_ .32,
. 3.4,. ,
a Eggsm

.u 3.“?
._

«nun .

. ‘ 3....

5. . 3.2:,

6. .yxxcnnx.

‘fi .23

#1. * a ,
3 ..

 

.5 ”IE2

‘V...l. .
1:7

«‘1'. aq‘ ' A‘

p...
<

 

 

 

 

THESIS

JlllllllllllllllllllllllflllllI u

31293017 4 3 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

EVALUATION OF MANAGERS' AND VISITORS'
PERCEPTIONS OF WILDERNESS CONDITIONS
AT THE NORDHOUSE DUNES WILDERNESS AREA

presented by

Amy Lynn Wiita

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. S . degree in m

 

   

Major professor

Date 975/?9

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

I [RTE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

Ham 3 1 2800

 

 

 

' l’EBz. $81003;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 wmms-pu

 

EVALUATION OF MANAGERS’ AND VISITORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF
WILDERNESS CONDITIONS AT THE NORDHOUSE DUNES WILDERNESS AREA

By

Amy Lynn Wiita

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Forestry

1998

ABSTRACT

EVALUATION OF MANAGERS’ AND VISITORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF
WILDERNESS CONDITIONS AT THE NORDHOUSE DUNES WILDERNESS AREA

By

Amy Lynn Wiita

This study addressed the need for an understanding of the characteristics and
perceptions of visitors, and managers' perceptions of the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness
Area. On-site exit interviews were conducted from May 1993 to March 1994. Five
hundred six individuals comprising 285 groups were interviewed; 166 people refused to
participate in the study. Information was collected on visitation to the wilderness area,
visitor characteristics, visitor travel patterns, what "wilderness" means to visitors,
visitors’ perceptions of current wilderness conditions, visitors’ preferences for ideal
wilderness conditions, and acceptable levels of encounters in the wilderness area.
Managers' perceptions of wilderness conditions were obtained from documented
statements from Forest Service personnel and project meeting notes. Managers' and
visitors’ perceptions differed for a variety of wilderness conditions. Recommendations
for additional research on wilderness perceptions, inclusion of public participation in the

management process, and a re-evaluation of the 1964 Wilderness Act are presented.

Copyright by
Amy Lynn Wiita
1 998

This thesis is dedicated to my late father Adelbert E. Gieche who graduated as a
forester from Michigan State University in 1952. I hope to be able to meet the challenges
and help realize his visions.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Maureen H. McDonough, my professor, mentor and
fiiend, for her supportive efforts, her insight and the special opportunity to pursue my
goals through this research. I thank Dr. Dennis Propst for making this research possible
through his support throughout my graduate program. Thank you Dr. George Axin and
Nancy Axin for inspiring me.

My husband James Wiita can not be thanked enough for his support and
companionship during the field work at the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. I would
also like to thank my mOther for all her unconditional support throughout my college
career.

This research was funded in part through Cooperative Research Agreement 23-3 2-
11 with the USDA. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station-Chicago.
Thanks are extended to the Forest Service for supporting this research and making the
collection of baseline visitor data for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area possible.

Special thanks go to the US. Forest Service, Manistee National Forest. Forest
Service personnel and volunteers graciously devoted their time and effort to make this

research a success.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xv
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 4
2.1 Defining Wilderness .............................................................................. 4
2.1.1 The Wilderness Act of 1964 ................................................... 4
2.1.2 The Eastern Wilderness of 1975 ............................................. 5
2.1.3 Michigan Wilderness Act of 1987 .......................................... 5
2.1.4 The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ................................... 6
2.2 Wilderness Use ...................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Visitors .................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Crowding ................................................................................ 10
2.3 Wilderness Perceptions .......................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Perceptions .............................................................................. 11
2.3.2 Managers’ Versus Users’ Perceptions .................................... 13
2.4 Wilderness Management ........................................................................ 15
2.4.1 A Changing Paradigm ............................................................. 16

vi

2.4.2 Monitoring Conditions ............................................................ 18

2.4.3 Limits of Acceptable Change .................................................. 19
SECTION 3: PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................ 25
3.1 The Issue at Nordhouse Dunes ............................................................... 25
3.2 Study Objective ...................................................................................... 28
SECTION 4: METHODS ............................................................................................... 29
4.1 Sampling ................................................................................................ 29
4.2 Data Collection ...................................................................................... 35
4.3 Survey Instrument .................................................................................. 35
SECTION 5: DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 37
5.1 Annual Visitation (Objective 1) ............................................................. 37
5.2 User Characteristics (Objective 2) ......................................................... 39
5.3 Travel Patterns (Objective 3) ................................................................. 40
5.4 Wilderness Meanings (Objective 4) ....................................................... 41

5.5 Users’ Perceptions of Current Wilderness Conditions and Preferences
for Ideal Conditions (Objective 5) ......................................................... 42
5.6 Encounter Tolerance (Objective 6) ........................................................ 42
5.7 Location Specific Encounter Information (Objective 6) ....................... 44
SECTION 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................... 46
6.1 General Overview .................................................................................. 46

6.2 Objective 1. Estimate visitation and show how these estimates can
be used to calibrate and modify the existing use estimation system
(seismic counters) .................................................................................. 50

vii

6.2.1 Annual Visitation .......................................................................... 50
6.2.2 Total Visitation by Season ............................................................ 52
6.2.3 Total Visitation by Day of the Week ............................................ 55

6.3 Objective 2. Description of existing users: Degree of return
visitation, place of residence, reason for visiting Nordhouse Dunes,

activities at the Dunes, size of party, and length of stay ........................ 58
6.3.1 Degree of Return Visitation and Residency .................................. 58
6.3.2 Activities and Reasons for Visiting .............................................. 58
6.3.3 Party Size and Length of Stay ....................................................... 63
6.4 Objective 3. Describe travel patterns within the wilderness area ......... 65
6.4.1 On-trail Use .................................................................................. 65
6.4.2 Off-trail Use .................................................................................. 68
6.4.3 Camping Use ................................................................................ 70
6.4.4 Visitors’ Awareness of Wilderness Boundaries ........................... 73
6.5 Objective 4. Identify what “wilderness” means to users ...................... 75
6.5.1 Legal Definitions .......................................................................... 75
6.5.2 Personal Definitions ..................................................................... 79
6.6 Objective 5. Describe user needs for management activities (as
opposed to user preferences) ................................................................. 81
6.6.1 Users’ Perceptions of Current Wilderness Conditions ................. 81
6.6.1.1 Management Controls .......................................................... 81
6.6.1.2 General Wilderness Conditions ........................................... 85
6.6.1.3 Use Levels .............................. 85

viii

6.6.1.4 Hunting Conditions .............................................................. 87

6.6.1.5 Ski Use and Horseback Riding ............................................ 89
6.6.1.6 Solitude ................................................................................ 89
6.6.1.7 Summary of Visitor Perceptions of Current Conditions ...... 89
6.6.2 Visitors’ Preferences for Ideal Conditions .................................... 91
6.6.2.1 Management Controls .......................................................... 91
6.6.2.2 Wilderness Conditions ......................................................... 94
6.6.2.3 Use Levels ............................................................................ 95
6.6.2.4 Hunting Conditions .............................................................. 98
6.6.2.5 Ski Use and Horseback Riding ............................................. 100
6.6.2.6 Visitor Preference Summary ................................................. 100
6.6.3 Summary of hunters’ Perceptions and Preferences for Selected
Issues ............................................................................................. 103
6.6.3.1 Group size ............................................................................ 103
6.6.3.2 General Use Levels .............................................................. 103
6.6.3.3 Hunting Use Levels ............................................................. 103
6.6.3.4 Wilderness Quality Satisfaction .......................................... 105
6.6.4 Summary of Horseback Riders’ Perceptions and Preferences for
Selected Issues .............................................................................. 107
6.6.4.1 Group Size ............................................................................ 107
6.6.4.2 Horse Use Levels ................................................................. 107

6.7 Objective 6. Identify level of acceptable encounters with other users
in terms of numbers, location and type .................................................. 109

ix

6.7.1 Crowding ...................................................................................... 109

6.7.2 Use Levels ..................................................................................... 112
6.7.3 Beach Use Levels .......................................................................... 116
6.7.4 Level of Controls ........................................................................... 116
6.7.5 Horse and Ski Use Levels ............................................................. 118
6.7.6 Hunting Use Levels ...................................................................... 121
6.7.7 Solitude and Wilderness Quality ................................................... 124
6.7.8 Camping ........................................................................................ 125
6.7.9 Users’ Expectations for Wilderness Conditions ........................... 125
6.7.10 Location Specific Encounter Information ................................... 127
6.7.11 Wilderness Satisfaction ............................................................... 128
6.7.12 Users’ Expectations for wilderness Conditions .......................... 129
6.7.13 Camping ...................................................................................... 129
6.7.14 Use Levels ................................................................................... 130
6.7.15 Summary of Objective 6 Findings .............................................. 131

6.7.15.1 Use Levels of People ......................................................... 131

6.7.15.2 Hunting Use Levels ........................................................... 132

6.8 Objective 7. Examine the difference between manager and user

perceptions of wilderness conditions ..................................................... 134
6.8.1 Manager Perceptions ..................................................................... 134
6.8.2 User Perceptions ............................................................................ 135

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 137

7.1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................. 137
7.1.1 Use Levels Concerning Hunting and People in General Across
Encounter, Users’ Perceptions and preferences Data .................... 137
7.1.2 Use Levels of People ..................................................................... 137
7.1.3 Hunting Use Levels ....................................................................... 138
7.1.4 Defining Wilderness ..................................................................... 140
7.1.5 Wilderness Management ............................................................... 140
7.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 140
7.2.1 Defining Wilderness ..................................................................... 140
7.2.2 User and Manager Perceptions of the Wilderness Area ............... 141
7.2.3 Wilderness Management .............................................................. 141
7.3 Limitations of the Study ........................................................................ 142
7.3.1 Survey Design Limitations ........................................................... 142
7.3.2 Measurement and Analysis Limitations ....................................... 144
SECTION 8: RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 146
8.1 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................. 146
8.2 Management Recommendations ............................................................ 147
SECTION 9: FINAL THOUGHTS ................................................................................... 149
APPENDICES
Appendix A Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Study Questionnaire ................ 150
Appendix B Sample and Total Visitation Estimates .................................... 161

xi

Appendix C Visitor Activities ..................................................................... 164

Appendix D Comparison of Legal and Personal Definitions of

Wilderness ................................................................................................... 165
Appendix E Location Specific Encounter Data ........................................... 168
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 175

xii

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Sampling Schedule for Summer .................................................................... 30
Example of an SPSS Cross Tabulation of Survey Questions 63 and 42 ....... 44
Annual & Sample Visitation by Season, 1993-1994, Holidays & Hunting
Season Separated ........................................................................................... 53
Annual & Sample Visitation by Season, 1993-1994, Holidays & Hunting
Seasons Merged into Four Seasons ............................................................... 54
Visitation by Season and Day, 1993-1994 .................................................... 56
Annual & Sample Visitation by Day of Week, 1993-1994 ........................... 57
Visitor Group Size and Length of Stay ......................................................... 64
Visitor Defined Wilderness Characteristics .................................................. 76
Visitors’ Responses to How They Perceive Current Conditions and
Preferences for Ideal Conditions ................................................................... 82
Hunter and Nonhunter Responses for Selected Wilderness Conditions ....... 104
Hunter and Nonhunter Responses for Wilderness Quality ........................... 106
Hunter and Nonhunter Responses for Satisfaction With Wilderness
Trip ................................................................................................................ 106
Horseback Rider and Nonrider Responses for Horse Use Levels ................. 108

xiii

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Reg:
Cross Tabulation of User Perceptions of Current Conditions and
Preferences for Ideal Conditions ................................................................... 110
Acceptability of Use Levels .......................................................................... 113
Acceptability of Management Activities ...................................................... 119
Acceptability of Horseback Use and Cross-Country Skiing ......................... 120
Acceptability of Hunting ............................................................................... 122

Appendix B: Sample and Total Visitation in Recreation-Visits, Nordhouse
Dunes Wilderness Area, 1993-1994 ............................................................. 161

Appendix C: Nordhouse Dunes User-defined ROS Criteria-~Primitive and
SPNM (1993-1994, Questions 19-37) .......................................................... 164

Appendix D: Legal and Personal Definitions of Wilderness Compared
(Nordhouse Dunes, 1993-1994, Question 10) .............................................. 165

Appendix E: Location Specific Encounter Data, Nordhouse Dunes
Wilderness Study, 1993-1994 ...................................................................... 168

xiv

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

LIST OF FIGURES

Bag:
The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) Planning System ......................... 21
Study Area, Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area ........................................... 26
Survey Site Locations .................................................................................... 31
Nordhouse Annual Visitation: Six “Seasons”, 1993-1994 ............................. 53
Nordhouse Annual Visitation: Four Seasons, 1993-1994 .............................. 54
Nordhouse Annual Visitation by Day of Week, 1993-1994 .......................... 57
First Time and Repeat Visitation ................................................................... 59
Residency of Wilderness Visitors ................................................................. 60
Visitors’ Activities in the Wilderness ............................................................ 61
Trail Use ........................................................................................................ 66
Off-Trail Hiking Use ..................................................................................... 69
Camping Use ................................................................................................. 71
Legal and Personal Visitor Defined Wilderness Characteristics ................... 77
Visitor Defined Wilderness Characteristics .................................................. 78
Nordhouse Dunes Meets Visitors’ Definition of “Wilderness” .................... 8O

XV

£191.11:
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

31.

Page
Visitors’ Perceptions of Management Controls ............................................ 84
Visitors’ Perceptions of General Use Levels ................................................. 86
Visitors’ Perceptions of Specific Types of Use Levels ................................. 88
Visitors’ Perceptions of Currently Acceptable Wilderness Conditions ......... 90
Visitors’ Perceptions of Needed Reductions in Use Levels .......................... 92
Visitors’ Preferences for Management Controls ........................................... 93
Visitors’ Preferences for General Use Levels ............................................... 96
Visitors’ Preferences for Specific Types of Use Levels ................................ 97
Visitors’ Preferences for Hunting Use Levels ............................................... 99
Visitors’ Preferences for Horse Use Levels .................................................... 101
Summary of Visitors’ Preferences for Wilderness Conditions ...................... 102
Crowding in the Wilderness Area .................................................................. 111
Visitor Polarization Concerning General Use Levels .................................... 115
Should Controls on Use Levels be Imposed? ................................................ 117
Visitor Polarization Concerning Hunting Use Levels ................................... 123
Visitors’ Expectations for Wilderness Conditions ......................................... 126

xvi

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The National Wilderness Preservation System stretches across the nation
encompassing approximately 91 million acres. It is by means of the 1964 Wilderness Act
that these lands are defined as wilderness. But, does everyone define wilderness in the
same manner as the Wilderness Act? Does simply designating an area as wilderness
determine that this area will be perceived the same way by all? Merigliano (1990) points
out that mere designation of an area as Wilderness does not ensure that desired
environmental and experiential conditions will be achieved. Therefore, who is to say that
with designation all will perceive a wilderness in the same way. The Wilderness Areas of
the United States are a valuable natural resource capable of providing many pleasures and
benefits to all. Managing these lands has been the responsibility of natural resource
agencies and their staff. It is vital to the preservation of these lands that the perceptions
of both managers and visitors alike be investigated to formulate efficient and effective
management frameworks for each Wilderness Area.

Managers’ and users’ perceptions often vary (Hendee and Harris, 1970, Downing
and Clark, 1978). How then can managers effectively manage wilderness areas for the
public if they do not have a thorough understanding of their clients perceptions? The

1

2

answer to this question is that managers must obtain a thorough understanding of their
clients. Managers must reevaluate their role in resource management and begin to
investigate what their clientele desires. Managers' roles are changing and becoming one
of a facilitator rather than an autonomous decision maker (Tipple and Wellman, 1989).

The public is increasingly becoming more interested in taking an active role in the
management of natural resources and therefore, bringing to the forefront of natural
resource management the concept of public participation. Management frameworks for
the natural resources such as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Carrying Capacity
have not employed user or public participation with a bottom-up framework to ensure
appropriate wilderness conditions for both the user and the ecological environment of the
wilderness area. In an effort to seek public input the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)
management framework was developed (Stankey et a1. 1985). It is still however, most
often implemented as a manager driven process that employs public participation at
selective stages. In contrast, a bottom up oriented participation process where visitors
would be included in the planning, decision making, and implementation processes as
equal partners with resource managers would facilitate resource management at all levels.
To effectively manage Wilderness for its users, managers must seek a better
understanding of their clients and use the knowledge clients possess to enhance their
management practices. The key to wilderness management is a cooperative learning
relationship between managers and their clientele.

The purpose of this study was to examine the differences between managers'

(USDA Forest Service personnel) and users' perceptions of wilderness conditions in the

3

Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. The study also described the existing users, their
travel patterns, preferences, and perceptions to provide managers with a better
understanding of their clientele. This thesis reports the formal findings of this study and

examines the importance of public participation in the fi'amework for managing

wilderness as a resource.

SECTION 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Defining Wilderness
2.1.1 The Wilderness Act of 1964

On September 3, 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-577, an act, which was to
"establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the
whole people, and for other purposes" (PL 88-577 Wilderness Act, 1964). The basis for
the establishment of such a system was the belief that with increased population in the
United States all lands would become developed and modified fi'om their original
uninhabited state. Therefore, to preserve some lands in their wilderness state, the
Wilderness Act was developed.

With the 1964 Wilderness Act came the first legal definition of the term
wilderness. The Wilderness Act defines wilderness in the following manner:

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works
dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and
its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to
mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval
character and influence, without permanent improvements or habitation,
which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and
which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of
nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has
outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of
recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to
make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4)
may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific,
educational, scenic, or historical value."

4

This definition set the groundwork for how managers of wilderness areas would come to
perceive wilderness.

2.1.2 The Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975

The 1964 Wilderness Act designated lands as Wilderness only in the Western
United States. Therefore, to encompass lands in the Eastern United States, on January 3,
1975 the Eastern Wilderness Act was developed to "further the purposes of the
Wilderness Act [1964] by designating certain acquired lands for inclusion in the National
wilderness Preservation System, to provide for study of certain additional lands for such
inclusion, and for other purposes" (Eastern Wilderness Act, 1975). The Act designated
specific lands as wilderness in the Eastern United States and also designated areas as
Wilderness Study Areas which were areas to be reviewed within ten years for their
suitability for wildemess designation. The Eastern Wilderness Act put the concept of
wilderness into legal terms in the Eastern United States. No longer would legally
designated wilderness be a concept to be attributed solely to the Western United States.
2.1.3 Michigan Wilderness Act of 1987
January 6, 1987 the Michigan Wilderness Act was enacted to "designate certain

public lands in the State of Michigan as wilderness and for other purposes" (Michigan
Wilderness Act, 1987). It was in this wilderness act that the Nordhouse Dunes
Wilderness Area was legally designated as wilderness. Although the size of the
Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area is small in comparison to other wilderness areas

(3,450 acres) the act stated that it was not intended that buffer zones be created around

6

designated wilderness in the state of Michigan. Therefore, nonwildemess activities
which could be seen or heard fiom within a wilderness area were to be permissible up to
the boundaries of the wilderness. This permits the use of motor craft on the area of Lake
Michigan that borders the wilderness as well as nonwildemess activities in the developed
Lake Michigan Recreation Area and Ludington State Park which also border the
wilderness.
2.1.4 The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

How does recreation fit into the framework of multiple-use land management as it
is specified in the 1964 Wilderness Act? The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) was
developed to address this issue. The ROS framework as outlined in Driver et al. (1987)
"involves specifying recreational goals in terms of broad classes of recreation
opportunity, identifying Specific indicators of these opportunities that permit their
operational definition and defining specific standards for each indicator that make
distinctions among the opportunities possible." Driver et al. (1987) continue by
indicating that ROS is then made operational by means of fourteen assumptions. The
assumptions outline what recreation is, the three components of recreation (behavior,
setting and experience), the three types of settings (physical, social and managerial) and
how these components interact and pertain to ROS. The basic concept of ROS is that
people participate in preferred recreation activities, within preferred environmental
settings, in order to attain satisfactory experiences (Driver 1976; Brown et. al. 1979). The
recreation opportunity spectrum can facilitate the land use planning process and serve as

a tool in land use management.

7

The United States Forest Service (U .S.F.S.) has operationalized the ROS
framework by dividing the spectrum of opportunities into six broad classes. The classes
consist of primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded
natural, rural, and urban (Buist and Hoots 1982). The U.S.F.S. then identifies settings
based on five indicating criteria (remoteness, size, evidence of humans, user density and
amount and noticeability of managerial regimentation or control). These characteristics
of the setting are used to indicate the kinds of experiences the recreationist is most likely
to obtain [from that setting](Buist and Hoots 1982). In this way the USPS. can use
ROS to label given areas according to managers' perceptions of what a given setting has
to offer a recreationist. What is lacking in this planning strategy is the answer to whether
or not the recreation opportunity spectrum, as it is applied by the USPS. and other land
management institutions, is classifying lands in the same way as a recreationist on these
lands would. ROS classifies wilderness as primitive to semi-primitive.

It is not known to what degree recreational experiences are influenced by settings,
behaviors and activities. The recreation opportunity Spectrum's integration of recreation
activities, settings, and experiences is based on planners' and managers' perceptions of
these unknown relationships. Virden and Knopf (1989) recognized in a study of
recreationists in southwestern Colorado that some desired experiences are more activity-
dependent, while others are more setting dependent. They also recognized that desired
experiences for a given activity might be independent of environmental setting, while for
other activities those same desired experiences might be setting dependent. Without

knowing the manner in which activity, experience and setting interact as perceived by

8

recreationists, who is to say that managers and planners are correctly correlating these
assumed components of recreation with land classifications? This indicates the need for
systematic feedback from recreationists to better understand their desires and preferences
(Heywood et al. 1991). Simply categorizing an area as having the resources to provide
particular recreational experiences as managers perceive it may not mean that
recreationists will perceive the area as providing the same opportunities. "Wilderness"
for one person may mean an area of a minimum of a million acres where he or she will
not encounter another recreationist for days, if ever. For another person "wilderness"
may constitute an area less than 4,000 acres with periodic encounters with other users.
Further research is need to ascertain the appropriateness of the assumptions on which
ROS is based (Driver et al. 1987).
2.2 Wilderness Use
2.2.1 Visitors

In an attempt to manage wilderness for wilderness users an understanding of these
users is essential. "Information on visitors can help wilderness policy makers, managers,
and researchers understand the distribution of wildemess benefits among various clientele
groups, the behavior of users, and the causes and potential solutions to visitor caused
social and ecological impacts in wilderness (Watson et al. 1989).” Roggenbuck and
Watson (1989) indicate that assessing visitation to wilderness areas requires an
understanding of three components of wilderness use: the total amount of use,
characteristics of that use and characteristics of the wilderness user. The authors

summarized overall use conditions for the National Wilderness Preservation system and

9

reported on the aforementioned components of wilderness use. Traditional characteristics
of users and their use such as age, gender, residency, length of stay, and activities as well
as others were addressed as information useful to the management of wilderness.

Who is to decide what are the appropriate characteristics that should be examined
when attempting to identify wilderness visitors and the characteristics of their use?
Young (1983) indicates that variables may vary for identifying who will use a wilderness
versus how much a person will use a wilderness area. Young (1983) also found that
nondemographic variables were more important indicators than certain traditional
demographic variables. Amount of use may be better analyzed through the use of
constraining parameters such as number of children and amount of vacation. Young
stated that "it seems that users have a relatively high set of wilderness values, and the
amount of use they make of the wilderness is not determined by their degree of
wilderness commitment, approval, or knowledge, but by how much time they have
available and how easy it is to make a wilderness trip."

Public and user involvement is critical when gathering information on wilderness
users and potential wilderness users. The relationships which can be developed between
managers and their clientele, who receive personal benefits fi'om resource management,
will increasingly become a factor in the success of the managing agency (Roggenbuck
and Watson, 1989). There is a need for baseline data on wildemess conditions and use
for most U.S.F.S. managed wilderness areas (Watson et al. 1992). Therefore, who better

to ask than the users themselves about how, when and where they recreate?

10

2.2.2 Crowding

Crowding in wilderness areas is often a concern of wildemess managers. The
concept of carrying capacity in recreation settings was developed to address this issue.
However, it may not always be the level of encounters that is of issue to wilderness users
but, rather, the type of encounters. Gramann and Burdge (1984) in their study of
recreationist in central Illinois, indicated that use levels should be assessed in terms of
both "physical tolerance" and "behavioral tolerance." Physical tolerance is tolerance
based on the proximity of users to one another due to use levels. Behavioral tolerance is
based on the tolerance for types of behaviors exhibited by other users. A few
incompatible encounters may influence perceptions as much if not more than a larger
number of compatible encounters. Gramann and Burdge (1984) continue that " simply
limiting use, therefore, will not necessarily reduce the proportion of visitors feeling
crowded, although it may produce a decline in the frequency of crowding reports, since
the number of potential reporters will be less."

Displacement of users from a given area is also not necessarily inevitable with
increased levels of use. Kuentzal and Heberlein (1992) determined that for users of the
Apostle Islands in northern Wisconsin intrasite displacement was an effective coping
strategy for visitors as use levels increased. Williams et al. (1991) indicated that further
research is needed that addresses the socialization process for encounter norms. The lack
of knowledge regarding what constitutes crowding for a wilderness user and how coping
strategies are employed in given situations by these users supports the need for user

participation in the research and management processes for wilderness areas. Simply

11

limiting use is no longer a suitable solution to the crowding phenomenon. Perhaps with a
cooperative effort between managers, researchers and users, greater insight may be
obtained concerning crowding in wilderness areas.

2.3 Wilderness Perceptions

2.3.1 Perceptions

Perception as related to landscape, is identified as involving the reception and
processing of information gleaned from the landscape (Zube, 1975). Zube continues to
state that the landscape acts as the stimulation and as the information for an organism.
But, perception is also influenced by individuality. Perception is influenced by and
individuals' experiences, values, beliefs, attitudes, social and economic well-being, and
by ones' expectations for the future (Zube, 1975). Therefore, wilderness may be
perceived in as many different ways as there are different people with different
experiences and values.

Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) outline the multitude of factors which are involved
when the human mind perceives the environment. Perception of the environment is based
on experience, familiarity and space to name but a few factors. The mind, when
perceiving its environment, smnmarizes attributes with which it is familiar to identify that
current environment. According to Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) when representing the
environment which one is perceiving, four aspects influencing perception are involved:
simplicity, essence, discreteness, and unity. Using these concepts one arrives at a mental
picture or feeling which describes an environment. This representation is then used to

forrn a cognitive map which associates time and space with a given environment.

12

Therefore, an individual can begin to predict what attributes are associated with given
environments and act or react with some cognition. A person would most likely expect
different attributes from a parking lot than he or she would from park once he or she had
experienced these two environments. Cognition is formulated based on both similarity
(unity) and dissimilarity (discreteness).

