United States Department of Agriculture / Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Paper RMRS-RP-71

July 2008

Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, 

and Management Preferences:

How They Vary With Use Level 

and Length of Stay

David N. Cole

Troy E. Hall
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

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

Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

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

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, Colorado 80526

Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 2008. 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.

Abstract

We explore the extent to which visitor experiences and management preferences 

vary between the most heavily used places in wilderness and places that are less 

popular. We also contrast day and overnight users. The study was conducted in 

Forest Service administered wildernesses in Oregon and Washington using both 

on-site and mailback questionnaires. The on-site questionnaires were administered 

as visitors exited the wilderness at 36 trailheads in 13 wildernesses. The trail 

use ranged from very high to moderate. To include visitors who selected low use 

trails, we sent mailback questionnaires to self-issue permit holders. We describe 

visitor characteristics, trip characteristics, motivations and experiences, encounters 

with other groups, attitudes toward recreation management, and opinions about 

the Forest Service. Differences related to use level were surprisingly small. 

Differences between day and overnight users were also small. We found evidence 

that wilderness experiences were adversely affected at high use locations but 

most visitors consider these effects to be of little importance. Most visitors to the 

more popular places make psychological adjustments to heavy use, allowing 

most of them to find solitude and have what they consider “a real wilderness 

experience.” Consequently, most are not supportive of use limits to avoid peoplerelated problems. We draw conclusions about potential indicators, standards, and 

management actions for heavily-used places in wilderness.

Keywords: management preferences, recreation experiences, day use, visitor 

management, visitor surveys, wilderness recreation

Authors

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

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

California, Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in geography from the University of Oregon.

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

Sciences at the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. She received a B.A. in 

anthropology from Pomona College, an M.A. in anthropology from Duke 

University and a Ph.D. in forestry from Oregon State University.
Ackowledgments This research was supported by funds from the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research 

Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, the Pacific Northwest Region of the 

Forest Service, and the University of Idaho. We appreciate the help of numerous 

field assistants and the review comments of Susan Sater, Rudy King, Steve Martin, 

and Lisa Therrell.

Contents

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

Study Design.............................................................................................................. 1

Trailhead Surveys............................................................................................... 2

Mailback Questionnaires................................................................................... 3

Data Analysis and Interpretation ........................................................................ 4

Results and Discussion............................................................................................... 4

Visitor Characteristics......................................................................................... 4

Trip Characteristics............................................................................................. 8

Motivations and Experiences............................................................................ 10

Encounters with Other Groups......................................................................... 15

Attitudes Toward Management of Recreation in Wilderness............................. 24

Opinions About the Forest Service ................................................................... 32

Summary and Management Implications................................................................. 32

Differences Related to Amount of Use ............................................................. 33

Differences Between Day and Overnight Users................................................ 35

Methodological Implications............................................................................ 36

Indicators and Standards.................................................................................. 36

Appropriate Management Actions.................................................................... 38

References ............................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A: Trailhead Exit Questionnaire Version 1................................................ 41

Appendix B: Questions Asked on the Other Three Versions of the Trailhead 

 Exit Questionnaires But Not on Version 1......................................................... 47

Appendix C: Mailback Questionnaire ...................................................................... 54

Appendix D: Questions on Other Version of Mailback Questionnaire 

 Not on Version One.......................................................................................... 60

USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 1

Introduction

Wilderness use, particularly in urban-proximate 

western wildernesses, is increasing, and a large part of 

this growth comes from day use (Chavez 2000). There 

is considerable controversy about appropriate management of popular wilderness trails and destinations 

generally and about day use specifically. Much of the 

controversy stems from varied interpretations of the 

language from the 1964 Wilderness Act that describes 

what wilderness should offer visitors: “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation.” There is growing debate regarding 

what causes more degradation of solitude or primitive 

and unconfined recreation: growing crowds of visitors 

or Forest Service imposed use limits and restrictions, 

especially limits on day use (Spring 2001; Worf 2001). 

In Oregon and Washington, this controversy has led 

to administrative reversals of direction and successful 

appeals of Forest Service plans. In other regions it has 

led to litigation. The controversy largely results from a 

lack of consensus among legitimate wilderness stakeholders about how to balance the benefits of public 

access with concern for maintaining outstanding opportunities for the types of experience wilderness is 

supposed to provide.

Controversy is inevitable, given the disparate 

views of wilderness stakeholders (Seekamp and others 2006). However, the intensity of the controversy 

is aggravated by inconsistent decision-making and by 

the lack of an adequate informational basis (science 

and monitoring data) for decision-making. Tough, 

value-laden decisions must be made about appropriate management objectives (including indicators and 

standards) regarding experiential conditions in wilderness and about the management actions needed to keep 

conditions in compliance with standards. Scientific information is needed, not because it will identify “the 

right decisions” or even make decisions easier, but because it will make decisions more informed. Scientific 

information will make it easier to explain and justify 

decisions, because the likely consequences of a given 

decision or alternatives to it will have been explored 

and can be articulated.

Recently, managerial effectiveness has been challenged on several fronts regarding the provision of 

opportunities for appropriate experiences in wilderness. First, visitors and researchers have both 

questioned whether the types of indicators that have 

been selected for experience quality (usually measures of encounters between groups) indeed indicate 

what they are designed to indicate (Glaspell and 

others 2003). Some question whether encounters is an 

adequate proxy for “outstanding opportunities for solitude” or for “primitive and unconfined” experiences 

(Watson and Roggenbuck 1997). Apart from whether 

the indicator itself is appropriate is the question of 

whether the particular standards selected (usually on 

the order of 10 encounters per day in the most popular 

places) are appropriate.

Other basic questions about experiences have arisen. Assuming that wildernesses should provide unique 

“wilderness” experiences, some people have asserted 

that certain visitors (for example, day users) do not 

seek “wilderness experiences,” while other types of 

visitors (for example, overnight users or purists) do 

seek them (Papenfuse and others 2000). Some people 

assert that visitors cannot have “wilderness experiences” in high-density areas. Proponents of these 

assertions often argue that managers should restrict 

use to provide the experiences sought by those who 

seek truly “wilderness” types of experiences (Haas 

and Wells 2000). These assertions are underlain by 

numerous untested assumptions, however, about the 

experiences sought by different visitor types and attained in different settings (Hall 2001).

Given the need for active management of heavy 

use and day use in wilderness and the high degree of 

controversy and public scrutiny of wilderness management, we undertook studies of visitors to a number of 

Forest Service administered wildernesses in Oregon 

and Washington. We studied visitors in places that 

varied widely in amount of use, as well as visitors on 

day and overnight trips. The primary purposes of our 

research were to (1) understand the nature of visitor 

experiences in high-use wilderness and the influence 

of use levels on experience and (2) provide information helpful in identifying appropriate indicators and 

standards related to experiences and evaluating the 

desirability of various management actions, including 

use limitation. Therefore, particular attention is focused on encounters with other visitors, the effects of 

those encounters, opinions about appropriate encounter levels, and opinions about techniques for managing 

crowded conditions.

Study Design

We wanted to study visitors to the most popular 

Forest Service administered wilderness locations in 

Oregon and Washington and compare them to visitors 

in less popular locations. We were also interested in 

studying as broad a range as possible of wildernesses 

in Oregon and Washington. Because amount of use 
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

varies more among trails within a wilderness than 

among entire wildernesses, we attempted to obtain 

representative samples of visitors to specific trailheads 

rather than entire wildernesses. Consequently, our 

goal was to survey exiting visitors from as many of 

the most popular trailheads in Oregon and Washington 

as possible, along with nearby less popular trailheads. 

For reasons of efficiency, we could only conduct trailhead exit surveys at trailheads that received at least 

moderate amounts of use. Consequently, we supplemented trailhead surveys with mailback surveys, a 

more efficient procedure for surveying visitors to low 

use trailheads.

Trailhead Surveys

Our initial strategy was to find two moderate and 

one high use trailhead close to each other. Each group 

of trailheads was to be sampled twice during the 

summer season of 2003 (generally late June to early 

September), each sample over a 9-day block of time. 

High use trailheads would be sampled on two weekend days and three weekdays during that block. Each 

of the two moderate use trailheads would be sampled 

on three weekend days and three to four weekdays. 

Within these constraints, assignment was random. 

High use trails, then, were to be sampled a total of 

10 days, distributed across weekdays and weekends 

in two noncontiguous time blocks. Moderate use trails 

were to be sampled a total of 13 days, distributed 

across weekdays and weekends, in two noncontiguous time blocks. In reality, we could not always find 

trailheads in close proximity that matched our criteria 

and were forced to adapt our procedures.

Ultimately, we collected data from 36 trailheads 

in 13 wildernesses in Oregon and Washington. These 

trailheads were placed in three categories based on use 

levels ascertained from the number of visitors counted on sample days and the number of annual permits 

issued. We classified nine trailheads as “very high” 

use because we observed an average of more than 20 

groups per day and found more than 1,500 permits per 

year were issued for these trails. At the nine “high” 

use trailheads, we observed 11 to 20 groups per day 

and found 550 to 1,500 permits per year issued. At the 

18 “moderate” use trailheads, we observed fewer than 

10 groups per day or fewer than 500 permits per year 

issued. Generally from north to south, these wildernesses and trailheads were:

1. Mount Baker Wilderness

a. Yellow Aster Butte (Trail 699) (High Use)

b. Hannegan Pass (Trail 674) (High Use)

2. Alpine Lakes Wilderness

a. Pratt Lake (Trail 1007) (Very High Use)

b. Snow Lake (Trail 1013) (Very High Use)

c. Gold Creek (Trail 1314) (Moderate Use)

d. Paddy-Go-Easy Pass (Trail 1595A) (Moderate 

Use)

e. Waptus River (Trail 1310) (Moderate Use)

f. Tucquala Campground (Trails 1345 and 1376) 

(Moderate Use)

3. Norse Peak Wilderness

a. Norse Peak (Trail 1191) (Moderate Use)

b. Union Creek (Trail 956) (Moderate Use)

c. Crow Lake Way (Trail 953) (Moderate Use)

4. William O. Douglas Wilderness

a. Dewey Lake (Pacific Crest Trail) (High Use)

5. Goat Rocks Wilderness

a. Snowgrass Flats (Trail 96) (Moderate Use)

b. Walupt Lake (Trails 98 and 101) (Moderate 

Use)

6. Mount Adams Wilderness

a. Killen Creek (Trail 113) (Moderate Use)

b. Cold Springs, South Climb of Mt. Adams (Trail 

183) (Very High Use)

7. Indian Heaven Wilderness

a. Indian Heaven, Cultus Creek Campground 

(Trail 33) (Moderate Use)

8. Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness

a. Eagle Creek (Very High Use)

b. Wahtum Lake (Moderate Use)

9. Mount Hood Wilderness

a. Cloud Cap (Very High Use)

b. Vista Ridge (Moderate Use)

c. Top Spur (High Use)

d. Burnt Lake (High Use)

e. Ramona Falls (Very High Use)

f. Timberline (Very High Use)

g. Elk Meadows (Moderate Use)

10. Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness

a. Salmon River (High Use)

b. Salmon Butte (Moderate Use)

11. Eagle Cap Wilderness

a. Two Pan (Trails 1662 and 1670) (High Use)

b. Wallowa Lake (Trails 1804 and 1820) (Very 

High Use)

12. Mount Jefferson Wilderness

a. Jack Lake (High Use)

b. Cabot Lake (Moderate Use)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 3

13. Three Sisters Wilderness

a. Devil’s Lake, South Sister Climb (Very High 

Use)

b. Elk Lake (Trail 3515) (Moderate Use)

c. Six Lakes (Trail 3526) (Moderate Use)

d. Lucky Lake (Moderate Use)

Researchers were present at trailheads for at least 6 

hours per day (usually 8 hours), with sampling times 

adjusted to match the times of day that people were 

likely to be present. There were a total of 453 sampling days, distributed such that 27 of the 36 trailheads 

were sampled at least 10 days. The other nine trailheads were sampled less than 10 days. Researchers 

attempted to contact all adult (16 years and older) 

members of all groups, both day and overnight visitors, and asked them to participate as they exited the 

wilderness. About 70 percent of the sample consisted 

of people surveyed on weekend/holiday days, despite 

the fact that there were more weekday sample days. 

About 67 percent of the sample consisted of day users. 

This proportion should provide a reasonable estimate 

of the percent of visits at these trailheads that are day 

visits, since day and overnight users were equally 

likely to be sampled and there was little difference in 

refusal rates between day and overnight users.

In all, about 12,000 adult visitors (16 years or 

greater) exited from the trailheads on the days when 

sampling was being conducted—7,860 (65 percent) of 

these visitors were asked to fill out a questionnaire onsite. It was not possible to contact everyone at high use 

trails and on busy days, but researchers attempted to 

document all visitors entering or exiting the trailhead. 

Seventy-two percent of those asked agreed to fill out a 

questionnaire, providing a sample size of 5,712 completed questionnaires. Most of the visitors that were 

contacted were hikers. Equestrians accounted for less 

than 2 percent of the sample. Although only 8 percent 

of the sample consisted of mountaineers, most visitors 

at two of the very high use trailheads (Cold Springs 

and Devil’s Lake) were climbing a mountain nearby 

(Mt. Adams and South Sister, respectively).

Two fundamentally different questionnaires were 

administered at trailheads. One focused on the trips 

people took, what they experienced, and how they 

evaluated their experience. The second focused 

on opinions about management. Additionally, two 

slightly different versions of each questionnaire were 

developed to allow for slight variations on several 

questions. Consequently, there were four different instruments, each of which was given in approximately 

equal numbers at each trailhead by systematically 

rotating the distribution. We had a sample size of at 

least 1,400 for each question and substantially more 

for questions that were repeated on different versions. 

This provided a sufficient sample for analysis when 

results were subdivided by trailhead use level and by 

length of stay.

Mailback Questionnaires

We used mailback questionnaires to include the 

opinions of visitors to low use trailheads. Many wilderness managers in Oregon and Washington require 

visitors to complete a self-issued wilderness permit at 

the trailhead at the beginning of their trip. We were 

able to obtain the 2002 permits for the following 19 

wildernesses (out of 59 Forest Service administered wildernesses in the two states) as the sample frame for this 

study: Diamond Peak, Eagle Cap, Glacier View, Goat 

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

Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Norse 

Peak, Opal Creek, Pasayten, Salmon-Huckleberry, 

Tatoosh, Three Sisters, Trapper Creek, Waldo Lake, 

and William O. Douglas. For the Salmon-Huckleberry 

and Mark O. Hatfield Wildernesses, permits were collected only at selected popular trailheads, so visitors to 

other trails in these wildernesses were not represented 

in our study.

It is important to note that not all visitors comply 

with the requirement of obtaining a permit. Moreover, 

group leaders are more likely to fill out the permit, 

and leaders may be more experienced than other group 

members. Therefore, the sampling frame represents 

only people who filled out permits, not all visitors. 

Since this sample is not strictly comparable to the trailhead survey sample, we sent mailback questionnaires 

to a representative sample of visitors to all trails, as 

well as to a sample of visitors to the low use trails.

A one-in-30 systematic sample drawn from all 

permits generated a database of 1,637 names for the 

representative sample of all trails. The sample included day and overnight hikers, climbers, and stock 

users in proportion to their representation in the population. Approximately 9 percent of the names on this 

list visited trails we defined as low use trails. Low use 

trailheads were those at which fewer than 100 permits 

had been completed in 2002. To generate the sample 

of visitors from low use trails, a one-in-12 systematic sample was drawn from permits issued to visitors 

to low use trails. This generated an additional 444 

names.

Following Dillman’s method (Salant & Dillman 

1994), a reminder postcard was sent out ten days following the initial mailing. Approximately 10 days after 

the reminder postcard, a second survey was sent to the 
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

remaining non-respondents. Of the 344 surveys sent 

to people in the low use sample with valid addresses, 

239 (70 percent) were completed and returned. Of the 

1,287 surveys sent to the representative sample of all 

wilderness visitors with valid addresses, 814 (63 percent) were completed and returned. No non-response 

checks were performed.

Two different questionnaires were administered to 

the low use sample and the sample of all users. Having 

two versions allowed us to include a broader range 

of questions while keeping the response burden to a 

reasonable level. The included questions were taken 

from those that were asked in the trailhead survey. 

However, because respondents in this mailback study 

could not be asked about a specific wilderness trip, 

questions specific to a particular place or trip were not 

included. Across all trailheads, about 500 questionnaires of each type were completed. About one-third 

of the questions were common to both questionnaires, 

while two-thirds were asked on only one instrument. 

Consequently we had a sample size of at least 500 for 

all questions. However, in cases where questions were 

asked on only one instrument, the sample size for lowuse visitors was closer to 100.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Our primary use of statistical inference was to test 

for differences among visitors related to the use level 

of the trail they had selected. Results of the trailhead 

surveys and mailback questionnaires must be analyzed 

separately. The trailhead survey dataset had three levels of use: very high, high, and moderate, while the 

mailback questionnaire dataset compared low-use trail 

visitors to the entire population of visitors. In both 

cases, we considered use level to be an ordinal scale 

variable. We also assessed differences between day 

and overnight users based on the trailhead survey data. 

Where the dependent variables were nominal, we used 

Pearson’s chi-square; where they were ordinal, we used 

Somers d. Where the dependent variable was interval, 

we usually report means and standard errors and used 

analysis of variance and t tests. For a few highly skewed 

variables, we report medians and used Kruskal-Wallis 

and Mann-Whitney tests. For both analyses of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests, we used Tukey-based 

multiple comparisons to draw conclusions about differences between factor levels. For a few experiential 

variables we conducted stepwise multiple regression 

analyses to understand the effects of use, using two 

estimates of encounter rates—the number of groups 

encountered that day and the percent of time in sight of 

other groups—as independent variables.

Given the large sample size we often had, small 

differences can be statistically significant. The reader 

is reminded that statistical significance merely relates 

to how confident we are that an observed difference 

among samples is a real difference among populations. Readers are encouraged to draw their own 

conclusions about magnitude of effect. Generally, we 

refer to differences smaller than about 10 percent as 

small differences. Given the large sample for most 

questions, there were few situations where there were 

large observed differences that were not statistically 

significant.

It is also interesting, for some questions, to ponder the differences between responses to the trailhead 

surveys and the responses of all visitors to the mailback questionnaire. In some cases, differences seem 

reasonable in light of likely differences between the 

group members that are more or less likely to fill out 

the permit. In other cases, however, differences are 

of a magnitude or direction that suggests they reflect 

when the survey was taken—immediately after hiking 

out or months after the trip.

Results and Discussion

Visitor Characteristics

Few questions were asked regarding visitor sociodemographics because these characteristics tend to be 

relatively stable from wilderness to wilderness and 

substantial information of this type has already been 

collected elsewhere (Hendee and Dawson 2002). 

Visitors at very high use trailheads were slightly 

younger, on average, than visitors to less popular trailheads, but the relative proportion of males and females 

did not vary with use level (table 1). The age and gender differences between respondents in the trailhead 

and mailback surveys (table 1) provide one example 

of differences between group leaders and group members. Older males are more likely than other group 

members to fill out the permit. Differences between 

day and overnight visitors are much more pronounced; 

day visitors are typically somewhat older and more 

likely to be female (table 2).

