The Role of Crowding in Visitor Displacement at 

Mount Rainier and Olympic National Parks

James H. Gramann

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences

Department of Rural Sociology

Texas A&M University

Final Report

University of Idaho Subcontract No. GNK097

July 2002
Executive Summary

One thousand telephone interviews were conducted in the six western Washington counties of

Clallam, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston. Two research questions addressed in

the telephone survey included: 1) the amount of spatial and temporal displacement due to

crowding at Mount Rainier and Olympic national parks; and 2) the differences between

displaced and non-displaced visitors in terms of demographic characteristics, crowding

perceptions, and recreation motives. The survey found that 20.4% of Mount Rainier visitors and

20.6% of Olympic visitors reported inter-site displacement, i.e., they were previous visitors who

were either somewhat unlikely or very unlikely to return to the parks in the foreseeable future.

The most important reasons for this were time and distance constraints and lack of travel

companions. Crowding-related causes also were reasons for not planning to return, although

more so at Mount Rainier than at Olympic. Among the crowding-associated reasons for

displacement were traffic congestion in the parks, too many visitors, and difficulty getting

campsites or lodging. Of the 1,000 persons interviewed, 5.6% said they would not return to

Mount Rainier National Park solely because of crowding-related conditions. The figure for

Olympic National Park was 4.1%. On average, more than ten years had passed since these

displaced respondents had visited either park. In addition, substantial amounts of temporal and

intra-site displacement were reported. At Mount Rainier, 65.7% of previous visitors had visited

the park during a low-use period (primarily the fall and spring seasons), while 20.3% had gone to

lesser-used locations to avoid crowds, including the backcountry, Ipsut Creek, and Lake

Mowich. For Olympic, the corresponding figures were 60.6% and 24.7%. As at Mount Rainier,

the most-commonly visited low-use periods at Olympic were also fall and spring, and the mostreported lesser-used locations were the wilderness coast, backcountry, and the Staircase area.

Convenience was the most frequently cited reason for visiting during low-use periods at both

parks. However, experiencing a more natural park and an uncrowded park ranked second and

third as reasons for this. 

Respondents who had visited the parks were compared with those who had not. Non-visitors

were younger, tended to have less schooling, and were less affluent than visitors. Non-visitors

also were more likely to be Hispanic and less likely to be white.

Former visitors displaced by crowding were compared with those displaced for other reasons.

Crowding-displaced visitors were more likely to believe Mount Rainier and Olympic national

parks were too crowded for enjoyable recreation and also were more likely to participate in

outdoor recreation to avoid crowds and enjoy natural surroundings.

Analysis suggested that, among the most crowd-averse visitors, intra-site displacement may be a

robust predictor of subsequent displacement away from a park. Intra-site displacement could be

monitored as an indicator of experience quality, and lesser-used locations receiving these visitors

might be considered for designation as areas of critical capacity concern in general management

plans.
1

The Role of Crowding in Visitor Displacement at

Mount Rainier and Olympic National Parks

Introduction

Change is endemic to recreation settings. At times, change can be sudden and large-scale, as

when a catastrophic fire denudes an entire forest. More often, change occurs gradually. When

recreation planners respond to increasing visitation with piecemeal development–paving a road

one year, expanding a parking lot the next–the impact of individual actions may seem minor, but

over time the cumulative effects can be significant. Among these effects can be a change in the

visitor population itself as people react to altered conditions. Kuentzel and Heberlein (1992)

describe a hierarchy of visitors’ coping responses that range from no coping (i.e., maintaining

the same attitudes and behavior in response to change) to cognitive coping (modifying attitudes,

but not behavior), to displacement (modifying attitudes and behavior). This report describes

research on the last and most extreme of these coping responses. The settings examined are

Mount Rainier and Olympic national parks in the state of Washington.

Theoretical Background

Displacement describes visitors’ avoidance of unwanted conditions caused by sustained changes

in the character of a recreation setting (Becker, Niemann, & Gates, 1981; Hall & Shelby, 2000;

Manning & Valliere, 2001). At least three types of displacement have been recognized: spatial,

temporal, and activity. Spatial displacement occurs when visitors to an area shift their use to

other locations to escape undesirable conditions at the original site. This type of response can be

subdivided into intra-site and inter-site displacement (Hall & Shelby, 2000; Kuentzel &

Heberlein, 1992). Intra-site displacement occurs when visitors move to other locations within

the same general area or unit. For example, Kuentzel and Heberlein (1992) found that many

boaters at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore who felt that the area had become too crowded

shifted their boating to lesser used islands, although they remained within the park. In contrast,

inter-site displacement involves people moving away from a park. Hall and Shelby (2000)

documented inter-site displacement away from a popular reservoir in Oregon to other lakes in

the surrounding region. Similarly, Becker, Niemann and Gates (1981) reported that some

recreational boaters on the Lower St. Croix National Scenic River were displaced to the

Mississippi River because of crowding on the St. Croix.

Temporal displacement occurs when people change the time of visits to avoid unwanted

conditions. Examples include shifts from weekends to weekdays and from peak seasons to

shoulder seasons. Gramann (1992a) found temporal displacement to be a common coping

strategy used by visitors to Yosemite National Park.

A third type of displacement is activity displacement (Brunson & Shelby, 1993). This may occur

when visitors continue to use a park, but change their primary activity as a means of coping with

change. For example, Manning & Valliere (2001) reported that some local residents had stopped
1

Other displacement causes reported in the literature include natural resource degradation (Roberston &

Regula, 1994) and racial prejudice (Gramann et al., 2001).

2

walking the carriage roads in Acadia National Park because of changes in the amount and type of

use on the roads. In this report, both temporal and spatial displacement are examined, but not

activity displacement.

Displacement and Social Succession

Social scientists frequently assume that an important change triggering displacement is increased

use.1 Supporting this, Hall and Shelby (2000) found that visitors displaced from Lake Billy

Chinook in Oregon most commonly cited crowding and related factors, including noise and

difficulty in getting a campsite, as the reasons they shifted their recreation to other lakes.

Gramann (1992a), in a telephone survey of households in central and southern California, found

that 1.5 million people–representing 5.9% of the households in the region–had ceased visiting

Yosemite National Park for reasons that included crowding in the park. These results are

consistent with the process of “social succession” described by Schreyer and Knopf (1984:10):

The prototypical scenario involves swelling numbers of visitors to a recreation

environment, the construction of new facilities and other support services to

accommodate them, and the subsequent arrival of a whole new clientele who are

attracted by the support services rather than the original character of the setting.

In effect, there is a progressive shift from more primitive-focus values to more

socially-oriented, urban-centered, facility dependent values.

Similar to classic ecological succession theory (Connell & Slayter, 1977), social succession is

thought to be rooted in a process of “facilitation.” The arrival of one visitor population spawns

sustained changes in physical and social settings (e.g., access improvements, amenity

development, crowds) that facilitate that population’s replacement by succeeding ones better

adapted to the new conditions.

Schreyer and Knopf (1984) argued that unless successional change was managed, it would drive

recreation settings to the developed end of the opportunity scale, reducing the diversity of

settings available. Planning systems such as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (Clark &

Stankey, 1979), Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey et al., 1985), and Visitor Experience and

Resource Protection (National Park Service, 1997) control unmanaged change by identifying and

preserving a range of setting conditions and recreation opportunities in an area.

Recent research suggests that Schreyer and Knopf’s original theoretical statement on social

succession requires modification. In particular, the outcome of increased use need not be total

displacement of one visitor population by another. A panel study of river floaters in Oregon

(Shindler & Shelby, 1995) found that, after a 14-year period in which river use almost doubled,

original visitors were more likely to change their definition of the setting from wilderness to

semi-wilderness than to stop using the river altogether. This is a cognitive adjustment to change,

such as that described by Kuentzel and Heberlein (1992). In addition, Hall and Shelby (2000)
3

found that reservoir users who reported inter-site displacement to other lakes did not stop using

the original site altogether; they simply used it less often.