What does perception mean for the concept of wilderness? Individuals can
perceive their environment in many different ways as perceptions are based on various
experiences, levels of familiarity, and spatial settings. This supports that not only will
two different users of the same wilderness area have differing perceptions of that
environment but managers will also have differing perceptions. In fact, the same visitor
to a wilderness area at a different point in time may often have a differing perception than
that of a previous visit. Managers of a wilderness have a different association, familiarity
level and intention for a given wilderness environment than do the users of the same
wilderness. Even if a manager was to recreate in the wilderness he or she manages,
perceptions of the wildemess conditions would vary from those of users. Essentially, the
cognitive maps of managers differ from those of users. Leff (1978) proposes that an
individual can control to some degree the quality of an experience by consciously
controlling how he or she processes information and limiting what we choose to concern
ourselves with in the environment. Williams (1986) states that "the more researchers
understand the interrelations between the way people perceive and process information
from the environment and the nature of human experience, the more freedom participants

and managers will have to provide opportunities for the kinds of experiences most highly

13

valued." This further supports the importance of cooperative relationships between
managers and their clientele so as to facilitate wilderness management.
2.3.2 Managers' Versus Users' Perceptions

Downing and Clark (1978) state that it is management concerns with impacts that
have fi'equently led to constraints on users. But what if these concerns are based on
rrrisperceptions of user impacts and behaviors? Downing and Clark's study of visitors to
three forest areas in the Pacific Northwest and managers in the USPS, Bureau of Land
Management, Oregon Department of Forestry, and the Washington Department of
Natural Resources found that managers and recreationists do not always share the same
perceptions. Managers tended to rate recreation impacts as more serious than did users.
Perceptions of managers and visitors varied concerning issues of vandalism and theft,
fire, logging traffic accidents, recreationist conflicts, and impacts of human waste.
Overall "in dispersed recreation areas many impacts which distress managers are not
regarded as serious by recreationists" (Downing and Clark, 1978).

When looking at foresters' perception of wilderness user attitudes and preferences
Hendee and Harris (1970) noted that foresters correctly perceived users' reactions to two-
thirds of various wilderness management policies and behavior norms. Managers did
however have a variety of misperceptions concerning users' attitudes and perceptions.
Managers mistakenly perceived users as being in favor of recreational development in
wilderness settings, having primarily purist philosophies, and being clearly opinionated in
their wilderness views. Managers' perceptions of users are biased due to their role in

wilderness management. Hendee and Harris (1970) indicate that "a continuing challenge

14

to wilderness and other resource managers is to learn more about their clientele: who
they are, where they come from, and how they feel about management policies.”

A study identifying managers' perceptions of recreational horse use by Shew et al.
(1986) looked solely at managers’ perceptions. Users' perceptions of recreational horse
use were not identified and it is therefore not known if and how the perceptions may have
varied. The need for managers to seek an understanding of their clientele was briefly
addressed but the study showed no attempt at user involvement. This top down
management approach where recommendations are made solely on the basis of managers'
perceptions is nonparticipatory and ultimately impedes the management process. The
support of users in the predecision and decision making processes facilitates the
implementation of forest management and is vital to the success of the natural resource.

A study by Absher and McAvoy (1986) found that managers and commercial
users were in agreement with their support for maintaining wilderness values along the
Upper Mississippi River. Rosenthal and Driver (1983) indicated that they found that
managers' perceptions of skiers preferences were representative of skiers stated
preferences. Discrepancies did however exist. Managers underestimated the importance
of three out of five experiences most highly valued by the users. Rosenthal and Driver
(1983) state that "managers need a good, not perfect, understanding of the types of
experiences that ski-tourers prefer." Who is to define what reasonable is however? It
should not be assumed that managers inherently do not know what their clientele desire

but, one should not assume that managers’ perceptions are correct Simply because they

15

hold the title of manager. With public involvement mangers are more likely to begin to
obtain a "reasonable" understanding of users.

How does the changing of a land use designation effect users' perceptions of the
area? Fedler and Kuss (1986) studied the effect of changing the management designation
from backcountry to wildemess for an area. It was found that designation did impact
users’ perceptions of the area. This supports others such as Anderson and Brown (1984)
who have suggested that changes in the management direction of an area from
backcountry to wilderness could result in the displacement of some traditional visitors.
Designation, whether it be ROS, LAC, or other, is yet another way in which managers’
and wilderness users’ perceptions of a given area can be influenced.

2.4 Wilderness Management

How is it that one is to manage a natural resource? Robert Behn (1988) gives
animated insight on the process of managing. According to Behn, managers should
manage by groping along and wandering around in an effort to get to that management
goal they feel they should be attaining. "An excellent manager has a very good sense of
his objectives but lacks a precise idea about how to realize them." Groping is not to
imply random managing with no purpose. Groping has purpose but allows for the
flexibility necessary to manage effectively and efficiently.

Wandering around is also a key to good management. Behn (1988) states that
" Managers need to get information more personally and directly fi'om the people affected

by their decisions." Wandering around supports the need for input from the public in the

16

management process. Who are the clients and what do they want? These are the
questions managers should be asking.

Charles Linblom (1959) argues against the rational-comprehensive method of
managing which is too logical to be feasible. Managers can over plan and limit the
management process to the point that it is ineffective. Incrementalism does not allow for
change. It builds on past experiences and makes only minor changes. There is no
original thought processes involved in incrementalism. The process does not employ the
notions of risk or change. Cates (1979) indicates that incrementalism is best suited to a
stable environment. Cates addressed natural resource management as a non-stable
environment best suited to addressing ever changing issues. She suggests creativity as a
management technique for the natural resource arena. Creativity employs asking
questions and welcoming new input from the public, clients, other managers-~whomever
or whatever it takes. Creativity also employs the risk of failure. Failure can be
recognized as a new challenge rather than as a fear that stifles innovation (Cates, 1979).
2.4.1 A Changing Paradigm

Bonnicksen (1991) identifies managers of natural resources as mediators between
society and the physical environment from which resources are derived. As a mediator a
manager needs a framework for organizing the relationships among resource managers,
the society they serve, and the resources upon which they depend. Bonnicksen presents
the biosocial model as this framework. This model assumes a process of mutual

adjustment exists between a society and its physical environment and represents

l7

functional relationships. With this model managers can assess the changes in the
relationships that result from management practices.

Society and its views of the natural resources and the role management should
play in their management is changing. McCool (1989) points out that wilderness, as a
land designation, is a cultural institution. As such, it's meaning - and management -
reflects the social and cultural norms dominant at any given point in time. McCool also
states that "as our culture evolves, we can expect a parallel evolution in definitions of
wilderness." Managers therefore, must keep abreast of changing cultural values and
expectations. McCool presents various obstacles to managing wilderness amidst cultural
change. A recurring theme is that of a lack of knowledge about natural resource
processes and clients. "We know far too little about the people who use wilderness and
how they use it. Certainly, our ability to manage wilderness is influenced by our
knowledge of what people seek from it" (McCool, 1989).

Public involvement in the management process is again analyzed by Shindler et
a1. (1993). Shindler's study surveyed people to assess public preferences for federal
forest policy and opinions regarding public involvement in decision making. The vast
majority of the people surveyed supported increased public participation. When asked to
whom the managers should listen, participants responded with “local affected
communities.” "The message [from the public] here for forest resource agencies is they
must adjust management strategies more quickly to adequately reflect public preferences

and attitudes" (Shindler et al. 1993).

18

Contrary to the public involvement frame of mind supported by Shindler et al.
(1993) is the survey of National Park Service managers by Marion et al. (1993). In this
study managers were surveyed to determine the prominent management problems for the
National Park System. The problems identified were based on management’s perceptions
and public or user involvement was not involved. The study presented a comprehensive
account of managers’ perceptions of backcountry problems in the National Park System.
It was recognized that more formal research and monitoring of backcounu'y conditions
would help validate the observational data of the study. Clark (1986) addresses the need
for information concerning wilderness user characteristics for effective resource
management. This baseline information permits managers to recognize changing
conditions in the wilderness and with its users. Clark points out the need to study people
who do not participate in wilderness recreation as well off-season recreationists. Clark
indicates the "great need" for studies regarding wilderness and nonwildemess users on a
regional, national and international basis.
2.4.2 Monitoring Conditions

Monitoring is a critical aspect of managing wilderness areas. It is vital that
wilderness conditions and users are monitored on a periodic basis to identify changes in
the wilderness environment. Monitoring provides managers and publics with relatively
up-to-date accounts of the complex interactions that take place in a wilderness area. A
1991 report from the task force on monitoring for wilderness conditions indicates the

critical need for monitoring in wilderness areas given that wilderness is ofien in unique

l9

and fragile environments. Monitoring allows managers to identify whether management
goals are being achieved and if changes in management strategy are needed.

The importance of monitoring wilderness conditions as well as the wilderness
recreation experience is addressed by Merigliano (1990) in two papers presented at the
conference on Monitoring America's Enduring Wilderness Resource. Simply designating
a location as Wilderness does not guarantee that the desired (by management) ecological
and social conditions will be realized. Monitoring identifies how conditions are changing
and informs management of new challenges. Merigliano supports the use of indicators
which are defined as "Specific elements of the wilderness setting which change in
response to human activities." Indicators are used in such wilderness planning
frameworks as the Limits of Acceptable Change and Visitor Impact Management.
Indicators do not, however, identify if the changes occurring are acceptable nor the causes
of the changes. Chilman et al. (1989) note the importance of monitoring both the
physical and social aspects of the wilderness environment. In the effort to monitor these
conditions Chilman et al. (1989) identifies the importance of public input and the
necessary cooperative learning relationships that need to be fostered between managers
and their clientele.

2.4.3 Limits of Acceptable Change

The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process is a planning framework for
natural resource managers which aids in establishing acceptable resource and social
conditions in recreation environments. Stankey et al. (1985) outline the process in detail

identifying the focus of LAC and the nine steps which it entails. The process consists of

20

identifying issues and concerns, defining opportunity classes (based on ROS), selecting
indicators of resource and social conditions, inventorying current conditions, Specifying
standards for resource and social conditions, identifying alternative ROS classes,
identifying management activities for each alternative, evaluating and selecting an
alternative, and implementing actions and monitoring conditions (Figure 1) (Stankey et
al. 1985).

The LAC process "requires deciding what kind of wilderness conditions are
acceptable, then prescribing actions to protect or achieve those conditions" (Stankey et al.
1985). The question then becomes who decides what conditions are acceptable and how
to achieve those conditions? As McCool (1986) stated, LAC and public involvement go
hand in hand. Public involvement in LAC results in greater acceptance of the process and
establishes ownership in the process for both managers and the public. Public
involvement can be employed at various levels of the LAC process.

Defining standards for wilderness conditions is an important and basic aspect of
the LAC process. Shelby et al. (1992) outline the importance of standards as establishing
a foundation from which resource managers can work. Standards provide a reference
point from which change in the wilderness environment can be monitored. Standards
help to define the acceptable range for wilderness conditions and are a basis for
judgement of wilderness conditions. Shelby et al. (1992) cautions that the employment of
standards can lead to rigid forms of management and can be treated as regulations instead

of guidelines.

21

 

 

 

Figure l: The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) Planning System

22

Standards are quantitative or highly specific measures assigned to indicators
(Stankey et al. 1985). To clarify, an indicator of solitude might be “other parties camped
within Sight or sound at night” and the standard for this indicated condition may then be
“no other parties camped within sight or sound” (Stankey et al. 1985). Standards provide
a means by which one is able to measure resource conditions. Public involvement in the
process of establishing standards makes the process interactive between managers and
their clientele and benefits both parties by facilitating the management process.

Whittaker (1992) indicates the importance of attempting to determine which
impacts matter more in the wilderness environment and the importance for developing
standards for these impacts. Which impacts matter more to whom? Whittaker states that
what is at issue is whether managers' perceptions of what is important is the same as
users' perceptions. In his study it was determined that there are a variety of factors which
have varying degrees of potential to detract from a visitor’s wildemess experience.
Results support those of crowding studies in that it may not always be the number of
encounters that are critical but rather the types of encounters (i.e., rude behavior). It is
important to not limit the range of indicators to choose from as well as the sources of
input for evaluating indicators. Excluding user input from the process may eliminate
valuable information otherwise unavailable to resource managers.

Mitchell (1992) identifies the importance of determining standards on a case by
case level rather than attempting to determine uniform standards across wildemess areas
in general. Only with tailoring to the needs of specific areas can standards have

appropriate meaning. Mitchell believes that the Wilderness Act legislation is an adequate

23

unifying component of the wildemess system and management should be on an
individual wilderness basis. Standards should not be employed to provide uniformity but
as guidelines to provide desired (by both managers and users) wilderness conditions.
This is not to say managers from one area can not learn from others. Mitchell believes
that "management objectives and standards should be developed by federal managers
interactively with their constituents, following research on sociological and natural
indicators and values."

Roggenbuck et al. (1993) states that "human use of wilderness is not only
acceptable, it is a part of the wilderness mandate. [But] with human use comes
unavoidable impacts." The LAC process focuses on system outputs to attempt to manage
these impacts on wilderness from humans. It is once again illustrated in Roggenbuck et
al. (1993) that the views of the users are critical as wilderness is largely a cultural
resource. In the change toward defining acceptable conditions in the wilderness
environment and incorporating public opinion and knowledge, processes such as the
limits of acceptable change are constantly evolving and new processes are being
developed. As part of this evolving paradigm, Chilman et al. (1989) present refinements
on the LAC process and Hof et al. describe the Visitor Experience and Resource
Protection (V ERP) process for addressing visitor carrying capacity in the national park
system.

The concept of wilderness has evolved from a legislative mandate which first
encompassed the western United States and then the eastern United States to a mind set

for a management framework. It is now recognized that this management framework

24

does not only involve the natural resources and their managers, but also those people who
use the natural resources. The role of managers is changing to that of a facilitator and the
role of the public to that of an active participant (Tipple and Welhnan 1989). Managers
must begin to seek an accurate understanding of their clientele. Public participation can
provide vital knowledge of wilderness conditions otherwise unavailable to managers. It
was with this intention of grasping a better understanding of their clientele that managers

of the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area embarked on a study of the users of the

wilderness area using the LAC process.

 

SECTION 3

PROBLEM STATEMENT

3.1 The Issue at Nordhouse Dunes

Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area is a small Eastern United States wilderness. It
is the only designated wilderness area in the lower peninsula of Michigan (Figure 2).

This wilderness area, designated as such in 1987 due primarily to its dunal ecology,
consists of only 3,450 acres. The active sand dunes support unique ecosystems within the
wilderness area and several endangered plants and animals. The western border of the
wilderness area consists of 7,300 feet of undeveloped Lake Michigan shoreline. The
Nordhouse semiprimitive motorized area borders the wilderness area to the east and the
Lake Michigan Recreation Area is located on the northern border of the wilderness. Both
of these areas are managed by the US. Forest Service. The Ludington State Park borders
the wilderness area to the south and is managed by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.

Prominent management challenges for the wilderness were to identify where main
entry points into the wilderness were located and determining if the developed recreation
areas, which differ in purpose from the wilderness, were affecting wildemess use. Also,
prior to its wilderness designation, there were traditional/historical uses of the area such

as off-road vehicles and snowmobiling. Concern was expressed by the Forest Service

25

26

Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area

Michigan

 

Figure 2: Study Area, Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area

27

that these uses, which were incompatible with a wilderness designation, were continuing
to occur in the area.

To cope with these management challenges, the USPS. on the Manistee
National Forest is developing a Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) management plan.
This study addressed the need for a social and psychological understanding of users for
the LAC process. User concerns regarding social impacts are critical to establishing the
social and resource condition standards that are the basis of the LAC approach (Williams
et al. 1992). However, in 1989 when the Wilderness Implementation Schedule (WIS)
was developed for the area, users were not involved. Information about previous users
has been unavailable except in anecdotal form and there is no permit system from which
to gather user information. Seismic counters have been used along the trails to estimate
user numbers and access points but their accuracy is unknown. The seismic counters
have not been adequately calibrated to account for influences from rain, animals and
vandalism.

Essentially, little to no visitor information for establishing a limits of acceptable
change approach has been available. The purpose of this study was to estimate visitation
to the wilderness area and describe its users and their perceptions of and preferences for
the wilderness area. The study was also to identify the differences between managers'
and users' perceptions as they related to wilderness conditions. The importance of user
involvement in the management process was outlined and addressed as a vital component

to the management of the wilderness area. This study has provided this information to

28

facilitate the LAC management plan for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area and

provide managers with a better understanding of their clientele.

3.2 Study Objectives

The specific objectives this study addressed are as follows:

1. Estimate visitation and show how these estimates can be used to calibrate and modify
the existing use estimation system (seismic counters).

2. Describe existing users: degree of return visitation, place of residence, reason for
visiting Nordhouse Dunes, activities at the Dunes, size of party and length of stay.

3. Describe travel patterns within the wilderness area.

4. Identify what "wilderness" means to users.

5. Describe user needs for management activities (as opposed to user preferences).

6. Identify level of acceptable encounters with other users in terms of numbers, location
and type.

7. Examine the differences between manager and user perceptions of wilderness

conditions.

SECTION 4

METHODS

4.1 Sampling

A combination of stratified and random sampling procedures G’erales et al. 1992)
were employed in this study. Sampling was conducted from May 1993 to March 1994.
Sample size was based on Forest Service estimates of 15,000 to 20,000 visitors per year
with an average party Size of three. The total number of parties per year was estimated to
be 5,000 to 7,000. A sample size of 10% was used to set a goal of collecting 500 to 700
surveys over the life of the project. The sampling methodology was structured to obtain a
representative sample of wilderness users across all times of day, days of the week, entry
points and times of the year. Table 1 contains the sampling schedule for the summer
sampling season and is an example of the overall sampling schedule. Seven main entry
points into the wilderness were identified and sampled (Figure 3): the parking circle at the
end of Numberg Road, south end of the Lake Michigan Shoreline, north end of the Lake
Michigan Shoreline, northern wilderness boundary on Nipissing Trail, northern
wilderness boundary on ridge trail, along Green road, and the Nordhouse Lake trail head.
Depending on the amount of daylight during a season, time blocks of two, three or four

hours each were selected randomly during a given day. Across seasons, the blocks of

29

30

.mEaELZIGZ Beam esomumm .33 SSE“? E88 582an .83 882882"? ESE"? H

83m Sufism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\. x. x. x. a.
x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. as
x. \. x. x. x. x. x. x. a; >322:
\ x. x. x. s. x. x. s. s
x. x. x. x. .S
\o \o \o 3 1
x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. .5
s. x. x x. x. x. s. x. .S :8ng
x. \. x. x. x. x. x. \. E
x. x x. x. 8.
x. x. x. S E
x. x. x. x. x. S x. x. :a
\. x. S x. x. x. x. 3 EL SEE
\. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. S
x x. x. x. as
x. x. x. x. x. x. x. e...
x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. as
x. s. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. a; >352
x. x. \. x. S x. x. S
x. K. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. .S
x. x. x. x. S S
x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. E.
x. x. 3 x. x. x. S x. s a; :95...
x. x. x. S x. x. x S
x. x. x. S x. x. x. x. x. x. x. as.
x. s. S x. S x. a
x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. s .5
X 3 3 \a 3 3 \o x ‘ th ><Q~5h<m
\. x. x. x. x. 3 x. S
x. x. x. x. x. x. R. x. x. x. S as
\q x. x. h \. wt \. x. s.
x. s x. x. s. \. x. x. E.
x. x. s. x. x. x. x. x. as E5:
\. x. \. x. S x. \. x. S
n x. x. L. P n x. x. m. x. as
02 mm .5— m2 AZ 1 02 mm km 92 AZ 4< 02 mm .5— m2 AZ A< 02 mm PK m2 AZ A<
E 9; pl... um 85 E”. s: 8... bk Em 8._ 2.. 8,_ E. :2 8.2

 

 

 

 

Loan—am L8 9.35:3 mam—9.3m 3 03am.

 

 

32

time ranged from 8:00 am. to 9:00 pm. Generally, there were four time blocks of equal
length per day. Sampling was from 10:00 am. to 9:00 pm. during the summer and fall
until daylight was limited and sampling ended at 7:00 pm. Sampling in the winter was
from 11:00 am. to 5:00 pm. On the opening day of firearm deer season sampling began
at 8:00 am. This sampling scheme attempted to contact day users leaving during the
mid-aftemoon and early evening, and overnight users exiting during midmorning.
Sampling for the time periods was stratified and systematic with a random start. The
first level of stratification consisted of "seasons." Within seasons, there were five strata:
three traditional seasons (summer, fall, winter) plus major summer holidays and firearm
deer hunting season. Holidays and the 18-day firearm deer season were separated
because of the atypically high use that occurs during these periods. It was desired to
know how much use occurred during these periods, but it was not desired to use only
holiday and deer season averages to estimate use for a given season. For example,
combining deer season visitation averages with nonhunting week averages would
upwardly bias the fall visitation estimate. For the same reason, merging holiday
averages with other summer averages would paint a false picture of typical summer
visitation patterns. The spring season (March 13 to May 16) was not sampled due to time
and budget constraints and presumed low visitation rates. Fall sampling results were
applied to the spring season according to standardized procedures (Perales et al. 1992) to
estimate study results across the entire year. The five periods sampled were:

1. "Summer"--May 17, 1993 to September 19, 1993 (18 weeks), excluding holiday

weeks.

33

2. "Fall"--September 20, 1993 to November 28, 1993 (10 weeks), excluding firearm
deer season.

3. "Winter"--November 29, 1993 to March 13, 1994 (15 weeks).

4. Holiday--Memorial Day (5/28 to 5/31), Fourth of July (7/2 to 7/5), Labor Day
(9/3 to 9/6).

5. Firearm Deer Season--1 1/ 13 to 11/30.

Within seasons, the strata were months, weeks, days of the week and time of day
(daylight hours only). For a given month, a week was selected such that, after Memorial
Day weekend, there was approximately a two-week period between each week sampled.
For example, counting holiday weeks, there were five of each of the seven days of a week
within the summer sampling season (five Fridays, five Mondays, etc.). For each day of
the week, a date and time block were randomly chosen as a beginning point. Thus, one of
the five Fridays, for example, was randomly chosen and within that Friday one of four, 3-
hour time blocks was randomly selected. To continue the example, after one of the five
Fridays and time block for that Friday were randomly selected, time blocks were
systematically selected during the remaining four Fridays such that all possible time
blocks during Fridays in the summer were sampled 2-3 times each. Due to visitation
generally being greater on weekends more time blocks for sampling were selected for
weekend days than weekdays (during nonholiday weeks only; during holiday weeks, an
equal number of time blocks was sampled each of the seven days). During summer, 13
sampling blocks were chosen for each Saturday, Sunday and Monday across the weeks

selected, 10 time blocks for Fridays, and 8 blocks for the remaining days.

34

Finally, for a given sampling day (e. g., Fridays), as many as four interviewers
were systematically assigned to entry point locations such that each of the seven entry
points was sampled several times during each season. Algoma, North Beach and
Nipissing were sampled more frequently than the other three access locations because
these were the most heavily used. Across the entire summer season, with four
interviewers per time block, there were a total of 262 time block/access site combinations
sampled (Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays, 42 times; Fridays, 40 times; Tuesdays,
Wednesdays, Thursdays, 32 times). Algoma, North Beach and Nipissing were sampled
56 times; Ridge Trail, 33; Nordhouse Lake, 32; South Beach, 29.

The same procedure was followed for the remaining seasons with some
exceptions. Because of lower visitation and a reduction in the number of available
interviewers, sampling frequency decreased during the fall and winter sampling periods.
Also, during winter, time block sampling was restricted primarily to weekend days. With
the exception of winter, all possible time blocks during daylight hours were selected to
assure representativeness across days of the week and entry points. The result was a
sampling design which was representative of all possible daylight time periods and access
points from May to March.

Length of stay bias, pertaining to campers and extended stay day users, was
minimized in this study due to the exit survey structure of the sampling. The fact that
users were sampled only when they were exiting the wilderness for the day prevented
longer stays in the wilderness from increasing users' chances of being included in the

sample (i.e., a person can only exit once whether it is at the end of one day or five days).

35

Those users not exiting for the day (i.e., exiting but returning later) were recorded
appropriately and were only included in the sample when they were exiting for the day.
The sampling design also minimized length of stay bias through the random sampling of
all possible day light hours. Therefore, anyone, regardless of how long they stayed in the
wildemess, had an equal probability of being sampled when exiting. One exception to
this may have been during weekends that were over sampled. On these weekends certain
types of weekend use may have been overestimated.
4.2 Data Collection

Interviews were conducted on site to reduce costs, increase response rates, and
counteract recall bias. Each person in a party over the age of 15 exiting the wilderness
for the day was interviewed to gather the information outlined in the study objectives.
Interviewing only those groups that were exiting for the day minimized double-counting
that would occur if both entering and exiting parties were interviewed. The first week of
the study was dedicated to pretesting the instruments and data collection strategy.
Changes were made by refining instrument questions, modifying survey time periods and
locations, and expanding the data collected for use estimation.
4.3 Survey Instrument

Data collection instruments used in other Eastern wilderness areas were provided
by Dr. Alan Watson (Wilderness Management Unit, Forest Sciences Lab, Missoula,
Montana). Most questions for the instrument in this study were taken directly from these
instruments to enable the direct comparison of these results to those of other wilderness

studies. The questions were compiled, as appropriate, to address the objectives of this

36

study. The instrument contained ten sections comprised of questions focusing on data
collection, visitor group information, visitation to wilderness areas, wildemess activities,
visitor perceptions, level of acceptable encounters, crowding norms, visitor

demographics, and additional visitor comments (Appendix A).

SECTION 5

DATA ANALYSIS

The data collected fi'om the on site surveys were entered into the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The information collected for the project
objectives was analyzed using SPSS procedures, content analysis and visual
interpretation.

5.1 Annual Visitation (Objective 1)

The LAC process is manager-driven in that it is initiated as a result of
management's perception of, most often, a visitor-related challenge in a given area. If
this is to be the driving force behind the implementation of the LAC process it is vital
that existing use levels be estimated to ascertain the reality of use in an area. Visitation
estimates can then function as a baseline from which to apply user information gathered
in the LAC process. This baseline estimate of visitation can then give context to both
users' and managers' perceptions of use in the wilderness and be used as a means of
comparison to facilitate concrete management decisions.

Visitation for the Nordhouse Dunes wilderness area was analyzed by comparing
the number of people entering the wilderness to the number of users exiting the
wilderness for the day. Visitation analysis utilized the following data: the number of
people exiting for a period of time but returning to the wilderness, users who already did

the survey, users who refused to participate in the study, users interviewed, users who

37

38

were not contacted, and the number of cars parked on Green Road and at the Algoma
survey site. Visitation data was compiled on a spreadsheet in Quattro Pro for Windows
1.0. These data were converted to recreation-visits and annual visitation was estimated
for the wilderness area. Seasonal visitation data was then derived from the annual
visitation estimate.

For example, to estimate total annual visitation, assume that for the fall season
there were a total of eight Monday 10 to 12 am. time blocks and three were sampled (i.e.,
interviewed visitors at three randomly chosen survey locations during the fall on
Mondays from 10 to 12 am). During these three sampling periods, 15 persons were
exiting the Wilderness Area the day they were sampled. Thus, the average number of
persons visiting Nordhouse in the fall on Mondays from 10 to 12 am. was 5 (15
persons/3 sampling periods). It was assumed that the rate of visitation would be similar
for the time periods not sampled. Therefore, a total of 40 persons (5 persons/sampling
block * 8 sampling periods) visited Nordhouse on Mondays from 10 to 12 am. for the
entire fall season. In this example, the sample visitation figure is 15 recreation-visits and
the total fall visitation (for Mondays, 10 to 12 am.) is 40 recreation-visits. A recreation-
visit is a complete visit by one individual to a designated area for recreation purposes.
These computations were then applied across all sampling periods across all seasons and

summed to estimate total annual visitation.