Distance Traveled to Trailheads

We asked visitors how far they traveled from home 

to the trailhead. Although one-quarter of visitors lived 

within an hour’s drive of the trailhead and one-half 

lived within a 2-hour drive, 10 percent of visitors lived 

at least a day from the trailhead. Median distance from 

home to trail decreased as use of the trail increased, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 5

while mean distance increased (table 3). Very high use 

trailheads were used more than moderately used trailheads by people living close by, but they were also 

used more by people who live far away. This likely 

reflects the proximity of these trailheads to large metropolitan areas served by airports, which provide 

easier access to visitors from distant places. Or, these 

trailheads are places to take visitors from out of town. 

Median distance traveled was less for day users than 

for overnight users, but mean distance traveled was 

similar (table 3). Day users were much more likely 

to live very close to trailheads. Forty-three percent of 

day users lived within 50 miles of the trailhead compared to only 17 percent of overnight users. However, 

day hikers were also more likely than overnight hikers 

to live far away.

Day Trips Versus Overnight Trips

Most wilderness visitors (77 percent) take day trips 

to wilderness more frequently than they take overnight 

trips. About 19 percent of visitors make only day visits 

to wilderness. Visitors to low use trailheads take proportionately more overnight trips compared to visitors 

to more popular trails (table 4).

Table 2. Age (mean; standard error) and gender; day and overnight 

users.

Day Overnight

n = 3584 n = 1705

Mean age (of those over 16 years) 41(0.2) 36(0.3)

Percent female 46 36

Bold values are significantly different from one another (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 3. Distance traveled to trailhead.

Miles from trailhead Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

median 60 a 75 b 90 b 60 100

mean 318(16) a 267(16) a 200(14) b 277(12) 276(16)

Bold values and those with different superscripts are significantly different from one another 

(p ≤ 0.05); n = 1200 to 2482.

Table 1. Age (mean; standard error) and gender; use level variation.

Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

n = 2551 n = 1593 n = 1217 n = 809 n = 238

Mean age (of those over 16 years) 38(0.3)a 41(0.4)b 40(0.4) b 48(0.7) 49(0.4)

Percent female 41 45 42 27 25

Bold values with different superscripts are significantly different from one another (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 4. Percent of wilderness trips that are day visits; use level variation.

Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Wilderness trips that are day visits (percent) 71 70 64 64 58

Bold values are significantly different from one another (p ≤ 0.05); n = 232 to 2397.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

Wilderness Experience and Attachment

We asked questions that tap into three dimensions 

of wilderness experience: experience with this particular wilderness, experience in varied wilderness areas, 

and frequency of wilderness visitation. Although only 

3 percent of visitors were on their first wilderness trip, 

43 percent were on their first visit to the “destination 

or area” where we contacted them. Contrary to our expectations, visitors to more popular trails had higher 

levels of wilderness experience compared to visitors 

to less popular trails. Repeat users were slightly more 

common at the more popular trailheads than at the 

moderate use ones (table 5). Frequency of wilderness 

visitation did not vary with use level but experience in 

varied wilderness areas increased as use level increased 

(table 6). Day users were also more experienced than 

were overnight visitors by these measures. They had 

visited the local wilderness more often, taken more 

frequent wilderness trips, and been to more individual 

wildernesses in their lifetime (tables 5 and 7).

We asked three questions intended to provide insight into how attached people are to wilderness (how 

important wilderness is in their lives). Responses 

could range from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly 

agree). Most wilderness visitors were highly attached 

to wilderness (table 8). About one-half strongly agreed 

(+3 rating) with the statement “I get greater satisfaction out of visiting wilderness than other areas.” 

However, wilderness attachment scores did not vary 

Table 7. Frequency of wilderness visitation and number of wildernesses visited; 

day and overnight users.

Day Overnight

Median wilderness visits/year 6 4

Median number of other wildernesses visited 10 9

Bold values are significantly different from one another (p ≤ 0.05); n = 1649 to 3438.

Table 5. Local wilderness experience.

Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

First-time visitors to this trailhead (percent) 40 a 43 a 49 b 39 51

Bold values and those with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05); n = 1188 to 3450.

Table 6. Frequency of wilderness visitation and number of wildernesses visited; use level variation.

Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Median wilderness visits/year 5 5 5 5 5

Median number of other wildernesses visited 10 a 9 b 9 b 8 7

Bold values and those with different superscripts are significantly different from one another (Kruskal-Wallis, MannWhitney, p ≤ 0.05); n = 236 to 2435.

Table 8. Wilderness attachment scores (mean, standard error); use level variation.

Wilderness attachment item Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Life organized around wilderness 0.8(.03) 0.8(.04) 0.9(.05) 0.7(.06) 0.9(.10)

Wilderness is a part of me 1.6(.03) 1.6(.03 1.6(.04) 1.9(.04) 1.9(.08)

More satisfaction from wilderness 2.1(.03) 2.1(.03) 2.2(.03) 2.1(.04) 2.2(.07)

Scale: +3 (strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree). Scores did not differ significantly with use level (p ≤ 0.05); 

n = 233 to 2400.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 7

significantly with use level or length of stay (table 8). 

The only statistically significant difference related to 

length of stay was that overnight users agreed more 

strongly than day users with the statement “I feel like 

wilderness is a part of me” (table 9). Measured on 

a 7-point scale, however, a difference of 0.1 seems 

negligible.

Interest in Wilderness Management

Most visitors reported being very interested in, and 

concerned about, the way the wilderness they had 

just visited was managed (table 10). Personal interest did not vary significantly with either use level or 

between day and overnight visitors (data not shown). 

Self-reported knowledge about wilderness was not 

as high as interest in wilderness management. Most 

people reported that they know a little bit about the legal definition of wilderness (table 11). Permit holders’ 

self-reported knowledge about the legal definition of 

wilderness was much higher than that of the average 

visitor. Visitors to very high use trailheads were less 

knowledgeable compared to visitors to less popular 

trailheads and low use visitors were more knowledgeable than all users. Differences were small, however. 

Day users were also slightly less knowledgeable than 

overnight users (table 12).

Table 9. Wilderness attachment scores (mean, standard error); 

day and overnight users.

Wilderness attachment item Day Overnight

Life organized around wilderness 0.8(.03) 0.9(.04)

Wilderness is a part of me 1.6(.02) 1.7(.03)

More satisfaction from wilderness 2.1(.02) 2.2(.03)

Scale: +3 (strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree). Bold values are 

significantly different from one another (p ≤ 0.05); n = 1639 to 

3403.

Table 10. Importance of wilderness management (n = 2809).

How important to you personally is the way this area is managed? Percent

I don’t know 2

Not at all—I’ve never really thought about it 3

Not very—I haven’t given it much thought and am not very concerned 3

Somewhat—I haven’t thought a lot about it, but it seems important 34

Very—I think about it sometimes and have some concerns 41

Extremely—I think about it a lot and am very concerned 18

Table 12. Knowledge about wilderness; day and overnight users.

Knowledge of the Wilderness Act Day Overnight

Didn’t know there was a land classification of wilderness 9 8

Have heard about wilderness but don’t know anything about definition 26 23

Know a bit about what legal wilderness is 46 47

Know a lot about what legal wilderness is 20 22

Knowledge varied significantly between day and overnight visitors (p ≤ 0.05). n = 1705-3554.

Table 11. Knowledge about wilderness; use level variation.

Knowledge of the Wilderness Act Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

----------------------Percent-------------------

Didn’t know there was a land classification 10 7 8 1 0

of wilderness

Have heard about wilderness but don’t know 26 22 25 11 6

anything about definition

Know a bit about what legal wilderness is 43 50 48 51 52

Know a lot about what legal wilderness is 20 21 20 37 42

Knowledge varied significantly among use levels as well as between low use and all visitors (p ≤ 0.05). n = 235-2526.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

Trip Characteristics

Trip Length

Questions about trip characteristics were not asked 

on the mailback questionnaires because respondents 

were surveyed up to a year after their trip. Therefore, 

only variation among trails receiving at least moderate 

use could be assessed. Day users were more common 

than overnight users at 27 of the 36 trailheads. Overall, 

75 percent of people were on day trips. Although the 

length of the median day trip was just under 4 hours, 

13 percent of trips exceeded 8 hours. Most overnight 

trips were short. One-night trips were most common, 

and only 9 percent of trips lasted for more than three 

nights. Day users made up a more substantial proportion of users as trailhead use level increased (table 

13). Since day users were much more common on 

very high use trails, it is possible that some of the difference between very high use and other trails results 

more from the greater proportion of day users on those 

trails than from their heavier use. Surprisingly, trip 

lengths for both day and overnight visits increased as 

trailhead use level increased. Differences were small, 

however, and in the case of overnight trips, perhaps a 

result of chance (that is, the difference was not statistically significant).

Group Size

Most groups were small; the most common group 

size was two. Solo hikers made up 20 percent of 

groups, but only 7 percent of people were by themselves. Only 2 percent of groups had more than 10 

people, but 9 percent of people came in groups larger 

than 10. Group size did not vary significantly with 

amount of use (table 14). Although mean group size 

did not differ significantly between overnight and day 

users, day users were more likely than overnight users to be hiking alone. The proportion of groups that 

were hiking, on horseback, or climbing did not vary 

significantly with amount of use (table 15). Only a few 

of the trailheads had significant proportions of equestrians or climbers and trailheads popular with these 

users spanned the use categories. Climbers made up a 

significantly larger proportion of overnight users than 

Table 13. Trip length; use level variation.

Very high High Moderate

Day users (% of people) 84 a 70 b 66 b

Mean day trip length (hours) 4.6(.05)a 4.4(.06)ab 4.3(.07)b

Mean overnight trip length (nights) 2.7(0.3) 2.3(0.2) 2.0(0.1)

Bold values and those with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). 

n = 503-2694.

Table 14. Group size.

Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

Mean group size (people) 2.7(.03) 2.7(.05) 2.6(.04) 2.7(.02) 2.7(.05)

Solo hikers (percent of groups) 18 20 17 19 15

Group size > 10 (percent of groups) 2 2 2 2 2

Bold values are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 1590-5977

Table 15. Type of group.

Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

Hikers (percent of groups) 91 97 90 93 87

Equestrians (percent of groups) 4 2 8 5 3

Climbers (percent of groups) 5 1 2 2 10

Type varied significantly between day and overnight users (p ≤ 0.05). n = 1578-5967.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 9

of day users. The mean group size of the different trip 

types did not vary much with either amount of use or 

length of stay (table 16). The only exception was the 

significantly larger size of equestrian groups at very 

high use trailheads (the only very high use trailhead 

with equestrian use was Wallowa Lake in the Eagle 

Cap Wilderness).

Registration Rates

Many of the trailheads where surveying took place 

had registration boxes that researchers could observe 

unobtrusively. At these trailheads, about two-thirds 

of entering groups registered. Registration rates were 

lower at the less popular trailheads (table 17). As has 

been found elsewhere, day users were less likely to 

register than overnight users.

Trip Experiences and Evaluations

Using an open-ended question, we asked users to 

describe the three high points and three low points of 

their trip. The most commonly mentioned trip high 

points were:

• scenic qualities (mentioned by 78 percent of 

respondents)

• water features (mentioned by 32 percent)

• solitude (mentioned by 13 percent)

• weather (mentioned by 13 percent)

• activities (mentioned by 12 percent)

• companions (mentioned by 10 percent)

• trail conditions (mentioned by 9 percent)

• peacefulness (mentioned by 8 percent)

• environmental diversity (mentioned by 7 percent)

• the climb (mentioned by 7 percent)

The most commonly mentioned low points were:

• bugs (mentioned by 19 percent)

• crowds (mentioned by 8 percent)

• dust (mentioned by 6 percent)

• horses (mentioned by 5 percent)

• trail conditions (mentioned by 5 percent)

• fatigue (mentioned by 5 percent)

• temperatures (mentioned by 5 percent)

• steep hiking (5 percent)

Nineteen percent of those who answered this question said that there were no low points. The percent 

of visitors who mentioned solitude as a high point 

exceeded the percent that mentioned crowds as a low 

point.

The proportion mentioning solitude as a high point 

was substantially higher at moderate use trailheads, but 

the very high use and high use trailheads did not differ 

(table 18). The percent mentioning crowding as a low 

point also increased as trailhead use level increased. 

In contrast, the percent using the word “wilderness” 

as a high point did not vary with use level, nor did 

the proportion who said there were no low points. 

Overnight users were more likely than day users to 

mention solitude and wilderness as high points. Day 

users were much more likely to say that there were no 

low points.

We asked people the extent to which what they 

experienced differed from what they had expected regarding the number of people they saw, evidence of 

impact from human use, and rules and regulations. 

Most visitors reported that what they encountered 

was close to what they expected. Visitors to moderate use trailheads were most likely to report that they 

saw fewer people than expected. At very high use 

Table 16. Group size (mean; standard error), for different types of groups.

Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

Hiker group size (people) 2.6(.03) 2.6(.05) 2.6(.04) 2.6(.02) 2.6(.05)

Equestrian group size (people) 5.5(.24)a 3.5(.26)b 3.0(.14)b 3.6(.16) 4.5(.21)

Climber group size (people) 2.9(.11) 4.3(.71) 2.6(.18) 3.0(.14) 2.6(.13)

Values with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 1578-5967.

Table 17. Trailhead registration compliance.

Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

Percent of groups that registered 69a 70 a 60 b 63 79

Bold values and those with different superscripts differed significantly (p ≤ 0.05). n = 404-1781.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

trailheads, the average visitor reported that they expected to see the number of people that they actually 

saw (table 19). The relationship between what was expected and what was experienced regarding impacts 

and rules and regulations did not vary with use level. 

Differences between day and overnight visitors were 

also minimal.

We were interested in visitors’ assessments of the 

severity of various potential problems. For this purpose, we asked people whether or not they noticed 

particular problems. If they did, we asked them to rate 

problem severity on a 7-point scale from “not at all” 

(1) to “slight” (3), “moderate” (5), and “big” (7). More 

than one-half of visitors (table 20) noticed most of the 

potential problems. Generally, more people noticed 

the biophysical impact problems than many of the social problems. Large groups and large numbers of day 

users were noticed by larger proportions of visitors 

in more heavily used places. For all problems, mean 

severity ratings were less than 3.0 (less than a slight 

problem). In addition to our finding that 20 to 50 percent of people did not notice these problems, we found 

most visitors did not view these problems as serious.

Biophysical impact problems were perceived to be 

somewhat more severe than social impact problems. 

The ratings for packstock impacts were notable given 

how few visitors used packstock. The only problem 

considered to be more severe in more popular places 

was the large numbers of day users. Problems with 

packstock impacts were judged to be more severe 

in moderate use areas. This might reflect the greater 

sensitivity of these visitors or the fact that stock users 

constituted 4 percent of the sample at moderate use 

trailheads and less than 1 percent of the sample at high 

use and very high use trailheads.

Overnight users noticed more problems than did day 

users (table 21). In some cases, this was because the 

problems were specific to camping, but it appears that 

day users were simply less attentive to many problems 

than overnight users. All problems were considered to 

be more severe by overnight users than by day users. 

This adds to the difference in proportion noticing problems. Overnight users experienced worse conditions 

and/or were less tolerant of what they experienced.

Motivations and Experiences

We were interested in learning about trip motivations—what people were hoping would happen on 

their wilderness visit in terms of what they would feel, 

sense, and experience. We were also interested in their 

evaluations of the extent to which these experiences 

were or were not achieved. We asked people about 14 

different experiences, many of which are central to the 

wilderness concept (such as freedom, solitude, and remoteness). At trailheads, they were asked to rate how 

much they were seeking it (each of the 14 experiences) 

and how much they experienced it, both on 7-point 

scales from “not at all” to “very much.” These results 

were in the context of the trip they had just completed. 

On the mailback questionnaire, the context was their 

entire history of wilderness trips. They were asked 

Table 18. Items mentioned as high or low points of the trip (percent of groups).

Percent reporting: Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

Solitude was a high point 11 a 11 a 21 b 11 19

Crowding was a low point 10 a 8 a 4 b 7 9

Wilderness was a high point 3 3 3 2 5

No low points noted 20 20 16 24 9

Bold values and those with different superscripts differed significantly (p ≤ 0.05). n = 591-1831.

Table 19. Relationship of expectations to what was experienced.

What was experienced in relation 

to what was expected regarding: Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

The number of people seen 0.0(.04) a 0.0(.05) a -0.4(.06) b -0.1(.03) 0.0(.05)

Evidence of human impact -0.2(.03) -0.2(.05) -0.2(.05) -0.2(.03) -0.1(.05)

Rules and regulations -0.1(.03) -0.2(.04) -0.2(.04) -0.2(.02) -0.2(.04)

Scale: -3 (far less than expected) to +3 (far more than expected). Bold values and those with different superscripts are 

significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 584-1813.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 11

Table 20. Evidence and severity of problems (mean; standard error); use level variation.

Percent who noticed Mean problem severity

Problem Very high High Moderate Very high High Moderate

Trail wear and tear 78 78 79 2.8(.07) 2.9(.10) 2.9(.12)

Having to fill out permit/registration 79 74 75 1.8(.07) 1.9(.09) 1.8(.11)

Large numbers of day users 74 a 69 ab 63 a 2.6(.07) a 2.7(.10) a 2.2(.11) b

Trampled areas from camping/walking 66 69 68 2.5(.08) 2.7(.10) 2.6(.12)

Trails that are poorly marked 66 63 66 2.4(.09) 2.4(.11) 2.6(.14)

Large groups 65 a 63 a 53 b 2.3(.08) 2.4(.11) 2.1(.13)

Litter left behind by visitors 62 60 62 2.3(.09) 2.2(.12) 2.3(.13)

Uncontrolled dogs 63 61 60 2.0(.08) 2.2(.11) 2.1(.13)

Rules that restrict where people camp 54 57 54 2.1(09) 2.2(.11) 2.1(.12)

Inconsiderate behavior by others 58 54 53 2.1(.09) 2.3(.13) 2.1(.13)

Too many rules and regulations 55 54 52 1.9(.08) 1.8(.10) 2.1(.14)

Contact with ranger or volunteer 54 54 52 1.5(.06) 1.4(.07) 1.5(.09)

Impacts from recreational packstock 49 a 55 ab 59 b 2.3(.11) a 2.5(.13) a 3.0(.16) b

Concern about your personal security 55 54 52 1.5(.06) 1.4(.07) 1.5(.09)

Noisy groups 56 50 49 2.4(.09) 2.6(.12) 2.3(.15)

Large numbers of overnight visitors 49 51 53 1.9(.08) 2.2(.12) 2.0(.12)

Human waste 49 50 49 2.0(.09) 1.9(.12) 2.0(.15)

Rules/regs not adequately enforced 49 49 48 1.9(.09) 2.2(.13) 2.0(.13)

Organized groups or outfitted parties 48 48 47 1.7(.07) 1.8(.10) 1.6(.10)

Scale for problem severity from 1 (not at all a problem) to 7 (big problem). Bold values and those with different superscripts 

differed significantly (p ≤ 0.05). n = 145-610.

Table 21. Evidence and severity of problems (mean; standard error); day and overnight users.