Whether or not inter-site displacement occurs appears to depend on several factors, including the

availability of substitute sites, visitors’ personal attachment to an area, and the degree of

certainty (or “norm crystallization”) about appropriate conditions at an area (Manning et al.,

1999). But even strongly crystallized setting norms may change over long periods of time. For

example, as visitor cohorts age it is possible that they may evolve very different setting

preferences. Those who once spurned amenities in national parks may seek them out more often

at a later stage in their lives.

Coping and Experience Quality

Coping behaviors have significant implications for recreation managers who gauge their success

by visitors’ reports of “experience quality.” Quality is sometimes measured by asking users to

rate their satisfaction with a visit. Although this seems intuitively sound, satisfaction measures

are often insensitive indicators of change in visitor experiences due to changes in setting

conditions (Shelby & Heberlein, 1986). In particular, a “floating baseline of satisfaction” often

exists in recreation areas. Even though setting conditions alter significantly, the majority of users

continue to be very satisfied (Gramann, 1992a; Shindler & Shelby, 1995). The explanation for

this appears to lie in the various coping behaviors employed by visitors. In some cases, people

are able to shift their use within a site, either spatially or temporally, so conditions more closely

match their preferred experiences. In other cases, people might continue their normal use

patterns, but make cognitive adjustments to change, e.g., by redefining the nature of the setting

or of their visit. Additionally, others may tolerate a range of conditions so broad that change does

not approach the threshold needed for either cognitive or behavioral coping. The consequence of

all of these responses is the floating baseline of satisfaction.

Nevertheless, when temporal or intra-site displacement are impractical and when visitors’ norms

crystallize around a low-tolerance point for such setting conditions as high use density, those

with strong attachments to uncrowded or undeveloped settings may be displaced completely.

Displaced visitors also contribute to the floating baseline of satisfaction because they are no

longer in an area to express their dissatisfaction in onsite surveys. Yet, these are the people most

disadvantaged by policies that favor socially oriented, facility-dependent user groups.

Policy and Management Implications

Displacement has significant implications for managing visitor numbers (Gramann, 1992b). The

1978 National Parks and Recreation Act requires the National Park Service to set carrying

capacities for all of its units (Haas, 2001). Various types of carrying capacity plans are possible.

Parks might restrict visitation through private vehicle prohibitions, day-use reservations, reduced

overnight capacity, or more stringent length-of-stay limits at campgrounds. Controversy over

such actions is often intense. Advocates of capacity limits have argued that the primitive

experiences they seek are increasingly rare in urban society and that persons most dependent on

such experiences are disproportionately harmed when primitive values erode (Schreyer & Knopf,
4

1984). The underlying assumption is that people who prefer socially oriented settings can more

easily find substitutes if they are excluded from national parks by use restrictions. Therefore,

they are less dependent on a scarce resource than those who have fewer options.

In rebuttal, advocates of unrestricted use can point to the greater number of people (taxpayers

and voters) served by recreation areas that have shifted toward the urban end of the opportunity

spectrum and to greater accessibility for special populations, including the aged and the disabled.

The economic benefits to surrounding communities buttress this argument, especially if

economic conditions in an area are intractably poor. 

For all these reasons, it is essential to understand coping processes. In parks where there has

been substantial inter-site displacement, visitor studies will not accurately reflect all the impacts

of setting changes because the people most affected are no longer in the parks to be surveyed.

And if onsite surveys are limited to peak seasons, the full extent of intra-site displacement will

not be detected because those visiting only during low-use seasons are excluded from the

sample. Yet the reasons for temporal displacement should be of great interest to managers.

Avoidance of peak-use periods may be symptomatic of an underlying problem, i.e., unenjoyable

experiences during heavily used periods. Moreover, it is possible that temporal displacement

may be an intermediate step to inter-site displacement, signifying again that, for those displaced,

conditions have exceeded the threshold of tolerance for change.

In summary, inter-site displacement contributes to the floating baseline of satisfaction and may

be one reason for the high level of experience quality often reported by national park visitors

(Hoger, 2000). Managers must be alert to the possibility that satisfaction measures take an

incomplete snapshot of social conditions in areas where there have been significant changes in

setting characteristics. Those faced with the difficult decision of establishing and maintaining

visitor capacities in the National Park System are best served by knowing not only how many

satisfied users they currently serve, but how many displaced visitors they no longer serve.

Study Region

This study was conducted as a telephone survey of households in six counties of western

Washington state. The counties (with their principal cities) were: Clallam (Port Angeles), King

(Seattle), Kitsap (Bremerton), Pierce (Tacoma), Snohomish (Everett), and Thurston (Olympia).

According to visitor surveys conducted at Mount Rainier (MORA) and Olympic (OLYM)

national parks in 2000 (Van Ormer et al., 2001; Simmons et al., 2001), these six counties were

the points of origin for 40% of summer visitors to the two parks. Points of origin for the

remaining 60% of visitors were widely dispersed across other states and countries.

MORA is a volcanic peak straddling the crest of the Cascade Range 95 miles southeast of

Seattle. In recent decades the region around the park has progressively urbanized. Good

highways make it easily accessible from Tacoma and Seattle. In contrast, OLYM lies across

Puget Sound on the relatively rural Olympic Peninsula. Within its boundaries are mountains, an

extensive wilderness coastline, and temperate rainforests. It is reached by ferry, either from
5

Seattle or Victoria, British Columbia, or by highway from Tacoma or Olympia. According to the

NPS (National Park Service, 2001), in the decade between 1991 and 2000 visitation to OLYM

increased 21%, from 2.76 million to 3.33 million. However, since 1995 visitation has declined

each year from a peak of 3.85 million. In contrast, recreational visits to MORA have remained

relatively stable over the last decade, hovering between 1.29 million (1999) and 1.55 million

(1991). In addition, MORA and OLYM differ in the nature of their visitation. MORA is oriented

more toward day-use, recording less than half as many overnight stays as OLYM in 2000

(196,000 vs. 406,000) (National Park Service, 2001).

Research Questions

Two major research questions guided this study: 

! How much spatial and temporal displacement attributed to crowding is occurring at

Mount Rainier and Olympic national parks?

! How do displaced and non-displaced visitors differ in their characteristics?

Amount of Displacement

The first objective was to measure the amount of displacement occurring at MORA and OLYM

due to crowding-related conditions. Both spatial and temporal displacement were investigated.

This required determining how many respondents had visited one or both parks in the past, and

how many had stopped visiting or had shifted their use to other times and locations within the

parks. In addition, the amount and extent of crowding at each park–as perceived by

respondents–was examined to provide an indication of perceived setting characteristics that

might lead to displacement. Further, because displacement can occur for reasons other than

crowding, additional motives for displacement were examined. Finally, the total number of

households in the six-county region with members displaced by crowding was estimated. To

accomplish this, sample data were extrapolated to the population of the region, as enumerated in

the 2000 census. A 95% confidence interval established upper and lower bounds on this estimate

of displaced households.

Description of Displaced and Non-displaced Visitors

A series of analyses compares displaced visitors with non-displaced visitors, as well as visitors

displaced by crowding with those displaced for other reasons. Key descriptive variables in this

investigation included use history, demographic characteristics, perceptions of crowding,

recreation motives, and coping behaviors, i.e., temporal and intra-site displacement. This

analysis also profiles the characteristics of two types of non-visitors: “intenders” and “nonintenders.”

What Does It Mean?

The concluding section of the report revisits the theoretical discussion of crowding and

displacement and discusses three important issues: 1) considerations applicable to visitor-
6

capacity management; 2) the significance for the theoretical understanding of displacement; and

3) considerations for how social science is conducted in the National Park Service.

Methods

Data Collection

Telephone interviews were completed with 1,000 households in western Washington state. Staff

at both MORA and OLYM were given the opportunity to review the questionnaire and suggest

changes. The survey was conducted using the computer-assisted telephone interviewing facilities

at the Public Policy Research Institute at Texas A&M University. Interviewing began on June 8,

2001 and ended on July 24, 2001. The telephone sample was designed to be proportional to the

population of the region as measured in the 2000 census. Table 1 shows the final distribution of

completed interviews by county.