39

Equation 1: Sample Visitation

where,
VS = total visitation in one of the six seasons (in recreation-visits)
CP = number of visitors counted in a given sampling period (p)
NP = number of times a given sampling period (p) was sampled
PT = number of total sampling periods possible in a given season
m = total sampling periods in a given season

Equation 2: Population Visitation

6
V122 Vs

s=l

where,
VT = total annual visitation (in recreation-visits)
VS = total visitation in one of the six seasons
5.2 User Characteristics (Objective 2)
The description of the existing users was obtained through the analysis of
questions 12, 17, 19-37, 94, 95 and 114 (Appendix A). Question twelve was analyzed to
determine the degree of return visitation among the users. The zip codes reported by

users in question 114 were used to determine the users' place of residence. Frequencies

40

were used to obtain the percentage of users from any given zip code and these
percentages were reported according to general geographic locations within Michigan, the
Chicago area, and on an out-of-state basis. Zip codes indicating cities within a 60-mile
radius of the wilderness area were identified using a map. Percentages for these zip codes
were then aggregated to produce the percentage of users who were from within a 60-mile
radius of the wilderness area. Users' responses to question 17 were analyzed by means of
content analysis to determine users' reasons for visiting the wilderness area. Responses
were then tallied and put in rank order. Questions 19-37 were used to identify the
activities in which visitors participated while at Nordhouse Dunes. Frequencies for each
question were produced and the activities were ranked according to total participation.
The size of the parties visiting the wilderness area was determined using question six.
The mean party size was calculated in SPSS as were the frequencies for question six.
Visitors were asked if they stayed overnight in the wilderness and if so, how many nights
in questions 94 and 95. These questions were used to determine the users' length of stay
in the wilderness area. Day users were determined fiom those visitors that answered "no"
to question 94 and the length of stay for overnight users was determined from responses
to question 95.
5.3 Travel Patterns (Objective 3)

Travel patterns of the wilderness users were analyzed using visual interpretation,
Excel spreadsheet applications and computer mapping using Freehand 5.0. Each group
interviewed highlighted on a map the trails they traveled and this information was

categorized, using visual interpretation, into four categories. The categories consisted of

41

day use on trails, overnight use on trails, day use on and off trails, and overnight use on
and off trails. The trails were then labeled and a grid system developed to enable travel
patterns and camping locations to be recorded in spreadsheet form in Excel. Travel
patterns were identified as linear (i.e., a person travels in and out along the same trail or
trails and as a result uses the trail(s) twice), loop (i.e., travel pattern is a loop and a person
uses the trail once because person does not backtrack along the same trail) and
combination travel patterns that combined both linear and loop travel. This organized
information was then used to produce a master map with the aggregated travel and
camping patterns of the users. The master map identified the location specific
frequencies of hiking use on and off trails and camping throughout the wilderness area.
The master map was developed by means of computer mapping using Freehand 5.0.
Travel and camping patterns were then identified in terms of location and frequency of
use.
5.4 Wilderness Meanings (Objective 4)

What the term "wilderness" means to users was analyzed using questions 10 and
11 and the 1964 Wilderness Act criteria for defining wilderness. Question ten (users'
definition of "wildemess") was analyzed using content analysis and the frequencies of
users' responses were compared to the criteria for the definition of wildemess in the 1964
Wilderness Act. Question eleven (if Nordhouse met users' definition of wilderness) was
also used in the analysis of users' definition of wilderness to put users' responses to

question ten in context of the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area.

42

5.5 Users' Perceptions of Current Wilderness Conditions and Preferences for Ideal

Conditions (Objective 5).

Users' perceptions and preferences for management activities were analyzed using
the agree, neutral and disagree responses from questions 42 through 86. Users'
perceptions of current wilderness conditions were analyzed based on questions 42
through 62 and their preferences were analyzed based on questions 63 through 86.
Responses for these questions were recoded so that "strongly agree" and "agree" were
aggregated as were "strongly disagree" and "disagree."

The subgroups of hunters (n=96) and nonhunters (n=410) and horseback riders
(n=65) and nonhorseback riders (n=441) were analyzed to determine if statistical
differences existed in the subgroups' responses to selected questions. The parametric t
test and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test were employed for this analysis.

Hunters were determined as those people surveyed from September 7, 1993 to
December 1, 1993 who indicated hunting as a primary or secondary activity while in the
wilderness area. The remainder of people surveyed were considered nonhunters.
Horseback riders were those people surveyed who indicated horseback riding as an
activity while in the wilderness area. The remainder of people surveyed were considered
nonhorseback riders.

5.6 Encounter Tolerance (Objective 6)

The level of acceptable encounters with other users in terms of numbers, location,

and type was examined using questions 42-93 (users’ perceptions and preferences) and 96

through 110 (encounter and crowding perceptions). Frequencies and cross tabulations

43

were used to analyze the responses to these questions. Responses to questions 42 through
86 were recoded such that strongly agree and agree were aggregated as were strongly
disagree and disagree. Frequencies were employed in the analysis for questions 87-110.
Question 105 (places user felt were crowded) was analyzed using content analysis.
Responses to question 105 were tallied and percentages calculated. The responses of "far
fewer" and "fewer," as well as "more" and "far more," for questions 87-93 and 96-97,
were aggregated into the categories of "fewer" and "more." Cross tabulation was
primarily employed in the analysis of selected questions from 42-86 concerning what
Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is and what it should be. The analysis for encounter
information was based on the nine response categories produced from the cross tabulation
of any two questions. These categories consisted of the correlated responses of agree,
neutral and disagree for each of the two questions in the cross tabulation. Table 2 is an
example of the cross tabulating of question 63 (Nordhouse should be a place to be alone)

with question 42 (Nordhouse is a place to be alone).

44

Table 2. Example of an SPSS Cross Tabulation of Survey Questions 63 and 42.

 

 

 

 

 

Q42
AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE totals
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Q63 AGREE 83.0 6.2 1.7 91.0
(%) n=3 87 n=29 n=8 n=424
NEUTRAL 3.4 3.2 0.4 7.1
(%) n=l6 n=15 n=2 n=33
DISAGREE 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.9
(%) n= n=3 n=3 n=9
totals 87.1 10.1 2.8 100.0
(%) n=406 n=47 n=1 3 n=466

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This cross tabulation shows that 83% of the visitors agreed that Nordhouse should be a
place to be alone and it is a place to be alone, indicating that their perception of the ideal
wilderness conditions is the same as what they experienced. It also shows that 2% of the
visitors agree that Nordhouse should be a place to be alone but disagree that it is,
indicating eight out of 424 people felt that their needs were not being met by the current
conditions. Types of encounters focused on hunters, horseback riders, skiers, and
campers as user types.
5.7 Location Specific Encounter Information (Objective 6)

Encounter information regarding location was analyzed from the cross tabulation of

questions 42-93 and 96-110 by the location of where each survey was conducted. Once

45

again, the responses of "far fewer" and "fewer," as well as "more" and "far more," for
questions 87-93 and 96-97 were aggregated into the categories of "fewer" and "more."
Users' responses to encounter information were then associated with appropriate locations
in the wilderness under the assumption that surveys from a specific site are most closely

applicable to that area of the wilderness.

SECTION 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 General Overview

During the sampling period of this study (May 17, 1993 - March 13, 1994) 506
people comprising 285 groups were interviewed and one hundred sixty-six people refused
to participate in the study. Refusals were primarily due to inclement weather conditions
and an abundance of biting insects, both greatly impeding the surveying process. Despite
refusals the response rate was 75%. Users consider Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area
to be an area where the forces of nature predominate and a place where they can be alone.
Fall season attracts the greatest number of visitors to the area, whereas winter boasts the
least amount of use. Visitors do not feel that the area is overused or crowded currently
and most visitors reported seeing less or about the number of people they expected to see.
The three main reasons users reported for visiting the wildemess area were the Lake
Michigan shoreline, opportunities to walk and hike in the area, and to enjoy nature.
Hunting, enjoying the peace and quiet, lack of people, the scenery, and just being able to
get away from everything and relax were also popular reasons. Most people visiting the
area were satisfied with their experience and felt that Nordhouse was what they consider
to be a wilderness.

When visiting the wilderness area one would encounter users mostly between the

ages of 21 and 50. Children and people over the age of 70 are not prevalent. Most users

46

47

are encountered hiking along the trail leading to the beach from the trail head at the end
of Nurnberg Road (i.e., Algoma) and to a lesser degree at the north end of the beach. The
majority of the visitors using the area visit for the day and are repeat visitors. Campers
are the minority of the users. Most of the people who camp in the area are between the
ages of 21 and 30 and day users are between 31 and 50. Visitors do not feel there are too
many people on the beach even though 52% of the visitors use the beach to swim, 41%
use it for sunbathing, 19% for nude sunbathing and 1% just like to be on the beach. The
majority of visitors were not concerned with nude sunbathing in the area. Visitors mostly
spend their time in the wilderness area viewing scenery, hiking on and off the trails and
camping. Visitors also hunt, engage in photography, collect berries, nuts and the like,
cross country ski, fish, boat, ride horses and participate in other minor activities. Visitors
use the wilderness area as a place to test their skills but, indicated they would like some
areas of greater challenge.

Approximately two-thirds (68%) of the visitors are male and one third (32%) are
female. Women who use the area are primarily between the ages of 21 and 50 and men
between the ages of 31 and 50. Roughly twice as many men use the area for camping and
day use as do women. The majority of the visitors to the area come from within the state
of Michigan. Most visitors are from the Muskegon and Grand Rapids area or from within
60 miles of the wilderness area. Visitors came from the Detroit and, to a lesser extent, the
Chicago area as well. The wilderness area had visitors from various locations outside the
state of Michigan. Wilderness users are from various locations in Michigan and from as

far away as Europe.

48

The responses of day, overnight, first time and repeat visitors indicated that results
from these subgroups directly supported the findings for the wilderness users as a whole.
The majority of these subgroups indicated that Nordhouse was not overcrowded.
However, approximately twice as many campers versus day users and repeat versus first
time visitors (10% vs. 5% and 8% vs. 3% respectively) indicated that they felt the area
was overcrowded. All of these subgroups indicated that they primarily did not change
the route or length of their stay due to overcrowding. Day, overnight, first time and
repeat visitors all encountered mostly what they expected or fewer for various conditions
in the wilderness. All of these groups also gave Nordhouse primarily a very good or
good grade, supporting the findings for users collectively. Subgroup responses to use
levels also supported overall findings. These subgroups primarily felt that there were not
too many users of any kind in the wilderness. Hunting, did however, have the greatest
amount of opposition from these subgroups. Campers, day users, repeat and first time
visitors all primarily view scenery in the wilderness and felt the area was a place to test
their skills as well as be alone. Users in all of these subgroups primarily felt that controls
on use levels should only be implemented when overuse occurs. Also, responses from
the subgroups of horseback riders and nonriders did not vary significantly concerning
horse use in the wilderness area.

The analysis of hunter and nonhunter subgroups indicated that responses from
hunters differed significantly from nonhunters regarding whether the wilderness is a place
with too many people, if there should be fewer hunters, if hunting should not be allowed,

wilderness quality, and visitor satisfaction with their wilderness trip. A greater

49

percentage of hunters than nonhunters felt that there were too many people in the
wilderness, disagreed that there should be fewer hunters, disagreed that hunting should
not be allowed, felt that the quality of the wilderness was improving and were dissatisfied

with their wildemess trip.

50

6.2 Objective 1. Estimate visitation and show how these estimates can be used to
calibrate and modify the existing use estimation system (seismic counters).‘
6.2.1 Annual Visitation

This section presents visitation results for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area
across all sampling periods from May 1993 to March 1994. To make the yearly estimate
complete, fall visitation estimates (minus firearm deer season figures) were applied to the
"spring" season (April-May, 1994). Results based upon observations made during the
sampling periods only are referred to as average visitation figures. As previously
explained (equations 1 and 2 in the methods section), annual visitation was estimated by
multiplying average visitation per sampling period by the total number of possible
sampling periods in a season and then smnming across all seasons.

During the 12-month period, May 1993 to May 1994, it was estimated that there
were 3,575 recreation visits2 to the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. Campers
accounted for 32% or 1,144 recreation visits.

Three factors make the initial estimate of 3,575 recreation visits an underestimate,
but only the third factor may be significant in this study. First, sampling was only

conducted during daylight hours. Second, the survey instructions were to interview only

 

1

Objective 1 was written in a cooperative effort by Dr. Dennis B. Propst and myself (Amy
L. Wiita) as part of the final project report to the U.S.F.S..

2

A recreation visit is a visit by one person to a designated area for recreation purposes. For
day users, a recreation visits is a single day or portion of a day in the designated area. For

campers, a recreation visit may include one or more nights (e. g., 2 persons for 3 nights =
2 recreation visits).

51

those 16 years of age or older. Thus, persons younger than 16 were not counted if they
were part of a group that was interviewed. Most importantly, Forest Service staff
indicated that the year the study took place was unusually wet and prone to larger
amounts of biting insects than normal, thus deflating our estimate of use. In terms of
rain and insects, what is not known is how atypical the sampling year was compared to
other years.

In past years, the Nordhouse Dunes management staff has estimated visitation
using an entirely different procedure than the one followed in this study. Nordhouse
Dunes Wilderness managers have 11 pressure sensitive counters buried under 9 trails
leading into the wilderness. Using these counters, the Forest Service estimated visitation
at Nordhouse Dunes for the entire year to be approximately 15-20,000 persons. This
figure is not directly comparable to our estimate of 3,575 visits. The 15-20,000 figure
represents "clicks" on the trail counters and thus is inflated by double-counting (e. g.,
same person crossing the same or different trail counters several times during a day). The
pressure counters also do not distinguish between humans and animals (e. g., deer, dogs)
that may register "clicks." Large raindrops are a third means of artificially increasing the
number of clicks on the counters. Because of these sources of error, the 15-20,000 person
estimate overestimates total visitation. Offsetting this upward bias, there are other visitor
entry points (e.g., along Green Road and the Lake Michigan Shoreline) where there are no
trail counters. It was found in this study that 24%, 7%, and 4% of the visitors sampled

exited the wilderness area from North Beach, Green Road and South Beach, respectively.

52

Therefore, use estimates based solely on trail counters do not account for visitation in
these areas.

Taking all these factors into account, the study annual visitation estimate is still
significantly lower than the USDA. Forest Service estimate. This difference is due to
measurement error in the trail counters, different measurement units (trail counter clicks
versus recreation visits), and weather. It is not unusual for use estimates based on the
exit interview and sampling procedure employed in this study to be half as much as the
estimate derived by other means (Perales 1995). Therefore, the typical annual visitation
at Nordhouse Dunes, as measured by trail counters and manager judgment alone, is likely
to be within the 7,000-10,000 visitor (not recreation visits) range when weather and
insects are favorable.

6.2.2 Total Visitation by Season

The expected highest use period, summer (6/1/93 to 9/6/93), excluding holidays,
received 33% of the total annual visitation (Table 3 and Figure 4). The 18-day firearm
deer hunting season received the second highest proportion of annual usage (25%). If
the Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day weekends are added to the summer
season and firearm deer season is included in fall use, fall (41%) has a slight edge on
summer visitation (41%), followed by spring (16%) and winter (2%) (Table 4 and Figure
5). Nonetheless, it is during the deer hunting season that the greatest proportion of total
visitation occurs (25% of the total use in 18 days).

Holidays account for 8% of total visitation to Nordhouse (Table 3). Summing the

holiday visitation, which occurs in 12 days, and the deer season visitation, which occurs

53

Table 3: Annual & Sample Visitation by Season, 1993-1994, Holidays &

 

 

 

 

 

Hunting Season Separated
Season Visits Percent Visits Percent
Holiday 555 13.5% 273 21.6%
Summer 951 23.1% 281 22.2%
Fall 670 16.3% 157 12.4%
Hunting 1013 24.6% 356 28.2%
Winter 226 5.5% 37 2.9%
Spring 702 17.1% 160 12.7%
ANNUAL 4118 100.0% 1263 100.0%
Annual & Sample Visitation by "Season"
30.0%
24.6%
25.0% 211%

 

20.0%

 

 

 

15.0%

 

 

10.0% -

Percent of Recreation-Visits
Annually

5.0% l

 

0.0% ~

 

 

 

Holiday Summer Fall Hunting Winter Spring

"Seasons"

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Nordhouse Annual Visitation: "Six Seasons", 71993-1994

54

Table 4: Annual & Sample Visitation by Season, 1993-1994, Holidays & Hunting
Season Merged into Four seasons

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Visitation Sample Counts
Recreation Recreation
Season Visits Percent Visits Percent
Summer 1506 36.6% 554 43.9%
Fall 1683 40.9% 513 40.6%
Winter 226 5.5% 37 2.9%
Spring 702 17.1% 160 12.7%
ANNUAL 4118 100.0% 1263 100.0%

 

Annual Visitation by Season

45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

Percent of Recreation-Visits
Annually

 

Summer Fall Winter Spring

Seasons

 

 

 

Figure 5: Nordhouse Annual Visitation: Four Seasons, 1993-1994

55

in 18 days, results in about a third of total visitation to Nordhouse occurring in 8% of the
365 days in a year. In fact, 9% of total visitation in 1993 occurred on one day, the
opening day of firearm deer season (Table 5). Seasonal visitation information illustrates
the uneven distribution of use in the wilderness area over the course of a year. Use is
concentrated on summer holidays and during firearm deer hunting season which are a
small proportion of the total year.
6.2.3 Total Visitation by Day of Week

Across the entire year, Sundays received the highest proportion of visitation
(31%) at Nordhouse Dunes (Table 6 and Figure 6). Saturdays followed by Mondays
received 22% and 19% of the total visitation, respectively. The relatively high proportion
of visitation occurring on Sundays and Mondays may partially be attributed to having
several holidays, Memorial Day (Sunday and Monday), Fourth of July (Sunday only) and
Labor Day (Sunday only) occur on these days. Also, the opening day of deer season fell
on a Monday during which almost half of all hunting season visitation occurred. As
expected, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays received the least amount of use (8%,
5% and 5% respectively). Use in the wilderness area across the days of the week is
unevenly distributed as was use across seasons. More than 72% of the use in the
wilderness area is concentrated on Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays. Eighteen percent of
the total use in the wilderness area occurred on the weekdays of Tuesday, Wednesday
and Thursday. For a compilation of visitation by season and day see Table 5. Appendix

B contains the raw data upon which seasonal and daily visitation estimates were based.

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$32 8.2:. aw: SSS :3 SEN 5.x 2.22 458.
$58 332 S3 mama :3 5.8 an...“ 3.3: 323
SEN 33$ :3. «as: :3 2.3 :3 21% 55%
$2: Ea? :2 $8 $3 8.2. a? 3.9 an;
an... an: 56 3.3 .Sd 85 $2 8.2 aaafi
S3 5&8 S3 3o :3 85 Sam 33 58:83
RE as: sec 8.3 :3 8o :3 min 533
5.x $.22 $3 -33 $2 8.3 .5: - 8.5. $82
Jan—bu. macaw .853 weesf .89
753mm 4:.
RES 25$ SEN 8.8a an: 8.42 453
«.3 23$ :3 ~88. a? SEQ Seam
SE. SE: :3 8.5 $3 2.2: 55%
$3 $8 :2 3.8 $2 2.; an;
:3 new... a: $8 $3 8.0 SEEP
rod 23 :3 8.2: $3 85 58:83
:3 8.3 $3 8.8 sod 3o 58$
:2 SS :3 «3: $3. 1.1 ”mm: 582
=a... SEES wagon an

 

vaamunaa— in: v5. nemaom .3 net—35> um «Bah.

 

57

Table 6: Annual & Sample Visitation by Day of the Week, 1993-1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Visitation Sample Counts
Recreation Recreation
Day Visits Percent Visits Percent
Monday 1013 24.6% 286 22.7%
Tuesday 249 6.1% 74 5.9%
Weds. 207 5.0% 88 7.0%
Thursday 176 4.3% 65 5.2%
Friday 425 10.3% 126 10.0%
Saturday 823 20.0% 238 18.9%
Sunday 1224 29.7% 385 30.5%
4118 100.0% 1263 100.0%
Annual Visitation by Day of Week
2*
g 35.0%
29.7%
g 30.0% ,
E, 25.0% ~
:5; 20.0% -
g 15.0% .
323 10.0% -
I...
,2 5.0% ~
g 0.0% .
a.
49°

 

Days of Week

 

 

 

Figure 6: Nordhouse Annual Visitation by Day of Week, 1993-1994

58

6.3 Objective 2. Description of existing users: Degree of return visitation, place of
residence, reason for visiting Nordhouse Dunes, activities at the Dunes, size of
party, and length of stay.

6.3.1 Degree of Return Visitation and Residency

Users of the wildemess area were predominately repeat visitors (66%) (Q12).
Visitation ranged from 1 to 250 times a year per visitor (Figure 7). First time visitors
constituted 34% of the wilderness area users. The largest group of visitors were from the
local (60 mile radius), Muskegon and Grand Rapids areas (40%) (Figure 8). Out of state
visitors comprised 15% of the sample population. These findings support the continuing
need for the involvement of local residents in the management process of the wilderness
area.

6.3.2 Activities and Reasons for Visiting

Visiting Lake Michigan followed by hiking and walking and enjoying nature were
ranked highest as reasons listed by visitors for visiting the wilderness area (Q17).
Hunting and solitude or just getting away from it all were also included in the top 10
reasons.

The primary activities of visitors (Q1 9-Q41) were consistent with their reasons for
visiting the wilderness. In analyzing total overall participation, 86% of the visitors
viewed scenery, 82% hiked on trails, and 63% hiked off trails (Figure 9 and Appendix C).
Camping was ranked fourth with 58% of the visitors noting it as an activity. Swimming

was ranked seventh, sunbathing ninth and nude sunbathing fifteenth with 52%, 41%, and

59

Repeat Visitation

45.0%

 

39.3%

1
|

 

40.0% -

 

 

 

35 0% 34.2%

30.0% -

 

 

 

 

25.0% —

 

20.0% -

 

Percentage of Total Visitors

15.0% -

 

9.7%
10.0% -

 

 

  

5.2% 55% 5.0%

lst time 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-99 100-250
visitors

5.0% -

 

 

 

0.0% —

Number of Previous Visits

Figure 7: First Time and Repeat Visitation

 

60

Residency of Nordhouse Visitors

 

Northern &

Northeastern

Michigan &

Upper Out of State
Penninsula 16.3%
17% ; Muskegon &
‘ Grand Rapids
V Area
24.4%
Southwestern
Michigan
1.9%
Lansing Area
4.7%
Thumb & Tri
City Area
6.2% Within 60 Miles
of Nordhouse
Kalamazoo & Dunes
Battle Creek Wilderness Area
Area . 17.2%
7.2% 1 Detroit Area
Ann Arbor Area 12.3%

8.3%

Figure 8: Residency of Wilderness Visitors

61

$952.55 2.. 5 8:353. .233.» a as»:

moE>wo< go... .«o omficoobm
$6.3 $6.3 food“. $6.8 $6.3 $5.3 £56m a\oo.om a\oc.o_ o\oo.o

MMV bosom 9:305
| £5 895.:

«.3 Elli . I
mcmr mafia—C

o _ m -| , l- I ”:5 to 9.3:
3m and E 8.: Siam

MON wan—.636
I'll
_ ,. seam 2.52

2335a
95.5:

 

gm

.8: a 88: so 9.286
>292;
manna—0E

 

com
on _

A'IIAva

uaézfim 8:2
am Bram «58:8

 

 

 

 

 

DEE. .6 a: Si _ . I
i. 1.1 1. «53958an
H ...
was”:
I
95.8
I
9:2: “.0320:
w 335
m E 8 “=5 e .3 a: 58m
m
N

 

302.3% 8m
.13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”8:32; 2.. E 8:3.2 .223.»

62
19% visitor participation respectively. Analyzing activities as major or minor activities,
as identified by visitors, showed that the majority of those people listing nude sunbathing
as an activity did not list it as a major activity. Six percent of the visitors participated in
it as a major activity. Users visited Nordhouse Dunes to enjoy the area by simply
viewing it and by walking through it. Lake Michigan attracts people for more than just
swimming. This was indicated by Lake Michigan being ranked number one as a reason
for visiting the dunes but swimming being ranked seventh overall in activities. Users
may have been visiting the lake during the summer months and simply appreciating its
aesthetic value and never going swimming. Results concerning swimming however, may
have been skewed because swimming is limited primarily to three months of the year.
This may have had an adverse impact on the rank position of swimming since the top six
categories were not seasonal activities and therefore had a greater likelihood for
participation by the users over the entire survey period.

Caution should be taken when interpreting visitors’ activities (Q19—Q4l) in the
wilderness area. Through the cross referencing of questions seven and thirty-four it was
identified that although 65 visitors indicated that they participated in horseback riding as
an activity in the wilderness only five visitors stated that they traveled by horseback in
the wilderness. If a visitor were to have participated in horseback riding as an activity he
or she would have had to have also traveled by horseback in the wilderness. This
indicates that users may have identified experiences from past trips to the wildemess area
or experiences outside the wildemess area when responding to questions concerning

activities in the wilderness.

63

6.3.3 Party Size and Length of Stay

Users visited the wilderness area in groups with an average size of 2.5 people per
group (Q6) (Table 7). Group size ranged fi'om one person to fourteen people. However,
groups with over seven people comprised only 2% of the users. Day use constituted 68%
of the visitors (Q94). Overnight visitors (32%) camped in the wilderness from one to five
nights. The majority of campers (82%) stayed overnight in the wilderness for 1 to 2
nights (Q95) (Table 7). This reflects the small size of the wilderness area and the ease of
accessibility that facilitates short stays. Nordhouse provides a conducive environment
both for people who merely want to take a walk in the woods in an afternoon or those

who wish to camp overnight for several days.

Table 7: Visitor Group Size and Length of Stay

 

 

 

 

I Group Size (people) Frequency % J
1 ' 73 25.7
2 125 44
3 33 11.6
4 25 8.8
5 11 3.9
6 7 2.5
7 5 1.8
8 1 0.4
9 l 0.4
10 1 0.4
13 1 0.4
14 1 0.4

 

[Mean Group Size: 3 I

 

 

Number of Nights Frequency %
0 (Day Users) 366 72.3

1 51 10.1

2 64 12.6

3 17 3.4

4 4 0.8

5 4 0.8

 

 

65

6.4 Objective 3. Describe travel patterns within the wilderness area.

All use pertaining to travel in the wilderness is presented on a group basis
(n=285).3 This is because one person from each group interviewed recorded the travel for
the entire group (i.e., travel is a group variable).

6.4.1 On-trail Use

Users' on-trail travel was most heavily concentrated along trail segments A1
through A4 which lead from the parking area at the end of Nurnberg Road to the beach
(Figure 10). Trail use diminished with increasing distance from the parking area. Trail
segment Al was used 190 times where as segment A4 was traveled only 124 times.
Segment A1 of this trail that leads from the parking area to the first loop is the most
heavily used trail segment in the wilderness area (n=190). Most groups using the trail
leading to the beach traveled along the west fork, segment A4, (n=123) rather than the
east fork, segment El (n=55). Trail segment A5 had a noticeably low number of uses
(n=4l) given that it connects the trail with the greatest number of uses (A1 -A4) to the
beach. Given that 46% of the use along trail segments A1 -A4 occurred during the
summer it is unlikely that a large number of groups simply stopped at the dunes
overlooking the beach and did not use trail segment A5 to arrive at the beach. This

improbable data was most likely due to inaccuracies on the part of the groups when

 

3

A use for a trail, trail segment or quadrant of the wilderness area is the number of uses by
groups that visited the area. For example, the 190 uses on trail segment A1 represents

190 uses by groups that traveled this segment. Therefore, if there were 2 people per each
of these groups the trail segment would have been used by 380 individuals in our sample.

74',
,,,.,
’1, , .

. V. , ,

 

fl”
./

3
Z
/

%4

/
1;

» /
fail/I
2-’ 4/

”w

///r

2741
7%:

'1

'0
,
’/

     

   

 
    

~ .. \ \~
\\ \\"\\‘

\‘L\\. \Skkx
( \
§\\

 
 
 
 

 

\\
‘x\

\ .

\ ‘ \\ \
\ ~.~2\\<\\
\ \ .‘x ~
\

.

x
\

\\ \\\:

633453
\\\>\:\ \
52.»: . \,

\
\
\

‘C- ‘\ ‘Q
\§\\
:\\\\ ‘

\m .