Percent who noticed Mean problem severity

Problem Day Overnight Day Overnight

Trail wear and tear 78 79 2.7(.06) 3.2(.10)

Having to fill out permit/registration 74 75 1.8(.06) 1.9(.07)

Large numbers of day users 69 63 2.5(.06) 2.6(.10)

Trampled areas from camping/walking 69 68 2.4(.07) 2.8(.09)

Trails that are poorly marked 63 66 2.3(.07) 2.7(.11)

Large groups 63 53 2.2(.07) 2.5(.10)

Litter left behind by visitors 60 62 2.1(.07) 2.6(.11)

Uncontrolled dogs 61 60 2.1(.07) 2.1(.10)

Rules that restrict where people camp 57 54 1.9(.07) 2.5(.10)

Inconsiderate behavior by others 54 53 2.0(.08) 2.4(.11)

Too many rules and regulations 54 52 1.8(.07) 2.1(.10)

Contact with ranger or volunteer 54 52 1.4(.04) 1.6(.09)

Impacts from recreational packstock 55 59 2.2(.08) 3.0(.13)

Concern about your personal security 54 52 1.4(.05) 1.5(.07)

Noisy groups 50 49 2.3(.08) 2.6(.12)

Large numbers of overnight visitors 51 53 1.7(.07) 2.4(.10)

Human waste 50 49 1.8(.08) 2.2(.11)

Rules/regs not adequately enforced 49 48 1.9(.08) 2.3(.11)

Organized groups or outfitted parties 48 47 1.6(.06) 1.8(.10)

Scale for problem severity from 1 (not at all a problem) to 7 (big problem). Bold values differed significantly 

(p ≤ 0.05). n = 262-876
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

how important it is (on a 7-point scale from “not at 

all” to “extremely”) and how often they experience it 

(on a 7-point scale from “never” to “always”).

Most of these experiences were highly sought (table 

22). The most highly sought experiences were “closeness to nature,” “to be away from crowds of people,” 

“a sense of being away from the modern world,” and 

“a sense of freedom.” The only experiences that were, 

on average, well below the mid-point of 4.0 were “to 

be near others who could help if I need them” and 

“to be my own boss.” Most experiences were more 

highly sought by visitors to moderate use trailheads 

than by visitors to very high use trailheads. Similarly, 

three experiences were more highly sought by low use 

visitors than by all visitors (table 22). In particular, 

the motivations “to be away from crowds of people,” 

to experience “solitude,” and to have a “sense of remoteness” increased in importance as trailhead use 

level decreased. Apparently, some people selecting 

less popular locations were more interested in experiencing less crowded and impacted conditions. In 

contrast, experiences such as “a sense of challenge,” 

“developing personal spiritual values,” and “to think 

about who I am” did not differ much with use level.

When asked about the degree to which experiences 

were achieved, results were similar to those for experiences sought (table 23). Visitors to less heavily used 

trailheads generally had higher achievement scores, 

particularly for “to be away from crowds of people,” “solitude,” and “sense of remoteness.” Readers 

should be cautioned about comparing results from the 

mailback questionnaire (where visitors were asked 

about wilderness trips in general) with those from the 

trailhead survey (where visitors were asked about their 

current trip).

We were also interested in the degree to which visitors actually had the experiences that were important 

to them. To explore this, we subtracted each person’s 

score for experience sought from his/her score for 

experience achievement. A negative value suggests 

that visitors did not actually get the experience to 

the degree that they were seeking it, while a positive 

value indicates that desires were exceeded. Overall, 

the experiences that were least achieved, in relation 

to what were sought, were “to be away from crowds 

of people,” “solitude,” “sense of remoteness,” and “a 

sense that the surroundings haven’t been impacted 

by people” (table 24). These are all experiences that 

were more likely to be both sought and attained at 

less popular trailheads. Problems with attaining these 

experiences were most pronounced at very high use 

trailheads. Even for these experiences, however, the 

small values suggest that most visitors are having the 

experiences they were seeking.

For almost all experiences, day users’ importance 

ratings were lower than overnight users’ ratings (table 

25). This suggests generally lower expectations regarding the experiences that might be attained on a 

day trip as opposed to an overnight trip. Day users also 

reported lower levels of experience achievement than 

overnight users. Because motivational differences 

were larger than differences in achievement, overnight 

Table 22. Trip motivations (extent experiences were sought); use level variation.

Experience Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Closeness to nature 5.7(.03)a 6.0(.03)b 5.9(.04)ab 6.2(.04) 6.3(.07)

Away from crowds 5.1(.04)a 5.6(.04)b 5.9(.04)c 6.2(.04) 6.4(.06)

Sense of being away from modern world 5.2(.03)a 5.5(.04)b 5.6(.04)b 5.9(.04) 6.1(.07)

Sense of freedom 5.2(.03)a 5.3(.03)b 5.4(.04)b 5.6(.03) 5.8(.07)

Wilderness opportunities 4.8(.04)a 5.1(.04)b 5.2(.05)b 5.4(.05) 5.5(.09)

Sense of remoteness 4.7(.04)a 5.1(.04)b 5.3(.04)c 5.7(.05) 5.9(.08)

Solitude 4.6(.03)a 5.0(.04)b 5.3(.05)c 5.7(.04) 6.0(.07)

Sense of challenge 5.0(.04)a 4.8(.04)b 4.8(.05)b 5.1(.05) 5.2(.09)

Sense of surroundings not impacted by people 4.6(.04)a 5.1(.04)b 5.1(.05)b 5.8(.05) 5.8(.09)

Learn about this place 4.2(.04)a 4.5(.05)b 4.5(.05)b 5.1(.05) 5.3(.08)

Develop personal spiritual values 3.6(.04) 3.8(.05) 3.7(.06) 4.6(.07) 4.6(.13)

Think about who I am 3.4(.04) 3.4(.05) 3.4(.05) 4.2(.06) 4.1(.12)

Be my own boss 3.0(.04) 3.1(.05) 3.1(.06) 3.8(.07) 4.0(.13)

Be near others who could help if needed 2.6(.03) 2.6(.04) 2.5(.05) 2.7(.05) 2.6(.10)

Values are mean (standard error) rating from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) for “how much were you seeking” each experience? 

Bold values and those with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 237-1580.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 13

users had more substantial problems than did day users with having the experiences that they desired.

Solitude

We were particularly interested in the importance 

of solitude to visitors—the degree to which they expected and experienced it. When asked to select one of 

four responses on this issue, about one-half of respondents reported that “solitude was important to me on 

this visit, and I found it” (table 26). Most remaining 

respondents reported that solitude was not important 

to them or that they did not expect it. Only 5 percent of respondents chose “solitude was important to 

me but I did not find it.” The proportion seeking but 

not finding solitude was small regardless of use level 

or length of stay. However, day users and visitors to 

more popular places were much more likely to state 

that solitude was not important to them on this visit. 

Conversely, overnight users and visitors to moderate 

use trailheads were most likely to state that solitude 

was important to them and that they found it. The 

Table 23. Experience achievement; use level variation.

Experience Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Closeness to nature 5.7(.03)a 6.0(.03)b 5.9(.04)b 5.2(.03) 5.2(.06)

Away from crowds 4.5(.04)a 5.0(.04)b 5.5(.04)c 4.4(.05) 4.6(.09)

Sense of being away from modern world 5.2(.03)a 5.5(.04)b 5.5(.04)b 4.7(.04) 4.8(.07)

Sense of freedom 5.2(.03)a 5.5(.03)b 5.5(.04)b 4.7(.03) 4.7(.07)

Wilderness opportunities 4.8(.03)a 5.1(.04)b 5.3(.04)c 4.4(.04) 4.5(.07)

Sense of remoteness 4.5(.03)a 4.8(.04)b 5.1(.04)c 4.3(.04) 4.5(.07)

Solitude 4.3(.03)a 4.6(.04)b 5.1(.04)c 4.3(.04) 4.5(.07)

Sense of challenge 5.0(.04)a 4.9(.04)b 4.8(.05)b 4.4(.04) 4.5(.07)

Sense of surroundings not impacted by people 4.2(.04)a 4.6(.04)b 4.6(.05)b 3.8(.04) 4.0(.08)

Learn about this place 4.4(.04)a 4.7(.04)b 4.7(.05)b 4.6(.04) 4.6(.07)

Develop personal spiritual values 3.7(.04) 4.0(.05) 3.8(.06) 4.1(.05) 4.1(.10)

Think about who I am 3.6(0.4) 3.7(.05) 3.7(.06) 3.9(.05) 3.8(.10)

Be my own boss 3.4(.04) 3.4(.04) 3.4(.05) 4.0(.04) 4.0(.09)

Be near others who could help if needed 3.1(.04)a 3.2(.05)ab 2.9(.05)b 3.1(.05) 3.0(.10)

Values are mean (standard error) rating from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) for “how much did you experience it?” Bold values 

and those with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 233-2454.

Table 24. Extent to which experiences sought were achieved; use level variation.

Experience Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Closeness to nature -.05(.02) -.06(.02) -.03(.02) -1.00(.03) -1.06(.06)

Away from crowds -.55(.03)a -.66(.04)a -.39(.04)b -1.74(.05) -1.78(.08)

Sense of being away from modern world -.09(.02) -.10(.03) -.05(.03) -1.21(.05) -1.24(.07)

Sense of freedom .04(.02) .10(.02) .07(.03) -0.88(.05) -1.02(.08)

Wilderness opportunities .02(.02) -.03(.02) .02(.02) -0.99(.04) -1.00(.07)

Sense of remoteness -.28(.03)ab -.34(.03)a -.20(.04)b -1.36(.05) -1.44(.08)

Solitude -.42(.03)a -.43(.03)a -.24(.04)b -1.45(.05) -1.54(.08)

Sense of challenge -.02(.02) .07(.03) .07(.03) -0.72(.04) -0.76(.07)

Sense of surroundings not impacted by people -.36(.03)a -.51(.04)b -.47(.04)b -2.00(.06) -1.84(.08)

Learn about this place .23(.02) .16(.02) .19(.03) -0.57(.04) -0.74(.07)

Develop personal spiritual values .10(.02) .08(.02) .11(.03) -0.55(.04) -0.56(.06)

Think about who I am .23(.02) .24(.03) .26(.03) -0.33(.04) -0.35(.07)

Be my own boss .29(.02) .28(.03) .32(.03) 0.08(.06) -0.08(.10)

Be near others who could help if needed .57(.03) .57(.04) .48(.04) 0.37(.05) 0.45(.10)

Values are the experience achievement score minus the experience sought score, both on 7-point scales. Negative values 

indicate hoped for experiences were not obtained. Bold values and those with different superscripts are significantly different 

(p ≤ 0.05). n = 233-2437.
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

difference among use levels for this question was one 

of the larger observed differences for any question in 

the study.

We also explored, using a general, more hypothetical question, the importance of solitude to having a 

wilderness experience, as well as the conditions that 

were conducive to having a profound sense of solitude. 

For this purpose, visitors were shown five different 

statements. For each, they were asked the extent to 

which they agreed or disagreed with the statement, recorded on a 7-point scale from +3 (strongly agree) to 

-3 (strongly disagree). Only one-half of respondents 

agreed with the statement, “I cannot have a real wilderness experience unless I have a profound sense of 

solitude.” While one might have expected more agreement with this statement, it is worth noting that few 

respondents strongly disagreed with this statement. 

Moreover, more respondents might have agreed with 

this statement if we had not used the word “profound” 

to describe the sense of solitude that is important to 

the wilderness experience. It is also worth noting that 

respondents were allowed to define a real wilderness 

experience any way they wanted. Their definition 

might differ substantially from that of the reader or 

the framers of the Wilderness Act. The statement most 

often supported was “solitude adds to the wilderness 

experience, but is not critical.”

Regarding statements about conditions that are 

conducive to solitude, opinions were more widely divergent. Equal numbers agreed and disagreed with the 

statement, “I can have a profound sense of solitude 

in wilderness, even if there are many other groups of 

people around.” When stated inversely and more stringently as “I cannot have a profound sense of solitude 

unless there are no other groups around,” the majority 

disagreed. The strongest consensus was disagreement 

with the statement, “I cannot have a profound sense 

of solitude unless I am completely alone.” Our intent 

Table 25. Differences between day and overnight users in extent to which various experiences were sought and achieved.

Sought Achieved Difference

Experience Day Overnight Day Overnight Day Overnight

Closeness to nature 5.8(.02) 5.9(.03) 5.8(.02) 5.9(.03) -.04(.02) -.06(.02)

Away from crowds 5.3(0.3) 5.7(.04) 4.8(.03) 5.0(.04) -.46(.03) -.70(.04)

Sense of being away from modern world 5.3(.03) 5.7(.04) 5.2(.03) 5.6(.03) -.07(.02) -.11(.03)

Sense of freedom 5.2(.03) 5.4(.04) 5.3(.02) 5.5(.03) .09(.02) .01(.03)

Wilderness opportunities 4.8(.03) 5.3(.04) 4.9(.03) 5.3(.04) .03(.02) -.03(.02)

Sense of remoteness 4.8(.03) 5.4(.04) 4.6(.03) 5.0(.04) -.21(.02) -.42(.04)

Solitude 4.8(.03) 5.2(.04) 4.5(.03) 4.7(.04) -.34(.03) -.47(.04)

Sense of challenge 4.7(.03) 5.4(.04) 4.7(.03) 5.4(.04) .00(.02) .08(.03)

Sense of surroundings not impacted by people 4.7(.03) 5.1(.04) 4.4(.03) 4.5(.04) -.32(.03) -.65(.04)

Learn about this place 4.3(.03) 4.5(.04) 4.5(.03) 4.8(.04) .17(.02) .35(.03)

Develop personal spiritual values 3.6(.03) 3.9(.05) 3.7(.03) 3.8(.05) .10(.02) .07(.02)

Think about who I am 3.3(.03) 3.5(.05) 3.6(.03) 3.8(.05) .22(.02) .29(.03)

Be my own boss 3.0(.03) 3.3(.04) 3.3(.03) 3.6(.05) .29(.02) .30(.02)

Be near others who could help if needed 2.5(.03) 2.6(.05) 3.0(.03) 3.2(.05) .52(.02) .60(.03)

Values are the experience achievement score minus the experience sought score, both on 7-point scales. Negative values indicate 

hoped for experiences that were not obtained. Bold values are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 1712-3621.

Table 26. Solitude importance, expectations, and whether or not it was experienced.

Percent selecting the following regarding 

the importance of solitude on this visit Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

A sense of solitude was not important to me on this visit 32 27 17 32 17

I hoped to find solitude, but did not expect it on this visit 23 17 18 20 20

Solitude was important to me on this visit, and I found it 40 50 62 44 56

Solitude was important to me on this visit but I did not find it 5 6 3 4 6

Responses varied significantly among use levels and between day and overnight users (p ≤ 0.05). n = 603-1870.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 15

with this question was to differentiate between being 

completely alone (away even from members of your 

own group) and being with your group but away from 

other groups.

Low use visitors did not differ significantly from all 

visitors in their agreement with any of these statements 

about solitude (table 27). Very high use visitors were 

significantly more likely than visitors to less popular 

trails to agree that solitude is not critical to the wilderness experience and that they can have profound 

solitude, even with many other groups around. They 

were also significantly less likely to agree that they 

cannot have a real wilderness experience.

Day and overnight visitors differed significantly in 

agreement with these statements about solitude (table 

28). Day users were more likely to agree that solitude 

was not critical to having a real wilderness experience, 

more likely to agree that they can find solitude even if 

there are lots of other people around, and less likely 

to agree that they cannot have a real wilderness experience without having a profound sense of solitude 

(table 28). As was the case with use levels, even the 

statistically significant differences were small.

Encounters with Other Groups

Given our interest in understanding how use density 

influences the experiences people have in wilderness, 

we asked a number of questions about encounters with 

other groups—how many occurred and their effect. 

As expected, encounter levels increased as trailhead 

use increased (fig. 1). To interpret figure 1, note that 

encounter levels refer to the number of groups rather 

than the number of people. The question asked about 

encounters on the day of the exit survey, not encounters over the entire trip. Since the mean group size of 

Table 28. Agreement with statements about solitude (mean, standard error); day and overnight users.

Day Overnight

I cannot have a real wilderness experience unless I have a 0.4(.05) 0.6(.08)b

profound sense of solitude

Solitude adds to the wilderness experience, but is not critical 1.2(.05) 0.9(.09)

I can have a profound sense of solitude in wilderness, even if 0.2(.05) -0.2(.09)

there are many other groups of people around

I cannot have a profound sense of solitude unless there are no -0.5(.05) -0.2(.08)

other groups of people around

I cannot have a profound sense of solitude unless I am -1.0(.05) -1.0(.09)

completely alone

7-point scale from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree). Bold values are significantly different 

(p ≤ 0.05). n = 360-915.

Table 27. Agreement with statements about solitude (mean, standard error); use level variation.

Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

I cannot have a real wilderness experience 0.3(.06)a 0.5(.08)ab 0.6(.09)b 0.4(.06) 0.6(.10)

unless I have a profound sense of solitude

Solitude adds to the wilderness experience, 1.2(.06)a 1.0(.08)ab 1.0(.10)b 0.8(.06) 0.9(.11)

but is not critical

I can have a profound sense of solitude in 0.2(.07)a -0.0(.09)b -0.1(.10)b -1.0(.06) -0.9(.10)

wilderness, even if there are many other 

groups of people around

I cannot have a profound sense of solitude -0.5(.06) -0.3(.08) -0.3(.09) 0.0(.06) -0.0(.11)

unless there are no other groups of people 

around

I cannot have a profound sense of solitude -1.0(.07) -1.0(.08) -1.0(.10) -0.7(.06) -0.8(.11

unless I am completely alone)

7-point scale from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree). Bold values with different superscripts are significantly different 

(p ≤ 0.05). n = 234-804.
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

our sample was 3.4, these values can be multiplied by 

3.4 to approximate the number of people that were 

encountered per day. The encounter scale had a maximum value of “more than 40,” a response for which we 

assigned a value of 45. It is also worth remembering 

that these are the number of encounters respondents 

thought they had, a number that is often quite different 

from the number of encounters they actually had (Cole 

and others 1997).

Figure 2 is a cumulative frequency distribution for 

the data presented in figure 1. This graph can be used 

to assess the proportion of respondents who had more 

or less than any particular number of encounters per 

day. For example, reading up from a value of 10 encounters on the X axis, only 11 percent of respondents 

at moderate use trailheads encountered 10 or more 

groups per day, while about 50 percent of respondents at very high use trailheads encountered at least 

10 groups per day. Reading across from 50 percent 

of respondents on the Y axis, one-half of respondents 

at moderate use trailheads encountered at least four 

groups, while one-half of the respondents at very high 

use trailheads encountered at least 10 groups. High 

use trailheads differed from very high use trailheads 

Figure 1. Number of other groups 

encountered per day; use level 

variation.

Figure 2. Cumulative frequency 

distribution of number of other 

groups encountered per day; use level 

variation.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 17

more than they differed from moderate use trailheads. 

Encountering no other groups was a rare occurrence, 

even at the moderate use trailheads.