Telephone numbers were generated by random-digit dialing to avoid bias caused by unlisted

numbers. The interview took about 20 minutes to complete. Telephoning occurred Monday

through Friday from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time), on Saturday from 9:00 a.m.

to 1:00 p.m. and from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and from

3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. A total of 6,290 telephone numbers were called to complete 1,000

interviews. Respondents were selected by asking which household member 18 years of age or

older had had the most recent birthday. That person was then interviewed. If the selected person

was not at home, a call-back time was arranged. In addition, attempts were made to convert

initial refusals to completed interviews using call backs by the most experienced interviewers.

Table 1: Distribution of telephone sample by county

County (principal city) 2000 population (%) Sample size (%)

Clallam (Port Angeles) 64525 (1.8) 17 (1.7)

King (Seattle) 1737034 (49.0) 482 (48.2)

Kitsap (Bremerton) 231969 (6.5) 64 (6.4)

Pierce (Tacoma) 700820 (19.8) 186 (18.6)

Snohomish (Everett) 606024 (17.1) 177 (17.7)

Thurston (Olympia) 207355 (5.8) 55 (5.5)

Not identified — 19 (1.9)

TOTAL 3547727 (100.0) 1000 (100.0)

Response Rates

Response rates for telephone surveys can be calculated in several ways. Two of the rates

described by Groves and Lyberg (1988) are reported here. The first is the “contact rate.” This
7

assesses how well the survey performed in contacting all eligible respondents, regardless of

whether they completed an interview. The second is the “cooperation rate,” which evaluates how

well the interviewers persuaded eligible respondents who were contacted to participate in the

survey.

The figures shown in Table 2 were used in computing response rates. The contact rate, i.e.,

(CI+TI+R+NI) ÷ (CI+TI+R+NI+NA), was 53.7%. The cooperation rate, i.e., CI ÷ (CI+TI+R),

was 38.0%. 

Table 2: Final disposition of telephone sample

Disposition Number Percent

Completed interviews (CI) 1000 16

No answer (NA) 647 10.3

No answer on call backs (NA) 488 7.8

No answer, busy (NA) 61 1.0

No answer, answering machine (NA) 183 2.9

No answer, disconnected (NA) 928 14.7

Not eligible (fax, etc.) (NE) 755 12.0

Not eligible (business/government) (NE) 554 8.8

Other non-interviewed–deaf/language (NI) 45 0.7

Refused (R) 1561 24.8

Terminated interviews (TI) 68 1.1

TOTALS 6290 100.0

The relatively low cooperation from eligible households (38.0%) is due almost entirely to a

refusal rate of 24.8%. Refusals may have been high because of the narrow focus of the survey on

visitation to Mount Rainier and Olympic national parks. 

To determine if serious bias in the sample resulted from the refusal rate, characteristics of those

interviewed were compared with the same characteristics in the six counties’ overall population,

as described in the 2000 census. This was done for all variables for which comparable 2000

census data were available at the time of the analysis. 

The sample included a higher proportion of females (56.9%) than the population (50.7%). It also

had fewer persons 20-34 years of age (24.2%) than were counted in the 2000 census (30.2%). In

terms of ethnicity, the percentage of non-Hispanic respondents 18 years of age and older (97.9%)

closely matched the population profile (95.6%). The largest discrepancy occurred for race.
8

Among those listing only one race, the telephone sample over-represented whites in the

population (94.4% vs. 85.3%) and under-represented Asians (2.5% vs. 8.5%). Proportions of

African Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders were similar in the sample and the

population.

In summary, the respondents as a whole were somewhat older, more likely to be female, and

more likely to be white than the population of the six-county region. Some of this difference may

be attributed to the survey’s refusal rate, although some may also be due to the exclusion from

the sample of households without telephones.

Measurement of Key Variables

Inter-site displacement was measured by asking respondents how likely it was they would visit

each park in the foreseeable future. Responses categories were “very likely,” “somewhat likely,”

“somewhat unlikely,” “very unlikely,” and “don’t know.” Those who answered either somewhat

or very unlikely and who were previous visitors to the parks were considered displaced. These

persons then indicated whether or not each of 17 reasons for not planning a future visit applied to

them. The reasons included crowding-related items (e.g., “too many visitors in the park”) and

non-crowding items (e.g., “my health won’t permit it”). Respondents also had the opportunity to

specify up to two additional reasons for not returning to either park in the future.

The measure of intra-site displacement asked respondents if they had visited a place in OLYM or

MORA specifically to avoid crowds. A follow-up question asked which areas these were.

Temporal displacement was measured by asking previous users if they had visited MORA or

OLYM during a low-use period, such as spring or fall or a non-weekend day. Those who had

were asked to specify the time period and if any of nine reasons for such a visit applied to them.

As before, these reasons included crowding items (e.g., to experience an uncrowded park) and

non-crowding items (e.g., to take advantage of lower prices).

Both the amount and extent of perceived crowding at MORA and OLYM were measured. The

“crowding-amount” question read, “On your most recent visit, how crowded did you feel Mount

Rainier (or Olympic) National Park was–not at all crowded, a little crowded, moderately

crowded, very crowded, or extremely crowded?” The “crowding-extent” question asked, “Do

you feel Mount Rainier (or Olympic) National Park is ever too crowded for an enjoyable

visit–never too crowded, too crowded some of the time, too crowded most of the time, too

crowded all of the time?” Persons who had not visited a park were asked similar questions, but

introduced with the phrase, “Based on what you have heard . . .” Response categories matched

those used for visitors.

Statistical Analysis

The MORA and OLYM visitors are not separate samples, but a single sample of households

responding to questions about both parks. For comparisons in which the same respondents

answered questions about each park (e.g., year of last visit), paired-sample t-tests are used to

evaluate mean differences. However, fewer persons visited OLYM (N = 677) than MORA (N =
2

A “p” value of less than .001 means that the probability of the relationship found in the sample not existing

in the population the sample represents is less than one in 1,000. By convention, p values of .05 or less are

considered statistically “significant,” meaning there is a high likelihood (95 chances in 100) that the observed result

in the sample does exist in the population. The p value is a function of the “t” statistic and df (degrees of freedom).

The “independent” t-statistic reflects how much two sub-samples (e.g., visitors and non-visitors) differ in their

response to a single item, such as a question about crowding. The “paired-sample” t-statistic reflects how much the

same sample differs in its response to two items, such as questions about crowding at MORA and at OLYM.

9

800). This means that paired-sample analyses sometimes excluded substantial numbers of

MORA visitors, since only those visiting both parks could be compared. Because of this, pairedsample t-tests are not reported if they misrepresent the full sample of respondents visiting either

park. For comparisons involving mutually exclusive sub-samples, e.g., displaced and nondisplaced visitors, independent t-tests are employed. 

Amount of Displacement

Previous Visits

Respondents were significantly more likely to have visited MORA than OLYM (paired-sample

t = -7.3, df = 986, p < .001).2

 One reason for this may be the proximity of MORA to the large

population centers on the eastern shore of Puget Sound. Even so, a majority had traveled to both

parks (Table 3). Eighty percent reported a trip to MORA, while 67.7% had visited OLYM. A

very small number of respondents did not know if they had been to either park.

Table 3: Previous visits to MORA and OLYM (N = 1000)

Previous visit Number Percent

MORA 800 80

MORA, but not OLYM 185 18.5

MORA (don’t know) 3 0.3

OLYM 677 67.7

OLYM, but not MORA 71 7.1

OLYM (don’t know) 10 1.0

Both MORA and OLYM 606 60.6

Neither MORA nor OLYM 125 12.5

Past visitors were asked the year of their most recent trip to each park. Almost half of those who

had been to MORA (49.3%) had visited within the past three years (i.e., 1999-2001). The modal

year was 2000, reported by 25.0%. Similarly, almost as many respondents who had visited

OLYM had done so within the past three years (46.8%). The modal year for this park was also

2000, reported by 22.2%. There were no statistically significant differences in this comparison.
10

Figure 2 Crowding amount at both parks (nonvisitors only).

Figure 1 Crowding amount at both parks

(visitors only).

Crowding Perceptions

Despite the fact that MORA receives less visitation than OLYM, Figure 1 shows that

respondents felt MORA was more crowded during their last visit (paired-sample t = 13.5, df =

575, p < .001). A majority (58.1%) reported feeling not all crowded during their last trip to

OLYM, compared to 32.9% for MORA. In contrast, 30.5% of those visiting both parks said that

MORA had been moderately crowded, compared to only 15.1% for OLYM. One explanation for

this is that OLYM is a much larger park than MORA, and visitation is more dispersed across

widely separated points of visitor concentration. Thus, use density may be lower at OLYM, even

though visitation is higher. 