 

LEGEND
Ilmo-mo

 

l0-99
50-79

20-49

Il-l9

l-IO

units = (nil um

 

 

66

 

    
 
 
 
  

    
  
 
   
     
 
     
  
  

  
 
 
 

w
to

 

 

 

Trail Use

Figure 10

67

identifying their route of travel. The heavy off-trail and camping use in this area also
support that users may have misrepresented the use of trail segment A5.

The trail second most frequented was DI, the shoreline starting at the common
boundary between the wilderness area and the Lake Michigan Recreation Area (LMRA)
and ending approximately half way down the beach at trail segment A5. Trail D1 was
used eighty-one times. Trail segment D3, the shoreline closest to the LMRA that
stretches less than one quarter of the way down the beach, however, was used more often
than was the complete north beach trail. Trail segment D3 was used 125 times. From
information concerning the use of trail segment D3, it appears that day users parked or
camped at the LMRA and ventured from the recreation area down the beach and into the
periphery of the wilderness area. This peripheral use of the beach from visitors
comprised approximately 35% of the use for the northern segment of the north beach trail
(segment D3). Trail segments D4 and D5, located in the midsection of the beach, were
used 100 and seventy-four times respectively. The southern portion of the wilderness
shoreline, segment D2, which starts where segment A5 intersects the beach and ends at
the southern boundary of the wilderness, was used sixty-four times. Travel along the
shoreline was most concentrated at the northern boundary next to the LMRA and
decreases the closer one approaches the southern boundary of the wilderness. This is
given that the users reported their routes of travel correctly and the midpoint of the
shoreline (i.e., segment A5), actually did have a low number of uses.

The trails that received the next greatest amount of use were as follows: the ridge

trail consisting of segments C1 through C10 with 56, 52, 70, 55, 64, 62, 59, 56, 62 and 63

68

uses respectively, the trail leading to Nordhouse Lake (K1) with fifty-five uses and the
section of the middle trail comprised of segments F1 and F2 with fifty-two and fifty-nine
uses, respectively. The next lowest category of trail usage diminishes to use ranging from
thirty to forty-one uses per trail. These trails are mostly connecting trails between larger
trails except trail J 1 that leads to Nordhouse Lake. The trail segments comprising this
group are A5, F3, G1, H1, H2, 11, 12 and J1 with uses of4l, 35, 30, 31, 32, 30, 37 and 39
respectively.

All other trails or trail segments in the wilderness area were reported as having
lesser amounts of travel. Travel for these trails ranged from three (L7) to twenty-four
(K4) uses. Trail Bl had the least amount of travel of the designated wilderness trails with
six uses. It should be noted that "trails" and "trail segments" L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8
and L9 are located on the borders of the wilderness area and are not designated trails
within the wilderness area. Use reported on these "trails" may or may not have been on
the perimeter of the wilderness area. It cannot be discerned if travel occurred on the
periphery of the wilderness or just outside its borders.

6.4.2 Off-trail Use

The entire wilderness area was used for the off-trail hiking activities of the users
(Figure 11). Off-trail hiking was concentrated in the western section of wilderness that
spans an area from slightly north to slightly south of Nordhouse Lake (and includes the
area surrounding the lake) and is located between Nordhouse Lake and the Lake
Michigan shoreline. Travel in the western section ranged from seventeen to thirty-seven

groups per quadrant (i.e., high off-trail use) and constituted 30% of the off-trail use in the

69

8: 335 .558 H: as“;

2 2 ..._.... ....Q... 22......
. .2 2 . 2. .. 22222.2/2gu/W/2fl/M2/22/flfl 22

2.2.2.. 2... .2. 22%/.2. .

.
n..../
///2

 

  

V

........
:nu.sn ““““““““

 

94v.»

10%;;01 m?!— :J > 3

_ , , ._
/x / /////%.fl////€ I. . . . _ L .I 9 .m.
. .. / .2/5/
III /. o
$17!. III B— I:

a:
Z
I I s

5...:

 

 

c.4303.—

 

.............
......

.3. ':--\' '
4.54 .4,” .4" .x ‘ >
. +34"
. .-.~¥
. 'c’fif}

 

70

wildemess area. The heaviest off-trail use was located in quadrants T7 and T8 with
thirty-three and thirty-seven reported groups using each area respectively.

The majority of the wilderness area received a medium to medium-high level of
off-trail use ranging from nine to sixteen groups per quadrant of wilderness area.
Medium (9-12 groups/quadrant) and medium-high (13-16 groups/quadrant) off-trail
hiking use was 51% of the off-trail use. Medium use was primarily in the eastern half of
the wilderness stretching from the northern to the southern boundaries located east of
Nordhouse Lake. Off-trail hiking use diminished along the perimeter of the wilderness
area and in and around the northern end of the Lake Michigan shoreline. Off-trail hiking
use in these quadrants was considered low and ranged from one to eight groups per
quadrant. Low use was 19% of off-trail use.

6.4.3 Camping Use

The camping locations of users recorded on the travel maps indicated that
camping use was concentrated mostly on either side of the ridge trail (i.e., Cl-CIO) and
just past the south end of the ridge trail (Figure 12). The range for high camping use was
from 14 to 16 campsites, medium-high use was comprised of quadrants with 10
campsites, medium use ranged from 6 to 8 campsites, medium low use encompassed
quadrants with 4 campsites and low use constituted 2 campsites per quadrant.4 Quadrant

S9 had the greatest number of campsites with sixteen and quadrants R10 and T8 just to

 

4

A campsite was a location indicated by a group as having been used for camping for a
recreation-visit. If two different groups indicated the same location for camping at
different times this was considered two campsites.

71

on: uEnEaU "2 PEME

$2222222.
4..

.22

    

H / //J%W%Ixzzi/%% . . _- . .. in 2 n N... I m-
// ///r/ ééuuuuhunrgzu film—“NED! 1|
% . .r/fl/ /.. :1 .2

   

\

 

72

the north and south of S9 also showed high levels of camping with fourteen campsites
recorded for each quadrant. Medium levels of campsites were located along the Lake
Michigan shoreline just west of the high use areas (quadrants R9, S8, and T7). The area
surrounding Nordhouse Lake showed a medium-low frequency of campsites. Low levels
of campsite frequencies were dispersed throughout the southwestern section of the
wilderness area fiom north of the end of Nurnberg Road to the Lake Michigan shoreline.
High use camping was 35% of the camping use, medium-high 16%, medium 21%,
medium-low 10% and low camping use 19%.

Campsites were not evenly dispersed throughout the wilderness area. No
campsites were recorded on the wilderness' eastern half (i.e., wilderness located east of
Nordhouse Lake and between the north and south boundaries of the wildemess area).
Campsites were distinctly concentrated along the shoreline area of the wilderness.

The travel patterns in the wilderness area paint a clear picture that the majority of
the users were arriving at the midsection of the Lake Michigan shoreline by way of the
beach from the north (i.e., trail D1) and the trail leading from the end of Nurnberg Road
to the beach (i.e., segments A1 - A5). Given that trails D1 and A1 - A5 had the greatest
levels of use, it is not surprising that where both these trails lead, the midsection of the
beach, is where the greatest concentration of both off-trail hiking and camping use was
located. Located in this concentrated area of the wilderness was 30% of the heavier off-
trail hiking use as well as 35% of the heavier camping use. It is interesting to note that
although the western half (i.e., wilderness west of Nordhouse Lake) was used more than

the eastern half (i.e., wilderness east of Nordhouse Lake), no section of the wilderness

73

was omitted from off-trail hiking use. However, camping was concentrated along the
beach and was nonexistent in the eastern half of the wilderness. Nordhouse Dunes
Wilderness Area is used in its entirety with hiking and camping use heavier nearer the
shoreline.

6.4.4 Visitors' Awareness of Wilderness Boundaries

An important finding of this study was that a minimum of 9% of wilderness
visitors were not aware of the wilderness boundaries and therefore did not know what did
and did not constitute the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. Comments were noted
from visitors who referred to the Lake Michigan Recreation Area (LMRA) and/or Green
Road that were inapplicable to the visitors' current visit to the wilderness area. The
survey was to only address conditions in the wilderness area, not conditions in the
surrounding areas. These users were mistakenly considering the LMRA and Green Road
as part of the wildemess area and, therefore, applicable to the survey.

Conflicting responses within a group of users were also used to identify visitors
confused about what area constituted the wilderness. Most inconsistencies were found in
day users who incorrectly thought they had stayed overnight in the wilderness and day
users who addressed the LMRA and Green Road as part of the wilderness area.
Surveyors also encountered wilderness users, especially users exiting from the north and
south beach ends of the beach, that stated as they were exiting the wilderness area, that
they had not even been in the wilderness.

A minimum of 9% of wilderness users was found to be confused as to whether

they had hiked and/or camped in or outside the boundaries of the wilderness area.

74

Results for the percentage of people interviewed who were confused is stated as a
minimum because only those surveys with notable incongruencies could be recorded,
with confidence, as people who were confused. Therefore, if anything, 9% would be an
underestimate of the amount of visitors confused as to the location of the wilderness
boundaries.

Adding to the complexity of the confusion of visitors is that only 38% realize that
the U.S.F.S. manages the area. Other users, 16%, believe the mangers to be the
Department of Natural Resources, 13% believe it is other government agencies or
nonexistent government agencies, 8% listed multiple agencies, 5% listed other state
agencies, 4% had no idea and 4% listed other responses such as "the local people." Users

may not be as aware of the wilderness boundaries as managers would hope or assume

them to be.

75

6.5 Objective 4. Identify what "wilderness" means to users.

Users' definitions of wildemess (Q10) were divided into their component parts
and the parts were categorized into seven categories (Appendix D.). The six categories
that follow are based on the definition of wilderness in the 1964 Wilderness Act: large
size (extent, expanse, vastness), minimum evidence of human influence, forces of nature
predominate, opportunities for solitude (no or few people, privacy), primitive and/or
unconfined recreation (hiking, walking, camping) and ecological and geological or other
features of scientific, educational and scenic or historic value. The seventh category
consists of personal meanings that are not directly stated in the official definition of
wilderness. These meanings emerged through content analysis of users' responses to
open-ended question ten and are termed "personal meanings."

6.5.1 Legal Definitions

Visitor definitions matched the 1964 Wilderness Act legal definitions closely
(Table 8 and Figure 13). These characteristics comprised 83% of the characteristics listed
by users. Visitors' definitions of wilderness coincided most closely with the 1964
Wilderness Act clauses regarding the predominance of the forces of nature (34%),
minimum evidence of human influence (19%) and opportunities for primitive recreation
(16%). Large size and ecological, geological or other features were rarely mentioned by
visitors (Figure 14). Also important is that "minimum evidence of human influence" and
"primitive recreation opportunities" held a wide range of meanings to visitors. Responses

ranged from "no fast food" to "pristine, natural, unimproved serenity" for "minimum

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$0.03 .30...

30.5 852800.300 3:02.35. .80...

$0.8 80.....33220 a»... 3.;

$0.8. .80..

X. .5 "0030.00.00.30 .2820.—

..\&.N 003» 05.5.5 .«0 8.5.00... .550 .0 Eommofioo 48.3.03.

fend. $0.088 $03.03 $02.5 00.30.83. gaucooaaxozxatn.

$0.0 300...... 6.002. 30. .2002. 0.6 0.08:5 .0. moflEaQO

$31.” 0.0000000... 8302 .0 $80...

$0.3 8000...... 0083. .0 000003.“. 8.08.0.2

$5.. $859; 60009.... anoint 05m 090..
.l .mqfioEam. 800.3835 :31.

ouauaoohomJ— 8.3.3.0225

 

300.3255 3.53:? 02.000 .30.; a 2......

 

77

Visitors' Definition of Wilderness

90.0%

 

83.0%

80.0% —

 

70.0%

 

 

 

 

60.0% ~

 

 

50.0% ——

 

40.0% ~- —

 

 

 

30.0% a

Percentage of Total Characteristics Defined

20.0% —

17.0%

 

10.0% -

 

 

0.0% a

 

 

 

 

 

Wilderness Defined by Legal Wilderness Defined by Personal

Criteria Criteria

Wilderness Characteristics

Figure 13: Legal and Personal Visitor Defined Wilderness Characteristics

78

Wilderness Characteristics

 

 

 

 

17.1%

 

 

 

15.7%

9.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40.0%

MN
2
4
3
um
3
8
1
%
7.
1
A /o /o /o /o /o /o /o
m o0 mu 00. o0 oO o0. 00.
5. 0 5 O 5 0 5 O
3 3 2 2 1 1

Ramona moumtfiofidsu 30,—. mo owficooaom

mosmcguffis Ecoflfi

DEEQCm
Co mmngmoL Congo
.5 393280 .Easoom

MEQES wag;
5:22: 593.com
REESE........o.::::i

735E
.maoma 38 .mEoma ozv
ngom L2 72:22:88

82:53.5
2:32 3 SEE

Visitor Defined Characteristics

0.5%:5 SEE:
S 852$ 525:5

AmmmEmS .mngm
.23me £5. $.25

Visitor Defined Wilderness Characteristics

Figure 14

79

evidence of human influence" and from "unrationed and unmarked campsites" to "lots of
well-marked trails and rustic accommodations" for "primitive recreation opportunities."
The existence of this range of meanings is an indicator that "wilderness purist" values
regarding what constitutes human influence or primitive recreation do not necessarily
prevail.
6.5.2 Personal Definitions

The personal meanings listed by users as characteristics of wilderness comprised
17% of the characteristics listed. Personal meanings included "being able to see the stars
at night," "[wildemess] is off the beaten path" and phrases such as "freedom,"
"spirituality," "tranquility" and "oneness [with nature]." Although visitors reported a
great variety of wildemess definitions, 86% agreed that Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness
met their definition of wilderness (Q1 1) and 5% reported it did not meet their definition

(9% were neutral) (Figure 15).

80

"Nordhouse Meets My Personal Definition of Wilderness"

100.0%

 

90 O‘V 87.0%
. 0 —’

 

 

80.0% —

 

70.0% —

 

 

 

60.0% .

 

 

 

 

 

50.0% -

 

 

 

 

 

40.0% 4

30.0%

 

 

 

 

20.0%

9.0%
10.0%

 

4.0%

   

 

 

0.0% ~ f
Agree Neutral Disagree

Visitor Response

Figure 15: Nordhouse Dunes Meets Visitors' Definition of "Wilderness"

 

 

81

6.6 Objective 5. Describe user needs for management activities (as opposed to user
preferences).

Users' needs for management activities were not determined in this study. Rather,
users' perceptions of the current wilderness conditions as well as their preferences for
ideal wilderness conditions were determined. This section presents the results of how
wilderness users perceive the current wilderness conditions and what they perceive ideal
conditions to be for the wilderness area (Table 9). Users' perceptions of current
wildemess conditions are based on the analysis of questions 42-62 and users' preferences
for ideal conditions are based on questions 63-86. Further interpretation of Table 9 is
provided in the ensuing Figures 15 through 25 and accompanying text.

6.6.1 Users' Perceptions of Current Wilderness Conditions
6.6.1.1 Management Controls

Users perceived the wilderness area as a place with the appropriate level of
management activities (Figure 16). The majority of the users indicated that the area did
not have too many regulations (69%) nor were the management controls too obvious
(64%). Sixteen percent of the users felt that there were many management controls and
42% felt there were not many (42% were neutral). Data concerning the level of controls
in the wilderness indicates that, from a user perspective, management regulations and
controls are at the appropriate levels at this time and should continue to be implemented
at the current levels. An increase in management controls may displace some users as a
greater percentage of users indicated a neutrality or concordance than disagreement that

there are already many regulations governing the area at this time.

82

3% Q: m; meow—m 3:38-380 .358 08 53» mo

 

 

 

as SN 3 a? Banana Ea as 52>» G
03 93 Nam gorse 08 Ba £868 .HEwE 82$? ow
a» new o. :. $88 3 as a any mm
3% 2m 2 32:5 has as .23 an
9:. Sn EN 555 has as 5;» S
QS EN 3: 8&2 baa 8“ 5;» em
0% 3m 2: 8322, BEBE has as .23 mm
3% SN 3: acme has as 5;? a
”.8 Sn E :82 as 8 038a baa 03 5;» mm
08 SN 3 £33 5 use 09 as» mm
Em SN 3. £38303 has as as, 3
N? o. 3 NB £288 EoEomewE >58 .23 cm
a? 2m 3 288 3e as £3 a.
n: 2:. 0.2. 2% E as 8. a.
3 3 2a was Base and“: has .23 t.
2 q: n: mwcaao 33% has as? 9.
4.: S: Em b8 28% E 3.5 2:8 as, a.
23 EN 3 25%st has as .23 3.
aé ma 2: 288 has as as? a.
2 mo 3» 2.2a 3 8. S
Econ—m a m_ 35:51.82 3.85.3.5 Eat—.0 he 3233.3.—
Amflmaa g .832 g as? 8:85 a c0580 u
momcommom
germ—=30

=3: .8.“ moonoauuoum 6.5 2556—80 25.—.50 0&3an weak. to: 3 82:58.: ESE> "a 035.

83

3m 1% ca 83... $58.33 see 55» 3

 

 

 

<3. Sm ”.3 25 Ragga see 55, mm
1: m.mm WNW 9.5330 “0: and ash—Goo dame 0.555 vw
3m 3m in $88 2 as 8a a can. 3
EN n? 2m 3&3 9.2 a5, a
n? o. a ma. 8323 6: a waves 223 ;
cam SN 5:. 235: use £3 8
3m 5. z. a. a 832:. was: 8 a; an
Ea N. _ m 5% use ”no: 32 SS, M:
0.: 3m 3m 3323 88888 8 a; R
9: 8m 52 8329 Bates: use as? on
3m :3 tom “.32 see as) 3
mm as. a. a 58; a: 8 282. see a; E
3;. EM we e32 5 see as? Q
”a. 33 mi 9.38303 see as, Q
mdm Wm? N.m fl Eobcoo acoaowmawa 330% 5:5 — h
E as 3. 28% use 55, E
an cam 98 was; as 33 oh 8
2 i o. a so; Bapé 358 has .23 8
mm o2 a. ; mwaeao Baa baa 5MB S
n: q: 5% .28 88% 5 was 2:8 5S, 8
m. :. 2m 18 82333.. has as? 8
2: gm 5. a 288 has as as? E
2 2 v.8 2% B a. 8

Edna—Q a on fl—n—cflm moan—AH 0222:.th "aflomum—Z—GU haw moon—Ohouohm

”famoocmmmma gov 35:02 3% o|2m< |n cowmoad & command I

8938M

33:20 a as:

84

£93.80 «5:53.32 .3 gag—095m 23:5 "3 9:.»er

 

3250 08 £888 EoEomaSwE D

flohcoo EoEommSwE i=2: ooh I mcosfismfi >52: ooh E

 

woummma

 

 

      

flag.

 

 

gméo

 

 

 

$6.3

35:02

 

 

oohm<

x

 

o\om.o_

 

 

$odm

 

 

$9;

 

 

 

 

:55?» cow—n a a 85.: 8:25.82:
£95.80 a: muotnouhom 287.5

:56

$93

$98

£66m

$6.3.

$93

$98

$9.?

god»

85

6.6.1.2 General Wilderness Conditions

Eighty-five percent of the users perceived Nordhouse as a place with many natural
openings and 93% of the users felt it had many forested areas. The majority of visitors
(67%) indicated that it is a place with some areas where only hikers can go, 14%
indicated that it was not and 18% were neutral. Based on users' perceptions , places
where only hikers can go should also be maintained in the wilderness. User responses to
whether Nordhouse was perceived as a place where they could test their skills were
primarily divided between those users that agreed and those that were neutral. Forty-six
percent of the users felt that the wildemess was a place to test their skills whereas 14%
did not (40% were neutral). Users did not feel that there were too many facilities (64%),
maintained trails (67%), roads (65%), or motorized vehicles (65%) in the wilderness area.
An overabundance of these conditions in the wilderness area was not a concern of the
users and they do not need to be reduced. Also, seventy-one percent of the users
perceived the area as easy to access, 9% of the users disagreed that the area was easy to
access and 21% were neutral.
6.6.1.3 Use Levels

Users' responses to use levels indicated that there is no need at this time to
decrease the amount of use in the wildemess area. Users supported this by indicating that
there are not too many backpackers or dayhikers and that there are not too many people in
general that use the area. The majority of users (64%) felt that the wilderness did not
have too many people (Figure 17). Also, 72% of the users felt that there was no need for

more people in the area. This is consistent with users' responses to questions concerning

86

Visitors' Perceptions of Use Levels
"Nordhouse Dunes is a place..."

100.0%

90.0%

 

 

 

80.0%

70.0%

 

 

 

60.0%

 

 

 

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

‘-1.3

 

0.0%
Agree Neutral Disagree

 

 

F

[FE] A place to be alone IA place—with too many people El XpIace with too few people}

 

 

Figure 17: Visitors' Perceptions of General Use Levels

87

encounters in the wilderness. Eighty-three percent of the users reported that they did not
feel the area was overcrowded and 90% reported they did not feel there were too few
people nor that there should be more.

Sixty-seven percent of the users did not feel there were too many backpackers and
65% did not feel that there were too many dayhikers. Users' perceptions of current
conditions indicated, as did users' responses to encounter information, that there are not
too many people on the beach. The majority of the users (63%) agreed that there are not
too many beach users; 7% felt that there were too many and 30% were neutral (Figure
18). Management activities should, therefore, focus on maintaining the current use levels
and conditions in the wilderness. Visitors' support for current use levels ranged from a
low of 48% of the users indicating that there were not too many hunters to a high of 67%
that felt that there were not too many backpackers using the area.
6.6.1.4 Hunting Conditions

Hunting, as compared to other types of uses, had the greatest percentage of people
(20%) that agreed that there were too many in the area. This finding occurred even
though most people (90%) were interviewed in nonhunting seasons. Although hunting
had the greatest amount of opposition from users, 48% of the users agreed that there were
not too many hunters and 32% were neutral. Current hunting levels are being tolerated,
but not to the extent of other types of uses. Analysis of the encounter information
(objective 6) however, identified a polarity in the users concerning the number of hunters
in the area. This encounter information indicates that users are concerned with the issue

of hunting and that they may be supportive of change.

88

£95.— 25 no 89:. 95925 no unannouhom .283; a: 0.5»:—

 

Eoucsmfl flow—m 0-x. mow—o: I 83 :onomD flow—ECO. onoaxomm a

 

3.935 .8302

oonw<

 

 

         

 

gm;

.XLS
$0.2

 

 

 

.XLdN

   

.xwgm ‘ .
gnaw

.548
$2:

 

. . . so”:
$ 238.8

s .

gasses? i .|. -
.x;.$

 

 

O
.XQS

 

 

3.32: co. 5:» ova..— a a 855 3.52.132
on: .8 8m; .8 gag—conch .9855

£66

god—

.xbdm

£56m

$99.

|. . $98

$660

$6.3.

$6.3

89

6.6.1.5 Ski Use and Horseback Riding

Users' responses indicated that cross-country ski use was not a problem in the
wilderness area. The majority of the users (51%) felt that there were not too many cross-
country skiers. The issue of cross-country skiing, as compared to other types of use
addressed, had the greatest percent of neutral respondents (48%) as well as the least
amount of visitors (1%) feeling that there was too much of this type of use. Horse use is
also not currently too abundant according to the wilderness users as 63% indicated that it
is not a place with too many horses and only 10% agreed there are too many horses at this
time (27% were neutral).
6.6.1.6 Solitude

The wilderness area at this time is serving the users as a place to be alone as
indicated by 87% of the users. This is consistent with the 83% of the users who reported
in the encounter information (objective 6) that Nordhouse is and should be a place to be
alone. The fact that users are able to experience their desired solitude further supports
that there is no need for a reduction of use at this time. Nordhouse Dunes is perceived as
a wilderness by its users and as a place to find the peaceful, serene type of experience for
which they are looking. Users repeatedly stated this by indicating that the wilderness is a
place to be alone, that it meets their definition of the term wilderness and through a 95%
approval rate.
6.6.1.7 Summary of Visitor Perceptions of Current Conditions

Figures 18 and 19 summarize users' perceptions of the current wildemess

conditions. Of the 20 wilderness conditions for which visitors were asked to state their

90

ESE—:80 omega—0:3 oEanuu< 223.950 he ocean—3.5.— .Eozmg “a 95w:—

 

_ oBSQooo< 02 283250 805.0 .8502- uESQooo< 8< 803280 “5.56 02mg.» E m

_
.
7

$856.80 $2523?

00 or 0%
a. 0 0. v o o I
9.9 J o oooo cocoooooo «may. 0o+ 0 o 0.9 90000..
0.. .0
0000 ’0! 90% 0%». 0.0%.. 0.0% Zoo %o LA 000” 0%... 0%!!! 90 0.000.? 0.0 90% 0M. oar 9000 «00
oIo 000 . WA» ooI «.00 oI. «.zooV 60!. EMV $00». :00! 009! a...» 0.00 eon! 9.09 ».

o\oo.ov

$0.8

o\oo.ow

food»:

 

o\..o.o~_

225.55 0.850239 23.—.50 we 3333.35 .Eezmg

91

preferences, there were three for which less than 50 percent of the sample found
conditions to be acceptable: the number of hunters, opportunities for skill testing and
level of management controls (Figure 19). More than 10 percent of visitors surveyed
deemed the number of hunters and management controls to be in need of reduction
(Figure 20).
6.6.2 Visitors' Preferences for Ideal Conditions

Visitors' preferences for wilderness conditions coincide closely with their
perceptions of current conditions and give insight on what users' ideal conditions might
be in the wilderness. Users' preferences for what they felt Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness
Area should be depicted it as a place with many forested areas and natural openings. It is
also a place where visitors can be alone and experience no increase in the number of other
users.
6.6.2.1 Management Controls

ln achieving a preferred wilderness environment, users (41%) did not feel that
many visitor regulations should be employed and that controls should not be obvious
(53%) (Figure 21). Twenty-six percent of the visitors agreed that the wilderness should
be a place with many visitor regulations and 32% were neutral. Fourteen percent of the
visitors disagreed that management controls should not be obvious and 33% were neutral.
There was a greater preference for fewer (36%) rather than more (15%) management
controls but most of the users (49%) were neutral to this issue. Users would also prefer
that management controls do not become obvious and that a great deal of visitor

regulations not be implemented.

92

 

£954 on: 5 28:93.3— uouooz .8 28339.0.» 283..» EN 9.5mm...»

A

bzabsoz mega—z: $85.3 I 83283» .80 “802 958%.: 8955 E

203680 $2.823»

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

285—=80 awe—.8239 2.9.25 .8 283.898.» .983»;

$56

$0.»:

$5.8

$0.3

o\oo.ov

o\oo.om

o\oodo

$5.2.

93

£9580 28:83:52 .8 80.8.8.8; 0.83.05 “mm 9.5!..—

 

 

mango 8: Eu 8.0 $888 EoEowmgfi D 205:8 05:...»ng 828.0 I «.8023»... 8:0,; >52: E

 

02935 35:02 029..

 

 

$3;

 

- $0.0

- $0.0»

- $0.0m

 

 

$m.mm

 

$0.0m

 

    

$02.

$000

 

 

 

$h.Nm

 

$0.00q

l- $0.0m

 

 

:55; 3....— a on 2.8:... 855 353087»:
20:80.05 o... 5 395.80 32:03:30 8.. 89:95.95 .3385

$0.00

94

6.6.2.2 Wilderness Conditions

Eighty-two and ninety-two percent of the users, respectively, indicated preference
for Nordhouse Dunes to be a place with many natural openings and forested areas (16%
and 7% respectively were neutral and 2% and 1% respectively disagreed). A large
majority (90%) indicated that the wilderness should be a place to be alone. Most users
(65%) felt that Nordhouse Dunes should be a place to test their skills and should contain
areas where only hikers can go (70%).

