; Friese, G. T.; Carpenter, J. 1998a. Defining 

characteristics of U.S.A. wilderness experience programs. International 

Journal of Wilderness. 4(3): 22 – 27.

Dawson, C. P.; Friese, G. T.; Tangen-Foster, J.; Carpenter, J. 1998b. Wilderness experience programs in the United States: Dependence on and use of 

wilderness. In: Watson, A.E.; Aplet, G.H.; Hendee, J.C., comps. Personal, 

societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness 

Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, Vol. I. 

1997 October; Bangalore, India. Proceedings RMRS-P-4. Ogden, UT: 

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

Station: 99–104.

Dawson, C. P.; Hendee, J. C. 2009. Wilderness management: Stewardship and 

protection of resources and values, 4th ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Dawson, C. P.; Hendee, J. C., 2004. Wilderness-related courses in natural 

resource programs at U.S. colleges and universities. International Journal 

of Wilderness. 10(1): 33–36.

Day, M.; Petrick, E. M. 2006. Designing residential wilderness programs for 

adults. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.

Easley, A. T.; Passineau, J. T.; Driver, B. L. 1990. The use of wilderness for 

personal growth, therapy and education. General Technical Report RM-193. 

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

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Ewert, A.; Attarian, A.; Hollenhorst, S.; Russell, K.; Voight, A. 2006. Evolving 

adventure pursuits on public lands: Emerging challenges for management and 

public policy. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 24: 125–140.

Ewert, A.; McAvoy, L. 2000. The effects of wilderness settings on organized 

groups: A state of the knowledge paper. In: McCool, S.; Cole, D.; Borrie, 

W.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Vol. 3: Wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 13-26.

Ewert, A. W.; Hollenhorst, S. J. 1997. Adventure recreation and its implications 

for wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 3(2): 21–26.

Ewert, A.; Hendee, J.; Davidson, S.; Brame, R.; Mackey, C. 1999. Wilderness 

access issues for education, personal growth, and therapeutic use: A U.S. 

panel summary. International Journal of Wilderness. 5(3): 13–18.

Ewert, A.; Overholt, J.; Voight, A.; Wang, Chun Chieh. 2011. Understanding 

the transformative aspects of the wilderness and protected lands experience 

upon human health. In: Watson, Alan; Murrieta-Saldivar, Joaquin; McBride, 

Brooke, comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness 

values: Ninth World Wilderness Congress symposium; November 6-13, 

2009; Meridá, Yucatán, Mexico. Proceedings RMRS-P-64. Fort Collins, 

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

Research Station: 140-146.

Ferguson, G. 2009. Shouting at the sky: Troubled teens and the promise of 

the wild: Helena, MT: Sweetgrass Books.

Foster, S.; Little, M. 1998. The four shields: The initiatory seasons of human 

nature. Big Pine, CA: Lost Borders Press.

Foster, S. M. 2000. Rites of passage in the wilderness: A therapeutic source of 

cultural and environmental recovery. In: Watson, A.E.; Aplet, G.H.; Hendee, 

J.C., comps. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth 

World Wilderness Congress proceedings on research, management, and 

allocation, Vol. I. 1998 October; Bangalore, India. Proceedings RMRSP-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 105–107.

Frederickson, L. M.; Anderson, D. H. 1999. A qualitative exploration of 

the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 19: 21-39.

Friese, G.; Hendee, J. C.; Kinziger, M. 1998. The wilderness experience program industry in the United States: Characteristics and dynamics. Journal 

of Experiential Education. 21(1): 40–45.

Dawson and Russell Wilderness Experience Programs: A State-of-the Knowledge Summary
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 133

Friese, G.T. 1996. Inventory and classification of wilderness experience 

programs. Thesis. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

Friese, G. T.; Kinziger, M. L.; Hendee, J. C. 1999. History and status of use 

of wilderness for personal growth. In: Cordell, H. K. and others. Outdoor 

recreation in American life: A national assessment of demand and supply 

trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 380–384.

Friese, G. T.; Pittman, J. T.; Hendee, J. C. 1995. Studies of the use of wilderness for personal growth, therapy, education, and leadership development: 

An annotation and evaluation. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences.

Gager, D. 1996. Agency policies and wilderness managers attitudes towards 

wilderness experience programs. Thesis. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

Gager, D.; Hendee, J. C.; Kinziger, M.; Krumpe, E. 1998. What managers 

are saying and doing about wilderness experience programs. Journal of 

Forestry. 96(8): 33–37.

Gass, M. A. 1993. Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure 

programming. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Gassner, M. E.; Russell, K. C. 2008. Relative impact of course components at 

Outward Bound Singapore: A retrospective study of long-term outcomes. 

Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 8(2): 133–156.

Gibson, P. M. 1979. Therapeutic aspects of wilderness programs: A comprehensive literature review. Therapeutic Recreation Journal. 13(2): 21-33.

Gilllis, H. L.; Gass, M.;Russell, K. C. 2008. The effectiveness of Project Adventure’s behavior management program for male offenders in residential 

treatment. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth. 25(3): 227-247. 

Hanna, G. 1995. Wilderness-related environmental outcomes of adventure 

and ecology education programming. The Journal of Environmental 

Education. 27(1): 21-32.

Harper, N. J.; Russell, K. C. 2008. Family involvement and outcome in adolescent wilderness treatment: A mixed-methods evaluation. International 

Journal of Child and Family Welfare. 1: 19–36.

Harper, N. J.; Russell, K. C.; Cooley, R.; Cupples, J. 2007. Catherine Freer 

Wilderness Therapy Expeditions: An exploratory case study of adolescent 

wilderness therapy, family functioning, and the maintenance of change. 

Child Youth Care Forum. 36: 111–129.

Hartig, T.; Mang, M., Evans, G.W. 1991. Restorative effects of natural environmernt experiences. Environment and Behavior. 23(1): 3-26.

Hendee, J. C.; Brown, M. 1988. Wilderness experience programs for personal 

growth, therapy, and education: An exploratory model. In: Hendee, J. C., 

ed. The highest use of wilderness: Using wilderness experience programs 

to develop human potential. Proceeding of a symposium at the Fourth 

World Wilderness Congress, September 1987, Estes Park, CO. Moscow, 

ID: University of Idaho: 5–21.

Hendee, J. C.; Roggenbuck, J. W. 1984. Wilderness-related education as a 

factor increasing demand for wilderness. In: Forest resources management: 

The influence of policy and law; Contributions at the International Forest 

Congress, August 1984, Quebec City, Canada: 273–278.

Kaplan, S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: Towards an integrative 

framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15: 169–182.

Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological 

perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kellert, S.; Derr, V. 1998. A national study of outdoor wilderness experience. 

New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental 

Studies.

Kimball, R. 1983. The wilderness as therapy. Journal of Experiential Education. 6(3): 7-16.

Krumpe, E. 1990. Managing wilderness for education and human development: 

A bane or a blessing? In: Reed, P. C., comp. Preparing to manage wilderness 

in the 21st century; Proceedings of the Conference; April 1990; Athens, 

GA. General Technical Report SE-66. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 83–89.

Kutz, J. D., O’Connell, A. 2007. Concerns regarding abuse and death in certain 

programs for troubled youth. U.S. Government Accounting Office Report 

GAO-08-146T. Report and Testimony to the Committee on Education and 

Labor, House of Representatives, October 10, 2007.

Marchand, G.; Russell, K. C.; Cross, R. 2009. An empirical examination of 

outdoor behavioral healthcare field instructor job related stress and retention. Journal of Experiential Education. 31(3): 359-375.

Miles, J.; Priest, S. eds. 1999. Adventure programming. State College, PA: 

Venture Publishing, Inc.

Moore, T., Russell, K. C. 2002. Studies of the use of wilderness for personal 

growth, therapy, education, and leadership development: an annotation and 

evaluation. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources.

Powch, I. G. 1994. Wilderness therapy: What makes it empowering for women? 

Women and Therapy. 15(4): 11–27.

Reed, P.; Haas, G.; Beum, F.; Sherrick, L. 1989. Non-recreational uses of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System: A 1988 telephone survey. In: 

Freilich, H. R., comp. Wilderness benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the 

national wilderness colloquium; 1988 January 13-14; Tampa, FL. General 

Technical Report SE-51. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 220-228.

Riley, M. R. 1997. Wilderness vision quests tap the spiritual values of wilderness. Women in Natural Resources. 18(1): 11-13.

Riley, M. F., Hendee, J.C. 2000. Wilderness vision quest clients: Motivations 

and reported benefits from an urban-based program 1988-1997. In: Watson, 

A.E.; Aplet, G.H.; Hendee, J.C. ,comps. Personal, societal, and ecological 

values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress proceedings on 

research, management, and allocation, Vol. II; 1998 October; Bangalore, 

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

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 128–134.

Russell, K. C. 1999. Theoretical basis, process, and reported outcomes of 

wilderness therapy as an intervention and treatment for problem behavior 

in adolescents. Dissertation. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

Russell, K. C. 2000. Exploring how the wilderness therapy process relates to 

outcomes. Journal of Experiential Education. 23(3): 170–176.

Russell, K. C. 2001. What is wilderness therapy? Journal of Experiential 

Education. 24(2): 70–79.

Russell, K. C. 2006. Brat camp, boot camp, or ....? Exploring wilderness 

therapy program theory. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor 

Learning. 6(1): 51–67.

Russell, K. C. 2008. Adolescence substance use treatment: Service delivery, 

research on effectiveness, and emerging treatment alternatives. Journal of 

Groups in Addiction and Recovery. 2(2-4): 68-96. 

Russell, K. C.; Gillis, H. L.; Lewis, T. G. 2008. A five-year follow-up of a 

survey of North American outdoor behavioral healthcare programs. Journal 

of Experiential Education. 31(1): 55–77.

Russell, K. C.; Hendee, J. C. 2000. Wilderness therapy as an intervention 

and treatment of adolescents with behavioral problems. In: Watson, A. 

E.; Aplet, G.; Hendee, J. C., eds. Proceedings on personal, societal, and 

ecological values of wilderness from the Sixth World Wilderness Congress 

on research, management, and allocation, Vol II, October 1998, Bangalore, 

India. Proceedings RMRS-P-14. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 136–141.

Russell, K. M.; Hendee, J. H.; Cooke, S. 1998. Social and economic benefits 

of a U.S. wilderness experience program for youth-at-risk in the Federal 

Job Corps. International Journal of Wilderness. 4(3): 32-38.

Russell, K. C.; Hendee, J. C.; Phillips-Miller, D. 2000. How wilderness therapy 

works: The wilderness therapy process for adolescents with behavioral 

problems and addictions. In: Cole, D. N.; McCool, S. F.; Borrie, W. T.; 

O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Vol. 3: Wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 207-217.

Russell, K. C.; Phillips-Miller, D. 2002. Perspectives on the wilderness 

therapy process and its relation to outcome. Child and Youth Care Forum. 

31(6): 415 – 437.

Tangen-Foster, J.; Dawson, C. P. 1999. Risk management in wilderness 

experience programs. International Journal of Wilderness .5(3): 29–34.

U.S. Public Law 88-577. The Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 890.

Walsh, M.; Russell. K. C. 2010. An exploratory study of a wilderness adventure 

program for young offenders. Ecopsychology. 2(4):211-229.

WildLink. 2011. Why WildLink? http://wildlink.wilderness.net website accessed April, 2011.

Wilson, S. J.; Lipsey, M. W. 2000. Wilderness challenge programs for delinquent youth: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. Evaluation and 

Program Planning. 23: 1–12.

Winterdyk, J.; Griffiths, C. 1984. Wilderness experience programs: Reforming delinquents or beating around the bush? Juvenile and Family Court 

Journal. 35(3): 35–44.

Wilderness Experience Programs: A State-of-the Knowledge Summary Dawson and Russell
134 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Abstract—While there is a long history of research on factors 

influencing wilderness recreation visitor experiences, there has 

been little focused research to understand the experiences of users 

visiting wilderness under legislative special provisions or the impact 

of these special provisions on wilderness recreation visitors. There 

are some exceptions. For example, contrasting motorboat user and 

canoeist experiences and their impacts on each other in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness were topics of research even before 

the Wilderness Act was passed. Livestock grazing in wilderness is a 

particular kind of commercial special provision which impacts visitor 

experiences and has been studied in Colorado wildernesses. River 

floaters in at least one Idaho Wilderness can encounter motorized 

jet boats (a special provision use).We know these are often negative 

encounters for floaters. We commonly approach the jet boat user as 

a nonconforming user and thus a source of the conflict rather than 

trying to understand the experiences they are receiving and how to 

manage encounters to benefit both types of users. Aircraft, a unique 

special provision providing access in a few places in the Lower 48 

and broadly in Alaska, play different roles in experiences in different 

places. Commercial use, though it is sometimes described as a traditional use of wilderness in the U.S., is actually a special provision in 

the Wilderness Act to the extent necessary for realizing recreational or 

other wilderness purposes. There is not a great deal of evidence that 

non-commercial visitors are influenced negatively by encounters with 

commercial visitors, though commercial and non-commercial user 

experiences are believed to be very different. Some limited research 

has begun to look at combinations of commercial and access special 

provisions (such as Denali visitors who use air taxis to reach remote 

glaciers, or Denali visitors who take a bus on a road bordered by the 

Wilderness). This research describes unique experiences associated 

with wilderness dependent activities that may be only “near wilderness” experiences or experiences that keep wilderness at arm’s length, 

in the process revealing some values of protecting these places as 

wilderness not previously described. 

Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the 

Outside Looking in at Special Provisions 

in Wilderness

Alan E. Watson

Author:Alan E. Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Introduction ______________________

There is a long history of studies to understand some aspects 

of wilderness visitor recreation experiences (Cole and Williams in press). Hendee and others (1978) described one of 

the central themes of the wilderness movement as a focus on 

solitude experiences offered by unmodified natural settings. 

There has been a great deal of research to understand these 

solitude experiences to assure that managers are protecting them 

in wilderness. Some of that research continues to be replicated 

in 2012, often with a need for place-based guidance to protect 

unique experiences or protect experiences from unique threats. 

Guided by direction within the Wilderness Act to protect 

these places for enjoyment as wilderness, work by pioneering scientists in the 1960s and 1970s was largely focused on 

exploring the implications of specific terminology (such as, 

opportunities for solitude) within the Wilderness Act to guide 

management decisions (such as, use limits) and monitoring 

(such as, crowding). Understanding how this enjoyment was 

impacted for visitors has been a significant task, particularly 

because people do not generally agree on evaluations of influences on visits to these places. Some people may have 

specific social characteristics they know they desire, such as 

true solitude or opportunities to interact with their small group 

in relative isolation and natural conditions, and some may be 

more focused on the environmental attributes or activities they 

engage in there (Watson and others 1993).

Early scientific exploration of wilderness purism and 

wilderness values extended across visitor perceptions of the 

importance of a broad array of attributes. Research to define 

influences on experiences in wilderness focused mostly on 

things that influenced solitude such as crowding, or on visitor 

impacts, such as heavily used campsites, that defined lowimpact concerns and depicted how wilderness was going to 

be different from other public lands places. Hendee and others 

(1978), however, suggested there were many aspects of wilderness experiences, including nature appreciation, education, 

freedom, solitude, and simplicity, as well as spiritual, aesthetic, 

and mystical dimensions of a wilderness experience. But the 

only one of these experiences specifically listed in the Wilderness Act was solitude. Hendee and others (1978), in the first 

edition of the Wilderness Management textbook, concluded, 

however, that the listing of solitude, along with primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation in the definition of wilderness 

in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act was to help Congress 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 135

clarify its intent, not as specific requirements for inclusion as 

wilderness. But they also concluded, in 1978, that naturalness 

and solitude were distinguishing qualities of classified wilderness, differentiating it from other public lands. These scientists 

certainly influenced the focus of wilderness experience science 

on solitude as the most important aspect of visitor experiences 

for research and for management strategies. Dawson and Hendee 

(2009), in the fourth edition of the Wilderness Management

textbook, continue to emphasize solitude and naturalness as 

the defining qualities of wilderness conditions.

This solitude research manifested itself in studies of crowding and response to human encounters for many years. By the 

1990s, however, Watson and Williams (1995) emphasized the 

need to look beyond the concept of crowding more to define 

wilderness experiences; there were many things influencing 

visitor experiences and scientists had only recently begun to 

study some of them—at that time, mostly only primitive and 

unconfined aspects of experiences (such as, Shafer and Hammit 

1995). Watson and Williams (1995) demonstrated that while 

wilderness experience research had mostly been studied from 

the perspective of interaction with other wilderness recreation 

and its management, there are many more influences on wilderness experiences that need to be understood, monitored 

and managed (Figure 1). This discussion extended to such 

examples as the impact of livestock on wilderness experiences, 

encountering mining or water projects, and “other.” If we 

developed this matrix today, we would probably more likely, 

and more appropriately, lump these examples into legislative 

special provision uses, or legal exceptions. At that time we had 

not developed the interest or a strategy for studying special 

provisions and their role in wilderness experiences. 

Watson and Williams (1995) concluded that with such a 

broadened perspective of potential influences on wilderness 

experiences, desirable wilderness experiences were yet to be 

defined and agreed upon and, as such, the benefits, meanings and 

values of wilderness and wilderness experiences were poorly 

understood. More research to address a broader range of threats 

to wilderness experiences was encouraged and a significant need 

was evident to extend research beyond “conforming” uses and 

acknowledge there were many things going on in wilderness 

that were not defined within the Wilderness Act definition in 

part 4(c), which prohibited commercial enterprise, permanent 

roads, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, aircraft landing, 

mechanical transport, structures, and installations. These things 

were sometimes allowed as special provisions in specific places 

and likely influenced wilderness experiences substantially. 

Sometimes referred to as “nonconforming uses,” Section 4(d) 

of the Wilderness Act includes eight special provisions that 

apply to all of the Wilderness designations in 1964 as well as 

all subsequently designated wilderness. Browning and others 

(1988) defined special provisions as “specific guidelines for 

allocation and management based upon unique circumstances 

of local or regional concern.” When included in wilderness 

legislation, special provisions or other specific management 

directions establish legal direction for designation and also 

for management of use of a wilderness (Dawson and Hendee 

2009). 

The special provision data base on wilderness.net (a web site 

provided by the U.S. federal wilderness management agencies 

through The University of Montana), described by Craig and 

others (2010) provides access to legislative content for several 

Figure 1—A monitoring framework from the early 1990s illustrates the complex set of hypothesized influences on wilderness experiences (Landres and others 1994, Cole 1994, Watson 

and Williams 1995).

Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness Watson
136 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

categories of special provisions or specific management directions contained in legislation: access, commercial use, general 

administration, motorized/mechanized use, public use and 

facilities, natural and cultural resource management and water 

(see Table 1) or by wilderness area. This data set is simply 

an electronic form of the special provisions collected across 

all legislation, in one place. There is no listing of associated 

research or any visible presentation of information under any 

of these categories to guide interpretation of the legislation 

for managing to protect or enhance visitor experiences in the 

context of special provisions.

Dawson and Hendee (2009) concluded that legislative intent 

is a complex matter that often requires additional understanding 

about the situations that led to the need for the special provision in order to make management decisions. Since 1964, and 

passage of the original Wilderness Act, 170 additional laws 

have been passed that set aside more than 700 areas and 107.4 

million acres in forty-four states (Dawson and others 2010). 

These analysts predict that there will be a continuing trend in 

wilderness laws toward omnibus legislation covering more than 

one area, often in individual states, and the inclusion of more 

language to affirm and clarify management direction to address 

local concerns. Congress will likely hold the line, however, 

on proposals for major exceptions and unique provisions in 

wilderness laws or amending the Wilderness Act (Dawson and 

others 2010).

A Process for Incorporating Special 

Provision Intent into Management 

Decisions ________________________

Watson and others (2004a) argued we should work to understand these special provisions and the people who they serve 

and we should work to both protect these legislated public 

purposes of wilderness outside the definition of Section 4(c) 

of the Wilderness Act and to minimize impacts of these special 

provisions on wilderness use and users that are described in 

Section 4 (c) of the Wilderness Act. Watson and others (2004a) 

acknowledged that while there was very little research on 

special provisions, more than half of our National Wilderness 

Preservation System (NWPS) at that time had entered into the 

system in Alaska under the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), which is itself very much like a 

special provision, and also has many special provisions. This 

analysis provided a foundation for several studies to take an 

open-ended approach to define wilderness experiences that 

were not well defined in the Wilderness Act (such as, Patterson 

and others 1998, Watson and others 2004b, Glaspell and others 

2003, Knotek and others 2007, Watson and others 2008), as 

well as complimentary work in the eastern arctic of Canada 

(Watson and others 2007), in South Africa (Shroyer and others 

2003), and Brazil (Magro and others 2007) to further explore 

place-based wilderness attributes and experiences in other 

cultures.

Watson and others (2004a) outlined a science process for 

investigating special provisions and then demonstrated that 

process through a series of studies on jet boat users on the 

Main Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho (Table 2). Jet boat use 

preceded wilderness designation of the Frank Church – River 

of No Return Wilderness (FC-RNRW )by the Central Idaho 

Act of 1980 and therefore jet boat use was “provisioned in” at 

a level “...not less than that in existence in 1978.” Although 

the Main Fork of the Salmon River is running through the 

middle of the Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness, 

it is classified as a Wild and Scenic River with a recreation 

emphasis. The amount of both floater and jet boat use is limited 

during the high use season. In the process described by Watson and others (2004a), incorporating guidance from Meyer 

(1999), the legislative history of this special provision is first 

documented. Meyer described a process for approximating the 

judicial review hierarchy to fully understand legislative intent. 

The content of a statement during legislative negotiation may 

not be as important as where and when it is said. Context is 

everything, so to speak.

Next, a study that focused on understanding the relationship between jet boat community leaders, the place and the 

activity, was undertaken to develop a baseline understanding 

of the things they would like to have protected about their 

experiences and use, whether they are called for in the special 

provision legislative history specifically, or not. These jet boat 

Table 1—Categories of special provisions database on wilderness.net (Craig and others 2010)

Special provision category Examples

Access easements, motorized, tribal

Commercial Use grazing, mining, recreation, timber

General Administration buffer zones, administration, inholdings, 

pre-existing uses/rights

Motorized/Mechanized Use aircraft, motorboats, vehicles

Public Use and Facilities structures, roads, signs, hunting

Natural and Cultural Resource Management fire management, insects, invasives, 

fisheries, monitoring, wildlife management

Water facilities, resources, rights/laws

Watson Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 137

community leaders needed to establish better understanding 

of the standing of their demands, as well as establish common 

ground with federal managers about the things they value 

about this place and activity. Hypotheses were developed 

from this in-depth understanding and a whole set of questions 

were posed to a much larger population (everyone who could 

be identified as ever being on a jet boat on the Salmon River 

inside the FC-RNRW) of visitors in order to understand how 

consistent the important things jet boat association leadership 

perceived were to the larger participating public. And finally, 

as part of a study of floaters, scientists developed knowledge 

about what aspects of jet boat use affect floaters in what ways. 

While managers do not generally have the luxury of this level 

of knowledge about every special provision use in wilderness, 

there is some knowledge about some of these uses and the 

impacts on them and their impacts on other users.

The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe research 

knowledge accumulated about several special provision uses 

in wilderness. Specific interest is in understanding first if there 

are unique experiences of the participants in these special 

provision activities, whether or not specified in the Wilderness 

Act, but important to protect. Second, what do we know about 

how implementation of these special provisions interacts with 

other attributes of wilderness to influence “conforming” user 

experiences? A third purpose of this paper is to identify important potential research areas needed to guide management 

decisions better into the future.

Special Provision Case Studies

Six specific uses that are enabled through special provisions legislation have been studied enough in the wilderness 

context to contribute to development of a common body of 

knowledge. This paper will present some examples of research 

on motorboats, livestock, jet boats, aircraft, ANILCA (with 

its own set of special provisions), and commercial use. While 

there are some studies that have included individual questions 

to assess public opinion about some of these and other special 

provisions, it is difficult to find additional studies or papers 

that contribute collectively to our knowledge on these topics. 

Motorboats

Lands and water on the Superior National Forest in northern 

Minnesota have been managed for wilderness qualities for a 

long time. Even prior to wilderness designation, Lucas (1964) 

was surveying visitors there to explore differences in perceptions of wilderness attributes among motorboat and canoe 

paddlers in what was later designated the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness. Just prior to the initial designation 

of lands and water there as wilderness, 75% of paddlers and 

62% of motorized users were able to describe the “wilderness 

qualities” of their visits there. Motorized boat users, however, 

tolerated heavier use, more roads and more developments within 

their definition of wilderness experiences (Lucas 1964). Lucas 

(1964) also reported that canoeists in the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area preferred much lower use levels than did motorboat 

users. He also concluded that the level of use people report 

as preferred or tolerable is not independent of the type of use 

involved. Similar to the long standing and replicated research 

at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area that demonstrated asymmetric conflict between these two groups (such as, Adelman 

and others 1982, Ivy and others 1992, Lucas 1964), it appears 

that these two groups experience and evaluate wilderness attributes at the same place very differently. 

While there are not many places where motorboats are a 

special provision in wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe 

Area Wilderness presents an opportunity for longitudinal 

understanding of this special provision and how it likely 

interacts with wilderness experiences (Lucas 1967, Cole and 

others 1995, Watson 1995, Dvorak and others in press). Visitor 

studies in 1991 and 2007 displayed very different proportions 

of private motorboat users, with a decrease from 11% to 5% 

at the BWCAW. Possibly related, across all users, the proportion fishing decreased from 83% to 77%. The motorized use 

there is mostly connected to fishing. Those indicating fishing 

was a priority for the trip decreased from 47% to 35%. There 

were many changes evident at the BWCAW from studies in 

the 1960s to 2007, including an older group of visitors, slightly 

smaller group sizes and higher education and income levels. 

Trip length demonstrated a slight increase trend for overnight 

visitors. Among the most dramatic changes, however, were 

perceptions of being overcrowded at this, the most heavily 

Table 2—A sequential process for investigating special provisions, used with jet boat use on the 

Main Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho by Watson and others (2004a).

Essential steps to understand special provisions

1. Document and determine legislative intent

2. Develop understanding of the relationship special provision users have with the place and 

the activity (deep meanings) through qualitative studies

3. Develop understanding and test hypotheses with the larger population of special provision 

orientation through quantitative studies

4. Examine impact and causes of that impact on other (conforming) visitor experiences

Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness Watson
138 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

used wilderness in the U.S. In 1969, 73% reported not being 

overcrowded; that level fell to 44% in 1991 and further dropped 

to 38% in 2007. Impacts from encounters with motorboats seem 

to be a fairly small problem at this area and likely decreasing, 

with an historic motorboat use segment in only a couple of 

areas authorized under a special provision.

Cattle/Livestock Grazing

The Wilderness Act included a special provision that allowed livestock grazing to continue where it existed prior to 

the designation of an area as wilderness. The 1980 Colorado 

Wilderness Act further clarified that livestock grazing could not 

be curtailed because of wilderness designation. In the 1980s, 

more than 35% of U.S. wilderness areas had active commercial grazing rights established (Reed and others 1988), and at 

that time it was predicted that grazing was likely to increase 

as mid and lower elevation BLM roadless areas were added 

to the NWPS. Dawson and others (2010) found 19 wilderness 

designation laws that included similar management direction 

as the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980, concerning grazing 

activities and facilities on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management wilderness lands. 

As early as 1949, scientists were trying to understand 

public attitudes toward grazing in areas publicly protected as 

wilderness (Johnson and others 1997). Well before passage of 

the Wilderness Act, these studies found qualified acceptance 

for grazing as a nonconforming use “only by sufferance and 

with a view to its eventual elimination” (Johnson and others 

1997). Livestock grazing was never suggested as a value or 

use protected by the Wilderness Act, but in fact, has always 

been acknowledged to be nonconforming and a negotiated 

commercial interest compromise in order to protect other 

wilderness attributes of these areas. While livestock grazing 

has been categorized (Craig and others 2010) as a commercial 

special provision, there has been some limited research on 

public response to it more as a nonconforming use than just a 

commercial activity. Encountering cattle in an area protected 

for enjoyment as wilderness is more than just encountering a 

commercial activity, probably due to the widespread physical 

impacts very evident from cattle and sheep.

Brunson and Steele (1994), for example, found the public 

believed overgrazing and poor water quality due to livestock 

impacts were important problems on public rangelands. A 

majority of the public supported the establishment of more 

rangeland areas as wilderness but did not support livestock 

grazing in established wilderness. In addition to the ecological 

impacts that concerned the public, grazing impacts have been 

found to affect aesthetics perceptions for visitors (Sanderson 

and others 1986).

Johnson and others (1997) reported from a sample of nearly 

600 visitors to several wildernesses in Colorado that 40% 

considered livestock grazing in wilderness to be unacceptable 

(Table 3). Only 32% could accept grazing in wilderness with 

improved range conditions and responsive adjustments in 

livestock numbers and management methods; the rest either 

thought grazing was okay (11%) or did not have clear positions on the issues (17%). A majority of the wilderness visitors 

surveyed reported that direct encounters and livestock impacts 

detract from a wilderness experience. Johnson and others (1997) 

also found some specific things about cows that had negative 

impacts on visitor experiences: cows near camp (87% said it 

was negative), manure in camp (88% said it was negative), 

and cows or their impacts near streams (82% said it was negative). However, the public did identify some things that they 

might enjoy about encountering cows, including calves with 

mothers (18% said it added to the experience), cattle in the 

distance (15% said it added to the experience), and cowboys 

with cattle (16% said it added to the experience). Although 

these are the most positive things about encountering cattle, 

even these things had even higher percentages of visitors who 

considered them a negative impact on experiences (52%, 54%, 

and 47%, respectively). There seems to be nothing about cattle 

grazing in wilderness, except seeing cowboys with cattle, that 

does not detract from the experience of the majority of visitors 

(Johnson and others 1997). 

Table 3—Wilderness visitor agreement with position statements regarding livestock grazing in 

wilderness. (Johnson and others 1997)

Percent (%) 

Position statement agree

Grazing in this wilderness, as it is now managed, is acceptable. Numbers of 11

livestock and grazing fees should be kept at current levels.

Grazing in this wilderness is acceptable as long as management continues to 32

improve the range condition; protection of streams, lakes, and native flora and 

fauna, and reduces conflicts with other users. Adjustments in livestock numbers 

and management maybe be necessary

Grazing is not an acceptable use of this wilderness. It degrades the land, favors 40

livestock over wildlife, is not cost-effective, and conflicts with other uses.

I do not know enough about grazing in this wilderness and therefore cannot 17

make a fair judgment about any of the positions stated above.

Watson Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 139

Biophysical impacts of grazing were more objectionable 

than were the social impacts of cattle (Johnson and others 

1997). Eighteen per cent of visitors said their experiences were 

interfered with by other visitors (crowding, litter, inappropriate behavior) while 15% reported livestock to be a problem 

with their experience. Nineteen per cent of visitors attributed 

problem resource impacts to people, 17% to livestock. Twothirds reported direct encounters with cattle detracted from a 

wilderness experience. But they also reported that their wilderness experiences were negatively impacted by encounters 

with outfitters (65%), cowboys with cattle (63%), other visitors 

(54%), horses or mules (51%), and dogs (48%). The cows have 

never seemed to mind the recreation visitors, though ranchers 

are sometimes nervous about potential impacts to grazing areas 

from potential increases in recreation users due to designation 

of areas as wilderness.

Jet Boats

A special provision that did not include regular motorboats 

or jet ski use on the Salmon River, did make a provision for jet 

boats. Rafters on the Main Fork of the Salmon River, floating 

through the heart of the Frank Church – River of No Return 

Wilderness (FC-RNRW), were asked hypothetically about their 

likely response to the number of jet boats they might see. The 

number of jet boats to be seen was ranked seventh in whether 

it would matter to their wilderness experience, behind human 

waste, litter, tree damage, number of wild animals seen, groups 

camping within sight or sound, and human caused vegetation 

loss they encountered. The number of delays to their downriver 

trips caused by jet boaters (while coming up through rapids 

or passing rafts) was tenth, immediately after the size of float 

parties seen, and amount of time spent within sight of floaters 

while moving down the river (Hunger and others 1999).

When asked about problems they had on their specific trips, 

however, jet boat encounters was ranked first, followed by 

number of modern structures and low-flying aircraft. Overall, 

Main Fork floaters desired visitor experiences centered on 

perceived naturalness (getting away from crowds, feeling a 

part of nature, experiencing peace and tranquility, escaping 

noise, leisure, seeing wildlife). This was more important than 

personal wilderness challenges, health and spirituality, historical 

and cultural influences, but not higher than being with friends. 

For jet boaters, 66% also indicated they enjoy solitude while 

jet boating, although 52% indicated the number of other people 

they meet on the river is not important to the experience they 

have, 70% said the number of structures they might see is not 

important and 85 percent said their experience is not influenced 

by seeing small aircraft flying overhead. Of these jet boat users, 

85% think of this time as an important family experience and 

98% consider it important or very important to protect access 

to this activity at this place for future generations. Seventy-nine 

percent agreed that their experience while jet boating on the 

river was the same as the experience of nonmotorized floaters 

and 76% thought it was the same as those riding horses. Only 

33% would go on the river if they couldn’t go on jet boats, 

however. Some people might interpret special provisions like 

this one as creating “exceptions” to true wilderness, whereas 

others, like these jet boaters, interpret them as means of accommodating different orientations toward wilderness (Table 4). 

Table 4—Propositions generated from in-depth interviews of jet boat association leadership and tested through 

quantitative survey of jet boat community.

Propositions:

1. Being close to nature is important to jet boaters.

2. Opportunities to experience solitude in a remote setting is valued by jet boaters.

3. Jet boating is a family experience, or an opportunity to pass on important values to others.

4. Jet boaters exhibit strong attachment to place, or opportunities to spend time in the Salmon River 

Canyon is important to them (they have a strong personal history, are deeply involved).

5. Jet boating is challenging, with a certain amount of risk as in any whitewater activity, and current 

regulations influence the perception of safety by limiting the ability of boaters to travel in groups.

6. Jet boats are consistent with wilderness and wild and scenic values to jet boaters.

7. Jet boaters appreciate the cultural history of the river corridor.

8. Jet boaters perceive some other users as having unrealistic expectations about their journeys along 

the Salmon River.

9. River planning should be addressed from a regional perspective, not river by river.

10. Jet boaters believe that environmentally responsible behavior by all users is important in order to 

protect the resource.

11. It is important to teach river etiquette to all users.

12. Jet boaters believe in “responsible shared use” – fair, equitable access to the resource and opportunity for growth with other user groups.

Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness Watson
140 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

The Central Idaho Act of 1980 was silent on the nature of the 

experience to be provided to these jet boaters. Research on jet 

boaters, however, focused on understanding user experiences 

and relationships to place (Watson and others 2004a). On the 

one hand, results suggest that jet boaters seek traditional wilderness values, but on the other, it reveals apparent contradictions. 

However, rather than reflecting a unique situation, these sorts 

of contradictions or tensions are evident among other wilderness uses at other places as well (Glaspell 2002).

Aircraft

The Wilderness Act states that “..within wilderness areas 

designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats 

where these practices have already become established may 

be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the 

Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable” (section 4(d)1). 

Three wildernesses outside of Alaska have active airstrips, in 

Montana and Idaho (Meyer 1999). These provisions provide 

access for hunting, fishing, boating, wilderness administration 

and scientific research. In addition, touchdowns, where pilots 

land on backcountry airstrips for the challenge of the landing 

rather than for access to the wilderness, are popular among 

some pilots. 

In 1999 the FC-RNRW had 31 operational airstrips within 

its boundaries, 12 on federal land. “The sights and sounds of 

aircraft operating at or near landing strips and the noise of low 

level overflights probably disturb the quiet of the wilderness, 

and aircraft activities have the potential to affect wildlife species, particularly those at landing sites located on or near key 

wildlife habitat” (USDA Forest Service 1998:1-37). In the 

FC-RNRW, jet boaters were not bothered by overflghts. On 

the Middle Fork, private boaters, however, rated low flying 

aircraft as a big problem for 29% of the people, while only 

5% of commercial boaters rated them a big problem. 

There have been no known studies specifically focused on 

the experience motivations of wilderness pilots or aircraft 

passengers in the lower 48 wildernesses, though some studies 

in Alaska have touched on this topic. In Alaska, these special 

provisions provide access for flightseers that might touch down 

in Wilderness or not, glacier landings in remote locations, 

private recreation pilots, subsistence users, and commercial 

flight access for backpackers, rafters, and hunters and anglers. 

Aircraft access is a large part of access to remote locations in 

Alaska. 

Fidell and others (1996) suggested that the prevalence of 

aircraft noise-induced annoyance (in any degree) among 

respondents in several wilderness areas ranged from 5% to 

32%. So, annoyance of people and how that might interact 

with wilderness experiences is still unclear, but Tarrant and 

others (1995) suggested that overflights have a greater effect 

on visitor solitude and tranquility than on annoyance—that 

whatever the annoyance level might be, impacts on solitude 

experiences is much higher.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA)

Watson and others (2004b), in an attempt to illustrate unique 

aspects of wilderness experiences in Alaska, cited one student 

at the University of Alaska – Anchorage, who commented that 

“In the Lower 48, if you can drive there it isn’t wilderness, 

you have to walk. In Alaska if you can walk there it isn’t 

wilderness, you have to fly” (Figure 2). Another quote from a 

Figure 2--One Alaska student commented “In the Lower 48, if you can drive there it 

isn’t wilderness, you have to walk. In Alaska, if you can walk there it isn’t wilderness, 

you have to fly” (Watson and others 2004). US Forest Service photo.

Watson Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 141

different student trying to express perceptions of unique aspects 

of Alaska wilderness was “In the lower 48 the wilderness is 

surrounded by development, in Alaska the development is surrounded by wilderness, and that is surrounded by wilderness.” 

Both of these quotes are intended to help people understand 

that while the Wilderness Act was mostly aimed at protecting 

threatened lands in the continental 48 states, there is tremendous wild country in Alaska, some of which is protected and 

some of which is not. When the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) was passed in 1980, establishing 

over 50 million acres of wilderness protection in Alaska, not 

only was the geography different, but the relationships people 

have with these places were different, too. ANILCA acknowledged these differences by providing for motorized access, 

subsistence benefits and some continued mineral extraction 

and other commercial uses. 

In recent years, several studies have tried to capture some 

of the unique aspects of wilderness experiences in Alaska (for 

example Glaspell and others 2003, Watson and others 2004b) 

and in some cases some of these special provisions have been 

found to be especially important parts of the experiences. For 

instance, at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, 

“access” and “risk and uncertainty” were found to be important 

dimensions of current park experiences that managers may 

find unique enough to try to protect. In fact, these dimensions 

may represent what is most unique about the experience opportunities at Gates of the Arctic (Glaspell and others 2003). 

While these proceedings are intentionally focused on 

recreation visitors to wilderness, it is the intent of this paper 

to explore research conducted on the experiences of people 

engaged in these special provision activities. In Alaska, subsistence users are not only Alaska Native people, but rural 

people following a traditional path of survival and relationships with nature (see for example Collins and Collins 

2005, Whiting 2004). Whiting (2004), in particular, describes 

data obtained from active hunting and gathering families in the 

Western Arctic of Alaska that suggests their experiences, while 

in federal wilderness (or any other areas where they engage 

in traditional hunting and gathering activities), are centered 

on identity, traditional way of life, survival, opportunities for 

personal growth, expression of humility, maintaining mental 

and physical health, and expression of independence associated 

with self-sufficiency. While other segments of society may 

also attribute some of these meanings to wilderness, they are 

not terms used within the Wilderness Act and management to 

protect these benefits is not commonly prescribed.

The things they suggest impact these experiences are sometimes more unique to federal protected lands, such as agency 

restrictions and regulations—the National Park Service not 

understanding the Qikiktagrugmiut “way of life,” their perception of competition with the National Park Service for 

land in-holdings, trash, lack of respect shown by outsiders, 

NPS employees camping nearby when native people are on 

the land, airplanes, sport hunting, and the increasing number 

of visitors to these areas. But they also acknowledge threats 

to their experiences from modern technology, global warming, and their own lack of teaching land ethics to their young 

people. Research on wilderness visitor experiences in Alaska 

has mostly been separate from management of subsistence 

use and users. More recent examples, however, suggest the 

value of combining these purposes, though with sometimes 

different methodologies, to explore the interaction between 

these two very different orientations with wilderness and other 

wild places in Alaska (see for instance Christensen and others 

2006).

Commercial Use

In the Wilderness Act, section 4(c) states “Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private 

rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise ... within any 

wilderness area designated by this Act..” But in section 4(d), 

among the special provisions listed is item 6: “commercial 

services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which 

are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness 

purposes of the areas.” Dawson and Hendee (2009, p. 360) 

suggest that outfitting in some areas has drawn criticism for 

stressing comfort, convenience, and excessive facilities and 

technology that conflict with wilderness values, though they 

also describe commercial outfitting not as a special provision, 

but as “...a traditional use of wilderness permitted by the Wilderness Act and encouraged by wilderness managers in some 

areas..” In many areas, these commercial activities can be 

seen as both protecting traditional American wilderness values 

and being allowed under special provisions to accommodate 

existing uses and potentially impacting Wilderness values of 

other, non-commercial visitors.

Nationwide, the wilderness outfitting business is believed 

to be responding to the need for wilderness use that is light on 

the land, leaving no trace of use, and responsive to wilderness 

values and other users (Dawson and Hendee 2009). Some 

outfitters and some wilderness areas reflect this trend more 

than others. Outfitters can serve as educators of wilderness 

users to enhance visitor experiences and to promote wilderness 

stewardship. But there is suspicion that commercial visitors 

are very different people than private users. They may be there 

for different reasons and evaluate impacts on their experiences 

very differently.

Research at the FC-RNRW found that commercial floaters 

were about the same age as private floaters, but come from 

much more urban areas now, grew up in more urban areas, have 

much higher education levels, tremendously higher incomes, 

much less experience on the Salmon River, much less experience on any river, lower experience with commercial guides, 

far fewer trips where they guided their own boat and many 

less years since their first overnight float trip. They were more 

likely to self-evaluate themselves as beginner or novice (71%) 

rather than as intermediate or advanced or expert, to float in 

substantially larger groups and take shorter trips (Hunger et 

al. 1999) (Table 5). Commercial boaters were more likely to 

report fewer larger groups seen, more time within sight of other 

float parties and less time delayed at major rapids. They were 

less observant of modern structures each day, less observant of 

Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness Watson
142 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

low-flying aircraft. They noticed less human-caused vegetation 

loss and bare ground at campsites, saw less human-damaged 

trees at campsites, and less litter, though it is difficult to believe 

they are really exposed to less of these things than private boaters. More likely, due to less experience and the dependence on 

guides to tell them what to do and how to evaluate what they 

see, they simply do not focus on the same things as private 

floaters. 

It is easy to conclude that these commercial users, probably 

due to less experience and a much more casual relationship with 

wilderness and this river, have very different experiences when 

they encounter the same attributes as non-commercial visitors. 

But since their experiences are different, their attitudes toward 

management options are also different. Commercial users are 

much more likely to say number of people seen each day is 

not a problem. They say that camping within sight or sound 

of another party was not a problem, report less of a problem 

arising from human-caused vegetative loss and bare ground 

at camps, the number of modern structures seen, the amount 

of litter seen daily and the number of low-flying aircraft seen 

(Table 6). They are also much less supportive of reducing the 

allowable number of people per party or most other regulations 

aimed at protecting the wilderness character of this river. 

Commercial user experiences as something we need to protect 

or as a specific influence on wilderness experiences (either 

of the outfitted or the guided or the effect of these outfitted 

or guided on noncommercial visitors) has not been explored 

nearly enough. Determining methods of judging “the extent 

necessary” is a high priority in wilderness management at 

the current time. Cable and Watson (1998) determined there 

were many proposed models for commercial use allocation 

decision-making, but very few are articulated well and many 

are not tested at all. 

While commercial users and guided visitors to wilderness 

have not been studied extensively, there is a considerable 

literature on the role of guides in commercial ecotourism. 

Ecotourism is a subset of nature-based tourism with focus on 

raising awareness of the environment and its natural and cultural values. Guided ecotourism is often successful at gaining 

understanding about the environment for visitors and motivating 

visitors towards environmentally responsible behaviors (Haig 

and McIntyre 2002). While there are examples of studies that 

show a benefit of having guides to protecting the resource 

(Boren and others 2009), there is a large gap in the literature 

about the role of tour operators in protected area management, 

in terms of accomplishment of visitor management and resource 

protection objectives (Armstrong and Weiler 2010). In recent 

analyses of the role of tour guides, however, it is believed the 

potential contributions of their work can be described in four 

ways: instrumental (reaching their destination with safety and 

providing access), social (responding to tourist preferences to 

increase trip satisfaction), interactionary (promoting interaction 

between tourists and the environment) and communicative 

(instructing on what to see and how to behave) (Reisinger 

and Steiner 2008). Different types of guides tend to focus on 

different roles, but the aim generally is to produce mindful 

Table 5—Launch-point survey results comparing characteristics of private and commercial floaters on the Salmon 

River, Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness (Hunger and others 1999).

Private Commercial

Characteristics floaters clients

Age (average years) a 41.9 42.9

Grew up in major metropolitan center of over one million people (%) b 12.0 21.7

Now live in major metropolitan center of over 1 million people (%) b 11.5 26.5

Educational achievement equip. to Ph.D. (%) a 13.8 20.6

Household income above $100,000/year (%) b 14.0 43.4

Previous overnight float trips on any segment of the Salmon River (average) a 5.1 .5

Previous overnight float trips on any river (average) a 27.4 3.9

Previous trips with a commercial guide (average) a 5.8 2.4

Previous trips where you guided your own boat (average) a 33.5 4.0

Years since first overnight float trip (average) a 12.2 5.8

Self-evaluation of river-running skills b 

a. Beginner or Novice (%) 33.6 71.0

b. Intermediate or Advanced (%) 53.7 28.1

c. Expert (%) 12.8 .8

Float party size (average) a 12.0 16.0

Length of trip in days (average) a 6.5 5.6

a

 means were significantly different for the two groups at p<.05 (Student t-test) b

Distributions of responses were significantly different for the two groups at p<.05(Chi-square analysis)

Watson Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 143

Table 6—Take-out survey results indicating problems for private and commercial floaters on the Salmon River, Frank 

Church – River of No Return Wilderness (Hunger et al. 1999).

Private floater Commercial client

Potential Problem no problem (%) no problem (%)

Number of people seen each day* 46.0 65.3

Amount of time within sight of other float parties 41.9 54.2

Number of times delayed at rapids by other float parties 78.4 79.2

Number of float parties that pass campsite 61.6 75.8

Camping within sight or sound of another party* 75.6 89.0

The amount of human-caused vegetative loss and bare ground at camps* 39.5 59.7

The amount of trees around a campsite damaged by people 54.8 68.6

The number of modern structures seen* 44.4 58.5

The amount of litter seen daily* 46.8 75.8

The number of low-flying aircraft seen* 46.8 56.7

Encountering human waste 68.5 80.7

*Distributions are different for the two groups

visitors (Reisinger and Steiner 2008), with higher satisfaction 

achieved on nature-based trips and greater support for protected 

area objectives.

For some time, the Forest Service has had a priority of better 

management of commercial uses in wilderness, but research 

topics have been difficult to define and resources hard to assemble. Recent interactions with wilderness-oriented membership associations have suggested that our managers must 

come up with better ways to evaluate “extent necessary” and 

consciously weigh benefits of wilderness special provision 

management alternatives for decision making.