Among non-visitors, crowding perceptions tended to mirror those of visitors: OLYM was

viewed as less crowded than MORA. However, most non-visitors reported no opinions about

crowding at either park (Figure 2).

Respondents visiting the parks were also asked if they felt that MORA or OLYM were ever too

crowded for enjoyable recreation. Results are shown in Figure 3. As in the previous

comparison, OLYM was reported to have less crowding than MORA. Almost three-fourths of
3

This typology departs from the standard definition of displaced visitors, i.e., those who stopped visiting

because of perceived changes in the setting they were displaced from. The former visitors in this study may not be

planning return trips for reasons unrelated to crowding or other setting changes. These could be time constraints,

health concerns, and so on. The advantage of the typology used here is that it allows the relationship between

perceived setting conditions and displacement to be tested empirically, rather than made true by definition.

11

Figure 3 Crowding extent at both parks (visitors

only).

OLYM visitors (73.1%) said the park was never too crowded for enjoyable recreation,

compared to 48.6% of MORA visitors. In contrast, 40.3% of those who had been to MORA felt

that it was too crowded some of the time. The corresponding figure for OLYM was only 23.1%

(paired-sample t = 10.3, df = 485, p < .001). Non-visitors also tended to believe that MORA

was too crowded for enjoyable recreation more often than OLYM, but, again, the largest

number of non-visitors had no opinion about the extent of crowding at either park.

Inter-site Displacement

By cross-tabulating questions about past visits with future plans, four categories of respondents

were identified for each park (Figure 4). Those who made previous visits, but did not plan to

return in the future, were labeled “displaced visitors.”3

 In contrast, past visitors intending to

return were “non-displaced.” “Non-intenders” were those with no previous trips and no plans to

visit, while “intenders” had not yet visited, but did plan on going in the foreseeable future. 

For both parks, the most common respondent type was the non-displaced visitor (63.9% at

MORA and 54.9% at OLYM). For MORA, displaced visitors made up 16.4% of all those

interviewed (including non-visitors) and 20.4% of previous visitors. At OLYM displaced

visitors represented 14.3% of the entire sample and 20.6% of previous visitors.
12

Figure 4 Respondent types (Ns do not equal

1000 because some respondents did not answer

one or both questions about past or future visits).

Reasons for Inter-site Displacement

A park’s visitors may be displaced for many reasons. The research question central to this study

was whether or not crowding and associated factors played an important role in that behavior.

Displaced visitors were given a list of reasons for not returning and asked which ones applied to

them. Responses are tabulated in Table 4 for MORA and Table 5 for OLYM. Because

respondents could choose more than one item, totals sum to more than 100%.

The top three reasons for not returning were similar for both MORA and OLYM. Lack of time,

feeling the park was too far away, and not having family or friends who wanted to go figured

prominently at both parks. However, other frequently chosen reasons were crowding-related.

These included too many visitors, difficulty getting campsites or lodging, and traffic congestion

in the parks. Table 4 shows that at MORA traffic congestion (24.8%) and too many visitors

(24.1%) ranked fourth and fifth out of 17 reasons visitors thought it unlikely they would return.

Difficulty getting lodging or campsites ranked sixth (22.4%). However, only 8.7% of displaced

visitors felt that MORA was too developed.
13

Table 4: Reasons unlikely to visit MORA in future (previous visitors only)

Reason (item N) Number Percent

Not enough time to visit (159) 63 39.6

Park is too far away (162) 57 35.2

Family/friends won’t go (157) 43 27.4

Traffic congestion in park (149) 37 24.8

Too many visitors in park (158) 38 24.1

Hard to get campsites/lodging (125) 28 22.4

Health won’t permit it (162) 36 22.2

Not interested in national parks (160) 30 18.8

Park entrance fee too high (145) 18 12.4

Costs too much to get there (158) 18 11.4

Park is too developed (150) 13 8.7

Unreasonable regulations (151) 12 7.9

Would not feel welcome (161) 7 4.3

Would not feel safe (156) 6 3.8

Never heard of MORA (162) 5 3.1

Park is too primitive (151) 4 2.6

Poor condition of natural resources (152) 3 2.0

Crowding-related reasons also ranked relatively high as explanations for displacement from

OLYM. Nevertheless, a smaller percentage of those who had been to OLYM offered these as

reasons for not planning to return.
14

Table 5: Reasons unlikely to visit OLYM in future (previous visitors only)

Reason (item N) Number Percent

Not enough time to visit (136) 63 46.3

Park is too far away (134) 63 47.0

Family/friends won’t go (131) 35 26.7

Traffic congestion in park (131) 19 14.5

Too many visitors in park (130) 19 14.6

Hard to get campsites/lodging (115) 24 20.9

Health won’t permit it (136) 30 22.1

Not interested in national parks (136) 11 8.1

Park entrance fee too high (125) 10 8.0

Costs too much to get there (136) 13 9.6

Park is too developed (128) 6 4.7

Unreasonable regulations (131) 4 3.1

Would not feel welcome (136) 4 2.9

Would not feel safe (134) 7 5.2

Never heard of OLYM (135) 2 1.5

Park is too primitive (129) 5 3.9

Poor condition of natural resources (133) 4 3.0

A sub-sample of 62 respondents were displaced from both MORA and OLYM. Their reasons

for not returning to each park were compared. In most cases, the responses did not differ

significantly. However, Figure 5 shows two exceptions to this: respondents were more likely to

say that too many visitors and too much traffic congestion were reasons for displacement from

MORA (paired-sample t, too many visitors = -2.3, df = 55, p = .02; paired-sample t, traffic

congestion = -2.8, df = 56, p = .007). Again, this is consistent with the earlier finding that

respondents thought MORA was more crowded than OLYM.

Respondents were asked in an open-ended question if there were any other reasons they did not

intend to visit the parks in the future. Except for a few persons who said they were moving from

the area, answers to this question mirrored those shown in tables 4 and 5.
15

Figure 5 Percent of respondents displaced from

both parks because of traffic congestion and too

many visitors (N = 62).

Finally, respondents were given an opportunity to identify the most important reason they were

unlikely to visit either park in the foreseeable future (tables 6 and 7). A large percentage of 

displaced respondents did not reply to this question, possibly because they believed they had

already answered it in the close-ended format or because they could not think of a single “most

important” reason. Among those who did answer, crowding-related factors were mentioned by

only 4.3% of those displaced from MORA. Other reasons reported as “most important” were

time pressures, health concerns, and different preferences or interests. Crowding-related factors

were not mentioned as most important reasons for displacement from OLYM. Nevertheless, the

high non-response to this item limits its usefulness as a measure of displacement causes.
16

Table 6: Most important reason unlikely to visit MORA

in future (previous visitors unlikely to return)

Reason Number Percent

No response 63 38.9

Demanding job/time constraints 19 11.7

No interest 18 11.1

Limited health/abilities 18 11.1

Different preference 9 5.6

Too many people/traffic 7 4.3

No one to go with 7 4.3

Too great a distance 6 3.7

Too much money 4 2.5

Moving to another area 3 1.9

Miscellaneous other reasons 8 4.9

TOTAL 162 100.0

Table 7: Most important reason unlikely to visit OLYM

in future (previous visitors unlikely to return)

Reason Number Percent

No response 60 43.5

Too old/health 18 13.0

Trip too long 17 12.3

No interest 11 8.0

Demanding job/time constraints 10 7.2

Personal transportation problems 6 4.3

Other preferences 4 2.9

Miscellaneous other reasons 12 8.7

TOTAL 138 100.0

Persons reporting displacement from MORA and OLYM were divided into two categories:

those displaced because of crowding and those displaced for other reasons. The four crowdingassociated items used in this classification were:1) too many visitors in the park, 2) difficulty
17

Figure 6 MORA visitors displaced by crowding

and non-crowding factors

Figure 7 OLYM visitors displaced by crowding

and non-crowding factors.

getting campsites and lodging, 3) too much development, and 4) traffic congestion in the park.