The level of facilities in the wilderness was acceptable to most users as 50% were
neutral to whether there should be fewer facilities in the area, and almost equal
percentages indicated that there should be fewer (26%) as indicated there should not be
fewer (25%) facilities. There is virtually a 50%/50% split between those users who
agreed that there should be fewer facilities and those that disagreed.

Thirty-six percent of the users felt that there should be fewer roads in the
wilderness area and 25% felt there should not be fewer roads (39% were neutral). Given
that there are not any roads within the wilderness boundaries, users are likely referring to
the roads surrounding or near the wilderness. Users also preferred that the area have
fewer motorized vehicles (56%) or no motorized vehicles (59%). These findings support
the wilderness regulation against the use of motorized vehicles in the wilderness area.
Users predominantly disagreed (44%) that the area should have fewer maintained trails

while 20% agreed there should be fewer and 36% of the users were neutral.

95
6.6.2.3 Use Levels

Users' preferences concerning whether there should be more people using the
wilderness area coincided closely with their perceptions of this condition. Seventy-three
percent of the users indicated a preference for no increase in the number of users (Figure
22). The preferences of users, did however, vary slightly from their perceptions
concerning an abundance of people in the wilderness area. Whereas users’ perceptions
indicated that current conditions were acceptable (64% of the users concurring), users
(52%) indicated a preference for fewer people in the area. Findings for users' preferences
concerning use levels was consistent with findings for encounter information (objective
6) where 52% of users also favored a reduction in use. The relatively high percentage of
both users that preferred less use and those that stated that the current use conditions were
acceptable, supports the "fewer is preferable" attitude of users identified in responses to
encounter information (objective 6). In combination, these findings indicate that
although they were accepting of current use levels, visitors would ideally prefer the
wildemess area to have fewer users. These findings exemplify the need for the
continuous monitoring of visitor use levels and preferences. Monitoring will ensure
appropriate management based on the continually changing environment of the
wilderness area and its users and determine if and when controls on use should be
implemented.

Users did not indicate any other types of use that they would prefer to be
decreased in the wilderness area (Figure 23). Fifty percent of the users disagreed and

thirteen percent agreed that there should be fewer backpackers (3 7% neutral).

96

Visitors' Preferences for Wilderness Use Levels
Nordhouse Dunes should be a place...

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100.0%
90.4%
90.0% 7 . 7 7 ; 77
80.0% 7 7 7 7—
72.6%
'—\
70.0% 7
60.0% 7
50.0% 7
40.0% 7
30.0% 7
20.0%
10.0% 7
0.0%
Agree Neutral Disagree
L Elto be alone Iwith fgwer people Elwith more people

 

 

Figure 22: Visitors' Preferences for General Use Levels

97

 

£95.— 25 8 89:. #:9on :8 89:98.8...» .983»; “mu 9...»...—

 

mco. 9.33 03.5 D 9.80.030 I floxoumxoam E

 

 

00385 35:02 029..

$0.0

- $0.0—

- $0.0m
$5. a

 

 

l- $0.0m

- l: $0.0v

 

$0 hm

  

 

. l- $0.0m

 

 

 

$0.00

8:83.: .53 3....— .. on 2.8.7. 8::— 8.8.8.82:
0,—0.8.— omD .8 39$. #:0on .8 898.800...» 3.37.5

98

F orty-seven percent of the users disagreed there should be fewer dayhikers whereas 16%
agreed there should be fewer dayhikers (3 7% neutral). Users were mostly neutral (45%)
to whether there should be fewer people on the beach. Thirty-three percent of the users
showed no preference for less beach use and 22% indicated a desire for fewer beach
users.
6.6.2.4 Hunting Conditions

Users' preferences for the level of hunters directly opposed their perceptions of the
current hunting conditions in the wildemess. Forty-seven percent of the users showed a
preference for fewer hunters in the wilderness area while 48% of the users also indicated
that current hunting conditions were acceptable based on their perceptions of the current
conditions (Figure 24). This polarization of users' preferences versus users' perceptions
concerning hunting use was supported by findings for the accepted level of encounters in
the wilderness (objective 6). The encounter data showed that 49% -50% of the users
favored and 48% - 49% opposed hunting and 18% indicated that the fewer the number of
hunters there were in the wilderness the more preferable the conditions. In addition,
forty-six percent of the users not only indicated that were there too many hunters, but that
they would prefer hunting banned all together. This further emphasizes users' concerns
for hunting and their preference for a reduction in hunting use. The fact that virtually
equal percentages of users favored hunting based on their perceptions of the current
conditions as wished it banned based on their preferences, 48% and 46% respectively, is

an indicator that hunting is a prominent management issue for Nordhouse Dunes.

99

Visitors' Preferences for Hunting Use Levels in the Wilderenss
"Nordhouse should be a place..."

50.0%

 

46.7%

45.5%

 

45.0%

40.0%

   

35.0% 33.5%

30.0%

27.3%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

 

 

 

 

0.0%

Agree Neutral Disagree

 

l’hlfiwith fewer huLmrs , __77I where hunting is poLTllovied j

 

Figure 24: Visitors' Preferences for Hunting Use Levels

100

6.6.2.5 Ski Use and Horseback Riding

Users were mostly neutral as to whether there should be less horse use (51%) or
no horses allowed in the wilderness (42%) (Figure 25). Users were split between those
that would prefer less horse use (25%) and those that who would not (24%). Thirty-six
percent of the users disagreed and 22% agreed that horse use should be banned in the
wilderness area. Users were also predominantly neutral (53%) about whether there
should be fewer cross-country skiers in the wilderness. Nine percent of the users
indicated a preference for less ski use and 38% did not indicate a preference. Users'
preferences indicated that the wilderness area is meeting users’ criteria for the area in
most aspects.
6.6.2.6 Visitor Preference Summary

Based on visitors’ preferences, most visitors felt the wildemess area should
continue to be managed to provide opportunities for solitude and maintain natural
openings, forested areas and places where only hikers can go. Opportunities for skill
testing could be expanded at various levels throughout the wilderness. Users favor the
enforcement of no motorized vehicles in the area but prefer that management controls do
not become too obvious. Users also showed a preference for a decrease in the
accessibility of Nordhouse Dunes. Visitors were split as to whether or not hunting should
be allowed to continue and mostly neutral concerning the need to lower horseback use.

Figure 26 summarizes users' preferences for conditions in the wilderness area.

 

101
51.2%

Disagree

 

5“. .OO. ‘ .0. U IIUCII... .-
nonvonaoe ova. boanefioeneeeo1ooeuoeoeeovo
at o 0 9t 0.. 000,0 ”Duoufiuowvu001”oer’u 0.10JJHOU..OJ.'eeemletpe

e dread-e... 9. a e _

 

 

 

 

I Should Ban Horses T]

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
.....
O...
.....
.....
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Neutral

 

   

      

-
........ , . . . . . . .
. '...‘......... I.......’.' r....... ‘
ufifiooounfia.4.......u...n....n.x.x.n.n.n...........u.u...00....000“.....H.n.0,...0......uooooo...u.......n.....u.u...n...u.......n...n...n$.n
0.100....e4-eneeteeel. 8:96.39 0 cone-eeeleeeeee-egueeuce ..... eeieeeIe-eeefieeeeecanoe-oeeeeeee

  

 

Visitors' Preferences for Horse Use Levels in the Wilderness

 

24.7%

OOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
00000000000

..........
.........
OOOOOOOOO

  
 

 

 

 

60.0%

50.0% «

 

 

40.0%

10.0% —.77.--.7-

 

 

Q Should be fewer Horses

i

Visitors' Preferences for Horse Use Levels

Figure 25

102

«83880 08:80:? 8.. 8988.8...» .838; 8 bafifiam "on 9.5!..—

 

fl:m:8m 800.3 0.582- 880%3. 8me 83880.2 E

802080 mmoEogB

0.1
0% 1% 0w OVAb/
.4 2%.. 0,» 09 so .27
I. 9.
090.”. .Q W 00/? ¢OAVO W V9470 0.01.7 LVONVWVOWAZV
979.7 01.0% .0472»? 90v 9»v IA” 0%. /W I? 00 9 »uv
«n. 0 o! 99 I47 r47 «I0. AV 9.... 0.0 an: 90 009 09 f 00 ’4 47
47¢! . 0 v 479/ 9V¢947P IWVOVTé TI. Imam
09%..TT999 .W 0u..o o). o). 9 9 .V
ONT 090/. 020 OI. 0V9 .90.?909 OIV 990 70 4.0 09.7 90V. T00 0%... O! 900 TLV! 09%.. 00/ 090 A99 09.7 99
99 ob. 919 co.» ow... 20¢ .09 .00 o0. 0% 0% oo0 ooo .00 one 000 090 .79 0L 0.09 oo 9o! 0% ob».
909. 90. 9.9 9&9 99!. 009 909 990 /91 09/ 99/ 00 0m. 909 909 9/0 9/0 90!. 9&9 he . 00 90 9/V 90
$0.0
$0.0N
$0.0."N
$0.00
$0.0m
$0.00»
$0.02

 

::.oua_._ a on 2.88 8:50 88:082..
8:38:80 88:83...» .8.“ 80888.5 .888; 8 b.2556

103

6.6.3 Summary of Hunters' Perceptions and Preferences for Selected Issues

Nineteen percent of the visitors to the wilderness area were hunters (n=96) and
81% were nonhunters (n=410). Statistical differences were determined to exist between
responses from hunters versus nonhunters for the following wilderness conditions: if
there are too many people (Q43), if there should be fewer hunters (Q80), if hunting
should be banned (Q81), the quality of the wilderness (Q109), and wilderness satisfaction
(Q110) (Table 10).
6.6.3.1 Group Size

The range of group size (Q6) was larger (1-14 people/ group) for nonhunters than
for hunters (1-6 people/ group). Hunting or nonhunting did not statistically influence
visitors’ group size. This lack of significance was however, borderline with a
significance value (P) of 0.05 10 as determined by the Mann-Whitney U test.
6.6.3.2 General Use Levels

A statistically greater percentage of hunters than nonhunters agreed that there
were too many people in the wilderness (Table 10). Differences in sample means as to
whether there should be fewer people (Q64), however, were not statistically significant (P
= 0.900 using the t test). Furthermore, neither group contends that Nordhouse is
crowded.
6.6.3.3 Hunting Use Levels

A higher percentage of hunters than nonhunters felt that there were too many

hunters in the wilderness, but this difference was not statistically significant (Table 10).

104

Table 10. Hunter and Nonhunters Responses for Selected Wilderness Conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue n Agree Neutral Disagree Significance
(%) (%) (%) (%)

Too many people H=96 H=15.7 H=32.6 =51.7 P=0.012 "‘
NH=410 NH=9.0 NH=24.3 NH=66.8

Should be fewer H=96 H=48.9 H=42.2 H=8.9 P=0.900

people NH=410 NH=52.4 NH=36.2 NH=1 1.4

Too many H=96 H=14.l H=32.6 H=53.3 P=0.111

hunters NH=410 NH=21.5 NH=32.2 NH=46.3

Should be fewer H=96 H=14.6 =21.3 H=64.0 P=0.000 "‘

hunters NH=410 NH=54.3 NH=28.7 NH=17.0

Hunting should H=96 H=6.8 H=8.0 H=85.2 P=0.000 *

be banned NH=410 NH=54.5 NH=24.1 NH=21.4

Nordhouse is H=96 H=7.7 H=1 5.4 H=76.9 P=O.1 73

crowded NH=410 NH=6.2 NH=8.8 NH=85.0

H = Hunter NH = Nonhunter "' = significant

 

105

Using the t test with a resultant P value of 0.000 a strong significant difference
was determined between hunter and nonhunter responses for whether there should be
fewer hunters in the wilderness. Hunters primarily disagreed (64%) that there should be
fewer hunters in the wilderness area whereas, nonhunters primarily agreed (54%) that
there should be fewer hunters in the wilderness area.

Hunter and nonhunter responses also differed significantly for whether the
wilderness should be a place where hunting is not allowed. Using the t test, the P was
determined to be 0.000. Hunters primarily disagreed that hunting should be banned and
nonhunters primarily agreed that it should be. Eighty-five percent of the hunters
disagreed, 7% agreed and 8% were neutral. Whereas, 55% of the nonhunters agreed,
22% disagreed and 24% were neutral that hunting should be banned.

Based on results using the t test, hunters view issues concerning hunting
significantly differently than do nonhunters. Hunters indicated less opposition to current
hunting conditions in the wilderness than did nonhunters.
6.6.3.4 Wilderness Quality and Satisfaction

Subgroup responses differed significantly for wildemess quality and satisfaction
(Tables 11 and 12). Significance values of 0.000 and 0.006 were determined for the
difference in means for wilderness quality and satisfaction respectively using the t test.
Approximately two-and-a-half times as many hunters as nonhunters reported that
Nordhouse was improving in terms of quality (Q109). However, over half of both groups

agreed that the quality of the area had not changed as to previous trips.

106

The perceived improvement in quality expressed by hunters as compared to
nonhunters was not necessarily correlated with hunter satisfaction with the current trip
(Q110). Both groups gave their trips to Nordhouse high ratings. However, a statistically
greater percentage of nonhunters than hunters rated their trip as “very good” and “good”

combined.

Table 11. Hunter and Nonhunters Responses for Wilderness Quality.

 

 

Issue n Getting Has not Getting Have not Other Significance
Better Changed Worse Visited
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Quality H=96 H=3 1.9 H=52.7 H=4.4 H=8.8 H=2.2 P=0.000 "
of trip NHle NH=12.9 NH=52.6 NH=7.4 NH=24.5 NH=2.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H = Hunter NH = Nonhunter * = significant

Table 12. Hunter and Nonhunters Responses for Satisfaction With Wilderness trip.

 

 

Issue n Very Good Fair Poor Very Poor Significance
Good (%) (%)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Wilderness H=96 H=49.5 H=38.7 H=10.8 H=1.l H=0.0 P=0.006 *
trip was... NH=410 NH=63 .2 NH=33.2 NH=3.l NH=0.5 NH=0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H = Hunter NH = Nonhunter * = significant

107

6.6.4 Summary of Horseback Riders' Perceptions and Preferences for Selected
Issues

The two subgroups of horseback riders and nonriders were analyzed to determine
if statistically significant differences existed in group means for group size (Q6) and
responses to horse use in the wildemess area (Q56, Q78, and Q79). Only five people
indicated horseback riding as an activity in the wildemess and stated that they traveled by
horseback in the wilderness. This sample size was too small to be able to determine
differences reliably. Therefore, the sixty-five people who simply indicated horseback
riding as an activity were used in this analysis. Horseback riders (n=65) constituted 13%
of the sample population and nonriders (n=441) were 87% of the sample population.
6.6.4.1 Group Size

Group size ranged from 1 to 9 people per group of horseback riders and from 1 to
14 people for nonriders. No significant difference was determined between these
subgroups regarding group size.
6.6.4.2 Horse Use Levels

There were no significant differences determined between the subgroup responses
regarding horse use in the wilderness area (Table 13). Most of both groups felt that there
were not too many horses in Nordhouse; most of both groups disagreed or were neutral
that horse use should be banned. While there was much neutrality on the issue, a
statistically greater proportion of nonriders felt that there should be fewer horses in the
wilderness area. It should be noted however, that the sample size for nonriders was

almost seven times that of riders.

108

Given that only five people actually traveled in the wilderness by horseback, as

compared to the 65 who checked horseback riding as an activity, riders are a small

percentage of the wilderness users. Results from this subgroup analysis should be

considered with caution given that 60 of the 65 people used in the analysis may not have

actually used horses on the wilderness visit for which they were interviewed.

Table 13. Horseback Rider and Nonrider Responses for Horse Use Levels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue n Agree (%) Neutral (%) Disagree (%) Significance (%)

Too many horses R=65 R=9.4 R=29.7 R=60.9 P=0.866
NR=441 NR=10. l NR=26.7 NR=63 .2

Should have R=65 R=19.7 R=42.6 =37.7 P=0.025 "

fewer horses NR=441 NR=25.5 NR=52.5 NR=22.1

Horses should be R=65 R=19.7 R=36.1 R=44.3 P=0.256

banned NR=441 NR=22 .3 NR=42.6 NR=3 5. l

R = Horseback Rider NR = Nonrider * = Significant

 

109

6.7 Objective 6. Identify level of acceptable encounters with other users in terms of
numbers, location and type.

Under objective 5, analysis and results were provided separately for (a) visitor
perceptions of current conditions and (b) preferences for ideal conditions. In this section,
the analysis of perceptions and preferences is conducted simultaneously by cross
tabulating corresponding survey items (e. g., cross tabulation of responses to “Nordhouse
is a place to be alone” with “Nordhouse should be a place to be alone”). Examinations
between the current and the ideal conditions provides a basis for making management
recommendations. Table 14 presents all the data pertaining to the cross tabulations of
questions 42-86. Tables 15-18 aggregate the Table 14 data and present them in a form
that is readily interpreted in terms of management recommendations. The final section of
objective 6 examines the Table 14 data in terms of various locations within the
Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area.

6.7.1 Crowding

Crowding was not a concern of most Nordhouse Wilderness users as 83%
indicated that they did not feel Nordhouse was overcrowded, 7% felt that overcrowding
was a problem and 10% were uncertain (Figure 27). Six percent of the users listed
specific areas in the wilderness they felt were overcrowded. The areas most frequently
noted as being crowded were the beach and on or near the trails. These concerns
however, are only shared by a small percentage of the total users. Those users concerned

with beach crowding constituted 2% of the total sample and those concerned with trail

crowding only 1%.

110

oouwwmana ._g=oZuZ .oo:w<u<

 

 

8.8 as 2: No a: 38 S N... E S 8228 888-888.0323 :85... 888.888 285 8:3 2:8
2: 0.8 3 to 8.2 8.2 :8 8.8 an 3. 8:8 8232888323 8:8 823582 288 8:3 2:3
8.8 2: on to 22 :2 2 28 8.2 n... .328 28.28382 28328 838838.882 283 3:8
2: m: «a 2m 3 3 SN 2. 3 ”.2” 888 9282828.: 888 928828.: 2:8
8.8 22 «.8 2. EN EN 2 :2 3 2.. 82:58:23 82:8.“ 282 8:3 2:8
:2: 2m 3 2 28 2: 3 8.: n: 22 88:8 228: 2:3 238: 288 8:3 2:3
2: S: 2 2m 2: 8.2 3 8.: we 2: 838288.23 2222 282 8:3 2:8
8.8 28 3 .3 SN 8.: mm 8.8 S. 2 832.8828 2:3 8.88 282 8:3 8:8
8.8 :8 3 2o 28 8.8 2 2: 3. 8.8 8288323888 282 8:3 MES
2: n: 3. 3 22 S 3 38 22 as 8:28 88888 9:3 8328 82882 282 8:3 ER
2: 22 2: S I: E: 8.: 8.8 2: as 8823 888828383 8328 88:32: 282 8:3 822
8.8 «.8 2m .3 2mm 3: 2 28 2 2 8888323882288 8:3 38
2: a: 3 2: 8.8 8.8 2 8.8 no on :88 85 8 2888323 288 2: 8 288 28s 8:3 E8
:2: 22. :8 Z 2: 8.2 2 3 2 8.8 28.2 8328:3 88:2 28 282 8:3 $8
8.8 .2. 28 S 8.: 22 E. E 3 0... 8883888323 28.89.88 282 8:3 8:
.2: S: 2: 2n 8.: 8.8 an I 8.8 28 8888828323 288382 288:3 E8
2: 2% 3: 3. 2: a: a: 3 2 3 288 8883288 32 8:3 2:2.
82: 8.8 2 2: 8.8 28 3 3 2: 2:. 228228882 2:88.882 82:.
«.2: 2° 3 2: 2o 28 3. 2 3 8.8 888 8822838 3.88:3 828 8.882838 28:3 8E.
28 2o 2: 2 2 :8 8.8 2 8.0 38 82882828 28:3 8288838 288:3 2:2.
2: 28 3. 8 3 3 :8 2: 3: 8.8 2:8 82:2: 828 88:33.8 82828888883 8:?
2: 2m 3 3. 3m 3: 2 2m 3. 8.: 8282828383 828282282 8:3 2:3.
2: 28 3 S 8.8 8.: 2 :8 22 3 2888383288 282 8:3 8:2.
2: 8 no 3 to mm 4.... E 3 28 828 8 288.88.; 2:2.

:6an a on 2:27. omsoauueg...ooa_n a 2 2.2.2332
22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 :5: 8.5m 2 828:0
82:. 25 25 .<5 92 2:2 32 a). 2:... <2

 

ooaaflggzoZEEw< E332

ESE—=80 .33 :8 moououououm 0:: ESE—=30 «not—.0 he ESE—320m you: no coca—.55. 2..qu u: 03:.

111

Crowding in the Wilderness Area
"Is Nordhouse Dunes crowded?"

Don't know
(1 0. l %)

 
  

Yes, it's crowded
(6.5%)

No, it's not
crowded
(83.4%)

Figure 27: Crowding in the Wilderness Area

112

Perceived overcrowding did not change the routes or length of stay of users in the
wilderness. Four percent of those who felt the area was overcrowded changed the route
of their trip and 2% changed the length of their stay. This is a clear indicator that those
who are using the area are satisfied with the use levels at this time.

Visitors were found to be inconsistent and contradictory concerning crowding and
overuse in the wilderness area. Visitors responded to crowding questions both indicating
that the wilderness was and was not overused and then wrote comments to the contrary.
6.7.2 Use Levels

Nearly half (48%) of the users did not feel that the wilderness was a place with
too many people nor should it have fewer people (Table 15). Twenty-three percent of the
users felt that the area had too many people and should have fewer. Twenty-nine percent
of the users indicated that the current level of people was acceptable (they disagreed that
the wildemess is a place with too many people) but, agreed that there should be fewer
people. Thus, nearly 3 out of 10 Nordhouse visitors are satisfied with the current number
of people, but would ideally like fewer.

As already stated, 48% of the visitors sampled found current use levels acceptable
and 29% found current use levels acceptable but ideally preferred fewer people.
Summing these two percentages yields 77% who tolerate the current number of people.
This percentage compares favorably to the 83% reporting that the are was not
overcrowded. However, if those visitors indicating that they would ideally prefer less

people are considered to want a reduction in use levels and are summed with those users

113

.9550 E: 2 038—2 :9: fl ems—.330 mo>\m0>H..EOE

:88 85 so. 8: 028828 02:2"..8? 888 =8 e 9:88 :2: 2 88828 o2: oz"..30:_. “520:: .302 .m
69:30 a :33 89%.? 23 03295:: 80:50:00 82.30 “:0382825 £8— : E 25: 53 0: =3? wfivuoqmo: ESE; .x. nwmtmm; .v

.Gowqunu x :33 :0: 0: :35 “:0 £022.00 82.50

8.: :0: o: 80:25 8:283:58. m3ofi ”souflflfiefi £8 a S. 80: 9803. 8 :02: 0:: So: “we 0: =8? wiucommo: 887.? o\.. ”05mm; .m

.82 on 2:05. 582

:5 03805.: 2 8:558 £2.50 05 “:0582985 :8: a 5 Eu: vacuum 2 :3? :5 Eu: “we 0: =02: Maw—5&2 80%? .x. ”mmEOZ .N

A535 05: :0: 2:05. DZ< 80:03:03 :52: 00: 022 :0: 30:

8:05:02 28 $8 $3 032025 2: 30:62:00 2.250 05 EEEEEBE Eu: 8 5 man: 50: 0.. =02: 95:89.2 8863 .x. “02:02 .—

mUZ—Gflfll ZEDAOU ZO mHhOZ

 

30‘— .x.m _ ..\oo ..\oo fawn

304 o\oo_ XL o\o\. $3

304 $0 o\o_ .21. $3

304 $0 5% 6\..0 £60

092 83mm o\o_ foam 83»:
322.:— ..m2 motmo> oz\mu> 8:02 02:02
:5: :2. 2:25: Q :3:

3 3:008”— .x.

 

208: 05 :0 20000 538 5:3 82: m on 355 8:05:02 2:05 “3.0

$082 05 :0 2:00: baa. 00: 2:3 820 a 3::0 3:05:02 m: ”mmO
23.0289 88: 88m 8 8:52

2.88:: an: 538 5:3 830 a on mega 3:05:02 2:05 “:0

388:: :50 ASE 02 53 820 a 8:50 8:05:02 E “SO
@5289 80:: 80 8 .8852

388—030—082 530.: 5:3 8:3 m on 8.50 3:05:02 2:95 “who

88828303 :52: 08 52> 8:3 8 8::Q 3:05:02 2 “SO
ANnOxEOV “mpoxomaxomm :0 85:52

$.00»: 80E 5:3 82: on 855 8:05:02 2:25 550

@0300: Bow 00: 5:3 com—q n 85D 3:05:02 2 “0:0
85:89 ”288:8 8282

$300: 530.: 5:3 82: a on 355 3:05:02 2:0:m ”$0

2.20000 :58 00: 2:3 002: a 350 3:05:02 3 ”$0
$002989 6.08: :0 55::2

2:8— :ot:w :2. 2:05: 2:. :m—

8.8: 8: 8 3:38.283V "m: 28:.

114

indicating a dissatisfaction with current use levels while desiring fewer people the result
is 52% of the users desiring a reduction in use levels. The percentage of visitors in favor
of a reduction in the number of users then exceeds the 48% that were in favor of the
current conditions but contrasts the 83% reporting that the area was not overcrowded.
These percentages may indicate a polarization or simply inconsistency in users' opinions
concerning the issue of the number of people using the wildemess (Figure 28). Given the
division among users concerning the level of people in the wilderness area, users'
perceptions of the use levels and the actual use levels at Nordhouse Dunes must be
monitored to support and validate management decisions.

Ninety percent of the visitors also indicated that there were not too few nor should
there be more people using the wildemess area (Table 15). Six percent of the users
desired more use and 4% indicated that although they felt that the area should not have
more people they did feel it had too few. These data support maintenance of current use
levels.

Further encounter and crowding data even more strongly support that the area as a
whole is not perceived by visitors to be overused. Eighty-six percent of the users felt that
Nordhouse was not a place with too many backpackers and did not need fewer (Table
15). The proportion of users who felt the same way concerning dayhikers was 83%
(Table 15).

A “medium” management priority rating was assigned to the first condition in
Table 15 (the number of people using Nordhouse) because fewer than 60 % indicated that

they did not feel that Nordhouse was a place with too many people and that should it have

115

Visitor Polarization Regarding General Use Levels

Desire reduction
in number of
people using the
Wilderness
(51.7%)

i

l
1

Current use
levels are O.K.
(48.3%)

   
 

Figure 28: Visitor Polarization Concerning General Use Levels

116

fewer. However, as the rest of data in Table 15 indicates, it is not the number of
backpackers, day hikers or beach users that are making the visitors less than enthusiastic
with the number of people in general.

Users' responses for the desired maximum number of people per group using the
wilderness area ranged from one to thirty-five. The average maximum number of people
per group desired by users was nine. These responses were bimodal at six and ten with
both values having frequencies of sixty-one users (25% each).

6.7.3 Beach Use Levels

Opinions regarding beach use showed that 78% of the users favored the current
wilderness conditions with users feeling that there were not too many and should not be
fewer people that use the beach (Table 15). Thirteen percent of the users desired less
people on the beach and 9% indicated that the fewer people there were the more
preferable the wilderness conditions would be. Users' responses to beach use levels again
indicate overuse is not currently an issue. Caution should be taken when interpreting
beach use because users indicating the beach as an overused area may likely be referring
to the Lake Michigan Recreation Area beach and be a part of the population confused
regarding the wilderness boundaries.

6.7.4 Level of Controls

The greatest proportion of wilderness users (40%) felt that management controls

on use should be imposed only when overuse occurs (Q101 and Figure 29). Twenty

percent desired that current use levels be maintained. Fifteen percent of the users felt that

117

Data Based on Encounter Levels
"Do You feel that controls are needed on the number of people using Nordhouse Dunes?"