The median number of other groups encountered per 

day was four at moderate use trailheads, compared to 

six at high use trailheads and 10 at very high use trailheads. Means were slightly higher (table 29). We also 

asked people about the proportion of time that other 

groups were in sight and sound. As with estimates of 

number of groups seen, these varied significantly with 

use level. Encounter levels did not vary much between 

day and overnight users (table 29).

For overnight users, we asked about the number 

seen on a “typical” day and the fewest groups seen 

on any day. Our thinking was that overnight visitors 

would see more people on the last day of their trip as 

they passed through portal areas, but they might have 

spent time in low use interior areas during at least part 

of their trip. Thus, they might have had more opportunities for solitude at those times. The typical number 

seen differed slightly from “the number seen today,” 

which is not surprising given that most people were 

out for just a night or two. But the fewest seen on at 

least one day of the trip was substantially lower.

Finally, we asked about the number of other groups 

camped within sight and sound on the previous night 

(the last night of the trip). The number of campsite 

encounters varied significantly with trailhead use level 

(table 29). Camping alone was more common for visitors to moderate use trailheads and camping with more 

than five other groups was more common for very high 

use trailheads (fig. 3). However, regardless of trailhead 

use level, most groups camped within sight and sound 

of at least one other group.

Effects of Encounters

We asked visitors how the number of groups they 

saw on their trip affected their enjoyment, sense that 

they were in wilderness, and sense of solitude and freedom—important attributes of wilderness. Enjoyment 

Figure 3. Number of other groups 

camped within sight or sound; 

use level variation.

Table 29. Encounters with other groups (mean, standard error).

Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

Percent of time in sight of groups today 30(.8)a 18(.8)b 12(.8)c 21(.6) 24(1.0)

Number of groups seen today 14(.3)a 8(.2)b 6(.2)c 11(.2) 10(.3)

Number of groups seen on a typical day 12(.6)a 8(.4)b 5(.3)c - 9(0.3)

Fewest groups seen in a day 8(.5)a 5(.3)b 4(.3)c - 6(0.2)

Number of other groups camped in sight 2.4(.2)a 1.8(.2)b 1.3(.1)b - 1.9(0.1)

or sound last night

Values with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 617-1902.
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

was slightly affected by the number of groups seen 

(table 30). The number of people reporting that the 

number of groups they saw added to their enjoyment 

exceeded the number reporting that it detracted. When 

the question addressed effect on wilderness solitude 

and freedom, more visitors reported that the number 

of people they saw detracted. However, the most common response was always the neutral response and 

very few people reported a high degree of detraction. 

Differences in the effect of the number of groups seen, 

among use levels and length of stay, were either not 

statistically significant or small (table 30).

Multiple regression analyses confirmed the adverse 

effects of increased encounter levels on visitor experiences. We found statistically significant negative linear 

relationships between both the number of groups encountered and the percent of time other groups were 

in sight and evaluations of effects of the number of 

groups seen on enjoyment and sense of being in wilderness with respect to solitude and freedom (table 

31). However, coefficients of determination (R2

) were 

very small. Encounter levels did not explain more than 

3 percent of the variance for any of the relationships. 

In part, this is because so many people simply said that 

encounters had no overall effect on them.

Regression coefficients were also very small. To 

illustrate this graphically, we divided the number 

of groups encountered into 10 categories, each with 

roughly equivalent numbers of observations. For each 

use category (such as seven to nine groups encountered), 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). The magnitude 

of effect was greatest for the sense of being in wilderness. Figure 4 shows that one’s sense of being in 

wilderness tends to decline with increasing encounters, but not by much. Regression equations predict 

that it would take an increase in number of encounters 

of 50 groups per day to cause just a 1.0 unit decrease 

on the 7-point scale.

To focus more narrowly on the magnitude of 

crowding-related problems, we asked visitors to assess the extent to which they were adversely affected 

by other groups that they encountered on their trip. 

This question was worded such that the adverse effect 

Table 31. Multiple regression results relating use level to the effect of number of groups seen on 

experiencea.

Groups encountered per day Time in sight of other groups

Effect of encounters on: ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Sense of enjoyment 0.007 -0.08 - -

Sense that I was in wilderness 0.024 -0.12 0.004 -0.07

Sense of solitude 0.017 -0.09 0.005 -0.08

Sense of freedom 0.009 -0.10 - -

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 that encounters detracted more from experiences as use 

increased. n = 2641-2656.

Table 30. Effects of the number of other groups seen.

Effect of the number of people seen on: Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

My enjoyment 0.2(.04) 0.1(.05) 0.2(.06) 0.2(.03) 0.1(.06)

My sense that I was in Wilderness -0.3(.05) a -0.3(.06) a -0.1(.07) b -0.1(.04) -0.3(.06)

My sense of solitude -0.4(.05) -0.3(.07) -0.3(.07) -0.2(.04) -0.5(.07)

My sense of freedom -0.1(.04) -0.1(.05) 0.0(.05) -0.0(.03) -0.1(.05)

Values are mean (standard error) rating from +3 (added a lot) to -3 (detracted a lot). Bold values and those with different 

superscripts are significantly significant (p ≤ 0.05). n = 295-889.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 19

could result from the behavior of a particular group, as 

well as the number of groups. For all items (table 32), 

the majority of respondents reported no adverse effect 

at all. Effects on the “ability to sit and be quiet, free 

from disruptions and distractions” were most substantial. However, no more than 10 to 15 percent reported 

even moderately adverse effects. Some adverse effects were significantly higher for visitors to very high 

use trailheads and for overnight users (table 32), but 

differences were small. In two-factor analyses of variance, use level effects interacted with length of stay 

effects. More detailed analysis showed that day users 

were less adversely affected than overnight users in 

moderate use places. In very high use places, however, 

day users were more adversely affected.

Multiple regression analyses showed that the adverse effects of other groups increased with increases 

in the number of groups encountered and percent of 

time other groups were in sight (table 33). For these 

more specific behavioral responses, effects of encounters were somewhat greater than effects on enjoyment, 

solitude, freedom, and the sense of being in wilderness (table 31). However, even for the experience 

most sensitive to encounter levels—the ability to be 

free from disruptions and distractions–encounter levels explained only 10 percent of the variance. The 

magnitude of effect was also small. For freedom from 

disruptions and distraction, regression equations predict that an increase in number of encounters of 25 

groups per day would cause only a 1.0 unit increase in 

the 7-unit scale (fig. 5).

Encounter Preferences and Evaluative 

Standards

Given the interest in and difficulty of developing encounter standards, we asked visitors questions related 

to their preferences and response to various levels of 

encounters with other groups. Specifically, we asked 

questions regarding:

• the encounter level they prefer in wilderness

• the encounter level that begins to detract from 

their experience

• the encounter level that would displace them—

cause them to not come if they knew it would 

occur

Respondents were given the option of reporting that 

“the number of other groups I see doesn’t matter to 

me.”

Visitors contacted at very high use trailheads were 

more likely to state that the number of groups they see 

doesn’t matter to them compared to visitors to less popular trailheads (table 34). Exiting visitors were much 

more likely to report that encounters do not matter than 

Figure 4. Effect of number of encounters on “sense that I was 

in Wilderness”—from +3 (encounters added a lot) to -3 

(encounters detracted a lot).

Table 32. Magnitude of adverse effects of the number of other groups seen.

Adverse effect of the number of people seen on: Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

Ability to set own pace 0.8(.04)a 0.6(.04)b 0.5(.04)b 0.7(.03) 0.6(.04)

Ability to choose where to do the things you want 0.8(.04) 0.9(.05) 0.9(.07) 0.8(.03) 1.3(.06)

to do (camp, picnic, fish, swim, etc.)

Ability to sit and be quiet 1.1(.04)a 1.0(.06)ab 0.9(.06)b 1.0(04) 1.2(.06)

Freedom from disruptions and distractions 1.3(.05)a 1.2(.06)ab 1.0(.06)b 1.1(.04) 1.4(.06)

Freedom to behave as you wanted 1.0(.04) 0.9(.05) 0.8(.06) 0.8(.03) 1.1(.06)

Freedom to decide with whom to interact 0.8(.04) 0.7(.05) 0.6(.05) 0.7(.03) 0.8(.05)

Values are mean (standard error) rating from 0 (no effect) to 6 (great adverse effect). Bold values and those with different 

superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 592-1836.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

people completing the mailback questionnaire. This 

may reflect the difference between a trailhead survey 

(administered immediately after the trip) and a mailback survey (administered up to a year after the trip) 

and/or the difference between group leaders and group 

members. Another possibility is that it reflects the time 

lag between one’s trip and one’s evaluation. Visitors 

to low use trailheads were as likely as the entire population of wilderness visitors to report that encounters 

don’t matter. Day and overnight users were equally 

likely to report that encounters don’t matter (table 35).

As expected, encounter preferences were lower than 

estimates of the number of encounters that would begin to detract from the experience, which were lower 

than estimates of the number of encounters that would 

cause visitors to be displaced (they would choose not 

to visit if they knew they would see that many) (table 

36). For each of these evaluations, standards increased 

significantly (more encounters were more acceptable) 

as use level increased (table 36). It is also clear that 

respondents to the exit survey were more tolerant of 

more encounters compared to respondents to the mailback survey. Again, this might reflect less tolerance 

among group leaders, more tolerance immediately after the experience or both.

Most use level differences were small. Regardless 

of trailhead use level, either most visitors did not care 

how many other people they saw or they wanted to see 

Table 33. Multiple regression results relating use level to the adverse effect of number of groups encountered on 

specific aspects of the experiencea.

Groups encountered per day Time in sight of other groups

Effect of encounters on: ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Ability to set your own pace along the trail 0.055 0.16 0.016 0.15

Choice of where to do the things you wanted to do 0.006 0.10 0.046 0.16

Ability to sit and be quiet 0.010 0.12 0.082 0.23

Freedom from disruptions/distractions 0.011 0.12 0.086 0.23

Freedom to behave as you wanted 0.005 0.08 0.047 0.17

Freedom to decide with whom to interact 0.006 0.09 0.042 0.16

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). Positive beta indicates that 

the adverse effects of encounters increased as use increased. n = 2621-2660.

Figure 5. Magnitude of adverse effect 

of number of groups encountered 

on “freedom from disruptions or 

distractions”—from 0 (not at all) to 

6 (greatly).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 21

very few other people (fig. 6). This bimodal distribution of responses illustrates the difficulty of interpreting 

these data. Whom should we manage for—the large 

minority who don’t care how many encounters they 

have or the large minority who want to have very few 

encounters? If we split the difference and manage for 

the median user—say 15 to 25 encounters per day—

we will be providing experiences that are preferred by 

very few people. As figure 7 suggests, for the number 

of encounters that begin to detract from the experience, variation among individual respondents dwarfs 

variation related to use level.

Differences between day and overnight users were 

also statistically significant but small (table 37). Day 

users, on average, were more tolerant of higher levels 

of encounters than overnight users.

Displacement

We asked visitors about several types and spatial scales of displacement. We asked about 

within-wilderness spatial displacement—“have you 

intentionally avoided trails or areas in this wilderness 

for any reason?” If they had been displaced, we asked 

them to state where they had been displaced from 

and why. We asked about within-wilderness temporal 

displacement—“have you ever changed the timing of 

your visits to this wilderness to avoid times of heavy 

use?” We asked them about spatial and temporal displacement in other wilderness areas—“are there other 

wilderness areas that have places or times that you 

avoid because of the amount of use?” If so, we asked 

which wildernesses were avoided. Finally, we investigated displacement from entire wilderness areas by 

asking “have you ever decided not to visit this wilderness because of the amount of use?” For the question 

about displacement from other wildernesses, we used 

all respondents’ answers. However, for the questions 

regarding displacement from or within the wilderness 

where we contacted them, we only report results for 

repeat users—respondents who had visited the area at 

least three times before.

Table 35. Percent of visitors for whom number of 

encounters does not matter; day and overnight 

users.

Day Overnight

Percent of visitors 35 32

Percentages are not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). 

n = 840-1874.

Table 34. Percent of visitors for whom number of encounters does not matter; use 

level variation.

Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Percent of visitors 40 a 29 b 29 b 16 14

Bold values and those with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). 

n = 111-1298.

Table 36. Median numerical standards for groups encountered per day; use level 

variation.

Evaluative dimension Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Preference 4 a 3 b 3 c 3 2

Begins to detract 10 a 10 b 10 c 6 4

Would displace 20 a 15 b 10 c 10 9

Visitors reporting that number of encounters does not matter are excluded. Refer to text for the 

evaluative dimensions.

Bold values and those with different superscripts are significantly different (Kruskal-Wallis, 

p ≤ 0.05). n = 92-435.
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

Figure 6. Preference for number 

of groups encountered per day; 

use level variation.

Figure 7. Maximum number 

of groups encountered 

per day that would 

begin to detract from the 

experience; use level 

variation.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 23

For repeat visitors, about 27 percent reported 

within-wilderness spatial displacement (table 38). 

Of those who avoided places in this wilderness, 58 

percent gave crowding as a reason. The only other 

reasons for displacement reported by more than a 

few people were terrain, snow, impacts, stock, water, 

and regulations on dogs. Each of these was reported 

by 3- to 4 percent of those reporting displacement. 

Spatial displacement was more common in the more 

heavily used places (table 38). Moreover, the proportion of displaced visitors reporting crowding as the 

reason for displacement increased with use level: 64 

percent (very high), 53 percent (high), and 48 percent (moderate). Overnight users were more likely to 

be spatially displaced than day users but they were 

less likely to report that crowding was the reason for 

displacement: 52 percent (overnight users) and 61 

percent (day users).

Adjusting the timing of use (for example, not visiting on weekends or holidays) was much more common 

than avoiding particular trails. Fifty-eight percent of 

those who had been to the trailhead where we contacted them at least three times before reported temporal 

displacement. Avoiding certain times was more common at the more popular trailheads and among day 

users (table 38). Twenty percent of first-time visitors 

reported avoiding times of heavy use, regardless of 

trailhead use level. This suggests that a substantial 

portion of the population (20 percent) has learned to 

avoid times of high use even at places they have never 

visited before and they employ this strategy regardless 

of use level. Repeat users relied on this strategy more, 

particularly at more popular trailheads.

A substantial minority of visitors (39 percent) reported avoiding crowded places and certain times in 

other wilderness areas (table 38). The most commonly mentioned wildernesses that were avoided were 

Mount Hood, Mount Rainier, Alpine Lakes, Mount 

Jefferson, and Three Sisters. Each was listed by 7 to 

10 percent of the visitors who reported displacement, 

or about 1 percent of all visitors. A common assertion 

is that very high use trailheads are primarily used by 

people tolerant of crowds, with less tolerant users displaced to less popular locations. If this assertion were 

true, we would expect the proportion of users reporting displacement from crowded wilderness areas to be 

much higher at moderate use trailheads than at very 

high use trailheads. Displacement reported by visitors 

to moderate use trails was not significantly higher than 

that reported by visitors to more popular trails (table 

38), so this assertion is not supported by our findings.

About 25 percent of repeat users reported that they 

had decided at some point in the past not to visit the 

wilderness where we contacted them due to the amount 

of use by other visitors. This type of displacement was 

more pronounced at the very high use trailheads (table 38). Collectively, these results suggest that users 

to these trailheads adjust where and when they visit 

wilderness when they feel the need to avoid heavy use, 

but few have been absolutely displaced to the degree 

that they no longer return. If substantial displacement 

had occurred, there would be fewer people reporting displacement among repeat users at the high use 

Table 37. Median numerical standards for groups 

encountered per day; day and overnight users.

Day Overnight

Preference 4 3

Begins to detract 10 10

Would displace 20 15

Visitors reporting that number of encounters does not matter 

are excluded. Refer to text for the evaluative dimensions.

Bold values are significantly different (Mann-Whitney, 

p ≤ 0.05). n = 325-667.

Table 38. Visitor displacement (percent reporting).

Percent responding yes to the following: Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

Have you ever avoided other wildernesses due to 38 37 42 37 42

amount of use?

Have you ever avoided trails/places in this wilderness 30 a 25 ab 22 b 25 32

for any reason?*

Have you ever changed the time of visit to this 59 a 66 a 41 b 59 53

wilderness due to amount of use?*

Have you ever decided not to visit this wilderness due 31 a 19 b 21 b 25 25

to amount of use?*

Bold values and those with different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 632-1782.

*Percent of those who had been to this destination or area at least 3 times before.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

trailheads and more users of moderate use trailheads 

reporting that there were other wilderness areas they 

avoided.

Attitudes Toward Management of 

Recreation in Wilderness

We were interested in visitor opinions about the acceptability of nine specific management actions. We 

asked the questions in the context of “this wilderness” 

(in other words, the wilderness the person had just 

visited), but did not specify why these actions might 

be taken other than “to protect the wilderness.” Not 

surprisingly, most visitors supported actions that were 

not restrictive or that restricted few activities or users 

(table 39). The only actions supported by a majority 

were installing information on bulletin boards within 

the wilderness, posting directional signs, prohibiting 

campfires, and confining camping to designated sites. 

No actions were opposed by a majority. The actions 

that were most opposed were prohibitions on dogs 

and limits on the number of day users. While limits 

on overnight use were more often supported than opposed, limits on day use were more often opposed than 

supported.

Support for three of the nine management actions 

differed significantly with use level and length of stay 

(table 39). Support for constructing toilets, prohibiting 

campfires, and packing out human waste increased as 

trailhead use level increased and was greater among 

day users than overnight users. Support for the following three actions differed significantly with length of 

stay but not with use level. Day users were more likely 

than overnight users to support limiting overnight users, posting directional trail signs, and requiring the use 

of designated campsites. Differences were generally 

small, however.

Support for Zoning

To assess support for within-wilderness zoning, respondents were told “Forest Service managers must 

find an appropriate balance between allowing all 

people to visit the wilderness when they want and 

providing opportunities for solitude.” They were then 

asked for their opinion about “which of the following 

options strikes the best balance for this wilderness?”

A. Do not restrict use to manage for solitude 

anywhere, even if use is heavy.

B. Manage for solitude along a few wilderness trails. 

The number of people allowed to use these few 

trails will be limited, but the majority of trails will 

have no use limits and may be heavily used.

C. Manage for solitude on most wilderness trails, by 

limiting the number of people using these trails. 

A few trails will have unrestricted use. Use levels 

will be high on these trails.

D. Manage for solitude everywhere in wilderness, 

even though this may mean that use will be 

restricted and people will be turned away.”

The vast majority of visitors supported zoning and 

selected options that involve managing for variable 

conditions within the wilderness (table 40). Support 

was highest for managing a few trails for solitude. 

Support for not restricting use anywhere was higher 

than support for managing for solitude everywhere. 

Support for these options did not vary significantly 

with amount of use, but the people surveyed as they 

exited the wilderness were more supportive of managTable 39. Support for management actions.

Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

Install information about proper behavior on bulletin 1.5(.06) 1.3(.08) 1.2(.10) 1.4(.05) 1.2(.09)

boards in wilderness

Post directional trail signs 1.3(.06) 1.3(.08) 1.3(.10) 1.4(.05) 1.0(.08)

Prohibit campfires 0.9(.07)a 0.7(.09)a 0.3(.11)b 0.8(.06) 0.5(.10)

Require camping in designated sites 0.8(.07) 0.5(.10) 0.4(.12) 0.9(.06) -0.1(.10)

Require people to pack out their human waste 0.7(.08)a 0.4(.10)b 0.0(.12)b 0.7(.07) -0.2(.10)

Limit the number of overnight users 0.1(.07) -0.1(.09) 0.0(.10) 0.1(.06) -0.2(.09)

Construct toilets in the wilderness 0.0(.07)a -0.3(.10)b -0.3(.10)ab -0.1(.06) -0.4(.10)

Prohibit dogs -0.2(.08) -0.4(.10) -0.4(.12) -0.3(.07) -0.3(.10)

Limit the number of day users -0.4(.07) -0.5(.08) -0.4(.10) -0.5(.06) -0.3(.09)

Values are mean (standard error) rating from +3 (strongly support) to -3 (strongly oppose). Bold values and those with different 

superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 291-941.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 25

ing more places for solitude than those who filled out 

the mailback questionnaire.

Differences between day and overnight users were 

statistically significant (table 41), but not substantial. 

The proportion of people supporting one of the two 

zoning options did not vary significantly between day 

and overnight users. The primary difference was in support for managing a few trails for solitude (preferred 

by more day users) rather than managing most trails 

for solitude (preferred by more overnight users).

Questions exploring visitor opinions about amongwilderness zoning were prefaced with the statement 

“some wilderness areas are within an hour’s drive 

of large cities like Seattle and Portland, while others are far from such cities.” Respondents were then 

asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or 

disagreed with how wilderness close to cities should 

differ from wilderness far from cities. Two items addressed appropriate environmental conditions and four 

items addressed appropriate recreation management. 

Overall, there was modest support for among-wilderness zoning (table 42). The only item that was not

supported by a majority of respondents was the statement that “in wilderness areas close to cities, it is OK 

to have more wear and tear on the vegetation from 

recreation use than in remote wilderness.” In contrast 

Table 41. Support for within-wilderness zoning; day and overnight users.

Percent selecting the following regarding 

within-wilderness zoning Day Overnight

Do not restrict use to manage for solitude anywhere, 17 16

even if use is heavy.

Manage for solitude along a few wilderness trails. 46 41

The number of people allowed to use these trails will 

be limited, but the majority of trails will have no use 

limits and may be heavily used.

Manage for solitude on most wilderness trails, by 31 39

limiting the number of people using these trails. A 

few trails will have unrestricted use. Use levels will 

be high on these trails.

Manage for solitude everywhere in wilderness, even 6 4

though this may mean that use will be restricted and 

people will be turned away.

Percentages are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 450-885.

Table 40. Support for within-wilderness zoning; use level variation.

Percent selecting the following regarding 

within-wilderness zoning Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Do not restrict use to manage for solitude anywhere, 18 15 15 17 21

even if use is heavy.

Manage for solitude along a few wilderness trails. The 46 42 43 55 50

number of people allowed to use these trails will be 

limited, but the majority of trails will have no use 

limits and may be heavily used.

Manage for solitude on most wilderness trails, by 32 36 36 25 26

limiting the number of people using these trails. A 

few trails will have unrestricted use. Use levels will 

be high on these trails.

Manage for solitude everywhere in wilderness, even 4 7 6 3 3

though this may mean that use will be restricted and 

people will be turned away.

Percentages are not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 121-658.
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

to lack of support for more lenient biophysical impact 

standards in urban-proximate wilderness, there was 

strong support for more lenient crowding-related standards in urban-proximate wilderness. Only 7 percent 

of respondents disagreed with the statement that “in 

wilderness areas that are close to cities, it is OK to see 

more people than in remote wildernesses.”

About two-thirds of respondents supported allowing people to visit wilderness whenever they want in 

urban-proximate wilderness “so they can get relief 

from the city.” A similar proportion agreed that use 

limits are more likely to be needed in urban-proximate wilderness. Interpreted strictly, these results are 

not logically consistent. This inconsistency likely reflects the personal values conflict many wilderness 

users feel about wanting access to wilderness to get 

away from the city and recognizing the need for limits. Alternatively, people could be responding to the 

“use limits” question by thinking about the future—

as population continues to increase, use limits might 

ultimately be needed, especially to protect biophysical 

resources. Taken together, most respondents seem to 

believe that crowding standards should be more lenient in urban-proximate wilderness, resulting in an 

increased opportunity for people to visit these wildernesses when they want to, but also to believe that even 

with more lenient standards, use limits are still more 

likely in these wildernesses. Majorities also support 

more behavioral restrictions in urban-proximate wilderness and more environmental manipulation.

As was the case with support for within-wilderness 

zoning, support for among-wilderness zoning did not 

vary substantially with amount of use. Visitors exiting 

very heavy use trails were significantly less supportive of more behavioral restrictions in urban-proximate 

wilderness and less likely to agree that use limits are 

needed in urban-proximate wilderness (table 42). But 

differences were small. Low use visitor support was 

not significantly different from all visitor support for 

any of the among-wilderness questions.

Finally, day users were significantly more likely 

than overnight users to agree that people should be allowed to visit urban-proximate wilderness whenever 

they want (table 43). Day users were also more likely 

to agree that it is OK to see more people in urbanproximate wilderness.

Opinions Regarding Use Limits

We asked visitors whether they felt use limits were 

currently needed in the wilderness they visited by 

prefacing the reasons for limits with “if a limit is enforced your opportunity to visit may be reduced in the 

future.” Then we explored the potential reasons for 

limiting use, asking visitors which they would support. We asked visitors about their preference for use 

limits or behavioral restrictions that deal with solving 

the problems of “too many people” and “too much 

recreation impact.” Finally, we asked about their preference for use limits versus specific actions that might 

be taken instead.

Less than 20 percent of visitors believed that a use 

limit should be implemented at that time in the wilderness where they were contacted (table 44). As has 

been found in most other studies where this question 

has been asked, the most common response was that 

“no limit is needed now, but a limit should be imposed 

in the future when overuse occurs.” Close to 40 percent of respondents stated that “there should never be 

a limit on use.” Support for use limits did not vary significantly with use level. Though surprising, this result 

Table 42. Support for among-wilderness zoning; use level variation.

In Wilderness Areas that are close to large cities like 

Seattle and Portland: Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

It is OK to see more people than in remote wildernesses 1.5(.05) 1.5(.07) 1.5(.07) 1.5(.06) 1.3(.14)

It is OK to have more wear and tear on the vegetation 0.0(.07) -0.2(.09) -0.2(.10) -0.1(.09) -0.3(.16)

from recreation use than in remote wilderness

Managers should allow people to visit wilderness 1.2(.06) 1.1(.08) 1.0(.09) 0.6(.08) 0.4(.16)

whenever they want, so they can get relief from 

the city

Use limits are more likely to be needed 0.8(.06)a 1.1(.08)b 1.1(.09)b 1.0(.07) 1.1(.14)

The behavior of visitors should be more tightly restricted 0.6(.06)a 0.8(.08)a 0.9(.08)b 0.7(.08) 0.9(.13)

It is more acceptable to manipulate the environment 0.4(.07) 0.4(.08) 0.4(.10) 0.5(.08) 0.5(.16)

so it can withstand recreational use

Values are mean (standard error) rating from +3 (strongly support) to -3 (strongly oppose). Values with different superscripts are 

significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 115-622.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 27

might reflect different reasons for lack of support on 

low and high use trails. Support for use limits might 

be low in the less popular places because they are not 

highly crowded. Alternatively, support might be low 

in the very high use places because visitors feel high 

use is established and thus acceptable. Regardless, 

there was little support for use limits, even on the most 

crowded wilderness trails in the region. While 45 percent of visitors maintained that they would support 

limits if overuse occurred, it is not clear what criteria 

most visitors would use to define overuse. These very 

high use trails are already among the most crowded 

places in wilderness. Additionally, overnight users 

were more likely than day users to support limits, but 

differences were not pronounced (table 44).

We asked people who support limits now—or 

would in the future—to describe conditions that would 

indicate a need for limits. The response format was 

open-ended. As has often been reported, more people 

find physical impacts to be a compelling reason for 

limits versus social conditions. In order, the most frequently mentioned reasons were:

• ecological impact (mentioned by 44 percent of 

those who do or would support use limits)

• trail conditions (mentioned by 20 percent)

• litter (mentioned by 17 percent)

• crowding (mentioned by 16 percent)

• stock use (mentioned by 8 percent)

• off-trail areas disturbed (mentioned by 7 percent)

• wildlife (mentioned by 6 percent)

• dogs (mentioned by 5 percent)

• human waste (mentioned by 5 percent)

• campfires (mentioned by 3 percent)

There are many problems that might be reduced 

by limiting wilderness use. We solicited visitor opinions about which use limit reasons seemed most 

justified to them. We began by stating “the Forest 

Service wants to avoid limiting use in wilderness 

except where it is absolutely necessary.” Then we 

asked people to consider each of 11 different reasons 

to limit use and to indicate how strongly they supported or opposed use limits as a means of solving 

Table 43. Support for among-wilderness zoning; day and overnight users.

In Wilderness Areas that are close to large cities 

like Seattle and Portland: Day Overnight

It is OK to see more people than in remote wildernesses 1.6(.04) 1.3(.07)

It is OK to have more wear and tear on the vegetation -0.1(.06) -0.2(.08)

from recreation use than in remote wilderness

Managers should allow people to visit wilderness 1.2(.05) 1.0(.07)

whenever they want, so they can get relief from 

the city

Use limits are more likely to be needed 0.9(.05) 0.9(.07)

The behavior of visitors should be more tightly 0.7(.05) 0.7(.07)

restricted

It is more acceptable to manipulate the environment 0.4(.06) 0.4(.08)

so it can withstand recreational use

Values are mean (standard error) rating from +3 (strongly support) to -3 (strongly oppose). Bold values are 

significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 458-848.

Table 44. Opinions about the need to limit visitor use, now or in the future.

Percent selecting the following regarding use limits Very high High Moderate Day Overnight

----------------------Percent-------------------

There should never be a limit on use 42 33 37 40 35

No limit is needed now, but should be imposed in the 41 49 46 45 45

future when overuse occurs

A limit is needed now to hold use at the current level 13 13 13 11 16

A limit is needed now to lower use 5 5 3 4 5

Percentages differed significantly (p ≤ 0.05) between day and overnight users but not among use levels. n = 295-847.
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

each problem. Again, the most prominent finding was 

that avoidance of ecological impact provided a more 

compelling rationale for limiting use than avoiding 

impacts to visitor experiences. Majorities supported 

limiting use to “avoid impact on wildlife,” “avoid 

impacts to soil and vegetation,” and “avoid lots of 

evidence of previous visitors” (table 45). Reasons 

that were opposed much more than supported were 

to “avoid seeing lots of people,” “avoid the need to 

think about how your behavior affects other people,” 

and “avoid having to worry about what other people 

are doing.” Visitors were more ambivalent about the 

five remaining reasons.

Support varied little by use level (table 45). For five 

of these reasons, support for limits was significantly 

lower among low use visitors compared to all visitors, despite the fact that low use visitors had stricter 

encounter standards (table 36). Among visitors given 

the exit survey, there were statistically significant 

differences among use levels for two of the 11 reasons—to avoid lots of evidence of previous visitors 

and to avoid the need for toilets. For both reasons, 

the strongest support was from the intermediate user 

category. There were also statistically significant differences between day and overnight users on two of 

the 11 reasons—to avoid lots of evidence of previous 

visitors and to avoid seeing lots of people (table 46). 

Overnight users were more supportive than day users of limiting use to avoid evidence of others, and 

less opposed to limiting use to avoid seeing lots of 

people. In all cases, however, these differences were 

small.

When problems arise, managers can choose between limiting use or regulating the behavior of 

visitors. We asked visitors for their opinion about how 

the Forest Service should respond to situations where 

“most visitors say they see too many other people in 

this wilderness.” We gave visitors five options: two 

options to do nothing and options that emphasize use 

limits, emphasize behavioral regulations, and give 

equal emphasis to limits and regulations. Responses 

did not vary significantly with use level (table 47), but 

they did differ between those given the exit survey and 

those given a mailback questionnaire.

Among exiting visitors, the most common response 

was that the Forest Service should do nothing because 

“freedom from restriction is more important to the 

wilderness experience than not seeing other people.” 

The least common response was to do nothing because 

“the number of people I see is not a very important 

issue.” This suggests that, for those opposed to restriction, the number of people may be a salient issue, 

but freedom is more important. For the slight majority that felt that something should be done, there was 

substantial support for all three options, but behavioral 

restriction was somewhat preferred. Among those surveyed at home, support for doing something because 

of “too many people” was substantially greater (table 

47). The most preferred option was equal emphasis on 

use limitation and behavioral restriction.

Table 45. Support for various reasons to limit use; use level variation.

I support limiting use in order to: Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

Avoid seeing lots of people -0.4(.06) -0.2(.08) -0.2(.09) 0.1(.08) -0.1(.15)

Avoid the need for frequent, intensive maintenance 0.1(.06) 0.2(.08) 0.1(.09) 0.3(.08) -0.1(.16)

of trails and campsites

Avoid the need to think about how your behavior -0.8(.06) -0.7(.08) -0.7(.09) -1.0(.08) -1.2(.13)

affects other people

Avoid impact on wildlife 1.3(.06) 1.4(.07) 1.3(.09) 1.5(.07) 1.0(.15)

Avoid having to worry about what other people are -0.6(.06) -0.4(.08) -0.4(.09) -0.5(.08) -0.9(.14)

doing

Avoid having to deal with inconsiderate people -0.3(.07) -0.1(.09) -0.1(.10) 0.0(.09) -0.5(.16)

Avoid a need for primitive toilets in the wilderness -0.3(.07)ab -0.0(.09)a -0.4(.09)b -0.3(.09) -0.3(.16)

Avoid lots of evidence of previous visitors 0.4(.07)a 0.7(.08) b 0.5(.09)ab 0.6(.08) 0.3(.15)

Maintain the freedom to go and stop anywhere 0.0(.07) 0.1(.08) -0.0(.10) 0.1(.08) -0.1(.15)

you want

Avoid impacts to soil and vegetation 1.3(.06) 1.4(.08) 1.2(.09) 1.5(.07) 1.3(.15)

Avoid the need for costly maintenance of trails 0.2(.07) 0.2(.08) 0.1(.09) 0.2(.08)a -0.1(.16)b

and campsites

Values are mean (standard error) rating from +3 (strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree). Bold values and those with 

different superscripts are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 121-608.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 29

The responses of day and overnight users did vary 

significantly (table 48), but support for action was 

similar. The primary difference was that the preference among day users for behavioral restriction was 

absent among overnight visitors.

We asked a similar question for situations where a 

“wilderness is so popular that most visitors say there 

is too much recreation impact” (damage to vegetation 

and soil). Once again, when the concern is ecological 

impact, visitors were much more supportive of restrictions. Again, differences among use levels were 

not statistically significant, but exiting visitors were 

less supportive of restriction than people surveyed at 

home (table 49). Of the exiting visitors, fewer than 

20 percent supported “doing nothing” when the issue 

Table 46. Support for various reasons to limit use; day and overnight users.

I support limiting use in order to: Day Overnight

Avoid seeing lots of people -0.4(.05) -0.2(.08)

Avoid the need for frequent, intensive maintenance of trails and campsites 0.1(.05) 0.1(.07)

Avoid the need to think about how your behavior affects other people -0.8(.05) -0.7(.07)

Avoid impact on wildlife 1.3(.05) 1.2(.07)

Avoid having to worry about what other people are doing -0.5(.06) -0.4(.08)

Avoid having to deal with inconsiderate people -0.2(.06) -0.1(.08)

Avoid a need for primitive toilets in the wilderness -0.3(.06) -0.1(.08)

Avoid lots of evidence of previous visitors 0.4(.06) 0.7(.08)

Maintain the freedom to go and stop anywhere you want 0.0(.06) 0.1(.08)

Avoid impacts to soil and vegetation 1.3(.05) 1.2(.07)

Avoid the need for costly maintenance of trails and campsites 0.2(.06) 0.1(.08)

Values are mean (standard error) rating from +3 (strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree). Bold values are significantly different 

(p ≤ 0.05). n = 452-829.

was ecological impact compared to about 45 percent 

who supported “doing nothing” when the problem 

was seeing too many other people. Of those surveyed 

at home, fewer than 10 percent supported “doing nothing” when the issue was ecological impact compared 

to about 20 percent who supported “doing nothing” 

when the problem was seeing too many other people. 

Although there was some support for relying primarily on limiting use, there was much more support 

for behavioral restriction or a combination of use 

limitation and behavioral restriction. There was little 

variation between visitor use levels. Finally, day users 

were significantly more supportive of regulation than 

overnight users, particularly behavioral restrictions 

(table 50).

Table 47. Opinions about what the Forest Service should do in situations where most visitors say that they see too 

many other people in the wilderness; use level variation.

If visitors “see too many other people,” the FS should: 

(select one) Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

--------------------Percent--------------------

Do nothing—the number of people I see is not a very 8 8 7 6 8

important issue

Do nothing—freedom from restriction is more important 

to the wilderness experience than not seeing many 40 35 38 19 25

people

Limit the number of people but place few regulations 13 15 17 12 12

on people once they are inside the wilderness

Regulate activities within wilderness in order to avoid 22 24 19 28 21

limiting use

Give equal emphasis to limiting use and regulating 16 18 19 34 34

behavior

Percentages did not differ significantly among use levels (p ≤ 0.05). n = 114-629.
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

We asked visitors about eight alternatives to use 

limits as a means of dealing with “management problems.” Although it may not be true, we told them that 

these other actions would be as effective as use limits 

in dealing with problems. Six of the eight actions—

outhouses, bulletin boards, ranger patrols, volunteer 

stewards, campsite closures, and campfire prohibitions—were strongly preferred over use limits (table 

51). Use limits were strongly preferred to fishing prohibition and opinions were split regarding use limits or 

designated campsites. Surprisingly, a substantial proportion of visitors (over one-third) preferred use limits 

to “frequent ranger patrols to enforce regulations at 

popular destinations.”

There was little difference among use levels (table 

51). For none of these actions were the opinions of low 

use visitors significantly different from those of all visitors. Visitors to very high use places had significantly 

greater preference for issuing permits for designated 

campsites. This may reflect the greater proportion of 

day users in very high use places, as this action primarily affects overnight users. Indeed, for six of the 

eight actions, day users were significantly more likely 

than overnight users to prefer the action to use limits 

(table 52). Clearly, use limits seem even more onerous 

to day users than to overnight users.

Opinions About the Forest Service

Finally, we were interested in what visitors generally thought about the Forest Service and how well it 

was carrying out its wilderness stewardship role. We 

presented eight statements related to trust, management attention, and management appropriateness and 

asked visitors the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. They also had the option 

Table 48. Opinions about what the Forest Service should do in situations where most visitors say that they 

see too many other people in the wilderness; day and overnight users.

If visitors “see too many other people,” the FS should: (select one) Day Overnight

-----Percent-----

Do nothing—the number of people I see is not a very important issue 8 9

Do nothing—freedom from restriction is more important to the 39 36

wilderness experience than not seeing many people

Limit the number of people but place few regulations on people once 13 18

they are inside the wilderness

Regulate activities within wilderness in order to avoid limiting use 24 18

Give equal emphasis to limiting use and regulating behavior 17 19

*Percentages are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 461-844.