Respondents displaced for one or more of these reasons made up 34.6% of MORA’s displaced

visitors (Figure 6) and 7.0% of all the park’s previous visitors (displaced plus non-displaced).

For OLYM, the figures were 29.7% (Figure 7) and 6.1%.

Population Estimates of Displacement Due to Crowding

Estimates of displacement in the region can be computed by applying relevant sample

proportions to the six counties’ total population. The result is the total number of households

(with telephones) in the region with past visitors displaced from either park solely because of

crowding-related conditions, i.e., too many visitors, too much development, difficulty getting
4

 A1991 telephone survey in central and southern California (Gramann, 1992a) found that 5.9% of

households in that region included an adult displaced from Yosemite National Park, at least in part due to crowding. 

5

A single sample of a population can overestimate or underestimate the true number of displaced

households in the population. This “sampling error” is magnified during the multiplication process extrapolating to

the total number of displaced households. However, for large representative samples (such as the 1,000 in this

survey), it is virtually certain that the true number of displaced households falls within the 95% confidence interval.

18

campsites or lodging, and traffic congestion. (Table 8). The survey revealed that 5.6%4 of the

1,000 respondents were previous visitors to MORA who did not plan to return because of one or

more of the crowding-related reasons. The figure for OLYM was 4.1% of the1,000 respondents.

Table 8: Number of households in six Washington counties displaced by crowding

Park Percent of sample (95%

confidence interval)

Population 

estimate

Lower bound

of estimate

Upper bound

of estimate

MORA 5.6 (4.2 - 7.0) 199,000 149,000 248,000

OLYM 4.1 (2.9 - 5.3) 145,000 103,000 188,000

Note: Percents include past visitors who reported traffic congestion, too much development, too many visitors,

and/or difficulty getting camping or lodging as reasons for not visiting in the foreseeable future.

Note: Total crowding-related displacement from the two parks cannot be summed from these two estimates,

since some respondents were displaced from both units and would be double-counted.

According to the 2000 census, the six counties surveyed had a combined population of

3,547,727. Applying sample proportions to this figure translates into an estimate of 199,000

households in the region with an adult displaced from MORA due to crowding and 145,000

households with an adult displaced from OLYM. However, because survey estimates fluctuate

predictably from sample to sample, the 95% confidence interval for these estimates is also

reported.5 This confidence interval provides conservative and liberal bounds on the sample

estimate. We are 95% confident that the number of households displaced from MORA by

crowding is between 149,000 and 248,000. The 95% confidence interval for OLYM is 103,000

to 188,000. Of course, these population estimates do not include displaced persons who live in

other Washington counties, other states (e.g., Oregon), or other countries (e.g., British

Columbia, Canada).

Intra-site and Temporal Displacement

One explanation for the modest amount of inter-site displacement from MORA and OLYM may

be the high incidence of intra-site and temporal displacement. The importance of these forms of

coping lies in their ability to provide visitors with satisfying experiences, even though popular

locations or peak periods are avoided. The amounts of intra-site and temporal displacement

occurring at MORA and OLYM are displayed in Figure 8. 
19

Figure 8 Intra-site and temporal displacement at

the two parks (as percent of previous visitors).

Past visitors were asked if they had ever gone to locations in either park specifically to avoid

crowds. In an open-ended follow-up they were asked to name these areas. Visitors were also

queried about visiting the parks during low-use periods, such as spring, fall, or a midweek day 

and the reasons for this.

Slightly more visitors reported going to a lesser-used area of OLYM (24.7%) than MORA

(20.3%), although this difference was not statistically significant. At OLYM, the most

commonly visited low-use area was the wilderness coast, followed by the backcountry and the

Staircase area in the southeastern corner of the park. At MORA, the backcountry topped the list

of low-use locations visited to avoid crowds. This was followed by Lake Mowich and Ipsut

Creek, both located in the relatively remote northwest section of the park.

Temporal displacement was much more common at MORA and OLYM than was intra-site

displacement. Among those visiting both parks, somewhat more respondents (65.7%) reported

using this strategy at MORA than at OLYM (60.6%) (paired-sample t = -4.6, df = 577, p <

.001). One explanation for the popularity of temporal displacement is that it lets people

experience approximately the same resource conditions, but under more preferred social

conditions. Another likely reason is that there are simply more low-use periods available to

visitors (e.g., weekdays) than there are accessible low-use sites. At both parks, fall and spring

were the most frequently reported lesser-use periods for visits.

Reasons for Temporal Displacement

Respondents indicated similar reasons for temporal displacement at both MORA and OLYM,

the major distinction being that avoiding ferry traffic was mentioned almost twice as often for

OLYM (Figure 9). At both parks, the most frequent explanation for visiting during low-use

periods was convenience (63.1% at MORA and 71.3% at OLYM). Following this came the
20

desire to experience a natural park and an uncrowded park. Other important motives for

temporal displacement included participating in seasonal recreation activities and greater ease

in finding lodging or camping. Taking advantage of off-peak prices and avoiding entrance fees

were unimportant reasons at both parks.

A series of paired-sample t-tests using the sub-group of 285 respondents temporally displaced

from both parks showed that convenience and avoiding ferry traffic were reported significantly

more often as reasons for temporal displacement at OLYM than at MORA. Conversely,

avoiding park traffic and participating in seasonal recreation activities were mentioned more

frequently as reasons for visiting MORA during lesser-used times.

Description of Displaced and Non-displaced Visitors

In this section, displaced and non-displaced visitors, as well as intenders and non-intenders, are

described in terms of their recency of visits, demographic characteristics, crowding perceptions,

recreation motives, and coping behaviors. Recall that non-intenders are those who have not

visited a park and have no plans to visit, while intenders are non-visitors who are somewhat or

very likely to visit either MORA or OLYM in the foreseeable future. In some comparisons that

follow, intenders and non-intenders are excluded because the analysis by its nature is limited to

past users.

Year of Most Recent Visit

The mean year of most recent visit by those displaced from MORA was 1987, compared to

1996 for non-displaced visitors (independent-sample t = -8.22, df = 765, p < .001). For OLYM,

the corresponding means were 1988 and 1996 (t = -7.07, df = 634, p < .001). In the year of the

survey (2001), an average of more than a decade had passed since persons displaced from

MORA and OLYM had visited those parks. 

Figure 9 Reasons for visiting during low-use

periods as percent of previous visitors (Ns vary).
21

This finding has important implications for the validity of displacement estimates based on selfreports of intended behavior. In the case of MORA and OLYM, future intentions to not return

would appear to be valid measures of displacement since those saying they would not visit the

parks in the foreseeable future had, on average, not been to either park for more than ten years.

This increases confidence that present intentions to not visit will be accurately predict future

behavior.

No statistically significant differences existed in year of most recent visit between those

displaced because of crowding and those displaced for other reasons. For both groups and both

parks, the most recent visit occurred between 1986 and 1990.

Age, Education, and Income

Displaced visitors, non-displaced visitors, intenders, and non-intenders differed significantly in

their age, education, and household income (Table 9). At both MORA and OLYM, intenders

were younger than either non-intenders or non-displaced visitors, who were in turn younger

than displaced visitors. The same pattern held for OLYM.

MORA non-intenders had completed fewer years of schooling than either intenders or nondisplaced visitors, although on average all four respondent types reported at least one year of

post-secondary education. Displaced visitors did not differ significantly from the other types on

education. The pattern was slightly different for OLYM: non-intenders had less education than

the other three respondent types.

Table 9: Demographic characteristics of respondent types at both parks

Respondent type Age (yrs.) Education (yrs.) Income (x1000)

MORA displaced 56.3 14.2 $40 - $49.9

MORA non-displaced 45.7 14.7 $50 - $59.9

MORA non-intender 45.0 13.7 $30 - $39.9

MORA intender 36.9 14.5 $40 - $49.9

OLYM displaced 56.1 14.5 $40 - $49.9

OLYM non-displaced 47.0 14.9 $50 - $59.9

OLYM non-intender 44.4 13.4 $40 - $49.9

OLYM intender 37.3 14.5 $40 - $49.9

MORA F (age) = 35.6, df = 3/961, p < .001 OLYM F (age) = 35.4, df = 3/941, p < .001

MORA F (educ.) = 4.5, df = 3/ 984, p = .004 OLYM F (educ.) = 13.7, df = 3/963, p < .001

MORA F (income) = 10.2, df = 3/842, p < .001 OLYM F (income) = 13.8, df = 3/828, p < .001

Finally, MORA non-intenders reported significantly lower household incomes than either

intenders, displaced visitors, or non-displaced visitors. Again, the pattern differed slightly for
6

Chi-square is a measure of association between “categorical” variables, such as race and visitor type.