Very closely related, recent research at Denali National 

Park and Preserve on commercial use has investigated the 

experiences of two kinds of primarily commercial users. Both 

have complex relationships with access provisions. At Denali, 

Hallo and Manning (2010) have described the near-wilderness 

experience of visitors who pay to ride a Park bus, a commercial bus, or drive their own recreation motorhomes along the 

90 mile stretch of Denali Park Road (Figure 3). While nearly 

2 million acres of Denali National Park are designated as 

wilderness, this 300-foot-wide corridor is excluded from this 

designation. The vast majority of visitors who venture beyond 

Figure 3—The vast majority of visitors to Denali National Park and Preserve who see the 

wilderness see it from the park road, most on a commercial bus. US Forest Service photo.

Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness Watson
144 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Table 7—Terminology used to describe wilderness-dependent experiences for 

access/commercial special provision users in Denali National Park 

& Preserve.

Qualitative research interpretation Source

On the outside looking in Watson and others (2008)

Wilderness at arm’s length Watson and others (2008)

Near-wilderness Hallo and Manning (2010)

On the edge peering in Hallo and Manning (2010)

Wilderness dependent Watson and others (2008)

Unconventional type of wilderness experience Hallo and Manning (2010)

the visitor center to actually see the wilderness of the park, 

see it from this road. Even most visitors who backpack, first 

travel to their trailhead via the park bus system. Well over half 

of the road users affirmed a feeling of being in the wilderness 

while traveling or stopping along this road. They described 

the road as surrounded by a vast, natural landscape. There was 

not much traffic or use along the road, few buildings and lots 

of wildlife while on the road. The wilderness dependency of 

experiences here are obvious, even though Hallo and Manning 

(2010) differentiated it from a normal wilderness recreation 

visitor experience as “on the edge, peering in.” 

Similarly, Watson and others (2008) studied commercial 

customers of air taxi operators at Denali. These flights were 

over very remote parts of the park, including wilderness, and 

landed at backcountry locations, managed under ANILCA for 

their wilderness recreation values. They found that gaining 

perspective of one’s size and scale relative to their environment, 

seeing climbers, and landing on a glacier were among some 

of the potential factors important to flightseers’ experiences. 

Again, while these experiences were not the typical, selfsufficient, self-reliant visits of many wilderness visitors, they 

were very dependent upon the wilderness resource. In this case, 

Watson and others (2008) described this wilderness dependent 

experience as “on the outside looking in” or “wilderness at 

arm’s length,” to differentiate it from other types of wilderness 

experiences, but emphasizing the wilderness dependency of 

the experience (Table 7). Fortunately, both of these studies 

were able to discover many of the things that influence these 

experiences, besides wilderness dependency. Hallo and Manning (2010) advocate for more research and better knowledge 

about the perceived but authentic wilderness experiences that 

many visitors receive in these near-wilderness provisions. 

Conclusions______________________

Special provisions sometimes facilitate wilderness-dependent, wilderness recreation, or near-wilderness experiences, 

though not exactly the wilderness experiences most specifically 

prescribed in the Wilderness Act. However, many activities 

allowed through special provision terminology in legislation 

are in contrast to the activities described in the Wilderness Act 

and do not conform to the purposes of this Act. Some nonconforming wilderness dependent activities and experiences 

are occurring outside the boundaries of officially protected 

wilderness. Most wilderness special provisions have negative 

impact on conforming wilderness recreation visitor experiences, sometimes the largest impact of things they encounter 

on wilderness trips. Recent research illustrates that the cumulative number of wilderness laws with special provisions 

or management directions is relatively high and management 

direction and special provisions tend to repeat themselves in 

subsequent legislation. It is unlikely that radically different 

exceptions, or special provisions, are going to be supported 

for legislative approval, however. 

There was some increase in interest in exploring special provisions and conflict implications for wilderness experiences in 

the 1990s, but that has come to fruition in only isolated studies 

without a clear strategy or support for coordinated addressing of 

major questions identified. Probably the most visible application 

has been to initiate new research as part of a large initiative in 

Alaska. Coordinated international projects were also initiated 

to try to understand experience dimensions and influences on 

experiences on lands that were created to protect wilderness 

experiences or provide opportunities for wilderness recreation 

activities. In both Alaska and in other countries, either special 

provisions allow non-conforming uses, or commercial services 

somehow mediate the wilderness experience to such an extent 

that it does not meet the true purpose of wilderness visitation 

as “enjoyment of wilderness as wilderness” as described in 

the U.S. Wilderness Act.

There are a high number of experiences, however, that have 

been defined as wilderness dependent, or near wilderness, 

or wilderness recreation experiences that warrant protection 

and could even be among the most unique aspects of visits 

to some places. The impacts of these wilderness dependent 

experiences that are mediated by commercial services, or 

other special provisions, on other users, however, continue to 

challenge managers. A vocal wilderness constituency often 

expresses concern that management of these special provisions, particularly commercial outfitting and guiding, is not 

evaluated on the basis of their impact to the resource or other 

visitor experiences and these voices from the wilderness are 

being heard in louder calls for action.

Watson Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 145

There is need for advanced research to determine in great 

detail how guided services are influencing the experiences 

of customers who choose to visit wilderness on these trips. 

By further contrasting the experiences of commercial and 

non-commercial visitors we can better understand the extent 

these services are necessary. This decision could focus on the 

instrumental purposes of commercial activity (how many people 

could not get to their destinations or could not get there safely, 

without guided assistance). It could focus on the extent the social 

component of commercial activities is necessary (determine the 

role of guides in creating more enjoyable or satisfactory trips). 

It could focus on the extent commercial services create more 

close relationships between the visitors and the environment, 

or it could evaluate all aspects of communication including the 

values of developing an itinerary, giving out correct information, and helping the visitor understand what they have seen. 

In addition, we must have a better understanding of the relative 

influence commercial use has on the experiences of conforming users. Just because special provisions in legislation may 

prescribe continued use of a certain nonconforming type, as a 

negotiated exception to achieve wilderness designation, it does 

not mean that these uses cannot be managed in ways to reduce 

their negative impact on other users or even increase wilderness benefits of their own visits. The overall public purpose 

of these places is still related to those benefits associated with 

wilderness and focus must stay on achieving these purposes.

At the 9th World Wilderness Congress in Mexico (Martin 

2010), there was a continued, growing trend towards discussion and support for extending wilderness protection to marine 

ecosystems. While some limited marine areas are protected in 

combination with adjacent terrestrial zones, true wilderness 

protection is only now coming to the top of the discussion 

list. A concept paper has been developed cooperatively between the U.S., Canada and Mexico that offers justification 

for such designation and protection, defines the benefits and 

threats to be addressed, and begins to address specific aspects 

of uses, attributes, restoration and complimentary issues of 

high importance for decisions. While past analysis of special 

provisions suggest that extension of special provisions beyond 

their current types is likely limited, this example of protection 

of wilderness in this very fluid environment may challenge 

that expectation. Whether some uses on the surface might be 

excepted from exclusion through special provisions, whether 

some uses in the water column or the undersea surface might 

be allowed due to limitations on access, past use or commercial 

influences remains to be seen. But a coherent science approach 

to contribute to the discussion of what is to be protected, from 

what and why is absolutely essential at the earliest possible 

stage of designation discussions and policy formation.

References _______________________

Adelman. B. J.; Heberlein. T. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M. 1982. Social psychological 

explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists 

and motorcraft users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences. 5: 45-61. 

Armstrong, E. Kate; Weiler, Betty. 2010. Getting the message across: An 

analysis of messages delivered by tour operators in protected areas. Journal 

of Ecotourism. 1:2-3, 104-121.

Boren, Laura J.; Gemmell, Neil; Barton, Kerry. 2009. The role and presence of 

a guide: Preliminary findings from swim with seal programs and land-based 

seal viewing in New Zealand. Tourism in Marine Environments. 5:187-199.

Browning, J. A.; Hendee, J. C.; Roggenbuck, J. W. 1988. 103 wilderness laws: 

milestones and management direction in wilderness legislation, 1964-1987. 

Bulletin 51. Moscow: University of Idaho, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and 

Range Experiment Station.

Brunson, M. W.; Steel, B. S. 1994. National public attitudes toward federal 

rangeland management. Rangelands. 16(2):77-81.

Cable, Suzanne; Watson, Alan E. 1998. Recreation use allocation: Alternative 

approaches for the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. Research Note 

RMRS-RN-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Christensen, N.; Watson, A.; Burchfield, J. 2007. Relationships to place in 

wildland resources management: Developing an effective research approach. 

In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet; Dean, Liese, comps. 2007. Science and 

stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium. September 30–October 6, 2005; Anchorage, 

AK. Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 470-478.

Cole, David N. 1994. The wilderness threats matrix: a framework for assessing impacts. Research Paper INT475. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

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, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 

Cole, David N.; Williams, Daniel R. In press. This proceedings. Wilderness 

visitor experiences: A review of 50 years of research. In: Cole, David N., 

comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, 

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

Research Station.

Collins, M.; Collins, J. 2005. Customary and traditional: A continuing way of 

life at Denali. International Journal of Wilderness. 11(2):15-18.

Craig, David R.; Landres, Peter; Yung, Laurie. 2010. Improving wilderness 

stewardship through searchable databases of U.S. legislative history and legislated special provisions. International Journal of Wilderness. 16(2):27-31. 

Dawson, C. P.; Propst, B.; Hendee, J. C. 2010. Special provisions of Wilderness legislation in the United States, 1964 to 2009. International Journal 

of Wilderness. 16(2):32-34.

Dawson, C. P.; Hendee, J. C. 2009. Wilderness management: Stewardship and 

protection of resources and values, 4th ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Dvorak, R. G.; Watson, A. E.; Christensen, N.; Borrie, W. T.; Schwaller, A. 

In press. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness: Changes in use, 

users and management challenges. Research Paper RMRP-RP-in press. 

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

Mountain Research Station.

Fidell, S.; Silvati, L.; Howe, R.; Persons, K.S.; Tabachnick, B.; Knopf, R. C.; 

Gramann, J.; Buchanan, T. 1996. Effects of aircraft overflights on wilderness 

recreationists. Journal of Acoustic Society of America. 100: 2909-2918.

Glaspell, Brian S. 2002. Minding the meaning of wilderness: Investigating 

the tensions and complexities inherent in wilderness visitors’ experience 

narratives. Dissertation. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, Department of Forestry.

Glaspell, Brian; Watson, Alan; Kneeshaw, Katie; Pendergrast, Don. 2003. 

Selecting indicators and understanding their role in wilderness experience 

stewardship at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. George 

Wright Forum. 20(3): 59-71.

Haig, Ian; McIntyre, Norman. 2002. Viewing nature: The role of the guide 

and the advantages of participating in commercial ecotourism. The Journal 

of Tourism Studies. 13: 39-48.

Hallo, J. C.; Manning, R. E. 2010. On the edge, peering in: Defining and 

managing the near-wilderness experience on the Denali Park Road. The 

International Journal of Wilderness 16(3): 28-34.

Hendee, J. C.; Stankey, G. H.; Lucas, R. C. 1978. Wilderness management. 

Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness Watson
146 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Hunger, Donald H.; Christensen, Neal A.; Becker, Kurt G. 1999. Commercial 

and private boat use on the Salmon River in the Frank Church-River of 

No Return Wilderness, United States. International Journal of Wilderness. 

5(2): 31-36.

Ivy. M. I.; Stewart. W. P.; Lue, C. 1992. Exploring the role of tolerance in 

recreational conflict. Journal of Leisure Research. 24: 348-360.

Johnson, Laura C.; Wallace, George N.; Mitchell, John E. 1997. Visitor perceptions of livestock grazing in five U.S. wilderness areas--a preliminary 

assessment. International Journal of Wilderness. 3(2): 14-20.

Knotek, K.; Watson, A.; Christensen, N. 2007. Diverse recreation experiences 

at Denali National Park and Preserve. Alaska Park Science: Crossing 

Boundaries in a Changing Environment. 6(2): 93-95.

Landres, Peter; Cole, David; Watson, Alan. 1994. A monitoring strategy for 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. In: Hendee, John C.; Martin, Vance G., eds. International wilderness allocation, management, and 

research. Fort Collins, CO: International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) 

Foundation: 192-197.

Lucas. R. C. (1964). The recreation capacity of the Quetico-Superior area. 

Research Paper LS-l5. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Lake States Experiment Station. 

Lucas, R. C. 1967. The changing recreational use of the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area. Research Note NC-42. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 

Magro, T.C.; Watson, A.; Bernasconi, P. 2007. Identifying threats, values, 

and attributes in Brazilian wilderness areas. In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, 

Janet; Dean, Liese, comps. 2007. Science and stewardship to protect and 

sustain wilderness values: eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium. 

September 30–October 6, 2005; Anchorage, AK. Proceedings RMRS-P-49. 

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

Mountain Research Station: 319-322.

Martin, V. G. 2010. The 9th World Wilderness Congress, Mexico, 2009. 

International Journal of Wilderness. 16(1): 37-42.

Meyer, Shannon S. 1999. The role of legislative history in agency decision 

making: A case study of wilderness airstrip management in the United 

States. International Journal of Wilderness. 5(2): 9-12. 

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

Joseph R. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 30: 423-452. 

Reed, P. C.; Haas, G.; Sherrick, L. 1988. Nonrecreational uses of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. In: Wilderness benchmark: Proceedings 

of the National Wilderness Colloquium. General Technical Report SE-51:

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern 

Forest Experiment Station 220-228.

Reisinger, Yvette; Steiner, Carol. 2008. Reconceptualising interpretation: The 

role of tour guides in authentic tourism. Current Issues in Tourism. 9: 481-498.

Sanderson, R. H.; Megank, R. A.; Gibbs. K. C. 1986. Range management and 

scenic beauty as perceived by dispersed recreationist. Journal of Range 

Management. 39:100-103.

Shafer, C. S.; Hammitt, W. E. 1995. Congruency among experience dimensions, condition indicators, and coping behaviors in wilderness. Leisure 

Sciences. 17: 263–79. 

Shroyer, Maretha; Watson, Alan; Muir, Andrew. 2003. Wilderness research 

in South Africa: Defining priorities at the intersection of qualities, threats, 

values and stakeholders. International Journal of Wilderness. 9(1): 41-45. 

Tarrant, M. A.; Haas, G. E.; Manfredo, M. J. 1995. Factors affecting visitor evaluations of aircraft overflights of wilderness. Society and Natural 

Resources. 8:351-360.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness 

programmatic and operational management plans, Vol. I and II, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Bitterroot, Boise, Nez Perce, Payette, 

and Salmon-Challis National Forests. Intermountain and Northern Regions.

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

Canoe Area Wilderness. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 12: 12-18. 

Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J.; Williams, Daniel R. 1993. Hikers and 

recreational stock users: predicting and managing recreation conflicts in 

three wildernesses. Research Paper INT-468. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Watson, Alan E.; Williams, Daniel R. 1995. Priorities for human experience 

research in wilderness. TREND/Wilderness Research. 32(1): 14-18. 

Watson, Alan E.; Patterson, Michael; Christensen, Neal; Puttkammer, Annette; 

Meyer, Shannon. 2004a. Legislative intent, science, and special provisions 

in wilderness: A process for navigating statutory compromises. International 

Journal of Wilderness. 10(1): 22-26. 

Watson, Alan E.; Kneeshaw, Katie; Glaspell, Brian. 2004b. A taste of the 

north: voices from the wilderness about the wilderness character of Alaska. 

International Journal of Wilderness. 10(2): 4-7. 

Watson, A.; Glaspell, B.; Christensen, N.; Lachapelle, P.; Sahanatien, V.; 

Gertsch, F. 2007. Giving voice to wildlands visitors: Selecting indicators 

to protect and sustain experiences in the eastern Arctic of Nunavut. Environmental Management. 40:880–888. 

Watson, Alan; Knotek, Katie; Christensen, Neal. 2008. On the outside looking 

in: Fly-in recreation day use visitor experiences in the South District of 

Denali National Park and Preserve. International Journal of Wilderness. 

14(2):19-23. 

Whiting, Alex. 2004. The relationship between Qikiktagrugmiut (Kotzebue 

Tribal members) and the Western Arctic Parklands, Alaska, United States. 

International Journal of Wilderness. 10(2): 28-31, 8.

Watson Wilderness at Arm’s Length: On the Outside Looking in at Special Provisions in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 147

II. Management Perspectives and Frameworks
148 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 149

Abstract—Planning is where science, public interests and management of wilderness areas come together. Unfortunately, science and 

information specifically supporting wilderness experiences, if any 

exists, is often perceived by managers as subjective, value laden, 

and hard to defend. This can sometimes lead to the tough decisions 

about providing high quality wilderness experiences being “kicked 

down the road” for another time/manager. This paper outlines the 

challenges and related strategies of planning for wilderness experiences from the perspective of a National Park Service planner. These 

challenges and strategies relate to the need for sufficient investment 

in understanding wilderness experiences, and the thoughtful integration of this knowledge in planning and decision-making processes.

What are the unique and important characteristics of visitor 

experiences in a wilderness area? What are the appropriate activities and how should they be managed? What are the setting 

conditions that will promote these experiences and activities? 

What are the most significant visitor use management concerns 

that need to be addressed to ensure good wilderness stewardship, including providing high quality wilderness experiences? 

These are just a few of the frequently asked questions that may 

need to be resolved during a planning process for a wilderness 

area.

Planning for wilderness stewardship is the time and place 

where science, public interests, and management of wilderness 

areas come together. It is a process of negotiation amongst 

often competing interests and issues. To be most effective, 

planning should be thoughtful, proactive and inclusive. This 

includes gathering and analyzing scientific data, public input, 

and best professional management judgment as the basis for 

good decision-making.

Unfortunately, the issues and needs surrounding wilderness 

experiences are often not well understood or appreciated, so 

they may not be given sufficient standing in this important 

negotiation process. Planning for wilderness experiences is 

value-laden and can be complicated. At times it may even 

seem overwhelming given the subjectivity that surrounds it. 

In addition, planning for wilderness experiences can seem 

mysterious given the frequent situation of having limited information and time to address the topic adequately. However, 

these challenges can be overcome through increased commitment and professionalism around planning and managing for 

wilderness experiences. This paper outlines some of the key 

challenges and associated strategies for planning for wilderness 

experiences.

Overview of Planning Challenges ____

Similar to the importance of gathering information and 

understanding baseline conditions for natural and cultural 

resources as part of planning and decision-making, assessing 

knowledge on wilderness experiences will aid future decisionmaking and day-to-day operations. Unfortunately, there is 

often limited recognition of the utility of this type information 

because few staff are specifically trained in its application. 

In addition, science and information specifically supporting 

decision-making related to wilderness experiences, if it exists, 

is perceived by many managers as subjective, value laden, and 

hard to defend. It is often referred to as “soft,” “fuzzy,” and/or 

“not real science.” There is also confusion over and inconsistent implementation of law and policy requirements related to 

managing wilderness experiences. Recent litigation over law 

and policy requirements, such as addressing user capacity and 

evaluating the “extent necessary” of commercial services in 

wilderness, illustrate this issue.

Finally, there is limited funding and staffing within the 

agencies specifically dedicated to planning, management, and 

monitoring for wilderness experiences. This hinders effective 

integration of science and public input into planning efforts. 

For example, the National Park Service’s social science program consists of less than a half dozen staff and a relatively 

small budget to support social science activities for the entire 

agency, including visitor experiences in wilderness. In addition, 

there is no central, dedicated funding source to support social 

science activities in the agency, so park staff usually must use 

their own park funding to support research and monitoring 

initiatives.

Overview of Planning Strategies _____

These are significant challenges, but with increased awareness and commitment from public land agencies, they can be 

overcome. One of the most important strategies is to develop 

guidance and train staff on better integration of basic data, 

The Challenges and Related Strategies of 

Planning for Wilderness Experiences

Kerri Cahill

Author: Kerri Cahill, Denver Service Center, National Park Service, Lakewood, CO.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.
150 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

science and public input to more effectively define the goals, 

objectives, and desired conditions for wilderness experiences 

in both qualitative and quantitative terms. It is important to 

articulate what experience opportunities will be provided, the 

appropriateness of various recreation activities, and the setting 

conditions needed to maintain those experiences and activities. 

This goes beyond just defining the facilities and services that 

will be provided. Wilderness planning efforts would benefit 

from increased awareness and instruction on the importance of 

these planning elements and the related data and analysis needs. 

Recent efforts to provide guidance on more clearly articulating and monitoring wilderness character as part of wilderness 

planning is a good step forward in addressing this need. These 

initiatives include the development of the interagency Keeping 

It Wild framework (Landres and others 2008) and the NPS’ 

efforts to integrate wilderness character into a new Wilderness 

Stewardship Plan Handbook (Stutzman and others in press).

Another strategy is to focus science on better understanding 

wilderness experiences, particularly for those conditions within 

management control. This includes collecting data and conducting research to directly support the issues and needs (and related 

schedule) being addressed in planning, and helping managers 

prioritize information needs. For example, during the planning 

process for Isle Royale National Park, visitor surveys and a visitor use simulation model were developed in direct consultation 

with park staff and the planning team to help address specific 

visitor experience issues and possible management strategies 

related to backcountry camping (Lawson and Manning 2003a, 

b). Agency staff should also be trained in facilitating research 

related to wilderness experiences to maximize the effectiveness 

of data collection efforts. In addition, agency and university 

scientists should collaboratively identify research priorities and 

participate in on-going assessments of lessons learned from 

those research efforts. With continual attention to emerging 

issues and related information needs, social science will be 

targeted to addressing management questions.

A related strategy is to better integrate scientists as more active 

participants throughout the planning process. One of the most 

helpful elements of this strategy is having scientists at the table 

during key points in the planning process to “be the voice” for 

research findings and help understand related implications to 

decision-making. For example, during the general management 

planning process for Golden Gate National Recreation Area and 

Muir Woods National Monument, scientists that had conducted 

various visitor studies at several areas in the park attended a 

planning meeting to help park staff address user capacity issues. 

In addition to giving presentations of the data, scientists were 

asked to join small group discussions throughout a three day 

workshop to help park staff develop indicators and standards 

that would be used to monitor visitor experiences and resource 

conditions for the next twenty years (National Park Service 

2009). This strategy also includes having scientists and agency 

representatives working together to carefully consider the most 

effective means of conveying information to managers and 

planning teams. Through targeted delivery of information, both 

in terms of techniques and timing, information on wilderness 

experiences will be more effective and well-received.

A final strategy is to increase agency capabilities related to 

the study, planning, management, and monitoring of wilderness 

experiences. Understanding the intricacies and complexities 

of wilderness experiences should be a priority for public land 

managers and it requires the same level of professionalism and 

science as other land management topics. More investment in 

terms of both funding and staffing is needed, including training 

staff in best management practices. In addition, more guidance 

on the interpretation of law and policy requirements is needed 

so managers can consistently implement legally defensible 

methods and tools. The need to more comprehensively address 

these issues was recently acknowledged within several public 

land management agencies by the formation of an Interagency 

Visitor Use Management Council in August, 2011. The council 

will develop guidance, tools and training specific to managing 

visitor use on public lands. Participants in the council include 

the National Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The council will provide a consistent and updated source of 

information on best practices for visitor use management 

being applied across the agencies (Interagency Visitor Use 

Management Council 2011). With more investment in this 

area, planning for wilderness experiences can be demystified 

and more fully integrated into the broader discipline of public 

land management.

Summary ________________________

Planning sets the roadmap for the future. It is the forum 

for negotiating how a place will be managed. Valuing and 

understanding wilderness experiences is a key part of this 

dialogue. Increased appreciation for and commitment to the 

planning, management and monitoring of wilderness experiences is needed. Further, wilderness managers and the academic 

community need a comprehensive and sustained dialogue 

on the challenges and strategies around planning for wilderness experiences. By working together, new information can 

be collected, new insights can be discovered, and new best 

management practices can be formed to ensure high quality 

wilderness experiences now and into the future. 

References _______________________

Interagency Visitor Use Management Council. 2011. Briefing statement: 

Formation of a new Interagency Visitor Use Management Council. Unpublished paper on file at: Department of Interior, National Park Service, 

Denver Service Center, Lakewood, CO. 2 p.

Landres, Peter; Barns, Chris; Dennis, John G.; Devine, Tim; Geissler, Paul; 

McCasland, Curtis S.; Merigliano, Linda; Seastrand, Justin; Swain, Ralph. 

2008. Keeping it wild: an interagency strategy to monitor trends in wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System.General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 77 p.

Lawson, Steven; Manning, Robert. 2003a. Research to inform management of 

wilderness camping at Isle Royale National Park: Part I descriptive research. 

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 21: 22-42. 

Lawson, Steven; Manning, Robert. 2003b. Research to inform management 

of wilderness camping at Isle Royale National Park: Part II prescriptive 

research. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 21: 43-55. 

Cahill The Challenges and Related Strategies of Planning for Wilderness Experiences
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 151

National Park Service. 2009. User capacity workshop for the Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument General 

Management Plan. Workshop materials on file at: Department of Interior, 

National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Lakewood, CO. 

Stutzman, Suzy; Dingman, Sandee; Scott, Ruth. In press. Wilderness stewardship plan handbook. Unpublished paper on file at: Department of Interior, 

National Park Service, Intermountain Region, Lakewood, CO. 56 p.

The Challenges and Related Strategies of Planning for Wilderness Experiences Cahill
152 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Abstract—Wilderness managers are faced with making judgments 

about the appropriateness of different types of recreational activities. 

One of the criteria they use is wilderness dependence-the notion that 

an activity should be allowed, or privileged if rationing is required, if it 

depends on a wilderness setting for much of its value. Inherent in this 

concept is the idea that much of the value of wilderness experience lies 

in an integration of humans and nature. But the very idea of a modern 

integrative wilderness experience has recently been attacked by critics, 

in part based on recent trends in wilderness recreation. Participants in 

both contemplative and interactive recreation report experiences that 

belie this critique, suggesting that opportunities for communion with 

nature are indeed inherent in the wilderness experience. Managing 

for both types of experiences may therefore be appropriate under the 

auspices of the Wilderness Act.

Introduction ______________________

Man is a fugitive from nature. He escaped from it and 

began to make history, which is trying to realize the 

imaginary, the improbable, perhaps the impossible. 

History is always made against the grain of Nature. The 

human being tries to rest from the enormous discomfort 

an all–embracing disquiet of history by “returning” 

transitorily, artificially, to Nature in the sport of hunting. We are such paradoxical creatures that each day 

will require greater artifice to give us the pleasure of 

sometimes being “natural beings.” But no matter how 

great and ingenious the artifice may be, it will be in 

vain if that ferocious instinct, already evanescent, is 

completely erased in our species.

Jose Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting 

(1995)

The nature of the wilderness experience has changed through 

time, yet through the arc of this evolution certain themes have 

remained. The Wilderness Act is considered a distillation of the 

wilderness idea, but it represents only a point on this arc. This 

paper examines a contentious question: Do wilderness experiences reinforce the notion that humans are a part of nature, or 

do they in fact increase our alienation from the natural world? 

Humans Apart From Nature? Wilderness 

Experience and the Wilderness Act

Mark Fincher

Author: Mark Fincher, Wilderness Management Program, National Park Service, Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, CA

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

In particular, how is this question answered for the different 

types of wilderness recreation that have evolved over the last 

one hundred years? What was the intent of the framers of the 

Wilderness Act on this issue and how should that intention be 

reflected in management of wilderness experience?

The Deconstructionist Critique ______

In the last twenty years a great deal of thought has been 

devoted to what has come to be known as the “deconstructionist critique” of the wilderness idea. Without revisiting most of 

that well trodden ground, it is worth considering at least one 

aspect of the critique that touches on wilderness experience. 

The deconstructionists save some of their strongest criticism 

for the phrase of the Wilderness Act which states that wilderness is a place “where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain.” Callicott (1991), for instance, states that “this definition assumes, indeed it enshrines, a bifurcation of man and 

nature,” while Cronon (1995) states that the “central paradox” 

of wilderness is that it “embodies a dualistic vision in which the 

human is entirely outside the natural...by definition wilderness 

leaves no place for human beings, save perhaps as contemplative sojourners enjoying their leisurely reverie...” In short, the 

Wilderness Act definition is seen as divorcing humans from 

nature rather than considering them as a part of nature.

Yet even a cursory look at the intellectual and legislative 

history of the Wilderness Act shows that the intention of the 

Act was the opposite of this assertion. Howard Zahniser, 

who became the primary author of the Wilderness Act, wrote 

that “In brief, one might define wilderness in the qualitative 

sense as an area with a quality of wildness so little modified 

by human action as to impress its visitors with their relationships to other forms of life rather than their human prowess 

resulting from inventions and contrivances” and “We tend in 

our urban mechanized civilization to forget about the places 

of our origin, and the reality of our dependence upon other 

forms of life. In the wilderness we can perceive that” (U.S. 

Congressional Research Service 1949). A 1952 Sierra Club 

Bulletin article noted “Wilderness is not the only device 

to renew the man-earth contact but it is potentially one of 

the best because it allows us to go all the way back to man’s 

beginnings...” (Bradley 1952). Hubert Humphrey, the Senate 

sponsor of the wilderness bill, testified that he introduced the 

bill “so that 100 years from now somebody’s children may be 

able to take a canoe and portage up through these forests and 

commune with nature” (National Wilderness Preservation 

Act Hearings 1957b).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 153

This sentiment is reflected in the first version of the wilderness bill introduced in the Senate, which defined wilderness 

as a place “where man himself is a member of the natural 

community, a wanderer who visits but does not remain and 

whose travels leave only trails” (U.S. Congress 1957). This 

language was simplified twice more, to the final version, fairly 

quickly. It is unlikely, however, that this simplification was a 

philosophical statement about humankind’s place in, or apart 

from, nature. The Wilderness Act is a law, not a comprehensive 

statement of philosophy, subject not only to political compromise but also legislative requirements. Laws must articulate a 

clear legal standard that the agencies can implement, so it is 

not surprising that a mandate that a visitor be “a member of 

the natural community” was excised from the definition.

Nor is it surprising that the “non-residence” clause remained 

in the Act. Sutter (2002) has chronicled how the rising ubiquity 

of the automobile and the attendant road building, settlement, 

and recreational development drove the modern wilderness 

movement. Indeed, one of the first manifestations of the 

movement was Arthur Carhart’s recommendation to the Forest 

Service to refuse a proposal for summer homes at Trapper’s 

Lake, Colorado, in 1919. This was just four years after the 

passage of the Term Occupancy Act, which authorized long 

term permits for summer homes in the National Forests through 

the Recreational Residence Program. This program peaked in 

the 1950s, as the Wilderness Act was starting its legislative 

journey.

The “visitor who does not remain” clause may also reflect 

the post war transition to the more modern form of wilderness 

recreation: the rise of modern backpacking. In the post war years 

there was significant discussion about recreational impacts to 

wilderness. The worst of these impacts were associated with 

long term camps where traditional, more primitive living skills 

were practiced. Backpacking is inherently more transient than 

a traditional camp: one is less likely to move when significant 

effort has been expended building lean-tos, cutting pine bough 

beds, building deadfall traps, and so on. The long term camp 

was seen as an unacceptable impact to wilderness character. 

Zahniser, for instance, wrote that “Campers who establish long 

term camps make an intense use beyond those who daily move 

their camps...” (U.S. Congressional Research Service 1949).

After the language in the definition of wilderness had been 

changed to its final version, the lead house sponsor, John Saylor, 

quoted Zahniser during a hearing on the wilderness bill:

“Deep down at the base of all our needs for wilderness is a profound, a fundamental need...essential 

to a true understanding of ourselves, our culture, our 

own natures, and our place in nature. This need is for 

areas of the earth within which we stand without our 

mechanisms that make us immediate masters over our 

environment—areas of wild nature in which we sense 

ourselves to be, what we are, dependent members of 

an interdependent community of living creatures that 

together derive their existence from the sun.”

In the same speech Saylor quotes Harvey Broome, one of 

the founders of the Wilderness Society in saying that one of 

the benefits of preserving wilderness is that “then, indeed, 

will Thoreau’s Lord of Creation work as a member and not 

as a fumbling outsider—in the community of living things” 

(Wilderness Preservation System Hearings 1962).

The intent of the framers of the Act is clear. Wilderness experience should increase the feeling of unity with nature. Whether 

the legal language of the Act itself reflects that intention can be 

debated, but as Snyder (2007) points out, “We should not let 

the legislative definition (of wilderness) henceforth dominate 

our language.”

Contemplation, Engagement, and 

Wilderness Dependence____________

Part of the perception of wilderness as a divisive force 

between humans and nature may stem from more recent 

trends in wilderness recreation. Turner (2002) has traced how 

wilderness recreation has changed since the early part of the 

twentieth century. Traditional, more interactive forms of recreation, that often caused high impact, changed into the low 

impact, more contemplative ideal epitomized today by the 

Leave No Trace program. There is a tension between these two 

types of wilderness recreation which is beginning to assume 

greater prominence in management decisions. This tension is 

reflected in policy. National Park Service policy, for instance, 

encourages activities that “will promote enjoyment through a 

direct association with, interaction with, or relation to park 

resources” but “can be sustained without causing unacceptable impacts...”(National Park Service 2006, 8.2). As Leave 

No Trace practices have evolved, the range of “unacceptable 

impacts” has expanded, leaving some formerly acceptable 

activities marginalized. Questions about the appropriateness 

of both traditional and emerging recreational activities involve 

this distinction, so it is worth further consideration.

In particular, the question of wilderness dependence is assuming a more prominent role in these discussions. One of the 

basic principles in the standard text for wilderness management 

reads: “Whenever one or more uses conflict, the principle of 

dependency, that calls for favoring activities that depend the 

most on wilderness conditions, is used to resolve use conflicts 

and prevent overuse” (Hendee and others 1978). This principle 

is incorporated into policy, and has even been prominent in 

recent lawsuits over wilderness management (High Sierra Hikers v. Blackwell 2004; High Sierra Hikers v. Weingardt 2007). 

It is worth considering, then, how these two distinct types of 

wilderness recreation--activities that involve a material engagement with the landscape on the one hand, and activities that 

are primarily focused on a scenic, aesthetic, or contemplative 

appreciation of wilderness on the other—provide opportunities for a mental or spiritual integration with the wilderness 

landscape, thereby realizing the intention of the framers of the 

Act.

The Economic Experience

Turner (2002) describes the woodcraft movement at the 

turn of the century, epitomized by the Boy Scout Handbook 

Humans Apart From Nature? Wilderness Experience and the Wilderness Act Fincher
154 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

and Joe Knowle’s return to the Maine woods. Woodcrafters 

lived off the land and a successful vacation required substantial 

knowledge of the natural world as well as skills and experience to comfortably live within it. It is essentially an economic 

relationship with the land, one that mimics the lives of those 

who lived in an earlier time. As Turner notes, the philosophy of this type of recreation flows from Frederick Jackson 

Turner’s frontier hypothesis through Aldo Leopold and into 

the Wilderness Act, and is embodied in the Act as “primitive 

and unconfined.”

The Wilderness Act generally prohibits commercial enterprise but does not prohibit personal economic activity. Indeed, 

maintaining opportunities for hunting and fishing is repeatedly 

mentioned in the legislative history of the Act. Roggenbuck 

(2004) has examined the values of the primitive experience, 

noting that some of the benefits include “becoming a creature 

of the wild, or an ecological citizen.” Turner describes how 

concerns about the impacts of overuse gradually transformed 

the typical wilderness experience from an economic relationship to a contemplative one. While hunting and fishing are still 

sanctioned in most areas, pine bough beds and lean-tos are 

illegal in most areas; and campfires, while still legal in many 

areas, are officially discouraged.

The deep, local, complex knowledge and skill inherent in 

native cultures is the paradigm for the concept of humans as 

part of nature. It is the ideal held by the deconstructionists when 

they dismiss modern, interactive economic wilderness visitors 

as “elite urban tourists and wealthy sportsmen” who “project 

their leisure-time frontier fantasies onto the American landscape” (Cronon 1995). The economic wilderness experience 

more closely mimics this paradigm than other types of recreation. The literature of hunting and fishing certainly suggests 

an integration of humans and nature. Ortega y Gasset (1995), 

for instance, says that “by hunting man succeeds, in effect, in 

annihilating all historical evolution, in separating himself from 

the present, and in renewing the primitive situation. “ Leopold 

(1966) states that hunting “reminds us of our dependency on 

the soil-plant-animal-man food chain, and of the fundamental 

organization of the biota.” A more recent example comes from 

Nelson (1989):

“Living from wild nature joins me with the island as no 

disconnected love ever could. The earth and sea flow in 

my blood; the free wind breathes through me; the clear 

sky gazes out from within my eyes. These eyes that see 

the island are also made from it; and the heart that loves 

the island has something of the island’s heart inside.”

It is unfortunate that the demands of an increasing population 

mean that some higher impact economic wilderness experiences 

are now prohibited or discouraged in order to protect biological 

values. The adoption of Leave No Trace principles is entirely 

appropriate given the recreational demand in many wilderness 

areas. But managers should not disregard the Act’s mandate 

for primitive recreation. Rather, they should allow such uses 

in areas where low visitation and a resilient ecosystem may 

allow them without unacceptable levels of impact.

Risk and Adventure

There is another category of interactive experience which 

James Morton Turner does not mention. As the woodcraft 

movement was starting to fade, in the 1930s, specialized forms 

of wilderness adventure, such as rock climbing, river running, 

and Nordic skiing became more popular. After World War II, 

the widespread availability of more sophisticated equipment, 

such as surplus rubber rafts and nylon ropes, and easy access 

to distant wilderness via the modern highway system, led to 

both greater popularity of these sports and to more challenging adventures. These trends have continued as these sports 

evolved. More sophisticated equipment and easy access have 

led to increasing numbers of participants and higher technical 

levels of achievement.

These activities have a number of qualities in common. 

Most involve substantial risk. While they are not an economic 

activity, the consequences of failure are severe, which produces 

intense mental and emotional engagement with the landscape. 

They require an intimate knowledge of at least a portion of 

the environment—the ability to read a section of whitewater, estimate the difficulty and hazards of different climbing 

routes, or understand likely avalanche hazards and crevasse 

patterns on a high mountain ski traverse. To participate with 

a reasonable degree of safety at a high level, they demand a 

long apprenticeship involving increasing levels of difficulty.

These types of recreation are sometimes criticized as being 

mere thrill seeking, more appropriate to a playground than to 

wilderness. Because of the level of risk taking and athleticism 

required at the higher levels of these sports, some assume that 

they are not wilderness dependent—that there can be little connection to nature because the focus on the physical achievement 

is so involving. But the participants in these activities often 

make the opposite assertion, that it is the very level of risk and 

commitment that produces an intimate connection with the 

natural world. Consider this passage about the seventh day of 

a demanding rock climb:

“We now felt at home. Bivouacking in hammocks was 

completely natural. Nothing felt strange about our 

vertical world. With more receptive senses we now appreciated everything around us. Each individual crystal 

in the granite stood out in bold relief. The varied shapes 

of the clouds never ceased to attract our attention. For 

the first time we noticed tiny bugs that were all over 

the walls, so tiny they were barely noticeable. While 

belaying, I stared at one for 15 minutes, watching him 

move and admiring his brilliant red color. How could 

one ever be bored with so many good things to see and 

feel! This unity with our joyous surroundings, this ultrapenetrating perception gave us a feeling of contentment 

that we had not had for years” (Chouinard 1966).

Robinson (1996) reflects on this passage in his essay The 

Climber as Visionary, where he notes:

“Chouinard’s vision was no accident. It was the result 

of days of climbing. He was tempered by technical 

difficulties, pain, apprehension, dehydration, striving, 

the sensory desert, weariness, the gradual loss of self. 

It is a system. You need only copy the ingredients and 

commit yourself to them. They lead to the door. It is not 

Fincher Humans Apart From Nature? Wilderness Experience and the Wilderness Act
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 155

necessary to attain to Chouinard’s technical level—few 

can or do—only his degree of commitment.”

Presumably, “unity with our joyous surroundings” is possible 

whether the commitment is launching a kayak into a tricky 

rapid, turning a pair of skis down a steep gully, or persevering 

on a difficult climb.

Athleticism

Wilderness activities that involve a high degree of athleticism 

are often singled out as either inappropriate or not wilderness 

dependent. Almost every traditional wilderness form of recreation has a small minority of participants who are interested in 

speed or extreme difficulty. Trail running, speed ascents, and 

speed hiking are all variations on this theme. The quest for 

ultimate difficulty, often but not always including significant 

risk, is another variation.

These athletic activities share many of the elements noted 

by Robinson (1996), as well as a Zen-like element that can 

produce a transcendent experience. Again, some who participate in these forms of wilderness recreation claim that the 

very athleticism of the activity fosters a connection to nature. 

Consider this blogger: “Running like a wild man or woman 

through the woods nurtures the soul. Trail running satisfies a 

primal need for movement through nature” (Frazier n.d.). Or 

consider this writer, describing adventure running:

“...you find personal challenge where self-reliance is 

essential and the participant becomes intimate with 

nature...I used to think rushing through climbs precluded 

experiencing such things as the sunrise and sunset, sleeping under the stars, and fully appreciating the scenery...

The rush I get from adventure running is similar to a 

“runner’s high” generated after a good race or training 

session, but it is also much more. The sentiment is tough 

to precisely describe, but it is a feeling of freedom and 

inner contentment, a refuge from the complexities and 

worries of society, and an experience of the beauty of 

nature in its purest form” (Pantilat 2008).

Another trail runner writes that:

“Trail running makes me think that the same might be 

true of our minds embrace of this earth: lungs alive, 

billowing in and out with the very substance of the sky, 

trading atmospheric gases with every tree and all the 

green grasses, our arms and legs alive in a million-yearold motion coded to make us feel fleet, and also make us 

feel happy and right when we fly along” (Duane 2011).

Formal competitions in wilderness are prohibited by policy 

(National Park Service 2006 6.4.5; U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

2007, 2323.13h). Yet informal competitions or breaking speed 

records have the same emphasis on athletic achievement. Of 

course, an individual competing against themselves or others 

looks the same as a person going fast or hard for the joy of it. 

And appearances are key to many of the objections to such 

activities. National Park Service policy states that “unacceptable impacts are impacts that, individually or cumulatively, 

would...unreasonably interfere with the atmosphere of peace 

and tranquility ...in wilderness...” (National Park Service 

2006, 8.2) Does that include the whoops and hollers of rafters 

going through big waves or a pair of rock climbers yelling belay 

signals? What if the yells come from thirty pairs of climbers 

and what about visual “interference”?

Part of the complaint about interactive wilderness recreation 

is that the participants are a distraction; they interfere with 

the contemplative experience. Both traditional and emerging 

interactive wilderness activities are often very visible. Upper 

Yosemite Falls is in designated wilderness and is a popular 

destination for both day hikers and backpackers. Rock climbers can frequently be seen performing a spectacular Tyrolean 

traverse from the summit of Lost Arrow Spire back to the 

rim of Yosemite Valley. Other non-traditional activities have 

been practiced here in recent years, including tightrope walking from the spire to the rim and across the front of the falls 

(Jenkins 2011). A vertical dance troupe has performed on the 

wall to the side of the falls (Rudolph 2000). In other parts of 

the valley, climbers have purposely taken enormous falls onto 

climbing ropes. Hang gliders soar over the walls (taking off 

and landing in non-wilderness) on weekends. At what point 

does this become a circus-like atmosphere? How many people 

need to be engaged in these sports before they “unreasonably 

interfere with the atmosphere of peace and tranquility?”

A number of societal trends have increased the perception 

that such sports are focused more on achievement than any 

kind of communion with nature. These include the media 

fascination with highly contrived “extreme” sports, the ease 

of publicizing one’s exploits in the digital age, the growing 

popularity of “collecting” summits or whitewater descents or 

hikes of iconic trails (the “bucket list” phenomenon), and the 

sponsorship of leading outdoor athletes by gear companies, 

which motivates the athletes to stay in the public’s eye by 

performing ever more “extreme” feats. These factors can lead 

to a perception of superficiality, egoism, and commercialism.

Sax (1980) notes that both Frederick Law Olmsted and 

Aldo Leopold discussed the distinction between recreation 

and achievement—a distinction between activities performed 

for one’s own satisfaction in a natural setting versus those 

performed for others. Sax goes on to say, in the context of 

National Parks, that:

“The attitudes associated with an activity may be more 

important than either the activity itself or its setting. To 

the extent that we infuse the parks with symbolic meaning by the way in which we use them, the symbolism 

attached to particular uses itself becomes the critical 

factor in the meaning that parks have for us.”

Most of these types of recreation may be technically legal 

under the Wilderness Act (although there is certainly room for 

argument) and the participants are likely to claim that it makes 

them feel like a part of nature—that the wilderness setting is 

integral to the experience. The anecdotes noted above make 

it clear that the opportunity for such integration is inherent in 

these activities. Wilderness dependence, in these cases, is in 

the head of the participant, which is a place where wilderness 

managers in most cases cannot and should not go. The attitudes, 

perceived or real, of the minority operating at the extremes of 

risk, athleticism, or publicity for a given wilderness activity 

Humans Apart From Nature? Wilderness Experience and the Wilderness Act Fincher
156 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

should not taint the manager’s perception of the appropriateness of that activity as a whole.

Managers should be careful about jumping to conclusions 

about the wilderness dependence of a new activity. The primary 

factors for assessing a new activity should include not only 

the amount of physical impact, but also a careful analysis of 

legality under the section 4 (c) prohibitions of the Wilderness 

Act and the potential for conflict with other wilderness visitors. The determination of section 4 (c) legality is not always 

easy, as the lengthy debates over structure, installation, and 

mechanized have demonstrated. In many cases conflict between 

activity types can be minimized because the more athletic or 

adventurous activities are temporally or spatially separate from 

contemplative activities. When such activities do overlap, 

social science may help understand the degree of conflict or 

disruption that is likely.

The Contemplative Experience

The roots of the aesthetic, contemplative experience of 

wilderness go back to Muir, Emerson, and beyond. While 

all wilderness travel, being non-mechanized, is in some way 

physically demanding, the emphasis in this type of experience is on appreciation of scenery and immersion in a natural 

environment. The rise of the minimum impact ethic has led to 

the majority of wilderness visitors having little economic or 

material engagement with the landscape. This has led critics 

to charge that these experiences are inherently superficial and 

that wilderness divorces humans from nature.

Vale (1999), in The Myth of the Humanized Landscape, 

persuasively refutes these charges, giving a dozen examples, 

from historic to modern, of wilderness visitors “for whom the 

wild landscape, through all the senses, is intimately known and 

emotively valued.” Vale concludes with the observation that:

“The failure to recognize such reactions stigmatizes 

unfairly contemporary people, leaving the wilderness 

landscape forever removed from intimate human 

knowledge and warmth, leaving the wilderness visitor 

“a person who does not belong, a stranger in Paradise.” 

(Solnit 1992) Such omission creates a stereotype no 

more valid than that of the uncaring savage: For at least 

some, perhaps many, Americans, even those lacking an 

Indian heritage, wilderness is a part of home.”

The Modern Context _______________

Howard Zahniser, primary author of the Wilderness Act, said 

that “‘Wilderness’ is a term that has significance because of 

the things that it negates” (National Wilderness Preservation 

Act Hearings 1957a). This is key to understanding the intent 

of the Act. Wilderness does not negate human presence or 

economic activities like hunting, fishing, or gathering, or the 

history or economic uses of previous residents of the land: 

According to Zahniser, wilderness areas “are samples of the 

natural world without the influence of modern man” (U.S. 

Congressional Research Service 1949, emphasis added). It does

negate modernity—specifically, it negates “mechanized and 

related aspects of the urban, industrial life to which modern 

man is increasingly confined” (U.S. Congressional Research 

Service 1949) and “the inventions, the contrivances whereby 

men have seemed to establish among themselves an independence of nature” (Zahniser 1957). In the Act itself, wilderness 

is defined as a place “in contrast with those areas where man 

and his works dominate the landscape...” (emphasis added). 