Should lower current use levels
with controls (6.2%)

Don't know (8.1%)
k

\

‘\

    
  
 
  

There should be no controls
now or in the future (10.6%) T\
Should maintain current use
levels with controls (19.6%)

No controls need now but,
should be imposed when
overuse occurs (40.2%)

Controls are needed in some
L places but not others

(15.3%)
Aggregated Responses
Don't know (8.1%) ~\
’4' Current conditions O.K
Need controls (21.5%) I, /_ (7o 4%)

 

Figure 29: Should Controls on Use Levels be Imposed?

118

controls were needed only in some places and 6% felt that use need to be lowered now.
Controls are not desired at any time by 11% of the users.

Table 16 contains cross tabulated visitor responses as to whether the wilderness
is/should be a place with (a) too many regulations, (b) controls that are too obvious, and
(c) management controls in general. At least two-thirds of the visitors feel that the
current number of regulations and controls are appropriate, and they would not prefer to
see more (or less) management controls.

Care should be taken not to over impose management controls that could result in
the displacement of users. However, those users who felt controls should be
implemented at this time may be displaced while managing for the desires of the majority
if areas of lower encounter rates are not provided for these users. With an increase in the
levels and types of use in the wilderness there will be a greater potential for the
displacement of current users. Therefore, the overall change in use numbers and the
concentration of use in primary use areas such as along the trail from the Algoma survey
site to the beach and the northern portion of the beach (i.e., trail D1) should be monitored
to maintain an understanding of use in the wilderness in the future.

6.7.5 Horse and Ski Use Levels

The level of horse use was considered favorable by 75% of the users (Table 17).

Fourteen percent of the users desired less horse use, 24% wanted horses banned from the

wilderness area. Eleven percent felt that the current number of horses was acceptable but

would ideally like fewer.

119

.2050 :5 0: 035—2 :9: 2 098520: m0 >50 >319:

”$00 55 30. 5 058020: oz\02u.bm2= “2050 :5 0: 035—2 53 fl 5:80.20: 02\ 02".:504: ”EEO—ME HOE .n

.0w5:0 a :53 2033 v5 03205.5: 205500 E250 ”:0582885 :5: a 8 3.80: 53 0: =8? 35803.2 203? .x. ”mmtmm; .v
5.55:0 a :53 :0: 0: >05 En 80:50:00 E250

00—: 8: 0: 20:35 0051355 3305 80532925 :5: a 8 80: “8003 3 :02: :5 80: 3.5 8 =30? 95:83.2 20.7.? o\.. “025m; .m
.22 3 2:2: £8:

E: 03205.: 2 5:50:00 E250 05 80:80:92.: ”5: a E 80: 5003 8 :30? v5 80: “we 2 =02= wsvgmmo: 283? .x. “mmEOZ .N
.2530: 03:. :0: 2:05. Q2< 3.05:8 E080wa58 >58 08 05: :0: 30:

3:05:02 23 $5 5.3 032035 05 505800 E050 05 8052925 ”5: a 8 3.80: 53 3 =02: 95803.2 20.7.? .x. “0252 .—

gag

 

2.3230 :0: 05 28:50 8080558 20:3 002: m 0: 3059 3:05:02 2:05 “who
“3:230 00: 05 205.00 8080558 20:3 05.: 0 85o 3:05:02 2 ”50
9:530: $2 $0 $3 {one 3500509 3.05.00 52305 528:2
20:50 8080558 .030: 53 05.: 0s m0::Q 3:05:02 2:05 ”:0
2.28800 8080558 558 53 002: m 350 3:05:02 2 Homo
30: :6 $0 o\om e55 250323 ”20580 E08055: :0 538:2

 

«3:05.52 :05; >58 53 0020 a 0n m0::Q 3:05:02 3:05 ”moo
53:05:39: >58 00: 53 000—: : 30::Q 3:05:02 2 6:0
5:30: .5 9% exam .2: 5939 ”22.250: :o 5:52
3:25 a»: m0>30> oz\mo> notcz 07502 380: 52:5 :0: 2:25: :5 :m.
80: :0: 2:05: Q :3:
3 3:050»— .x.

 

 

30£>=0< «55035—2 .50 mam—38:00:: "3 030,—.

120

.2050 :0 0: 02:22 :2: 2 52:00.8: 00§0>anOE

28 5:: a: m: 33820: 08oz»..:m2.. 22:0 ___W o: 2:22 :0:: a: 005822: 02: oz"..30.:.. 52:02: .52 .n
.0955 0 :53 20:02 :5 032053: 0:02:50 E280 20:22:52: :5: 0 2 080:: 50: 0: ..m0>.. 3:50:32 20:32 2. 59:59: .v

555:0 2 :53 :0: 0:: >0:: E: £02280 E280

002 :0: 0: 20:03: 00005355 030:0 82:22:25 ”:0: 0 2 80:: 0:003 0: :02: :5 80:: :2: 0: =00? 53:03.2 20:33 2. ”025m; .m

.32 2: 2:2: :30:

E: 03205: 2 5:20:00 E280 0:: 2022292.: :5: 0 2 80:: 5003 0: :00? :5 80:: :2: 0: :02: 5:50:32 2022.» .x. ”mmtoz .N

.2030: 03:: :0: 25:: 92.0: 2:00: >58 00: 05: :0: 0.00:

3:02:02 23 2.5 2&0: 03205.: 05 0:020:00 E250 0:: 20:20:92:— 20: 0 2 080:: ::0: 0: =02= 5:80:32 20:33 2. ”0252 .—

 

mUZ—afll 225400 20 WHIP—.02

 

302 2% £6 0::: XL:

30.: ..\%N 0\0o 26 $05

30: 2.3 2.: 2.: 3m:
23:: :02 85> 2:8: 8302 023:
80: :0: 2:05.. Q :2:

0: 35:82 2.

 

2.2020 9500-320 530.: :23 002: 0 0: 0059 3:05:02 2:05 ”0:0
2.2020. 2:58-320 >58 00: :23 002: 0 300:9 3:05:02 2 ”$0
50200: 20:3 9550-320 :0 3.52
20030:: 0020: 0: :23 002: 0: 0085 3:02:02 2:05 ”:50
2.0020: >58 :23 002: 0 00:8 33:20 2 2 6mm:
85:03: ”:2: mas: :o 3:52
2022: 020: 30— .23 002: 0 0: 0085 3:05:02 2:05 5:0
2.0.020: >58 00: :23 002: 0 00:5 3:05:02 2 6nd
3:00:50: 30202 :0 5:52
was: 3:3 :2. 0:53.. 0... a:

win—w 5.500.320 1:: 3: 20:33:02 :0 3:35:33: :2 032—.

121

Thirteen percent of the users indicated that they engaged in horseback riding as an
activity in the wilderness area, but, as previously noted, there is some doubt as to whether
or not all reported horseback riding actually occurred within the wilderness boundaries.
The average maximum number of horses per group desired by users was four.

Cross country skiing was also not perceived to be a problem in the wilderness
area. The majority of users (91%) indicated that they did not feel that there were too
many skiers and that there should not be fewer (Table 17). Five percent of the users felt
contrary to this and 4% indicated that fewer skiers were preferable.

6.7.6 Hunting Use levels

Users were more divided in their responses to the appropriateness of hunting as
compared to other types of use (Table 18). Approximately half of the visitors felt that the
current number of hunters was acceptable and did not want to ban hunting. Three out of
ten visitors felt there were too many hunters and wanted a reduction in hunting use or a
ban on hunting. This encounter information indicates that users are concerned with
hunting and thus received a “medium” management priority rating.

Eighteen percent of the users also indicated that the level of hunters was tolerable
but, they felt that the wilderness should have fewer hunters. Seventeen percent of the
users felt that the level of hunters was acceptable but, hunting should be banned all
together. If these users are aggregated with those that were clearly opposed to the level of
hunters (i.e., 30% and 31%), opposition rises to 48%. Users' opinions concerning hunting
can then be viewed as polarized with 49% to 50% favoring and 48% to 49% wanting a

reduction or a complete ban of hunting, respectively (Figure 30).

122

.9850 EN 8 0332 .33 m_ ems—82% m8<8>n=moi

”$8 55 32 a 03582. oZozu..om2.. Macao ___w 8 232 is a 03823 oz\ oZnspoe. $555: .52

.032... a :33 $.96? 23 0380>£§ 80228 $2.80 6382988 £8 a E mac; 53 3 =8? mficcama €933 o\o ”mm—Em?»
.Gowqano z :33 8: cu >05 :5 .5338 8850

SE we: on ESE>V 853225 .235. Bataan—85 £3 a 5 So: 9808 8 :02: 23 So: Eu 8 28?. wSucommB E833 .x. 575m; .

.32 B 28%. £82

:5 03953“ mm .8338 Eats... 05 Housman—85 Han a 5 Ba: 9808 8 ..8?. v5 Eu: “Eu 2 :oz: wig—came.— flofi? .x. ”mm—>52 .

.CoBou 26: 8: 2:27. QZ< E85: .32: 03 025 8: moo“.
ogoavcoz 28 $3 $3 038o>£ 8a 80328 8050 05 ”noufioahzs £3 a 5 man: 53 8 :02: mason—m9. ESE? ..\. ”0252

A

maul—3N: 7:51—00 20 mfihOZ

 

«“3323 8: mmflug: 98:3 08E 2. $55 9.50%qu 2:25 ”50
“um—855 >58 03 ~23 con—n a 855 3.3.332 a “So

am: $3. .xa as: :9. going Ase 22.5: 338:2

 

“£85: 53$ 5:: 32a a on 855 3.35.82 2:25 ”30
$825: >58 2: 52> 32a 5 355 33.582 a.— ”$0

 

 

 

om: - $8 .xa axon: .38 83x39 ”e35: ho h3:52
9.25 an: 8&9; .2?» warez czez 25: team :3 2.3.5.. 2:. E
afiu— :3 fi—BGn—m: a :m—:
8 92.2—93— o\.

95.5: .8 b53383... g: as:

123

Visitors' Polarization Regarding Hunting Use Levels "Are there
too many hunters and should there be fewer?"

Want no
r controls on
hunting (2.0%)

Desire a Favor current
reduction in — conditions(49.9
hunting (48.1%) %)

 

Should hunting be banned at Nordhouse Dunes?

Want no
controls on
hunting (2.4%)

Favor current
conditions
(49. l %)

Desire reduction
(48.5%)

 

Figure 30: Visitor Polarization Concerning Hunting Use Levels

124

A small percentage of users (2%) disagreed that there should be fewer hunters but
also agreed that the area had too many hunters. These responses indicate that these users
likely did not desire a restriction on the number of hunters in the wilderness even though
the level of hunters exceeded what they felt was appropriate. These users were opposed
to controls on the level of hunters despite the conditions in the wildemess.

A small percentage of users (3%) also indicated that although they agreed that
Nordhouse was a place with too many hunters they disagreed that hunting should be
banned. These responses indicate that these users felt a lesser restriction or no restriction
on hunting would be appropriate for the area.

The even split in users' opinions over the issue of hunting indicates that hunting
must be targeted as a focus in the management of the wilderness area. Diverging user
perceptions concerning hunting must be monitored and identified to enable user based
management of the area.

6.7.7 Solitude and Wilderness Quality

Nordhouse is providing users with the solitude that they desire in their wilderness
experience. Ninety-eight percent of the users felt that Nordhouse was and should be a
place to be alone; two percent of the users indicated the opposite sentiment.

The quality of the wilderness area was also meeting the needs of the users. The
majority of the visitors (70%) felt that the quality of the wilderness was getting better or
about the same in comparison to previous trips. Twenty-one percent of the visitors had
not visited the area and, therefore, had no means of comparison for question 109. Two

and a half times as many people felt that the quality of the wilderness area was

125

improving (17%) as felt it was getting worse (7%). There was also a 95% approval rate
(i.e., rated it as very good or good) for the wildemess in general by the visitors. These,
along with previous findings, clearly indicate that Nordhouse supports users’ wide range
of needs and preferences for the wilderness.
6.7.8 Camping

Campers encountered about as many people camped within sight or sound of their
camp site as they expected (Appendix E). Furthermore, campers primarily encountered
fewer people walking through their campsite than they expected (Appendix E). Campers
indicated that they would tolerate camping within sight or sound of 0-5 other groups.
Fifty-one percent of the campers stated that they would tolerate zero groups, 18% one
other group, 23% two groups, 8% three groups and 1% said they would tolerate five
groups camped within sight or sound of their campsite. These camping encounter results
support that even the heavy use camping areas of the wilderness (quadrants S9, R10 and
T8) may not be perceived as overcrowded by the wilderness users.
6.7.9 Users' Expectations for Wilderness Conditions

Users were asked about their expectations for the following conditions in the
wilderness area: the number of people, pets, nude sunbathers, large groups, groups that
were too close, groups that were too noisy, and indecent behaviors present in the
wilderness. Across all of these items 65% of the users encountered either what they
expected or less, 9% encountered more, and 26% had no expectations for these conditions
(Figure 31). The conditions for which the greatest amount of users felt they saw more

than what they expected to see were the number of people (17%) and the number of pets

126

Data Based on Encounter Levels
Visitors' Actual Levels of Encounters in the Wilderness
Versus
Visitors' Expected Level of Encounters

Visitors who had

no expectations
for encounters 1
(26.2%)

Experienced the

number of
expected
Experienced encounters or
more encounters fewer
(64.9%)

than expected
(9.0%)

 

Aggregated Data for Questions 87-93

Figure 31: Visitors" Expectations for Wilderness Conditions

127

(15%). The condition for which the greatest amount of users felt they saw fewer than
what they expected to see was the number of nude sunbathers (32%). Although these
conditions had the greatest amount of actual encounters in comparison to expected
encounters this may not be significant enough to mandate a change in management.

Caution should be taken when interpreting peoples' expectations. Traditionally,
management interpretations have been that it is best when users encounter fewer users
than expected and worse when they encounter more than expected. However, as users
indicated in this study this traditional interpretation may not always be correct. A user of
Nordhouse Dunes indicated that she became lost while in the wilderness area and would
have liked to have encountered more people and signage than she had. Therefore, fewer
may not always be best. Simply because users see more people, pets, or whatever, may
not signify that they were dissatisfied with these encounters but may only indicate that
they saw more than what they thought they would. The general indications from the
crowding, encounter and expectation information show that management should be aimed
at maintaining the current level of use and conditions. Most users of the area indicated
that crowding and overuse are not current problems in the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness
Area and that, with the possible exception of hunting, conflicts between types of users are
minimal.
6.7.10 Location Specific Encounter Information

Encounter information in this section is presented in terms of the seven survey
sites depicted in Figure 3. The location specific encounter information gives an insight

on users' responses to the acceptable level of encounters at each survey location. The

128

following are the percentages of individuals surveyed at the seven survey sites in the
wilderness area: Algoma 49%, Nordhouse Lake 8%, North Beach 24%, Ridge Trail 3%,
South Beach 4%, Nipissing 5% and Green Road 7%. Encounter information based on
location is presented as the percentage of individuals surveyed at a given site that
responded in a particular manner to a survey question.

Encounter information by location may not be representative of the total
population of Nordhouse visitors. The sampling strategy was designed to be
representative of visitors across all locations not within each location. Also, the small
sample size at certain survey sites for specific questions makes the information obtained
less generalizable to the population using the wilderness. For example, Ridge Trail and
Nipissing for questions 96, 97, and 99 have sample sizes of only one or two people. It
would not be appropriate to generalize these findings to the population as a whole using
the Ridge Trail and Nipissing areas.

6.7.11 Wilderness Satisfaction

Location specific encounter information supports the general encounter
information previously reported. Groups indicated satisfaction with the wilderness area
at all survey sites and did not indicate any drastic deviations from previous encounter
information (Appendix E). The majority of groups at all survey sites indicated that
Nordhouse met their personal definition of wilderness and that they were satisfied with
their trip to the wilderness area. Users gave their trip to the wilderness area primarily
very good and good ratings at all survey sites. The majority of people at all sites also

indicated that the wilderness area was getting better or about the same as compared to

129

previous trips. The majority of the users at all sites indicated that crowding was not a
problem in the wilderness area.
6.7.12 Users' Expectations for Wilderness Conditions

Visitors' expectations showed that users at all survey sites predominantly
encountered what they expected to encounter of various conditions in the wildemess
(Appendix E). Users at all survey sites predominantly had no expectations for the
number of nude sunbathers they expected to see. Users at all sites also indicated that they
mostly had no expectation, encountered what they expected or encountered fewer than
expected immodest, indecent or lewd behaviors. Users at all sites encountered primarily
what they expected, fewer than they expected or they had no expectations for the number
of large groups, number of groups too close, number of groups that were too noisy and
the number of pets they expected to see.
6.7.13 Camping

Campers at all survey sites mostly encountered as many groups as they expected
or fewer camped within sight or sound of their campsite (Appendix E). Visitors at all
sites also encountered as many groups walking through their campsite as they expected or
fewer. Campers at all survey sites except Ridge Trail indicated that they could find their
desired type of campsite mostly all the time in the wilderness area. Also, the majority of
campers at all survey sites except Ridge Trail did not change the route of their trip or the

length of their stay due to not being able to find their desired type of campsite.

1 30
6.7.14 Use Levels

Encounter information by location concerning the number of people, backpackers,
dayhikers, hunters, beach users, horseback riders, and cross-country skiers (Appendix E)
directly supports the general encounter information discussed earlier. It also supports
user perception and preference findings discussed earlier. The majority of individuals at
all survey sites indicated that there are not currently too many people in the wilderness
area. However, the majority of users also stated at every site except Nipissing that there
should be fewer people.

Users at all sites indicated that there were too many hunters in the wilderness area.
Green Road however, was the only site where the majority of users disagreed that there
should be fewer hunters. Nordhouse Lake and Green Road were the only sites where a
majority, 54% and 97% respectively, of the users disagreed that hunting should be
banned in the wilderness area. The majority of the users at Algoma, North Beach, Ridge
Trail, and South Beach agreed that hunting should be banned; the majority of the users at
Nipissing were neutral to the issue of restrictions on hunting.

The majority of the users at all sites disagreed or were neutral that there were too
many and should be fewer backpackers, dayhikers, cross-country skiers, or beach users in
the wilderness area. These responses contrast users' previously stated preference for
fewer people in general at all survey sites. The majority of the groups at all sites also
indicated that there were currently not too many horses in the wilderness area.

Location encounter information revealed few deviations from the total sample

results. Concerns were most prominent for the level of people in general and hunters for

131

each of the seven sample sites just as they were for the wilderness as a whole. Despite
this, most of the people at all sites agreed that Nordhouse was and should be a place to be
alone. The most prominent difference identified was the lack of opposition toward
hunting on Green Road. Green Road was only surveyed during the fall season which
may have biased the results. Overall, users again indicated their support for the current
wilderness conditions throughout the location specific encounter information.
6.7.15 Summary of Objective 6 Findings

The number of hunters and people in general that use the wilderness area are the
most prominent and complex issues for Nordhouse Dunes. The complexity of these
issues is most apparent when data for the level of acceptable encounters, users'
perceptions and users' preferences are looked at collectively as was done in this section.
Users' responses concerning hunting and the number of people in the wilderness area
oscillated between indicating that current conditions are acceptable to a desire for a ban
on hunting. Users' responses were indicative of the need for a management strategy that
monitors for changes in users' perceptions and manages for the current use levels in
Nordhouse Dunes.
6.7.15.1 Use Levels of People

Encounter information (objective 6) indicated that users' opinions the level of
people are not always clear. F orty-eight percent of the users were in favor of current
conditions and 52% were in favor of fewer people in the area. Nearly 3 out of 10
Nordhouse visitors were satisfied with the current number of people, but ideally preferred

fewer. Thus, a medium priority rating was assigned to the overall use level situation at

132

Nordhouse Dunes (Table 15). However, the rest of the data in Table 15 indicates that it is
not the number of backpackers, day hikers or beach users that is making half of the
visitors concerned about the number of people in general. Consistent with research
pertaining to carrying capacity, it is the location of use (e. g., near campsites) and the type
of use considered appropriate (e. g., day hiking over hunting) that are of more concern
than overall use levels.

Users' perceptions (i.e., objective 5) of whether there were too few people in the
wilderness area indicated that current conditions are acceptable. Seventy-two percent of
the users indicated that there are not too few people and 7% said that there were too few
(21% were neutral). Users’ preferences (i.e., objective 5) were consistent with both the
encounter data and users’ perception data. Seventy-three percent of the users were in
favor of no more people whereas 4% favored more people (23% were neutral).
Encounter, users’ perception, and users’ preference data support the finding that most of
the users do not want an increase in the number of people in the wilderness area. Users'
responses across encounter, perceptions of current conditions and preference data flow
from being polarized to accepting current conditions to a possible preference for fewer
people in the wilderness area.
6.7.15.2 Hunting Use Levels

Encounter data (i.e., objective 6) revealed that users' opinions were polarized
concerning hunting use in the wilderness. F ifiy percent of the users reported that they
favored current hunting use levels while 48% favored a reduction in the amount of

hunters that use the wilderness area (2% were neutral). Users' perceptions of current

133

wilderness conditions (i.e., objective 5) indicated that the current level of hunters was
acceptable. Forty-eight percent of the users did not feel there were too many hunters and
20% indicated that there were too many (32% were neutral). Users' preferences (i.e.,
objective 5) however, showed that users would prefer fewer hunters. F orty-seven percent
of the users stated that there should be fewer hunters and 26% indicated the contrary
(27% were neutral).

Encounter data, again, showed users' opinions as polarized regarding the banning
of hunting in the wilderness area (49% opposed to and 49% favoring a ban, 2% were
neutral). Users' preferences indicated that 46% of the users would prefer a ban on
hunting and 34% did not agree that hunting should be banned (21% were neutral).

Users have indicated through their varying responses that the level of people in
general, and hunters specifically, must be monitored in the wilderness area. Users'
opinions also, should continue to be monitored to identify changes in their polarization
concerning these issues and their preference for less use. Encounter data, as well as data
from users identified as feeling that fewer people and hunters were preferable, indicated
that current conditions are acceptable but there is room for some reduction. Users'
perceptions of current wilderness conditions however, clearly indicated that management
of the area should maintain the current use conditions. The “ideal” state may not be
possible. Certain data «the “YES/NO” column-- in tables 15 through 18 indicate how
ambivalent humans ofien are (i.e., do not like the current conditions but also do not want
them to change). These contradictory user responses emphasize the need for management

to concentrate on the maintenance of current use levels and the monitoring of changes.

134

6.8 Objective 7. Examine the differences between manager and user perceptions of
wilderness conditions.
6.8.1 Manager Perceptions

Managers perceive Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to be overused and
overcrowded, especially along the Lake Michigan shoreline. Manager's views are that
"It's [Nordhouse] just overused. People are loving it to death" and that "They [visitors]
don't find the solitude they're looking for, especially along Lake Michigan" (Ingells,
1991). Management feels that most use in the wilderness area is concentrated along Lake
Michigan and the foredunes. These areas are only approximately 1,000 of the 3,500 acres
in the designated wilderness. Use has been estimated at approximately 15,000 - 20,000
visitors and this does not include the significant number of users the Forest Service
believes enter the wilderness by watercraft.

Management has been concerned with the perceived continued illegal use of
motorized vehicles such as watercraft, and especially, snowmobiles. There is also
concern that there is the presence of indiscrete nude sunbathers and nude windsurfers who
create discomfort for others, especially families with children, using the wilderness area.
Encounters by trail hikers and campers have also been estimated by managers to be high.
Managers describe the diversity of the types of users in the area to be high and include
day users, boaters of all types, nude sunbathers, horse riders, motorized vehicle users,
large groups, and others whose presence and/or activity might conflict with other users.

Management suggests, based on their use estimates that "there could be a new class called

135

'Urban' Wilderness for the Nordhouse Dunes from mid-June through Labor Day" (Ingells,
1991)

Managers perceived use levels to be higher than what they considered conducive
to the Nordhouse Dunes wilderness environment. Specific types of uses such as beach
use, nude sunbathing, and horse use were also considered to be exceeding appropriate
levels. A closure to horse use in the wilderness area was being considered due to the
perceived inappropriate levels. Hunting use levels however, were not a concern of
managers. Managers did not consider Nordhouse to be a place to be alone and therefore,
felt that users were not able to find solitude in the wildemess area.

6.8.2 User Perceptions

Users of the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area did not perceive an
overabundance of people using the area. When questioned about use levels of specific
types of users, users consistently indicated that there were not too many of any type of
user in the wildemess area. General use levels and specific types of uses were not issues
for the users. Hunting use however, did have the greatest amount of opposition from
users. Users showed a polarization over whether hunting should be decreased or
eliminated in the wildemess area.

The majority of users noted that Nordhouse Dunes was a place to be alone
indicating they were able to find solitude in the wilderness area. Users were generally
satisfied with the wilderness area and felt that it met their definition of wilderness.

From this data the differences between manager and user perceptions is apparent.

Managers did not have an accurate perception of wildemess users' perceptions of the

136

wildemess area. It was based on this incorrect perception of users that managers were

implementing wilderness policy such as a closure to horse use.

SECTION 7

CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Summary of Findings
7.1.1 Use Levels Concerning Hunting and People in General Across Encounter,
Users' Perceptions and Preferences Data

The number of hunters and people in general that use the wilderness area are the
most prominent and complex issues for Nordhouse Dunes. The complexity of these
issues is most apparent when data for the level of acceptable encounters, users'
perceptions and users' preferences are looked at collectively. Users' responses conceming
hunting and the number of people in the wildemess area wavered between indicating that
current conditions are acceptable and indicating that users desire a reduction in these
conditions. Users' responses were indicative of the need for a management strategy that
monitors for changes in users' perceptions and manages based on visitors’ needs and
perceptions.
7.1.2 Use Levels of People

Encounter information (objective 6) indicated that users' opinions are polarized
concerning the level of people using the wilderness. Forty-eight percent of the users were
in favor of current conditions and 52% were in favor of fewer people in the area. Users'
perceptions of current conditions (objective 5) however, indicated that users were

accepting of the current level of people using the wilderness area. Sixty—four percent of

137

138

the users favored current conditions and 10% favored fewer people (26% were neutral).
Users' preferences (objective 5), nonetheless, indicated that users desired less people
with 52% in favor of less people and 11% were in favor of the current conditions (3 7%
were neutral). Users' responses across encounter, perceptions of current conditions and
preference data flow from being polarized to accepting current conditions to indicating a
preference for fewer people in the wilderness area.

Encounter data (i.e., objective 6) indicated that users did not feel there were too
few people in the wilderness area. Ninety percent of the users agreed that there were not
too few people and 6% indicated that there should be more people using the area. Users'
perceptions (i.e., objective 5) of whether there were too few people in the wilderness area
indicated that current conditions are acceptable. Seventy-two percent of the users
indicated that there are not too few people and 7% said there were too few (21% were
neutral). Users' preferences (i.e., objective 5) were consistent with both the encounter
data and users' perception data. Seventy-three percent of the users were in favor of no
more people whereas 4% favored more people (23% were neutral). Encounter, users'
perceptions and users' preferences data addressing whether there were too few people in
the wilderness was straight forward and clearly indicates that most of the users do not
want an increase in the number of people in the wilderness area.

7.1.3 Hunting Use Levels

Encounter data (i.e., objective 6) revealed that users' opinions were polarized

concerning hunting use in the wilderness. Fifty percent of the users reported that they

favored current hunting use levels while 48% favored a reduction in the amount of

139

hunters that use the wilderness area (2% were neutral). Users' perceptions of current
wilderness conditions (i.e., objective 5) indicated that the current level of hunters was
acceptable. Forty-eight percent of the users did not feel there were too many hunters and
20% indicated that there were too many (32% were neutral). Users' preferences (i.e.,
objective 5) however, showed that users would prefer fewer hunters. Forty-seven percent
of the users stated that there should be fewer hunters and 26% indicated the contrary
(27% were neutral).