22

Figure 10 MORA respondent type by race (N =

961).

OLYM. Non-intenders had less income than displaced visitors and intenders, who in turn

reported lower incomes than non-displaced visitors.

To summarize, for both parks the intenders ranked lowest in age, while non-intenders ranked

lowest in education and household income. Stated another way, the two types of non-visitors

were younger, tended to have less schooling, and were less affluent than the two types of

visitors. In contrast, respondents displaced from MORA and OLYM were the oldest groups (on

average, 20 years older than intenders). In both cases, the highest income levels belonged to

non-displaced visitors.

Ethnicity and Race

A significant association existed between Hispanic ethnicity and MORA respondent type (chisquare = 8.9, df = 3, p = .03).6

 MORA’s intenders and non-intenders (i.e., non-visitors) were

more likely to be Latino than were the park’s displaced and non-displaced visitors.

Nevertheless, this relationship was not strong, primarily because Hispanic respondents

constituted such a small proportion of the overall sample. Hispanic ethnicity did not vary

significantly across the four respondents types for OLYM.

Figure 10 shows that MORA non-visitors (i.e., non-intenders and intenders) were about three

times as likely to be non-white than current and former visitors (i.e., non-displaced and

displaced; chi-square = 20.8, df = 3, p < .001). A slightly stronger association existed between

race and OLYM respondent type (Figure 11). In this case, non-intenders were almost four times

as likely to be non-white than the park’s visitors (chi-square = 32.9, df = 3, p < .001).
23

Figure 12 MORA crowding amount by reasons

for displacement (N = 126).

Figure 11 OLYM respondent type by race

(N = 940).

The results for race and ethnicity are consistent with previous research on ethnic and racial

patterns in outdoor recreation (Gramann, 1996). In general, Hispanic and non-white persons

tend to participate less than non-Hispanic whites in many wildland recreation activities, and are

less likely to travel to distant recreation areas for reasons that include cost, low awareness or

interest, and lack of personal transportation (Gramann et al., 2001).

Crowding Perceptions

Figure 12 indicates a strong relationship between the amount of crowding perceived on the most

recent visit and the reasons for displacement among MORA visitors. Over 40% of those

displaced for reasons other than crowding felt that MORA was not at all crowded on their last

trip compared to 16.7% of crowding-displaced respondents (chi-square = 14.4, df = 4, p = .006).
24

Figure 13 MORA crowding extent by reasons

for displacement (N = 98).

In contrast, 26% of those displaced by crowding rated MORA as either very crowded or

extremely crowded, compared to just 10% of visitors displaced for other reasons.

An even stronger association emerged when examining the extent of crowding (Figure 13).

More than two-thirds of those displaced for reasons other than crowds (67.9%) said that MORA

was never too crowded for enjoyable recreation, compared to less than one-fourth of crowdingdisplaced visitors (chi-square = 23.9, df = 3, p < .001). At the other extreme, 38% of the

crowding-displaced respondents felt that MORA was too crowded most or all of the time. Only

7.1% of noncrowding-displaced visitors believed this.

Comparable patterns appeared when examining respondents displaced from OLYM. In Figure

14, 16.2% of crowding-displaced visitors said that OLYM was either very crowded or

extremely crowded on their last visit, compared to just 1.4% of those displaced for noncrowding reasons (chi-square = 22.1, df = 4, p < .001). A similar pattern occurred for crowding

extent (Figure 15). Respondents displaced by crowds were much more likely to feel that OLYM

was too crowded some or most of the time than were other displaced visitors (chi-square = 13.2,

df = 2, p = .001).
25

Figure 14 OLYM crowding amount by reasons

for displacement (N = 111).

Figure 15 OLYM crowding extent by reasons

for displacement (N = 94).

Recreation Motives

Respondents rated the importance of 22 motives for their favorite outdoor recreation activity

using Driver’s Recreation Experience Preference scales (Manfredo et al., 1996). The purpose

was to determine if the important motives of crowding-displaced visitors were more sensitive to

crowding than those of visitors displaced for other reasons. At MORA, six recreation motives 

were significantly more important to the group displaced by crowding (Table 10). Four of these

involved being in nature: 1) gaining a better appreciation of nature, 2) enjoying the smells and

sounds of nature, 3) being close to nature, and 4) learning more about nature. A fifth referred to

crowds explicitly: getting away from crowded situations. The sixth, experiencing open space,
26

seems linked both to nature and escaping crowds. MORA visitors displaced by crowding were

more likely to engage in recreation to avoid crowds and be in natural areas than those displaced

for other reasons.

Table 10: Independent t-tests of motives for favorite outdoor recreation activity,

(crowding-displaced and noncrowding-displaced MORA visitors)

Motive t df Sig. More important to:

Getting exercise -.57 126 .57 No difference

Getting away from the demands of life 1.76 124 .08 No difference

Doing something with the family 1.2 122 .24 No difference

Gaining a better appreciation of nature 2.3 125 .02 Crowding-displaced

Releasing or reducing tension .38 125 .71 No difference

Resting physically .56 117 .58 No difference

Getting away from crowded situations 2.2 123 .03 Crowding-displaced

Experiencing excitement 1.1 125 .27 No difference

Meeting new people 1.1 123 .27 No difference

Enjoying the smells and sounds of nature 2.8 124 .007 Crowding-displaced

Keeping physically fit -1.2 126 .22 No difference

Experiencing tranquility 1.6 124 .11 No difference

Being with respectful people .30 122 .77 No difference

Being close to nature 2.5 125 .01 Crowding-displaced

Talking to new and varied people .63 123 .53 No difference

Experiencing open space 2.9 124 .005 Crowding-displaced

Feeling exhilaration .81 125 .42 No difference

Being near considerate people .63 122 .53 No difference

Relaxing physically 1.1 122 .29 No difference

Being where it is quiet 1.8 125 .08 No difference

Bringing the family closer together 1.6 119 .12 No difference

Learning more about nature 3.5 125 .001 Crowding-displaced

A similar analysis compared the recreation motives of respondents displaced from OLYM. Only

three motives distinguished those who were crowding-displaced from those displaced for other
27

Figure 16 MORA visitor type by intra-site and

temporal displacement behavior.

reasons. These were getting away from crowded situations, learning more about nature, and

bringing the family closer together. The first two are identical to motives in the MORA

analysis. The reason for the association between the third motive and displacement due to

crowding is unclear.

Intra-site and Temporal Displacement

An earlier analysis showed that temporal displacement was much more common among all

MORA visitors than intra-site displacement. Figure 16 reveals the same pattern when

comparing displaced and non-displaced MORA visitors. (Item nonresponse reduced the sample

sizes for some comparisons.) Both types of displaced visitors were more likely to have used

temporal displacement than intra-site displacement. 

The first two columns in both clusters of Figure 16 compare non-displaced MORA visitors with

those reporting inter-site displacement. The third and fourth columns compare visitors who

were displaced by crowding with those displaced for other reasons.

Non-displaced visitors were twice as likely to use intra-site displacement during a previous trip

than were displaced visitors (22.8% vs. 10.9%, chi-square = 11.0, df = 1, p = .001). They were

also significantly more likely to employ temporal displacement during a prior trip (69.8% vs.

47.0%, chi-square = 27.7, df = 1, p < .001).

Comparing MORA visitors displaced for crowding-related reasons with those displaced by

other causes produces somewhat different results. Although the crowding-displaced users were

more likely to report intra-site displacement (20.0% vs. 6.6%, chi-square = 5.4, df = 1 p = .02),

this was not true for temporal displacement. Almost half of both subgroups had visited the park

during low-use periods. Thus, although temporal displacement was more common than visiting
28

Figure 17 OLYM visitor type by intra-site and

temporal displacement behavior.

a lesser-used site at MORA, it was unimportant in distinguishing past visitors displaced by

crowds from those displaced for other reasons.