The goal of the Act was to stop that domination on the few 

tiny remnants of the American landscape that were still largely 

unmodified by such tools—in short, to stop the bulldozers.

This context seems to be missing from the deconstructionist 

critique. When asking the question of whether a wilderness 

experience causes visitors to perceive themselves as a part of 

nature or separate from nature, the relevant point of comparison 

is not the physical, mental, and spiritual integration of Native 

Americans living in their home landscape. Rather it is the 

modern American, whose alienation from nature continues 

to increase. The relevant question is not whether today’s wilderness experiences can match the authentic integration with 

nature embodied by native cultures, but rather whether modern 

experiences, however “transitory” and “artificial”, can reduce 

our alienation from nature by providing a meaningful, innate 

sense of our true place within nature. The wilderness experience, both interactive and contemplative, can decrease such 

alienation by providing an environment without “inventions 

and contrivances,” and therefore enable visitors to feel more 

a part of nature than they would without such experiences.

Every component of modernity that the Wilderness Act was 

intended to “negate” has increased in scope and intensity in 

the years since the Act was passed. Population has exploded; 

the destruction of natural systems has accelerated; commercialism is all pervasive; self-reliance has been reduced by a 

hyper-connected and specialized society; and our lives are 

more urbanized, frenetic, and insulated from nature than ever 

before. In short, the need for wilderness experiences is greater 

than ever.

Restraint_________________________

There is another benefit to the wilderness experience that 

is sometimes overlooked in the debate over integration and 

dependence. All wilderness recreation involves ethical restraint. 

Such restraint not only preserves the wilderness for the future, 

it also provides a higher level of satisfaction to the visitor. As 

Sax (1980) writes:

“Such recreation tests the will to dominate and the inclination to submissiveness, and repays their transcendence 

with profound gratification. Plainly such activities are 

not limited by any specific forms. They range from 

the purely contemplative wanderer in the woods who, 

like Thoreau or John Muir, has the capacity to detach 

himself from social convention and structured activity, 

to the agile climber arduously working his way to the 

meaning of the summit.”

The Leave No Trace, minimum impact approach thus 

reinforces the humility and restraint that Leopold, Zahniser, 

and others identified as central to the concept of wilderness. 

Fincher Humans Apart From Nature? Wilderness Experience and the Wilderness Act
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 157

More importantly, it provides an opportunity for the visitor to 

understand the values of ethical behavior, both to the natural 

world and to his or her own gratification. These lessons can 

then be carried over to everyday life. This is what Zahniser 

(1957) called “the distinctive ministration of wilderness to 

modern man.”

References _______________________

Bradley, C. 1952. Wilderness and man. Sierra Club Bulletin. 37(10): 59-67.

Callicott, J. 1991. The wilderness idea revisited: The sustainable development 

alternative. The Environmental Professional. 13: 235-247. 

Chouinard, Y. 1966. Muir Wall, El Capitan. The American Alpine Journal. 

15(40): 46-51. 

Cronon, W. 1995. The trouble with wilderness, or getting back to the wrong 

nature. In: Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. Athens, GA: 

University of Georgia Press: 471-499

Duane, D. 2011. Silent running. Sierra. 96(4): 34-37.

Frazier, M. n.d. A beginners guide to trailrunning. Zenhabits. (Online) http://

Zenhabits.net/trail-running (6/28/2011).

Hendee, J; Stankey, G.; Lucas, Robert. 1978. Wilderness management. United 

States Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365. 381 p.

High Sierra Hikers Association v. Blackwell. 2004. 390 F.3d 630, 638 (9th 

Cir. 2004).

High Sierra Hikers Association. v. Weingardt. 2007. 521 F. Supp. 2d 1065 

(N.D. Cal. 2007).

Jenkins, M. 2011. Yosemite, daring, defiant, free. National Geographic 

Magazine. 219(5): 98-117.

Leopold, A. 1966. A sand county almanac with other essays on conservation 

from Round River. New York: Oxford University Press. 269 p.

National Park Service. 2006. Management policies 2006. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service. 168 p.

National Wilderness Preservation Act Hearings. 1957a. Hearings before the 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, 85th 

Congress, first session, on S 1176, (158) June 19 and 20, 1957 (Testimony 

of Howard Zahniser).

National Wilderness Preservation Act Hearings. 1957b. Hearings before the 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, 85th 

Congress, first session, on S 1176, (23) June 19 and 20, 1957 (Testimony 

of Hubert Humphrey).

Nelson, Richard, 1989. The island within. San Francisco: North Point Press. 

284 p.

Pantilat, Leor. 2008. Adventure running. Northwest Mountaineering Journal. 

[Online]. http://www.mountaineers.org/nwj/08/081_Pantilat.html.

Ortega y Gasset, Jose, 1995. Meditations on hunting. Belgrade, MT: Wilderness Adventures Press. 140 p.

Rudolph, A. 2000. Repertoire: Project Bandaloop. [Online] http://ProjectBandaloop.org/repertoire.html.

Robinson, Doug, 1996. The climber as visionary. In: A night on the ground, a 

day in the open. La Crescenta, CA: Mountain N’ Air Books: 40-50.

Roggenbuck, J. 2004. Managing for primitive recreation in wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 21-24.

Sax, Joseph, 1980. Mountains without handrails. Ann Arbor: University of 

Michigan Press. 152p.

Snyder, Gary, 2007. On the problems lurking in the phrase “before the wilderness.” In: Back on the fire. Emeryville, CA: Shoemaker and Hoard: 129-132.

Solnit, Rebecca. 1992. Up the river of mercy. Sierra. 77(6): 50-57; 78-84. 

Sutter, Paul, 2002. Driven wild: How the fight against automobiles launched 

the modern wilderness movement. Seattle: University of Washington 

Press. 343p.

Turner, J. 2002. From woodcraft to ‘Leave No Trace’. Environmental History 7(3): 462-484.

U.S. Congress. 1957. A bill to establish on public lands of the United States 

a wilderness preservation system for the permanent good of the whole 

people. S. 1176, 85th Congress.

U.S. Congressional Research Service. 1949. A statement on wilderness 

preservation. Library of Congress. Reply from Howard Zahniser, The 

Wilderness Society.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 2007. Forest Service Manual. 

Vale, Thomas. 1999. The myth of the humanized landscape. Wild Earth. 

9(3): 34-40.

Wilderness Preservation System Hearings. 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 87th 

Congress, second session, on S 174, H.R. 293, H.R. 299, H.R. 496, H.R. 

776, H.R.1762, H.R. 1925, H.R. 2008, and H.R. 8237, (1084-1095) May 

7,8,9,10, and 11,1962 (Testimony of John Saylor, Rep. PA)

Zahniser, Howard, 1957. The need for wilderness areas. The Living Wilderness. 21(59): 37-43. 

Humans Apart From Nature? Wilderness Experience and the Wilderness Act Fincher
158 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Abstract—A large and growing body of research on outdoor recreation 

and the wilderness experience has been conducted over the nearly 

50 years since passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964. A number of 

conceptual and empirical frameworks have emerged from this body 

of knowledge that can be used to help define and manage the wilderness experience. First, wilderness experiences can be understood as 

behavior that is driven by visitor motivations and potential benefits. 

For example, some wilderness visitors backpack in remote areas because they seek solitude and associated benefits. Second, wilderness 

recreation activities and settings can be instrumental in facilitating 

satisfaction of visitor motivations and benefits. Following the above 

example, opportunities for hiking in wilderness settings that are remote 

and lightly used are most likely to satisfy the motivation of solitude 

and lead to associated benefits. Third, wilderness settings/opportunities 

can be defined by a three-fold framework, including resource, social, 

and managerial conditions. Examples include, respectively, soil and 

vegetation impacts at campsites, the number of groups encountered 

along trails, and the level and type of facility development. Fourth, 

definition of the quality of the wilderness experience has evolved 

from global measures of visitor satisfaction to include measures of 

the degree to which wilderness recreation opportunities provide the 

experiences for which they are designed and managed, and the extent 

to which the system of wilderness recreation opportunities meets the 

inherently diverse needs of society. This leads to multiple definitions 

of the quality of the wilderness experience based on scale: the visitor, 

the manager, and society at large. Fifth, wilderness recreation should 

be guided by management objectives, and these objectives should 

be stated in empirical terms of indicators and standards that specify 

the “limits of acceptable change” for wilderness recreation settings 

and opportunities. For example, providing opportunities for solitude 

is a reasonable management objective for many wilderness areas, 

the number of groups met per day on trails may be a good indicator 

of solitude, and a maximum of five groups encountered per day on 

trails may be a good standard that specifies the limits of acceptable 

change. Sixth, formulation of indicators and standards/limits of acceptable change should be informed by social norms of wilderness 

visitors and other stakeholders. The sample indicators and standards 

suggested above are drawn from normative studies of wilderness 

recreation. Seventh, indicators and standards that define wilderness 

recreation opportunities can be configured in alternative combinations 

Author: Robert E. Manning, Park Studies Laboratory, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Frameworks for Defining and Managing 

the Wilderness Experience

Robert E. Manning

to help guide provision of a spectrum of wilderness opportunities and 

experiences designed to meet the diverse needs of society. This approach adapts and applies the conceptual foundation underlying the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. These conceptual and empirical 

frameworks can be integrated and applied to help guide definition 

and management of wilderness experiences, and this is illustrated in 

a series of propositions, conceptual models and diagrams. Alternative 

interpretations of research on outdoor recreation and the wilderness 

experience are also discussed. It is concluded that research on outdoor 

recreation offers theoretical and empirical foundations for defining and 

managing the wilderness experience, but that this will require exercise 

of management judgment and a continuing program of research.

Introduction ______________________

A large and growing body of social science research on 

outdoor recreation, including the wilderness experience, has 

been conducted over the nearly 50 years since passage of the 

Wilderness Act in 1964. The “wilderness experience” has been 

found to be a diverse and complex phenomenon. However, 

several conceptual and empirical frameworks have emerged 

from the scientific and professional literature that can be 

used to help define and manage the wilderness experience 

(McCool and others 2007; Manning 2011). For the purposes 

of this paper, a framework is a set of organizing principles, 

a conceptual model, an empirical method, and/or a process 

that brings order and understanding to an inherently complex 

phenomenon. Frameworks don’t answer questions or solve 

problems directly, but they offer a structured approach that 

can be used to enhance understanding and guide informed 

management.

The frameworks discussed in this paper address motivations for visiting wilderness areas, the relationships between 

wilderness settings and the visitor experience, a three-fold 

framework of wilderness recreation, definitions of the quality 

of the wilderness experience, the use of management objectives 

and associated indicators and standards, the limits of acceptable change, normative standards for guiding management of 

the wilderness experience, and application of the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum to wilderness management. This paper 

outlines these conceptual and empirical frameworks and suggests how they can be integrated and applied to guide wilderness 

management. Alternative interpretations of outdoor recreation 

research and the wilderness experience are also discussed.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 159

Conceptual and Empirical 

Frameworks ______________________

Motivations and Benefits

Early empirical research in outdoor recreation was primarily descriptive, focusing on the activities and socioeconomic 

and cultural characteristics of visitors, and their attitudes and 

preferences about management. But even as this descriptive 

foundation of information was being built, there were early 

signs of a deeper, more analytical interest in outdoor recreation, 

specifically the question of why people visit outdoor recreation 

areas, including wilderness.

Illustrative of this early interest in motivations for outdoor 

recreation was a study of fishing in the Quetico-Superior 

Area, MN (Bultena and Taves 1961). Observing that fishers 

returning to camp with empty creels were not necessarily 

dissatisfied with their experience, the authors hypothesized 

that there must be multiple motives involved in outdoor recreation. Tentative support for this hypothesis was found in an 

exploratory element of this study, which asked visitors to the 

area to rate the importance of seventeen potential motivations 

for their visits. While many visitors were certainly interested 

in catching fish, many respondents also reported that they 

thought of their trips as a means of escaping familiar routines 

and the cares associated with living in an urbanized society, 

along with other diverse motivations. An analogous study of 

hunting proposed a “multiple satisfactions approach” to this 

recreation activity, expanding measures of satisfaction from 

the traditional count of game bagged to include more varied 

motivations and dimensions of satisfaction (Hendee 1974). 

Early studies of camping and wilderness were also suggestive 

of multiple motivations in outdoor recreation (Stone and Taves 

1958; Wildland Research Center 1962; LaPage 1967; Catton 

1969; Shafer and Mietz 1969).

Beginning in the early 1970s, Driver and associates began 

building a conceptual foundation for the study of motivations 

in outdoor recreation (Driver and Tocher 1970; Driver 1975; 

Driver and Brown 1975; Driver 1976; Driver and Bassett 

1977; Driver and Brown 1978; Haas and others 1980; Driver 

and Rosenthal 1982; Driver 1985; Schreyer and Driver 1989). 

Empirical approaches to testing these concepts were also developed and have received wide application. The conceptual 

foundation of this work began with a fundamental look at the 

nature of recreation, noting that the traditional view of recreation 

is based on activities—fishing, swimming, camping, and so 

on (Driver and Tocher 1970). While this “activity approach” 

has been useful for a variety of descriptive purposes, it leaves 

unaddressed a number of potentially important issues:

Why is the recreationist participating in the activity? 

What other activities might have been selected if the 

opportunities existed? What satisfactions or rewards are 

received from the activity? How can the quality of the 

experience be enhanced? (Driver and Tocher 1970:10).

To better answer these questions, a “behavioral approach” 

was proposed whereby recreation is defined as “an experience that results from recreational engagements” (Driver and 

Tocher 1970). This approach is based on psychological theory 

which suggests that most human behavior is goal-oriented or 

aimed at some need or satisfaction (Crandall 1980). Perhaps the 

most widely recognized expression of this theory is Maslow’s 

(1943) hierarchy of human needs beginning with the most basic 

requirements for physiological sustenance and ranging through 

more aesthetic concerns. The work of Driver and associates is 

based more directly on expectancy theory developed in social 

psychology, which suggests that people engage in activities 

in specific settings to realize psychological outcomes that 

are known, expected, and valued (Atkinson and Birch 1972; 

Fishbein and Ajzen 1974). Thus, people select and participate 

in recreation activities to meet certain goals or satisfy certain 

needs. In this context, recreation activities are as much a means 

to an end as an end in themselves.

The behavioral approach to recreation has been expanded 

to recognize four levels or hierarchies of outdoor recreation as 

illustrated in Table 1 (Driver and Brown 1978, Haas and others 

1980). Level 1 represents demands for activities themselves 

and has been the traditional focus of much recreation research 

and management. Level 2 represents the settings in which activities take place. An activity such as camping, for example, 

can be undertaken in a variety of environmental, social, and 

managerial settings, each representing different recreation opportunities. Level 2 demands do not exist in and of themselves; 

people participate in activities in different settings to fulfill 

motivations as represented by level 3 demands. These motivations are desired psychological outcomes. Examples include 

enjoyment of the out-of-doors, developing and applying skills, 

strengthening family ties, learning, getting exercise, exploring, 

reflecting on personal values, temporarily escaping a variety 

of adverse stimuli at home or at work, and taking risks. Typically, more than one motivation is sought and realized from 

recreation participation. Finally, Level 4 demands refer to the 

ultimate or higher-order benefits that can flow from satisfying 

experiences derived from recreation participation. These benefits may be personal, social, economic, and/or environmental. 

However, these higher order benefits are somewhat abstract 

and are challenging to measure and associate directly with 

recreation participation. For this reason, empirical study of 

the behavioral approach to recreation has focused primarily 

on Level 3 demands and motivations.

A large group of studies on recreation motivations is based 

directly on the conceptual and empirical work of Driver and 

associates as described above. To test their conceptual formulations of a behavioral approach to recreation, these researchers 

have developed and refined a wide-ranging list of potential 

recreation motivations, along with a series of corresponding 

scale items representing potential motivations for participating 

in a designated recreation activity. Scale item measurements 

are usually then reduced through cluster analysis to “domains” 

representing more generalized categories of motivations. This 

research approach can be especially useful to outdoor recreation 

managers because of its direct focus on outdoor recreation activities and its standardization as a result of extensive empirical 

testing. The motivation scales have been developed and refined 

through dozens of empirical studies, and tests have generally 

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience Manning
160 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

confirmed both the reliability and validity of the motivation 

scales (Rosenthal and others 1982; Manfredo and others 1996).

The first generation of these studies was applied to a variety 

of recreation activities, but published results focused primarily 

on fishing (Knopf and others 1973; Driver and Knopf 1976; 

Driver and Cooksey 1977) and river users (Roggenbuck and 

Schreyer 1977; Schreyer and Roggenbuck 1978; Graefe and 

others 1981; Knopf and Lime 1984). Several motivational 

domains of recreationists have been isolated in these studies, 

and differences in motivations were found between selected 

“types” of recreationists. Trout fishers, for instance, were found 

to rate the motivation of “affiliation” substantially lower than 

did lake and bank fishers.

Recreation motivation scales were included in a series of 

nationwide studies investigating a broad spectrum of recreational uses of rivers (Knopf and Lime 1984). Resulting data 

illustrate the potential management implications of this research 

approach. Table 2 presents two examples. The first compares 

responses of river floaters on two rivers to seven motivations. 

Floaters on both rivers rated “view scenery” and “peace and 

calm” very highly, but differed substantially on other motivations. Floaters on the Delta River placed much more emphasis 

on learning, developing skills, exercise, escaping crowds, 

and being alone than did their counterparts on the Salt River. 

Though floaters on both rivers desired “peace and calm,” they 

apparently define it in different ways. The implications of these 

findings translate directly into river management objectives, 

particularly with respect to appropriate use levels.

The second example in Table 2 illustrates that even floaters 

on the same river can differ substantially on motivations. Both 

first-time and repeat visitors to the Rio Grande River, NM, 

rated “view scenery,” “peace and calm,” and “learn new things” 

Table 1—Four levels or hierarchies of demand for outdoor recreation. (Adapted from Haas and others 1980.)

Level Example 1 Example 2

1. Activities Wilderness hiking Family picnicking

2. Settings

A. Environmental setting Rugged terrain Grass fields

B. Social setting Few people No boisterous teenagers

C. Managerial setting No restrictions Picnic tables

3. Motivations Risk taking In-group affiliation

 ChallengeChange of pace

 Physical exercise

4. Benefits

A. Personal Enhanced self-esteem Enhanced personal health

B. Social Lower crime rate Family solidarity

C. Economic Lower health care costs Increased work production

D. Environmental Increased commitment to conservation Higher quality environment

Table 2—Motivations for river floating. (Adapted from Knopf and Lime 1984.)

Rio Grande River

Delta River Salt River First-time visitors Repeat visitors

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percentage of respondents- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

View scenery 97 77 88 94

Peace and calm 85 73 62 82

Learn new things 80 50 78 73

Develop skills 78 34 48 76

Escape crowds 76 30 52 82

Exercise 64 48 34 65

Be alone 28 8 6 22

Manning Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 161

highly. But there were substantial differences between the two 

groups of floaters on the other four motivations, indicating 

that repeat visitors were substantially more sensitive to and 

intolerant of high use levels and associated impacts. Unless 

this is taken into account in river management, many repeat 

visitors are likely to be dissatisfied and perhaps eventually 

displaced. The study concludes that data of this kind illustrate 

the advantage of managing for outdoor recreation experiences 

rather than activities:

“It is clear that repeat visitors on the Rio Grande are 

looking for different experiences than first-time visitors. 

It is also clear that Delta River visitors differ in orientation from Salt River visitors. Yet, all four populations 

are participating in the same recreation activity, river 

floating. From an activity perspective, they would be 

viewed as essentially equivalent and not differing in 

resource requirements. But from an experience perspective, they would be viewed as distinct recreation 

populations with separate requirements” (Knopf and 

Lime 1984:15).

Studies of the motivations of recreationists have become an 

important part of the scientific and professional literature on 

outdoor recreation, including wilderness, and have been applied to a diverse array of recreation activities, settings, and 

issues. Examples include rafting and other river uses (Fluker 

and Turner 2000; Vagias and others 2006), biking (Skar and 

others 2008), national forests (Graefe and others 2000; Hendricks and others 2004), tourism/ecotourism (Holden and 

Sparrowhawk 2002; Yoon and Uysal 2005), temporal changes 

in motivations (White and Pennington-Gray 2002; Schramm 

and Gerard 2004; Legare and Haider 2008), the relationship 

between motivations and experience/skill level (Todd and others 2002; Todd and others 2003; Meisel and Cottrell 2004), 

place attachment/involvement (Kyle and others 2004a; Kyle 

and others 2006), and race/ethnicity (Hunt and Ditton 2001).

All of these studies were able to identify several groups of 

respondents with distinctive recreation motivations. Moreover, 

there were often relationships between the various types of 

recreationists identified and other characteristics of respondents. 

For example, motivations of a nationwide sample of river users were found to vary with experience level of respondents 

(Williams and others 1990) and by type and size of user group 

(Heywood 1987). Motivations of state park visitors were related to visitor expenditures (McCool and Reilly 1993). And 

motivations of mountain climbers were related to experience 

level of respondents (Ewert 1994).

A second generation of studies has added another methodological step to identify types of recreationists based on motive 

structure. After appropriate motive domains have been isolated 

as described above, a further clustering procedure is used to 

identify groups of respondents having relatively similar patterns of response to the motive domains. In this way, groups or 

“market segments” of recreationists sharing similar motivations 

are identified.

A study of wilderness visitors is illustrative of these secondgeneration studies (Brown and Haas 1980). This study involved 

a survey of visitors to the Rawah Wilderness Area, CO. Initial 

cluster analysis identified eight motivational domains important across the sample as shown in Table 3. Respondents were 

then grouped through a second clustering procedure according 

to their scores on the eight motivational domains. Five basic 

“types” of visitors were thus identified. The study describes 

each visitor type and suggests ways in which this kind of information might be incorporated in wilderness management. 

For example, visitor types 1 and 2 both place moderate to 

strong emphasis on seven of the eight motivational domains, 

but differ on the eighth, Meeting/Observing Other People. 

Type 1 visitors (19% of the sample) rated this domain as 

slightly adding to satisfaction, while type 2 visitors (10% of 

the sample) rated this domain as moderately detracting from 

satisfaction. These findings suggest that two wilderness zones 

might be created serving somewhat different objectives and 

visitors. Both zones would be managed to serve the first seven 

motivations described (Closeness to Nature, Escape Pressure, 

and so on), but with different use and contact levels allowed.

The behavioral approach to understanding recreation was 

illustrated in Table 1. This model identifies four levels or hierarchies associated with recreation. The empirical research 

described above has focused primarily on Level 3 or motivations. However, conceptual and empirical work has explored 

Level 4 as well, the ultimate or higher-order benefits of recreation that flow to individuals and society at large. This body 

of work and its application is generally termed “benefits-based 

management” (BBM), and BBM is the operational component 

of the broader paradigm, Beneficial Outcomes Approach 

to Leisure (BOAL) which is a conceptual expression of the 

behavioral approach to recreation as described above (Driver 

2008). These approaches have been extended to broader leisure 

and amenity-related concerns under the rubric of Outcomes 

Focused Management (OFM) and Outcomes Focused Paragon 

(OFP), respectively (Driver 2008).

Benefits potentially associated with recreation are broadly 

defined (Driver 1990; Driver 1996; Driver 2008). First, the 

fundamental concept of benefits can include attainment of a 

desired condition, an improved condition, and/or prevention 

of an unwanted condition. Second, benefits can be seen as 

accruing to individuals, society at large, the economy, and the 

environment (Driver and others 1991; Stein and Lee 1995). 

Personal benefits might include advances in physical and 

mental health and personal growth and development. Social 

benefits might include strengthening of family relationships, 

enhanced community pride, and reduction of social deviance 

and dysfunction. Economic benefits might include increased 

productivity, reduced health costs, and local economic growth. 

Environmental benefits might include reduced pollution levels, 

protection of endangered species, and critical wildlife habitat. 

Benefits associated with recreation are sometimes seen as 

linked through a “benefit chain of causality” (Driver 2008). For 

example, the physical and psychological benefits accruing to 

individuals can result in a healthier society, a more productive 

economy, and a greater commitment to environmental protection. However, relatively little is known about such potential 

relationships.

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience Manning
162 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 Table 3—Five types of visitors to the Rawah Wilderness Area, CO. (Adapted from Brown and Haas 1980.) Motivational Domainb Number of % a of Relationship Escape Reflection on Sharing/ Risk Meeting/observing Type respondents sample with nature pressures Autonomy Achievement personal values recollection taking other people 1 50 19 Most Most Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Slightly Slightly strongly strongly added added added added added added added added 2 27 10 Most Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Moderately Slightly Moderately strongly added added added added added added detracted added 3 44 17 Strongly Strongly Moderately Strongly Moderately Strongly Neither Slightly added added added added added added added 4 53 20 Strongly Strongly Strongly Moderately Moderately Slightly Slightly Neither added added added added added added added 5 60 23 Moderately Moderately Moderately Slightly Slightly Slightly Neither Neither added added added added added added a Thirty respondents (11 percent of the sample) were identified as unique in the sense that they were not grouped with any of the five types. This was primarily a function of missing data for these respondents rather than their true uniqueness. b Respondents were asked to state the importance of these motivations to their satisfaction

Manning Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 163

The objective of benefits-based management is to allow 

managers to more directly measure and facilitate benefits associated with recreation participation (Allen 1996; Allen and 

McGovern 1997). Managers are encouraged to specify the 

benefits they wish to provide, design facilities and services 

to facilitate these benefits, and measure the extent to which 

benefits have been realized. Among other things, this requires 

an understanding of the potential relationships among the four 

levels of recreation as outlined in Table 1. In other words, what 

benefits are associated with fulfillment of recreation motivations, and how are motivations, in turn, related to recreation 

activities and the settings in which they occur? Initial empirical 

studies are suggestive of such relationships (Tarrant and others 1994; Borrie and Roggenbuck 1995; Stein and Lee 1995; 

Tarrant 1996) and a useful series of 18 case studies has been 

compiled by Driver (2008). However, this issue is complex 

and study findings are not definitive. Research on this issue 

is described more fully in the next section of this paper and is 

addressed again in a later section on the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS), a framework for addressing the structural 

relationships comprising recreation experiences.

Linking Activities, Settings, Motivations, and 

Benefits

The previous section on motivations and benefits suggested 

that recreation can be understood within the behavioral approach 

or model. This model outlined a basic structure under which 

recreationists participate in selected activities in specific settings to fulfill motivations that in turn lead to benefits. Under 

this model, managers might be able to provide recreation opportunities (comprised of alternative activities and settings) 

designed to fulfill certain motivations and produce related 

benefits. ROS, described in a later section of this paper, suggests a series of relationships among these factors and begins 

to provide a formal structure within which this model can be 

made operational.

Some of the linkages among activities, settings, motivations, 

and benefits appear intuitively obvious. Opportunities for 

contact with the natural environment, for example, are likely 

to be enhanced through limited development of the setting. 

Opportunities for solitude might be enhanced in relatively 

low use areas. And opportunities for challenge and risk-taking 

should be greater in areas providing only low-standard trails and 

few other improvements. But these are only generalities, and 

knowledge about such relationships can be enhanced through 

empirical testing.

A number of studies have begun searching for these relationships. An early study of visitors to three western wilderness areas examined both motivations and physical setting 

preferences (Haas and others 1979). Respondents reacted to 

a series of scaled items for both motivations and physical setting attributes, and these response sets were cluster analyzed 

following the procedures developed by Driver and associates 

described in the preceding section. Several domains for both 

motivations and setting attributes were identified, but no attempt was made to relate the two. A second study of visitors 

to the Glenwood Springs Resource Area, CO, attempted to 

go a step further (Brown and Ross 1982). Multiple regression 

analysis was used to explore for relationships between motivations and settings, and a number of such relationships were 

found. The statistical significance of these relationships was 

generally enhanced when the sample was grouped according to 

activity. In other words, people sharing the same activity had 

more uniform relationships between motivations and setting 

preferences than all recreationists considered together.

Several studies have included more thorough tests of these 

relationships. One study surveyed visitors to three wilderness 

areas, asking respondents to rate a number of motivation, setting attribute, and management action scale items (Manfredo 

1983). Each set of scale items was cluster analyzed, and five 

of the motivation clusters were selected for further object 

cluster analysis, isolating three visitor types based on similar 

motivation ratings. Type 1 visitors were labeled High Risk/

Achievement Group, type 2 visitors were labeled Low Risk/

Social Interaction Group, and type 3 visitors, who represented 

the largest proportion of visitors (60% of the sample) and 

tended to be less distinctive in their motivation ratings, were 

labeled Norm Group. The three types of visitors were then 

examined to see whether there were significant differences 

among them in activities engaged in and preferences for setting attributes and management actions. A number of differences were found. Though there were no differences among 

the three groups with regard to the four activities having the 

highest participation rates and the one activity with a very low 

participation rate, there were differences for the two activities with moderate participation rates. In addition, there were 

statistically significant differences among the three types of 

visitors on seven of the setting attribute clusters and four of 

the management action clusters. Though the magnitude of the 

differences was generally not large, the sample was relatively 

homogeneous—all respondents were wilderness visitors. A 

more diverse respondent group may have yielded greater levels 

of statistical significance.

A second study surveyed visitors to the Cohutta Wilderness, 

GA/TN and the Okefenokee Wilderness, GA (Shafer and 

Hammitt 1995). Visitors were asked to rate the importance of 

five motivations for wilderness recreation; the importance of 

selected resource, social, and managerial conditions in wilderness; and the extent to which visitors adopted selected behaviors to direct or control the recreation experience. A number 

of significant correlations were found suggesting that visitors 

who rated selected motivations as important tended to associate 

certain wilderness settings with those motivations, and often 

behaved in ways designed to maximize attainment of those 

motivations. For example, visitors who rated the “unconfined” 

nature of wilderness experiences as highly important tended 

to use wilderness areas where fewer management restrictions 

were present.

Several other studies have explored the relationships among 

selected elements of the behavioral model. Most have found 

what might best be described as “modest” relationships. These 

include relationships between the activities in which respondents participated and the type of resource selected within an 

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience Manning
164 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Australian national park (Collins and Hodge 1984), activities 

and motivations of Delaware state park visitors (Confer and 

others 1997), and setting attributes and type of resource selected 

by anglers in Colorado (Harris and others 1985). However, a 

study of visitors to five protected areas in Costa Rica found 

little relation between motivations of visitors and setting preferences (Wallace and Smith 1997).

Two studies have taken a “wilderness perceptual mapping” 

(WPM) approach to test the assumed relationships in ROS, 

a framework constructed on assumed relationships among 

recreation activities, settings, and experiences. A study in 

New Zealand measured judgments about the desirability of 

related activities, facilities, and experiences among visitors to 

19 wilderness areas (Kliskey 1998). Resulting data were used 

to create four classes of wilderness recreation based on the 

notion of “wilderness purism” (Stankey 1973; Kliskey 1998). 

These four classes of wilderness were mapped and compared 

to conventional ROS maps. The analysis concluded that “a 

significant association was obtained between the WPM and 

ROS mapping”, and this suggests ROS generally captures and 

incorporates the activities and settings that recreationists feel 

are appropriate for a range of wilderness-related experiences 

(Kliskey 1998:86). A similar research approach was taken in 

a study of the San Juan National Forest, CO and this study 

also found a close relationship between perceived wilderness 

conditions and ROS mapping (Flanagan and Anderson 2008). 

For example, 96 percent of lands perceived as “wilderness” by 

“strong wilderness purists” were all included in the “primitive” 

land classification of ROS.

The research reviewed in this section offers some support for 

the conceptual foundations of motivations and benefits, ROS, 

benefits-based management, and related frameworks. However, 

definitive relationships among the elements comprising these 

frameworks are far from clear (McCool and others 1985). It 

may be unrealistic to expect to find such highly structured 

relationships. It seems reasonable, for example, to expect that 

some motivations for recreation might be fulfilled through 

multiple activities and/or settings (McCool 1978). For instance, 

the motivation to experience nature might be fulfilled through 

mountain biking as well as hiking, and might be found, at 

least to some degree, in a city park as well as a national park. 

Indeed, some motivations, as well as benefits, may be nearly 

universal. Moreover, the empirical relationships assumed in 

ROS and related frameworks may be partially masked by limited choices that often confront recreationists and by peoples’ 

inherent adaptability. The emotional and symbolic meanings 

that recreationists may assign to some recreation areas may 

confound the relationships assumed to underlie ROS. Finally, 

the dynamic character of some recreation activities (such as, 

hiking) can extend across multiple ROS classes and this can 

confound the types of studies described above.

Three-fold Framework of Wilderness 

Recreation

An early focus of research on outdoor recreation, and wilderness use in particular, examined the topic of carrying capacity, 

or the amount and type of recreation that can be accommodated 

without unacceptable impacts. Concern about this topic was 

largely a function of the rapid growth in outdoor recreation 

during the Post-World War II period (DeVoto 1953; Clawson 

1959). The first rigorous application of carrying capacity to 

outdoor recreation was conducted in the early 1960s (Wagar 

1964). Perhaps the major contribution of this conceptual analysis was the expansion of carrying capacity from its dominant 

emphasis on ecological impacts of outdoor recreation to a dual 

focus including social or experiential considerations:

“The study reported here was initiated with the view 

that the carrying capacity of recreation lands could 

be determined primarily in terms of ecology and the 

deterioration of areas. However, it soon became obvious that the resource-oriented point of view must be 

augmented by consideration of human values” (Wagar 

1964: Preface).

The author’s point was that as more people visit an outdoor 

recreation area, the quality of the recreation experience is 

degraded as well as the natural environment. Thus, carrying 

capacity was expanded to include consideration of the social 

environment as well as the natural environment. The effects of 

increasing use on recreation quality were illustrated by Wagar 

by means of hypothetical relationships between increasing use 

level and visitor satisfaction.

Wagar’s original conceptual analysis hinted at a third element 

of carrying capacity, and this was described more explicitly in a 

subsequent paper (Wagar 1968). In this paper, it was suggested 

that carrying capacity might vary according to the amount and 

type of management activity. For example, the durability of 

natural resources might be increased through practices such 

as fertilizing and irrigating vegetation, and periodic rest and 

rotation of impact sites. Similarly, the quality of the recreation 

experience might be maintained or even enhanced in the face of 

increasing use by means of more even distribution of visitors, 

appropriate rules and regulations, provision of additional visitor facilities, and educational programs designed to encourage 

desirable user behavior. Thus, carrying capacity, as applied 

to outdoor recreation, was expanded to a three-dimensional 

concept by the addition of management considerations.

This three-dimensional view of carrying capacity has been 

extended to outdoor recreation and wilderness use more broadly 

and suggests that recreation opportunities are comprised of 

these three components—the condition of natural/cultural 

resources, the type of social/experiential conditions, and the 

type and level of management intervention (Manning 2011). 

All three of these of these components can be of importance to 

visitors and should receive explicit attention from managers.

Definitions of Wilderness Quality

As in most other areas of life, “quality” has been the underlying goal of those involved in outdoor recreation and wilderness more specifically. Managers want to provide high-quality 

outdoor recreation opportunities, and visitors want to have 

high-quality outdoor recreation experiences. Researchers want 

to understand what contributes to and detracts from high-quality 

Manning Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 165

outdoor recreation experiences. As a consequence, the concept 

of quality is contained, explicitly or implicitly, in the goals 

and policies governing most outdoor recreation areas and is 

an underlying objective of most of the social science research 

on outdoor recreation and wilderness use. But how is quality 

defined and measured?

Beginning with the influential studies of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) studies in the 

late 1950s and early 1960s, quality in outdoor recreation has 

conventionally been defined in terms of visitor satisfaction. 

Satisfaction as a measure of quality in outdoor recreation has 

been suggested throughout the literature and over time. The 

focus on satisfaction arises out of the need for some evaluative 

communication between visitors and managers. Because use 

of public parks and wilderness is traditionally free or priced 

at a nominal level, managers generally lack the clear feedback 

mechanism available in the private sector in the form of “price 

signals” (that is, if the quality of a product or service is low, 

consumers will refrain from purchasing and the price will 

drop, but if quality is high, consumption and price will rise). 

Most managers recognize the potential usefulness of visitor 

opinions and evaluations, within the constraints of resource 

and management factors, in meeting the quality objectives of 

outdoor recreation areas. In fact, the Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires federal land management agencies such as the National Park Service and U.S. 

Forest Service to assess and report measures of productivity, 

and customer (visitor) satisfaction has been a primary component of this program (University of Idaho 2008; Absher 1998; 

Graefe and others 2001).

The dominant conceptual basis for defining and measuring 

satisfaction in outdoor recreation has been rooted in expectancy theory (or the expectancy disconfirmation paradigm as 

used in broader consumer research) (Vroom 1964; Fishbein 

and Ajzen 1975; Mackay and Crompton 1990; Burns and others 2003; Tian-Cole and Crompton 2003; Brunke and Hunt 

2007). Expectancy theory suggests that participants engage in 

recreation activities with the expectation that this will fulfill 

selected needs, motivations, or other desired states. The congruence between expectations and outcomes is seen to ultimately 

define satisfaction. This conceptual base is clearly reflected in 

an early and often cited definition of satisfaction in recreation 

as “a function of the degree of congruence between aspirations 

and the perceived reality of experiences” (Bultena and Klessig 

1969:349).

Measurement of satisfaction (and quality), however, has 

proven to be more complex than anticipated (La Page 1963; 

Propst and Lime 1982; La Page 1983; Williams 1989). Several 

conceptual and methodological issues contribute to this complexity. First, general or overall measures of satisfaction may be 

too broad to be fully useful to either managers or researchers. 

Satisfaction is a multidimensional concept, affected by a number 

of potential variables (such as, environmental conditions, use 

level, facility development, weather), some under the control 

of managers and many not. Measures of overall satisfaction 

may not be sensitive enough to detect changes in the variables 

of interest to managers and researchers. This issue has been 

illustrated in a number of wide-ranging studies that have found 

overall satisfaction to be influenced by elements of the resource, 

social, and managerial environments (Dorfman 1979; Foster 

and Jackson 1979; Beard and Ragheb 1980; Connelly 1987; 

Rollins and Chambers 1990; Williams et al. 1991; Herrick and 

McDonald 1992; Floyd 1997). Multiple-item scales have been 

developed to measure alternative dimensions of satisfaction, 

and these have proven more useful than global, single-item 

measures (Graefe and Fedler 1986; Rollins and Chambers 

1990; Vaske and others 1991).

Second, satisfaction is a relative concept that can be mediated by visitor characteristics and other variables. One of the 

most commonly occurring themes in the outdoor recreation 

literature is that visitors to outdoor recreation areas often differ in ways that fundamentally affect the perceived quality of 

recreation opportunities, and ultimately, satisfaction. Visitors 

have varying socioeconomic characteristics, alternative cultural 

backgrounds, varying levels of experience, and a range of attitudes, motivations, and norms. While objective elements of 

recreation opportunities (such as, type of facilities provided, 

use level) can be important in influencing satisfaction, they 

are filtered by subjective interpretations of individual visitors 

(Graefe and Fedler 1986).

A closely related issue addresses the concept of quality in 

outdoor recreation and its relationship to satisfaction (Baker 

and Crompton 2000). Quality might most appropriately be 

defined as a measure of the recreation opportunity provided 

(its naturalness, the number and type of facilities, and so on), 

while satisfaction is a more emotional state that is driven at 

least in part by quality, but might also be affected by other 

issues (weather, social group interactions, etc.) that are not 

under direct control by managers.

A third issue suggests that emphasis on visitor satisfaction 

may ultimately lead to diminished quality or at least a level 

of quality as defined by a low common denominator. The 

relative nature of satisfaction as described above suggests 

that some visitors may be more sensitive than others to environmental, social, and managerial impacts of increasing use 

levels. If such visitors are “displaced” by those who are less 

sensitive to recreation-related impacts, then visitor satisfaction 

(at least as measured in conventional on-site visitor surveys) 

may remain high despite a substantive change in the type or 

quality of recreation opportunities (Dustin and McAvoy 1982). 

A number of studies have documented spatial and temporal 

displacement of outdoor recreation visitors (Clark and others 

1971; Stankey 1980; Hammitt and Patterson 1991; Manning 

and Valliere 2001; Fleishman and others 2007; Hall and Cole 

2007).

Fourth, most studies have found very high levels of satisfaction among visitors to a variety of park, outdoor recreation, 

and wilderness areas (Brewer and Gillespie 1967; LaPage and 

Bevins 1981; Greenleaf and others 1984; Applegate and Clark 

1987; Rollins and Chambers 1990; Vaske et al. 1991; Dwyer 

1993; Jacobson 2001). For example, GPRA-related findings 

for the U.S. National Park system indicate that 94% of the over 

20,000 visitors sampled at 313 national parks in 2008 were 

satisfied with their outdoor recreation experience (University 

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience Manning
166 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

of Idaho 2008). This may be related to the broad and relative 

nature of satisfaction as described above. However, it should 

not be surprising as recreation experiences, by definition, 

are self-selected by visitors. This suggests that most visitors 

would choose recreation opportunities that are in keeping 

with their tastes and preferences. Despite the underlying reasons, uniformly high levels of satisfaction are of only limited 

usefulness to recreation managers and researchers interested 

in understanding relationships between outdoor recreation 

opportunities and experiences.

A final issue concerns methodological aspects of measuring visitor satisfaction. It was noted above that multiple-item 

measures of satisfaction have proven more useful than general, 

single-item measures. However, no standardized measures have 

been developed and advanced. Moreover, concern has also been 

raised about when such measures should be administered. In 

the broadest sense, recreation experiences are dynamic and 

evolve over time. Research suggests that satisfaction and other 

evaluative measures also change and evolve over the duration of 

the experience (Hull and others 1992, Stewart and Hull 1992). 

However, it is unclear as to what is the most appropriate time 

to administer measures of satisfaction—during the experience, 

immediately after, or at some later period.

An alternative approach to defining and measuring quality in outdoor recreation builds on the concept of visitor 

satisfaction, but links it to the inherent diversity of outdoor 

recreation. Diversity in outdoor recreation has been a recurring theme in the literature in regard to recreation activities, 

socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of visitors, attitudes 

about management, preferences for services and facilities, 

sensitivity to crowding and conflict, experience level, degree 

of specialization and place attachment, and motivations for 

recreation participation. Diversity in tastes for outdoor recreation is found equally in studies of developed campgrounds 

and investigations of wilderness hikers. For example, an early 

study concluded that “wilderness visitors are not in any sense 

a uniform or homogeneous population... Represented among 

wilderness visitors are value systems that cover a wide and 

often conflicting range” (Stankey 1972:92).

Research points out that not only are there differences in 

taste among people, but that people’s tastes change over time 

as well. A study in the Pacific Northwest found that the type of 

camping chosen (wilderness camping, automobile camping, or 

some combination of the two) was strongly related to changes 

in stage of the family life cycle (Burch 1966). A nationwide 

panel study of campers found similar relationships between 

camping activity and family life cycle (LaPage 1973). Based 

on these relationships, it has been suggested that “The forest 

camping system is like an omnibus—the seats are often full 

but often occupied by different persons as they adjust to the 

flow of time” (Burch 1966).

Diversity is also evident when the “averaging issue” in 

outdoor recreation is recognized. A classic paper titled “The 

Average Camper Who Doesn’t Exist” emphasized that statistical averages sometimes obscure diversity in research data and 

can create a model of reality that no visitors actually fit (Shafer 

1969). The potential problem of relying too heavily on averages 

has been elaborated as it might apply to camping (Wagar 1963, 

1966; Lime 1974). Studies show that some campers prefer very 

elaborate facilities for comfort and convenience, while others 

prefer simple, rustic facilities. Moreover, there is a wide range 

of opinion between these extremes. Providing a single, uniform 

type of camping opportunity—near the midpoint of the range 

based on averages, indeed at any point along the range—will 

leave many campers, quite possibly even the majority, less than 

fully satisfied. However, by offering a range of possibilities, 

more campers’ preferences can be met.

Diversity as a measure of quality in outdoor recreation has 

also been rationalized in economic terms using an example 

of a hypothetical undeveloped recreation area (Wagar 1974). 

If the area were to be used for wilderness recreation, it might 

support 3,000 recreation visitors each year. If intensively 

developed, it might support 300,000 recreation visitors. But 

the decision between these two alternatives should take into 

account the issue of scarcity. If developed recreation opportunities are relatively plentiful and wilderness recreation scarce, 

society may place more value on creating additional wilderness 

recreation opportunities even though they will accommodate 

fewer visitors. This is in keeping with the economic theory of 

marginal utility: the more we have of some good or service, 

the less value is placed on each additional unit.

Diversity has also been rationalized in political terms (Burch 

1974). It can be argued that without broad political support, 

parks, wilderness, and other outdoor recreation areas are not 

likely to be maintained by society at large, and that this support is not likely to be forthcoming if outdoor recreation areas 

do not serve the needs of a broad spectrum of the population. 

Therefore, managers should strive to serve this diversity and 

not necessarily adhere too closely to the preferences or tastes 

of any one group or type of visitor.

Difficulty in distinguishing between quality and type of 

recreation opportunities has been a persistent problem for 

both outdoor recreation visitors and managers. It is common to 

subjectively associate certain types of recreation opportunities 

with high quality. Those whose recreation tastes are oriented 

toward the remote and primitive, for example, may consider 

wilderness recreation to be of high quality and automobileaccessible campgrounds as something less. But high quality 

can and should be found among all types of recreation opportunities.

Research on visitor satisfaction and diversity can be synthesized to develop a clearer and more useful understanding 

of quality in outdoor recreation (Wagar 1966). The concept of 

quality might best be expressed in different ways as it is applied 

in alternative contexts or at different scales. At the level of the 

individual participant, satisfaction is an appropriate measure 

of quality, though satisfaction for selected components of the 

experience (for example, environmental conditions, use level/

crowding, number and type of facilities) is more useful than 

global or overall measures. Such measures of satisfaction address the degree to which a park or outdoor recreation activity 

or area meets the needs of the visitor.

Quality can also be defined in the context of management. 

Given the diversity in public tastes for outdoor recreation, a 

Manning Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 167

park (or site within a park) could be managed for many types 

of outdoor recreation (a developed campground, a wilderness 

campsite). Thoughtful consideration should be given to the 

most appropriate type of opportunity to be provided, and this 

decision should be expressed in terms of management objectives 

and associated empirical measures (this approach to management is described more fully in a later section of this paper). 

Quality is then defined and measured as the degree to which 

recreation opportunities meet the objectives for which they are 

designed and managed. This approach to defining quality and 

guiding management avoids the problem of displacement of 

visitors as described above and the related process of unintended 

incremental change in recreation opportunities possible when 

quality is defined simply in terms of visitor satisfaction.

Finally, quality in outdoor recreation can be defined at a 

broad societal level as provision of a diverse system of outdoor 

recreation opportunities. Given broad and diverse tastes in 

outdoor recreation, a comparably diverse system of outdoor 

recreation opportunities should be provided. Each opportunity 

within this system should be managed for a defined set of 

objectives as determined by inherent capabilities of natural 

and cultural resources, assessment of the demand and supply 

of recreation opportunities, and the mandate and capacity of 

management agencies.

Management Objectives, Indicators and 

Standards, and the “Limits of Acceptable 

Change”

As noted earlier in this paper, the issue of carrying capacity 

has attracted intensive focus as a research and management 

concept in outdoor recreation, and especially in wilderness 

use. A principal challenge in defining and managing carrying 

capacity lies in determining how much impact or change should 

be allowed within each of the three components that make up 

outdoor recreation opportunities: environmental and cultural 

resources, the type and quality of the recreation experience, and 

the extent and type of management actions. Recent analyses 

have suggested that these issues are not only at the heart of 

carrying capacity, but must be addressed in the broader context 

of sound park, outdoor recreation, and wilderness planning 

and management (Manning 2011; Whittaker and others 2011; 

Graefe and others 2011).