Encounter data, again, showed users' opinions as polarized regarding the banning
of hunting in the wilderness area (49% opposed to and 49% favoring a ban, 2% were
neutral). Users' preferences indicated that 46% of the users would prefer a ban on
hunting and 34% did not agree that hunting should be banned (21% were neutral). Users'
responses to hunting conditions in the wildemess area flowed from being polarized in the
encounter data to indicating current hunting conditions were acceptable based on users’
perceptions to a preference for a reduction or ban of hunting.

Users have indicated through their varying responses that the level of people in
general, and hunters specifically, must be monitored in the wilderness area. Users'
opinions also, should continue to be monitored to identify changes in their polarization
concerning these issues and their preference for less use. Encounter data, as well as data
from users identified as feeling that fewer people and hunters were preferable, indicated
that current conditions are acceptable but there is room for some reduction. Users'
perceptions of current wilderness conditions however, clearly indicated that management

of the area should maintain the current use conditions. These somewhat contradictory

140

user responses emphasize the need for management to concentrate on the maintenance of
current use levels and the monitoring of changes.
7.1.4 Defining Wilderness

The results of this study indicated that visitors to the Nordhouse Dunes
Wilderness area define wilderness using primarily the same characteristics as does the
1964 Wilderness Act. In addition to the six characteristics outlined in the Wilderness Act
visitors also used characteristics not in the Wilderness Act to define the term wilderness.
7.1.5 Wilderness Management

Management of the wilderness area has been driven by managers' perceptions of
problems in the wilderness area. The LAC process employed by this study was initiated
on the basis of managers' concerns for conditions in the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness
Area. A comprehensive public involvement strategy had not been employed by managers
prior to this study. Little to no information was available on the characteristics of the
Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness User. The social component of the wilderness environment
had not been studied prior to this study. Management of the wilderness area was a
traditional top-down framework.
7.2 Conclusions
7.2.1 Defining Wilderness

The 1964 Wilderness Act has succeeded in capturing the essence of the definition

of wilderness as defined by the users of the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area.

141

7.2.2 User and Manager Perceptions of the Wilderness Area

User and manager perceptions differed on each of the following conditions:
general use levels, beach users, nude sunbathers, horse use, hunting, and the wilderness as
a place to be alone. Given these differences in perceptions managers must continue to
investigate users' perceptions of wilderness conditions if they are to effectively manage
the wilderness for their clientele. Managers' desire to close the wilderness to horse use
based on their misperception of users' desires exemplifies the need for managers to seek
visitor input.
7.2.3 Wilderness Management

The management of the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area is a manager driven
top-down process. The status of wilderness conditions are investigated primarily only
when management perceives a problem. This form of management has the potential to
jeopardize the quality of the wilderness experience for wilderness users as well as the
ecological state of the wilderness. This top-down process does not realize problems as
users perceive them and imposes managers' perceptions on the wilderness environment.

The Limits of Acceptable Change process, even with its attempt at client
participation, is a manager driven process. It is when management shows concern for
wilderness conditions that the process is implemented. It is also permissible in the LAC
process for managers to simply make decisions regarding indicators and standards and
ask the public for limited input on the appropriateness of managerial decisions. This is

not a bottom-up participatory approach. The LAC process allows for more public

142

participation than traditional land management processes such as ROS and the carrying
capacity framework but, this participation is at the discretion of managers.

The legislation, namely the 1964 Wilderness Act, which outlines the management
of Wilderness, is not participatory. As Tipple and Wellman (1989) pointed out laws and
legislation do not ensure public participation or that bureaucracies will be responsive to
peoples' needs. The Act outlines what must be managed for but, does not provide any
insight on how to manage for these conditions in a participatory manner. The Wilderness
Act is expert driven. Wilderness is a resource for all people. The management of these
lands therefore, must incorporate all peoples' (managers and public alike) knowledge,
expertise and experience if the lands are to be managed appropriately for the people.

Times have changed. The public desires an active role in the management of the
nation's wilderness. The 1964 Wilderness Act, which is the basis for all wilderness
management, has not changed. It has not incorporated the need for public involvement in
the management of Wilderness. It is due time for a change in the legislation governing
the nation’s wilderness lands. There is a need for the review of the Wilderness Act in
light of the changing roles of professionals, the public and wilderness.

7.3 Limitations of the Study

Several limitations affect the interpretation of the study results. These limitations

are grouped into two broad categories: survey design and measurement.
7.3.1 Survey Design Limitations
The cross-sectional nature of this study does not permit the generalization of the

findings to other time frames, past or future. The data were collected at one point in time

143

and are only applicable to that time frame. Wilderness users will change over time as
will wilderness conditions. If, however, the 1993-1994 sampling year was typical of
other years in terms of rainfall, insects, and visitor use patterns, the data may be
generalizable to other time periods. An understanding of the wilderness dynamics over
time would verify or refute the generalizability of the data collected during the 1993-94
season.

A second design limitation was discovered upon the realization that some users
included past experiences in the wilderness area as well as experiences occurring outside
the wildemess in their response to the questionnaire. It is not, however known to what
degree this occurred. For example, different percentages of day versus overnight visitors
were obtained depending on the questions analyzed. Day use was recorded at 68% and
72% and overnight use at 28% and 32% analyzing questions 94 and 95 respectively,
resulting in a difference of 4 % between the response rates for these questions.

Adding to the inconsistency concerning camping is that 58% of the users
indicated camping as an activity in the wilderness. However, only 28% to 32% indicated
they were overnight users. It is likely that visitors may have referred to the Lake
Michigan Recreation Area when asked about camping, but to the wilderness when asked
about whether they stayed overnight. This speculation is based on the cross referencing
of users’ responses and comments throughout the surveys and reports from interviewers
of incidents where users were often confused about the wilderness boundaries.

Thirdly, surveys conducted on Green Road were not strictly exit interviews. The

sampling strategy employed an opportunistic sampling method in which wilderness users

144

were sampled at campsites and the like just as long as they had used the wilderness that
particular day. The users did not have to be exiting for the day. Sampling schedules
were, however, strictly adhered to. Double-counting was minimized by the use of a
single interviewer for Green Road and users were not sampled twice in the same stay.
7.3.2 Measurement and Analysis Limitations

Measurement and analysis limitations include question wording, item omissions,
and interviewer biases. In terms of question wording, respondents found the negatively
worded questions in the section concerning users’ preferences to be somewhat confusing.
Question sixteen, which asked how many other wilderness areas users have visited, may
have also received invalid responses from users as many did not know what constituted a
wilderness area and, therefore, were not certain how to respond.

In addition, there were two types of item omissions that would have enhanced the
analysis and interpretation of the data. First, the instrument lacked questioning
concerning how many hours day use visitors were in the wilderness. This information
would be useful in converting visitation figures into other units (e. g., visitor hours) for
purposes of comparison with other studies. Secondly, a question should have been
included after each of questions 87-93 and 96-97 (i.e., visitors’ expectations for
wilderness conditions) which indicated whether users’ responses indicated satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with their number of actual encounters versus expected encounters. This

information would help evaluate the degree to which expectations and satisfaction are

correlated.

145

Other limitations were placed on the study by interviewers. Surveys in the first
sampling period in May may not have all been exit interviews, therefore, increasing the
chance for double-counting visitors. Interviewers were also confused as to where survey
sites were located and which sites were which (e. g., Algoma and Nordhouse Lake were
mistaken for one another). Interviewers may have influenced users’ responses to the
questionnaire through attempts to educate users on the wilderness and its regulations and
by coaching users through the survey. Finally, it was noted that people exiting the
wilderness area were not appropriately recorded or contacted until after the July 4th

weekend when interviewers were given clearer instructions.

SECTION 8

RECOMNIENDATIONS

8.1 Recommendations for Future Research

Due to the fact that managers' perceptions were obtained by means of content
analysis of documents and meeting notes, it is recommended that managers' perceptions
of the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area be gathered in a more scientific format as were
users' preferences. It should be noted that manager perceptions of the wilderness
conditions will have been effected by the knowledge of the results of this study. Future
evaluation of wilderness conditions should be based on both the perceptions of users and
managers. Wilderness conditions should be monitored on a continual basis and include
evaluation of managers' and users' perceptions of both social and ecological conditions.

Further research of this nature is highly recommended based on managers'
reactions to the presentation of the data which this study provided. Managers were
presented with the results that indicated that they did not have an accurate perception of
their clientele. Upon presentation of this information managers began to reevaluate their
management intentions for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. Managers were
originally intending to implement a closure to horse use based on what they perceived to
be the desires of the wilderness users. The study data however, show that horse use is
not a concern of the users. Managers are now reevaluating this closure to horse use and

focusing on the ecological rather than social impacts to the wilderness environment

146

147

caused by horse use. This is an encouraging result and attests to the practical use of
public participation in the management process. Managers are open to change if
presented with the correct stimulus. It would prove to be extremely worthwhile to pursue
further studies of this nature to ensure managers have an accurate understanding of their
clientele and to promote the importance of user input in the management process.

8.2 Management Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, which illustrated the differences in managers’
and users’ perceptions of wildemess conditions, it is recommended that the LAC process
be implemented on the basis of user participation. Monitoring wilderness conditions by
means of both manager and user input should permit the implementation of the LAC
process. The LAC process, whether initiated by managers or users, must be based both
on users’ and managers’ knowledge and participation. Indicators and standards must be
identified by both managers and users from the initial steps of the process. It is not
appropriate for managers to develop indicators and standards and then only ask users to
identify from given choices which are appropriate. There is a place for client
participation in each of the nine steps of the LAC process.

Evaluation of the 1964 Wilderness Act is recommended on the basis of findings
from this study. The Wilderness Act is still successfully defining the characteristics of
wilderness. It lacks however, the concept of public participation in the management of
the nation's wilderness areas. The Act gives resource managers autonomy in the decision
making process regarding lands which belong to the people as a whole. Wilderness areas

are not solely for the benefit of managers and should therefore not be managed based only

148

on the input of managers. The Wilderness Act at this times omits a vital source of
knowledge for the successfirl management of wilderness lands. Legislation may not be
able to guarantee public participation but, it is able to mandate that resource managers

seek the valuable knowledge their clientele has to offer.

SECTION 9

FINAL THOUGHTS

The management of the nation's wilderness areas is no longer solely the
responsibility of resource managers. Public interest in natural resources is growing and
management must be a cooperative effort between managers and their clientele.
Managers' and users' perceptions of wilderness often differ. For this reason, it is
imperative to have public participation in the management process if wilderness areas are
to be managed effectively and efficiently for all. The 1964 Wilderness Act, which
mandates wildemess management, has not evolved as has public opinion regarding the
natural resources. The Wilderness Act must be reevaluated. Its is imperative that the act
address the importance of public participation in the wilderness management process.
The Wilderness Act must outline mandatory regulations for public involvement in, as
well as ecological preservation of, the wilderness system if our wilderness lands are to
endure.

This study has taken wilderness management a few steps closer to this cooperative
relationship between managers and their clientele. Upon presentation of study findings,
managers of the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area began to reevaluate their
understanding of their clientele and their intended management for the wilderness area.
The preservation of well over 91 million acres of natural resources in the United States

alone is in jeopardy without the pursuance of manager-client partnerships.

149

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Study Questionnaire

150

Appendix A

Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Study
Survey Information

(1) Interviewer's initials

 

(2) Date

(3) Survey location
0Algoma 0North Beach 080mb Beach 06reen Road
0Nordbouse Lake DRidge Trail 0Nlplsaing Ridge

(4) Surveytimeperiod
010:00-1:00 01:00-4:00 04:00-7:00 07:00-9:00

 

 

 

(5) Time
08eginnlno DEndino
Group Information
(6) How many people are in your group? [

 

(7) How did you travel in the wilderness area on this visit?
(Check all that apply, but if more than one. underline the way you traveled most.)

DHiked, carrying our equipment ourselves Dflode on horseback
0Hlked, leadng horses 00ther

 

(8) How would you describe your group?

 

0Ftienda 0Alone

0Family (Immediate family and relatives) 00ther (Describe)
0Family and friends

00mnized Club or School Group

(9) How many people in your group are in the following age categories?

 

06-10 021-30 051-60
011-15 031-40 061-70
016-20 041-50 071 yearsorover

“ On the map provided please indicate your route of travel and places
you camped in the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area.

(Give group map and highfighterl

151

10-1 14 4-7 79
Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Study
Wilderness Visits

(10) When you think about the term ”wilderness" what characteristics come to mind? (Please
describe what ”wilderness” means to you)

 

 

 

(11) Nordhouse Dunes meets my personal definition of wht a 'wilderness' is (check one)
DStrongly Agree DAgree DNeutral CIDisagree 08trongly Disagree

 

(12) How many times have you visited the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness area I

 

 

 

 

before this trip?
(13) Howmanyyearsagodid youfirstvisittheNordhouse Dunes Wilderness I
area? ]
(14) Including this visit, how many times have you visited the Nordhouse Dunes I ]
Wilderness area in the past 12 months?

 

 

(15) How many total days have you spent at the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness in L
the past 12 momhs?

 

 

(16) How many wilderness areas have you visited other than Nordhouse Dunes? l l

(17) Peoplehavemanyreasomforvisitingwildernessareas. Pleasetellusthethreemostimportant
reasomwhyyoutookthistripimoNordhwseDunes.

0(1)
0.
0(2)
0.
0(3)

 

 

 

(18) What agency or organization do you think is responsible for managing Nordhouse Dunes
Wilderness Area?

 

152

We are interested in brewing what activities you participated in during this visit
to Nordhouse Dunes and how important each was to your decision to make this
trip. PLEASE CHECK ONE OF THE TWO RESPONSES AFIER EA CH

ACTIVITY YOU PARHCIPATED IN.
Participated but This activity
not a major was a major
reason for going reason for going
on this trip on this trip
(19) Fishing D C)
(20) Hunting D 0
(21) Checking out places to hunt 0 0
(22) Hiking on trails D D
(23) Hiking off trails C) U
(24) Viewing scenery D D
(25) Nature study (Bird watching, identifying flowers etc.) 0 D
(26) Phowsraphy Cl C)
(27) Swimmins L‘.) D
(28) Sunbuhing D U
(29) Nude sunbathing D D
(30) Campins D D
(31) Picknicking C] D
(32) Collecting berries, mushrooms, or other 'namral"
foods C) C)
(33) Spendins time in camp (Reluins. submits camp
chores, etc.) E) El
(34) Horseback riding C) D
(35) Cross-county skiing D D
(36) W C) C)

(37) Others please specify:

 

(38)
(39)
(40)
(41 )

 

 

 

(30000
(30000

 

153

Please evaluate these statements in terms of what you believe Nordhouse Dunes
Wilderness IS:

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

(42) A place to be alone.
(43) A place with too many people.
(44) A place with too many regulations.

(45) A place with some areas where only
hikers go.

(46) A place with many natural openings

(47) A place with many neutral forested
areas

(48) A place to test my skills.
(49) A place with too few people

(50) A place with many management
controls

(51) A place with too many backpackers.
(52) Aplaeewithtoomanydayhikers.

(53) A place with too may people on the
beach

(54) Aplacewithtoomanyroads

(55) A place with too many motorized
vehicles

(56) A place with too many horses.

(57) A place with too many burners.
(58) A place with too many facilities
(59) Aplacethxiseasytoacwss

(60) A place where managemem comrols

D C] D 00000 DD 000 DUO DD 000
D D D 00000 DD DOD DUO 00 ODD
D U D 00000 DU DOD DUO 00 DOD
D D D [JUDGE] DU ODD DUO (30 COD
0 U D (30000 00 C100 ODD DD (300

are too obvious

(61) Aplacewithtoomanymaimained
trails

(62) A place with too many cross-county
skiiers

154

Please evaluate each of the following statements in terms of what you believe
Nordhouse Dunes Wildemess SHOULD BE:

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
All". Disagree

(63) A place to be alone.
(64) A place with fewer people.
(65) A place with many visitor reguluiom.

(66) A place with some areas where only
hikers cango

(67) A place withmany natural openings.

(68) Aplacewithmanynaturalforested
areas

(69) A place to test my skills
(70) A place with more people.

(71) A place with fewer management
comrols

(72) A place with fewer backpackers
(73) A place with fewer dayhikers

(74) A place with fewer people on the
beach

(75) A place with fewer roads

(76) A place with fewer motorized vehicles
(77) A place with no motoriud vehicles
(78) A place with less horse travel.

(79) A place with in horses allowed.

(80) A place with {cwer hum

(81) A place where liming is not allowed
(82) A place with less facilities

(83) Aplacethatisnoteuytoaccess

(84) A place where managemem comrols
are not obvious

(85) A place with fewer maimaimd trails

(86) A place with fewer cross-county
skiiers

U 00 0000000000 (300 DOD DD ODD
0 00 0000000000 000 DOD DD (300
0 DD 0000000000 000 DOD DD 000
(3 00 0000000000 DOC] DOD DC] DUE]
(3 DD UDDUDDDDDD ODD (300 DE] DOD

155

Encounter lnfonnation
How did the following compare with what you expected to see in Nordhouse

Dunes? (Check the appropriate box for each statement)

 

 

(87) The number of people you saw

0Far Fewer 0Fewer 0About What I Expected

0More 0Far More Ell-lad No Expectation
(88) The number of large groups (more tlnn 6 people) you saw

0Far Fewer 0Fewer 0About What I Expected

0More 0Far More Eli-lad No Expectation
(89) ’l‘hemmberofgroupstooclosetoyou .

0Far Fewer 0Fewer 0About What 1 Expected

DMore 0Far More 0Had No Expectation
(90) The mmberofgrwpsthatweretoonoisy

0Far Fewer 0Fewer 0About What 1 Expected

0More 0Far More 0Had No Expectation
(91) The rarmber ofpets you saw

0Far Fewer 0Fewer 0About What 1 Expected

0More 0Far More 0Had No Expectation
(92) The number of immodest, indecem, or lewd behaviors

0Far Fewer 0Fewer 0About What I Expected

0More 0Far More 0Had No Expectation
(93) The mmberofmdesunbathersyousaw

0Far Fewer 0Fewer 0About What 1 Expected

0More 0Far More 0Hed No Expectation
(94) Onthisvisitdid yourgroupstayoutovernightwithintheNordhouseDunes

Wilderness Area? (1an skip the next page and go to question #101) DYes Duo

(95) If yes, how many nights? I 1
(Cominue to next page)

156

Answer these questions only if you CAMPED IN THE WILDERNESS
AREA

How did the following compare with what you expected to see in Nordhouse
Dunes? (Check the appropriate baxfor questions 96 and 97)

(96) The number ofgroups that camped within sight or sound ofyour canmsite in Nordhouse Dunes

0Far Fewer 0More 0Did Not Camp in
0Fewer 0Far More Nordhouse Dunes
0About What I Expected 0Had No Expectation Wilderness Area

(97) The number ofgroups that walked through your campsite in Nordhouse Dums

0Far Fewer 0More 0Did Not Camp In
0Fewer 0Far More Nordhouse Dunes
0About What 1 Expected 0Had No Expectation Wilderness Area

 

(98) Whenyouarecampedinanywildernessarea,abouthowmanyothergroups [ j
do you tolerate camped within sight or sound of your campsite?

 

(99) When you campedoutthistrip inthe Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness, were you
abletofindthetypeofcampsitedescribedinquestionl98?

0Every Night - Go to 8101
080mofthe1'lme—Gotot‘100
0NoneottheTlme-Gotot‘|00

(100) lfyouwerenrxabletofindthistypeofcampsite,whatdidyoudo?

0| stayed. I found the company of others enjoyable

0| stayed. I don't care how many other groups are camped nearby.
0| stayed. but did not enjoy my visit as much.

0| stayed, but I cut short the length. of my visit.

0| packed up my camp and looked for another place to camp.

0| packed up my camp and went home.

0Other:

 

157

EVERYONE should answer the remaining questions

(101) Do you feel that cortrols are needed on the number of people using Nordhouse Dunes?

0Yes, controls are needed to lower the current level of use

0Yes. controls are needed now to hold use at about the current level
0Controls are needed in some places, but not others

0N0 controls are needed now. but should be imposed when overuse occurs
0N0, there should be no controls now or in the future

0| don't know

Ifyou feltthatcomrolsareneeded, whatisthemaximum numberthatshouldbe
permitted in any one group of:

 

(102) People L

 

(103) Horses l

(104) Did you feel that crowding was a problem in places you visited at Nordhouse Dunes?
DYes 0Uncertain 0N0

(105) If yes, please note the places you felt were crowded.

 

 

 

 

 

(105) Ifyou felt Nordhouse Dunes was being overused, did it bother you? (Check one)

0N0. not at all
00nly a little

0A moderate amount
0|t bothered me a lot
0| don't know

As a result of your feeling did you:
(107) Change the route of your trip DYes 0N0
(108) Change the length of your stay 0Yes 0N0

158

(109) If you have visited the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness before, would you say the quality of the
area was:

06etting Better

0About the Same
0Getting Worse

01 Have Not Visited Before
0Other:

 

(110) How satisfied were you, personally, with this trip imo the Nordhouse Duns Wilderness? What
kindofagradewouldyougive it?

0A, Very Good
08. Good

00, Fair

00, Poor

0F, Very Poor

Information About You

(111) Please checkthe box that appliestoyou
0Ma|e 0Fema|e

(112) Your age?

(113) In what type ofcommunity do you now live?

00n a farm or ranch 0|n a city (between 25.000 and 100.000

0|nthecountrybutnotonaiarmorranch people)

0|n a small town (2.500 or fewer people) 0|n a suburb of a large city

0|natown orsmalcitylbetween 2.600 0|na largecitylover 100,000 people)
and 25.000 people)

(114) What is your zipcode?

 

159

We are interested in any commems that you have about Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. Please
usethespace belowtoletusknowwhatyourthoughts are.

/

         

an

  

    

 

  

APPENDIX B

Sample and Total Visitation Estimates

161

 

 

 

 

88.888 8...: 88.... 8888 T88 8.888 85.8
88 88 88 88 88 8 88. 88 88 88 88 88 88 88. :58
888.. 88 85. 88 2.: 88. 88... 88 $88 88 88.: 88 88.3 8758
888 88 88 88 888 88. 888 88 3.88 88 888. 88 8888 82:8
888 88 888. 88 8.8 88. 88... 88 8.88 88 88.. 88 88 .758
88 88 88 88 88 88. 88 88 88. 88 888 88 888 .58
8888 88 .88 88 88.: 88. 2.8 88 8.888 88 :8 88 .88 8:8
88.88 88 888. 88 88.8 88. 888 88 .88 88 888 88 888. 2.88
888 88 888 88 88. 88. 888 88 888. 88 $8 88 88. .88
88 88 88 88 88 88. 88.. 88 8... 88 $8 88 88 :8...
88. 88 8.. 88 88 88. .88 88 .88. 88 8.. 88 88 8.8....
88. 88 8.. 88 88 88. 88 88 88 88 88 88 88. 8::
88.. 88 888 88 8.8. 88. 88.. 88 88 88 $8 88 88 5....
88 88. 88 88 88 8.: 848 88 88 88 88 88 88 5.:
$8 88. $8 88 88 8.: 888 88 888 88 88 88 88 SE
88 88. 88 88 88 8.: .8... 88 8888 88 88 88 88 SE
8888 88. 888 88 88 8.: $8 88 R8. 88 88 88 88 SE
88 88. 88 8.. 88 8.: 888 88 88... 88 88 88 88 58.3
88 88. 88 8.. 88 8.: $8 88 888. 88 88 8.8 88 88.3
88 88. 88 8.. 88 8.: 8.8 88 888. 88 88 88 88 88.3
88 88. 88 8.. 88 8.: $8 88 .88 88 88 88 88 58.3
88 88. 88 8.. 88 8.: 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 8.3
8.8 88. 8... 8.. 8... 8.: 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88.3
88 88. 8.8 8.. 88 8.: 888 88 88.: 88 88 88 88 885.8
88 88. 88 8.. 88 8.: 88.. 88 3.8 88 88 88 88 .858
88 88 88 8.. 88 88. 8.. 88 88 88 888 88 8.. «20:.
888 88 88 8.. 88 88. 888 88 88 88 .8... 88 .888 8202
88 88 88 8.. 88 88. 888 88 888. . . 88 88.: 88 8.8:. 820.2
888 88 8... 8.. 8... 88. 888 88 88.8 . 88 88 88 88 .202
8> s... 828.0 h.z 8o s... 828.0 82 80 > a. 828.8 82 80 a. 888..
H 85.988
.35 88.2228 55:0: 2858

 

 

m Emlyn:

88.888. .82 8888......» 8.:... 88888.82 5.8.8-8838: 8. 5.83.85 .38... 8.:. 8.8.5.8 8. 8...:

162

 

 

 

8888888 888...: _88 8. _88.888 88.888 .598
88 88 88 88 88 .8 88. 88 8.8 88 88 88 88 8.. 88 3,58
88.8.. 88 88.. 88 8..: 88.8 8.: 88.8 8.. 8.. 88 8.8 88.8. 8.. 88. 82:8
8.8.. 88 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 88. 88 8.. 88 8.88 8.8 888. 88.. 88.: 82:8
888 88 88.8. 8.8 8.8 88.8 8.: 88.. 8.8 8.8 .88 88 8.88 8.. 8.88 .238
88 88 88 8.8 88 88 88. 88 8.8 88 .8 88.8 88 88.. 88 :88
88.88 88 8.88 88 88.: 88 8.: 88 8... 88 88 8.8 8.88 8.. 88.88 8.58
8888 88 88.8. 88 88.8 88.8 8.: 88.. 8.. 8.8 888 88.8 88 88.. 88 8,58
888 88 88.8 8.8 88. .8 88. 88 8.. 88 .888 8.8 8.88 8.. 8.88 .58
88.8 88 88 88 88 .8 88. 88 8.. 88 88 88.8 88.8 8.. 88.8 :8...
88. 88 88.. 88.8 88.8 .8 8.: 88 8.. 88 8.8. 88.8 8.8 8.. 8.8 8.8...
8.8. 88 88.. 88 88 88.8 8.: 88. 8.. 88.8 .8 88 8.. 8.. 8.. 8.88
8.88 88 88.8 8.8 8.8. .8 8.: 88 8.. 88 8.8. 8.8 8.8 8.. 8.8 :8...
88 8.8 88 88.8 88 8.8 8.8. 88.8 8.. 88.8 88 8.8 88.8 8.. 88.8 .55
88.8 88.8 888 88.8 8.8 .8 8.8. 88.8 8.. 88 88 88.8 88 8.. 88 SE
88 8.8 88 88 88 .8 8.8. 88 8.. 88 88 8.8 88 8.. 88 8......
88.8. 88.8 88.8 88 88 88 8.8. 88 8.. 88.8 .88 88 8.8. 8.. 88.8. SE
88.8 8.8 88 8.. 88 88 8.8. 88 8.. 88 88 88.8 88 8.. 88 Ema
88 8.8 88 8.. 88 .8 8.8. 88 8.. 88 8.8. 88 88.8 8.. 88.8 88.8.3
88 8.8 88 8.. 88 .8 8.8. 88 8.. 88 88 8.8 88 8.. 88 8mm?
88 8.8 88 8.. 88 .8 8.8. 88 8.. 88 888.. 88 88.88 8.. 88.88 58.3
88.8 88.8 88 8.. 88 88 88. 88 88.. 88 88 88.8 88.8 8.. 88 8.85.8
8.88 88.8 8.. 8.. 8.8 88 88. 88 8.. 88 8.88 8.8 8.88 8.. 88.88 88.5.8
88 8.8 88 8.. 88 .8 88. 88 8.. 88 8.8 88 88.8. 8.. 88.8. 8858
88 8.8 88 8.. 88 .8 88. 88 8.. 88.8 .8 8.8 88.8 8.. 8.8 .mB
88.8 88.8 88 88.. 88 88 88. 88 8.. 88 .8 8.8 88 8.. 88 8202
8.8.8 8.8 88 8.. 88.8 .8 8.: 88 8.. 88 8.88 8.8 88.8 8.. 88.8 8208,.
88.8 8.8 88 8.. 88 .8 8.: 88 8.. 88 88:. 8.8 8.88 8.. 8.88 8202
88.88 8.8 8.. 88.. 8... 88 88. 88 8.. 88 888. 88 :88 88.. :88 .202
8> 8.. 828.0 82 80 _8.> 8.. 8280 82 no _8> 8.. 828.0 82 8o E 888......
$8.988

02.88 8.8.82.3 02.82:: 2088.88

 

€253.53 an 033—.
m ~992ng

163

8888888 - :8. 8.8.88

.88.. 8.8 - 8838.. 828.3 88888:. - 8.: .8 88.8.5: .888. .2. - 88. :8... 888.88 - :8. .2558 .283 88.88 88888 .8
08.. 058.5.