Figure 17 repeats the analysis for OLYM. As before, the first two columns in both clusters

compare non-displaced OLYM visitors with visitors reporting inter-site displacement. The third

and fourth columns compare those who were displaced by crowding with those displaced for

other reasons. The pattern is very similar to that for MORA, although the associations are

weaker. Non-displaced OLYM visitors were twice as likely to use an intra-site displacement

strategy during a previous visit than were displaced visitors (27.7% vs. 13.7%, chi-square =

10.9, df = 1, p = .001), and they were significantly more likely to employ a temporal

displacement strategy (63.9% vs. 48.8%, chi-square = 9.8, df = 1, p < .002).

Comparing OLYM visitors displaced for crowding-related reasons with those displaced by

other causes yielded insignificant results. Neither group was statistically more likely to use

intra-site or temporal displacement more than the other. In a familiar pattern, temporal

displacement was more common than intra-site displacement at OLYM, but it cannot be

concluded that one group of displaced visitors was more likely than the other to use a specific

coping behavior.

Discussion

Considerations for Visitor Capacity Management

Haas (2001) argues that the term “carrying capacity” has outlived its usefulness. He suggests

“visitor capacity” be used instead because “capacity” does not mislead the public about the need

for capacities in parks, and because “visitor” reflects the privileged use of national parks for

recreational, as well as nonrecreational, purposes. Haas also points out that the older term

continues to be mired in the notion that a “magic number” exists that represents the social

carrying capacity of a park for visitors.
29

In fact, parks have many possible visitor capacities based on their desirable resource and social

conditions as defined by management, policy, political considerations, and the public. Deciding

on a capacity is difficult because interest groups will articulate varying notions of the

appropriate level based on the stakes they hold in the debate. It is remarkable how persistent

these debates can be. Whatever the actual use level, it seems there have always been some who

believe it is too high and others who think it is too low (Gramann, 1992b).

Managers and planners are understandably reluctant to exclude people from a park when they

are highly satisfied with their visit. As Lon Garrison, an NPS notable, commented in his

autobiography, “The supposed number of tolerable visitors always seemed to move higher in

response to the actual numbers” (Garrison, 1983:101). Nevertheless, fairness issues arise when

displacement excludes some persons from their desired experiences. From this perspective,

visitor-capacity decisions might be usefully viewed as allocations that determine who “gets” a

national park. Furthermore, displacement research demonstrates that failing to act by allowing

unmanaged and incremental change to occur is as much an allocation decision as imposing 

stringent capacity limits.

This study documented approximately 199,000 households (5.6% of previous visitors) in six

counties of western Washington that contained at least one member displaced from MORA

because of crowds, and 145,000 (4.1% of previous visitors) with a member displaced from

OLYM. Balanced against this are the 3.3 million visits to OLYM that occurred in 2000 and the

1.3 million to MORA, the vast majority of which were highly satisfying (Hoger, 2000). In this

light, displacement at the two parks seems minor until one considers that many current visitors

to both parks also purposefully visited lesser-used areas, or traveled during low-use periods, to

avoid crowded situations. Among respondents visiting both areas, MORA was considered more

crowded than OLYM, and its visitors were somewhat more likely to be displaced temporally.

Intra-site displacement occurred at both parks, although it was less common as a coping

behavior than visiting during the shoulder seasons of fall and spring. 

The analysis of displacement at MORA and OLYM can be synthesized into four considerations

relevant to visitor-capacity decisions:

! Intra-site and temporal displacement appear to provide many current MORA and OLYM

visitors with effective coping mechanisms against crowds. Persuasive evidence for this 

comes from the finding that those planning future visits to the parks were significantly

more likely to have employed intra-site and temporal displacement strategies during

previous trips than those who were unlikely to return. In this sense, the non-displaced

visitors seem to be more resilient and able to cope with crowded conditions than those

who have been displaced.

! Among the most crowd-averse visitors, intra-site displacement may be a predictor of

subsequent inter-site displacement. In particular, for visitors displaced from MORA by

crowding, neither temporal nor intra-site strategies proved effective in avoiding eventual

inter-site displacement. Recalling that MORA visitors who were displaced by crowds
30

also were more likely to be motivated by nature experiences and crowd avoidance, this

makes sense. Visiting lesser-used locations is a means to deal with crowds for some

visitors, but it may also foreshadow subsequent inter-site displacement among those

least tolerant of crowding. Evidence for this comes from the finding that, at MORA,

intra-site displacement occurred significantly more often among individuals eventually

displaced by crowds than among those displaced for other reasons. 

! Management frameworks such as VERP could incorporate intra-site displacement as an

indicator of experience quality. Because it can be difficult to access lesser-used places,

the fact that some visitors make this effort is significant. For this reason it could prove

useful to monitor the extent of intra-site displacement. Apart from its potential value as a

predictor of future displacement away from a park, such monitoring would also identify

those areas that provide alternative experiences to more crowded areas of visitor

concentration. This leads to the fourth management implication.

! Lesser-used places receiving intra-site displacement could be designated as “areas of

critical capacity concern” in NPS general management plans (Haas, 2001). Because

they may serve a unique function in maintaining enjoyable experiences for crowd-averse

visitors, such locations as MORA’s Ipsut Creek and Lake Mowich could be considered

for special protection from the incremental development that marks unmanaged change.

Managing lesser-used locations at current visitation levels might be considered in parks

that are experiencing significant intra-site displacement to these areas due to crowd

avoidance. The key to successful visitor-capacity planning is to preserve a diversity of

settings and experience opportunities, including low-use and high-use areas. Incremental

change can erode the values that people displaced to lesser-used places are seeking, so

low-density opportunities should be preserved. At the same time, concentrating high use

in small areas is generally viewed in the recreation-management literature as more

preferred in terms of environmental impacts than dispersing this use over wide areas

(Hammitt & Cole, 1987). For both environmental and social reasons, each strategy is

needed.

Implications for Displacement Theory

Although elegant, the process of social succession described by Schreyer and Knopf in 1984 is

an incomplete explanation of how unmanaged change affects visitors to outdoor recreation

areas. Inter-site displacement is certainly one outcome, and this research reinforces the

assumption that it occurs at least in part because of crowding and associated conditions.

However, this study and others like it in national parks (Manning & Valliere, 2001) also show

that coping behaviors are not limited to complete displacement away from an area. Visitors can

make cognitive adjustments by redefining the normative experience a park provides (e.g., from

wilderness to semi-wilderness), or adjust behaviorally by moving to lesser-used places within a

park and visiting during lesser-used times. Indeed, although not investigated in this research,

even inter-site displacement may not mean complete cessation of visits. Hall and Shelby (2000)

found inter-site displacement to be a coping behavior used in combination with less extreme

adjustments, such as temporal and intra-site displacement. This implies a high degree of
31

resiliency in many visitors, as long as sufficient opportunities for less-congested experiences are

provided in other locations and outside of peak periods.

At the same time, as suggested by Kuentzel and Heberlein (1992), some coping responses may

lie along a hierarchy that, under certain conditions, lead to displacement away from a park. As

already discussed, for the most crowd-averse visitors, intra-site displacement may be one of

these intermediate responses.

Displacement should not be defined as a reaction to crowding, since it can be caused by other

setting attributes. Although they were not important sources of displacement at MORA and

OLYM, user fees, prejudiced behavior by staff or visitors, regulations, and degradation of

natural resources could result in displacement away from parks. Therefore, displacement should

be viewed as a subset of a more general pattern of non-use, the defining attribute being that it is

driven by setting characteristics within a park that “push” visitors away.

Even so, many people may stop visiting parks for reasons that have nothing to do with these

“push factors.” Most respondents in this study who had ceased visiting MORA and OLYM had

done so for reasons unrelated not only to crowding, but to other setting conditions in the parks.

These causes included time constraints, travel distance, and lack of family or friends to visit

with. Perhaps some other term should be reserved for these persons, such as “former visitors.”