The growing research base on outdoor recreation indicates 

that increasing recreation use often causes impact or change. 

This is clear with regard to environmental resources (Cole 

1987; Hammitt and Cole 1998; Kuss and others 1990; Leung 

and Marion 2000). An early study in the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area, MN, for example, found that an average of 80% 

of ground cover vegetation was destroyed at campsites in a 

single season, even under relatively light levels of use (Frissell and Duncan 1965). Research also suggests that increasing 

recreation use can impact the social or experiential component 

of outdoor recreation through crowding and conflict, as well 

as the management component of outdoor recreation through 

the need to implement more intensive management practices 

(Manning 2011). Despite increasing knowledge about outdoor 

recreation use and resulting impacts, the critical question remains: how much impact or change should be allowed?

This issue is often referred to as the “limits of acceptable 

change” (Frissell and Stankey 1972, Stankey and others 1985). 

Some change in the recreation environment is inevitable, but 

sooner or later the amount, nature, or type of change may 

become unacceptable. But what determines the limits of acceptable change? This issue is illustrated graphically in Figure 1. 

In this figure, a hypothetical relationship between visitor use 

and impacts to the environmental, social, and management 

components of outdoor recreation is shown. This relationship suggests that increasing recreation use causes increasing 

impacts in the form of damage to fragile soils and vegetation, 

crowding and conflicting uses, and more direct and intensive 

recreation management actions. However, it is not clear from 

this relationship at what point these impacts have become unacceptable. X1 and X2 represent alternative levels of visitor use 

that result in corresponding increases in impact as defined by 

points Y1 and Y2, respectively. But which of these points—Y1 

or Y2, or some other point along the vertical axis—represent 

the maximum amount of impact that is acceptable?

To emphasize and further clarify this issue, some studies have 

suggested distinguishing between descriptive and prescriptive 

components of outdoor recreation management (Shelby and 

Heberlein 1984, 1986). The descriptive component focuses on 

factual, objective data such as those that define the relationship 

in Figure 1. For example, what is the relationship between the 

amount of visitor use and perceived crowding? The prescriptive component of outdoor recreation management concerns 

the seemingly more subjective issue of how much impact or 

change in the recreation environment is acceptable. For example, what level of perceived crowding should be allowed?

The scientific and professional literature in outdoor recreation suggests that answers to prescriptive questions can be 

found through formulation of management objectives and 

associated indicators and standards (Frissell and Stankey 

1972; Brown 1977; Lime 1979; Stankey and others 1985; 

Figure 1—Hypothetical relationship between visitor use and impact 

to the recreation environment. (From Manning and Lime 1996.)

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience Manning
168 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Stankey and Manning 1986; Graefe et al. 1990; Manning 

2001; McCool and Lime 2001; Cole and others 2005; Manning 2007; Manning, 2009; Manning 2011). Management 

objectives are sometimes called “desired conditions”. This 

approach to recreation management focuses on defining the 

type of park and outdoor recreation conditions to be provided. 

Management objectives are broad, narrative statements defining the type of park and outdoor recreation conditions to be 

provided and maintained, including the condition of natural 

and cultural resources, the type of recreation experience, and 

the type and intensity of management actions. Indicators are 

more specific, measurable variables reflecting the essence or 

meaning of management objectives. They are quantifiable 

proxies or empirical measures of management objectives. 

Indicators may include elements of the resource, social, and 

management environments that are important in determining 

the quality of the visitor experience. Standards define the 

minimum acceptable condition of indicator variables or the 

limits of acceptable change.

An example may help illuminate these ideas and terms. 

Review of the Wilderness Act of 1964 suggests that areas 

contained in the National Wilderness Preservation System are 

to be managed to provide “opportunities for solitude”. Thus, 

providing opportunities for solitude is an appropriate management objective or desired condition for most wilderness areas. 

Moreover, research on wilderness use suggests that the number 

of other visitors encountered along trails and at campsites is 

important in defining solitude for wilderness visitors (Manning 2011). Thus, trail and camp encounters are potentially 

good indicators for the management objective of solitude. 

Research also suggests that wilderness visitors may have normative standards about how many trail and camp encounters 

can be experienced before opportunities for solitude decline 

to an unacceptable degree or violate the limits of acceptable 

change. (Normative standards are discussed more fully in the 

next section of this paper.) For example, a number of studies 

suggest that many wilderness visitors find it unacceptable to 

encounter more than three-to-five other groups per day along 

trails (Manning 2011). Thus, a maximum of five encounters 

per day with other groups along trails may be a good standard 

for managing wilderness solitude and defines the limits of acceptable change.

Formulation of management objectives and associated indicators and standards of quality can be informed by empirical 

research, historical precedent, analysis of relevant legislation 

and associated policy, interest group politics, and other sources. 

Management objectives, indicators and standards, and limits of 

acceptable change have been incorporated into several contemporary frameworks for planning and managing wilderness and 

outdoor recreation more broadly. Prominent examples include 

the Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey and others 1985; 

McCool and Cole 1997) and Visitor Experience and Resource 

Protection (National Park Service 1997; Manning 2001).

Normative Standards

Developed in the disciplines of sociology and socialpsychology, normative theory and related empirical methods 

have attracted substantial attention as an organizing concept 

in outdoor recreation research and management (Heberlein 

1977; Shelby and Heberlein 1986; Vaske and others 1986; 

Vaske and others 1993; Shelby and others 1996; Manning 

and others 1999; Manning 2007; Manning 2011). Much of 

this literature has been organized around the work of Jackson 

(1965), which developed a methodology for measuring norms. 

Adapting these methods to outdoor recreation, visitors and 

other stakeholders can be asked to evaluate alternative levels 

of potential impacts caused by increasing recreation use. For 

example, visitors might be asked to rate the acceptability of 

encountering increasing numbers of recreation groups while 

hiking along trails. Resulting data would measure the personal 

crowding norm of each respondent. These data can then be 

aggregated to test for social crowding norms, or the degree to 

which norms are shared across groups.

Social norms can be illustrated graphically, as shown in 

Figure 2. Using hypothetical data associated with the example 

Figure 2—Hypothetical social norm curve.

Manning Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 169

described previously, this graph plots average (mean or 

median) acceptability ratings for encountering increasing 

numbers of visitor groups along trails. Data for this type of 

analysis might be derived from a survey of wilderness hikers. The line plotted in this illustration is sometimes called 

an “encounter” or “contact preference” curve (when applied 

to crowding-related variables), or might be called an “impact 

acceptability” curve more generally, or simply a “norm curve.”

Norm curves like that illustrated in Figure 2 have several 

potentially important features or characteristics. First, all points 

along the curve above the neutral line of the evaluation scale—

the point on the vertical axis where aggregate evaluation ratings 

fall from the acceptable into the unacceptable range—define 

the range of conditions acceptable to a majority of visitors. All 

of the conditions represented in this range are judged to meet 

some level of acceptability by about half of all respondents. The 

“optimum condition” is defined by the highest point on the norm 

curve. This is the condition that, absent other considerations, 

received the highest rating of acceptability from the sample as 

a whole. The “minimum acceptable condition” is defined as 

the point at which the norm curve crosses the neutral point of 

the evaluation scale. This is the point at which aggregate ratings fall out of the acceptable range and into the unacceptable 

range. Norm “intensity,”—the strength of respondents’ feelings 

about the importance of a potential indicator—is suggested by 

the distance of the norm curve above and below the neutral 

line of the evaluation scale. The greater this distance, the more 

strongly respondents feel about the indicator or the condition 

being measured. High measures of norm intensity suggest that 

a variable may be a good indicator because respondents feel 

it is important in defining the quality of the recreation experience. “Crystallization” of the norm concerns the amount of 

agreement or consensus about the norm. It is usually measured 

by standard deviations or other measures of variance around 

the points that describe the norm curve. The less variance or 

dispersion of data around those points, the more consensus 

there is about norms.

Research has measured normative standards for a variety 

of indicators that address the resource, social, and managerial components of outdoor recreation opportunities, and this 

information has been compiled in several sources (Manning 

2011). In these studies, most respondents are able to report 

norms for most indicators included in the study and normative 

standards are reported most often and are most highly crystallized in wilderness or backcountry areas.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

The discussion of quality in outdoor recreation in an earlier 

section of this paper noted that many studies have documented 

diverse tastes in outdoor recreation, and that a corresponding 

diversity of recreation opportunities is warranted. Designing 

diversity into outdoor recreation requires a systems-oriented 

approach to planning and management. It would be difficult 

for a single recreation or wilderness area, regardless of size, 

to provide a full spectrum of visitor opportunities. Examining each recreation area in isolation will usually lead to 

management decisions favoring the majority or plurality of 

potential visitors. While this is justified in many cases, this 

process will ultimately result in an entire system of recreation 

areas designed for the “average” visitor while neglecting a 

desirable element of diversity. Instead, each recreation area 

should be evaluated as part of a larger system of areas, each 

contributing as best it can to serve the diverse needs of the 

public. In this way, low density and other minority recreation 

opportunities can be justified (Wagar 1974). It has been 

suggested that this systems approach be applied on a broad, 

regional basis or on a landscape level; this way management 

can best ensure “a diverse resource base capable of providing 

a variety of satisfactions” (Stankey 1974).

Recognition of the need for diversity has led to a number 

of suggested classification or zoning systems for recreation 

areas. However, the most highly developed and widely used 

approach is ROS. ROS is a conceptual framework for measuring 

and managing diversity in outdoor recreation opportunities. A 

range of levels of attributes (or “indicators” and “standards” as 

used in an earlier section of this paper) that define recreation 

experiences are combined in alternative configurations to 

describe diverse recreation opportunities.

ROS has been formalized and translated into management 

guidelines. The relationships among indicators and standards 

that combine to define recreation opportunities have been 

arranged in configurations that suggest relatively standard 

categories of opportunities. Moreover, the system has been 

adopted by several park, wilderness, and outdoor recreation 

management agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service and 

the Bureau of Land Management (Buist and Hoots 1982; 

Driver and others 1987). ROS was developed simultaneously 

by two groups of researchers: Clark and Stankey (1979a) and 

Brown, Driver, and associates (Driver and Brown 1978). The 

approaches are quite similar, but some important differences 

also exist.

Both approaches to ROS recognize the four-fold hierarchical framework of demands for recreation as described in an 

earlier section of this paper—activities, settings, motivations, 

and benefits—and the focus of both approaches is on Level 2 

demands, settings. Brown, Driver, and associates take a more 

empirically oriented approach to ROS, seeking to link settings 

to the motivations or psychological outcomes they fulfill. This 

is a natural extension of their work on motivations for recreation 

as outlined above.

Clark and Stankey (1979a) take a more applied approach. 

They note that as knowledge of linkages between recreation 

settings and psychological outcomes improves, so will the 

efficacy of meeting visitor demands. But in the meantime, 

managers should emphasize the provision of diversity in recreation settings based on the assumption that a corresponding 

diversity of experiences will be produced.

ROS has been adapted and applied to several more specific 

types of outdoor recreation areas and uses, including wilderness (Flanagan and Anderson 2008). For example, there is a 

Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS) that is 

based on a series of physical-biological, social, and managerial 

indicators and standards that combine to form four classes of 

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience Manning
170 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

wilderness recreation opportunities labeled Transition, Semiprimitive, Primitive, and Pristine as shown in Table 4.

ROS is a conceptual or organizing framework for understanding and managing recreation opportunities. It explicitly 

recognizes that experiences derived from recreation activities 

are related to the settings in which they occur, and that settings in turn are a function of resource, social, and managerial 

factors. By describing ranges of these factors (or alternative 

standards), ROS illustrates the potential diversity of recreation 

opportunities. The underlying rationale for ROS is sometimes 

referred to as “experience-based setting management” (Manfredo 1983; Floyd and Gramann 1997).

ROS can be used in several ways, perhaps most importantly 

as an allocation and planning tool. Taking into account demands 

for recreation opportunities and their relative abundance, ROS 

can help guide allocation decisions so that each recreation area 

contributes to the diversity desirable in a complete system of 

recreation opportunities. Moreover, once an appropriate opportunity type has been chosen, ROS can help define specific 

management objectives for each setting attribute. Using noise as 

an example, Clark and Stankey (1979b) illustrate how ROS can 

be helpful in formulating an appropriate management objective 

and ensuring that limits of acceptable change or standards are 

not violated. The ROS concept has been adopted as an integral 

part of frameworks designed to address carrying capacity as discussed earlier (Stankey and others 1985; National Park Service 

1997). The specific setting attributes or indicators used in ROS 

can also be useful in designing and conducting inventories of 

recreation opportunities (Kliskey 1998). ROS also provides an 

explicit framework within which consequences of alternative 

management actions can be evaluated. ROS also provides a 

means of matching desired visitor experiences with available 

opportunities. ROS provides relatively specific descriptions of 

available recreation opportunities, and this can help visitors 

more readily identify those opportunities most likely to meet 

their desired experiences. This can also reduce potential conflict between incompatible recreation activities (Daniels and 

Krannich 1990). If recreation areas are consistently managed 

for defined types of opportunities that are made known to the 

public, this is likely to have substantial benefits to both visitors and managers (Jubenville and Becker 1983). Visitors are 

more likely to be satisfied with the opportunities they select, 

and managers are less likely to have to resort to regulatory 

measures designed to control inappropriate visitor use.

Discussion _______________________

The frameworks described above enhance understanding of 

the wilderness experience and can be integrated to help guide 

wilderness management. Figure 3 presents an integration of 

these frameworks in a single conceptual model accompanied 

with an example of their application. As figure 3 suggests, 

visitors to wilderness are driven by an array of motivations, for 

example seeking solitude. These motivations lead visitors to 

select recreation activities and settings that are most likely to 

fulfill these motivations, hiking in the wilderness for example. 

Recreation settings are defined by resource (few social trails), 

social (few encounters with other groups along trails), and 

managerial (low standard trail) characteristics. If visitors are 

successful in fulfilling their motivations, then they are likely to 

be satisfied and associated benefits of recreation may accrue, 

perhaps a sense of peace in our example. Wilderness managers 

play an important role in this process by formulating management objectives for wilderness areas (such as, opportunities 

for solitude), and translating these objectives into indicators 

(number of groups per day encountered along trails) and standards that represent the limits of acceptable change (no more 

than five groups per day encountered along trails). Standards 

Table 4—Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. (From Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center n.d.)

Wilderness Recreation Opportunities

Indicators Transition Semi-Primitive Primitive Pristine

Vegetation loss & bare, compacted 1,000 625 400 225

mineral soil at campsites (sq. feet)

Number of trees with roots exposed, 10 6 4 0

or percent (whichever is less) 50% 25% 25% 0%

Encounters—80% probability— 10-20 10 7 1

maximum number of encounters Generally 10, but

per day when traveling—primary up to 20 on a case

use season by case basis.

Party size—people & stock combined 12 12 12 12

 Encourage 6 or less

 people, 0 stock

Campsites visible when occupied 3 2 1 0

Dead woody debris available for firewood Appears to be natural levels compared to adjacent similar areas

Manning Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 171

or limits of acceptable change are informed by the wilderness 

recreation norms of visitors and other stakeholders, along 

with other types of information such as resource scarcity and 

sensitivity, law and policy, and available funding and staffing.

Table 5 adds elements of diversity and quality to this model. 

Following the discussion above, visitors select wilderness 

recreation activities and settings based on motivations and the 

satisfaction and potential benefits to be attained. Managers 

formulate objectives for sites and areas that are expressed in 

empirical terms as indicators and standards/limits of acceptable change. Indicators and standards can be combined in 

alternative ways to facilitate a range of wilderness settings or 

Figure 3—Conceptual model to integrate frameworks for defining and managing wilderness experience.

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience Manning

Table 5—Integrated framework to manage for diverse, high quality wilderness opportunities.

Scale Measure of

Quality

Framework

Element Example Wilderness Opportunities

Visitor Visitor

satisfaction

Motivation Physical

challenge

Time with

friends &

family

Immersion

with nature

Activity Trail Running Camping Backpacking

Setting Trail network Scenic

landscape

Remote

backcountry

Benefit Competency &

esteem

In-group

cohesion

Connection &

knowledge

Manager/

Unit

Maintain

standard/

LAC

Objective

Facilitate

access to

backcountry

Minimize

visitor

conflicts

Minimal

human

intrusion

Indicator

Trail mileage

&

maintenance

Campsite

sharing

% time

aircraft

audible

Standards

Or LAC

≥ 80% of

trails open at

any time

No groups

must share

campsites

≤ 10% of the

time

Society/

Landscape

Diverse

spectrum of

opportunities

ROS Transition Primitive Pristine
172 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

opportunities, in this case labeled “transition”, “primitive”, 

and “pristine.” Measures of quality can be applied at three 

levels. For visitors, quality is the satisfaction associated with 

fulfilling motivations and attaining benefits. For managers 

of a wilderness area or site, quality is defined as maintaining 

the standards that have been formulated (or not violating the 

limits of acceptable change). For society at large (or a system 

of wilderness areas at the landscape level), quality is provision 

of a spectrum of wilderness opportunities designed to meet the 

needs of a diverse population.

The conceptual and empirical frameworks reviewed and 

synthesized in this paper should not be interpreted too literally, 

nor should the knowledge derived from the long-term program 

of research on outdoor recreation and the wilderness experience 

be overstated. For example, many studies have found only 

modest relationships among variables such as motivations, 

activities, settings, and benefits. Study hypotheses are sometimes not supported, and it is hard to synthesize and generalize 

cross-sectional studies rooted in a variety of places and times. 

Perhaps more importantly, there are alternative interpretations 

of recreation and wilderness research. In particular, some of 

the frameworks advanced in this paper have been critiqued as 

more highly structured, linear, and mechanistic than warranted, 

sometimes being labeled a “production process”, the “commodity metaphor”, and “experienced-based setting management” 

to emphasize their structured approach (Williams and others 

1992, Patterson and others 1998; Pierskalla and Lee 1998; 

Stewart 1998; Stewart and Cole, 1999; Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001; Borrie and others 2001; More 2002a, b; More and 

Kuentzel 2000). To suggest that selected recreation activities 

and wilderness settings will unerringly lead to satisfaction of 

corresponding motivations and attainment of known benefits 

would be an overstatement. Some researchers have advanced 

alternative interpretations which have been variously labeled 

as “process-based”, “transactive”, “dynamic, emergent, and 

multi-phasic”, and “situated freedom” to emphasize less 

highly structured relationships. This critique includes several 

dimensions.

First, the behavioral interpretation of recreation that underlies some of the frameworks described in this paper is built 

on expectancy theory which assumes that human behavior is 

goal-oriented and that choices about recreation activities and 

areas are made in rational ways (Pierskalla and Lee 1998; More 

and Kuentzel 2000; More 2002a). However, such decisions are 

often made without full information by recreation participants, 

and the psychology underlying such decisions may be complex 

and influenced by emotion as well as intellect. For example, 

several studies have found that “mood” can be an important 

influence in recreation experiences (Hull et al 1992; Stewart 

1992; Hull and Michael 1995, Hull and others 1996). Moreover, 

“sense of place”, “place attachment”, and related emotional 

connections between recreationists and park and wilderness 

areas can strongly influence recreation choices, behaviors, 

and attitudes. This issue has become an important part of the 

professional and scientific literature on outdoor recreation 

(Williams and others 1992; Warzecha and Lime 2001, Kyle 

and others 2004 a, b, c; Smaldone and others 2005).

Recent research has also suggested that recreation experiences 

can be highly dynamic and that this can confound analyses 

and application of the conventional behavioral approach to 

recreation (McIntyre and Roggenbuck 1998; Patterson and 

others 1998; Pierskala and Lee 1998; Stewart 1998; Borrie 

and Roggenbuck 2001; Breejen 2007). For example, a study 

of canoeists in the Juniper Prairie Wilderness, FL used qualitative interviews to explore the character of the wilderness 

experience (Patterson and others 1998). Many respondents 

reported that “challenge” was an important component of the 

experience, but challenge was interpreted in both positive and 

negative ways depending upon characteristics of participants 

and specifics of the experience. While challenge is a potentially 

important motivation for outdoor recreation in the context of 

the conventional behavioral approach to recreation, it may 

have alternative meanings and implications across places, 

times, and participants. The authors advance the idea that 

recreation opportunities (that is, activities, settings) might be 

most appropriately interpreted and characterized by the notion 

of “situated freedom” which they describe as

“structure in the environment that sets boundaries on 

what can be perceived or experienced, but that within 

those boundaries recreationists are free to experience 

the world in highly individual, unique, and variable 

ways. Under these conditions, the nature of experience 

is seen as emergent rather than predictable” (Patterson 

and others 1998:425-426.).

A related study employed an “experience sampling method” 

to examine recreation experiences at the Okefenokee Wilderness, GA (Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001). Respondents were 

asked to report the character of their wilderness experience at 

randomly-assigned intervals throughout their trips, and findings 

suggest that the experience often varied significantly along 

dimensions of both space and time. For example, respondents 

reported greater focus on the environment and on introspection during the “exit” phase of the experience compared to the 

“entry” phase, and less focus on others/social acceptance during 

the “immersion” phase. The authors conclude that recreation 

experiences can be characterized as “dynamic, emergent, and 

multi-phasic”, and this may introduce a level of complexity to 

the assumptions underlying conventional behavioral interpretations of recreation.

A final critique notes that strong, empirically defined relationships among recreation activities, settings, motivations, 

and benefits have yet to emerge (McCool 1978; McCool and 

others 1985; More and Kuentzel 2000; More 2002 a,b). Studies reviewed earlier in this paper offer more mixed findings 

on this topic.

As in many of these types of scientific and professional 

discussions, the “truth” probably lies somewhere in the broad 

middle ground of the two extremes of this issue. Human behavior 

is complex and adaptable, but is not random. Managers can 

help facilitate psychological and other outcomes for wilderness 

visitors, but cannot dictate such ends. However, it seems hard 

to deny that we have learned a lot about outdoor recreation 

and the wilderness experience over the past several decades 

and that this knowledge can be integrated and synthesized 

Manning Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 173

into a series of organizational frameworks that can support 

informed decision-making about defining and managing the 

wilderness experience. Ultimately, this will require exercise 

of some element of management judgment. And, of course, 

more research is needed!

Conclusion_______________________

A substantive body of research on outdoor recreation has 

emerged over the past several decades and this work has important implications for defining and managing the wilderness 

experience. The conceptual and empirical frameworks described 

in this paper lead to the following series of propositions:

1. Wilderness experiences can be understood as behavior 

that is driven by visitor motivations and potential benefits.

2. Wilderness recreation activities and settings can be 

instrumental in facilitating satisfaction of visitor motivations and benefits.

3. Wilderness settings/opportunities can be defined by a 

three-fold framework, including resource, social and 

managerial conditions.

4. Definition of the quality of the wilderness experience 

has evolved from global measures of visitor satisfaction 

to include measures of the degree to which wilderness 

recreation opportunities provide the experiences for 

which they are designed and managed, and the extent 

to which the system of wilderness opportunities meets 

the inherently diverse needs of society.

5. Wilderness recreation should be guided by management 

objectives, and these objectives should be stated in empirical terms of indicators and standards that specify the 

limits of acceptable change.

6. Formulation of indicators and standards/limits of acceptable change should be informed by social norms 

of wilderness visitors and other stakeholders, as well 

as other relevant sources of information.

7. Indicators and standards that define wilderness recreation opportunities can be configured in alternative 

combinations to help guide provision of a spectrum of 

wilderness opportunities and experiences designed to 

meet the diverse needs of society.

The frameworks and associated propositions that have 

emerged from the scientific and professional literature can be 

used to provide some order and understanding to the inherently 

complex topic of the wilderness experience. While there is 

some debate over the degree to which these frameworks can 

be interpreted and applied in a literal way, they can provide 

conceptual and empirical guidance in defining and managing 

the wilderness experience.

Acknowledgment__________________

Thanks to the following members of the Park Studies Laboratory: William Valliere for help with the tables and figures, 

Nathan Reigner for help in crafting Figures 3 and Table 5, and 

Laura Anderson for help with the bibliography.

References _______________________

Absher, J. 1998. Customer service measures for National Forest recreation. 

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 16(3):31-42.

Allen, L. 1996. Benefits-based management of recreation services. Parks and 

Recreation. 31:64-76.

Allen, L.; McGovern, J. 1997. BBM: It’s working. Parks and Recreation. 

32:48-55.

Applegate, J.; Clark, K. 1987. Satisfaction levels of birdwatchers: An observation on the consumptive-nonconsumptive continuum. Leisure Sciences. 

9:129-34.

Atkinson, J.; Birch, D. 1972. Motivation: The dynamics of action. New York: 

John Wiley and Sons.

Baker, D.; Crompton, J. 2000. Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. 

Annals of Tourism Research. 3:785-804.

Beard, J.; Ragheb, M. 1980. Measuring leisure satisfaction. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 12:20-33.

Borrie, W.; Freimund, W.; Davenport, M; Manning, R. 2001. Crossing 

methodological boundaries: assessing visitor motivations and support for management actions at Yellowstone National Park using 

quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The George Wright 

Forum. 18(3):73-83.

Borrie, W.; Roggenbuck, J. 1995. Community-based research for an urban 

recreation application of benefits-based management. Proceedings of the 

Second Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-156: 159-63.

Borrie, W.; Roggenbuck, J. 2001. The dynamic, emergent, and multi-phasic 

nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 

33(2):202-28.

Breejen, L. 2007. The experiences of long distance walking: A case study of 

the West Highland Way in Scotland. Tourism Management. 28:1417-27.

Brewer, D.; Gillespie, G. 1967. Estimating satisfaction levels of outdoor 

recreationists. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 22:248-9.

Brown, P. 1977. Information needs for river recreation planning and 

management. Proceedings: River Recreation Management and Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

NC-28:193-201.

Brown, P.; Haas, G. 1980. Wilderness recreation experiences: The Rawah 

case. Journal of Leisure Research. 12:229-41.

Brown, P.; Ross, D. 1982. Using desired recreation experiences to predict 

setting preferences Forest and River Recreation: Research Update. St Paul, 

MN: University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Report 18:105-10.

Brunke, K.; Hunt, K. 2007. Comparison of two approaches for the measurement 

of waterfowl hunter satisfaction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 12:443-57.

Buist, L.; Hoots, T. 1982. Recreation opportunity spectrum approach to resource 

planning. Journal of Forestry. 80:84-6.

Bultena, G.; Klessig, L. 1969. Satisfaction in camping: A conceptualization 

and guide to social research. Journal of Leisure Research. 1:348-64.

Bultena, G.; Taves, M. 1961. Changing wilderness images and forest policy. 

Journal of Forestry. 59:167-71.

Burch, W. 1966. Wilderness-The life cycle and forest recreational choice. 

Journal of Forestry. 64:606-10.

Burch, W. 1974. In democracy is the preservation of wilderness. Appalachia. 

40:90-101.

Burns, R.; Graefe, A; Absher, J. 2003. Alternate measurement approaches 

to recreational customer satisfaction: Satisfaction-only versus gap scores. 

Leisure Sciences. 25:363-80.

Catton, W., Jr. Motivations of wilderness users. Pulp and Paper Magazine of 

Canada (Woodlands Section). 1969 Dec. 19:121-6.

Clark, R.; Hendee, J; Campbell, F. 1971. Values, behavior, and conflict in 

modern camping culture. Journal of Leisure Research. 3:145-9.

Clark, R.; Stankey, G. 1979a. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A 

framework for planning, management, and research. USDA Forest Service 

Research Paper PNW-98.

Clark, R.; Stankey, G. 1979b. Determining the acceptability of recreational 

impacts: An application of the outdoor recreation opportunity spectrum. 

Recreation Impact on Wildlands. USDA Forest Services, Pacific Northwest 

Region R-6-001-1979:32-42.

Clawson, M. 1959. The crisis in outdoor recreation. American Forests. 

65.:22-31,40-1.

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience Manning
174 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Cole, D. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: A state-ofknowledge review. Proceedings- National wilderness research conference: 

Issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report INT-220.:135-77.

Cole, D.; Manning, R; Lime, D. 2005. Addressing visitor capacity of parks 

and rivers. Parks and Recreation. March 2005: 8-12.

Collins, R.; Hodge, I. 1984. Clustering visitors for recreation management. 

Journal of Environmental Management. 19:147-58.

Confer, J., Vogelsong, H., Graefe, A., and Solan, D. 1997. Relationships between 

motivations and recreation activity preferences among Delaware State Park 

visitors: An exploratory analysis. Proceedings of the 1996 Northeastern 

Recreation Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report NE-232:146-53.

Connelly, N. 1987. Critical factors and their threshold for camper satisfaction 

at two campgrounds. Journal of Leisure Research. 19:159-73.

Crandall, R. 1980. Motivation for leisure. Journal of Leisure Research. 12:45-54.

Daniels, S.; Krannich, R. 1990. The Recreation opportunity spectrum as a 

conflict management tool. In: Social Science and Natural Resource Management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 165-79.

DeVoto, B. 1953. Let’s get close to the national parks. Harpers. 207:49-52.

Dorfman, P. 1979. Measurement and meaning of recreation satisfaction: A case 

study of camping. . Environment and Behavior. 11:483-510.

Driver, B. 1975. Quantification of outdoor recreationists’ preferences. Research, 

Camping, and Environmental Education. 11:165-87.

Driver, B. 1976. Toward a better understanding of the social benefits of 

outdoor recreation participation. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report SE-9: 163-89.

Driver, B. 1985. What is produced by management of wildlife by public 

agencies. Leisure Sciences. 7:281-295).

Driver, B. 1990. Focusing research on the benefits of leisure: Special issue 

introduction. Journal of Leisure Research. 22:93-98.

Driver, B. 1996. Benefits-driven management of natural areas. Natural Areas 

Journal. 16:94-99.

Driver, B. 2008. Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of leisure. 

State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Driver, B.; Bassett, J. 1977. Problems of defining and measuring the preferences of river recreationists. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report NC-28:267-72.

Driver, B.; Brown, P. 1975. A socio-psychological definition of recreation 

demand, with implications for recreation resource planning. Assessing 

Demand for Outdoor Recreation:62-88.

Driver, B.; Brown, P. 1978. The opportunity spectrum concept in outdoor 

recreation supply inventories: A rationale. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-55:24-31.

Driver, B.; Brown, P; Peterson, G. 1991. Benefits of leisure. State College, 

PA: Venture Publishing.

Driver, B.; Brown, P.; Stankey, G; Gregoire, T. 1987. The ROS planning system: 

Evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences. 9:201-12.

Driver, B.; Crooksey, R. 1977. Preferred psychological outcomes of recreational 

fishing. Proceedings of the National Sport Fishing Symposium:27-39.

Driver, B.; Knopf, R. 1976. Temporary escape: One product of sport fisheries 

management. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 1:21-9.

Driver, B.; Rosenthal, D. 1982. Measuring and improving effectiveness of 

public outdoor recreation programs. Washington D.C.: USDA Forest Service, 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, and George Washington University.

Driver, B.; Tocher, R. 1970. Toward a behavior interpretation of recreational 

engagements, with implications for planning. Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning:9-31.

Dustin, D.; McAvoy, L. 1982. The decline and fall of quality recreation opportunities and environments. Environmental Ethics. 4:8-32.

Dwyer, J. 1993. Customer evaluation of campground management: HuronManistee National Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

NE-176:87-9.

Ewert, A. 1994. Playing the edge: Motivation and risk-taking in a high altitude 

wilderness-like environment Environment and Behavior. 26:3-24.

Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. 1974. Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single 

and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review. 81:59-74.

Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, interaction and behavior: An 

introduction to theory and research reading. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley 

Publishing Company.

Flanagan, T.; Anderson, S. 2008. Mapping perceived wilderness to support 

protected area management in the San Juan National Forest, Colorado. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 256:1039-48.

Fleishman, L.; Feitelson, E.; Salomon, I. 2007. Behavioral adaptations to 

crowding disturbance: Evidence from nature reserves in Israel. Leisure 

Sciences. 29:37-52.

Floyd, M. 1997. Pleasure, arousal, and dominance: Exploring affective determinants of recreation satisfaction. Leisure Sciences. 19:83-96.

Floyd, M.; Gramann, J. 1997. Experience-based setting management: Implications for market segmentation of hunters. Leisure Sciences. 19:113-28.

Fluker, M.; Turner, L. 2000. Needs, motivations, and expectations of a commercial whitewater rafting experience. Journal of Travel Research. 38:380-9.

Foster, R.; Jackson, E. 1979. Factors associated with camping satisfaction 

in Alberta Provincial Park campgrounds. Journal of Leisure Research. 

11:292-306.

Frissell, S.; Duncan, D. 1965. Campsite preference and deterioration Journal 

of Forestry 63:256-60.

Frissell, S.; Stankey, G. 1972. Wilderness environmental quality: Search for 

social and ecological harmony. Proceedings of the Society of American 

Foresters Annual Conference: 170-83.

Graefe, A., Ditton, R., Roggenbuck, J., and Schreyer, R. 1981. Notes on the 

stability of the factor structure of leisure meaning. Leisure Sciences. 4:51-65.

Graefe, A., and Fedler, A. 1986. Situational and subjective determinants of 

satisfaction in marine recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences. 8:275-95.

Graefe, A., Kuss, F., and Vaske, J. 1990. Vistior impact management: The 

planning framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation 

Association.

Graefe, A.; Absher, J; Burns, R. 2001. Monitoring visitor satisfaction: A 

comparison of comment cards and more in-depth surveys. Proceedings 

of the 2000 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report NE-276:265-9.

Graefe, A.; Cahill, K; Bacon, J. 2011. Putting visitor capacity in perspective: A reply to the capacity work group. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 29(1):21-37.

Graefe, A.; Thapa, B.; Confer, J; Absher, J. 2000. Relationships between 

trip motivations and selected variables among Allegheny National Forest 

visitors. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: 

Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest 

Service Proceedings RMRS-15:107-12.

Greenleaf, R.; Echelberger, H; Leonard, R. 1984. Backpacker satisfaction, 

expectations, and use levels in an eastern forest setting. Journal of Park 

and Recreation Administration. 2:49-56.

Haas, G.; Allen, D; Manfredo, M. 1979. Some dispersed recreation experience 

and the resource settings in which they occur. Assessing amenity resource 

values. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-68:21-6.

Haas, G., Driver, B.; Brown, P. 1980. Measuring wilderness recreation experiences. Proceedings of the Wilderness Psychology Group. Durham, New 

Hampshire: Wilderness Pschology Group. p. 20-40.

Hall, T.; Cole, D. 2007. Changes in the motivations, perceptions, and behaviors 

of recreation users: Displacement and coping in wilderness. USDA Forest 

Service Research Paper RMRS-RP-63.

Hammitt, W.; Patterson, M. 1991. Coping behavior to avoid visual encounters: 

Its relationship to wildland privacy. Journal of Leisure Research. 23:225-37.

Hammitt, W.; Cole, D. 1998. Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. 

2nd ed. New York: John Wiley.

Harris, C.; Driver, B.; Bergerson, E. 1985. Do choices of sport fisheries 

reflect angler preferences for site attributes? Proceedings- Symposium 

on Recreation Choice Behavior. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report INT-184:46-54.

Heberlein, T. 1977. Density, crowding, and satisfaction: Sociological studies 

for determining carrying capacities. Proceedings: River recreation management and research symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report NC-28:67-76.

Hendee, J. 1974. A multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2:104-13.

Hendricks, W.; Schneider, I; Budruk, M. 2004. Extending importanceperformance analysis with benefit-based segmentation. Journal of Park 

and Recreation Administration. 22(1):53-74.

Herrick, T; McDonald, C. 1992. Factors affecting overall satisfaction with 

a river recreation experience. Environmental Management. 16(2):243-7.

Manning Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 175

Heywood, J. 1987. Experience preferences of participants in different types 

of river recreation groups. Journal of Leisure Research. 19:1-12.

Holden, A; Sparrowhawk, J. 2002. Understanding the motivations of ecotourists: The case of trekkers in Annapurna, Nepal. International Journal of 

Tourism Research. 4:435-46.

Hull, B; Michael, S. 1995. Nature-based recreation, mood change, and stress 

restoration. Leisure Sciences. 17:1-14.

Hull, R.; Michael, S.; Walker, G; Roggenbuck, J. 1996. Ebb and flow of brief 

leisure experiences. Leisure Sciences. 18:299-314.

Hull, R.; Stewart, W; Young, K. 1992. Experience patterns: Capturing the 

dynamic nature of a recreation experience. Journal of Leisure Research. 

24:299-314.

Hull, R.; Stewart, W; Young, K. 1992. Experience patterns: Capturing the 

dynamic nature of a recreation experience. Journal of Leisure Research. 

24:299-314.

Hunt, K; Ditton, R. 2001. Perceived benefits of recreational fishing to HispanicAmerican and Anglo anglers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 6:153-72.

Jackson, J. 1965. Structural characteristics of norms. Current Studies in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc: 301-9.

Jacobson, S. 2001. Monitoring public satisfaction in an ecosystem management 

framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 19(4):83-101.

Jubenville, A, and Becker, R. 1983. Outdoor recreation management planning: 

Contemporary schools of thought. Recreation planning and management. 

State College, PA: Venture Publishing:303-19.

Kliskey, A. 1998. Linking the wilderness perception mapping concept to the 

recreation opportunity spectrum. Environmental Management. 22:79-88.

Knopf, R, Driver, B., and Bassett, J. 1973. Motivations for fishing. Human 

Dimensions in Wildlife Programs. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Management Institute:28-41.

Knopf, R, and Lime, D. 1984. A recreation manager’s guide to understanding 

river use and users. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-38.

Kuss, F, Graefe, A., and Vaske, J. 1990. Visitor impact management: A review 

of research. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Kyle, G.; Absher, J.; Hammitt, W; Cavin, J. 2006. An examination of the 

motivation-involvement relationship. Leisure Sciences. 28:467-85.

Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R; Bacon, J. 2004a. Effect of activity involvement and place attachment on recreationists’ perceptions of setting density. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 36(2):209-31.

Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R; Bacon, J. 2004b. Effects of place attachment 

on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural 

setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24:213-25.

Kyle, G.; Mowen, A; Tarrant, M. 2004c. Linking place preferences with place 

meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation 

and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24:439-54.

LaPage, W. 1963. Some sociological aspects of forest recreation. Journal of 

Forestry. 61:32-6.

LaPage, W. 1967. Camper characteristics differ at public and commercial 

campgrounds in New England. USDA Forest Service Research Note NE-59.

LaPage, W. 1973. Growth potential of the family camping market. USDA 

Forest Service Research Paper NE-252.

LaPage, W,; Bevins, M. 1981. Satisfaction monitoring for quality control in 

campground management. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-484.

Legare, A-M; Haider, W. 2008. Trend analysis of motivation-based clusters 

at the Chilkoot Trail National Historic site of Canada. Leisure Sciences. 

30:158-76.

Leung, Y-F; Marion, J. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: A state-of-knowledge review. Wilderness science in a time of change 

conference-Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-P-15: 23-48.

Lime, D. 1974. Locating and designing campgrounds to provide a full range of 

camping opportunities. Outdoor recreation research: Applying the results. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-9:56-66.

Lime, D. 1979. Carrying capacity. Trends. 16:37-40.

Lucas, R.; Stankey, G. 1974. Social carrying capacity for backcountry recreation. Outdoor recreation research: Applying the results. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report NC-9:14-23.

Mackay, K; Crompton, J. 1990. Measuring the quality of recreation services. 

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 8(3):47-56.

Manfredo, M. 1983. A test of concepts inherent in experience-based setting 

management for outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research. 

15:263-83.

Manfredo, M; Driver, B.; Tarrant, M. 1996. Measuring leisure motivation: 

A meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 24:157-70.

Manning, R. 2001. Visitor experience and resource protection: A framework 

for managing carrying capacity of National Parks. Journal of Park and 

Recreation Administration. 19:93-108.

Manning, R. 2007. Parks and carrying capacity: Commons without tragedy. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Manning, R. 2009. Parks and people: Managing outdoor recreation at Acadia 

National Park. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England.

Manning, R. 2011. Studies in outdoor recreation. 3rd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon 

State University Press.

Manning, R; Valliere, W. 2001. Coping in outdoor recreation: Causes and 

consequences of crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal 

of Leisure Research. 33(4):410-26.

Manning, R.; Valliere, W.; Wang, B; Jacobi, C. 1999. Crowding norms: Alternative measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences. 21:219-29.

Maslow, A. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 50 

370-96.

McCool, S. 1978. Recreation activity packages at water-based resources. 

Leisure Sciences. 1:163-73.

McCool, S.; Clark, R; Stankey, G. 2007. An assessment of frameworks useful 

for public land recreation planning. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-705.

McCool, S; Cole, D. 1997. Proceedings-Limits of Acceptable Change and 

related planning processes: Progress and future direction. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report INT-371.

McCool, S; Lime, D. 2001. Tourism carrying capacity: Tempting fantasy or 

useful reality? Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 9(5):372-88.

McCool, S; Reilly, M. 1993. Benefit segmentation analysis of state park 

visitor setting preferences and behavior. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 11:1-14.

McCool, S.; Stanley, G; Clark, R. 1985. Choosing recreation settings: 

Processes, findings, and research directions. Proceedings- Symposium 

on recreation choice behavior. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report INT-184:1-8.

McIntyre, N; Roggenbuck, J. 1998. Nature/person transactions during an 

outdoor adventure experience: A multiphase analysis. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 30:401-22.

Meisel, C; Cottrell, S. 2004. Differences in motivations and expectations of 

divers in the Florida Keys. Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation 

Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

NE-317:393-401.

More, T. 2002a. The marginal user as the justification for public recreation: 

A rejoinder to Cropton, Driver and Dustin. Journal of Leisure Research. 

34(1):103-18.

More, T. 2002b. “The parks are being loved to death” and other frauds and 

deceits in recreation management. Journal of Leisure Research. 34(1):52-78.

More, T; Kuentzel, W. 2000. Five reasons to have reservations about benefitsbased management. Proceedings of the 2000 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-269.

National Park Service. 1997. VERP: The Visitor Experience and Resource 

Protection (VERP) framework: A handbook for planners and managers. 

Denver, CO: Denver Service Center.

Patterson, M.; Watson, A.; Williams, D; Roggenbuck, J. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 30(4):423-52.

Pierskalla, C.; Lee, M. 1998. An ecological perception model of leisure affordances. Leisure Sciences. 20:67-79.

Propst, D.; Lime, D. 1982. How satisfying is satisfaction research? Forest and 

river recreation: Research update. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota 

Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication:124-133.

Roggenbuck, J.; Schreyer, R. 1977. Relations between river trip motives and 

perception of crowding, management preference, and experience satisfaction. Proceedings: River recreation management and research symposium. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-28:359-64.

Rollins, R; Chambers, D. 1990. Camper satisfaction with Canadian Park Service 

campgrounds. Social science and natural resource recreation management. 

Boulder, CO: Westview Press:91-103.

Rosenthal, D.; Waldman, D; Driver, B. 1982. Construct validity of instruments measuring recreationalists preferences Leisure Sciences. 5:89-108.

Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience Manning
176 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Schramm, H; Gerard, P. 2004. Temporal changes in fishing motivation among 

fishing club anglers in the United States. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 11:313-21.

Schreyer, R; Driver, B. 1989. The benefits of outdoor recreation participation. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-52:472-82.

Schreyer, R; Roggenbuck, J. 1978. The influence of experience expectations 

on crowding perceptions and social-psychological carrying capacities. 

Leisure Sciences. 1:373-94.

Shafer, C.; Hammitt, W. 1995. Congruency among experience dimensions, 

cognitive indicators, and coping behaviors in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 

17:263-79.

Shafer, E., Jr. 1969. The average camper who doesn’t exist. USDA Forest 

Service Research Paper NE-142.

Shafer, E., Jr.; Mietz, J. 1969. Aesthetic and emotional experiences rate high 

with northeastern wilderness hikers. Environment and Behavior. 1:187-97.

Shelby, B.; Heberlein, T. 1984. A conceptual framework for carrying capacity 

determination. Leisure Sciences. 6:433-51.

Shelby, B.; Heberlein, T. 1986. Carrying capacity in recreation settings. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Shelby, B.; Vaske, J.; Donnelly, M. 1996. Norms, standards and natural resources. Leisure Sciences. 18:103-23.

Skar, M.; Odden, A; Vistad, O. 2008. Motivation for mountain biking in 

Norway: Change and stability in late-modern outdoor recreation. Journal 

of Geography. 62(1):36-45.

Smaldone, D.; Harris, C.; Sanyal, N; Lind, D. 2005. Place attachment and 

management of critical park issues in Grant Teton National Park. Journal 

of Park and Recreation Administration. 23(1):90-114.

Stankey, G. 1972. A strategy for the definition and management of wilderness 

quality. Natural environments: Studies in theoretical and applied analysis. 

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press:88-114.

Stankey, G. 1973. Visitor preception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. 

USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-142.

Stankey, G. 1974. Criteria for the determination of recreation carrying capacity 

in the Colorado River Basin. Environmental management in the Colorado 

River Basin. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Stankey, G. 1980a. A comparison of carrying capacity perceptions among 

visitors to two wildernesses. USDA Forest Service Research paper INT-242.

Stankey, G.; Cole, D.; Lucas, R.; Peterson, M.; Frissell, S.; Washburne, R. 

1985. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-176.

Stankey, G; Manning, R. 1986. Carrying capacity of recreation settings. A 

literature review: The President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, M-47, M-57. 

Stein, T.; Lee, M. 1995. Managing recreation resources for positive outcomes: 

An application of benefits-based management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 13:52-70.

Stewart, W, and Hull, R. 1992. Satisfaction of what? Post hoc versus real-time 

construct validity. Leisure Sciences. 14:195-209.

Stewart, W. 1992. Influence of onsite experience on recreation experience 

preference judgements. Journal of Leisre Research. 24:185-98.

Stewart, W. 1998. Leisure as multiphase experiences: Challenging traditions. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 30:391-400.

Stewart, W; Cole, D. 1999. In search of situational effects in outdoor recreation: Different methods, different results. Leisure Sciences. 21:269-86.

Stone, G.; Taves, M. 1958. Camping in the wilderness. Mass Leisure. New 

York: The Free Press of Glencoe: 290-305.

Tarrant, M.; Manfredo, M.; Driver, B. 1994. Recollections of outdoor recreation experiences: A psychophysiologuical perspectives. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 26:357-71.

Tarrant, M. 1996. Attending to past outdoor recreation experiences: Symptom 

reporting and changes in affect. Journal of Leisure Research. 28:1-17.

Tian-Cole, S; Crompton, J. 2003. A conceptualization of the relationships 

between service quality and visitor satisfaction, and their links to destination selection. Leisure Studies. 22:65-80.

Todd, S.; Anderson, L.; Young, A; Anderson, D. 2003. Differences in motivations over time by level of development: An examination of pre/post 

adventure recreation experiences. Proceedings of the 2002 Northeastern 

Recreation Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report NE-302:125-31.

Todd, S.; Graefe, A; Mann, W. 2002. Differences in scuba diver motivations 

based on level of development. Proceedings of the 2001 Northeastern 

Recreation Research Symposium. USDA General Technical Report NE289:107-14.

University of Idaho. National Park system 2008 visitor survey card data 

report 2008. [Online]. http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/files/vsc/system/vsc.

napa08.pdf.

Vagias, W.; Morais, D; Dziubek, D. 2006. The role of risk perception in a 

one-day wilderness whitewater rafting trip. Proceedings of the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report NE-341:39-47.

Vaske, J.; Donnelly, M; Shelby, B. 1993. Establishing management standards: 

Selected examples of the normative approach. Environmental management. 17:629-43.