5.338? m
8882-.....
:8 5.3m wido> >62 .ngtsu 85338—585. :o 3:38 mEEEam 05 88D .38.. 88:... mo 58 San. 3:252 ”ova—2.. 8.8823... .8
038383 88:83:... 9.8 A....oEE..8 .88—8:05 8:08.808 =< .m
.888. 05 .8 .413 08305832 3.23. 883 .8882. .I. :83 ”88.83-808.28 m n 3.83 m was—8:.
888.2. 25 id .8888 .8 5mg— 80 880:...8w2 8083...... 83.828. 3.8 .813 08:05.32 3 .8882. 2.0 E ._8_>H._8_>-:o_.ao..oom .8
88m 8 QZEUH8>V 5838 :08» 5 538.83 §oW8> 258808 53w 5 8.82.3 3:958 28:882. ESPN»... 629588 cocoa
.2. 3.550 88:83 .0: .o><nqz\qo E888 cozw 5 33.588 885.82. 62qu A3 .8282. 3:958 :03» 5 @8580 8.5383 .oZnnU .m
.Ewcmxxo SEES—8 mazes o.+8_~8&u..+ao>.:8v
Eco—8 9.2.8 23.8832813333890882885.83.38 23:28... chxo 8. + 8.8832 + 8.8358 n 8.28:8 8.83-52.80.88. .N
888. .88 888,. - 888. .88 888,. "8.8.8; ..
.80qu
€82.38. 8. 8......

m— ~992th

APPENDIX C

Visitor Activities

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

.888 8 .888 8 .888 8 I 82.85.88.888
.88 8 .888 8 .888 8 88.05.3858 8.8.8-885
.88.. 8 .888 8 .88. 8 E 20 8.23 .8. 20 8.8.. 5.888.885
°88.. 8 888 8 .88. 8 8.8.8.885
.888. 88 888 88 .888 8. 02.85. 8988.88.80
.88.: 8.. .88... 88 .888 8. 02.880
888.8. 88 .88.: 88 88.8 88 02.88.
88.8 88 .888 8 88.8 88 88...:
.88.: 88 .888 88 88.8 88 025.8 88.8238 8808.
.8888 88. .88.: 8.. .888 88 .088. 88.5.88. 02.58.80
888. 88 .888. 88 °\...8 .8 02.888.88.28 8..
.8888 8... .888. 88 .88.: :. 02.80.7880.
.8888 888 8.88 88. °88.8. 88 85.3.0080:
88.88 88. 8.8. .8 °\..8.8. 88 82:: 08 88.0.8.8 So 02.8.8.8.
88.88 88. .888 88 .888. 88 02.82:
88.8 888 .88. .8 88. .8888 .8. 02.8.8323
88.88 888 .8888 88. .8888 .8. 8885.88 558.8
.8888 888 888.8 E .8888 88. 82.22.38
o88.88 888 88.8 8.. .8888 88. 8.25 2. 8.2.8 02.8.2888
.8888 8.8 .8888 88. .8888 8... 885.... ".80 02.8..
988.88 888 88.8. 88 88.88 888 oz...2<
88.8 8.8 88. 88 88. 688.88 888 8.28.8 20 02.8..
.8888 888 .88.: 8 .8888 888 85.8.2868 02.38...
888 .8 8 .828 888 .8 .x. .828 888 88 .8 .82.
28:88:88... >525... .529. 8.85.8.3. 88:83.58. .—
iE me: #389.

 

.Ahnua— 23:88.0 .vaa—unaa—v 22.—m a... 98585.5 I steer—U m0"— eouuo—Yuonb 8.:—a— onsafiflcz 5N 0.8—uh.

U Nun—Zak:

APPENDIX D

Comparison of Legal and Personal Definitions of Wilderness

165

 

 

 

 

   
   

 

 

8 .888 88. 8 .888 88. .889... 8.88.. 38. 8.88.. oz. 8.03888 .8. 88.83.8880 .8
. £838..” 008 .8 Ram... mo. 00..0.0w0> 8.030.023? 8.030.... 8.80.00 8.805.000: 80003 800.9 .0
mm X... . 800.0080. .0000: .0 8.0.. .0
w. 8\8m.o 0 0.2.88.0. 80:00 £000.. .000m .0
8. .888 8 8.8880888. .8
: $0N 0N 8080038 800.... 8.00.0 8.03. 00.03 .0
m 880.0 o: 000% 0... 00w 0. 80...:0t0000 .0 0.0.80 80.5 .0325» .8
. 88»... mm . 80:? 80030.0 0.0.02 .0502 .003 .80.... 08.0.0.2 8000.00.30”...
3.502 8800.85.02 6.0.02. 0.8000000... 0.0.02 00 800.0... .m
N 880.... m. N C $0.0 x 00.028... 880. 00.0.0000 8.08.008 00.200000: 802.800.0000.. 0:83. .0
8 888.8 88 .8588; .88 858.888 88.8.0
.00... 00.0.8500 0... 0000. 0. 8.0.08... .80...» 8008.0 .0088: 0000.030 .0:
._..000.0...08 .0 0.8.00.8... .0. 0000.050 .00.. 008.36.080.80: 80.00.0088.
00.03 M050... 5.0.0020 80.0.0008 83.0.0.8. : 00 8.50050 0.0.00.0
0: .80000_00>000 E0000. 0: ”00:08:36 h.0 0.0830800: 000...: 800052 .0
N $0.0 . . . 00:00.00. 00:0... .3 00.5080: 000.00 80.....00. 00 00.8.0.0:
00.50050: r9005.. 00. 00.00000: 005.0000: “00020500.. 00.50800
00.02800: 00.00.08.080: 00.80.0800: 00.008800: 00.0.00. 000000.03 .8.
8. o\8. .m mm 00000.00. 000......
05.8; 0: 00.3.0 000.3800: .023 00.00.00 00:05.00 .00...
E0000. .3 000.386 .0 0000.050 .0>00 .00:00.>0 02 88.0.0 .8
00000:... 000...: .0 00:00.3. E00052 .m
a 80.8.. A880580> 08:800.”. .00.me 08.5 0m.8.. ..
0.008. 500.00 an. .088 8800.00.35 000. E0... mU—Hm—MHHU<¢<=U 83.0”:
mq<h0hm3m 0.00m

 

 

 

 

”5°“ Du mflwoa

:880...00=.$: .0...» 05.0800 0000.... 80...... 0. 0050 80.33.00.000 .0...» $80.02.}. .0.0. 0... .00.... 0.0.... 00.8 005$ .30

.8. 00:80.5 {mo—-38— .80009 080000.02. 00.00050 8800.00.39 .0 8005060.— 5008.00 000 .0”..— ._N 0.00...

G N29558:.

166

ngw 3.0 o\ew.Nw v; .....qu ..<...O,..

 

 

0 000.8 > 0.5.0.0. ..800..00..0m. .0.....00.0m .0

0 .000 mm 0. $00 on .0805 50800. 0.080 .0
NN 90. .o . .00.w0.000 ...

.N 0\..N... N .80.w0.00m. .8

00.8 > 0.8.0.... .0 0.000m ..800..8000m
.0.....00.0m .0 00.0.80... .0...O .0 .80.mo.000 ..80.w0.00m .0
0...... 0.0 .0 .000..8:.:.. 08...... .0

 

m $0.0. 0... w. gm... 0
.N o\oN.o N 0...... 0: .0
NN ..\.... .o . ...:0 00>0.0\000..0.080 00 .0.
ON 3m... m 08.00008 00055000000080... ..
.N nx.N.o N 00.....08. 00.. 08300000.m_0 00 .0.
.N o\oN.o N 000.2. 00 ._.
.N ..\oN.o N .000 000.... ..
0. $0... 0 000.... 0: ...
NN .x; .o . 0.0003 00 .w
NN .x; .o . 0008.0 00 ...
a. $0... 0 0E0.. 00 .0
0. $0... 0 0.>m\0.00 00 .0
w oh...“ 9» 00.0...0> 00N..0.0.: 0: .0
N. $mN 0N 0080. 0: ...
0. $0... 0 .....0 08>. m0..00.. 0.80 0.0.... 0.05 w:..:.... 00 .8
0 $06 00 6.000008 .00... $0.00... 0003..

00.0500 nMia...» nw:.0..5 00:80.03. 00500000302000... .w

 

 

 

0.05— .0030.— . 00.0 NN-— E00000. . 0....— .0< 0000.023» 000— E0... wU—hm.¢mh0<¢<=0 1.0.0....—
mdafibhmbw 0.03.

  

 

 

..00..=..=8 ..N 0...;

G Eels—m:

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{coo— ov: $2: ow: 4<ZOmmmE maxi 12qu 412.0%
LLFIEL_ LEE
o de an n o\oN.m om ...mcoflom 550.. Sam
mm .x: .o _ 8:05:02 .—
NN £16 _ 8:235 Z 8 bags 8: moon .x
2 $56 w @3585 .82 @8885 62688; ..a
2 find x 32530 €53 =30 dome—m EEO;
an aid _ EEZ an mam 8m 50 A.
M: o\°m.o w 233.35 .w
mm ax; .o _ nowwzm u
mm .x: .o _ mace—om .o
3 $19 m Eovooi d
In femd N SE .0
on .x.m.o m omen—Ego .u..E:o>u< .mzohowanflb
S ..\..o._ NN St: .owmnaw £53 o2 Emu—0d
850 .m
5 $3 3 w £36 3 8:6 a. 833520 Eoc >~3<
6333085 8 2:3. 2: 85 5mm 530m 05 to
50:3 .220on dog—oow 6228— goEom :83" mini .N
m o\.._ .w mm m £1 .w no MO mccsom 25m2>w§=< .bEeow
$2.30 .362 oz 622% 55:55; .0235 ”EEEmm .—
153 E85“— . 2m NNNA“ 2.3.5— .3.:— Ou< $959259 32 E B: wU—hm—ZHHU<¢<=U A<ZOm¢mm
wa<hOhm3m x5;—

 

 

 

. _ N 03:.

G X—QZm—m:

APPENDIX E

Location Specific Encounter Data

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«.8 E on 8 39m
32 2. ed 2 mafia
3» on 3 2 58m 58m
”.8 od 3 2 =5 one.
«.2 a: an 2. ..83. as
e. 5 ”.2 3 an 83 8:22..
I» 2: 3 a «5%
$0 oz exp 5558: “.5 8> a 35 Scam _
285.33 2.. a .529... .. £2.20 .—
od 2 3n Sn «.3. :3. =5
0.0 3 Z _ 33 2:. m... 38.
ed od o.o 3 in a Egg
3 ed 3 3m 9% 2 58m 58
2. 3 mm 9: 92. 2 =5 one.
go 3 3 «on :3 2. 58m 58
2. od 3 ”.2 o. 5 an 33 8:29..
2. to on EM 3% an 25m.
35 38 9> exp .8.. 3L .3. vb 88 exp 88 a; a

35 55m —

 

 

8252;» 2.. a? 8383.6 33>

 

canon—mtg 805933

.Va—nma— .h—uam who-uhO—w—mg 865A— OmsOA—vhaz .5IA— hQuBHGO-um— 0590mm flémug "NN 0—AQH.

H Nun—Zak:

169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v.8 3 _.= 3m 2 33. =
Q8 3. Z _ 3n E 333
Sn o.o QR 3n 2 58m 5..
n. 8 3 9o 2: 2 =5 03.
...om .3 we «.2 “2 =83 as
3:. 2. ”a m. S 3 23 885:0
1% S n: In 3N 259
exp Sim a2 3 ea: 3 8.8.5 .23 GU as: = 3% =23 _
noes-Hm 0‘92 58 2323 NH
2. a: 3m Sh em 33.
Q8 3 can can on 339
on I. «.3. 3m 8 =83
2. 0.8 0: Se 2 =5 emu.
Na in 3.. on a: 58m 53
2 n: n: n: 8 93 8:220
3 a: :3 3..” an «:52
Ga 838.5 oz 3 2o: g 38qu .23 g as: a 35 Scam _
new; .35

 

38:58:”.— ..Suonum .m> floauaouum _uEu< .3 ..oafiaz
A8238! 3:39.33 n=33—=50 «853:3 3.. uaotaoonum .33:

n.— EDZHmh<

€25.53 .9 as;

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on m: ”an a: on 33.

OS 9o 2:. 2:. 8 2.2.:

on E can 2:. 2 58m 5..

e. _ N 3 EN .5 z :5 03.

q: 2. «.8 3n 2. 68m 53

«.2 3. 3n 3:. 3 33 8:53

«.8 5. Sn v.3 on” «so».
3 538.5 oz 3 so: 33 38qu .23 g 33o". a 35 3:5 _

..2 an Ev «.3 on 33.

own 3 can QR o” 9:32

”.3 S. 3: 3m 2 58m

9: I. a: n3 2 :5 on .

EN 3: 92 SN a: 58m 56

2. no 3.. 3m :. 33 8:22..

S.” 3 v. _ m Em 2H 28m

lg 8% oz 3 2o: g Buomxm 33 g as»... a 3mm 5:5 b

3n Qo Sm we. 2 33.

In Qo «.8 2v 2 33...

n: 2. 2: 3n 2 58m

EM 3 3. m3 2 =5 on .

3.. 2 «.2 23 n: :88 58

93 v.” ad a: s. 93 88.63

3,. on 92 ”.2 an 28»
g cousuaxm oz 3 2o: g 38%.... 33 g .25“. = 3a 3:5 L

 

m— Nun—mem<

£2338 at: .3 3399-— 8-333— ..3 33.3

    
 

um

835....5 .: «3:.

171

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ed 3 _ B: a. _ N SN 3 .382 5.
9o 3 3 ed c.8_ _ 9.29
3 NE SN «.8 N2 : 58m 5:
2. 2x 3 ed 9% N :5 0%.
9o 2 :N «.2 SN 2 :23 53
od 3N ed 98 3x. 2 33 8:253
o.o 2 _ 98 .3... EN 8 «.8».
§ 956 .8 an N5 838?“ oz 35 2o: 35 Boaxm .23 . Q; as»; a 35 3:5 L
3N an an «NM 3 Box
on 2: 2n «.3. 2 23...:
NNN N2 N.NN SN 3 58m 5:
e. _ N n: 2.. con 3 =5 o»...
2.2 a: N2 3N N: :83 as
cNN ...N oNN 2n 3. 93 88:3.
EN 2; SN 3N 3N 28»
.5 838%. oz 39 so: axe Boga 33 Ge 83...". = 35 55m _
8o.— ..8 253892—5—
2; e.» 69. e. _ N mm .83.
3N ed 98 93 ON usaé
_.: NNN NNN «.3. 3 58m 5..
3n 3 ..NN N9 2 :5 on .
Z: 3 «on N.:. ..: 58m 53
no. 3 IN N. a S 93 885.3
... .N 3 2N N? «N 28».
Asa 8% a2 75 2o: g 8.8qu .23 g .36". a 35 3:5 h
8.80 392 .3.— aloe-«woman

n.— EGZm—mmaN

€85.33 .9 as;

172

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 od 32
EN SN 92
2x: 98. .3
ON SN ”.8
3 o... 2L
Na. a: N:

g 25 05 No 232 g 25 05 .8 28m g an? 56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mama—a0
2 0.2 a: QNN N5. 5 382 .3.
ed .3 3 o... 32 _ mafia
o.o N2 2. N2 «.3. : :88
ed gm 3 3 can N =5 on...
3 2: SN «.3 SN 2 58m 53
ad 2: 3 o... coo 2 e3 8:22..
..N n: 6: EN NNN 8 «so».
3.; 956 .8 29 g 838.5 oz §V 2o: g 8625 «2.3 g .23". a 33 Scam

 

 

a. 36 __ :2: 12:35:: .55 5 as... A.—

€25.83 d as:
a 5:22.?

173

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.NN 2.. N :88 58
o... as. N :3 um...
98. o... o. :88 53
N.N.. N... o 33 8353
on. I: ... 25».
.5 Oz ax. 8» c 35 .35
39.0 2 on: tn. no 893— ... o :25
moo ..N. NN 33. :8
...S. o... N. 33....
N. a N... N. 58.. ...:
N.NN N.NN o ..5 um...
N.N.. ..N ..N :93 ....o
N. ... N... «N 3.3 8:220
...; 3. on. Eon
ex. 02 Q... 8r c 35 ~23 _
on ...N. N.N.. N.NN .... o... 2. .83. =8
...N 3 N.N.. an ...N o... ... 3&9
o... o... ..Nv N.NN ...: ...: N. ..88 5..
o... N.N. 3m 3 ...... 3 e. .3; an
N... N... ....N ...... SN 2 2. 58m 53
...N N.N. 3; 3.. 3... e.“ on 3.3 032......
.... 9N. 2.... N.N. N.N. 2 .NN .53.
>38. ..coo .26: 62 83323 Eco .oZ Boa—q 2:8 E 8: £552.. 66> on: Bare—48> c 85 9.95

 

H Egan—ma.

 

N353...» 2.. u. 3.87. .15 3: .... 22.80 «2

 

£264 3.:

835.55. d 0...:

174

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... .N 3N N .88 5..
a...“ a...“ N ..5 um...
98. o... o. .88 ....o
98. o... o 3.3 8:22..
N.NN. N.. ..n 25».
3.. oz 3.. 8> a 35 3:3
O a.— EIU 5639—0 ca 039 SW no I £04 In 0 I‘D
N.N.. ...v .N .33..
ado .... .. 9.8....
N.N.. N2 N. :88 ...:
3... ... . m :5 on...
...a on .... ..88 as
2.... o... N 8.3 8.852..
3.. .... N... 28m.
02 8% a 8% >296 h

 

n.— N—DZm—mhd.

 

.3228. d 93¢

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abasher, James D. and Leo H. McAvoy. July 1986. Wilderness values in a de facto
wilderness: management policy perceptions of managers and commercial users.
Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report IN T-Intermountain Research
Station. Ogden, Utah: The Station, pp. 348-353.

Anderson, D. H. and P. J. Brown. 1984. The displacement process in recreation.
Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 16, pp. 61-73.

Behn, Robert. 1988. Management by groping along. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 643-663.

Bonnicksen, Thomas M. 1991. Managing a framework to organize biosocial society-
environment systems relationships. Journal of Forestry, October, Vol. 89, No.
10, pp. 10-15.

Brown Perry, J ., B. L. Driver, Donald H. Burns and Charles McConnell. 1979. The
Outdoor Recreation Opportunity Spectrum in Wildland Recreation Planning:
Development and Planning: Development and Application. In First Annual
Conference on Recreation Planning and Development: Proceedings of the
Specialty Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 1-12, Washington, D. C.: American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Buist, Leon J. and Thomas A. Hoots. 1982. Recreation opportunity spectrum approach
to resource planning. Journal of Forestry, February, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 84-86.

Cates, Camille. 1979. Beyond muddling: creativity. Public Administration Review,
November/December, Vol. 39, Part 6, pp. 527-532.

Chilman, Kenneth, D. Foster, and A. Everson. 1989. Updating the recreational carrying
capacity process: recent refinements. Presented at Managing America’s Enduring
Wilderness Resource: A Conference, Minneapolis, MN, September 11-14, pp.
234-238.

Clark, Roger N. July 1986. Use and user characteristics: Improved knowledge is vital.
Proceeding of the National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-Intermountain Research
Station. Ogden, Utah: The Station. pp. 251-252.

175

 

176

Downing, Kent and R. N. Clark. October 27-29, 1978. Users’ and managers’
perceptions of dispersed recreation impacts: A focus on roaded forest lands.
Recreation Impacts on Wildlands Proceeding, Seattle, Washington, pp. 18-23.

Driver, B. L. 1976. Toward a better understanding of the social benefits of outdoor
recreation participation. Proceedings of the Southern States Recreation Resource
Applied Workshop, Asheville, North Carolina, USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report SE-9: Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. pp. 163-189.

Driver, B. L., P. J. Brown, G. H. Stankey and T. G. Gregoire. 1987. The ROS
planning system: Evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure
Sciences, Vol. 9, pp. 201-212.

Fedler, A. J. and F. R. Kuss. July 1986. An examination of the effects of wilderness
designation on hiker attitudes. Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research
Conference: Current Research. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
INT-Intermountain Research station. Ogden, Utah: The Station, pp. 308-313.

Gramann, J. H. and R. J. Burdge. 1984. Crowding perception determinants at
intensively developed outdoor recreation sites. Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp. 167-186.

Hendee, J. C. and R. W. Harris. 1970. Foresters’ perception of wilderness-user

attitudes and preferences. Journal of Forestry, December, Vol. 68 No. 12, pp.
759-761.

Heywood, J. L. and G. H. Stankey. 1991. The relationship between biophysical and
social setting factors in the recreation opportunity spectrum. Leisure Sciences,
Vol. 13, pp. 239-246.

Ingells, N. 1991. Parks in peril. MW, July 7: 1D, 5D.

Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and environment: Functioning in an
uncertain world. New York: Praeger.

Kuentzal, W. F. and T. A. Heberlein. 1992. Cognitive and behavioral adaptations to
perceived crowding: A panel study of coping and displacement. Journal of
Leisure Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 377-393.

Leff, H. L. 1978. ,, .. ' '

. ..- . New York: Oxford
University Press.

 

 

177

Linblom, Charles. 1959. The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration
Review, Vol. 19, pp. 79-88.

Marion, J. L., J. W., Roggenbuck and R. E. Manning. 1993. Problems and practices in
backcountry recreation management: A survey of national park service managers.
Natural Resource Report NPS/NRVT/NRR-93/12, United States Department of
the Interior, National Park Service Mid-Atlantic Region. Cooperative Park
Studies Unit, Virginia Tech., pp. 1-43.

McCool, Stephen F. 1986. Experiencing management for quality: Implementing the
limits of acceptable change planning system (Drafi). Paper presented at the
Conference on Science in the National Parks-1986, July 13-18, 1986, Fort Collins
Colorado, CO.

McCool, Stephen F. 1989. The challenge of managing wildemess in an era of change.
The General Technical Report SE—USDA, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station, Asheville, NC: The Station December 1989 (52), pp. 385-
393. Paper presented at the “Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988: Proceedings
of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum” January 13-14, 1988, Tampa, Florida.

Merigliano, Linda L. 1990. Indicators to monitor wildemess conditions. In Lime, David
W., ed. Managing America’s Enduring Wilderness Resource. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota.

Merigliano, Linda L. 1990. Indicators to monitor the wilderness recreation experience.
In Lime, David W., ed. Managing America’s Enduring Wilderness Resource.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Mitchell, Jerry M. 1992. Do we really want wilderness management standards to be
uniform? Defining Wilderness Quality: The Role of Standards in Wilderness
Management--A Workshop Proceedings, November. USDA, Forest Service,
General Technical Report PNW-GTR, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Portland, Oregon, pp. 83.

Perales, M. K. 1995. Biologist, Resource Analysis Group, US. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Perm
C . . .

Perales, M. K., D. B. Propst and R. S. Jackson. 1992. Recreation Use-Estimation
Procedures Manual, Volume 1: Use Estimation General Information.
Instruction Report R-9, Vicksburg, MS: US. Army Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station.

 

178

Public Law 93-622. 1975. “The Eastern Wilderness Act.”
Public Law 100—184. 1987. “The Michigan Wilderness Act.”
Public Law 88-577. 1964. “The Wilderness Act”

Roggenbuck, Joseph W. and Alan E. Watson. 1989. Wilderness recreation use: the
current situation. In: Watson, Alan H.[E.], compiler. Outdoor recreation
benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the national outdoor recreation forum; 1988
January 13-14; Tampa, Florida. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
SE-52. Asheville, N. C., Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 346-356.

Roggenbuck, J. W., D. R. Williams and A. E. Watson. 1993. Defining acceptable
conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 187-
197.

Rosenthal, H. D. and B. L. Driver. 1983. Managers’ perceptions of experiences
sought by ski-tourers. Journal of Forestry, February, Vol. X, pp. 88-89, 105-
106.

Shelby, B., G. Stankey and B. Shindler. November 1992. Introduction-Workshop on
defining wilderness quality: The role of standards in wilderness management.
Defining Wilderness Quality: The role of standards in wilderness management a
workshop proceedings. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-
GTR Pacific Northwest Research station. Portland, Oregon, pp. 1-4.

Shew, R. L., P. R. Saunders and J. D. Ford. July 1986. Wilderness managers’
perceptions of recreational horse use in the northwestern United States.
Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research conference: Current Research.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT Intermountain Research
Station. Ogden, Utah: The Station, pp. 320-325.

Shindler, B., P. List and B. S. Steel. 1993. Managing federal forests: Public attitudes
in Oregon and nationwide. Journal of Forestry. July, Vol. X, pp. 36-42.

Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E. Peterson and S. S. Frissell. January
1985. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-176 Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, Utah, pp. 1-37.

Tipple, T. J. and J. D. Wellman. 1989. Life in the fishbowl: Public participation
rewrites public foresters job descriptions. Journal of forestry. March, Vol. 87,
pp. 24-30.

179

Virden, R. J. and R. C. Knopf. 1989. Activities, experiences, and environmental
settings: A case study of recreation opportunity spectrum relationships. Leisure
Sciences, Vol. 11, pp. 159-176.

Watson, A. E., D. R. Williams, J. W. Roggenbuck and J. J. Daigel. 1992. Visitor
characteristics and preferences for three national forest wildernesses in the south.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-455 Intermountain Research Station,
pp. 1-27.

Watson, A. E., H. Ken Cordell, and Lawrence A. Hartmann. 1989. First National
Symposium on Social Science in Resource Management, Recreation and Park
Management Proceedings, September. USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report INT 4901, Publication # 187, College of Forestry, Oregon State
University. Corvalis, Oregon, pp. 1-10.

Whittaker, Doug. 1992. Defining Wilderness Quality: The Role of Standards in
Wilderness Management-A Workshop Proceedings, November. USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-Pacific Northwest Research
Station. Portland, Oregon, pp. 13-22.

Williams, Daniel R. 1986. Psychological Perspectives on the Environment-Experience
Relationship: Implications for Recreation Resource Management. In A Literature
Review (Appendix of the Report of the President’s Commission on Americans
Outdoors, pp. motivations-17 to 31). Washington, D. C.: President’s
Commission on Americans Outdoors.

Williams, Daniel R., Joseph W. Roggenbuck and Steve Bange. 1991. The Effect of
Norm-Encounter Compatibility On Crowding Perceptions, Experience and

Behavior in River Recreation Settings. Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 23,
No. 2, pp. 154-172.

Young, Robert A. 1983. Toward an Understanding of Wilderness Participation. Leisure
Sciences, Vol. 5, Number 4, pp. 339-357.

Zube, E. H., R. O. BrushandJ. G. Fabos. 1975. Wye;

 

Stroudsburg, Penn; Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc.

HICHIIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
1|11|11111111111”1111111111111111111111111
31293017141395