Finally, a growing body of literature in environmental and social psychology has examined predisposing and situational variables that influence people’s reactions to crowding. These include

residential density (Evans et al., 2000), prior experience with a crowded setting (Baum et al.,

1981; Webb & Worchel, 1993), behavior of others sharing a crowded area (Sinha & Mukherjee,

1996), and perceived control (Fleming et al., 1987). These variables have not been examined in

recreation displacement research, but may improve understanding of why some visitors’

reactions to crowds are more extreme than others.

Considerations for National Park Service Social Science

The dominant research paradigm in national parks continues to be the visitor survey. Certainly,

visitor surveys are vital to management and planning in that they provide public-involvement

opportunities for important, but typically unorganized, constituencies. They also are one means

of gathering data on experience-quality indicators for management frameworks such as VERP.

However, despite their many uses, onsite surveys do not contact displaced former visitors, nor

(in their usual application during peak seasons) are they likely to adequately represent

temporally displaced visitors. Even during peak seasons, they may be limited to locations where

it is most efficient to contact large numbers of visitors in short periods of time, potentially

under-representing the intra-site displaced segment of the visitor population. Besides visitor

surveys, regional household surveys can provide a breadth of information on users, non-users,

and former visitors that cannot be gained using other approaches.

There are other approaches to conducting displacement studies as well. Becker et al. (1981) and

Hall and Shelby (2000) took advantage of local knowledge that allowed them to identify
32

locations that visitors had been displaced to so they could conduct surveys at these alternative

sites, in addition to the original location. Although knowledge of such places may not always be

available, this approach has advantages, not the least of which is to measure inter-site

displacement as a behavior, rather than an intention, as was done in this study.

Conclusion

Although not the only key, the prevalence of temporal displacement and intra-site displacement

at parks such as MORA and OLYM provides one explanation for the floating baseline of

satisfaction. The effects of crowding and congestion in these areas is seen not so much in

present visitors as it is in those who have been displaced. Although MORA and OLYM are

heavily used, it seems doubtful they are close to approaching their “recreational carrying

capacity” in the sense of use levels beyond which aggregate visitor satisfaction decreases

significantly (Shelby & Heberlein, 1986). Indeed, the early focus of carrying capacity theory

and research in the 1960s on users’ satisfaction virtually assured that no visitor survey would

ever indicate that a park was nearing its recreational limits. However, when viewed from the

perspective of displacement, quite different conclusions emerge. There are social costs to

crowding and congestion at parks such as OLYM and MORA in terms of displaced visitors.

This is not to advocate that heroic efforts be made to “re-enfranchise” displaced visitors.

However, displacement in all of its forms should be considered as a recognized consequence of

increased visitation.

If visitor capacity is not managed in the National Park System, history indicates that the effect

described by Lon Garrison may continue: the number of tolerable visitors will increase in

response to actual use. In part, this is because coping behaviors that are less extreme than intersite displacement are possible in many park units. As well, a lack of off-site studies will result

in displaced visitors not being considered in visitor-capacity research and management. The

combination of these produces the floating baseline of satisfaction that is a feel-good statistic in

visitor surveys, but provides little support for capacity management beyond maintaining the

status quo. To reiterate a point made in the introductory section of this report, managers and

planners faced with the difficult decision of establishing and maintaining visitor capacities

within the National Park System are best served by knowing not only how many satisfied users

they currently serve, but how many displaced visitors they no longer serve.
33

Literature Cited

Baum, A., Fisher, J.D., & Solomon, S.K. (1981). Type of information, familiarity and the

reduction of crowding stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,11-23.

Becker, R.H., Niemann, B.J., & Gates, W.A. (1981). Displacement of recreational users

between the lower St. Croix and Upper Mississippi rivers. Journal of Environmental

Management, 13, 259-267.

Brunson, M.W., & Shelby, B. (1993). Recreation substitutability: A research agenda. Leisure

Sciences, 15, 67-74.

Clark, R.N., & Stankey, G.H. (1979). The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A framework for

planning, management, and research. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report

PNW-98. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Connell, J.H., & Slayter, R.O. (1977). Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and

their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist, 111, 1119-44.

Evans, G.W., Lepore, S.J., & Allen, K.M. (2000). Cross-cultural differences in tolerance for

crowding: Fact or fiction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 204-210.

Fleming, I., Baum, A., & Weiss, L. (1987). Social density and perceived control as mediators of

crowding stress in high-density residential neighborhoods. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52, 899-906.

Garrison, L.A. (1983). The making of a ranger. Salt Lake City, UT: Howe Brothers.

Gramann, J.H. (1996). Ethnicity, race, and outdoor recreation: A review of trends, policy, and

research. Miscellaneous Report R-96-1.Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineers

Waterways Experiment Station.

Gramann, J.H. (1992a). Visitors, alternative futures, and recreational displacement at Yosemite

National Park. Report for Western Regional Office, National Park Service, San

Francisco, CA.

Gramann, J.H. (1992b). The eternal debate. Yosemite 54(3):3, 23.

Gramann, J.H., Torres, C.C., & Floyd, M. F. (2001). Improving outdoor recreation at Corps

lakes for under-served populations: Results of six focus groups. Report for

Environmental Laboratory, Engineering Research and Development Center, U.S. Army

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Groves, R.M., & Lyberg, L.E. (1988). An overview of nonresponse issues in telephone surveys.

In Groves, R.M., Beiner, P.P., Lyberg, L.E., Massey, J.T., Nicholls, W.L., & Walsberg,

J. (Eds.). Telephone survey methodology. New York: John Wiley.

Haas, G.E. (2001). Visitor capacity in the National Park System. Social Science Research

Review (National Park Service), 2(1), 1-26.

Hall, T., & Shelby, B. (2000). Temporal and spatial displacement: Evidence from a high-use

reservoir and alternative sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 435-456.

Hammitt, W.E., & Cole, D.N. (1987). Wildland recreation ecology and management. New

York, John Wiley.

Hoger, J. (2000). National Park System 2000 Visitor Survey Card data report. Moscow, ID:

National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit.

Kuentzel, W.E., & Heberlein, T.A. (1992). Cognitive and behavioral adaptations to perceived

crowding: A panel study of coping and displacement. Journal of Leisure Research, 24,

377-393.
34

Manfredo, M.J., Driver, B.J., & Tarrant, M.A. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation: A metaanalysis of the Recreation Experience Preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research,

28, 188-213.

Manning, R.E., & Valliere, W.A. (2001). Coping in outdoor recreation: causes and

consequences of crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure

Research, 33, 410-426.

Manning, R.E., Valliere, W.A., Wang, B., & Jacobi, C. (1999). Crowding norms: Alternative

approaches. Leisure Sciences, 21, 97-115.

National Park Service. (2001). National Park Service statistical abstract 2000. Denver, CO:

Denver Service Center.

National Park Service. (1997). VERP: The visitor experience and resource protection

framework. A handbook for planners and managers. Denver, CO: Denver Service

Center.

Robertson, R., & Regula, J. (1994). Recreational displacement and overall satisfaction: A study

of Central Iowa’s licensed boaters. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 174-181.

Schindler, B., & Shelby, B. (1995). Product shift in recreation settings: Findings and

implications from panel research. Leisure Sciences, 17, 91-107.

Schreyer, R., & Knopf, R.C. (1984). The dynamics of change in outdoor recreation

environments–Some equity issues. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2(1),

9-19.

Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T.A. (1986). Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University Press.

Simmons, T., Littlejohn, M., & Morse, W. (2001). Mount Rainier National Park visitor study. 

Visitor Services Project Report. Moscow, ID: National Park Service Cooperative Park 

Studies Unit.

Sinha, S.P., & Mukherjee, N. (1996). The effect of perceived cooperation on personal space

requirements. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 655-657.

 Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C., Peterson, M.E., Frissell, S.S., & Washburne, R.F.

(1985). The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. USDA

Forest Service General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Van Ormer, C., Littlejohn, M., & Gramann, J.H. (2001). Olympic National Park visitor study.

Visitor Services Project Report 121, Moscow, ID: National Park Service Cooperative

Park Studies Unit (117 pp.).

Webb, W.M., & Worchel, S. (1993). Prior experience and expectation in the context of

crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 512-521.