Vaske, J.; Donnelly, M; Williamson, B. 1991. Monitoring for quality control 

in state park management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 

9:59-72.

Vaske, J.; Graefe, A.; Shelby, B; Heberlein, T. 1986. Backcountry encounter 

norms: Theory, method, and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research. 18:137-53.

Vroom, V. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wagar, J. 1963. Campgrounds for many tastes. USDA forest Service Research 

Paper INT-6.

Wagar, J. 1964. The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation. Washington, 

D.C.: Society of American Foresters.

Wagar, J. 1966. Quality in outdoor recreation. Trends. 3:9-12.

Wagar, J. 1968. The place of carrying capacity in the management of recreation lands. Third annual Rocky Mountain-High Plains park and recreation 

conference proceedings. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.

Wagar, J. 1974. Recreational carrying capacity reconsidered. Journal of 

Forestry. 72:274-8.

Wallace, G; Smith, M. 1997. A comparison of motivations, preferred management actions, and setting preferences among Costa Rican, North American, 

and European visitors to five protected areas in Costa Rica. Journal of Park 

and Recreation Administration. 15:59-82.

Warzecha, C; Lime, D. 2001. Place attachment in Canyonlands National Park: 

Visitors’ assessment of setting attributes on the Colorado and Green rivers. 

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 19(1):59-78.

White, E; Pennington-Gray, L. 2002. Skier motivations. Do they change over 

time? Proceedings of the 2002 northeastern recreation research symposium. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-289:115-7.

Whittaker, D.; Shelby, B.; Manning, R.; Cole, D; Haas, G. 2011. Visitor capacity reconsidered: Finding consensus and clarifying differences. Journal of 

Park and Recreation Administration. 29(1):1-20.

Wildland Research Center. 1962. Wilderness and recreation: A report on 

resources, values and problems. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review 

Comission Study Report 3: Government Printing Office.

Williams, D. 1989. Great expectations and the limits of satisfaction: A review 

of recreation and customer satisfaction research. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the national outdoor recreation forum. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report SE-52:422-38.

Williams, D.; Patterson, M.; Roggenbuck, J; Watson, A. 1992. Beyond the 

commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to 

place. Leisure Sciences. 14:29-46.

Williams, D.; Roggenbuck, J; Bange, S. 1991. The effect of norm-encounter 

compatibility in crowding perceptions, experience, and behavior in river 

recreation settings. Journal of Leisure Research. 23:154-72.

Williams, D.; Schreyer, R; Knopf, R. 1990. The effect of experience use history 

on the multidimensional structure of motivations to participate in leisure 

activities. Journal of Leisure Research. 22:36-54.

Yoon, Y-S; Uysal, M. 2005. An examination of the effects of motivation and 

satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management. 26:45-56.

Manning Frameworks for Defining and Managing the Wilderness Experience
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 177

III. Wilderness Futures
178 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 179

Abstract—Does research help managers provide opportunities for 

visitors to have high quality experiences in wilderness? Difficulties 

in applying visitor experience research result from several factors: 

the nature of wilderness itself, the character of the wilderness visitor 

experience challenge as a research and management topic, and the 

paradigm of research applications employed by wilderness scientists. 

Many wilderness visitor research applications seem to be built upon 

a “hypodermic needle” model of knowledge transfer rather than the 

more interactive approach needed in a context of rapid policy and 

social change and uncertainty. This paper suggests scientists and 

managers consider the long-established, but little used, approach to 

research applications of forming a community of practice.

Background ______________________

The unique qualities of wilderness landscapes in the United 

States provide a diverse range of opportunities for visitors to experience naturalness, wildness, a sense of challenge, adventure, 

and solitude. Wilderness landscapes may serve as the virtual 

crucibles that enhance one’s spiritual well-being and strengthen 

families and friendships. The landscapes preserved through 

wilderness designation afford opportunities to learn about the 

natural world and appreciate the role of nature’s ingenuity in 

providing for human life. The breathtaking beauty, absence 

of human development, and dominance of natural processes 

improve our understanding of our heritage and our future.

Opportunities for visitor experiences are explicitly recognized 

and mandated in Section 2(b) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 

which describes wilderness in part as containing “outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type 

of recreation“. Section 2(b) of the Eastern Wilderness Act 

(1975) provides a more inclusive description of a desired visitor 

experience to include not only solitude but also “physical and 

Author: Stephen F. McCool, Professor Emeritus, Department of Society and Conservation, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing 

the Performance of Management in 

Securing High Quality Visitor Experiences 

in Wilderness

Stephen F. McCool

mental challenge...inspiration and primitive recreation.” Of 

all the congressional legislation dealing with parks, wilderness 

and other types of protected areas in the U.S., these are the only 

two national-scale laws that prescribe the type of opportunity 

wilderness affords visitors, although similar phrases to the one 

appearing in the Eastern Wilderness Act do appear in a few 

state and individual wilderness designation acts. As a result, 

these experiences are vulnerable to lapses in attention because 

nowhere else in the American landscape are opportunities for 

such experiences formally preserved.

I assume this description of a visitor experience is something 

that Congress was serious about and for which it expected 

agencies to provide stewardship. While providing for visitor 

experiences of the type described in the legislation may not 

be judged a required obligation of wilderness management 

agencies, the social and cultural importance of opportunities for 

specific components of visitor experiences cannot be denied.

Relationships between biophysical, social and managerial 

conditions and these experiences have been subject to a wide 

variety of research over the last 50 years, beginning most notably with Lucas’s work in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

(1964a,b). The diverse character of those studies demonstrates 

the importance of solitude and primitive recreation to visitors, 

that experiences are multi-dimensional, that not all visitors to 

wilderness come to experience solitude, that there are many 

ways to conceive of visitor experiences, and that the relationships between setting attributes and experiences are probabilistic 

rather than deterministic.

And yet, despite this extensive research and the explicit 

mandate from Congress to provide opportunities for specific 

types of experiences, there are problems in implementing 

management strategies, policies and techniques to ensure that 

such opportunities exist. For example, Cole and Williams (in 

press) argue that managers have been challenged in managing 

opportunities for the experiences described in the Wilderness 

Act and Eastern Wilderness Act. In part, this challenge is derived from what can be broadly termed as “inefficiencies” in 

the transfer of knowledge from this science to actual practice.

In this paper, I focus principally on the underlying structures and mental models of research application in use by 

science to transfer knowledge and understanding needed to 

meet the unique visitor experience opportunities mandated 

by the Wilderness Act and the Eastern Wilderness Act. In 
180 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

writing this paper, my observations are impressionistic rather 

than explicitly empirical and thus remain as hypotheses to 

be explored, assessed and debated. The paper first puts forth 

four characteristics of wilderness that make research and its 

application challenging even to the most competent scientist 

and the most capable manager. Then the paper moves on to a 

description of what appears to be the “mental model in use” 

in contemporary research applications. This mental model will 

only work if its fundamental assumptions prove to be valid, an 

issue discussed in a section which re-interprets the character of 

wilderness visitor management research and suggests the need 

for another model of research applications. The final section 

suggests an approach to research applications that should work 

more efficiently in the 21st century context of post-normal 

science.

Science plays important roles in assisting management in 

providing for experiential opportunities. One significant role 

is “simply” helping frame the question of visitor experiences. 

As Bardwell (1991) has noted, natural resource problems are 

often challenging to frame in such a way that they can be successfully resolved. An outstanding example where science 

has helped frame visitor experience management was the 

shift from asking the question “how many visitors are too 

many?” to one that enquires “what are the appropriate and/or 

acceptable conditions to be maintained in wilderness?” The 

former oversimplifies questions of visitor management while 

the latter compels a discussion of the underlying values of 

wilderness and visitor attitudes.

A second role is to provide empirically-based understanding of what people expect and experience during a wilderness 

visit. This role encompasses the traditional view of science in 

visitor management as an “objective” activity that provides 

management with the data and information needed to not only 

determine what management direction should be chosen but 

also to increase understanding of the consequences of each 

alternative. This role also encompasses developing and testing 

new concepts and methods for thinking about visitor experiences.

A third role involves helping managers develop frameworks 

and systematic approaches to the application of science. While 

data and information are often required as a basis for decisionmaking, management often needs to “work through” the difficult 

and messy challenges of visitor management. Frameworks can 

help management think more critically. Stankey and Clark 

(1996) suggested that an effective framework (1) identifies 

tradeoffs between provision of recreation opportunities 

with the resulting local economic impacts and protection of 

biodiversity values, (2) appreciates and addresses complexity 

(rather than suggesting reductionistic approaches), and (3) accommodates the array of constituencies with interests in the 

specific area or issue.

Recreation and tourism planning frameworks make 

decision making (1) efficient by focusing attention on important elements of the political and social environment, (2) 

effective by gaining the public support that is needed for 

implementation, and (3) equitable by forcing consideration 

of who wins and who loses in different choices. In an overall 

sense, a framework increases the opportunities to practice the 

“mindfulness” Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) argued is important 

to deal with the inevitable surprises occurring in an uncertain 

context.

The saliency and efficacy of such roles, however, are a function of the mental models of knowledge transfer and research 

applications that both scientists and managers hold and which 

influence their behavior (Senge 1990). The fundamental assumptions about science, management and systems to transfer 

research determine the behavior of scientists and managers with 

respect to their own work and how they perceive and respond 

to each other. When there are inefficiencies in carrying out 

these roles due to mental models that are no longer appropriate, science may be inaccurately cast as being irrelevant or 

unhelpful. In these situations, research problems are rarely 

framed with the definitive sideboards that classic scientific 

empiricism requires.

On the Context for Conducting 

Research About Visitor Experiences 

in Wilderness ____________________

Wilderness is not an easy place to conduct research of any 

kind, including that on visitor experiences. Not only are visitors often widely dispersed among trails, trailheads, campsites 

and areas, they often visit to escape the very intrusions social 

scientists pose as they seek to better understand the experiences 

these visitors desire. Beyond these practical considerations, 

there are four specific characteristics of wilderness (McCool 

2003a) that make research particularly challenging, even though 

it may serve as an ideal “laboratory” for visitor experience 

research.

First, wilderness exists within a dynamic social, political and 

biophysical context. Change is ever present, at all scales and 

domains. Wilderness is deeply entrenched in and influenced 

by trends and patterns occurring within larger social, political 

and biophysical contexts. Writing about the increased interest in community based conservation advocated by so-called 

“social constructionists”, Belsky (2000) notes

“A fatal implication of the social constructionists’ 

ascendancy is lack of attention to how political and 

economic institutions and relations operating at the 

global or “nonplace based level” affect social and 

ecological interactions at multiple scales.”

When this context changes, such as the importance of various 

wilderness related values, the character of visitor experiences 

also changes. In particular, the acceptability of wilderness 

conditions that facilitate experience may change. For example, 

changes in preferences for solitude may mean that visitors are 

willing to accept a greater use density than they formerly did. 

Changes in preferences may be linked to larger scale social 

changes. Such changes may occur at speeds and scales that 

are imperceptible at one time and revolutionary at other. Thus, 

the meaning of science, conducted at local, site level scales, 

needs to be interpreted within the context of social processes 

and preferences occurring at larger scales.

McCool Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing the Performance of Management in Securing High Quality Visitor Experiences in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 181

Second, wilderness as a social-ecological system (Andereis 

and others 1994) is characterized by uncertainty. By system, I 

mean a holism consisting of a variety of components interacting 

at different scales with such interactions described by varying 

temporal delays and spatial discontinuities. Andereis and others (1994) proposed that such systems consist of the resource 

(wilderness), resource users (visitors), infrastructure (accesses, 

trails, campsites, information, and so on), and infrastructure 

providers (the managers, as well as supporting scientists). This 

system is, of course, nested within the larger dynamic context 

identified above.

Uncertainty exists because the relationships between causes, 

such as management actions, and results, such as a specific 

dimension of visitor experience, are unknown—because of 

the complexity of the system, the lack of definitive research, 

and the nature of the coupling between causes and effects. 

Research-management interactions, under conditions of uncertainty, are bound to be significantly different than when 

cause-effect relationships are known. Such uncertainty includes 

how experiences can be conceptualized, defined and measured 

and what assumptions underlie research-management relationships. The world is uncertain, particularly in the relationship 

between setting attributes and the experiences visitors construct. 

In spite of 50 years of research, scientists have conceived of 

visitor experiences in diverse ways. The variety of approaches 

to visitor experience research documented in this volume and 

others (see especially Freimund and Cole 2001) indicate science will continue to raise new explanations and seek new 

understandings that challenge current ways of thinking. This 

unsettled character means that the choice of theories or conceptual frameworks to guide research requires considerable 

dialogue and deliberation.

Third, relationships within the social-ecological system, 

which not only define wilderness but in which wilderness 

itself is embedded, are loosely, rather than tightly, coupled. A 

tightly coupled system is evidenced by quick responses in the 

dependent variable to changes in the independent variable. In 

contrast, in a loosely-coupled system, there may be multiple 

causes for some effects as well as spatial discontinuities and 

temporal delays between causes and effects. For example, 

management actions to reduce visitation levels at one trailhead 

or one wilderness may result in increased use someplace else 

at a later date. Exactly where and when may not be predictable 

with any level of accuracy. And given the fragmented nature 

of wilderness jurisdictions, managers in a wilderness adjacent 

to another may see unexpected rises in visitation without any 

forewarning.

Loosely coupled systems are particularly challenging to understand and model, as the temporal and spatial delays involved 

may be considerable thus limiting our ability to understand 

relationships between causes and effects. Large scale changes 

in societal beliefs and preferences about wilderness experiences, for example, may not “appear” in visitor expectations, 

attitudes and behavior until such changes are well established in 

society. In the arena of visitor experience quality, research has 

repeatedly shown, for example, that the correlations between 

dependent and independent variables (such as use density and 

satisfaction) are low with Cole (2001) noting: “Where r2

 has 

been used, density and encounter measures have never explained 

more than 10 percent of the variation in total satisfaction.”

Fourth, wilderness social-ecological systems tend to be nonlinearly dynamic. In some cases, for example, a small change 

in one variable may lead to a large change in another. The well 

established relationships between use level and both biophysical and social consequences are examples of such nonlinearity. Research has demonstrated, for example, that changes in 

use level when use is relatively low lead to rather substantial 

changes in biophysical conditions but at higher levels of use, 

biophysical changes are relatively small (Cole 1987; Hammit 

and Cole 1987). In research linking visitor encounters with 

satisfaction regarding solitude, for example, Stankey (1973) 

found that above a very low level of encounters per day—say 

in the range of four to six—visitors become rapidly dissatisfied 

with their experience.

Thus, relationships between variables are not only loose, but 

are non-linear, further challenging our ability to understand 

them. As a consequence, management actions that unintentionally raise encounter levels, however small in an absolute 

sense, may decrease the flow of benefits to visitors. Actions 

that limit daily entries on trailheads and river access points that 

previously had a great deal of daily variation may have effects 

opposite what is intended. When entry levels are “evened” out, 

some visitors lose opportunities for solitude that they may have 

been seeking when choosing a specific day to enter.

The dynamic complexity of wilderness social-ecological 

systems means that both researchers and managers should 

expect surprises. Cause-effect relationships established at alpha 

< .05 may not be true at all times and all places. The researchmanagement relationship then needs some type of resiliency 

built into it, requiring periodic monitoring, assessment and 

evaluation, followed by change in management.

In a very real sense, then, the problem of visitor experience 

management is a wicked (Rittel and Weber 1973) or messy one 

(Ackoff, 1974). Batie (2008) states: “The causes and effects 

of the problem are extremely difficult to identify and model; 

wicked problems tend to be intractable and elusive because 

they are influenced by many dynamic social and political factors as well as biophysical complexities.”

A characteristic of wicked problems is that there is a lack of 

scientific agreement on cause-effect relationships and broader 

society lacks agreement on goals. Lack of scientific agreement is 

clearly visible in the technical discourse when researchers propose and critique various conceptual approaches to wilderness 

visitor experiences (such as the normative approach debate). 

There is confusion over what is a “primitive and unconfined” 

experience. The lack of social agreement leads to conflict and 

contention over how visitor use of wilderness should be managed not only in civil society but among managers as well.

The role of development and transfer of knowledge in these 

situations is considerably different than in “tame” situations 

where science and society agree on cause-effect relationships 

and goals respectively. McCool and Stankey (2003) conclude:

“Wicked problems and messy situations—imbued 

with high levels of scientific uncertainty and conflict 

Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing the Performance of Management in Securing High Quality Visitor Experiences in Wilderness McCool
182 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

over goals—require new ways of thinking and acting. 

They highlight the need for decisionmaking grounded 

in learning—as a means to enhance understanding of 

both biophysical and social relationships—in accommodation—to address the multiple interests invested in 

the decision—and in consensus building—to develop 

the necessary political understanding and support to 

facilitate effective implementation.”

Progress on such wicked problems requires collaboration, 

particularly between researchers and managers. Researchers 

query managers to better understand how problems are framed 

and managers query researchers about the kinds of knowledge 

and understandings they may provide. McCool and others 

(2007) assert that the great success of such visitor management frameworks as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and 

Limits of Acceptable Change lies in the manager-researcher 

collaboration that led to their development. In both cases, the 

collaboration resulted not only in processes for implementation 

but also in reframing the problem into a form more productive 

and useful than previous incantations.

The Commonly Used Mental Model for 

Research Applications _____________

It is within this challenging and often contentious context 

that wilderness visitor experiences are debated, researched and 

managed. In either developing a research applications program 

or providing data and implications, scientists are influenced 

by this context as well as the organizational environment and 

culture in which they work. That environment generally preferences and rewards publication of results in technically refereed 

journal articles over working with wilderness managers to see 

that research outcomes are applied.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that many scientists 

give little attention to the mental models underlying their 

approach to research applications and transfer of knowledge 

to management. It is my impression that, for many, the implicit 

model at the foundation of application of science to management is depicted as shown in Figure 1. Van Wyk and others 

(2006) describe this as a “push” approach. What scientists do 

in this model is provide “stuff” (defined below) to managers 

to enhance their professional competency such that their performance in visitor experience management will be improved. 

Enhanced performance may be briefly defined as greater ability 

to provide satisfactory experiences consistent with wilderness.

This model is based on certain assumptions about the character of the research applications system and the nature of the 

world. These assumptions (such as, relationships are linear 

and the world is predictable and with enough data, ultimately 

knowable), given the description of wilderness above, are 

likely not to be valid.

What is the “stuff” that science provides managers? For 

many scientists, the response to this question would be the 

data collected, the relationships uncovered, and the hypotheses 

tested and rejected (or confirmed) resulting from a specific 

empirical study. This perception represents a classic example 

of “positivistic” thinking that still dominates much of the 

visitor experience science today. In positivism, meaningful 

science is that which comes from direct observation or use of 

our senses, although as an approach to science, this position 

itself cannot be empirically demonstrated, thus making a logical inconsistency.

However, science provides other and many times more 

useful stuff. Ackoff (1996) provides a useful categorization of 

the stuff provided to managers by science: data, information, 

knowledge, understanding, and wisdom (Table 1). The contents 

of these categories (what we learn to strengthen professional 

competency), Ackoff argues, are not only different but also 

form a hierarchy of “increasing value” to decision-makers, in 

this case wilderness managers.

Figure 1—Implicit model of research applications apparently used by scientists.

Table 1—Character of “stuff” scientists communicate to managers, after Ackoff (1996)

Item Definition

Data Symbols representing objects, events and properties—product of measurement

Information Data that has been processed into forms useful for decisions—information is 

useful in deciding what to do, not how to do it

Knowledge Consists in know-how, how to do something. Knowledge is derived from 

experience or others who have experience. Transfer of knowledge is the basis 

of training, but not of education.

Understanding Provides answers to questions about why—understanding is needed to assess 

the relevance of data and information

Wisdom The ability to perceive and evaluate the long term consequences of behavior—

needed to make tradeoffs between short and long terms effects

McCool Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing the Performance of Management in Securing High Quality Visitor Experiences in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 183

The stuff that is frequently transmitted to managers is comprised of data and information, the direct outputs of empirical 

research. For example, researchers provide managers with 

reports that detail preferences for site conditions (such as 

encounters with others), attitudes toward management actions 

(such as visitor use rationing mechanisms) and responses to 

questions about desired experiences (how important is solitude, 

being with friends, challenge and so on). Frequently, this data 

is quantitative. This is quite natural given positivist tendencies among scientists and the terms of reference for research 

that managers develop. They want answers to questions such 

as what experiences do visitors want, how many visitors are 

encountered in a specific wilderness or what is the relationship 

between inter-visitor encounters and attainment of solitude. 

Such data and information is transmitted through the use of 

written reports and in many situations, a summary oral presentation, supported by Powerpoint slides.

This researcher-manager relationship assumes a “hypodermic 

needle” approach to capacity building. Inject managers with 

data and they will act accordingly. In many respects, this relationship is one characterized as a consultant-client affiliation, 

where researchers acting as consultants hold a contract with the 

client (manager) to provide certain expertise and information 

to the client. The contract emphasizes physical deliverables, 

such as reports and presentations.

Underlying the contractual agreement is an assumption that 

there is a direct relationship between the presentation of data 

and information and enhanced professional performance. This 

model is evident when scientists complete studies and submit 

reports to wilderness management clients and then move on 

to other projects in other places. However, reports and presentations, while perhaps efficient ways to communicate data, 

are not necessarily the efficient and effective approaches for 

transmitting the knowledge, understanding and wisdom needed 

to improve managerial performance.

A Re-Interpretation of the Conditions in 

Which Wilderness Visitor Mangement 

Occurs __________________________

Science about wilderness visitor experiences has generally 

progressed along the framework of classical positivistic models 

of science as noted earlier: literature is reviewed, concepts or 

theories proposed, hypotheses (implicit or explicit) identified, 

data collected, analysis conducted and hypotheses supported 

or refuted. However, there is a real question about the appropriateness of this model of science for management of visitor 

experiences in wilderness settings characterized by change, 

uncertainty and contentiousness. Science may progress along 

the course identified above when conditions are “normal” 

(Kuhn 1970), but when ““facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” (Funtowitz and Ravetz 

1991), other approaches to science and applications are needed. 

Visitor management is a wicked problem and science in such 

situations needs an approach appropriate to this situation.

I argue here, that the conditions that contextualize wilderness and the visitor experiences afforded by it are not normal, 

but fit Funtowitz and Ravetz’s description above. In general, 

these conditions can be characterized as follows:

1. A lack of certainty about who is the preferred client 

for wilderness experiences. This uncertainty derives in 

part from confusion between the ultimate beneficiary of 

wilderness preservation (American citizens) and a subset 

of those citizens who directly receive certain benefits 

from an on-site experience. It also derives in part from 

the tendency of visitor research to use averages when 

reporting visitor data rather than focusing on the various 

segments of wilderness visitors.

2. The question of what experience opportunities to provide 

remains problematic. On the one hand, the Wilderness 

Act provides the mandate of section 2(b); yet on the other 

hand, managers are often confronted with demands for 

access to areas for recreation. These competing demands 

represent conflicting values among visitors.

3. Visitor research does demonstrate that, when considered 

within the context of solitude, visitors are sensitive to the 

presence of others. Increases in inter-visitor encounter 

levels makes attainment of solitude difficult. Decisions 

that give preference to access over solitude represent 

potential irreversibilities.

4. Pressures on managers to make decisions urgently are 

immense, frequently accompanied by little time to 

conduct the type of research that would fully describe 

the consequences of alternative decisions.

Funtowicz and Ravetz (1991) argue that these conditions 

require a sort of “post-normal science”, a term developed in 

response to Thomas Kuhn’s (1970) notion of normal science—

the course of research where scientists base their activity on 

the existing conceptual and methodological paradigm. But, 

as Kuhn argued, eventually evidence mounts that the existing 

paradigm no longer adequately explains cause-effect relationships and new paradigms are developed in response. This 

is what Funtowicz and Ravetz describe as a “post-normal” 

situation.

In post-normal settings, both facts and values are not only 

in dispute, but confusion between the two is often at the basis 

of social discourse, making problem framing fundamentally 

difficult. Thus, in Yellowstone National Park, is the controversy 

about snowmobiling in the park one about the values that 

Yellowstone is supposed to preserve or is it about the consequences to the biota of allowing snowmobiles in the park? The 

former is a statement of conflict in goals, the latter a question 

of technical knowledge. Even if the policy question is about 

the latter, managers are still confronted with making value 

laden decisions, such as how much impact from snowmobiles 

is acceptable? Acceptability is a fundamental judgment about 

social preferences.

Funtowicz and Ravetz (1991) contend that the conduct and 

use of science in a “post-normal” situation (hard decisions must 

be made with soft facts) must be different than in a “normal” 

Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing the Performance of Management in Securing High Quality Visitor Experiences in Wilderness McCool
184 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

condition. When faced with socially problematic challenges, 

science engages an “extended peer community” and considers 

evidence other than that collected according to strict scientific 

protocols in addressing these challenges.

Ravetz (2004) states in reference to post-normal science:

“This new science does not have the luxury of abstracting from the complex problems encountered in the real 

world; it must cope with them directly. These include 

not merely the complex interactions at the level of 

the natural world, but in addition their synergies with 

profit, bureaucracy, poverty, exploitation and war. For 

comprehending all this, a science needs clarity and 

self-understanding; the isolated puzzle-solving approach 

of traditional ‘normal science’ is self-defeating here.”

The application of science in its purest form, Funtowicz 

and Ravetz (1991) assert, is inadequate alone to successfully address policy problems in complex social-ecological 

systems. Extended peer communities (involving researchers, 

research users, decision makers, and constituencies) help frame 

problems, determine unforeseen eventualities, identify social 

acceptabilities, and otherwise deal with the uncertainty of 

complex social ecological systems. By engaging a variety of 

perspectives in a dialogue about the character of the problem 

and the alternatives available, science can provide more useful 

responses.

An Alternative Approach to Research 

Applications______________________

Thus, the post-normal age in which wilderness managers find 

themselves requires consideration of models of not only how 

research is conducted, but its framing, methodology and communication of results as well. Most significantly, there remains 

the question of the desired output of research (such as, data or 

understanding). Effectively communicating research results on 

the applied, value-laden problems of wilderness visitor experiences requires a different model from that shown in Figure 1. 

That model of knowledge transfer implicitly emphasizes data 

and information, has little focus on learning, emphasizes capacity rather than performance and does not recognize the messy 

and wicked character of wilderness visitor management.

To manage for high quality wilderness experiences, managers 

need more than data and information; they need knowledge, 

understanding and even wisdom. I follow Ackoff’s (1996) 

argument that much of the existing learning for wilderness 

experience management is oriented toward transmission of data 

and information from scientists to managers. This “stuff” is of 

substantially less value for decision-making than the knowledge and understanding that would come from reflection about 

underlying patterns, structures and trends. Data tends to be setting 

specific, and could be constructed, developed and disseminated 

out of conceptually faulty and analytically troubled methods. 

A manager may be the receiver of such limited data, but be 

operating under an illusion of construct validity.

Ultimately, the goal of applied research, in this context, is 

to improve managerial performance. Improved performance is 

based on an understanding of the context of science-manager 

interaction, not just the results of research. If we use systems 

thinking (Senge 1990), we might conceive a model of science 

manager interaction which might look like Figure 2.

This model suggests the significant role of factors other than 

science in enhancing the performance of wilderness managers. In particular, the organization and its basic values, the 

opportunity to practice (for example implementing a visitor 

experience management regime, monitoring its effectiveness 

and changing management as needed) and confidence of the 

manager represent several factors that Cook (1997) feels are 

critical to enhanced performance.

While the end objective of applied science is to enhance 

performance of managers in providing opportunities for high 

quality visitor experiences dependent on wilderness, an intermediate goal is to build the technical capability (or capacity) 

to achieve this end result. Technical capacities deal with the 

knowledge and skills held by managers. For example, increased 

knowledge about visitor experience preferences is an enhanced 

capacity. However, this enhanced capacity may not turn to 

performance because of other factors as shown in Figure 2.

In this model, every one of the linkages contains errors and 

delays. For example, there is often a delay between scientists 

presenting the findings of a particular study and implementation 

of management based on those findings. Too, scientists may 

err in communicating findings; alternatively, managers may 

misinterpret findings. In some cases, one manager may commission a particular study, but be transferred elsewhere. The 

replacement may not attach as much urgency to the research 

as the original manager.

Figure 2—More realistic model of capacity building in post normal situation

McCool Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing the Performance of Management in Securing High Quality Visitor Experiences in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 185

For example, the model suggests that an organization’s vision 

may impact its priorities. This, in turn, may lead to increased 

or decreased opportunity which then may affect performance 

in either a positive or negative way. Of course, there may be 

other factors in an organization affecting performance, so 

incentives are just one example. The figure also shows that 

enhanced performance can increase capacity. As managers are 

able to practice and learn from that practice, their capabilities 

to ask more sophisticated questions and absorb more complex 

data and knowledge also improve.

Application of the results of wilderness visitor experience 

research thus requires a process to enhance the transfer of 

understanding and knowledge that is needed for the change in 

paradigms that Funtowicz and Ravetz propose. As noted earlier, 

managers generally suffer from a greater lack of acquisition 

from scientists in these areas than in data and information. 

Managers often experience a data overload, much of it irrelevant, that is perhaps promoted by researchers as necessary 

to making decisions.

What sort of process would facilitate understanding appropriate for post-normal situations? One such process might 

be the model of research applications suggested by Havelock 

(1972) many years ago (Figure 3). In this model, managerial 

and scientific systems are linked through a series of interactions or dialogues. The dialogues serve to transmit problems 

to scientists, as well as understanding of those problems (need 

processing). They serve to transmit “solutions” (word used by 

Havelock, not mine) and understandings to managers. They 

serve to enhance user (manager) self-servicing and they serve 

to build methodological and theoretical competency (solution 

building).

Micro-systems processing is the engine of this knowledge 

transfer model. Micro-systems processing involves the interpersonal interactions and relationships between scientists 

and managers. A sense of collegiality is needed for effective 

communication and, as van Wyk and others (2006) argue, 

helps build shared values and cultures upon which knowledge 

transfer can occur.

While data is often important in a specific situation, building 

competency and enhancing performance requires more in the 

way of knowledge and understanding than data. Can managers 

and scientists develop the macro-systems needed to enrich the 

efficiency of research application? This is a good question for 

the Havelock model has long been proposed in recreation and 

protected area research applications (McCool and Schreyer 

1977; McCool 2003b).

This model can be implemented, but would require changes 

in the macro-system environment for both scientists and 

managers. Scientists generally work in academic settings and 

their behavior is greatly influenced by the reward systems 

emplaced by those institutions. This reward system generally 

favors publication in technically refereed journals over iterative discourse with managers. Publication raises the profile of 

a university and is influential in securing competitive grants 

and awards.

Figure 3—Model of research applications and technology transfer developed by Havelock and Havelock 1972.

Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing the Performance of Management in Securing High Quality Visitor Experiences in Wilderness McCool
186 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

In addition, at the micro-systems processing level, scientists 

would need to understand the culture and priorities of management. Engaging managers through professional meetings 

and workshops, on-site assessments and field trips, classroom 

discussions, joint problem framing, and informal dialogue 

helps bridge the cultural gap between management and science 

and lays the foundation for better communication. Transfer 

of knowledge, understanding and wisdom is an iterative and 

symmetrical process.

But more than micro-systems processing is needed to effectively address management of wilderness visitor experiences. 

One reason concepts such as the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum and Limits of Acceptable Change have become 

popular is that scientists and managers worked jointly to 

produce frameworks for implementing the concepts. These 

frameworks were based on insights gained from research and 

essentially archived knowledge and understanding. These 

frameworks were developed by acknowledging the presence 

of formalized agency planning processes and mandates. To 

some extent, both ROS and LAC can be integrated into these 

processes, thus making them easier to adopt.

While there is a substantial research record with respect to 

wilderness visitor experiences, that record at this point has not 

been translated into an effective, consumable framework for 

implementation. The macro-system indicates that experiences 

need to be attended to, but there is a question whether the microsystem exists to support the scientist-manager discourse to 

develop a framework for implementing a management regime.

One way to address the question of micro-systems is to 

develop a community of practice. Wenger and Snyder (2000) 

define such communities as “groups of people informally bound 

together by shared expertise and passion for joint enterprise”. 

Advancing knowledge and enhancing performance in a community of practice is facilitated through voluntary engagements, 

critical discourse, shared experiences and “creative ways that 

foster new approaches to problems.” Rather than focusing on 

implementation and monitoring of contractual agreements 

for research, the output is enhanced knowledge and learning, 

something difficult to quantify and measure. Ultimately the 

goal is enhanced performance.

A community of practice, as Wenger and Snyder state, is not 

a team within an agency nor a formal work group initiated to 

develop a product, service or policy. What makes a community 

of practice distinctive is the passion with which members pursue 

learning and excellence in a voluntary way. Such a community 

of practice involving both practitioners and scientists in the 

arena of wilderness visitor experience management does not 

now exist. Developing and maintaining a community of interest 

works only if membership is voluntary and potential members 

share commitment to learning.

Conclusion_______________________

The arguably fragile and scarce opportunities for experiences mandated by the Wilderness Act and the Eastern 

Wilderness Act can only be sustained if managers have the 

opportunity, confidence and technical proficiency to do so. 

Research plays a significant role in building technical proficiency, but I believe has been too focused on communicating 

data and information rather than the knowledge, understanding 

and wisdom important for improving performance.

There are many reasons for this, both in the managerial and 

scientific realms. Structural issues with respect to academic 

performance incentives and mental models of research applications can be seen as responsible for scientist behavior. Models 

of data transfer developed out of formal contractual agreements 

fail to improve managerial performance in a post-normal context 

because (1) the focus is on data and information rather than 

knowledge and understanding and (2) do not sustain the microsystems processing needed to bridge the cultural gaps between 

science and managers that prevent effective communication.

The post-normal character of visitor experience management 

requires approaches to scientist-manager interaction that differ from those used in the past. This interaction emphasizes 

joint learning and problem framing. In the long term, building 

a community of practice will enhance both managerial and 

scientific performance. A community of practice focusing on 

visitor experience management involves scientists and managers on an equal footing with shared goals. Production of data 

and information in this context will be far more useful than at 

present.

References _______________________

Ackoff, R. L. 1974. Redesigning the future: A systems approach to societal 

problems. New York: John Wiley.

Ackoff, R. L. 1996. On learning and the systems that facilitate it. Reflections. 

1(1): 14-24.

Anderies, J. M.; Janssen, M. A.; and others. 2004. A framework to analyze the 

robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. 

Ecology and Society. 19(1): 18.

Bardwell, L. 1991. Problem framing: A perspective on environmental problemsolving. Environmental Management. 15: 603-12.

Batie, S. S. 2008. Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal 

of Agricultural Economics. 90: 1176–1191.

Belsky, J. M. 2000. Changing human relationships with nature: Making and 

remaking wilderness science In: Cole, D. N.; McCool, S. F.; Borrie, W. T.; 

O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change 

conference— Volume 1: Changing perspectives and future directions; 1999 

May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-1. Ogden, UT: 

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

Station: 39-47.

Cole, D. N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: A state-ofknowledge review. In: Lucas, R. C., comp., Proceedings -- National Wilderness Research Conference : Issues, state of-knowledge, future directions; 

1985 July 23-26, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Report INT-220. 

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

Research Station: 135-177.

Cole, D. N. 2001. Visitor use density and wilderness experiences: A historical 

review of research. In: Freimund, W. A.; Cole, D. N., comps. 2001. Visitor use density and wilderness experience: proceedings; 2000 June 1–3; 

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

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

Cole, D. N.; Williams, D. R. In press. This proceedings. Wilderness visitor 

experiences: A review of 50 years of research. In: Cole, D. N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 

April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Cook, J. 1997. Empowering people for sustainable development In: Fitzgerald, 

P.; McLennan, A.; Munslow, B., eds. Managing sustainable development in 

South Africa. Capetown, South Africa: Oxford University Press: 275-292.

McCool Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing the Performance of Management in Securing High Quality Visitor Experiences in Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 187

Freimund, W. A.; Cole, D. N., comps. 2001. Visitor use density and wilderness experience: proceedings; 2000 June 1-3; Missoula, MT. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Funtowicz, S. and J. Ravetz,. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures. 

25(7): 739-755.

Hammitt, W. E.; Cole, D. N. 1987. Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. New York : Wiley.

Havelock, R. G. 1972. Research utilization in four federal agencies. Symposium on the utilization of research in planning for community services: 

Current patterns and alternative approaches. Honolulu, HA: American 

Psychological Association.

Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: University 

of Chicago Press. 

Lucas, R. C. 1964a. The recreational capacity of the Quetico-Superior area. 

Research Paper LS-15. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Lake States Forest and Experiment Station.

Lucas, R. C. 1964b. Recreational use of the Quetico-Superior Area. Research 

Paper LS-8. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Lake States Forest and Experiment Station.

McCool, S. F. 2003a. From scholarship to stewardship: Opportunities and 

challenges in wilderness research, education and management. In: Watson, 

Alan; Sproull, Janet, comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain 

wilderness values: Seventh World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2001 

November 2–8; Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 

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

Research Station: 218-224.

McCool, S. F. 2003b. Integration of social science into protected area stewardship: Challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at George Wright 

Society Biennial Conference, San Diego, CA. April 14.

McCool, S. F.; Clark, R. N.; Stankey, G. H. 2007. An assessment of frameworks 

useful for public land recreation planning. General Technical Report PNWGTR-705. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

McCool, S. F.; Schreyer, R. 1977. Research utilization in wildland recreation 

management: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Leisure Research. 9(2): 

98-109.

McCool, S. F.; Stankey, G. H. 2003. Advancing the dialogue of visitor management: Expanding beyond the culture of technical control. Paper presented 

at George Wright Society biennial conference, San Diego, CA. April 14.

Ravetz, J. 2004. The post-normal science of precaution. Futures. 36: 347-357.

Rittel, H. W. J.; Webber, M. M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 4: 155-169.

Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth disciple: The art and practice of the learning 

organisation. New York: Doubleday.

Stankey, G. 1973. Visitor perceptions of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. Research Paper INT-142. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Stankey, G. H.; Clark, R. N. 1996. Frameworks for decision making in management. In: Miller, M.; Auyong, J., eds. Proceedings of the 1996 world congress 

on coastal and marine tourism. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Sea 

Grant Program, School of Marine Affairs: 55–59.

Weick K. E.; Sutcliffe, K. M. 2001. Managing the unexpected: Assuring high 

performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wenger, E.C.; Snyder, W. M. 2000. Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review: January-February 139-145.

Van Wyk, E.; Roux, D. J.; Drackner, M.; McCool, S. F. 2008. The impact 

of scientific information on ecosystem management: Making sense of 

the contextual gap between information providers and decision makers. 

Environmental Management. 41(5): 779-791.

Potential Roles of Research in Enhancing the Performance of Management in Securing High Quality Visitor Experiences in Wilderness McCool
188 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Abstract—What information is needed to facilitate enhanced management of visitor experiences in wilderness? The final session of 

the workshop comprised a facilitated process with the 20 participants 

to identify research and information needs to support wilderness 

visitor experience management. The Wilderness Act and the previous presentations and discussions not only provided a context for 

this process but also a foundation of knowledge and managerial 

experience. Forty-four topics were identified in an initial roundtable 

listing. Participants then clarified topics and ranked them using a 

simple voting process. Six topics were identified as holding highest 

priority for research to support management of high quality visitor 

experiences within wilderness.

Introduction ______________________

The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) was 

created by the 1964 Wilderness Act (U.S. Public Law 88-577) 

and 172 Congressional legislative acts following it. The NWPS 

now includes 109 million acres and 790 areas managed by 

four federal agencies—Forest Service, National Park Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service. 

This legislation provides the general framework for federal 

agency stewardship of wilderness, and development of agency 

implementation policies (Dawson and others 2010).

However, public values and attitudes have changed as the 

NWPS has grown (Cordell and others 2003; 2005) and societal preferences have evolved. Similarly, demand trends for 

wilderness opportunities and visitation to wilderness areas 

have shifted over time (Cordell 1999; 2004). Demands on 

wilderness and public expectations for wilderness stewardship and protection have not only been intensifying, but also 

diversifying into multiple values (Cordell and others 2005). 

Thus, wilderness exists within a context of change occurring at 

a variety of spatial, social-organizational, and temporal scales. 

Research Needs for a Better 

Understanding of Wilderness Visitor 

Experiences

Stephen F. McCool

Chad P. Dawson

Authors: Stephen F. McCool, University of Montana, Missoula, MT; and Chad P. 

Dawson, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Such changes often bring unexpected contention and debate 

over what functions wilderness serves.

As research and management experience have accumulated 

over the past 50 years, we have learned that all knowledge is 

tentative; theories are proposed, tested, assessed and revised, 

if not replaced. A continuous program of research, application 

and demonstration is needed to continue to develop the best 

explanations concerning visitor experiences, how they are 

produced, and how they can be sustained. The papers in this 

proceedings demonstrate that the current state of knowledge 

about visitor experiences remains tentative and in flux. Thus, 

workshop participants asked questions and discussed the research needed to support management that embraces a better 

understanding of wilderness visitor experiences within the 

context of the Wilderness Act.

Method __________________________

Identification of research needs occurred during a two-hour 

session based on a modified Nominal Group Technique (Delbecq and VandeVen 1971). The Nominal Group Technique 

(NGT) places emphasis on initial individual creativity followed 

by discussion focused initially on clarification and then on 

evaluation.

Workshop participants were asked to respond to the following 

question: “What research is needed to support management 

that embraces a better understanding of wilderness visitor 

experiences within the context of the Wilderness Act and 

the previous two days of the workshop outlining the current 

state-of-knowledge on this topic?” Each participant silently 

listed as many responses to the question as possible within a 

ten-minute period. Then, each participant was asked to verbally 

share one response at a time in a round-robin process. This 

process continued through the group several times until no new 

responses were identified. The research needs identified were 

listed on flip charts as participants suggested them. Following 

a break and time for consideration, each participant voted on 

the three “most important” research needs according to their 

own assessment. The overall results were tabulated by simply 

counting the number of votes for each response. Because time 

was limited, consolidation and grouping of items could not be 

conducted nor could a consistent level of specificity be ensured. 

This may have influenced results.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 189

Results and Discussion ____________

Workshop participants identified over 40 potential research 

needs. After the voting and discussion process was completed, 

these needs were placed into one of three categories as shown 

in Table 1. In this section, we briefly describe what may be 

involved in each of the six research needs identified as highest 

priority, based on the overall workshop discussion and notes 

taken during this session. We do this as a basis for further 

discussion; our observations are designed to be suggestive 

rather than conclusive. There is no particular order to these 

six higher priority topics.

Table 1—Wilderness visitor research topics by priority as identified and ranked by workshop 

participants.

Highest priority (most workshop participant votes)

• How do commercial uses and special provisions affect wilderness experiences? 

How do we develop a better understanding of commercial services as a facilitator 

or constraint on experiences?

• What is the cumulative effect of management structures and regulations on 

wilderness experiences?

• Develop a system for archiving practice-knowledge and share that knowledge in a 

community of practice.

• Gather information and acquire knowledge about the impact of identity, 

consumption, and technology on wilderness experiences.

• Test the efficacy of actual management practices.

• Literature reviews, case studies, and synthesis of knowledge from existing and 

published information about visitor experiences.

Moderate priority (some workshop participant votes)

• Wilderness scenarios—what relationship will people have with wilderness in the 

future in the US given changing demographics and population trends? 

• Identify indicators and standards for wilderness experiences—indicators of the 

experience as well as elements of the setting that affect the experience.

• Changing demands for traditional wilderness experiences. 

• How is the research information transferred to managers and how is it being used?

• Longitudinal research—people’s longer term identity narratives related to 

wilderness.

• Sociodemographic differences—participation rates and constraints for different 

ethnic segments.

• Information that helps staff manage to the spirit of the Wilderness Act. How do we 

operationalize or interpret the legal language; conduct law review or policy science 

type approach?

• New strategies and techniques for representation of the publics beyond public 

involvement—includes emotion and values, oral histories and shared heritage. 

• Identify elements of a wilderness experience that are unique to wilderness and 

unlikely to be had outside wilderness.

• Effects of setting attributes on what people experience in wilderness.

• How can we improve citizen stewardship? What do we need to know to work with 

them; role of citizen stewardship within wilderness management?

• Maintain place-based focus in understanding dimensions and influences on 

experiences including diversity within the NWPS. 

(continued)

Research Needs for a Better Understanding of Wilderness Visitor Experiences McCool and Dawson
190 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

• What processes are best suited for scientist-manager-constituency interactions in 

a post-normal world that promote understanding and wisdom and trust? 

• Research on capacity issues that get away from simplistic number approaches.

• Map the different discourses of wilderness about wilderness across society.

• What is “appropriate” in wilderness in terms of behavior and crowding when at 

visitor thresholds?

• Day use and how to manage it. What management tools might be effective for 

lowering crowding among day users?

• Better understanding of root metaphors that managers bring to wilderness 

management.

Lower priority (some workshop participants nominated, but received no votes)

• Archive the history of management practices, by wilderness areas and in a 

broader context. 

• Shared heritage of wilderness—different groups in society and how the values and 

benefits of wilderness reflect within their cultures.

• Public involvement in cooperative stewardship planning and decision making; 

develop models of engagement and analysis of public input.

• Purism—who are the people highly consistent with the Act; what proportion of 

users are purist? How prevalent are the values expressed in the Act among 

contemporary users?

• Effect of commercial use on non-commercial users.

• Test pro and con assertions of commercial users and those opposed to 

commercial use (such as, safety, behavior, economic incentives to behave badly).

• What does “post-modern thought” mean to managers or influence managers?

• What setting attributes are needed to achieve unique wilderness experiences?

• Understanding of the commodification and marketing of experience, especially 

regarding allocation questions and trends toward privatization.

• Impact of technology on risk taking behavior and visitor decision-making.

• What effect or goal conflicts do the fun-seekers have on contemplative visitors; 

especially new uses (such as, base jumping)?

• Research on the impact/necessity of the duration of the experience—how long 

does it take to “get” the wilderness experience?

• How does conflict duration affect visitor experiences?

• Different roles and effect of different types of information (and timing of information 

use) on the wilderness experience.

• How to extend the benefits of wilderness experience (not direct visitor experience) 

across society—experiences of people who do not consider themselves visitors.

• Understanding non-visiting wilderness experience (indirect use; symbolic use; 

vicarious use)—nonuse values compared to an experiential context.

• Map the sources of uncertainty in wilderness research and management.

• Develop an understanding the experience outcomes and benefits of simulated or 

virtual vs. real (on site) wilderness visits.

• Effects of adjoining land management on experiences, such as visibility and ability 

to hear civilization.

• New strategies and representation for setting standards and making tradeoffs.

Table 1—(Continued)

Moderate priority (some workshop participant votes)

McCool and Dawson Research Needs for a Better Understanding of Wilderness Visitor Experiences
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 191

The six research needs identified and described were:

1. How do commercial uses and special provisions affect 

wilderness experiences? How do we develop a better 

understanding of commercial services as a facilitator 

or constraint on experiences?

According to section 4(d)(6) of the Wilderness Act 

commercial services are permitted “to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the 

recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.” 

Agency policy indicates that outfitting and guiding 

concessions provide important contributions to visitor 

experiences by facilitating visitation. Facilitated visitation includes hunting, fishing, photography, education, 

observing wildlife and scenery, and river floating. Visitors may be transported by horse, raft, kayak or canoe. 

In many situations, visitors hike, either carrying their 

gear and food or having it transported by horse, mule, 

or donkey. A number of policy and management issues 

arise: Are the experience opportunities offered consistent 

with the Wilderness Act? Do the practices of outfitters, 

guides and concessionaires facilitate primitive recreation? In areas where use limits exist, are commercial 

services favored over those who want to visit on their 

own? Larger groups are needed to make commercial 

services financially feasible, but when non-outfitted 

groups encounter outfitted ones, what is the response 

and impact to experiences?

How such policy issues are addressed in any given 

wilderness impact the character and quality of experiences visitors receive. For example, for some visitors, 

encountering commercially outfitted groups may impact 

the level of satisfaction received. Allocation and rationing 

decisions may impact access to any given Wilderness.

2. What is the cumulative effect of management structures 

and regulations on wilderness experiences?

Rules and regulations comprise an important component of wilderness settings. Regulations are designed 

to protect both the biophysical setting and visitor experiences. This includes, for example, regulations on 

group size, length of stay, campsite locations, and use 

of campfires. Regulations can both facilitate and hinder 

experiences. Some researchers question the impact of 

regulations on visitor behavior and experiences because 

of the Wilderness Act’s mandate for “primitive and unconfined experiences” and “outstanding opportunities 

for solitude”. The relationship between these setting 

attributes and experiences is not deterministic, but rather 

probabilistic and indicates a need for research to better 

understand what linkages exist.

While wilderness is a nature-dominated environment 

where man is just a visitor, many wildernesses contain 

structures such as patrol cabins, corrals, horse barns, 

bridges, signs, trail corduroy, and in a few, graveled 

airstrips. The impact of these structures, along with associated human activity, on visitor experiences is largely 

unknown, but probably negative for individuals seeking 

solitude and a sense of primitiveness and challenge.

The cumulative effects of increasing regulations 

(e.g., requiring camping in designated sites, hanging 

food in bear country, restrictions on group size, prohibitions on campfires) are unclear. It is possible that each 

regulation by itself has limited impact, but a growing 

number and diversity of regulations and/or encounters 

with structures can incrementally diminish the character 

of the visitor experience.

3. Develop a system for archiving practice-knowledge and 

share that knowledge in a community of practice.

Fifty years of research and management have resulted in the accumulation of an enormous quantity of 

knowledge about management of visitor experiences. 

For research, that knowledge is archived in journals 

and other publications, but for management, practice 

is not necessarily archived in a way that can be easily 

retrieved, processed, and applied. Developing a community of practice (Wenger 1998) might be a useful and 

effective method of conveying managerial experience 

from one manager to another and between research 

and management. A community of practice “involves 

groups of people informally bound together by shared 

expertise and passion for a joint enterprise. Knowledge 

is shared in free flowing, creative ways that foster new 

approaches to problems” (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, 

p.139). For example, the recently formed Wilderness 

Stewardship Society may be one venue for enhancing this 

community of practice. More specifically, a community 

of practice around visitor experience management needs 

to be explicitly developed.

4. Gather information and acquire knowledge about the 

impact of identity, consumption, and technology on 

wilderness experiences.

Recent research on the self identity of individual 

visitors to wilderness has begun to show that identity 

(of self) is a filter through which visitors perceive their 

experience and, in turn, develop a relationship with 

wilderness. How visitors “consume” a wilderness 

experience is dependent on their mode of travel (for 

example, facilitated or not), their traveling companions 

and equipment, and a variety of other factors. Technology, seemingly contradictory, has always been a part 

of a visitor’s experience—whether it includes saddles, 

neoprene rafts, vibram soled boots, gas stoves, or nylon 

tents. These forms of technology have facilitated access 

to wilderness settings for people who would never have 

attempted to visit otherwise.

Recent advances in other forms of technology, 

primarily those dealing with communication and information, have triggered debates over their role, 

Research Needs for a Better Understanding of Wilderness Visitor Experiences McCool and Dawson
192 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

appropriateness, and influence on visitor experiences 

and behavior. Communication technologies such as cell 

and satellite phones keep people connected to areas 

outside of wilderness. Information technologies such 

as the internet and portable Global Positioning Satellite 

receivers allow visitors to travel within wilderness without relying on traditional map reading and navigational 

skills.

The presence and use of communication and information technologies raises many questions: Does the 

presence of these technologies change visitor behavior 

in ways that increase risk? Do they change the experience in ways consistent or inconsistent with the notion 

of wilderness, particularly the ideas of “primitiveness”, 

“unconfined” and “solitude”? Or do these technologies 

simply facilitate access to a greater range of people?

5. Test the efficacy of actual management practices.

Wilderness management involves several objectives, 

one of which is stewardship of the kinds of wilderness 

experience mandated by legislation. Managers need an 

enhanced understanding of the efficacy of alternative 

management actions, especially given the uncertainties 

and complexities of the real world, the lack of knowledge 

about cause-effect relationships, and the relative scarcity of wilderness experience opportunities. Managers 

manipulate three components of the setting: biophysical, social, and managerial. While there is a growing 

literature on visitor experiences, there is less on the 

consequences of management on visitor experiences. 

For example, the extent to which “use limit” policies 

have been effective in protecting visitor experiences has 

rarely been assessed despite the frequency with which 

this type of regulation is used. Additional research on 

management efficacy would be helpful in developing 

a more systematic archive of experience.

6. Literature reviews, case studies, and synthesis of 

knowledge from existing and published information 

about visitor experiences.

This research topic demonstrates the need for communicating knowledge and understanding resulting from 

scientific studies in addition to the data and information 

individual studies produce. Ackoff (1996) notes that 

knowledge and understanding are more highly valued 

than data and information in decision-making settings, 

but are actually fairly scarce. Case studies can be 

effective learning tools, especially when designed appropriately and used as part of a professional development 

program. Some synthesis exists, such as in several texts 

(such as Dawson and Hendee, 2009) and proceedings 

from the two Wilderness Science symposia (Cole and 

others 2000; Lucas 1987) that have been held. These 

syntheses could be expanded and updated periodically 

and oriented around questions driven by managerial 

needs.

Conclusion_______________________

Workshop participants identified a wide variety of potential 

research topics. These were identified without reference to the 

needs of specific wilderness areas and, thus, represent an assessment of the state of practice and knowledge in the NWPS. 

Their applicability to specific areas will vary. Developing and 

implementing a systematic program of research that explores 

these topics would most likely advance the state-of-knowledge, 

although such advances may not resolve individual area management problems. Implementation of a program of research 

faces a severe barrier in that most research on wilderness 

visitor experiences is now funded by individual wildernesses 

without the objective of advancing the state-of-knowledge for 

management of the entire NWPS.

References _______________________

Ackoff, R. 1996. On learning and systems that facilitate it. Center for the 

Quality of Management Journal 5(2): 27-35.

Cole, D. N.; McCool, S. F.; Borrie, W. T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. 2000. 

Wilderness science in a time of change conference – Volume 1: Changing 

perspectives and future directions. 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Cordell, H. K. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champagne, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Cordell H. K. 2004. Outdoor recreation for 21st century America—A report 

to the nation: The national survey on recreation and the environment. State 

College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Cordell H. K.; Bergstrom J. C.; Bowker J.M. 2005. The multiple values of 

wilderness. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.

Cordell H. K.; Tarrant M. A.; Green G. T. 2003. Is the public viewpoint of 

wilderness shifting? International Journal of Wilderness. 9(2): 27-32.

Dawson, C. P.; Propst, B; Hendee, J. C. 2010. Special provisions of wilderness legislation in the United States, 1964 to 2009. International Journal 

of Wilderness. 16(2): 32-34.

Dawson, C. P.; Hendee, J. C. 2009. Wilderness management: Stewardship and 

protection of resources and values, 4th ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Delbecq A. L.; VandeVen, A. H. 1971. A group process model for problem 

identification and program planning. Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science. 7: 466 -491.

Lucas, R. C. 1987. Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: 

issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. 1985 July 23-25: Fort Collins, 

CO. General Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

U.S. Public Law 88-577. The Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 890.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. C.; Snyder, W.M. 2000. Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review. 78: 139.

McCool and Dawson Research Needs for a Better Understanding of Wilderness Visitor Experiences
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 193

Abstract—This essay describes five major critiques of the wilderness idea and how wilderness managers might shape experience 

opportunities in wilderness in response. These challenges include 

the notions that the wilderness idea separates people from nature, 

that it denies the human story in “pristine” lands, that it privileges a 

kind of recreation favored by elites and consumed by gadgets, that 

it distracts attention from the environmental crisis at home, and that 

wilderness management is based on an outmoded concept of naturalness. My suggestions include management directives and educational 

programs that encourage more intimate contact with wildness and 

with the resource. Educational programs must extend beyond Leave 

No Trace to include active partnership with managers in care of the 

wilderness, in programs for resource monitoring, and Adopt a Spot. 

Educational programs must foster experiential benefits, learning about 

the environment, and commitment to environmental sustainability 

beyond the wilderness boundaries and the visit. Researchers and 

managers need to focus on the meaning and facilitation of primitive 

experiences in wilderness, with special concern given to recent modern 

entertainment and communication technology in wilderness. Finally, 

managers, with input from an informed public, must consider alternate 

models to the protection of wild ecosystems and landscapes: “hands 

off,” ecological integrity, historical fidelity, and ecological resilience.

Introduction ______________________

At many levels, wilderness represents one of America’s 

great success stories. The idea of wilderness, its meanings in 

the American mind, has changed profoundly over the decades 

and the centuries. Each successive wave of immigrants coming 

onto American soil and bringing with them their unique set of 

cultural, religious, and scientific beliefs about nature assigned 

new meanings to wilderness. Immigrants moved across the 

American continent, confronted wilderness, and changed wilderness. But just as surely, wilderness changed the immigrants, 

and in the process helped to make them Americans, a hardy 

and independent people forged on the frontier. Artists, painters, and writers travelled with early exploratory parties and 

settlers and their romantic images and stories of the wild and 

rugged landscape of the West captured the hearts and minds 

of opinion leaders back East (Nash, 1982). Through time, attitudes about wilderness changed and wilderness took on new 

and multiple meanings. Thus, by the mid-twentieth century, 

wilderness was a place to find God, to find larger truths, to 

step away from the evils of industrialization and consumerism, to find serenity and peace, to confront the sublime in all 

its beauty or horror, to step back from modernity and all its 

“too-muchness,” to face challenge and test one’s skills, to test 

one’s virility, to contact raw wild nature, to escape noise and 

din, to escape technology, to live more simply, to respect and 

protect other creatures of the planet, to let other creatures be, 

to practice restraint, to experience firsthand the mystery and 

powers of the primal evolutionary forces of nature... in short, 

in the words of Henry David Thoreau (Torrey and Allen 1906), 

to confront only the essential facts of life, lest when we come 

to die, discover we have not lived. It all seems so good. It all 

seems so American.

Then the 1964 Wilderness Act codified into law the most 

elemental and pervasive of these American values and established a system of federally protected wilderness areas. This 

Act, the first of its kind in the world, protected places where 

“the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, 

where man himself is a visitor who does not remain... land 

retaining its primeval character and influence... managed 

to preserve its natural condition... and has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation” (Wilderness Act, 1964; U.S. Public Law 88-577). 

This Act immediately established 9 million acres of legal 

wilderness on USDA Forest Service lands. By 2011, through 

the efforts of conservationists throughout the country, legally 

protected wilderness lands in America has grown to 107 million acres in 44 states and in four different federal agencies 

(the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management). 

Visitor use of these areas has reached about 20 million visitor 

days. In addition, the Wilderness Act and the slow but steady 

addition of acres to the system have come to symbolize the 

best of America’s efforts to protect its natural heritage and to 

provide the benefits of wilderness to its people. Many countries 

Managing for Wilderness Experiences 

in the 21st Century: Responding to the 

Recent Wilderness Critique

Joseph W. Roggenbuck

Author: Joseph W. Roggenbuck, Department of Forest Resources and Environmental 

Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.
194 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

around the world have adopted this means of protecting special 

areas as wilderness. It all seems good, and so American.

But all is not well with wilderness in America. Starting in 

the mid-1990s and continuing until the present, the very philosophical, scientific, and ethical foundations of the American 

idea of wilderness have been under attack by scholars both at 

home and abroad. Perhaps the first, the most thoughtful, and 

the most influential critique of the wilderness idea came from 

environmental historian William Cronon in the 1996 article, 

“The Trouble with Wilderness, or, Getting Back to the Wrong 

Nature.” Two large edited volumes by environmental philosophers J. Baird Callicott and Michael P. Nelson followed: “The 

Great Wilderness Debate” (1998) and “The Wilderness Debate 

Rages On” (2008). All three authors are pleased that so many 

acres of land in America are protected as wilderness. But they 

question the worth of the American wilderness idea, the idea 

that has come down to us from our nation’s forebears, as a wise 

and effective means to protect nature and to foster a responsible 

ethic and behavior about the environment. Indeed, Callicott 

and Nelson (1998) report that the “wilderness idea is alleged 

to be ethnocentric, androcentric, phallocentric, unscientific, 

unphilosophic, impolitic, outmoded, even genocidal” (p. 2). 

In line with the contention that the wilderness idea is unscientific and outmoded, many landscape ecologists and a few 

environmental philosophers have been critical of the mandate 

of the Wilderness Act to protect and manage for naturalness 

in wilderness (Callicott 2008, Cole and Yung 2010). These 

authors note many problems with the concept of naturalness: its 

meaning is nebulous; it suggests humans are not part of nature; 

it ignores the fact that lands currently protected as wilderness 

have been profoundly influenced by humans in the past; and it 

suggests that in the absence of humans these areas will return 

to a steady state or climax condition representative of some 

historic past before the arrival of Anglo-Americans. All of these 

assumptions about nature and naturalness are unfounded.

While I believe some of these criticisms of the wilderness 

idea and in effect wilderness protection and management 

are overstated for dramatic effect, much of the critique has 

important implications for appropriate and ideal experiences 

in wilderness and how to manage for them. I believe that appropriate experiences in wilderness could largely defuse many 

of the criticisms of wilderness. Given this, I see an important 

role for social scientists and resource managers in responding 

to “the raging wilderness debate,” and facilitating wilderness 

protection, management, and experiences to meet the ideals 

and challenges of the 21st century.

Overview_________________________

For the remainder of this essay I list and describe five specific 

critiques of the wilderness idea: wilderness separates humans 

from nature; wilderness denies the human story in “pristine” 

lands; wilderness distracts attention from an environmental 

crisis at home; wilderness privileges recreation and recreation 

elites highly devoted to consumerism and technology; and 

wilderness with its focus on naturalness has its ecology wrong. 

For each of these criticisms I suggest ways that experiences 

in wilderness can ameliorate or negate their negative import. 

As I do this, I often draw upon the writings of the critical 

reviewers themselves or upon the words of those wilderness 

philosophers or activists whom they criticize. In doing this, I 

find the writings of environmental historian William Cronon 

especially helpful. I then list specific actions that wilderness 

resource managers and research social scientists might take 

to encourage appropriate and ideal experiences.

Critique #1: Wilderness Separates 

Humans From Nature ______________

Description

The dualism of humans and nature inherent in the wilderness 

idea and in the way wilderness is protected and managed in 

America is a subject of pervasive criticism. This dualism runs 

deep, all the way back to the beginnings of Western civilization, philosophy, and beyond. Indeed, this separation goes 

back to the beginnings of Judeo-Christian religion and to the 

Genesis story. In this story, God gave humans special status 

apart from nature and with dominion over nature. This status 

received added power and urgency when humans were cast out 

of paradise (Eden) and had to gain a living from nature. Millenia 

later, in a country and culture like America that is dominated 

by religion, this story still retains power (Stoll 2007). When the 

Pilgrims of a Reformed Protestant sect first settled the rocky 

coastline of New England, the wilderness was outside, dark, 

desolate, and dangerous. But over time and across space, the 

notion of wilderness among Puritans and ultimately among 

Americans made a polar switch. Wilderness was still apart in 

some other place, but now the place was goodness, a place 

to find truth, a sublime place, a paradise, but a place where 

defiled man did not live. Hence, the Wilderness Act of 1964 

specifies that wilderness is a place where man is a visitor who 

does not remain.

But many environmental philosophers and historians think 

this story of humans, their relationship to nature, and the 

meanings given by our American forebears to wilderness is 

unscientific, unphilosophic, and outmoded. Not only is this 

story inaccurate, it does considerable harm to the environment. 

This separation of humans from wilderness reduces deep contact with wild nature and it also suggests nature of civilized 

landscapes is not wild, is not pure. It fosters an aloofness from 

nature and prevents a deep intellectual and visceral contact 

with nature. Hence, opportunities for learning and respecting 

nature’s ways and limits are lost.

I agree with this critique. To the best of our knowledge, we 

humans are of the same stuff, the same wild matter, with all 

its complexity, mystery, and seemingly miraculous power, as 

all of the rest of nature. Yet at the same time we have obvious differences from the rest of nature. We have the ability 

to learn (and continue to learn) about nature’s processes, to 

learn to respect nature, to feel kin with all of nature through 

our cognitive and our emotive abilities, to exert considerable 

control over nature, and to purposefully act with restraint over 

the rest of nature (Ouderkirk 2008).

Roggenbuck Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the Recent Wilderness Critique
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 195

I believe also that both the Judeo-Christian tradition and 

the great American wilderness philosophers (who tended in 

their mature years to reject the Judeo-Christian view of nature) 

can teach us about ideal human-nature relationships, about 

ideal experiences in wilderness, and how, ideally, to manage 

for them. For example, Sanders (2008) speaks of wilderness 

as representing in space what the Sabbath represents in time. 

For him, the Sabbath represents a “day free from the tyranny 

of getting and spending, a day given over to the cultivation 

of the spirit rather than the domination of matter” (p. 603). It 

represents a day away from work, control, and frantic busyness, 

a time for serenity and reflection. It also marks a day when 

farm boys such as myself as a youth (and others who worked 

for a living) could go off “when church was over” and spend 

the day “wild in nature”. There in creek bottoms, lakeshores, 

and woodlots we found wildness; we explored; we discovered 

and came to revel in the marvels of unclaimed earth. We found 

something beyond us whose ways were not our own, whose 

ways we came to respect and admire. And with the help of the 

Sabbath, we came to the wisdom of restraint, a kind of humility that guides our behavior as adults today. Without this day 

of the Sabbath, this totem of Judeo-Christianity, I am sure we 

would have worked seven days a week. Today, the Sabbath 

and its meaning in time can be found for many in a visit to 

wilderness. Wilderness contains similar meanings in space, as 

a cathedral in space, a place to reflect and to come in contact 

with wild nature, a place with rules we did not write, with 

ways we do not always understand, and with power that both 

nurtures us and humbles us. Most importantly, in wilderness 

we can learn and practice restraint.

Our great wilderness philosophers, our forebears whose 

ideas have come under criticism, shared the same “Sabbath” 

notions. Most famously, Henry David Thoreau withdrew from 

society to live more than a year in a primitive cabin, there to 

confront nature on its terms, to observe deeply and slowly, 

to touch with his spirit what his matter (his body) and its life 

force so forcefully demonstrated. He daily went on long walks 

near Concord to drink and learn at the fountains of nature. He 

called for New England villages to protect the woods, fields, 

and primitive swamps in their midst so that poets, philosophers, 

and all seekers of wisdom could find moral and intellectual 

truth. But not only did he call for contact, respect, and protection of nature close to home (the middle ground), he also 

called for poets and philosophers from time to time to leave 

their villages and bordering lands and go to the recesses of 

the wild, and there to make intense contact with the bracing 

tonic of wildness, large tracts of wildness, “not for idle sport 

or food but for inspiration and our own true re-creation” (to 

realize who and where we are) (Dean 2007, p. 84).

This Thoreau did himself on his now-famous climb of Mount 

Katahdin in Maine, a journey on which wild nature shook the 

very foundation of his “village truth” and perhaps even his 

“cabin truth.” On the Mount Katahdin climb, he contacted truly 

wild nature, a nature of forest fire and desolation, a nature that 

seemed not at all to care about him. He came off the mountain 

a changed man; his experience was transcendent. Thoreau and 

others since have written much about his Katahdin experience. 

For me, and what matters in this essay, there are three things. 

First, he acknowledges the power and mystery of raw nature 

when real contact is made: “What is it to be admitted to a 

museum, to see a myriad of particular things, compared with 

being shown some star’s surface, some hard matter in its home! 

I stand in awe of my body, this matter to which I am bound 

has become so strange to me... What is this Titan that has possession of me? Talk about mysteries” (Torrey and Allen 1906 

[p. 77-79]). Here Thoreau contacts living matter, the matter 

of the mountain, the same matter which is his body. But this 

matter has power beyond him, a power he does not know. He 

experiences mystery, fear, and awe. But he gives us a way out 

(our second lesson): “Think of our life in nature—daily to be 

shown matter, to come in contact with it—rocks, trees, wind 

on our cheeks, the solid earth! the actual world! the common 

sense! Contact! Contact! Who are we (our spirits)? Where are 

we (our bodies)?” The lesson here is contact. Contact is not 

separation from nature. Finally, and very importantly, Thoreau’s 

insights on Mount Katahdin provide us insights about transcendent, transformative experiences fostering human-nature 

connection. On the mountain, Thoreau discovered elemental 

wildness infused into matter, and once infused in matter, this 

wildness recycles through life, death, and rebirth, a recycling 

that preserves the physical world. Thoreau came to know 

this on the raw mountain, a place where there was both slow 

birthing and dying (mountain construction and destruction) 

and dramatic desolation and slow rebirthing (the forest fire). 

In both these slow and dramatic acts of wildness, Thoreau and 

we who follow see life feeding on death and being reborn. 

We realize we are part of this, part and parcel of nature. We 

realize our own limitations and mortality and we realize that 

we are not the measure of all things (Dean 2007). There is no 

separation from nature here. We humans can and should find 

wildness in our villages, but even as astute an observer of 

nature as Thoreau did not make his elemental breakthrough 

there. He called for us to go to wild places.

Other American wilderness philosophers and activists have 

valued, promoted, and lived a life of deep contact between 

humans and nature in wilderness. John Muir went on long treks 

over weeks into the wilds of Yosemite. He climbed trees and 

clung to their tops to feel the fury of wild storms and to learn 

the message of wildness. Bob Marshall went on prodigious 

hikes and climbed mountains. He lived with native people in 

Alaska to learn their human-nature interactions. Aldo Leopold, considered by many to be the father of modern protected 

wilderness in America, successfully lobbied for wilderness 

protection of wild land so that the common man, the common hunter, would not lose intimate contact with wild nature 

and would not have a contact filtered and cushioned by new 

technology (in those days, roads and the Model T).

Yet the recent critique of wilderness suggests that today’s 

wilderness idea, given its human-nature dualism, is not fostering 

human-nature contact and connection. I now make suggestions on how wilderness managers and social scientists might 

facilitate experiences that enhance deep contact with wildness 

in wilderness.

Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the Recent Wilderness Critique Roggenbuck
196 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

I preface my suggestions with some words of caution and 

humility. One of the great values of the wilderness idea and 

wilderness as place is freedom... freedom to let nature be and 

freedom to let humans be (and of course I am writing to reduce 

the divide between them). Second, I see ever greater need for 

the management of wilderness to be nuanced. It should not be, 

it cannot be, the same for all areas across the entire wilderness 

preservation system. The wilderness idea is complex; it allows 

for different values to be emphasized across space and time. 

Individual wilderness areas have different histories, different 

ecologies, different use levels, and different agency traditions 

and mandates. Each area is a separate place with its own place 

meanings. Whatever suggestions I make must be evaluated in 

the context of the individual place. This makes the wilderness 

manager’s job more complex and more difficult. But providing more meaningful visitor opportunities will result in richer 

experiences and will protect nature better.

Suggested Management Actions

• Encourage an increase in length of stay in wilderness; 

promote overnight use rather than day use. For example, at 

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the amount 

of overnight use is restricted and a fee is charged. Day 

use has no such use limitations and no fee is charged. To 

promote deep contact with wildness, this policy might be 

reversed.

• Encourage repeat visits to a given wilderness area so that 

visitors might develop a richer understanding, commitment, 

and relationship to the place. This might be done by developing and promoting a wilderness area-specific protective 

association to which the public might join. Members of 

such an association would assist in certain management 

activities in the area. Another possibility would be to free 

repeat visitors from certain access restrictions or user fees.

• Encourage visitors to slow down, to spend more than one 

night in one spot, to get to know the spot.

• Conceptualize solitude not as the number of encounters 

with others per day, but instead as time spent alone with 

nature, time in silence, time in meditation or reflection in 

the presence of wild nature.

• Encourage visitors to “Adopt a Spot,” to become involved 

as partners with managers to care for, protect, and if necessary, restore a spot, a community, a place in wilderness. 

Professional resource managers need to provide both 

oversight on partner practices and incentives to maintain 

long-term involvement. Resource managers need to provide partners with educational workshops on agency and 

resource policies and practices along with assistance with 

on-the-ground management interventions.

• When possible (in lightly used wildernesses and in lightly 

used wilderness zones) move beyond LNT (Leave No 

Trace). LNT advocates leaving little human imprint on 

the land and for that it has value in high-use areas. But 

it can divorce people from the land, lessening contact. It 

can isolate the wilderness and wilderness use from the 

larger environmental context (Simon and Alagona 2009). 

As examples, the LNT principle “minimize campfire impacts” recommends the use of lightweight camping stoves 

instead of open fires. But the principle likely inadvertently 

reduces ecological learning, learning about what lives in 

and under dead and down wood, what kind of wood burns 

best, how to start a campfire and how to cook over a fire. 

It likely lessens contact with wildness within us and with 

nature around us. It also supports the use of petroleum, a 

nonrenewable natural resource that is transported across the 

long sea lanes of the world. Under the principle of “leave 

what you find,” LNT suggests that recreationists carry 

in camp chairs rather than construct makeshift furniture 

in the wilderness. But how about sitting on the ground 

or on a rock? The portable chair cushions one from the 

environment. It reduces contact. I fear LNT will become 

Smokey the Bear—valuable when applied with nuance, 

an environmental mistake when applied carte blanche 

across time and space.

• As a general rule, encourage visitor use of wilderness zones 

that vividly demonstrate nature’s wildness. Examples might 

be areas of recent great natural disturbance such as the 

recent wind-throw and forest fire areas of the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Use quotas for access 

into these areas might be increased. The purpose would 

be to provide visitors with a Mount Katahdin experience, 

to come in contact with raw nature. Another possibility, 

where ecologically permissible, would be to increase the 

level of visitor contact with keystone species in wilderness. 

As Dustin (1999) suggests, wilderness is an ideal place 

to come in contact with life unfolding, to marvel at life 

unfolding, to discard the protective armor that shields us 

from life itself, and to live life at the edge. Dustin believes 

if you take risk out of life, you take life out of life.

• Where wilderness managers now teach LNT at visitor 

contact points, instead or in addition, tell a story of a 

positive human-nature interaction at the place. This story 

might be about past human use of the area. It might be an 

Adopt a Spot story; it might be a story about a transcendent 

experience. It could be a re-wilding story or a story about 

humans helping a keystone species.

• Encourage visitors to leave communication technology 

with the outside world behind. Such technology likely 

distracts. It likely slows down the gradual escape from the 

frenzied consumerism of the outside world. This technology tends to focus attention on Lord Man. It likely clashes 

with primitive values for which wilderness was created. 

It reduces contact with wildness.

Of course, these suggestions beg for a social science research 

program. Do these practices reduce dualism between humans 

and nature? Do they reduce freedom too much? Do they conflict 

one with another? Do they increase ecological knowledge and 

commitment to conserving wild nature? Do they encourage 

humility and human restraint about the environment? Do they 

do more harm than good?

Roggenbuck Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the Recent Wilderness Critique
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 197

Critique #2: Wilderness Denies the 

Human Story in “Pristine” Lands_____

Description

This critique suggests that American wilderness philosophers, 

activists, and authors of the 1964 Wilderness Act got their science and their history wrong. The wilderness idea celebrates 

pristine land—land largely without humans and their works. 

The Wilderness Act seeks to protect such lands in their natural or natural-appearing state. But Cronon (1996), Callicott 

(2008) and Denevan (1992, 1996) all contend that at the time 

of European contact, the landscape of the New World was 

entirely a humanized one. The number of Native Americans 

certainly numbered in the millions. These people lived across 

the Americas and through hunting, farming, and use of fire 

they had drastically altered the landscape and the ecology of 

the hemisphere. The Native Americans might be considered a 

keystone species. The vacant land encountered by settlers, with 

its dark forests and abundant wildlife, sublime in its horror and 

its beauty, was in fact quite artificial. Upon contact, European 

diseases such as smallpox and influenza had traveled through 

the native population ahead of the advance of the settlers and 

reduced the population by as much as 90%. This “unnatural” 

state allowed a very cultural landscape to go wild.

In addition, the wilderness critics contend that EuropeanAmericans displaced living Native American communities from 

their land in the name of the wilderness idea. This accusation 

seems problematic (Havlick 2006). Sadly, Native Americans 

were pushed off their lands for timber, farming, mining, grazing, 

commerce, settlement, and even a bit for national parks, but 

not for wilderness. Protection of “pristine” lands for wilderness 

values did not happen until the administrative reserves of the 

1920s and the legal reserves after 1964. This was long after 

the last forced removal of Native Americans from their lands. 

Indeed, with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) (U.S. Public Law 96-487) and the 

establishment of large blocks of legally designated wilderness 

lands in Alaska, management agencies have worked diligently 

with Native Americans to respect and permit their continued 

traditional uses of the land.

Finally, with passage of the so-called Eastern Wilderness 

Areas Act of 1975 (U.S. Public Law 93-622), many areas in 

the East and Midwest with a long history of settlement and use 

by American settlers were placed in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. These areas are re-wilding, but they are 

by no means “pristine.” They have a human story and to pretend 

otherwise is a denial of history (Cronon 1996). It is also a denial 

of ecology. The effects of the labors of European-Americans 

are typically visible on the landscape. Cronon’s essay (2003) 

on the recently established legal wilderness on the Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore represents a case in point. These 

islands were used and inhabited by white fur traders, loggers, 

fishermen, quarry excavators and farmers for hundreds of years. 

Native Americans altered the landscape for thousands of years 

before that. Cronon believes that this human story should be 

told. Without it, visitors go away without a complete and rich 

story of a place and its landscape ecology. To ignore this story 

is to be dishonest and to lose a chance for deep contact with a 

“humans within wild nature” story.

Suggested Management Actions

• Learn the extent of past human use and imprint upon your 

wilderness. Some wilderness areas and zones of wilderness have high past use. But Native Americans, explorers, 

or pioneers apparently did not live in some wilderness 

areas or zones. Instead they periodically moved through 

the areas, hunted in them, gathered there for special occasions or simply visited them for rest and leisure. Other 

areas, often “the rock and ice” portions so common to 

wilderness, have had little past human use (Vale 1999). 

Areas with different levels of human imprint should be 

managed differently.

• Unless past human activity (such as, structures, landscape 

modifications, and even apple trees) are causing unsafe 

conditions or serious ecological harm, let them be. They 

tell a story for the visitor. They help embed the visitor in 

nature.

• Many wilderness areas have a current human use story 

beyond public recreational use. These include grazing, 

some water developments, and outfitters making a living 

and raising families anchored in wilderness use. In the past 

wilderness managers and researchers sometimes labeled at 

least some of these uses as nonconforming but allowable. 

These wilderness activities should instead be embraced 

and the story of the complexities of their management in 

wilderness and as a part of wilderness should be told.

• Recognize, acknowledge and interpret off-site the human 

story of the wilderness. Look especially for compelling 

stories; often those stories will be environmentally sensitive and even reflect restorative effects of inhabitation by 

humans. But sometimes the story might be one of past human destruction and how nature was later able to re-wild. 

Cronon (2003) recommends having interpretation of past 

human activity done within wilderness. I would tell the 

story outside wilderness, with suggestions on how visitors 

on their own might find, observe, and connect with the 

human story within wilderness.

• Place as much emphasis upon telling the human ecology 

and the re-wilding story as on teaching Leave No Trace, 

at least in mid- to lightly used areas.

• Learn and manage for the layered meanings of the place. 

Some would call this creating and protecting public 

memory of the wilderness (Stewart in press). People act 

to protect a specific place as wilderness because of the 

meaning it has for them. Often these meanings are informed 

by past deep interactions or memories of the place. Acting 

out these memories can solidify long-term commitment 

to a specific place.

Environmental change is constant and normal. Research 

by archeologists, anthropologists, and landscape ecologists is 

Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the Recent Wilderness Critique Roggenbuck
198 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

needed to learn about the additional long-term environmental 

change caused by Native Americans. Native Americans themselves can help with the interpretive story. Researchers need 

to discover and document the environmental use histories of 

wilderness landscapes by European settlers. Social scientists 

must help to find layered meanings of the place and to determine 

whether firsthand contact and interpretation of the human story 

results in greater understanding, enjoyment, and commitment 

to human-nature integration.

Critique #3: Wilderness Distracts 

Attention and Offers Little Help on 

Environmental Crises at Home ______

Description

This critique comes largely from Cronon (1996) and he does 

so largely on philosophical grounds. Cronon purports that the 

wilderness idea has so romanticized pristine nature that human 

activity, development, and industrialization represent a fall 

from grace. In this romantic view, humans come in contact 

with the mysterious Other, the life force of nature that flows 

without any need of humans, a force that engenders wonder 

and humility in pristine nature, in places away from where 

we make our homes. We protect these pristine places but we 

cannot live there. We do not see wildness in the tulip poplar 

in our backyard, where there may be a life and death struggle 

among aphids, ladybugs, and the tree (Lewis 2007). We have 

“pristine blinders” that prevent us from seeing wonder all 

around us and from learning lessons of beauty and promise. 

We fail to engage in environmental problems and possibilities 

at home.

But there is no research to show that wilderness activists or 

frequent wilderness visitors are less likely to engage in sensible 

environmental activities and activism at home. Indeed, one 

could argue that just as courses in art appreciation and visits 

to an art museum can increase sensibilities to beauty, so too 

might encounters with the wild of a sublime nature in wilderness increase the likelihood of finding the wild in a dandelion 

growing in the crack of the sidewalk. Certainly Thoreau’s 

Mount Katahdin experience changed what he saw and how 

he felt about what he saw on his daily walks at the border of 

the village. Cronon, late in his essay, and Havlick (2006), in 

response to the essay, hint that the philosophical divide between humans in pristine nature and humans at home might 

be bridged. I now turn to that with suggestions for wilderness 

managers.

Suggestions for Management Actions

Suggestions on how to facilitate transcendent and wonder 

experiences are contained under Critique #1. What follows 

here are suggestions on how to translate learning benefits of 

the wilderness to the home environment.

• Foster ecological empathy and learning during wilderness visits. Emphasize pervasive environmental threats 

that occur both inside and outside the wilderness, such 

as global climate change, air pollution, and water pollution. Engage wilderness visitors in monitoring ecological 

processes and pollutants.

• Facilitate partnerships with the public on ecological restoration activities. Wilderness users and interest groups 

can Adopt a Spot in wilderness.

• Facilitate wilderness use and learning by educational 

groups. Consider removing group size limits and permit 

requirements for educational groups in low use wildernesses or during shoulder or low use seasons of high use 

areas. This is to permit more youth to have contact with 

wildness and wilderness. Provide hands-on learning, 

monitoring, and restoration activities.

• Teach decision-making strategies and practices regarding 

sustainability in wilderness that reach beyond LNT, strategies and practices that extend behavior ethics beyond time 

of visit and boundaries of the wilderness. Wilderness sustainability includes the same dimensions as sustainability 

at home—a concern for the environment, a concern for 

community and social justice and a concern for economic 

wellbeing. Questions of environmental sustainability in 

wilderness address the dimensions of water conservation 

and pollution, soil conservation, biodiversity protection, 

and carbon footprint, just as for the environment at home. 

Wilderness visitors should be asked to consider the ecological, social, and economic ramifications of the clothes 

they wear, the food they eat, and the gadgets they use in 

wilderness. They should think about resources they use 

to transport themselves to wilderness and ways to reduce 

resource consumption. Wilderness visitors should be 

encouraged to think about the amount of energy used to 

produce and transport the goods and services they use. 

They should think about whether labor and environmental laws were followed and whether fair labor practices 

were used. They should know and consider who gets the 

economic benefits of their wilderness use, whether it is the 

local community surrounding the wilderness or whether 

the benefits largely flow outside the region. They should 

know how protection and management of their wilderness 

is funded and ask themselves if the funding mechanism 

is equitable and sustainable. Helping the visitors ask the 

right questions and find meaningful answers for themselves 

seems to me as important as prescribing a set of actions, 

actions that almost certainly cannot be appropriate for all 

wildernesses all the time. Possible questions asked or possible prescriptions of a beyond-LNT ethic might include 

Conscious Impact Living (CIL), a call to live simply; think 

globally and plan ahead; follow the precautionary principle; 

reduce, reuse, recycle, relearn; follow nature’s lead and 

blend into one’s surroundings; use appropriate technology 

and use technology appropriately; and show respect and 

compassion for all forms of life (Moskowitz and Ottey 

2006; Cachelin, Rose, and Dustin 2011). Another possible 

and idealistic working model for an outdoor recreation ethic 

in wilderness might be ASAP (As Sustainable As Possible) 

Roggenbuck Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the Recent Wilderness Critique
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 199

(Bulger, Sveum, and Van Horn 2008). This prescription 

considers gear (renewable materials, recycled materials, 

carbon emissions, distance from production to purchase, 

synthetic compounds, and multi-use), location (purpose 

of trip, distance traveled, mode of transportation, and 

knowledge and skill of local practices) and food (organic, 

local, non-genetically modified, and home-grown and locally gathered). Again, one prescription almost certainly 

does not fit all. My call is that managers recognize that 

the wonder and close contact with nature common to the 

wilderness experience foster empathy for nature and this 

empathy is conducive to environmental moral reasoning 

and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Berenguer 

2007, 2010). Resource managers can and should build upon 

this to promote sustainable environmental behavior both 

in the wilderness and in the communities within which 

visitors live their daily lives.

Research is needed on whether current wilderness visitors 

and activists engage in environmentally sensitive behavior 

and activism at home any more than does the general public 

or non-wilderness recreationists. Does involving the wilderness visitor in monitoring and restoration activities in wilderness reduce or enhance the quality of wilderness recreation 

experiences? Would such activities result in greater wonder, 

appreciation, knowledge, commitment, and action? How can 

managers encourage the commitment of visitors and interest 

groups to these activities across time? Would involvement 

in these stewardship activities foster greater environmental 

sensitivity, commitment, and action at home?

Critique #4: Wilderness Privileges 

Recreation and Recreation Elites 

Highly Devoted to Consumerism and 

Technology_______________________

Description

This critique is summarized well by Callicott (2008) and as 

so often happens with his writing about wilderness, his words 

do take my breath away. Callicott complains that American 

wilderness was created for the wrong reasons—for virile and 

unconfined recreation and for spiritual rapture in monumental 

scenery. This has made wilderness preservationists strange 

bedfellows with the wealthy urban elite, a social class with 

enough time and money for both the desire and the ability to 

trek into remote wilderness. Wilderness areas are the playground 

for the minority bourgeoisie. In addition, while law mandates 

that wilderness recreation be primitive, over time the activity 

has become the most gadget-laden and rule-bound of all sports 

available (Callicott 2008). Instead, Callicott believes that in 

today’s global conservation crisis, wilderness areas have a 

much higher calling. They must become biodiversity reserves. 

They must be selected, protected, and managed as places for 

non-humans, for species that have a need to roam widely, and 

for species that do not co-exist well with humans. In short, 

these areas must become places where natural processes flow 

freely and where species threatened and endangered by humans 

can be restored. Callicott suggests that the job of wilderness 

science should be reserve selection, design, and management. 

The task of social science research should be finding a more 

politically appealing name than “biodiversity reserve.”

Certainly wilderness areas are currently playing a large 

role in landscape ecology. The wilderness idea has formally 

included ecological values since at least the time of Aldo 

Leopold. Foreman (2008) makes the case that the so-called 

Eastern Wilderness Areas Act (P.L. 93-622) was explicitly about 

extending ecosystem representation in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System and it formally recognized that damaged 

ecological systems could re-wild as wilderness. But I agree 

with Callicott that our wilderness areas can and must play a 

larger role in biodiversity protection in the future.

I turn now to Callicott’s critique of recreational use of wilderness. As Callicott well knows, the experiences in wilderness 

about which we social scientists care so much have the force 

of law and stand on more than 200 years of American thought 

and identity. Callicott stretches the truth a bit when he suggests 

that wilderness values are elitist. While some early proponents 

of the wilderness idea and wilderness protection (for example, 

Teddy Roosevelt, Henry David Thoreau and Bob Marshall) 

lived lives of privilege, other early and current activists for 

wilderness did not. John Muir grew up on a humble Wisconsin 

farm and as an adult worked as a machinist and as a sawmill 

operator. Both Edward Abbey and Dave Foreman claimed to 

be rednecks (Cahalan, 2001; Foreman 1991). Dave Foreman 

takes pride in his dirt poor Scots-Irish ancestry. Callicott is right 

that current wilderness visitors are more likely to be male and 

they tend to have somewhat higher-than-average incomes and 

come from urban areas. But so do almost all outdoor recreationists. The one characteristic where wilderness visitors are 

very different from other Americans, and even other outdoor 

recreationists, is their higher level of education. The desire to 

spread the opportunities for wilderness experiences to a larger 

segment of the American population is one that wilderness 

policy makers, planners, and managers all share (although 

Callicott apparently does not).

The more interesting controversy is deciding what the mandated “primitive recreation experience” is and how to manage 

for it. There has been little discussion about the meaning of 

this value (Borrie 2004). Almost no research has been done 

on what contributes to and takes away from experiencing the 

primitive, while most available research funding has been 

spent studying the comparable value of solitude. The value of 

primitive living in the American mind apparently comes from 

the frontier era when contact between humans and nature was 

unmediated, unfiltered, uncushioned, and more direct. Such 

contact had spiritual and intellectual value (see Henry David 

Thoreau) and also physical and psychological value (see Bob 

Marshall). Testing oneself in nature, on one’s own, on the 

frontier, in wild nature, and developing coping skills without 

the crutches of modern gadgetry apparently builds and built the 

American spirit of independence, competence, and strength. 

The learning of woodcraft in the 1920s and 1930s, and the 

scouting and camp movements of that time, demonstrate this 

Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the Recent Wilderness Critique Roggenbuck
200 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

strong cultural value (Turner 2002). Leopold first called for 

wilderness protection of land when he saw opportunities for 

primitive recreation (such as the horse pack trip and hunting) 

slipping away. He was reacting against roads and the Model T 

invading wild country. He was also trying to retain two other 

important values: the opportunity to engage deeply with the 

place at hand (the national forest) and to permit the common 

man, even the poor man, to have access to wilderness hunting 

trips, packing trips, and trips to backcountry lakes (Havlick 

2006).

But the question today is what technology violates the prescription of primitiveness? Each year there are more gadgets for 

wilderness recreationists to consume and to make wilderness 

trips more safe and comfortable. Should only motorized travel 

and mechanical equipment be prohibited? What about kevlar 

canoes, lightweight backpack stoves, fish finders, GPS units, 

satellite phones, cell phones, and all sorts of communication 

technology? Havlick (2006) defends today’s wilderness by 

noting that almost all human products and activities, modern 

or not, are allowed. For him wilderness is not a retreat to a 

pre-industrial age. It is instead a chance to encounter each 

other and the environment under a different set of prescribed 

conditions than at home. But for Callicott and for me, many 

of these gadgets should be discouraged in wilderness. For me, 

gadgets that enable contact with modernity outside wilderness 

should be discouraged. They reduce the likelihood of contact 

with wild nature inside the wilderness. Other gadgets of all sorts 

that filter, cushion, and reduce contact might be discouraged. 

But here, much public input and judgment are required. I am 

certainly not suggesting a prohibition on lightweight backpack 

tents. Finally, gadgets that hold the potential to reduce or disrupt 

other people’s contact with wild nature should be discouraged 

or used in a considerate manner.

Suggested Management Actions

• Consider ways to encourage a broader segment of the 

American population to visit wilderness. Work with 

schools, women’s groups, and Elderhostels to introduce 

currently underserved populations to wilderness/wildness.

• Recruit young people into wilderness. Work with school 

groups, scouts, and camps. Encourage youth to leave 

communication and entertainment technology at home. 

Remove any institutional barriers to wilderness visitation 

by youth groups.

• Encourage primitive woodcraft skills, at least in lightly 

used wilderness areas and zones. This is to encourage 

contact with wildness.

• Discourage use of communication and entertainment 

technology in wilderness. This is to encourage personal 

contact with the unfettered wildness of nature.

• Encourage visitors to learn ecological processes and 

conditions such as fish finding, way finding and reading 

the weather without the crutches of modern technology.

• Evaluate current recreational activities in wilderness to 

see if some might be done in a more primitive way, in a 

way that encourages deeper contact with wildness. For 

example, if hunting occurs, could there be an archery hunt 

or a black powder hunt?

A research program related to these suggestions might 

include questions of whether recruitment activities result in 

more long-term use and enjoyment by currently underserved 

groups. Does learning woodcraft skills result in increased 

knowledge, sensitivity, and commitment to nature protection? 

How much does the public support or resist discouragement of 

use of modern communication and entertainment technology 

in wilderness? Does modern communication and entertainment technology increase or decrease contact with wildness 

in wilderness?

Critique #5: Wilderness With its Focus 

on Naturalness has its Ecology 

Wrong ___________________________

Description

This critique comes primarily from evolutionary biology, 

conservation biology, and landscape ecology. But it lies at the 

very heart of wilderness protection and management. Indeed, 

the Wilderness Act calls for “wilderness to retain its primeval 

character and influence... protected and managed so as to 

preserve its natural conditions and which generally appears 

to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with 

the imprint of man’s works substantially unnoticeable...” 

(Wilderness Act, P.L. 88-577). This represents a clear call for 

management for naturalness. But the naturalness concept is now 

known to be vague and ambiguous. Chase (1986) in his book 

“Playing God in Yellowstone” has pointed to huge mistakes 

made by resource managers in their efforts to protect naturalness in Yellowstone National Park. Naturalness has multiple 

and conflicting meanings. It might mean that wilderness lands 

should be self-willed, that ecosystems and landscapes should 

be free to go their own way without the imprint of man. But we 

know that the imprint of man is ubiquitous; it is everywhere. 

Indeed, many would argue that homo sapiens, at least the 

primitive human, was a keynote species affecting the function, composition, and structure of ecosystems and landscapes 

everywhere. To get back to some historical state would simply 

be a value-laden selection of a date and time. But whatever 

time is chosen, say the time of European contact, would require 

active human intervention to attain. It certainly could not be 

achieved by “letting the system go its own way.” Too many 

past and present influences, such as habitat fragmentation, 

loss of top predators, invasive species, altered disturbance 

regimes, pollution, and climate change, have profound effects 

on protected areas (Stephenson and others 2010).

When the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, popular 

conceptions of ecological thought still reflected the belief that 

ecosystems, if left alone, protected from human activity, would 

achieve a stable state, a state of equilibrium and a climax community. From time to time, natural disturbances would occur, 

setting back succession, but then the orderly process toward a 

Roggenbuck Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the Recent Wilderness Critique
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 201

stable climax community would begin anew. We now know that 

disturbance is the norm, often by nature and more frequently 

by humans. The norm is a state of flux (Callicott 2008). With 

recent pervasive anthropocentric disturbance, ecosystems 

might evolve into systems never before seen in historic and 

even prehistoric times.