Table 49. Opinions about what the Forest Service should do in situations where most visitors say there is too much 

impact from recreation; use level variation.

If visitors say there is too much recreation impact, the 

FS should: (select one) Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

--------------------Percent--------------------

Do nothing—amount of recreation impact is not a very 3 3 2 1 0

important issue

Do nothing—freedom from restriction is more important 

to the wilderness experience than avoiding recreation 18 15 14 6 15

impact

Limit the number of people but place few regulations on 16 18 20 10 8

people once they are inside the wilderness

Regulate activities within wilderness in order to avoid 41 38 40 39 30

limiting use

Give equal emphasis to limiting use and regulating 23 26 24 44 46

behavior

Percentages were not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 112-636.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 31

Table 52. Percent of respondents preferring various management actions to limiting use, assuming both are equally 

effective; day and overnight users.

As an alternative to use limits, I prefer: Day Overnight

-----Percent-----

Outhouses at popular destinations 71 62

Bulletin boards with information on how to behave at popular destinations 81 73

Frequent ranger patrols to enforce regulations at popular destinations 66 60

Patrols by volunteer stewards at popular destinations 77 69

Prohibitions of fishing 37 42

Issuing permits so visitors may only camp in area/campsite assigned to them 57 35

Closing portions of area to use so it can be restored 75 69

Prohibitions on campfires 62 59

Bold values were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 429-837.

Table 50. Opinions about what the Forest Service should do in situations where most visitors say there is too much 

impact from recreation; day and overnight users.

If visitors say there is too much recreation impact, the FS should: (select one) Day Overnight

-------Percent-------

Do nothing—amount of recreation impact is not a very important issue 2 4

Do nothing—freedom from restriction is more important to the wilderness 15 19

experience than avoiding recreation impact

Limit the number of people but place few regulations on people once they 15 21

are inside the wilderness

Regulate activities within wilderness in order to avoid limiting use 44 31

Give equal emphasis to limiting use and regulating behavior 23 26

Percentages were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 460-851.

Table 51. Percent of respondents preferring various management actions to limiting use, assuming both are equally 

effective; use level variation.

As an alternative to use limits, I prefer: Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

--------------------Percent--------------------

Outhouses at popular destinations 71 64 69 77 77

Bulletin boards with information on how to behave at 79 79 76 76 75

popular destinations

Frequent ranger patrols to enforce regulations at popular 65 61 66 66 71

destinations

Patrols by volunteer stewards at popular destinations 75 72 76 80 78

Prohibitions of fishing 40 38 38 49 48

Issuing permits so visitors may only camp in 55 a 46 b 43 b 59 57

area/campsite assigned to them

Closing portions of area to use so it can be restored 76 71 69 74 75

Prohibitions on campfires 65 58 58 66 56

Bold values and those with different superscripts were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). n = 121-613.
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

of “don’t know.” Most visitors volunteered opinions, 

although at least 30 percent responded that they “don’t 

know” to the statements “the Forest Service often 

chooses wilderness management actions that are not 

effective” and “the Forest Service takes the Wilderness 

Act too literally when managing wilderness.”

Most visitors trusted the Forest Service to manage 

wilderness appropriately and felt that it gives wilderness the management attention that it deserves (table 

53). They did not think the Forest Service was too 

restrictive and they disagreed with the statement that 

“the Forest Service does not give sufficient consideration to wilderness visitors’ needs and wants when 

creating restrictions.” These opinions were positive, 

but they were also weak. Very few people felt strongly about Forest Service management. The strongest 

opinions about Forest Service management related to 

the inappropriateness of using motorized equipment 

(chainsaws and helicopters). Most people supported 

avoiding use of motorized equipment in wilderness, 

even if it would save money.

Opinions did not vary much with visitor use level 

(table 53). Among exiting visitors, none of the opinions differed significantly between use levels. Among 

respondents to the mailback survey, visitors to low use 

trails were somewhat less supportive of Forest Service 

management than all visitors. Low use visitors were 

significantly less likely to disagree that the Forest 

Service was “too restrictive,” less likely to agree with 

the policy of not using motorized equipment, and less 

likely to disagree that “the Forest Service takes the 

Wilderness Act too literally.” Differences between day 

and overnight users were not significant (table 54).

Summary and Management 

Implications

Many of the characteristics of wilderness visitors 

and their trips that we found in this study of Forest 

Service administered wilderness in Oregon and 

Washington are similar to what has been reported elsewhere (Cole and others 1997; Hendee and Dawson 

2002; Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). Hiking was the 

dominant mode of travel. Travel with stock was virtually nonexistent at all but 10 of the 36 trailheads and 

amounted to more than 5 percent of use at only three 

of the trailheads. Most visitors traveled short distances to the trailhead (50 percent lived within 100 miles) 

and took short trips. Two-thirds of visitors were on 

day trips and 44 percent of those on overnight trips 

were only out for one night. About one-fifth of the wilderness visitors reported that they only make day trips 

into wilderness. Groups were typically small. Groups 

of two were most common and less than three percent 

of groups contained more than ten people.

Table 53. Opinions about Forest Service wilderness management; use level variation.

Very high High Moderate All visitors Low use

The Forest Service gives wilderness the 0.5(.07) 0.4(.09) 0.3(.10) 0.1(.09) 0.2(.15)

management attention that it deserves

The Forest Service is too restrictive in its -0.8(.06) -0.9(.08) -0.9(.09) -0.9(.08) -0.5(.15)

management of wilderness

The Forest Service often chooses wilderness 0.1(.06) 0.2(.08) 0.2(.10) 0.2(.08) 0.5(.14)

management actions that are not effective

The Forest Service should use motorized equipment -1.0(.08) -0.8(.10) -0.9(.11) -0.5(.10) -0.3(.21)

(such as chainsaws and helicopters) more, if it 

would save money

I trust the Forest Service to manage wilderness 0.4(.07) 0.3(.09) 0.3(.10) 0.1(.09) -0.1(.16)

appropriately

The Forest Service does not give sufficient -0.5(.06) -0.6(.08) -0.5(.09) -0.6(.07) -0.4(.13)

consideration to wilderness visitors’ needs and wants 

when creating restrictions

I support the Forest Service’s policy of not using 1.6(.07) 1.5(.09) 1.5(.10) 1.4(.09) 0.9(.20)

motorized equipment (such as chainsaws and 

helicopters) in wilderness unless absolutely necessary

The Forest Service takes the Wilderness Act too -0.8(.07) -0.9(.09) -0.9(.11) -1.1(.09) -0.5(.20)

literally when managing wilderness

Values are mean (standard error) rating from +3 (strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree). Bold values were significantly different 

(p ≤ 0.05). n = 91-501.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 33

As had been found in earlier studies (Cole and others 1997), most visitors appeared to be highly satisfied 

with their trip and with wilderness conditions. Most 

reported that what they experienced on their trip was 

in line with their expectations, even in very heavily 

used places. Most people reported that they had the 

types of experiences that they desired. When asked to 

evaluate the severity of a number of potential problems, mean ratings were always low—between “not a 

problem” and “a slight problem.” Many people did not 

notice problematic conditions in the first place.

When asked specifically about solitude, only 5 percent of visitors reported that solitude was important to 

them on their trip but they were unable to find it. About 

50 percent of visitors reported that they found solitude and, for the rest, solitude was either unimportant 

or unexpected on the trip. Most visitors reported that 

they can have “a real wilderness experience” without 

having “a profound sense of solitude” or that they can 

have a profound sense of solitude “even if there are 

many other groups of people around.” More people 

reported that the number of people they encountered 

added to their enjoyment than detracted from it, even 

in very high use places.

Encounters did detract from visitors’ sense of being 

“in wilderness” and their “sense of solitude,” but the 

vast majority of respondents considered any adverse 

effects to be small. In the most densely used places, 

the typical user encountered about 10 other groups 

during the day and estimated being in sight of other 

people about 30 percent of the time. These conditions 

do not appear to create high enough levels of crowding to be perceived as very problematic. When asked 

about the specific adverse effect of other groups, the 

most pronounced problem was the effect of others on 

“freedom from disruptions and distractions.” But even 

in the most popular places, this problem had a mean 

rating of only 1.3 on a scale from 0 (no effect) to 6 

(great effect).

Most visitors trusted the Forest Service to manage wilderness appropriately, believed that the Forest 

Service gives wilderness the management attention 

that it deserves, and felt that the Forest Service is not 

too restrictive in its management approach. There was 

little support for use limitation, particularly to deal 

with crowding-related problems. More people supported behavioral regulation as a visitor management 

strategy than limitation of use. Most people were more 

supportive of restrictions—even use limitation—as a 

means of avoiding biophysical impact versus problems with crowding and lack of solitude.

Differences Related to Amount of Use

Results of prior research on the relationship between 

use density and visitor experiences have often been 

equivocal (see reviews by Cole 2001a; Kuss and others 

1990; Manning 1999). For example, among Colorado 

River boaters, Shelby (1980) found no relationship between number of encounters and satisfaction. Stronger 

relationships between encounters and crowding (r2

 as 

high as 0.36) have been found on heavily-used rivers 

(Hammitt and others 1984; Heberlein and Vaske 1977; 

Tarrant and others 1997) but not in wilderness-like 

settings. However, some researchers (for example, 

Manning 1999; Shelby and Heberlein 1986) consider 

these findings misleading due to the generality of the 

dependent variables examined. They argue that we 

should only expect use levels to affect specific aspects 

of visitor experiences. They also argue that studies do 

not account for various mechanisms for coping with 

high use densities, particularly visitor displacement. 

Table 54. Opinions about Forest Service wilderness management; day and overnight users.

Day Overnight

The Forest Service gives wilderness the management attention that it deserves 0.5(.06) 0.4(.09)

I trust the Forest Service to manage wilderness appropriately 0.4(.06) 0.2(.09)

The Forest Service often chooses wilderness management actions that are not effective 0.1(.05) 0.2(.08)

The Forest Service does not give sufficient consideration to wilderness visitors’ -0.6(.05) -0.5(.07)

needs and wants when creating restrictions

The Forest Service is too restrictive in its management of wilderness -0.8(.05) -0.8(.08)

The Forest Service takes the Wilderness Act too literally when managing wilderness -0.8(.06) -1.0(.09)

I support the Forest Service’s policy of not using motorized equipment 1.5(.06) 1.6(.08)

(such as chainsaws and helicopters) in wilderness unless absolutely necessary

The Forest Service should use motorized equipment (such as chainsaws and -0.9(.07) -1.1(.09)

helicopters) more, if it would save money

Values are mean (standard error) rating from +3 (strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree). Values were not significantly different 

(p ≤ 0.05). n = 357-718.
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

With visitor displacement, they argue, those visitors 

most sensitive to density are not even included in the 

sample.

In our study, we extended previous work on use 

density effects by studying a wider array of dependent 

variables. Moreover, instead of studying an individual wilderness or river, we studied sites spread across 

the Pacific Northwest, including low-use places that 

should appeal to people displaced from high-use 

places.

As has been found before, however, differences 

among visitors related to the amount of use on the 

trail they selected were surprisingly small. We had 

expected people who selected lightly-used trails to be 

more sensitive to social impacts because we reasoned 

that people who choose to go to very high use places 

are accepting of those conditions and crowding-sensitive people would choose to go elsewhere. We also 

suspected that low-use visitors might be more experienced wilderness travelers, more interested in a true 

wilderness experience, and more willing to accept 

regulation to protect those experiences.

Few of these expectations proved to be true. Visitors 

to very high use trailheads were generally as experienced as visitors to low use trailheads, as attached to 

wilderness, and as concerned about how wilderness is 

managed. They were looking for similar experiences 

and typically had trips that met their needs and evaluated their trips as enjoyable wilderness experiences. 

They were similar to most other visitors in their support for, or opposition to, various management actions 

and the types of management approaches they favor 

over alternatives.

There were a few statistically significant differences, 

which we break out below according to the trailhead 

survey and the mailback survey (because results of the 

two studies cannot be directly compared). In all cases, 

the magnitude of differences among use levels was 

small. Compared to moderate use trailheads, at very 

high use trailheads:

• There were more repeat visitors, more day visitors, 

and more visitors from close by.

• Day trips were typically of longer duration.

• More other groups were encountered and other 

groups were in sight more of the time.

• Fewer people mentioned solitude as a high point of 

their trip and more mentioned crowding as a low 

point.

• Visitors saw about the same number of people as 

expected, rather than fewer people than expected 

(as was the case in less popular places).

• Visitors were slightly less able to experience 

“being away from crowds of people,” “solitude,” 

“closeness to nature,” “being away from the 

modern world,” “freedom,” “wilderness,” 

“remoteness,” “surroundings not impacted by 

people,” and “learning about this place” and they 

also reported less interest in these experiences.

• More visitors reported that they can, in principle, 

have a profound sense of solitude even with 

many other people around, and fewer agreed 

that solitude was critical to a real wilderness 

experience.

• More visitors reported that solitude was either not 

important to them on this trip or that it was not 

expected, while fewer reported that solitude was 

important and they found it.

• Conversely, more visitors reported that the actual 

number of other groups they saw adversely 

affected their sense of being in wilderness as 

well as their ability to set their own pace, sit 

and be quiet, and be free from disruptions and 

distractions.

• People-related problems were more frequently 

noticed, but they were evaluated as being only 

slightly more severe and only for the problem of a 

large number of day users.

• When asked about preferences and standards with 

regard to encounters, more visitors reported that 

the number of encounters doesn’t matter to them 

and, if it did, their preferences were higher and 

their standards were more lenient.

• More visitors reported displacement and more 

mentioned crowding as the main reason for 

displacement.

• More visitors were supportive of prohibiting 

campfires, requiring visitors to pack out their 

human waste, and constructing toilets.

Low use visitors differed from the norm even less 

than did very high use visitors. They were more interested in solitude and more able to find it, but they 

were less supportive of use limitations in order to 

protect experiences. Compared to all visitors, low use 

visitors:

• Take more overnight trips and have visited fewer 

other wilderness areas.

• Were more able to experience “being away from 

crowds of people,” “solitude,” and “remoteness,” 

and they were more interested in these 

experiences.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 35

• Have lower preferences for number of encounters 

and their standards for encounters were more 

stringent.

• Were less supportive of some of the reasons for 

use limitations and more likely to feel that the 

Forest Service was too restrictive and “took the 

Wilderness Act too literally.”

In addition to identifying differences between 

visitors to trails with different use levels, we also related use and encounter densities to experiences. We 

found relationships that were statistically significant 

but weak. Our results were consistent with those of 

Stewart and Cole (2001) who studied Grand Canyon 

backpackers on multi-day trips. Because the number of 

groups encountered varied among days, they were able 

to assess, for each individual, the relationship between 

use density and experience. They concluded, as earlier 

studies have, that visitors vary in their sensitivity to 

amount of use. However, underlying this variability 

were several consistent responses. Most visitors are 

adversely affected by increasing amount of use. The 

magnitude of effect is small, however; large differences in amount of use result in small differences in 

what people experience and in their evaluations of the 

quality of those experiences.

Collectively, these differences suggest that visitors to high use trailheads have had to adjust their 

tolerance of other wilderness users more than other 

visitors. Most knew of conditions they were likely to 

find and appeared to have adjusted their expectations 

accordingly. Consequently, their trip met most of their 

perceived needs and desires and, therefore, was enjoyable. They often adjusted the timing of their visits 

to avoid heavy use. Although they often encountered 

more other groups than they preferred, most people 

reported that they were still able to find solitude or 

at least have what they considered a real wilderness 

experience. This led most of them to oppose use limits for experience-related reasons, be more likely to 

report that “number of encounters doesn’t matter to 

me,” and be less likely to support a very stringent encounter standard.

Visitors to low-use trailheads were not very different from those who visit popular places. Including 

them in our mailback survey did not lead us to conclusions that differed from those of the trailhead survey 

in terms of the effect of amount of use on experience. 

Low-use visitors are distinguished as much by their 

interest in freedom from restriction as in their interest 

in getting away from others. This may at least partially 

explain why they too generally oppose limiting use in 

order to protect experiences.

Differences Between Day and 

Overnight Users

Differences between day and overnight visitors 

were also rather small, a finding similar to what has 

been reported elsewhere (Cole 2001b). There were 

some statistically significant differences, however. 

Compared to overnight users, day users:

• Were typically older and more likely to be female.

• Were more likely to be repeat visitors and to make 

more wilderness visits per year.

• Were more likely to be hiking by themselves.

• Were less likely to notice resource and social 

problems or to consider problems to be serious.

• Were more likely to mention solitude or wilderness 

as high points of their trip but more likely to note 

that there were no low points.

• Felt less strongly about most of the experiences 

they were seeking on their visit. Consequently, 

for a number of experiences (“to be away from 

crowds of people,” “solitude,” “a feeling of 

remoteness,” and “a sense that the surroundings 

haven’t been impacted by people”), what they 

actually experienced was more in line with what 

they hoped to experience.

• Considered solitude to be less important and 

were more likely to say that, in principle, they 

can experience solitude with many other people 

around.

• Were less adversely affected by other groups in less 

popular places but more adversely affected in the 

very high use places.

• Had higher preferences for number of encounters.

• When asked about standards for a maximum 

number of encounters, were more likely to report 

that the number of encounters doesn’t matter to 

them and, if it did, their standards were more 

lenient.

• Were more supportive of a wide variety of 

management actions than overnight visitors, but 

they were even less supportive of use limits and 

had an even stronger preference for behavioral 

restriction, as opposed to use limitation, as a 

visitor management approach.

Many of these characteristics of day users are 

similar to characteristics of visitors to very high use 

trailheads. In part, this reflects the fact that day use is 

disproportionately high at very high use trailheads. To 

a substantial degree, the unique issues at the very high 

use trailheads are largely about day use. However, 

day users everywhere also appeared to be generally 
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

more tolerant than overnight users, particularly of 

crowding (Cole 2001b). Their needs and desires, regarding experiences, were somewhat less pronounced 

and, therefore, more easily met. They often had more 

limited expectations, particularly regarding the ability to get away from crowds at a popular trailhead. 

Day users appeared to have even more ability than 

overnight users to adjust to high use densities through 

rationalizations about solitude not being important or 

not expected or by finding ways to experience solitude 

even with many other people around.

Methodological Implications

Survey-based visitor studies usually employ either 

on-site or mailback questionnaires. Because we used 

both in this study, we were able to assess whether 

each approach yields the same findings. Compared 

to the on-site results, mailback results suggested that 

visitors have higher motivations, lower experience 

achievement and, consequently, less ability to have 

the experiences they wanted. They appeared more interested in solitude, more concerned about number of 

encounters, and more likely to have stringent encounter standards. Consistent with this, they were more 

supportive of behavioral restrictions but not of use limits. In our study, results from the mailback instrument 

differed from the on-site instrument for confounding 

reasons: (1) only permit holders were surveyed and 

(2) respondents had to remember back to their wilderness experiences in total. Observed differences might 

reflect either the responses of more experienced group 

leaders or a tendency to become more idealistic in 

one’s opinions when at home—far removed from the 

actual wilderness experience—and when generalizing 

across all wilderness trips.