So what is a wilderness manager to do? Cole and Young 

(2010), in their edited volume, provide four options, each of 

which is based on but might be considered an extension of the 

naturalness construct. The first is a “hands-off approach”; let 

nature roll the dice in wilderness. We do not know what we 

will get; we might lose biodiversity. But in allowing nature 

to be self-willed, we accept nature’s autonomy. We celebrate 

wildness. We accept evolutionary change. We develop scientific respect (Landres 2010). A second approach is to manage 

for ecological integrity. The goal here is the conservation of 

nature and biological diversity. It does this by protecting all 

the important parts and proper functions of ecosystems. This 

approach assumes that humans have been keystone species in 

most systems and active management by humans is integral 

for the success of this approach. Humans select ecological 

goals, indicators, and prescriptions for the system (Woodley 

2010). A third kind of naturalness is to manage for historical 

fidelity—to restore an ecosystem (such as a sequoia grove) 

or landscape to some valued condition of the past. As already 

indicated, this goal can only be relative, not absolute. It requires 

active management by humans, and while historical processes 

are important, fidelity to past composition and structure is 

essential. A possible drawback is that it constrains possible 

novel evolutionary elements of biodiversity, thus potentially 

reducing ecological integrity and resilience (Cole and others 

2010). Finally, managers might have a goal of ecosystem 

resilience, or enhancing the capacity of the system to adapt 

to change (Zavaleta and Chapin 2010). This requires active 

intervention by humans and views the ecosystem in its larger 

regional context. It seeks to reduce exposure and sensitivity 

to stresses. It seeks to build adaptability into the system. Humans intervene by viewing the ecosystem in a matrix of scales 

across the region. They connect the protected area with both 

ecological paths and cultural memory. They connect the system 

to local people. Managers look at crisis as an opportunity for 

constructive change. A novel outcome might be the “natural” 

outcome of evolutionary change.

The lesson here is that there is no one approach to system 

protection. In addition, each approach has different outcomes. 

Each involves human intervention in varying degrees. Whatever 

approach is ultimately chosen for a wilderness or a wilderness 

system involves a value judgment. This value judgment cannot be and should not be made by public policy-makers and 

managers alone. Instead, an interested, knowledgeable, and 

involved citizenry is required. The most effective protection of 

biodiversity and attainment of human goals is likely to result 

from a diversity of approaches. Even after a general strategy 

of resource conservation is selected, more specific objectives 

and indicators of performance must be selected. Finally, managers are treading new pathways here. They need the freedom 

to experiment, to monitor results, to adapt, to begin anew. In 

the end, nature bats last. We can never know for certain where 

evolutionary forces, where wildness, will lead us.

Suggested Management Actions

Implications for management flowing from the critique of 

naturalness primarily involve the ecological aspects of protected area management, but some involve human response 

to wilderness.

• Educate the public, interest groups, and wilderness visitors about the past and current human-induced changes 

on protected area systems.

• Educate the public, interest groups, and wilderness visitors about the values and required human intervention of 

the four strategies for protected area conservation: “hands 

off,” ecological integrity, historical fidelity, and ecological 

resilience.

• Obtain input from the public, interest groups, and wilderness visitors on which of the four conservation approaches 

is preferred or which combinations are preferred.

• Obtain public input on the selection of goals, objectives, and 

performance standards for the conservation strategy(ies) 

selected.

Research is needed on how best to educate the public and 

obtain their preferences on the four conservation strategies 

outlined here.

Conclusion_______________________

The meaning of wilderness in the American mind has evolved 

and will evolve across time. Today the idea is represented in 

part by a system of about 107 million acres placed in the National Wilderness Preservation System. This system represents 

a special kind of resource protection and, unique in the world, 

special kinds of experiences for people. The kinds of experiences that are celebrated and models of resource protection 

employed typically flow slowly across the American scene. 

But from time to time, philosophers, writers, and scientists 

offer and advocate wilderness ideas that jolt conventional 

ways of thinking about wild nature. The last two decades in 

America represent one such time of change. Environmental 

historians, philosophers, conservation biologists, and landscape 

ecologists have offered a major critique about wilderness and 

the way it is protected and managed. In this essay, I subjected 

five of these challenges to thoughtful analysis and suggested 

implications for the delivery of experiences in wilderness. 

These challenges include the notions that wilderness separates 

humans from nature, that it denies the human story in “pristine” 

lands, that it privileges a certain kind of recreation that is out 

of touch with today’s social and environmental values, that it 

distracts attention away from environmental crises at home, 

and that its management is based on an outmoded concept of 

naturalness. Much of this critique seems valid to me. I have 

suggested ways that wilderness managers can shape opportunities for experiences that may begin to address these criticisms. 

Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the Recent Wilderness Critique Roggenbuck
202 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

These include emphasizing different aspects of the wilderness 

experience, calling for different visitor regulations and different educational messages and the way they are delivered, and 

the implementation of different kinds of resource protection 

models. All represent an effort to bring wilderness visitors in 

more intimate contact with wild nature, with wildness, and to 

take the learning benefits of wilderness to their home environment. To accomplish these tasks, managers will have to be 

more astute and agile than ever. They will need more help in 

the future from wilderness visitors, interest groups, wilderness 

outfitters and guides, and the general public than they have 

had in the past.

References _______________________

Berenguer, Jaime. 2007. The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes 

and behaviors. Environment and Behavior. 39(2): 269-283.

Berenguer, Jaime. 2010. The effect of empathy in environmental moral reasoning. Environment and Behavior. 42(1): 110-134.

Borrie, William T. 2004.Why primitive experiences in wilderness? International 

Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 18-20.

Bulger, Hilary; Sveum, Paul; Van Horn, Paul. 2008. As sustainable as possible: A working model to assess and improve the sustainability of outdoor 

education and recreation. Paper presented at the Wilderness Education 

Association’s National Conference, San Diego, CA, February 14, 2008.

Cachelin, A.; Rose, J.; Dustin, D.; Shooter, W. 2011. Sustainability in outdoor 

education: Rethinking root metaphors. Journal of Sustainability Education, 

2 [Online}. http://utah.academia.edu/JeffRose/Papers/499297/Sustainability_in_Outdoor_Education_Rethinking_Root_Metaphors.

Cahalan, James. 2001. Edward Abbey, a life. Tucson: The University of 

Arizona Press. 357 p.

Callicott, J. Baird. 2008. The implications of the “shifting paradigm” in ecology 

for paradigm shifts in the philosophy of conservation. In: Nelson, Michael 

P.; Callicott, J. Baird, eds. The wilderness debate rages on. Athens: The 

University of Georgia Press: 571-600.

Callicott, J. Baird; Nelson, Michael P., eds. 1998. The great new wilderness 

debate. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. 697 p.

Chase, Alston. 1986. Playing God in Yellowstone. NewYork: The Atlantic 

Monthly Press. 446p.

Cole, David N.; Yung, Laurie, eds. 2010. Beyond naturalness: Rethinking 

park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 287 p.

Cole, David N.; Higgs, Eric S.; White, Peter S. 2010. Historical fidelity: 

Maintaining legacy and connection to heritage. In: Cole, David N.; Yung, 

Laurie, ed. 2010. Beyond naturalness: Rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington, DC: Island Press: 125-141.

Cronon, William. 1996. The trouble with wilderness; Or, getting back to the 

wrong nature. Environmental History. 1(1): 7-28.

Cronon, William. 2003. The riddle of the Apostle Islands: How do you manage 

a wilderness full of human stories? Orion. 22(2): 36-42.

Dean, Bradley P. 2007. Natural history, romanticism, and Thoreau. In: Lewis, 

Michael, ed. American wilderness: A new history. New York: Oxford 

University Press: 73-90.

Deneven, William M. 1992. Native American populations in 1492: Recent 

research and a revised hemispheric estimate. In: Deneven, William. M., ed. 

Native populations of the Americas in 1492, 2nd ed. Madison: University 

of Wisconsin Press: 17-29.

Deneven, William M. 1996. Pristine myth. In: Levinson, D.; Ember, M., eds. 

Encyclopedia of cultural anthropology, Vol. 3. New York: Henry Holt and 

Company: 1034-1036.

Dustin, Dan L. 1999. The wilderness within: Reflections of leisure and life, 

2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing Inc. 153p.

Foreman, Dave. 1991. Confessions of an eco-warrior. New York: Harmony 

Books. 229p.

Foreman, Dave. 2008. The real wilderness idea. In: Nelson, Michael P.; Callicott, J. Baird, eds. The wilderness debate rages on. Athens: The University 

of Georgia Press: 378-397.

Havlick, David. 2006. Reconsidering wilderness: Prospective ethics for nature, technology, and society. Ethics, Place and Environment. 9(1): 47-62.

Landres, Peter. 2010. Let it be: A hands-off approach to preserving wildness in 

protected areas. In: Cole, David N.; Yung, Laurie, ed. Beyond naturalness: 

Rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. 

Washington, DC: Island Press: 88-107.

Lewis, Michael, ed. 2007. American wilderness, A new history. New York: 

Oxford University Press. 290 p.

Moskowitz, D.; Ottey, D. 2006. Leaving LNT behind: Towards a holistic land 

use ethic. Green Teacher. 78 (Spring).

Nash, Roderick. 1982. Wilderness and the American mind. 3rd ed. New Haven: 

Yale University Press. 425 p.

Nelson, Michael P.; Callicott, J. Baird, eds. 2008. The wilderness debate rages 

on. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. 723 p.

Ouderkirk, Wayne. 2008. On wilderness and people: A view from Mt. Marcy. 

In: Nelson, Michael P.; Callicott, J. Baird, eds. The Wilderness Debate Rages 

On. Athens: The University of Georgia Press: 435-360.

Sanders, Scott R. 2008. Wilderness as a Sabbath for the land. In: Nelson, 

Michael P.; Callicott, J. Baird, eds. The wilderness debate rages on. Athens: 

The University of Georgia Press: 603-610.

Simon, Gregory L.; Alagona, Peter S. 2009. Beyond Leave No Trace. Ethics, 

Place and Environment. 12(1): 17-34.

Stephenson, Nathan L.; Millar, Constance I.; Cole, David N. 2010. Shifting 

environmental foundations: The unprecedented and unpredictable future. 

In: Cole, David N.; Yung, Laurie, eds. Beyond naturalness: Rethinking 

park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 50-66.

Stewart, William P. In press. Creating public memory of wilderness. In: Cole, 

David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

Stoll, Mark. 2007. Religion “irradiates” the wilderness. Lewis, Michael, 

ed. American wilderness, A new history. New York: Oxford University 

Press: 35-53.

Torrey, Bradford; Allen, Francis H., eds. 1906. The writings of Henry David 

Thoreau. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 458 p.

Turner, James Morton. 2002. From woodcraft to “Leave No Trace”: Wilderness, consumerism, and environmentalism in twentieth-century America. 

Environmental History. 7(3): 462-484.

U.S. Public Law 88-577. The Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964. 78 Stat. 890.

U.S. Public Law 93-622. (Eastern Wilderness) Act of January 3, 1975. 88 

Stat. 2096.

U.S. Public Law 96-487. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA) of December 20, 1980. 94 Stat. 2371.

Vale, Thomas. 1999. The myth of the humanized landscape, an example from 

Yosemite National Park. Wild Earth. Fall: 34-40.

Woodley, Stephen. 2010. Ecological integrity: A framework for ecosystembased management. In: Cole, David N.; Yung, Laurie, ed. 2010. Beyond 

naturalness: Rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid 

change. Washington, DC: Island Press: 106-124.

Zavaleta, Erika S.; Chapin, F. Stuart III. 2010. Resilience frameworks: Enhancing the capacity to adapt to change. In: Cole, David N.; Yung, Laurie, ed. 

2010. Beyond naturalness: Rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in 

an era of rapid change. Washington, DC: Island Press: 142-158.

Roggenbuck Managing for Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century: Responding to the Recent Wilderness Critique
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 203

Author: William Stewart, Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of 

Illinois, Champaign, IL.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.

Abstract—If wilderness experiences are distinct from general outdoor recreation experiences, then wilderness visitor research needs 

to reflect the distinction. If there are distinguishing characteristics, 

they would be linked to social and cultural meanings embedded in 

the Wilderness Act of 1964 and contemporary interpretations of it. 

Most research on wilderness visitor experience is conducted through 

psychological approaches that do not recognize social and cultural 

meanings, leaving open questions regarding the social and cultural 

relevance of any given wilderness area. Public memory is explored 

as a strategy to create an evolving and unique set of place meanings for a designated wilderness area. Researchers could more fully 

understand wilderness experience by exploring public memory. The 

evolving public memory of wilderness as a philosophical concept is 

distinguished from lack of any public memory for a given wilderness 

area. The point of public memory is not to preserve the past, but to 

adapt it in ways that are relevant to the present. There are three sources 

of information on which to base public memory of wilderness: (1) the 

reason for designation embedded in wilderness legislation which has 

led to a national narrative of all wilderness areas as places untrammeled by humans, (2) the story of the designation of the given area 

and changes in operations that have been generated due to wilderness 

management regimes, and (3) connections to experiences of visitors 

and the memories they share. The latter two sources of information 

have largely been neglected, privileging the public memory that 

coincides with the national narrative of wilderness. A strategy to create public memory would be a three-step process to share stories of 

wilderness experiences, engage others to react and comment on the 

shared stories, and build a credible set of narratives from the engaged 

public to fit a specific wilderness area.

Introduction ______________________

What makes wilderness experiences different from general 

outdoor recreation experiences? If there is a difference, then 

the difference needs to be reflected in research. My starting 

point on wilderness experiences is the Wilderness Act of 1964, 

which provides substance for the meaning of places so designated. The Act suggests a narrative of the history of American 

Research to Create Public Memory of 

Wilderness

William Stewart

culture and puts forth a uniquely American justification for 

land designated as wilderness. The meaning of wilderness, 

as embodied in the Act, is one that connects with social and 

cultural values of American life (Callicott and Nelson 1998; 

Nash 2001). This contrasts with the study of wilderness experiences which has been largely framed as individualized 

experiences, psychological benefits, and personal preferences. 

To be sure, trips in wilderness provide a wide array of individualized experiences and benefits, and these could be linked to 

personal preferences for settings. However the argument that 

distinguishes wilderness from outdoor recreation experiences 

has yet to be fully developed. Social and cultural meanings of 

wilderness generally do not surface in the empirical research 

on wilderness experiences, yet social and cultural meanings 

are essential to distinguishing wilderness from general outdoor 

recreation experiences.

In his critique of wilderness, Cronon (1995) brought visibility 

to the social and cultural contexts of wilderness recreation. 

Over the past two decades there has been a growing critique, 

largely from sociologists and policy scholars, of wilderness 

management as favoring an “able-bodied white middle class 

user” (Taylor 2000, p.178; see also Bullard 1993; Mohai 

1985). For me, Cronon’s essay problematized the reliance on 

a psychologized view of wilderness experience and suggested 

the need for approaches to research that would integrate social 

and cultural contexts of one’s wilderness visit. The purpose 

of this paper is to explore the potential of public memory as a 

strategy to build connections between individual experience 

and the cultural meaning of any given wilderness area. A secondary purpose is to advocate that recreation researchers and 

wilderness managers play more active roles in stewardship 

of social and cultural meanings of wilderness, and expand 

their current roles as stewards of the onsite visitor experience 

through manipulation of social and setting attributes.

Public memory is about creating value for something or 

some place. When people share knowledge of an event, it 

leads to a conversation where new meaning becomes embedded in the place of interest. When such conversations engage 

a wide audience, place meanings are created and the value of 

a locale is enhanced. The process of creating value for some 

place through an evolving conversation about its significance 

is the basis for public memory. The point of public memory is 

not to preserve the past, but to adapt it in ways that affect the 

present (Lowenthal 1985); in other words, our understandings 

of the past change as our present conditions change (Blair and 

others 2010).
204 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Consider the memories you have shared about a past 

wilderness trip and the reaction of others to your recollections. These memories, reflected in stories of the past, 

color meaning for the places visited on the trip and do so 

in ways that purposefully enrich the present. The basis of 

public memory of wilderness is within forums that invite 

the sharing of stories of wilderness that allow others to react 

and provide commentary and ultimately work to build a 

narrative or synthesis. Creating public memory of wilderness is about social and cultural layerings on top of our 

individualized meanings, resulting in a collective knowledge 

of place (Assmann 1995). Both recreation researchers and 

wilderness managers have important roles to play in the 

creation of public memory for wilderness.

Importance of Social and Cultural 

Meanings of Wilderness ____________

Developing strategies for creating public memory of 

wilderness invites the experience to grow into a narrative 

larger than any one person. For wilderness management to 

keep pace with contemporary values, social and cultural 

meanings about wilderness need to come to the surface 

and otherwise be more explicit in social science research. 

Public memory creates a sense of place with potential to 

bring people together and provide a positive identity. As an 

example, war memorials offer a public memory of significant cultural values that led to a country’s involvement in 

war and create a sense of place to honor those who fought 

in war. Although war memorials are common place, their 

meanings are anything but common. Rather they distinguish 

specific men and women from a given locale for a given 

war who sacrificed themselves for the unique purposes of 

the war. Stated differently, war memorials are not about 

remembering a collection of people dying overseas, they 

are a coming together of individual sacrifice and a shared 

remembrance of a local history that connects with national 

pride (Cimprich 2005). If all we know about visitors to a 

war memorial is their psychological experiences, we have 

not fully captured its significance as a war memorial. There 

are social and cultural meanings of a war memorial that 

directly contribute to individual experiences. Wilderness 

visitor research has focused on individual experiences and 

generally has neglected any social and cultural meanings that 

contribute to such experiences. For research to distinguish 

wilderness visitors from general outdoor recreationists, it 

requires a framework that recognizes wilderness as a cultural 

institution.

As part of a process that builds place meaning, counternarratives may develop that resist and otherwise critique 

any given place meaning. Such counter-narratives play important roles in bringing people together to critique or give 

voice to alternate meanings. For example, like most places 

of public memory connected with Christopher Columbus, 

Denver’s memorial draws protests from American Indian 

groups on the official Columbus Day holiday (Noel 2010). 

Over time the dominant and counter-narratives of Denver’s 

Columbus Memorial have become linked to one another 

and function as a progressive dialogue as the meaning of 

Columbus Day evolves. Likewise, the Wilderness Act of 

1964 has been critiqued as lacking sensitivity to the history 

of many wilderness areas, including historical factors related 

to American Indian homelands, impact of management regimes, practices of restoration ecology, and problematizing 

wilderness in relation to gender, race, and class (Cronon 

1995; Elliot 1997; Plumwood 1998). Developing forums 

to create public memory of wilderness will likely provoke 

social and cultural critiques of a given wilderness that will 

connect with visitor experiences.

Over the past few decades, there has been a growing literature that addresses social and cultural meaning-making 

within contexts of recreation and leisure (Kelly 1974; Patterson and others 1998; Stokowski 1996). Lee (1972) was 

one of the first researchers to frame outdoor recreational 

sites as having a social meaning beyond the descriptive 

aspects of the resource conditions and opportunities for 

activities. Recognizing that outdoor recreation generally 

occurs in activity groups comprised of family and friends, 

Lee’s (1972) simple premise has profound implications to 

understanding the social construction of place-meanings 

of parks, campgrounds, and other outdoor sites. From a 

framework of outdoor recreation as a dynamic process, 

McIntyre and Roggenbuck (1998) provide further evidence 

of the development of place-meanings as intimately tied 

to the unfolding interactions between recreationists, their 

social group, and their place. Using a metaphor of “place as 

a relationship partner,” Brooks and his colleagues (Brooks 

and others 2006; Brooks and Williams in press) provide a 

convincing argument, coupled with evidence from visitor 

experiences, that place-meanings are constructed due to 

long-term social and physical interactions with a place that 

regulates one’s sense of identity. In another strand of research 

inspired by psychological models, Smaldone and others 

(2008) studied visitor and resident experiences, concluding that people develop deep-seated emotional attachments 

over time that accumulate like layers of memories to create 

place-meanings. From a variety of perspectives, outdoor 

recreation researchers have addressed visitor experiences 

as essentially meaning-making processes embedded within 

social and cultural contexts (Watson 2004).

Three common themes identified across this growing literature are relevant to creating public memory of wilderness. 

The first is a focus on place-meanings as being a central part 

of the outdoor recreation experience. The second is a framework that indicates place-meanings, rather than being static 

and mono-dimensional, evolve and accumulate across time 

due to interaction with people and places. The third common 

theme, more implicit than explicit in this literature, is that placemeanings are shared in ways that allow people to learn about 

themselves and each other. Because of these three themes, the 

literature on recreational place-meanings provides an important 

starting point for research that addresses problems with the 

lack of a public memory of wilderness.

Stewart Research to Create Public Memory of Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 205

What Is Public Memory of 

Wilderness? ______________________

Public memory is the way a society makes its past meaningful. 

The past is selectively remembered in ways that unify and build 

identity for people of the present (Blair and others 2010). Public 

memory is not an objective remembrance. Indeed, creating 

public memory is also about a public forgetting, erasure, and 

possibly silencing (Connerton 2008). Society makes meaning 

from its past by creating compelling narratives to inspire and 

build positive value for places and events. Public memory often 

evokes feelings of respect, loyalty, pride, patriotism and other 

aspirations for the past.

At its core, public memory is a collective remembering 

(Phillips 2004). If it were a public history or public understanding, the connotations of these terms imply claims to accuracy, 

objectivity, and lead to place-meanings as being singular and 

authentic. “Memory” is purposely employed as the appropriate 

term due to the multiple and fluid ways in which place-meanings 

are created. Rather than asserting an absolute truth, public 

memory is about a narrative that holds layers and accumulates 

meaning. Public memory is like a palimpsest where meaning 

accumulates or gets written over, much like a canvas upon 

which layers of distinct portraits have been painted with each 

potentially influencing the next (Blair and others 2010).

Although any given wilderness area usually lacks public 

memory, the concept of wilderness has its tradition of one. 

In other words, the image of a generic wilderness has been 

the target of an accumulating public meaning. This public 

memory is embodied in the writings of intellectuals (such as 

Cooper 1826; Nash 2001; Olson 1938, 1956; Stegner 1954) 

in which American natural landscapes are characterized as 

being untainted and romanticized as being a unique part of 

the American experience. The Wilderness Society, established 

in 1935 by Bob Marshall and others, has been a traditional 

advocate for legislation that designates land to be left in an 

undeveloped state. The Wilderness Act of 1964, largely written 

by Howard Zahniser of the Wilderness Society, is an outcome 

of the long journey for wilderness advocacy. This Act was 

largely directed at the American West, where large parcels of 

land were considered untrammeled by humans. However, the 

Act was problematic for many who felt that the eastern U.S. 

held land parcels, albeit smaller compared to western standards, 

that should be included in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. The so-called Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975 was 

built upon the 1964 Act and allowed smaller parcels of land 

with visible histories of human disturbance to be designated as 

wilderness. The debate surrounding the 1975 Act was largely 

focused on esoteric discussions of purity and pristineness 

(Hendee and others 1990). The public dialogue for the 1975 

Act was restricted to a more narrow set of actors compared to 

the 1964, Act including congressional staff, special interest 

groups, and President Gerald Ford who signed it.

In the past three decades, the public memory of wilderness as a concept has largely been asserted by scientists and 

other intellectuals. Various forums, not necessarily public, 

have enhanced the accumulated values of wilderness as a 

philosophical concept (Cole and Yung 2010; Roggenbuck in 

press). Like a palimpsest, the public memory of wilderness 

has grown as a philosophical concept to include meanings 

tied to biodiversity (Botkin 1990), ecosystem services and 

sustainable development (Callicott 1991), ethical responsibility to nature (Rolston 1991), deep ecology (Naess 1995), 

future generations (Nash 2001; Noss 1991), and in a curious 

twist that poses the ultimate dichotomization of humans and 

nature, a public memory that claims pristine nature is forever 

dead (McKibben 1989; see Plumwood 1998 for a persuasive 

rebuttal). Outlets and forums to influence the public memory 

of wilderness as a philosophical concept include books, academic literature, land planning workshops and reports, and 

conferences related to conservation and land preservation. For 

wilderness in the abstract, there has been an evolving public 

memory. However participation in it has generally been limited 

to people of the same status and characteristics of the people 

involved with the 1964 Wilderness Act—able-bodied white 

males trained in various scholarly disciplines or closely tied 

to land management.

Left out of the dialogue is a public memory of specific wilderness areas. With few exceptions, the public memory of any 

given wilderness is not problematized by politicians, agencies, 

special interest groups, or intellectuals. Although there are no 

doubt concerns for specific sites within wilderness areas, such 

concerns are generally not grist for creating public memory of 

wilderness. There may be resistance to creating idiosyncratic 

public memories of specific wilderness areas due to a perception that such place meanings could threaten traditional dogma 

about wilderness as a place that is pristine, pure, untouched, and 

otherwise fresh from God’s creation (Cronon 1995). Creating 

public memory of any given wilderness could conflate, and 

possible contradict, the commonly accepted narrative of an 

untrammeled American landscape as first seen by white settlers. Hence there may be pressures on any given wilderness to 

eliminate special provisions (such as, motorized boats, stock 

grazing, aircraft access) and label them as non-conforming or 

conflict-inducing. Any attempt for a specific wilderness area 

to accumulate layers of meaning that stray from the nationalized narrative of wilderness may be viewed as threatening the 

quality of the wilderness and detracting from its purity. In short, 

whereas there has been an aloof public memory evolving about 

wilderness as a philosophical concept, there has been little 

public memory associated with any given wilderness area.

There are sources of information (or meanings) that could 

be developed to create public memory of specific wilderness 

areas. Wilderness areas do not simply represent the past; they 

accumulate their own past. There are three sources of information that could serve as a foundation for public memory 

(Loewen 2000) and each of these would be applicable 

for any given wilderness area. The first and most obvious 

source of information is the reason for designation tied to 

the Wilderness Act or the national narrative of wilderness as a 

place untrammeled by humans. This is currently the primary 

source of information being used to create public memory of wilderness. This source of information by itself is not sufficient 

to enhance the social relevance of any given wilderness area. 

Research to Create Public Memory of Wilderness Stewart
206 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Nor has it visibly inspired research to distinguish wilderness 

visitor experiences.

Fortunately public memory also includes two other sources 

of information that have been subtexts in the development of 

wilderness. The second source of public memory is the story 

of the designation for any given wilderness area. Designation 

and subsequent changes in managerial and visitor operations 

are usually not stories considered worthy of telling, in part, 

because they point to historic uses and suggest evidence of human disturbance. Sometimes previous historic uses are brought 

forth as relevant for telling, and if so, such contexts are often of 

first settlers and pioneers confronting the wilds of America—a 

story that invites visitors to identify with the pioneers of yore 

(Cronon 1995). However there could be additional stories of 

the history of designation that could include counter-narratives 

with argument and evidence for the land’s value and cultural 

meaning prior to being designated as wilderness.

A third source of information that could stimulate public 

memory of a specific wilderness area is its connection to the 

visitors’ present moment. The current experience of the visitor, 

although an important concern for managerial operations, has 

curiously not made a significant contribution to public memory. 

Although there have been countless assessments of wilderness 

visitor experiences (see Manning 2011 for a thorough rendering), such assessments have not been fodder for an evolving 

public memory of their respective wilderness areas. Research 

on wilderness visitor experiences has largely aligned with 

managerial needs to conform to the concept of wilderness 

and thus is concerned with generic questions associated with 

satisfaction, crowding, conflict, and solitude. The research has 

seldom been used to understand or shape the uniqueness of 

any given wilderness area.

The three sources of information (or meanings) for public 

memory are dependent on one another. During a visit to a 

wilderness area, one may come upon prehistoric rock art and 

reflect on the centuries of time and people who have come 

before. The individual experiences of witnessing the rock art 

as novel, interesting to learn about or providing satisfaction, 

are not immediately cultural values or meanings. Visitor experience research often characterizes the individual experience and 

through analysis will attempt to explain the degree of novelty, 

learning or satisfaction by searching for relationships with 

management-based variables. The individualized framing of 

the experience aligns with the national narrative of wilderness 

as being land untouched by the modern world, and both the 

researcher and land manager will understandably be intrigued 

by results that show, say, relationships between learning about 

rock art and increased satisfaction. However if the research 

ends at this point, the other two sources of information to build 

public memory will not surface.

To illustrate the palimpsest qualities of public memory, further consider the example of a visitor who encounters ancient 

rock art. If this visitor was to share the experience regarding 

personal growth that led to an awareness of centuries of time, 

this sharing might affect others. Another person might extend 

the meaning to a felt sense of human mortality and connect 

it to geologic time. If both of these stories become shared 

with others, the place might be perceived as sacred given an 

understanding that others were left profoundly affected by the 

place. Senses of time, mortality, and sacredness are all meanings derived from the experience of the place in which the rock 

art was found. None are true in an absolute sense; rather they 

reflect multiple place-meanings created by those who visited. 

Yet another participant in the dialogue may argue that the locale 

had been homeland to American Indians long before it became 

a recreational playground for hikers and assert rights of land 

tenure for native people. A fifth participant in the dialogue 

may be a wilderness patrol ranger who describes the years of 

managerial action to fortify the ancient rock art site to make it 

less susceptible to erosion and vandalism due to a designation 

effect of increased use. Within this example, various sources of 

information and meaning have been shared that are relevant to 

encountering the ancient rock art. Collectively they provide a 

context for characterizing the social and cultural meanings of 

the wilderness area. Some of the suggested social and cultural 

meanings include appreciation of cultural heritage, need to 

protect cultural heritage, history of tribal land tenure, western 

conquest and settlement, and a profound sense of time linked 

to ancestral sacredness. Some of these meanings conform 

to the national narrative of wilderness while others deviate 

from it. The point here is to illustrate the variety of sources of 

information that could contribute to public memory.

There are both traditional and new-found roles for researchers to cultivate the development of these three sources of 

information as a basis to create public memory of wilderness. 

However to fully appreciate research-based strategies to create public memory of wilderness, the problems with a lack of 

public memory need to be explained.

Problems With a Lack of Public 

Memory__________________________

Shared dialogue and public memory is noticeably absent 

from contemporary American contexts of wilderness areas. 

Several problems with a lack of public memory of specific 

wilderness areas ultimately detract from both wilderness and 

its management.

First, to many people wilderness is defined in a negative 

sense. That is, we know wilderness as an environment by what 

is not there and what should not be done there. The “leave no 

trace” and other recreational minimum impact land ethics have 

been widely accepted by agencies and visitors. Indeed, I have 

been on several commercially guided trips in which patrons 

have been scolded for not urinating in the proper place or for 

inappropriately disposing of an apple core. There are good 

reasons to conform with “leave no trace” behavior, however 

absent a positive public memory, prospective visitors may be 

left wondering about the over-abundance of behavioral norms 

and confused by seemingly extensive regulation (Cachelin and 

others 2011). Wilderness areas generally beg for some positive 

definition of their meaning beyond the individual benefits of 

outdoor recreation and leave questions related to “what is the 

purpose of this particular wilderness area?”

Stewart Research to Create Public Memory of Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 207

Second, for many people wilderness management is a “hands 

off” operation. Because it is perceived as perfectly natural and 

untouched, there is no need for management. After all, doesn’t 

the wilderness landscape manage itself? Any human tinkering could be seen as playing God (Chase 1986). Rather than 

some kind of natural regulation, the truth of most wilderness 

landscapes is much different (Cole and Yung 2010). As known 

by wilderness managers and restoration ecologists, wilderness 

areas are managed in well-defined and thoroughly-deliberated 

ways to appear perfectly natural and untouched (Davis and 

Slobodkin 2004; Hammitt and Cole 1998). Creating a public 

memory of wilderness would make wilderness management 

more transparent due to a shared dialogue that would include 

agency staff and other stakeholders.

Third, if wilderness management is “hands off,” then there 

would not be a need for volunteer organizations to maintain 

wilderness landscapes and settings. Yet the settings of most 

wilderness areas have been influenced by the activities of numerous volunteers, special interest groups, wilderness advocates, 

commercial outfitters, and many others. Each group is motivated 

by specific intentions that appreciate the wilderness area and 

their efforts affect wilderness settings in significant ways. The 

lack of a shared dialogue for public memory precludes any 

open appreciation or public acknowledgement of the effect 

of these groups on the landscape and perpetuates the myth of 

wilderness as perfectly natural and untouched. Creating public 

memory gives credit to human activities that maintain settings 

and illuminates the diversity of motivations and social values 

for doing so. Acknowledging human influence on wilderness 

and the motivations for such activity would allow critiques 

and counter-narratives to emerge.

As the fourth and final problem stemming from the lack of 

a public memory of wilderness, where other institutions of 

American society have been democratized, wilderness is still 

aloof to most of the American public. The history of wilderness 

appreciation has been closely tied to elite white males who live 

in urban areas (Cronon 1995; Nash 2001), and is anchored in 

the dominant cultural meanings of the mid-twentieth century 

(Gottlieb 1993). Yet the meaning of many cultural institutions 

has changed since the 1960s. As examples of public meanings 

that have evolved over the past 50 years, consider changes in 

the meaning of institutions such as marriage, family, public 

schools, health care, indigenous people, and professional 

sports. The evolution of public meanings is usually a process 

that engages Americans from all walks of life regardless of 

gender, race or class. In the case of wilderness, public memory 

is still largely influenced by people and organizations tied to the 

discourse of the 1964 Act: staff from federal land management 

agencies, special interest groups, and outfitters. Democratizing 

wilderness would parallel other American cultural institutions 

and empower current visitors to share experiences, represent 

place meanings, and ultimately help shape place meanings of 

wilderness to align with contemporary American social and 

cultural values.

For several reasons, social and cultural values are essential 

contexts for understanding wilderness experiences. The 

Wilderness Act of 1964, like any act of Congress or historical 

event, is one that becomes re-interpreted as American society 

moves forward. The Wilderness Act is a living document 

(Roggenbuck in press). Whether or not the Wilderness Act 

“should” be a living document is not a useful question. Interpretation of all legislation evolves and so too does the cultural 

lens for interpreting the Wilderness Act. Without purposeful 

development of connections to contemporary cultural meanings, any given wilderness will be vulnerable to a lack of public 

understanding of its purpose, management, and the numerous 

people and organizations that care about it in a variety of appreciative ways. Creating a public memory for each wilderness 

area, and the role of researchers in doing so, is discussed herein 

as a strategy to address the above problems with wilderness.

Research Strategy to Create Public 

Memory__________________________

The three sources of information suggest a strategy to create 

a unique public memory of a given wilderness area. The strategy is a three-step process to: (1) share stories of wilderness 

experiences, (2) engage others to react and comment on the 

shared stories, and (3) build a credible set of narratives from 

the engaged constituents to fit a specific wilderness area.

For the first step, sharing stories of wilderness experiences 

is about democratizing the discourse about wilderness. There 

are strategies that could facilitate building a wider circle of 

participants beyond the traditional place-makers of management 

agencies, outfitters, and special interest groups. There are currently various kinds of social media linked to blogs, Facebook, 

Twitter, YouTube, and other networking resources being used 

to share stories of experiences in wilderness areas. They run the 

gamut of topics and connect to specific wilderness areas: some 

messages advertise goods and services for wilderness travel, 

allow disgruntled wilderness managers to vent their concerns, 

promote programs related to the wilderness area, show clips of 

organized groups of backpackers—like boy scouts or church 

groups on a re-vegetation crew, and portray unusual tasks 

conducted by ranger staff (such as, clearing trail, hauling-out 

plane wrecks). Although there may be forums (in this example, 

websites) dedicated to sharing stories of a given wilderness, 

they are currently not immediately visible or easily accessed. 

Developing an appropriate set of forums—developed either 

by the agency or a “friends of” group—for sharing stories of 

wilderness experiences is an important first step.

A second step in creating public memory of wilderness is 

to engage others in reacting to and providing commentary on 

the stories being told (Blair and others 2010). Whatever set 

of forums are developed to share stories, they also need to 

engage others to listen, learn, and react to such stories. The 

ability of various forums to bridge personal experiences with 

cultural meanings of wilderness needs exploration through a 

close working relationship between researchers and constituents of a given wilderness area, including the land managers 

themselves. An example of such a forum to share stories of a 

wilderness area is found on a YouTube video explaining the 

Research to Create Public Memory of Wilderness Stewart
208 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Forest Service’s pack mule program for wilderness areas on the 

east side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The video describes 

a vision for the wilderness area, suggests unique qualities about 

the area and the need to spread gravel in streams to restore 

a fisheries spawning ground. A few comments posted below 

the video indicate a growing dialogue about the need to use 

pack mules to restore habitat and enhance biodiversity. They 

portray others who have worked to restore stream habitat with 

pack mules and tell a history of the specific wilderness area as 

being “opened-up” by pack mules. In this example the story 

told on the video, along with the YouTube forum, fostered 

others to deliberate about the value and place-meanings of 

this wilderness area.

The third step to creating public memory of a wilderness 

area requires the development of a credible set of narratives. 

Engaging others to react and provide commentary to the stories 

being told does not necessarily lead to credible narratives of 

a wilderness area. A structure is needed to identify linkages 

across wilderness experiences and social and cultural meanings. 

In addition, the structure developed needs to result in narratives of public memory that are relevant to, and believed by, 

a significant portion of constituents. A critique of the concept 

of wilderness is that it lacks appreciation for roles played by 

humans in creating the landscape and falsely posits a landscape 

void of human influence. This premise has given rise to a 

popular myth that wilderness does not require management. 

In the example of the YouTube video about a wilderness pack 

mule program, the series of commentaries that followed from 

the video appreciate the history of pack mules and trace the 

beneficial conservation work that uses pack mules as part of 

management operations. A general narrative for this series of 

commentary is about roles for humans and mules in the conservation of biodiversity and habitat for this wilderness area. 

The extent to which this narrative is credible to constituents 

is an open question; however, it is likely to be credible to the 

people who watched the video (more than 10,000 hits since 

first posted in January 2010) and followed the commentary. 

By creating public memory that includes the experiences of 

pack mule trips, the consequences of managerial operations 

become evident, and others learn of human efforts that support 

the landscape. Awareness of these human efforts may, in turn, 

influence visitor experiences and their place meanings. Rather 

than a static national narrative of a landscape untouched by 

humans, this wilderness area on the eastern side of the Sierras 

becomes connected with an evolving public memory about 

stream restoration, fisheries conservation, and essential roles 

for the pack mule program. Researchers can play a critical 

role in exploring narratives that develop and incorporating 

this understanding into a richer appreciation of the human 

experience of wilderness.

Conclusion_______________________

The orientation of this essay is that the traditional cultural 

narrative of wilderness needs updating and synchronization with 

the evolving path of American cultural values. This does not 

imply that the values embodied in the Wilderness Act (Callicott 

and Nelson 1998; Nash 2001) should be abandoned. Rather, the 

point is that wilderness, like any institution, needs relevancy as 

an integral part of American culture. Creating public memory 

of wilderness is not about good/bad, right/wrong, or erosion 

of purity and sacredness. It is about a localized process of investing place-meanings by those who care about a wilderness 

area. Along with the traditional meanings of wilderness, there 

are bound to be additional layers of meanings tied to personal 

experiences, families, friendships, communities, and others 

that may problematize and work to reconcile issues related to 

gender, race, class, and natural and cultural histories. Creating 

public memory of wilderness will lead to a messy narrative that 

is multi-layered and complex and will be unlike the relatively 

concise argument posed in the Wilderness Act that is abstracted 

and indifferent to the uniqueness of a given place.

There are two major take-away points from this chapter. The 

first is that research on wilderness visitor experience needs 

to distinguish itself by connecting with social and cultural 

meanings. Creating a public memory builds a unique identity 

for any given wilderness area based upon the integration of 

personal experiences with contemporary social and cultural 

values. The research developed on recreational place meanings 

provides a substantial platform for further inquiry to integrate 

social and cultural meanings with wilderness recreational experiences (Brooks and Williams in press; Kruger and others 

2008). Without such a linkage, there is no distinction between 

wilderness and general outdoor recreation experiences. Stated 

differently, although studying recreationists in wilderness areas 

is an important step in understanding wilderness experiences, 

this does not mean that wilderness experiences will be fully 

studied or framed as wilderness experiences.

The second take-away point is that researchers and managers 

have the potential to play active roles in facilitating the creation 

of public memory of wilderness. Roles for researchers need to 

be expanded beyond the provision of descriptive information 

to managers about users to include the facilitation of dialogue 

forums that share experiences, learn from one another, prompt 

commentary, and develop credible narratives for any given 

wilderness (McCool in press). The shift in roles for recreational 

social scientists moves away from a sole focus on understanding 

visitor experiences, to include the creation of values and place 

meanings for a public memory of specific wilderness areas. A 

significant product is a unique set of narratives that generate 

a value basis for managerial objectives. Stated differently, 

rather than social sciences solely “discovering” preferences or 

social values, the roles for research expand to facilitating the 

creation of meaning amongst constituents of wilderness areas. 

Although the Limits of Acceptable Change and related frameworks provide a basis for managerial objectives (see Manning 

2011: 84-87), such a basis stems from a premise that managers 

are technical stewards restricted to the manipulation of onsite 

resources. In contrast, creating public memory of wilderness 

frames managers as providing leadership for stewarding a 

social and cultural resource called wilderness. Creating public 

memory of wilderness is viewed as an essential complement 

to, rather than competition with, frameworks such as Limits 

of Acceptable Change.

Stewart Research to Create Public Memory of Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 209

To be sure, there is growing awareness among tourism professionals, and to some extent among land managers, of the need 

to provide leadership in creating public memory of destinations and natural landscapes (Buzinde and Santos 2009). Such 

awareness may not be termed “public memory;” however, the 

efforts work to do so. For example, the Buffalo Bill Historical 

Center in Cody, Wyoming has developed as a center for visiting the greater Yellowstone area, and in general, a keeper of 

the “Spirit of the American West” (http://bbhc.org/). As part 

of the Center’s programming, there is a running commentary 

to foster dialogue among visitors about the American West. 

Visitors provide written comments about their reaction to—in 

this case—a wolf re-introduction exhibit in the Center and post 

them on a corkboard that becomes a “place for visitors to talk 

with one another, and to engage their predecessors who have 

left comments” (Pahre in press:18). Although these discussions 

were focused on the topic of wolf reintroduction to the Yellowstone ecosystem, they have the potential to involve other 

issues, such as land tenure of American Indians, the meaning 

of wilderness to American Indians, and de-constructing the 

role of Buffalo Bill Cody in creating the “Old West” (Pahre 

in press:17-18). There are other strategies that have been developed that lead to more intimate engagement with visitors 

and democratization of the discourse about a landscape. It is 

just such strategies that have the potential to create a public 

memory of wilderness.

References _______________________

Assmann, J. 1995. Collective memory and cultural identity. New German 

Critique. 65: 132. 

Blair, C.; Dickinson, G.; Ott, B. 2010. Introduction: Rhetoric/memory/

place. In: Dickinson, G; Blair, C.; Ott, B., eds. Places of public memory: 

The rhetoric of museums and memorials. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of 

Alabama Press: 1-54.

Botkin, D. 1990. Discordant harmonies: A new ecology for the twenty-first 

century. NY: Oxford University Press.

Brooks, J.; Wallace, G.; Williams, D. 2006. Place as relationship partner: An 

alternative metaphor for understanding the quality of visitor experience in 

a backcountry setting. Leisure Sciences. 28: 331-349.

Brooks, J.; Williams, D. In press. Continued wilderness participation: Experience and identity as long-term and relational phenomena. In: Cole, 

David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

Bullard, R.1993. Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. 

Boston, MA: South End Press.

Buzinde, C.; Santos, C. 2009. Interpreting slavery tourism. Annals of Tourism 

Research. 36: 439-458.

Cachelin, A.; Rose, J.; Dustin, D.; Shooter, W. 2011. Sustainability in outdoor 

education: Rethinking root metaphors. Journal of Sustainability Education, 

2 [Online}. http://utah.academia.edu/JeffRose/Papers/499297/Sustainability_in_Outdoor_Education_Rethinking_Root_Metaphors.

Callicott, J. 1991. The wilderness idea revisited: The sustainable development 

alternative. Environmental Professional. 13: 235-247.

Callicott, J.; Nelson, M. 1998. The great new wilderness debate. Athens, GA: 

University of Georgia Press.

Chase, A. 1986. Playing God in Yellowstone: The destruction of America’s 

first national park. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cimprich, J. 2005. Fort Pillow: A Civil War massacre, and public memory. 

Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

Cole, D.; Yung, L., eds. 2010. Beyond naturalness: Rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Connerton, P. 2008. Seven types of forgetting. Memory Studies.1: 59-71.

Cooper, J. 1826. The last of the Mohicans. Philadelphia, PA: Carey & Lea.

Cronon, W. 1995. The trouble with wilderness, or, getting back to the wrong 

nature. In: Cronon, W., ed. Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature. 

NY: Norton: 69-90.

Davis, M.; Slobodkin, L. 2004. The science and values of restoration ecology. 

Restoration Ecology. 12: 1-3.

Elliot, R. 1997. Faking nature: The ethics of environmental restoration. 

Routledge Press, NY.

Gottlieb, R.1993. Forcing the spring: The transformation of the American 

environmental movement. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Hammitt, W.; Cole, D. 1998. Wildland recreation: Ecology and management, 

2nd ed. NY: Wiley & Sons.

Hendee, J.; Stankey, G.; Lucas, R., 2nd ed. 1990. Wilderness management. 

Golden, CO: North American Press.

Kelly, J. 1974. Socialization toward leisure: A developmental approach. Journal 

of Leisure Research. 6: 181-193.

Kruger, L.; Hall, T.; Stiefel, M., eds. 2008. Understanding concepts of place 

in recreation research and management. General Technical Report PNWGTR-744. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Lee, R. 1972. The social definition of outdoor recreation places. In: Burch, 

W.; Cheek, N.; Taylor, L., eds. Social behavior, natural resources and the 

environment. NY: Harper and Row: 68-84.

Loewen, J. 2000. Lies across America: What our historic sites get wrong. 

NY: Simon and Schuster.

Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McIntyre, N.; Roggenbuck, J. 1998. Nature/person transactions during an 

outdoor adventure experience: a multiphasic analysis. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 30: 401-422.

Manning, R. 2011. Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for 

satisfaction, 3rd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

McCool, S. In press. Potential roles of research in enhancing the performance 

of management in securing and maintaining high quality visitor experiences 

in wilderness. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: 

Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. 

Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

McKibben, B. 1989. The End of Nature. NY: Random House.

Mohai, P. 1985. Public concern and elite involvement in environmental conservation issues. Social Science Quarterly. 55: 820-838.

Naess, A. 1995. The third world, wilderness, and deep ecology. In: Sessions, 

G., ed. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the philosophy 

and practice of the new environmentalism. Boston, MA: Shambhala 

Publications: 34-59.

Nash, R. 2001. Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press.

Noel, T. 2010. Columbus Day started in Colorado. Denver Post. September 26.

Noss, R. 1991. Sustainability and wilderness. Conservation Biology. 5:120-122.

Olson, S. 1938. Why wilderness? American Forests. 9: 395-430.

Olson, S. 1956. The singing wilderness. NY: Knopf.

Pahre, R. 2012. In press. Telling Yellowstone’s story. Journal of the West. 51.

Patterson, M.; Watson, A.; Williams, D.; Roggenbuck, J. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 30: 423-452.

Phillips, K. 2004. Framing public memory. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of 

Alabama Press. 

Plumwood, V. 1998. Wilderness skepticism and wilderness dualism. In: 

Callicott, J.; Nelson, M., eds. The great new wilderness debate. Athens, 

GA: University of Georgia Press: 652-690.

Roggenbuck, J. 2011. Managing for wilderness experiences in the 21st century: 

Responding to ther ecent wilderness critique. In: Cole, David N., comp. 

Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 

April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Rolston, H. 1991. The wilderness idea reaffirmed. The Environmental Professional.13: 370-377.

Research to Create Public Memory of Wilderness Stewart
210 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Smaldone, D.; Harris, C.; Sanyal, N. 2008. The role of time in developing 

place meanings. Journal of Leisure Research. 40: 479-504.