Indicators and Standards

Our results provide some insight into potential 

indicators and standards that might guide recreation 

management in wilderness. Most visitors clearly 

thought that keeping biophysical impacts to acceptable levels was critically important everywhere in 

wilderness. They did not support allowing substantial 

impact even in wildernesses close to large cities (table 

42) and were willing to support use limits for the purpose of avoiding excessive impact (tables 45 and 49). 

At moderate use trailheads in particular, biophysical 

impact problems, specifically those caused by packstock, were judged more severe than people problems 

(table 20). In addition, the desired experience that was 

least achieved was having a sense of the surroundings not being impacted by people (table 24). This 

suggests that indicators of biophysical impact are particularly important. In Denali National Park, Lawson 

and Manning (2002) also found that concern about resource conditions was most important to wilderness 

visitors. However, it is important to note that there 

is often little congruence between visitor abhorrence 

of the idea of biophysical impact and their obliviousness to the reality of the impacts actually encountered 

in wilderness. In places with high levels of impact, 

many visitors do not notice it; few consider it highly 

problematic and it seldom influences their choices of 

where to visit or camp (Cole and others 1997; White 

and others 2001).

People-related problems were judged to be somewhat more severe by visitors to the very high use 

trailheads (table 20). Moreover, at those trailheads, 

the ability to be away from crowds of people was the 

desired experience that was least achieved (table 24). 

When asked specifically what it was about the number of other people that had the greatest adverse effect 

on their experience, “freedom from disruptions and 

distractions” was the most common response (table 

32). This suggests that, while managers may still want 

to use number of encounters with other groups as an 

indicator, it might be helpful to consider number of 

encounters to be a proxy for a concern with people 

being disturbed and interrupted. Freedom from disruption and distraction increases as number of encounters 

decreases, everything else being equal. Consequently, 

by limiting encounters, we increase freedom from disruption and distraction. If managers choose to retain 

encounters as an indicator, they must recognize that 

the relationship between number of reported encounters and freedom from distraction and disruption is 

weak. Limiting encounters will have a positive effect 

but the effect will be small.

Responses regarding zoning suggest that most visitors supported variable standards, with some trails 

allowed to be more crowded than others and wildernesses close to large cities allowed to be more 

densely used than more remote wildernesses. What is 

less clear is what appropriate standards should be for 

different wilderness zones. The questions we asked 

about encounter preferences and evaluative standards 

provide insight into the opinions of current visitors. 

While some researchers suggest that such data provide 

a strong empirical foundation for the formulation of 

standards (Manning 2007; Shelby and others 1996), 

we are less enthusiastic. We are concerned about the 

difference in response between visitors exiting the 

wilderness and visitors responding to a mailback questionnaire some time after their trip. For example, 32 

percent of those contacted at the trailhead reported that 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 37

the number of other groups they see doesn’t matter to 

them, compared to only 16 percent of those contacted 

at home. It is not clear whether precedence should be 

given to immediate opinions or those obtained after a 

time of reflection. Caution is also warranted given the 

wide range of responses about appropriate standards 

and given the bimodal distribution in which the most 

common responses are either to allow unlimited encounters or limit encounters to rather low levels. What 

these data illustrate is the need for managers to make 

difficult decisions about both the type of visitor whose 

opinions matter most and the types of experience to 

be provided.

Despite these concerns, our data can be used to 

gain insight into the opinions of various types of users. For example, managers may want to manage for 

the median user. For very high use trailheads, the median user preferred to encounter 10 groups per day 

(table 55). Encounters started to detract from the experience at 20 groups per day, and when they reached 

50 groups per day, the median user reported that they 

would rather not visit. At high use trailheads, median 

users preferred encountering five groups per day; encounters started to detract at 10 encounters per day; 

and median users reported they would be displaced at 

20 encounters per day. Moderate use trailheads were 

not very different from high use trailheads. Visitors 

to low use trailheads, however, were quite different. 

Median users preferred two groups per day; encounters started to detract at four encounters per day; and 

users thought they would be displaced at 10 encounters per day.

Alternatively, managers might want to manage for 

visitors who are substantially less tolerant of crowding 

than the median visitor, for example, someone at the 

25th percentile on these scales. For very high use trailheads, such a user preferred to encounter four groups 

per day. Encounters started to detract from the experience at 10 groups per day, and when they reached 20 

groups per day, this less tolerant user reported that they 

would rather not visit. At the other extreme, at low use 

trailheads, such a user preferred to encounter just one 

group per day; encounters started to detract at three 

encounters per day; and users thought they would be 

displaced at five encounters per day.

Similarly, it would be possible to focus on the 

opinions of substantially more tolerant visitors than 

the norm (the 75th percentile). Their standards were 

even higher (less stringent) than those presented for 

the median user. In fact, at the very high visitor use 

Table 55. Encounter preferences and evaluative standards of different visitor types from 

trailheads with different use levelsa.

Use type

Encounter intolerant Median user Encounter tolerant

Very High Use

Preference 4 10 ∞

Begins to detract 10 20 ∞

Would displace 20 50 ∞

High Use

Preference 3 5 ∞

Begins to detract 5 10 ∞

Would displace 10 20 ∞

Moderate Use

Preference 2 5 20

Begins to detract 5 10 20

Would displace 10 15 80

Low Use

Preference 1 2 4

Begins to detract 3 4 10

Would displace 5 10 25

a Values are encounters with other groups per day. For visitors who responded that encounters do not 

matter, it was assumed that their standards for encounters per day were at the high end of the range 

of possible values (∞). In addition to the median respondent, results are provided for visitors that 

are relatively intolerant of encounters (25th percentile) and visitors who are relatively tolerant (75th

percentile).
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

and high use trailheads, these people do not care 

about encounters—suggesting a standard of unlimited encounters.

This discussion highlights the difficult choices 

managers face when attempting to use this so-called 

normative information to set standards. As table 55 indicates, managers can develop an empirical rationale 

for virtually any standard they might want to select, 

from one group per day to an unlimited number of 

encounters. They must decide, for any specific place 

in wilderness, which user they are managing for and 

what conditions they are trying to provide. Whatever 

is decided, certain groups will be pleased, and others 

will be displeased.

Despite this need to select a particular user type to 

favor in any specific place, it is possible to meet the 

needs of a broader array of stakeholders by making 

different decisions in different places. A diversity of 

conditions can be provided through zoning, an approach that most respondents endorsed. Some lands 

could be managed to meet the needs of those visitors 

least tolerant of encounters by having standards as low 

as two encounters per day or less. Twenty-three percent of visitors exiting at trailheads (and 39 percent 

of those given mailback surveys) preferred seeing two 

other groups per day or less. Some other lands could 

be managed with a standard in the range of five to 10 

groups per day. This would appeal to a large portion 

of those currently selecting moderate use trailheads. 

Beyond this, decisions are more difficult. There are 

clearly numerous advocates for placing no limits on 

encounters if it would limit access. This preference 

could be accommodated by having certain zones with 

no standards for encounters. Use may still need to be 

limited in such places but the purpose of limits would 

be to control biophysical impacts, not crowding. Or 

perhaps, these preferences should not be accommodated. Perhaps there is also a need for zones in which 

encounters are limited to 25-30 groups per day. This is 

an encounter level at which large portions of people, 

even in more heavily used places, reported that their 

experience is beginning to be significantly degraded.

Appropriate Management Actions

The overwhelming conclusion regarding management actions is that most visitors did not support 

limiting use in order to protect solitude, provide more 

freedom, or to avoid the need for behavioral restrictions. They supported use limitations to limit impact 

to vegetation, soil, and animals, but not to limit encounters with other people. Most visitors trusted the 

Forest Service and supported its general management 

approach. There was strong support for avoiding the 

use of motorized equipment, even if it would save 

money. Where necessary, majorities supported such 

actions as posting information about appropriate behavior on signs on bulletin boards (even inside the 

wilderness), posting directional signs, prohibiting 

campfires, and confining camping to designated sites. 

Limiting overnight use was not opposed to the degree 

that limiting day use was.

Overall, this study suggests that there are problems 

resulting from very high use of some wilderness lands 

in Oregon and Washington because high use reduces 

opportunities for solitude and other desired experiences. However, it is clear that from most visitors’ point 

of view, these problems are not very substantial. Most 

visitors recognized that they were seeing more people 

than they preferred—more than would be ideal in wilderness. However, most visitors concluded that this 

is a small price to pay for open access. Most visitors 

found that these densely used places still offered enjoyable experiences that met their needs, desires, and 

expectations—experiences that they still considered to 

be “a real wilderness experience.” Consequently, most 

visitors did not support use limitation as a means of 

avoiding people-related problems. For most, the solution to crowding problems was much more costly than 

the problem itself.

This conclusion contrasts with that of some researchers who have reported that there is considerable 

support for use rationing and allocation (Manning 

2007). Some evidence for support comes when visitors are asked hypothetically about their support for 

the concept of use limits. Indeed, in our study, a majority of respondents supported limiting use in theory. 

But even those who had just encountered 50 groups of 

people or more were most likely to say that limits are 

needed if overuse occurs, but not now. This raises the 

question of whether there would ever be a point where 

use would be so high that such people would support 

a use limit. Most of the support for the conclusion that 

visitors support use limitation comes from studies of 

visitors in places where use limits are already in place 

(for example, Stankey 1979). This is a useful finding 

but it may reflect displacement of users who are intolerant of restrictions, as was found by Hall and Cole 

(2000) in a study of newly-applied use limits.

Finally, our conclusion that there is little support 

for use limits, under current circumstances, is based 

on the opinions of the majority of wilderness visitors. 

It is important to remember that there is a minority 

of visitors with opposing views. Some visitors reported that other visitors adversely affected them to a 

great degree, solitude was critical to their wilderness 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 39

experience and they could not find it, and they thought 

use limits were needed to lower use. These opinions 

were held by about five percent of the visitors we 

surveyed. Managers could still decide that it is most 

appropriate to manage wilderness to meet the needs 

of these people. Alternatively, they could try to base 

management policies on their perceptions of legal and 

agency mandates, regardless of the opinions of the 

majority of visitors.

References

Chavez, Deborah J. 2000. Wilderness visitors in the 21st

century: diversity, day-use, perceptions, and preferences. 

International Journal of Wilderness 6(2): 10-11.

Cole, David N. 2001a. 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. 2001b. Day users in wilderness: how different are they? Research Paper RMRS-RP-31. Ogden, UT: 

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

Mountain Research Station. 29 p.

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, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 30 p.

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. The 

George Wright Forum 20(3): 59-71.

Haas, Glenn; Wells, Marcella. 2000. A more pristine wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 6(2): 21-22.

Hall, Troy E. 2001. Hikers’ perspectives on solitude and 

wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 7(2): 

20-24.

Hall, Troy E.; Cole, David N. 2000. An expanded perspective on displacement: A longitudinal study of visitors to 

two wildernesses in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon. 

In: McCool, S.F., Cole, D.N.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, 

J. eds. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences and 

visitor management. 1999 May 23-27. Proceedings 

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

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 113-121.

Hammitt, William E.; McDonald, Cary D.; Noe, Frank P. 

1984. Use level and encounters: important variables of 

perceived crowding among nonspecialized recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research 16:1-8.

Heberlein, Thomas A.; Vaske, Jerry J. 1977. Crowding and 

visitor conflict on the Bois Brule River. Report WISC 

WRC77-04. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 

Water Resources Center. 100 p.

Hendee, John C.; Dawson, Chad P. 2002. Wilderness management: stewardship and protection of resources and 

values, 3rd ed. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO. 640 p.

Kuss, Fred R.; Graefe, Alan R.; Vaske, Jerry J. 1990. Visitor 

impact management: a review of research. Washington, 

DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. 

256 p.

Lawson, Steven R.; Manning, Robert E. 2002. Tradeoffs 

among social, resource, and managerial attributes of the 

Denali wilderness experience: a contextual approach to 

normative research. Leisure Sciences 24: 297-312.

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

search and research for satisfaction, 2nd ed. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, OR. 374 p.

Manning, Robert E. 2007. Parks and carrying capacity: commons without tragedy. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 313 p.

Papenfuse, Meghan K.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Hall, Troy 

E. 2000. The rise of the day visitor in wilderness: should 

managers be concerned? In: McCool, S.F., Cole, D.N.; 

Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J. eds. Wilderness science in 

a time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness 

visitors, experiences and visitor management. 1999 May 

23-27. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: 

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

Mountain Research Station: 148-154.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Lucas, Robert C. 1987. Wilderness 

use and user characteristics: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, R.C., comp. Proceedings—national 

wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. 1985 July 23-26. General 

Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station: 204-245.

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

your own survey. New York, NY: John Wiley Company. 

232 p.

Seekamp, Erin; Hall, Troy; Harris, Chuck; Cole, David. 

2006. Attitudes and changes in attitudes about visitor 

management at the Green Lakes/South Sister area of the 

Three Sisters Wilderness: a study of four stakeholder 

involvement meetings in Oregon. 71 p. Unpublished 

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

research/fprojects/docs7/Stakeholder.pdf.

Shelby, Bo. 1980. Crowding models for backcountry recreation. Land Economics 56: 43-55.

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

University. 164 p.
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

Shelby, Bo; Vaske, Jerry J.; Donnelly, M. 1996. Norms, 

standards and natural resources. Leisure Sciences 18: 

103-123.

Spring, Ira. 2001. If we lock people out, who will fight to 

save wilderness? International Journal of Wilderness 

7(1): 17-19.

Stankey, George H. 1979. Use rationing in two southern California wildernesses. Journal of Forestry 77: 

347-349.

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.

Tarrant, Michael A.; Cordell, H. Kenneth; Kibler, Tamela 

L. 1997. Measuring perceived crowding for high-density 

river recreation: the effects of situational conditions and 

personal factors. Leisure Sciences 19: 97-112.

Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1997. Selecting 

human experience indicators for wilderness: different 

approaches provide different results. In: Kulhavy, D.L.; 

Legg, M.H., eds. Wilderness and natural areas in eastern North America: research, management and planning. 

Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, 

Center for Applied Study in Forestry: 264-269.

White, Dave D.; Hall, Troy E.; Farrell, Tracy A. 2001. 

Influence of ecological impacts and other campsite 

characteristics on wilderness visitors’ campsite choices. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19: 

83-97.

Worf, Bill. 2001. The new Forest Service wilderness recreation strategy spells doom for the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. International Journal of Wilderness 

7(1): 15-16.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 41

APPENDIX A:.

Trailhead Exit Questionnaire Version 1

Section 1: Trip Characteristics

1.1 How long was your trip? (Mark one.)

�Overnight. How many nights total did you spend in the wilderness? __________

�Day trip. How many hours did you spend in the wilderness? ______________

1.2 How many people (including yourself) are in your group? ____________

1.3 What was your primary destination on this trip? _______________________

1.4 What were the high points of your trip—the best experiences—and why?

High point: What made it so good?

1

2

3

1.5 What were the low points of your trip—the worst experiences—and why?

Low point: What made it so bad?

1

2

3
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

Section 2: Your Motivations for Taking This Trip

2.1 The following are feelings or experiences that people sometimes seek in wilderness. For each,

please indicate how much you hoped to get it from this trip AND how much you actually got it

on this trip. (Circle two numbers for each item.)

How much were you seeking it? How much did you experience it?

Not

at all

Very

much

Not

at all

Very

much

A sense of freedom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Solitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To think about who I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Closeness to nature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To learn about this place 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Wilderness opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A feeling of remoteness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A sense that the surroundings haven’t

been impacted by people 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be away from crowds of people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A sense of challenge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A sense of being away from the 

modern world

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be near others who could help if I 

need them

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be my own boss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To develop personal, spiritual values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2.2 Please check one of the responses below to indicate how important a sense of solitude was to

you on this visit.

○A sense of solitude was not important to me on this visit.

○I hoped to find solitude, but did not expect it on this visit.

○Solitude was important to me on this visit, and I found it.

○Solitude was important to me on this visit, but I didn’t find it.

2.3 We are interested in your preferences regarding encounters with other groups in this area.

A. Ideally, how many other groups per day would you want to see in this wilderness? (Mark

one.)

�The number of other groups I see doesn’t matter to me.

○My preference for the number of groups to see per day is: _________

B. Ideally, what percent of time would you want to be in sight of other people in this

wilderness? (Mark one.)

�The percent of time I see other groups doesn’t matter to me.

○ My preference for the percent of time in sight of other groups is: (Circle a number)

0---5---10---15---20---25---30---35---40---45---50---55---60---65---70---75---80---85---90---95---100%
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 43

Section 3: Visitor Characteristics and Past Experience

3.1 Have you ever been to a wilderness before this trip?

○No. (Skip to Section 4)

�Yes.

3.2 Since your first wilderness trip, about how often have you gone on wilderness trips (including

this and other wildernesses)? (Mark one.)

� Less than once every 2 years � 2-5 times a year

� Less than once a year � 6-10 times a year

� Once a year � More than 10 times a year

3.3 How many times have you been to this destination or area before?

○Never. (First trip.) �3-5 �11-20

�1-2 �6-10 � More than 20

3.4 About what percent of your wilderness trips (either here or elsewhere) during a typical year

are overnight trips? (Make a mark on the scale below.)

0---5---10---15---20---25---30---35---40---45---50---55---60---65---70---75---80---85---90---95---100%

3.5 About how many other wilderness areas, besides this wilderness, have you visited?

○None � 6-10 � 16-20

� 1-5 � 11-15 � More than 20

3.6 We are interested in how the other wilderness areas you have visited compare with this place. How

many of the other wilderness areas you have visited...

Almost Most of them Some of them None

How many wildernesses... All of them (at least 50%) (less than 50%) of them

Had fewer people � � � �

Had less evidence of human use � � � �

Had less evidence of

management activity � � � �

3.7 Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about the importance of wilderness to you personally.

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree

I find that a lot of my life is organized around

wilderness use

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

I feel like wilderness is a part of me +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I get greater satisfaction out of visiting wilderness

than other areas

+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

Section 4: Things You Experienced on This Trip

4.1 About how many other groups did you see today? (Make a mark on the line.)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 >40

4.2 About what percent of the time were you in sight of other groups of visitorstoday? ____%

4.3 Did you camp last night?

○No. (Skip to Question 4.8)

�Yes

4.4 Where did you camp last night? ___________________________

4.5 How many other groups were camped within sight or sound of you? ____________

4.6 On a typical day during your trip, about how many groups did you see?

0—2—4—6—8—10—12—14—16—18—20—22—24—26—28—30—32—34—36—38—40!40

4.7 On the day you saw the fewest other people, about how many groups did you see?

0—2—4—6—8—10—12—14—16—18—20—22—24—26—28—30—32—34—36—38—40!40

4.8 Please indicate the extent to which you were adversely affected by the other groups you 

encountered on this trip.

How much did other groups adversely affect your: Not at all Slightly Moderately Greatly

Ability to set your own pace along the trail 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Choice of where to do the things you wanted

to do (camp, picnic, fish, swim, etc.)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ability to sit and be quiet 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Freedom from disruptions or distractions 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Freedom to behave as you wanted 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Freedom to decide with whom to interact 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

4.9 How did the number of groups you saw during this trip add to or detract from each 

of the following aspects of your experience?