Stegner, W. 1954. Beyond the hundredth meridian: John Wesley Powell and 

the second opening of the west. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin & Co.

Stokowski, P. 1996. Riches and regrets: Betting on gambling in two Colorado 

mountain towns. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado.

Taylor, D. 2000. Meeting the challenge of wild land recreation management: 

Demographic shifts and social inequality. Journal of Leisure Research. 

32: 171-179. 

Watson, A. 2004. Human relationships with wilderness: The fundamental definition of wilderness character. International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 4-7.

Stewart Research to Create Public Memory of Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 211

Abstract—The future of wilderness is open for discussion and debate. 

In this paper we invite readers to consider four wilderness scenarios, 

any one of which, or combination of which, seems possible based 

on current demographic, social, and cultural trends. The purpose of 

the paper is not so much to try to predict the future as it is to prod 

readers into pondering the future—a future where wilderness may or 

may not be valued in the same fashion it is today.

“All America lies at the end of the wilderness road, 

and our past is not a dead past, but still lives in us. 

Our forefathers had civilization inside themselves, the 

wild outside. We live in the civilization they created, 

but within us the wilderness still lingers. What they 

dreamed, we live, and what they lived, we dream.”

 — T. K. Whipple, Study Out the Land

The purpose of this paper is to encourage readers to ponder 

the future of wilderness in the United States. In 2064, the 100th

anniversary of the Wilderness Act, what meanings might we 

ascribe to wilderness? What might visitor experiences be like? 

How might wilderness be managed? In short, what place might 

wilderness hold in our lives?

Speculation of this sort is tenuous for a number of reasons, 

not the least of which is that the future of wilderness may well 

take a number of different twists and turns depending on a 

number of different occurrences—some anticipated, some not. 

Moreover, to assume that the future of wilderness will be largely 

a function of human planning is also dubious. There are many 

countervailing forces at work, from changing demographics, 

to advancing technology, to climate change, to the depletion 

of non-renewable natural resources, to energy exploration, to 

increasing globalization, all of which will likely impact the 

wilderness condition. Consequently, any attempt on our part 

to predict the future of wilderness would most certainly be 

futile.

Imagining Wilderness

Daniel Dustin

Jeff Rose

Adrienne Cachelin

Wynn Shooter

Scott Schumann

The best we can do is offer up a range of alternative wilderness scenarios, any one of which, or combination of which, 

seems plausible given current demographic, social, and 

cultural trends. Specifically, we begin by briefly describing 

several features of contemporary life, including a growing 

urban population, an increasingly diverse citizenry, a widening 

separation between city dwellers and ecological systems, the 

prominence of technology, and the generally sedentary nature 

of modern life. We then project where these trends might lead 

us in relation to wilderness by imagining four different wilderness scenarios that typify how wilderness might be viewed in 

2064. Fifty years down Whipple’s (1930) “wilderness road” 

is not so far away. If we truly value wilderness, it is none too 

early to think seriously about its preferred state, and then to 

see what we can do about achieving it.

Demographic, Social, and Cultural 

Trends___________________________

The United States is approximately 85% urbanized. We are 

a nation of city dwellers and our lifestyles tend to reflect urban 

upbringings. The implications are far reaching. In Last Child in 

the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, 

Louv (2005) describes the deleterious effects of distancing 

young people from their biological moorings. Whether this 

distancing will result in a greater perceived need to reconnect future generations with nature or whether it will lead to 

a heightened sense of disengagement from nature is unclear, 

but the fact remains that modern American life is spent largely 

inside the city limits.

Widening this divide between America’s citizenry and the land 

that sustains us are rapidly advancing technologies that make 

it easier and easier to remove ourselves from a sense of being 

connected to, and dependent on, the surrounding environment. 

Technology often serves as a buffer that insulates us from the 

elements. Most of our life is lived in comfort and convenience, 

and we spend 95% of our time indoors, leaving little time for 

outdoor activity (Robinson and Godbey 1997). Pergams and 

Zaradic (2006) even coined a term, “videophilia,” to describe 

the degree to which our lives are now ensconced in electronic 

media. We are a stay-inside society that is increasingly tethered 

to electrical outlets. Our lives, in turn, have assumed a sedentary quality that has led to an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, 

Authors: Daniel Dustin, Jeff Rose, Adrienne Cachelin, Wynn Shooter, and Scott 

Schumann, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, University of Utah, Salt 

Lake City, UT.

In: Cole, David N., comp. 2012. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and 

management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 219 p.
212 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

and a host of other maladies attendant to physically inactive 

lifestyles (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services 

2008).

Adding to the complexity is an increasingly diverse citizenry. 

We are a multi-colored people reflecting a wide range of ethnic, racial, and spiritual origins. We come from dramatically 

different social and cultural traditions that result in a wide 

range of differing attitudes and beliefs about our relationship 

to, and interest in, the natural world. Outdoor pursuits are less 

homogenous these days, and for many groups of people, less 

appealing than they were in bygone years. Indeed, as active 

engagement with the out-of-doors has lessened among children 

(Outdoor Industry Foundation 2008; Clements 2004), and as 

visits to national parks have declined in recent years (Pergams 

& Zaradic 2006), federal land managing agencies have had to 

turn their attention to the question of how best to generate a 

newfound enthusiasm for nature among the nation’s rapidly 

expanding minority populations, as well as among youth.

In sum, we are experiencing a fundamental shift in the way 

Americans live life. This shift is illustrated in part by a growing 

urban population that is largely disengaged from recreating in 

the out of doors. Rapidly advancing technology makes it possible 

for many of us to live increasingly insulated lives, connecting 

with others in cyberspace without having to leave the confines 

of our own homes or communities. At the same time, and via 

the same technologies, the outside world is brought inside for 

our viewing pleasure. We can remain stationary and sedentary 

and still feel like we are participating in the larger unfolding of 

events. In many ways, we are becoming a nation of onlookers.

These demographic, social, and cultural trends portend a 

future flavored by more of the same in greater intensity—more 

people, more globalization, more urbanization, more congestion, more sophisticated technology, and more stay inside 

sedentary lifestyles. Just what this might mean for the future 

of wilderness is an intriguing question to ponder.

Range of Wilderness Possibilities____

As we consider the implications of these demographic, 

social, and cultural trends, four scenarios emerge as possible 

wilderness futures: 1) a growing disinterest in wilderness for 

recreational purposes combined with increasing scientific interest in wilderness for its biodiversity value; 2) a heightened 

interest in wilderness as an antidote to an increasingly congested, urbanized, technologically transfixed, and stay inside 

society; 3) mixed feelings about wilderness as reflected in 

disputes over access, safety, and technology; and 4) a radical 

new conception that views wilderness not as the antithesis of 

civilization, but as a profound expression of what it means to 

be civilized. These four scenarios are by no means exhaustive. 

They merely represent what, in our opinion, are the most likely 

possibilities for wilderness in 2064.

Wilderness Scenario #1

More people, more globalization, more urbanization, 

and drastic environmental problems have led to a future 

characterized by an emphasis on sustainability. The American 

concept of wilderness has been modified to embrace a focus 

on local and global sustainability that has resulted in the establishment of large biodiversity reserves, increased greening 

of urban centers, and protection of surrounding natural areas. 

This shift in thinking would not have occurred without years of 

effort by environmental educators who promoted ecologically 

responsible living practices, which have now been integrated 

with economic principles, resulting in a deep cultural awareness of the value of sustainable living.

The year is 2064. As the number of people populating the 

planet has continued to increase, as oil reserves have been diminished, and as climate change has put increasing pressure on 

modern lifestyles around the world, people have turned increasingly to science for answers. However, there has been a deep 

shift in the way science is pursued, understood, and applied. 

No longer are scientists criticized for maintaining a narrow 

focus on their own specific areas of study. Instead, scientists 

now employ integrated, interdependent thinking that requires 

collaboration across disciplines to focus on interrelationships. 

This new scientific worldview has ultimately influenced the 

way Americans view wilderness.

No longer is science primarily interested in the extraction 

of natural resources for profit. The growth and development 

economy has been completely dismantled because modern 

people have listened to scientists and understood that only an 

economy that is based on sustainability will support human 

life on earth long into the future. People appreciate and respect 

that there are limits to growth and ecological principles drive 

that understanding. The new economic framework has grown 

out of a philosophy founded on scientific knowledge that has 

gained political traction as the environmental health of the planet 

declined throughout the 21st century. Ecologists explained the 

interconnectedness of the natural world, and corporate business 

leaders and politicians finally acknowledged the integrated 

relationship between nature’s health and economic health 

(Heinberg, 2010).

The need to protect large tracts of land to support global 

environmental health is no longer debated and the idea of wilderness in America has been altered. Where wilderness areas 

were once preserved largely for humans to visit and enjoy, 

the primary purpose of wilderness protection programs in the 

modern world is to add to the growing number and scope of 

biodiversity reserves. The focus is on protecting threatened and 

endangered species of plants and animals while simultaneously 

trying to better understand the workings of complex and highly 

interdependent ecosystems.

This “new” wilderness is largely devoid of people, save the 

ecologists and botanists who make their daily rounds. Animal 

rights activists are pleased, as they truly believe that biodiversity 

reserves offer the best chance of species preservation, and Deep 

Ecologists are on board as well. These and other supporters 

of biodiversity reserves see wilderness as the embodiment of 

a philosophical and ethical stance put forth by Aldo Leopold 

over 100 years ago. “A thing is right,” Leopold reasoned, 

“when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty 

of the biotic community...” (Leopold, 1989, p. 224).

Dustin, Rose, Cachelin, Shooter, and Schumann Imagining Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 213

In these biodiversity reserves, recreational activities are 

strictly regulated. Wilderness is still roadless and untrammeled, 

but it is protected with even more vigilance. Recreational use 

is secondary to protection and scientific study. Other areas, 

selected for their recreational quality as well as their proximity 

to urban centers, have been set aside to support recreational 

pursuits. While there have been some disgruntled wilderness 

enthusiasts, most have come to understand the need for increased 

regulatory efforts, and they have supported efforts to protect 

wilderness through expanding the biodiversity reserve system.

This framework for managing and protecting wilderness 

is an outgrowth of a dramatically new cultural perception of 

nature. We now realize that we can no longer conceptualize 

wild nature as a place that exists beyond a Forest Service or 

National Park Service sign. We now live with the awareness that 

we are ecological beings. We have removed the duality from 

our teaching and thinking. Wilderness is no longer “othered,” 

“out there,” “strange,” and “disconnected” from us. We see 

ourselves as part of nature (Cachelin and others 2011), and 

that perspective has seeped deeply into the American psyche.

There is also widespread agreement that the promise of present and future conservation efforts lies in our ability to educate 

young people about basic ecological principles in such a way 

that they develop a lasting sense of connection to wild places. 

Well-informed educators understand the importance of early life 

experiences in shaping interest in the natural environment, and 

their educational efforts now focus on helping young people 

develop basic understandings of ecological principles as they 

connect with the outside world.

Environmental and outdoor education is now an established 

part of public and private school systems. These educational 

programs were designed in response to the recommendations 

of early 21st century scholars and visionaries such as Sobel 

(1996), Louv (2008), and Chawla and Cushing (2007). These 

programs no longer focus on making young people aware of 

humanity’s role in the failing health of the planet, and no longer focus on “shoulds” and “oughts,” or “dos” and “don’ts.” 

Instead, they focus on inspiring young people to connect with 

wild nature. Over time, this has resulted in a citizenry that 

values the conservation of natural areas. We are experiencing 

extraordinary growth in the greening of urban centers and extensive protection of natural areas in and around our modern 

cities.

Increasing access to wild nature for youth is now deemed 

a practical necessity for cultivating ecologically responsible 

adults. It is also widely understood that books alone cannot 

suffice for this kind of environmental education. Decades ago, 

Cachelin, Paisley, and Dustin (2009) observed that an emphasis on both knowledge and affect is required to encourage 

responsible environmental conduct. This understanding now 

guides our decision-making when designing environmental 

education programs. Johnson (2007) summed it up well: “If 

we are serious about education for sustainable living, we 

must do more than piecemeal, infusion-model teaching. We 

need integral, coherent education programs that help people 

construct ecological understandings, develop feelings for the 

natural world, and craft appropriate lifestyles” (p. 93). Such 

efforts have been so successful that the natural areas in and 

around our modern cities serve as new and highly accessible 

wildernesses.

Many years ago, Johnson (2007) suggested that outdoor 

education programs should include four key content areas; 

energy flow, matter cycling, interrelationships, and change. 

He reasoned that these topics should be delivered through 

authentic opportunities to interact with nature as a way to promote both conceptual understanding and to develop personal 

feelings toward the natural world. Viewing outdoor education 

programs from Johnson’s perspective has taught us to move 

toward the integration of content knowledge and personal 

experiences. It has resulted in a new concept of wilderness 

that is now integrated into our daily lives as well as protected 

in biodiversity reserves. Wilderness in America has been 

transformed from what in years past was a narrow mandate 

of Congress to what is now a widespread culturally embedded 

focus on interdependence and sustainability that was required 

in response to the devastation caused by previous economic 

models and the failure to respond quickly enough to rapidly 

growing environmental problems.

Wilderness Scenario #2

Wilderness is understood to be a powerful antidote to a 

highly congested, urbanized, technological, and stay-inside 

society. Wilderness is valued for the same reasons the National 

Wilderness Preservation System was established in 1964, only 

more so, because civilization has advanced 100 years farther 

“down the track.”

The year is 2064. The number of designated wildernesses 

has grown steadily over the one hundred years since the establishment of the Wilderness Act. Recently, in fact, many 

public lands have reverted to the wilderness character they 

once displayed. Not only has every president since Lyndon 

Johnson established new wildernesses, but members of state 

legislative and executive branches have demonstrated their 

support for the expansion of the Wilderness Preservation 

System by rededicating state park land as wilderness, thereby 

contributing it to the expansion of the system. By 2009, 109 

million acres of land had been set aside as wilderness. Since 

then, that number has increased to nearly 130 million acres. 

A large portion of the new acreage is the result of wilderness 

designation of state park lands “becoming” wilderness in 

fiscally challenged states such as California and Oregon as a 

result of the economic downturn early in the century.

As is often the case, designation of new wilderness has been 

met with resistance by locally affected populations; however, 

such designations have generally enjoyed widespread national 

support (Appell 2010). Some local citizens believed converting state park lands to wilderness was an abandonment of the 

state park system and the people that earned their livelihood 

from park visitation, while others in locales such as Texas 

and Georgia, where states rights were traditionally considered 

tantamount, were happy to shift the financial burden from 

state to federal coffers. Not surprisingly, wilderness advocates thought it was in keeping with the original intent of the 

Imagining Wilderness Dustin, Rose, Cachelin, Shooter, and Schumann
214 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Wilderness Act, believing that humans were truly “visitors” to 

these wild places. A handful of creative conservationists with 

an economist’s eye saw that the management of typical visitation was, by default, being minimized in many state parks with 

wilderness characteristics, and lobbied the public to embrace 

this retreat and return those lands to an approximation of the 

pristine lands they once were.

Anza Borrego Desert California State Park (the nation’s 

second largest state park), for example, which contained tens 

of thousands of acres of land possessing wilderness characteristics, was neglected over time by land managers unable to 

keep up financially with maintenance demands. At the same 

time, remote washes like Anza Borrego’s Coyote Canyon 

were experiencing a revival in visitors seeking solitude and 

spiritual renewal, while traditional users of the area who expected recreation opportunities closer to the developed end 

of the spectrum were declining in number. Poorly maintained 

trails and access points were slowly being reclaimed by the 

desert, and motor vehicles were stopped several miles short of 

destination campsites due to washed out or poorly maintained 

roads. These were tangible signs of a nation’s fiscal inability 

to provide recreational opportunity and access to places containing spiritual, scientific, and historical value. These desert 

landscapes once contained the San Antonio to San Diego Mail 

routes and the Butterfield Stage Line, which followed the 

Great Southern Overland Route between 1857 and 1861 to San 

Francisco. Battalions of soldiers had once traveled through this 

desert to fight in the Civil War, and American Indian Tribes 

had established many trails and villages throughout the area 

(Bice 2011). Conservationists argued that letting these places 

return to the condition they were in during the pioneer days 

would allow people to experience a glimpse of their nation’s 

history. All the while, of course, commercial enterprises outside 

the park worried that wilderness designation would reduce an 

already dwindling visitation to insignificant numbers.

Despite increasing contention over wilderness “regeneration,” wilderness areas have continued to be set aside. Roads 

have disappeared, group sizes have decreased, and the designation of wilderness has brought a new mystique to former 

state park lands. The result has been a change in the type of 

visitation, and an increased interest in wildness. These “new” 

wilderness areas are now being visited by individuals who 

are trying to escape the continued growth, congestion, and 

urbanization characterizing modern American life.

These have not really been new considerations as much as 

they have been a revival of the rationale invoked in the years 

preceding the establishment of the Wilderness Act in 1964 

(Nash 2001). Similar to the beliefs of Emerson, Thoreau, Leopold, and Marshall, conservationists behind the movement to 

“return to wilderness” explained that the state parks no longer 

represented what was uniquely American. These places were 

becoming symbols of American disappointment rather than 

symbols of American heritage.

More so than ever before, wilderness is now viewed as an 

antidote to urbanization and technological advancement. Transcendentalist ideals, such as Thoreau’s belief that “in wildness 

is the preservation of the world,” are becoming widely apparent 

to those who experience less and less wildness in their daily 

existence. Visitors who may have come to state park lands as 

children are now coming to wilderness areas to reconnect with 

nature and the simplicities it affords. Yet, despite an increased 

yearning for wild places, current generations are less experienced in the outdoors, less connected to the environment, and 

more sedentary than generations before them. This dualism has 

created a unique visitor who is seeking adventure, but who is 

not particularly well-suited to encounter one.

For instance, it is common to see multi-day backpackers 

attempting to “go light.” They carry minimal equipment and 

intend to travel quickly on foot covering many miles each day. 

Despite their intention, these ambitious wilderness enthusiasts remain tethered to their psychological safety nets of 

technology. It is rare to encounter visitors who have genuinely 

disconnected from the civilization they intend to escape. Most 

visitors carry cell phones, global positioning systems, or both. 

Furthermore, many carry trip reports, internet posts of route 

descriptions, and details of good campsites, all of which can 

serve as buffers between the visitors and their desire to experience adventure and exploration.

As a result of the increase in wilderness visitation by a 

more civilized visitor, the need for guide services and outdoor 

recreation education has increased. These services are needed 

to fortify potential wilderness adventurers with the necessary 

skills to safely enjoy wilderness. Similarly, wilderness users 

are now more likely to encounter wilderness rangers on patrol 

to ensure that visitors are minimizing their impacts, traveling 

appropriately, and otherwise providing assistance to wayward 

travelers when necessary.

The uniqueness of the American idea of wilderness is also 

now profoundly demonstrated by the increase of visitors from 

developed nations across Europe and Asia. Internationally, globalization has pushed nations, both developed and developing, 

into the same quagmire of desire for economic advancement 

at the cost of wilderness. As battles for preservation are lost 

abroad, support for wilderness in America has strengthened. Not 

surprisingly, international visitation to America has increased 

by over 80% as it has become one of the few accessible places 

remaining for individuals to seek solitude from urbanization 

and places “untrammeled” by humankind. Wilderness experiences in America have become events that build national pride 

and a sense of global responsibility. Internationally, America is 

seen as a steward of wilderness and the efforts made to return 

public lands to their wild condition have become a model for 

nations worldwide.

Wilderness Scenario #3

Wilderness looks the same, but there are serious conflicts 

revolving around issues of access, safety, and technology. 

There is much debate about the intent of the language in 

the Wilderness Act as words like “primeval,” “primitive,” 

“untrammeled,” and “solitude” are parsed in search of a 

common interpretation of the place wilderness ought to occupy 

in contemporary life.

Dustin, Rose, Cachelin, Shooter, and Schumann Imagining Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 215

The year is 2064. Wilderness today looks pretty much like it 

did at the turn of the 21st century: islands of relatively untrammeled lands sequestered in the United States’ various public 

lands, most of which are disproportionately located in the 

American west. As our human-inhabited spaces have become 

more crowded and contested, the country’s wilderness spaces 

have become more crowded and contested as well. The last 

half century has seen a number of political battles, with various 

environmental groups staking claim to wilderness expansion 

while resource extractors exercised various legal techniques to 

open preserved areas to the still growing “needs” of humanity 

and modernity. In sum, the 1964 Wilderness Act, Howard Zahniser’s crowning legislative achievement, has been supported, 

defended, derided, and amended, but in many ways, wilderness 

today is just as it was back then—except not exactly.

Some of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist world 

economy (Boswell and Chase-Dunn 2000; Li 2008) are finally 

starting to expose themselves more fully, with the incompatible goals of growth and conservation illustrating that one 

cannot really exist simultaneously in concert with the other. 

Population growth peaked in 2027 in the United States, with a 

slowly decreasing population ever since. With a more chaotic 

and desperate political and social world of 10 billion people 

inhabiting a crowded and finite planet, it appeared as though 

wilderness might be an unfortunate sacrifice to a resource- and 

space-hungry humanity in competition with itself. Oil, coal, 

uranium, copper, and a host of other extractable non-renewable 

resources have long since passed their peak extraction rates 

(Heinberg 2007), with many of them being close to total depletion.

Many years ago, Jackson (2010) hypothesized that “the future 

of agriculture long before the end of the fossil fuel interlude 

will depend on knowledge gained from our ecosphere’s wild 

ecosystems” (p. 7). He was right. The rapidly urbanizing 

world of the early 21st century lost much of the environmental 

knowledge that is not only helpful for advancing the natural 

sciences, but also the knowledge that has sustained humanity 

for thousands of years (Heinberg 2007). Today, some of the 

nation’s most pristine wildernesses do not allow citizen access 

(for example, Southern Nantahala, Marble Mountain, and Pecos), primarily because they are being used as “laboratories” 

for testing genetic variations of various plants and animals for 

medicinal, agricultural, and horticultural uses. Other wildernesses are also closed to humans (for example, Glacier Peak, 

Golden Trout, Mount Evans, and Sycamore Canyon), primarily because these areas contain the headwaters for our most 

precious and valuable resource: clean water. We have learned 

that wilderness areas are vital to the human condition; they 

are often the sources of our streams, our drinking water on a 

planet where the price of potable water long ago outpaced the 

price of fossil fuels or any other singular component of our 

energy needs. In the American west, the sites of most of our 

wilderness and park lands, the arid climate has only exacerbated these drinking and agricultural difficulties, prompting 

many groups to support further efforts to preserve watersheds, 

designating them wildernesses, national parks, or affording 

them some other protected status.

Long ago, scientists predicted that climate change would 

have significant impacts on the national parks (National 

Park Service 2010), but they failed to see the implications. 

The geothermal energy provided by the Yellowstone Caldera 

now supports electrical production throughout much of the 

Intermountain West, as do the solar arrays in Joshua Tree 

and Saguaro in the southwest. There was stiff resistance to 

privatizing portions of these national parks, but it remains 

preferable to the bio-prospecting (Hayden 2003) that has taken 

place in other parts of the world where there are even fewer 

environmental regulations. The subsequent phenomenon of 

privatizing biodiversity forced land management agencies to 

guard these spaces with increased fervor, lest the knowledge 

be stolen and patented, as takes place throughout the world 

(Shiva 2005). Because wilderness is one of the few places where 

biodiversity still exists, there is increasing commodification 

of the knowledge and materials that can be extracted there. 

Within this expanding economic horizon, biopharmaceutical, 

biotechnological, and biomedical industries—in conjunction 

with governmental agencies—figure as prominent actors and 

drivers of important economic and social policy that have 

both global and local ramifications. With all of this taken into 

account, most wildernesses appear today just as they might 

have 50 years ago, save dramatic changes in vegetation types 

and unpredicted animal migrations and extinctions resulting 

from globalization and its inherent burning of fossil fuels.

And what can be said of the human experience with wilderness? Recreation ecologists have long documented the 

detrimental effects of various outdoor experiences (Hammitt 

and Cole 1998), ultimately leading to many outdoor pursuits 

being regulated and curtailed significantly, if not eliminated 

completely. Since the turn of the 21st century, advocates of 

wilderness recreation, feeling pressure to expand the number 

of individuals who have more regular interactions with wilderness, continue to want more people to hike the trails, climb the 

mountains, and canoe the lakes. This is understandable, but it 

is at odds with the realities of visitor impacts. Basically, more 

people in wilderness relates directly to more material impacts 

on wild ecosystems. This inherent contradiction sits at the 

center of many land management debates, and it ultimately 

underscores the largest and most pressing issue of our time: 

What is and what ought to be people’s relationship with the 

natural world?

Due to access, technology, and safety issues, today’s humanwilderness experience is highly orchestrated by land managers, 

leading to a false sense of security while experiencing the 

outdoors. Wilderness today, while in some sense existing as 

it always has, is much more of an illusory construct (Leitch 

1978), a romanticized remnant of a past that may or may not 

have ever existed.

Decreased public support for wilderness has required the 

cultivation of a new kind of citizen that values nature more 

than we have in the past, and what better way for folks to 

value wilderness than to have them experience wilderness? 

Part of the access problem is rooted in basic demographics. 

In an increasingly urbanized world, fewer and fewer people 

come into direct contact with natural processes on a regular 

Imagining Wilderness Dustin, Rose, Cachelin, Shooter, and Schumann
216 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

basis. Beyond our rapid movement to cities, our cultures have 

become increasingly interwoven, partly through processes of 

human migrations, and partly through the cultural processes 

of globalization. We increasingly encounter large swaths of 

people who have never left the cities in which they grew up. 

This phenomenon is often associated with young people, and 

is frequently counteracted through initiatives such as the “No 

Child Left Inside” movement decades ago, or other educational 

and/or experiential programs.

It is in this broad socio-demographic landscape that access 

to wilderness is so inescapably entangled. Should wilderness 

access be expanded to “reach out” to individuals, groups, and 

communities? If so, how might this be done in a way that is 

thoughtful, compassionate, reasonable, and just? If wilderness access is, in fact, expanded, does it then lose some of 

the qualities that made wilderness what it was to begin with? 

Would this expansion compromise the ecological integrity of 

the wilderness ecosystem? Would it compromise traditional 

notions of what a wilderness experience “should” be?

Picture yourself backpacking through a remote alpine valley only to find that your desired camp spot near the lake is 

already occupied by two groups of 6th graders from downtown 

Cleveland who are part of a program seeking to expose urban 

youth to the outdoors. Not only will you forego your favorite 

camp spot, but your new spot, a few hundred feet away, features an evening filled with the students’ favorite pop songs 

belted out at full volume, punctuated by intermittent nighttime 

screams and giggles, and one student who stumbles through 

your site looking for a bathroom spot. The next morning, as 

you wearily pack up to continue on your way, you notice the 

visible “traces” of the group’s experience—increased litter, a 

campsite that was too close to the alpine lake, and a forgotten 

tent pole.

As the population increases and as wildernesses maintain their 

current sizes and regulations, defensive and offensive battle 

lines place people and nature in difficult positions. Groups 

demanding greater access and availability of wilderness now 

seek greater permitting flexibility, while other groups actively 

oppose such a move. The traditional views of environmentalists, wilderness advocates, land managers, and scientists all 

point to increased access as a direct path to degradation of the 

qualities that made the area worthy of wilderness designation 

in the first place. Can a place be “primitive,” “untrammeled,” 

and promote “solitude” (as mandated by the 1964 Wilderness 

Act) while simultaneously allowing for greater access?

Of course, the dichotomy between increased access and 

maintenance of wilderness character is a false choice. There is 

a balance to be worked out, a dynamic balance that adjusts for 

seasonality, the ecology of the place, and the level of “need” 

for access. However, as we seem to see daily in our local, 

state, national, and global political processes, the tendency 

for particular advocacy groups to seek a moderate amount of 

resources is fairly exceptional. One instance of granting greater 

access is often met with another demand for even further access. 

One denial of access to wilderness strengthens future requests 

being denied.

The way out of this ideological stalemate now rests with the 

legislatures and the courts. Political processes in the United 

States are saturated with lobbyists, campaign contributions, 

and donations. The courts offer both avenue for democratic 

review and an endless line of lawsuits and appeals, both of 

which are also directly corrupted by the influences of money. 

Advocacy groups, either for or against greater access, turn to 

their legislators to get laws on the books, and then turn to the 

courts to either strike down those laws or condemn those who 

try to fight them. Either way, the stalemate that many citizens 

feel regarding political processes only intensifies, and the 

losses are felt heavily by both people and nature.

With this increased focus on legal stratagems as a response to 

the intensified wilderness debate, a tool of both sides continues 

to be the perceived and actual safety of visitors to wilderness 

areas. Lawsuits continue to wreck havoc on court systems 

and communities, and the ultimate reliance upon a logic of 

“safety” remains paramount. Such a premise is not without 

(rhetorical) merit. Who wouldn’t want this world to be a little 

safer, a little better, and a little more comfortable than it used 

to be? Imagine if an increasingly safe world wasn’t the case, if 

each generation had life a little tougher, a little harder than the 

generation before. The arc of human existence hasn’t pointed 

us in this direction yet, and it remains difficult to imagine a 

world in which society (with the legal system being part of it) 

would support such a stance.

While proposals for “no rescue” wilderness scenarios (McAvoy and Dustin 1981) offer insight into human psychology 

and behavior, there remains little support for such practices 

on the ground. Debates currently rage as to who should pay 

for wilderness rescues (the user? private insurance? the land 

management agency?), and there is little to suggest that the 

rescues themselves might be eliminated, whether due to managers’ policies or due to a basic sense of human compassion for 

others in need. There is a trend toward people wanting greater 

safety and security while recreating in the wilderness, not 

less. With regard to this aspect of the internal contradictions 

of “wilderness management,” the opposing sides are people 

who spend time in wilderness and those who are ultimately 

responsible for their safety in the case of emergencies, the land 

management agencies.

When considering such a dilemma in practice, fundamental 

questions arise. Is it appropriate for there to be a log crossing 

where a trail intersects a stream at spring melt? Should there 

be a handrail? Should trails be well marked, or even marked 

at all, if a hiker loses a map or doesn’t know how to read one 

effectively? These questions have persisted for years, even 

before the Wilderness Act of a hundred years ago, and they 

continue to persist today.

The safety question is further complicated by the technological aspects of the contemporary visitor experience. At the turn 

of the 21st century, many wilderness managers were struggling 

with GPS technologies. Some managers banned GPS use due 

to the increased numbers of rescues, while other managers 

went the opposite direction, requiring GPS-enabled satellite 

phones while recreating in the backcountry. Today, this “controversy” has largely subsided, as managers have succumbed 

Dustin, Rose, Cachelin, Shooter, and Schumann Imagining Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 217

to the massively interconnected social world in which we live. 

Almost all visitors now carry their phones into the backcountry, 

and with satellite positioning and internet capabilities, there 

is very little difference technologically between camping in 

the Tuolumne high country versus sitting in an apartment in 

downtown San Francisco. Most land management agencies 

have adapted by implementing full-time switchboard operating systems to accept incoming distress calls from wilderness 

recreationists. These automated systems then make instant 

decisions as to when to initiate a rescue or not.

Most wilderness managers see the increases in technology 

as a bad thing; it is an imposition on what used to be “real” 

wilderness experiences when we had to think for ourselves and 

deal with the consequences of our decisions. However, paper 

maps are a thing of the past, and we haven’t had a lost party 

in over three decades now. Many groups who do not have sufficient outdoor skills are able to just look up the skill on their 

mobile devices. The devices also help by allowing visitors to 

coordinate with other backcountry users as to when and where 

they plan to camp, and by updating others in real time about 

the conditions of trails, trailheads, and facilities.

Despite the material advantages that technology brings, it 

leaves many wilderness enthusiasts questioning just how wild 

our wildernesses are nowadays. It’s easy to find videos, blogs, 

and photographs of any hike, climb, or camping spot. The 

detail of online maps is so great that one barely has to look at 

the world in order to navigate it. We no longer have animal 

attacks on humans because most mobile devices emit a high 

pitched frequency that deters animals, but animal encounters 

are also increasingly rare. Detailed weather forecasting has 

enabled people to head into wilderness areas with fewer and 

fewer articles of gear, which helps lighten the load, but it also 

means more rescues when the forecasts are slightly off. All 

of these technological advancements are subject to visitors’ 

choices, but rarely do visitors choose to be less comfortable, 

less in the know, or less safe.

It has been 75 years since McKibben (1989) predicted the end 

of nature as we know it, and that time is now upon us. Change 

is inevitable, both in the material existence of wilderness and 

in the various ways in which we conceptualize our relationship to the natural world. Land managers, wildlife ecologists, 

environmentalists, and participatory citizens ought to take 

notice of what is, with the intention of thoughtfully assisting 

in guiding what is to come. We may find that in the coming 

years humans will have to continue to adjust to a world without 

pristine nature, forcing us to manage environments in ways that 

go beyond creating and maintaining protected areas (Wapner 

2010). Today’s wildernesses and wilderness experiences may 

indeed be less wild than they were 100 years ago, but our cities, 

suburbs, farms, and industrial sites are most certainly wilder.

Wilderness Scenario #4

Wilderness, rather than being seen as the antithesis of 

civilization, has come to be seen as an integral part of what 

it means to be civilized. People are considered part of nature 

rather than apart from nature, and they come home to wilderness rather than visit it.

The year is 2064. In a sense, wildness is now internalized. 

Wilderness is no longer “the antithesis of an unnatural civilization that has lost its soul” (Cronon 1996, p.80). Nor is it “a 

place of freedom in which we can recover the true selves which 

we have lost to corrupting influences of our artificial lives” 

(Cronon 1996, p.80). In fact, designated wilderness areas no 

longer exist. They no longer make sense. When we learned 

that the inherent dualism of separate wilderness areas fostered 

irresponsibility at home, the soiling of local landscapes, and a 

fragmented sense of the environment that was out of step with 

reality, we recognized the need for radical change. Rather than 

depending on conceptions of backcountry that demanded differential treatment (that is, leaving no trace) for physical and 

spiritual renewal, we have incorporated green spaces within 

bioregionally-based communities and we welcome other living 

things as part of the larger ecosystem that we depend on.

We are able to see that ecological health begins with the 

places in which we work, live, learn, and play. It includes the 

places that our food and materials come from and the places 

that stuff we cannot use goes to. Environmental education no 

longer includes field trips to remote places; rather, it is about 

learning to live well in our own places. We have learned that 

we cannot use parts of ecosystems (natural resources) more 

quickly than ecosystem processes can renew them, and that we 

cannot discharge wastes more quickly than they can be absorbed 

(Hardin 1985). The environment has become a powerful context 

for integrating all disciplines. This conception alleviates many 

issues of environmental justice because internalized wildness 

mandates emphasis on community, a place-based approach, 

and a holistic sense of responsibility for what, how, and where 

we produce and consume. We have come to appreciate that 

an internalized wildness is the only way to truly protect the 

landscape and the biotic community as a whole.

Across the globe, people have come to realize that humans 

impact all the earth, no matter how remote or how devoid of 

human presence. From climate chaos to toxins in remote areas 

of the ocean, human behavior has touched every corner of 

the planet. People have come to understand that the best way 

to maintain wilderness and healthy ecosystems is to control 

humans, not “natural resources.” In this future, it is widely 

understood that by designating certain places as wilderness, or 

backcountry, or Nature we defined them as “other” and there 

was a critical sense in which we literally changed them from 

subject to object. We now understand that our past orientation 

to nature was not one of awe and humility, but of control. 

We commodified nature and wildness with fees attached not 

only to transportation, access, and experiences in designated 

wilderness, but even in the peddling of outdoor wares through 

the promotion of fear appeals of what might happen if one 

“braved” wilderness without expensive gear. But now the 

majority opinion holds that the best way to protect wild places 

is to reduce the human footprint at the broadest possible scale, 

and to return to humility and awe, not just of the far away, but 

of wildness in all forms near and far.

Imagining Wilderness Dustin, Rose, Cachelin, Shooter, and Schumann
218 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012

Birding is the epitome of this new wilderness experience. 

Birders are an amazing sort. They see and hear things that 

most of us don’t. Sure they dress funny, move slowly, and have 

ridiculous hats. But they have a connection to wildness, a connection that many other people lack. They view the landscape 

as an opportunity for discovery, not in a controlling way, but 

with a sense of humility and awe. The landscape offers bright 

visual and auditory “gifts” that feed them without requiring 

consumption. Ask them why they have devoted their time 

to learning to identify birds by ear or sight and they’ll use 

words like magic, beauty, diversity, liveliness, wonder, connectedness, seasonality, camaraderie, and artistic appeal. They 

understand that there is always something more to learn. Add 

to the list freedom, beauty, amazement and transformation, 

and there you have it. They know what birds share their home 

environment and when to expect them. They also know what 

habitats support what sorts of birds. The return or departure of 

certain birds speaks to the seasons and indicates appropriate 

human behaviors like planting vegetables or putting up storm 

windows. When birders travel, they look for new birds to 

introduce them to new landscapes, connecting with the newly 

discovered places and with each other. Information is freely 

exchanged between birders: what they’ve seen, where they’ve 

seen it, and how sightings this year compare to sightings in 

years past. Really, it’s a poor “sport,” valuing cooperation over 

competition. You’ll never see a birder wearing day-glow colors; 

the birder’s costume, silly hats aside, is intended to blend into 

the landscape. Theirs is one vision of how people can relate 

to place, finding the wildness in every landscape, regardless 

of political designation or geography. According to the poet 

Gary Snyder, “a person with a clear heart and open mind can 

experience the wilderness anywhere on earth. It is a quality of 

one’s own consciousness” (as cited in Cronon 1996, p. 89). In 

this way, we can begin to see ourselves as a part of something 

larger, as a part of nature rather than apart from it.

This future has required a complete metamorphosis of 

thought about human-environment relationships. Now, rather 

than seeing people as separate from nature, people are seen as

nature. While this may seem improbable, consider that human 

conceptions of wilderness changed from seeing nature as savage 

and brutish to seeing nature as sanctuary or cathedral (Cronon 

1996). Rather than write humans out of wilderness, we have 

now come to recognize that we are a part of wildness, a part 

of nature. We recognize “environmental” problems for what 

they really are—social problems—and we seek treatment of 

root causes rather than symptoms. We have transcended the 

current vision of modernity, recognizing our problem as:

“the positive-feedback system comprising overpopulation, urbanization, outrageously high standards 

of living, outrageously unjust distribution of basic 

goods; the conjunction of classical science, technology, 

the state, and market economics that supports the high 

standard of living; the endless presumptions concerning our rights, liberties, and privileges; and the utter 

absence of a spiritual life that might mitigate against 

these forms of greed” (Turner 1994, p. 180).

The beginnings of these transitions from global to local 

happened as far back as the early part of the 21st century as 

evidenced by the number of farmer’s markets increasing fivefold between 2004 and 2010 (USDA 2010), urban “buy local” 

movements’ rampant growth, and experimentation with local 

currencies in many cities. “Modern” ideas were increasingly 

rejected in favor of progressive ones.

Because the preservation of wilderness required a revolution against social pathology, we have learned that human 

management rather than land or resource management is the 

most productive and enjoyable way to protect ourselves and 

our fellow species in intact landscapes. We have learned to 

give our homes and local communities the level of care and 

respect that used to be reserved for the backcountry, so that the 

distinction between wilderness and home, between frontcountry 

and backcountry, has dissolved. “Homo petroliens,” as Foreman (1994) referred to our fossil fuel dependent selves, are 

now extinct, having been replaced by true Homo sapiens who 

embody Leopold’s land ethic with a resurgence of community 

economies and ecologies.

Just like birders, we have finally learned to find wildness 

in our everyday landscapes, living by the credo that cooperation is a better strategy than competition. While we continue 

to find magic and meaning and important ecologic lessons in 

large and diverse landscapes, we also find less need and less 

virtue in traveling to faraway places to repair damaged souls. 

The healing now begins and ends at home, as we carry on our 

work together, creating and maintaining healthy localized 

communities based on informed restraint, responsibility, and 

holism.

The Path Home ___________________

We have presented four wilderness scenarios from an infinite 

pool of possibilities. Just which one, or which combination, is 

likely to become a reality is open for discussion and debate. 

Perhaps some other scenario, even an unimaginable one, will 

come to pass. Time will tell, of course. In the meantime, it is 

easy to be pessimistic about the future. It is easy to assume 

current trends are irreversible and that the future is in large 

measure already set, already predetermined by choices we have 

already made. If the path to the United States of America’s 

future is going to be paved with more cities, more technology, 

more people, more demands on limited non-renewable natural 

resources, and more staying-at-homeness, then how can the 

prospects for wilderness possibly be good? People are, after 

all, highly adaptable creatures (Dustin and McAvoy 1982), and 

why should we believe that the general public is incapable of 

adjusting to a future without wilderness?

We take some comfort in the thought that our forbearers put 

certain legislative, executive, and judicial safeguards in place 

to help protect wilderness should future political uncertainty 

challenge the wilderness idea. Indeed, the tendency to date 

has been to afford parks, monuments, and primitive areas 

even more protection over time. Moreover, the creation of 

Dustin, Rose, Cachelin, Shooter, and Schumann Imagining Wilderness
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-66. 2012 219

new national parks, monuments, and wildernesses has been 

a common legacy left to us by virtually all of our outgoing 

presidents since Theodore Roosevelt, no matter their political 

persuasion (Dustin and others 2005). When our nation’s leaders 

begin thinking about what they want to be remembered for, 

they typically do something good for the environment (Dustin 

and Barbar 1998). And as Appell (2010) has observed in his 

review of wilderness and the courts, the judicial branch of 

government has looked favorably upon wilderness as well.

We Americans, it seems, are generally in favor of wilderness even if we do not visit it. The idea of wilderness pleases 

us. While there are certainly widespread differences of opinion 

about the ways in which wilderness should be managed, any 

objection to the existence of wilderness per se is likely to be 

overruled by popular opinion. The real threat to wilderness 

is much more likely to come from external forces than from 

wilderness enthusiasts loving wilderness to death. Running out 

of fossil fuels or clean water or precious metals that we depend 

on for our collective material well-being should be of more 

immediate concern to anyone who cares about protecting the 

sanctity of wilderness. Recreational impacts on wilderness can 

be mitigated in ways that impacts from non-renewable natural 

resource extraction cannot.

References _______________________

Appell, P. 2010. Wilderness and the courts. Stanford Environmental Law 

Journal. 29(62): 62 – 129.

Bice, K. 2011. From the superintendant of Anza Borrego. Anza Borrego Desert 

State Park, Historic Trails Edition. California State Parks.

Boswell, T.; Chase-Dunn, C. 2000. The spiral of capitalism and socialism: 

Toward global democracy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers. 281 p.

Cachelin, A.; Paisley, K.; Dustin, D. 2009. Opportunity and obligation: A 

role for outdoor

educators in the sustainability revolution. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, 

Education, and Leadership. 1(2): 141-150.

Cachelin, A.; Rose, J.; Dustin, D.; Shooter, W. 2011. Sustainability in outdoor 

education: Rethinking root metaphors. Journal of Sustainability Education, 

2 [Online}. http://utah.academia.edu/JeffRose/Papers/499297/Sustainability_in_Outdoor_Education_Rethinking_Root_Metaphors.

Chawla, L.; Cushing, D. 2007. Education for strategic environmental behavior. 

Environmental Education Research. 13(4): 437-452.

Clements, R. 2004. An investigation of the state of outdoor play. Contemporary 

Issues in Early Childhood. 5 (1): 68-80.

Cronon, W. 1996. Uncommon ground. New York: Norton. 561 p.

Dustin, D.; McAvoy, L. 1982. The decline and fall of quality recreation opportunities and environments? Environmental Ethics. 4 (1): 49-57.

Dustin, D.; McAvoy, L.; Ogden, L. 2005. Land as legacy. Parks & Recreation. 

40 (5): 60-65.

Dustin, D.; Barbar, R. 1998. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: The 

politics of environmental preservation. Parks & Recreation. 33 (8): 52-57.

Foreman, D. 1994. Where man is a visitor. In: Burkes, D., ed. Place of the 

wild. Washington DC: Island Press: 225-235.

Hammitt, W.; Cole, D. 1998. Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. 

2nd ed. New York: John Wiley. 361 p.

Hardin, G. 1985. Filters against folly. New York: Penguin. 240 p.

Hayden, C. 2003. When nature goes public: The making and unmaking of 

bioprospecting in Mexico. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 284 p.

Heinberg, R. 2010. Beyond the limits to growth. In: Heinberg. R.; Lerch, D., 

eds. The post carbon reader: Managing the 21st century’s sustainability 

crises. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media: 3-12.

Heinberg, R. 2007. Peak everything: Waking up to the century of declines. 

Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers. 240 p. 

Jackson, W. 2010. Consulting the genius of the place. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint. 288 p.

Johnson, B. 2007. Education and research for sustainable living. In: Zandvliet, 

D.; Fisher, D., eds. Sustainable communities, sustainable environments. 

Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense: 85-96. 

Leitch, W. 1978. Backpacking in 2078. The Sierra Club Bulletin. 3 (1): 25-27.

Leopold, A. 1989. A Sand County Almanac; with essays on conservation from 

Round River. New York: Oxford. 256 p.

Li, M. 2008. The rise of China and the demise of the capitalist world economy. 

New York: Monthly Review Press. 208 p.

Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit 

disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin. 390 p.

Louv, R. 2008. National Conference on Outdoor Leadership 2008 Keynote 

Address, February 15, 2008. Journal of the Wilderness Education Association. 20 (1): 4-6.

McAvoy, L.; Dustin, D. 1981. The right to risk in wilderness. Journal of 

Forestry. 79 (3): 150-152.

McKibben, B. 1989. The end of nature. New York: Random House. 195 p.

Nash, R. 2001. Wilderness and the American mind. 4th ed. Newhaven, CT: 

Yale. 413 p. 

National Park Service .2010. Climate change response strategy: Science, 

adaptation, mitigation, communication. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

[Online] Accessed September 1, 2010 from www.nature.nps.gov/climatechange/docs/NPS_CCRS.pdf. 

Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2008. Outdoor recreation participation study 

for 2008. [Online]. Accessed February 10, 2009, from http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/research.participation.2008.html.

Pergams, O.; Zaradic, P. 2006. Is love of nature in the US becoming love of 

electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by 

watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal 

of Environmental Management. 80 (4): 287-293. 

Robinson, J.; Godbey, G. 1997. Time for life: The surprising ways Americans 

use their time. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University 

Press. 392 p.

Shiva, V. 2005. Earth democracy: Justice, sustainability, and peace. Cambridge, 

MA: South End Press. 224 p.

Sobel, D. 1996. Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education. 

Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society. 45 p.

Turner, J. 1994. The quality of wildness: Preservation, control, and freedom. In 

Burkes, D., ed. Place of the wild. Washington D. C: Island Press; 175-189.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. Farmers market growth: 1994-2010.

[Online]. Accessed from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&leftNav=WholesaleandFarmers

Markets&page=WFMFarmersMarketGrowth&description=Farmers%20

Market%20Growth&acct=frmrdirmkt

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. Overweight and obesity: Health consequences. Atlanta, GA: U. S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Online]. 

Accessed December 13, 2008, from http://www.ecd.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/

obesity/consequences.htm.

Wapner, P. 2010. Living through the end of nature: The future of American 

environmentalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 252 p.

Whipple, T. 1930. Study out the land. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press. 215 p.

Imagining Wilderness Dustin, Rose, Cachelin, Shooter, and Schumann


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.

Station Headquarters

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations

Reno, Nevada

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Rapid City, South Dakota

Logan, Utah

Ogden, Utah

Provo, Utah

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex (including gender identity and expression), marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, 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, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 

9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 

(English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado

Boise, Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Missoula, Montana

To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

www.fs.fed.us/rmrs