Encounters added No Encounters detracted

A Lot A Little Effect A Little A Lot

My enjoyment +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

My sense I was in Wilderness +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

My sense of solitude +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

My sense of freedom +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 45

4.10 At what point does the number of other groups that you encounter in the wilderness begin to

detract from your experience, if at all? (Mark one)

�The number of other groups I see doesn’t matter to me.

○It would begin to bother me if I saw more than about __________ groups per day.

4.11The following characteristics of recreational areas can influence the quality of a trip. For each, please

indicate how they affected your wilderness experience on thistrip. If you did not notice an item,

circle “nn.”

Not How much of a problem was it? _

Noticed Not at all Slight Moderate Big

Noisy groups nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Large numbers of day users nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Trail wear and tear nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rules that restrict where people can camp nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Trampled areas where people have camped 

or walked nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Large groups nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Trails that are poorly marked nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Inconsiderate behavior by other visitors nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Large numbers of overnight users nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Area rules/regulations not adequately enforced nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Litter left behind by visitors nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Too many rules or regulations nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Human waste nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Contact with a wildernessranger or volunteer nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Having to fill out a permit or registration form nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Organized groups or outfitted parties nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Impacts from recreational packstock nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Uncontrolled dogs nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Concern about your personal security nn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4.12 On this trip, how did the following compare with what you expected in the wilderness?

Compared to what I expected, the number or amount was:

Far

Less

Less About What

I Expected

More Far

More

The number of people you saw -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Evidence of impact from human use -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Rules and regulations -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

4.13 At what point does the number of other groups that you encounter detract so much from

your experience that you would not come here? (Mark one.)

�The number of other groups I see doesn’t matter to me.

○I would not come here if I knew I would see more than about _______ groups per day

Section 5: Some Information about You.

5.1 How familiar are you with the legal definition of Wilderness?

○ I have no idea – I didn’t even know there was a land classification of “Wilderness.”

○ I have heard of Wilderness areas, but I don’t know anything about the specific definition.

○ I know a little bit about what legally classified Wilderness is.

○ I think I know a lot about the legal definition of Wilderness.

5.2 What is your age? _______

5.3 Approximately how many miles (one-way) do you live from this wilderness? _______.

5.4 What is your zip code? _______________________

5.5 Are you ___ male or ___ female?

Do you have any other comments you would like to make?
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 47

APPENDIX B:

Questions Asked on the Other Three Versions of the Trailhead Exit Questionnaires

But Not on Version 1

From QuestionnaireVersion 2

3.7 We are interested in how important solitude is to your conception of what a wilderness experience should

be. Thinking about wilderness experience generally (not just this visit) please indicate the extent to

which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree

I cannot have a real wilderness experience unless I 

have a profound sense of solitude

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

Solitude adds to the wilderness experience, but is not

critical

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

I can have a profound sense of solitude in

wilderness, even if there are many other groups of

people around

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

I cannot have a profound sense of solitude unless

there are no other groups of people around

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

I cannot have a profound sense of solitude unless I 

am completely alone

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

5.1 The following are policies or actions the Forest Service could take to protect the wilderness.

Please indicate how much you support or oppose each one for this wilderness.

Strongly Strongly

Support Neutral Oppose

Install information about proper behavior on

bulletin boards within the area

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

Construct toilets in the area +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Limit the number of day users +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Limit the number of overnight users +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Post directional trail signs +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Prohibit campfires +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Require people to pack out their human waste +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Prohibit dogs +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Require camping at designated sites +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

From Exit QuestionnaireVersion 3

Section 5: Your Decisions about Where to Go in Wilderness

5.1 Have you ever intentionally avoided trails or places in THIS wilderness for any reason?

○No.

� Yes. Where? _____________________________________

For what reason(s)

__________________________________________________

5.2 Have you ever decided not to visit THIS wilderness because of the amount of use?

○No

� Yes.

5.3 Are there other wilderness areas that have places or times that you avoid because of the

amount of use?

○No.

� Yes. What wilderness(es)? _____________________________________

Section 6: Your Attitudes toward Management of THIS Area

6.1 How important to you personally is the way this area is managed? (Check one.)

� Not at all—I’ve never really thought about it.

○ Not very—I haven’t given it much thought and am not very concerned.

○ Somewhat—I haven’t thought a lot about it, but it seems important.

○ Very—I think about it sometimes and have some concerns.

○ Extremely—I think about it a lot and am very concerned.

○ I don’t know.

6.2 Forest Service managers must find an appropriate balance between allowing all people to visit

the wilderness when they want and providing opportunities for solitude. In your opinion,

which of the four following options strikes the best balance for this wilderness? (Circle one

letter.)

A. Do not restrict use to manage for solitude anywhere, even if use is heavy.

B. Manage for solitude along a few wilderness trails. The number of people allowed to use

these few trails will be limited, but the majority of trails will have no use limits and may be

heavily used.

C. Manage for solitude on most wilderness trails, by limiting the number of people using these

trails. A few trails will have unrestricted use. Use levels will be high on these trails.

D. Manage for solitude everywhere in wilderness, even though this may mean that use will be

restricted and people will be turned away.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 49

6.3 If you could change the management of this place in any way, what would you change?

Section 7: Your Attitudes toward Management of Wilderness in General

7.1 Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements

about Forest Service wilderness management. If you do not know, circle “DK”.

Don’t Strongly No Strongly

Know Agree Opinion Disagree

The Forest Service gives wilderness the

management attention that it deserves.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service is too restrictive in its

management of wilderness.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service often chooses wilderness

management actions that are not effective.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service should use motorized 

equipment (such as chain saws and helicopters)

more in wilderness, if it would save money.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I trust the Forest Service to manage wilderness

appropriately.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service does not give sufficient

consideration to wilderness visitors’ needs and 

wants when creating restrictions.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I support the Forest Service’s policy of not using 

motorized equipment (such as chain saws and 

helicopters) in wilderness unless absolutely 

necessary.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service takes the Wilderness Act too

literally when managing wilderness.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

7.2 Often management problems can be lessened EITHER by limiting the number of people OR

by doing something else. Below are pairs of actions that would be equally effective at solving 

certain problems. Please indicate which you prefer within each pair, by checking either the action or

“use limits.”

Action:

�Outhouses at popular destinations OR � use limits

�Bulletin boards, with information on how to 

behave, at popular destinations

OR � use limits

�Frequent ranger patrols to enforce regulations at

popular destinations

OR � use limits

�Patrols by volunteer stewards at popular

destinations

OR � use limits

�Prohibitions on fishing OR � use limits

�Issuing permits so visitors may only camp in an 

area or campsite assigned to them

OR � use limits

�Closing portions of the area to use so it can be

restored

OR � use limits

�Prohibitions on campfires OR � use limits

From Exit Questionnaire Version 4

Section 5: Your Attitudes toward Management of THIS Area

5.2 If most visitors say they see too many other people in this wilderness, what (if anything) do 

you think the Forest Service should do? (Check one.)

� Nothing—the number of people I see is not a very important issue.

○ Nothing—freedom from restriction is more important to the wilderness experience than not

seeing many other people.

○ The Forest Service should limit the number of people but place few regulations on people 

once they are inside the wilderness.

○ The Forest Service should regulate activities within wilderness (such as campsite 

restrictions, one-way trails, prohibitions on dogs, designated picnic areas, etc.) in order to avoid

limiting use.

○ The Forest Service should give equal emphasis to limiting use AND regulating behavior.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 51

5.3 If this wilderness is so popular that most visitors say there is too much recreation impact

(damage to vegetation and soil), what (if anything) do you think the Forest Service should do?

(Check one.)

� Nothing—amount of recreation impact is not a very important issue.

○ Nothing—freedom from restriction is more important to the wilderness experience than

avoiding recreation impact.

○ The Forest Service should limit the number of people but place few regulations on people 

once they are inside the wilderness.

○ The Forest Service should regulate activities within wilderness (such as campsite 

restrictions, one-way trails, prohibitions on dogs, designated picnic areas, etc.) in order to avoid

limiting use.

○ The Forest Service should give equal emphasis to limiting use AND regulating behavior.

5.4 Do you feel a limit is needed on the number of people using this wilderness, recognizing that

if a limit is enforced your own opportunity to visit may be reduced in the future? (Mark one.)

� No, there should never be a limit on the number of people using the area.

○ No limit is needed now, but should be imposed in the future when overuse occurs.

○ Yes, a limit is needed now to HOLD use at the current level.

○ Yes, a limit is needed to LOWER the current level of use.

If you checked one of these three circles, please describe the kinds of conditions that indicate

a need for limits:
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

Section 6: Your Attitudes toward Management of Wilderness in General

6.1 Some wilderness areas are within an hour’s drive of large cities like Seattle and Portland, while

others are far from such cities. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following

statements about how wilderness areas close to cities should differ from remote wilderness

areas.

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, it is OK

to see more people than in remote wildernesses.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities,

managers should allow people to visit wilderness

whenever they want, so they can get relief from the

city.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, it is OK

to have more wear and tear on the vegetation from

recreation use than in remote wilderness.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, the

behavior of visitors should be more tightly restricted.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, it is

more acceptable to manipulate the environment so it

can withstand recreational use.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, use

limits are more likely to be needed.

+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 53

6.2The Forest Service wants to avoid limiting use in wilderness except where it is absolutely 

necessary. Consider each of the following potential reasons to limit use and indicate how much you

would support or oppose use limits to solve each problem.

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree

Limit use to avoid seeing lots of other people. +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Limit use to avoid the need for frequent, intensive

maintenance of trails and campsites.

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

Limit use to avoid the need to think about how

your behavior affects other people.

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

Limit use to avoid impact on wildlife. +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Limit use to avoid having to worry about what

other people are doing.

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

Limit use to avoid having to deal with inconsiderate

people.

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

Limit use to avoid a need for primitive toilets in 

the wilderness.

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

Limit use to avoid lots of evidence of previous

visitors.

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

Limit use to maintain the freedom to go and stop

anywhere you want.

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

Limit use to avoid impacts to soil and vegetation. +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Limit use to avoid the need for costly maintenance

of trails and campsites.

+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

APPENDIX C:

Mailback Questionnaire

(several items on the questionnaire were deleted because results are not reported here)

Section 1: Visitor Characteristics and Past Experience

1.1 Since your first wilderness trip, about how often have you gone on wilderness trips? (Mark 

one.)

� Less than once every 2 years � 2-5 times a year

� Less than once a year � 6-10 times a year

� Once a year � More than 10 times a year

1.2 About what percent of your wilderness trips during a typical year are overnight trips? (Make a

mark on the scale below.)

0---5---10---15---20---25---30---35---40---45---50---55---60---65---70---75---80---85---90---95---100%

1.3 About how many different Congressionally-designated wilderness areas have you visited?

○None � 6-10 � 16-20

� 1-5 � 11-15 � More than 20

4.4Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the 

importance of wilderness to you personally.

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree

I find that a lot of my life is organized around

wilderness use

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

I feel like wilderness is a part of me +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I get greater satisfaction out of visiting wilderness

than other areas

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

1.5 How familiar are you with the legal definition of Wilderness? (Mark one.)

� I have no idea – I didn’t even know there was a land classification of “Wilderness.”

○ I have heard of Wilderness areas, but I don’t know anything about the specific definition.

○ I know a little bit about what legally classified Wilderness is.

○ I think I know a lot about the legal definition of Wilderness.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 55

Section 2: Your Motivations for Visiting Wilderness

2.1 The following are feelings or experiences that people sometimes seek in wilderness. For each,

please indicate how important it typically is on your wilderness trips AND how often you 

experience it on wilderness trips. (Circle two numbers for each item.)

How important is it? How often do you experience it?

Not at all Extremely Never Always

A sense of freedom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Solitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To think about who I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Closeness to nature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To learn about the place 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Wilderness opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A feeling of remoteness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A sense that the surroundings haven’t

been impacted by people 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be away from crowds of people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A sense of challenge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A sense of being away from the 

modern world

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be near others who could help if I 

need them

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be my own boss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To develop personal, spiritual values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

Section 3: Solitude and Encounters with other People

3.1 We are interested in how important solitude is to your conception of what a wilderness

experience should be. Thinking about wilderness experience generally please indicate the

extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree

I cannot have a real wilderness experience

unless I have a profound sense of solitude

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

Solitude adds to the wilderness experience, but

is not critical

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

I can have a profound sense of solitude in

wilderness, even if there are many other groups

of people around

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

I cannot have a profound sense of solitude

unless there are no other groups of people

around

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

I cannot have a profound sense of solitude

unless I am completely alone

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

3.2 We are interested in your preferences regarding encounters with other groups when you visit a

wilderness area.

A. Ideally, how many other groups per day would you want to see? (Mark one.)

�The number of other groups I see doesn’t matter to me (Skip to Section 4)

� My preference for the number of groups to see per day is: _________

B. At what point does the number of other groups that you encounter begin to detract from

your experience?

It would begin to bother me if I saw more than about __________ groups per day.

C. At what point does the number of other groups that you encounter detract so much from

your experience that you would not visit the wilderness?

I would not visit if I knew I would see more than about _______ groups per day.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 57

Section 5: Your Attitudes about Wilderness Management

5.1 How important to you personally is the way that wilderness areas are managed? (Check one.)

� Not at all—I’ve never really thought about it.

○ Not very—I haven’t given it much thought and am not very concerned.

○ Somewhat—I haven’t thought a lot about it, but it seems important.

○ Very—I think about it sometimes and have some concerns.

○ Extremely—I think about it a lot and am very concerned.

○ I don’t know.

5.3 Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements

about Forest Service wilderness management. If you do not know, circle “DK”.

Don’t Strongly No Strongly

Know Agree Opinion Disagree

The Forest Service gives wilderness the

management attention that it deserves.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service is too restrictive in its

management of wilderness.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service often chooses wilderness

management actions that are not effective.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service should use motorized 

equipment (such as chain saws and helicopters)

more in wilderness, if it would save money.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I trust the Forest Service to manage wilderness

appropriately.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service does not give sufficient

consideration to wilderness visitors’ needs and 

wants when creating restrictions.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I support the Forest Service’s policy of not using 

motorized equipment (such as chain saws and 

helicopters) in wilderness unless absolutely 

necessary.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

The Forest Service takes the Wilderness Act too

literally when managing wilderness.

DK +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

5.4 Some wilderness areas are within an hour’s drive of large cities like Seattle and Portland, while

others are far from such cities. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following

statements about how wilderness areas close to cities should differ from remote wilderness

areas.

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, it is OK

to see more people than in remote wildernesses.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities,

managers should allow people to visit wilderness

whenever they want, so they can get relief from the

city.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, it is OK

to have more wear and tear on the vegetation from

recreation use than in remote wilderness.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, the

behavior of visitors should be more tightly restricted.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, it is

more acceptable to manipulate the environment so it

can withstand recreational use.

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

In Wilderness Areas that are close to cities, use

limits are more likely to be needed.

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

5.5 If most visitors say they see too many other people in a wilderness, what (if anything) do you

think the Forest Service should do? (Check one.)

� Nothing—the number of people I see is not a very important issue.

○ Nothing—freedom from restriction is more important to the wilderness experience than not

seeing many other people.

○ The Forest Service should limit the number of people but place few regulations on people 

once they are inside the wilderness.

○ The Forest Service should regulate activities within wilderness (such as campsite 

restrictions, one-way trails, prohibitions on dogs, designated picnic areas, etc.) in order to avoid

limiting use.

○ The Forest Service should give equal emphasis to limiting use AND regulating behavior.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 59

5.6 If a wilderness is so popular that most visitors say there is too much recreation impact

(damage to vegetation and soil), what (if anything) do you think the Forest Service should do?

(Check one.)

� Nothing—amount of recreation impact is not a very important issue.

○ Nothing—freedom from restriction is more important to the wilderness experience than

avoiding recreation impact.

○ The Forest Service should limit the number of people but place few regulations on people 

once they are inside the wilderness.

○ The Forest Service should regulate activities within wilderness (such as campsite 

restrictions, one-way trails, prohibitions on dogs, designated picnic areas, etc.) in order to avoid

limiting use.

○ The Forest Service should give equal emphasis to limiting use AND regulating behavior.

Section 6: Some Information about You.

6.1 What is your age? _______

4.4 Are you ___ male or ___ female?

Do you have any other comments you would like to make?
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008.

APPENDIX D:

Questions Asked on the Other Version of the Mailback Questionnaires

But Not on Version 1

Section 4: Your Attitudes about Wilderness Management

4.2 Forest Service managers must find an appropriate balance between allowing all people to visit

the wilderness when they want and providing opportunities for solitude. In your opinion,

which of the four following options strikes the best balance? (Circle one letter.)

A. Do not restrict use to manage for solitude anywhere, even if use is heavy.

B. Manage for solitude along a few wilderness trails. The number of people allowed to use

these few trails will be limited, but the majority of trails will have no use limits and may be

heavily used.

C. Manage for solitude on most wilderness trails, by limiting the number of people using these

trails. A few trails will have unrestricted use. Use levels will be high on these trails.

D. Manage for solitude everywhere in wilderness, even though this may mean that use will be

restricted and people will be turned away.

4.3 Often management problems can be lessened EITHER by limiting the number of people OR

by doing something else. Below are pairs of actions that would be equally effective at solving 

certain problems. Please indicate which you prefer within each pair, by checking either the action or

“use limits.”

Action:

�Outhouses at popular destinations OR � use limits

�Bulletin boards, with information on how to 

behave, at popular destinations

OR � use limits

�Frequent ranger patrols to enforce regulations at

popular destinations

OR � use limits

�Patrols by volunteer stewards at popular

destinations

OR � use limits

�Prohibitions on fishing OR � use limits

�Issuing permits so visitors may only camp in an 

area or campsite assigned to them

OR � use limits

�Closing portions of the area to use so it can be

restored

OR � use limits

�Prohibitions on campfires OR � use limits
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RP-71. 2008. 61

4.4The Forest Service wants to avoid limiting use in wilderness except where it is absolutely 

necessary. Consider each of the following potential reasons to limit use and indicate how much 

you would support or oppose use limits to solve each problem.

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree

Limit use to avoid seeing lots of other people. +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Limit use to avoid the need for frequent, intensive

maintenance of trails and campsites.

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

Limit use to avoid the need to think about how

your behavior affects other people.

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

Limit use to avoid impact on wildlife. +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Limit use to avoid having to worry about what

other people are doing.

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

Limit use to avoid having to deal with inconsiderate

people.

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

Limit use to avoid a need for primitive toilets in 

the wilderness.

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

Limit use to avoid lots of evidence of previous

visitors.

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

Limit use to maintain the freedom to go and stop

anywhere you want.

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

Limit use to avoid impacts to soil and vegetation. +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Limit use to avoid the need for costly maintenance

of trails and campsites.

+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Publishing Services Staff

Managing Editor · Lane Eskew

Page Composition & Printing · Nancy Chadwick

Editorial Assistant · Loa Collins

Contract Editor · Kristi Coughlon

Page Composition & Printing · Connie Lemos

Distribution · Richard Schneider

Online Publications & Graphics · Suzy Stephens
The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific 

information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is 

designed to meet the needs of the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest 

engineering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife 

and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are 

conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 2150 

Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper